• 「不是土地短缺問題」 “Hong Kong is not short of land”
  • 環團聯合聲明 - 拒絕參與破壞郊野公園 Green groups refuse to participate in the destruction of Country Parks
  • 齊參與《綠色鄉村約章》及登記成為鄉村代表選民! Support the Village Charter and Register as a voter!
  • 保育南生圍投票結果公佈Nam Sang Wai Conservation Poll Result
  • 免「廢」暢飲 發佈會 Announcement of "Drink Without Waste "
  • 重新思考中環街市Rethink the Central Market
  • 「民間土地資源專家組」成立 Formation of a Citizens Task Force on Land Resources
  • 有害醫療廢料再現香港 市民健康繼續受嚴重威脅 Dangerous and harmful medical waste found on HK’s beaches continues to put people at risk
  • New dangerous medical waste found at HK’s beaches puts residents at risk 新危險醫料廢料襲港,對市民構成嚴重威脅
  • Joint statement regarding dumping and land filling by concern groups and environmental NGOs 關注團體及環保組織就傾倒泥頭和填土問題的聯署信
  • 【鄉議局破壞郊野公園 土地已售予發展商】上週末,鄉議局破壞了西貢郊野公園的不包括土地內的濕地,藉此抗議政府將該該處和鄰近土地劃為保育用地……我們的調查發現,慘遭破壞和斬樹的土地大部份已在2012年賣予數個發展商。原居民早已放棄了他們土地的業權,何談復耕? 【Country Parks under attack from the Heung Yee Kuk】Last Sunday, the Heung Yee Kuk felled trees and removed vegetation on wetland deep inside the Sai Kung Country Park....Our investigation has now revealed that the land in question was sold to developers in 2012. The indigenous villagers long gave up their interest in farming.
  • Queen’s Pier to City Hall?? or Pier 9 and 10?? 大會堂重置皇后碼頭?還是選址在9號10號碼頭?
  • Online Survey: Electronic Road Pricing 意見調查:電子道路收費
  • 'Missing Seats' is lobbying government for more and better seats along streets, at bus stops, and in public space.Together we can make Hong Kong a better place for all. 「邊度無凳坐」希望令大家明白安全又舒適既座位對香港人既重要性,俾自己一個參與設計香港既機會,話俾我地知邊到應該有凳坐!
  • and bad pedestrian links in Hong Kong. We will ask the Transport and Housing Bureau to fix these over time. 「邊度冇路行」的目標是希望各位能提供缺乏或有問題行人路的位置,我們會要求運輸及房屋局改善清單中的行人路。
  • The Small House Policy has a complex history, officially beginning in 1972. But the complexities began when the New Territories were added in 1898. 自1898年英國租借新界,土地問題就從未停止。直到1972年「小型屋宇政策」(俗稱丁屋)令問題更加複雜。
29 June

