9 November

The battle for country parks is not yet won郊野公園的抗爭仍長路漫漫

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The battle for country parks is not yet won

Afforestation was an urgent task after the war. The Colony was almost entirely deforested. As vegetation became denser the need to arrest fires and litter grew. So also did the voices for nature conservation, public education and recreation in the forests.

The call to establish a ‘national parks’ scheme was answered by colonial governor Murray MacLehose in 1974, with one newspaper reporting the installation of ‘150 tables for picnickers, 135 benches, 110 barbecue pits and 600 litter bins.’ The Country Parks Ordinance was enacted in 1976 and the Country Parks Regulations in 1977. MacLehose was in a hurry: ‘In four years’ time, there will be about 20 parks covering all the open countryside.’

To expedite the designation, some 77 enclaves of private land inside the parks were excluded from the legislation. Most elderly continued subsistence farming in these small and remote villages for some years while their offspring left for factories in Kwun Tong and Tsuen Wan or went overseas.

Access was mostly on foot or by sampan. The few accessible villages close to Sai Kung developed with small houses under the 1972 policy. They became a popular choice for expats including retirees and pilots (before Kai Tak closed). Fast forward, in 1992 the Sha Lo Tung judicial review stopped a golf course development in this enclave famous for butterfly colonies. A six-year long campaign started in 2000 to hold off the creation of a zone for 370 houses at the Tai Long Wan beach enclave.

Sporadic unauthorised development at enclaves culminated in condemnation when the government failed to act on extensive land clearing behind the beach of Tai Long Sai Wan in the summer of 2010. The public demanded protection of the country parks and strengthening of development control. Recognising the enclaves as part of the country parks would put development under the strict Country Park Regulations Ordinance. Land owners, egged on by the Heung Yee Kuk, objected aggressively.

In 2014, the Government excluded their own advisors, the Country and Marine Parks Board, from its decision not to incorporate the village enclaves Hoi Ha, Pak Lap, So Lo Pun, To Kwa Peng, Pak Tam Au and Tin Fu Tsai into Country Parks.

Government did not go further than zoning the enclaves under the Town Planning Ordinance. This offers minimal protection. It does not provide for management or adequate enforcement powers.

On 12 October this year, the Court of Final Appeal ruled otherwise – the Save Our Country Parks Alliance won. The Government is ordered to go back to the Country and Marine Parks Board. Question is now – will they stop the rot and take control over the enclaves? The battle to protect our country parks has yet to be won.

(Based on ‘The battle for country parks is not yet won’ by Paul Zimmerman published in Southside Magazine, 1 November 2020)

郊野公園的抗爭仍長路漫漫

戰後初時,殖民地的植被頓成廢墟,植樹成為一時之急。當森林郊區回復原貌,樹木長回茂盛,撲滅山火的需要以及山野垃圾的數量卻與日俱增,郊區保育、康樂活動及公民教育的聲音亦隨之出現。

1974 年,時任港督麥理浩回應訴求,設立類似「國家公園」的規劃大綱,同期亦有報章報導在郊野公園為行山客安裝 150 張枱、135 長櫈、110 個燒烤爐及 600 個垃圾桶的消息。郊野公園條例及郊野公園規例分別在 1976 年及 1977 年通過立法,而麥對此顯然感到不足,並指出在四年內將會有約20個郊野公園遍布郊區。

為加快立法進度,約 77 個位於郊野公園範圍內,屬私人擁有的「不包括土地」獲得豁免。這些土地擁有者中多為長者,他們把這些土地發展成村落並繼續耕作,其子嗣則選擇到城市的工廠尋找工作機會,或到海外發展。這些村落大多只能步行前往,或以舢舨進入。其中小數如西貢等則因 1972 年的政策發展成丁屋群,在啟德停用前,它們是外籍退休人士及機師的熱門居住地方。

