Thread
Print

[Hong Kong] 南丫島東澳灣大型發展申請 Development Proposal at Tung O, Lamma

南丫島東澳灣大型發展申請 Development Proposal at Tung O, Lamma

The proponent applies to rezone Tung O, Lamma from "Agriculture", "Conservation Area", "Coastal Protection Area" zones to "Comprehensive Development Area (1)" zone". Public can comment on or before 27 May 2011.

發展商申請南丫島東澳"由「農業」、「自然保育區」、「海岸保護區」地帶改劃為「綜合發展區(1)」地帶", 公眾可於2011年5月27日前提交意見。

http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/tc/plan_application/Y_I-LI_1.html


過往相關新聞:

蘋果日報
南丫島打造富豪樂園
保育區建遊艇會水療酒店豪宅 居民群起反對
2011年03月14日
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/te ... amp;art_id=15072827

文匯報
南丫島研大開發 拓遊艇會酒店住宅
2011年03月24日
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2010/03/24/YO1003240001.htm

TOP

If you have birded in the Tung O area, please do not hesitate to post your records / observations here as they are very important and valuable information for us. The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society would also visit the site before submitting comments.

如果有鳥友曾經到東澳附近觀鳥,請在此報告曾經看過的鳥種,這些記錄對於我們是十分寶貴的資料。本會亦將會視察附近環境及提交意見。

TOP

Facebook Group "Oppose the development project on south Lamma":
Facebook 群組 "反對南丫島地產霸權發展計劃":
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_202469039792385

TOP

If my memory is correct, this project is not recommended by the Development Opportunities Office 發展機遇辦事處

There is a legco paper talking about this. Members of the Lands and Development Advisory Committee concerned about the nature conservation issue.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr09-10/ ... 330cb1-1447-6-c.pdf

TOP

Project Profile for the project EIA:
工程項目簡介:

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/regist ... t/esb229/esb229.pdf

Public can comment on or before 25 May 2011
公眾可於5月25日前向環保署表達意見

TOP

I found a copy of this proposal on my landlord's table on Po Toi this week.

I think you can be sure that Po Toi residents are looking carefully to see what happens to this, and whether something similar can be done on Po Toi.

[ Last edited by wgeoff at 12/05/2011 18:16 ]

TOP

Oh just read about the Tung O development proposal from the news paper today, seems it is still under consideration.
(please refer to the original proposal for the exact details)
briefly the news mentioned the project will involve 69 hectare of land, building 500 yacht parking spaces, 850 flats, resorts et al.

Just submitted my comment to the Town Planning Board:, though I am not too confident about the consultation system.
"I will vote against the development proposal based on environmental concern and its unjustified costs. The HKSAR Government should give priority to the conservation of the natural environment at Tung O. Tung O is a valuable habitat for many species and definitely a valuable green and natural area that Hong Kong citizens can enjoy with their friends and family. This area should be conserved and the change of its land use should be a loss to all. The proposal will definitely harm many species and disfigure the beauty of the nature at the area. The foremost beneficiaries for the proposal would definitely be a smaller group of people that should not out-weight the benefits for all. The implementation of the development project will be a point of no return for many species and our beloved nature."

Oh I really wish they won't do it...

TOP

Sophia:

How the Town Planning Board consider public comments remains complex and unsure, but i believe they certainly will look at the comments from public and take them into consideration. However one point to note is that if there is a number of comments with exactly same wordings, the Board (and various other government departments) may consider them as only one comment.
The main part of Town Planning Board decisions remains technical issues including environmental, traffic, drainage, visual impacts and regional planning etc. which i learn from the minutes of the board discussions.

The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (and other green groups) would focus more on ecological impacts when submitting our comments/objection. Of course for this case we would certainly object to it as it have much ecological concerns.


Geoff:
I believe there is a risk on Po Toi as there is currently no planning control. Maybe another campaign for HKBWS to zone Po Toi as SSSI?

TOP

I think a campaign to have Po Toi declared an SSSI would be strongly opposed by the residents and probably be unsuccessful.

Better to hold your fire until a really serious threat arises. Most of these development projects don't make financial sense (like Tung O) and never come to anything. Po Toi is such a remote location it makes even less financial sense. We had a golf course proposal 5 years ago that came to nothing, then recently a wind farm which has also come to nothing.

Better to keep the residents happy and allow them to dream of making millions.

The biggest threat to Po Toi habitat at the moment comes from concrete grave sites - another bush area above the upper school has been cut down recently. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of applicants for gravesites at the moment, given that over 1000 people lived on Po Toi in the 1950's. And the graves seem to be getting bigger, an extreme example of residential one-upmanship.

