Development Control in Country Parks

Country Park Enclaves

Development Control in CPs 1 Paul Zimmerman

• CEO Designing • Member, Steering Committee, Biological Diversity Action and Strategy Plans (ENB/AFCD) • Chairman, Focus Group on Terrestrial Habitat Identification, Protection and Management • Member, Harbourfront Commission • District Councillor

Development Control in CPs 2 Development Control in CPs 3 Alliance grown over 15 years Tai Long Wan and Tai Long Sai Wan Development Control in CPs 4 Supported by the community

Development Control in CPs 5 Supported by

Young and Old Development Control in CPs 6 Development Control in CPs 7 • Supported by hikers

Development Control in CPs 8

• Supported by legislators

Development Control in CPs 9 • Public and HYK consultations

Development Control in CPs 10 Save Our Country Park Alliance Supported by over 10,000 representations

Enclave Hoi Ha S/NE-HH/1 Pak Lap S/SK-PL/1 S/NE-SLP/1

Representations Reference No. Total Reference No. Total Reference No. Total

Standard representations seeking development 1-798 798 1-798 798 1-798 798

Standard representations for protecting country parks 799-10,735 9,937 799-10,735 9,937 799-10,735 9,937

Land owners and villagers seeking more development 10,736-10,749 14 10,736-10,737 2 10,736-10,817 82

Individual/organisation proposals for protecting country park enclaves 10,750-10,934 185 10,738-10,775 38 10,818-10,858 41 Development Control in CPs 11

• Strongly object to zoning agricultural land in country parks for new Small House Developments

Development Control in CPs 12 • V-zones facilitate fraud and destruction • Development under the Small House Policy is incompatible with protected areas • Our natural heritage is not for sale • Under TPO: Only CA zoning offers reasonable protection against incompatible development and eco-vandalism • Only CPO provides management control

Development Control in CPs 13 The environmental disaster of development under the small house policy visible in the NT should NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD through the Country Parks

Development Control in CPs 14 • Hoi Ha, Pak Lap and So Lo Pun are radically different from the 600+ other village environs in the NT.

• They are surrounded by country parks.

Development Control in CPs 15 Small House Policy

Ho Chung 1990

Development Control in CPs 16 Small House Policy

Ho Chung 2014

Development Control in CPs 17 Small House Policy

DevelopmentHo Chung Control in CPs 18

Development Control in CPs 19 Enclaves are integral to Country Parks

• Ecological values – ‘canopy’ – Water gathering – Fresh water streams and wet lands (low land) • Landscape values • Recreation values – Visitation – Hiking, water sports, country park appreciation

Development Control in CPs 20 Enclaves are integral to Country Parks

• Hoi Ha • OZP

Development Control in CPs 21 Enclaves are integral to Country Parks • Pak Lap OZP

Development Control in CPs 22 Enclaves are integral to Country Parks • So Lo Pun • OZP

Development Control in CPs 23 Enclaves are integral to Country Parks

• So Lo Pun • OZP

Development Control in CPs 24 Enclaves are integral to Country Parks • So Lo Pun • OZP

Development Control in CPs 25 History of Enclaves

1966 Conservation of the Hong Kong Countryside - Preparatory study

1977-81 Country parks ‘crash’ programme

1997/2005 Tai Long Wan DPA/OZP

1998 Enclave Policy - Not implemented

2010 Tai Long Sai Wan Incident

2010 Enclave Policy

2011/2013 Ombudsman Report and Audit Report

2013 Tai Long Sai Wan incorporated into Country Park

2014 February Country and Marine Parks Authority rejects enclaves

Development Control in CPs 26 Establishing the Country Parks • Preparatory study • Talbot, Lee M., and Martha H. Talbot. l966. • Conservation of the Hong Kong Countryside.

Development Control in CPs 27 History of Enclaves

Development Control in CPs 28 Establishing the Country Parks

• Preparatory study • Talbot, Lee M., and Martha H. Talbot. l966. • Conservation of the Hong Kong Countryside.

