This document provides a summary of environmental management and planning issues in the rural New Territories of Hong Kong. It discusses competing interests in the area including country parks, marine parks, and village enclaves. It examines problems with management, planning, the small house policy, enforcement, and democracy. It provides several examples to illustrate issues and concludes that effective governance is needed to reform the small house policy and improve environmental laws and their enforcement.

1. David NEWBERY
BSc (Hons)
Environmental Sciences
ENVIRONMENTAL
Secretary: MANAGEMENT
Friends of Hoi Ha
AND PRACTICE IN
THE RURAL NEW
TERRITORIES
(An Examination of
Democracy and the
Rule of Law)

2. • Friends of Hoi Ha.
• Competing Interests & Pressures in the Rural New Territories.
• Management.
• Convention on Bio-Diversity.
• Planning.
• Small House Policy.
• Enforcement.
• Democracy.
• Solutions.
• Conclusions.
• Questions?

3. WHERE IS THIS?

4. FRIENDS OF HOI HA
 Small group initially set up 10 years ago to improve the
management of Hoi Ha Marine Park.
 Has since grown to encompass environmental and planning issues
within Sai Kung Country Park.
 Has gone beyond the “gweilos against development” label.
 Has built up a large network of advisors from the local community,
in Government and experts in various fields (including Prof.
Maxwell).
 Works closely with other environmental groups, such as Friends of
Sai Kung, Civic Exchange, Designing Hong Kong etc.
 Lobbies and argues for improved Environmental Planning and
Governance in the Rural New Territories.
 Currently working to ensure that the Town Planning Board makes
sensible decisions with regard to the zoning of Hoi Ha Development
Permission Area.

5. Competing Interests in the
Rural New Territories
 CountryParks (for Conservation and
Recreation)
 MarineParks (“There is a need to protect
and conserve the marine environment for
the purposes of Conservation, Education
and Recreation) – AFCD website
 Village
Enclaves ( Villages, some of them
unoccupied, surrounded by Country or
Marine Parks)

6. Competing Pressures
Pollution
Tourism
Recreation
Development
Small House Policy

7. MANAGEMENT
 No Published Management Plans for Country
and Marine Parks – only maps.
 Development-led approach to land
management.
 “Ring Fencing” of Government Departmental
Responsibilities. Example 1 - Sewage
 Government looks for loopholes in its own
legislation. Example 2 - Street Lights
 Government Officials desperate not be seen to
have made a mistake.

8. Convention on Bio-Diversity
Signed by Hong Kong in 2012.
Requires:
 National Strategies.
 Environmentally sound and sustainable
development in areas adjacent to protected
areas.
 Reporting of plans and measures taken for
implementation of Convention.
 Subject to international audit.

9. PLANNING
There is
ZERO
effective planning in
the rural New
Territories

10. WHY?
 Applications for development under the
Small House Policy are not subject to
normal planning rules.
 Developers and indigenous villagers
cheat, exploit loopholes and break the
Law. Example 3 - Pak Sha O
 Measures designed to improve planning
are ineffective. Example 4 - HH DPA

11. CHOICES:
HOI HA

12. PAK SHA O

13. OR:
TSENG TAU

14. SAI KENG

15. WHAT IS PLANNING?
 Proactively designating land suitable for
development.
 Balancing the needs of the environment
and human activities.
 Balancing the needs of various
stakeholders.
 Assessing Infrastructure needs.
 Developing holistic solutions.
 Making a:

16. PLAN

17. SMALL HOUSE POLICY
 Outdated.
 An Administrative Procedure not a Right.
 A “Legitimate Expectation”?
 Intended as a Short-Term Measure.
 Mired in Corruption and Illegality.
 Housing not required by most applicants.
 Responsible for Environmental destruction.