[ Last edited by wgeoff at 14/05/2011 04:53 ]

TOP

The TPB does certainly seem to consider if there is significant public opposition to a project. Good examples of this can be found at Long Valley and Nam Sang Wai. I think that this is probably more likely to succeed by producing a good reason for the rejection of a proposal (e.g. by giving information on why a site is important) rather than a simple 'I don't want this' type comment.
But you can be sure that TPB won't get the opportunity to listen to you if you don't comment on projects you don't agree with.

In light of attempted developments over the last year (Tai Long Wan, To Kwa Peng, etc.), I think it would be a good idea to pressure the government to actually think about what they want for land uses and decide on planning controls for the areas which are not currently covered (that would include Po Toi)

TOP

Agreed,
the TPB definitely needa compile the general comments in a much more condensed way than a technical report which is more objective.
Just wanna add some voice in terms of quantity, not much quality tho I know, =P sorry. Likely a waste of effort indeed.
The ecological impact report would be important, keep up the good work!!!

Yea Geoff..difficult dynamics..

[ Last edited by n.sophia at 14/05/2011 22:04 ]

TOP

I am afraid that this development has much more financial reason than any development on Po Toi. The Tung O has some relatively large flat pieces of ground which used to be rice fields (easy for development) and is close to Aberdeen.   

But I think from a conservation perspective, any development would be detrimental to Romer's Tree Frog.  Although I haven't looked for them there, I imagine this must be their prime habitat in the surrounding woodlands so there definitely is much reason to be concerned.

TOP

若果城規會通過該申請, 這些天然景色將被破壞, 海洋及陸地生境被豪華住宅及大型遊艇船塢佔據
These beautiful views will be destroyed, while marine and terrestrial habitats will be occupied by Marinas and luxury houses if the Town Planning Board approves the application






(Rough indications of proposed development 粗略發展範圍)

TOP

Thanks for the information. Is this view facing east or west? Can you specify what habitats will specifically be disrupted?

TOP

The view is from Ling Kok Shan viewing South-east.

Most part of the terrestrial buildings would be on hillside Shrublands (zoned as Conservation Area). The remaining abandoned agricultural lands (zoned as Agriculture) would be completely surrounded by the residential developments and roads.
thus, apart from direct loss of habitat, the abandoned agricultural lands (so called "Conservation Corridor" by the developer) would be completely isolated as it is completely surrounded by residential developments. In addition, impacts such as human disturbance, light, noise and water pollution, road kill etc. would be detrimental to organisms especially those with lower mobility (e.g. Romers Tree Frogs).

TOP

Mr. Cheng! Do you have any information about the location of Romers Tree Frogs at Lamma Island? Thanks a lot!

TOP

漁護署網頁的分佈圖:
Distribution of Romer's Tree Frog from AFCD website:

TOP

Are those red and pink spots?
what the difference between the red and pink spots?
thansk again!

TOP

Red = naturally occurring sites of the frog
Purple = translocation sites (more information: http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/c ... on_fau_rom_con.html)

紅點 = 小樹蛙天然出現的位置
紫點 = 移殖地點 (有關資料: http://www.afcd.gov.hk/tc_chi/co ... on_fau_rom_con.html)

TOP

The Deadlines (tomorrow 25th and friday 27th) are coming and please submit your comments to EPD and TPB separately!
公眾諮詢限期即將完結 (明天25日及星期五27日), 請盡快分別向環保署及城規會提交意見!

For your interest, Both South Lamma and Po Toi were suggested to be potential Country Park quite a long time ago
過往曾有建議南丫島南部及蒲台島作為郊野公園
http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en ... rt/final-report.htm
http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en ... nt/es/swnt-es-c.htm

TOP

本會(就城規會申請)的意見摘要作考:
(就環評報告工程項目簡介及城規會申請的正式意見將於稍後上載)

