HKWildlife.Net Forum 香港自然生態論壇
遊客:  註冊 | 登錄 | 龍尾 | YouTube | Facebook | English | Library | Blog | 幫助
 
標題: [塱原] 林超英函政府促停發展塱原
MEMEME
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 4985
Total 639
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 1294
種子 1294
花蜜 565
閱讀權限 40
註冊 2009-2-16
Pri. Camera:  Nikon
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-21 08:15  資料 主頁 短消息 
林超英函政府促停發展塱原

林超英函政府促停發展塱原 指「有勢力人士」逼政府同意濕地建屋
(明報)2010年1月21日 星期四 05:10

【明報專訊】發展保育問題近年屢起爭議,高鐵事件更引爆反對浪潮。本身是觀鳥迷、已卸任半年的前天文台長林超英亦開腔質疑政府的古洞北發展計劃,指發現有「有勢力人士」逼政府部門同意,以「綜合發展」為名於塱原濕地建屋,遂以市民身分上書規劃署提出至少5點質疑,要求終止計劃(見表)。發展局強調未有定案,亦不會偏袒土地業權人。明報記者 古治雄、何嘉敏
林超英在給規劃處的信件表示,針對「發展」觀念,近年社會面臨一場不易察覺但極重要的革命,由天星、皇后碼頭至灣仔社區及近日的高鐵事件,顯示本港社會更重視持續發展、文化等人文價值,對抗把發展視為純粹多建閃亮大廈、商場等,若政府不在轉變價值中重新定位,將可能出現更多嚴重社會衝突。
批評借「綜合發展」之名入侵
塱原濕地是本港重要生態環境之一,港府在去年11月提出《新界東北新發展區規劃及工程研究》,提及「保育塱原濕地的同時,必須顧及土地業權人的權益」,並要「平衡發展及保育需要,私人提出並參與可融合大自然生態環境的低密度發展建議如低密度住宅、生態旅舍等,可獲考慮」。
林超英上周二撰寫網誌,文首即表示「退休後本來決定絕足時事」,但偶爾發現有「有勢力人士」計劃以「發展」之名入侵塱原濕地,且「靜悄悄地成功迫使政府部門,把塱原規劃成一種以前從未有過但帶著『綜合發展』四個字的地區」。
林超英批評,2000年前九鐵興建落馬洲支線時,已裁決塱原有極高生態價值,連重要基建亦要讓步鑽入地底避開,如今竟容許建屋,「以前講的道理都不用管,荒謬啊!」
他更狠批「有人」受壓,亦忽略社會部分聲音,「據稱有人說受到土地業權人的重大壓力,請大家諒解。但是為什麼熱愛香港和珍惜自然與傳承的人就不會給他壓力呢……中間顯示的傾斜,也許說明為什麼香港出現不斷的紛爭。」
政府強調塱原土地業主擁有發展權利,但林超英反駁指按法例農地根本不容建屋;又批評塱原的「綜合發展及自然生態保育區」概念,在規劃上未有定義,易惹爭拗,應予撤銷等(見表)。
發展局﹕未有定案 不偏袒地主
規劃署助理署長黃偉民接受本報查詢時表示,「綜合發展及自然保育改善區」佔地84公頃,現只屬初步建議,當中26公頃劃為「核心地帶」會避免發展。但他解釋,維持現狀未必能保育濕地,「情况視不同農作物而定,若最終土地變成荒地,更不能保育」。他指曾考慮把該地劃為「自然保育區」,「但初步諮詢當地居民,他們表示想發展」,又認為該地面積大,未必全部有高生態價值,故引入新模式既提升保育價值,又不剝奪發展機會。
黃舉例指米埔濕地亦有土地劃為「綜合發展及濕地改善區」,城規會就此訂立嚴格要求,如要有保育計劃保證生態價值不會下跌,「只有少數申請符合要求,城規會的保育要求不低」。他又否認受壓,「塱原的規劃意向不是純發展亦非純保育,而是保育主導地發展,很難但要試」。
發展局發言人指新發展區規劃未有定案,不同意「有人說受到土地業權人的重大壓力」,亦不會偏袒土地業權人。



