Lantau Development Public Engagement Report November 2016

土木工程拓展署 CEDD Civil Engineering and Development Department

CONTENTS

Page

Section I ‐ Overview of Public Engagement 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles for Lantau 2 Development 1.3 Public Engagement 4 2. Public Engagement Activities 5 2.1 Public Engagement Activities 5 3. Summary of Feedbacks Collected 6 3.1 Summary of Feedbacks Collected 6 3.2 Details of Feedbacks by Different Channels 6

Section II ‐ Analysis of Feedbacks 4. Feedback Analysis 10 4.1 Analytical Framework of Feedbacks 10 4.2 Analysis of Feedbacks 11 5. Discussion on Analysis of Key Topics 52 5.1 Overall Position on Lantau Development 52 5.2 Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles 52 5.3 Development Proposals 53 5.4 Implementation 64 5.5 Consultation Structure and Process 65

Section III ‐ Conclusion 6. Conclusion 67

Tables Table 2.1.1 Publicities Table 2.1.2 Engagement Events and Meetings Table 3.1.1 Breakdown of feedbacks collected by channels Table 4.1.1 Category of comments topics Table 4.2.1.1 Analysis dimensions Table 4.2.1.2 Analysis of Overall position on Lantau Development Table 4.2.1.3 Summary of analysis result Table 4.2.2.1 Planning Framework Table 4.2.3.1 Development proposal groups Table 4.2.3.2 Overall focus Table 4.2.3.3 North Lantau Corridor for Strategic Economic and Housing Development Table 4.2.3.4 North‐Eastern Lantau Node for Leisure, Entertainment and Tourism Development Table 4.2.3.5 East Lantau Metropolis as Long‐term Strategic Growth Area Table 4.2.3.6 Predominant Part of Lantau for Conservation, Leisure, Cultural and Green Tourism Table 4.2.3.7 Optimizing Use of Government Land and Development of Cavern Table 4.2.3.8 Enhancement of Conservation Table 4.2.3.9 Better Utilization of Natural Resources Table 4.2.3.10 Railway System Table 4.2.3.11 Strategic Road System Table 4.2.3.12 Road P1 at north Lantau Table 4.2.3.13 Other Road Arrangement and Traffic and Transport Facilities Table 4.2.3.14 Water Transport Table 4.2.3.15 Recreation and Outdoor Activities Table 4.2.3.16 Splurge and Indulge Table 4.2.3.17 Ecology Table 4.2.3.18 Culture and Heritage Table 4.2.3.19 Relaxation Table 4.2.3.20 Attracting Talent to Match Balanced Employment Opportunities Table 4.2.3.21 Providing Suitable Internal and External Transport

Connections to Meet the Needs of Future Development Table 4.2.3.22 Catering for the Needs of Rural and Remote Areas in Lantau Table 4.2.3.23 Groups of Other New Development Proposals Table 4.2.3.24 Analysis of Other New Development Proposals Table 4.2.4.1 Implementation Table 4.2.5.1 Consultation Structure and Process

Appendices A. Digest for Public Engagement B. List of Written Submissions by Groups C. Lists of Written Submissions by Individuals D. Lists of Public Engagement Activities E. List of Groups and Individuals of Legislative Council Panel on Development Special Meeting F. Summary of News Commentary G. List of Campaigns H. Independent Opinion Survey Conducted by Hong Kong Shue Yan University I. List of Opinion Studies Accompanying Submissions J. Analytical Framework of Feedback K. Gist or Minutes of Public Engagement Events and Public Consultative Platform Meetings

Section I ‐ Overview of Public Engagement

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Lantau Island is undergoing rapid changes in recent years. A number of major economic and housing developments are being planned at north Lantau including the topside development at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of the Hong Kong‐Zhuhai‐Macao Bridge (HZMB), Tung Chung New Town Extension and Siu Ho Wan development, etc. In addition, the HZMB and the Tuen Mun‐Chek Lap Kok Link are now under construction. Together with the planned expansion of the Hong Kong International Airport into a three‐runway system, Lantau will become an essential hub for both regional and international journeys to and from Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta (PRD). The enhanced connectivity will greatly facilitate the flows of people and goods between Lantau Island and neighbouring areas giving rise to many new opportunities. All the above developments will bring tremendous change to the functions and development potential of Lantau. At the same time, Lantau possesses huge natural and cultural assets that need to be conserved and managed in a holistic manner for public appreciation and enjoyment.

To capitalize on the opportunities, the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) was established in January 2014 to advise the Government on ‐

(i) the social and economic development opportunities of Lantau to capitalise on its advantages as the confluence of major transport infrastructure linking Hong Kong, Macau and the western PRD, so as to meet the long‐term development needs of Hong Kong; and

(ii) the policies, measures and specific proposals conducive to the sustainable development and conservation of Lantau.

LanDAC has formulated the vision, strategic positioning and planning principles for the development of Lantau, with initial proposals covering spatial planning and land use, conservation, strategic traffic and transport infrastructure, recreation and tourism, and social development, as well as short‐term improvement measures.

1.2 Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles for Lantau Development

1.2.1 Vision

LanDAC proposed to develop Lantau into a smart and low‐carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study while balancing and enhancing development and conservation. This will benefit all the people of Hong Kong by providing new opportunities: land and housing supply, economic development, commerce and trade, leisure, recreation and tourism, and at the same time enhancing the conservation of our natural, cultural and heritage resources.

1.2.2 Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles

LanDAC formulated four strategic positioning and advocated four major planning principles for Lantau development:

Strategic Positioning

(i) An international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD Region (ii) A service hub of the Greater PRD Region and Asia (iii) A strategic growth area with a new metropolis (iv) A treasure of natural and cultural assets

Major Planning Principles

(i) Economy and Livelihood LanDAC proposed following three development concepts from the economic and livelihood perspective:

 “A New Platform for the Pillars” – to develop Lantau into a new platform of economic hub that can support the four major pillar industries of Hong Kong (i.e. financial services, tourism, trade and logistics industries, as well as support services for the professional, industrial and commercial sectors), which can create employment opportunities;

 “A Thriving Community” – to focus on the needs of Lantau’s existing and future population by providing job opportunities and suitable housing developments, which will develop the island into a vibrant community for living, work, business, leisure and study; and

 “A Bridge to Tomorrow” – to develop Lantau into a platform to showcase the innovations of Hong Kong and the world, and to elevate Lantau into a smart island/innovative hub.

(ii) Nature and Heritage Conservation It is proposed to strengthen the preservation of sites of conservation value and suitably utilizing these valuable resources for releasing their potential for education, recreation and green tourism.

(iii) Recreation and Tourism By developing diversified multi‐modal recreation and tourism facilities, Lantau can be shaped into a kaleidoscopic recreation and tourism destination.

(iv) Traffic and Transport LanDAC proposed to take traffic and transport as the priority consideration for the implementation of various developments.

1.2.3 Initial Major Proposals

LanDAC put forward five groups of initial major proposals for the development of Lantau,

3 which are briefly summarized below (details of the proposals are given in the PE Digest namely “Space for All” at Appendix A) :

(i) Spatial Planning and Land Use  North Lantau Corridor for strategic economic and housing development  North‐eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development  East Lantau Metropolis as long‐term strategic growth area  Predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism  Optimising the use of government land and development of cavern

(ii) Conservation  Enhance conservation, including heritage conservation and landscape conservation  Better utilisation of natural resources, such as country parks and marine parks

(iii) Strategic Traffic and Transport Infrastructure  Railway system  Strategic road system  Road P1 at north Lantau  Other road arrangements and traffic and transport facilities  Water transport

(iv) Recreation and Tourism  Recreation and outdoor activities  Splurge and indulge  Ecology  Culture and heritage  Relaxation

(v) Social Development  Attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities  Providing suitable internal and external transport connections to meet the needs of future development  Catering for the needs of rural and remote areas in Lantau

1.3 Public Engagement

LanDAC published its First‐term Work Report “Space for All” on 10 January 2016. A public engagement (PE) exercise was launched on 31 January 2016 for three months until 30 April 2016 to gauge the public views on Lantau development proposals, with a view to developing Lantau into a smart and low‐carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study while balancing and enhancing development and conservation. A Blueprint for Lantau Development and Conservation will be formulated, taking into consideration the public views collected.

This PE Report contains three sections. Section I gives an overview of the PE activities and summary of feedbacks collected. Section II provides an analysis of the feedbacks collected and discussion on key topics related to Lantau Development. Section III concludes the public engagement.

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

2.1 Public Engagement Activities

Outline of the publicities and the numbers of PE events and public consultative platform meetings organised are summarised in the tables below. Further details are shown in Appendix D.

Table 2.1.1 Publicities Outline Kick‐off event Held in Mui Wo Children Playground on 31 January 2016 Digest and leaflet Distributed over the territory and during PE activities, and available on LanDAC webpage New LanDAC webpage Launched on 31 January 2016 (www.LanDAC.hk) Roving exhibitions Held at 16 venues from 11 February to 21 April 2016 Advertisement in newspapers Invited the public to register and attend public forums, and radio as well as to visit the roving exhibitions

Table 2.1.2 Engagement Events and Meetings Number of Forums / Meetings (a) Public Forums 3 (b) Public Engagement Events 22 Including  Focus Group meetings 5  Rural Committee meetings 4  Group engagement meetings 13 (c) Public Consultative Platform Meetings 10 Including  Legislative Council Panel on Development 2 meetings  District Councils 6  Heung Yee Kuk 1  Town Planning Board 1 (d) Legislative Council Panel on Development special meeting 1 (conducted in the form of public hearing)

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACKS COLLECTED

3.1 Summary of Feedbacks Collected

Views of the participants provided at the PE activities were recorded and summarized in the following sections as appropriate. Feedbacks collected during the PE activities are categorized into different channels for refined analysis. A total of 23,479 feedbacks were collected, with a total of 22,607 feedbacks collected under channels (a) to (h), and 872 feedbacks collected under channel (i), Opinion Survey, as shown in Table 3.1.1 below. A summary of the number of feedbacks collected through different feedback channels is shown in Table 3.1.1. All feedbacks collected under Channels (a) to (h) in Table 3.1.1 below, including written submissions, comment forms, gist of deliberation or meetings, signature campaigns and news articles were subject to the analysis in Chapter 4. Opinion survey responses were under separate quantitative analysis conducted by Hong Kong Shue Yan University. Findings of the opinion survey were also adopted in the discussion on key topics of Lantau Development in Chapter 5.

Table 3.1.1 Breakdown of feedbacks collected by channels Feedback Channel Number of Feedbacks Collected for Analysis (a) Written Submissions by Groups (WSG) 89 (b) Written Submissions by Individuals (WSI) 1,307 (c) Public Forums (PF) (attended by about 860 members of 418 the public) (d) Public Engagement Events (PEE) (gist of meetings) 22 (e) Public Consultative Platform Meetings (PCPM) (gist of 10 meetings) (f) Legislative Council Panel on Development Special 230 Meeting (LSM) (g) News Commentary (NC) 43 (h) Campaigns (C) (10 numbers) 20,488 (i) Opinion Survey (OS) 872 Total: 23,479

3.2 Details of Feedbacks by Different Channels

(a) Written Submissions by Groups (WSG): 89 written submissions were received from organizations or groups, including business, professional, community, social (e.g. conservation, recreation), political groups. They were sent in the forms of letter, fax or email (see the list in Appendix B).

(b) Written Submissions by Individuals (WSI): 1,307 written submissions were received from individuals. They were sent in the forms of letter, email, fax or web‐form (see the lists in Appendix C).

(c) Public Forums (PF): Three public forums were held (see the list in Appendix D2). The analysis of this channel was based on the gist of deliberation of a total of 157 people and the 261 comment forms1. Hence, a total of 418 comment forms or gist of deliberation were used in the analysis.

(d) Public Engagement Events (PEE): There were 22 various public engagement events, covering five Focus Group Meetings (FGM) with invitees from target sectors (see the list in Appendix D3), four Rural Committee meetings (RCM) (see the list in Appendix D4), and 13 Group Engagement Meetings (GEM) (see the list in Appendix D5). The analysis of this channel was based on the gist of events, which recorded the various comments mentioned at the event, but repeated comments were recorded once only.

(e) Public Consultative Platform Meetings (PCPM): Ten meetings were attended, including two meetings of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Development2, six District Council meetings, and meetings with Heung Yee Kuk and Town Planning Board respectively (see Appendix D6). The analysis of this channel was based on the gist of meeting/official meeting records, which recorded the various comments mentioned at each meeting, but repeated comments were recorded once only. No separate submission was received at these meetings.

(f) Legislative Council Panel on Development Special Meeting (LSM): There was one special meeting of the LegCo Panel on Development in the form of public hearing. There were 180 written submissions from groups or individuals sent to the Secretariat of the Panel (see the list in Appendix E), which were included for analysis. In addition, 50 groups or individuals attended the meeting, but did not provide any written submission, therefore the gist of their deliberations was used for the analysis. Hence a total of 230 records were considered in the analysis. Since this meeting involved significant quantity of written submissions, which is unique as compared with other PCPMs, the feedbacks collected were put under a separate feedback channel to facilitate the analysis.

(g) News Commentary (NC): There were 43 commentary articles containing writers’ direct views on Lantau Development from contributed columns, letters to editors and editorials in 18 local Chinese and English daily newspapers collected for analysis (see the summary in Appendix F). Other general news stories containing only factual information and/or indirect reports of views of people spoken or interviewed were excluded from the analysis.

(h) Campaigns (C): There were totally 10 campaigns with 20,488 signatures, letters and emails received on Lantau Development. These included two signature campaigns (on standard signature forms), seven proforma campaigns (via letter and/or email), and one mixed campaign (with signatures signed on paper and names collected from online channel with comments) (see the list in Appendix G). Written submissions identified as campaigns were counted separately from other written submissions. Comments were

1 The breakdowns are as follows: Forum 1 with 52 deliberations by the participants and 133 comment forms received; Forum 2 with 44 deliberations by the participants and 24 comment forms received; and Forum 3 with 61 deliberations by the participants and 104 comment forms received. Comment forms deliberated by the participants at the forums were excluded to avoid double counting the comments. 2 The meeting on 23 February 2016 was about proposed development strategy for Lantau and establishment of the dedicated office for Lantau Development; the meeting on 26 April 2016 was about establishment of the dedicated office for Lantau Development.

counted by the number of signatures, proforma letters or emails in each of these campaigns, as there is no clear distinction between signature campaigns, proforma campaigns and any other form of multiple letters or emails with common contents. In signature campaigns, the signatures were verified by the submitters.

(i) Opinion Survey (OS): The Survey and Research Centre, Department of Journalism and Communication of the Hong Kong Shue Yan University (HKSYU), was engaged to conduct an independent opinion survey by means of an on‐site intercept face‐to‐face survey from 11 February to 21 April 2016 at the 16 roving exhibition venues. 872 responses were received and used for conducting a separate quantitative analysis. The opinion survey report prepared by HKSYU is included in Appendix H.

Alongside with some of the submissions from groups or individuals, five opinion studies (see the list in Appendix I) conducted by others with different methodologies and foci were received. One of them was found duplicated and thus the actual number of opinion studies conducted by others was four. As the studies were either conducted without clear timeline information, or were outside the public engagement period, the study findings were considered mainly as a piece of information supporting the respective submissions. Details of the respondents in these studies were not known and could not be verified. Each of these studies’ findings was treated like a single comment of a submission, if such view/comment was supported by a majority (i.e. more than 50%) of respondents in the studies.

Section II ‐ Analysis of Feedbacks

CHAPTER 4 FEEDBACK ANALYSIS

4.1 Analytical Framework of Feedbacks

The feedbacks collected were analyzed based on the comments embedded in the feedbacks, which were subsequently grouped under various comments topics in an Analytical Framework of Feedback (Appendix J). The Analytical Framework was developed to analyse the collected views covering the major development proposals and other related issues on Lantau Development. The structure and order of the framework basically followed those presented in the PE Digest. Within the framework, the comments topics were grouped under the following categories:

Table 4.1.1 Category of comments topics Category Details Overall Position Overall position on Lantau Development Planning Framework Vision, planning principles and strategic positioning Development proposals Proposals outlined in the PE Digest and other proposals suggested by the public Implementation Timeline and mechanisms Consultation structure and process Operational arrangement and process

The unit of feedback analysis is the comment embedded in the collected views in events or meeting and written views, with the exception of the overall position on Lantau Development which was based on a three‐dimension analysis (see section 4.2.1 for details). A comment is defined as a specific idea that can be coded as a distinct view on a development proposal or issue on Lantau Development. The frequency of occurrence of the comments is counted3 to provide the basis of analysis.

Since some feedbacks may not show explicit support for or disagreement of a proposal / issue, in order to provide better coverage of the opinions expressed on Lantau Development, the analysis recorded not only support for or disagreement of a proposal / issue, but also those expressing interest, concern or doubt on the development proposals, or those having other development suggestions. The descriptions of the codings in the analytical framework as shown in Appendix J were devised from the substantive interest, concern or doubt on the development proposals or other development suggestion as expressed.

3 Following practices were adopted in counting the number of comments: (a) Similar or identical comments from the same opinion maker or submitter during the same event, meeting or submission are counted once; (b) Identical comments in submissions by different submitters in the same channel are counted separately; (c) Identical comments in submissions by the same submitter through multiple channels are counted separately.

4.2 Analysis of Feedbacks

The analysis below presents the comment counts in the form of tables with respect to the comment topics in the Analytical Framework of Feedback. Each table provides aggregate count and individual counts of views by channels. An outline of the comment distribution for each topic is also provided.

4.2.1 Overall Position on Lantau Development

Since the overall position on Lantau Development covers a wide range of topics related to Lantau Development, such as the vision and planning principles, strategic positioning, various development proposals, etc., people may support some topics but have reservations on other topics4. Therefore the feedbacks on overall position on Lantau Development were analysed in three dimensions by different forms of expression of the positions. Depending on the nature of the feedback, the feedback was grouped and counted under respective position indicated in Table 4.2.1.1 below. The analysis on such overall position below used the feedback as the unit of analysis, instead of individual comments in each feedback.

Table 4.2.1.1 Analysis Dimensions Dimension Position Description Dimension 15 Expressed Feedbacks expressively mentioned support or objection position to Lantau Development. Dimension 26 Overall general Feedbacks, though not expressively mentioned support position or objection to Lantau Development, provided an overall general support or objection position on the vision, principle, positioning, proposal group, implementation and consultation of Lantau Development. Dimension 37 20 individual Feedbacks did not show expressed position nor overall proposals general position on Lantau Development, but provided position support or objection to one or more of the 20 individual development proposals presented in the PE Digest.

Dimension 1 ‐ Expressed Position There were a total of 801 feedbacks from channels other than campaign, and six relevant campaigns (7,733 feedbacks) under Dimension 1. Out of the 801 feedbacks, the number of support feedback was 634, greater than that of objection feedback at 167. All the 7,733 feedbacks from relevant campaigns supported Lantau Development. Across all channels, the numbers of support feedbacks were all more than that of objection feedbacks.

4 For instance, a submission can support a particular development proposal, but object to another one. Also, the gist of a public engagement event or a public consultative platform meeting may record both views of support or objection, even on the same development proposal, expressed by different people at the meeting. 5 Dimension 1: referring to the codes in the Analytical Framework as support: 1.1.1, or objection: 1.1.2. 6 Dimension 2: Referring to the codes in the Analytical Framework as support: 2.1.1, 3.5.1, 4.1.5, 5.1.6, 7.2.1, or objection 2.1.3, 5.2.6, 8.3.4, 8.3.5. 7 Dimension 3: Referring to the codes in the Analytical Framework as support: 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.5.1, 6.6.1, 6.7.1, 6.8.1, 6.9.1, 6.10.1, 6.11.1, 6.12.1, 6.13.1, 6.14.1, 6.15.1, 6.16.1, 6.17.1, 6.18.1, 6.19.1, 6.20.1, or objection: 6.1.2, 6.2.2, 6.3.4, 6.4.2, 6.5.2, 6.6.2, 6.7.4, 6.8.5, 6.9.6, 6.10.2, 6.11.3, 6.11.4, 6.12.2, 6.13.5, 6.14.4, 6.15.4, 6.16.5, 6.17.2, 6.18.4, 6.19.4, 6.20.3.

Dimension 2 ‐ Overall General Position Other feedbacks, without either expressedly support for or object to Lantau Development, were assessed on overall general position of Lantau Development. There were a total of 129 feedbacks from channels other than campaign, and one relevant campaign (4,342 feedbacks) under Dimension 2. Out of the 129 feedbacks, the number of support feedback was 106, more than that of objection feedback at 23. All the 4,342 feedbacks from relevant campaign supported Lantau Development. Across all channels, the numbers of support feedbacks were all more than that of objection feedbacks.

Dimension 3 ‐ 20 Individual Proposals Position Remaining feedbacks, without either expressed positions or overall general positions on Lantau Development, were assessed further on the position of the 20 individual development proposals. There were a total of 473 feedbacks from channels other than campaign, and one relevant campaign (132 feedbacks), with supportive or opposing positions on the 20 individual development proposals. Out of the 473 feedbacks, the number of support feedback was 371, more than that of objection feedback at 102. All the 132 feedbacks from relevant campaign supported Lantau Development. Across all channels, the numbers of support feedbacks were all more than that of objection feedbacks. For the rest of feedbacks, there were 28 feedbacks from channels other than campaign, and one campaign (4,896 feedbacks), with mixed positions (i.e. mentioned both support and objection on different development proposals); and 688 feedbacks from channels other than campaign, and one campaign (3,385 feedbacks), with other positions (i.e. no single support or objection views on the 20 individual development proposals but expressed “ideas, proposals, interest, concern” on these proposals, views on “other new proposals“, or views on other topics on implementation or consultation process.)

Table 4.2.1.2 Analysis of Overall position on Lantau Development Channels other than campaign Campaign Items for Analysis & Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total

Count C

(excluding (campaign WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown in bracket) Comment Topics & Coding 2119 89 1307 418 22 10 230 43 20488 (10) Dimension 1 ‐ Expressed Position  Support 634 42 388 78 10 5 106 5 7733 (6)  Objection 167 16 117 15 2 0 15 2 0 (0)  Others (go to Dimension 2 for 1318 31 802 325 10 5 109 36 12755 (4) further analysis) Sub‐total 2119 89 1307 418 22 10 230 43 20488 Dimension 2 ‐ Overall General

Position  Support 106 6 58 9 1 4 19 9 4342 (1)  Objection 23 2 9 1 1 0 9 1 0 (0)  Others (go to Dimension 3 for 1189 23 735 315 8 1 81 26 8413 (3) further analysis) Sub‐total 1318 31 802 325 10 5 109 36 12755 Dimension 3 ‐ 20 Individual Proposal

Position  Support 371 10 248 61 3 0 43 6 132 (1)

Channels other than campaign Campaign Items for Analysis & Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total

Count C

(excluding (campaign WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown in bracket) Comment Topics & Coding 2119 89 1307 418 22 10 230 43 20488 (10)  Objection 102 3 69 22 1 0 6 1 0 (0)  Mixed (have both support & 28 3 15 1 3 1 5 0 4896 (1) objection to the 20 proposals)  Others (no single support or 688 7 403 231 1 0 27 19 3385 (1) objection to the 20 proposals) Sub‐total 1189 23 735 315 8 1 81 26 8413

Summing up the respective counts in the 3 dimensions of positions, there were a total of 22,607 feedbacks, of which 2,119 nos. were collected under channels (a) to (g) and 20,488 nos. were collected under 10 campaigns under channel (h) in Table 3.1.1. The aggregate numbers of support or objection positions on Lantau Development for those feedbacks with distinct positions were evaluated.

For channels other than campaign, the aggregated number of feedbacks supporting Lantau Development was 1,111, more than the aggregated number of objection positions at 292, i.e. about 52.4% of feedbacks collected under channels other than campaign (1,111/2,119 = 52.4%) exhibited supportive positions on Lantau Development, while about 13.8% of the feedbacks collected under channels other than campaign (292 / 2,119 = 13.8%) were in opposing positions on Lantau Development.

For campaign channel, the aggregated number of feedbacks supporting Lantau Development was 12,207 (from eight relevant campaigns), and there was no campaign with objection positions, i.e. about 59.6% of feedbacks collected under campaigns (12,207/20,488 = 59.6%) exhibited supportive positions on Lantau Development.

Remaining feedbacks (716 nos. from channels other than campaign, and 8,281 nos. from two relevant campaigns) either expressed mixed views on the 20 development proposals outlined in the PE Digest or did not provide any supportive or opposing views on these proposals, or expressed interest/concern or commented on other topics on Lantau Development such as implementation and consultation.

Table 4.2.1.3 Summary of analysis result Channels other than campaign Campaign Items for Analysis & Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total

Count C

(excluding (campaign WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown in bracket) Comment Topics & Coding 2119 89 1307 418 22 10 230 43 20488 (10) Support  Dimension 1‐Expressed position 634 42 388 78 10 5 106 5 7733 (6)  Dimension 2‐Overall general 106 6 58 9 1 4 19 9 4342 (1) position  Dimension 3‐ 371 10 248 61 3 0 43 6 132 (1) 20 individual proposal position Sub‐total: 1111 58 694 148 14 9 168 20 12207 Objection  Dimension 1‐Expressed position 167 16 117 15 2 0 15 2 0 (0)  Dimension 2‐Overall general 23 2 9 1 1 0 9 1 0 (0) position  Dimension 3‐ 102 3 69 22 1 0 6 1 0 (0) 20 individual proposal position Sub‐total: 292 21 195 38 4 0 30 4 0 Mixed or other positions  Mixed (have both support & 28 3 15 1 3 1 5 0 4896 (1) objection to the 20 proposals)  Others (no single support or objection to the 20 proposals) 688 7 403 231 1 0 27 19 3385 (1)  + Sub‐total: 716 10 418 232 4 1 32 19 8281

4.2.2 Planning Framework

Lantau Development would follow a set of planning framework to come up with specific development proposals. Compared with other topics under this category, the Planning Vision (PV) and Major Planning Principles (MPP) received the most comments from the public. There were a total of 219 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (9,238 comments) on PV. There were a total of 289 comments from channels other than campaign, and three relevant campaigns (5,889 comments) on MPP. There were fewer comments on Strategic Positioning (SP), with 36 comments in total all from channels other than campaign.

The comment distributions were as below: (a) Planning Vision (PV): Out of the 219 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 121 support/agree comments, more than 15 object/disagree comments. There were 83 comments with query on whether PV would be achievable. In campaign channel, there was one relevant campaign (4,342) which was supportive, while another relevant campaign (4,896) queried whether PV would be achievable.

(b) Major Planning Principles (MPP1‐4): Comments on the MPPs were mostly supportive, either to individual principle or all the four principles. For channels other than campaign, the individual MPP with the most support comments was traffic and transport (113), followed by recreation and tourism (49), economy and livelihood (34), and the nature and heritage conservation (28) with another 48 comments expressing other views on this. Meanwhile, 17 comments supported/agreed with the MPP in overall. For campaign channel, the principle with the most support was traffic and transport (954), followed by nature and heritage conservation (39) while there were 4,896 comments expressing other views on it.

(c) Strategic Positioning (SP1‐4): There were few comments on strategic positioning, while they were mostly supportive. In comparison, the most supported one was SP1 (to make Lantau an international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD Region).

Table 4.2.2.1 Planning Framework Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 2. Planning vision (PV) 2.1.1 Support/Agree with PV 121 29 41 8 7 8 27 1 4342 (1) 2.1.2 View on PV: whether PV would 83 9 28 31 4 3 7 1 4896 (1) be achievable 2.1.3 Object/Disagree with PV 15 6 0 1 3 0 5 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 219 44 69 40 14 11 39 2 9238 3. Major planning principles (MPP) 3.1.1 Support/Agree with MPP1: 34 10 16 4 0 1 3 0 0 (0) Economy and Livelihood 3.2.1 Support/Agree with MPP2: Nature and Heritage 28 9 9 2 0 3 3 2 39 (1) Conservation 3.2.2 Views on MPP2 48 11 20 0 3 5 6 3 4896 (1) 3.3.1 Support/Agree with MPP3: 49 1 31 15 0 1 1 0 0 (0) Recreation and Tourism 3.4.1 Support/Agree with MPP4: 113 15 52 7 9 5 25 0 954 (1) Traffic and Transport 3.5.1 Support/Agree overall with 17 0 12 3 0 1 0 1 0 (0) MPP Sub‐total Count: 289 46 140 31 12 16 38 6 5889 4. Strategic positioning (SP) 4.1.1 Support/Agree with SP1: An international transport, logistics 15 4 4 0 1 0 6 0 0 (0) and trade hub in the Greater PRD Region 4.1.2 Support/Agree with SP2: A service hub of the Greater PRD 9 5 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 (0) Region and Asia 4.1.3 Support/Agree with SP3: A strategic growth area with a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) new metropolis 4.1.4 Support/Agree with SP4. A treasure of natural and cultural 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) assets 4.1.5 Support/Agree with all SPs 8 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 36 17 8 0 2 0 9 0 0

4.2.3 Development Proposals

Most comments focused on various development proposals of Lantau Development. While discussions were mainly on the 20 proposals outlined in the PE Digest, there were feedbacks proposing new development proposals other than those proposed in the PE Digest.

(a) Development Proposal Groups (DPG1‐5) There were a total of 245 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (1,180 comments) on this topic.

For the 245 comments from channels other than campaign, all DPGs received more support/agree comments than object/disagree comments, with the exception of DPG 4, in which there were more object/disagree comments (67) than support/agree comments (58). The 1,180 comments from relevant campaigns were mainly support/agree with DPG 3 on strategic traffic and transport infrastructure (954) and DPG 4 on recreation and tourism (226).

Table 4.2.3.1 Development Proposal Groups Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 5. Development proposal groups

(DPG) (from DPG1‐DPG5) 5.1.1 Support/Agree with DPG 1: 18 2 11 4 0 0 1 0 0 (0) Spatial planning & land use 5.2.1 Object/Disagree with DPG 1 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 5.1.2 Support/Agree with DPG 2: 44 14 7 0 4 3 16 0 0 (0) Conservation 5.2.2 Object/Disagree with DPG 2 10 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 (0) 5.1.3 Support/Agree with DPG 3: Strategic traffic & transport 21 6 9 0 0 0 6 0 954 (1) infrastructure 5.2.3 Object/Disagree with DPG 3 9 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 5.1.4 Support/Agree with DPG 4: 58 16 10 0 7 5 20 0 226 (1) Recreation & tourism 5.2.4 Object/Disagree with DPG 4 67 14 34 2 2 3 11 1 0 (0) 5.1.5 Support/Agree with DPG 5: 4 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 (0) Social development 5.2.5 Object/Disagree with DPG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 5.1.6 Support/Agree with DPGs 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) overall 5.2.6 Object/Disagree with DPGs 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) overall Sub‐total Count: 245 63 92 9 14 11 55 1 1180

(b) Overall Focus Following is a table of the number of feedbacks received on the 20 development proposals by campaign and by all other channels. The ranks of the feedback count were presented, with ’1’ referring to the proposal with the highest feedback count, thus the most focus of the public.

To help identify the main foci of the public, the development proposals with top five ranking in both campaign and all other channels are the following three items, which are highlighted in light grey in Table 4.2.3.2:  East Lantau Metropolis as long‐term strategic growth area (DP3);  Strategic road system (DP9); and  Culture and heritage (DP16).

On top of the above, other development proposals which attracted more attention than others, i.e. the proposals that ranked top five in either campaign or other channels, were the following four items, which are highlighted in light blue in Table 4.2.3.2:  Better utilization of natural resources (DP7);  Other road arrangement and traffic and transport facilities (DP11);  Attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities (DP18); and  Providing suitable internal and external transport connections to meet the needs of future development (DP19).

Table 4.2.3.2 Overall Focus

Major Proposal All other Development Proposals Campaign

Group Rank Channels Rank

6.1 North Lantau corridor for strategic economic and 0 14 95 10 housing development (DP1) 6.2 North‐eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment 105 13 58 13 and tourism development (DP2) 6.3 East Lantau metropolis as long‐term strategic growth 6,417 3 269 2 Spatial Planning area (DP3) and Land Use 0 14 75 11 6.4 Predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, (tie) cultural and green tourism (DP4) 6.5 Optimizing use of government land and development of 0 14 14 19 cavern (DP5) 0 14 48 16 6.6 Enhancement of Conservation (DP6) Conservation 4,896 5 54 14 6.7 Better utilization of natural resources (DP7) 177 12 169 7 6.8 Railway system (DP8) 6,703 2 221 3 6.9 Strategic road system (DP9) Strategic Traffic 0 14 4 20 and Transport 6.10 Road P1 at north Lantau (DP10) Infrastructure 6.11 Other road arrangement and traffic and transport 5,686 4 150 8 facilities (DP11) 180 11 46 18 6.12 Water transport (DP12) 229 10 172 6 6.13 Recreation and outdoor activities (DP13) 0 14 47 17 6.14 Splurge and indulge (DP14) Recreation and 359 9 106 9 6.15 Ecology (DP15) Tourism 12,676 1 189 5 6.16 Culture and heritage (DP16) 0 14 53 15 6.17 Relaxation (DP17) 6.18 Attracting talent to match balanced employment 426 8 194 4 opportunities (DP18) 6.19 Providing suitable internal and external transport 4,850 6 346 1 Social connections to meet the needs of future development Development (DP19) 1,201 7 75 11 6.20 Catering for the needs of rural and remote areas in (tie) Lantau (DP20) 7,924 n/a 782 n/a 6.21 Others/New Development Proposals (NDP21) Notes:  Others/New Development Proposals (NDP21) was not ranked with the 20 development proposals because this item covered many different individual proposals suggested by the public.  Within the campaign channel, seven development proposals received no feedback. They were all ranked the last as 14.

Analysis of feedbacks on individual proposal is shown below:

(i) North Lantau Corridor for Strategic Economic and Housing Development (DP1)

There were a total of 95 comments from channels other than campaign, and no relevant campaign on DP1. The number of support/agree comments was more than that of object/disagree comments across all channels with comments, except that for PEE, there were three object/disagree comments and zero support/agree comment, and for PCPM that the numbers of support/agree and object/disagree comments were in tie.

Table 4.2.3.3 North Lantau Corridor for Strategic Economic and Housing Development Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6. Development proposals (DP) (proposals in PE Digest as DP1

(6.1)‐DP20 (6.20), and other new proposals NDP (6.21)) 6.1 North Lantau corridor for strategic economic and housing development 6.1.1 Support/Agree with DP1 65 16 17 5 0 2 23 2 0 (0) 6.1.2 Object/Disagree with DP1 30 5 11 2 3 2 7 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 95 21 28 7 3 4 30 2 0

(ii) North‐Eastern Lantau Node for Leisure, Entertainment and Tourism Development (DP2)

There were a total of 58 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on DP2. Out of the 58 comments from channels other than campaign, the number of support/agree comments was 46, more than the 12 object/disagree comments. The comments (105 comments) from relevant campaigns were all supportive. This pattern appeared in all channels except PEE and PCPM.

Table 4.2.3.4 North‐Eastern Lantau Node for Leisure, Entertainment and Tourism Development Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.2 North‐eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development 6.2.1 Support/Agree with DP2 46 9 19 2 2 0 9 5 105 (2) 6.2.2 Object/Disagree with DP2 12 2 5 1 3 0 1 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 58 11 24 3 5 0 10 5 105

(iii) East Lantau Metropolis as Long‐term Strategic Growth Area (DP3)

There were a total of 269 comments from channels other than the five relevant campaigns on DP3. Out of the 269 comments, the number of support/agree comments was 139, more than that of object/disagree comment at 61. This pattern was found similar across all channels, except PF and PEE. Out of the five relevant campaigns, there were four campaigns (1,521 submissions) with support/agree comments while there was one campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 submissions) with object/disagree comments.

In addition, there were 69 comments with other views on the proposal across various channels. The comments were mainly on following : ‐  Request for more information about the scale and plan of the proposal;  Query on its rationale and necessity in relation to changing population projection;  Concern if there would be significant environmental impacts; and  Need to consult the marine trade on potential impact of the proposal on the fairway.

Table 4.2.3.5 East Lantau Metropolis as Long‐term Strategic Growth Area Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.3 East Lantau Metropolis as long‐

term strategic growth area 6.3.1 Support/Agree with DP3 139 16 96 3 3 4 15 2 1521 (4) 6.3.2 Views on DP3: on technical 63 17 17 3 8 6 10 2 0 (0) feasibility, necessity 6.3.3 Views on DP3: consult marine 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) trade on impact to fairway 6.3.4 Object/Disagree with DP3 61 8 34 6 3 1 9 0 4896 (1) Sub‐total 269 42 152 12 14 11 34 4 6417

(iv) Predominant Part of Lantau for Conservation, Leisure, Cultural and Green Tourism (DP4)

There were a total of 75 comments from channels other than campaign, and no campaign on DP4. There were 33 support/agree comments, fell short of the 42 object/disagree comments. Nevertheless, there were more support/agree comments than the object/disagree comments in WSI and NC, while for PF and LSM the numbers of support/agree and object/disagree comments were in tie. The opposing comments were mainly on green tourism, in the aspect of additional supporting facilities for enhancing accessibility, instead of the whole development proposal.

Table 4.2.3.6 Predominant Part of Lantau for Conservation, Leisure, Cultural and Green Tourism Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.4 Predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism 6.4.1 Support/Agree with DP4 33 4 17 1 3 2 5 1 0 (0) 6.4.2 Object/Disagree with DP4 42 12 14 1 6 4 5 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 75 16 31 2 9 6 10 1 0

(v) Optimizing Use of Government Land and Development of Cavern (DP5)

There were a total of 14 comments from channels other than campaign, and no campaign on DP5. There were 13 support/agree comments from different channels and only one object/disagree comment from WSI.

Table 4.2.3.7 Optimizing Use of Government Land and Development of Cavern Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.5 Optimising use of government

land and development of cavern 6.5.1 Support/Agree with DP5 13 5 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 (0) 6.5.2 Object/Disagree with DP5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 14 5 3 0 0 1 5 0 0

(vi) Enhancement of Conservation (DP6)

There were a total of 48 comments from channels other than campaign, and no campaign on DP6. There were 45 support/agree comments, more than the three object/disagree comments. This pattern appeared across all channels with comments received.

Table 4.2.3.8 Enhancement of Conservation Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.6 Enhancement of conservation 6.6.1 Support/Agree with DP6 45 11 10 1 5 3 14 1 0 (0) 6.6.2 Object/Disagree with DP6 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 48 13 10 1 6 3 14 1 0

(vii) Better Utilization of Natural Resources (DP7)

There were a total of 54 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign on DP7. Out of the 54 comments, the number of support/agree comments was 31, with only one object/disagree comment from PEE. The comments (4,896 comments) from the relevant campaign, which was organised by five green groups, were supportive.

There were 10 comments proposing to partner with local community for organising local tours, such that local people would be employed and local businesses be benefited. There were 12 comments expressing other views on proposal details regarding the utilisation of country parks and marine parks for public enjoyment.

Table 4.2.3.9 Better Utilization of Natural Resources Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.7 Better utilisation of natural

resources 6.7.1 Support/Agree with DP7 31 7 15 0 1 0 8 0 4896 (1) 6.7.2 Views on DP7: partner with local community to organize 10 1 2 2 0 2 3 0 0 (0) tours 6.7.3 Views on DP7: uses and effectiveness of country parks 12 4 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 (0) and marine parks 6.7.4 Object/Disagree with DP7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 54 12 17 2 6 3 14 0 4896

(viii) Railway System (DP8)

There were a total of 169 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on DP8. Out of the 169 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 73 support/agree comments, more than the 19 object/disagree comments. This pattern appeared across all channels, except PEE.

The 77 comments from channels other than campaign, and the comments (177 comments) from relevant campaigns suggested some alternative proposals on railway system. Out of the 77 comments from channels other than campaign, 49 comments requested for better connection between current and future railway systems and other public transport services, which was echoed by a relevant campaign (18 comments). Another 25 comments proposed to build monorail, light rail or sky rail between Tung Chung and the Airport Island to enhance the connectivity, which was echoed by two relevant campaigns (159 comments). There were also three comments proposing to use overhead railway design for building future rail corridor.

Table 4.2.3.10 Railway System Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.8 Railway system 6.8.1 Support/Agree with DP8 73 11 20 12 1 2 25 2 0 (0) 6.8.2 Views on DP8: use overhead 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 (0) railway for rail corridor 6.8.3 Views on DP8: build monorail/light rail/skyrail 25 7 7 4 4 0 3 0 159 (2) between Tung Chung and Airport Island 6.8.4 Views on DP8: better connection between railway 49 10 17 10 4 3 5 0 18 (1) systems and other public transport services 6.8.5 Object/Disagree with DP8 19 5 7 4 2 0 1 0 0 Sub‐total Count: 169 34 51 30 12 6 34 2 177

(ix) Strategic Road System (DP9)

There were a total of 221 comments from channels other than the four relevant campaigns on DP9. Out of the 221 comments, there were 60 support/agree comments, more than the 23 object/disagree comments. This pattern appeared in most channels including campaign, except for WSG. The numbers of support/agree and object/disagree comments in PEE were the same. One relevant campaign (18 comments) supported DP9.

Furthermore, there were 50 comments from channels other than campaign, and four relevant campaigns (3,330 comments) including the ones organised by Tai O and Mui Wo Rural Committees, proposing to build a coastal road between Tung Chung and Tai O.

There were another 28 comments from channels other than campaign, and three relevant campaigns (3,355 comments) including the ones organised by Tai O and Mui Wo Rural Committees, proposing to build a North to South Corridor (from Tai Ho to Mui Wo).

Besides, there were 39 comments regarding a proposal to build bridges for road corridor connecting Lantau and Hong Kong Island. The comments were received via the channels of WSI, PF and PCPM.

Another 21 comments expressed other views on better public transport services on road networks.

Table 4.2.3.11 Strategic Road System Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.9 Strategic road system 6.9.1 Support/Agree with DP9 60 5 15 15 2 2 20 1 18 (1) 6.9.2 Views on DP9: build bridge for road corridor to connect Lantau 39 0 30 7 0 2 0 0 0 (0) and Hong Kong 6.9.3 Views on DP9: build coastal road between Tung Chung and 50 15 8 7 5 4 10 1 3330 (4) Tai O 6.9.4 Views on DP9: build North to South Corridor (Tai Ho to Mui 28 10 2 1 3 1 11 0 3355 (3) Wo) 6.9.5 Views on DP9: better public transport services on road 21 3 9 4 2 2 1 0 0 (0) networks 6.9.6 Object/Disagree with DP9 23 6 9 5 2 0 1 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 221 39 73 39 14 11 43 2 6703

(x) Road P1 at north Lantau (DP10)

There were a total of four comments from channels other than campaign, and no relevant campaign on DP10. All these comments were supportive and came from WSI.

Table 4.2.3.12 Road P1 at north Lantau Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.10 Road P1 at north Lantau 6.10.1 Support/Agree with DP10 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) 6.10.2 Object/Disagree with DP10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

(xi) Other Road Arrangement and Traffic and Transport Facilities (DP11)

There were a total of 150 comments from channels other than the four relevant campaigns on DP11. Out of the 150 comments, there were 78 support/agree comments, which advocated improving the accessibility to existing restricted roads, and to increase parking spaces in South Lantau. There were 48 object/disagree comments, 42 of which were against relaxing driving restriction to the roads in South Lantau.

Out of the four relevant campaigns (5,686 comments), three (354 comments) of which were supportive. There was one campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), with object/disagree comments and were against relaxing driving restriction to the roads in South Lantau.

Furthermore, there were 24 comments from channels other than campaign, and two campaigns (436 comments) expressing other views on improving road condition and design in South Lantau.

Table 4.2.3.13 Other Road Arrangement and Traffic and Transport Facilities Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.11 Other road arrangement and

traffic and transport facilities 6.11.1 Support/Agree with DP11 (e.g. improve accessibility to existing 78 22 13 4 10 5 23 1 354 (3) restricted road/area, increase parking spaces) 6.11.2 Views on DP11: improve road condition and design in South 24 6 6 1 7 0 4 0 436 (2) Lantau 6.11.3 Object/Disagree with DP11 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 (0) 6.11.4 Object/Disagree with DP11: relax driving permit to the roads 42 10 19 2 3 0 8 0 4896 (1) in South Lantau Sub‐total Count: 150 40 41 7 20 5 35 2 5686

(xii) Water Transport (DP12)

There were a total of 46 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on DP12. Out of the 46 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 43 support/agree comments, more than the three object/disagree comments. The two relevant campaigns (180 comments) supported the water transport proposal.

Table 4.2.3.14 Water Transport Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.12 Water transport 6.12.1 Support/Agree with DP12 43 7 6 7 6 2 15 0 180 (2) 6.12.2 Object/Disagree with DP12 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 46 8 8 7 6 2 15 0 180

(xiii) Recreation and Outdoor Activities (DP13)

There were a total of 172 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign on DP13. Out of the 172 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 33 support/agree comments, more than the 20 object/disagree comments. The pattern appeared across most channels with comments, except PCPM. The relevant campaign (229 comments) supported the proposals on recreation and outdoor activities.

In addition, 85 comments from channels other than campaign provided alternative suggestions, including 57 comments proposing to build cycle track around Lantau, while 28 comments suggested providing facilities for international recreation/sports events.

There were 34 comments from channels other than campaign expressing views on the proposed attractions in Shui Hau.

Table 4.2.3.15 Recreation and Outdoor Activities Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.13 Recreation and outdoor

activities 6.13.1 Support/Agree with DP13 33 4 16 8 2 0 2 1 229 (1) 6.13.2 Views on DP13: build facilities for international 28 3 7 16 1 0 1 0 0 (0) recreation/sports events 6.13.3 Views on DP13: build cycle 57 7 20 9 6 2 13 0 0 (0) track around Lantau 6.13.4 Views on DP13: development 34 5 15 9 2 1 2 0 0 (0) at Shui Hau 6.13.5 Object/Disagree with DP13 20 4 9 4 0 2 1 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 172 23 67 46 11 5 19 1 229

(xiv) Splurge and Indulge (DP14)

There were a total of 47 comments from channels other than campaign, and no campaign on DP14. Out of the 47 comments received, 18 of these were support/agree comments, more than the seven object/disagree comments from WSI.

There were 22 comments providing other proposals, including 20 comments proposing to build facilities for international tourists, while two comments suggested developing pleasure boat recreation activities or an exhibition and trading centre.

Table 4.2.3.16 Splurge and Indulge Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.14 Splurge and indulge 6.14.1 Support/Agree with DP14 18 5 6 1 0 1 5 0 0 (0) 6.14.2 Views on DP14: build facilities 20 1 8 9 0 2 0 0 0 (0) for international tourists 6.14.3 Views on DP14: develop pleasure boat recreation 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 (0) activities; build an exhibition and trading centre 6.14.4 Object/Disagree with DP14 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 47 6 22 11 0 3 5 0 0

(xv) Ecology (DP15)

There were a total of 106 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on DP15. Out of the 106 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 27 support/agree comments, while 23 were object/disagree ones. Regarding the comments from campaigns, two relevant campaigns (165 comments) were supportive, and there was no object/disagree comment.

There were four comments from channels other than campaign proposing to build a wildlife or natural habitat theme park.

Furthermore, there were 52 comments from channels other than campaign, and two campaigns (194 comments) expressing views on suitability of providing facilities on Sunset Peak for visitors.

Table 4.2.3.17 Ecology Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.15 Ecology 6.15.1 Support/Agree with DP15 27 8 10 1 2 2 3 1 165 (2) 6.15.2 Views on DP15: Build wildlife or 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 (0) natural habitat theme park 6.15.3 Views on DP15: suitability to 52 12 22 3 5 4 6 0 194 (2) provide facilities in Sunset Peak 6.15.4 Object/Disagree with DP15 23 4 11 6 1 0 1 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 106 24 44 12 8 7 10 1 359

(xvi) Culture and Heritage (DP16)

There were a total of 189 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on DP16. Out of the 189 comments from channels other than campaign, the number of support/agree comments was 15, less than the 41 object/disagree comments received in WSI, WSG and PF.

There were 39 comments, mostly from WSG and WSI, proposing to remove the Zen Conservation Zone idea from the development plan.

There were a total of 94 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (6,338 comments) organised by Tai O Rural Committee and three Tai O groups respectively, on the proposals for Tai O. There were 58 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (6,338 comments), questioned the suitability/routing of cable car extension from Ngong Ping to Tai O. There were 36 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (6,338 comments), concerning the Tai O’s capacity to receive more visitors arising for further tourism development.

Table 4.2.3.18 Culture and Heritage Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.16 Culture and heritage 6.16.1 Support/Agree with DP16 (e.g. building Yoga center, 15 1 7 1 1 0 3 2 0 (0) meditation therapy centers) 6.16.2 Object/Disagree with DP16’s proposed cable car extension 58 17 23 2 5 2 9 0 6338 (2) from Ngong Ping to Tai O 6.16.3 Views on DP16: capability of 36 11 11 4 4 2 4 0 6338 (2) tourism development of Tai O 6.16.4 Views on DP16: remove Zen 39 7 31 0 0 0 1 0 0 (0) Conservation Zone from plan 6.16.5 Object/Disagree with DP16 41 3 37 1 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 189 39 109 8 10 4 17 2 12676

(xvii) Relaxation (DP17)

There were a total of 53 comments from channels other than campaign, and no campaign on DP17. The number of support/agree comments was 28, mostly in WSI, and there were 25 object/disagree comments.

Table 4.2.3.19 Relaxation Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.17 Relaxation 6.17.1 Support/Agree with DP17 28 2 24 0 2 0 0 0 0 (0) 6.17.2 Object/Disagree with DP17 25 4 12 2 3 1 3 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 53 6 36 2 5 1 3 0 0

(xviii) Attracting Talent to Match Balanced Employment Opportunities (DP18)

There were a total of 194 comments from channels other than the three relevant campaigns (426 comments) on DP18. Out of the 194 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 118 support/agree comments, as compared to only one object/disagree comment. Regarding the comments from campaigns, three campaigns (190 comments) were supportive, and there was no object/disagree comment.

There were 54 comments from channels other than campaign, and three relevant campaigns (236 comments), proposing to develop education facilities in Lantau.

Besides, 21 comments expressed other views on the lack of job vacancies and varieties for local residents.

Table 4.2.3.20 Attracting Talent to Match Balanced Employment Opportunities Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.18 Attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities 6.18.1 Support/Agree with DP18 118 19 61 11 7 2 18 0 190 (3) 6.18.2 Views on DP18: develop 54 11 8 27 1 0 7 0 236 (3) education facilities 6.18.3 Views on DP18: e.g. lack job vacancies and variety for local 21 1 5 14 0 1 0 0 0 (0) residents 6.18.4 Object/Disagree with DP18 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 194 31 75 52 8 3 25 0 426

(xix) Providing Suitable Internal and External Transport Connections to Meet the Needs of Future Development (DP19)

There were a total of 346 comments from channels other than the four relevant campaigns on DP19. Out of the 346 comments from channels other than campaign, there were 227 support/agree comments, as compared to only one object/disagree comment. Regarding the comments from campaigns, four campaigns (4,765 comments) were supportive, and there was no object/disagree comment.

There were 53 comments from channels other than campaign, and one campaign (85 comments) proposing to improve roads in specific locations/community for providing convenient transport access to residents. There were 65 comments, all from channels other than campaign, suggested providing subsidy on public transport services.

Table 4.2.3.21 Providing Suitable Internal and External Transport Connections to Meet the Needs of Future Development Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.19 Providing suitable internal and external transport connections

to meet the needs of future development 6.19.1 Support/Agree with DP19 227 26 112 9 8 5 64 3 4765 (4) 6.19.2 Views on DP19: provide subsidy to public transport 65 3 32 13 4 0 13 0 0 (0) services 6.19.3 Views on DP19: improve roads 53 12 15 6 10 2 8 0 85 (1) in specific locations/community 6.19.4 Object/Disagree with DP19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 346 42 159 28 22 7 85 3 4850

(xx) Catering for the Needs of Rural and Remote Areas in Lantau (DP20)

There were a total of 75 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on DP20. Out of the 75 comments from channels other than campaign, 58 comments were support/agree comments while there was no object/disagree comment. All The comments (1,201 submissions) from relevant campaigns were all supportive.

There were 17 comments, all from channels other than campaign, expressing doubts on whether the proposal would be achievable.

Table 4.2.3.22 Catering for the Needs of Rural and Remote Areas in Lantau Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.20 Catering for the needs of rural

and remote areas in Lantau 6.20.1 Support/Agree with DP20 58 17 12 3 5 3 18 0 1201 (2) 6.20.2 Doubt if the proposal are 17 2 0 9 4 1 1 0 0 (0) achievable 6.20.3 Object/Disagree with DP20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) Sub‐total Count: 75 19 12 12 9 4 19 0 1201

(d) Other New Development Proposals (NDP21)

Apart from comments received on the above 20 development proposals, there were many other different proposals received from the public on Lantau Development. They were categorised separately under New Development Proposals (NDP) for clarity, which could be broadly divided into three groups:

Table 4.2.3.23 Groups of Other New Development Proposals Group Details Group 1 : DPG‐related NDPs They fit roughly within the scope of five Development Proposal Groups (DPGs) (Items 6.21.1 to 6.21.5) Group 2 : Location‐specific NDPs They are related to enhancing community facilities on community facilities across Lantau or in specific areas or communities, which often include a mixture of localized development proposals. They are mainly on four specific areas: Tung Chung, Tai O, Southern Mui Wo and Northern Mui Wo (Items 6.21.6 to 6.21.10) Group 3 : Miscellaneous ideas / They are unique or cannot be easily categorized comments (Items 6.21.11 to 6.21.14)

Following is a summary list of the NDPs, ideas/comments collected. Most of these new proposals received were quite brief without much elaboration or substantiation.

Group 1: DPG‐related NDPs Spatial planning & Housing land use  Limit the flats in South Lantau to small individual houses  Use the lands in country park area for housing Zoning  Add new land use zoning, e.g. MICE zone, tourism zone, residential zone, etc.  Develop Ngong Ping as middle‐class residential and commercial area  Develop aviation and logistic industries at North Lantau  Develop South Lantau as eco‐tourism resort zone  Relocate container terminal to the Airport Development ideas in North Lantau  Develop Olympism, Education and Sports Conference Centre  Release coastal land, especially those in Tung Chung West (e.g. Shum Wat, Sha Lo Wan and Shan Shek Village) as airport logistic base (機場後勤基地)  Develop Hong Kong brand Industrial Park to settle in all local brands  Provide more walking trails and cycle tracks in new town areas to improve walkability  Plan for less agricultural land use in North Lantau to release land for housing development  Plan for less green belts for developing Small Houses (丁屋) East Lantau Metropolis (ELM)  Plan for more diversified land use in ELM (e.g. housing, industrial, logistics, etc.)  Revitalize typhoon shelter at Hei Ling Chau  Relocate all population on Lantau Island to ELM and keep the whole Lantau as a conservation area Others  Restore farmlands around Lantau  Assign areas for cattle shelters  Restore tea agriculture at Ngong Ping  Develop the fifth cross‐harbour railway  Develop brownfields, or use the hillsides, rather than reclamation in Sunny Bay Conservation Living Green  Provide more recycling facilities, such as those for sewage recycling and refuse classification  Adopt carbon audit system in residential and commercial buildings Country Parks and Marine Parks  Enlarge existing marine park  Expand the management jurisdiction to most of the lands on Lantau  Encourage afforestation in country park areas

Eco‐tourism/Cultural tourism  Create more buffer zones and restricted areas in conservation areas, i.e. core area/restricted area, buffer area and visitor area  Develop animal conservation zone, including acquisition of wetland from private land owners to conserve buffalos  Organise dolphin tour with more education elements  Develop eco‐tourism with North West Lantau Nature Trail  Create a database with land status, habitats, topography and ground features, etc. for better environment and ecology planning and management  Develop marine tourism hub between Peng Chau and Lantau  Develop cultural tourism, e.g. introduce featured economic activities, such as local handicrafts and traditional food  Provide a marine education centre at Shui Hau and an archaeological center at Luk Keng Tsuen (鹿頸村考古中心)  Designate offshore water of Tai O and Yi O for conservation Others  Create a conservation fund Strategic traffic & Transportation transport  Develop green and smart transport for green tourism and low‐carbon infrastructure community  Provide electric car charging stations  Allow New Territories taxis on Lantau Island  Provide minibus services and tram service (from Lantau to Hong Kong Island)  Provide more shuttle bus services  Provide helipad  Provide water transport between Tung Chung and Tai O, as well as airport and Central Business District  Provide railway system in Tuen Mun ‐ Chek Lap Kok Link Infrastructure  Provide transport links to all outlying islands including Peng Chau, Cheung Chau, etc.  Provide tunnel links between Cheung Sha, Tai O and Tung Chung Recreation & Tourism categories tourism  Develop medical tourism, religion tourism, mountain bike tourism (e.g. utilize the bike networks in Mui Wo to develop a bike park)  Should cover sports competition and training, not just recreation  Provide complete visiting experience  Provide more scenic and cultural trails, visitor centres, hotels, viewing towers, aquarium, ferry piers to scenic outlying islands Attractions  Develop featured tourism (特色旅遊) that covers all outlying islands’ special cultural practices (e.g. Ta Chiu parade in Cheung Chau, Tai O Village custom, Silvermine Bay Music Festival), with regular promotions on different events  Restore agriculture at Yi O to attract visitors

Facilities  Provide attractive resorts which are different to those in nearby countries/region  Provide separate hiking trails, cycle tracks and roads for residents. Use natural materials for cycle tracks and hiking trails instead of concrete  Provide campsites at Yi Tung Shan and star‐gazing facilities at Jacob’s Ladder  Provide casino and horse riding trail for tourists  Provide yacht outlet centre and more marinas at South Lantau  Provide artificial rock climbing facilities in Pui O and artificial skiing centre at Mui Wo  Reserve space for rescue points, assembly area, resting point at certain locations, preferably accessible by mass transport systems Promote “Home Stay” or “Bed and Breakfast” facilities for visitors Social Policies and planning development  Develop policies or schemes that help improve socio‐economic development  Develop policies to handle aging population and enhance community cohesion  Provide more incentives for investors/economic drivers to set up headquarters/develop business at Lantau, as well as business opportunity for small‐to‐medium enterprise and creative industries  Provide better community planning between and within communities to avoid mismatch or overlap in community facilities Facilities  Provide separate social and tourism facilities  Provide waste treatment system (e.g. incinerators, sewerage facilities) for future use  Provide diversified education facilities and elderly or infant caring centers

Group 2: Location‐specific NDPs All Lantau  Provide more public toilets for visitors/tourists, preferably as paid facility community  Build facilities for hikers and cyclists, such as information centres, medical and facilities rescue services  Plan suitable location for columbarium  Provide water supply system around Lantau Tung Chung's  Provide public market, performance venue, youth creativity platform/youth community hub, park, wet market, police station, hospital and schools, municipal building, facilities sport grounds, hotels, shopping malls, parking areas, entertainment centres, elderly centres, convenience stores, grocery shops  Enhance bridge link to railway station  Plan for more diversified land use in revitalization of Ma Wan Chung (e.g. for watching sunset, cultural tourism)  Provide theme park, ecological tourism center and resort  Plan more public housing than private housing  Provide sewage system for remote villages in Tung Chung West Tai O's  Create an atmosphere that attracts investors to develop business community  Provide more public housing facilities  Have regular check and enhancement to existing infrastructure, e.g. bridges, stilt houses (棚屋)  Widen the roads at Tai O Square entrance and provide more public toilets  Provide queuing zones at Tai O Square  Develop Tai O salt industry museum Mui Wo's facilities  Provide standard roads to local villages  Develop eco‐tourism centre, eco‐trail and mangrove trail at Tai Ho

 Revitalize heritage buildings  Develop Silvermine Cave as tourist spot  Provide more schools, hospitals, clinics, tourism facilities (e.g. hotels, food and beverage outlets)  Plan for more ferries to Mui Wo and lower transport fee  Encourage short‐term usage of abandoned agricultural land, fish ponds, cut slopes and beach  Incorporate Mui Wo’s recreation and tourism development into the Mui Wo Facelift program  Cancel the closed road permit and provide more parking spaces

Group 3: Miscellaneous ideas and comments Fishermen  Provide more supplementary facilities such as oil stations and fish market  Enhance policies to assist the fishermen’s living and to restore the fishing industry  Provide more subsidy (e.g. for oil and parking) and compensation for delayed reclamation projects  Build more fishermen villages  Provide dedicated berthing spaces for fishermen ships in various typhoon shelters  Enhance the typhoon shelter usage review system  Provide typhoon shelter specifically for fishermen  Showcase development of fishery industry in museums Others  Interest/Concern on effectiveness to make Lantau the gateway to PRD, or in achieving one‐hour intercity traffic cycle  Object/Disagree with development proposals which will have massive increase in cultural, recreational and ecological activities  Object/Disagree with development proposals which will lead to building major commercial facilities

There were a total of 782 comments from channels other than the five relevant campaigns on NDPs.

There were a total of 501 comments from channels other than campaign, and three relevant campaigns (5,131 comments) on Group 1 proposals (DPG‐related NDPs); there were a total of 265 comments from channels other than campaign, and four relevant campaigns (2,793 comments) on Group 2 proposals (Location‐specific NDPs). For Group 3 proposals (miscellaneous ideas and comments), there were only 16 comments, all from channels other than campaign.

The three NDPs receiving the most comments in campaign were conservation (NDP2 ‐ 4,896 comments), Northern Mui Wo community facilities (NDP9 – 1,322 comments) and Tung Chung's community facilities (NDP7 ‐ 849 comments).

The top four NDPs receiving the most comments in channels other than campaign were spatial planning and land use (NDP1 ‐ 157 comments), conservation (NDP2 ‐ 135 comments), Tung Chung's community facilities (NDP7 ‐ 133 comments) and strategic traffic and transport infrastructure (NDP3 ‐ 111 comments).

Table 4.2.3.24 Analysis of Other New Development Proposals Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.21 Others/New Development

Proposals (NDP) Group 1 (DPG‐related NDPs) 6.21.1 Views on NDP 1: Spatial planning & land use (e.g. limit flats in South Lantau to small, individual houses; well plan 157 31 53 25 17 6 25 0 0 (0) waste treatment facilities; develop brownfields rather than reclamation) 6.21.2 Views on NDP 2: Conservation (e.g. enlarge marine park; buy wetland from private land owners to conserve buffalos; 135 13 73 16 8 4 21 0 4896 (1) create more buffer zones and restricted areas at conserved areas) 6.21.3 Views on NDP 3: Strategic traffic & transport infrastructure (e.g. develop 111 25 28 21 7 4 25 1 235 (2) green transport for green tourism; build helipad; enhance minibus services)

Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 6.21.4 Views on NDP 4: Recreation & tourism (e.g. develop medical tourism; focus on sports competition/training, not just 64 10 18 4 14 7 11 0 0 (0) recreation; plan resort to be more attractive than nearby countries) 6.21.5 Views on NDP 5: Social development (e.g. policies or schemes that help improving 34 7 8 3 3 6 7 0 0 (0) current socio‐economic development) Sub‐total Count (A): 501 86 180 69 49 27 89 1 5131 Group 2 (Location‐specific NDPs) 6.21.6 Views on NDP 6: Various community facilities at specific locations (e.g. increase public toilets for visitors/tourists; 67 11 28 9 8 2 9 0 106 (2) information centres for hiking and cycling; plan location for columbarium; build facilities for elderly) 6.21.7 Views on NDP 7: Enhance Tung 133 19 34 39 4 1 35 1 849 (2) Chung's community facilities 6.21.8 Views on NDP 8: Enhance Tai 30 3 8 10 3 1 5 0 244 (1) O's community facilities 6.21.9 Views on NDP 9: Enhance 19 2 8 7 1 0 1 0 1322 (3) northern Mui Wo's facilities 6.21.10 Views on NDP 10: Enhance southern Mui Wo’s facilities (e.g. more proposals that can 16 3 6 5 1 0 1 0 272 (1) enhance progress of Mui Wo Facelift, means that attract local residents to move back) Sub‐total Count (B): 265 38 84 70 17 4 51 1 2793 Group 3 (miscellaneous ideas and

comments) 6.21.11 Views: sufficiency of support 6 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 (0) to fishermen 6.21.12 Views: effectiveness to make Lantau the gateway to 5 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 (0) PRD/achieving one‐hour intercity traffic cycle 6.21.13 Object/Disagreement: no massive increase in cultural, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0) recreational and ecological activities 6.21.14 Object/Disagreement: no 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 (0) giant commercial facilities Sub‐total Count (C): 16 3 6 1 4 0 2 0 0 Total = (A) + (B) + (C): 782 127 270 140 70 31 142 2 7924

4.2.4 Implementation

While many comments were on the planning and development proposals of Lantau Development, some comments focused on the implementation arrangements. The comments were grouped under following topics:

7.1 Priority: There were a total of 57 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign organised by five green groups. The comments from campaign (4,896 comments) placed strong emphasis on prioritising their preferred development proposals. Some other comments considered that transportation‐led planning was of strategic importance to Lantau Development.

7.2 Timeline/Timeframe: There were a total of 163 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on this topic. There were 128 comments from channels other than campaign, and two campaigns (191 comments) requesting for earlier or faster implementation of Lantau Development proposals. Some opined that the local residents had waited for development for a long time and urged that projects achieved consensus should be implemented first.

7.3 Finance: There were a total of 39 comments from channels other than campaign, and no relevant campaign on finance matters. Some queried on the financial implications of Lantau Development, while others considered that it would be a “white elephant” project.

7.4 Government coordination, commitment and capability: There were a total of 95 comments from channels other than campaign, and no relevant campaign on this topic. Some comments were on the Government’s role and capability, while other comments queried on implementation arrangement and law enforcement capability to conserve South Lantau on private land.

7.5 Mechanism: Dedicated Office for Lantau Development/District Liaison Group: There were a total of 16 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign on this topic. Majority of the comments from channels other than campaign, and the campaign (954 comments) supported the setting up of dedicated office for Lantau Development or District Liaison Group.

7.6 Mechanism: conservation control: There were a total of seven comments from channels other than campaign, which proposed to set up conservation control mechanism for Lantau Development.

7.7 Future blueprint / further studies: There were a total of 179 comments from channels other than campaign, and one relevant campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), on this topic. Major comments included suggestions to conduct more planning studies, such as environmental carrying capacity or baseline assessment; to implement conservation measures in 2007 Lantau Concept Plan; to carry out study on capacity against population increase; and to revise the Lantau’s Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) and strengthen the Development Permission Area (DPA) Plan, with a view to enhancing the Government’s regulatory capability on private land in conserving South Lantau.

Table 4.2.4.1 Implementation Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 7. Implementation 7.1 Priority 7.1.1 Views: in the priorities of different development 57 11 18 14 4 3 7 0 4896 (1) proposals

7.2 Timeline/Timeframe 7.2.1 Support/Agree with 128 20 44 4 8 4 39 9 191 (2) earlier/faster implementation 7.2.2 Views: request clearer development timeline and 35 1 12 11 3 3 4 1 0 (0) phasing Sub‐total Count: 163 21 56 15 11 7 43 10 191 7.3 Finance 7.3.1 Views: cost of whole development/ELM, impact on 25 7 8 3 2 3 2 0 0 (0) public finance, cost control measures 7.3.2 Object/Disagree with white 14 3 4 1 0 1 5 0 0 (0) elephant development Sub‐total Count: 39 10 12 4 2 4 7 0 0 7.4 Government coordination,

commitment and capability 7.4.1 Propose closer coordination in government to avoid 17 8 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 (0) contradictory policies 7.4.2 Views on private sector, community involvement, and 28 3 13 5 3 3 1 0 0 (0) the lead party 7.4.3 Views on government's project 50 11 21 2 5 1 5 5 0 (0) execution and law enforcement Sub‐total Count: 95 22 35 7 10 6 8 7 0 7.5 Mechanism: Dedicated Office for Lantau Development / District Liaison Group 7.5.1 Support/Agree with dedicated office for Lantau Development / 14 3 2 0 3 2 3 1 954 (1) District Liaison Group 7.5.2 Object/Disagree with need of dedicated office for Lantau 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 (0) Development/District Liaison Group Sub‐total Count: 16 3 2 0 4 3 3 1 954 7.6 Mechanism: conservation

control

Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 7.6.1 Views on development‐ conservation control mechanism, regular monitoring 7 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 (0) on environmental impact, and arbiter

7.7 Future blueprint / further

studies 7.7.1 Propose to conduct studies on environmental carrying capacity, baseline assessment 89 23 43 1 7 3 11 1 4896 (1) and implement the conservation measures in the 2007 LD Concept Plan 7.7.2 Propose to revise Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), strengthen Development Permission Area 24 10 9 0 3 1 1 0 4896 (1) (DPA) Plan and Country Park Ordinance 7.7.3 views on carrying and receiving 66 7 25 15 10 5 4 0 0 (0) capacity of population increase Sub‐total Count: 179 40 77 16 20 9 16 1 9792

4.2.5 Consultation Structure and Process

There were some comments on the consultation structure and process, which were grouped under following topics:

8.1 LanDAC’s composition: There were a total of 50 comments from channels other than campaign. Some of the comments queried on the LanDAC’s composition, while a few comments objected/disagreed with the composition.

8.2 LanDAC’s operation: A total of 21 comments from channels other than campaign expressed views on LanDAC’s openness and transparency in its operation.

8.3 Consultation mechanism and information: There were a total of 301 comments from channels other than campaign, and one relevant campaign (18 comments), on this topic. Some comments requested for more planning details for reference. Other comments proposed to arrange more briefings and engagement to consult the public on Lantau Development.

Table 4.2.5.1 Consultation Structure and Process Items for Analysis & Channels other than campaign Campaign Comment Counts by Channel (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Total Count C (campaign (excluding WSG WSI PF PEE PCPM LSM NC C) no. shown Comment Topics & Coding in bracket) 8. Consultation structure & process 8.1 LanDAC’s composition 8.1.1 Views on the composition 43 11 15 2 5 2 8 0 0 (0) 8.1.2 Object/Disagree with LanDAC, 7 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 (0) suggest its disbanding Sub‐total Count: 50 12 19 2 6 2 9 0 0 8.2 LanDAC’s operation 8.2.1 Views on LanDAC’s openness, 21 4 6 4 1 0 4 2 0 (0) transparency

8.3 Consultation mechanism and

information 8.3.1 Propose to have more 102 16 55 12 7 4 7 1 0 (0) briefings, engagement meetings 8.3.2 Propose to involve experts in 34 6 17 6 3 0 2 0 18 (1) planning 8.3.3 Views on planning details for 120 24 39 36 2 5 13 1 0 (0) public reference 8.3.4 Object/Disagree with consultation with preset 32 10 12 0 3 0 6 1 0 (0) framework and proposals 8.3.5 Object/Disagree with the Digest/LanDAC Report, suggest 13 3 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 (0) retraction Sub‐total Count: 301 59 129 54 15 9 32 3 18

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION ON ANALYSIS OF KEY TOPICS

Further to the comment analysis in Section 4.2, discussions on key topics of Lantau Development, such as the major development proposals presented in the PE Digest and other issues mostly raised by the public, are presented below. References are made to relevant results and findings of the independent opinion survey conducted by HKSYU (refer to Appendix H for the opinion survey report prepared by HKSYU).

5.1 Overall Position on Lantau Development

As presented in Section 4.2.1, out of a total of 22,607 feedbacks collected under various channels other than the Opinion Survey conducted by the HKSYU, about 52.4% (from channels other than campaign) and 59.6% (from campaign) of the feedbacks exhibited clear supportive positions on Lantau Development. These feedbacks had either expressed explicit support for Lantau Development, or supported the planning vision/principles or various development proposals presented in the PE digest. Only about 13.8% of the feedbacks (from channels other than campaign) were in opposing positions on Lantau Development. There was no relevant campaign with objection positions on Lantau Development. The situation tallied with the findings of the HKSYU’s opinion survey, which showed that about 52.2% of respondents agreed with the development proposals while about 17.5% of respondents disagreed with these proposals. Overall, the proposed Lantau Development is considered generally supported by the public.

It should be noted that some of the opposing feedbacks provided justifications on their ground of objections to the Lantau Development or the development proposals. It is advisable to take into account these considerations where appropriate when the proposed Lantau Development is decided to be taken forward in future.

Apart from the above, as shown in Section 4.2.3(d), there was a significant amount of comments (a total of 782 comments from channels other than campaign, and five relevant campaigns (7,924 comments)) focused on other new development proposals not covered in the PE Digest. This could be interpreted as positive expectations on the proposed Lantau Development. Similarly, it is advisable to take into account these new proposals where appropriate when the proposed Lantau Development is decided to be taken forward in future.

5.2 Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles

5.2.1 Planning Vision

As shown in Section 4.2.2, there were a total of 121 comments from channels other than campaign, and one campaign (4,342 comments) supported the planning vision of “Balancing and enhancing development and conservation, with a view to developing Lantau into a smart and low‐carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study”, while there were only 15 negative comments from channels other than campaign. There was no campaign opposing the planning vision. It indicated that this planning vision had received very good public support.

It should be noted that there were 83 comments from channels other than campaign, and one campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), doubting whether a balance could be achieved between development and conservation. These comments expressed concerns on the adequacy of conservation measures to balance development and conservation, and suggested strengthening the land control measures. Future Lantau Development should take note of these concerns and implement adequate and suitable conservation measures to achieve the above vision.

5.2.2 Major Planning Principles

Section 4.2.2 showed that supportive comments were received on the four major planning principles (MPP) for Lantau Development. For channels other than campaign, the planning principles received the most support comments was traffic and transport (113), followed by recreation and tourism (49), economy and livelihood (34), and the nature and heritage conservation (28). For the campaign channel, the planning principle with the most support was also traffic and transport (954). Among these four principles, the principle of giving traffic and transport a priority consideration for implementation received the most number of supportive comments (with 113 comments from channels other than campaign, and one relevant campaign organised by Tai Ho indigenous villagers (954 comments)). The results revealed that the public had given traffic and transport a priority in terms of development implementation.

There were a total of 48 comments from channels other than campaign, and a relevant campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), raising concerns on the principle relating to nature and heritage conservation. These comments questioned whether future proposals would be development‐orientated, and whether there would be sufficient protection and preservation of important conservation sites and habitats on Lantau. It is advisable to take note of these concerns in future planning.