1992 年的沙螺洞司法覆核案阻止在這個蝴蝶棲息地興建高爾夫球場,在 2000 年開展的長達六年的抗爭亦成功否決在大浪灣沙灘周邊的「不包括土地」興建 370 間房屋的計劃。然而,2010 年夏天,政府對大浪西灣沙灘後方的土地清理行為視而不見,零星的違例發展達至高峰。社會大眾要求保護郊野公園,並進一步管制發展開發行為,其一方向就是藉把「不包括土地」納入郊野公園範圍,實施嚴格的發展要求限制。作為地主之一,視鄉郊土地為金蛋的鄉議局,想當然作出強烈反對。

2014 年,政府於未有依法諮詢郊野公園委員會的情況下選擇不把海下、白腊、鎖羅盆、土瓜坪、北潭凹及田夫仔等鄉郊的「不包括土地」納入郊野公園範圍。這顯然未能充分保護「不包括土地」,亦未能為管理及執法提供足夠權力。

今年 10 月 12 日,終審法院判決保衛郊野公園大聯盟勝訴,政府需回到郊野公園及海岸公園委員會重新審視決定。問題是,政府會否下定決心奪回「不包括土地」的掌控權?保護郊野公園的抗爭尚未成功,同志們仍須努力。

9 November

“Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail” has been passed in 4 District Councils「港島環島徑」獲得四區區議會支持

First Joint Motion Passed in 4 DC: Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail

Four district council representatives, Paul Zimmerman, Michael Pang Cheuk-kei ( Southern District Council), Cherry Wong Kin-ching, Sam YIP Kam-lung (Central and Western District Council), Clarisse Yeung Suet-ying, Cathy Yau Man-shan (Wanchai District Council) and Kelly Chan Po-king, Andrew Chiu Ka-yin, Cheung tat-hung and Wei Siu-lik (Eastern District Council) gathered at the Aldrich Bay Promenade today (7 Nov) to urge for collaboration between District Councils, NGOs and Government to implement the “Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail”.

Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail – 65km trail with over 70 points of interest
The joint motion adopted unanimously in the four district councils of Hong Kong Island urges government to link existing promenades, footpaths and trails into a 65-kilometre long Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail.
The route covers over seventy points of interest including historic and tourist sites, beaches and waterfronts, urban and nature trails. The trail offers easy access for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. Many will be attracted to explore sections, while others may try to complete the route in one day. Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail will encourage more people to walk improving public health and enjoyment of the city. For more details see: www.coastaltrail.hk

First ever joint motion by District Councils
The greater length of the route is in place. However, some missing links and improvements are needed.
Some of the improvements overlap district boundaries. This first ever joint motion gained support across all councils, and across all political backgrounds. With coordination by the Home Affairs Bureau of the relevant departments the trail can be completed and enhanced with coherent signage, seats, water-fountains and a pet-friendly policy.

Community Initiative
The trail is a bottom-up policy initiative and responds to proposals from members of the public. A recent online survey shows that 80% of 1,200 respondents support the improvements proposed to create a coherent trail around the island as close as possible to the waterfront. Many respondents offered valuable suggestions to enhance the appeal of the route for residents and visitors.

What’s next?
The District Councils will work to encourage government to provide the resources, funding and coordination required to implement the Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail. In the meantime, we welcome suggestions, proposals, photos and stories from the community for the different sections. In the long term, we will work on a route for cyclists, and develop concepts for other trails to be enhanced for public enjoyment. We will also help other district councils with development of trails in other areas including a Tsing Yi Coastal Trail, a Kowloon Victoria Harbour Route and a North District Ecological Trail.

Need your support
To support our research and advocacy work, please make donations.

Method 1 – Cheque
Please make the cheque payable to “Designing Hong Kong Limited and send it to 21/F,  Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 25 Wing Wo Street, Central, Hong Kong

Method 2- Bank Transfer
Please make your transfer to HSBC 808-347553-001 under the name of Designing Hong Kong Limited.