Development Control in CPs 29 Establishing the Country Parks • Country parks ‘crash’ programme 1977-81

Development Control in CPs 30 Creating Country Park Enclaves • Country parks ‘crash’ programme 1977-81 – The need for expediency

– Approx. 2,500ha private land, 500ha incorporated into Country Parks with 2,000ha left in enclaves

– Enclaves: Actively used agricultural land with a limited number of building lots

– Agriculture was and is deemed compatible with the surrounding country parks Development Control in CPs 31

Development Control in CPs 32 MuiKuk Tsz Po Lam

Development Control in CPs 33

Development Control in CPs 34

Development Control in CPs 35

Development Control in CPs 36 Enclave Policy - 1991 • Ombudsman 2011 “ In 1991, Government started internal discussions on protection of enclaves.

The policy bureaux for environment protection … have a responsibility to protect enclaves at the policy level .. between 2000 and 2010, the bureaux had failed to formulate .. to protect the enclaves in need of priority action.

Up till the Sai Wan Incident, Plan D had completed statutory plans for only 2 of the 5 special priority sites. Its performance was far from satisfactory. The policy bureaux .. overseeing Plan D had also failed to discharge their responsibility ...”

Development Control in CPs 37 Enclave Policy – 2010 Tai Long Sai Wan Incident

Development Control in CPs 38 Enclave Policy - 2010 • Since 2010 in various documents “Owing to the quickened pace of urbanization, some country park enclaves are facing increasing development pressure.

Developments in the enclaves however, may not be compatible with the natural environment of the country parks, or may degrade the integrity and landscape quality of the country parks as a whole.

After the Sai Wan incident, there has been public expectation on the Government to better protect the country park enclaves and safeguard them against any development that would undermine public enjoyment of the natural environment….” Development Control in CPs 39 Enclave Policy - 2010

• Audit Commision Report para 3.5

“In general, for enclaves which were subject to imminent development threat the DPA Plan would serve as a stop gap measure”

Development Control in CPs 40 Enclaves Policy • Ombudsman 2011

“DEVB and ENB should urge their executive departments to, as directed by the Chief Executive, expeditiously prepare statutory plans for those enclaves that are still unprotected or to incorporate them into country parks, in order to ensure that all enclaves are properly protected; and

AFCD should consider incorporating private lands that have conservation value into country parks in accordance with the revised CMPB criteria.”

Development Control in CPs 41 Enclaves Policy

• AFCD Criteria 2011 “The mere existence of private land will not be automatically taken as a determining factor for exclusion from the boundary of a country park.

(TPO) effectiveness in achieving the nature conservation objective is not as strong as under CPO, for example, it cannot curb eco-vandalism”

Development Control in CPs 42 Enclaves Policy • Tai Long Sai Wan in Country Park 2013 (LegCo papers) “…not outstanding in ecological value, the site has high landscape and aesthetic value …”

“…the Planning department or the Town Planning Board would not allocate the resources for habitat/amenity improvement..”

“..under.. CPO .. The Government will manage the sites .. improve supporting facilities .. patrols and law enforcement (of CP Regulations) .. Refuse collection .. Vegetation management .. “

“..the CMP Authority will assess any proposed development of land … aggrieved occupiers .. Seek compensation..”

Development Control in CPs 43 Development Control in CPs 44 Development Control in CPs 45 Development Control in Enclaves

CONTROL COUNTRY PARK OZP (not V-zone) OZP (V-zone) Legal COUNTRY PARK TOWN PLANNING Prevailing practices under ORDINANCE ORDINANCE SMALL HOUSE POLICY Responsible AFCD PLAND LANDSD Coverage Private land in CP OZP (Enclaves) V-zone Oversight Country and Marine Town Planning Board NONE Parks Board Management AFCD NONE NONE Regulations Cap 208A LIMITED enforcement over LIMITED enforcement over private land use private land abuse Patrol AFCD Wardens Upon complaint Upon complaint Facilities AFCD NONE HAD/RPW

Compensation Yes NONE (DEVELOPMENT GAIN) NONE (DEVELOPMENT GAIN)

Development Control in CPs 46 Protection and Development Control shifted to TPB

Audit Report 2013

Development Control in CPs 47 Protection and Development Control shifted to TPB • AFCD: 25 small enclaves where there is primarily Government land and no development pressure (small house demand).

