有個睇住西貢區既朋友已經搵人幫手做緊野!
如果有再需要的話佢應該會出聲叫幫手!

剛剛7月去深涌已經夠哂失望…
只見全部清一色同種的植物草被，還經常被割草器割草
河流也被整頓開闊，
對面一溪之隔之教堂村等村及堤壩內的濕地被鐵絲網圍住，
村內正在建築中…
生態價值相信已大不如前

現在還要話起住宅，只有有錢人才可進入的哥爾夫球場…
真不知為何還可以這樣厚顏無恥話要搞生態…

越來越不喜歡香港這個社會結構，地產界商界話哂事，官商勾結

在"舊石器遺址"找到的其中一種石器(砍砸器)


石質： 凝灰岩
類型： 砍砸器
尺吋： 73mm x 92mm x 47mm
型狀： 接近"四邊型"

其中三邊的 底面兩面 曾經加工，手工粗糙，有類似使用跡痕。

..................................................................................................

"舊石器時代" 的 石器工場 遺址 (約三萬幾至四萬年前)。


即香港在六千幾年前"新石器時代"才有人類活動的說法要更正。


"砍砸器"
古人類用石頭打製的工具；你覺得這石頭可用來做什麼，這便是這石頭的用途。

[ 本帖最後由 獵隼 於 2008-8-27 00:28 編輯 ]

知唔知边個NGO做 green partner?

高爾夫球場絕對係破壞生態，發展商講保育，信佢一成都死，怎麽環保露台已是最好例子

石器時代，一舊石可以敲出好多把刀

提出公眾意見最後五天!

done:

深涌被劃為具特殊科學價值地點,根據規劃署規劃標準與準則中：
『根據一般推定，此地帶不宜進行發展。』和『管制毗鄰的士地用途，以盡量減少有關用途對自然保育有關地帶來的不良影響』的原則，地規會如通過這項包括毗鄰政府土地的申請，違反規劃標準與準則，是一個與既定政策倒行逆施決定。況且有關發展在相關土地上走法律空隙開闢私人高爾乎球場，嚴重破壞了該處原本極具高的原生態面貌，公眾有目共睹，發展商有如此的不良紀錄，其提出的所謂「生態保育及生態旅遊」地帶，沒有詳細內容，效果成疑。政府不單不應再批准其改為土地用途建度假村，更應收回其現在的「鄉村式發展」及「綠化地帶」的用途，並勒令其不可以在「綠化地帶」上打高爾夫球，將土地變相成為高爾夫球場。
一個高生態價值的地方，實在不宜作任何形式的發展，一個130間房，上蓋面積佔40％的建築物，更是不可接受，也沒有社會需要。本人強烈反對是項申請。

長春社的反對意見，歡迎參考：

Re: Comments on the Section 12A Application No. Y/DPA/NE-SC/1

The Conservancy Association would like to submit our objection to the Section 12A Application No. Y/DPA/NE-SC/1. We are of the opinion that the nature and scale of the development would ruin the rural character of the site; what is more important, if the application is approved, it will set a disastrous precedent of condoning the act of “destroy first, develop later.”

Sham Chung is one of the 12 priority sites for enhanced conservation identified in the 2004 Nature Conservation Policy. It was one of the few remaining freshwater habitats supporting a population of breeding fish species with conservation values, as well as locally uncommon aquatic and riparian insects. Regrettably the area has undergone a history of habitat degradation in recent years. Given a prolonged history of deliberate human disturbances to the site, a stringent planning control should be enforced.

Deliberate stepwise degradation of the fresh water habitat
Starting from 1995, a developer began to purchase land of the site from the local residents. The area was earmarked for “Countryside Conservation Area” in the North East New Territories Development Strategy in 1996, and a study commissioned by the then Agriculture & Fisheries Department (Dudgeon, D. & Chan, E.W.C. (1996). Ecological Study of Freshwater Wetland Habitats in Hong Kong) also established the site as an important fresh water habitat.

The destruction of the wetland began as early as late 1997. In 1999, a large part of the freshwater marsh and close to half of the mangrove forest was bulldozed for the creation of a lawn.

Part of the land was rented out to an organization for “organic farming” from 2000 to 2002. But the preparation of the alleged organic farm was anything but environmentally responsible. As noted by Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, “this form of land clearance and soil cultivation cannot in any way be associated with recognized organic farming procedure.” The “organic farm” also occupied less than 1/7 of the former wetland. (Porcupine! 19, p.28, Department of Ecology & Biodiversity, The University of Hong Kong.)

At present the whole area has been razed and become what in all appearances a golf course. However, such a “golf course” would be illegal as it has not gone through the necessary statutory requirements such as EIA study and environmental license; legally, therefore, it can only be regarded as “grassland.”

