23 October

青衣出行 Commute in TY

 

青衣出行 Commute in TY

「⻘⾐出⾏」是⼀個由創建香港與葵青區議會社區營造工作小組合辦、由葵⻘區議會資助的社區項⽬,⽬的是在⻘⾐島推廣單⾞作為⽇常通勤的交通⼯具。這次項⽬旨在透過實地研究和舉辦社區活動,研究在⻘⾐區內可行的單⾞通勤路線,並教育不同道路使⽤者和公眾有關騎單⾞的文化禮儀和安全意識。

Commute in TY is a community project co-organized by Designing Hong Kong and the Community Building Working Group of the Kwai Tsing District Council. The project is funded by the Kwai Tsing District Council to promote cycling as a transportation mode for daily commute on Tsing Yi Island. The project aims to investigate and propose a cyclists’ commuting path in Tsing Yi, and to educate different road users and the public on the safety of cycling in Tsing Yi.

 


 

活動  Activities

13/11 – 14/11 社區單車日 Community Cycling Day

 

資訊  Information

單車錦囊

青衣單車距離地圖


 

社區單車日 Community Cycling Day

Community Cycling Day Poster

活動一:公園單車體驗
日期:11月13及14日(星期六及日)
時間:10時至2時半
集合及活動地點:青衣東北公園單車徑

建造一個單車友善的社區,首先要理解單車禮儀和文化。參加者會由專業導師教授基本單車禮儀及注意事項,再在東北公園的單車徑上實習一下。兜完幾個圈都未知踩了多遠?我們準備了參照圖讓參加者能夠具體化於青衣區內踩單車的距離,可能你會發現用單車穿梭的青衣島原來較你預期的小。

【參加者限制】適合6歲或以上人士參與,但6-12歲的參加者必須由成年人陪同。每名成年人最多陪同兩名6-12歲的參加者。

【惡劣天氣安排】在一般的天雨情況下活動會繼續進行。假如天文台在活動開始前兩小前發出任何暴雨警告信號或三號或以上的熱帶氣旋警告,當日的活動將會取消。

活動二:初階公路單車體驗
日期:11月13及14日(星期六及日)
時間:11時至2時半
集合地點:青衣東北公園單車徑
活動地點:担杆山路

想踩馬路但又卻不知從何入手?覺得踩馬路好多車好危險?現時在沒有單車徑的路段,單車其實是可以在馬路上行走。初階公路單車體驗將會有富經驗的單車愛好者帶領參加者在馬路上騎行,並會教授參加者馬路踩單車的基本禮儀及注意事項。體驗過後,會否改變你對踩馬路的觀感呢?

【參加者限制】適合13歲或以上人士,並能充分掌握平衡、轉向、開車和停車等各種技巧的單車愛好者參與。但13-17歲的參加者必須由成年人陪同。每名成年人最多陪同1名13-17歲參加者。

【惡劣天氣安排】在一般的天雨情況下活動會繼續進行。假如天文台在活動開始前兩小前發出任何暴雨警告信號或三號或以上的熱帶氣旋警告,當日的活動將會取消。

活動三:共建單車社區工作坊
日期:11月13及14日(星期六及日)
時間:11時至12時半 及
3時半至5時(只限星期六)
地點:長發社區中心活動室1

你有想像過怎樣才能把青衣打造成為更容易通勤的社區嗎?在這個共建單車社區工作坊,我們會研究在⻘⾐區內可行的單⾞通勤路線,以及討論青衣居民所需的單車配套等。集合大家的經驗、意見、想像,一齊將青衣打造成一個單車友善的社區!

【參加者限制】適合 10 歲或以上人士參與,但10-12歲的參加者必須由成年人陪同。

【惡劣天氣空排】假如天文台在活動開始前兩小前發出黑色暴雨警告信號或八號或以上的熱帶氣旋警告,當日的活動將會取消。

 

活動照片

 

 


單車錦囊  Information Pack

事前準備篇

 


 

青衣單車距離地圖  Tsing Yi Cycling Distance Map

Foam_Map_4X8-min


14 October

土地共享先導計劃 關於南生圍及社山兩宗申請的聯合聲明 Joint Statement from NGOs concerning Two Applications under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme at Nam Sang Wai and She Shan