5.2.3 Strategic Positioning

There were few comments on the strategic positioning while they were mostly supportive. In comparison, the most supported one was SP1 (to make Lantau an international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD) with 15 comments.

5.3 Development Proposals

5.3.1 Development Proposal Groups

As presented in Section 4.2.3(a), there were a total of 245 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (1,180 comments) on this topic. For the 245 comments from channels other than campaign, all DPGs received more support/agree comments than object/disagree comments, with the exception of DPG 4 on recreation and tourism, in which there were more object/disagree comments (67) than support/agree comments (58), probably due to the concerns on potential environmental impacts of the proposals and Lantau’s capacity to receive visitors as discussed in Section 5.3.3.6. The two relevant campaigns (1,180 comments) were mainly support/agree with DPG 3 on strategic traffic and transport infrastructure (954) and DPG 4 on recreation and tourism (226).

5.3.2 Overall Focus of the Public

As presented in Section 4.2.3(b), the main foci of the public, i.e. the development proposals with top five ranking both in channels other than campaign, and in campaign in terms of the number of feedback counts received on such proposals, are the following three items:

 East Lantau Metropolis as long‐term strategic growth area (DP3);  Strategic road system (DP9); and  Culture and heritage (DP16).

Other development proposals which attracted more attention than others, i.e. the proposals that ranked top five either in channels other than campaign or in campaign in terms of the number of feedback counts received on such proposals, are the following four items:

 Better utilization of natural resources (DP7);  Other road arrangement and traffic and transport facilities (DP11);  Attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities (DP18); and  Providing suitable internal and external transport connections to meet the needs of future development (DP19).

5.3.3 Individual Development Proposals

Discussions were on the 20 development proposals outlined in the PE Digest, grouped under seven categories, as detailed in the ensuing paragraphs.

5.3.3.1 North Lantau Corridor for Economic, Housing and Entertainment Development

As presented in Section 4.2.3(c)(i), (ii), (v) and (xviii), there were a total of 361 comments from channels other than the three relevant campaigns. There were more supportive comments than opposing comments on following development proposals:

 Developing North Lantau corridor for strategic economic and housing development (DP1);  Developing North‐eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development (DP2);  Optimizing the use of government land and development of cavern (DP5); and  Attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities (DP18).

There were 65 supportive comments (against 30 opposing comments) from channels other than campaign on DP1. There were 46 supportive comments (against 12 oppposing comments) from channels other than campaign, and two supportive campaigns (105 comments) on DP2. This indicated that there was general support for developing North Lantau corridor for strategic economic and housing development and North‐eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development.

On DP18, the public generally supported (118 supportive comments from channels other than campaign, and three supportive campaigns (190 comments)) attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities. In addition, there were 54

comments from channels other than campaign, and three supportive campaigns (236 comments), suggesting to develop new education facilities on Lantau, which could be higher education institutions in Tung Chung West to provide courses in aviation, hoteling, logistics, conservation, green tourism, exhibition management and international finance, etc.

According to the findings of HKSYU’s opinion survey, the percentage of respondents agreed with DP1, DP2 and DP5 were about 60.1%, 75.7% and 54.1% respectively, while that of respondents disagreed with these proposals were about 19.4%, 13.0% and 20.4%. The above positive results and findings indicated that the public generally agreed with these proposals.

5.3.3.2 East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) as Long‐term Strategic Growth Area

As shown in Section 4.2.3(c)(iii), there were 269 comments from various channels, other than the five relevant campaigns on the ELM proposal (DP3). 139 from channels other than campaign were supportive, more than 61 opposing comments. There were 10 campaigns received on Lantau Development, four of these campaigns (1,521 comments) agreed with or expressed views in support of ELM proposal while one campaign (4,896 comments), organised by five green groups, opposed to the ELM proposal. Other five campaigns expressed views on various Lantau development proposals other than the ELM.

Supportive comments were received from a range of sectors including a statutory body8, advisory bodies9, professional institutions10, business sector11, local community groups12, policy research organisations13 and also individuals. Most of them were of the views that Hong Kong’s economic and social developments had long been hampered by the land shortage problem and the ELM would in the long run enhance land supply and provide the required land to support the future development needs of Hong Kong.

Some comments supported the development of the ELM as the third Central Business District (CBD3) and a long‐term strategic growth area, as it could provide opportunity for implementing new transport corridor between the Metro areas and the north‐ western part of the territory, and its strategic location rendered the ELM well positioned to serve as a portal connecting Hong Kong Island to Lantau and thus to the world via the airport and to the PRD via Hong Kong‐Zhuhai‐Macao Bridge. The ELM could complete the ring loop of Hong Kong’s transport infrastructure, thus enhancing the linkage between the northwest NT, West Kowloon, Hong Kong Island and Lantau. The enhanced connectivity could bring new synergy to these development areas and foster the overall economic growth for Hong Kong.

8 Town Planning Board. 9 Mui Wo Rural Committee and Lamma Island (North) Rural Committee. 10 Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design, Hong Kong Institution of Highways and Transportation, The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Association of Consulting Engineers of Hong Kong, Association of Engineering Professionals in Society Ltd and Hong Kong Construction Association. 11 Business sector refers to the participants of the focus group meeting for business industry held on 31 March 2016. 12 Outlying Islands Women's Association Limited, Islands Youth Association and 大嶼各界社團. 13 Our Hong Kong Foundation and SD Advocates.

Some comments anticipated that the ELM could be a breeding ground for developing new types of pillar industries which could enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong in the coming decades to prepare for the future new economy. Some comments considered that the ELM could be an opportunity to attract talent to match the balanced employment opportunities for Lantau.

Some comments opined that there would be much room for modeling the ELM as a smart and low‐carbon city, with integration of modern technology, communication and green elements, to enhance the living quality of the people of Hong Kong.

Some commented that by using local construction & demolition (C&D) materials as reclamation fill material for land formation, the ELM could offer opportunity to alleviate the burden of surplus C&D materials in Hong Kong.

On the other hand, there were opposing comments received from individuals, green groups14 and interest groups15. These comments were mainly focused on the potential impacts that may be caused by reclamation and the increased traffic flow on the terrestrial and marine habitats and wildlife. Some also expressed reservations to the development need for the ELM, as they opined that the projected population growth of Hong Kong was on the decline, the planned developments in the NT should be adequate to provide the required land. In addition, some doubted about the project’s viability without detailed assessments on its feasibility and impacts.

In addition, there were 69 comments with other views as follows:

 Request for more information about the scale and plan of the ELM proposal;  Query on its necessity and the rationale in relation to the changing population forecast;  Concern if there would be significant environmental impacts; and  Need to consult the marine trade regarding potential impact on the fairway.

According to the HKSYU’s opinion survey, 31.6% of respondents agreed with “conducting study to explore developing the ELM and use artificial islands to develop a new CBD” while 51.2% disagreed. During the survey, HKSYU observed that respondents were more eager to seek further information on the ELM proposal than other proposals. The research team encountered some respondents who would object to any development on Lantau and considered that any development would damage the natural environment. HKSYU considered it unclear whether the above negative attitude was due to the limited information on the ELM proposal as shown in the roving exhibition panels. It could not rule out that those who were against development by reclamation, or damage to the environment, tended to disagree with the ELM proposal and any further study on the ELM.

It is understandable that many of the above comments might be due to the fact that the consultation materials only outline the concept of the ELM development in the

14 Green Power, Green Sense, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, World Wide Fund For Nature and The Conservancy Association. 15 Save Lantau Alliance, Hong Kong Fishermen Consortium and Youngspiration.

Central Waters between Hong Kong Island and Lantau as the long‐term strategic growth area, but stopped short of more details. To address the above concerns, further studies on the ELM proposal should be conducted in order to provide the public with the information they need for casting an informed view.

5.3.3.3 Conservation, Natural Resources and Ecology

As presented in Section 4.2.3(c)(iv), (vi), (vii) and (xv), there were a total of 283 comments from channels other than the three relevant campaigns. There were generally more supportive comments than opposing comments on the following development proposals:

 Predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, culture and green tourism (DP4)  Enhancement of conservation (DP6);  Better utilization of natural resources (DP7); and  Ecology (DP15)

In addition, there were following observations on DP4, DP6, DP7 and DP15:

Predominant Part of Lantau for Conservation, Leisure, Cultural and Green Tourism (DP4)

On DP4, there were 33 supportive comments while 42 opposing comments. The opposing comments were mainly on green tourism instead of the whole development proposal, i.e. using predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism. The respondents were concerned that green tourism might involve additional supporting facilities for enhancing accessibility, but that insufficient measures to protect the nature would result in adverse impacts on the environment.

According to HKSYU’s opinion survey, about 78.5% of respondents agreed with DP4 while about 9.1% disagreed. It is considered that adequate suitable measures should be put in place for nature conservation and protection of existing resources.

Enhancement of Conservation (DP6)

According to the findings of HKSYU’s opinion survey, about 85.0% and 87.6% of respondents considered heritage and landscape conservation under DP6 were important while only about 3.8% and 3% considered not important.

Better Utilization of Natural Resources (DP7) It was noted that the relevant campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments) were supportive on DP7. These comments stressed that the proposed eco‐ tourism should take note of and make contribution to conserving the local ecological, cultural and landscape characteristics.

According to HKSYU’s opinion survey, about 71.7% and 61.8% of respondents considered enhancing country parks and marine parks under DP7 were important while about 10.5% and 14.8% considered not important.

Ecology (DP15)

The proposals under DP15 were generally supported by the public. According to HKSYU’s opinion survey, about 79.0% of respondents considered DP15 attractive while about 8.0% of respondents considered this proposal not attractive. Nevertheless, 52 comments from channels other than campaign, and two campaigns (194 comments), expressed views on the suitability of providing facilities on Sunset Peak for visitors. While there was a consensus on conserving the natural environment at Sunset Peak for people to enjoy hiking and stargazing, there were divergent views on providing additional facilities to enhance accessibility and support for visitors. Some suggested minimal facilities because they worried that new facilities might affect the existing fauna and flora, visual outlook and natural landscape. Submissions with this view generally did not support improvement of accessibility to Sunset Peak and provision of viewing deck. On the other hand, some comments suggested providing additional basic facilities such as toilet, signposts, etc., or setting up simple camp sites at suitable locations.

5.3.3.4 Traffic and Transport Infrastructure

As shown in Section 4.2.3(c)(viii) to (xii) and (xix), there were a total of 936 comments from channels other than the seven relevant campaigns. There were generally more supportive comments than opposing comments on following development proposals:  Railway system (DP8);  Strategic road system (DP9);  Road P1 at north Lantau (DP10);  Other road arrangement and traffic and transport facilities (DP11);  Water transport (DP12); and  Providing suitable internal and external transport connections to meet the needs of future development (DP19)

According to the findings of HKSYU’s opinion survey, the percentages of respondents considered the proposals under DP8, DP9/DP10 and DP12 important were about 68.9%, 68.3% and 64.5% respectively, while about 17.3%, 14.7% and 13.4% respectively considered them not important. On DP11, about 62.0% of respondents considered improvement of South Lantau Road important while 15.5% not important. In addition, about 56.4% of respondents considered visiting South Lantau attractive if South Lantau Road would be improved while about 20.1% considered not attractive. The above positive results and findings indicated that the public generally agreed with these proposals.

In addition, there were following observations on DP8, DP9, DP11 and DP19:

Railway System (DP8)

There were comments with the following proposals which were more technical in nature or focused on localized areas:

 build a monorail, light rail or sky rail (“sky train”) between Tung Chung and the airport Island to enhance internal connectivity;  build an additional mass transit corridor connecting Tung Chung East, Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island and the Airport Island; and  better connection between the current and future railway systems and other public transport services to enhance interconnectivity.

Strategic Road System (DP9)

The supportive views considered that the strategic road system can connect Tung Chung New Town and Lantau with other places in Hong Kong, facilitate visitors and the public going to ELM and Hong Kong Island, and provide support for the increased traffic demand arising from the commissioning of HZMB, Lantau North economic corridor and airport developments. The opposing views opined that there is currently a comprehensive road network, the new road system will be incompatible with the concept of low‐carbon development/community, might induce impacts on ecologically important sites, and considered that imposing traffic restriction is more desirable for conserving Lantau.

There were 50 comments from channels other than campaign, and four relevant campaigns (3,330 comments) including the ones organised by Tai O and Mui Wo Rural Committees, proposing to build a coastal road between Tung Chung and Tai O. These comments considered the proposal not only shorten the traveling time from Tai O to Tung Chung, but would help alleviate the heavy traffic demand mainly from tourists, which would in turn enhance tourism in Tai O. The proposed road could also alleviate the congested traffic flow from Tung Chung Road to South Lantau.

There were also 28 comments from channels other than campaign, and three relevant campaigns (3,355 comments) including the ones organised by Tai O and Mui Wo Rural Committees, proposing to build a North to South Corridor (Tai Ho/Pak Mong to Mui Wo). These comments considered this proposal could link up Tung Chung with South Lantau to become a circular traffic route to enhance Lantau’s road network as a whole.

Other Road Arrangement and Traffic and Transport Facilities (DP11)

There were 150 comments from channels other than the four relevant campaigns on DP11. For channels other than campaign, there were 78 support/agree comments, which advocated improving the accessibility to existing restricted roads, and increasing parking spaces in South Lantau, more than 48 object/disagree comments. Majority of the opposing comments (42) were against relaxing driving restriction to the roads in South Lantau. Out of the four relevant campaigns, three (354 comments) of which were supportive. There were one campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), with object/disagree comments and were against relaxing driving restriction to the roads in South Lantau.

Some comments expressed other views on improving road condition and design in South Lantau, in order to align with road safety standards and improve driving experience. These views were echoed by two relevant campaigns organised by the Island Youths Association and Mui Wo Rural Committee.

There were also concerns that relaxing access restriction to the roads in South Lantau might induce excessive tourism to South Lantau and stimulate illegal dumping, which would have adverse environmental impacts. Nevertheless, these comments supported environmentally friendly and smart public transportation on Lantau for visitors.

It is considered that study on Lantau’s capacity to receive visitors and suitable land control measures should be implemented to address the above concerns.

Providing Suitable Internal and External Transport Connections to Meet The Needs of Future Development (DP19)

Some comments included short‐to‐medium term proposals to improve point‐to‐point connection by reorganising bus services around Tung Chung and the Airport. These proposals included rationalizing bus routes, increasing frequency, providing special departure service, introducing Green Mini‐bus, and providing non‐franchised feeder bus services, which would not only benefit both local residents and employees, but also provide local employment.

According to the HKSYU’s opinion survey, transportation is the most important factor with highest percentage of respondents (about 56.7%) considering attractive for them to live in Lantau.

5.3.3.5 Recreation and Tourism

As shown in Section 4.2.3(c)(xiii), (xiv) and (xvii), there were a total of 272 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign. There were generally more supportive comments than opposing comments on following development proposals:  Recreation and outdoor activities (DP13);  Splurge and indulge (DP14); and  Relaxation (DP17).

According to the findings of HKSYU’s opinion survey, the percentage of respondents considered the proposals under DP13 and DP17 attractive were about 56.6% and 60.4% respectively, while that of respondents considered these proposals not attractive were about 20.1% and 18.2%. The above positive results and findings indicated that the public generally agreed with these proposals. On DP14, about 30.6% of respondents considered the proposals attractive while 37.9% of respondents considered not attractive.

Some observations on DP13, DP14 and DP17 are presented below:

Recreation and Outdoor Activities (DP13)

The proposals under DP13 were generally supported by the public. There were 57 comments proposing to build cycle track around Lantau and explore the possibility of expanding the cycle track network. There were 34 comments expressing views on the Shui Hau development proposals. Some of these comments considered that Shui Hau was currently a natural habitat for biodiversity and expressed concerns on the potential environmental impacts arising from the development proposals in Shui Hau.

Splurge and Indulge (DP14)

As presented in Section 4.2.3(c)(xiv), out of the total 47 comments on DP14, 18 comments were supportive, more than seven opposing comments. It is considered that the public might not be familiar with the examples quoted in the PE Digest regarding splurge and indulge, such as MICE tourism, marina and international standard ice rink, while other splurge and indulge facilities quoted in the opinion survey questionnaire, such as shopping, dining and hotel facilities, were generally present in other areas. Therefore some respondents in the opinion survey considered the proposals not attractive.

Relaxation (DP17)

Out of the total 53 comments on DP17, there were 28 supportive comments, which were slightly more than 25 opposing comments. There were some comments expressing reservation towards provision of spa and resort facilities at Soko Islands. They opined that since a marine park had been proposed at Soko Islands as mitigation measure for protecting the habitat of Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs), the proposed spa and resort facilities would induce impacts on the marine park.

5.3.3.6 Culture and Heritage

There were 189 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns on development proposals of culture and heritage (DP16). There were more opposing comments than supportive comments. However, according to the findings of HKSYU’s opinion survey, the percentage of respondents considered the proposals under DP16 attractive were about 69.7%, while that of respondents considered these proposals not attractive were about 10.0%.

There were significant amount of comments objecting to some recreation and tourism proposals for Tai O. There were 58 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (6,338 comments), objecting to the idea of extending cable car from Ngong Ping to Tai O. Some comments opined that the proposed cable car extension would be mainly for tourists, and Tai O residents would unlikely use this because of the expected high fare. They proposed to construct a coastal road from Tai O to Tung Chung instead. Other comments concerned that the proposed cable care extension would destroy natural habitat and landscape, and exacerbate pressure on local community, rather than improving external transport for residents.

There were another 36 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (6,338 comments) concerning the Tai O’s capacity to receive more visitors arising for further tourism development. Some of these comments considered that existing transport facility was far behind the tourist demand. Long queuing time for bus services had seriously restricted Tai O’s tourism and economic development. Some other comments opined that bringing in additional tourists would result in commercialization, which would have adverse impacts on the characteristics of Tai O’s special cultural heritage.

There were 39 comments proposing to remove the Zen Conservation Zone idea from the development plan. These comments did not support the measures to strengthen Zen activities or facilities, due to the concern that these measures would attract visitors for visiting the area as a scenic spot.

5.3.3.7 Catering for the Needs of Rural and Remote Areas on Lantau

On DP20, the comments were mainly on the provision of local facilities such as access footbridge, connecting roads to other villages, sewage treatment facilities, river conservation, and tele‐communication infrastructure, etc to satisfy the needs of local residents.

According to the findings of HKSYU’s opinion survey, after transportation, the top three factors with highest percentage of respondents considering attractive for them to live in Lantau were as follows:

 Low‐carbon living environment (about 46.7%);  Preservation of rural characteristics (about 44.4%); and  Community facilities (about 40.9%).

5.3.4 Other New Development Proposals (NDPs)

Apart from comments received on the 20 development proposals outlined in the PE Digest, there were many different proposals received from the public on Lantau development.

5.3.4.1 Group 1 ‐ DPG‐related NDPs

As shown in Section 4.2.3(d), there were 501 comments from channels other than campaign, and three relevant campaigns (with 5,131 comments), on Group 1 proposals (DPG‐related NDPs). Most of the comments were on NDP1 to NDP3, which were briefly summarized below.

(i) Spatial Planning & Land Use (NDP 1)

There were 157 comments from channels other than campaign and no campaign making suggestions on spatial planning & land use. These suggestions include, but not limited to:  Limiting the flats in South Lantau to small individual houses;  Using the lands in country park area for housing;  Developing Ngong Ping as middle‐class residential and commercial area; and  Developing brownfields or use hillsides, rather than reclamation in Sunny Bay.

(ii) Conservation (NDP 2)

There were 135 comments from channels other than campaign, and a relevant campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), making suggestions on conservation. These suggestions include, but not limited to:  Creating more buffer zones and restricted areas in conservation areas;  Acquiring wetland from private land owners to conserve buffalos;  Creating a database with land status, habitats, topography and ground features, etc. for better environment and ecology planning and management;  Providing a marine education centre at Shui Hau and an archaeological center at Luk Keng Tsuen (鹿頸村考古中心);  Designating offshore water of Tai O and Yi O for conservation; and  Creating a conservation fund.

(iii) Strategic Traffic & Transport Infrastructure (NDP 3)

There were 111 comments from channels other than campaign, and two relevant campaigns (235 comments), making suggestions on strategic traffic & transport infrastructure. These suggestions include, but not limited to:  Providing electric car charging stations;  Encouraging walking and cycling for commuters and residents; and  Providing helipad.

(iv) Others including Recreation & Tourism and Social Development (NDP 4 & NDP 5)

There were 98 comments from channels other than campaign and no campaign making suggestions on recreation and tourism and social development. These suggestions include, but not limited to:  Developing medical tourism; and  Providing casino.

5.3.4.2 Group 2 ‐ Location‐specific NDPs on Community Facilities

There were 265 comments from channels other than campaign, and four relevant campaigns (2,793 comments), on Group 2 proposals (Location‐specific NDPs). Most comments were on NDP7 to NDP10:

(i) Enhancing Tung Chung's community facilities (NDP 7); (ii) Enhancing Tai O's community facilities (NDP 8); and (iii) Enhancing Northern and Southern Mui Wo's community facilities (NDPs 9 and 10).

5.3.4.3 Group 3‐‐ Miscellaneous Ideas / Comments

There were 16 comments received on Group 3 proposals (miscellaneous ideas/ comments), such as providing sufficient support to fishermen, doubt on effectiveness of Lantau Development to achieve one‐hour intercity traffic circle, and avoid developing giant commercial facilities.

5.4 Implementation

As shown in Section 4.2.4, most of the comments received on implementation were on following four topics:

5.4.1 Future Blueprint/Further Studies

There were 179 comments from channels other than campaign, and one relevant campaign organised by five green groups (4,896 comments), on this topic. Major comments included suggestions of conducting more planning studies, such as the environmental carrying capacity or baseline assessment; implementing conservation measures in 2007 Lantau Concept Plan; carrying out study on capacity against population increase; and revising the Lantau’s Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) and strengthening the Development Permission Area (DPA) Plan, with a view to enhancing the Government’s regulatory capability in conserving South Lantau.

5.4.2 Priority

There were 57 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign on this topic. A considerable amount of comments (4,896 comments), from a relevant campaign organised by five green groups, raised concern on implementation priorities among different development proposals. They considered that conservation measures and proposals should be implemented prior to any other development proposals. Some other comments considered that transportation‐led planning was of strategic importance to Lantau Development.

5.4.3 Mechanism: Dedicated Office for Lantau Development/District Liaison Group

There were 16 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign on this topic. Majority of the comments from channels other than campaign, and the campaign (954 comments), supported setting up the dedicated office for Lantau Development or District Liaison Group. They considered that the dedicated office or District Liaison Group can maintain close liaison with the local residents, and would focus on Lantau Development.

5.4.4 Timeline/Timeframe

There were 163 comments from channels other than the two relevant campaigns (191 comments) on this topic, Majority of these comments supported earlier or faster implementation of development proposals. Some comments suggested that

development proposals with consensus or planning studies should commence first to speed up the process.

5.5 Consultation Structure and Process

As shown in Section 4.2.5, most of the comments received on consultation structure and process were on following topics:

5.5.1 LanDAC’s Composition and Operation

There were 50 comments received on LanDAC’s composition and 21 comments received on its operation. Some comments queried on the LanDAC’s composition while a few comments objected/disagreed with the composition. Some comments expressed views on the LanDAC’s openness and transparency in its operation.

5.5.2 Consultation Mechanism and Information

There were 301 comments from channels other than the relevant campaign (18 comments) on this topic. Some comments requested for more planning details, while other comments proposed to arrange more briefings and engagement to consult the public on Lantau Development.

Section III ‐ Conclusion

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION

6.1. Overall Position on Lantau Development

Both the feedbacks collected in the PE activities and findings of the HKSYU’s opinion survey revealed that there is a clear broad support for Lantau Development. Overall, the proposed Lantau Development is generally supported by the public.

6.2. Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles

There were general supports for the planning vision and the four major planning principles proposed for Lantau Development. Although there were few comments on the strategic positioning, they were mostly supportive. The most supported one was SP1 (to make Lantau an international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD).

6.3. Development Proposals

6.3.1 General

There was general support for all the proposal groups except the one on recreation and tourism, probably due to the concerns on potential environmental impacts of the proposals and Lantau’s capacity to receive visitors. The major comments/concerns on individual development proposals are set out in paragraph 6.3.2.

6.3.2 Individual Development Proposals

6.3.2.1 North Lantau Corridor for Economic, Housing and Entertainment Development There were general supports for developing North Lantau corridor for strategic economic and housing development and on North‐eastern Lantau for leisure, entertainment and tourism development. While there was general support for attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities, there were suggestions to develop new education facilities in Lantau.

6.3.2.2 East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) as Long‐term Strategic Growth Area The supportive comments said that the ELM could enhance land supply in the long run to support future development needs of Hong Kong. The ELM could be developed into a long‐term strategic growth area, fostering overall economic growth for Hong Kong; provide land for new transport corridor between the Metro areas and the north‐western part of the territory; and become a portal connecting Hong Kong and the world via the airport and to the PRD via Hong Kong‐Zhuhai‐Macao Bridge, etc.

The concerns and reservations to the ELM proposal were mainly on the need for the ELM, its technical feasibility, and the potential impacts on the environment and traffic/transport facilities. Many sought more information about the ELM proposal. These indicated that there was insufficient technical information provided on the

ELM proposal and that further studies on the proposal should be conducted in order to provide the public with the information they need for casting an informed view.

6.3.2.3 Conservation, Natural Resources and Ecology While there was strong support for conservation and better utilization of nature resources, the public expressed strong desire for sustainable development by balancing conservation and development needs. There were concerns on the lack of clear commitment and concrete proposals towards conservation and the public requested for strengthening land control measures.

6.3.2.4 Traffic and Transport Infrastructure There was general support for the proposed railway system, the strategic road system, the Road P1 at north Lantau and the greater use of water transport. There were new proposals from the locals for additional road links within Lantau. There were also concerns about relaxing driving restriction to the roads in South Lantau that would induce excessive tourism and possible environmental impacts to South Lantau.

6.3.2.5Recreation and Tourism While the recreation and leisure development proposals were generally supported by the public, there were concerns on the capacity of Lantau, particularly Tai O, to receive visitors. Study on the capacity to receive visitors should be conducted. The public expressed general concerns on the environmental impacts of the proposals, for example, they did not support the proposed improvement of accessibility to and provision of viewing deck at Sunset Peak and expressed reservation towards provision of spa and report facilities at Soko Islands, etc. Meanwhile, there were suggestions to further explore the possibility of expanding the cycle track network.

6.3.2.6 Other Aspects The public expressed objection to the proposed cable car extension from Ngong Ping to Tai O before improvement in road connection. Other expressed concerns on the environmental impact of the proposed cable car extension. There was general support for all the proposals on social development.

6.4. Others

6.4.1 Other New Development Proposals (NDPs) There were some suggestions for more community facilities in Tung Chung, Tai O, Mui Wo and south Lantau satisfying the needs of local residents.

6.4.2 Implementation There were suggestions on conducting more planning studies and giving higher priority to conservation proposals. Some other comments considered that transportation‐led planning was of strategic importance to Lantau Development. The public also generally requested for faster implementation and closer liaison/coordination mechanism.

6.4.3 Consultation Structure and Process The public generally requested for more planning details, more briefings and consultation on Lantau Development.

# # #

Appendices

Appendix A: Digest for Public Engagement

Appendix A 大嶼山發展公眾參與摘要 Lantau Development Public Engagement Digest 二零一六年一月 January 2016

全民新空間 SPACE FOR ALL

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會發展局 Lantau Development Advisory Committee Development Bureau 平衡並加強發展和保育，使大嶼山成為一個宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學的智慧型、低碳社區

Balancing and enhancing development and conservation, with a view to developing Lantau into a smart and low-carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study 目錄 Content 蛻變中的大嶼山 01 Lantau in Evolution

願景、策略性定位和規劃原則 03 Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles

主要建議 08 Major Proposals

展望未來 19 Looking Ahead

公眾參與活動 20 Public Engagement Activities

您的意見 21 Your Views 蛻變中的大嶼山 Lantau in Evolution

大嶼山是香港最大的島嶼，佔地147平方公里，歷史悠久。二十世紀前，大嶼山居民主要從事漁業、農業及鹽業，渡輪是他們對外的主要交通工具。

在九十年代新機場核心計劃將機場遷往赤鱲角，改善了大嶼山的交通運輸系統，也成就了東涌新市鎮的發展，並推動昂坪360纜車系統、昂坪市集及迪士尼樂園等發展。今日的大嶼山是經過蛻變的多面體，它的郊野公園面積廣闊，亦保存著寺廟禪林的特色，新市鎮則為香港人提供安居樂業之所。

與此同時，珠江三角洲一帶的經濟發展正急劇變化，而香港與珠江三角洲其他城市的連繫也日漸緊密。當港珠澳大橋及屯門至赤鱲角連接路落成通車，大嶼山的「城際一小時交通圈」，北面涵蓋深圳前海，西至澳門、珠海，屆時，大嶼山將會是可直達全球經濟發展最快地區之一的珠三角中心的重要門戶。

Lantau, with a land mass of 147 square kilometres, is the largest island in Hong Kong with a long history. Before the 20th century, Lantau residents were mainly engaged in fishery, farming and salt-panning industries and relied mainly on ferry for transport connection with the external.

The Airport Core Programme relocating the airport to Chek Lap Kok in the 1990s greatly improved Lantau’s transportation system, fostered the development of Tung Chung New Town, Ngong Ping 360 Cable Car System, Ngong Ping Village, Hong Kong Disneyland, etc. Today’s Lantau has evolved into a place of diversity – with extensive country parks, well-preserved religious characteristics, and a new town providing Hong Kong people with a good place to live and work.

Meanwhile, the economic development of the Pearl River Delta (PRD) Region has been undergoing drastic change, and the connection between Hong Kong and other cities in the PRD is getting closer. When the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link (TM-CLKL) are commissioned, Lantau’s “One-hour Intercity Traffic Circle” will cover Qianhai, Shenzhen in the north, and Macao and Zhuhai to the west. Lantau will become an important gateway to the PRD, one of the fastest growing economic regions in the world.

1 香港特別行政區政府成立了大嶼山發展諮詢委員會(委員會)，就大嶼山的規劃、重要基建帶來的機遇及大嶼山的可持續發展和保育等方面向政府提供意見，冀望能夠充分發揮大嶼山的地利優勢，把握發展良機，以促進香港社會及經濟的長遠發展。

本摘要節錄了委員會對大嶼山發展的主要建議，歡迎大家提供寶貴意見。

城際一小時交通圈 The HKSAR Government established the Lantau One-hour Intercity Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) to One-hour Intercity advise on opportunities brought by the planning and Traffic Circle major infrastructure in Lantau and on various aspects of sustainable development and conservation of the island, with a view to fully capitalising on its locational advantages and seizing development opportunities to foster the long-term socio-economic development of Hong Kong.

This digest highlights the major proposals of LanDAC on Lantau development. Your precious views are most welcomed.

2 願景、策略性定位和規劃原則 Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles

願景 Vision

綜合大嶼山目前及預計的各項發展、周邊地區的情況和變化，以及香港社會的需要和期望，委員會確立了大嶼山發展的規劃願景為平衡並加強發展和保育，使大嶼山成為一個宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學的智慧型、低碳社區；在提升自然、文化和文物資源保育的同時，為香港在土地及房屋供應、經濟商貿、休閒、康樂及旅遊發展方面帶來新機遇，造福市民。

Taking into account Lantau’s existing and planned developments, the situation and changes in the surrounding areas, as well as the needs and expectations of Hong Kong society, LanDAC established the planning vision for Lantau development as balancing and enhancing development and conservation, with a view to developing Lantau into a smart and low-carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study. This will benefit Hong Kong people by providing new opportunities associated with land and housing supply, economic development, commerce and trade, leisure, recreation and tourism, and at the same time enhancing the conservation of our natural, cultural and heritage resources.

3 策略性定位 Strategic Positioning

委員會為大嶼山發展確認了四項策略性定位：

LanDAC has formulated four strategic positioning for Lantau development: 大珠三角國際運輸、物流及貿易樞紐 An international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD Region

自然及大珠三角地區和亞洲的服務核心區文化資產寶藏 A service hub of A treasure of the Greater PRD natural and Region and Asia cultural assets

策略性增長地區及新的大都會 A strategic growth area with a new metropolis

4 主要規劃原則 Major Planning Principles

委會員並同意下列四項主要規劃原則： LanDAC has agreed the following four major planning principles:

經濟與民生 Economy and Livelihood dge to T 建議考慮三個發展概念： Bri om A or Three development concepts are proposed: 橋 ro 之 w 日明

latfor ew P m fo A N r t he 台 P 平 il la 新 r s 業

產 y t i 柱 n

支 u m m 蓬 o 將大嶼山發展成為一個展示香港勃 C 及世界創新的平台，並提升成為社 ing 區 A Thriv 一個智慧島/創新的樞紐。

To develop Lantau into a platform 聚焦現有及未來新遷入人口的 to showcase the innovations of 需求，提供就業機會、合適的 Hong Kong and the world, and to 將大嶼山發展成為支援香港現有四大房屋，將大嶼山發展為宜居、 elevate Lantau into a smart island/ 支柱產業(即金融服務、旅遊、貿易及宜業、宜商、宜樂、宜學的活力 innovative hub. 物流和專業及工商業支援服務)經濟社區。樞紐的發展新平台，創造職位。 To focus on the needs of Lantau’s To develop Lantau into a new platform of existing and future population by economic hub that can support the four providing job opportunities and major pillar industries of Hong Kong (i.e. suitable housing developments, financial services, tourism, trade and which will develop the island into a logistics industries, as well as support vibrant community for living, work, services for professional, industrial and business, leisure and study. commercial sectors), which can create employment opportunities.

5 自然及文物保育 Nature and Heritage Conservation

建議加強保護具保育價值的地點，包括自然生態及古蹟文物，盡量避免在這些地點及周邊作大型發展；惟在符合可持續發展及生物多樣性的目標下，應善用這些寶貴資源，包括發揮其教育、康樂及綠色旅遊的潛力，亦可透過串連合適的地點，方便市民及遊人欣賞及享用。

It is proposed to strengthen preservation of sites of conservation value, including sites with nature ecology, monuments and antiques. Major developments at these sites and their surrounding areas should be avoided wherever possible. However, under the principles of sustainable development and biodiversity, these valuable resources should be suitably utilised for releasing their potential for education, recreation and green tourism. The suitable sites should be connected to facilitate visits and enjoyment of the locals and tourists.

康樂及旅遊 Recreation and Tourism

大嶼山有龐大的資源作康樂及旅遊用途，可配合香港市民和旅客對休閒、娛樂的熱切需求，因此建議發展提供多點及多元化的康樂及旅遊設施，以塑造大嶼山為多采多姿的康樂及旅遊目的地。

Lantau possesses rich assets for recreation and tourism purposes, which can meet the ever-increasing needs of Hong Kong people and tourists for leisure and entertainment. Therefore, it is suggested to develop diversified multi-modal recreation and tourism facilities to shape Lantau into a kaleidoscopic recreation and tourism destination.

交通運輸 Traffic and Transport

完善的交通運輸基建網絡及落實安排，是推動大嶼山發展的關鍵環節。建議在推動各項建設時，須以交通運輸先行作為重要考慮。

Timely planning and implementation of a comprehensive traffic and transport infrastructure network are the key components for taking forward Lantau development. It is proposed that traffic and transport should be the priority consideration for the implementation of various developments.

6 東北大嶼山匯點北大嶼山走廊 North-eastern Lantau Node North Lantau Corridor

東大嶼都會 East Lantau 善用政府 Metropolis 土地及開發岩洞 (ELM) 大嶼山 Optimising the 大部分地區 use of Government Predominant land and developing part of Lantau cavern

圖例 Legend

東大嶼都會初步概念 ELM Preliminary Concept

空間規劃及土地利用現有/擬議的海岸公園 7 Spatial Planning and Land Use Existing/Proposed Marine Parks 主要建議 Major Proposals

委員會經過詳細討論，綜合作出五大組的主要建議：

After thorough discussion, LanDAC put forward five groups of major proposals:

組別一：空間規劃及土地利用 2. 東北大嶼匯點發展休閒、娛樂及旅遊 North-eastern Lantau Node for Leisure, Group 1: Spatial Planning Entertainment and Tourism Development and Land Use 建議將欣澳填海及香港迪士尼樂園的發展結合，令東北大嶼發展成為休閒、娛樂及旅遊匯點，締造東北大嶼旅遊大門。 1. 北大嶼山走廊集中發展策略性經濟及房屋透過填海，欣澳可設立新的旅遊景點、主題酒店、康樂、 North Lantau Corridor for Strategic 休閒、體育、餐飲零售及娛樂設施，同時配合發展多種不同 Economic and Housing Development 的休閒/康樂活動、遊艇碼頭及停泊處和相關的配套設施，建議北大嶼山走廊主要作經濟及房屋發展，主要項目以及與旅遊業有關的培訓設施。欣澳亦適宜發展以體驗未來包括已計劃的機場三跑道系統、亞洲國際博覽館擴展、為主題的景點及零售、餐飲娛樂設施。機場島北商業區、港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島上蓋 It is suggested to integrate the Sunny Bay Reclamation 發展、東涌新市鎮擴展及小蠔灣發展。 with the development of Hong Kong Disneyland to make North Lantau Corridor is proposed mainly for economic north-eastern Lantau development a converging point for and housing development. Key projects include the planned leisure, entertainment and tourism, which is to be known as the Three Runway System (3RS) of the Hong Kong International “North-eastern Lantau Tourism Gateway”. Through reclamation, Airport (HKIA), expansion of AsiaWorld-Expo, North Sunny Bay could establish new tourist attractions, themed Commercial District (NCD) on the airport island, topside hotels, recreation, leisure, sports and RDE (retail, dining and development at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities entertainment) facilities, as well as various leisure/ (HKBCF) Island of HZMB, Tung Chung New Town Extension recreation activities, marina and supporting and Siu Ho Wan Development. facilities, and tourism-related training facilities. Sunny Bay is also suitable for developing attractions and RDE facilities with “experiencing the future” as the development theme.

8 香港島 Hong Kong Island

3. 東大嶼都會作長遠策略性增長區交椅洲

East Lantau Metropolis as Long-Term Kau Yi Chau Strategic Growth Area

研究發展東大嶼都會成為香港第三個核心商業區(CBD3)及可容納40 小交椅洲至70萬人口的長遠策略性增長區。根據初步概念，交椅洲一帶水域可 Siu Kau Yi Chau 發展人工島，定位為智慧低碳新發展區，並設新的核心商業區；在喜靈洲現時使用率較低的避風塘及其周邊水域適度填海，發展近水休閒生活區，及發展地區性的零售及社區設施；以及善用梅窩現時的荒廢農地、魚塘及土地利用效率低的地方，促進城鄉共融，加強康樂旅遊元素，發展其旅遊潛力。

Development of the ELM as the Hong Kong’s third Central 4. 大嶼山大部分地區作保育、休閒、 Business District (CBD3) and a long-term strategic growth 文化及綠色旅遊 area to accommodate a population of about 400 000 to Predominant Part of Lantau for Conservation, 700 000 is to be studied. According to the initial concepts, the waters around Kau Yi Chau could be developed into Leisure, Cultural and Green Tourism artificial islands positioned as a smart, low-carbon new development area (NDA) with a new core business district; 建議大嶼山大部分地區用作保育、休閒、文化及綠色 the existing under-utilised typhoon shelter of Hei Ling Chau 旅遊，並加强保護具保育價值的地點與串連，盡量避免 and its surrounding waters can be suitably reclaimed 在此等地點或其周邊作大型發展。在符合可持續發展的 to develop a “near-water” leisure living zone with local 原則下，善用現有資源，包括適度發展自然環境教育、 commercial and community facilities; and optimising the use of abandoned agricultural land, fish ponds and 康樂及綠色旅遊的潛力，以及推廣生態文化旅遊和 under-utilised land currently in Mui Wo to promote urban 教育。 and rural integration, enhance the recreational tourism elements and develop its tourism potential. It is suggested that the predominant part of Lantau be used for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism with emphasis on protecting sites of conservation value and enhancing their linkages, as well as avoiding large-scale developments in the vicinity of these areas as far as possible. Under the principle of sustainable development, it is necessary to optimise the use of the existing resources, which includes suitable development of the potential for environmental education, recreation and green tourism, as well as promotion of ecological and cultural tourism and education.

9 5. 善用政府土地及開發岩洞 Optimising the Use of Government Land and Development of Cavern

初步構思建議探討將喜靈洲及大嶼山部分的懲教設施整合及重置的可行性，及考慮在小蠔灣及梅窩附近的山嶺發展岩洞開拓空間，遷置一些政府設施至岩洞，以釋放部分土地作住宅、康樂或其他用途，減低開發新土地的壓力。

The initial concept is to investigate the feasibility of consolidating and relocating some correctional facilities at Hei Ling Chau and Lantau Island, and to consider cavern development at the hillside near Siu Ho Wan and Mui Wo to increase usable space for housing Government facilities so as to release land for residential, recreational or other uses, and thus relieve the pressure for developing new land.

10 組別二：保育 Group 2: Conservation

為平衡保育及發展的需要，建議保育概念循加強保育和善用自然資源兩大方向推展。

To strike a balance between the needs for conservation and development, it is suggested to take forward the conservation concepts in two major directions: enhancement of conservation and better utilisation of natural resources.

6. 加強保育 Enhancement of Conservation

文物保育 – 建議加強自然生態及古蹟文物，盡量景觀保育 – 建議保留具地方特色和獨有景觀，例如大澳避免在這些地點及周邊作大型發展，並串連有文物價值漁村、貝澳、長沙、天壇大佛、機場、昂坪360及興建中的地點，例如闢設以歷史文物為主題的郊遊徑、設立特定港珠澳大橋。新發展及城市設計須充分顧及個別地區的獨有走線及提供遊人設施，以吸引遊人；與具有獨特風貌的特色，及在具特色的地點設置觀景廊。鄉村互相融合，在保留傳統鄉村風貌的同時，亦可推廣文化旅遊及教育。 Landscape Conservation - Areas with local characteristics and distinctive landscape setting, such as Tai O fishing village, Heritage Conservation - It is proposed to strengthen Pui O, Cheung Sha, Tian Tan Buddha Statue, the airport, preservation of sites of conservation value. Major Ngong Ping 360 and HZMB under construction, are suggested developments of these sites and their surrounding areas to be preserved. New developments and urban design shall should be avoided wherever possible. The linkage of the take full account of the unique features of individual areas and heritage sites is suggested to be strengthened to attract provide view corridors at distinctive locations. visitors, for instance, by providing heritage themed country trails or establishing specific routes and amenities for visitors. Also, villages with unique rural characteristics could be integrated to allow for their conservation while promoting cultural tourism and education.

11 海岸公園 - 把構思中在大嶼山以北及以南的水域的海岸公園與現有的沙洲及龍鼓洲海岸公園串連，連成一個具規模的海岸公園網絡，提高海洋生態環境，同時，建議研究發展適當的水上活動及利用海岸公園作教育用途的活動。

Marine Parks - The proposed marine parks in the northern and southern waters off Lantau could be connected with the existing Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Parks to form a marine park network of considerable scale, thus enhancing marine ecology. At the same time, it is suggested to study the development of appropriate water activities and utilisation of marine parks for educational activities.

在加強保育的同時，亦可考慮適度推廣生態、文化旅遊及教育。建議可透過「點、線、面」的方法，把大澳至東涌之間具文化歷史與自然保育價值的景點連繫起來。大嶼山的鹿湖羗山規劃為「禪林保育區」，彰顯保育佛教禪林文化的氛圍。大嶼南一帶則為「生態保育、康樂及綠色旅遊帶」，串連南大嶼海岸的康樂 7. 善用自然資源旅遊景點，使南大嶼推廣為宜樂宜遊的目的地。此外，亦建議 Better Utilisation of Natural Resources 善用在耕或休耕農地，推廣休閒農耕。郊野公園 - 建議增加郊野公園的吸引力，例如改善及增設 While strengthening conservation, due consideration should be 行山徑、園地及營地設施，以加強大嶼山郊野公園的康樂 given to the promotion of ecological and cultural tourism as well 及教育價值。 as education. It is recommended to link up the places of cultural, historic and nature conservation value between Tai O and Country Parks - It is recommended to increase the Tung Chung through the “point-line-plane” approach. Luk Wu attractiveness of country parks, such as improving and and Keung Shan are to be developed into a religious conservation setting up new country trails, park facilities and campsites zone to manifest the cultural value of Zen forest. The area to enhance the recreation and educational values of the surrounding south Lantau will become an “eco-conservation, parks. recreation and green tourism belt” by linking up the recreation and tourism spots along its southern coastline and promoting south Lantau as a destination desirable for recreation and green tourism. In addition, both active and fallow agricultural land should be better utilised to encourage hobby farming.

12 組別三：策略性交通運輸基建 Group 3: Strategic Traffic and Transport Infrastructure

8. 鐵路系統 Railway System 建議以鐵路系統為骨幹，連接大嶼山主要的 It is recommended to use railway as the backbone to connect Lantau’s 增長區(包括北大嶼及東大嶼都會)、港島西、 major growth areas (including northern Lantau and ELM) with west Hong Kong Island, west Kowloon and Northwest New Territories 九龍西及新界西北，接駁現有及未來的鐵路系統， (NWNT), and connect it to the existing and future railway systems thus 以加強新界西北－大嶼山－都會區的連接性。 strengthening the connectivity of NWNT-Lantau-Metro area.

短、中期的鐵路計劃研究包括東涌西延線 Short- to medium-term railway planning studies include the Tung Chung West Extension (including Tung Chung West Station) and (包括東涌西站)和東涌東站、香港口岸人工島與 Tung Chung East Station; traffic connectivity among the HKBCF Island, 機場島北商業區和大嶼山北岸的交通連接，以 NCD, and the northern shores of Lantau; as well as a new station at 及研究於小蠔灣增設鐵路站，以配合小蠔灣 Siu Ho Wan to tie in with the Siu Ho Wan reclamation, topside 填海、港鐵車廠上蓋及周邊發展。 development at Siu Ho Wan MTRCL Depot and development at its surrounding area.

新界 New Territories A 九龍青衣 Kowloon D Tsing Yi B

在欣澳可能存在的碼頭 Possible pier facilities at Sunny Bay F P1道路 Road P1

HKSAR Boundary C G

香港特別行政區界線

港珠澳大橋及香港接線 Hong Kong Link Road of HZMB

Tung Chung Road 香港島東涌道 Hong Kong Island 大嶼山 H Lantau Island

嶼南道

South Lantau Road

E 策略性交通運輸基建概念 Strategic Traffic and Transport 13 Infrastructure Concept 9. 策略性道路系統 Strategic Road System 11. 其他道路安排及交通運輸設施建議透過策略性的道路系統，將大嶼山北岸及東大嶼都會與 Other Road Arrangement and Traffic and 香港市區及新界的策略性道路網絡連繫，東接香港島西， Transport Facilities 北接大嶼東北，並進一步研究透過新道路，連接新界西北。大嶼山內部的道路系統及交通運輸設施亦需要改善此外，東大嶼都會可經梅窩連接至大嶼山北岸，並接駁至加強，以配合及促進島上的各項需求及發展，例如改善其他地點，形成一條貫通新界西北－大嶼山－都會區的主要道路如嶼南道和羗山道、研究進一步開放大嶼山的環型道路走廊；再通過港珠澳大橋、屯門至赤鱲角連接路、封閉道路和發放許可證的安排、增加區內停車位及有關港深西部公路及深圳灣公路大橋連接深圳及珠三角地區，設施、及增發大嶼山的士牌照等。以至廣東西部，促進人流、物流及經濟活動。 Lantau’s internal road arrangements and traffic and It is recommended to link north Lantau and the ELM with transport facilities have to be enhanced to meet the the road networks in the urban areas of Hong Kong and the demand and facilitate the development on the island, New Territories via a strategic road network such that the ELM such as improving the major roads like South Lantau will be connected to the west Hong Kong Island at the east and Road and Keung Shan Road, studying further relaxation north-eastern Lantau at the north. Further linkage with NWNT of the closed roads in Lantau and the arrangements of through a new road connection is subject to further study. issuing closed road permits, increasing parking spaces and Besides, the ELM can be connected to the northern shore of facilities within the district, as well as increasing Lantau via Mui Wo, and further on to other destinations forming a the number of Lantau taxi licenses, etc. ring-shaped road corridor linking the NWNT-Lantau-Metro area, which can further connect with Shenzhen, the PRD 1 2 . 水上交通 Region and western Guangdong through the HZMB, TM-CLKL, Kong Sham Western Highway and Shenzhen Bay Bridge, Water Transport facilitating the flow of people, as well as logistics and economic 建議在合適的地點加設碼頭設施 activities. 及/或遊艇停泊處，並連成網絡，輔助陸路交通，疏導假日繁忙的 10. 大嶼山北岸幹道 North Lantau Corridor 交通；此外，亦為大嶼山的居民及旅客隨著北大嶼各發展區的落成，有需要研究興建P1路，加強提供相對休閒的另類交通選擇。大嶼山北岸的主幹道連繫。 It is recommended to provide pier facilities and/or With the completion of various developments in north Lantau, marinas at appropriate locations to create a network there is a need to study the implementation of Road P1 to that can complement land-based transport, thus strengthen the connectivity of trunk roads along the northern diverting heavy road traffic during holidays. Moreover, shore of Lantau. water transport could also provide an alternative leisure transport mode for Lantau residents and tourists.

圖例 Legend 建議探討的鐵路走廊 A. 北大嶼山和屯門之間的可能鐵路連接 Possible Rail Link between North Lantau and Tuen Mun Possible Rail Corridor for Further Examination B. 香港口岸人工島和機場島北商業區之間的可能交通接駁 Possible Transport Connection between Hong Kong Boundary 建議探討的公路走廊 Crossing Facilities Island and North Commercial District on Airport Island Proposed Road Corridor for Further Examination C. 香港口岸人工島和北大嶼山之間的可能鐵路連接 Possible Rail Link between Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island and North Lantau 建議探討的海上交通 D. 屯門至赤鱲角連接路 Tuen Mun – Chek Lap Kok Link Possible Marine Traffic for Further Examination E. 梅窩和北大嶼山之間的可能鐵路/公路連接 Possible Rail/Road Links between Mui Wo and North Lantau 東大嶼都會的初步概念現有的碼頭 F. 經大嶼山東北部連接東大嶼都會及新界西北的可能公路連接 Possible Road between East Lantau Metropolis and ELM Preliminary Concept Existing Pier Facilities Northwest New Territories via Northeast Lantau G. 東大嶼都會和西九龍之間的可能鐵路連接 Possible Rail Link between East Lantau Metropolis and Kowloon West 郊野公園可能的碼頭 14 H. 東大嶼都會和港島西之間的可能鐵路/公路連接 Possible Rail/Road Links between East Lantau Metropolis and Hong Country Park Possible Pier Facilities Kong Island West 組別四：康樂及旅遊 Group 4: Recreation and Tourism

建議塑造大嶼山為「多采多姿的康樂及旅遊目的地」。 It is suggested to shape Lantau into “a kaleidoscopic recreation and 建議的規劃大綱會按五個康樂及旅遊主題將大嶼山 tourism destination”. The proposed planning framework comprises 規劃為14個康樂及旅遊地點，各地點初步的康樂及 five themes and 14 recreation and tourism areas. Initial recreation and tourism proposals on individual areas are listed in the table below. 旅遊建議列於下表。並建議在康樂及旅遊地點之間 It is also recommended to provide experiential transport connections 提供體驗性的交通連結安排，包括水上連結(如水上 between the recreation and tourism areas, which include water-based 的士)、空中連結(如纜車、索道(Funicular Railways)等)、 connectivity (water taxis), above-ground connectivity (cable cars, 陸上連結(如單車徑、環島觀光巴士等)。 funicular railways, etc.) and land-based connectivity (cycle tracks, round the island sightseeing shuttles, etc.).

屯門至赤鱲角連接路 TUEN MUN - CHEK LAP KOK LINK 品味與享樂 SPLURGE 欣澳 AND INDULGE Sunny Bay

機場島北商業區生態香港口岸人工島 ECOLOGY North Commercial 康樂與 District on Hong Kong 小蠔灣 Boundary Crossing Airport Island Siu Ho Wan 野外活動 Facilities Island 香港迪士尼樂園 RECREATION AND Hong Kong OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES Disneyland

大蠔灣 Tai Ho Wan 東薈城 Citygate

東涌谷文化與歷史 Tung Chung Valley 康樂與 CULTURE 梅窩 AND HERITAGE 大東山野外活動 Sunset Peak Mui Wo RECREATION AND 文化與歷史 OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES CULTURE 生態 AND HERITAGE 昂坪 ECOLOGY 大澳 Ngong Ping Tai O 鹿湖、羗山康樂與 Luk Wu, Keung Shan 野外活動貝澳 RECREATION AND Pui O OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES 芝麻灣 Chi Ma 生態長沙 Wan 二澳 ECOLOGY Cheung Yi O Sha 水口 Shui Hau 悠閒 RELAXATION 康樂與野外活動 RECREATION AND 分流 OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES Fun Lau

文化與歷史 CULTURE AND HERITAGE 康樂及旅遊規劃大綱悠閒 Planning Framework 索罟群島 RELAXATION Soko Islands for Recreation and Tourism

15 15.生態 13.康樂與野外活動 Ecology Recreation and 大/小蠔灣 Tai / Siu Ho Wan Outdoor Activities • 創新的生態旅遊熱點，如地標式植物園 • 生態旅遊中心欣澳 Sunny Bay • 生態靜修 • Creative Ecotourism Hotspot, • 主題式休閒及娛樂區 ©Arup • 角色扮演的職業教育場館 e.g. Iconic Botanic Garden • Eco-tour Centre • 青少年室內探險樂園，如室內滑梅窩 Mui Wo • Eco Retreat 大東山 Sunset Peak 浪場、4D電影院、室內跳傘iFly • 戶外探險樂園，如空中飛人 • 觀景、觀星設施 • 遊艇停泊處滑翔之旅、山坡滑梯、漆彈二澳 Yi O • 露營場地 • Thematic Leisure and 射擊 • 農場體驗，如收割、農田野餐 • Viewing and stargazing Entertainment Area • 水上樂園，如Wibit、衝浪板 • Related Agricultural Activities – Facilities • Role-Playing and Occupation • 大嶼山歷史博物館 Harvest Walk and Farm-to-Table Eatery • Campsite Education Park • 賽格威 • Indoor Adventure Park for the • Outdoor Adventure Park, Youth, e.g. Indoor Surfing/ e.g. Zipline,Hillside Slides, Wave Pool, 4D Theatre, iFly Paintball/War Game Indoor Skydiving • Aqua Park, e.g. Wibit, 16. 文化與歷史 Culture and Heritage • Marina Flyboarding • Lantau History Museum 大澳 Tai O 貝澳/芝麻灣 Pui O/Chi Ma Wan • Segway • 動態靈修活動(武術、太極中心) • 水上活動中心，如滑浪風帆、 • 鄉郊生活體驗、民宿獨木舟 • 觀賞日落與景色的露天劇場 • 滑翔傘水口 Shui Hau • 昂坪纜車延伸至大澳 • 極限運動場地，如攀石、滑板 • 滑翔傘 • Active Contemplative Practice 運動場 • 動物農莊 (Wushu Retreat, Tai Chi Centre) • 水上樂園，如Wibit • 探索露營地點 • Experiential Village Life Attraction, • Water Sports Centre, • 單車與登山徑網絡的延伸 Guesthouse (Minsu) 東涌谷 Tung Chung Valley e.g. Windsurfing, Canoeing • Paragliding • Open Air Repertory Theatre for • 河岸暨生物多樣化公園 • Paragliding • Animal Farm Sunset/Scenic View • 東涌自然歷史步行區 • Extreme Sports, e.g. Rock • Exploration Campsite • Cable Car Extension from • River cum Biodiversity Park Climbing, Skate Park • Extension of Biking and Ngong Ping to Tai O • Tung Chung Historic • Aqua Park, e.g. Wibit Hiking Trail Networks Walking District 禪林保育區 Zen Conservation Zone • 鹿湖羗山禪林之旅分流 Fan Lau • 禪修班或心靈靜修活動 • 探索露營地點/外展活動 • 禪修冥想與住宿設施 • 行山徑 14.品味與享樂 • Luk Wu, Keung Shan Zen Tour • Exploration Campsite/ Splurge and Indulge • Zen Class or Retreat Course Outward Bound • Zen Meditation and Accommodation • Hiking Trails 航空城 • 購物、餐飲與酒店設施 • 會議旅遊(MICE)設施 • 遊艇停泊處 • 國際級的溜冰場 17.悠閒 Relaxation

Aerotropolis 長沙 Cheung Sha 索罟群島 Soko Islands • Shopping, Dining and Hotel Facilities • 水療及休閒度假村 • 水療及休閒度假村 • MICE Tourism • 婚禮中心 • 極限運動，如攀石 • Marina • Spa and Resort • Spa and Resort • International Standard Ice Rink • Wedding Centre • Extreme Sports, e.g. Rock Climbing 16 組別五：社會發展 Group 5: Social Development 委員會綜合大嶼山目前及未來的概況，建議三項社會發展策略：

Having considered the current and future situation of Lantau, LanDAC proposed three social development strategies:

18. 吸引人才配合均衡就業機會 Attracting Talent to Match Balanced Employment Opportunities

建議改善現有社區設施及優化新設施的設計，營造現代化低碳優質及智慧城市概念的生活及工作環境，增加社區的吸引力，以吸引人才。

此外，建議增加不同類型的教育服務，以吸引有子女的家庭到大嶼山居住及原區就業，而子女亦可原區上學。這建議將有助豐富大嶼山居住人口的組合，配合將來各項新增職位的需求，同時有助地區經濟發展。亦建議在區內設立與大嶼山有緊密關係的培訓中心或教育設施，提供如飛機服務工程、旅遊業等專上教育課程。此外，需要特別注意提供支援年青人及幼童的服務，以配合大嶼山預計較年輕的人口組合。

It is suggested to enhance the existing community facilities and improve the design of new community facilities to create a living and working environment of low-carbon, high-quality and modern smart city concept to increase the community appeal to attract talent.

In addition, it is suggested to diversify education services to attract families with children to live and work in Lantau and their children can attend local schools. This would help enrich the demographic composition of Lantau, match the needs of future jobs and facilitate development of the local economy. Also, training centres or educational facilities having close connections with Lantau, which may offer tertiary education programmes in aircraft services engineering and tourism, should be developed. Moreover, particular attention should be drawn to the provision of youth and children services to match with the expected younger population mix at Lantau.

17 20.顧及大嶼山鄉郊及偏遠地區需要 Catering for the Needs of Rural and Remote Areas in Lantau

委員會建議在實際可行及符合成本效益的情況下，應逐步把公共污水收集系統及供水系統延伸到現時未能覆蓋的偏遠地區，以改善居住環境。委員會亦建議特別留意保存鄉郊特色和保護生態環境，並加強協調鄉村及鄉事委員會與政府部門之間的溝通，以適切處理大嶼山鄉村居民的需要。 19. 提供適當的區內外交通，切合未來發展需要 Providing Suitable Internal and External To improve the living environment of residents, LanDAC Transport Connections to Meet the Needs of recommended extending the public sewerage and Future Development water supply systems to the remote areas wherever practical and cost-effective. LanDAC also considered that 當屯門至赤鱲角連接路通車後，預料將方便更多新界 due consideration should be made to preserve the rural characteristics and to protect the ecological environment. 西北部的居民到機場或東涌就業。委員會認為須持續 Moreover, the coordination of communication between 監察按需求改善大嶼山的整體公共交通服務，及適時 villages, rural committees and Government departments 要求公共交通營辦商增加服務，以便利市民往返大嶼山。 should be enhanced to address villagers’ needs in an appropriate manner. 委員會建議研究在南大嶼增設停車位和增發大嶼山的士牌照。這些措施除可吸引巿民及遊人到大嶼山遊玩，亦會便利居於大嶼山居民的島內運輸。

The commissioning of the TM-CLKL is anticipated to facilitate more residents from the NWNT to work at the airport or in Tung Chung. LanDAC considered that there is a need to continuously monitor the improvement of the overall public transport services of Lantau and the demand, and make timely request to operators of public transport to increase services to facilitate travel to and from Lantau.

LanDAC suggested increasing parking spaces in south Lantau, as well as issuing more Lantau taxi licences. These measures would not only attract the locals and tourists to visit Lantau, but also make it convenient for internal transportation for the residents of Lantau. 18 展望未來發展概略時間表 Broad Timetable for Development

Looking Ahead 委員會期望於2016年下半年綜合更新及完備資料，推出新的大嶼山發展藍圖。長期在獲市民支持的大前提下，綜合全港發展中期短期 Long-Term Medium-Term Short-Term 需要，進一步研究各項建議的可行性後，東大嶼都會東涌新市鎮擴展 East Lantau Metropolis 訂定長遠發展的概略時間表，如圖示。東涌新市鎮內的發展 Tung Chung New Town Extension

發展項目 Developments within Tung Chung New Town 小蠔灣車廠、填海及周邊發展 Siu Ho Wan Depot, Reclamation and 機場島北商業區 Surrounding Development LanDAC expects to publish a new Blueprint North Commercial District on Airport Island 欣澳填海

Sunny Bay Reclamation for Lantau Development after consolidating Development Project(s) 香港口岸人工島及上蓋發展 Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities 迪士尼主題樂園二期擴展 and updating a complete set of information Island and Its Topside Development Hong Kong Disneyland Phase 2 Development 香港國際機場三跑道系統 in the second half of 2016. With public’s HKIA Three-Runway System 亞洲國際博覽館未來的擴展 support, the feasibility of the various Future Expansion of AsiaWorld-Expo 整合懲教設施後的土地發展 proposals will be further studied in the Land Development after Consolidation of Correctional Facilities context of the overall development needs of 其他主要旅遊康樂設施 Other Major Tourism and Recreation Facilities Hong Kong, with an aim to setting out a broad

P1路# 貫通新界西北-大嶼山 - timetable for the long-term development of #

港珠澳大橋 Road P1 都會區的鐵路/公路走廊*^ Transport Infrastructure concept Lantau (see figure for reference). Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge 東涌西延線(包括東涌西站) Rail/Road Corridor Linking Northwest New Territories - Lantau-Metro Area *^ 屯門 - 赤鱲角連接路 Tung Chung Line West Extension (Including Tung Chung West Station)

Associated Traffic and Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link * 屯門 - 赤鱲角連接路已在興建中

^ 當中部分連接或有機會可提早在中期出現以配套交通基建概念東涌線增設新車站以配合# 短期改善措施北大嶼的發展項目配合北大嶼的發展項目 Short-Term Improvement Measures New Station(s) along Tung Chung Line *Tuen Mun - Chek Lap Kok Link already supporting development in north Lantau under construction ^Some part of the connections may be 700,000 - #在北大嶼的相關發展項目中研究 available in medium term to support #To be explored under respective development in north Lantau 1,000,000 development studies 338,000 470,000

160,000 270,000 110,000 總人口 Total Population 138,000 （2030以後）總就業機會 94,000 長期的可能性 Total Employment Opportunities 中期（約15年以內） Long-Term Possibility 短期（約5年以內） Medium-Term (After 2030) Short-Term (Within about 15 Years) 假設項目全部推展的預計 (Within about 5 Years) 總人口及總就業機會 Estimated Total Population and Total Employment （顯示項目最早出現的可能時間） Opportunities based on the assumption that all projects (Indicate the earliest possible emergence of various projects) will be carried out. 短期工作 Short-term Work

政府有關部門經已大力推行一系列速效項目， Relevant Government departments have been actively implementing 以在短期內提升大嶼山地區的經濟及令市民 a series of quick-win projects to boost the Lantau economy and share 早日分享發展成果。有關的短期改善包括推展 the fruits of development with the public at an early stage. These short-term improvement measures include the improvement works in 梅窩，大澳及馬灣涌村改善工程、越野單車徑 Mui Wo, Tai O and Ma Wan Chung Village, development of the Mountain 網絡發展、改善羗山道和嶼南道的行車狀況等。 Bike Trail Network, improvement to traffic conditions of Keung Shan 19 Road and South Lantau Road, etc. 公眾參與活動 Public Engagement Activities

委員會在制訂以上建議時，均以全香港的整體利益為依歸。現誠邀公眾就各項建議參與深入討論。在2016年上半年，委員會會聯同相關的政府部門透過包括巡迴展覽、專題簡報、公眾論壇等等一連串的活動，向公眾人士介紹大嶼山發展的主要建議，聆聽他們的意見。

有關公眾參與活動詳情及大嶼山發展諮詢委員會及其轄下小組的資料，包括會議記錄和討論文件，請瀏覽委員會網頁(www.LanDAC.hk)。

LanDAC has prepared its proposals in the overall interest of Hong Kong and looks forward to discussing with the public on these proposals thoroughly. In the first half of 2016, LanDAC in collaboration with the Government will introduce the major proposals of Lantau development to the public and listen to their views through a series of activities, including roving exhibitions, topical presentations, public forums, etc.

For Details of public engagement activities and information on LanDAC and its subcommittees, including meeting minutes and discussion papers, please refer to the LanDAC website (www.LanDAC.hk).

20 您的意見 Your Views

公眾意見對推動大嶼山發展是必須及非常重要的，而有關發展長遠而言將能惠及香港整體經濟及社會發展。故此，我們希望盡快收到您的寶貴意見，以助開展下一階段工作。在本摘要內羅列的建議，旨在促進公眾討論，集思廣益，日後會被更新和重新評估。

我們誠邀您就各項建議提出寶貴意見。

Public views are essential and very important to push ahead the development of Lantau which in the long-term will benefit the overall economic and social development of Hong Kong. Hence, we would like to receive your precious views as soon as possible to prepare for the next stage of work. The proposals in this digest are listed to facilitate public discussions and brainstorming and are subject to amendment and further assessment.

We welcome your valuable opinions to the proposals.

提交您的意見 How to Submit Your Views

By email, fax or post on or before 30 April 2016. 請於2016年4月30日或之前以電郵、傳真或郵寄方式聯絡我們。

Email 電郵: [email protected] Fax 傳真: (852) 2801 5620 Postal Address 地址：大嶼山發展諮詢委員會秘書處香港添馬添美道2號政府總部東翼十七樓 The Secretariat, Lantau Development Advisory Committee 17/F., East Wing, Central Government Offices, 2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar, Hong Kong

聲明：凡就「大嶼山發展」公眾參與活動提供意見的個人或團體，將被視作同意大嶼山發展諮詢委員會及香港特別行政區政府可公布部分或全部所提供的意見(包括個人姓名或團體名稱)。如您不同意有關安排，請於提供意見時作出聲明。

Disclaimer: A person or an organisation providing any comments to LanDAC on the “Lantau Development” 採用環保油墨及再造紙印製 public engagement exercise shall be deemed to have given consent to LanDAC and the Government of the Printed with environmentally HKSAR to partially or wholly publish the comments (including the names of the person or organisation). If you friendly ink on recycled paper do not agree to this arrangement, please state so when providing the comments. Appendix B: List of Written Submissions by Groups

89 written submissions were received from groups or organizations. They were sent in form of letter, fax and email, with or without letterhead. If a submission had no letterhead, considerations were given on if the group’s communication information was provided, the claimed capacity of the submitter with respect to the group, and if the views were claimed to be from the submitter as an individual or the group or group members.

The list of groups is provided below:

1. Absolutely Fabulous Theatre Connection 2. AsiaWorld‐Expo 3. Association for Tai O Environment and Development 4. Association of Engineering Professionals in Society Ltd 5. Business Environment Council Limited 6. Civic Party 7. Designing Hong Kong Limited 8. DeSpace (International) Limited 9. Farrells Focus 10. Federation of HK Industries 11. Fratye 12. GMB Maxicab Operators General Association Ltd 13. Green Power 14. Green Sense 15. Heung Yee Kuk 16. HK & KLN Fishermen Association Ltd. 17. Hong Kong Aviation Ground Services Limited 18. Hong Kong Citizen 19. Hong Kong Construction Association 20. Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union 21. Hong Kong Construction Sub‐Contractors Association 22. Hong Kong Disneyland Resort 23. Hong Kong Fishermen Consortium 24. Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design 25. Hong Kong Institution of Highways and Transportation 26. Hong Kong International Airport 27. Hong Kong Islands Cultural & Art Association 28. Hong Kong Islands District Association 29. Hong Kong Mountain Bike Association 30. Hong Kong Professionals And Senior Executives Association 31. Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden 32. Labour Party 33. Lai Yuen 34. Lamma Island (North) Rural Committee 35. Lantau Buffalo Association 36. Lantau Confidential 37. Lantau Development Alliance 38. Living Islands Movement 39. Luk Wu Dharma Management Culture Foundation Ltd.

Appendix B ‐ Page 1 40. Masterplan Ltd. 41. Mui Wo Rural Committee 42. OIWA Ltd 離島婦聯 43. Our Hong Kong Foundation 44. Prudential Surveyor (Hong Kong) Limited 45. Save Lantau Alliance 46. SD Advocates 47. Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China 48. Su Bong Zen 49. Tai O Fishermen's Association 50. Tai O Residents Association 51. Tai O Rural Committee 52. Tai O San Tau Village Office 53. The Association of Consulting Engineers of Hong Kong 54. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport 55. The Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong 56. The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society 57. The Hong Kong Federation of Electrical and Mechanical Contractors 58. The Hong Kong Institute of Planners 59. The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors 60. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers 61. The Lantau Mountain Camp 62. The Y.Elites Association 63. Trail Watch 64. Tung Chung Rural Committee 65. Tung Chung Youth Association 66. Vision Planning (香港小輪集團有限公司) 67. Waters Economics Limited 68. World Wide Fund 69. 三清自然保育坊 70. 地塘仔村 71. 大嶼山大浪村村民委員會 72. 大嶼山牛牯塱村 73. 大嶼山禪林保育區關注組 74. 大澳居民權益關注組 75. 大澳文化工作室 76. 大覺寺 77. 慧修禪院 78. 新界的士團體 79. 民建聯 80. 爛頭營義工團 81. 自由黨 82. 覺修寺國際禪院 83. 長春社 84. 離島青年聯會 85. 青年新政 86. 香港工商總會離島分會

Appendix B ‐ Page 2 87. 香港註冊承建商商會 88. 大嶼山南區新圍村 6 月 9 日 89. 大嶼山拾塱村

Appendix B ‐ Page 3 Appendix C: Lists of Written Submissions by Individuals

1,307 written submissions were received from individuals. They were sent in form of letter (433), email (501) fax (8), or web‐form (365) via LanDAC website www.LanDAC.hk.

