Legislative Council

LC Paper No. CB(1)1364/98-99
(These minutes have been
seen by the Administration)

Ref: CB1/PL/PLW/1

LegCo Panel on Planning, Lands and Works

Minutes of meeting held on Tuesday, 9 March 1999, at 2:30 pm in Conference Room A of the Legislative Council Building

Members present :

Hon Edward HO Sing-tin, JP (Chairman)
Dr Hon TANG Siu-tong, JP (Deputy Chairman)
Hon HO Sai-chu, JP
Dr Hon Raymond HO Chung-tai, JP
Hon LEE Wing-tat
Hon James TO Kun-sun
Hon WONG Yung-kan
Hon LAU Kong-wah

Non-Panel members attending:

Hon Cyd HO Sau-lan
Hon Fred LI Wah-ming
Hon NG Leung-sing
Hon Christine LOH
Hon CHAN Yuen-han
Hon CHOY So-yuk

Members absent :

Hon Ronald ARCULLI, JP
Hon LAU Wong-fat, GBS, JP
Hon Andrew CHENG Kar-foo
Hon TAM Yiu-chung, JP

Public officers attending:

For item IV

Mr Gordon SIU
Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands

Mr Patrick LAU
Deputy Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (Planning and Lands)

Mr Wilson FUNG
Principal Assistant Secretary for Planning,
Environment and Lands (Planning)

Mr Bosco FUNG
Director of Planning

Mr Joseph LEUNG
Assistant Director (Metro), Planning Department

Project Manager, Kowloon Development Office
Territory Development Department

Mr James CHAN
Chief Engineer, Development Study Division
Kowloon Development Office
Territory Development Department
By invitation :
The Hong Kong Institute of Architects

Mr Barry F WILL

Mr Alex LUI
Board of Local Affairs Member

Mr Dennis LAU

The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

Ir POON Lok-to, Otto

Ir Dr LUK Wang-kwong, John
Senior Vice-President

Ir SUEN Kai-cheung, Timothy
Committee member of Civil Division

Ir LEE Wing-woo, Maurice
Committee member of Environmental Division

The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors

Mr Samson WONG

Mr Francis T LAU


Mr Gordon ONLEY

The Hong Kong Institute of Planners

Mr Andrew LAM
Vice President

Hon Secretary

Ms Betty HO
Convenor, Public Affairs Committee

The Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects


The Hong Kong Civic Design Association


Mr Peter Cookson SMITH

The Stadium Study Group

Miss Ophelia CHEUNG
Managing Director
Cheung-Macpherson & Co. Ltd.

Mr Terence SMITH
Managing Director
Leigh and Orange

Ove Arup & Partners
Clerk in attendance :
Miss Odelia LEUNG,
Chief Assistant Secretary (1)1
Staff in attendance :
Mrs Mary TANG,
Senior Assistant Secretary (1)2


I Confirmation of minutes of meeting
(LC Paper No. CB(1)887/98-99)

The minutes of meeting held on 10 December 1998 were confirmed.

II Date of next meeting and items for discussion

2. Members agreed to discuss the following items at the next Panel meeting scheduled for 15 April 1999 -

  1. Proposed control scheme for advertisement signboards; and

  2. Combined Maintenance Depot at Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long.
(Post meeting note: at the request of the Administration and with the consent of the Chairman, a further item "Retention of a supernumerary Deputy Principal Solicitor post for the Land Registry for the introduction and implementation of the Title Registration System" was added to the agenda.)

III Information papers issued since last meeting

3. Members noted that a publication entitled "What Kind of Harbour City Do We Want" prepared by Hong Kong Civic Design Association was circulated under LC Paper No. CB(1)940/98-99.

IV South East Kowloon Development (SEKD)

Meeting with the Administration

4. The Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (SPEL) thanked members of the Panel for giving the Administration a chance to further discuss SEKD and to receive views from professional institutes. He said that following LegCo's motion debate on SEKD on 27 January 1999, the Administration held a forum on SEKD on 19 February 1999 at which a number of proposals had been received. With the aid of a computer, the Assistant Director of Planning (Metro) (ADP) briefly explained the mainstream opinions put forward, which were summarised as follows -

  1. Urban growth
  2. SEKD should be developed to accommodate urban growth and to meet housing demand in the metro area;

  3. Environmental improvement
  4. The Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter and the Kai Tak Nullah should be reclaimed with a view to improving the environmental quality in the area;

  5. Promotion of tourist industry
  6. Hotels, retail and tourist facilities should be provided to promote the tourist industry;

  7. Mass transit railway system
  8. A mass transit railway system to serve the hinterland and SEKD should be provided; and

  9. Attractive waterfront
  10. The waterfront should be made accessible to members of the public who could enjoy the harbour view.

