Minutes of the 4Th Meeting of the Committee on Land Development, Housing and Works

North District Council (2020-2023) Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the Committee on Land Development, Housing and Works

Date : 21 September 2020 (Monday) Time : 9:35 a.m. Venue : North District Council Conference Room

Present:

Chairman Mr CHAN, Vincent Chi-fung*

Vice Chairman Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai (9:41 a.m. – 12:04 p.m.)

Members Mr LI Kwok-fung (9:35 a.m. – 10:46 a.m.) Ms LAM Shuk-ching* Mr CHOW Kam-ho* Mr HAU Chi-keung (9:35 a.m. – 11:11 a.m.) Mr HAU Fuk-tat, Simon* Mr YUEN Ho-lun (9:37 a.m. – 12:04 p.m.) Ms CHAN Yuet-ming (9:37 a.m. – 12:04 p.m.) Mr CHAN Wai-tat* Mr KWOK Long-fung (9:35 a.m. – 11:27 a.m.) Mr KO Wai-kei (9:43 a.m. – 12:04 p.m.) Mr CHEUNG Ching-ho, Franco* Mr WAN Wo-tat, Warwick* Ms WONG Hoi-ying* Mr LAU Ki-fung (10:14 a.m. – 12:04 p.m.) Mr CHIANG Man-ching (9:37 a.m. – 12:04 p.m.) Mr LAW Ting-tak*

Action

Secretary Miss LEE Justine Michelle Executive Officer (District Council)1, North District Office

Remarks: * Members who attended the whole meeting ( ) Time of attendance of Members

In Attendance: Ms KWONG Ting-lok, Maggie Assistant District Officer (North)1, Home Affairs Department Miss LAM Tsz-yan, Gloria Assistant District Officer (North)2, Home Affairs Department Miss AU Lok-yi, Chloe Executive Officer I (District Council)2, North District Office Mr CHAN Kim-wai, Wilson Senior Estate Surveyor/N2 (District Lands Office, North), Lands Department Mr FUNG Mo-yeung, Patrick Senior Town Planner/Fanling, Sheung Shui 1, Planning Department Ms HO Ming-yan Engineer/North 4, Drainage Services Department Mr CHEUNG Kwok-wai, William Engineer/3(North), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin Senior Housing Manager/TNS2, Housing Department Mr WONG Sau-tak, Michael Senior Structural Engineer/C5, Buildings Department Ms KONG Tsz-yan Engineer/NTE (Distribution 2), Water Supplies Department Ms IP Yuk-mei, Eunice Senior Liaison Officer (1), North District Office Mr CHAN Kai-shing Senior Inspector of Works (1), North District Office Mr LAU Sai-cheung Senior Inspector of Works (2), North District Office

Item 4

2 Action

Mr TSANG Chi-ming, Rick Senior Estate Surveyor/N3 (District Lands Office, North), Lands Department

Item 5 Ms TSANG Chui-shan, Jocelyn Engineer/North 2, Transport Department Mr FUNG Tin-yin, Tim Senior Town Planner/North, Planning Department

Absent:

Mr LEE Koon-hung, MH

Ms LAM Tsz-king

Mr CHAN Yuk-ming

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives of government departments to the 4th meeting of the Committee on Land Development, Housing and Works (“the Committee”) of the North District Council (“NDC”). 2. The Chairman said that the Secretariat received a notification from the Highways Department (“HyD”), which indicated that almost all the discussion items of the Committee meetings were not related to matters under the purview of the HyD and under normal circumstances, it would be more appropriate to discuss issues related to the HyD at meetings of the Committee on Traffic and Transport. Therefore, the HyD would no longer send representatives to the Committee as permanent departmental representatives and would only send representatives to meetings of the Committee where necessary. 3. The Committee noted the above arrangement. 4. The Chairman continued that two Members had applied for leave from this meeting. Mr LEE Koon-hung was unable to attend this meeting as he had to attend a meeting of the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk. Since his ground for absence conformed to the provisions of the NDC

3 Action

Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”), the Committee approved his application for absence. Besides, Mr CHAN Yuk-ming was unable to attend this meeting as he had to attend a meeting of the Selection Panel (Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme) under the Transport and Housing Bureau. Since his ground for absence did not conform to the provisions of the Standing Orders, the Chairman recommended that the Committee should not approve his application for absence. 5. Mr CHAN Wai-tat questioned why approval was not given to Mr CHAN Yuk-ming’s application for absence as he attended the meeting concerned on behalf of the District Council (“DC”). 6. The Secretary said that the Secretariat would follow up with Mr CHAN Yuk-ming after the meeting to ascertain whether his ground for Secretariat absence conformed to the conditions specified in the Standing Orders. (Post-meeting note: The Secretariat followed up with Mr CHAN Yuk-ming after the meeting and was informed that he attended the meeting concerned on behalf of the NDC.)

Item 1 - Confirmation of Minutes of the 3rd Meeting held on 18 May 2020

7. The Committee confirmed the minutes of the 3rd meeting. (Mr YUEN Ho-lun, Ms CHAN Yuet-ming and Mr CHIANG Man-ching joined the meeting at this juncture.)

Item 2 - Proposal: Explore the Feasibility of Constructing an Elderly Centre/Car Park Complex at the Carpark Site in Ching Ho Estate (Paper No. 22/2020)

8. Mr YUEN Ho-lun presented Paper No. 22/2020. He suggested that relevant departments should construct a complex, including two storeys for a car park and a storey designated for an elderly centre, in the carpark site in Ching Ho Estate to make optimal use of land resources. 9. The Chairman said that the Housing Department (“HD”) had already submitted a written response to the Proposal. He asked whether the departmental representative had any additions.

4 Action

10. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that the permitted plot ratio of Ching Ho Estate was calculated based on the gross floor area (“GFA”) of the whole housing estate. Therefore, when considering the development project at Fanling Area 36 Phase 4, the department had already made optimal use of the permissible plot ratio of Ching Ho Estate while complying with the site restrictions. At this stage, there was not any additional GFA to construct the complex as proposed by Mr YUEN Ho-lun. (Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai joined the meeting at this juncture.) 11. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that he was not clear about the initial design concept of Ching Ho Estate. Although the relevant departments claimed that Ching Ho Estate was designed with an environmentally friendly concept, he could not understand why the ancillary facilities in Tin Ping Estate were better than that in Ching Ho Estate. In Tin Ping Estate, there was space for the provision of kindergartens or community centres on the ground floor of each building. However, in respect of Ching Ho Estate, only the ground floors of two buildings provided space for such purposes. The community centre in Ching Ho Estate was unable to meet the needs of 4 000 elderly in the estate. Moreover, the design of the shopping centre was poor, coupled with a few food premises and inadequate ancillary facilities. He could not understand why ancillary facilities could not be constructed in the development at Phase 4. When he proposed to provide ancillary facilities at other sites, the relevant departments replied that it was impossible to do so. Currently, the elderly relied on the two elderly centres in Tin Ping Estate and Choi Yuen Estate. However, staff of these two elderly centres could not visit the elderly in Ching Ho Estate frequently whereas the elderly in Ching Ho Estate might not be able to visit these two elderly centres often. Under such circumstances, he wanted to know how these 4 000 elderly could be served where necessary. (Mr KO Wai-kei joined the meeting at this juncture.) 12. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she understood the concerns of Mr YUEN Ho-lun. She said that the HD had already conducted relevant technical assessments when considering the development project at Fanling Area 36 Phase 4. The assessments showed that it was impossible to construct the proposed complex. Since there were similar facilities in Tin Ping Estate, Tai Ping Estate, Choi Yuen Estate and Cheung Lung Wai Estate, she believed that the elderly in Ching Ho Estate could make use of nearby ancillary facilities. 13. Mr Franco CHEUNG hoped to know when the technical assessments for the development project were completed and why amendments could not be made to the assessment results.