C1. Letter

1. Adam Lee 40. Chung Chiu Wing 2. AH Loi 41. CK Lee

3. Amy Wong 42. Danny 79.4. JeanAnna Lau Yee 43. Dicki 5. Beey 44. Du Rosario 6. Benny 45. Edmond Lee 7. CF 46. Ester 8. Chan Chi Wai 47. Fong Kam Chuen 9. Chan Chung Fai Fanny 48. Foon Tin 10. Chan Hoi Ki 49. Fu Yee Han 11. Chan King Yin 50. Fung Chi Ting 12. Chan Lap Shan 51. Fung In Ting 13. Chan Man Sang 52. Fung Siu Hong 14. Chan Sai Mui 53. Fung Wai Lin 15. Chan Soi Kun 54. Han 16. Chan Wai Fu 55. Haru 17. Chan Wing Tai 56. Hau Koon Chung 18. Cheng Yuen Ling 57. Hei 19. Cheng Yuk Fung 58. Hei Wong 20. Cheng Yuk Lun 59. Hiu Poon 21. Cheng Yuk Lun2 60. Ho Chung Wan 22. Cheung Man Chi 61. Ho Kwan 23. Cheung Mei Ha 62. Ho Man Wai 24. Cheung Pui Yee Tiffany 63. Ho May Yin 25. Cheung Shi Wan 64. Ho Mei Kei Maggie 26. Cheung Tai Yan 65. Ho Siu Yee Penny 27. Ching Ching 66. Ho Wah Kool 28. Ching Lai Mui 67. Ho Wan Ka 29. Chiu Cho Fai 68. Hok Chung 30. Choi Ho Leung 69. Hom Yat Shan 31. Choi Kwok Keung 70. Hong Kin Fan 32. Chow Po Yan 71. Hung Chan 33. Chow Wai Chun 72. Ip Ka Yan 34. Christina 73. Iris Ho 35. Christy Tse 74. Iris Lai 36. Chui Mei Ching 75. Ivan 37. Chuk Tak 76. Jackie Tang 38. Chun Kit 77. James 39. Chung Chin Kei 78. James2

Appendix C ‐ Page 1 80. John Lee 127. Mak Chi Ho Michael 81. Ka Hung 128. Mak Wai Ying Noel

82. Ka Kui 129. Man Sui 83. Kai Yin 130. Marco Yung 84. Kam Chun Hang 131. May Cheung 85. Kelly 132. Mei Ka 86. Kin Man 133. Melissa 87. Kitty Yuen 134. Michael Chan 88. KO 135. Michelle Tsang 89. Kong Mo Sze Monica 136. Ming Wai 90. Kwan Yung 137. Ms Yip 91. Kwok Fai Ting 138. Ng Siu Ling 92. Kwong Kit Lin 139. Ng Tung Wang 93. Lai Chi Fai 140. Ng Wai Ming 94. Lai Sin Yan Becky 141. OK Lee 95. Lam Ka Kin 142. Pak To 96. Lau Chun Leung 143. Pan Li 97. Lau Fan 144. Pang Chi Kin 98. Lau Ka Chun 145. Pang Chun Hong 99. Lau Wai Yip 146. Pang Chun Hong2 100. Lau Yin Pong 147. Pany 101. Lee Chi Fai 148. Paul Shin etc 102. Lee Chun Kit 149. Robert Chan 103. Lee Chun Yan 150. Robin Chan 104. Lee Chun Kwong 151. Ryan Chang 105. Lee Edwin James 152. Sally 106. Lee Hiu Wai 153. Sam Wong 107. Lee Lai Heng 154. Sean Wong 108. Lee Shun Sau 155. Shing Leung 109. Leung Chui Man Alice 156. Sho Yim Fong 110. Leung Oi Man 157. Sin Yee 111. Leung Sir 158. Siu Hang 112. Leung Yan Chu Tony 159. Siu Lung 113. Li Bo Yu 160. So Chin Ting 114. Li Hang Ling 161. Suen Ming Ying 115. Li Ka Cheung 162. Sun Ka Man Karl 116. Li Wan Hong 163. Suyi 117. Li Yu Nang Mark 164. Tai Lim Toy 118. Lily Lu 165. Tak Lun 119. Ling Ling 166. Tam Ka Wai 120. Liu Chi Fai 167. Tam Tak Yan 121. Liu Wing Laam 168. Tang Kitty Kit Yee 122. Luk Virginia 169. Tang Ming Tan 123. Luk Yiu Lun 170. Tang Sui Kei 124. Ma Kwun Ting 171. Thai Wun Kam Janet 125. Ma Shiu Yan 172. Tim Chan 126. Mabel Lee 173. Tong Fung Ho

Appendix C ‐ Page 2

174. Tong Suk Chun 219. 何錦盛 175. Tsang Ka Man 220. 余卓榮 176. Tsang Mei Sheung 221. 余揚中 177. Tsz Kwan 222. 余炳輝 178. Vicky Cheung 223. 余達芬

179. Victor Mak 224. 俊俊 180. Wa Fong 225. 俊輝 181. Wai Kit 226. 俞雲 182. Wai Lun 227. 偉全 183. Wai Ping 228. 偉文 184. Wai Yiu Kei Andy 229. 光 185. Wan Chung Cheung 230. 凌劍勤 186. Wan Hon Ying 231. 凌香華

187. Wan Hon Ying2 232. 劉來妹

188. Wilson Chung 233. 劉倩儀

189. Wong Hau Hin 234. 劉瑞華

190. Wong Kun Wah Wincy 235. 劉秋香

191. Wong Man Han 236. 劉茵鳴

192. Wong Sin Ying 劉錦茂 237. 193. Wong Sze Wing 包耀玲 238. 194. Wu Chun Wa 239. 匡建芬 195. Xia Shu Pang 240. 司徒偉華 196. Yat Wah 241. 吳小樺 197. Yau Yat Fai 242. 吳玉 198. Yee 243. 周家亮 199. Yee Bring Fai 244. 周小玲 200. Yeung Man Kwong 245. 周彩鳳 201. Yeung Siu Fung 246. 培 202. Yin Tsang 247. 天人

203. Yiu Wing Kwan 248. 婷 204. Young Wing Mui 249. 宇 205. Yuen Kam Piu 250. 家文 206. Yung Shing Fan 251. 尹子健 207. Yvonna Sho 252. 尹樹德丁滿嫦 208. 253. 尹炳深任佩君 209. 254. 巧伍應佳 210. 255. 平伍應佳 211. 2 256. 廖卓華何偉雄 212. 257. 廖彩虹何健明 213. 258. 廖志偉何岷峰先生 214. 259. 張樹興何振達 215. 260. 文仔 Ho Yin Man 何榮有 216. 261. 方穎娟何燕萍 217. 262. 方華 218. 何玲玲

Appendix C ‐ Page 3

263. 旺 309. 秀珍 264. 春春 310. 羅啟樂 265. 曾利華 311. 羅泳霏 266. 朱仲宜 312. 羅淑儀 267. 李伙沐 313. 羅金芳 268. 李光明 314. 聖 269. 李啟邦 315. 胡月妹 270. 李學振 316. 芬姐 271. 李心兒 317. 范美芬 272. 李月清 318. 范美芳2 273. 李月英 319. 葉秀 274. 李杏金 320. 蔡慧卿 275. 李桂媛 321. 蔡美芬 276. 李苑芬 322. 謝向榮 277. 李駿良 323. 謝婉梨 278. 林君 324. 謝婉萍 279. 林嘉儀 325. 譚凱邦 280. 林國英 326. 譚永傑 281. 林祥 327. 譚煥娟 282. 林群培 328. 邱偉娟 283. 枝枝 329. 鄒 284. 梁文佳 330. 鄒德歡 285. 梁月玲 331. 關國佳 286. 梁月英 332. 阮國浠 287. 梁樹英 333. 雄 288. 楊小和 334. 雨 289. 楊帶金 335. 雲 290. 楊帶金2 336. 雷志強 291. 楊志成 337. 霞瑞 292. 樊玉燕 338. 香 293. 權 339. 馬柏堅 294. 欣欣 340. 鳳 295. 歐少玲 341. 麥佩彥 296. 段紅霞 342. 黃文光 297. 泉 343. 黃深妹 298. 潘凱慈 344. 黃深妹 299. 王一山 345. 黃玉嬋 300. 王志誠 346. 黃玉音 301. 王旋 347. 黃碧機 302. 王淥明 348. 黃穎 303. 王莉華 349. 黃笑英 304. 王輝 350. 黃鳳蘭 305.  351. 黎樟華 306. 盧小芬 352. 黎照南 307. 石桂青 353. Anonymous1 308. 石燕梅 354. Anonymous2

Appendix C ‐ Page 4

355. Anonymous3 401. Name illegible45 356. Anonymous4 402. Name illegible46 357. Name illegible1 403. Name illegible47 358. Name illegible2 404. Name illegible48 359. Name illegible3 405. Name illegible49 360. Name illegible4 406. Name illegible50 361. Name illegible5 407. Name illegible51 362. Name illegible6 408. Name illegible52 363. Name illegible7 409. Name illegible53 364. Name illegible8 410. Name illegible54

365. Name illegible9 411. Name illegible55

366. Name illegible10 412. Name illegible56

367. Name illegible11 413. Name illegible57

368. Name illegible12 414. Name illegible58

369. Name illegible13 415. Name illegible59

370. Name illegible14 416. Name illegible60 371. Name illegible15 417. Name illegible61 372. Name illegible16 418. Name illegible62 373. Name illegible17 419. Name illegible63 374. Name illegible18 420. Name illegible64 375. Name illegible19 421. Name illegible65

376. Name illegible20 422. Name illegible66 377. Name illegible21 423. Name illegible67 378. Name illegible22 424. Name illegible68 379. Name illegible23 425. Name illegible69 380. Name illegible24 426. Name illegible70 381. Name illegible25 427. Name illegible71 382. Name illegible26 428. Name illegible72 383. Name illegible27 429. Name illegible73 384. Name illegible28 430. Name illegible74 385. Name illegible29 431. Name illegible75 386. Name illegible30 432. Name illegible76 387. Name illegible31 433. Name illegible77 388. Name illegible32 389. Name iIllegible33 390. Name iIllegible34 391. Name illegible35 392. Name illegible36 393. Name illegible37 394. Name illegible38 395. Name illegible39 396. Name illegible40 397. Name illegible41 398. Name illegible42 399. Name illegible43

400. Name illegible44

Appendix C ‐ Page 5 C2. Email

1. Ada Tang 47. Cheng Bing Cheung 2. Adams Au 48. Cheng Ngan Yu

3. Alex and Karen 49. Cherry Chan 4. Alfred Cheng 50. Cheung Hoi Shun Henry 5. Alfred Wan 51. Cheung Ka Ki 6. Alice Tse 52. Chi Lam 7. Alison Hui 53. Chi Shen Han

8. Alistair Monument 54. Chiang Sze tsun 9. Alistair Monument2 55. Ching Lai Wong 10. Andrew Wood 56. Chloe Hsiu 11. Angel Lee 57. Choi Wa Luk 12. Anne Boberski 58. Chong Felix

13. Athena Lam 59. Chris 14. Athena Wong 60. Chris Chan 15. Au Hon Cheung 61. Chris Fraser 16. Barry Sum 62. Christina Lam 17. BC Cheng 63. Chu Lai Ting 18. Bharti 64. Chu Lam 19. Bill Lo 65. Chun Chuen Lee 20. Billy 66. Chung Wai Sum 21. Billy Lam Chung Lun 67. CK Man 22. Bjorn Wahlstrom 68. Cliff Chow 23. Brian MacPherson 69. Clive Noffke 24. Bryan Chan 70. Colin Tait 25. C.M.Chang 71. Connie Chan 26. Calvin Li 72. Connie Chan2 27. Camille Ko 73. Connie Wong 28. Cavan 74. Craig Blurton 29. Ceceilie Gamst Berg 75. Craig Colbran 30. Cecilia Lee 76. Daniel Chan 31. Chan Chan Ming 77. Dave 32. Chan Chung Ming Paddy 78. Debbie Yip 33. Chan Kam Ming 79. Derek Choi 34. Chan Kwai Lin 80. Desilets Daniel Ronald

35. Chan Lai Yan 81. Dominic Lam 36. Chan Mo Yuet 82. Dong Lee 37. Chan Natalie Tsz Wa 83. Dorothy Lau 38. Chan Ti Wai William 84. Dorothy Tse 39. Chan Wai Chun 85. Dr James Lazell

40. Chan Wai Fong 86. Dunson Shut 41. Chan Yin Kwong 87. Edward Chong Pong 42. Chapman Chen 88. Edward Snow 43. Charles Ho 89. Elaine Ng 44. Charles Tsui 90. Eliot Liu

45. Chau Kay Den 91. Elizabeth Byun 46. Chen Yu Wen 92. Elliot Liu

Appendix C ‐ Page 6

93. Emily Lo 138. Ivan Yiu 94. Emily Yee Sam Yu 139. Ivy Chan 95. Eric Lee 140. J Robert Gibson 96. Eric Wong 141. Jack Li Yuk Lam 97. Eugene Tso 142. Jacqueline Green 98. Eva Leung 143. Janet Poon 99. Evelyn Moore 144. Jeanette Lee 100. Fan 145. Jemma

101. Finnuala Williamson 146. JKK Lee 102. Fiona Chau 147. Joanne Lee 103. Fiona Jackson 148. John Allcock 104. Fiona Woo 149. John Cheung 105. Fok Wai Kit 150. John Lam

106. Francis Hui 151. John Schofield 107. Frank Chandler 152. Joseph 108. Frankie Sung 153. Juan Barcelo 109. Fu Siuwang 154. Julia Brown 110. Fu Wai Ki 155. Julie Zhu

111. Fung Siu Yin 156. June Lai 112. Genevieve Moore 157. K S Luk 113. Good Governance 158. K.Datwani 114. Goretti Cheung 159. Ka Fai Chau 115. Grace 160. Kadoorie Farm and Botanic

116. Gregory Moraitis Garden 117. Gwen Dahlberg 161. Kam Kin Pong 118. Haley 162. Kame Chan 119. Helen Leung 163. Kathryn Carpenter 120. Henry 164. Kathryn Davies 121. Heather Timmons 165. Kei Biu Ko 122. Hitomi Sugino 166. Kelvin Cheng 123. Ho Kin Man 167. Kelvin Leung 124. Ho Loy 168. Kelvin Ng 125. Ho Tak Ching 169. Kenneth Wong 126. Hoi Lee 170. Kera Hau 127. Hon Cho Piu 171. KH Wong 128. Hon Kwok Wai 172. Kim Lau 129. Hong Fu Liang 173. Kingsley Lam 130. Hong Kwok Cheong 174. Kitty Wong 131. Hosanna 175. Kiyan Siu 132. Hui Sau Yuing 176. KL Yung 133. Hui Yin Mui 177. Kris Sawatzky 134. Ian Ralph 178. Kristen Saul 135. Ilaria Maria Sala 179. KT Chan 136. Ir Fook Wah George Lam 180. KW Yuen 137. Ivan Lai 181. Kwan Chung Keung

Appendix C ‐ Page 7

182. Lam Chiu Ying 227. Mitchell Yim 183. Lam Chui Kok 228. Motoko Schofield 184. Lam Man Lok 229. Mr Au 185. Lam Pui King 230. Mr Tsang 186. Lam Wai Chun 231. Mr. Cheung

187. Larry Feign 232. Mr. CY Ip 188. Lau Yin Fai Samson 233. Mr. Lo 189. Law Ho Hei 234. Mr. So Chi Fung 190. Lawrence 235. Ms Chu 191. Lawrence Tsang 236. Ms. Lo Fan Fong

192. Lee Man Chun 237. Ms. Tam Ka Wai 193. Lee Man Yu 238. Murphy Pang 194. Lee Wai Lam Lirivs 239. N. Mauroo 195. Leo 240. Natalie Lo 196. Leung Cinderly 241. Ng Kwok Leung Axel 197. Leung Ming Yan 242. Ng Wai Lun 198. Leung Yin Ling Carol 243. Ngai Hiu Kan 199. Li Kenton 244. Nick Bilcliffe 200. Lia Wong 245. Ozturk Ozgur 201. Liao Mao Jiang 246. P M Wong 202. Ling Ng 247. P W Chow 203. Linus Fong 248. P. Harris 204. Liu Siting 249. Pang Fong Lee 205. Lo Ho Yin 250. Patrick Cheng 206. Lor Wai man Joseph 251. Patrick Lee 207. Lou Matthew 252. Pau Chun Man Raymond 208. Louis Li 253. Paul Melsom 209. Lydia Lee 254. Paul Melsom2 210. Mandy Lam 255. Paula Keung 211. Marcus Leung 256. Pedro 212. Martin Lerigo 257. Peter Lo 213. Martin Williams 258. Philip and Amanda Snow

214. Mary Lee 259. Philip Chan 215. Mary Mulvihill 260. Philip Shiao 216. Matt Pun 261. Philip Shiao2 217. Matthew Liu 262. Pui Chu Chan 218. Max 263. Pui Chung

219. Mayling Chan 264. Ray Chan 220. Me Wong 265. Renata Snow 221. Me Wong2 266. Rex Li 222. Michael CY Chan 267. Ricky Ling 223. Michelle 268. Ringo Tso

224. Mihir Suvanan 269. Rinky 225. Mikko Revonniemi 270. Rita Yip 226. Mio Debnam 271. Robert Wilson

Appendix C ‐ Page 8

272. Robert Wilson MH 318. TSANG Kin Hung 273. Ronald Chan 319. TSUI Ngar Kok 274. Rosanna Fung 320. Vanex Wang 275. Rose Wong 321. Vera Lau 276. Ruby Lam 322. Victor Lam

277. Ryan Law 323. Vincent Leung 278. Ryan Tse 324. W F Ho 279. Saie Ryu 325. Wai Hung Siu 280. Salina 326. Wai Ming Chan 281. Sally Yeung 327. Wai Tang

282. Sam 328. Wan Wing Fai 283. Sam2 329. WC Lo 284. Sammie Fu 330. Wesley Crutchfield 285. Samson Lo Wing Biu 331. Will 286. Samuel Chan 332. Will Tsang

287. Sarah Lam 333. William Chan 288. Sertug Ihsan Gunal 334. William Nee 289. Shirley Cheng 335. Wilson Lo 290. Sin Ka Wing 336. Wilson Poon 291. Singa Lo 337. Wilson Yiu 292. Stefania Malpighi 338. Wing Sze Chiu 293. Steve Farrer 339. Winkie Ho 294. Steve Quilkey 340. Winnie Poon 295. Steven Molyneux 341. Wong Hiu Hei 296. Suki Yip 342. Wong Man Kwan 297. Suki Yiu 343. Wong Man Tik 298. Sunny NG 344. Wong Siu Keung 299. Swift, Squire Mark 345. Wong Tak Ching 300. Tam Ming Fai 346. WS Ng 301. Tang Gloria 347. Yamchun Liu 302. Tania Willis 348. Yao Chen 303. Tania Willis2 349. Yeung Chun Yu Charles 304. Tania Willis3 350. Yeung Kwong Keung 305. Teng Meng Hee/Tengsrus 351. Yick Ming‐yan 306. Terry Chan 352. Yin Cheung 307. Terry Ching 353. Yoyo 308. Terry Wong 354. Yoyo Ng

309. Thomas Chan 355. Yuki Nozaki Quilkey 310. Thomas Irbinger 356. Yuki Siu 311. Thomas William Hope 357. Yumoko Queen 312. Tik Wong 358. yy wong 313. Tom Johnson 359. 一位普通市民

314. Tong Chi Ho 360. 一個熱愛東涌的人 315. Tracy Lam 361. 一群大嶼山居民 316. Trevor G Cooper 362. 伍先生 317. Tsang Ho Kwai 363. 伍少梅

Appendix C ‐ Page 9

364. 何來 407. 郭勤宜 365. 何岷峰 408. 鄒祟銘 366. 劉先生 409. 鄧英偉 367. 劉克華 410. 鄭威鵬 368. 劉國輝 411. 鄭辰艷 369. 劉家勇 412. 鄭銀裕 370. 劉敬彰 413. 關浩基 371. 勞氣到噁血的小市民 414. 關舒豪

372. 吳先生 415. 陳先生 373. 吳振邦 416. 陳小姐 374. 周小姐 417. 陳德誠

375. 周村民 418. 陳煜輝 376. 周蘭茜 419. 陳瑞銘 377. 孫文智 420. 香港市民 378. 孫文智 2 421. 馮小燕 379. 崔月明 422. 黃志俊 380. 希望發展大嶼山的市民 423. 黃榮興 381. 廖先生 424. 黃漢強 382. 張樹根 425. 黃靜儀

383. 張秀芳 426. 黎偉卓 384. 彭愛琼 427. 黎先生 385. 打工仔阿牛 428. 默默的一個香港市民

386. 文文 429. Anonymous 387. 曾偉邦 430. Anonymous1 388. 朱凱迪 431. Anonymous2 389. 李達光 432. Anonymous3 390. 林國雄 433. Anonymous4

391. 林津如 434. Anonymous5 392. 梁德明 435. Anonymous6 393. 楊健濱 436. Anonymous7 394. 楊裕峰 437. Anonymous8 438. Anonymous9 395. 甘永容 439. Anonymous10 396. 范梅芬 440. Anonymous11 397. 莊鎮杰 441. Anonymous12 398. 葉樹廣 442. Anonymous13 399. 葉英奇 443. Anonymous14 400. 蔡少峰 444. Anonymous15 401. 蔡明輝 445. Anonymous16 402. 蘇子珍 446. Anonymous17 403. 謝世傑 447. Anonymous18 404. 謝偉銓 448. Anonymous19 405. 謝錦昌 449. Anonymous20 406. 譚曉原 450. Anonymous21

Appendix C ‐ Page 10

451. Anonymous22 497. Anonymous68 452. Anonymous23 498. Anonymous69

453. Anonymous24 499. Anonymous70 454. Anonymous25 500. Anonymous71 455. Anonymous26 501. Anonymous72 456. Anonymous27 457. Anonymous28 458. Anonymous29 459. Anonymous30 460. Anonymous31 461. Anonymous32 462. Anonymous33 463. Anonymous34 464. Anonymous35 465. Anonymous36 466. Anonymous37 467. Anonymous38 468. Anonymous39 469. Anonymous40 470. Anonymous41 471. Anonymous42 472. Anonymous43 473. Anonymous44 474. Anonymous45 475. Anonymous46 476. Anonymous47 477. Anonymous48 478. Anonymous49 479. Anonymous50 480. Anonymous51 481. Anonymous52 482. Anonymous53 483. Anonymous54 484. Anonymous55 485. Anonymous56 486. Anonymous57 487. Anonymous58 488. Anonymous59 489. Anonymous60 490. Anonymous61 491. Anonymous62 492. Anonymous63 493. Anonymous64 494. Anonymous65 495. Anonymous66 496. Anonymous67

Appendix C ‐ Page 11

C3. Fax

1. Mondi Chan 2. Polly 3. 周浩鼎 4. 蕭群順 5. 馬梓詠 6. 黎聯偉 7. Anonymous 8. Name illegible

Appendix C ‐ Page 12

C4. Web‐form

1. HE YI 44. Cheng yin yin 2. 蘇永勤 45. CHENG YUK FUNG

3. 410056(3) 46. Cheung Ka wai 4. Alex Wong 47. CHEUNG MEI HA 5. Alice Tam 48. Cheung Shui Fung 6. Allen Lee 49. Cheung Tai Yau 7. Amos Leung 50. Cheung Wah Fung

8. ANG Wai Sum 51. Ching Kit Ming 9. AU KWOK KUEN 52. CHIU HON SANG 10. au S.Y. (A Tung Chung office 53. Chiu Kwok Wai worker) 54. Chiu Man Wai 11. Benny Wan 55. CHIU Tak Wai 12. Brenda Cheng 56. CHIU Tse Kin Clarence 13. Cameron Robert Delaney 57. CHIU YUEN SUM 14. Candy Lee 58. Choi Chi Wai 15. Carmen Tse 59. CHONG KA FU 16. Carol 60. Chow Wing Chee 17. CHAI Kim Wah 61. Christian Pillsbury 18. Chak Dui Kee Michelle 62. Chu Tania Tin‐wing 19. Chan Oi Sheung 63. CHUA KWOk CHEUNG 20. Chan Chi Wai 64. Chui Yuen Man 21. Chan Chu Hei 65. Chung Bo Yin 22. CHAN HO PANG 66. CHUNG MEI HING 23. Chan kai yuen 67. Chung Ngai Sing

24. Chan Kam Chi 68. Chung Tai Tung, Peter 25. CHAN KOON WANG KELVIN 69. Connie 26. Chan Kwok Lam 70. D834591(1) 27. CHAN LAI Ping 71. Daniel Chow 28. Chan Man Wah Carman 72. Danny Wong

29. Chan Mei Chan 73. DENG LI BIN EDNA 30. Chan Natalie Tsz Wa 74. Dick Lee 31. CHAN PUI WING 75. Edmund Liu 32. Chan Wing Hing 76. Eliot Liu 33. Chan Wing Yan 77. Eugene Yat‐him CHAN

34. CHAN YAT SUM 78. Fairhurst Sarah Jane 35. Chan yin Ching 79. Fan Lai In 36. Chan Yuen Yee 80. Felix 37. Chang Fan Giovanni 81. Feng Yibin 38. Chang Ka Tai 82. Fiona

39. Chen Sui Yi 83. Fleming 40. Cheng Bing Cheung 84. Fong Tat Tong 41. Cheng chi sum 85. FONG YAU WA 42. Cheng Tim Yi 86. Frankie Fan 43. CHENG Wing Ming Edward 87. Grace Young

Appendix C ‐ Page 13

88. Gregory Moraitis 134. LAI MAN LOK 89. HAMLIN, Katrina Elizabeth Patricia 135. LAM KA CHU 90. Henry Ng 136. Lam Kai Wah 91. HIU Tak Wai 137. Lam koon Shau Victoria 92. Ho Cheuk Hei 138. Lam Wai Lin Mei

93. Ho Cheuk Yin Geoffrey 139. Lam Wai Yan 94. Ho Chi Choi 140. Lam Wing Ching 95. Ho Ka Fat 141. Lam Yee Hang Pamela 96. Ho Kiu Chor 142. Lan Chi Wai 97. Ho Kwan Hon 143. Lau Cheuk Ying Tracy

98. Ho kwan yin Victoria 144. Lau Lam Ying 99. Ho Wai Kim 145. Lau Nam Kin Francis 100. Ho Ying Kwai Louisa 146. Lau sek yum 101. Holly Ho 147. lau sheung wai bobby 102. Howard Chu 148. Lau Sze Lok

103. Hui Kwok Ho 149. Lau Wai Ling 104. hung Wai Hung 150. Lau Wing Ki 105. Ian Ralph 151. Law Kin Kwok 106. ichelle Ngai 152. LEE Chui 107. im Benson 153. LEE HON KIT 108. j leung 154. Lee Kei Nar Angela 109. Jackie Chiu 155. Lee Pik Wan, Flora 110. James Sze 156. LEE Ping Kuen 111. Jeffrey Cheung 157. Leong Sze Wah 112. Jennifer Ann Quinton 158. Leong, James R. F. Sze Chung 113. Jennifer Fan 159. Leung Fu Ming 114. John William Riggs 160. Leung Jacky Pui Chuen 115. Jonny Ma 161. Leung Lai Wa Elsa

116. K. L. Ling 162. Leung Pak Sheung 117. K.L. Ling 2 163. Leung pik LUEN 118. Kan Chui Han 164. Leung Po Shan Anthony 119. Kara Li 165. leung sai Ming 120. Karin Yeung 166. Leung Siu Lun 121. Karl Oestgaard 167. Leung Tsan Bun 122. Kate Cheung 168. Leung Yin Hing Vinci 123. Kathleen Lee Daxon 169. Leung Yu Tung 124. Kathy Tse 170. Leung Yun Cheung 125. Keith Tong 171. Li Ka Cheung 126. Kelvin Kwan 172. Li Kin Pong 127. Kenny Ma 173. Li Yuet 128. Kevin Elliott 174. Lily Chung

129. Kit Chan 175. Ling Yuen Chi 130. Ko Cheuk Yin 176. liu kailing 131. Kong Chung Ho 177. LIZ YUEN KA FUNG 132. Koo Gi Heng 178. LO HOI SHUI 133. KWAN Ho Chun, Victus 179. lo ka man

Appendix C ‐ Page 14

180. Lo King Suen 226. Rajeev balajapalli venkata shastry 181. LO WING FUNG 227. Raymond tang 182. Louis Cheng 228. Robert Rigby 183. Low SW 229. Ronald Wong 184. Lui yuk kam 230. Sabrina Wong

185. Luk Mei Chun, Mandy 231. Sandy Tang 186. Lynne Charleston 232. Sandy Tang2 187. MA Dick Hang Jimmy 233. SCHOFIELD John Cyril Lester 188. Ma Kin Shing 234. Sertug Ihsan Gunal 189. Ma Yuk Kwan 235. Shan Kamei Fai

190. Mak Ming Ho 236. simon cheung 191. Mak ShingChiu 237. Siu Kwan Shun 192. Matthew Nuttall 238. Siu Wing Yee Doris 193. Max Ngok 239. Siyuan John Ross Guo 194. ME WONG 240. So Kin Yee 195. MELSOM, Paul Nicholas 241. Stephan Vincent Thalen 196. Michael Ng 242. Stephen Wong 197. Michelle Ngai 243. SUM PANG TUEN 198. ML 244. SUM Pang Tuen, Barry 199. Ms .Choi C Y 245. Susanna Hui 200. Ms Lee 246. Sze Chun 201. Ms. Lee 247. Sze Pui Man 202. Natasha Gregson 248. TAI Siu Hang Stephanie 203. Ng Chun Yin 249. Tammy Sit 204. Ng Ho Yi, Veronica 250. TANG KAR LAP 205. NG KA LUN 251. Tao Chang Hung 206. NG Mau Sun 252. Tommy Ong 207. Ng MunWei 253. Toury Cheng 208. Ng Wai Pan 254. Tsai Ho Nam 209. Ngan Chiu Nam 255. Tsang Wai Lun Wieland 210. Ong Shuet Wing 256. tse mau kay 211. ong Sze Wing 257. Tse suk ting

212. ONG WAI TING 258. TSUI Ngar Kok 213. OR Wai Chung 259. Tsui Wing Kim 214. Or Wing Chiu 260. Tsui Wing Kim2 215. P Chu 261. Vicky Lau 216. PAN LEUNG 262. Vincent Leung

217. Pang Chi Ho 263. Wai Leung 218. Paul Chan 264. WAI YIP LAI 219. Paula Koo 265. Wang Haitian 220. Philippa Howcroft 266. wang kun 221. Pong Man Hay 267. Wendy Tsoi

222. Poon Chun Hin 268. Wilson Tang 223. PUN HIU CHUN 269. Winnie Leung 224. Queenie Law 270. Winnie Leung Wing Yi 225. R5719924 271. Wong chi fai

Appendix C ‐ Page 15

272. Wong Ching Yee 318. Zoe Cheung 273. WONG CHUN KIU 319. 何玉美 274. Wong Fu Keung 320. 劉潔倫 275. Wong Ka Man Carmen 321. 區立行 276. Wong Ka Yee 322. 吳詠芝 277. Wong Kam Kwai 323. 周嘉潤 278. Wong Kam Ping 324. 周豁然 279. WONG LAI LING 325. 增設生態保育區 280. wong leung hing 326. 孔國雄 281. Wong Man Fai

282. WONG Man Kit 327. 孫耀君 328. 𡩋慧儀 283. Wong Oi Chi, Gloria 284. wong sau han 329. 嶼山鹿湖覺修寺 285. Wong Siu Ming Annie 330. 張志華 286. Wong Siu Wing 331. 張漢飛 287. Wong Tsz Lun 332. 文家豪 288. WONG UE TING 333. 曾偉邦 289. Wong Wai Kit 334. 曾瑞明 290. Wong Wan Ho 335. 李小姐 291. Wong Wing Lun Brian 336. 李少慧

292. Woo Man Yu Cecilia 337. 李欣 293. WOO Sophia Hui Hsin 338. 李莉 294. Wu Ka Wa 339. 林俊麒 295. XIE Ting 340. 林淑嫻 296. Yau chi chung 341. 林珠 297. Yau Hiu Tung 梁鎮翔 298. 342. Yau Kwan Siu 299. Yau Wing Sing 343. 歐偉超 300. Ye Huan 344. 洪展鵬 301. Yeung Hiu Bun Benny 345. 盧景鋒 302. YEUNG KA FAI 346. 盧遠山 303. YEUNG WING MAN ELLEN 347. 葉敏儀

304. Yeung Wing Shan Theresa 348. 葉樹廣 305. Yim Cheung Wing 349. 葉錦洪 306. Yim wai ying 350. 衍敬(劉敬軍) 307. Yip Chau Yi 351. 許傑翔 308. Yoyo Wu 352. 謝震楠 309. yu sheung hin 353. 釋本明

310. Yue Kwan Chak Terence 354. 釋衍芝 311. YUEN Chi Ming 355. 釋道妙 312. Yung Wing Yi 356. 陳二林 313. Z7589272 357. 陳倩鈴 314. Zevo Chow 358. 陳國祥 315. Zhang Luan 316. ZHANG TENG 359. 陳麗平 317. ZHANG Yi 360. 麥承志

Appendix C ‐ Page 16

361. 黃俊喬 362. 黃先生 363. 黃秀珍

364. 黃秀芳 365. Anonymous

Appendix C ‐ Page 17 Appendix D: Lists of Public Engagement Activities

The lists of public engagement activities with details are provided below:

D1. List of Roving Exhibitions

Roving exhibitions were organized to tour 16 stops on Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, the New Territories, including Lantau Island, from 11 February to 21 April 2016 to reach out to the community. Information on Lantau Development and the development proposals were presented on panels at the exhibition to provide visitors with an overview of key topics.

Venue Period 1. G/F, Tung Chung Municipal Services Building 11 – 14 February 2016 2. G/F, Tsuen Wan Government Offices 15 – 19 February 2016 3. G/F, North Point Government Offices 15 – 19 February 2016 4. External Venues of Fu Tung Estate Shopping Centre, Tung Chung 20 – 26 February 2016 5. Lai Shuk Ying Memorial Square, Yat Tung Estate, Tung Chung 27 February 2016 – 3 March 2016 6. G/F, Tuen Mun Government Offices 3 – 9 March 2016

7. Ngau Tau Kok Rest Garden 7 ‐ 13 March 2016

8. Atrium, 1/F, Amoy Plaza Phase 2, Ngau Tau Kok 11 – 13 March 2016

9. G/F, Queensway Government Offices 14 ‐ 21 March 2016

10. Hong Kong MTR Station 24 – 31 March 2016

11. Central Pier #6 24 – 31 March 2016

12. Tai O Rural Committee Square 1 – 8 April 2016

13. Atrium, Level 1, Metro City Plaza Phase II, Tseung Kwan O 2 – 4 April 2016

14. Event Hall, UG/F, Citywalk 2, Tsuen Wan 8 – 10 April 2016

15. Central Pier #8 9 – 14 April 2016

16. Youth Square, Chai Wan 15 – 21 April 2016

Appendix D ‐ Page 1

D2. List of Public Forums

Three Public Forums were organized as a broad‐based platform to consult the public. An outline of them is provided below:

Forum and Venue Date Number of Number of Number of Participants participant Comment Forms spoken Collected 1. HKFEW Wong Cho 20 February 384 52 153 Bau Secondary 2016 School, Tung Chung

2. City Gallery, Central 28 February 183 44 55 2016 3. The Boys' & Girls' 13 March 292 61 136 Clubs Association of 2016 Hong Kong, Wan Chai

The forums were moderated by an independent media professional, and were conducted in Cantonese, with simultaneous interpretation for English‐speaking participants. Each forum started with an introduction and a presentation of the development proposals, followed by floor comment sessions.

Comment forms were distributed to participants for indicating their intentions to speak and/or leave comments. The forms were collected and drawn randomly in turn by the moderator. The participants drawn could choose to speak by himself/herself, or had his/her comments read out by the moderator.

The gist of forum covering deliberation of a total of 157 people is included into the analysis. Their corresponding comment forms were checked from the 344 forms collected to avoid double counting as far as possible, resulting that a total of 261 comment forms were sent for inclusion into the analysis. Finally, there were totally 418 gist of deliberation or comment forms included in the analysis.

Appendix D ‐ Page 2

D3. List of Focus Group Meetings

Five Focus Group meetings were conducted to initiate discussions with sector stakeholders who were interested in the topic.

Focus Group by Sector Date 1. Recreation, Sports and Tourism 30 March 2016

2. Professional Institutions 30 March 2016

3. Business 31 March 2016

4. Social Development and Youth 31 March 2016

5. Green Groups 8 April 2016

Invitees belonging to the five sectors were contacted to attend the meetings to share their views. The meetings were moderated by an independent media professional or people who had connection/experience working with the sectors.

Each meeting started with an introduction and a presentation of the development proposals, followed by floor comment sessions. All meetings were conducted in Cantonese, except the one with professional institutions and green groups being conducted in English.

Five gists of event were included into the analysis.

Appendix D ‐ Page 3

D4. List of Rural Committee Meetings

Four meetings were conducted to initiate discussions with rural committees in Lantau. Hence, four gists of event was included into the analysis.

Rural Committee Date 1. Mui Wo Rural Committee 15 March 2016

2. South Lantau Rural Committee 18 March 2016

3. Tung Chung Rural Committee 18 March 2016

4. Tai O Rural Committee 7 April 2016

Appendix D ‐ Page 4

D5 List of Group Engagement Meetings

13 engagement meetings were conducted to initiate discussions with members of different groups which were interested in the topic.

Groups Date 1. Hong Kong Institute of Planners 7 March 2016

2. Lantau Development Alliance 24 March 2016

3. Hong Kong Institution of Engineers 29 March 2016

4. Discovery Bay residents 2 April 2016

5. Joint session by Designing Hong Kong, Living Island Movement, 9 April 2016 Tung Chung Community Development Alliance, Environmental Life Science Society of University of Hong Kong Students' Union

6. Tung Chung Residents 13 April 2016

7. Fishermen Associations 14 April 2016

8. Living Islands Movement 15 April 2016 9. Lantau Volunteer Unit 19 April 2016

10. Save Lantau Alliance: “Save Lantau Arts Fair cum Civil Hearing” 24 April 2016

11. Hong Kong Mountain Bike Association and The Cycling 25 April 2016 Association of Hong Kong

12. Lantau Buffalo Association 28 April 2016 13. Hong Kong Hiking Association # 5 May 2016

# ‐ Arranged before 30 April 2016.

Meetings were initiated by LanDAC or groups interested in Lantau Development. The meetings’ moderation, flow and speaking arrangements were separately agreed with the groups.

Gists of event were prepared by LanDAC’s consultant or the group as agreed. A total of 13 gists were included into the qualitative analysis.

Appendix D ‐ Page 5

D6. List of Public Consultative Platform Meetings

A total of 10 Public Consultative Platform Meetings (PCPMs) of relevant public bodies were attended. The meetings include two meetings with Legislative Council Panel on Development, six District Council meetings, as well as meetings with Heung Yee Kuk and Town Planning Board.

Public Body Date 1. Legislative Council Panel on Development (general 23 February 2016 meeting)

2. District Council: Islands 1 February 2016

3. District Council: Hong Kong 17 February 2016 (Central & Western, Eastern, Southern, Wan Chai)

4. District Council: all Chairmen and Vice‐chairmen 18 February 2016

5. District Council: Kowloon 1 March 2016 (Kowloon City, Kwun Tong, Sham Shui Po, Yau Tsim Mong and Wong Tai Sin)

6. District Council: New Territories 11 March 2016 (Kwai Tsing, North, Sai Kung, Sha Tin, Tai Po, Tuen Mun and Yuen Long)

7. District Council: Tsuen Wan 22 March 2016

8. Heung Yee Kuk 19 April 2016

9. Legislative Council Panel on Development (general 26 April 2016 meeting)

10. Town Planning Board # 6 May 2016

# ‐ Arranged before 30 April 2016.

The analysis of this channel is based on the gist of meeting/official meeting records, which recorded the various comments mentioned at each meeting, but repeated comments were recorded once only.

Appendix D ‐ Page 6 Appendix E: List of Groups and Individuals of Legislative Council Panel on Development Special Meeting

At the Legislative Council Panel on Development meeting on 16 April 2016, 180 written submissions from groups (E1) or individuals (E2) were received and included for analysis. In addition, 50 groups or individuals (E3) spoken at the meeting did not provide written submission, therefore gist of their views was used for analysis. Hence a total of 230 records were used. The lists are provided below:

E1. Groups with Written Submissions

Name of Groups 1. Peng Chau Reclamation Concern Group (submission 1) 2. Save Lantau Alliance (submissions 1 and 2) 3. Tai O Rural Committee 4. Mui Wo Planning and Development Concern Committee 5. Construction Industry Council (one submission in Chinese and one in English) 6. Lantau Development Alliance 7. AsiaWorld‐Expo 8. Christian Justice on Earth Concern Group 9. Lantau Island Association of Societies 10. Association of Engineering Professionals in Society Ltd. 11. Event, Exhibition & Display Association of Hong Kong 12. Peng Chau Reclamation Concern Group (submission 2) 13. TFP Farrells Ltd. 14. Hong Kong Professionals and Senior Executives Association 15. Designing Hong Kong 16. Tai O Residents' Association 17. Hong Kong Industrial & Commercial Association Limited Islands Branch 18. World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong ("WWF Hong Kong") 19. Association For Tai O Environment & Development 20. Public Transport Research Team 21. Designing Hong Kong, Green Power, Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, The Conservancy Association and WWF Hong Kong 22. China Hong Kong Railway Institution 23. Hong Kong Resort Company Limited 24. Hong Kong Outdoors 25. Plaza Premium Group 26. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers 27. Ngong Ping 360 Limited (one submission in Chinese and one in English) 28. Hong Kong Fishermen Consortium Notes: Groups 1‐21 attended the hearing on 16 April 2016, whilst groups 22‐28 did not.

Appendix E ‐ Page 1

E2. Individuals with Written Submissions

Name of individual 1. Ir Martin CHEUNG Kin‐keung 2. Mr Leo LEUNG Kwok‐kee 3. Mr CHOW Yuk‐tong, Chairman, Islands District Council 4. Mr YU Hon‐kwan, Vice‐Chairman, Islands District Council 5. Mr WONG Man‐hon, Islands District Council member 6. Mr Holden CHOW Ho‐ding, Islands District Council member 7. Mr TSANG Kin‐hung 8. Mr LAI Ka‐chung 9. 陳國林先生 10. 譚明輝先生 11. Mr LING Ka‐leung 12. Mr Jensen LO Shek‐kee 13. 趙偉權先生 14. Mr Martin LERIGO 15. 林文樂先生 16. Mr Jason YU 17. Ir Martin CHEUNG Kin‐keung 18. 黃宅生先生 19. 饒智生先生 20. 盧念慈 (Submission restricted to LegCo members only) 21. Miss LEUNG Wai‐kuen 22. Mr Sean NG Wan‐lung 23. Miss Angela YAN 24. 何佩欣小姐 25. Mr Wilson TSUI Shiu‐hong 26. Mr LEUNG Yu‐shun 27. 高卓然先生 28. Mr CHAN Yat‐sum 29. Mr HUNG Tun‐kit 30. Albert YEU 31. 黃煥德 32. CHAN Chi‐yip 33. Mr Steve TANG Lok‐pun 34. CHENG Chi‐chung 35. 何家良先生 36. Mr CHOW Ka‐yun 37. Mr TAM Hor‐bun 38. 梁致輝 39. 高宏景

Appendix E ‐ Page 2 40. Miss LIU Pui‐man 41. TSANG Tat‐keung 42. Mr CHOI Chung‐hop 43. Mr Raymond LAW 44. Esther LO 45. CHOI Yat‐chiu 46. CHAN Pak‐lung 47. 陳健輝 48. 黃良興 49. CHAN Chun‐ho 50. KWOK Chi‐yung 51. Mr HO Hui‐wong 52. Mr LAM Kai‐wah 53. LO King‐fung 54. 楊小姐 55. Mr Chris WONG Wing‐leong 56. 程杰明 57. 文傑俊 58. 賴振輝 59. TSUI Ka‐wing 60. 鄧錦添 61. 何家發先生 62. 余卓明 63. 陳志祥先生 64. 鍾志堅先生 65. Mr LEUNG Kim‐pui 66. 吳承安先生 67. Mr Simon HUI King‐fung 68. 楊家俊先生 69. 周劍清先生 70. 林嘉倫 71. 劉劍雄 72. 楊偉釗先生 73. 梁頌偉 74. Mr LEE Ho‐wing 75. TSUI Hoi‐bun 76. 羅劍亮先生 77. 許偉樂先生 78. 梁振軒先生 79. Mr LAU Yuk‐piu 80. Mr WU Ka‐hing 81. 羅碧倫先生

Appendix E ‐ Page 3 82. 曾啟然 83. Mr IP Kam‐hung 84. Mr Joran TANG Chun‐nang 85. Miss LEE Lok‐man 86. Mr WONG Kar‐hou 87. 馮先生 88. Mr James SIU Wui‐hang 89. Miss NG Shuk‐wah 90. 郭子君小姐 91. 梁家昌 92. Y C WONG 93. 文立豪先生 94. Mr CHEN kwai‐lung 95. 黃凱亮先生 96. 謝雲 97. 何松堅先生 98. Mr NG Ka‐ho 99. Alex CHUNG 100. 陳志光 101. 廖育安 102. 《吾乃山之子》執行長沈容健 103. CHAN Wing‐leung 104. WONG Kei‐kwong 105. WONG Tsang‐hung 106. Mr MAK Kam‐kui 107. 孫渭冰 108. 東涌鄉事委員會委員/壩尾村原居民代表鄧美聖 109. Mr KO Chun‐wah 110. Mandy LUK 111. Mr YIM Fung‐chin 112. IP Wing‐ching 113. Belinda FUNG 114. 謝錦昌 115. 黃漢強 116. Eve CHING 117. Paula KOO 118. A member of the public 1 119. A member of the public 2 120. Ivy NG 121. Kaman TSANG 122. A member of the public 3 123. Kara LI

Appendix E ‐ Page 4 124. Tracy 125. Candy LEE 126. John LEE 127. Anita WONG 128. A member of the public 4 129. A member of the public 5 130. A member of the public 6 131. Ms CHEUNG Mei‐ha 132. A member of the public 7 133. Ms CHENG Yuk‐fung 134. Cannas CHOI 135. 離島區議會議員傅曉琳女士 136. Joshua MAK 137. Edmund LIU 138. Mabel LEE 139. Winki SHEK 140. Yasmin CHENG 141. Virginia CHOW 142. A member of the public 8 143. CHUI Mei‐ching 144. Celia NG 145. A member of the public 9 146. A member of the public 10 147. POON Chun‐hin 148. A member of the public 11 149. A member of the public 12 150. Amy WONG 151. LAW Kwok‐yin 152. A member of the public 13 Notes: Individuals 1‐19 attended the hearing on 16 April 2016, while individuals 20‐152 did not.

Appendix E ‐ Page 5 E3. Groups and Individuals Spoken, Without Written Submissions

Name of Groups/individuals Session 1 1. 伍雋穎小姐 Miss NG Chun‐wing 2. 簡智聰先生 Mr Julian KAN Chi‐chung 3. 自由黨新界西地區執行委員會主席周永勤先生 Mr Ken CHOW 4. 改善東涌居民關注組成員陳淑淇小姐 Miss CHAN Shuk‐ki 5. 東涌社區發展陣線計劃主任趙羨婷小姐 Miss CHIU Sin‐ting 6. 馮小燕小姐 Miss FUNG Siu‐yin 7. 朱秀文女士 Ms CHU Sau‐man 8. 大嶼 Pop 成員郭勤宜女士 Ms Candy KWOK 9. 趙玉蓮小姐 Miss CHIU Yuk‐lin 10. 郭裕恒先生 Mr KWOK Yu‐hang 11. 張佩英小姐 Miss CHEUNG Pui‐ying 12. 林衞然先生 Mr LAM Wai‐yin 13. 鹿地塘村村公所會長李國強先生 Mr LI Kwok‐keung 14. 張美燕小姐 Miss Helen CHEUNG Mei‐yin 15. 離島區區議會議員容詠嫦女士 Ms Amy YUNG Wing‐sheung 16. 曾建雄先生 Mr TSANG Kin‐hung 17. 香港離島區各界協會副主席鄺官穩先生 Mr KWONG Koon‐wan Session 2 1. 皇家特許測量師學會估值專業及規劃和開發專業委員會副主席林浩文先生 Mr Thomas LAM 2. 黃子樂先生 Mr Dickson WONG Tsz‐lok 3. 東涌鄉事委員會主席樊志平先生 Mr FAN Chi‐ping 4. 樊福友先生 Mr FAN Fook‐yau 5. 羅維洪先生 Mr LAW Wai‐hung 6. 溫來喜先生 Mr WAN Loi‐hei 7. 鄒長福先生 Mr CHOW Cheung‐fuk 8. 曾競麗小姐 Miss TSANG King‐lai 9. 凌家良先生 Mr LING Ka‐leung 10. 關穎怡小姐 Miss KWAN Wing‐yee 11. 大澳文化工作室負責人黃惠琼女士 Ms WONG Wai‐king 12. 東涌安全健康城市總監劉淑嫻小姐 Miss LAU Suk‐han Session 3 1. 東涌青年會助理主任廖靜怡小姐 Miss LIU Ching‐yi 2. 離島婦聯執行委員會主席周轉香女士 Ms CHAU Chuen‐heung 3. 王源禮先生 Mr WONG Yuen‐lai 4. 反對香港「被規劃」行動組成員傅家灝先生 Mr FU Ka‐ho 5. 公民黨黨員冼豪輝先生 Mr SIN Ho‐fai

Appendix E ‐ Page 6 6. 仲夏荷花別樣紅、本土行動代表盧建民先生 Mr Ken LO Kin‐man 7. 大嶼山愛護水牛協會主席何來女士 Ms HO Loy 8. 大嶼山拾塱村居民代表陳永華先生 Mr CHAN Wing‐wah 9. 程杏英女士 Ms CHING Hang‐ying 10. 游美寶女士 Ms YAU Mei‐po Session 4 1. 長春社公共事務主任梁德明先生 Mr LEUNG Tak‐ming 2. 保衛香港運動成員盧子健先生 Mr LO Tsz‐kin 3. 李麗儀小姐 Miss Betty LEE Ri‐yee 4. 王珮芝小姐 Miss WONG Pui‐chi 5. Mr John SCHOFIELD, Living Islands Movement Treasurer 6. 李麗芬小姐 Miss LEE Lai‐fan 7. 梁彥彬先生 Mr Francis LEUNG Yin‐bun 8. 汪凡女士 Ms Fanny WONG Fan 9. 環保觸覺主席黎名川先生 Mr LAI Ming‐chuan 10. 香港基督徒學會社會牧職幹事鄧穎暉先生 Mr TANG Wing‐fai 11. 陳太 Mrs CHAN

Appendix E ‐ Page 7 Appendix F: Summary of News Commentary

43 commentary articles from contributed columns, letters to editors and editorials in 18 local Chinese (15) and English (3) daily newspapers were collected, which contained writers’ direct, relevant views on Lantau Development. They were collected by searching through the WiseSearch news database platform within the public engagement period. A summary of counts is provided below.

Item Name of the print media Articles in Articles in Total columns/ editorials forums Chinese papers 1. am730 5 ‐ 5 2. Apple Daily ‐‐ 蘋果日報 * ‐ ‐ ‐ 3. Headline Daily ‐‐ 頭條日報 1 ‐ 1 4. Hong Kong Commercial Daily ‐‐ 香港商 4 ‐ 4 報 5. Hong Kong Economic Journal ‐‐ 信報財 3 ‐ 3 經新聞 6. Hong Kong Economic Times ‐‐ 香港經 2 ‐ 2 濟日報 7. Metro Daily ‐‐ 都市日報 * ‐ ‐ ‐ 8. Ming Pao Daily News ‐‐ 明報 4 ‐ 4 9. Oriental Daily News ‐‐ 東方日報 4 2 6 10. Sing Pao ‐‐ 成報 * ‐ ‐ ‐ 11. Sing Tao Daily ‐‐ 星島日報 5 2 7 12. Sky Post ‐‐ 晴報 * ‐ ‐ ‐ 13. Ta Kung Pao ‐‐ 大公報 1 ‐ 1 14. The Sun ‐‐ 太陽報 1 1 2 15. Wen Wei Po ‐‐ 文匯報 2 1 3 English papers 16. China Daily Hong Kong Edition ‐‐ 中國 ‐ 1 1 日報香港版 17. South China Morning Post ‐‐ 南華早報 3 ‐ 3 18. The Standard ‐‐ 英文虎報 ‐ 1 1 Total: 35 8 43 Notes: * ‐ Newspapers without articles with direct, relevant views on Lantau Development.

Appendix F ‐ Page 1 Appendix G: List of Campaigns

Altogether, 10 campaigns with 20,488 signatures, letters and emails were received. They were from two signature campaigns (on standard signature forms), seven proforma campaigns (via letter and/or email), and one mixed campaign, which included signatures and compiled views of individuals collected from online channel. The campaigns were summarized below:

Item Group / Organization Letter / Email Heading Number of Identity With Contents Outline Signatures/ Letters/ Emails Signature Campaign

1. Lantau Development “有關促請改善大嶼山交通接駁請願信” 4,342 Alliance Request to improve the point‐to‐point transport connection/coordination within Lantau in the short to medium term.

2. Tai O Rural Committee “大嶼山發展計劃的意見” 2,953 Request building a coastal road from Tung Chung to Tai O as a primary project in Lantau Development planning.

Proforma Campaigns

3. Green groups “Green Groups’ Joint Request for 4,896 (Joint organizers: Substantiation of the Conservation Plan for Designing Hong Kong Lantau”, Green Power “環保團體聯合要求先落實大嶼山保育措 Hong Kong Bird 施” Watching Society Request to implement 8 conservation The Conservancy measures: set up Development Permission Association Area, designate West Lantau Marine Park, WWF Hong Kong) protect and manage ecologically important sites, formulate comprehensive transport and traffic strategy, maintain road management, relate to further studies, resolve law enforcement loopholes in ecologically important sites, and reject East Lantau Metropolis

4. Unidentified A “大嶼山發展建議書” 3,327 (delivered by Island Divided into 42 templates in 6 topical groups Youths Association) with sub‐headings on conservation, education and employment, recreation and

Appendix G ‐ Page 1 tourism, social development, transport network and transport coordination. Each topical group has a template with a number of specific requests, which are then listed in separate templates. 5. Introduced as ”大蠔區 “大嶼山發展咨詢意見” 954 原居民” or ”大蠔區有 Raise 12 points related to the villages’ land 三條原居民村落“ use planning and restriction, transportation links, sewage facilities, Tai Ho River conservation, and community liaison. 6. Unidentified B 4 templates with headings and related 555 (delivered by Mui Wo demands as followed: Rural Committee) “要求關注大嶼山偏遠村落發展” (on emergency access road, accommodation and restaurants in Mui Wo outlying villages) ; “有關發展大嶼山梅窩” (on complementary measures related to parking, Mui Wo Facelift, and restaurants to support Mui Wo’s recreation‐tourism development), “有關第一屆大嶼山發展諮詢委員會第一份工作報告” (on building a road from Pak Mong to Mui Wo and a coastal road from Tung Chung to Tai O), “支持第一屆大嶼山發展諮詢委員會第一份工作報告” (on building a south‐northern corridor and a coastal road from Tung Chung to Tai O)

7. Unidentified C “大嶼山發展建議書” 39

(received via fax) Support Lantau Development and propose 4 points to encourage residents to work within the district, build post‐secondary institution, relax traffic restriction to closed roads in South Lantau, and put priority in conservation amid development

8. Unidentified D Submission contents: “計劃可透過更佳的空 19 (delivered via LanDAC 間規劃、土地利用、保育措施、交通運輸 web‐form) 基建及配套、新增社區設施，惠及香港整體經濟及社會發展，促進市民就業機會、提供更多康樂旅遊選擇及提升生活質素。”

Appendix G ‐ Page 2 9. Unidentified E “大嶼山發展意見” 18

(signed by various Support Lantau Development and raise 5 island groups and groups of demands related to Tung Chung’s individuals and community facilities planning, development received via mail) of post‐secondary education, traffic and transport, recreation and tourism, and East Lantau Metropolis

Mixed Campaign

10. Three Tai O groups “強烈反對 360 纜車伸延至大澳” 3,385 (大澳文化工作室、大 (2,358 澳居民權益關注組、 signatures 大澳永續發展教育工 on paper, 作室) and 1,027 names from online channel with comments)

Appendix G ‐ Page 3 H. Independent Opinion Survey Conducted by Hong Kong Shue Yan University

Appendix H

Roving Exhibition Survey Report

Submitted to

Public Communication Strategic Consultancy

Survey and Research Centre Department of Journalism and Communication Hong Kong Shue Yan University

Executive summary

Brief Introduction Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) submitted its First-term Work Report titled “Space for All” to the Chief Executive on 10 January 2016. Subsequently, a public engagement (PE) exercise for Lantau Development was launched between January and April 2016 to introduce the major development proposals to the public and collect their views. As a part of such exercise, there were 16 territory-wide roving exhibitions held from 11 February to 21 April 2016 (Appendix I). To enable systematic analysis of the opinions from different walks of life towards Lantau Development, an opinion survey conducted by the Survey and Research Center of Hong Kong Shue Yan University was implemented to enhance the comprehensiveness of the public engagement exercise. A total of 872 completed cases were collected successfully.

This opinion survey aims at collecting opinions of the informed public toward five groups of major proposals of Lantau development plan, and measuring their overall viewpoints on the plan.

Views on five groups of major proposals (A) Spatial Planning and Land Use Respondents were generally positive1 to most proposals of spatial planning and land use, namely, (1) North Lantau Corridor for strategic economic and housing development (positive: 60.1% vs. negative: 19.4%), (2) North-eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development (positive: 75.7% vs. negative: 13.0%), (3) designating predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism (positive: 78.5% vs. negative: 9.1%), and (4) consolidating and relocating government’s facilities, developing cavern for space (positive: 54.1% vs. negative: 20.4%). However, respondents held relatively negative attitude to the proposal of conducting study to explore developing the East Lantau Metropolis and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District (positive: 31.6% vs. negative: 51.2%). Those who disagreed/highly disagreed with this proposal were mainly from younger groups.

(B) Conservation Respondents tended to agree that proposals of conservation, which include (1)

1 Positive means respondents were either highly agree or agree with the proposals, or considered the proposals either highly important or important; negative means respondents were either highly disagree or disagree with the proposals, or considered the proposals either highly unimportant or unimportant. 2

strengthening preservation of natural ecosystem and sites of cultural heritage importance (positive: 85.0% vs. negative: 3.8%), (2) preserving areas with local characteristics and distinctive landscape setting (positive: 87.6% vs. negative: 3.0%), (3) enhancing attractiveness of country parks to enhance its leisure and educational values (positive: 71.7% vs. negative: 10.5%), and (4) connecting the proposed and existing marine parks to form a marine park network of considerable scale (positive: 61.8% vs. negative: 14.8%), were important/highly important.

(C) Strategic Traffic and Transport Infrastructure Respondents generally perceived that most proposals on strategic traffic and transport infrastructure such as providing new railway system and road network to enhance connection between Lantau and other urban areas (positive: 68.9% and 68.3% vs. negative: 17.3% and 14.7%), improving transport facilities of South Lantau Road (positive: 62.0% vs. negative: 15.5%) and enhancing water transport services (positive: 64.5% vs. negative: 13.4%), were important/highly important.

(D) Recreation and Tourism Most proposed themes of activities, such as (1) recreation and outdoor activities (attractive2: 56.6% vs. unattractive: 20.1%), (2) eco-tour (attractive: 79.0% vs. unattractive: 8.0%), (3) culture and heritage tour (attractive: 69.7% vs. unattractive: 10.0%) and (4) leisure facilities (attractive: 60.4% vs. unattractive: 18.2%), were generally attractive/highly attractive to our respondents. However, more respondents found splurge and indulge facilities unattractive/highly unattractive than attractive/highly attractive (attractive: 30.6% vs. unattractive: 37.9%).

When respondents were further asked the facilities they would like to be constructed in Lantau, the most popular facilities were extension of biking and hiking trail networks (53.8%), Lantau history museum (51.9%), and experiential village life attraction / culinary heritage centre (50.3%). Conversely, the least popular facilities were international standard ice rink (9.4%), wedding center (9.6%), marina (10.1%) and segway (12.3%).

(E) Social Development Most respondents reflected that transportation (56.7%) is the most important factor attracting them to live or select to live in Lantau, followed by low-carbon

2 Attractive % in bracket includes those respondents considered the activities highly attractive or attractive; unattractive % in bracket includes those respondents considered the activities highly unattractive or unattractive. 3

living environment (46.7%), preservation of rural characteristics (44.4%) and community facilities (40.9%). The least important factors include support service for employment (10.9%), education services (18.3%) and employment opportunities (20.4%).

Further examination revealed that respondents living in other districts generally perceived transportation and community facilities as important factors attracting them to live or select to live in Lantau than those living in Islands district. Conversely, respondents living in Islands district tended to shed more light on low-carbon living environment than their counterparts from other districts.

Conclusion Overall, there were 52.2% of respondents either agreed or highly agreed with the development plan put forth by the Lantau Development Advisory Committee while those who either disagreed or highly disagreed constituted 17.5% of all respondents.

While respondents tended to pose positive responses to major proposals proposed by LanDAC on conservation, strategic traffic and transport infrastructure, spatial planning and land use, recreation and tourism and social development, there were a handful of proposals received more negative responses or less attractive responses. These proposals include conducting study to explore developing the ELM and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District, and building splurge and indulge facilities. Further examinations found that younger group or more educated group tended to have more negative views or less attractive responses on these proposals.

Nevertheless, when asked about the important factors attracting them to live or select to live in Lantau, most respondents selected transportation, followed by low-carbon living environment, preservation of rural characteristics and community facilities. This finding was consistent with the findings that respondents were generally positive to proposals of transport infrastructure and conservation.ġ

(I) Introduction

(a) Background of the survey Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC), which advises the Government on the social and economic development opportunities in Lantau to capitalize on its advantages as the confluence of major transport infrastructure, and on the policies, measures and specific proposals conducive to the sustainable development and conservation of Lantau, has formulated the vision, strategic positioning and planning principles and put forward a series of major proposals for Lantau Development. LanDAC submitted its First-term Work Report titled “Space for All” to the Chief Executive on 10 January 2016. Subsequently, a public engagement (PE) exercise for Lantau Development was launched between January and April 2016 to introduce the major development proposals to the public and collect their views. Public Communication Strategic Consultancy Limited (PCSC) has been commissioned to provide consultancy services on the PE exercise. As a part of such exercise, there were 16 territory-wide roving exhibitions held from 11 February to 21 April 2016 (Appendix I). To enable systematic analysis of the opinions from different walks of life towards Lantau Development, an opinion survey was recommended. As one of the opinion collection channels, it enhanced the comprehensiveness of the public engagement exercise. The Survey and Research Centre (SRC) of the Hong Kong Shue Yan University has been appointed to collect, compile, analyze and report views of the visitors to these exhibitions for the opinion survey.

(b) Objectives of the survey The survey aims at: (1)collecting opinions of informed public who attended the roving exhibitions on directions of future development and development strategies of Lantau development, and different major proposals put forth by the LanDAC; (2)analyzing the opinions collected to provide the LanDAC and other parties concerned with a general picture of public’s preference on the suggestions proposed by the LanDAC.

(II) Survey Methodology

(a) Survey design All data were collected by on-site intercept face-to-face survey from 11 February 2016 to 21 April 2016 when the roving exhibitions were held. Visitors to these exhibitions were target respondents who were invited to participate in the survey

after browsing the exhibition panels. A bilingual, structured questionnaire was used to collect opinions from the target respondents. Before conducting the interview, respondents were requested to watch a 2-minute long video which served to enhance respondents’ understandings on major proposals of the Lantau development plan. A research team which consisted of one supervisor and two interviewers was responsible for the implementation of fieldwork. Interviews were conducted in either Cantonese, English or Putonghua.

Target Respondents Target respondents of the survey were the informed public3 of age 16 or above who visited the roving exhibitions.

(b) Sampling and Screening Systematic sampling was employed to select target respondents. Interviewers stood aside the exhibition booth and alternate visitors who intended to leave the booth were invited for interview after they browsed the exhibition panels and watched the video.

Before main questions were asked, invited target respondents were asked two screening questions to ensure they were eligible to participate in the survey. The first screening question asked whether target respondents were aged 16 or above. The second question asked the respondents to self-report their knowledge on the proposals of Lantau development by a scale of “know it very much”, “know it fairly”, “know it a little bit” and “do not know about it”. Those who indicated that they were below 16 years old or did not know anything about the proposals of Lantau development were courteously advised to end the interview4. At the end, there were 37 invited visitors not eligible to participate in the survey among whom 33 visitors self-reported that they did not have knowledge on the development plan and the remaining were unable to meet the age requirement.

The following figure shows that a majority of eligible respondents (79.8%) proclaimed that they knew little about the plan whilst only 20.2% of them said

3 Informed public is defined as those who have attained a certain level of knowledge concerning the development plan from whatsoever channels. Operationally, interviewers only invite those visitors who were attentive to the contents of the exhibition for at least two minutes and watched the video which introduced the development plan at the exhibition. 4 It is not uncommon that survey participants understate their knowledge toward a policy or social issue if they are asked to do so. Although there is no concrete academic evidence showing that participants’ self-proclaimed knowledge level influences their report of genuine opinions, to enhance the validity of the survey, it is justifiable to screen out those who self-reported they did not know about the issue when conducting the survey. 6

they had much knowledge on the plan.

Figure 2.1 Self-reported knowledge on the Lantau development plan by respondents

(c) Questionnaire A bilingual, structured questionnaire was designed by the SRC and agreed by the CEDD and PCSC. The questionnaire was written in electronic form using a free open source software survey tool on the web (www.limesurvey.org), and operated by interviewers during interviews by using IPad.

Questions were designed with main reference to the strategies, directions and proposals of development stated in the Public Engagement Digest of Lantau Development. Most of the questions were close-ended, but there was an open-ended question designed to allow respondents to give further opinion and elaborate their views, as well as give suggestions, on the future development of Lantau Island.

The Chinese and English versions of questionnaire are attached in Appendices II and III respectively.

(d) Pilot Survey Before the survey was formally implemented, a pilot survey was conducted on 11-14 February 2016 at the Tung Chung Municipal Services Building and 15-19 February 2016 at the North Point Government Offices. The pilot survey aimed at testing the flow of the questionnaire and identifying any problems possibly encountered prior to implementation of the formal survey. The results of the pilot survey were used to fine-tune and finalize the questionnaire. Results from the pilot survey were not included in the subsequent analysis of the main survey.

(e) Completed cases There were 872 completed cases successfully collected. Out of these completed cases, there were 861 cases, or 98.7%, were completed in Chinese questionnaire and the remaining in English questionnaire.

The number of completed cases from each roving exhibition is listed in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1 The number of completed cases collected from each roving exhibition

Roving exhibition Date of Completed cases exhibition collected 1. Tung Chung Municipal Services 11-14 Feb - Building * 2. Tsuen Wan Government Offices * 15-19 Feb - 3. North Point Government Offices * 15-19 Feb - 4. Fu Tung Estate Shopping Centre, 20-26 Feb 14 Tung Chung 5. Yat Tung Estate, Tung Chung 27 Feb – 3 54 Mar 6. Tuen Mun Government Offices 3-9 Mar 4 7. Ngau Tau Kok Rest Garden 7-13 Mar 8 8. Amoy Plaza Phase 2, Ngau Tau Kok 11-13 Mar 146 9. Queensway Government Offices 14-21 Mar 17 10. Hong Kong MTR Station 24-31 Mar 226 11. Central Pier 6 24-31 Mar 59 12. Tai O Rural Committee Square 1-8 Apr 11 13. Metro City Plaza Phase II, Tseung 2-4 Apr 212 Kwan O 14. Citywalk 2, Tsuen Wan 8-10 Apr 91 15. Central Pier 8 9-14 Apr 21 16. Youth Square, Chai Wan 15-21 Apr 9 Total: 872 * The pilot test was conducted in exhibitions held at Tung Chung Municipal Services Building and North Point Government Offices. Since the date of exhibition held at Tsuen Wan Government Offices overlapped with that of North Point Government Offices, only the latter was selected to conduct the pilot test. Completed cases collected in the pilot test were not counted in the total number of cases for analysis.

Unless otherwise specified, all findings presented in this report were based on all respondents.

(f) Data Processing and Analysis The statistical software, IBM SPSS for Windows version 18.0, was used to perform all data processing and statistical analyses. Data presented in this report consists of both univariate and bivariate analyses. Associations between selected demographic variable and responses of selected questions were examined by the

9 chi-square test, Spearman’s rank correlation and independent sample t-test. Only analyses with significant results are shown in the report.

All results are presented in percentage form. For tables presented in this report, figures may not add up to totals due to rounding off.

(III) Findings and Analysis

(A) Demographics 5 This section describes the characteristics of respondents in this survey.

In this survey, 67.3% respondents were male.

Figure 3.1.1 Gender

About one-third of the respondents (34.2%) were aged 34 or below and over a quarter of them (27.3%) were 55 years old or above.

5 Since respondents have the right not to provide personal information, the total counts of some demographics are not equal to 872, i.e. the total number of completed cases. 11

Figure 3.1.2 Age

More than half of the respondents (58.3%) had tertiary education while about one-third of them (37.8%) had an educational attainment of lower or upper secondary.

Figure 3.1.3 Educational attainment

Most of the respondents were living in Sai Kung (23.6%), Islands (15.5%) or Kwun Tong (15.1%) districts.

Figure 3.1.4 Area of current residence

Nearly one-third of the respondents (32.6%) have monthly household income of $40,000 or above. There were 36.6% of them having monthly household income between $20,000 and $39,999.

Figure 3.1.5 Monthly household income

Figure 3.1.6 Type of housing

Most of the respondents (60.3%) were living in private housing and about a quarter of them (25.1%) were living in public rental housing.

(B) Spatial Planning and Land Use

Respondents were asked to rate their agreement on the following proposals about spatial planning and land use: (1) North Lantau Corridor for strategic economic and housing development; (2) North-eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development; (3) Conducting study to explore developing the East Lantau Metropolis and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District; (4) Designating predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism; (5) Consolidating and relocating government’s facilities, developing cavern for space.

North Lantau Corridor for strategic economic and housing development There were 60.1% of respondents either highly agreed or agreed with the proposal of North Lantau Corridor for strategic economic and housing development, while less than one-fifth of them (19.4%) either highly disagreed or disagreed. The mean agreement level6 of this proposal is 3.47.

Figure 3.2.1 Agreement on North Lantau Corridor for strategic economic and housing development

6 The mean agreement level was calculated by the coding: 5=“highly agree”, 4=“agree”, 3=“fair”, 2=“disagree” and 1=“highly disagree”. This is applicable to all questions using the same agreement level scale. 15

North-eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development Of all respondents, there were 75.7% either highly agreed or agreed with the proposal of North-eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development and 13% of them either highly disagreed or disagreed with it. The mean agreement level is 3.7.

Figure 3.2.2 Agreement on north-eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development

Conducting study to explore developing the East Lantau Metropolis and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District More than half of all respondents (51.2%) either highly disagreed or disagreed with “conducting study to explore developing the East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District” while 31.6% highly agreed or agreed with the proposal. The mean agreement level is 2.7.

Figure 3.2.3 Agreement on conducting study to explore developing the East Lantau Metropolis and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District

Comparatively, respondents posed relatively negative attitude toward the ELM proposal as compared with the relatively positive attitude towards the other proposals on spatial planning and land use. Cross-tabulation analysis indicates that the younger the respondents, the higher the tendency of disagreement toward the ELM proposal (r=0.18, p<0.0001)7 (Table 3.2.1). The proportion of

7 A note on interpretation: Correlation coefficient (r), ranging from 0-1, means the degree of which two variables are correlated. The higher the “r”, the higher correlation between two variables, and vice versa. A positive “r” means the positive correlation between variables and a negative “r” means the negative correlation. Although there is no compromised scale to describe the strength of correlation, it is common that correlation is said to be “weak” when “r” ranges from 0 to 0.39, “moderate” when “r” ranges from 0.4-0.69, and “strong” when “r” ranges from 0.7-1. P-value means the probability that the statistical result is mistaken. The lower the p-value, the higher confidence on the statistically significant result. In social research, researchers only adopt statistical results with p-value lower than 0.05. Take the result indicated in Table 3.2.1, “r= 0.18” means there is a positive correlation between age and agreement level toward the East Lantau Metropolis proposal. “p<0.0001” means that it is 17

disagreement toward the proposal outnumbers that of agreement to it among age groups from 16 to 54. On the other hand, within age groups of 55 or above, more than 50% of respondents agreed with the ELM proposal.

Table 3.2.1 Correlation between age and agreement level toward the East Lantau Metropolis 8

Highly Agree Fair Disagree Highly Age agree disagree 16-24 1.9% 17.8% 20.6% 41.1% 18.7% 25-34 2.3% 17.0% 16.4% 46.2% 18.1% 35-44 3.9% 20.4% 17.8% 39.5% 18.4% 45-54 3.8% 31.0% 15.2% 39.2% 10.8% 55-64 8.5% 40.0% 13.1% 31.5% 6.9% 65 or 8.2% 50.6% 4.7% 28.2% 8.2% above Note: Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding off.

r= 0.18, p<0.0001 Note: The coding of agreement is: 5=“highly agree”, 4=“agree”, 3=“fair”, 2=“disagree” and 1=“highly disagree”. For age, the coding is: 1=“16-24”, 2=“25-34”, 3=“35-44”, 4=“45-54”, 5=“55-64”, 6=“65 or above”.

confident that such correlation is correct. 8 Correlation test is used to indicate the general trend of how one variable influences another. While there are many factors leading to a skewed sample, that is, a particular subgroup has an extraordinarily high/low percentage, it does not necessarily mean the correlation does not exist. The most crucial considerations for interpretation are the strength and direction of influence between both variables. 18

Designating predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism A majority of respondents (78.5%) either highly agreed or agreed with the proposal of designating predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism. There were 9.1% of them either highly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal. The mean agreement level is 3.93.

Figure 3.2.4 Agreement on designating predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism

Consolidating and relocating government’s facilities, developing cavern for space Among all respondents, there were 54.1% either highly agreed or agreed with the proposal of consolidating and relocating government’s facilities, developing cavern for space. There were 20.4% either highly disagreed or disagreed with it. The mean agreement level is 3.4.

Figure 3.2.5 Agreement on consolidating and relocating government’s facilities, developing cavern for space

Observation notes Analyses above depicted that respondents were generally positive towards proposals on spatial planning and land use, except that they were relatively negative towards the proposal of conducting study to explore developing the ELM. One noteworthy observation is that respondents were more eager to seek further information on the ELM proposal than other proposals. In light of this, respondents were referred to the relevant panels which indicated the ELM proposal. Therefore, same with answering other questions, respondents answered the question about the ELM based upon specific information provided on public engagement materials. Whether the negative attitude reflected from the survey results is due to limited information on the ELM proposal remains to be further studied.

Notwithstanding the above, the possibility that those who were against

20 development by reclamation and damages to natural landscape tended to disagree with the ELM proposal cannot be ruled out. During the fieldwork, the research team did encounter some respondents who objected to any development plans that, in their opinion, may give rise to damages to Lantau and surrounding areas where, as they claimed, natural landscape was invaluable. In this case, this group of respondents probably disagreed with the proposal of conducting study on development of the ELM.

In general, respondents welcomed the proposals put forth for conservation. More than 60% of respondents considered the followings highly important or important: (1) Strengthen preservation of natural ecosystem and sites of cultural heritage importance (85% either highly important or important vs. 3.8% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level9 of 4.2) (Figure 3.3.1);

Figure 3.3.1 Perceived importance on strengthening preservation of natural ecosystem and sites of cultural heritage

9 The mean importance level was calculated by the coding: 5=“highly important”, 4=“important”, 3=“fair”, 2=“unimportant” and 1=“highly unimportant”. This is applicable to all questions using the same importance level scale. 22

(2) Preserve areas with local characteristics and distinctive landscape setting (87.6% either highly important or important vs. 3% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 4.26) (Figure 3.3.2);

Figure 3.3.2 Perceived importance on preserving areas with local characteristics and distinctive landscape setting

(3) Enhance attractiveness of country parks to enhance its leisure and educational values (71.7% either highly important or important vs. 10.5% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 3.86) (Figure 3.3.3);

Figure 3.3.3 Perceived importance on enhancing attractiveness of country parks to enhance its leisure and educational values

(4) Connect the proposed and existing marine parks to form a marine park network of considerable scale (61.8% either highly important or important vs. 14.8% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 3.63) (Figure 3.3.4).

Figure 3.3.4 Perceived importance on connecting the proposed and existing marine parks to form a marine park network of considerable scale

Observation notes Respondents were generally very positive to all conservation proposals, which are usually regarded as socially desirable10. Relatively, fewer respondents found connecting the proposed and existing marine parks to form a marine park network important or highly important. From the interviews, it was observed that some respondents had difficulties in understanding the meaning of “connecting the proposed and existing marine parks”. That may explain why more respondents indicated that this proposal was fair or unimportant/highly unimportant. There is no statistical evidence explaining why respondents tended to found “connecting the proposed and existing marine parks to form a marine park network of considerable scale” less important than other proposals. From the fieldwork, however, one observation was that some respondents were confused with how different marine parks could be connected when they answered this question.

