DHC Minutes 5/2020 Sha Tin District Council

( 1 )

DHC Minutes 5/2020

Sha Tin District Council

Minutes of the 5th Meeting of

the Development and Housing Committee in 2020

Date : 27 October 2020 (Tuesday)

Time : 10:07 am

Venue : Sha Tin District Council Conference Room

4/F, Sha Tin Government Offices

Present Title Time of joining

the meeting

Time of leaving

the meeting

Mr CHAN Nok-hang (Chairman) DC Member 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr NG Kam-hung (Vice-Chairman) ” 10:21 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHING Cheung-ying, MH DC Chairman 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr WONG Hok-lai, George DC Vice-Chairman 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHAN Billy Shiu-yeung DC Member 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHAN Pui-ming ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHAN Wan-tung ” 10:12 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHENG Chung-hang ” 10:07 am 12:15 pm

Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHIU Chu-pong ” 11:15 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHOW Hiu-laam, Felix ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr CHUNG Lai-him, Johnny ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr HUI Lap-san ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr HUI Yui-yu ” 10:07 am 2:17 pm

Mr LAI Tsz-yan ” 4:02 pm 4:19 pm

Dr LAM Kong-kwan ” 10:22 am 4:57 pm

Mr LI Chi-wang, Raymond ” 10:24 am 5:45 pm

Mr LI Sai-hung ” 10:12 am 6:10 pm

Mr LI Wing-shing, Wilson ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr LIAO Pak-hong, Ricardo ” 10:07 am 5:50 pm

Mr LO Tak-ming ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr LO Yuet-chau ” 10:16 am 11:50 pm

Mr LUI Kai-wing ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Ms LUK Tsz-tung ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr MAK Tsz-kin ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr MAK Yun-pui, Chris ” 10:07 am 12:25 pm

Mr MOK Kam-kwai, BBS ” 10:11 am 4:57 pm

Ms NG Ting-lam ” 10:18 am 6:10 pm

Mr SHAM Tsz-kit, Jimmy ” 10:18 am 6:10 pm

Mr SHEK William ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr SIN Cheuk-nam ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr TING Tsz-yuen ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr TSANG Kit ” 11:07 am 2:32 pm

Ms TSANG So-lai ” 11:41 am 1:24 pm

Mr WAI Hing-cheung ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Mr WONG Ho-fung ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

Ms WONG Man-huen ” 10:09 am 2:32 pm

Mr YAU Man-chun ” 10:16 am 6:10 pm

Mr YUNG Ming-chau, Michael ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm

( 2 )

Present Title Time of joining

the meeting

Time of leaving

the meeting

Ms LIU Sin-yi, Angela (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council) 5/ Sha Tin District Office

In Attendance Title

Ms CHENG Siu-ling, Katy Chief Liaison Officer / Sha Tin District Office

Mr WONG Chun-wai, Edmund Senior Liaison Officer (North) / Sha Tin District Office

Mr HO Kin-nam, David Senior Executive Officer (District Council) (Acting) /

Sha Tin District Office

Mr MA Cheuk-yui, Trery Executive Officer (Development) / Sha Tin District Office

Mr LAI Wing-chi, Derek District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Sha Tin) /

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Ms YICK Hong-nien, Hannah Senior Town Planner / Sha Tin / Planning Department

Ms HO Ka-wai, Rosseter Senior Estate Surveyor / South East (Acting) /

District Lands Office, Sha Tin

Ms FUNG Wai-ling Senior Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 1) (Acting) /

Housing Department

Ms CHING Yim-yu Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 9) / Housing Department

Ms WONG Yee-wah, Eva Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 11) / Housing Department

Mr LEUNG Chin-hung Engineer (New Territories East) (Distribution 1) /

Water Supplies Department

In Attendance by Invitation Title

Mr TSUI Wing-kim Senior Engineer (Design 1) / Water Supplies Department

Ms KWOK Wing-man Engineer (Design 1) / Water Supplies Department

Ms CHAN Ning-yan Assistant Engineer (Design 4) / Water Supplies Department

Mr FONG Kam-wing Chief Engineer / BKF (Hong Kong) Consultants Limited

Ms PANG Tsz-yung Landscape Architect / Urbis Limited

Ms YU Ming-yee Deputy Director of Ecology / AEC Limited

Ms CHAN Yin-ting, Eunice Assistant Commissioner for Innovation and Technology

(Infrastructure) / Innovation and Technology Bureau

Mr CHAN Che-keung, Ken Senior Manager (Capital Works) / Innovation and Technology Bureau

Ms CHAN Lok-nga, Joyce Senior Manager (Infrastructure) / Innovation and Technology Bureau

Ms SHEK Wai-man, Emily Manager (Capital Works) / Innovation and Technology Bureau

Mr YIU Ka-lap, Caleb Engineer (Bicycle Parking) / Transport Department

Mr Peter MOK Head of Strategic Partnership /

Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation

Mr Simon WONG Chief Project Development Officer /


Mr Felix TANG Project Director /


Ms Sam YAN Senior Manager (Corporate Communications) /


Ms Sharon LAW Development Manager /


Mr Francis SOOTOO Director / MVA Hong Kong Limited

Mr George LEE Associate Director / MVA Hong Kong Limited

Mr Axon LIN Project Director / Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited

Mr Eric NGAI Project Manager / Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited

Ms WONG Sau-kuen, Joe District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin) /

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

( 3 )

In Attendance by Invitation Title

Ms CHAN Siu-kin, Ester Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Sha Tin /


Mr HEUNG Kai-chung, Henry Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin)1 /


Ms LAU Wing-chuk, Celine Senior Librarian (Planning and Development) /


Ms LEE Mei-yee Senior Librarian (Sha Tin) /


Mr NG Sik-hay, Eddie Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 34 /


Ms CHAN Yee-chi, Elaine Assistant Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 2 /

Social Welfare Department

Ms YEW Suet-yi, Mary Assistant District Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 3 /

Social Welfare Department

Mr AU Tze-wai, William Senior Engineer (General Legislation) 3 /

Electrical & Mechanical Services Department

Mr YIU Yung-ngai Engineer (General Legislation) 3/2 /

Electrical & Mechanical Services Department

Absent Title

Mr CHENG Tsuk-man DC Member (Application for leave of absence received)

Mr YIP Wing ” ( ” )

Action

The Chairman welcomed all members and representatives of government departments to

the fifth meeting of the Development and Housing Committee (DHC) of this year.

Application for Leave of Absence

2. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received the applications for leave of absence

in writing from the following members:

Mr CHENG Tsuk-man Official commitment

Mr YIP Wing Sickness

3. Members unanimously approved the applications for leave of absence submitted by the

members above.

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 30 June 2020

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 3 July 2020

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 17 July 2020

4. Members unanimously endorsed the above minutes of the meeting.

Matters Arising

Responses of Government Departments and Relevant Organisations to Matters Arising from the

Previous Meeting

(Paper No. DH 27/2020)

( 4 )

Action

5. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:

( a ) a provisional motion had been raised in the fourth DHC meeting regarding 8

proposed sites amendments of Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No.

S/MOS/22 and he asked about the response of the Tai Po District Council

(TPDC); and

( b ) page 7 of the paper mentioned about traffic in Sha Tin. He asked whether the

paper could be provided to the representative of Hong Kong Science Park (HKSP)

for reference.

6. The views of Mr MAK Tsz-kin were summarised below:

( a ) he would like to know whether the Government had handed over Blocks 1 to 3

of Chun Yeung Estate to the Housing Department (HD) and the number of people

deployed by the department in carrying out maintenance in the blocks;

( b ) he would like to know when the car park of Chun Yeung Estate would be open

for use; and

( c ) tendering and types of shops of Chun Yeung Shopping Centre.

7. The Chairman said that Mr KWAN Wing-yip, the Chairman of the TPDC received the

motion mentioned by Mr CHAN Pui-ming on 7 October and the provisional motion had been

relayed to relevant committees for consideration. He agreed to provide the paper mentioned by

Mr CHAN Pui-ming to the HKSP for reference.

8. The responses of Ms Eva WONG, Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 11), HD

were summarised below:

( a ) the Government had completely ceased using Blocks 1 to 3 of Chun Yeung Estate

as a quarantine centre in late September this year and handed over the three blocks

to the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) in mid-October. The HD immediately

carried out necessary repair and inspection to ensure that every unit met the

standards of public rental housing (PRH) under the HA. It was estimated that

prospective tenants could gradually move in from late January 2021;

(Post-meeting note: gradual intake of the three blocks would start from mid-

December this year with Block 3 as the first.)

( b ) the department would review and repair the car park which would be open for use

as soon as possible after completion of the work;

( c ) for the shopping centre, two shops were in operation currently and many shops

had signed contracts (including Chinese restaurant, restaurant, and convenience

store, etc.). The commercial tenants were carrying out renovations and would

gradually open business upon works completion; and

( d ) for the market, the department had written to commercial tenants of the market

for contract signing. The tenancy would come into effect in November.

( 5 )

Action

9. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:

( a ) he would like to know the response of the TPDC on the provisional motion;

( b ) he would like to know the current progress of the proposed amendments of

Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/MOS/22 and whether they had

been gazetted; and

( c ) he would like to know when the car park of Chun Yeung Estate would be open

for use and whether structures had been built in the car park when it was being

used as a quarantine centre. He worried that if the car park could not be open with

the shopping centre and Chun Yeung Estate at that time, illegal parking would

become more serious.

10. The responses of Ms Hannah YICK, Senior Town Planner / Shatin / Planning Department

(PlanD) were summarised below:

( a ) the proposed amendments to Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No.

S/MOS/22 were submitted to the Town Planning Board (TPB) for consideration

on 21 August 2020. The TPB members considered that the private residential land

at the upper end of Ma On Shan Tsuen Road was a bit distant from the centre of

Ma On Shan and requested the PlanD to submit information on similar rezoning

cases in recent years for their reference, before deciding whether the amendments

were acceptable; and

( b ) the PlanD submitted the information to the TPB on 18 September this year. After

discussion, the TPB agreed that it was appropriate for the amendments to be

gazetted under Article 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance. The amendments were

made public for inspection under Article 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance on

16 October this year. The public could submit representations regarding the

amendments in two months. Representations received would be made public for

inspection and the public could raise views on them. The TPB would hold a

hearing on the representations and the views before deciding whether the Zoning

Plan required further amendments.