「反對東大嶼都會計劃」橫額首掛交椅洲 Banner hanged on Kau Yi Chau to object East Lantau Metropolis

13558780_10153820186399397_3739617002500248238_o (新聞稿2016年6月26日) 7名來自多個環保和關注團體的成員,今日登上計劃填海作東大嶼都會的交椅洲,掛上一幅長40米,闊3米的大型橫額,抗議政府帶頭破壞程序公義,向全國人大委員長張德江展示本應年底才公布的大嶼山發展藍圖模型,當中更包括東大嶼都會計劃及其大型策略性道路系統,惟政府在公眾諮詢期間卻未有公開該模型。多個團體同時發表聯合聲明,強調現時東大嶼都會和策略性道路系統的建設沒有得到充分的理據支持,很可能成為新一個「大白象工程」,政府應撤回現時在立法會工務小組的「中部水域人工島策略性研究」撥款申請。 發展局在5月22日的「局長隨筆」率先回覆,指「相關模型只是用以輔助說明大嶼山發展的概念,並非定案」,其後局方回覆守護大嶼聯盟的查詢時,又指「在今年1月至4月舉行的大嶼山發展公眾參與活動的公眾論壇及諮詢會上,由於參與人數眾多,展示實物模型在此情况並不適合,故我們選擇以投影片配合詳細講解」。發展局的解釋極為牽強,該模型已清楚展示東大嶼都會的整體樓宇佈局、道路網絡、填海範圍等重要資料,而模型在大嶼山發展公眾諮詢的過程從來沒有向公眾公開,是嚴重剝奪公眾的知情權。 政府最近在立法會工務小組提交最新的文件,仍無提供充分的資料證明此發展項目的需要,如香港是否需要第三個核心商業區和東大嶼都會與解決未來房屋供應的關係,加上政府亦沒有全面考慮發展棕土、短租及閒置官地等其他較佳的方式來增加土地供應,反映政府推行東大嶼都會計劃的理據薄弱。計劃涉及大規模填海和多項大型基建,將會成為香港史上最昂貴的「大白象工程」。 東大嶼都會需要進行大規模填海工程,對海洋生態和水質造成極大影響,而策略性道路系統則會入侵郊野公園和許多生態敏感地區,為南大嶼山、梅窩等帶來龐大的發展壓力,並會增加在附近水域航運的船隻流量,危害漁業資源。 在缺乏任何數據及研究支持下,東大嶼都會計劃不應草率上馬,團體促請政府應撤回正在立法會工務小組的「中部人工島策略性研究」撥款的申請,並應提供充足的資料,如全港土地資料庫和東大嶼都會與解決未來房屋供應的關係,以回應市民的質疑。這樣政府和民間才可再次合作,大嶼山才可走向可持續發展。 多個環保團體和關注團體亦發起網上聯署平台(網址:https://goo.gl/vMxQLe),鼓勵公眾直接將網上意見書傳送至發展局。團體同時呼籲立法會議員及擬參選來屆立法會選舉的候選人簽署「反對東大嶼都會計劃」約章,爭取他們支持擱置東大嶼都會計劃及中部水域人工島策略性研究撥款。 聯署團體(依筆劃序)﹕ 本土研究社、守護大嶼聯盟、長春社、城西關注組、香港海豚保育學會、香港觀鳥會、創建香港、綠色力量、綠色和平 DSC_1860 (Press release, 26 June 2016) After landing on Kau Yi Chau which is planned for reclamation to be established as the East Lantau Metropolis (ELM), seven activists from green groups and concerned groups hung a huge banner with a length of 40 meters and a width of 3 meters to protest against violation of procedural justice by the government. The government had showed a model of Lantau development blueprint, including ELM and large scale strategic road system which should be published at the end of 2016, to chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Zhang Dejiang. However, this model had not been shown by the government during public consultation. Green groups and concerned groups issued a joint statement to emphasise the justification to support the construction of ELM and strategic road system was not enough and it was of high potential to become another “White Elephant”. Government should withdraw the application for appropriation of Strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters from the Legco public works subcommittee. Development Bureau replied through “My Blog” on 22nd May that the concerned model was just used to enhance the explanation of the concept of Lantau Development and was not a finalized model. Afterwards, Development Bureau replied Save Lantau Alliance’s enquiry and pointed out that, “Since it is too crowded during the public forum and consultation meeting of Lantau development public engagement from January to April 2016, we chose to explain the plan by using a slideshow, rather than a physical model.” The explanation of the Development Bureau was just a far-fetched excuse since the model had showed clearly details of ELM such as the distribution of buildings, road network and a range of reclamation which was not disclosed to the public during the public consultation of Lantau Development. It is a severe deprivation of the right to know by the public. The latest documents submitted by the government, to Legco public works subcommittee still could not provide enough justifications to support the plan of establishing the ELM. For example, does Hong Kong need the third core commercial zone? What is the relationship between ELM and solving the problem of future housing supply? Besides, the government did not consider other better ways to increase the land supply such as developing brownfield, government land for short term tenancy and idle government land. It showed the justification to establishing ELM was weak. Furthermore, as the large-scale of reclamation and many capital constructions are required, it would be the most expensive “White Elephant” project for Hong Kong. Large-scale reclamation works was required for ELM, which would severely damage the marine ecosystem and deteriorate the water quality. The strategic road system would invade country parks and many ecologically sensitive areas, bringing huge development pressure to South Lantau and Mui Wo and damaging the fishery resources by increasing the vessel traffic on the water around. Lack of data and study support means the ELM should not be established instantly. Groups urged the government to withdraw the application for appropriation of Strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters from the Legco public works subcommittee and provide enough information such as land database for Hong Kong and the relationship between ELM and solving the problem of future housing supply, so as to reply to the citizen’s questions. In this case, the government and the public cooperate again to ensure the sustainable development of Lantau can be achieved. Green groups and concerned groups had set up an online platform (Website: https://goo.gl/bFbsNR) to encourage the public to directly send the comment to the Development Bureau. At the same time, groups call Legislative council members and candidates intended to participate in the coming Legco election to sign the charter of “Opposition to East Lantau Metropolis” in order to ask for their support to stop the ELM and the application for appropriation of strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters. Co-signatories (in alphabetical order): Designing Hong Kong , Greenpeace Green power Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society Liber Research Community Sai Wan Concern Save Lantau Alliance The Conservancy Association The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society

21 June

【大灘、屋頭及高塘超過50間疑似「套丁」申請】Front men schemes covering 50+ small houses in Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong

Who are destroying our Country Parks

 

【大灘、屋頭及高塘超過50間疑似「套丁」申請】

“Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong suspected over 50 Small Houses Front man Scheme”
(Please scroll down for English )

創建香港「大灘、屋頭及高塘土地業權」研究簡報:
http://goo.gl/F28PDQ

大灘、屋頭及高塘近年在城規會有多宗丁屋申請。創建香港經過近一個多月的土地業權研究,我們發現該區超過50間丁屋申請曾為發展商(公司或某批業主)所持有,再轉讓予村民或申請人,並向地政總署及城規會申建「丁屋」。發展商單在屋頭和大灘,上述交易與早前被裁定罪成的沙田大輋村「套丁案」(案件編號:DCCC25/2015)所用手法十分相似。

創建香港在6月7日去信敦促地政總署、城規會和廉政公署採取以下措施以預防相鄰的「套丁」申請:

