The minutes were confirmed on 6 September 2016 without amendment.

Minutes of the 5th Meeting of District Council in 2016

Date : 21 June 2016 (Tuesday) Time : 9:30 a.m. - 2:40 p.m. Venue : Conference Room, 13/F., Yuen Long Government Offices, 2 Kiu Lok Square, Yuen Long Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal Chairman: Mr SHUM Ho-kit (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Vice-chairman: Mr WONG Wai-shun (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Members: Mr CHAM Ka-hung, Daniel, (Beginning of the meeting) (2:00 p.m.) BBS, MH, JP Ms CHAN Mei-lin (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr CHAN Sze-ching (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr CHEUNG Muk-lam (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr CHING Chan-ming (Beginning of the meeting) (1:45 p.m.) Ms CHIU Sau-han (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr CHOW Wing-kan (Beginning of the meeting) (2:00 p.m.) Mr KWOK Hing-ping (9:55 a.m.) (12:45 p.m.) Mr KWOK Keung, MH (Beginning of the meeting) (2:10 p.m.) Mr KWONG Chun-yu (9:45 a.m.) (11:45 a.m.) Mr LAI Wai-hung (Beginning of the meeting) (2:10 p.m.) Ms LAU Kwai-yung (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) The Hon LEUNG Che-cheung, (Beginning of the meeting) (9:50 p.m.) BBS, MH, JP Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen (Beginning of the meeting) (1:35 p.m.) Mr LEUNG Ming-kin (10:10 a.m.) (End of meeting) Mr LUI Kin (11:50 a.m.) (End of meeting) Mr LUK Chung-hung (11:00 a.m.) (11:50 a.m.) Ms MA Shuk-yin (09:45 a.m.) (End of meeting) Mr MAK Ip-sing (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr MAN Kwong-ming (Beginning of the meeting) (12:10 p.m.) Mr MAN Ping-nam, MH (Beginning of the meeting) (11:15 a.m.) Mr SIU Long-ming (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr TANG Cheuk-him (Beginning of the meeting) (2:15 p.m.) Mr TANG Cheuk-yin (Beginning of the meeting) (2:15 p.m.) Mr TANG Hing-ip, BBS (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr TANG Ho-nin (Beginning of the meeting) (1:35 p.m.) Mr TANG Ka-leung (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr TANG Lai-tung (Beginning of the meeting) (10:45 a.m.) Mr TANG Sui-man (Beginning of the meeting) (12:10 p.m.) Mr TANG Yung-yiu, Ronnie (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr TO Ka-lun (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr TSANG Shu-wo (Beginning of the meeting) (11:10 a.m.) Mr WONG Cheuk-kin (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Ms WONG Wai-ling (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting)

1 Mr WONG Wai-yin, Zachary (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr YIU Kwok-wai (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Mr YOUNG Ka-on (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting) Ms YUEN Man-yee (Beginning of the meeting) (End of meeting)

Secretary: Mr KONG Kwok-piu, Bill Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Office Assistant Secretary: Ms LAM Ka-hing, Alexis Executive Officer I (District Council), Yuen Long District Office

In Attendance Mr MAK Chun-yu, Edward, JP District Officer (Yuen Long) Mr WONG Chi-wah, Steve Assistant District Officer (Yuen Long) 1 Mr WU Cheuk-wang, Ricky Assistant District Officer (Yuen Long) 2 Mr CHAN Hon-kwan, Harris Senior Liaison Officer (Rural), Yuen Long District

Office Mr TAM Kin-fai, Simon Senior Liaison Officer (Town)(Atg), Yuen Long

District Office Mr LAU Wing-kam Chief Engineer/ West 1 (New Territories West), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr KWONG Ying-wai Chief School Development Officer (Yuen Long),

Education Bureau Mr CHEUNG Pui-chung District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Yuen Long), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr FOK Lok-sang District Commander (Yuen Long),

Police Force Ms WONG Lai-ying Police Community Relations Officer (Yuen Long

District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr WONG Wing-hung, Chief Manager/Management (Tuen Mun & Yuen

Stephen Long), Housing Department Ms CHIU Lee-lee, Lily District Lands Officer/Yuen Long (District Lands

Office, Yuen Long), Lands Department Mr WONG Kin-wai, Kelvin Administrative Assistant/Lands (District Lands

Office, Yuen Long), Lands Department Ms CHEUNG Wai-ying, District Leisure Manager (Yuen Long), Leisure

Olivia and Cultural Services Department Ms HO Yuen-ching, Jessica Senior Town Planner/Tuen Mun 1 & District Planning Officer/Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West, Planning Department Ms LAM Wai-yip, Michelle District Social Welfare Officer (Yuen Long),

Social Welfare Department Ms LEUNG Pui-yin, Wendy Chief Transport Officer/New Territories North

West, Transport Department

Item 2 Ms TSE Siu-wa, Janice, JP Director of Home Affairs

2 Item 3 Mr HUI Yat-ming, Simon Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Regional N), Environmental Protection Department Mr SZETO Wing-kwok Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional N)2, Environmental Protection Department Mr LAM Wing-man Senior Town Planner/Enforcement 1,

Planning Department Mr WONG Wai-to, Basil Structural Engineer/Slope Safety 1,

Buildings Department Mr TSUI Heung-ming Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Mainland W 2, Civil Engineering and Development Department

Item 4 Mr YEE Wing-kan Senior Structural Engineer/C3, Buildings Department Mr LAU Wing-chung, Alvin Property Services Manager/SD21, Architectural Services Department Mr KAM Wing-yin, Wilfrid Property Services Manager/ & Tuen Mun West, Architectural Services Department

* * * * *

Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives from departments to the 5th meeting of the Yuen Long District Council (“YLDC”) in 2016. He especially welcomed the following attendee:

Director of Home Affairs Ms TSE Siu-wa, Janice, JP

2. The Chairman said that Ms TSE was the first department head who attended the meeting of this YLDC term. On behalf of all Members, he extended a warm welcome to Director TSE.

3. Furthermore, the Chairman welcomed Ms Jessica HO, Senior Town Planner/Tuen Mun 1 and District Planning Officer/Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West, Planning Department, who stood in for Mr LAM Chi-man, David, District Planning Officer/Tuen Mun & Yuen Long West.

4. On behalf of all Members, the Chairman also congratulated Mr YIU Kwok-wai on his baby girl.

3 5. The Chairman said that Mr LUI Kin requested to discuss “implementation of landscaping works at passageways beside Sai Ching Street Children’s Playground”, and proposed that the Government should carry out formation works on the existing cement road surface and re-pave it with floor tiles. He also suggested the unauthorised structures and objects be removed. Since the item was related to environmental improvement, he proposed to refer it to the Environmental Improvement Committee for follow-up.

6. The Chairman asked Members if they had any comments on the agenda. Members raised no objection to it.

Item 1: Confirmation of the Minutes of the 1st Special Meeting and the 4th Meeting of Yuen Long District Council in 2016 7. The minutes of the First Special Meeting and the 4th Meeting were confirmed.

Item 2: Meeting with the Director of Home Affairs 8. Again, the Chairman welcomed Ms Janice TSE, JP, Director of Home Affairs to the meeting to exchange views with Members on district affairs.

9. Ms Janice TSE, JP said that she was very pleased to meet YLDC Members. She said that she had assumed duty for a short time only, but she was eager to listen to the views of Members of the 18 District Councils (DCs) on district affairs. At the beginning of the new DC term, she hoped YLDC would cooperate closely with the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”) and Yuen Long District Office (“YLDO”) to commence work in the coming years, with a view to implementing district administration. She then briefed Members on the measures relating to district administration and major tasks of HAD.

10. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said that the District Officer (Yuen Long) and Assistant District Officer (Yuen Long) had done a very good job in implementing the Pilot Scheme on Enhancement of District Administration (“Pilot Scheme”) and Yuen Long District had set a good example for other districts in implementing the scheme. He hoped the Director would continue to support Yuen Long District so that district work would be implemented smoothly. Regarding building management, building maintenance involved works tender and owners’ corporations (“OCs”) and owners’ committee would seek the advice of District Office (“DO”) staff who attended DC meetings. If the issues involved complicated legal and contractual matters, the staff might not be able to give advice. In this regard, he hoped HAD would provide more support for resident organisations. He also hoped the Government would amend the Building Management Ordinance (Cap.344) and establish an arbitration mechanism for the purpose of assisting residents in mediating conflicts in respect of building management. Moreover, he supported regulating the fees charged by property management companies by way of amending the ordinances. In particular, the gratuity for Deed of Mutual Covenant (“DMC”) managers was usually high while some of the fees that were not related to the work of the managers should be cancelled. As regards building maintenance, he hoped HAD would provide more professional advice for OCs and owners, as well as assist them to evaluate the costs of works for the purpose of minimising bid rigging. Lastly, he said certain departments had always failed to send their representatives to attend DC’s or its Committees’ meetings. It reflected that they did not respect DC’s advisory role in the district. He had raised an enquiry at the meeting in this regard and he hoped the

4 Director would reflect the issue to the departments concerned. He said that as DC represented public opinion, the departments had the responsibility to listen to the views and respond to the enquiries of Members, or else the concept of “addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities” could not be realised.

