【新田科技城規劃申述】專家都冇眼睇！

發佈時間：2024年6月1日　

新田科技城規劃申述接獲9成反對，傳媒亦有廣泛報道部分著名人物的意見。研究員細閱1600度份申述書，發現了不少未被注視的申述內容，深入分析有助我們理解民意有多一面倒。當中不乏有理有節、大量基於數據和科學的申述，當中最全面的，要算是資深大律師白理桃Ruy Baretto (申述編號S440)。

白理桃除了是資深大律師，還是嘉道理農場的董事會成員，對環境議題熟悉，亦是「民間土地資源專家組」(Citizens Task Force on Land Resources)成員，關注香港土地規劃問題。

申述書不長，只有7頁，但載有46個精簡論點「痛擊」新田科技城規劃，涵蓋法律原則、規劃原則、政策合理性、環境保護概念，現精選如下，幾乎全部質疑政府都未有（或根本不能）回答（英文為原文）：

／／「不符保育原則、真實的平衡發展以及合法和理性的規劃」(Does not comply with principles for conservation and genuine balanced development and lawful or rational planning)

／／「雀鳥飛行路線變成摩天大廈間的『石屎峽谷』，根本無用」(Flying routes are to become concrete canyons between buildings. This is not proved to be helpful)

／／「沒有任何一個世界級城市能這樣倒退，多年來香港的濕地保育正正是說好香港故事的代表」(No world class cities would contemplate such a backward step. Hong Kong wetlands conservation have for years been an international “good story” for the Flyway)

／／「數十年來，城規會都依賴科學證據，堅守著濕地緩衝區，免她們受私人發展利益破壞，今天城規會竟為了同一種私人發展利益，將所有原則拋棄」”After decades of the Board defending the Buffer Area against private developments based on scientific evidence from the Government, now suddenly they are abandoned for development interests”

／／「沒有將國際條約下的責任列為發展限制，反之竟將三寶樹濕地視之為發展機遇，違反北都政策下積極保育概念，以及國際準則」(The ES briefly notes the ecological importance and current ecological connectivity…but this does not list as constraints and opportunities our international obligations under the Convention on Biodiveristy)

／／「找了整份文件，也看不到任何部分執行『城鄉共融、積極保育』這兩個北部都會區重要的兩項規劃原則，不能顯示這份環評報告是可靠，而且民間的詳細申述已證明了這點」 （Two planning principles govern the design and development of the Northern Metropolis: …Urban-Rural Integraton and Proactive Conservation…These are not taken forward in the ES with any proposals. The EIA has been shown to be not reliable and has been discredited by detailed submission)

／／「無生態功能淨損失….要人工優化餘下未被破壞濕地的生境，有何理據認為能夠在剩下一半的空間，用人工手法，令生態功能翻倍？而且還要在高樓大廈中間。做不到怎麼辦？這樣做，是地產商在要求城規會承擔巨大風險」(No net loss of ecological function and capacity…claims some artificial enhancement of remaining habitats as the universal remedy …it has not been proved that double the ecological function can be artificially created with half the area of land which is to be squeezed between industrial commercial and residential blocks. The developers are asking the Board to take on significant risks)

／／「新田的生態系統錯綜複雜，試圖將魚塘填掉，再在「魚工廠」倒入以噸計的養殖魚，就認為能夠恢復原有的生態功能，這無法被證實是可持續及可行」“It is not proved to be sustainable and feasible to restore ecological function to the complex web of life living in san tin by dumping tons of farmed fish into some ponds for ever. It is not prudent or reasonable to compensate by having industrial fish factories/aquaculture.”

／／「新田魚塘的洪泛區，對整個區域的治水能力至關重要。在北部都會區的政策下，理應被看待為一個應對氣候危機的可持續和經濟的治水策略。將魚塘填掉，並將昂貴且敏感的產業放在洪泛區，是增加風險；在氣候危機下，華南地區水浸不斷，這樣做必定招致規劃災難」“The floodplain area is important for regional flood control and should be part of sustainable and economical me’thods for our climate crisis survival planning as per the NM policy. It is increasing the high risk to put high cost and sensitive factories in the ponds and wetlands in a flood plan. In an era of Climate Crisis with repeated flooding events in South China, as had been predicted, building in a flood plain wetland is a recipe for planning disasters.”

／／「高科技公司和它們的投資者不是盲的，它們會看風險和聲譽。他們不會看不到那是填掉濕地的地方，他們不會看不到那邊會水浸所帶來的風險和缺點，他們更不會預視不到，『漂綠』也洗不掉它們進駐新田科技城所帶來的聲譽損失。新田科技城將無法與大灣區城市競爭。」

“Tech companies and investors considering the exposure and impacts of conservation flood plain wetland sites will assess the risks and disadvantages they will face when operating and selling products and services from this special former wetland. Building on conservation area……will be disclosed. Green washing will not remove the stain caused by tech companies use of biodiverse wetlands. When competing with GBA, the Technopole land will be leased at a disadvantage.”

閱畢這份有力申述，即使新田科技城有多重要，應否繼續以這種方法推進計劃？若以大局、民意、科學和理性規劃原則行事，答案極之明顯。