Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Infrastructure & Town Planning

Conflict-of-interest row rocks Hong Kong building assessment body

BEAM Society (BSL), which runs the BEAM Plus assessment scheme, has monopoly to carry out assessments that are required to obtain lucrative concessions Leaked documents have revealed conflict-of-interest allegations involving directors of a not-for-profit organisation with a monopoly on green building assessments that allow developers to claim government incentives worth billions of dollars.

The allegations centre on the BEAM Society (BSL), which runs the BEAM Plus assessment scheme. Since 2011, registering for the BEAM Plus scheme has been a prerequisite for developers wishing to increase the gross floor area of projects by 10 per cent without paying the government any extra premium under a Buildings Department plan to encourage green development.

But many of BSL’s 25 directors are drawn from companies in the construction and property sector, and BSL staff members have alleged that directors approved plans or project submissions in which they had a vested interest.

The case sparked alarm given the public interest involved. One lawmaker was “aghast” that a private organisation with no government oversight was handed such a monopoly.

In a letter dated May 16, 2013, a copy of which was seen by the South China Morning Post, BSL’s secretariat complains of a lack of fairness, transparency and accountability in the operation of the BEAM Plus assessment scheme, and says some directors abused their power.

“Their roles have allowed them to gain enormous power with BSL, ie, sometimes they report to themselves for actions they take and could approve the plans that they themselves propose,” reads the letter to BSL’s board. It is signed by the secretariat’s administrative team, marketing and training team, and technical team.

A source familiar with the situation told the Post some directors were indeed “more equal” than others.

BSL chairman Professor John Ng Cheuk-yee said the board had investigated the complaint but “due to confidentiality of the board’s decision and the involvement of some persons, it would not be appropriate to divulge further information”.

But he confirmed that not all of the follow-up actions recommended by the investigation team, which completed its work in October 2013, had been implemented. Three of the complainants no longer worked for BSL, he added.

Founded in 1996 by construction and real estate professionals, BSL was set up to create the BEAM – Building Environmental Assessment Method – tool.

The organisation underwent a restructure in 2009 when it joined three other professional organisations to set up the Green Building Council. The council is now responsible for certifying that developments are registered and have undergone BEAM assessment by BSL, and sets fees for registration and assessment.

Ng said BSL began the process last year of converting itself into a public body under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. It had been advised to do so by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in September 2012. Doing so would require a government bill to pass through the Legislative Council.

But critics say the government should have ensured it had oversight of BSL or the council before the Buildings Department gave the organisations a monopoly on assessments.

“I am totally aghast at the lack of government regulations to oversee both BSL and the council when they have been given this special privilege to manage a scheme that involves exceedingly vast public interest,” Democratic Party lawmaker Wu Chi-wai said. “This is a blatant case of government-business collusion and will undermine public trust in the government’s drive for green buildings.”

The Buildings Department took a month to respond to requests for comment, then said only that it was not “involved in the management and operation of the [Green Buildings Council], BSL or the BEAM Plus assessment that they administer”.

The BEAM Plus tests assess a project in several areas including energy use, site ventilation, indoor air quality, water consumption and waste management. Projects are given a grade on a five-point scale, but even those given the lowest grade, unclassified, are eligible for the gross floor area incentives – developers need only publish the results of the assessment in their brochures.

Ng insisted some of the allegations were unfounded, including claims of inconsistency in assessments and of undue influence by some directors on the secretariat staff.

The green requirement was introduced as part of a drive to halt widespread misuse of a scheme that allowed developers to increase gross floor area by adding extra amenities to their developments. Previously, the amount of extra gross floor area developers could claim for amenities and green features had not been capped.

From April 2011 to December 31 last year, a total of 260 new projects had been granted gross floor area concessions, Buildings Department figures show.

The Green Building Council has also been accused of pushing up the price of BEAM Plus certification – which critics again said reflected lax oversight.

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/1777202/green-building-scheme-facescriticism

Third Runway Maths: The Most Expensive in the World?

Peter Woo of FrontlineTechWorkers

Hong Kong’s third runway is now reported to be a HK$140B (billion) project. How absurd is this? Let’s compare:

Beijing Capital International Airport – Market Capital HK$32.5B

Unlike Hong Kong International Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport is publicly listed, actually on Hong Kong Stock Exchange (0694.hk). With HK$140B, we can buy out Beijing’s airport 4 times.
London Heathrow Airport – Valued at HK$60B

There was a 8.65% stake sale of the Heathrow Airport Holdings for GBP392M (million)

in 2013. That would imply a full stake valuation of the airport to be around GBP4.5B (392M / .0865). Even by taking the peak of GDP/HK$ rate in 2013 at around HK$13 (currently HK$11.37), it would only be HK$60B, i.e. we can buy out the Heathrow Airport twice.
Berlin Airport New Runway – HK$32B

Just a few months ago, the scandal-dogged Berlin Airport asked for EUR 3.2B to build a new runway. That would translate to HK$32B, using EUR/HK$ exchange at that time (around HK$10, currently HK$8.23). Despite of potential construction complications due to our unique terrain and environmental consideration, HK$140B allow us building 4 new runways for Berlin. The Germans must envy us for such luxury.
Hong Kong International Airport (The Rose Garden Project) – HK$160B

The Hong Kong International Airport was a US$20B project at that time but note that it was a project comprised 10 core projects including the airport itself (with 2 runways), Tsing Ma Bridge, Western Harbour Crossing, North Lantau Expressway, Route 3 – Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi Sections, West Kowloon Highway, Land Reclamation in West Kowloon, Central Reclamation Phase I, and Phase I of North Lantau New Town. It was practically rebuilding part of HK. Can you imagine an additional runway costs almost the same? Even with inflation adjusted dollar, it doesn’t make sense.

