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…)

14 April

回應小販管理建議 Re: Hawker Management Proposal

以下為對「小販管理建議」的回應:
Here are our comments regarding the hawker management policy suggested by the government:

1.我們支持小膝政策的原則
We support the proposed principles for Hong Kong’s hawker policy.

2.我們要求額外的原則,包括店面延伸及戶外座位的安排
We urge for an additional principle
 together with Shop Extensions and Outdoor Seating Arrangements

3.我們支持政府所提出的建議
We support the measures proposed by government

4.小販不是社會福利
Hawker trade is not welfare

5.應推廣由地區主導的計劃
District led proposals should be promoted

詳情請參閱我們向立法會提交的書面建議口頭報告(均只有英文)
Details please see our written submission or presentation in Legislative Council.

25 March

Object to small house developments in Tai Long Wan
反對大浪灣丁屋申請

Ham Tin overlay 3



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…)

4 March
9 June

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。

 

 

10 March
6 March

Possible Solution for PLA Pier
中環海濱不一定交給解放軍

Proposed draft zoning by the government
現時政府提議的方案

Government Promise
政府的承諾不過是這樣

(more…)