• Only 236ha under CPO – or 10% of enclaves

Development Control in CPs 48 Ma On Shan Mau Ping, Mau Ping Lo Uk, Mau Ping San Uk and Wong Chuk Shan 45 Tai Lam Tin Fu Tsai 53 Tsuen 23 Plover Cove Siu Tan 20 Plover Cove Kop Tong, Mui Tsz Lam and Lai Chi Wo 91 Plover Cove So Lo Pun 29 Plover Cove San Uk Ha, Kuk Po Lo Wai, Yi To, Sam To, Sze To, Ng To 64 Plover Cove Fung Hang 9 Plover Cove Yung Shue Au 18 Plover Cove Chau Mei, Tai Ting, Chau Tau and Sha Tau 26 Sai Kung East and West Pak A 11 Sai Kung East and West Tung A 10 Sai Kung East and West Pak Lap 6 Sai Kung East and West Pak Tam Au 14 Sai Kung East and West To Kwa Peng 9 Sai Kung East and West Chek Keng 31 Sai Kung East and West Tai Tan, Uk Tau, Ko Tong, Ko Tong Ha Yeung 67 Sai Kung East and West Ko Lau Wan, Mo Uk, Lam Uk, Lau Uk and Tse Uk 33 Sai Kung East and West Hoi Ha 8 Sai Kung East and West Pak Sha O, Pak Sha O Ha Yeung 29 Sai Kung East and West Yung Shue O 32 Sai Kung East and West Cheung Sheung 16 Lantau South, North and North (Ext.) Luk Wu, Upper Keung Shan, Lower Keung Shan, Cheung Ting and Hang Pui 155 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Ngau Kwo Tin 7 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Tai Ho and Site near Wong Kung Tin 277 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Yi O 23 Tai Po Kau Special Area Site near Ngau Wu Tok 5 Tai Po Kau Special Area Site near Tai Po Mei 6 Special Area Shui Mong Tin 2

Committed for DPA or OZP (29 enclaves excluding TLSW) since 2010 (ha) 1119 Development Control in CPs 49 Kam Shan Kam Shan (gazetted) 1 Site near Chuen Lung 10 Tai Mo Shan Site near Tso Kung Tam 9 Tai Lam Tsing Fai Tong 26 Tai Lam Sheung Tong 10 Tai Lam Sheung Fa Shan 26 Tai Lam Yuen Tun (gazetted) 19 Pat Sin Leng Ping Shan Chai 15 Plover Cove Hung Shek Mun Tsuen (plan) 10 Plover Cove Lai Tau Shek (plan) 10 Plover Cove Sai Lau Kong (plan) 2 Plover Cove Fan Kei Tok (plan) 5 Sai Kung East and West Tung Sam Kei 4 Sai Kung East and West Sai Wan (gazetted) 17 Sai Kung East and West Nam Sham Tung 5 Sai Kung East and West Lai Chi Chong 16 Sai Kung East and West Tai Hom 5 Sai Kung East and West Wong Chuk Long 4 Sai Kung East and West Site near Wong Mau Kok 3 Lantau South, North and North (Ext.) Tsin Yue Wan 4 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Tei Tong Tsai 15 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Yi Tung Shan 7 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Man Cheung Po 2 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Site near Nam Shan 6 Lantau South, North and North (Extension) Site near Peaked Hill 5

Assumed or committed for CP (25 enclaves including TLSW) (ha) 236

Development Control in CPs 50 Protection and Development Control shifted to TPB • AFCD Assessment Hoi Ha, Pak Lap, So Lo Pun 2014

• “..the enclave is not compatible with the surrounding country park area owing to its existing land use and development potential”

• “..private land.. can make the provision of country park facilities and daily management difficult …”

Development Control in CPs 51

Large V-zones shift protection and development control to LandsD

Development Control in CPs 52 Development control shifted to LandsD Large V-zones

Hoi Ha Development Control in CPs 53 Development control shifted to LandsD

Large V-zones

Pak Lap Development Control in CPs 54 • Strongly object to zoning agricultural land in country parks for new Small House Developments

• The environmental disaster of development under the small house policy visible in the NT should NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD through the Country Parks

Development Control in CPs 55 • Hoi Ha, Pak Lap and So Lo Pun are radically different from the 600+ other village environs in the NT.

