Page 14 of 115
26
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
study. So it is a real nuisance. We must abide by the law. Since EPD has stipulated the prescribed maximum acceptable noise level, we must try to comply with the law. It has been said that the management of the Hong Kong Stadium should be based on the principle of self-financing. Probably it will force us to take money-making as our major consideration. That is the reason why we have to face a lot of unnecessary problems. So apart from making money, we must also have better fore-sight. We have to ask ourselves: is the Hong Kong Stadium still a suitable venue for pop concerts? If we can't effectively control noise, then we should not allow pop concerts to be staged. I hope that the BOG will also consider this. We have a long way to go and the Urban Council must, as far as possible, spend more time looking at other alternatives. Can we have more ball games and more sports activities? We have had a number of very successful sports activities recently. As mentioned, perhaps we should talk to senior Government Officials, for instance, Mrs. Anson CHAN, saying that 'please don't bind us by asking us to operate on certain principles and perhaps the Hong Kong Stadium should be subsidized by Government'. We should talk to the relevant policy branches. With these remarks, I support the motion.
THE HON. LI WAH-MING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I think in fact we are already discussing the motion that I am going to move. For example, members are talking about the transparency of the BOG, the self-financing and the commercial principle, and so forth. As you are so concerned about these issues, I hope that Members who have spoken on this motion will also support my motion. I haven't got information from the Urban Council concerning the noise problem. So I have been acting like a detective. I have approached the EPD for information and they have given a paper to the Legco. In the paper, the EPD has outlined its comments on the noise assessment report. I think I am really alarmed at what has happened. Towards the end of 1991, the Jockey Club appointed HOK, the project architect, to carry out an Environmental Noise Assessment Report and put forward certain recommendations. In May 1992, the EPD responded, saying that the report was too optimistic and objected or expressed reservations about the holding of pop concerts in the Hong Kong Stadium. The Urban Council was aware of taking over the management of the Stadium in June 1992, and a few months later, EPD wrote to Mr. Barma, the then DUS, on 17 November 1992, stating very clearly that they objected to the holding of pop concerts in the Hong Kong Stadium because it would definitely cause nuisance to nearby residents. In January 1993, DUS gave a reply to the EPD, saying that he was concerned about the issue and would continue to liaise with EPD. But then there was no further reply or letters given to the EPD. I would like to ask this question. Let me assume that it was in November 1992 that the then DUS was aware of the noise problem in Hong Kong Stadium. Then why is it that the DUS did not inform the Core Group or the BOG in May 1993? I think I really want the USD to give me an answer. Why is it that the USD did not bring this to the attention of the BOG in May 1993? As a result, the BOG was not aware of the noise problem. An Assistant Director of EPD, Mr. BOXALL, made it very clear that when the Jockey Club commissioned
Page 14 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
27
the noise assessment report towards the end of 1991, it was already too late because of a lot of inherent faults in the design of the Hong Kong Stadium. If it was to be used for holding pop concerts, shells should be constructed and so forth. If we are to modify the design of the Hong Kong Stadium now, there would be a lot of difficulties. For example, who will be paying the bill, and also the costs would be over $1 billion. We do not know because at present we can't add anything on top of the existing roof. What about the air-conditioning issue? Because we are talking about 40,000 spectators. I think it is too late for us to talk about constructing a shell over the existing roof. So now I would hope that the Working Party under the chairmanship of Mr. FUNG will investigate into the incident and find out why the USD did not inform the Core Group or the BOG of the EPD's reservations about holding pop concerts in the Hong Kong Stadium. The Urban Council is a responsible public body. We are a statutory body responsible for providing a lot of services to the public. We do not want to be prosecuted by the EPD. The noise abatement notice issued by the EPD is effective from today onwards. That is to say, from today onwards, if we hold activities in the Hong Kong Stadium, either during the day time or at night, and if we exceed the acceptable noise level, we will immediately face prosecution action from the EPD and we will have to answer in court. I don't want to see this happen. I recall that you, Mr. Chairman, on certain occasions said this and I appreciate what you said. You said that if we really could not solve the noise problem and if there were many bookings of pop concerts, we would resolve the noise problem first before we held pop concerts. I remember what you said very clearly, Mr. Chairman. I hope that, Mr. Chairman, you can lead the BOG in this direction. I know that the BOG should not be held responsible for the noise issue. The BOG is also a victim. But then it was left in the dark. Today we want to make sure that we should not exceed the maximum noise level laid down by the EPD. Mr. Ma Lee-wo is not telling the BOG what to do and what not to do. He has good intentions. He hopes that the BOG can appreciate how deeply we are concerned about the noise issue through this motion. We have received over 200 complaints about noise. We don't want to see a continuous increase in complaints about noise, and I hope that members will discuss this motion calmly. This is not a binding motion. It still allows flexibility for the BOG to make decisions. That is to say, we must not allow the decibel level to exceed 65 dB(A) after 7:00 p.m. and 70 dB(A) before 7:00 p.m. I think the BOG should instruct Wembley to abide by this maximum noise level. I think this motion debate only serves to remind us that we must strictly observe this maximum decibel level.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):—About a month or two ago, I was actually against the two conditions imposed by the Government on UC to take over the management of the Hong Kong Stadium. In this connection, I wrote to Mrs. Anson CHAN and Mr. James So. I have not received replies from them yet. They have not given me an appointment, and they have not really given me a reply.
Page 14 of 115