(Translation)

Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the District Facilities Committee of District Council (5th Term)

Date : 15 November 2018 (Thursday) Time : 9:30 a.m. Venue : Conference Room, Council

Present

Chairman Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, BBS, JP

Members Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH, JP (Arrived at 1:15 p.m.) Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy (Arrived at 9:45 a.m.) Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH (Arrived at 9:50 a.m., left at 11:53 a.m.) Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, BBS, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Arrived at 11:17 a.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 11 a.m., left at 1:15 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin (Arrived at 11 a.m., left at 11:53 a.m.) Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 10:03 a.m.) Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEE Wing-man (Arrived at 1 p.m.) Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman Ms NG Yuet-lan (Left at 1:15 p.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP (Arrived at 9:32 a.m.) Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP (Left at 11:53 a.m.) Mr YAN Kai-wing (Left at 11:53 a.m.) Mr YEUNG Yuk (Arrived at 9:50 a.m., left at 12:52 p.m.) Mr YUEN Hoi-man (Arrived at 9:45 a.m., left at 11:53 a.m.)

Co-opted Members Mr CHAU Chun-fai, Gary (Left at 12:30 p.m.) Ms CHEN Li-hong (Arrived at 9:50 a.m.) - 2 - Action by

Mr YIP Pui-lam (Left at 12:30 p.m.) Ms WONG Kwai-wan (Left at 1:20 p.m.) Mr YUEN Chi-ping (Left at 1 p.m.)

In Attendance Miss LUI Hiu-wei, Michelle Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Ms SO Kit-yee, Phyllis Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Sham Shui Po District Office Mr SHE Yat-chun, Ryan Executive Officer I (District Management), Sham Shui Po District Office Ms CHAN Suk-fan, Janet Liaison Officer In-charge (District Facilities Management Committee and ), Sham Shui Po District Office Mr LUK Chi-kwong Chief Leisure Manager ( East), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEE Shuk-ling, Agnes District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms WONG Sau-ling, Vicky Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po) District Support, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr YEUNG Chi-kuen, Roy Assistant District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po) District Support, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr YIM Tsan-man Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon), Home Affairs Department Mr LI Wai-hei Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1, Home Affairs Department Mr LAW Lok-fai, Edwin Architect (Works) 4, Home Affairs Department Mr Anthony LEUNG Senior Associate, Andrew Lee King Fun and Associates Architects Limited Mr Kelvin LAU Architectural Assistant, Andrew Lee King Fun and Associates Architects Limited Ms AU Pui-yin, Rosa Senior Executive Officer (Planning)4, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAW Ming-chu, Cecilia Engineer/Planning West 1, Transport Department Ms Karina LAM Vice President, Hong Kong Hockey Association Mr Richard MAK Men's Section Chairman, Hong Kong Hockey Association Mr WONG Yik-kwan, John Regulatory Affairs Manager (Market & Competition 21)1, Office of the Communications Authority Mr YEUNG King-hang, Kingsley Head, Market & Competition 2, Office of the Communications Authority - 3 - Action by

Mr SIN Kwok-kei Senior Telecommunications Engineer (Regulatory 12), Office of the Communications Authority Miss NG Wing-yee, Winnie Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager (Market & Competition 21), Office of the Communications Authority Ms CHOI Suet-han, Ivy Architect (89), Housing Department Mr LEUNG Wai-Tat Clerk of Works, Housing Department

Secretary Miss TSE Ka-man, Clemence Executive Assistant (District Council) 1, Sham Shui Po District Office

Absent Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic

- 4 - Action by

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed members and public officers to the meeting.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of minutes of the 17th meeting held on 13 September 2018

2. The Committee confirmed the above minutes without amendment.

Agenda Item 2: Matters for discussion

(a) Construction of Lai Chi Kok Sports Centre, hockey ground and underground public car park at Po Lun Street, Sham Shui Po (DFC Paper 86/18)

3. Ms Rosa AU, Ms Agnes LEE and Ms Cecilia LAW introduced Paper 86/18.

4. Ms Karina LAM, with the aid of PowerPoint, introduced the development of hockey sports in Hong Kong. She added that: (i) the construction of new hockey grounds could facilitate Hong Kong to meet the conditions for applying for major international competition events; (ii) the venues could be available to schools for conducting training and benefit residents, the subsequent pedestrian flow could boost the local economy as well.

5. The Chairman enquired about the time required for project implementation.

6. Ms Rosa AU said that if the proposed development area of this development plan was supported by the Committee, the Architectural Services Department (“ArchSD”) would commission a technical feasibility study, aiming at completion before 2022.

7. Mr WAI Woon-nam welcomed the representatives of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”), the Transport Department (“TD”) and the Hong Kong Hockey Association (“HKHA”) to the meeting for introducing the development plan, and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he supported the construction of new sports facilities; (ii) he was worried that the transport support near Po Lun Street could not cope with the pedestrian and traffic flows brought by major events; (iii) he enquired whether there was any space remaining for constructing transitional housing at the site at Po Lun Street; (iv) he enquired whether the project would be shelved due to the plan of Kai Tak Sports Park; (v) he hoped that government departments would provide more information.

8. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she had requested LCSD to develop the site at Po Lun Street as soon as possible and suggested constructing other sports facilities such as baseball pitches and rock-climbing walls; (ii) she opined that - 5 - Action by the Department had decided to construct the hockey grounds before consulting the Committee, thus she enquired when the Department had made the decision.

9. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquires: (i) as the site at Po Lun Street had been zoned for use as regional sports complex many years ago, he enquired whether the proposed facilities would be positioned as district or regional facilities; (ii) the Committee did not oppose the construction of recreation and sports facilities, but it was concerned about the types of proposed facilities. In view of venue shortage for many kinds of sports, he hoped that government departments would carefully consider the needs of different stakeholders before deciding on the proposed facilities and explain the details; (iii) it was a consensus of the District Council (“DC”) that more car parks should be built in the district. He enquired about the types and number of vehicles that the proposed car park could accommodate; (iv) he was concerned about the transport support near the project site and enquired whether TD had conducted any assessment; (v) he enquired about the implementation schedule of the development plan; (vi) he estimated that it would take several years to implement the development plan and suggested constructing transitional housing to cater for the housing needs of residents in the district.

10. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he supported optimising the use of idle sites; (ii) the sports development in Hong Kong should be enhanced; (iii) there were many kinds of sports which lacked training venues, he requested LCSD to explain the reasons for deciding to construct the hockey grounds and the selection mechanism; (iv) he supported developing the underground car park and enquired about the details such as the number of storeys, the estimated area and the number of parking spaces, etc.; (v) as there was no model boat pool in Kowloon, he hoped that the Department would consider constructing relevant facilities at the site at Po Lun Street.

11. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he had long expected this development plan, yet the information provided by government departments was too brief; (ii) the site at Po Lun Street was currently used as temporary car parks. Due to insufficient parking facilities nearby, he enquired about the construction schedule and transitional arrangement, and requested TD to identify replacement facilities; (iii) he believed that the number of parking spaces of the proposed underground car park would be similar to that of the existing temporary car parks; (iv) there was frequent congestion at the location of Po Lun Street turning into , he was concerned that the transport support near the project site could not cope with the pedestrian flow of major events; (v) the proposed facilities and the surrounding sports complexes should provide different major facilities to complement each other.

12. Ms Carman NG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she enquired about the selection mechanism of government departments on sports facilities; (ii) the proposed - 6 - Action by secondary hockey ground could also be used as a soccer pitch, she enquired whether that venue was also suitable for other ball games; (iii) she hoped that government departments would consider providing different sports venues such as squash courts, cricket grounds and baseball pitches to the public; (iv) she enquired about the area of the multi-purpose activity rooms of the proposed sports centre and hoped that larger activity rooms would be provided; (v) she hoped that schools in the district could use the proposed hockey grounds and requested the Department to enhance the liaison between the venues and the schools.

13. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the residents had long expected this development plan and shown their appreciation on it; (ii) various sectors could raise their views on the transport support and facilities of the project, he would collect the suggestions of residents on the project as well; (iii) he enquired about the number of parking spaces and the allocation arrangement of the proposed car park; (iv) he hoped that the Department would expedite the technical feasibility study.

14. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the development plan of government departments was worth considering. As the project occupied a large area, he hoped that government departments would carry out comprehensive development; (ii) the positioning of the hockey grounds was important; (iii) a balance should be struck between the needs of residents and the National Sports Associations (“NSAs”). He required more information to decide whether to support the project, for instance the utilisation rate of hockey grounds, the availability of running tracks and the possibility of holding other sports activities at the venues, the ground for the Department’s decision on constructing hockey grounds and the ways to handle the noise problem.

15. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views and enquiries: (i) since major events might be held at the proposed venues, she was concerned about the transport support of the project; (ii) she enquired whether other sports activities could be held at the proposed artificial turf secondary sports ground; (iii) she appreciated that the development plan provided venues (e.g. netball courts) for minority sports; (iv) she hoped that the core venue of the proposed sports centre would be provided with boundary lines of netball courts.

16. Mr YIP Pui-lam raised the following views: (i) hockey was non-mainstream sports and the construction of new venues could facilitate its development, thus he appreciated the suggestion of the Department; (ii) he suggested the Department make reference to the usage of different venues of Lai Chi Kok Sports Centre with a view to formulating the types and number of facilities for the new sports centre and enhancing the ancillary sports facilities in the district. - 7 - Action by

17. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired about the ground for the Department’s decision on constructing hockey grounds; (ii) he hoped that the facilities to be provided by the development plan could benefit the public and different NSAs. Thus, he enquired about the allocation arrangement for the proposed venues; (iii) the content of Paper 86/18 was abstract. He hoped that government departments would provide more information.

18. Ms Rosa AU gave a consolidated response that: (i) under the principle of “single site, multiple use”, LCSD hoped to provide more sports facilities as far as possible when implementing the plan. Therefore, it suggested constructing one sports centre and two hockey grounds, and the secondary hockey ground could also be used as a soccer pitch; (ii) LCSD had noted DC’s concerns on the parking demand of the district, and requested TD earlier to consider providing an underground car park at the site at Po Lun Street; (iii) the proposed venue, which would be up to international standards, would help promote team sports, nurture elite athletes and stage international events; (iv) hockey was an Olympic sport, it was therefore worthwhile to construct new venues to facilitate its development after careful consideration; the area of the site at Po Lun Street was suitable for constructing hockey grounds; (v) due to limited space of the site, the Department had no plan to construct running tracks for field events; (vi) this plan was one of the 15 works projects for which technical feasibility studies would be commissioned in the coming five years, as proposed in the Policy Address in January 2017. In view of this, the Department expected to carry out the subsequent planning work as early as possible with the support of members; (vii) regarding the recreation and sports facilities suggested by members, the Department would follow up with ArchSD accordingly.

19. Mr LUK Chi-kwong gave a supplementary response that: (i) when planning the core venue of the proposed sports centre, the Department had designated netball as one of the purposes of the venue and would provide the boundary lines of netball courts. In addition, the core venue could also be used as sports venues including a 5-a-side soccer pitch and a handball court to cater for the needs of more NSAs and organisations; (ii) the proposed sports centre would provide some of the facilities which were not provided in Lai Chi Kok Sports Centre, such as a fitness room and a children’s play room; (iii) the proposed multi-purpose activity rooms were large in area and suitable for rope skipping training; the space could be flexibly divided by installation of sliding partitions.

20. Ms Cecilia LAW gave a consolidated response that: (i) the proposed development site comprised two temporary car parks currently, providing a number of parking spaces with rather high utilisation rate; the problem of night-time illegal parking nearby was quite serious as well; (ii) when considering the types and number of parking spaces of the proposed underground car park, TD would make reference to the types and number of parking spaces of existing temporary car parks near the development site, the utilisation - 8 - Action by rate and the situation of night-time illegal parking in the neighbourhood; a technical assessment would then be conducted with ArchSD. The Department would tie in the entire development plan with an appropriate amount of parking spaces according to the district needs; (iii) taking into consideration the parking needs during the construction period, TD would identify temporary transitional facilities in the district, for instance, car parks with vacant parking spaces, or provide more on-street parking spaces as far as possible; (iv) if the plan was supported by the Committee, LCSD and ArchSD would conduct a traffic impact assessment. Subject to the assessment result, TD would review the transport support nearby and consult the Committee again about the traffic arrangement in a timely manner; (v) she hoped that the Committee would support the development plan.

