Fohh, planning for the future, tpb 19.5.14

  • 37 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Environment
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
37
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Hoi Ha Outline Zoning Plan SUSTAINABLE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE? By Friends of Hoi Ha 19 May 2014
  • 2. THE DRAFT OUTLINE ZONING PLAN A FLAWED PLANNING PROCESS Existing Village
  • 3. THE REVISED PLAN BETTER!
  • 4. HOWEVER! STILL MAJOR PROBLEMS WHICH CAN BE FIXED!
  • 5.  Mapping: • Coastline • Hydrology  Agricultural Use.  Zoning for Building or Conservation?  Sewage.  New Green Belt Area.  Defining the “NEED” for Housing. PROBLEM AREAS
  • 6. POOR COASTLINE MAPPING Detail from Proposed OZP Map Old (ruined) Village Concrete Platform Fields ? A V-Zone CPA Marine Park Boundary
  • 7. PHOTO FROM “A” Concrete Platform Fields THIS PHOTO IS TAKEN FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE MARINE PARK
  • 8. PHOTO FROM “B” B Concrete Platform Fields Associate Mangroves
  • 9. PHOTO FROM “C” C Fields Associate Mangroves Old Village Wall
  • 10. PHOTO FROM “D” 40 metres D House 21A House 21A Associate Mangroves Fields The PlanD Maps give the impression that there is at least 40 metres between House 21A and the sea.
  • 11. SO – WHERE IS THE COASTLINE? High Tide Beach Line 10 Metres Mangroves / Associate Mangroves Old (ruined) Village Marine Park Boundary
  • 12.  Marine Park Boundary is arbitrary and out to sea.  Marine Park Boundary is not the High Tide Mark.  Marine Park boundary is not the beach line.  Before Coastal Erosion, village was 40-50 metres from the sea.  Now, the beach comes as close as 10 metres from the old (ruined) village walls. COASTLINE CONCLUSIONS - 1
  • 13.  Planning Department has recognised the need for the CPA to be at least 25 metres wide.  Planning Department Maps show the CPA as being 30 metres wide in front of the old village.  Reality is that CPA is, effectively, 10 metres wide because Coastal Erosion has changed the boundary between sea and land.  The CPA needs to encroach upon the existing village footprint because in the real world the coastal boundaries have changed.  10 Metres is insufficient to prevent building works causing: o Pollution o Liability to continued erosion. COASTLINE CONCLUSIONS - 2
  • 14. Include the Old Village Within the Coastal Protection Zone. COASTLINE SOLUTION This solution will not stop all building activities in the area but it will ensure that: • any building will not cause pollution to Hoi Ha Wan, or • lead to the resumption of Coastal Erosion.
  • 15. BOUNDARY OF CPA V-Zone / CPA Boundary 25 metres Marine Park High Tide Beach
  • 16. High Tide Beach Marsh Marsh Marsh High Water Table MAPPING OF HYDROLOGY
  • 17. HYDROLOGY OF V-ZONE EXTENSION
  • 18.  Allowed on privately-owned land in CPA, CA and GB.  95% of GB(1) area is owned by developers.  Who is likely to want to “Farm” these areas?  Farming is often used as a pretext for “Trashing” an area prior to applications for development. AGRICULTURAL USE
  • 19. Would Involve:  Destruction of Woodland.  Draining of Woodland.  Draining of Marshland “FARMING” IN THE GB(1) AREAS
  • 20. PAK SHA O THIS HAS BECOME:
  • 21. The present hydrological system of the GB(1) Woodland and Marshland effectively filters runoff and produces clean water running into Hoi Ha Wan, which is vital for its survival. If uncontrolled farming is allowed:  Trees cut down will leave exposed soil.  Soil will be washed down into Hoi Ha Wan.  Silt will cover the corals and other marine life.  Marine Life will be killed. CONSEQUENCES OF CLEARING THE LAND
  • 22. STREAM RUNNING THROUGH HOI HA GB(1). RUNOFF CLEAN WATER STREAM AT PAK SHA O
  • 23. Will involve use of:  Fertilisers  Pesticides Farming Activities These POLLUTANTS will wash into Hoi Ha Wan causing: • Algal blooms. • De-oxygenation of water. • Poisoning of Marine Life.