18.  Few Applications obey Letter and Intent of
Policy.
 Huge amounts of money involved ≈ HK$10
million each.
 Responsible for ugly ruination of many NT
villages.
 Has become, effectively, a free hand-out
of money to Indigenous Villagers.
 Has little to do with providing housing.
 Responsible for Social Strife.
 Overseen by Heung Yee Kuk. Example 5 - HYK

19. ENFORCEMENT
The rule of law does not
exist in the rural New
Territories

20. EXAMPLES
 Open selling of “Ding Rights”
 Environmental Destruction Example 6 - To Kwa Peng
 Intimidation Example 7 - Car Parking Example 8 - Intimidation
 Extortion Example 9 - Extortion
 Illegal Dumping Example 10 - Dumping
 Collusion of Government Example 11 - Tree Cutting
 Government Failure to Follow-Up Illegal
Activities
 Government Indifference

21. RESULT
Prosecution Rate and Scale of Punishments
are no Deterrent to Illegal Acts.
Many New Territories Indigenous Villagers
consider themselves to be
ABOVE THE LAW

22. DEMOCRACY
Despite changes in NT Village Demographics
NEW TERRITORIES RURAL POLITICS IS
COMPLETELY DOMINATED BY THE INDIGENOUS
AND THE HEUNG YEE KUK

23. VILLAGE ELECTIONS
Now 2 Village representatives:
 Indigenous Village Representative
 Resident Village Representative

24. WHY HAS DEMOCRATISATION
FAILED?
 Eligibility – have to live in village for 3 years
whereas 30 days for other HK elections.
 Only open to Permanent HKID Card holders.
 No checks of credentials – only if individual
makes a specific complaint – retribution?
 Electoral officials show favouritism to
Indigenous and allow Indigenous who do not
have a “sole or main home” in the village to
vote. Example 12 - Election

25. END RESULT?
 Voices of Non-Indigenous majority are not
heard.
 Indigenouscompletely control NT politics,
and social development.
 Small House Policy dominates NT Planning.

26. SOLUTIONS
EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE
 Government departments working together to develop and
implement holistic solutions.
 Sensitive areas put under unitary control.
 Rule of Law extended to New Territories.
 Electoral Ordinance amended to provide better representation.
 Environmental crime appropriately punished.
 All “Enclaves” made DPAs or incorporated within Country Parks.
 Small House Policy Repealed.
 Country and Marine Parks given more than the statutory minimum
protection.

27. Interim Solutions for Small
House Policy
 Enforce Spirit and Intent of Policy.
 Revert to prohibition of sale within 5 years
of building.
 Consider “Land Swaps”.
 Consider flats in NT New Towns to meet
genuine housing needs.

28. CONCLUSIONS
 Environmental Management is absent from the rural NT.
 “One Country, 2 Laws”.
 Democracy is absent from the rural NT.
 Government is Reactive and should be Pro-active.
 Government Departments incapable of working in
consort.
 Small House Policy must be reformed.
 Long Term Plans required for NT villages in sensitive
areas.
 Environmental Laws must be strengthened and
enforced.
 Enclaves should be DPAs and developments frozen.

29. DECISIONS MADE CONCERNING AREAS
SUCH AS HOI HA HAVE HUGE
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE
COUNTRY AND MARINE PARKS AND THE
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING IN HONG
KONG.
WE MUST GET IT RIGHT!

30. CRUCIAL FACTORS
PLANNING
ENFORCEMENT
SMALL HOUSE POLICY

31. Example 1
Hoi Ha Sewage Treatment

32. • No Sewage disposal system in Hoi Ha village, adjacent to Hoi Ha Marine Park.
• “Grey Water” flows directly into the Wan.
• Sewage “treated’ by septic tanks.
• Inadequately treated sewage enters Hoi Ha Marine Park, which is
administered by AFCD.
• AFDC does not oppose new building because the applications are not “in” the
Marine Park.
• EPD does not oppose building because waters of Hoi Ha conform to single
water quality standard in HK.
• EPD does not inform planners of Hoi Ha Wan’s status as an SSSI, which
requires a 100 metre spacing between a septic tank and a SSSI as stipulated
by the Water Pollution Control Ordinance.
• Tai Po District Council considers Hoi Ha to be too small to warrant a sewage
treatment facility (ignoring visitors).
• Planners (LandsD and TPB) assess every application individually and do not
assess cumulative impacts.
Result:
Pollution of Hoi Ha Wan is increasing as buildings proliferate and
environmental damage is inevitable.

33. Example 2
Street Lights in Sai Kung Country
Park

34. • Street Lights were placed on the single road running through the
middle of Sai Kung Country Park.
• This road is in a Restricted Area and less than 10 vehicles per hour
use the road during darkness.
• Studies in N America, Europe and Australasia show that street
lighting decreases road safety on rural roads and should be confined
to areas such as junctions.
• Street lighting has a significant effect on animals and insects and
affects their behaviour and migratory patterns.
• Sai Kung Country Park is one of the few areas in HK where you can
clearly see the stars.
• Under the Country and Marine parks Ordinance, the scheme should
have been subject to an EIA.
• The EIA was avoided because EPD signed-off the project as:
“MINOR UNDERGROUND CABLING WORKS”.

