The battle for country parks is not yet won郊野公園的抗爭仍長路漫漫
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。
16個團體建議1,120公頃紅花嶺郊野公園 保護當地重要資源 16 groups jointly propose a 1,120-hectare Country Park to protect the important resources at the Robin’s Nest area
16個團體就紅花嶺郊野公園的期望發表聯合聲明，敦促漁農自然護理署盡快成立郊野公園，保育具高生態、歷史、文化及景觀價值的地點，為香港及內地之間提供陸地生態走廊。團體建議的紅花嶺郊野公園範圍佔地1,120公頃，當中超過百分之九十五為政府土地。
政府早已認同保育紅花嶺郊野公園帶來的保育重要性。長春社公共事務經理吳希文指﹕「1993年及2008年，規劃署的『全港發展策略檢討』及『邊境禁區土地規劃研究』分別已建議成立紅花嶺郊野公園。政府在2017年施政報告承諾成立紅花嶺郊野公園，環境局局長黃錦星亦於2018年表明制訂紅花嶺郊野公園的工作正在進行中。紅花嶺的保育價值早已獲得確認，因此政府不應拖延該工作。」
團體認為郊野公園能為紅花嶺及毗鄰地區的重要生態資源提供最適合的保護及管理。香港觀鳥會高級保育主任胡明川解釋﹕「由山咀經新桂田一直延伸至蓮麻坑的紅花嶺北坡，保存著一大片非常完整的次生林，此片樹林及穿插其中的天然溪澗，孕育出眾多原生動植物。這一帶更有兩個具特殊科學價值地點，為本地分佈極窄的斯氏波魚及本港其中一個最重要的蝙蝠羣棲息地。全球易危的大草鶯在香港的族群對其全球數量有舉足輕重的影響，而紅花嶺的高地草原正正是其重要的生境，範圍由紅花嶺南面一直延伸至香園圍及禾徑山，而蓮麻坑及萬屋邊一帶的低地草原也是其潛在渡冬點。紅花嶺南麓也保存著不少由成熟樹木組成的風水林。」
紅花嶺被視為是內地與香港之間現存唯一的陸地生態走廊。其北面的完整次生林與深圳梧桐山國家森林公園有良好的生態連貫性，而南面的樹林及少受干擾的植被在生態上亦與八仙嶺郊野公園連結。綠色力量總監鄭睦奇博士指﹕「這為內地與香港的野生動物，如陸鳥、兩棲類、爬行類以及小型哺乳類等，提供重要的遷徙廊道。故此，紅花嶺的生境必須予以充分保護，以維持兩地的生態連貫性，令野生物種種群能正常交流並健康發展。」
紅花嶺一帶的古蹟具有不同的歷史價值。吳希文指﹕「紅花嶺是本地歷史文化遺產的一部分。位於伯公坳及礦山的二級歷史建築『麥景陶碉堡』，展現昔日其邊防及控制非法移民的角色；散落於紅花嶺四周的破舊設施、機槍堡等，相信是二十世紀興建作防衛用途；蓮麻坑的鉛礦遺址及相關建築，也是香港礦業史的最佳見證。此外，根據規劃署2003年的『香港具景觀價值地點研究』，紅花嶺亦被評為具高景觀價值。」
紅花嶺不單成為附近居民消閒晨運的去處，邊境禁區開放後亦逐漸受遠足郊遊人士及團體歡迎。創建香港行政總裁司馬文指﹕「這些活動反映該區的康樂價值，亦正正顯示制定紅花嶺郊野公園的逼切性，使政府可以提供最適切的保護及管理，以服務郊遊人士及防止人為破壞。《郊野公園條例》比《城市規劃條例》更能有效保育紅花嶺，相關部門能積極管理具保育價值的生境及作恆常巡查。郊野公園內一些生態及景觀重要性較低的地方，可為遊客提供遠足徑、教育及康樂設施，並由有豐富相關經驗的部門設計、管理及維修。使用率低的認可殯葬區及零散現存墓地也可納入郊野公園範圍，透過園內更有效的管制措施防止山火發生及蔓延。」
團體強烈要求漁農自然護理署考慮建議，並根據「指定郊野公園的原則及準則(2011)」擬定紅花嶺郊野公園的界線。根據該原則及準則，保育價值、康樂發展潛力、景觀及美觀價值為制定郊野公園的三大重要元素及固有準則，即使某地點包含私人土地，當局也不可機械式地視之為不把該地點納入郊野公園的決定性因素。為了對這些地方作更有效的保護與管理，上述眾多具高生態及人文歷史保育價值、景觀價值及康樂發展潛力的地點，應該成為紅花嶺郊野公園的一部分。
六個發起團體(排名不分先後)﹕
長春社、創建香港、綠色力量、香港觀鳥會、香港鄉郊基金、嘉道理農場暨植物園
支持團體(排名不分先後)﹕
香港地貌岩石保育協會、香港大學學生會理學會生態學及生物多樣性學會、香港地球之友、海下之友有限公司、綠領行動、綠色和平、環保觸覺、Hong Kong Outdoors、島嶼活力行動、西貢護牛天使
16 groups have jointly announced a joint statement on the expectations on the upcoming designation of Robin’s Nest Country Park (RNCP). The groups urge Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) to conserve areas of high ecological, historical, cultural, landscape conservation significance under the Country Park system as soon as possible, and to protect and strengthen the important terrestrial ecological corridor between Hong Kong and mainland China. A RNCP boundary was proposed for the consideration of AFCD, covering 1,120 hectares of land with over 95% of government land.
The conservation importance of RNCP has long been recognized by the Government. Roy Ng Hei Man, Campaign Manager of The Conservancy Association, mentioned that “Back in 1993 and 2008, the Territorial Development Strategy Review Study and feasibility study of the Land Use Planning for the Frontier Closed Area by the Planning Department have already recommended the designation of the RNCP respectively. The Government promised in the 2017 Policy Address that Robin’s Nest will be designated as a Country Park while The Secretary of Environment Mr. Wong Kam Sing also confirmed in December 2018 that the designation of the RNCP is on its way. It is clear that the conservation of Robin’s Nest is well-recognized and the Government should therefore not further delay the designation”.
