Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the District Development and ... · PDF fileMr TSOI Chi-chung,...
Transcript of Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the District Development and ... · PDF fileMr TSOI Chi-chung,...
- 1 -
Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the
District Development and Environment Committee (DDEC)
Southern District Council (SDC)
Date : 26 November 2012
Time : 2:30 p.m.
Venue : SDC Conference Room
Present:
Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman of SDC)
Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman of SDC)
Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH (Chairman of DDEC)
Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada (Vice-Chairlady of DDEC)
Mr AU Lap-sing
Mr AU Nok-hin
Mr CHAI Man-hon
Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying
Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung
Mr CHU Lap-wai
Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus
Mr FUNG Wai-kwong
Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH
Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy
Mr LO Kin-hei
Mr TSUI Yuen-wa
Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent
Dr YANG Mo, PhD
Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP
Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN
Mr CHAN Man-chun
Mr LEE Kwan-keung
Mr LAU Kar-wah
Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis
Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymond
Secretary:
- 2 -
Miss CHENG Kwan-wai, Vivian Executive Officer (District Council) 2,
Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department
In Attendance:
Ms WAI Yee-yan, Christine, JP District Officer (Southern),
Home Affairs Department
Miss WONG Choi-yan, Joyce Assistant District Officer (Southern),
Home Affairs Department
Mr CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management),
Southern District Office,
Home Affairs Department
Miss LIN Ming Senior Executive Officer (District Council),
Southern District Office,
Home Affairs Department
Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung, Jason Senior Engineer 4 (Hong Kong Island Division 2),
Civil Engineering and Development Department
Dr LEE Wai-tak, Anthony Senior Environmental Protection Officer
(Regional South) 3,
Environmental Protection Department
Mr WONG Hung-yuen Chief Health Inspector,
Southern District Environmental Hygiene Office,
Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Mr WONG Sun-man Housing Manager/Hong Kong 4,
Housing Department
Ms TAM Wai-chu, Rachel Deputy District Leisure Manager (Southern) 1,
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Ms LOU Yin-yee, Joanne Senior Estate Surveyor/South (District Lands Office,
Hong Kong West and South),
Lands Department
Miss YIU Yuk, Isabel Senior Town Planner/HK 1,
Planning Department
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2):
Mr AU Kam-hung, Gary Senior Assistant Executive Director (Corporate
- 3 -
Governance),
Vocational Training Council
Mr CHUI Wing-yin, Stanley Senior Training Consultant, Hospitality Industry
Training and Development Centre & Chinese Cuisine
Training Institute,
Vocational Training Council
Dr K.W. LEE Head, Estates, Health and Safety Division,
Vocational Training Council
Mr Kennon CHEUNG Project Manager, Estates, Health and Safety Division,
Vocational Training Council
Ms Vivian TSE Principal Director,
Leigh & Orange Limited
Ms Emily YUN Associate Director,
Leigh & Orange Limited
Mr Ken WONG Associate Director,
Leigh & Orange Limited
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3):
Mr KWOK Tak-tai, John Head of Greening and Landscape Office,
Development Bureau
Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor Assistant Secretary (Tree Management) 2,
Development Bureau
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4):
Mr KWOK Ping-keung Senior Engineer 2 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme),
Drainage Services Department
Mr LAW Shiu-lun, Alan Engineer/11 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme),
Drainage Services Department
Mr TANG Yuk-fai, Ted Principal Resident Engineer,
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.
Mr CHAN Siu-yuen Associate Director,
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.
Mr CHEUNG Ho-man, Kevin Resident Engineer,
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.
Miss HO Kin-yan, Agnes Resident Engineer,
- 4 -
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 5):
Miss KO Wai-kwan, Vivian Commissioner for Heritage,
Development Bureau
Miss LEE Lai-kwan, Queenie Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3,
Development Bureau
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 6):
Mr TANG Wai-sing, Peter Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)
32,
Environmental Protection Department
Mr Frankie HAU Senior Environmental, Health & Safety Manager,
Ocean Park
Mr Jacky CHAN Technical Manager, Entertainment,
Ocean Park
Ms Miranda IP Public Affairs Manager,
Ocean Park
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 7):
Mr YU Si-ki Engineer/South Island Line 4, Railway Development
Office,
Highways Department
Mr Bernard WONG Senior Liaison Engineer,
MTRCoration Limited
Ms Jackie CHOW Public Relations Manager – Project & Property,
MTRCoration Limited
Mr Carlos FUNG Senior Construction Engineer,
MTRCoration Limited
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 8):
Mr YEUNG Hoi, Ernest Engineer/Southern & Peak 1,
- 5 -
Transport Department
Mr Steve YIU Head of Town Planning,
MTRCoration Limited
Mr Lam CHAN Senior Manager, Projects and Property Manager,
MTRCoration Limited
Mr Edward WONG Chief Project Manager – Property,
MTRCoration Limited
Mr Chapman LAM Director,
MVA HK Ltd.
Mr Gary CHING Principal Traffic Engineer,
MVA HK Ltd.
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 11 – Follow-up Item 1):
Mr KAM Wing-kee Chief Engineer/HK & Islands,
Water Supplies Department
Mr LAU Wing-keung Senior Engineer/HK 2,
Water Supplies Department
Mr WAN Wai-yin Engineer/HK (Distribution 6),
Water Supplies Department
Opening Remarks:
The Chairman welcomed Members and government representatives to the
meeting.
2. The Chairman said that to facilitate smooth proceeding of meeting, according
to Order 15(3) of the SDC (2012-2015) Standing Orders, all persons attending or
sitting in the meeting should switch off all devices which might emit sound, and
should not use any telecommunications devices for conversation during the course of
the meeting. Each Member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to
speak in respect of each agenda item.
3. The Chairman continued that since the meeting was packed with a lot of
agenda items, coupled with the motion debate for agenda item 8, if Members wished
to leave early, they should notify the Chairman beforehand and inform the Secretariat
staff present before leaving.
- 6 -
Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the District
Development and Environment Committee Meeting Held on
24 September 2012
4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 5th
meeting had been circulated to all Members and relevant government department
representatives. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.
5. The minutes of the 5th DDEC meeting were confirmed by the Committee.
Agenda Item 2: International Cuisine College
(Item raised by Vocational Training Council)
(DDEC Paper No. 38/2012)
6. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the Vocational
Training Council (VTC) and the consultancy company to the meeting:
VTC
- Mr AU Kam-hung, Senior Associate Executive Director (Corporate
Governance)
- Mr CHUI Wing-yin, Senior Training Consultant, Hospitality Industry
Training and Development Centre & Chinese Cuisine Training Institute
- Dr K.W. LEE, Head, Estates, Health and Safety Division
- Mr Kennon CHEUNG, Project Manager, Estates, Health and Safety Division
Leigh & Orange Limited
- Ms Vivian TSE, Principal Director
- Ms Emily YUN, Associate Director
- Mr Ken WONG, Associate Director
7. The Chairman said that at the 3rd DDEC meeting on 28 May 2012, the
Committee had given in-principle support to the proposed project of an International
Cuisine College (ICC) and requested VTC to pay due attention to the suggestions of
Members in the detailed design of ICC campus building. The latest progress of the
project and related design were at Annex 2. The Chairman added that VTC had
specially presented a three-dimensional model portraying the latest design of the ICC
- 7 -
campus, and commended VTC for regarding it important to consult SDC.
8. Mr AU Kam-hung, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (Reference Paper
1), briefly introduced the latest progress and conceptual design of the ICC campus
building.
9. The Chairman said that since the Committee had already endorsed to support
this proposed project, to expedite the progress of meeting, he suggested that Members
could put forward their views, if any, while those who did not speak up would be
regarded as supporting the latest proposal.
10. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms
CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul
ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were
summarised as follows:
Design of ICC Campus Building
(a) enquired about design details such as fire prevention installations and
escape routes;
(b) the light-penetrating curtain wall might affect nearby residents, and
suggested to adopt a design with higher opacity;
(c) emphasised that the stone wall and trees at the entrance of the ICC
campus should be retained; and
(d) a Member highly commended the design of the ICC campus building.
Public Engagement
(a) wished that VTC could open more spaces for public use and visit.
Environmental Protection and Heritage Conservation
(a) suggested that the project should receive rating in environmental
assessment to ensure that the overall project planning met the
international standards, and that a professional mechanism was in place
to regulate its environmental protection and heritage conservation
practices; and
(b) under the existing fund allocation mechanism of the Government, it
- 8 -
would be difficult to seek sufficient funds to revitalise the former Diary
Farm Senior Staff Quarters (SSQ). As such, a Member was
particularly concerned with the detailed plans for heritage conservation
and revitalisation of the said premises, and wished to grasp this
opportunity to seek funding from the Government in the hope of
opening the SSQ and ICC at the same time.
Traffic Matters
(a) worried that the extra 2 000 school places brought by the ICC would
further deteriorate traffic conditions in the locality. It was hoped that
VTC and the Transport Department (TD) could seriously consider
solutions such as relocation of bus stops;
(b) enquired about the parking arrangements in ICC and related transport
facilities; and
(c) there were other schools in the proximity of ICC, and the additional 2
000 students would affect traffic and people flow during the school
starting/finishing periods and lunch hours. It was asked whether a
canteen would be provided in the ICC campus to alleviate people flow
in the area.
Others
(a) the District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC) under SDC
could thoroughly consider uplifting works in the periphery of the ICC
campus.
11. Mr AU Kam-hung gave a consolidated response as follows:
Design of ICC Campus Building
(a) space had been reserved inside the ICC campus for functions such as
emergency vehicular access and loading/unloading area. Therefore,
the environment and road traffic in the surrounding area should not be
affected;
(b) according to the study of the consultancy company, the glass material
for the curtain wall would not dazzle or constitute to mirroring effect.
Nevertheless, VTC noted the concerns of Members and residents on the
- 9 -
curtain wall and would further consider improving the material to
minimise nuisances to drivers and nearby residents; and
(c) consideration had been given to provide a convenient access near the
stone wall, but due to technical difficulties and VTC clearly understood
residents’ concerns, eventually it was decided that the existing stone
wall and trees should be retained.
Public Engagement
(a) Members’ views on opening more spaces in the ICC campus for public
use were noted. Nevertheless, the proposed ICC was after all an
education establishment and various factors such as management,
security and hygiene monitoring should be taken into consideration.
Besides, since ICC needed to comply with highly stringent hygiene
standards in food preparation and people flow to achieve international
accreditation, it was not possible to open the ICC campus building for
public use. To address Members’ requests for public engagement,
VTC had proposed to construct a heritage trail connecting the ICC
campus with the nearby community and peripheral historical buildings.
Environmental Protection and Heritage Conservation
(a) the whole project would achieve the category 2 rating (Gold Standard)
of the “Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method”
(HK-BEAM), and target at the highest rating (Platinum Standard); and
(b) VTC had preliminarily explored the feasibility of revitalising the SSQ
simultaneously with the Government, initial expenditure estimates
were prepared and a site survey was carried out. The proposal was
pending for study on the demarcation of boundary, resources allocation,
and so on by relevant departments. VTC was actively following up
on the matter.
Traffic Matters
(a) had worked with TD on traffic improvement measures and feasible
- 10 -
options included relocation of some bus stops to the west of the campus
entrance;
(b) every year ICC would provide around 2 000 school places for full-time,
half-day programmes and other short-term courses. It was estimated
that the maximum people flow generated from full-time programmes
was around 300 persons;
(c) the traffic impact assessment (TIA) submitted to TD showed that the
establishment of ICC would not significantly affect the overall traffic
conditions in the neighbourhood; and
(d) it was expected that the ICC students would go for lunch at the canteen
of the nearby training centre in Pok Fu Lam, so they should not have
burdened the nearby restaurants.
12. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr LO
Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise
comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
Design of ICC Campus Building
(a) enquired about the detailed design of the ground level and hope the
design could mitigate the impact of service and car park entrances;
(b) requested that a dimmable lighting system should be used to minimise
the impact of the curtain wall on the surrounding environment and
nearby residents at nighttime; and
(c) a Member commended the design of ICC campus building.
[Post-meeting note: VTC replied the Secretariat on Para. 12(c) on 28 January 2013.
The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information for
Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]
Public Engagement
(a) asked whether VTC would consult nearby residents on the latest
campus design and how the consultation exercise would be conducted;
(b) understood that VTC had constraints opening the whole ICC campus to
the public. However, opening the campus spaces was very important
for nearby residents, and so asked whether any more spaces could be
open for public enjoyment other than the proposed heritage trail;
- 11 -
(c) wished that after its commissioning, the ICC could work closely with
SDC and the community for more activities so as to enhance public
understanding of ICC; and
(d) would encourage students in the Southern District to enrol in ICC
programmes.
Environmental Protection and Heritage Conservation
(a) many government buildings had achieved the category 2 rating of
HK-BEAM and hoped this project could obtain the highest category of
Platinum Standard;
(b) suggested that energy-saving model of dimmable lighting system
should be used;
(c) the Hong Kong Academy of Performing Arts earlier had expressed that
it was not interested in using the SSQ. It was wished that VTC could
grasp this opportunity to seek funding from the Government to
revitalise the said historical building at the same time; and
(d) short-term measures should be adopted to conserve the SSQ even if
extra funding could not be obtained.
Traffic Matters
(a) the TIA report showed that the ICC would not greatly affect the traffic
flow in the neighbourhood, nonetheless, VTC and the departments
concerned should carry out regular assessments on traffic flow and bus
stop usage at the location concerned to explore better traffic
arrangements.
