DHC Minutes 5/2020 Sha Tin District Council
Transcript of DHC Minutes 5/2020 Sha Tin District Council
( 1 )
DHC Minutes 5/2020
Sha Tin District Council
Minutes of the 5th Meeting of
the Development and Housing Committee in 2020
Date : 27 October 2020 (Tuesday)
Time : 10:07 am
Venue : Sha Tin District Council Conference Room
4/F, Sha Tin Government Offices
Present Title Time of joining
the meeting
Time of leaving
the meeting
Mr CHAN Nok-hang (Chairman) DC Member 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr NG Kam-hung (Vice-Chairman) ” 10:21 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHING Cheung-ying, MH DC Chairman 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr WONG Hok-lai, George DC Vice-Chairman 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHAN Billy Shiu-yeung DC Member 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHAN Pui-ming ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHAN Wan-tung ” 10:12 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHENG Chung-hang ” 10:07 am 12:15 pm
Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHIU Chu-pong ” 11:15 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHOW Hiu-laam, Felix ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr CHUNG Lai-him, Johnny ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr HUI Lap-san ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr HUI Yui-yu ” 10:07 am 2:17 pm
Mr LAI Tsz-yan ” 4:02 pm 4:19 pm
Dr LAM Kong-kwan ” 10:22 am 4:57 pm
Mr LI Chi-wang, Raymond ” 10:24 am 5:45 pm
Mr LI Sai-hung ” 10:12 am 6:10 pm
Mr LI Wing-shing, Wilson ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr LIAO Pak-hong, Ricardo ” 10:07 am 5:50 pm
Mr LO Tak-ming ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr LO Yuet-chau ” 10:16 am 11:50 pm
Mr LUI Kai-wing ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Ms LUK Tsz-tung ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr MAK Tsz-kin ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr MAK Yun-pui, Chris ” 10:07 am 12:25 pm
Mr MOK Kam-kwai, BBS ” 10:11 am 4:57 pm
Ms NG Ting-lam ” 10:18 am 6:10 pm
Mr SHAM Tsz-kit, Jimmy ” 10:18 am 6:10 pm
Mr SHEK William ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr SIN Cheuk-nam ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr TING Tsz-yuen ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr TSANG Kit ” 11:07 am 2:32 pm
Ms TSANG So-lai ” 11:41 am 1:24 pm
Mr WAI Hing-cheung ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Mr WONG Ho-fung ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
Ms WONG Man-huen ” 10:09 am 2:32 pm
Mr YAU Man-chun ” 10:16 am 6:10 pm
Mr YUNG Ming-chau, Michael ” 10:07 am 6:10 pm
( 2 )
Present Title Time of joining
the meeting
Time of leaving
the meeting
Ms LIU Sin-yi, Angela (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council) 5/ Sha Tin District Office
In Attendance Title
Ms CHENG Siu-ling, Katy Chief Liaison Officer / Sha Tin District Office
Mr WONG Chun-wai, Edmund Senior Liaison Officer (North) / Sha Tin District Office
Mr HO Kin-nam, David Senior Executive Officer (District Council) (Acting) /
Sha Tin District Office
Mr MA Cheuk-yui, Trery Executive Officer (Development) / Sha Tin District Office
Mr LAI Wing-chi, Derek District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Sha Tin) /
Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Ms YICK Hong-nien, Hannah Senior Town Planner / Sha Tin / Planning Department
Ms HO Ka-wai, Rosseter Senior Estate Surveyor / South East (Acting) /
District Lands Office, Sha Tin
Ms FUNG Wai-ling Senior Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 1) (Acting) /
Housing Department
Ms CHING Yim-yu Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 9) / Housing Department
Ms WONG Yee-wah, Eva Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 11) / Housing Department
Mr LEUNG Chin-hung Engineer (New Territories East) (Distribution 1) /
Water Supplies Department
In Attendance by Invitation Title
Mr TSUI Wing-kim Senior Engineer (Design 1) / Water Supplies Department
Ms KWOK Wing-man Engineer (Design 1) / Water Supplies Department
Ms CHAN Ning-yan Assistant Engineer (Design 4) / Water Supplies Department
Mr FONG Kam-wing Chief Engineer / BKF (Hong Kong) Consultants Limited
Ms PANG Tsz-yung Landscape Architect / Urbis Limited
Ms YU Ming-yee Deputy Director of Ecology / AEC Limited
Ms CHAN Yin-ting, Eunice Assistant Commissioner for Innovation and Technology
(Infrastructure) / Innovation and Technology Bureau
Mr CHAN Che-keung, Ken Senior Manager (Capital Works) / Innovation and Technology Bureau
Ms CHAN Lok-nga, Joyce Senior Manager (Infrastructure) / Innovation and Technology Bureau
Ms SHEK Wai-man, Emily Manager (Capital Works) / Innovation and Technology Bureau
Mr YIU Ka-lap, Caleb Engineer (Bicycle Parking) / Transport Department
Mr Peter MOK Head of Strategic Partnership /
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation
Mr Simon WONG Chief Project Development Officer /
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation
Mr Felix TANG Project Director /
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation
Ms Sam YAN Senior Manager (Corporate Communications) /
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation
Ms Sharon LAW Development Manager /
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation
Mr Francis SOOTOO Director / MVA Hong Kong Limited
Mr George LEE Associate Director / MVA Hong Kong Limited
Mr Axon LIN Project Director / Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited
Mr Eric NGAI Project Manager / Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited
Ms WONG Sau-kuen, Joe District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin) /
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
( 3 )
In Attendance by Invitation Title
Ms CHAN Siu-kin, Ester Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Sha Tin /
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Mr HEUNG Kai-chung, Henry Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin)1 /
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Ms LAU Wing-chuk, Celine Senior Librarian (Planning and Development) /
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Ms LEE Mei-yee Senior Librarian (Sha Tin) /
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Mr NG Sik-hay, Eddie Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 34 /
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Ms CHAN Yee-chi, Elaine Assistant Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 2 /
Social Welfare Department
Ms YEW Suet-yi, Mary Assistant District Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 3 /
Social Welfare Department
Mr AU Tze-wai, William Senior Engineer (General Legislation) 3 /
Electrical & Mechanical Services Department
Mr YIU Yung-ngai Engineer (General Legislation) 3/2 /
Electrical & Mechanical Services Department
Absent Title
Mr CHENG Tsuk-man DC Member (Application for leave of absence received)
Mr YIP Wing ” ( ” )
Action
The Chairman welcomed all members and representatives of government departments to
the fifth meeting of the Development and Housing Committee (DHC) of this year.
Application for Leave of Absence
2. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received the applications for leave of absence
in writing from the following members:
Mr CHENG Tsuk-man Official commitment
Mr YIP Wing Sickness
3. Members unanimously approved the applications for leave of absence submitted by the
members above.
Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 30 June 2020
Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 3 July 2020
Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 17 July 2020
4. Members unanimously endorsed the above minutes of the meeting.
Matters Arising
Responses of Government Departments and Relevant Organisations to Matters Arising from the
Previous Meeting
(Paper No. DH 27/2020)
( 4 )
Action
5. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:
( a ) a provisional motion had been raised in the fourth DHC meeting regarding 8
proposed sites amendments of Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No.
S/MOS/22 and he asked about the response of the Tai Po District Council
(TPDC); and
( b ) page 7 of the paper mentioned about traffic in Sha Tin. He asked whether the
paper could be provided to the representative of Hong Kong Science Park (HKSP)
for reference.
6. The views of Mr MAK Tsz-kin were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to know whether the Government had handed over Blocks 1 to 3
of Chun Yeung Estate to the Housing Department (HD) and the number of people
deployed by the department in carrying out maintenance in the blocks;
( b ) he would like to know when the car park of Chun Yeung Estate would be open
for use; and
( c ) tendering and types of shops of Chun Yeung Shopping Centre.
7. The Chairman said that Mr KWAN Wing-yip, the Chairman of the TPDC received the
motion mentioned by Mr CHAN Pui-ming on 7 October and the provisional motion had been
relayed to relevant committees for consideration. He agreed to provide the paper mentioned by
Mr CHAN Pui-ming to the HKSP for reference.
8. The responses of Ms Eva WONG, Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin 11), HD
were summarised below:
( a ) the Government had completely ceased using Blocks 1 to 3 of Chun Yeung Estate
as a quarantine centre in late September this year and handed over the three blocks
to the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) in mid-October. The HD immediately
carried out necessary repair and inspection to ensure that every unit met the
standards of public rental housing (PRH) under the HA. It was estimated that
prospective tenants could gradually move in from late January 2021;
(Post-meeting note: gradual intake of the three blocks would start from mid-
December this year with Block 3 as the first.)
( b ) the department would review and repair the car park which would be open for use
as soon as possible after completion of the work;
( c ) for the shopping centre, two shops were in operation currently and many shops
had signed contracts (including Chinese restaurant, restaurant, and convenience
store, etc.). The commercial tenants were carrying out renovations and would
gradually open business upon works completion; and
( d ) for the market, the department had written to commercial tenants of the market
for contract signing. The tenancy would come into effect in November.
( 5 )
Action
9. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to know the response of the TPDC on the provisional motion;
( b ) he would like to know the current progress of the proposed amendments of
Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/MOS/22 and whether they had
been gazetted; and
( c ) he would like to know when the car park of Chun Yeung Estate would be open
for use and whether structures had been built in the car park when it was being
used as a quarantine centre. He worried that if the car park could not be open with
the shopping centre and Chun Yeung Estate at that time, illegal parking would
become more serious.
10. The responses of Ms Hannah YICK, Senior Town Planner / Shatin / Planning Department
(PlanD) were summarised below:
( a ) the proposed amendments to Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No.
S/MOS/22 were submitted to the Town Planning Board (TPB) for consideration
on 21 August 2020. The TPB members considered that the private residential land
at the upper end of Ma On Shan Tsuen Road was a bit distant from the centre of
Ma On Shan and requested the PlanD to submit information on similar rezoning
cases in recent years for their reference, before deciding whether the amendments
were acceptable; and
( b ) the PlanD submitted the information to the TPB on 18 September this year. After
discussion, the TPB agreed that it was appropriate for the amendments to be
gazetted under Article 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance. The amendments were
made public for inspection under Article 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance on
16 October this year. The public could submit representations regarding the
amendments in two months. Representations received would be made public for
inspection and the public could raise views on them. The TPB would hold a
hearing on the representations and the views before deciding whether the Zoning
Plan required further amendments.
