Page 9 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
(2) MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, moved the following motion:-
'RESOLVED that the Pleasure Grounds (Urban Council) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bylaw 1994 and the Public Swimming Pools (Urban Council) (Amendment) Bylaw 1994 be made under sections 109 and 42 respectively of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.'
He said (in Cantonese):- As Chairman of the Recreation Select Committee, I rise on the motion standing in my name:
'RESOLVED that the Pleasure Grounds (Urban Council) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bylaw 1994 and the Public Swimming Pools (Urban Council) (Amendment) Bylaw 1994 be made under sections 109 and 42 respectively of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132.'
These amendments will enable revised charges for Council's tennis courts and swimming pools to take effect from 1 May 1994.
In February, the Recreation and Finance Select Committee were informed that the operating costs for Council's tennis courts and swimming pools had increased. However, in keeping with the Council's policy of setting fees at affordable levels, members decided that the hire charges for standard tennis courts and Victoria Park Centre Court should only be increased by $2 and $4 respectively and that the admission fees for swimming pools should be increased by $1.
It is estimated that these fee revisions should reduce the overall operating deficit of tennis courts to $22 million and swimming pools to $104 million.
Against this background, Sir, I so move.
MR. YIM KWOK-ON, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE (in Cantonese):----Mr. Chairman, I rise to second the motion.
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
(3) MR. MA LEE-WO, moved the following motion:-
'RESOLVED that before the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled, the Urban Council should consider not to accept bookings of concerts.'
He said (in Cantonese): My motion is this:
'RESOLVED that before the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium can be effectively controlled, the Urban Council should consider not to accept bookings of pop concerts.'
Today is in fact the Hong Kong Stadium noise issue's day. It is because we have been talking about this ever since this morning. I don't know when this particular meeting will end. Actually, it is exactly a month since the opening of the new Hong Kong Stadium on the 11 March 1994. Up to now, the EPD and the Police have received a total of 232 complaints concerning noise nuisance. Ninety percent are directly related to pop concerts including the Opening Gala on the 11 March 1994, the two concerts that followed and also the two 'Famine 30' concerts on 9 and 10 April 1994. For the latter event, there were 52 noise complaints. In other words, noise complaints have been received incessantly. According to EPD, complaints were lodged by residents in the vicinity of the Stadium, i.e. the Broadwood Road area, Tai Hang Road area, the nearby hospital and schools. As the organisation responsible for its management, the Council must take immediate action to tackle this problem. I fully understand the concern and grievances expressed by local residents. I remember once when I watched television, there was a person who was interviewed on the phone, and through the telephone we were able to hear the noise coming across from the Stadium. So the noise has posed a very serious problem to the local residents. As an Urban Councillor, I feel very ashamed because we have allowed the noise problem to arise. We have had two reports on noise assessment making various suggestions and yet no preventive and improvement measures were put in place allowing the problems to arise again. I am not satisfied with the performance of the Board of Governors as it seems that they did not have adequate foresight. Mr. Chairman, you have said that if you like it, it is music; if you don't like it, it is noise. I don't think this is a sort of attitude that we should take. In fact, the noise issue at Hong Kong Stadium has been extremely detrimental to our image which we have tried very hard to build up over the years. From the start of the noise problem on the 11 March to the 15 March when EPD issued the noise abatement notice, we have had a lot of pressure from the public, Legislative Councillors and from among Urban Councillors as well. And it was not until three weeks after the opening, on the 30 March, that the BOG suggested abatement measures. I don't really think those measures suggested during that period by the BOG were new. But rather those were suggestions made in the report by Wembley, which was produced in December 1993. At that time the EPD also said that despite the abatement measures, the noise would still be in excess of the acceptable level and nearby residents would still be disturbed. So my question is: Did the BOG and Wembley really take into account EPD's views? These measures in fact have failed. It is true that within the Stadium, the noise level was kept at the prescribed limit. And yet we have to consider the residents living nearby. Have they been less disturbed? A moment ago, Mr. Stephen LAU told us that the situation has improved. Well, it is an improvement from an extremely serious situation to a situation that is still serious. In other words, it is still in excess of the 65 dB(A) prescribed limit. According to the information from EPD, during the 'Famine 30' concert, EPD tested the level at six locations. At three locations, it was still above the prescribed level: at Beverly Hills; 65–69 dB(A), at So Kon Po cottage area, 68–72 dB(A); and at Ching Man Village, from 68-69 dB(A). Today is the deadline when the noise
Page 9 of 115