For reference, our current airport has a fixed asset size of around HK$52B. With the miscellaneous supplemental projects built after the initial cutover of the airport, and depreciation/appreciation applied over the years, HK$52B may not exactly represent the proportion of the airport within the Rose Garden total. However, it gives you a sense of how much an airport (including 2 runways) should cost.

It’s going to be privately funded – does it concern me?

Yes, for one thing, whatever debt raised by the Airport Authority will be guaranteed by the Hong Kong government. If the project doesn’t pay back, Hong Kong taxpayers will have to subsidize it later.

Immediately, the Airport Authority is considering the suspension of the around HK$5B/year dividend payment to the Hong Kong government. Local residents ought prepare to shoulder up more taxes to fill in the HK$5B hole, and more directly, to pay more airport tax upcoming.

With the congestion of the two runways now, we have little objection to building a third runway, if the environment is taken into account. However, we should not be robbed. HK$140B is not only unreasonable, but downright robbery by vested interests. Just wonder, is this what the HK$50M paid to CY Leung is for? Or is this another “gift” to Chinese construction companies that will be ultimately given a piece of the pie, and come back later to claim their “love” for Hong Kong without mentioning how much they’ve earned during the process? HongKongers have already been overpaying for water. Now, they want more.

One of our group members foresees that we will end up being made to buy airspace from China in order to fully utilise the third runway. Water and construction are just the beginning. Prepare to be asked for showing more gratitude to the motherland.

FrontlineTechWorkers is formed by a group of IT practitioners with the aim to consolidate voices from IT workers on policy discussion in Hong Kong.

http://hongwrong.com/third-runway/

Hong Kong struggling to breathe under weight of ‘maximum’ urban density, academic says

Hong Kong cannot cope with any more high-rise buildings, according to an academic, who says street-level airflow has become worryingly stagnant and unable to disperse heat and pollutants as urban density hits “maximum” level.

Though average wind speed levels measured at the Hong Kong Observatory’s remote Waglan Island weather station off the city’s southernmost island Po Toi have been stable over the last 50 years, average wind speed in the city has fallen as more tall buildings are built in higher density.

Wind measurements at the King’s Park urban weather station in Kowloon have dropped from 3.5 metres per second in 1965 to just 2 metres per second last year. The decrease in wind speed is in line with a 2 degrees Celsius rise in average air temperatures in the same period.

“I would say we are at maximum density, especially in built up areas … Future land reclamation may need to be more disciplined,” said Professor Li Yuguo, who heads the department of mechanical engineering at the University of Hong Kong.

Li said poor urban air ventilation could definitely be one of the factors behind days with very high air pollution readings.

Studies by Li’s team, which included wind tunnel and water channel modelling, have found that in the absence of wind, convective heat from individual buildings rises and forms a dome-shaped accumulation of warm air and pollutants above the city.

The phenomenon is called the “urban dome effect”.

“The worrying trend continues but there is no removal strategy for the urban dome,” said Li, adding that strong wind flows felt on some afternoons tend to be man-made “city winds” induced from the “urban heat island effect” rather than natural wind.

He urged secondary streets along the northern shore of Hong Kong Island to be kept “wide and short” to facilitate downslope wind flow from the hills.

More buildings could also provide basal openings of about 10 metres – such as the ground floor of HSBC headquarters in Central – to help improve low-level wind flow, he said.

“But of course, there are development challenges here,” he admitted. “The price to pay is not having a 7-Eleven on the ground floor of every building.”

Source URL (modified on Apr 2nd 2015, 9:04pm): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1754189/hong-kong-struggling-breathe-under-weight-maximum-urban-density

Hong Kong’s background radiation levels ‘astounding’, says former top official

Former official takes readings almost a third higher than world average

“Astounding” levels of background radiation measured in some of the city’s poorly ventilated urban areas were almost a third higher than the world average, a former environmental protection official has revealed.

Dr Mamie Lau May-ming, who retired as principal officer last year, measured background radiation with a Geiger counter at around a dozen points across the city last year, including Sham Shui Po, Sai Kung and Central.

At one covered pedestrian bridge in Nam Cheong, radiation levels hit 0.32 microsieverts per hour and above – 36 per cent higher than the global average of about 0.25.

Roughly the same readings were taken from the stairwells of an old Tai Kok Tsui primary school and a poorly ventilated office building corridor in Central.

By contrast, recordings at the abandoned Japanese city of Tomioka-machi, near the tsunami disaster-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, were 0.65 as of September, she said.

Lau, a former member of the city’s Radiation Board, said the results were “astounding”.

