本帖最後由 flyfisher 於 2010-7-21 18:37 編輯
原來轉機o係有o既， 只差政府出唔出手 !!!!
Displaying all 7 posts.
- Peyron Law I wrote Professor C.Y.Jim, Chair Professor at the Department of Geography at HKU. The emails are reproduced below with his permission:
Dear Professor Jim,
I am writing to you regarding the Tai Long Sai Wan project that has led to the recent public outcry. While doing some research on the internet regarding land use and zoning regulations in Hong Kong, I have found out that you are an expert in the field ("Rural blight and land use planning in Hong Kong", 2004.) . While I understand that someone in your position may not be available for comments on such issues but for the sake of protecting Tai Long Sai Wan and the last bit of Hong Kong's natural habitat, I would be very grateful if you could share your thoughts.
The investor (Mr Lu) bought the land (around 100,000 sq.ft) for $16 million from local villagers and has started work on it recently. The aim is to turn it into a private residence comprising a golf course, a lake, and a heliport. Although the land itself is privately owned, given its proximity to the conservation areas in Sai Kung, does the current project in Tai Long Sai Wan violate any land use or zoning regulations in Hong Kong? If so, would it be possible to get an injunction to stop the developer from carrying on current works? Has there been any historical precedents on similar cases? Which departments in Hong Kong are responsible for land use planning permissions?
Again, I do fully appreciate your position and if your would like to keep you comments anonymous, I would fully comply with your wishes. Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Peyron Law
=================================================
Dear Peyron,
Thanks for your interest in my research papers and sharing your thoughts with me.
The Tai Long Sai Wan (TLSW) incident is an outrageous destruction of a highly precious natural heritage which excels in terms of ecology and landscape quality. The site is a common asset of the whole community, even though it is privately owned. No body with the slightest common sense and a love of Hong Kong would attempt to ruin such a pristine environment. This is an intolerable and invidious act that must be stopped at once, yet we see on the television screen that the conversion work continues. The government seems to be interested only in stopping the work on government land. It does not seem to have the will to stop the environmental vandalism. It certainly has the means to do so, but it does not want to wield the power bestowed upon it by law and entrusted to it by citizens.
Let me answer your questions based on my understanding of the issue:
(1) Even though the land is privately owned, it is meant for agricultural use. Any departure from this customary use has to be approved by the government. The quasi-statutory instrument to enforce the land use control is enshrined in the block crown lease (now block government lease) imposed on all farmlands in the New Territories shortly after British leasing of NT from the Qing government. The Lands Department is the government agency in charge of enforcing land use control.
(2) Building water ponds (for recreational or amenity purpose rather than aquaculture) and tennis courts are unrelated to agricultural use, hence they should be considered as illegal land uses.
(3) Building houses for domestic use that is directly related to agricultural production would need approval from the Lands Department. I understand that existing sheds could be rebuilt but subject to tight restrictions on floor area and height. I believe that the site does not contain existing sheds or other covered structures, hence the new owner has no existing right to build a house on it.
(4) The adjacent plot behind Tai Long Wan (TLW, the main beach) is covered by a Rural Outline Zoning Plan (ROZP) dated 2006. The farmland has been designated mainly as Conservation Area (CA), and a strip of land adjacent to the beach has been zoned Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The two existing villages, namely Ham Tin and Tai Long, have been zoned Village (V). It is obvious that the planning intention is to protect nature from unnecessary disturbance or incursion. TLSW, being contiguous to TLW, has a similar landform and land use history, plus a wonderful stream. The conservation worth of TLSW, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to TLW. The fact that TLSW is not covered by a Development Permission Area (DPA) Plan or ROZP is due to negligence or oversight.
(5) Concerning seeking a court injunction to stop the work, I believe that the government has the power to stop it without going through the statutory injunction procedure. Whether the government is willing to do so is quite another matter. If the government refuses to act, I am afraid the community will have to step in and seek an injunction. The saddest thing is that the destructive work is still proceeding whilst the government is contemplating the possible actions.
I hope my personal views could help. Please let me know if you need further clarifications. My best wishes that conservation will prevail over greed, ignorance or insouciance.
Regards,
Jim
****************************************************
Professor C Y Jim, PhD, JP
Chair Professor
Department of Geography
Room 301 Hui Oi Chow Science Building
The University of Hong Kong
Pokfulam Road
Hong Kong
Tel 852-2859-7020 (Secretary Carol)
Fax 852-2559-8994
Email hragjcy@hkucc.hku.hk
Webpage http://geog.hku.hk/staff/jim.htm
***************************************************about an hour ago · Report - Josh Fok Great. Thanks.
Thus according to Hong Kong Law Cap 499 sched B I-WATERWAYS AND DRAINAGE WORKS and Cap 499 s 24 Cessation order, Mr Edward Yau Tang-wah, JP, Secretary for the Environment should enforce the law.
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/eng/home.htmabout an hour ago · Report - Capri Lam Thank you so much, Prof. Jim!about an hour ago · Report
- Thomas Hui Thx Peyron, your emails are so useful.
Prof. Jim is right to point out that the government has the power to stop the project, given that gov't lands and non-agricultural land use are involved. Yet, I am afraid that the gov't can act only after the water ponds and tennis course (non-agricultural land use) are built. The gov't may not have enough evidence to charge Mr.Lu before these illegal facilities are built. Isn't it? I don't know...
58 minutes ago · Report - Johnny Yuen Thousnnd thanks, Prof. Jim !!
Great job, Peyron !!!! 43 minutes ago · Report - Chung-fai Wu plus this point
大浪西灣地盤 疑涉考古遺址
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100720/3/j9k6.html
大浪西灣魯氏大宅——工地涉嫌破壞考古遺址
http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1007754 24 minutes ago · Report - Virginia Ho Thank you Professor Jim.17 minutes ago · Report
Reply |
[複製鏈接]
顯身卡
樓主
