Note:
Every objector has a separate "case number".

Mine was 82.
Highest seen so far, olliereid's 106.
Can anyone top that?
So that implies at least that many formal objections were made.


So, scheduling the individual meetings, 5 members of staff as Malcolm's report, 530 bureaucratic manhours.

Isn't it amazing how many manhours they are prepared to waste to pretend they are consulting the community, while never actually doing it or achieving anything at all?

The cost of these meetings alone would pay for bike racks along the pier and all around Yung Shue Wan.


Still, their summary only cites responses that supported it, and say that the community was consulted (though never saying when or how) and everybody desperately wants YLF's platform to be built.

And here's Nick BiIcliffe's response,

I admit I was underprepared for the meeting. I'd envisioned sitting in an office with a couple of engineering/planning types discussing the position and layout of the CPA over a plan and some photos...

To get some real publicity for this some of you who have appointments coming up might consider:

- Take a camera and get photos of the meeting setup. It really does look like a bad psychology experiment designed to make the visitor feel small.

- Turn up in groups. The invitation letter mentions 'you or your representatives' so be well represented! Anyone from the SCMP or local press who could attend would worry them.
- Make a show of recording the meeting and get specifics of which green groups were consulted, what actions they plan to take - etc.

They're playing a game and it would be fun to change the rules.

P.S my meeting number was 6.

And here's Nick BiIcliffe's response,

[/quote]


This letter should be sent to SCMP as well!

It would also be great for anyone going to the meeting to involve some press, if not SCMP how about some local publication like Apple Daily or the like?

Dear All

I to went along to have a meeting with the Islands District office and armed with the information from those before me I was able to sit in a comfortable location and discuss the issues in what I considered to be quite an honest and straightforward discussion. So I say thank you to Nick.

From the meeting my subjective conclusion is as follows:

The Islands District Office (IDO) has been asked to consider providing support and a design for a Cycle Park area in the location we are all lodging our objection.

They were approached by Councillors on Lamma to enable this process and after considering what they believe to be the best design and appropriate location are ready to approach some approval process to gain funding.

The IDO would not instigate this project unless approached by the Lamma Council body that has been "elected" to represent Lamma people.

They inform me that through discussion with the Council they have been informed that there is large scale support for the cycle platform and they are not in a position to question the integrity of Council members, i.e. if the council want it then it follows that the people of Lamma want it.

Though I did not discuss the matter it was clear that they could also not ignore the petition with large numbers of people who signed asking for the Cycle parking area.

So it is my belief that if we do not want a cycle parking area next to the library it would appear that the only way to prevent it is to prove to the IDO that there is a large number of people who are against the project. Obviously this may not be enough but they would probably not ignore a large scale objection.

The most obvious way to do this is by a petition process, if they receive strong community support opposed to the project it is my belief that they would be forced to re-consider.

Selfishly, I am not in a position to coordinate or create such a petition, however i thought I would write this so that if anyone out there believes the same thing and has the time, conviction and selfless capacity to start one then that may just work....it has worked before but I remember it being a lot of time and effort by a very few people...me not included.

So anyone else got any ideas?

Your analysis is sadly probably how HAD sees it, though they won't come out and say it.

The problem is that they state, repeatedly, that there is "public consultation", while in practice, they just rubberstamp whatever the District Councillor tells them and ignore anything anyone else says.




This is the real issue. NO ONE considered what would be "the best design and appropriate location" for cyclists.
The criterion was actually to spend the maximum available for a Rural Minor Works project. No solution that cost less would be considered. No solution that wasn't a slab of concrete would be considered. No survey of traffic or cyclists was made. The plan was and is exactly what Yu Lai Fan doodled on a serviette and gave to them. They didn't assess it, they just gave it to CEDD to implement.



If it comes to petitions, they will indeed pull out Yu Lai Fan's 3/4/5000 signatures. Since 200% of Lamma cyclists support her plan, she must be right.

Actually, we have well over 100 formal objections made. They are busily ticking them off and then will inter them in the report, under the summary the HAD will make.

Shortly after 27 August the plan will be sent to the CE for his approval. Since I can't imagine him spending more than 1 minute reading HAD's executive summary, if that, it will be another pure rubber stamp procedure.

