The lawyer representing a woman whose petition to the courts resulted in a setback of several months on the planned construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge argued on Aug 24 that the purpose of conducting environmental impact assessments (EIA) is to reduce the potential adverse impacts in projects under consideration. 

Lawyer Philip Dykes, addressing a hearing before the Court of Appeal, was defending the need for separate analyses of air quality surrounding the bridge project - both in the absence of the bridge and after the bridge is built. 

Justice Michael John Hartmann, after hearing Dyke's argument, expressed doubt on his point that every project requires a stand-alone assessment. 

Dykes spoke during the second day of a judicial review requested by Director of Environmental Protection Anissa Wong Sean-yee. 

The Court of First Instance in an April judgment quashed Wong's decision to approve the EIA report, on grounds that the air quality assessments of the project were incomplete. 

Dykes is the senior counsel representing 65-year-old Chu Yee-wah, a Tung Chung resident who had petitioned the courts arguing the cross-border bridge project may harm her health. 

Dykes's remarks followed an argument by the lawyer for the Environmental Protection Department. 

On Aug 23, Benjamin Yu Yuk-hoi, representing the environmental protection director, contended that a stand-alone analysis apart from the report was not necessary for every proposed project. 

He said that the major source of pollution resulting from construction of the intercity bridge will be vehicle emissions, which may be reduced through supporting legislation, such as to exert restrictions on the number of cars that may use the bridge. Yu also argued that the extra analysis would make little sense because there were too many variables for any accurate appraisal. 

The court will continue to hear the case on Aug 25. 

andrea@chinadailyhk.com