The groups consider that the Country Park system is suitable for the protection, conservation and management of important ecological resources in the Robin’s Nest and associated areas. Woo Ming Chuan, Senior Conservation Officer of The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, said that “The northern slope of Robin’s Nest, extending from Shan Tsui to San Kwai Tin and Lin Ma Hang, is well covered with continuous secondary woodland intermingled with natural streams of conservation concern. It thus supports a high diversity of flora and fauna. Two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) were even designated in this area for the conservation of the highly restricted, rare freshwater fish Chinese Rasbora and one of the most important bat colonies in Hong Kong. The globally vulnerable Chinese Grassbird preferred upland grassland habitat stretches from the southern slope of Robin’s Nest to Wo Keng Shan and Heung Yuen Wai, while the lowland grasslands at Lin Ma Hang and Man Uk Pin are potential wintering sites of this species. Many large fung shui woodlands with mature trees are found along the foot of the southern slope of Robin’s Nest”.
Robin’s Nest is well-recognized as the only obvious terrestrial ecological corridor between Hong Kong and mainland China, with continuous secondary woodland at the northern slope ecologically connected to the Wutongshan National Forest Park in Shenzhen while strips of woodlands and other undisturbed vegetated areas at the southern slope are linked to those at the Pat Sin Leng Country Park. Dr. Cheng Luk Ki, Director of Green Power, said, “This corridor is the only well-vegetated pathway with little built-up area where wild animals (e.g. land birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals) can still move between Hong Kong and Shenzhen/Guangdong, thus their population in these two places can be healthily sustained. Therefore, all the habitats along this corridor should be well-protected to maintain such ecological connectivity both across and within the Hong Kong border”.
Various heritage resources within the Robin’s Nest area have different local historical interest or significance. Roy Ng added, “For example, the Grade-2-listed Macintosh Forts at Pak Kung Au and Kong Shan served the role in bringing law and order to the frontier and in the control of illegal immigration. Some ruins, pillboxes and other structures are believed to have been built for defensive purpose during the 20th century. Lin Ma Hang Lead Mine and its adjacent ruins form good evidence in reflecting Hong Kong’s mining history. The hilly terrain of Robin’s Nest is also identified as being of high landscape value in the Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong by the Planning Department in 2003”.