11. Ms Eva WONG said that the department would review and repair the car park which
would be open for use as soon as possible after completion of the work.
12. The Chairman said that Mr KWAN Wing-yip, the Chairman of the TPDC had
acknowledged receipt of the provisional motion.
13. Members noted the above paper.
Discussion Items
Public Works Programme Item No. 9054WS - Salt Water Supply to Sha Tin Area 52, Shui Chuen O
(Paper No. DH 2/2020 (Revised))
14. The Chairman welcomed Mr TSUI Wing-kim, Senior Engineer (Design 1), Ms KWOK
Wing-man, Engineer (Design 1) and Ms CHAN Ning-yan, Assistant Engineer (Design 4) of
( 6 )
Action
Water Supplies Department (WSD), Mr FONG Kam-wing, Chief Engineer of BKF (Hong Kong)
Consultants Limited, Ms PANG Tsz-yung, Landscape Architect of Urbis Limited, and Ms YU
Ming-yee, Deputy Director of Ecology of AEC Limited to the meeting. The Chairman said that
the Transport Department (TD) had been invited to this meeting but the TD did not send a
representative. He was dissatisfied with that and said that the members could send enquiries to
the TD in writing regarding the transport and transportation of the project.
15. Ms KWOK Wing-man, Mr FONG Kam-wing, Ms PANG Tsz-yung and Ms YU Ming-
yee briefly presented the paper.
16. The views of Mr LO Tak-ming were summarised below:
( a ) he did not agree with the works programme of seawater supply system (works
programme) submitted by the WSD;
( b ) he pointed out that the Government should have known that 30 000 residents
would move in when constructing Shui Chuen O Estate. He opined that the works
would occupy Pok Chuen Street which caused much disturbance to the residents,
and the WSD and the PlanD failed to fulfil their duties on this matter;
( c ) he pointed out that Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)
temporarily closed Shui Chuen Au Street on 12 October due to public toilet works
which caused traffic congestion nearby. As residents of Shui Chuen O Estate
frequently used Pok Chuen Street, he worried that the plan of the department
would affect the transport of Shui Chuen O Estate; and
( d ) Mr YAU Man-chun, Mr Michael YUNG and he had asked the WSD to consider
relocating all or part of the works programme to within the area of Shui Chuen O
Estate to reduce the impact of the works on Pok Chuen Street. He urged the WSD
to enhance its communication with the HD and to consider this suggestion.
17. The views of Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that the works programme opted for a more difficult path and gave up
the easier one. He agreed with Mr LO Tak-ming that the works programme should
be moved into Shui Chuen O Estate, and that the WSD and the HD should
enhance communication; and
( b ) he had reservations about the transport flow impact assessment of the WSD and
opined that Shui Chuen O Estate relied on only Pok Chuen Street and To Shek
Street for access. Works delay might affect transport near Shui Chuen O Estate
and intensify traffic congestion.
18. The views of Mr YAU Man-chun were summarised below:
( a ) he thanked the WSD representatives for going on a site visit with the members;
( b ) provided that transport was not affected, he supported the works programme;
( 7 )
Action
( c ) he could not accept that the works would have to occupy Pok Chuen Street and
Shui Chuen Au Street for 2 to 3 years;
( d ) he pointed out that a salt water service reservoir should have been built before the
intake of Shui Chuen O Estate. Therefore, it was hard to accept works
implementation under the current road traffic;
( e ) he agreed with Mr LO Tak-ming that the LCSD’s works on 12 October this year
had caused traffic congestion;
( f ) he suggested that the WSD works should avoid affecting To Shek Street, Pok
Chuen Street and Shui Chuen Au Street, and the works be moved into the area of
Shui Chuen O Estate to avoid intensifying the traffic problem in the area; and
( g ) he would like to propose a provisional motion later.
19. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he agreed with Mr LO Tak-ming and Mr YAU Man-chun;
( b ) he was disappointed by the consultation and the works programme of the WSD;
( c ) as the works would intensify the traffic congestion nearby, he told the engineer
responsible for the works programme at the beginning of the year that the
alignment of the programme was not feasible. He cited the traffic congestion
caused by the temporary closure of Shui Chuen Au Street by the LCSD as an
example;
( d ) he was disappointed that the WSD did not make amendments based on the
findings of the site visit and the members’ views;
( e ) he said that the Government should lay flush water pipes when constructing Shui
Chuen O Estate, but not afterwards. He pointed out the Audit Commission might
challenge that the WSD wasted fresh water if it did not lay flush water pipes; and
( f ) he said that roads of Shui Chuen O Estate were narrow. If road closure was needed
for the works programme, the traffic burden would be unbearable. He opined that
the WSD should submit a programme which avoided affecting traffic. Otherwise,
it was hard for him to support the works.
20. The views of Mr SIN Cheuk-nam were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to ask about the nature of the housing development mentioned in
the works and why flush water supply was not constructed together with Shui
Chuen O Estate. He asked whether the construction in the works programme was
for the benefit of other buildings; and
( b ) he would like to know whether flushing by seawater was a mandatory ancillary
facility of PRH. He worried that the case of building flush water facilities upon
completion of PRH would repeat in Ma On Shan.
( 8 )
Action
21. The responses of Mr TSUI Wing-kim were summarised below:
( a ) when planning Shui Chuen O Estate in 2000, the estimated population was
17 000. It was not cost effective to provide an individual seawater flush system
based on this figure. Therefore, what the WSD planned at that time was to provide
a fresh water supply system for both drinking and flushing, and the fresh water
supply system would be built in several years;
( b ) the current situation was different. The reasons for providing seawater flushing
system in Shui Chuen O Estate now were as follows: (1) the current actual
population of Shui Chuen O Estate was about 29 000, and it was more cost
effective to use seawater than fresh water for flushing based on this figure; (2) the
provision of seawater for flushing in Shui Chuen O Estate could save fresh water
for a future housing development zone in Sha Tin District; (3) he believed that all
would agree that environmental protection was important and fresh water was a
precious resource in Hong Kong. It was hoped that the precious resource of
fresh water could be put in better use through the project;
( c ) as to the question why the Government did not provide a seawater supply system
before the intake of Shui Chuen O Estate as raised by the members, in fact the
planned population of Shui Chuen O Estate increased from 17 000 in 2010 to
29 000. Looking back, the Government had two options at the time: (1) using
fresh water for drinking and flushing like now; (2) setting up a separate seawater
supply system for flushing. At that time, no other new development zone was
planned in Sha Tin District and there was no new demand for fresh water. The
fresh water system at that time had reserved sufficient water supply and ancillary
facilities for flushing in Shui Chuen O Estate. If option (2) had been adopted at
that time, the originally designed fresh water supply system would be underused
and more money was required for the construction and maintenance of a new
seawater supply system. There were advantages in both options (1) and (2) given
the circumstance at the time. Therefore, choosing option (1) was not a planning
mistake;
( d ) he said that the department intended to know about the members’ views on the
works to enhance the details and minimise the possible traffic problem;
( e ) he stressed that the department understood the members; concern on the traffic
impact caused by the works. If the works programme would cause severe traffic
problem, the department would not forcibly launch the works;
( f ) the department only asked the Committee to support rezoning for the construction
of the reservoir at the current meeting. Even if the members supported the
rezoning application, no traffic problem would be caused, as the Department still
had to undergo a lot of procedures. Moreover, the department was arranging for
a test on road closure. If it was found that road closure would cause severe traffic
congestion, the department would not forcibly launch the works;
( g ) regarding the members’ suggestion of laying water pipes by trenchless
construction technology to connect To Shek Street Pumping Station and Shui
Chuen O Estate, the department had looked into its feasibility. Although the pipes
( 9 )
Action
could directly reach a certain location in Shui Chuen O Estate without passing
through the roads, they needed to be laid under the road surface to connect other
locations of Shui Chuen O Estate in order to distribute seawater to different blocks
of the estate. It would also involve road closure and the situation would just be
the same;
( h ) he was aware that some members raised the traffic problem caused by the LCSD
as it attempted to close Shui Chuen Au Street. Therefore, the department was
considering not laying seawater pipes in Tsok Pok Hang Village to shorten the
length of seawater pipes at Shui Chuen Au Street and to minimise the possible
traffic problem at that road section;
( i ) the department and the HD would consider the members’ suggestion of relocating
pipe works to within the area of Shui Chuen O Estate;
( j ) based on his understanding, the Government would construct PRH in the vincity
of Shek Mun. Further information could be obtained from the PlanD; and
( k ) the WSD had been looking into various ways to optimise the use of water
resources. Apart from seawater flushing, it would also take recycling water into
consideration to reduce the use of fresh water.
22. The Chairman said that the WSD was being mechanical in deciding whether to use fresh
or sea water for flushing based on cost effectiveness. He asked Mr TSUI Wing-kim to continue
to monitor implementation of the works in the future.
23. Mr TSUI Wing-kim pointed out that using fresh or sea water for flushing was more or
less the same if the factors of cherishing water resources and new development in Sha Tin
District were ignored. However, based on the current situation, it was more appropriate to use
seawater for flushing.
24. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he pointed out that the WSD should have laid flush water pipes when constructing
Shui Chuen O Estate in 2010 which could avoid causing inconvenience to
residents nearby. He opined that the cost-effectiveness issue brought by
population increase in Shui Chuen O Estate should be a problem of the
department;
( b ) based on his understanding, a developer was constructing new buildings at To
Shek Street and the Hong Kong Housing Society had once considered building
Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats on the periphery of the country park near
Shui Chuen O Estate but the plan fell through. He would like to know the urgency
of the works; and
( c ) a number of the members proposed that the WSD should consider relocating the
works programme to within Shui Chuen O Estate. He urged Mr TSUI Wing-kim
to reconsider the proposal.