1. 處理「丁屋」申請時,地政總署應當徹底研究土地的交易紀錄。可疑的申請應該詳細研究。
2. 當局應拒絕發展商假借村民名義作出的集體申請。只有個人申請方可被考慮。
3. 當局須評估丁屋申請人在本港居住的意向。地政總署可與入境事務處合作,以斷定申請人是否通常居住在香港。只有香港居民可以獲得批准。
4. 設立網上公開資料庫,供公眾查閱「丁屋」申請的資料,包括申請人、土地交易紀錄、土地狀況及審批狀況等資訊。
5. 城規會及規劃署在決定土地用途時,必須考慮土地交易紀錄。這是確保規劃圖則不會助長「套丁」的重要一環。
6. 為防止政府官員犯法,廉政公署正為地政總署提供建議,以減少「丁屋」申請程序中出現貪污的風險。可惜的是,建議報告並不會向公眾公開,只會交給地政總署參考。我們要求公開報告,使社會大眾知道和監察預防「套丁」的情況。

相關新聞:

蘋果日報: http://goo.gl/Bpsr5n
南華早報: http://goo.gl/kBXRWH
星島日報: http://goo.gl/2TGG8i
香港電台: http://goo.gl/0OUFZJ

Front men schemes covering 50+ small houses in Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong

(Designing Hong Kong “Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong Land Ownership Study” PowerPoint presentation:
http://goo.gl/F28PDQ)

A study of land transactions in Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong shows that for more than 50 small house applications to the Lands Department and/or Town Planning Board the land was first bought by developers and transferred to the applicants just prior to their applications. These patterns are strikingly similar to the front man scheme discovered in the Sha Tin Tai Che Village court case (No. DCCC25/2015) during which the Court considered this an illegal practice.

Based on our findings we made the following recommendations to the Administration, the Town Planning Board and the ICAC to deter front men schemes abusing the small house policy:

1. Upon receipt of applications for small house developments the Lands Department should consider the transaction history of the site(s) involved. Suspicious cases should be examined in detail.
2. Group applications by “dings” on behalf of developers should be rejected. Only applications made by individual applicants should be considered.
3. The intention of the applicant to live in their small house must be considered including a study of their immigration records to determine whether applicants ordinarily reside in Hong Kong. Only ordinary residents should be allowed to apply.
4. Details of applications for small houses must be made public with an online database showing the applicant, an overview of the land transactions and current status, and the progress of the applications.
5. When considering draft plans and applications, the Town Planning Board and the Planning Department must take into account the land transaction history. This is essential in ensuring that the Board does not aid and abet front men schemes. 
6. To prevent government officials from breaching the law, ICAC is drafting recommendations on how the Lands Department can minimize risks when handling applications which create development values. We call for the report to be disclosed to the public. It should not be restricted to the Lands Department. A detailed review should be published so that the general public can better understand how front men schemes can be prevented.

News Reports:
Apple Daily: http://goo.gl/Bpsr5n
SCMP: http://goo.gl/kBXRWH
SingTao: http://goo.gl/2TGG8i
RTHK: http://goo.gl/0OUFZJ

HK01: http://goo.gl/syAgc6

16 May

Queen’s Pier to City Hall?? or Pier 9 and 10?? 大會堂重置皇后碼頭?還是選址在9號10號碼頭?

Vote on-line - Click here!

Queen’s Pier was demolished in 2007 as part of the Central reclamation. It has since been in a government storage facility on Lantau Island.  

The Development Bureau proposes re-assembly of Queen’s Pier between piers 9 and 10. The cost is around HK$300 million. It includes expensive marine works, reconstructing the seawall and provision of landing steps.

立即按此支持聯署!

皇后碼頭在2007年因中環填海計劃而遭到清拆。拆卸組件存放在大嶼山政府倉庫。

發展局建議將皇后碼頭重置在9號和10號碼頭,預計涉及3億公帑支出,當中包括海事工程、重建海堤和提供登岸梯級。

At the same time, the Development Bureau proposes to build a covered piazza near the original site of Queen’s Pier at City Hall. The piazza will “through paving and landscape design … commemorate the historical significance of Queen’s Pier.” The estimated cost is 55 million. (C&W DC Paper No. 44/2016).

與此同時,發展局建議在大會堂對出(皇后碼頭原址)興建有簷篷的廣場。這個新廣場將會加入歷史元素「透過地面鋪裝及園景設計紀念皇后碼頭的歷史重要性。」(中西區區議會文件第44/2016號)預計的建築費用約5千5百萬。

Our proposal is to re-assemble Queen’s Pier at City Hall (as close as possible to its original location):

1. Save HK$200million (No need for marine works at Pier 9/10, no need for a new covered piazza at City Hall);

2. Re-instate Edinburgh Place as a place of ceremony, including City Hall, the dias, Queen’s Pier and the Memorial Garden;

3. Queen’s Pier near its original location will remind hongkongers and visitors of one of Victoria Harbour’s former coastlines;

4. The Queen’s Pier roof will provide shelter from sun and rain for those visiting Edinburgh Place, and seating for those waiting for transport along Lung Wu Road.

Where should Queen’s Pier return? Vote -Click here!

