Court of Appeal upholds ruling against gov’t over Fanling golf course housing plan

Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that blocks the government’s current environmental approval for a public housing project on part of the Fanling golf course. The three-judge panel stressed that it was not deciding whether the authorities could reclaim the land and build homes. Its decision focused on how the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment was handled.

The Hong Kong Golf Club brought the challenge, arguing that the government failed to follow the law when it approved the assessment. The club said authorities had not provided adequate public consultation or properly addressed ecological concerns. In an earlier ruling, High Court judge Russell Coleman sided with the club.

The Court of Appeal found a flaw in the consultation process after the Civil Engineering and Development Department submitted additional information, including surveys of bird and moth populations that could be affected by the project. The judges said, “The new information… was material that ought to have been but was not included in the EIA report for public inspection.”

“

The new information… was material that ought to have been but was not included in the EIA report for public inspection.

The judgment added that “The failure to remedy this deficiency by holding a further consultation meant that there was unfairness in the consultation overall.” Environmental authorities also failed to consider the golf club’s response to the additional information when approving the report, the court said.

The government planned to build homes for 33,600 residents on a 9.5-hectare section of the Fanling course. The site forms part of a larger 32-hectare area returned to the government. After the earlier ruling, the Development Bureau warned that the decision could have a substantial effect on the number of homes delivered and the timing of Hong Kong’s housing plans.

“

The failure to remedy this deficiency by holding a further consultation meant that there was unfairness in the consultation overall.