5 Action

14. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded that each development project would take five years or above to complete. When planning for the facilities in Ching Ho Estate, the department had already considered the overall situation of the surrounding environment. 15. Mr Franco CHEUNG understood that the relevant departments determined that it was impossible to construct the complex as proposed by Mr YUEN Ho-lun based on the assessment results. Nevertheless, he considered the number of elderly centres inadequate. If it was adequate, the Social Welfare Department would not have informed the DC that funding was required to purchase private facilities for the establishment of elderly centres. He said that since the department could not change its decision upon completion of the technical assessments, he would not support the public housing development project at Fanling Area 48 (“development project at Area 48”). Back then, the departmental representatives highlighted that the department could only provide assessment and design reports if funding was approved; however, he was now aware that amendments could not be made to the contents of the assessment and design reports. Therefore, he would not support the development project at Area 48 before alterations had been made to Ching Ho Estate. 16. Mr YUEN Ho-lun pointed out that elderly service was neither provided in the existing community service centre in Ching Ho Estate nor the community service centre in Cheung Lung Wai Estate. He attached importance to the construction of elderly centres because the provision of such would facilitate the opening of case files for the elderly for follow-up action. The elderly might not be aware of their need for relevant services until social workers visited them or carried out community work and noticed their needs. He rarely saw social workers of elderly centres in Tin Ping Estate and Choi Yuen Estate chatting with the elderly of Ching Ho Estate on the street. The distance between these elderly centres and Ching Ho Estate had deterred the elderly from seeking help, and therefore, they were unable to get help. He indicated that previously, there should be established criteria and guidelines governing the ratio of district population to relevant facilities. He said that there were 4 000 elderly people in Ching Ho Estate and an elderly centre should be provided in the estate. He was not clear about the construction process, but he thought that if the department made a deeper foundation when developing Phase 4, it could provide an additional storey. He could not understand why it was impossible to construct the complex as proposed in the Proposal. He asked why there was still space for the construction of a large shelter in Lok Wah Estate, which was developed on the hill, as public open spaces back

6 Action

then whereas it was impossible to construct an elderly centre in Ching Ho Estate now. 17. Ms LAM Shuk-ching strongly supported the provision of a car park in Ching Ho Estate because of the presence of illegal parking in the vicinity. She held that the departments had imposed restrictions on the plot ratio and made it impossible to construct the proposed complex at the said site. This reflected that the system failed to keep pace with changes in circumstances. She opined that the most potential site for the construction of a car park was the proposed site in the Proposal. Therefore, she hoped to ask the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) whether changes could be made to the existing planning. The situation of Ching Ho Estate reminded her of Fai Ming Estate. It was because Fai Ming Estate was also in a severe shortage of facilities, but two additional buildings were approved to be constructed there and an additional building was also approved to be constructed adjacent to the nearby tennis court. However, additional elderly facilities could not be provided in Ching Ho Estate. She questioned the relevant criteria because two additional buildings could be constructed in Fai Ming Estate although it provided neither a desirable environment nor adequate facilities. 18. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin thanked Mr YUEN Ho-lun for showing concern for the elderly and paying attention to their needs. If the department knew that the elderly had to visit an elderly centre, it would also take the initiative to understand the situation and provide assistance. Therefore, she believed that if there were relevant facilities in the vicinity of Ching Ho Estate, they could also provide corresponding services to residents. She hoped that Members could understand that various factors had to be taken into consideration in designing public housing. A major consideration was to meet the basic housing needs of the public so that they would have a place to live. If a car park was to be constructed, there might be less space for the provision of public rental housing (“PRH”) in Ching Ho Estate. The major function as well as objective of the Hong Kong Housing Authority was to provide accommodation for PRH applicants. She understood that residents might have other needs, but the department had planned in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”). She hoped that Members could understand. 19. Ms LAM Shuk-ching responded that the proposed site in the Proposal was originally an open-air car park and would not be used for housing development. She did not understand why there was the contradiction as mentioned by Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin. 20. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that adding height to a building might affect nearby facilities. Structurally, the provision of additional

7 Action

storeys or underground space for car park purpose might not be allowed. Under the premise of making optimal use of land resources, she believed that project designers would consider relevant circumstances as far as practicable. 21. Mr YUEN Ho-lun understood that with high-rise buildings in the surrounding environment, addition works would be subjected to more demanding technical requirements. However, he could not understand why the ancillary facilities in Ching Ho Estate were so poor from the very beginning. He was aware that many public housing estates had basic ancillary facilities, such as shopping centres and multi-storey car parks. In respect of Ching Ho Estate, although it received an award for being an environmentally friendly housing estate, its open-air car park encountered the problem of objects being thrown from a height. When affected car owners wished to file insurance claims, it was found that there was not any CCTV camera at the site. He said that car owners paid for the parking but were not protected, which reflected the inadequacy of ancillary facilities. 22. Mr CHOW Kam-ho agreed that the construction of buildings would affect the surrounding environment, but he asked the Government why the same logic was not applied when it built “infill blocks”. For example, the Government was prepared to construct a building adjacent to the tennis court, but it did not express concern that the construction would affect the surrounding environment. However, once Members requested to construct a building of approximately three storeys tall, the Government expressed relevant concern. He asked the department not to adopt double standards. 23. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that having listened to Members’ views, she would convey the views to the Development and Construction HD Division. Relevant departments would adopt the views as far as possible. 24. The Chairman agreed that illegal parking in the district was serious and it was necessary to construct a car park. Besides, he hoped that better planning could be conducted for the development project at Area 48.

