1

Minutes of the 7th

Meeting of the

District Development and Environment Committee (DDEC)

Southern District Council (SDC)

Date : 4 February 2013

Time : 2:30 p.m.

Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present:

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman of SDC)

Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman of SDC)

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH (Chairman of DDEC)

Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada (Vice-Chairlady of DDEC)

Mr AU Lap-sing

Mr AU Nok-hin

Mr CHAI Man-hon

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung

Mr CHU Lap-wai

Mr FUNG Wai-kwong

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

Mr LO Kin-hei

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa

Dr YANG Mo, PhD

Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

Mr CHAN Man-chun

Mr LEE Kwan-keung

Mr LAU Kar-wah

Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis

2

Apologies for Absence:

Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus

Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy

Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent

Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymond

Secretary:

Miss CHENG Kwan-wai, Vivian Executive Officer (District Council) 2,

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance:

Miss NG Kai-ting, Nettie Assistant District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

Miss LIN Ming Senior Executive Officer (District Council),

Southern District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Mr CHAN Siu-wing, Andrew Executive Officer I (District Management),

Southern District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung, Jason Senior Engineer 4 (Hong Kong Island Division 2),

Civil Engineering and Development Department

Dr LEE Wai-tak, Anthony Senior Environmental Protection Officer

(Regional South) 3,

Environmental Protection Department

Mr WONG Hung-yuen Chief Health Inspector,

Southern District Environmental Hygiene Office,

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr WONG Sun-man Housing Manager/Hong Kong 4,

Housing Department

Ms TAM Wai-chu, Rachel Deputy District Leisure Manager (Southern) 1,

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Ms LOU Yin-yee, Joanne Senior Estate Surveyor/South (District Lands Office,

Hong Kong West and South),

Lands Department

Miss YIU Yuk, Isabel Senior Town Planner/HK 1,

Planning Department

3

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2):

Mr NG Ka-shu Senior Town Planner/HK 5,

Planning Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3 – Follow-up Item 4):

Mr KAM Wing-kee Chief Engineer/HK & Islands,

Water Supplies Department

Mr LAU Wing-keung Chief Engineer/HK 2,

Water Supplies Department

Mr WAN Wai-yin Engineer/HK (Distribution 6),

Water Supplies Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3 – Follow-up Item 8):

Miss KO Wai-kwan, Vivian Commissioner for Heritage,

Development Bureau

Miss LEE Lai-kwan, Queenie Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3,

Development Bureau

Mr Alnwick CHAN Executive Director, Auction, Land Advisory Services,

Valuations,

Knight Frank Hong Kong

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4):

Miss CHEUK Hau-kwan, Elsa Chief Town Planner/Special Duties,

Planning Department

Mr LUI Yu-man, Timothy Senior Town Planner/Special Duties 1,

Planning Department

Mr LO Kwok-chung, David Chief Engineer/Islands, HK Island and Islands

Development Office,

Civil Engineering and Development Department

Mr CHAU Kwok-leung, Eddie Engineer 11 (Islands Division), HK Island and Islands

Development Office,

Civil Engineering and Development Department

Ms Theresa YEUNG Project Manager (Planning),

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.

4

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Members and government representatives to the

meeting.

2. The Chairman said that to facilitate smooth proceeding of meeting,

according to Order 15(3) of the SDC (2012-2015) Standing Orders, all persons

attending or sitting in the meeting should switch off all devices which might emit

sound, and should not use any telecommunications devices for conversation during

the course of the meeting. Each Member would be allotted a maximum of two

3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item.

3. The Chairman continued that prior to the meeting, Dr LIU Hong-fai and Mr

TSOI Chi-chung had informed the Secretariat of their absence from meeting because

of other engagements, while Mr FUNG Se-goun and Mr WONG Ling-sun would like

to apply for sick leave. The Chairman invited Members to note and approve the said

applications for leave.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the District

Development and Environment Committee Meeting Held on

26 November 2012

4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 6th

meeting had been circulated to all Members and relevant government department

representatives. The Secretariat had received amendment proposals from Mr TSUI

Yuen-wa, and related information was tabled at the meeting.

5. The Chairman said that the amendment proposals were about corrections of

typo errors in the Chinese version only, which did not involve any fundamental

changes to the original text.

6. There were no further amendment proposals received at the meeting. The

amended minutes were confirmed by the Committee.

5

Agenda Item 2: Concern over the Proposal of Lifting the “Pok Fu Lam

Moratorium” in the Policy Address

(Item raised by Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP and Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN)

(DDEC Paper No. 1/2013)

(Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mr

AU Nok-hin joined the meeting at 2:35 p.m., 2:36 p.m., 2:38 p.m. and 2:42 p.m.

respectively.)

7. The Chairman welcomed Mr NG Ka-shu, Senior Town Planner/HK 5 of the

Planning Department (PlanD), to the meeting.

8. The Chairman said that the Development Bureau (DEVB) and the Transport

and Housing Bureau (THB) were supposed to send representatives to the meeting and

at last only PlanD representative was present. He suggested that Mr CHU

Ching-hong, JP and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN should briefly introduce the reasons for

raising the agenda item first, and then Mr NG Ka-shu would give a response.

Afterwards, the Committee would decide how to take the matter forward.

9. Mr CHU Ching-Hong, JP said that the Policy Address mentioned that the

Government was considering relaxing or lifting the moratorium on Pok Fu Lam and

the Mid-Levels. In a Commercial Radio programme on 26 January 2013, the

Secretary for Development said that the Government was assessing the feasibility of

providing public housing in Pok Fu Lam after relaxing or lifting the moratorium on

the two areas, and to solve traffic problems, residents in Pok Fu Lam could take

public light buses (PLBs) to interchange for MTR West Island Line (WIL) and South

Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) in future. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP continued that once

the Pok Fu Lam moratorium was relaxed, the population in the district would increase

drastically for sure. At present, the Southern District had suffered from acute traffic

congestions, and take the Aberdeen Tunnel as an example, on average nearly 500

intermittent closures were implemented every month, and traffic was very heavy in

the vicinity of The Belcher’s along Pok Fu Lam Road during peak hours. The traffic

in the district had already reached its capacity, and so far there was no plan for

providing transport facilities such as feeder PLB lay-bys for WIL and SIL(E).

Therefore, the additional population growth would burden the traffic conditions in the

district. In addition, if the Pok Fu Lam moratorium was relaxed or lifted, the

6

low-density residential development mode in Pok Fu Lam would be undermined. In

doing so, not only the living environment of nearby residents would be directly

affected, the natural landscape in the district would also be destroyed because large

number of trees would be removed, resulting in far-reaching effect on the living space

and quality of life of residents. He was regretted that relevant bureaux failed to send

representatives to the meeting, and opined that it was necessary for the bureaux

concerned to consult SDC and residents on the development direction and planning.

In this regard, he suggested that the discussion of this agenda item should be

postponed until the bureaux concerned could send representatives to the meeting.

10. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the Pok Fu Lam moratorium had so far

given PlanD and the Town Planning Board (TPB) a good reason to reject development

proposals. The Government would lift the moratorium when necessary, for example,

the Cyberport. Therefore, he opined that lifting the moratorium was probably fair

for land owners in Pok Fu Lam. If the moratorium was lifted, the next level of

control over land uses in Pok Fu Lam was the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). Currently

there were many unused sites on the Pok Fu Lam OZP, which could be made available

to the market immediately when the moratorium was lifted.

11. Mr NG Ka-shu responded that this subject involved DEVB, THB, the

Transport Department (TD) and PlanD, and DEVB was tasked to coordinate on this

subject and had prepared a consolidated written reply (Annex 2). He briefly

introduced the written reply from DEVB, and said that the Government was still

considering and assessing the feasibility of relaxing or lifting the moratorium

currently in force in Pok Fu Lam as proposed in the Policy Address, and that TD was

carrying out related traffic impact assessment (TIA) for the consideration of the

Government. At this stage, the Government did not have a specific plan or schedule

on relaxing or lifting the moratorium. He added that relaxing or lifting the

moratorium did not necessarily mean that there would be no control over the future

land use development in the district, and prevailing planning restrictions such as plot

ratios and building heights as stated in the OZP would still be in force.

12. The Chairman stressed the importance and necessity of this subject, and said

that relaxing or lifting the Pok Fu Lam moratorium was of utmost importance to the

future development of the Southern District. The Government put forward this

proposal in the Policy Address without sufficient supporting data and consultation,

which aroused the grave concern of SDC. According to a paper issued by the Panel

on Development under the Legislative Council (LegCo) on 16 January 2013, it was

7

stated that “Relaxing or Lifting the Pok Fu Lam and Mid-Levels Moratorium was one

of the new initiatives by DEVB”. Therefore, it was the responsibility of DEVB to

explain the background of and reasons for this policy initiative to SDC proactively to

address public concern, and consult SDC and the general public on the policy

directions and planning details. However, despite the repeated requests of SDC

Secretariat, DEVB still refused to send representatives to the meeting, and even the

Chinese version of the written reply (Annex 2) was made available only an hour

before the meeting after repeated urging. As bilingual documents were required in

the current term SDC, the behaviour of DEVB obviously showed that the Bureau had

no respect for SDC. The Committee expressed strong disapproval of the arrogance

of DEVB. Given that representatives of the bureaux concerned failed to show up at

the meeting, the Chairman proposed to take forward this matter as follows;

(a) to express DDEC’s disapproval, a letter should be written to the Chief

Executive’s Office to strongly reprimand DEVB for failing to send

representatives to SDC meeting, and to request relevant bureaux and

departments to consult SDC as soon as possible; and

(b) as officials from relevant bureaux/departments failed to show up at the

meeting, it was meaningless to continue the discussion, and so

suggested the discussion should be postponed.

13. Mr CHAI Man-hon did not object to the above proposals, but opined that

most importantly it was necessary to voice SDC’s views loud and clear, and relevant

bureaux and departments should be requested to provide comprehensive and specific

information on the subject in future discussions with SDC, and also public

engagement should be enhanced. Take the “Kai Tak Development” and the North

East New Territories New Development Areas as examples, despite the hot debates

on these two projects, at least a public engagement exercise was in place. Therefore,

he hoped that the Government would not shut the door when considering relaxing or

lifting the Pok Fu Lam moratorium, so as to avoid further questioning on the

credibility of the Government.

14. The Chairman suggested that if Members did not object to the above

arrangements, the discussion on the subject would be ceased.

15. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN was in support of sending a letter to the

Government but opined that it could be done in a more constructive manner. He said

that after lifting the Pok Fu Lam moratorium, the next level of planning control was

8

the related OZP. The current Pok Fu Lam OZP was being reviewed by PlanD, and to

date, PlanD had never asked SDC’s views on the existing OZP. He suggested that at

the next DDEC meeting, PlanD should present the existing Pok Fu Lam OZP and

asked what changes SDC would like to make on the existing OZP in the absence of

the moratorium, so that PlanD could take SDC’s views into account when preparing

the revised draft OZP. This could help the Government, PlanD and SDC to control

the development of Pok Fu Lam. Under the established procedures, PlanD would

submit the draft OZP to TPB for consideration and the planning draft would be

gazetted for public comments. By that time it would be too late for SDC to make

any changes because the TPB had basically approved the draft OZP, and all

departments concerned had already given views. It just made SDC look like

complaining. He opined that the letter should indicate that PlanD should present the

existing OZP and outline the permitted development potential beyond the existing

development after lifting the moratorium, and discuss with SDC what amendments

SDC would like to make to the OZP. Also, he requested PlanD to confirm at the

meeting that the revised draft OZP would not be submitted to TPB until it had heard

SDC’s views on the existing OZP.