( 10 )
Action
25. The views of Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that if the WSD relocated the works programme into Shui Chuen O
Estate, although part of Pok Chuen Street and To Shek Street would still need to
be closed, the impact would be less than the original plan; and
( b ) he thanked the WSD for its willingness to consider views of the DHC members
in enhancing the works programme. He pointed out that absence of a TD
representative made it hard to discuss the traffic problem brought by the works
programme.
26. The views of Mr Jimmy SHAM were summarised below:
( a ) he understood the change of the Government in developing the whole Shui Chuen
O Estate project;
( b ) he opined that the then Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands in
2003 was related to the decision of using seawater for flushing in Shui Chuen O
Estate; and
( c ) he opined that the works programme would cause much traffic impact on the
residents nearby. He did not agree with the consultancy firm that the works would
impose mild impact on local traffic and requested the consultancy firm to provide
a report for reference.
27. The views of Mr Billy CHAN were summarised below:
( a ) he asked the department to explain why the seawater flushing system was not
adopted in 2010 and not considered setting it up until now;
( b ) he asked whether the original fresh water supply facilities would be underused
after commencement of the works programme;
( c ) he asked whether Shui Chuen O Estate would adopt recycled water supply
system; and
( d ) the progress of the WSD and the HD on the project passing through Yan Chuen
House.
28. The views of Mr YAU Man-chun were summarised below:
(a) he opined that it was a waste of time for the WSD to conduct road testing for the
works programme as the road surface there was unsatisfactory. The LCSD once
closed the road during non-peak hours which led to serious congestion;
(b) he urged the WSD to submit a traffic assessment report for the members’
reference as soon as possible;
(c) he did not agree with the WSD that the works programme would cause mild
traffic impact and suggested that the department should have a good grasp of
( 11 )
Action
various environmental factors surrounding the area of the works programme to
minimise impact on the residents nearby; and
(d) he praised the WSD’s representatives for active communication.
29. The responses of Mr TSUI Wing-kim were summarised below:
( a ) the consultancy firm had conducted a traffic impact assessment for the works
programme twice and the preliminary report of 2019 showed that the traffic
impact of the works on local transport was at a reasonable level;
( b ) the word “mild” in the report was based on figures of 2019. Upon review of data
of thie month, he opined that it was not the most accurate to use the word “mild”
to describe the traffic impact of the works programme at certain locations. Upon
completion of the final report, the department would submit the traffic data to the
DHC for discussion;
( c ) the department currently proposed a road closure test for the members to
understand the actual traffic impacts of road closure. In case of serious traffic
congestion during the test, the department would proactively remove those traffic
arrangements. He knew that the morning traffic in Shui Chuen O Estate was rather
busy. If it was found that serious traffic congestion would be brought to some
road sections during the road closure test, the department would try to avoid road
closure during the morning peak hour as far as practicable;
( d ) after the Drainage Services Department (DSD) filtered the sewage, the WSD
would further process the filtered sewage into recycled water for flushing. The
process of producing recycled water was rather complex. Generally speaking,
only inland areas were more suitable to use recycled water and the department
was currently planning to use recycled water for flushing in Sheung Shui and
Fanling;
( e ) when planning Shui Chuen O Estate in 2010, the Government had two options:
(1) using fresh water for drinking and flushing like now; (2) setting up a separate
seawater supply system for flushing. At that time, there were advantages in both
options (1) and (2); and
( f ) regarding the members’ suggestion of directly connecting pipes from Pumping
Station to inside Shui Chuen O Estate to avoid running the pipes under road
surface, he had explained just now that even if the pipes directly reached a certain
location in Shui Chuen O Estate without passing through the roads, they needed
to be laid under the road surface to connect with other locations of Shui Chuen O
Estate in order to distribute seawater to different blocks in the estate. It would
also involve road closure and the situation was the same.
30. The views of Mr Ricardo LIAO were summarised below:
( a ) he appreciated that the WSD representatives were willing to accept opinions;
( b ) he opined that a seawater flushing system helped save water resources;
( 12 )
Action
( c ) regarding the traffic impact of the works programme, he suggested that the WSD
representatives should first relay the comments to the department before
considering amending the programme;
( d ) he asked the department to pay attention to pipe brokerage in Sha Tin District and
put in more efforts in monitoring the materials used by pipe contractors as pipe
brokerage would also affect traffic and cause inconvenience; and
( e ) traffic congestion caused by the works programme might delay access of
emergency vehicles and affect residents. He suggested drawing a temporary
traffic lane to mitigate the possible traffic congestion brought by the works
programme.
31. The responses of Mr TSUI Wing-kim were summarised below:
( a ) he would look into the possibility of relocating pipes of the works programme to
within Shui Chuen O Estate with the HD and other departments, and consider the
view and plan put forward by Mr Ricardo LIAO;
( b ) he hoped that the endorsement of the works programme would provide more
employment opportunities;
( c ) he guaranteed that the works would be launched only if the traffic impact of the
works programme was at a reasonable level; and
( d ) he hoped that the DHC could support the approval application of the Department
at th meeting. Latest updates on the works would be reported to the members and
their support would be sought.
32. Mr YAU Man-chun proposed a provisional motion as follows:
“ The Development and Housing Committee (DHC) of the Sha Tin District Council
strongly objects the WSD’s ‘Public Works Programme Item No. 9054WS - Salt Water
Supply to Sha Tin Area 52, Shui Chuen O’. The works will occupy the traffic lanes of
Shui Chuen Au Street and Pok Chuen Street, seriously affecting the traffic of the district.
The DHC requests that the WSD relocate the laying of water main alignments to within
Shui Chuen O Estate, and that the WSD be required to avoid occupying the traffic lanes
of Shui Chuen Au Street and Pok Chuen Street to minimise the impact on traffic.”
Mr LO Tak-ming, Mr HUI Lap-san, Mr MAK Tsz-kin, Mr Raymond LI, Mr CHIU Chu-pong,
Mr Michael YUNG, Mr George WONG, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr SHEK William, Mr TING
Tsz-yuen, Mr Billy CHAN, Mr TSANG Kit, Mr HUI Yui-yu, Mr NG Kam-hung, Mr Jimmy
SHAM, Mr Ricardo LIAO, Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa, Ms WONG Man-huen, Ms LUK Tsz-tung,
Mr CHENG Chung-hang, Mr LUI Kai-wing, Mr CHAN Pui-ming, Mr Felix CHOW, Ms NG
Ting-lam, Mr Johnny CHUNG, Mr Chris Mak, Mr CHING Cheung-ying, Mr WAI Hing-cheung
and Mr CHAN Nok-hang seconded the motion.
33. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 32.
( 13 )
Action
34. Mr Michael YUNG pointed out that the provisional motion opposed the works of the
department. He would like to know whether the WSD would still apply for planning approval
from the TPB and funding from the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council. He wanted
to serve a copy of the paper to the Legislative Council to inform it of the local view and to avoid
cases similar to the removal of Sha Tin Sewage Treatment Works by the DSD.
35. Mr TING Tsz-yuen agreed with Mr Michael YUNG that the provisional motion reflected
the DHC stance. He said that no voting was needed and the department could submit a
supplementary paper before the next meeting for the members’ consideration.
36. Mr TSUI Wing-kim said that many valuable views of the members were received at the
meeting and he would relay them to the department for further adjustment. The WSD would
submit the works programme to DHC at an appropriate time. Regarding Mr Michael YUNG’s
question on whether the WSD would still submit a planning application to the TPB, he needed
to discuss the matter with the management.
37. The Chairman said that since the WSD did not provide a solution to the traffic problem
caused by the works programme, he suggested that the WSD include the traffic problem in the
works programme which could be submitted to the DHC for discussion and voting in the future.
38. Mr TSUI Wing-kim said that the department sought to obtain support of the DHC
members to submit an application for planning approval at the meeting. Therefore, the
department would not immediately commence the works after seeking the members’ support for
the application for planning approval. The department would report to the DHC regarding the
traffic impact caused by the works programme at the next meeting.
39. The Chairman said that if the WSD could allay the members’ worry about traffic before
submitting a revised works programme to the DHC, the procedures would be smoother.
40. Mr YAU Man-chun said that the provisional motion was a buffer as the members were
dissatisfied about the pipe alignment of the works programme. He urged the WSD to adjust the
pipe alignment to minimise the traffic impact on Shui Chuen O Estate. He suggested that the
WSD submit the planning approval application and the works programme to the DHC in one go
for discussion.
41. Mr LO Tak-ming said that the WSD had not discussed pipe alignment of the works
programme with the HD. He had reservations about the necessity of the test. He suggested that
the WSD submit again the works programme to the DHC for discussion and voting upon
completion of the pipe alignment.
42. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to know whether the WSD would still apply for planning approval
from the TPB despite opposition from the DHC;
( b ) he asked the PlanD representative whether she would report the DHC views to
District Planning Officer / Sha Tin, Tai Po and North, so that the TPB could know
the DHC views when the WSD applied for planning approval; and
( c ) he said that the DHC did not support the pipe alignment of the works programme
and asked whether the WSD would still seek funding from the Legislative
( 14 )
Action
Council for the works programme or attach the funding application of the works
programme to the budget.
43. The responses of Ms Hannah YICK were summarised below:
( a ) she would relay the members’ views to the District Planning Officer; and
( b ) after the WSD submitted an application for planning approval, the PlanD would
circulate its application to all government departments. She believed that the TD
would comment on the traffic issue. Moreover, the public could provide
comments within 3 weeks after the statutory announcement of the planning
approval application. The department would then relay views of the government
departments and the public to the TPB for consideration.
44. The Chairman said that if the WSD wished the DHC to vote on the planning application,
he would put it to a vote by the members.
45. Mr Michael YUNG said that unless the WSD insisted on voting on the planning
application, the provisional motion clearly expressed the members’ stance.
46. Mr TSUI Wing-kim understood that the members currently did not intend to support the
planning application. The department would maintain communication with the members on the
works programme. The members were not required to vote at the meeting.