21. Ms Karina LAM gave a consolidated response that: (i) the cost of participating in hockey was not high and affordable for the general public; (ii) there was approximately 4 000 participants playing hockey in Hong Kong currently, yet the growth of number of participants was limited by the lack of venues; (iii) the construction of new hockey grounds could not only alleviate the pressure on current venue shortage, but also help nurture elite athletes and raise the sports standard; (iv) HKHA believed that the newly constructed venues would be full during peak hours; (v) she cited King’s Park Hockey Ground as an example, LCSD would open up the venue to the public during the morning non-peak hours for practising Tai Chi.

22. Ms Rosa AU said that: (i) the proposed hockey ground would provide the fixed spectator stand with 1 500 seats. LCSD and ArchSD would consider reserving space to cater for the need to provide temporary seats when organising events of different scales; (ii) if the Committee supported this development plan, the Department would follow up proactively with relevant departments such as ArchSD and TD on problems of sound level and traffic flow, etc.

23. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) DC was concerned about the shortage of parking spaces in the district, he enquired whether the Department estimated that the number of parking spaces of the proposed underground car park would not be less than that of the existing temporary car parks; (ii) he opined that the positioning of the proposed hockey grounds as territory-wide facilities was inappropriate; (iii) he was worried that the noise created by major events would affect the residents and suspected that government departments had not carried out detailed study and planning; (iv) LCSD should know more about the need for venues of different NSAs, he reckoned that it was too hasty to make the decision on constructing hockey grounds at the present stage; (v) he requested LCSD to give an account on the selection mechanism on the proposed facilities; (vi) he suggested considering making use of DC resources to consult the local stakeholders and study the recreation and sports facilities which were suitable to be constructed at the site; - 9 - Action by

(vii) government departments should consider constructing transitional housing if it took more than ten years to implement the project.

24. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the transport support in vicinity of the site was inadequate, rendering it difficult to facilitate pedestrian flow during major events; (ii) he enquired whether the direction of the development plan had been finalised, and suggested considering the construction of hockey grounds at Kai Tak Sports Park.

25. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he did not oppose the construction of hockey grounds, but he hoped that it could be used for multiple purposes; (ii) he was concerned about the noise problem of outdoor venues; (iii) members could not take follow-up actions as TD had not provided basic information such as the number of parking spaces; such situation was not desirable; (iv) he enquired whether the proposed venues would be up to international standards.

26. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views: (i) he requested the Department to give an account on the selection mechanism on the proposed recreation and sports facilities; (ii) there were other lands which were zoned as recreation space in the district (e.g. the site of Wholesale Poultry Market), government departments should carry out comprehensive planning before deciding whether to construct hockey grounds at the site at Po Lun Street.

27. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she enquired whether the development plan would provide squash courts; (ii) in view of inadequate transport support for the site at Po Lun Street, the limited number of seats to be provided and the possible impacts caused by events on the residents nearby, the site was not suitable for constructing venues for international events; (iii) she hoped that LCSD would put more effort on drafting the development plan so that different development plans could complement each other, and expedite the progress; (iv) she would collect the views of the residents on the land used for development of sports and relay them to LCSD.

28. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the response of TD could not relieve members’ concerns; (ii) he enquired about the time required for conducting the traffic impact assessment for the project and the schedule; (iii) the time required for conducting the feasibility study for the project was too lengthy; (iv) the information provided by government departments at the present stage was too brief, he requested departments to provide more information for further discussion early next year.

29. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) he hoped that the Department would adopt an innovative design with international vision and develop the - 10 - Action by proposed sports facilities or venues into a district landmark. If this could not be achieved due to limited site area, the Department could consider other development directions as well; (ii) he suggested developing the sports centre and the hockey grounds under the plan separately and suggested LCSD provide other sports venues for DC’s consideration; (iii) the site at Po Lun Street had initially been designated for family-type leisure facilities. He hoped that the facilities to be provided by the development plan could cater for the needs of the residents; (iv) the demand for traditional children’s play rooms was limited; (v) he suggested the indoor bowling green be used for multiple purposes such as a 5-a-side soccer pitch.

30. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) he was pleased to see that LCSD would construct new sports facilities at the site at Po Lun Street, promoting the sports development of Hong Kong; (ii) he did not object to government departments’ thorough study on the development plan, yet he was worried that other NSAs might have doubts on LCSD’s decision on constructing hockey grounds; (iii) the proposed sports facilities should be up to the current international standards for sustainable development; (iv) the proposed venues would bring substantial traffic flow, government departments should estimate the demand for parking spaces accurately; (v) the Government should promote sports for all instead of using resources mainly on elite sports.

31. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) more children’s play rooms should be provided in the district; (ii) she hoped that DC could participate in the improvement scheme for the children’s play room at Po On Road.

32. Ms Rosa AU gave a consolidated response that: (i) LCSD developed various sports venues in the territory to increase the opportunities for the public to participate in different kinds of sports and promote sports in the community. Providing new venues of international standards could also help nurture elite athletes and stage major sports events; (ii) the area of the site at Po Lun Street was suitable for development as hockey grounds; (iii) given that the proposed venues were close to residential area, it was suggested that the venues would be open from 8:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. If the development plan was supported by the Committee, LCSD would discuss proactively with ArchSD to handle the issue through the aspect of venue design; (iv) LCSD was willing to improve the content of the plan as far as possible in accordance with members’ views; (v) this development plan had responded to the actual needs of the residents by providing a venue of international standards and a multi-purpose sports centre; (vi) it was hoped that the Committee would support the plan to facilitate subsequent work. The Department would conduct further consultation subject to the decision of the Committee.