11. Ms Eva WONG said that the department would review and repair the car park which

would be open for use as soon as possible after completion of the work.

12. The Chairman said that Mr KWAN Wing-yip, the Chairman of the TPDC had

acknowledged receipt of the provisional motion.

13. Members noted the above paper.

Discussion Items

Public Works Programme Item No. 9054WS - Salt Water Supply to Sha Tin Area 52, Shui Chuen O

(Paper No. DH 2/2020 (Revised))

14. The Chairman welcomed Mr TSUI Wing-kim, Senior Engineer (Design 1), Ms KWOK

Wing-man, Engineer (Design 1) and Ms CHAN Ning-yan, Assistant Engineer (Design 4) of

( 6 )

Action

Water Supplies Department (WSD), Mr FONG Kam-wing, Chief Engineer of BKF (Hong Kong)

Consultants Limited, Ms PANG Tsz-yung, Landscape Architect of Urbis Limited, and Ms YU

Ming-yee, Deputy Director of Ecology of AEC Limited to the meeting. The Chairman said that

the Transport Department (TD) had been invited to this meeting but the TD did not send a

representative. He was dissatisfied with that and said that the members could send enquiries to

the TD in writing regarding the transport and transportation of the project.

15. Ms KWOK Wing-man, Mr FONG Kam-wing, Ms PANG Tsz-yung and Ms YU Ming-

yee briefly presented the paper.

16. The views of Mr LO Tak-ming were summarised below:

( a ) he did not agree with the works programme of seawater supply system (works

programme) submitted by the WSD;

( b ) he pointed out that the Government should have known that 30 000 residents

would move in when constructing Shui Chuen O Estate. He opined that the works

would occupy Pok Chuen Street which caused much disturbance to the residents,

and the WSD and the PlanD failed to fulfil their duties on this matter;

( c ) he pointed out that Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)

temporarily closed Shui Chuen Au Street on 12 October due to public toilet works

which caused traffic congestion nearby. As residents of Shui Chuen O Estate

frequently used Pok Chuen Street, he worried that the plan of the department

would affect the transport of Shui Chuen O Estate; and

( d ) Mr YAU Man-chun, Mr Michael YUNG and he had asked the WSD to consider

relocating all or part of the works programme to within the area of Shui Chuen O

Estate to reduce the impact of the works on Pok Chuen Street. He urged the WSD

to enhance its communication with the HD and to consider this suggestion.

17. The views of Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa were summarised below:

( a ) he opined that the works programme opted for a more difficult path and gave up

the easier one. He agreed with Mr LO Tak-ming that the works programme should

be moved into Shui Chuen O Estate, and that the WSD and the HD should

enhance communication; and

( b ) he had reservations about the transport flow impact assessment of the WSD and

opined that Shui Chuen O Estate relied on only Pok Chuen Street and To Shek

Street for access. Works delay might affect transport near Shui Chuen O Estate

and intensify traffic congestion.

18. The views of Mr YAU Man-chun were summarised below:

( a ) he thanked the WSD representatives for going on a site visit with the members;

( b ) provided that transport was not affected, he supported the works programme;

( 7 )

Action

( c ) he could not accept that the works would have to occupy Pok Chuen Street and

Shui Chuen Au Street for 2 to 3 years;

( d ) he pointed out that a salt water service reservoir should have been built before the

intake of Shui Chuen O Estate. Therefore, it was hard to accept works

implementation under the current road traffic;

( e ) he agreed with Mr LO Tak-ming that the LCSD’s works on 12 October this year

had caused traffic congestion;

( f ) he suggested that the WSD works should avoid affecting To Shek Street, Pok

Chuen Street and Shui Chuen Au Street, and the works be moved into the area of

Shui Chuen O Estate to avoid intensifying the traffic problem in the area; and

( g ) he would like to propose a provisional motion later.


( a ) he agreed with Mr LO Tak-ming and Mr YAU Man-chun;

( b ) he was disappointed by the consultation and the works programme of the WSD;

( c ) as the works would intensify the traffic congestion nearby, he told the engineer

responsible for the works programme at the beginning of the year that the

alignment of the programme was not feasible. He cited the traffic congestion

caused by the temporary closure of Shui Chuen Au Street by the LCSD as an

example;

( d ) he was disappointed that the WSD did not make amendments based on the

findings of the site visit and the members’ views;

( e ) he said that the Government should lay flush water pipes when constructing Shui

Chuen O Estate, but not afterwards. He pointed out the Audit Commission might

challenge that the WSD wasted fresh water if it did not lay flush water pipes; and

( f ) he said that roads of Shui Chuen O Estate were narrow. If road closure was needed

for the works programme, the traffic burden would be unbearable. He opined that

the WSD should submit a programme which avoided affecting traffic. Otherwise,

it was hard for him to support the works.

20. The views of Mr SIN Cheuk-nam were summarised below:

( a ) he would like to ask about the nature of the housing development mentioned in

the works and why flush water supply was not constructed together with Shui

Chuen O Estate. He asked whether the construction in the works programme was

for the benefit of other buildings; and

( b ) he would like to know whether flushing by seawater was a mandatory ancillary

facility of PRH. He worried that the case of building flush water facilities upon

completion of PRH would repeat in Ma On Shan.

( 8 )

Action

21. The responses of Mr TSUI Wing-kim were summarised below:

( a ) when planning Shui Chuen O Estate in 2000, the estimated population was

17 000. It was not cost effective to provide an individual seawater flush system

based on this figure. Therefore, what the WSD planned at that time was to provide

a fresh water supply system for both drinking and flushing, and the fresh water

supply system would be built in several years;

( b ) the current situation was different. The reasons for providing seawater flushing

system in Shui Chuen O Estate now were as follows: (1) the current actual

population of Shui Chuen O Estate was about 29 000, and it was more cost

effective to use seawater than fresh water for flushing based on this figure; (2) the

provision of seawater for flushing in Shui Chuen O Estate could save fresh water

for a future housing development zone in Sha Tin District; (3) he believed that all

would agree that environmental protection was important and fresh water was a

precious resource in Hong Kong. It was hoped that the precious resource of

fresh water could be put in better use through the project;

( c ) as to the question why the Government did not provide a seawater supply system

before the intake of Shui Chuen O Estate as raised by the members, in fact the

planned population of Shui Chuen O Estate increased from 17 000 in 2010 to

29 000. Looking back, the Government had two options at the time: (1) using

fresh water for drinking and flushing like now; (2) setting up a separate seawater

supply system for flushing. At that time, no other new development zone was

planned in Sha Tin District and there was no new demand for fresh water. The

fresh water system at that time had reserved sufficient water supply and ancillary

facilities for flushing in Shui Chuen O Estate. If option (2) had been adopted at

that time, the originally designed fresh water supply system would be underused

and more money was required for the construction and maintenance of a new

seawater supply system. There were advantages in both options (1) and (2) given

the circumstance at the time. Therefore, choosing option (1) was not a planning

mistake;

( d ) he said that the department intended to know about the members’ views on the

works to enhance the details and minimise the possible traffic problem;

( e ) he stressed that the department understood the members; concern on the traffic

impact caused by the works. If the works programme would cause severe traffic

problem, the department would not forcibly launch the works;

( f ) the department only asked the Committee to support rezoning for the construction

of the reservoir at the current meeting. Even if the members supported the

rezoning application, no traffic problem would be caused, as the Department still

had to undergo a lot of procedures. Moreover, the department was arranging for

a test on road closure. If it was found that road closure would cause severe traffic

congestion, the department would not forcibly launch the works;

( g ) regarding the members’ suggestion of laying water pipes by trenchless

construction technology to connect To Shek Street Pumping Station and Shui

Chuen O Estate, the department had looked into its feasibility. Although the pipes

( 9 )

Action

could directly reach a certain location in Shui Chuen O Estate without passing

through the roads, they needed to be laid under the road surface to connect other

locations of Shui Chuen O Estate in order to distribute seawater to different blocks

of the estate. It would also involve road closure and the situation would just be

the same;

( h ) he was aware that some members raised the traffic problem caused by the LCSD

as it attempted to close Shui Chuen Au Street. Therefore, the department was

considering not laying seawater pipes in Tsok Pok Hang Village to shorten the

length of seawater pipes at Shui Chuen Au Street and to minimise the possible

traffic problem at that road section;

( i ) the department and the HD would consider the members’ suggestion of relocating

pipe works to within the area of Shui Chuen O Estate;

( j ) based on his understanding, the Government would construct PRH in the vincity

of Shek Mun. Further information could be obtained from the PlanD; and

( k ) the WSD had been looking into various ways to optimise the use of water

resources. Apart from seawater flushing, it would also take recycling water into

consideration to reduce the use of fresh water.

22. The Chairman said that the WSD was being mechanical in deciding whether to use fresh

or sea water for flushing based on cost effectiveness. He asked Mr TSUI Wing-kim to continue

to monitor implementation of the works in the future.

23. Mr TSUI Wing-kim pointed out that using fresh or sea water for flushing was more or

less the same if the factors of cherishing water resources and new development in Sha Tin

District were ignored. However, based on the current situation, it was more appropriate to use

seawater for flushing.


( a ) he pointed out that the WSD should have laid flush water pipes when constructing

Shui Chuen O Estate in 2010 which could avoid causing inconvenience to

residents nearby. He opined that the cost-effectiveness issue brought by

population increase in Shui Chuen O Estate should be a problem of the

department;

( b ) based on his understanding, a developer was constructing new buildings at To

Shek Street and the Hong Kong Housing Society had once considered building

Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats on the periphery of the country park near

Shui Chuen O Estate but the plan fell through. He would like to know the urgency

of the works; and

( c ) a number of the members proposed that the WSD should consider relocating the

works programme to within Shui Chuen O Estate. He urged Mr TSUI Wing-kim

to reconsider the proposal.