  • 24. Move “Agricultural Use” into Column 2 of the schedules for CA, CPA, GB and GB(1). This will:  Not prevent small-scale, sustainable, organic and environmentally-friendly farming activities.  Will prevent areas being “Trashed” by bogus farming activities. A bona fide farmer can apply to the TPB for permission to carry out farming activities which will not harm the environment and, in particular, will not cause pollution to Hoi Ha Wan. SOLUTION
  • 25. WHY GB(1) AND NOT CA Green Belt (1)
  • 26.  PlanD has recognised that AFCD’s ecological assessments were flawed and inadequate.  PlanD has recognised that NGO data “have merits” – i.e. they are correct.  PlanD say they are zoning the area for conservation but Green Belt is seen as a “reservoir of future building land” - as seen by recent Government policy.  If area is seen as available for future development, then owners (developers) will “trash” the area to destroy the ecological value.  If PlanD mean what they say, then these areas should be: CONSERVATION AREA. THE CASE FOR CONSERVATION AREA
  • 27.  Hoi Ha has NO mains Sewage System.  All houses in Hoi Ha are served by Septic Tank Systems.  STS are designed to produce effluent which flows through the soil and is purified by soil bacteria.  The greater the “Step-Back” distance between a STS and a receiving water, the greater the purification. SEWAGE - 1
  • 28.  Measurable levels of E.coli found close to the beaches at Hoi Ha - 2 independent sources.  Measurable levels of EDCs (Endocrine Disrupting Compounds), such as nonylphenol (degrade of detergent), bisphenol (a material for plastics) found close to beaches at Hoi Ha – paper to be published soon by HKU.  These pollutants can have only come from STS at Hoi Ha, which have been licensed in accordance with EPD POLICY. SEWAGE - 2
  • 29. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ON EFFLUENT STANDARDS:  Paragraph 4.4.4.3: “Within the coastal waters are special areas that need specific restrictions. These areas include bathing beaches, sites of special scientific interest…..Paragraph 9.1 lists the restrictions.”  Paragraph 9.1: “No new effluent will be allowed: • Within 100m of the boundaries of a gazetted beach • Within 200m of the seaward boundaries of a …. site of special scientific interest, and within 100m of the landward boundaries; SEWAGE - 3
  • 30.  EPD POLICY does not take account of this LAW.  EPD POLICY allows the siting of Septic Tank Systems within 30 metres of a SSSI rather than the STATUTORY 100 Metres.  EPD POLICY does not prevent pollution from Hoi Ha’s existing STS from entering HHW.  Under the Draft OZP, the number of STS will MORE THAN DOUBLE. SEWAGE - 4 PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD DESTRUCTION OF MARINE LIFE ILLEGAL
  • 31.  Parts of the proposed V-zone are WATERLOGGED with a HIGH WATER TABLE and NUMEROUS STREAMS.  MAKES THE AREAS UNSUITABLE FOR SEPTIC TANKS.  THE STEP-BACK DISTANCES SHOULD BE INCREASED TO PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF PURIFICATION AS IN IDEAL CONDITIONS. SEWAGE - 5
  • 32. Hole Dug in November 2013 SEWAGE -6 High Water Table Zero Percolation Unsuitable for Septic Tanks
  • 33.  The existing Septic Tanks are causing pollution in Hoi Ha Wan.  The OZP allows for up to 40 new houses, the majority of which will be within 100 metres of Hoi Ha Wan.  If the incorrect maps are used for planning, septic tanks may be sited on the site of the old village, 10 metres or less from the beach.  Much of the V-zone has soil hydrology which precludes effective treatment of sewage effluent.  A proper planning process must assess the CUMULATIVE IMPACT of adding more sewage effluent to the hydrological system. SEWAGE - 7
  • 34. The possible consequences of this situation are:  Increasing levels of E.coli which may render the beaches UNSAFE because of PUBLIC HEALTH considerations.  The increase in nutrients in the Wan will cause a decrease in oxygen levels, which will DAMAGE THE MARINE LIFE.  Increasing levels of detergents and non-biodegradable detergents, which are TOXIC to marine life, especially CORALS.  The DESTRUCTION of Hoi Ha Wan as a place for conservation and recreation. AN ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE SEWAGE - 8
  • 35. EPD MONITORING EPD Claim there is no pollution of Hoi Ha Wan at present. WHY? SEWAGE - 9
  • 36. EPD POLLUTION MONITORING STATIONS EPD has 3 Pollution Monitoring Stations at Hoi Ha Wan. Nearest is more than 1 kilometre from beaches and in an area regularly flushed by Tolo Channel. Inner reaches of Hoi Ha Wan have slow flushing rates, especially in dry season – pollutants will not be quickly removed. A lagoon has recently formed at the stream estuary which will trap and concentrate pollutants. ------------- ------- ----------- Hoi Ha Beaches Nearest Monitoring Station
  • 37.  Hoi Ha after development will no longer be a “small” village.  Individual Septic Tank Systems will not provide long-term protection to Hoi Ha Wan.  No more building should be authorised until a long-term solution for the disposal of sewage is constructed: • Sewage mains (piped) system. • Local, environmentally-friendly sewage plant.  This solution should include the existing houses. SEWAGE SOLUTIONS
  • 38. Green Belt WHY?? NEW GREEN BELT AREA - 1 New Houses
  • 39. NEW GREEN BELT AREA - 2 Stream Fung Shui Forest
  • 40. NEW GREEN BELT AREA - 3 Houses Slope Access
  • 41.  Area is not “Flat” as claimed by AFCD – look at the contours.  Area is difficult to penetrate – assessment has been done purely by reference to an aerial photo.  Area is old woodland – has never been farmed.  Area is not “closed canopy” because it is strewn with large boulders.  This is a MATURE, distinct and un-surveyed ecosystem. NEW GREEN BELT AREA - 2
  • 42. Why has AFCD advocated the designation of a large part of the OZP as area which will be seen as a reservoir of future building land, despite the following factors:  AFCD has presented no scientific data on the ecology of the area.  The fact that a significant stream flows through the area and into Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park.  Part of the area has been designated as “Fung Shui” Forest by AFCD.  Access is almost impossible.  The area is totally natural – it has never been used for farming activities.  Green Belt is meant to “define the limits of urban and sub-urban development areas by natural features and to contain urban sprawl” not to be an island in the middle of a Conservation Area. NEW GREEN BELT AREA - 4 ?