33. Ms Cecilia LAW gave a consolidated response that: (i) TD had conducted a preliminary assessment on the demand for parking spaces near the site at Po Lun Street. - 11 - Action by

Currently, three temporary car parks (near the bus depot at Po Lun Street, near Lai Po Road/Sham Mong Road, and at the junction of Lai Chi Kok Road, Yuet Lun Street and Tsing Sha Highway) near the development site at Po Lun Street provided 726 parking spaces in total; their night-time utilisation rates were 80%, 63% and 90% respectively, which were quite high. The Department had also investigated the situation of night-time illegal parking within a 500-metre radius from the site at Po Lun Street late last year and recorded approximately 200 instances of illegal parking. The Department would make reference to the above figures when planning the parking spaces of the underground car park; (ii) subject to the traffic impact assessment report and the detailed design of the proposed facilities provided by LCSD and ArchSD, TD would determine the types and number of parking spaces to be provided.

34. Ms Karina LAM gave a consolidated response that: (i) in order to save the recurrent maintenance cost, only a limited number of fixed seats would be provided at the venue of international standards and space would be reserved for providing temporary seats; (ii) the users of King’s Park Hockey Ground mainly used public transport to travel to and from the venue. Since the proposed hockey grounds were close to MTR station, it was believed that the users would use public transport and would not impose pressure on the nearby transport facilities.

35. Mr LUK Chi-kwong gave a supplementary response that: (i) when deciding on the facilities of the proposed sports centre, LCSD had taken into account the needs of different family members and would provide a children’s play room, a bowling green, a community garden and multi-purpose activity rooms; (ii) the Department would adopt an innovative design for the sports centre as far as possible and provide the public with quality facilities; (iii) there were only two hockey grounds in the territory, the construction of an iconic large-scale hockey ground in Sham Shui Po District (“SSP District”) would benefit the sports development of the district.

36. The Chairman concluded that: (i) the Committee did not oppose the construction of sports facilities; (ii) in view of the keen demand for parking spaces in the district, the Committee supported the development of underground car park; (iii) members had different views on the construction of hockey grounds. It was considered that the selection mechanism of LCSD was not transparent enough and the Department had not yet given an account on its decision. Therefore, the Committee would not indicate support at the present stage; (iv) it was suggested that LCSD should consider developing the sports centre and outdoor venues in phases, and accord priority to developing the sports centre; (v) members were concerned about the noise problem of the venues, the Department could consider constructing indoor venues instead of the outdoor ones. - 12 - Action by

37. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong agreed with most of the content of the conclusion and reiterated that he did not oppose the construction of hockey grounds, but he hoped that LCSD would first obtain the support from the stakeholders.

38. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) he suggested LCSD provide the information about other sports facilities projects under implementation and the selection mechanism on the proposed sports facilities to facilitate the Committee to consider the suggestion on constructing hockey grounds at Po Lun Street; (ii) he clarified that he supported the construction of the children’s play room, yet he hoped that the Department would construct the play room with a new style and quality facilities.

39. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views: (i) she did not oppose sports development, optimisation of land use and provision of additional parking spaces; (ii) she was concerned about the traffic and noise problems of the project; (iii) since the proposed venues were the outdoor ones, she was concerned about the relevant light pollution problem and pointed out that LCSD should take into account the impact of light pollution on residents when considering applications for hiring outdoor venues.

40. Ms Rosa AU gave a consolidated response that: (i) the Department had provided sports venues of international standards in different districts for staging major sports events; (ii) the area of the site at Po Lun Street was suitable for constructing hockey grounds; (iii) HKHA had organised various activities in the district in recent years and received positive feedback; (iv) the proposed sports centre would provide recreation and sports facilities for different age groups. The entire development plan would provide outdoor and indoor venues, and various sports facilities for use by the public and students. It was hoped that the support from the Committee would be gained so that LCSD could continue to implement this works project.

41. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) NSAs would compete with each other for resources; (ii) he welcomed the conduct of preliminary consultation on major development projects by government departments; (iii) the Committee supported the construction of sports facilities and a car park at the site at Po Lun Street and did not oppose the construction of hockey grounds. However, the Committee had not yet reached a consensus as it was considered that the selection mechanism was not transparent enough. He urged the Department to provide the information about the selection mechanism on the proposed sports facilities as soon as possible so that the Committee would indicate its stance on the development plan. He then said that the Committee supported the construction of the sports centre and suggested the Department consider handling the matters separately in order to provide the facilities concerned as soon as possible. - 13 - Action by

42. Ms Karina LAM responded that: (i) the site at Po Lun Street was suitable for development as hockey grounds; (ii) the Government provided venues which met international competition standards for various kinds of sports in different districts, district consultation on the projects under planning would also be conducted.

43. The Chairman said that government departments should provide the information about sports venues to be provided in other districts to allay members’ concerns.

44. Ms Rosa AU said that the Department planned to provide supplementary information after the meeting for members’ reference.

45. Ms Joephy CHAN hoped that LCSD would provide more supporting reference materials.

46. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he requested LCSD to explain the selection mechanism on sports facilities; (ii) the site at Po Lun Street was close to residential buildings; taking into consideration the benefits of the district, it might be more suitable for the site to be used for district sports facilities instead of venues for international events.

47. Ms NG Yuet-lan was concerned about the noise problem caused by international events and hoped that government departments would avoid that as far as possible from the planning perspective.

(b) Review of the number of public payphones (DFC Paper 74/18)

48. Mr Kingsley YEUNG introduced Paper 74/18.

49. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the utilisation rates of the kiosk payphones which were proposed by the Office of the Communications Authority (“OFCA”) to be excluded from the Universal Service Obligation (“USO”) were extremely low; the suggestion was reasonable; (ii) he suggested the authorities consider improving the design of telephone booths to reduce the space occupied; (iii) he enquired of OFCA about the schedule of this review and the possibility of considering the complete phasing out of public payphones in the long term.

50. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that comprehensive Wi-Fi service was necessary to complement the development of smart city; he enquired whether the Wi-Fi service of telephone booths was available for public use. - 14 - Action by

51. Mr YUEN Hoi-man supported the suggestion of OFCA and enquired whether the removal of telephone booths would affect the free Wi-Fi service.