( 10 )

Action

25. The views of Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa were summarised below:

( a ) he opined that if the WSD relocated the works programme into Shui Chuen O

Estate, although part of Pok Chuen Street and To Shek Street would still need to

be closed, the impact would be less than the original plan; and

( b ) he thanked the WSD for its willingness to consider views of the DHC members

in enhancing the works programme. He pointed out that absence of a TD

representative made it hard to discuss the traffic problem brought by the works

programme.

26. The views of Mr Jimmy SHAM were summarised below:

( a ) he understood the change of the Government in developing the whole Shui Chuen

O Estate project;

( b ) he opined that the then Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands in

2003 was related to the decision of using seawater for flushing in Shui Chuen O

Estate; and

( c ) he opined that the works programme would cause much traffic impact on the

residents nearby. He did not agree with the consultancy firm that the works would

impose mild impact on local traffic and requested the consultancy firm to provide

a report for reference.

27. The views of Mr Billy CHAN were summarised below:

( a ) he asked the department to explain why the seawater flushing system was not

adopted in 2010 and not considered setting it up until now;

( b ) he asked whether the original fresh water supply facilities would be underused

after commencement of the works programme;

( c ) he asked whether Shui Chuen O Estate would adopt recycled water supply

system; and

( d ) the progress of the WSD and the HD on the project passing through Yan Chuen

House.


(a) he opined that it was a waste of time for the WSD to conduct road testing for the

works programme as the road surface there was unsatisfactory. The LCSD once

closed the road during non-peak hours which led to serious congestion;

(b) he urged the WSD to submit a traffic assessment report for the members’

reference as soon as possible;

(c) he did not agree with the WSD that the works programme would cause mild

traffic impact and suggested that the department should have a good grasp of

( 11 )

Action

various environmental factors surrounding the area of the works programme to

minimise impact on the residents nearby; and

(d) he praised the WSD’s representatives for active communication.


( a ) the consultancy firm had conducted a traffic impact assessment for the works

programme twice and the preliminary report of 2019 showed that the traffic

impact of the works on local transport was at a reasonable level;

( b ) the word “mild” in the report was based on figures of 2019. Upon review of data

of thie month, he opined that it was not the most accurate to use the word “mild”

to describe the traffic impact of the works programme at certain locations. Upon

completion of the final report, the department would submit the traffic data to the

DHC for discussion;

( c ) the department currently proposed a road closure test for the members to

understand the actual traffic impacts of road closure. In case of serious traffic

congestion during the test, the department would proactively remove those traffic

arrangements. He knew that the morning traffic in Shui Chuen O Estate was rather

busy. If it was found that serious traffic congestion would be brought to some

road sections during the road closure test, the department would try to avoid road

closure during the morning peak hour as far as practicable;

( d ) after the Drainage Services Department (DSD) filtered the sewage, the WSD

would further process the filtered sewage into recycled water for flushing. The

process of producing recycled water was rather complex. Generally speaking,

only inland areas were more suitable to use recycled water and the department

was currently planning to use recycled water for flushing in Sheung Shui and

Fanling;

( e ) when planning Shui Chuen O Estate in 2010, the Government had two options:

(1) using fresh water for drinking and flushing like now; (2) setting up a separate

seawater supply system for flushing. At that time, there were advantages in both

options (1) and (2); and

( f ) regarding the members’ suggestion of directly connecting pipes from Pumping

Station to inside Shui Chuen O Estate to avoid running the pipes under road

surface, he had explained just now that even if the pipes directly reached a certain

location in Shui Chuen O Estate without passing through the roads, they needed

to be laid under the road surface to connect with other locations of Shui Chuen O

Estate in order to distribute seawater to different blocks in the estate. It would

also involve road closure and the situation was the same.

30. The views of Mr Ricardo LIAO were summarised below:

( a ) he appreciated that the WSD representatives were willing to accept opinions;

( b ) he opined that a seawater flushing system helped save water resources;

( 12 )

Action

( c ) regarding the traffic impact of the works programme, he suggested that the WSD

representatives should first relay the comments to the department before

considering amending the programme;

( d ) he asked the department to pay attention to pipe brokerage in Sha Tin District and

put in more efforts in monitoring the materials used by pipe contractors as pipe

brokerage would also affect traffic and cause inconvenience; and

( e ) traffic congestion caused by the works programme might delay access of

emergency vehicles and affect residents. He suggested drawing a temporary

traffic lane to mitigate the possible traffic congestion brought by the works

programme.


( a ) he would look into the possibility of relocating pipes of the works programme to

within Shui Chuen O Estate with the HD and other departments, and consider the

view and plan put forward by Mr Ricardo LIAO;

( b ) he hoped that the endorsement of the works programme would provide more

employment opportunities;

( c ) he guaranteed that the works would be launched only if the traffic impact of the

works programme was at a reasonable level; and

( d ) he hoped that the DHC could support the approval application of the Department

at th meeting. Latest updates on the works would be reported to the members and

their support would be sought.

32. Mr YAU Man-chun proposed a provisional motion as follows:

“ The Development and Housing Committee (DHC) of the Sha Tin District Council

strongly objects the WSD’s ‘Public Works Programme Item No. 9054WS - Salt Water

Supply to Sha Tin Area 52, Shui Chuen O’. The works will occupy the traffic lanes of

Shui Chuen Au Street and Pok Chuen Street, seriously affecting the traffic of the district.

The DHC requests that the WSD relocate the laying of water main alignments to within

Shui Chuen O Estate, and that the WSD be required to avoid occupying the traffic lanes

of Shui Chuen Au Street and Pok Chuen Street to minimise the impact on traffic.”

Mr LO Tak-ming, Mr HUI Lap-san, Mr MAK Tsz-kin, Mr Raymond LI, Mr CHIU Chu-pong,

Mr Michael YUNG, Mr George WONG, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr SHEK William, Mr TING

Tsz-yuen, Mr Billy CHAN, Mr TSANG Kit, Mr HUI Yui-yu, Mr NG Kam-hung, Mr Jimmy

SHAM, Mr Ricardo LIAO, Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa, Ms WONG Man-huen, Ms LUK Tsz-tung,

Mr CHENG Chung-hang, Mr LUI Kai-wing, Mr CHAN Pui-ming, Mr Felix CHOW, Ms NG

Ting-lam, Mr Johnny CHUNG, Mr Chris Mak, Mr CHING Cheung-ying, Mr WAI Hing-cheung

and Mr CHAN Nok-hang seconded the motion.

33. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 32.

( 13 )

Action

34. Mr Michael YUNG pointed out that the provisional motion opposed the works of the

department. He would like to know whether the WSD would still apply for planning approval

from the TPB and funding from the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council. He wanted

to serve a copy of the paper to the Legislative Council to inform it of the local view and to avoid

cases similar to the removal of Sha Tin Sewage Treatment Works by the DSD.

35. Mr TING Tsz-yuen agreed with Mr Michael YUNG that the provisional motion reflected

the DHC stance. He said that no voting was needed and the department could submit a

supplementary paper before the next meeting for the members’ consideration.

36. Mr TSUI Wing-kim said that many valuable views of the members were received at the

meeting and he would relay them to the department for further adjustment. The WSD would

submit the works programme to DHC at an appropriate time. Regarding Mr Michael YUNG’s

question on whether the WSD would still submit a planning application to the TPB, he needed

to discuss the matter with the management.

37. The Chairman said that since the WSD did not provide a solution to the traffic problem

caused by the works programme, he suggested that the WSD include the traffic problem in the

works programme which could be submitted to the DHC for discussion and voting in the future.

38. Mr TSUI Wing-kim said that the department sought to obtain support of the DHC

members to submit an application for planning approval at the meeting. Therefore, the

department would not immediately commence the works after seeking the members’ support for

the application for planning approval. The department would report to the DHC regarding the

traffic impact caused by the works programme at the next meeting.

39. The Chairman said that if the WSD could allay the members’ worry about traffic before

submitting a revised works programme to the DHC, the procedures would be smoother.

40. Mr YAU Man-chun said that the provisional motion was a buffer as the members were

dissatisfied about the pipe alignment of the works programme. He urged the WSD to adjust the

pipe alignment to minimise the traffic impact on Shui Chuen O Estate. He suggested that the

WSD submit the planning approval application and the works programme to the DHC in one go

for discussion.

41. Mr LO Tak-ming said that the WSD had not discussed pipe alignment of the works

programme with the HD. He had reservations about the necessity of the test. He suggested that

the WSD submit again the works programme to the DHC for discussion and voting upon

completion of the pipe alignment.


( a ) he would like to know whether the WSD would still apply for planning approval

from the TPB despite opposition from the DHC;

( b ) he asked the PlanD representative whether she would report the DHC views to

District Planning Officer / Sha Tin, Tai Po and North, so that the TPB could know

the DHC views when the WSD applied for planning approval; and

( c ) he said that the DHC did not support the pipe alignment of the works programme

and asked whether the WSD would still seek funding from the Legislative

( 14 )

Action

Council for the works programme or attach the funding application of the works

programme to the budget.

43. The responses of Ms Hannah YICK were summarised below:

( a ) she would relay the members’ views to the District Planning Officer; and

( b ) after the WSD submitted an application for planning approval, the PlanD would

circulate its application to all government departments. She believed that the TD

would comment on the traffic issue. Moreover, the public could provide

comments within 3 weeks after the statutory announcement of the planning

approval application. The department would then relay views of the government

departments and the public to the TPB for consideration.

44. The Chairman said that if the WSD wished the DHC to vote on the planning application,

he would put it to a vote by the members.

45. Mr Michael YUNG said that unless the WSD insisted on voting on the planning

application, the provisional motion clearly expressed the members’ stance.

46. Mr TSUI Wing-kim understood that the members currently did not intend to support the

planning application. The department would maintain communication with the members on the

works programme. The members were not required to vote at the meeting.