10 In survey research, respondents have a tendency to answer more positively to questions of social desirability which are shaped to emphasize or advocate desirable social values. Apart from conservation in this case, other examples from other opinion surveys include environmental protection, academic freedom or press freedom, etc. 25

(D) Strategic Traffic and Transport Infrastructure

More than 60% of the respondents indicated their positive views on the following proposals concerning strategic traffic and transport infrastructure: (1) Providing new railway system to enhance connection between Lantau’s major growth areas with urban areas and the New Territories (68.9% either highly important or important vs. 17.3% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 3.78) (Figure 3.4.1);

Figure 3.4.1 Perceived importance on providing new railway system to enhance connection between Lantau’s major growth areas with urban areas and the New Territories

Further examination revealed that age is positively correlated with the perceived importance of providing new railway system (r=0.11, p=0.002) (Table 3.4.1). That means, younger respondents tended to perceive that providing new railway system is less important, and vice versa.

Table 3.4.1 Correlation between age and perceived importance of providing new railway system

Highly Important Fair Unimportant Highly Age important unimportant 16-24 23.1% 43.5% 15.7% 16.7% 0.9% 25-34 22.5% 35.8% 22.0% 15.6% 4.0% 35-44 33.6% 37.5% 12.5% 14.5% 2.0% 45-54 31.7% 41.0% 9.9% 15.5% 1.9% 55-64 32.6% 40.9% 8.3% 15.2% 3.0% 65 or 27.0% 58.4% 5.6% 6.7% 2.2% above r=0.11, p=0.002 Notes: (i) Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding off. (ii) The coding of perceived importance is: 5=“highly important”, 4=“important”, 3=“fair”, 2=“unimportant” and 1=“highly unimportant”. For age, the coding is: 1=“16-24”, 2=“25-34”, 3=“35-44”, 4=“45-54”, 5=“55-64”, 6=“65 or above”.

(2) Building new road network to enhance linkage between Lantau and the urban areas of Hong Kong and the New Territories (68.3% either highly important or important vs. 14.7% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 3.76) (Figure 3.4.2);

Figure 3.4.2 Perceived importance on building new road network to enhance linkage between Lantau and the urban areas of Hong Kong and the New Territories

Cross-tabulation analyses indicated that age is positively correlated with the perceived importance of building new road network (r=0.13, p<0.0001). That means, those younger respondents tended to perceive that building new road network is less important. As indicated in Table 3.4.2, the proportion of perceiving this proposal as unimportant or highly unimportant gradually lowers from younger to older age groups.

Also, a negative correlation exists between educational attainment and perceived importance of building new road network (r= -0.11, p=0.002). Table 3.4.3 depicted that the proportion of perceiving this proposal as important or highly important decreases from low to high level of educational attainment.

Table 3.4.2 Correlation between age and perceived importance of building new road network

Highly Important Fair Unimportant Highly Age important unimportant 16-24 17.6% 44.4% 20.4% 16.7% 0.9% 25-34 20.3% 42.4% 19.8% 13.4% 4.1% 35-44 29.6% 40.1% 16.4% 10.5% 3.3% 45-54 24.2% 44.7% 17.4% 11.2% 2.5% 55-64 32.3% 42.3% 11.5% 10.8% 3.1% 65 or 22.7% 64.8% 4.5% 5.7% 2.3% above r=0.13, p<0.0001 Note: Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding off.

Table 3.4.3 Correlation between educational attainment and perceived importance of building new road network

Educational Highly Important Fair Unimportant Highly attainment important unimportant Primary or 23.3% 63.3% 6.7% 3.3% 3.3% below Lower 27.1% 52.9% 8.6% 8.6% 2.9% secondary Higher 27.8% 46.6% 13.7% 10.7% 1.3% secondary Tertiary 23.6% 40.8% 18.7% 13.3% 3.6% education r= -0.11, p=0.002 Notes: (i) Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding off. (ii) For educational attainment, the coding is: 1=“primary or below”, 2=“lower secondary”, 3=“higher secondary”, 4=“tertiary education”.

(3) Improving road arrangements and traffic and transport facilities of South Lantau Road (62% either highly important or important vs. 15.5% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 3.61) (Figure 3.4.3);

Figure 3.4.3 Perceived importance on improving road arrangements and traffic and transport facilities of South Lantau Road

(4) Providing new pier facilities to enhance water transport services (64.5% either highly important or important vs. 13.4% either highly unimportant or unimportant, with mean importance level of 3.66) (Figure 3.4.4).

Figure 3.4.4 Perceived importance on providing new pier facilities to enhance water transport services

(5) There were 56.4% of the respondents found it highly attractive or attractive to visit South Lantau if road arrangements and transport facilities of South Lantau Road are improved while 20.1% held the opposite attitude. A correlational analysis indicated that those who perceived that it was highly unimportant or unimportant to improve road arrangements and transport facilities of South Lantau Road inclined to think it was unattractive to go to South Lantau even if these arrangements and facilities are available.

Figure 3.4.5 Attractiveness of visiting South Lantau if road arrangements and transport facilities of South Lantau Road are improved

Observation notes While the findings portrayed a similar pattern of perceived importance on different proposals of strategic traffic and transport infrastructure, there were some concerns raised by respondents during interviews worth mentioning. First, respondents generally perceived that it is important to improve the transport infrastructure of Lantau. However, some respondents might suspect whether the expansion of traffic system to satisfy future needs is required. For example, those who disagreed with the ELM proposal might question whether the construction of transport infrastructure to connect the ELM with other areas is justifiable. That may partially explain why younger and more educated groups tended to perceive that providing new railway system and building new road network are less important.

Second, some respondents were concerned with the scale of constructing transport infrastructure and potential threat to natural landscape. Particularly the proposal of improving traffic and transport facilities of South Lantau Road, some respondents were worried about the possible damages to landscape and the burden to the environment brought by the increased number of visitors to Lantau.

Third, some respondents addressed whether there is a need to enhance water transport services when the demand for water transport has been decreasing and land transport has been improving in recent years.

(E) Recreation and Tourism

In the survey, respondents were asked the attractiveness of the following themes concerning development of recreation and tourism facilities to them: (i) recreation and outdoor activities, (ii) splurge and indulge, (iii) eco-tour, (iv) culture and heritage tour, (v) leisure facilities.

Recreation and Outdoor Activities Of all respondents, there were 56.6% of them found recreation and outdoor activities highly attractive/attractive to them while about one-fifth (20.1%) indicated that these activities were highly unattractive/unattractive. The mean attractiveness level is 3.44.

Figure 3.5.1 Attractiveness of recreation and outdoor activities

Splurge and Indulge More than one-third of respondents (37.9%) indicated that splurge and indulge were highly unattractive/unattractive to them, whilst 30.6% of them found these activities highly attractive/attractive. The mean attractiveness level is 2.86.

Figure 3.5.2 Attractiveness of splurge and indulge

Eco-tour In regard to eco-tour, a majority of respondents (79%) found it highly attractive/ attractive while a handful of them (8%) indicated it was highly unattractive/ unattractive. The mean attractiveness level is 3.91.

Figure 3.5.3 Attractiveness of eco-tour

Culture and Heritage Tour There were 69.7% of respondents thought culture and heritage tour was highly attractive/attractive and one-tenth of them deemed it highly unattractive/ unattractive. The mean attractiveness level is 3.75.

Figure 3.5.4 Attractiveness of culture and heritage tour

Leisure Facilities Among all respondents, there were 60.4% of them deemed leisure facilities highly attractive/attractive whilst nearly one-fifth (18.2%) of them found these facilities highly unattractive/unattractive.

Figure 3.5.5 Attractiveness of leisure facilities

Subsequent to asking attractiveness of five themes of facilities, respondents were further asked to rate their preference toward different facilities in three categories if these facilities would be promoted in Lantau. These include (i) indoor facilities, (ii) outdoor facilities, and (iii) culture and heritage facilities.

Figures 3.5.6 to 3.5.8 summarize the preference of respondents toward different facilities. With regard to indoor facilities, thematic leisure and entertainment area was most preferred by respondents (48.7%) when compared with other facilities.

For outdoor facilities, extension of biking and hiking trail networks (53.8%), viewing and stargazing facilities (46.2%), animal farm/buffalo conservation centre (44.6%), related agricultural activities (43.9%) and exploration campsite/outward bound (42.1%) were most popular among respondents. On the contrary, segway (12.3%) and marina (10.1%) were less preferred by respondents.

Concerning culture and heritage facilities, more respondents indicated their preference towards Lantau history museum (51.9%) and experiential village life attraction/ culinary heritage centre (50.3%) and less preference on wedding centre (9.6%).

Figure 3.5.6 Preference of indoor facilities

Figure 3.5.7 Preference of outdoor facilities

Figure 3.5.8 Preference of culture and heritage facilities

Observation notes It was observed from the fieldwork that respondents tended to be interested in facilities which are relevant to conservation and preservation (such as Lantau History Museum), enjoyment of the natural landscape (such as animal farm, experiential village life attraction, related agricultural activities) and those which can cater for interests of majority of people (such as extension of biking and hiking trails, thematic leisure and entertainment area). Those facilities which were regarded as less attractive were usually not widely popular (such as marina, international standard ice rink) or unknown/not familiar to respondents (such as wedding centre, segway).

(F) Social Development When respondents were asked which factors were important in attracting them to live/select to live in Lantau in future, more than half of them (56.7%) indicated that transportation was important while about two-fifth of them found that low-carbon living environment (46.7%), preservation of rural characteristics (44.4%) and community facilities (40.9%) were important.

Figure 3.6.1 Perceived importance on factors which attract respondents to live/ select to live in Lantau in future

Independent sample t-tests were carried out to compare whether the perceived importance toward various factors differ between residents living in Islands district and other districts. As indicated in Table 3.6.1, there are statistically significant differences between two sub-groups on (i) community facilities (p=0.014), (ii) transportation (p=0.01), and (iii) low-carbon living environment (p=0.027). Respondents living in other districts generally perceived transportation and community facilities as important factors attracting them to live or select to live in Lantau than those living in Islands district. Conversely, respondents living in Islands district tended to shed more light on low-carbon living environment than their counterparts from other districts.

Table 3.6.1 Differences between residents living in Islands district and other districts on perceived importance toward various factors

Factors Mean Mean t-value11 difference Islands Other district districts Education services 0.15 0.19 0.04 1.24 Employment 0.19 0.21 0.02 0.52 opportunities Support service for 0.07 0.12 0.05 1.57 employment Community facilities 0.32 0.44 0.12 2.47 * Long-term planning of 0.26 0.33 0.07 1.51 the community Transportation 0.45 0.6 0.15 3.38 * Low-carbon living 0.57 0.46 -0.11 -2.21 * environment Preservation of rural 0.52 0.44 -0.08 -1.59 characteristics * p-value < 0.05 Note: For calculation of mean, cases which indicated that the factor was important were coded as “1”, and those deemed not important were coded as “0”.

11 A note on interpretation: Independent sample t-test is used to test for the mean difference of a interval/ratio variable between two subgroups. It is done by calculating t-value, which measure the size of the difference relative to the variation in the sample data. The greater the t-value, the greater the evidence against that there is no significant difference between two sub-groups. 40

(G) Overall views on the Lantau development plan

When being asked their general attitude toward the Lantau development plan, overall, there were 52.2% of respondents either highly agreed or agreed with the development proposals put forth by the LanDAC. Those who either highly disagreed or disagreed constituted 17.5% of all respondents. The mean agreement level is 3.4.

Figure 3.7.1 Overall views on Lantau development plan

Cross-tabulation analyses indicated that the respondents’ agreement of the development plan is correlated with two factors. Firstly, age is positively correlated with the agreement level of the development plan. The disagreement level of younger age group is generally higher than the older ones despite the fact that all age groups indicated that the proportion of agreeing is greater than that disagreeing the Lantau development plan (Table 3.7.1).

Secondly, educational attainment is negatively correlated with the agreement level of the development plan. The level of agreement toward the plan lowers from the lowly to highly educated groups (Table 3.7.2).

(H) Table 3.7.1 Correlation between age and overall views on the Lantau development plan

Highly Agree Fair Disagree Highly Age agree disagree 16-24 1.9% 37.9% 35.0% 14.6% 10.7% 25-34 4.1% 39.4% 35.9% 12.4% 8.2% 35-44 10.1% 35.8% 34.5% 11.5% 8.1% 45-54 15.4% 42.6% 27.2% 8.6% 6.2% 55-64 17.2% 49.3% 21.6% 8.2% 3.7% 65 or above 18.0% 52.8% 20.2% 5.6% 3.4% r=0.24, p<0.0001

Table 3.7.2 Correlation between educational attainment and overall views on the Lantau development plan

Highly Agree Fair Disagree Highly agree disagree Primary or 12.5% 43.8% 28.1% 9.4% 6.3% below Lower 11.4% 62.9% 18.6% 4.3% 2.9% secondary Higher 11.2% 45.9% 28.3% 10.3% 4.3% secondary Tertiary 10.8% 36.4% 32.3% 11.5% 8.9% education r= -0.13, p=0.002

(I) Respondents’ views from open-ended question Respondents were asked to provide comments regarding the proposals given in the questionnaire and give suggestions on the future development of Lantau. Totally, there were 207 responses from respondents.

These responses were further divided into two categories, namely, (i) views on Lantau development plan and (ii) comments and suggestions on development12. In the former, responses were divided into “support” or “against” the Lantau development plan. Similarly, in the latter, responses were divided into 8 sub-categories, namely, (i) community development, (ii) conservation, (iii) facilities, (iv) housing, (v) planning, (vi) preservation, (vii) public engagement, and (viii) transportation, depending on the issues these responses mainly focused on. The number of responses on each categories and sub-categories are summarized in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Number of responses on each categories and sub-categories from open-ended question

Sub-categories Number of responses Views on Lantau Support 16 development plan13 Against 56 Comments and Community development 11 suggestions on Conservation 38 development Facilities 10 Housing 4 Planning 13 Preservation 11 Public Engagement 6 Transportation 42 Total: 207

12 Those responses which indicated obvious stance of respondents on Lantau development plan were categorized as “views on Lantau development plan” and the remaining as “comments and suggestions on development”. 13 The number of responses supporting or against the Lantau development plan obtained from the open-ended question does not necessarily reflect the overall views of all respondents toward the plan. It was observed that those who disagreed with the plan tended to leave their comments and suggestions through the open-ended questions. Moreover, it is the main purpose of the open-ended question that allows respondents to illustrate and further elaborate their opinions, and give comments on those issues not covered in other parts of the questionnaire rather than portraying the pattern of genuine viewpoints. 43

From this open-ended question, there were more comments against (56) than those supporting (16) the Lantau development received. Moreover, respondents were more concerned about the transportation in Lantau as compared with other developments. These suggestions and comments mainly urged the government to improve the existing transportation arrangement/system to satisfy needs of residents and visitors of Lantau. Another issue that raised respondents’ concern is conservation. Comments on this sub-category focused on the balance between conservation and development, concerns on the potential impacts to the environment when Lantau was further developed, how the eco-system can be maintained, etc.

All responses received from open-ended question are included in Appendix IV.

(IV) Opinion Survey Conclusion

This opinion survey, which collected 872 completed cases of informed public, measures the opinions of these respondents on major proposals of Lantau development plan put forth by the LanDAC. Overall, there were 52.2% of respondents either agreed or highly agreed with the development plan put forth by the LanDAC while those who either disagreed or highly disagreed constituted 17.5% of all respondents.

In general, most proposals received positive responses from respondents. While respondents tended to perceive all proposals concerning conservation (such as strengthening preservation of natural ecosystem, preserving areas with local characteristics, enhancing country park attractiveness, forming a marine park network) and strategic traffic and transport infrastructure (including building new railway system and road network, improving traffic and transport facilities of South Lantau Road, enhancing water transport services) as important or highly important, most proposals of spatial planning and land use (such as further developing North Lantau Corridor and North-eastern Lantau node, designating predominant part of Lantau for conservation and green tourism, developing cavern for space) and recreation and tourism (including recreation and outdoor activities, eco-tour, culture and heritage tour and leisure facilities) were welcomed by most respondents.

There were a few proposals that received more negative responses or less attractive responses from respondents. Firstly, respondents were relatively negative to the proposal of conducting study to explore developing the ELM and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District when compared with other proposals of spatial planning and land use. There were 51.2% of respondents disagreed or highly disagreed with the proposal whilst approximately one-third of them (31.6%) held the supportive views. Secondly, more respondents considered that splurge and indulge facilities, which were generally present in other areas, were not attractive. There were 37.9% of respondents found this theme of facilities unattractive or highly unattractive while 30.6% of them regarded these facilities as attractive or highly attractive.

Further examinations were conducted to analyze the correlation between respondents’ opinion toward some proposals and their demographic background. It was found that age and educational attainment were comparatively important factors correlating with respondents’ perception. Analyses indicated that the younger group tended to have negative views on proposals such as conducting study to

45 explore developing the ELM, building new railway system and road network and the overall development plan. In the same vein, those with higher educational attainment tended to disagree or highly disagree with building new road network and the overall development plan.

When asked about important factors for attracting them to live or select to live in Lantau, most respondents selected transportation (56.7%), followed by low-carbon living environment (46.7%), preservation of rural characteristics (44.4%) and community facilities (40.9%). This finding was consistent with the findings that respondents were generally positive to proposals of transport infrastructure and conservation. Their major concerns were also reflected from their comments collected from the open-ended question—most comments and suggestions received were mainly on transportation and conservation.

Appendix I List of roving exhibitions

Location Date 1. G/F, Tung Chung Municipal Services Building 11-14 February 2016 2. G/F, Tsuen Wan Government Offices 15-19 February 2016 3. G/F, North Point Government Offices 15-19 February 2016 4. External venues of Fu Tung Estate Shopping Centre, 20-26 February 2016 Tung Chung 5. Lai Shuk Ying Memorial Square, Yat Tung Estate, 27 February – 3 March Tung Chung 2016 6. G/F, Tuen Mun Government Offices 3-9 March 2016 7. Ngau Tau Kok Rest Garden 7-13 March 2016 8. Atrium, 1/F, Amoy Plaza Phase 2, Ngau Tau Kok 11-13 March 2016 9. G/F, Queensway Government Offices 14-21 March 2016 10. Hong Kong MTR Station 24-31 March 2016 11. Central Pier 6 24-31 March 2016 12. Tai O Rural Committee Square 1-8 April 2016 13. Atrium, Level 1, Metro City Plaza Phase II, Tseung 2-4 April 2016 Kwan O 14. Event Hall, UG/F, Citywalk 2, Tsuen Wan 8-10 April 2016 15. Central Pier 8 9-14 April 2016 16. Youth Square, Chai Wan 15-21 April 2016

Appendix II Chinese version of questionnaire

⣏ⵤⰙ䘤⯽℔䛦⍫冯⓷⌟婧㞍

Ṳ㫉⯽奥㗗㚱斄⣏ⵤⰙ䘤⯽媖娊⥼⒉㚫ĩᶳ䧙⥼⥼⒉㚫Ī㖑⇵℔Ự⯙叿⣏ⵤⰙ䘤⯽ 䘬⺢嬘ĩᶳ䧙䘤䘤⯽⺢嬘Īˤ⥼⒉㚫㬋忚埴℔䛦⍫冯㳣≽炻᷎㚫德忶㮹シ婧㞍炻Ḯ妋 ⶪ㮹⮵⮵㛒Ἦ䘤⯽妰∫䘬䚳㱽ˤ楁㷗㧡ṩ⣏⬠⍿⥼妿忚埴㮹シ婧㞍炻ⶴ㛃敋ᶳ傥㉥䨢ġ ĶĮĲı ↮揀炻⯙䘤⯽⺢嬘㍸↢⮞屜シ夳ˤġ

敋ᶳ㍸ὃ䘬屯㕁⍲シ夳⎒ἄ㔠㒂↮㜸ᷳ䓐炻⮯㚫䳽⮵ᾅ⭮炻᷎㕤䓐⬴⼴扟㭨ˤ劍敋ᶳ⮵㛔婧㞍ㆾ⓷⌟㚱ảỽ䔹⓷炻婳农暣 2806 5167 嶇⯡⃰䓇㞍娊ˤ

嫅嫅Ἀ䘬⍫冯炝

䮑怠⓷柴

S1. Ἀ㗗⏎⶚䴻⸜㺧 16 㬚烎 a 㗗 b ⏎ (⓷⌟⬴)

S2. ⯙叿Ἀ䚳忶斄㕤⣏ⵤⰙ䘤⯽⺢嬘䘬屯妲炻Ἀ奢⼿Ἀ⮵䔞ᷕ㍸↢䘬⺢嬘㚱⣂Ḯ 妋烎 a ⋩↮Ḯ妋 b Ḯ妋 c ⮹⮹Ḯ妋 d ⬴ℐᶵḮ妋 (⓷⌟⬴)

ġ ġġ

⛐两临妋䫼℞检⓷柴⇵炻婳⃰教嬨ẍᶳ斄㕤⣏ⵤⰙ䘤⯽妰∫䘬側㘗屯㕁ġ ġ (㍺ℍ側㘗 video)

䨢攻夷∫⍲⛇⛘⇑䓐 A1.Ἀ㗗⏎娵⎴⥼⒉㚫ẍᶳ䘬䘤⯽⺢嬘烎婳㟡㒂シ夳姽↮炻1 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮ᶵ娵⎴˭炻2 ẋ堐ˬᶵ娵⎴˭炻3 ẋ堐ˬᶨ凔˭炻 4 ẋ堐ˬ娵⎴˭炻5 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮娵⎴˭炻9 ẋ堐ˬ䃉シ夳/ᶵ䞍忻˭

a ⊿⣏ⵤ崘⹲ἄ䴻㾇⍲㇧⯳䘤⯽ 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪㒜⯽㜙㴴㕘ⶪ捖ˣ㒜⯽Ṇ㳚⚳晃⌂奥棐) b 㜙⊿⣏ⵤ䘤⯽ẹ攺ˣ⧃㦪⍲㕭忲 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪⮯㫋㽛䘤⯽䁢㕘㕭忲溆ˣ䳸⎰徒⢓⯤㦪 ⚺䘤⯽) c 䞼䨞䘤⯽㜙⣏ⵤ悥㚫炻ẍṢⶍⲞ䁢㕘䘬㟠⽫ 1 2 3 4 5 9 ⓮㤕⋨ d ⮯⣏ⵤⰙ⣏悐↮⛘⋨䓐ἄᾅ做ˣẹ攺ˣ㔯⊾ 1 2 3 4 5 9 ⍲䵈刚㕭忲 (ἳ⤪㍐⺋䓇ン㔯⊾㕭忲ˣ䘤⯽冒䃞䑘⠫㔁做ˣ⹟㦪⍲䵈刚㕭忲䘬㼃≃) e 㔜⎰⍲慵伖㓧⹄姕㕥炻䘤⯽ⱑ㳆攳㉻䨢攻 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪⛐Ⱉⵢ䘤⯽ⱑ㳆攳㉻䨢攻ˣ⮯╄曰㳚⍲ ⣏ⵤⰙ悐↮䘬㆚㔁姕㕥㔜⎰⍲慵伖)

ᾅ做 B1.Ἀ娵䁢ẍᶳ⥼⒉㚫㍸↢斄㕤ᾅ做䘬⺢嬘㚱⣂慵天烎婳㟡㒂シ夳姽↮炻1 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮ᶵ慵天˭炻2 ẋ堐ˬᶵ慵天˭炻3 ẋ堐ˬᶨ凔˭炻 4 ẋ堐ˬ慵天˭炻5 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮慵天˭炻9 ẋ堐ˬ䃉シ夳/ᶵ䞍忻˭ˤ

a ≈⻟冒䃞䓇ン⍲⎌帇㔯䈑ᾅ做 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪斊姕ẍ㬟⎚㔯䈑䁢ᷣ柴䘬恲忲⼹) b ≈⻟㘗奨ᾅ做炻ᾅ䔁℟⛘㕡䈡刚␴䌐㚱㘗奨 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪⣏㽛㺩㛹ˣ㖪✒ 360 䫱) c ≈⻟恲慶℔⚺䘬⏠⺽≃炻ẍ⡆≈℞⹟㦪⍲㔁 1 2 3 4 5 9 做₡ῤ d ⮯⣏ⵤⰙ㕘ˣ冲䘬㴟Ⱡ℔⚺ᷚ忋ㆸᶨᾳ℟夷 1 2 3 4 5 9 㧉䘬䵚䴉

䫾䔍⿏Ṍ忂忳廠➢⺢ C1. ẍᶳ㗗⸦ᾳ⣏ⵤⰙ㛒ἮṌ忂忳廠➢⺢䘬⺢嬘炻⬫Ᾱ⮵㕤Ẍ⣏ⵤⰙㆸ䁢怑⭄ⶍ ἄㆾ⯭ỷ䘬䣦⋨㚱⣂慵天烎婳㟡㒂Ἀ䘬シ夳姽↮炻1 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮ᶵ慵天˭炻2 ẋ堐ˬᶵ慵天˭炻3 ẋ堐ˬᶨ凔˭炻4 ẋ堐ˬ慵天˭炻5 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮慵天˭炻9 ẋ 堐ˬ䃉シ夳/ᶵ䞍忻˭ˤ

a ⡆姕揝嶗䲣䴙炻≈⻟忋㍍⣏ⵤⰙᷣ天⡆攟⋨ 1 2 3 4 5 9 ⍲㷗ḅ㕘䓴ᷣ天⛘⋨ b ⡆⺢忻嶗䲣䴙炻≈⻟⣏ⵤⰙ冯楁㷗ⶪ⋨⍲㕘 1 2 3 4 5 9 䓴䘬忻嶗䵚 c 㓡┬⣏ⵤⰙ䘬忻嶗⬱㌺⍲Ṍ忂姕㕥 1 2 3 4 5 9 d ⡆姕䡤柕姕㕥炻≈⻟㯜ᶲṌ忂㚵⊁ 1 2 3 4 5 9

C2. 䘤⯽妰∫⺢嬘㓡┬⋿⣏ⵤ忻嶗⬱㌺⍲Ṍ忂姕㕥炻忁ᾳ⺢嬘㚱⣂⏠⺽Ἀ⇘娚⋨ 忚埴ẹ攺/⹟㦪㳣≽烎 a ⋩↮⏠⺽ b ⏠⺽ c ᶨ凔 d ᶵ⏠⺽ e ⋩↮ᶵ⏠⺽ f 䃉シ夳/ᶵ䞍忻

⹟㦪⍲㕭忲 D1. ⤪㝄⣏ⵤⰙ冰⺢ẍᶳᷣ柴䘬⹟㦪⍲㕭忲姕㕥炻㚱⣂⏠⺽Ἀ⇘⣏ⵤⰙ忚埴⹟㦪 ⍲㕭忲㳣≽烎婳㟡㒂Ἀ䘬シ栀姽↮炻1 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮ᶵ⏠⺽˭炻2 ẋ堐ˬᶵ⏠⺽˭炻3 ẋ堐ˬᶨ 凔˭炻4 ẋ堐ˬ⏠⺽˭炻5 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮⏠⺽˭炻9 ẋ堐ˬ䃉シ夳/ᶵ䞍忻˭ˤ

a ⹟㦪冯慶⢾㳣≽姕㕥 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪烉ᷣ柴㦪⚺炻㍊晒㦪⚺炻㤝旸忳≽⟜⛘ˣ 㯜ᶲ㳣≽ᷕ⽫) b ⑩␛冯ṓ㦪姕㕥 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪烉岤䈑ˣ伶梇梸梚ˣ惺⸿姕㕥) c 䓇ン㕭忲枭䚖⍲姕㕥 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪䓇ン㕭忲ᷕ⽫ˣ彚⟜橼槿ˣ奨㗇姕㕥ˣ 曚䆇⟜⛘) d 㔯⊾冯㬟⎚䚠斄㕭忲枭䚖 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪烉曰ᾖˣ悱恲䓇㳣橼槿ˣ㮹⭧ˣ㬟⎚㬍埴⋨) e え攺姕㕥 1 2 3 4 5 9 (ἳ⤪烉㴟䀀ˣ㯜䗪⍲ẹ攺⹎`㛹)

D2. ⤪㝄⇅㬍⺢嬘⛐⣏ⵤⰙ≈姕ẍᶳ⹟㦪⍲㕭忲姕㕥炻Ἀ㭼庫╄㬉恋ṃ? (婳怠↢㇨㚱Ἀ╄㬉䘬姕㕥)

㇞ℏ姕㕥 ප ᷣ柴⺷ẹ攺⍲⧃㦪⋨ ප 曺⮹⸜⭌ℏ㍊晒㦪⚺(⤪⭌ℏ㹹㴒⟜ˣ4D 暣⼙昊ˣ⭌ℏ嶛⁀ iFly) ප ⚳晃䳂䘬㹄⅘⟜

㇞⢾姕㕥 ප ∝㕘䘬䓇ン㕭忲䅙溆(⤪⛘㧁⺷㢵䈑⚺) ප ≽䈑彚匲/㯜䈃ᾅ做ᷕ⽫ ප ㇞⢾㍊晒㦪⚺(⤪䨢ᷕ梃Ṣ㹹佼ᷳ㕭ˣⰙ✉㹹㡗ˣ㺮⻰⮬㑲)/㤝旸忳≽⟜⛘(⤪ 㒨䞛ˣ㹹㜧忳≽⟜) ප 㯜ᶲ㦪⚺/㯜ᶲ㳣≽ᷕ⽫ ප 忲凯㱲嗽 ප 㹹佼⁀ ප 彚⟜橼槿(⤪㓞√ˣ彚䓘慶梸) ප 㯜䗪⍲ẹ攺⹎`㛹 ප 奨㘗ˣ奨㗇姕㕥 ප ㍊䳊曚䆇⛘溆/⢾⯽㳣≽ ප ╖干⼹冯䘣Ⱉ⼹䵚䴉䘬⺞Ỡ ප 岥㟤⦩ (Segway/暁廒暣≽⸛堉干)

㔯⊾冯㬟⎚姕㕥 ප ⣏ⵤⰙ㬟⎚⌂䈑棐 ප 䥒㜿ᷳ㕭/⽫曰朄ᾖ㳣≽ ප ≽ン曰ᾖ㳣≽(⤪㬎埻ˣ⣒㤝ᷕ⽫) ප 悱恲䓇㳣橼槿/⁛䴙梇喅ᷕ⽫ ප ㇞⢾㳣≽⟜⛘(⤪曚⣑∯⟜) ප ⨂䥖ᷕ⽫

䣦㚫䘤⯽ E1. Ἀ娵䁢ẍᶳ恋ṃ㗗⏠⺽Ἀ⛐/㛒Ἦ⇘⣏ⵤⰙ⯭ỷ䘬慵天⚈䳈烎 (婳怠↢㇨㚱Ἀ娵䁢慵天䘬⚈䳈) a 㔁做㚵⊁ b ⯙㤕㨇㚫 c 㓗㎜⯙㤕䘬㚵⊁ (ἳ⤪烉⸤䪍㚵⊁) d 䣦⋨姕㕥 e ⛘⋨䘬攟怈夷∫ f Ṍ忂惵⣿ g Ỷ䡛䘬䓇㳣䑘⠫ h ᾅ⬀悱恲䈡刚

㔜橼シ夳 F1. 㔜橼Ἦ婒炻Ἀ⮵⥼⒉㚫䘬䘤⯽⺢嬘㚱⣂娵⎴烎婳ẍ 1-5 ἄ姽↮炻1 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮ᶵ娵⎴˭炻2 ẋ堐ˬᶵ娵⎴˭炻3 ẋ堐ˬᶨ凔˭炻 4 ẋ堐ˬ娵⎴˭炻5 ẋ堐ˬ⋩↮娵⎴˭炻9 ẋ堐ˬ䃉シ夳/ᶵ䞍忻˭ˤ

1 2345 9

F2. 婳⓷ぐ㚱㰺㚱℞Ṿシ夳ㆾ⺢嬘烎ġ ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ

ᾳṢ屯㕁 P1. ⿏⇍烉 a 䓟 b ⤛

P2. ⸜漉烉 a 16-24 㬚 b 25-34 㬚 c 35-44 㬚 d 45-54 㬚 e 55-64 㬚 f65㬚ㆾẍᶲ

P3. 㔁做䦳⹎烉 a ⮷⬠⍲ẍᶳ b ⇅ᷕ䦳⹎ c 檀ᷕ䦳⹎ d ⮰ᶲ㔁做

P4. ⯭ỷ⛘⋨烉 a ᷕ大⋨ b 䀋Ṽ⋨ c 㜙⋨ d ⋿⋨ e 㱡⮾㖢⋨ f 㶙㯜❿⋨ g ḅ漵❶⋨ h 湫⣏ẁ⋨ i 奨⠀⋨ j 吝曺⋨ k 勫䀋⋨ l Ⱇ攨⋨ m ⃫㚿⋨ n ⊿⋨ o ⣏❼⋨ p 㱁䓘⋨ q 大届⋨ r 暊Ⲟ⋨

P5. ỷ㇞㭷㚰ℍ〗烉 a $4,000 ẍᶳ b $4,000-$5,999 c $6,000-$7,999 d $8,000-$9,999 e $10,000-$14,999 f $15,000-$19,999 g $20,000-$24,999 h $25,000-$29,999 i $30,000-$39,999 j $40,000 ㆾẍᶲ

P6. ㇧⯳栆✳烉 a ℔䆇䦇ỷ㇧⯳ b 屯≑冒伖⯭㇨㇧⯳ c 䥩Ṣ㦻⬯ d ℞Ṿ炻婳姣㖶烉______

姒⓷⬴䔊嫅嫅ぐ䘬⮞屜シ夳⍲⍫冯炝

Appendix III English version of questionnaire

Lantau Development Public Engagement Questionnaire Survey

This exhibition aims at introducing the development proposals (“the proposal”) recommended by the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (“the Committee). The Committee is now undergoing a public engagement exercise to understand the views of the general public towards the development plan. Hong Kong Shue Yan University is commissioned to conduct a questionnaire survey. We would like to hear your views. Hope you would spare 5-10 minutes to complete this survey.

Please be assured that any opinion you provided will be kept strictly confidential and all findings will only be used for analysis purpose. If you have any question or problem about this survey, please do not hesitate to contact Mr Wan at 2806 5167.

Thank you for your participation炝

Screening questions

S1. Are you aged 16 or above烎 aYes b No (End of survey)

S2. How much do you know about the proposals of Lantau Development? aVery much bFairly c A little bit d Do not know about it (End of survey)

Before proceeding to the subsequent questions, please watch a short video which introduces the proposals on Lantau Development.

(Play video)

Spatial Planning and Land Use A1.How much do you agree with the following development proposals suggested by the Committee? “1” = “Highly disagree”, “2” = “Disagree”, “3” = “Fair”, “4” = “Agree”, “5” = “Highly agree”, “9” = “No comments / Don’t know”

a North Lantau Corridor for Strategic 1 2 3 4 Economic and Housing Development 5 9 (e.g. Tung Chung New Town Extension, expansion of AsiaWorld-Expo) b North-eastern Lantau Node for Leisure, 1 2 3 4 5 9 Entertainment and Tourism Development (e.g. establish tourist attractions in Sunny Bay, integrate Sunny Bay with the development of Hong Kong Disneyland) c Conducting study to explore developing the 1 2 3 4 5 9 East Lantau Metropolis and use artificial islands to develop a new Core Business District d Designating predominant part of Lantau for 1 2 3 4 5 9 Conservation, Leisure, Cultural and Green Tourism (e.g. promotion of ecological and cultural tourism and education, development of the potential for environmental education, recreation and green tourism) e Consolidating and relocating government’s 1 2 3 4 5 9 facilities, developing cavern for space (e.g. consolidating and relocating part of the correctional facilities at Hei Ling Chau and Lantau Island; development of cavern at the hillside near Siu Ho Wan and Mui Wo)

Conservation B1.How important do you think are the following conservation proposals suggested by the Committee? “1” = “Highly unimportant”, “2” = “Unimportant”, “3” = “Fair”, “4” = “Important”, “5” = “Highly important”, “9” = “No comments / Don’t know”

a Strengthen preservation of natural ecosystem 1 2 3 4 5 9 and sites of cultural heritage importance (e.g. providing heritage themed scenic trails) b Preserve areas with local characteristics and 1 2 3 4 5 9 distinctive landscape setting (e.g. Tai O fishing village, Ngong Ping 360) c Enhance attractiveness of country parks to 1 2 3 4 5 9 enhance its leisure and educational values d Connect the proposed and existing marine 1 2 3 4 5 9 parks to form a marine park network of considerable scale

Strategic Traffic and Transport Infrastructure C1. Below are proposals regarding future traffic and transport infrastructure of Lantau. How important do you think are they to develop Lantau as a community for living, work, business, leisure and study? “1” = “Highly unimportant”, “2” = “Unimportant”, “3” = “Fair”, “4” = “Important”, “5” = “Highly important”, “9” = “No comments / Don’t know”

a Provide new railway system to enhance 1 2 3 4 5 9 connection between Lantau’s major growth areas with urban areas and the New Territories b Build new road network to enhance linkage 1 2 3 4 5 9 between Lantau and the urban areas of Hong Kong and the New Territories c Improve road arrangements and traffic and 1 2 3 4 5 9 transport facilities of South Lantau Road d Provide new pier facilities to enhance water 1 2 3 4 5 9 transport services

C2. The proposal has mentioned the improvement of road arrangements and transport facilities of South Lantau Road. How attractive is this proposal to you to visit there for leisure/entertainment? a Highly unattractive b Unattractive c Fair d Attractive e Highly attractive f No comments / Don’t know

Recreation and Tourism 䓚ˣ If the following themes of recreational and tourist facilities are to be constructed in Lantau, how attractive are they for you to visit Lantau for recreation and tour? “1” = “Highly unattractive”, “2” = “Unattractive”, “3” = “Fair”, “4” = “Attractive”, “5” = “Highly attractive”, “9” = “No comments / Don’t know”

a Recreation and Outdoor Activities 1 2 3 4 5 9 (e.g. thematic leisure and entertainment area, adventure park, extreme sports, water sports centre) b Splurge and Indulge 1 2 3 4 5 9 (e.g. shopping, dining and hotel facilities) c Eco-tour 1 2 3 4 5 9 (e.g. cco-tour centre, farmstay, viewing and stargazing facilities, campsites) d Culture and Heritage Tour 1 2 3 4 5 9 (e.g. contemplative practice, experiential village life attraction, guesthouse, historic walking district) e Leisure Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 9 (e.g. beach, spa and resort)

D2. If the following recreational and tourism facilities are to be constructed in Lantau, which one(s) do you like better? (Please select all facilities you like)

Indoor facilities ˎ Thematic Leisure and Entertainment Area ˎ Indoor Adventure Park for the Youth (E.g. Indoor Surfing/ Wave Pool, 4D Theatre, iFly Indoor Skydiving) ˎ International Standard Ice Rink

Outdoor facilities ˎ Creative Ecotourism Hotspot (E.g. Iconic Botanic Garden) ˎ Animal Farm / Buffalo Conservation Centre ˎ Outdoor Adventure Park (E.g. Zipline, Hillside Slides, Paintball/War Game) / Extreme Sports (e.g. Rock Climbing, Skate Park) ˎ Aqua Park / Water sports centre ˎ Marina ˎ Paragliding ˎ Related Agricultural Activities (E.g. Harvest Walk and Farm-to-Table Eatery) ˎ Spa and Resort ˎ Viewing and stargazing Facilities ˎ Exploration Campsite / Outward Bound ˎ Extension of Biking and Hiking Trail Networks ˎ Segway

Culture and heritage facilities ˎ Lantau History Museum ˎ Zen Tour / Retreat Course ˎ Active Contemplative Practice (Wushu Retreat, Tai Chi Centre) ˎ Experiential Village Life Attraction / Culinary Heritage Centre ˎ Outdoor event area (E.g. Open Air Repertory Theatre) ˎ Wedding centre

Social Development E1. Which of the following factors are important to attract you to live / select to live in future in Lantau? (Please select all factors you deem important) 1. Education services 2. Employment opportunities 3. Support service for employment (e.g. children service) 4. Community facilities 5. Long-term planning of the community 6. Transportation 7. Low-carbon living environment 8. Preservation of rural characteristics

Overall Comments F1. Overall, how much do you agree with the development proposals of the Committee? “1” = “Highly disagree”, “2” = “Disagree”, “3” = “Fair”, “4” = “Agree”, “5” = “Highly agree”, “9” = “No comments / Don’t know”

1 2345 9

F2. Do you have further comments or suggestions in regards to the Lantau Development烎 ______

Personal particular P1. Gender烉 a. Male b. Female

P2. Age烉 a. 16-24 b. 25-34 c. 35-44 d. 45-54 e. 55-64 f. 65 or above

P3. Educational attainment烉 a Primary or below b Lower secondary c Upper secondary d Tertiary education

P4. Area of current residence烉 a. Central and Western b. Wan Chai c. Eastern d. Southern e. Yau Tsim Mong f. Sham Shui Po g. Kowloon City h. Wong Tai Sin i. Kwun Tong j. Kwai Tsing k. Tsuen Wan l. Tuen Mun m. Yuen Long n. North o. Tai Po p. Sha Tin q. Sai Kung r. Islands

P5. Monthly household income烉 a Below $4,000 b $4,000-$5,999 c $6,000-$7,999 d $8,000-$9,999 e $10,000-$14,999 f $15,000-$19,999 g $20,000-$24,999 h $25,000-$29,999 i $30,000-$39,999 j $40,000 or above

P6. Type of housing烉 a. Public rental housing b. Subsidized home ownership housing c. Private housing d. Others, please explain烉______

-- End of survey -- Thank you for your opinions and participation炝

Appendix IV Comments collected from open-ended question

Type of comments Category Comments of respondents Views on Lantau Support ĩĲĪ Build the Lantau but still keep the development environmentġ ĩĳĪ ㅱ䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙἮ妋㰢⛇⛘䞕仢⓷柴ġ ĩĴĪ ⣏ⵤⰙ䘬䘤⯽㗗ῤ⼿侫ㄖ炻Ữ天侫ㄖ⸛ 堉ᾅ做冯䘤⯽炻忁ᾳ㤝䁢慵天ġ ĩĵĪ ᶵ⍵⮵ᾅ做炻ⶴ㛃⎗ẍ℟橼㧁䣢ᾅ做⛘ ⋨炻ᶵⶴ㛃䨺䣁䘤⯽炻ⶴ㛃䘤⯽␴ᾅ做 ⸛堉ġ ĩĶĪ 㓗㊩䘤⯽ġ ĩķĪ ≈⾓䘤⯽忇⹎ġ ĩĸĪ ⎒天㚨Ỷ旸⹎㓡嬲炻⯙㓗㊩⺢嬘ġ ĩĹĪ ⎒天嶇叿⺢嬘㕡⎹䘤⯽⯙娵⎴ġ ĩĺĪ ⛐ᾅ嬟䑘⠫䘬⍇⇯ᶳ䘤⯽ġ ĩĲıĪ ⛘⋨䘤⯽⤥慵天天⣂⃫䘤⯽ ▿娎ᶵ⎴ 䓊㤕ġ ĩĲĲĪ 㚨䵲天㚱惵⣿惵⎰䘤⯽ġ ĩĲĳĪ 䘤⯽Ὢ⤥ḳġ ĩĲĴĪ 䚉⾓䘤⯽炻性⃵㉱ⶫġ ĩĲĵĪ 䚉⾓忚埴䘤⯽ġ ĩĲĶĪ 䚉⾓忚埴䘤⯽ġ ĩĲķĪ 岲ㆸ⊿悐⍲㜙⊿悐⎗䘤⯽䴻㾇⍲㇧⯳炻 ⋿⣏ⵤㅱᾅ䔁⍇尴ġ Against ĩĲĪ ᶵ天㈲⣏ⵤⰙ❶ⶪ⊾ġ ĩĳĪ ᶵ天㈲⣏ⵤⰙ嬲ㆸ⓮⟜ġ ĩĴĪ ᶵㅱ忶⹎䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙġ ĩĵĪ ᶵ天䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙġ ĩĶĪ 㬊䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙġ ĩķĪ The presumption that construction should be part of the development of lantau's long term value to HK is false.The value is not in pouring concrete but in respecting nature.ġ ĩĸĪ ṢⶍⲞ⍲⼨㷗ⲞṌ忂暋ẍ妰∫⍲⮎埴炻 ⋿朊天⬴┬Ṍ忂炻㦪⚺⣒慵⎹䴻㾇ġ ĩĹĪ ṢⶍⲞ㗗ᶵ⽭天ġ ĩĺĪ ㅱ⮲慵⣏ⵤⰙ䌐㚱姕㕥⍲㔯⊾ᾅ⬀炻ᶵ 64

ㅱẍ䘤⯽ἄ䎮䓙䟜⢆䈡刚ġ ĩĲıĪ ᶵἄảỽ㓡≽炻ᾅ䔁⣏ⵤⰙ㇨㚱⣑䃞屯㸸炻婳㓧⹄ᶵ天冯㮹䁢㔝炻Ṏ婳⥼⒉㚫 ᶵ天≑䲪䁢嗸ġ ĩĲĲĪ ᶵⶴ㛃⠓㴟炻ᾅ䔁悟恲䈡刚炻㓗㊩┬䓐 ⱑ㳆⤪㖪✒凔炻䘤⯽叿慵䓇ン⸛堉⎗⛐ ℞Ṿ⛘㕡⺢⯳ġ ĩĲĳĪ ᶵ⺢嬘冰⺢㯜ᶲ䘬⢓炻≈⻟ᾅ做炻ẍ䔞 ⛘ỷ㇞⯭㮹䘬䓇㳣䁢ὅ㬠⬴┬揝嶗䵚䴉ġ ĩĲĴĪ ᶵ天ᶵ⽭天䘬⠓㴟ġ ĩĲĵĪ ᶵ天⣒⓮㤕⊾炻䚉慷ᾅ做炻天Ṣ⿏⊾炻冒䃞䓇ン䁢ᷣġ ĩĲĶĪ ᶵ天⺢姕㯠ᷭ⿏⓮㤕⍲ỷ⬭⺢䭱炻䓙℞ 㗗⣏⹰␴惺⸿ġ ĩĲķĪ ᶵ岲ㆸṢⶍⲞẍ⍲⠓㴟ġ ĩĲĸĪ ᶵ天⓮㤕䘤⯽炻ᶵ天Ỡ⺞㖪✒ 360 军⣏ 㽛ġ ĩĲĹĪ ᶵ天⮯妰∫嬲ㆸ㓧㱣䘤⯽ġ ĩĲĺĪ ᶵ天㏆Ḫ⣏ⵤⰙġ ĩĳıĪ ᶵ天忶↮䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙ炻ᾅ㊩⍇䉨ġ ĩĳĲĪ ᶵ天䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙ炻ᾅ⬀䦨㚱䈑䧖ġ ĩĳĳĪ ᶵ天嬲ㆸ⎎ᶨᾳ悥ⶪᾅ䔁楁㷗㚨⼴ᶨᾳ ⼴剙⚺ġ ĩĳĴĪ 䘤⯽妰∫ᶵ姕⮎晃炻⣒暊⛘炻⣏悐↮悥䔓噯㶣嵛炻⠓㴟䟜⢆䓇ンġ ĩĳĵĪ ᶵ䘤⯽炻ᾅ㊩⍇䉨ġ ĩĳĶĪ ᶵㅱ娚ẍ䘤⯽䣦⋨姕㕥䁢䓙䘤⯽㕭忲㤕炻ᶵ天傉Ḫ䘤⯽恲慶℔⚺䓐⛘ġ ĩĳķĪ ᶵ岲ㆸ冰⺢ṢⶍⲞġ ĩĳĸĪ ⍵⮵⠓㴟冰⺢⓮㤕ᷕ⽫ġ ĩĳĹĪ ⍵⮵冰⺢ṢⶍⲞ炻⣒忶⊆㮹屉炻⮵䑘 ⠫⼙枧⣒⣏ġ ĩĳĺĪ ⣒⇅㬍炻㛒夳⮎晃ℏ⭡冰⺢忻嶗⼴炻Ṍ 忂剙屣⣏䑘⠫䟜⢆ġ ĩĴıĪ ⎗䘤⯽℞Ṿ⛘㕡炻ᶵᶨ⭂天䘤⯽忁⛘㕡ġ ĩĴĲĪ 㛔Ἦ㚱⚢㚱䈡刚␴䘤⯽炻䎦㗪䘤⯽⶚Ẍ ⣏ⵤⰙ䘬恲⢾㚱ᶨ⭂䦳⹎䘬䟜⢆炻`㖍 ℍ⍣䘬Ṣ⶚⣒⣂⣒㒈従炻`⤪⍰⛐≈⣏ ≃⹎䘤⯽炻㚫Ẍ⣏ⵤⰙ忶⹎❶ⶪ⊾炻㈕ 65

㚚⍇㚱䘬⣏ⵤⰙġ ĩĴĳĪ ⛘⋨ῷ怈炻暋⏠⺽Ṣℍ⍣ỷ炻㇨ẍⒼ暨天䘤⯽ġ ĩĴĴĪ ⤪㝄天ᾅ做炻婳⃰侫ㄖ℞妰∫䘬忚埴⶚ 䴻⤪ỽ䟜⢆ᷕ厗䘥㴟専䘬䓇㳣⛘㕡ˤ⎎ ⢾炻㖶䞍忻⣏ⵤⰙ映嶗Ṍ忂⓷柴♜慵炻 ⯙ᶵ天╖╖⎒゛⡆≈Ṣ㳩炻婳䁢䔞⛘⯭ 㮹叿゛ġ ĩĴĵĪ 㚱旸⹎䘤⯽ 炻⮹䘤⯽ỷ⬭㕡朊ġ ĩĴĶĪ 䘤⯽㚫䟜⢆Ḯ≽㢵䈑䘬䓇ン䑘⠫炻攟怈㚫⼙枧䔞⋨䘬㯋῁䘤⯽⼴㗗⏎ㆸ䁢楁㷗 ⏠⺽䘬⛘溆炻䎦⥼⒉㚫⺢嬘䘬枭䚖␴惘役㜙⋿Ṇ⚳⭞䘬⃒攺姕㕥⤪㯜䗪ˣ㯜ᶲ 㳣≽䫱ⶖᶵ⣂炻㗗⏎傥⏠⺽楁㷗ㆾ惘役 ⚳⭞䘬忲⭊天⓷䔞⛘⯭㮹㚫⏎゛䵕㊩❶ ⶪ⭮普Ỷ炻ẍᾅ㊩ṾᾹ䘬䓇㳣岒䳈ġ ĩĴķĪ ⏦⤥忶⹎䘤⯽ 䚉慷ᾅ㊩娚⋨䈡刚ġ ĩĴĸĪ ⶴ㛃⣏ⵤⰙ⎗ẍ䵕㊩䎦䉨ġ ĩĴĹĪ ⶴ㛃ᶵ天䘤⯽⼙枧⍇㛔䓇ンġ ĩĴĺĪ ᾅ⬀䈡刚⯙ᶵㅱ⿍忇䘤⯽ġ ĩĵıĪ ᾅ䔁⍇㚱䈡刚ẍ⍲㷃⮹⮵⍇㚱䓇ン䘬⼙枧ġ ĩĵĲĪ ᾅ䔁䎦䉨ġ ĩĵĳĪ ⍵⮵䘤⯽炻䘤⯽␴ᾅ做㟡㛔ᶵ傥ℤ栏ġ ĩĵĴĪ 㓧⹄ᾅ做⯙嬲䚠䟜⢆ġ ĩĵĵĪ 䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙ⎒㚫Ẍ℞⣒⓮㤕⊾炻⎒暨ᾅ 䔁⣏冒䃞䘬㘗刚ġ ĩĵĶĪ Ⓖ⤥㉮⯳ġ ĩĵķĪ Ⓖ⤥䘤⯽⊭墅⎴⛘䓊枭䚖炻ᾅ䔁䔞⛘䓇ン䑘⠫ġ ĩĵĸĪ Ⓖ⤥㏆␩⣂䘤⯽ġ ĩĵĹĪ Ⓖ䘤⯽㚫ẚ⤥ġ ĩĵĺĪ 䘤⯽⎒㚫ⷞἮ䟜⢆ġ ĩĶıĪ 䘤⯽⎒㚫忈ㆸ䦇慹ᶲ⋯炻⮷⓮㇞㖍⼴ᶵ 傥䆇㤕ġ ĩĶĲĪ ⍵⮵䘤⯽妰∫炻ᶵ天䟜⢆䓇ン䑘⠫ġ ĩĶĳĪ 䚉慷ᶵ天 ⣒⣏✳䘬㓡≽ㆾ➢⺢䘤⯽炻 ⎴㗪天ᾅ䔁悱恲䈡刚ġ ĩĶĴĪ ᶵ天忶⹎䘤⯽炻ᾅ嬟䓇ン䑘⠫ġ 66

ĩĶĵĪ ⍵⮵䘤⯽炻⚈⼙枧㴟㲳䓇ンġ ĩĶĶĪ 䚉慷㷃⮹ẍ攳㉻忻嶗Ἦ⏠⺽Ṣ⍣⣏ⵤ Ⱉ, 㤝⹎ᶵ岲ㆸ㜙⣏ⵤ悥㚫ġ ĩĶķĪ 岒䔹䘤⯽傥⏎⮎埴ġ Comments and Community ĩĲĪ ≈⻟慓䗪姕㕥炻⛐侫ㄖ䘤⯽妰∫㗪ㅱ⣂ suggestions on development ≈侫ㄖ徨ẹṢ⢓ㆾ戨檖㕷䘬暨天ġ Lantau ĩĳĪ ⛐⎰怑⛘溆⺢⣏✳⓮⟜⍲⣏✳慓昊炻⎗ development ὃ冒䴎冒嵛炻⡆≈ㅱ嬲Ṍ忂㕡㟰炻性⃵ 慵㺼ᶲ㫉㑆㧳ḳẞġ ĩĴĪ ⣂䘤⯽䣦⋨㳣≽ġ ĩĵĪ ㇨㚱姕㕥⍲䘤⯽悥天栏⍲➢Ⰼⶪ㮹䘬暨天⍲屈㑼傥≃ġ ĩĶĪ 㚨⤥㓡┬䔞⋨⯭㮹䘬䓇㳣ġ ĩķĪ ⡆≈曺⮹⸜⍫冯䘬㳣≽ġ ĩĸĪ ⡆≈慓昊ġ ĩĹĪ 冰⺢䣦⋨㚫➪ˣ埿ⶪˣ䓇㳣⽭暨炻䘤⯽ ㇨㚱姕㕥䘬冰⺢ġ ĩĺĪ 冰⺢⚾㚠棐ˣ慓昊炻⎗ẍ䘤⯽㭗₨㤕ġ ĩĲıĪ 慓䗪㚵⊁天≈⻟ġ ĩĲĲĪ 慓䗪姕㕥媖娊㕡⎹⣒䨢㲃炻䚖㧁㛒⽭␩ ⭡㖻忼⇘炻ᶨ㗪攻゛忼⇘⣒⣂䚖㧁炻䃉 ⃰⼴庽慵㚱䃉⃰⼴㫉⸷烎䎦㗪㔯ẞ㛒㚱 ⌙㨇㩊妶!ġ Conservation ĩĲĪ Conservation of environment comes the mostġ ĩĳĪ Its important to carry out construction with minimal disruption to lifeġ ĩĴĪ Protect natural environmentġ ĩĵĪ ⸛堉䓇ン⍲䴻㾇䘤⯽ġ ĩĶĪ ⸛堉䓇ン⍲䑘⠫ᾅ做炻䚉慷旸⇞冰⺢䲼憅⮵忲⭊䘬姕㕥ġ ĩķĪ ⸛堉ᾅ做⍲䘤⯽ġ ĩĸĪ ⸛堉䑘⠫冯䘤⯽⇑䙲ġ ĩĹĪ ⣂ ᾅ做炻ᾅ嬟冒䃞䓇ンġ ĩĺĪ ⶴ㛃㓧⹄┬䓐悱㓰⛇⛘炻⛐ᶵ慵天⛘㕡 ⎗ẍ⠓㴟ġ (10) ᶵ天䟜⢆䓇ン䑘⠫ (11) ᶵ天䟜⢆悽恲䑘⠫ ĩĲĳĪ ᾅ做ᶵㅱ⎒⛐⣏垼䀋ˣ⣏㜙Ⱉ炻⣏ⵤⰙ 67

㚱姙⣂ῤ⼿ᾅ嬟䘬⣏冒䃞炻㜙㴴察ˣ⣏ 㽛悥㚱⤥檀ᾅ做₡ῤġ ĩĲĴĪ ᾅ做䁢慵炻ᶵ天ㆸ䁢㕭忲⓮㤕⋨ġ ĩĲĵĪ ᾅ䔁⣏冒䃞炻㓡┬Ṍ忂ġ ĩĲĶĪ ᾅ䔁㇨㚱冒䃞屯㸸ġ ĩĲķĪ ᾅ䔁恲慶℔⚺䈡刚炻ᶵ天⠓㴟炻㷃⮹㕭忲㤕⮵悱恲䘬㹳㒦ġ ĩĲĸĪ ᾅ䔁⍇㛔⣏冒䃞䈡刚侴⣂㕤䘤⯽炻䘤⯽ ᶱấᶨ⯙⎗ẍġ ĩĲĹĪ ᾅ䔁⍇㛔䘬朊尴ġ ĩĲĺĪ ᾅ䔁⍇㚱䘬冒䃞䓇ンġ ĩĳıĪ 天⸛堉⍇Ἦ䈡刚␴䘤⯽䑘⠫ġ ĩĳĲĪ 天ᾅ做炻ᶵ天⠓㴟炻䓇ンⶖġ ĩĳĳĪ 天䚉慷性⃵⠓㴟炻⎗⏎ẍ䦣Ⱉẋ㚧ᷳ烎 ᶵⶴ㛃⛐㔜ᾳ䘤⯽夷∫ℏ炻㚫↢䎦姙⣂ ⣏✳尒⬭⛘⋨ˤġ ĩĳĴĪ 天冯ᾅ做⛀橼⁦炻䘤⯽㚫⼙䓇ン炻天⸛ 堉⍲⎗㊩临䘤⯽ġ ĩĳĵĪ 天䑘ᾅ炻ᶵ天⣒⓮㤕⊾炻ᾅ㊩⍇㚱䘬䈡刚ˤġ ĩĳĶĪ 慵夾ᾅ做炻ᶵ天忶⹎䘤⯽ġ ĩĳķĪ 㷃⮹Ṣ䁢䘤⯽炻ᾅ嬟冒䃞㘗奨炻ᾅ䔁⛘ 㕡䈡刚ġ ĩĳĸĪ 䘤⯽⣏ⵤⰙ天Ḯ妋䔞⋨䈡刚炻᷎㓡┬Ṍ 忂惵⣿⍲⛘䎮䑘⠫⚈䳈ᶵ暨天Ṣⶍ⊾炻䘤⯽ᶨᾳ䈡刚ᷣ柴炻ㇵ⎗ẍ⏠⺽Ṣ天慵夾㊩临⿏ġ ĩĳĹĪ 䘤⯽␴ᾅ做ᷳ攻天⍾⼿⸛堉炻ⶴ㛃㚱嵛 ⣈䣦⋨䣦⋨姕㕥␴Ṍ忂惵⣿ġ ĩĳĺĪ 䘤⯽䘬⎴㗪㷃⮹⮵⣏冒䃞䘬 ⭛ġ ĩĴıĪ 䘤⯽天⸛堉䑘ᾅ炻ⶴ㛃ᾅ䔁㛔⋨䘬䎦㚱屯㸸炻ᶵ天忶⹎䘤⯽炻ㅱ娚侫ㄖ䘤⯽℞ Ṿ⛘⋨炻ἳ⤪㕘䓴㜙⊿䫱ġ ĩĴĲĪ 䘤⯽⼿Ἦᶵ天⣒⼙枧䓇ン䑘⠫ġ ĩĴĳĪ 䘤⯽㛇攻天㲐シ䑘ᾅ⍲䓇ン䑘⠫ᾅ䔁悱恲㘗奨䘬䈡刚ġ ĩĴĴĪ 䚉慷⛐冒䃞⍲䓇ンᾅ做㕡朊 ⣂┚ġ ĩĴĵĪ 娵⎴ᾅ做䘤⯽ᶵ娵⎴䴻㾇䘤⯽ġ ĩĴĶĪ 娵䁢妰∫⣒䎮゛䘤⯽㗪㷃⮹䟜⢆ġ 68

ĩĴķĪ 暨天侫ㄖ⣏ⵤⰙ屈匟傥≃ ⯌℞㗗恲⋨ ⶴ㛃ᾅ䔁⛘⋨䈡刚ẍ⍲⍇㛔朊尴ġ ĩĴĸĪ 暨天䡢ᾅ䎦㚱䘬䓇ン䑘⠫炻ㅱ⃒⃰侫ㄖ ᾅ䔁䓇ン⃫䳈ġ ĩĴĹĪ ⡆≈ᾅ做₡ῤẍ⍲ᶲẍ䥹㈨忚埴䘤⯽ἄ 䁢惵⣿姕㕥ġ Facility ĩĲĪ ⛐㜙㴴⺢㴟㾙攟⹲ġ ĩĳĪ 慵夾惵⣿䘬⬱㌺ġ ĩĴĪ ㍐埴╖干㕭忲ġ ĩĵĪ 攳岕⟜ġ ĩĶĪ ⡆⺢⹟㦪姕㕥炻⍲ᾅ做㔯䈑ġ ĩķĪ ⡆姕㚜⣂╖干⼹ġ ĩĸĪ 冰⺢ᶨᾳ栆Ụ㕘≈✉䘬岕⟜炻᷎姕伖岕 ❶⋨ġ ĩĹĪ 冰⺢䫔ᶱ嵹ġ ĩĺĪ 䑘Ⲟ╖干⼹ġ (10) 㹹佼⁀⣒⌙晒炻忲凯⏦怑⎰⣏悐ấ㘖忂 ⶪ㮹炻⎒⎗ὃ㚱拊Ṣἧ䓐 Housing ĩĲĪ ⣂⺢⯳ġ ĩĳĪ ㇧⯳䘤⯽天夷∫炻䥩Ṣ㦻冯℔⯳⛘溆天 ⤥⤥怠㑯ġ ĩĴĪ 冰⺢㇧⯳栆✳天⸛堉℔䥩䆇㇧⯳ᶵ天⎒ 䁢ℏ⛘㚵⊁ġ (4) ᶵ⺢嬘⛐㜙㴴䀋役暣≃䪁冰⺢㇧⯳ Planning ĩĲĪ ⸛堉䘤⯽冯⯭㮹㇨暨ġ ĩĳĪ ᾅ做䘤⯽⸛堉⏎⇯⣏ⵤⰙ㚫⣙⍣䈡刚ġ ĩĴĪ ᾅ㊩䎦㚱䉨㱩炻ᶵ天䟜⢆䓇ン䑘⠫炻ᶵ 岲ㆸ⡆≈⯭ỷㆾ⯙㤕Ṣ⎋ġ ĩĵĪ 天⓮㤕␴⯭ỷ䘤⯽⸛堉ġ ĩĶĪ 慵夾⍇㚱⣏ⵤⰙ䘬㬟⎚⍲㔯⊾䈡刚ġ ĩķĪ 楁㷗暊Ⲟᶵㅱ⣿ẍ℞Ṿⶪ⋨䘬䘤⯽㕡⺷炻㓧⹄ㅱ⋼≑侴ᶵ㗗⍣⇣シ䁢⤡Ᾱ⭂ ỵ炻⛐ᾅ䔁暊Ⲟ䈡刚䘬⣏⇵㍸ᶳ炻ἧ⤡ Ᾱㆸ䁢楁㷗Ṣ䘬⼴剙⚺ġ ĩĸĪ ⮯徒⢓⯤␴㫋㽛↮攳䘤⯽炻ℑ侭ᷳ攻⎗ ẍ⣿䤐⼊⺷忚埴㍐⺋ġ ĩĹĪ 夷∫㗪天≈⻟䚋䭉⺊㕁⍲⺊⛇䘬㡬伖┬ ⼭⍇⯭㮹䘬暨天⍲⬱伖≈⻟⭋⁛⣏ⵤⰙ 䘤⯽䘬⤥嗽ġ 69

ĩĺĪ ⯙㤕⓷柴炻䁢Ṩ湤㜙㴴⯭㮹ᶵ⍣㨇⟜ⶍ ἄġ ĩĲıĪ 㚨⤥℟橼ṃṌẋ⤪ỽ句⮎妰∫⣂慵夾㜙㴴⯭㮹シ夳ġ ĩĲĲĪ 䘤⯽㊱悐⯙䎕炻天⃰䚳㷗䎈㽛⣏㧳␴㨇 ⟜䘬Ṣ㳩ġ ĩĲĳĪ 䵕㊩䎦㗪䘤⯽忇⹎炻怑䔞㓡┬㯜ᶲṌ忂ġ ĩĲĴĪ ㅱ娚㚱攟㛇䘬䘤⯽妰∫ġ Preservation ĩĲĪ ⎬㕡朊⍾⼿⸛堉炻䚉⎗傥ᾅ㊩⍇㚱䘬䓇ン⍲㔯⊾䈡刚ˤġ ĩĳĪ 朆ẍ⺢䭱䈑䘤⯽ᾅ䔁⛘⋨䈡刚⍲⍇⯭㮹㪲⇑ġ (3) 㚨⤥⮹䟜⢆䑘⠫ ĩĵĪ ᾅ㊩⍇㚱䈡刚⍲≈⻟Ṍ忂惵⣿ġ ĩĶĪ ᾅ䔁⍇㚱䈡刚ġ (6) ⤥ᾅ做ⶍἄ炻ᶵ怑⎰ỷ⣒⣂Ṣ (7) ⊿⣏ⵤ㴟➇ⶍ䦳崽䳽䘥㴟専炻ㅱᾅ做䘥㴟専␴℞Ṿ䈑䧖 (8) ⍵⮵ᶨ↯䘤⯽姕㕥炻䵕㊩悱恲䈡刚 ĩĺĪ ᾅ䔁⍇㚱䈡刚ġ ĩĲıĪ ⮯悱恲䈡刚⬴ℐᾅ䔁ġ ĩĲĲĪ ㅱᾅ䔁䎦㚱桐尴ġ Public engagement ĩĲĪ ⎹℔䛦妋慳妰∫娛䳘ℏ⭡ġ ĩĳĪ ⺢嬘⣒䨢㲃ġ ĩĴĪ 天⣂㍐⺋ġ ĩĵĪ ⯽奥䘬⚾堐Ⓖ㶭㘘ġ ĩĶĪ 娛䳘↿↢妰∫屯㕁ġ ĩķĪ 媖娊ᶵ嵛ᶵ㶠㤂⎗堐忼䓂湤シ夳⺢嬘⣂ 冯⣏ⵤⰙ⛘⋨⛀橼⎰ἄ冱彎媖娊ġ Transportation ĩĲĪ Ṍ忂⬱㌺䘬㓡┬ㅱ侫ㄖⶪ㮹暨天⍲䎦㗪揝嶗䘬㈧庱≃ġ ĩĳĪ 㓡┬Ṍ忂䵚䴉ġ ĩĴĪ ᶨ炻Ṍ忂惵⣿天⣂⃫炻ἳ⤪⎴㗪天㚱揝嶗⍲℔嶗Ḵ炻⚈ㅱ楁㷗䘬䴻㾇ね㱩炻天侫ㄖ㗗⏎暨天䫔ᶱᾳ㟠⽫⓮㤕⋨ġ ĩĵĪ ᶵ暨天⣒⣂忻嶗⺢嬘≈⻟℔ℙṌ忂姕㕥ġ ĩĶĪ ≈⻟Ṍ忂ġ ĩķĪ ≈⻟揉嶗㍍楩ġ 70

ĩĸĪ ⸛堉Ṍ忂姕㕥 ἳ⤪曺楔⣏㧳㓌䖻䓊䓇 ♜慵⼴㝄ġ ĩĹĪ Ṍ忂㚜ὧ⇑ġ ĩĺĪ Ṍ忂㗗ᷣ天侫ㄖ⚈䳈ġ ĩĲıĪ Ṍ忂天䘤⯽炻慓䗪天㓡┬ġ ĩĲĲĪ Ṍ忂悐ấ⣒⣂炻ᶵ暨天䨧忶⋿⣏ⵤⰙ䘬悐↮ġ ĩĲĳĪ Ṍ忂屣⣒屜炻ㅱ婧Ỷ㯜⸛ᶵㅱ⎒侫ㄖ㕭忲䘤⯽䘬暨天炻天⣂栏⍲㇧⯳暨天ġ ĩĲĴĪ ⛘揝Ỡ⺞军忠㜙恐ġ ĩĲĵĪ ⣂䘤⯽㇧⯳⺢姕⍲Ṍ忂炻⃰忻嶗⼴⛘揝 ℵ㴟嶗ˤ䵈刚䓇ン㕭忲⼭ᶳᶨ昶㭝䘤 ⯽ˤ㕭忲ᶵ傥⎒月㴟嶗炻天映嶗埴⃰ˤġ ĩĲĶĪ ⣂䘤⯽怑⎰⸜庽Ṣ⍲攟侭㳣≽⛘㕡干屣 ᶵ天⣒屜ġ ĩĲķĪ ⣂枭Ṍ忂惵⣿惵⎰ġ ĩĲĸĪ ⶴ㛃⎗ẍ冒楽⇘⣏ⵤⰙ忲䍑ġ ĩĲĹĪ 㓡┬Ṍ忂ġ ĩĲĺĪ 㓡┬Ṍ忂炻䈡⇍㗗揝嶗䵚䴉ġ ĩĳıĪ 㓡┬Ṍ忂炻㷃⮹⯭㮹干屣攳㓗ġ ĩĳĲĪ 㓡┬⋿⣏ⵤ䘬忻嶗姕㕥ġ ĩĳĳĪ 㛹⯳军㜙㴴䘬Ṍ忂惵⣿♜慵ᶵ嵛炻ⶴ㛃㓡┬ね㱩ġ ĩĳĴĪ 干屣ᶵ天⣒屜ġ ĩĳĵĪ ⺢嬘℔嶗崘⹲Ỡ⺞军大⋿⣏ⵤ⍲曺堋ġ ĩĳĶĪ 䞼䨞⋿⣏ⵤⰙ䘬Ṍ忂䘤⯽㴟ᶲ㧳␴忻ġ ĩĳķĪ 旵Ỷ⍣⣏ⵤⰙ䘬Ṍ忂屣䓐≈⻟⯙㤕㨇㚫 ␴慓䗪␴㔁做姕㕥ġ ĩĳĸĪ ⤥䑘⠫ᾅ做㓡┬Ṍ忂炻栏⍲⯭㮹暨天ġ ĩĳĹĪ ⍫侫⢾⚳ἳ⫸炻⎗㍸ὃ㯜ᶲ梃㨇㚵⊁␴ 䚜⋯㨇㚵⊁ἳ⤪䲸䲬炻Ẍ楁㷗㚜⚳晃⊾ġ ĩĳĺĪ 夷∫天 ⤥Ṍ忂惵⣿䘤⯽㗪天栏⍲䓇ン䑘⠫ġ (30) Ṍ忂⋩↮ᶵὧ炻⬱㌺ᶵ⥍┬炻Ữ⍰㊃⼰ ⣂忲⭊Ṍ忂屣⍰屜炻䃉栏⍲䔞⛘⯭㮹暨天⍲䉨㱩⎒叿䛤䴻㾇㓰䙲炻デ⇘⍵デ ĩĴĲĪ 㷃干屣ġ ĩĴĳĪ 忠㜙恐崟⛘揝ġ ĩĴĴĪ 普ᷕ䘤⯽Ṍ忂炻ẹ攺ᶵ傥普ᷕᶨ溆ġ 71

(34) 冰⺢⣒⣂⹟㦪姕㕥⎒㚫忈ㆸ⣒⣏Ṍ忂屈匟 ĩĴĶĪ 妋㰢Ṍ忂⓷柴ġ ĩĴķĪ ⡆≈Ṍ忂冯⣏ⵤⰙ忋㍍ġ (37) Ṍ忂䵚䴉唬⻙炻ⵤ⋿忻⭡䲵ᶵḮ⣒⣂㰥干Ἦ⼨ ĩĴĹĪ ⡆⺢Ṍ忂惵⣿ġ ĩĴĺĪ ⡆姕忻嶗⇘⣏ⵤⰙġ ĩĵıĪ 冰⺢䓙㜙㴴军攟㱁䘬晏忻冰⺢䑘Ⲟ╖干嶗忠㜙恐⺢伶梇⺋⟜ġ ĩĵĲĪ ㅱ慵夾ᾅ做ẍ⍲揝嶗ġ ĩĵĳĪ 㒜敲忻嶗⡆⺢ⶪ㮹ẹ攺⛘㕡ġ

Appendix I: List of Opinion Studies Accompanying Submissions

Five opinion studies with different methodologies and foci were sent alongside submissions from groups, organizations or individuals. One of them was duplicated, making the actual number as four. They are summarized below:

Item Study Party Study Title Fieldwork Remarks Period

1. 守護大嶼聯盟「 360 纜車駁入大澳」 mid‐May to 731 responses from 問卷調查報告 early June face‐to‐face 2015 interview & self‐ administered survey

2. 守護大嶼聯盟「開放大嶼南道」問卷 mid‐May to 1929 responses from 調查報告 early June face‐to‐face 2015 interview & self‐ administered survey

3. 楊裕峰、黃鎧烽大嶼山發展對當地鄉村 25‐28 35 responses from 之影響 (有關民間對大 December face‐to‐face 嶼山發展路向意見) 2015 interview

4. 張樹根大嶼山發展概念計劃問 Unidentified Automated online 卷調查 survey with 118 respondents

Appendix I ‐ Page 1 Appendix J: Analytical Framework of Feedback

Code Description

1 Overall position/comment on Lantau Development 1.1.1 Support/Agree with development 1.1.2 Object/Disagree with any development

2 Planning vision (PV) 2.1.1 Support/Agree with PV 2.1.2 View on PV: whether PV would be achievable 2.1.3 Object/Disagree with PV

3 Major planning principles (MPP) 3.1.1 Support/Agree with MPP1: Economy and Livelihood 3.2.1 Support/Agree with MPP2: Nature and Heritage Conservation 3.2.2 Views on MPP2 3.3.1 Support/Agree with MPP3: Recreation and Tourism 3.4.1 Support/Agree with MPP4: Traffic and Transport 3.5.1 Support/Agree with overall to MPP