• They are surrounded by country parks.

• We urge the Town Planning Board to retain development control

Development Control in CPs 56 Our proposal: Follow the precedent of Tai Long Wan

• Move NTEH from Column 1 to Column 2 in V-zone • Reduce V zone to existing village settlement and approved small house application sites • Use CA zoning to maintain control over incompatible development and eco-vandalism • Delete ‘House (other than ‘NTEH’)’ from Column 2 of the User Schedule of the Notes for the V-zone • Require planning permission for any demolition, addition, alteration and/or modification to an existing building Development Control in CPs 57

Retain development control

• Tai Long Wan 1997 (DPA) 2004 (OZP) precedent

Development Control in CPs 58 Public interest in retaining development control

• “Infinite” demand, “Incremental” development • Cumulative impacts on Plover Cove and Sai Kung Country Parks • Traffic and transport – entry permits • Access – and the example of Pak Lap Road • Sewage and effluent drainage • Landscape Impacts

Development Control in CPs 59 Sai Kung East and West CountryDevelopment Control Parks in CPs 60 Sai Kung

• Sat Pic

Development Control in CPs 61 Sai Kung Country Parks Population? Name Size Population SH demand Future Population Estimate (housing demand times 4 /existing population) Pak A 11 90 ? 90 Tung A 10 ? Pak Lap 6 50 79 320 Pak Tam Au 14 50 100 400 To Kwa Peng 9 60 120 Chek Keng 31 84 ? 84 Tai Tan, Uk Tau, Ko Tong, Ko Tong Ha 67 240 288 1100 Yeung Tung Sam Kei 4 / ? ? Ko Lau Wan, Mo Uk, Lam Uk, Lau Uk 33 180 100 400 and Tse Uk Sai Wan (gazetted) 17 / 17 68 Hoi Ha 8 110 84 330 Pak Sha O, Pak Sha O Ha Yeung 29 37 49 200 Nam Sham Tung 5 / ? 5 Lai Chi Chong 16 / ? 16 Yung Shue O 32 200 390 1600 Cheung Sheung 16 10 16 64 Tai Hom 5 / ? ? Wong Chuk Long 4 / ? ? Site near Wong Mau Kok 3 / ? ? TOTAL SAI KUNG COUNTRY 320 1051Development Control1183 in CPs 4797? 62 PARKS Plover Cove Country ParkDevelopment Control in CPs 63

Development Control in CPs 64 Plover Cove

• Sat Pic

Development Control in CPs 65 Population?

Name Size Population SH demand Future population (housing demand times 4 /existing population) Hung Shek Mun Tsuen 10 / ? ?

Lai Tau Shek 10 / ? ?

Sam A Tsuen 23 300 1200 4500

Kop Tong, Mui Tsz Lam and Lai Chi Wo 91 1377 5000

Sai Lau Kong (plan) 2 / ? ?

Siu Tan 20 / ? ?

So Lo Pun 29 0 270 1000 Kuk Po San Uk Ha, Kuk Po Lo Wai, Yi To, Sam To, Sze To, Ng To 64 67 500 2000

Fung Hang 9 182 600

Yung Shue Au 18 20 100

Fan Kei Tok (plan) 5 / ? ?