It's proven a complete waste of time to engage with HAD or Yu Lai Fan. They only talk to us to insist we withdraw our objections. No one will discuss the purpose of the project. Only porkbarrel politics matters. The DAB has the numbers in LegCo, we have no political pull at all. So they ignore us.

So I'm coming up dry here. Last chance is probably to get the media interested. They made enough about a wine cellar, so possibly there is hope. Pissing away $50,000 for each bicycle parking place might be newsworthy.

Look what I've got today:-

G.N. 32 – Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Chapter 370)

Construction of Cycle Parking Area near Yung Shue Wan Ferry Pier, Lamma Island

Case No. 108


Thank you for your reply dated 24 July 2012 in response to our e-mail dated 23 July 2012 regarding your objection to the proposed construction of cycle parking area (CPA) near Yung Shue Wan Ferry Pier, Lamma Island lodged under the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Chapter 370).

We would like to address your further comments as follows:

As regards your concerns about the impact of the proposed CPA on the environment, you may wish to note that a Preliminary Environmental Review (PER), supplemented by a marine ecological survey, has been carried out by a consultant appointed by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) to assess the environmental impact of the project. Two options of the construction of the CPA, namely a reclamation option and a pile-supported deck option, were considered and compared in the PER. The pile-supported deck option was recommended in the PER as it can reduce ecological impact and impact on water quality. Under the pile-supported deck option, about nine circular piles are proposed to be used to support a deck structure. Based on the suggestion obtained during the consultation with green groups in preparing the PER, the northeast side of the existing footbridge near the library will not be covered by the deck in order to further reduce the ecological impact.

Moreover, landscape and visual impacts have been considered in the PER. It is expected that after the proposed CPA comes into operation, the existing condition in which bicycles are parked on both sides of the catwalk of the ferry pier will be improved, thereby leading to positive landscape and visual impact.

In addition to the assessment of the structural options of the CPA as well as the landscape and visual impact of the CPA, assessment in other aspects, including air quality, noise, water quality, marine ecology, fisheries, waste management and cultural heritage, was also covered in the PER. It was concluded in the PER that the construction and operation of the proposed CPA were considered environmentally acceptable.


We hope that the above information could address your concerns and should be grateful if you would confirm whether you agree to withdraw your objection by completing the attached reply slip to us by post, by fax (2815 2291) or by email (joe_cc_hui@had.gov.hk) on or before 27 August 2012. Please note that if you do not withdraw your objection, or if we do not receive your reply by then, all correspondences related to your objection will be submitted to the Chief Executive in Council (CE in C) for consideration and decision in due course.

Should there be any further comment that you would like to make, please send it to us by post, by fax (2815 2291) or by email (joe_cc_hui@had.gov.hk) on or before 27 August 2012 so that it could be considered and included in the submission to the CE in C.

If you have any further enquiries, please contact the undersigned at 2852 4336.

Yours sincerely,
Joe HUI
for District Officer (Islands)

Encl.

_________________
T. Clipper

Bumps up the number to at least 108 formal objections.

It seems they are sending these follow up letters to everyone who didn't withdraw their objection.

I got one a few day ago, supposedly responding to my asking them:
"Please provide details how and when you "consulted the local community" on this issue."

Of course, they didn't and couldn't answer and after 2 weeks came back with this crap: "consultations with relevant stakeholders have been conducted", without saying WHO the hell these "stakeholders" are.

Clearly, residents, cyclists are not stakeholders. Just businessmen who stand to make money out of it.



So, the big rubberstamp is shortly after 27 August (next Monday).

The letter sent to me:

I followed up with some questions to HAD on these mysterious "stakeholders", and surprise, surprise, they are actually the same district councillors who proposed the plan. My letter below to HAD:

========================

Dear Sandy Suen,

At 08:53 PM 20-08-12 +0800, sandy_mt_suen@had.gov.hk wrote:
>
>Dear Mr. Sargent,
>
> The selection of the proposed location was a result of extensive location consultation with different stakeholders.
> IsDO has followed the established practice in conducting a number of consultations with the relevant stakeholders such and the Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) of the Island District Council, the then Lamma Area Committee, the Peng Chau/Cheung Chau/ Lamma Area Committee and the Lamma (North) Rural Committee and environment concern groups.
>

You stated that :

>In the process of consulting the
>local community, it has also been noted that there is broad public support
>for the proposal of providing a CPA at the subject site as opposed to
>allowing bicycles to be parked on the catwalk.

