The High Court has overturned the government's approval of an environmental study into plans to build public flats on part of the Fanling Golf Course, calling on authorities to consult the public on the matter again. Judge Russell Coleman on Monday handed down the judgement after the Hong Kong Golf Club filed a legal challenge against an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report that would set the stage for building public housing units on 9.5 hectares of the century-old course. He said overturning the administration's decision could lead to re-conducting the public consultation and seeking comments from environmental advisers "with the benefits of the fruits of that re-consultation". The club had argued that a public consultation exercise had not been carried out properly or fairly, saying authorities had been allowed to submit additional information during the assessment but people's responses to the submissions were not taken into account. "As a matter of fact, the public were only consulted on part of the EIA report in its final form. That is contrary to the requirement of the EIA Ordinance," Coleman wrote. "In short, I find that the fairness and integrity of the process, set out in the EIA Ordinance properly construed, demanded re-consultation once the additional information was produced to form part of the EIA report." The director of environmental protection gave conditional approval to the assessment in May last year, before the Town Planning Board rezoned the site from "residential" to "undetermined" use temporarily. Officials had attached a number of conditions to the assessment's approval, including having the Civil Engineering and Development Department revise its layout plan to preserve about 0.4 hectares of woodland "as far as practicable". The judge said imposing such a condition “subject to the caveat of practicability” was problematic. "Until the exercise of revision is actually performed, it cannot be known whether the stated current plan [can] be maintained," he wrote. But the High Court judge also rejected part of the club's contention, including an argument that the approval was unlawful because it failed to require the project proponent to carry out mitigation measures identified in the assessment report. The court earlier suspended the environmental review on an interim basis until the judicial challenge was resolved.
