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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
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 HKwildlife.net 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 HKwildlife.net 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.
bryan Author: cbryan Time: 23/03/2008 00:31
from what i've learned from HKwildlife.net, 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
David Author: sbena Time: 30/01/2011 09:53
This is the webpage David mentions Citizen MapAuthor: 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)
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
QUOTE ENDS 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]