Dear Ms Tong,
I tried to phone Mr Li but so far he hasn't returned my call. With the deadline for making objections approaching, I will do so now with the information I have.
Please see below for my comments:
Firstly, the proposed footpath as it is now is NOT "dilapidated and covered by dense wild growth." Only a short section, 1-200 metres, coming uphill from Lo Tik Wan to join the main ridge path, is overgrown and difficult. I have no objection to that, essentially new, path being improved. The rest of the path, proceeding SE from there, is in open country and with only a few rough patches is mostly an easy and pleasant walk.
I find it hard to believe that there is any demand for the "improved" path as planned. I have never, in several years, seen anyone, except recreational walkers, using this path. Also, recently there was extensive and no doubt expensive, work done on the path from the west coast path by the Youth Hostel to Luk Chau. I have never seen anyone using this path, except the workers who built it.
If residents of these villages wished to visit the other village, they would, I feel sure, use a boat. It is no more than 500 metres by sea, a few minutes, between villages, there are many boats and several piers at each village. To walk, even by the proposed new path, would mean a steep ascent and descent and take probably an hour. I don't know why the village representatives want such a path; perhaps prestige, perhaps they have an interest in the construction contract, perhaps they wish to have easier access to the hillsides to construct more gravesites. But I am sure that no one will use the path to walk from village to village more often.
If a connecting path was considered necessary, it could be built by improving the truly "severely overgrown" path connecting the villages above the east coast. This would be less than 500 metres, about 1/10th of the length of the proposed path looping to the west side of the island crossing the ridge twice. The villagers might actually use this.
I am concerned that the words "road link" was used to describe this project. For vehicular access there is already a wide path connecting the villages, via the cable road and west coast path.
Much of the existing path is no more than 30cm wide. How wide will the new path be? Will the proposed path be wider? Will it have a guardrail?
There have been terrible eyesores built through the countryside, such as at Mo Tat Wan on south Lamma, so I expect a new path would be similarly overengineered, intrusive and destructive.
> 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.
I would hope so, but experience has shown that contractors dump construction waste whenever they can get away with it. For instance, visit Hung Shing Yeh beach and see the sharp grey gravel that is everywhere mixed in the sand years after the "improvement" works there.
Sincerely
Alan Sargent
GF 36 Tai Wan Kau Tsuen
Lamma Island
Your ref: IS 144/01-02
Dear Miss Tong,
Further to our telephone calls of today. I am writing to express my objection to the proposal put forward by the village representatives of Lo Tik Wan and Luk Chau for path improvement in the hills of Lamma Island.
There is no need for this path to be 'improved'. The majority of this path is not in poor repair and it is currently a very pleasant and natural footpath for hikers. It is hard to see why villagers would walk between the two villages of Luk Chau and Lo Tik Wan, when the two villages are both fishing based and each has access to the other by boat. A steep hill walk up and then down again is hardly an appropriate walk for elderly residents, with or without a concrete path.
This site is an integral part of the Lamma hill trails which attract vast numbers or tourists, who come here for the natural beauty that Lamma has to offer. To destroy this natural trail and replace it with concrete, or any man made material, flies in the face of conservation and would be detrimental to Lamma's heritage.
I also question the cost of the proposal based on the number of residents who would 'benefit' from its completion. How many residents actually live, and I don't mean own property, in the two villages? They have both seen extensive government expenditure in recent years with reconstruction of ferry piers and barbecue pits in Lo Tik Wan, which I have yet to see being used. What is the costing justification for this project?
Finally, I would like to register my very strong objection to the way in which the gazette for this project remained hidden until today, the final date for receipt of objections. This is an outrageous way to run open government, and, despite many objections about the same happening before this case, nothing has been done to ensure that the gazettes are posted correctly and in timely fashion.
I spoke to Mr YY Li today on Lamma and have voiced this strong concern to him. I am, frankly, stunned that another case has reared its head so quickly and am intending to contact the Ombudsman about it. I feel that we, as Lamma residents, are facing the erosion of Lamma's natural beauty by stealth and by government trickery.
I look forward to your prompt reply on this matter and look forward to a full explanation as to why the simplest act of gazetting a project cannot be carried out.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Gower
Ref: 21/2/2002 01/32/2002/3L
Dear Ms Tong,
I am writing regarding the proposed concrete path to connect Lok Tik Wan and Luk Chau Wan.