52. Ms Carman NG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the kiosk payphone at F23 Lung Ping and Sheung Pak Tin constituency should be retained due to its remote location; (ii) she enquired whether OFCA would consider installing additional kiosk payphones subject to district redevelopment.

53. Mr Kingsley YEUNG gave a consolidated response that: (i) OFCA would review the number of public payphones in accordance with the guiding principles formulated by the Communications Authority. OFCA would retain kiosk payphones with a certain utilisation rates and exclude kiosk payphones with extremely low utilisation rates only; (ii) the area of telephone booths was regulated by the Block Licence issued by the Lands Department (“LandsD”); some telephone booths occupied more space for the convenience of wheelchair users; (iii) USO did not include the provision of Wi-Fi service, the provision of the service concerned was a commercial decision for PCCW-HKT Telephone Limited and Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited (“HKT”). HKT also participated in the “Wi-Fi.HK” scheme, allowing the public to use its Wi-Fi service for free 30 minutes per day; (iv) the Wi-Fi communication equipment could be installed at locations apart from telephone booths, such as government premises, “Multi-functional Smart Lampposts” mentioned in the Government’s “2017 Policy Address” (“the PA”), etc.; (v) OFCA would inform the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (“OGCIO”) if HKT decided to remove telephone booths with Wi-Fi after this review. OGCIO would keep tabs on the situation of the removal of the telephone booths concerned, and consider providing other additional Wi-Fi hotspots near the original telephone booths; (vi) OFCA would consider installing additional kiosk payphones subject to the situation and needs of the district.

54. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he suggested OFCA conduct the review in line with the implementation of “Multi-functional Smart Lampposts”, some of the telephone booths providing Wi-Fi service should be retained at the current stage; (ii) he suggested OFCA retain the kiosk payphones at remote locations, such as the kiosk payphone at the junction of Tai Hang Tung Road and Tong Yam Street, and the one at Tai Hang Sai Street near Park; (iii) he suggested LCSD provide Wi-Fi service at parks under its management; (iv) the community would make additional requests if it was hoped that other kiosk payphones could be removed for constructing district facilities.

55. Ms WONG Kwai-wan suggested retaining the kiosk payphone at Tai Hang Tung Road outside Concordia Lutheran School. - 15 - Action by

56. The Chairman concluded that: (i) OFCA was requested to prudently consider members’ suggestions on retaining individual kiosk payphones; (ii) the Committee did not object that OFCA would exclude the other kiosk payphones in the district from USO; (iii) it was suggested that the Government should accord priority to installing “Multi-functional Smart Lampposts” near telephone booths which were installed with Wi-Fi devices but would be removed, with a view to reducing the impacts on Wi-Fi service.

57. Mr Kingsley YEUNG responded that: (i) according to the PA, the Government planned to install approximately 400 “Multi-functional Smart Lampposts” on a trial basis in four districts for the time being; (ii) OFCA reiterated that OGCIO would be informed of the situation of the removal of telephone booths for its consideration of providing additional Wi-Fi hotspots near the telephone booths concerned; (iii) it was noted that major parks under LCSD would provide Wi-Fi service; (iv) OFCA would actively consider retaining the telephone booths providing Wi-Fi service and the individual kiosk payphones mentioned by members.

(c) Provision of rain shelter at Sai Chuen Road outside Wing Cheong Estate - feasibility study (DFC Paper 75/18)

58. Mr Ryan SHE introduced Paper 75/18 with the aid of PowerPoint.

59. The Committee noted the content of the paper and endorsed the funding application of HK$32,000 for the ground investigation works.

(d) Sham Shui Po Community Hall/Community Centre Facilities Improvement Works in 2018-19 (Phase III) (DFC Paper 76/18)

60. Ms Janet CHAN introduced Paper 76/18 with the aid of PowerPoint.

61. Ms Ivy CHOI added that: (i) in addition to the entrance of the rear staircases of Pak Tin Community Hall being exposed to the wind, the rare passage of a super typhoon had caused the accumulation of stagnant water underneath the floor of the hall; which was an exceptional circumstance; (ii) the hall had adopted a waterproof design: the back door of the hall was provided with canopies and staircases; it was approximately 150 millimetres higher than the pavement and the door gap was approximately 4 millimetres wide; drainage outlets were provided nearby; (iii) in order to prevent recurrence of similar incidents, the Housing Department (“HD”) had arranged the contractor to install water blockage partitions, and suggested the Sham Shui Po District Office (“SSPDO”) increase patrols during typhoon or rainstorm and keep tabs on the situation of drainage outlets nearby. - 16 - Action by

62. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) given that the hall needed to be repaired soon after its commissioning, government departments could hardly be accountable to the public; (ii) works had been carrying out constantly at the back door of the hall, she requested government departments to respond on whether the incident was caused by human or natural factors.

63. Ms Ivy CHOI responded that when HD had handed over the hall to SSPDO, the works at the back door of the hall had been completed while improvement works carried out at the footbridge outside the hall.

64. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the Working Group on District Facilities Management had discussed the concerned works. Since the condition of the hall floor had caused inconvenience to users, repair works had to be carried out as soon as possible; (ii) HD could consider further improving the waterproof design of the hall; (iii) further discussion on who should be held responsible for the incident could be held later.

65. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) user safety was important; (ii) she reiterated that works had been carrying out constantly at the back door of the hall, thus it was necessary for the Council to ascertain who should be held responsible for the incident.

66. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) in view of a large number of hall users, he suggested carrying out the repair works first; (ii) further discussion on who should be held responsible for the incident could be held later.

67. Mr CHUM Tak-shing enquired about the details of the damage of the hall floor.

68. Ms Janet CHAN responded that: (i) stagnant water had already accumulated underneath half of the hall floor and the situation was worsening gradually; (ii) according to the assessment conducted by relevant departments, replacement of part of the floor could not solve the problem at root but would increase the overall maintenance cost and lengthen the time of closing the venue, which might cause greater impacts on the users.