35. Example 3
Pak Sha O

36. • Beautiful “fortified” village of largely intact old Hakka houses
which have been restored and cared for by mainly expatriate
families over a number of years. Surrounded by Country Park
(an “enclave”) and not accessible by road.

38. • Old paddy fields surrounding the village became an ecologically
important wetland with many rare and interesting plants,
animals and insects.

39. • Farming land has been bought by a developer.
• Indigenous are about to apply for village houses under the SHP.
• Expatriates are not having leases renewed.
• Wetland has been drained and plants totally destroyed on the
pretext of “farming”.

40. • Obvious intention is to destroy the old village and build a large
complex of “village-type” houses in place of the old houses and
covering the wetland.
• Pak Sha O deserves conservation and preservation for the people
of Hong Kong but Government is actively assisting developers
who wish to destroy this area purely for commercial gain.

41. LETTERS IN SCMP:
Historic Pak Sha O must be preserved
Hong Kong's best conserved village, Pak Sha O, has been targeted by a
developer.
Green groups warn that if the government doesn't take action to stop
further work, this historic village with its unspoiled natural habitat will
face destruction. I strongly agree with the arguments being put forward
by these groups.
I think this village should be zoned to ensure protection of its heritage
and ecological features.
It is a thriving habitat for many species, some of which are rare, and I
am concerned that if there is further development, we might lose the
endangered species.
Extensive development work can put at risk the entire ecosystem.
Also, this is a well-preserved Hakka village and is therefore a unique
part of Hong Kong's past and traditions.
It is not easy to find similar buildings that have been restored. I do not
want to see this place turned into high-rises and shopping malls.
I really hope the government will act to protect this precious village, so
that future generations can enjoy it.
Valerie Suen, Tai Wai

42. Threat of losing village unacceptable
The words of Cat Stevens' 1970 song Where do the Children
Play? could perhaps be adopted as the anthem for saving what is left
of Hong Kong's natural beauty.
Hong Kong has indeed come a long way, we are changing day to day,
but tell us, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, where do the children
play?
The threat of losing Pak Sha O, home to 75 species of butterflies as
well as numerous other animals, including rare and endangered
species such as the Chinese softshell turtle and the hauntingly
beautiful eagle owl, is simply unacceptable.
Built by the Hakka, Hong Kong's indigenous villagers, Pak Sha O
represents our unique history. Allowing it to fall victim to development
reflects an administration more in tune with corporate profit than
community improvement.
Pak Sha O must be saved; it is Hong Kong's memory.
Mark Peaker, The Peak

44. Example 4
Hoi Ha DPA

45. • There was a public outcry over plans to build a large housing
complex along the shoreline at Hoi Ha by a Japanese developer.
• Village and surrounds of Hoi Ha were designated a Development
Permission Area in 2011, the intention being to “zone” the area,
delineating land uses and to publish an Outline Zoning Plan (OZP)
in 2013.
• This should have been the means by which a
comprehensive plan for Hoi Ha could be drawn up, taking
into account:
o Conservation needs
o Tourism needs
o Residents’ needs
o Demand for development

51. DRAFT HABITAT MAP OF HOI HA

52. DRAFT ZONING PROPOSALS

53. However, the Town Planning Board has the right to consider
individual applications and assess them on individual merit before
the publishing of the OZP. The result:
• In the 17 years before the DPA was gazetted, there were a
total of 6 new houses built at Hoi Ha.
• Since the gazetting of the DPA in 2011, there have been 32
applications for building at Hoi Ha – there is a rush to get
applications approved before the zoning comes in to force,
which might, in future, prohibit building in the approved
locations.
• Applications are being approved before the zoning of the DPA
has been fixed and without assessing the cumulative
environmental and social impact of the new developments.
• The imposition of the DPA has increased the number of
applications for Small Houses – the Indigenous Village
representative has told the TPB that there is a demand for 85
small Village Houses at Hoi Ha (Hoi Ha presently has about
30 houses).
•

54. • The TPB is assessing a zoning plan without any assessment of
the ownership of the land – whether any future developments
will be private or under the SHP.
• The TPB is making no assessment of and has no control over
the number of Small Houses which will be applied for or
approved in the future.

