Page 5 of 115
8
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Let Mr. LAU finish.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): The fitting out costs were endorsed in November. During the course of discussion, the BOG did not discuss the noise issue either. Those are two points that I wish to confirm. Neither the BOG nor the core working group had discussed the issue of noise until 22 February 1994, when a paper on possible noise nuisance at the Hong Kong Stadium was submitted and there was an expert report saying that with mitigating measures, the Stadium would still be an appropriate venue for concerts. The BOG discussed the issue and considered after all that it was a question of operation and implementation. Therefore the BOG endorsed the recommendations to improve the situation to mitigate possible noise problems. The BOG also instructed very clearly that the Manager would have to co-operate very closely with EPD to ensure that the nearby residents would not be disturbed. I hope that my reply is satisfactory to Mr. Fred LI.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in paragraph 7 of the reply, it says that in February 1994, the EPD had reservations in relation to the noise abatement measures proposed. And then the BOG decided that there would still be concerts to be staged there and yet the situation would be monitored for three months. So I have two questions for Mr. LAU. First, at that time did the USD or the EPD alert the BOG or warn the BOG that the noise problem would be very serious? My second question is: Did the EPD agree that there could still be concerts from March 1994 to June 1994?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, in relation to paragraph 7 of my reply, it is based on records. The BOG was first aware of the problem on 22 February 1994. In other words, before that date, the BOG had not read the report by the consultant. And the report in 1991 was commissioned by the Jockey Club. We did not have the right to get the report from them and we did not know anything about it. As regards the three months period of joint monitoring, it is actually a result of discussions between the Wembley Consultant and EPD. It is in fact a verbal undertaking. I have not seen any paper from Wembley. In other words, no undertaking in black and white.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-The reply is not clear enough. May I rephrase my question? On 22 February, there was a meeting at which Mr. LAU read about the noise problem and also a summary of the report. The EPD had reservation about holding concerts at the Stadium. The BOG decided that there would still be concerts from March to April and yet they would be monitoring the situation. My questions are: first, did the USD or the EPD warn the BOG of the possible danger? Secondly, did the EPD agree to have concerts scheduled from March to June? If it was not acceptable to EPD at that time, we would be held responsible if we insisted on holding concerts. If they did agree to that at that time, then of course we will have to ask why EPD agreed at that time. Otherwise it would be our responsibility totally.
Page 5 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 5 of 115
9
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer that question. There was in fact verbal discussion and there is no way of telling who is right and who is wrong. The EPD had reservations. Yet Wembley also had experts who had their own views. So the BOG thought at that time, there were two experts who seemed to be saying different things and we did not know who was right. But one thing important is that Wembley was instructed to co-operate very closely with EPD to ensure that there would not be inconvenience to local residents. That was the stance of the BOG at that time. In relation to other verbal discussion, I am afraid I do not have any further evidence.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-May I put it this way? The BOG decided that there might be concerts from March to June on the condition that no objection was raised from EPD and with the endorsement of the Wembley's expert. Is it correct to say that the BOG would go ahead with such concerts with EPD's consent, but concerts would not go ahead without the EPD's consent?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the BOG did not discuss whether in view of strong objection of the EPD concerts should go ahead. It was because there was no proper agenda for discussion at meetings held after 22 February. In fact it was a hypothetical situation at that time. We did not really take that into consideration.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):—We have heard the comparison of suddenly being called daddy by a child in the street. In relation to the question of who is held responsible for the situation, Mr. LAU told us that at that time the BOG was not yet set up. Could Mr. LAU confirm that this in fact should be the responsibility of USD and RCB? This is my first question. Secondly, in paragraph 11 of his reply, he says that it is hoped to be able to minimise the number of complaints on noise. He is talking about minimising but not really eliminating. Should we actually be aiming at eliminating the noise nuisance rather than minimising them?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. WONG asks who should be held responsible. Government departments may be undertaking something on different occasions. If you ask me the question as to who should be held responsible at the UC open meeting, according to Standing Order, I cannot express my personal view. Secondly, as to the question of minimising noise, sound may produce a certain decibel. Which level is acceptable to people is a question. Perhaps when it is in excess of a certain level, it becomes noise. So I feel that the important point is—we should try to reduce the decibel to an acceptable level rather than to try to get rid of all sound. Excessive sound is noise. But if it is acceptable it is merely sound. According to our record, in the middle part of the pitch, it is 90 dB(A), and it is 65 dB(A) outside the pitch. I have given some examples in my reply. For instance, we would tilt the speakers at a particular angle and would erect noise barriers at certain places. At present, the situation is not really satisfactory because the barrier facing the Tung Wah Eastern Hospital in fact should have been 4.5 m in height. But we have not been able to raise it to that height yet. In the coming 8 to 10 days, we hope to be able to complete construction so that the barrier could be brought up to the ideal height. I have also mentioned that the stage now is on the northern side and the speaker therefore faces the residential blocks. If possible, in the future we should place it either in the middle of the Stadium or on the southern side so that the noise nuisance can be minimized. These are but some of the examples. I hope that Members would give a chance to the Stadium Manager to put in place all these abatement measures so as to allow the Hong Kong Stadium a chance to survive. We hope to be able to improve the situation. That is our aim.