Item 3 - Proposal: Request for Provision of Covered Walkways at Fai Ming Estate (Paper No. 28/2020)

25. Ms LAM Shuk-ching presented Paper No. 28/2020. In respect of the HD’s written response, she pointed out that there was also a fire access in Cheong Shing Court, but walkway covers could still be provided there. The supporting frames of relevant facilities were erected on the sides

8 Action

instead of in the middle of the walkways. Therefore, she hoped to know why it was not feasible to provide walkway covers in Fai Ming Estate and whether the fire access covered the whole section or a section of the road. 26. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded that the road section, on which covers were proposed to be provided, was an emergency vehicular access. There was an underground box culvert and the area surrounding the drainage was designated as the drainage reserve area. Since piling works and construction of permanent buildings, such as the provision of walkway covers, were prohibited within the scope of the drainage reserve area and the box culvert, the proposal concerned was not feasible. The HD reported on this in the public consultation on the development of Fai Ming Estate in 2011 as well as at NDC meetings in 2011 and 2012. 27. Mr CHAN Wai-tat would like to know what the “drainage reserve area” was. He did not understand why covers could not be constructed in the drainage reserve area and did not know how to explain this to residents. He doubted the attendance and representativeness of the public consultation in 2011. He pointed out that there were problems with the design of the entire housing estate. For example, residents of Tai Fai House had to climb up stairs to reach the children and elderly recreational facilities on the podium of Sing Fai House. He said that residents were very dissatisfied, and he asked again why covers could not be constructed in the drainage reserve area. 28. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin explained that the “drainage reserve area” meant that there was a box culvert underground, and the drainage reserve area was unable to support any structure constructed above. 29. Mr CHAN Wai-tat further asked about the area involved. He also asked whether alternative construction methods could be applied outside the drainage reserve area to support the covers or whether drainage pipes could be relocated. 30. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she was not a representative from technical departments, but based on her understanding, the drainage could not be relocated. Also, structures could not be constructed on top of the drainage and weight could not be added to it as well. 31. Mr Franco CHEUNG pointed out that the drainage reserve area was not unlimited and there should be space outside the drainage reserve area for the construction of covers. He understood that it would take a longer time to complete the project, but this was due to a mistake in planning back then. When he first learnt that Fai Ming Estate would be developed at the site, he also considered it impossible. However, the Government succeeded to do so. He thought that the success was

9 Action

attributed to the application of innovation technology, whereas the most important elements in housing development were financial resources and determination. He believed that the Government should have adequate financial resources, and he supported the Government to take forward building developments for the benefit of the public. 32. Ms LAM Shuk-ching agreed to the views of Mr Franco CHEUNG. She questioned why covers could not be constructed in the said site, which was the drainage reserve area, but two buildings could be constructed in the vicinity. She hoped to know how much space would be needed for the construction of covers. Besides, she said that she did not understand how the drainage worked. Flooding was seen in the district after the first rainstorm. She suggested that drainage channels should be demolished and planned afresh. 33. The Chairman suggested that the HD’s representative should conduct a site visit with two Members. As the written response indicated that the Proposal regarding the provision of walkway covers was not feasible, he hoped that the departmental representative could further discuss the proposal with the Members to explore whether there were any other alternatives. 34. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin expressed her understanding. She would convey relevant views to staff of the Development and Construction HD Division and explore the feasibility of conducting a site visit to the geographical environment for further analysis.

Item 4 - Proposal: Request the Relevant Government Departments to Give an Account for the Matters Concerning the Fanling Golf Course (Paper No. 29/2020)

35. Mr YUEN Ho-lun presented Paper No. 29/2020. He added that the relevant departments should explain matters concerning the Fanling Golf Course (“FGC”) to the Committee and residents in the district. Besides, the residents should also be consulted on how the said site should be used. (Mr LAU Ki-fung joined the meeting at this juncture.) 36. The Chairman welcomed Mr Rick TSANG, Senior Estate Surveyor/N3 (District Lands Office, North) of the Lands Department (“LandsD”) to participate in the discussion of this agenda item. He said that the Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”), the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) and the LandsD had already submitted their written responses to the

10 Action

Proposal. 37. Mr HAU Chi-keung said that he had to explain in advance that he had no conflict of interest because he was not a member of the relevant golf club. Nevertheless, he had served North District for more than 20 years and had some knowledge about the club. Regarding the Proposal, he had asked the Hong Kong Golf Club (“HKGC”) and noted that the facilities at the FGC would be open to the public from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during weekdays whereas the driving range would be open to the public from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The HKGC would charge the public relevant fees. In 2019, the facilities of the HKGC had been used by more than 130 000 people, among which 46% were non-members and the public. The facilities of the HKGC were also open to many community organisations and schools. In addition, he also asked whether the HKGC supported sports events. The HKGC responded that the Hong Kong Golf national squads could use its facilities for training purposes free of charge all year round. It also provided students of 10 schools in North District with one golf training session per week, and students could use the course for relevant practice after school. Besides, the golf course had all along been the competition venue for inter-school cross-country championship since 1979. In supporting the disadvantaged, the HKGC organised free Charity Cup every year and supported the charities in the district. In terms of conservation, more than 40% of the course was covered by trees, with over 400 old trees of conservation value. The HKGC also organised free tree climbing activities. He said that the HKGC welcomed the DC or various organisations to visit the golf course or organise events there. 38. Mr HAU Chi-keung continued to say that ancestral graves had been built by the five clans in the New Territories in the vicinity of the course since the Ming Dynasty. As there was flooding in the vicinity of the HKGC from time to time, he had requested the Government to address the drainage problem. In respect of traffic, there were often traffic congestion problems at Tai Tau Leng roundabout and Kai Leng roundabout. The construction of PRH or public facilities within the scope of the course should be thoroughly considered. Earlier, the Government had also proposed that Fan Kam Road should be widened. He hoped that the works could be completed as soon as possible to divert traffic flow. 39. Mr Warwick WAN said that the use of the FGC site had been controversial, and this involved the issue of ancillary transport facilities. He considered that Fan Kam Road should be widened and the traffic at Tai Tau Leng roundabout should be improved before the site of the relevant course could be developed. Meanwhile, he reckoned that old trees should be conserved for screening purpose and space should be fully utilised for the

11 Action

provision of PRH. He raised objection to “infill” housing developments and considered that planning should be done prior to construction. When developing the golf course, more space could be released from the course to develop transport and related ancillary facilities to achieve a dual-track approach. 40. Mr Simon HAU said that although the North District Equestrian Events Memorial Garden in the vicinity of Castle Peak Road had been completed and more PRH units would be constructed in the district in future, relevant ancillary transport facilities had not been completed yet after years of discussion. The works for the road section between Fan Kam Road and Pat Heung had been discussed for a long time, but the works had not yet commenced. Also, the works for the road section between the FGC and the vicinity of Ping Kong had not commenced yet. He pointed out that traffic congestion was acute in North District, and therefore, the traffic problem should be dealt with first. 41. Mr CHEUNG Chun-wai said that this lease renewal provided an opportunity to review the lease and make the best use of land. However, the Government only resumed 32 hectares of land this time whereas it was highly likely that it would not resume the remaining 140 hectares of land, causing the public to believe that the Government was not sincere. The expiry of the lease did not happen suddenly. He questioned whether the Government had planned as early as possible. The implementation of Lantau Tomorrow by the Government was due to a shortage of land; however, it did not take the opportunity to review its site planning. It did not appear that golf was a sport that the Government would place emphasis on promotion. Although the golf course was open to the public, he believed that the public would consider it more valuable to use the site for housing construction because the land area of the golf course was large with huge development potential. He stressed that he did not request the HKGC to return the site in one go and he also recognised the HKGC’s contribution to the community. Therefore, he requested the Government to strike a balance in this respect. He questioned, and was dissatisfied, that the rent for the golf course was $1,000. He requested departments to think about the mode of development and to work better for local infrastructure, with a view to striking a balance between expectations of golf course users and the public on housing construction. 42. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that having referred to the departmental written responses, he hoped to learn more about the following issues. First, he asked about the actual rent for the golf course. Second, he asked why the entire DC was not consulted throughout the consultation period as the public were concerned about this site. Third, he understood that there were

