DECEMBER 17, 2014
Please find attached herewith our report on The Coastal Vegetation of Hoi Ha Wan. This report contains "Reference Information" pertinent to the Draft Hoi Ha OZP, with particular reference to the mangrove community and coastal erosion to the north of Hoi Ha Village, and was referred to at the TBP meeting on Friday 21 November by the mangrove expert, Professor Gordon Maxwell and by David Newbery, Secretary of Friends of Hoi Ha.
(Link to the report: http://harbourtimes.com/pdf/hhw/hoi_ha_wan_doc.pdf)
We believed our presentations and report would serve as a useful reference tool, enabling TPB’s decisions to be based on the best available data, and leading to an OZP for Hoi Ha which would include an effective buffer zone between the V-zone and the marine environment to ensure the protection of HoiHa Wan Marine Park / SSSI.
Sadly, despite trying unsuccessfully for over a decade to have Hoi Ha accurately mapped, planning decisions were based on inaccurate and misleading information. The old village used to be sited 65 metres away from the sea. As a result of coastal erosion, the walls are now a mere 8.5 metres away from a beach that is still eroding. Our information on the coastline erosion was ignored, and the Town Planning Board has agreed that there will be no oversight whatsoever of houses being rebuilt on the site of the old walled village. This means we will have septic tanks unlawfully discharging toxic waste onto a beach and into Marine Park waters.
The entire planning process has been flawed. SMO came to survey the streams in the Hoi Ha river valley in September, but promptly erased them from their updated maps of Hoi Ha, citing an ‘internal policy’ which decrees that streams on private land cannot be marked on 1:1000 maps, which was the only one produced for Hoi Ha. They deleted the beaches, too, in front of the village. I have asked for a written copy of the internal policy. This was denied. Even though I was the one who had requested they came to Hoi Ha to map the streams, they only let me have a quick look at where the streams actually are, and was not allowed a copy of the unedited map. We had to hire a professional cartographer to mark the streams - information we presented to the TPB, but that too was ignored. This means streams will be unlawfully diverted so that building can go ahead in the V-zone which contains 2 unmarked streams passing through private land. If the streams are not marked on maps, how can the authorities police any diversion of them in conjunction with building or bogus agricultural activities? The hydrology of the area renders it unsuitable for building and, in particular, for the efficient functioning of septic tanks.
Going back to my attached report, SMO offered to mark the mangroves in front of the village on the September 2014Hoi Ha map. They said they needed AFCD to confirm that mangroves are growing on the beach - which they are, as you can see from the attached report. AFCD refused to have a site meeting with me in August, and I have been trying ever since to get AFCD and SMO together at Hoi Ha to ground-truth the area. Had AFCD met with me in August, we would at least have had an accurate map with the mangroves and beaches marked in the correct places, instead of a map that still shows former agricultural land that was eroded and inundated by the sea, as land - which it isn’t. We have mangroves, true and associate, growing on sand, not terrestrial trees growing on soil. This fact is crucial because of EPD’s unlawful policy of allowing septic tanks to be sited 30 metres from an SSSI. Planning decisions were made on the basis of inaccurate maps that show the old village to be much further away from the sea than it actually is - giving the impression that there is a buffer zone between the sea and the village - which there isn’t - just a narrow, eroding strip of land, just 8.5 metres deep. We had requested a 30 metre buffer zone - which meant putting the derelict old village into the Coastal Protection Area, which wouldn’t have stopped building, but would have ensured that any building would be environmentally-friendly.
AFCD is averse to anything at Hoi Ha that is environmentally-friendly - they have blocked all our initiatives, including having camping and farming placed in Column 2 to protect the Ecologically Important Hoi Ha Stream, and the SSSI Marine Park. What is the point of having a Column 2 if it is not used? It doesn’t prohibit farming, but ensures that it is environmentally-friendly. AFCD have no environmental objection to septic tanks and grey water discharging toxic waste. There is a conflict of interest between the C and the A and the F of AFCD. Maybe it is time to take the C away from AFCD and set up a separate, dedicated Conservation Department? I can think of no other solution to their inability to exercise proper oversight of the Marine and Country Park.
The Chief Executive has not yet signed off Hoi Ha - it is not too late to save Hoi Ha Marine Park from current development plans that will destroy it. Is there anything you can do at this late stage? We do not want to stop all building, we do not want to stop all agriculture; however, what we do want is for planning decisions to be based on accurate, up-to-date information and for Hoi Ha Wan to be properly protected from pollution caused by development too close to the fragile marine environment. Government departments have presented inaccurate and misleading information which has led to the TPB making poor planning decisions. The final fate of Hoi Ha should not be decided until the planning decisions are based on an accurate representation of the area, its morphology, ecology and hydrology. We have presented the true picture of Hoi Ha to the TPB but, because Government departments have not backed us up, even though they know that we are telling the truth, our inputs have been ignored.
Warm regards
Nicola Newbery
Chair
Friends of Hoi Ha
http://harbourtimes.com/openpublish/article/details-erosion-hoi-ha-20141217