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, this question concerns the responsibility for the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium. This morning, the Urban Council set up an ad hoc Working Group to look into the noise issue at the Hong Kong Stadium. If we really want to try and find out who should be held responsible and get to the root of the matter and the whole truth, perhaps we would allow the Working Group to investigate the issue and report to this Council and the public after the findings are known.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I agree that thorough investigations should be carried out to find out the truth. I can assure you that all Members of the BOG are willing to provide information to the Working Group to facilitate its investigation. I can guarantee that Wembley would also hold the same attitude to provide relevant information to the Working Group to facilitate its investigation.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):---Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question about the noise issue. Up till now, other than from Wembley, has the BOG received papers from the Jockey Club concerning noise assessment reports or measures?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, since my appointment as a member of the core group and subsequently as a member of the BOG, I have never received any reports from departments concerning noise problem. I have not received any papers on the noise problem until 22 February 1994.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):-I would like to follow up, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about up to this moment.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—But Mr. LAU said that he received the report from the Wembley Consultant on the 22 February 1994 and not at any other time.
Page 6 of 115
10
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 5 of 115
8
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Let Mr. LAU finish.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): The fitting out costs were endorsed in November. During the course of discussion, the BOG did not discuss the noise issue either. Those are two points that I wish to confirm. Neither the BOG nor the core working group had discussed the issue of noise until 22 February 1994, when a paper on possible noise nuisance at the Hong Kong Stadium was submitted and there was an expert report saying that with mitigating measures, the Stadium would still be an appropriate venue for concerts. The BOG discussed the issue and considered after all that it was a question of operation and implementation. Therefore the BOG endorsed the recommendations to improve the situation to mitigate possible noise problems. The BOG also instructed very clearly that the Manager would have to co-operate very closely with EPD to ensure that the nearby residents would not be disturbed. I hope that my reply is satisfactory to Mr. Fred LI.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, in paragraph 7 of the reply, it says that in February 1994, the EPD had reservations in relation to the noise abatement measures proposed. And then the BOG decided that there would still be concerts to be staged there and yet the situation would be monitored for three months. So I have two questions for Mr. LAU. First, at that time did the USD or the EPD alert the BOG or warn the BOG that the noise problem would be very serious? My second question is: Did the EPD agree that there could still be concerts from March 1994 to June 1994?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, in relation to paragraph 7 of my reply, it is based on records. The BOG was first aware of the problem on 22 February 1994. In other words, before that date, the BOG had not read the report by the consultant. And the report in 1991 was commissioned by the Jockey Club. We did not have the right to get the report from them and we did not know anything about it. As regards the three months period of joint monitoring, it is actually a result of discussions between the Wembley Consultant and EPD. It is in fact a verbal undertaking. I have not seen any paper from Wembley. In other words, no undertaking in black and white.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-The reply is not clear enough. May I rephrase my question? On 22 February, there was a meeting at which Mr. LAU read about the noise problem and also a summary of the report. The EPD had reservation about holding concerts at the Stadium. The BOG decided that there would still be concerts from March to April and yet they would be monitoring the situaiton. My questions are: first, did the USD or the EPD warn the BOG of the possible danger? Secondly, did the EPD agree to have concerts scheduled from March to June? If it was not acceptable to EPD at that time, we would be held responsible if we insisted on holding concerts. If they did agree to that at that time, then of course we will have to ask why EPD agreed at that time. Otherwise it would be our responsibility totally.