“Background radiation is a problem and few people are aware of it,” Lau told the Post. She said building clusters in close proximity could elevate the radiation levels considerably.

The source was likely to be granite building materials including some concretes which contain traces of gamma radiation-emitting minerals such as radon, uranium and thorium.

Although Lau said levels were not life-threatening – 0.23 microsieverts per hour is equivalent to 2 millisieverts (mSv) a year, or roughly one cranial CT scan – constant exposure in small doses could have cumulative effects.

In Lau’s new book, Healing Tree, she points to the Petkau effect, which proves cell membranes are damaged much more readily by long-term exposure to low-level radiation than brief exposure at the same dose.

unnamed

The health risks to urban dwellers were also compounded by stress, imbalanced diets and unhealthy lifestyles, she said.

About 38 per cent of the city’s background radiation comes from the air in the form of radon, a gas which enters the lungs as particles and cannot come out.

Citing a 1988 study by City University physics professor Peter Yu Kwan-ngok, she said 13 per cent of deaths from lung cancer – the city’s biggest killer – could be attributed to long-term radon exposure. “We should raise public awareness that good ventilation with intake of fresh air in homes and offices is important,” said Lau. “With so many illness-causing factors, it is wise to minimise the risks as best we can.”

She urged the government to strengthen management of indoor radon including using less radioactive materials for construction and giving more consideration to radon issues at the planning stage when redeveloping old areas.

The Observatory, which monitors the city’s ambient radiation, says the level of background radiation in the city does not pose a high risk to human health.

“We’re talking about microsieverts, which is a very small amount,” said Observatory scientific officer Leung Wai-hung. “The average person absorbs 2 to 3 millisieverts in a year just from the natural environment.”

A Department of Health spokesman said in addition to man-made sources, ionising radiation came from natural sources in the soil, water and air.

He added that even the International Atomic Energy Agency had no definite conclusion as to whether exposure to background radiation carried a health risk, “though it has been demonstrated at a level a few times higher”.

The Buildings Department said it did not measure radioactive materials used in construction, nor did it have any regulations on their use.

“It is believed the source of low-level radiation in buildings, if any, comes from the aggregate of the concrete,” a spokesman said.

Source URL (modified on Mar 30th 2015, 9:40am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1750572/citys-background-radiation-levels-astounding-says-former-top-official

Don’t blame visitors for lack of vision in Hong Kong’s public transport policy

Franklin Koo says the Hong Kong government’s policy to draw ever more visitors here with little thought about how it might overburden our transport system is what’s really to blame for the overcrowding and congestion

I once wrote that Hong Kong must have the ability to identify and solve its practical problems. Since the end of Occupy Central, many now believe the 47 million mainland visitors are to blame for the city’s troubles.

It is a fact that mainland visitors, along with their luggage, are causing overcrowding, especially on public transport. But do these visitors deserve all the blame, or is it partly due to ineffective policy?

Despite the fact that the local public transport infrastructure is at peak capacity, there are grandiose plans in place, such as the high-speed rail link and the third runway, plus the newly built cruise terminal. It seems that injecting more visitors into Hong Kong is an economic policy that is taking priority over the quality of the lives of normal citizens, while also ignoring the sustainability of our public transport infrastructure.

It is likely that more visitors will generate even more problems, since that will aggravate an already overloaded transport system. Imagine putting more people into a lift and ignoring the overload warning; it is a recipe for disaster.

There are no overload warnings on buses or trains; everything seems fine on the surface. Hong Kong is proud to have a clean, safe and convenient transport system, the reason it received the award for “best city in the world for commuters” in 2014.

The MTR Corporation has just announced a net increase in profits of 19.8 per cent, partly due to a record-breaking 4.5 per cent increase in ridership.

On paper, large profits are made and there is no urgency to fix what is “not broken”, such as dramatically increasing train frequency or imposing strict restrictions against carrying large luggage during peak hours.

It may come as a surprise to outsiders, then, that Hong Kong was ranked a lowly 70th in the world this month for quality of living. Commuting accounts for part of that living, a daily activity that is weaved into the working fabric of Hong Kong.

With the public transport system responsible for moving millions across town each day, it is considered the lifeline of Hong Kong. That said, overcrowding on this very lifeline is like a clogged artery that is in dire need of attention.

Overcrowding creates serious issues. The sheer number of people on each train can stop doors from closing, often taking two or three attempts to securely shut the door at each major station, resulting in delays and stress.

Prolonged exposure to stress may contribute to sudden outbursts, anxiety and negative social effects. The recent protests and uploaded internet videos of arguments between passengers on trains and buses support the findings in American behavioural researcher John B. Calhoun’s rat study that overcrowding leads to increased aggression.

During daily commutes, this stress is intensified. A study by US professor Drury Sherrod argued that a sense of control lessened the negative impact of a crowded environment. So, while Hong Kong is crowded in general, it is less likely to have a negative effect if one can always choose to escape the congestion and go hiking instead.

By contrast, there is no control or choice over a regular commute to and from work. The lack of parking spaces and frequent traffic jams makes driving an unsuitable alternative and carpooling a challenge. In addition, tightly packed environments pose a serious health risk. Crowds can increase the likelihood of rapidly spreading a contagious disease due to reduced ventilation, and this is especially worrisome given the recent deadly flu outbreak.

