Hong Kong Golf Club applies for judicial review to overturn govt approval of environmental assessment report

The Hong Kong Golf Club applied for a judicial review in a bid to overturn the approval of an environmental impact assessment report, citing its lack of public consultation and underestimating the ecological value after authorities planned to take back part of the Fanling golf course for public housing development.

The Club stated that there were many adjustments to the housing development project mentioned in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report in an effort to reduce the impact on the existing environment at Fanling golf course. 

However, the Director of Environmental Protection, Samuel Chui Ho-kwong, did not allow the public and other stakeholders to state their opinions, and his decision to approve the report without any explanation at all was "aberrant," the Golf Club said.

The Club also critiqued the report, stating that it had not thought of the Club's responses, and the approval of the report heavily understated the ecological or environmental values.

The Club pointed out that the report did not find any old trees that were recorded in the Old and Valuable Trees (OVTs), along with being unable to find other OVTs that could potentially be added to the OVT register.

However, the Club's consultants found that there are about 25 trees that could likely be classified as OVTs as they had characteristics similar to or greater than those on the existing OVT registers.

The Club also thought that the report suggested transplanting the 34 trees, including the OVTs that the consultants identified, away from the golf course went against the government's conservation measures, which state that they have to do their utmost to preserve and maintain the trees when planning land development.

Separately, the Town Planning Board on Monday approved a move to alter the designated 9.54 hectares of land for a public housing development plan on the Fanling golf course as an “undetermined” zone. 

This came after the Planning Department proposed last month to temporarily revise the relevant land as an “undetermined” zone from the previously stated “Residential (Group A)”.

The government stressed earlier that the revision was only to provide a buffer period for relevant authorities to adjust the development layout.