Click here for the English version

土地共享先導計劃
關於南生圍及社山兩宗申請的聯合聲明

1. 就最近兩宗在土地共享先導計劃(LSPS)下分別位於南生圍(LSPS-002 )及林村社山(LSPS-003 )的申請,我們希望藉此聯合聲明表達深切關注。該兩個申請地點現在主要為鄉郊環境所覆蓋及包圍,發展密度極低;而有關申請不但會為該兩處引入高樓大廈(LSPS-002:24至25層;LSPS-003:17至39層),更會帶來龐大人口(LSPS-002:10,487人;LSPS-003:33,937人)。簡而言之,我們認為這兩個項目實在難以理解,我們會在下文詳細闡述。

生態環境問題
2. LSPS-002的申請地點位處南生圍核心濕地的南面,而該地點本身也有魚塘及河道。事實上,此地點亦位於濕地緩衝區(WBA)內;顧名思義,WBA本來就是要為緩衝敏感及具國際重要性的后海灣濕地而設 。WBA亦為繁殖期的鷺鳥提供飛行通道,以進入濕地保育區(WCA)內的覓食地。我們因此非常關注擬議的高樓會影響WBA原應發揮的緩衝作用及繁殖鷺鳥。南生圍核心濕地及周邊河道是不少具高保育重要性的水鳥的生境(包括全球性受威脅的黑臉琵鷺 Platalea minor)。區內亦有一個具區域重要性的普通鸕鷀(Phalacrocorax carbo)冬季棲地。此外,這區亦為在內地及香港都極具保育關注的歐亞水獺(Lutra lutra)提供生境。上述動物基本上對人類活動都極度敏感。擬議的9棟住宅高達24至25層,不但明顯阻礙雀鳥飛行路線,也會產生各種如光害及噪音的影響,干擾四周相對低矮的環境。擬議發展所帶來的人口亦會令區內的人類干擾大增,影響上述生態敏感受體。

3. 社山的擬議發展(LSPS-003)估計可能會令整個林村谷的人口激增約1.75倍(2016年的中期人口統計顯示林村谷只有19,369人 )。現時,該區的建築主要為三層高的村屋。明顯地此項涉及樓高17至39層共28棟大廈 (未包非住用建築)的發展建議,必然會嚴重破壞區內景觀及影響生態。擬議發展地點及其周邊現存大量農地及河道,為不少依賴開闊原野的具保育價值鳥種提供覓食及棲息地,包括全球性極危的黃胸鵐(Emberiza aureola)及易危的硫磺鵐(Emberiza sulphurate)。此外,擬議發展項目與覆蓋社山風水林的社山具特殊科學價值地點(SSSI)的最短距離少於10米,而此SSSI為不少具保育價值的動植物(如櫟子青岡(Cyclobalanopsis blakei)、褐林鴞(Strix leptogrammica)、黑冠鳽(Gorsachius melanolophus)提供生境。受法例保護的寬藥青藤(Illigera celebica)生長在社山風水林的邊陲,此稀有植物亦為稀有蝴蝶燕鳳蝶(Lamproptera curius)幼蟲的寄主。此外,最新的研究亦表明道路人工照明會對周邊環境的昆蟲數量構成重大影響 (而光害也能嚴重影響其他動物)。故此,觀乎社山擬議發展的位置,高度及規模,令人無法不聯想到此發展會大大干擾該區的野生生物(如昆蟲、在夜間活躍的雀鳥及蝙蝠)。

4. 我們相信這兩個項目更可能會大大增加路殺及鳥撞風險,直接影響野生生物和當區生物多樣性。

規劃問題
5. 如上述,LSPS-002的申請地點位於WBA內,此區的發展受到城市規劃委員會(城規會)規劃指引編號12C的規管。擬議項目地點覆蓋一些魚塘及河道,相關計劃摘要內的圖則顯示,一段河道及部份魚塘面積會因為該發展而消失。城規會規劃指引編號12C指出,在考慮后海灣地區的發展建議時,會採用「不會有濕地淨減少」的原則。儘管申請人近日在報章聲稱會遵循有關原則 ,LSPS-002現時唯一公開的正式文件(即計劃摘要)中,卻未有詳細說明該擬議發展會如何遵守這個原則。

