Board logo

Subject: [Hong Kong] 貝澳,明天的錦田? Will Pui O become Kam Tin? [Print This Page]

Author: lalan    Time: 6/02/2007 01:07     Subject: 貝澳,明天的錦田? Will Pui O become Kam Tin?

ponit2 是貝澳水牛田,但也漸漸有一小堆泥頭出現
p.s 去年在貝澳發現一群沙錐,今次卻沒有發現。

Author: BWA    Time: 16/02/2008 13:03

It seems there has been no action and no improvement for one year.
Post by PemE

Hi everyone, several areas of the marsh in Pui O are being landfilled.  Several of you have visited this site in the last week and I am sure that you will agree it is quite a special habitat, this is especially true when everything is wet.   The landfill below is where Little ringed Plovers bred 2 years ago.  No chance of them breeding this year.  I have complained to the government on, but they are pretty constant in their reply

'Investigation conducted by this office revealed that the land filling activities are within private land.  As land filling does not constitute a breach of the conditions in the relevant leases of the private land, this office cannot take enforcement action.  This office will continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action if necessary.'

I would appreciate any help with this
Kind regards Paul

[hr]Eling 的翻譯

你們好. 最近發現貝澳附近之濕地被非法傾倒癈物. 相信你們都會同意.貝澳這個地方是一個頗特別的棲息地. 尤以夏季水源充足時. 你們看到照片上的地方. 早兩年便有金眶(行鳥)在此繁殖. 相信今年它們便無法在同一地方繁殖了. 雖然我已多次向政府 ( 作出投訴. 可是每次的答覆都是千篇一律. “經過我們的調查. 發現傾倒癈物之行為在私人地方進行. 我們並沒有權力作出任何行動. 因為傾倒癈物的行為並沒有違反政府地契的條款. 雖然如此. 我們仍會繼續觀察事態的發展及會在適當的時間採取行動”

希望網友們盡力幫忙去信政府. 謝謝.


Author: ajohn    Time: 26/02/2008 14:40

That's pretty much the same reply that I usually get from Lands Dept when reporting dumping at Kam Tin - if it's private land they cannot take action.

One possibility to investigate is whether this dumping is being carried out on land zoned for agriculture (check the government's OZP for the area). If so, you could report it to Planning Dept to see if they can take action.

At Kam Tin, I have reported similar incidents several times but usually there seems to be little the government can do. The extensive filling on the Buffalo Fields last summer was on agricultural land, and this finally stopped after the Planning Dept got involved (although I don't know how long that will last). I'm still hoping the enforcement tema will force the land owner to remove the filling, but that may prove to be too much to hope!
Author: cbryan    Time: 27/02/2008 00:20

it's true that the only way to stop illegal dumping is by filing a complaint to PlanD.  under Town Planning Ord., regardless of whether a piece of land is private or not, as long as there's dumping, it's a sort of 'development'.

the subject area is zoned 'coastal protection area' under the outline zoning plan (OZP) and such dumping clearly contravenes the Ord.  PlanD can always compare current land status with past aerial photos to ascertain if there's 'unauthorized development'.

unauthorized development is a serious offence and subject to heavy fine.  this is not the case of unauthorized container storage in the NT where being fined is just part of the expenditure.  if the government does take action, the owners of these abandoned farmlands will definitely take action to have them reinstated.

i think we can write to PlanD about this and if no action is taken shortly, we can then write to the office of Ombudsman.

just been to Kam Tin and then Pui O last weekend and it's definitely a hell to paradise experience.  wouldn't want to see it spoiled in the same way.
Author: cbryan    Time: 4/03/2008 18:27

just learnt from that PlanD has given a ridiculous though accountable reply that the area had not been designated a 'development permission area' (DPA) before the gazette of the current outline zoning plan back in 2005.

having carefully studied the Town Planning Ord., it is indeed very stupid that the ordinance only defines development deviating from DPA an offence but not those deviating from OZP.  this is really stupid but this is how it's written.

i'm no lawyer but i would very much like to help.  from my knowledge, there are several ordinances involved in illegal dumping.  firstly, as suggested by a member of the forum, the Waste Disposal Ord. (Cap. 354) that dumping of construction waste (as in the case of Pui O), without a license is an offence.  not only that the one who dumps commits an offence but also the landowner who permits the dumping.

the other ordinance is the environmental impact assessment ordinance (Cap. 399) that an environmental permit is required for all works, including earthworks in special area / conservation area.  the subject area is a coastal protection area (CPA) and therefore i believe the EIA ordinance applies.

