(Translation)

Minutes of the 19th Meeting of the District Facilities Committee of District Council (5th Term)

Date : 24 January 2019 (Thursday) Time : 9:30 a.m. Venue : Conference Room, Council

Present

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

Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH, JP Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH (Arrived at 11:50 a.m.) Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, BBS, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 11:10 a.m.; left at 12:30 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 10:15 a.m.; left at 11:52 a.m.) Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic (Arrived at 10:15 a.m.; left at 12:46 p.m.) Mr LEUNG Man-kwong (Arrived at 9:55 a.m.) Ms NG Mei, Carman (Arrived at 10:00 a.m.) Ms NG Yuet-lan (Arrived at 9:35 a.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP (Left at 1:00 p.m.) Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP (Arrived at 10:25 a.m.) Mr YEUNG Yuk (Arrived at 11:50 a.m.) Mr YUEN Hoi-man

Co-opted Members Ms CHEN Li-hong (Arrived at 9:46 a.m.) Mr YIP Pui-lam Ms WONG Kwai-wan - 2 - Action by

Mr YUEN Chi-ping (Arrived at 10:40 a.m.)

In Attendance Miss LUI Hiu-wei, Michelle Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Ms SO Kit-yee, Phyllis Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Sham Shui Po District Office Ms LEUNG Siu-kuen, Edith District Secretary, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr SHE Yat-chun, Ryan Executive Officer I (District Management), Sham Shui Po District Office Ms CHAN Suk-fan, Janet Liaison Officer In-charge (District Facilities Management Committee and ), Sham Shui Po District Office Mr LUK Chi-kwong Chief Leisure Manager ( East), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEE Shuk-ling, Agnes District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms WONG Sau-ling, Vicky Deputy District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po) District Support, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr YEUNG Chi-kuen, Roy Assistant District Leisure Manager (Sham Shui Po) District Support, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAM Ka-yi, Kay Assistant Leisure Manager II (Sham Shui Po) District Support, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms Cardi CHUNG Senior Manager, Event & Product Development, Hong Kong Tourism Board Mr CHUNG Hon-wai, Thomas Engineer/Kowloon (Headworks 1), Water Supplies Department Mr WONG Hin-chi Engineer/Project Management 5, Water Supplies Department Ms LING Fung-kwan Principal Estate Officer/Kowloon West (North) (District Lands Office, Kowloon West), Lands Department Mr YIM Tsan-man Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon), Home Affairs Department Mr LI Wai-hei Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1, Home Affairs Department Mr LAW Lok-fai, Edwin Architect (Works) 4, Home Affairs Department Ms LEE Lai-ming, Michelle Architect, Andrew Lee King Fun & Associates Architects Ltd. Mr. Kelvin Lau Architectural Assistant, Andrew Lee King Fun & Associates Architects Ltd.

- 3 - Action by

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

Absent with Apologies

Co-opted Member Mr CHAU Chun-fai, Gary

Absent

Members Mr LEE Wing-man Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Mr YAN Kai-wing

- 4 - Action by

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed members and public officers to the meeting.

2. The Committee noted the leave application from Mr Gary CHAU.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of minutes of the 18th meeting held on 15 November 2018

3. The Committee confirmed the above minutes without amendment.

Agenda Item 2: Matters for discussion

(a) Beautification of the sculptures in Sham Shui Po – Revised design

4. Ms Cardi CHUNG said that: (i) the Hong Kong Tourism Board (“HKTB”) planned to beautify eight sculptures in Sham Shui Po District (“SSP District”). HKTB had contacted Mr KAN Tai-keung, the creator of the sculptures, and he welcomed the proposal; (ii) the proposal was tentatively scheduled for implementation between April and December this year. HKTB hoped to commence the works in March this year and would make a decision on beautification materials upon appointment of a contractor; (iii) HKTB had revised the beautification design for the sculpture at Exit B of MTR Sham Shui Po Station based on the views raised by members at the Committee meeting held in September last year. She then introduced the beautification design for each of the sculptures with the aid of PowerPoint.

5. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she thanked Mr KAN for presenting the sculptures to the District Council (“DC”) years ago. Since many sculptures were all covered with bills and miscellaneous items were accumulated in the vicinity of the sculptures, the artistic merits of the sculptures were affected and their locations might not be appropriate. Therefore, there were suggestions that the sculptures should be relocated or removed; (ii) the consultation conducted by HKTB was inadequate. Therefore, she had reservations about the beautification proposal. She suggested that HKTB should withdraw the proposal and conduct consultation afresh.

6. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) HKTB had not included the sculpture at Exit D of MTR Sham Shui Po Station in the beautification proposal. He enquired about the reasons behind and suggested that HKTB should consider beautifying the said sculpture in future; (ii) the beautification suggestion for the sculpture at Exit C of MTR Station was incompatible with the theme of the original works. He suggested that HKTB should consult its creator, i.e. Mr KAN. He would not have any other comments if Mr KAN agreed so; (iii) to prevent the display of bills on the sculptures - 5 - Action by after beautification, he suggested that HKTB should carry out regular inspections and arrange cleansing services.

7. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG thanked HKTB for promoting tourism in Sham Shui Po. He also enquired how HKTB set the implementation date for the beautification proposal.

8. Ms Cardi CHUNG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the sculpture beautification proposal was part of the Sham Shui Po tourism promotion programme. Originally, the proposed works would be completed in August this year together with other beautification projects. However, as the implementation of the sculpture beautification proposal could not commence in December last year as scheduled, it was suggested that the implementation should be postponed to between April and December this year; (ii) HKTB had no comment on the relocation of sculptures and would respect the views of the Committee; (iii) the design of the sculpture at Exit D of the MTR Station had its uniqueness and fully showcased the characteristics of Sham Shui Po as a hub for digital and electronic products. HKTB had no plan to include it in the beautification proposal at this stage; (iv) regarding the sculpture at Exit C of the MTR Station, HKTB and the design consultant would explore the feasibility of revising the beautification design; (v) HKTB would arrange for service contractors to carry out regular inspections and to remove bills on the sculptures.

9. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the beautification proposal aimed to enhance the attractiveness of the sculptures in the short term. HKTB would restore the sculptures to their original states upon completion of the proposal; (ii) if members had an intention to raise views on the way forward for the sculptures in the long run, e.g. relocating or removing the sculptures, they could submit separate papers for discussion.

10. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she appreciated HKTB for its overall plan to promote tourism in SSP District; (ii) in the short run, it would be fine to beautify the sculptures in the district. However, the sculptures might be covered with bills and this would affect the effectiveness. She hoped that HKTB would enhance its management efforts; (iii) she had no objection to a separate discussion on the way forward for the sculptures in the long run.

11. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) locations of the sculptures could be discussed separately in due course; (ii) in the short run, he suggested that beautification of the sculptures should be carried out. In view of the tight schedule for the implementation of the beautification proposal, he requested HKTB and relevant departments to enhance their management efforts, review the effectiveness and take follow-up actions in due course. - 6 - Action by

12. The Chairman enquired about HKTB’s inspection and cleansing arrangements for the sculptures.

13. Ms Cardi CHUNG responded as follows: (i) in view of limited resources, HKTB would arrange contractors to carry out inspections once a month tentatively; (ii) HKTB would consider increasing the frequency of inspections and would request relevant departments, such as the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), to provide assistance.

14. The Chairman concluded as follows: (i) given that HKTB’s sculpture beautification proposal was intended for short term purposes, the Committee had no objection; (ii) the monthly inspection would yield limited results. He requested HKTB to consider increasing the frequency of inspections.

[Post-meeting note: HKTB had contacted Mr KAN Tai-keung, who agreed to HKTB’s proposal to beautify the eight sculptures in the district and had no objection to the latest designs for the sculptures. Therefore, HKTB would work with the design consultant and the works contractor to take follow-up actions and to implement the beautification proposal based on the designs and the timetable as reported at this meeting.

HKTB had understood from FEHD that the latter would remove stickers or bills on the sculptures regularly (approximately once a week). HKTB would also arrange inspections and removal of bills twice a month. Upon receipt of a report on damage, HKTB would follow up as soon as possible.]

(b) Proposed use of the ground floor and the second floor of the Nam Cheong District Community Centre in Sham Shui Po for youth development purposes (DFC Paper 8/19)

15. Miss Michelle LUI requested members to refer to Paper 8/19 by the Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”).

16. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) in order to optimise the use of public resources, departments should formulate development plans for idle facilities as early as possible; (ii) he enquired whether the Sham Shui Po District Office (“SSPDO”) had consulted other departments, such as the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”), or social welfare organisations (“SWOs”); (iii) many SWOs had an intention to rent the facilities in Nam Cheong District Community Centre while some had an intention to set up service centres there for street sleepers; (iv) DC was concerned about the street sleeper issue. Since there was a greater demand for street sleeper services in the neighbourhood of the facility, he enquired whether HAB had relevant consideration; (v) the - 7 - Action by

Committee could further discuss details of the services after the development purposes of the facility had been finalised.

17. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) youth development facilities in other districts were mostly used by certain organisations and this was not desirable. He hoped to avoid similar scenarios in the district; (ii) the information in the paper was too brief. He enquired the reasons for using the said facility for youth development purposes. He also hoped that the Bureau could provide more information, e.g. what the procedures were for identifying the organisations to lease the facility to or which organisations would be responsible for the management work; (iii) the development purposes of the said facility should cope with the district needs. He suggested that the Government should consider developing it for rehabilitation service purposes. Also, since there was a greater demand for street sleeper services in the vicinity of the facility, he suggested that departments should consider providing hostels for street sleepers or auxiliary medical services.

18. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the information in the paper was limited and too brief. He found it hard to support; (ii) he enquired whether any departments other than HAB, such as SWD, had advised on the development purposes of the said facility; (iii) the Bureau should give an account of a concrete plan and provide more choices of development for DC’s consideration.

19. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) youth development and poverty alleviation services were interrelated; (ii) the Bureau should consider promoting youth integrated services proactively to widen the horizons of youth and provide them with opportunities for studies, employment and upward mobility; (iii) he requested the Bureau to brief the Council on the forthcoming follow-up works specifically.

20. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) land resources were limited and thus unable to meet the needs of all organisations. The authorities should handle the development of the said facility based on the principle of openness and transparency; (ii) he supported that priority consideration should be given to the use of the said facility for youth development purposes; (iii) he suggested that the Bureau should consider developing a non-conventional multi-purposes facility and provide venues to youngsters for organising activities, thereby encouraging them to serve and to give back to the community in an innovative way.

21. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she enquired whether the Bureau had any determined proposal; (ii) when deciding the development purposes of a facility, the Bureau should take into consideration various factors and invite organisations to lease the facility openly. If the Bureau did not disclose relevant information, she would - 8 - Action by be disappointed; (iii) the elderly population in the district was large. Since the said facility was located on the ground floor and the second floor and was easily accessible, priority should be given to the development of rehabilitation and elderly services.

22. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) there was a great demand for various community services while resources were inadequate; (ii) in recent years, the Government and various sectors of the community had been concerned about youth affairs and youth development and had followed up continuously; (iii) the youth population in SSP District had been increasing. Therefore, she supported the provision of additional resources for youth development; (iv) she hoped that the Bureau could provide more information.

23. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following views: (i) since the Bureau did not have a concrete plan or development direction, the development of some of its youth development initiatives was neither fish nor fowl. He was worried that the same mistake might be repeated in the said facility; (ii) the information provided by the Bureau was too general which did not facilitate discussion; (iii) the Bureau should listen to views and consider other feasible development purposes as well, e.g. providing welfare services targeted at the elderly or other disadvantaged groups.

24. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai raised the following views: (i) community resources were limited that they were unable to meet all the needs; (ii) the image of SSP District was old. The services in the district were primarily elderly services. With the successive introduction of redevelopment projects in the district, the demographic structure would become younger gradually. However, there was a shortage of resources for youth development in the district; (iii) in order to provide a wide variety of community services, he considered it worthwhile to use the said facility for youth development purposes.

25. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the positioning of the facility had significant impacts on the development direction of the project. Therefore, he enquired whether the intended service targets were young people in the district or young people in Hong Kong; (ii) based on previous experience, the development of youth-related facilities might not be able to respond to the demands of young people; (iii) various types of community services were needed in SSP District. If there was available space in the facility, consideration should be given to provide services such as wellness centres, dental centres for the elderly, dermatological medical centres, etc.

26. Ms Carman NG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) in view of a shortage of resources for youth services, she supported the Government for developing youth services; (ii) the proportion of the elderly population in Nam Cheong area was relatively high. She was worried that the provision of youth development facilities in the area might - 9 - Action by lead to a mismatch in resources, thereby affecting the overall service effectiveness. She hoped that the Bureau could give an account of relevant justifications; (iii) she enquired which area in Sham Shui Po had the largest youth population.

27. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) social welfare resources were limited that this led to shortfall in service provision; (ii) the service targets of social welfare facilities in SSP District were mainly children, women and the elderly. In view of the demographic change in Sham Shui Po, he supported the proposal in the paper and the continuous provision of more room for youth development and considered that the said facility was currently the most appropriate.

28. Ms WONG Kwai-wan raised the following views: (i) day-time elderly services were inadequate in the district. There was an aging population in the vicinity of Nam Cheong District Community Centre; however, relevant services were inadequate in the neighbourhood; (ii) the said facility was formerly an elderly services centre. She hoped that it could continue to be used for elderly service purposes; (iii) she requested SSPDO to provide data in respect of the demand for day-time elderly care services.

29. The Chairman said that the said facility was the former site of Ho Kin District Community Centre for Senior Citizens sponsored by Sik Sik Yuen. In order to expand its services, the said Centre had been relocated to another facility for continuous operation.

30. Miss Michelle LUI gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) she understood that members were concerned about the needs for other social services in the district. Since youth services covered a wide range of areas, there was no contradiction between the two; (ii) SSPDO had consulted other departments according to the established procedures, and among which, HAB had the intention to use the said facility for youth development purposes; (iii) at this stage, SSPDO hoped to collect members’ views on youth development and would convey the views to the Bureau; (iv) the Bureau would carefully consider the development purposes of the facility and explain its development plan and operational details in due course.

31. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired whether the intended service targets of the said facility were young people in the district or young people in Hong Kong; (ii) he raised no objection to an increase in social welfare resources, but he hoped that priority would be given to the provision of services which the community lacked the most; (iii) many SWOs hoped to expand service facilities. Therefore, he had reservations about the remarks that other government departments had no comments; (iv) when deciding the development purposes of the facility, the authorities should take into consideration the floor area and the location. - 10 - Action by

32. Mr YUEN Hoi-man raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired whether HAB was given priority to use the facility and whether other departments had raised any views; (ii) since the said facility had not been designated for any specific use for the time being, he suggested that the Bureau and SSPDO should prepare a detailed development plan first and then consult the Committee again.

33. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the said facility was a district facility and priority should be given for the district to use the facility. SSPDO should consult the district before consulting departments; (ii) he enquired about details of SSPDO’s consultation with other departments and whether the development purposes of the facility had been finalised; (iii) the development of youth services did not meet the needs of the neighbourhood around Nam Cheong District Community Centre. The said facility met the barrier-free requirements and was suitable for the provision of rehabilitation services; (iv) he raised no objection to the development of youth services, but there should be other locations which are more suitable for such development; (v) he hoped that SSPDO would not finalise the development purposes of the facility for the time being.

34. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG provided information on population distribution in the district for members’ reference. He said that the proportion of the elderly population in the district was similar to the territory average. He then raised the following views: (i) he hoped that a balance could be struck between elderly services, medical services and youth services; (ii) the floor area of the said facility might not be adequate to provide standard elderly services; (iii) he hoped that members could take into account the ancillary services and location of the said facility and advise on its development purposes.

35. Ms Carman NG said that specific information was not available in the paper. She hoped that SSPDO could provide information, such as the population distribution in Nam Cheong area and the age groups that HAB intended to serve, to facilitate members’ consideration.

36. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu hoped that SSPDO could consolidate members’ views for the Bureau to follow up, as well as providing information such as the demographic structure of and the types of services available in the district.

37. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) SWOs often had difficulties in contacting people aged between 18 and 35; (ii) considering that young people did not wish to be labelled, most of the youth centres were located upstairs; (iii) rehabilitation and elderly services in the district were inadequate. The introduction of youth service organisations in the said facility was a mismatch in resources and would lead to a waste; (iv) the Bureau should not decide the development purposes of the facility based on the wishes of individual organisations. - 11 - Action by

38. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) people aged between 18 and 35 represented a certain proportion of the local population. However, facilities for youth development services in the district were limited; (ii) since it took time to carry out a site search, he opined that even though the said facility might not be the most suitable site, he still hoped to grasp the opportunity to provide youth development services as early as possible. He hoped that members could support the Bureau’s proposal.

39. Mr YIP Pui-lam raised the following views: (i) resources and opportunities for young people were inadequate and this might lead to intergenerational poverty. The provision of youth development facilities upheld social development justice; (ii) relevant data was required to assess the inadequacy of elderly, medical, rehabilitation and youth services.

40. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following views: (i) specific data was required to demonstrate the urgent need for youth services at the said location; (ii) young people were facing severe employment, development and housing problems. The Government should be concerned about their actual needs and should tackle the problems at policy level.

41. Miss Michelle LUI gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the Government Property Agency had an established practice to deal with idle government facilities, and departments were required to consult their respective policy bureaux first. SSPDO had consulted relevant departments in accordance with the above requirements; (ii) as mentioned in the paper, the proposed facility would mainly serve the young people in the district; (iii) SSPDO would convey members’ views to the Bureau for consideration and would report on this in due course.

42. The Chairman concluded as follows: (i) it was appropriate for HAB to consult the Committee first. SSPDO was requested to convey members’ suggestions on the development purposes of the facility to the Bureau; (ii) it was hoped that the Bureau could follow up and studied members’ views and provide relevant data to facilitate the discussions on the appropriate development purposes of the said facility.

43. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that in respect of whether the proposed facility would serve young people in the district or young people across the territory, this could be further discussed in due course.

(c) Improve the facilities on Mission Hill for the enjoyment of the public (DFC Paper 2/19)

44. Mr Kalvin HO introduced Paper 2/19. - 12 - Action by

45. The Chairman suggested that members should propose works projects by submitting District Minor Works (“DMW”) project proposals.

46. Mr Thomas CHUNG introduced Response Paper 9/19.

47. Ms LING Fung-kwan responded as follows: (i) the top of Mission Hill fell under the purview of the Water Supplies Department (“WSD”). If illegal structures were found on government lands which fell outside the purview of WSD, the Lands Department (“LandsD”) would, upon receipt of a complaint or a referral from departments, decide the priority of the case in accordance with the established procedures and follow up as appropriate; (ii) the Department would give priority to cases of illegal structures which involved safety issues. The Slope Maintenance Section of the Department found that some illegal structures were on man-made slopes and might pose a risk, and it was currently following up on this.

48. Ms Phyllis SO responded as follows: (i) in the past, DC had allocated funds to provide district facilities, such as morning trails, railings, rain shelters, seats, etc., on Mission Hill; (ii) the Works Section of HAD (“Works Section”) would carry out routine inspections and repairs while SSPDO would apply for DMW funding every year to carry out repair and maintenance works for various types of district facilities; (iii) SSPDO had deployed staff to inspect the district facilities provided under DMW funding on Mission Hill. It had also requested the Works Section to arrange repair works for damaged facilities.

49. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he noted that SSPDO would arrange routine repair works. He would help identity the facilities in need of repairs; (ii) in view of the special nature of the paper, it was inappropriate to submit it as a DMW project proposal. He suggested that SSPDO should arrange a site inspection for members to raise suggestions on the provision of additional facilities and should carry out a follow-up study; (iii) Mission Hill was the primary morning exercise venue of nearby residents. He hoped that the Committee would support the provision of additional district facilities on the hill; (iv) the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) had indicated its intention to follow up on the issues of Mission Hill years ago. He hoped that the Department would develop the site after it was handed over by WSD; (v) currently, the fitness equipment on Mission Hill was provided by the public on their own, and its safety had aroused concern. He suggested that DC should set up a platform to follow up and explore ways to address the issue; (vi) he raised no objection to the demolition by relevant departments of illegal structures which fell outside the purview of WSD and involved safety issues. - 13 - Action by

[The Chairman left the conference room for the time being and Mr CHAN Wai-ming took the chair in his absence.]

50. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) in view of the special nature of the paper, it was inappropriate to submit it as a DMW project proposal; (ii) he welcomed that WSD would hand over the site on the top of Mission Hill. Also, he was concerned whether the site would be opened to the public after it was taken over by LandsD. He hoped that relevant departments would respond to this; (iii) WSD enclosed the site on the top of Mission Hill with wire fences to prevent public access, which was undesirable; (iv) he requested SSPDO to carry out repair works for damaged district facilities, such as footpaths, etc., and to provide additional district facilities.

[As the Chairman returned to the meeting room, Mr CHAN Wai-ming handed the meeting over to the Chairman.]

51. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) DC had been following up on the issues of Mission Hill for a long time, but there was not much progress; (ii) a lot of space on service reservoir roofs in the district was still available for development. She suggested that WSD and LandsD should set up a task force to follow up and the Sham Shui Po District Council Planning Coordination Meeting (“Planning Coordination Meeting”) should discuss the issues as well; (iii) she hoped that relevant government departments would provide support proactively.

52. Ms LAU Pui-Yuk raised the following views: (i) the Council had discussed the issues of Mission Hill in the past, but there was not much progress. She hoped that relevant government departments would consider providing additional recreational and sports facilities after relevant technical difficulties were resolved and safety of the site was ensured; (ii) she noted that a study on land restoration works by WSD was underway. She hoped that LCSD would take over the site in future and use it for open space purposes to respond to the public’s request; (iii) SSPDO should repair the district facilities provided under DMW funding on Mission Hill; (iv) she requested the Committee or its Working Group on District Works (“WGDW”) to follow up on the above issues; (v) big trees had collapsed at the above location and she requested relevant departments to deal with the issue as soon as possible.

53. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) the site on the top of Mission Hill had been discussed repeatedly in the past. He hoped that government departments, Members and the public could draw on collective wisdom to re-plan the future development of the said site; (ii) he agreed that the Planning Coordination Meeting or relevant working groups should follow up on the development of the site at Mission Hill. - 14 - Action by

54. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the Planning Coordination Meeting was not a formal meeting which might have difficulties to follow up the issue. Therefore, he requested the working groups under the Committee to follow up the issue formally and seek views from stakeholders, such as morning walkers at the said location, etc.; (ii) he noted that a study on land restoration works by WSD was underway. Therefore, discussions on ways to deal with the fitness equipment, which was provided by the public on their initiative, and land use planning of the said site should be launched as soon as possible; (iii) a lot of space on service reservoir roofs in the district was still available for open space purposes. As an open space covering a relatively large area would generally be managed by LCSD, he suggested that the Department should carry out relevant studies as early as possible.

55. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) funds were allocated for the provision of stairs on Mission Hill after repeated discussions by the Committee or WGDW; (ii) she did not object that issues in relation to the site on the top of Mission Hill would be followed up by the working groups under the Committee. However, she stressed that the scope of discussions should be extended to include land use planning of all service reservoir roofs in the district, with a view to optimising land use; (iii) sites of service reservoirs were managed by WSD. She hoped that the Department would take follow-up actions proactively.

56. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) in respect of addressing district affairs, the function of the Planning Coordination Meeting was no different from that of the Committee or the working groups. The Planning Coordination Meeting had discussed various social problems in the district, including land use planning, noise problems, etc. After discussions with relevant government departments, it would hand over the issues to appropriate committees or working groups for follow-up; (ii) he welcomed members to discuss the issues in relation to the site on the top of Mission Hill at the Planning Coordination Meeting.

57. Ms Carman NG requested WSD and LandsD to attend the next Planning Coordination Meeting to discuss the issues in relation to land use planning of service reservoir roofs in the district and to provide relevant information and photos for reference.