4 Strategic positioning (SP) 4.1.1 Support/Agree with SP1: An international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD Region 4.1.2 Support/Agree with SP2: A service hub of the Greater PRD Region and Asia 4.1.3 Support/Agree with SP3: A strategic growth area with a new metropolis 4.1.4 Support/Agree with SP4: A treasure of natural and cultural assets 4.1.5 Support/Agree with all SPs

5 Development proposal groups (DPG) (from DPG1‐DPG5) 5.1.1 Support/Agree with DPG 1: Spatial planning & land use 5.2.1 Object/Disagree with DPG 1 5.1.2 Support/Agree with DPG 2: Conservation 5.2.2 Object/Disagree with DPG 2 5.1.3 Support/Agree with DPG 3: Strategic traffic & transport infrastructure 5.2.3 Object/Disagree with DPG 3 5.1.4 Support/Agree with DPG 4: Recreation & tourism 5.2.4 Object/Disagree with DPG 4 5.1.5 Support/Agree with DPG 5: Social development 5.2.5 Object/Disagree with DPG 5 5.1.6 Support/Agree with DPGs overall 5.2.6 Object/Disagree with DPGs overall

6 Development proposals (DP) (proposals in Digest as DP1 (6.1)‐DP20 (6.20), plus other new proposals NDP (6.21)) 6.1 North Lantau corridor for strategic economic and housing development 6.1.1 Support/Agree with DP1

Appendix J ‐ Page 1 6.1.2 Object/Disagree with DP1

6.2 North‐eastern Lantau node for leisure, entertainment and tourism development 6.2.1 Support/Agree with DP2 6.2.2 Object/Disagree with DP2

6.3 East Lantau metropolis as long‐term strategic growth area 6.3.1 Support/Agree with DP3 6.3.2 Views on DP3: on technical feasibility, necessity 6.3.3 Propose on DP3: consult marine trade on impact to fairway 6.3.4 Object/Disagree with DP3

6.4 Predominant part of Lantau for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism 6.4.1 Support/Agree with DP4 6.4.2 Object/Disagree with DP4

6.5 Optimizing use of government land and development of cavern 6.5.1 Support/Agree with DP5 6.5.2 Object/Disagree with DP5

6.6 Enhancement of Conservation 6.6.1 Support/Agree with DP6 6.6.2 Object/Disagree with DP6

6.7 Better utilization of natural resources 6.7.1 Support/Agree with DP7 6.7.2 Views on DP7: partner with local community to organize tours 6.7.3 Views on DP7: uses and effectiveness of country parks and marine parks 6.7.4 Object/Disagree with DP7

6.8 Railway system 6.8.1 Support/Agree with DP8 6.8.2 Views on DP8: use overhead railway for rail corridor 6.8.3 Views on DP8: build monorail/light rail/skyrail between Tung Chung and Airport Island 6.8.4 Views on DP8: better connection between railway systems and other public transport services 6.8.5 Object/Disagree with DP8

6.9 Strategic road system 6.9.1 Support/Agree with DP9 6.9.2 Views on DP9: build bridge for road corridor to connect Lantau and Hong Kong 6.9.3 Views on DP9: build coastal road between Tung Chung and Tai O 6.9.4 Views on DP9: build North to South Corridor (Tai Ho to Mui Wo) 6.9.5 Views on DP9: better public transport services on road networks 6.9.6 Object/Disagree with DP9

6.10 Road P1 at north Lantau

Appendix J ‐ Page 2 6.10.1 Support/Agree with DP10 6.10.2 Object/Disagree with DP10

6.11 Other road arrangement and traffic and transport facilities 6.11.1 Support/Agree with DP11 (e.g. improve accessibility to currently restricted road/area, increase parking spaces) 6.11.2 Views on DP11: improve road condition and design in South Lantau 6.11.3 Object/Disagree with DP11 6.11.4 Object/Disagree with DP11: relax driving permit to the roads in South Lantau

6.12 Water transport 6.12.1 Support/Agree with DP12 6.12.2 Object/Disagree with DP12

6.13 Recreation and outdoor activities 6.13.1 Support/Agree with DP13 6.13.2 Views on DP13: build facilities for international recreation/sports events 6.13.3 Views on DP13: build cycle track around Lantau 6.13.4 Views on DP13: development at Shui Hau 6.13.5 Object/Disagree with DP13

6.14 Splurge and indulge 6.14.1 Support/Agree with DP14 6.14.2 Views on DP14: build facilities for international tourists 6.14.3 Views on DP14: develop pleasure boat recreation activities; build an exhibition and trading centre 6.14.4 Object/Disagree with DP14

6.15 Ecology 6.15.1 Support/Agree with DP15 6.15.2 Views on DP15: Build wildlife or natural habitat theme park 6.15.3 Views on DP15: suitability to provide facilities in Sunset Peak 6.15.4 Object/Disagree with DP15

6.16 Culture and heritage 6.16.1 Support/Agree with DP16 (e.g. building Yoga center, meditation therapy centers) 6.16.2 Object/Disagree with proposed cable car extension from Ngong Ping to Tai O 6.16.3 Views on DP16: capacity of tourism development of Tai O 6.16.4 Views on DP16: remove Zen Conservation Zone from plan 6.16.5 Object/Disagree with DP16

6.17 Relaxation 6.17.1 Support/Agree with DP17 6.17.2 Object/Disagree with DP17

6.18 Attracting talent to match balanced employment opportunities 6.18.1 Support/Agree with DP18 6.18.2 Views on DP18: develop education facilities

Appendix J ‐ Page 3 6.18.3 Views on DP18: e.g. lack variety and places in employment for local residents 6.18.4 Object/Disagree with DP18

6.19 Providing suitable internal and external transport connections to meet the needs of future development 6.19.1 Support/Agree with DP19 6.19.2 Views on DP19: provide subsidy to public transport services 6.19.3 Views on DP19: improve roads in specific locations/community 6.19.4 Object/Disagree with DP19

6.20 Catering for the needs of rural and remote areas in Lantau 6.20.1 Support/Agree with DP20 6.20.2 Doubt if the proposal is achievable 6.20.3 Object/Disagree with DP20

6.21 Others/New Development Proposals (NDP) 6.21.1 Views on NDP 1: Spatial planning & land use (e.g. limit flats in South Lantau to small, individual houses; well plan waste treatment facilities; develop brownfields rather than reclamation) 6.21.2 Views on NDP 2: Conservation (e.g. enlarge marine park; buy wetland from private land owners to conserve buffalos; create more buffer zones and restricted areas at conserved areas) 6.21.3 Views on NDP 3: Strategic traffic & transport infrastructure (e.g. develop green transport for green tourism; build helipad; enhance minibus services) 6.21.4 Views on NDP 4: Recreation & tourism (e.g. develop medical tourism; focus on sports competition/training, not just recreation; plan resort to be more attractive than nearby countries) 6.21.5 Views on NDP 5: Social development (e.g. policies or schemes that help improving current socio‐economic development) 6.21.6 Views on NDP 6: Various community facilities at specific locations (e.g. increase public toilets for visitors/tourists; information centres for hiking and cycling; plan location for columbarium; build facilities for elderly) 6.21.7 Views on NDP 7: Enhance Tung Chung's community facilities 6.21.8 Views on NDP 8: Enhance Tai O's community facilities 6.21.9 Views on NDP 9: Enhance northern Mui Wo's facilities 6.21.10 Views on NDP 10: Enhance southern Mui Wo’s facilities (e.g. more proposals that can enhance progress of Mui Wo Facelift, means that attract local residents to move back) 6.21.11 Views on NDP: sufficiency of support to fishermen 6.21.12 Views: effectiveness to make Lantau the gateway to PRD/achieving one‐hour intercity traffic cycle 6.21.13 Object/Disagreement: no massive increase in cultural, recreational and ecological activities 6.21.14 Object/Disagreement: no giant commercial facilities

7 Implementation 7.1 Priority 7.1.1 Views on the priorities of different development proposals

Appendix J ‐ Page 4 7.2 Timeline/Timeframe 7.2.1 Support/Agree with earlier/faster implementation 7.2.2 Views: request clearer development timeline and phasing

7.3 Finance Views: cost of whole development/ELM, impact on public finance, cost control 7.3.1 measures 7.3.2 Object/Disagree with white elephant development

7.4 Government coordination, commitment and capability 7.4.1 Propose closer coordination in Government to avoid contradictory policies 7.4.2 Views on private sector, community involvement, and the lead party 7.4.3 Views on Government's project execution and law enforcement

7.5 Mechanism: Delegated Office for Lantau Development / District Liaison Group 7.5.1 Support/Agree with delegated office for Lantau Development / District Liaison Group Object/Disagree with need of delegated office for Lantau Development / District 7.5.2 Liaison Group

7.6 Mechanism: conservation control Views on development‐conservation control mechanism, regular monitoring on 7.6.1 environmental impact, and arbiter

7.7 Future blueprint / further studies Propose to conduct studies on environmental carrying capacity, baseline assessment 7.7.1 and implement the conservation measures in the 2007 LD Concept Plan Propose to correct Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), strengthen Development Permission 7.7.2 Area (DPA) Plan and Country Park Ordinance 7.7.3 Views on carrying and receiving capacity of population increase

8 Consultation structure & process 8.1 LanDAC’s composition 8.1.1 Views on the composition 8.1.2 Object/Disagree with LanDAC, suggest its disbanding

8.2 LanDAC’s operation 8.2.1 Views on LanDAC’s openness, transparency

8.3 Consultation mechanism and information 8.3.1 Propose to have more briefings, engagement meetings 8.3.2 Propose to involve experts in planning 8.3.3 Views on planning details for public reference 8.3.4 Object/Disagree with consultation with preset framework and proposals 8.3.5 Object/Disagree with the Digest/LanDAC Report, suggest retraction

Appendix J ‐ Page 5

K. Gist or Minutes of Public Engagement Events and Public Consultative Platform Meetings

Item Date Meeting Key Language Used

Presentation Q&A

1. 1 February 2016 District Council Meeting No. 1 – Islands 1 Chinese Chinese

2. 17 February 2016 District Council Meeting No. 2 – Hong Chinese Chinese Kong

3. 18 February 2016 District Council Meeting No. 3 – Chinese Chinese Chairmen & Vice‐Chairmen

4. 20 February 2016 Public Forum No. 1 – Lantau, Tung Chung Chinese Bilingual

5. 23 February 2016 Public Consultative Platform Meeting – Chinese Chinese LegCo Panel on Development2

6. 28 February 2016 Public Forum No. 2 – Hong Kong, Central Chinese Bilingual

7. 1 March 2016 District Council Meeting No. 4 – Kowloon Chinese Chinese

8. 7 March 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 1 – HKIP English English

9. 11 March 2016 District Council Meeting No. 5 – New Chinese Chinese Territories

10. 13 March 2016 Public Forum No. 3 – Hong Kong, Wan Chinese Bilingual Chai

11. 15 March 2016 Rural Committee Meeting No. 1 – Mui Chinese Chinese Wo

12. 18 March 2016 Rural Committee Meeting No. 2 – South Chinese Chinese Lantau

13. 18 March 2016 Rural Committee Meeting No. 3 – Tung Chinese Chinese Chung

14. 22 March 2016 District Council Meeting No. 6 – Tsuen Chinese Chinese

1 Official minutes in: www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/island/tc_chi/meetings/dcmeetings/dc_meetings.php 2 Official minutes in: www.legco.gov.hk/yr15‐16/chinese/panels/dev/minutes/dev20160223.pdf

Appendix K ‐ Page 1

Wan3

15. 24 March 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 2 – Chinese Chinese Lantau Development Alliance

16. 29 March 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 3 – The English English Hong Kong Institution of Engineers

17. 30 March 2016 Focus Group Meeting No. 1 – Recreation, Chinese Chinese Sports & Tourism

18. 30 March 2016 Focus Group Meeting No. 2 – English English Professional Institutions

19. 31 March 2016 Focus Group Meeting No. 3 – Business Chinese Chinese

20. 31 March 2016 Focus Group Meeting No. 4 – Social Chinese Chinese Development & Youth

21. 2 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 4 – Bilingual English Discovery Bay Residents

22. 7 April 2016 Rural Committee Meeting No. 4 – Tai O Chinese Chinese

23. 8 April 2016 Focus Group Meeting No. 5 – Green English Bilingual Groups

24. 9 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 5 – Chinese Bilingual Lantau Sustainable Development Forum

25. 13 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 6 ‐ Tung Chinese Chinese Chung Residents

26. 14 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 7 ‐ Chinese Chinese Fishermen Associations

27. 15 April 2016 Living Island Movement English English

28. 16 April 2016 Public Consultative Platform Meeting (Special Meeting) – LegCo Panel on NIL Bilingual Development 4

3 Official minutes in: www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tw/tc_chi/meetings/dcmeetings/dc_meetings.php

Appendix K ‐ Page 2

29. 19 April 2016 Public Consultative Platform Meeting ‐ Chinese Chinese Heung Yee Kuk

30. 19 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 8 – NIL Bilingual Lantau Volunteer Unit

31. 24 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 9 – Save Chinese Chinese Lantau Alliance Civic Forum

32. 25 April 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 10 – Hong Kong Mountain Bike Association & NIL Bilingual Cycling Association Of Hong Kong

33. 26 April 2016 Public Consultative Platform Meeting – NIL Chinese LegCo Panel on Development5

34. 28 April 2016 Lantau Buffalo Association Chinese Chinese

35. 5 May 2016 Group Engagement Meeting No. 11 ‐ NIL Chinese Hong Kong Hiking Association

36. 6 May 2016 Public Consultative Platform Meeting ‐ Chinese Chinese Town Planning Board 6

4 Official minutes in: www.legco.gov.hk/yr15‐16/chinese/panels/dev/minutes/dev20160416.pdf 5 Official minutes in: www.legco.gov.hk/yr15‐16/english/panels/dev/minutes/dev20160426.pdf 6 Official minutes in: www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/meetings/TPB/Minutes/m1111tpb_e.pdf

Appendix K ‐ Page 3

Item 1

大嶼山發展公眾參與

離島區議會討論「大嶼山發展」

會議記錄(摘錄)

日期：2016 年 2 月 1 日(星期一) 時間：下午 2 時正地點：香港中環統一碼頭道 38 號海港政府大樓 14 字樓離島區議會會議室

出席者

主席周玉堂先生, BBS

副主席余漢坤先生, JP

議員翁志明先生, BBS 陳連偉先生張富先生黃漢權先生樊志平先生劉焯榮先生黃文漢先生余麗芬女士李桂珍女士容詠嫦女士鄧家彪先生, JP 鄺官穩先生周浩鼎先生曾秀好女士郭平先生傅曉琳女士

Appendix K ‐ Page 4

應邀出席者馬紹祥先生, JP 發展局副局長黎卓豪先生發展局首席助理秘書長(工務) 劉寶儀女士規劃署總城市規劃師/策略規劃胡明儀女士規劃署高級城市規劃師/離島區宇欣女士規劃署城市規劃師/離島阮榮昌先生運輸署高級運輸主任/渡輪策劃李家曦先生運輸署工程師/離島謝秀麗女士地政總署離島地政處高級產業測量師韓翠珊女士地政總署離島地政處高級產業測量師布致樂先生教育局助理項目經理(建校) 雷國強博士環境保護署高級環境保護主任(空氣政策) 何凱恩女士香港鐵路有限公司助理公共關係經理周國樑先生土木工程拓展署高級工程師(離島發展部) 郭俊熙先生奧雅納工程顧問有限公司助理董事李潔兒女士康樂及文化事務署高級經理(新界南)文化推廣吳麗芳女士康樂及文化事務署經理(新界南)市場推廣及地區活動郭麗娟女士康樂及文化事務署圖書館高級館長(離島區)

列席者李炳威先生, JP 離島民政事務處離島民政事務專員莊欣怡女士離島民政事務處離島民政事務助理專員(1) 周哲先生離島民政事務處離島民政事務助理專員(2) 許婉媚女士離島民政事務處高級聯絡主任(1) 陳慶群女士離島民政事務處高級聯絡主任(2) 盧國中先生土木工程拓展署總工程師/離島譚燕萍女士規劃署西貢及離島規劃專員李建毅先生地政總署離島地政專員羅敏琴女士地政總署行政助理(地政)/離島林定楓先生社會福利署中西南及離島區福利專員何潤勝先生香港警務處大嶼山警區指揮官薛力敦先生香港警務處水警海港警區指揮官范展婷女士香港警務處大嶼山警區警民關係主任羅東華先生香港警務處水警海港警區警民關係主任阮康誠先生運輸署總運輸主任/新界西南黃漢傑先生房屋署物業管理總經理(黃大仙、青衣、荃灣及離島) 黃偉宏先生食物環境衞生署離島區環境衞生總監張玉琼女士康樂及文化事務署總康樂事務經理(新界西) 吳潘港英女士康樂及文化事務署離島區康樂事務經理

秘書

Appendix K ‐ Page 5

陳心心女士離島民政事務處高級行政主任(區議會)

X X X X

II. 大嶼山的發展策略建議 (文件 IDC 12/2016 號)

4. 主席歡迎講解文件的嘉賓：發展局副局長馬紹祥先生, JP、首席助理秘書長(工務)黎卓豪先生、規劃署總城市規劃師/策略規劃劉寶儀女士；以及土木工程拓展署總工程師/ 離島盧國中先生。

5. 馬紹祥先生表示，隨着港珠澳大橋及屯門至赤鱲角連接路即將相繼落成，大嶼山不論對內或對外，同樣處於一個策略性的位置。大嶼山的發展潛力，將可為全港市民帶來新的發展空間和機遇。發展局希望就大嶼山發展諮詢委員會提出的初步發展策略建議，諮詢離島區議會。他表示，大嶼山發展公眾參與活動已於本年 1 月 31 日展開，為期三個月至 2016 年 4 月 30 日止，以收集市民對大嶼山發展建議的意見。

6. 劉寶儀女士利用電腦投影片簡介大嶼山整體空間規劃及保育概念。黎卓豪先生接着介紹大嶼山康樂及旅遊發展策略建議和社會發展策略建議。

7. 陳連偉議員提出的意見如下： (a) 他歡迎政府發展大嶼山，認為四項主要規劃原則，符合本港未來發展方向。曾有旅客反映，本港現有旅遊景點難以吸引他們延長留港時間。他建議參考其他地方，開拓島嶼的景點以吸引旅客。他認同發展局局長所言，大嶼山可發展成為一個 “宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學”的地方，他相信發展大嶼山會為本港就業及旅遊業等帶來裨益。他支持大嶼山的發展策略建議。 (b) 就大嶼山的發展，他認同必須平衡保育和發展的需要。現時大嶼山約有 60 多條鄉村，若日後有具體發展建議，政府必須徵詢當區的鄉事委員會及地區人士的意見。

8. 張富議員表示，發展局提出的大嶼山發展策略建議相當不錯。他認為現時大嶼山約有七成土地納入郊野公園範圍，建議撥出部分生態價值較低的土地，用以興建房屋，解決本港的住屋問題。他支持發展大嶼山。

9. 郭平議員提出的意見如下： (a) 他認為名為“大嶼山全民新空間”的報告雖然美侖美奐，但當中所提出的建議，猶如 “斬件式”發展大嶼山，他擔心會令大嶼山成為 “四不像”，而不是“宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學”的地方。 (b) 規劃署代表在簡介時提到須加強保育和尊重大自然。他表示，大嶼山有不少歷史文化遺產，但文件未有提出任何有關環境承載力及基線評估的政策或建議。他建議

Appendix K ‐ Page 6

政府參考本港鄰近地區(例如台灣)的做法。 (c) 上屆政府曾在 2007 年發表經修訂的“大嶼山發展概念計劃” (概念計劃)。當年政府曾舉辦 2 個公開論壇、22 次諮詢會議、派代表出席 9 次大型會議，並收集 540 份書面意見，然後經過兩次修訂編輯，才擬訂概念計劃。概念計劃具有強大民意基礎及符合程序公義，他質疑政府有否將當中所提出的建議，納入“大嶼山全民新空間”的報告內。若否，他批評是不尊重上屆政府的做法。他憂慮政府施政會缺乏連貫性，本港難以持續發展。 (d) 東大嶼都會的建議涉及填海約 1 400 至 2 000 公頃。他曾徵詢漁民的意見，擔心會影響海港的水流，導致維港淤泥積聚，甚至影響日後發展遊輪的航道及本港航運業的發展。 (會後註：發展局補充，根據初步評估，東大嶼都會項目將在大嶼山及港島之間的中部水域興建一個或多個人工島，當中在交椅洲一帶海域填海範圍約達 600 至 800 公頃，但確實在交椅洲或中部水域其他位置的填海位置及面積需待進一步研究後才可確定。) (e) 他希望政府研究如何解決大嶼山的交通問題，以實現 “珠三角一小時生活圈”的願景。

10. 樊志平議員提出的意見如下： (a) 他贊成發展大嶼山，認為可提供更多就業機會，促進各行業的發展。他建議政府興建更多房屋，解決本港房屋供應不足的問題。 (b) 現時大嶼山已有不少土地劃為自然保育區或綠化地帶，他認為已符合保育要求。由於現時土地供應不足，他建議減少綠化地帶的用地，以地盡其用。 (c) 他表示，村民一向支持並配合政府的發展計劃，但不少私人土地被劃為綠化地帶，影響土地的價值及發展。 (d) 區內有不少村落未鋪設行人路及街燈，他希望政府在發展大嶼山的同時，顧及鄉郊的需要，並落實有關改善鄉村道路的建議。 (e) 他促請政府改善大嶼山的道路和交通，例如興建環島公路，以便貫通大嶼山各區，吸引更多遊客。

11. 鄧家彪議員提出的意見如下： (a) 他詢問未來大嶼山發展辦事處的職能，以及是次諮詢文件和過往所提出的建議有何分別。 (b) 他認為，若發展項目未能使市民受惠，容易令人誤以為是另一個地產發展項目，導致租金上升。他支持在大嶼山發展旅遊，並引述東涌的情況為例，希望政府汲取過往經驗，避免因旅遊業發展而推高物價，影響居民的生活。他表示，港珠澳大橋通車後，相信會吸引更多旅客來港旅遊及購物，他詢問政府如何確保租金及物價不會不斷上升。 (c) 如果諮詢文件只描述發展項目，未能讓市民覺得可從中分享利益，將難以獲社會認同。他質疑為何有關興建市政街市及墟市的建議，並未有納入發展策略建議內。他認為，除了創造就業機會外，可否讓小市民透過發展機遇創業，更為重要，這樣才能獲得更多市民的支持和認同。

Appendix K ‐ Page 7

12. 劉焯榮議員提出的意見如下： (a) 他支持發展大嶼山，現時政府才提出發展大嶼山，是遲來的春天。他表示，現時大嶼山的內外交通連繫有待完善。由於大澳交通不便，就業機會較少，故居民相繼遷出，而大澳人口亦由過往約 3 萬人減少至現時只有約 2 000 至 3 000 人。政府在早年發表的概念計劃中，已建議發展大澳，吸引居民回流，而大部分大澳居民亦表示支持。他希望政府落實概念計劃及現時大嶼山發展策略的建議，令大澳人口增加至約 8 000 人。 (b) 大嶼山及大澳居民希望各村交通暢順，但大澳仍有數條鄉村沒有行車道路，他擔心會影響緊急車輛出入。 (c) 他建議政府興建一條東涌至大澳的沿海公路，並將其納入發展策略內，以改善大澳及大嶼山的對外交通。 (d) 他認為政府發展大嶼山，必須在保育及民生之間取得平衡，亦認同保留大澳歷史文化的發展方向。

13. 黃文漢議員支持政府發展大嶼山，認為未來大嶼山的發展可為全港市民帶來新空間，對推動康樂、旅遊及經濟發展帶來生機。他表示，發展大嶼山四區的旅遊景點，可為來港旅客提供更豐富的行程。此外，他希望政府關注及改善大嶼山的交通問題。

14. 容詠嫦議員提出的意見如下： (a) 政府在 2007 年發表的概念計劃中，已經提出大嶼山的發展方向。她相信政府動用不少人力、物力和財力擬備這份“大嶼山全民新空間”諮詢文件，若政府只是空談，每隔數年提出類似報告，只會浪費資源。她贊成根據 2007 年的概念計劃，制訂大嶼山的發展策略，因為該報告具有民意基礎，而不是由數名委任委員所提出的建議。 (b) “大嶼山全民新空間” 諮詢文件就多個範疇(包括住宅、商業、旅遊及保育等)提出發展策略建議，但欠缺實際方案，只可視為一份方向性文件。她對建議將來可否落實存疑，並對文件表示保留。 (c) 就東大嶼都會的填海計劃，她批評是 “假、大、空”，因為進行大規模填海，當中不知涉及多少資源，亦不知對環保及航運業有何影響。她不贊成此項計劃，並質疑政府為何會提出有關概念。 (d) 政府須就大嶼山的發展建議進行地區諮詢，聽取地區人士的意見及獲得他們的支持。

15. 周浩鼎議員提出的意見如下： (a) 就港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島上蓋的發展，他在諮詢期間曾建議在該人工島上蓋設置大型特賣場售賣日用品，避免旅客前往東涌市中心購物，與本地居民發生衝突。 (b) 他同意大嶼山的規劃發展，須在保育及發展之間取得平衡。 (c) 預計未來東涌人口約有 20 多萬，但居民進出市區，只可依賴青馬大橋及預計在

Appendix K ‐ Page 8

2018 年落成的屯門至赤鱲角連接路兩條道路，他擔心未必可以應付區內未來人口的需求。 (d) 在道路系統方面，其中一項建議是研究興建一條貫通新界西北、大嶼山及都會區的鐵路走廊，但須待東大嶼都會落實後才可決定。他希望政府盡早考慮區內人口的交通需要。 (e) 東涌不少鄉郊地區及梅窩三鄉的道路網並不完善，他希望政府藉發展大嶼山，一併改善有關地區的道路網。

16. 余漢坤副主席申報利益，他妻子外家的親屬(不包括余議員妻子本人)在二澳及東涌谷擁有土地權益，故他不會就有關地區的發展規劃表達意見。而在剛過去區議會參選期間，他在大嶼山四區收集到不少意見，余議員歸納後提出意見如下： (a) 在大嶼山土生土長的本地人十分尊重新遷入的居民，他希望新遷入者亦尊重本地人的意見，因為本地人在此生活了幾個世紀。本地人希望透過可持續發展，令大澳人口增加至約 8 000 人。他們明白保育及民生同樣重要。根據國際認可的可持續發展的三項原則，除環保外，社會需要及經濟發展亦需考慮。他希望不同持份者互相尊重。 (b) 政府在 1960 年代興建石壁水塘時，不少農村生態被破壞，由於大量天然水源被截斷，集水至水塘，導致村民無法耕作，村民須出外謀生，甚至出售祖業及遷出，導致今天話語權受影響。甚至有部分新遷入的居民，對上述村民因出售祖業而減低話語權亦感到可惜，但我們尊重這事實。所以，希望除了環境保育，人文及歷史等多方面的平衡可持續發展，同樣受重視及保障。 (c) 他認為大嶼山平衡發展至為重要。他支持報告的發展方向，但認為有不足之處。他以嶼南道為例，該道路並非標準道路，不少路段只有 6.8 米寬，希望政府擴闊該道路至 7.3 米，並改善危險彎位。 (d) 不少原居民為香港發展放棄自己的土地，例如政府在興建赤鱲角機場時，將赤鱲角村村民遷入東涌舊村，導致失去丁屋發展區，並失去興建新界小型屋宇的資格。當時政府承諾興建一條東涌至大澳的沿海公路，但至今尚未兌現。他認為舊區的環境保育及人文歷史的保育同樣重要，居民的訴求合理，他們只是希望政府提供基礎設施，透過可持續發展，吸引更多原村民回流居住，達至平衡發展及保育。

17. 馬紹祥先生綜合回應如下： (a) 大嶼山的發展願境是在發展和保育之間取得平衡，令大嶼山成為 “宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學”的社區。由於篇幅所限，報告未能列載所有細節，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會已盡量適當地吸納 2007 年的經修訂的大嶼山發展概念計劃所提出的意見，工作報告內所提出的發展建議，與 2007 年的概念計劃基本上無甚差異，例如南大嶼山主要用作保育、文化及康樂用途，工作報告內沒有提出在南大嶼大規模發展。 (b) 就南大嶼山的交通問題，在短期措施方面，政府正在嶼南道及羗山道進行狹窄彎位改善工程，以改善道路安全，提升可達性，便利當區居民。此外，亦計劃進行興建越野單車徑等短期改善工程，方便香港市民欣賞大嶼山美麗的自然環境。 (c) 政府計劃成立大嶼山發展的專責辦事處，負責統籌各項發展研究及規劃的工作。

Appendix K ‐ Page 9

(d) 他認同在保育、文化和民生之間須取得平衡，相信有助吸引居民回流及巿民到大嶼山遊覽。 (e) 東大嶼都會屬初步建議，政府準備向立法會申請撥款，就人工島填海範圍、工程對海港交通和水流等影響，進行策略性研究。待有研究結果及數據，會再進行諮詢及討論。 (f) 歡迎市民在諮詢期內提出意見，以便政府制定大嶼山發展的藍圖。發展局代表在未來 3 個月會與不同持份者會面，解說各項短、中及長期措施的發展建議，收集他們的意見。 (g) 報告內的初步發展建議，高密度發展主要集中北大嶼山公路及機場鐵路附近，對郊野地區的影響較少。 (h) 關於發展對社會民生的影響，例如東涌所需的設施(包括街市)，將在東涌新市鎮擴展項目下詳細討論及考慮。由於是次簡介的內容是大嶼山發展策略建議，故此未有包括其他發展項目的詳細資料。

18. 鄺官穩議員提出的意見如下： (a) 本港的旅遊景點不多，他建議政府為本港市民開拓更多新景點。現時大嶼山旅遊的吸引力不大，交通亦不便，他認同有需要發展大嶼山，但政府亦須顧及環保團體及當地居民的訴求。 (b) 就增設遊艇停泊區的建議，他認為政府須考慮是否有實際需要。若增設停泊區有助解決現時香港仔避風港遊艇與漁船爭停泊位的情況，他表示支持。 (c) 關於在航空城增設溜冰場的建議，他認為政府應徵詢學校或運動員的意見，了解他們的需要。 (d) 關於在大小蠔灣增設生態旅遊熱點，例如地標式植物園，若可媲美新加坡機場的植物園，他表示支持。 (e) 他反對在大東山增設觀星設施及露營場地，認為在沒有光污染的地點已適合觀星。他希望保留大東山現有景貌。 (f) 就增設戶外水上樂園的建議，他關注是否需要進行大規模河床挖掘，會否對周邊生態環境造成嚴重影響及破壞。若然，他對建議有保留。 (g) 在改善大嶼山道路方面，他建議參考其他地方的做法，考慮以隧道貫穿各區及其景點。

19. 主席表示，大嶼山需要平衡發展，希望發展局考慮議員提出的意見及關注。

(馬紹祥先生、黎卓豪先生及劉寶儀女士在是項議題討論完畢後離開會場。)

X X X X

Appendix K ‐ Page 10

Item 2 大嶼山發展公眾參與

港島區議員討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 2 月 17 日（星期三）時間：下午 2 時 45 分至 4 時 35 分地點：香港北角福蔭道 7 號銅鑼灣社區中心多用途活動室

 會議共有九名區議員出席，包括七位港島區區議員及兩名分別來自九龍東及新界西的區議員。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展  議員普遍支持發展大嶼山，但認為就業人口與商業發展需要保持平衡。基本上所有議員都贊成改善區內外交通，亦支持發展大嶼山與新界西、港島西的交通網絡。在保育方面，建議考量東大嶼都會發展對航道、生態及環境等的影響。

2 願景、策略性要平衡發展，惠及下一代定位和規劃原  議員普遍認為大嶼山需要平衡發展，周詳考慮便會令下一代受恵。則認同多元化發展  大嶼山發展應要多元化，要有商機、推廣旅遊業等。

3 空間規劃及土對東大嶼都會發展的意見地利用  議員普遍認為政府要多考量東大嶼都會發展對航道、生態及環境等的影響。  個別議員建議東大嶼都會稍作修正為「主要發展交椅洲」，以防令人誤會梅窩將會發展到中環的規模。  議員認為政府必須多加注意東大嶼都會與西環的連接，因現時西環附近的海上航線已經很頻密。

考慮地區因素  個別議員認為發展前要多考慮如山脊線和樓房的高度限制。

4 保育關注填海及人工島問題

Appendix K ‐ Page 11

 不少議員希望發展同時要盡量保留大嶼山原有的自然景觀。  個別議員認為填海會影響生態，例如會令動物遷徙。  個別議員關注興建人工島會對環境構成的影響。

5 策略性交通運加強鐵路及高速公路連接市區及新界西北輸基建  議員普遍認為現時的沿海高速公路不足，應多建公路以紓緩交通阻塞。  個別議員認為青嶼幹線以外，有迫切需要另建幾條公路。  個別議員不反對大嶼山發展接通屯門，但必先考慮發展對屯門當區人士的影響。  個別議員認為發展大嶼山及東大嶼都會，可配合紓緩屯門公路的車流，因現時需要跨區上班的人主要靠屯門公路出入。  個別議員認為政府需考慮大嶼山與港島之間的交通問題。以鐵路為例，港島線是多條鐵路當中最擠迫，若發展鐵路便要加設新的轉車站，防止候車時間過長。  個別議員認為經交椅洲連接至港島西的路線，興建隧道會比橋好，可避免影響船隻出入，尤其是貨櫃船。

關注港島西交通配套  個別議員提出政府發展大嶼山時，需要考慮堅尼地城的交通配套。  個別議員關注就交椅洲連接到港島西的交通基建方面，堅尼地城沿海地區會否填海。  個別議員指現時港島西面至港島南面的交通嚴重擠塞，提出能否發展一條由西至南的沿海走廊，一直連至薄扶林。

6 康樂及旅遊增設各類景點  議員建議可先從較少爭議性的項目著手，如二澳的農場體驗、大澳民宿等。  可考慮增加單車徑，配合現有的單車徑發展成環島單車徑，以減低車流。  個別議員認為可加強大東山觀星設施的可達性，但擔心會破壞其寧靜。  可考慮將昂坪 360 纜車延伸至大澳，以吸引更多遊客，但需要注意纜車票價水平。  遊客會因景點的獨特性慕名而來，建議可在大嶼山設六個旅遊點，如設大澳美食節，售賣砵仔糕、魷魚等美食。建議每隔三個月替換不同旅遊點，吸引旅客全年多次來港和大嶼山。

7 社會發展注意人口問題  個別議員支持大嶼山發展計劃，但要注意人口增長問題與交通發展

Appendix K ‐ Page 12

之間的連繫。  發展要照顧各人所需，可參考德國的做法，從「搖籃到墳墓」的概念。  個別議員提出若大嶼山人口增長至 40 到 50 萬，屯門至赤鱲角連接路的使用量將會增加，建議政府周詳考慮。  需多加注意就業人口的分配。

增設社區措施  香港的空間有限，但缺乏與長者相關的設施，可考慮增設老人院之類的設施。

8 其他發展進程  發展大嶼山應採取「先易後難」的方式，否則多年後仍未能見發展成果。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 13

Item 3 大嶼山發展公眾參與

區議會正副主席討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 2 月 18 日（星期四）時間：上午 11 時 30 分至下午 12 時 30 分地點：香港灣仔軒尼斯道 130‐150 號修頓中心 20 樓會議室

出席會議包括三十四位十八區區議會正副主席。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展  與會者普遍支持發展大嶼山，亦希望大嶼山能盡早發展，令市民能踏足香港每個角落，享受不同的設施。

2 願景、策略性對大嶼山發展願景的意見定位和規劃原  個別主席擔心願景中「宜業」的發展。由於人口就業等待需時，有則機會減慢整個大嶼山發展計劃，荃灣新市鎮就是一個例子。

3 空間規劃及土支持東大嶼都會及大小蠔灣的發展地利用  東大嶼都會是提供居住以及開展創意產業的契機。  大小蠔灣的發展需要微調，尤其是小蠔灣填海範圍。

4 保育保育措施足夠，建議增加家庭導賞團  個別主席認為保育措施足夠。  個別主席建議在生態保育方面，可增加更多家庭導賞團 (family tour)。

5 策略性交通運先做好交通配套輸基建  個別主席擔心大嶼山的交通配套，尤其是鐵路及公路發展能否配合發展，如屯門至赤鱲角連接路至屯門公路、通往機場的幹線等，建議改善區內外交通；亦有個別區議員認為發展東大嶼都會、鐵路走廊及公路走廊時，應注意周邊地區鐵路及公路的承載力。  有主席認為可建沿海公路，特別是東涌至大澳的道路連接。  他提出嶼南道是為當年為興建石壁水塘而設，部分路寬只有 6.8 米，與標準的 7.3 米有距離，而且路基差。

Appendix K ‐ Page 14

6 康樂及旅遊建議增加旅遊活動  有主席建議興建自然生態公園，吸引另類消費人士，並提升香港國際都會的形象。  有主席認為大嶼山有不少流浪牛，可考慮將沙田區的猴子及野豬遷徙至大嶼山，興建一個野生動物主題公園，緩和發展及環境保育之間的衝突。  有主席認為發展農場體驗可取，二澳亦具有這方面的條件。  長沙可加設水上活動訓練場地，以助大嶼山的旅遊業及經濟方面發展。  個別主席認為香港適合做遊艇展銷中心或是舉行與遊艇相關的休閒活動。  有主席建議考慮增設更多直銷購物中心 (outlet mall)。  有主席建議加設一些國際級表演場地，還有直達這些場地的交通工具，如直升機停泊處。  他並建議應盡早將昂坪纜車伸延至大澳，並設循環線以加強旅遊業的發展。

建議增加旅遊配套  越野單車設施仍然不足，可學習外國加設自駕遊、露營等配套，更切合香港國際化大都會的形象。  旅遊業經常表示欠缺泊車的地方和洗手間設施，希望發展大嶼山時在這些方面可以加強改善。

開發醫療旅遊  部分主席認為雖然泰國已成為東南亞大部分地區的醫療中心，但由於香港的醫療水平不錯，故香港仍然有其優勢，政府可考慮撥款開發醫療旅遊；並探討發展醫療休閒，以彰顯香港這方面的專業。  有主席建議推廣食品、中醫藥、本土特色等。

宗教旅遊活動  個別主席認為需要多加宗教旅遊活動，如增加禪修、短期出家、國際宗教聚會等。

7 社會發展先做好配套規劃再落實方案  個別主席認為要先做好建屋配套。另外，現時的鐵路票價偏高，建議「未有地方先有路」，令人流、物流及資金流暢通。  在發展前要先解決垃圾處理問題，如堆填、焚化等。除著人口增長，骨灰龕的需求亦相對增加，發展大嶼山時亦應先規劃骨灰安置地點。

8 其他大嶼山發展要分先後

Appendix K ‐ Page 15

 部分主席、副主席認為大嶼山發展應先發展欣澳，再發展南大嶼；東大嶼都會應先發展梅窩，再發展喜靈州和交椅州。  應著重第三產業，即文化歷史、旅遊等方面。發展大嶼山的重點按優次發展，而是前期工作應先做休閒。

建議興建國際性會議中心及相關設施  部分主席認為香港欠缺國際性會議中心，希望在大嶼山可增加如會議中心、酒店等一系列的配套，否則會被其他鄰近地區超越。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 16

Item 4 Public Engagement on Lantau Development Public Forum No.1 on Lantau Development

Summary of Views

Date: 20 February, 2016 (Saturday) Time: 2:30pm – 5:30pm Venue: Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers Wong Cho Bau Secondary School, Area 10, Phase 3, Fu Tung Estate, Tung Chung, Lantau Island, New Territories

 A total of 384 participants signed in attending this first forum on Lantau Development. Among them, 41 spoke whilst the moderator read written views from the other seven participants.  Participants included residents of Tung Chung, Tai O and other parts of Lantau, along with members of Lantau organizations such as Friends of Lantau.

1 Overview Support for development  A majority of the participants who deliberated at the forum supported Lantau development.  Development is opportunity to put Hong Kong forward as world‐ class city.  About one third of participants were keen on improving overall transport networks as it will benefit the community as the whole.

2 Vision, Boost for city’s future Strategic  Supporters regarded Lantau’s strategic location is asset. Developing Positioning the island was very important for city’s future. and Major  With recent economic downturn, most of the participants envisaged Planning development would bring overall benefits to the island. The plan Principles creates jobs developing Hong Kong as a whole.  A few participants, however, regarded the plan outdated and biased, favouring only big developers and establishments, but not residents. There was suggestion restarting the plan.  One participant claimed the plan was piece‐meal and commercial, and it was wrong to develop Lantau into a theme park under cover of conservation.  Government should placate concerned parties by elaborating plan on

Appendix K ‐ Page 17

balancing conservation and development, particularly regarding North Lantau corridor.

3 Spatial Alleviate concern Planning and  To capitalize on available land and prioritize development of Land Use industries in new towns, and provide better housing and recreational facilities for residents.  Enhanced connectivity between expo area, Tung Chung and other coastal areas would be a boon.

4 Conservation Concern over air quality  Some were concerned with possible worsening of air quality due to development.

Protection of buffalos  A few participants called for protection of water buffalos.

5 Strategic Increase traffic connectivity Traffic and  More efforts on solving transportation problems and the island’s Transport connectivity from within the island as well as the city. Infrastructure  It takes longer time to travel within the island than between the island and the city.  To enhance traffic linking Tai O and North Lantau as well as the urban areas of Hong Kong.  Roads need to be expanded to accommodate more vehicles on the island.

6 Recreation Focus more on sports facilities and Tourism  There should be emphasis on increasing number of sports centres and indoor facilities for sport and recreational activities.

7 Social Provide more jobs, basic needs Development  Remote villages should be provided with basic services such as freshwater supply.  Many Tung Chung residents wanted more shopping and education facilities.  Supporters hoped development would provide more jobs and opportunities to pursue further study, including suggestion to set aside land for building university for Lantau residents.  The island needed more transport facilities, toilets, restaurants, etc.

8 Others Public concern  One participant regarded the extension of Ngong Ping 360 as

Appendix K ‐ Page 18

disturbing peace of her ancestral graves.  A few participants opined that the public consultation was a fake.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 19

Item 5

大嶼山發展公眾參與

立法會發展事務委員會會議紀要

日期： 2016年2月23日(星期二) 時間：下午2時30分地點：立法會綜合大樓會議室 3

出席委員：

謝偉銓議員, BBS(主席) 梁志祥議員, BBS, MH, JP(副主席) 何俊仁議員涂謹申議員陳鑑林議員, SBS, JP 馮檢基議員, SBS, JP 何秀蘭議員, JP 陳克勤議員, JP 陳健波議員, BBS, JP 葉國謙議員, GBS, JP 葉劉淑儀議員, GBS, JP 梁家傑議員, SC 梁國雄議員陳偉業議員田北辰議員, BBS, JP 田北俊議員, GBS, JP 胡志偉議員, MH 姚思榮議員, BBS 陳志全議員陳恒鑌議員, JP 陳家洛議員陳婉嫻議員, SBS, JP 麥美娟議員, BBS, JP 郭家麒議員張超雄議員黃碧雲議員

Appendix K ‐ Page 20

葛珮帆議員, JP 盧偉國議員, SBS, MH, JP

列席議員：何俊賢議員, BBS 缺席委員：劉皇發議員, 大紫荊勳賢, GBS, JP 石禮謙議員, GBS, JP

議程第VII項

發展局常任秘書長(工務) 韓志強先生, JP

發展局副秘書長(規劃及地政)1 陳松青先生, JP

發展局副秘書長(工務)2 陳志明先生, JP

土木工程拓展署署長鍾錦華先生, JP

土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長林世雄先生, JP

規劃署副署長／地區李啟榮先生, JP

規劃署助理署長／全港張綺薇女士

議程第VIII項

發展局局長陳茂波先生, MH, JP

發展局首席助理秘書長(工務)5 黎卓豪先生

土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長

Appendix K ‐ Page 21

林世雄先生, JP

規劃署副署長／全港李志苗女士, JP

規劃署助理署長／全港張綺薇女士

VII 在土木工程拓展署及規劃署開設和重行調配首長級職位

(立法會CB(1)559/15-16(07)號文件 - 政府當局就在土木工程拓展署及規劃署開設和重行調配首長級職位提交的文件)

61. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)表示，政府當局的文件載述兩項人員編制建議：一項是有關成立大嶼山拓展處及重組土木工程拓展署各現有拓展處的建議(上述文件附件I所載的建議)；另一項則是有關在規劃署開設一個總城市規劃師編外職位，負責領導該署委員會部增設的一個小組，以加強對城市規劃委員會(下稱"城規會")的秘書處支援，以及處理法定規劃事宜(上述文件附件II所載的建議)。

62. 土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長以電腦投影片闡述附件I所載的建議。 (會後補註：上述電腦投影片資料的電子複本(立法會CB(1)600/15-16(03)號文件)已於2016 年2 月24 日以電子郵件方式送交委員。)

63. 規劃署副署長／地區向事務委員會委員簡介附件II的建議

附件 I所載的建議成立大嶼山拓展處及重組土木工程拓展署各現有拓展處

成立大嶼山拓展處的理據

64. 胡志偉議員及黃碧雲議員認為，鑒於大嶼山發展諮詢委員會建議的大嶼山發展策略 (下稱"大嶼山發展策略建議")仍未經過徹底討論，而當局亦未就此進行公眾諮詢，政府當局不宜在現階段決定成立大嶼山拓展處。黃議員表示，鑒於公眾對大嶼山發展策略建議未有共識，民主黨反對有關成立大嶼山拓展處及就大嶼山拓展處開設4個首長級職位的建議。胡議員關注到，政府當局建議成立大嶼山拓展處，意味政府當局已決定發展大嶼山。胡議員建議，上述文件附件I有關土木工程拓展署的人員編制建議，應與設立大嶼山拓展處的建議分開處理。

65. 發展局常任秘書長 (工務)表示，政府當局已審慎研究成立大嶼山拓展處的需要。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會已制訂多項發展策略建議，涵蓋土地用途、保育、康樂及旅遊業發展等不同範疇。鑒於將會在大嶼山規劃及落實的發展項目規模龐大，當局有需要成立一個跨專業的專責辦事處，為發展大嶼山推展多個項目。至於提議當局不成立大嶼山拓展處，

Appendix K ‐ Page 22

只開設新的首長級職位負責推行大嶼山發展項目，有關的建議並不切實可行。

66. 梁國雄議員表示，他反對成立大嶼山拓展處的建議，以及當局擬於大嶼山推行的中長期發展項目。他認為，上述項目大部分可能會成為"大白象"，而當局建議推行該等項目，亦只為支援內地的發展計劃。政府當局反而應致力落實於短期內可見成效的項目。

67. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)回應時表示，政府當局必須制訂增加土地供應的長期計劃，以應付房屋及其他發展需要。政府過去10年在香港土地供應規劃上所付出的努力，並不足以應付社會的需求。

68. 陳偉業議員表示，大嶼山拓展處擬議組織架構及擬議重組土木工程拓展署轄下各拓展處的方案，均屬進行規劃及發展的良好措施。陳議員表示，他反對成立大嶼山拓展處，因為大嶼山發展諮詢委員會由不熟悉大嶼山生態及文化特色的成員組成，他們建議的發展策略會對大嶼山的自然環境造成損害。擬議東大嶼都會將會受到飛機升降所造成的逾80分貝噪音水平所影響，將不會是進行房屋發展的合適地點。

69. 陳婉嫻議員表示支持設立大嶼山拓展處以作為大嶼山發展統籌辦事處的建議。她以起動九龍東辦事處為例，說明一個專責辦事處會如何有助當局推行發展項目。陳議員表示，順利推行大嶼山的大型發展項目為十分重要。鑒於大嶼山的發展措施會帶來沉重的工作量，她支持開設首長級編外職位以推展有關措施的建議。

70. 陳鑑林議員表示支持成立大嶼山拓展處的建議。他認為，就落實大嶼山的已規劃發展項目而言，例如進行東涌新市鎮擴展計劃及小蠔灣和欣澳填海工程、以及大澳和大嶼山南部區內的改善工程項目，設立一站式辦事處會帶來更大效益。當局適宜成立大嶼山拓展處，以作為大嶼山發展的主要聯絡點。他亦支持開設編外職位以支援大嶼山拓展處及重組土木工程拓展署轄下各拓展處的建議。陳鑑林議員促請政府當局在成立大嶼山拓展處後盡早推行上述已規劃的發展項目，以促進大嶼山的發展。

擬議大嶼山拓展處的職責

71. 陳家洛議員提到，討論文件附件I第10段載列擬議大嶼山拓展處將會推展的項目及建議清單，當中包括安排地區活動(例如音樂節及體育比賽)。他關注到，擬議大嶼山拓展處的職責範圍或許過於廣泛。發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，大嶼山拓展處有必要參與籌辦大嶼山地區活動的工作，以推動社區參與就有關大嶼山發展進行的規劃。

72. 陳家洛議員詢問，推行大嶼山發展的公眾參與活動所需的人力資源為何。姚思榮議員認為，政府當局必須就發展大嶼山蒐集持份者的意見。他詢問，就發展項目進行公眾諮詢，會否屬大嶼山拓展處其中一項職責。

73. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，大嶼山拓展處將會負責就大嶼山的擬議發展項目進行公眾諮詢。隨着大嶼山拓展處成立，當局將可加強就公眾參與活動提供的人手支援。他籲

Appendix K ‐ Page 23

請事務委員會委員支持有關成立大嶼山拓展處的人員編制建議。

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會

74. 陳婉嫻議員表示，有關注認為，若干大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的成員在大嶼山的土地發展上有利益。她促請政府當局日後不要委任有潛在利益衝突的人士擔任大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的成員。陳議員詢問，在制訂大嶼山的發展策略時，當局如何劃分大嶼山發展諮詢委員會及大嶼山拓展處的角色及職責。

75. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會負責向政府當局提供有關大嶼山發展方向的意見。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會是一個由議員、專業界人士、商會、學者及地區人士組成的諮詢團體。當局剛就新一屆任期委任來自不同界別(例如旅遊、康樂、創新科技界及保育等界別)的新成員。他表示，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會已推行一個申報利益的機制。成員在會議上就討論項目發言時，必須就任何金錢利益作出申報。

4個編外職位的任期

76. 姚思榮議員認為，隨着當局在大嶼山進行各個已規劃的發展項目，例如港珠澳大橋香港口岸(下稱"港珠澳大橋")、香港國際機場第三條跑道及東大嶼都會的擬議發展，目前是適當時機成立大嶼山拓展處，以規劃及落實各個發展項目。姚議員認為，發展大嶼山應該是一項長期措施。他詢問，為何大嶼山拓展處4個擬設首長級編外職位的任期只有大約5 年，即至2021年3月31日止。

77. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，當局會先進行多項初步研究及規劃工作，方可制訂有關落實大嶼山發展項目的計劃。大嶼山拓展處的工作會持續進行。在該4個編外職位的任期即將屆滿時，政府當局會因應有關發展項目當時的進度及大嶼山拓展處的工作量，檢討需否繼續設有該等職位。

落實擬議大嶼山發展項目

78. 黃碧雲議員指出，香港有多個基建項目(例如港珠澳大橋、廣深港高速鐵路香港段及西九文化區)近年已經歷超支、延誤及勞工短缺的情況。她質疑會否有充足的建造業工人供應，以應付因進行大嶼山及香港其他地區的擬議發展項目而出現的人手需求。

重組各拓展處

79. 陳婉嫻議員詢問，根據重組建議即將成立的4個新拓展處(即北拓展處、東拓展處、南拓展處及西拓展處)的職務及職責如何劃分。發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，鑒於當局會設立大嶼山拓展處以負責大嶼山發展項目，政府當局已檢討各拓展處的分工及界線。政府當局認為有必要重組各拓展處。此外，各拓展處亦會按討論文件的文件15所示的經修訂地理界線劃分。

Appendix K ‐ Page 24

附件 II的建議 - 在規劃署開設一個總城市規劃師編外職位

80. 陳家洛議員表示，他同意城規會秘書處現時的人手或許不足，未能以有效率的方式向公眾提供服務。他關注到，規劃署委員會部擬議增設的小組將會由一個總城市規劃師領導，並由3個從其他現有小組重行調配而來的非首長級人員提供支援，其人力資源會否足以應付城規會日益增多的工作量。陳議員提到，就城規會的決定所提出的司法覆核數目不斷增加。他詢問，政府當局有否計劃檢討《城市規劃條例》。

81. 規劃署副署長／地區答稱，為更有效運用人力資源，政府當局在有需要時會作出重行調配安排，以及因應可用資源就其工作訂定優先次序。

向人事編制小組委員會提交兩項人員編制建議

82. 主席詢問，委員是否支持當局把上述兩項人員編制建議提交人事編制小組委員會考慮。梁國雄議員要求就上述兩項建議分開進行表決。政府當局對梁議員的建議並無異議。

附件 I的建議成立大嶼山拓展處及重組土木工程拓展署各現有拓展處

83. 主席詢問，委員是否支持當局把附件I的建議提交人事編制小組委員會考慮。應委員要求，主席命令進行點名表決。表決鐘聲響起5分鐘。7名委員表決贊成該議題， 8名委員表決反對該議題。個別委員的表決結果如下

贊成：陳鑑林議員陳健波議員葉國謙議員葉劉淑儀議員姚思榮議員陳婉嫻議員梁志祥議員 (7名委員)

反對：涂謹申議員梁國雄議員陳偉業議員胡志偉議員陳家洛議員郭家麒議員張超雄議員黃碧雲議員 (8名委員)

棄權： (0名委員)

84. 主席總結時表示，事務委員會不支持當局把附件I的建議提交人事編制小組委員會考

Appendix K ‐ Page 25

慮。附件 II的建議在規劃署開設一個總城市規劃師編外職位

85. 主席詢問，委員是否支持當局把附件II的建議提交人事編制小組委員會考慮。沒有委員表示反對。主席表示，事務委員會同意當局把附件II的建議提交人事編制小組委員會考慮。

VIII大嶼山發展策略建議

(立法會CB(1)559/15-16(08)號文件 - 政府當局就大嶼山發展策略建議提交的文件)

相關文件

(立法會CB(1)583/15-16(01) 號文件坪洲填海關注組於2016 年2 月18 日提交的意見書立法會CB(1)583/15-16(02)號文件守護大嶼聯盟於2016 年2 月19 日提交的意見書立法會CB(1)583/15-16(03)號文件守護大嶼聯盟於2016 年2 月21 日提交的意見書)

86. 委員察悉有關團體提交的上述意見書。

87. 應主席所請，發展局局長向事務委員會委員簡介大嶼山發展策略建議的背景。規劃署助理署長／全港及發展局首席助理秘書長(工務)5以電腦投影片向委員闡述，當局為進行公眾參與活動的諮詢工作，就大嶼山發展提出的規劃願景及5組主要建議的要點。 (會後補註：上述電腦投影片資料的電子複本(立法會CB(1)600/15-16(04)號文件)已於2016 年2 月24 日以電子郵件方式送交委員。)

88. 主席表示，應委員的要求，秘書處將會安排一次特別會議，就大嶼山發展策略建議聽取公眾的意見，並將於稍後通知委員有關上述會議的安排。 (會後補註：秘書處於2016年3月10日透過立法會CB(1)673/15-16號文件通知委員，事務委員會將於2016年4月16日上午9時舉行一次特別會議，聽取公眾就大嶼山發展策略建議表達意見。)

[在下午6時13分，主席建議延長會議15分鐘至下午6時45分。委員對主席的建議並無異議。]

大嶼山擬議發展的定位

89. 陳偉業議員表示，珠江三角洲地區各個城市之間的角色清楚劃分。舉例而言，珠海已規劃為一個教育及康樂樞紐，而東莞則已規劃為一個科技樞紐。他認為，發展大嶼山的定位並不清晰。此外，由於政府當局仍未制訂本港在2030年以後的人口政策，對於發展東大嶼都會的需要，他不表信服。發展局局長回應時表示，東大嶼都會的擬議發展將會是一項跨越2030年的長期土地發展措施，政府當局對於就擬議發展提出的不同意見持開放的態

Appendix K ‐ Page 26

度。

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會

90. 郭家麒議員認為，大嶼山的擬議發展會破壞當地的自然環境。此外，一些大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員為土地業權人或發展商，在發展大嶼山的土地上有個人利益。他不滿當局未有委任保育組織的成員加入大嶼山發展諮詢委員會。

91. 發展局局長表示，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的運作透明度高。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的討論文件及會議紀要公開讓公眾查閱。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員在會議上就討論項目發言之前，如有任何利益，須作出申報。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員申報利益的紀錄亦向公眾公開。

就大嶼山發展策略建議進行公眾諮詢

92. 陳婉嫻議員認為，政府當局應就大嶼山每項發展建議進行全面的公眾諮詢。陳議員察悉，當局會在2016年1月至4月期間就大嶼山發展策略建議進行公眾參與活動。她認為有關的諮詢期過短。她提醒政府當局應以審慎的態度處理公眾就各項發展建議表達的關注，並須避免引起爭議。她補充，她對於擬議在中部水域發展人工島有所保留。

93. 發展局局長表示，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會提出的發展建議，將會在適當的情況下於短、中或長期推行。關於在中部水域發展人工島的建議，當局需作進一步的研究，並會就有關研究進行類似當局發展東涌新市鎮擴展區所推行的廣泛公眾參與活動。政府當局就個別項目的技術可行性取得更多資料時，會就個別發展建議徵詢立法會議員的意見。

大嶼山擬議發展的影響

當區居民

94. 何俊賢議員表示關注到，與發展大嶼山有關的擬議填海工程計劃，會對漁業及當區居民造成負面影響。副主席認為，為大嶼山制訂發展策略時，政府當局應考慮當區居民關注的事宜。發展局局長表示，當局考慮就東涌新市鎮擴展進行公眾參與活動期間所蒐集的意見後，只建議在東涌西進行小規模的發展。東涌西主要會作保育用途及低密度的發展，而東涌東的發展對當區居民的影響亦會甚為輕微。

漁業

95. 何俊賢議員認為，由於大嶼山很多當區居民為漁民，政府當局就大嶼山進行規劃時，應計及漁業的需要。他建議，在發展大嶼山時，政府當局應為漁業業界提供更多配套設施，例如船隻泊位。

Appendix K ‐ Page 27

96. 發展局局長表示，就大嶼山短至中期的發展進行填海的擬議地點將包括東涌東、小蠔灣及欣澳，而在大嶼山東岸的水域填海以發展東大嶼都會的建議，將會是一項長期的發展措施。政府當局察悉漁業對填海的關注。儘管當局會盡量減低填海對漁民的影響，當局亦會向受填海工程計劃影響的漁民作出補償安排。政府當局會與漁業保持緊密溝通。

在大嶼山進行填海工程

97. 黃碧雲議員表示，將用於填海工程的海沙源自珠江三角洲地區，而海沙價格已飆升。此外，由於珠江三角洲地區內有多個填海項目同步進行，因此對海沙的需求有所增加。她質疑，政府當局如何能獲得充足供應的海沙，以進行大嶼山的擬議填海工程及其他工程計劃(例如興建香港國際機場(下稱"機場")第三條跑道、港珠澳大橋香港口岸(下稱"港珠澳大橋")及東大嶼都會等工程計劃)下的填海工程。

98. 發展局局長答稱，大嶼山的擬議發展會分階段落實。當局建議在2030 年後發展東大嶼都會。機場第三條跑道、港珠澳大橋及東涌新市鎮擴展的已規劃發展定於2020年代完成。由於該等項目並非同時落實，進行填海所需的海沙供應將不成問題。

大嶼山南部的道路改善工程及放寬交通管制的措施

99. 郭家麒議員認為，當局應保護大嶼山的自然環境免受土地發展影響。他關注到，政府當局推行放寬交通管制的措施，容許更多旅遊巴士及私家車駛入大嶼山南部的封閉道路，以及擴闊嶼南道，會帶來大量車輛及訪客，引致區內的環境受到破壞。

100. 發展局局長表示，大嶼山發展策略建議會加強保育大嶼山南部。應當區居民的要求，當局會為大嶼山南部的道路進行灣位改善工程，以改善道路安全。當局不會大規模放寬大嶼山南部封閉道路的交通管制。根據"大嶼山自駕遊"計劃，運輸署每日只會容許25輛私家車在周日於大嶼山南部的封閉道路上行駛。為方便訪客，當局亦會增加獲准進入大嶼山南部的旅遊巴士數目。

101. 副主席認為，為了當區居民的安全，當局有必要在大嶼山南部進行擬議道路改善工程 (包括擴闊道路)。他支持當局落實根據大嶼山發展策略建議推行的擬議交通基建網絡。副主席質疑，每日讓25輛私家車進入大嶼山南部的配額，能否產生振興區內經濟的作用。他又詢問，政府當局如何得出有關的數目。

102. 發展局局長表示，"大嶼山自駕遊"計劃旨在方便訪客前往大嶼山遊玩。為了盡量減低此項計劃對大嶼山南部鄉郊環境所造成的影響，每日獲准進入該等封閉道路的私家車數目不多。

改善大嶼山的公共交通服務

103. 副主席表示關注大澳的交通擠塞問題。他詢問，政府當局會否加強工作改善大嶼山的

Appendix K ‐ Page 28

公共交通服務。發展局局長表示，政府當局現正研究可否發展一個連接昂坪及大澳的纜車系統。由於大澳的人口少，沿大嶼山西北岸興建一條道路連接東涌及大澳的建議，被視為不符合成本效益。為配合當區居民及市民往返大澳的需要，政府當局會進一步評估公眾假期的渡輪班次，並會引入措施改善大澳其他公共交通服務。

發展康樂和旅遊設施的建議

104. 郭家麒議員認為，政府當局在大嶼山南部發展康樂和旅遊設施(例如水療設施、休閒度假村、酒店、纜車及索道)的建議，會對該區的自然環境造成負面影響。

105. 黃碧雲議員認為，發展大嶼山的建議規模過大，有關的發展步伐亦過於急速。她認為，當局建議在大嶼山南部為野外活動提供場地是旨在牟利，而非保育自然環境。她指出，中華白海豚近年在本港水域已甚為罕見。她關注到，就北大嶼山已規劃發展項目及大嶼山其他地區的擬議發展項目進行的填海工程，會令有關情況惡化。

106. 發展局局長回應時表示，當局建議在貝澳及水口發展康樂設施，是因為這些地點現時已是進行戶外康樂活動的熱點。政府當局的目的主要在於提供適當的輔助設施增添市民享用的樂趣，以及加強安全。

發展郊野公園的土地

107. 姚思榮議員表示，他是大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會建議把大嶼山發展為一個宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學的社區，他對此表示支持。他察悉，大嶼山現有的郊野公園佔島上逾70%的土地。他詢問，政府當局有否任何計劃釋放郊野公園部分用地作發展用途。發展局局長答稱，現屆政府不會考慮發展郊野公園的土地。

東涌的噪音及空氣污染

108. 陳偉業議員認為，儘管政府當局表示，機場第三條跑道的飛機噪音預測25等量線會遠離東涌東，東涌東的用地不適合用作大規模的住宅發展用途。他關注到，當飛機噪音水平超越80分貝時，會影響東涌居民的健康。陳議員補充，空氣污染在東涌為一個嚴重的問題。

109. 發展局局長表示，就住宅發展項目而言，在飛機噪音預測25等量線以外地方的飛機噪音水平一般被視為可以接受。政府當局會研究有何緩解措施可盡量減低飛機升降對東涌居民造成的滋擾。

物色其他具發展潛力的地方

110. 姚思榮議員認為，全面發展大嶼山長遠會為香港人帶來裨益。他表示，新加坡把聖淘沙發展為旅遊景點後，其經濟增長近年已超越本港。他詢問，政府當局有否在本港物色

Appendix K ‐ Page 29

其他具發展潛力的地方。

111. 發展局局長表示，政府當局現正研究可否在新界北部地區發展一個新市鎮，規模將類似粉嶺／上水新市鎮。政府當局會在稍後的階段就有關事宜徵詢委員的意見。

Appendix K ‐ Page 30

Item 6 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Public Forum No.2 on Lantau Development

Summary of Views

Date: 28 February, 2016 (Sunday) Time: 2:30pm – 5:00pm Venue: Multi‐purpose Hall, 3/F, City Gallery, 3 Edinburgh Place, Central, Hong Kong

 A total of 183 participants signed in attending this second forum on Lantau Development. Among them, 27 deleberated views at the forum whilst the moderator read the written views from the other 17.  Participants included Lantau residents, employees of Asia World Expo and LaDA, members of social organizations such as Living Islands Movement and members of rural committees in Lantau.

1 Overview Support for Lantau Development  Generally, there was strong support for development.  Balance between development and conservation was catch phase of most supportive indigenous residents.  The older generation hoped development will lure back young people who left when Lantau offered them no future.  Developing North Lantau would create jobs attracting more people to move there.

2 Vision, Best Option Strategic  Lantau was the best option for development because it is less Positioning intrusive and disruptive. and Major  Developing the north and conserving the south would help Planning create space for infrastructure allowing people to have easier Principles access to nature.

3 Spatial Spared from adverse impacts Planning and  Developing Lantau into a business and tourist district would not Land Use have the same adverse impacts such as overcrowding and

Appendix K ‐ Page 31

inflation that development brought to Northern New Territories.  Tung Chung was overcrowded. There should be more land development in the peripheral areas.

4 Conservation Plan is looking green  The plan looked very green with much attention paid to conservation, but government should ensure the heritage can be protected.  Light pollution caused by development of Sunset Peak would affect quality of star gazing.  There were some concerns on Lantau’s biodiversity might be affected, endangering especially the marine environment and the Chinese White Dolphins.

Give buffalos a home  Call for Government to buy wetland to accommodate for buffalos.

5 Strategic Thumbs down for Link toll Traffic and  Residents wanted Lantau Link toll abolished to ease travel cost. Transport  Some parts of the East Lantau Metropolis should not be Infrastructure included in the plan as it was more closely associated with HK Island West.

6 Recreation and Week‐end get‐away Tourism  Hong Kong lacked locations for weekend get‐away or short‐ term vacation. It was a good idea to develop South Lantau into green tourist attractions.  Some considered that the LanDAC did not have members specialized in tourism management. Allegation that many members have interests in the Lantau project, as well as interests in Mainland connections.

7 Social More medical facilities needed Development  Lantau should have more hospitals and medical facilities.

More school needed  Reopen a secondary school in Mui Woo so that the students needed not to travel far to urban areas for schooling.

Better transport facilities needed

Appendix K ‐ Page 32

 Tung Chung needed better transport system.  There should be a cable car system in Sunset Peak to benefit the disabled and elderly.  There should be more biking facilities.

8 Others Public concern  Lacked of coordination and collaboration within government departments. The Development Bureau promoted tourism on Lantau, while the Environment Protection Department tries to develop industry on Soko Islands.  The Lantau Development Plan should put more focus on local people’s benefit, not just tourism, big businesses or people outside Lantau.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 33

Item 7 大嶼山發展公眾參與

九龍區議會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 1 日 (星期二) 時間：下午 2 時 40 分至 4 時正地點：九龍尖沙咀海防道九龍公園香港文物探知館演講廳

• 共有兩名九龍區議會區議員出席。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展 • 議員認同大嶼山的整體發展，並同意平衡發展和保育的重要。大部分意見由其中一名議員提出。

2 願景、策略性需注意生態及發展平衡定位和規劃原 • 赤鱲角機場一帶的基建將會與環境構成衝突，縱深化保育，政府則仍需注意生態及發展的平衡。

3 空間規劃及土東大嶼都會地利用 • 議員關注東大嶼都會填海造地的成本。 • 議員認為若東大嶼都會的環評報告出現爭論，政府應考慮應變措施及不斷修正。

4 保育鼓勵植樹 • 議員建議應根據生態研究，在大嶼山的郊野公園增加種植不同種類的樹木。

5 策略性交通運交通運輸承載力輸基建 • 未來大嶼山的整體人口將大幅增加，而東涌人口亦將由 9 萬增至 27 萬，加上小蠔灣發展，議員擔心若大嶼山南部的交通只靠東涌道及嶼南道將不勝負荷。

水上的士可行性高 • 建議考慮在南大嶼發展水上的士，利用水上交通，減輕陸路交通的壓力。

Appendix K ‐ Page 34

6 康樂及旅遊發展宜保留特色 • 議員提出，若發展大東山為旅遊點，應盡量保留其自然風景及特色，不宜過度發展。

7 社會發展人口與就業機會 • 政府預計五年後大嶼山將會增加 13 萬個職位空缺，議員想了解當中包括的工種，和政府會否採取措施解決人口增長與就業互相配合的問題。

配套設施 • 議員提出，政府應及早規劃各項基建及配套設施，以應付未來人口增長的需要。

8 其他展示創新，並先詳細分析再作評估 • 議員建議在交椅洲試行無車城市，或使用無人駕駛汽車系統。 • 大嶼山發展的項目發展次序要先作詳細分析、考慮和評估，例如：房屋發展應在東涌還是東大嶼都會。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 35

Item 8 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Hong Kong Institute of Planners (HKIP)

Summary of Views

Date: 7 March, 2016 (Monday) Time: 6:30 – 8:00pm Venue: HKIP, Unit No. 201, 2/F, Prosperity Millennia Plaza, 663 King's Road, North Point, Hong Kong

1 Development Support for development Strategies  Most HKIP members supported Lantau development as they believed (Overall) the island would serve as a gateway for tourists.

Integrate with Hong Kong  The project needed to integrate with the development of the entire Hong Kong.

More innovative ideas needed  The development plan required more innovative ideas in terms of town planning and development.

2 Vision, Lantau as a space for all Strategic  Lantau should be a place appreciated and enjoyed by local residents, the Positioning, Hong Kong citizens and tourists. Planning  The establishment of the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge (HZMB) and Principle tourist facilities such as Ngong Ping 360 were serving tourists more than Hong Kong people. The Government needed to address this imbalanced development in terms of end‐users.

Carrying and receiving capacity of Lantau  Some participants questioned the carrying and receiving capacity of Lantau.

3 Spatial Impacts of reclamation Planning and  Reclamation might have negative impacts on island’s natural assets. Land Use Progress of East Lantau Metropolis (ELM)  The Government should announce the progress of ELM regularly.

Appendix K ‐ Page 36

4 Conservation Archaeological studies at Luk Keng Tsuen  Some participants were concerned whether reclamation at northern Sunny Bay would affect historical and archaeological sites in Luk Keng Tsuen (鹿頸村) fishing villages.

Buffalo preservation zone  Some people suggested building areas and facilities to help preserve the habitat of buffalos in South Lantau.

5 Strategic Concerns about rail and roads Traffic and  Some concerned on the proposed rail and road corridor might bring Transport negative impacts on the island’s natural assets. Infrastructure  Local roads should be upgraded.

6 Recreation & Concerns about recreation and tourism facilities Tourism  Some people were concerned over the feasibility of building the potential recreation and tourist destinations.  Support developing Cheung Sha as a wedding centre and spa resort.  The Government should pay more attention to cycling as a recreation and tourism trend.  Some concerned about whether the cable car extension from Ngong Ping to Tai O, which pass through Zen Conservation Zone, might bring noisy tourists.  The Government should consider the carrying capacity of Lantau in order to preserve miscanthus (芒草) on Sunset Peak and the terrain.  The Government should consider the safety of people in tourist destinations.

7 Social More social facilities and comprehensive infrastructure Development  A comprehensive infrastructure system would attract more people to move to Lantau.  More facilities should be added, e.g., first aid stations, washrooms, transportation services, stores, etc. Inconvenience caused by insufficient supplements would be problematic to development.

8 Miscellaneous Concern about Government’s enforcement power  It was difficult to monitor or supervise activities of locals in South Lantau since the Government has limited enforcement power.

Involvement of private sector and Government  It was important to clarify whether Lantau Development involves only the Government or also the private sector.

Appendix K ‐ Page 37

Questions on development sequence and implementation  Local assets and needs should be strengthened, e.g. review existing infrastructure.  Some people were uncertain about the reason for choosing Lantau as the site of development other than northern New Territories.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 38

Item 9 大嶼山發展公眾參與

新界區議會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 11 日（星期五）時間：上午 10 時 45 分至下午 12 時 30 分地點：新界荃灣大河道 60 號雅麗珊社區中心多用途會堂

• 有六位區議員出席會議，五位來自新界區，一位來自九龍區。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展 • 議員普遍支持大嶼山發展的願景及策略定位，但擔憂東大嶼都會發展會影響當地生態環境；多名議員對大嶼山運輸交通網絡的可達性、形式和設計表示關注。

2 願景、策略以平衡發展和保育為大前提性定位和規 • 部分議員認為大嶼山發展計劃在保留大嶼山特色方面安排完善，平劃原則衡發展和保育的概念良好；無論東大嶼都會以至南大嶼的建設，都應以不破壞生態為大前提。

3 空間規劃及質疑機場三跑必要性土地利用 • 有議員質疑機場三跑的需要，並擔憂興建過程會影響環境。

建議重置貨櫃碼頭 • 個別議員建議將現時貨櫃碼頭搬入大嶼山。

開發岩洞 • 個別議員查詢在大嶼山開發岩洞的可行性。

4 保育小蠔灣發展影響白海豚生態 • 部分議員擔憂小蠔灣、欣澳及交椅洲進行填海會發出噪音和影響附近生態 (如中華白海豚) ，應先考慮補救方案。

5 策略性交通增加大嶼山的可達性及通達性運輸基建 • 多位議員表示，不論吸引外來遊客或照顧大嶼山居民需要，都必須先行改善交通運輸網絡（如東涌與梅窩之間的連接）。

Appendix K ‐ Page 39

• 部分議員關注建議的鐵路及公路連接網絡，希望了解其興建形式 (如隧道、天橋) 及設計詳情（如停站分布）。

6 康樂及旅遊不宜過度發展 • 多位議員均認為大嶼山有很多休閒地方適合發展旅遊，但必須保留原有特色，避免過於商業化和破壞環境，同時須考慮承載力、改善道路和照顧本地居民需要。

建議發展環島單車遊 • 有議員建議引入環島單車遊。

7 社會發展人口與就業 • 部分議員關注大嶼山未來人口的居住和就業情況，希望政府能照顧原居民的需要。 • 個別議員提出，除了旅遊及休閒康樂設施的就業機會，希望讓居民發展具本土特色的生意，自給自足。

8 其他建議發展博彩業 • 個別議員提出可考慮設立賭場。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 40

Item 10 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Public Forum No.3 on Lantau Development

Summary of Views

Date: 13 March, 2016 (Sunday) Time: 2:30pm – 5:00pm Venue: Auditorium, Room 101, 1/F, The Boys’& Girls’ Clubs Association of Hong Kong Headquarters Building, 3 Lockhart Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong

 A total of 292 participants signed in attending this third forum on Lantau Development. Among them, 38 participants deliberated at the forum whilst the moderator read written views from the other 25.  Participants included residents of Lantau, people who worked in Lantau and representatives of rural committees in Lantau.

