Hong Kong green activist given court go-ahead to challenge dumping of waste at Lantau wetland site
But High Court judge rules out order to halt the dumping pending court proceedings
On a cold , damp day in a tucked away corner of south Lantau, buffalo stroll casually onto an expansive grassy wetland for a morning graze.
It makes for a tranquil, pastoral sight, apart from the metre-high mounds of rubble and construction waste piled up on several plots of land there. The eyesore at Pui O has irked local residents and villagers for years. Many also fear the buffalo could disappear as the greenery vanishes.
It therefore came as a pleasant surprise for them yesterday when the High Court gave the go-ahead for a judicial challenge against the environmental authorities for allowing such dumping on the wetlands, which are on land zoned for coastal protection but with an awkward patchwork of private, corporate and government ownership.
Mui Wo resident Christian Masset, a former chairman of green group Clear the Air, has been given permission to challenge the director of environmental protection’s decisions to allow construction waste to be dumped at four sites near the wetlands between 2014 and this year.
The sites are on the fringe of the wetlands between Ham Tim San Tsuen and Pui O beach, according to the court writ.
A visit to the site on Wednesday revealed that the marsh was still pockmarked with rubble. A mysterious rust-covered, half-built structure lay abandoned in one corner. One conservationist said these were “destroy first, build later” tactics.
“Landowners know officials can’t do much as the land is private and the likelihood of zoning getting changed is higher when the land is degraded,” said Save Lantau Alliance convenor Eric Kwok Ping. “When the opportunity for development comes, they say, ‘what wetland?’”
The Environmental Protection Department declined to comment on the case as the judicial process was under way, but stressed it did not accept any “destroy first, build later” behaviour.
The hearing yesterday centred on what Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung called a “vacuum”.
Barrister Jonathan Chang, for the director, argued that the environmental protection chief, once he was approached by a property owner, would acknowledge the request and give permission, but environmental considerations would not be taken into account in making a decision.
Chang also argued that the Waste Disposal Ordinance suggested the need for a licensing system, but the relevant provision had not yet been put in effect.
The court refused to grant interim relief to Masset, who sought a halt to dumping until the judicial review was completed.
Au said Masset, represented by barrister Robin McLeish, was unable to demonstrate the environmental risks involved and the sense of urgency in the case.
The review is expected to start after both sides file related documents to the court.