(referring to the Second Round of Public Consultation Digest May 2004)

Although this issue has been discussed in the Legislative Council Panel on Security in the past 4 years under the theme of Prison Development Plan, there are still some remaining unresolved issues. For example, whether it is the best option for the co-located concept, whether Hei Ling Chau should be preferred than Kong Nga Po, and whether it is to the optimum benefit of the citizens to release the existing 8 institutions to give way for redevelopment (which may be property development if rezoning is granted). To convince the public that a superprison at Hei Ling Chau is the best option, the government perhaps has to address the following queries by the public:

1. As the population increase is projected to slow down in the future, it is necessary for the government to revisit whether the projection of a shortfall of 3,475 penal places by 2024 (i.e. 15,000 (projected figure by 2024) minus 11,525 (existing capacity, calculated by using 13,600 as an occupancy rate of 118%)) still holds. Moreover, the population is ageing rapidly in the next 30 years. Will this projection on penal places still be valid? These reconsiderations will have significant implication to the need of a superprison.
   
2. In the final round of selection of site options, Hei Ling Chau and Kong Nga Po are the two remaining options. Although Kong Nga Po has the comparative advantage in terms of flat land available, no need to reclaim, accessibility by land transport, no ecological importance, no known historical features, operational effectiveness, and emergency responsiveness, Hei Ling Chau is finally selected, and one of the major reasons is that Kong Nga Po falls into the boundary of the possible future development of FCA (the Frontier Closed Area). But as the HK2030 Study should have been completed by 2005 if on schedule (which can then decide whether to open up the FCA or not), is it possible to postpone this Hei Ling Chau project until then?

If the above questions can be addressed again, the Hei Ling Chau option may not be the most preferred option.

Having considered the above basic unresolved issues, referring to the scope of this consultation digest, we have the following views:

1. This feasibility study has not taken into account the traffic needs generated by visitors to the superprison (which accommodates 7,220 inmates). An impact study on the traffic demand and impact on environment should be conducted.
   
2. This feasibility study should also consider the waste management and relating pollution problems as a result of the commencement of operation of such a superprison with more than 7,000 “residents”.
   
3. The sites released by the existing 8 institutions should be remained as GIC zoning. No rezoning for property development should be allowed. Otherwise, the impact assessment should include the subsequent impact on environment and social aspect with respect to these 8 sites.
   
4. The proposed bypass will cause a permanent loss on visual value of the site from nearly all the vintage points stated in the study. Is there any measure to avoid this permanent degradation of the landscape resources?
   
5. As Lantau Island is a major tourist attraction, the feasibility study should assess the subsequent economic loss from tourism and social cost as a result of building this bypass.