查看完整版本: 反對塱原、蠔殼圍及新田發展計劃 Object LV, HHW & ST Zoning

反對塱原、蠔殼圍及新田發展計劃 Object LV, HHW & ST Zoning

[align=center][b][font=標楷體][size=5]反對塱原、蠔殼圍及新田區域發展計劃[/size][/font][/b][/align]
[align=center][b][font=標楷體]香港觀鳥會[/font][/b][/align]

[size=3][b][i][font=標楷體]在保育區內讓[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]私人利益[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]凌駕[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]公眾利益[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]正正破壞[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]香港[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]的[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]規劃[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]程序[/font][/i][/b][b][/b][/size]

[font=標楷體]規劃署於新界東北及邊境禁區劃分高度保育地區，旨在於了解香港整體城市規劃，並有助公眾利益的大前題下，執行私人土地發展項目。[/font]

[b][i][font=標楷體]具[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]高度生態價值[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]地點所獲的有關認可　[/font][/i][/b][b][/b]

1. [font=標楷體]塱原、新田及蠔殼圍[/font][font=標楷體]已經[/font][font=標楷體]獲以下單位確認擁有高度生態價值的地區：[/font]
a. [font=標楷體]香港特區政府[/font]
-- [font=標楷體]自然保育政策[/font] ( [font=標楷體]漁農自然護理署及環境局[/font] )
-- [font=標楷體]魚塘研究[/font] ( [font=標楷體]漁農自然護理署及規劃署[/font] )
-- [font=標楷體]濕地[/font][font=標楷體]彌[/font][font=標楷體]償研究[/font] ( [font=標楷體]漁農自然護理署及規劃署[/font] )
-- [font=標楷體]立法會[/font][font=標楷體]議案[/font] ( [font=標楷體]支線撥款批閱[/font] )
-- [font=標楷體]環境影響評估上訴[/font][font=標楷體]委員會[/font] ( [font=標楷體]詳情請參閱判辭[/font] )
-- [font=標楷體]新界東北、邊境禁區及落馬州河套地區研究[/font] ( [font=標楷體]土木工程拓展署及規劃署[/font] )
b. [font=標楷體]國際鳥盟[/font] -- [font=標楷體]內后海灣及深圳河集水區[/font]
c. [font=標楷體]研究上述地區的專業生態學學者[/font]
d. [font=標楷體]香港環境保護團體[/font]
e. [font=標楷體]香港傳媒[/font]
f. [font=標楷體]香港市民[/font]

[b][i][font=標楷體]具[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]高度生態價值[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]的[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]地[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]點應該[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]受城市規劃條例保護[/font][/i][/b][b][/b]

2. [font=標楷體]此[/font][font=標楷體]項政策[/font][font=標楷體]表示有關地[/font][font=標楷體]點[/font][font=標楷體]必須受[/font][font=標楷體]到適當保護，避免受到[/font][font=標楷體]土地發展[/font][font=標楷體]所引[/font][font=標楷體]致[/font][font=標楷體]的[/font][font=標楷體]負面影響。香港規劃標準與準則第十章[/font][font=標楷體]已明確寫出[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

3. [font=標楷體]那些[/font][font=標楷體]具[/font][font=標楷體]高度生態價值地區[/font][font=標楷體]獲規劃為保育區正顯示我們需要適當保護它，避[/font][font=標楷體]免[/font][font=標楷體]因[/font][font=標楷體]地區發展而[/font][font=標楷體]出現[/font][font=標楷體]負面影響[/font][font=標楷體]，這是[/font][font=標楷體]基[/font][font=標楷體]本的[/font][font=標楷體]城市規劃及常識。[/font]

4. [font=標楷體]此外，規劃署[/font][font=標楷體]建議規劃的[/font][font=標楷體]「綜合發展區[/font] -- [font=標楷體]濕地優化區域」[/font][font=標楷體]卻為保育埋下禍根[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font][font=標楷體]建議看來是以濕地保育為主，實際卻會引致無數的個別發展申請，令生態一小片一小片地被逐步蠶食[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

