Advertisement
Advertisement

Ruling recognises harbour's true value

The landmark reclamation ruling by the Court of Final Appeal yesterday should mark the beginning of a new era for our much-loved, yet sadly abused, harbour.

In ruling against the government over its plans for the Wan Chai North reclamation project, the court gave legal effect to what the people of Hong Kong have long known: the harbour is one of our city's greatest assets, central to our identity. It is to be treasured, protected and preserved. To use the words of the judgment itself: 'It must be kept from harm, defended and guarded.' This means that the many years of rampant reclamation, which have gobbled up more than half of this valuable stretch of water, must come to an end. The principle underlying the ruling is expressed in clear and compelling terms. There is little room for further uncertainty or debate. Reclamation can now take place only if there is an overriding need for it, which cannot be achieved through alternative means. And even then only the very minimum level of reclamation required may be carried out.

The decision, coming from the highest court, has profound implications for government policy. The Wan Chai project must now be reconsidered in the light of it. It is to be hoped that the government will act in accordance with the spirit, as well as the wording, of the judgment. However painful they may find the process of redrafting the plans, officials should seek to avoid further court challenges. The Central reclamation project will also have to be reconsidered. A legal challenge is already pending, and yesterday's ruling can only strengthen the hand of the Society for the Protection of the Harbour, which brought both cases to court. The government must ensure that the Central reclamation - and all others on the agenda - comply with the law as it now stands. It will no longer be good enough to argue that the safeguards provided by the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance can be overcome merely because reclamation is to be used to provide a nice park, or a pretty promenade.

This will mean a more creative approach must be taken in efforts to give the harbour back to the people. This worthy aim must be achieved, in most cases, without further reclamation. Traffic congestion may have to be dealt with in ways that do not involve the building of bypasses. Promenades and parks are welcome, so long as they are developed on the existing harbour front.

In short, the judgment should be used as a springboard for an entirely different approach to the harbour, one that better serves the purpose of safeguarding this prime asset for the people of Hong Kong.

There is a need for an innovative and cohesive approach to the development of the waterfront. One proposal put forward in a Planning Department report last year was the creation of a harbour authority to help with planning, co-ordination and management. An option would be to set up a statutory body similar to the one in Sydney. This could act as a means of drawing in the community and giving it a role in developing ideas for the future of the harbour. Such a step should now be seriously considered.

One waterfront location ripe for community-based development is the Tamar site. Now that plans to build government offices there have been put on hold, this could instead be used as a shining example of how to give the harbour back to the people. Possibilities include turning the site into a grand public square, or building a park, restaurants, exhibition spaces or an open-air theatre. Such proposals could be adopted without reclamation.

The court battle has finally clarified the law on reclamation and it should be the final word. The arguments must end and all efforts now be focused on making the best of what is left of the harbour.

Post