Enquries
Ms Cindy Li ([email protected] )

WhatsApp Image 2020-11-07 at 11.30.00 AM

WhatsApp Image 2020-11-07 at 11.32.01 AMWhatsApp Image 2020-11-07 at 12.19.47 PMWhatsApp Image 2020-11-07 at 11.03.42 AM

trailwatch

四區區議會代表,包括司馬文、 彭卓棋 (南區區議會代表)、黃健菁、 葉錦龍 (中西區區議會代表)、 楊雪盈 、邱汶珊 (灣仔區議會代表)和陳寶琼、 趙家賢 、 鄭達鴻 、韋少力 (東區區議會代表)於今日11月7日在愛秩序灣海濱(近東區法院大樓)倡議更多跨區議會、跨政府部門及與不同民間機構的合作機會,改善社區,完善港島環島徑。

港島環島徑長65公里,沿途有70多個景點
環島徑沿途包括古蹟、沙灘、海濱、行山徑等七十多個景點。不同年齡層同能力的居民及遊客都可以隨時享受環島徑,喜愛挑戰的人士更可以嘗試一日完成全程65公里。「港島環島徑」途徑多個社區,市民能夠輕易到達。透過改善港島的行人網絡,可以鼓勵更多人步行去推廣健康的生活習慣。詳情請參閱:www.coastaltrail.hk

首次跨區共同支持議案
雖然絕大部份的路線已經完成,但是還有不少路段需要改善。有些路段更是兩區重疊,需要跨區處理。是次的動議獲得跨區及跨黨派的支持,期望民政局及相關部門能盡快協調,使環島徑能連接起所有路段,完善沿途配套設施如:安裝統一的標示、增設無障礙和寵物友善路線、增加座椅、水機等。

社區主導
是次環島徑是由下而上的政策主導,由市民提供寶貴的意見。根據網上調查,超過1200位受訪者中接近80%都支持環島徑的改善建議,他們亦期望路線越接近海岸越好,最終居民和旅客能享受環島遊的樂趣。

下一步?
我們會繼續聯同各區區議員及政府相關部門合作,尋找資金和資源建立港島環島徑。同時,我們誠邀各位市民提供更多建議、方案、圖片及沿島的都市故事,好讓我們深化這個本地遊。長遠而言,我們亦會設計單車路段,發掘香港其他行山路線。藉着是次的經驗,我們鼓勵其他區發掘新路線,例如青衣環島徑、九龍維港徑及北區生態徑。

支持我們
你亦可以參與更多!告訴我們你對港島環島徑的意見,我們樂意聽取你分享沿途的風光和故事。如有任何相關的相片,請電郵至 [email protected]

要繼續推行更多計劃,創建香港有賴你的支持。請捐款支持我們的研究及宣傳工作。捐款方法如下:

方法一 – 支票捐款

請於支票抬頭寫「Designing Hong Kong Limited」,並郵寄至中環永和街25號俊和商業中心21樓。

方法二 – 銀行轉帳

請轉帳至匯豐銀行帳戶號碼808-347553-001(帳戶持有人姓名為Designing Hong Kong Limited)。

查詢
李穎妍小姐 ([email protected])

9 November

Missing Seats 邊度冇凳坐?

The shortfall of public seating is obvious at bus stops where people place their own plastic chairs. People having their meal while sitting on the ground during the Covid-19 dining-in ban was another stark reminder. More public seats will make our city friendlier, more sustainable and healthier. Especially elderly will be able to walk further and forego a vehicular trip if they know there is a place to rest.

In 2015, Designing Hong Kong (DHK) campaigned for more seating . Of the 3,000 covered bus stops only 200 had seats. Most of the uncovered bus and minibus stops have no seats at all. In response, Government earmarked $88.27 million in the 2016 Policy Address for bus companies to install seats at about 2,600 covered bus stops and real-time bus arrival information display panels at about 1,300 bus stops.

However, the progress is slow. You will notice the orange seats only at a few bus stops. The program should have been completed by 2019 . The amount disbursed so far to bus companies is about $10.4 million. Currently, seats have been installed only at 1,670 covered stops and display panels at 430 due to site, geographical and electricity supply constraints. Location details can be found here  (Scroll to 2017).

It is time to review the subsidy scheme: How do we get more seats? Should we relax the requirements? Should we rethink the designs? We propose that District Councils urge Government to enhance, expand and speed up the program for the installation of seats.

Where do you want / need more seats?