我們建議在大會堂附近重置皇后碼頭(選址在最接近原址的位置) :

1. 節省最少2億公帑(除了省卻在9號與10號碼頭之間的海事工程,亦不需要在大會堂建設一個新的有蓋廣場)

2. 修復愛丁堡廣場的整體格局,包括大會堂、愛丁堡廣場、檢閱台和皇后碼頭

3. 原址重建的皇后碼頭有助香港人和旅客回顧舊有的海岸線

4. 皇后碼頭的新簷可以為愛丁堡廣場遊人或龍和道等車乘客提供坐椅和遮蔭

皇后碼頭應當何去何從立即按此支持聯署!

 

16 May

Joint statement regarding dumping and land filling by concern groups and environmental NGOs 關注團體及環保組織就傾倒泥頭和填土問題的聯署信

13072059_10153685842154397_1680669160_o

Dumping and land filling on land reserved for conservation and agricultural uses continues to impact Hong Kong’s habitats, ecology and biodiversity. Concern groups and environmental NGOs are deeply concerned over the lack of preventive and enforcement action by government against unauthorized and unintended land uses.

Today, Designing Hong Kong together with other concern groups urge government to remove the obstacles in legislation, establish a public and transparent land database and set up a Conservation Enforcement Task Force.

Joint statement by concern groups and environmental NGOs regarding dumping and land filling:

English: Joint statement regarding dumping and land filling by concern groups and environmental NGOs 

Chinese: 關注團體及環保組織就傾倒泥頭和填土問題的聯署信

 

在保育地區和農地上傾倒泥頭和填土的行為,一直影響香港的自然生境、生態及生物多樣性。關注團體及環保組織對此深切關注,但政府缺乏預防和執法的措施去阻止這些未經批准和規劃的土地用途。今日,創建香港和其他關注團體在立法會環境事務委員會討論”天水圍嘉湖山莊附近堆積泥頭及疑涉非法堆填的事宜”前,在立法會門外示威,要求政府移除就法例上的漏洞,設立公開和透明度高的數據庫及設立保育執法專責小組等。

關注團體及環保組織就傾倒泥頭和填土問題的聯署信:

英文版: Joint statement regarding dumping and land filling by concern groups and environmental NGOs

中文版: 關注團體及環保組織就傾倒泥頭和填土問題的聯署信

22 April

大嶼山可持續發展民間論壇 Lantau Sustainable Development Forum

12961645_1708827279372569_1141640647154727494_n

12961217_1708948039360493_237369745280086578_o

大嶼山發展的議題如火如荼,但當中不少爭議尚未解決,仍待民間社會多加討論。

創建香港、香港大學學生會理學會環境生命科學學會、島嶼活力行動、東涌社區發展陣線於2016年4月9日聯合舉辦論壇,邀請各方代表,並從下列三個範疇探討大嶼山發展:

• 政府提出的大嶼山發展方案會對大嶼山(尤其是南大嶼)的自然保育現狀帶來甚麼影響 ?又會為南大嶼這個人口密度低, 且蘊涵豐富生物多樣性的環境帶來甚麼的影響?
• 東大嶼都會 (中部水域人工島) 的發展基礎是甚麼? 它與香港整體的經濟社會發展策略有甚麼關聯?
• 東涌新巿鎮及擴展計劃將會帶來更多人口,相關發展會對當地和大嶼山的巿民、社區和經濟發展帶來甚麼影響?

 論壇全段紀錄 來源:SocREC社會記錄協會

主持 謝志峰

大嶼山發展策略建議

1. 黎卓豪先生-發展局首席助理秘書長(工務) 5(演講錄影簡報

2. 劉寶儀女士-規劃署總城市規劃師/策略規劃(演講錄影

第一部份:南大嶼山的保育與挑戰

1. 「大嶼山發展與保育」司馬文-創建香港行政總裁及薄扶林區區議員(演講錄影(英文)簡報

2. 「大嶼山的保育重點」劉惠寧博士-世界自然基金會香港分會副總監 (環境保護)演講錄影

公眾提問環節1(錄影

小組成員:

1. 司馬文先生-創建香港行政總裁及薄扶林區區議員

2. 劉惠寧博士-世界自然基金會香港分會副總監 (環境保護)

3. 黎卓豪先生-發展局首席助理秘書長(工務) 5

4. 林世雄先生-土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長

5. 張綺薇女士-規劃署助理署長/全港

第二部份:中部水域東大嶼都會的發展

1. 「從東北土地發展看大嶼山規劃」陳劍青 -本土研究社成員(演講錄影

2. 「香港需要東大嶼都會嗎?」任憲邦博士 -南大嶼關注組成員(演講錄影簡報

3. 「東大嶼都會怎樣與南大嶼結合?」Merrin Pearse -島嶼活力行動主席(演講錄影(英文)簡報

第三部份:東涌的經濟和就業機會

1. 「東涌新巿鎮擴展-經濟和就業」譚燕萍女士-規劃署 西貢及離島規劃專員(演講錄影簡報

2. 「大嶼山可持續發展」哈永安-大嶼山發展聯盟創會主席(演講錄影簡報

3. 「東涌的經濟和就業機會」趙羡婷(趙姑娘)-東涌社區發展陣線計劃主任(演講錄影

公眾提問環節2(錄影

小組成員:

1. 陳劍青先生 -本土研究社成員

2.趙羡婷女士(趙姑娘)-東涌社區發展陣線計劃主任

3. 哈永安先生-大嶼山發展聯盟創會主席

4. 任憲邦博士 -南大嶼關注組成員

5. 黎卓豪先生-發展局首席助理秘書長(工務) 5

6.林世雄先生-土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長

7. 張綺薇女士-規劃署助理署長/全港

8. 劉俊傑先生土木工程拓展署土木工程處副處長(海港及土地)

9. 劉寶儀女士-規劃署總城市規劃師/策略規劃

10 譚燕萍女士-規劃署 西貢及離島規劃專員

 

Designing Hong Kong, Environmental Life Science Society, SS, HKUSU, Living Islands Movement and Tung Chung Community Development Alliance have launched a “Lantau Sustainable Development Forum” on 9 April 2016.