Hong Kong Science Park Expansion Programme Phase II
(Paper No. DH 28/2020)
47. The Chairman welcomed Ms Eunice CHAN, Assistant Commissioner for Innovation and
Technology (Infrastructure), Ms Joyce CHAN, Senior Manager (Infrastructure), Mr Ken CHAN,
Senior Manager (Capital Works), Ms Emily SHEK, Manager (Capital Works) of Innovation and
Technology Commission (ITC), Mr Simon WONG, Chief Project Development Office, Mr Peter
MOK, Head of Strategic Partnership, Mr Felix TANG, Project Director, Ms Sam YAN, Senior
Manager (Corporate Communications), Ms Sharon LAW, Development Manager of Hong Kong
Science and Technology Parks Corporation, Mr Axon LIN, Project Director, Mr Eric NGAI,
Project Manager of Llewelyn-Davies Hong Kong Limited, Mr Francis SOOTOO, Director, Mr
George LEE, Associate Director of MVA Hong Kong Limited and Mr Caleb YIU, Engineer
(Bicycle Parking) of the TD to the meeting.
48. Ms Eunice CHAN, Mr Simon WONG, Mr Peter MOK and Mr Felix TANG briefly
presented the paper.
49. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he said that after consolidation of traffic assessment reports of various
government departments, it was found that traffic flow towards the HKSP had
been increasing which became more obvious after expansion of HKSP Phase I;
( b ) he opined that the traffic flow at Chak Cheung Street roundabout was highly
saturated, so he asked the HKSP for their solution to the problem; and
( 15 )
Action
( c ) he suggested building a road running from Tate’s Cairn Highway to the HKSP to
avoid Chak Cheung Street roundabout as a solution to the traffic problem. He
urged the HKSP to look into the road improvement works. Otherwise, it would
be hard for him to support the HKSP Expansion Programme Phase II (Expansion
Programme).
50. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that the Expansion Programme should adjust nearby traffic at the same
time; and
( b ) he would like to know which government department proposed “conversion of
Chak Cheung Street roundabout near Science Park Road into a signalised
junction” in Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan, and opined that a signalised
junction could hardly mitigate the traffic congestion there.
51. The views of Mr Felix CHOW were summarised below:
( a ) he believed that no present member objected to development of innovative
technology in Hong Kong by means of expansion of the HKSP;
( b ) he said that the current traffic problem near the HKSP could not be ignored and
opined that the Expansion Programme could not mitigate it;
( c ) he would like to know how a signaling system of the TD could mitigate the traffic
problem there;
( d ) he agreed with Mr Michael YUNG’s suggestion of constructing a road to bypass
Chak Cheung Street roundabout; and
( e ) he said that Hong Kong had made considerable investments in the HKSP
Programme and suggested spending part of the resources to improve the transport
there.
52. The views of Mr SIN Cheuk-nam were summarised below:
( a ) he said that traffic near Tolo Harbour affected traffic in Ma On Shan and Sha Tin;
( b ) he opined that the ITC should proactively provide traffic data analysis to the
members;
( c ) he hoped that the HKSP could make use of technology of the internet of things
(IoT) to improve traffic nearby; and
( d ) he opined that the dormitory near the HKSP could not benefit the elementary staff
in reducing their commuting time and reducing local traffic load.
53. The views of Mr Ricardo LIAO were summarised below:
( 16 )
Action
( a ) he supported the Expansion Programme and opined that concentration in the
HKSP was beneficial to the development of innovative technology;
( b ) he said that roads nearby were overloaded which caused traffic congestion.
Therefore, he hoped that a traffic flow test could be conducted at Chak Cheung
Street roundabout when expanding the HKSP and to look into the capacity of the
roads nearby;
( c ) he opined that the HKSP needed to improve the community ancillary facilities
such as restaurants. The HKSP should consider whether they could cope with staff
needs. Moreover, when surrounding areas were not yet well-developed, some
people might use the facilities inside which would make them overloaded; and
( d ) he was dissatisfied that the TD did not send a representative to the meeting.
54. The views of Mr CHING Cheung-ying were summarised below:
( a ) he appreciated the development of HKSP over the years;
( b ) he hoped that the HKSP could explain how it related to the daily lives of the
community;
( c ) he hoped that the TD could provide the traffic flow data from northbound Tolo
Highway heading to University Station via Chak Cheung Street;
( d ) he would like to know the traffic flow data from Science Park Road to The
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Pak Shek Kok and the HKSP respectively so
as to understand the traffic flow from Science Park Road to Chak Cheung Street
roundabout;
( e ) he would like to know about the increase in traffic flow from Chak Cheung Street
roundabout to the HKSP after completion of the expansion;
( f ) he said that there were defects in the traffic design near Chak Cheung Street
roundabout; and
( g ) he invited the members to focus on the increase in traffic flow after the HKSP
Expansion Programme so as to understand how traffic flow of the HKSP would
affect Chak Cheung Street roundabout.
55. The views of Mr HUI Yui-yu were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to know the total investment, total income and land premium of the
HKSP so as to know whether a fiscal balance was achieved;
( b ) he asked about the economic output of the HKSP over the years, referring to
products unique to the HKSP, which could not be copied in other places. He hoped
that the HKSP could submit a report to the Sha Tin District Council in the future;
and
( 17 )
Action
( c ) regarding the underutilisation of facilities by the Hong Kong Science and
Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTP) for science and research purposes, he
would like to know the economic benefits the Expansion Programme could bring
to the HKSP and the specific key performance indicators the HKSP would use.
56. The views of Mr TING Tsz-yuen were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that policies did not tie in with the development of innovative
technology in Hong Kong;
( b ) he suggested that the ITC should conduct research on the regulation of electric
mobility devices with the TD; and
( c ) he asked whether the signalling system of Chak Cheung Street roundabout was
sufficient to mitigate the traffic problems there.
57. The views of Ms WONG Man-huen were summarised below:
( a ) she said that the HKSTP did not explain in detail the traffic problems near the
HKSP. She opined that a traffic light might not be able to mitigate the saturation
of the roundabout; and
( b ) she hoped that the HKSP could submit a better transport plan to alleviate DHC
concerns.
58. The views of Mr WONG Ho-fung were summarised below:
( a ) he agreed with the Expansion Programme;
( b ) he would like to know how "addition of traffic light" mentioned in the transport
improvement measures of the Expansion Programme could improve the traffic
flow there and whether HKSP had discussed with TD on the transport
improvement measures. If yes, he would like to know the views of TD; and
( c ) he opined that traffic congestion would lead to a loss of resources and asked
whether the Government had other measures to mitigate traffic problem.
59. The views of Mr Jimmy SHAM were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to know about the relationship between the HKSP and the Mainland
as the Mainland was developing Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation & Technology
Park (HKSITP). He pointed out that most of the facilities inside HKSITP would
overlap with the HKSP and would like to know the extent of impact the
development of the HKSITP would bring to on the HKSP; and
( b ) he worried that the development of the HKSITP and the Sino-American
relationship might adversely affect the development of the HKSP.
60. The views of Mr Wilson LI were summarised below:
( 18 )
Action
( a ) he agreed in principle with the expansion of the HKSP;
( b ) he worried whether the ancillary facilities were sufficient to support the
programme, especially the traffic problem;
( c ) he had reservations about whether the currently proposed traffic improvement
measures could solve the traffic problem there; and
( d ) he suggested that the Government consider some major planning such as a bypass
to divert local traffic to tie in with the Expansion Programme.
61. The views of Mr HUI Lap-san were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that the HKSP did not make enough preparation on the part of traffic
improvement measures; and
( b ) he said that as a number of new residential estates were completed in Pak Shek
Kok, he worried that the traffic improvement measures might not be able to cope
with the increased traffic flow after handover of the flats.
62. The views of the Vice-Chairman were summarised below:
( a ) he agreed to the Expansion Programme;
( b ) he suggested that the consultancy firm and departments like the TD could enhance
communication to assess the traffic pressure caused by the Expansion
Programme; and
( c ) the 7% increase in floor area mentioned in the paper was not consistent with the
tolerated traffic load. He asked the HKSP to first answer the members’ questions
on the traffic problem caused by the Expansion Programme.
63. The responses of Mr Simon WONG were summarised below:
( a ) regarding the traffic signals, the traffic consultant would explain in detail later;
( b ) he said that new public transport interchange aimed at improving the waiting
environment of members of the public and at meeting the aspirations of
commercial tenants and users, so that more bus routes could operate via the
HKSP;
( c ) regarding achievements of the HKSP, Mr Peter MOK would explain in detail
later;
( d ) the HKSTP had conducted a traffic trial scheme in the HKSP with the TD, which
involved innovative technologies such as IoT and artificial intelligence. They
would consider the suggestion of Mr SIN Cheuk-nam and apply the technology
on the interchange;
( 19 )
Action
( e ) completion of the InnoCell could provide accommodation facilities for staff in
the HKSP. Furthermore, some HKSP staff rented flats in Pak Shek Kok. The
HKSP had also launched accommodation support scheme to help staff find homes
nearby. The above scheme helped them get to work more easily; and
( f ) 7% of the increased floor area in the Expansion Programme were used for
catering facilities to enhance the overall ancillary facilities.
64. The responses of Mr George LEE were summarised below:
( a ) the increase in traffic flow of the Expansion Programme was lower than 50 per
hour, i.e. less than 1 per minute, which was rather low. It meant that the overall
increase in traffic flow of Chak Cheung Street was less than 1%;
( b ) 25% of the traffic flow from Tolo Highway to the roundabout near University
Station headed to University Station, while the remaining traffic flow headed to
T6 Bridge, Pak Shek Kok and the HKSP, and less than 1/3 among which headed
to the HKSP;
( c ) the whole traffic improvement plan was divided into two parts. One was to
convert the 2 lanes into 3 lanes at Chak Cheung Street, and the other was to
improve the signalling system. The signalling mode would increase the duration
of green light in accordance with the traffic directions of different junctions to
improve the situation at the junctions. For example, the duration of green light at
the road section at the eastbound Chak Cheung Street heading towards the HKSP
might be increased in the morning while the duration of green light for other
junctions might be decreased accordingly to enhance the traffic performance
there; and
( d ) the signalling system was divided into 3 phases. The first phase concerned traffic
along eastbound Chak Cheung Street and vehicles making left turn onto Tolo
Harbour; the second phase concerned the junction of southbound Tolo Highway;
and the third phase concerned traffic leaving along Science Park Road. During
the morning peak hours, the major traffic flow was from eastbound Science Park
Road to the HKSP via Chak Cheung Street. The traffic flow during the remaining
two phases were lower.