Robin’s Nest is not only used by local people for passive recreational activities, but is also becoming more popular among hikers and the public since the opening-up of the Frontier Closed Area. Paul Zimmerman, Chief Executive of Designing Hong Kong, said “All these activities indicate the recreational potential of Robin’s Nest, and the urgency of the Country Park designation, in order to provide better habitat protection and management for the enjoyment of the public. The Country Park Ordinance (Cap. 208) would offer a higher level of protection than the land use control under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131). Habitats of conservation concern can be actively managed and protected with regular patrols. Facilities for visitors and hiking routes can be designed, provided and maintained in the ecologically and scenically less-sensitive areas of the Country Park, for public education and enjoyment. Existing graves and burial grounds can be respected and managed within the Country Park for better regulation and fire prevention”.
The groups strongly urge AFCD to consider the proposal and define the boundary of the RNCP according to the “Principles and Criteria for Designating Country Parks (2011)” (2011 Principles and Criteria). From the 2011 Principles and Criteria, conservation value, recreation potential as well as landscape and aesthetic value are the key themes of the intrinsic criteria for identifying suitable areas for designating Country Parks, while private land is not automatically taken as a determining factor for exclusion from the Country Park boundary. The aforementioned areas of high ecological, historical, cultural and landscape value should therefore be included within the boundary of RNCP for nature and heritage conservation and management.
Six co-organized groups (in alphabetical order):
The Conservancy Association, Designing Hong Kong, Green Power, The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden
Supporting organizations (in alphabetical order):
Association for Geoconservation, Hong Kong, Ecology & Biodiversity Society, SS, HKUSU, Friends of the Earth (HK), Friends of Hoi Ha, Greeners Action, Greenpeace, Greensense, Hong Kong Outdoors, Living Islands Movement, Sai Kung Cattle’s Angel
鄉議局破壞郊野公園 土地已售予發展商 Country Parks under attack from the Heung Yee Kuk
【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。
他們聲稱政府將私人土地劃為保育用地會限制復耕和丁屋發展潛力。這種說法非常荒謬。第一，農耕在保育用地上是經常准許的用途，即使在郊野公園的農地亦被允許。第二，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？
鄉議局真正目的是破壞土地後，獲得在郊野公園內興建丁屋的權利。售賣鄉郊土地，毀去林木，使政府規劃上傾向給予更多發展用地以套丁建屋，這種戲碼在新界各處不斷上演，甚至蔓延至郊野公園內。
丁屋政策是不可持續的，龐大的潛在利益更會導致貪污和其他非法活動，以及更多損害環境的發展。鄉議局不斷推動在郊野公園不包括土地興建更多丁屋，將會對郊野公園及與之相連的海洋生態，帶來無法逆轉的破壞。由2010年大浪西灣事件開始，創建香港聯同其他保育及行山團體一直對抗郊野公園的發展威脅。
揭穿鄉議局「復耕」謊言
上週末在高塘下洋慘遭破壞的季節性濕地有超過6成土地屬於榮登拓展有限公司。該公司由陳麗明持有，並由范惠玲擔任秘書，在2012年2月以$6,702,008購入鄰近多個地段。我們到訪該公司的註冊地址，發現現址為“New Hall Design Limited” 的建築設計公司，同樣由陳麗明持有。職員稱公司擁有高塘下洋的土地，但負責人正在休假。她們會在下週聯絡我們，以得知鄉議局是否合法地取得業主同意下斬樹。
創建香港就大灘、屋頭、高塘和高塘下洋的研究可瀏覽：http://goo.gl/QJPt4B
大灘、屋頭、高塘和高塘下洋疑似套丁相關新聞：
蘋果日報: http://goo.gl/Bpsr5n
香港01: http://goo.gl/syAgc6
高塘下洋村民斬樹清植被報導：
蘋果日報: http://goo.gl/V0EQ7U
NOW: https://goo.gl/JfsJ0F
【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.
It was a protest against Government’s plan to zone the area for conservation. The Kuk claimed the zoning would restrict farming on this enclave of private land. This is nonsense for two reasons. First, farming is always allowed, even on agricultural land in country parks. Secondly, 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.