The adverse health effects caused by stress strains the public health system as well. According to a map of suicides from 2005 to 2010, higher rates of suicides were found in the northern areas of Hong Kong compared to Hong Kong Island. This finding is troubling. Difficulty in relocation due to the city’s exorbitant housing costs and the lengthy and more expensive commutes could be reasons for this geographical discrepancy.

So one can hardly blame mainland visitors when the government has not taken drastic action. Large projects continue to dictate that more visitors must continue to come to Hong Kong, or the schemes risk becoming white elephants.

This may be a path to more record-breaking profits for some, but the result of congested public transport is a serious health and social concern that affects everyone.

There is no point in blaming or threatening mainland visitors when it is our border control and economic policy that require careful review.

Franklin Koo is an accredited mediator and author of Power to the People: Extending the Jury to the Hong Kong District Court. franklin.koo@gmail.com [1]

Source URL (modified on Mar 30th 2015, 5:57pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1751120/dont-blame-visitors-lack-vision-hong-kongs-public-transport

Most Hong Kong private sector green belt rezoning applications rejected, study finds

Study provides ammunition for opponents of government plans to rezone edge-of-town land and construct thousands of new flats

Planners have shot down more than 80 per cent of applications from private companies to rezone green belt land for housing over the past 18 years, often for fear of setting an “undesirable precedent”, a study shows.

The findings add fuel to green groups’ opposition to government plans to turn 150 hectares of green belt over for housing – a key plank of its ambitious target of adding 480,000 new homes by 2015. Researchers behind the study urged the Town Planning Board to ensure it treated government applications the same way it did those from developers.

The Planning Department’s applications to rezone 70 such sites are at a critical stage, as the board vets the first batch.

The board has so far approved 11 and vetoed three government applications. That means some 27 hectares of land will be available to provide 16,000 flats.

But the government suffered its first setback last month, when the board struck down rezoning proposals for two sites in Tai Po.

The government says the green sites it wants developed have little conservation value, though some board members have pointed out that that was never the green belt’s purpose. Instead it was intended to stop urban sprawl and set a boundary between town and country.

residential-zones

Using public data, Chinese University’s Centre for Environmental Policy and Resource Management examined 37 private applications to rezone green belt sites for flats, made between 1997 and last year. The board rejected 30.

The study was commissioned by the owners’ committee of Dynasty Heights in Shek Kip Mei, which is opposing a government rezoning plan for a nearby site.

Among the 30 rejections, the board cited fear of setting an “undesirable precedent” in 24. Other oft-cited factors included insufficient information from applicants, in 19 cases, and a contradiction with green belt planning intentions, in 15. Some were turned down because of potential adverse impact on the landscape or environment. Planners can give multiple grounds for rejecting an application.

Dr Joanna Lee Wai-ying, who led the study, said: “The board has been a strict gatekeeper over the years and would not lightly allow development plans on green belt sites. If the government itself is doing this, it appears [it is] holding a different standard.” She warned that a change of policy could offer justification for developers to make similar requests to encroach on green belt land.

Dr Tony Leung Ka-tung, chairman of the Institute of Surveyors’ planning and development division, believed developers would still struggle to secure rezoning on green belt sites.

“For each application, the developer has to convince the board that it meets requirements on sewerage, drainage, traffic, environment and other matters. I don’t think the board will relax its standards.”

He said he supported the government’s plan because increasing land supply was key to cooling property prices.

________________________________________
Source URL (modified on Mar 12th 2015, 2:04am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1735146/most-hong-kong-private-sector-green-belt-rezoning-applications

Taking the plunge

http://www.macaubusiness.com/news/taking-the-plunge-2.html

On Christmas Eve, the government wrapped up the second phase of a proposed Harbourfront Authority initiative which would oversee the development of Hong Kong’s 73-km shoreline.

Mary Ann Benitez examines what’s next for the Fragrant Harbour

By Mary Ann Benitez*

Just next to Victoria Harbour smack in the northern fringes of the financial district a Great European Carnival and the Observation Wheel compete for dollars from thrill-seeking Hongkongers.

The space is called the New Harbourfront in Central, a reclaimed chunk of the iconic harbour for which Hong Kong has been named.

The AIA-sponsored carnival runs until February 22 with the organiser hoping to attract a million visitors, while the big Wheel to date has not created the buzz that London Eye has generated for the UK.

But concern groups are saying such entertainment facilities are not really what they want from the 73-kilometer harbourfront.

On December 24, the Harbourfront Commission and the Development Bureau concluded its phase 2 consultation for the proposed Harbourfront Authority (HFA). The three-month public engagement exercise was launched on

September 25 to gauge public opinion on the proposed detailed framework for the HFA.

The HFA will adopt an ‘incremental land allocation and development strategy’, with the plan calling for the government to inject a dedicated fund to cover the capital costs of developing designated sites.

Harbourfront Commission chairman Nicholas Brooke said that the priority of the HFA when it is established should be given to sites that are ripe for development so that it can capitalise on its “creativity and flexibility”.