Others
(a) suggested VTC to seek consent from relevant departments for
beautifying the nearby streets at the same time; and
(b) SDC had started the discussion on uplifting works for the surrounding
area of ICC since 2008, and hoped that a consensus could be reached
so that DFMC could follow up on the matter.
13. Mr AU Kam-hung gave a consolidated response as follows:
- 12 -
(a) the supplementary information on the detailed design of the ground
level would be provided after the meeting;
(b) VTC targeted at achieving the HK-BEAM Platinum Standard.
Electricity charges were part of the operating costs, and to save energy,
the lighting system of ICC would only be switched on when necessary.
The use of dimmable and energy-saving lighting system was one of the
goals in controlling operating expenses in the long run;
(c) it was also the wish of VTC to strengthen its communication and
exchange with the local community. To achieve this end, VTC had
planned different types of activities such as open day, visits and
cooking classes for residents, and would actively discuss with SDC on
the specific arrangements in future;
(d) VTC aimed to help young people fully develop their potentials, and
would welcome more youths to enrol in ICC training courses; and
(e) it was still unknown whether approval to the revitalisation plan of SSQ
and related government funding would be granted, which was beyond
the control of VTC However, VTC had actively followed up on this
matter in the past few months and promised to continue to work on the
matter strenuously.
14. The Chairman said that a Member commended the latest campus design, and
Members did not have objections regarding the campus design, except for the impact
of the curtain wall on nearby residents. He believed that Members basically
accepted the design, and wished that VTC could fine-tune the design after hearing
Members’ views. All along VTC had addressed SDC’s views seriously and its
endeavours for excellence in its work should be appreciated. He requested VTC to
note and seriously consider Members’ views at this meeting, and believed that VTC
would strenuously seek for more financial resources to refine the whole project.
15. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC gave its full support to the
project, and was happy to note that the project was on schedule so far, targeting for
completion in 2015. Also, the Committee would be pleased to witness the
commissioning of ICC in future.
(Mr FUNG Se-goun, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr
WONG Ling-sun and Mr LEE Kwan-keung joined the meeting at 2:32 p.m., 2:51
p.m., 2:54 p.m., 3:07 p.m. and 3:08 p.m. respectively.)
- 13 -
Agenda Item 3: Work of Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section
of Development Bureau
(Item raised by Development Bureau)
(DDEC Paper No. 39/2012)
16. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from of the
Development Bureau (DEVB) to the meeting:
- Mr KWOK Tak-tai, Head of Greening and Landscape Office (GLO)
- Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor, Assistant Secretary (Tree Management) 2, Tree
Management Office (TMO)
17. The Chairman said that the advance questions from Mrs MAK TSE
How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN on this subject and DEVB’s written reply were
distributed at the meeting for Members’ reference (Reference Paper 2).
18. The Chairman thanked DEVB for its strenuous efforts in preparing for the
discussion. However, due to the packed agenda items, he wished that DEVB
representatives could finish the presentation within 15 minutes so that Members could
have sufficient time to discuss areas of prime concern.
19. Mr KWOK Tak-tai and Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor, with the aid of PowerPoint
presentation (Annex 1), briefly introduced the work of Greening, Landscape and Tree
Management Section under DEVB.
20. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG
Sik-yung, Mr CHU Lap-wai, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr LO
Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr WONG Ling-sun, Mr Paul
ZIMMERMAN and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries on the subject.
Details were summarised as follows:
Tree Species and Tree Planting
(a) comparing with other countries, in general the tree species planted in
Hong Kong were quite slim. It was suggested that tree species of
upright form with dense foliage should be selected to enhance visual
value and beautify the environment;
- 14 -
(b) flower beds restricted roots from penetrating into the soil, and the
shallow roots were unable to anchor the trees firmly onto the ground,
thus making it easy for tree collapse;
(c) the size of tree pits should be compatible with the growth of trees, and
suitable materials should be used to secure the gravels on the tree pits;
(d) both quantity and quality counted in tree planting. In the selection of
trees to be planted, the departments concerned should consider factors
such as wind strength, wind direction, soil properties, etc. in the
location. In particular, it was suggested that more resources should be
injected for tree planting in the areas of the Cyberport and Chi Fu Fa
Yuen where the wind was relatively strong and the habitats were not
favourable. Therefore, wind-resistant species should be chosen and
proper supporting devices be used; and
(e) roots growing underground had caused uneven road surface. A
Member would like to know if the growth and health of trees would be
affected after road re-surfacing.
Safety Issues
(a) a case of tree having health problems in the district had been reported
to relevant department for following up. Initially, the department
concerned replied that the tree in question was in good conditions, but
less than a month later, it was cut down by the same department on the
ground that cavity was found in the trunk. This had caused doubt on
the follow-up procedures of the department concerned. It was
emphasised that tree conditions had a great bearing on the safety of
residents, and hoped that the Tree Management Office (TMO) could
pay more attention to this matter;
(b) after the passage of tropical cyclone “Vicente” with typhoon signal no.
10 issued, it was found that collapsed tress in some locations in the
Southern District such as Wah Kwai Estate and Ap Lei Chau Estate
were left unattended so far, thus endangering nearby residents
(Supplementary Paper 2). TMO had the responsibility to urge
relevant departments to follow up on and clear the collapsed trees as
soon as possible;
(c) asked if an established mechanism was in place for regular tree
inspections so that potential problems could be dealt with before the
coming of typhoons or occurrence of other incidents;
- 15 -
(d) wished that in case of emergency, relevant departments could consider
the safety of people, and help residents to deal with the problems first
even when the trees concerned were on private land; and
(e) reported that trees with cavities in trunks were found along the way
from Ap Lei Chau Estate to Main Street Ap Lei Chau, and people
dumped rubbish in the cavities. Also, cavities were also found in
many trees at Stanley, and a problematic tree near Pak Tai Temple was
left unattended. It was wished that the departments concerned could
actively follow up on these cases.
Inter-departmental Coordination
(a) greening and tree planting involved different government departments,
but the roles, responsibilities and division of work among respective
departments were unclear. When problematic trees were spotted,
people had to spend considerable time and go through complicated
administrative procedures before finding out the responsible
departments. Sometimes the responses from different departments
were contradictory, making people at a loss as to what to do. As such,
a set of criteria should be established and all relevant departments were
required to comply with them;
(b) the TMO was established to manage trees properly. It was wished
that despite the shortage in manpower, TMO could better coordinate
the work of various departments, with a view to enhancing the
efficiency and transparency in dealing with tree problems;
(c) there had been a proposal to implement greening on the body of
footbridges and flyovers. At that time, the response was that as it
involved different departments, no coordination could be carried out for
related work. It was wished that the departments concerned could
clarify the division of work and seriously consider the above greening
proposal; and
(d) serial numbers had been assigned to trees planted in recent years to
facilitate tracing the responsible departments, which indicated some
improvements in the division of work amongst different departments.
After the establishment of TMO, the Government became more
proactive towards greening management, and it was hoped that TMO
could play a more active role in overseeing tree management.
- 16 -
Long-term Planning and Others
(a) greening work lacked overall planning, for example, there was often no
tree compensation for withered trees. It was enquired about the
greening plans and follow-up work in future;
(b) suggested that relevant departments should step up monitoring, and a
specific mechanism should be set up to inform the public about
potential risks during typhoons or on tree collapses in a timely manner,
so as to ensure tree conditions and public safety at the same time;
(c) Hong Kong was populous with scarce land resources. Compared with
other countries and regions, there was not much room for trees to grow
in the territory. More than this, most of the places were covered with
a concrete surface with underground facilities, it was understood that
tree planting in built-up areas would encounter difficulties. It was
asked whether TMO could make it mandatory to provide more
greening spaces in new development areas such as the proposed Wong
Chuk Hang “Comprehensive Development Area” site;
(d) vertical greening and rooftop greening could help reduce room
temperatures, which could in turn enhance energy saving and should be
promoted. It was asked whether the departments concerned could
provide economic incentives to subsidise privately-owned property
owners to install or improve greening facilities;
(e) transplanting or removing trees was inevitable in large-scale planning
and redevelopment projects. Despite that related legislation required
tree compensation by developers, the overall impact of tree removal
could not be judged simply by the quantity of trees removed. The
MTRCoration Limited (MTRC) was fined for tree removal during
construction works. In this regard, it was hoped that TMO could
introduce a more severe penalty to deter developers from removing
trees indiscriminately; and
(f) problematic trees should be removed for public safety. Nowadays
there was a growing concern for tree preservation, and most people
lacked the ability to detect problems with a tree immediately, so the
sudden removal of trees by government departments might meet with
objections. Therefore, TMO should play a leveraging role and
strengthen public education.
Greening Master Plan (GMP)
- 17 -
(a) commended the Civil Engineering and Development Department for its
thorough consultation for the Southern District GMP; and
(b) was satisfied with the Southern District GMP completed recently, and
asked when the next phase of the greening plan would be launched.
21. Mr KWOK Tak-tai gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) GLO had been advocating adopting the principle of “right tree for the
right place” for species selection and this would highlight various
environmental factors in tree selection;
(b) The progressive developments in the district necessitated widening of
roads and footpaths to meet the volumetric pedestrian flow and
vehicular flow which resulted in reduction of growing space of trees
planted dozens of years ago and this could cause exposed tree roots on
pavement. Before commencing road repair works, the Highways
Department (HyD) would inspect root conditions, and if the trees were
diagnosed as having serious root problems, it would seek advice from
the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to investigate
for feasible mitigation measures;
(c) the greening works recommended for immediate implementation under
the GMPs had been completed in 2011, and the timing for
implementation of next stage had nothing to do with an exhausted
budget; and
(d) had no plans for subsidising private residential estates to improve
vertical greening and rooftop greening within their estates for the time
being. Nevertheless, non-government organisations could apply for
the “Environment and Conservation Fund” (ECF) under the
Environmental Protection Department (EPD) for related greening
work.
22. Ms NGAR Yuen-ngor gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) an inspection mechanism was in place for regular check-up of trees in
various districts, and if problematic trees were identified, TMO would
refer the cases to relevant departments for following up and updated
reports on the progress would be required. The current mechanism
was considered well-established;
- 18 -
(b) TMO had a mechanism to prioritise handling of problematic trees. If
a tree on private land caused immediate hazard to residents or the
premises, the Fire Services Department and HyD would remove the
tree according to the existing mechanism. If there was no immediate
danger, normally the case would be referred to relevant departments or
contractors for following up;
(c) Members’ views on tree problems at the meeting were noted. She
encouraged Members to actively report tree problems to the 1823
Hotline or TMO;
(d) TMO advocated the concepts of “People Tree Harmony” and tree
preservation. However, priority would be given to people’s safety if a
conflict existed; and
(e) TMO also observed that when residents wished to reflect tree problems
to relevant departments, they sometimes had to spend a lot of time in
clarifying the division of work among various parties. Although
various departments understood the related technical guidelines and
complaint handling mechanism, some grey areas inevitably existed.
Hence, TMO was actively exploring ways with departments concerned
to remove the grey area for better inter-departmental coordination.
23. The Chairman said that although the subject could not be thoroughly
discussed because of time constraint at the meeting, SDC attached great importance to
greening issues. He invited DEVB to follow up on Members’ enquiries and continue
to strengthen inter-departmental coordination for perfecting greening and tree
preservation.
24. Mr KWOK Tak-tai supplemented that Members could approach the
Secretariat to register for a copy of the Tree and Landscape Map.
25. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN asked whether the ECF was applicable to SDC.
26. The Chairman invited DEVB representatives to note the comments and
enquiries of the Committee, and to follow up with the Members concerned as
necessary after the meeting.
[Post-meeting note: Upon referral from GLO, EPD replied the Secretariat on 17
December 2012. The Secretariat emailed the supplementary
information for Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]
- 19 -
(Mr LAU Kar-wah and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying joined the meeting at 3:15 p.m. and
3:31 p.m. respectively.)
(Dr YANG Mo, PhD left the meeting at 3:26 p.m.)
Agenda Item 4: Works Progress of Contract No.: DC/2009/24 - Harbour Area
Treatment Scheme Stage 2A - Upgrading of Preliminary
Treatment Works at Sandy Bay, Cyberport, Wah Fu,
Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau
(Item raised by Drainage Services Department)
(DDEC Paper No. 40/2012)
27. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the Drainage
Services Department (DSD) and the works consultant company to the meeting:
DSD
- Mr KWOK Ping-keung, Senior Engineer/2 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme)
(HATS)
- Mr LAW Shiu-lun, Engineer/11 (HATS)
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd.
- Mr TANG Yuk-fai, Principal Resident Engineer
- Mr CHAN Siu-yuen, Associate Director
- Mr CHEUNG Ho-man, Resident Engineer
- Miss HO Kin-yan, Resident Engineer
28. Mr KWOK Ping-keung and Mr TANG Yuk-fai, with the aid of PowerPoint
presentation (Reference Paper 3), briefly introduced the background and progress of
the HATS.
29. Mr AU Lap-sing, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised
comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) residents had lodged complaints against foul smell from Wah Fu
Preliminary Treatment Works (PTW) in the morning, and requested the
contractor to follow up and strengthen its work to monitor the situation;
- 20 -
(b) enquired about the effectiveness of the deodorising systems;
(c) asked whether blasting works for the deep tunnel works had
commenced yet; if yes, whether it would cause surface settlement of
the nearby buildings; and
(d) enquired if a “no entry” period for construction vehicles had been
implemented in Ap Lei Chau PTW.
