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
