Approval for public housing on Fanling Golf Course quashed

Eunice Lam

The Hong Kong Golf Club won a legal challenge yesterday as the government's approval to build 12,000 public flats on part of the Fanling Golf Course was overturned.

High Court judge Russel Coleman ruled that the government must reconduct a public consultation on its environmental impact assessment report on the 172-hectare course.

The government took back 32 hectares of land from the course last year, planning to use 9.5 hectares of it to develop public housing.

Conditional approval was given to the environmental impact assessment report in May 2023, which led to the green light to build public flats.

HKGC lodged a judicial review, asking the court to overturn the approval. In August last year, the court granted an interim stay of the decision of the director of environmental protection to approve the EIA report.

Part of the challenges raised by the club was accepted by Coleman in his 218-page written verdict.

"I think the quashing of the decision could lead ... [to a] reconsultation," Coleman said.

HKGC raised concerns in its judicial review application about inaccuracies in the EIA report, stating that it failed to comply with the requirements of technical memoranda and was filled with errors.

In one instance, the report mentioned one species of bat and 38 moth species in the area, while the club asserted there should be 15 and at least 729, respectively.

Additionally, the report did not document 80 old trees in the Register of Old and Valuable Trees, nor did it present a proper estimation of the ecological damage to bats, moths and Chinese water pines in the area - to which the government argued it had adopted a less stringent approach in the report.

HKGC also asserted a public law failure to release the additional information for public consultation and that the government failed to exhibit the report for public comment.

"The outcome of the present challenge and the reconsideration that should result would be a highly material step in connection with decisions relating to the future use of the site," Coleman said.

"It seems to me that the logical effect of quashing the decision is to put the process back into the position that it was before the decision."

He added that the EIA process, which was started for this project, had been interrupted by the decision that had been made "unlawfully."

The judge said "the interrupted process can now restart," while refuting the government's claim that the challenge was academic. Coleman also said that while the Advisory Council on the Environment did have some opportunity to comment on the additional information, the statutory process envisages that it should have that opportunity to make comments with the benefit of any other comments received from members of the public - which did not happen.

"As a matter of fact, the public was only consulted on part of the EIA report in its final form. That is contrary to the requirements of the [EIA Ordinance]," he said.

"In short, I find that the fairness and integrity of the process set out in the [EIA Ordinance] properly construed, demanded reconsultation once the additional information was produced to form part of the EIA report."

In a statement, the club welcomed the verdict and reiterated the Fanling Golf Course has huge biological and cultural values, and the three championship-level golf courses - including the Old Course involved in the case - are an integral part of it.

It added the club hopes "under the principle of optimizing the three championship-level courses to continue to comply with the government's policy in developing tourism by sports events and to promote a mega event economy."

eunice.lam@singtaonewscorp.com