Subject: [Hong Kong] 反對塱原、蠔殼圍及新田發展計劃 Object LV, HHW & ST Zoning [Print This Page]
Author: HKBWS WY Time: 26/12/2009 10:14 Subject: 反對塱原、蠔殼圍及新田發展計劃 Object LV, HHW & ST Zoning
反對塱原、蠔殼圍及新田區域發展計劃
香港觀鳥會
在保育區內讓私人利益凌駕公眾利益正正破壞香港的規劃程序
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。
具高度生態價值地點所獲的有關認可
1. 塱原、新田及蠔殼圍已經獲以下單位確認擁有高度生態價值的地區：
a. 香港特區政府
-- 自然保育政策 ( 漁農自然護理署及環境局 )
-- 魚塘研究 ( 漁農自然護理署及規劃署 )
-- 濕地彌償研究 ( 漁農自然護理署及規劃署 )
-- 立法會議案 ( 支線撥款批閱 )
-- 環境影響評估上訴委員會 ( 詳情請參閱判辭 )
-- 新界東北、邊境禁區及落馬州河套地區研究 ( 土木工程拓展署及規劃署 )
b. 國際鳥盟 -- 內后海灣及深圳河集水區
c. 研究上述地區的專業生態學學者
d. 香港環境保護團體
e. 香港傳媒
f. 香港市民
具高度生態價值的地點應該受城市規劃條例保護
2. 此項政策表示有關地點必須受到適當保護，避免受到土地發展所引致的負面影響。香港規劃標準與準則第十章已明確寫出。
3. 那些具高度生態價值地區獲規劃為保育區正顯示我們需要適當保護它，避免因地區發展而出現負面影響，這是基本的城市規劃及常識。
4. 此外，規劃署建議規劃的「綜合發展區 -- 濕地優化區域」卻為保育埋下禍根。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。
5. 特別是此類規劃容許任何業權人宣稱其擁有的一片土地的生態價值較低，因此可以合法地申請發展。故此，這種規劃無法保護該土地免受發展影響。上述的預防原則要求更高、更適當的土地規劃，而並非更低的標準。假如把這些擁有高度生態價值的土地變成可以發展的地區，規劃署的建議顯得非常不理性和違反常理。
城市規劃必須按法律於符合公眾 ( 非私人 ) 利益下執行
6. 城市規劃條例 ( 第 131 章 ) 要求規劃必須於根據公眾利益，而非私人利益。
7. 規劃署向環保組織表示，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。
8. 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。但實際上此權利並不存在，只是想像的期望－－僅此而己，這是一向的法理根據及合理原則。
9. 換句話說，規劃署已經放棄城市規劃的基本原則，並將不合法的私人利益及期望凌駕於公眾人士的合法期望之上。
10. 規劃署宣稱其無法規劃私人土地為保育區，然而，現時已有數百公頃私人土地，被劃為「具特殊科學價值地點」、「保育區」及「綠化地帶」(此規劃已預設不容許土地發展影響)，包括最近獲建議劃為保育區的南涌。故此，規劃署的上述宣稱並無根據。
替代建議
土地交換
11. 假如政府賦予土地擁有者擁有原本他們沒有的發展權，這是完全不能接受的做法，因為破壞這些具高度生態價的地點正等如損害眾的利益，適當的方法應該是以低或沒有生態價值的土地與他們交換，這方法被稱為「非原址換地保育方案」。
12. 很多國家擁有「非原址換地保育方案」的成功例子。因此並沒有理由支持香港不能實施。事實上，「非原址換地保育方案」曾經在其他事件上被應用。
13. 另一個以公眾資源賦予擁有高生態價值土地的私人業權人的方法是由地政總署通過標準金額徵收該等土地，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具實踐空間。
14. 在新發展區內，有大片土地被徵收作為發展公園之用，因此上述建議原則上並沒有理由不獲考慮。
按此下載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
按此下載邊境禁區土地規劃研究
Author: HKBWS WY Time: 26/12/2009 10:20
OBJECTION to DEVELOPMENT ZONING
for
LONG VALLEY, HOO HOK WAI and SAN TIN
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
Placing private interests ahead of Public Interests in Conservation Zones threatens to undermine entire planning process in Hong Kong
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.
Recognition of high ecological value of these sites.
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
Sites of high ecological value merit protection under Town Planning Ordinance
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.
Town Planning must by law be conducted in the public (not private) interest
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.
Alternative Options
Land Exchange
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.
Click here to download the document: Long Valley in the NEast NT New Development Areas Study
Click here to download the document:Land Use Planning for the Closed Areas
Author: 觀鳥新丁 Time: 1/01/2010 18:56
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... 
| Welcome to HKBWS Forum 香港觀鳥會討論區 (http://hkbws.org.hk/BBS/) |
Powered by Discuz! 6.0.0 |