Advisers on harbour must not be bypassed
The consultation on new plans for the Wan Chai waterfront, launched on Sunday, was billed as an open, inclusive and people-oriented process. This, we were told, was an attempt to give the public a big say in the future of the harbour.
Opinions are being sought on three 'concepts' for this prime waterside site. All of them involve substantial reclamation and the controversial Central-to-Wan Chai bypass.
These plans are backed by the government. But they were unveiled by the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee. This body was set up last year with the aim of giving the community more input into the development of the harbour. Its members include environmentalists as well as government officials.
A press release promised that the consultation will 'engage the public and enhance public participation'. This would make a refreshing change from the past, when the government pressed ahead with its predetermined plans, provoking legal challenges and street protests.
But the consultation is in danger of being discredited before it has barely begun. As we report today, some members of the committee say they were shocked to see the proposals being released to the public. They allege the plans were not presented to the committee and that they do not reflect its views. The government is accused of reneging on an agreement not to release proposals until the committee's Wan Chai taskforce had approved them.
In short, some members are suggesting the government has pushed hastily ahead with its own plans, without waiting for a consensus to be reached in the committee that is supposed to be advising it.
The full picture has not yet emerged. But the complaints are disturbing. The public consultation will not be taken seriously if the government has not even consulted the members of its own advisory committee. An explanation is required.
There are also other reasons to treat the proposals with some caution.
The review of the government's plans for the Wan Chai waterfront was prompted by last year's judgment by the Court of Final Appeal.
It found that the government's previous proposals breached the Harbour Protection Ordinance by not attaching enough importance to the need to keep reclamation to the minimum. The court ruled that harbour reclamation can only take place to the extent that it meets an 'overriding public need'.
Two of the options unveiled on Sunday would involve reclaiming almost as much of the harbour as the original plan. One of them looks very similar to the government's previous - unlawful - proposal.
It is doubtful whether these two would meet the legal test laid down by the court. The subcommittee chairman who presented the plans frankly admitted it was not sure whether they would be legal.
The third suggestion would call for less reclamation. But it involves the building of a hideous elevated road, making this an unattractive option. It is possible that the public is being encouraged to endorse similar plans to those the court ruled out.
These three options also present the public with a narrow basis for consultation. They do not include the closely related reclamation work in Central. Nor do they provide for feedback on alternative ways of easing traffic congestion: all three include the bypass.
The consultation does have some positive aspects. The proposals will help stimulate debate. And the government has suggested it would be flexible enough to consider different suggestions from the public. This is more in keeping with the declared intention to make the process open and inclusive.
But the consultation cannot be taken seriously until the complaints of committee members have been satisfactorily dealt with. Until then, we cannot be sure whether the government is genuine about ushering in a new era in which the public is given a clear voice on the future of the harbour.
