In order to enhance participants’ environmental and natural knowledge, we set up some checkpoints so that they can understand more about the biology, flora and fauna in the area and so on.

We hereby thank you for your participation, see you next year!

Dear Ms Li,

Re: Illegal pruning at the egretry in Kwong Fuk Road, Tai Po, and
subsequent destruction of nests and killing of wild birds

 On 6^th June, 2017, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) carried out a tree pruning operation at the junction of Kwong Fuk Road and Wan Tau Kok Lane, during which multiple wild egrets and herons were injured or killed and their nests and eggs destroyed.

Appallingly, pruning staff continued to trim the trees, despite being aware of the damage caused by the operation. We, along with the majority of the public, strongly condemn this act of cold-bloodedness and cruelty.

The pruning operation, in addition to being rather illogical, raises concern in public issues including public resources utilization, tree management and animal protection laws. Hence, we demand detailed responses from the LCSD to the following:

1. Did the LCSD carry out any operation in response to ‘a request from the public referred by a relevant government department seeking the trimming of overgrown tree branches at the junction of Kwong Fuk Road and Wan Tau Kok Lane in Tai Po’, as reported by various media? If so, which government department or district council member had made the referral? In addition to ‘overgrown branches’, did the complaint referred by the department or district council member concern also bird droppings, etc?
2. Before its decision to respond to the referred request, did the LCSD engage qualified aboriculturalists to conduct an independent tree risk assessment, or ecology experts to conduct ecological impact assessments of procedures in the operation? If so, I urge the LCSD to immediately make public the full texts of these reports. If not, please explain the reasons for not conducting said assessments before tree trimming.
3. Was the pruning operation carried out by a contractor, or solely by the LCSD New Territories East Tree Team?
   What were the name and rank of the government officer who authorized the operation?
4. Are the authorizing officer and pruning staff qualified in aboriculture? Before the operation, did the LCSD consult or inform the Tree Management Office (TMO) of the Development Bureau, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), and other related departments, as per usual practice?
5. The LCSD should be aware that the concerned woodland is adjacent to the Tai Po Egretry, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located at Kwong Fuk Road, Tai Po Market, and that it has been a breeding ground for egrets for years. Even if the LCSD was unaware of this, it could easily deduce, during on-site assessments before pruning, that the woodland was a home to birds, evident from bird droppings on branches and the ground beneath the trees. Why, then, did the LCSD nevertheless go on with the tree pruning operation, threatening the safety of the birds at the site?
6. Suppose that pruning staff did not notice bird nests on the trees before pruning. What actions did the person-in-charge take, then, when the staff noticed hatchlings, eggs and damaged nests falling from the trees during the operation? Why did the LCSD continue with the operation, neglecting the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170), which states, in Section 4, that ‘no person shall, except in accordance with a special permit, hunt or wilfully disturb any protected wild animal’, and in Section 5, that ‘no person shall, except in accordance with a special permit, take, remove, injure, destroy or wilfully disturb a nest or egg of any protected wild animal’?
7. Does the LCSD admit that it has committed a criminal offence against the aforementioned Wild Animals Protection Ordinance?

Due to the seriousness of the matter, please give, in details, an account of the incident and responses to the above questions by 9^th June (Friday).

Sincerely,

Roy Tam Hoi-pong

Chief Executive (Voluntary), Green Sense

Tai Po Green Belt illegal use for open storage and construction waste storage

Located next to The Education University of Hong Kong, area up to 9 of football field

The Satellite imagery shows the illegal storage covers areas are expanded, including lands owned by Wheelock Properties

Planning Department has been ineffective in its law enforcement regarding to years of complaints by the University and the residents nearby

Since the illegal land filling nearby at Tai Shui Wai, Kingswood Villas has been reported, the public were concerns about the fly-tipping and unauthorized developments. Green Sense have investigated an area in 9 hectares in Tai Po Located next to The Education University of Hong Kong. We found the illegal use of the land but the Planning Department has been ineffective in its law enforcement,   from the Land search and look over the Satellite imagery for past 10 years.

According to the Tai Po outline Zoning Plan, the land should be zoned as Green Belt. The vegetation cover was stripped and trees were removed since 2000. The green area have strunk and turned to open storage for construction waste, large machines, temporary containers etc. Now the violation of land use is up to 9 football fields (see below).