1 Overview Supporting Lantau Development  Some participants considered the plan was “quite perfect and holistic” and they “can’t wait to see the future Lantau”.  Development of Lantau was inevitable and it would benefit the next generation.  There was concern about the development being too focused on recreation. There should be more focus on transportation and housing issues.

2 Vision, Tung Chung may solve overcrowded problems Strategic  Developing Tung Chung could help relieve the overcrowded situation Positioning on Hong Kong Island. Infrastructure has to be prioritized to attract and Major people to seek jobs in Tung Chung. Planning  Some employers on Lantau were losing staff because the island was Principles too far from the city. Hence, the proximity gap must be closed to attract workers to Lantau.  Government should plan the development holistically and consider different areas of interest before executing the final plan.

3 Spatial Care over land use Planning and  More land would be needed for development and it hoped it would Land Use not cause too much disruption or damage to the environment.

Appendix K ‐ Page 41

 There was concern regarding allocation of land for multiple development such as housing, conservation, and tourism.  Concern over insufficient schools and hospitals.  The development plan should encompass: (1) a lower restriction on hawkers to maintain the unique culture of Hong Kong (2) conserve the country parks (3) increase the number of elderly centers and services (4) establish green towns and recycling programs (5) build bike lanes, sport centres, schools and hostels.

Concern over fisheries  Tai O used to be a flourished fishing village, which supported the largest fisheries industry in Hong Kong. However, the reclamation had destroyed the fishermen’s lives. The future reclamation plans in Tung Chung East should not further exacerbate the adverse impacts to the fishermen’s lives. Government must take the well‐being of fishermen into consideration regarding reclamation.

4 Conservation Threat to scenic beauty  Some suggested the extension of cable car system connecting to Tai O. However, some considerd the cable car system should not be extended from Ngong Ping to Tai O because the scenic beauty will be destroyed.

Concern over buffalos  Some concerns were raised over buffalos’ future, including their accommodation and protection.

5 Strategic Transport system to extend to cope with development need Traffic and  Current transport system would not be large enough for the projected Transport population, forcing people living here to leave Lantau. Infrastructure  The traffic/transport system needs improvement to reduce the travelling time to and from Lantau. There should be more channels to reach Lantau and the airport other than the Tsing Ma Bridge.  Given Tsing Ma Bridge was the only channel connecting Lantau to the other parts of Hong Kong, it is extremely insufficient. There should be a time table for the construction of the Bridge connect Lantau to Western Hong Kong.  There should be a road connecting Tai O to North Lantau.  Water transportation in Lantau is very inconvenient.  Without a mature transportation system, rescues would be difficult to carry out on the Island.

Call to abolish link toll

Appendix K ‐ Page 42

 The Lantau Link Toll should be abolished to reduce cost and travel time to and from the island. It would also attract more people to visit or work on Lantau.

Concern over unbalanced development  It lacked a focus on the development of the transportation system in Southern Lantau. Currently the roads in Lantau were narrow and dangerous. If there ever were accidents on the road, it may spark chaos to the other major roads in Lantau. There is a need for widening and building more roads.  Although the roads pass through the villages in Ma Wan, but many of them do not extend into them. Therefore, there should be some increase in the accessibility.  More thoughts had to be put on how to link the airport and the hubs on the reclaimed island and other areas in Lantau. If there is not a plan for this transportation arrangement, Tung Chung city will likely be overcrowded.

6 Recreation More festivities and Tourism  There should be more gala activities to attract tourists.  Development should prioritize recreation and tourism. There should be more diverse outdoor activities such as music festivals, mountain bike competitions, etc.  There is lack of car parks and sport centers in Lantau. Lantau could establish bike rentals like Taiwan’s U Bike Program. By doing so, there could be a boost in tourism as a stronger cohesion within the community. There would also be fewer cars on the island and thus less emission and pollution.

Water sports at Pui O  One third of the time its waters were not suitable for swimming. Therefore, Pui O was not an ideal site for the development of water sports.

Status quo for monastery areas  A nun welcomed Government to repair and reconstruct the roads around the monastery, but Government should restrict the scale of development to preserve the peacefulness and tranquillity. If the monastery was too accessible, it would disturb the monks and their daily lives.

7 Social Increase facilities Development  There should be more facilities like police stations, fire stations,

Appendix K ‐ Page 43

hospitals and schools to meet expected population influx.  There should be more small businesses, which can offer more affordable dining options, cheaper goods, and give rise to more businesses.  Also, the development of local culture goods and services should be encouraged.  Given the demand of labours working in several specific industries, there should be schools and community colleges that specialized in subjects related to aviation and catering.  Some considered the police force in Lantau was not enough because policemen did not want to work in a remote area. Therefore, building roads was a priority. At this moment, the roads were too narrow for bigger vehicles such as buses to pass through.

Better facilities for native villagers  Currently, there were some villagers who were inaccessible to clean water. As a result, they had to drink untreated water which might be contaminated by animal faeces and thus affect their health.

8 Others  A villager urged the LanDAC members to visit and consult the Rural Committee. It would not help improving the situation and living standards for people living in Lantau by opposing to all of the development plans.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 44

Item 11 大嶼山發展公眾參與

梅窩鄉事委員會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 15 日 (星期二) 時間：下午 3 時正至 5 時正地點：大嶼山梅窩鄉事會路 45 號梅窩鄉事委員會

 出席會議的包括十三位梅窩鄉事委員會委員、離島區議會副主席及其他梅窩社團代表。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展  委員普遍同意大嶼山發展包含保育建議及興建東大嶼都會，並樂見發展計劃中的地區改善工程及短期項目，希望政府能盡快開展上述發展。

期望發展有助改善南大嶼經濟發展  在過去三十多年南大嶼缺乏大型建設，令南大嶼(梅窩)經濟發展停滯不前，居民期望大嶼山發展計劃有助改善南大嶼的經濟發展。

2 願景、策略性支持規劃原則，但應平衡各方需要定位和規劃原  委員普遍支持「北發展、南保育」的定位，但發展應平衡各方需則要，勿忽視梅窩居民。  發展應以交通先行，以吸引原居民回流。  部分委員認為計劃若過於側重保育，會影響南大嶼的交通運輸網絡和居民生計。

3 空間規劃及土宜善用大嶼山土地地利用  個別委員提出，梅窩有很多地方可供發展，如荒廢農地，又認為可釋放部分郊野公園用地作發展。  港珠澳大橋落成後可於深屈作適度發展。

加快落實餘下的梅窩改善工程  部分委員指出，梅窩改善工程於 2004 年提出，第一期工程仍在施工，第二期的詳細設計才剛開始，希望此期能針對改善碼頭一帶泊車問題。第二、三期建議增設的單車徑及海濱長廊至今仍未收地，

Appendix K ‐ Page 45

希望政府能加快落實。

4 保育過度保育影響居民生活與生計  在保育原則下，要確保鄉郊可持續發展。  將大蠔列入保育範圍會影響當地居民生計。  希望政府與居民多作溝通，不要強行將私人土地劃作保育區。  部分委員建議梅窩改善工程優先協助三鄉，包括活化及優化當地古物古蹟。

海洋生態受影響  個別委員指出，填海影響海洋生態，以致現時海產種類及數量減少。

5 策略性交通運冀盡快落實興建大蠔至梅窩南北通道輸基建  委員普遍認為建議的南北通道、大澳至東涌沿海公路及改善南大嶼道路，可形成一個環島公路網絡，對大嶼山未來發展大有裨益，要求將此計劃納入在大嶼山的發展藍圖中，並盡快於兩、三年內落實興建，毋須等待東大嶼都會及環評報告。  部分委員提出改善大蠔至梅窩南北通道，或以隧道貫通三鄉和梅窩。  個別委員建議增設由梅窩至長沙的道路。

取消封閉道路措施及車輛限制  多名委員建議取消封閉道路，全面開放嶼南道，讓市民可以自由出入大嶼山，以帶動當地旅遊業。  又建議取消每日只許二十五輛私家車出入的限制，多建道路和擴闊路面，以改善交通及可達性。

鼓勵增加泊車位  雖然梅窩市中心的道路多數是雙線行車，但有一條道路經常被違例泊車佔用。希望政府能盡快擴闊道路，增加泊車位，紓緩違例泊車情況。

6 康樂及旅遊善用現有資源發展旅遊  委員建議政府善用大嶼山現有的文化遺產、傳統習俗及活動 (例如北帝廟、文武誕、繽紛梅窩日、沙灘音樂節等) ，促進地區旅遊經濟發展。

活化古蹟  委員希望古物古蹟辦事處將梅窩的古物古蹟 (例如梅窩的五座更

Appendix K ‐ Page 46

樓)，由二至三級升為一級歷史建築物或列為法定古蹟，加以活化，並在周邊興建旅遊設施，帶動地區經濟。

發展綠色旅遊  部分委員希望大嶼山發展計劃包含發展越野單車徑、家樂徑等綠色旅遊，並資助當地居民協作營運。  個別委員反對由三鄉白芒至梅窩興建環保單車徑，因憂慮往來奧運徑的單車或會影響當地居民出入安全。

開發另類特色旅遊  個別委員建議興建人工滑雪場等另類旅遊設施，吸引更多遊客。

7 社會發展梅窩發展可紓緩北大嶼人口負荷  個別委員關注，北大嶼現時人口負荷沉重，若梅窩興建更多公屋，可供五千人居住。  梅窩人口由昔日三萬，減至現時只有四千，希望人口最少可增加至八千人。  個別委員希望政府在梅窩興建更多學校。

增建教育及醫療設施  現時梅窩只有一間幼稚園、一間小學 (每年級只有 27 個學位)，一間中學(但已停辦)，未能吸引或留住年青家庭。  梅窩目前只有一間診所(只有兩名私家醫生駐診)，醫療設施不足。  多名委員要求，若要配合未來發展及人口增長，必須加建學校和醫療設施。

三鄉發展被忽略  部分委員指現時發展未有顧及位置較偏遠的三鄉，建議梅窩改善工程優先協助三鄉，改善排污系統。

提供區內外交通，切合未來發展需要  加快改善地區道路  部分委員提出開通三鄉的道路。  個別委員認為過往運輸署只批准擴闊道路一至兩呎，但並不足夠。  個別委員提出，現時三鄉無路直達，由大蠔村出口建小路貫通大蠔和白芒的方案可取。

 增加三鄉巴士班次  個別委員建議增加三鄉巴士班次，目前只有早晚班次並不足夠。

Appendix K ‐ Page 47

8 其他有關梅窩發展詳情  多名委員反映，梅窩居民普遍支持發展大嶼山，但希望更清楚了解有關梅窩具體的發展建議、有何改善計劃、發展階段及時間表等。  有委員想了解東大嶼都會與梅窩的接駁位置。

加強與居民的溝通  多名委員希望政府制訂發展策略前諮詢梅窩居民。居民更希望可直接與發展局對話，再經由發展局將居民意見傳達相關部門。  個別委員建議成立與機管局聯絡小組類似的地方小組，讓委員及居民有機會表達意見。地方小組可結合梅窩、大澳、南大嶼，或由鄉事委員聯辦。  委員希望未來的大嶼山發展專責辦事處，也能設立如旅發局的盛事基金，撥款資助地區人士舉辦活動。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 48

Item 12 大嶼山發展公眾參與

大嶼南鄉事委員會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 18 日 (星期五) 時間：上午 10 時正至 11 時 30 分地點：大嶼山貝澳羅屋村一號大嶼南鄉事委員會

• 出席會議的有大嶼南鄉事委員會正副主席及委員共二十二人。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展 • 委員普遍支持並樂見大嶼山發展，但不同意「北發展、南保育」的構思，認為過度保育會阻礙南大嶼發展，影響居民生計。

2 願景、策略性應先行發展交通定位和規劃原 • 多名委員認為大嶼山的現有道路系統已超出負荷，發展大嶼山須先則行改善和拓展道路，並建議政府研究如何打通大嶼山南北通道。

3 空間規劃及土建議重新審視發展地區及次序地利用 • 委員建議先發展貝澳及長沙，吸引有經濟能力人士遷入，並增設旅遊景點，讓南大嶼經濟得以發展，然後再發展位置比較偏遠的索罟群島等。

釋出土地發展住宅 • 部分委員不認同南大嶼只能發展低密度的康樂及旅遊設施；建議放寬農地限制，以釋放土地興建道路和發展住宅。

4 保育反對興建海岸公園 • 委員反對在南大嶼建海岸公園，因加上郊野公園，兩者佔(大嶼山) 整體面積八成，面積太大；並質疑若將索罟群島劃為海岸公園，附近一帶將不能進行任何活動，限制了當地居民生計、建屋及排污等。

保育區難以發展生態旅遊 • 委員認為嶼南道附近地方多是保育區，使露營活動受限制，車輛出入及數目亦受限制，難以發展生態旅遊。盼政府微調土地政策，以

Appendix K ‐ Page 49

提高當地經濟效益。

5 策略性交通運改善道路當務之急輸基建 • 多名委員表示南大嶼也需發展，且為配合大珠三角地區發展，首要改善來往南北大嶼道路；其他道路也是彎多路窄，冀政府盡快擴闊和修直，並改善泊車問題；政府亦需興建新道路網，連繫南大嶼各個村落。

遊艇停泊 • 部分委員建議將東涌的遊艇停泊處搬到南大嶼，或考慮在長沙興建遊艇碼頭。

6 康樂及旅遊康樂旅遊發展佈局 • 個別委員認為長沙適合發展水療及休閒度假村、芝麻灣半島亦適合發展休閒度假村，但水口發展動物農莊會影響居民生活；建議政府先實地考察，並考量每個地區的遊客荷載量。

盼修例助發展 • 委員認為南大嶼海岸線優美，適宜發展水上旅遊設施，但大部分沿岸土地被劃為與保育有關的用途地帶，用途大受限制；盼政府修例，例如容許露營活動、增加露營地點，及容許露營車輛自由出入。

望了解政府意向 • 部分委員想知道政府會否收購私人耕地作旅遊發展、會否投資和協助南大嶼發展康樂旅遊。

擴闊單車徑，免人車爭路 • 個別委員指出十塱至梅窩的單車徑只有四呎闊，人車爭路容易構成危險，希望能政府擴闊及改善單車徑。

7 社會發展社區設施貧乏 • 委員認為南大嶼社區設施比東涌、大澳及梅窩少，政府應多建社區會堂、康樂文娛活動中心、鄉事委員會及各村辦事處。

電訊工程不應阻礙交通 • 個別委員不滿電訊公司安裝和修補電纜電線工程，長期阻礙路面交通，盼政府設法改善。

8 其他要求修訂規劃大綱圖

Appendix K ‐ Page 50

• 委員認為《大嶼山南岸分區計劃大綱圖》過分則重保育，與南大嶼的鄉村發展規劃不配合。主席要求規劃署在三個月內諮詢及回應居民訴求，以修訂大綱圖。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 51

Item 13 大嶼山發展公眾參與

東涌鄉事委員會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 18 日（星期五）時間：下午 12 時正至 1 時 15 分地點：大嶼山東涌道上嶺皮村 1 號東涌鄉事委員會

• 出席會議的有東涌鄉事委員會正副主席及十多位村長。

1 整體意見支持發展大嶼山 • 委員普遍支持發展大嶼山，但認為大嶼山發展只著眼東涌東，未有顧及東涌西的發展及居民需要。

2 願景、策略性交通網絡發展尤為迫切定位和規劃原 • 東涌將來增至二十七萬人口，短期內加建並修正道路最為重要，則是迫切性問題，所謂路到財通，路不通其餘發展也不會暢順。

3 空間規劃及土宜多方面發展地利用  個別委員建議政府將昂坪 360 一帶劃為「中產商住區」、馬灣涌則適宜發展為「文化區」。

4 保育過於側重保育 • 委員指發展計劃過於側重保育，例如東涌谷雖風景優美，卻沒有保育價值。

綠化地帶過大 • 部分委員不滿政府不斷將居民的私人土地劃作郊野公園及綠化地帶(包括東涌河對開 20‐30 米的自然保育區緩衝、牛凹村及附近村落沿、石門甲村等)，形同凍結居民資產，又擔心影響申請興建丁屋，要求政府重新劃定村界。

5 策略性交通運盡早落實東涌大澳沿海公路輸基建 • 委員認為東涌至大澳沿海公路，既可紓緩東涌渡輪擠塞情況，又可縮短前往大澳的路程至 15 分鐘。 • 東涌道至嶼南道是現時連接大嶼山南北的唯一通道，非常險要，

Appendix K ‐ Page 52

應盡快落實興建沿海公路。

東涌應建大型停車場 • 委員建議政府在東涌興建大型停車場，以容納更多私家車及旅遊巴士。

6 康樂及旅遊旅遊配套必須完善 • 委員提出政府應在東涌西興建大型文化娛樂中心和酒店，吸引遊客停留。 • 委員亦建議在景點 (例如大東山) 增設垃圾收集箱和洗手間，保持環境衛生和方便遊人。

7 社會發展增建社區設施 • 委員認為東涌西缺乏社區設施，為配合未來新市鎮人口需要，東涌谷附近應建大會堂、康樂中心、老人院及醫院。

改善地區道路並增設排污、集水系統 • 部分委員不滿政府只關注大型基建，而忽視地方需要。要求在北大嶼山公路開設小路通入白芒，建道路打通東涌西的村落，擴闊牛凹村道路等。 • 東涌西許多村落至今仍未有污水渠、集水和供水系統等，委員盼政府盡快改善地區設施。

8 其他發展應盡快落實 • 因東涌未來人口將增至二十七萬，當中以加建及修直道路最為迫切，委員促請政府盡快落實。

發展重東輕西 • 委員質疑東涌西的發展比梅窩還要落後。東涌新市鎮擴展工程將升為甲級，但酒店及購物中心等只集中在東涌東，東涌西卻只有公屋，對東涌西不公平。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 53

Item 14 大嶼山發展公眾參與

荃灣區議會討論「大嶼山發展」

會議記錄(摘錄)

日期：2016 年 2 月 22 日(星期一) 時間：下午二時三十分地點：新界青山公路荃灣段 174-208 號荃灣多層停車場大廈二樓荃灣民政事務處會議廳

IV 第 3 項議程：大嶼山的發展策略建議

（荃灣區議會第 20/2016 號文件）

代主席表示，發展局現就大嶼山的發展策略建議諮詢議員的意見。出席會議的政府部門代表包括：

(1) 發展局副局長馬紹祥先生； (2) 發展局首席助理秘書長（工務）5 黎卓豪先生； (3) 土木工程拓展署（下稱“土拓署”）總工程師／離島盧國中先生；以及 (4) 規劃署高級城市規劃師／策略規劃 6 陳思偉先生。

2. 發展局副局長簡介大嶼山發展諮詢委員會及大嶼山發展策略建議的基本資料。規劃署高級城市規劃師／策略規劃 6 及發展局首席助理秘書長（工務）5 分別簡介大嶼山發展的五個組別的主要建議，包括空間規劃及土地利用、保育、策略性交通運輸基建、康樂及旅遊發展和社會發展。

3. 陳恒鑌議員非常關注大嶼山發展。他認為雖然大嶼山大部分地方都不屬於荃灣區，但大嶼山發展與全港市民息息相關，因此歡迎發展局副局長及其團隊出席荃灣區議會會議及諮詢議員的意見，由此可見政府在大嶼山規劃方面願意花心思。他了解政府在大嶼山的規劃及發展方面進行了不同類型的諮詢。他希望政府可考慮郊野公園的問題，因為市民一般認為進行發展便需破壞郊野公園用地。根據政府代表先前的介紹，南大嶼山的發展會以娛樂及休閒為主，他認為這樣不但可顧及原有的生態，而且可保留現有的郊野公園用地及設施，以供市民享用，實屬理想。此外，他指出，大嶼山發展主要以新界西作為交通樞紐，例如擬建連接屯門及大嶼山的道路和連接東大嶼都會及港島區的跨海鐵路，但卻缺少了與新界東的連繫。因此，他建議把連接東大嶼都會與九龍區的鐵路分支線改經青衣西連接現有的西鐵線及荃灣線，然後再經葵涌連接沙中線。他認為這樣可連接東大嶼都會及新界

Appendix K ‐ Page 54

東，並貫通不同的鐵路幹線，使之四通八達，而新界東居民將來可由沙田直接前往東大嶼都會，甚至港島區。他續表示，政府在研究大嶼山發展時亦應考慮與新界東的連接，以及荃灣區作為交通樞紐的地理優勢等因素。

4. 田北辰議員表示，發展局出席立法會會議講解其工作時，面對交通運輸方面的提問時，皆得不到運輸及房屋局（下稱“運房局”）出席支援及回應。他曾多次於立法會會議上提出，政府不論推行任何發展計劃，都必須妥善處理公路及鐵路的運輸問題，否則只會引起不斷的反對聲音。他指出，除北大嶼山發展計劃外，發展局現正進行元朗南、洪水橋及錦田南等新界西北發展計劃，而現時西鐵線若按照每平方米容納四人的標準，在繁忙時段載客量已達百分之一百的飽和點，再加上新界西北的新發展將會帶來數十萬新增人口，可預見未來荃灣區居民根本無法於荃灣西站登上西鐵線列車前往市區，並只可選擇荃灣線。他曾多次向發展局及運房局反映有需要興建第五條跨海鐵路，當中的概念是讓新界西北居民可乘搭西鐵線前往九龍，以及經西鐵線到屯門後轉乘第五條跨海鐵路，經北大嶼山及人工島前往港島西區。他續表示，運房局的書面回應指出基於工務理由而未能派代表出席是次會議，一如既往讓發展局獨自面對提問，正如發展局在進行多項發展計劃時得不到運房局的支援。他認為若第五條跨海鐵路無法落實，則相信現有的機場鐵路及東涌線會無法應付北大嶼山發展所帶來的人流，而荃灣西站亦會因新界西北發展而作廢，因此希望發展局關注西鐵線載客量飽和的問題並向運房局轉達他們對交通運輸的關注。

5. 林發耿議員認為中國發展一日千里，因此香港亦需加強發展。他指出，去年他曾參與大嶼山發展的考察團，認為該區可進一步發展，而且生態資源豐富，可推動市民生活及旅遊發展。然而，他指出，北大嶼山的地理環境有很大限制，但策略建議中並沒有提出解決山路迂迴曲折的問題，因此認為與其逐步進行改善，不如進行一次大型改善工程，例如興建隧道連接東面海岸，並可發展該區的沙灘。

6. 譚凱邦議員關注大嶼山的保育情況，認為大嶼山發展策略建議的內容與大嶼山發展公眾參與活動的封面主題“全民新空間”不符，相關建議未能讓市民享用大嶼山的空間，而是把大嶼山“景點化”，並且大興土木，出現被財團、地主及權貴掠奪的情況，因此他對於大嶼山發展計劃的目標及大方向有很大保留。他質疑中部水域人工島的發展規模及所需資金，認為很有可能會把香港的庫房淘空，正如不少“大白象工程”亦曾出現嚴重超支的情況。他曾詢問發展局在覓地進行發展時有否考慮減少每日 150 個內地居民持“單程證”來港定居配額的根本問題，並指出現時因要不斷覓地興建房屋而需要犧牲香港市民的生活質素，以應付按年增加的 50 000 人口，這就是社會上不少問題的成因，包括西鐵線載客量飽和問題。他希望政府考慮減少“單程證”配額至每日 75 個，以節省覓地建屋的開支及時間。此外，他指出，興建大小磨刀海岸公園是政府承諾因應港珠澳大橋工程而填海興建人工島所作出的補償措施，但現時卻計劃在周邊地區興建第三條機場跑道及在東涌東進行填海工程，因此質疑該海岸公園的實際效用，並且認為政府背信棄義，當年欺騙了所有環保團體以取得支持港珠澳大橋工程。他希望政府擱置東涌東的填海工程，否則大小磨刀洲海岸公園便會失去效用。

Appendix K ‐ Page 55

Appendix K ‐ Page 56

7. 鄭㨗彬議員關注大嶼山發展中的交通問題，尤其是深井及青龍頭等荃灣郊區的居民主要依靠青山公路及屯門公路往返市區，居民擔心洪水橋、元朗南及錦田南等新界西發展所帶來數十萬的新增人口，會加重上述兩條公路的交通負荷，而且西鐵線的載客量亦已飽和。他希望發展局在進行大嶼山發展計劃時，可積極考慮興建第五條跨海鐵路，以紓緩新界西的交通負荷，並且讓荃灣郊區居民可乘坐短程接駁車至小欖，再轉乘新鐵路幹線經港島西前往港島東，為居民帶來便利。

8. 鄒秉恬議員認同大嶼山是“全民新空間”的方向，並指出香港的發展已停滯多時，市民都期望香港會出現較大的轉變，並可繼續發展。他認為大嶼山是一處未發展的全民資源及瑰寶，因此支持政府投放資源發展大嶼山，但按照現時的政治氣候，需要立法會通過相關撥款會困難重重，擔心計劃經過多輪諮詢後仍沒有任何進展，結果淪為空談。此外，他質疑擬建酒店的位置是否合適及數量會否過多，並建議在大嶼山增設騎馬徑以提倡騎馬運動，以及興建一個只供遊客進入的賭場，以增加政府收入及避免助長香港市民的賭風。他認為大嶼山發展中最重要的是加強區內交通的連繫，因為大嶼山不少道路屬封閉道路，並且不合乎現有交通標準及道路闊度的要求。他建議首先逐步改善區內的交通網絡及基建，然後才發展連接其他地區的交通網絡，例如鐵路系統。

9. 黃家華議員表示，大嶼山是讓市民享受大自然及休閒的好去處。他認為必須為大嶼山發展訂立時間表，並需與鄉事委員會及私人發展商等商討收地事宜，而且申請撥款進行發展需時。他指出，政府現時的發展政策是新發展區需達到一定人口，才會興建相應的交通配套設施，並擔心大嶼山發展因而會遇到更大困難。他認為政府在自然及文物保育方面可採取其他發展方向而無需大興土木，因為身處大嶼山可令人的節奏減慢，是個休閒的好地方，而稍後於第 12 項議程下亦會討論樹木保育方面的事宜。他希望政府在發展及自然保育兩方面作出平衡，因為自然生態一旦受到破壞，便難以復修。

10. 伍顯龍議員認為“全民新空間”的定義包括考慮某地方在進行發展或提升後，會有多少空間屬公共領域。他舉例指出，天水圍濕地公園是所有市民均可享用的公共領域，是個沒有特別限制且收費相宜的非牟利地方；馬灣的挪亞方舟及馬灣公園屬半專屬的公共領域，即部分地方免費供市民使用，但部分地方需市民消費才可享用；而更極端的例子是尖沙咀 1881，該處在提升後屬完全專屬的地方，市民只可在該處拍照而無法參與其他活動。此外，他質疑興建人工島是否必要，認為若政府需要覓地興建房屋，可考慮制定政策，遷移現時位於新界西北棕地的貨櫃場或物流中心，以騰出土地，這樣較填海興建一個新人工島所得的土地為多。另一方面，他認為可嘗試在人工島上採用一些無法在傳統市鎮實踐的規劃方案，例如在大廈耕種、發電及污水循環再用等。此外，他認為要把欣澳發展成為核心商業區的新市鎮，除土地等硬件外，亦需要軟件上配合，為此可發展文化及高科技等工業，以扶助新核心商業區的發展。

Appendix K ‐ Page 57

11. 羅少傑議員關注大嶼山發展的交通問題，並認為是次諮詢在道路及鐵路規劃方面並沒有考慮對荃灣區的影響，因為新發展區只依賴青馬大橋作連接，將來會加重青衣及荃灣一帶的交通負荷。他認為可善用人工島興建連接青衣及香港島的公路或鐵路，並相信可縮短往來香港島的路程。此外，他認為要發展南大嶼山，便先要改善現有道路系統及做好交通規劃，而不是在建造住宅物業等基建設施後，才逐步改善交通擠塞的問題。他支持大嶼山發展的整體計劃，認為香港實在需要發展，但必須規劃完善，並做好集體運輸的配套設施。

12. 林琳議員認為荃灣區議會在現階段可就大嶼山發展計劃提供的意見不多，但同意先前發言的議員所提及市民能否享用發展後的空間的問題需予考慮，因為香港年輕一輩市民經常表示無法在工作及生活兩方面取得平衡，主要原因是沒有足夠空間可讓他們這樣做。她認為大嶼山發展計劃已從宏觀角度考慮，亦已照顧到各方的關注，但未知最終能否達至目標，並希望考慮議員的意見。她理解發展項目須加入商業元素，否則政府會無法承擔所有開支，但必須考慮市民可享用的公共領域的比率及發展模式可否持續，並且為我們的後代提供休憩空間及工作機會。她認為應根據香港未來的人口結構創造相應的職位，例如由年長人士擔任導賞員及作歷史分享等工作，並為年輕人提供就業機會，而發展局需聯同其他政策局從宏觀角度研究應提供的配套設施，否則即使硬件已備，但欠缺軟件方面的配套，同樣會影響香港的長遠發展，更會浪費不少資源。

13. 代主席認同北大嶼山都會發展及南大嶼山保育優先的基礎定位，但指出不少先前發言的議員都關注都市發展的交通配套問題，並認為即使不把北大嶼山都會發展帶來的人口增長計算在內，單是港珠澳大橋通車後增加的交通流量，已足以為現有青馬大橋及擬建赤 角連接路的交通造成很大負荷。他認同北大嶼山都會發展需從鐵路規劃著手，否則擔心會影響將來北大嶼山及機場的交通。此外，他認為南大嶼山以自然環境為主，應予以保存，因此應在保留現狀的前提下只輕微優化有關基建設施，並且不支持在大東山加建纜車設施的建議。

14. 發展局副局長回應如下： (1) 大嶼山發展策略建議的主要目標是利用大嶼山北面現有的基建設施，將高密度發展項目集中於大嶼山北面； (2) 當局理解市民喜愛南大嶼山的優美自然環境，因此該處會以保育為大前提，並會優化現有的環境及交通配套設施，以方便市民前往該處。雖然在大嶼山發展策略建議中提及多個南大嶼山的初步建議設施，但主要都不是大型發展項目，而只是提升個別小區的基建設施，提供更多元化的活動，以方便更多香港居民前往大嶼山享受優美的環境及享用休閒設施； (3) 現時大嶼山發展計劃處於諮詢階段，當局沒有既定立場或必須進行的發展項目，將會在收集公眾意見後對初步發展建議進行整理、分析及技術評估，才決定未來發展籃圖；

Appendix K ‐ Page 58

(4) 當局知悉市民對大嶼山區內及區外交通運輸的關注，因為大嶼山位處香港的西端，必須透過隧道或橋樑連接香港其他地區。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會轄下已有小組專責處理交通運輸事宜，成員包括運輸署署長，故此運房局亦有密切留意及積極參與大嶼山的交通運輸事務討論，並與發展局緊密合作，一起面對不同挑戰，； (5) 在現時鐵路系統方面，香港鐵路有限公司（下稱“港鐵”）現正提升鐵路的訊號系統，並會增加西鐵線的班次和車卡，以提升鐵路的乘載能力；以及 (6) 在保育方面，該局希望可按照技術數據，並以理性和客觀的態度進行討論。對於大嶼山北面的填海計劃，當局已進行了基線研究，例如就龍鼓灘、小蠔灣及欣澳水域的擬議填海工程進行累計性環境影響評估，亦已向環境諮詢委員會匯報結果，並因應中華白海豚的活動範圍，縮減部份填海範圍。

15. 發展局首席助理秘書長（工務）5 回應，該局現正就不同的康樂設施及旅遊景點的規模及交通配套等方面進行研究。他重申現時提出的只是初步發展建議，各建議項目例如在大東山興建索道等是否合適，該局會聽取公眾意見，然後在下一階段進行檢討，並將逐步就獲支持及值得推行的項目進行個別或整體環境影響等評估。

16. 發展局副局長續回應，現時只是初步的策略建議，需時進行長遠規劃，並希望議員理解現時進行的規劃工作，或需要十年或更長時間方可落實，但若現時不展開相關工作，在有需要時便無法迅速回應需求，例如不少青年人希望創業，對土地有殷切需求，如政府沒有足夠土地儲備，則難以推動這些創新企業的發展，而且這些工作不但是為我們，還是為了我們的下一代，甚至更遠世代的香港市民。此外，他表示，政府亦希望在短期內推行一些改善工程，例如在大嶼山興建越野單車徑等康樂設施，以及在梅窩及大澳進行地區改善工程。他續表示，人工島可提供較大的規劃空間，因為現時在現有土地上興建新市鎮等擴展工程會面對很大的困難及限制，而且人工島的擬建地點位處船隻航道的中部水域，生態價值相對較低，加上鄰近香港島，不但在經濟及房屋方面有助香港長遠發展，亦能成為大嶼山連接香港島及其他地區的交通樞紐。大嶼山發展的諮詢將於四月底完結，他歡迎議員就大嶼山發展計劃以書面形式提出更多意見。

17. 代主席感謝發展局副局長出席是次會議，並把議員的意見納入諮詢範圍。

Appendix K ‐ Page 59

Item 15 大嶼山發展公眾參與

大嶼山發展聯盟討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 24 日（星期四）時間：上午 11 時正至 12 時 20 分地點：大嶼山赤鱲角香港國際機場亞洲國際博覽館 205 室

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展 • 出席會議的十六名大嶼山發展聯盟成員均支持大嶼山發展，並希望政府善用香港口岸人工島及東北大嶼匯點，盡享橋頭經濟之利，並加強發展休閒、娛樂及旅遊。但大前提是必須打通大嶼山區內外交通，並以創新思維接納不同持份者之意見。

2 願景、策略同意大嶼山發展願景性定位和規  有與會者認為單軌鐵路可有效地連接香港口岸人工島、亞洲博覽劃原則館、機場及東涌，讓大嶼山成「宜居」、「宜業」，「宜商」及「宜學」之地  個別與會者認為只要政府做好基建和配套，本土經濟自會發展起來。

3 空間規劃及善用並做好東北大嶼匯點規劃土地利用  有與會者認為大嶼山東北面發展為大嶼山的旅遊門廊；若規劃與設計得宜，欣澳未來發展可與迪士尼樂園產生協同效應。

4 保育保育與旅遊相結合  個別與會者認為，保育應與活化結合起來。  另一與會者贊成保存南大嶼的鄉村文化。

5 策略性交通建議增加鐵路站運輸基建  建議機場快綫將來連接加設東涌東站及欣澳站，方便乘客轉乘；並建議西部高速快綫加設香港口岸人工島站及東涌東站。

建議完善道路網  另一與會者建議興建公路由大蠔穿過愉景灣直達交椅洲，同時又可善用坪洲西面的水域興建避風塘、大型遊艇停泊處和水上活動中

Appendix K ‐ Page 60

心。此方案相對原來的建議更符合成本效益，對環境影響亦相對較低。

增加交通配套  部分與會者認為大嶼山應提供足夠泊車設施，容許經港珠澳大橋到港的澳門及內地遊客車泊大嶼山，以提升旅遊競爭力。  多名與會者提出興建道路和運輸網絡，將機場、亞洲博覽館、迪士尼及愉景灣連繫起來；亦建議在欣澳以外加建一條鐵路支線前往迪士尼樂園。

6 康樂及旅遊增加旅遊配套  個別與會者提出，大東山應興建纜車與索道等設施，讓長者通達易到；並建議在南大嶼多建精品酒店，有助推廣旅遊文化。

7 社會發展改善交通網絡  多名與會者認為政府需提升大嶼山巴士服務、引入小巴及降低交通設施的收費 (如青馬大橋收費)。他們更指大嶼山現時面對的最大問題是交通接駁，令區內外人士大感不便 (例如由逸東邨前往博覽館需時約 45 分鐘，比從青衣出發需時更長) ，現時北大嶼山 40 多條巴士線沒有一條線可直達迪士尼樂園，翔東路亦沒有公共交通連接愉景灣。

8 其他政政府應創造投資環境  個別與會者認為政府應創造投資環境，吸引外來投資，做到「宜商」。大嶼山的中短期發展應著眼於機場三跑、亞洲博覽館、東涌新市鎮擴展及小蠔灣發展等基建設施。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 61

Item 16 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)

Summary of Views

Date: 29 March, 2016 (Tuesday) Time: 6:30 – 7:50pm Venue: 9/F, Island Beverley, No. 1 Great George Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong

1. Development  Most HKIE members were concerned about the feasibility of Lantau Strategies Development proposals, the competitiveness of Hong Kong among (Overall) cities in the PRD region, and the balance between natural environment and development.

2. Vision,  NIL Strategic Positioning, Planning Principle

3. Spatial Enhance MICE industry via Lantau Development Planning and  Hong Kong should have more convention and exhibition centres, along Land Use with hotel facilities supplementing the convention and exhibition industry.

Link between ELM and Hong Kong west  Participants suggested a technical feasibility study to substantiate viability of the four‐kilometre linkage between East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) and Hong Kong Island.

4. Conservation  NIL

5. Strategic Relaxation of closed roads for more public transport Traffic and  Relaxation of closed roads exclusively for public transport to enter Transport Lantau, making them more accessible without creating more pollution. Infrastructure

6. Recreation & Balance between environmental protection and developing tourism Tourism  There were some concerns over the way to maintain balance between

Appendix K ‐ Page 62

environmental protection and potential damage caused by tourists.

7. Social Competitiveness vs other cities in the PRD region Development  Some participants expressed concern about the details of the plan on attracting talent to live on Lantau and the competitiveness of Hong Kong compared with neighboring cities with similar developments.

Concerns about employment  There was concern whether people would sacrifice their jobs just to live in Lantau.

8. Miscellaneous Engagement with local residents  More details needed on how to engage with local residents.

Relocate container terminal to the airport  Some suggested moving the container terminal in Kwai Chung to the airport to enhance growth and development of the logistics industry, and thus release more urban land for development.

Casino as tourist attraction  There were suggestions of a casino to attract more tourists and bring economic benefits.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 63

Item 17 大嶼山發展公眾參與

焦點小組 ‐ 康樂、體育及旅遊界別討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 30 日（星期三）時間：下午 4 時正至 6 時正地點：香港灣仔皇后大道東 258 號灣仔街市地下低層灣仔活動中心 1 及 2 活動室

1 整體意見支持發展大嶼山  整體而言，來自體育界、旅遊業、營舍服務、度假村及其他旅遊設施的與會者，均贊成發展大嶼山，但對大嶼山保育及旅遊發展有不同意見和建議。

2 願景、策略性支持大嶼山發展成為康樂、旅遊目的地定位和規劃原  不少與會者同意大嶼山發展成為一個多姿多彩的康樂、旅遊目的則地。

支持平衡發展  部分與會者認為南大嶼主要是鄉郊地方，希望發展不會影響居民生活，盡量取得平衡。

3 空間規劃及土  無地利用

4 保育關注自然保育  與會者樂見大嶼山發展，但認為政府必須注意自然保育工作。

支持發展綠色旅遊  支持發展綠色旅遊並加强保護保育地點之間的交通串連，認為南大嶼有寶貴的天然資源，保育是合適的做法。  個別與會者認為政府可以拓展海上暢遊活動，讓市民能前往大嶼山周邊島嶼潛水，還可以順便發展生態及悠閒旅遊；又建議採用環保設計，如電動船及太陽能船，以保證有關水上活動不會污染環境。

Appendix K ‐ Page 64

關注海洋保育  與會者認為保育措施只集中在陸上而忽略了海洋，認為海洋亦是重要資源。個別與會者關注大嶼山發展計劃所提到的「可能的碼頭」會損害海洋生態。  「綠色」和大自然是大嶼山的特色，個別與會者憂慮發展令長沙海灘水質受影響。有些地方應保持原貌及其獨特性，不需再加添額外建設。

小心處理遊客對環境造成的破壞  與會者關注遊客對環境造成的破壞。遊客數量增多，垃圾收集箱和洗手間等設施亦應適量提供。政府有責任提醒行山人士應該帶走自己的垃圾。

5 策略性交通運支持南大嶼增設碼頭輸基建  建議在南大嶼增設更多公眾碼頭，提升接載訪客能力，疏導南大嶼交通。

6 康樂及旅遊同意增強點對點的聯繫  部分與會者贊成加强點對點的交通以增強景點、網絡和配套設施的聯繫。要令旅客留在大嶼山消費，點對點交通頗為重要。  陸路或水路交通都有助到達大嶼山各個地點。  昂坪現時只有陸路交通和吊車，關心將來如何配合大嶼山發展。

邀請世界各地運動選手來港參與大型活動  部分與會者指出大嶼山可以舉辦大型比賽活動，如長跑、游水、三項鐡人賽，吸引世界級的選手及觀眾前來。大嶼山亦可以興建一些新的設施，邀請不同的體育總會協辦這些活動，對選手和觀眾都有幫助。  很多國外的體育總會及團體都想來香港舉辦體育活動，包括長跑和越野單車。這些活動比較「綠色」，可以盡量保持當地風味，不影響當地生態。  建議興建更多活動場地和體育場館，並採取綠色建築和保持原本的風貌。

支持越野單車徑發展  香港有亞洲 BMX 冠軍選手，若政府能改善現有的越野單車徑，一定可以培訓更多選手並吸引外國團體來港舉辦賽事。  建議將單車徑／越野單車徑連成一環。另外，可以在梅窩附近建造訓練場地，設斜坡、跳台，以助訓練選手。

建議發展新運動項目

Appendix K ‐ Page 65

 個別與會者建議發展新興運動項目，例如俄羅斯現時非常受歡迎的 Paint Ball（註：即漆彈射擊，是一種攻防戰遊戲）。除了提供場地重要，亦要訓練專門的人才、適當的設施及裝備。

建議開發潛水項目  個別與會者指出南大嶼是潛水的好地方，若能開發這一類旅遊項目，應和鄰近地區一起協作。

不贊成發展大東山  由於春天大霧、夏天炎熱，而冬天大風和寒冷，故一年之中，只有秋天適合在大東山觀星。而且觀星未必一定需要興建觀星台。

7 社會發展增加社區參與機會  有與會者期待可以對社區作出回饋，尤其是消閒、運動和旅遊等方面。例如大澳有資源中心，可讓當地居民做導賞員或經營社區雜貨店，售賣有地方特色的手信。  民間自發進行一些商業活動，如民宿、鄉郊發展、售賣當地特色的食物等，有利社區發展，亦彰顯地區的獨特性。  部分非政府組織希望可以配合整個大嶼山的發展。認為政府應該直接給予非政府組織資源及幫助，讓組織能從中協助發展。改善假日交通承載力  假日人流較多，現行交通未能配合，需要改善假日的交通承載力。

8 其他  無。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 66

Item 18 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Focus Group Meeting ‐ Professional Institutions

Summary of Views

Date: 30 March, 2016 (Wednesday) Time: 6:30pm – 8:20pm Venue: Activity Room 1 & 2, Wan Chai Activities Centre, LG/F, Wan Chai Market, 258 Queen's Road East, Wan Chai

 Participants were from The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (HKIS), Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects (HKILA), Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design (HKIUD), Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA), Hong Kong Coalition of Professional Services and two professors from The University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Baptist University.  1. Development Support for development Strategies  Most of the participants agreed Lantau development should start as (Overall) early as possible as land supply in Hong Kong is limited.  It was an unprecedented opportunity to unleash Hong Kong’s locational advantage with China, in particular the Shenzhen and Zhuhai special economic zones (SEZs), to foster long‐term socio‐ economic development.

2. Vision, Traffic and transport should be first priority Strategic  Traffic and transport network should be the first priority when Positioning, developing Lantau. Planning  A well‐developed traffic and transport network would be provided to Principle attract visitors and tourists.

HK must seize opportunity to develop Lantau  Some participants considered that Lantau should serve as an international and regional gateway facilitating Hong Kong to expand its intercity circles.  The development would also bring ample employment opportunities.

Concern about balanced development  Some people expressed concern whether the balance between

Appendix K ‐ Page 67

development and conservation could be maintained.

3. Spatial East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) Planning and  The ELM would be worth building if it could build up more space, Land Use better integrate with land uses and foster economic development due to synergy with east Lantau.  Some participants were concerned of creating an island in the central waters of Hong Kong.  Some participants showed concern the population capacity of ELM of 700,000.

4. Conservation Concern about conservation  Some participants were concerned about the feasibility of conservation while there were proposals for spa and resort developments as well as wedding centre at South Lantau.

5. Strategic Concern over rail and road corridor Traffic and  Some participants stressed the need to improve the connectivity of Transport existing rail and road corridors between Hong Kong Boundary Infrastructure Crossing Facilities (HKBCF), Airport Island, Tung Chung, Sunny Bay, ELM and the urban areas.

Integration with airport  Some participants were concerned over the way to integrate traffic and transport network of the entire Hong Kong with the airport.

Implementation of water taxis  Some participants stated that more details on the implementation of water taxis should be provided.

6. Recreation & Improve connectivity within Lantau Tourism  It was necessary to improve the connectivity within Lantau such as providing sight‐seeing shuttle services.

Concern about Sunset Peak  The setting up of stargazing facilities at Sunset Peak and linkage with cable car should be justified.

Access of information  The Government should ensure the public is able to access information related to recreational development in Lantau.

7. Social Attracting talent

Appendix K ‐ Page 68

Development  The Government should attract local and international talents to develop Hong Kong and to alleviate the problem of aging population.

8. Miscellaneous Request for transport allowance or subsidies  The Government should reduce transportation fees.

Concerns about LanDAC and public consultation  LanDAC should improve its communication with the community. The public consultation on Lantau Development could be more inclusive, sustainable and with better planning.

Feasibility of Lantau Development  More concrete proposals should be made to utilize Hong Kong’s locational advantage.  The Government should follow the Concept Plan for Lantau published in 2004.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 69

Item 19 大嶼山發展公眾參與

焦點小組 ‐ 商界討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 31 日 (星期四) 時間：下午 1 時 30 分至 3 時 30 分地點：香港灣仔皇后大道東 258 號灣仔街市地下低層灣仔活動中心 1 至 4 活動室

1 整體意見支持發展大嶼山 • 來自商會、建築工程、航運、交通運輸業、地產發展、漁業、旅遊及會展設施營運商等團體的三十八名與會者，普遍支持發展大嶼山，以惠及所有人，但須確保環保和發展配合得宜，及首要改善區內外交通及社區配套。 • 部分與會者對東大嶼都會的構思非常感興趣，認為是一個機遇，並可紓緩香港土地問題。

2 願景、策略性支持發展惠及所有人定位和規劃原 • 與會者普遍支持發展大嶼山，但認為須確保環保和發展配合得宜，則若發展成功，所有持份者均會受惠，並表示樂意提供協助。

現代化的香港明日之都 • 部分與會者認為大嶼山不應該只發展成為另一個新市鎮而已，應該在規劃和設計上加入嶄新技術，並大膽創新，將其打造成現代化和明日香港的大都會。 • 策略上，個別與會者認為應盡快發展，並加強跟橫琴和澳門合作，才能締造「雙贏」局面。

交通先行 • 多位與會者都支持發展計劃的願景、定位和規劃方向，將大嶼山打造成「五宜」的社區，並認為必須先做好交通配套，令大嶼山本身及跟其他地區互聯互通。

優質生活 • 個別與會者認為應該聚焦於締造優質的生活環境，而非只是宜居的大都會；政府提出的「智慧」、「綠色」、「可持續發展」等，要

Appendix K ‐ Page 70

有具體項目，不要淪為空談。

3 空間規劃及土東大嶼都會提供新機遇地利用 • 部分與會者對東大嶼都會的構思非常感興趣，認為是一個機遇，並可紓緩香港土地問題。

建議分區發展 • 個別與會者提議，要提升大嶼山接待旅客的能力，必須將當地居民與旅客所需的設施分開，同時將地方劃分成居民生活區 (如東涌東和東涌西)、遊客區 (如機場、香港口岸人工島和東大嶼都會) 或居民就業區，避免居民與旅客產生磨擦；居民就業區和生活區就必須有交通連繫。

關注漁民需要 • 兩位與會者分別提出，機場及香港口岸人工島填海面積大，令香港可捕魚的水域縮小，影響生計。另外，東涌新市鎮擴展，將設立的遊艇碼頭預計可容納 90 艘遊艇，卻未有預留漁船停泊區。

擬議焚化爐詳情 • 個別與會者查詢喜靈洲焚化爐(實應為石鼓洲綜合廢物管理設施)未來如何處置。

4 保育保育和發展需配合 • 多名與會者均表示發展需先制定整體的環保計劃，環保和發展若配合得宜，定能得到社會廣泛支持。

善用自然資源配合環境 • 個別與會者建議政府善用海水和風力等天然資源，將其融入新市鎮環境 (如用水簾技術排走廢氣)。

反對填海影響自然環境與資源 • 兩名與會者反對填海，因其成本高和破壞海洋生態，影響漁業。

5 策略性交通運加強機場與大嶼山其他地區連繫輸基建 • 由於東涌的東薈城第二期及大型酒店和商場正在籌建中，個別與會者期望交通可以連接香港口岸人工島與東涌，讓訪客除了前往市區，更可以選擇往東涌。 • 另一名與會者認為若能加強機場與大嶼山其他地方的交通接駁，每年幾千萬在香港轉機的旅客，可利用等候轉機的時間，到附近的旅遊景點參觀或購物。

Appendix K ‐ Page 71

6 康樂及旅遊連繫各旅遊景點 • 多位與會人士均指出，大嶼山有豐富的旅遊資源，絕對能成為「宜樂」的地方，但必須先做好整體的交通運輸配套，將不同的旅遊點貫串起來(如往來亞洲博覽館、迪士尼樂園和昂坪 360 的交通)，才可吸引旅客多留幾天。業界樂意參與討論，提出意見和提供技術支援，以免景點及配套重叠。

擔心昂坪纜車影響大澳 • 個別與會者對昂坪纜車伸延至大澳有保留，擔心人流太多，使大澳的接待能力不勝負荷。 • 另一與會者認為此伸延建議可留待中期發展，日後再作定論。

建議設單車租用區 • 一名與會者建議增加單車徑及單車租用設施，鼓勵市民在大嶼山租用單車旅遊。

7 社會發展支持職業培訓 • 數名與會者均指出，大嶼山就業率低兼出現職業錯配問題。目前大嶼山機場、鐵路系統均欠缺人手及專業人才(機場三跑落成後更將新增八萬個職位)，旅遊和餐飲業的人手亦有短缺情況。他們希望大嶼山能開設專上學院培育人才，並希望勞工處、職業訓練局和僱員再培訓局等能提供多種適切和「一站式」的職業訓練課程，培訓區內年青人就業。

支持原區就業 • 大嶼山區內的交通缺乏連繫 (如逸東邨前往機場或亞洲博覽館平均需要一小時) ，為增加原區就業，與會者建議政府盡快加強內聯交通連接，包括：

以輕鐵串連東涌東、東涌西、機場、機場島北商業區及香港口岸人工島；在東涌東設機場快綫中轉站；引入小巴以解決短期交通問題，增加往來東涌及機場小巴線並取消青馬大橋收費 (每次進出收費 30 元)。

支持創業機會 • 個別與會者希望除大型商場外，政府能給予大嶼山空間發展市集、夜市等，讓居民創業。

增加社區配套 • 部分與會者表達，因為道路和交通配套差，大澳許多原居民已外出

Appendix K ‐ Page 72

謀生，但假日遊人眾多，交通又不勝負荷，政府須盡快改善大澳的集體運輸及道路、增加社區設施 (包括健康中心、學校、公共洗手間、食肆等)，和保育活化項目。

8 其他需要更多廣泛諮詢 • 部分與會者想知道未來會否再進行諮詢、發展計劃的優次和選擇；由於發展計劃龐大兼需時 15 至 30 年，認為有需要推行跨部門的諮詢工作，政府亦應邀請多些專業人士和持份者參與討論。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 73

Item 20 大嶼山發展公眾參與

焦點小組 ‐ 社會發展及青少年界別討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 3 月 31 日（星期四）時間：下午 4 時正至 6 時 30 分地點：香港灣仔皇后大道東 258 號灣仔街市地下低層灣仔活動中心 1 及 4 活動室

 出席會議的包括來自社區組織及青年團體的代表。

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展  與會者普遍支持發展大嶼山，但在平衡發展與保育、發展交通基建、康樂及旅遊方面以及社會發展方面有不同意見。希望政府能做好大嶼山這個「品牌」。

2 願景、策略平衡發展與保育性定位和規  政府必須在發展與原始風味之間取得平衡，而且要顧及地區的交通劃原則承載力和可達性。

支持保育工作  政府應盡量保留大自然景觀，避免大型工程。以免吸引過多旅客。

3 空間規劃及發展增添環保元素土地利用  在使用土地的同時加入更多環保元素，例如在大廈加入循環再用物品收集箱。

對加建購物城有保留  有與會者認為機場島北商業區已是購物城，因此對打造另一個購物城有保留。

4 保育  無

5 策略性交通改善並加強道路系統運輸基建  建議在大蠔與梅窩之間興建隧道以紓緩交通問題。

Appendix K ‐ Page 74

支持發展水路交通  政府可藉著來年船隻檢討順道研究水路可行性。  建議在梅窩或芝麻灣加插水路通往長沙或索罟群島。

6 康樂及旅遊發展必先改善地區可達性  與會者認為改善交通是首要，方便旅客前往目的地，建議增加往大嶼山的船隻班次及改善機場巴士的路線安排。

支持地方旅遊發展建議  建議發展大東山作觀景及觀星地點。  建議貝澳、長沙等地發展水上活動讓市民享用。

旅遊業發展應轉型  建議著手轉型至綠色文化旅遊，改善職位錯配問題。因此航空城應改變發展方向、目的及服務對象。

對地方旅遊發展成效有保留  與會者認為政府要注意發展和保育的比重，指大澳旅客雖多，但未見對大澳當地有實際效用。一旦發展損害了一個地方，要修復就非常困難。

7 社會發展東涌缺乏社區配套  東涌仍然欠缺一些基本配套，居民希望政府設市政大廈，並建議在東涌舉辦更多平民消費地方，如市集。

改善區內交通  東涌交通配套欠佳，希望政府能重組巴士路線並引進小巴。另外，建議政府增設環保交通工具。  與會者建議改善交通配套，希望能加入小巴服務。

增加與大嶼山相關的教育設施  與會者支持政府協助教育團體整合專業性大學或大專院校，以提供與大嶼山相關的課程。

需吸引年輕人口留在東涌助原區就業  建議政府加設青年宿舍協助青少年原區就業。

需兼顧各方需要  建議政府吸引港珠澳大橋引進的流動人口。

8 其他其他發展建議

Appendix K ‐ Page 75

 建議為本地品牌增設體驗館，既能反映本地文化特色，又可以帶來經濟收益。  建議政府考慮發展飛機維修區的草地作休閒用途。  個別與會者不清楚大嶼山專責辦事處定位。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 76

Item 21 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Residents of Discovery Bay

Summary of Views

Date: 2 April 2016 (Saturday) Time: 3:30 – 6:00pm Venue: Multi‐purpose Hall, G/F, Discovery Bay Community Hall, 99 Siena Ave, Discovery Bay

 Around 80 Discovery Bay residents attended the meeting.

1. Development Keep Lantau Island as it is Strategies  Most of the Discovery Bay residents urged Government to reconsider (Overall) whether to have large‐scale and high‐density development at Lantau; or keep Lantau Island’s nature characteristics and its low‐density for leisure.  Residents preferred keeping Lantau’s natural beauty with minimal development except traffic and transport improvements.

Reservation on Development  Some residents expressed that overdevelopment would affect the natural environment.  Some residents held reservations regarding the building of artificial islands and turning them into development areas.

2. Vision, Concerns about “Balanced Development” Strategic  Some residents suggested development for Tai O should be balanced as Positioning, they were concerned Tai O would be overcrowded. Planning  Government must consider the carrying capacity of various sites under Principle extensive development in order to prevent enjoyment from becoming frustration due to overcrowded situations.

3. Spatial Preserve Lantau and focus on ELM development Planning and  Some residents suggested focusing the developments to the ELM, while Land Use preserving the natural environment in the predominant areas of Lantau.

Keep Discovery Bay out of Lantau Development  Some residents suggested the Government should exclude Discovery Bay from Lantau development.

Appendix K ‐ Page 77

Concerns about Three Runway System (3RS)  Government should have concrete estimations on number of planes that will land on the third terminal before building 3RS.

Concerns about the East Lantau metropolis (ELM)  Government should explain ELM functions clearer and their link to Lantau development.  Some residents were concerned about the budget and the size of ELM.  Government must pay attention to environmental impacts of the development proposals on Lantau.  There was concern whether ELM residents might need to commute to work just as other new towns in Hong Kong.  Some concerned that suggested ELM was too costly and whether it might be relatively affordable to develop places in Tuen Mun and northwest New Territories.

4. Conservation Better planning and design on conservation  Government must assess the carrying capacity and propose ways to conserve Lantau.

Concern about side effects  Government should revitalize Tai O through heritage conservation to offset possible damage that caused by too many tourists.

5. Strategic Saturation problem in traffic/transport system Traffic and  Government should take more measures and solutions based on current Transport traffic and transport system to resolve traffic problems on Lantau. Infrastructure Capacity of Tung Chung Line  The Government should pay attention to the Lai King interchange when assessing the capacity of Tung Chung Line.  The effects of population growth on the capacity of Tung Chung Line should be monitored.

Queries about shipping and rail corridor  Some participants were concerned whether there were navigation plans regarding shipping and access from Lantau to Kwai Chung.  Government should provide details on the rail corridor.

More local improvement work needed  Traffic safety on Tung Chung Road should be ensured.

Appendix K ‐ Page 78

More MTR stations  Government should build another MTR station at Siu Ho Wan apart from Tung Chung east.  A resident suggested that the Government should consider building an MTR station at Discovery Bay but some residents objected to it.

6. Recreation & Support for mountain bike trails Tourism  There should be more details on the mountain bike trail network proposed in the Digest.

7. Social Better connection between Discovery Bay and airport Development  The Government should provide other roads for Discovery Bay residents to travel to the airport or crossing the border more efficiently.

8. Miscellaneous More assessments needed  The Government should have considered all policies, including population, tourism and socio‐economic before bringing out this strategic study.

Air pollution in Tung Chung  The Government must address the air pollution problem in Tung Chung.

Request for implementation timeline  Some residents requested the implementation time of Lantau development.

Explanation needed  The Government should explain why developers were allowed to apply for new residential development in Discovery Bay.

Developing for Mainland people  Some residents were concerned the major goal of developing Lantau was to cater to the needs of Mainlanders.  There was also concern over the existence of policy assumptions on population, land policy, land crisis, housing and boundary of Hong Kong after 2047.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 79

Item 22 大嶼山發展公眾參與

大澳鄉事委員會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 7 日 (星期四) 時間：上午 10 時 10 分至 1 時 15 分地點：大嶼山大澳街市街二十九號大澳鄉事委員會

• 出席會議的有大澳鄉事委員會正副主席及二十位委員。

1 整體意見發展計劃忽略大澳發展 • 委員普遍歡迎大嶼山發展，但部分委員認為發展計劃未有顧及大澳居民的需要，交通配套設施也有待改善，以提升接待旅客能力和增加居民就業機會。 • 不少委員提出要興建往來大澳至東涌的沿海連接道路，方便居民和訪客進出市區。

莫淪為第二個天水圍 • 有委員憂慮發展計劃當中欠缺社區設施配套，擔心即使發展大澳亦會淪為第二個天水圍。

2 願景、策略改善交通運輸先行性定位和規 • 多名委員表達，政府須先改善交通運輸規劃和發展，並盡快落實，劃原則否則討論發展只是徒然。有委員舉例，每逢假日，到訪大澳的旅客數以萬計，當中不少經梅窩前往大澳，訪客平均候車需約一小時。

缺乏長遠規劃 • 部分委員表示，大嶼山發展和城際一小時交通圈的概念雖好，但大澳居民未能受惠 (當地居民來往中環至大澳需一個半小時，來往荃灣亦需約一小時)。希望政府的規劃能長遠解決大澳居民原區就業及居住的問題，甚至吸引居民回流，並提升區內的接待能力。

3 空間規劃及興建沿海公路可解決交通兼釋放土地土地利用 • 部分委員指出，興建連接道路既能解決大澳的交通問題，又可促進旅遊業發展；又指沿海公路附近沙螺灣、深屈及䃟石等村落生態敏感度低，可用作機場後勤基地或作其他類型發展。

Appendix K ‐ Page 80

反對填海 • 個別委員擔心，大嶼山填海工程會影響漁業。

4 保育保留棚屋 • 個別委員認為政府應修葺棚屋，開放給遊客參觀。保育剝削分流居民 • 個別委員表達，過往分流因屬郊野公園範圍而不獲批興建石屎路，現在更將整個分流納入將興建的海岸公園範圍，令當地居民的權利進一步遭受限制 (如申領釣魚牌照)。

5 策略性交通倡建連接東涌大澳沿海公路運輸基建 • 多名委員表達，應盡快興建往來大澳至東涌的沿海公路，及發展東涌大澳環徊公路，因現有道路網是昔日修築基建使用的通道，路基差且不敷今日應用 (雙層巴士也不能通過) ，妨礙地區及旅遊發展。

陸路水路皆可探討 • 部分委員建議透過水路紓緩交通問題，希望運輸署能安排往來東涌大澳的航線，尤其在週末。 • 不少委員則認為陸路較佳，因不但可 24 小時行車，又可使用雙層巴士，載客量高，且不受天氣影響，成本效益較高。

6 康樂及旅遊交通配套不足 • 部分委員指出，現時由分流來回大澳需四小時，於大澳出入市區又要兩小時；另外，巴士站沒有上蓋，若遇上假日人擠或天氣惡劣，更令遊客卻步。

救援存隱憂 • 一名委員希望政府正視偏遠地區的救援問題。他指出䃟頭村、沙螺灣村和深屈村，每逢假日遊人數以千計，若有人受傷，救護人員去䃟頭村需時 45 分鐘，去沙螺灣村更需時 3 至 5 小時。 • 另一名委員表示，目前只有嶼南路和深屈路可前往大澳，若有意外發生，會阻礙救援。

先建沿海公路 • 部分委員表示，應先建沿海公路，並完善大澳交通配套，才好將昂坪 360 纜車伸延至大澳；政府亦應考慮以道路網將大澳、寶蓮寺、天壇大佛、迪士尼等景點串連起來。

Appendix K ‐ Page 81

接待能力和衛生環境有待改善 • 部分委員表示，政府發展旅遊熱點，應先評估人流及當地承載力 (例如六千訪客已讓大澳吃不消)，並提升各個地點的接待能力；另外，大澳的紅樹林和河流四周垃圾多，政府應先解決衛生問題。

7 社會發展改善道路助居民原區就業 • 部分委員表示，現時往來大澳至東涌最少要花兩小時，且羗山道車多路窄，打擊大澳居民到嶼北或機場等地區的就業意欲。沿海公路建成後，往來大澳至機場只需 15 分鐘，不但有助旅遊發展，更可吸引原居民回流就業。

修橋築路刻不容緩 • 委員表示，連接大澳漁村、棚屋和大澳街市的橋已沿用數十年，日久失修，近年訪客卻增加不少，盼政府將「重修舊橋」納入建議發展方案；因恐夏季暴雨引發山泥傾瀉，令大澳變成孤島興建，沿海公路刻不容緩。

大量空置樓房 • 委員表示，大澳人口不斷減少，只需改善交通及修葺荒廢的棚屋，當地已空置的樓房和棚屋即可吸引居民入住。

8 其他促政府考慮發展對村民影響 • 部分委員不滿深屈、沙螺灣和䃟頭三村至今未有食水供應，又因飛機噪音問題不允許三村興建丁屋；填海造地影響漁業，大嶼山發展計劃卻並未提及任何惠及或彌補漁民損失的方案，因此促請政府考慮發展對村民的影響，以及需諮詢大澳居民對發展的意見，和如何惠及大澳居民。 • 委員表示已收集近 3000 人簽名，希望政府制定發展藍圖時，將他們的意見納入大嶼山發展方案；要求讓委員參閱是次會議記錄，以確保他們的意見獲如實反映；並希望更多鄉事會委員和大嶼山居民能加入大嶼山發展諮詢委員會。

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 82

Item 23 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Focus Group Meeting ‐ Green Groups

Summary of Views

Date: 8 April, 2016 (Friday) Time: 10:00 am ‐ 1:00 pm Venue: Activity Room 1‐ 4, Wan Chai Activities Centre, LG/F, Wan Chai Market, 258 Queen’s Road East, Wan Chai

 Twenty two participants from 11 green groups and conservation associations attended the focus group meeting.

1. Development Conservation and sustainability issues Strategies  Most participants emphasized the importance of conservation and (Overall) sustainability of Lantau development, while some opined on particular projects. Government was asked to conduct assessments before operation.  Some participants proposed stopping development as they regarded Hong Kong too crowded, while Lantau, the green lung of Hong Kong, provided breathing space for citizens.

2. Vision, “Balanced development” and sustainable development Strategic  Most participants agreed with “balanced development”, but held Positioning, reservations regarding developing places like Sunset Peak. Planning  Some participants emphasized the importance of sustainable Principle development for the well‐being of Hong Kong.

Suggestions on government’s development plan  Some participants suggested the Government should have different development plans specifically designed for each location.  Additional proactive conservation measures should be incorporated into the Lantau Development Plan.

3. Spatial Reserve on developing East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) Planning and  Some participants considered the ELM concept relatively vague and Land Use misleading and this proposal should be rejected.

Land use in Shek Pik and Chi Ma Wan

Appendix K ‐ Page 83

 Some participants were uncertain about future land use(s) of some vacant correctional facilities in Shek Pik and Chi Ma Wan.

Capacity issues  Government should conduct strategic environment assessment on how to resolve capacity issues for development.

Unauthorised Developments in South Lantau  Government took no action to combat eco‐vandalism in South Lantau, such as Pui O. South Lantau should be covered by Development Permission Area Plan so that the Government could take enforcement action.

4. Conservation Leave Lantau development‐free  Some participants were concerned about the impact of development on biodiversity. They urged Government to include areas with high ecological value into country parks.  Participants stressed the Government must focus on conservation as it is one of the solutions to water and air pollution.

Poser on conservation policies  Some participants would like to know why economic and tourism assets such as cable cars would be put under “Enhancement of Conservation” as they were not part of nature.

5. Strategic Transport planning in South Lantau Traffic and  Maintain the strict traffic restriction of closed roads on Lantau Transport including South Lantau Road in order to prevent further ecological Infrastructure damage.  A comprehensive transport and traffic strategy aiming to avoid air pollution, uncontrolled dumping and incompatible development on Lantau should be formulated.

6. Recreation & Tourism issues Tourism  Some participants expressed concern about the issue of limited innovation in tourism industry.  Some participants wondered whether Lantau would be turned into a gigantic theme park.  Some participants worried whether the huge number of tourist destinations on Lantau would turn the area into a place of conflict.  Lantau appears to serve Mainland tourists more than others.

History museum

Appendix K ‐ Page 84

 Some participants suggested building a history or natural history museum to showcase the evolution of Lantau.

Animals issue  Some participants were reserved on the idea of an animal farm, stating that animals should not serve as tourist attraction.  Government needed to do more on animal management.  Particular participant opined that proposals such as Sunset Peak development and animal farm violated planning procedures.

7. Social  NIL Development

8. Miscellaneous Concerns about LanDAC  Some participants concerned about the credibility of LanDAC members suggested staying focused on development instead of creating business opportunities for the members.  Some participants thought LanDAC members were pro‐development in general but often overlooked conservation issues.  Some participants were concerned about LanDAC’s work as it was founded in 2014, but there have been very limited consultations.

Consultation issue  Some participants proposed organizing a meeting prior to public consultation that all stakeholders related to Lantau Development could join, rather than holding separate sessions for different groups.

Building new roads  Government should conduct assessment on cost‐effectiveness and environmental impact before building new roads on Lantau.