The objective of the forum is to focus on three specific areas of the Lantau development plan. 

- First, what is the environmental and natural conservation impact of the plan on the areas of Lantau with low population density and rich in biodiversity? 

- Second, what are the basis, implications, and relationship of the East Lantau Metropolis and Hong Kong’s development strategy?

- Third, what is the human, social and economic impact of the plans on dense populated urban areas of Tung Chung? 

The exchange of information and views in the forum provided input for debates and assist with establishing policies, planning guidelines, and a decision-making framework for the conservation and development of Lantau.

Full Recording (Source: SocREC)

Host: Tse Chi Fung Joseph

Proposed Development Strategy for Lantau

1. Mr. Lai Cheuk Ho, Principal Assistant Secretary (Works)5, Development Bureau

(Video Recording, Powerpoint Presentation)

2. Miss Winnie Lau, Chief Town Planner/Strategic Planning, Planning Department

(Video Recording)

Part One: South Lantau Conservation Plan and Challenge

1. “Lantau development pressure and conservation”, Paul Zimmerman , CEO of Designing Hong Kong and District Councillor of Pokfulam (Video Recording , Powerpoint presentation)

2. “Conservation priorities of Lantau”, Dr Michael Lau, Assistant Director (Conservation) of WWF-Hong Kong (Video Recording)

Q&A on the topic of “South Lantau Conservation Plan and Challenge” (Video Recording)

Panelists

(1)Mr. PaulZimmerman, CEO of Designing Hong Kong and District Councillor of Pokfulam

(2) Dr MichaelLau, Assistant Director (Conservation) of WWF-Hong Kong

(3) Mr. Lai Cheuk Ho, Principal Assistant Secretary (Works)5, Development Bureau

(4) Mr. LAM Sai Hung, Project Manager (HK Island & Islands), Civil Engineering and Development Department

(5) Ms. Amy Cheung, Assistant Director of Planning/Territorial

Part Two: Development of East Lantau Metropolis in the Central Waters

1. “Understanding Lantau development through “Northeast papers””, Mr. Chan Kim Ching, member of Liber Research Community (Video Recording

2.  “East Lantau Metropolis:  Does Hong Kong Need it?”, Dr Tom Yam, member of South Lantau Concern group  (Video Recording , Powerpoint Presentation

3. “How will ELM integrate with South Lantau?”, Dr Merrin Pearse, Chairman of Living Islands Movement (Video Recording , Powerpoint Presentation

Part Three: Tung Chung Economy and Employment Opportunities

1. “Tung Chung New Town Extension – Economic and Employment”, Ms. Donna Tam, District Planning Officer/Sai Kung & Islands, Planning DepartmentVideo Recording, Powerpoint Presentation)

2. “Lantau Sustainable Development”, Mr. Allen Ha , the Founding Chairman of Lantau Development AllianceVideo RecordingPowerpoint Presentation

3. “Tung Chung Economy and Employment Opportunities”, Ms Chiu Sin Ting, Project Manager of Tung Chung Community(Video Recording

 Q&A on the topic of “Development of East Lantau Metropolis in the Central Waters” and “Tung Chung Economy and Employment Opportunities”

Video Recording

Panelists

1. Mr. Chan Kim Ching, member of Liber Research Community

2. Ms Chiu Sin Ting, Project Manager of Tung Chung Community

3. Mr. Allen Ha , the Founding Chairman of Lantau Development Alliance

4. Dr Tom Yam, member of South Lantau Concern group

5. Mr. Lai Cheuk Ho, Principal Assistant Secretary (Works)5, Development Bureau

6.  Mr. LAM Sai Hung, Project Manager (HK Island & Islands), Civil Engineering and Development Department

7.  Ms. Amy Cheung, Assistant Director of Planning/Territorial

8. Mr. Ricky Lau, Deputy Head of Civil Engineering Office ( Port & Land ), Civil Engineering and Development Department

9. Miss. Winnie Lau, Chief Town Planner/Strategic Planning, PlanningDepartment

10. Ms. Donna Tam, District Planning Officer/Sai Kung & Islands, PlanningDepartment

 

18 April
8 April

「先發展無保育」 大嶼山勢變醜小鴨 環團促先有保育方案及交通限制 (新聞稿)Develop first, No conservation Lantau will be an Ugly Duckling Green groups urge for implementation of conservation plan and traffic restriction first (Press Release)

P4080033 (3) (002)

(新聞稿)