Hong Kong Science Park Expansion Programme Phase II


47. The Chairman welcomed Ms Eunice CHAN, Assistant Commissioner for Innovation and

Technology (Infrastructure), Ms Joyce CHAN, Senior Manager (Infrastructure), Mr Ken CHAN,

Senior Manager (Capital Works), Ms Emily SHEK, Manager (Capital Works) of Innovation and

Technology Commission (ITC), Mr Simon WONG, Chief Project Development Office, Mr Peter

MOK, Head of Strategic Partnership, Mr Felix TANG, Project Director, Ms Sam YAN, Senior

Manager (Corporate Communications), Ms Sharon LAW, Development Manager of Hong Kong

Science and Technology Parks Corporation, Mr Axon LIN, Project Director, Mr Eric NGAI,

Project Manager of Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited, Mr Francis SOOTOO, Director, Mr

George LEE, Associate Director of MVA Hong Kong Limited and Mr Caleb YIU, Engineer

(Bicycle Parking) of the TD to the meeting.

48. Ms Eunice CHAN, Mr Simon WONG, Mr Peter MOK and Mr Felix TANG briefly

presented the paper.


( a ) he said that after consolidation of traffic assessment reports of various

government departments, it was found that traffic flow towards the HKSP had

been increasing which became more obvious after expansion of HKSP Phase I;

( b ) he opined that the traffic flow at Chak Cheung Street roundabout was highly

saturated, so he asked the HKSP for their solution to the problem; and

( 15 )

Action

( c ) he suggested building a road running from Tate’s Cairn Highway to the HKSP to

avoid Chak Cheung Street roundabout as a solution to the traffic problem. He

urged the HKSP to look into the road improvement works. Otherwise, it would

be hard for him to support the HKSP Expansion Programme Phase II (Expansion

Programme).


( a ) he opined that the Expansion Programme should adjust nearby traffic at the same

time; and

( b ) he would like to know which government department proposed “conversion of

Chak Cheung Street roundabout near Science Park Road into a signalised

junction” in Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan, and opined that a signalised

junction could hardly mitigate the traffic congestion there.

51. The views of Mr Felix CHOW were summarised below:

( a ) he believed that no present member objected to development of innovative

technology in Hong Kong by means of expansion of the HKSP;

( b ) he said that the current traffic problem near the HKSP could not be ignored and

opined that the Expansion Programme could not mitigate it;

( c ) he would like to know how a signaling system of the TD could mitigate the traffic

problem there;

( d ) he agreed with Mr Michael YUNG’s suggestion of constructing a road to bypass

Chak Cheung Street roundabout; and

( e ) he said that Hong Kong had made considerable investments in the HKSP

Programme and suggested spending part of the resources to improve the transport

there.

52. The views of Mr SIN Cheuk-nam were summarised below:

( a ) he said that traffic near Tolo Harbour affected traffic in Ma On Shan and Sha Tin;

( b ) he opined that the ITC should proactively provide traffic data analysis to the

members;

( c ) he hoped that the HKSP could make use of technology of the internet of things

(IoT) to improve traffic nearby; and

( d ) he opined that the dormitory near the HKSP could not benefit the elementary staff

in reducing their commuting time and reducing local traffic load.

53. The views of Mr Ricardo LIAO were summarised below:

( 16 )

Action

( a ) he supported the Expansion Programme and opined that concentration in the

HKSP was beneficial to the development of innovative technology;

( b ) he said that roads nearby were overloaded which caused traffic congestion.

Therefore, he hoped that a traffic flow test could be conducted at Chak Cheung

Street roundabout when expanding the HKSP and to look into the capacity of the

roads nearby;

( c ) he opined that the HKSP needed to improve the community ancillary facilities

such as restaurants. The HKSP should consider whether they could cope with staff

needs. Moreover, when surrounding areas were not yet well-developed, some

people might use the facilities inside which would make them overloaded; and

( d ) he was dissatisfied that the TD did not send a representative to the meeting.

54. The views of Mr CHING Cheung-ying were summarised below:

( a ) he appreciated the development of HKSP over the years;

( b ) he hoped that the HKSP could explain how it related to the daily lives of the

community;

( c ) he hoped that the TD could provide the traffic flow data from northbound Tolo

Highway heading to University Station via Chak Cheung Street;

( d ) he would like to know the traffic flow data from Science Park Road to The

Chinese University of Hong Kong, Pak Shek Kok and the HKSP respectively so

as to understand the traffic flow from Science Park Road to Chak Cheung Street

roundabout;

( e ) he would like to know about the increase in traffic flow from Chak Cheung Street

roundabout to the HKSP after completion of the expansion;

( f ) he said that there were defects in the traffic design near Chak Cheung Street

roundabout; and

( g ) he invited the members to focus on the increase in traffic flow after the HKSP

Expansion Programme so as to understand how traffic flow of the HKSP would

affect Chak Cheung Street roundabout.

55. The views of Mr HUI Yui-yu were summarised below:

( a ) he would like to know the total investment, total income and land premium of the

HKSP so as to know whether a fiscal balance was achieved;

( b ) he asked about the economic output of the HKSP over the years, referring to

products unique to the HKSP, which could not be copied in other places. He hoped

that the HKSP could submit a report to the Sha Tin District Council in the future;

and

( 17 )

Action

( c ) regarding the underutilisation of facilities by the Hong Kong Science and

Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTP) for science and research purposes, he

would like to know the economic benefits the Expansion Programme could bring

to the HKSP and the specific key performance indicators the HKSP would use.

56. The views of Mr TING Tsz-yuen were summarised below:

( a ) he opined that policies did not tie in with the development of innovative

technology in Hong Kong;

( b ) he suggested that the ITC should conduct research on the regulation of electric

mobility devices with the TD; and

( c ) he asked whether the signalling system of Chak Cheung Street roundabout was

sufficient to mitigate the traffic problems there.

57. The views of Ms WONG Man-huen were summarised below:

( a ) she said that the HKSTP did not explain in detail the traffic problems near the

HKSP. She opined that a traffic light might not be able to mitigate the saturation

of the roundabout; and

( b ) she hoped that the HKSP could submit a better transport plan to alleviate DHC

concerns.

58. The views of Mr WONG Ho-fung were summarised below:

( a ) he agreed with the Expansion Programme;

( b ) he would like to know how "addition of traffic light" mentioned in the transport

improvement measures of the Expansion Programme could improve the traffic

flow there and whether HKSP had discussed with TD on the transport

improvement measures. If yes, he would like to know the views of TD; and

( c ) he opined that traffic congestion would lead to a loss of resources and asked

whether the Government had other measures to mitigate traffic problem.

59. The views of Mr Jimmy SHAM were summarised below:

( a ) he would like to know about the relationship between the HKSP and the Mainland

as the Mainland was developing Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation & Technology

Park (HKSITP). He pointed out that most of the facilities inside HKSITP would

overlap with the HKSP and would like to know the extent of impact the

development of the HKSITP would bring to on the HKSP; and

( b ) he worried that the development of the HKSITP and the Sino-American

relationship might adversely affect the development of the HKSP.

60. The views of Mr Wilson LI were summarised below:

( 18 )

Action

( a ) he agreed in principle with the expansion of the HKSP;

( b ) he worried whether the ancillary facilities were sufficient to support the

programme, especially the traffic problem;

( c ) he had reservations about whether the currently proposed traffic improvement

measures could solve the traffic problem there; and

( d ) he suggested that the Government consider some major planning such as a bypass

to divert local traffic to tie in with the Expansion Programme.

61. The views of Mr HUI Lap-san were summarised below:

( a ) he opined that the HKSP did not make enough preparation on the part of traffic

improvement measures; and

( b ) he said that as a number of new residential estates were completed in Pak Shek

Kok, he worried that the traffic improvement measures might not be able to cope

with the increased traffic flow after handover of the flats.

62. The views of the Vice-Chairman were summarised below:

( a ) he agreed to the Expansion Programme;

( b ) he suggested that the consultancy firm and departments like the TD could enhance

communication to assess the traffic pressure caused by the Expansion

Programme; and

( c ) the 7% increase in floor area mentioned in the paper was not consistent with the

tolerated traffic load. He asked the HKSP to first answer the members’ questions

on the traffic problem caused by the Expansion Programme.

63. The responses of Mr Simon WONG were summarised below:

( a ) regarding the traffic signals, the traffic consultant would explain in detail later;

( b ) he said that new public transport interchange aimed at improving the waiting

environment of members of the public and at meeting the aspirations of

commercial tenants and users, so that more bus routes could operate via the

HKSP;

( c ) regarding achievements of the HKSP, Mr Peter MOK would explain in detail

later;

( d ) the HKSTP had conducted a traffic trial scheme in the HKSP with the TD, which

involved innovative technologies such as IoT and artificial intelligence. They

would consider the suggestion of Mr SIN Cheuk-nam and apply the technology

on the interchange;

( 19 )

Action

( e ) completion of the InnoCell could provide accommodation facilities for staff in

the HKSP. Furthermore, some HKSP staff rented flats in Pak Shek Kok. The

HKSP had also launched accommodation support scheme to help staff find homes

nearby. The above scheme helped them get to work more easily; and

( f ) 7% of the increased floor area in the Expansion Programme were used for

catering facilities to enhance the overall ancillary facilities.

64. The responses of Mr George LEE were summarised below:

( a ) the increase in traffic flow of the Expansion Programme was lower than 50 per

hour, i.e. less than 1 per minute, which was rather low. It meant that the overall

increase in traffic flow of Chak Cheung Street was less than 1%;

( b ) 25% of the traffic flow from Tolo Highway to the roundabout near University

Station headed to University Station, while the remaining traffic flow headed to

T6 Bridge, Pak Shek Kok and the HKSP, and less than 1/3 among which headed

to the HKSP;

( c ) the whole traffic improvement plan was divided into two parts. One was to

convert the 2 lanes into 3 lanes at Chak Cheung Street, and the other was to

improve the signalling system. The signalling mode would increase the duration

of green light in accordance with the traffic directions of different junctions to

improve the situation at the junctions. For example, the duration of green light at

the road section at the eastbound Chak Cheung Street heading towards the HKSP

might be increased in the morning while the duration of green light for other

junctions might be decreased accordingly to enhance the traffic performance

there; and

( d ) the signalling system was divided into 3 phases. The first phase concerned traffic

along eastbound Chak Cheung Street and vehicles making left turn onto Tolo

Harbour; the second phase concerned the junction of southbound Tolo Highway;

and the third phase concerned traffic leaving along Science Park Road. During

the morning peak hours, the major traffic flow was from eastbound Science Park

Road to the HKSP via Chak Cheung Street. The traffic flow during the remaining

two phases were lower.