11. The Vice-chairman welcomed the Director to the meeting to listen to Members’ views. He would also like to take the opportunity to thank YLDO which had successfully implemented the Pilot Scheme and District-led Actions Scheme (“DAS”) under the leadership of the District Officer. As the schemes had effectively dealt with unauthorised shop extension, many Members of other DCs had commended the significant improvement in the cityscape of Yuen Long District. Under the two schemes, the problem of illegal parking of and abandoned bicycles had also been addressed effectively. During different stages of the schemes, he had reflected that the law enforcement departments should modify their strategies in dealing with illegal parking of bicycles. He pointed out that recently, the resources had been mainly deployed in removing abandoned bicycles. However, some residents parked their bicycles at certain locations in the morning rush hours and rode them back home when at night time. Owing to restrictions inherent in the ordinances, the law enforcement departments concerned could not take enforcement actions effectively to tackle the problem. This kind of illegal parking had caused obstruction and danger in the public place, especially those locations with high pedestrian flow. He hoped the law enforcement departments would modify the mode of enforcement with a view to handling the problem more flexibly and effectively. Earlier when HAD consulted the public on the Building Management Ordinance, it had proposed to deduct the gratuity for DMC managers by phases. However, no progress was announced thereafter. Since many people objected to the linkage of gratuity for DMC managers with the cost of property management companies, he hoped HAD would follow up the matter proactively and announce the results of consultation as soon as possible. With regard to the “Guidelines on the Remuneration Package for Members of the District Councils of the HKSAR” (“the Guidelines”) for Members to follow in respect of reimbursement of expenses on production of publicity materials, he had disagreement with the DC Secretariat (“the Secretariat”) on whether professional qualifications, such as lawyer, could be printed on such materials and the related expenses could then be claimed. While the Secretariat stated that the expenses of publicity materials on which the word “lawyer” was printed could not be reimbursed, he opined that lawyer was a professional qualification which should not be considered a contravention to the Guidelines if being printed on the publicity materials. He pointed out that the relevant provisions in the Guidelines were not clear. He hoped the Director would follow up the matter and thus, the expenses would be reimbursed.

12. Mr CHAN Sze-ching said that the biggest Home Ownership Scheme court in the territory, which was located in his constituency, had set up its OC. Since he was elected as DC Member, the OC had been involved in complicated litigation arising from internal affairs for at least three times. He said the existing Building Management Ordinance covered three types of buildings, viz. single buildings, tenement buildings and large housing courts which were different from one another, and it was difficult to formulate a set of hard and fast regulations which could apply to all. That’s why conflicts in many aspects would emerge. Regarding bid rigging in building maintenance works, property management companies, OCs and management committees would split up the works into that cost under $100,000 so as to avoid the tendering procedures. He also said that according to the relevant guidelines on tender opening and tender assessment, only two OC members would be required to perform tender opening and the process would be conducted behind closed doors. Since it would give rise to unfair practice, he urged the Government to revise the relevant guidelines. With

5 regard to election method, he said that block vote method was allowed. With a ballot paper containing 20 candidates, voters might vote for 12 or 18 candidates. It could not be ruled out that large housing courts or courts with OCs would set certain rules (whether they were fair or not) by the appointment of election officers, so that some candidates would be elected more easily under the block vote method. It would create a lot of conflicts particularly in the case of large housing courts. Besides, the enquiry hotline of HAD only provided simple information, as the general public would not have time to learn knowledge of property management thoroughly, he hoped HAD would provide more support to protect their rights.

13. Mr CHEUNG Muk-lam welcomed the Director to the meeting to listen to Members’ views. He took the opportunity to commend the District Officer, Assistant District Officers and their teams in addressing various issues in the district. He said that many footpaths and drains built in the 1950s and 1960s in the rural areas had become dilapidated. For those located on private land, the Government had to seek the written approval of the owners before maintenance works could be performed. He opined that as the usage rate of the footpaths in the rural areas was high and drain blockage was frequent, the daily life to villagers had been affected. For the sake of enhancing the efficiency of maintenance works, he proposed the Government to review the practice of seeking the written approval of the owners before road or drain improvement works could be performed. Besides, he reflected that flooding usually occurred in rural areas during heavy rain. As land would not be resumed under “Rural Public Works (“RPW”)” for carrying out drainage improvement works, he urged HAD to enhance the relevant procedures.

14. Mr CHOW Wing-kan said that Yuen Long was the most diversified community among the 18 districts. While there were grass-roots in Tin Shui Wai, about half of the total number of village in the territory, i.e. about 150, were also found in Yuen Long. The new and old communities had different building management and maintenance problems. Given the vast extension and scattered distribution of population of Yuen Long district, the resources devoted by the Government had been spread so thin. The development of the rural areas had been delayed. Despite all, the staff of YLDO had been working very hard and paid exceptional efforts in dealing with various issues with unswerving determination. He proposed HAD to create additional permanent civil service posts in YLDO apart from employing Non-civil Service Contract staff to perform the tasks with a view to facilitating work planning and manpower deployment. In respect of District Minor Works, YLDO was allocated some $20,000,000 each year for the purpose. The funding would be used up if large scale recreational or sports facilities such as football pitch and beach volley ball court, which cost over $10,000,000, was to be built. That would affect the implementation of other minor works. He proposed the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) to formulate a “five-year development plan” based on the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”) and dovetailed with the population growth and characteristics in the coming five years. LCSD should propose to the district, rural committees in particular, major recreational or sports facilities planned by the Department and implement the relevant works with the resources of the Government instead of those of DC. Besides, he reflected that only less than $1,000,000 was allocated for some RPW such as provision of letter box and road maintenance each year, which was insufficient. He proposed the Government to gauge views on these works and allocate bulk funding to commence the works in a short period of time, so that the waiting time for these works would be shortened. Lastly, he reflected that venues of the Yuen Long Theatre were always fully booked but the activities held there were mainly performances of operas or gold songs. He proposed LCSD to introduce a points system to encourage groups to organise more diversified and

6 quality performances, so that resources would be utilised in a fair manner. He also proposed to provide one more theatre in the district with a view to address the shortage of performing venue in the long run.

15. Mr KWOK Keung, MH welcomed the Director to the meeting and listen to views of Members. He said that the staff of various departments deployed to Yuen Long district had performed very well and deserved commendation. In particular, he commended the District Officer for leading YLDO in implementing the Pilot Scheme, which had tackled the persistent problem of shop front extensions (SFEs) effectively. With the joint efforts of various departments, the cityscape of Yuen Long had been significantly improved. Moreover, efforts in respect of grass-cutting, anti-mosquito and clearing illegally parked bicycles had achieved positive outcome. However, limited by the provisions of the ordinances, enforcement work of relevant departments in relation to illegal parked bicycles failed to achieve the desired results. For example, the Lands Department (“LandsD”) had to serve notice on the illegally parked bicycles for 48 hours before it might remove the bicycles concerned. If the bicycle or the notice was removed, the department could not take enforcement action. In view of the busy traffic in the district, many residents parked their bicycles in the vicinity of bus stops or fences of walkways for their own convenience. In this way, obstruction was resulted. He urged HAD and LandsD to examine the feasibility of amending the law and allowing the enforcement departments to remove the illegally parked bicycles immediately. Notices should also be posted at black spots to serve deterrent effect.

16. Mr KWONG Chun-yu said that traffic and pedestrian were congested in Yuen Long, and accessibility of walkways was very important. He earnestly hoped that the Government would curb street obstruction by shops through the implementation of the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance. If the enforcement departments would issue notices to prosecute the shops involved in street obstruction, it would serve strong deterrent effect. Nevertheless, he had discussed with frontline staff and thought that it would be more effective for the Government to introduce a “blacklist system” for maintaining a record of repeated offenders. The summons system would then be perfected. Besides, he praised YLDO staff for their hard work and concern for the residents in the rural areas, and Tin Shui Wai. He also reflected the recent incidents of bicycle theft which had become rampant. Some residents proposed that CCTV be installed at bicycle parking spaces but it would be subject to technical issues. He hoped the Director and Members would offer their views on the above issues.

17. Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH welcomed the Director to the meeting for a better understanding of Yuen Long. Firstly, he wished to express appreciation to the Pilot Scheme which received critical acclaims from Members of other DCs. In implementing the Pilot Scheme, the Government had provided information for the public orderly and communicated with the residents effectively. The success of the Scheme also hinged on the transparency of the implementation process. For example, the residents knew very well about the procedures of clearing illegally parked bicycles and tackling SFEs, as well as the communication process between the enforcement departments responsible for anti-mosquito actions and private landowners. Thanks to the efforts of YLDO, the above problems were addressed effectively and efficiently. The residents also found that information was highly transparent and accessible. Secondly, as the Chairman of District Facilities Management Committee, he wished to reflect to the Director that the funding of some $23 million for district minor works (“DMW”) was insufficient to meet the needs of the rural areas, Yuen Long Town and Tin Shui

7 Wai. The projects proposed by Members could not be completed in ten years. For example, the football pitch projects in Ha Tsuen Heung and Heung, as well as the improvement works near Pai Lau would cost over $10 million. He hoped the Director would consider increasing the funding. He also proposed to combine the allocations for RPW (about $27 million) and DMW (about $23 million) so that financial resources would be utilised more flexibly. He also said that his constituency, i.e. , was the largest private housing court in the territory. The amendments of the Building Management Ordinance did not benefit large private housing court like this one. He proposed to set a ceiling for the gratuity for DMC managers, say $100,000, which would be more reasonable than the existing practice of setting it at a certain percentage, say 7%, of the expenses of property management companies with no ceiling. Moreover, the amended ordinance had confirmed that the cost for support services of the head office would be calculated as the charge of the property management companies. It did not meet the aspirations of the public and was contrary to the intention of the law. He said that the arrangement concerned should be withdrawn. He reiterated that the cost for support services of the head office was an expenditure item that contravened the mutual covenant, and law should be enacted to prohibit the property management companies from collecting such charge.

18. Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen welcomed the Director to the meeting of YLDC to brief Members of the work of HAD. He said that under the leadership of District Officer and Assistant District Officers, the Pilot Scheme had tackled SFEs with great success. Grass-cutting and anti-mosquito efforts had also reaped fruits. He hoped that DAS would also attain good results. He said that Yuen Long was different from other districts that ethnic minorities lived in Yuen Long Town, the rural areas and Tin Shui Wai. The Government had devoted a lot of resources to the district. With the help of other departments, the District Officer had to carry out liaison and publicity work in the district so as to smoothly implement the policies. Though the functions of HAD could not be compared with those of the then District Office, the Government had taken forward the concept of “addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities”. Therefore, the Government should consider strengthening the powers and functions of the District Officer so as to facilitate his coordination work with other departments at district level. He opined that since the district affairs of Yuen Long were different from other districts, the Government should act in the light of the characteristics of individual districts. The Government should review how to support the work of the District Officer for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency of district work.

19. Mr MAK Ip-sing welcomed the Director to visit Yuen Long District. He praised District Officer and staff of YLDO for their hard work in the district. Due to structural issues, it seemed that HAD lacked the power, though it had the responsibility, to handle various district matters. Even though the general public and Members had high hopes that HAD would address these matters, HAD might not have the power to do so. Apart from being the Chairman of District Management Committee (“DMC”) who could seek the assistance of other departments, District Officer seemed to have no other way through which he could mobilise other departments to tackle district matters. That’s why he hoped the Director would pay heed to the structural issues. Besides, many people would see the assistance of HAD when they came across building management problems. However, HAD staff did not have the power in these matters even though they had the responsibility to attend OC meetings and write reports. They could not play the role of arbitrator in the case of building management disputes. He hoped by amending the Building Management Ordinance, bid rigging in building maintenance issues could be resolved and HAD staff

8 would be empowered to mediate property management disputes. Furthermore, he hoped the community hall in East Yuen Long Town would be completed as soon as possible with the aim of providing more venues for residents to hold meetings and district activities. He also proposed HAD to increase the Operating Expenses Reimbursement (“OER”) for DC Members so as to cope with the ever-increasing workload.

20. Mr MAN Kwong-ming welcomed the Director to YLDC. He said that Building Management Committees (BMCs) and OCs were established under the Building Management Ordinance. However, the Ordinance was only applicable to single buildings or multi-storey buildings, but not to those low density residential developments, such as the Fairview Park, the Palm Springs and the Royal Palms. The Fairview Park had been completed for over 40 years, yet it could not set up its OC and neither could the Palm Springs and Royal Palms. He believed that HAD knew about the situation and hoped the Government would amend the Ordinance such that it would be applicable to low density residential developments. Now that these residential developments could only establish Owners’ Management Committees, some doubted that the property management companies might have excessive power. Since the number of low density residential developments was ever-increasing in rural areas, he hoped the Government would consider amending the Ordinance with a view to meeting the aspiration of the owners.

21. Mr MAN Ping-nam, MH welcomed the Director to YLDC. He said that the issues of rural areas were complicated. The six villages of Yuen Long encircled the town. Once the residents stepped out of the town, they had stridden on the private land of villagers. He opined that apart from the Home Affairs Bureau, other policy bureaus were unfamiliar with the issues of rural areas in the New Territories. They had forgotten the rights of indigenous New Territories residents protected by the Basic Law, as well as the important advisory role of Heung Yee Kuk in respect of New Territories affairs as established in the Heung Yee Kuk Ordinance (Cap. 1097). Thanks to the leadership of the Yuen Long District Officer and the capability of YLDO staff who handled matters properly, no disputes had arisen over the years. He then cited development plan as an example to illustrate how other policy bureaus handled New Territories matters unwisely. The Government estimated that the population of Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area would increase to 210 000 in the future. The relevant policy bureaus expected that only by adding one car to each train of the West Rail Line could solve the traffic problems brought by the new population. The bureaus concerned conducted local consultation on the matter. He opined that the bureaus must have thought that they were experts themselves, or they considered residents of the rural areas ignorant. He thought that besides Hung Shui Kiu, development plans in Pat Heung and South would bring about traffic problems which the Government must solve, perhaps by widening the road, before any plans could be implemented. Otherwise, serious disputes between the town and rural areas would be resulted. He hoped the Director would remind other departments to respect the inherent rights of indigenous New Territories residents.

22. Mr YIU Kwok-wai welcomed the Director to YLDC to listen to the views of Members. He also hoped HAD would always strive for excellence in its work. He said that YLDC was the biggest DC in the territory and the workload was the heaviest. Owing to manpower shortage, the staff of YLDO and YLDC Secretariat had been working strenuously. Though YLDO and the Secretariat had employed Non Civil Service Contract (“NCSC”) staff to relieve manpower shortage, it was not a long term solution to the problem. He hoped the Director would pay heed to the situation and expand the establishment. The second issue

9 was about the Mutual Aid Committee (“MAC”), which had a long history of several decades. He said that MACs of public housing estates were funded by the Government. For example, free rental of premises and allowances were provided by the Government. MACs could also apply for community venues to hold activities. However, it was questionable whether the resources used in the way were cost effective. As a matter of fact, some MACs were operating properly while quite a number of them were not. Some MAC offices had virtually become the private warehouse and club of MAC members. Whilst it seemed that the Government had no effective way to handle the situation, he hoped HAD would conduct studies on enhancing the system of MAC of public housing estates and revamping the system. Lastly, he said that the space of DC Conference Room was inadequate to accommodate attendees of the meeting. He hoped HAD would consider relocating YLDC with the aim of providing better facilities for Members to handle district affairs more efficiently and effectively.

23. Ms CHAN Mei-lin welcomed the Director to the meeting to listen to Members’ views. First, she commended the staff of YLDO and YLDC for their excellent work attitude and diligence despite of heavy workload. Secondly, she wished to discuss about swimming pools in Tin Shui Wai. She knew that the issue was beyond HAD’s purview but she wished the Director would liaise with LCSD on the matter. She pointed out that the two swimming pools in Tin Shui Wai were non-standard 25-metre pools. The proposed standard 50-metre swimming pool in Tin Shui Wai North had been planned for ten years but the works schedule was yet to be confirmed. It would be difficult to cope with the needs of the population of 300 000 in Tin Shui Wai. Besides, she proposed that DC Members would be allowed to use the total amount of medical allowance within the term of four years, so as to replace the present arrangement that the annual balance of allowance would not be brought forward to the following years. It was because the annual allowance of about $30,000 was inadequate to cover the cost of medical services received by Members. As regards building management, she reflected many buildings encountered problems in relation to tendering of maintenance works. Disputes also arose when owners’ meetings were convened. She opined that owners who took part in OC operation might not have possessed professional knowledge, and they needed support in respect of invitation of works tender and works cost evaluation. She hoped HAD would provide more support with regard to building management by sending representatives to attend OC meetings and giving more professional advice to owners who took part in OC operation. In this way, the owners concerned would know more about tender assessment and cost evaluation, as well as the means to obtain useful reference information. The conflicts between residents and OCs would then be minimised and they would cooperate in handling matters of the housing estates. Lastly, she hoped grass-cutting and anti-mosquito efforts would continue under DAS, and such work should be performed regularly on government land.

24. Mr TANG Ho-nin welcomed the Director to YLDC. As a DC Member of the rural area, he thanked YLDO for its excellent performance in the implementation of RPW, which had significantly improved the environment and living of the rural areas. He held different views from Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH who proposed that DMW and RPW funds should be mixed. He said that the six villages of Yuen Long were the largest rural areas in the New Territories. However, only about $27 million was allocated for RPW each year which was inadequate. He always hoped that HAD would increase the resources. The proposal of Mr LEE to mix the two categories of funds involved “stealing” the limited amount RPW fund and putting it under DMW, which was considered unreasonable. Mr LEE should request the Director to increase the allocation for DMW instead of proposing to deploy RPW fund for

10 implementing minor works in Yuen Long Town and Tin Shui Wai. And that would be a more reasonable approach. Furthermore, he drew the attention of Members to the fact that the rural areas were always willing to donate some of the allocations for performing grass-cutting and anti-mosquito works in Tin Shui Wai.

25. Mr TANG Ka-leung thanked the Director for visiting YLDC. He said that the rural area covered most parts of Yuen Long. He was an elected Member of Ha Tsuen and the constituency covered Hung Shui Kiu and Lau Fau Shan. He praised YLDO staff responsible for Ha Tsuen Heung for their prompt actions in offering assistance in minor works. He hoped they would keep up their good work. He also reflected that the Water Supplies Department replaced the water pipes in Ha Tsuen and the functions of the pipes were thus improved. However, suspending the service of all the old pipes including public standpipes had caused some problems. In some rural areas, squatters scattered around and according to the prevailing policies, the installation of meters and laying of pipes by the Government would only cover public areas. For private land, the applicants for fresh water supply had to make arrangements with the owners concerned. In view of the requirement, the applications of squatter residents might not be successful if the pipes were to be passed through private land of which owners refused to cooperate. He urged the relevant departments to retain the standpipes in rural areas and offer assistance to squatter residents in respect of installation of meters and laying of pipes.