16. The Chairman said that Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN held a different view on

sending a letter to reprimand the bureau concerned. However, DEVB just ignored

SDC’s discussion on such an important proposal in the Policy Address, and a written

reply was provided in Chinese only an hour before the meeting, and the English

version was not yet submitted so far. All these obviously showed that DEVB did not

respect SDC, so it was necessary to reprimand DEVB for its arrogance, and DEVB

should consult SDC as soon as possible. As for the specific contents of the letter,

reference could be made to the supplementary views just given by Mr CHAI Man-hon

and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN. The Chairman asked if Members held different views

on sending a letter.

17. Mr FUNG Wai-kwong shared the views of Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN.

18. The Committee endorsed that a letter would be sent to reprimand DEVB and

to request the bureaux and departments concerned to consult SDC as soon as possible.

19. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP commented that whether PlanD could get district

councils (DCs) involved as early as possible in district planning reflected the

willingness of the Government to delegate its power to DCs. In this regard, he

9

wished that PlanD could get SDC involved in the discussion and planning work of

this important subject as soon as possible.

20. Mr NG Ka-shu responded that PlanD was reviewing the Pok Fu Lam OZP,

which was a routine review exercise on land planning. According to DEVB’s

written reply, the proposal on relaxing or lifting the Pok Fu Lam moratorium was still

at the assessment and study stage, and PlanD’s current review on the said OZP had

nothing to do with the moratorium. In case amendments to the planned land uses in

the OZP were required in future, PlanD would consult SDC according to the

established procedures.

21. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that PlanD was trying to mislead the

Committee. After lifting the moratorium, the OZP was the next level to control the

development of Pok Fu Lam, and so, by discussing the uplifting of the moratorium,

the OZP became relevant. As PlanD was currently reviewing the related OZP, he

requested that SDC should be involved in the review of the Pok Fu Lam OZP before

PlanD submitted the draft OZP to TPB. It was crucial to seek SDC’s approval

beforehand because once the revised draft OZP was gazetted, it would be difficult for

SDC to raise further amendments.

22. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said that in relaxing or lifting moratoria, the

Government would consider changes to the development restrictions with respect to

the designated land uses. Hence, he agreed that the OZP would directly affect the

control over the development of Pok Fu Lam area in future.

23. The Chairman asked PlanD to pay special attention to the views of the

Members concerned.

(Post-meeting note: On 27 February 2013, SDC wrote to the Chief Executive to

reprimand DEVB and request the bureaux and departments

concerned to send representatives to the next DDEC meeting for

consultation.)

Agenda Item 3: Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District

(DDEC Paper No. 8/2013)

(Mr LAU Kar-wah and Mr LEE Kwan-keung joined the meeting at 3:01 p.m. and

10

3:09 p.m. respectively.)

Renewal Application for WSD worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road (TGLA No.

GLA-THK1162) and Short-term and Long-term Uses of the Site of Aberdeen

Fire Station (AFS)

24. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the Water

Supplies Department (WSD) to the meeting:

． Mr KAM Wing-kee, Chief Engineer/HK & Islands

． Mr LAU Wing-keung, Senior Engineer/HK& Islands 2

． Mr WAN Wai-yin, Engineer/HK (Distribution 6)

25. The Chairman said that at the last meeting, the Committee requested related

departments to search for a suitable alternative site as soon as possible to resolve

matters relating to the renewal application submitted by WSD for the worksite. The

Chairman invited representatives from relevant departments to report the latest

progress of the search.

26. Ms LOU Yin-yee reported that further to the four vacant government sites

suggested at the last meeting, LandsD, in response to Mr AU Nok-hin’s enquiries, had

put forward another five vacant government sites which were zoned community uses

in the OZP for use by WSD as a maintenance depot. As at 28 January 2013, LandsD

was still awaiting WSD’s reply. She said that the site on Ap Lei Chau Praya Road

was zoned industrial uses on related OZP, which was in line with the use as a

maintenance depot for WSD. Hong Kong was a populous city, and it was inevitable

that local community would have different opinions on locally unwanted land uses.

Therefore, WSD was advised to beautify the appearance of the existing maintenance

depot to reduce its visual impact on the surroundings and maintain a harmonious

relationship with its neighbour.

27. Mr KAM Wing-kee said that at the SDC meeting on 15 November 2012, Mr

AU Nok-hin suggested six pieces of government land for the consideration of WSD.

Subsequently on 12 December 2012, Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr LO Kin-hei provided

information on another six pieces of land for WSD. Afterwards on 17 January 2013,

WSD found that the site on Tin Wan Praya Road was suitable to use as a maintenance

depot, so sought the advice of LandsD on the 13 sites as stated in above. The reply

from LandsD indicated that nine of the sites could be available for use by WSD, so

11

WSD was now studying the said sites in detail.

28. Mr WAN Wai-yin briefly presented the information on the nine pieces of

land with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (Reference Paper 2), their respective

pros and cons were listed below:

Proposed Sites Pros Cons

(S1) Tai Tam Tuk Village - too close to villages

- the road was relatively

narrow and it would

be difficult for large

vehicles to use the

road

(S2) Site adjacent to former

Aberdeen Fire Station,

Yip Kan Street

- it laid mostly on a

slope

- the usable area was

too small

(S3) Site behind No.2 Lee Lok

Street, Ap Lei Chau

- level terrain - it had to use the

emergency access of

an industrial building

to access the site, it

would be difficult for

large vehicles to use

the road

(S4) Nam Fung Road near

Aberdeen Fire Station

- behind the retaining

wall were the slope

and woodland

- the usable area was

too small (about

100m2)

(S5) Site opposite to Hong

Kong Academy of

Medicine Jockey Club

Building

- it laid mostly on a

slope with trees on the

site

(S6) Cape Drive, Chung Hom

Kok

- convenient access

- concrete paved

surface without

the need to

- close to residential

premises

12

Proposed Sites Pros Cons

remove trees

(S7) Kong Sin Wan Road, Pok

Fu Lam

- it was located on

a roundabout

with convenience

access

- it was zoned

residential use on

OZP and was

located outside a

green zone

- undulating terrain and

it might need to

remove some trees

- an access would have

to be built to link the

two parcels of level

land (254.2 m2 and

568.9 m2 in area

respectively)

(S8) Pak Pat Shan Road

opposite to Red Hill Park

- level terrain

- convenient access

- currently a planter

(S9) Tin Wan Praya Road

Sewage Treatment Works

(DLOHKW114)

- level terrain

- convenient access

- the size was too small

(just a bit over 300

m2)

Tin Wan Praya Road

(DLOHKW&S060)

- level terrain

- convenient access

- LandsD replied that

the site was being

sought after by

another department

After considering the pros and cons of all the proposed sites, Mr WAN Wai-yin

concluded that:

(a) S(1) to S(5) were technically not feasible;

(b) S(6) to S(9) connected by roads for convenient access of large vehicles, and

the level terrain (except S(7)) required no large-scale levelling works.

Also, the absence of structure on the sites facilitated the use of crane, so

they were technically feasible to use as a maintenance depot;

(c) S(9), the preferred choice of WSD originally, covered two lots on Tin Wan

Praya Road with a total area of about 830 m2, and its size was similar to the

existing maintenance depot. However, LandsD replied that one of the lots

was being sought after by another department;

(d) S(6) and S(8) were close to residential premises and amongst the available

sites remained, S(7) was more suitable but levelling works was needed

before the two parcels of level land within could be used; and

(e) WSD welcomed LandsD to suggest more suitable vacant government land

for its consideration.

13

29. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN

LEE Pui-ying, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr

Paul ZIMMERMAN and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries as

follows:

Proposed Sites

(a) The main principle of site selection was that the site should not occupy

green zone. A few years ago, WSD had wished to use S(7) as a small

work site, but abandoned the plan due to its small size and so the site

remained a green zone. Besides, LandsD had already zoned the site for

“community and horticultural” uses, and coupled with the heavy people

flow during the school starting and finishing time of the ISF Academy

nearby, using the site as WSD’s maintenance depot was not recommended;

(b) as the former AFS site did not have any short- or long-term uses planned, it

was suggested that the department concerned should consider using the site

as a maintenance depot for utilisation of resources; and

(c) the operation of mixer trucks had already impacted the area of Tin Wan and

Wah Kwai Estate. Also, there were always large vehicles driving around

the vicinity of Hing Wai Industrial Centre, so S(9) was not recommended.

Site Selection Process

(a) The related departments did not communicate with the Members of the

constituencies concerned before the site selection. Members could only

get to read related meeting papers just before meeting, leaving them with

insufficient time to study related information and consult local residents.

Apart from these, they had only a few minutes to speak on the subject

during meeting, which was hardly enough to fully give their opinions on

various proposed sites. Therefore, it was hoped that related departments

could strengthen the cooperation and communication with local community

during the site selection process and engage the participation of Members of

the constituencies concerned in the process as soon as possible to collect

local views;

(b) there were already many worksites in the Southern District which had

caused visual blight to the area. Because of this, last year DDEC had

suggested reducing the number of worksites in the district. However, the

sites presently proposed were mostly located in green zone, if they were to

14

be used as WSD worksite, it would create further visual blight to the district.

Where appropriate, car park sites on short-term tenancy (STT) which had no

urgent use should be released for use by WSD;

(c) the existing use of WSD worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road was in line

with the “industrial” use as stated in the OZP, so the most justifiable reason

for the relocation was because of its proximity to the waterfront, which

made the site more fitting to use for marine purposes than a maintenance

depot for better utilisation of land resources. Before a more suitable site

could be found, it was suggested that WSD should continue to use the

worksite on Ap Lei Chau Praya Road by way of STT to avoid opening up

more sites originally located in a green zone;

(d) maintenance depot was locally unwanted land use, wherever it was placed,

it would be sure to meet with reservation from Members and residents of

the constituencies concerned. Therefore, the real benefits of relocation

should be considered. Even if WSD was succeeded in finding a site for

relocation this time, it still needed to search for another site at a regular

interval in future every time the STT expired. The constant need for a land

search put a toll on the parties involved in the long run and caused

nuisances to residents; and

(e) it was understood that all the proposed sites had their own technical

constrains and of course it would be the best if the site had already met all

the requirements of WSD. However, the fact was land was scarce in

supply in Hong Kong, therefore, it was recommended that the technical

feasibility of sites should be enhanced through levelling works.