「先發展無保育」 大嶼山勢變醜小鴨
環團促先有保育方案及交通限制

多個環保團體強烈反對在大嶼山進行任何大型發展,如東大嶼都會和策略性道路系統,並要求政府發展大嶼山時,要以保育作為最優先的原則,促請政府實施環團建議的一系列保育措施(包括交通管制),以捍衞大嶼山豐富的生物多樣性和人與自然的緊密關係。

2016年1月,大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的第一期工作報告已呈交給政府部門。這份報告提出大量天馬行空和未經評估的發展項目,如東大嶼都會、超大規模的策略性道路系統和大量旅遊設施,包括在大東山上建立觀星和觀景的設施。以上提議的發展項目將會對生態和當地社區帶來災難性的影響,並會破壞大嶼山寧靜的環境和壯麗的景觀。

大嶼山因着其獨特位置,有着豐富及多元的自然生境,包括低窪濕地、山地草原、淡水河流和海洋軟珊瑚等,當中孕育着許多稀有和瀕危的物種,如中華白海豚、馬蹄蟹、喜鹽草、盧文氏樹蛙、素雅灰蝶、香魚、褐魚鴞。最難能可貴的是人和大自然能夠緊密共存,其中大嶼山的牛科動物便因其和居民的和諧關係,被聯合國教科文組織接納為「人文價值景觀遺產」,可見大嶼山絕對是大家的自然寶庫。

可是,這份報告表面上支持可持續發展,卻沒有提出積極的保育措施。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會甚至提議放寬限制道路的交通管制,建立一個策略性的道路系統,以連接港島西、南大嶼、北大嶼和新界西北。這些措施將為地主帶來錯誤的期望,增加當地的發展壓力,阻礙在大嶼山推行任何保育計劃和行動,尤其是那些沒有發展審批地區圖覆蓋,而政府又不能執法的鄉郊地帶,如南大嶼和部分北大嶼地區。結果,在這些沒有納入發展審批地區圖,而沒法檢控入罪的私人土地,生態破壞已不斷蔓延,甚至連貝澳這個具重要生態價值的濕地亦無法倖免。­­­­­

自然資源並不只是屬於我們,也屬於我們的下一代。胡亂開發、缺乏管制及有效的保育措施,將會迅速破壞大嶼山這個自然寶庫,並令政府所承諾的可持續發展成為空談。

因此,多個環保團體敦請政府部門推行一系列的保育措施:

1. 在任何擬議發展前,制定全面的運輸和交通策略,透過交通管制減低違例發展的經濟誘因,避免擬議的發展超出環境承載量;

2. 修改《城市規劃條例》,讓發展審批地區圖能夠覆蓋南大嶼和黃龍坑,賦予規劃署能執法能力,並繼續加快將北大嶼餘下沒有法定管制的地區,如䃟頭、沙螺灣和深屈等納入發展審批地區圖,以提供法定保護;

3. 所有在大嶼山的發展計劃均應納入現時進行中的「香港2030+:跨越2030年的規劃遠景與策略」,並為所有擬議和計劃中的發展項目進行全面的策略性環境評估;

4. 在生態敏感地區設立不可發展地區,並實施有效的保育管理計劃。

針對東大嶼都會和其相關的交通和運輸策略,環團想特別指出:
1. 任何新的道路建設需要有充分理據,並須就其環境影響、成本效益和公眾利益的作出評估,以及進行公眾諮詢;

2. 環團反對現時建議的東大嶼都會和連接港島西、南大嶼、北大嶼和新界西北的策略性道路系統。因為東大嶼都會需要進行大規模填海工程,對海洋生態和水質造成極大影響,而策略性道路系統則會入侵郊野公園和許多生態敏感地區,為南大嶼,尤其是梅窩,帶來龐大的發展壓力,並會增加在附近水域航運的船隻流量,危害漁業資源和鯨科動物;

3. 東大嶼都會和策略性道路系統的建設沒有得到充分的理據支持,需要動用龐大資金,很可能成為新一個大白象工程。

多個環團亦發起網上聯署平台,鼓勵公眾就大嶼山發展向政府部門發表意見:
(英文網址: https://www.designinghongkong.com/forms/view.php?id=64298)
(中文網址:https://www.designinghongkong.com/forms/view.php?id=64884)

環團所列在大嶼山不同地區具重要保育價值的物種/生境(以英文版為準)
英文網址:Lantau green groups joint letter – appendix
中文網址:Lantau joint letter – appendix_final_ chinese

聯署團體(依筆劃序):
大嶼山愛護水牛協會
世界自然基金會香港分會
長春社
香港觀鳥會
香港海豚保育學會
島嶼活動行動
創建香港
綠色力量

(Press Release)

Develop first, No conservation
Lantau will be an Ugly Duckling
Green groups urge for implementation of conservation plan and traffic restriction first

Green groups strongly object to any large-scale development such as East Lantau Metropolis and the strategic road systems and request the government to make conservation the top priority for Lantau development, to safeguard the rich biodiversity and the close relationship between humans and nature on Lantau. The groups have presented a list of conservation measures (including traffic restriction) it urges the government to implement.

The First-term Work Report made by Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) has been submitted to the Administration on January 2016.