58. Mr Thomas CHUNG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the structure of the fresh water break pressure tank on the top of Mission Hill had hidden safety risks. There were cracks at the top of the tank and tree roots had already grown through the cracks reaching the interior of the tank. Moreover, many trees grew on the surface of the tank and added burden to it. Therefore, it was not suitable for the public to enter the said area. For safety reasons, WSD had displayed “No Entry” notices on fences around the water tank to alert nearby residents; (ii) the Department would discuss the land restoration - 15 - Action by plan of the water tank with relevant departments and conduct a comprehensive study, with a view to reducing its impacts on the nearby environment as far as possible. It would also co-ordinate with departments, such as SSPDO, LandsD, etc., in respect of relevant consultation issues; (iii) the Department had uploaded ways to apply for the recreational use of service reservoir roofs and relevant information to its website. According to the Department’s records, the management of the open space of more than 10 service reservoirs roofs in Kowloon had been passed to LCSD for the space to be used for recreational purposes whereas some service reservoirs, such as Piper’s Hill High Level Fresh Water Service Reservoir, were allocated to public or private organisations for the above purposes; (iv) the Department had cleared the fallen trees on the top of Mission Hill earlier and would deploy staff to continue following up.

59. Ms LING Fung-kwan gave a consolidated response that if WSD finally handed the site over to LandsD, the site would become a piece of unleased government land. At that time, any departments which intended to provide additional facilities at the site might apply to LandsD for land allocation.

60. Ms Phyllis SO gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) SSPDO would continue repairing and maintaining the district facilities provided under DMW funding on Mission Hill; (ii) WSD would conduct large-scale land restoration works at the above site. If provision of additional facilities was required, SSPDO would conduct a study again subject to the works progress and associated technical requirements.

61. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) district facilities in the area on the top of Mission Hill that fell outside the purview of WSD were inadequate. He suggested that SSPDO should carry out an inspection with the Member of the constituency concerned after the meeting; (ii) the slopes of Mission Hill posed potential risks and landslides occurred from time to time after heavy rainstorms and typhoons. He hoped that while WSD was formulating the land restoration plan, SSPDO would co-ordinate with relevant departments and request the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) to inspect and repair slopes.

62. Ms Phyllis SO responded as follows: (i) WSD’s land restoration works would affect the overall structure of Mission Hill including its slopes; (ii) SSPDO kept an open mind towards the suggestion of providing additional district facilities on Mission Hill. However, considering that a relatively large area on Mission Hill would be affected by the restoration works, if there was a new suggestion, SSPDO would work in line with the planning of the works and conduct a study again according to associated technical requirements; (iii) WSD and CEDD had all along closely monitored the slope safety of Mission Hill. - 16 - Action by

63. The Chairman said that levelling Mission Hill to develop housing or other community facilities could be considered. He then concluded as follows: (i) the Committee noted that the structure of Sham Shui Po Fresh Water Break Pressure Tank on the top of Mission Hill had safety problems. WSD had appointed a consultant engineer to examine the demolition of the water tank and land restoration. In view of the complexity of the works, the Department required considerable time to conduct a study; (ii) it was noted that SSPDO and the Works Section would regularly inspect and repair the district facilities provided under DMW funding on Mission Hill; (iii) there was no objection to the provision of additional district facilities on Mission Hill. However, when examining the provision of additional district facilities, consideration should be given to whether the location was safe and suitable and whether the demolition works of the water tank would be affected; (iv) there was no objection to the issues being further discussed and followed up by the Planning Coordination Meeting or WGDW.

64. Mr Thomas CHUNG responded as follows: (i) as the location of the water tank was not accessible by carriageways, it was expected that transportation of works machinery and construction materials would be very difficult; (ii) the Department was currently examining details of the restoration works, such as considering backfilling the location of underground facilities with construction waste or other suitable materials when demolishing the water tank. The Department would reduce the impacts caused by the works on nearby residents and the environment as far as possible. Therefore, it would take time to conduct the study.

65. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he understood that it would take time for WSD to conduct the study. He hoped that the Department would announce the works plan as soon as possible to facilitate the discussions on the feasibility of providing additional district facilities in other areas of Mission Hill; (ii) regarding the repair of damaged district facilities, such as footpaths, etc., members who were concerned about the issue would follow up with SSPDO after the meeting.

66. Mr Kalvin HO requested departments to repair the district facilities on Mission Hill as soon as possible and to clear fallen trees on the slopes properly.

67. The Chairman said that the above views would be put on record.

(d) Community resources sharing programme (DFC Paper 3/19)

68. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG introduced Paper 3/19. He said that Mr WONG Chung-Ki, Principal of Po Leung Kuk (“PLK”) Tong Nai Kan Junior Secondary College (“TNKJSC”), hoped to introduce the contents of the programme to members. - 17 - Action by

69. The Chairman suggested that the meeting should be adjourned for 10 minutes for Mr WONG to introduce the programme.

70. Members did not raise any objection.

[The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes.]