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 85

Item 24 大嶼山發展公眾參與

持份者討論會議 ‐ 大嶼山可持續發展論壇

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 9 日（星期六）時間：下午 2 時正至 6 時 55 分地點：香港薄扶林香港大學鈕魯詩樓 223 室

 論壇由創建香港、香港大學學生會理學會暨環境生命科學學會、島嶼活力行動及東涌社區發展陣線四個組織合辦。與會者包括市民和大嶼山居民，及多個機構代表，包括螢火蟲協會、世界自然基金會香港分會、守護大嶼聯盟及大嶼山發展聯盟等。

1 整體意見倡議發展融入當地環境與文化  部分與會者認為應先考慮環境保育以及當地文化等因素，將其融入發展規劃當中。

2 願景、策略性關注平衡發展與保育定位和規劃原  部分與會者擔心「先破壞、後建設」的發展模式，指南大嶼、東涌則谷、大蠔等非郊野公園範圍的破壞程度日趨嚴重，或會威脅生態及影響物種多樣性。  其中一位主辦者認為發展會造成環境破壞，政府應檢討現有城市規劃條例，以助有效監管大嶼山及整個新界的發展。

3 空間規劃及土對發展東大嶼都會的意見地利用  個別與會者關注發展對交通流量帶來的影響，認為政府應該清楚掌握桐關發展，並預先作全面評估。  個別與會者指香港已有多個商業區，對發展東大嶼都會有保留。  有與會者關注東大嶼都會與大嶼山的交通連接。

4 保育有關南大嶼的保育規劃與挑戰  個別與會者指未來保育重點應放在郊野公園範圍以外的土地及沿海地區，但當中涉及很多私人土地，保育將是很大挑戰。

有關生物多樣性及保護  螢火蟲協會代表指香港首次發現全球獨有的螢火蟲，應加以保護。

Appendix K ‐ Page 86

代表認為旅遊活動會影響螢火蟲，以大埔墟自然保護區為例，10 年前有 80 種螢火蟲，現只剩 15 種螢火蟲。  另一位與會者表示保育團體在南大嶼做了很多保育工作，單擔心他們的保育工作會因大嶼山發展而受影響。

有關土地保育  主辦者及與會者十分關注私人土地的保育問題，擔心會破壞環境，傾倒泥頭等現象，認為政府應考慮取消可以堆填廢料的牌照。  多名與會者都強調要防止「先破壞、後建設」。  有與會者認為政府應加強保育私人土地。可考慮收地、換地方式，也可以公私合作，制定管理協議。

5 策略性交通運  無輸基建

6 康樂及旅遊有關生態旅遊  個別與會者倡議結合保育、農業、鄉郊文化及生態旅遊。

7 社會發展有關東涌新市鎮發展  大嶼山發展諮詢委員會成員哈永安引述有關數據及海外大學發展模式，就東涌過去二十年發展及其特徴作深入分析，指如東涌居民教育水平高於香港平均水平，但區內高階職位不足，以至只有 9%居民在原區就業，寄望日後有更周詳求規劃，有助東涌社區發展。  他表示香港工種狹窄，建議參考日本及美國，企業與政府、社工及學校協作，開發社會資本 (social capital) 來推動社會發展。

有關東涌谷發展  個別居民關注在居住地點附近有堆土活動。  有居民指出東涌西上游將作低密度住宅發展，當局必須保護東涌水源污染。

8 其他關注違例發展的問題  個別講者建議政府公開發展土地的業權，避免有人從中得益，他建議若有懷疑違例發展，當局就應凍結有關土地發展申請，等還原/ 復原完成後才受理。

建議增加與居民直接對話  一名與會者建議政府應跟東涌居民溝通，才能了解及滿足當地居民需要。  與會者認為有關的發展概念應先從策略層面及願景諮詢市民的意向。

Appendix K ‐ Page 87

***** Item 25 大嶼山發展公眾參與

大嶼各界社團聯席討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 13 日 (星期三) 時間：晚上 7 時 30 分至 9 時 30 分地點：東安健社區圖書館活動室

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展，但交通必須先行 • 與會者主要包括議員、鄉事委員會代表、村代表及多個離島社團成員，全部支持發展大嶼山。 • 大部分與會者認為交通直接影響大嶼山發展的好壞，必須優先改善區內外交通問題。 • 不少與會者就保育、交通運輸、康樂及旅遊及社區發展提出意見及建議。

2 願景、策略性交通必須先行定位和規劃原 • 與會者綜合多方意見，同意政府應以大嶼山流動人口作計算單位，則包括即將落成的機場三跑及港珠澳大橋，盡快優化大嶼山交通。

未能完全顧及地方需要 • 個別村代表覺得發展願景「五宜」未能完全顧及大嶼山鄉郊及偏遠地區需要。

3 空間規劃及土支持發展東大嶼都會地利用 • 有與會者表明支持發展東大嶼都會。

支持發展東北大嶼匯點 • 有與會者提議政府參考 09 年東亞運動會，以「東大門」作招徠，並利用「海上舞台」將大嶼山六千多年歷史呈現於訪客眼前；又提議在欣澳發展馬戲團表演、室內滑雪場及溜冰場等，加強與迪士尼的協同作用。

建議善用綠化帶 • 多名與會者指應減少綠化帶，釋放土地發展丁屋；亦有個別村代表建議將綠化帶改成網球場、足球場、籃球場等，提供更多康樂、休閒空間予居民享用。

Appendix K ‐ Page 88

支持優化東涌區內配套 • 個別東涌居民詢問為何將公屋、居屋、私樓及酒店都規劃在東涌現時北面的第 53 至 56 區內，並表示現時部分私人住宅區的巴士服務及食肆不足，又建議加設能更快通往地鐵站的通道。

4 保育同意保育措施充足 • 數名與會者指大嶼山已有七成範圍是郊野公園，並已將近海的紅樹林納入保育當中，保育措施已非常充足，不同意保育人士認為發展大嶼山是「撕裂大嶼山」的說法；個別鄉事委員會代表更認為發展計劃太著重南大嶼保育，政府不應將注意力集中在保育人士的要求上。

支持大蠔保育發展 • 鄉事委員會代表建議善用大蠔紅樹林區，並加設生態徑環繞大蠔；有與會者亦提議於該處設生態探知館。

5 策略性交通運支持發展鐵路及策略性道路系統輸基建 • 部分與會者同意並認為應加快落實鐵路及公路走廊，尤其是大嶼山與港島西的連接。 • 多名與會者認為應盡快建東涌大澳沿海公路，亦有與會者詢問會否盡快落實東涌梅窩南北連接。 • 有與會者提出應落實低碳集體運輸措施，如輕軌及電動車。

同意改善加強主要道路及優化交通運輸設施 • 鄉事委員會代表建議於十年後撤銷封閉道路。 • 有村代表表示嶼南交通擠塞情況嚴重，出入阻力大；鄉事委員會代表亦表示南大嶼道路改善工程緩慢。

地區交通改善措施 • 個別東涌居民建議將東薈城對開達東路的單車停泊區改為旅遊巴停泊處，並將現有的臨時巴士站改為東涌集體運輸轉駁處，以紓緩達東路於繁忙時間交通擠塞問題。 • 個別離島社團成員指大澳只有一處上落車，交通擠塞情況嚴重，建議考慮往來東涌大澳的水路接駁。

6 康樂及旅遊不同意康樂及旅遊發展等於將大嶼山「景點化」 • 有與會者強調大嶼南是保育區，認同發展建議不進行「大改革」，指政府代表提出的發展項目基本上是現時的項目，所謂的「景點化」只是方便解說及宣傳。

Appendix K ‐ Page 89

支持康樂及旅遊地點之間的交通連結安排 • 兩名與會者同意發展環島單車徑，但這些旅遊設施必須有民生配套設施配合，避免污染環境及對當地居民造成滋擾。 • 個別離島社團成員認「東澳古道」沒有重要保育價值，認為擴建為車道可用作東涌道的後備道路，紓緩東涌道交通；有與會者指出古道本身涉及安全問題，過往有不少登山者及單車手於該處受傷，甚至跌死。另一名大澳居民同意政府籍大嶼山發展改善古道作越野單車徑體驗。 • 個別離島社團成員指現時梅窩、大澳是盡頭路，詢問如何能做到環島觀光巴士；另一名成員亦擔心增設索道會令大東山變「垃圾山」，請政府務必先尋求解決旅客過多帶來的問題才落實方案。

支持多做地區旅遊項目，改善地區經濟及旅遊發展 • 有與會者支持政府多做地區旅遊項目，如食物車、農耕、康樂及生態旅遊等，既能帶動地區發展，又能改善地區經濟及旅遊。

支持優化大澳發展 • 有大澳居民支持發展大澳，而且支持昂坪纜車延伸至大澳；而有個別離島社團成員認為不是所有人都會乘搭昂坪纜車入大澳。 • 大澳居民表示現時廣場入口公共洗手間經常大排長龍，又有不少訪客排隊等車，建議擴闊該處道路。

建議多做低收費及免費的康樂旅遊設施 • 個別離島社團成員表示東涌有不少低收入人士，建議政府增設低收費或免費的康樂旅遊設施。

欲了解大東山發展詳情 • 部分離島社團成員擔心發展大東山會造成環境污染，包括光害及垃圾問題，其中一人詢問大東山發展規模及露營、觀星設施的規劃詳細內容。

7 社會發展同意增強與大嶼山相關的教育設施 • 離島社團成員同意在區內建航空大學及相關的大專院校，亦同意提供飛機服務工程、旅遊業等專上教育課程，同時建議加設文物保育等課程。

支持改善區內外交通 • 個別離島社團成員表示現示不少地方有行人路卻欠缺交通燈和斑馬線；亦有成員指現時每逢雨季東涌市中心交通就會癱瘓，支持盡快落實優化地區交通的方案。 • 個別成員認為大嶼山對外交通不便，建議於繁忙時間將部分東涌綫

Appendix K ‐ Page 90

列車跳過青衣站，改成直接由東涌出荃灣及港島；另有與會者建議增設直線巴士直接出旺角、佐敦及港鐵奧運站等，亦可加設如屯門小欖對出的交匯處以方便居民轉乘其他巴士線。

支持增建地方社區及康樂設施 • 不少與會者同意現時區內社區及康樂設施不足及出現錯配問題，如運動場、體育館長期預約額滿；隔音屏障建於車流少的地方，但屋邨對開車流量多的地方卻缺乏隔音屏障。另外，有村代表指商場街士等住宅房屋配套主要集中在逸東，不方便居民購置日用品，而且選擇太少。他們希望政府能協助改善情況。 • 有鄉事委員會代表及村代表指部分村落欠缺排污系統，公共洗手間情況惡劣無人處理，影響環境衛生。 • 部分與會者指不少村落欠缺道路，有個別與會者提出要求政府盡快加建地區道路，包括三鄉（大蠔、白芒、牛牯塱）、二澳及分流。

8 其他支持加快落實地區改善工程 • 與會者指連鎖店不能帶動地區經濟，反而應加快落實地區改善工程，如馬灣涌活化、大澳活化等。

同意政府部門緊密協作 • 個別村代表希望各政府部門能緊密連繫協作，令大嶼山發展更快、更好地進行。

其他發展建議 • 有與會者表示曾於區議會提出以水路及大橋駁通整個離島區，包括長洲和南丫島，希望政府籍大嶼山發展將建議納入研究範疇。 *****

Appendix K ‐ Page 91

Item 26 大嶼山發展公眾參與

漁民界討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 14 日 (星期三) 時間：上午 10 時正至 12 時正地點：香港中區立法會道 1 號立法會綜合大樓 5 樓會議室

1 整體意見同意大嶼山發展 • 與會者包括一名立法會議員及九名漁業界代表。 • 大部分與會者表示對大嶼山發展抱正面態度，並表明不反對發展，但認為諮詢文件及公眾參與活動未能全面涵蓋漁業的需要及訴求，希望政府將來能多與漁民討論，聽取漁民的意見和建議，以助政府仔細規劃。 • 立法會議員代表漁民向政府代表表示政府應考慮增建魚市場、降低船泊收費等措施，這些措施均對漁民有利；並指相比賠償，漁民更贊成提高漁業發展空間。 • 漁民代表隨後解釋漁業前景不明朗，過去三年香港禁拖網捕漁才令漁業有所恢復，擔心填海會再次打擊漁業轉型及發展。他們指業界現正在適應當中，擔心大嶼山發展將會變成另一個挑戰，希望政府能了解漁民現時所面對的處境及對將來發展的壓力負擔，多重視漁業，保障漁民生計。 • 部分漁民代表促請政府多與業界商討海岸公園及漁業發展相關議題，例如設立海岸公園的保育成效、如何恢復漁業資源、協助漁業發展或轉型的措施及增加漁業發展配套等。

2 願景、策略性普遍支持發展願景定位和規劃原 • 漁民代表普遍同意發展願景，但有個別漁民代表質疑發展願景是否則能實踐。

任何發展必須交通先行 • 漁民代表指不論保育或發展均需要交通先行，先開闢道路，並提供一系列配套，如增加垃圾車收集各區垃圾。他舉例大澳、二澳、分流等地若沒有道路可達，發展生態旅遊也有困難。

3 空間規劃及土關注避風塘使用率錯配問題

Appendix K ‐ Page 92

地利用 • 就漁民代表提出有關喜靈洲避風塘長期空置問題，他們認為是因為每兩年進行一次的避風塘使用率覆核計算出現漏洞。現時計算方法是比較總避風塘面積及所有船隻數量，長期空置的喜靈洲避風塘亦包括在避風塘面積內，以致即使部分避風塘長期爆滿，得出的避風塘泊位能應付需求。他建議政府不要再沿用以前的計算方法。 • 與會者又提議細分「遊艇停泊區」及「漁船停泊區」。他指出新界東及新界西停泊區現時漁船、遊艇混雜；另外，銅鑼灣避風塘因暫時關閉令所有漁船、遊艇遷入香港仔。 • 部分漁民代表建議活化喜靈洲避風塘，將其變為康樂中心或遊艇停泊區。漁民代表亦建議政府增加租用遊艇停泊區的誘因，以提昇遊艇停泊區使用率，疏導遊艇與漁船在避風塘爭位的情況。漁民代表同時亦希望政府增加漁船泊位。

倡建漁業避風塘 • 與會者提議增建特別為漁民而設的新避風塘，配備所有業界需要的設施及配套，同時有漁市場讓漁民直接出售海產。個別漁民代表提議在大澳興建避風塘暨漁市場。 • 兩名漁民代表提議可引入陸上存放設施，將體形較細小的船隻、細艇泊於岸上。

建議先善用現有土地再考慮填海 • 所有漁民代表都表示關注填海發展。個別漁民代表建議發展欣澳的山嶺以取代填海，亦有漁民代表建議先發展新界東北等地，直至沒有土地可供發展時才考慮填海。

建議設立「漁民村」 • 部分漁民代表建議參考日本做法，予相關持份者一個地方（如漁民村），並提供所需配套，讓居民能落地生根。

4 保育支持活化大澳棚屋 • 個別漁民代表提出活化大澳棚屋。

擔心填海影響漁業 • 漁民代表指任何填海項目都會影響當地生態環境，即使中部水域生態敏感度低，填海亦會改變水流量及方向，令魚不懂游至特定地點產卵，希望政府關注這點，以避免發展時與漁業構成衝突。 • 個別漁民代表指過去幾年沙洲有不少海豚，認為填海將海豚嚇走，擔心其他魚類也會因發展已離開水域，大大減少魚量。

5 策略性交通運倡加快改善大澳交通輸基建 • 數名漁民代表促請政府改善大澳交通，為居民興建沿海道路，既可

Appendix K ‐ Page 93

讓居民回流居住，改善棚屋十室九空的情況，又能做到原區就業，減少居民搬出市區。

6 康樂及旅遊涵蓋漁業發展與文化 • 漁民代表建議將漁民的文化、歷史放入「文化館」內，讓訪客能了解漁業發展。 • 與會者提議可優化現有的「大澳漁民博物館」，甚至可透過表演將漁民的日常生活及工作演繹出來，讓訪客親歷其境。

支持發展水上活動中心 • 數名漁民代表贊成在南大嶼特定地點發展成水上活動中心，讓漁民在中心內工作，認為是協助漁民轉型的方法；個別漁民代表更認為活動中心規模可像泰國芭堤雅一樣。

7 社會發展支持社會發展 • 漁民代表表示支持社會發展，而且認為發展不等同扼殺某個族群的生存空間，同意政府關注社會各方需要，包括漁業；唯個別漁民代表指現行政策只幫細船不幫大船，不利漁業發展，過往曾多次向漁護署反映，但仍未有得到改善。

8 其他欲尋求共識達致雙贏 • 與會者及漁民代表表示西部水域涉多項填海工程（包括東涌新市鎮擴展、機場三跑、港珠澳大橋、欣澳及小蠔灣填海）及海岸公園規劃，單計北大嶼山已損失大量可捕魚水域，連同南大嶼的海岸公園補償方案用地，對漁業衝擊大。他們希望與政府共同尋求可持續發展的空間，例如漁業轉型政策，以保障漁民生計，並提出不想界別進一步失去漁場。 • 漁民代表又解釋香港可捕魚區域少（不能捕魚區域包括淺灘、內灣、航道禁區等，海岸公園範圍亦必須申請捕魚許可證），大小鴉洲又涉天然氣問題，希望政府關注漁民訴求，並明確標識發展後可捕魚區域的確實地點及面積。

促予漁民特惠津貼及其他相應措施 • 部分漁民要求政府就多項基建、填海工程未能如期完工給予漁民額外特惠津貼，以補償工程超時對漁民所造成的損失。同時，不少漁民要求政府制定容許於海岸公園捕魚許可證之傳承及轉讓政策；亦有個別漁民代表希望能提供類近鄉議局的平台供所有漁民共同商討香港漁業發展。 • 漁民代表大多同意增加氣油加油站，並在大澳加設油車，方便觀賞白海豚的船隻入油。個別漁民代表亦指中央政府每年補貼油價，希望香港特區政府也能仿傚做法。

Appendix K ‐ Page 94

考慮漁業元素 • 立法會議員建議政府在規劃中加入漁業元素，以保障漁業權益。

希望加強溝通，建立互信 • 漁民代表表示發展項目由不同政府部門統籌，不時就個別發展項目查詢或商討時出現困難，希望以後能多作溝通，減少誤會；亦有個別漁民代表指過往曾透過漁護署將影響漁業的有關資料交予土木工程拓展署，但在大嶼山發展諮詢文件當中未見有提及。 • 另一名漁民代表認為政府進行大嶼山發展諮詢時遲遲未與漁民協會聯絡，東涌新市鎮擴展諮詢又沒有聯絡漁民協會，對漁業界不夠尊重，希望將來能多與漁民討論，聽取漁民的需要和訴求。立法會議員補充會加緊留意未來發展動向，早日與政府代表接洽商討，望能及早發現及解決問題。 *****

Appendix K ‐ Page 95

Item 27 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Living Islands Movement Summary of Views

Date: 15 April, 2016 (Friday) Time: 6:45 pm Venue: Café 8, Roof, Hong Kong Maritime Museum, Central Pier No. 8, Central

1. Development Nil Strategies (Overall)

2. Vision, Nil Strategic Positioning, Planning Principle

3. Spatial Nil Planning and Land Use

4. Conservation  LIM requested the marine park proposal at Soko Islands should be implemented quickly.

 The Government should make an announcement to fully protect the rest of Lantau other than the North Lantau for economic development. Consideration should be given to extend the country park.

 The land at South Lantau should be protected from exploitation. LIM concerned that there was serious loophole in land control enforcement right now.

5. Strategic  LIM opined that TD and the Police had no manpower to enforce and Traffic and monitor the impact of the latest scheme of granting 25 private car Transport licence entering Lantau. Infrastructure

Appendix K ‐ Page 96

6. Recreation &  LIM considered that the funicular/cable car to Sunset Peak was a bad Tourism idea as it would bring a large number of visitors.

 LIM worried that the recreational facilities would bring visitors to Lantau and would bring impacts, such as rubbish, as the associated facilities were lacking at the moment.

7. Social Nil Development

8. Miscellaneous  The incinerator at Shek Wu Chau would emit dioxin blown to the ELM with the wind.

 LIM doubted how the environment could be protected with the latest plan of building a LNG pipeline from Soko Island to Lantau.

 The LanDAC was composed of developers' representative and the “Space for All report only represents their interest.

 The Government should engage environmental experts now to revise the proposal so as to produce a blueprint, not to employ the experts after the blueprint.

 The way to manage population in Hong Kong should be determined first before talking about Lantau development.

 LIM queried if the Lantau plan had a motive behind of attracting more tourists from outside Hong Kong or attracting new population to Hong Kong.

Appendix K ‐ Page 97

Item 28 大嶼山發展公眾參與

立法會發展事務委員會

特別會議紀要

日期： 2016年4月16日(星期六) 時間：上午9時30分地點：立法會綜合大樓會議室1

出席委員：

謝偉銓議員, BBS (主席) 何俊仁議員涂謹申議員陳鑑林議員, SBS, JP 石禮謙議員, GBS, JP 陳克勤議員, JP 陳健波議員, BBS, JP 葉國謙議員, GBS, JP 葉劉淑儀議員, GBS, JP 梁家傑議員, SC 梁國雄議員陳偉業議員田北辰議員, BBS, JP 田北俊議員, GBS, JP 姚思榮議員, BBS 陳志全議員陳恒鑌議員, JP 陳婉嫻議員, SBS, JP 麥美娟議員, BBS, JP 郭家麒議員張超雄議員盧偉國議員, SBS, MH, JP 楊岳橋議員

Appendix K ‐ Page 98

列席議員：譚耀宗議員, GBS, JP 何俊賢議員, BBS 缺席委員：梁志祥議員, BBS, MH, JP (副主席)

劉皇發議員, 大紫荊勳賢, GBS, JP 馮檢基議員, SBS, JP 何秀蘭議員, JP 胡志偉議員, MH 陳家洛議員黃碧雲議員葛珮帆議員, JP

出席公職人員：

議程第I項

發展局局長陳茂波先生, MH, JP (第一、第三及第四節)

發展局副局長馬紹祥先生, JP (第二節)

發展局常任秘書長(工務) 韓志強先生, JP

發展局首席助理秘書長(工務)5 黎卓豪先生

土木工程拓展署署長鍾錦華先生, JP

土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長林世雄先生, JP

規劃署署長凌嘉勤先生, JP

Appendix K ‐ Page 99

應邀出席者：第一節

香港專業及資深行政人員協會副會長黃偉雄先生, MH

創建香港行政總裁司馬文先生

伍雋穎先生

簡智聰先生

張建强工程師

自由黨新界西地區執行委員會主席周永勤先生

梅窩規劃及發展關注委員會主席甘水容博士

改善東涌居民關注組成員陳淑淇小姐

東涌社區發展陣線計劃主任趙羨婷小姐

建造業議會高級經理 ۛۛ 議會事務葉柔曼女士

梁國基先生

馮小燕小姐

朱秀文女士

Appendix K ‐ Page 100

大嶼Pop 成員郭勤宜女士

趙玉蓮小姐

郭裕恒先生

張佩英小姐

林衞然先生

鹿地塘村村公所會長李國強先生

張美燕小姐

離島區議會主席周玉堂先生,BBS, MH

離島區議會副主席余漢坤先生, MH, JP

離島區議會議員容詠嫦女士

離島區議會議員黃文漢先生

離島區議會議員劉焯榮先生, MH

離島區議會

Appendix K ‐ Page 101

議員周浩鼎先生

曾建雄先生

香港離島區各界協會副主席鄺官穩先生

第二節

皇家特許測量師學會香港分會估值專業及規劃和開發專業委員會副主席林浩文先生

大嶼山發展聯盟主席劉克華先生

亞洲國際博覽館首席策略總監劉小慧女士

黃子樂先生

東涌鄉事委員會主席樊志平先生

樊福友先生

羅維洪先生

黎家聰先生

黃玉婷小姐

溫來喜先生

Appendix K ‐ Page 102

鄒長福先生

陳國林先生曾競麗小姐

譚明輝先生

凌家良先生

關穎怡小姐

盧錫基先生

守護大嶼聯盟召集人謝世傑先生

大澳文化工作室負責人黃惠琼女士

基督徒土地公義關注組成員李秀珍女士

東涌安全健康城市總監劉淑嫻小姐

第三節

東涌青年會助理主任廖靜怡小姐

離島婦聯執行委員會主席周轉香女士

王源禮先生

Appendix K ‐ Page 103

離島區青年聯會主席葉錦洪先生

大嶼山社團聯會副主席黃福根先生

香港工商總會離島分會副主席鄧金發先生

反對香港「被規劃」行動組成員傅家灝先生

公民黨黨員冼豪輝先生

大澳居民聯誼會理事長吳卓榮先生

趙偉權先生

仲夏荷花別樣紅、本土行動代表盧建民先生

工程界社促會副主席／青年部主席陳智敏工程師

大嶼山愛護水牛協會主席何來女士

大嶼山拾塱村居民代表陳永華先生

Appendix K ‐ Page 104

程杏英女士

游美寶女士

第四節

世界自然基金會香港分會環境保護主任(本地生物多樣性) 陳頌鳴先生

長春社公共事務主任梁德明先生

黃宅生先生

保衛香港運動成員盧子健先生

李麗儀小姐

林文樂先生

饒智生先生

王珮芝小姐

香港展覽展示專業人員協會主席黃超民先生

基督徒土地關注組成員潘永樂先生

島嶼活力行動 Treasurer John SCHOFIELD先生

Appendix K ‐ Page 105

坪洲填海關注組召集人馮錦霖先生

李麗芬小姐

梁彥彬先生

郭仲文先生

汪凡女士

環保觸覺主席黎名川先生

大澳環境及發展關注協會主席何珮嫻女士

香港基督徒學會社會牧職幹事鄧穎暉先生

余銓豐先生

TFP Farrells Ltd (Farrells) Principal Sir Terry FARRELL

公共運輸研究組主席韓家謨先生

陳太

聽取各界就"大嶼山發展策略建議"表達意見

(立法會 CB(1)559/15-16(08)號文件 - 政府當局就大嶼山發展策略建議提交的文件)

與團體代表及政府當局舉行會議

Appendix K ‐ Page 106

不出席會議的團體／個別人士提交的 ۛۛ 一名市民(盧念慈)提交的意見書意見書 (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(28) 號文件 (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(29)號文件 ۛۛ 梁慧娟小姐提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(30)號文件 ۛۛ Sean NG Wan-lung先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(31)號文件 ۛۛ Angela YAN小姐提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(32)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(何佩欣小姐)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(33)號文件 ۛۛ 徐兆康先生提交的意見書(只備英文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(34)號文件 ۛۛ LEUNG Yu-shun先生提交的意見書 (只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(35)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(高卓然先生)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(36)號文件 ۛۛ CHAN Yat-sum先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(37)號文件 ۛۛ HUNG Tun-kit先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(38)號文件 ۛۛ Albert YEU提交的意見書(只備英文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(39)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(黃煥德)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(40)號文件 ۛۛ CHAN Chi-yip提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(41)號文件 ۛۛ Steve TANG Lok-pun先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(42)號文件 ۛۛ CHENG Chi-chung先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(43)號文件 ۛۛ 何家良先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(44)號文件 ۛۛ Hong Kong Outdoors提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(45)號文件 ۛۛ 周嘉潤先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

Appendix K ‐ Page 107

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(46)號文件 ۛۛ 譚賀斌先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(47)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(梁致輝)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(48)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(高宏景)提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(49)號文件 ۛۛ 廖珮雯小姐提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(50)號文件 ۛۛ TSANG Tat-keung先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(51)號文件 ۛۛ CHOI Chung-hop先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(52)號文件 ۛۛ Raymond LAW先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(53)號文件 ۛۛ Esther LO提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(54)號文件 ۛۛ CHOI Yat-chiu提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(55)號文件 ۛۛ 陳栢壟提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(56)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(陳健輝)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(57)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(黃良興)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(58)號文件 ۛۛ CHAN Chun-ho提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(59)號文件 ۛۛ KWOK Chi-yung提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(60)號文件 ۛۛ HO Hui-wong先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(61)號文件 ۛۛ 林佳華先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(62)號文件 ۛۛ LO King-fung提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(63)號文件 ۛۛ 楊小姐提交的意見書(只備中文本

Appendix K ‐ Page 108

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(64)號文件 ۛۛ Chris WONG Wing-leong先生提交的意見書 (只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(65)號文件 ۛۛ 程杰明提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(66)號文件 ۛۛ 文傑俊提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(67)號文件 ۛۛ 賴振輝提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(68)號文件 ۛۛ TSUI Ka-wing提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(69)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民 (鄧錦添)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(70)號文件 ۛۛ 何家發先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(71)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(余卓明)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(72)號文件 ۛۛ 陳志祥先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(73)號文件 ۛۛ 鍾志堅先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(74)號文件 ۛۛ 梁劍培先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(75)號文件 ۛۛ 吳承安先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(76)號文件 ۛۛ 許景豐先生提交的意見書 (只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(77)號文件 ۛۛ 楊家俊先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(78)號文件 ۛۛ 周劍清先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(79)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(林嘉倫)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(80)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民 (劉劍雄)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(81)號文件 ۛۛ 楊偉釗先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

Appendix K ‐ Page 109

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(82)號文件 ۛۛ 梁頌偉提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(83)號文件 ۛۛ LEE Ho-wing先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(84)號文件 ۛۛ 徐海濱提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(85)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(羅劍亮先生)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(86)號文件 ۛۛ 許偉樂先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(87)號文件 ۛۛ 梁振軒先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(88)號文件 ۛۛ 劉玉彪先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(89)號文件 ۛۛ WU Ka-hing先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(90)號文件 ۛۛ 羅碧倫先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(91)號文件 ۛۛ 曾啟然提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(92)號文件 ۛۛ 葉錦鴻先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(93)號文件 ۛۛ Joran TANG Chun-nang先生提交的意見書 (只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(94)號文件 ۛۛ 李樂敏小姐提交的意見書 (只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(95)號文件 ۛۛ WONG Kar-hou先生提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(96)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(馮先生)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(97)號文件 ۛۛ James SIU Wui-hang先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(98)號文件 ۛۛ NG Shuk-wah小姐提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(99)號文件 ۛۛ 郭子君小姐提交的意見書(只備中文本

Appendix K ‐ Page 110

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(100)號文件 ۛۛ 梁家昌提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(101)號文件 ۛۛ Y C WONG先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(102)號文件 ۛۛ 文立豪先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(103)號文件 ۛۛ 陳季隆先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(104)號文件 ۛۛ 黃凱亮先生提交的意見書 (只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(105)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(謝雲)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(106)號文件 ۛۛ 何松堅先生提交的意見書 (只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)107/15-16(107)號文件 ۛۛ NG Ka-ho先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(108)號文件 ۛۛ Alex CHUNG提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(109)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(陳志光)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(110)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民 (廖育安)提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(111)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(《吾乃山之子》執行長沈容健提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(112)號文件 ۛۛ CHAN Wing-leung提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(113)號文件 ۛۛ 黃其光提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(114)號文件 ۛۛ WONG Tsang-hung提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(115)號文件 ۛۛ 麥淦渠先生提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(116)號文件 ۛۛ 孫渭冰提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(117)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(東涌鄉事委員會委員／壩尾村原居民代表鄧美聖)提交的意見書(只備中文本)

Appendix K ‐ Page 111

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(118)號文件 ۛۛ 高振華先生提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(119)號文件 ۛۛ Mandy LUK提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(120)號文件 ۛۛ 中國香港鐵道學會提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(121)號文件 ۛۛ YIM Fung-chin先生提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)767/15-16(122)號文件 ۛۛ IP Wing-ching提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)767/15-16(123)號文件 ۛۛ Belinda FUNG提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)767/15-16(124)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(謝錦昌)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(125)號文件 ۛۛ 香港興業有限公司提交的意見書(只備英文本) 立法會CB(1)767/15-16(126)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民(黃漢強)提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)800/15-16(12)號文件 ۛۛ 環亞機場服務管理集團提交的意見書(只備中文本) 立法會CB(1)800/15-16(13)號文件 ۛۛ 香港工程師學會提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)800/15-16(14)號文件 ۛۛ Eve CHING提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(15)號文件 ۛۛ Paula KOO提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(16)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(17)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(18)號文件 ۛۛ Ivy NG提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(19)號文件 ۛۛ Kaman TSANG提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(20)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

Appendix K ‐ Page 112

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(21)號文件 ۛۛ Kara LI提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(22)號文件 ۛۛ Tracy提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(23)號文件 ۛۛ Candy LEE提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(24)號文件 ۛۛ John LEE提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(25)號文件 ۛۛ Anita WONG提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(26)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(27)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(28)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(29)號文件 ۛۛ 張美霞女士提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(30)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(31)號文件 ۛۛ 鄭玉鳳女士提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(32)號文件 ۛۛ Cannas CHOI提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)800/15-16(33)號文件 ۛۛ 離島區議會議員傅曉琳女士提交的意見書 (只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)800/15-16(34)號文件 ۛۛ Joshua MAK提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)800/15-16(35)號文件 ۛۛ 昂坪360有限公司提交的意見書

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(36)號文件 ۛۛ Edmund LIU提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(37)號文件 ۛۛ Mabel LEE提交的意見書(只備英文本

立法會CB(1)800/15-16(38)號文件 ۛۛ 香港漁民團體聯會提交的意見書(只備中文本)

Appendix K ‐ Page 113

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(39)號文件 ۛۛ Winki SHEK提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(40)號文件 ۛۛ Yasmin CHENG提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(41)號文件 ۛۛ Virginia CHOW提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(42)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(43)號文件 ۛۛ 徐美貞提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(44)號文件 ۛۛ Celia NG提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(45)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(46)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(47)號文件 ۛۛ POON Chun-hin提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(48)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(49)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(50)號文件 ۛۛ Amy WONG提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(51)號文件 ۛۛ LAW Kwok-yin提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)800/15-16(52)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備英文本

(立法會CB(1)807/15-16(05)號文件 ۛۛ 楊嘉媛小姐提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)807/15-16(06)號文件 ۛۛ Joice CHOW小姐提交的意見書(只備中文本) (立法會CB(1)807/15-16(07)號文件 ۛۛ 一名市民提交的意見書(只備中文本

立法會CB(1)807/15-16(08)號文件 ۛۛ Arthur CHEUNG提交的意見書(只備英文本)

Appendix K ‐ Page 114

(立法會CB(1)807/15-16(09)號文件 ۛۛ 陳凱琪提交的意見書(只備中文本

(立法會CB(1)807/15-16(10)號文件 ۛۛ 陸美珍提交的意見書(只備英文本

立法會CB(1)807/15-16(11)號文件 ۛۛ Adela LIEW女士提交的意見書(只備英文本) (立法會CB(1)807/15-16(12)號文件 ۛۛ S W LOW提交的意見書(只備中文本

((立法會CB(1)807/15-16(13)號文件 ۛۛ Vincent OR提交的意見書 (只備英文本

委員察悉下列在會議席上提交的意見書：

(a) 離島婦聯提交的意見書(只備中文本)； (b) 香港離島區各界協會提交的意見書(只備中文本)； (c) 王源禮先生提交的意見書(只備中文本)； (d) 離島區青年聯會提交的意見書(只備中文本)； (e) 大嶼山貝澳新圍村村公所提交的意見書(只備中文本)；及 (f) 梁彥彬先生提交的意見書(只備中文本)。

(會後補註：在會議席上提交的意見書(立法會CB(1)808/15-16(01)、(02)、(03)、(04)、(05)及 (06)號文件已於2016年4月18日送交委員。)

會議安排

2. 主席請委員就會議安排表達意見。他表示，一共有52名團體代表及66名個別人士將會出席是次會議。會議將會分4節舉行，下午1時20分至2時30分為午膳時間。每名團體代表均會有3分鐘時間陳述意見。在每一節，當團體代表陳述意見後，他會請委員發表意見。政府當局其後會就團體代表及委員提出的事宜作出綜合回應。委員對有關的會議安排並無異議。

政府當局的開場發言

3. 主席應政府當局的建議，邀請發展局局長就大嶼山發展策略建議作開場發言。 (會後補註：上述開場發言的文本(只備中文本)已在會議席上提交。相關的電子複本(立法會 CB(1)814/15-16(01)號文件)已於 2016 年 4 月 18 日以電子郵件方式送交委員。)

4. 在會議舉行期間，有數次在團體代表陳述其意見時，有另一些團體代表／個別人士高聲說話。主席提醒團體代表，當其中一名團體代表應邀發言時，其他團體代表應保持安靜。

Appendix K ‐ Page 115

第一節

團體代表／個別人士陳述意見

5. 應主席邀請，一共有28個團體代表／個別人士就大嶼山發展策略建議陳述意見。該等團體代表／個別人士意見的摘要載於附錄。

6. 在上午9時57分，部分團體代表在一名團體代表陳述意見後鼓掌。主席警告他們不得在會議舉行期間發出噪音。陳偉業議員對主席作出的警告表示不滿。主席要求陳議員在未輪到他發言的時間保持安靜。

7. 在上午10時48分，部分團體代表站起來，在另一名團體代表發言時每人展示一張標語(" 死亡報告")。主席要求他們坐下。

討論

發展大嶼山的需要

8. 陳鑑林議員表示，在是次會議上，他沒有聽到一些是完全反對發展大嶼山的意見。他認為，適度發展大嶼山會提供機會推展地區改善措施，以解決影響當局居民的問題，例如道路不合標準、違例泊車及欠缺公眾濕貨街市等問題。保育大嶼山的自然生境不應被視為發展土地的障礙。當局有必要增加土地供應及提供更多房屋單位，以滿足本港年輕人的住屋需要。

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會

9. 張超雄議員關注到，發展大嶼山的建議與發展新界東北新發展區的建議相似，兩者均會引致公眾懷疑政府與土地發展商勾結。他促請政府當局制訂計劃，按由下而上的方式發展大嶼山。為制訂理應計及自然保育及當區居民需要的大嶼山發展策略，政府當局應增加大嶼山發展諮詢委員會工作的透明度，以及加強該委員會與公眾的溝通。此外，政府當局應從新界東北新發展區的規劃汲取教訓。

公眾諮詢

10. 陳婉嫻議員表示，社會對某一課題意見分歧為正常的情況，但她希望不同的意見不會變成對立的局面。她促請政府當局為發展大嶼山制訂計劃時，小心聆聽公眾所持的不同意見。她補充，她關注到一些團體代表要求當局為大嶼山一些村落提供通路，因為該等道路可能會影響大嶼山的天然景致。

運輸基建

Appendix K ‐ Page 116

11. 田北辰議員認為，北大嶼山的運輸基建設施及列車服務不足以應付區內居民的需要。他建議，為促進大嶼山居民在區內就業，當局應發展一個輕便鐵路系統，連接東涌東的新鐵路站及博覽館站，並在港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島及機場島北商業區等位置提供中途站。擬議大嶼山拓展處應領導有關在大嶼山發展該輕便鐵路系統的工作。他又建議，在發展該輕便鐵路系統方面，大嶼山拓展處應考慮採用起動九龍東辦事處發展九龍東環保連接系統的方法。

大嶼山漁業的發展

12. 何俊賢議員認為，在發展大嶼山方面，政府當局應留意自然保育及回應漁業界和當區居民表達的訴求。大嶼山發展策略建議應計及漁業的發展需要。

政府當局作出的回應

13. 應主席邀請，發展局局長就團體代表及委員表達的意見作出綜合回應。他表示：

(a) 發展大嶼山的擬議措施，並非旨在"掠奪或犧牲大嶼山的天然及文化資源"(套用部分團體代表所使用的字眼)。北大嶼山及東北大嶼山仍會是主要發展項目的重點，而大嶼山的大部分地區(包括南大嶼山)則會作保育、休閒、文化及綠色旅遊的用途。政府當局一直有清楚表達此概念，並將繼續在其日後的工作證明，當局會珍視大嶼山的文化及天然資產。

(b) 大嶼山發展策略建議是為本港的整體利益而制訂。在規劃的過程中，將會受發展建議影響的土地業權人的身份，將不會是當局考慮的因素。

(d) 當局發展東涌新市鎮擴展區的目的是增加房屋供應及就業機會，以及改善東涌的社區和教育設施及交通連繫。當局已在東涌東預留一幅用地作高等教育的用途。

(e) 當局有迫切需要成立大嶼山拓展處。大嶼山拓展處將會是一個專責發展大嶼山的跨專業辦事處。此辦事處將會推行改善大嶼山現有及已規劃交通及運輸基礎設施的建議，包括就大嶼山進行整體的交通及運輸研究，當中亦會考慮田北辰議員提出在北大嶼山發展一個輕便鐵路系統的建議。政府當局亦察悉，當區居民十分關注東涌道及羗山道的道路安全。當局已一直就某些路彎進行短期改善工程。

14. 在上午11時29分，部分團體代表在發展局局長發言時展示標語("死亡報告")。主席告訴該等團體代表，根據"在立法會綜合大樓會議室出席會議或在公眾席旁聽會議的公眾人士須知"，他們不得在會議室展示任何標語。

Appendix K ‐ Page 117

第二節

團體代表／個別人士陳述意見

15. 應主席邀請，一共有21個團體代表／個別人士就議程項目陳述意見。該等團體代表／個別人士意見的摘要載於附錄。

討論

發展大嶼山的需要

16. 陳鑑林議員贊同部分團體代表的意見，亦認為政府當局發展大嶼山時，應採取措施保護自然生境及為當地社區改善交通及其他服務。他認為，大嶼山的擬議發展措施會為大嶼山現有及未來的人口帶來裨益，例如在區內提供就業機會。發展大嶼山會增加可用於興建公營房屋的土地供應，以應付年輕人的住屋需求。他促請反對發展大嶼山的各方考慮香港人的整體利益。

17. 陳恒鑌議員認為，儘管自然保育為重要，擬議發展措施會帶來區內就業的機會，以及為當地社區改善基建和社區設施。

擬議"城際一小時交通圈"

18. 梁家傑議員表示，政府當局建議在本港進行一些主要發展項目(例如港珠澳大橋及蓮塘／香園圍口岸)，是為配合內地的發展計劃。他指出，據大嶼山發展策略建議的公眾參與摘要所述，將發展的大嶼山"城際一小時交通圈"，會涵蓋珠海、橫琴、前海及蛇口。他認為，公眾擔心此項建議只是旨在支援內地的經濟發展，政府當局應釋除公眾的相關疑慮。

19. 陳鑑林議員認為，應加強內地與本港的經濟融合，以促進本港的長遠發展。

大嶼山發展的規劃概念

20. 陳婉嫻議員認為，政府當局有必要同時小心研究公眾反對及支持大嶼山發展策略建議的意見，並制訂廣為各方接受的計劃。政府當局應參考其他發展項目的成功經驗。她支持在制訂大嶼山的發展計劃時採取"先保育、後發展"的概念。她促請政府當局加強工作，以把東涌東及東涌西發展為一個低碳社區。

公眾諮詢

21. 梁家傑議員表示，有意見認為，在當局就大嶼山發展策略建議蒐集意見的公眾論壇上，政府當局故意作出安排，讓支持策略建議的意見成為主流意見。他要求政府當局澄

Appendix K ‐ Page 118

清，就策略建議進行的公眾參與活動是否以公開及公平的方式舉行，讓公眾不論其背景和立場為何，均可表達意見。

運輸基建

22. 田北辰議員認為，發展大嶼山長遠會為本港整體帶來裨益。他表示，反對在大嶼山發展土地的各方希望當局滿足他們就自然保育提出的訴求時，應顧及整個社區的利益。儘管他表示支持適度發展大嶼山，他強調當局應加強保育南大嶼山。他建議，當局應發展第五條過海隧道，並在隧道建設一個連接新界西北及香港島，途經北大嶼山和擬議中部水域人工島的鐵路系統。然而，當局不宜在梅窩興建一個鐵路站，因為會影響保育南大嶼山自然生態的工作。

23. 田北辰議員提及他就發展一個輕便鐵路系統連接東涌東及機場島的建議。他促請政府當局考慮把有關的發展權批予香港鐵路有限公司作為財政支援，政府當局藉此便無須就擬議輕便鐵路系統注資。他認為，就行車時間及便利程度而言，有關輕便鐵路系統的競爭力會遜於機場快線。機場快線的乘客人數不會受擬議輕便鐵路系統的運作影響。

24. 陳恒鑌議員表示，他是大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員，但他在發展大嶼山方面沒有個人利益，亦沒有在大嶼山經營任何業務。他關注到，儘管東涌及機場島之間的距離不長，一些在機場島工作的東涌居民每天需時往返其住所及工作地點。他表示，為應付東涌新市鎮擴展區新增人口的交通需求，一些社區組織(包括大嶼山發展聯盟)已建議，當局應發展一個輕便鐵路系統，途經機場島連接東涌新市鎮擴展區及港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島，並在沿線建設多個車站。擬議輕便鐵路系統不但會配合東涌居民日常的交通需要，亦會紓緩區內的空氣污染問題。

大嶼山當區居民的需要

25. 陳恒鑌議員表示，大嶼山鄉村(例如白芒)的居民過往一直支持政府當局在大嶼山進行發展項目。然而，政府當局卻未有回應原居村民就改善村內基建設施(例如通路及污水收集設施)所提出的要求。他建議，政府當局應成立一個保育基金，向受保育工程影響的土地業權人提供補償，並制訂有關經營民宿的政策，使有關鄉村得以持續發展。

26. 何俊賢議員促請政府當局就推展大嶼山道路改善工程訂定高的優先次序。為了讓村民能獲得財政資源保育其鄉村的文化遺產，政府當局應促進鄉村的經濟活動。

27. 主席表示，鑒於團體代表及委員要求當局改善大嶼山的交通及運輸基建，以及改善村內的基建設施，政府當局應制訂相關的短期及中期措施。保育措施

28. 梁家傑議員質疑，與當局分別於2004年及2007年發表的"大嶼山發展概念計劃"及經修訂的"大嶼山發展概念計劃"相比，為何大嶼山發展諮詢委員會所提建議的保育措施較少。

Appendix K ‐ Page 119

[在下午1時11分，主席作出指示，以把第二節的會議延長10分鐘至下午1時30分，讓與會者有更多時間討論。]

發展大嶼山對漁業的影響

29. 何俊賢議員關注到，在大嶼山進行的擬議填海工程計劃會對漁業的運作造成負面影響。他認為，當局應避免進行不必要的填海。此外，政府當局落實填海的建議前，應制訂措施令漁業得以持續發展，而非向該等受填海工程計劃影響的漁民作出一次過的補償安排。他促請政府當局就大嶼山進行規劃時小心考慮當區居民及漁業的需要。

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會

30. 梁家傑議員表示，政府當局就多個大型發展項目提出的建議，均在社會上造成不必要的衝突。他促請政府當局就公眾對大嶼山發展策略建議所提出的質疑作出回應。此外，公眾關注到，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員及該委員會提出的建議可能存在利益衝突，政府當局應釋除公眾此方面的疑慮。

政府當局作出的回應

31. 應主席邀請，發展局副局長就團體代表及委員表達的意見作出綜合回應。他表示：

(a) 社會各界應以理性的態度考慮上述發展策略建議。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會所提出的屬初步建議，須再作研究。政府當局沒有既定的立場。在制訂發展大嶼山的藍圖前，亦會小心考慮當局蒐集的所有公眾意見。

(b) 大嶼山發展諮詢委員會建議的發展策略，大致上沿用當局在2007年發表的經修訂的"大嶼山發展概念計劃"所列原則。根據發展策略建議，當局會保育南大嶼山一大片土地，並會在北大嶼山進行經濟及房屋發展項目，以把握在該區改善交通及運輸基建後所帶來的機遇。

(d) 由於市民對當局就大嶼山發展策略建議舉行的兩場公眾論壇反應熱烈，政府當局已額外舉行一場論壇。參加上述3場公眾論壇的人數超過850人。政府當局會與該等對發展策略建議持不同意見的持份者保持溝通。

(e) 至於東涌新市鎮擴展區的發展，當局會在下階段進行該項目的詳細設計。東涌新市鎮擴展區是當局興建房屋以滿足社會(尤其是年輕人的)訴求的主要土地供應來源。根據東涌新市鎮擴展區的發展，當局會改善社區設施以配合東涌現有及未來人口的需要。當局已在東涌東預留土地作高等教育的用途，讓當區居民可在大嶼山接受高等教育。此外，亦已預

Appendix K ‐ Page 120

留土地作商業發展項目的用途，以創造更多就業機會。當局亦會促進臨街店鋪在東涌新市鎮擴展區設立，以鼓勵小企業創業。

(f) 政府當局會確保在大嶼山推展的新交通及運輸基建項目(包括東涌東及東涌西的擬建鐵路站)會配合東涌新市鎮擴區未來人口遷入的時間。政府當局亦會探討有何方法改善大嶼山的公共巴士服務。

(g) 為處理大嶼山鄉村居民關注的事宜，政府當局會繼續改善該等鄉村的基建(例如通路及污水收集設施)。

第三節

團體代表／個別人士陳述意見

32. 應主席邀請，一共有16個團體代表／個別人士就議程項目陳述意見。該等團體代表／個別人士意見的摘要載於附錄。

討論

擬議"城際一小時交通圈"

33. 梁家傑議員重申其觀點，即政府當局應就發展大嶼山"城際一小時交通圈"的目的釋除公眾的疑慮。他表示，公眾擔心，發展大嶼山的建議只是旨在配合內地的經濟發展。

公眾諮詢

34. 陳婉嫻議員表示，發展大嶼山會對本港長遠的社會經濟發展帶來影響。只要政府當局採取措施保育大嶼山的天然資源，她即會支持當局發展大嶼山。她表示，對於政府當局會否根據"發展北大嶼山、保育南大嶼山"的規劃原則致力自然保育的工作，公眾有所懷疑。她認為，除了3場公眾論壇外，政府當局應舉辦更多公眾參與活動，以蒐集公眾的意見。政府當局亦應與各區議會、當地社區組織及環保團體，就發展策略建議進行徹底討論。

35. 陳恒鑌議員認為，土地發展及自然保育可相輔相成。公眾會支持在大嶼山進行適度及規劃妥善的發展。他表示，反對發展策略建議的人士，應就如何改善有關建議提出具體的建議。

36. 姚思榮議員認為，為了在土地發展及自然保育之間求取平衡，政府當局應小心研究就發展大嶼山提出的不同意見。他認為，在大嶼山發展土地，會造就機會讓當局透過發展新的基建及社區設施，改善當地社區的居住環境。

37. 梁家傑議員要求政府當局澄清，關於政府當局就大嶼山發展策略建議舉行的公眾論

Appendix K ‐ Page 121

壇，當局有否拒絕讓部分市民入場。他建議，政府當局應以創新的方式進行有關公眾參與活動，例如讓市民可在一個專設網站就有關課題進行公開及互動的討論。

38. 何俊仁議員認為，生物多樣性為大嶼山的主要天然資產。政府當局就大嶼山的土地發展項目進行規劃時，應在妥為顧及保育生物多樣性的情況下制訂規劃參數。政府當局應與社會各界進行深入的聚焦小組討論。當局不應漠視大嶼山現有居民就如何改善他們的居住環境所提出的意見。

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會

39. 梁家傑議員強調，當局須就發展大嶼山的建議取得公眾的共識。他重申其要求，即大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員及該委員會提出的建議可能存在利益衝突，政府當局應釋除公眾在此方面的疑慮。

保育措施

40. 姚思榮議員認為，鑒於公眾關注有關發展郊野公園土地的事宜，政府當局應澄清，當局有否計劃釋放大嶼山郊野公園部分用地作發展用途。

41. 梁家傑議員表示，與當局在 2004 年發表的"大嶼山發展概念計劃"及在 2007 年發表的經修訂的"大嶼山發展概念計劃"相比，為何大嶼山發展諮詢委員會所提建議的保育措施較少。他詢問，有關的原因為何。

運輸基建

42. 田北辰議員認為，儘管本港人口不斷老化，會對日後的政府構成財政負擔，在本港發展運輸基建，可令勞工生產力維持在穩定的水平，此情況可成為有助經濟持續增長的其中一項因素。他表示，新界西北的人口不斷增加，除非當局興建第五條過海鐵路連接新界西北及香港島，以配合有關人口的交通需要，否則他不會支持當局擬在新界西北推行的發展項目。他促請政府當局盡快尋求立法會批准撥款，以進行在中部水域發展人工島的策略性研究。

43. 田議員又表示，當局有必要改善東涌及機場島之間的公共交通服務。他強調，如政府當局沒有計劃發展一個輕便鐵路系統以便東涌居民往返在機場島(或日後在港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島)的工作地點，他會反對當局在北大嶼山進行擬議發展項目。他重申其觀點，即在發展該輕便鐵路系統方面，擬議的大嶼山拓展處應考慮採用發展九龍東環保連接系統的方法。

大嶼山的鄉村

44. 陳恒鑌議員不滿政府當局未有致力處理大嶼山鄉村(包括白芒、牛牯塱及大蠔)居民就

Appendix K ‐ Page 122

基建設施(例如通路及污水收集設施)不足所提出的關注事宜。他建議，鑒於一些因為農地被劃為保育區的村民須中止他們在其農地上所進行的農耕活動，政府當局應考慮成立一個保育基金，向該等村民提供補償，以助當局順利落實大嶼山的發展措施在東涌興建高等教育院校

45. 姚思榮議員認為，大嶼山的發展會為年輕人創造更多就業機會。他察悉，東涌一幅用地已指定作教育用途。他要求當局提供資料，說明政府當局在東涌興建高等教育院校的計劃。

政府當局作出的回應

46. 應主席邀請，發展局局長就團體代表及委員表達的意見作出綜合回應。他表示：

(a) 當局提出"城際一小時交通圈"的概念，已計及日後附近一帶的情況及轉變，當中包括港珠澳大橋啟用及在洪水橋發展的住宅、商業及物流用地。

(b) 因應公眾就大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的組成所表達的關注，政府當局已就新一屆大嶼山發展諮詢委員會額外委任各界別(包括保育、體育、創新科技界)的成員。若進一步增加大嶼山發展諮詢委員會成員的數目，將會影響該委員會的工作效率。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的工作一直保持高的透明度。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會會議的所有討論文件及紀要均已上載至其網站供市民參閱。當局亦已設立一個既定機制規定大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員申報利益。有關機制較其他委員會的相關機制嚴謹。大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員申報利益的資料，亦已上載至大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的網站供市民參閱。

(c) 除了就大嶼山發展策略建議舉行的3場公眾論壇外，政府當局亦與社會上不同的界別進行聚焦的小組討論。政府當局致力考慮公眾就發展香港的措施所表達的意見。東涌西擬議低密度發展項目的例子顯示，政府當局在發展東涌新市鎮擴展區時有採納公眾的意見。政府當局已專設一個網站，以蒐集公眾就發展大嶼山提出的意見。

(d) 為了就發展和保育取得妥善平衡，就大嶼山進行規劃時，加強自然保育及更善用天然資源，將會是當局實踐保育概念的其中兩個主要方向。當局會避免在具有高保育價值的用地及其周邊地區推展主要發展項目。此外，亦會推行植樹計劃，以提高大嶼山郊野公園的生態價值。根據發展策略建議在郊野公園提供輔助設施，是旨在讓公眾可更舒適地遊覽郊野公園及加強公眾安全。當局亦會加強保育有文物建築的用地。

(e) 為了就公眾討論提供基礎，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會已根據顧問及市民提出的建議，列出初步的康樂及旅遊建議。然而，政府當局對採納當中的任何建議並無既定的立場。初步康樂及旅遊建議的目的是方便香港人前往大嶼山的郊區遊覽。在大嶼山推展康樂及旅遊設施的發展工作時，政府當局會計及保育需要、大嶼山接待訪客的能力及在島上提供交通及運輸基建的事宜。

Appendix K ‐ Page 123

(f) 鑒於在北大嶼山的已規劃發展項目(例如機場島北商業區、香港國際機場的三跑道系統、港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島上蓋發展、東涌新市鎮擴展區，以及在小蠔灣及欣澳進行的填海工程)，當局須改善大嶼山的交通及運輸基建。當局有必要成立一個跨專業及專責的大嶼山拓展處，以推展有關大嶼山交通和運輸基建及服務的工作。當局會委聘顧問就大嶼山整體的交通及運輸基建進行顧問研究，以探討各交通連繫方案，包括田北辰議員提出在北大嶼山發展一個輕便鐵路系統的建議。鑒於屯門和元朗的居民佔在機場島工作的僱員四成，正在興建的屯門至赤鱲角連接路對改善新界西北及北大嶼山的交通連繫將十分重要。

(g) 政府當局會確保能提供充足的社區設施(例如公眾街市、護老及幼兒中心及體育場地等)，以滿足東涌現有居民及東涌新市鎮擴展區已規劃人口的需要。當局已在東涌新市鎮擴展區預留土地作高等教育的用途。相關政策局會就日後提供的課程作出跟進。為改善大嶼山的交通及運輸基建，當局建議在東涌新市鎮擴展區興建兩個新鐵路站。當局已就嶼南道及羗山道的路彎進行改善工程，以改善駕駛安全。

47. 在發展局局長發言期間，一名團體代表在其座位高聲說話。主席警告該名團體代表，如他繼續在未到他發言時高聲說話，他會命令該團體代表離開會議室。

第四節

團體代表／個別人士陳述意見

48. 應主席邀請，一共有23個團體代表／個別人士就議程項目陳述意見。該等團體代表／個別人士意見的摘要載於附錄。

討論

大嶼山發展諮詢委員會

49. 郭家麒議員認為，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會由偏袒政府當局的成員組成，政府當局不應推行該委員會的建議。為免社會進一步分裂，政府當局應按由下而上的方式制訂發展大嶼山的計劃，並全面聽取公眾的意見。

50. 梁國雄議員批評，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員不代表地區的利益，並且偏袒權貴的利益。他詢問，挑選大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員的準則為何。他表示，林筱魯先生為大嶼山發展諮詢委員會成員及古物諮詢委員會的主席，其妻子則為規劃署的總城市規劃師，可向林先生披露規劃署的機密資料。他認為，政府當局應就發展大嶼山成立另一個諮詢委員會。該新的委員會應由代表當地社區組織的成員組成，以更妥為反映公眾的意見及關注的事宜。

51. 陳恒鑌議員表示，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員就發展策略表達意見時，對大嶼山的

Appendix K ‐ Page 124

發展並無既定的立場。大嶼山發展策略建議是綜合大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的意見所得。政府當局正就策略建議徵詢公眾的意見。

公眾諮詢

52. 陳志全議員表示，政府當局已展開多項有關發展大嶼山的研究(例如有關在長沙及索罟群島發展水療及度假村的可行性研究，以及連接堅尼地城與擬議東大嶼都會的運輸基建技術性研究)。該等研究由基本工程儲備基金下的整體撥款提供資金。他擔心，展開可行性研究，即意味當局會在未妥為諮詢公眾的情況下推行相關發展建議。他認為，政府當局在未有就相關建議蒐集公眾意見及取得公眾支持之前，不應就大嶼山的土地發展建議展開任何正式研究。

53. 陳恒鑌議員認為，就發展建議的利弊交換意見，會對大嶼山的發展帶來裨益。為確保大嶼山的發展協調及平衡，政府當局應同時考慮各方就支持及反對有關建議所提出的意見及關注事宜。

保育措施

54. 郭家麒議員表示，大嶼山一些並非發展審批地區圖所涵蓋用地出現非法傾倒垃圾的活動。他質疑，政府當局有否致力保育自然環境。他表示，市民懷疑，政府當局提出發展大嶼山的建議，是旨在達到內地與本港融合的目的。他質疑，關於在大嶼山發展橋頭經濟一事，市民有否達成共識。他認為，政府當局應支援大嶼山的地區自然及文物保育活動，而非推展大型發展項目。他不滿當局把在中部水域人工島發展東大嶼都會的研究，列入大嶼山的發展建議一覽表。

大嶼山當區居民的需要

55. 陳志全議員促請政府當局對團體代表／個別人士在會議席上所表達的不同意見持開放的態度，以及就大嶼山發展策略建議，進行全面的公眾諮詢。依他之見，作為進一步發展大嶼山的前提，政府當局應統籌跨部門進行的工作，以推行有效措施解決有關大嶼山交通服務及社區設施的現存問題。

56. 陳恒鑌議員促請政府當局把握發展大嶼山的機遇，採取措施處理當區居民就大嶼山鄉村(例如白芒、牛牯塱及大蠔)欠缺公共污水收集設施及通路的事宜所表達的關注。此外，政府當局應促進大嶼山鄉郊地區經營民宿。

[在下午6時11分，主席作出指示，以把會議延長5分鐘至下午6時25分，讓政府當局有充分的時間就委員及團體代表提出的意見作出回應。]

政府當局作出的回應

Appendix K ‐ Page 125

57. 應主席邀請，發展局局長就團體代表及委員表達的意見作出綜合回應。他表示：

(a) 政府當局制訂有關發展大嶼山的藍圖時，會考慮委員及團體代表／個別人士在會議上表達的意見。

(b) 大嶼山發展諮詢委員會是基於香港整體利益而提出大嶼山發展策略。擬議的規劃願景是為平衡及加強發展與保育，以期發展大嶼山為一個宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學的智慧型低碳社區。雖然有關發展大嶼山的公眾參與活動仍在進行，政府當局已從公眾收到大量不同的意見。在事務委員會收到的 140 份意見書當中，超過九成就發展大嶼山反映正面的意見。

(c) 東大嶼都會的擬議發展是在2007年發表的經修訂的"大嶼山發展概念計劃"以外的一個新概念。政府當局於2011年展開"優化土地供應策略：維港以外填海及發展岩洞"的研究，並探討在維港以外填海的可行性。在進行兩個階段的公眾參與活動期間，公眾普遍支持當局進行有關在中部水域發展人工島的可行性研究。東大嶼都會的擬議發展是此項措施的延伸，並將會是跨越2030年的主要土地供應來源之一，可應付香港日後在房屋、社會及經濟方面的發展需要。此外，提供擬議的策略性交通及運輸基建，將可加強大嶼山與都會區及新界西的連繫。因此，擬議東大嶼都會將具潛力在中區及九龍東以外發展為香港第三個核心商業區，以及一個可容納數十萬人口的新發展區，從而亦會令香港的空間規劃分布更為平均。因此，當局有需要就發展東大嶼都會的可行性進行策略性研究。

(d) 鑒於香港的需要不斷改變，政府當局已推展《香港2030+：跨越2030年的規劃遠景與策略》的研究(下稱"《香港2030+研究》")，就整體空間規劃及未來的土地供應探討可行的方案。政府當局已計劃在2016年下半年進行公眾諮詢工作，以作為《香港2030+研究》的一部分。

(e) 政府當局會致力加強自然保育及更善用島上的天然資源。主要發展項目將會集中在北大嶼山，而大嶼山的大部分地區(包括南大嶼山)，則會用作保育、休閒、文化及綠色旅遊。當局會避免在具有高保育價值的用地及其周邊地區推行主要發展項目。政府當局發展康樂及旅遊設施時，會考慮保育需要、大嶼山接待訪客的能力和在島上提供的交通及運輸基建。當局將會加強保育歷史建築(包括禪寺)。

(f) 當局就部分擬議發展工程計劃進行初步研究，並不意味當局必定會推展有關工程計劃。有關大嶼山的康樂及旅遊建議的一覽表，是顧問和市民所提建議的摘要，當局須就上述建議再作研究及諮詢。政府當局對個別建議並無既定的立場。

(g) 梁國雄議員就大嶼山發展諮詢委員會非官方委員林筱魯先生及其妻子(為規劃署職員)所作的評論並不公平。

(h) 在大嶼山各項發展建議當中，當局已就東涌新市鎮擴展區的發展收集公眾的意見，並會優先落實上述發展工作。當局需要時間研究其他發展／保育建議。此外，當局在實施個

Appendix K ‐ Page 126

別建議前會進行公眾諮詢，讓公眾表達意見。政府當局希望公眾會以理性的方式考慮相關建議及分享意見。

58. 對於梁國雄議員就一名規劃署職員作出毫無理據的批評及使用侮辱性的言詞，規劃署署長表示遺憾。梁國雄議員表示，林筱魯先生的妻子確實可查閱規劃署部分機密文件。

結語

59. 主席總結會議時表示，政府當局應小心考慮委員及團體代表就大嶼山發展策略建議所提出的意見。他感謝團體代表就此課題表達意見。

Appendix K ‐ Page 127

Appendix K – Page 119

Appendix K – Page 120

Appendix K – Page 121

Appendix K – Page 122

Appendix K – Page 123

Appendix K – Page 124

Appendix K – Page 125

Appendix K – Page 126

Appendix K – Page 127

Appendix K – Page 128

Appendix K – Page 129

Appendix K – Page 130

Item 29 大嶼山發展公眾參與

新界鄉議局討論「大嶼山發展」

新界鄉議局第三十四屆

第十一次執行委員會會議(閉門會議環節)

日期：二零一六年四月十九日（星期二）

時間：下午二時三十分

地點：沙田石門鄉議局大樓一樓會議廳

主席：劉業強主席

出席：全體執行委員暨顧問

（甲）秘書處報告出席會議情況出席議員符合會議法定人數。

（乙）主席宣佈開會及致詞

劉業強主席致詞全文如下：

發展局馬紹祥副局長、黎卓豪首席助理秘書長、各位政府部門的同事、各位本局議員、顧問、大家下午好！

政府計劃發展大嶼山，鄉議局總體來說表示歡迎，認為可以帶來很多機遇。不過，本人落鄉探訪，方知道原來政府發展大嶼山，根本沒有諮詢過梅窩、東涌、大澳及大嶼南四個鄉事委員會，有村民甚至反映閱讀報章才知悉計劃，令村民非常不滿。而大嶼山發展諮詢委員會內，委員當中竟然沒有一個是大嶼山鄉事會的代表，對於政府發展大嶼山，委任非當地人作諮詢，本局認為是非常不合理。

Appendix K ‐ Page 129

政府要發展大嶼山，應該首先改善當區的基礎設施，大嶼山的四個鄉事會多次反映，大嶼山南部缺乏道路網絡及道路窄狹，鄉民出入非常不方便，亦容易造成交通意外。

當年政府在赤鱲角興建新機場，全賴馬灣村、赤鱲角村以及低埔村的村民，讓出土生土長的土地，令到新市鎮工程得以順利開展。政府為三村鄉民在新市鎮邊緣地區設新村安置，但竟然沒有預留發展的丁地，令他們的丁權名存實亡。

另外，東涌的發展嚴重不平衡，鄉郊地區發展仍然原地踏步，例如石榴埔、牛凹、藍輋、莫家等村落，仍然未有接駁行車道，大多數村屋仍然使用舊式化糞池處理污水，令鄉民非常失望，覺得政府過橋抽板，甚至被政府欺騙。

政府現在又提出要大興土木發展大嶼山，希望政府今次不要一錯再錯，能夠加強與本局的交流，特別是聆聽大嶼山四個鄉事會的意見，以及周遭鄉民的訴求，令鄉民能夠切實受惠於發展計劃，政府亦不應再開空頭支票，積極敷衍我們。

無論如何，馬局長今日率領同事親臨本局講解計劃以及諮詢本局成員的意見，我認為是一個好開始，亦是身為一個政治問責官員，應有的態度及基本工作守則，即以民為本，希望馬局長有則改之，無則加勉。

在此請大家鼓掌以示歡迎馬局長來臨！

（丙）閉門會議環節

一、政府官員講解事項－發展局、土木工程拓展署及規劃署官員講解「大嶼山發展策略建議」。出席人員：發展局副局長馬紹祥先生發展局首席助理秘書長（工務）5 黎卓豪先生土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處副處長陳本標先生規劃署總城市規劃師／策略規劃劉寶儀女士發展局工程師（大嶼山）周穗平先生

1. 發展局副局長馬紹祥先生感謝劉業強主席、林偉強主席及委員們讓他有機會前來親自介紹大嶼山發展策略建議。政府一直希望在溝通方面做得更好，但溝通並無完

Appendix K ‐ Page 130

美，希望今後有更多空間去改善。在過去的公眾參與活動中，很多鄉事朋友都有參與，希望會眾就大嶼山發展積極參與討論，會後亦可提交書面意見予發展局。

2. 他首先講解大嶼山發展的背景。2007 年，政府推出經修訂的「大嶼山發展概念計劃」，發展的整體願景是平衡發展和保育的需要，同時推動大嶼山的可持續發展。「大嶼山發展概念計劃」屬概念性質，仍需要就個別項目進行更深入的研究和諮詢，探討其可行性和推行時間表。過去數年間，大嶼山發展相當迅速，港珠澳大橋和屯門至赤鱲角連接路的工程相繼展開，預計可於未來數年間陸續落成，成為香港、珠海、澳門，以至珠三角西部的重要連接點，進一步加強大嶼山作為交通樞紐的重要性。

3. 他續說，大嶼山深具發展潛力，所以政府在 2014 年成立了大嶼山發展諮詢委員會 (下稱「委員會」)，並吸納鄉事朋友擔任委員，包括周轉香女士和周玉堂先生等，從而聆聽鄉郊居民的意見。局方希望與市民和各界持份者共籌良策，以推動大嶼山發展。委員會經兩年討論後，綜合大嶼山長遠發展潛力及周邊地區的需要和期望，發表名為「全民新空間」的工作報告。

4. 他表示，大嶼山發展對於大嶼山以至香港整體的經濟和社會發展相當重要，所以局方很重視市民的意見，於今年一月底開展了為期三個月的公眾參與活動，包括巡迴展覽和公眾論壇等，聆聽了不少意見，今次特地前來鄉議局進行簡介，希望會眾積極發表意見。

5. 規劃署總城市規劃師／策略規劃劉寶儀女士以簡報介紹大嶼山發展策略建議，首先是大嶼山整體空間規劃及保育概念：

6. 大嶼山的概況大嶼山是香港最大島嶼，面積約 147 平方公里，當中七成地方為郊野公園，約有 11 萬人口，整個大嶼山連同機場島有接近 10 萬個職位，但在人口、職位數目和技能等方面出現錯配問題。

7. 國際及區域「雙門戶」大嶼山有其獨特的地理優勢，除了鄰近機場外，日後港珠澳大橋和屯門至赤鱲角連接路亦會相繼落成，大嶼山將會成為香港通往國際及內地的「雙門戶」，香港應善用這項獨特優勢。

8. 規劃願景及策略定位大嶼山發展諮詢委員會對大嶼山的規劃願景，是平衡並加強發展和保育，使大嶼山成為一個宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學的智慧型、低碳社區。策略定位則包括將大嶼山打造成大珠三角的國際運輸、物流及貿易樞紐；大珠三角地區和亞洲的服務核心區；東大嶼都會計劃為香港長遠策略性增長點；善用大嶼山豐富的自然及文化

Appendix K ‐ Page 131

資產寶藏。

9. 空間規劃及土地利用北大嶼山走廊將規劃作策略性經濟及房屋發展；東北大嶼山匯點發展作休閒、娛樂及旅遊樞紐；東大嶼都會則會作為跨越 2030 年的長遠策略性增長區。由於大嶼山七成地方為郊野公園，所以其餘大部分地區會作保育、休閒、文化及綠色旅遊，亦會善用政府土地及開發岩洞。

10. 北大嶼山的主要新發展北大嶼山的主要新發展包括：亞洲博覽館擴展、機場島北商業區、港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島上蓋發展、東涌新市鎮擴展及小蠔灣發展。務求透過為各地點訂立不同發展定位，並建立相當的經濟規模，達致協同效應，亦可有助分散香港經濟活動，不僅集中在維港兩岸。以下將簡介各地點的規劃意向。

i. 港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島：該處是人流和物流匯聚的地方，除了有口岸功能外，亦可作商業用途，包括物流、多用途展覽場地和酒店等；

ii. 東涌新市鎮擴展：鑑於現時東涌新市鎮的商業元素較單一和較少，東涌東填海工程將增添一個港鐵站，並在車站附近興建大規模商業樞紐，提供更多寫字樓等商業設施； iii. 小蠔灣：港鐵研究在小蠔灣車廠上蓋進行住宅發展。車廠對出有填海潛力，該區可發展成優質生活暨知識區； iv. 欣澳：該區有港鐵站，交通相當便利，填海後可配合迪士尼樂園，成為東北大嶼旅遊門廊，可發展大型的主題式旅遊項目及休閒與康樂設施；

v. 東大嶼都會：大嶼山至港島之間的中部水域生態敏感度相對較低，可透過填海建造人工島並配合策略性的交通基建在交椅洲一帶進行大型發展，包括建設另一個核心商業區。除了交椅洲發展外，還包括在喜靈洲避風塘填海和適度提升梅窩發展潛力。東大嶼都會概念仍需要一系列的技術研究方能確認其可行性及規模。 vi. 善用政府土地及開發岩洞：大嶼山有很多懲教設施，建議研究整合或重置這些懲教設施，以釋出土地作其他發展。大嶼山不少山嶺亦適合作岩洞發展，例如將污水處理廠遷入岩洞。

11. 保育概念保育方面有兩大方向：第一，加強保育，包括避免在有保育價值的地方或周圍作大型發展、提升生態價值如種植更多本地樹種、對法定古跡及文物進行保育，及推進海岸公園的工作；第二，善用資源，例如透過「點、線、面」的方法，串連具保育價值的地點，推廣生態、文代旅遊及教育。

12. 推廣生態、文化旅遊及教育

Appendix K ‐ Page 132

可概括為三個概念 :西北大嶼可提升為西北大嶼文化及自然步道，中部為鹿湖羗山禪林保育區，南大嶼則可發展成康樂及綠色旅遊地帶。

13. 策略性交通運輸基建上述的大型發展需要策略性交通運輸基建配合，概念上，希望長遠建立一條貫通新界西北、大嶼山、東大嶼都會及都會區的策略性交通走廊，以環保的鐵路作為集體運輸系統，並輔以道路。除了可配合發展外，亦可為機場提供另一條替代路線，並可打通香港西南和新界西北，達致更好的協同效應。

14. 發展局工程師(大嶼山)周穗平先生首先介紹康樂及旅遊發展策略建議。他表示大嶼山發展諮詢委員會建議大嶼山可塑造「多采多姿的康樂及旅遊目的地」，在平衡保育需要和尊重自然資源的前提下，創造或結合康樂及旅遊的設施和景點，達致協同效應，讓更多的市民和遊客欣賞到大嶼山美好的一面。

15. 他表示，初步建議的規劃大綱會按五個主題，將大嶼山規劃為十四個康樂及旅遊地點，並於各地點之間提供體驗性的交通連結，包括水上連結如水上的士、空中連結如纜車及索道、陸上連結如單車徑及綠色路徑等。五個主題包括：康樂與野外活動、品味與享樂、悠閒、文化與歷史，及生態。

16. 他續說，由於大嶼山主要的交通基建集中在北岸，建議將大型的康樂及旅遊設施集中在北大嶼和東北大嶼；而南大嶼的自然和文化歷史資源相當豐富，建議在加強保育的同時，亦能善用這些寶貴資源，所以只會在南大嶼作適度的康樂及旅遊發展，而發展的規模和類型都亦需要與附近環境配合。十四個康樂及旅遊地點的簡介如下：

i. 欣澳：作為大嶼山的門廊，配合計劃中的欣澳填海，有潛力進一步發展康樂及旅遊設施，如主題式休閒及娛樂區、角色扮演的職業教育場館、青少年室內探險樂園等；

ii. 航空城：包括機場島、港珠澳大橋口岸香港口岸人工島，以及東涌新市鎮，該區可以發展購物、餐飲與酒店、會議及展覽設施等； iii. 大小蠔灣：大蠔河及附近地方有豐富的生態價值，建議可發展生態旅遊，設立地標式植物園及生態旅遊中心等； iv. 大東山：是著名的觀賞日出日落和觀星的地方，建議研究利用纜車或索道加強其可達性，及在山上提供觀星設施和露營場地等；

v. 梅窩：建議發展多元化戶外活動，包括戶外探險樂園和水上樂園等。此外，由於梅窩歷史悠久，可考慮設立大嶼山歷史博物館； vi. 東涌谷：現有許多含豐富文化資產的鄉郊，建議在東涌河旁設立河岸暨生物多樣化公園和東涌自然歷史步行區；

Appendix K ‐ Page 133

vii. 禪林保育區：建議維持現有狀況，只提供有限度的禪修活動； viii. 大澳：建議提供鄉郊生活體驗、民宿等，亦正研究將昂坪纜車延伸至大澳的可行性，計劃如能落實，可為訪客提供多一個旅程選擇；

ix. 貝澳及芝麻灣：建議提供水上活動中心、水上樂園、滑翔傘設施等；

x. 水口：有優美的天然海岸，在不影響原有環境的情況下，可考慮提供滑翔傘設施、動物農莊和露營場地等；

xi. 長沙和索罟群島：建議發展水療及休閒度假村和婚禮中心等，讓市民享用長沙優美的沙灘及索罟群島幽靜的環境；

xii. 分流：有很多文化遺產，例如砲台、石圓環等，建議可設置露營地或行山徑； xiii. 二澳：近年重現農耕活動，建議考慮增加農場體驗活動，例如收割、農田野餐等。

這些建議只是初步建議，仍須進行技術和財務等評估，現時希望收集更多來自各持份者及大眾具創意的想法。

17. 周穗平先生接著介紹社會發展策略建議。他表示委員會已檢視現時大嶼山的社會狀況，初步認為現時的社區設施及服務大致良好。未來新增人口、職位及發展將主要集中在東涌及大嶼山北面，屆時這些地方將產生大量工作機會，應可吸引大嶼山居民原區就業，亦預料新增職位數目會較當區勞動人口多，因此需要考慮如何增加人力資源。至於南大嶼的鄉郊地區，政府現時已有計劃逐步落實公共污水收集系統工程，委員會認為也有需要改善區內道路設施，例如增建停車泊位等。

18. 他續說，就著大嶼山現時的狀況及未來的轉變，委員會提出了三項社會發展策略建議：第一，吸引及薈萃人才，因此需要改善現有社區設施、優化新設施的設計、提供不同類型的教育服務，和增強年青人及幼童的支援服務；第二，提供適當區內外交通，方便居民；第三，顧及鄉郊地區需要，建議逐步將自來水供應及公共污水收集系統延伸至鄉郊地區，以改善鄉郊地區的居住環境。

19. 周穗平先生亦簡介了大嶼山發展各個建議項目的概略時序。他表示，發展東大嶼都會是一項較長遠的規劃建議，將跨越 2030 年，而其他建議項目均為短、中期的發展。委員會計劃在本年下半年綜合所收到的意見，擬備大嶼山發展藍圖及訂定各項目的概略時間表。更多關於大嶼山發展的資訊，可在瀏覽委員會網頁瀏覽，亦歡迎會眾透過電郵提出建議。

20. 陳東岳議員多謝各位官員前來講解。他認為這份諮詢文件很全面，亦能兼顧各方面，當中很多建議亦可行，特別是有考慮到珠江三角洲外圍的策略性發展，亦能夠善用現有土地資源，是香港發展的機遇。

Appendix K ‐ Page 134

21. 他就發展提出三點建議。第一，現時交通運輸的配套集中在大嶼山北面和東面，惟政府未有任何改善西面交通運輸的建議，例如剛才提到在二澳發展農業，但要將稻米等農作物運出市場只能用單車，由二澳至東涌更需要一小時，故建議計劃要兼顧大嶼山西面和南面的交通運輸支路發展。第二，計劃部份項目並不需要留待將來收地發展後才實行，例如一些康樂及野外活動項目，若得到社會支持，亦有適合場地，可以立即落實，但現時文件內並沒列明各項目實行的先後次序，建議政府要交代清楚時序。第三，建議委員會在規劃時，要兼顧大嶼山現有鄉村的環境改善，例如改善鄉村道路、鄉村與道路間的連接、無線網絡，及供水設施等。

22. 樊志平議員認為大嶼山發展計劃並沒顧及所有地方，例如東涌西 39 區和 27 區的房屋即將落成，將來會有近二萬人入住，但計劃完全沒提及該區的交通配套。其次，現時東涌北大部分土地原本都是屬於村民，但政府當年收地搬村時作出的承諾從沒兌現，例如 39 區發展的房屋有完善配套，但附近鄉村的排污系統卻多年未能落實。另外，村內很多私人土地被劃作綠化地帶，政府剝削村民的私人財產，卻不按機制作出合理賠償。村民一直配合政府發展，但政府做法欠妥善，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會委員當中，大嶼山四個鄉事委員會竟然沒有代表。