Provision of Information on Land Available for Use

(a) Last year, DDEC had asked LandsD for a list of all vacant government land

in Hong Kong for easy reference on the available government land in the

Southern District. At that time, LandsD said that due to the vast number of

vacant government land in the Southern District, it was unable to provide a

comprehensive list. As such, it was believed that LandsD did not provide

all the available government land for WSD’s consideration; and

(b) LandsD had the responsibility to optimise government’s land resources and

the way LandsD responded to Members’ questions was like “squeezing out

toothpaste”, which earned Members’ disapproval. LandsD was requested

to provide information on all available government land for the

consideration of WSD and SDC.

15

30. Ms LOU Yin-yee gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) agreed that the number of worksites in the Southern District should be

minimised to enhance the visual amenity of the district. Therefore, WSD

was asked to consider merging the maintenance depot at Ap Lei Chau Praya

Road with those on the Hong Kong Island;

(b) the site at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road was industrial land and maintenance

depot was one of the always permitted uses. The WSD’s maintenance

depot there was set up since 1997. At present, the appearance of the depot

was not very pleasing, which aroused the discontent among different

stakeholders in the local community. However, it should be noted that

maintenance depot was an essential public facility. LandsD had previously

advised WSD to implement measures to improve the existing depot to

minimise the impacts on nearby community;

(c) due to the vast number of vacant government land in the district, it was

difficult for LandsD to provide a full list on them. Nevertheless, LandsD

would further consider its information system to provide more information

on vacant government land;

(d) government departments had different requirements for government land,

while works departments often applied for the same sites they had used

previously when the needs arose; and

(e) regarding a Member’s request for a full list on all STT sites, since it

involved other DCs, the request would have to be reflected to LandsD first.

31. Mr KAM Wing-kee gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) WSD had used the Ap Lei Chau Praya Road site as its maintenance depot

for more than a decade but its application for lease renewal in 2012 was met

with opposition from residents in the neighbourhood. Therefore, WSD

considered relocating the depot;

(b) the Ap Lei Chau Praya Road site was about 800m2 in area only. WSD had

already optimised the available space and so using a site of smaller size or

merging its operation with other maintenance depots was not feasible;

(c) it was hoped that LandsD would help search for a suitable alternative site;

and

(d) they had already tried to select a site away from residential premises.

Members’ disapproval to the use of the Telegraph Bay site for a

maintenance depot was noted. WSD would continue the search to balance

16

the needs of the public.

32. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued

to raise comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) the proposed site at Telegraph Bay was a green site close to residential

premises on Sassoon Road;

(b) to facilitate future discussion, LandsD was requested to provide a list on

STT sites containing the following information: (i) locations; (ii) area; (iii)

renewal dates; (iv) users department of respective temporary government

land allocation; and (v) related policy bureaux of the STT sites;

(c) the department concerned did not give a direct answer on the possibility of

WSD using the former AFS site as its worksite; and

(d) stressed the importance of the Members of local constituencies participating

in the land search and hoped that related departments could pay due

attention to communicating and working with SDC so as to resolve the

problem as soon as possible.

33. Ms LOU Yin-yee responded that the demolition of the former AFS site

would be completed by August 2013 at the earliest and then the site would be

surrendered to LandsD. The long-term planning of the site was still under review

and it was unclear about the duration available for short-term uses, that is, the period

after it was surrendered and before it was put to its long-term use.

34. The Chairman asked Ms LOU Yin-yee to give a firm reply on the possibility

of WSD using the former AFS site as a maintenance depot.

35. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that LandsD did not have a firm plan on the

short-term use of the AFS site. If WSD considered the site suitable, it could submit

an application and LandsD would process it according to the established procedures.

36. Mr KAM Wing-kee clarified that it was not meant that the Telegraph Bay

site was far away from residential premises, only that as compared with the other

proposed sites which were technically feasible, its impact on nearby residents was

possibly smaller. He further added that for the Sothern District at present WSD had

only two maintenance depots, one in Ap Lei Chau Praya Road and the other in Chung

Hom Kok, while the rest of its worksites were for other contract uses, so their

purposes were different.

17

37. The Chairman asked Mr KAM Wing-kee for his opinions on WSD using

former AFS site as a maintenance depot.

38. Mr KAM King-kee replied that since he did not have the related

information at the moment, he needed to further study the feasibility of the suggestion

after the meeting. If the said site was suitable for the intended purpose, WSD would

strive for it.

39. Mr CHAI Man-hon commented that time would be wasted if it had to wait

for the site to be formally surrendered to LandsD before conducting the study. He

hoped related department could handle the matter flexibly.

40. In closing, the Chairman said that Members had reservation on the nine

proposed sites mentioned in above and hoped related department could seriously

study the proposal of using the former AFS site as a maintenance depot of WSD. If

WSD considered the site suitable, it should submit an application as soon as possible.

The Chairman further reminded related departments to strengthen communication

with local community during the land search.

Utilisation of Facilities in Public Space at Stanley Plaza under the Charge of the

Link

41. Ms LOU Yin-yee tabled supplementary paper at the meeting to explain the

latest development on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) on The Link placing tables and chairs at the open area in front of Stanley

Plaza, LandsD had received two applications of placing such facilities on (i)

non-building area; and (ii) public area respectively;

(b) LandsD had approved application (i) in November 2012. However, The

Link had appealed the condition on fee-charging as stated in the approval

letter, and LandsD was processing the appeal application according to the

established procedures;

(c) at the meeting on 28 May 2012, DDEC unanimously agreed that approval to

the above applications should be granted as soon as possible. Then

LandsD conducted departmental consultation according to procedures and

initiated district consultation through the Southern District Office (SDO).

Although the applications received no departmental objection, some

members of the public worried that placing tables and chairs at the locations

18

might lead to environmental hygiene problems. LandsD had reflected the

views to The Link and the latter promised to enhance cleansing work; and

(d) LandsD hoped to consult DDEC on the quantity and location of the tables

and chairs to be placed by The Link in this meeting. If the Committee did

not object to the application in principle, approval could be granted within a

few days.

42. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired about the details of the two

applications.

43. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that The Link had submitted two applications for

placing tables and chairs at (i) at non-building area and (ii) public area in front of

Stanley Plaza respectively. The pictures tabled showed the quantity and location of

the tables and chairs to be placed by The Link. LandsD had conducted district

consultation through SDO and the objections received stated that the number of tables

and chairs were too many, and also there was worry about the environmental hygiene

when dogs used the tables and chairs. The Link had put forward improvement

proposals in response to the objections, which included:

(a) as people flow at Stanley would be higher during holidays, it was proposed

that fewer tables and chairs would be placed on weekdays while more

would be provided only on holidays; and

(b) cleansing would be enhanced to maintain the environmental hygiene.

Since the official approval to application (ii) had not been granted yet, LandsD wished

to consult the Committee in this meeting so as to confirm the approval as soon as

possible.

44. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP and Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN continued to raise comments and enquiries on the subject as follows:

(a) every proposal would meet with support and opposition. Earlier on, the

Committee had unanimously supported placing tables and chairs at the open

area in front of Stanley Plaza and recommended LandsD to grant approval

to the application as soon as possible. A one-year trial period was

proposed to be followed by a review on the situation; and

(b) notwithstanding the tables and chairs, dogs could enter the area, so this

should not affect the environmental hygiene significantly.

19

45. In closing, the Chairman said that the Committee supported the application

and invited Ms LOU Yin-yee to note the suggestion of a one-year trial period. The

Member of the constituency concerned was advised to actively give views during the

implementation period as input for the review later on.

Re-tendering of Short-Term Tenancies for Shipyard Use at Ap Lei Chau Praya

Road

46. The Chairman said that the proposed main terms and conditions of the

re-tender of the shipyard STT sites were listed in paragraphs 12 to 16 of the paper.

Ms LOU Yin-yee was invited to report on the latest progress of the re-tendering

exercise.

47. Ms LOU Yin-yee briefly presented the progress of the re-tendering.

Details were summarised as follows:

(a) the re-tendering exercise was initiated in late June 2012, which included

departmental consultation and local consultation via SDO. In

collaboration with THB and Marine Department (MD), LandsD also

conducted a consultation with the trade and industry to seek the views of

various sectors on the proposed lease terms and conditions;

(b) LandsD had discussed the re-tendering at the District Lands Conferences

(DLC) in December 2012 and January 2013 respectively. SDO

representative attended the DLC in December 2012 to reflect the views and

expectations of different stakeholders in the area;

(c) the proposed main terms and conditions were at Appendix A;

(d) the lease term of the 14 sites listed in Appendix I and the two sites in

Appendix II were seven years and five years respectively;

(e) the permitted structure erected should not exceed a height of 7.62m and

should comply with the provisions in the Buildings Ordinance; and

(f) LandsD specially wished to consult SDC on the proposed condition 9(ix)

“The Tenant shall not keep any dog(s) within the Premises”.

48. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received comments from

shipyard operators on the proposed terms and conditions before the meeting, and the

letter was tabled at the meeting for Members’ reference.

49. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI man-hon, Ms

20

CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE

How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the subject

as follows:

Term

(a) shipyard operators would need a long period for cost recovery after the

re-tendering. As such, the proposed lease term at seven years was too

short, and hoped that the lease period could be extended; and

(b) some interested shipyard operators might be deterred by the short lease

term.

Permitted Structure

(a) At present, the insufficient space had created difficulties for shipyard

operation. It was hoped that the limit on gross floor area (GFA) of

permitted structure could be released to 40 m2

for the provision of various

facilities listed in the proposed condition 4(ii); and

(b) nowadays the size of vessels was generally bigger and the building height

capped at 7.62m was obsolete. It was suggested that the permitted

structure height should be slightly increased.

Keeping of Dogs

(a) For years shipyards had been keeping dogs for security purpose. If

restriction was imposed to forbid shipyards to keep dogs, it would increase

the operational cost of shipyards, and the additional expenses would be

transferred to users, thus adding burden to fishermen;

(b) it was hard to differentiate whether nuisances were caused by stray dogs,

dogs kept by shipyards or that by nearby residents, thus making

enforcement very difficult;

(c) it was unfair to suddenly forbid shipyards from keeping dogs, which had

deep root in the area, while people living in the nearby residential premises

were allowed to do so;

(d) there was relevant legislation to regulate dog nuisances;

(e) the deeds of mutual covenant of some residential premises also forbade

residents to keep dogs. It was understandable that LandsD would propose

to add similar condition in the tender having considered the actual situation;

21

and

(f) it should not be too difficult to enforce the requirement.

Other Comments

(a) Related department should carefully consider the comments and queries

raised by the shipyard trade which had the professional knowledge on the

subject;

(b) enquired about the arrangement of keeping the sawmills;

(c) owing to the poor planning of related department when changing the land

use to residential purpose in the past, conflicts occurred between the

industrial and residential land uses. Today, the change could not be

reversed and LandsD could only impose appropriate lease terms to balance

the interests of various stakeholders;

(d) residents should have known about the industrial and shipyard sites before

moving to Larvotto;

(e) at the last meeting, there was a proposal to merge some of the sites to

increase the size and scale of shipyards, but the terms and conditions

proposed did not respond to the suggestion. Nevertheless, the shipyard

sites concerned were left vacant for quite some time. While the coastline

was important to the development of marine industry in Hong Kong, the

government should initiate the tendering exercise as soon as possible to

meet the needs of shipbuilding and repairing;

(f) the proposed terms and conditions did not respond to the suggestion on

tendering by phases, which was disappointing as it would waste the land

resources and failed to ensure market demand;

(g) the land use of the shipyards sites should be stipulated clearly in the terms

and conditions to safeguard against future misuse for other purposes such as

mooring for private yachts; and

(h) shipyards and fisheries were the special features and cores of economy of

the Southern District. Members acknowledged the necessity of shipyard

facilities but felt that the proposed terms and conditions were more inclined

to favour the opinions of the trade.