5. ADP said that apart from the mainstream opinions, the following key issues and their associated questions would require further discussion -
  1. Extent of reclamation
  2. Is there any need for Kowloon Bay Reclamation and any means to reduce the extent of reclamation?

  3. Housing provision
  4. What should be the target population for SEKD?

  5. Land intake for transport infrastructure
  6. Is there any scope to reduce the land dedicated for roads and their interchanges? Are there alternative means to the construction of surface roads to facilitate mobility, e.g. light rail, submerged or semi-submerged roads?

  7. Special uses
  8. Should some areas be earmarked for special cases, such as school villages, SportsCity, heliport, island park, artificial intelligent crystal city, cruise terminals and marina, etc.?

  9. Need for Government, institution and community (G/IC) sites
  10. Should more G/IC sites be provided to make up for the deficit in the hinterland? Is there any need for special "G/IC" uses to serve the territory e.g. international stadium?

  11. Need for industrial land
  12. Should the zoned industrial land in SEKD be further reduced? What are the best alternative uses?

  13. Need for commercial land
  14. Is there any need for commercial land in the long term to support tourism e.g. hotels? Should commercial nodes, if any, be located around railway stations?

  15. Metropolitan Park
  16. Should a Metropolitan Park of the size shown in the draft Outline Zoning Plan be provided to address the shortfall of open space in the hinterland? If so, whether its size should be reduced? Whether it should be redesigned to integrate with the waterfront and developed as a tourist attraction and recreation centre?

  17. Urban renewal
  18. Could SEKD facilitate and speed up the urban renewal process in the adjacent districts, e.g. by providing decanting linked sites?

  19. Implementation programme
  20. Whether the development of Kai Tai Airport should be suspended until the whole plan for SEKD has been finalized? Or would it be better to proceed with Kai Tai Airport development first?

6. Explaining the Administration's vision for SEKD, ADP said that the objectives were to provide a people-oriented and balanced development, restructure the urban area, enhance environmental quality and promote tourism. The area would be served by a mass transit railway system.

7. On the Chairman's enquiry about the timetable for coming up with a revised proposal on SEKD, SPEL said that as part of the statutory process, the Town Planning Board (TPB) would hear objections against the proposed SEKD. In view of the large number of objections received, the hearing process would take some time. The Administration was collating and analysing the various proposals put forward with a view to arriving at a revised plan for SEKD which would meet the needs of the community. The Administration would keep members informed about the progress of development.

8. Miss Christine LOH enquired if the original proposal for SEKD had been shelved and if so, whether the hearing of objections by TPB could be deferred. SPEL affirmed that the Administration was looking at ways to improve SEKD. The hearing of objections by TPB would start in March/April 1999.

9. Mr LEE Wing-tat appreciated the Administration's willingness to review the proposed SEKD in the light of public opinion. He opined that time would not have been wasted had the Administration taken the right approach of consulting the public before devising the proposed plan for SEKD. To make up for lost time, he enquired if the Administration could expedite the progress of development of the area without compromising consultation. SPEL concurred that expediting the development process of SEKD was a common goal of the Government and the community. The Administration was aware of the need for early resolution of environmental problems associated with the Kai Tak Nullah. The Administration was also concerned that the land now made available at the Kai Tak area should be put to use as soon as practicable. While efforts would be made to expedite the development, the Administration would need to go through all the steps stipulated under the laws. To save time, the Administration proposed to consult the public and conduct feasibility studies concurrently. The Administration thus intended to commission some investigation studies as soon as possible such as the investigation studies for the decontamination and site preparation works of the North Apron area of Kai Tak Airport which would need to be done irrespective of any changes to SEKD.

