1

Minutes of the 10th

Meeting of the Southern District Council

(2016-2019)

Date : 18 May 2017

Time : 2:30 p.m.

Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present:

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman)

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

Mr AU Lap-sing, MH

Mr AU Nok-hin

Mr CHAI Man-hon

Ms CHAN Judy Kapui

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH

Mr CHU Lap-wai

Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

Mr LO Kin-hei

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa

Ms YAM Pauline

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

Absent with Apologies:

Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH

Secretary:

Ms YIP Wai-see, Priscilla Senior Executive Officer (District Council),

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

2

In Attendance:

Mr CHOW Chor-tim, JP District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

Miss TSE Nga-lap, Lilian Assistant District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

Mr CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management),

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

Ms LO Mun-wah, Cindy Senior Liaison Officer (1), Southern District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Miss CHOW Suk-yee, Jessica Senior Liaison Officer (2), Southern District Office,

Home Affairs Department

Mr LEE Kan-fat District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent

(Southern), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Mr. CHEUNG Wing-keung,

Wicky

District Leisure Manager (Southern),

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Mrs LAI CHAN Wai-fan Senior Housing Manager/Estate & Development Services,

Housing Department

Mr HO Kwan-hang, Albert Chief Transport Officer/HK,

Transport Department

Ms CHAN Yee-lai District Commander (Western),

Hong Kong Police Force

Mr LO Yee-chung, Leo

Police Community Relations Officer (Western District),

Hong Kong Police Force

Mr. LEE Kai-wing, Raymond, JP Director of Planning,

Planning Department

Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis

District Planning Officer/HK,

Planning Department

for agenda

item 1

Miss LEE Kit-tak, Jessica

Senior Town Planner/HK 1,

Planning Department

Ms Joanne HA

Deputy District Leisure Manager

(District Support) Southern, Leisure

and Cultural Services Department

for agenda

Ms Emily ZHAO Manger(HK West)Marketing,

Programme & District Activities,

Leisure and Cultural Services

Department

item 4

3

Ms Vivian WONG

Social Work Assistant,

Caritas Community Centre-Aberdeen

for agenda

item 5 Ms Annie LIENG Executive Assistant, Southern District

Healthy & Safe Association Ltd

Mr KWOK Kin-kuen Senior Engineer/South Island Line

(East) 2, Highways Department

Mr CHAN Hoi-ki Engineer/South Island Line (2),

Highways Department

Mr Johnny CHAN Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 3,

Transport Department

for agenda

Mr Calvin YEUNG Engineer/Priority Railway 5,

Transport Department

item 6

Mr Thomas LI

Senior Construction Engineer - Civil,

MTR Corporation Limited

Miss Lilian YEUNG

Public Relations Manager - External

Affairs, MTR Corporation Limited

Dr LUK Che-chung Cluster Chief Executive, Hong Kong

West Cluster, Hospital Authority

for agenda

item 7

Dr Nelson HUI Senior Manager (Planning &

Commissioning Section), Queen

Mary Hospital

Ms Winnie YIP Cluster General Manager

(Administrative Services), Hong

Kong West Cluster, Hospital

Authority

Ms Pinky MAK

Senior Hospital Manager (Planning &

Commissioning Section), Queen

Mary Hospital

4

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP, Director of Planning (D of

Plan), Mr KAU Kin-hong, District Planning Officer/HK and Miss LEE Kit-tak, Senior

Town Planner/HK 1 of the Planning Department (PlanD) to the meeting for discussion

of agenda item 1.

2. The Chairman welcomed Members and regular government representatives to

the meeting.

3. The Chairman said that Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH was unable to attend the

meeting because she was out of town for other engagements, and her leave application

was rejected in accordance with Order 51(1) of the Standing Orders of Southern

District Council (SDC). He requested Members to take note of this.

4. The Chairman continued that the meeting would be conducted in accordance

with the established arrangement, under which each Member would be allotted a

maximum of two three-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. He also

reminded Members to speak as concise as possible. The electronic timer would beep

when it reached two minutes 30 seconds and three minutes of each speaking slot

respectively. The suggested duration for discussion of the agenda items had also been

e-mailed to Members before the meeting (Reference Paper 1). The Secretary

estimated that the meeting would come to a close no sooner than 7:05 p.m., and if

Members wished to leave earlier, they should inform the secretariat staff as early as

possible.

Agenda Item 1: Meeting of Director of Planning with SDC Members

[2:35 p.m. – 4:48 p.m.]

5. The Chairman said that he had been informed by Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI

Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui and Mr LAM

Kai-fai, MH before the meeting that they wished to make oral statements at this

meeting. Therefore, he suggested D of Plan first briefly introduce the work of PlanD,

and then Members would be invited to raise enquiries in the first round of speaking and

the above six Members would be invited to make their oral statements. After that, D

of Plan would be invited to respond before conducting the second round of questions

5

and responses. The Chairman asked Members whether they agreed with the above

arrangement.

6. Members had no objection.

7. The Chairman reminded Members that if they would like to discuss an

individual topic, they might submit an agenda item in accordance with the Standing

Orders. The Secretary would then arrange for departmental representatives to attend

the meeting as necessary.

8. With the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 1), Mr LEE Kai-wing,

JP introduced the work of PlanD and the planning circumstances of the Southern

District, including territorial planning, district planning, developments in Pok Fu Lam

and redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate as well as property development at the Wong

Chuk Hang “Comprehensive Development Area” site.

(Mr AU Nok-hin joined the meeting at 2:39 p.m.)

9. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

10. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) While cemeteries in Hong Kong in general were seldom of high-rise, there

were now multi-storey buildings in the Hong Kong Chinese Christian

Churches Union Pok Fu Lam Road Cemetery. He enquired if PlanD would

impose height restrictions on buildings in cemeteries such as columbaria;

(ii) He enquired whether and when PlanD would review the Pok Fu Lam Outline

Zoning Plan (OZP) in the light of the new housing developments in the area.

He also enquired whether PlanD would excise the area reserved for Route 4

from the Pok Fu Lam OZP simultaneously;

(iii) There were many walking trails in the Southern District connecting roads and

green belt areas in country parks. Yet, these trails might even be removed

when works were conducted in the vicinity. He enquired PlanD what

measures were in place to protect the walking trails;

(iv) PlanD had rezoned a site at Wong Ma Kok Road near Regalia Bay for housing

development. As there was no footpath, pedestrians passing through the site

had to walk on the carriageway, which was very dangerous. He had relayed

the issue to the Transport Department (TD), but TD had responded that the

6

site could be accessed by bus. However, some people chose to go to Stanley

on foot or by cycling instead of by bus. He was discontented with PlanD for

rezoning the site even though it was not provided with a footpath;

(v) Given that the traffic condition of Tai Tam Reservoir Road was unsatisfactory,

he asked D of Plan when a comprehensive development planning would be

conducted for Stanley and Tai Tam and what factors would be considered in

approving applications for development. He urged PlanD to take into

account the relevant ancillary transport facilities first when considering the

developments in the Southern District; and

(vi) PlanD had carried out the Focus Study on Aberdeen Harbour in 2001. After

over 15 years, there had been significant changes in the surrounding

environment, such as the recent completion of new buildings. He enquired

whether and when PlanD would carry out a study on this area again to

consider, among others, whether sites around Aberdeen Promenade and Ap

Lei Chau could be leased out on short term tenancy (STT), with a view to

making better use of land resources and optimising their development

potential.

11. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He considered it undesirable to deploy additional security guards for

maintaining order outside the conference room during this meeting because

the arrangement would undermine the relationship between the public and the

Government;

(ii) He pointed out that there was still room for improvement in the existing

seating arrangement, which had not fully utilised the space in the conference

room; and

(iii) He remarked that the failure to meet the objective of “making Hong Kong a

liveable city to live and work in” as mentioned by D of Plan just then was

attributable to the lack of public engagement in town planning. Non-official

members of the Town Planning Board (TPB) were not democratically elected,

but were appointed under section 2(1) of the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap.

131) (TPO) by the Chief Executive (CE). Even CE was elected by an

Election Committee consisting of 1 200 members only. Due to the absence

of public opinion representatives and the lack of representation and

transparency in TPB under the above mechanism, public views could not be

discussed and considered effectively in TPB. He enquired if PlanD agreed

that the current composition of TPB lacked credibility, and whether the

7

next-term Government would change the composition of TPB, in order to

achieve the objective of “making Hong Kong a liveable city to live and work

in”.

12. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He reflected that in the early years, the property development project site

above Wong Chuk Hang Station had originally been reserved for rehousing

residents affected by the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. However, the

said site had now been granted to MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) for

further development. In his opinion, this was one of the main reasons why

there was no progress on the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate;

(ii) From a long-term territory-wide district planning perspective, Ap Lei Chau

Estate might need redevelopment after ten years. PlanD should identify

suitable sites in the Southern District to rehouse the affected residents in a

forward-looking manner to avoid public discontent or anger due to improper

planning; and

(iii) SDC had repeatedly requested the relevant government departments to review

the land use of the Hong Kong Police College (HKPC) at Wong Chuk Hang.

The site, which was of about 20 hectares, was sufficient for rehousing all

residents affected by the redevelopment. SDC had also suggested using the

site for private or public housing development, etc. The suggestion, albeit

undoubtedly beneficial to the people of Hong Kong as a whole, had not been

mentioned in PlanD’s territory-wide long-term planning. He enquired why

PlanD had not considered the suggestion and how the department would

respond to public aspirations.

13. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) On the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, the Government had announced

years ago the administrative measure for the partial uplifting of the Pokfulam

Moratorium to release six government sites for public housing development.

Five of the government sites were located in Pokfulam South (five sites), and

three of which were currently zoned open space or green belt. He had

pointed out years ago that no open space would be available around Victoria

Road for public use after the rezoning of these sites. He suggested PlanD

consider expanding the site to the east of Kai Lung Wan to meet the housing

8

needs arising from the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate while retaining the

open space in the area; and

(ii) According to the information available, the Housing Department (HD) was

studying the proposal to further reduce the proposed development area of the

Kai Lung Wan site and shift some of the proposed development southward,

subject to the results of the feasibility studies for the five sites. He suggested

increasing the area of the sites for public rental housing (PRH) development

so as to provide more PRH units, with a view to rehousing all the affected

residents and shortening the waiting time for PRH allocation.

14. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He requested PlanD to take a forward-looking approach and conduct a study

on the long-term planning and development of Ap Lei Chau and the Southern

District as a whole having regard to the well-being of local residents;

(ii) He reflected that TPB had ultimately agreed to the OZP amendment for the

development of 1 400 residential units at the Lee Nam Road site on Ap Lei

Chau despite objections from residents of South Horizons;

(iii) Developments on Ap Lei Chau, the most densely populated island in Hong

Kong, had been on the rise in recent years. Some examples included the

development of an international school at Ap Lei Chau Estate, the

development of 1 400 residential units at Lee Nam Road and the recent

application submitted by the Hongkong Electric Company, Limited (HK

Electric) for increasing the number of rooms in the proposed hotel

development at South Horizons (South Horizons HK Electric Hotel); and

(iv) In 2004, TPB had approved the application for the redevelopment of HK

Electric Operational Headquarters and Carpark Building at South Horizons

into a hotel subject to conditions including a building height similar to that of

the existing Carpark Building, a maximum of 510 hotel rooms and a green

roof garden. Residents of South Horizons did not object to the proposed

development based on the above conditions. However, HK Electric had

recently submitted an application to increase the number of hotel rooms to

1 200 for commercial interests, which had aroused strong discontent among

residents of South Horizons. Residents worried that the local shopping

centres and restaurants could not accommodate the demand of the visitors

brought by the additional hotel rooms. The extensive use of the waterfront

promenade and facilities at South Horizons by tourists would also increase the

management expenses borne by local residents and lead to conflicts between

9

both parties. In addition, the increase in visitor flow would cause not only

law and order problems, but also adverse traffic impacts on South Horizons

with more vehicles including coaches and taxis entering or leaving the area.

Accordingly, the Police had to allocate more resources to resolve the above

problems. He stressed that the previous hotel proposal had already reached

the limit residents of South Horizons could bear. He called on PlanD to

prudently examine HK Electric’s application for increasing the number of

hotel rooms, which would have great implications. Otherwise, if HK

Electric was allowed to breach the promise, the community would be

seriously affected and the Government would then have to bear the associated

consequences.

15. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He stated that PlanD’s communication with SDC through only the regular

departmental representative in attendance at the meetings of a committee

under SDC was really inadequate, and requested PlanD to improve and

strengthen such communication since its work was of utmost importance to

SDC;

(ii) He indicated that the traffic impact assessments (TIAs) conducted for

planning applications in the past were inconsistent with the actual situation.

For example, the current actual traffic condition in Tin Wan was very different

from that forecasted in the TIA conducted for a hotel development there,

causing much hardship to residents of Tin Wan. There were discrepancies

between the relevant professional assessment and the actual situation; and

(iii) The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) was too

outdated, while the relevant government departments were also rigid in

implementing the requirements of HKPSG. He suggested PlanD revise

HKPSG to allow greater flexibility for the relevant government departments

to meet local aspirations and address the community’s needs.

16. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH said that in processing different planning

applications and development projects, PlanD neither gave holistic consideration to the

associated impacts nor provided the relevant ancillary facilities, including ancillary

transport facilities, to support the subject developments. He cited an example that

when studying the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, the Government had merely

planned for housing, but not for other aspects such as the provision of ancillary

transport facilities. A number of planning applications and development projects had

10

resulted in the development of hotel and guesthouse in residential communities. For

instance, in Tin Wan where many completed hotel developments were located, there

was only one external road link, namely Shek Pai Wan Road. In case of congestion at

Shek Pai Wan Road, the traffic around Pok Fu Lam Road to Aberdeen Praya Road

would even be affected, causing inconvenience to residents. As such, he urged PlanD

to take into full account the impacts of various aspects on the district when considering

the planning applications such as private and public bodies applied for change of land

use, so as to reduce local conflicts.

17. Mr AU Nok-hin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He opined that PlanD and TPB had not exercised sufficient prudence in

handling planning applications and development proposals. Even though Ap

Lei Chau was known to be extremely densely populated, PlanD agreed several

development projects there, such as Marina South and the residential

development at Lee Nam Road. He questioned that PlanD had not

considered the well-being of the public before proposing amendments to the

OZP;

(ii) The site of Tin Wan Shopping Centre at which an international school was

proposed was zoned “Residential (Group A)” (“R(A)”) on the Aberdeen and

Ap Lei Chau OZP, and “School” was under “Column 1 – Uses always

permitted” (Column 1 uses) of the “R(A)” zone. As the proposed

international school development at Tin Wan Shopping Centre was in line

with the land use zoning, PlanD could not restrict the relevant alteration

works. Nevertheless, noting the continuous development of expensive

residential projects in the Southern District and the establishment of an

international school in the only neighbourhood shopping centre in Tin Wan

which did not require planning application, he enquired whether PlanD

considered it was reasonable and whether PlanD would work out

improvement measures or impose restrictions to address the above problem;

and

(iii) In view of the keen housing demand in Hong Kong, the Government should

handle planning applications for public housing development rather than those

for private housing, hotel or international school development.

18. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui raised the following comments and enquiries:

11

(i) It was clearly shown on the Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau OZP that about 1.49

hectares of land under “Commercial” zone covering two shopping centres in

South Horizons on Ap Lei Chau. This zone was intended primarily for

commercial developments, which might include supermarkets, shops and

services, and eating places, functioning mainly as local or district shopping

centres serving the immediate neighbourhood of South Horizons and the

Southern District instead of serving the tourists. Nonetheless, HK Electric

had submitted the application for increasing the number of rooms in South

Horizons HK Electric Hotel, which was expected to be turned from a business

hotel into an affordable guesthouse. If D of Plan put himself in the shoes of

residents of South Horizons, he would surely understand why they were so

discontented with the application;

(ii) Although the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate was an important project, as

Kai Lung Wan was just across the road from Chi Fu Fa Yuen, the proposal

would arouse discontent among residents of Chi Fu Fa Yuen or Pokfulam

Gardens; and

(iii) She urged PlanD not to be fully satisfied with the results of professional

assessments such as risk assessment or pedestrian flow assessment as they

might be inconsistent with the actual situation. She hoped government

officials could conduct more visits to the community for a better

understanding of the genuine needs of the public.

19. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) There was only one external bridge road link connecting South Horizons or

Ap Lei Chau Estate. During peak hours, the road was congested with traffic

queues leading to South Horizons. As such, she requested PlanD not to be

fully satisfied with the results of professional assessments when considering

HK Electric’s application for increasing the number of rooms of South

Horizons HK Electric Hotel. On the contrary, PlanD should consult SDC

Members of the constituencies concerned who were familiar with the actual

situation;

(ii) As regards the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, she stated that the relevant

government departments should inform SDC and its Members of the latest

information on the reduction of the proposed development area of the Kai

Lung Wan site and the shifting of some of the proposed development

southwards as soon as the information was available for gauging local views

and pooling collective wisdom; and

12

(iii) She pointed out that PlanD had not conducted a thorough and comprehensive

planning for the Southern District as a whole and urged PlanD to do so in due

course by, inter alia, reviewing the need for the redevelopment of Ap Lei Chau

Estate, transport network and environmental hygiene, etc.

20. Mr CHU Lap-wai raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) According to the available information, currently the average waiting time for

PRH allocation was about 4.6 years. One of the reasons for the long waiting

time was shortage of supply. HD relied on PlanD to identify suitable sites

for development, such as the five sites proposed for development in

connection with the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. However, the project

had come to a standstill due to many opposing voices; and

(ii) The overall housing demand in Hong Kong was high, and at the same time the

problem of ageing public housing estates had to be dealt with. He suggested

that PlanD could consider development in green belt areas, provided that due

regard was given to the actual situation of the district, ancillary transport

facilities were adequate, environmental conservation would not be affected,

and the sites would mainly be used for public housing development instead of

low-density private housing development. In regard to the redevelopment of

Wah Fu Estate, if PlanD considered that the Kai Lung Wan site was suitable

for PRH development, PlanD could consider enlarging the development area

and keeping a greater distance from the affected residential developments, so

as to accommodate the residents of Wah Fu Estate and meet the overall

housing demand of Hong Kong.

21. The Chairman said that he had been informed by Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI

Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui and Mr LAM

Kai-fai, MH before the meeting that they wished to make oral statements at this

meeting. In accordance with Order 29 of the Standing Orders, each oral statement

should not last more than three minutes.

22. The Chairman invited Mr AU Nok-hin to make an oral statement first.

23. Mr AU Nok-hin made an oral statement as follows:

“I express disappointment that the establishment of an international school at

Tin Wan Shopping Centre was not put on the agenda of this meeting. The

13

Tin Wan Shopping Centre site was zoned “R(A)”. It was turned into a

shopping centre afterwards. Now an international school is even preparing

to move into the shopping centre. As “School” is under Column 1 uses of

the “R(A)” zone on the Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau OZP, the use of Tin Wan

Shopping Centre for an international school does not require planning

permission from TPB. In fact, the proposed international school has in

nature changed the land use of the site. Yet, PlanD failed to exercise

regulatory control in this regard and resulted in the loss of the only

neighbourhood shopping centre in the area. It shows that PlanD is unable to

monitor Link Asset Management Limited (The Link) in altering the use of

shopping centres under its management. It is stipulated in clauses 3.15B and

3.15F of the land lease of Tin Wan Shopping Centre that the owner shall

ensure residents of Tin Wan Estate have access to the buildings of the lot via

footbridge, and that HD has overriding power over the owner. The owner

shall ensure the estate manager of Tin Wan Estate (i.e. HD), its contract

workers and the third party, together with their equipment and machinery,

have access to Tin Wan Estate from the owner’s lot via footbridge. However,

the closure of the footbridge during the renovation works of Tin Wan

Shopping Centre was against the land lease requirements. Clause 5.10C of

the land lease of Tin Wan Shopping Centre stipulates that the owner may be

required to include the roof as part of the public space. Nonetheless, the roof

will become part of the campus after the international school moves in.

Even though the international school has offered to open up its campus

facilities for use by public groups, the final decision will rest with the school.

This may not meet the definition of “public space”. How will PlanD and

TPB exercise their control in this respect?”

24. The Chairman invited Mr CHAI Man-hon to make an oral statement.

25. Mr CHAI Man-hon made an oral statement as follows:

“In view of the inadequate communication between PlanD and SDC, I request

PlanD not to solely rely on the regular departmental representative in

attendance at the meetings of SDC or its committee as the only

communication channel with SDC. In particular, if the representative is

incompetent, the effectiveness of communication will be greatly reduced.

The extremely low representation and inadequate transparency of TPB have

resulted in the recurrence of planning problems in respect of Tin Wan

14

Shopping Centre and South Horizons HK Electric Hotel. As such, I would

like to know more about details of PlanD’s jurisdiction, and whether PlanD

has the power to rectify the existing problem of improper planning. To

facilitate TPB’s consideration of planning applications, the relevant

government departments will submit their comments to TPB. In the absence

of public opinion representatives in TPB, departmental comments may not be

accepted by TPB. In addition, the deliberation sessions of TPB meetings are

not opened to members of the public, who can only know about the

developments of the cases in the subsequent minutes of meetings. Given the

shortcomings of the existing system as reflected above, I urge PlanD to strike

a proper balance among the tripartite demands of the Government, the

business sector and the people as well as to improve the existing system. I

also urge each and every SDC Member to fight for Hong Kong’s universal

suffrage so that government officials can proactively listen to the demands of

the people.”

26. The Chairman invited Mr LO Kin-hei to make an oral statement.

27. Mr LO Kin-hei made an oral statement as follows:

“The establishment of an international school at Tin Wan Shopping Centre is a

matter of concern to the whole Southern District. But to my regret, this

matter was not put on the agenda of this meeting. In response to the requests

of the Development Bureau, PlanD has to push through the rezoning of some

sites for residential use despite their unsuitability for residential

developments. As a result, infill developments are commonly seen. To

facilitate the low-density luxury residential development at Wong Ma Kok

Road, trees in the vicinity have to be felled. PlanD is still pursing the

project, which shows that the case was not handled from a professional

perspective. The Hong Kong Harbour Hotel site in Tin Wan is zoned

“R(A)”. Since “Hotel” is under Column 1 uses (at the time when the site

was zoned “Commercial/Residential”), the site was ultimately developed into

a hotel. By the same token, the Tin Wan Shopping Centre site is zoned

“R(A)”. Since “School” is under Column 1 uses, the shopping centre site

can ultimately be developed into an international school. Hence, the uses

always permitted on the OZP allow great flexibility for land owners and

property developers but disregard the well-being of the public. Column 2

uses on the OZP are those that may be permitted with or without conditions on

15

application to TPB. Therefore, I call on PlanD to consider carefully which

land use should be under Column 1 or Column 2 on the OZP. It is obvious

that an international school is not related to the livelihood of the local

community. By putting such use under Column 2, both the public and TPB

can discuss and reflect their views under a reasonable and legitimate system

without having to express views through objection, protest, demonstration,

petition or signature campaign, etc. Besides, if the whole Government does

not change the system as the society changes, a number of diametrically

opposed groups will emerge in the society, creating “confrontation between

the Government and the people” as in this case, “confrontation between the

business sector and the people” and “confrontation between District

Councillors and the people”.”

28. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to make an oral statement.

29. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa made an oral statement as follows:

“Further to the views expressed by Members of the Democratic Party above,

the incidents of Tin Wan Shopping Centre and South Horizons HK Electric

Hotel precisely reflect that the governance of the current-term Government

has fallen far short of the public expectations, causing much grievance. As

mentioned by Mr CHAI Man-hon, the composition of TPB lacked credibility.

For example, none of the decisions and views of SDC submitted to TPB for its

consideration of the planning application for property development above

Wong Chuk Hang Station was accepted eventually. I urge the Government

to review the inadequacies of the existing political system in that a democratic

system can at least encourage public engagement in social issues and make

TPB more representative.”

30. The Chairman invited Ms CHAN Judy Kapui to make an oral statement.

31. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui made an oral statement as follows:

“In 2004, HK Electric made an application for redeveloping the site of HK

Electric Operational Headquarters and Carpark Building at South Horizons for

hotel use. Recently, it has breached its promise to residents of South

Horizons made years ago by applying for increasing the number of hotel

rooms to 1 200. PlanD then requested comments be submitted within 15

16

working days. Apart from expressing unanimous opposition, the South

Horizons Estate Owners’ Committee (SHEOC) also wrote to PlanD and TPB

requesting to postpone the submission deadline for comments, i.e. 26 May, by

two weeks. I urge PlanD to take heed of Members’ request for postponing

the submission deadline for comments, in order to allow sufficient time for

Members or SHEOC to consult local residents. Regarding the application

for increasing the number of rooms of South Horizons HK Electric Hotel,

apart from the TIA report, HK Electric did not submit any pedestrian flow

assessment report. Furthermore, based on the average hotel occupancy rate

in Hong Kong of 83%, increasing the number of hotel rooms to 1 200 will

bring a transient population of more than 2 000 people to the areas of Ap Lei

Chau and South Horizons, which goes against the objective of “making Hong

Kong a liveable city to live and work in” as mentioned by DP. It is stated in

the Executive Summary of HK Electric’s application that the increase in the

number of rooms of South Horizons HK Electric Hotel is justified by, among

others, the commissioning of the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) which

connects the business districts on Hong Kong Island and major tourist

attractions, such as the Ocean Park. However, there are two hotels providing

900 rooms in Ocean Park, which are under construction. Thus, it is

obviously illogical for South Horizons HK Electric Hotel to have 1 200

rooms. It is clearly shown on the Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau OZP that about

1.49 hectares of land under “Commercial” zone covering two shopping

centres in South Horizons on Ap Lei Chau. This zone is intended primarily

for commercial developments serving the immediate neighbourhood of South

Horizons and the Southern District instead of serving the tourists. I hope

PlanD can listen to Members’ views, so as to make the Southern District a

better community for residents to live and work in.”

32. The Chairman invited Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH to make an oral statement.

33. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH made an oral statement as follows:

“DP has just mentioned that PlanD attached great importance to the views of

SDC. I hope PlanD can practically take the views of SDC into serious

consideration. Regarding the proposed increase in the number of rooms of

South Horizons HK Electric Hotel, I am discontented with HK Electric for

submitting a new application to overturn the original proposal based solely on

commercial considerations. PlanD has failed to handle HK Electric’s

17

application for increasing the number of rooms of South Horizons HK Electric

Hotel satisfactorily. I did not learn about the application from PlanD even as

the Chairman of the District Development and Housing Committee (DDHC)

under SDC. Moreover, SHEOC which represents a large number of

owners/tenants of South Horizons has specific meeting dates, while DDHC

will not meet until 29 May. Yet, the deadline for the submission of

comments is 26 May. There is thus very little time for local consultation,

and it is clear that PlanD attaches little importance to SDC. PlanD should

consider the meeting dates of SDC and/or committee affected before setting

the deadline for the submission of comments. I call on PlanD to handle

applications related to people’s livelihood in a prudent manner having regard

to the well-being of the public.”

34. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received a motion proposed by Mr

AU Nok-hin on 2 May 2017. The motion, which mainly comprised two parts, namely

“Objects to The Link’s resale of its shopping centres and car parks” and “Objects to the

conversion of Tin Wan Shopping Centre into an international school”, was fully

accepted by this Council. He and the Chairman of DDHC had discussed this motion

twice with Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr CHAI Man-hon. Since the first part of the motion

had been discussed at the meeting of DDHC held in March 2016, the issue could

continuously be discussed there. The second part of the motion was within the

purview of the Lands Department (LandsD), PlanD and HD, all of which had regular

representatives in attendance at each DDHC meeting. Nevertheless, as LandsD and

PlanD did not have representatives in attendance at SDC meetings on a regular basis, it

was considered more appropriate to discuss the motion at the DDHC meeting and thus

he made such decision.

35. The Chairman invited Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP to respond to Members’

enquiries and comments.

36. Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP gave a consolidated response as follows:

Operation of TPB

(i) He thanked Members for their valuable comments. Operation of

PlanD and TPB were in accordance with the TPO. PlanD would

carefully consider the views on improving the operation of TPB;

18

Planning Work

(ii) Planning work covered a wide range of areas, such as the hiking trails

mentioned earlier by a Member, the proposed PRH developments

providing about 12 000 units in Pokfulam South, and even “Hong Kong

2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030”

(“Hong Kong 2030+”), a study on the territory’s long term development

strategy. In view of the broad spectrum of work, it was necessary to

engage different government departments for their input within their

respective purview in order to address the planning issues properly, not

just relying on the department responsible for land use planning;

Professional Assessments

(iii) He understood Members’ concerns about professional assessments such

as traffic impact assessment and environmental impact assessment.

PlanD had been committed to its role in co-ordination and

communication so as to assist other government departments in scrutiny

of the contents of relevant assessments, including justifications and

assumptions therein, and providing advices on a case-by-case basis;

Communication between PlanD and Community

(iv) He shared the view that strengthening the communication between

PlanD and Members and the local community would be conducive to

district planning and development. He also understood that members

of the public would express their views on matters of concern. He

hoped that, through continuous communication, rational analysis could

be made for different cases;

(v) He had no comment on the view that the existing political system in

Hong Kong had made it difficult to deal with the planning issues

objectively. He stressed that the only way to undertake planning work

properly was by strengthening the communication between PlanD and

the local community and sparing no effort in its role as co-ordinator,

while explaining PlanD’s position and the working procedures to the

public under the various legislations and policies, so as to increase

transparency;

19

Planning of Pok Fu Lam and Pok Fu Lam OZP

(vi) On imposing height restrictions on the Pok Fu Lam Road Cemetery and

excision of the area reserved for Route 4 from the Pok Fu Lam OZP,

PlanD would accord priority to the rezoning of several PRH sites in

Pokfulam South at the present stage. HD would complete the relevant

study in due course. Pending the completion of in-depth technical

assessments in respect of these PRH sites, PlanD would proceed to the

amendments to the Pok Fu Lam OZP in order to expedite PRH

development and thus facilitating early redevelopment of Wah Fu

Estate;

(vii) In respect of the hiking trails in the Southern District, the lack of

footpath on Wong Ma Kok Road and the adequacy of ancillary facilities

in redevelopment projects, he stressed that the OZP was a statutory plan

providing a framework for land use development control, and therefore

it did not involve OZP amendment for the provision of hiking trails. In

fact, such matters as hiking trails should be addressed through the

concerted efforts of different government departments in order to satisfy

the public needs;

Redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate

(viii) Concerning the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate especially the proposal

to reduce the proposed development area of the Kai Lung Wan site and

shift some of the proposed development southwards, HD had originally

planned to complete the study last year. However, when gauging the

views of the local community, it was found that adjustments to parts of

the project would require a series of different technical assessments.

Based on the current progress, the study was expected to complete in

mid-2017. PlanD had been working closely with HD and he

understood that the study was already in the final stage. The study

results were believed to be submitted to SDC for discussion shortly.

PlanD officers would definitely involve in the discussion between HD

and SDC together on how to amend the OZP to facilitate the proposed

PRH developments in Pokfulam South;

20

South Horizons HK Electric Hotel

(ix) On the South Horizons HK Electric Hotel, the applicant obtained

planning permission from TPB in 2004, and the building plan prepared

based on the planning permission had been approved by the Building

Authority. The new planning application received in late April this

year was also for hotel development. Whilst the major development

parameters remained unchanged, the number of hotel rooms had been

doubled;

(x) HK Electric submitted the application for planning permission under

section 16 of the TPO. Under the TPO, PlanD was required to submit

the application to TPB for consideration within two months upon its

receipt, and should publish the application during this period. The

public can submit comments during the first three weeks of the public

inspection period. Upon verification of the accuracy of the application

form, PlanD would publish the application immediately. Notices

would be posted at the application site and letters would be sent to

different organisations such as owners’ committees of nearby buildings,

with a view to taking all appropriate and practicable measures to

disseminate the relevant information. Under the TPO and PlanD’s

purview, the request for postponement of the submission deadline for

comments could not be acceded to. Yet, PlanD would strive to

facilitate Members and the public to express their views to TPB;

(xi) The proposed South Horizons HK Electric Hotel development was

approved with conditions in 2004, and a detailed account of its

background would be provided to TPB. It was believed that TPB

would take full account of the relevant factors in consideration of the

application for increasing the number of hotel rooms;

International School at Tin Wan Shopping Centre

(xii) The Tin Wan Shopping Centre site was zoned “R(A)” on the Aberdeen

and Ap Lei Chau OZP, and “School” use was always permitted. This

zone, which was not only in Tin Wan and Aberdeen, was primarily

intended for relatively high-density residential developments whilst

21

permitting certain commercial or ancillary facilities in the

developments; and

(xiii) He reiterated that planning covered various areas and required

co-ordination among different departments. He understood that Tin

Wan Shopping Centre was subject to restrictions imposed under its land

lease conditions, and noted that LandsD had indicated that the

alternation and addition works did not comply with the relevant land

lease conditions. PlanD believed that, when there will be any

application for the works in the future, LandsD would examine the

relevant details to ensure compliance with the land lease conditions

before granting permission for the project.

37. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

38. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) PlanD had not yet addressed all Members’ enquiries. He hoped that PlanD

would give written replies after the meeting;

(ii) He pointed out that the “Hong Kong 2030+” study had not contained any

planning proposal about the Southern District at all. He urged PlanD to

devote resources to conduct a planning study for the Southern District,

covering areas like Aberdeen Harbour, Wong Chuk Hang, Aberdeen Typhoon

Shelter, Ap Lei Chau, Aberdeen Town Centre and Tin Wan. He stressed that

PlanD should not overlook the development potential of these areas and their

accompanying economic benefits;

(iii) It had been 15 years since PlanD had conducted the Focus Study on Aberdeen

Harbour in 2001. The surrounding environment had a lot of changes, such as

the commissioning of SIL(E). He considered it a suitable time to conduct a

long-term planning study for the Southern District and called on PlanD to

proactively probe into the Southern District’s advantageous harbourfront

location, resource availability along the coastline of Ap Lei Chau, the

“Government, Institution or Community” (“GIC”) sites in the Southern

District, the operation of shipyards along Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, etc. He

further drew attention to the incompatibility between the shipyards and

surrounding buildings, as well as between the soon-to-be completed waterpark

of the Ocean Park and its surrounding industrial area; and

(iv) He stated that Aberdeen Harbour was reaching its full capacity. SDC had

22

suggested expanding Aberdeen Harbour by removing the breakwaters to

accommodate more vessels. He urged PlanD to examine the situation of the

Southern District in depth and undertake a long term planning study.

(Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying joined the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)

39. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He indicated that PlanD had not responded to the comments on the

composition of TPB, stressing that TPB’s current composition and PlanD’s

permanent establishment had paid no regard to the public voice in the

planning process and worked in favour of the Government. He reiterated

that the TPB’s composition was unsound as all the 30 members were

appointed, without any representative of political party and the public.

Moreover, some of its members appeared to have affiliation with the CE or

those vested interests. This had aroused grave concern among the public;

(ii) Under the current system, the deliberation sessions of TPB meetings for

planning applications were conducted behind closed doors. There was no

way for the public to know the voting process, and thus giving rise to mistrust

between the public and the Government, the business sector or even District

Councillors. He urged the D of Plan to review the system, allowing more

public participation in the process and determination of planning applications,

and to collect more views from the local community; and

(iii) He called for improved administrative arrangements in PlanD’s processing of

the planning applications, such as scheduling its consultation after the relevant

committee meetings in order to collect more comprehensive comments.

40. Ms YAM Pauline raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She said that she had been elected as an SDC Member but had not assumed

office in 2015 during the consultation period of the Southern District

Signature Project Scheme. She suggested PlanD improve the relevant

administrative arrangements in the future;

(ii) She strongly opposed to the application for increasing the number of hotels

rooms in the proposed South Horizons HK Electric Hotel. It was well

known that South Horizons was already densely populated, and that Aberdeen

Tunnel and Ap Lei Chau Bridge were bottlenecks on the roads of Southern

District. Approval of the application would generate more visitors using

23

these two roads and thus put greater burden on the traffic condition in the

district. Although the road traffic in the Southern District had been

improved after the commissioning of SIL(E), the planning application in

question would lead to serious traffic congestion in the district again; and

(iii) The pedestrian flow in Aberdeen was extremely high and Tin Wan was

adjacent to Aberdeen. If there was no wet market in Tin Wan, its residents

would have to resort to other markets in Aberdeen, and hence worsening the

environmental hygiene condition and traffic burden there. She urged PlanD

to take into consideration that Aberdeen, albeit small in area, was an important

hub of the Southern District when planning for the entire district.

41. Mr AU Nok-hin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) Regarding the communication issue between the Government and the public

as mentioned by PlanD before, he reflected that even if PlanD strengthened

liaison and discussion with the local community, there was possibility the

local comments would not be taken into account or accepted. Thus, the

situation would not be improved;

(ii) TPB’s Members should be elected through direct election and PlanD should

amend the Notes and definitions in the OZPs based on actual circumstances

from time to time. For example, PlanD should review whether “School” use

should be included in “R(A)” zone, the definitions of “International School”,

etc. He urged D of Plan to review the planning and development of the

Southern District and handle the planning of the district properly; and

(iii) He was discontented with the way The Link managed its shopping centres

which was completely disregarded of public needs. For example, Wah Kwai

Shopping Centre had been closed for over a year for renovation and had

caused serious inconvenience to local residents. On the other hand, the new

owner of Tin Wan Shopping Centre, Sunlink Group Co., Ltd. of Foshan, had

proposed to convert the shopping centre into an international school. Even if

the proposal was not implemented, the shopping centre still could not satisfy

the needs of residents due to its high vacancy rate. He requested PlanD to

tackle the above problems according to the relevant ordinances.

42. Mr FUNG Se-goun raised the following comments and enquiries:

24

(i) He hoped D of Plan could conduct more visits to the Southern District to

listen to Members’ views, with a view to enhancing the planning of the

district;

(ii) Traffic in the eastern part of the Southern District, including areas around

Repulse Bay, Deep Water Bay, Stanley, Tai Tam and Shek O, had not

benefitted from the commissioning of SIL(E). With the anticipated

completion of various development projects such as residential developments

at Wong Ma Kok Road and Shouson Hill, local population would increase.

Coupled with tourism development, traffic in the eastern part of the Southern

District would reach saturation level. Still, no transport planning had been

undertaken in response to the above situation. SDC had relayed the problem

to TD, which, however, had responded that the situation was not serious based

on the data available. He supplemented that while each development project

might not have too serious traffic impacts on the area, the combined traffic

impacts of all such projects would be significant. As such, SDC had put

forth suggestions on ways to improve local traffic conditions, including the

promotion of water transport. He hoped that PlanD could maintain close

liaison with TD and the Highways Department (HyD) and consult SDC, in a

bid to improve the transport planning for the Southern District;

(iii) He knew that support from PlanD was required for the proposed development

of water transport services in the Southern District, particularly the

construction of more piers. Under the current criteria, only applications for

the construction of piers for use by ferries would be approved, and no

consideration would be given to the construction of piers used by other

vessels such as privately-run leisure boats and sampans. Hence, he hoped

that PlanD and SDC could jointly explore ways to improve road traffic

conditions and boost tourism development in the Southern District; and

(iv) He urged PlanD to undertake road planning for the Southern District. As an

illustration, he pointed out that the vehicular access on the century-old Tai

Tam Reservoir Dam was very narrow. As vehicles nowadays were larger

than in the past, it was quite difficult for them to travel via that road section.

He called for appropriate road planning.

43. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She hoped that PlanD could liaise closely with Members on the planning of

the Southern District and consult SDC before making decision on any

planning application in the future, so as to avoid confrontation between

25

government officials and the general public. She further indicated there were

infill developments on Ap Lei Chau and there was no long-term planning

along Ap Lei Chau waterfront area; and

(ii) She requested car parks be provided in all future residential developments to

address the problem of on-street illegal parking.

44. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) PlanD’s role was quite passive as it had not conducted on its own initiative

studies on individual districts in Hong Kong, especially on the planning of

developed areas. While he understood the difficulties in manpower

deployment, he saw district planning highly crucial to the overall development

of the district in future. Therefore, he hoped D of Plan could allocate

resources to review the planning of developed areas;

(ii) As members of TPB were currently appointed by the CE, he requested D of

Plan to convey Members’ comments on the composition of TPB. He

suggested appointing persons from more diverse backgrounds as TPB

members instead of just appointing those from the business sector or property

developers who were susceptible to conflicts of interests. Despite the

existing mechanism for declaration of interests, he opined that it could not

avoid all possible conflicts of interests; and

(iii) He emphasised the need for relocation of the Wong Chuk Hang HKPC, which

had come to a standstill because the Police did not have any plan for a new

College and PlanD had not provided a suitable site for relocation. He urged

PlanD to proactively provide a suitable site to and follow up on the relocation

with the Police, with a view to expediting the release of this piece of “GIC”

site.

45. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She reflected that the piers at Tung Ah Pui Wan, Lan Nai Wan and To Tei Wan

in Stanley and Shek O were in very dilapidated conditions, causing

inconvenience to local residents. The traffic lanes of Tai Tam Road were

also very narrow. She urged PlanD to follow up on the issues actively;

(ii) She enquired PlanD about the feasibility of extending the railway network to

Shek O or Repulse Bay. She opined that if the suggestion was feasible,

visitors could travel to Shek O or Repulse Bay by railway, thereby relieving

the traffic congestion around Repulse Bay; and

26

(iii) Pointing out that the works at the quarry site near Red Hill Peninsula were

near completion, she enquired whether consideration would be given to

developing private housing there.

46. Mr CHU Lap-wai raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) PlanD was less proactive in addressing the planning matters in respect of the

Southern District and had failed to conduct a planning study for the Southern

District afresh;

(ii) He stated that at present, several STT sites under LandsD at the northern shore

of Ap Lei Chau had been enclosed by wire fences by LandsD in accordance

with the established procedures. As a result, SDC could not carry out

improvement works such as installation of lighting systems and improvement

of environmental hygiene on those sites. According to the reply from

LandsD, the wire fences could only be removed after those sites were taken

over by other government departments, which in his opinion was a waste of

precious land resources; and

(iii) Although SDC had been proactive in exploring and commenting on the

long-term planning of the northern shore of Ap Lei Chau in the past, the

proposals could not be implemented in the foreseeable future as the

implementation was not led by PlanD. He added that the sites were

unsuitable for residential development, but should be more suitable for parks,

leisure, cultural and sports facilities or car parks, etc. The current situation

of the northern shore of Ap Lei Chau was quite similar to the previous

situation of the northern shore of Tsing Yi, where the construction of Tsing Yi

Northeast Park was implemented after a very long period. Therefore, he

hoped that PlanD could plan proactively for the northern shore of Ap Lei

Chau so as to optimise the use of land resources.

47. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) As regards the proposed relocation of the Wong Chuk Hang HKPC, he

understood the difficulties encountered by PlanD in identifying a suitable site

for relocation of the College. Nevertheless, he was disappointed that the

relocation plan had come to a standstill;

(ii) The 2017 Policy Address mentioned the launch of 26 projects for the

development of new or improvement of existing sports and recreation

facilities, including Aberdeen Sports Ground, in the coming five years.

27

Since Aberdeen Sports Ground was located near the Wong Chuk Hang HKPC,

PlanD should seize this opportunity to plan for Aberdeen Sports Ground,

Wong Chuk Hang Recreation Ground, Wong Chuk Hang Sports Centre and

the Wong Chuk Hang HKPC in a comprehensive manner, in order to facilitate

proper planning for the whole Southern District;

(iii) It took time to plan for a district and very often the proposed planning could

only be implemented several years later. After a decade, different planning

issues would emerge in the Southern District, such as the need for the

redevelopment of Ap Lei Chau Estate or the implementation of the South

Island Line (West) Project. Hence, he urged PlanD to take a forward-looking

approach and conduct a long-term planning study for the Southern District as

soon as possible to meet the needs; and

(iv) Drawing reference from the examples of relocating most departmental

quarters for disciplined services departments and the Fire Services Training

School away from the urban area, the relocation of the Wong Chuk Hang

HKPC could optimise the use of land resources. When the relocation of the

Wong Chuk Hang HKPC was first proposed, it had been suggested that part of

the site could be reserved for constructing one to two police quarters to

address the Police’s concerns.

48. The Chairman invited Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP to respond to Members’

enquiries and comments.

49. Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP gave a consolidated response as follows:

Composition and Operation of TPB

(i) TPB was a statutory body established under TPO, which also provided

for its operation and functions. The composition and operation of TPB

had been improved gradually over the years. TPO had been amended

in 2004 and the major amendments included: all meetings of TPB and

its committees should be opened to the public (except for the

deliberation part and some special circumstances); all information on

planning applications should be published for public inspection; and

minutes of TPB meetings should be released to the public, etc. The

above amendments were nothing short of a milestone. He thanked

Members for their comments on the composition and operation of TPB.

28

PlanD would spare no effort in reviewing the relevant arrangements if

necessary;

Planning for the Southern District

(ii) PlanD had carried out the Focus Study on Aberdeen Harbour in 2001,

and subsequently the Tourism Commission had also conducted a study

on the Aberdeen Tourism Project. Being open-minded to further study

for the Southern District, PlanD would review if it was necessary to

re-study the planning for Southern District again subject to resources

and priorities of the department. PlanD had a clear understanding of

the planning and current state of the Ap Lei Chau and Aberdeen

waterfront areas, including the land uses shown on the Aberdeen and Ap

Lei Chau OZP. For example, the relocation of existing facilities to

release land. PlanD would strengthen communication and

co-ordination with the relevant government departments to take forward

the implementation of the planning objectives so as to improve the Ap

Lei Chau waterfront; and

Planning Application Consultation Period

(iii) Under TPO, on receiving planning application, PlanD would need to

submit the application to TPB for consideration within two months.

Any person could submit comments in respect of the application to the

TPB during the first three weeks of the public inspection period.

Based on past experience, it was not unusual for an applicant to request

for deferment of consideration of the application if more time was

required to deal with technical issues. He reiterated that PlanD was

committed to collect more comments from Members and the public

under the TPO.

50. The Chairman raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He enquired PlanD about the details of the relocation of the Wong Chuk Hang

HKPC. Suggestions made by SDC and the local community on the matter

had been discussed at SDC meetings with consensus reached. To the

disappointment of the local community, PlanD had not followed up on the

suggestions in the end. He enquired whether consultations with SDC and the

29

local community would continue to be carried out within the pre-set

framework after planning proposals were drawn up. He opined that when

formulating planning strategies, PlanD should adopt a bottom-up approach to

collect local views first; and

(ii) He reiterated that the most serious problem faced by the Southern District was

road traffic congestion as a result of the imbalance in overall planning. For

example, theme parks in countries throughout the world were seldom located

in the urban areas, but the Ocean Park, one of the exceptions, might even

carry out extension in the future. Besides, given the completion of numerous

hotels in Wong Chuk Hang, there was already an oversupply of hotels. Yet,

HK Electric was applying for increasing the number of rooms of South

Horizons HK Electric Hotel. Moreover, the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate

had been delayed once and again. He urged PlanD to carefully examine all

the details of the planning applications, including whether the TIAs were

satisfied. In addition, a bottom-up approach should be adopted to gauge

local views, and communication with the local community should be

enhanced.

51. The Chairman invited Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP to respond to Members’ enquiries

and comments.

52. Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP gave a consolidated response as follows:

Wong Chuk Hang HKPC

(i) Having taken note of SDC’s views on the relocation of the Wong Chuk

Hang HKPC, PlanD had all along been communicating with the Police

or the Security Bureau. Information revealed that under the existing

government policy, there was no relocation plan for the Wong Chuk

Hang HKPC for the time being. Nevertheless, PlanD would provide

relevant support and assistance in identifying a suitable site for the

relocation of HKPC if necessary;

Development Projects and Ancillary Transport Facilities

(ii) In regard to the ancillary transport facilities required for development

projects, the relevant government departments including TD would take

30

into account the overall traffic impacts brought about by those projects

in the district; and

Communication between PlanD and SDC

(iii) PlanD would continue to strengthen communication with SDC, and

Members were welcome to provide comments on different issues in the

future.

53. The Chairman thanked Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP, Mr KAU Kin-hong and Miss

LEE Kit-tak for attending the meeting and exchanging views with Members. He

hoped that PlanD would follow up on Members’ views proactively after the meeting.

(Mr LEE Kai-wing, JP, Mr KAU Kin-hong and Miss LEE Kit-tak left the meeting at

4:48 p.m.)

Agenda Item 2: Confirmation of the draft minutes of the 9th

SDC meeting held

on 16 March 2017

[4:48 p.m. - 4:49 p.m.]

54. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 9th

SDC

meeting had been circulated to Members for comments. The Secretariat had not

received any amendment proposals so far.

55. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN requested deletion of the words “the Marine

Department” from paragraph 105(i) as well as some other amendments to the relevant

parts of that paragraph of the draft minutes.

56. The Chairman said that the Secretariat would follow up the aforesaid

comments after the meeting and asked if Members had any other comments and

whether they would confirm the minutes of the 9th

SDC meeting.

57. Members had no objection.

58. SDC confirmed the minutes of its 9th

meeting.

(Post-meeting note: Paragraph 105(i) was amended as follows:

31

He requested Marine Department (MD) to have regularly provide

the figures about the amount of marine floating refuse scavenged

and domestic refuse collected from boats at Aberdeen Typhoon

Shelter and the related figures regularly, and the actions that have

been taken by MD the relevant government department so as to

facilitate members to supervise and review the progress and

efficiency as well as to raise relevant opinion;)

Agenda Item 3: Matters Arising

(SDC Paper No. 34/2017)

[4:49 p.m.]

59. The Chairman asked Members to note the contents of the paper.

60. Members noted the contents of the paper.

61. The Chairman announced a five-minute break.

(Ms Joanne HA and Ms Emily ZHAO joined the meeting at 4:58 p.m.)

Agenda Item 4: Revised Allocation of SDC Community Involvement Project

Fund for 2017-18 and Other Funding Matters

(SDC Paper No. 35/2017)

[4:58 p.m. – 5:39 p.m.]

62. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Leisure and

Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to the meeting:

(i) Ms Joanne HA, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Southern;

and

(ii) Ms Emily ZHAO, Manager (HK West), Marketing, Programme & District

Activities.

63. The Chairman asked Members who needed to declare their interests to raise

their hands and complete the Declaration of Interests.

32

64. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying declared that she was Chairlady of the Southern

District Recreation and Sports Association and Consultant to the 2017 Southern

District Tourism and Culture Festival Organising Committee (the OC).

65. Mr CHU Lap-wai declared that he was Chairman of the Working Group on

Closing Ceremony and Tourism Activities under the OC.

66. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH declared that he was Consultant to the OC.

67. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa declared that he was Consultant to the OC.

68. Mr CHAI Man-hon declared that he was Secretary of the OC and said that he

would withdraw from the meeting for this agenda item.

(Mr CHAI Man-hon withdrew from the meeting at 5:00 p.m.)

69. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH declared that she was Chairlady of the Working

Group on Opening Ceremony, Cultural & Arts Activities under the OC and Chairlady

of the Hong Kong Southern District Women’s Association.

70. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH declared that he was Director of the Hong Kong

Southern District Orchestra under the Southern District Arts and Culture Association

and Chairman of the Working Group on Overall Promotion, Sponsorship and

Administration under the OC.

71. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui declared that she was Consultant to the OC and

Advisor to the Hong Kong Southern District Women’s Association.

72. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH declared that she was Vice-Chairlady of the

Southern District Arts and Culture Association, Vice-Chairlady of the Southern District

Recreation and Sports Association and Consultant to the OC.

73. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH declared that he was Honorary Vice-President of the

OC, member of the Southern District Healthy & Safe Association Limited and Advisor

to the Hong Kong Southern District Women’s Association.

74. The Chairman declared that he was Honorary President of the OC and

Advisor to the Hong Kong Southern District Women’s Association.

33

(Details of the declaration of interests are given at Annex.)

(Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

withdrew from the meeting at 5:02 p.m.)

75. The Chairman briefed Members on the contents of the paper as follows:

(i) At its 6th

meeting on 22 September 2016, SDC endorsed a provisional

allocation for the implementation of community involvement (CI) projects in

2017-18. Subsequently, SDC revised the provisional allocation for the 2017

Southern District Festival, LCSD’s programme plans and the employment of

contract staff for the Secretariat. The allocation concerned was drawn up

based on the provision from the Home Affairs Department (HAD) for 2016-17.

Currently, the amount of over-spending was estimated to be $1,611,522,

representing 10.8% of the provision;

(ii) According to the 2017 Policy Address, the Government would provide an

additional $100 million to the CI Programme from 2017-18, so as to enable

the 18 District Councils (DCs) to further enhance the implementation or

sponsorship of CI projects;

(iii) Earlier on, HAD announced that the allocation of fund to SDC for 2017-18

was $18.92 million (increase by $4.02 million) for the implementation of CI

projects, including $1.8 million for the dedicated fund for the promotion of

arts and cultural activities in the district; and

(iv) In view of the latest funding position, it was proposed that the allocation for

CI projects in 2017-18 be revised.