65. The responses of Mr Peter MOK were summarised below:

( a ) although Hong Kong competed with various Asian countries, Hong Kong still

had advantages, which included having 6 scientific research-oriented universities,

5 of which ranked in top 100 universities in the world. It was a unique advantage

which other cities could hardly have;

( b ) local scientific research was accredited by the market in Hong Kong, which was

an advantage when being promoted to the international market;

( c ) Hong Kong was an international financial centre and was very free in terms of

the mobility of three broad aspects, namely talents, capital and products.

Therefore, it was hoped that Hong Kong could become a leader in the Asia-pacific

( 20 )

Action

region or even around the world;

( d ) the HKSP did not only focus solely on scientific research, but also bringing

continuous economic benefits, quality employment opportunities, talents to the

community, as well as making contribution to environmental protection and

health;

( e ) he would supplement the data on the amount of investment later;

( f ) regarding the unique status and advantages of Hong Kong, he was very confident

about future scientific research in Hong Kong; and

( g ) the operation of the HKSTP mainly relied on rental income and was self-

financing, which would be used in the community while large-scale infrastructure

might need government support.

66. The responses of Ms Eunice CHAN were summarised below:

( a ) she stressed the value of the HKSP to the development of innovative technology

in Hong Kong;

( b ) the HKSP helped nurture the ecological system for scientific research in Hong

Kong;

( c ) the HKSP had a mechanism to deal with and avoid cases in which a company

leased an HKSP unit without using it for scientific research purposes as

mentioned by some members;

( d ) the HKSP had a different position from that of Lok Ma Chau Hoop and the

Expansion Programme could meet the demand from future development of

laboratories and the industry;

( e ) even when the external economy was beset with uncertainties, Hong Kong’s soft

power, such as intellectual property and financial system, was still an advantage;

and

( f ) if supplementary information provided by the consultants could not answer the

members questions on traffic fully, they could provide further written response

after the meeting.

67. The responses of Mr Caleb YIU were summarised below:

( a ) upon review, the TD considered the transport impact assessment report on the

Expansion Programme submitted by HKSP an accurate reflection of the post-

expansion traffic;

( b ) the department considered that a certain degree of complexity could be conceived

when installing a signalled system at the junction of Chak Cheung Street

roundabout at Science Park Road. Therefore, it was necessary to carefully

consider the temporary traffic measures to mitigate the traffic impact of the

( 21 )

Action

works. The traffic consultancy firm of the HKSTP would conduct further

research; and

( c ) the department knew about the current busy traffic at Chak Cheung Street

roundabout and thus the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD)

had included the problem of traffic congestion at Chak Cheung Street roundabout

under the Planning and Engineering Study on Trunk Road T4. The TD and CEDD

were reviewing and assessing the current traffic and the impact on the roundabout

after completion of Trunk Road T4. It was estimated that upon completion of the

widening works of Tai Po Road (Sha Tin Section) and construction of Trunk Road

T4, traffic at T6 Bridge and Chak Cheung Street roundabout would be alleviated.

The department would continue to review local traffic based on various factors

and timely formulate corresponding measures.


( a ) he opined that the report of MVA Hong Kong Limited lacked sincerity;

( b ) he asked the HKSTP and the ITC to respond to the members’ worries;

( c ) he would like to know how long the queue for the HKSP would be after

introducing the signalling system; and

( d ) he opined that the Expansion Programme should be carried out in conjunction

with other traffic improvement works for effectiveness.


( a ) he really hoped to support the development of innovative technology. However,

he had asked in the STDC about the requirements for setting up a medical

laboratory in Hong Kong, which was deemed out of the scope of the District

Councils Ordinance. With the interference from the Sha Tin District Office

(STDO) and the Secretariat regarding the STDC work, it was hard for the STDC

to tie in with technological development; and

( b ) he would like to know whether any company of the HKSP could develop a traffic

stimulation software for the members to understand how the suggestion of the

traffic consultancy firm could effectively solve the traffic problem there.

70. Ms WONG Man-huen said that expansion of the HKSTP could not tie in with the

development of traffic ancillary facilities, which might cause traffic congestion in the future.

71. The responses of Mr Simon WONG were summarised below:

( a ) the traffic problem at the area around the HKSP had been included in the long-

term planning of the Government;

( b ) there would be a division of labour between the HKSP and the Government on

carrying out traffic improvement works;

( 22 )

Action

( c ) traffic measures would be implemented along with the launch of the Expansion

Programme in the HKSP;

( d ) long-term regional traffic development needed to be improved on government

level;

( e ) according to the consultancy report, the Expansion Programme would not affect

the overall traffic flow much; and

( f ) the HKSP hoped that the Expansion Programme could be completed in 2022-

2024 to tie in with the rapid technological development nowadays and he asked

the members to support the Expansion Programme.

72. Mr Michael YUNG proposed a provisional motion as follows:

“ Background

Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTP) is implementing Phase

2 of the Science Park Expansion Programme in Pak Shek Kok in New Territories. After

the completion of Phase 1 of the Science Park Expansion Programme, there has been

serious traffic congestion at the roundabout at Chak Cheung Street in the morning and

evening. The Development and Housing Committee (DHC) does not support the

HKSTP’s attempt to alleviate the traffic congestion at Science Park Road with a patchy

fix of changing the roundabout at Chak Cheung Street/Hong Kong Science Park to a

signalised junction.

Motion

The DHC of the Sha Tin District Council (STDC) understands the needs to expand the

Hong Kong Science Park; however, the traffic improvement measures submitted by the

HKSTP at this stage is not helpful to solving the congestion at the 2 roundabouts at Chak

Cheung Street. Therefore, the DHC cannot support Phase 2 of the Science Park Expansion

Programme at this stage.

The DHC urges relevant government departments to study feasible traffic improvement

measures. For example, the Hong Kong Science Park-bound traffic from the 2 trunk roads,

Tate’s Cairn Highway and Tolo Highway, to the bypass at Chak Cheung Street can be

diverted. The measures should be consulted at the STDC for its approval, before an

application for funding for Phase 2 of the Science Park Expansion Programme is

submitted to the Legislative Council.”

Mr CHAN Pui-ming, Ms WONG Man-huen, Ms LUK Tsz-tung, Mr MAK Tsz-kin, Mr LUI Kai-

wing, Mr Felix CHOW, Mr SIN Cheuk-nam, Ms NG Ting-lam, Mr Johnny CHUNG, Mr HUI

Lap-san, Mr WAI Hing-cheung, Mr TSANG Kit, Mr TING Tsz-yuen, Mr SHEK William, Mr

Billy CHAN, Mr CHIU Chu-pong, Mr HUI Yui-yu, Mr Wilson LI, Mr Jimmy SHAM, Mr

Ricardo LIAO, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr YAU Man-chun, Mr Raymond LI, Mr CHAN Nok-

hang, Mr NG Kam-hung and Mr LO Tak-ming seconded the motion.


( 23 )

Action

74. Mr Michael YUNG said that he had previously sought from the HKSP the traffic

consultancy report, in which not all traffic data was listed. He would like to know whether the

HKSP had submitted the same report to the TD.

75. Mr Simon WONG said that the problem would be followed up after the meeting.

76. Members noted the above documents.

Question

Question to be Raised by Mr WONG Ho-fung on the Management of Mei Ying Court


77. The Chairman welcomed Ms FUNG Wai-ling, Senior Housing Manager (Tai Po, North

& Shatin 1) (Acting), HD to the meeting.


( a ) he pointed out that as new HOS courts were gradually completed, a considerable

number of HOS management contracts were granted by the HD as owners’

corporations were not yet established;

( b ) he opined that mismanagement of the HD contributed to the breach of contracts

by property management companies or even to misuse of resources;

( c ) he would like to know what measures HD had to improve the procedures and

monitor the operation of property management companies; and

( d ) regarding the high turnover rate of Mei Ying Court Owners’ Corporation, as the

responsible HD staff had been transferred, he would like to know about the latest

situation of Mei Ying Court.

79. The responses of Ms FUNG Wai-ling were summarised below:

( a ) the HA requested property management companies to submit information when

formulating services management contracts, so that it could devise level of

management fee after intake of housing courts. The HD adopted the principles of

reimbursement of actual expenses and not exceeding maximum amount of

expenses stated in contracts in requesting property management companies to pay

monthly management fees; and

( b ) the management fee declared by the property management company of Mei Ying

Court did not exceed the maximum amount of expenses stated in the contract.

Upon checking the financial records starting from 9 May 2017, the HD instructed

the property management company to deposit excess amount into the account of

the court trading fund. On 29 September, the department had a meeting with the

Management Committee of Mei Ying Court Owners’ Corporation (Management

Committee) and promised to provide the financial records of the past three years

for review of the Chairman in late October. The department would meet with the

Management Committee for follow-up on 6 November this year.

( 24 )

Action


( a ) he said that recent “shoebox” HOS sites of the HD created property management

problems. He said that Kam Fai Court in Ma On Shan and Mei Ying Court faced

similar problems. Property management of Mei Ying Court was handled by

Chevalier Property Management Limited (Chevalier) while the car park was

managed by Yue Xiu Apt Parking Limited Property management of Kam Fai

Court was handled by Kong Shum Union Property Management Co., Ltd.

(KSUP) while the car park was managed by Easy Living Consultant Limited

(ELC);

( b ) he said that the HD did not engage sufficient additional manpower. The car park

operated for 24 hours and additional staff needed to be deployed from Yan On

Estate. However, the HD only granted three shifts with each lasting for 8 hours.