12 Action

relatively few golf-related sites in Hong Kong. As the Government was promoting the one-hour living circle of the Greater Bay Area, he did not understand why it did not take the opportunity to encourage the public to play golf in the Greater Bay Area. 43. Mr Rick TSANG responded that the LandsD’s role was to draw up relevant land documents with the HKGC in accordance with the instructions and requirements of relevant policies. In respect of traffic and drainage issues, he believed that relevant departments and policy bureaux could respond. In respect of land premium, he pointed out that the current land documents included the land lease and the short-term tenancy (“STT”). The land lease stipulated that the nominal premium was $1,000 and it would expire in August 2027, whereas the STT stipulated that the annual rent was $1. In respect of consultation on land planning, he believed that relevant policy bureaux could respond. 44. The Chairman said that as the relevant policy bureaux did not send representatives to the meeting, policy-related issues would be followed up in due course. 45. Mr LI Kwok-fung strongly agreed with the views of Mr HAU Chi-keung and Mr Simon HAU. 46. Mr Franco CHEUNG did not understand why the hold-over arrangement was put forward due to the epidemic. He reckoned that the Government should open the course to the public and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) should take over the entire facility instead of renewing the lease with a private club. He considered it unreasonable to lease the site at a nominal rent of $1,000. Although the HKGC did open the course to various organisations and schools for training and competition purposes in certain periods of time, he considered that a government site should not be used for private purpose and the golf course should be open to all members of the public. Golf was only a Tier B sport in Hong Kong, and it could enjoy such a huge area. This meant that the Government could also support other sports to the same extent with the same amount of land resources. He cited cycling as an example. A lot of cycling athletes had won medals for Hong Kong. However, many relevant proposals on the provision of highway class cycle tracks, which were put forward by North District in the past, were repeatedly put off by the Government. He questioned why the Government’s support to cycling, which was a Tier A elite sport, was not comparable to its support to a Tier B sport activity. He also stressed the importance of ancillary transport facilities. He reckoned that the traffic network in Sheung Shui should be redeveloped prior to housing construction and other developments.

13 Action

47. Mr HAU Chi-keung added that land resources in Hong Kong were very precious. It would be great if land resources could be optimised. However, Hong Kong only had this international golf course, where many international competitions were held every year. If Hong Kong did not have this golf course, international competitions might be held in the Mainland instead. He considered that “produced by Hong Kong” and “made in Hong Kong” should be emphasised. It would not be desirable to have Hong Kong affairs being handled by the Mainland. Instead, it should strive to keep Hong Kong affairs to be handled in Hong Kong. In respect of rent, he pointed out that although the HKGC enjoyed a nominal rent, it still had to pay millions of dollars of rates. The course was open to the public, but golf was a sport which required more land resources and consumed more time. If the course were open to all members of the public in Hong Kong, the waiting time would be much longer. Therefore, it would be difficult to open the course to all members of the public in Hong Kong. In this connection, he considered it a normal practice for HKGC to open the course to organisations and schools. 48. Mr CHOW Kam-ho said that the Task Force on Land Supply (“TFLS”) indicated in a report in 2018 that the site of 32 hectares to be developed included the eight holes of the Old Course and the car park of the HKGC, while the remaining 140 hectares of land were the two 18-hole courses and the 10 holes of the Old Course. He understood that as an international city, Hong Kong had to promote the sport of golf. It was also valuable to have a golf course in Hong Kong. However, he also wanted to know whether consideration would be given to develop the 10 holes of the Old Course and end the arrangement of charging a nominal rent of $1,000 earlier by charging a market rate instead. This would enable the public to know that the Government did not lease the public land for the rich and the powerful to play golf at a low cost. Currently, the course was only open to some organisations and individuals with handicap certificates. Therefore, he hoped to know whether the aforesaid arrangement would be cancelled so that the course would be open to the public. Although the sport of golf was worth promoting, he did not find much information about it on the internet. He asked whether relevant publicity on golf would be enhanced so that more people could get to know golf. 49. Mr CHIANG Man-ching said that if the rent for the golf course could not be reported to the public, this would be perceived by the public as transfer of interests. He pointed out that the Government originally proposed to resume the site but at the end, it did not put this into implementation. This seemed like a black box operation. He hoped that the public could understand that the development of the golf course site was

14 Action

not only restricted to two options: preserving the course and providing PRH units. It was merely the black box operation of the existing Government that it circumvented the DC and gave rise to this situation. In fact, there were many possibilities for the development of the site, and they were not limited to preserving the golf course or the provision of PRH units. Besides, the preservation of the golf course might also be dealt with through inviting tenders, taking over by the LCSD, etc. He indicated that the main point was that he could not accept the Government’s attempt to use the “stalling” tactic to allow the HKGC to renew the lease at a low cost. He reckoned that discussions on housing construction and enhancing ancillary transport facilities should be conducted later and should be more pragmatic. He suggested that the Chairman should write to relevant departments to express the Committee’s disappointment, criticism, and objection over the status quo of the golf course at the meeting today, so as to give an account to the public. As the Chairman of the Committee on District Facilities, Culture and Recreation, he would be glad to communicate with the LCSD to explore whether this could be handled by means of the tender. He reckoned that from the stance of the public, it should be easy to manage the golf course and the LCSD should be capable of doing so. He hoped that the Chairman could consider the aforesaid views. (Mr LI Kwok-fung left the meeting at this juncture.) 50. Ms CHAN Yuet-ming agreed to and supported the views of other Members, in particular the issues raised by Mr Franco CHEUNG and Mr CHIANG Man-ching. She reckoned that the Government should complete planning prior to the provision of public and livelihood facilities. She had strong feelings about the livelihood facilities at Ta Kwu Ling because the livelihood facilities there were very inadequate and the development lagged far behind, whereas obnoxious facilities kept being developed there. Initially, she hoped that the relevant course could resolve the PRH problem. However, if the PRH was developed in an inappropriate site, this would only create more problems. She stressed the importance of planning and hoped that the relevant development could resolve problems instead of creating problems. 51. Mr YUEN Ho-lun was surprised that the rent was at such a low cost. He considered it an underhand transaction. In an earlier discussion, “single site, multiple uses” was mentioned by departments. He asked how the golf course was used for multiple purposes. He reckoned that the Government should not adopt double standards by allowing the construction of “infill blocks” but disallowing the construction of “infill car parks” proposed by him. He also reckoned that the golf course site was used for a single purpose. He wanted to know what standards were adopted in order to