76. The Chairman further said he suggested discussing the proposal on revised

allocation given at Annex 1 to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 first. If the proposal was

endorsed, the meeting would then discuss the revised applications for SDC funds

submitted by LCSD and the Secretariat given at Annexes 2 – 4 to SDC Paper No.

35/2017. The Chairman asked if Members consented to the aforesaid arrangement.

77. Members had no objection.

78. The Chairman invited the Secretary to brief Members on the proposal on

revised allocation.

34

79. The Secretary briefed Members on the contents of the paper as follows:

(i) Depending on the specific requirements of the projects, past financial

positions, project effectiveness and suggestions put forth by SDC Members,

etc., a certain amount of fund allocation would be added to or deducted from

some of the items, which were collectively called “specific adjustment items”.

The total adjustment amount was $3,356,000 and the detailed reasons were

given at Annex 1(b) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017;

(ii) Some items were about to complete or the responsible persons of the items

indicated that additional funding was not required. It was thus proposed that

no additional funding be provided. The detailed reasons were given at

Annex 1(b) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017; and

(iii) Deducting the total adjustment amount in (I) of Annex 1(b) to SDC Paper No.

35/2017 from the additional funding, the balance was then allocated to items

other than those in (I) and (II) of Annex 1(b) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 on a

pro rata basis.

80. The Chairman said that the revised amount of over-spending was estimated to

be $2,047,522, representing 10.8% of the provision.

81. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

82. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He enquired about the difference between item 1(c)(iii) – “Celebrations for

the National Day” and item 1(n) – “Celebrations for the 20th

anniversary of

the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

(HKSAR)” in Annex 1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 and their respective

details; and

(ii) It was proposed to increase the allocation for item 1(d)(ii) – “Promotion of

literature, music, and culture and heritage of Southern District” in Annex 1(a)

to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 by $700,000 (i.e. to $1 million). He enquired

why the adjustment was not made on a pro rata basis.

83. The Chairman invited the Secretary to respond.

84. The Secretary gave a consolidated response as follows:

35

(i) The activities organised under item 1(c)(iii) – “Celebrations for the National

Day” in Annex 1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 were solely for celebrating the

National Day, whereas those organised under item 1(n) – “Celebrations for the

20th

anniversary of the establishment of HKSAR” covered a wider variety.

The themes of these activities included promotion of tourism in the Southern

District, promotion of culture with a local characteristic of the Southern

District, sports competitions with the theme of Hong Kong’s reunification

with the Motherland or promotion of literature, music and arts development in

the Southern District; and

(ii) In response to the enquiry why the additional allocation for item 1(d)(ii) –

“Promotion of literature, music, and culture and heritage of Southern District”

in Annex 1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 was not adjusted on a pro rata basis,

she said that SDC was allocated a dedicated fund of $1.8 million for the

specified purpose of promoting arts and cultural activities in the district

(hereinafter “dedicated funds for the promotion of arts and cultural activities”)

in 2015-16 and 2016-17. Part of this dedicated fund was reserved for

“Promotion of literature, music, and culture and heritage of Southern District”

and the reserved allocation for this item in 2015-16 and 2016-17 was

$980,000 and $700,000, respectively. When discussing the “Provisional

Allocation of SDC Community Involvement Project Fund for 2017-18 and

Other Funding Matters” at its 6th

meeting on 22 September 2016, SDC

endorsed reserving $300,000 for item 1(d)(ii), because the total allocation of

SDC CI project fund and the allocation of the special provision for promotion

of arts and culture had not been announced at that time. Given that HAD

had earlier on announced that SDC would be allocated a $1.8 million to the

dedicated funds for the promotion of arts and cultural activities and making

reference to the reserved allocation for item 1(d)(ii) in 2015-16 and 2016-17,

it was thus proposed that the reserved allocation for item 1(d)(ii) be increased

by $700,000.

85. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa enquired about the details of Consultancy Study.

86. The Secretary responded that a Member had suggested carrying out a

consultancy study on the branding and promotion of the Southern District at the last

term of SDC. Thus, at its 6th

meeting on 22 September 2016, SDC endorsed

reserving $300,000 for item 8 – “District work of SDC (Consultancy Study)” in Annex

1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017. In view of the additional allocation, it was proposed

that the reserved allocation for this item be increased from $300,000 to $500,000 (i.e.

36

an increase of $200,000) to carry out other local studies or expand the scope of the

study on the branding and promotion of the Southern District.

87. The Chairman said that currently the meeting only discussed the reserved

allocation for item 8 – “District work of SDC (Consultancy Study)” in Annex 1(a) to

SDC Paper No. 35/2017. The topics of the study had yet to be determined.

88. Mr LO Kin-hei said that it was now only a month or so before 1 July 2017.

It was also specified in item 1(c) of Annex 1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 that an

allocation of $1,516,000 would be reserved for the Southern District Festival,

including $400,000 reserved for “Celebration for the Reunification of Hong Kong /

National Day”. While he did not object to organisation of celebration for the

reunification, he considered it inappropriate to add item 1(n) and reserve $500,000 for

this item, given that it was only a month or so before 1 July 2017. Instead of using

the fund for the celebration, he opined that the fund should be reserved for more

effective items such as festive lighting.

89. Regarding item 8 – “District work of SDC (Consultancy Study)” in Annex 1(a)

to SDC Paper No. 35/2017, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that “branding and promotion of

the Southern District” was a conceptual topic. He suggested conducting a

consultancy study on the long-term planning and development of the Southern District

and/or the Southern District waterfront promenade mentioned by Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN earlier on. He also suggested that SDC consider using these as the

topics of the consultancy study.

90. The Chairman said that the meeting should now discuss the reserved

allocation for the study. The actual topic could be discussed and determined at a

meeting of the relevant committee in due course.

91. The Secretary responded that the allocation of $1,516,000 mentioned in item

1(c) was reserved for the OC to organise the 2017 Southern District Festival, which

included celebration for the National Day, while the allocation of $500,000 in the

newly added item 1(n) was open for application by local organisations to organise

activities that matched the theme of this item. The proposal was also made by

making reference to the past practice of SDC in 2012, which reserved an allocation

open for application by local organisations to organise activities in celebration of the

15th

anniversary of the establishment of HKSAR.

37

92. Mr LO Kin-hei suggested that other Members actively raise their comments.

93. The Chairman said that no other Members indicated their wish to air their

views for the time being. The purpose of this agenda item was to tentatively endorse

the proposal on the revised allocation while the details would be discussed at meetings

of the relevant committee and the Working Group on Vetting (WGV).

94. The Secretary said that if SDC endorsed the proposal on the revised allocation,

the Secretariat would follow up on the issues related to the applications for funds. It

was believed that WGV would vet each fund application meticulously.

95. Mr CHOW Chor-tim, JP said that further to the Secretary’s response, the

Southern District Office (SDO) had received enquiries from residents and local

organisations in the past few months about whether SDC would reserve fund for local

organisations to organise activities in celebration of the reunification. The new item

1(n) – “Celebrations for the 20th

anniversary of the establishment of HKSAR” was

proposed in view of the additional allocation provided by HAD. He stressed that the

fund was open for application by local organisations. According to past practices, if

there was remaining balance in individual items, consideration could be given to

transferring the amount to other items.

96. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH said that in 2012 when HKSAR celebrated its 15th

anniversary, SDC also reserved an allocation for local organisations to organise

celebratory activities. He thus considered it appropriate to add the new item 1(n) in

Annex 1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 and supported the proposal. He also

commented that after SDC endorsed the revised allocation, it should not be further

revised if not necessary, to avoid causing confusion to the applicant organisations.

97. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui supported the addition of the new item 1(n) in Annex

1(a) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 and opined that the 20th

anniversary of the

establishment of HKSAR was a historic and commemorative event. As the

celebratory activities each year need not be completed on or before 1 July, it was

reasonable to organise the celebratory activities by the end of the year. Local

organisations should be pleased to see the creation of the funding item for celebration

of reunification.

98. The Chairman said that the activities organised under item 1(n) in Annex 1(a)

to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 could be completed on or before 31 December 2017.

38

99. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN opined that the fund should be used for items in other

areas to benefit the Southern District residents in the long term, such as providing

additional dental service, conducting a planning study for Aberdeen Typhoon Shelters

and Ap Lei Chau waterfront, conducting a study on the “branding and promotion of the

Southern District”, etc. He had raised comments on the allocation of CI project fund

but his comments had not been accepted.

100. The Chairman asked whether the Secretary had anything to add.

101. The Secretary said that the CI project fund had its specific scope of use which

did not necessarily cover all areas.

102. The Chairman said that the CI project fund could not be used in conjunction

with the fund for district minor works. The two types of fund had to be handled as

two separate funding items.

103. The Chairman asked Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms

CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai, Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH and Ms LAM

Yuk-chun, MH to withdraw from the meeting.

(Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mr CHU Lap-wai withdrew from the meeting at 5:24

p.m. while Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH

and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH had withdrawn from the meeting earlier on.)

104. The Chairman asked whether Members endorsed the proposal on the revised

allocation of SDC CI project fund for 2017-18 as well as the fund allocation and

associated arrangements set out in paragraph 5 of and Annexes 1(a) & (b) to SDC

Paper No. 35/2017.

105. SDC endorsed the proposal on the revised allocation of SDC CI project fund

for 2017-18 as well as the fund allocation and associated arrangements set out in

paragraph 5 of and Annexes 1(a) & (b) to SDC Paper No. 35/2017 with five votes for it,

four votes against it and no abstention.

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

CHU Lap-wai, Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH returned to the

meeting at 5:25 p.m.)

39

106. The Chairman said that as time was pressing, to allow sufficient time for

organisations to prepare their applications, it was proposed to change the date for the

next round of application submission from 29 May to 5 June 2017. The Chairman

asked whether Members consented to the arrangement.

107. Members had no objection.

108. The Chairman said that the original allocation for the “Block Allocation of

SDC Funds to Sponsor Community Building Activities Organised by Residents’

Organisations” was $125,000. According to the existing ratio of allocation that had

been endorsed, the allocation reserved for the four areas was $115,000 (i.e. $28,750 for

each area), with an extra $10,000 as special reserve. As the revised allocation of

funds set out in paragraph 5 of SDC Paper No. 35/2017 had been endorsed, there

would be an additional funding of $34,000 for the Block Allocation. It was proposed

that the additional funding be evenly distributed among the four areas, i.e. an

additional $8,500 for each area, while the amount of the special reserve remained

unchanged. The Chairman asked whether Members consented to the proposed

distribution.

109. Members had no objection.

110. The Chairman said that regarding the proposal on providing an additional

provision of $700,000 for the “Promotion of literature, music, and culture and heritage

of Southern District” from the dedicated fund for the promotion of arts and cultural

activities, the proposed arrangements were as follows:

(i) The provision was not applicable to pure performance. The proposed

projects had to be educational and be able to promote and enhance the

participants’ awareness of the related themes (i.e. literature, music, or culture

and heritage with a local characteristic of the Southern District);

(ii) The projects should be implemented within the period of October 2017 to

January 2018; and

(iii) The application deadline was 31 July 2017.

(Mr CHU Lap-wai withdrew from the meeting at 5:27 p.m.)

111. The Chairman asked whether Members consented to the aforesaid

40

arrangement.

112. Members had no objection.

113. The Chairman further said that since the proposal on the revised allocation set

out in paragraph 5 of SDC Paper No. 35/2017 had been endorsed, the meeting now

proceeded to discuss the revised applications for SDC fund submitted by LCSD and

the Secretariat as detailed in Annexes 2 – 4 to SDC Paper No. 35/2017.

114. The Chairman invited Ms Joanne HA to brief Members on the revised

programme plan for recreation and sports programme in the Southern District from

July 2017 to March 2018 and the revised funding application for programmes from

July 2017 to February 2018 by LCSD as detailed in Annex 2 to SDC Paper No.

35/2017.

115. Ms Joanne HA introduced the contents of Annex 2 to SDC Paper No.

35/2017.

116. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

117. Members raised no comments or enquiries.

118. The Chairman asked whether Members consented to the revised programme

plan for recreation and sports programme in the Southern District from July 2017 to

March 2018 and the revised funding application for programmes from July 2017 to

February 2018 by LCSD, i.e. approving an additional fund of $500,000 for LCSD’s

recreation and sports programme plan, making a total of $5,873,688.

119. Members had no objection.

120. SDC endorsed the revised programme plan for recreation and sports

programme in the Southern District from July 2017 to March 2018 and the revised

funding application for programmes from July 2017 to February 2018 by LCSD, i.e.

approving an additional fund of $500,000 for LCSD’s recreation and sports programme

plan, making a total of $5,873,688.

121. The Chairman invited Ms Emily ZHAO to brief Members on the revised

arrangement on district free entertainment programmes in Southern District in 2017-18

41

by LCSD as detailed in Annex 3 to SDC Paper No. 35/2017.

122. Ms Emily ZHAO introduced the contents of Annex 3 to SDC Paper No.

35/2017.

(Ms CHAN Judy Kapui withdrew from the meeting at 5:32 p.m.)

123. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

124. Members raised no comments or enquiries.

125. The Chairman asked whether Members consented to an increase in the

estimated total expenditure for district free entertainment programmes provided by

LCSD between April 2017 and February 2018 by $46,000, i.e. from $395,000 to

$441,000. Overall speaking, an additional fund of $46,000 would be provided for

district free entertainment programmes in 2017-18, making a total of $476,000.

126. Members had no objection.

127. SDC endorsed an increase in the estimated total expenditure for district free

entertainment programmes provided by LCSD between April 2017 and February 2018

by $46,000, i.e. from $395,000 to $441,000. Overall speaking, an additional fund of

$46,000 would be provided for district free entertainment programmes in 2017-18,

making a total of $476,000.

128. The Chairman invited the Secretary to brief Members on the revised budget

for the employment of contract staff for the Secretariat as detailed in Annex 4 to SDC

Paper No. 35/2017.

129. The Secretary briefed Members on the contents of the paper as follows:

(i) The 9th

SDC meeting of 16 March 2017 had endorsed an allocation of

$2,232,814 for the Secretariat to continue the employment of four full-time

Executive Assistants (EAs), five full-time Project Coordinators (PCs) and not

more than 20 part-time Project Assistants (PAs) in 2017-18, representing

14.99% of the total provision to SDC;

(ii) According to the 2017 Policy Address, the Government would provide an

additional $100 million for the CI Programme starting from 2017-18 to enable

42

the 18 DCs to implement or sponsor more CI projects. In 2017-18, an

additional funding of $4.02 million had been provided for SDC, which added

up to a total provision of $18.92 million for the implementation of CI projects;

and

(iii) In view of the increase in the overall funding, it was proposed that an

additional full-time EA be employed and more man-hours of part-time PAs be

engaged to meet the rising workload, such as processing funding and

reimbursement applications, other administration as well as clerical duties.

The extra expenditure would be $260,000.

130. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

131. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that if the additional contract staff was

employed to organise activities, he would not support this funding application. On

the contrary, if the additional contract staff was employed to perform tasks such as

community management, planning and design, he would then support this funding

application.

132. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH said that in view of the increasing workload of the

Secretariat, including the need to process more and more funding applications for

activities and handle district affairs, he considered it reasonable to employ additional

contract staff for the Secretariat.

133. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH said that in view of the increased allocation and

number of activities, the workload of the Secretariat would increase. Since the

existing manpower of the Secretariat was insufficient to meet the needs, he considered

it necessary to employ additional contract staff.

134. Showing concern over the issue of contract staff, Mr LO Kin-hei said that

DCs should employ contract staff for their Secretariats in a flexible manner having

regard to the local needs rather than employ contract staff solely according to the

established mechanism. He urged the Secretariat to relay his comments to HAD so

that DCs could have more flexibility when employing staff.

135. The Chairman said that this suggestion involved a change in the system. He

suggested that the political party to which Mr LO Kin-hei belonged relay the aforesaid

comment to HAD directly and hoped that everyone would make an effort.

43

(Mr CHU Lap-wai returned to the meeting at 5:38 p.m.)

136. The Chairman asked whether Members endorsed the proposals mentioned in

paragraphs 6 to 8 of Annex 4 to SDC Paper No. 35/2017, i.e. approving an additional

funding of $260,000 so as to allow the Secretariat to employ an additional full-time EA

and increase the man-hours of part-time PAs in 2017-18.

137. SDC endorsed the proposals mentioned in paragraphs 6 to 8 of Annex 4 to

SDC Paper No. 35/2017, i.e. approving an additional funding of $260,000 so as to

allow the Secretariat to employ an additional full-time EA and increase the man-hours

of part-time PAs in 2017-18 with eight votes for them, one vote against them and four

abstentions.

138. The Chairman thanked the LCSD representatives for attending the meeting.

(Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms Joanne HA and Ms Emily ZHAO left the meeting at

5:39 p.m.)

(Ms Annie LIENG and Ms Vivian WONG joined the meeting at 5:39 p.m.)

Agenda Item 5: Application for Funds: Community Scheme for Promoting the

Culture of “Low-Salt-Low-Sugar Diets in the Southern District”

(SDC Paper No. 36/2017)

[5:39 p.m. – 5:50 p.m.]

139. The Chairman welcomed the following organisational representatives to the

meeting:

(i) Ms Vivian WONG, Social Wok Assistant of Caritas Community Centre -

Aberdeen; and

(ii) Ms Annie LIENG, Executive Assistant of Southern District Healthy & Safe

Association Limited.

140. The Chairman made declaration of interest. As he was the Chairman of

Southern District Healthy & Safe Association Limited, he was required to withdraw

from the meeting. The chair was now handed over to Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, the

Vice-Chairman of SDC who would preside at the meeting on his behalf. Mr CHAN

44

Fu-ming, MH had no objection.

(The Chairman withdrew from the meeting at 5:40 p.m.)

(The meeting was presided over by the Vice-Chairman of SDC at this juncture.)

141. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH requested Members who had declarable interests to

raise their hands and complete a declaration form accordingly.

142. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH declared that she was a Member of Southern

District Healthy & Safe Association Limited, a Member of the Advisory Committee of

Caritas Community Centre – Aberdeen, a Consultant of Hong Kong Southern District

Women’s Association Limited and the Executive Director of Aberdeen Kai-fong

Welfare Association Social Service.

143. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH declared that she was the Director of Southern

District Healthy & Safe Association Limited and the Chairlady of the Hong Kong

Southern District Women’s Association Limited.

144. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH declared that he was a Consultant of Hong Kong

Southern District Women’s Association Limited.

145. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH declared that he was a Member of the Advisory

Committee of Caritas Community Centre – Aberdeen and a Consultant of the Hong

Kong Southern District Women’s Association Limited.

146. Mr CHU Lap-wai declared that he was a Consultant of Hong Kong Southern

District Women’s Association Limited.

147. Ms YAM Pauline declared that she was a Consultant of Hong Kong Southern

District Women’s Association Limited.

148. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH asked Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH and Ms LAM

Yuk-chun, MH to withdraw from the meeting temporarily.

(Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH withdrew from the

meeting temporarily at 5:42 p.m.)

45

(Details of declaration of interests were given at Annex.)

149. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH continued to advise that Mr AU Lap-sing, MH was a

Member of the Advisory Committee of Caritas Community Centre – Aberdeen, one of

the co-organisers of this programme. Therefore, Mr AU was required to keep his

silence during the discussion, and should abstain from decision-making or voting for

the funding application concerned.

150. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH invited Ms Vivian WONG to brief Members on

Annex 2 of the SDC Paper No. 36/2017 regarding Application for SDC Fund:

Community Scheme for Promoting the Culture of “Low-Salt-Low-Sugar Diets in the

Southern District”.

151. Ms Vivian WONG briefly presented Annex 2 of SDC Paper No. 36/2017.

152. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH invited Members to raise comments or enquiries on

the subject.

153. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He commented that the Committee on Reduction of Salt and Sugar in Food

actually had no solid idea on how to promote the message of reduced salt and

sugar in food. It simply provided a subsidy to each district and let the

respective districts organise any activities or produce some publications on

their own, based on the amount of subsidy received. He reiterated that this

programme was not meaningless but the arrangement was not satisfactory.

Hence, it was unable to create a synergic effect. He gave an example of the

North District subsiding an applicant organisation to liaise with the North

District Hospital for producing information pamphlet in print; meanwhile, the

Wong Tai Sin DC also arranged printing of their own information pamphlet

for distribution in the opening and closing ceremonies of their activities. He

opined that the contents of such pamphlets were more or less the same. It

was not necessary for all districts to get on with the printing of these

publications by themselves. The information was also readily accessible

through the internet; and

(ii) While the whole amount of this one-off subsidy was $250,000, the charter

signing cum prize presentation ceremony for “Low-Salt-Low-Sugar Diets in

the Southern District” had already entailed an estimated spending of $100,000,

46

which accounted for over half of the allocation. The programme came at too

high a cost per capita and he was doubtful about its effectiveness. He also

opined that if this funding application was approved, assessment should be

conducted to gauge the effectiveness at the end of this programme. He also

hoped that the Audit Commission could examine the effectiveness of all the

activities organised under this Community Scheme in the respective districts.

He stressed that the Government had launched various funding programmes

from time to time as a result of the budget surplus. Yet, the outcome had

remained doubtful.

154. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH invited Ms Vivian WONG to respond.

155. Ms Vivian WONG responded that on the day of the charter signing cum prize

presentation ceremony, there would be fancy car parade. Arrangement would be

made to distribute publicity materials and souvenirs at various locations of the

Southern District with a view to disseminating the message of reduced salt and sugar in

food to the public.

156. Members had no other comments or enquiries. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH

thanked Ms Annie LIENG and Ms Vivian WONG for attending the meeting.

(Ms Annie LIENG and Ms Vivian WONG left the meeting at 5:48 p.m.)

157. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH asked Members whether they would endorse the

funding application at Annex 2 of SDC Paper No. 36/2017 and agree to provide an

advance payment of half of the allocation to Southern District Healthy & Safe

Association Limited for organising activities under the Community Scheme for

Promoting the Culture of “Low-Salt-Low-Sugar Diets in the Southern District”.

(Ms CHAN Judy Kapui returned to the meeting at 5:49 p.m.)

158. SDC endorsed the fund allocation to Southern District Healthy & Safe

Association Limited, with six votes for it, five votes against it and zero abstention, in

the amount of $250,000 with an advance payment of half of the allocation for

organising activities under the Community Scheme for Promoting the Culture of

“Low-Salt-Low-Sugar Diets in the Southern District”.

(Mr FUNG Se-goun left the meeting at 5:50 p.m.)

47

(The Chairman, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH returned to

the meeting at 5:50 p.m.)

(Mr KWOK Kin-kuen, Mr CHAN Hoi-ki, Mr Johnny CHAN, Mr Calvin YEUNG, Mr

Thomas LI and Miss Lilian YEUNG joined the meeting at 5:50 p.m.)

(The meeting was returned to the Chairman of SDC who continued to chair at this

juncture.)

Agenda Item 6: Request the MTR Corporation Limited to improve its

Collaborative Relationship with the District Council and the

Community

(SDC Paper No. 37/2017)

[5:50 p.m. – 6:47 p.m.]

159. The Chairman said that this agenda item was raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa.

The responses by the MTRC and the relevant government departments were given at

Annex 2 to SDC Paper No. 37/2017. The Chairman welcomed the following

representatives of the relevant government departments and MTRC to the meeting:

(i) Mr KWOK Kin-kuen, Senior Engineer/South Island Line (East) 2, HyD;

(ii) Mr CHAN Hoi-ki, Engineer/South Island Line (2), HyD;

(iii) Mr Johnny CHAN, Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 3, TD;

(iv) Mr Calvin YEUNG, Engineer/Priority Railway 5, TD;

(v) Mr Thomas LI, Senior Construction Engineer-Civil, MTRC; and

(vi) Miss Lilian YEUNG, Public Relations Manager-External Affairs, MTRC.

160. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to briefly introduce the agenda item.

161. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefed Members on the agenda item as follows:

(i) While local residents had put forward views on the locations of Fare Savers,

MTRC had recently announced the provision of a Fare Saver in Wong Chuk

Hang only. He requested MTRC, when selecting locations for installing

Fare Savers, to consult SDC or SDC Member of the constituency concerned,

who would reflect the residents’ aspirations. He further pointed out that the

48

location of the existing Fare Saver at Wong Chuk Hang was not the best

option to facilitate the public;

(ii) Currently many projects of MTRC in the Southern District, such as the works

in the vicinity of Nam Long Shan Road and Shum Wan Road, had yet to

complete. He urged MTRC to consult SDC or SDC Member of the

constituency concerned before carrying out any traffic diversion or other

kinds of works so as to enhance the effectiveness and minimise the impacts on

the residents. For instance, due to works being carried out, the bus stop

originally located next to S.W.C.S. Chan Pak Sha School was temporarily

relocated to a location near Welfare Road, which was very close to a

neighbouring bus stop. If MTRC had consulted the SDC Member of the

constituency concerned before relocating the bus stop, he would suggest

suspending the bus stop, making it unnecessary to relocate the bus stop;

(iii) The Government had entrusted a number of infrastructure projects relating to

South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)), such as the construction and improvement

of pedestrian crossing and connecting facilities, to MTRC so as to facilitate

people walking to and from MTR stations. These facilities included the

footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang MTR Station and its adjacent

industrial area and the walkway along Heung Yip Path. However, it was

heard that the aforesaid facilities had not been officially handed over to the

relevant government departments, resulting in poor management and unclear

delineation of power and responsibility relating to these facilities. He urged

MTRC to give an account of the handover progress and time table; and

(iv) He suggested that MTRC add greenery to the site of the former Wong Chuk

Hang Estate. Consideration could also be given to inviting local

organisations or schools to organise a painting competition and hanging the

paintings on the chain link fences around the site so as to reduce the dust and

mud nuisance and beautify the environment.