65. The responses of Mr Peter MOK were summarised below:
( a ) although Hong Kong competed with various Asian countries, Hong Kong still
had advantages, which included having 6 scientific research-oriented universities,
5 of which ranked in top 100 universities in the world. It was a unique advantage
which other cities could hardly have;
( b ) local scientific research was accredited by the market in Hong Kong, which was
an advantage when being promoted to the international market;
( c ) Hong Kong was an international financial centre and was very free in terms of
the mobility of three broad aspects, namely talents, capital and products.
Therefore, it was hoped that Hong Kong could become a leader in the Asia-pacific
( 20 )
Action
region or even around the world;
( d ) the HKSP did not only focus solely on scientific research, but also bringing
continuous economic benefits, quality employment opportunities, talents to the
community, as well as making contribution to environmental protection and
health;
( e ) he would supplement the data on the amount of investment later;
( f ) regarding the unique status and advantages of Hong Kong, he was very confident
about future scientific research in Hong Kong; and
( g ) the operation of the HKSTP mainly relied on rental income and was self-
financing, which would be used in the community while large-scale infrastructure
might need government support.
66. The responses of Ms Eunice CHAN were summarised below:
( a ) she stressed the value of the HKSP to the development of innovative technology
in Hong Kong;
( b ) the HKSP helped nurture the ecological system for scientific research in Hong
Kong;
( c ) the HKSP had a mechanism to deal with and avoid cases in which a company
leased an HKSP unit without using it for scientific research purposes as
mentioned by some members;
( d ) the HKSP had a different position from that of Lok Ma Chau Hoop and the
Expansion Programme could meet the demand from future development of
laboratories and the industry;
( e ) even when the external economy was beset with uncertainties, Hong Kong’s soft
power, such as intellectual property and financial system, was still an advantage;
and
( f ) if supplementary information provided by the consultants could not answer the
members questions on traffic fully, they could provide further written response
after the meeting.
67. The responses of Mr Caleb YIU were summarised below:
( a ) upon review, the TD considered the transport impact assessment report on the
Expansion Programme submitted by HKSP an accurate reflection of the post-
expansion traffic;
( b ) the department considered that a certain degree of complexity could be conceived
when installing a signalled system at the junction of Chak Cheung Street
roundabout at Science Park Road. Therefore, it was necessary to carefully
consider the temporary traffic measures to mitigate the traffic impact of the
( 21 )
Action
works. The traffic consultancy firm of the HKSTP would conduct further
research; and
( c ) the department knew about the current busy traffic at Chak Cheung Street
roundabout and thus the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD)
had included the problem of traffic congestion at Chak Cheung Street roundabout
under the Planning and Engineering Study on Trunk Road T4. The TD and CEDD
were reviewing and assessing the current traffic and the impact on the roundabout
after completion of Trunk Road T4. It was estimated that upon completion of the
widening works of Tai Po Road (Sha Tin Section) and construction of Trunk Road
T4, traffic at T6 Bridge and Chak Cheung Street roundabout would be alleviated.
The department would continue to review local traffic based on various factors
and timely formulate corresponding measures.
68. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that the report of MVA Hong Kong Limited lacked sincerity;
( b ) he asked the HKSTP and the ITC to respond to the members’ worries;
( c ) he would like to know how long the queue for the HKSP would be after
introducing the signalling system; and
( d ) he opined that the Expansion Programme should be carried out in conjunction
with other traffic improvement works for effectiveness.
69. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:
( a ) he really hoped to support the development of innovative technology. However,
he had asked in the STDC about the requirements for setting up a medical
laboratory in Hong Kong, which was deemed out of the scope of the District
Councils Ordinance. With the interference from the Sha Tin District Office
(STDO) and the Secretariat regarding the STDC work, it was hard for the STDC
to tie in with technological development; and
( b ) he would like to know whether any company of the HKSP could develop a traffic
stimulation software for the members to understand how the suggestion of the
traffic consultancy firm could effectively solve the traffic problem there.
70. Ms WONG Man-huen said that expansion of the HKSTP could not tie in with the
development of traffic ancillary facilities, which might cause traffic congestion in the future.
71. The responses of Mr Simon WONG were summarised below:
( a ) the traffic problem at the area around the HKSP had been included in the long-
term planning of the Government;
( b ) there would be a division of labour between the HKSP and the Government on
carrying out traffic improvement works;
( 22 )
Action
( c ) traffic measures would be implemented along with the launch of the Expansion
Programme in the HKSP;
( d ) long-term regional traffic development needed to be improved on government
level;
( e ) according to the consultancy report, the Expansion Programme would not affect
the overall traffic flow much; and
( f ) the HKSP hoped that the Expansion Programme could be completed in 2022-
2024 to tie in with the rapid technological development nowadays and he asked
the members to support the Expansion Programme.
72. Mr Michael YUNG proposed a provisional motion as follows:
“ Background
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation (HKSTP) is implementing Phase
2 of the Science Park Expansion Programme in Pak Shek Kok in New Territories. After
the completion of Phase 1 of the Science Park Expansion Programme, there has been
serious traffic congestion at the roundabout at Chak Cheung Street in the morning and
evening. The Development and Housing Committee (DHC) does not support the
HKSTP’s attempt to alleviate the traffic congestion at Science Park Road with a patchy
fix of changing the roundabout at Chak Cheung Street/Hong Kong Science Park to a
signalised junction.
Motion
The DHC of the Sha Tin District Council (STDC) understands the needs to expand the
Hong Kong Science Park; however, the traffic improvement measures submitted by the
HKSTP at this stage is not helpful to solving the congestion at the 2 roundabouts at Chak
Cheung Street. Therefore, the DHC cannot support Phase 2 of the Science Park Expansion
Programme at this stage.
The DHC urges relevant government departments to study feasible traffic improvement
measures. For example, the Hong Kong Science Park-bound traffic from the 2 trunk roads,
Tate’s Cairn Highway and Tolo Highway, to the bypass at Chak Cheung Street can be
diverted. The measures should be consulted at the STDC for its approval, before an
application for funding for Phase 2 of the Science Park Expansion Programme is
submitted to the Legislative Council.”
Mr CHAN Pui-ming, Ms WONG Man-huen, Ms LUK Tsz-tung, Mr MAK Tsz-kin, Mr LUI Kai-
wing, Mr Felix CHOW, Mr SIN Cheuk-nam, Ms NG Ting-lam, Mr Johnny CHUNG, Mr HUI
Lap-san, Mr WAI Hing-cheung, Mr TSANG Kit, Mr TING Tsz-yuen, Mr SHEK William, Mr
Billy CHAN, Mr CHIU Chu-pong, Mr HUI Yui-yu, Mr Wilson LI, Mr Jimmy SHAM, Mr
Ricardo LIAO, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr YAU Man-chun, Mr Raymond LI, Mr CHAN Nok-
hang, Mr NG Kam-hung and Mr LO Tak-ming seconded the motion.
73. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 72.
( 23 )
Action
74. Mr Michael YUNG said that he had previously sought from the HKSP the traffic
consultancy report, in which not all traffic data was listed. He would like to know whether the
HKSP had submitted the same report to the TD.
75. Mr Simon WONG said that the problem would be followed up after the meeting.
76. Members noted the above documents.
Question
Question to be Raised by Mr WONG Ho-fung on the Management of Mei Ying Court
(Paper No. DH 21/2020)
77. The Chairman welcomed Ms FUNG Wai-ling, Senior Housing Manager (Tai Po, North
& Shatin 1) (Acting), HD to the meeting.
78. The views of Mr WONG Ho-fung were summarised below:
( a ) he pointed out that as new HOS courts were gradually completed, a considerable
number of HOS management contracts were granted by the HD as owners’
corporations were not yet established;
( b ) he opined that mismanagement of the HD contributed to the breach of contracts
by property management companies or even to misuse of resources;
( c ) he would like to know what measures HD had to improve the procedures and
monitor the operation of property management companies; and
( d ) regarding the high turnover rate of Mei Ying Court Owners’ Corporation, as the
responsible HD staff had been transferred, he would like to know about the latest
situation of Mei Ying Court.
79. The responses of Ms FUNG Wai-ling were summarised below:
( a ) the HA requested property management companies to submit information when
formulating services management contracts, so that it could devise level of
management fee after intake of housing courts. The HD adopted the principles of
reimbursement of actual expenses and not exceeding maximum amount of
expenses stated in contracts in requesting property management companies to pay
monthly management fees; and
( b ) the management fee declared by the property management company of Mei Ying
Court did not exceed the maximum amount of expenses stated in the contract.
Upon checking the financial records starting from 9 May 2017, the HD instructed
the property management company to deposit excess amount into the account of
the court trading fund. On 29 September, the department had a meeting with the
Management Committee of Mei Ying Court Owners’ Corporation (Management
Committee) and promised to provide the financial records of the past three years
for review of the Chairman in late October. The department would meet with the
Management Committee for follow-up on 6 November this year.
( 24 )
Action
80. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he said that recent “shoebox” HOS sites of the HD created property management
problems. He said that Kam Fai Court in Ma On Shan and Mei Ying Court faced
similar problems. Property management of Mei Ying Court was handled by
Chevalier Property Management Limited (Chevalier) while the car park was
managed by Yue Xiu Apt Parking Limited Property management of Kam Fai
Court was handled by Kong Shum Union Property Management Co., Ltd.
(KSUP) while the car park was managed by Easy Living Consultant Limited
(ELC);
( b ) he said that the HD did not engage sufficient additional manpower. The car park
operated for 24 hours and additional staff needed to be deployed from Yan On
Estate. However, the HD only granted three shifts with each lasting for 8 hours.
In case of an accident in the car park, KSUP could not provide assistance and duty
officers of ELC would have to deal with the problem;
( c ) in case of the above, the driver should go to other places to pay the fee or staff of
the car park management company should come and collect the fee. He would
like to know whether staff needed to go to other courts for work under inclement
weather; and
( d ) once established, the owners’ corporation would not handle issues related to HD
management of car park. It also did not have any obligations or responsibilities
to provide public space for car park staff to work. He took Sui Wo Court as an
example and would like to know whether the department would install electrical
fittings like individual meter for property management companies. He also said
that the HD should consider occupational safety of outsourced staff and HD staff
providing services, as well as handling of single HOS blocks in the future.