15 Action

convince the public. He said that the DC played a consultative role, but departments did not fully consult the DC and only sought the views of a few DC Members earlier this year. He reckoned that it did not represent the entire district at all. This reflected that departments dared not face the public opinions and he doubted whether it was a fake consultation. He hoped to know whether there would be further consultation and whether relevant departments could provide more information about the golf course, especially its attendance figures. 52. Mr Rick TSANG said that the written response also indicated that the site to be resumed for housing development was the 32 hectares of land east of Fan Kam Road. In respect of the rent issue as mentioned by the Members, he added that the lease of the site had to be split into two documents when it was being handled. The amount of $1,000 was the nominal land premium as indicated in the land lease, whereas $1 was the annual nominal rent for the STT. In respect of the upward adjustment of the rent and management of the golf course as mentioned by the Members, he believed that they were related to policy areas and might require relevant policy bureaux to respond. 53. Mr Simon HAU questioned whether the LandsD had considered widening Fan Kam Road while it resumed the site for the provision of the PRH. The issue had been put forward for more than 10 years, but the HKGC had all along obstructed the widening of Fan Kam Road. The road section between Ping Kong and Tsiu Keng was very narrow, with many old trees in the vicinity. He questioned whether the LandsD had considered resuming the relevant roads. 54. Mr Rick TSANG responded that matters relating to the widening of roads were not under the purview of the LandsD and might be referred to the HyD or the Transport Department (“TD”) to respond. He indicated that the DEVB’s written response mentioned that it had commenced a technical study on the 32 hectares of land. It was believed that the DEVB could conduct further studies on roads. As regards the current planning of roads, it might be referred to TD to respond. 55. Mr KO Wai-kei raised questions about planning of roads. He reckoned that if the site of 32 hectares was used for housing development only, consideration should also be given to the land use of the entire golf course in the planning, including planning of roads as well as arrangements of public transport and facilities. However, departments still did not have any concept in the overall planning so far and had failed to consider the issue of ancillary facilities in the vicinity. If only the provision of the PRH was considered at this stage and the issue of ancillary facilities in the vicinity was

16 Action

left to be handled in future, it would be too late. 56. Mr LAU Ki-fung said that there were problems with the consultation process. During the last DC term, he also mentioned that a full consultation should be conducted for the site of the golf course. He reckoned that site resumption could be done before a decision on the use of the site was made. However, the current practice was to continue renewing the lease and to take three years to think about how to provide the PRH. Long-term planning issues were not addressed. For example, the traffic problems mentioned earlier arose because some land lots were located within the boundary lines of the golf course, causing problems to the existing traffic network, and making it impossible to make changes. He said that under the current practice, the renewed lease would expire in 2027 and the existing plan only dealt with the 32 hectares of land. He asked when planning for the remaining 140 hectares of land could be conducted. He said that once the Government conducted the planning of relevant sites separately, it might find that the planning could not achieve the anticipated results in future. He questioned whether various departments had come together to discuss the topic. He expressed regret in this respect. 57. Mr LAW Ting-tak questioned why the Government had made a special three-year hold-over arrangement for the site of 32 hectares as mentioned in the report of TFLS and stipulated that the site could only be used for a golf course, instead of any other uses. He reckoned that the issue was that the use of the site was restricted. The site was provided to the HKGC for designated use, and was not optimised for the construction of roads, soccer pitches, etc. He asked whether the LandsD had considered inviting tenders back then or whether the provision of a special hold-over arrangement with the HKGC had been designated throughout the entire process. He hoped to know where this idea came from. Given that a decision was made in 2018 upon completion of a full consultation by relevant departments, he asked why there was a special hold-over arrangement right now and what was being discussed. 58. Mr Rick TSANG responded that the provision of the special three-year hold-over arrangement was mainly due to the expiry of the land lease on 31 August 2020. Therefore, a special three-year hold-over arrangement was made and the LandsD would lease the land to the HKGC for transitional use under a STT. Upon its expiry in August 2023, the site of 32 hectares would be resumed for housing construction. 59. Mr LAW Ting-tak expressed his understanding but he wondered why the HKGC could continue with its operation, instead of having the site for other purposes. Although the relevant policy was not under the purview

17 Action

of the LandsD, he asked why the LandsD approved the relevant application. 60. Mr Rick TSANG responded that the provision of the special hold-over arrangement for the site of 32 hectares was made by the LandsD in accordance with the policy. Under this hold-over arrangement, the site was leased to the HKGC for three years under a STT. As to why the HKGC could continue using the relevant site, it might be related to a policy decision. 61. Mr LAW Ting-tak asked whether the policy was formulated by the LandsD or other departments. 62. Mr Rick TSANG responded that the LandsD’s role in this respect was to handle the land documents, and the LandsD handled the hold-over arrangement for this site of 32 hectares by way of a STT. 63. Mr LAW Ting-tak asked whether the LandsD was responsible for the technical details. 64. Mr Rick TSANG said that the LandsD was responsible for arranging the technical details of the STT. 65. Mr LAW Ting-tak asked which department made the policy decision and which department instructed the LandsD to arrange the technical details. If it were the DEVB, he wondered why relevant representatives did not attend the meeting because all the issues for discussion today were policy issues. 66. Mr Rick TSANG reiterated that his role was to represent the LandsD to respond to the relevant Proposal. 67. Mr LAW Ting-tak asked whether the DEVB instructed the LandsD to arrange the technical details. 68. Mr Rick TSANG said that the policy instruction was issued by the HAB. 69. Mr LAW Ting-tak suggested that the Chairman should submit the item to the DC Full Council meeting for further discussion and invite relevant policy bureaux to respond to policy directions. He believed that this would be a more pragmatic approach. 70. The Chairman reckoned that Mr LAW Ting-tak’s suggestion was worth considering and he asked other Members to give their views. He understood that Mr Rick TSANG was not responsible for policy matters and suggested that enquiry letter about the relevant policy should be addressed to the HAB and the DEVB. He noted that Members began to focus on raising questions about planning. Therefore, he invited the permanent representative of the Planning Department (“PlanD”) to respond.