Where do you want / need seats to be added in your constituency? Which bus stops and transport interchanges? Which harbourfronts? Which streets? Which public venues? Let us know: [email protected] We will create a “Missing Seats Report” and push government for funding more public seats.

Southern District Uses District Minor Works for more seats

In the Southern District, we are now pursuing the installation of moveable benches. Seats with a cover require an underground foundation. Moving underground utilities can cause long delays.

For further input and ideas, please contact us at [email protected]

Let’s collaborate for more public seats!
seat 1bad example

new seats

每當你看到巴士站有自備膠凳,這正表示是公共座椅不足的問題。就像在新冠肺炎禁止堂食期間,用餐的人席地而坐,再次提醒我們這個既嚴酷又不人道的問題。公共座椅會使我們的城市更友善、更宜居、更可持續地發展。尤其是對長者而言,當他們知道有可休憩的設施,就寧願多步行,減少依賴車輛。

2015年,創建香港倡議增設公共座椅。全港有8,000多個巴士站,有蓋巴士站佔有3,000 個, 當中僅200個有座椅。大部份露天巴士站和小巴站均沒有座椅。為此,政府在2016年《施政报告》中預留了8,827萬港元,讓巴士公司在約2,600個有蓋巴士站安裝座椅,並在約1,300個巴士站安裝實時到站資訊顯示屏。

然而,計劃進展緩慢,該計劃本應在2019年完成。然而,到目前為止,巴士公司只收取約1,040萬元的資助。由於地理環境和電力供應的限制,政府只在1,670個有蓋巴士站完成加裝橙色座椅,並只能安裝430個顯示屏。各區巴士站座椅的分佈,可參閱運輸署網頁 (2017年)

是時候檢視這個資助計劃:我們如何提供更多公共座椅?我們是否需要放寬安裝座椅的要求?是否需要更多嶄新的設計?我們建議區議會敦促政府加強,擴展安裝座椅計劃。

你的選區需要更多座椅嗎?

除了巴士站和交通交匯處外,海濱?街道?還是其他公共地方?
請通知我們:[email protected]
我們將會製作一份「邊度冇凳坐?報告」,推動政府關注公共地方座椅不足的情況。

南區區議會申請地區小型工程安裝座椅

有蓋的車站通常需要有地基支撐座椅,故申請及製作需時,可以考慮仿效南區區議會,他們正在申請可移動的長凳。

其他的意見和建議,請聯絡 [email protected]

讓我們共同努力創建宜居城市!

30 October

Understanding the economies of Hong Kong’s districts 發展香港地區經濟

With jobless numbers rapidly rising, there is an urgent need for Hong Kong’s district councillors to focus on the economies of their constituencies.

We produced a booklet offering basic information on jobs, industries and their locations.  Download here
香港失業數字越來越高,區議員有迫切需要關注地區經濟。
小冊子提供了18區工作,行業及公司位置等基本資料,歡迎下載

booklet

地區經濟:18區機構數目及就業人數 Jobs and Establishments in 19 Districts  (2019年數據 Data in 2019 )
Published Date 出版日期: 30/10/2020
Pages 頁數: 60

URL: http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Summary-of-District-Economy-DHK.pdfWorking with District Councillors throughout Hong Kong

This video briefly explains the booklet and how the information can be used to identify new growth opportunities, taking Southern District as an example.
我們亦準備了短片,簡介小冊子及如何用數據分析地區經濟(以南區為例)。

Presentation slides 短片簡報片
aberdeen

 

19 October

Trash Talk- waste charging scheme 電台訪問:垃圾徵費條例

Paul Zimmerman: ‘… recycling materials are not high value but they are high cost once they get into the waste system. The landfills are full. Do we need new landfill? If yes, then where is the land? Is it going to be country parks? People don’t realize waste charging has lots of implications …’

司馬文:回收物的價值不高,但它們一旦進入廢物鏈或堆填區,它們的成本卻很高。堆填區快將滿。我們需要新的堆填區嗎?如果是,那土地來源哪裏來?是郊野公園嗎?很多人沒有意識到垃圾徵費其實隱含着極大的意義……

https://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item.php?pid=1432&lang=zh-CN
trash talk