6. LSPS-003的申請地點及林村谷均為林村分區計劃大綱核准圖 所覆蓋。而該圖則的整體規劃意向如下:

該區的發展是以「全港發展策略檢討」和「新界東北發展策略檢討」的結果作為指引的。這兩項檢討都沒有選定該區為可作策略性增長的地區。當局就新界東北的長遠發展所制訂的整體規劃政策,着重保育和保護鄉郊腹地的天然環境和景觀,而除現有新市鎭人口和已承諾進行的市區式發展帶來的人口外,會盡量遏止該區的人口增長。現在和已承諾建設的運輸和基礎設施網絡,不足以承受該區截至二零一一年的額外人口增長。

鑑於新界東北的發展受到限制,以及有需要保育/保存該區的鄉郊特色、天然景觀和生態價值,當局不鼓勵在區內闢設露天貯物場或進行非正式的工業和住宅發展。因此,該區的規劃意向,一方面是透過管制區內的發展和促進農業活動,以保存其鄉郊特色;另一方面是在適合發展的地點容許鄉村擴展……

7. 綜觀上述內容及社山擬議項目的發展參數,我們認為有關計劃根本不符合林村谷的原規劃意向。

公眾參與及透明度問題
8. 關於LSPS的公眾參與及透明度問題,我們在相關文件看到下列敘述:

立法會參考資料摘要(土地共享先導計劃) (DEVB(PL-CR)1-55/127/1) :

……為建立信心及保障公眾利益,先導計劃會採用具透明度的機制,並由特 設的顧問小組提供第三方意見。所有相關法定程序,包括修訂法定圖則及授權進行公共道路/渠務工程等刊憲程序,以至現有這些法定程序所涉及的公眾參與渠道,將繼續適用……

……自二零一九年《施政報告》公布後,發展局就先導計劃的擬議框架諮詢了主要持份者,包括立法會發展事務委員會(事務委員會)、香港地產建設商會(地產商會)、土地及建設諮詢委員會、與發展相關的專業學會、鄉議局等。事務委員會亦於二零二零年一月召開會議聽取代表團體的意見。經考慮接獲的意見及政策目的,發展局建議,行政長官會同行政會議批准以下詳列的先導計劃細節,以予實施……

立法會發展事務委員會討論文件(LC Paper No. CB(1)160/19-20(03)) :

……為保持透明度,先導計劃的資料、接獲的申請及每宗申請的進度均會於不同階段向公眾發布。我們會公布接獲的申請細節,亦會在顧問小組就個別個案討論後公布小組的意見。現行法定規劃、環境、收地及/或工程授權程序下的既定公眾參與渠道將繼續適用……

9. 我們同意建立信心、保障公眾利益及保持透明度為LSPS的重要構成部分。可是,目前我們只能從計劃摘要得悉極少有關項目的資料,相關計劃摘要亦無附上任何有關項目潛在影響的評估。沒有進一步資料,公眾如何能適切地對這些位處於環境敏感地區的發展項目提供意見?

「先破壞,後發展」問題
10. 社山的申請地點曾經被嚴重破壞(傾倒泥頭),而亦因為這個個案,有關方面修訂了分區計劃大綱圖內農業地帶的註釋,以處理農業地帶的填土問題及加強規劃管制 。
11. 城規會亦曾公布 :

城規會決心保護鄉郊及天然環境,不會容忍任何蓄意破壞鄉郊及天然環境的行動,企圖使城規會對有關土地上的其後發展給予從寬考慮……

12. 我們希望各有關方面仔細考慮在此地點擬議發展任何大型項目是否恰當。

結論
13. LSPS有一個「最少新增房屋數量」準則,原意是為儘量增加每個申請的總樓面面積8。雖然這個試驗性策略或能在一些地方增加房屋供應,我們認為在某些錯誤地點以非常高聳及高密度的發展去達至LSPS的準則本身就是一個錯誤。LSPS的目的是協調發展過程,而非漠視政府一貫的發展措守及規範,對現有社群及敏感的生物多樣性,仍須一如既往地緊慎考量及妥善兼顧。

