Appendix III - L Tuen Mun District Summaries of Written Representations

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

1 L03 – 1 This representation The supporting view is noted. supports the demarcation proposals for these two L04 – DCCAs. On Ting

2 L03 – 6 All six representations The representations are not accepted Siu Tsui object to the delineation of because: four blocks of Siu Lun L04 – Court from L03 to L04 on (i) The aim of our proposals is to On Ting the grounds that the relieve the population overflow community integrity and in L12 (existing L15 Sam L13 – residents’ sense of Shing ) (+61.65%) and L13 belonging will not be (existing L16 Tsui Fook ) preserved. (+30.75%) by making adjustment to the adjacent One representation: DCCAs, ie L03 and L04; (a) queries why Siu Lun Court in L03 has to be (ii) suggestion (b) is not viable since split into two parts the resultant population of L03 and at the same time (22,148) will exceed the upper the whole Tsui Ning permissible deviation limit Garden has to be (+28.81%), if both the entire Siu transferred from L13 Lun Court and Tsui Ning to L03; Garden remain in the same DCCA (ie L03); (b) suggests to keep the entire Siu Lun Court (iii) reason (c) is not considered in L03 together with valid; Tsui Ning Garden, whereby the resultant (iv) according to the figures population will still be provided by the AHSG, the within the permissible population of L04 will only be deviation limits; 15,306 as at 30 June 2003, and can absorb the population (c) opines that the overflow from L03; and interests of Siu Lun Court’s residents (v) there is a representation might be affected supporting our proposals for because Siu Lun L03 and L04 (see item 1). Court will be served by two DC members Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

who might have different working styles and political views; and

(d) opines that the existing boundary of L04 should be kept unchanged because the population of L04 will increase to 20,000 upon full occupation of the On Ting Estate in 2003.

3 L05 – 1 This representation The supporting view is noted. Yau Oi supports the demarcation South proposals for these three DCCAs. L06 – Yau Oi North

L20 – Lung Mun

4 L07 – 5 All five representations (i) For proposals (a) and (b), the object to the delineation of representations are accepted, L08, L09 and L10. because the reasons given are L08 – considered valid, with the (a) Three of the following taken into representations consideration: the resultant L09 – propose to delineate population of L08 (21,535) will King Fu House, King exceed the population quota Kwai House, King (+25.25%) while the population L10 – Lok House, King Wah deviation of L09 (19,082) will House, King On improve (+10.98%). House, King Wing House and King Yip (ii) For proposal (c), the House of Shan King representation is not accepted, Estate into L08. because it will unnecessarily affect the existing boundary of (b) Four of the L07, the population of which is representations object within the permissible deviation to including Hing Wai limits. House of Tai Hing Estate in L10 and (iii) For proposal (d), the Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

propose to delineate representation is not accepted King Mei House and because the resultant population King Lai House of of L08 (21,667) will have a Shan King Estate and higher deviation limit Hing Cheung House, (+26.01%) than that under Hing Shing House, proposals (a) and (b). Hing Tai House and Hing Wai House of Tai Hing Estate into L09. The existing boundary of L10 should be maintained because Hing Wai House had all along been in L09 (existing L10 Tai Hing South ); and L10 had fulfilled the population requirement.

(c) One representation further suggests transferring Chelsea Heights from L07 to L09.

(d) One representation proposes to maintain the existing boundary for L10 and transfer King Lai House of Shan King Estate from L09 to L08 in order to even out the population of L08 and L09.

5 L08 – 1 This representation objects The representation is not accepted Shan King to the delineation of L20 because, as considered together with and proposes transferring the accepted proposals in item 4 L20 – Yeung Siu Hang Village above, the resultant population of Lung Mun from L20 to L08 because: L08 (22,544) will far exceed the upper permissible deviation limit (a) the Yeung Siu Hang (+31.12%). Village is geographically Also, we have received one Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

separated from the representation in support of the rest of the buildings in demarcation proposals for L20 (see L20; item 3).

(b) there are no local ties We have also taken into and community links consideration that Yeung Siu Hang with Lung Mun Oasis Village has once been grouped with in L20; and Shan King Estate in the 1994 demarcation exercise (ie L19 – (c) there are close ties in Yeung King), and has been terms of transferred to L20 (existing L23 – transportation and Lung Mun) since 1999. community facilities with Shan King Estate in L08, which is adjacent to the village.

6 L11 – 1 Two polling stations The location of polling stations is should be designated for not a consideration in delineating L11. DCCAs. Nevertheless, the REO will bear this point in mind when identifying polling stations for L11.

7 L14 – 5 All five representations The supporting views are noted. Siu Sun the demarcation proposals for this DCCA.

8 L15 – 2 Both representations The representations are not accepted propose to merge L15, because it will affect the existing L16 and L19 into two boundaries of L15 and L16, which L16 – DCCAs and move the should not be changed since the villages near Lung Kwu populations in L15 and L16 are Tan and San Shek Wan within the permissible deviation L19 – Sun Tsuen to the former limits. The existing community Lok Tsui Shan King South as these integrity will also be unnecessarily villages have once been affected. included in that DCCA before.

9 L17 – 4 All four representations The supporting views are noted. Wu King support the demarcation proposals for this DCCA.

10 L18 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. supports the demarcation proposals for this DCCA.

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

11 L22 – 6 All six representations The supporting views are noted. Leung support the demarcation King proposals for these three DCCAs. L24 – Po Tin

L25 –

12 L22 – 1 This representation The representation is not accepted Leung proposes to disband L24 because the proposed merging of King and move Po Tin Interim L22, L24 and L25 to form two new Housing to the adjacent DCCAs will only result in huge L24 – L22 and L25 because of population deviations from the Po Tin the high mobility of the Po population quota as the population Tin residents. As a forecast of L22 is 16,174; L24: L25 – result, it will not be 22,072; L25: 18,527. Kin Sang necessary to combine Shan King North and Tai Hing South.

13 L27 – 1 The representation objects The representation is accepted, Prime to the delineation of L27 because the reason given is View and proposes the whole To considered valid, though the Yuen Wai Chuen be resultant population of L29 will be L29 – transferred from L27 to 21,510, which will slightly exceed Tuen Mun L29 to maintain the the upper permissible deviation limit Rural community integrity and (+25.10%). local ties among To Yuen Wai Chuen and other villages in the rural area in L29.

Tuen Mun District Oral Representations Received at the Public Forum on 24 January 2003

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

14 L03 – 2 (a) Two representations For (a), see item 2. Siu Tsui are the same as item 2. For (b), the proposer has not L04 – (b) One of the submitted the details of her proposal On Ting representations further in writing. Therefore further suggests to delineate consideration is not feasible. L13 – Siu Lun Court into Hanford L13 if (a) above is not considered viable by the EAC. (The proposer claims that she would submit her detailed proposals in writing later.)

15 L09 – 1 Same as item 4(a) and (b). See item 4(a) and (b). King Hing

L10 – Hing Tsak

16 L14 – 1 Same as item 7. See item 7. Siu Sun

17 L22 – 1 This representation The supporting view is noted. Leung supports the demarcation King proposals for these two DCCAs. L24 – Po Tin