更新台長BLOG內容:


2010年1月12日星期二
首次以市民身份回應政府諮詢文件
退休後本來決定絕足時事,但是偶然發現2000年香港人辛苦努力保下來的塱原高生態價值地區,竟然再有有勢力人士計劃以「發展」入侵,並且靜悄悄地成功逼使政府部門,把塱原規劃成一種以前從未有過但帶著「綜合發展」四個字的地區,在香港「發展」即是「建屋」。

2000至2001年,漫長的論證和官司確認塱原有極高的生態價值,連重要工程如鐵路都要讓步鑽入地底避開,如今竟然要亮綠燈「綜合建屋」,以前講的道理都不用管,荒謬啊!

據稱有人說受到土地業權人的重大壓力,請大家諒解。但是為甚麼熱愛香港和珍惜自然與傳承的人就不會給他壓力呢?難道香港有兩種人?一種有力,他們說的話一定要聽,另外一種人沒有力,說的話可以不理。中間顯示的傾斜,也許說明為甚麼香港出現不斷的紛爭。

如果不是有人眼利發現公眾諮詢文件中出現規劃上的異常情況,恐怕塱原生態覆滅我們還如墜入五里霧中。

知道消息後,我很苦惱,為甚麼香港這少數的一些人祇見錢,連祖宗留下來的美好田園也要毁掉?困在絕足時事的圈內,我忍了很多天,終於按捺不住,首次以普通市民身份向該管部門發送我的意見書,說明我對事情的認識和提出反對。

我真的不願意寫,但是知情的人不發聲是不義的。當然,我對香港抱有希望,否則其實是甚麼都不用管,一句話都不用說,放棄算了。

政府的諮詢文件見 http://www.nentnda.gov.hk/chi/Digest2_Chinese.pdf

我的意見書(英文本) 見下:

North East New Territories New Development Areas
Planning and Engineering Study
Stage Two

Submission by Lam Chiu Ying SBS
11 January 2010


* * * * * * * * * * * *

SUMMARY

The ecological and heritage value of Long Valley is reiterated.

The document Stage Two Public Engagement Digest dated November 2009 made prominent reference to "land owners' property right" (p.4). This submission questions this position and the associated "guiding principle" about considering "development" (which means "buildings" in the Hong Kong context) with "private sector participation" as a means to "conserve an area of Long Valley".

This submission further raises objection to the introduction of an undefined term "Comprehensive Development & Nature Conservation Enhancement Area" (CDNCEA) as applied to the eastern area of the Kwu Tung North New Development Area (p. 6-7 loc.cit.). Certain observations on changing social values are also presented.

This submission recommends that the area referred to above should be formally zoned as "Conservation Area" or "Nature Reserve" in recognition of its recognized ecological and heritage value. It further recommends that Government should resume the land in that area for the public purpose of building the Kwu Tung North New Town as a sustainable community with its roots connected to Nature and Heritage.


INTRODUCTION

1. This submission is made in my personal capacity as a member of the Hong Kong citizenry and as someone who knows the area well through repeated visits over a period of some thirty years. I also write as a person who cares about the long-term future of Hong Kong.

2. While the submission makes specific reference to the NENT New Development Areas in the limited context of this consultation exercise, it hopes to communicate to the Government an observation about a subtle but extremely important evolution in the way the Hong Kong public view "development". The concern is that, if Government does not re-align itself to the changing values, serious conflicts would be waiting to happen.

LONG VALLEY - ECOLOGICAL VALUE

3. The ecological value has long been established beyond doubt. For example, it is part of an Important Bird Area recognized by the BirdLife International, the international authority on birds and their habitats.

