Page 56 of 498
Page 56 of 498
56
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
amendment purely on the basis of a Metroplan and what is shown in a table. I cannot understand the situation set out in the table because it is too small and confused. I feel that the scope of the amended motion is rather narrow. If I put it bluntly, I hope Mr. Ng will forgive me. I just think it is 'petty' because a lot of things could have been taken into consideration. It seems that the amended motion sought to cover the overall need with one five-year or 10-year plan. If we go for a period of time, for example if we refer to capital works within the next five years, then may I ask if there are to be annual, biannual, short to medium-term plans or even one for two and a half years? We could have many different periods, medium to long, long long, even longer terms, 20 years, 30 years. I think it is not necessary to go into minute details in the motion. Maybe it would be better to set out details during discussions of the working group. It doesn't seem right to give schedules and time-tables in the motion. I just find that approach contrary to the idea of moving motions at meetings. My feeling is that an amendment should not be moved for the sake of amending without clear and profound deliberation. I support the original motion.
MR. CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): I believe when Mr. NG put forth the amended motion, he did consider carefully all those points made by Members just now. As he said, the Metroplan is a guideline. In fact, it is a blueprint for the medium to long-term town planning of our municipal area. I feel that if we don't have guidelines, the plan itself can be a more distinct blueprint which is somehow relatively loose. As other Members pointed out, there could be too much flexibility from the point of planning. I worry that too much flexibility makes our plan one without any sense of direction, so I endorse the amended motion moved by Mr. NG. The Metroplan is a blueprint, a guideline. In fact, we are not rejecting all other factors like those mentioned by Ms. Chow in her speech, i.e. the Land Development Corporation's plan, the Housing Authority's plan etc. We are not saying that those factors should not be considered. I hope you will understand this when you deliberate on the motion.
The second point I want to add is that we hope to have soon some finalisation for use of land presently for military use. We feel that if this matter can be resolved before 1997, the Council should fight for some land within the military area. It is preferable to confirm as soon as possible the use of military land, and I feel that the Council should stand up to place its bid.
My third point is the hope for the setting-up of a machinery, whether for the short, medium or long term, to review the appropriateness of the Council's use of land. I think it may be best to place this machinery within the Land Development Group. The Group should work hard to review land development and actual allocation. I hope we can have a more definitive plan.
Another point to add is about plot ratio as mentioned by several Members. I hope that in the next review on municipal facilities, we can study whether we are making good use of plot ratio. Plot ratio is closely related to land use. I
Page 56 of 498
Page 56 of 498