Dear Sir/Madam,
Draft Chek Lap Kok Outline Zoning Plan No. S/I-CLK/11
I refer to my letter to you dated 26 August 2009. The representations are tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Town Planning Board (TPB) at its meeting on Friday, 13 November 2009 in the Conference Room, 15/F, North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong. The structure of the hearing will be as follows:
| Representation No. |
| Group 1: | R1 to R786 |
| Group 2: | R788 |
You and/or your authorised representative may attend and, if you desire, will be given the opportunity to make submission at the meeting of the TPB. If you or your authorised representative do not attend the meeting, the TPB may proceed with the meeting in your absence or adjourn it. The Guidance Notes on Hearing of Representations/Further Representations is available at the TPB's website (www.info.gov.hk/tpb/). Members of the TPB will be provided with a copy of the paper prepared by the Planning Department (the document) for the consideration of the representations. The document will also be available for public inspection after issue to TPB Members. A copy of the document and details of the meeting will be sent to you 7 days before the meeting by hand or by post. In this regard, we should be grateful if you would provide us your correspondence address as soon as possible. If you choose to collect the document at our office, please inform us. The meeting for considering representations, except the deliberation parts, will be open to the public. The agenda of the meeting is available at the Planning Enquiry Counters of the Planning Department (Hotline : 2231 5000) at 17/F, North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point and 14/F, Sha Tin Government Offices, 1 Sheung Wo Che Road, Sha Tin and the TPB's website four days before the meeting. To facilitate our arrangement for the meeting, please advise the English and Chinese name(s) of the person(s) who will attend the meeting of the TPB, if any, and the presentation time, if required, on or before 24 October 2009. For future correspondence, please quote the above representation number.
Yours faithfully,
(Miss Y.K. Ng)
for Secretary, Town Planning Board
Today we will find out. The Environmental Impact Assessment Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) has refused to endorse the assessment of the Hong Kong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HKZMB). The case has been passed to the full ACE meeting and it will need to decide on it today, 12 October, 2009.
The HKZMB assessment will be the acid test: Is ACE an effective environmental watchdog or is it a council of politicians who can be trusted not to rock the bridge?
(WWF has also called on ACE to reject the EIA report. Their argument: a lack of protection for the Chinese White Dolphins. Click here for more.)
Politics corrupts the assessment of air quality impact of Zhuhai bridge
The HKZMB project has strong backing from Beijing and the HKSAR Government is rushing the project. It certainly does not want any delay caused by environmental approvals.
But the project raises obvious environmental concerns: Air quality around Tung Chung is already bad and will get worse once North Lantau is opened up to road traffic from the mainland: 50,000 toll paying vehicles a day are needed to pay back the loans.
The Government, worried that someone will challenge the project on grounds that it will not meet Air Quality Objectives (AQO) when it goes ahead, now claims in their Environmental Impact Assessment that the project will NOT have ANY adverse effect on air quality at all. Unless only electric cars and bicycles will be allowed to use the bridge, that can simply not be true!
Highways Department keeps air quality data secret
The Highways Department knows what impact the bridge will have on air quality in North Lantau: Their assessment report for the HKZMB reveals that it has had its consultants do air quality modeling - but the resulting data is kept secret.
The Highways Department appears to imply that, as a result of ongoing efforts by regional governments, air quality will have improved sufficiently by 2015 so that when the bridge is expected to open, air quality including the pollution generated by the new traffic will be within the current AQOs.
Highways Department ignores the law
Highways Department has obviously forgotten the kind of assessment the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) requires.
The Court of Final Appeal made clear in the Shiu Wing Steel case concerning an aviation fuel tank farm that it is not enough for the Government to say, "Look, you don't need to worry about this project's impact on the environment. We've already taken care of it. Trust us."
Section 4 of the Technical Memorandum of the EIAO requires a project's proponents to disclose in quantitative terms how big an impact the project will have and, if necessary, to recommend measures to keep the impact within acceptable limits.
ACE is Hong Kong's last resort - will they live up to it?