4. The ecological value has been affirmed by the Director of Environmental Protection when he rejected the Environmental Impact Assessment report of the KCRC in connection with the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line in 2000. It was further re-affirmed by a tribunal set up to consider KCRC's appeal against DEP's decision. KCRC respected the ruling and built the Spur Line underground where it crosses Long Valley.

5. In 2004, Long Valley is recognized as one of the 12 sites of outstanding ecological value under the Government's nature conservation policy. The government's Environmental & Conservation Fund has given NGO's funding to manage areas in Long Valley to enhance its biodiversity and to conserve its agriculture heritage, and to make these values accessible to the general public.

6. The careful management of the area has made it attractive to threatened species of importance to the whole world. For example, five Black-faced Spoonbills visited the area in December 2009, alongside Yellow Breasted Bunting in the rice fields.

LONG VALLEY - AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE

7. From aerial photographs, it is apparent that Long Valley is the biggest remaining piece of contiguous agricultural land in Hong Kong. It is the last reminder for Hong Kong people of how agricultural land looks like before it succumbs to relentless building development.

8. On the ground, visitors to the area since it became well-known after the 2000 public campaign to protect the area against the railway have all marvelled at the serenity of the agricultural scene and the natural liveliness of the area, in contrast to the mechanical hustle and bustle of the noisy and crowded city. It is practically an open-air museum with education value for students and grown-ups alike. The area is thus a resource of immense public value, which would enable people to re-connect with the natural and agricultural heritage of Hong Kong.

"LAND OWNERS' PROPERY RIGHT"

9. Land owners do have rights. However, that right is not open-ended. It is subject to the context in which the right is to be exercised. Where it is agricultural land, then the right of the owner is confined only to the practice of agriculture on the piece of land he owns. It is incorrect to expect or claim other "rights" beyond this.

10. Constructing any building structure on agriculture is by law an offence. It is absolutely clear that there is no such thing as the "right to build" for an owner of agricultural land. To claim "property right" as if it implies the right to build houses on the land is to ignore the letters and the spirit of the law. Thus the Government would be breaking the law if it goes ahead to give "consideration of landowners' property right" (p.4 of Stage Two Public Engagement Digest) as if it is a right to build houses if it refers to agricultural land.

11. I understand that the major part of, if not all of, the area shown as CDNCEA in the Kwu Tung North New Development Area PODP Major Development Concept (p. 6-7) is agricultural land.

12. Thus it is fundamentally wrong to adopt the "guiding principle" of considering "development" (which means "buildings" in the Hong Kong context) with "private sector participation" as a means to "conserve an area of Long Valley" (p. 4).

"COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT & NATURE CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT AREA" (CDNCEA)

13. CDNCEA is an undefined term in planning and zoning. It is not appropriate to adopt a new and undefined term in connection with a very sensitive area like Long Valley. Using the term will surely lead to endless debates, conflicts and court cases. It does no good to the harmony to the Hong Kong community.

14. By usage, "development" has come to mean "buildings" in Hong Kong. Applying the term CDNCEA to Long Valley and the nearby area to the north will empower landowners to build in the area, an activity prohibited according to the current zoning as agricultural land. It would destroy the ecological and heritage value of the site, but it is of critical importance to recognized that that value belongs to the whole Hong Kong community, not just the landowners. As pointed out earlier, adopting the label and thus allowing buildings to invade a piece of agricultural land is illegal.

15. Introducing the term CDNCEA would create unrealistic and unjustifiable expectations among landowners that they could reap significant monetary returns by later selling the land. This would intensify the conflict between landowners and the Hong Kong community as a whole, the latter wishing to be a party to enjoy the value of this tract of agricultural land conserved as it is. It would be very unwise of the government to sow such seeds of conflict and instability in the Hong Kong society.

16. Noting these factors, I strongly advise dropping the CDNCEA label from the document. Substituting "Conservation Area" or "Nature Reserve" would suit the situation more.