71. The Chairman declared that the meeting was resumed. He requested members to refer to Response Paper 13/19 by the Food and Health Bureau and the Hospital Authority, Response Paper 10/19 by the Education Bureau (“EDB”), Response Paper 11/19 by the Planning Department and Response Paper 12/19 by LandsD.

72. Mr YUEN Hoi-man declared that he had studied in a secondary school under PLK before. He then raised the following views: (i) in SSP District, many primary school premises and their equipment were sub-standard and thus these schools needed to identify sites for reprovisioning. Also, the number of students of primary school age in the district would increase. It might be unfair to other schools in need if DC declared its stance on the programme at this stage; (ii) he supported improvements to the school environment. However, he suggested that departments should consider the overall situation of the district and deal with this in accordance with the established procedures; (iii) the idea of opening up school premises for community use was good, but the education community had diverse views on the programme. Therefore, he could hardly support the programme.

73. Ms Carman NG declared that her children had studied in TNKJSC before. She then raised the following views: (i) she supported TNKJSC for launching senior secondary courses. She also understood that the school hoped to utilise the adjoining site which had been reserved for educational purposes for the convenience of students and parents; (ii) she appreciated the school’s idea of opening up the school premises for community use. As the programme was innovative and challenging, she suggested that the school should thoroughly examine the implementation; (iii) she kept an open mind towards the programme at this stage and hoped that the school could provide more information for further understanding.

74. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he appreciated and supported the school for opening up the school premises for community use; (ii) TNKJSC’s idea of launching senior secondary courses at the adjoining site was good. However, EDB had an established mechanism to deal with school sites, and the school should follow. DC did not play a role in this respect; (iii) he suggested that the school operator should consider using another site to exchange for the said site and should enhance the competitive edge of the programme under the established mechanism. - 18 - Action by

75. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) TNKJSC did not have adequate space, so it was appropriate for the school to apply to EDB for land allocation. She hoped that the school’s application would be successful; (ii) the idea of opening up the school premises for community use was innovative. Therefore, she would raise no objection to the school’s programme; (iii) she attached importance to the principle of fairness; (iv) the proposed sharing building would provide various facilities. She expressed concern over its mode of operation and hoped that the school would conduct an in-depth study; (v) a public consultation might be necessary for the programme in order to gain public support and she was willing to provide assistance.

76. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) DC hoped that schools would share resources with the community to enhance community participation and maximise the benefits the school premises could generate. He reckoned that the programme met the expectation of the Council. Therefore, he would support the programme; (ii) according to Response Paper 10/19 by EDB, the school had not formally applied for opening more classes. Therefore, he reminded the school to make an application in accordance with the Bureau’s established procedures; (iii) the proposed sharing building would provide various facilities. He expressed concern over its mode of management. Also, he reckoned that the school should consider ways to enhance the confidence of the Bureau and the public, as well as ways to implement the sharing programme successfully; (iv) he hoped that the school could provide detailed information to facilitate members’ consideration and brainstorming.

77. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) the development of TNKJSC into a complete secondary school would be beneficial to the long-term development of students; (ii) the idea of sharing the school facilities with the community was innovative. He believed that, from an architectural perspective, it would not be difficult to separate facilities for teaching purposes from those for community use; (iii) PLK was experienced in managing multi-purpose facilities, and therefore, he had confidence in the management capability of its schools. He believed that PLK would fully support the programme. PLK might consider making a pledge so as to enhance the confidence of EDB and the district in the programme; (iv) he agreed to the direction of the programme and hoped that the school would strive to take forward the programme. He also requested the school or PLK to provide more detailed information.

78. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views: (i) the said site, which was reserved for educational purposes, had been left idle for some time. The Government should optimise land use to meet the needs of the community; (ii) he thanked TNKJSC for putting forward the said programme and sending a representative to give a presentation. He reckoned that there was an actual need for the programme and the idea of opening up the school facilities for community use was good; (iii) he was dissatisfied that EDB had not sent any representative to the meeting and its response paper was vague. The Bureau - 19 - Action by should send representatives to the meeting to introduce development plans for the idle sites reserved for educational purposes in the district and to respond to TNKJSC’s programme; (iv) considering that the community might have other needs, the Council and departments should listen to the views of various sectors proactively.

79. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) the said programme addressed different needs of the district with an innovative concept, made a breakthrough to the usual practice of developing a site by one single department and was in line with the general direction of “single site, multiple uses” as advocated in the policy address. Therefore, it was worth exploring; (ii) a few primary schools in the district hoped to identify sites for reprovisioning. It would not be an easy problem to deal with.

80. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he suggested that the school should focus on providing a few facilities; (ii) he welcomed that the school would provide recreational and sports facilities to the community and requested the school to carry out a follow-up study.

