Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the District Development and ... · PDF fileMr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymond Secretary:-2-Miss CHENG Kwan-wai, Vivian Executive Officer (District Council) 2,

- 1 -

Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the

District Development and Environment Committee (DDEC)

Southern District Council (SDC)

Date : 26 November 2012

Time : 2:30 p.m.

Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present:

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

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

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

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

Mr AU Lap-sing

Mr AU Nok-hin

Mr CHAI Man-hon

Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying

Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung

Mr CHU Lap-wai

Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus

Mr FUNG Wai-kwong

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy

Mr LO Kin-hei

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa

Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent

Dr YANG Mo, PhD

Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

Mr CHAN Man-chun

Mr LEE Kwan-keung

Mr LAU Kar-wah

Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis

Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymond

Secretary:

- 2 -

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

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance:

Ms WAI Yee-yan, Christine, JP District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department

Miss WONG Choi-yan, Joyce Assistant District Officer (Southern),


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

Southern District Office,


Miss LIN Ming Senior Executive Officer (District Council),

Southern District Office,


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

Civil Engineering and Development Department

Dr LEE Wai-tak, Anthony Senior Environmental Protection Officer

(Regional South) 3,

Environmental Protection Department

Mr WONG Hung-yuen Chief Health Inspector,

Southern District Environmental Hygiene Office,

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

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

Housing Department

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

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

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

Hong Kong West and South),

Lands Department

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

Planning Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2):

Mr AU Kam-hung, Gary Senior Assistant Executive Director (Corporate

- 3 -

Governance),

Vocational Training Council

Mr CHUI Wing-yin, Stanley Senior Training Consultant, Hospitality Industry

Training and Development Centre & Chinese Cuisine

Training Institute,


Dr K.W. LEE Head, Estates, Health and Safety Division,


Mr Kennon CHEUNG Project Manager, Estates, Health and Safety Division,


Ms Vivian TSE Principal Director,

Leigh & Orange Limited

Ms Emily YUN Associate Director,


Mr Ken WONG Associate Director,



Mr KWOK Tak-tai, John Head of Greening and Landscape Office,

Development Bureau

Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor Assistant Secretary (Tree Management) 2,

Development Bureau


Mr KWOK Ping-keung Senior Engineer 2 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme),

Drainage Services Department

Mr LAW Shiu-lun, Alan Engineer/11 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme),

Drainage Services Department

Mr TANG Yuk-fai, Ted Principal Resident Engineer,

Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.

Mr CHAN Siu-yuen Associate Director,


Mr CHEUNG Ho-man, Kevin Resident Engineer,


Miss HO Kin-yan, Agnes Resident Engineer,

- 4 -



Miss KO Wai-kwan, Vivian Commissioner for Heritage,

Development Bureau

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

Development Bureau


Mr TANG Wai-sing, Peter Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)

32,

Environmental Protection Department

Mr Frankie HAU Senior Environmental, Health & Safety Manager,

Ocean Park

Mr Jacky CHAN Technical Manager, Entertainment,

Ocean Park

Ms Miranda IP Public Affairs Manager,

Ocean Park


Mr YU Si-ki Engineer/South Island Line 4, Railway Development

Office,

Highways Department

Mr Bernard WONG Senior Liaison Engineer,

MTRCoration Limited

Ms Jackie CHOW Public Relations Manager – Project & Property,

MTRCoration Limited

Mr Carlos FUNG Senior Construction Engineer,

MTRCoration Limited


Mr YEUNG Hoi, Ernest Engineer/Southern & Peak 1,

- 5 -

Transport Department

Mr Steve YIU Head of Town Planning,

MTRCoration Limited

Mr Lam CHAN Senior Manager, Projects and Property Manager,

MTRCoration Limited

Mr Edward WONG Chief Project Manager – Property,

MTRCoration Limited

Mr Chapman LAM Director,

MVA HK Ltd.

Mr Gary CHING Principal Traffic Engineer,

MVA HK Ltd.

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 11 – Follow-up Item 1):

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

Water Supplies Department

Mr LAU Wing-keung Senior Engineer/HK 2,


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


Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Members and government representatives to the

meeting.

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

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

sitting in the meeting should switch off all devices which might emit sound, and

should not use any telecommunications devices for conversation during the course of

the meeting. Each Member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to

speak in respect of each agenda item.

3. The Chairman continued that since the meeting was packed with a lot of

agenda items, coupled with the motion debate for agenda item 8, if Members wished

to leave early, they should notify the Chairman beforehand and inform the Secretariat

staff present before leaving.

- 6 -

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

Development and Environment Committee Meeting Held on

24 September 2012

4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 5th

meeting had been circulated to all Members and relevant government department

representatives. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.

5. The minutes of the 5th DDEC meeting were confirmed by the Committee.

Agenda Item 2: International Cuisine College

(Item raised by Vocational Training Council)

(DDEC Paper No. 38/2012)

6. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the Vocational

Training Council (VTC) and the consultancy company to the meeting:

VTC

- Mr AU Kam-hung, Senior Associate Executive Director (Corporate

Governance)

- Mr CHUI Wing-yin, Senior Training Consultant, Hospitality Industry

Training and Development Centre & Chinese Cuisine Training Institute

- Dr K.W. LEE, Head, Estates, Health and Safety Division

- Mr Kennon CHEUNG, Project Manager, Estates, Health and Safety Division


- Ms Vivian TSE, Principal Director

- Ms Emily YUN, Associate Director

- Mr Ken WONG, Associate Director

7. The Chairman said that at the 3rd DDEC meeting on 28 May 2012, the

Committee had given in-principle support to the proposed project of an International

Cuisine College (ICC) and requested VTC to pay due attention to the suggestions of

Members in the detailed design of ICC campus building. The latest progress of the

project and related design were at Annex 2. The Chairman added that VTC had

specially presented a three-dimensional model portraying the latest design of the ICC

- 7 -

campus, and commended VTC for regarding it important to consult SDC.

8. Mr AU Kam-hung, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (Reference Paper

1), briefly introduced the latest progress and conceptual design of the ICC campus

building.

9. The Chairman said that since the Committee had already endorsed to support

this proposed project, to expedite the progress of meeting, he suggested that Members

could put forward their views, if any, while those who did not speak up would be

regarded as supporting the latest proposal.

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

CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were

summarised as follows:

Design of ICC Campus Building

(a) enquired about design details such as fire prevention installations and

escape routes;

(b) the light-penetrating curtain wall might affect nearby residents, and

suggested to adopt a design with higher opacity;

(c) emphasised that the stone wall and trees at the entrance of the ICC

campus should be retained; and

(d) a Member highly commended the design of the ICC campus building.

Public Engagement

(a) wished that VTC could open more spaces for public use and visit.

Environmental Protection and Heritage Conservation

(a) suggested that the project should receive rating in environmental

assessment to ensure that the overall project planning met the

international standards, and that a professional mechanism was in place

to regulate its environmental protection and heritage conservation

practices; and

(b) under the existing fund allocation mechanism of the Government, it

- 8 -

would be difficult to seek sufficient funds to revitalise the former Diary

Farm Senior Staff Quarters (SSQ). As such, a Member was

particularly concerned with the detailed plans for heritage conservation

and revitalisation of the said premises, and wished to grasp this

opportunity to seek funding from the Government in the hope of

opening the SSQ and ICC at the same time.

Traffic Matters

(a) worried that the extra 2 000 school places brought by the ICC would

further deteriorate traffic conditions in the locality. It was hoped that

VTC and the Transport Department (TD) could seriously consider

solutions such as relocation of bus stops;

(b) enquired about the parking arrangements in ICC and related transport

facilities; and

(c) there were other schools in the proximity of ICC, and the additional 2

000 students would affect traffic and people flow during the school

starting/finishing periods and lunch hours. It was asked whether a

canteen would be provided in the ICC campus to alleviate people flow

in the area.

Others

(a) the District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC) under SDC

could thoroughly consider uplifting works in the periphery of the ICC

campus.

11. Mr AU Kam-hung gave a consolidated response as follows:


(a) space had been reserved inside the ICC campus for functions such as

emergency vehicular access and loading/unloading area. Therefore,

the environment and road traffic in the surrounding area should not be

affected;

(b) according to the study of the consultancy company, the glass material

for the curtain wall would not dazzle or constitute to mirroring effect.

Nevertheless, VTC noted the concerns of Members and residents on the

- 9 -

curtain wall and would further consider improving the material to

minimise nuisances to drivers and nearby residents; and

(c) consideration had been given to provide a convenient access near the

stone wall, but due to technical difficulties and VTC clearly understood

residents’ concerns, eventually it was decided that the existing stone

wall and trees should be retained.

Public Engagement

(a) Members’ views on opening more spaces in the ICC campus for public

use were noted. Nevertheless, the proposed ICC was after all an

education establishment and various factors such as management,

security and hygiene monitoring should be taken into consideration.

Besides, since ICC needed to comply with highly stringent hygiene

standards in food preparation and people flow to achieve international

accreditation, it was not possible to open the ICC campus building for

public use. To address Members’ requests for public engagement,

VTC had proposed to construct a heritage trail connecting the ICC

campus with the nearby community and peripheral historical buildings.


(a) the whole project would achieve the category 2 rating (Gold Standard)

of the “Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method”

(HK-BEAM), and target at the highest rating (Platinum Standard); and

(b) VTC had preliminarily explored the feasibility of revitalising the SSQ

simultaneously with the Government, initial expenditure estimates

were prepared and a site survey was carried out. The proposal was

pending for study on the demarcation of boundary, resources allocation,

and so on by relevant departments. VTC was actively following up

on the matter.

Traffic Matters

(a) had worked with TD on traffic improvement measures and feasible

- 10 -

options included relocation of some bus stops to the west of the campus

entrance;

(b) every year ICC would provide around 2 000 school places for full-time,

half-day programmes and other short-term courses. It was estimated

that the maximum people flow generated from full-time programmes

was around 300 persons;

(c) the traffic impact assessment (TIA) submitted to TD showed that the

establishment of ICC would not significantly affect the overall traffic

conditions in the neighbourhood; and

(d) it was expected that the ICC students would go for lunch at the canteen

of the nearby training centre in Pok Fu Lam, so they should not have

burdened the nearby restaurants.

12. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr LO

Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise

comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:


(a) enquired about the detailed design of the ground level and hope the

design could mitigate the impact of service and car park entrances;

(b) requested that a dimmable lighting system should be used to minimise

the impact of the curtain wall on the surrounding environment and

nearby residents at nighttime; and

(c) a Member commended the design of ICC campus building.

[Post-meeting note: VTC replied the Secretariat on Para. 12(c) on 28 January 2013.

The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information for

Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]

Public Engagement

(a) asked whether VTC would consult nearby residents on the latest

campus design and how the consultation exercise would be conducted;

(b) understood that VTC had constraints opening the whole ICC campus to

the public. However, opening the campus spaces was very important

for nearby residents, and so asked whether any more spaces could be

open for public enjoyment other than the proposed heritage trail;

- 11 -

(c) wished that after its commissioning, the ICC could work closely with

SDC and the community for more activities so as to enhance public

understanding of ICC; and

(d) would encourage students in the Southern District to enrol in ICC

programmes.


(a) many government buildings had achieved the category 2 rating of

HK-BEAM and hoped this project could obtain the highest category of

Platinum Standard;

(b) suggested that energy-saving model of dimmable lighting system

should be used;

(c) the Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts earlier had expressed that

it was not interested in using the SSQ. It was wished that VTC could

grasp this opportunity to seek funding from the Government to

revitalise the said historical building at the same time; and

(d) short-term measures should be adopted to conserve the SSQ even if

extra funding could not be obtained.

Traffic Matters

(a) the TIA report showed that the ICC would not greatly affect the traffic

flow in the neighbourhood, nonetheless, VTC and the departments

concerned should carry out regular assessments on traffic flow and bus

stop usage at the location concerned to explore better traffic

arrangements.

Others

(a) suggested VTC to seek consent from relevant departments for

beautifying the nearby streets at the same time; and

(b) SDC had started the discussion on uplifting works for the surrounding

area of ICC since 2008, and hoped that a consensus could be reached

so that DFMC could follow up on the matter.

13. Mr AU Kam-hung gave a consolidated response as follows:

- 12 -

(a) the supplementary information on the detailed design of the ground

level would be provided after the meeting;

(b) VTC targeted at achieving the HK-BEAM Platinum Standard.

Electricity charges were part of the operating costs, and to save energy,

the lighting system of ICC would only be switched on when necessary.

The use of dimmable and energy-saving lighting system was one of the

goals in controlling operating expenses in the long run;

(c) it was also the wish of VTC to strengthen its communication and

exchange with the local community. To achieve this end, VTC had

planned different types of activities such as open day, visits and

cooking classes for residents, and would actively discuss with SDC on

the specific arrangements in future;

(d) VTC aimed to help young people fully develop their potentials, and

would welcome more youths to enrol in ICC training courses; and

(e) it was still unknown whether approval to the revitalisation plan of SSQ

and related government funding would be granted, which was beyond

the control of VTC However, VTC had actively followed up on this

matter in the past few months and promised to continue to work on the

matter strenuously.