23. 黃文漢議員表示支持大嶼山發展，但他認為鄉村發展配套並不足夠，例如東涌北將會進行填海工程，未來有接近十二萬人口，現時大嶼山三鄉包括白芒、牛牯塱及大蠔村已大興土木，但計劃卻未有正式的鄉村道路規劃作配合，令村民出入非常不便，故希望政府在交通方面加強規劃。

24. 其次，有關大嶼山整體交通規劃方面，現時居民來往大澳及東涌，乘巴士需要 45 分鐘，若政府興建東涌至大澳的新沿海道路，只需 15 分鐘，大大節省所需時間；至於 [屯門至赤鱲角連接路](梅窩至白芒??)的南北路段，當年政府已通過，後來被環保團體以大蠔河具生態價值為由擱置。他希望政府能夠盡快落實興建上述通道，同時加以規劃由梅窩至大澳的大嶼南通道，因為現時政府計劃開放市區車輛至大嶼山自駕遊，若能夠將大嶼南通道列入發展計劃當中重新規劃，讓大嶼山可以全線開放，不再存在禁區問題。

25. 最後，由於整個大嶼山發展計劃需時超過三十年，他希望政府短期內可以有些實際發展，讓全港市民亦能夠使用。

26. 余漢坤議員認同黃文漢議員的意見。他指大部份大嶼山居民均支持發展，更表示對發展期待已久。他們整體上支持「北發展，南保育」的方向，但保育並非如激進環保人士般完全不作發展，剛才黃文漢議員提到大嶼山兩條重要道路，其實早於 30 年前英政府年代已開始研究和規劃，惟始終沒有落實，「大嶼山發展公眾參與摘要」第 20 段提到委員會「加強協調鄉村及鄉事委員會與政府部門之間的溝通」，村民擔心這是延續過去三十年的情況，只溝通卻不實行的陋習，希望政府把握今次跨部門合作的機會，落實有關項目，不要再過河拆橋，重蹈覆轍。

Appendix K ‐ Page 135

27. 他補充二澳運送農作物的問題。由於道路位處郊野公園內，不能以單車代步，由二澳步行至大澳需要半小時以上，位置相當偏僻，他認為有必要立即研究東涌至大澳通道。另外，由梅窩至白芒的南北道路，亦不應留待發展東大嶼都會才開始研究。他建議先開始興建公路走廊，鐵路走廊可以稍後動工，這樣才能完善大嶼山的環迴公路。他舉例指，在剛過去的復活節假期，大澳需要承載三萬三千人次旅客；清明節當天，市民需要在雨中候車超過兩小時，可見問題相當嚴重，若現時仍不解決，支持發展的聲音將醞釀成反對聲音。他重申，村民支持發展的底線是解決交通問題，建議先完善[昂坪](東涌??)至大澳的道路之後，才考慮把東涌纜車服務延伸至大澳，否則該區難以承載大量旅客。

28. 陳漢錕議員表示，計劃中經常提到民宿發展，但現時新界根本沒有任何民宿發展。另外，他近年多次建議政府將銀礦洞開發成旅遊景點，但至今仍不了了之。今次大嶼山發展計劃涉及十多年的發展，希望政府除了長遠項目外，亦要做好現行項目。

29. 文炳南議員認為政府經常過河拆橋，政府在五十年代發展新界衛星城市，鄉議局予以支持，但這六十年間，新界人的居住環境和原有土地權益均受到損害，若可以重新選擇，相信在座各位都會提出反對。他以元朗的發展為例，現時的洪水橋、錦田南，及十八鄉南等發展，完全缺乏交通配套，洪水橋發展涉及 21 萬人口，但政府不單完全沒有新建道路，更取消天水圍其中一條通道，只增加地鐵車廂，他不理解政府為何這樣規劃。這次大嶼山發展計劃，政府在規劃時亦完全忽略新界居民代表的意見，試問鄉議局如何支持這項計劃。

30. 趙式慶顧問多謝發展局和規劃署的詳細介紹。政府在大嶼山進行如此宏觀和大型的發展，將會對整個香港有深遠而重大的影響，亦牽涉到當地的交通、居住環境和自然生態，惟文件的介紹並沒提到包容性和可持續性的發展建議。

31. 他認為政府要發展新界，當地居民是重要持份者，因此除了要改善交通和居民的基本生活環境外，還要讓居民能夠直接參與當中。這項大型發展將會帶來很多商機，他詢問政府有否考慮讓當地居民與企業家合作，共享成果，例如新界有很多歷史悠久和保留完整的村落和文物，亦有很豐富的非物質文化遺產，建議發展需要融合這些傳統；以民宿為例，政府在大嶼山南部進行文化生態相關的項目，但村民連最簡單的民宿亦未能參與，如何能從發展中受惠。因此，他認為發展的包容性是政府需要留意的問題。

32. 其次，他認為政府各部門之間的協調很重要，委員會在制訂這份諮詢文件時，有否與康樂及文化事務署、民政事務局和旅遊事務署等部門充分溝通和互相協調。他期望政府能夠做到各部門均有共識的發展計劃。

33. 第三，文件中提到要將大嶼山營造成一個智慧型社區，他在內地參與過很多城市的規劃項目，智慧型社會是當今西歐和北歐最新穎的發展模式，能夠將教育、產業、

Appendix K ‐ Page 136

企業、民宿、商業發展一統化，但現時政府提出的大嶼山發展計劃的各項目仍較為零散，未能達到整合的效果，政府有需要在規劃方面再作探討。

34. 第四，政府進行如此大型的發展時，應該參考國際案例。香港在文化、商業和地理環境等各方面資源非常優越，但在發展方面卻較鄰國如新加坡、馬來西亞和泰國等地遜色，他認為大嶼山東部發展可以參考新加坡的新都市規劃，政府介紹時亦可引用更多國際案例，以說服更多市民支持。

35. 梁福元議員認為發展大嶼山是一個長遠的發展項目，並期望大嶼山可以發展成一個宜居、宜業、宜商、宜樂及宜學的智慧型、低碳社區。興建港珠澳大橋能夠打通大嶼山、香港島、新界西北部，以至境外交通，是值得鼓勵的發展。大嶼山發展是香港未來重要的轉變，希望政府先處理好區內的道路網絡，並重視離島區相關鄉事委員會的意見。

36. 發展局副局長馬紹祥先生多謝會眾的寶貴意見，強調政府的規劃一直有賴各位的支持和幫助，希望接下來能夠繼續做好溝通工作。這次規劃較以往項目更具前瞻性，當中包括短、中、長期發展，例如東涌新市鎮擴建工程是現正進行的項目，稍後會向立法會財委會申請撥款，以進行詳細設計。在交通配套方面，局方明白會眾的關注，東涌新市鎮擴建工程將會新增東涌西及東涌東兩個港鐵站，預計可以大大改善東涌西部交通的可達性。

37. 他表示，政府正向立法會申請批准，在土木工程拓展署內增加人力資源，以設立大嶼山拓展處，希望以跨專業和多角度的方式，集中統籌及專責處理大嶼山發展的工作，包括在交通、規劃，以至城市設計等，並盡量分配資源推行短期項目。鄉事朋友的各種訴求涉及不同政府部門，例如排污問題涉及環境局、交通問題涉及運房局，銀礦灣礦洞發展則涉及旅遊事務署，若成立一個專責的辦事處作為對口單位，將可以做到一站式溝通，方便更多市民參與其中並提出意見，令發展工作更暢順。若大家有其他意見，可以在四月三十日前，以書面形式提交予發展局，局方一定會重視並積極跟進。

38. 劉業強主席多謝發展局前來本局進行諮詢，本局期望在四月底前撰寫一份建議書，將本局意見提交發展局考慮。

39. 發展局官員與隨行人員於下午 3 時 40 分離開會議廳。

秘書處整理

2016 年 4 月 25 日

Appendix K ‐ Page 137

Item 30 大嶼山發展公眾參與

爛頭營義工團討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 19 日 (星期二) 時間：晚上 7 時正至 9 時正地點：九龍達之路 80 號又一城 5 樓 T51 會議室

1 整體意見關注大東山發展細節 • 與會者包括爛頭營義工團代表及爛頭營有限公司業主，他們未有表示是否支持發展大嶼山，只對諮詢文件中發展大東山部分提出意見，普遍對在大東山增加露營地點的建議有保留，但均建議增加配套措施。

2 願景、策略性 • 無定位和規劃原則

3 空間規劃及土 • 無地利用

4 保育 • 無

5 策略性交通運 • 無輸基建

6 康樂及旅遊支持保育大東山 • 其中一名與會者表示支持保育大東山。

對增設露營地點的意見 • 其中一名與會者支持增設露營地點，認為行山人士不需經特別訓練。該名與會者建議把露營地點設在山腳，如鳳凰山避風亭一帶，又認為香港小朋友應多來大東山，作體力鍛鍊。 • 另外兩名與會者則不鼓勵於大東山設露營地點。其中一名指大東山屬海洋性氣候，天氣不穩定。若行山人士沒有足夠裝備，登山

Appendix K ‐ Page 138

容易構成危險。他舉例指，於 70 年代曾有童軍於營地失救。他認為露營時沒有資深行山人員同行，一旦發生意外，需要等待消防或民安隊救援，發展變相帶來負擔。另一名與會者又補充大東山容易起霧，一旦發生意外，直升機難以搜救，加上消防員及民安隊並不熟路，增加救援難道。 • 另有意見指多年前興建的露營及燒烤場地無人問津，故沒有增露營地點的必要。 • 有與會者指大東山不是每個地方都適合紥營，部分地方亦只靠附近的河流供水，不如酒店的配套般一應俱全，擔心訪客期望會有落差。

有關增加交通設施以增強可達性的意見 • 與會者普遍不鼓勵增加交通工具以協助訪客登山，認為有礙行山人士鍛鍊體力，而且會額外增加建設費用，只有利於旅遊業發展，對行山人士作用成疑。

有關增加觀景設施的意見 • 數名與會者都認為不需增設觀星或觀景設施，而且訪客可改去馬鞍山看日出，不需刻意前來大東山。另外，個別與會者指於大東山沿路增設扶手會損害天然景觀。

建議增加配套措施 (i) 改善垃圾問題 • 與會者指每逢假日約有近一千人到大東山，認為超過其承載力，並指山上不時有很多垃圾囤積（包括破壞的露營用品、塑膠雨衣、食物及飲品包裝、紙巾等），造成嚴重衛生問題；建議發展時必須增加垃圾站及垃圾桶，並外判清潔工以保持環境清潔。

(ii) 增加公共設施 • 與會者建議增加公共設施，如洗手間及儲物櫃，又建議於山腳或中途站設置資訊欄，方便訪客了解山上情況。 • 為防止露宿者濫用洗手間，與會者建議以收費洗手間代替。

(iii)改善污水問題 • 與會者指行山人士丟棄的物質有部分不可分解，會令污水問題惡化，建議加強監管。

(iv)增設行山指引 • 與會者建議政府要求行山及露營團體訂立指引，避免行山人士爬於大東山舊屋的屋頂紮營，因大部分都具重要歷史價值，而且倒塌時有機會引致傷亡。

Appendix K ‐ Page 139

• 與會者又建議可仿傚台灣，教育市民先報名行山，並設特定名額，再由登山人員帶領上山。

(v)建資訊中心及補給站 • 與會者建議加設遊客資訊中心，並增加檢查員、維修員、資訊站職員等職位，增加就業機會。 • 與會者指過往見過有登山者沒有行山鞋、行山仗等裝備，建議資訊中心可順便充當補給站，既可向訪客提供行山裝備，又能幫補資訊中心營運費用。其中一人舉例指牛頭角港鐵站的便利店因經常有登山人士光顧而長期有售登山用品。

建議修葺道路 • 與會者指大東山山路狹窄，尤其在 10 月、11 月，不少攝影師及訪客會冒名而來拍攝芒草。其中一名與會者指以石屎鋪成的行山徑（如麥理浩徑）於下雨時，地面會變得濕滑，不利於行，而且多走石屎路有損關節健康，建議發展時應多用木板、大石等天然材料製作行山徑。

7 社會發展 • 無

8 其他 • 無

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 140

Item 31 大嶼山發展公眾參與

持份者討論會議 ‐ 守護大嶼山聯盟民間論壇

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 24 日（星期日）時間：下午 2 時正至 6 時 10 分地點：香港中環七號碼頭空地

 論壇由守護大嶼山聯盟主辦。

1 整體意見支持發展，發展與保育可以並存  與會者表示不希望推土機式的發展，希望保留本土特色，做到環境及文物保育。  有與會者重申鄕民支持發展大嶼山，建議加快改善道路及生活設施。

2 願景、策略性  無定位和規劃原則

3 空間規劃及土有關土地利用地利用  其中一位主辦者認為大嶼山一直依靠農耕、漁業及本土經濟，故希望保持原貌，不應引進連瑣式商店及商場。  有與會者強調村民祖先的墳墓可遠塑到清朝道光時期，他們守護大嶼山三百幾年，但因遍位置遠曾經有 2 位長者因得不到及時醫護而失救。另外，經歷 18 年才爭取到興建碼頭，10 年才有自來水。他支持發展大嶼山，又認為東涌新市鎮擴展項目動輒以億計，鄕村發展的撥款卻相對很少，他希望各界以「大我」的想法去考慮大嶼山發展。

有關中部水域發展  有與會者擔東大嶼都會工程龐大，可能需時三十年，但屆時香港人口已飽和，又質疑是否有必要興建多一個核心商業區。

4 保育有關生物多樣性的保護  有與會者指出當地有全中國獨有的螢火蟲，希望可建螢火蟲館。

Appendix K ‐ Page 141

 個別講者指出梅窩每年有過萬隻藍點斑蝶從內地到大嶼山過冬，所以要保育好環境。另所，香港被國際雜誌選為超越紐約倫敦的宜居城市，也是因為有四成以上面積是郊野公園。  有與會者關注東大嶼都會填海會威脅交椅洲及周公島的生態，例如香港雙足蜴會。

關注非法傾倒泥頭問題  與會者普關注私人土地「先破壞、後建設」。  個別講者指貝澳已出現非法傾倒泥頭，破壞水牛棲息地。建議政府收購有生態價值的私人土地。

推動綠色旅遊  個別與會者希望大嶼山提供足夠綠色郊遊及燒烤去處。  另一名與會者希望政府尊重歷史和文化，先做好考古研究才發展。

5 策略性交通運  無輸基建

6 康樂及旅遊關注貝澳的承載力  個別與會者認為貝澳的交通和沙灘設施，在假日已經超出負荷，希望不要再吸引更多旅客前往貝澳。

7 社會發展有關東涌新市鎮發展  與會者關注東涌空氣污染問題。  個別與會者關注年青人未能負擔東涌樓價，建議參考德國不准炒賣樓房的做法。  主辦者認為東涌發展仍然是舊式新市鎮模式：只有住宅，欠缺社區設施。  個別講者倡議不要興建大型屋苑、不要屛風樓。

8 其他建議先保育後發展  主辦組織認為應該先搞好保育才發展，而非先發展才保育。

關注政府發展方式  有與會者認為政府的發展方式不尊重當地村民、只着重大發展項目，由上而下，執行是推土機式的。希望大嶼山發展不會重覆新界東北發展的情況。

建議做好環評  個別講者希望政府汲取龍尾教訓，要做好保育。

Appendix K ‐ Page 142

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 143

Item 32 大嶼山發展公眾參與

香港單車聯會及香港爬山單車協會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 4 月 25 日 (星期一) 時間：下午 12 時 15 分至 2 時正地點：九龍達之路 80 號又一城 5 樓 T51 會議室

1 整體意見支持大嶼山發展並關注單車活動 • 與會者分別來自香港單車聯會及香港爬山單車協會，兩個機構代表均表示支持大嶼山發展，尤其是大嶼山擬議的單車活動，又同意改善區內交通問題。

2 願景、策略性 • 無定位和規劃原則

3 空間規劃及土 • 無地利用

4 保育 • 無

5 策略性交通運改善交通問題輸基建 • 與會者大多認同必須增加交通設施及配套，至少要有接駁巴士到達指定地點或個別旅遊熱點。 • 與會者又建議政府考慮往來中環和梅窩的渡輪允許運載單車，以方便單車手來大嶼山。

6 康樂及旅遊支持發展爬山單車徑 • 其中一名與會者認為爬山單車配套設施設計不應盲目跟循現行標準，亦有個別與會者提出現時康文署所提供的單車設施可觀性雖高，但未能全面配合單車手需要。

對環島單車體驗的意見 • 多位與會者贊成興建環島單車徑，認為南大嶼馬路一帶現時已有單車徑，只有大澳至二澳一段並未有規劃為爬山單車徑，現時單車手

Appendix K ‐ Page 144

使用的是自行創造出來的「非法道路」。他們建議政府盡快視察大澳至二澳的單車路，並考慮將其合法化。 • 有與會者補充，由東涌經奧運徑到梅窩，再到大嶼南車程共 60 公里，預計最快需要 4 小時才能踩畢全程，有潛力發展一天環島遊。 • 另外，有與會者提出由東涌灣到大澳的單車徑對初學者來說是可接受的，不過該條路未必適合變為單車徑。 • 只有一名與會者不支持環島單車，認為香港配套不足，仿傚台灣及法國的單車旅遊、環島單車十分困難。

建議昂坪纜車設特別安排 • 個別與會者認為可善用昂坪作單車手的集散地。與會者又提出昂坪纜車可設其他特別安排，例如讓登山者於星期六優先使用，並容許單車進入纜車，減少單車手騎車上山時對當地居民的滋擾。

建議增設單車租借設施 • 部分與會者認為大嶼山租借單車的地方不集中，建議於增加馬路及停車場(單車徑及單車泊位?)，同時在附近加設租借服務。個別與會者又指馬路及停車場附近應增加急救設施。

增加相應配套設施 • 與會者指現時每星期都有大量訪客，建議盡快在南大嶼增加公共洗手間，又建議道路設計盡量減少樓梯，增加休憩地方及改善車路彎位等措施。

有關單車徑設計詳情 • 數名與會者指現時東涌石屎路太多，不適合行山或踩單車，並認為香港現時大部分單車徑設計有問題，部分更是行山徑、單車徑的混合體，需要重新規劃。他們建議應分開登山徑、跑步徑、普通單車徑和越野單車徑。個別與會者補充步行徑及單車徑可以並排，但兩者必須相隔一定距離。 • 與會者普遍贊成興建不同程度的單車徑配合初學者、進階單車手及專業單車手，而且多條單車徑應環環相扣。另一名與會者又建議可在現有的行山徑、單車徑上加設一些休息空間，方便單車手稍作休息，但不用刻意加插設施。 • 部分與會者認為政府代表未熟悉各種爬山單車的特點前，規劃路徑都會有困難，故希望政府能多參考所提供的意見書。 • 一名與會者建議在芝麻灣增設單車徑，又表示非常支持土木工程拓展署完善梅窩與芝麻灣的單車徑。

善用單車徑網絡以舉辦運動比賽大型活動 • 與會者普遍認為大嶼山有潛力發展特定比賽項目，如越野單車賽，

Appendix K ‐ Page 145

並同意舉辦符合奧運標準的爬山單車活動或賽事。有與會者建議將梅窩改善工程的越野單車徑網絡變化單車公園(Bike Park)，並參考外國過往舉辦大型活動。 • 與會者指麥理浩及郊野公園地區有不少現存行山徑，希望串連起這些路徑。

7 社會發展 • 無

8 其他減少和方衝突 • 與會者希望在討論過程中讓政府得悉箇中情況細節，減少居民、單車手及政府之間的衝突。

更新發展進程及時間表 • 與會者支持漁護署聘請專家作評估，認為可加快進程。 • 與會者希望了解更多大嶼山發展諮詢的進程及發展藍圖的公布日期。 *****

Appendix K ‐ Page 146

Item 33

大嶼山發展公眾參與

立法會發展事務委員會

會議紀要

日期： 2016年4月26日(星期二) 時間：下午2時30分地點：立法會綜合大樓會議室3

出席委員：

謝偉銓議員, BBS(主席) 梁志祥議員, BBS, MH, JP(副主席) 何俊仁議員涂謹申議員陳鑑林議員, SBS, JP 石禮謙議員, GBS, JP 馮檢基議員, SBS, JP 何秀蘭議員, JP 陳克勤議員, JP 陳健波議員, BBS, JP 葉國謙議員, GBS, JP 葉劉淑儀議員, GBS, JP 梁國雄議員田北辰議員, BBS, JP 胡志偉議員, MH 姚思榮議員, BBS 陳志全議員陳恒鑌議員, JP 陳家洛議員陳婉嫻議員, SBS, JP 麥美娟議員, BBS, JP 郭家麒議員張超雄議員黃碧雲議員葛珮帆議員, JP

Appendix K ‐ Page 147

盧偉國議員, SBS, MH, JP 楊岳橋議員缺席委員：劉皇發議員, 大紫荊勳賢, GBS, JP 梁家傑議員, SC 陳偉業議員田北俊議員, GBS, JP

議程第VII項

發展局常任秘書長(工務) 韓志強先生, JP

發展局副秘書長(工務)2 陳志明先生, JP

土木工程拓展署署長鍾錦華先生, JP

土木工程拓展署港島及離島拓展處處長林世雄先生, JP

規劃署助理署長／全港張綺薇女士

VII 在土木工程拓展署轄下成立大嶼山拓展處及重組各現有拓展處

(立法會CB(1)798/15-16(02)號文件 - 政府當局就在土木工程拓展署設立大嶼山拓展處及重組現有的各拓展處人手編制建議提交的文件

立法會CB(1)559/15-16(07)號文件 - 政府當局就在土木工程拓展署及規劃署開設和重行調配首長級職位提交的文件

立法會CB(1)801/15-16(01)號文件 - 事務委員會2016 年2 月23 日會議紀要擬稿的節錄本 ( 有關議項VII 的討論))

42. 主席表示，政府當局建議設立大嶼山拓展處及重組土木工程拓展署各現有拓展處，有關詳情載於立法會CB(1)559/15-16(07)號文件附件II。委員已於事務委員會2016年2月23日的會議上討論有關建議。委員不支持政府當局把上述建議提交人事編制小組委員會。政府當局近日已因應委員就上述建議所表達的關注提供補充資料。有關資料(立法會 CB(1)798/15-16(02)號文件)已於2016年4 月14日送交委員。主席表示，根據《內務守則》第

Appendix K ‐ Page 148

24(n)條，除非獲得委員會批准，否則委員會已決定的事項不應重新展開討論。他詢問，委員是否同意重新展開有關上述建議的討論。委員對此並無異議。

43. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)向委員簡介立法會CB(1)798/15-16(02)號文件，當中載述政府當局因應委員在2016年2月23日的會議上就上述人員編制建議表達的關注所作的回應。當局已在2016年1月31日就發展大嶼山展開公眾參與活動，他亦向委員匯報現正持續進行的公眾參與活動的最新情況。發展局常任秘書長(工務)請委員支持此項人員編制建議。

設立大嶼山拓展處的理據

44. 黃碧雲議員表示，據立法會CB(1)798/15-16(02)號文件所載，政府當局並沒有對原來的人員編制建議作出任何修訂。她質疑，政府當局如何能說服委員支持此項人員編制建議。發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，儘管事務委員會部分委員支持當局有需要就發展大嶼山的工作增加人手，亦有委員就多項事宜表達關注，當中包括就發展建議進行公眾諮詢的程序、大嶼山發展諮詢委員會部分委員有利益衝突，以及是否有足夠的勞工進行擬議項目。為處理委員提出的關注事宜，政府當局已向事務委員會提交一份補充資料文件。在過去數月，政府當局已舉行3場公眾論壇及多個諮詢會，以蒐集有關大嶼山發展策略建議的意見和建議。迄今收集所得的公眾意見顯示，相當多公眾支持大嶼山發展策略建議的大方向，亦有意見表示有需要研究下列事宜：大嶼山接待訪客的能力；改善交通及運輸基建；為偏遠的鄉村及當地社區進行改善工程；及就大嶼山擬定詳細的保育建議。政府當局認為有急切需要設立大嶼山拓展處進行各項工作及研究，以回應市民的訴求，並推行公眾支持的建議。

45. 黃碧雲議員強調，公眾並未就大嶼山發展策略建議達成共識，當局不宜在現階段設立大嶼山拓展處。她擔心，設立大嶼山拓展處即意味，儘管大嶼山發展諮詢委員會建議的發展項目尚未獲公眾支持，當局仍會悉數推行該等建議。何俊仁議員認為，在現階段設立大嶼山拓展處會給予公眾一個印象，就是政府當局已就發展大嶼山擬定藍圖。黃議員及何議員建議，與其設立大嶼山拓展處，政府當局應加強人手蒐集及考慮有關發展大嶼山的公眾意見，然後制訂普遍可獲市民接受的發展計劃。

46. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)回應時表示，政府當局建議設立大嶼山拓展處，並不意味有關發展建議會在未諮詢公眾的情況下即時在大嶼山推行。至於大嶼山發展策略建議，他表示，有關建議大致上沿用當局在2007年公布的經修訂《大嶼山發展概念計劃》所列原則。根據發展策略建議，當局會保育大嶼山大面積的土地，而北大嶼山則建議作經濟及房屋發展用途。鑒於當局須進行大量有關發展大嶼山的工作，因此有必要設立一個跨專業的專責辦事處。

47. 胡志偉議員表示，儘管當局將會就領導大嶼山拓展處開設的4個擬議首長級編外職位的為期只是約為5年，建議就發展大嶼山在發展局、土木工程拓展署及規劃署開設50個非首長級職位，會令設立大嶼山拓展處成為一項永久的安排。他認為，當局可加強發展局及相關部門現有的人手，負責推展當局已在北大嶼山規劃的發展項目及改善大

Appendix K ‐ Page 149

嶼山連繫的項目。然而，他反對政府當局的計劃，即設立一個專責辦事處以大規模發展大嶼山。他認為，鑒於公眾對將會在大嶼山進行的新發展項目未有共識，設立大嶼山拓展處必定會引起爭議。他要求當局提供資料，說明擬議大嶼山拓展處的角色及職責。

48. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)表示，根據大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的建議，當局應把握機遇善用大嶼山的策略定位可帶來的效益，配合本港的長遠發展需要。除了沿大嶼山北部進行的發展外，亦有潛力發展東大嶼都會為本港第三個核心商業區。儘管發展東大嶼都會是一項超越2030 年的長遠規劃，而當局在現階段尚未確定會落實有關發展，當局有必要取得額外人手就發展東大嶼都會的可行性進行詳盡的研究。因此，當局有需要開設擬議首長級編外職位及設立一個跨專業的專責辦事處。在香港島及離島的拓展處開設首長級職位負責執行與大嶼山相關的工作，而不設立一個專責的拓展處，此方案並不可行。

49. 陳志全議員認為，大嶼山發展策略建議引致市民大眾十分擔憂大嶼山可能會遭破壞。他表示，大嶼山發展諮詢委員會由一些不熟悉大嶼山生態及文化特色的委員組成。人民力量反對該委員會建議的上述策略。由於飛機噪音對該區構成影響，在東大嶼都會進行擬議房屋發展項目會引起反對。

50. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)回應時表示，東大嶼都會的發展仍處於構思的階段。擬議大嶼山拓展處將負責進行一些前期工作，例如可行性研究及就區內的飛機噪音影響進行評估。

51. 張超雄議員表示，由於大嶼山發展策略建議並沒有提出有關保育大嶼山自然環境的詳細方案，他反對當局設立大嶼山拓展處的建議。在進行公眾參與活動期間接獲的意見大部分均反對發展策略建議。政府當局建議在大嶼山開拓更多旅遊景點，是旨在促進商業發展，但卻沒有顧及保育自然環境的需要。在規劃大嶼山的發展方面，政府當局偏袒土地擁有人及私人發展商的利益。張議員認為，公眾關注到大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員將會從發展大嶼山獲取個人利益，要求這些委員申報利益，將不會釋除公眾此方面的疑慮。

52. 梁國雄議員表示反對設立大嶼山拓展處的建議。他表示，部分中期及長期的發展建議(例如有關在中部水域興建人工島的研究及擬議東大嶼都會) 將會引起反對。他認為沒有需要設立一個新的專責辦事處為2030年後才推行的發展計劃進行研究。

53. 副主席認為，在發展大嶼山期間，政府當局的目標應該是在發展與保育之間求取平衡。他支持設立一個專責辦事處的建議，因為此項建議會加強人手支援，就發展大嶼山收集公眾的意見及進行研究。

54. 葉國謙議員表示支持當局設立大嶼山拓展處。他認為，要以持續可行的方式發展大嶼山，在土地發展與保育環境之間求取平衡為至關重要。當局有需要設立一個專責辦事處，就制訂可同時處理大嶼山的發展和保育需要的發展計劃進行研究。葉議員表示，部分委員批評，發展大嶼山將會是政府和私人發展商之間一個輸送利益的途徑，實為毫無根據。

Appendix K ‐ Page 150

55. 陳健波議員表示支持當局的建議，即設立一個專責辦事處，以進行有關發展大嶼山的研究。關於部分委員在2016年2月23日的會議上表示關注到推行大規模發展項目的勞工短缺，陳議員表示，建造業的失業率仍然高企，而主要的發展項目亦不會在短期內推行。他相信，建造業工人的供應會充足，可進行有關發展大嶼山的基建項目。

56. 陳恒鑌議員表示，於2013年，立法會議員在一次立法會會議上就有關"建設新北大嶼山"的議案進行辯論，並表示支持當局在北大嶼山提供更多基建和社區設施，以及改善北大嶼山當區及對外的經濟發展。政府當局迄今已就發展大嶼山進行多輪公眾諮詢。立法會議員及公眾提出多項有關發展大嶼山的事宜讓政府當局跟進。他相信，在設立大嶼山拓展處後，政府當局會有更多人力資源與各持份者(包括環保團體及當地社區)緊密合作，共同就發展大嶼山制訂詳細的建議。

57. 盧偉國議員表示支持此項人員編制建議。他表示，當局有必要設立大嶼山拓展處，以就發展大嶼山作出平衡的規劃。盧議員要求政府當局闡釋，當局為何需要設立一個跨專業的辦事處推展有關發展大嶼山的措施。

58. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，當局須設立一個專責的跨專業大嶼山拓展處，讓不同的專業人員(包括工程師、城市規劃師、建築師及測量師)集思廣益，共同推展有關大嶼山的工作。此外，與土木工程拓展署現正推行的其他已處於落實階段的項目有所不同，大嶼山的發展建議性質複雜，並且仍然處於初步的階段，須來自多個界別的專業人員提供意見。當局有必要早日設立大嶼山拓展處，以作出更妥善的規劃；解決互相配合的問題；以及妥為進行有關發展大嶼山的公眾參與工作。

大嶼山的交通基建

59. 田北辰議員表示支持當局設立大嶼山拓展處。他轉達東涌居民就區內交通基建及列車服務不足所表達的關注。他建議，為配合因大嶼山的擬議發展而預期會大幅增加的交通服務需求，當局應發展一個輕便鐵路系統，連接東涌東的新鐵路站及博覽館站，並在港珠澳大橋香港口岸人工島及機場島北商業區等地方設站。擬議輕便鐵路系統會利便居民於區內就業及減少對外交通量。田議員認為，擬議大嶼山拓展處須有一名具備鐵路發展知識及專長的總工程師。他又建議，當局應發展一條新的跨海鐵路，經北大嶼山連接新界西及香港島及將會在中部水域興建的擬議人工島。此外，他建議，大嶼山拓展處應考慮採用起動九龍東辦事處發展九龍東環保連接系統的模式，在大嶼山發展該輕便鐵路系統。

60. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)回應時表示，擬議大嶼山拓展處將徹底研究不同的交通方案，以透過改善大嶼山的交通連繫促進區內就業。發展輕便鐵路系統將會是就大嶼山建議的其中一個交通方案，當局會委託大嶼山拓展處的資深工程師研究此方案的可行性。當局亦會妥為參考起動九龍東辦事處所採用的模式。

大嶼山的自然保育

Appendix K ‐ Page 151

61. 陳家洛議員詢問，政府當局有否計劃設立一個大嶼山保育辦事處。發展局常任秘書長(工務)表示，當局在現階段並無此方面的計劃。陳議員指出，很多環保團體十分關注擬議發展項目對大嶼山的生態會造成不能逆轉的影響。根據環境局在2016年1月擬備的《生物多樣性策略及行動計劃》諮詢文件，其中一個建議行動綱領是加強政府當局內部的主流化，並根據香港的具體情況，將生物多樣性的考慮因素納入政府當局的計劃及項目內。他促請政府當局為大嶼山制訂具體的保育措施，以處理環保團體所關注的事宜。他表示，倘若當局沒有就大嶼山制訂詳細的自然保育建議，他仍會反對設立大嶼山拓展處。發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，發展和保育並非不能共存，擬議大嶼山拓展處的人員會十分留意保育的事宜。

62. 郭家麒議員表示，公眾期望當局保育大嶼山的天然資源。公眾並未就擬議大嶼山拓展處將推展的部分建議(例如發展東大嶼都會及連接昂坪及大澳的纜車系統)達成共識，因為該等建議會破壞天然環境。郭議員不滿政府當局把未獲工務小組委員會支持、有關在中部水域興建人工島的研究列入大嶼山拓展處將會進行的工程清單內。

63. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)回應時表示，當局從公眾接獲的意見分歧，有部分公眾支持發展大嶼山的建議，有部分公眾則就保護環境提出關注事項，並要求當局提交詳細的保育建議，以及就大嶼山的接待能力作出評估。發展局常任秘書長(工務)亦重申，保育和發展並非不能共存。在推展發展建議時，擬議大嶼山拓展處的所有專業人員均會妥為考慮保育的需要。為發展東大嶼都會而於中部水域興建人工島的建議，長遠會為香港人帶來裨益。政府當局會就進行有關在中部水域興建人工島的策略性研究向立法會提交建議，以尋求議員批准有關撥款。

64. 郭家麒議員表示，鑒於擬議大嶼山拓展處的人員將主要是工程師，他對大嶼山拓展處會致力保育大嶼山的天然環境未感信服。他建議，當局應委託海外的保育專家及漁農自然護理署為大嶼山制訂保育計劃。發展局常任秘書長(工務)重申，擬議大嶼山拓展處會包括來自不同專業範疇的專業人員。他們推展大嶼山的發展措施時會考慮保育需要。

65. 陳鑑林議員表示支持當局設立大嶼山拓展處的建議。陳議員認為，保育大嶼山的天然環境固然重要，但或許沒有必要設立一個保育辦事處。他表示，開拓土地對本港的經濟發展及房屋供應十分重要，自然保育不應被視為開拓土地的障礙。葉國謙議員詢問，擬議大嶼山拓展處由一個小數目的成員組成，如何能就有關平衡大嶼山發展和保育的事宜提供中肯的專業意見。

66. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，當局在進行公眾參與活動期間，接獲大量有關保育大嶼山的公眾意見及建議，例如改善和保育海岸公園和效野公園。他再次強調，擬議大嶼山拓展處的所有人員(包括工程師、城市規劃師、測量師及建築師)推展有關的發展建議時，均會把促進大嶼山保育列為高優次的工作。

改善大嶼山鄉村的基建

Appendix K ‐ Page 152

67. 麥美娟議員表示，她不贊成大嶼山發展諮詢委員會提出的部分發展建議。她認為，當局有必要設立大嶼山拓展處，以進行更多公眾參與活動，聽取各持份者(尤其是當地村民) 就大嶼山整體發展表達意見。麥議員促請政府當局在規劃大嶼山的發展前，改善鄉村的基建設施(例如污水系統)。

68. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)答稱，擬議大嶼山拓展處將會進行的工作包括短、中及長期的建議。當局須就落實長期的建議作進一步的研究。就短期的工作而言，政府當局留意到當區居民就改善鄉村道路和污水系統所提出的關注事宜。當局將需更多人力資源進行勘測及落實上述工程。

大嶼山拓展處的角色和職能

69. 姚思榮議員作出申報，表明他是大嶼山發展諮詢委員會的委員。他表示支持當局的建議，即成立大嶼山拓展處，以推行發展大嶼山的各項措施。姚議員詢問，擬議大嶼山拓展處的運作會否與起動九龍東辦事處的運作相似。政府當局推展有關發展項目時會否參考起動九龍東辦事處成功的經驗。

70. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)表示，當局就發展九龍東(包括啟德)設立土木工程拓展署九龍拓展處轄下啟德辦事處及發展局轄下的起動九龍東辦事處。起動九龍東辦事處的重點工作為活化觀塘及九龍灣的前工業區，而啟德辦事處則負責落實啟德發展區的基建項目。鑒於發展大嶼山的規模，大嶼山拓展處的角色和職能將與起動九龍東辦事處及啟德辦事處合併後的規模相若。

71. 姚思榮議員認為，儘管須就九龍東轉型進行的工作複雜，落實起動九龍東辦事處職權範圍下各項目的工作成效理想。起動九龍東辦事處進行公眾參與活動的工作對發展大嶼山將可作為有用的參考。發展局常任秘書長(工務)表示，政府當局推行各項發展大嶼山的措施時，會小心考慮起動九龍東辦事處活化九龍東的成功經驗。

重組各拓展處

72. 陳鑑林議員表示，根據重組建議成立的4個新拓展處(即北拓展處、東拓展處、南拓展處及西拓展處)的名稱，不能反映每個拓展處的地區界線。副主席表達類似的意見。

73. 土木工程拓展署署長答稱，在制訂有關設立大嶼山拓展處的建議，以推行大嶼山及其他離島的發展項目時，政府當局已藉機會檢討現有4個拓展處的工作分配及地區界線。鑒於現有新界東拓展處正在進行的發展和基建項目，已超出一個拓展處所能負擔的工作量，政府當局建議重新分配上述4個拓展處之間的職務和職責，以及修訂其地理界線。當局是經過深思熟慮才建議更改重組後拓展處的名稱。新界西拓展處的職責及地理界線將維持不變，但會改稱西拓展處。北拓展處將會監督北區、大埔和沙田區的發展及基建項目。南拓展處會負責港島、深水埗及油尖旺區的項目，而東拓展處則會負責西貢、黃大仙、觀塘及

Appendix K ‐ Page 153

九龍城區的項目。

74. 發展局常任秘書長(工務)補充，當局是參考區議會選區分界訂定4個新拓展處的地理界線。他表示，政府當局會樂意向委員說明上述事宜的詳情。

向人事編制小組委員會提交建議

75. 主席詢問，委員是否支持當局把此項建議提交人事編制小組委員會考慮。他表示會就此項建議行使其原有表決權。應委員要求，主席命令進行點名表決。表決鐘聲響起5分鐘。13名委員表決贊成及10名委員表決反對此議題。個別委員的表決結果如下:

贊成 :

陳鑑林議員陳克勤議員陳健波議員葉國謙議員田北辰議員姚思榮議員陳恒鑌議員陳婉嫻議員梁志祥議員麥美娟議員葛珮帆議員盧偉國議員謝偉銓議員(主席) (13名委員)

反對 :

涂謹申議員馮檢基議員何秀蘭議員梁國雄議員胡志偉議員陳志全議員陳家洛議員郭家麒議員張超雄議員黃碧雲議員 (10名委員)

棄權 :

(0名委員)

76. 主席總結時表示，事務委員會支持當局把此項建議提交人事編制小組委員會考慮。

Appendix K ‐ Page 154

Item 34

Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Lantau Buffalo Association

Summary of Views

Date: 28 April, 2016 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 am ‐ 6:00 pm Venue: Lantau Island

1. Development Conservation issues Strategies  The president of Lantau Buffalo Association (LBA) stressed the (Overall) importance of conservation of Lantau development, with emphasis on preservation of the habitates for buffalos and cattles at Lantau.

2. Vision, Nil Strategic Positioning, Planning Principle

3. Spatial Nil Planning and Land Use

4. Conservation Land resumption for the habitates of buffalos  LBA pointed out that there were a number of important habitats for buffalos including Pui O, Chi Man Wan, Mui Wo and Tong Fok etc.  LBA considered that the government should resume the private lands involved at these areas to preserve the existing habitat of buffalos. They opined that although some of the areas were currently zoned as “Conservation Area” on OZP, development or landfilling activity was still likely to happen.

Appendix K ‐ Page 155

Establishment of stations for cattle caring  Cattles were widely distributed at areas including Tai O, Ngong Ping as well as roadside area along Tung Chung Road, South Lantau Road and Keung Shan Road.  LBA mentioned that they have lodged application of STT for preservation of some of these habitats and establishment of stations for cattle caring. They opined that the application was not successful due to lack of policy support. They urged the government to review this issue in formulating the development proposals of Lantau.  Cattles were found wandering on public roads sometimes causing disturbance to the traffic. LBA suggested allowing “green passage” along public roads to act as corridor for cattles to travel between their major habitats.

5. Strategic Nil Traffic and Transport Infrastructure

6. Recreation & Nil Tourism

7. Social Nil Development

8. Miscellaneous Nil

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 156

Item 35 大嶼山發展公眾參與

中國香港旅行遠足聯會討論「大嶼山發展」

意見摘要

日期： 2016 年 5 月 5 日 (星期四) 時間：下午 4 時 15 分至 5 時 20 分地點：九龍達之路 80 號又一城 5 樓 T51 會議室

1 整體意見支持增加大嶼山遠足活動 • 與會者代表中國香港旅行遠足聯會，未有表示是否支持發展大嶼山，只對諮詢文件中有關遠足部分提出意見。代表表示支持有限度放寬車輛措施，並建議增加交通配套協助行山人士。

2 願景、策略性 • 無定位和規劃原則

3 空間規劃及土 • 無地利用

4 保育 • 無

5 策略性交通運 • 無輸基建

6 康樂及旅遊建議增加交通配套助行山人士 • 與會者認為交通配套不足對行山人士來說是個難題，因為有些行山地點比較偏僻，行山人士必須走額外的山路才去到起點，變相增加行山時間；建議增加由東澳古道前往東涌的巴士線。 • 與會者亦擔心行山人士的安全問題，以鳳凰徑為例，全長 70 公里，共分 12 段，但有些路段不通。若發生意外時，將會增加中段救援的難度，因直升機救援只能前往指定地方。與會者建議於行山徑中段增設救援站，長期有救援單位站崗，如飛行服務隊。 • 與會者擔心長途徑沒有中途站，當出現意外如山火會難以拯救，認為要增設救援位置。他補充一些空地、小休站、臨時屋等已對行山人士幫助很大。

Appendix K ‐ Page 157

建議有限度放寬車輛進入 • 與會者指現時大帽山已放寬車輛進入，但不建議在大東山及鳳凰山設同類措施。 • 與會者建議可適度放寬大型車輛進入山路的限制，以方便救援。

支持增加觀景台 • 與會者支持增加觀景台以吸引旅客，亦可讓當地居民在觀景台附近搞小生意，如賣小食，甚至設小型餐店；國內亦有類似的發展個案，認為一舉兩得，值得借鏡。

支持舉辦小型比賽 • 與會者贊成於奧運徑至梅窩或愉景灣的山路中舉辦小型比賽，亦指過往有不同機構曾提議於該處舉辦團體項目，並找遠足聯會協助提供意見。

建議改善及增加行山配套 • 與會者明白於行山徑一帶發展或會影響生態及環境，希望政府能在城市發展及郊野保育中取得平衡。 • 與會者建議除保存自然徑，亦應派人定期監察道路情況，必要時進行維修，以兼顧行山者需要。 • 與會者又建議增加資訊板及改善現時路標不清晰的問題，因為路標不清晰對「獨行俠」來說是最危險。 • 與會者提出近年較多退休人士及年青家庭參與行山活動，路徑設計應配合其需要，亦可在中段位置加入一些食肆，並考慮增設碼頭如車路接駁相對較困難。

建議加強昂坪 360 的可達性 • 與會者認為將昂坪 360 延伸到一些行山者難以到達的山頭是好事，方便行山人士和遊客到更多地方遊覽觀景。

7 社會發展 • 無

8 其他 • 無

*****

Appendix K ‐ Page 158

Item 36 Public Engagement on Lantau Development

Town Planning Board

Extracts of Minutes

Date: 5 May, 2016 (Friday) Time: 10:00 am ‐ 11:30 pm Venue: Cofnerence Room , 15/F North Point Government Offices, 33 Java Road, North Point

Present Permanent Secretary for Development Chairman (Planning and Lands) Mr Michael W.L. Wong Professor S.C. Wong Vice‐chairman Mr Lincoln L.H. Huang Mr H.W. Cheung Professor K.C. Chau Dr Wilton W.T. Fok Mr Ivan C.S. Fu Mr Sunny L.K. Ho Mr Dominic K.K. Lam Mr Patrick H.T. Lau Mr Stephen H.B. Yau Dr F.C. Chan Mr David Y.T. Lui Mr Peter K.T. Yuen Mr Philip S.L. Kan Dr Lawrence W.C. Poon Mr Wilson Y.W. Fung Dr C.H. Hau Mr Thomas O.S. Ho Mr Alex T.H. Lai Dr Lawrence K.C. Li Mr Stephen L.H. Liu Professor T.S. Liu Miss Winnie W.M. Ng Miss Sandy H.Y. Wong

Appendix K ‐ Page 159

Mr Franklin Yu Director of Planning Mr K.K. Ling Principal Assistant Secretary (Transports) Transport and Housing Bureau Miss Winnie M.W. Wong Chief Engineer (Works), Home Affairs Department Mr Martin K.C. Kwan Assistant Director of Environmental Protection (Environmental Assessment) Mr K.F. Tang Assistant Director of Lands (Regional 3) Mr Edwin W.K. Chan Deputy Director of Planning/District Secretary Mr Raymond K.W. Lee

Absent with Apologies Ms Janice W.M. Lai Ms Christina M. Lee Mr H.F. Leung Mr Frankie W.C. Yeung Mr K.K. Cheung Mr T.Y. Ip

In Attendance

Assistant Director of Planning/Board Miss Fiona S.Y. Lung

Chief Town Planner/Town Planning Board Mr Louis K.H. Kau

Senior Town Planner/Town Planning Board Mr T.C. Cheng

Appendix K ‐ Page 160

General

Agenda Item 3 [Open Meeting]

Proposed Development Strategy for Lantau (TPB Paper No. 10114) [The meeting was conducted in Cantonese]

4. The Secretary reported that the following Members have declared interests in the item :

Mr Dominic K.K. Lam ‐ owning a flat at Discovery Bay, Lantau

Ms Christina M. Lee ‐ being the director of a company which owned some land in Lantau

Professor T.S. Liu ‐his family property holding company owned a flat in Tai O, Lantau

Mr K.K. Ling ‐ owning a flat at Discovery Bay, (Director of Planning) Lantau

5. Members noted that Ms Christina M. Lee had tendered apologies for being unable to attend the meeting. Since the item was only a briefing to Members as part of the Community Engagement exercise on the proposed Development Strategy for Lantau (the Strategy), Members agreed that those who had declared interests should be allowed to stay in the meeting and participate in the discussion.

6. The following government representatives were invited to the meeting at this point :

Mr Chan Chi Ming ‐ Deputy Secretary for Development (Works) 2, Development Bureau (DS(W)2, DEVB)

Mr Lai Cheuk Ho ‐Principal Assistant Secretary (Works) 5 (PAS(W)5), DEVB

Miss Isabel Y. Yiu ‐ Assistant Secretary (Lantau) 1 (AS(Lantau)1), DEVB

Mr Chow Sui Ping ‐ Engineer (Lantau) (E(Lantau)),

Appendix K ‐ Page 161

DEVB

Mr Lam Sai Hung ‐Project Manager/Hong Kong Island & Islands, Civil Engineering and Development Department (PM/HKI&I, CEDD)

Ms Amy Y.M. Cheung ‐ Assistant Director/Territorial, Planning Department (AD/T, PlanD)

Miss Winnie B.Y. Lau ‐ Chief Town Planner/Strategic Planning (CTP/SP), PlanD

Mr Kevin S.W. Chan ‐ Senior Town Planner/Strategic Planning 6 (STP/SP6), PlanD

Ms Kennie M.F. Liu ‐ Town Planner/Strategic Planning 12 (TP/SP12), PlanD

7. Mr Chan Chi Ming, DS(W)2, DEVB made the following main points :

(a) The Revised Concept Plan for Lantau with the vision to promote sustainable development in Lantau was promulgated in 2007 by striking a balance between development and conservation. The Plan was conceptual and the feasibility and implementation of individual proposals was subject to further studies and public consultation;

(b) Since then, a number of projects were planned at north Lantau, including the topside commercial development at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (HKBCF) Island of the Hong Kong‐Zhuhai‐Macao Bridge (HZMB), Tung Chung New Town Extension and Siu Ho Wan Development. In addition, the HZMB and the Tuen Mun‐Chek Lap Kok Link (TM‐CLKL) were under construction. Together with the planned expansion of the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) into a three‐runway system (3RS), Lantau would become the main hub for both regional and international journeys to and from Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta (PRD);

(c) In 2014, the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) was established to advise the Government on : (i) The social and economic development opportunities in Lantau to capitalise on its advantages as the confluence of major transport infrastructure; and (ii) The policies, measures and specific proposals conducive to the

Appendix K ‐ Page 162

sustainable development and conservation of Lantau; (d) LanDAC had since formulated the proposed vision, strategic positioning and planning principles for the development of Lantau, with initial major proposals covering spatial planning and land use, conservation, strategic traffic and transport infrastructure, recreation and tourism, and social development, as well as short‐term improvement measures. It published its first‐term work report “Space for All” in January 2016;

(e) According to the Strategy, major and high‐density developments would be concentrated on the northern shore of Lantau while the remaining areas which included a vast expanse of country parks (70% of Lantau Island) was proposed for conservation, leisure, ecological, cultural and tourism uses;

(f) Public engagement (PE) for the proposed Strategy was held from January to April 2016. During the period, public forums and consultation with the Legislative Council, focus group meetings and consultative sessions with different sectors of the community were held. Roving exhibitions at 16 locations around Hong Kong were also held; and

(g) Public views received during the PE would be consolidated. It was planned to publish a new Blueprint for Lantau Development (the Blueprint) after consolidating and updating a complete set of information by end 2016. The Blueprint would set out in greater detail proposals to be taken forward and a broad timetable for their implementation. For individual projects to be taken forward, further detailed studies would be undertaken to ascertain the land uses, development parameters and technical feasibilities.

[Mr Dominic K.K. Lam arrived to join the meeting at this point.]

8. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Miss Winnie B.Y. Lau (CTP/SP, PlanD) made the following main points on the overview of Lantau and the various proposals on spatial planning, conservation and strategic transport network:

(a) Lantau was the biggest island in Hong Kong with a land area of about 147km2. About 70% of land on Lantau was designated as country parks. At present, the population was about 110,500 and there were about 100,000 employment opportunities, including those provided by the HKIA. There was a mismatch between the population and the employment opportunities in terms of number and the skill levels;

(b) LanDAC proposed to develop Lantau into a smart and low‐carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study while balancing between development and conservation. Taking advantage of its location, the strategic positioning of

Appendix K ‐ Page 163

Lantau would be an international transport, logistics and trade hub in the Greater PRD Region, a service hub of the Greater PRD Region and Asia, a strategic growth area with a new metropolis and a treasure of natural and cultural assets;

Spatial Planning and Land Use (c) The spatial planning and land use of Lantau could be broadly grouped as follows:

(i) The North Lantau Corridor was proposed mainly for strategic economic and housing development, including the planned 3RS of HKIA, the expansion of the AsiaWorld‐Expo, North Commercial District (NCD) of the airport island, topside development at the HKBCF Island of HZMB, Tung Chung New Town Extension and Siu Ho Wan Development;

[Mr Peter K.T. Yuen and Mr Franklin Yu arrived to join the meeting at this point.]

(ii) The Sunny Bay Reclamation together with Hong Kong Disneyland would have the potential to make north‐east Lantau a node for leisure, entertainment and tourism, i.e. the “North‐eastern Lantau Tourism Gateway”; (iii) The East Lantau Metropolis (ELM) was proposed as a long‐term strategic growth area with Hong Kong’s third core business district (CBD3). The conceptual ELM comprised three components. The waters around Kau Yi Chau could be developed into an artificial island positioned as a smart, low‐carbon new development area with a new core business district. The existing under‐utilised typhoon shelter of Hei Ling Chau and its surrounding waters could be suitably reclaimed for residential development, and the Mui Wo township could be suitably enhanced; (iv) The predominant part of Lantau could be used for conservation, leisure, cultural and green tourism; and (v) The feasibility of consolidating and relocating some correctional facilities at Hei Ling Chau and Lantau could be investigated. A considerable part of Lantau was suitable for cavern development. Cavern development for accommodating various uses such as public utilities including sewage treatment works could be explored. Both measures would help release more surface land, thus relieving the pressure for developing new land;

Conservation (d) Two major directions were proposed for the conservation initiative: enhancement of conservation and better utilization of natural resources. Some measures were highlighted below:

Appendix K ‐ Page 164

(i) About 70% of land on Lantau was designated as country parks and the parts of surrounding waters had been or proposed to be designated as Marine Parks. Lantau was rich in biodiversity in terms of both terrestrial and marine habitats and species. Lantau was also characterized by quite a number of historical defense facilities and religious institutions. There were 8 sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) and 5 declared monuments in Lantau. These natural and heritage assets should be duly preserved; (ii) It was proposed to strengthen preservation of sites of conservation value. One fundamental principle was to avoid major and large‐scale developments on these sites and their surrounding areas; (iii) Conservation of country parks could be enhanced by planting more trees of native species. Declared/graded monuments and areas of historical significance should be duly restored, protected and preserved; (iv) The attractiveness of country parks could be enhanced by introducing more diverse and innovative facilities; (v) Consideration should be given to the promotion of ecological and cultural tourism as well as education. For instance, places of cultural and historical value could be linked up through the “point‐line‐plane” approach to manifest their value; and (vi) three conceptual schemes were introduced to illustrate how to promote ecological, cultural and educational tourism in Lantau : Northwest Lantau Cultural and Nature Trail between Tung Chung and Tai O, Luk Wu and Keung Shan Religious Conservation Zone and South Lantau Eco‐conservation, Recreation and Green Tourism Belt; and Strategic Traffic and Transport Infrastructure (e) The above strategic developments would need to be supported by strategic transportation infrastructure. The ultimate conceptual transport plan was to develop a Northwest New Territories‐Lantau‐Metro Area Transport Corridor with railway as the backbone, supplemented by road and water‐ borne transport services.

9. With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr Lai Cheuk Ho (PAS(W)5, DEVB) made the following main points :

Recreation and Tourism (a) it was the public inspiration that there should be more recreation outlets in Hong Kong for the enjoyment of the natural environment. LanDAC proposed that Lantau could be shaped into a “kaleidoscopic recreation and tourism destination” while balancing the conservation needs and respecting the natural resources;

Appendix K ‐ Page 165

[Miss Winnie W.M. Ng arrived to join the meeting at this point.]

(b) The proposed planning framework comprised five themes and 14 recreation and tourism areas to be linked up by water-based (e.g. water taxis), land-based (e.g. cycle tracks, sight-seeing shuttles) and above-ground experiential transport connections (cable cars, funicular railways). As the transportation infrastructure in north Lantau was well developed with road and railway connections, large- scale recreational and tourism facilities would be concentrated in northern and north-eastern Lantau. Whereas there were nature and cultural/historical resources in central and south Lantau, conservation of these areas should be strengthened while optimum recreation and tourism use were proposed. Subject to further feasibility studies, financial viability assessment and feedback from the public, the following themes were proposed:

(i) Recreation and outdoor activities such as thematic and leisure entertainment area, adventure park and extreme sports; (ii) Splurge and indulge such as shopping, dining and hotel facilities; (iii) Relaxation such as spa and resort; (iv) Culture and heritage such as experiential village life attraction, museum, social and heritage attractions; and (v) Ecology such as creative ecotourism hotspot, eco‐tour centre and eco retreat;

(i) Sunny Bay – the gateway to Lantau where Hong Kong Disneyland and Inspiration Lake were located. There was potential for further development of the area into a theme‐based leisure and recreational area; (ii) Aerotropolis – including HKIA, the HKBCF Island and Tung Chung New Town. Existing facilities included Citygate Outlets, Ngong Ping cable cars and the AsiaWorld‐Expo. The area could be further developed for shopping, catering and hotel, meetings, incentives, conferencing and exhibition (MICE), marinas and an international grade skating rink; (iii) Tai Ho Wan and Siu Ho Wan – the area was rural in character with rich ecology, which was suitable for the development of eco‐tour centre and eco‐retreat; (iv) Sunset Peak – popular location for viewing sun‐rise and sunset as well as star‐gazing. Funicular railways could be provided to improve its accessibility and the area could be considered for use as camping ground;

Appendix K ‐ Page 166

(v) Mui Wo – a traditional node for various outdoor activities with long cultural history. Outdoor adventure park and a history museum of Lantau could be explored; (vi) Tung Chung Valley – a rural area of diverse cultural resources. A riverside cum bio‐diversity park and Tung Chung nature trail were recommended; (vii) Zen Conservation Zone – the area around Luk Wu and Keung Shan was suitable for limited development for Zen meditation and accommodation; (viii) Tai O – the area was rural in character which was suitable for cultural experience and experiential living. A feasibility study was underway to explore the possibility of extending the Ngong Ping cable car system to Tai O to provide an alternative choice for tourists; (ix) Pui O/Chi Ma Wan – popular place for water sports and beach activities. Water sports centre, water parks and paragliding facilities could be explored; (x) Shui Hau – a place with natural coastline which was considered suitable for paragliding, animal farm and exploration campsite, subject to no adverse impact on the coastline and the ecological value of the area; (xi) Cheung Sha and Soko Islands – spa/resort and wedding centre were proposed to take advantage of the scenic beach and the tranquil environment; (xii) Fan Lau – cultural heritage sites such as Fan Lau Fort and stone circle were found at Fan Lau. That area was suitable for development of exploration campsite, outward bound and hiking trails; and (xiii) Yi O – agricultural rehabilitation had taken place in Yi O recently. It was proposed that related agricultural activities, harvest walk and farm‐to‐table eatery could be developed;

Social Development Strategy (d) LanDAC had assessed the current social conditions of Lantau and it was concluded that there were adequate community services and facilities in Lantau. As new developments and additional population would mainly be concentrated in Tung Chung and northern Lantau, there would be more and diversified job opportunities which could attract more residents of Lantau to work in the district. In order to attract people to live and work in Lantau, community facilities would be enhanced to create a low-carbon and smart living environment. More educational facilities, youth and child care services would also be provided to cater for the needs of young families;

(e) There was a need to improve the transport link within Lantau Island and

Appendix K ‐ Page 167

connecting Lantau with the adjacent area. Better infrastructure such as fresh water supply and sewerage connection should be provided to the rural area to cater for the need of the local residents; and

Conclusion (f) The development of Lantau would be carried out in stages. While most of the development proposals including the quick-win projects to boost the Lantau economy were in the short and medium-terms, the proposed ELM was a long- term development proposal beyond 2030 which could boost the population of Lantau to a maximum of around 1 million and employment opportunities of 470,000.

10. As the presentation of the government representatives was completed, the Chairman invited comments/questions from Members.

Conservation

11. Some Members raised the following comments/questions:

(a) While it was noted that large-scale developments would be avoided at or near ecologically sensitive sites, there was no proactive and concrete conservation measure in protecting those sites. The ecologically valuable lowlands such as Tai Ho, Shui Hau and Pui O were not given adequate protection. Measures should be included for the management and protection of those ecologically sensitive sites;

(b) The large crowd of visitors digging clams on the beach at Shui Hau during weekends had already caused adverse impact on the ecology of the area. The proposal in Shui Hau would further increase the number of visitors and cause greater adverse impact on the environment;

(c) Once development was introduced to a new area, similar developments would congregate and spread out quickly. The natural environment would be adversely affected by the spreading of these developments. Given that a marine park at Soko Islands had already been proposed as a mitigation measure for the protection of habitat for the Chinese White Dolphins (CWDs), the proposed spa and resort facilities at that locality would increase the number of boat trips, thus defeating the original purpose of the proposed marine park. The proposed spa and resort was not suitable and was considered ‘out of context’ on Soko Islands which should not be allowed. The established principles for planning, management and design for marine parks in south Lautau should be maintained;

(d) The development proposals as shown on page 15 of the PE Digest involved many attractions all over Lantau and were considered not in line with the planning vision of the Strategy in balancing development and conservation, e.g. the natural coastlines in south Lantau should be preserved;

Appendix K ‐ Page 168

(e) The natural resources at Lantau were not confined to those within the country parks. The beauty of Lantau should be taken in totality and development proposals that would have impact on the conservation of south Lantau should not be proposed;

(f) There might be more public support for the Strategy if a marine park on the south- western side of Lantau between Tai O and Soko Islands to further protect the habitat of CWDs would be included as one of the proposals;

(g) A balance had to be struck between development and conservation. While restricting the number of visitors could conserve the natural environment, cultural tourism would require better accessibility to encourage more visitors;

(h) Future developments should be concentrated on the north and north-east of Lantau while a minimal amount of development should be proposed for south Lantau. More stringent development control of the coastal and marine areas should be considered;

(i) While the Government should consider how to balance development and conservation, the proposed 14 recreation and tourism areas were acceptable as they fell outside the country parks; and

(j) For conservation of south Lantau, it was important to assess the carrying capacity of the environment so as to determine the appropriate scale of development for individual proposals.

12. In response, Mr Chan Chi Ming, DS(W)2, DEVB made the following main points:

(a) The Strategy was only at a preliminary stage, which aimed to present a broad spatial planning and land use concept of Lantau. Detailed proposals for individual items, their scale of development, feasibility, implementation and how a balance could be struck between development and conservation would have to be further studied. The PE was to collect views on the Strategy and more detailed proposals would be formulated at the next stage;

(b) The government would study the carrying capacity as well as the transportation infrastructure to determine the scale of development;

(c) The PE Digest only indicated the possible locations of various recreation and tourism proposals. The proposals would not be intensive and would not affect the natural coastline in south Lantau;

(d) Regarding the proposed spa resort in Soko Islands, which was at a rather remote location, it was not expected to be a large-scale development which would cause adverse impact on the proposed marine parks in south Lantau; and

Appendix K ‐ Page 169

(e) The recreation and tourism proposals in the PE Digest were only preliminary options and not all of them would be implemented. Further feasibility and technical studies would be required. Implementation of individual proposals would need to go through the established procedures, including funding approval, consultation with the public and concerned departments/ bureaux, and obtaining approvals from appropriate authorities.

Tourism

13. Some Members raised the following comments/questions:

(a) The tourism proposals for south-western Lantau aimed to attract more visitors to the area, but the Strategy had not touched on the community development issue;

(b) Tai O had a long history dating back to Ching Dynasty and had a rich local culture. There was a great potential for educating the public on the local history and culture;

(c) Mass tourism might not be able to help the local economy but would significantly affect the daily life of the locals. It was necessary to consider how tourism could help to promote the culture and tradition, while maintaining the local community;

(d) The sense of belonging in rural communities was strong and consideration should be given to providing measures to help the development of the local community and meeting the local needs from a bottom-up approach in developing Lantau; and

(e) For the quick-win projects in the short and medium-terms, temporary use of vacant land adjacent to the Hong Kong Disneyland could be considered.

14. In response, Mr Chan made the following main points:

(a) Tourism attractions would be focused on northern Lantau where there would be better transport infrastructure. The developments in south Lantau were not targeted at mass tourism but to provide an alternative recreational/leisure outlet for the public and a venue for environmental education; and

(b) Conservation of local culture was one of the key elements in the Strategy. Member’s view on the importance of maintaining the local culture was noted and would be further considered at the next stage.

Medical and Elderly Facilities

15. Some Members raised the following comments/questions:

Appendix K ‐ Page 170

(a) Whether there would be any improvement to the medical services in Lantau to cater for the increased in population;

(b) While it was necessary to solicit views from the public on their needs, the government should be proactive in providing medical facilities;

(c) As the population in Hong Kong was aging, whether there was any specific facilities for the elderlies planned in Lantau. If elderly housing could be provided in Lantau, those residential units in the urban area previously occupied by the elderlies could be made available if they moved to the elderly housing in Lantau; and

(d) As Lantau development would span beyond 2030, the elderly population would increase by then. Lantau development would provide an opportunity for the government to plan ahead for elderly housing and related facilities. Failing to do so could have serious impacts in future.

16. In response, Mr Chan made the following points:

(a) The North Lantau Hospital in Tung Chung, which commenced operation a few years ago, had greatly improved the medical service in Tung Chung. ELM was only one of the long-term development options at this stage. In future planning, appropriate medical facilities would be provided to cater for the planned population;

(b) The issue of aging population would be considered in the policy context. As new land would be formed in Lantau, the aging population issue could be addressed through comprehensive planning as appropriate; and

(c) It was expected that more employment opportunities would be generated in Lantau. The Social Development Strategy aimed to attract young families to Lantau to live, work and study, while suitable facilities for the elderly would also be provided.

Provision of transportation infrastructure

17. Some Members raised the following comments/questions:

(a) As the development proposals were spread all over Lantau, what the short, medium and long-term transportation infrastructure would be to cope with such developments;

(b) The road network in south Lantau needed improvement now, no matter whether any new development was proposed;

Appendix K ‐ Page 171

(c) While Lantau should be well connected to the main urban areas and the rest of New Territories by rail or road transport, comprehensive road network development within Lantau should be considered carefully taking into account possible adverse impact on the environment and the rural environment. Road improvement should only be carried out at traffic black spots and a funicular railway to Sunset Peak was not required;

(d) Careful consideration should be given to the conservation value, the need for protection of individual sites and the needs of visitors in providing access to the areas with development proposals; and

(e) Improved accessibility and development would provide economic incentive for local residents to maintain the rural character and culture of the village.

18. In response, Mr Chan made the following points:

(a) The government would study the carrying capacity of the transportation infrastructure to determine the level of development. The Strategy would meet the needs of the community and not just proposing developments in Lantau in isolation; and

(b) In considering the carrying capacity of Lantau, assumptions on the land uses had to be made. Assessment on the carrying capacity would be made as soon as a recommended development strategy was formulated.

Vision, Strategic Positioning and Planning Principles

19. Some Members raised the following comments/questions:

(a) There should be less development projects for Lantau. The Government had been criticised for ‘destroy first, compensate later’ by representers on the North-east New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) and the 3RS project. Mitigations should be provided prior to or in parallel with developments;

(b) As the Strategy was to solicit public’s views on the spatial planning of Lantau, the focus of the PE should not be on the details of individual proposals, but the overall approach to development;

(c) There was a conflict between the need to improve the connectivity of Lantau and the need for conservation, as some parts of Lantau should be best conserved by limiting its accessibility;

(d) As Lantau was largely undeveloped, there might be opportunities for providing alternative lifestyles for the youth which would not be possible in the existing urban areas. Such aspiration had been repeatedly expressed by the representers during the hearing of the representations in respect of the NENT NDAs;

Appendix K ‐ Page 172

(e) While the Government had no pre-determined view on the Strategy, the PE Digest had presented a number of proposals to the public, which would give an impression that the Government had in fact formed a view;

(f) The vision was not clear on the key issues involved and what the Strategy was intended to achieve. The strategic positioning of Lantau Development was not clearly stated in the PE Digest;

(g) While some projects, e.g. the 3RS of HKIA, HZMB and TM-CLKL in northern Lantau were at a more advanced stage, the Strategy, which was conceptual at the current stage, should not be bounded by the status of those projects. As planning circumstances were constantly changing and the Strategy was a long- term vision beyond 2030, flexibility should be allowed;

(h) With an anticipated maximum population of about 0.7 million, ELM would be equivalent to the scale of a major city and should be self-contained in the terms of employment and community facilities. The Strategy should state clearly how it would affect Lantau;

(i) While the Strategy had touched on transportation infrastructure, conservation and economic development, there was no information on how the related issues should be tackled;

(j) The positioning of Lantau Development as the focal point of the Greater PRD Region and its impacts on Lantau were not clear;

(k) Developments on the northern Lantau would be in close proximity to flight paths of HKIA and thus affected by aircraft noise;

(l) The Strategy should consider whether to concentrate developments at fewer locations in order to minimise the overall impacts on the environment and the pros and cons for choosing any particular development areas should be provided;

(m) Lantau was mainly rural in character with natural resources. Hikers would prefer the existing natural environment of Lantau. Any unnatural development proposals would not be necessary;

(n) While the Strategy was conceptual and the Government had no pre-determined view on the future development, it had set a long-term target population of 0.7 million for ELM and thus in some way had taken a position on the balance between development and conservation;

(o) The implementation of ELM by 2030 and beyond would have positive impacts on Hong Kong and should be expedited;

Appendix K ‐ Page 173

(p) While there were different views on development versus conservation, the government should strike a balance between the two by developing northern Lantau and conserving south Lantau;

(q) The Strategy was supported. As the views of the public were diverse, it would not be possible to please everyone. The Government should form its own view in proposing development for Lantau and take a leading role;

(r) The PE Digest should provide more quantitative data to justify the development proposals, e.g. whether there were adequate infrastructure to support the proposed development, how smart and low-carbon development would be created. Jargons and terms not easily understood by the public should be avoided;

(s) The planning principles of developing Lantau into a smart and low-carbon community was supported as many other cities overseas had also adopted the same approach;

(t) It was the public’s aspiration for a smart, low-carbon and ecologically friendly development. As there was no land constraint in Lantau, there would be opportunities for incorporating environmentally friendly and low-carbon elements in the detailed design of Lantau development in terms of air quality, spacing, use of water, ecology and interface between built-up areas and open space;

(u) The vision of developing Lantau into a low-carbon community was supported. However, there was not much information in the PE Digest on that aspect;

(v) Apart from constructing low-carbon buildings, low-carbon community could be achieved through the use of renewable energy, recycling, waste treatment etc. More research should be carried out on those aspects in future;

(w) Human behaviour might also have to be changed in order to achieve a low- carbon community. Since there was a mismatch in the population and employment opportunities in Lantau, it would be necessary to examine the underlying social needs for residents’ choice of living place such as educational needs for their children, the need for taking care of elderly parents or preference for better facilities etc. While the population and the employment opportunities of Lantau would both increase in short, medium and long-terms, in-depth study should be carried out so as to reduce the work-related traffic and hence carbon emission;

(x) Lantau would be developed into a smart, low-carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study, but the PE Digest had failed to demonstrate why Lantau should be developed in the first place; and

Appendix K ‐ Page 174

(y) It was more important to state how Lantau development could meet the needs of the public than to list out different proposals.

[Dr Lawrence K.C. Li left the meeting at this point.]

20. In response, Mr Chan made the following main points:

(a) The Strategy aimed to strike a balance between different public views, development and conservation, as well as conceptual ideas and practicalities. The PE was to throw out ideas on development and conservation for discussion and to make practical proposals;

(b) As Lantau comprised 17% of the land area in Hong Kong, it was difficult to gauge the public’s needs in developing such a vast area. The public opinion collected during the PE were diverse;

(c) The vision of the Strategy was to develop Lantau into a smart and low-carbon community for living, work, business, leisure and study. The PE exercise aimed at seeking public’s views on where to provide different facilities in order to achieve the vision;

(d) The main principle was to develop the northern Lantau while conserving the south. While a target population of 1 million for Lantau was mentioned, it was only an estimated figure if the proposed development option of ELM was to go ahead. Strategic studies would need to be carried out to confirm the feasibility, scale and implementation programme of the proposed ELM;

(e) Environmentally friendly, low-carbon and smart development was to be vigorously pursued under the Strategy;

(f) The concept of ‘conserving before developing’ was noted, but the Strategy was only at a conceptual stage. Relevant mitigation measures could also be incorporated at an early stage before individual proposals were implemented;

(g) Some of the proposals mentioned in the PE Digest, e.g. Tung Chung New Town Extension and HZMB, had gone through several rounds of public consultation previously and were in a more advanced stage. Hence, those proposals were presented in more details; and

(h) Members’ views as well as the public’s views collected would be consolidated into a Blueprint at the next stage for further consultation.

21. Ms Amy Y.M. Cheung (AD/T, PlanD) and Mr Lam Sai Hung (PM/HKI&I, CEDD) supplemented the following main points:

(a) Transport and other infrastructure provision was required to support the proposed

Appendix K ‐ Page 175

developments. With better provision of infrastructure in northern Lantau, it was logical and more economical to concentrate major developments there. With Tung Chung New Town Extension and Siu Ho Wan Development, the population of Lantau could increase from about 110,000 to about 300,000. There was a potential for ELM to accommodate another 400,000 to 700,000, making up a total population of 1 million. However, ELM was at this stage only a concept for longer-term development and its feasibility and scale of development would be subject to further studies, taking into account the overall development needs of Hong Kong as well as other possible options;

(b) Given the potential for a large-scale development at ELM, there would be scope for incorporating various smart and low-carbon initiatives, such as car-free communities;

(c) Aging population was a territory-wide issue to be tackled in a comprehensive manner. Apart from elderly housing, consideration should also be given to other aspects of planning, including design of buildings and public spaces, as well as provision of elderly facilities. The Strategy provided an opportunity to partly address the problem as there would be relatively more land available in Lantau; and

(d) Tung Chung New Town was currently outside the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 25 contour of HKIA. With the completion of the 3RS, the NEF 25 contour would shift northward and be further away from Tung Chung, thus providing scope for the extension of Tung Chung.

[Mr Alex T.H. Lai left the meeting at this point.]

22. A Member commented that the government possessed various data and therefore should form a leading view in the development proposals as it might not be possible to draw a conclusion on the public’s views, which were diverse.

23. In response to the Chairman’s question on the way forward, Mr Chan said that the public’s views collected were being consolidated. It was expected that a Blueprint would be prepared by the end of 2016. The Blueprint would provide more information on the spatial planning, practical proposals in resolving various issues, institutional arrangement involved, and an action timetable for further studies. As the Strategy involved inputs from different departments/bureaux, the preparation of the Blueprint would be under a very tight programme.

24. The Chairman thanked the government representatives for attending the meeting. He expected Members’ views would be taken into account in the formulation of the Blueprint.

**********

Appendix K ‐ Page 176