81. The views of Mr Felix CHOW were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that the Government developed “shoebox” sites into single HOS
blocks. Courts were so small that property management companies responsible
for management could not gain sufficient profit to provide basic services.
Alternatively, property management companies might raise the fees via different
means to increase profit. He opined that such practice was not satisfactory; and
( b ) he asked for the HD’s measures to monitor property management companies and
asked how to delineate the management roles of owners’ corporations and the HD
after establishment of the former.
82. The views of Mr WONG Ho-fung were summarised below:
( a ) he said that the property management company of Mei Ying Court used up the
maximum amount of expenses but failed to provide sufficient management staff
and even paid bonuses to its staff with the court trading fund. He opined that the
property management company failed to properly manage the court in accordance
with the contract. Regarding the arrangement which property management
companies entered into contract with HD but not owners’ corporations, he opined
( 25 )
Action
that the department might not have sufficient checks and balances and thus
management fees might not be used properly;
( b ) he did not object to a reasonable increase in management fees so that property
management companies could effectively manage their courts; and
( c ) he said that facilities were frequently under maintenance in spite of recent
completion of Mei Ying Court, which was not satisfactory.
83. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:
( a ) the HD relocated Yan On Estate Car Park to Hang Chi Street Car Park out of the
expansion of Yan On Estate and he opined that it was easy for the turnstile to
become out of order because of its outdoor location;
( b ) he said that if the turnstile of Kam Fai Court became out of order, security staff
of Yan Chung House needed to walk from the security room to Kam Fai Court.
He worried that the long queue of vehicles might disrupt traffic at Hang Kin Street
and Hang Yiu Street;
( c ) he opined that fragmented property management contracts might cause difficulty
in deployment of manpower. Property management companies might find it hard
to deal with accidents. He suggested that the HD arrange individual contracts for
each facility to facilitate management of owners’ corporations and property
management companies; and
( d ) he asked what solutions the HD had to the above management problems.
84. The responses of Ms FUNG Wai-ling were summarised below:
( a ) the HD reserved parking spaces for each court based on the respective land leases
and installed turnstiles for Octopus cards at the court entrance;
( b ) the security service of Kam Fai Court was provided by Yan On Estate and a
turnstile for Octopus cards was used in the car park, which could effectively
manage the parking spaces of Kam Fai Court;
( c ) the HD requested in the services contract of Sui Wo Court that security staff carry
out traffic control and inspect vacant spaces of blocks. Therefore, they mostly
worked outdoors. It was illegal for the property management company to build
its office on a vacant lot and take electricity from the court. The department had
immediately requested the property management company to stop these acts and
provided a security booth for security staff of Sui Wo Court. It would also review
the arrangements regularly;
( d ) the department had reviewed receipts submitted by Chevalier since April this year
and ceased the problem of spending over the maximum limit by Chevalier;
( e ) the department procured cleaning services on an hourly basis. The contract stated
that the property management company shall provide two cleaning workers
( 26 )
Action
whose working hours were 8 hours. If the management company could ensure 16
hours of cleaning work by its workers, the contractual requirement was met. At
the request of the department, Chevalier had provided night-time cleaners for Mei
Ying Court;
( f ) when the department and the property management company formulated the
contract, it had been requested to include year-end bonus into the calculation of
staffing costs which was reflected in the management fees. The department would
review the accounting records submitted by Chevalier such as year-end bonus
taken from the court trading fund by Chevalier; and
( g ) she would relay the members’ views to the respective sections of the HD.
85. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he said that Yan On Estate and Kam Fai Court managed by the HD were PRH and
HOS respectively. Manpower could not effectively operate;
( b ) he opined that the department had not comprehensively considered the
management of building facilities when designing residential courts, such as the
car park system of Kam Fai Court;
( c ) he cited an example by saying that KSUP was not responsible for managing the
car park of Kam Fai Court. A problem occurred in the car park would be dealt
with by staff of Yan On Estate. He worried that it would affect the management
quality of Yan On Estate;
( d ) apart from increasing security staff, he suggested increasing management
personnel; and
( e ) he was disappointed that Mr WONG Chun-hung, Samuel failed to keep his
promise of increasing manpower.
86. Ms FUNG Wai-ling would further ask Mr WONG Chun-hung, Samuel on the view of Mr
Michael YUNG.
87. Mr WONG Ho-fung proposed a provisional motion as follows:
“ The Development and Housing Committee demands that the Housing Department (HD)
strengthen communication with the representatives of Mei Ying Court to rationalise
account issues between a flock of minority owners of Mei Ying Court and the
management company (Chevalier Property Management Limited), so that the estate can
start inviting tenders after rationalising account issues and make its own decision on
future management companies.
The HD should also adopt measures to improve the flow and contract of outsourcing the
management of estates under the Home Ownership Scheme and strengthen the
monitoring of management companies, so as to ensure that the management fees paid by
minority owners will be put to good use.”
( 27 )
Action
Mr George WONG and Ms NG Ting-lam seconded the motion.
88. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 87.
89. Members noted the above paper.
Question to be Raised by Mr YAU Man-chun on the Shortage of Parking Spaces in Shui Chuen
O Estate
(Paper No. DH 29/2020)
90. The Chairman welcomed Ms CHING Yim-yu, Housing Manager (Tai Po, North & Shatin
9) of the HD to the meeting.
91. The views of Mr YAU Man-chun were summarised below:
( a ) he said that parking spaces for private cars were not sufficient in Shui Chuen O
Estate and hoped that the department could increase the number of parking
spaces;
( b ) he would like to know the increase in the number of parking spaces in Shui Chuen
O Estate; and
( c ) he urged the HD to make reference to Sha Kok Estate in providing parking
discounts in Shui Chuen O Estate and consider rezoning part of the passage into
parking spaces, provided that the pedestrian path was not affected.
92. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he would like to know which version of Hong Kong Planning Standards and
Guidelines (Guidelines) was based on when the HD calculated the number of
parking spaces in various estates;
( b ) he noticed that estates in Sha Tin District provided different parking discounts
and would like to know about the HD’s standards of deciding the fees and
discounts of daytime and overnight parking;
( c ) he asked why the use rate of daytime parking reached 107% in Shui Chuen O
Estate; and
( d ) he said that estates completed after 1995 only provided parking spaces for light
goods vehicles and asked the HD what policy caused such change. He said that
as some staff might not know the types of vehicles, those which did not meet the
requirements used parking spaces in estates.
93. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:
( a ) he said that the HD did not consider parking needs of large vehicles when
developing public housing and thus these vehicles parked in open car parks,
which had been continuously expropriated; and
( 28 )
Action
( b ) he said that Shui Chuen O Estate was about 500 meters away from Sha Tin Wai
Station but as the planning standard counted direct distance but not walking
distance, the proportion of parking spaces in estates were too low. He said that
the TD was reviewing the calculation method of the Guidelines and asked about
compensation measures if insufficiency in parking spaces was found in some
courts after review.
94. The views of Mr LO Tak-ming were summarised below:
( a ) he said that vacant spaces were found near Ming Chuen House and Ling Chuen
House which he proposed to be rezoned as parking spaces;
( b ) he said that insufficient parking spaces in Shui Chuen O Estate led to traffic
problems and illegal parking outside the estate. He suggested adding overnight
parking spaces in area near To Shek Street; and
( c ) he asked whether the HD would discuss the above suggestion with other
departments.
95. The views of Mr MAK Tsz-kin were summarised below:
( a ) he said that parking spaces and illegal parking were highly related;
( b ) he opined that the number of government-planned sparking spaces were
disproportionately low compared to the number of households, which caused
traffic problems;
( c ) he suggested that the HD and the TD could look into the traffic flow after
completion of new estates and mitigate the problem; and
( d ) he suggested that the Government amend the Guidelines to meet present needs.
96. The responses of Ms CHING Yim-yu were summarised below:
( a ) after the HD inspected Shui Chuen O Estate in May this year, 2 parking spaces
for private cars and 3 for motorcycles were added and leased to persons on the
waiting list;
( b ) the department would consider the suggestions of Mr YAU Man-chun and Mr LO
Tak-ming;
( c ) Shui Chuen O Estate car park provided hourly parking discounts for private cars
from 11pm to 7am. As only Phase II provided hourly services and daytime
capacity was usually full, there was no enough incentives to provide discounts
and increase the utility rate. Currently, only car parks of Domain Mall and Yau
Lai Shopping Centre under the purview of the HA provided free parking for
customers spending over a certain amount;
( d ) car parks of Shui Chuen O Estate Phases 1, 3 and 4 were fixed monthly parking
spaces without hourly services. Phase 2 of the car park set up over 70 hourly
( 29 )
Action
parking spaces because of the shopping centre;
( e ) in response to the question of Mr Michael YUNG on data of monthly parking in
Shui Chuen O Estate, she said that all hourly parking spaces would not be
occupied at the same time and additional flexible monthly spaces would be
provided. When owners of daytime monthly parking left the car park, the
department could make use of these spaces for hourly parking and safeguard
spaces for users of flexible monthly spaces;
( f ) regarding the member’s suggestion of rezoning spaces of heavy vehicles for light
goods vehicles in Sha Kok Estate, parking spaces there were managed by Link
REIT;
( g ) the department would provide supplementary information on car parks in estates
of Sha Tin District after the meeting; and
( h ) overnight hourly parking discount in Shui Chuen O Estate was based on the
departmental guidelines. Shui Chuen O Estate Carpark provided monthly parking
spaces for light goods vehicles of 5.5 tonnes or below and the charge was higher.
In case of vacancy, light goods vehicles on the waiting list would be arranged to
fill up the spaces.
97. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he said that staff of Yan On Estate had mistakenly leased spaces for light goods
vehicles to medium-sized goods vehicles;
( b ) he said that when the HD was constructing Yan On Estate Phase 2, nearby meters
for goods vehicles were converted into provisional parking spaces of Yan On
Estate Phase 2 which led to insufficient spaces for goods vehicles;
( c ) as the HD accorded them with Category 3B priority in the ballot, he said that
residents driving company vehicles were difficult to use parking spaces within the
estate;
( d ) he suggested relaxing the planning restrictions on parking spaces; and
( e ) he suggested converting some hourly spaces into flexible monthly spaces in Yan
On Estate Phase II or other courts to increase the number of parking spaces.