14. The Chairman said that a Member commended the latest campus design, and

Members did not have objections regarding the campus design, except for the impact

of the curtain wall on nearby residents. He believed that Members basically

accepted the design, and wished that VTC could fine-tune the design after hearing

Members’ views. All along VTC had addressed SDC’s views seriously and its

endeavours for excellence in its work should be appreciated. He requested VTC to

note and seriously consider Members’ views at this meeting, and believed that VTC

would strenuously seek for more financial resources to refine the whole project.

15. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC gave its full support to the

project, and was happy to note that the project was on schedule so far, targeting for

completion in 2015. Also, the Committee would be pleased to witness the

commissioning of ICC in future.

(Mr FUNG Se-goun, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr

WONG Ling-sun and Mr LEE Kwan-keung joined the meeting at 2:32 p.m., 2:51

p.m., 2:54 p.m., 3:07 p.m. and 3:08 p.m. respectively.)

- 13 -

Agenda Item 3: Work of Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section

of Development Bureau

(Item raised by Development Bureau)


16. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from of the

Development Bureau (DEVB) to the meeting:

- Mr KWOK Tak-tai, Head of Greening and Landscape Office (GLO)

- Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor, Assistant Secretary (Tree Management) 2, Tree

Management Office (TMO)

17. The Chairman said that the advance questions from Mrs MAK TSE

How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN on this subject and DEVB’s written reply were

distributed at the meeting for Members’ reference (Reference Paper 2).

18. The Chairman thanked DEVB for its strenuous efforts in preparing for the

discussion. However, due to the packed agenda items, he wished that DEVB

representatives could finish the presentation within 15 minutes so that Members could

have sufficient time to discuss areas of prime concern.

19. Mr KWOK Tak-tai and Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor, with the aid of PowerPoint

presentation (Annex 1), briefly introduced the work of Greening, Landscape and Tree

Management Section under DEVB.

20. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG

Sik-yung, Mr CHU Lap-wai, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr LO

Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr WONG Ling-sun, Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries on the subject.

Details were summarised as follows:

Tree Species and Tree Planting

(a) comparing with other countries, in general the tree species planted in

Hong Kong were quite slim. It was suggested that tree species of

upright form with dense foliage should be selected to enhance visual

value and beautify the environment;

- 14 -

(b) flower beds restricted roots from penetrating into the soil, and the

shallow roots were unable to anchor the trees firmly onto the ground,

thus making it easy for tree collapse;

(c) the size of tree pits should be compatible with the growth of trees, and

suitable materials should be used to secure the gravels on the tree pits;

(d) both quantity and quality counted in tree planting. In the selection of

trees to be planted, the departments concerned should consider factors

such as wind strength, wind direction, soil properties, etc. in the

location. In particular, it was suggested that more resources should be

injected for tree planting in the areas of the Cyberport and Chi Fu Fa

Yuen where the wind was relatively strong and the habitats were not

favourable. Therefore, wind-resistant species should be chosen and

proper supporting devices be used; and

(e) roots growing underground had caused uneven road surface. A

Member would like to know if the growth and health of trees would be

affected after road re-surfacing.

Safety Issues

(a) a case of tree having health problems in the district had been reported

to relevant department for following up. Initially, the department

concerned replied that the tree in question was in good conditions, but

less than a month later, it was cut down by the same department on the

ground that cavity was found in the trunk. This had caused doubt on

the follow-up procedures of the department concerned. It was

emphasised that tree conditions had a great bearing on the safety of

residents, and hoped that the Tree Management Office (TMO) could

pay more attention to this matter;

(b) after the passage of tropical cyclone “Vicente” with typhoon signal no.

10 issued, it was found that collapsed tress in some locations in the

Southern District such as Wah Kwai Estate and Ap Lei Chau Estate

were left unattended so far, thus endangering nearby residents

(Supplementary Paper 2). TMO had the responsibility to urge

relevant departments to follow up on and clear the collapsed trees as

soon as possible;

(c) asked if an established mechanism was in place for regular tree

inspections so that potential problems could be dealt with before the

coming of typhoons or occurrence of other incidents;

- 15 -

(d) wished that in case of emergency, relevant departments could consider

the safety of people, and help residents to deal with the problems first

even when the trees concerned were on private land; and

(e) reported that trees with cavities in trunks were found along the way

from Ap Lei Chau Estate to Main Street Ap Lei Chau, and people

dumped rubbish in the cavities. Also, cavities were also found in

many trees at Stanley, and a problematic tree near Pak Tai Temple was

left unattended. It was wished that the departments concerned could

actively follow up on these cases.

Inter-departmental Coordination

(a) greening and tree planting involved different government departments,

but the roles, responsibilities and division of work among respective

departments were unclear. When problematic trees were spotted,

people had to spend considerable time and go through complicated

administrative procedures before finding out the responsible

departments. Sometimes the responses from different departments

were contradictory, making people at a loss as to what to do. As such,

a set of criteria should be established and all relevant departments were

required to comply with them;

(b) the TMO was established to manage trees properly. It was wished

that despite the shortage in manpower, TMO could better coordinate

the work of various departments, with a view to enhancing the

efficiency and transparency in dealing with tree problems;

(c) there had been a proposal to implement greening on the body of

footbridges and flyovers. At that time, the response was that as it

involved different departments, no coordination could be carried out for

related work. It was wished that the departments concerned could

clarify the division of work and seriously consider the above greening

proposal; and

(d) serial numbers had been assigned to trees planted in recent years to

facilitate tracing the responsible departments, which indicated some

improvements in the division of work amongst different departments.

After the establishment of TMO, the Government became more

proactive towards greening management, and it was hoped that TMO

could play a more active role in overseeing tree management.

- 16 -

Long-term Planning and Others

(a) greening work lacked overall planning, for example, there was often no

tree compensation for withered trees. It was enquired about the

greening plans and follow-up work in future;

(b) suggested that relevant departments should step up monitoring, and a

specific mechanism should be set up to inform the public about

potential risks during typhoons or on tree collapses in a timely manner,

so as to ensure tree conditions and public safety at the same time;

(c) Hong Kong was populous with scarce land resources. Compared with

other countries and regions, there was not much room for trees to grow

in the territory. More than this, most of the places were covered with

a concrete surface with underground facilities, it was understood that

tree planting in built-up areas would encounter difficulties. It was

asked whether TMO could make it mandatory to provide more

greening spaces in new development areas such as the proposed Wong

Chuk Hang “Comprehensive Development Area” site;

(d) vertical greening and rooftop greening could help reduce room

temperatures, which could in turn enhance energy saving and should be

promoted. It was asked whether the departments concerned could

provide economic incentives to subsidise privately-owned property

owners to install or improve greening facilities;

(e) transplanting or removing trees was inevitable in large-scale planning

and redevelopment projects. Despite that related legislation required

tree compensation by developers, the overall impact of tree removal

could not be judged simply by the quantity of trees removed. The

MTRCoration Limited (MTRC) was fined for tree removal during

construction works. In this regard, it was hoped that TMO could

introduce a more severe penalty to deter developers from removing

trees indiscriminately; and

(f) problematic trees should be removed for public safety. Nowadays

there was a growing concern for tree preservation, and most people

lacked the ability to detect problems with a tree immediately, so the

sudden removal of trees by government departments might meet with

objections. Therefore, TMO should play a leveraging role and

strengthen public education.

Greening Master Plan (GMP)

- 17 -

(a) commended the Civil Engineering and Development Department for its

thorough consultation for the Southern District GMP; and

(b) was satisfied with the Southern District GMP completed recently, and

asked when the next phase of the greening plan would be launched.

21. Mr KWOK Tak-tai gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) GLO had been advocating adopting the principle of “right tree for the

right place” for species selection and this would highlight various

environmental factors in tree selection;

(b) The progressive developments in the district necessitated widening of

roads and footpaths to meet the volumetric pedestrian flow and

vehicular flow which resulted in reduction of growing space of trees

planted dozens of years ago and this could cause exposed tree roots on

pavement. Before commencing road repair works, the Highways

Department (HyD) would inspect root conditions, and if the trees were

diagnosed as having serious root problems, it would seek advice from

the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to investigate

for feasible mitigation measures;

(c) the greening works recommended for immediate implementation under

the GMPs had been completed in 2011, and the timing for

implementation of next stage had nothing to do with an exhausted

budget; and

(d) had no plans for subsidising private residential estates to improve

vertical greening and rooftop greening within their estates for the time

being. Nevertheless, non-government organisations could apply for

the “Environment and Conservation Fund” (ECF) under the

Environmental Protection Department (EPD) for related greening

work.

22. Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) an inspection mechanism was in place for regular check-up of trees in

various districts, and if problematic trees were identified, TMO would

refer the cases to relevant departments for following up and updated

reports on the progress would be required. The current mechanism

was considered well-established;

- 18 -

(b) TMO had a mechanism to prioritise handling of problematic trees. If

a tree on private land caused immediate hazard to residents or the

premises, the Fire Services Department and HyD would remove the

tree according to the existing mechanism. If there was no immediate

danger, normally the case would be referred to relevant departments or

contractors for following up;

(c) Members’ views on tree problems at the meeting were noted. She

encouraged Members to actively report tree problems to the 1823

Hotline or TMO;

(d) TMO advocated the concepts of “People Tree Harmony” and tree

preservation. However, priority would be given to people’s safety if a

conflict existed; and

(e) TMO also observed that when residents wished to reflect tree problems

to relevant departments, they sometimes had to spend a lot of time in

clarifying the division of work among various parties. Although

various departments understood the related technical guidelines and

complaint handling mechanism, some grey areas inevitably existed.

Hence, TMO was actively exploring ways with departments concerned

to remove the grey area for better inter-departmental coordination.

23. The Chairman said that although the subject could not be thoroughly

discussed because of time constraint at the meeting, SDC attached great importance to

greening issues. He invited DEVB to follow up on Members’ enquiries and continue

to strengthen inter-departmental coordination for perfecting greening and tree

preservation.

24. Mr KWOK Tak-tai supplemented that Members could approach the

Secretariat to register for a copy of the Tree and Landscape Map.

25. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN asked whether the ECF was applicable to SDC.

26. The Chairman invited DEVB representatives to note the comments and

enquiries of the Committee, and to follow up with the Members concerned as

necessary after the meeting.

[Post-meeting note: Upon referral from GLO, EPD replied the Secretariat on 17

December 2012. The Secretariat emailed the supplementary

information for Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]

- 19 -

(Mr LAU Kar-wah and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying joined the meeting at 3:15 p.m. and

3:31 p.m. respectively.)

(Dr YANG Mo, PhD left the meeting at 3:26 p.m.)

Agenda Item 4: Works Progress of Contract No.: DC/2009/24 - Harbour Area

Treatment Scheme Stage 2A - Upgrading of Preliminary

Treatment Works at Sandy Bay, Cyberport, Wah Fu,

Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau

(Item raised by Drainage Services Department)


27. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the Drainage

Services Department (DSD) and the works consultant company to the meeting:

DSD

- Mr KWOK Ping-keung, Senior Engineer/2 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme)

(HATS)

- Mr LAW Shiu-lun, Engineer/11 (HATS)


- Mr TANG Yuk-fai, Principal Resident Engineer

- Mr CHAN Siu-yuen, Associate Director

- Mr CHEUNG Ho-man, Resident Engineer

- Miss HO Kin-yan, Resident Engineer

28. Mr KWOK Ping-keung and Mr TANG Yuk-fai, with the aid of PowerPoint

presentation (Reference Paper 3), briefly introduced the background and progress of

the HATS.

29. Mr AU Lap-sing, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised

comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) residents had lodged complaints against foul smell from Wah Fu

Preliminary Treatment Works (PTW) in the morning, and requested the

contractor to follow up and strengthen its work to monitor the situation;

- 20 -

(b) enquired about the effectiveness of the deodorising systems;

(c) asked whether blasting works for the deep tunnel works had

commenced yet; if yes, whether it would cause surface settlement of

the nearby buildings; and

(d) enquired if a “no entry” period for construction vehicles had been

implemented in Ap Lei Chau PTW.

30. Mr KWOK Ping-keung gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) DSD would follow up on the complaints against foul smell emission from

Wah Fu PTW, and ask workers to keep the place clean as far as

practicable;

(Post meeting notes: DSD has instructed the Contractor to review and improve the

sewage treatment process. Moreover, the Contractor has also

stepped up the cleansing of PTW so as to reduce the odour. )

(b) deodorisation systems would be installed in the five PTWs under the

said contract. In future, the sewage treatment process would be

operated with enclosures and the sewage had to undergo chemical

treatment. Deodorisation system would be implemented to treat the air

generated from the treatment plant and thus odour from the PTWs

would be greatly reduced;

(c) the construction works of deep tunnel commenced over three years, and

the section between the Cyberport and Sandy Bay had been completed.

As blasting works was carried out 100m below ground level, nearby

residents should not be affected. A number of monitoring measures

were adopted during the construction, and there was no visible signs of

settlement for the time being; and

(d) the construction works of Ap Lei Chau PTW had commenced for

nearly one year, with less than 10 vehicles travelling to/from the

worksite daily on average. As the works was mainly implemented

within the area of the PTW, apart from concreting works, there should

not be too many construction vehicles entering into the plant. Also,

DSD would closely monitor the construction works.