Meeting with deputations

10. The Chairman invited each of the attending organizations to express views.

Hong Kong Institute of Planners (HKIP)
(LC Paper No. CB(1)990/98-99(01))

11. Mr Andrew LAM said that HKIP was pleased that the Administration had taken a step forward in reviewing SEKD and consulting the public in the light of the objections raised. HKIP had all along advocated public consultation at an early stage of the planning process. It welcomed the positive response from the Government and many organizations in initiating discussions and making alternative plans to the proposed SEKD. Rather than going hastily for an alternative plan for SEKD, HKIP considered it essential to establish the community aspirations and reach a consensus on SEKD.

12. Mr Andrew LAM then explained the eight planning principles proposed by HKIP for SEKD as detailed in the submission.

13. Noting that a sizeable area of the reclaimed land was intended for the provision of roads in the original proposal for SEKD, Mr LEE Wing-tat enquired if the construction of a submerged or semi-submerged road system as proposed by HKIP would relieve the much needed space for accommodating the target population of 320,000. In response, Mr Andrew LAM said that the construction of a submerged or semi-submerged road system would reduce the need for buffer areas and improve the surrounding environment. The amount of land which could be relieved as a result of a submerged road system would depend on the design of the road network. HKIP would support the land so relieved for housing purpose. Mr Andrew LAM, however, emphasized that the population density of the future South East Kowloon should not be higher than the current density in other parts of Kowloon.

14. Mr LEE Wing-tat welcomed the idea of a submerged road network system as it would provide a better living environment for the community. He said that he disliked the installation of high noise barriers along flyovers and expressways which in effect "imprisoned" the adjacent buildings.

Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects (HKILA)
(LC Paper No. CB(1)990/98-99(02))

15. Mr Peter AUSTIN said that HKILA supported the concept of a people based site for SEKD which would be the pride of Hong Kong. HKILA believed that the plan for SEKD should be re-designed for the following reasons -

  1. The proposed scheme and extent of reclamation virtually ignored the aesthetics and the valuable asset of the Hong Kong Harbour;

  2. The high proportion of roads represented a significant pollution source; and

  3. The scheme as proposed represented a significant loss of an opportunity for innovative and inspirational city planning.
16. Mr AUSTIN said that HKILA recommended the reconsideration of the draft outline zoning plans. He then explained the seven elements which HKILA recommended for incorporation into the scheme which were detailed in his submission.

Hong Kong Civic Design Association (HKCDA)
(LC Paper No. CB(1)951/98-99)

17. With the aid of a visualiser, Dr E G PRYOR presented the views of HKCDA on SEKD. He stressed the following points -

  1. Any modification of the current proposals must be related to the territorial context, since South East Kowloon was a strategic development site and should be used optimally;

  2. SEKD should relate to the need to restructure the obsolete part of the leisure area; and

  3. SEKD should have regard to the harbour city context.
18. Referring to the maps enclosed to his submission, Dr PRYOR explained the development constraints of SEKD and proposed for members' consideration an alternative shoreline profile and an alternative plan for SEKD, which included, amongst others, an aviation academy, making the heritage of the Kai Tak Airport. He apprised members of the possible phasing of SEKD. He supported the early development of the North Apron area of the Kai Tak Airport under Phase 1 but considered further planning on Phase 2 necessary. He emphasized the need for a more interactive and structured planning process which should involve public consultation at an early stage, followed by statutory processes at a later stage of detailed planning.

19. Summing up his presentation, Dr PRYOR said that South East Kowloon need to be developed with the best of ideas. He supported HKILA's idea about the need for comprehensive three-dimensional design framework. New amenities like aviation and transport museums would be needed to attract tourists. He emphasized that SEKD was a special asset and the best use should be made of it.

The Stadium Study Group
(LC Paper No. CB(1) 990/98-99(03))

20. Miss Ophelia CHEUNG said that the concept of the Hong Kong SportsCity was jointly initiated by a group of experts under the banner of the Stadium Study Group. With the aid of a computer, Mr Terence SMITH briefed members on the concept of the Hong Kong SportsCity. He said that the SportsCity would be a new Government stadium and entertainment complex in South East Kowloon. It would contain a state of the art 60,000 seat stadium with innovative flexible seating and a retractable roof for all weather operation. It would be capable of acting as a centrepiece for major international games, like the Asian Games. In addition, it could also provide a year-round venue for a multiplicity of sports and other events.