50. Ms LOU Yin-yee gave a consolidated response as follows:

Term

22

(a) LandsD submitted a planning application to zone the 14 sites in Appendix I

for shipyard purposes in 1986, so shipyard was the always permitted use.

This would not be affected by the restrictions relating to the short-term

purposes as stated in the OZP during re-tendering, also the maximum lease

term remained seven years. The two sites listed in Appendix II were

originally designated for sawmill use, since LandsD had not submitted a

planning application for using them as shipyards, their maximum lease term

was five years under the existing planning; and

(b) the maximum STT lease periods were seven years under the existing policy.

Permitted Structure

(a) LandsD drafted the proposed terms and conditions based on the building

height (i.e. 7.62 m) set in the planning application at that time; and

(b) the structure defined in the proposed condition 4(ii) was the residential

accommodation for a watchman or caretaker to be employed by the tenant

in future, which did not included the premises of the shipyard (the proposed

condition 4(i))).

Keeping of Dogs

(a) At present, different dog-related matters were regulated by the Food and

Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), Hong Kong Police Force

(HKPF) and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

(AFCD) under different legislations: (i) Public Health and Municipal

Services Ordinance (Chapter 132); (ii) Summary Offences Ordinance

(Chapter 228); and (iii) Dangerous Dogs Regulation (Chapter 167D) etc;

(b) The Public Complaints Office of LegCo had convened a Case Conference

in early 2013 to discuss the planned use of Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, during

which AFCD representative had explained that its staff had caught dogs at

the said site. The Case Conference requested LandsD to carefully consider

including the proposed condition 9(ix) in the tenancy agreement to forbid

future tenant to keep dogs in the site and that they should adopt other types

of security measures;

(c) in response to the request of the Case Conference, LandsD consulted related

policy bureaux and departments including FEHD, HKPF, AFCD, the

Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and THB in early January

2013. FEHD, HKPF and AFCD replied that they were empowered by

23

relevant legislation to take enforcement action. EPD said that earlier it had

received complaints about noise nuisances from dogs, and after noise

measurement at site, it was discovered that the noise did not exceed the

statutory level. They all had no comments on the proposed condition; and

(d) since the proposed condition involved sensitive matter which might lead to

conflicts between different stakeholders in the community, LandsD had

sought the advice of SDO. SDO suggested LandsD should consult SDC.

As such, LandsD wished to collect Members’ views in this meeting.

Other Comments

(a) The 16 sites listed in Appendix I and II were all for shipyard uses;

(b) there were still two sawmills at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road;

(c) the definitions in the proposed terms and conditions were more or less the

same as those in other leases of similar nature; and

(d) LandsD had consulted THB and MD on the proposal of tendering in phases.

THB considered that there was actual needs for the shipyard sites and so

supported tendering all the sites in one go.

51. The Chairman said that to expedite the process of meeting, Members who

had spoken on the dog keeping issue had no need to repeat their stand again and

advised other Members to be concise and precise in their speech.

52. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr

CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHU

Lap-wai, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr

Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr LEE Kwan-keung continued to raise comments and

enquiries as follows:

Term

(a) Fisheries had made great contributions to the Southern District and their

business environment warranted special attention. Extending the lease

term could help induce shipyards operators to invest more resources to

improve shipyards and their surrounding areas, which could in turn reduce

tension and conflicts with other stakeholders in the local community;

(b) the Southern District had a long-term need for marine business and the

maximum lease term at seven years was too short. It was suggested that

24

the industrial land on Ap Lei Chau Praya Road should be rezoned to provide

long-term land for shipyard operation and that a long-term lease should be

granted to shipyards;

(c) under the existing policy on STT, the longest lease term was seven years, it

was difficult to request LandsD for special treatment. Besides, if no

obvious non-compliance occurred during the lease period, normally the

lease would be automatically renewed, so the seven-year lease term was

only a formality. The shipyards in Sham Wan and Po Chong Wan had

been operating by way of STT in the Southern District for several decades,

so the operators should not be too worried about the lease period;

(d) lease renewal by quarter had created pressure on shipyard operation, and it

was necessary to improve the renewal arrangements; and

(e) a long-term lease could include more conditions to regulate shipyard

operation, but it was believed that LandsD would not take this advice.

Permitted Structure

(a) The planning application of LandsD was approved in 1986. Today, the

types of vessels as well as the building height and area required for a

shipyard had undergone great changes, so the standards set in some 20 years

ago were unable to cope with the present needs;

(b) the trade was the most knowledgeable about the business environment of

the industry. It was suggested that the department concerned should

exchange views with the trade more to understand their needs and

expectations for formulating policies and measures that kept abreast with

the time;

(c) if LandsD insisted on including terms and conditions unacceptable to the

trade, it would deter the operators and end up with nobody putting in bid.

This went against the original aim of the re-tendering exercise to utilise land

resources;

(d) the building height restrictions should be relaxed; and

(e) the building height restrictions imposed in the proposed terms and

conditions were drawn up according to the planning application and could

not be adjusted simply by revising the lease terms and conditions. Instead,

a new application was required and it would take at least another year or

two to go through the planning procedures. In this regard, a two-pronged

approach was suggested, on the one hand, the re-tendering should be

proceeded first to provide shipyard sites to meet the needs of marine

25

business as soon as possible; and on the other hand, close collaboration with

related departments should be continued to study amendments to the

building height restrictions on the OZP so that upon lease renewal,

operators were allowed to build bigger structures to improve their business

environment.

Keeping of Dogs

(a) With reference to the experience of the shipyards in Sham Wan and Po

Chong Wan in decades, the disputes between shipyards and local residents

mainly came from the dogs in the shipyards. The conflicts between the

shipyards and residential purposes in Ap Lei Chau Praya Road were getting

worse, and adding appropriate conditions in the lease during re-tendering

could offer an opportunity to resolve the problem once and for all.

Forbidding shipyards to keep dogs was reasonable and practicable, and

could help avoid the endless social disputes in future;

(b) enquired about the details of the case conference of LegCo;

(c) hiring security guards would burden shipyards, so keeping dogs was the

only way to safeguard the security of shipyards. Besides, most fishermen

kept dogs, so even if the proposed condition 9(ix) was imposed, fishermen’s

dogs would still go with fishing vessels to shipyards for maintenance and

repair. Fishermen and shipyards did not deliberately create conflicts in the

community, and they only wished to protect their lives and properties;

(d) it was not right to draw up such terms just to restrict shipyards keeping dogs.

If residents’ dogs caused nuisances, they would be subject to related

legislation;

(e) it was difficult to take a sweeping approach on forbidding shipyards to keep

dogs. Rather, shipyard operators should be required to contain the noise

nuisances created by their dogs to maintain community harmony; and

(f) there were kindergartens and child care centres in the neighbourhood of

shipyards, while all along the efforts of related departments to regulate

dog-related matters were far from satisfactory, it was necessary to impose

the proposed condition to protect children and residents.

Other Comments

(a) It was hoped that LandsD could consult SDC again before confirming the

terms and conditions;

26

(b) as the sawmills and shipyards were closely related, a Member wanted to

know the reasons why there would be no more sawmill after the

re-tendering;

(c) noting that the illegal subletting of shipyard sites was serious at the moment,

it was proposed that LandsD should step up enforcement to ensure that the

whole site was use for the prescribed purposes;

(d) the purposes of shipyard sites should state more clearly in the lease to avoid

abuse;

(e) the present terms and conditions had already stated clearly that the sites

would be used for “ship or boat building or ship or boat repairing”. It was

believed that related parties would further define the purposes if disputes

occurred in future;

(f) the proposal of tendering in phases had been fully discussed at the last

meeting, so it should not be discussed again at this meeting; and

(g) a Member emphasised that he recognised the importance of retaining the

shipyards, and reiterated that he did not mean to adopt a “take no prisoners”

attitude towards the shipyards. However, the long standing lack of

communication between these two very different communities had resulted

in the long-term hostility. He just hoped to take the opportunity of

re-tendering to improve the relationship among different stakeholders to

achieve a win-win situation for social inclusion. However, seeing that the

proposed terms and conditions favoured the opinions of certain stakeholders,

he worried that the harmony in the community would be further damaged,

so the Democratic Party objected to the document.

53. The Chairman said that it was difficult to reach a consensus on the subject,

so he asked LandsD to carefully consider the different expectations of stakeholders as

reflected by Members. Although no consensus was achieved on the issue of keeping

dogs, from what Members had just said, it seemed that Members were more inclined

to cancel the related condition. He asked LandsD to carefully consider various

views before making an impartial decision. The Chairman urged LandsD to

expedite the tendering exercise and report to SDC immediately when there was any

progress.

54. Ms LOU Yin-yee clarified the following two points:

(a) a deputation had submitted a representation to the Public Complaints Office

of LegCo on the planned use of the industrial land on Ap Lei Chau Praya

27

Road in early January 2013. LandsD, amongst other departments, was

invited to attend the case conference by LegCo to explain matters relating to

the re-tendering of the said STT site. Several LegCo Members were present

at the conference, and requested LandsD to seriously consider adding a

condition to forbid keeping dogs in the leased premises; and

(b) in 1986, LandsD had invited shipyard operators affected by the reclamation

works in north Ap Lei Chau for a limited tendering, and afterwards the

shipyards moved to the present sites at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. Their

STTs were automatically renewed quarterly since then. However, the 16

sites under the re-tendering exercise were originally put up for an open

tender and no automatic renewal mechanism would be in place. Upon

lease expiry, LandsD would handle these sites according to the prevailing

policy.

55. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN commented that the case conference mentioned

above concerned the development of the Southern District, so he asked why SDC was

not informed. He requested LegCo to provide related information and inform SDC

of any future discussion relating to the Southern District.

56. The Chairman said the SDC was familiar with the conditions in the district

and could give advice on local affairs to the LegCo. He agreed that LegCo should

maintain good communication with districts.

57. Ms LOU Yin-yee supplemented that the case conference was held in close

door.

Revised Preservation-cum-Development Proposal for Jessville at 128 Pokfulam

Road, Hong Kong

58. The Chairman welcomed the representatives from DEVB and the Hong

Kong Knight Frank to the meeting:

DEVB

． Miss Vivian KO, Commissioner for Heritage

． Miss Queenie LEE, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3

Knight Frank Hong Kong

． Mr Alnwick CHAN, Executive Director, Auction, Land Advisory

28

Services, Valuations

59. The Chairman briefly introduced the background of this agenda item.

Details were summarised as follows:

(a) according to the SDC paper for meeting on 25 June 2009 (SDC Paper No.