Environmental Protection Department is the department administering and enforcing both ordinances and therefore they should be the guys we should be ringing.


apart from chasing after the EPD guys, i think this case rings the alarm that there's indeed a loop hole in the legislation in its capability to protect the environment.

the town planning ordinance only caters for areas previously designated DPA (as suggested by the PlanD officer).  so it's under the purview of other legislation to protect a certain area against certain environmentally unfriendly uses.

just one example, what if some landowners want to convert his abandoned farmland, within an area zoned 'green belt', which is of great ecological value, into a sort of bbq centre.  if there's nothing in the lease as to what is so called 'tree preservation' clause, there's nothing the government can do if the owner wants to fell all the trees in it.  and if he likes, he can remove all the undergrowth and replace it with asphalt without committing any offence under any legistation.

i do think we should follow up with the PlanD guys to clarify a point:
is it true that, under the current town planning ordinance, that even though a development may deviate from an OZP, it is not an offence under town planning ordinance, as long as the area concerned falls within an area not ever designated as a DPA?

it's ridiculous if you look at the planning intention of the Pui O CPA:
'this zone is intended to consrve, protect and retain the natural coastlines and the sensitive coastal natural environment, including....or area of ....ecological value, with a minimum of built development.....there is a general presumption against development in this zone.....'

if the current town planning legislation, with its best planning intention cannot actually enforce its implementation but resorting to other legislation and chance, then maybe it's time to review it and turn to the legislators.

btw, here're some of the links that may be of interest: -
notes on the south lantau OZP
the EIA ordinance, attention drawn to section 9, 26 and schedule 2-Q
waste disposal ordinance, attention drawn to section 16

i'd definitely like to help.  but i thought it's best to write to the authorities in a consolidated approach.  if there's anything that i could help, research or whatever, please let me know.

Author: cbryan    Time: 23/03/2008 00:31

from what i've learned from, seems like there's little or nothing the PlanD and the EPD could do.  btw,  have the HKBWS, as a concern group, written, or prepared to write to the Government on the dumpings?
Author: lalan    Time: 13/11/2009 22:31

point 2 today

other point beside the road

higher than me (169CM)

what happen?narrow the river for the car? Do gov. think the river wouldnt flood ever?
or want to make a new wetland?

Author: lalan    Time: 24/12/2009 23:06

point 2 today
there were one litter pond, which I had found a Ruddy-breasted crake few years ago, now , it covered by these rubbish.

Author: lalan    Time: 22/01/2010 15:43

point4 just near the playgound


more rubbish ,it came form this workplace

I dont want to say good-bye to this wetland

Author: lalan    Time: 29/01/2011 22:07



[ Last edited by lalan at 29/01/2011 22:13 ]
Author: ddavid    Time: 29/01/2011 23:29

My understanding is that The South China Morning Post has created an online site where people can report instances of environmental damage, including illegal dumping. I don't know the details of this site - perhaps someone reading this can supply them - but it would be a good idea to forward the information to the SCMP if possible

Author: sbena    Time: 30/01/2011 09:53

This is the webpage David mentions Citizen Map
Author: lalan    Time: 31/01/2011 23:12

the main problem is even the gov. knows
but illegal dumping still continue
Author: HKBWS Chuan    Time: 2/02/2011 15:41

We have sent a letter of concern to the Planning Department on the present situation of Pui O and will post on the forum after we have received replies.


Cheng Nok Ming
Conservation Officer, HKBWS
Author: HKBWS Chuan    Time: 8/02/2011 18:15

The Planning Department replied that they are not "empowered to take enforcement action" and referred the case to Environmental Protection Department.

Cheng Nok Ming
Conservation Officer, HKBWS
Author: HKBWS Chuan    Time: 1/03/2011 14:17

Updates of Pui O on 28 Feb 2011:

Dumping near primary school 杯澳小學後面的建築廢料
(We observed a truck transporting the "orange soil" in the photo to a small construction site at Ham Tin Village, but have no idea where the C&D waste come from 我們發現一輛貨車把相片中的橙色泥土運到咸田村裡面一個小地盤, 不過建築廢料從哪裡來就不得而知)

Dumping near Football field 足球場附近

Still fine at Buffalo Field near Ham Tin Village 咸田新村旁的水牛田

But many house development within Ham Tin Village 可是咸田村裡面有很多住宅發展

Cheng Nok Ming
Conservation Officer, HKBWS

Image Attachment: IMG_0272 copy.JPG (1/03/2011 14:17, 294.69 KB) / Download count 727