Our Government - which deliberately conceals relevant environmental information because the results might be inconvenient - is no longer to be trusted to protect the environment.
ARUP is the consultant for BOTH the HKZMB EIA report AND for the review of the Air Quality Objectives. Nothing sinister - just a possible reason why they don't rock the bridge. (How can ARUP consultants kiss their children good night and sleep well? Link to photo of Director of Environmental Protection and the Consultant - ARUP - commencing study for new AQOs)
Nor can we rely on the financiers of the bridge to protect our children. Chinese Banks - unlike some of their international competitors - are not expected to demand stringent environmental compliance. They have yet to sign up to the Equator Principles, the international benchmarks for managing social and environmental issues in project finance.
If ACE is going to do its job properly, it will refuse to endorse the Environmental Impact Assessment for the HKZMB project and it will ask the Highways Department to first disclose the impact on air quality as the law requires.
And what if ACE, our environmental watchdog, can't hold Government to it, then who will? Will a poor Tung Chung resident stand up and seek a Judicial Review?
In case you are interested in legal details - A long review follows below
Legal advisors have prepared the following - long and detailed - review of why the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HKZMB) and Link Road cannot be approved.
Report fails to assess health impact of Zhuhai Bridge
1. The EIA Report for the HKZM Bridge and Link Road is flawed because it does not report whether the project is prejudicial to the health and well being of people living in Tung Chung.
2. The real health impacts on the public, such as impaired lung development in children, and increased inflammations leading to higher rates of heart and lung disease, and even death, must be reported.
3. The Study Brief, the Technical Memorandum and EIAO Ordinance, require this assessment to be made (see Appendix 1 below.)
4. Without this element included in the EIA report ACE has no basis on which to decide whether the Report is acceptable or not.
5. ACE must fulfill its duty to the public by advising the Director of Environmental Protection (DEP) that the Report must be rejected. (section 7(5) of the EIAO)
6. It is widely known that the WHO, Hong Kong's leading public health experts, the Environmental Secretary, the Director of Environmental Protection and the consultant that prepared the EIA Report demand air quality objectives at far lower levels than Hong Kong's outdated AQOs. (see press release, appendix II, below)
7. To put it simply, air quality that meets Hong Kong's present AQOs is known to be harmful to health.
8. Therefore comparing the "predicted" emissions against the outdated AQOs is not the same as reporting on and assessing likely harm to the health of the public.
9. The question for ACE and the DEP: "Is the air pollution from this project when combined with the current air quality likely to be prejudicial to the health and well being of the people of Tung Chung?"
10. So far, the proponents have avoided the question by asserting "It meets the current AQO" (5.6.17.2 of the EIA report). But this does not answer section 10(2)(c) of the EIA Ordinance (see Appendix I below). The Proponents cannot assert that if the Project meets the present outdated AQO, then the polluted air is safe to breathe.
11. Apart from this being the legal requirement, this is a common sense requirement. No rational or reasonable Authority would even consider such a Project without having the solid evidence as to the degree of harm to health it will cause.
Appendix I: Extracts from key legislation and related materials
A. Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (cap 499)
Section: 7 - Public inspection of reports
(5) The Advisory Council on the Environment may give any comments it has on the report to the Director within 60 days of its receiving a copy of the report.
"Section: 10 - Application for environmental permit
(2) In granting or refusing an environmental permit, the Director shall have regard to
c) whether the environmental impact caused or experienced by the designated project is or is likely to be prejudicial to the health or well being of people, flora, fauna or ecosystems;"
B. Technical Memorandum of the EIA Ordinance
Section 4.1.1:
"An EIA report shall comprise a document or series of documents providing a detailed assessment in quantitative terms, wherever possible, and in qualitative terms of the likely environmental impacts and environmental benefits of the project. The requirements for the EIA report shall be set out in accordance with this technical memorandum. The EIA report shall be produced in accordance with the EIA study brief issued by the Director to the applicant."