59/2009), at that time DEVB had reached an agreement with the owners on

the preservation arrangements. The owners finally proposed to retain the

Jessville building as a club house for residents and open it to the public in a

limited way;

(b) at that time, SDC agreed with the spirit of the

preservation-cum-development proposal, considering that it was worthwhile

to relax the building height and constraints in exchange for preserving

Jessville, so raised no objection to the said proposal. Subsequently, the

Executive Council and the Town Planning Board (TPB) approved the

conservation mode endorsed by SDC;

(c) the planning application was approved by the Metro Planning Committee

(MPC) under TPB on 5 June 2009 with conditions to open Jessville for

public viewing once a week;

(d) however, under the revised proposal at present, Jessville would not be open

for public viewing, only a public viewing area would be set up to facilitate

the public to appreciate the external façade of the building, which obviously

went against the previous agreement between the owners and the

Government as well as the additional conditions imposed by TPB; and

(e) therefore, at the last meeting, the Committee requested DEVB to continue

to discuss the revised proposal with the owners.

60. The Chairman invited DEVB to report the discussion with the owners.

61. Miss Vivian KO reported that following the last meeting, DEVB had

discussed with the owners on Members’ concerns over the revised proposal and the

reply from the owners was at Appendix B. She invited the consultant representing

the owners to briefly present their position on the subject.

62. Mr Alnwick CHAN briefly presented the owners’ reply. Details were

summarised as follows:

(a) Jessville was currently a Grade 3 historic building and there was no

29

statutory requirement to preserve the building under the existing policy.

Nevertheless, the owners were willing to retain the building if it was

practicable to do so;

(b) the owners had actively explored the original proposal but the premium

required to pay was approximately $1.4 billion. Since the owners had

limited financial resources, they could only afford the present development

mode, which was the best possible option, to preserve the appearance of the

building within their capacity;

(c) under the new proposal, the number of flats to be provided would be

significantly reduced from 72 to 33 and the GFA to 5 796 m2, representing a

reduction of plot ratio from 2.1 to 0.9. With the development scale

reduced, the number of residential flats would be greatly reduced, leaving

the owners without sufficient means to maintain Jessville, so retaining the

building as a club house was not a viable option;

(d) under the revised proposal, Jessville would be converted to four residential

units. To protect the privacy of the residents, it was not possible to open

the interior of the building for public viewing. For this, he apologised

again on the owners’ behalf; and

(e) the existing building was ageing and the owners wished to implement the

preservation plan as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration of the

building which added complications to the conservation.

63. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling,

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the

subject as follows:

(a) whether the owners needed to apply to the Government for relaxing

development restrictions in respect of the revised proposal;

(b) believed that the revised proposal was the best possible option given the

available resources but stressed that the overall conservation policy of Hong

Kong should be reviewed. In countries such as Holland and Britain, by

law the owners were required to self-finance the maintenance of the historic

buildings to comply with relevant conservation and preservation standards,

which was more effective than the current practice in Hong Kong where

owners were encouraged to preserve historic buildings through financial or

development incentives;

(c) there were many historic buildings in Pok Fu Lam area. It was proposed

that a heritage trail should be developed to link up Jessville with all these

30

buildings for public enjoyment, which would enhance the effectiveness of

conservation;

(d) it was suggested that Jessville should be open on holidays for public

viewing so as to enable more people to know about the building; and

(e) at that time SDC approved the original proposal on conservation grounds

and now the owners changed their mind because of a variety of reasons. It

was worried that the owners might want to demolish Jessville for one reason

or others in future.

64. Miss Vivian KO gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) having collected the views from relevant parties, the owners still needed to

go through related procedures before implementing the proposal. When

handling the revised proposal of the owners, the Government would take

into account various factors including the views of SDC and the general

public;

(b) the owners would need to modify the land lease to implement the revised

proposal. During the process, DEVB would request LandsD to impose

conditions in the land lease to require the owners to protect Jessville from

demolition;

(c) in the 2013 Policy Address, it was mentioned that the Government would

review a the existing policy on the conservation of privately-owned historic

buildings in Hong Kong. Reference would be made to similar policies in

other countries; and

(d) besides Jessville, there were many historic buildings in Pok Fu Lam area.

DEVB would further study how to link up the historic buildings in the area.

65. Mr Alnwick CHAN agreed that public access to the Jessville site could be

arranged on a public holiday around the birthdays of Mr Thomas TAM (21 July) and

Ms Jessie TAM (20 June) every year respectively to facilitate the public to appreciate

the Jessville building.

66. The Chairman asked whether it was necessary for the owners to apply to the

Government for relaxing the development restrictions again.

67. Miss Vivian KO responded that LandsD would follow up on the lease

modification and DEVB would handle the partial uplifting of the Pokfulam

Moratorium according to the established procedures.

31

68. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP regretted that the owners did not listen to SDC’s

views on the preservation arrangements. As mentioned in the discussion of Agenda

Item 2, the Government was considering lifting the PokfulamMoratorium. He

requested DEVB to discharge its duty as a gate-keeper for the preservation

arrangements properly, and should not relax development restrictions if the owners

failed to fully comply with all the requirements.

69. In closing, the Chairman said that at that time, SDC did not object to

relaxing building restrictions in exchange for retaining Jessville. However, the

owners now insisted on revising the proposal, which obviously paid no heed to SDC’s

views. Jessville was a Grade 3 historic building and under the existing policy, the

Government had no authority to make the owners retain or preserve the building,

while the revised plan did not contravene relevant legislation. Legally, SDC and

even the Government could do nothing about the owners for refusing to change their

proposal. Nevertheless, the owners changed the original agreement after gaining the

necessary support of the last term SDC, and morally speaking, they did not keep their

promise, which the Committee felt deeply regret and requested DEVB and the

owners’ representative to reflect this sentiment to the owners. The Chairman

emphasised that SDC had always taken a very serious attitude towards development

restrictions in the district. Furthermore, recently the Government was considering

lifting the Pokfulam Moratorium, DDEC should enhance its efforts in discharging its

duty as a gate-keeper on the development of the district. He requested DEVB and

relevant departments to carefully consider the Committee’s views when uplifting the

Pokfulam Moratorium with respect to the revised proposal.

Planning Application for the “Comprehensive Development Area” Site in Wong

Chuk Hang

70. Miss Isabel YIU reported the latest progress of the subject. Details were

summarised as follows:

(a) following the discussion at the SDC meeting on 17 January 2013, the MTR

Corporation (MTR Corp) submitted supplementary information in response

to relevant departments’ comments but had not submitted application for

further deferment;

(b) the said planning application would be tentatively scheduled for

consideration by TPB on 8 February 2013 ;

(c) according to the Town Planning Ordinance, upon receipt, PlanD should

32

submit the planning application to TPB for consideration within two months;

and

(d) TD was reviewing the TIA report submitted by MTR Corp. Upon receipt

of TD’s comments, PlanD would submit the relevant documents of the

planning application to MPC of TPB for consideration.

71. The Chairman said despite the fact that both SDC and DDEC had endorsed

motions to object to the planning application in their respective meetings, MTR Corp

paid no heed to the legitimate expectations of local community. In this regard,

Members were invited to note the arrangement on making a petition to TPB.

72. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that MTR Corp did not consult SDC on the

revised proposal again as requested by TPB. Under such circumstances, TPB should

simply refuse to consider the application as scheduled, so there would be no need for

SDC to petition to TPB.

73. Miss Isabel YIU supplemented on the planning application procedures as

follows:

(a) after MTR Corp submitted the planning application, PlanD published the

application for public comments for 3 weeks in accordance with the Town

Planning Ordinance;

(b) PlanD had to submit all the application documents together with the public

views received during consultation to TPB for consideration within two

months from the date of receipt of the planning application;

(c) on 21 December 2012, MTR Corp requested TPB for deferment of its

application and submitted further information on 21 and 24 December 2012.

Subsequently, PlanD published the submitted further information for public

comments starting from 4 January 2013 for 3 weeks in accordance with the

Town Planning Ordinance; and

(d) PlanD was well aware of the various concerns of SDC over the planning

application and so requested MTR Corp to attend the SDC meeting on 17

January 2013 to explain the details of the planning application again. At

the meeting, a Member requested MTR Corp to explain the details to SDC

again before submitting the revised proposal to TPB. Since there was no

provision under the Town Planning Ordinance to require the applicant to

consult SDC before submission of an application, PlanD could only conduct

public consultation on the application in accordance with the provisions

33

under the Town Planning Ordinance.

74. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said that MTR Corp did not communicate with

SDC at all, while TD had no satisfactory reply on Members’ concerns over various

traffic issues. PlanD should act as a gate-keeper and requested TPB to defer the

consideration of the planning application.

75. The Chairman expressed the strong discontent of SDC over MTR Corp’s

behaviour and invited Members to note the arrangement of making a petition to TPB.

76. Mr CHAI Man-hon asked about PlanD’s attitude towards the planning

application.

77. Miss Isabel YIU said PlanD understood the grave concern of SDC on the

traffic impact of the proposed development in the Wong Chuk Hang “Comprehensive

Development Area” on the local traffic network. In this regard, professional advice

from TD was important in considering the planning application. PlanD had not

received further comments from TD and therefore had not reached a conclusion on the

planning application yet.

PWP No. 013WS

78. Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and

enquiries as follows:

(a) the reasons for works delay and the exact date of project completion;

(b) whether the related areas were ready for the sea water supply system and

connection with sea water supply should be implemented immediately after

works completion on March 2013 so as not to let the system lay idle; and

(c) the works on item (a) had been carrying on for years with slow progress,

causing continuous noise nuisances to nearby residents. It was hoped that

PlanD could complete the works as soon as possible.

79. Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung said he would contact WSD to find out the

situation after the meeting and then provide supplementary information via the

Secretariat.

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information from

34

WSD for Members’ reference on 3 April 2013.]

PWP No. 191WC/A

80. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa commented that WSD used to maintain good

communication with local communities on the implementation of works, but this

situation had changed recently. Also, many residents complained about the traffic

impacts arising from the works on Shum Wan Road under item (i), and the traffic flow

was particularly heavy during weekends. He hoped that WSD could pay attention to

the matters and make improvement.

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the response from WSD for Members’

reference on 3 April 2013.]

PWP Head 705 Subhead 5001BX

81. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked about the exact location of item (n).

82. Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung said that he would contact related department to

find out the situation after the meeting and then provide supplementary information

via the Secretariat.

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the supplementary response from

CEDD for Members’ reference on 3 April 2013.]

Progress Report on Public Housing Works in Southern District

83. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that in a radio programme on 17 January 2013, the

Secretary for Development mentioned that new rental public housing and Home

Ownership Scheme housing development would be built near Wah Fu Estate. He

wished to know the details.

84. Mr WONG Sun-man said that he did not have the related information.

85. Mr CHAI Man-hon asked whether the Housing Department just did not

have the information for the time being or that the Government simply did not have

the plan.