26. Mr TO Ka-lu said that a Member had mentioned about the special circumstances of some residential developments such as the Fairview Park and Palm Springs under which OCs could not be established. He said he was not intended the repeat the same view. He enquired whether the Director would set a schedule on which the demand of owners for setting up OCs would be followed up. In this way, the Members concerned would explain to residents the progress of the Government in following up the matter.

27. Mr Zachary WONG said that the Building Management Ordinance was amended at an interval of several years. However, the effects were not as good as expected. He considered the present arrangement of setting the gratuity for DMC managers at a certain percentage of the expenses of property management companies very strange, because the DMC managers would have no incentive to save the cost of property management companies. Besides, he opined that though the Government had paid close attention to bid rigging in respect of building maintenance, he could not see that the Government had taken any measures to tackle the problem. After all, it would be empty talk unless the enforcement departments decided to combat bid rigging progressively. Secondly, he said that what OCs really needed was legal advice. Though HAD had arranged interviews for OCs to meet the volunteer lawyers, the waiting time was very long and the legal advice provided was usually not concrete recommendation. Therefore, he hoped HAD would enhance the support in this regard. Besides, a Member had mentioned earlier that starting from the last DC term, certain departments did not send representatives to attend meetings of DC or its Committees even though the agenda items were directly related to their scope of work. This DC term had begun for six months and the situation had deteriorated with two departments failing to provide written replies. He wanted to know the reasons for this. Many Members had just commended the Pilot Scheme and DAS and he agreed that the actions to remove illegal concrete platforms of shops were successful. Nevertheless, unauthorised occupation of streets by shops had recurred with certain shops placing their wooden or galvanized platforms on streets. He had reflected the matter to YLDO, which then referred it to Yuen Long

11 District Lands Office (“YLDLO”). YLDLO replied that the matter should be handled under DAS. He hoped YLDO and YLDLO would discuss how to handle the matter properly, and he thought that it was the routine of YLDLO. He said that the funding for Community Involvement Project was insufficient. In the past, DC reserved $2,500,000 each year for local organisations to organise large scale events such as Art Festival or Sports Festival. The funding for this year had decreased by $200,000. As regards manpower, DC employed more than ten NCSC staff each year with DC funding. These long-term NCSC staff were practically “permanent staff” and should not be employed with DC funding. Lastly, he proposed to add an accountable item on rental under DC Members’ remuneration package so that Members would cope with the burden of ever-increasing office rental in recent years.

28. Ms YUEN Man-yee thanked the Director for visiting YLDC and listening to Members’ views. She said that Members had commended YLDO for the success in implementing the Pilot Scheme and DAS. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) and the relevant departments had also performed their duties so well that the cityscape of Yuen Long had significantly improved. She also took the opportunity to praise Mr FOK Lok-sang, District Commander (Yuen Long) Hong Kong Police Force for his exemplary performance in view of the recent law and order concerns caused by people who had lodged torture claims/non-refoulement claims and the “bogus refugees”. Despite heavy workload in the district, the above matter had been addressed satisfactorily under the leadership of Mr FOK. Apart from this, the Police had taken targeted enforcement actions against illegal gambling and stepped up inspection in the district which made residents feel their lives and properties well protected. She hoped Mr FOK and his team would keep up their good work in the district.

29. Ms CHIU Sau-han thanked the Director for visiting YLDC and listening to Members’ views. She said that many residents in Tin Shui Wai reflected that there was no market in the district comparable to the two markets managed by FEHD in Yuen Long Town, viz. Tai Kiu Market and Tung Yick Market where they could buy food items and daily necessities with reasonable prices. Markets in Tin Shui Wai were monopolised by The Link and public markets were closed or converted into shops. The shopping choices for residents were limited. She opined that many Tin Shui Wai residents had to make their livings and work outside the district, transportation cost had occupied a large part of their income. They could hardly afford the increasingly high cost of food items. She hoped the Director would pay heed to the well-being of Tin Shui Wai residents and reflected their views to the relevant departments. She urged the Government to provide a public market managed by FEHD in the district.

30. Mr LEUNG Ming-kin thanked the Director for visiting YLDC. He appreciated YLDO for implementing the Pilot Scheme and the actions taken under the Scheme. The grass-cutting and anti-mosquito efforts, as well as the actions to combat unauthorised shop front extensions had achieved remarkable results. He said that in his constituency, both multi-storey buildings and rural areas co-existed and integration of urban and rural areas was particularly important. He pointed out that after resuming land in the rural areas, the Government did not provide enough transit centres or interim housing for the affected residents. He hoped the relevant departments would offer assistance. Besides, he said that the workload of DC Members was ever-increasing and they needed to attend many official functions. He proposed the Government to increase the OER for DC Members so as to cope with the escalating expenses. He also stated that RPW and DMW allocations should not be

12 combined. In the meantime, LCSD had a certain amount of DMW allocation. In the long term, LCSD funding should be separated from that of DC. The Government should provide funding for LCSD to carry out maintanence and renovation works for its recreation facilities. Furthermore, he was very concerned about the law and order issues caused by the South Asians living in the district. He praised the Police for stepping up patrolling and taking actions with a view to maintaining public order in the district. Lastly, he reflected that for many times, the government departments had failed to send representatives to attend meetings of DC and its Committees and communicate with Members directly. He hoped the situation would improve.

31. Ms Janice TSE, JP gave a consolidated reply as follows:

(1) She thanked Members for their valuable opinions and would give a consolidated reply to their enquiries. For details of specific questions and enquiries relating to the purview of other departments, she would reflect them to the respective departments after the meeting;

(2) Most of the Members had mentioned about building management issues, such as bid rigging in respect of building maintenance works, the gratuity for DMC managers and request for more support for OCs. With regard to the gratuity for DMC managers, the Home Affairs Bureau and HAD reported to the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) Panel on Home Affairs the results of public consultation and recommendation of future amendments of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap.344) in May this year. One of the recommendations was that the term of DMC managers would be expired as long as the OCs concerned had been established for five years; the OCs would choose to renew the contract and negotiate new contract terms (including the period of appointment and gratuity) with the DMC managers so that contract term would not be continued indefinitely and the rights of owners could be safeguarded. As regards the gratuity of DMC managers, HAD proposed that it should be deducted by 0.5% each year and be capped at 8% of the expenses of property management companies. Moreover, in calculating the gratuity, payment such as water and electricity charges would be excluded. The above proposals were subject to further deliberation and endorsement of the LegCo;

(3) With regard to combating bid rigging and the demand for professional legal advice in relation to building maintenance, HAD noted the requests. In effect, the relevant government departments and organisations including the Development Bureau, Buildings Department (“BD”), Urban Renewal Authority, Hong Kong Housing Society, Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Police and HAD had worked together for many years in assisting owners to carry out building maintenance works as well as preventing any possible unlawful acts through providing professional support, investigation, law enforcement, publicity and education. The establishment of Competition Commission also stepped up the Government’s efforts in combating bid rigging. She understood that recent newspaper reports and some cases had caused concerns among OCs, and owners themselves could help prevent bid-rigging effectively. If owners took part in OC affairs, more and more owners would monitor the projects in the buildings together, the possibility of bid rigging and project errors could be minimised. For

13 example, the owners might monitor the maintenance works to see if they were cost-effective or carried out according to contract terms, and whether the follow-ups were properly handled. She believed that given that the subject was widely discussed and DC Members and DO staff had publicized the information in the district, owners and OCs had had a better understanding and knowledge of the matter. Before the Ordinance was amended, HAD had introduced some of the proposals which did not contravene the prevailing Ordinance in the form of administrative guidelines with a view to addressing public concern. For example, it was proposed that when owners were voting for important matters, they would consider appointing a third party to monitor the process of collect and verify the instrument of proxy. Moreover, the appointed third party would be required to fill in his/her contact information (such as telephone number and email address) on the instrument of proxy for the Chairman to inspect in case of doubt;

(4) She understood that the public and Members had high hope on HAD. In the past, HAD and DOs encouraged owners to set up OCs. As time went by, the maintenance of dilapidated buildings became more and more complicated. The expectation of general public, Members and OCs on HAD became much more higher than before. In this connection, HAD would regularly review the role of Liaison Officers in the districts. That said, we understood that it would be difficult for individual officers to judge who’s right and who’s wrong when disputes arose. In accordance with the prevailing laws, building management was under the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal. HAD would explore the possibility of strengthening the legal support for OCs subject to availability of manpower. In the meantime, the Government would also consider whether public money should be spent continuously for helping private owners to solve their problems relating to building management. Since the resources involved would be significant, the Government must first of all elucidate justifications for deploying appropriate resources for offering assistance to OCs in need. HAD knew that certain “3-nil” buildings hoped that after the establishment of OC, they would obtain assistance relating to works tendering. However, some large housing courts had problems in dealing with disputes and conflicts among owners. And the assistance they needed was different from that mentioned just now. Building management issues were complicated, HAD would examine the views expressed by Members from various aspects;

(5) She understood that Members wished to know more about the details of building management, for example, the types of housing estates where OCs could not be set up. And Members urged the Government to amend the relevant laws. In her understanding, some estates could not establish OCs just because certain terms in the deed of mutual covenant had imposed limitations in that respect. Since the deed of mutual covenant was a private treaty, amending the laws might not be the best way to solve the problem. Whether housing estates formed by villas could set up OCs might depend on the limitations imposed by the land lease and deed of mutual covenant concerned. Any across the board provisions written in the Building Management Ordinance might not be able to cater for different circumstances of various housing estates;