In case of an accident in the car park, KSUP could not provide assistance and duty

officers of ELC would have to deal with the problem;

( c ) in case of the above, the driver should go to other places to pay the fee or staff of

the car park management company should come and collect the fee. He would

like to know whether staff needed to go to other courts for work under inclement

weather; and

( d ) once established, the owners’ corporation would not handle issues related to HD

management of car park. It also did not have any obligations or responsibilities

to provide public space for car park staff to work. He took Sui Wo Court as an

example and would like to know whether the department would install electrical

fittings like individual meter for property management companies. He also said

that the HD should consider occupational safety of outsourced staff and HD staff

providing services, as well as handling of single HOS blocks in the future.


( a ) he opined that the Government developed “shoebox” sites into single HOS

blocks. Courts were so small that property management companies responsible

for management could not gain sufficient profit to provide basic services.

Alternatively, property management companies might raise the fees via different

means to increase profit. He opined that such practice was not satisfactory; and

( b ) he asked for the HD’s measures to monitor property management companies and

asked how to delineate the management roles of owners’ corporations and the HD

after establishment of the former.


( a ) he said that the property management company of Mei Ying Court used up the

maximum amount of expenses but failed to provide sufficient management staff

and even paid bonuses to its staff with the court trading fund. He opined that the

property management company failed to properly manage the court in accordance

with the contract. Regarding the arrangement which property management

companies entered into contract with HD but not owners’ corporations, he opined

( 25 )

Action

that the department might not have sufficient checks and balances and thus

management fees might not be used properly;

( b ) he did not object to a reasonable increase in management fees so that property

management companies could effectively manage their courts; and

( c ) he said that facilities were frequently under maintenance in spite of recent

completion of Mei Ying Court, which was not satisfactory.


( a ) the HD relocated Yan On Estate Car Park to Hang Chi Street Car Park out of the

expansion of Yan On Estate and he opined that it was easy for the turnstile to

become out of order because of its outdoor location;

( b ) he said that if the turnstile of Kam Fai Court became out of order, security staff

of Yan Chung House needed to walk from the security room to Kam Fai Court.

He worried that the long queue of vehicles might disrupt traffic at Hang Kin Street

and Hang Yiu Street;

( c ) he opined that fragmented property management contracts might cause difficulty

in deployment of manpower. Property management companies might find it hard

to deal with accidents. He suggested that the HD arrange individual contracts for

each facility to facilitate management of owners’ corporations and property

management companies; and

( d ) he asked what solutions the HD had to the above management problems.

84. The responses of Ms FUNG Wai-ling were summarised below:

( a ) the HD reserved parking spaces for each court based on the respective land leases

and installed turnstiles for Octopus cards at the court entrance;

( b ) the security service of Kam Fai Court was provided by Yan On Estate and a

turnstile for Octopus cards was used in the car park, which could effectively

manage the parking spaces of Kam Fai Court;

( c ) the HD requested in the services contract of Sui Wo Court that security staff carry

out traffic control and inspect vacant spaces of blocks. Therefore, they mostly

worked outdoors. It was illegal for the property management company to build

its office on a vacant lot and take electricity from the court. The department had

immediately requested the property management company to stop these acts and

provided a security booth for security staff of Sui Wo Court. It would also review

the arrangements regularly;

( d ) the department had reviewed receipts submitted by Chevalier since April this year

and ceased the problem of spending over the maximum limit by Chevalier;

( e ) the department procured cleaning services on an hourly basis. The contract stated

that the property management company shall provide two cleaning workers

( 26 )

Action

whose working hours were 8 hours. If the management company could ensure 16

hours of cleaning work by its workers, the contractual requirement was met. At

the request of the department, Chevalier had provided night-time cleaners for Mei

Ying Court;

( f ) when the department and the property management company formulated the

contract, it had been requested to include year-end bonus into the calculation of

staffing costs which was reflected in the management fees. The department would

review the accounting records submitted by Chevalier such as year-end bonus

taken from the court trading fund by Chevalier; and

( g ) she would relay the members’ views to the respective sections of the HD.


( a ) he said that Yan On Estate and Kam Fai Court managed by the HD were PRH and

HOS respectively. Manpower could not effectively operate;

( b ) he opined that the department had not comprehensively considered the

management of building facilities when designing residential courts, such as the

car park system of Kam Fai Court;

( c ) he cited an example by saying that KSUP was not responsible for managing the

car park of Kam Fai Court. A problem occurred in the car park would be dealt

with by staff of Yan On Estate. He worried that it would affect the management

quality of Yan On Estate;

( d ) apart from increasing security staff, he suggested increasing management

personnel; and

( e ) he was disappointed that Mr WONG Chun-hung, Samuel failed to keep his

promise of increasing manpower.

86. Ms FUNG Wai-ling would further ask Mr WONG Chun-hung, Samuel on the view of Mr

Michael YUNG.

87. Mr WONG Ho-fung proposed a provisional motion as follows:

“ The Development and Housing Committee demands that the Housing Department (HD)

strengthen communication with the representatives of Mei Ying Court to rationalise

account issues between a flock of minority owners of Mei Ying Court and the

management company (Chevalier Property Management Limited), so that the estate can

start inviting tenders after rationalising account issues and make its own decision on

future management companies.

The HD should also adopt measures to improve the flow and contract of outsourcing the

management of estates under the Home Ownership Scheme and strengthen the

monitoring of management companies, so as to ensure that the management fees paid by

minority owners will be put to good use.”

( 27 )

Action

Mr George WONG and Ms NG Ting-lam seconded the motion.



Question to be Raised by Mr YAU Man-chun on the Shortage of Parking Spaces in Shui Chuen

O Estate


90. The Chairman welcomed Ms CHING Yim-yu, Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin

9) of the HD to the meeting.


( a ) he said that parking spaces for private cars were not sufficient in Shui Chuen O

Estate and hoped that the department could increase the number of parking

spaces;

( b ) he would like to know the increase in the number of parking spaces in Shui Chuen

O Estate; and

( c ) he urged the HD to make reference to Sha Kok Estate in providing parking

discounts in Shui Chuen O Estate and consider rezoning part of the passage into

parking spaces, provided that the pedestrian path was not affected.


( a ) he would like to know which version of Hong Kong Planning Standards and

Guidelines (Guidelines) was based on when the HD calculated the number of

parking spaces in various estates;

( b ) he noticed that estates in Sha Tin District provided different parking discounts

and would like to know about the HD’s standards of deciding the fees and

discounts of daytime and overnight parking;

( c ) he asked why the use rate of daytime parking reached 107% in Shui Chuen O

Estate; and

( d ) he said that estates completed after 1995 only provided parking spaces for light

goods vehicles and asked the HD what policy caused such change. He said that

as some staff might not know the types of vehicles, those which did not meet the

requirements used parking spaces in estates.


( a ) he said that the HD did not consider parking needs of large vehicles when

developing public housing and thus these vehicles parked in open car parks,

which had been continuously expropriated; and

( 28 )

Action

( b ) he said that Shui Chuen O Estate was about 500 meters away from Sha Tin Wai

Station but as the planning standard counted direct distance but not walking

distance, the proportion of parking spaces in estates were too low. He said that

the TD was reviewing the calculation method of the Guidelines and asked about

compensation measures if insufficiency in parking spaces was found in some

courts after review.

94. The views of Mr LO Tak-ming were summarised below:

( a ) he said that vacant spaces were found near Ming Chuen House and Ling Chuen

House which he proposed to be rezoned as parking spaces;

( b ) he said that insufficient parking spaces in Shui Chuen O Estate led to traffic

problems and illegal parking outside the estate. He suggested adding overnight

parking spaces in area near To Shek Street; and

( c ) he asked whether the HD would discuss the above suggestion with other

departments.

95. The views of Mr MAK Tsz-kin were summarised below:

( a ) he said that parking spaces and illegal parking were highly related;

( b ) he opined that the number of government-planned sparking spaces were

disproportionately low compared to the number of households, which caused

traffic problems;

( c ) he suggested that the HD and the TD could look into the traffic flow after

completion of new estates and mitigate the problem; and

( d ) he suggested that the Government amend the Guidelines to meet present needs.

96. The responses of Ms CHING Yim-yu were summarised below:

( a ) after the HD inspected Shui Chuen O Estate in May this year, 2 parking spaces

for private cars and 3 for motorcycles were added and leased to persons on the

waiting list;

( b ) the department would consider the suggestions of Mr YAU Man-chun and Mr LO

Tak-ming;

( c ) Shui Chuen O Estate car park provided hourly parking discounts for private cars

from 11pm to 7am. As only Phase II provided hourly services and daytime

capacity was usually full, there was no enough incentives to provide discounts

and increase the utility rate. Currently, only car parks of Domain Mall and Yau

Lai Shopping Centre under the purview of the HA provided free parking for

customers spending over a certain amount;

( d ) car parks of Shui Chuen O Estate Phases 1, 3 and 4 were fixed monthly parking

spaces without hourly services. Phase 2 of the car park set up over 70 hourly

( 29 )

Action

parking spaces because of the shopping centre;

( e ) in response to the question of Mr Michael YUNG on data of monthly parking in

Shui Chuen O Estate, she said that all hourly parking spaces would not be

occupied at the same time and additional flexible monthly spaces would be

provided. When owners of daytime monthly parking left the car park, the

department could make use of these spaces for hourly parking and safeguard

spaces for users of flexible monthly spaces;

( f ) regarding the member’s suggestion of rezoning spaces of heavy vehicles for light

goods vehicles in Sha Kok Estate, parking spaces there were managed by Link

REIT;

( g ) the department would provide supplementary information on car parks in estates

of Sha Tin District after the meeting; and

( h ) overnight hourly parking discount in Shui Chuen O Estate was based on the

departmental guidelines. Shui Chuen O Estate Carpark provided monthly parking

spaces for light goods vehicles of 5.5 tonnes or below and the charge was higher.

In case of vacancy, light goods vehicles on the waiting list would be arranged to

fill up the spaces.