5. [font=標楷體]特別是此類規劃[/font][font=標楷體]容[/font][font=標楷體]許[/font][font=標楷體]任何[/font][font=標楷體]業權人宣稱其擁有的一片土地的生態價值較低[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]因此可以合法地申請發展[/font][font=標楷體]。故此，[/font][font=標楷體]這種規劃[/font][font=標楷體]無法保護[/font][font=標楷體]該土地[/font][font=標楷體]免受發展影響。上述[/font][font=標楷體]的[/font][font=標楷體]預防原則要求[/font][font=標楷體]更[/font][font=標楷體]高、[/font][font=標楷體]更適當[/font][font=標楷體]的[/font][font=標楷體]土地規劃，而並非更低的標準[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font][font=標楷體]假如把這些[/font][font=標楷體]擁有高度生態價值的土地[/font][font=標楷體]變成可以[/font][font=標楷體]發展[/font][font=標楷體]的地區[/font][font=標楷體]，規劃署的建議[/font][font=標楷體]顯得[/font][font=標楷體]非[/font][font=標楷體]常不[/font][font=標楷體]理性和[/font][font=標楷體]違反常理[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

[b][i][font=標楷體]城市規劃必須按法律於符合公眾[/font][/i][/b][b][i] ( [/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]非私人[/font][/i][/b][b][i] ) [/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]利益下執行[/font][/i][/b][b][/b]

6. [font=標楷體]城市規劃條例[/font] ( [font=標楷體]第[/font] 131 [font=標楷體]章[/font] ) [font=標楷體]要求規劃必須於[/font][font=標楷體]根據[/font][font=標楷體]公眾利益[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]而非私人利益。[/font]

7. [font=標楷體]規劃署[/font][font=標楷體]向[/font][font=標楷體]環保組織[/font][font=標楷體]表示，由於受到私人業權人的批評，因此放棄透過土地規劃確認這些地點具高度生態值[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

8. [font=標楷體]土地擁有者期望其土地能重新規劃發展，並獲確認他們擁有發展其私人土地的權利。[/font][font=標楷體]但實際上[/font][font=標楷體]此權利並不存在[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]只是想像的[/font][font=標楷體]期望[/font][font=標楷體]－[/font][font=標楷體]－僅[/font][font=標楷體]此而己[/font][font=標楷體]，這是一向的[/font][font=標楷體]法理[/font][font=標楷體]根據[/font][font=標楷體]及[/font][font=標楷體]合理原則[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

9. [font=標楷體]換句話說，規劃署[/font][font=標楷體]已經[/font][font=標楷體]放棄城市規劃的基本原則[/font][font=標楷體]，並[/font][font=標楷體]將不合[/font][font=標楷體]法[/font][font=標楷體]的私人利益[/font][font=標楷體]及期[/font][font=標楷體]望凌[/font][font=標楷體]駕於[/font][font=標楷體]公眾[/font][font=標楷體]人士[/font][font=標楷體]的[/font][font=標楷體]合法[/font][font=標楷體]期望之上。[/font]

10. [font=標楷體]規劃署宣稱其無法規[/font][font=標楷體]劃[/font][font=標楷體]私人土地[/font][font=標楷體]為保[/font][font=標楷體]育[/font][font=標楷體]區，然而[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]現時已[/font][font=標楷體]有數百公頃[/font][font=標楷體]私人[/font][font=標楷體]土地[/font][font=標楷體]，被劃為「[/font][font=標楷體]具特殊科學價值地點[/font][font=標楷體]」[/font][font=標楷體]、[/font][font=標楷體]「[/font][font=標楷體]保育區[/font][font=標楷體]」[/font][font=標楷體]及[/font][font=標楷體]「[/font][font=標楷體]綠化地帶[/font][font=標楷體]」[/font]([font=標楷體]此規劃已預設不容許[/font][font=標楷體]土地發展影響[/font])[font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]包括[/font][font=標楷體]最近獲建議[/font][font=標楷體]劃[/font][font=標楷體]為保育[/font][font=標楷體]區[/font][font=標楷體]的南涌。[/font][font=標楷體]故此，規劃署的上述[/font][font=標楷體]宣稱[/font][font=標楷體]並無根據[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