Section 4.4.3:
"The residual environmental impacts refer to the net environmental impacts after mitigation taking into account the background environmental conditions and the impacts from existing, committed and planned projects. When evaluating the residual environmental impacts (the net impacts with the mitigation measures in place), the following factors shall be considered:
a) the importance of the residual environmental impacts in terms of the following factors:
i) effects on public health and . . . risk to life: if the impacts may cause adverse public health effects . . . they are considered key concerns.
C. EIA Study Brief (ESB-110/2003)
section 2.
"(iv) Identify and quantify emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
(x) Identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (i.e. after practicable mitigation) and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses
Appendix II: Government press release on AQO consultation
Public consultation on Air Quality Objectives Review launched
The Government today (July 23) launched a four-month public consultation on the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) review.
"Air is a very important environmental resource and we must strive to ensure that our air quality can adequately protect public health," Secretary for the Environment, Mr Edward Yau, said.
"The current Air Quality Objectives of Hong Kong have been in place since 1987. They need to be updated. In October 2006, the World Health Organisation (WHO) released a new set of Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs).
We therefore propose to make reference to the WHO Air Quality Guidelines to update our Air Quality Objectives to enhance the protection of public health and further improve air quality. In this regard, the Chief Executive announced in his 2008-09 Policy Address that Hong Kong would adopt targets in stages giving due regard to the WHO guidelines," Mr Yau said.
"In setting the new Air Quality Objectives, the underlying principle is to protect public health. Achieving the WHO Air Quality Guidelines will be taken as a long-term goal and we will adopt targets in stages to update the Air Quality Objectives," he said. In mid-2007, the Government commissioned a consultancy study to review the Air Quality Objectives for setting new standards for ambient air pollutant levels that could better protect public health.
Full text: http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200907/23/P200907230082.htm
|
|
Dear Sir/Madam,
6 October 2009
G.N. 3620 – Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance (Chapter 127)
PWP Item No. 834TH – Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Objection Notice No. F0009 (Lands Department Ref. No. LD900710 )
I refer to our earlier letter to you dated 21 September 2009 concerning the above objection notice.
In response to your request, we have now proposed four more meetings on weekday evenings and at weekends. For details of the proposed meetings, please refer to the attached reply slip at Appendix A1. Grateful if you can complete the attached reply slip at Appendix A1 on or before 10 October 2009. To facilitate our scheduling of the meetings and allow sufficient time for every attendee to put forward his/her concern, you are requested to send us the reply slip by the above due date; and also to attend the meeting by yourself personally only, or nominate only one representative to attend the meeting. When you or your representative attend the meeting, please bring along the original copy of this letter for identification purpose.
Should no response be received from you by the above due date, we shall assume that you have maintained your objection. In that case, the captioned works and the objections will be submitted to the Chief Executive in Council to make a decision under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance (Chapter 127). All correspondences regarding your objection notice will be submitted to the Chief Executive in Council for consideration.
Please kindly send your reply to us on or before 10 October 2009, by post, by fax (3188 2041) or by email (hkbcf.fsro@hyd.gov.hk).
If you have any further enquiries, please contact Ms PONG Kei (Tel: 2762 3424) or Ms Kiki YEUNG (Tel: 2762 4996).