Image Attachment: IMG_0276 copy.JPG (1/03/2011 14:17, 308.48 KB) / Download count 697

Image Attachment: IMG_0283 copy.JPG (1/03/2011 14:17, 140.43 KB) / Download count 754

Image Attachment: IMG_0320 copy.JPG (1/03/2011 14:17, 187.81 KB) / Download count 741

Author: lalan    Time: 2/03/2011 11:18

ponit 4 變成停車場


Author: HKBWS Chuan    Time: 2/03/2011 15:39

Site Formation is also observed on a slope near Shap Long San Tsuen Buffalo Field. C&D waste was found on the site but it is not clear whether the site involves "Green Belt" areas. The reply from Planning Department is the same - they are not empowered to carry out enforcement

Cheng Nok Ming, HKBWS Conservation Officer

Image Attachment: DSC_2210 copy.JPG (2/03/2011 15:39, 205.77 KB) / Download count 706

Image Attachment: DSC_2212 copy.JPG (2/03/2011 15:39, 228.3 KB) / Download count 725

Author: Sze    Time: 11/05/2011 00:19

Author: Sze    Time: 11/05/2011 00:20

2011年05月10日 經濟日報

雀鳥天堂貝澳 堆積泥頭廢料
堆至半個人高 環團指法例存漏洞 ... -440936?section=005
Author: wcaptain    Time: 11/05/2011 12:48



[ Last edited by wcaptain at 11/05/2011 12:52 ]
Author: HKBWS Chuan    Time: 11/05/2011 15:32

Original posted by wcaptain at 11/05/2011 12:48

拾塱該山坡很難在地圖確實查證位置, 連規劃署職員都表示不清楚該地位於綠化地帶還是鄉村式發展地區。
Author: ssrg    Time: 1/09/2014 13:41

建築廢料亂傾倒 貝澳水牛遭逼遷
列海岸保護區 規劃署稱無權執法

全文: ... n_types=og.comments
Author: Sze    Time: 14/09/2014 00:19

貝澳水牛入絕路 (12-09-2014)

本港目前有120頭野生水牛,當中約75頭在貝澳一帶濕地生活。不過,有地區關注團體指出,傾倒泥頭、 非法斬樹、「復耕」引致更改水道等,令貝澳水牛濕地面臨枯竭的威脅,有關濕地雖已劃作為「海岸保護區」,但多個部門仍未能有效執法,擔心水牛僅有的家園最終會被滅絕。 文、圖:鄞志輝

Author: lalan    Time: 28/11/2014 15:10


Author: lalan    Time: 29/11/2014 00:28

Author: lalan    Time: 24/02/2016 14:28


[ Last edited by lalan at 24/02/2016 14:30 ]
Author: ddavid    Time: 24/02/2016 15:00

The dumping of waste material at Pui O is subject to judicial review. See ... iven-court-go-ahead for details.

Unfortunately, the High Court judge who gave the go-ahead for the judicial review refused to order a halt to the dumping in the interim.

