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

 

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

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…)

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。

 

 

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…)

20 February

Protect Nam Sang Wai 保護南生圍