(6) With regard to the Government’s efforts to address the problem of illegally

14 parked bicycles, the Pilot Scheme was a good start. However, there were still many issues to be dealt with under the Scheme. Whilst the relevant enforcement departments would handle bicycle theft under the existing legal framework, HAD and these departments would continue to examine the feasibility of adopting new measures against illegally parked bicycles. Electronic locks had been used in other countries to lock up the parked bicycles and the owners had to pay for unlocking in the case of overtime parking. Some shopping mall carparks would lock up vehicles that obstructed the accesses or parked illegally;

(7) Regarding the question of resources, she understood that Yuen Long was a district where the town and rural areas mingled. Nevertheless, she did not consider combining the allocations for RPW and DMW appropriate. She also appreciated that Members hoped to fight for more resources and HAD would consider that carefully. Before the commencement of minor works, each District Office must make plans to deploy the annual allocations effectively. For example, they should closely monitor the works progress, redeploy the available resources and fully utilise the surplus allocations of certain projects;

(8) Manpower shortage was a problem experienced by various districts, and HAD would review the manpower of each District Office. She also noted that the Conference Room of YLDC was relatively small and HAD would seek to increase the resources for DCs as a whole;

(9) As regards the remuneration of DC Members, the gratuity of Members had increased by 15% in light of the review conducted in 2015. Besides, various kinds of reimbursements for expenses had also been raised. She understood that Members had to face the burden of rising office rentals. Nevertheless, according to the statistics of the previous year, the property rental market had showed a general downward trend at double digit rate. She hoped that would lessen the rental burden of Members. In respect of the proposed allowance on rental which had been discussed for many years, it should be noted that Members had different requirements on the size, location and use of their offices. It was worth discussing that whether the flexibility of OER would be greatly undermined if a specific item of rental allowance was introduced. HAD had set up a mechanism whereby the remuneration of Members would be reviewed for each DC term, and independent committee would also conduct survey and give advice on the matter; HAD would take Members’ views into account when such review was conducted. A Member also proposed to allow surplus medical allowance in one year to roll over to the following year until the end of a District Council term. HAD would also relay the view to the relevant committee when such review was conducted; and

(10) She was very pleased to have a chance to exchange views with Members. She also felt the harmonious atmosphere of YLDC which truly manifested the integration of town and rural areas. Members had raised reasonable opinions in the process of rational discussion. She hoped to closely cooperate with Members on this basis through the District Officer.

15

(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had reflected Members’ views to the relevant departments after the meeting.)

32. The Chairman thanked the Director for her detailed reply. He trusted that the Director had noted the views of Members on the Pilot Scheme, manpower of YLDO and YLDC Secretariat, allocations for DMW, community involvement activities, RPW as well as remuneration of DC Members. The Director had also responded to Members’ concerns on building management just now. He believed the Director and the relevant units in HAD would make reference to Members’ views when they proceeded to amend the Ordinance.

Item 3: Question from DC Member: Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH proposed to discuss “severe punishment for illegally filling ponds with soil” (YLDC Paper No. 52/2016) 33. The Vice-chairman asked Members to take note of Paper No. 52/2016, which was about the proposal of Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH to discuss the “severe punishment for illegally filling ponds with soil”. He also asked Members to take note of the joint reply from the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”), the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”), BD, the Planning Department (“PlanD”) and LandsD.

34. The Vice-chairman welcomed the following representatives to the meeting for answering Members’ enquiries:

Environmental Protection Department Principal Environmental Protection Officer Mr Simon HUI (Regional North) Senior Environmental Protection Officer Mr SZETO Wing-kwok (Regional North)2

Planning Department Senior Town Planner/Enforcement 1 Mr LAM Wing-man

Buildings Department Senior Structural Engineer (Acting)/ Mr Basil WONG Slope Safety (MW)

Civil Engineering and Development Department Senior Geotechnical Engineer/ Mr TSUI Heung-ming Mainland West 2

Lands Department District Lands Officer Ms Lily CHIU (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) (Regular representative) Administrative Assistant/Lands Mr Kelvin WONG (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

16 35. In accordance with the Yuen Long District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”), Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH declared his interest, indicating that he and his family would never participate in soil filling and related businesses or benefit from them. He opined that the authorities should make legislative amendments and impose heavier penalties to severely punish those who illegally dumped soil and filled ponds. Liberal legislation and lax enforcement of the law resulted in the extensive filling of fishponds in agricultural land in the New Territories. Having been discussed at the DC earlier, the issue attracted the attention of many residents in the New Territories. Quite a number of landowners even expressed their views on various occasions, including the Chairman of Sheung Shui District Rural Committee, Mr HAU Chi-keung, who mentioned that his land was also filled and he was angry about it. He believed many landowners were angry that their lands were filled and also hoped that the relevant authorities would study to amend the relevant planning, environmental protection and lands legislation, seriously following up the situation of illegal soil dump and filling of ponds. If the enforcement actions by the relevant authorities were affected by inadequate manpower, departmental co-ordination or awareness of the relevant legislation, he hoped they would face squarely the issue. As regards the problem of soil dump at the piece of land opposite Kingswood Villas (i.e. the land near in Heung, commonly referred to as “Kingswood Hill” or the “waste hill”) that the relevant authorities were dealing with, even though residents were compelled to accept the “existing use” of the land as used by the landowners (i.e. storage of sand), if there was illegal soil filling beyond the “existing use” area or unlawful occupation of Government land, the Government still had to enforce the law firmly. He urged the relevant law enforcement authorities to deal with “Kingswood Hill” and the illegal dumping of soil on New Territories lands through cross-departmental co-ordination to protect the interests of the landowners and preserve the original appearance of the New Territories.

36. Mr YIU Kwok-wai opined that the incident of “Kingswood Hill” had indisputably aroused widespread attention among the public and the media. The core problem behind was fly-tipping. He hoped the relevant authorities would handle it properly. No matter how the authorities responded, the truth was the public saw that fly-tipping persisted. Together with constant media reports on the expansion of fly-tipping areas in some place, etc., it gave people the impression that the Government did not have any instant solutions to address the problem. From another perspective, if the current fly-tipping activities were not unauthorised, the Government should indicate to the public that people carrying out the fly-tipping activities were not in breach of land uses and the activities could be acceptable by the law. From the perspective of the rule of law, he hoped the Government could adopt some instant solutions to deter fly-tipping activities. If legislative amendments were required as a long-term solution, the Government should follow up actively in that direction.

37. Mr KWONG Chun-yu said the recent incidents of illegal dumping of soil were endless. Apart from “Kingswood Hill”, there were successively the accumulation of rubbish in Lau Fau Shan (commonly known as “Lau Fau Rubbish Hill”) and the “waste hill” in Nai Wai, Tuen Mun. He held the view that if society turned a deaf ear to the “waste hill” problem, such problems would grow and occur everywhere. He said that places with illegal soil dump were either accumulated with debris or rubbish and were located in very close vicinity to people’s residence, emitting odour in summer. The “waste hill” in Nai Wai, Tuen Mun was only a stone’s throw from people’s residence. The conditions were bad. He considered the Government duty bound to deal with the “waste hill” problem, but the several relevant departments seemed to be shifting it around. He understood the problems could not be handled by frontline personnel alone, but were related to policies. In fact, quite a lot of

17 land in the New Territories was agricultural land granted on Block Crown Lease in the past without restrictions on the uses of the land, but it did not mean debris could be accumulated on such land. The “Kingswood Hill” problem had been snowballing since 2008 to date. There had been reports that the dumping of debris and rubbish kept on happening in other parts of the New Territories. As learnt, the “waste hill” in Nai Wai, Tuen Mun might be involved with the unlawful occupation of Government land. Therefore, the Government had to deal with the problem as soon as possible and explain to the public whether it could enforce the law in accordance with the relevant legislation and if there was any breach of land uses, whether the people concerned could be required to restore the land to its original use. Legislative amendments should also be made when necessary. Letting the problem continue to get worse would only make the public suffer.

38. Mr CHING Chan-ming said the issue to be discussed was the severe punishment for illegally filling ponds with soil. However, Members who just spoke seemed to be repeating the remarks made at the special meeting earlier when discussing “Kingswood Hill”. The issue of “Kingswood Hill” had already been discussed in detail at that meeting. Relevant government departments were already enforcing the law stringently. He believed if government departments encountered any breaches of the law, they would actively follow up. He said that “Kingswood Hill” was only a rare and individual case in the New Territories, but just now Members had extended it to land problems that would affect the entire New Territories. Currently, land uses in the New Territories were subject to a number of restrictions by the Government. If more restrictions were imposed due to such actions as landfilling or ponds filling, the use of land would be bound, which would aggravate the problem. There were different scenarios and circumstances in the New Territories. If the law was violated, the Government would certainly take enforcement actions. If not, under a reasonable and fair situation, the Government could actually allow landowners to fill the land or ponds to improve the physical environment, reduce the accumulation of sludge and wastewater, etc. If the issue was intensified by purely “tarring them with the same brush” so that the Government would step up enforcement or make legislative amendments, he believed all holders of New Territories land would object. This would not be just about the interests in land of individuals, but the whole New Territories, which might impact the Government’s administration.

39. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP was of the view that the issue was not only about illegally filling ponds with soil. It should also include the illegal dumping of soil on agricultural land because the filling of ponds was only one scenario of dumping soil on agricultural land. As far as he could remember, around ten years ago when the current Chief Secretary for Administration (“CS”), Mrs LAM CHENG Yuet-ngor, Carrie, GBM, GBS, JP, was the Secretary for Development, construction waste was dumped on the agricultural land in Lam Tsuen, Tai Po, resulting in a similar “waste hill”. All departments did not know what to do. Under such circumstances, the Government amended the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131) (“TPO”) to require that an application had to be submitted to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) for landfilling of over 1.2 metres high on agricultural land in the New Territories, viz., the law had already stipulated that any person, who had to carry out landfilling on agricultural land, would have to apply to the TPB, and likewise for ponds filling. The current emergence of the “waste hill” and such violations now was obviously the result of the lack of rigorous enforcement and the slow pace of prosecution by the relevant departments. Meanwhile, under the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), EPD could require those intending to carry out landfilling activities on private land to notify the EPD. Upon receipt of the notification, the EPD would notify other relevant departments to take follow-up actions

18 under their jurisdiction and the applicable legislation. However, if the person concerned did not notify the EPD, it was not in breach of the law. Therefore, sometimes landfilling activities on private land were carried out without the knowledge of the relevant departments. Another problem was that after the introduction of the charging scheme for construction waste disposal at landfills by the Government, many dump truck drivers were not disposing of the waste at landfills but elsewhere so as to save costs. Regarding the written reply from the authorities on the study of mandatory installation of a global positioning system (“GPS”) on dump trucks to track them of their dumping locations, he said that the technology had been launched for years. Such systems were also installed on public buses to track them of their locations, but the authorities still had to carry out tests and consult the industry. It was believed that the recommendations could only be implemented after several years. As the problem of fly-tipping was serious, the Government should stop fly-tipping at source, in addition to stepping up law enforcement. The measure of mandatory installation of the GPS on dump trucks had to be implemented as soon as possible.

40. Mr Zachary WONG said the “Kingswood Hill” problem had been discussed at the special meeting previously and the authorities had been following up. The authorities had also given a written reply on the follow-up actions taken. As the problem required the joint actions by the departments, it was proposed that DMC continue to follow up the matter because the relevant departments would attend DMC meetings on a regular basis and the Member who raised the question was also a member of the DMC and could follow up the work progress of the relevant departments more closely. Besides, DC Members could express their views on district issues and urge government departments to deal with the problems. However, as a district advisory structure, the functions of the DC were limited to its advisory role. He suggested the Member who raised the question raise the issue to LegCo level. He believed it would more effectively drive the relevant departments to follow up the matter. Moreover, he hoped the PlanD would clarify what illegally filling ponds with soil was. He had also dealt with the problem of filling agricultural land and fishponds with soil many years ago. According to the reply from the LandsD at that time, as long as the landowners planted grass after landfilling, not causing environmental degradation, the matter could be settled. He made enquiries of the PlanD whether it was the requirement and how environmental degradation was defined. In addition, he enquired whether an application to the TPB was also required if a person wished to rehabilitate agricultural land, having the need to sink pools for irrigation.

41. Mr TANG Hing-ip, BBS opined that the issue concerned had been discussed at the recent special meeting. He disagreed with the approach that the Member who raised the question put forward the issue at this meeting again with some minor modifications. He did not understand why that Member did not put the issue of unlawful occupation of Government land on the agenda. Such act was indisputably even more evil. He held the view that if the authorities made it clear that the landfilling works concerned were unauthorised and had to be cleared in accordance with the law, he would have nothing else to say. If the authorities indicated that the works concerned were not unauthorised, the matter should come to an end. He opined that people should not impose their thinking on others, ignoring the interests and feelings of the landowners just to please the residents of some housing estates. Furthermore, he expressed resentment against people describing the filling of ponds as evil. It was difficult for villagers to make a living from fish farming with the fishponds, so most fishponds were already abandoned, resulting in the accumulation of sludge and wastewater, breeding mosquitos. Filling the ponds was only to improve the environment. Otherwise, the authorities would institute prosecution. Fishponds were private assets. There were reasons

19 for filling the fishponds. He did not understand why people regarded it as evil. He hoped the authorities would have a clear understanding of the problem and also hoped that the various Chairmen of rural committees would cry out loud and never put themselves at others’ mercy.

42. Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen said the Chairmen of rural committees had heard the voices of Members representing the rural areas. As regards the problem of landfilling, the Development Bureau and Heung Yee Kuk added the restriction on the height of landfilling in the New Territories not to exceed 1.2 metres or an application had to be made to the authorities in order to cope with the fly-tipping situation in Lam Tsuen and She Shan Tsuen, Tai Po. He participated in the relevant discussion at that time too. He felt that people currently imposed an unreasonable requirement, which did not seem to be allowing land to be filled with soil of no more than even 1 metre high. In his view, there were historical reasons underlying the “Kingswood Hill” problem. Before the development of Tin Shui Wai, the land concerned had all along been a legitimate sand depot for storage purposes and was subject to relevant planning regulations. In response to the requirements of the relevant authorities, the landowners covered the land concerned with vegetation and carried out shotcreting for reinforcement, but all were one by one opposed by the residents of Kingswood Villas. If so, he suggested the Government resume the land. He said in the past Heung Yee Kuk had discussed agricultural land use with the Government, which agreed that fishponds could be filled for villagers to make a living from growing vegetables. He hoped people would not elevate to the political plane, influencing the overall land status of the six rural areas in Yuen Long through this “Kingswood Hill” incident to create political capital. He opined that quite a lot of time had been spent on discussing the issue concerned at the special meeting where he even indicated with indignation that if all sectors held the view that Yuen Long District was so full of problems, he suggested the Government freeze the development of all lands in Yuen Long District so that villagers and landowners could carry out farming and afforestation for generations to come. He hoped the residents in Yuen Long, especially those in rural areas, would have a clear understanding on the nature of the problem and never let people use the matter to cause division. Meanwhile, he also hoped the DC meeting could refer the matter to the Town Planning and Development Committee (“TP&DC”) to continue to follow up under a reasonable and fair situation.

43. Mr TANG Ka-leung said as the Member representing the rural areas, he could deeply feel the impact on rural areas caused by urban development. The land in front of his house was originally a flat area, but the Government constructed a viaduct there, as if there was a dam in front of the house, causing inconvenience to the access of the villagers and affecting feng shui. The villagers opposed it but the Government responded that the construction was for development needs. He felt that society was glutted with hypocrites, who cried all day for the well-being of the residents but in fact they carried personal goals. If the above-mentioned construction by the Government was affecting the villagers, why did they not help the villagers voice their objections? On the other hand, residents in the New Territories worked as farmers in the past. When it was difficult to make a living from agricultural farming, they practised fish farming in fishponds. Later, when it was also difficult to sustain a living from fish farming, the fishponds were abandoned, breeding mosquitos and resulting in environmental problems. Then the residents were prosecuted by the FEHD. If they made an application to the authorities for filling the fishponds to grow trees and plants, it would definitely be rejected by the authorities. He enquired why the people who currently rejected filling ponds with soil did not assist the villagers in reflecting to the Government the various difficulties faced by the villagers. He hoped everyone could

20 broaden their thinking a little, not taking their personal goals as the starting point or seeking popularity.

44. Mr TANG Ho-nin shared the view of Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen. The issue of “Kingswood Hill” had been discussed in detail at the special meeting and the authorities had also given their replies. It should not be discussed again at the DC meeting. He was of the view that the landfilling works at the site where the “waste hill” was located had emerged for more than a decade. During the period, trees and grass were planted there. How would the opposing Members not know about it at that time? Besides, he said there were fishponds everywhere in Tin Shui Wai in the past. If the Government had not developed Tin Shui Wai and filled the fishponds, from where would there be housing land to resolve the housing needs of hundreds of thousands of people, not to mention having DC Members representing the housing estates in Tin Shui Wai? Land was resumed to fill ponds when there was a need to increase housing supply. When not, filling ponds was criticised as an evil act. He did not understand why people were suddenly concerned about the landfilling works recently. Neither did he understand what their motives were.

45. Mr LUK Chung-hung opined that most Members agreed that any land uses had to be subject to the relevant planning legislation. He also agreed with the direction of discussion on the problem of illegal dumping of soil and filling of ponds. Recently, he reflected to the PlanD and the District Lands Office (“DLO”) that some pieces of land in Mong Tseng Tsuen, Ping Shan Heung which was outside Tin Heng Estate, Tin Shui Wai were operated as warehouses illegally. Relevant departments dealt with it promptly and the landowners concerned were very co-operative. In just half a year, the land was restored to its original use. He was of the view that the longer such landfilling activities as “Kingswood Hill” took, the more difficult it would be to restore the land. Meanwhile, if the land was to be restored, the Government or the landowners would have to consider various technical and financial issues, including the exploration of other options that could strike a balance among such factors as the environment and safety. Moreover, to completely solve the problem of illegal soil dump, the relevant departments, subject to manpower availability, had a duty to inspect the different lands regularly to monitor any changes in land use. If changes were noted, the relevant departments had to examine whether the law had been breached and take enforcement actions. He considered the problem easier to tackle if illegal dumping of soil was detected early and immediate enforcement actions were taken. Restoring the land to its original use would also be easier. He, therefore, hoped the relevant departments could deal with the problem with foresight.

