[Hong Kong] 反對白沙澳分區計劃大綱草圖! Protect Pak Sha O!

反對白沙澳分區計劃大綱草圖! Protect Pak Sha O!


向城市規劃委員會提交意見的截止日期:2016年2月4日 (星期四)

  • 白沙澳具高生態及保育價值。本會由1999年到2014年間於白沙澳記錄到175種雀鳥,佔全港總數的三分之一;當中有56種雀鳥是具保育關注,包括屬區域關注(Fellowes et al., 2002)的褐魚鴞Ketupa zeylonensis。可是,草圖未能為該區提供充分的保護。
  • 現時,草圖將一幅前身為淡水濕地、近年有復耕活動的農地劃作「鄉村式發展」用地,面積約0.7公頃。而該「鄉村式發展」用地亦於集水區內,與白沙澳的「具重要生態價值河溪」距離只有20米。村內任何發展有機會污染此生態敏感的地區,並增加水浸風險。
  • 由於不少「鄉村式發展」用地內外的土地已經由發展商所擁有,所謂的小型屋宇需求成疑。其次,在現行的行政機制下,北潭凹的村內已經預留空間讓白沙澳村民作「飛丁」申請。因此,白沙澳區內沒有充分理據需要另一個「鄉村式發展」用地,並應從草圖中剔除。


Object to Pak Sha O Outline Zoning Plan!

Deadline for submitting comments to the Town Planning Board: 4 Feb 2016 (Thu)
Online petition by The Conservation Association:
Change in Pak Sha O land ownership (provided by The Conservancy Association, available in Chinese only):

The Society considers that:  
  • Pak Sha O is a place of high ecological value and conservation importance. From 1999 to 2014, the Society has recorded 175 bird species in Pak Sha O, which accounts for about one-third of the total bird species recorded in Hong Kong; among them, 56 species are of conservation concern, including Brown Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis of Regional Concern (Fellowes et al., 2002). However, the current plan failed to offer adequate protection to the area.
  • A “Village Type Development” (V) zone of 0.7 hectare was proposed in the middle of a recently farmed agricultural land, which was once a freshwater marsh. The V zone is right inside the water gathering ground and is only 20 metres from the Ecologically Important Stream (EIS) in Pak Sha O. Development in the V zone may lead to water pollution and increase the flooding risk in this ecologically sensitive area of Pak Sha O.
  • Many of the land within the V zone and its surroundings are currently owned by a developer.  The genuineness of the small house demand is questionable. Moreover, a surplus V zone in Pak Tam Au has been reserved for cross-village applications from Pak Sha O under the current land administrative practice. Therefore, the need for a V zone is not well-justified, and thus it should be deleted from the plan.

*Please send your submission to the TPB before the deadline (email:!
香港觀鳥會 HKBWS


Pak Sha O Zoning 白沙澳分區

中學時期宿營的好地方,30年未有踏足。個人名義的反對或贊成,都需要一個基礎/視界,不是規劃/法律/歷史/生態/地產/環境的人員,也非村民,唯有多聼多看,到底凴什麽去反對/贊成。以下踫到一則新聞,提到“客家村”(未有刪改)作參考之一:Was there for camping decades ago. But basing on what we file our yes or no? The notion of "Hakka village" below may serve as a reference (unedited), given I am no expert in the topic:

Hong Kong planners must take a close look at plans for historic Hakka village
Legitimate questions should have been raised by the planning department over the Pak Sha O plan, and those involved in the transactions should answer them in a forthright manner
courtesy Alex Lo / SCM Post / 2 February 2016

People who care about our country parks and cultural heritage should pay attention to an obscure but suspicious outline zoning plan.
The draft plan was published in December by the Town Planning Board for public consultation to develop large swathes of Pak Sha O, a historic Hakka village.
Zoning maps pinpoint areas where future small houses will be built. Intriguingly, most of those places have already been sold to a single developer called Xinhua Bookstore Xiang Jiang Group Ltd.
Despite its name, the privately registered company has no ties with the official Chinese news agency. But I digress.
Records unearthed by activists show that villagers sold their agricultural land five years ago to the developer. Xinhua recently sold back the land to villagers who have so-called ding rights to build small houses. In applying for the zoning, the Planning Department said villagers claim a large area is needed to build their small houses.
Are the villagers working as a front for the developer? Or have they suddenly changed their mind and decided to build houses for themselves? Who knows?
But Designing Hong Kong and the Conservancy Association are opposing the zoning plan, whose consultation ends this Thursday. Designing Hong Kong has called it a “blatant development scheme”.
I don’t know whether it’s an outright development scheme but there seem to be enough questions about this zoning plan that it should be put on hold, subject to further investigation.
But the department not only declines to probe the matter more deeply, it is actively helping those behind this zoning plan.
Haven’t the department heard about the jailing of a developer and 11 indigenous villagers in December for a scam in which they sold their land rights under the small house policy for profit?
We are not saying the villagers in Pak Sha O are acting in any way other than realising their legally sanctioned ding rights. But they are requesting a lot of land for zoning in excess of the actual plots they need to build their houses.
Given the purchase records between the villagers and the developer, legitimate questions should have been raised by the department in the public interest. And those involved in the transactions should answer them in a forthright manner.