Author: K_Chan    Time: 9/03/2016 18:23     Subject: 泥頭黑洞:棕土不斷蔓延的技術分析


2016年2月29日  星期一  《明報》


在現行法例中,部門是否有權對傾倒泥頭執法,要視乎涉事地點而定。一般而言,未經政府准許而在政府土地上作傾倒泥頭是非法,地政總署有權執法。至於私人土地,只要是曾有「發展審批地區圖」(Development Permission Area Plan,簡稱DPA Plan)覆蓋的範圍,規劃署也有權對違例發展執法。「發展審批地區圖」乃自1990至1991年城規條例修訂時才出現,源於1983年「生發案」中,上訴庭判定集體官批對限制農地上的臨時用途無約束力,這亦是新界棕土蔓延的重要原因。1991年城規條例修訂後,城規會立即對大部分鄉郊地區制定DPA Plan,除了市區、新市鎮及部分鄉郊土地。
但最大的漏洞,還是未有「發展審批地區圖」覆蓋的範圍,包括早於1991年前已有「分區計劃大綱圖」(Outline Zoning Plan,簡稱OZP)覆蓋的新市鎮邊緣的「綠化地帶」,以及一些其實在1991年後才制定OZP的離島地區。
對於前者,為何已有OZP覆蓋的範圍不能再以DPA Plan覆蓋?一直以來官方的回應是,該等範圍一般受地契及其他有關法律規管,如《建築物條例》等。但往往最脆弱的就是處於新市鎮邊緣未有永久發展的土地,就如大埔近教育學院一帶的「綠化地帶」,多年來也有填土及被用作露天倉庫;另外未有最新的粉嶺北OZP之前而仍屬粉嶺/上水OZP的馬屎埔及天平山村一帶,被填土及改作貨櫃場用途,也不算違法。綠化地帶本是控制城市化發展肆意擴張的邊界,卻因漏洞而成為棕土黑洞。
其實1991年的城規條例修訂中,訂明已有OZP範圍不能再受DPA Plan覆蓋的原因,不全然是法律上不可行,更多是政治考慮促成。翻查1990年的報章,政府建議將城規條例引伸至鄉郊土地的計劃,已引起鄉事派大力反對。而當時的條例修訂草案,是曾考慮將DPA Plan也覆蓋已有OZP覆蓋的範圍及市區未有OZP覆蓋的小部分範圍。但當時有專業人士反對,恐怕城規條例延伸至市區,帶來「過分規管」,對土地發展潛力和估值帶來影響。估計當時政府恐怕城規條例修訂太大阻力,而接受不把DPA Plan引伸至市區範圍的決定。
關於第二類,是於1991年後才制定OZP的地區,包括東涌市、長洲、坪洲、南丫島等。既然是於1991年後才制定圖則,為何非先訂DPA Plan以作管制,而直接訂OZP?政府曾回應指,離島地區沒有農地被改作貨櫃場及回收場等用途的明顯迹象,因此不用以DPA Plan作額外監管。但於2001年才制定首張OZP的南丫島也曾受到傾倒泥頭破壞河溪生態,但規劃署當年的錯判而導致沒有執法權,豈非作繭自綁?

其實儘管是拖了20年,去到今天仍可考慮再度修例,於所有未有DPA Plan但已有OZP覆蓋範圍中未有永久發展的農地,包括仍是集體官批的私人地及政府土地,立即進行凍結調查,約束在凍結調查後所有破壞農地的發展(見圖請上網)。對已有發展的土地,其實只需繼續以地契及建築物條例規管,不被DPA Plan對規劃署賦予的執法權所凌駕。當然,在此政治時勢上,民間迫使政府推動修法只會被一拖再拖。但如何有效打擊未有DPA Plan覆蓋的私人農地上的填泥問題,政府還欠公眾一個清晰交代。


Author: wmartin    Time: 20/01/2019 19:27     Subject: Pui O and Shap Long uglification ongoing

The judicial review was not helpful for conservation at Pui O

Destruction continues; just sent email to people including the "Sustainable" Lantau Office - where Sustainable about as much a joke as the Protection in "Coastal Protection Area"

According to the government: "The "Coastal Protection Area" ("CPA") zone [which includes much of Pui O outside main village] aims to conserve, protect and retain the natural coastlines and the sensitive coastal natural environment, including interesting geological features, physical landform or area of high landscape, scenic or ecological value, with a minimum built development. “

Reality, just looks like utter lawlessness, as Pui O - and Shap Long, outside CPA but still of value - suffer death by a thousand cuts.

I attach some shots taken yesterday.
Can anyone show where the "the sensitive coastal natural environment” is being protected?

- as if we have no government here.
Certainly hard to believe there is any office for Sustainable Lantau.

Do people in the office do anything for sustainability?
- I’ve asked before, but never any info on protecting even a square inch of Lantau. Instead, reports, getting research that will find mostly what we all knew already, just twiddling thumbs while destruction continues - all while being paid big fat salaries.

Yes, Shap Long is outside the CPA, but it is/was a place with wonderful wetland, biodiversity, landscape value etc.
In one Shap Long shot, notice the debris from Mangkhut storm surge; I believe older Lantau villages are well above coastline as storm surges were not uncommon in past [they will occur again].

So, Robin and anyone else in office: have you even found how these housing projects are funded? Are they genuine “ding uk”, for villagers who need to live in them? [if not, why not, why allowed? Is it because there really is no government here, so there’s a free for all, people doing whatever they want, even building their own roads to facilitate construction, shutting off path at Pui O etc etc etc]

Shots from yesterday:

Image Attachment: uglification lantau mavic drone19Jan20192_DxO.jpg (20/01/2019 19:27, 131.31 KB) / Download count 309

Image Attachment: uglification pui o lantau mavic drone19Jan201916_DxO.jpg (20/01/2019 19:27, 112 KB) / Download count 315

Image Attachment: uglification shap long lantau mavic drone19Jan201925_DxO.jpg (20/01/2019 19:27, 81.79 KB) / Download count 288

Welcome to HKBWS Forum 香港觀鳥會討論區 ( Powered by Discuz! 6.0.0