The HFA will directly develop and manage 12 sites totalling 34 hectares on newly reclaimed land over the next decade. These are the New Central harbourfront, Wanchai-North Point harbourfront, reclaimed land in Causeway Bay, a waterfront park in Quarry Bay, a promenade in Kwun Tong and a new public space abutting the Hung Hom ferry pier.

“The HFA may seek the Legislative Council’s approval to draw resources from the dedicated fund when a project is ready for implementation”, he added.

The Authority could encourage activities on the waterfront, which are not welcomed however, such as alfresco dining, cycling and street performances. It is envisaged that the Authority would function as a ‘one-stop shop’ to reflect public demand for interaction with the harbour. It will eventually take responsibility for all the sites lining Hong Kong’s picture postcard waterway.

The Chairman of the Harbourfront Commission’s Core Group for Public Engagement, Vincent Ng, said, “We propose that the HFA should have three major functions, which are governance and management, advisory and advocacy, and executive functions”.

The 20-member board and a team of civil servants will be seconded to it to form a “dedicated” government team to support its operation while “suitable talent” from the private sector can also be recruited to assist the work of the team.

The Harbourfront Commission should be disbanded upon the establishment of the HFA “to avoid confusion or the perception of multi-layering”, advocates Ng.

The HFA will assume responsibility for the current advisory and advocacy role of the Commission in relation to Victoria Harbourfront.

“Even though we have put forth a proposal for public consultation, it doesn’t mean that we have already got the perfect answer for all the questions arising from the harbourfront management”, Ng said.

A 150-metre People’s Liberation Army berth on the new Central waterfront will be excluded from the HKFA’s ambit even though the government has pledged that the site will be open to the public when it is not used by the military.

A judicial review has been launched by pressure group Designing Hong Kong on the berth, which was rezoned for military use last February.

The Chairman of think tank Land Watch and former lawmaker, Lee Wing-tat, has told Hong Kong media, “The PLA pier will become a focus of tension for the new Authority. Should it allow students to stage class boycotts there?”

Brooke maintains that the HKFA can create its own by-laws or regulatory framework “for management, maintenance and operation of its waterfront sites. It could allow alfresco dining”.

Two months into the consultation exercise, Brooke told The Standard in November that the response to the idea of an Authority has so far been positive.

“We’ve spoken to district councils, chambers, professions and interest groups. The feedback has been that we could be more ambitious. It reflects the views of the community. And there’s a degree of impatience from people, which I completely understand”, he said.

A spokeswoman for the Development Bureau told Macau Business that the government has conducted 19 briefings or forums for the public, Legislative Council, District Councils, professional bodies and business chambers with over 450 attendees.

There were 21 written submissions and 142 completed questionnaires as of December 23, a day before the close of the engagement exercise.

“We have engaged the Social Sciences Research Centre of the University of Hong Kong to conduct an independent analysis of all the public views received during the Phase II Public Engagement Exercise”, the spokeswoman said.

All the written comments received will be uploaded to the dedicated website (www.hfc.org.hk/hape) this month.

“The HKU is also expected to complete its report in the first quarter of 2015. HKU’s report will also be made publicly available upon its completion”, she said. “Taking into account the views received, the Harbourfront Commission and the government will consider the way forward after the completion of Phase II PE”.

Paul Zimmerman, District Councillor for Pokfulam and a member of the Harbourfront Commission, told Macau Business, “It’s time for government to start spending money on world class design and management of our waterfronts. And not just Victoria Harbour. Surely the residents of Aberdeen, Ap Lei Chau, Tseung Kwan O and Shatin have the same aspirations for their waterfronts”.

Zimmerman, who is also CEO of Designing HongKong, said the consultation digest and response form fail to address key concerns.

“These include a lack of oversight over the harbour as a whole, the lack of advisory powers over government departments, a lack of legitimacy in land allocation, bias towards commercial operations, and a loss of the public voice on the Board”, he said, maintaining that Designing Hong Kong has been calling since 2004 for an authority to create world class waterfronts.

“Now the shortcomings need to be resolved before the community and legislators support the proposal”, he said.

Zimmerman said the vesting of land should be the last not the first tool in enhancing the waterfront sites.

“To start, we need a strategic plan for Victoria Harbour and its 75km waterfront to justify the location of water-dependent land uses – especially the ones nobody wants: pumping stations, sewage plants, waste transfer stations, concrete batching plants, fish and wholesale markets, container and oil terminals, cargo working areas, passenger piers and landings, water sports centres, fuel and water supply stations, police, Customs, marine department and fire stations”, he said.

“Next, the Authority must develop waterfront plans for each district along Victoria Harbour, identifying land and water-based activities and facilities which the local communities want”.

He has also completed the 10-point questionnaire.

He told Macau Business that the Harbourfront Authority should have no commercial objectives, and that its remit is to implement and deliver harbourfronts agreed with the community.

“Secondly, HFA should be responsible for planning the entire harbourfront and associated marine uses”, he said.

Its functions should cover not only overseeing the development of the entire harbourfront and the management of allocated sites or facilities but also manage associated marine uses.