Page 5 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 5 of 115
9
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer that question. There was in fact verbal discussion and there is no way of telling who is right and who is wrong. The EPD had reservations. Yet Wembley also had experts who had their own views. So the BOG thought at that time, there were two experts who seemed to be saying different things and we did not know who was right. But one thing important is that Wembley was instructed to co-operate very closely with EPD to ensure that there would not be inconvenience to local residents. That was the stance of the BOG at that time. In relation to other verbal discussion, I am afraid I do not have any further evidence.
THE HON. FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE (in Cantonese):-May I put it this way? The BOG decided that there might be concerts from March to June on the condition that no objection was raised from EPD and with the endorsement of the Wembley's expert. Is it correct to say that the BOG would go ahead with such concerts with EPD's consent, but concerts would not go ahead without the EPD's consent?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the BOG did not discuss whether in view of strong objection of the EPD concerts should go ahead. It was because there was no proper agenda for discussion at meetings held after 22 February. In fact it was a hypothetical situation at that time. We did not really take that into consideration.
MR. WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese):—We have heard the comparison of suddenly being called daddy by a child in the street. In relation to the question of who is held responsible for the situaiton, Mr. LAU told us that at that time the BOG was not yet set up. Could Mr. LAU confirm that this in fact should be the responsibility of USD and RCB? This is my first question. Secondly, in paragraph 11 of his reply, he says that it is hoped to be able to minimise the number of complaints on noise. He is talking about minimising but not really eliminating. Should we actually be aiming at eliminating the noise nuisance rather than minimising them?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. WONG asks who should be held responsible. Government departments may be undertaking something on different occasions. If you ask me the question as to who should be held responsible at the UC open meeting, according to Standing Order, I cannot express my personal view. Secondly, as to the question of minimising noise, sound may produce a certain decibel. Which level is acceptable to people is a question. Perhaps when it is in excess of a certain level, it becomes noise. So I feel that the important point is—we should try to reduce the decibel to an acceptable level rather than to try to get rid of all sound. Excessive sound is noise. But if it is acceptable it is merely sound. According to our record, in the middle part of the pitch, it is 90 dB(A), and it is 65 dB(A) outside the pitch. I have given some examples in my reply. For instance, we would tilt the speakers at a particular angle and would erect noise barriers at
Page 5 of 115
Page 5Page 6
H
Page 6 of 115
10
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
certain places. At present, the situation is not really satisfactory because the barrier facing the Tung Wah Eastern Hospital in fact should have been 4.5 m in height. But we have not been able to raise it to that height yet. In the coming 8 to 10 days, we hope to be able to complete construction so that the barrier could be brought up to the ideal height. I have also mentioned that the stage now is on the northern side and the speaker therefore faces the residential blocks. If possible, in the future we should place it either in the middle of the Stadium or on the southern side so that the noise nuisance can be minimized. These are but some of the examples. I hope that Members would give a chance to the Stadium Manager to put in place all these abatement measures so as to allow the Hong Kong Stadium a chance to survive. We hope to be able to improve the situation. That is our aim.
MR. JOSEPH CHAN YUEK-SUT (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, this question concerns the responsibility for the noise problem at the Hong Kong Stadium. This morning, the Urban Council set up an ad hoc Working Group to look into the noise issue at the Hong Kong Stadium. If we really want to try and find out who should be held responsible and get to the root of the matter and the whole truth, perhaps we would allow the Working Group to investigate the issue and report to this Council and the public after the findings are known.
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I agree that thorough investigations should be carried out to find out the truth. I can assure you that all Members of the BOG are willing to provide information to the Working Group to facilitate its investigation. I can guarantee that Wembley would also hold the same attitude to provide relevant informaiton to the Working Group to facilitate its investigation.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):---Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question about the noise issue. Up till now, other than from Wembley, has the BOG received papers from the Jockey Club concerning noise assessment reports or measures?
MR. STEPHEN LAU MAN-LUNG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, since my appointment as a member of the core group and subsequently as a member of the BOG, I have never received any reports from departments concerning noise problem. I have not received any papers on the noise problem until 22 February 1994.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):-I would like to follow up, Mr. Chairman. I am talking about up to this moment.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—But Mr. LAU said that he received the report from the Wembley Consultant on the 22 February 1994 and not at any other time.
Page 6 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.