Hong Kong International Airport Master Plan 2030

[9] The MP 2030 outlined the two-runway system and 3RS as options for future development, compared the two in terms of air connectivity, economic benefits, construction cost, funding and environmental issues,[7] and concluded that only 3RS can fully meet Hong Kong's long-term needs.

[7] A three-month public consultation exercise was then conducted, with the findings compiled by the University of Hong Kong's Social Sciences Research Centre being announced in December 2011.

[11] In March 2012, the Executive Council ("ExCo"), in-principle and for planning purposes, approved the AAHK to adopt the 3RS as the future development direction for HKIA.

[9] The project is expected to cost HK$141.5 billion, with funding coming from bank loans, bonds issuance, HKIA's operational surplus and end-users.

[19] The draft Chek Lap Kok Outline Zoning Plan was approved and the reclamation was authorised by the Chief Executive-in-Council on 26 April 2016.

AAHK has been taking a leading role in introducing the 3RS Project, with great emphasis on the urgency of the current problem regarding insufficiency of the existing 2RS in meeting rising future air traffic demand.

The proposal has attracted widespread public opposition, and has aroused great concern on whether the infrastructure project which involved the highest cost since 1997 is justified by its alleged urgency and effectiveness.

Nevertheless, despite public challenge over the enormous economic benefits as claimed, the government has attached great importance to the 3RS project and has largely agreed that there are strong justifications and urgency to proceed with the implementation.

[23] The Secretary for Transport and Housing Bureau Anthony Cheung has also publicly expressed the government view that such a project would be endorsed and recognized its potential economic contribution to Hong Kong's GDP.

[25] In particular, the HKDCS held the "30 Third Runway Victims" Campaign hoping to use public pressure to ensure the ACE examine the EIA report with CWD's interest in mind.

The People's Aviation Watch ("PAW") claimed that the proposed third runway would only reach a quarter of its potential due to airspace conflict with the Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport (SZIA).

[35] Kevin Choi, the deputy director of civil aviation, told lawmakers during a legislative council subcommittee meeting that the delegation of airspace was still unclear.

[39] Green Sense chief executive Roy Tam said that the authority had "disrespected" the JR by commencing work before a judgement was made.

[40] Hui Sin-hang, Raphael Wong and Koo Sze-yiu have also tried challenging AAHK's power to charge passengers to build the third runway.

[48] The procedures and criteria, which includes screening, scoping, environmental assessment and reporting, consultation and monitoring, should follow that of Singapore and Scotland.

[49] The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supported the Third- Runway Project but did not comment on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

For noise impact, they deemed the Airport Authority's threshold for measuring acceptable obsolete and could not reflect the adverse effects accurately.

[55] They also criticised that the measurement assumed, without scientific support, that the dolphins would shift part of their home range into Chinese waters during construction.

[56] The Ecology Alumni of the University of Hong Kong expressed concerns towards the criteria adopted in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

[65] Weighing the economic benefits against environmental impacts, the Project should be implemented as it could boost Hong Kong's competitiveness and maintain its status as the Asian air transport hub.

[68] An Environmental Monitoring and Audit Manual was issued to ensure compliance with the Report and assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

The Civic Party raised doubts about putting the South Runway on standby mode at night to alleviate aircraft noise as a mitigation measure.

Claiming that the applicability of deploying artificial reefs and other improvement work in marine ecology had not been scientifically proven in Hong Kong, they urged Advisory Council on Environment to reject the Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

[80] According to a report by the Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong in December 2011, the respondents broadly supported a series of mitigation measures to tackle issues regarding noise, air quality, conservation of dolphins and reclamation.

[83] A team led by Professor John Bacon-Shone under Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong was commissioned as a third-party institution to collect, analyse and report views of different stakeholders.

[91] The Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong designed sets of questionnaires to solicit the public's views over their preferred option for airport expansion,[92] taking into account eight independent factors.

[96] The Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong (2011) reported that 73% of the respondents to the 24,242 completed questionnaires preferred building the third runway.

[100] Green Sense Hong Kong claimed that Airport Authority, questioning the professional knowledge and independence of their consultants, had released misleading information regarding the impact on the Chinese white dolphins.

[102] Hence, WWF Hong Kong suggested the suspension of the consultation before the relevant authorities disclose an in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts.

[104] The Civic Party furthermore revealed that a conflict of interest may arise because the consultants of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report were employed directly by the proponent of the Project.