I asked you to explain HOW YOU HAD CONSULTED THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

What you did was "consult" with district council members.

You never "consulted the community".

To claim that there is "broad public support" when the only people "consulted" were the same DC committees who proposed the scheme is completely dishonest. They are the ones who have vetoed any alternatives.

Neither HAD nor these committees ever even informed the "local community" of this plan, let alone "consulted".

As for "Environmental Concern Groups", you never bothered to consulted or inform any Lamma based group. And the only (off Lamma) group you did consult, Green Lantau, told you what a poor idea it was. So despite soliciting their opinion, when they failed to endorse your plan you simply discarded it, yet still claim that your plan is supported by environment concern groups. Despite Lamma-based groups subsequently offering similar opinions.
If you preface your report to the CE with such words implying that there is "broad public support" and that it is "supported by environment concern groups" it will be completely dishonest.

I copy Green Lantau's assessment below, it seems none of the HAD staff who it was addressed to read it.
And the comments by the HK Cycling Alliance, who actually do represent cyclists -- the group most people naively might think would be "stakeholders" in this plan, not just those who are betting on getting a Rural Minor Works budget allotted.

Sincerely
Alan Sargent


======================
From: "Green Lantau Association" <info@greenlantau.com>
Date: 19 February 2009 3:13:13 PM GMT+08:00
To: <nina_ss_yiu@had.gov.hk>, <gower@amghk.com.hk>, <cnoffke@netvigator.com>, "'Tracey Duggan'" <traceyduggan5@netvigator.com>
Cc: <oyeung@cedd.gov.hk>, <phyllis_sw_pang@had.gov.hk>, <ivy_kw_chan@had.gov.hk>

Subject: RE: Proposal of Providing a Cycle Parking Area at Yung Shue Wan Ferry Pier, Lamma Island

Dear Nina,

Thank you for your efforts at resolving differing views on the proposed construction of a cycle park near the ferry pier at Yung Shue Wan. Our thanks also go to the Rural Committee Chairman Mr. Chan Lin-wai, the Rural Committee Vice-Chairman Mr. Chow Hing-fook and the District Councillor for Lamma Island Ms. Yu Lai-fun for kindly being willing to take part in exchanges of views on this infrastructure planning issue.

We have given our views based on our preference for preserving the last section of natural coastline in Yung Shue Wan and on our experience with the cycle parking situation in Mui Wo. We had hoped to thereby contribute to a solution whereby a cycle park of sufficient size and convenience could be provided along with preserving the coastline and the tranquillity of the LCSD Yung Shue Wan Public Library while at the same time proceeding with long needed ferry pier renovation and enhancement works.

From our perspective the value of protecting natural coastline is self-evident and we have no additional views to contribute on this.

Regarding the location of the proposed cycle park our experience in Mui Wo is that many cyclists ignore traffic arrangements and the safety and convenience of others just for the sake of being able to park their bicycles as close to the pier entrance as possible, often seconds before the ferry is due to leave. This has led to a situation where some of the cycle parking areas in Mui Wo remain under-utilized even though they are nearer to the pier than would be the case with the proposed cycle parking area next the Yung Shue Wan Public Library.

It would be best in our view to build a cycle parking area at a location that is both suitable and likely to actually be used by cyclists. There is scope in Yung Shue Wan for the proposed cycle park to be beneficially integrated with a covered and widened pier access as explained in earlier communication and at the meeting we had at your office last year. This would enable cyclists to park near the pier in covered conditions, would retain the tranquillity of the library environs and would preserve Yung Shue Wan's last remaining stretch of natural coastline as a visually pleasing amenity for the enjoyment of residents and visitors alike. We think the option we propose would provide the required cycle parking capacity at a convenient location while also being sympathetic to the local environment.

Having thus expressed our views, we would like to excuse ourselves from participation in the planned meeting. We are happy to leave a decision on this matter to the people of Yung Shue Wan and are confident that with your diligent encouragement a beneficial agreement will be reached among the participants.

We are sorry for being unable to attach a Chinese version of these views and would be grateful if you could help by translating and printing out this message for the convenience of the Chinese speakers at the meeting.