31. Mr TANG Yuk-fai gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) the use of state-of-the-art deodorising systems could reduce more than

- 21 -

99% of odour; and

(b) the whole project was expected to be completed by 2015 as scheduled.

32. In closing, the Chairman concluded that the HATS was making good

progress, and wished that DSD could monitor the related project works according to

the works contract and relevant legislation, with a view to minimising the impact on

residents and ensuring the completion of construction works on time.

Agenda Item 5: Revised Preservation-cum-Development Proposal for

Jessville at 128 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

(Item raised by Development Bureau)


33. The Chairman welcomed the following government representatives to the

meeting:

Development Bureau (DEVB)

- Miss Vivian KO, Commissioner for Heritage

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

34. The Chairman said that at the SDC meeting held on 25 June 2009, DEVB

had introduced the “preservation-cum-development” proposal for Jessville. He

invited the representative to briefly explain the revised proposal.

35. Miss Vivian KO said that DEVB had consulted SDC on the

“preservation-cum-development” proposal in 2009. Based on commercial

considerations, the owners had revised the proposal, and would like to seek the views

of SDC on the revised proposal. The main changes in the revised proposal were as

follows:

Original Proposal Revised Proposal

Residential tower - two residential towers

of 21 and 17 domestic

storeys providing a

total of 72 residential

units

- the building height

- a single residential

tower of 17 domestic

storeys providing a

total of 33 residential

units

- the building height

- 22 -

would be at 246.85

metres above

Principal Datum

would be at 234.35

metres above

Principal Datum

Jessville building - would be fully

preserved as a club

house for residents of

the private residential

units

- with some degree of

public access

- would be converted

into four private

residential units

- public access would

not be allowed

- a public viewing area

would be set up to

facilitate the public to

appreciate the

external façade of the

building

Ancillary servants’

quarters

- would be retained - would be demolished

36. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Hok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr FUNG

Wai-kwong, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Dr

MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were


(a) Jessville had been confirmed as a Grade 3 historic building and had

conservation value considering its architectural characteristics,

aesthetic merits and historical value. The owners should not just

focus on profit-making when conserving the building;

(b) according to the SDC paper for meeting on 25 June 2009 (Reference

Information– DDEC Paper No. 59/2009), at that time the Government

had reached an agreement with the owners on the preservation

arrangement. The owners finally proposed to retain the Jessville

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

limited way. The planning application was approved by the Metro

Planning Committee under the Town Planning Board (TPB) on 5 July

2009 with conditions to open Jessville for public viewing once a week;

(c) under the revised proposal, Jessville would not be open for public

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

public to appreciate the external façade of the building, which

obviously went against the previous agreement between the owners and

- 23 -

the Government as well as the additional condition imposed by TPB.

Converting the building into four private residential units would

inevitably require alteration of the internal structure, which would

cause damage to the historical building. This would defeat the

purpose of heritage preservation and conservation, and was in complete

contradiction to the conservation concept previously approved by SDC.

The Government should play its role as a gate-keeper and if the

proposal by the owners did not comply with the requirements of related

department, it should not hastily approve to withdraw some of the

development restrictions on Pok Fu Lam area;

(d) it was recommended that the residents’ club house under the revised

proposal should change place with the four private residential units for

complying with the approved conditions;

(e) the revised proposal was infeasible and enormous difficulties in

managing the public viewing area and monitoring the internal

modification of Jessville were expected;

(f) there were concerns over the difficulties in the future management and

conservation of Jessville under the revised proposal. Taking the

conservation of Ho Tung Gardens and Haw Par Villa as examples, the

Government had already found it extremely difficult to negotiate with

just one single owner. With the divided ownership resulted from

converting Jessville into four private residential units, the management

and conservation arrangement in future would be even more

complicated. DEVB was requested to explain the preservation and

conservation plan in detail;

(g) preserving the external façade of historic buildings was not enough and

conservation of their internal structure was equally important.

Converting Jessville into four private residential units would definitely

require alteration of its internal structure and the building might be

distorted beyond recognition. Therefore, it was hoped that DEVB and

the owners could seriously consider if the conversion was the best

arrangement for the building;

(h) there were concerns over the specific arrangements for the public

viewing area such as the integration of the design of the viewing area

into the surrounding areas, its accessibility, facilities to be provide to

facilitate and attract public viewing and the extent of public access. It

was hoped that DEVB could consult SDC on related details again in

future; and

- 24 -

(i) traffic lanes on Pok Fu Lam Road were narrow and the insufficiency of

traffic facilities had always been a problem. Although the number of

residential units was reduced to 33 under the revised proposal, there

was still concern that the additional traffic volume would affect the

traffic on Pok Fu Lam Road. As such, TD should carefully examine

the traffic impact of the revised proposal on Pok Fu Lam Road.

37. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN commented that Jessville was a private residential

premises and the property right of its owners should be respected at the same time

when conserving it, such that a reasonable balance between conservation and

development could be maintained. The owners had initially applied to demolish the

whole building for development but were willing to work with the Government for its

preservation. In the revised proposal, it was suggested that Jessville would be

converted into four private residential units with no public access allowed. However,

the building was in fact private residential premises before its owners applied to the

Government for demolition and development and it was not open to the public as well.

The present proposal suggested setting up a public viewing area nearby to facilitate

public appreciation of the external façade of the building had already enabled an

easier access to the historic building for the public, which showed some progress in

conserving Hong Kong history. Therefore, he found the revised proposal acceptable.

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

(a) the owners were required to submit a conservation management plan

and obtain the approval from the Antiquities and Monuments Office

(AMO). Furthermore, the owners would need to apply for lease

modification for the revised proposal, and the application would be

considered by LandsD. DEVB would ask LandsD to impose

conditions in the revised land lease to require the owners to protect the

building from demolition;

(b) the concerns of Members over traffic impact were noted. TD had

been closely monitoring the traffic and transport situation in Pok Fu

Lam area and actively seeking feasible measures to improve traffic

conditions to cope with the development in the area. TD would

continue to pay close attention to the traffic conditions in the area and

implement corresponding measures as necessary; and

(c) the revised proposal had less traffic impacts than the original one.

- 25 -

39. Miss Queenie LEE supplemented on the public viewing area as follows:

(a) under the revised proposal, the owners would provide resources for

setting up a public viewing area within their private lot and installing

display panels to interpret the heritage value of Jessville to enable

public appreciation. AMO would help the owners with the

compilation of the historical information if necessary; and

(b) by setting up a public viewing area, the owners hoped to strike a

balance between enabling public appreciation of the building and

safeguarding the privacy of residents.

40. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mrs

MAK TSE How-ling continued to raise comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) whether DEVB would consider providing resources to install

information panels for other historic buildings such as the University

Hall and former Daily Farm facilities in the neighbourhood of Jessville

to create some sort of heritage trail for encouraging the public to enjoy

other historic buildings in Pok Fu Lam area;

(b) SDC had been strictly following the development restrictions on Pok

Fu Lam area. The last term SDC did not object to the original

“preservation-cum-development” proposal and had unprecedentedly

consented to the partial relaxation of the development restrictions in the

hope to conserve the external façade of the building and open the

interior for public appreciation. However, the revised proposal

violated the original conservation spirit and the intention of SDC at the

time. It was suggested that the revised proposal should be

re-submitted to TPB for approval;

(c) SDC had the responsibility to protect relics and monuments with

historic value. Jessville was a grade 3 historic building which the

Government had no statutory power to restrict its internal alteration and

had to rely on the self-regulation of the owners. It was worried that

after the building was converted into four private residential units, there

would be no way to ensure that the occupants would dutifully protect

its internal structure. In view of this, it was recommended that before

the revised proposal was approval, DEVB and SDC should impose

conditions to better monitor the owners in conserving and managing

Jessville in future to prevent unsatisfactory conservation due to

- 26 -

dereliction of management duty;

(d) according to the revised proposal, the ancillary servants’ quarters would

be demolished, which would damage the integral historical value of the

external façade;

(e) it was suggested that the proposal to keep the Jessville building as a

club house should be retained;

(f) Jessville was a private property and had never been open to the public.

If development restrictions could be partially relaxed in exchange for

conserving a building with historical value while the internal structure

was not overly altered, then it was considered an achievement;

(g) enquired about the basis of AMO for determining Jessville as a grade 3

historic building at that time; and

(h) hoped that SDC could be consulted again when concrete information

on conserving the interior of the building was available.

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

(a) when submitting the conservation management plan, the owners should

also provide the conservation plan for both the external façade and the

interior of the building and any alterations to the internal structure

would require the consent of AMO;

(b) the whole lot was subject to related land lease which was applicable to

all the owners of the lot. DEVB would ask LandsD to include terms

and conditions in the land lease to require preservation of the Jessville

building in a proper manner, and the lease would be used as a

regulatory tool despite the change of ownership in future;

(c) regarding the suggestion to connecting various buildings with special

features in Pok Fu Lam area, there were heritage trails / routes set up in

other districts. There were quite a number of buildings with special

features in the Pok Fu Lam area and DEVB would consider the

suggestion; and

(d) would reflect the proposal of swapping the club house at the new

residential tower with the residential units at Jessville to the owners.

42. The Chairman raised comments on the subject as follows:

(a) the traffic impact assessment on the original proposal had already been

- 27 -

accepted. As the number of residential units in the revised proposal

was less than that of the original proposal, there was no need to discuss

the traffic issue further;

(b) DEVB had started discussing the conservation of Jessville with the

owners in 2009. At that time, DEVB hoped to provide economic

incentives such as relaxing the building height and constraints in

exchange for the owners’ agreement to preserve the Jessville in the

residential development project. The owners also agreed to open the

building for public viewing and an agreement had been reached. The

then SDC agreed with the spirit of the preservation-cum-development

proposal, considering that it was worthwhile to relax the building

height and constraints in exchange for preserving Jessville, so raised no

objection to the said proposal. Subsequently, the Executive Council

and TPB approved the conservation mode endorsed by SDC;

(c) however, having obtained the necessary support, the owners changed

the original agreement. If the Committee did not question such a

significant change at this point, it would be hard for SDC to face the

people in Hong Kong when the Jessville building was altered beyond

recognition in future; and

(d) SDC should oppose to the revised proposal and request DEVB to start

the discussion with the owners all over again.

43. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

once again expressed their support to the revised proposal. Mr FUNG Wai-kwong

suggested restricting occupants to change the internal structure of Jessville through a

deed of mutual covenant.

44. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling proposed a voting on the subject.

45. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said DEVB had responded that they would further

discuss the matter with the owners, so Members did not need to decide whether to

accept the revised proposal or not at this moment. He explained that a deed of

mutual covenant was formulated by owners themselves and was outside the control of

the Government. At present, there was no legislation to regulate the alteration of the

internal structure of a Grade 3 historic building, so he advised that DEVB and the

owners should consider the matter first and then consult TPB and AMO.

46. The Chairman clarified that what he had just said was to enable Members

- 28 -

who had not joined the SDC in the last term to understand the background of the

subject and he understood that some Members supported the revised proposal.

However, since there were changes in the revised proposal which contradicted the

intention in the proposal endorsed by the last term SDC, the Chairman had the duty to

remind Members to consider the fundamental issues involved from the standpoint of

the whole Southern District. The Chairman suggested that Members should state

their position on whether the revised proposal should be accepted and request DEVB

to consult SDC again after discussing the subject with the owners.

47. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP

raised comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) the original and revised proposals were not necessarily in contradiction,

and supporting the general direction of the revised proposal did not

mean accepting every single detail therein. Therefore, it was difficult

to make a clear position on the subject;

(b) there were concerns over the conversion of the building into four

private residential units. It was suggested that the residential premises

should change place with the club house and that the ancillary staff’s

quarters be retained. It was hoped that DEVB could reflect the above

views to the owners; and

(c) the revised proposal involved some important and fundamental changes.

Noting that DEVB had intended to further discuss the matters with the

owners, it was considered there was still room for amendment in the

revised proposal, so the Committee had no urgent need to form a

position immediately.

48. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC was greatly concerned with the

conservation issues. Though the subject in question was highly controversial, there

was no urgent need to call for a voting immediately. It was requested that DEVB

and related departments should discuss the matter further with the owners, and consult

SDC again when there was new development.

- 29 -

Agenda Item 6: Request to Monitor Impacts of Ocean Park’s Halloween Bash

on Nearby Residents

(Item raised by Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus)


49. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the government

department and organisation concerned to the meeting:

Environmental Protection Department (EPD)

- Mr TANG Wai-sing, Peter,

Environmental Protection Officer (Regional S) 32

Ocean Park

- Mr Frankie HAU,

Senior Environmental, Health & Safety Manager

- Mr Jacky CHAN,

Technical Manager, Entertainment

- Ms Miranda IP,

Public Affairs Manager

50. Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus briefed Members on the reasons for putting forth

the item. He said that the annual Halloween Bash organised by Ocean Park had been

very successful and widely popular. However, there was a complaint from nearby

resident, saying that from September to October 2012 (i.e. the period during which

Halloween Bash was held), the sound level generated by Ocean Park every day from

5 p.m. till 12 a.m. was too high, causing nuisance to the residents. According to

EPD’s noise control guidelines, no noise should be made after 11 p.m. Mr FUNG

enquired Ocean Park and the department concerned how they would alleviate the

noise problem, and ensure that such kind of noise nuisance would not be generated

again. He suggested that Ocean Park hold the activities only in areas further away

from residential premises, or it should turn in-door when holding relatively noisy

activities, and lower the loudness of the amplifiers.

