The Court of Appeal on 31 August 2026 dismissed the Director of Environmental Protection’s appeal over an environmental impact assessment for a proposed public-housing development on 9.5 hectares of the Fanling Golf Course. It upheld findings that parts of the approval process were unlawful, with costs awarded against the government side in favour of the Hong Kong Golf Club.
The government resumed or took back 32 hectares of the course in 2023 and planned to use 9.5 hectares for public housing. RTHK reported that the course covered 172 hectares and that the project was intended to provide 12,000 flats, although the other supplied reports did not give a figure for the number of homes.
The Hong Kong Golf Club brought judicial-review proceedings against the Environmental Protection Department’s approval of the assessment. The High Court ruled in the club’s favour in 2024, quashing the approval; reports described the resulting remedy as requiring the assessment to be reconsidered and/or subjected to further public consultation.
The Court of Appeal found that the consultation had not adequately covered supplementary information added to the assessment. It also found that submissions made by the Golf Club had not been taken into consideration.
Separately, the court ruled that conditions attached to the approval effectively required a substantial redesign of the project and deferred important decisions to a later stage. That went beyond the permissible scope of a conditional environmental approval, the court found.
The appeal court rejected the government’s argument that the judicial review had become academic after the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance was amended in June 2023. It held that the assessment could still be relied upon for other purposes under the ordinance.
The case examined the effects on protected trees, bats and the Chinese cypress, as well as the cultural-heritage impact on the Old Course. The lower court described the Old Course’s impact classification as “undetermined” and irrational, while the government argued that “undetermined” did not mean the impact had not been assessed and could reflect the possibility of mitigation.
The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the government side in favour of the Hong Kong Golf Club. The supplied reports do not establish whether the next step will involve a fresh assessment, further consultation or both.