F7
134
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
recent Report on the Central Area Redevelopment, touched on this matter and recommended that Government should examine the problem as a separate issue.
The Central Reclamation extends only as far west as Morrison Street, and in Chapter 4 of the Report to which I have referred, it has been pointed out that the western portion of the reclamation will be required for facilities connected with the operation of the port.
There is at present no firm scheme to extend the reclamation further west, and should such extension take place in due course, as is certainly possible, it would still be necessary to use the land very largely in connexion with port installations.
My friend, the Director of Public Works, informs me that between the Central District and Kennedy Town, the problem of providing playgrounds and sitting-out areas could be solved by the acquisition of land. A replanning of a large section of this heavily-populated area could be undertaken with a view to reducing densities and making more open space available. I would point out, however, that a few years ago a scheme of that sort produced by the Town Planning Board in respect of Tai Hang Village foundered on the objections of landowners.
While the heavily built-up section from Morrison Street to Smithfield is largely private land, it might be possible to provide one or two small open areas on Crown land, for example, at Possession Point and on redevelopment of the Western Market.
Additional open space could be made available in and adjacent to the Kennedy Town area, and this is in fact provided for in plans now being drawn up by the Public Works Department.
I am wholly in sympathy with the object of this motion, and I believe that my official colleagues share my sentiments in this matter. However, while I will gladly support the motion, I must point out that the provision of playgrounds and sitting-out areas on or near to the waterfront in the western district may be extremely difficult, and I am sure that Government would be most reluctant to make any definite commitment regarding the location of such amenities at this stage.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- May I ask a question in clarification, Mr. Chairman? Does that mean that you wholly support this motion?
CHAIRMAN:- Indeed I wholly support the motion, Sir.
MR. SALES: Mr. Chairman, may I, with your permission, exercise my right of reply? I am greatly reassured by all the support that my fellow members have given me to-day. I am particularly delighted
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
135
that, notwithstanding the fact that a measure which would be beneficial to Kowloon Tsai Park was undermined by the Hong Kong members the other day at a Select Committee meeting in the absence of Dr. BELL on holiday, the residents of Kowloon have come forward to-day to show what I consider a very high level of statesmanship. I am delighted that Mr. BERNACCHI, in particular, has spoken in support of this motion. It is so long ago since we have heard him advocating anything in this Council that we have perhaps come to forget that he is one of us. (Laughter). Mr. Chairman, may I say once again that it is our sincere hope that your and our friend, the Director of Public Works, will take this motion into account and not just let it lie as some of our other motions have been treated in the recent past.
The question was put.
The motion was carried.
MR. A DE O. SALES, Chairman of the Urban Amenities Select Committee, moved the following motion:
"THAT the Swimming Pools (Amendment) By-laws, 1961, be made under section 42 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, 1960."
DR. R. H. S. LEE:- Mr. Chairman, as a member of that Select Committee I rise to second Mr. SALES' motion. I have nothing important to add except to mention that the amendment forecast in this motion makes the by-law more realistic and less rigid. I therefore beg to support.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI :- Just to make quite sure that Mr. Sales is well aware of my presence (Laughter) I rise to say that I also support this motion of his, but not perhaps with the same enthusiasm. I feel it is essential that we should continue to err on the side of public safety. I read from the Explanatory Note to the amendment proposed. It says:
"The purpose of these by-laws is to amend By-law 12 of the Swimming Pools By-laws, 1961, in order to enable the Urban Council to modify the requirements regarding life-saving staff and equipment in any particular case in which the circumstances indicate that less stringent requirements will be adequate." For myself I would rather say that the circumstances should indicate that less stringent requirements will still be more than adequate.
MR. SALES: - Mr. Chairman, if nobody else wishes to speak, I would like to allay the fears expressed by Mr. BERNACCHI from my own experience covering swimming pools. I believe that one attendant at any time is more than enough in a private pool. In fact, there need not be any attendant at all if the use of the pool is restricted to members and their families. The requirement that there should be not less
Page 75 of 110
Page 75
Page 76
110