162. The Chairman invited the MTRC representatives to respond.

163. Miss Lilian YEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) She thanked Members for their persistent support of SIL(E). MTRC had

endeavoured to maintain close collaboration with SDC and the local

community through different channels and proactively follow up the relevant

issues, including road reinstatement works, etc. MTRC would continue to

maintain a close communication and liaison with SDC and the local

49

community;

(ii) MTRC understood the public’s aspirations for the installation of Fare Savers

in the Southern District and had endeavoured to identify a suitable location for

installing Fare Savers. She added that the provision of Fare Savers was to

encourage passengers who lived or worked further away from the MTR

stations to walk to MTR stations and use the train service. At the same time,

MTR could benefit from additional patronage generated by offering fare

discount through the Fare Saver. From 5 May 2017, a new Fare Saver was

installed on the ground floor of Marina Office Tower. MTRC would

continue to identify suitable locations for installing Fare Savers and welcomed

Members’ comments. If necessary, MTRC could arrange for site visits with

Members. However, the location of Fare Saver could not be too far or too

close to the nearest MTR station. Ancillary facilities must also be available

at the location, including electricity supply and CCTV, etc.; and

(iii) With respect to the request for adding greenery to the undeveloped areas at

Wong Chuk Hang property development site, she said that the topside

development was currently being undertaken in phases. The first

development package was awarded in February 2017. Two more packages

would be put on the market in the coming 10 months subject to market

conditions. With the implementation of the development works, plants, if

grown, would have to be transplanted soon after being placed in the concerned

areas, causing damages to the plants due to frequent transplantation. Hence

growing plants in the concerned areas was considered not suitable. MTRC

had duly noted the community aspiration for greenery. To this end, some

300 potted plants had already been arranged on the depot roof with a view to

creating a greener and enhanced environment for the community. MTRC

welcomed any comments from Members and local residents on this issue.

164. Mr Thomas LI gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) With the construction of SIL(E) completed, MTRC was carrying out the

remaining road reinstatement and improvement works. At Heung Yip Road,

Nam Long Shan Road and Shum Wan Road in the area of Wong Chuk Hang,

the road reinstatement and improvement works were being carried out in

phases and were expected to be completed by the end of 2017. MTRC and

its contractors would closely monitor the progress of the works so as to

complete the road reinstatement and improvement works as soon as possible.

MTRC undertook to strengthen communication with SDC and the local

50

community on the works. For example, MTRC had notified the stakeholders

concerned and the SDC Member of the constituency concerned of the road

reinstatement and improvement works to be carried out at the junction of

Police School Road and Heung Yip Road between 22 and 26 May; and

(ii) The footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang Station and its adjacent

industrial area was completed in April 2016 and handed over to the relevant

government departments for public use. He added that the footbridge and its

planters were designed and constructed by MTRC. The construction works

were carried out in accordance with the relevant comments and approved

designs of government departments. During the inspection following the

completion of the construction, MTRC received comments from relevant

government departments on the design of the planter. MTRC was modifying

the detailed design of the planters, and would submit the detailed design to

relevant government departments for consideration. After getting approval,

MTRC would start the beautification works of the planters.

165. The Chairman invited the TD representatives to respond.

166. Mr Johnny CHAN responded that to facilitate the road works, MTRC

temporarily relocated several bus stops near S.W.C.S. Chan Pak Sha School to the

temporary bus stop near Welfare Road. TD’s site inspection revealed that buses

approaching the bus stop might occasionally short-stop at the junction of Welfare Road,

causing a traffic jam there. TD had requested the bus company to follow up. The

situation was not observed again in further inspection.

167. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

168. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He pointed out that road reinstatement works were being carried out at the

junction of Nam Long Shan Road and Shum Wan Road. Pedestrians affected

by the reinstatement works had to walk near Nam Long Shan Road when

crossing the road. It was thus difficult for them to notice the pedestrian

signal there. He suggested adding signage to remind the pedestrians to

notice the pedestrian signal;

(ii) He reported that the relocation of several bus stops near S.W.C.S. Chan Pak

Sha School to the temporary bus stop near Welfare Road had caused

inconvenience to the residents, as it was difficult for people who had alighted

51

buses to walk to Broadview Court; and

(iii) He reported two occasions of malfunction of the temporary traffic lights

installed during the works at the junction of Police School Road and Nam

Long Shan Road, which would easily lead to accidents, and advised TD to pay

more attention to the situation.

169. Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) As a number of projects relating to SIL(E) had not been completed, MTRC

must continue to maintain close communication and liaison with Members to

facilitate the relevant follow-up work;

(ii) The water leakage incident at South Horizons Station earlier on revealed the

improper water proof design of the station. The SDC Member of the

constituency concerned had immediately liaised closely with MTRC,

including urging MTRC to complete the repair works as soon as possible as

well as provide detailed information of the locations of pipes and facilities to

be replaced and the progress of the outstanding works; and

(iii) He commended MTRC for actively following up Members’ requests. Citing

an example, he said that MTRC was actively following up issues relating to

South Horizons Station, including inadequate barrier-free access next to the

lift at Exit C, lack of seats on the platform and light pollution caused by strong

light at Exit C as mentioned earlier on.

170. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She remarked that although MTRC kept contact with Members, some works

were less than perfect. For example, bollard light had yet to be installed at

the pedestrian refuge at Yi Nam Road. She urged MTRC to follow up as

soon as possible; and

(ii) She requested MTRC to provide detailed information of the Fare Savers, such

as the proposed locations of Fare Savers, the difficulties encountered and the

schedule of installing Fare Savers at other locations.

171. Mr AU Nok-hin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He urged MTRC to remove the temporary water-filled barriers near Lei Tung

Estate Bus Terminus as soon as possible upon completion of works there;

(ii) He requested MTRC to give an account of the latest progress and anticipated

52

completion date of the rooftop works outside Exit B of Lei Tung Station; and

(iii) He thanked MTRC for considering installing a Fare Saver at Yue On Court.

But he requested MTRC to give an account of their deliberation with the Link

and promise to arrange a meeting with representatives of the Link and the

SDC Member of the constituency concerned as soon as possible so as to

discuss the issue.

172. Mr CHU Lap-wai raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) In view of the one-year delay of commissioning of SIL(E), SDC had

requested MTRC to provide fare compensation to compensate residents who

had been affected by the project. But so far MTRC had only provided

interchange concession and had not proposed any fare compensation due to

the delay. He was discontented with MTRC’s repeated delay in responding

to the compensation issue and urged MTRC to provide details about fare

compensation; and

(ii) It was only in May 2017 that the first Fare Saver was installed and the

location was not one that was agreed upon by SDC. He suggested that

MTRC consider installing a Fare Saver at Aberdeen Main Road and in the

vicinity of Aberdeen.

173. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He urged MTRC to give an account of fare compensation due to delay of

commissioning of SIL(E); and

(ii) He suggested establishing a routinised communication mechanism between

SDC and MTRC, such as including MTRC as one of the regular participating

organisations of a committee under SDC and requesting MTRC to deploy

representatives to attend every meeting so as to strengthen the communication

between MTRC and SDC.

174. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She understood that it was not suitable to install a Fare Saver at South

Horizons since it was too close to the nearest MTR station. But according to

the information, Ap Lei Chau Estate satisfied the conditions for installing a

Fare Saver. She thus urged MTRC to consider installing a Fare Saver at Ap

Lei Chau Estate and follow up the issue as soon as possible;

53

(ii) Despite the commissioning of SIL(E), there were quite a number of

uncompleted projects in the district. She thus suggested resuming the

operation of the Community Liaison Group (CLG) and urged SDC to follow

up the issue with MTRC; and

(iii) She reported two different arrangements of MTRC for the water leakage

problem of the ceiling at South Horizons Station at two different meetings.

Senior executives of MTRC were deployed to attend the meeting attended by

Hon Michael TIEN Puk-sun, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Matters

Relating to Railways under the Legislative Council (LegCo). In contrast, no

senior executives of MTRC were deployed to attend the meeting without the

presence of LegCo Members.

175. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) MTRC’s relocation of several bus stops near S.W.C.S. Chan Pak Sha School

to the temporary bus stop near Welfare Road had obviously caused

inconvenience to the residents. He requested TD and the Police to respond

as to the criteria for approving the relocation application;

(ii) He suggested that MTRC and the government department concerned report

the latest handover progress of the footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang

Station and its adjacent industrial area to SDC in table format every two

months;

(iii) MTRC said that road reinstatement and carriage improvement works would

continue to be carried out at Heung Yip Road, Nam Long Shan Road and

Shum Wan Road in the area of Wong Chuk Hang in phases and expected that

the works would be completed within 2017. He requested that MTRC do its

best to minimise the impacts of the works on the residents and strengthen its

communication with SDC; and

(iv) He understood that the request for constructing a park or leisure ground on the

site of the former Wong Chuk Hang Estate for open use by the residents

would cause financial and management problems to MTRC. He thus sought

a less desirable option and requested MTRC to place potted plants on the site

not yet put up for tender or hang pictures on the chain link fences around the

site to beautify the environment. He urged MTRC to give a specific account

of the issue.

176. Mr AU Lap-sing, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

54

(i) He enquired about the time table of relocating the pedestrian crossing outside

the entrance of Singapore International School (Hong Kong); and

(ii) He knew that a bus stop would be added at Nam Long Shan Road. But the

nearest pedestrian crossing was situated at Shum Wan Road. He thus

enquired whether new pedestrian crossing would be provided near the new

bus stop to facilitate the public crossing the road.

177. The Chairman invited the MTRC representatives to respond.

178. Mr Thomas LI gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) In response to the suggestion of providing signage at the junction of Nam

Long Shan Road and Shum Wan Road and the report of malfunction of the

temporary traffic lights at the junction of Police School Road and Nam Long

Shan Road, MTRC would step up inspection of the conditions;

(ii) MTRC planned to reinstate the pedestrian crossing outside the entrance of

Singapore International School (Hong Kong) and provide additional

pedestrian crossing near the new bus stop at Nam Long Shan Road so as to

enhance the pedestrian crossing in the area;

(iii) MTRC had earlier on discussed with the SDC Member of the constituency

concerned about the water proof design of South Horizons Station. A

number of major tasks had been identified and were now being followed up

proactively. MTRC would maintain close liaison with the SDC Member of

the constituency concerned and make timely reports of the progress;

(iv) MTRC anticipated that the installation of bollard light at the pedestrian refuge

at Yi Nam Road would be completed in the second quarter of 2017;

(v) MTRC anticipated that the works near Lei Tung Estate Bus Terminus would

be completed in the second quarter of 2017 and would remove the water-filled

barriers and mills barriers upon completion of works there; and

(vi) The progress of the rooftop installation works at Exit B of Lei Tung Station

was satisfactory. The design was about to be completed and would be

submitted to the relevant department for approval. MTRC expected to

complete the works in the second half of 2017.

179. Miss Lilian YEUNG said that MTRC had noted the local community’s

demand for Fare Savers and had been working hard to identify suitable places for

installing Fare Savers. She added that Fare Saver was a commercial promotion. It

encouraged passengers who lived or worked further away from the MTR stations to

55

walk to MTR stations and use the train service. At the same time, MTR could benefit

from additional patronage generated by offering fare discount through the Fare Saver.

Apart from the distance between the location of Fare Saver and the nearest MTR

station, MTRC also had to take into account the ancillary facilities and commercial

arrangement of the proposed location. Staff members of the commerce and marketing

section of MTRC had endeavoured to deliberate with the relevant owners or property

holders on the installation of Fare Savers. Members were welcome to put forth

suggestions on the locations of Fare Savers which would be followed up by MTRC in a

timely manner.

180. The Chairman invited the TD representatives to respond.

181. Mr Johnny CHAN said that regarding the relocation of several bus stops near

S.W.C.S. Chan Pak Sha School to the temporary bus stop near Welfare Road, TD knew

that the road reinstatement works at the junction of Nam Long Shan Road and Shum

Wan Road would not last long and had enquired the bus company of the relocation of

bus stops. Discussion had been held and consensus had been reached at meetings of

the site liaison group. TD hoped that the existing service could be maintained during

the works period and so approved the application. Nevertheless, TD would

strengthen and maintain close liaison with the local community when processing

similar applications in future.

182. The Chairman invited the MTRC representatives to respond as to the fare

compensation due to the delay of commissioning of SIL(E) and the future routinised

communication mechanism between SDC and MTRC.

183. Miss Lilian YEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) MTRC had been maintaining close liaison with local stakeholders through

different channels both before and after the commissioning of SIL(E).

Before the commissioning of SIL(E), MTRC set up the CLG to discuss the

arrangements and details of the project with the relevant stakeholders. After

the commissioning of SIL(E), MTRC still maintained liaison with the local

stakeholders through different platforms and reported the relevant issues to

Members regularly via the SDC Secretariat; and

(ii) Regarding the fare compensation due to the delay of commissioning of SIL(E),

passengers could choose suitable concessions offered by various fare

promotion schemes. MTRC would also launch the 3% fare discount

56

promotion scheme on 18 June 2017 under which passengers would be

benefitted for each MTR trip. MTRC would continue to collect passengers’

opinions and make timely adjustment to the concession schemes.

184. Mr AU Nok-hin raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He requested MTRC to provide details of the works being carried out at Lei

Tung Estate Bus Terminus; and

(ii) He requested MTRC to promise to arrange for a meeting with representatives

of the Link and the SDC Member of the constituency concerned to discuss the

issue of installing a Fare Saver at Yue On Court.

185. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui said that after the occurrence of water leakage of the

ceiling at Exit B of South Horizons Station, it was the SDC Member of the

constituency concerned who took the initiative to meet with the MTRC representatives

to discuss the follow-up work, rather than the other way around. This showed that

without a routinised communication mechanism, MTRC would not take the initiative

to contact the local community, whether minor works such as road reinstatement works

or major incidents were involved. She thus requested the resumption of CLG and

regular meeting with the MTRC representatives so as to follow up issues relating to the

works until all works had been completed.