What the Heung Yee Kuk is really after is the right to build small houses on private land in country parks. The pattern of the sale of village land to developers, destruction of vegetation, the push for rezoning and the illegal sale of the “Ding” right to build small houses, is replayed constantly throughout the New Territories, including deep inside our country parks.
The Small House Policy is unsustainable, attracts illegal activities, and results in environmentally disastrous developments. The Kuk’s push for small houses in country park enclaves is harmful to the surrounding country parks and nearby marine resources. Since the Tai Long Sai Wan incident in 2010, Designing Hong Kong together with community, hiking and conservation groups has worked hard to protect the country parks from these destructive developments.
Heung Yee Kuk ‘farming’ lies exposed
Over 60% of the seasonal wetland in Ko Tong Ha Yeung which was subject to tree felling this weekend, was bought by Glory Top Develop Limited on February 2012 for $6,702,008. The company is owned by Chan Lai Ming, and Fan Wai Ling is the secretary. We visited their office which was branded “New Hall Design Limited” – a company with the same directors. Staff confirmed that the land at Ko Tong Ha Yeung was theirs, but that the person in charge was on holiday and would call us back upon her return next week. Whether the Heung Yee Kuk had approval to cut the trees is yet unclear.
Records uncovered by Designing Hong Kong’s land searches for Tai Tan, Uk Tau, Ko Tong and Ko Tong Ha Yeung can be found here:http://goo.gl/QJPt4B
News Reports on Designing Hong Kong Findings:
SCMP: http://goo.gl/kBXRWH
RTHK: http://goo.gl/0OUFZJ
News Report on villagers tree felling and vegetation clearance:
Hong Kong Free Press: https://goo.gl/10Ynma
【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
【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：
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
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:
反對破壞二澳及北大嶼郊野公園 Stop the destruction of Yi O and the Lantau North Country Park
請在2月26日或之前反對二澳發展計劃。 二澳是位於北大嶼山郊野公園的不包括土地。部份村民在很久以前已將實質的發展權益售予發展商，當中涉及利益的名人包括劉皇發和謝賢。 當政府在2010年公佈將會透過城規條例或郊野公園條例保護餘下的不包括土地，發展商和村民急忙夥拍林筱魯發展二澳。林筱魯與政府關係密切，同時是大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員。 整套發展計劃先於2012年以復耕的名義，清除當地的植被和改變河道，破壞了當地的生態。
「以復耕為名，發展為實」的把戲，成功逼使規劃處無法在提交城規會前，將分區計劃大綱圖所覆蓋的荒廢農地劃為保育用地。
大量土地將會用作包括丁屋的屋宇發展，相關發展可無需經過申請或及後透過城規條例得到批准。土地業權人和發展商正要求連接大澳的道路、碼頭和興建包括70間房間的生態旅舍。一旦城規會批准，上述的發展將會長遠地影響北大嶼郊野公園。
更多資訊：
Click here to object to the development of Yi O(Deadline mid-nite 26 February 2016)
Yi O is an enclave deep inside the Lantau North Country Park. Some villagers sold their beneficial interest in the land to developers a decade ago. Well-known names are involved including Lau Wong Fat and Patrick Tse Yin.
In 2010, after Government announced that they would protect the last remaining enclaves under the Town Planning or the Country Park Ordinance, the developers and villagers hurried to bring in Andrew Lam Siu Lo. Andrew is well connected with Government and is on the Lantau Development Advisory Committee.
A vicious plan was put together. The first step was to clear all the vegetation and divert streams. Under the excuse of farming, the ecology was destroyed in 2012.
