保育

保留加多近街公園致梁振英公開信

廣告
保留加多近街公園致梁振英公開信

廣告

攝:何哲瑩

致特首梁振英:

我們是堅尼地城街坊。我們請求特首將「前堅尼地城焚化爐及毗鄰用地除污工程FCR(2015-16)35) 」撥款申請從立法會財委會暫時剔除。原因是此工程牽涉清拆加多近街臨時花園和毗鄰用地的規劃方案, 而規劃方案(堅尼地城及摩星嶺分區計劃大綱草圖)正上城規會作公眾咨詢,但仍未批准。因此先撥款除污拆掉公園不符合程序公義和公眾利益。而街坊對規劃內容仍有很多反對意見,除污工程的風險更是令整個社區擔憂。因此,懇請特首令發展局和土木工程署暫緩除污撥款申請,待規劃方案及相關土地用途及工程風險問題得到解決和跟居民溝通後,才向財委會提出撥款要求,尊重程序公義。十分謝謝你能聽取民意!

詳細的理由如下:

1)政府已在港島區海濱發展專責小組會中表明若不是為發展(起樓),加多近街臨時花園(「公園」)沒有除汚必要,除非是為了起樓。因為汚物埋在地下很穩定,所以用了19年多都無事(註一)。現在的環評報告偏頗,除污的要求是為了達到住宅樓宇用途標準,所以費用極高。

2)政府已向城規會申請更改公園土地用途,現正進行公眾諮詢,為了不違反程序公義,理應在城規會正式批准改土地用途後才討論撥款。否則便浪費公帑,拆了公園又再起公園

3)超過2000多名區民簽名爭取保留公園,人數不斷上升,證明強行清拆公園是嚴重違反民意,剝奪區民在當區唯一一個有質素的休憩用地(加多近街臨時花園是堅城西唯一平地草地樹林公園, 同區內沒有可代替的休憩用地)。以下是眾居民及老人家保留公園的訴求和心聲。 (please also see attached photos of the petition signatures created by Kennedy Town residents' and elders' own hands, kneeling down at Cadogan Street park to hope that our government can conserve the park)

4)政府以建屋為名清拆公園,但只為了600個私人豪宅花11億而十年後才有的單位(每單位花近二百萬港元除污),對港人住屋問題於事無補,卻又花掉納稅人的血汗錢來剝削區民應有的休憩用地。同時區民有其他方案可以讓政府在同區建相等數量的單位,而又可保留公園。為何政府要趕盡殺絕,不和區民商討?留下公園可使全區萬多人得益享用; 但建豪宅只是一小撮人得益,卻剝奪了萬多人的綠化空間、生活質素和11億的納稅人血汗錢,這值得嗎?

5)去年土木工程署已說明除污有空氣污染的問題要處理。這公園極近民區的除污應該是香港首次,如何確保沒有意外及應變措施在環評報告中沒有詳細指出。同時,中大研究報告也指出政府採用的除污方法對除某些污染物是不夠有效(註二)。政府要先制定應變措施及賠償計劃. 倘若我們在除污工程帶來風險和可能的超支都未有詳細評估和結論前,立法會議員就此審批,一旦將來發生事故,就如「鉛水」事件,請問你們對得住香港市民嗎?

懇請特首及發展局體恤居民的訴求撤銷財委會項目FCR(2015-16)35) ——前堅尼地城焚化爐及毗鄰用地除污工程撥款申請,直至以上問題得到解決為止。

堅尼地城街坊及守護堅城關注組敬上
二零一六年三月十五日

守護堅城關注組由堅尼地城居民組成,目的是保育區內綠化休憩用地和關注堅尼地城規劃和加多近街臨時花園的土地用途。

註一: Latest Comments from Members of the Task Force on Harbourfront Developments on Hong Kong Island on “Ground Decontamination Works at the Site of the Ex-Kennedy Town Incineration Plant/Abattoir and Adjoining Area” (as at 24.2.2016)

Mr Ivan HO Man-yiu, representing Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design: “I am no expert on this soil contamination aspect and I supposed that the paper is telling us it is serious, or even dangerous to the health of people. As a layman, can I ask if the degree of soil contamination in this area is so serious, will the HM and HC been absorbed and stay in the vegetation grow on the ground? Will these vegetation bear any health hazard to the people in particular if they pick it up in the garden and “eat” it? Are there any warning notice being posted in the garden? Appreciate that you can enlighten me further on the above.”

Response from government: “The contaminated soil at the Cadogan Street Temporary Garden (CSTG) has been found at various depths up to 9m below the ground level, and is currently covered by either a top soil layer or concrete paving. It is generally under a stable condition if not disturbed or exposed by any earth moving works. As no unacceptable impact on the nearby environment and users of the garden is envisaged, no warning notice is posted.

Since the CSTG site will be re-developed, soil decontamination at the site to meet relevant remediation standards is required prior to the re-development.”

註二:Conclusive study done by Department of Biology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong on abandoned Shipyard in North Tsing Yi to compare the merits between the fungal method and the biopile method (used by the government)

本硏究首要目的是硏究生物堆(biopile)處理有機污染物和鳳尾菇堆肥物(Pleurotus pulmonarius mushroom compost) 處理有機污染物成效的對照。香港政府原用現場非原位生物堆(biopile)的方法處理北青衣船塢的有機污染物,這生物堆處理(biopile treatment)會作對照。

Results on page 3: “然而,B.cereus和P. aeruginosa反映生物堆處理後的泥土毒性比真菌處理的爲高。生物堆(biopile)處理有機污染物的成效” “Biopile treated soil was found to be more toxic than the fungal treated soil towards B. cereus and P. aeruginosa.”

廣告