The first sites to be overseen by the Harbourfront Authority should be the “simple promenades to build up capacity” including the promenades of the Central Ferry Piers, Kwun Tong, Quarry Bay, Tsing Yi, Tsuen Wan and Yau Tong. Its planning function should not be limited to the allocated sites.

Zimmerman said the Authority should receive annual subvention for its operation and project funding for funding gaps associated with the development of the sites.

“HFA should be given the resources and mandate to prepare advisory harbourfront enhancement plans for each district in co-operation with the relevant district council, and in consultation with the community”, he said.

Environmental group Clear the Air believes the exercise is useless and that people are discouraged by a government that has no clue despite a public consultation in 2004.

“The government did not understand what it was told in 2004, that what people want are amenities to make (the harbourfront) a tourist attraction and a place for local people to enjoy the harbourfront”, the former chairman of Clear the Air, Christian Masset, told Macau Business.

“In 2004, we told the government what to do. And the government is still asking what should we do? It’s completely contradictory”, said Masset, a teacher and consultant.

“We then know what we want [but] it seems the government has a hidden objective of making more roads”, said Masset.

He said the consultation website using a picture of what a normal harbourfront should look like is “bizarre”.

“The government has no clue what to do or how to set up a beautiful harbourfront because the government has always treated the harbourfront as a road network and not as a place to socialise and to beautify”, he said.

He felt that the government wanted to “create a debate” instead of acting on what had been discussed a decade ago. He cites the new Central Harbourfront.

“If you look at the harbourfront today, it’s empty because it was cut from the centre of the city by the roads. Back in 2004, we told the government you are separating the harbourfront from the city. The harbourfront is not integrated but is severed by this network of roads.

“Therefore, you have a vast space which should have been occupied by bars and restaurants but there’s nothing and people say why do they have to go there? It’s a long walk, it’s difficult,” he said, adding the idea a decade ago was to put the road network underground.

Masset said the Big Wheel was not “a bad idea” as it is easily accessible being near the Star Ferry.

“The idea of the Big Wheel is good but it just occupies a tiny space compared to the vast empty space, which is difficult now to attract people. The original plan was flawed because the roads cut off the whole area from the city. You have to walk a long way. To make the distance acceptable, they really have to put out there some valuable features – a lot of restaurants, interesting places to make the walk worthwhile”, he said.

Even in Tsim Sha Tsui, the Avenue of the Stars is “a shame”, he maintains because “There’s nothing to be proud of, except the view. There’s no place to sit. There’s no bar, there’s a Starbucks. You have to go to an expensive hotel to eat and enjoy the view. You have to be rich to eat and enjoy the harbour or you have to spend on an expensive meal. If you cannot afford an expensive meal in a nice hotel, you’re not allowed to sit and enjoy the harbour. It’s very sad”.

He said his group had not submitted any written submissions for this latest engagement exercise.

“We’re tired of it. We did everything back in 2004. We don’t believe in this consultation exercise”, Masset said.

In 2004, the Court of Final Appeal ruled in favour of Winston Chu Ka-sun’s Society for the Protection of the Harbour, against government reclamation work for the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, saying that any reclamation must satisfy the test of overriding public need and be supported by cogent and convincing materials.

It is hoped that reclamation work will have stopped.

*Macau Business Hong Kong contributor.
Assistant news editor of The Standard newspaper

Don’t sacrifice Hong Kong’s country parks for a housing quick fix

4 January 2015

Roger Nissim

The restarting of a regular land sale programme in 2013 after a 10-year hiatus is one of the real positive actions of the Leung Chun-ying administration as it struggles to plug the huge gap in housing supply. There is no quick fix for this situation. There is no such thing as “instant” flats and the public needs to understand it will probably take another four to five years before an equilibrium can be found between supply and demand.

I am, however, deeply concerned that, in their desire to find quick fixes for the shortage of land, both Secretary for Development Paul Chan Mo-po and Secretary for Housing and Transport Anthony Cheung Bing-leung are starting to try to convince us that it is appropriate to consider rezoning green-belt sites and look at the possible use of land within country parks. These are both bad ideas and should not, as suggested by Cheung recently, be considered as one of the trade-offs necessary to achieve these short-term objectives.

Let us first consider green-belt sites. According to statutory outline zoning plans, the intention of this land-use zoning “is primarily for the conservation of the existing natural environment amid the built-up areas/at the urban fringe, to safeguard it from encroachment by urban-type development, and to provide additional outlets for passive recreational activities. There is a general presumption against development within this zone”.

Country parks are covered by the Country Parks Ordinance. The Country and Marine Parks Authority is mandated to “encourage their use and development for purposes of recreation and tourism”, “protect the vegetation and wildlife”, and “preserve and maintain building sites of historic and cultural significance”. There is a “presumption against any new development”.

Some 24 country parks have now been designated for the purpose of nature conservation, countryside recreation and outdoor education.

The wording here is unambiguous. It makes clear that these lands should be left alone to serve their existing statutory public purpose. The two policy secretaries are in fact encouraging both the Town Planning Board and the Country and Marine Parks Board, as well as the public, to overlook, and even subvert, their statutory responsibilities.