35

86. Mr WONG Sun-man replied that he had not received any information on

the matter.

(Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong, Mr LAU Kar-wah, Mr EUNG

Wai-foon, MH, JP, Dr MUI Heung-fu and Mr CHAN Man-chun left the meeting at

4:42 p.m., 4:48 p.m., 5:15 p.m., 5:16 p.m. and 5:20 p.m. respectively.)

Agenda Item 4: Planning and Engineering Study on Future Land Use at the

Ex-Lamma Quarry Area at Sok Kwu Wan, Lamma Island -

Feasibility Study (Stage 1 Community Engagement)

(Item raised by Planning Department and Civil Engineering

and Development Department)

(DDEC Paper No. 2/2013)

87. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from government

departments and consultancy company to the meeting:

Planning Department

． Miss CHEUK Hau-kwan, Chief Town Planner/Special Duties

． Mr LUI Yu-man, Senior Town Planner/Special Duties 1

HK Island and Islands Development Office, Civil Engineering and

Development Department

． Mr LO Kwok-chung, Chief Engineer/Islands

． Mr CHAU Kwok-leung, Engineer 11 (Islands Division)

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.

． Ms Theresa YEUNG, Project Manager (Planning)

88. The Chairman thanked the departments concerned and consultancy

company for their strenuous efforts in preparing for the meeting, nonetheless, due to

the packed agenda items, he wished that the presentation could be finished within 10

minutes so that Members could have sufficient time to discuss areas of prime concern.

89. Ms Theresa YEUNG, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (Reference

Paper 1), briefly introduced the two initial land use options for public’s comment in

the Stage One Community Engagement.

36

90. The Chairman invited Members to note that the Islands DC had expressed

strong support to the proposed land uses at its meeting on 17 December 2012, and

SDC should respect the views of the Islands DC and local residents. The Chairman

suggested that Members should focus the discussion on the impact of the proposed

land uses on the Southern District, traffic matters in particular.

91. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr CHAI Man-hon,

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Dr YANG

Mo, PhD and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the subject

as follows:

Development Needs

(a) For the interest of Hong Kong as a whole, and in the face of population

growth, as well as shortages in housing and land supply, the proposed

land uses could be a feasible option to increase housing supply in the

long run. Nevertheless, as far as the Southern District was concerned,

it would inevitably cause certain misgivings. It was hoped that

related departments could further consider SDC’s concerns on the

proposed land uses;

(b) recognised the development needs of Lamma Island and lent full

support to the proposed land uses. It was suggested that the external

accessibility of Lamma Island could be enhanced by leveraging on the

existing piers and MTR station at South Horizons; and

(c) to cope with the needs of future economic growth of Hong Kong, the

departments concerned should consider other land uses such as the

development of universities, convention centres, hotels and casinos on

Lamma Island.

Traffic Impact on Southern District

(a) At present, the Southern District served as an interchange hub for

many people to/from Lamma Island. There were concerns over the

effects of the proposed land uses on the Southern District, especially in

the neighbourhood of Aberdeen. It was also asked whether an

analysis had been carried out regarding the existing and projected

people flow between Aberdeen and Lamma Island by ferry, “kai-to” or

other transport means, availability of a park-and-ride car park and

37

passenger pick-up/drop-off points, as well as the traffic impact of the

proposed land uses;

(b) it was believed that one of the reasons for indigenous residents of

Lamma Island to support residential development on the island was

that they hoped to adjust ferry frequency through population growth on

the island. Currently, people relied on ferry services to/from Lamma

Island/Central, and Lamma Island/Aberdeen respectively. Central

was a central business district, served with a large-scale public

transport interchange, which could cope with the extra traffic flow

arising from the population growth on Lamma Island. However,

Aberdeen lacked comprehensive transport facilities to interchange for

MTR or other transport means, on top of this, residents on Lamma

Island normally used feeder services at Aberdeen for access to other

places. In the light of the frequent traffic congestions at the Aberdeen

Tunnel, it was worried that the population growth and increase in ferry

frequency would greatly burden the overall traffic conditions in the

Southern District; and

(c) the departments concerned should carry out a detailed district-specific

TIA to survey on matters such as traffic facilities in Aberdeen and

infrastructural facilities that could cope with the population growth on

Lamma Island before proceeding further study on the proposed land

uses.

Impact on Lamma Island

(a) Due to typological characteristics, Lamma Island lacked

comprehensive surface transport facilities, which might impede its

development as a low-density residential area or tourist attraction;

(b) the current population of Lamma Island was about 6 000. However,

under the proposed land use options, the population would be

increased by around one-fold in future. This drastic population

growth would burden community facilities and transport facilities on

the island;

(c) under Option 2, the potential increase in population would exert less

pressure on the island, but there was worry that the island would

become a private luxury residential or resort area, which could not

meet the genuine housing demand in Hong Kong, and even barred the

general public from the beautiful scenery on Lamma Island;

38

(d) the proposed building heights under Options 1a, 1b and 2 would be

deemed ideal in the urban area. Nevertheless, the existing buildings

on Lamma Island were generally three to four storeys, and the

construction of buildings up to eight to 12 storeys would adversely

affect the existing development mode, life style and natural landscape

of the island. Endowed with a leisurely rural ambience, Lamma

Island had distinguished itself as a tourist destination and holiday

getaway, while islanders also wished to continue to enjoy a

comfortable and leisure living environment. Therefore, an extensive

development mode and the proposed building heights were not

supported; and

(e) if a private sector development mode was adopted across-the-board,

the above worries would become a reality. Therefore, for the time

being, the proposed land uses was not supported, pending for further

information.

Others

(a) Given the proximity of the Southern District and Lamma Island, local

residents in the Southern District frequently enjoyed their leisure on

Lamma Island, and their patronage had accounted for a large portion of

the visitors of the island. As such, the departments concerned should

take SDC’s views into account when considering an extensive

long-term development plan on Lamma Island;

(b) fishery industry was of utmost importance to Lamma Island and the

Southern District, thus there were concerns over the possible impact of

the proposed land uses on mariculture rafts; and

(c) take Stanley as an example, at the initial stage of a new development

area, it was necessary for the Government to construct public and

subsidised housing estates to ensure that a population was built up to

support the infrastructural development of the community, while it

took time to construct other community facilities such as schools and

tourist facilities. In this regard, it was suggested that the departments

concerned could make reference to the development mode of other

similar regions, and provide further information for the discussion of

SDC.

92. Miss CHEUK Hau-kwan gave a consolidated response as follows:

39

Traffic Impact on Southern District

(a) At present, there were ferry services to/from Lamma Island and

Aberdeen. The consultant was considering various transport facilities

options, including the provision of additional piers on the island and

optimisation of the surface transport system connecting Sok Kwu Wan

and Lo So Shing, with a view to enhancing the accessibility of Lamma

Island; and

(b) the development sites at the ex-Lamma Quarry Area would be

gradually available after 2020, and by that time, MTR SIL would be

put into operation. The consultant would carry out a detailed TIA on

the future traffic conditions at the next stage of the Study.

Impact on Lamma Island

(a) Stage 1 Community Engagement aimed at consulting the public on the

two initial land use options (i.e. Options 1a, 1b and 2). On housing

supply, both subsidised housing and private housing would be provided

under the two options, but public rental housing was excluded in the

proposal. PlanD was collecting public comments on the mix of

housing types and a conclusion including the implementation

arrangement had yet to be drawn up. Further study would be carried

out at the later stage of the Study;

(b) PlanD noted Members’ concerns on the proposed building heights and

density. To integrate with the overall environment of the ex-Lamma

Quarry Area and its surroundings, after initial assessments, it was

proposed that under Options 1a and 1b, a stepped height profile with

low-rise buildings of four storeys near the waterfront and taller

buildings with a maximum height of 12 storeys near the mountain

backdrop would be adopted to preserve the natural ridgeline and a

reasonable degree of visual permeability. In this way, based on the

preliminary assessments conducted, the ridgeline would not be

obstructed by buildings from major vantage points. PlanD would

proceed an in-depth study on the types of housing, the mix of housing

types and density at the next stage; and

(c) Lamma Island was not only a popular tourist attraction for visitors

from the Mainland and overseas, but also one of the tourist hotspots for

40

Hong Kong people. Coupled with its proximity to the Ocean Park,

PlanD had come up with Option 2 which featured “tourism cum

housing” as its conceptual development theme, with a view to

enhancing the tourism appeal of Lamma Island as a tourist centre in the

Southern District, so that visitors would have more choices. To

complement the tourist resort setting, the artificial lake would be

opened for public use, and tourist facilities such as a waterfront

promenade, water sports centre and eco-tourism centre would be built

for public enjoyment. Details of the facilities would be studied at the

next stage.

Others

(a) PlanD would take all comments collected during the current stage of

public engagement into account when taking forward the study at the

next stage; and

(b) based on the environmental impact assessment (EIA) study and

sustainability study, PlanD would assess the impact of the proposed

land uses on water quality and fish culture zones in the district at the

next stage.

93. Ms Theresa YEUNG gave a supplementary response as follows:

Traffic Impact on Southern District

(a) Currently Sok Kwu Wan and Yung Shue Wan had a population of

around 500 and 6 000 respectively. According to the statistics

provided by related department, during Sundays, the one-way daily

patronage of Aberdeen/Sok Kwu Wan route and Aberdeen/Yung Shue

Wan route was about 200 and 500 respectively, and on the same day,

the one-way daily patronage of Central/Sok Kwu Wan route and

Central/Yung Shue Wan route was about 500 and 4 000 respectively.

The main reason for this patronage pattern was that the ferry schedule

for Yung Shue Wan was more frequent than that of Sok Kwu Wan, and

the scheduled frequency interval was around 30 minutes for the former

and over an hour for the latter;

(b) owing to the fact that most residents on Lamma Island went to Central

for work or public feeder service to other destinations, coupled with

41

the convenient “kai-to” services to/from Aberdeen and Lamma Island,

future ferry services would focus on the Lamma Island/Central route;

(c) the consultancy company had studied the proposal of providing a

public pier at South Horizons. Given that most of the sites along the

Ap Lei Chau waterfront were private land, or government land on lease

for purposes such as driving school, oil depot, etc., the public pier

would be located a bit far away from the proposed MTR station.

Taking into account the daily patronage of only about 500 nos. on

Sundays from Yung Shue Wan to Aberdeen that is catered by existing

the “kai-to” services, the provision of an additional public pier might

not be appropriate; and

(d) a detailed TIA on the future traffic conditions would be carried out at

the next stage.

Impact on Lamma Island

(a) At present, Lamma Island was a car-free community. The

departments concerned had organised three public forums/workshop to

gauge public views, and most of the views wished that the car-free

environment could be preserved. Therefore, under the proposed land

use options, apart from the emergency vehicular access, no vehicular

access would be provided on the island;

(b) in future, people could travel via the pedestrian corridor at the

waterfront for access to/from Lo So Shing, or use the hiking trails

to/from various places on the island. Also, at present, “kai-to”

services were available to connect Sok Kwu Wan and Yung Shue Wan;

and

(c) would continue to study whether the transport facilities would burden

Lamma Island.