( a ) he said that staff of Yan On Estate had mistakenly leased spaces for light goods

vehicles to medium-sized goods vehicles;

( b ) he said that when the HD was constructing Yan On Estate Phase 2, nearby meters

for goods vehicles were converted into provisional parking spaces of Yan On

Estate Phase 2 which led to insufficient spaces for goods vehicles;

( c ) as the HD accorded them with Category 3B priority in the ballot, he said that

residents driving company vehicles were difficult to use parking spaces within the

estate;

( d ) he suggested relaxing the planning restrictions on parking spaces; and

( e ) he suggested converting some hourly spaces into flexible monthly spaces in Yan

On Estate Phase II or other courts to increase the number of parking spaces.

98. Mr YAU Man-chun asked the HD to continue to look into how to increase parking spaces,

review the utilisation on a half-year or annual basis, and provide hourly parking discounts.

99. Ms CHING Yim-yu noted the members’ views and would discuss the feasibility of

increasing parking spaces with other government departments.

100. Mr YAU Man-chun proposed a provisional motion as follows:

“ The Development and Housing Committee of the Sha Tin District Council strongly

requests that the Housing Department increase the provision of various types of parking

( 30 )

Action

spaces in housing estates newly built in recent years, such as Shui Chuen O Estate, Chun

Yeung Estate, Yuk Wo Court, Yan On Estate Phase 2 and Choi Wo Court, and

expeditiously provide discounts for hourly parking, such as 24-hour Pass and Day Pass.”

Mr LO Tak-ming, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr TING Tsz-yuen, Mr Billy CHAN, Mr SHEK

William, Mr Wilson LI, Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa, Mr CHAN Wan-tung, Mr Michael YUNG, Mr

MAK Tsz-kin, Mr LUI Kai-wing, Ms LUK Tsz-tung, Mr Felix CHOW, Mr CHAN Pui-ming,

Ms NG Ting-lam, Mr Johnny CHUNG, Mr HUI Lap-san, Mr WAI Hing-cheung, Mr NG Kam-

hung, Mr CHAN Nok-hang, Mr George WONG, Mr CHIU Chu-pong, Mr CHING Cheung-ying

and Mr Jimmy SHAM seconded the motion.



Question to be Raised by Ms NG Ting-lam on the Development of Tai Wai Complex


103. The Chairman welcomed Mr Trery MA, Executive Officer (Development) of the STDO,

Ms Elaine CHAN, Assistant Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 2, Ms Mary YEW, Assistant District

Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 3 of the Social Welfare Department, Ms Joe WONG, District

Leisure Manager (Sha Tin), Ms Ester CHAN, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District

Support) Sha Tin, Mr Henry HEUNG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin)1, Ms Celine

LAU, Senior Liberian (Planning and Development), Ms LEE Mei-yee, Senior Liberian (Sha Tin)

and Mr Eddie NG, Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 34 of the LCSD to the meeting.

104. The views of Ms NG Ting-lam were summarised below:

( a ) she asked whether the Government would conduct planning again to mitigate

traffic congestion nearby if a public car park was set up in Tai Wai Complex

(Complex);

( b ) she would like to know the locations of the entrances of the car park in the

Complex; and

( c ) she would like to know about the progress, works commencement time, service

targets, etc. of the Complex.


( a ) he said that the development of the Complex was similar to the nature of Fo Tan

Complex at Shan Mei Street, but the Complex was led by the STDO while Fo Tan

Complex at Shan Mei Street was led by the Government Property Agency. He

would like to know their differences in terms of development;

( b ) he would like to know whether “single site, multiple use” was applicable to the

Complex; and

( c ) the development timetable and facilities of the Complex.

( 31 )

Action

106. The views of Mr LI Sai-hung were summarised below:

( a ) he was dissatisfied with the responses of the government departments and said

that apart from the increase in parking spaces, there was no other content update;

( b ) he said that a member asked two year ago whether the car park would be built in

the basement and asked for the traffic assessment report of the Complex. He

would like to know the progress of follow-up by the department; and

( c ) whether the Home Affairs Bureau or the PlanD was responsible for the

development of the Complex.

107. Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa would like to know about the latest progress of the Complex and

whether the Government would construct other single-block buildings on the site of the

Complex.

108. Mr George WONG opined that responses of the government department were similar to

those in 2018, and asked the departments to report the development progress from 2018 till now.


( a ) he opined that there was insufficient communication between the STDO and the

members. He worried that the development of the Complex would be delayed;

and

( b ) he asked the STDO to provide a development timetable for the Complex and

timely submit a progress report to DHC.

110. Mr WONG Ho-fung said that multiple departments would provide facilities in the

Complex and hoped that the STDO could speed up to meet residents’ aspirations.


( a ) he said that during the previous term the DHC, the then Secretary for

Development said that the site above the Complex would be handed over to the

HD for development of single HOS blocks. He would like to know whether the

site above the Complex would be used for housing purpose;

( b ) he opined that although the Complex could increase facilities, it was a “toothpick-

like building”, which might arouse opposition among residents nearby;

( c ) he opined that as the site was a residential land, housing production did not require

an application to the TPB for change in planning. He once suggested with other

members rezoning the land for a government, institution or community site but

the suggestion was not considered;

( d ) he said that insufficient spaces with parking meters and car parks in Tai Wai led

to illegal parking in the district. He suggested that the Government seek

appropriate locations to solve the problem of illegal parking;

( 32 )

Action

( e ) he quoted from the Deputy Secretary for Development that as the previous term

of the STDC had been consulted on the Complex, the current term of the STDC

should not be consulted again. He did not agree with this practice as former and

current district councillors held different views; and

( f ) he would like to know whether the STDO would set up a branch office in the

Complex to mitigate the problem of insufficient working space.

112. The Chairman opined that the it was an outdated practice that the Department of Health

would only enhance publicity but would not operate a dental clinic in the Complex. He would

like to know when the STDO could confirm the development of the Complex.

113. The responses of Ms Hannah YICK were summarised below:

( a ) the PlanD would reserve lots for various purposes in view of social development

and required facilities;

( b ) the proposed Complex was located on a lot which was zoned as Residential

(Group A) area in Approved Sha Tin Outline Zoning Plan No. S/ST/34. Apart

from the public car park, most of the proposed government and community

facilities did not require planning approval. Regarding the application for

planning approval of the public carpark, a project proponent shall submit a traffic

impact assessment report; and

( c ) regarding the technical assessment and confirmation of facilities of the Complex,

she believed that STDO, as the project coordinator, would explain the progress.

114. The responses of Ms Katy CHENG, Chief Liaison Officer / STDO were summarised

below:

( a ) the Complex had entered the stage of technical feasibility study. The STDO was

conducting with other relevant departments a traffic review study on the traffic

impact in the vicinity brought by facilities and the public carpark of the Complex.

As the project was required to go through the mechanism and procedures

necessary for general public works, the actual development timetable could only

be confirmed after discussing the list of facilities with relevant departments; and

( b ) provision of facilities in the Complex was decided by the responsible bureaux or

departments.

115. Ms Mary YEW said that the proposed Neighbourhood Elderly Centre aimed to serve

senior citizens and carers in the district. The centre would provide a series of community support

services at a local level, including social and recreational activities, counselling, service referral,

dementia and community education, support for carers and catering services, etc.

116. Ms Joe WONG said that there were 7 sports centres in Sha Tin District, including Mei

Lam Sports Centre, Hin Keng Sports Centre and the newly built Che Kumg Temple Sports Centre

in Tai Wai. The current utility rates of the local sports centres were not yet saturated. Moreover,

sports centres in Ma On Shan Area 103 and Fo Tan were under planning. Therefore, the LCSD

( 33 )

Action

did not plan to set up a sports centre, a gymnastics room or a children’s playroom in the proposed

Complex.

117. Mr Eddie NG said that the department proposed setting up a small library and a Students’

Study Room in the Complex and it would work with relevant departments to confirm the works.

118. Ms LEE Mei-yee said that the department would closely monitor the development of the

Complex project and was willing to cooperate in relation to the proposed works.

119. Mr CHAN Pui-ming would like to know about the progress of the feasibility study being

conducted by the STDO and whether the STDO could provide the tendering document of the

feasibility study for the DHC’s reference.

120. Ms NG Ting-lam would like to know about the role of the STDO in the development of

the Complex.


( a ) he did not understand why the Assistant District Officers of the STDO did not

attend the meeting; and

( b ) he said that the Secretary for Development had met the STDC Members, saying

that he considered constructing subsidised housing on the site above the Complex.

He opined that there were a large number of residential buildings in Tai Wai.

Construction of subsidised housing on the site above the Complex would affect

the view. He would like to know the current progress of the Complex and whether

the department had applied for funding from the Legislative Council to conduct a

feasibility study.

122. Ms Katy CHENG said that a traffic review study was required to look into the impacts of

the Complex and its parking spaces on nearby traffic. The study was handled by the Architectural

Services Department. Due to the epidemic, the study still needed time. The STDO would timely

report the latest developments to the STDC, and consult it when necessary.

123. Ms FUNG Wai-ling said that currently there was no information available.

124. The Chairman would like to know when the feasibility study was expected to be

completed.

125. Ms Katy CHENG said that the STDO could provide supplementary information after the

meeting.

126. The Vice-Chairman opined that the epidemic was not quite related to the feasibility study

and hoped that the STDO could provide more information after the meeting.

127. Mr LI Sai-hung said that the epidemic only took place in this year and that the STDC had

been consulted on the project in 2018. He was disappointed that the STDO could not complete

the feasibility study within one year.

( 34 )

Action

128. Mr George WONG would like to know about the commencement and estimated

completion dates of the feasibility study.

129. The Chairman said that a number of residents in Tai Wai hoped that the Complex could

be completed as soon as possible. He asked the department to provide supplementary

information on the progress of the feasibility study for the members’ information.


Question to be Raised by Mr CHUNG Lai-him on the Construction of Public Passages under the

Land Grant Provisions for Housing Projects in Sha Tin


131. The Chairman welcomed Ms Rosseter HO, Senior Estate Surveyor / South East (Acting),

District Lands Office, Sha Tin (DLO/ST) to the meeting.