Support waste charging and improve municipal solid waste management

Please join our Petition: https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en

徵費、源頭分類、回收
三大元素,決一不可

要有效解決每日人均垃圾棄置量,請聯署支持垃圾徵費

https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=%E6%94%B9%E5%96%84%E9%83%BD%E5%B8%82%E5%9B%BA%E9%AB%94%E5%BB%A2%E7%89%A9%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86

18 October

Support waste charging and improve municipal solid waste management 支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善城市固體廢物管理

https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en
Waste Levy, Source Separation, Recycling – 3 elements, not one less.

We urge the Government to consider the suggested key actions in 2020 Policy Address with the aims of improving and support the municipal solid waste management and recycling in Hong Kong.

Please sign our petition so we can reduce the volume of daily disposal of garbage.

徵費、源頭分類、回收
三大元素,決一不可

我們敦促政府通過廢物回收和公眾教育,支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善城市固體廢物管理。

要有效解決每日人均垃圾棄置量,請支持聯署

區議員聯署:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdfolxAs44alWP0_dRCEAg_HS9gLB5s9MJA_sMXHDLqYr0LkA/viewform

16 October

聯署支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善都市固體廢物管理 Let’s approve municipal solid waste charging

徵費、源頭分類、回收
三大元素,決一不可

議員聯署https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdfolxAs44alWP0_dRCEAg_HS9gLB5s9MJA_sMXHDLqYr0LkA/viewform
公眾聯署https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=%E6%94%B9%E5%96%84%E9%83%BD%E5%B8%82%E5%9B%BA%E9%AB%94%E5%BB%A2%E7%89%A9%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86

3elementsWhatsApp Image 2020-10-16 at 3.53.22 PM
政府曾在2013年制定目標,務求「在2022年將每日人均垃圾棄置量減至0.8公斤」。然而,垃圾棄置量不跌反升,更在2018年創新紀錄,每日人均垃圾棄置量達到1.53公斤。現有的回收計劃無法提高回收量,例如PET膠樽的出口回收率從8.5%(2016)大幅降至0.23%(2018)。三個戰略性堆填區面臨巨大壓力,並快將於2020年代末飽和。如果再不採取行動減少都市固體廢物,我們可能只靠覓地,以容納更多焚化爐或興建第四個堆填區,甚至犧牲郊野公園土地。屆時,我們需要作出更具政治敏感的決策。

垃圾徵費是政府回收塑膠和廚餘等廢物的相關政策的關鍵。回收、源頭分類和徵費是解決都市固體廢物的三大重要元素,決一不可。對比其他司法管轄區,香港的垃圾管理已大大落後。以往很多相關政策措施都是空談。延遲推出垃圾徵費將帶來不可想像的後果。如果垃圾徵費未能在來年施政處理,則只能在3-5年後重提。都市固體廢物將無法重大改善。

為改善香港的都市固體廢物管理,政府需採取以下的策略:
1. 應用策略於每種香港都市固體廢物 (立法會資料研究組,2019年): 廚餘 (34%)、廢紙 (24%)、塑膠垃圾 (20%) 和其他垃圾 (23%);
2. 應用「污者自付」、「源頭分類」 和 「生產者責任計劃」三大政策工具及理念,以解決都市固體廢物問題;
3. 每年撥款約8 至10 億元支持本地回收業,推動不同的減廢及回收措施;
4. 把垃圾徵費所得的資金用於本地回收業,達至可持續發展;

在採取垃圾徵費同時,創建香港建議以下廚餘和塑膠回收的相關措施:

立法規管和增加設施,以支持回收和廢物管理:
1. 將廚餘回收網絡擴展至全港18個區的食環署垃圾收集站和公屋;
2. 向各區私人屋苑提供資源、經濟誘因和定期維修服務,並為承辦商員工提供培訓,以達至可持續廚餘回收;
3. 投資廚餘回收技術,為回收業創造更多職位空缺,例如物流運輸和技術支援;
4. 提升公民減廢意識,教育公眾分類廚餘;

