2016/11/7

人大第五次釋法

2016/11/7

2016/6/16

林榮基勇敢說真相 爆中央拘押手段

2016/6/16

2016/12/2

政府入稟覆核四議員資格

2016/12/2

2016/12/6

申訴專員指政府阻網媒採訪投訴成立

2016/12/6

只需每月贊助$200

守護言論與新聞自由

立場新聞,寸步不退

守護言論與新聞自由。立場新聞,寸步不退

每月贊助$200,支持立場新聞

7
立場新聞 Stand News

盲搶地?

2017/7/5 — 20:17

錦田南與八鄉的土地使用地圖

錦田南與八鄉的土地使用地圖

(〈Looking for land 〉English Version Below) 

政府近日邀請咗房協用發展商身份研究郊野公園嘅發展潛力,納入研究範圍嘅,包括鄰近八鄉嘅大欖郊野公園,以及喺水泉澳邨附近嘅馬鞍山郊野公園。郊野公園作為香港珍貴嘅資產,任何縮小佢嘅舉動都要三思而後行。但現時,我哋只有成立同埋管理郊野公園嘅規則,但就無任何規管發展郊野公園嘅準則,所以喺研究發展郊野公園之前,政府應該首先同我哋約法三章。

事實上,我哋可以借鑒維港填海嘅程序。要喺維港進行填海工程,首先你要證明計劃有絕對嘅公眾需求,亦無可行嘅替代方案。除此之外,仲要盡可能減少填海嘅範圍。而要保護我哋嘅郊野公園,除咗需要呢啲準則之外,政府亦都要保證發展郊野公園後會將面積相若嘅土地撥入郊野公園範圍。(Zero-net-loss)

廣告

喺1999年發展進入元朗嘅三號幹線就係其中一個例子。政府原本計劃喺大欖郊野公園之上興建公路,但最尾選擇咗用隧道取代公路,從而減少對郊野公園嘅損害。結果只有兩公頃嘅郊野公園土地用作興建連接隧道嘅公路,但就新增咗約四十公頃至大欖郊野公園以作補償。2003年,將軍澳堆填區擴展計劃喺規劃嘅過程中盡可能避免對清水灣郊野公園造成破壞,而喺擴展過後亦都將若干嘅土地撥入郊野公園範圍以作補償。

今次政府委派房協研究嘅郊野公園,附近其實有可用作發展嘅土地。規劃署喺2015年完成咗錦田南同八鄉嘅土地用途檢討,並指出錦上路站上蓋同埋周邊嘅地區,以及八鄉維修中心附近足以發展超過三萬三千個住宅單位。而錦上路一帶亦有大大小現時用作貨櫃場、停車場等棕地用途嘅荒廢農地。另外,水泉澳邨附近亦都有大片綠化帶,政府大可拎嚟研究。以上嘅土地與主要道路同鐵路連接,交通相當方便,點解政府唔委派房協研究其發展用途,而要捨易取難,研究發展郊野公園呢?

廣告

另一個問題係個研究方向。政府委派房協用生態同土地價值做研究準則評估發展嘅可行性,簡直係矛盾大對決。位於已發展地區邊陲嘅郊野公園飽受噪音同光污染,生態價值自然會低啲,但佢地卻為剩低嘅郊野公園土地帶嚟緩衝。如果單純用生態同土地價值去睇,咁我哋就會無止境咁開發郊野公園,直至資源完全耗盡嘅一日。

林鄭承諾會成立一個由專業人士帶領嘅工作小組,參考各持份者同地區人士嘅意見,以全面檢討現時嘅土地供應。環保團體已經去信林鄭,要求佢停止房協嘅研究,並確保新成立嘅工作小組能夠更廣泛吸納不同人士嘅意見。研究土地供應,需要一個公均可持續嘅討論。環團嘅人同大家一樣飽受上樓難過cut有線之苦。但郊野公園作為香港重要資產,不論為咗自己,定為咗我哋嘅下一代,佢都值得我哋努力守護。

錦田南與八鄉的土地使用地圖(圖由作者提供)

錦田南與八鄉的土地使用地圖(圖由作者提供)

Looking for land 

We need a new way to discuss land supply options.

The government invited a developer, the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS), to study the development potential of two areas extending into the Tai Lam Country Park and Ma On Shan Country Park – one near Pat Heung and the other near Shui Chuen O.

But surely we should first agree the rules. Country parks are a special asset of Hong Kong. Any decision to make them smaller must be taken very carefully. We have a law for creating parks. We have a law for managing parks. But we do not have a law that says how to cut parts off a country park.

We can learn from another special asset: Victoria Harbour. To reclaim land, you must prove that there is a public overriding need, that there are no reasonable alternatives and that only the minimum is taken away. The same can be agreed for country parks, with one additional rule - zero-net loss. This requires another area to be added as compensation.

In 1995 we did exactly this to build Route 3 to Yuen Long. Instead of digging a road through Tai Lam Country Park, we limited the damage by building a tunnel. Only two hectares were lost for the approach road and an area of around 40 ha was added to the park elsewhere. In 2003, the extension of the Tseung Kwan O landfill was carefully planned to have minimal impact on the Clearwater Bay Country Park, and again another piece of land was found to be added elsewhere as compensation.

But this time, developers are being invited to consider country parks when there are sites ready for development nearby. Why?

The Planning Department completed a land use review of Kam Tin South and Pat Heung in 2015. It identified opportunities for the development of at least 33,000 residential units on top of and in the vicinity of Kam Sheung Road Station and the Pat Heung Maintenance Centre. There is also an abundance of “abandoned agricultural land” along Kam Sheung Road now used for open storage, temporary carparks and other brownfield uses. And next to Shui Chuen O is a large green belt area which could be studied. All these sites have good access to rail and road. Why have these not been offered to HKHS for a development study, before the country parks?

The other issue is the study brief. The government instructed the developer to use ecological and landscape values as criteria. This makes no sense. Country park areas near existing developments suffer noise, light and traffic, but they buffer the rest of the country park. Accept these criteria and we will be forever eating up country parks until no park is left.

Carrie Lam in her manifesto promised to establish a dedicated task force steered by professionals to engage stakeholders and the community on a macro review of our land supply options. Green groups have written to Carrie and asked her to rescind the invitation to HKHS and set up the task force as soon as possible.

We need a more equitable, fair and sustainable process for discussing land supply options. Green groups consist of regular people who suffer the same problems as everyone else. Yet, they recognize that our country parks are a unique asset which should be safeguarded for future generations.

 

(An edited English version of this article was published in the July editions of Fast Media publications’ Southside, Sai Kung and Midlevels.)

發表意見

相關文章