With Best Regards
Fabian Pedrazzini)
Green Lantau Association
==============================
Hong Kong Cycling Alliance

Ms Eva Cheng, Secretary for Transport & Housing, 22/F, East Wing, Central Government Offices, 2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar, Hong Kong

Dear Ms Cheng

Objection to proposed Cycle Parking Area on Lamma (Plan No. PW-GS11-009)

Hong Kong Cycling Alliance supports cycling and cyclists throughout Hong Kong, and works to encourage the inclusion and expansion of cycling for transport and leisure.

We note the widespread use of bicycles as transport on Lamma and support the assumed objective of the above proposal to facilitate cycle use to access the ferry at Yung Shue Wan.

We have reviewed the proposal and would comment as follows:


Based on experience in Mui Wo and elsewhere, demand from users is strongly for parking that is as close as possible to the ferry. At the suggested location, the proposed facility might not be well used by regular commuters, and could instead be used primarily for storage, or for dumping unwanted goods.

The access to the proposed cycle parking is relatively narrow, and could easily become highly congested at peak times. Especially if bikes are left in the entrance area.

A section of natural coastline would be substantially disturbed, spoiling visual enjoyment by visitors and locals alike.

The $18 million cost is excessive and could be used to benefit Lamma people, including cycle owners, in much more effective ways.

We of the view that the objective to facilitate cycle access the ferry would likely not be achieved under the proposal, and that it will incur substantial costs and negative side effects.

Therefore, we are unable to support the government proposal for this project.

We suggest that a much preferable solution would be to widen the ferry pier access to enable cycle parking along its length, closer to the ferry, easily accessible, with lower environmental impact, and at lower cost.

However, we recognise the proposed use of simple inverted U steel tube stands, which are a commendably simple, effective and cost-effective cycle parking technology.

regards

Martin Turner
for and on behalf of
Hong Kong Cycling Alliance
www.hkcyclingalliance.org
==========================

Just got this:


Thank you for your reply dated 24 August 2012 in response to our e-mail dated 17 August 2012 regarding your objection to the proposed construction of cycle parking area (CPA) near Yung Shue Wan Ferry Pier, Lamma Island lodged under the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Chapter 370).

We would like to address your further comments as follows:

For your information, a pile-supported platform instead of a cantilevered platform would likely be required for widening the existing catwalk for cycle parking purpose. As compared with the current scheme, the scale of works and estimated cost for widening the existing catwalk by means of a pile-supported platform would be of similar order. In the process of consulting the local community, it has also been noted that there is broad public support for the proposal of providing a CPA at the site near the library (subject site) as opposed to allowing bicycles to be parked on the catwalk. The current location of the proposed CPA is in line with the planning intention and zoning of the area and is within the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). It has also long been the subject site for the proposed CPA for consultation with the local community. The subject site is therefore proposed for use as a CPA.

We hope that the above information could address your concerns and should be grateful if you would confirm whether you agree to withdraw your objection by completing the attached reply slip to us by post, by fax (2815 2291) or by email (joe_cc_hui@had.gov.hk) on or before 17 September 2012. Please note that if you do not withdraw your objection, or if we do not receive your reply by then, all correspondences related to your objection will be submitted to the Chief Executive in Council (CE in C) for consideration and decision in due course.

Should there be any further comment that you would like to make, please send it to us by post, by fax (2815 2291) or by email (joe_cc_hui@had.gov.hk) on or before 17 September 2012 so that it could be considered and included in the submission to the CE in C.

If you have any further enquiries, please contact the undersigned at 2852 4336.

Yours sincerely,
Joe HUI
for District Officer (Islands)

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

We went to another meeting with HAD a week ago, and there we asked the about the capacity of the platform.

There are currently over 380 bikes parked on the pier on weekdays.
Obviously HAD has never even bothered to count them.

And according to HAD:



Using UK standards (we asked an architect who designs bike parks in the UK), this will be overcrowded and that area should not have more than 250 spaces, and also you should allow for at least 20% more than you need. So "300 places" would accommodate about 240 bikes normally.

So we're left with at least 80 bikes (accepting the govt's plan and assuming everyone behaves perfectly and takes 10 minutes to queue up to park their bike) or over 200 (realistically) that cannot be parked on the CPA.