塑膠回收
1. 擴展「塑膠可回收物料回收服務先導計劃」至全港18區,推動公眾進行回收;
2. 就即棄膠樽實施生產者責任制;
3. 檢管即棄餐具;
4. 禁止在個人護理產品中使用微塑膠;
5. 禁止使用發泡膠盒;
6. 檢管食品過度包裝;
7. 檢視現有的公共飲水機的衛生情況,務求在肺炎疫情下,巿民能安心使用飲水機,並建立公共飲水機網絡。

WhatsApp Image 2020-10-16 at 3.52.36 PMlandfill is full

Let’s approve municipal solid waste charging

Waste Levy, Source Separation, Recycling – 3 elements, not one less
DC/LC member petition:  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdfolxAs44alWP0_dRCEAg_HS9gLB5s9MJA_sMXHDLqYr0LkA/viewform

Public Petition:   https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en

Background

In 2013, the government set the goal of ‘reducing the volume of daily disposal of garbage per capita to 0.8 kg in 2022’. Yet, per capita daily disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to increase every year. A record high of 1.53kg was reached in 2018. Under the current programs, recycling fails to improve. For example the export recycling rate of PET bottles fell from 8.5% (2016) to 0.23% (2018). Our three strategic landfills are under pressure and are about to saturate this decade. If nothing more is done to reduce MSW, we may have to explore new sites for incinerators or landfills. This would likely impact our country parks. Once the landfills are full, it will be politically difficult to stop this from happening.

The MSW Bill enabling charging is the linchpin in government’s waste policy and projects. Waste levies are important in promoting source separation of domestic waste and the successful expansion of our recycling capacity. Without waste charging, the separation and reduction of waste and the recovery of useful materials for recycling will fail. Hong Kong’s waste reduction management is already lagging behind other jurisdictions. Many policy initiatives have turned into broken promises. The delay of the waste charging bill will make it ever more difficult to achieve high levels of recycling. If the Bill is not dealt with within this term of government, the Bill will be delayed by 3-5 years. This unacceptable.

 

Improving Hong Kong’s municipal solid waste management requires key actions in the Policy Address:

  1. Strategies to address all types of municipal solid waste in Hong Kong (LegCo research paper, 2019): food waste (34%), paper waste (24%), plastic waste (20%) and others (23%);
  2. Reconfirm the principles: Polluters Pay, Source Separation of Waste, and Producers’ Responsibility;
  3. Allocate HKD 800-1000 million for waste reduction and recycling; and
  4. Apply the funds generated from waste charging in support of the recycling industry.

 

Implement legislation, regulations and infrastructure in support of recycling and waste management:

  1. Extend the collection network of food waste collection across 18 districts, to all FEHD Refuse Collection Point and public housing estates;
  2. Allocate resources and financial incentives for maintenance and contractor staff training for food waste collection in all private housing estates;
  3. Invest in food waste technology and create more jobs in recycling industry, e.g. logistic and technical support for food waste collection services;
  4. Educate the public on waste reduction and separation of food waste.

 

Plastic waste recycling

  1. Extend the pilot schemes of plastic collection to all 18 districts to provide convenience to the public;
  2. Implement the producer responsibility system for beverage (disposable) containers;
  3. Retrofit and expand public water dispensers for hygienic and COVID-proof bottle refilling;
  4. Regulate disposable tableware;
  5. Regulation of excessive packaging of food products;
  6. Ban the use of styrofoam and microplastic in personal care products
6 October

Topside development on XRL – Survey Result

no height relaxation

We conducted a public opinion survey between September 28th to October 6th regarding the captioned application. 143 people submitted their responses.

The majority of the respondents objected expressing concerns over the relaxation of building height restrictions, deteriorating air ventilation, urban heat island effect, daylight access and visual intrusion.