98. Mr YAU Man-chun asked the HD to continue to look into how to increase parking spaces,
review the utilisation on a half-year or annual basis, and provide hourly parking discounts.
99. Ms CHING Yim-yu noted the members’ views and would discuss the feasibility of
increasing parking spaces with other government departments.
100. Mr YAU Man-chun proposed a provisional motion as follows:
“ The Development and Housing Committee of the Sha Tin District Council strongly
requests that the Housing Department increase the provision of various types of parking
( 30 )
Action
spaces in housing estates newly built in recent years, such as Shui Chuen O Estate, Chun
Yeung Estate, Yuk Wo Court, Yan On Estate Phase 2 and Choi Wo Court, and
expeditiously provide discounts for hourly parking, such as 24-hour Pass and Day Pass.”
Mr LO Tak-ming, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr TING Tsz-yuen, Mr Billy CHAN, Mr SHEK
William, Mr Wilson LI, Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa, Mr CHAN Wan-tung, Mr Michael YUNG, Mr
MAK Tsz-kin, Mr LUI Kai-wing, Ms LUK Tsz-tung, Mr Felix CHOW, Mr CHAN Pui-ming,
Ms NG Ting-lam, Mr Johnny CHUNG, Mr HUI Lap-san, Mr WAI Hing-cheung, Mr NG Kam-
hung, Mr CHAN Nok-hang, Mr George WONG, Mr CHIU Chu-pong, Mr CHING Cheung-ying
and Mr Jimmy SHAM seconded the motion.
101. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 100.
102. Members noted the above paper.
Question to be Raised by Ms NG Ting-lam on the Development of Tai Wai Complex
(Paper No. DH 30/2020)
103. The Chairman welcomed Mr Trery MA, Executive Officer (Development) of the STDO,
Ms Elaine CHAN, Assistant Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 2, Ms Mary YEW, Assistant District
Social Work Officer (Sha Tin) 3 of the Social Welfare Department, Ms Joe WONG, District
Leisure Manager (Sha Tin), Ms Ester CHAN, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District
Support) Sha Tin, Mr Henry HEUNG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin)1, Ms Celine
LAU, Senior Liberian (Planning and Development), Ms LEE Mei-yee, Senior Liberian (Sha Tin)
and Mr Eddie NG, Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 34 of the LCSD to the meeting.
104. The views of Ms NG Ting-lam were summarised below:
( a ) she asked whether the Government would conduct planning again to mitigate
traffic congestion nearby if a public car park was set up in Tai Wai Complex
(Complex);
( b ) she would like to know the locations of the entrances of the car park in the
Complex; and
( c ) she would like to know about the progress, works commencement time, service
targets, etc. of the Complex.
105. The views of Mr Felix CHOW were summarised below:
( a ) he said that the development of the Complex was similar to the nature of Fo Tan
Complex at Shan Mei Street, but the Complex was led by the STDO while Fo Tan
Complex at Shan Mei Street was led by the Government Property Agency. He
would like to know their differences in terms of development;
( b ) he would like to know whether “single site, multiple use” was applicable to the
Complex; and
( c ) the development timetable and facilities of the Complex.
( 31 )
Action
106. The views of Mr LI Sai-hung were summarised below:
( a ) he was dissatisfied with the responses of the government departments and said
that apart from the increase in parking spaces, there was no other content update;
( b ) he said that a member asked two year ago whether the car park would be built in
the basement and asked for the traffic assessment report of the Complex. He
would like to know the progress of follow-up by the department; and
( c ) whether the Home Affairs Bureau or the PlanD was responsible for the
development of the Complex.
107. Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa would like to know about the latest progress of the Complex and
whether the Government would construct other single-block buildings on the site of the
Complex.
108. Mr George WONG opined that responses of the government department were similar to
those in 2018, and asked the departments to report the development progress from 2018 till now.
109. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:
( a ) he opined that there was insufficient communication between the STDO and the
members. He worried that the development of the Complex would be delayed;
and
( b ) he asked the STDO to provide a development timetable for the Complex and
timely submit a progress report to DHC.
110. Mr WONG Ho-fung said that multiple departments would provide facilities in the
Complex and hoped that the STDO could speed up to meet residents’ aspirations.
111. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he said that during the previous term the DHC, the then Secretary for
Development said that the site above the Complex would be handed over to the
HD for development of single HOS blocks. He would like to know whether the
site above the Complex would be used for housing purpose;
( b ) he opined that although the Complex could increase facilities, it was a “toothpick-
like building”, which might arouse opposition among residents nearby;
( c ) he opined that as the site was a residential land, housing production did not require
an application to the TPB for change in planning. He once suggested with other
members rezoning the land for a government, institution or community site but
the suggestion was not considered;
( d ) he said that insufficient spaces with parking meters and car parks in Tai Wai led
to illegal parking in the district. He suggested that the Government seek
appropriate locations to solve the problem of illegal parking;
( 32 )
Action
( e ) he quoted from the Deputy Secretary for Development that as the previous term
of the STDC had been consulted on the Complex, the current term of the STDC
should not be consulted again. He did not agree with this practice as former and
current district councillors held different views; and
( f ) he would like to know whether the STDO would set up a branch office in the
Complex to mitigate the problem of insufficient working space.
112. The Chairman opined that the it was an outdated practice that the Department of Health
would only enhance publicity but would not operate a dental clinic in the Complex. He would
like to know when the STDO could confirm the development of the Complex.
113. The responses of Ms Hannah YICK were summarised below:
( a ) the PlanD would reserve lots for various purposes in view of social development
and required facilities;
( b ) the proposed Complex was located on a lot which was zoned as Residential
(Group A) area in Approved Sha Tin Outline Zoning Plan No. S/ST/34. Apart
from the public car park, most of the proposed government and community
facilities did not require planning approval. Regarding the application for
planning approval of the public carpark, a project proponent shall submit a traffic
impact assessment report; and
( c ) regarding the technical assessment and confirmation of facilities of the Complex,
she believed that STDO, as the project coordinator, would explain the progress.
114. The responses of Ms Katy CHENG, Chief Liaison Officer / STDO were summarised
below:
( a ) the Complex had entered the stage of technical feasibility study. The STDO was
conducting with other relevant departments a traffic review study on the traffic
impact in the vicinity brought by facilities and the public carpark of the Complex.
As the project was required to go through the mechanism and procedures
necessary for general public works, the actual development timetable could only
be confirmed after discussing the list of facilities with relevant departments; and
( b ) provision of facilities in the Complex was decided by the responsible bureaux or
departments.
115. Ms Mary YEW said that the proposed Neighbourhood Elderly Centre aimed to serve
senior citizens and carers in the district. The centre would provide a series of community support
services at a local level, including social and recreational activities, counselling, service referral,
dementia and community education, support for carers and catering services, etc.
116. Ms Joe WONG said that there were 7 sports centres in Sha Tin District, including Mei
Lam Sports Centre, Hin Keng Sports Centre and the newly built Che Kumg Temple Sports Centre
in Tai Wai. The current utility rates of the local sports centres were not yet saturated. Moreover,
sports centres in Ma On Shan Area 103 and Fo Tan were under planning. Therefore, the LCSD
( 33 )
Action
did not plan to set up a sports centre, a gymnastics room or a children’s playroom in the proposed
Complex.
117. Mr Eddie NG said that the department proposed setting up a small library and a Students’
Study Room in the Complex and it would work with relevant departments to confirm the works.
118. Ms LEE Mei-yee said that the department would closely monitor the development of the
Complex project and was willing to cooperate in relation to the proposed works.
119. Mr CHAN Pui-ming would like to know about the progress of the feasibility study being
conducted by the STDO and whether the STDO could provide the tendering document of the
feasibility study for the DHC’s reference.
120. Ms NG Ting-lam would like to know about the role of the STDO in the development of
the Complex.
121. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he did not understand why the Assistant District Officers of the STDO did not
attend the meeting; and
( b ) he said that the Secretary for Development had met the STDC Members, saying
that he considered constructing subsidised housing on the site above the Complex.
He opined that there were a large number of residential buildings in Tai Wai.
Construction of subsidised housing on the site above the Complex would affect
the view. He would like to know the current progress of the Complex and whether
the department had applied for funding from the Legislative Council to conduct a
feasibility study.
122. Ms Katy CHENG said that a traffic review study was required to look into the impacts of
the Complex and its parking spaces on nearby traffic. The study was handled by the Architectural
Services Department. Due to the epidemic, the study still needed time. The STDO would timely
report the latest developments to the STDC, and consult it when necessary.
123. Ms FUNG Wai-ling said that currently there was no information available.
124. The Chairman would like to know when the feasibility study was expected to be
completed.
125. Ms Katy CHENG said that the STDO could provide supplementary information after the
meeting.
126. The Vice-Chairman opined that the epidemic was not quite related to the feasibility study
and hoped that the STDO could provide more information after the meeting.
127. Mr LI Sai-hung said that the epidemic only took place in this year and that the STDC had
been consulted on the project in 2018. He was disappointed that the STDO could not complete
the feasibility study within one year.
( 34 )
Action
128. Mr George WONG would like to know about the commencement and estimated
completion dates of the feasibility study.
129. The Chairman said that a number of residents in Tai Wai hoped that the Complex could
be completed as soon as possible. He asked the department to provide supplementary
information on the progress of the feasibility study for the members’ information.
130. Members noted the above paper.
Question to be Raised by Mr CHUNG Lai-him on the Construction of Public Passages under the
Land Grant Provisions for Housing Projects in Sha Tin
(Paper No. DH 31/2020)
131. The Chairman welcomed Ms Rosseter HO, Senior Estate Surveyor / South East (Acting),
District Lands Office, Sha Tin (DLO/ST) to the meeting.