The ‘fake farming’ trick worked. The Planning Department now finds it difficult to zone the barren land for conservation uses in the Outline Zoning Plan put in front of the Town Planning Board. House developments including small houses will permitted off right or by application for large areas of land. The owners and developers are now also asking for a road to Tai O, a ferry pier, and rights to build a 70-room ‘eco-lodge’. Once permitted, these developments will forever impact the Lantau North Country Park. We need your support – click here to submit your comments and views to the Town Planning Board. More information: Gist of Town Planning Board Representations on Yi O Outline Zoning Plan News clip Yi O development plan News clip Yi O destruction
香港環保團體合力發動行山打卡熱潮 香港巿民透過史無前例的網上動員行動對抗郊野公園發展威脅 Green Groups Create Selfies Fire Storm #SaveOurCountryParks Hongkongers express support for country parks during unprecedented event in response to development threats
香港環保團體合力發動行山打卡熱潮
香港巿民透過史無前例的網上動員行動
對抗郊野公園發展威脅
保衛郊野公園聯盟在今日舉行一個史無前例、覆蓋全港的網上動員行動，以保護香港的郊野公園。首屆的欣賞郊野公園日，主題為 #保衛郊野公園，已於12月第二個星期日舉行。
第一股的行山打卡熱潮已經席捲Facebook，行山人士在全港多個郊野公園分享了過千張標籤了#保衛郊野公園的相片。
近200名來自16個聯盟成員和關注團體的義工在全港設置超過30個義工站，覆蓋全港共24個郊野公園當中的20個。義工將會統計行山人數，並鼓勵行山人士自拍打卡以支持保衛郊野公園。這個網上動員行動為香港巿民提供機會，站出來反對發展郊野公園。
由早上8時至中午12時，總共超過34,106訪客曾進入郊野公園，並透過義工獲得保衛郊野公園的資訊。社交媒體（包括Facebook 活動專頁和Instagram）有著過千相片或影片標籤了 #保衛郊野公園。
前天文台台長及現任香港中文大學地理與資源管理學系客座教授林超英表示：「這個活動非常厲害，令眾多團體能團結起來保護郊野公園，亦給予巿民發聲的機會。」
他補充：「中國政府將『青山綠水』劃入城市規劃方針，香港應該做得更好，不應讓郊野公園受發展威脅。香港獨特和豐富的郊野公園環境，沒有其他世界城市能媲美，發展商和政府絕不應破壞這份瑰寶。今日的活動是呼籲香港巿民站出來，為了我們的下一代展示保衛郊野公園的決心。」
根據郊野公園及海岸公園管理局進度報告，比較上年夏季同期行山人數上升了24.8%，突顯了郊野公園為本港巿民和遊客作為消閒和娛樂場所的重要性。
香港中文大學地理與資源管理學系客座教授王褔義講述了郊野公園的成立歷史和目的，並強調郊野公園應該受到保留和保護。
香港遠足覓合會的發起人沈士基表示：「我們有過萬的會員，熱愛行山的人數不斷上升。郊野公園是一個重要場所，用以認識新朋友、聚會、消閒運動、改善健康等。」
地球之友行政總裁張潔儀稱：「我熱愛郊野公園，亦關注對環境的好處。如提供野生動物棲息地，豐富生物多樣性、樹木吸收二氧化碳（溫室氣體）以緩減氣候變化、綠化環境有助我們的身心健康，郊野公園亦覆蓋著我們的食用水源。」
關注團體促請行政長官梁振英履行競選時的承諾，他曾聲稱「我們會保護郊野公園及具生態及其他價值的土地和水體，以及長遠規劃其他可供開發的土地。」
有關記者發佈會的影片和相將上載至保衛郊野公園Facebook 專頁
更多行山人士的相片可以到 保衛郊野公園：行山打卡Facebook 專頁。
Hongkongers express support for country parks
during unprecedented event in response to development threats
Over 200 volunteers from 16 organisations and individuals set up more than 30 stations at key entrances to 20 of Hong Kong’s 24 country parks. The volunteers counted visitors and asked them to take selfies in support of safeguarding country parks. The mega event gave Hong Kong people an opportunity to stand up and oppose those wanting to use country parks for development.
Prof. Lam added: “The national government has decided to incorporate special ecological areas within its urban planning strategy. We should do likewise, yet there are increasing threats from developments. Hong Kong has a unique treasure with our extensive country parks system – which no other World City can rival. Developers and government should not encroach on this unique asset. Today’s event shows that people care and are willing to stand up to protect the country parks for our next generations.”
According to the Country and Marine Parks Authority’s Progress Report, the number of visitors has increased 24.8% compared with last summer – clearly showing that country parks are ever more important for leisure and relaxation for Hong Kong residents and visitors.
Prof. Wong Fook-yee, adjunct professor of the Geography and Resource Management Department of CUHK, related the history and objectives of establishing Hong Kong country parks, and said they should be conserved and protected.
