20
-
90. I imagine that this scheme, if adopted, would be carried out in stages, so that the whole would take a number of years to complete. As the reclamation for the widening of the road would be for the benefit of the town, I assume the Government would defray the cost of that part of the scheme, but the Harbour Trust would pay the cost of the piers and then fix an appropriate rent for them as stated above. Of course Government would be responsible for the cost of any piers required for its own use.
99.
If the scheme is carried out then the Harbour Trust would control many new piers, but under the line of policy adumbrated, the tenants of the piers would still do the "operating" and not the Trust.
92. So far as piers on the Kowloon siãe of the Harbour are concemed, they, as already stated, are in a satisfactory condition, and extensive enough to accommodate the volume of trade now using the Port. If, however,
we can assume that the European War and the China- Japan war will come to a satisfactory end some time, there does not
Then seem to be much doubt that the trade of Hong Kong will increase. the matter of further accommodation will arise sooner or later, and the question as to where new piers are to be constructed will become a pressing one. Messrs. Coode, Fitzmaurice, Wilson & Mitchell in their Report of 24th November, 1922, proposed a scheme for the construction of new piers in Hung Hom Bay on the east side of the Kowloon Peninsula. Having regard to the occupation of the land in this area, the scheme had no doubt much to recommend it. I consider, however, that before anything is done on the east side, the capacity of the west side of the Peninsula should first be exhausted. The east side is exposed to the prevailing winds and typhoons, while the west is more protected. The piers and facilities of the Hong Kong & Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company are on the west side and their site may be described as the
To the best in the Harbour for the large ocean-going vessels. northward of their premises there is room for about three more piers, but the site is occupied by the Royal Naval Depot. That Depot is somewhat cramped and seeing that it is not absolutely essential that it should be at that spot, arrangements should be negotiated for its removal to another side. There does not seem to be any reason why
it should stand in the way of the development for commercial purposes I understand of the really best site in the Port for those purposes. that some negotiations have already taken place between the Hong Kong & Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company and the Admiralty; those will no doubt be encouraged.
93. If this removal were effected and the need arose later for more piers for shipping, doubtless the Godown Company, if they still displayed their customary enterprise, would be prepared to construct them, the necessary lease being granted to them.
In designing future piers, consideration should be given to the question of providing, on the piers themselves, transit sheds, passenger accommodation and railway sidings. The railway connexions would necessitate taking over the Military lands to the south of Austin Road. The removal of the Military from their present sition in the midst of a built-up area, would appear in any case to be overdue.
On the matter of passenger accommodation, I am informed that the Godown Company have a scheme for providing improved facilities on their Pier No.1, and are prepared to put this in hand when they are assured of fixity of tenure and when the passenger traffic, which is now negligible under war conditions, justifies the measure.
94. When the possibilities of development on the west side have been exhausted then attention might be directed to something on the lines suggested by Messrs. Coode & Company, on the east side, with due regard to such changes as might since have taken place in development, but that would be a matter for the more distant future.