69. The Committee noted the content of the paper and endorsed the funding application of HK$492,750 for the works.

(e) Request for providing new drinking fountains at LCSD parks in Sham Shui Po and conducting comprehensive inspections on old drinking fountains in Sham Shui Po (DFC Paper 77/18)

70. Ms Carman NG introduced Paper 77/18. - 17 - Action by

71. Ms Agnes LEE introduced Response Paper 87/18.

72. Ms Carman NG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) no bottled water was sold at LCSD venues. She hoped that the Department would provide drinking fountains at more venues; (ii) she enquired about the difference between the new and old drinking fountains; (iii) she suggested the Department replace the filter-type drinking fountains at indoor venues with the uplifting-type drinking fountains; this would be more hygienic despite the incurring higher cost.

73. Mr WAI Woon-nam said that the models and conditions of drinking facilities at venues under LCSD were different; he suggested the Department consider replacing all drinking fountains with the new ones to facilitate repair and maintenance.

74. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he supported the provision of drinking fountains at venues under LCSD; (ii) he enquired of LCSD about the possibility of providing drinking fountains at outdoor venues, and the number of drinking fountains at outdoor and indoor venues; (iii) he suggested the Department replace all drinking fountains at indoor venues with the latest model; (iv) the use of drinking fountains and the habit of bringing one’s own water bottle should be promoted; he also suggested other government departments (e.g. HD) consider providing drinking fountains.

75. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu enquired about the model of drinking fountain at Tai Hang Tung Estate Playground No. 2.

76. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views: (i) the new drinking fountain at (Stage II) needed to be repaired soon after public use; (ii) that drinking fountain located close to the entrance of toilets was not desirable; she hoped that the Department would pay attention to the locations when providing additional drinking fountains.

77. Ms Agnes LEE gave a consolidated response that: (i) LCSD provided approximately 27 and 73 drinking fountains at indoor and outdoor venues respectively in SSP District; the Department would give more consideration to the location of drinking fountains; (ii) drinking fountains were provided at all indoor venues in the district and in most of the major parks. The Department had been gradually replacing the drinking fountains with new models with a water tap as water outlet; (iii) the drinking fountain at Tai Hang Tung Estate Playground No. 2 was the new model; (iv) members’ views were noted; based on environmental protection concerns and resources consideration, the Department would arrange for replacement of drinking fountains in a timely manner. - 18 - Action by

78. Ms Carman NG suggested providing drinking fountains at the playground at Nam Cheong Street.

79. The Chairman requested LCSD to put the suggestion on record.

(f) Concern over the variation of charges for LCSD venues of the same size (DFC Paper 78/18)

80. Ms Carman NG introduced Paper 78/18.

[Since the Chairman left the Conference Room for the time being, the meeting was chaired by Mr Ambrose CHEUNG.]

81. Ms Agnes LEE introduced Response Paper 88/18.

[The Chairman returned to the Conference Room and resumed chairmanship of the meeting.]

82. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) the costly charge for squash courts had affected the utilisation rate; (ii) it was difficult for schools to hire squash courts; (iii) squash was elite sports, but venue shortage rendered it difficult to become popular sports; (iv) she did not object that some squash courts would be open for other recreational uses, yet she found it unreasonable for the charge for use for squash was higher than that for other uses; she requested the Department to conduct a review as soon as possible.

83. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she was surprised that it was difficult for schools to hire squash courts; the Department should accord priority to serving schools’ needs; (ii) it was noted that many table tennis coaches would hire a number of venues for providing private coaching; (iii) it was unreasonable that the charges for squash courts to be used for squash and table tennis varied enormously; the Department should conduct a review as soon as possible.

84. Ms Agnes LEE gave a consolidated response that: (i) schools would be given priority to hiring the venues before 5 p.m. from Monday to Friday; (ii) the Department noted the views on the charge for squash courts and would take them into consideration when reviewing the charges for venues in the future.

85. The Chairman opined that it was necessary for LCSD to review the charging arrangement for squash courts and hoped that the Department would commence the relevant work as soon as possible. - 19 - Action by

86. Ms Agnes LEE responded that the views on the charges for venues would be relayed to the policy units of the Department for follow up action.

87. Ms NG Yuet-lan opined that schools might need to hire venues during non-priority-booking timeslots.

88. The Chairman requested the Department to follow up on the above views.

(g) Repair the recreation and sports facilities as soon as possible Restore the healthy lifestyle of residents (DFC Paper 79/18)

89. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu introduced Paper 79/18, he opined that the written response of LCSD was brief and hoped that the Department would provide more information.

90. Ms Agnes LEE introduced Response Paper 89/18.

91. Ms WONG Kwai-wan pointed out that there were fallen trees yet to be cleared at Tai Hang Tung Recreation Ground and To Yuen Street Playground.

92. Mr WAI Woon-nam said that the rain shelters at had been damaged; he hoped that the Department would rebuild the rain shelters as soon as possible. In addition, the park had yet to be restored to its original state; he hoped that the Department would expedite the repair work.

93. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) many trees at venues under the Department had been blown over by the typhoon, reflecting room for improvement in the planting arrangement. He hoped that the Department would learn from experience and conduct a review; (ii) some trees had been uprooted and caused damage to road surface, he hoped that LCSD and the Highways Department (“HyD”) would collaborate on the follow-up work.

94. Ms Agnes LEE gave a consolidated response that: (i) the Department would collaborate with relevant departments to follow up on fallen trees and the repair of facilities; (ii) the Department would plant Yellow Pui at Nam Cheong Park as compensatory planting to restore the park to its original state; (iii) the Department would make reference to relevant guidelines of the Tree Management Office to arrange for compensatory planting with suitable trees.

- 20 - Action by

(h) Request for providing seats for the rain shelter next to Tung Hoi House of Tai Hang Tung Estate (DFC Paper 80/18)

95. Ms WONG Kwai-wan introduced Paper 80/18. Since the seats made of environmentally-friendly wood were not stain-resistant, she hoped that SSPDO would provide stainless steel seats which were easy to clean, and commence the works as soon as possible.