30. Mr KWOK Ping-keung gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) DSD would follow up on the complaints against foul smell emission from
Wah Fu PTW, and ask workers to keep the place clean as far as
practicable;
(Post meeting notes: DSD has instructed the Contractor to review and improve the
sewage treatment process. Moreover, the Contractor has also
stepped up the cleansing of PTW so as to reduce the odour. )
(b) deodorisation systems would be installed in the five PTWs under the
said contract. In future, the sewage treatment process would be
operated with enclosures and the sewage had to undergo chemical
treatment. Deodorisation system would be implemented to treat the air
generated from the treatment plant and thus odour from the PTWs
would be greatly reduced;
(c) the construction works of deep tunnel commenced over three years, and
the section between the Cyberport and Sandy Bay had been completed.
As blasting works was carried out 100m below ground level, nearby
residents should not be affected. A number of monitoring measures
were adopted during the construction, and there was no visible signs of
settlement for the time being; and
(d) the construction works of Ap Lei Chau PTW had commenced for
nearly one year, with less than 10 vehicles travelling to/from the
worksite daily on average. As the works was mainly implemented
within the area of the PTW, apart from concreting works, there should
not be too many construction vehicles entering into the plant. Also,
DSD would closely monitor the construction works.
31. Mr TANG Yuk-fai gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the use of state-of-the-art deodorising systems could reduce more than
- 21 -
99% of odour; and
(b) the whole project was expected to be completed by 2015 as scheduled.
32. In closing, the Chairman concluded that the HATS was making good
progress, and wished that DSD could monitor the related project works according to
the works contract and relevant legislation, with a view to minimising the impact on
residents and ensuring the completion of construction works on time.
Agenda Item 5: Revised Preservation-cum-Development Proposal for
Jessville at 128 Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
(Item raised by Development Bureau)
(DDEC Paper No. 41/2012)
33. The Chairman welcomed the following government representatives to the
meeting:
Development Bureau (DEVB)
- Miss Vivian KO, Commissioner for Heritage
- Miss Queenie LEE, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3
34. The Chairman said that at the SDC meeting held on 25 June 2009, DEVB
had introduced the “preservation-cum-development” proposal for Jessville. He
invited the representative to briefly explain the revised proposal.
35. Miss Vivian KO said that DEVB had consulted SDC on the
“preservation-cum-development” proposal in 2009. Based on commercial
considerations, the owners had revised the proposal, and would like to seek the views
of SDC on the revised proposal. The main changes in the revised proposal were as
follows:
Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Residential tower - two residential towers
of 21 and 17 domestic
storeys providing a
total of 72 residential
units
- the building height
- a single residential
tower of 17 domestic
storeys providing a
total of 33 residential
units
- the building height
- 22 -
would be at 246.85
metres above
Principal Datum
would be at 234.35
metres above
Principal Datum
Jessville building - would be fully
preserved as a club
house for residents of
the private residential
units
- with some degree of
public access
- would be converted
into four private
residential units
- public access would
not be allowed
- a public viewing area
would be set up to
facilitate the public to
appreciate the
external façade of the
building
Ancillary servants’
quarters
- would be retained - would be demolished
36. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Hok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr FUNG
Wai-kwong, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Dr
MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were
summarised as follows:
(a) Jessville had been confirmed as a Grade 3 historic building and had
conservation value considering its architectural characteristics,
aesthetic merits and historical value. The owners should not just
focus on profit-making when conserving the building;
(b) according to the SDC paper for meeting on 25 June 2009 (Reference
Information– DDEC Paper No. 59/2009), at that time the Government
had reached an agreement with the owners on the preservation
arrangement. The owners finally proposed to retain the Jessville
building as a club house for residents and open it to the public in a
limited way. The planning application was approved by the Metro
Planning Committee under the Town Planning Board (TPB) on 5 July
2009 with conditions to open Jessville for public viewing once a week;
(c) under the revised proposal, Jessville would not be open for public
viewing, only a public viewing area would be set up to facilitate the
public to appreciate the external façade of the building, which
obviously went against the previous agreement between the owners and
- 23 -
the Government as well as the additional condition imposed by TPB.
Converting the building into four private residential units would
inevitably require alteration of the internal structure, which would
cause damage to the historical building. This would defeat the
purpose of heritage preservation and conservation, and was in complete
contradiction to the conservation concept previously approved by SDC.
The Government should play its role as a gate-keeper and if the
proposal by the owners did not comply with the requirements of related
department, it should not hastily approve to withdraw some of the
development restrictions on Pok Fu Lam area;
(d) it was recommended that the residents’ club house under the revised
proposal should change place with the four private residential units for
complying with the approved conditions;
(e) the revised proposal was infeasible and enormous difficulties in
managing the public viewing area and monitoring the internal
modification of Jessville were expected;
(f) there were concerns over the difficulties in the future management and
conservation of Jessville under the revised proposal. Taking the
conservation of Ho Tung Gardens and Haw Par Villa as examples, the
Government had already found it extremely difficult to negotiate with
just one single owner. With the divided ownership resulted from
converting Jessville into four private residential units, the management
and conservation arrangement in future would be even more
complicated. DEVB was requested to explain the preservation and
conservation plan in detail;
(g) preserving the external façade of historic buildings was not enough and
conservation of their internal structure was equally important.
Converting Jessville into four private residential units would definitely
require alteration of its internal structure and the building might be
distorted beyond recognition. Therefore, it was hoped that DEVB and
the owners could seriously consider if the conversion was the best
arrangement for the building;
(h) there were concerns over the specific arrangements for the public
viewing area such as the integration of the design of the viewing area
into the surrounding areas, its accessibility, facilities to be provide to
facilitate and attract public viewing and the extent of public access. It
was hoped that DEVB could consult SDC on related details again in
future; and
- 24 -
(i) traffic lanes on Pok Fu Lam Road were narrow and the insufficiency of
traffic facilities had always been a problem. Although the number of
residential units was reduced to 33 under the revised proposal, there
was still concern that the additional traffic volume would affect the
traffic on Pok Fu Lam Road. As such, TD should carefully examine
the traffic impact of the revised proposal on Pok Fu Lam Road.
37. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN commented that Jessville was a private residential
premises and the property right of its owners should be respected at the same time
when conserving it, such that a reasonable balance between conservation and
development could be maintained. The owners had initially applied to demolish the
whole building for development but were willing to work with the Government for its
preservation. In the revised proposal, it was suggested that Jessville would be
converted into four private residential units with no public access allowed. However,
the building was in fact private residential premises before its owners applied to the
Government for demolition and development and it was not open to the public as well.
The present proposal suggested setting up a public viewing area nearby to facilitate
public appreciation of the external façade of the building had already enabled an
easier access to the historic building for the public, which showed some progress in
conserving Hong Kong history. Therefore, he found the revised proposal acceptable.
38. Miss Vivian KO gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the owners were required to submit a conservation management plan
and obtain the approval from the Antiquities and Monuments Office
(AMO). Furthermore, the owners would need to apply for lease
modification for the revised proposal, and the application would be
considered by LandsD. DEVB would ask LandsD to impose
conditions in the revised land lease to require the owners to protect the
building from demolition;
(b) the concerns of Members over traffic impact were noted. TD had
been closely monitoring the traffic and transport situation in Pok Fu
Lam area and actively seeking feasible measures to improve traffic
conditions to cope with the development in the area. TD would
continue to pay close attention to the traffic conditions in the area and
implement corresponding measures as necessary; and
(c) the revised proposal had less traffic impacts than the original one.
- 25 -
39. Miss Queenie LEE supplemented on the public viewing area as follows:
(a) under the revised proposal, the owners would provide resources for
setting up a public viewing area within their private lot and installing
display panels to interpret the heritage value of Jessville to enable
public appreciation. AMO would help the owners with the
compilation of the historical information if necessary; and
(b) by setting up a public viewing area, the owners hoped to strike a
balance between enabling public appreciation of the building and
safeguarding the privacy of residents.
40. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mrs
MAK TSE How-ling continued to raise comments and enquiries as follows:
(a) whether DEVB would consider providing resources to install
information panels for other historic buildings such as the University
Hall and former Daily Farm facilities in the neighbourhood of Jessville
to create some sort of heritage trail for encouraging the public to enjoy
other historic buildings in Pok Fu Lam area;
(b) SDC had been strictly following the development restrictions on Pok
Fu Lam area. The last term SDC did not object to the original
“preservation-cum-development” proposal and had unprecedentedly
consented to the partial relaxation of the development restrictions in the
hope to conserve the external façade of the building and open the
interior for public appreciation. However, the revised proposal
violated the original conservation spirit and the intention of SDC at the
time. It was suggested that the revised proposal should be
re-submitted to TPB for approval;
(c) SDC had the responsibility to protect relics and monuments with
historic value. Jessville was a grade 3 historic building which the
Government had no statutory power to restrict its internal alteration and
had to rely on the self-regulation of the owners. It was worried that
after the building was converted into four private residential units, there
would be no way to ensure that the occupants would dutifully protect
its internal structure. In view of this, it was recommended that before
the revised proposal was approval, DEVB and SDC should impose
conditions to better monitor the owners in conserving and managing
Jessville in future to prevent unsatisfactory conservation due to
- 26 -
dereliction of management duty;
(d) according to the revised proposal, the ancillary servants’ quarters would
be demolished, which would damage the integral historical value of the
external façade;
(e) it was suggested that the proposal to keep the Jessville building as a
club house should be retained;
(f) Jessville was a private property and had never been open to the public.
If development restrictions could be partially relaxed in exchange for
conserving a building with historical value while the internal structure
was not overly altered, then it was considered an achievement;
(g) enquired about the basis of AMO for determining Jessville as a grade 3
historic building at that time; and
(h) hoped that SDC could be consulted again when concrete information
on conserving the interior of the building was available.
41. Miss Vivian KO gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) when submitting the conservation management plan, the owners should
also provide the conservation plan for both the external façade and the
interior of the building and any alterations to the internal structure
would require the consent of AMO;
(b) the whole lot was subject to related land lease which was applicable to
all the owners of the lot. DEVB would ask LandsD to include terms
and conditions in the land lease to require preservation of the Jessville
building in a proper manner, and the lease would be used as a
regulatory tool despite the change of ownership in future;
(c) regarding the suggestion to connecting various buildings with special
features in Pok Fu Lam area, there were heritage trails / routes set up in
other districts. There were quite a number of buildings with special
features in the Pok Fu Lam area and DEVB would consider the
suggestion; and
(d) would reflect the proposal of swapping the club house at the new
residential tower with the residential units at Jessville to the owners.
42. The Chairman raised comments on the subject as follows:
(a) the traffic impact assessment on the original proposal had already been
- 27 -
accepted. As the number of residential units in the revised proposal
was less than that of the original proposal, there was no need to discuss
the traffic issue further;
(b) DEVB had started discussing the conservation of Jessville with the
owners in 2009. At that time, DEVB hoped to provide economic
incentives such as relaxing the building height and constraints in
exchange for the owners’ agreement to preserve the Jessville in the
residential development project. The owners also agreed to open the
building for public viewing and an agreement had been reached. The
then SDC agreed with the spirit of the preservation-cum-development
proposal, considering that it was worthwhile to relax the building
height and constraints in exchange for preserving Jessville, so raised no
objection to the said proposal. Subsequently, the Executive Council
and TPB approved the conservation mode endorsed by SDC;
(c) however, having obtained the necessary support, the owners changed
the original agreement. If the Committee did not question such a
significant change at this point, it would be hard for SDC to face the
people in Hong Kong when the Jessville building was altered beyond
recognition in future; and
(d) SDC should oppose to the revised proposal and request DEVB to start
the discussion with the owners all over again.
43. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN
once again expressed their support to the revised proposal. Mr FUNG Wai-kwong
suggested restricting occupants to change the internal structure of Jessville through a
deed of mutual covenant.
44. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling proposed a voting on the subject.
45. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP said DEVB had responded that they would further
discuss the matter with the owners, so Members did not need to decide whether to
accept the revised proposal or not at this moment. He explained that a deed of
mutual covenant was formulated by owners themselves and was outside the control of
the Government. At present, there was no legislation to regulate the alteration of the
internal structure of a Grade 3 historic building, so he advised that DEVB and the
owners should consider the matter first and then consult TPB and AMO.
46. The Chairman clarified that what he had just said was to enable Members
- 28 -
who had not joined the SDC in the last term to understand the background of the
subject and he understood that some Members supported the revised proposal.
However, since there were changes in the revised proposal which contradicted the
intention in the proposal endorsed by the last term SDC, the Chairman had the duty to
remind Members to consider the fundamental issues involved from the standpoint of
the whole Southern District. The Chairman suggested that Members should state
their position on whether the revised proposal should be accepted and request DEVB
to consult SDC again after discussing the subject with the owners.
47. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP
raised comments and enquiries as follows:
(a) the original and revised proposals were not necessarily in contradiction,
and supporting the general direction of the revised proposal did not
mean accepting every single detail therein. Therefore, it was difficult
to make a clear position on the subject;
(b) there were concerns over the conversion of the building into four
private residential units. It was suggested that the residential premises
should change place with the club house and that the ancillary staff’s
quarters be retained. It was hoped that DEVB could reflect the above
views to the owners; and
(c) the revised proposal involved some important and fundamental changes.
Noting that DEVB had intended to further discuss the matters with the
owners, it was considered there was still room for amendment in the
revised proposal, so the Committee had no urgent need to form a
position immediately.
48. In closing, the Chairman concluded that SDC was greatly concerned with the
conservation issues. Though the subject in question was highly controversial, there
was no urgent need to call for a voting immediately. It was requested that DEVB
and related departments should discuss the matter further with the owners, and consult
SDC again when there was new development.