186. Mr CHU Lap-wai said that the response of a MTRC representative given just

now had only mentioned fare promotion schemes. No mention had been made of the

fare compensation due to the one-year delay of commissioning of SIL(E). He

requested MTRC to give a clear response.

187. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He urged MTRC and the government department concerned to report

regularly the handover progress of the footbridge connecting Wong Chuk

Hang Station and its adjacent industrial area to SDC in table format;

(ii) He urged MTRC and/or the government department concerned to add

greenery to the chain link fences around the site of the former Wong Chuk

Hang Estate so as to beautify the environment;

(iii) He reported the water leakage problem of part of the overhead runway of

SIL(E), such as the overhead runway near Heung Yip Path. The situation in

the vicinity of Police School Road was especially serious, posing threat to

57

drivers. He urged MTRC to follow up; and

(iv) He pointed out that the planter next to the lift of Nam Long Shan Road

Cooked Food Market had obstructed the access of pedestrians and advised

MTRC and/or the government department concerned to remove the planter.

188. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH said that the Southern District South Area

Committee had earlier on suggested that MTRC add signage at the Lei Tung Estate

Exit of Lei Tung Station to help the residents reach their destinations in the right way.

She urged MTRC to follow up proactively.

189. Mr Thomas LI gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) MTRC would liaise with the department concerned on the handover progress

of the footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang Station and its adjacent

industrial area and then report to the SDC Member of the constituency

concerned;

(ii) MTRC was following up the water leakage problem of the overhead runway

of SIL(E) near Police School Road and was liaising with the consultant on the

solution; and

(iii) The works near Lei Tung Estate Bus Terminus was not yet completed.

MTRC anticipated that the works would be completed in the second quarter of

2017 and would then remove the water-filled barriers and mills barriers there.

190. Miss Lilian YEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) After the meeting, she would relay the suggestion of adding signage in the

vicinity of the station to the MTRC section responsible for the relevant issue

which would consider the appropriate locations for the signage;

(ii) After the meeting, she would relay the comments on the site of Wong Chuk

Hang development project and the greenery of the chain link fences around

the site of the former Wong Chuk Hang Estate to the MTRC section

responsible for the relevant issue which would take follow-up actions, such as

studying the feasibility of cooperating with the community; and

(iii) MTRC had all along been making efforts to follow up the relevant issues after

the commissioning of SIL(E) and would, after the meeting, deliberate with the

department concerned on how to report the relevant progress to SDC in future.

Apart from submitting the relevant information to SDC through the

Secretariat, MTRC had also been maintaining liaison with SDC through

58

different channels, such as meeting with Members or conducting site visits

with Members. MTRC would continue to report the latest progress of issues

relating to SIL(E) to the SDC Member of the constituency concerned.

191. The Chairman concluded as follows:

(i) MTRC was requested to take note of Members’ comments and follow up

proactively. MTRC was also requested to report the latest handover progress

of the footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang Station and its adjacent

industrial area to SDC in table format via the Secretariat;

(ii) He stressed that MTRC should provide the Southern District residents with

fare compensation due to the delay of commissioning of SIL(E), which should

include the provision of more Fare Savers. MTRC should also actively

follow up Members’ suggestions on the locations of Fare Savers so that more

Southern District residents could be benefitted; and

(iii) As MTRC has quite a number of major development projects in the Southern

District which arouse public concern, such as the property development above

Wong Chuk Hang Station, it was suggested that MTRC consider establishing

a routinised mechanism for regular communication between MTRC and SDC.

192. The Chairman thanked the representatives of MTRC and government

departments for attending the meeting.

(Ms YAM Pauline, Mr KWOK Kin-kuen, Mr CHAN Hoi-ki, Mr Johnny CHAN, Mr

Calvin YEUNG, Mr Thomas LI and Miss Lilian YEUNG left the meeting at 6:47 p.m.)

Agenda Item 7: Progress Report on Queen Mary Hospital Redevelopment

Project

(SDC Paper No. 38/2017)

[6:47 p.m. – 7:04 p.m.]

193. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Hospital

Authority (HA) to the meeting:

(i) Dr LUK Che-chung, Cluster Chief Executive, HK West Cluster;

(ii) Dr Nelson HUI, Senior Manager (Planning & Commissioning Section),

Queen Mary Hospital (QMH);

59

(iii) Ms Winnie YIP, Cluster General Manager (Administrative Services), HK West

Cluster; and

(iv) Ms Pinky MAK, Senior Hospital Manager (Planning & Commissioning

Section), QMH.

194. The Chairman invited Dr C.C. LUK to report the latest progress of the QMH

Redevelopment Project.

195. Dr C.C. LUK, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 2),

reported the progress of Stage 1 – Senior Staff Quarters conversion works and stage 2 –

preparatory works for construction of the New Block (including Re-provision of

Footpath to Kotewall Road and Tree Preservation and Removal Proposal (TPRP)) as

well as the internet website and community newsletter of the QMH Redevelopment

Project. Furthermore, regarding the re-provision of the footpath to Kotewall Road,

QMH suggested that HAD take up the future maintenance of the reprovisioned

footpath (excluding any slope maintenance works) according to the arrangement of

District Minor Works (DMW) projects and hoped to obtain support from SDC.

(Post-meeting note: The TPRP was approved by the TPRP Assessment Panel in

June 2017 with supplementary information that amongst

those trees to be felled there were 3 trees with a trunk

diameter around 500mm which included a banyan tree with a

trunk diameter around 1 490mm.)

196. The Chairman invited Members to raise comments or enquiries.

197. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He thanked the staff of Hong Kong West Cluster and QMH for maintaining

close communication and liaison with the community on the QMH

Redevelopment Project;

(ii) He reported that the residents in his constituency supported the re-provision of

the footpath to Kotewall Road. He pointed out that he had deliberated with

QMH and SDO on this issue and concluded that the cost of the

re-provisioning works would be borne by HA, while the Civil Engineering

and Development Department would be responsible for following up issues

relating to the slope. He thus opined that there should not be risk for HAD to

take up the future maintenance of the reprovisioned footpath according to the

60

arrangement of DMW projects and hoped that SDC would support this

suggestion; and

(iii) He said he had conducted a consultation on the proposed rooftop helipad at

the New Block and asked the Government Flying Service (GFS) whether

helicopters serving QMH could fly over Hong Kong Chinese Christian

Churches Union Pok Fu Lam Road Cemetery only and avoid flying over

Victoria Road and Pok Fu Lam Road. GFS gave a positive response to this

suggestion and would make arrangements so that helicopters serving QMH

would avoid flying over Victoria Road and Pok Fu Lam Road wherever

possible so as to minimise the impacts on the residents. He thanked QMH

and GFS again for their proactive follow-up actions.

198. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that the works site for the construction of the

proposed new academic building by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) at No. 3

Sassoon Road was part of the Government land with allocation number GLA-HK1 and

was held by HA. HKU proposed to hand over the University Pathology Building to

the north of Block K, QMH in exchange for the HA site at No. 3 Sassoon Road. This

issue had been discussed at a meeting of the last term of SDC, where Members had

said that the road at the existing northbound bus stop of QMH was relatively narrow

and suggested widening the bus stop. But this might involve a neighbouring park

under the management of the LCSD. He requested the TD and LCSD to follow up

this suggestion and welcomed any comments from QMH. He also hoped to have a

detailed report in order to plan for the direction of future follow-up work.

199. The Chairman invited the HA representatives to respond.

200. Ms Winnie YIP gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) When QMH discussed the flight route of helicopters serving QMH with GFS,

GFS had noted that the flight route should have minimal impacts on the

residents. Therefore, when conducting a consultation earlier on, GFS had

considered the opinions. When procuring helicopters in future, GFS would

select helicopters producing lower noise and would arrange for these

helicopters to serve QMH;

(ii) Currently only Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (PYNEH) provided

helicopter service. The average service level was not more than one case per

day and about 200 and so cases per year. It was estimated that QMH would

take up some of the helicopter service currently provided by PYNEH in future.

61

According to the aforesaid service frequency, there would be several flights of

helicopters serving QMH every week and so there should be little impact on

the residents; and

(iii) As the service level of QMH increased, the number of people going to and

from QMH using public transport would also increase. QMH thus

welcomed the suggestion of widening the northbound bus stop of QMH and

was willing to participate in the consultation and discussion.

201. The Chairman enquired about the service hours of helicopters serving QMH.

202. Dr C.C. LUK responded that there were currently 200 to 300 cases of

helicopter service serving PYNEH each year. About one third of the service was

delivered in the evening. It was thus estimated that there would be several dozens of

cases of helicopter service serving QMH delivered in the evening each year.

Nevertheless, GFS would decide whether to take the patients to PYNEH or QMH

according to the actual conditions.

203. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN hoped that SDC would support the suggestion set out

at paragraph 5 of the paper related to this agenda item, i.e. HAD to take up the

subsequent maintenance of the footpath to Kotewall Road (excluding any slope

maintenance works) according to the arrangement of DMW projects. Members had

no objection.

(Dr C.C. LUK, Dr Nelson HUI, Ms Winnie YIP and Ms Pinky MAK left the meeting

at 7:04 p.m.)

Agenda Item 8: Any Other Business

[7:04 p.m. – 7:07 p.m.]

204. The Chairman asked Members whether there were any other matters to be

raised for discussion.

205. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired about the future follow-up arrangement for

the Southern District pier discussed earlier on.

206. The Chairman responded that the Secretariat would follow up the issue after

the meeting.

62

207. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN pointed out that the Chairman had earlier on

suggested following up the issue at SDC meetings.

208. The Chairman responded that the Secretariat had earlier on told Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN that the issue would be followed up at meetings of the District

Development and Housing Committee.

Part II – Items for Information

209. The Chairman invited Members to note the following documents:

(i) Report from the Area Committees (SDC Paper No. 27/2017);

(ii) Report of the 8th

Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee

(SDC Paper No. 28/2017);

(iii) Report of the 8th

Meeting of the Community Affairs and Tourism

Development Committee (SDC Paper No. 29/2017);

(iv) Report of the 8th

Meeting of the District Development and Housing

Committee (SDC Paper No. 30/2017);

(v) Report of the 8th

Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (SDC Paper

No. 31/2017);

(vi) Report of the 195th

Meeting of the Southern District Management Committee

(SDC Paper No. 32/2017); and

(vii) Financial Statement in respect of SDC Funds (as at 8.5.2017) (SDC Paper

No.33/2017).

Date of Next Meeting

210. The Chairman informed the meeting that the 11th

SDC meeting would be held

on 20 July 2017 (Thursday) at 2:30 p.m.

211. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council

July 2017

63

Annex

10th Meeting of Southern District Council (2016-2019)

Declaration of Interest

Members of Working Group on Vetting who have already declared interests at the meeting on 2.5.2017 did not have to declare interests again at this SDC meeting.

(Extract of declaration of interest of the captioned Working Group on Vetting Meeting is at Reference Paper-2)

Agenda Project Title Organiser/ Co-organiser(s)/

Assisting organiser(s) Member

Capacity in the Applicant

Organisation as

Being an

executor of

the project

4

Revised Allocation of SDC Community

Involvement Project Fund for 2017-18

and Other Funding Matters

Organisation Concerned: Southern

District Arts and Culture

Association

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Vice-president -

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Vice-chairlady -

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH Director of Southern District

Orchestra Yes

Organisation Concerned: Southern

District Joint Schools Conference - - -

Organisation Concerned: Southern

District Recreation and Sports

Association

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying President -

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Vice-chairlady -

Organisation Concerned: 2017

Southern District Tourism and

Culture Festival Organising

Committee

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP Honorable President -

Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH Honorable Vice-president -

Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Consultant -

Mr CHAI Man-hon Secretary Yes

Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Consultant -

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Consultant -

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Consultant -

64

Agenda Project Title Organiser/ Co-organiser(s)/

Assisting organiser(s) Member

Capacity in the Applicant

Organisation as

Being an

executor of

the project

Mr CHU Lap-wai

Chairman of the Working Group

on Closing Ceremony &

Tourism Activities

Yes

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH

Chairman of the Working Group

on Overall Promotion,

Sponsorship and Administration

Yes

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

Chairman of the Working Group

on Opening Ceremony,

Cultural & Arts Activities

-

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Consultant -

2017-18 Programme Plans of the Leisure

and Cultural Services Department

Organiser: Leisure and Cultural

Services Department - - -

5

Community Scheme for Promoting the

Culture of “Low-Salt-Low-Sugar Diets

in the Southern District”

Organiser: Southern District

Healthy & Safe Association

Limited

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP Chairman Yes

Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH Member -

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Honorable President -

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Member -

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Director -

Co-organiser: Caritas Community

Centre-Aberdeen

Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Member of the Advisory

Committee -

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Member of the Advisory

Committee -

Co-organiser: Hong Kong

Southern District Women’s

Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP Consultant -

Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH Consultant -

65

Agenda Project Title Organiser/ Co-organiser(s)/

Assisting organiser(s) Member

Capacity in the Applicant

Organisation as

Being an

executor of

the project

Association Limited Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Consultant -

Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Consultant -

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Consultant -

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Consultant -

Mr CHU Lap-wai Consultant -

Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH Consultant -

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Chairlady -

Co-organiser: Aberdeen Kai-fong

Welfare Association Social

Service

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Executive Director Yes