51. The Chairman said the written responses from EPD and Ocean Park were at

Annex 2 and Annex 3 respectively.

52. Dr LEE Wai-tak, Anthony responded that, upon receiving the resident’s

complaint, EPD carried out a noise assessment on the noise generated from

- 30 -

Halloween Bash at the complainant’s premises on 26 October 2012. From 10 p.m. to

11 p.m. in that night, the noise level measured by sound level meter did not exceed the

standard. However, from 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. a faint music noise was audible, which

did not comply with the Noise Control Guidelines for Holding Open Air

Entertainment Activities. EPD was organising the relevant data, and would follow

up the issue with Ocean Park so as to find a way for improvement.

53. Mr Frankie HAU responded that Ocean Park had repeatedly communicated

with EPD and implemented alleviation measures such as volume adjustment etc. to

minimise the sound level of the activities, therefore the sound emission before 11 p.m.

did not exceed the standard. Regarding that EPD staff found the sound of music

generated by Ocean Park after 11 p.m. to have exceeded the standard, the Park would

continue to work closely with EPD, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the

relevant guidelines, so that sound emission after 11 p.m. would not affect nearby

residents.

54. The Chairman said that EPD conducted an on-site investigation some time

ago after receiving the complaint, but Ocean Park had yet to be notified of the matter.

He said it seemed to involve problems on procedure and, therefore, asked EPD about

the general procedure for monitoring the noise exerted from Ocean Park and that for

notifying Ocean Park of the excessive noise.

55. Mr TANG Wai-sing, Peter gave a reply as follows:

(a) In general, when a noise complaint was received via the Department

hotline, it would be passed to the staff concerned for action. The

responsible staff would first contact the complainant, notifying him/her

that the case was being processed and requesting detailed information

for investigation. After that, the responsible staff would conduct an

investigation on the site where the noise was generated and notify the

noise producer to reduce the impacts on nearby residents. After

completing the follow-up actions, the responsible staff would contact

the complainant again. If the complainant was still not satisfied with

the improved situation, the Department would once again notify the

noise producer and request more improvement measures to be in place.

If the complainant still did not accept the improvement, the Department

might need to measure the noise level in the complainant’s premises to

see whether the noise level had exceeded the standard. Depending on

- 31 -

the measured data and the situation, the Department would consider

whether any further actions were needed.

(b) Regarding this case, on receiving the complaint in early October 2012,

the Department had contacted Ocean Park several times and conducted

three to four on-site investigations. After Ocean Park had employed

the improvement measures, the Department considered the situation to

be improved. However, the complainant was still not satisfied with

the situation, therefore the Department measured the noise level in the

complainant’s premises on 26 October. Since it took time to organise

the data and Ocean Park’s Halloween Bash had ended on 31 October,

the Department considered there was no urgent need to notify Ocean

Park and intended to contact the Park later.

56. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr FUNG

Se-goun, Fergus, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN and Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis raised comments and enquiries on the

following aspects:

Noise Control

(a) The residential areas in the vicinity of Ocean Park were very quite.

Halloween Bash incurred noise complaints from the residents because

there was a big difference between the background noise and the actual

noise that the activity exerted. Residents in the quiet environment

would still be irritated by the noise even though the noise data as

measured by the EPD fell within the standard.

(b) A number of Members had still received complaints from local

residents occasionally. It showed that this complaint was not a single

incident and Ocean Park should address the problem seriously. As the

residents in the neighbourhood had indeed been affected by the noise

generated from the activity, Ocean Park was, regardless of the number

of complaints, duty-bound to improve the situation by taking measures

such as installation of noise barriers. The Park should also exercise

self-discipline. In whatever activity it was to hold at any time, the

Park should enhance its awareness and arrange for its staff to monitor

the noise level to avoid affecting nearby residents. It was hoped that

Ocean Park and the EPD would pay more attention to prevent the same

from happening again.

- 32 -

(c) The EPD’s standard on noise measurement only required that the

average data recorded during a specific period of time should not

exceed the range permitted. However, intermittent noise would still

affect the residents. As the noise generated from Halloween Bash

often subsided quickly, the enforcement departments might have

difficulties in handling the problem – by the time the EPD arrived at

the scene to measure the noise level after receiving a complaint, the

noise might have already subsided. It was enquired whether the

Ocean Park would install any measuring device at noise sensitive

places to record the level of the noise generated during its activities for

the sake of reference.

(d) A Member enquired whether the Ocean Park would organise more

night-time activities or extend the time slot of the activity in future.

(e) The activity, which ended at 12 a.m., had indeed caused great

disturbance to nearby residents. It was suggested that during the

Halloween Bash, programmes which would generate a higher noise

level should be arranged to end at an earlier hour and the closing time

for the entire activity should be advanced.

Traffic impacts

(a) A Member enquired whether Ocean Park had increased bus frequency

or requested the Police to arrange road closures in designated time slots

for Halloween Bash.

(b) Halloween Bash had affected the overall traffic in the District. The

tailbacks were particularly serious in the transition period between

matinee and evening show. Ocean Park and the departments

concerned were enquired about the way to reduce traffic impacts

caused by the activity.

57. The Chairman requested the EPD and Ocean Park to give response.

However, since transport issues were not within the Committee’s scope, it was not

appropriate to discuss transport problems in detail.

58. Mr. TANG Wai-sing, Peter gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) This year, the Department received only one complaint about Ocean

Park’s Halloween Bash.

- 33 -

(b) In accordance with the Noise Control Guidelines for Holding Open Air

Entertainment Activities, the Department set the background noise

level plus 10 decibels as the standard in measuring the noise produced

by Halloween Bash between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. The noise level

measured at that time complied with the standard.

(c) Ocean Park held Halloween Bash in the vicinity of the Park’s entrance

in Wong Chuk Hang. The noise impact was greater to Shouson Hill

Road but not significant to Nam Long Shan Road; and

(d) While sharing Members’ views that Ocean Park was duty-bound to the

matter, he considered that the Park had already taken measures to

reduce noise. No noise was heard in the Department’s street

inspection a few days before 26 October. Only faint music noise was

occasionally heard in the complainant’s premises after 11 p.m. on

26 October 2012.

59. Mr Frankie HAU gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(a) Every year before Halloween Bash kicked off, Ocean Park assigned a

sound consultant to measure the sound level at noise sensitive places

on its own, and had not found the level exceeding the standard.

(b) It was agreed that the number of complaint cases was not the crux of

the matter, and whenever night-time activities were held, Ocean Park

should exercise self-discipline. Thus, the Park had adopted a number

of noise alleviation measures. After receiving the resident’s

complaint this time, Ocean Park would study again on the way of

improvement regarding the specific situation of the complaint, and

make sure no more noise nuisance would be caused to the residents.

(c) Ocean Park would continue to organise Halloween Bash every year.

60 Ms Miranda IP supplemented as follows:

(a) For the moment, Ocean Park had no plan to organise more night-time

activities, nor to extend the time slot of Halloween Bash.

(b) Ocean Park had all along been in close communication with Members

on traffic issues, tried every method to minimise the impact on traffic

as well as maintaining close co-operation with Citybus. As a result,

the clearance of pedestrian flow had been reasonably smooth so that

- 34 -

Halloween Bash had not caused much impact on the District’s traffic so

far.

61. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN made further comments and

enquiries as follows:

(a) No matter what the sound level was, pumping music was an irritation

for residents in the quiet neighbourhood. It was unacceptable to have

noises exerted from the Park being heard by the residents after 11 p.m.

Thus the Park should seriously review its mode of operation, such as

using smaller speakers to reduce noise.

(b) It was hoped that Ocean Park would actively implement alleviation

measures to ensure that the same problem would not happen again.

(c) Not a few complaints from local residents had been received and most

of them had been referred to Ocean Park straight away for follow-up

actions, which was believed to be more effective and direct.

(d) The Ocean Park’s remark that Halloween Bash did not have much

impact on traffic was not agreed with. Although it was not a very

serious problem but a minor one, the Park should strive to make

improvements seriously. It was particularly because of the point that

due to the Park’s activities, buses had to park on Police School Road

instead, making the area of Ocean Park’s roundabout very congested,

and as a result many complaints were received during the night.

62. The Chairman said in conclusion that, Ocean Park’s persistent innovation and

development had allowed itself to become a world-famous theme park, and its

forward-looking spirit deserved encouragement. Halloween Bash had been one of

Ocean Park’s yearly features, bringing much benefit to Hong Kong’s tourism

development and economy with laudable outcomes, but the Park should also

implement proper measures to minimise its impact on the residents. The Ocean Park

team should study on how to strike a balance between the two. The EPD should also

fully perform its monitoring and gate-keeping roles. It should monitor the noise

situation of Ocean Park more actively, and notify the Park as soon as the sound level

exceeded the standard, so as to ensure that the operation be complied with the

requirements of the relevant guidelines.

(Mr FUNG Wai-kwong, Mr LAU Kar-wah and Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymong left

the meeting at 5:32 p.m., 5:59 p.m. and 6:02 p.m. respectively.)

- 35 -

Agenda Item 7: Latest Progress on South Island Line (East) – Temporary

Nursery cum Open Space at Kellett Bay Waterfront

(Item raised by Highways Department)


63. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the government

department and organisation concerned to the meeting:

Railway Development Office/ Highways Department (RDO/HyD)

- Mr YU Si-ki,

Engineer/ South Island Line 4

Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRC)

- Mr Bernard WONG,

Senior Liaison Engineer

- Ms Jackie CHOW,

Public Relations Manager - Project & Property

- Mr Carlos FUNG,

Senior Construction Engineer

64. The Chairman invited HyD and MTRC to brief Members on the latest

development of the temporary nursery cum open space at Kellett Bay Waterfront

(herewith referred to as “the Open Space”).

65. Mr YU Si-ki said, the work of the open space began in mid-2011, and a large

portion of it had already been completed.

66. Mr Bernard WONG briefed the Committee on the latest development of the

Open Space with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation (Reference Paper 4), and on the

proposed public open space regulations (Appendix 1).

67. Ms Jackie CHOW added that, MTRC hoped to co-organise a naming

competition with the SDC) to engage the public in the naming of the Open Space.

After discussion with SDC and the people concerned on the mode of co-operation in

detail, MTRC would consult SDC on the matter again.

68. The Chairman said, the Committee of the last term had requested that rain

shelter facilities should be added to the Open Space, and that roof covers be installed

- 36 -

for the elevated timber decks for appreciation of the sea view. He enquired on the

progress.

69. Mr Bernard WONG responded that the seats of the elevated timber decks

would be equipped with rain shelter fittings.

70. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada and Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) It would be preferable to have some seats under the trees.

(b) Compared with Cyberport Waterfront Park, the proposed regulations

for the Open Space were rather strict. More flexible regulations

should be adopted to make better use of the Open Space’s

environmental advantage of situating by the waterfront, providing a

real place for public enjoyment and leisure. It was suggested to

further study the regulations in detail with MTRC later.

(c) Having regarded that pet keeping was not allowed in Ka Lung Court

and Wah Kwai Estate, MTRC should consider whether pets were

allowed to enter the Open Space.

(d) It was appreciated that MTRC accepted DAB’s earlier suggestion to

provide additional facilities for the elderly and play equipment for

children.

(e) Viewing the Open Space from the residence, the design of the elevated

timber deck was not attractive and was different from the design

submitted earlier.

(f) A Member enquired about the security and lighting arrangements of the

Open Space during the opening hours.

(g) A Member asked MTRC about the number of transplanted and

newly-planted trees in the entire project.

(h) A Member asked the Housing Department (HD) about the progress of

provision of toilets near the Open Space, and whether the opening

hours of the toilets would match that of the Open Space.

(i) It was hoped that the proposed naming competition would allow for

more public involvement, especially from schools in the District, in

order to raise the residents’ sense of belongings to the Southern

District.

71. Mr Bernard WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:

- 37 -

(a) If the regulations were too loose, it could be difficult to regulate users’

behaviour. Therefore, MTRC generally adopted stricter regulations

for open space but would be rather lenient in actual enforcement.

(b) Details of the Open Space’s regulations, security, lighting and naming

competition, etc. could be further discussed later.

(c) Additional information about the number of transplanted and

newly-planted trees would be provided after the meeting.

(d) Toilets were not provided in the Open Space but the HD was

renovating the toilet facilities nearby.

[Post-meeting note: MTRC replied the Secretariat on Para. 71 (c) on 28 January 2013.



72. Mr. WONG Sun Man responded that the latest progress of the HD’s toilet

renovation work was not available at the moment but believed it could be completed

on schedule. In proposing the opening hours of the toilets, the Department would

match with the arrangements of the Open Space whenever possible.

[Post-meeting note: The concerned toilet has been opened for the use of the

public since 21 December 2012 with service hours from

0800 to 2200 daily.]

73. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling,

Ada and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise comments and enquiries.


(a) In setting the Open Space’s regulations, one should not simply take into

account future management issue. The regulations should be

integrated into the design directions at an early stage to ensure that the

design and facilities could match with the activities allowed and

prohibited.

(b) Different users’ interest and safety should be balanced when setting the

regulations. If the regulations were too loose and resulted in improper

management of the Open Space, local residents, most of whom were

the elderly, would be the first to suffer. Therefore, the Members

- 38 -

recognised MTRC’s “strict regulations and lenient enforcement” policy

and hoped the regulations could protect the users’ safety.

(c) Site visit should be arranged to familiarise with the construction

progress of the Open Space.

(d) A Member enquired whether the Open Space could be completed

earlier before Lunar New Year 2013 in order to bring a new look to the

residents.

74. The Chairman said the Open Space was expected to be available and open to

public after Spring Festival 2013. He suggested that interested Members should

discuss the regulations in detail with MTRC with a view to reaching a consensus

before the opening of the Open Space.

[Post-meeting note: The follow-up meeting concerned was held on 16 January 2013.]

75. Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mr. LO Kin-hei continued to raise comments and

enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member agreed with the suggestion to further discuss the regulations

and proposed to invite representatives of the residents nearby to get

involved in the discussion.

(b) A Member asked MTRC about the procedures of setting the guidelines,

including when to confirm the regulations and whether there was a set

of established guidelines to follow.

76. Mr Bernard WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) The MTRC would study the possibility to open the Open Space before

Spring Festival 2013 but it seemed to be challenging having regard to

the present progress.

(b) The proposed regulations for the Open Space, which had been adopted

in other open spaces managed by MTRC, had been well-established.

But he would be pleased to further discuss the regulations with

Members.

(c) After its opening, the Open Space would be modified according to the

change in society and the latest developments of the constituency.

- 39 -

77. The Chairman proposed that the Vice-Chairlady Mrs MAK TSE How-ling,

Ada, should discuss with MTRC over the specific details in co-organising the naming

competition and then raise any further information for the meeting’s discussion in due

course.

Agenda Item 8: Planning Application for the “Comprehensive Development

Area” Site in Wong Chuk Hang

(Item raised by Planning Department)

(The three motions proposed separately by Mr TSUI

Yuen-wa, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Ms LAM Yuk-chun,

MH would be discussed together under this agenda item)



meeting:

Transport Department (TD)

- Mr YEUNG Hoi, Engineer/Southern & Peak 1

Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRC)

- Mr Steve YIU, Head of Town Planning

- Mr Lam CHAN, Senior Projects and Property Manager

- Mr Edward WONG, Chief Project Manager – Property

MVA HK Ltd.

- Mr Chapman LAM, Director

- Mr Gary CHING, Principal Traffic Engineer

79. The subject was first discussed at the last term of SDC. To ensure that all

Members could fully comprehend the background, the Chairman briefly introduced

the agenda item before discussion. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) the last term of SDC had discussed this subject at its meetings on 24

May 2010, 26 July 2010 and 18 July 2011. At the meeting on 18 July

2011, the Planning Department (PlanD) consulted DDEC on the draft

Planning Brief (PB) for the Wong Chuk Hang “Comprehensive

Development Area” (CDA) Site (the Site). At that time, the

- 40 -

Committee had expressed a number of concerns and strong requests in

relation to the development of the Site including the demand for a

comprehensive traffic impact assessment (TIA), provision of pedestrian

walkways and ancillary facilities, reservation of space in the

commercial gross floor area (GFA) for the design and provision of a

performance venue which met the requirements of SDC. PlanD

representative explained that the PB had set out the planning and

technical requirements for the Site taking into account the

above-mentioned aspects, which provided a framework for MTRC to

prepare the Master Layout Plan (MLP). PlanD would relay the

concerns and comments of the SDC to concerned departments for

information, and MTRC should actively address Members’ comments

in submitting the MLP. MTRC representatives also said that they

would earnestly listen to the views and expectations of the Committee.

Therefore, the Committee gave in principle approval to the draft PB for

the CDA submitted by PlanD but reiterated that PlanD and MTRC

should earnestly address the concerns and expectations raised;

(b) having considered the views of the Committee, the Metro Planning

Committee (MPC) of the Town Planning Board (TPB) approved the PB

on 4 November 2011. Since then, MTRC stopped consulting SDC on

the planning of the Site. Even more, MTRC later on submitted a draft

MLP on Wong Chuk Hang CDA without prior consultation with SDC,

although the application was withdrawn in March 2012;

(c) later on, again MTRC did not consult SDC before submitting a draft

MLP to TPB. Noting the great concern of SDC over the planning of

the Site, PlanD then arranged to consult the Committee on the MLP

submission on 26 November 2012. Before the consultation, PlanD

met with the representatives of concerned departments and MTRC on

24 October 2012 to discuss the proposed development and MTRC was

asked to address the requests made by the Committee during the

consultation on the draft PB in the last term. It was requested that if

the expectations of the Committee could not be fully satisfied because

of one reason or another, MTRC should at least try to explore other

feasible alternatives. In addition, PlanD representative requested that

MTRC should meet with SDC Members as soon as possible to explain

the details of the proposed development. Eventually, MTRC

submitted its planning application and MLP to TPB on 7 November

2012 without further revision; and

- 41 -

(d) under repeated urging from relevant departments, at last MTRC hastily

arranged a meeting to brief the Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of

SDC and its four Committees and the Members of the constituencies

concerned (“2+7” meeting) on the planning application on 1 November

2012, just a few days before application submission, to explain the

contents of the application. During the meeting, Members expressed

grave concerns and requested MTRC to provide a detailed TIA report

and amend parts of the planning scheme to address local concerns and

expectations.

80. The Chairman invited representatives of PlanD and MTRC to briefly

introduce their papers.

81. Miss Isabel YIU briefly introduced the planning application documents.


(a) MTRC submitted the planning application together with the MLP for

Wong Chuk Hang CDA in accordance with the Town Planning

Ordinance on 7 November 2012;

(b) under the Town Planning Ordinance, all planning applications received

will be made available for public inspection. On 16 November 2012,

the planning application concerned was published for public inspection,

any person may make comments on the planning application to the

Secretary of TPB in writing within the first three weeks of the

publication period, that was on or before 7 December 2012;

(c) given that the Site was located in a prime location of the district and

noting that SDC was very concerned about the planning and

development of the Site, consultation with the Committee was arranged

to solicit Members’ views on the planning application;

(d) PlanD would consolidate the views from relevant government

departments, SDC and the general public and then forward them to

MPC of TPB for consideration. The meeting of MPC was tentatively

scheduled on 21 December 2012; and

(e) the PB approved by TPB earlier was provided in Annex 1 for

Members’ reference. This PB would provide guidelines and reference

for MTRC in preparing the MLP. A gist of the planning application

was at Annex 2.

- 42 -

82. Mr Steve YIU and Mr Chapman Lam, with the aid of PowerPoint

presentation (Reference Paper 5), briefly introduced the MLP of Wong Chuk Hang

CDA and the proposed traffic schemes respectively.

83. Mr Steve YIU summarised that MTRC expected that the CDA development

project could establish Wong Chuk Hang as a new district centre, promote

revitalisation of the district, establish a new community, promote the local economy

and provide employment opportunities. During construction, the proposed project

would create 1 500 jobs and up to about 2 500 jobs after completion. Meanwhile,

the railway construction was underway and MTRC had to start the planning and

design for the above-station property development simultaneously so that construction

works could commence soon after the completion of the railway project in 2015.

84. The Chairman reported that three separate motions had been received from

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH before the

meeting. According to Order 18(2) of SDC Standing Orders, together the proposer

and the seconder of a motion could speak for up to five minutes. In view of the tight

schedule of this meeting, the Chairman suggested that to speed up the process of

meeting, Members could speak up to six minutes (two slots) on the subject, and

similarly the proposers could use six minutes to briefly introduce their motions. He

asked for Members’ views on his proposal.

85. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa had no objection to the above proposal but suggested that

the Chairman should briefly explain the three motions and what had been discussed

during the “2+7” meeting so that Members could understand the subject sufficiently

for the discussion.

86. The Chairman said that the three motions were attached at Appendices 1 to 3

tabled at the meeting, and the proposers and seconders would introduce and

supplement on them when they spoke on their motions.

87. The Committee approved the arrangement as proposed by the Chairman.

Motion 1: This Committee strongly objects to the planning application for

Wong Chuk Hang CDA submitted by MTRC, and requests: 1)

MTRC to re-submit a Traffic Impact Assessment report with full

details on the impact of traffic and pedestrian flow generated by

the proposal on the existing traffic condition, and to include

- 43 -

corresponding traffic facilities with a view that Wong Chuk Hang

will become the new center of the Southern District; 2) to

compensate the public open space so sacrificed; 3) to re-design the

performance venue as requested by the SDC.

(Moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, and seconded by Mr AU Nok-hin)

88. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefly explained his reasons for putting forward this

motion and raised his views and enquiries as follows:

(a) the TIA report submitted by MTRC only calculated the traffic flow

generated by its above-station property developments but excluded the

overall impact of the CDA on Wong Chuk Hang and the Southern

District. Wong Chuk Hang area would be established as a new district

centre of the Southern District in future, so it was important to study

the traffic flow and explore corresponding remedial measures,

otherwise the traffic problems created would become the bane of the

Southern District in the time to come. The report of MTRC made

Members worry that the traffic problems in Times Square might be

repeated in the proposed development project;

(b) despite the repeated requests from SDC, MTRC still refused to build a

footbridge to and from the MTR Station to facilitate the existing

residents in Wong Chuk Hang. In addition, while rejecting a

footbridge at Shum Wan Road, MTRC proposed to add more traffic

lights within a very short distance, resulting in further congestions at

Nam Long Shan Road;

(c) subject to the requirements of PlanD, MTRC had to provide at least

1 000m2 of open space. However, MTRC proposed using the open

space as an emergency vehicular access as well, which would directly

reduce the actual size of the open space. Unless additional open space

would be provided for compensation, MTRC should not be allowed to

occupy the public open space in question;

(d) at the “2+7” meeting, Members had clearly expressed their opposition

to the proposed indoor performance venue, but no amendment was

made in the proposal currently submitted by MTRC, which was a total

disregard of SDC’s views and expectations;

(e) during the whole consultation process, it was reiterated that MTRC

should not detach from the peripheral communities and privatise its

- 44 -

space. Also, it was further requested that MTRC should open the

podiums of the above-station residential development project.

However, so far MTRC did not entertain the request and so hoped

MTRC representative could respond to this matter; and

(f) MTRC rejected a footbridge to connecting the existing residents in

Wong Chuk Hang to MTR Station on the ground that the road section

concerned was outside its works area. However, at the same time

MTRC said that two pedestrian links would be constructed connecting

CDA to the Ocean Court in Aberdeen and to the future Wong Chuk

Hang business area respectively. Both road sections were located

outside its works area, but MTRC was willing to cater for the increased

pedestrian flow and the needs of people working in Wong Chuk Hang

in future, while ignoring the needs of Wong Chuk Hang residents.

Motion 2: It is strongly requested that MTRC should build a civic centre for

the Southern District when developing the Wong Chuk Hang CDA.

(Moved by Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, and seconded by Mr CHU

Lap-wai and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP)

89. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling explained her reasons for putting forward this

motion and raised her views and enquiries as follows:

(a) at the “2+7” meeting earlier, Members had clearly reflected their views

and expectations on the development project, but no improvement was

made in the proposal submitted by MTRC. She was greatly

dissatisfied with MTRC for ignoring the strong requests of SDC;

(b) using the public open space as an emergency vehicular access meant no

proper open space would be provided for public enjoyment;

(c) SDC had vigorously requested for a civic centre and a standard

performance venue. However, the proposed indoor performance

venue was not much different from that of an average shopping centre,

which did not meet the requirements of SDC; and

(d) she requested TD to give professional advice on the TIA.

Motion 3: SDC firmly opposes to the planning application of the Wong Chuk

Hang CDA master layout plan submitted by MTRC and expresses

strong discontent to MTRC for failing to carry out an advance

- 45 -

consultation on this matter prior to the submission of the said

application to the Town Planning Board and ignoring the concerns

and legitimate expectations of Members and residents. Since the

development of the Wong Chuk Hang CDA has a bearing on the

long-term well-being of residents of the Southern District, SDC

opines that the Government of the Special Administrative Region

should have the responsibility to monitor and examine the

comprehensiveness, rationality and durability of the whole project.

MTRC is requested to give a realistic response to the following

local aspirations on the premise of pursuing the overall interests of

all parties concerned:

1. To re-submit a traffic impact assessment report incorporating

the overall development of the Ocean Park, Wong Chuk Hang

business zone and the Aberdeen Tourism Project, and put

forward realistic and feasible traffic improvement options

which can give peace of mind to residents of the Southern

District;

2. To provide pedestrian ancillary facility for peripheral

residents to/from Wong Chuk Hang MTR Station and to

construct a covered pedestrian footbridge connecting Shum

Wan Road and the MTR mall immediately upon the

commissioning of the Southern Island Line (East);

3. To reserve space within the total commercial floor area of the

CDA, and to re-design a free-standing indoor performance

venue according to the requirements of SDC; and

4. To provide sufficient public open space in the CDA, which

does not overlap with emergency vehicular access.