Others

(a) The possible impact of the proposed land uses on mariculture rafts and

the surrounding environment would be handled carefully; and

(b) a detailed EIA would be carried out to ascertain the possible impact on

water quality, surrounding environment and mariculture rafts according

to the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, and an EIA report

would be submitted to EPD.

42

94. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise

comments and enquiries as follows:

(b) marina facilities and a “Comprehensive Development Area” (CDA)

were included in all options (i.e. Options 1a, 1b and 2), and it was

wished that further details would be provided;

(b) it was rumoured that the Government planned to construct a bridge

connecting Lamma Island and the Southern District, and an artificial

island would be built in between for providing residential sites. It

was asked whether the said proposal was true;

(c) under the proposed land uses, the future population on Lamma Island

would be nearly doubled, and would concentrate in the neighbourhood

of Sok Kwu Wan close to Aberdeen. It was opined that the

department concerned had underestimated the future people flow

between Lamma Island and Aberdeen. With the increase in people

flow in future, it was necessary to provide a standard public pier in the

Southern District; and

(d) the department concerned should explain the transport facilities

arrangements under each land use options. Since departments

concerned had not provided sufficient information at the moment,

Members could not advise on the population target, and therefore

could not support the proposed land use options in a hasty manner.

95. The Chairman invited the departments concerned to note SDC’s concerns.

96. Miss CHEUK Hau-kwan gave a supplementary response as follows:

(a) Lamma Island had a high tourism appeal, and a public marina was

proposed to take the advantage of the quality waterfront;

(b) the said CDA was outside the study site. Since the CDA was located

to the west of the quarry, it was included into study area. According

to the existing OZP, the CDA was intended for residential use, and was

compatible with the proposed uses in the ex-Lamma Quarry Area;

(c) under the initial land use options, the planned population ranged from

2 800 (Option 2) to 7 000 (Option 1b). After the completion of Stage

1 Public Engagement, PlanD would proceed to work out specific

details such as the implementation arrangement, projected population,

43

types of housing, etc, and carry out a TIA in order to formulate specific

feeder arrangements; and

(d) ferry frequency would be increased to cope with the population growth.

Therefore, a new stop for the Sok Kwu Wan/Central route in the

midway was proposed. PlanD would further study the traffic impact

of the land use options on Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau.

97. Mr LO Kwok-chung clarified that presently the Government had no plan to

construct a bridge connecting Lamma Island and Aberdeen or Ap Lei Chau.

98. The Chairman invited the departments concerned to note the views of DDEC,

especially on the traffic impacts of the proposed land use options on traffic conditions

in the district. He requested the departments concerned to consult SDC as soon as

possible if and when there was further information concerning the Southern District.

Agenda Item 5: Request for Construction of a Park on Government Land at

South Bay Road

(Item raised by Mr FUNG Se-goun)

(DDEC Paper No. 3/2013)

99. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, Mr FUNG Se-goun had

applied for sick leave and entrusted Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP to introduce the agenda

item on his behalf.

100. The Chairman invited Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP to briefly introduce the

reasons for raising the agenda item.

101. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said that in the past, there were a couple of stone

houses opposite to the petrol station at South Bay Road. After the recent demolition

operation by LandsD, the site was enclosed with chain-link fences and left vacant

since then. To utilise the open space, Mr FUNG Se-goun suggested constructing a

park at the vacant site to integrate with the surroundings at Repulse Bay Road and

South Bay Road. Also, Mr FUNG Se-goun proposed that a passing bay at the site

concerned could be considered. Due to shortage in parking spaces, many tourist and

school coaches travelled around the Repulse Bay area during peak hours, causing

serious traffic congestions. The situation was particularly acute at the roundabout

near the petrol station, and the tailback even affected the traffic to/from Stanley.

44

Therefore, it was wished that a passing bay would be provided to alleviate traffic

conditions there. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP added that the site looked displeasing

and asked whether relevant departments had a plan on its long-term development.

102. The Chairman said that the written replies from PlanD, LandsD and the

Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) were at Annexes 2 to 4

respectively.

103. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the site was currently under the charge of

LandsD. In end January 2013, the Drainage Services Department (DSD) had applied

to use around one-sixth of the site as a work site. LandsD subsequently issued a

district consultation paper on 25 January 2013 and asked SDO to carry out a district

consultation.

104. The Chairman, when quoting LCSD’s written reply, said that LCSD opined

that the current provision of public open space in the Southern District had already

exceeded the prevailing planning standards. Hence, there was no imminent need to

develop new public open space in the district at this stage. Since the area of the site

was around 3 900m2, LCSD estimated that Members might consider to put forth the

suggested project to the District Facilities and Management Committee (DFMC) for

implementation in the form of district minor work if the cost of work did not exceed

the financial ceiling of $30M. The Chairman said that if the Committee regarded it

necessary, it could put forth a proposal to the DFMC and wait for its turn for District

Minor Works (DMW) funds.

105. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling,

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on

the subject as follows:

(a) supported putting forward the proposal to DFMC. The proposed

project should be included in the next round of DFMC site inspection,

so that the feasibility of constructing the sitting-out area/park could be

further explored and specific details be worked out;

(b) Members and residents did not ask for a park up to the standards of

LCSD, but simple formation and greening work with basic amenities

for public enjoyment. If SDC did not take the initiative to build the

said sitting-out area, the site would probably be used as a work site by

some departments, which was incompatible with the tourism/amenity

45

appeal in the neighbourhood. DMW funds involved simpler

procedures and fewer restrictions. It was believed that it would be

more efficient to have DFMC taken over the construction of the park to

make good use of SDC resources to provide amenities for public use

than to wait for government departments’ implementation. Besides,

since the park only required basic amenities, the project cost would be

lower than the previous estimate;

(c) there were many sites in the Southern District that could be used as

work sites, so DSD could consider other sites. To complement the

land uses and surrounding environment, SDC would not accept using

the site as a work site, and LandsD should relay this view to DSD;

(d) asked whether LCSD would take over the management of a DMW

funded park in future; and

(e) wished that TD could study the feasibility of providing a passing bay at

the site concerned.

106. Ms TAM Wai-chu responded that the proposal of specific facilities and

future management of the open space built by DMW funds should be discussed in the

DFMC during the formal discussion of the project.

107. In closing, the Chairman proposed that the proposed project would be

submitted to DFMC for consideration, and DFMC would arrange a site inspection to

study the scale of the project and the types of facilities to be provided in due course.

Agenda Item 6: Provision of Facilities in the Convenience of Residents at the

Government Land Adjacent to Jumbo Pier

(Item raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa)

(DDEC Paper No. 4/2013)

(Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH left the meeting at 7:06 p.m.)

108. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to briefly introduce the reasons for

raising the agenda item.

109. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, with the aid of site photos, briefly introduced the

proposed locations for provision of facilities for the convenience of residents at the

government land adjacent to Jumbo Pier, and the present conditions of the sites

46

concerned.

110. The Chairman said that since this agenda item involved a number of

proposals, to enhance the efficiency of meeting, it was suggested that the proposals

would be discussed one by one.

Proposal 1: Opening the basketball court for public use

111. The Chairman said that background information of the said proposal was set

out in the paper, and invited the representatives from the departments concerned to

respond to the subject.

112. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that LandsD had leased the said site (highlighted in

yellow color as shown in Plan 2 to Annex 3) to The Aberdeen Marina Club (AMC) at

market rent under STT for the purpose of providing recreational facilities to the

Tenant. The existing recreational facilities on the site concerned were constructed

by the Tenant after the tenancy agreement took effect, instead of government facilities

on rental basis. Since relevant departments had no plan to implement permanent

development at the site concerned at that time, LandsD had leased the site to AMC.

Subject to confirmation of the long term development plan for the site concerned,

LandsD could initiate resumption of the leased land by serving three months’ prior

notice to the Tenant in accordance with the provisions in the STT agreement, so that

relevant departments could implement the long-term development plan.

113. Ms TAM Wai-chu said that the area of the basketball court was

approximately 20m long and 10m wide, which did not comply with the requirement

on the size of a standard basketball court.

114. The Chairman said that the site was currently leased to AMC at market rent

under STT. Since the Tenant had left the basketball court unused, Mr TSUI

Yuen-wa suggested resuming the site for the provision of a basketball court for public

use. However, according to LCSD’s response, the size of the basketball court did

not meet the prescribed standards, and even if the site was resumed, it would be

difficult for LCSD to open a standard basketball court. The Chairman invited

Members to note the situation and give views.

115. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI

Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries as follows:

47

(a) was in support of all the proposals raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa. It

was suggested that a working group should be set up, and interested

SDC Members, together with relevant departments such as LandsD,

PlanD, LCSD and TD, could discuss with AMC to work out solutions

to the proposals put forward by Mr TSUI. The development of

related matters would be included in the regular progress report of the

Committee;

(b) if the Tenant was unable to fulfill the lease conditions of the tenancy

agreement, the department concerned should consider terminating the

agreement to avoid further wasting of land resources. As for the

types of facilities to be provided on the said site in future, DFMC could

further study the matter during the land resumption process;

(c) apparently, dumping waste at the basketball court had affected

environmental hygiene in the surrounding area. However, the lease

had been granted to AMC at market rent, the tenancy agreement should

not be rashly terminated. It was suggested that the department

concerned should issue a warning to AMC first, if the Tenant still did

not make any improvement, then action should be taken according to

the provisions in the tenancy agreement, including land resumption;

(d) the basketball court was neglected for at least over ten years, and the

basketball backstop was left to rust. Nearby residents said that AMC

had even constructed a depot there, so the actual need of AMC for the

site as a basketball court was questionable. Since the site concerned

was only 10 minutes’ walk from the residential area, it was suggested

that the basketball court could be opened for public use, and the

provision of such facility would account for only a very small portion

of SDC resources. As such, Members were invited to support this

proposal;

(e) the STT policy by LandsD had given rise to many district problems,

and therefore LandsD was requested to review the effectiveness of this

policy; and

(f) land resources should not be wasted even if the Tenant paid market

rent. AMC had neglected the basketball court for many years, which

obviously showed that it did not have a great demand for the said site.

Even if improvement was made after the department concerned had

issued a warning to AMC, there was no guarantee that the situation

would not happen again. Hence, it was agreed that the site should be

48

resumed to provide facilities for public use as soon as practicable.

116. The Chairman asked whether the STT agreement had stipulated that the site

could only be used as a basketball court.

117. Ms LOU Yin-yee responded that the STT agreement stipulated that the site

should be used “for the purpose of providing recreational facilities to the Tenant”, but

did not mention that a basketball court should be constructed. Also, according to the

provisions in the tenancy agreement, the Tenant should be responsible for basic repair

and maintenance of the site. After the meeting, LandsD would issue a warning letter

to the Tenant requiring it to carry out proper repair and maintenance at the site and its

surrounding area as soon as possible.