14. 現時有關這兩個項目的資訊非常少,直接影響討論的成效及事實基礎。儘管如此,憑我們現時手上的資料,我們認為南生圍及社山這兩處絕不適合發展如此「非常」的大型項目。由於現時的公開資料沒有包含任何詳細評估報告,我們不清楚擬議項目明顯會引致的潛在影響如何能夠得到處理。

15. 我們絕對明白弱勢社群對公營房屋的需求,但確實亦難以理解在偏遠鄉郊建屋能如何切合基層所需–上述兩個申請地點不但缺乏公共運輸系統等適切的基礎建設,更為敏感環境所包圍。我們亦要問,這些項目能如何維護無價的天然資源予後代共享?我們重申並強調,社會上眾多界別早已指出,香港仍有很多適合作公營房屋發展的土地資源,也有不少增加房屋供應的方法。

16. 綜觀以上資訊,及為了確保下一代的環境不會受到不可逆轉的破壞,我們不支持這兩個項目。

聯署團體(依筆劃序):

世界自然基金會香港分會
長春社
香港鄉郊基金
香港觀鳥會
創建香港
綠色力量
嘉道理農場暨植物園

 

Joint Statement from NGOs concerning Two Applications under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme at Nam Sang Wai and She Shan

1. We would like to express our grave concern regarding two recent applications submitted under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme (LSPS), one at Nam Sang Wai (LSPS-002) and the other at She Shan, Lam Tsuen (LSPS-003). At present, the two application sites and their surroundings are highly rural in nature with significantly low development density. The proposed developments, however, would introduce many high-rise blocks (LSPS-002: 24 to 25 storeys; LSPS-003: 17 to 39 storeys) and large populations (LSPS-002: 10,487; LSPS-003: 33,937) into these two places. Simply speaking, from various perspectives, we have found these two proposals to be completely incomprehensible; our detailed views are presented below.

 

Ecological issues

2. The application site of LSPS-002 is located to the south of the core wetland area of Nam Sang Wai, and the site itself also encompasses several fish ponds and a watercourse. Indeed, the site is well within the Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) which is primarily delineated to buffer the sensitive and internationally important Deep Bay wetlands. More importantly, WBA also serves as a flight path/corridor for breeding ardeids to access their foraging grounds within the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA). We are highly concerned that the proposed high-rise blocks would undermine the buffering function which the area is designated to provide, and would have adverse impacts on the breeding ardeids. The core Nam Sang Wai area as well as the channels surrounding the application site are habitats for many waterbird species of high conservation importance, including the globally threatened Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor). It is also a winter roosting site for Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and is of regional importance. The area also provides habitats for the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra), which is of very high conservation concern in Hong Kong and mainland China. These species are in general highly sensitive to human activities. The proposed 9 high-rise blocks ranging from 24 to 25 storeys would become an obvious obstacle to bird flightpaths and impose various impacts such as light and noise disturbance on the relatively low-rise surroundings. The proposed increased population would also greatly increase human disturbance to the above mentioned ecological sensitive receivers in the region.

3. The proposed development at She Shan (LSPS-003) would greatly increase the population of Lam Tsuen Valley by a predicted 1.75 times (population of Lam Tsuen Valley is around 19,369 persons based on 2016 by-census). At present, there are mainly 3-storey village houses in this area. The proposed development, with 28 high-rise blocks (17 to 39 storeys each; not including those for non-residential uses), would completely destroy the landscape and also severely impact the ecology of the area. Within the application site and its surroundings, active and fallow farmlands as well as watercourses can be found; these habitats provide foraging and roosting grounds for various open country bird species of conservation importance (including globally Critically Endangered Yellow-breasted Bunting (Emberiza aureola), Vulnerable Japanese Yellow Bunting (Emberiza sulphurate)). Furthermore, the existing She Shan Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is located less than 10 m from the proposed development boundary and largely covers the She Shan fung shui woodland (FSW), also provides habitats for many plants and fauna of conservation interest (e.g., Blake’s Oak (Cyclobalanopsis blakei), Brown Wood Owl (Strix leptogrammica), Malayan Night Heron (Gorsachius melanolophus)). The legally protected Illigera (Illigera celebica), which is a larval food plant for the rare butterfly – White Dragontail (Lamproptera curius), also inhabits the periphery of this FSW. A recent study has already indicated that street lighting would impose significant impacts on local insect populations (it has also been clearly demonstrated that street lighting can have serious impacts on other animal groups also). Thus it is not unreasonable to expect that the proposed development, in view of its scale, height and location, would greatly disturb local wildlife populations (e.g., insects, nocturnal birds, and bats).