46. The Chairman reminded Members that although they carried different views on the issue, he hoped Members would focus on the incident itself when they spoke and not on individual Members. He hoped they would bear this in mind. He had all along been concerned about the soil dump problem, in particular, the problem of the land opposite Kingswood Villas, and had been following up the development of the matter. He understood the debris at the site had been flattened a lot and as learnt, it had already met the requirement on steepness as set by the BD. However, he hoped the relevant departments could supplement the remaining issues, including whether the site concerned had breached the relevant planning legislation and occupied Government land. As regards Mr Zachary WONG’s suggestion to have the DMC continue to follow up the matter, the District Officer would be invited to provide further information later.

21 47. Mr LAM Wing-man, Senior Town Planner/Enforcement 1 of the Planning Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) Regarding Mr LEE Yuet-man’s question, the PlanD had all along maintained communication with Mr LEE, who provided a lot of information and photographs in relation to the “Kingswood Hill” situation for PlanD’s reference. The PlanD had also been conducting inspections and taking enforcement actions against the unauthorised developments in its vicinity. The written reply also indicated that 30 Enforcement Notices and 27 Reinstatement Notices had been issued in the past three months. If unauthorised developments were found again, the PlanD would continue to take enforcement actions. Meanwhile, if the landowners concerned had not dealt with the unauthorised developments according to the notice after it had been issued, the PlanD would consider instituting prosecutions;

(2) Regarding Mr YIU Kwok-wai’s views on law enforcement, he stressed that unauthorised development was a crime. Therefore, the PlanD could only take enforcement actions or institute prosecutions after gathering sufficient information and evidence to prove that the suspected case was an unauthorised development under the TPO. As in the case of the filling works in Nai Wai, Tuen Mun mentioned by Mr KWONG Chun-yu, the said site was in fact zoned “Residential (Group B)” on the Lam Tei and Yick Yuen Outline Zoning Plan. Landfilling works in this zone were not regulated. Therefore, if landfilling works were carried out in this zone, no prior planning permission from the TPB was required. The PlanD would not have evidence to prove that the landfilling works were regarded as an unauthorised development either;

(3) Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen had mentioned that agricultural land could be filled with soil not exceeding 1.2 metres high without application. In fact, it was not applicable to all agricultural land. Normally, only sites zoned “Agriculture” on the statutory plans would be applicable. However, for land zoned “Green Belt” or conservation, prior permission from the TPB would be required to carry out landfilling or excavation. Otherwise, it might constitute an unauthorised development; and

(4) Mr Zachary WONG mentioned the guidelines for reinstatement after the unauthorised development had been discontinued. In setting the requirements for reinstatement, the PlanD would have some considerations, including the possible public safety issues arising from the land (e.g. flooding and landslides), the planning intention of the land, preventing the deterioration of its surrounding environment, or enhancing the appearance of its vicinity on the whole. The PlanD would lay down the requirements for reinstatement on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, one should not say that the PlanD had no guidelines to base on when the approach for one case was different from that for the other.

48. Ms Lily CHIU, District Lands Officer (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) of the Lands Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:

22 (1) Regarding the soil dump incident outside Kingswood Villas, in fact, after the authorities had noted the incident early this year, the LandsD were already working actively with other departments in their investigation. The said activities were found on some old scheduled agricultural lots. No restrictions on their land use were specified in the related leases. Therefore, dumping soil on the lots concerned was not in breach of land lease. As Mr Daniel CHAM had mentioned, it had to be regulated by the PlanD under the relevant planning legislation rather than the land lease. Even so, the LandsD had still been working with relevant departments in the investigation and paying heed to whether the Government land next to the site would be affected. Later in late April, the DLO found that some soil on the site had spread to the smaller Government land in the vicinity. The PlanD took immediate land control actions and completed gathering evidence to commence prosecution; and

(2) She reiterated that the affected Government land was in fact quite small and was not the most crucial location in the incident. Since the entire hill was mainly situated on private agricultural land, the relevant enforcement actions had to be carried out by the PlanD. The LandsD would definitely work in conjunction with relevant departments in the investigation, regardless of the department carrying out the enforcement actions. If Government land was affected, the LandsD would take immediate actions and institute prosecutions right after gathering evidence.

49. Regarding Mr Zachary WONG’s proposal to have the DMC continue to follow up the matter, Mr Edward MAK, JP, District Officer (Yuen Long) said that Mr LEE Yuet-man, as a member of the DMC, had raised the matter at the DMC meeting. The representatives of the relevant departments at the DMC relayed DMC members’ concerns to their respective departments. Senior government officials were very much concerned about the case. The relevant bureaux were already co-ordinating and following up the matter with a few relevant law enforcement departments, including publishing the press release and the subsequent follow-up actions since the onset of the incident a few months ago. Certainly, the LegCo and the DC had all along been discussing the incident and reflected their views directly to the representatives of government departments present at the meeting. He believed the current co-ordination mechanism of the above bureaux and departments, as well as the forums of the two-tier representative councils had dealt with the issue effectively.

50. Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH thanked Members for their views. He opined that the incident surfaced repeatedly in 2003, 2008 and 2016. It had to be solved today. He said he had sent over 100 complaint letters, jointly with residents of Kingswood Villas, between 2007 and 2008, which was not “no complaints” as alleged by other Members. If there were no complaints, why had the Office of the Ombudsman carried out investigations on the PlanD and the EPD which did not take stringent law enforcement actions upon receipt of complaints at that time? If not sufficient, he would submit 100 complaint letters again to the Office of the Ombudsman to enhance the effectiveness of the complaint. Besides, he had certainly reflected the problem to the DMC and urged the relevant departments to follow up. The relevant papers and records could be used as proof. He hoped other Members would be to the point. Meanwhile, the Legislative Council Panel on Development and the Panel on Environmental Affairs had also treated the incident as a follow-up item in response to his complaint. He had also complained to the Legislative Council Complaints Unit repeatedly. How could it be regarded as no one was following up? He held the view that the problem

23 was followed up in various aspects and did not hope that the DC, acting as a district advisory structure, would skip the discussion on such a major issue related to Yuen Long District instead, losing its functions. He commended the Chairman for approving the issue to be discussed at the DC meeting which proved that YLDC Members were concerned about the important affairs of Yuen Long District. He also hoped that under the leadership of the Chairman, they would continue to be concerned about the matter. Most importantly, the authorities had to make legislative amendments to impose heavier penalties to severely punish those who illegally filled ponds with soil.

51. Mr TANG Ka-leung considered the PlanD tearing society apart and creating noise. Fishponds had been designated as zones for specific uses under the relevant planning legislation for several decades. It was indeed impossible for the landowners to make a living from fish farming with the fishponds today. With changes in the physical environment around the fishponds, the fishponds had become a pool of stagnant water. The PlanD should have noticed such situation too. He hoped the PlanD could keep abreast of the times, relaxing the restrictions on the land use of fishponds to allow the ponds to be filled for other purposes such as agricultural farming. Otherwise, it would only force the landowners to make unauthorised changes in the use of fishponds. The PlanD should study the changes in the culture of local lives and relax the policy to allow landowners to apply for changing the land use of the abandoned fishponds in the light of the economic transformation.

52. Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen agreed with Mr TANG Ka-leung that the Government should adopt measures suited to local conditions. Currently, most rural agricultural land had been abandoned. Water accumulated in fishponds, breeding mosquitos. In fact, the authorities had injected quite a lot of resources in improving the rural environment. He did not understand why some people disallowed villagers to fill agricultural land with soil of no more than 1 metre high but disregarded the construction of a viaduct in front of villagers’ houses by the Government. He believed the Government had enacted legislation to regulate land use. Private landowners should be allowed to develop their land under a reasonable and fair situation. He hoped some individuals would not cause social division and contradiction due to the historical problem of “Kingswood Hill”. He considered “Kingswood Hill” an isolated incident. Land in the New Territories was already subject to the law. He hoped the Government would think twice.

53. Mr TANG Hing-ip, BBS shared the view of Mr TANG Ka-leung that he opposed the criticism that filling ponds was an unlawful evil act. He said that in the past, when the Government was developing Tin Shui Wai, the indigenous inhabitants in Yuen Long District fully cooperated so that the Government could fill numerous fishponds to increase housing land, making the present developed Tin Shui Wai. However, people now opposed filling ponds and treated it as evil, doing whatever they liked. How detestable such attitude was. Moreover, urban development had encroached upon the walled villages in the New Territories, cutting off natural water sources, polluting rivers, causing lots of weeds to grow on agricultural land and accumulating water in fishponds, breeding mosquitos. Relevant authorities required villagers to improve their environmental hygiene. How could the villagers afford the required costs? He hoped those individuals would not delight themselves in torturing others. The filling of ponds would continue, unless the PlanD could come up with a good way to deal with the issue.

24 54. Mr TANG Cheuk-yin considered it an exaggeration to describe the filling of ponds as evil. He said that in as early as the 30s, 40s and 50s, quite a lot of land in the New Territories was agricultural land. Many people in the South China Sea, Panyu and Shunde came to settle in the New Territories, sinking fishponds from agricultural land to make a living from fish farming. The land on which the estates in Tin Shui Wai were situated currently had all been fishponds. At present, if landowners applied to the Government for filling the ponds or changing the use of land under the “Village Type Development” zone, the application had to be made to different departments with very complicated procedures, which discouraged some potential applicants. He opined that some individuals should not exaggerate the “Kingswood Hill” incident to generate publicity and increase political capital, dividing Yuen Long District. He believed that all residents in rural and various areas in Yuen Long would strongly disagree with this approach. As for the problem of ponds filling, he shared the same view as that put forward by Members representing the rural areas that it was impossible to breed fish in many fishponds, generating no economic value. Land users could grow organic crops, trees, plants, etc. after filling the ponds. He agreed with Mr TANG Hing-ip that the filling of ponds would continue, unless the PlanD could come up with a good way to deal with the issue.