18 Action

71. Mr Patrick FUNG responded that as mentioned in the written response, the study on the planning of the site of 32 hectares of the FGC east of Fan Kam Road was one of the findings in the consultation by the TFLS in 2018. The Government commenced the study in September 2019. The study was underway, and no specific findings were available for the time being. Findings of the study would be available by early 2021. 72. Mr Franco CHEUNG suggested that the following issues should be included in the letters from the Chairman. The first issue was whether the three-year hold-over arrangement would be continuously renewed. The second issue was about the decision-making process in respect of the nominal rent. Besides, he pointed out that the LandsD was resuming sites in Wang Chau for housing construction as well as agricultural sites in the North East New Territories. He asked why there was no special hold-over arrangement for the resumption of these sites due to the epidemic. 73. Ms WONG Hoi-ying said that it seemed that the PlanD was absent from the joint responses by government departments. However, it should be the PlanD and the DEVB, who took the lead to address the relevant arrangement for the site of the golf course. She hoped to know the relevant arrangement for the site in these three years and the anticipated outcomes after three years. Housing construction required a detailed planning, especially in terms of traffic and ancillary facilities. It could not simply explain that housing would be constructed three years later. Otherwise, it would be impossible to continue with the discussion. She agreed that the item should be submitted to the DC Full Council meeting. She also hoped that the PlanD could provide relevant documents to enable Members to understand how planning would be conducted. It was because more details would be required to discuss the North East developments. 74. The Chairman said that Ping Kong Village also experienced flooding because of the golf course. He pointed out that all Members were concerned about consultation. As mentioned by Mr YUEN Ho-lun, the consultation could be done in a better manner with greater transparency. The consultation conducted earlier this year did not cover the entire district. He believed that it was necessary to clarify the issue with the DEVB. If Members had no objection, he hoped to write to the DEVB to learn more about the consultation process. In addition, some Members also hoped to write to the HAB and the PlanD to ask about relevant decision-making and planning arrangements. In the absence of documents, the discussion could not be continued. Also, some Members hoped that the Proposal could be submitted to the DC Full Council meeting for discussion. Since the next DC Full Council meeting would be held on 13 October, he hoped that the Secretariat Secretariat would prepare letter and send it to relevant departments to obtain

19 Action

relevant information for discussion at the DC Full Council meeting. He asked whether Mr CHIANG Man-ching had any suggestion on sending enquiry letter to departments. 75. Mr CHIANG Man-ching said that he shared the Chairman’s views, and therefore, he would follow the Chairman’s suggestions. (Post-meeting note: The Chairman of the Committee wrote to the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for Home Affairs on 30 September 2020.) 76. Ms Maggie KWONG added that upon request by the LandsD, the North District Office (“NDO”) had conducted a small-scale local consultation on direct grant and private lease. The focus of the Members was whether there had been a comprehensive local consultation, such as discussions at DC meetings, on relevant decision-making and planning arrangements. 77. The Chairman said that he understood that Members hoped to clarify which topics required a full consultation and which topics required only a consultation with DC Members of local constituencies or adjacent constituencies. He asked whether he understood Mr YUEN Ho-lun’s questions correctly. 78. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that this was one of his questions. 79. The Chairman concluded that the relevant consultation was not merely the issue of North District but a territory-wide issue because the neighbouring areas would also be affected. All Members served North District, and they hoped to know relevant details from the authorities. (Mr HAU Chi-keung left the meeting at this juncture.)

Item 5 - Proposal: Request for Better Planning of Roads for Tong Hang Village (Paper No. 30/2020)

80. Mr LAW Ting-tak presented Paper No. 30/2020. He suggested that a two-lane carriageway across Ma Wat River should be constructed at a location outside “On Yip Road” in On Lok Village, with a view to connecting Tong Hang Village, diverting the flow of large vehicles, and providing villagers of the said village with another entrance/ exit. 81. The Chairman welcomed Ms Jocelyn TSANG, Engineer/North 2 of the TD, and Mr Tim FUNG, Senior Town Planner/North of the PlanD, to participate in the discussion of this agenda item. He said that the TD had

20 Action

submitted a written response to the Proposal. He asked whether the departmental representatives had any additions. 82. Ms Jocelyn TSANG said that the TD did not have any response. 83. Mr LAW Ting-tak said that he understood that the planning of roads in Tong Hang Village was rather complicated because the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) was constructing the Fanling Bypass in the vicinity. Affairs relating to village road works should be under the purview of the NDO whereas drainage affairs should be under the purview of the Drainage Services Department (“DSD”). However, the proposed construction of the road connecting On Lok Village was under the purview of the TD. The situation that “came within nobody’s jurisdiction” thus emerged. Therefore, he hoped to discuss at the meeting how to implement the relevant road construction in Tong Hang Village. There were many container yards in Tong Hang Village. It was previously proposed that the TD or the HyD should prohibit large container vehicles from entering the village. However, he understood that there were grey areas and that the TD or the HyD did not have the right to prohibit vehicles from entering the village. Currently, there was a lot of traffic caused by large vehicles due to the Fanling Bypass project. This, coupled with the Phase 2 extension of Tong Hang fresh water service reservoir, had made pavements in the vicinity subside. In case there was an emergency in the village, emergency vehicles might not be able to pass through. Therefore, he hoped that the relevant project could be implemented so as to provide Tong Hang Village with an additional access. 84. Mr Franco CHEUNG said that he often went past the said location. He also wanted to know whether the village was accessible via Tai Wo Service Road East because some land lots were extremely close to Tong Hang Village. He suggested that a service road could be constructed to connect Tai Wo Service Road East with Tong Hang Village. 85. Mr Warwick WAN said that he had conducted a site visit to Tong Hang. There were a lot of problems with the planning of roads at the said location. He held that as this had nothing to do with the planning of the TD, the PlanD or the DEVB should respond in this respect. He pointed out that Tong Hang fresh water service reservoir was also under development and a better planning of roads should be conducted. Traffic accidents often occurred at the said location for years. Since the only exit of Tong Hang Village was at Jockey Club Road, villagers and vehicles had to make a detour to Wah Ming Estate before reaching Fanling. The petrol filling station and the bus stop at Jockey Club Road were so close to the pedestrian crossing that this caused a safety risk to pedestrians and drivers. Traffic accidents had occurred at the said location. He hoped that the PlanD or the

21 Action

DEVB could conduct the site planning afresh. 86. Ms Maggie KWONG said that when she received Mr LAW Ting-tak’s Proposal earlier, she also received a similar proposal from the village head of Tong Hang Village. The Works Section of the NDO had conducted a site visit to the relevant location. She pointed out that “On Yip Road” as mentioned by Mr LAW Ting-tak did not exist and the road referred to as “On Yip Road” had not been named yet. Nevertheless, she understood which location Mr LAW Ting-tak referred to. She mentioned that the location was a government site, and it should not be wide enough to construct a two-lane carriageway. Furthermore, based on visual inspection, Ma Wat River was about 30 to 40 metres wide. If a bridge was to be constructed across Ma Wat River to connect the said location, she projected that the cost would far exceed the affordability of the NDO. She understood that villagers hoped to have an additional entrance/ exit to divert traffic flow. She would convey the Proposal to relevant government departments and hoped that they would consider the Proposal when projects were being carried out in the vicinity. In respect of the safety issue at the junction of Tong Hang Village and Jockey Club Road, since a new road would not be constructed within a short time, she suggested that the issue of traffic safety should be referred to the TD so that it could carry out improvement measures and diversion arrangements as appropriate to improve safety at the said location. (Mr KWOK Long-fung left the meeting at this juncture.) 87. Mr LAW Ting-tak understood the complexity involved in the relevant location. He held that Mr Franco CHEUNG’s suggestion was worth considering. Initially, he hoped to provide an additional emergency vehicular access in the village. The existing problem was that many traffic accidents occurred at the entrance/ exit of Tong Hang Village. When accidents happened, the traffic on the entire road would be paralysed. Upon commencement of the fresh water service reservoir project, there were more large vehicles entering and leaving the village. He expected that both the fresh water service reservoir and Fanling Bypass projects would lead to an increasing number of works vehicles entering and leaving the village, and it was certain that the road traffic would be paralysed. Therefore, he hoped that an additional entrance/ exit could be provided, and the proposal raised by Mr Franco CHEUNG earlier seemed to be feasible. He hoped that the TD could help examine the issue. 88. Ms Jocelyn TSANG said that the subsidence at nearby pavements caused by works vehicles relating to the fresh water service reservoir project as mentioned by Mr LAW Ting-tak could be referred to the Water Supplies Department (“WSD”) for follow-up. Prior to the works by the WSD,