- 29 -
Agenda Item 6: Request to Monitor Impacts of Ocean Park’s Halloween Bash
on Nearby Residents
(Item raised by Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus)
(DDEC Paper No. 42/2012)
49. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the government
department and organisation concerned to the meeting:
Environmental Protection Department (EPD)
- Mr TANG Wai-sing, Peter,
Environmental Protection Officer (Regional S) 32
Ocean Park
- Mr Frankie HAU,
Senior Environmental, Health & Safety Manager
- Mr Jacky CHAN,
Technical Manager, Entertainment
- Ms Miranda IP,
Public Affairs Manager
50. Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus briefed Members on the reasons for putting forth
the item. He said that the annual Halloween Bash organised by Ocean Park had been
very successful and widely popular. However, there was a complaint from nearby
resident, saying that from September to October 2012 (i.e. the period during which
Halloween Bash was held), the sound level generated by Ocean Park every day from
5 p.m. till 12 a.m. was too high, causing nuisance to the residents. According to
EPD’s noise control guidelines, no noise should be made after 11 p.m. Mr FUNG
enquired Ocean Park and the department concerned how they would alleviate the
noise problem, and ensure that such kind of noise nuisance would not be generated
again. He suggested that Ocean Park hold the activities only in areas further away
from residential premises, or it should turn in-door when holding relatively noisy
activities, and lower the loudness of the amplifiers.
51. The Chairman said the written responses from EPD and Ocean Park were at
Annex 2 and Annex 3 respectively.
52. Dr LEE Wai-tak, Anthony responded that, upon receiving the resident’s
complaint, EPD carried out a noise assessment on the noise generated from
- 30 -
Halloween Bash at the complainant’s premises on 26 October 2012. From 10 p.m. to
11 p.m. in that night, the noise level measured by sound level meter did not exceed the
standard. However, from 11 p.m. to 12 a.m. a faint music noise was audible, which
did not comply with the Noise Control Guidelines for Holding Open Air
Entertainment Activities. EPD was organising the relevant data, and would follow
up the issue with Ocean Park so as to find a way for improvement.
53. Mr Frankie HAU responded that Ocean Park had repeatedly communicated
with EPD and implemented alleviation measures such as volume adjustment etc. to
minimise the sound level of the activities, therefore the sound emission before 11 p.m.
did not exceed the standard. Regarding that EPD staff found the sound of music
generated by Ocean Park after 11 p.m. to have exceeded the standard, the Park would
continue to work closely with EPD, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the
relevant guidelines, so that sound emission after 11 p.m. would not affect nearby
residents.
54. The Chairman said that EPD conducted an on-site investigation some time
ago after receiving the complaint, but Ocean Park had yet to be notified of the matter.
He said it seemed to involve problems on procedure and, therefore, asked EPD about
the general procedure for monitoring the noise exerted from Ocean Park and that for
notifying Ocean Park of the excessive noise.
55. Mr TANG Wai-sing, Peter gave a reply as follows:
(a) In general, when a noise complaint was received via the Department
hotline, it would be passed to the staff concerned for action. The
responsible staff would first contact the complainant, notifying him/her
that the case was being processed and requesting detailed information
for investigation. After that, the responsible staff would conduct an
investigation on the site where the noise was generated and notify the
noise producer to reduce the impacts on nearby residents. After
completing the follow-up actions, the responsible staff would contact
the complainant again. If the complainant was still not satisfied with
the improved situation, the Department would once again notify the
noise producer and request more improvement measures to be in place.
If the complainant still did not accept the improvement, the Department
might need to measure the noise level in the complainant’s premises to
see whether the noise level had exceeded the standard. Depending on
- 31 -
the measured data and the situation, the Department would consider
whether any further actions were needed.
(b) Regarding this case, on receiving the complaint in early October 2012,
the Department had contacted Ocean Park several times and conducted
three to four on-site investigations. After Ocean Park had employed
the improvement measures, the Department considered the situation to
be improved. However, the complainant was still not satisfied with
the situation, therefore the Department measured the noise level in the
complainant’s premises on 26 October. Since it took time to organise
the data and Ocean Park’s Halloween Bash had ended on 31 October,
the Department considered there was no urgent need to notify Ocean
Park and intended to contact the Park later.
56. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr FUNG
Se-goun, Fergus, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr Paul
ZIMMERMAN and Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis raised comments and enquiries on the
following aspects:
Noise Control
(a) The residential areas in the vicinity of Ocean Park were very quite.
Halloween Bash incurred noise complaints from the residents because
there was a big difference between the background noise and the actual
noise that the activity exerted. Residents in the quiet environment
would still be irritated by the noise even though the noise data as
measured by the EPD fell within the standard.
(b) A number of Members had still received complaints from local
residents occasionally. It showed that this complaint was not a single
incident and Ocean Park should address the problem seriously. As the
residents in the neighbourhood had indeed been affected by the noise
generated from the activity, Ocean Park was, regardless of the number
of complaints, duty-bound to improve the situation by taking measures
such as installation of noise barriers. The Park should also exercise
self-discipline. In whatever activity it was to hold at any time, the
Park should enhance its awareness and arrange for its staff to monitor
the noise level to avoid affecting nearby residents. It was hoped that
Ocean Park and the EPD would pay more attention to prevent the same
from happening again.
- 32 -
(c) The EPD’s standard on noise measurement only required that the
average data recorded during a specific period of time should not
exceed the range permitted. However, intermittent noise would still
affect the residents. As the noise generated from Halloween Bash
often subsided quickly, the enforcement departments might have
difficulties in handling the problem – by the time the EPD arrived at
the scene to measure the noise level after receiving a complaint, the
noise might have already subsided. It was enquired whether the
Ocean Park would install any measuring device at noise sensitive
places to record the level of the noise generated during its activities for
the sake of reference.
(d) A Member enquired whether the Ocean Park would organise more
night-time activities or extend the time slot of the activity in future.
(e) The activity, which ended at 12 a.m., had indeed caused great
disturbance to nearby residents. It was suggested that during the
Halloween Bash, programmes which would generate a higher noise
level should be arranged to end at an earlier hour and the closing time
for the entire activity should be advanced.
Traffic impacts
(a) A Member enquired whether Ocean Park had increased bus frequency
or requested the Police to arrange road closures in designated time slots
for Halloween Bash.
(b) Halloween Bash had affected the overall traffic in the District. The
tailbacks were particularly serious in the transition period between
matinee and evening show. Ocean Park and the departments
concerned were enquired about the way to reduce traffic impacts
caused by the activity.
57. The Chairman requested the EPD and Ocean Park to give response.
However, since transport issues were not within the Committee’s scope, it was not
appropriate to discuss transport problems in detail.
58. Mr. TANG Wai-sing, Peter gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) This year, the Department received only one complaint about Ocean
Park’s Halloween Bash.
- 33 -
(b) In accordance with the Noise Control Guidelines for Holding Open Air
Entertainment Activities, the Department set the background noise
level plus 10 decibels as the standard in measuring the noise produced
by Halloween Bash between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. The noise level
measured at that time complied with the standard.
(c) Ocean Park held Halloween Bash in the vicinity of the Park’s entrance
in Wong Chuk Hang. The noise impact was greater to Shouson Hill
Road but not significant to Nam Long Shan Road; and
(d) While sharing Members’ views that Ocean Park was duty-bound to the
matter, he considered that the Park had already taken measures to
reduce noise. No noise was heard in the Department’s street
inspection a few days before 26 October. Only faint music noise was
occasionally heard in the complainant’s premises after 11 p.m. on
26 October 2012.
59. Mr Frankie HAU gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(a) Every year before Halloween Bash kicked off, Ocean Park assigned a
sound consultant to measure the sound level at noise sensitive places
on its own, and had not found the level exceeding the standard.
(b) It was agreed that the number of complaint cases was not the crux of
the matter, and whenever night-time activities were held, Ocean Park
should exercise self-discipline. Thus, the Park had adopted a number
of noise alleviation measures. After receiving the resident’s
complaint this time, Ocean Park would study again on the way of
improvement regarding the specific situation of the complaint, and
make sure no more noise nuisance would be caused to the residents.
(c) Ocean Park would continue to organise Halloween Bash every year.
60 Ms Miranda IP supplemented as follows:
(a) For the moment, Ocean Park had no plan to organise more night-time
activities, nor to extend the time slot of Halloween Bash.
(b) Ocean Park had all along been in close communication with Members
on traffic issues, tried every method to minimise the impact on traffic
as well as maintaining close co-operation with Citybus. As a result,
the clearance of pedestrian flow had been reasonably smooth so that
- 34 -
Halloween Bash had not caused much impact on the District’s traffic so
far.
61. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN made further comments and
enquiries as follows:
(a) No matter what the sound level was, pumping music was an irritation
for residents in the quiet neighbourhood. It was unacceptable to have
noises exerted from the Park being heard by the residents after 11 p.m.
Thus the Park should seriously review its mode of operation, such as
using smaller speakers to reduce noise.
(b) It was hoped that Ocean Park would actively implement alleviation
measures to ensure that the same problem would not happen again.
(c) Not a few complaints from local residents had been received and most
of them had been referred to Ocean Park straight away for follow-up
actions, which was believed to be more effective and direct.
(d) The Ocean Park’s remark that Halloween Bash did not have much
impact on traffic was not agreed with. Although it was not a very
serious problem but a minor one, the Park should strive to make
improvements seriously. It was particularly because of the point that
due to the Park’s activities, buses had to park on Police School Road
instead, making the area of Ocean Park’s roundabout very congested,
and as a result many complaints were received during the night.
62. The Chairman said in conclusion that, Ocean Park’s persistent innovation and
development had allowed itself to become a world-famous theme park, and its
forward-looking spirit deserved encouragement. Halloween Bash had been one of
Ocean Park’s yearly features, bringing much benefit to Hong Kong’s tourism
development and economy with laudable outcomes, but the Park should also
implement proper measures to minimise its impact on the residents. The Ocean Park
team should study on how to strike a balance between the two. The EPD should also
fully perform its monitoring and gate-keeping roles. It should monitor the noise
situation of Ocean Park more actively, and notify the Park as soon as the sound level
exceeded the standard, so as to ensure that the operation be complied with the
requirements of the relevant guidelines.
(Mr FUNG Wai-kwong, Mr LAU Kar-wah and Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymong left
the meeting at 5:32 p.m., 5:59 p.m. and 6:02 p.m. respectively.)
- 35 -
Agenda Item 7: Latest Progress on South Island Line (East) – Temporary
Nursery cum Open Space at Kellett Bay Waterfront
(Item raised by Highways Department)
(DDEC Paper No. 43/2012)
63. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the government
department and organisation concerned to the meeting:
Railway Development Office/ Highways Department (RDO/HyD)
- Mr YU Si-ki,
Engineer/ South Island Line 4
Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRC)
- Mr Bernard WONG,
Senior Liaison Engineer
- Ms Jackie CHOW,
Public Relations Manager - Project & Property
- Mr Carlos FUNG,
Senior Construction Engineer
64. The Chairman invited HyD and MTRC to brief Members on the latest
development of the temporary nursery cum open space at Kellett Bay Waterfront
(herewith referred to as “the Open Space”).
65. Mr YU Si-ki said, the work of the open space began in mid-2011, and a large
portion of it had already been completed.
66. Mr Bernard WONG briefed the Committee on the latest development of the
Open Space with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation (Reference Paper 4), and on the
proposed public open space regulations (Appendix 1).
67. Ms Jackie CHOW added that, MTRC hoped to co-organise a naming
competition with the SDC) to engage the public in the naming of the Open Space.
After discussion with SDC and the people concerned on the mode of co-operation in
detail, MTRC would consult SDC on the matter again.
68. The Chairman said, the Committee of the last term had requested that rain
shelter facilities should be added to the Open Space, and that roof covers be installed
- 36 -
for the elevated timber decks for appreciation of the sea view. He enquired on the
progress.
69. Mr Bernard WONG responded that the seats of the elevated timber decks
would be equipped with rain shelter fittings.
70. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada and Mr Paul
ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries as follows:
(a) It would be preferable to have some seats under the trees.
(b) Compared with Cyberport Waterfront Park, the proposed regulations
for the Open Space were rather strict. More flexible regulations
should be adopted to make better use of the Open Space’s
environmental advantage of situating by the waterfront, providing a
real place for public enjoyment and leisure. It was suggested to
further study the regulations in detail with MTRC later.
(c) Having regarded that pet keeping was not allowed in Ka Lung Court
and Wah Kwai Estate, MTRC should consider whether pets were
allowed to enter the Open Space.
(d) It was appreciated that MTRC accepted DAB’s earlier suggestion to
provide additional facilities for the elderly and play equipment for
children.
(e) Viewing the Open Space from the residence, the design of the elevated
timber deck was not attractive and was different from the design
submitted earlier.
(f) A Member enquired about the security and lighting arrangements of the
Open Space during the opening hours.
(g) A Member asked MTRC about the number of transplanted and
newly-planted trees in the entire project.
(h) A Member asked the Housing Department (HD) about the progress of
provision of toilets near the Open Space, and whether the opening
hours of the toilets would match that of the Open Space.
(i) It was hoped that the proposed naming competition would allow for
more public involvement, especially from schools in the District, in
order to raise the residents’ sense of belongings to the Southern
District.
71. Mr Bernard WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:
- 37 -
(a) If the regulations were too loose, it could be difficult to regulate users’
behaviour. Therefore, MTRC generally adopted stricter regulations
for open space but would be rather lenient in actual enforcement.
(b) Details of the Open Space’s regulations, security, lighting and naming
competition, etc. could be further discussed later.
(c) Additional information about the number of transplanted and
newly-planted trees would be provided after the meeting.
(d) Toilets were not provided in the Open Space but the HD was
renovating the toilet facilities nearby.