132. The views of Mr Johnny CHUNG were summarised below:

( a ) he considered it unreasonable for minority owners to be responsible for

maintenance of public facilities. He considered that the policy was intended to ask

private developers to bear social responsibility;

( b ) he pointed out that the bridge connecting The Tolo Place and Sunshine City

Phases 4 and 5 was included in common parts of the estate, which meant owners

of The Tolo Place shall bear over 80% of the maintenance fees. As the bridge

mainly served non-owners, it was unfair for the owners to bear most of the

maintenance fees;

( c ) he would like to know how many communal facilities were handled by developers

but became owners’ responsibility after a revision in the Deed of Mutual

Covenant (DMC) by the developers. He would also like to know the part of DMC

that communal facilities belonged to; and

( d ) he would like to know whether the STDO had received cases seeking for help

from Owners’ Committees or Owners’ Corporations on maintenance of

communal facilities. He asked the Secretariat why the STDO was not invited to

give a response on the question.


( a ) he said that owners might not benefit from facilities paid by them which became

a public space;

( b ) he cited an example from a private passage in front of a private court in Kau To

Shan which was managed by the court. Even though the owners wanted to return

the passage to the Government, it failed because the Government had raised

various requests. He opined that the Government was not willing to face the

problems brought by over-reliance on property developers in Hong Kong; and

( c ) he hoped that DLO/ST could help clarify the above case.

( 35 )

Action

134. The views of Mr WAI Hing-cheung were summarised below:

( a ) he quoted from the reply of DLO/ST that “the owner of the development shall

perform the related contractual obligations” and would like to know whether the

title owner responsible for the development still needed to undertake the

contractual obligations after selling the property. He opined that no matter the

number of property sold, the developer was still the “title owner of the

development”;

( b ) he would like to know why developers would develop communal space and what

benefits they could gain. He asked whether the Government had provided

incentives for developers to build these communal space and facilities;

( c ) he asked whether the special lease condition was stipulated before land auction or

in a private discussion between the Government and the developers;

( d ) he would like to know what measures the Government would take if owners did

not perform the contractual obligations or no one did; and

( e ) he said that it was unfair for owners to bear the expenses of communal facilities

when they were not the primary users.

135. Mr MAK Tsz-kin said that DMC of Sui Wo Court was enforced by the HD and that the

bridge and the elevator were parts of a whole building. It was not mentioned in the DMC who

was responsible for these structures either. After reviewing the drawings, he found that those

structures belonged to the shopping centre, so it should be responsible for the maintenance.

However, HD did not explain that to the buyers of the shopping centre. He pointed out that the

HD left these structures to the Owners’ Corporation for its handling, and asked whether the HD

had discussed the details with the Owners’ Corporation.

136. Ms Rosseter HO replied that provision of a bridge in the private development was

intended to facilitate a comprehensive design, optimisation of land use, and proper planning, so

that the facilities could be timely completed. She briefly stated that DLO/ST would follow the

established procedures to consult relevant government departments and solicit local views

through the STDO (if applicable) when drafting the land lease. As for this case, the views would

be included in the land lease upon approved by the District Land Conference. For example, the

land lease stated that the title owners shall perform the obligations of construction, management

and maintenance of the bridge.

137. Ms Angela LIU, Executive Officer (District Council) 5 of the STDO replied that the lease

condition was not under the terms of reference of the STDO. The Secretariat had relayed the

question to the Buildings Department and DLO/ST for their response.

138. Mr SIN Cheuk-nam pointed out that DLO/ST did not conduct a public consultation when

handling lease terms of the site and asked whether the DLO/ST would conduct public

consultations when formulating lease terms in the future.

139. Mr Johnny CHUNG asked whether the STDO had received cases from Owners’

Corporations, Owners’ Committees and District Management Committees regarding

management problems of communal facilities arisen from lease terms. He said that the policy

was outdated with the need for amendment.

( 36 )

Action

140. Ms FUNG Wai-ling pointed out that remainder of Sui Wo Court was residential land. As

the bridge belonged to the remainder, the Owners’ Corporation was responsible for repairs and

maintenance of the bridge.

141. Mr Edmund WONG, Senior Liaison Officer (North) of the STDO said that the STDO

was responsible for building management and providing information on the Building

Management Ordinance. DMC usually included lease terms. When the STDO received enquiries

on land lease, it would suggest seeking professional legal advice. He said that the STDO did not

receive such questions from Owners’ Corporations or Owners’ Committees.

142. The Chairman asked members whether they agreed to deal with the provisional motion

proposed by Mr Johnny CHUNG.

143. Members agreed to deal with the provisional motion proposed by Mr Johnny CHUNG.

144. Mr Johnny CHUNG proposed a provisional motion as follows:

“ Background of the motion: When the Government of the HKSAR developed Sha Tin

New Town in the last century, the community was mainly developed through public-

private partnership. At that time, the Government included special provisions in the land

grant provisions (commonly known as “land leases”) that requested developers, when

building housing estates, to also build community facilities open for public use, including

but not limited to walkways, footbridges, lifts, escalators, etc., and be responsible for

their maintenance upon commissioning.

However, some Deeds of Mutual Covenant listed the above access facilities as “Estate

Common Areas” (or in similar wording) and split the costs of daily operation and

maintenance of relevant facilities according to the ownership shares of the buildings,

which is tantamount to transferring relevant costs to minority owners of the buildings.

Some of the footbridges, lifts and escalators are connected to the commercial sections of

the property and most of the users of such facilities are not residents of the estates;

however, the costs of maintenance and repairs are borne by certain minority owners,

which is not fair.

It should be the Government’s responsibility to construct, operate and maintain

community facilities and this responsibility should not be shifted to other shareholders.

Regarding this, the Committee proposes the following motion:

Motion:

1. The Committee requests that the relevant government departments resume land titles

of the parts of community facilities that are connected to the commercial sections of

the property in the Sha Tin District, including but not limited to community facilities

like walkways, footbridges, lifts and escalators, and be responsible for their

maintenance and repairs.

2. The Committee requests that the relevant government departments provide suitable

financial and technical support for owners in maintaining relevant facilities before

the departments resume relevant land titles, so as to alleviate the burden on owners

and to ensure the safety of other facility users.”

( 37 )

Action

Mr WAI Hing-cheung and Mr TING Tsz-yuen seconded the motion.



Question to be Raised by Mr TING Tsz-yuen on the Maintenance of Escalator at the Bus

Terminus at Sunshine City Phase 4


147. The Chairman welcomed Mr William AU, Senior Engineer (General Legislation) 3 and

Mr YIU Yung-ngai, Engineer (General Legislation) 3/2 of the Electrical & Mechanical Services

Department (EMSD) and Ms Rosseter HO, Senior Estate Surveyor / South East (Acting),

DLO/ST to the meeting.

148. The views of Mr TING Tsz-yuen were summarised below:

( a ) he said that the escalator maintenance works had been delayed for nearly 7 months

and would like to know the reason and whether the EMSD would punish the

contractor;

( b ) he asked the STDO the difficulties facing the Owners’ Committee of Sunshine

City Phase 4 regarding the escalator maintenance works;

( c ) he said that as the land lease put the responsibility on owners, it was unfair to

minority owners; and

( d ) he said that the escalator maintenance works of Sunshine City Phase 4 had been

delayed for more than one year. He asked the DLO/ST about the meaning of

“within a reasonable range” in “the DLO/ST would not treat it as a contravention

of lease terms or consider it necessary to carry out enforcements of the land lease

within a reasonable range”.

149. Mr Johnny CHUNG suggested that the Government should provide subsidy for the

facility or even purchase the title on the long run.

150. Mr William AU pointed out that the EMSD was the department for execution of the Lifts

and Escalators Ordinance (Cap. 618). Title of an escalator was not under the terms of reference

of the department. If the Owners’ Committee had engaged a registered escalator contractor to

carry out daily maintenance and regular inspection in accordance with the law to ensure the

escalator and its mechanical fittings could be safely operated, the Owners’ Committee did not

contravene the Ordinance. The department had regularly contacted the contractor to get updates

of the progress and reminded it to replace the handrail belts once the tendering price was

confirmed. As the problem did not lie in the contractor which had been carrying out maintenance

as per the law requirements, no penalty was applicable.

151. Ms Rosseter HO replied that a letter was sent in April this year to request the management

company to follow up on the maintenance of the escalator. The Owners’ Committee of Sunshine

City Phase 4 replied in June this year that the escalator could not be used out of safety concern

and the maintenance fees shall be discussed in its meeting. Later, the DLO/ST wrote to the

( 38 )

Action

management company in September and October this year to ask for the latest update. She said

that generally speaking, in case the grantee or property manager had to temporarily shut down

the facility out of actual needs such as repairs and maintenance, emergency or other safety risks,

the DLO/ST would not treat it as a contravention of lease terms or consider it necessary to carry

out enforcements of the land lease within a reasonable range. The DLO/ST was waiting for a

reply from the management company. If the management company failed to provide a reasonable

response, the DLO/ST would consider carrying out enforcement actions if necessary and upon

seeking legal advice.

152. Mr Edmund WONG pointed out that the Owners’ Committee of Sunshine City Phase 4

needed to have a meeting and voted on the procurement related to the escalator based on the DM

and Schedule 7 of the Building Management Ordinance.

153. Mr Felix CHOW said that the reason for failing to repair the escalator was that an owners’

meeting could not be held under the epidemic. Therefore, the related procurement could not be

carried out. He opined that the DLO/ST could not fulfil its own role to follow up on the

maintenance of the escalator. Therefore, the escalator had stopped been out of service for more

than one year and affected the community.

154. Ms Rosseter HO replied that the DLO/ST had received a response from the Owners’

Committee, which stated that out of public safety concern, the escalator was temporarily closed

and it had already sought a quotation from the escalator on the damaged parts. The quotation

was so high that it required further discussion. She also said that there were still 2 escalators in

operation providing services in Sunshine City Phase 4.


Date of Next Meeting

156. The next meeting was scheduled to be held at 6:17 pm on 27 October 2020 (Tuesday).

157. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 pm.

Sha Tin District Council Secretariat

STDC13/15/50

December 2020

Documents

DHC Minutes 5/2020 Sha Tin District Council