4. We believe that both LSPS-002 and LSPS-003 would also significantly increase the wildlife road-kill occurrence and bird collisions in the areas of concern, thus imposing another direct impact on wildlife and the local biodiversity.

 

Planning issues

5. As aforementioned, the application site of LSPS-002 is within WBA, and development in this area is governed by the Town Planning Board (TPB) guidelines no. 12c3. The proposed development would cover some ponds and a watercourse. As shown in the plans attached to the application gist1, it seems that a section of the watercourse and also some pond areas would be lost. According to the TPB guidelines no. 12c, there is a ‘no-net-loss in wetlands’ principle in considering development proposals for the Deep Bay Area. Although the applicant claimed in a recent newspaper article that this principle will be followed, we cannot see, at present, from the only available official document of LSPS-002 (i.e., the gist) how the principle can be adequately upheld under the current development proposal.

6. The application site of LSPS-003 and Lam Tsuen Valley are covered under the Approved Lam Tsuen Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). The general planning intention section of this OZP states the following:

Development within the Area is guided by the Territorial Development Strategy Review (TDSR) and the North East New Territories Development Strategy Review (NENT DSR). According to the TDSR and the NENT DSR, the Area is not identified for strategic growth development. The general planning policies for the long-term development in NENT emphasize conservation and landscape protection of the rural hinterland with minimum population growth other than those accommodated in existing new towns and committed urban development. The existing and committed transport and infrastructural networks will not be capable of sustaining additional growth up to 2011.

In view of the development constraints in NENT and the need to conserve/preserve the rural character, the natural landscape and the ecological interest of the Area, it is intended not to encourage open storage uses, nor informal industrial development and residential development in the Area. The planning intention for the Area is, therefore, to retain the rural character of the Area by controlling development and promoting agricultural activities, and to allow village expansion in areas where development is considered appropriate……

7. Looking at the proposed development parameters at She Shan with reference to the above, we consider that the current proposal is simply contrary to the original planning intention of Lam Tsuen Valley.

 

Public engagement and transparency issues

8. Regarding the issue of public engagement and transparency of LSPS, we can see from various relevant documents the following:

Legislative Council Brief for LSPS(DEVB(PL-CR)1-55/127/1):

 ……LSPS strives to build confidence and safeguard public interest, with transparent mechanism involving third-party opinion offered by the Panel of Advisors to be set up specifically for LSPS. All relevant statutory procedures on town planning and road/sewerage works gazettal, as well as the existing public participation channels under these processes, would continue to apply……

……Development Bureau (DEVB) has since the 2019 PA engaged key stakeholders including the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Development, the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong (REDA), the Land and Development Advisory Committee (LDAC), development-related professional institutes, Heung Yee Kuk (HYK), etc. on the proposed framework. The LegCo Panel on Development also convened meeting to receive views from deputations in January 2020……

Legislative Council Panel on Development Discussion Paper (LC Paper No. CB(1)160/19-20(03)):

……To uphold transparency, information on LSPS, applications received and progress of each case would be released to the public at different stages. We would publish details of the applications upon receipt and opinions of the Panel of Advisors on individual cases after its deliberation. The existing public participation channels under various statutory procedures in the planning, environment, land resumption and/or works authorisation regimes, etc. would continue as applicable……

9. We agree that building confidence, safeguarding public interest and upholding transparency are all important components of LSPS as claimed. However, at present we could only find extremely limited information regarding the proposals (i.e., from the gists only) and could not find any detailed technical assessments relating to the potential impacts of the proposal. Without further information, how can the public comment appropriately on the proposals in such environmentally sensitive areas?

 

‘Destroy First, Build Later’ issue

10. Some may remember that a case was raised previously as the application site at She Shan was impacted by serious environmental destruction (i.e., land filling), and the ‘Notes for Agriculture (AGR) zone’ on Outline Zoning Plans were even revised as a result of this case to tackle the problem of filling on AGR-zoned land and to strengthen planning control.