[Post-meeting note: MTRC replied the Secretariat on Para. 71 (c) on 28 January 2013.
The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information for
Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]
72. Mr. WONG Sun Man responded that the latest progress of the HD’s toilet
renovation work was not available at the moment but believed it could be completed
on schedule. In proposing the opening hours of the toilets, the Department would
match with the arrangements of the Open Space whenever possible.
[Post-meeting note: The concerned toilet has been opened for the use of the
public since 21 December 2012 with service hours from
0800 to 2200 daily.]
73. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling,
Ada and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise comments and enquiries.
Details were summarised as follows:
(a) In setting the Open Space’s regulations, one should not simply take into
account future management issue. The regulations should be
integrated into the design directions at an early stage to ensure that the
design and facilities could match with the activities allowed and
prohibited.
(b) Different users’ interest and safety should be balanced when setting the
regulations. If the regulations were too loose and resulted in improper
management of the Open Space, local residents, most of whom were
the elderly, would be the first to suffer. Therefore, the Members
- 38 -
recognised MTRC’s “strict regulations and lenient enforcement” policy
and hoped the regulations could protect the users’ safety.
(c) Site visit should be arranged to familiarise with the construction
progress of the Open Space.
(d) A Member enquired whether the Open Space could be completed
earlier before Lunar New Year 2013 in order to bring a new look to the
residents.
74. The Chairman said the Open Space was expected to be available and open to
public after Spring Festival 2013. He suggested that interested Members should
discuss the regulations in detail with MTRC with a view to reaching a consensus
before the opening of the Open Space.
[Post-meeting note: The follow-up meeting concerned was held on 16 January 2013.]
75. Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mr. LO Kin-hei continued to raise comments and
enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) A Member agreed with the suggestion to further discuss the regulations
and proposed to invite representatives of the residents nearby to get
involved in the discussion.
(b) A Member asked MTRC about the procedures of setting the guidelines,
including when to confirm the regulations and whether there was a set
of established guidelines to follow.
76. Mr Bernard WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) The MTRC would study the possibility to open the Open Space before
Spring Festival 2013 but it seemed to be challenging having regard to
the present progress.
(b) The proposed regulations for the Open Space, which had been adopted
in other open spaces managed by MTRC, had been well-established.
But he would be pleased to further discuss the regulations with
Members.
(c) After its opening, the Open Space would be modified according to the
change in society and the latest developments of the constituency.
- 39 -
77. The Chairman proposed that the Vice-Chairlady Mrs MAK TSE How-ling,
Ada, should discuss with MTRC over the specific details in co-organising the naming
competition and then raise any further information for the meeting’s discussion in due
course.
Agenda Item 8: Planning Application for the “Comprehensive Development
Area” Site in Wong Chuk Hang
(Item raised by Planning Department)
(The three motions proposed separately by Mr TSUI
Yuen-wa, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Ms LAM Yuk-chun,
MH would be discussed together under this agenda item)
(DDEC Paper No. 44/2012)
78. The Chairman welcomed the following government representatives to the
meeting:
Transport Department (TD)
- Mr YEUNG Hoi, Engineer/Southern & Peak 1
Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRC)
- Mr Steve YIU, Head of Town Planning
- Mr Lam CHAN, Senior Projects and Property Manager
- Mr Edward WONG, Chief Project Manager – Property
MVA HK Ltd.
- Mr Chapman LAM, Director
- Mr Gary CHING, Principal Traffic Engineer
79. The subject was first discussed at the last term of SDC. To ensure that all
Members could fully comprehend the background, the Chairman briefly introduced
the agenda item before discussion. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) the last term of SDC had discussed this subject at its meetings on 24
May 2010, 26 July 2010 and 18 July 2011. At the meeting on 18 July
2011, the Planning Department (PlanD) consulted DDEC on the draft
Planning Brief (PB) for the Wong Chuk Hang “Comprehensive
Development Area” (CDA) Site (the Site). At that time, the
- 40 -
Committee had expressed a number of concerns and strong requests in
relation to the development of the Site including the demand for a
comprehensive traffic impact assessment (TIA), provision of pedestrian
walkways and ancillary facilities, reservation of space in the
commercial gross floor area (GFA) for the design and provision of a
performance venue which met the requirements of SDC. PlanD
representative explained that the PB had set out the planning and
technical requirements for the Site taking into account the
above-mentioned aspects, which provided a framework for MTRC to
prepare the Master Layout Plan (MLP). PlanD would relay the
concerns and comments of the SDC to concerned departments for
information, and MTRC should actively address Members’ comments
in submitting the MLP. MTRC representatives also said that they
would earnestly listen to the views and expectations of the Committee.
Therefore, the Committee gave in principle approval to the draft PB for
the CDA submitted by PlanD but reiterated that PlanD and MTRC
should earnestly address the concerns and expectations raised;
(b) having considered the views of the Committee, the Metro Planning
Committee (MPC) of the Town Planning Board (TPB) approved the PB
on 4 November 2011. Since then, MTRC stopped consulting SDC on
the planning of the Site. Even more, MTRC later on submitted a draft
MLP on Wong Chuk Hang CDA without prior consultation with SDC,
although the application was withdrawn in March 2012;
(c) later on, again MTRC did not consult SDC before submitting a draft
MLP to TPB. Noting the great concern of SDC over the planning of
the Site, PlanD then arranged to consult the Committee on the MLP
submission on 26 November 2012. Before the consultation, PlanD
met with the representatives of concerned departments and MTRC on
24 October 2012 to discuss the proposed development and MTRC was
asked to address the requests made by the Committee during the
consultation on the draft PB in the last term. It was requested that if
the expectations of the Committee could not be fully satisfied because
of one reason or another, MTRC should at least try to explore other
feasible alternatives. In addition, PlanD representative requested that
MTRC should meet with SDC Members as soon as possible to explain
the details of the proposed development. Eventually, MTRC
submitted its planning application and MLP to TPB on 7 November
2012 without further revision; and
- 41 -
(d) under repeated urging from relevant departments, at last MTRC hastily
arranged a meeting to brief the Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of
SDC and its four Committees and the Members of the constituencies
concerned (“2+7” meeting) on the planning application on 1 November
2012, just a few days before application submission, to explain the
contents of the application. During the meeting, Members expressed
grave concerns and requested MTRC to provide a detailed TIA report
and amend parts of the planning scheme to address local concerns and
expectations.
80. The Chairman invited representatives of PlanD and MTRC to briefly
introduce their papers.
81. Miss Isabel YIU briefly introduced the planning application documents.
Details were summarised as follows:
(a) MTRC submitted the planning application together with the MLP for
Wong Chuk Hang CDA in accordance with the Town Planning
Ordinance on 7 November 2012;
(b) under the Town Planning Ordinance, all planning applications received
will be made available for public inspection. On 16 November 2012,
the planning application concerned was published for public inspection,
any person may make comments on the planning application to the
Secretary of TPB in writing within the first three weeks of the
publication period, that was on or before 7 December 2012;
(c) given that the Site was located in a prime location of the district and
noting that SDC was very concerned about the planning and
development of the Site, consultation with the Committee was arranged
to solicit Members’ views on the planning application;
(d) PlanD would consolidate the views from relevant government
departments, SDC and the general public and then forward them to
MPC of TPB for consideration. The meeting of MPC was tentatively
scheduled on 21 December 2012; and
(e) the PB approved by TPB earlier was provided in Annex 1 for
Members’ reference. This PB would provide guidelines and reference
for MTRC in preparing the MLP. A gist of the planning application
was at Annex 2.
- 42 -
82. Mr Steve YIU and Mr Chapman Lam, with the aid of PowerPoint
presentation (Reference Paper 5), briefly introduced the MLP of Wong Chuk Hang
CDA and the proposed traffic schemes respectively.
83. Mr Steve YIU summarised that MTRC expected that the CDA development
project could establish Wong Chuk Hang as a new district centre, promote
revitalisation of the district, establish a new community, promote the local economy
and provide employment opportunities. During construction, the proposed project
would create 1 500 jobs and up to about 2 500 jobs after completion. Meanwhile,
the railway construction was underway and MTRC had to start the planning and
design for the above-station property development simultaneously so that construction
works could commence soon after the completion of the railway project in 2015.
84. The Chairman reported that three separate motions had been received from
Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH before the
meeting. According to Order 18(2) of SDC Standing Orders, together the proposer
and the seconder of a motion could speak for up to five minutes. In view of the tight
schedule of this meeting, the Chairman suggested that to speed up the process of
meeting, Members could speak up to six minutes (two slots) on the subject, and
similarly the proposers could use six minutes to briefly introduce their motions. He
asked for Members’ views on his proposal.
85. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa had no objection to the above proposal but suggested that
the Chairman should briefly explain the three motions and what had been discussed
during the “2+7” meeting so that Members could understand the subject sufficiently
for the discussion.
86. The Chairman said that the three motions were attached at Appendices 1 to 3
tabled at the meeting, and the proposers and seconders would introduce and
supplement on them when they spoke on their motions.
87. The Committee approved the arrangement as proposed by the Chairman.
Motion 1: This Committee strongly objects to the planning application for
Wong Chuk Hang CDA submitted by MTRC, and requests: 1)
MTRC to re-submit a Traffic Impact Assessment report with full
details on the impact of traffic and pedestrian flow generated by
the proposal on the existing traffic condition, and to include
- 43 -
corresponding traffic facilities with a view that Wong Chuk Hang
will become the new center of the Southern District; 2) to
compensate the public open space so sacrificed; 3) to re-design the
performance venue as requested by the SDC.
(Moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, and seconded by Mr AU Nok-hin)
88. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefly explained his reasons for putting forward this
motion and raised his views and enquiries as follows:
(a) the TIA report submitted by MTRC only calculated the traffic flow
generated by its above-station property developments but excluded the
overall impact of the CDA on Wong Chuk Hang and the Southern
District. Wong Chuk Hang area would be established as a new district
centre of the Southern District in future, so it was important to study
the traffic flow and explore corresponding remedial measures,
otherwise the traffic problems created would become the bane of the
Southern District in the time to come. The report of MTRC made
Members worry that the traffic problems in Times Square might be
repeated in the proposed development project;
(b) despite the repeated requests from SDC, MTRC still refused to build a
footbridge to and from the MTR Station to facilitate the existing
residents in Wong Chuk Hang. In addition, while rejecting a
footbridge at Shum Wan Road, MTRC proposed to add more traffic
lights within a very short distance, resulting in further congestions at
Nam Long Shan Road;
(c) subject to the requirements of PlanD, MTRC had to provide at least
1 000m2 of open space. However, MTRC proposed using the open
space as an emergency vehicular access as well, which would directly
reduce the actual size of the open space. Unless additional open space
would be provided for compensation, MTRC should not be allowed to
occupy the public open space in question;
(d) at the “2+7” meeting, Members had clearly expressed their opposition
to the proposed indoor performance venue, but no amendment was
made in the proposal currently submitted by MTRC, which was a total
disregard of SDC’s views and expectations;
(e) during the whole consultation process, it was reiterated that MTRC
should not detach from the peripheral communities and privatise its
- 44 -
space. Also, it was further requested that MTRC should open the
podiums of the above-station residential development project.
However, so far MTRC did not entertain the request and so hoped
MTRC representative could respond to this matter; and
(f) MTRC rejected a footbridge to connecting the existing residents in
Wong Chuk Hang to MTR Station on the ground that the road section
concerned was outside its works area. However, at the same time
MTRC said that two pedestrian links would be constructed connecting
CDA to the Ocean Court in Aberdeen and to the future Wong Chuk
Hang business area respectively. Both road sections were located
outside its works area, but MTRC was willing to cater for the increased
pedestrian flow and the needs of people working in Wong Chuk Hang
in future, while ignoring the needs of Wong Chuk Hang residents.
Motion 2: It is strongly requested that MTRC should build a civic centre for
the Southern District when developing the Wong Chuk Hang CDA.
(Moved by Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, and seconded by Mr CHU
Lap-wai and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP)
89. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling explained her reasons for putting forward this
motion and raised her views and enquiries as follows:
(a) at the “2+7” meeting earlier, Members had clearly reflected their views
and expectations on the development project, but no improvement was
made in the proposal submitted by MTRC. She was greatly
dissatisfied with MTRC for ignoring the strong requests of SDC;
(b) using the public open space as an emergency vehicular access meant no
proper open space would be provided for public enjoyment;
(c) SDC had vigorously requested for a civic centre and a standard
performance venue. However, the proposed indoor performance
venue was not much different from that of an average shopping centre,
which did not meet the requirements of SDC; and
(d) she requested TD to give professional advice on the TIA.
Motion 3: SDC firmly opposes to the planning application of the Wong Chuk
Hang CDA master layout plan submitted by MTRC and expresses
strong discontent to MTRC for failing to carry out an advance
- 45 -
consultation on this matter prior to the submission of the said
application to the Town Planning Board and ignoring the concerns
and legitimate expectations of Members and residents. Since the
development of the Wong Chuk Hang CDA has a bearing on the
long-term well-being of residents of the Southern District, SDC
opines that the Government of the Special Administrative Region
should have the responsibility to monitor and examine the
comprehensiveness, rationality and durability of the whole project.
MTRC is requested to give a realistic response to the following
local aspirations on the premise of pursuing the overall interests of
all parties concerned:
1. To re-submit a traffic impact assessment report incorporating
the overall development of the Ocean Park, Wong Chuk Hang
business zone and the Aberdeen Tourism Project, and put
forward realistic and feasible traffic improvement options
which can give peace of mind to residents of the Southern
District;
2. To provide pedestrian ancillary facility for peripheral
residents to/from Wong Chuk Hang MTR Station and to
construct a covered pedestrian footbridge connecting Shum
Wan Road and the MTR mall immediately upon the
commissioning of the Southern Island Line (East);
3. To reserve space within the total commercial floor area of the
CDA, and to re-design a free-standing indoor performance
venue according to the requirements of SDC; and
4. To provide sufficient public open space in the CDA, which
does not overlap with emergency vehicular access.