22 Action

various road bend improvement proposals had been drawn up to allow adequate room for large works vehicles to pass through. In respect of the Fanling Bypass, there were also proposals to improve the junction at the entrance of Tong Hang Village and Jockey Club Road. She reckoned that this could be referred to the CEDD to respond. In respect of Mr Franco CHEUNG’s suggestion, since village roads were involved, the suggestion could be referred to the NDO to respond. If the design met relevant requirements, the TD could connect the relevant road with Tai Wo Service Road East. 89. Mr LAU Sai-cheung indicated that he had conducted a site visit to the location earlier in response to the Proposal. He held that discussions could be made from two perspectives. First, the design as well as safety of the entrance at Jockey Club Road was worth exploring. As mentioned in the TD’s response, it would review the design of the existing roads and implement improvement measures as far as practicable. On the other hand, in respect of the construction of a two-lane flyover across Ma Wat River as mentioned in the Proposal, he hoped that everyone could understand that the construction of a two-lane flyover along with cycling tracks and pavements across Ma Wat River, which was over 30 metres wide, was not a minor works project. Many problems needed to be solved (for example, whether there was enough room along the river banks for the construction of bridge piers and adjoining road networks), whereas land use planning had to be conducted afresh. He suggested that this issue should be followed up by the Committee on Traffic and Transport of the DC. He also held that the proposal on Tai Wo Service Road East could be considered. The TD should explore the safety issue at the junction of Jockey Club Road as early as possible because it was the most urgent issue at the moment. 90. The Chairman asked Mr LAW Ting-tak whether it would be necessary to ask the TD about this in writing. 91. Mr LAW Ting-tak said that he would further discuss the issue with Ms Jocelyn TSANG after the meeting. 92. Ms Jocelyn TSANG said that as mentioned in the written response, ancillary transport facilities of rural affairs were under the purview of the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”). 93. Mr LAU Sai-cheung pointed out that the existing junction at Jockey Club Road and Tong Hang Village was under the purview of the TD. 94. Ms Jocelyn TSANG said that the TD would review the status of traffic accidents at the junction of Tong Hang Village from time to time, whereas the issue of road construction across Ma Wat River was under the

23 Action

purview of the HAD. 95. Mr LAU Ki-fung said that having listened to the responses by departments, he reckoned that the location was not followed up by any party. He suggested that a map should be used to help define the purviews of various departments and to explain to Members. 96. Mr YUEN Ho-lun held that departments shirked their responsibilities. Besides, he did not understand why proposals on land projects could not be discussed at Committee meetings. 97. The Chairman said that district minor works projects could be discussed at Committee meetings. However, if the scale of a project was relatively large, it would fall outside the purview of the Committee. 98. Ms Maggie KWONG added that the NDO would continue to be responsible for repair and maintenance of village roads. However, as mentioned earlier, she and staff of the Works Section had conducted a preliminary assessment and held that unlike district minor works projects, the road construction project across Ma Wat River would not be easy to handle. The NDO would refer Mr LAW Ting-tak’s Proposal to relevant departments so that they would consider the Proposal when projects were being carried out in the vicinity. 99. Ms Jocelyn TSANG said that as mentioned in the written response, these road construction projects involved road planning and ancillary facilities in the development of rural areas and would be considered by relevant departments in due course. Same as the NDO, the TD would refer Members’ suggestions to relevant departments for consideration if there were large-scale projects in the vicinity. 100. Mr LAW Ting-tak suggested that the representatives of the CEDD and the WSD should speak. Good planning had not been conducted in the village all along, and the works in the vicinity of the village had made the situation more complicated. The TD was responsible for matters relating to the junction of the village and the NDO was responsible for village roads whereas the WSD was responsible for deploying works vehicles for the fresh water service reservoir project and repairing nearby pavements that experienced subsidence. Besides, the Fanling Bypass project had already commenced, but relevant meetings had been delayed due to the epidemic. He hoped to learn whether the Fanling Bypass project would implement improvement measures because the fresh water service reservoir project and the Fanling Bypass project should be conducted concurrently. 101. Mr William CHEUNG said that the works on the Fanling Bypass were responsible by another section in CEDD. As he knew, the works on

24 Action

the Fanling Bypass near Tong Hang Village had already commenced. It was believed that it would be possible to carry out minor works in the area adjacent to the site. However, if a large bridge as mentioned in the Proposal had to be constructed, he believed that it would be quite impossible. It might need to apply for funding from relevant departments prior to commencement of the works. 102. Mr LAW Ting-tak said that he hoped to know whether improvement works at the roads along the river banks of Ma Wat River were under the purview of the DSD. 103. Ms HO Ming-yan responded that as she was aware, the roads adjacent to Ma Wat River were not under the purview of the DSD. She DSD needed to review the plan before giving an accurate answer. Nevertheless, it was highly likely that the pedestrian links along the river banks were not under the purview of the DSD. (Post-meeting note: The DSD indicated that the pavements adjacent to the relevant section of Ma Wat River as well as the bridge were not under the purview of the DSD.) 104. The Chairman pointed out that the Proposal on the road planning of Tong Hang Village involved the Fanling Bypass. According to his understanding, the PlanD and the Architectural Services Department (“ArchSD”) might participate in the planning process. He suggested that Mr LAW Ting-tak should discuss the road planning of Tong Hang Village with staff of the PlanD and the ArchSD. 105. Mr Tim FUNG added that according to the outline zoning plan, most of the areas in Tong Hang Village were situated within the “Village Type Development” zone. Some projects that were led by the Government or implemented by departments were always for permitted use or development. In response to earlier views of the local community, he pointed out that similar proposals could be considered and dealt with by relevant government departments, including the NDO. As mentioned by the NDO earlier, relevant works might be large-scale works instead of minor works. He held that the works should be referred to relevant departments for further studies and the PlanD could advise on planning. 106. Mr LAW Ting-tak said that in case of an emergency in the village, emergency vehicles could not pass through the entrance of the village if a large vehicle toppled over there. He held that if a problem was identified, everyone was duty bound to actively resolve the problem. He said that the source of the problem might be the LandsD and asked why approval was given to provide container yards in the village back then. He mentioned that residents’ planters were often hit by large vehicles passing the housing