21. Mr SMITH said that a study of suitable and available locations for SportsCity in Hong Kong had demonstrated that South East Kowloon would be the best location in terms of accessibility, visibility, urban area siting and availability. Furthermore, such a location corresponded with the Government's intention to provide a site in the area for a stadium facility. The SportsCity would be located adjacent to the proposed Metropolitan Park which could be developed together. The activities of the Park and the stadium could be co-ordinated.

22. As regards costs, Mr SMITH said that the project was estimated to require approximate funding of HK$7.5 billion (at 1998 price levels) of which the stadium itself would require HK$3.9 billion. It was anticipated that SportsCity would take approximately 5 years to complete, including the time taken for reclamation to proceed. It was proposed that the establishment, operation and management of the stadium be placed under the responsibility of a Government corporation specially set up for the purpose. This would ensure that SportsCity would be run on a prudent financial basis, the returns from which would be retained in Hong Kong for the good of all Hong Kong people. If approved by the Government, a detailed feasibility study would be carried out and a business plan would be prepared to test the financial viability of the proposal. The Hong Kong SportsCity would be another landmark for Hong Kong on the same level as the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre and the new Airport. It would help raise the international profile of Hong Kong.

23. Members noted that a publication on the Hong Kong SportsCity provided by the Stadium Study Group had been deposited with the LegCo Secretariat for members' reference.

(Post-meeting note: members were advised of the availability of the publication vide LC Paper No. CB(1)996/98-99.)

24. While agreeing that SportsCity would be an interesting idea, Dr Raymond HO was concerned whether the construction of the stadium and its associated transport facilities would add pressure to the need for space in SEKD, which was intended to house a large population. Mr SMITH said that Hong Kong needed a world class stadium and the site at South East Kowloon was considered most suitable. The stadium would be equipped with parking facilities and bus interchanges, but it was expected that the majority of people would commute by mass transit railways.

25. Mr LI Wah-ming declared interest as a member of the Board of Directors of the Hong Kong Stadium. He said that the Urban Council had not been consulted on the proposed SportsCity. Noting the proposed location of the SportsCity at the site which was earmarked for stadium facilities within SEKD, Mr LI enquired how transport and other arrangements could be co-ordinated. He further pointed out that full utilization of the SportsCity on each and every day of the year would not be possible as none of the stadiums in the world was able to do so. Most stadiums were operated for 50 to 60 days a year. High running costs of a stadium were attributed to the need to operate and maintain it. There were also immense difficulties in the provision and maintenance of grass pitches.

26. In response, Mr SMITH said that research studies indicated that it was possible to provide a stadium which could be utilized all year round. The provision of grass pitches for the Stadium would not be a difficult issue. The grass could be grown in the New Territories and transported to the stadium within very short notice.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA)
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (HKIS)
(Joint submission at LC Paper No. CB(1)980/98-99(01))

27. Mr Dennis LAU of HKIA said that subsequent to the objections from the general public, political parties and professionals on the Government's proposal on SEKD, HKIA, HKIE and HKIS jointly proposed a conceptual design on SEKD. The design was the result of joint efforts of the three institutes over a period of three months, and was prepared in association with Wilbur Smith Association Ltd as the traffic consultant and Mott Connell Ltd as the environmental/hydraulic consultant. The conceptual design would achieve the same objectives in amenity, housing and transportation as in the Government's proposal but with an alternative layout and reduced extent in reclamation.

28. With the aid of a computer, Mr Dennis LAU explained the Institutes' joint proposal. He highlighted the following -

  1. Compared with the Government's proposal, the Institutes' joint proposal significantly reduced 72% of the extent of reclamation. Instead of 229 hectares as originally proposed by the Government, only 81 hectares would be reclaimed. As a result, the maximum harbour width could be increased from 900 metres to 2,380 metres.

  2. The Institutes had strong reservations over Government's idea of housing a population of 320,000 in SEKD but acknowledged the need for housing. In an attempt to meet this target, the Institutes proposed to adopt the normal plot ratio of a maximum of eight for residential land.

