城規會來信稱我2月1日 的郵（註2）和1月26日 致地政總署的信件（註3）提出有關海空安全問題，都已在我的書面意見和1月12日 聽證會上談了，又稱「已充分研究海空安全問題」(had made sufficient
inquiries into the maritime and aviation safety issues)，以及認為「沒有有力理據否定政府部門和機場管理局的回應和評估」(no strong justification to
challenge the responses and assessments made by government departments and AAHK)。
城規會的說法偏離事實，我已經立即去信，表示不同意（見附錄）。
必須指出：兩份關鍵性的「海上交通影響評估」報告一路以來被機管局列為「密件」，城規會沒有機會見過，談不上「充分研究」，另外我在城規會公眾聽證會結束後才收到這兩份報告（註4），不可能在12日的城規會聽證會上談1月26日 （即是兩個星期後）信件裏的內容，尤其是報告裏的嚴重的錯誤，以致錯判海上意外風險社會可以接受。
回頭談2月1日 給城規會的信，明確點出「海上交通影響評估」報告裏的錯誤及其他懸而未決的問題，給地政總署的信夾附在內，顯然兩封信擊中要害，地政總署趕在2月19日 給我回了信，而這封信提交了給城規會，城規會3月11日 來信表明，信納這封信化解了我的指控，成為2月26日 通過三跑填海規劃的根據。
但是地政總署2月19日 的信十分求其了事，迴避了有關顧問犯錯的事，完全沒有回應，因此沒能否定我對報告出錯的指控，也沒有回應怎樣處理內地海上航隻侵入三跑降落航線安全保障空間的問題，只是聲稱「所有部門和持份者都認為海空安全風險可以接受」，卻忽視政府部門和持份者其實給錯誤的顧問報告騙了，為此我狠狠地回了一封措辭強硬的信（註5），要求地政總署盡責審查，保障市民生命安全。
城規會接受了地政總署2月19日 的信件作為考慮因素，則也必然應當接受我2月1日 的信件，但是前者沒有否定顧問犯錯之說，所以兩者相加而符合邏輯的結論是：「海上交通影響評估」報告有錯未改，所謂海上安全風險社會可接受是錯誤推論，政府部門和持份者被誤導或受騙，在這個情況下，城規會實際上掌握了十分有力的證據否定政府部門和機場管理局的回應和評估，但是它沒有依此否決填海規劃申請，是有違盡責審查原則的。
談到這裏，大概大家心中有數，三跑表面上塵埃落定，但是懸而未決的事太多。
第三條跑道遲兩年興建香港不會死，但是建了之後原來沒有用處則大錯鑄成，填了的海不能復原，自然環境死了不能復生。
多花些時間做前期工作，先把海空安全問題解決，不是理所當然的選擇嗎？難道高鐵匆匆上馬造成紛亂的教訓還不算痛苦嗎？
註4 我收到報告的原因是我根據《前濱及海床（填海）條例》提出對三跑填海的正式反對，政府希我看過報告後可以撤回反對，但是寄出的日期是1月14日 ，剛好在我1月12日 到城規會表達意見之後兩天，是否天意就不知道了。
附錄 2月14日 致城市規劃委員會信件
To: Secretary,
Town Planning Board
From: Lam
Chiu Ying
Re: Draft Chek Lap Kok Outline Zoning Plan No. S/I-CLK/13
Date: 14 March 2016
I appreciate your detailed explanation
dated 11.3.2016. But I am disappointed
that TPB had made its decision based on what is now known to be incomplete and
erroneous information. This is to place
on record what I observe about the Board’s decision and the process leading to
it.
Your message said that: “After
reviewing your concerns and having considered the information as provided by
government departments and AAHK mentioned above, the Board was satisfied that
it had made sufficient inquiries into the maritime and aviation safety issues.
There was no strong justification to challenge the responses and assessments
made by government departments and AAHK.” The following proves
that the statements are invalid.
The public had been deprived of critical
information concerning safety issues arising from the mutual interference
between maritime traffic and aircraft in flight before the TPB hearing
sessions. Two “confidential” Marine
Traffic Impact Assessment (MTIA) reports were only posted to me on 14.1.2016,
two days after I made presentation on the subject to TPB on 12.1.2016.
Thus my presentation on 12.1.2016 was
unable to cover and did not contain detailed specifics about aviation and
maritime safety. Up to that point in
time, TPB while being informed of the generic nature of the problem was not
fully briefed about the critical details.
Your
message dated 11.3.2016 said that “the
maritime and aviation safety issues as elaborated in your said email dated
1.2.2016 and your letter dated
26.1.2016 to DLO/Is were
raised in your written submissions and oral submission during the hearing
session on 12.1.2016” . This is plainly incorrect. Owing to the information embargo by Lands
Department before the hearing, information
of critical importance laid out in my letter to DLO/Is was not in my
presentation on 12.1.2016 (not my fault, but due to withholding of information
by whoever). This being the case, naturally
TPB also did not hear any relevant responses from Civil Aviation Department
and Marine Department on the subject on 12.1.2016.
My message dated 1.2.2016 reported to
TPB two critical safety issues identified based on the two MTIA reports viz.
(a) the gross
mistake made by the consultant in computing and assessing the societal risk of
additional marine accidents arising from the third runway and (b) the impact of tall ships (including oil
drilling platforms and derricks with high airdraft) on aviation safety, especially with regard to tall ships
"cutting corners" in Mainland
waters off the north-west corner of the marine restricted area and with regard
to tall ships in Lantau Island Anchorage No. 2 (again in Mainland waters) off the western end of the third runway.
In the
knowledge of the facts and issues pointed out in my message dated 1.2.2016, TPB
should have made further specific enquiries with and sought corresponding
responses from Civil Aviation Department and Marine Department. But apparently TPB has not done so. Instead it has only relied on my presentation
on 12.1.2016, which was by then (26.2.2016) clearly insufficient to clarify the
critical safety issues. It is incorrect for TPB to state that “it
had made sufficient inquiries into the maritime and aviation safety issues”.
There
is indeed serious concern that due
diligence has not been exercised and due process has not been followed.
It should further be
noted that up to today (14.3.2016), Government has not refuted my claim about
the gross mistake. Government has also
not refuted my observation that cross-border inter-government negotiations required
to resolve the safety issues arising marine traffic in Mainland waters near the
third runway have not taken place.
Considering that TPB
has not heard any response from Government (a) countering my claim about the
gross mistake in assessing the societal risk of maritime accident and (b) regarding
the absence of cross-border inter-government negotiations to remove known hazard
arising from marine traffic in Mainland waters, the statement “There was no
strong justification to challenge the responses and assessments made by
government departments and AAHK” is
indeed a void statement. If TPB had heard the specific responses to
the facts and issues raised in my message dated 1.2.2016, it could have
developed deeper understanding of the matter and found “strong justification to challenge the responses”. But those
specific responses have yet to be heard by TPB.
It must
further be pointed out that AAHK should have no role in the TPB hearing
sessions as a source of information.
They should be there only as one of the many people who commented on the
proposal to amend the OZP. To quote them
as if they were an authoritative source of opinion is totally inappropriate.
This
serves to state that I disagree with the
way in which TPB arrived at its decision on 26.2.2016 which has most probably
transgressed the thresholds of “due diligence” and “due process”. It leaves much to be desired in terms of good
governance.
Lam Chiu Ying