By Friday Oct 9, please submit your comments to Town Planning Board at https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/tc/plan_application/A_K20_133.html

廣深港高速鐵路西九龍總站用地

擬議辦公室、商業及零售發展並放寬建築物高度限制 (申請編號: A/K20/133)

9月28日至10月6日我們就以上題目,進行了公眾諮詢,並共有143人提交了回覆。

大部分受訪者表示反對放寬建築物高度限制,擔心會令空氣不流通,加劇城市熱島效應,影響日光和視覺效果。

請在10月9日之前向城市規劃委員會發表意見,或加入條件限制。你的意見可能會影響最終建築設計,從而改善社區發展。

  1. 62.94% of the respondents objected to the reflective exterior glass surface as it creates a glare which impairs the enjoyment of neighboring residents including particularly The Waterfront and The Austin. The glare may also impact nearby traffic. Solar reflections also raise temperatures and may impact vegetation nearby. Concerns were expressed over energy consumption for air-conditioning. The design is deemed does not match with the surrounding buildings.
  1. 71.33% of respondents are concerned over traffic impacts along Nga Cheung Road, Jordan Road and Canton Road. The proposed scheme proposed no less than 550 parking spaces for private cars. With the increase in parking spaces here and the car park at To Wah Road together with other developments in the area as well as new road connections such as the Central Kowloon Route, it is unclear whether the traffic burden exceeds capacity. Traffic congestion (and associated blaring of car horns) is experienced often in the area including along Jordan Road.
  1. 70.63% of respondents are concerned over the relaxation of building heights and the close distance between The Waterfront and XRL topside development. Such building structure would disturb daylight access, visual quality and air ventilation to inner area in Jordan.
  1. 76.22% of people object to relaxing height limit as this will set a bad precedent for nearby sites including future buildings at the WKCD. This application will set a precedent for others to change height restrictions. Respondents wonder if there is any justification of relaxing height limit after developers won bids for a site. Moreover, there is no compensation for the losses suffered by nearby residents. The gain would be simply for the developer at the cost of the neighbours.
  1. Although it is claimed that the proposed design has better air ventilation than the original scheme, 71.33% of respondents are concerned over the impact of having less fresh air and that pollutants residue in the community. It must be noted that the developer has failed to meet and consult the neighbours on the proposed plans.
  1. 49.65% of the respondents are worried over food and beverage related noise control at site, and the absence of clear operating guidelines on the use of facilities and time control of activities at the catering and commercial facilities (64.34%).
  1. 81.82% of the respondents are concerning over delivery of the promised public space. The promised public spaces are absent from the land lease conditions and may not be delivered. As seen throughout Hong Kong, what is promised in terms of public gains including public space, accessibility, public recreation, alfresco dining, etc, fails to be delivered. What controls will be applied by the Town Planning Board to ensure promised made are delivered?
  1. 86.71% of the respondents are upset with the lack of consultation and the failure to present and discuss the plans with nearby residents. Residents received insufficient information regarding the revised plans. Public consultation should have been conducted to provide clear information and to gain a better understanding. Moreover, the developer should introduce and discuss the proposal with the District Council before the deadline for comments under the Town Planning Ordinance for the captioned application.
  1. In the survey conducted, there is a demand for assessment of sustainability performance in terms of creating a ‘public realm’ which delivers a holistic and positive impact for occupants and neighbours. Reference is made to HKGBC BEAM Plus Neighborhood. More than 70% of respondents suggest civic spaces to be used by non-profit organizations for community activities (76.92%), promoting gender equality by introducing ‘Gender Mainstreaming checklist’ into the design and construction of the development (70.63%), and by adopting pet-friendly (78.32%) and bicycle-friendly measures (77.62%) for the site as well as the connections with the West Kowloon Cultural District to Jordan, Yau Ma Tei and Tai Kwok Tsui.
  2. 93.01% of respondents support environmental protection initiatives, such as energy saving, water use and reuse, using recyclable building materials, installing waste management and treatment facilities, etc. To implement initiatives to improve energy efficiency, environmental performance and achieving Government’s energy saving plan by 2025, all new development should have set goal to achieve HKGBC Beam Plus.
28 September

Public Consultation for Topside Development on XRL 高鐵站上蓋發展意見調查

XRL comparsion

new design

Designing Hong Kong Public consultation

Designing Hong Kong and a few Yau Tsim Mong District Council members would like to collect your views on the topside development on XRL.