  3. The end-part of the existing runway would be turned into a "Kai Tak Point" which would accommodate retail malls, hotels, an aviation/transport museum, a commercial heliport and a cruise centre. There would be partial reclamation of the existing nullah to resolve some of the environmental nuisances associated with it. The contaminated mud at the Typhoon Shelter would be capped, allowing a water depth of about four metres to facilitate marine traffic.

  4. SEKD would be intended mainly for residential developments, not for commercial and industrial developments. Public housing would be in the hinterland where the plot ratio was expected to reach a maximum of eight. Low-rise private residential blocks would be located near the waterfront and medium to high-rise at the centre and near the existing urban fringe to exploit the best sea-view.

  5. The size of the Metropolitan Park would be reduced to 27 hectares and would be named "Kai Tak Park". It would be connected to a 40-metre wide Seafront Promenade which radiated into two view corridors towards Lion Rock and Fei Ngo Shan. The Seafront Promenade would be franked by developments and would be easily accessible by the general public.

  6. A marina was proposed on Hung Hom side to meet demands from various water sports organisations.

  7. Transportation links between Hung Hom and Tate Cairn Tunnel and between Yau Tong and Tseung Kwan O area would be in the form of underground tunnels. The Kwun Tong Bypass should be widened to reduce road area as well as to minimise environmental impact on adjacent developments. Mass transportation facilities were planned to serve the area with transport interchanges located at major circulation nodes like the stadium and the cruise centre.
29. Mr LI Wah-ming and Dr Raymond HO enquired about the availability of measures to resolve the problem of poor water quality at the Typhoon Shelter. Ir Dr LUK Wang-kwong of HKIE said that the quality of water at the Typhoon Shelter depended on the extent of dredging activities. The joint proposal recommended that part of the contaminated mud be dredged away, followed by capping with sand. The natural effect of water currents would help dilute and cleanse the water. He considered the proposed measure a technically feasible one. Mr Samson WONG of HKIS was of the view that the pollution problem of the Harbour had to be resolved at source through a proper sewage disposal plan. Ir LEE Wing-woo, Maurice of HKIE added that the water quality in the Typhoon Shelter had been improved with the flushing effect of the effluent discharged from the sewage treatment plants at Taipo. As regards the problem of contaminated mud, this would have to be dealt with more thoroughly by the Administration. The Chairman said that he hoped that the water quality would improve with the implementation of the various sewage disposal strategies.

30. As regards the noise nuisance associated with the operation of a heliport, Ir Dr LUK said that since the heliport would be located near commercial developments, it was unlikely that its operation would have a serious impact on neighbouring areas.

31. Mr LEE Wing-tat indicated support for the joint proposal on the ground that it would reduce the extent of reclamation and road area and integrate the Harbour and the development through the provision of a Seafront Promenade. Noting the proposed provision of transportation links in the form of underground tunnels between Hung Hom and Tate Cairn Tunnel and between Yau Tong and Tseung Kwan O, Mr LEE enquired about the proposed transport arrangements within the same district and whether the areas which were intended for industrial purpose under the Government proposal could be used for development of roads.

32. Mr Dennis LAU said that the Institutes proposed that the main trunk roads leading from Tseung Kwan O would be submerged to facilitate traffic. While some of the side streets would be partially submerged, most of them would not. Mr Roger NISSIM of HKIS said that there was now a surplus of industrial land, hence no need for further provision in SEKD. Without industrial developments in SEKD, the extent of reclamation would effectively be reduced. For the same reason, land would not be reclaimed for office spaces. Since there was considerable unused industrial land in San Po Kong, Yau Tong and Kwun Tong, the Administration should consider rezoning these areas for commercial uses. Redevelopment could take place if there was later a demand for office spaces around the Diamond Hill Station and the Kwun Tong Station.

33. Mr LEE Wing-tat enquired if the Institutes' proposal left any room for flexibility in development, in particular, for accommodating new development trends such as Cyberport. Mr Dennis LAU affirmed that there would be flexibility in development as land use was subject to rezoning.

34. Responding to Miss Christine LOH's enquiry about the feasibility of accommodating the proposed SportsCity in the Institutes' joint design, Mr Dennis LAU confirmed that ample space was reserved for the provision of a stadium and the SportsCity could be accommodated. Miss Christine LOH was concerned that marine traffic might be adversely affected by the anchorage and manoeuvring of cruise liners at the cruise centre. Mr Dennis LAU said that the subject had been studied by Mott Connell, the hydraulic consultant. Since the movement of cruise liners were slow and infrequent, it was not expected that they would affect marine traffic.