11. The TPB has also announced that:

The Board is determined to conserve the rural and natural environment and will not tolerate any deliberate action to destroy the rural and natural environment in the hope that the Board would give sympathetic consideration to subsequent development on the site concerned……

12. We urge all relevant parties to thoroughly consider whether it is still appropriate to propose any large-scale development at the She Shan site.

 

Conclusion

13. Under the LSPS there is a criterion called ‘Minimum Housing Gain’; its ultimate aim is to boost the gross floor area of each application8. While this experimental approach may increase housing supply in some places, we consider that applications with extraordinary high rise and high density development parameters should never appear in totally unsuitable locations, which is an incorrect way to achieve the LSPS criteria. The LSPS is not designed to over-ride all previous Government measures and controls on development but to facilitate a process which still requires careful and fair consideration for the existing communities and sensitive biodiversity.

14. Although the very limited information now available regarding the captioned proposals makes fruitful or fact-based discussion very difficult, our conclusion, based on the information we have in hand, is that the captioned localities, Nam Sang Wai and She Shan, are definitely not suitable for developments of such ‘extraordinary’ scale. We also cannot comprehend how the clear potential impacts that would be caused by the proposed developments can be addressed, as detailed assessment reports are lacking from the available information.

15. While we fully understand the public housing need of the underprivileged community in Hong Kong, it is unclear how building houses in fairly remote, rural locations is helpful to the immediate needs, given that they are lacking of basic infrastructures (e.g., adequate public transportation system), and have sensitive surroundings. It is also uncertain how such development can help to sustain the invaluable natural resources for our future generations. We would like to reiterate and emphasise that there are still many suitable land resources for public housing development and many options to increase housing supply, which have already been repeatedly pointed out by various sectors in the society.

16. In view of the above and in order to ensure that the environment for future generations is not to be impacted irreversibly, we, the signatories below, wish to make it clear that we do not support the two captioned proposals.

 

Co-organised groups (in alphabetical order):

The Conservancy Association
Designing Hong Kong
Green Power
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden
World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong

27 August

攝影展:與轆同行Walking with Wheels

Walking with Wheels Exhibition

Walking with Wheels Exhibition

攝影展:與轆同行Walking with Wheels
2021年9月8日至10月3日
下午5點至午夜12點歡迎入場,逢星期一休息
香港島西營盤第二街129號地庫乒乓冰室

創建香港首次主辦攝影展,Walking with Wheels與轆同行。這個項目關注手推車使用者,並旨在歸納和展示五年以來的研究成果。透過向公衆展示我們的研究成果和攝影師們的影像作品,創建香港希望能讓大衆更關注轆友每日面對的安全隱憂,並了解手推車作為重要的運輸工具,在經濟和社會層面上,能爲我們的城市所帶來的改變。同時借此機會,創建香港期望日後的城市規劃設計、道路設計和行人區建設,能回應轆友們的需要,從而使香港的交通系統更安全。

與轆同行:不可或缺的交通方式
相信大家在日常生活中,對城市裏的手推車都不感陌生。我們經常都會遇到有人帶著行李箱、手推車、嬰兒車或輪椅穿過街頭;而有些時候,我們自己也會與轆同行!事實上,手推車是支持香港經濟和社會活動的重要交通工具。使用手推車可以幫助我們更靈活地調整和安排貨物的裝卸地點,從而提升運輸效率,並有助减少交通擁堵出現的情況。

與轆同行 的挑戰是顯而易見的。當街道清潔工和回收者在日常工作中推著手推車穿過崎嶇、陡峭的街道時,狹窄的行人道上熙熙攘攘的人潮、馬路上高速駛過的車輛和「轆友」們手中裝滿貨物而沉重的手推車,都往往容易令他們陷於危險之中,而另一方面的家庭使用者,比如推著嬰兒車、輪椅或行李箱的人們則需要艱難地在香港複雜的路網中尋找能夠方便穿行的通道,因為很多地方的行人路線都並未充分考慮到「轆友」的需要,導致相關無障礙設施或指引缺失和不足。

