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

16 May

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

Vote on-line - Click here!

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

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

立即按此支持聯署!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

我們建議在大會堂附近重置皇后碼頭(選址在最接近原址的位置) :

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

2. 修復愛丁堡廣場的整體格局,包括大會堂、愛丁堡廣場、檢閱台和皇后碼頭

3. 原址重建的皇后碼頭有助香港人和旅客回顧舊有的海岸線

4. 皇后碼頭的新簷可以為愛丁堡廣場遊人或龍和道等車乘客提供坐椅和遮蔭

皇后碼頭應當何去何從立即按此支持聯署!

 

28 February

Zoning Pak Sha O for illegal development

(Photo credit: Conservancy Association) 

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

Deadline for comments is 4 February.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

立場新聞丁屋地倍增 白沙澳談什麼「可以居」?

Protect Pak Sha O– Click and object to zoning: 

http://protectskpso.weebly.com/

5 May

FQA 常見問題:Country Parks郊野公園

FQA

 

Title: Whether country park land should be used for building estates?

題目:郊野公園適合建屋?

(more…)

5 May

FAQ 常見問題:Electricity 電力

Posted by in Environment, FAQ | No Comments


FQA


Title: Whether Hong Kong should purchase electricity from China in the future?

題目:香港將來應否向中國購電?

(more…)