1. 擬議的發展會破壞超過69公頃自然環境, 亦會大大減低另外16多公頃土地的生態價值, 與申請書聲稱"保護自然生態"一說大相逕庭, 亦不符合「南丫島分區計劃大綱核准圖 (S/I-LI/9)」的整體規劃意向;
2. 申請書包括一份選扯研究, 該研究已指出本港尚有多個可行地點, 可見並無必要在申請地點作有關發展;
3. 現時的規劃能夠適當保護該區的環境及生物多樣性, 發展亦侵佔了建議郊野公園的範圍;
4. 申請人就建議的「保育走廊」並沒有預備任何管理計劃, 而發展亦接近完全包圍「保育走廊」, 破壞其生態連繫, 並有多條行車路穿過其中, 加上對其造成的各樣滋擾(如噪音、光害、人為騷擾、生物被輾斃等等), 「保育走廊」的成效成疑;
5. 申請人提交的生態評估(特別是雀鳥部份)非常粗疏;
6. 白腹海鵰等一些出沒在海岸環境的雀鳥將受到各類型發展(包括擬建的石鼓洲廢物處理設施、海上風力發電場等)影響, 申請人並未有評估這些累計影響;
7. 擬議發展亦對深灣具特殊科學價值地點造成影響, 其旁邊亦不適合被劃為「綜合發展區」;
8. 擬議發展對該地及其附近的景觀及生態價值造成不可接受的影響, 損害公眾利益。


HKBWS's summary of comments (regarding TPB application) for your reference:
(The official submissions for EIA project profile and TPB application would be uploaded later.)


1. The proposed development would destroy 69 hectares of natural environment, and affect the ecological value of another 16 hectares of land, which is contradictory to the claim of the application ("protect local biodiversity") and the general planning intention of the Lamma Island Outline Zoning Plan (S/I-LI/9);
2. A study supplied by the applicant has shown that there are a number of potential sites in Hong Kong, thus there is no need for the proposed development to be at the proposed location;
3. The current zoning is appropriate to protect the environment and biodiversity in the area, and the proposed development is encroaching the area of potential country park;
4. No management plan was provided by the applicant regarding the suggested "Conservation Corridor". Developments are also nearly completely surrounding the "Corridor" which breaks ecological linkages, and there are roads going across the corridor. In addition, disturbance such as noise, light, roadkill and human disturbance would be brought to the "corridor". Thus the function of the proposed "Corridor" is doubtfull;
5. The ecological assessment provided by the applicant (esp. bird assessments) was poorly prepared;
6. Birds such as White-bellied Sea Eagle is facing threats from the cumulative impacts of various proposed developments (e.g. Shek Kwu Chau IWMF, offshore windfarm). However, no cumulative impact assessment was provided by the applicant;
7. The proposed development would affect the Sham Wan SSSI and a development zoning next to the SSSI is inappropriate;
8. The proposed development would destroy the landscape and ecological value of the site and its surrounding, causing harm to public interest.

TOP

本會就工程項目簡介的正式意見(只有英文版):
HKBWS's official comment on Project Profile for EIA study brief:
HKBWS_comment_Lamma_projectprofile.pdf (137.43 KB)




本會就城規會申請的正式意見(只有英文版):
HKBWS's official submission on the rezoning application:
HKBWS_objection_LammaTPBrezoning.pdf (142.85 KB)

明天就是向城規會提交意見的最後限期!
The deadline for submitting your comments to Town Planning Board is tomorrow!

TOP

南丫島分區計劃大綱核准圖編號S/I-LI/9
http://www.ozp.tpb.gov.hk/pdf/S_I-LI_9_c.pdf

TOP

岩岩好趕得切!

Attachment

Lamma.jpg (97.79 KB)

28/05/2011 00:29

Lamma.jpg

TOP

環保署繼續接受公眾對南丫島項目簡介提交意見, 新的截止日期為2011年6月29日:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/cindex.html
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/tc_chi/register/index1/all_2011.html


申請人提交的附加資料, 內容特別澄清項目內容許私家車等車輛並提供一定數量的泊位, 以及一些發展需要的土地平整示意圖:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/regist ... /esb229/further.pdf




The EPD has restarted public inspection and recieve further comments until 29 June 2011:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/index.html
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/register/index1/all_2011.html


This is because of the further information supplied by the applicant, stating that they will allow vehicles such as private cars and provide a considerable number of parking spaces, and some figures showing the proposed land formation:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/regist ... /esb229/further.pdf

TOP

本會就工程項目簡介(附加資料)的正式意見(只有英文版):
HKBWS's official comment on Project Profile for further information on EIA study brief:

Attachment

HKBWS_comment_ESB229_further_forum.pdf (132.54 KB)

28/06/2011 14:38, Downloaded count: 221

TOP

環保署已發出項目的研究概要 The Study Brief has been issued by EPD
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/study/latest/esb-229.pdf

另外申請人已向城規會申請延期審理。 And the applicant has applied to the Town Planning Board for a deferment.

TOP

試問南丫島若發展如此,到底最後有多少居民和香港市民可以受惠?

東澳豪宅及遊艇會項目諮詢本週五截止
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1011563

TOP

TOP

Thread