Chau Mei, Tai Ting, Chau Tau and Sha Tau 26 / ? ? TOTAL PLOVER COVE COUNTRY PARK 225 367 3549 13200? Development Control in CPs 66

Development Control in CPs 67

Development Control in CPs 68 • No cumulative impact assessments • No information available • “Let’s see what happens”

Development Control in CPs 69 Sewage and Effluent Impacts under SHP

Development Control in CPs 70 Small House Policy Sewage

Development Control in CPs 71 Traffic and Transport - Impacts

• Neither Transport Department (TD) nor Highways Department (HyD) raised any concern on the proposed “V” zone from a traffic and transport infrastructure point of view. • No routes or closed roads • No public ferry or kaito services • No access onto public roads • Village roads outside purview

Development Control in CPs 72 Traffic and Transport - Impacts

• Lands Department • No right of way guaranteed • Make own arrangements for vehicular access and parking spaces

Development Control in CPs 73 Small House Policy Chaotic layouts, without planned roads and parking

Development Control in CPs 74 Small House Policy Unauthorized road construction

Development Control in CPs 75 Small House Policy Unauthorized road construction

Development Control in CPs 76 Traffic and Transport - Impacts

• AFCD • “We are not responsible” • AFCD and HAD issue 2 permits per dwelling • Up to three dwellings per house • AFCD controls the gate

Development Control in CPs 77 Traffic and Transport - Impacts

Development Control in CPs 78

Development Control in CPs 79 Traffic and Transport - Impacts

Pak Lap Road Example

• TPB minutes Board ADVISED residents to seek approval from CMPB for road to Pak Lap (11 March 2011) – 50. daily supplies by trolley along the existing access path was dangerous. – 60. The Board agreed to advise that since the Area was surrounded by the Sai Kung East Country Park (SKECP), constructing a new road to the Area would inevitably encroach on the SKECP which was under Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department’s jurisdiction. Proponent should submit necessary details such as justification and scope of works, impact on vegetation and Country Park facilities for the consideration of the Country and Marine Parks Board.

• DOSK paper proposing road (essential access for elderly residents of Pak Lap) (Oct 2012)

• CMPB minutes approves road for better access to Pak Lap (17 Oct 2012) – 195/12 The Chairman concluded that members basically supported the proposed improvement works to the footpath to facilitate better access for the villagers. (1.2m plus 150 drain)

Development Control in CPs 80 Traffic and Transport - Impacts

Development Control in CPs 81 Possible new road network

Development Control in CPs 82 Landscape Impacts

Development Control in CPs 83

Development Control in CPs 84 Development Control in CPs 85 Development Control in CPs 86 Landscape Impacts

Development Control in CPs 87 Landscape Impacts

Development Control in CPs 88 Landscape Impacts

Development Control in CPs 89 Recreational impacts

Development Control in CPs 90 Landscape Impacts

Development Control in CPs 91

• Strongly object to zoning agricultural land in country parks for new Small House Developments

Development Control in CPs 92 • V-zones facilitate fraud and destruction • Development under the Small House Policy is incompatible with protected areas • Our natural heritage is not for sale • Only CA zoning offers protection against incompatible development and eco-vandalism

Development Control in CPs 93 • Strongly object to zoning agricultural land in country parks for new Small House Developments

• The environmental disaster of development under the small house policy visible in the NT should NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD through the Country Parks

Development Control in CPs 94

• Hoi Ha, Pak Lap and So Lo Pun are radically different from the 600+ other village environs in the NT.

• They are surrounded by country parks.

• We urge the Town Planning Board to retain development control

Development Control in CPs 95 Our proposal: Follow the precedent of Tai Long Wan

• Move NTEH from Column 1 to Column 2 in V-zone • Reduce V zone to existing village settlement and approved small house application sites • Use CA zoning to maintain control over incompatible development and eco-vandalism • Delete ‘House (other than ‘NTEH’)’ from Column 2 of the User Schedule of the Notes for the V-zone • Require planning permission for any demolition, addition, alteration and/or modification to an existing building

Development Control in CPs 96

TPB Site Visits

• Herewith we invite the Town Planning Board for a site visit of Hoi Ha, Pak Lap and So Lo Pun.

Development Control in CPs 97