CHANGING SOCIAL VAUES

17. In recent years, there is a subtle but extremely significant evolution in the way the Hong Kong people view "development". It is reflected in what has happened in connection with the dismantling of the old Star Ferry and the Queen's Pier, the destruction of the old communities in Wanchai, and currently the high speed rail project. The Hong Kong community is now placing much higher values on humanity, on how the community could sustain habits, culture and heritage, on how Hong Kong people could live beyond blindly chasing after money and material growth, etc. That is, it is a revolt against seeing "development" purely as a subject in money and economy, as more shiny buildings or majestic physical structures, as more shopping malls, etc. Rather, "development" has to mean adding positive value to people's everyday life, in terms of aesthetics, liveliness, connectedness with nature, culture and heritage, etc.

18. Labelling the eastern side of the Kwu Tung North NDA as CDNCEA and allowing buildings to invade this important site and destroy Hong Kong's link with nature and heritage will be sure to touch on the nerve of the Hong Kong community which has by now acquired a new set of values.

19. Not recognizing this new spirit of Hong Kong could mean the whole NENT programme failing to get the support of the community and getting into endless troubles.

RECOMMENDATIONS

20. I propose the following:

(a) making it clear that the concept of "landowners' property right" where agricultural land is involved (including specifically the Long Valley context) does not mean the "right to build" (p. 4);

(b) drop the concept of "development that can integrate with the natural ecological environment through private sector participation" (p. 4);

(c) drop the proposed term "Comprehensive Development & Nature Conservation Enhancement Area" from planning maps (p. 6-7); substitute "Conservation Area" or "Nature Reserve" particularly in respect of the eastern area of Kwu Tung North New Development Area;

(d) Government resume the land in Long Valley and neighbouring areas (labelled together as CDNCEA on p. 6-7) for the public purpose of building the Kwu Tung North New Town as a sustainable community with its roots connected to Nature and Heritage, and manage it for conservation and heritage objectives.

[ 本帖最後由 MEMEME 於 2010-1-21 17:54 編輯 ]

本帖最近評分記錄
stewartcc   2010-9-26 05:05  種子  +5   無得頂 Unbeatable !
Sze   2010-1-21 23:21  種子  +10   無得頂 Unbeatable !
oLDcaR   2010-1-21 16:23  種子  +10   好有Point 台長
小關   2010-1-21 10:32  種子  +10   100% Support!!
阿蘇   2010-1-21 10:18  種子  +8   SUPPORT!!
頂部
深藍-Owen
蟲后
Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5


100-400 Union   500/4 Union   Macro Team 100 & 105/2.8   Bird Maniac 鳥癡   Protect Lung Mei 保護龍尾  
UID 1
Total 16836
主題
回覆
精華 7
積分 101981
種子 101981
花蜜 15823
閱讀權限 70
註冊 2006-6-5
Pri. Camera:  Canon
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-21 09:55  資料 主頁 文集 短消息 
規劃處既回覆好明顯講出佢地想點. 我地一定要抗爭. 如果唔係一定守唔住!!
頂部
深藍-Owen
蟲后
Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5


100-400 Union   500/4 Union   Macro Team 100 & 105/2.8   Bird Maniac 鳥癡   Protect Lung Mei 保護龍尾  
UID 1
Total 16836
主題
回覆
精華 7
積分 101981
種子 101981
花蜜 15823
閱讀權限 70
註冊 2006-6-5
Pri. Camera:  Canon
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-21 11:06  資料 主頁 文集 短消息 
塱原地主﹕發展權應獲保障

【明報專訊】「早於10年前,政府要建落馬洲支線時,村民已爭取保留其發展權,但最終鐵路建了,卻無補償發展機會。」古洞北村代表南少虎說,塱原一帶逾七成業權屬原居民,村民普遍不反對保育,但認為亦要體諒村民的發展權。