(Moved by Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, and seconded by Mr CHU
Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung,
Mr AU Lap-sing, Dr YANG Mo, PhD, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr FUNG
Se-goun, Mr WONG Ling-sun and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying)
90. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH briefly explained her reasons for putting forward
this motion and raised her views and enquiries as follows:
- 46 -
(a) Members had raised many views at the “2+7” meeting, but as seen
from the proposal submitted, other than slight changes to the parking
location of public buses and minibuses, MTRC virtually ignored the
other views given by Members;
(b) reiterated that the construction of railway was not just to serve the
needs of individual residential estates but also residents on the
peripherals. Therefore, she urged for a covered footbridge connecting
Shum Wan Road to MTR Station shopping centre to meet the needs of
local residents;
(c) insisted that MTRC should provide a free-standing indoor performance
venue for the Southern District; and
(d) she supported the motions moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mrs MAK
TSE How-ling.
91. The Chairman invited TD representatives to give advice on the results of the
junction assessment submitted by MTRC.
92. On the junction assessment results, Mr YEUNG Hoi supplemented that:
(a) in the assessment, junction capacity was expressed by percentage and
decimal points. The capacity of signal junction was presented in
percentage;
(b) for junction capacity shown in percentage, a negative value suggests
that the junction is overloaded;
(c) for junction capacity shown in decimal points, value greater than 1
suggests that the junction is overloaded; and
(d) TD was asking the traffic consultants of MTRCto provide
supplementary information.
93. The Chairman invited Members to give their views.
94. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr
AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung,
Mr CHU Lap-wai, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr WONG
Ling-sun, Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr CHAN
Man-chun and Dr MUI Heung-fu raised comments and enquiries on the subject.
Details were summarised as follows:
- 47 -
Traffic Schemes
(a) requested MTRC to provide the full TIA report including information
such as the time needed for traffic diversion in case of traffic accidents,
so that Members could fully consider the traffic impact of the proposed
development project;
(b) the proposed CDA was supposed to be a hub of integrated
commercial/residential development together with a railway station and
shopping centre. However, the proposed public transport facilities for
the public transport interchange (PTI) could only accommodate 11
public buses, seven minibuses and six taxis. Also, the report did not
mention anything about feeder services. Such provision was
obviously insufficient to handle the traffic flow generated from the
CDA, let alone turning it into a new core zone for the Southern District.
Thus, there was worry that instead of helping to improve the traffic
conditions, the establishment of CDA might create a congested area
like the Aberdeen Centre;
(c) requested for proper pedestrian road crossing facilities and walkway
system, including a pedestrian footbridge connecting Wong Chuk Hang
Sports Ground to MTR Station and a pedestrian footbridge connecting
existing Wong Chuk Hang residents to MTR Station;
(d) PTIs were usually crudely designed facilities placed underneath
residential developments where illumination was poor. It was hoped
that MTRC could invest to improve the design of PTI and thus the
community space;
(e) a number of Members were very concerned with the proposed traffic
schemes, especially the installation of six sets of traffic lights within a
distance of less than 400m. Such measures would further deteriorate
the already very busy traffic conditions. According to the junction
assessment results, the capacity of J2 and J4 was just 10%, obviously
indicating that the measures had added pressure to the traffic. At the
“2+7” meeting, a number of Members had expressed concern over the
situation and had strongly suggested that the measures on traffic lights
should be replaced by the provision of a footbridge which could help
divert road traffic and ensure the road crossing safety of pedestrians.
However, MTRC paid no heed to Members’ advice;
(f) MTRC reiterated its aim to establishing Wong Chuk Hang CDA as a
large-scale shopping centre similar to the Maritime Square in Tsing Yi,
- 48 -
but its projected maximum traffic flow generated was only 615
passenger car units per hour, which was contradictory;
(g) the whole CDA would provide 880 parking spaces, of which 730 were
residential parking spaces while 150 were shopping centre parking
spaces. Such a provision was definitely insufficient to accommodate
the people and traffic flow for a residential project of 4 700 units and a
shopping centre of 47 000m2. Presently, queues were always formed
at the Ocean Park roundabout, without amble quantity parking facilities
to meet the demand for increased traffic flow, the completion of
above-station property development project would only further
deteriorate the already congested traffic conditions;
(h) MTRC should revise its traffic schemes: (i) Nam Long Shan Road was
currently designated as a bus lane, placing the residential access there
would further burden the road section; (ii) a cycling lane should be
added; and (iii) a U-turn facility should be provided at the location;
(i) the development of South Island Line (SIL) (West) seemed so distant
while residents in the area of Aberdeen, Wah Fu Estate and Wah Kwai
Estate had to go to Wong Chuk Hang Station for taking the MTR,
however, MTRC so far did not provide any related transport
arrangements; and
(j) the TIA report did not assess the people flow and the waiting time at
the PTI. MTRC only provided the hardware without discussing the
suitable operation mode with TD. It would be too late when, after the
commissioning of the PTI, the transport facilities were found
unsuitable or incapable of handling the traffic flow. Besides, TD
representative had reservation on the TIA of the proposed project
which showed that the said report was not accepted by related
department. It was suspected that MTRC intended to force related
department to accept its proposal in the name of consultation with SDC.
It was requested that MTRC should work with TD to study and
improve the proposal and then consult SDC on a plan approved by TD.
Public Open Space
(a) Wong Chuk Hang CDA was a large-scale project which optimised the
plot ratio and its financial gain was expected to be up to at least $20
billion. However, the public open space planned by MTRC was only
1 000m2, the lowest requirement of PlanD. More than this, this open
- 49 -
space was to be used as an emergency vehicular access at the same
time, which would directly minimise the area of open space available
for public enjoyment and fail to meet the community needs for such
facility. This was not in line with the aim to establish Wong Chuk
Hang as a new district centre in the Southern District;
(b) it was hoped that when utilising the land resources of the Southern
District for residential property development, MTRC should not regard
profit-making as the only goal and should bring reasonable
enhancement to local community such as providing more public open
space; and
(c) supported opening the podiums of above-station property to prevent
further privatisation of Wong Chuk Hang community by MTRC.
Performance Venue
(a) among the four districts on the Hong Kong Island, only the Southern
District did not have a civic centre. Because of this, the last term
SDC had started to request MTRC to reserve space for such facilities in
the development of Wong Chuk Hang CDA. At that time, MTRC
claimed that its property planning division would continue to study the
matter with SDC and had never rejected the request, so there was no
question about misunderstanding SDC’s expectations on the
specifications of the indoor performance venue. Utilisation of Wong
Chuk Hang CDA site for the provision of cultural and recreational
facilities and public performance venue for the Southern District was
integral to the whole development plan on which SDC had high
expectations. However, the proposal of MTRC only suggested a
performance venue that commonly found in an average shopping
centre. MTRC was just going through the motion and trying to
confuse SDC, such practice was totally unacceptable;
(b) MTRC kept saying that the proposed shopping centre would be of a
scale comparable to that of the Maritime Square. Noting that the
indoor performance venue in the Maritime Square was mostly used for
commercial purposes such as decorations or showrooms and seldom
for district or community functions, it was believed that the proposed
Wong Chuk Hang shopping centre would be no exception; and
(c) notwithstanding the regrant premium, the profit from the proposed
Wong Chuk Hang CDA project would be enormous. It was deeply
- 50 -
disappointed that after making such a huge profit, MTRC still had no
intention to repay the local community by providing a free-standing
indoor performance venue as large as a civic centre for the Southern
District.
Building Height and Protecting the Environment
(a) PlanD earlier had requested to maintain the building height of Wong
Chuk Hang area at 140m. PlanD was asked to explain why the
restriction was lifted for this planning application;
(b) independent development project like the Marinella was awarded the
highest rating of Platinum (obtained 75 credits or above) under the
Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM).
Considering the financial strength of MTRC and the scale of the whole
Wong Chuk Hang CDA, SDC should require the project to achieve the
Platinum standard, thus making it environmentally acceptable in terms
of improved greenery, walled buildings, energy saving and so on; and
(c) MTRC should provide air ventilation and landscape impact assessment
reports to fully analyse the effects of the 14 residential blocks (150m in
height) on top of the station on surrounding air ventilation and visual
landscape for Members’ reference.
Others
(a) MTRC withdrew the planning application in March 2012. SDC had
expected MTRC to actively address local views at the meantime but no
news was received so far. To date, MTRC still had not faced squarely
the views of SDC and even submitted the planning application to TPB
without consulting SDC. Also, the procedure was deficient in that
TPB did not require applicant to conduct district consultation before
application submission. As the advice from PlanD had guiding effects
on the decision-making of TPB, PlanD was asked if it would be on the
side of SDC and reflect the strong opposition of SDC to TPB;
(b) at the “2+7” meeting, Members had expressed views on a wide range
of issues to MTRC, and expected an improved proposal before
application submission. However, the final proposal submitted was
virtually unchanged and also no explanation had been given to the
Committee on why the suggestions of Members could not be accepted.
- 51 -
It was requested that MTRC should explain its passive manner in
handling Members’ views and the reasons for not accepting Members’
views, for example, insufficient time for amendment, the views put
forward were unreasonable, practical difficulties or that it simply did
not want to change anything. If MTRC actually had no intention to
respond to Members’ recommendations, then it was meaningless for its
representatives to attend this meeting just repeating the briefing on the
same proposal;
(c) according to the annual report of MTRC in 2011, its profit was some
$30 billion, of which $9.3 billion came from MTR fares, $3.2 billion
was revenue from MTR stations and $4.9 billion was from property
developments (the gross leasable floor area was 226 622m2). The
area of the proposed shopping centre in CDA was 47 000m2,
amounting to 20% of gross leasable floor area of MTRC in 2011 and
calculated by proportion, the income generated would be about $800
million to $900 million per year. Apart from LOHAS Park, Wong
Chuk Hang CDA would be the largest single project of MTRC for the
time being. It was reasonable for MTRC to use the revenue from
residential property developments or shopping centres to fill the
financial gap in the construction of SIL. However, considering the
enormous profit and the scale of the property development project, it
was extremely stingy of MTRC to reserve only 1 500m2 for social
enterprises uses and 300m2 for an indoor performance venue. As such,
it was hardly expected the company would help enhance the
community. The residents of the Southern District were unable to
benefit from the project and the insufficient supporting facilities would
only lead to further deterioration of traffic conditions in the district.
SDC was deeply dissatisfied with the situation; and
(d) for all these years, SDC had been very supportive to the construction of
SIL (East), like lobbying residents to support the project. However,
now MTRC only concentrated on making money and serving the needs
of the owners of the above-station properties, and cared naught to
compromise a bit for the overall well-being of the Southern District.
Such attitude was considered mean to the development of the entire
district and a disregard of SDC’s views. If MTRC kept on putting
profit above everything and refusing to address the views of Members
and the expectations of the Southern District, it might result that
MTRC and SDC would be opposed to each other.
- 52 -
95. The Chairman invited representatives of related departments and MTRC to
respond to Members’ comments and enquiries.
(Mr WONG Ling-sun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr CHAN Man-chun, Dr MUI Heung-fu
and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying left the meeting at 7:56 p.m., 7:57 p.m., 8:00 p.m., 8:01
p.m. and 8:22 p.m. respectively.)
96. Mr Steve YIU gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments and
enquiries as follows:
(a) MTRC did not intend to neglect local views. Since the site had to
contain a rail depot/station, PTI and a large-scale shopping centre, and
to reprovision the original facilities in-situ, there were many constraints
in the design. MTRC had already tried its best to provide the
necessary facilities as far as possible, including the social welfare
facilities, floor area for social enterprise use, open space at ground
level and indoor performance venue as specified in the PB;
(b) the existing PB did not specify a civic centre or the like. MTRC
would discuss SDC’s views with related government departments;
(c) the shopping centre was set back to make way for the open space as.
Since an emergency vehicular access should be provided, MTRC
would study how to improve its design to integrate the access with the
open space in response to SDC’s comments; and
(d) the TIA included the present traffic conditions and also the future
traffic growth of the surrounding district, with the development traffic
added to the year 2031 forecast for the assessment.
97. The Chairman stopped Mr Steve YIU’s speaking, and said that SDC
Members had repeatedly expressed their strong demands on the performance venue,
public open space and traffic volume and the like, still MTRC ignored SDC’s views.
The response given just repeated the previous arguments, and did not directly address
Members’ enquiries. A reply like this was meaningless.
98. The Chairman invited TD representative to give professional advice on the
TIA report.
- 53 -
99. Mr YEUNG Hoi responded that TD noted Members’ comments. Since, TD
received the supplementary information from MTRC just the week before, the
assessment had not been completed.
100. The Chairman sought TD’s confirmation that MTRC had not studied the TIA
report with TD before its submission to TPB.
101. Mr YEUNG Hoi said the Chairman’s statement was correct.
102. The Chairman invited PlanD representative to respond to Members’
comments and enquiries.
103. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) PlanD on 4 November 2011 reported to TPB on the comments of the
SDC regarding the draft PB. The TPB noted SDC’s views and
endorsed the PB. The TPB was also very concerned about the traffic
impact of the proposed development in the district, so it had requested
MTRC to submit a detailed TIA together with the MLP. It was
believed that after receiving comments from this meeting, MTRC
would revise and improve the traffic TIA where appropriate;
(b) the PB specified that MTRC had to provide not less than 1 000m2 of
at-grade open space and open to the public. It was believed that
MTRC was willing to explore the opportunity to enhance the scheme to
address Members’ views;
(c) MTRC did not apply for relaxation of the domestic GFA for the
residential development. The proposed increase in domestic GFA was
due to the fact that according to Buildings Ordinance, hostels for
moderately mentally handicapped should be accountable for domestic
GFA. MTRC did not apply for relaxation of the building height
restriction, in fact, the proposed building height under application
complied with the building height restriction stipulated on the OZP;
and
(d) at that time, based on the PB, the Leisure and Cultural Services
Department (LCSD) had indicated no commitment to provide a civic
centre in the “CDA” for the time being. Noting SDC’s request for a
performance venue in the form of a civic centre in the district, a
requirement for the provision of a performance venue of not less than
- 54 -
300m2 was incorporated in the PB. Concerned departments would be
consulted if MTRC had any other proposal.
[Post-meeting note: LCSD's response on the provision of civic centre in the Southern
District is that "The Government has been keeping a close
watch on the demand for cultural performance facilities in the
Southern District. As the construction and operation of a civic
centre involve high capital costs and long-term financial
commitment, the Government must take all relevant factors into
careful consideration when planning new facilities to ensure the
proper utilization of resources. These factors include the
availability and usage rate of existing facilities in the territory,
the overall planning of the district concerned, the views of the
cultural sector and the demand of the community at large, etc."]
104. The Chairman said that SDC Members had repeatedly expressed the
Council’s request for a performance venue which was not a cultural activities hall of
municipal specifications operated by LCSD inside the MTR shopping centre. What
SDC requested was, while gaining enormous profit, MTRC should reserve
appropriate space within the construction floor area of MTR properties to provide an
indoor performance venue of a scale comparable to a civic centre. The Chairman
was very discontent that MTRC still tried to confuse SDC’s requirements of a
performance venue and shift the responsibility to government departments.
105. Mr AU Lap-sing said that according to PlanD’s control plan, the building
height in the vicinity of Wong Chuk Hang was restricted to 140m, and asked the
reasons why PlanD relaxed the restriction to 150m.
[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had consulted PlanD on the matter after the
meeting, and PlanD replied that according to the relevant OZP,
the building height restriction of the “CDA” site was 150mPD.]
106. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr Paul
ZIMMERMAN and Mr LEE Kwan-keung continued to raise comments and enquiries
on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
Traffic Matters
- 55 -
(a) happy to hear that TD would thoroughly study the TIA report with
MTRC;
(b) requested MTRC to give a firm reply on the following two questions: (i)
many MTR above-station properties such as Telford Gardens and Heng
Fa Chuen opened their podiums to the public. Not only this
arrangement facilitated residents’ access, it could also attract more
people flow which in turn stimulated spending at the shopping centres.
From the business point of view, the benefits outweighed the
drawbacks. It was asked why MTRC did not consider opening the
podium of the residential property above Wong Chuk Hang Station;
and (ii) many MTR shopping centres had been benefited from the
people flow diverted by pedestrian footbridges from MTR stations,
amongst them Tseung Kwan O Station and Hang Hau Station were
some of the flagship examples. It was asked why MTRC had initiated
to construct footbridges for other property development projects, but
reluctant to commit to constructing a footbridge at Shum Wan Road to
facilitate local residents to/from the station despite repeated requests
from SDC Members’ for a footbridge under the Wong Chuk Hang
CDA; and
(c) since Shum Wan Road was populous, it was hoped that MTRC could
perfect road network planning with a view to solving the traffic
problems.
Performance Venue
(a) PlanD quoted LCSD’s views that there was no need to construct a civic
centre in the Southern District for the time being. If LCSD had
carried out the assessment according to the current data, then with the
continued development of the district which led to population growth,
it would be very difficult to search for a suitable site when the need for
a civic centre arose in future.
Others
(a) a Member clarified that he neither objected to MTRC developing the
site into CDA, nor opposed to the development of shopping centres and
residential properties above the station. He was discontent that in the
light of the approved key parameters under the control plan, the TIA
- 56 -
report was still incomplete and there was a lack of supporting transport
facilities;
(b) MTRC did not regard the “2+7” meeting and the current meeting as
important. It just wanted to get the green light from TPB and
completely ignored the views of SDC and the local community.
Members had expressed their resolution and would stand firm against
the planning application. If MTRC still made no improvement, SDC
Members did not rule out the possibility of initiating a community
objection campaign including approaching TPB, Legislative Councilors
and senior government officials to request for rejection of the planning
application;
(c) MTRC had responded that it was willing to consider revising part of
the existing proposal, while TD was studying the TIA report and so was
unable to give its views. In view of this, the Committee should focus
on the future application procedure instead of the details of the
proposal, so as to ensure that MTRC would not submit the same
proposal to TPB in future; and
(d) there were enquiries on the application procedure, including: (i) how
PlanD would reflect SDC’s views; (ii) how MTRC could put forward a
revised proposal; (iii) when the revised proposal, if any, should be
submitted to TPB and when it would be gazetted; and (iv) how MTRC
would process the views collected at this meeting.
107. The Chairman said that at this meeting, the Committee originally hoped that
MTRC would put forward improvement options based on SDC Members’ views given
at the “2+7” meeting, but it turned out that MTRC disappointed SDC again. The
Chairman invited PlanD representative to respond to Members’ comments first.
108. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response on the application procedure
of planning applications as follows:
(a) Wong Chuk Hang “CDA” site, fell within a strategic location of the
Southern District, involved a large-scale comprehensive development.
In general, PlanD would prepare a PB for a CDA to guide the
preparation of the MLP. Having considered the views of relevant
departments and SDC, TPB endorsed the PB (Annex 1) on 4 November
2011. The PB had set out the development parameters and
planning/technical requirements and serve as guidance and framework
- 57 -
for preparing the MLP by MTRC. In area designated as “CDA”, any
development would require the submission of a planning application in
the form of a MLP together with relevant technical assessments;
(b) on 7 November 2012, the TPB Secretariat received the MLP prepared
by MTRC in accordance with the PB and the restrictions as set out in
the OZP;
(c) PlanD had published the planning application according to the Town
Planning Ordinance on 16 November 2012 for public inspection, any
public comment should be made within the three-week public
inspection period, from 16 November to 7 December 2012. The
public could submit their views to the Secretary of TPB in writing, by
post or email or through the TPB website; and
(d) since the planning application involved a number of technical reports,
PlanD would forward the application to relevant government
departments including TD to examine the details of the application and
provide professional advice, and the departmental views would then
forward to the applicant for consideration. Noting that SDC was very
concerned about the development of the Wong Chuk Hang CDA, the
DDEC of the SDC was consulted on the planning application during
the three-week public exhibition period. Due to the tight schedule,
government departments such as TD could not give detailed views
immediately, nevertheless, it was believed that various departments
would give technical advice on their respective responsible areas.
PlanD would pass on the views of SDC and departments to MTRC for
consideration and revision. The views of SDC and departments
together with the public comments received during the public
inspection would be submitted to TPB for consideration.
109. To ensure that relevant parties heard DDEC’s views and follow up on the
matter conscientiously, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN put forward the following comments
and enquiries:
(a) PlanD had failed to submit the full TIA report to SDC for
consideration;
(b) MTRC should submit a revised proposal to address some of the
concerns raised by Members; and
(c) how the conflicting views were handled with respect to the PB.
- 58 -
110. Miss Isabel YIU gave a response as follows:
(a) the Secretary of TPB would make available all documents submitted in
the application for public inspection. Given the reports submitted were
voluminous, only a gist listing out the key parameters would normally
be provided at the public consultation document. The full set of the
reports submitted, including the TIA, could be viewed at the Planning
Enquiry Counters and the Southern District Office (SDO). PlanD
might follow up the matter with SDO and SDC Secretariat after the
meeting;
(b) if MTRC wanted to revise the planning application after hearing SDC’s
views, it could submit further information to TPB. Depending on the
extent of the revision, the Secretary of TPB would decide whether to
accept the further information or resubmission of a fresh application
was required according to the established procedure. If MTRC
needed to re-submit the MLP, TPB would process the application
according to the established practice;
(c) she had recorded the views of Members raised at this meeting as far as
possible, and would reflect the motions passed by DDEC in the papers
submitted to TPB; and
(d) Members were welcomed to reflect their views in writing to the
Secretary of TPB directly, any public comments received within the
first three weeks of the publication period, the comments would be
incorporated in the paper for submission to TPB for consideration.
111. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling enquired whether MTRC should consult SDC first
and thoroughly respond to the comments and suggestions raised by Members
according to the established procedure before submitting the revised MLP for TPB’s
approval.
112. Miss Isabel YIU responded that this was a private property development
project, there was no specified requirement under the Town Planning Ordinance
requesting the applicant to consult the community before or at any other time.
Nevertheless, after receiving the planning application, the TPB would publish the
planning application in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance and consult the
relevant District Councils when required. She added that the planning of the CDA
was a continuous process, if MTRC wished to revise the planning proposal after
- 59 -
considering the views collected during the consultation period, it could submit revised
MLP to TPB at any time.
(Mr FUNG Se-goun and Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH left the meeting at 8:52 p.m. and
8:55 p.m. respectively.)
113. Mr Steve YIU said that MTRC respected SDC’s views and would carefully
consider the views of SDC Members. MTRC had considered the proposal of
constructing a pedestrian footbridge, and the preliminary view was that there was not
enough footbridge landing space near Chan Pak Sha School for constructing one.
They would explore other feasible options with relevant government departments.
If government departments agreed to investigate and an appropriate location was
identified, MTRC would work with the government. Meanwhile, MTRC would
reserve space for accommodating the connection point in its property development
project. MTRC noted Members’ views on the TIA report, and would work with
relevant departments to study the traffic impact of the proposed development project
to nearby communities. As for the number of car parking spaces, it was designed on
the basis of the parameters in the PB. MTRC would discuss with relevant
departments such as TD for increasing the parking spaces in the shopping centre.
MTRC would submit supplementary information to TPB later on to support its
planning application.
114. The Chairman announced a vote on the motions.
115. Members present unanimously endorsed Motions 1, 2 and 3. The Chairman
supplemented that Members who had left the meeting, namely Mr CHAN Fu-ming,
MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mr WONG
Ling-sun, Mr CHAN Man-chun and Dr MUI Heung-fu, had pledged their support to
the three motions before their departure.
116. In closing, the Chairman concluded that MTRC had not initiated a
consultation when preparing the MLP for Wong Chuk Hang CDA which had a bearing
on the overall well-being of residents in the Southern District, indicating that MTRC
did not intend to hear the views of SDC Members and residents at all. SDC was
strongly discontent with such behavior. Noting from the unanimous passage of the
three motions by Members present, in the interest of residents in the Southern District
in the long run, the Committee strongly opposed to the planning application especially
when the proposed MLP of MTRC paid no heed to the utmost concerns and
- 60 -
reasonable expectations of SDC Members and residents. Since TPB would consider
the planning application on 21 December 2012, it was wished that relevant
government departments, PlanD in particular, would reflect SDC’s strong objection to
the application, and submit the three endorsed motions to all TPB Members for
consideration. In addition, he called on Members to actively reflect their views to
TPB by 7 December 2012, and suggested that Members should dispatch
representatives to attend the TPB meeting on 21 December 2012, so that SDC
Members’ views, concerns and expectations could be reflected.
117. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN requested MTRC and relevant government
departments to submit a formal written reply to SDC by the consultation deadline
(that is, 7 December 2012), so that Members could have sufficient time to consider
the views, and then reflect their opinions to TPB.
118. The Chairman commented that SDC had repeatedly given chances to MTRC
to revise its proposal in order to address local expectations. If MTRC was sincere in
responding to DDEC’s views by revising the MLP, naturally it would give a
corresponding response to SDC prior to the TPB meeting. On the contrary, if MTRC
did not intend to revise the proposal, it was meaningless for the Committee to issue an
ultimatum. The Chairman added that in the overall interest of the Southern District
and to resolve the problem once and for all, SDC Members and residents should
actively reflect their views to TPB.
[Post-meeting note: The Committee wrote to express opposition to the planning
application to TPB on 7 December 2012.]
Agenda Item 9: Progress Report of Environmental Protection and Hygiene
Working Group
(DDEC Paper No. 45/2012)
119. The Committee noted the contents of the paper.
Agenda Item 10: Progress Report of Tin Wan Concrete Batching Plan
Monitoring Group
(DDEC Paper No. 46/2012)
120. The Committee noted the contents of the paper.
- 61 -
121. Ms LOU Yin-yee reported on the tender results.
122. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the tendering exercise for the charged public
carpark opposite to the concrete batching plant had been concluded and the short-term
tenancy (STT) was awarded to Excel Concrete Limited (the operator of the concrete
batching plant). LandsD had already notified the plant operator in writing and the
operating concession of the carpark would be formally handed over to the plant on 17
December 2012.
123. The Chairman hoped that this could help resolve the traffic problems arising
from the operation of the concrete plant.
Agenda Item 11: Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District
(DDEC Paper No. 47/2012)
Renewal Application for WSD Worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road
(GLA-THK1162)
124. The Chairman welcomed the following government representatives to the
meeting:
Water Supplies Department
- Mr KAM Wing-kee, Chief Engineer/HK&Islands
- Mr LAU Wing-keung, Senior Engineer/HK2
- Mr WAN Wai-yin, Engineer/HK (Distribution 6)
125. The Chairman said that the Committee in this term had discussed the renewal
application many times and that the representatives of LandsD and WSD were invited
to this meeting with the aim to resolving the issue as soon as possible. The
Chairman invited Ms LOU Yin-yee to report on the latest progress of the application.