  • 43.  Based on figure of 84 given by VR. o Total number of potentially entitled IVs worldwide? o Number of Houses which can be crammed in to private land? o Who knows??  Figure has not been subject to any kind of Audit, Verification or Scrutiny.  Increased to 94 by TPB. (Apparently, 15 applications, 5 already approved) THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING - 1 THIS IS NONSENSE!
  • 44. Quotes from Tung A Village Representative (SCMP 29 March 2014):  “Of course I have asked for more than the actual need. It’s a game”.  “To me, the number is meaningless”.  “The number is just a rough estimate”.  “Many of the next generation are staying in the UK and are unsure if they will come back”. So: – WHY ARE THESE FIGURES BEING USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE OZP? THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING - 2
  • 45.  In the last 18 years, 7 new houses have been built.  NONE of these houses are occupied by IVs.  Therefore, the NEED for housing under SHP in last 18 years has been ZERO.  Who actually believes that 94 “Sons of the Village” will return to live and work in Hoi Ha in the next 10 years? THE NEED FOR HOUSING - 1
  • 46.  The proposed development will NOT help to solve Hong Kong’s housing shortage.  The proposed development will NOT provide houses for Indigenous Villagers.  Who will benefit?: • Developers. • Property Speculators. • Absentee Indigenous Villagers. THE REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING
  • 47.  No-one has asked them.  “Villagers” consulted are IVs, most of whom do not live in the village and are only interested in the money to be made from the SHP.  More than three-quarters of the resident villagers have written to the Rural Committee saying that the views expressed by the Committee to the TPB do not represent the views of the VILLAGERS who reside at Hoi Ha. WHAT DO THE VILLAGERS WANT?
  • 48.  “The primary function of the Rural Committee is to protect the rights of the indigenous population….particularly to safeguard their rights on village houses”.  “We hate to use the word outsiders but in reality that is what you are”.  “The spirit of the small house policy is to provide the indigenous males to apply….to build a small house in Hoi Ha”.  “Where people live is irrelevant. It is their right we are talking about”.  “If sewage is not properly managed, even one house can cause the damage”. REPLY FROM THE RURAL COMMITTEE
  • 49. Does the Government support the Rural Committee’s statement that an Indigenous Villager’s eligibility to build a small house has nothing to do with his intention to ever occupy the house? QUESTION
  • 50. If the TPB accepts the Rural Committee’s view and the VR’s demand for housing:  It sets a bad precedent for other CP enclaves.  VRs can ask for any number and planning decisions will be made without this number being questioned.  Opens up the floodgates for 100’s of thousands of applications from IV’s who have no intention of ever living in “their” NT village.  The demand is infinite.  Where will the land come from? PRECEDENT
  • 51. A LONG-TERM PLAN for the village should be constructed with input from KEY STAKEHOLDERS:  Village RESIDENTS.  INDIGENOUS VILLAGERS with a GENUINE NEED for housing in the village.  Village BUSINESSES.  TOURIST INDUSTRY.  EDUCATION PROVIDERS.  ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS.  HIKERS, BIKERS, DIVERS etc. – the PEOPLE OF HONG KONG who use and enjoy Hoi Ha and Hoi Ha Wan. THE WAY AHEAD - 1
  • 52. IN THE MEANTIME, THE OZP NEEDS TO BE CHANGED  The coastline needs to be properly mapped and the CPA extended to ensure that it provides at least a 25 metre barrier between the beach and the V-Zone.  “Agricultural Use” needs to get permission from TPB (Column 2).  No Septic Tanks should be licensed within 100 metres of the beaches or 30 metres of a stream.  The proposed new Green Belt needs to be scrapped.  OZP’s for CP enclaves need to be planned taking into account a realistic estimate of the NEED for housing under the Small House Policy, not the VR’s DESIRE.  Government needs to make a clear ruling on the INTENT OF THE SMALL HOUSE POLICY – is there a requirement for the Small House applied for to be a place of residence for the Indigenous Villager applying? If so, what checks will be carried out to ensure that applications are genuine. THE WAY AHEAD - 2
  • 53. x x xx V-Zone CA CA CA CPA CA CA GB1 GB1 High Tide Beach Marsh Marsh CA MP Marsh THE SOLUTION High Water Table
  • 54. THANK YOU!