【明報專訊】THE HIGH COURT has ruled in a judicial review that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for developing the Fanling Golf Course fails to comply with the requirements, and the authorities must conduct a public consultation again for building public housing.
Public discussions about the Fanling Golf Course have continued for over ten years. Following repeated concessions to vested interests, the government has taken back only the 32-hectare Old Course of the site, proposing to use 9.5 hectares of the land for building public housing. The Hong Kong Golf Club subsequently filed a judicial review, citing that the authorities' EIA report was seriously flawed.
Yesterday (3 December), Chief Executive John Lee said the government would conduct a holistic study and evaluate the ruling's impact on the number of units and the time to construct public flats. But at the same time, he also noted that as the government had already secured enough land for public housing construction, the change in supply from the single project of Fanling Golf Course development would not have a significant impact on the supply target in the next 10 years. His comments have inevitably raised concerns about whether the authorities are still determined to take forward the [Fanling Golf Course] housing development plan.
It is noteworthy that, basically, the ruling has only pointed out the major deficiencies of the EIA consultation and the failure of the EIA report to comply with requirements. It was not a veto against any development for the sake of environmental protection. Neither has the judge said that the land under concern must be used as a golf course.
Granted by the government under a "private recreational lease", the Fanling Golf Course occupies 172 hectares of land and has been like a club exclusive for the rich and privileged over the years. When the government rolled out the North East New Territories development plans in the 2010s, there were already questions over why the Fanling Golf Course was not included in the development area. A Director of Audit's report also mentioned the pressing need for a comprehensive review of the private recreational leases policy.
After the previous administration launched a "big debate on land supply", the issue of using the Fanling Golf Course site for housing was back on the agenda. Those with vested interests strongly opposed it, citing various reasons ranging from precious trees protection, traffic loading to sports development. The strategy adopted by the opposing parties was delay tactics. First, they obstruct the implementation of the housing plan. Then, they drag the development plan to death by saying that it would be "too slow to meet the pressing needs" and "there would be other medium- to long-term supply options".
Because of the lawsuit, the government had already postponed for two financial years transferring the land to the Housing Department for development; the ruling now means that it will take at least another one to two years to implement the housing plan. If the authorities have no intention to fight anymore, they might as well say it clearly now rather than waste more time or public funds on prolonged drama.
After the High Court ruling, the Golf Club said it would write a letter to the government about its intention to discuss the transformation of the Old Course into a "heritage and ecology park" that allows golfing. As the government has opened the Old Course to the public as a park, it is difficult to cater for the safety of visitors if golfing is allowed — unless the authorities "revive" the Old Course by reserving it for golfing during designated time slots on certain days for those who have made appointments.
As there is already a public golf course in Kau Sai Chau, even if the government abandons the housing plan, it does not necessarily mean that the Fanling Old Course must be reverted into a golf course. The authorities should try to make the facilities in the Old Course park better and more accessible so that ordinary citizens can enjoy them at any time. As for the land originally marked for housing, it can also be used for other development purposes.
明報社評 2024.12.04：高球場建屋如若無心 無謂再浪費時間做戲
粉嶺高爾夫球場環評報告司法覆核，高院裁定環評報告不符合規定，當局若要興建公屋，須重新諮詢。
有關粉嶺高球場的問題，社會討論了10多年，面對既得利益壓力，政府一再退讓，僅收回32公頃「舊場」用地，並建議其中9.5公頃用作興建公營房屋。「香港哥爾夫球會」以當局所做的環評報告存在重大缺失為由，提出司法覆核。
行政長官李家超昨稱，裁決影響興建公屋數量及時間，政府會「全面研究及評估」，同時又說政府已覓得足夠土地建屋，粉嶺高球場單一項目供應改變，對本港整體公屋10年供應目標，不會有大影響。有關說法難免令人關注，當局是否還有決心推進建屋計劃。
需要留意的是，裁決主要只是指出環評諮詢存在重大不足、環評報告不符合規定，並非以環保為由否決任何發展；法官也沒有說過，相關土地一定要作高球場用途。
粉嶺高球場佔地172公頃，乃是政府根據「私人遊樂場地契約」方式批出，多年來儼如權貴俱樂部。2010年代政府推動新界東北發展計劃，粉嶺高球場未被納入發展範圍，外界已有質疑聲音；審計報告也認為，有迫切需要全面檢討私人遊樂場地政策。
上屆政府發起「土地大辯論」，粉嶺高球場建屋再度提上議事日程，既得利益大力反對，除了保護珍貴樹木外，又搬出交通負荷、體育發展等不同理由。反對一方策略是採取拖字訣，設法阻慢建屋計劃落實，再以「緩不濟急」、「中長期有其他供應選項」為由，拖死發展計劃。
受官司影響，政府之前已把地皮移交房署發展的時間推遲兩個年度。今次裁決意味，建屋計劃至少要額外再拖一兩年。如果當局已經「無心戀戰」，倒不如現在就索性說清楚，無謂浪費時間或公帑延續戲碼。
高院裁決後，高球會表示將去信政府，期望討論將舊場變成所謂「歷史生態公園」，同時容許在場內打高球。政府收回粉嶺舊場作為公園開放給市民，容許場內打波，很難同時兼顧遊人安全，除非當局變相讓舊場「復活」，指定某些日子時段專供預約者打波。
香港有滘西洲公眾高爾夫球場，就算政府放棄建屋計劃，也不等於一定要將粉嶺舊場「復辟」為高球場，當局應該致力令舊場公園設施更完善更方便，讓一般市民隨時都能享用，至於原本用來建屋的土地，也可以改作其他發展用途。
/ Glossary生字 /
play-acting：behaviour that seems to be honest and sincere when in fact the person is pretending
concession：sth that you allow or do, or allow sb to have, in order to end an argument or to make a situation less difficult
deficiency：the state of not having, or not having enough of, sth that is essential
Audio files provided by John W