55. Example 5
Heung Yee Kuk

56. • Originally the New Territories “Triad”.
• Legalised by the Colonial Government.
• Legitimised in Post-Colonial times by the Heung Yee Kuk Ordinance
(CAP 1097).
• Preamble:
o “…a constitution so framed as to ensure that it will as far as
possible be truly representative of informed and responsible
opinion in the New Territories.”
• Part III – Functions of the Kuk
o a. To promote and develop mutual co-operation and
understanding among the people of the New Territories.
o b. To promote and develop co-operation and understanding
between the Government and the people of the New Territories.
o c. To advise the Government on social and economic
developments in the interests of the welfare and prosperity of the
people of the new Territories………

57. Note:
• According to the Ordinance, the Kuk exists to further the interests of “the
people of the New Territories”.
• This implies that Residence in the New Territories is more important than
Ethnicity.
• The word “Indigenous” does not appear in the Ordinance.
In Practice:
• The HYK only puts forward views of “Indigenous” Villagers - irrespective of
whether or not they live in the New Territories.
• The majority of Indigenous people now live elsewhere in HK or
abroad.
• The Kuk exists almost exclusively to make money for Indigenous Villagers.
• Cultural and heritage values do not feature in HYK deliberations (unless linked
to monetary compensation).
• What is the HYK’s opinion of the potential destruction of Pak Sha O?

58. Example 6
To Kwa Peng

59. • Developer buys land in and around abandoned village of To Kwa
Peng, which is an “enclave” surrounded by Sai Kung Country
Park.
• Village is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, on the coast
and has a large mangrove area (mangroves are not protected in
HK).
• Village is inaccessible by road, so developer plans to build illegal
road.
• Developer puts in application to build 37 houses.
• Application is rejected, partly on the grounds that the abandoned
houses are home for bats (bats are protected in HK).
• Developer demolishes the remains of the houses, displacing the
bats.
• Developer re-applies for planning permission for 37 houses.
• The application is presently pending.
Irrespective of whether or not the Government applies its
policy of not rewarding the “trashing” of areas, the
environmental damage has already been caused.

60. Example 7
Car Parking

61. • “New” villagers (7th generation Hong Kong Chinese) refuse to pay
indigenous villagers for car parking on Government land.
• Car is vandalised.
• Couple receive death threats – razor blades put in the post.

62. Example 8
Intimidation

63. • Indigenous villager believes, wrongly, that a non-indigenous villager is
objecting to his application for a Small House.
• IV (who has a criminal record for violent crime) mounts an
intimidation campaign consisting of:
o Waking up family at 4 o’clock in the morning by banging gongs
and drums and shouting obscenities outside bedroom window.
o Following villager around the village, shouting obscenities and
threatening to kill her, whilst preventing the victim from talking to
anyone in the village.
o Spreading false rumours around the village.
• Criminal Intimidation?
• Police are called on several occasions, video of the incidents are
provided as evidence.
• Court bounds the IV to keep the peace for a year for the offence of
illegally playing a musical instrument.

64. Example 9
Extortion

65. • New couple (Chinese) move into NT village.
• Huge pile of bricks is dumped in front of their house.
• Person demands HK$20,000 to remove the bricks.

66. Example 10
Illegal Dumping

67. • Indigenous villager illegally demolishes his house and dumps the
rubble on Government land at the side of the village.

68. • Residents call the Police who witness the dumping.
• IV is served a summons from the District Council.
• IV tears up the summons in front of the District Officers.
• IV rebuilds his house, again, without permission.
• Government place sign on the pile of rubble stating “No
Dumping Allowed”.

69. Example 11
Tree Cutting

70. • Numerous trees are cut down on Government land in a village
preparatory to a planning application.
• Destruction is witnessed by residents and Police called.
• Photographs of workers destroying trees are taken.
• Police stop activities and take details and ID Card numbers of
contractors.
• Contractors have map provided by the developer showing the trees
to be destroyed.
• Police make a report which specifies 6 mature trees being
demolished on Government land.
• Police pass details to AFCD to initiate prosecution.
• AFCD alters report to show only 2 trees, both within 1.5 metres of
private land, being destroyed and passes report to DoJ.
• DoJ decides not to prosecute.