81. Mr Dennis WONG raised the following views: (i) he welcomed the concept of the programme. He supported the school for providing local residents with additional community facilities and would be happy to see it come true; (ii) the proposed services under the programme would cover a wide range of areas and a number of departments would be involved. It would be difficult to determine which departments would be responsible for the co-ordination and management work; (iii) the said site was under the management of EDB. He suggested that the school should communicate with the Bureau and consider enhancing relevant education elements in the programme to minimise resistance.

82. The Chairman concluded as follows: (i) the Committee generally raise no objection to the opening up of the school premises for community use. The school might consider focusing on providing the proposed types of services to enhance the chance of success; (ii) as EDB had not sent any representative to the meeting, the Committee would write to the Bureau to express its views after the meeting.

(e) Report by LCSD on facilities management in Sham Shui Po District (DFC Paper 4/19)

83. Ms Vicky WONG introduced Paper 4/19.

84. Mr YUEN Hoi-man said that in respect of artificial turf soccer pitches in the district, 20% of the sessions remained vacant. He suggested that the Department should consider opening up the venues for residents to stretch out during vacant sessions. - 20 - Action by

85. Ms Vicky WONG responded as follows: (i) artificial turf soccer pitches were fee charging facilities and could only be used by hirers; (ii) she suggested that the public should go to nearby parks for recreation and sports activities.

86. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

(f) Improvement works on recreation and sports facilities under LCSD in 2018-19 (Phase VI) (DFC Paper 5/19)

87. Ms Vicky WONG introduced Paper 5/19.

88. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he suggested that the number of large lockers at swimming pools in the district (e.g. Lei Cheng Uk Swimming Pool) should be increased; (ii) he enquired about the reasons for the provision of new water pipes along the periphery of the running track in Sham Shui Po Sports Ground.

89. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) he supported the Department for providing fences at the spectator stand at the amphitheatre of Lai Chi Kok Park and thanked the Department for its prompt follow-up actions; (ii) residents welcomed the Department to provide decorations of floats in Lai Chi Kok Park. He suggested that the Department should extend the proposal to other parks in the district; (iii) the water pressure of the shower facilities in the male changing room of Lai Chi Kok Park Swimming Pool was insufficient. He hoped that the Department would follow up.

90. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he hoped that the Department would provide water dispensers of various heights in Inclusive Parks for Pets for the convenience of pets; (ii) it was noted that a water dispenser had been installed at Tai Hang Tung Estate Playground No. 2 in November last year, but it was not available for use until testing of fresh water samples was completed by WSD. The progress was unsatisfactory and he hoped that LCSD would help expedite the progress.

91. Ms Carman NG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) milky water was discharged from some of the newly installed water dispensers, e.g. water dispensers at Cornwall Street Squash and Table Tennis Centre and Swimming Pool. She enquired whether this was normal and whether similar cases were found in other newly installed water dispensers; (ii) the lighting fittings in the toilets of Cornwall Street Squash and Table Tennis Centre were damaged for a long period of time and had not been repaired yet; (iii) renovation works at Sports Centre were underway, affecting air ventilation and leading to odour problems. The problems were particularly serious on the fifth floor near the children’s play room. - 21 - Action by

92. Ms Vicky WONG gave a consolidated response as follows: (i) the Department would examine the provision of additional large lockers at Lei Cheng Uk Swimming Pool; (ii) the existing sprinkler system in Sham Shui Po Sports Ground could only spray water on the lawn area in the sports ground but could not water the lawn along the periphery of the running track. Therefore, it was necessary to install additional water pipes; (iii) she thanked residents for their views on decorations of floats in Lai Chi Kok Park; (iv) in respect of the water pressure of the shower facilities in Lai Chi Kok Park Swimming Pool, LCSD had requested the Architectural Services Department to carry out inspection and was examining the provision of additional water pumps to increase the water pressure. Some water heaters in the said swimming pool were under repair, and the repair works were expected to be completed by the Lunar New Year; (v) regarding the water dispenser at Tai Hang Tung Estate Playground No. 2, LCSD would request WSD to expedite the testing work, with a view to allowing the public to use the water dispenser as soon as possible; (vi) the Department would follow up in respect of the abnormal colour of fresh water at some water dispensers and the damaged lighting fittings in the toilets of Cornwall Street Squash and Table Tennis Centre; (vii) the Department noted the air ventilation and odour problems in relation to the renovation works at Pei Ho Street Sports Centre.

93. The Committee noted the contents of the paper and endorsed the funding application of HK$3,747,400, and HK$1,712,000 of which would be paid in 2018-19 and HK$2,035,400 of which would be paid in 2019-20.

Agenda Item 3: Reports from Working Groups under the Committee

(a) Report from the Working Group on District Works (DFC Paper 6/19)

94. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

(b) Report from the Working Group on District Facilities Management (DFC Paper 7/19)

95. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

Agenda Item 4: Any other business

96. The Committee did not raise any other business.

Agenda Item 5: Date of next meeting

97. The next meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. on 14 March 2019 (Thursday).

- 22 - Action by

98. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 1:03 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office March 2019