[b][i][font=標楷體]替代[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]建議[/font][/i][/b][b][/b]
[b][/b]
[b][i][font=標楷體]土地[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]交[/font][/i][/b][b][i][font=標楷體]換[/font][/i][/b][b][/b]
11. [font=標楷體]假如政府[/font][font=標楷體]賦予土地擁有者擁有原本他們沒有的發展權，這是[/font][font=標楷體]完全不[/font][font=標楷體]能[/font][font=標楷體]接受[/font][font=標楷體]的做法，因為破壞這些具高度生態價的地點正等如損害眾的利益[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]適當的方法應該是以[/font][font=標楷體]低或沒有生態價值的土地[/font][font=標楷體]與他們[/font][font=標楷體]交換[/font][font=標楷體]，這方法被[/font][font=標楷體]稱為「非原址換地保育方案」。[/font]

12. [font=標楷體]很多[/font][font=標楷體]國家擁有「非原址換地保育方案」[/font][font=標楷體]的[/font][font=標楷體]成功例子。因此並沒有理由[/font][font=標楷體]支持[/font][font=標楷體]香港[/font][font=標楷體]不能[/font][font=標楷體]實[/font][font=標楷體]施[/font][font=標楷體]。事實上，「非原址換地保育方案」曾經[/font][font=標楷體]在[/font][font=標楷體]其他[/font][font=標楷體]事件上被應用[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

13. [font=標楷體]另一個以公眾資源賦[/font][font=標楷體]予[/font][font=標楷體]擁有高生態價值土地的私人業權人的方法[/font][font=標楷體]是由[/font][font=標楷體]地[/font][font=標楷體]政總署通過標準金額徵收該等土地[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]香港特區政府擁有充足資源推行上述方法，尤以塱原新發展區規劃更[/font][font=標楷體]具[/font][font=標楷體]實踐空間。[/font]

14. [font=標楷體]在[/font][font=標楷體]新發展區內[/font][font=標楷體]，有大片[/font][font=標楷體]土地[/font][font=標楷體]被徵收作為[/font][font=標楷體]發展公園[/font][font=標楷體]之用[/font][font=標楷體]，[/font][font=標楷體]因[/font][font=標楷體]此上述[/font][font=標楷體]建議原則上並[/font][font=標楷體]沒[/font][font=標楷體]有理由不獲考慮[/font][font=標楷體]。[/font]

[size=2][url=http://www.nentnda.gov.hk/chi/Digest2_Chinese.pdf]按此下載[u]新界東北新發展區規劃及工程研究之第二階段公眾參與諮詢文件[/u][/url]

[url=http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/misc/FCA/pdf_pps/ClosedAreaBookletCHT_s2.pdf]按此下載[u]邊境禁區土地規劃研究[/u][/url][/size]

[align=center][align=center][b]OBJECTION to DEVELOPMENT ZONING [/b][/align][/align][align=center][align=center][b]for [/b][/align][/align][align=center][align=center][b]LONG VALLEY, HOO HOK WAI and SAN TIN[/b][/align][/align][align=center][align=center] [/align][/align]
[align=center][align=center]Hong Kong Bird Watching Society[/align][/align]
[b]Placing private interests ahead of Public Interests in Conservation Zones threatens to undermine entire planning process in Hong Kong[/b]
[b] [/b]
Planning Department’s proposed zoning of areas of high conservation value in the NENT and FCA aims to facilitate private development at the expense of public benefit undermines the whole basis of town planning in Hong Kong.