Sun Hung Kai Properties submitted a re-application of building’s design and structure (Application No. A/K20/133) under section 12 (a) of the Town Planning Ordinance. If you have any concerns, please take this chance to comment to the Town Planning Board by Oct 9th.  Your views may improve the final design of the development.

Click here for the submission to Town Planning Board (deadline on Oct 09)

Click here for Designing Hong Kong public consultation

Click here for Proposed Topside Development by Masterplan Limited

Click here for Paper of the proposed Topside Development

For enquiry, please contact us at [email protected]

高鐵站上蓋發展意見調查

創建香港和油尖旺區議會議員希望就高鐵站上蓋發展收集你的意見。

新鴻基地產根據《城市規劃條例》第12(a)條提交了建築物的設計和結構的申請(申請編號A / K20 / 133)。請在10月9日之前向城市規劃委員會發表意見,或加入條件限制。你的意見可能會影響最終建築設計,從而改善社區發展。

改劃申請書及文件:請按此

意見調查:請按此

領賢規劃顧問有限公司提供的簡報(只備英文版):請按此

擬議西九龍站上蓋發展會議文件(只備英文版):請按此

 

24 September

Shek O lovers’ bridge – Survey Result 石澳情人橋民意調查結果

Original

Original

 

Final Q1

Thank you those who participated in our online survey!

A public opinion survey was conducted from 18-20 September 2020. More than 70% of the 813 respondents objected to steel railings and preferred a simple concrete bridge. 103 local Shek O residents voted, with 70 objecting to steel railings. Overall, only 21.3% of the respondents supported steel railing designs (option #2 or #3). However, 138 people offered suggestions explaining that they preferred:

  1. A design which blends in better with the natural environment by using a granite stone finishing or softening the blue colour;
  2. Widen the bridge and approach paths, and add space for safe gathering, photo taking;
  3. Enable any water to run off quickly and ensure a non-slippery bridge deck;
  4. Soft solar lights/ LED lights to ignite during nights;
  5. Improved signage about the bridge could be considered.

Other comments:

  • Enable people to put ‘lover locks’
  • Heart shape openings in the structure
  • Photo spots / observation areas (bridge is too narrow for photo taking)
  • Seating, shade and washroom in the vicinity
  • LED lighting to make it photogenic at night
  • Dim solar lights along the bridge and path
  • Railings to assist elderly to walk to and from the bridge
  • Graffiti wall
  • Signage with information about the history of ‘Shek O lovers’ bridge
  • A coin operated telescope

Other proposed options:

  • blue 1 new

    Option One: Concrete bridge (close to the original)

    blue2

    Option two: Steel Bridge

    blue3

    Option Three: More steel bridge

    感謝各位參與網上問卷調查,提供你們寶貴的意見!
    2020年9月18日至20日我們進行了一項民意調查。813名受訪者中有70%以上反對鋼欄杆,並傾向使用簡單的混凝土橋。 103位石澳居民投票,其中70位反對鋼欄杆。總體而言,只有21.3%的受訪者支持鋼欄杆設計(選項2或3)。138人提出寶貴的意見,希望混凝土設計的橋更有地道特色:
    1.使用花崗岩石或柔和藍色系,使設計更融合自然環境;
    2. 擴闊橋樑和出入口路徑,提供空間讓人聚集,和拍照相片;
    3. 設計應確保雨水能迅速流走,橋面亦要防滑;
    4. 選擇柔和的太陽能燈/ LED燈在夜間點亮;
    5. 考慮改善有關情人橋歷史由來的路牌和路標。

    其他建議:

    • 可掛情人鎖
    • 橋身加設心形開口設計
    • 攝影點/遊客觀光區(現時橋身太窄,無法拍照)
    • 情人橋附近增設座位,陰涼處和洗手間
    • LED照明方便夜間拍攝
    • 沿橋樑和路徑增設太陽能燈
    • 增設欄杆,方便老年人步行
    • 塗鴉牆,繪畫藝術
    • 標示有關石澳情人橋歷史的標牌
    • 投幣式望遠鏡
      Samples suggested

      Samples suggested