A Hong Kong court has granted an application for a judicial review of the government’s decision to approve the environmental study of the San Tin Technopole project near the border.
Social worker Eddie Tse Sai-kit, who lodged the judicial challenge, shared a document with the Post on Tuesday detailing the High Court’s decision from the previous day, highlighting that the judge expected parties involved to liaise and agree on the directions of the hearing.
The director of environmental protection is listed as the respondent, while the director of civil engineering and development is listed as an interested party.
No hearing date has been scheduled as of 5pm on Tuesday.
Roy Ng Hei-man, campaign officer for the Conservancy Association NGO, urged the government to explain the impact that granting the judicial review would have.
“It is the responsibility of the government to elaborate on the impact of the judicial review to allow the public to know what is happening,” he said, adding that the authorities could specifically explain whether the review would affect the schedule for developing the technopole.
Secretary for Development Bernadette Linn Hon-ho earlier said the administration would apply for funding for the technopole from the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee, adding that the first area of land could be ready in 2026 if formation work commenced by the end of this year.
Lawmaker Edward Lau Kwok-fan, of New Territories North constituency, said he was in favour of the technopole plan.
“I think the plan should be launched as soon as possible,” he added.
The Development Bureau said the government would strive to start the hearing as early as possible to reduce the impact of the judicial review on the progress of the project.
The Environmental Protection Department said it would study the content of the judicial review application in detail.
Tse, also the convenor of the Save Lantau Alliance, sought to overturn the decision of the environmental authorities to approve the project’s report as it breached the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance and lacked public consultation.
He said the additional development announced in May 2023 – involving the expansion of the technopole and two designated projects – was not included in the project brief or study brief.
Both documents provided the scope of the environmental study and assessment that would affect the report.
Three years ago, the original plan only earmarked 340 hectares of land, with seven developments in the area that were likely to bring significant impacts on the environment and therefore required to undergo the assessment.
But last May, the government announced that the technopole would be expanded to cover 627 hectares. Tse argued that these two projects were “substantially different”, as the latter would cause a permanent loss of habitat, including conservation area.
Tse said the director’s approval did not include the expanded development in the project or study brief, which was “unlawful”.
He also argued that consultation was a key process, but the director’s decision bypassed the public and the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Environment.
He deemed the director’s decision “unreasonable”, as the approval was granted based on a report that failed to provide certain mitigation measures to compensate for the damage to the ecological habitat.
Planners and lawmakers earlier warned that the judicial review might affect the progress of developing the technology hub as the process would take time and developers could be discouraged because of the uncertainties imposed by the legal challenge.
The last time a high-profile infrastructure project was met by a legal challenge was in August last year when the High Court approved the judicial review application filed by the Hong Kong Golf Club.
The club had pushed back against the conditional approval from environmental authorities on developing part of the city’s oldest golf course for a housing estate.
The court ordered suspending environmental approval for the project until the judicial challenge was resolved. The judgment is expected to be handed down next month.
