After further consultation with their advisors, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Consortium presented a Scheme D sited on reclamation off Peng Chau - Hei Ling Chau with runway at 7 - 187 degree orientation. This preferred scheme is to have a runway separation of 1,300m which is the minimum to allow independent operation of both runways. Without the wider runway seperation, the terminals cannot be located in between the runways which would not only make the airport more costly to operate, but it will also compromise one runway's capacity severely. This would mean a 900m seperation airport would reach saturation prematurely, probably by the year 2025. Therefore it is imperative that the runways should have wider seperation. This scheme was forwarded by letter to Chief Secretary Ford on 16th March 1987. (Plan No. 1)
Such a direct proposal from the private sector to the Government to tackle infrastructure with private funds and management skills was of course a departure from the standard norm, and obviously would be resisted by some lower echelon officials in Government feeling that the Consortium is invading their turf. Historically, however, Hong Kong did complete very successfully the Hong Kong Cross Harbour Tunnel (1969-72) with 75% private sector participation.
Nevertheless the top officials of the Hong Kong Government did give the proposal some consideration, as the Consortium was given the opportunity to present the proposal to the Land Development Policy Committee in December 1986 chaired by Sir David Aker-Jones (Acting Governor) and a "Steering Committee established within the Administration to examine the proposed Project Outline on the Western Harbour- Lantau Strategic Development" chaired by Sir David Ford (Chief Secretary) on 27th February, 1987. Mr Gordon Y.S. Wu, Managing Director of Hopewell Holdings Limited made the introduction at the meeting by explaining that :
"What was proposed by the Consortium had been published in various Government studies by various Government Departments. We have proposed to combine and modify them together in a rational manner (rather than develop them in piece-meal fashion) to get maximum efficiency and to provide for Hong Kong's needs for the next few decades. The publication "Planning for Growth" had been most useful for developing the proposals.
The result of the meeting can probably be best reflected by an internal memo sent on 6th March, 1987 by a certain M.G.B. of Jardine Matheson to Henry Keswick, Simon Keswick and Trafalgar Group U.K. The memo was inadvertently sent to Trafalgar H.K. (no relation to the U.K. group but headed by Mr. John Wu, Gordon Wu's youngest brother). The memo stated :-
"Feed back is mixed with Government having doubts on Wu's ability to pull it off, notwithstanding his success in completing his power station in China well ahead of schedule. Deputy Secretary for Economic Services told me a group lead by JM & other Hongs would be viewed as a more satisfactory partner for Government."
This memo appeared in the South China Morning Post. The Chief Secretary Sir David Ford replied on 30th March 1987 to Mr. Stewart Elliott, Executive Director of Hopewell Holdings Limited's enquiry as follows:-
+
confidential.
"I am sure you would not expect me to comment on an internal document of another company which was supposed to be Suffice for me to say that the Government is serious about your proposal and will examine every aspect of it with great care.
11
Only a few meetings and handful of correspondence were conducted between the Consortium and the Lands & Works Branch in the ensuing 3 years. Evidently the Hopewell proposal only acted as a catalyst. Government was busy formulating its own Port-Airport-Development-Strategy (PADS) Study.
Subsequent Hong Kong Year Books commented on the replacement airport :-
1987 No mention of the replacement airport.
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.