126. Ms LOU Yin-yee reported on the renewal application for WSD worksite.
Details were summarised as follows:
(a) some 80 objections were received on the renewal application for WSD
worksite during local consultation, the objections were concerned with
illegal parking, environmental hygiene problems arising from WSD
worksite and fire hazards etc;
- 62 -
(b) in accordance with established procedures, objections against
applications for temporary government land allocation (GLA) would be
handled and followed up by the applicant departments. Therefore, in
this case, the objections received had be referred to WSD for following
up;
(c) LandsD had already consolidated the objections received and
forwarded to relevant Government departments for profession advice,
and the advice had also been passed to WSD. Departmental advice
showed that WSD could address most of the objections;
(d) WSD had informed LandsD that improvement measures would be
implemented at the worksite in order to comply with relevant
departmental advice and address objections. To enhance
communication, LandsD hoped WSD could inform the objectors of the
proposed improvement measures by meeting with them or through
other channels; and
(e) WSD had informed LandsD that the said worksite was used for storing
materials and equipment required for emergency repairs of water mains
and welding works in case of mains bursts so that water supply would
not be interrupted. WSD said that mains bursts could cause serious
traffic congestions and great damages to properties, or even landslides.
Having considered the advice of professional departments, the needs of
WSD for existing worksite and public interest, as well as noting that
WSD was willing to adopt improvement measures to comply with
relevant departmental advice and address objections, LandsD did not
immediately stop WSD to use the said worksite; and continued to
process the renewal application at the same time.
127. The Chairman advised that at the 7th SDC meeting on 15 November 2012,
the Director of WSD stated that he did not object to moving out of the existing
worksite but LandsD should provide an alternative site suitable for the purpose. The
Chairman invited WSD to report on the present position of the six pieces of
government land mentioned by the Development Bureau on 25 February 2011.
128. Mr KAM Wing-kee responded that according to the preliminary information
from LandsD, two of the sites had already had planned uses. LandsD was now
evaluating the feasibility of the remaining four sites.
- 63 -
129. Mr WAN Wai-yin, with the aid of Powerpoint presentation (Reference Paper
6), briefly explained details of the four sites. The pros and cons of each site were
stated below:
Advantages Disadvantages
Cape Drive - Good accessibility
- Paved concrete road
without the need to
remove trees
- Close to residential
areas
Kong Sin Wan Road - Located at a
roundabout with
good accessibility
- A woodland of about
15 000 m2. Due to
the uneven terrain of
the site, only the
levelled portion was
suitable for use and it
might be necessary
to remove some of the
trees
- Close to a school (the
ISF Academy)
Tai Tam Tuk Village - There were villages
nearby
- Roads were narrow
and it was difficult for
large vehicles to gain
access to the site
Pak Pat Shan Road
(Across Red Hill Park)
- Located on roadside
with good
accessibility
- Separated from
residential premises
only by a road
130. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Ms CHEUNG Sik-ying, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH
and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments on the subject. Details were
summarised as follows:
(a) as the four sites under consideration were not suitable to use as WSD
worksite, it was suggested that for the time being, WSD should
continue to use the worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road until an
alternative and suitable site was identified;
- 64 -
(b) the effect of mains bursts was far-reaching. It was necessary to strike
a balance between the interest of the objectors and the overall interest
of the Southern District; and
(c) WSD should take improvement measures to address the objections in
order to minimise the impacts on nearby residents.
131. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the
following comments and enquiries:
(a) as the four sites under consideration were all located inside green belt,
it was suggested that expiring STT carpark sites should also be
considered in site selection to widen the choice; and
(b) a list of available government land had been suggested by related
department. It was hoped that LandsD could actively search for
alternative site.
132. Ms LOU Yin-yee gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the requirements of different government departments for GLA varied.
LandsD would handle the applications according to the specific needs
of the individual departments;
(b) the existing worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road was about 792 m2.
Earlier WSD had proposed to move its maintenance operation to
another site at Sandy Bay which was about 500 m2 in area. Originally,
LandsD had planned to start the related application procedure for WSD,
but WSD advised that the site was too small hence such procedure
wase not proceeded further;
(c) the Transport Department (TD) would ask LandsD about the position
of the STT carpark sites regularly to study the demand and supply of
parking places in various districts. LandsD must seek the advice of
TD before those STT carpark sites could be released for use by other
departments;
(d) the list of available government land, mainly within green belt zones
and located in remote area with relatively small in size, was available
for application from NGOs for short term uses. However, good
accessibility was one of the principal criteria for WSD worksites; and
(e) since many sites in the district were allocated to MTRC as temporary
worksites for the construction of the South Island Link, the supply of
- 65 -
vacant government land in the Southern District was very tight in
recent years. It was hoped that Members could understand the
situation.
133. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that the procedures of the department concerned
were defective and he would not accept the proposal to allow WSD to continue
occupying the site for the time being. Fearing that the Ombudsman might think that
the Committee had reached an agreement with related departments on the issue, which
would affect the Ombudsman in handling the case, he proposed to clarify that the
Committee had not accepted the explanation offered by related department at this
meeting and reprimand LandsD again for this matter.
134. The Chairman said he understood the great pressure on the Member of the
constituency concerned, however, the local residents should have perfectly clear that
WSD had occupied the site for years before moving to the area. There was a saying
that “what you do not wish yourself, do not do unto others.” Moving the worksite to
other location would surely meet with objections from local residents. Furthermore,
emergency repair of water mains was in the interest of the whole Southern District,
and journey distance was one of the considerations in site selection. On the
suitability for use as WSD worksite, the conditions in the other four sites proposed
were not as good as the existing one at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. The Chairman
requested WSD to adopt improvement measures to minimise the effects on nearby
residents and hoped related department could continue the search for an alternative
site suitable for the purpose.
135. Mr CHAI Man-hon agreed that related department should continue the
search for suitable site but stressed that it was improper for LandsD to allow WSD
occupying government land for a prolonged period before lease renewal was granted.
136. The Chairman clarified that he had never said that the action of related
departments was proper but due to various kinds of considerations, the Committee
should handle the matter in a practical manner. This was the reason for advising
related department to actively continue the search and in the meantime WSD should
improve the surrounding environment of the worksite.
137. Mr AU Hok-hin said that after the SDC meeting on 15 November 2012,
WSD had actively joined this Committee meeting and its efficiency was commended.
However, he hoped that related departments could provide amble room for sufficient
- 66 -
communication with residents and Members of the local constituencies during the
search for sites in future.
138. Mr KAM Wing-kee supplemented that WSD had started the search for a
suitable site upon receipt of objections in February 2012.
139. Mr WAN Wai-yin supplemented that WSD had approached LandsD for the
site in Sandy Bay and LandsD replied that only part of the site could be allocated for
use by WSD. Since the remaining size of the site was substantially less than 500m2,
WSD dropped the plan at the end. He said that WSD had been implementing a
series of mitigation measures on the worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road including
the provision of fire extinguishers, more frequent site cleansing and forbidding
foremen to park construction vehicles wherever they wanted. Also, site inspections
had been arranged for SDC Members to seek their advice on the site operation.
WSD would continue to improve the worksite environment in response to the views
of stakeholders to minimise the impact on nearby residents.
140. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN pointed out that the Sandy Bay site was part of the
promenade from Aberdeen to Kennedy Town and hoped related departments noted
this major project of SDC.
141. The Chairman invited related departments to note Members’ views.
The Former Harbour Mission School, Ap Lei Chau
142. Since there was no further development in this subject at the moment, the
Chairman enquired if Members wished to delete it from the progress report.
143. The Committee endorsed to retain this follow-up item.
Ex-Shek O Quarry
144. Since there was no further development in this subject at the moment, the
Chairman enquired if Members wished to delete it from the progress report.
145. The Committee endorsed to retain this follow-up item.
- 67 -
Management on Fixed Pitch Hawker Areas
146. Since there was no further development in this subject at the moment, the
Chairman enquired if Members wished to delete it from the progress report.
147. The Committee endorsed to retain this follow-up item.
Short-term and Long-term Uses of the Site of Aberdeen Fire Station
148. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked about the timetable for departmental consultation
on the long-term uses of the Aberdeen Fire Station (AFS) site.
149. Miss Isabel YIU responded that during departmental consultation, TD
considered that a traffic review was required for the proposed rezoning as the site is
located close to the Wong Chuk Hang CDA site. PlanD would consult SDC in
accordance with the established practice when further information was available.
150. Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired if TD would actively propose to use the site for
improvement of traffic conditions such as the planning for bus stop rationalisation.
151. Miss Isabel YIU said she could not answer the question for TD. If any
departments had any proposals on the use of the AFS site, they could make a request
to concerned bureaux/departments.
Utilisation of Facilities in Public Space at Stanley Plaza under the Charge of the
Link
152. Ms LOU Yin-yee advised that LandsD had received two applications from
the Link concerning the provision of tables and chairs at the open area in front of
Stanley Plaza. The one applied for placing tables and chairs in non-building area
was approved recently and such facilities could be provided after the Link agreed to
accept the conditions listed in the approval letter issued by LandsD.
Re-tendering of Short-Term Tenancies for Shipyard Use at Ap Lei Chau Praya
Road
153. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired about the next step after collecting the
views of stakeholder by related departments.
- 68 -
154. Ms LOU Yin-yee replied that LandsD had completed the local consultation
on the re-tendering of the STT shipyard and some 600 submissions had been received.
Of which, about 80% objected to the re-tendering mainly on the grounds of fire
hazards, environmental hygiene, visual blight, noise nuisances and the scope and scale
of the tender. LandsD had consolidated the public views collected and sought
professional advice and policy directions from relevant policy bureaux and
departments including the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, EPD, Fire
Services Department, PlanD and TD. Upon receipt, LandsD would incorporate
departmental views in the respective lease terms and conditions. Besides, since the
sector and the local stakeholders had opposing views on the scope and scale of the
tender, LandsD had also sought the advice of related policy bureau and was awaiting
their advice. It was expected that the District Lands Conference would discuss the
matters relating to the STT tender and representative(s) from SDO would be invited to
attend the meeting to reflect the views and demands of local stakeholders.
155. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung supplemented that a residents consultation meeting
had been held on the matter during which she had reflected the views of the sector to
PlanD and LandsD. She hoped related departments could consider their concerns
impartially when drawing up the tender and consult SDC before the tender terms were
finalised.
156. The Chairman requested related department to step up local consultation
efforts on the re-tendering and report further developments to SDC in a timely
manner.
157. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that in view of the strong demand of shipyards
for the site, he wanted to know the schedule of the tendering exercise.
158. Mr AU Nok-hin agreed that related departments should reveal the details to
SDC before the lease terms were finalised and was deeply dissatisfied that Members
were excluded from the District Lands Conference.
159. Ms LOU Yin-yee replied that the re-tendering of the site would be discussed
at the District Lands Conference in December 2012, afterwards, the tenancy
conditions would be examined by in-house solicitor. It was hoped that the tender
invitation could be implemented in the first quarter of 2013.
- 69 -
160. The Chairman invited Members to note the established practice of the
District Lands Conference and hoped related departments could strengthen
communication with the Members of the constituencies concerned through other
channels.
Area Ovitrap Index in the Southern District
161. The Committee endorsed that this item be deleted from the progress report
starting from the next meeting.
PWP No. 013WS
162. Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following enquiries:
(a) the reasons for works delay for two months;
(b) whether all public housing estates were ready for immediate
connection to the sea water supply system in February 2013; and
(c) whether related department had informed all private housing estates to
make the necessary arrangement for connecting with the sea water
supply system immediately upon project completion.
163. Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung said that the Member’s views and enquiries would
be forwarded to WSD and the supplementary information requested would be
provided via the Secretariat after the meeting.
[Post-meeting note: WSD replied the Secretariat on Para. 162 on 5 December 2012.
The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information for
Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]
164. Mr WONG Sun-man responded that HD and WSD would meet regularly to
discuss the progress of the project.
Repair Works to Cantilever Corridor Slab in Wah Fu (I) & (II) Estates
165. Members noted that due to labour turnover of the contractor, the original
works completion date in September 2012 would be postponed to November 2012,
and all the works would be completed by November 2012.
- 70 -
GLA-THK 1162
166. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired if the renewal application could be
considered on a yearly basis to allow the flexibility in changing land use.
167. Ms LOU Yin-yee responded that WSD applied for an extension of lease
period for five years. As the maintenance contract period of WSD was three years
starting from 1 August 2012, if the application for extension was approved, the lease
period would be three years to tie in with the maintenance contract.
GLA-THK 816
168. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked about the exact location of the site.
169. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the location plan would be supplemented after the
meeting.
[Post-meeting note: LandsD replied the Secretariat on Para. 168 on 28 November
2012. The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information
for Members’ reference on 30 January 2013.]
GLA-THK 1538
170. Mr AU Hok-hin asked about the actual usage of the site.
171. Ms LOU Yin-yee said that the site was used by LCSD as a worksite for the
maintenance and repair of shark prevention net.
Agenda Item 12: Any Other Business
172. The Chairman said that there was no other business.
Part 2 - Items for Information
Street Management Report (as at 31.10.2012)
(DDEC Paper No. 48/2012)
- 71 -
173. The Committee noted the contents of the paper.
Part 3
Date of Next Meeting
174. The Chairman said that the 7th DDEC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on
4 February 2013 (Monday).
175. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m.
Secretariat, Southern District Council
January 2013