村民﹕不反對保育政策

南少虎指出,佔地約84公頃的塱原一帶土地業權主要屬燕崗村、河上鄉村、金錢村、丙崗村等原居民,大部分是祖堂地。身兼上水鄉事委員會總務的燕崗村代表侯慶全表示,村民並不反對保育政策,但認為土地業權人的權益應受保障。

倡政府先收地 後保育

南少虎表示,村民早於10年前政府討論建落馬州支線時,已提出要保障他們的土地發展權益,「但最終無任何補償,鐵路在地底,因而令較少發展商提出洽購地皮,保育之餘也要公道,你說若這一大片土地,在市區有多值錢?」他建議政府先收地,再落實其保育意念。
頂部
深藍-Owen
蟲后
Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5


100-400 Union   500/4 Union   Macro Team 100 & 105/2.8   Bird Maniac 鳥癡   Protect Lung Mei 保護龍尾  
UID 1
Total 16836
主題
回覆
精華 7
積分 101981
種子 101981
花蜜 15823
閱讀權限 70
註冊 2006-6-5
Pri. Camera:  Canon
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-21 11:06  資料 主頁 文集 短消息 
建落馬洲支線 激起保衛塱原

【明報專訊】塱原的發展紛爭早於10年前發生,九鐵早年籌劃落馬洲支線時建議興建高架天橋穿越塱原,引起環保團體強烈反對,環保署長更否決九鐵環評報告,九鐵不服上訴卻敗訴,最後要重新擬定使用隧道方案。

環團當年對落馬洲支線極大迴響,紛紛指出高架鐵路將嚴重破壞有甚多雀鳥出沒的塱原生境和地貌,即使九鐵形容竣工後會盡量回復當地原貌,亦不獲環團支持。環保署長於2000年參考環境諮詢委員會的意見後否決九鐵環評報告,成為自環評條例成立以來首宗遭否決的個案。

九鐵隨後提出上訴,經過8個多月審議、花耗6000多萬元訴訟費後,九鐵被判敗訴,需重新擬定方案。經研究及評估後,落馬洲支線最終以地底隧道形式穿過塱原。

到2004年,環境運輸及工務局宣布塱原及河上鄉是新自然保育政策中12個優先加強保育的地點之一,長春社及觀鳥會透過與土地擁有人簽訂管理協議,於塱原及河上鄉一帶清除薇甘菊、清掃垃圾及修復風水林等,並透過改善傳統農耕蒐集當地生境資料,提升塱原濕地的保育價值。
頂部
深藍-Owen
蟲后
Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5Rank: 5


100-400 Union   500/4 Union   Macro Team 100 & 105/2.8   Bird Maniac 鳥癡   Protect Lung Mei 保護龍尾  
UID 1
Total 16836
主題
回覆
精華 7
積分 101981
種子 101981
花蜜 15823
閱讀權限 70
註冊 2006-6-5
Pri. Camera:  Canon
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-21 11:07  資料 主頁 文集 短消息 
頂部
剎那
成蟲
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4


UID 900
Total 2147
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 15722
種子 15722
花蜜 2066
閱讀權限 60
註冊 2007-4-4
Pri. Camera:  Sony
來自 香港
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-22 09:29  資料 文集 短消息 
除左塱原,重有不遷不拆既古洞村
頂部
GreenDevil
成蟲
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



Macro Team 180  
UID 112
Total 2113
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 11566
種子 11566
花蜜 2170
閱讀權限 60
註冊 2006-7-11
Pri. Camera:  Canon
來自 Pandemonium
狀態 離線
發表於 2010-1-22 09:54  資料 短消息 
am730
M02  |   新聞  2010-01-22

被指受壓容許塱原建屋 林鄭月娥直指荒謬  

前天文台長林超英近日指,發現「有勢力人士」逼政府同意,將塱原規劃為「綜合發展及自然保育改善區」,令他們可在塱原濕地建屋。發展局長林鄭月娥昨回應時,直指有關說法「荒謬」,她說,城市規劃是按既定的政策及發展藍圖規劃,由城規會督導進行,有關指控對處理規劃事宜的同事不公平,不應在無理據下提出有關指控。

