The group comprises several postgraduates in geography and urban planning, and over the years has sparked discussion by exposing abuses of the city’s small-house policy – or ding rights – and other land issues.

Its latest research also relates to that colonial housing policy dating to 1972 which favours adult male indigenous villagers in the New Territories.

The policy allows such an individual, or ding, to build a “small house” – up to three storeys, with each floor limited to 700 sq ft – on his own land or a government lot bought at a discount. More than 42,000 such houses have been built over the years.

An official task force on land supply reported in 2018 that there were about 900 hectares of government land reserved for small houses but not yet allocated.

It did not recommend rezoning this vacant land for a different use, such as public housing, saying the plots were scattered and fragmented.

Instead, it advised the authorities to consider reviewing the small-house policy when the judicial process concluded.

Responding to queries from the Post, the Development Bureau said village zones were meant for low-density development and their potential was restricted by existing infrastructure.

“It seems unrealistic to assume that vacant land can support high density development in the short run,” it said, adding that it was not appropriate to review the policy when the judicial bid was not yet completed.

Small-house policy needs further scrutiny, Hong Kong court says

‘Not troublesome to merge plots’

There is no official data on the amount of available private land in “village type development zones” exclusive for small houses.

But Liber said it found about 1,500 hectares of private land in such zones and related areas, and 730 lots bigger than the 0.05-hectare threshold for being considered “fragmented”.

It highlighted examples of areas where it said the government could take back the land to combine and create larger plots for development. These include lands held by developers for a long time.

Its first example was in Yuen Long, where it found vacant private lots in Lam Hau and Shan Ha villages that could be merged with adjacent idle government land and brownfield sites – primarily agricultural land occupied for industrial, storage or logistic uses – to generate 6.5 hectares.

Liber said although the land was nearly encircled by the 185-hectare Yuen Long South development area, which is 10 times the size of Victoria Park, it had not been included in the plan to build 32,850 new flats south of Yuen Long New Town.

Liber member Ha Shun-kuen said the government had previously explained it would be troublesome to buy back the private village land, but added that it failed to consider the potential of combining the private plots with adjacent sites.

Fellow researcher Brain Wong Shiu-hung said: “If you look at the different types of land individually, each will look small and fragmented. But they are actually connected and located right next to each other, so they can be merged to make a sizeable housing site.”

Tang Che-keung, chairman of Ping Shan Rural Committee, which oversees matters of the two villages, declined to comment.

Liber’s second example highlighted the presence of private developers in these rural sites.

It said that at Sheung Wo Che village in Sha Tin, some lots in a vacant 1.37-hectare site had been held since 1994 by Global Fair Development. One of the company’s directors is Peter Lam Kin-ngok, chairman of property developer Lai Sun Group.

In neighbouring Pai Tau village, another company has held some lots in a 0.78-hectare site since 1992. Two of the company’s directors are also directors of Global Fair.

Liber said these idle lots were a waste of resources and should be bought back by the government for public housing.

A spokeswoman for Lai Sun Group declined to comment.

Lam Kwok-yin, a former village head of Pai Tau, said he respected the rights of developers even though their land had been idle.

He was open to building subsidised housing in his village, provided that the villagers were given land to build small houses, either in traditional form or as multistorey blocks, an idea floated by officials more than a decade ago.

In its report, Liber also alleged “collusion” between villagers and developers, where some ding might have sold their right to build small houses to developers in secret deals.

Law researchers moot tradeable land rights to ease housing woes

Although it had no proof of such deals, it said there were suspicious signs in some areas from the way the lots were divided with land set aside for roads.

But surveyor Albert So Chun-hin said: “Every landlord has the right to divide their land without seeking government approval. For example, someone could decide to divide their land into lots and split it with their siblings. You can’t say the act of land division is illegal.”

The Development Bureau said the division of land and reservation of road space in village zones was not uncommon in individual villagers’ applications to build small houses, and these were not necessarily an indicator of illegal transfer of ding rights.

It added that it had received 608 complaints about the illegal sale of ding rights last year and investigations were under way.

Professor Ng Mee-kam, director of the urban studies programme at Chinese University, said the government must strike a balance between rethinking planning in the New Territories and fulfilling the needs of indigenous villagers, as well as respecting traditions of the place.

She said authorities could improve planning in the New Territories by having an overall vision for an area, rather than just carving out chunks of land in village zones to develop in a “rather disjointed” way.

Pointing out that the government was obliged to relocate villagers if their land was affected, she added: “The indigenous villagers may not be too happy as well because they’re being left alone rather than being a part of this regeneration of the whole area.”