Dear Mr. Sargent,
Objection to Proposed Works
Improvement to footpath from Luk Chau to Lo Tik Wan, South Lamma
Thank you for your email of 18 March 2002.
This project is initiated by the Village Representative of Luk Chau Village and the Village Representative of Lo Tik Wan Village together with a view to provide a road link for the villagers and hikers to travel between Luk Chau and Lo Tik Wan. Subsequent to our receiving the request, our works staff has visited the site and found that the footpath there is in a dilapidated state and covered by dense wild growth. The footpath may be inconvenient and unsafe for use by pedestrians, especially the elderly during rainy days. We have therefore proposed to carry out the improvement works, with the objective of providing a safer and more comfortable access for use by villagers and tourists.
Regarding the proposed scope of the project, please be informed that the footpath would be reconstructed in more or less the same width and length of the existing one for pedestrian use only. On your concern about our proposed use of concrete in the footpath improvement works, we would be pleased to use sub-due coloured stones when surfacing the footpath to make it more compatible with the natural surroundings.
Please be ensured that we would take all feasible steps to try to minimize the impact of all the said projects on the environment. We would like to reiterate that there are provisions in our contracts that require the contractors to minimize the adverse impact of their works on the environment.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Y Y Li at 2852 4333.
Yours sincerely,
Claudia Tong
for District Officer (Islands)
Dear Mr. Sargant,
Further to my email message of 24 April 2002, we have conducted a thorough investigation and I am now able to give you more detailed information on your enquiry-
Number of complaints received
Up to the present moment, we have received a total of about 60 complaints from the public.
Population figures
Regarding the population figures of these two villages, we do not maintain separate population figures for individual villages. According to the information given by the village representatives, the population figures for Luk Chau and Lo Tik Wan stand at about 180 and 80 respectively. These figures probably include those villagers who consider themselves based at the two villages. As an indicative figure, the number of registered voters in the two villages at the last village election in 1998¡V99 stood at 130 and 123 respectively.
Background
This proposed project was initiated jointly by the village representatives of Luk Chau Village and Lo Tik Wan Village in 2001.They pointed out that in the absence of public water transport between the two villages, many tourists resorted to rock climbing to travel from one village to another. As such, they urged this office to construct, on safety grounds, a footpath between the two villages. Upon receipt of their request, this office has conducted site visits to study whether the proposal is technically feasible. Initially, we considered the construction of a footpath along the beach directly linking the two villages. We decided, however, that this option in not viable as this would involve extensive excavation works along the coast. As an alternative, we proposed to pave the existing footpath. In our initial design, in order to match with the naturalness of the environment, we have decided to use natural/subdue coloured stone as the paving materials for the footpath surfaces.
Present position
In view of the objections received, we have intention to shelve the project. Nonetheless, I hope you would appreciate that we need to revert to the Rural Committees concerned, the Islands District Council for further consultation.
I trust the above have addressed the various points raised in your emails.
Yours sincerely,
Claudia
for District Officer, Islands
Dear Ms Tong,
Thanks for your statement, I was very happy to hear this project has been "shelved", but as this does not mean "cancelled", I will comment on some of the points made in your message, in case it should be revived at some point.
At 05:39 PM 8/05/02 +0800, you wrote:
> Population figures
>
> Regarding the population figures of these two villages, we do not
> maintain separate population figures for individual villages. According to the
> information given by the village representatives, the population figures
> for Luk Chau and Lo Tik Wan stand at about 180 and 80 respectively.
> These figures probably include those villagers who consider themselves
> based at the two villages. As an indicative figure, the number of
> registered voters in the two villages at the last village election in
> 1998/99 stood at 130 and 123 respectively.
Anybody who has visited these villages knows how ridiculous these figures are. While 180 people may have some property or voting rights or other links to Luk Chau, it is entirely absurd to base government investment in infrastructure on populations which are physically resident in other places, probably even other countries. A resident of Luk Chau for many years tells me that there are only TWO houses normally inhabited there by villagers, and perhaps a dozen others rented out to residents or weekenders. The latter group would not be included in your figures (and never consulted on works). Of the 180 villagers, only 3-4 actually live there. Similarly, except during a few traditional festivals, in visiting Lo Tik I have never seen anyone there at all. Both villages are ghost towns. I'm amazed that you rely on figures supplied by the village representatives who have an obvious conflict of interest, as they can control a much larger budget by inventing a larger population, as they have evidently done. Why are Census figure not used? Why does the government perform a census if not to get reliable population figures to plan its works?