We also discovered in a visit in 2006 that fishes were being caught in the streams and in 2007 that the streams were being polluted. Such questionable and unethical destruction of our ecologically valuable sites should not be legitimized

Rural Character
Sham Chung is bounded by the Sai Kung West Country Pak in three directions; it is an integral part of Sai Kung. The area is considered “high landscape value” in the Landscape Value Mapping” conducted by the Planning Department in 2005. As stated in the general planning intention of DPA NE-SC 3, the rural character of Sham Chung should be protected, specifically the fallow agricultural land should be “retained and safeguarded to protect the rural character of the Area.”

With a site coverage rate of 40%, the proposed “eco-tourism” development comprising of sixty structures can hardly said to be compatible with the rural character of the site. Although the proposal tries to retain the water and wetland underneath the raised hotels, it is inevitable that the ecology and rural landscape will be destroyed. Given the size and topography of the site, any large scale development will definitely ruin the rural character of the area. A genuine eco-tourism project developed there should only provide basic accommodations, and not the extra facilities such as spas, swimming pools and club houses as proposed by the applicant.

Planning Intention
The site is zoned as Conservation Area, Coastal Protection Area, Green Belt, Agriculture and Village Type Development on the OZP. The planning intention for these zonings is “to conserve the area of high ecological significance, to protect the rural character as well as to maintain the unique landscape and cultural heritage of the Area.” Any rezoning to these should be carefully considered. The proposed development entirely contravenes the planning intentions of these zonings. Since the site is one of the 12 priority sites for enhanced conservation under the New Nature Conservation Policy of the Government, development may only be considered under the PPP scheme, which has to be approved by EPD and ACE. This rezoning application should not be considered by the TPB at this stage

just another remind

謝謝啊，我都 send 了
I am writing with in response to the proposed DPA application No. Y/DPA/NE-SC/1 of Sham Chung, N.T.

It is well known that the priority conservation site Sham Chung’s ecological condition has sadly been degraded in the past 10 years since a developer acquired the land and destruction of the freshwater field and mangrove happened. Subsequently the rare Hong Kong paradise fish specie needed to be conserved ex-situ, whilst large area of wetland had been converted to golf course of zero biodiversity value.

Despite of these, some aquatic species (fresh and brackish water fishes), endemic butterflies and dragonflies, and uncommon local birds (fish owl and white bellied sea eagle) are recorded in the area (Porcupine 31, 2004, HKU).

The application of rezoning will convert significant part of the agricultural and conserved lands to other specific use for ecotourism.
However, it is a surprise that high proportion of the land is proposed for development, though cited as part of the integrated ecotourism and ecological enhancement. The proposed 60 buildings and facilities of guest complex would probably be the dominant focus, and it is a concern that ecology elements would just become features of the hotel’s garden.
The proposal includes an ecological enhancement plan. However, it is a question on whether the ecological enhancement (or at least prevention from further degradation) can be started at earlier stage and even before the application, since the applicant has an aim to better achieve natural conservation objective (section 2.2.1, the proposed amendment document of the application).
The eco-elements should be there first to support ecotourism and development of hotel facilities shall not take priority to the ecological rehabilitation.

Another question is the obligatory condition for the ecological enhancement plan - if eventually enhancement work is not implemented or not effective after the development of project, there may not be a framework to monitor and ensure the fulfillment of conservation.
(The delayed implementation of Ma Wan Island Park project is an example, besides, the landlord has not demonstrated proper protection of the ecology in Sham Chung so far).

Development should be restricted in priority conservation site under current zoning plan, while project should take the approach of partnership scheme under new conservation policy. (http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/c ... /con_nncp_new.html), which the EDP and government advisor)
However, with this application there is no evidence that the assessment and approval from EPD and the Advisory Council.

In view of the above, with much doubt and concern, I would raise my objection to the captioned application.

剛發出意見， 來得及吧

2008年8月30日 明報
http://www.mingpaonews.com/20080830/gna1.htm
新地深涌酒店再申地推保育
長春社﹕已屬海岸保護區 保育計劃多此一舉  

【明報專訊】新鴻基地產在擁有極高生態價值的深涌濕地，打造本港首個度假式生態旅遊發展項目。為了將項目包裝成發展與保育並重，新地繼3周前向城規會申請更改土地用途，在14.73公頃土地興建60幢1至3層高度假式酒店後，昨日再申請在發展項目毗鄰的4.3公頃土地，進行為期3年的「臨時生態保育計劃」，包括種植紅樹及創造淡水沼澤。

新鴻基地產向城規會申請進行保育計劃的土地臨近深涌灣海旁，新地指佔地2.64公頃的海岸保護區，區內土地劣化，故建議填土1.2至1.5米高，以協助紅樹林生長。區內亦會種植與紅樹相關的植物，促進區內植物多樣化。


種植紅樹林 建浮橋觀景台

至於保護區東南面的一幅0.46公頃鹹淡水沼澤，將會種植紅樹林。餘下1.2公頃的農業用地，將營造淡水沼澤，藉重新整理草地及鄰近水體等措施，為蜻蜓及無脊椎動物提供棲息環境。為提倡生態旅遊，區內將建造一條闊3至4.5米的浮橋及100平方米的觀景台，連接南面榕樹澳的自然教育徑。