(Moved by Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, and seconded by Mr CHU

Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung,

Mr AU Lap-sing, Dr YANG Mo, PhD, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr FUNG

Se-goun, Mr WONG Ling-sun and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying)

90. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH briefly explained her reasons for putting forward

this motion and raised her views and enquiries as follows:

- 46 -

(a) Members had raised many views at the “2+7” meeting, but as seen

from the proposal submitted, other than slight changes to the parking

location of public buses and minibuses, MTRC virtually ignored the

other views given by Members;

(b) reiterated that the construction of railway was not just to serve the

needs of individual residential estates but also residents on the

peripherals. Therefore, she urged for a covered footbridge connecting

Shum Wan Road to MTR Station shopping centre to meet the needs of

local residents;

(c) insisted that MTRC should provide a free-standing indoor performance

venue for the Southern District; and

(d) she supported the motions moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mrs MAK

TSE How-ling.

91. The Chairman invited TD representatives to give advice on the results of the

junction assessment submitted by MTRC.

92. On the junction assessment results, Mr YEUNG Hoi supplemented that:

(a) in the assessment, junction capacity was expressed by percentage and

decimal points. The capacity of signal junction was presented in

percentage;

(b) for junction capacity shown in percentage, a negative value suggests

that the junction is overloaded;

(c) for junction capacity shown in decimal points, value greater than 1

suggests that the junction is overloaded; and

(d) TD was asking the traffic consultants of MTRCto provide

supplementary information.

93. The Chairman invited Members to give their views.

94. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr

AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung,

Mr CHU Lap-wai, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr WONG

Ling-sun, Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr CHAN

Man-chun and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries on the subject.


- 47 -

Traffic Schemes

(a) requested MTRC to provide the full TIA report including information

such as the time needed for traffic diversion in case of traffic accidents,

so that Members could fully consider the traffic impact of the proposed

development project;

(b) the proposed CDA was supposed to be a hub of integrated

commercial/residential development together with a railway station and

shopping centre. However, the proposed public transport facilities for

the public transport interchange (PTI) could only accommodate 11

public buses, seven minibuses and six taxis. Also, the report did not

mention anything about feeder services. Such provision was

obviously insufficient to handle the traffic flow generated from the

CDA, let alone turning it into a new core zone for the Southern District.

Thus, there was worry that instead of helping to improve the traffic

conditions, the establishment of CDA might create a congested area

like the Aberdeen Centre;

(c) requested for proper pedestrian road crossing facilities and walkway

system, including a pedestrian footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang

Sports Ground to MTR Station and a pedestrian footbridge connecting

existing Wong Chuk Hang residents to MTR Station;

(d) PTIs were usually crudely designed facilities placed underneath

residential developments where illumination was poor. It was hoped

that MTRC could invest to improve the design of PTI and thus the

community space;

(e) a number of Members were very concerned with the proposed traffic

schemes, especially the installation of six sets of traffic lights within a

distance of less than 400m. Such measures would further deteriorate

the already very busy traffic conditions. According to the junction

assessment results, the capacity of J2 and J4 was just 10%, obviously

indicating that the measures had added pressure to the traffic. At the

“2+7” meeting, a number of Members had expressed concern over the

situation and had strongly suggested that the measures on traffic lights

should be replaced by the provision of a footbridge which could help

divert road traffic and ensure the road crossing safety of pedestrians.

However, MTRC paid no heed to Members’ advice;

(f) MTRC reiterated its aim to establishing Wong Chuk Hang CDA as a

large-scale shopping centre similar to the Maritime Square in Tsing Yi,

- 48 -

but its projected maximum traffic flow generated was only 615

passenger car units per hour, which was contradictory;

(g) the whole CDA would provide 880 parking spaces, of which 730 were

residential parking spaces while 150 were shopping centre parking

spaces. Such a provision was definitely insufficient to accommodate

the people and traffic flow for a residential project of 4 700 units and a

shopping centre of 47 000m2. Presently, queues were always formed

at the Ocean Park roundabout, without amble quantity parking facilities

to meet the demand for increased traffic flow, the completion of

above-station property development project would only further

deteriorate the already congested traffic conditions;

(h) MTRC should revise its traffic schemes: (i) Nam Long Shan Road was

currently designated as a bus lane, placing the residential access there

would further burden the road section; (ii) a cycling lane should be

added; and (iii) a U-turn facility should be provided at the location;

(i) the development of South Island Line (SIL) (West) seemed so distant

while residents in the area of Aberdeen, Wah Fu Estate and Wah Kwai

Estate had to go to Wong Chuk Hang Station for taking the MTR,

however, MTRC so far did not provide any related transport

arrangements; and

(j) the TIA report did not assess the people flow and the waiting time at

the PTI. MTRC only provided the hardware without discussing the

suitable operation mode with TD. It would be too late when, after the

commissioning of the PTI, the transport facilities were found

unsuitable or incapable of handling the traffic flow. Besides, TD

representative had reservation on the TIA of the proposed project

which showed that the said report was not accepted by related

department. It was suspected that MTRC intended to force related

department to accept its proposal in the name of consultation with SDC.

It was requested that MTRC should work with TD to study and

improve the proposal and then consult SDC on a plan approved by TD.

Public Open Space

(a) Wong Chuk Hang CDA was a large-scale project which optimised the

plot ratio and its financial gain was expected to be up to at least $20

billion. However, the public open space planned by MTRC was only

1 000m2, the lowest requirement of PlanD. More than this, this open

- 49 -

space was to be used as an emergency vehicular access at the same

time, which would directly minimise the area of open space available

for public enjoyment and fail to meet the community needs for such

facility. This was not in line with the aim to establish Wong Chuk

Hang as a new district centre in the Southern District;

(b) it was hoped that when utilising the land resources of the Southern

District for residential property development, MTRC should not regard

profit-making as the only goal and should bring reasonable

enhancement to local community such as providing more public open

space; and

(c) supported opening the podiums of above-station property to prevent

further privatisation of Wong Chuk Hang community by MTRC.

Performance Venue

(a) among the four districts on the Hong Kong Island, only the Southern

District did not have a civic centre. Because of this, the last term

SDC had started to request MTRC to reserve space for such facilities in

the development of Wong Chuk Hang CDA. At that time, MTRC

claimed that its property planning division would continue to study the

matter with SDC and had never rejected the request, so there was no

question about misunderstanding SDC’s expectations on the

specifications of the indoor performance venue. Utilisation of Wong

Chuk Hang CDA site for the provision of cultural and recreational

facilities and public performance venue for the Southern District was

integral to the whole development plan on which SDC had high

expectations. However, the proposal of MTRC only suggested a

performance venue that commonly found in an average shopping

centre. MTRC was just going through the motion and trying to

confuse SDC, such practice was totally unacceptable;

(b) MTRC kept saying that the proposed shopping centre would be of a

scale comparable to that of the Maritime Square. Noting that the

indoor performance venue in the Maritime Square was mostly used for

commercial purposes such as decorations or showrooms and seldom

for district or community functions, it was believed that the proposed

Wong Chuk Hang shopping centre would be no exception; and

(c) notwithstanding the regrant premium, the profit from the proposed

Wong Chuk Hang CDA project would be enormous. It was deeply

- 50 -

disappointed that after making such a huge profit, MTRC still had no

intention to repay the local community by providing a free-standing

indoor performance venue as large as a civic centre for the Southern

District.

Building Height and Protecting the Environment

(a) PlanD earlier had requested to maintain the building height of Wong

Chuk Hang area at 140m. PlanD was asked to explain why the

restriction was lifted for this planning application;

(b) independent development project like the Marinella was awarded the

highest rating of Platinum (obtained 75 credits or above) under the

Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM).

Considering the financial strength of MTRC and the scale of the whole

Wong Chuk Hang CDA, SDC should require the project to achieve the

Platinum standard, thus making it environmentally acceptable in terms

of improved greenery, walled buildings, energy saving and so on; and

(c) MTRC should provide air ventilation and landscape impact assessment

reports to fully analyse the effects of the 14 residential blocks (150m in

height) on top of the station on surrounding air ventilation and visual

landscape for Members’ reference.

Others

(a) MTRC withdrew the planning application in March 2012. SDC had

expected MTRC to actively address local views at the meantime but no

news was received so far. To date, MTRC still had not faced squarely

the views of SDC and even submitted the planning application to TPB

without consulting SDC. Also, the procedure was deficient in that

TPB did not require applicant to conduct district consultation before

application submission. As the advice from PlanD had guiding effects

on the decision-making of TPB, PlanD was asked if it would be on the

side of SDC and reflect the strong opposition of SDC to TPB;

(b) at the “2+7” meeting, Members had expressed views on a wide range

of issues to MTRC, and expected an improved proposal before

application submission. However, the final proposal submitted was

virtually unchanged and also no explanation had been given to the

Committee on why the suggestions of Members could not be accepted.

- 51 -

It was requested that MTRC should explain its passive manner in

handling Members’ views and the reasons for not accepting Members’

views, for example, insufficient time for amendment, the views put

forward were unreasonable, practical difficulties or that it simply did

not want to change anything. If MTRC actually had no intention to

respond to Members’ recommendations, then it was meaningless for its

representatives to attend this meeting just repeating the briefing on the

same proposal;

(c) according to the annual report of MTRC in 2011, its profit was some

$30 billion, of which $9.3 billion came from MTR fares, $3.2 billion

was revenue from MTR stations and $4.9 billion was from property

developments (the gross leasable floor area was 226 622m2). The

area of the proposed shopping centre in CDA was 47 000m2,

amounting to 20% of gross leasable floor area of MTRC in 2011 and

calculated by proportion, the income generated would be about $800

million to $900 million per year. Apart from LOHAS Park, Wong

Chuk Hang CDA would be the largest single project of MTRC for the

time being. It was reasonable for MTRC to use the revenue from

residential property developments or shopping centres to fill the

financial gap in the construction of SIL. However, considering the

enormous profit and the scale of the property development project, it

was extremely stingy of MTRC to reserve only 1 500m2 for social

enterprises uses and 300m2 for an indoor performance venue. As such,

it was hardly expected the company would help enhance the

community. The residents of the Southern District were unable to

benefit from the project and the insufficient supporting facilities would

only lead to further deterioration of traffic conditions in the district.

SDC was deeply dissatisfied with the situation; and

(d) for all these years, SDC had been very supportive to the construction of

SIL (East), like lobbying residents to support the project. However,

now MTRC only concentrated on making money and serving the needs

of the owners of the above-station properties, and cared naught to

compromise a bit for the overall well-being of the Southern District.

Such attitude was considered mean to the development of the entire

district and a disregard of SDC’s views. If MTRC kept on putting

profit above everything and refusing to address the views of Members

and the expectations of the Southern District, it might result that

MTRC and SDC would be opposed to each other.

- 52 -

95. The Chairman invited representatives of related departments and MTRC to

respond to Members’ comments and enquiries.

(Mr WONG Ling-sun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr CHAN Man-chun, Dr MUI Heung-fu

and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying left the meeting at 7:56 p.m., 7:57 p.m., 8:00 p.m., 8:01

p.m. and 8:22 p.m. respectively.)

96. Mr Steve YIU gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments and

enquiries as follows:

(a) MTRC did not intend to neglect local views. Since the site had to

contain a rail depot/station, PTI and a large-scale shopping centre, and

to reprovision the original facilities in-situ, there were many constraints

in the design. MTRC had already tried its best to provide the

necessary facilities as far as possible, including the social welfare

facilities, floor area for social enterprise use, open space at ground

level and indoor performance venue as specified in the PB;

(b) the existing PB did not specify a civic centre or the like. MTRC

would discuss SDC’s views with related government departments;

(c) the shopping centre was set back to make way for the open space as.

Since an emergency vehicular access should be provided, MTRC

would study how to improve its design to integrate the access with the

open space in response to SDC’s comments; and

(d) the TIA included the present traffic conditions and also the future

traffic growth of the surrounding district, with the development traffic

added to the year 2031 forecast for the assessment.

97. The Chairman stopped Mr Steve YIU’s speaking, and said that SDC

Members had repeatedly expressed their strong demands on the performance venue,

public open space and traffic volume and the like, still MTRC ignored SDC’s views.

The response given just repeated the previous arguments, and did not directly address

Members’ enquiries. A reply like this was meaningless.

98. The Chairman invited TD representative to give professional advice on the

TIA report.

- 53 -

99. Mr YEUNG Hoi responded that TD noted Members’ comments. Since, TD

received the supplementary information from MTRC just the week before, the

assessment had not been completed.

100. The Chairman sought TD’s confirmation that MTRC had not studied the TIA

report with TD before its submission to TPB.

101. Mr YEUNG Hoi said the Chairman’s statement was correct.

102. The Chairman invited PlanD representative to respond to Members’

comments and enquiries.

103. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) PlanD on 4 November 2011 reported to TPB on the comments of the

SDC regarding the draft PB. The TPB noted SDC’s views and

endorsed the PB. The TPB was also very concerned about the traffic

impact of the proposed development in the district, so it had requested

MTRC to submit a detailed TIA together with the MLP. It was

believed that after receiving comments from this meeting, MTRC

would revise and improve the traffic TIA where appropriate;

(b) the PB specified that MTRC had to provide not less than 1 000m2 of

at-grade open space and open to the public. It was believed that

MTRC was willing to explore the opportunity to enhance the scheme to

address Members’ views;

(c) MTRC did not apply for relaxation of the domestic GFA for the

residential development. The proposed increase in domestic GFA was

due to the fact that according to Buildings Ordinance, hostels for

moderately mentally handicapped should be accountable for domestic

GFA. MTRC did not apply for relaxation of the building height

restriction, in fact, the proposed building height under application

complied with the building height restriction stipulated on the OZP;

and

(d) at that time, based on the PB, the Leisure and Cultural Services

Department (LCSD) had indicated no commitment to provide a civic

centre in the “CDA” for the time being. Noting SDC’s request for a

performance venue in the form of a civic centre in the district, a

requirement for the provision of a performance venue of not less than

- 54 -

300m2 was incorporated in the PB. Concerned departments would be

consulted if MTRC had any other proposal.

[Post-meeting note: LCSD's response on the provision of civic centre in the Southern

District is that "The Government has been keeping a close

watch on the demand for cultural performance facilities in the

Southern District. As the construction and operation of a civic

centre involve high capital costs and long-term financial

commitment, the Government must take all relevant factors into

careful consideration when planning new facilities to ensure the

proper utilization of resources. These factors include the

availability and usage rate of existing facilities in the territory,

the overall planning of the district concerned, the views of the

cultural sector and the demand of the community at large, etc."]

104. The Chairman said that SDC Members had repeatedly expressed the

Council’s request for a performance venue which was not a cultural activities hall of

municipal specifications operated by LCSD inside the MTR shopping centre. What

SDC requested was, while gaining enormous profit, MTRC should reserve

appropriate space within the construction floor area of MTR properties to provide an

indoor performance venue of a scale comparable to a civic centre. The Chairman

was very discontent that MTRC still tried to confuse SDC’s requirements of a

performance venue and shift the responsibility to government departments.

105. Mr AU Lap-sing said that according to PlanD’s control plan, the building

height in the vicinity of Wong Chuk Hang was restricted to 140m, and asked the

reasons why PlanD relaxed the restriction to 150m.

[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had consulted PlanD on the matter after the

meeting, and PlanD replied that according to the relevant OZP,

the building height restriction of the “CDA” site was 150mPD.]

106. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr Paul

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

on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:

Traffic Matters

- 55 -

(a) happy to hear that TD would thoroughly study the TIA report with

MTRC;

(b) requested MTRC to give a firm reply on the following two questions: (i)

many MTR above-station properties such as Telford Gardens and Heng

Fa Chuen opened their podiums to the public. Not only this

arrangement facilitated residents’ access, it could also attract more

people flow which in turn stimulated spending at the shopping centres.

From the business point of view, the benefits outweighed the

drawbacks. It was asked why MTRC did not consider opening the

podium of the residential property above Wong Chuk Hang Station;

and (ii) many MTR shopping centres had been benefited from the

people flow diverted by pedestrian footbridges from MTR stations,

amongst them Tseung Kwan O Station and Hang Hau Station were

some of the flagship examples. It was asked why MTRC had initiated

to construct footbridges for other property development projects, but

reluctant to commit to constructing a footbridge at Shum Wan Road to

facilitate local residents to/from the station despite repeated requests

from SDC Members’ for a footbridge under the Wong Chuk Hang

CDA; and

(c) since Shum Wan Road was populous, it was hoped that MTRC could

perfect road network planning with a view to solving the traffic

problems.

Performance Venue

(a) PlanD quoted LCSD’s views that there was no need to construct a civic

centre in the Southern District for the time being. If LCSD had

carried out the assessment according to the current data, then with the

continued development of the district which led to population growth,

it would be very difficult to search for a suitable site when the need for

a civic centre arose in future.

Others

(a) a Member clarified that he neither objected to MTRC developing the

site into CDA, nor opposed to the development of shopping centres and

residential properties above the station. He was discontent that in the

light of the approved key parameters under the control plan, the TIA

- 56 -

report was still incomplete and there was a lack of supporting transport

facilities;

(b) MTRC did not regard the “2+7” meeting and the current meeting as

important. It just wanted to get the green light from TPB and

completely ignored the views of SDC and the local community.

Members had expressed their resolution and would stand firm against

the planning application. If MTRC still made no improvement, SDC

Members did not rule out the possibility of initiating a community

objection campaign including approaching TPB, Legislative Councilors

and senior government officials to request for rejection of the planning

application;

(c) MTRC had responded that it was willing to consider revising part of

the existing proposal, while TD was studying the TIA report and so was

unable to give its views. In view of this, the Committee should focus

on the future application procedure instead of the details of the

proposal, so as to ensure that MTRC would not submit the same

proposal to TPB in future; and

(d) there were enquiries on the application procedure, including: (i) how

PlanD would reflect SDC’s views; (ii) how MTRC could put forward a

revised proposal; (iii) when the revised proposal, if any, should be

submitted to TPB and when it would be gazetted; and (iv) how MTRC

would process the views collected at this meeting.

107. The Chairman said that at this meeting, the Committee originally hoped that

MTRC would put forward improvement options based on SDC Members’ views given

at the “2+7” meeting, but it turned out that MTRC disappointed SDC again. The

Chairman invited PlanD representative to respond to Members’ comments first.

108. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response on the application procedure

of planning applications as follows:

(a) Wong Chuk Hang “CDA” site, fell within a strategic location of the

Southern District, involved a large-scale comprehensive development.

In general, PlanD would prepare a PB for a CDA to guide the

preparation of the MLP. Having considered the views of relevant

departments and SDC, TPB endorsed the PB (Annex 1) on 4 November

2011. The PB had set out the development parameters and

planning/technical requirements and serve as guidance and framework

- 57 -

for preparing the MLP by MTRC. In area designated as “CDA”, any

development would require the submission of a planning application in

the form of a MLP together with relevant technical assessments;

(b) on 7 November 2012, the TPB Secretariat received the MLP prepared

by MTRC in accordance with the PB and the restrictions as set out in

the OZP;

(c) PlanD had published the planning application according to the Town

Planning Ordinance on 16 November 2012 for public inspection, any

public comment should be made within the three-week public

inspection period, from 16 November to 7 December 2012. The

public could submit their views to the Secretary of TPB in writing, by

post or email or through the TPB website; and

(d) since the planning application involved a number of technical reports,

PlanD would forward the application to relevant government

departments including TD to examine the details of the application and

provide professional advice, and the departmental views would then

forward to the applicant for consideration. Noting that SDC was very

concerned about the development of the Wong Chuk Hang CDA, the

DDEC of the SDC was consulted on the planning application during

the three-week public exhibition period. Due to the tight schedule,

government departments such as TD could not give detailed views

immediately, nevertheless, it was believed that various departments

would give technical advice on their respective responsible areas.

PlanD would pass on the views of SDC and departments to MTRC for

consideration and revision. The views of SDC and departments

together with the public comments received during the public

inspection would be submitted to TPB for consideration.

109. To ensure that relevant parties heard DDEC’s views and follow up on the

matter conscientiously, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN put forward the following comments

and enquiries:

(a) PlanD had failed to submit the full TIA report to SDC for

consideration;

(b) MTRC should submit a revised proposal to address some of the

concerns raised by Members; and

(c) how the conflicting views were handled with respect to the PB.

- 58 -

110. Miss Isabel YIU gave a response as follows:

(a) the Secretary of TPB would make available all documents submitted in

the application for public inspection. Given the reports submitted were

voluminous, only a gist listing out the key parameters would normally

be provided at the public consultation document. The full set of the

reports submitted, including the TIA, could be viewed at the Planning

Enquiry Counters and the Southern District Office (SDO). PlanD

might follow up the matter with SDO and SDC Secretariat after the

meeting;

(b) if MTRC wanted to revise the planning application after hearing SDC’s

views, it could submit further information to TPB. Depending on the

extent of the revision, the Secretary of TPB would decide whether to

accept the further information or resubmission of a fresh application

was required according to the established procedure. If MTRC

needed to re-submit the MLP, TPB would process the application

according to the established practice;

(c) she had recorded the views of Members raised at this meeting as far as

possible, and would reflect the motions passed by DDEC in the papers

submitted to TPB; and

(d) Members were welcomed to reflect their views in writing to the

Secretary of TPB directly, any public comments received within the

first three weeks of the publication period, the comments would be

incorporated in the paper for submission to TPB for consideration.

111. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling enquired whether MTRC should consult SDC first

and thoroughly respond to the comments and suggestions raised by Members

according to the established procedure before submitting the revised MLP for TPB’s

approval.

112. Miss Isabel YIU responded that this was a private property development

project, there was no specified requirement under the Town Planning Ordinance

requesting the applicant to consult the community before or at any other time.

Nevertheless, after receiving the planning application, the TPB would publish the

planning application in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance and consult the

relevant District Councils when required. She added that the planning of the CDA

was a continuous process, if MTRC wished to revise the planning proposal after

- 59 -

considering the views collected during the consultation period, it could submit revised

MLP to TPB at any time.

(Mr FUNG Se-goun and Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH left the meeting at 8:52 p.m. and

8:55 p.m. respectively.)

113. Mr Steve YIU said that MTRC respected SDC’s views and would carefully

consider the views of SDC Members. MTRC had considered the proposal of

constructing a pedestrian footbridge, and the preliminary view was that there was not

enough footbridge landing space near Chan Pak Sha School for constructing one.

They would explore other feasible options with relevant government departments.

If government departments agreed to investigate and an appropriate location was

identified, MTRC would work with the government. Meanwhile, MTRC would

reserve space for accommodating the connection point in its property development

project. MTRC noted Members’ views on the TIA report, and would work with

relevant departments to study the traffic impact of the proposed development project

to nearby communities. As for the number of car parking spaces, it was designed on

the basis of the parameters in the PB. MTRC would discuss with relevant

departments such as TD for increasing the parking spaces in the shopping centre.

MTRC would submit supplementary information to TPB later on to support its

planning application.

114. The Chairman announced a vote on the motions.

115. Members present unanimously endorsed Motions 1, 2 and 3. The Chairman

supplemented that Members who had left the meeting, namely Mr CHAN Fu-ming,

MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr WONG

Ling-sun, Mr CHAN Man-chun and Dr MUI Heung-fu, had pledged their support to

the three motions before their departure.

116. In closing, the Chairman concluded that MTRC had not initiated a

consultation when preparing the MLP for Wong Chuk Hang CDA which had a bearing

on the overall well-being of residents in the Southern District, indicating that MTRC

did not intend to hear the views of SDC Members and residents at all. SDC was

strongly discontent with such behavior. Noting from the unanimous passage of the

three motions by Members present, in the interest of residents in the Southern District

in the long run, the Committee strongly opposed to the planning application especially

when the proposed MLP of MTRC paid no heed to the utmost concerns and

- 60 -

reasonable expectations of SDC Members and residents. Since TPB would consider

the planning application on 21 December 2012, it was wished that relevant

government departments, PlanD in particular, would reflect SDC’s strong objection to

the application, and submit the three endorsed motions to all TPB Members for

consideration. In addition, he called on Members to actively reflect their views to

TPB by 7 December 2012, and suggested that Members should dispatch

representatives to attend the TPB meeting on 21 December 2012, so that SDC

Members’ views, concerns and expectations could be reflected.

117. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN requested MTRC and relevant government

departments to submit a formal written reply to SDC by the consultation deadline

(that is, 7 December 2012), so that Members could have sufficient time to consider

the views, and then reflect their opinions to TPB.

118. The Chairman commented that SDC had repeatedly given chances to MTRC

to revise its proposal in order to address local expectations. If MTRC was sincere in

responding to DDEC’s views by revising the MLP, naturally it would give a

corresponding response to SDC prior to the TPB meeting. On the contrary, if MTRC

did not intend to revise the proposal, it was meaningless for the Committee to issue an

ultimatum. The Chairman added that in the overall interest of the Southern District

and to resolve the problem once and for all, SDC Members and residents should

actively reflect their views to TPB.

[Post-meeting note: The Committee wrote to express opposition to the planning

application to TPB on 7 December 2012.]

Agenda Item 9: Progress Report of Environmental Protection and Hygiene

Working Group


119. The Committee noted the contents of the paper.

Agenda Item 10: Progress Report of Tin Wan Concrete Batching Plan

Monitoring Group



- 61 -

121. Ms LOU Yin-yee reported on the tender results.

122. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the tendering exercise for the charged public

carpark opposite to the concrete batching plant had been concluded and the short-term

tenancy (STT) was awarded to Excel Concrete Limited (the operator of the concrete

batching plant). LandsD had already notified the plant operator in writing and the

operating concession of the carpark would be formally handed over to the plant on 17

December 2012.

123. The Chairman hoped that this could help resolve the traffic problems arising

from the operation of the concrete plant.