塱原濕地每年吸引大批雀鳥棲息,被評為具極高生態價值,以致落馬洲支線的設計,亦要由橫跨塱原的架空天橋方案,改以隧道方案興建。環保團體多年來努力捍衛塱原濕地,但擁有塱原大部分業權的原居民則認為,他們的發展權亦應獲保障。

明報
A10  |  港聞        2010-01-22
林鄭月娥指林超英言論荒謬

【明報專訊】對於前天文台長林超英指有「有勢力人士」逼政府部門同意在塱原濕地作綜合發展,發展局長林鄭月娥昨反擊,形容有關言論荒謬,又指規劃署只是就新發展區規劃研究蒐集公眾意見,批評林超英的指控不尊重規劃署,亦不尊重多年來解決城市規劃問題的人士,「在香港今天的政治社會環境,不應在毫無理據下隨便提出這說法」。本報昨晚以電郵聯絡林超英,但於截稿前未獲回覆。

反駁「有勢力人士」逼發展塱原

林超英上周二在網誌公開質疑三合一新發展區古洞北的規劃意向,又指發現「有勢力人士」逼政府部門把塱原濕地劃為「綜合發展區」。發展局長林鄭月娥昨回應指有關言論荒謬,她解釋,規劃署正就新發展區規劃研究諮詢公眾,有關研究屬十大工程之一,是為了應付中長期的人口發展。

東方日報
A14  |   政情  2010-01-22

政情:黑英加入「退休高官合唱團」  


「不在其位,不謀其政」向來係政務官系統一貫傳統,不過自從煲呔曾上場後,施政頻頻出錯,直接影響本港經濟、民生以至社會整體發展,搞到一眾退休高官都睇唔過眼,齊齊炮轟施政不足之處。好似退休僅半年天文台台長林超英(黑英)日前就網誌質疑,「有勢力人士」逼政府同意以綜合發展為名於極有保育價值塱原濕地建屋,搞到政府鬼咁尷尬。

黑英網誌表示「退休後本來決定絕足時事」,不過偶爾發現有勢力人士想藉發展之名塱原濕地起屋,仲成功迫使政府部門將當地規劃為綜合發展地區。佢狠批,以前起落馬洲支線時,政府已經裁定塱原有極高生態價值,依家如果允許建屋,做法「荒謬」。

林鄭強硬反擊

一向畀外界形容為「好打得」發展局局長林鄭月娥尋日出席記者會講強制驗樓,被記者問到點睇黑英批評時,新聞官原本以「只講強制驗樓」為由幫林鄭擋條問題,點知佢竟然搶白話:「呢條我可以答」,之後以強硬態度直斥黑英質疑「荒謬」:「話規劃署受有力人士影響對我同事唔尊重……今日政治環境同社會,唔應該隨便提出冇理據說話﹗」林鄭雖然好勇猛咁為政府護航,不過睇番佢上年尾三度公開場合拒絕交代政府對問題骨灰龕執法詳情,再對照番佢尋日表現,點解有咁大差距?

其實呢幾年「發炮」抨擊政府退休高官可謂前仆後繼,遠有「鐵蝴蝶」任關佩英、「重炮手」王永平、港英年代曾任副布政司馬會主席陳祖澤同自命「政策判官」前申訴專員戴婉瑩,依家再加埋黑英,個個都有句講句,批評政府冇面畀,不如佢諗組成「退休高官唱衰政府合唱團」,以另類方式監察政府施政。
頂部
 


Untitled Document


當前時區 GMT+8, 現在時間是 2022-1-26 15:26

Powered by Discuz! 5.0.0  © 2006-2008 HKWildlife.Net
Processed in 0.035840 second(s), 8 queries , Gzip enabled
清除 Cookies - 聯繫我們 - HKWildlife.Net - Archiver