96. Mr Ryan SHE introduced the actual environment with the aid of PowerPoint, and responded that: (i) the rain shelter where the seats would be provided was a District Minor Works (“DMW”) project; (ii) SSPDO, the Works Section of the Home Affairs Department (“the Works Section”) had conducted a site inspection with the initiated members. SSPDO suggested providing three freestanding seats, which were approximately 1.2 metres long and approximately 0.45 metre from the ground, at the rain shelter near the inner side of the pavement. The seats would be provided between the two columns of the rain shelter, with a distance of approximately 0.3 metre and 0.6 metre from the columns in the front and at the back respectively, in order to reserve sufficient space for pedestrians to pass through; (iii) environmentally-friendly wood was the material for standard seat design, the Works Section would study the feasibility of providing stainless steel seats according to members’ suggestions; (iv) if the Committee agreed with the above suggestion, SSPDO would carry out a feasibility study and relevant consultation work.

97. The Committee endorsed the above suggestion.

(i) Study on the provision of rain shelter at the crossing place in Woh Chai Street/Wai Chi Street (DFC Paper 81/18)

98. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu introduced Paper 81/18.

99. Mr Ryan SHE, with the aid of PowerPoint, introduced the environment of the neighbourhood of the junction of Woh Chai Street and Wai Chi Street, and the covered walkway project in vicinity of that location which TD and HyD had been following up and studying. He then responded that: (i) SSPDO had conducted a site inspection on the actual environment with the Works Section and the initiated members, the initiated members had suggested constructing five sets of rain shelter near the crossing place at the junction of Woh Chai Street and Wai Chi Street; (ii) according to on-site observation, the pavement of the proposed rain shelters was rather narrow and most of the area was within the premises of MTR Corporation Limited (“MTRCL”); there were also many boreholes on the road surface and there might be complex underground facilities. If the Committee agreed that the matters should continue to be followed up, SSPDO would further study the feasibility of the suggestion. - 21 - Action by

100. Ms CHEN Li-hong raised the following views: (i) she had relayed to TD and bus companies that bus stops in the district lacked cover, seats or bus service display panels. Due to inconsistent responses from TD and the bus companies, she hoped that TD would give a response; (ii) TD considered that the covered walkway project at Woh Chai Street was not urgent; (iii) in view of a large number of pedestrians at the road section of Woh Chai Street near the exits of Shek Kip Mei MTR Station, government departments should consider providing a covered walkway.

101. Ms WONG Kwai-wan raised the following views: (i) the Council had suggested providing a covered walkway at Woh Chai Street years ago, yet the suggestion had been shelved due to a number of complex underground facilities. Considering that many crossing places had been provided at that road section in recent years, she suggested constructing rain shelters to provide convenience to pedestrians waiting for crossing roads; (ii) she hoped that SSPDO would follow up on the suggestion as soon as possible.

102. The Chairman concluded that: (i) the Committee supported the construction of rain shelters to bring convenience to the public; (ii) SSPDO was requested to follow up and study the suggestions, consult relevant departments and stakeholders such as MTRCL, and report the progress in a timely manner.

103. Mr LI Wai-hei responded that the Works Section noted that the proposed rain shelters were close to the premises of MTRCL and believed that SSPDO would consult MTRCL.

(j) Report by LCSD on facilities management in Sham Shui Po District (DFC Paper 82/18)

104. Ms Vicky WONG introduced Paper 82/18.

105. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired whether government departments would consider constructing transitional housing at Mei Lai Road near Mei Foo Government Complex in Lai Chi Kok; (ii) he initially welcomed the implementation of the scheme of “Inclusive Park for Pets” by LCSD at Tong Yam Street Hillside Sitting-out Area on a trial basis, yet he was worried about insufficient ancillary facilities and suggested the Department consult the users; (iii) he suggested the Department consider implementing the above scheme in Mei Foo on a trial basis.

106. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired whether the scheme of beautifying undeveloped government lands would cover the lands controlled by other government departments, for instance the site underneath the flyover at the junction of Yen Chow Street and Sai Chuen Road which was managed by SSPDO currently; (ii) he did not object to the reduction of the number of smoking areas by the - 22 - Action by

Department, yet he hoped that the Department would strengthen its management of smoking situation at venues, especially the main passages of Tung Chau Street Park and Sham Shui Po Park; (iii) he enquired whether the staff of the Department had the delegated authority to handle cases of illegal smoking.

107. Mr KONG Kwai-sang suggested the Department consider implementing the scheme of “Inclusive Park for Pets” at Lei Cheng Uk Swimming Pool Rest Garden on a trial basis.

108. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she enquired whether the Department had any measure focusing on smoking of electronic cigarettes at its venues; (ii) she was dissatisfied that the Department had not explained the reasons for the delay of the expected completion date of the works for conversion of a disused fountain into a greening and landscaped area (Project No. SSP-DMW498) in Sham Shui Po Park (Stage I), and requested detailed explanation.

109. Ms Vicky WONG gave a consolidated response that: (i) regarding the scheme of beautifying undeveloped government lands, LandsD was responsible for managing sites while LCSD was responsible for the relevant beautification work only; (ii) LCSD would handle the situation of smoking ordinary and electronic cigarettes at its venues by using a consistent approach. The Department would ask on-site staff to pay attention and advise the smoking offenders, and consider taking follow-up actions if the offenders were being uncooperative; the Department would also carry out joint operations with the Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office of the Department of Health regularly; (iii) members’ suggestions on increasing the trial spots of implementing the scheme of “Inclusive Park for Pets” were noted. The Department would consider increasing the trial spots if the trial scheme at Tong Yam Street Hillside Sitting-out Area was proved to be effective.

110. Mr LEE Wing-man supported implementing the scheme of “Inclusive Park for Pets” on a trial basis, yet he was worried about insufficient ancillary facilities and suggested the Department replace facilities at the trial spots with ones which were easy to clean.

111. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired about the difference between pet gardens and the scheme of “Inclusive Park for Pets”; (ii) the demand for inclusive facilities for pets was keen in the neighbourhood of , he hoped that the Department would provide relevant facilities.

112. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong said that the condition of the site underneath the flyover at the junction of Yen Chow Street and Sai Chuen Road was unsatisfactory; he suggested LCSD assist SSPDO to beautify that site. - 23 - Action by

113. Ms Joephy CHAN asked again about the reasons for the delay of the expected completion date of the works for conversion of a disused fountain into a greening and landscaped area (Project No. SSP-DMW498) in Sham Shui Po Park (Stage I).