This report proposed massive, “creative” and unassessed developments such as East Lantau Metropolis, super large-scale strategic road systems and numerous tourism facilities including viewing and stargazing facilities for the Sunset Peak. The proposed developments will have disastrous impacts on the ecosystem and the local community, and destroy the tranquil environment and magnificent landscape of Lantau.

Because of its unique location, Lantau has rich and diversified natural habitats such as low-lying wetlands, montane grasslands, freshwater streams and soft coral marine habitats. These habitats breed many rare and endangered species such as Chinese White Dolphin, Horseshoe Crab, Oval Halophila, Romer’s Tree Frog, Common Cerulean, Ayu Sweetfish and Brown Fish Owl. The most valuable thing is that human can live with nature closely. Bovine on Lantau was accepted as “heritage and landscape as human values” by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for harmonic human-bovid relationship. This can show Lantau is definitely a nature treasure for us.

However, this First-term Work Report claims to support sustainable development but no positive conservation measure is proposed. LanDAC even proposes to relax the traffic restriction on closed roads, and establish a strategic road network connecting west of Hong Kong Island, South Lantau, North Lantau and North West of New Territories.

These measures would increase the development pressure by giving false hope to land owners, hindering any conservation plans and actions on Lantau, especially in ecologically sensitive rural areas where there is no Development Permission Area (DPA) plan and no statutory protection could be done by government, such as South Lantau and part of North Lantau. As a result, eco-vandalism has long been proliferating with impunity on private land without DPA plans, even in ecologically important wetlands like Pui O.

Our natural environment does not belong to us alone, but the next generations. Reckless development without appropriate controls and active conservation measures will quickly destroy the natural treasure of Lantau and lead to a failure of promised “sustainable development.”

Hence, green groups urge the Administration to implement a list of conservation measures:

1. Before any proposed development, develop a comprehensive transport and traffic strategy and restrict traffic to reduce the economic incentive for unauthorized developments and prevent proposed development from exceeding environmental carrying capacity;

2. Amend the Town Planning Ordinance to allow itself to cover South Lantau and Wong Lung Hang WITH DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION AREA PLANS, offering enforcement powers for the Planning Department and continue to speed up the process of DPA plan covering on the remaining lands of Lantau such as San Tau, Sha Lo Wan and Sham Wat, which have no statutory control, to provide statutory protection

3. Include any development plans on Lantau in the on-going “Hong Kong 2030+ Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030” study and carry out a comprehensive Strategic Environmental Assessment for endorsement of all the proposed and planned developments on Lantau.

4. Set up NO-GO areas for ecologically sensitive areas and implement active conservation management plan

Regarding to East Lantau Metropolis and associated traffic and transport strategy, green groups highlight:

1. New roads should be well justified, assessed (in the context of environmental impacts, cost effectiveness and public interest), and the public should be consulted before.

2. Green groups object to the proposed East Lantau Metropolis which will create significant impact on marine ecosystem and water quality and strategic road system connecting west of Hong Kong Island, South Lantau, North Lantau and northern-west of New Territories, which will cut through the country parks and ecologically sensitive areas, and create significant development pressure in South Lantau especially Mui Wo and drastically increase vessel traffic in the surrounding waters and threaten fisheries resources and cetaceans

3. The construction of East Lantau Metropolis and the associated strategic road system is not well-justified and will cost a huge amount of money, having a very high potential to become new white elephant project.

Green groups have also launched an online petition platform to motivate the public to express their opinion on Lantau development to the Administration:
(Website: https://www.designinghongkong.com/forms/view.php?id=64298)

Key species/habitats of conservation concern in different areas of Lantau
Website:Lantau green groups joint letter – appendix

Co-signatories (in alphabetical order):
Designing Hong Kong
Green Power
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society
Lantau Buffalo Association
Living Islands Movememt
The Conservancy Association
WWF Hong Kong

 

5 April

Protect HK’s nature. BSAP Consultation deadline 7 April 2016 保護香港自然生態 《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》諮詢4月7日截止

bsap enews

(中文往下)

Government is preparing a Biodiversity Action and Strategy Plan.

The objective is to better safeguard Hong Kong’s biodiversity, and to contribute to safeguarding the world’s biodiversity.

Our concern is the absence of a comprehensive debate.

Hong Kong’s land supply strategy and conserving biodiversity need to be looked at as one and not two discussions in separate rooms.

There is also an urgent need to reform legislation to protect habitats on private land, as proven by the ongoing land filling and tree felling throughout rural areas and country parks.

The BSAP consultation will conclude mid-nite 7 Apr 2016.

Below are links to the Government website as well as suggestions and form letters to aid your timely response.

 

Designing Hong Kong form letter for your use. 

Click here: 

An effective Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (by Paul Zimmerman, CEO of Designing Hong Kong)

 

Other Petitions

1. WWF – Hong Kong – Petition for an effective BASP (English)

2. Conservancy Association – Express your opinion about BASP (Chinese only)

3. Kadoorie Farm& Botanic Garden – A Better World: Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (English)

4. Land Justice petition to United Nations Environment Programme/The Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat- Protect Hong Kong’ Biodiversity NOW(English and Chinese)

 

References

1. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department – Public Consultation – Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP) for Hong Kong (English)

2. Presentations Public forum – BSAP: Charting a sustainable future for Hong Kong – held on 19 March.

Introduction 

Why HK needs BSAP? 

