Hong Kong seeks to overturn legal challenge against Fanling golf course housing project
Hong Kong Free Press
The government is seeking to overturn a legal challenge against a large-scale housing project on part of a golf club popular among Hong Kong’s elites, saying the ruling would make it “impossible” to conduct future development projects normally.
The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) – which oversees the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Fanling golf course housing plan – said in a statement on Monday that it “cannot agree” with parts of the ruling from the Court of First Instance.
The project was intended to provide housing for 33,600 residents on a 9.5-hectare plot of the Fanling golf course — part of a larger 32-hectare plot that has been returned to the government. The Fanling course spans 172 hectares in total.
The Civil Engineering and Development Department, which submitted the EIA report to the EPD for approval, is also appealing as an interested party.
High Court Judge Russell Coleman earlier this month found the handling of the assessment to be problematic when he handed down a judgement siding with the Hong Kong Golf Club.
Following the court’s ruling, Chief Executive John Lee said the decision could bring the project back to the consultation stage.
‘Significant systemic impacts’
Endorsement of the EIA report – used to identify the potential impact of a project and minimise environmental damage – is needed for a development project to get underway.
Environmental authorities last May approved the controversial plan by green-lighting an environmental impact assessment for the project, subject to conditions including the preservation of 0.39 hectares of woodland and controls over the density of the development.
The Hong Kong Golf Club filed the judicial review against the authorities’ approval of the environmental report last July.
The EPD said in its statement that the court’s judgement called for more public consultation, “which would make it impossible to reasonably conduct the entire environmental impact assessment process normally and would cause continuous delays, creating detrimental impacts and uncertainty on project development.”
“The ruling would have significant systemic impacts on ongoing and future environmental impact assessments, in particular, it may lead to serious delays in development, operation and execution of the development proposals,” the department said.
The Development Bureau said in a separate statement that the court’s decision would have a “substantial impact” on the housing yield and completion date.
“The Government stressed that this appeal is not solely for the proposed housing project but, more importantly, for seeking clarifications from the Court of Appeal on important subjects concerning the principles and legal issues of the EIA framework.”
Win for golf club
Earlier this month, judge Coleman said that he agreed with the golf club’s argument that the director of environmental protection should have reopened the project to consultation by the public and the city’s environment watchdog, the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE), when additional information was submitted.
Public participation in the EIA process and the provision of specialist advice by the ACE are “central pillars of the legislative scheme,” Coleman wrote.
The ACE also was not given the opportunity to make its comments “with the benefit of any other comments received from members of the public,” he said.
“I find that the fairness and integrity of the process, set out in the [EIA Ordinance] properly construed, demanded re-consultation once the additional information was produced to form part of the EIA Report,” Coleman said.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.