114. Ms Vicky WONG gave a consolidated response that: (i) concerning the works for conversion of a disused fountain into a greening and landscaped area (Project No. SSP-DMW498) in Sham Shui Po Park (Stage I), since works departments required longer time to draft the plans of the tender and the design of structural plans, the expected completion date of the project concerned would be postponed to June 2019; ArchSD would commence the works as soon as possible; (ii) the Department would provide basic ancillary facilities such as dog excreta collection bins at the trial spots of the scheme of “Inclusive Park for Pets” for the convenience of pet owners, and step up cleansing work for the venues.

115. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG hoped that LCSD would complete the improvement works on lockers of Lai Chi Kok Park Swimming Pool (Project No. SSP-DMW542) and the improvement works on lockers of Sham Shui Po Park Swimming Pool (Project No. SSP-DMW543) before the summer next year.

116. Ms Vicky WONG noted members’ views; the Department would commence the works upon completion of the tender as soon as possible.

117. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) the site underneath the flyover at the junction of Yen Chow Street and Sai Chuen Road was currently used for storing flower pots by SSPDO and the hygiene condition was unsatisfactory, he requested SSPDO to follow up on that; (ii) he hoped that LCSD would assist SSPDO in beautifying that site.

118. Mr Ryan SHE responded that: (i) SSPDO was open-minded towards inviting LCSD to beautify the site; (ii) after the passage of typhoon earlier, SSPDO had sent staff to carry out large-scale cleansing and the hygiene condition of the site had been improved substantially; SSPDO would keep tabs on the situation concerned.

119. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

(k) Improvement works on recreation and sports facilities under LCSD in 2018-19 (Phase V) (DFC Paper 83/18)

120. Ms Vicky WONG introduced Paper 83/18. - 24 - Action by

121. The Committee noted the content of the paper and endorsed the funding application of HK$3,422,500, and HK$2,556,500 of which would be paid in 2018-19 and HK$866,000 of which would be paid in 2019-20.

Agenda Item 3: Reports from Working Groups under the Committee

(a) Report from the Working Group on District Works (DFC Paper 84/18)

122. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

(b) Report from the Working Group on District Facilities Management (DFC Paper 85/18)

123. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

Agenda Item 4: Any other business

124. Mr Ryan SHE, with the aid of PowerPoint, introduced as follows: (i) the Committee had discussed in January 2017 the suggestion on redeveloping the clock tower (“Sham Shui Po Clock Tower”), which was located at the junction of Tai Po Road and Castle Peak Road and built with funds under DMW programme in early years, and beautifying its peripheral flower bed; it had also endorsed to conduct a study; (ii) the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) had received a planning application from The Garden Company Limited (“Garden Company”) for the redevelopment of Garden Centre at No. 58 Castle Peak Road in July of the same year. Since the application concerned involved the issue of the retention or otherwise of Garden Centre Clock Tower (“Garden Clock”), the Working Group on District Works (“WGDW”) had agreed at the meeting in October of the same year to further discuss the development direction of the neighbouring Sham Shui Po Clock Tower after TPB considered the application; (iii) TPB had endorsed the redevelopment application of Garden Centre in September 2018. According to the information submitted by Garden Company to TPB, it was initially estimated that the Garden Clock would be relocated to a location similar to the existing one after the completion of the new Garden Building in mid-2024; (iv) at the meeting in October 2018, WGDW had suggested retaining the Sham Shui Po Clock Tower before the completion of the new Garden Building, and requested SSPDO to study the beautification of the peripheral flower bed of the Sham Shui Po Clock Tower and provide signages on pavements near the clock tower by making reference to another DMW project of providing signages in the neighbourhood of Mei Foo earlier; (v) the Committee was requested to note the above progress and consider the suggestion of WGDW. Since the beautification of the flower bed involved design elements, the Committee was also requested to consider handing over the project to the term consultant for follow up, decide on the preliminary proposal for the beautification of the flower bed, and raise its views on the location, content and design of the signages as well. - 25 - Action by

125. The Chairman enquired about the maintenance arrangement of the flower bed.

126. Mr Ryan SHE responded that SSPDO would discuss with LCSD the maintenance arrangement after the details of the project was further finalised, and report on it in a timely manner.

127. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) Option 4 for the beautification of the flower bed (which low-height flowering shrubs of different colours would be used to form patterns) used rich colours and was more suitable; (ii) he suggested observing the actual environment through site inspections of the Committee afterwards to decide on the locations of the signages; (iii) he suggested making reference to the design of the signages in the neighbourhood of Mei Foo.

128. Ms Carman NG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she enquired whether festive lighting would continue to be displayed in the neighbourhood of the clock tower after completion of the beautification project; (ii) she requested government departments to pay attention that the neighbourhood of the clock tower was a popular spot for dog walking; (iii) she hoped that brighter colours would be used on the columns of the signages.

129. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG supported adopting Option 4 for the beautification project and hoped that the festive lighting of that location would match with the design of the flower bed.

130. Mr Ryan SHE responded that: (i) the Sham Shui Po Festival Lighting Organizing Committee (“FLOC”) was responsible for organising the festive lighting in the district, it was believed that FLOC would continue to display festive lighting in the neighbourhood of the clock tower; (ii) SSPDO would make reference to members’ views to design the flower bed and the signages, it was believed that corresponding arrangement would be made for the design of the festival lighting in the future; (iii) SSPDO would adopt a design of the signages which was more durable and easy to repair as far as possible in order to reduce the maintenance cost; (iv) the flower bed underneath the clock tower was not open to pedestrians or dogs, SSPDO would keep tabs on the situation concerned.

131. The Committee did not object that the project of beautification of the flower bed would be handed over to the term consultant for follow up, and endorsed the adoption of Option 4 for the beautification of the flower bed as the preliminary proposal.

Agenda Item 5: Date of next meeting

132. The next meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. on 24 January 2019 (Thursday). - 26 - Action by

133. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 1:45 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office January 2019