It is also worth reminding all concerned that, since 2011, the Hong Kong government has been committed to following the requirements of the international Convention on Biological Diversity and will be consulting the public this year on its Bio-diversity Strategy and Action Plan. This will require action not only to preserve country and marine parks but also to expand and enhance them.

Such tracts of land are attractive to the administration as, in the main, they are government-owned so there will be little or no cost of land resumption. But this would be a false economy.

By definition, the land is remote, likely to be hilly with trees, lacking suitable infrastructure such as roads and drains and at best could only be used for low-density, low-rise development. This would not be a good trade-off; the relatively small number of units provided could never justify the damage that would be done.

So what are the alternatives? Make better use of existing “brownfield” sites. There are some 600 redundant industrial buildings in urban areas which are now 40 to 50 years old and whose replacement with modern residential buildings would constitute positive urban renewal.

With the completion of MTR extensions west to Kennedy Town and south to Ap Lei Chau, all the old industrial buildings in Wong Chuk Hang, Aberdeen, Ap Lei Chau and Kennedy Town should be rezoned for residential use. All these areas have the infrastructure in place and are obvious targets for development. Lease modifications should be fast-tracked and, if multiple ownership is a problem, government resumption is an option.

The 2014 policy address identified 257 hectares of agricultural land in North and Yuen Long districts that are used mainly for industrial purposes or temporary storage, or which are deserted. This land should be pushed forward for early development.

Finally, the government should have the courage of its convictions and press ahead with the new town proposals in the
New Territories.
If 200 or so farmers are affected, as in the case of the proposed development in Fanling North, that is the price to pay if over 70,000 people can be adequately housed as a result. Surely, that’s a lesson in democracy, where the benefit of the majority should override the concerns of the adequately compensated minority.

So the message is clear: leave our green belt and country park land alone, and focus on other much more productive sites.

Roger Nissim is an adjunct professor in the Department of Real Estate and Construction at the University of Hong Kong.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1672933/dont-sacrifice-hong-kongs-country-parks-housing-quick-fix

Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge: Will the benefits outweigh the costs?

3 Dec 2014

Can 50km of concrete, steel and tarmac bring greater integration within the Pearl River Delta region, revive Hong Kong’s flagging economy and spur the city on to greater financial heights? That’s the question most people have asked about the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, which is scheduled for a grand opening in 2016. After all, advocates for the project have for many years now championed the structure as an economic saviour, a tourism booster and the most effective connection in the Pearl River Delta region.

Earlier this month, the government announced that it is seeking an additional $5billion in funding for an artificial island off eastern Lantau, which would form part of the bridge’s road network. That’s on top of the $83b that Hong Kong is already contributing to the $132.9b project. And, with this news, comes more speculation. Indeed, there’s now a greater need to reflect on whether the benefits of the bridge will ultimately outweigh the costs, especially as the money is coming from public coffers.

There’s also a need to look at whether Hong Kong as a city is set to get the best out of this colossal piece of infrastructure. It’s only fair to examine whether or not the newbridge will fail as a white elephant or herald the start of a beautiful relationship between the three cities that it links together.

Supporters of the project cite the economic benefits alongside the expected increase in tourists and the revitalisation of the city’s property market as positive reasons for the bridge’s existence. Anti-bridge proponents focus more on the potential environmental damage, saying that it’s simply a vanity project. While both sides rant on, though, it’s ultimately the rising cost of the whole project that has provoked fresh debate in the past few weeks. “There’s certainly no economic justification in building a bridge,” says Bob McKercher, professor of tourism management at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. “When you look at the numbers, it’s a complete white elephant. It will never pay for itself. And, right now, the traffic flow will only ever go one way – and that’s from Hong Kong to Zhuhai and Macau. There just isn’t enough of a population to have traffic flowing the other way. And the only real beneficiaries of the bridge will perhaps be Disney, the airport and Ngong Ping. I can’t see anybody else in Hong Kong benefitting from it.”

In response to claims that the bridge will boost Hong Kong’s tourism industry, McKercher explains: “People in Zhuhai are not going to come to Hong Kong because they can get everything they need from Macau. The studies that I’ve looked at indicate that there was a huge demand initially, but other studies have indicated that the bridge would never pay for itself. To me, this is just another unnecessary piece of infrastructure that has been justified by the god of tourism, by people who just don’t understand tourism.”

Critics have also pointed out the bridge’s contribution to air pollution and destruction of marine habitats, particularly in relation to the endangered pink dolphins living within the vicinity of the construction site. “The Environmental Impact Assessment only took into account the issue of piledriving for underwater noise reports,” says Gary Stokes, director of non-profit organisation Sea Shepherd Asia. “What they didn’t do is to consider the terrible everyday ongoing construction noise. Dolphins communicate and navigate through sound, so in human terms it’d be like being constantly blinded by a big, strong light. They wouldn’t be able to find their way around.”

It’s not all doom and gloom, though. Many pro-bridgers have a brighter perspective. Stephen Townsend, director of urban design at architectural firm Gensler Asia, proposes a more holistic view when it comes to the bridge’s pros and cons beyond Hong Kong. “I think that real estate prices are going to skyrocket in Zhuhai because of the bridge, like in Shenzhen 20 years ago,” he says. “It brings services and spontaneous informal access directly from Hong Kong that we didn’t have before. Now I can have a house in Zhuhai at a third of the price and three times the space, and actually work in Hong Kong.”