25 Action

estate “Cyber Domaine”, and this caused dissatisfaction among residents. Furthermore, as there was an increasing number of large vehicles entering and leaving the village, he reckoned that the problem had to be solved. He said that he would discuss this further with various departments after the meeting. 107. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that the TD should erect traffic sign posts to prohibit large vehicles from entering and leaving the relevant junction. 108. Ms Jocelyn TSANG said that as she was aware, container yards in Tong Hang Village were the existing usage of land. She requested the PlanD to confirm in this respect. If the TD had to erect traffic sign posts to prohibit large vehicles from entering and leaving the village, the NDO would be required to conduct a consultation to collect views from nearby residents. 109. The Chairman believed that it was impossible that Mr LAW Ting-tak’s questions could be answered in a short while. As mentioned by the NDO’s representative, the scale of the project was rather large and might not be handled by the NDO. He believed that Mr LAW Ting-tak would discuss this further with various departments after the meeting.

Item 9 - Any Other Business

110. The Chairman said that since Items 6, 7 and 8 were related to internal topics, he hoped to discuss Item 9 first so that departmental representatives could leave the meeting after discussion. 111. Mr CHIANG Man-ching expressed concern over the lot at No. 6 Fung Nam Road outside Tsui Lai Garden. The said lot was originally intended for the construction of a mosque; however, it was resumed recently. He wrote to ask about the usage of the said lot after its resumption but had not received a reply yet. Therefore, he hoped to follow up on this. 112. Mr Wilson CHAN said that the staff member who followed up on this case was not present at the meeting. He would ask the responsible staff LandsD member to contact Mr CHIANG Man-ching. 113. The Chairman asked the HD whether it had explored the relaxation of the plot ratio of the car park in respect of the proposal on car park in Ching Ho Estate. 114. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she knew that Mr YUEN HO-lun had contacted the District Maintenance Office (“DMO”) of the HD about this. She believed that the DMO had taken this into consideration upon receipt of the proposal.

26 Action

115. The Chairman said that he knew that similar problems, such as being unable to construct car parks, were also encountered by other housing estates due to inadequate plot ratio. He hoped to know whether technical studies had been conducted to relax the ratio. 116. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she did not know whether studies had been conducted, but she knew that Mr YUEN Ho-lun had contacted the DMO about this. She believed that the DMO had taken this into consideration upon receipt of the proposal. 117. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that he contacted the DMO about last December. Back then, the DMO indicated that it would not take this into consideration. 118. The Chairman asked Mr YUEN Ho-lun whether he had put forward the proposal of relaxing the plot ratio. 119. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that he neither put forward the proposal nor had this concept back then. 120. The Chairman said that designs of many projects were subject to the constraint of the plot ratio. He wanted to know whether the HD could further explore the relaxation of the plot ratio to a certain extent so that there would be space for project developments. 121. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin invited the LandsD’s representative to give a general introduction on this. 122. Mr Wilson CHAN said that Ching Ho Estate had been handed over to the HD for management. In respect of the plot ratio, he indicated that this should be managed by the HD in accordance with the relevant legislation. Details had to be responded by the HD. 123. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she would convey the proposal to Development and Construction Division in response to Members’ questions. 124. The Chairman said that the plot ratio restricted the heights of building designs and facilities. Therefore, he hoped that the HD could consider conducting studies on the relaxation of the plot ratio or providing relevant information. 125. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she would convey the proposal to the Development and Construction Division. 126. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that the relevant section asserted that amendments would not be made to the development project last December. He held that even if he put forward the proposal again, amendments would not be made to the development project. Given that the relevant section

27 Action

indicated that amendments would not be made to the development project at Phase 4, he proposed that a car park should be constructed at another location. He held that even though Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin conveyed the proposal to the relevant section, this could not help at all and the proposal would not be accepted. 127. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that whenever she received any views from the local community, she would convey them to relevant sections. 128. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that he understood. He hoped to solve the problem of ancillary facilities in Ching Ho Estate, but the problem had remained unsolved. 129. Mrs CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she would reflect the views to HD the relevant section for it to consider the issue of plot ratios.

Item 6 - Funding Applications of District Minor Works Projects

(a) Improvements to the Vehicular Access between Lamp Post No. VG2034 and VG2804 in Liu Pok, Sheung Shui (Paper No. 31/2020)

130. Mr Simon HAU presented Paper No. 31/2020. 131. Mr YUEN Ho-lun said that he supported the project funding application in Paper No. 31/2020. He detected the relevant problem five years ago and believed that the current situation was even worse and more dangerous. 132. The Committee approved the project funding application in Paper No. 31/2020.

(b) Construction of a Nest Letter Box Stand near Lamp Post No. VG3406 at Ho Sheung Heung, Sheung Shui (Paper No. 32/2020)

133. Mr Simon HAU presented Paper No. 32/2020. 134. The Committee approved the project funding application in Paper No. 32/2020.

28 Action

VD3066 and the Access Road to Tai Lung, Sheung Shui (Paper No. 33/2020)

135. The Chairman presented Paper No. 33/2020. 136. The Committee approved the project funding application in Paper No. 33/2020.

Item 7 - Progress Report of District Minor Works Projects (Paper No. 34/2020)

137. Miss Gloria LAM presented Paper No. 34/2020. 138. The Committee noted the above report.

Item 8 - Report of the Working Group on Rural and Land Development (Paper No. 35/2020)

139. The Committee noted the above report.

Item 10 - Date of Next Meeting

140. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 16 November 2020 (Monday) in the NDC Conference Room.

141. Mr CHAN Wai-tat asked whether changes could be made to the dates of forthcoming meetings.

142. The Secretary said that the Secretariat would conduct a consultation afresh regarding the dates of meetings in the coming year.

(Post-meeting note: Regarding the meeting timetables in 2021, the Secretariat consulted the DC Chairman and Vice Chairman as well as the Chairmen of all Committees by email on 5 October 2020. The Chairman of the Committee reflected the views of Mr CHAN Wai-tat. After discussion, the DC Chairman and Vice Chairman as well as the Chairmen of all Committees held that the meeting timetables set out at the first DC meeting were more practicable.)

29 Action

143. Mr LAW Ting-tak made additions to the Report of the Working Group on Rural and Land Development. Against the background that villagers were concerned about animal relocation and there should be unallocated DC funding this year, he suggested that the unallocated amounts should be better utilised by contacting the work teams to carry out spay and neuter operations for stray cats and dogs in the North East New Territories new development areas before returning them to their habitat.

144. The meeting was adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

North District Council Secretariat November 2020