118. The Chairman said that although the Tenant paid market rent, apparently the

present conditions of the site showed that the Tenant had violated the purpose as

stated in the STT agreement, which was a waste of public resources. Hence, he

suggested the matter should be followed up as follows:

(a) LandsD should contact the Tenant to understand its need for and

intended purpose of the site, and expressly state that if the Tenant no

longer needed the site for providing recreational facilities for its

members, LandsD might terminate the tenancy agreement and resume

the land; and

(b) LandsD should require the Tenant to improve the environmental

hygiene of the site and its surrounding area whether or not the tenancy

agreement would be renewed.

119. Mr AU Lap-sing pointed out that the size of a basketball court in Tai Hang

did not meet the prescribed standards too. After all, opening recreational facilities

for public use was better that leaving the site unused. In this regard, he supported

the proposal that LandsD should discuss with AMC for land resumption and open the

basketball court.

[Post-meeting note: Chairman of DDEC sent a letter to inform Aberdeen Marina Club

of the subject on 14.3.2013.]

Proposal 2: Provision of additional lavatory facilities

49

120. The Chairman invited representative from the Food and Environmental

Hygiene Department (FEHD) to respond to the subject.

121. Mr WONG Hung-yuen said that FEHD had carried out a site inspection in

the vicinity of Jumbo Pier, and noticed that most visitors routed via the location

concerned to Jumbo Floating Restaurant from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and would generally

stay at the pier for around 10 minutes. Since sufficient number of sanitary fitments

had been provided in Jumbo Floating Restaurant, FEHD considered it unnecessary to

construct a public toilet there.

122. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO

Kin-hei, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and

enquiries on the subject as follows:

(a) to uphold the image of “Friendly Hong Kong”, it was necessary to

provide sufficient lavatory facilities at tourist attractions for the

convenience of visitors and keeping the environment clean and

hygienic. Meanwhile, there were four public toilets in Repulse Bay,

and several toilets at Aberdeen Promenade. Yet there was no lavatory

facilities near Jumbo Pier, and residents and visitors could only use the

temporary toilets at the park nearby, or they had to go to Jumbo

Floating Restaurant to use its toilets. To keep environmental hygiene,

facilitate nearby residents and uplift the image of Hong Kong as a

tourism destination, support was given to the provision of lavatory

facilities at the pier;

(b) the last term SDC had successfully strived for the provision of

additional facilities at Shum Wan Road Sitting-out Area for the

convenience of residents. Since then, the usage of the said sitting-out

area had increased drastically, and most users were the elderly. If

lavatory facilities were provided at the pier, it could bring more

convenience to local residents. Moreover, the last term SDC had

carried out a site inspection at Jumbo Pier in the hope of building a

public toilet, but the proposal was dropped in the end because of the

lack of a suitable site. Now that a suitable site was identified, it was

hoped that resources could be better utilised to provide facilities for the

convenience of residents;

(c) understood that it would be difficult for FEHD to construct the

lavatory facilities in the 2013 and 2014 financial year, but for the time

50

being, FEHD had only planned for one to two public toilet projects in

the Southern District, it was hoped that subject to resources availability,

FEHD could consider striving for an allocation in the 2015 financial

year for the provision of additional public toilets in the Southern

District; and

(d) Jumbo Floating Restaurant was also in support of the proposal to build

a toilet at Jumbo Pier.

123. The Chairman said that the Committee was in support of the proposal to

construct a public toilet near Jumbo Pier, and requested FEHD to initiate a study and

submit a concrete proposal for the discussion of the Committee in due course.

Proposal 3: Upgrading the pedestrian link connecting Shum Wan Pier Drive and

the neighbourhood of Aberdeen Tennis and Squash Centre

124. The Chairman invited Members to note TD’s written reply (Annex 7)

regarding the subject.

125. Ms LOU Yin-yee supplemented that the southwestern site (the part marked

by red line in Plan 2 to Annex 3) was a shipyard site under STT, therefore, the

existing pedestrian link as proposed by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa for upgrading was within

the boundary of the said shipyard site.

126. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised

comments and enquiries on the subject as follows:

(a) according to the shipyard owner, the pedestrian link in question was

not within the boundary of the shipyard, but a public access between

two leased sites (i.e. Holy Spirit Seminary (HSS) and the shipyard site)

under different tenancy agreements. It was just around 10 minutes’

walk between Shum Wan Pier Drive and Ocean Court via the

pedestrian link. It was hoped that through uplifting the safety

standards of the pedestrian link, the connectivity between the two

communities could be enhanced to facilitate residents;

(b) suggested that the Committee should carry out a site inspection with

relevant departments such as TD and LandsD before exploring the

feasibility of the proposal;

(c) wished that relevant departments could further clarify the land right of

51

the pedestrian link; and

(d) believed that HSS would be willing to cooperate with the community.

It was suggested that SDC should discuss with HSS and the shipyard

owner to further explore feasible options to improve the pedestrian

link.

127. The Chairman suggested that the Committee and relevant departments

would arrange a site inspection first, and Members of local constituencies were

welcomed to approach the organisations concerned beforehand.

[Post-meeting note: A site visit was arranged for Members and relevant departments

on 19.3.2013.]

Proposal 4: Provision of open space

128. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that for the time being, the proposed site was

infested with weeds, and the environment was displeasing. He suggested that the

place should be cleaned up first before making it an open space for public enjoyment.

Also, the site nearby was granted to HSS by way of license, and a large barbecue site

inside HSS was left unused for many years. In this regard, he suggested approaching

HSS to discuss opening the barbecue site for residents’ use.

129. The Chairman said that the commissioning of MTR SIL(E) in 2015 would

increase people flow at Shum Wan Pier Drive. SDC was forward-looking and would

like to grasp this opportunity to study and plan for a number of enhancement

proposals such as opening the basketball court, provision of lavatory facilities,

upgrading the pedestrian link and provision of open space.

130. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked about how to

approach HSS and AMC.

131. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP suggested that the Committee should write to the

organisations concerned first, and then further arrangements would be made.

132. The Chairman shared the views of Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, and said that

the Committee would inform the organisations concerned in writing that SDC was

discussing related matters, and SDC Members of local constituencies would approach

the organisations later on.

52

[Post-meeting note: Chairman of DDEC sent a letter to inform Aberdeen Marina Club

and Holy Spirit Seminary of the subject on 14.3.2013.]

Agenda Item 7: Year-end Clean-up 2013 in Southern District

(Item raised by Food and Environmental Hygiene

Department)

(DDEC Paper No. 5/2013)

Agenda Item 8: Anti-rodent Campaign 2013 (Phase I) in Southern District

(Item raised by Food and Environmental Hygiene

Department)

(DDEC Paper No. 6/2013)

Agenda Item 9: Anti-mosquito Campaign 2013 (Phase I) in Southern District

(Item raised by Food and Environmental Hygiene

Department)

(DDEC Paper No. 7/2013)

(Mr CHU Lap-wai left the meeting at 7:32 p.m.)

133. Mr WONG Hung-yuen briefly introduced the contents of the “Year-end

Clean-up 2013 in Southern District”, “Anti-rodent Campaign 2013 (Phase I) in

Southern District” and “Anti-mosquito Campaign 2013 (Phase I) in Southern

District”.

134. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Dr YANG Mo, PhD and Mr

Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the subjects as follows:

(a) commended FEHD staff for their work attitude and efficiency;

(b) previously FEHD had swiftly followed up on the serious rodent

infestation at Shum Wan Road Sitting-out Area and the outcome was

satisfactory. Also, the department was commended for its good

performance in cleaning up the rear lane at Tin Wan. It was wished

that FEHD could continue its strenuous efforts in keeping the district

clean and hygienic;

(c) construction waste such as traffic cones were often found piling up on

53

the slope in the neighbourhood of Pok Fu Lam. It was wished that

FEHD could step up its cleaning up efforts; and

(d) activities such as “year-end clean-up”, “anti-rodent campaign” and

“anti-mosquito campaign” were FEHD’s annual routine exercises, and

it was wished that new elements could be added. Also, it was

necessary to strengthen publicity, education and communication with

the public, in order to encourage people to keep the environment clean

and hygienic proactively.

135. Mr WONG Hung-yuen gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) thanked Members for their views and positive feedback on the work of

FEHD;

(b) the Southern District had an extensive area and FEHD would conduct

routine patrol to the whole district daily. However, it was also of

utmost importance for SDC Members, members of the public and local

personalities to provide FEHD of any potential problems and support

the work of FEHD. The views of Members would be reflected to

frontline staff, with a view to enhancing the services to residents in the

Southern District;

(c) the Member concerned was asked to provide information on the

construction waste pile-up on the slope in Pok Fu Lam after the

meeting so that FEHD could follow up on the matter;

(d) FEHD would make use of television broadcast and display panels to

publicise messages on environmental hygiene and pest control; and

(e) every year, FEHD would organise two or three “anti-rodent

campaigns” and “anti-mosquito campaigns” respectively. The

anti-rodent campaign and anti-mosquito campaign would be held

alternately, and the frequency of these campaigns was quite high.

Whenever FEHD held such activities, new elements would be included

as far as possible. Members were welcomed to advise on this matter,

and FEHD would try to incorporate their recommendations as far as

practicable.

136. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying continued to raise

comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) the rats shown on the “Anti-Rodent Campaign” poster were so

54

adorable that people found it hard to kill them. It was wished that

FEHD could pay more attention to the design of publicity materials;

(b) requested FEHD to step up anti-mosquito work at mosquito black spots

such as the neighbourhood of Ma Hang Estate, No. 61-69 Stanley

Main Street and Big Wave Bay. In addition, stray cats/dogs often tore

up garbage bags at the refuse depot near a ball court at Shek O,

resulting in foul smell and making the environment unsightly. It was

wished that FEHD could step up cleaning work in order to keep

environmental hygiene at the location concerned; and

(c) in the advent of the Lunar New Year, it was hoped that FEHD could

make preparation beforehand, so as to make sure that cleaning work

would not be affected due to shortage in manpower during the

holidays.

137. In closing, the Chairman concluded that the Committee commended the

work of FEHD and had given views for FEHD to upgrade its service. As the Lunar

New Year ushered in, the Chairman hoped that FEHD could step up patrol to keep

environmental hygiene in the district.

Agenda Item 10: Any Other Business

Focus Group Study on Long Term Housing Strategy - Nomination

138. The Chairman said that the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering

Committee was examining the needs of the society on public and private housing in

order to formulate a new set of long-term housing strategies. The Steering

Committee would issue a public consultation paper in mid-2013 and a three-month

public engagement exercise would commence thereafter. To collect views from

various sectors on housing needs, each DC was invited to nominate two of its

Members to participate in any one of the following focus group sessions held at the

Hong Kong Polytechnic University:

(a) 26 February 2013 (Tuesday) from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.; or

(b) 13 March 2013 (Wednesday) from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

139. The Committee endorsed to nominate Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN to attend the focus group session.

55

Part 2 – Items for Information

Street Management Report (as at 31.12.2012)

(DDEC Paper No. 9/2013)

140. The Committee noted the contents of the paper.

Part 3

Date of Next Meeting

141. The Chairman said that the 8th

DDEC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on

15 April 2013 (Monday).

142. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council

March 2013