35. Dr Raymond HO was of the view that the conceptual design was very innovative which would not only reduce the extent of reclamation but also retain the aesthetics of the Harbour. He sought information on the residential mix between public and private housing under the design and whether this would be in the ratio of 6:4 in line with New Town developments.

36. Mr Francis LAU of HKIS said that the Institutes had reservations over the Government proposal of housing 320,000 in SEKD. However, the Institutes were aware of the housing need of the growing population and the need for a high population to support the provision of a mass transit railway network. In order to accommodate the target population and to minimize the extent of reclamation at the same time, the Institutes proposed to increase the plot ratio to a maximum of eight for residential development. The Institutes did not favour the usual mix of public to private housing in the ratio of 6:4. They considered it better from aesthetic point of view to have more private residential developments. Moreover, it would take less time to complete private developments.

37. On Dr Raymond HO's concern about traffic-related problems generated by an intake population of 320,000 in SEKD, Mr LAU said that the Institutes envisaged that the population would rely mainly on mass transit railways and other mass transportation services for travel and serious traffic congestion problems were therefore not anticipated.

38. Dr Raymond HO said that he did not support the accommodation of a large population in SEKD. He pointed out that the industrial land in Kwun Tong and San Po Kong could be rezoned for residential developments. He was concerned that even a mass transit railway network might not be able to cope with a population of 320,000 in SEKD.

39. Miss CHAN Yuen-han appreciated the Institutes for the making of the conceptual design. She said that the Institutes' proposal was similar to a proposal submitted earlier by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) to the Administration in that both advocated for the protection of the Harbour and the provision of recreational and museum facilities at the Kai Tak Point. The main difference between the two proposals was that the Institutes suggested the provision of a cruise centre at the end of the Seafront Promenade, while DAB proposed the construction of an opera house and a marine park at the site. She shared the Institutes' concern about the Government's proposal of accommodating a population of 320,000 in SEKD.

40. Mr Alex LUI of HKIA said that much thought had been given to the design of the Kai Tak Point which aimed at preserving the heritage of the former airport. The provision of a cruise centre was an initial concept and the number of berths to be provided would depend on demand. Mr LUI concurred that the Kai Tak Point had a high potential for development as a tourist attraction and flexibility should be retained for later development to meet the recreational needs of the community. As regards the proposal to accommodate a population of 320,000 in SEKD, Mr LUI said that this was not desirable since a high population density would adversely affect the living environment of the community. However, given the population pressure, the Institutes therefore proposed an increase in plot ratio for residential development in the northern part of SEKD. To relieve congestion, he supported the rezoning of unused industrial land in San Po Kong, Yau Tong, and other areas for housing purpose. Mr LUI, however, did not support the demolition of industrial developments since some of the building structures could be refurbished for other uses.

Response from the Administration

41. The Chairman invited the Administration to respond to the views and the proposals put forward by the deputations. SPEL thanked the professional institutes and other attending associations for bringing forth revised proposals and constructive opinions for SEKD. He said that since the purpose of the meeting was to receive views, he did not intend to comment at this stage. Some of the ideas put forward were compatible with the objectives set by the Administration for SEKD. The Administration and the community were heading towards a common goal of development. Taking account of the views expressed by the community, the Administration would reconsider its proposal to meet public aspirations. In the meantime, the TPB would proceed with the hearing of the objections raised.

42. The Chairman thanked the attending organizations for the views given, in particular the Institutes for designing the conceptual plan with their own resources. He hoped that the Administration would consult the professional institutes on major development proposals in future.

43. Mr Dennis LAU of HKIA stressed the importance of co-operation between the Administration and the public in major developments like SEKD. He said that the professional institutes were more than willing to contribute their ideas.

44. Lastly, the Chairman informed members that the Institutes' joint conceptual design on SEKD was being displayed at the ground level of Pacific Place from 9 March 1999 to 10 March 1999.

IV Any other business

45. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 4:30 pm.

Legislative Council Secretariat
21 May 1999