I have been a resident of Luk Chau Wan for 16 years and have watched the recent concretisation of the countryside with dismay. I understand that many people from Hong Kong like to come to Lamma at weekends to enjoy its natural beauty and comparative fresh air, so why is the District Islands Office so determined to spoil what we have here.
It's not just the concrete paths, but the completely unnecessary railings and stainless steel signs (for the District Island Office) etc, and the fact that whenever work takes place, building debris is left behind. When existing paths are dug up, the old concrete is just thrown to the side of the path and left, and excess new concrete is also just left. Not to mention the general rubbish that the workers just throw by the path.
I previously wrote to your office to question the building of the large pier at Luk Chau Wan and was told that it had been requested by the Luk Chau Village Committee. Its purpose apparently was to serve the inhabitants of the whole bay. I pointed out at the time that the old Luk Chau Village was derelict and that the new residents of Luk Chau (inluding myself) lived at the other end of the bay and that although we had an existing small pier, it was too short to be used at low tide and I requested that this pier either be extended by a few feet or the seabed dredged to allow access at these times. I was told that there was no money available to do this work and anyway, we should all use the new pier -- which, incidentally, is a 15-minute walk through woods which at night are unlit, full of big spiders and snakes (many poisonous). I would be interested to see how many of the people in your office would care to make this walk carrying heavy bags of shopping late at night.
To add to this, we have since seen even more concreting of the beach path and the surroundings in the bay (Temple end) and the erection of railings. Why? For what?
Why can't the public's money be spent on useful things like signposts, which I have previously requested. Every weekend I have people appear at my house (in Luk Chau) thinking they are in Yung Shue Wan because there are no signposts. If you can afford the useless stainless steel District Island Office signs (and what purpose are they supposed to serve?), why can't you erect simple direction signs?
Why are trees planted in the middle of winter and then not watered so they die?
And most importantly, how does every request, however unreasonable, from the Luk Chau Village Commiteee result in vast sums of public money being spent on totally unnecessary projects? This committee is, as you must know, the Yiu family. However, there are only 4 family members still resident in Luk Chau, one of them being the only full time resident of the old village. The other 3 family members live outside the village, have their own pier and never, as far as I am aware, even go to Lo Tik Wan.
There was no reason for the huge pier to be built and there is no reason for the concrete path. To claim (as is your standard reply noted from previous letters) that it is for elderly people is laughable. Elderly people do not go hiking in the hills, or if they do (are fit enough), they would be happy to use the existing tracks. What is it with your department that you seem determined to cover our beautiful countryside with concrete, plastic benches and signs? Widen and improve paths by all means, but leave them natural and spend the money on planting trees and greenery and cleaning up old building debris.
And if your answer as always is "the Luk Chau Village Commitee requested it" I would like to see the justification behind your compliance. For four people.
Yours sincerely,
Sally Andersen
1 Temple Bay
Luk Chau Wan
Lamma Island
Dear Alan,
My name is Carrie Lo, living in Tai Peng old village.
I receive an e-mail forwarded by my friend living in Po Wah Yuen regarding the Lamma Path. I am interested in the issue.
I am glad to have a channel to say. I don't know either the agenda nor the DLO?
I would like to share my feeling and experience in the following 2 pts:
Road work in Tung O -- around 20 years ago when that was the 1st time I visited Tung O, the beach was beautiful. Beautiful sands, beautiful hills.
When I visited there again this Feb, it was horrible. A cement road was built, more cement than sand, which totally destroyed the nature.
The hill just up from Tung O -- I don't know the name of hill in English -- when I went hiking last year. Again it was horrible. The natural path was replaced by cement stairs. It was so difficult to climb the stairs. All hikers would prefer walking on PATH instead of STAIRS!! And there are a lot of natural rocks with different shapes, looking like tortoise, Mickey Mouse, moon, etc. However, the officials had built some cement foundations under these beautiful natural rocks. I think they were doing something to SECURE the rocks, the whole scene was destroyed.
I was so disappointed that these people are doing a lot of things to destroy the country side of HK, including area in Sai Kung for example.
It will be great that someone could gather the information and voices.
Thanks & best regards,
Carrie
Attn: Ms Claudia Tong, District Office.
Please be advised that I know this area well and I object strongly to the
proposed waste of taxpayer's money and the destruction of the environment.
The plan needs to be halted.
At the least, the views of Lamma Island residents should be sought before
this scheme is pushed through.
Dr John Wedderburn.
