Destroying a historic Hong Kong golf course for housing would be an act of supreme folly

All planning decisions, big or small, have a political element to them because, by definition, someone is applying for permission to do something constrained by the law. What is unique about the discussion on the proposal to develop part of the Fanling golf course is that it is now entirely political in nature and the planning aspects have become almost irrelevant. Yet the outcome will be determined by the Town Planning Board.

Let me begin by stating that I do not play golf and am not a member of any golf club. I do not even watch the sport. Despite that, I have formally objected to the draft zoning plan. I believe the government proposal is wrong for Hong Kong and against the community’s best interests. (Full disclosure: one of my wife’s companies is a paid consultant to the Hong Kong Golf Club).

One of the first things I learned when I joined the government in 1980 was always to pay a site visit before making a decision. When I was an assistant district officer in the New Territories, many proposals involving land use crossed my desk. Being new, I wanted to see the situation for myself. Time after time, I found that what seemed like a neat solution on paper was nonsense on the ground.

Accordingly, when the Fanling housing proposal was first floated, I went to look. It takes about 10 minutes for the neutral observer to see that the site is unique – remarkable in its ambience, history and environment. We could build 100 replacement golf courses elsewhere and landscape them lavishly but none could ever capture the full flavour of what we already have.

Never mind the background (a small privileged elite occupying a large area of land), history has given us a world-class sporting facility – the only one in Hong Kong of this calibre. To destroy it would be an act of supreme folly.

On the sporting aspect, the scale of the present facility has enabled the golfing authorities to expand their outreach to the community and nurture local talent. Hong Kong now has world-class golfers, both men and women, who have qualified for senior international events.

The history of the present proposal is very revealing. In 2018 the Task Force on Land Supply considered two options for using all or part of the golf course(s) for public housing. One was to take back the complete 172 hectares occupied by all three courses and build 13,200 units. The other was to take back a portion of just one, comprising 32 hectares and build 4,600 units.

Last year, the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) considered an environmental impact assessment on the more limited option and did not back it, with members listing several serious reservations.

A wiser government would have paused at this point and reconsidered the whole scheme. But the previous administration was not notable for a willingness to entertain second thoughts. Instead, what we have before us is a recasting of the limited option, taking back 32 hectares, only nine of which will be used for housing, but potentially providing 12,000 homes. It’s remarkable how the promise now is for almost as many flats as the full-bore option.

Meanwhile, membership of the ACE was reviewed last year and several members were dropped, including at least two opponents of the scheme. The revised scheme was then submitted to the revamped ACE, but still could not get full endorsement.

The Environmental Protection Department subsequently approved the environmental impact assessment, subject to further action to limit the impact on a small wooded area and reduce the number of trees to be felled, which may lead to a further cut in the area of land for housing.

It is natural for proponents of a scheme to justify and defend it, but there surely comes a point when it is just a face-saving effort by the officials concerned. An attempt is now being made to bring the Fanling housing plan under the ambit of “common prosperity”, and to claim it is a test of the government’s commitment to addressing our housing problems.

It is instructive what happened when the Heung Yee Kuk offered a site for 12,000 flats, near the golf course. Within hours, the government said this plot was not a substitute for the golf course site. This is eerily reminiscent of June 9, 2019, when a million people marched peacefully to urge the administration to rethink its extradition bill. Before they could all return home, the government announced it would press ahead. We all know how that turned out.

Our housing problems, such as subdivided flats, are extremely serious and we know the solution now: we must press ahead with the Northern Metropolis. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu recently announced the appointment of a project supremo to do so. This is absolutely the right decision.

There may also be a geopolitical angle here. China and Saudi Arabia are getting closer (both President Xi Jinping and Lee have visited recently). The Saudis are bringing one prestigious golf tournament to Hong Kong and are known to be considering where in Asia to locate others. The world’s second-largest company, Aramco, is considering stock market options for a secondary listing. I doubt our competitors in these aspects have started by driving a bulldozer up the fairway.