“We have more than ten thousands members – all of whom love the country parks –and this continues to grow,” said SK Shum, organiser of Hong Kong Hiking Meetup. “The country parks are for gathering and meeting new people, for sports and recreation, for our health.”
Suzanne Cheung, CEO of Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong), said, “I love country parks, and am keenly aware of the environmental benefits – such as providing habitats for wildlife to enhance biodiversity, trees absorb carbon dioxide (GHG) to mitigate climate change, greenery that benefits our mental and physical health, and as a source of clean drinking water.”
The groups also called on the Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to stay true to his Election Manifesto, in which he promised that “We will protect our country parks and bodies of land and water with ecological value, and formulate long-term plans for other areas of land available for development.”
More photos and pictures on the press meeting will be uploaded on Save Our Country Parks Facebook Page.
For more hikers’ supportive pictures, please visit #SaveOur CountryParks event page.
「保衛郊野公園聯盟」成員和合作團體，包括環保、行山及其他希望保護香港郊野公園的關注組織有：
聯盟成員
Ark Eden、香港地貌岩石保育協會、爭氣行動、創建香港、Eco-Sys Action、香港大學學生會理學會環境生命科學學會、海下之友、西貢之友、大浪灣之友、香港地球之友、綠色社區、綠色大嶼山協會、綠色力量、環保觸覺、綠領行動、綠色和平、香港自然生態論壇、香港單車同盟、香港海豚保育學會、Hong Kong Outdoors、大嶼山愛護水牛協會、島嶼活動行動、活在南丫、勃勃海洋、西貢大浪灣關注組、香港自然探索學會、長春社、香港觀鳥會、世界自然基金會香港分會
合作團體
香港遠足覓合團、Sai Kung Buffalo Watch、守護大嶼聯盟、徑‧香港
“Save Our Country Parks Alliance” Members and Partners include green, hiking and other concern groups who seek to safeguard Hong Kong’s Country Parks:
Members:
Ark Eden, Association for Geoconservation, Hong Kong, Clear the Air, Designing Hong Kong, Eco-Sys Action, Environmental Life Science Society, SS, HKUSU, Friends of Hoi Ha, Friends of Sai Kung, Friends of Tai Long Wan, Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong), Green Community, Green Lantau Association, Green Power, Green Sense, Greeners Action, Greenpeace, HKWildlife.net, Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Hong Kong Cycling Alliance, Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society, Hong Kong Outdoors, Lantau Buffalo Association, Living Islands Movement, Living Lamma, Living Seas Hong Kong, Sai Kung Tai Long Wan Concern Group, Society of Hong Kong Nature Explorers, The Conservancy Association, WWF-Hong Kong.
Partners:
Hong Kong Hiking Meet Up, Sai Kung Buffalo Watch、Save Lantau Alliance, TrailWatch.
FQA 常見問題：Country Parks郊野公園
Title: Whether country park land should be used for building estates?
題目：郊野公園適合建屋?
Object to small house developments in Tai Long Wan
反對大浪灣丁屋申請
Dear Chairman and Members,
致城市規劃委員會主席及各委員：
I object to planning permission for the development of five houses as this will impact the natural and cultural heritage of Tai Long Wan, and contravene the planning intention as agreed under the Outline Zoning Plan for Tai Long Wan (S/SK-TLW/5).
我反對在西貢咸田興建五座小型屋宇的規劃申請，因為該申請影響大浪灣的天然環境及古蹟，並違反大浪灣分區大綱圖(S/SK-TLW/5)的規劃原意。
(more…)
Sign: Abolish the Small House Policy
聯署: 廢除丁屋政策！
We, the undersigned, hereby petition the HKSAR Chief Executive, C.Y Leung to:
1) Abolish the divisive, discriminatory, outdated and unsustainable Small House Policy without any further delay
or, at the very least:
2) Amend the SHP without undue delay so that the SHP no longer applies within Country Park boundaries
我們特此聯署向特首梁振英要求：
1) 即時廢除這個分裂香港、歧視港人、過時及不可持續發展的丁屋政策。
2) 或者最起碼要即時修訂丁屋政策，丁屋不得在郊野公園範圍內興建。