Agenda Item 11: Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District


Renewal Application for WSD Worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road

(GLA-THK1162)


meeting:


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

- Mr LAU Wing-keung, Senior Engineer/HK2

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

125. The Chairman said that the Committee in this term had discussed the renewal

application many times and that the representatives of LandsD and WSD were invited

to this meeting with the aim to resolving the issue as soon as possible. The

Chairman invited Ms LOU Yin-yee to report on the latest progress of the application.

126. Ms LOU Yin-yee reported on the renewal application for WSD worksite.


(a) some 80 objections were received on the renewal application for WSD

worksite during local consultation, the objections were concerned with

illegal parking, environmental hygiene problems arising from WSD

worksite and fire hazards etc;

- 62 -

(b) in accordance with established procedures, objections against

applications for temporary government land allocation (GLA) would be

handled and followed up by the applicant departments. Therefore, in

this case, the objections received had be referred to WSD for following

up;

(c) LandsD had already consolidated the objections received and

forwarded to relevant Government departments for profession advice,

and the advice had also been passed to WSD. Departmental advice

showed that WSD could address most of the objections;

(d) WSD had informed LandsD that improvement measures would be

implemented at the worksite in order to comply with relevant

departmental advice and address objections. To enhance

communication, LandsD hoped WSD could inform the objectors of the

proposed improvement measures by meeting with them or through

other channels; and

(e) WSD had informed LandsD that the said worksite was used for storing

materials and equipment required for emergency repairs of water mains

and welding works in case of mains bursts so that water supply would

not be interrupted. WSD said that mains bursts could cause serious

traffic congestions and great damages to properties, or even landslides.

Having considered the advice of professional departments, the needs of

WSD for existing worksite and public interest, as well as noting that

WSD was willing to adopt improvement measures to comply with

relevant departmental advice and address objections, LandsD did not

immediately stop WSD to use the said worksite; and continued to

process the renewal application at the same time.

127. The Chairman advised that at the 7th SDC meeting on 15 November 2012,

the Director of WSD stated that he did not object to moving out of the existing

worksite but LandsD should provide an alternative site suitable for the purpose. The

Chairman invited WSD to report on the present position of the six pieces of

government land mentioned by the Development Bureau on 25 February 2011.

128. Mr KAM Wing-kee responded that according to the preliminary information

from LandsD, two of the sites had already had planned uses. LandsD was now

evaluating the feasibility of the remaining four sites.

- 63 -

129. Mr WAN Wai-yin, with the aid of Powerpoint presentation (Reference Paper

6), briefly explained details of the four sites. The pros and cons of each site were

stated below:

Advantages Disadvantages

Cape Drive - Good accessibility

- Paved concrete road

without the need to

remove trees

- Close to residential

areas

Kong Sin Wan Road - Located at a

roundabout with

good accessibility

- A woodland of about

15 000 m2. Due to

the uneven terrain of

the site, only the

levelled portion was

suitable for use and it

might be necessary

to remove some of the

trees

- Close to a school (the

ISF Academy)

Tai Tam Tuk Village - There were villages

nearby

- Roads were narrow

and it was difficult for

large vehicles to gain

access to the site

Pak Pat Shan Road

(Across Red Hill Park)

- Located on roadside

with good

accessibility

- Separated from

residential premises

only by a road

130. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Ms CHEUNG Sik-ying, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments on the subject. Details were


(a) as the four sites under consideration were not suitable to use as WSD

worksite, it was suggested that for the time being, WSD should

continue to use the worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road until an

alternative and suitable site was identified;

- 64 -

(b) the effect of mains bursts was far-reaching. It was necessary to strike

a balance between the interest of the objectors and the overall interest

of the Southern District; and

(c) WSD should take improvement measures to address the objections in

order to minimise the impacts on nearby residents.

131. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the

following comments and enquiries:

(a) as the four sites under consideration were all located inside green belt,

it was suggested that expiring STT carpark sites should also be

considered in site selection to widen the choice; and

(b) a list of available government land had been suggested by related

department. It was hoped that LandsD could actively search for

alternative site.

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

(a) the requirements of different government departments for GLA varied.

LandsD would handle the applications according to the specific needs

of the individual departments;

(b) the existing worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road was about 792 m2.

Earlier WSD had proposed to move its maintenance operation to

another site at Sandy Bay which was about 500 m2 in area. Originally,

LandsD had planned to start the related application procedure for WSD,

but WSD advised that the site was too small hence such procedure

wase not proceeded further;

(c) the Transport Department (TD) would ask LandsD about the position

of the STT carpark sites regularly to study the demand and supply of

parking places in various districts. LandsD must seek the advice of

TD before those STT carpark sites could be released for use by other

departments;

(d) the list of available government land, mainly within green belt zones

and located in remote area with relatively small in size, was available

for application from NGOs for short term uses. However, good

accessibility was one of the principal criteria for WSD worksites; and

(e) since many sites in the district were allocated to MTRC as temporary

worksites for the construction of the South Island Link, the supply of

- 65 -

vacant government land in the Southern District was very tight in

recent years. It was hoped that Members could understand the

situation.

133. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that the procedures of the department concerned

were defective and he would not accept the proposal to allow WSD to continue

occupying the site for the time being. Fearing that the Ombudsman might think that

the Committee had reached an agreement with related departments on the issue, which

would affect the Ombudsman in handling the case, he proposed to clarify that the

Committee had not accepted the explanation offered by related department at this

meeting and reprimand LandsD again for this matter.

134. The Chairman said he understood the great pressure on the Member of the

constituency concerned, however, the local residents should have perfectly clear that

WSD had occupied the site for years before moving to the area. There was a saying

that “what you do not wish yourself, do not do unto others.” Moving the worksite to

other location would surely meet with objections from local residents. Furthermore,

emergency repair of water mains was in the interest of the whole Southern District,

and journey distance was one of the considerations in site selection. On the

suitability for use as WSD worksite, the conditions in the other four sites proposed

were not as good as the existing one at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. The Chairman

requested WSD to adopt improvement measures to minimise the effects on nearby

residents and hoped related department could continue the search for an alternative

site suitable for the purpose.

135. Mr CHAI Man-hon agreed that related department should continue the

search for suitable site but stressed that it was improper for LandsD to allow WSD

occupying government land for a prolonged period before lease renewal was granted.

136. The Chairman clarified that he had never said that the action of related

departments was proper but due to various kinds of considerations, the Committee

should handle the matter in a practical manner. This was the reason for advising

related department to actively continue the search and in the meantime WSD should

improve the surrounding environment of the worksite.

137. Mr AU Hok-hin said that after the SDC meeting on 15 November 2012,

WSD had actively joined this Committee meeting and its efficiency was commended.

However, he hoped that related departments could provide amble room for sufficient

- 66 -

communication with residents and Members of the local constituencies during the

search for sites in future.

138. Mr KAM Wing-kee supplemented that WSD had started the search for a

suitable site upon receipt of objections in February 2012.

139. Mr WAN Wai-yin supplemented that WSD had approached LandsD for the

site in Sandy Bay and LandsD replied that only part of the site could be allocated for

use by WSD. Since the remaining size of the site was substantially less than 500m2,

WSD dropped the plan at the end. He said that WSD had been implementing a

series of mitigation measures on the worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road including

the provision of fire extinguishers, more frequent site cleansing and forbidding

foremen to park construction vehicles wherever they wanted. Also, site inspections

had been arranged for SDC Members to seek their advice on the site operation.

WSD would continue to improve the worksite environment in response to the views

of stakeholders to minimise the impact on nearby residents.

140. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN pointed out that the Sandy Bay site was part of the

promenade from Aberdeen to Kennedy Town and hoped related departments noted

this major project of SDC.

141. The Chairman invited related departments to note Members’ views.

The Former Harbour Mission School, Ap Lei Chau

142. Since there was no further development in this subject at the moment, the

Chairman enquired if Members wished to delete it from the progress report.

143. The Committee endorsed to retain this follow-up item.

Ex-Shek O Quarry




- 67 -

Management on Fixed Pitch Hawker Areas




Short-term and Long-term Uses of the Site of Aberdeen Fire Station

148. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked about the timetable for departmental consultation

on the long-term uses of the Aberdeen Fire Station (AFS) site.

149. Miss Isabel YIU responded that during departmental consultation, TD

considered that a traffic review was required for the proposed rezoning as the site is

located close to the Wong Chuk Hang CDA site. PlanD would consult SDC in

accordance with the established practice when further information was available.

150. Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired if TD would actively propose to use the site for

improvement of traffic conditions such as the planning for bus stop rationalisation.

151. Miss Isabel YIU said she could not answer the question for TD. If any

departments had any proposals on the use of the AFS site, they could make a request

to concerned bureaux/departments.

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

Link

152. Ms LOU Yin-yee advised that LandsD had received two applications from

the Link concerning the provision of tables and chairs at the open area in front of

Stanley Plaza. The one applied for placing tables and chairs in non-building area

was approved recently and such facilities could be provided after the Link agreed to

accept the conditions listed in the approval letter issued by LandsD.

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

Road

153. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired about the next step after collecting the

views of stakeholder by related departments.

- 68 -

154. Ms LOU Yin-yee replied that LandsD had completed the local consultation

on the re-tendering of the STT shipyard and some 600 submissions had been received.

Of which, about 80% objected to the re-tendering mainly on the grounds of fire

hazards, environmental hygiene, visual blight, noise nuisances and the scope and scale

of the tender. LandsD had consolidated the public views collected and sought

professional advice and policy directions from relevant policy bureaux and

departments including the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, EPD, Fire

Services Department, PlanD and TD. Upon receipt, LandsD would incorporate

departmental views in the respective lease terms and conditions. Besides, since the

sector and the local stakeholders had opposing views on the scope and scale of the

tender, LandsD had also sought the advice of related policy bureau and was awaiting

their advice. It was expected that the District Lands Conference would discuss the

matters relating to the STT tender and representative(s) from SDO would be invited to

attend the meeting to reflect the views and demands of local stakeholders.

155. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung supplemented that a residents consultation meeting

had been held on the matter during which she had reflected the views of the sector to

PlanD and LandsD. She hoped related departments could consider their concerns

impartially when drawing up the tender and consult SDC before the tender terms were

finalised.

156. The Chairman requested related department to step up local consultation

efforts on the re-tendering and report further developments to SDC in a timely

manner.

157. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that in view of the strong demand of shipyards

for the site, he wanted to know the schedule of the tendering exercise.

158. Mr AU Nok-hin agreed that related departments should reveal the details to

SDC before the lease terms were finalised and was deeply dissatisfied that Members

were excluded from the District Lands Conference.

159. Ms LOU Yin-yee replied that the re-tendering of the site would be discussed

at the District Lands Conference in December 2012, afterwards, the tenancy

conditions would be examined by in-house solicitor. It was hoped that the tender

invitation could be implemented in the first quarter of 2013.

- 69 -

160. The Chairman invited Members to note the established practice of the

District Lands Conference and hoped related departments could strengthen

communication with the Members of the constituencies concerned through other

channels.

Area Ovitrap Index in the Southern District

161. The Committee endorsed that this item be deleted from the progress report

starting from the next meeting.

PWP No. 013WS

162. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following enquiries:

(a) the reasons for works delay for two months;

(b) whether all public housing estates were ready for immediate

connection to the sea water supply system in February 2013; and

(c) whether related department had informed all private housing estates to

make the necessary arrangement for connecting with the sea water

supply system immediately upon project completion.

163. Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung said that the Member’s views and enquiries would

be forwarded to WSD and the supplementary information requested would be

provided via the Secretariat after the meeting.

[Post-meeting note: WSD replied the Secretariat on Para. 162 on 5 December 2012.



164. Mr WONG Sun-man responded that HD and WSD would meet regularly to

discuss the progress of the project.

Repair Works to Cantilever Corridor Slab in Wah Fu (I) & (II) Estates

165. Members noted that due to labour turnover of the contractor, the original

works completion date in September 2012 would be postponed to November 2012,

and all the works would be completed by November 2012.

- 70 -

GLA-THK 1162

166. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired if the renewal application could be

considered on a yearly basis to allow the flexibility in changing land use.

167. Ms LOU Yin-yee responded that WSD applied for an extension of lease

period for five years. As the maintenance contract period of WSD was three years

starting from 1 August 2012, if the application for extension was approved, the lease

period would be three years to tie in with the maintenance contract.

GLA-THK 816

168. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked about the exact location of the site.

169. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the location plan would be supplemented after the

meeting.

[Post-meeting note: LandsD replied the Secretariat on Para. 168 on 28 November

2012. The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information

for Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]

GLA-THK 1538

170. Mr AU Hok-hin asked about the actual usage of the site.

171. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the site was used by LCSD as a worksite for the

maintenance and repair of shark prevention net.

Agenda Item 12: Any Other Business

172. The Chairman said that there was no other business.

Part 2 - Items for Information

Street Management Report (as at 31.10.2012)


- 71 -


Part 3

Date of Next Meeting

174. The Chairman said that the 7th DDEC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on

4 February 2013 (Monday).

175. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council

January 2013

Documents

Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the District Development and ... · PDF fileMr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymond Secretary:-2-Miss CHENG Kwan-wai, Vivian Executive Officer (District Council) 2,