- 7 February 2008 at 6:40 pm #7115
Apparently, the government's confidence in its ability to manage and standardise everything now extends to re-creating nature itself.
This from the Government newswire:Quote:Bathing beach set for Lung Mei
A bathing beach is due to be built at Lung Mei in Tai Po to serve the eastern New Territories, the Development Bureau says. Works will begin early 2009 for completion by early 2011. About 56,360 square metres of foreshore and sea-bed at Lung Mei will be affected.
A government notice is gazetted today and posted near the site, and the plan can be seen at the Lands Department Survey & Mapping Office in North Point and at the Tai Po District Office. Anyone who has an interest, right or easement in or over the concerned foreshore and sea-bed may submit an objection to the Director of Lands by April 6.
They slipped this announcement out on the first day of Chinese New Year, presumably hoping to bury it. What nightmare are the bureaucrats going to create here?7 February 2008 at 7:04 pm #8142
Crap plan, small in the scheme of things, but to me another sign that too many of our “leaders” [worldwide] are bent on driving us to an environmental hell
Can assume there will be a fair bit of concrete, too; HK Govt won’t be happy otherwise.
The “temporary reclamation” areas in the harbour seem another mad scheme8 February 2008 at 7:23 pm #8143
I live in the area, and know it well.
This particular area has already beeen ruined by human activity and a previous attempt at beach making. As long as they keep their greasy hands off the nearby mangroves (which they are – at least in this plan) they are welcome to do what they want with this small bay. At least ecologically wise.
Of more importance is the oversight of monies given for what is in effect a small group of shopholders and villagers. Said peoples are determinedly scratching a tourist buck out of what should be no more than a stop off point for the Plovercove hinterland. I understand that the shops and restaurants, even the marina’s and watersports centres are popular but I don’t see why the Government should pay for the beach.
If these businesses believe that people will flock to the rocky mud and boat oil for a swim, well that’s their opinion. But I don’t see why we need to pay for it.
Should the Government be of the opinion that this area needs beautification, well then, good on them. But again it’s a bit tiresome always having Government money given to local businesses, over the interests of Hong Kong as a whole.
But then again it’s only 100m of beach in an already dirty area, so let them play amongst themselves.14 February 2008 at 8:31 pm #8144
This project sounds like a complete white elephant. Definitely agree that this is a waste of taxpayers money, the cost/benefit looks very questionable. The water quality here is very poor and I certainly won't be running over to jump in. Appears this project is supported by local politicians and village heads both for political grounds and to improve business and property values.
From recent reports the Environmental Impact Analysis done was highly questionable and the development is close to sensitive ecologically important areas, that will be impacted. Also I don't agree that just because this particular bay looks 'ruined' that is it not still worth restoring and protecting. Recent surveys by HK Wildlife, found >100 species by simply wading in the shallows.
I don't think that this should go through. Objections can still be raised. Have a look at the following.
[Edited: sadly, govt link "dead" by 2012]23 August 2012 at 6:58 am #8782
Latest info, from hkwildlfie.net:Quote:We are now trying to persuade the new government and the Legco candidates to accept our new proposal that the development of artificial beach at Lung Mei should change to building a coastal swimming pool while keeping the Lung Mei natural coastline and intertidal zone intact as usual. This is the all win situation, swimming pool can fulfill the demand of lack of swimming facilities at Tai Po and at the same time can attract people visiting the Tai Mei Tuk areas for recreation. The Lung Mei wildlife will not be destroyed as there is no reclamation and the potential influence to the Ting Kok SSSI will be eliminated. In order to let them know more about the Lung Mei natural attraction and the proposal coastal swimming pool, we will have a guided-tour on 2 Sept. 2012 afternoon, allowing the government officials and the Legco candidates to re-think about the true sustainable development is.
Thanks Alan [Leung, of WWF HK] for letting us know there is an example from Macau about the coastal swimming pool. You may learn more by visiting the following links:
最新龍尾海岸教育中心專頁：9 October 2012 at 2:39 pm #8804
The HK gov's latest reply:15 November 2012 at 3:17 am #8815
Letter in S China Morning Post on 13 Nov:Quote:Let common sense prevail in Lung Mei
Various newspapers (see links below) have published the powerful argument that due process needs to be respected for Lung Mei or many development projects would stall. The development of the artificial beach at Lung Mei, Tolo Harbour, has gone through statutory town planning, reclamation, and environmental impact procedures. The local district council was consulted often, ExCo decided to support and LegCo approved the funding of HK$200 million.
It appears that not everyone is aware that the Secretary for the Environment and the Director of Environmental Protection have received substantive information recently from members of the ‘Save Lung Mei’ alliance including Designing Hong Kong identifying endangered species and alternatives sites which have not been reviewed during the process. This information cannot be disposed by simply saying that it is government policy that the beach should be built. The members have requested for a review of the Environmental Permit for the beach under section 14 of the EIA Ordinance. The Secretary and the Director must now decide whether material information about the project's impacts was concealed, and whether there is cause to suspend, vary or cancel the permit.
We appreciate concern over due process and mounting frustrations over the stop-starts of projects and policies. We need to find out how it is possible that despite a rigorous due process we are to develop an artificial beach on top of ecologically valuable mud flats along the Ting Kok coast. There are alternative locations along the nearby sandy coastline of To Tau Wan and Wu Kai Sha where bathing beaches could be gazetted for enjoyment by residents of the East New Territories. And to attract the visitors the land owners in Lung Mei are after, board walks and an eco centre can be built to enable the enjoyment of the local ecology.
How come that Hong Kong’s institutions involved in the process failed as gatekeepers? For example, the Advisory Council of the Environment (ACE) which accepted the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in 2008? The artificial beach proposal was controversial. Unusually for ACE, it went to the vote and was deadlocked until the Chairman cast his tie-breaking vote in favour despite the grave misgivings. The precautionary principal should have prevailed. Has ACE been emasculated with the appointment of persons with little connection or interest in nature conservation? Is our EIA process a development tool, rather than a sustainable planning and conservation tool? Does the process guarantee insufficient common sense for the community and decision makers to rely on it?
Designing Hong Kong – CEO
I've done a piece appearing in Sunday Morning Post, on Lung Mei "battle" as the ordinary becomes extraordinary – part of casual trashing of our world
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.