Convention on Biodiversity

Sustainable use

Land

Water

 

政府正在制訂《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》。

計劃的目標是保護香港的生物多樣性,由此為保護全球的生物多樣性作出貢獻。

但我們擔心有關的計劃缺乏共同的辯論。

香港的土地供應策略和生物多樣性的保育需要作為一個整體看待,不可能分開討論。

同時,我們急須修改法例去保障私人土地上的生境,以阻止現時在鄉郊和郊野公園發生傾倒和斬樹的破壞情況。

《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》將於4月7日晚上11:59分前截止。

附註的網址是政府相關網頁和各個環團和關注團體的建議和聯署信,希望各位能及時回應。

 

創建香港就《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》發起的聯署

按此:

An effective Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (by Paul Zimmerman, CEO of Designing Hong Kong)

 

其他聯署

1. 世界自然基金會-香港分會-把握關鍵時機!為環境保育加把勁!(中文)

2. 長春社-向漁護署表達你對《香港生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》的意見(中文)

3. 嘉道理農場暨植物園-《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》公眾諮詢(中文)

4. 土地正義聯盟向聯合國環境規劃署/生物多樣性公約秘書處發出的聯署信-保護生物多樣性(英文及中文)

 

參考資

1. 漁農自然護理署-公眾諮詢-香港《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》(中文)

2. 公眾論壇的演講「《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》—計劃香港的永續藍圖」(3月19日)

簡介

為何香港需要《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》?

生物多樣性的保育

可持續運用自然資源

土地

水體

2 March

Online Survey: Electronic Road Pricing
意見調查:電子道路收費

 

dhk-ERP-Pic-v3

Online Survey Findings 網上意見調查報告

調查日期 Survey period
2/3/2016 – 15/3/2016

We have received 375 responses to our survey. 期間共收到375份回覆。

dhk erp survey 1

 

 

dhk erp survey 2

Detailed report, please click the link below. 請按以下連結瀏覽全份意見調查報告。

DHK ERP survey report 16 March 2016

 

 

 

 

17/3/2016

 

 

 

————————————-
The government is consulting the public on its proposed pilot scheme for electronic road pricing in Central. (Click here for the public engagement document).

The deadline for comments is 18 March 2016.

Do you support the proposal? Object? Any views on the details? You can write to Government directly, or take part in our online survey (link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZ5DQ9S). Our office will consolidate and report the responses to the government.

In the meantime, please find below our CEO Paul Zimmerman’s personal view as published in Southside magazine – in short Paul proposes there is no charging for the use of Connaught/Gloucester Road Corridor, but for the use of the inner areas only.

Let us know your views.

政府正就中環電子道路收費先導計劃進行公眾諮詢。公眾諮詢截止日期為2016年3月18日。
諮詢文件:連結

你支持或反對道路收費計劃?你可直接向政府發表意見,或參與我們的網上意見調查(連結:https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VZ5DQ9S)。我們會整合意見並向政府反映大家的睇法。

我們的行政總裁司馬文早前於Southside雜誌的專欄發表了他的個人意見。簡單而言,他建議干諾道及告士打道不設收費,收費區應設於中環的內街。

歡迎大家發表意見。

 

Southside Magazine – March 2016

2016-03-SS issuu

28 February

Zoning Pak Sha O for illegal development

(Photo credit: Conservancy Association) 

Protect Pak Sha O – Click and object to zoning:http://protectskpso.weebly.com/

Deadline for comments is 4 February.

We urge you to help the Conservancy Association protect the cultural and architectural landscape and ecology of Pak Sha O, a historic hakka village located in the Sai Kung West Country Park. 

In December 2015, a draft Outline Zoning Plan (S/NE-PSO/1) was published for public consultation. It shows where small house developments will be permitted. Surprisingly, it is exactly the land already sold to Xinhua Bookstore Xiang Jiang Group Limited. The Planning Department says that they are responding to villagers’ claims that a large area is needed for small house developments. 

But their demand is highly suspect. Records show that villagers sold their agricultural land to Xinhua some 5 years ago. Records also show that recently Xinhua “sold back” the land to villagers who have “ding rights”. Are these villagers acting as frontmen for the developer? Is the demand for small houses genuine or simply a scheme for development profits?

It is a mystery as to why the Planning Department is aiding and abetting this obvious frontmen scheme recently found to be illegal by the District Court. The boundaries of the area the Planning Department is proposing for small houses is near exact the land bought by Xinhua!

We call on the community to object to this blatant development scheme. Help the Conservancy Association by completing the on-line form http://protectskpso.weebly.com/

Just a coincidence? The visual above shows the land bought by Xinhua (pink areas), the land subsequently sold back to villagers in whose names recently applications were submitted for small houses (red dots), and the boundary (brown line) of the proposed v-zone, the area where construction of small houses would be permitted in the future if the Town Planning Board approves the proposal form the Planning Department. 

For more information, please see on-line reports (in Chinese) from the Conservancy Association:

立場新聞丁屋地倍增 白沙澳談什麼「可以居」?

Protect Pak Sha O– Click and object to zoning: 

http://protectskpso.weebly.com/