I in principle object to requests from "village representatives" to destroy countryside far outside the boundaries of their villages being entertained so easily. If they want to entomb their own village in concrete, that's just a waste of money. But they have no right to destroy the rest of the countryside, affecting many more people than live in these two villages.
> Background
>
> This proposed project was initiated jointly by the village
> representatives of Luk Chau Village and Lo Tik Wan Village in 2001.They
> pointed out that in the absence of public water transport between the
> two villages, many tourists resorted to rock climbing to travel from one
> village to another. As such, they urged this office to construct, on
> safety grounds, a footpath between the two villages. Upon receipt of
Why was this rationale not mentioned earlier? In previous messages, the excuse for the "improved" path was for older residents to visit the other village. "Many tourists" is simply a lie. A few each year might do this. The hikers who clamber over the rocks (and I know some people who have done it) do so because of the challenge, not because of a desire to visit the other village, as honestly there is nothing in either village to attract tourists.
Also, tourists (as opposed to local hikers, who know the paths) only end up in these villages by mistake, as there is a paucity of signage. Simple notices at the beginning of the paths branching to the two villages saying "Luk Chau -- No Through Road" or similar would suffice to prevent lost tourists ending up at a dead end.
For the $1.4 million budgeted for the path, the "absence of public water transport" could be solved. One of the keepers of a fish farm in Luk Chau Wan could be paid a retainer of $10,000/month for twelve years to be on call for that amount. Instead of an hour's walk, a three minute boat ride would do. Of course, this would also be a foolish expense, as all the villagers have boats or access to boats; and the government has recently built new enormous piers in each village.
> their request, this office has conducted site visits to study whether
> the proposal is technically feasible. Initially, we considered the
> construction of a footpath along the beach directly linking the two
> villages. We decided, however, that this option in not viable as this
> would involve extensive excavation works along the coast. As an
> alternative, we proposed to pave the existing footpath.
The problem is that this "alternative" does not solve your stated problem. To walk the route proposed for your "improved" path takes well over one hour.
And actually, as I and many others have pointed out, the existing path is perfectly trafficable, it does not need paving. My four-year-old daughter has no problem in walking it. So your solution would be a complete waste of money, as well as vandalising a natural feature that does attract residents and visitors.
Further, a direct path above the coast could follow the 6" water main pipe between the villages. This does not appear to be a difficult route, the Water Supply department managed to build there; and the amount of earthworks looks to be about the same as would be required for the initial stage of the proposed path from Lo Tik up to the ridge. Incidentally, I have seen no signs of any actual survey of the hillside above the coast. The scrub is thick and unbroken (an obstacle for hikers, but not for engineering works).
> In our initial
> design, in order to match with the naturalness of the environment, we
> have decided to use natural/subdue coloured stone as the paving
> materials for the footpath surfaces.
This would be an interesting development, as none of the other paths or constructions on Lamma have been designed with any sensitivity to the environment at all. Many picturesque streams have been turned into slimy concrete drains, many trodden paths turned into sterile wide roadways (though with no traffic), useless guardrails that actually cause accidents and rust quickly are all over the landscape. This is the reason you have received so many objections, people here have no confidence that the natural beauty of Lamma, the reason many people live here, is respected or valued by the District Office, and certainly not by the "village representatives" who represent only their personal financial interests, ignoring the vast majority of residents and taxpayers who have no say.
Supporting some of the points above, please refer to this web page. Here you will see photos of the path, demonstrating that it is NOT "dilapidated and covered with dense growth" as your earlier response claimed. There are photos showing current uses, including biking, walking dogs, jogging. Also a photo of the headland between the villages showing possible direct link, and finally an example of the type of concrete path that typically disfigures Lamma's countryside.
> Present position
>
> In view of the objections received, we have intention to shelve the
> project. Nonetheless, I hope you would appreciate that we need to revert
> to the Rural Committees concerned, the Islands District Council for
> further consultation.
Thank you, and I hope you will inform me and the other objectors should this plan be unshelved. In future also I hope that notices of any proposed works in the countryside be placed at the affected area, on sturdy posts (removed after 30 days), not just for a few days in villages distant from the works area, or single sheets of paper sticky-taped to a tree until it blows away a day later.
Sincerely
Alan Sargent