They have no right to that Government Land and generally seem to use it as squatters while pouring their filthy waste into the harbour with no concern for the environment.

Any future survey of opinion should be conducted by an independent Agency with no vested interest, not some biased environmental group such as Living Lamma

vested interest
A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.

Interesting to confuse a dump for somewhere with soul

Lamma's charm under threat
May 06, 2011
I was glad to see the South China Morning Post lending its voice to the controversy surrounding the proposed redevelopment of the waterfront at Yung Shue Wan.

I first started visiting Lamma in the 1970s when it still had all of its pre-power-station beauty. Having lived there subsequently for several years in the 1980s and 1990s, I would be very sorry to see another step taken in the destruction of its off-the-beaten-track charm (even if the track has actually been quite well beaten at this stage).

The residents of Yung Shue Wan have clearly registered their opposition to such reckless proposals in the past, and now the government seems to be trying to bulldoze it through again without proper consultation.

I just wonder if the district councillor has been asleep on the job and, if so, if the job shouldn't go to someone else who demonstrates greater interest in standing up for the constituents.

Tom Warden, Lau Fau Shan

Residents of Lamma will be consulted
(SCMP 10 May 2011)
I refer to your report ("Lamma waterfront plan back on the table", April 26) and editorial "Lamma islanders ought to be involved in plan", May 2) and a number of letters which have appeared in these columns following your story.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I wish to provide some background to the project for your readers.

The Yung Shue Wan development comprises two phases, with the Phase I works completed in April 2002.

The proposed Phase 2 development includes reclamation of about 4,000 square metres of land for the construction of a landscaped seafront promenade with a sandy foreshore feature in order to improve the general landscape and environment of Yung Shue Wan for enjoyment by locals and visitors.

As an added benefit, the reclamation will be able to accommodate a new emergency vehicular access which will help reduce the travelling time from the town centre to the clinic and helipad in an emergency.

The current conceptual proposal was drawn up in 2003 based on support from the public and consensus reached at that time. However, we are yet to commence the detailed design and will certainly engage the public before firming up any details of the proposed works. It is therefore obviously premature to say that the waterfront will all be covered up with concrete.

The advertisement of the project profile for public inspection and comments from February 24 to March 9 was only a formality under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance.

We have no intention of pressing ahead with the project without the substantive support of the public, including local residents, on its design details.

Lam Sing-kwok, chief engineer/port works,
Civil Engineering and Development Department

Ask the tourists what they come for?

Opinions of community were ignored
SCMP, May 17, 2011

Living Lamma wonders if Lam Sing-kwok, chief engineer/port works, Civil Engineering and Development Department, is working under false assumptions ("Residents of Lamma will be consulted", May 10).

He claims that the "Yung Shue Wan development comprises two phases", yet fails to acknowledge that the department's plan for Phase 2 was rejected by the public in 2003.

This is in essence the same plan that has been slightly scaled down without any attempt at public engagement today.

Mr Lam argues that an "added benefit" of the reclamation will be to reduce the travelling time from the "town centre". We wonder if he has ever been to Lamma or realises just how incongruous this statement is.

As for an emergency vehicle access to connect the clinic with the helipad, we already have it. It was built as part of Phase 1.

There is nothing "conceptual" about the department's plan.

The (straight) line on the map has been drawn without any consideration to existing features and shows quite clearly where concrete is going to be poured. It is "obviously" not "premature to say that the waterfront will all be covered up with concrete". This approach to design is at the heart of the problem.

The department's plan ignores the comments put forward by professional planners and designers from the community in 2003. Why is this so? The department's website proudly states: "We Engineer Hong Kong's Development." Surely, the engineering should come after the design? Where are the architectural plans and landscape drawings that show clearly what the design will look like? Why do engineers dictate design in Hong Kong? If this is allowed to continue, we will no longer enjoy a diversity of city, village and countryside areas.

Most worrying, Mr Lam ends his letter by stating that there is "no intention of pressing ahead with the project without substantive support of the public ... on its design details". The choice is, therefore, between spending HK$75 million (for the reclamation and the proposed cycle park, which the government insists on treating as two separate issues) on misguided "conceptual proposals" that the department will not budge on, or nothing at all. This benefits no-one.

Please, Mr Lam, let's have these two projects go ahead as a beautifully designed and well-engineered harbourfront enhancement based on a holistic plan, which would really benefit the community. Is this too much to ask?

Laura Ruggeri, chairperson, Living Lamma

I would broadly support the views expressed in the letter (above) from Laura Ruggeri. But it's disappointing that she concludes by saying "let's have these two projects go ahead".

Apparently Living Lamma supports development of the Yung Shue Wan waterfront. Is there any organisation that opposes development on Lamma?

Living Lamma is not calling for reclamation, but "harbourfront enhancement based on a holistic plan".

How was Phase 2 stopped in 2003? Was it by working with the government on a holistic plan to enhance the harbourfront or was it by good, old-fashioned opposition?

Is there any group on Lamma that is in favour of preservation and opposed to development?