Dear Claudia Tong,
I would like to raise an objection to the proposed "Improvements" to the footpath from Luk Chau to Lo Tik Wan on Lamma Island. While there is some justification for a better link between these two villages, I think that a coastal path linking the two villages would make much more sense:
Regards,
Kieran Colvert
19 Yung Shu Long New Village
Yung Shu Wan, Lamma Island
From: Mr. Philip. H. Stride
Chairman
The Sustainable Solutions Foundation
Tel: 2446 3446
Dear Ms. Tong,
Further to a meeting of our members yesterday, it has been brought to my attention that your department is planning to improve the footpath from Lo Tik Wan to Luk Chau by making a cement walkway with railings. This news has horrified me and the people of Lamma for several reasons and I cannot object strongly enough against such a plan.
A cemented walkway will destroy the beautiful scenery which so many residents and tourists enjoy. The cost of the project is HK$1.5 Million for very little benefit. I have heard counter proposals from such people as Alan Sergeant suggesting a ferry service would be a far better way to help inconvenienced residents who may want the path.
In addition, I would also like to question your departments activities regarding the gazetting process. Although I walk this dirt path frequently I have yet to see one single sign of announcement!! I have been told that the announcements were taken down 2 days after they were put up and only replaced yesterday!! Yet, I still have not seen them. I now hear that the deadline was yesterday and I will be lucky if my complaint is heard. This is an outrage!
As I have only had 12 hours to respond to your announcement I will expect a similar immediate reply from your department by email on ssfhk@yahoo.com answering the following questions:
In these times of economic hardship I would recommend that your department saves its money. If your department has money to waste then I recommend you try to improve the environment -- not destroy it. As I said, I visit the area frequently and will monitor the area closely. I will join other residents of Lamma Island and do my very best to stop this project through the media.
Sincerely,
Philip H Stride
Chairman
Sustainable Solutions Foundation
District Office, Islands, Hong Kong.
Attn: Claudia Tong
Improvements to Footpath from Luk Chau to Lo Tik Wan
ABLE Charity would like to formally oppose the requirement, extent and nature of the captioned project.
ABLE Charity would also request full clarification of the following within a reasonable time period:
A BETTER LIVING ENVIRONMENT – HONG KONG (CHARITY) LIMITED ABLE CHARITY - REG NO.469606 P.O.BOX 50, LAMMA POST OFFICE, YUNG SHUE WAN, LAMMA ISLAND T: 29826994 F: 29820627 E: able_charity@hkisl.net
For and on behalf of ABLE Charity
Tobias Forster
Secretary
From Philip Keep
11 Tai Wan To
Lamma Island
Dear Mrs Tong,
As someone who has lived on Lamma for 12 Years and regularly uses the paths in the hills in the area, there is very clearly absolutely no need for these works to be carried out. Particularly considering the very small number of villagers living in these two villages and the already adequate paths for them to use.
I can also assure you that hikers hike in the country side because of the lack of concrete and the naturalness of the paths and wilderness. Concretisation would just spoil the area completely as you and your colleagues have already done in many areas of Lamma.
One can only think that the real and hidden purpose behind this type of behaviour is to justify you and your colleagues' position and salary by procuring and spending over-bloated budgets. Or maybe its just one of those jobs for the boys situations ???.
On my behalf, as a taxpayer and resident of Lamma island please in future desist from trying to turn the place into a concrete nightmare and trying and find something useful to spend the money on, such as cleaning up the mess left by your previous subcontractors.
Best Regards.
Philip Keep
c.c. SCMP Editor by Email
Attn. Ms. Claudia Tong
Dear Ms. Tong
I’m writing in response to a notice about the proposed footpath from Luk Chau to Lo Tik Wan. It is one of the few very pleasant paths on Lamma enjoyed by many hikers and walkers for its natural state (i.e. not being covered by concrete equipped with guardrail) and it will be extremely sad to see it lost.
I and many other Lamma residents feel that there is no need for any improvement work to be imposed on the path except perhaps to maintain the current state from being overgrown.
I’m also extremely concerned for all the improvement works that have been going on on Lamma Island where many of them are overdone / over-engineered and done without consulting the residents. (Or, there may be some consultation notices but usually so unnoticeable that they catch no one's attention which is a big problem)
Sincerely,
Cecilia Chu
1/F, 37 Tai Wan New Village
Yung Shue Wan, Lamma Island
Hong Kong