The Education University of Hong Kong and the residents nearby have complained many times. It is impossible that the Planning Department and Lands Department shut their eyes to this situation. However, the government has not enforced the law which allowed landowners to cut down the woodland and leave the land contaminated.

According to the Land registry, the Land is owned by many owners. Among them, Wheelock Properties owns most of the lots. We are concerned that the land was destroyed deliberately in order to turn it to “Brown Field” systematically. It is obvious a case of “destroy first, develop later”. The Government should not condone this.

Meanwhile, a piece of land at Tai Po Lo Fai Road with thousands of trees will be planned by the government to build luxurious residential units and it is already for the land sale. The proposed alteration of land use is still under judicial review.

The Chief Executive (voluntary) of Green Sense, Roy Tam said “ The Government’s land management in the New Territories is totally reckless, they allow landowners and properties developers to destroy the natural environment wantonly. On the other hand, the government alters the land use from Green Belt to build the luxurious residential house.”

We solemnly urge the Lands Department to clarify whether the 9 hectares of land is government land. We also requested to the Lands Department and the Planning Department to enforce the Town Planning Ordinance and the land lease conditions in order to request those landowners to restore the Green Belt as soon as possible.

Postscript: The follow up

After holding a press conference by Green Sense, the Planning Department replied the land is not covered by Development Permission Area Plans. Therefore, they cannot carry out prosecution.

Green Sense believes this is only an excuse. There was so much evidence proving the violation of land use stated in the outline zoning plan. If no department can carry out any enforcement in this situation, the legislation should be amended as soon as possible. The Planning Department should state clearly what action should be taken after the violation of the outline zoning plan. We cannot accept the department to turn a blind eye.

Note:

Development Permission Area Plans (DPA) – areas not covered by Outline Zoning Plan or the country park enclaves; the Planning Department can have control to unauthorized development in these areas. DPA will be replaced by Outline Zoning Plan later.

Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) – the violation of land use mentioned above is covered by Tai Po Outline Zoning Plan and listed as Green Belt.

Evidence Shows Debates between Gov & Provisional Regional Council
Gov Argued Sand Loss & Too expensive

Tai Po District Councillors Request Extension of Ting Kok Road
Difficult, Require Reclamation & Sacrifice Cycleway
Severe Opposition from Green Groups

Official documents in 1998 showed that the government disagrees the construction of artificial beach at Lung Mei

The Government is now forcing to have the Lung Mei Bathing Breach constructed, despite its strong opposition against such construction. According to the official documents on meetings between the government and the Provisional Regional Council, Lung Mei alliance found that the former was in fact not favour the idea of constructing an artificial breach and had raised numerous reasons.

In the meeting held on 12 May 1998, the government put forward 5 major objections against the construction of Lung Mei Bathing Breach, namely, the tiny beach left at low tide, sand loss, disturbance on ecology, potential inappropriate use of carparks and the huge construction cost. (Note that the Provisional Regional Council was merged with and replaced by other bureaus and departments in 2000. The proposal of the construction of Lung Mei Bathing Breach was then pursued by the Tai Po District Council instead.)

The Lung Mei beach will increase the traffic load and may need to extend the Ting Kok Road. What is the fate of the cycleway?

However, these reasons were not accepted by the Provisional Regional Council.

Interestingly, the objections raised by the government in those days were very similar to those by the green groups today. The radical change of the government views is confusing and may indicate irrationality and unpredictability. The approval of the artificial breach was very likely to be a political, rather than scientific and professional, decision made by the former Chief Executive Donald Tsang.

In the discussion of the construction of Lung Mei Bathing Beach, we must also consider the necessary transportation implication – aggravating the nearly saturated Ting Kok Road. Recently, members of the Tai Po District Council have been demanding an extension of Ting Kok Road. Green Groups clearly stated their opposition. They pointed out that many sections of Ting Kok Road were in fact near the coastline and therefore hard to expand. It is irrational and unacceptable to have land reclamation or to sacrifice cycleway for an extension of Ting Kok Road for the purpose of visiting an artificial beach.