長春社公共事務經理李少文批評，推行保育計劃的部分土地用途為「海岸保護區」，已受法例保護，推行保育計劃是多此一舉。他指出，發展與保育項目分兩次向城規會申請，誠意不足，「應保育的土地遭到破壞，這些土地卻不在保育範圍；已受法例保護的土地，卻進行保育計劃，做得不好，反而破壞生態，到時變成好心做壞事」。

他說，新地擬建酒店的土地，原本是濕地，但已被填平多年，他早前曾到當地視察，發現生態有恢復象，例如有罕見的蜻蜓出沒，估計是該地荒廢多時之故，認為應率先保育該地。


環團﹕擬建酒店土地應先保育

另外，長實早前向城規會申請修改鳳園住宅發展計劃，將原定興建的高層住宅由12幢改為8幢，並加建212幢3層高洋房，有關發展項目的規劃申請公眾諮詢期於兩周前結束。城規會收到180份反對意見，當中包括管理鳳園蝴蝶保育區的大埔環保會，認為屋苑與保育地點相隔僅50米，難起緩衝作用，要求將兩者距離增至100米。提交反對意見的組織包括鳳園村公所、香港昆蟲學會、世界自然基金會及嘉道理農場等，亦有不少市民以個人名義反對，擔心發展規模太大，日後人流及交通大增，勢必影響生態。



夾硬來太樣衰，臨時披番件羊皮先


[ 本帖最後由 BWA 於 2008-8-30 21:57 編輯 ]

新聞中『剛提出興建海岸保護區，作發展為期三年的生態保育計畫。』

一)沒有說明『海岸保護區』是對公眾開放還是渡假村內的專有設施,
二)過了三年後期限, 發展商又可以將之改變用途, 已經肉在覘板上,起乜都得,
三)發長商新鴻基的不良紀錄:政府十一年前向新地批出馬灣土地發展珀麗灣住宅物業時，
政府少收八億三千多萬補地價，以換取新地代政府興建馬灣公園，並協議第一期設施於零六年底啟用,家陣08年, 影都未有。
四) 新鴻基如果真心搞自然保育, 就唔會搞到深涌自然生態面目全非。
根本就係預咗有環保人士反對, 見招斥招,
有心的話, 點解唔在最早的申請中提海岸保護區?
好明顯想博冇人乜理就靜靜雞過骨。
五)長春社講得啱, 原本就是一個受保護濕地,
只係新鴻基破壞哂,家下為咗去渡假村賺錢, 至又講返保育, 重係好多問題果隻。

係"海岸保護區", 定係"海景保護區"呀??......

sigh...
whatever it is
development is the main aim, and conservation is only a decoration la...

據漁護署資料，深涌原來的沼澤面對為30.7公頃,
岸邊有紅樹林, 境內有灌木林、風水林、淡水沼澤、自然溪流及濕潤農地。(1)
報導：『昨日再申請在發展項目毗鄰的4.3公頃土地，進行為期3年的「臨時生態保育計劃」，
包括種植紅樹及創造淡水沼澤。』

家下新鴻基只拿出4.3公頃土地作「臨時生態保育計劃」，唔夠原來面積的15%。
即是超過85％土地將作度假村及高爾夫球場，及其他用途！
如此的所謂『保育計劃』，真係唔做好過做！

(1)
http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/c ... am_chung_public.rtf

(good) development is only a decoration, profit is the main aim
if conversation could get "profit" "immediately", we don't have chance the say this here

反對都要知為乜！ 星期日一個人由馬料水坐船入深涌， 一個咁靚又寧靜嘅村莊， 要貴貴入去嘆水療真係嘥， 香港人知唔知「定」？

離岸都見到碼頭旁有海堤， 都有小小工程做緊~


得自己一個落船， 都係sms比細佬， 失蹤都知去邊度收 x


破落避雨亭， 落雨都唔知入唔入去好~


深涌灣 ~


濕地 ~



好多樹都編咗號碼~


撞到好多原居民





問始有啲唔同！


咪行落草地呀！






人去樓空， 多可惜！


西貢曾是天主教傳教及辦學重點~


係士多食碗麵， 老闆話佢間屋就未有人收， 就算收都無諗住賣喎 ~ 有遊人就話起渡假村都好呀， 叫老闆賣都賣貴啲咁話。

好嘅唔靈衰嘅靈！回程諗住坐船， 點知船長伯伯又唔響號， 我離遠已揮手又望唔到， 竟然直駛直過   好在有電話打去公司投訴， 之後架船開返嚟咋 之後灣過灣返到黃石完成半日行程 ~ 捃日無咁熱又行山入去睇下 ~

[ 本帖最後由 SIUFA 於 2008-9-1 15:18 編輯 ]

深涌士多假期先開， 大安旨意佢會開帶好少水， 尋日咁熱碼頭又無蔭 都有人去滑水同玩獨木舟 ~ 搭船單程$25次 ~ 第二時遊艇接送要$250次

相簿

[ 本帖最後由 SIUFA 於 2008-9-1 17:05 編輯 ]