Townsend continues: “I think the developers who own shopping centres in Hong Kong are going to be very happy once that bridge opens. And if you own property on Lantau Island, I think you’re also going to be happy that there’s now a marketplace that has direct access to the property market. I think the emphasis for growth in Hong Kong, considering the population will grow another two million in the next 15 years, will be around the Lantau, Tuen Mun and Sheung Wan areas. And a lot of that will depend on that connection to provide a balance of services, people and industry going back
and forth.”

“The bridge is beneficial in terms of trade, logistics and tourism by facilitating people and goods movements in the region,” says Allen Ha, chairman of the Lantau Development Alliance. “It will also be beneficial for our airport in terms of connectivity with the rest of the world. But, right now, if we just build the bridge, the tourists may still just go and stay at the traditional places [like Tsim Sha Tsui]. Our proposal then is to increase our receiving capacity in Lantau by building new hotels, which can help alleviate some of the tourist overflow in Hong Kong. Ultimately, we’re looking at a bigger area than Macau, Zhuhai and Hong Kong. We’re talking about the population in the whole Pearl River Delta, and allowing people to travel to a new place within an hour.” The Highways Department has also informed Time Out that ‘the journey time between Hong Kong International Airport and Zhuhai will be reduced from its current four hours or so to about 45 minutes’.

Despite all the conflicting viewpoints, the failure to integrate a rail link option as a form of public transportation is being viewed by both pro and anti-bridgers as a major oversight. “While [a rail link] would have probably raised the cost of the bridge considerably, it would have been fortuitous to have one, even if it just went to the immigration island between Zhuhai and Macau,” says Townsend. McKercher goes even further on the subject: “In light of concerns over air pollution, why the hell
are they building a bridge to put in more vehicular traffic? Why didn’t they also include a rail link to move people efficiently from border to border?”

Whether or not the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge brings any or all of its predicted benefits remains to be seen. And whether it affects the environment as much as some expect it to also hangs in the balance. But either way, the city is paying for it right now in hard cash. Like a car on the hard shoulder of the bridge, there’s no turning back. “It’s too late – we’re already building it,” says Townsend. “We can’t fight it. As a community, of course we can complain about it all we can. But I think we now need to figure out how we can make it work and how we can protect the areas of Hong Kong that we love from overspeculation and overexploitation.”

http://www.timeout.com.hk/big-smog/features/70302/hong-kong-zhuhai-macau-bridge-will-the-benefits-outweigh-the-costs.html

Government seeks to end waste site construction on green belt

17 Oct 2014

Conor McGlone

Developers will find it more difficult to get planning consent to build waste facilities in the green belt under new government rules.

In an update to the national planning policy for waste, published on 16 October, the government said companies and councils looking to develop facilities will have to look for suitable sites on brownfield land before exploring other options.

Responses to a consultation on waste policy, which ran from July, were released on the same day, confirming that planning permission to develop waste facilities on green belt land would only be approved under “very special circumstances”.

Communities secretary Eric Pickles said these measures would ensure the green belt could continue to offer a “strong defence” against urban sprawl in towns and cities, and would “bring waste into line with the policies on other development”.

The new rules also mean that councils can no longer give special consideration to needs based on location or the wider economic benefits of a potential site, over other considerations as justification for building waste facilities on green belt land.

The update follows the release of statistics from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) showing that green belt land, which makes up 13% of England’s land area, declined by 0.03% last year.

Total green belt land fell by 540 hectares to a total of 1.6 million hectares in 2013/14. Three local authorities – Rochford, South Gloucestershire and West Lancashire – reduced the size of their green belt land last year.

Planning guidance on housing, published on 6 October, stated that green belt boundaries should only be changed in “exceptional cases” and any unmet housing need would not justify the harm done to the green belt by “inappropriate development”.

Concerns over “inflexible” policy

While the policy states that planning authorities should consider “any adverse effect on a site of international importance for nature conservation” and any waste facilities should operate without “harming the environment”, some environmental groups have voiced concerns over the government’s appetite for brownfield development.

Earlier this month, the Land Trust and Buglife argued that a large number of brownfield sites are not suitable for development due to their value to society and the environment as public open spaces.

In addition, three quarters of respondents to the government’s consultation said its updated policy on waste was “not flexible enough” and would have “a negative impact” on the industry.

According to a report from the Green Investment Bank published in July, the UK needs to invest an extra £5bn into waste infrastructure in order to close the residual waste capacity gap over the next six years (endsreport.com/44741).

That is equivalent to building ten EfW plants a year for the rest of the decade at a capital cost of £750 per tonne.

It was also felt that applications for new anaerobic digestion and composting plants could be blocked under the rules, despite being better suited to rural locations that are closer to their feedstocks.

Respondents were also concerned that the change in policy approach could lead to facilities being located further from waste arisings, leading to higher carbon emissions from transportation.

Despite this, the government confirmed it would push on with hardening planning rules because it attached “great importance to the protection of the green belt

http://www.endsreport.com/45776/government-seeks-to-end-waste-site-construction-on-green-belt