132. The views of Mr Johnny CHUNG were summarised below:
( a ) he considered it unreasonable for minority owners to be responsible for
maintenance of public facilities. He considered that the policy was intended to ask
private developers to bear social responsibility;
( b ) he pointed out that the bridge connecting The Tolo Place and Sunshine City
Phases 4 and 5 was included in common parts of the estate, which meant owners
of The Tolo Place shall bear over 80% of the maintenance fees. As the bridge
mainly served non-owners, it was unfair for the owners to bear most of the
maintenance fees;
( c ) he would like to know how many communal facilities were handled by developers
but became owners’ responsibility after a revision in the Deed of Mutual
Covenant (DMC) by the developers. He would also like to know the part of DMC
that communal facilities belonged to; and
( d ) he would like to know whether the STDO had received cases seeking for help
from Owners’ Committees or Owners’ Corporations on maintenance of
communal facilities. He asked the Secretariat why the STDO was not invited to
give a response on the question.
133. The views of Mr Felix CHOW were summarised below:
( a ) he said that owners might not benefit from facilities paid by them which became
a public space;
( b ) he cited an example from a private passage in front of a private court in Kau To
Shan which was managed by the court. Even though the owners wanted to return
the passage to the Government, it failed because the Government had raised
various requests. He opined that the Government was not willing to face the
problems brought by over-reliance on property developers in Hong Kong; and
( c ) he hoped that DLO/ST could help clarify the above case.
( 35 )
Action
134. The views of Mr WAI Hing-cheung were summarised below:
( a ) he quoted from the reply of DLO/ST that “the owner of the development shall
perform the related contractual obligations” and would like to know whether the
title owner responsible for the development still needed to undertake the
contractual obligations after selling the property. He opined that no matter the
number of property sold, the developer was still the “title owner of the
development”;
( b ) he would like to know why developers would develop communal space and what
benefits they could gain. He asked whether the Government had provided
incentives for developers to build these communal space and facilities;
( c ) he asked whether the special lease condition was stipulated before land auction or
in a private discussion between the Government and the developers;
( d ) he would like to know what measures the Government would take if owners did
not perform the contractual obligations or no one did; and
( e ) he said that it was unfair for owners to bear the expenses of communal facilities
when they were not the primary users.
135. Mr MAK Tsz-kin said that DMC of Sui Wo Court was enforced by the HD and that the
bridge and the elevator were parts of a whole building. It was not mentioned in the DMC who
was responsible for these structures either. After reviewing the drawings, he found that those
structures belonged to the shopping centre, so it should be responsible for the maintenance.
However, HD did not explain that to the buyers of the shopping centre. He pointed out that the
HD left these structures to the Owners’ Corporation for its handling, and asked whether the HD
had discussed the details with the Owners’ Corporation.
136. Ms Rosseter HO replied that provision of a bridge in the private development was
intended to facilitate a comprehensive design, optimisation of land use, and proper planning, so
that the facilities could be timely completed. She briefly stated that DLO/ST would follow the
established procedures to consult relevant government departments and solicit local views
through the STDO (if applicable) when drafting the land lease. As for this case, the views would
be included in the land lease upon approved by the District Land Conference. For example, the
land lease stated that the title owners shall perform the obligations of construction, management
and maintenance of the bridge.
137. Ms Angela LIU, Executive Officer (District Council) 5 of the STDO replied that the lease
condition was not under the terms of reference of the STDO. The Secretariat had relayed the
question to the Buildings Department and DLO/ST for their response.
138. Mr SIN Cheuk-nam pointed out that DLO/ST did not conduct a public consultation when
handling lease terms of the site and asked whether the DLO/ST would conduct public
consultations when formulating lease terms in the future.
139. Mr Johnny CHUNG asked whether the STDO had received cases from Owners’
Corporations, Owners’ Committees and District Management Committees regarding
management problems of communal facilities arisen from lease terms. He said that the policy
was outdated with the need for amendment.
( 36 )
Action
140. Ms FUNG Wai-ling pointed out that remainder of Sui Wo Court was residential land. As
the bridge belonged to the remainder, the Owners’ Corporation was responsible for repairs and
maintenance of the bridge.
141. Mr Edmund WONG, Senior Liaison Officer (North) of the STDO said that the STDO
was responsible for building management and providing information on the Building
Management Ordinance. DMC usually included lease terms. When the STDO received enquiries
on land lease, it would suggest seeking professional legal advice. He said that the STDO did not
receive such questions from Owners’ Corporations or Owners’ Committees.
142. The Chairman asked members whether they agreed to deal with the provisional motion
proposed by Mr Johnny CHUNG.
143. Members agreed to deal with the provisional motion proposed by Mr Johnny CHUNG.
144. Mr Johnny CHUNG proposed a provisional motion as follows:
“ Background of the motion: When the Government of the HKSAR developed Sha Tin
New Town in the last century, the community was mainly developed through public-
private partnership. At that time, the Government included special provisions in the land
grant provisions (commonly known as “land leases”) that requested developers, when
building housing estates, to also build community facilities open for public use, including
but not limited to walkways, footbridges, lifts, escalators, etc., and be responsible for
their maintenance upon commissioning.
However, some Deeds of Mutual Covenant listed the above access facilities as “Estate
Common Areas” (or in similar wording) and split the costs of daily operation and
maintenance of relevant facilities according to the ownership shares of the buildings,
which is tantamount to transferring relevant costs to minority owners of the buildings.
Some of the footbridges, lifts and escalators are connected to the commercial sections of
the property and most of the users of such facilities are not residents of the estates;
however, the costs of maintenance and repairs are borne by certain minority owners,
which is not fair.
It should be the Government’s responsibility to construct, operate and maintain
community facilities and this responsibility should not be shifted to other shareholders.
Regarding this, the Committee proposes the following motion:
Motion:
1. The Committee requests that the relevant government departments resume land titles
of the parts of community facilities that are connected to the commercial sections of
the property in the Sha Tin District, including but not limited to community facilities
like walkways, footbridges, lifts and escalators, and be responsible for their
maintenance and repairs.
2. The Committee requests that the relevant government departments provide suitable
financial and technical support for owners in maintaining relevant facilities before
the departments resume relevant land titles, so as to alleviate the burden on owners
and to ensure the safety of other facility users.”
( 37 )
Action
Mr WAI Hing-cheung and Mr TING Tsz-yuen seconded the motion.
145. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 144.
146. Members noted the above paper.
Question to be Raised by Mr TING Tsz-yuen on the Maintenance of Escalator at the Bus
Terminus at Sunshine City Phase 4
(Paper No. DH 32/2020)
147. The Chairman welcomed Mr William AU, Senior Engineer (General Legislation) 3 and
Mr YIU Yung-ngai, Engineer (General Legislation) 3/2 of the Electrical & Mechanical Services
Department (EMSD) and Ms Rosseter HO, Senior Estate Surveyor / South East (Acting),
DLO/ST to the meeting.
148. The views of Mr TING Tsz-yuen were summarised below:
( a ) he said that the escalator maintenance works had been delayed for nearly 7 months
and would like to know the reason and whether the EMSD would punish the
contractor;
( b ) he asked the STDO the difficulties facing the Owners’ Committee of Sunshine
City Phase 4 regarding the escalator maintenance works;
( c ) he said that as the land lease put the responsibility on owners, it was unfair to
minority owners; and
( d ) he said that the escalator maintenance works of Sunshine City Phase 4 had been
delayed for more than one year. He asked the DLO/ST about the meaning of
“within a reasonable range” in “the DLO/ST would not treat it as a contravention
of lease terms or consider it necessary to carry out enforcements of the land lease
within a reasonable range”.
149. Mr Johnny CHUNG suggested that the Government should provide subsidy for the
facility or even purchase the title on the long run.
150. Mr William AU pointed out that the EMSD was the department for execution of the Lifts
and Escalators Ordinance (Cap. 618). Title of an escalator was not under the terms of reference
of the department. If the Owners’ Committee had engaged a registered escalator contractor to
carry out daily maintenance and regular inspection in accordance with the law to ensure the
escalator and its mechanical fittings could be safely operated, the Owners’ Committee did not
contravene the Ordinance. The department had regularly contacted the contractor to get updates
of the progress and reminded it to replace the handrail belts once the tendering price was
confirmed. As the problem did not lie in the contractor which had been carrying out maintenance
as per the law requirements, no penalty was applicable.
151. Ms Rosseter HO replied that a letter was sent in April this year to request the management
company to follow up on the maintenance of the escalator. The Owners’ Committee of Sunshine
City Phase 4 replied in June this year that the escalator could not be used out of safety concern
and the maintenance fees shall be discussed in its meeting. Later, the DLO/ST wrote to the
( 38 )
Action
management company in September and October this year to ask for the latest update. She said
that generally speaking, in case the grantee or property manager had to temporarily shut down
the facility out of actual needs such as repairs and maintenance, emergency or other safety risks,
the DLO/ST would not treat it as a contravention of lease terms or consider it necessary to carry
out enforcements of the land lease within a reasonable range. The DLO/ST was waiting for a
reply from the management company. If the management company failed to provide a reasonable
response, the DLO/ST would consider carrying out enforcement actions if necessary and upon
seeking legal advice.
152. Mr Edmund WONG pointed out that the Owners’ Committee of Sunshine City Phase 4
needed to have a meeting and voted on the procurement related to the escalator based on the DM
and Schedule 7 of the Building Management Ordinance.
153. Mr Felix CHOW said that the reason for failing to repair the escalator was that an owners’
meeting could not be held under the epidemic. Therefore, the related procurement could not be
carried out. He opined that the DLO/ST could not fulfil its own role to follow up on the
maintenance of the escalator. Therefore, the escalator had stopped been out of service for more
than one year and affected the community.
154. Ms Rosseter HO replied that the DLO/ST had received a response from the Owners’
Committee, which stated that out of public safety concern, the escalator was temporarily closed
and it had already sought a quotation from the escalator on the damaged parts. The quotation
was so high that it required further discussion. She also said that there were still 2 escalators in
operation providing services in Sunshine City Phase 4.
155. Members noted the above paper.
Date of Next Meeting
156. The next meeting was scheduled to be held at 6:17 pm on 27 October 2020 (Tuesday).
157. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 pm.
Sha Tin District Council Secretariat
STDC13/15/50
December 2020