有見於此,與轆同行項目旨在鼓勵公眾和政府針對「轆友」目前的困境,提出更多問題並期待找到解決方案。我們如何評估與轆同行可以給我們的城市帶來的好處?我們如何使與轆同行更有助於提高運輸效率和减少道路擁堵?我們能否提高城市中各人的通勤體驗,促進道路安全,和建設一個更包容的交通系統?我們如何保障及改善轆友們使用道路、行人道、電梯、行人天橋和通過建築物的權益?我們如何最大限度地减少「轆友」與路上其他使用者之間的衝突?我們如何改善「轆友」的安全和工作條件?以上或有更多的問題,有待整個社會共同去思考。www.designinghongkong.com

WWW12

Walking with Wheels Exhibition
8 September (Wednesday) – 3 October (Sunday), 17:00 – 00:00
Ping Pong 129 – Gintonería, Basement, 129 Second Street, Sai Ying Pun

The Walking with Wheels photography exhibition highlights the challenges people who walk with wheels face in Hong Kong. It draws public attention to the economic, social and safety aspects of walking with wheels. Walking with Wheels is an initiative by Designing Hong Kong to advocate for recognition of this mode of transport in urban planning, transport policy, road design, and pedestrianization.

Walking with Wheels Panel Discussion/Webinar – Tuesday 7th September 2021
(Click here to view recorded video)
WhatsApp Image 2021-10-08 at 5.43.40 PM
Speakers:
Alain Chiaradia, Associate Professor of Practice at HKU Faculty of Architecture;
Julian Kwong, Chairman of Community for Road Safety;
Ezreal Sin, Representative of Street Reset
Host:
Paul Zimmerman, CEO of Designing Hong Kong

Walking With Wheels – An Essential Mode of Transport

The challenges to walking with wheels are obvious. Street cleaners and recyclers are often in danger when pushing their trolleys across rugged, steep and cramped streets during their daily routines, while families struggle to find convenient routes with baby prams, wheelchairs or suitcases.

The ability to walk safely and conveniently with carts and trolleys allows us to move loading and unloading locations and thereby reduce traffic congestion.  The Walking with Wheels initiative seeks to encourage the public and government to ask questions and to find solutions.

Can a better understanding of the role and operation of Walking with Wheels help enhance transport efficiencies and reduce road congestion? What benefits does walking with wheels contribute to society? How can we improve the rights of those walking with wheels to the use of roads, pavements, lifts, footbridges and buildings? Can we improve the walking experience, and promote road safety? How can we minimize conflicts with other users of these routes? How can we improve the safety and working conditions of those who are Walking With Wheels? www.designinghongkong.com

 

18 January

Water Supply in Hong Kong – The Far Eastern Review 1927 – 1934

Water supply in Hong Kong – The Far Eastern Review 1927 – 1934
Articles on “Water supply in Hong Kong” published in The Far Eastern Review in 1927 and 1934, courtesy of the P. A. Crush Chinese Railway Collection

Far Eastern

Water supply in Hong Kong – The ‘Shing Mun’ Valley Scheme
The Far Eastern Review Jan 1927
Vol. XXIII No.1
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Jan-1927.pdf

Shing Mun Valley Contract, Hong Kong
The Far Eastern Review Mar 1927
Vol. XXIII No.1
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Mar-19271.pdf

Part I – The Many Difficulties and First Efforts
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Jul 1934
Vol. XXX No.7
https://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Jul-1934.pdf

Part II – Increasing The Stroage and Areas of Supply on the Island
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Aug 1934
Vol. XXX No.8
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Aug-1934.pdf

Part III – Works to Increase the Supply on the Island Carried Out Since 1920
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Sep 1934
Vol. XXX No.9
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Sep-1934.pdf

Part IV – The Second Harbour Pipe Line and The Problem in Kowloon
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Oct 1934
Vol. XXX No.10
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Oct-1934.pdf

Part V – The New Reservoir at Shing Mun
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Nov 1934
Vol. XXX No.11
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Nov-19341.pdf

Part VI – Problems For China Concerning the Utilization and Control of Water
Water supply in Hong Kong – The Story of a Triumph of Applied Science
The Far Eastern Review Dec 1934
Vol. XXX No.12
http://www.designinghongkong.com/v4/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/The-Far-Eastern-Review-Dec-1934.pdf

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

 

4 August

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

mapV5

155fcc18663d706cccd171909342878b  new design firm

【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

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