| Over 1,000 support the Save Lantau Campaign
超過1,000人支持保護大嶼山行動
More than 1,000 people have submitted objections to the Government's plans for the border crossing facilities and roads linking the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. They are calling for the roads to be moved north of the airport island, away from the Tung Chung residents. 超過1,000名支持者已經提交反對信, 反對關於港珠澳大橋香港口岸及港珠澳大橋香港接線的政府方案。他們強烈要求將香港接線更改到機場島以北, 遠離東涌民居。
Sign the SECOND objection - Deadline 6 October
於10月6日或之前, 作出第二次反對簽署
The project has been split up. The first gazette notices set out the reclamation and re-zoning. The second notices set out the actual road works. Click here to use the electronic form to submit your objections to the alignment of the roads, and to support the alternative proposal - before mid night, 6 October 2009. 整項工程被分割成多個部份。第一個憲報公告提出填海及規劃, 第二個憲報公告就設定實際的道路工程。請登入網上填寫及提交表格, 反對政府的道路規劃及支持社區的建議方案 – 請於10月6日或之前提交。
Government's plan has three main drawbacks
政府建議方案的三大缺點
12.4km road from the bridge to the Border Crossing Facility will ruin natural coast and the scenic hike between Tung Chung and Tai O. A 12.4 kilometer long six lane road will damage the natural coast of Lantau Island and degrade the coastal hiking route from Tung Chung to Tai O. It will also destroy 2 kilometers of coastal protection area, the last remaining natural shoreline of Chep Lap Kok Island. 香港境內至口岸的接線長度達12.4公里, 破壞天然的海岸線, 而東涌至大澳遠足路段的秀麗風景亦受到影響: 一條長達12.4公里的6條行車線將會破壞大嶼山的天然海岸線及令到東涌至大澳遠足路段的景緻失色。同時亦會破壞2公里的海岸保育區及僅存的赤鱲角海岸線。
24 hours a day light, air and noise pollution for Tung Chung residents. Within 20 years the road will carry more than 50,000 vehicles a day, or one car every two seconds, right in front of the Tung Chung, Fu Tung, Ma Wan and Yat Tung residents. A border crossing facility of 130ha with its noise, air and light pollution will be located less than a kilometer from the new Tung Chung Town Extensions. 東涌居民需全日24小時承受光害、噪音及空氣汚染: 根據港府在2009年4月30日提供的數據，「20年內，香港接線每日車流量將超過50,000輛，最高時速達100公里」，照此計算，東涌、富東、馬灣及逸東的居民每兩秒鐘就會看到一輛汽車經過。
Large reclamations and an elevated road in front of Lantau. 267ha reclamation will be created for the border crossing facilities and a long elevated road will be built on hundreds of pillars which will be an eyesore and severely affect marine life. 犧牲天然海岸線：六車道(雙向三車道及每邊一條緊急車道)的香港接線，將破壞北大嶼山的天然海岸線，並進一步摧毀赤臘角剩餘的天然海岸。香港口岸涉及大面積的267公頃填海，極可能嚴重改變海岸水流，影響海岸環境生態。
Support the community proposal - A better option for all.
社區建議方案考慮周全。
Moving roads 5km away from residents, and protecting natural coast lines. By moving the roads to the north of the airport island, the air and noise pollution will be dispersed before reaching the Tung Chung/Fu Tung/Ma Wan/Yat Tung homes, and the natural coast lines of Lantau and Chep Lap Kok will be saved. 污染遠離民居，維持社區景觀：將24小時運作的香港口岸改到機場島西面，並且將連接路置於遠離居民5公里之處，即使建造費用可能稍為提高，但可大幅減低對東涌／富東／馬灣／逸東邨居民的空氣及噪音污染。
Short road from HK SAR boundary to Border Crossing Facility. By placing the border crossing facilities on the west, the secure road can be dramatically reduced in length from 12.4 to 4.7km. 縮短連接路：將香港口岸重置在機場島以西，使香港境內至口岸的接線長度從12.4公里大幅縮減至4.7公里，並可更善用橫貫機場客運站的自動列車運輸。
Moving the border crossing out of sight for residents. By placing the facilities on the west of the airport island, existing and future residents of North Lantau will no longer be disturbed by the 24-hour border operations. 保護天然海岸線：將香港口岸改到機場島以西，使大嶼山和赤臘角的天然海岸線景觀得以保留。北大嶼山之居民亦無需受到24小時的滋擾。
1,000 Campaign Supporters include: 1,000位行動支持者包括:
Tung Chung Sustainable Development Alliance東涌可持續發展聯盟
Designing Hong Kong創建香港
WWF世界自然基金會香港分會
Green Lantau Association綠色大嶼山協會
The Professional Commons公共專業聯盟
Clear the Air爭氣行動
Association for Geoconservation Hong Kong香港地貌岩石保育協會
tungchungtown.com東涌討論區
HK Mountain Bike Association香港爬山單車協會 |
|