[b]Recognition of high ecological value of these sites. [/b]

1. Long Valley (LV) San Tin and Hoo Hok Wai (HK) are identified as areas of the highest ecological value by:

a. Hong Kong Government
i. Nature Conservation Policy (AFCD and Env Bureau)
ii. Fishponds study (AFCD andPlanD)
iii. Wetland Compensation Study (AFCD and PlanD)
iv. Legislative Council papers (Spur Line funding approval)
v. EIA Appeal Board (see judgment)
vi. NENT, FCA and Lok Ma Chau Loop Study (CEDD &Plan D)
vii. Environment & Conservation Fund (Management Agreements)
b. BirdLife International – Inner Deep Bay & Shenzhen River Catchment
c. Professional ecologists for these studies
d. Hong Kong environmental groups
e. The Hong Kong press
f. The Hong Kong public

[b]Sites of high ecological value merit protection under Town Planning Ordinance[/b]

2. This shows that these sites must be protected from adverse development impacts. This is specifically stated also in Chapter 10 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines.

3. Land of high ecological value merits a zoning that recognizes this high ecological conservation value and that will protect it from adverse development.
Basic town planning and common sense.

4. Despite this, the Planning Department (PlanD) has proposed a zoning that opens a back door to development:“Comprehensive Development Area -Wetland Enhancement Area”. While this sounds like a conservation zoning, it is not. In practice it leads to piecemeal degradation on a case-by-case basis.

5. In particular, this zoning permits any landowner within a given site to identify the “less sensitive area”of their own plot and legitimately apply to develop it.
Therefore this zoning fails to protect these sites from development. The precautionary principle requires higher, more appropriate zoning standards, not worse. It would be irrational and perverse for PlanD to propose development for land which is so widely recognized as having high ecological value.
[b]
[/b][b]Town Planning must by law be conducted in the public (not private) interest[/b]

6. The Town Planning Ordinance(cap 131) requires planning to be conducted in the public interest – NOT the private interest.

7. PlanD has informed the green groups that it does not dare to recognize the ecological value of these sites with an appropriate conservation zoning because it is fearful of criticism from private landowners.

8. Landowners hope that their land can be re-zoned for development, and assert they have a right to develop their land. This right does not exist – it is a speculative hope – and nothing more.This has long been the legal and sensible position.

9. In other words PlanD is surrendering the basic principles of town planning. It puts the illegitimate expectations of private interests ahead of the legitimate expectations of the wider community.

10. PlanD has claimed it is not possible to zone private land for conservation. However, there are several hundred hectares of land that are zoned SSSI, Conservation Area, and Green Belt (zoning with a presumption against development), and some of these zonings have recently been proposed at another site – Sham Chung.
This claim is nonsense.

[b]Alternative Options[/b]

[b][i]Land Exchange[/i][/b]
11. If the Government wants to gift landowners with development rights for land that carries no such value it is totally unacceptable that they should do so to the detriment of a public asset – land of outstanding ecological value.
The method for doing this is to allocate land of low or nil ecological value at another site in exchange. This is called non-in-situ land exchange.

12. Non in-situ land exchange is successfully used in many countries to resolve such issues. There is no reason why it should not be used in Hong Kong.Indeed it has been used in Hong Kong for other purposes.

13. Another way to gift public resources to owners of land of high ecological value is to resume the land at the standard rates proposed by the Lands Department.
The Hong Kong Government has sufficient resources to do this, especially within the scope of NDA planning for Long Valley.

14. A considerable area of land is being resumed for parkland in the NDAs, so there is no reason in principle why this should not happen.

[b] [/b]
[size=2][url=http://www.nentnda.gov.hk/eng/Digest2_English.pdf]Click here to download the document: [u]Long Valley in the NEast NT New Development Areas Study[/u][/url]
[url=http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/misc/FCA/pdf_pps/ClosedAreaBookletEng_s2.pdf]Click here to download the document:[u]Land Use Planning for the Closed Areas[/u][/url][/size]

學習下台灣保育政策...

以大自然為優先, 而非自己將法律底試進行測試... 35511875cee9445 355182da9d58445