We asked HAD what we were supposed to do if we arrived and the CPA was full. They said we would have to park on the pier. Even though this will still be illegal.

That's why they now say that the CPA will "alleviate the current situation of illegal parking" whereas the whole justification of this absurd project was that it would eliminate it.

But if parking on the pier isn't prohibited, then who will bother to squeeze into the CPA? Maybe 20 or so bikes will be parked in the first couple of rows (at a cost of $1 million per space used) and the other 360 bikes will still be parked on the pier.

In any case, the same dickheads who leave their bikes right at the gate end double parked and falling over will continue to do so, as of course HAD still refuses to put bike racks on the pier to regulate this. Because they aren't in the slightest interested in actually solving the real problem, just rubberstamping YLF's plan,and she just wants her $18 million in concrete poured.

There will be frustration, annoyance and conflict. Some pedestrians will make complaints that all bikes aren't parked on the CPA, not knowing or caring it's impossible. The government would be forced to respond and rather than admit it was their stupid design at fault, could just confiscate all the bikes on the pier at any time, as they will be "illegally occupying government land". Repeat until enough bikes have been destroyed that the remainder can fit.

Everyone will be worse off, except the construction contractors.

Some of you guys are working from home, why not try standing near the end of the ferry pier a couple of times before the departure and politely ask people not to park unwisely? You could even give them a pamphlet about how much their behaviour will cost.

Oh yes, and it would be stupid to build a parking lot for 400 bikes, because this way you wouldn't have a valid reason to build another parking a year later. Then the reclamation as a logical continuation.

I have no authority to do so, and would be more likely to provoke hostility. Even if I could speak Cantonese, and could refrain from just telling them not to be idiots.

I think we're dealing with the same mentality as the dog owners who let their dogs run wild and crap all over. They make it hard for the rest. They just don't care about how their actions affect anyone else.



In complete seriousness, YLF said this is what she will do.
When we told her the CPA wouldn't work, she said it didn't matter because she would then apply for more money to fix it.

So, here we go.
Just got this.
despite it actually being approved six weeks ago, they just informed me now.

$18 million to be pissed away on a concrete slab in the harbour that will only have room for half the bikes on the pier now.
A good result for YLF.

Just got the same one

Me too! Amazing how it all works over here!

_________________
T. Clipper

先生/女士：

《道路(工程、使用及補償)條例》(第370章)

南丫島榕樹灣渡輪碼頭附近興建單車停泊處


有關你較早前就上述擬議道路工程提出反對的電郵，現謹通知，行政長官會同

行政會議在考慮上述工程的圖則和計劃(載於二零一二年一月六日及一月十三日刊登的

第32號政府公告內)，以及你所提出的反對意見後，已於二零一三年二月五日按《道路

(工程、使用及補償)條例》(第370章)(下稱「《條例》」)第11條授權進行上述工程及

使用。



授權公告將按《條例》第11(9)(c)條的規定，於二零一三年三月十五日在香港

政府憲報刊登。



如你認為有權根據《條例》獲得補償，可按《條例》第29條向運輸及房屋局局

長送達書面申索。隨函附上《條例》附表第II部的摘錄，該附表涵蓋可申索補償的事

項，以供參考。



如對獲授權進行的道路工程有其他疑問，請聯絡離島民政事務處行政主任(發展

)1何嘉欣女士(電話號碼：2852-4316)或聯絡主任(南丫島)許智聰先生(電話號碼：

2852-4336)。


運輸及房屋局局長

(陳玉鳳 代行)

i got this too.
sad.

it looks like everybody got the same email today. Myself included.
I guess the time for polite objections is over. We should hold a protest at the ferry pier in Central and invite the press.

Published by the Government today:

The Government published a notice in the Gazette today (March 15) on the construction of a cycle parking area near Yung Shue Wan Ferry Pier, Lamma Island. The works have been authorised by the Chief Executive in Council.

The works include:

(a) construction of a deck structure;

(b) construction of a public cycle parking area and a footpath on the deck structure;

(c) permanent closure and demolition of an existing footbridge;

(d) temporary closure and reconstruction of a section of the existing catwalk; and

(e) ancillary works including waterworks, public utilities, lighting and construction of traffic signs, kerbs and railings.

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/2013 ... 130397.htm

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

good. let em build the thing it's better than bikes strewn all over the pier.