55. Mr YIU Kwok-wai said in gist, the responses from department representatives just now indicated that it was not true that no enforcement actions had been taken by the relevant departments but they had to follow the procedures in taking such actions. This gave people the impression that currently the Government did not have an instant and effective law enforcement method. He considered that two problems had to be solved. First, regarding the “Kingswood Hill” incident, if there were still no effective measures to deal with this single incident by the relevant departments, it would not be able to dispel the doubts of the public or cool down public concern. Secondly, he held the view that fly-tipping could occur anywhere, such as ponds, hillsides and roadsides. He was not able to notice any effective law enforcement measures against fly-tipping by the Government. He hoped the Government could explain to the public through the DC and the relevant law enforcement authorities would attach importance to the incident and continue to follow up.

56. Mr CHING Chan-ming was of the view that the existing TPO closely circumscribed the various uses of land in the New Territories. However, in terms of district development, landowners in the New Territories were willing to sacrifice their own interests in land to tie in with district developments most of the time, such as the land use along the railway lines being circumscribed due to the construction of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. Currently, the restrictions laid down in the relevant planning legislation were already very harsh. The Government should not impose heavier penalties. Otherwise, it would lead to the very strong reaction of the residents.

57. Mr LUI Kin said the existing legislation allowed legal dumping of soil and filling of ponds. Such activities could be carried out as long as they were in accordance with the law. Therefore, he considered that the Government had not banned the development of private land and was providing sufficient room for the public to apply for land development in accordance with the TPO. If procedures were strictly followed in the application for filling ponds with soil, the Government could grant approval. However, he was seeing two extremes. First, the Government had no means to prosecute some illegal filling activities, letting the situation deteriorate. The “Kingswood Hill” incident showed that even though the Government mentioned in its reply that a number of warning letters had been issued, the law

25 enforcement department had taken actions and gathered evidence and so on, no prosecutions had been instituted so far since the onset of the incident. Therefore, people learned from one another, not legally applying for filling ponds with soil. He hoped the Government could do its part. Since the law was there, it had to enforce the law strictly so as to ensure the validity of the legislation. Secondly, regarding the development of private land, rural land, particularly quite a lot of agricultural land, Green Belt areas, etc., did face some obstacles in development. Their landowners were fully entitled to carry out development on these sites originally, but the Government zoned the sites for conservation, which made it impossible to change their land use. Private development rights were thus banned. Therefore, currently some people would first change the natural environment of the land and then apply for development, in the hope to satisfy the statutory requirement through this means. Obviously, there were huge defects in Government’s conservation policy. They certainly supported conservation, but if the development rights of private land were jeopardised, the Government should provide compensation, such as exchange of land or the conservation fund that he suggested on other occasions, which could not only preserve the environment but also protect private property rights at the same time. He held the view that if the Government could improve the above two situations to ensure the development rights of private landowners, the occurrence of illegal filling of ponds with soil would thereby be avoided.

58. Mr LAM Wing-man added that the written reply from the PlanD also mentioned that prosecution action had been instigated against 6 persons for non-compliance with a Notice to Require Provision of Information, who were already convicted and fined. The PlanD would definitely consider prosecution actions against non-compliance with notices cases.

59. The Chairman thanked the government representatives for their responses and Members for their views. To sum up the views of Members, they agreed that the issue had to be dealt with in accordance with the law and the relevant law enforcement authorities had to take enforcement actions against unauthorised situations. However, as far as planning legislation was concerned, some Members said the existing legislation was stringent while some held different views. Under the TPO, any person responsible for an unauthorised development would be prosecuted and liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine of up to $500,000 and, in the case of a subsequent conviction, to a fine of up to $1,000,000, which was, so to speak, not lenient at all. He urged the relevant law enforcement authorities to step up inspection and enforcement to deal with the breaches. Quite a lot of Members mentioned that under many circumstances, it was not true that landowners were unwilling to legally apply for filling land or ponds with soil, but the case was that even if they tried, the application would be rejected as the requirements imposed by the relevant departments could not be met and so they resorted to carrying out the activities concerned directly without application. Such unauthorised acts should, of course, not be encouraged, but the landowners were really facing such difficulties. Therefore, he hoped that when the relevant law enforcement authorities, especially the PlanD, were approving applications for filling land or ponds with soil, they could discuss with the applicants and assist them to better understand the relevant approval requirements so as to ensure that they would meet the statutory requirement without affecting the environment in the course of works. As regards the so-called “Kingswood Hill” case, the DC had repeatedly followed up on it as requested by the Member who raised the question. Members were also very concerned about this matter. However, as the Chairman, it was necessary to ensure that meeting proceedings were not abused and that the issues in question were fully discussed. Therefore, with reference to the Standing Orders, he considered it not ideal to discuss the same incident regularly at the DC

26 meeting, but the matter should still be followed up appropriately. Thus, taking into account the views of Members, under Section 25(2) of the Standing Orders, he decided to refer the “Kingswood Hill” incident to the TP&DC to continue to follow up. He considered it appropriate to have the TP&DC follow up the incident because the TP&DC could discuss issues related to development including unauthorised development, Government land use and unlawful occupation. He asked Mr TANG Ho-nin, the Chairman of the TP&DC, for his views on the above decision.

60. Mr TANG Ho-nin had no strong view.

61. Mr TANG Hing-ip, BBS enquired how this matter would be considered resolved. If the work of relevant law enforcement authorities was already completed to some extent but some individuals were still dissatisfied, the matter could keep dragging on indefinitely.

62. The Chairman thanked Mr TANG Hing-ip for his views and said the PlanD just indicated that it would continue to follow up the incident. The District Lands Office, Yuen Long also indicated that it would continue to follow up the situation of unlawful occupation of Government land. That being the case, he was of the view that the relevant departments would continue to deal with the incident and the DC would continue to follow up. He said that after striking a balance between meeting management and the appropriate follow-up actions, he decided that it was appropriate to have the TP&DC continue to follow up the matter under the Standing Orders.

63. Mr MAN Kwong-ming said the Chairman just mentioned that the existing legislation was stringent, but he held the view that apart from whether the legislation was stringent, the focus should also include whether there would be room for legislative amendments. He considered discussion in this area very important when the TP&DC continued to follow up this issue.

64. Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen agreed that the Chairman’s decision was appropriate. Whether the existing legislation was stringent or not, the development rights of landowners had to be protected. Members could continue to provide their views at the TP&DC and allow the affected people to express their views through the DC.

65. The Chairman concluded that there being no other comments, they would continue to deal with the matter on the basis of the decision made just now. He thanked the representatives for attending the meeting again.

Item 4: Questions from DC Members: Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH and Mr WONG Cheuk-kin proposed to discuss “structural safety of green roofs and historic buildings” (YLDC Paper No. 53/2016) 66. The Vice-chairman asked Members to take note of Paper No. 53/2016, which was about the proposal of Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH and Mr WONG Cheuk-kin to discuss the “structural safety of green roofs and historic buildings”. He also asked Members to take

27 note of the joint reply from the Development Bureau (“DEVB”), BD, the Architectural Services Department (“ArchSD”) and the Antiquities and Monuments Office (“AMO”), as well as the replies from the Education Bureau (“EDB”), LandsD, the Housing Department (“HD”), the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) and the Transport Department (“TD”).

67. The Vice-chairman welcomed the following representatives to the meeting for answering Members’ enquiries:

Education Bureau Chief School Development Officer Mr KWONG Ying-wai (Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

Buildings Department Senior Structural Engineer/C3 Mr YEE Wing-kan

Lands Department District Lands Officer Ms Lily CHIU (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) (Regular representative) Administrative Assistant/Lands Mr Kelvin WONG (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

Architectural Services Department Property Services Manager/ Mr Alvin LAU Special Duties 21 Property Services Manager/ Mr Wilfrid KAM Tin Shui Wai & Tuen Mun-West

Housing Department Chief Manager/Management Mr Stephen WONG (Tuen Mun & Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

Leisure and Cultural Services Department District Leisure Manager Ms Olivia CHEUNG (Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

Transport Department Chief Transport Officer/ Ms Wendy LEUNG New Territories North West (Regular representative)

68. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said in many schools and private buildings in Yuen Long District, green roof projects were conducted in response to the appeal of the EPD in the past. He opined that the Government should issue guidelines on roof greening so that the public and building owners would have a clear understanding on the points to note when conducting green roof projects, for example, whether the building structure would be affected if green roof projects were carried out on the existing building structure. In his view, it might not affect the structure of the building if the existing concrete structure of the roof was lined with a thin layer of soil with grass and vegetation. However, he noticed trees had been planted on the green roofs of some schools and buildings. Some tree species like Ficus microcarpa (or Chinese Banyan) could damage the structure of the roof and cause leakage

28 with their roots penetrating deep into the soil layer and tightly gripping it as they grew. Moreover, members of the public, schools and private building owners might have planted a tree or two on the roof to beautify the environment, but as trees grew, their roots could damage the water-proofing membrane at rooftop and even the structure of the building, particularly in places involving public safety, such as schools. These potential risks could not be ignored. He considered the collapse of a green rooftop at the City University of Hong Kong (“CityU”) a warning and hoped relevant departments, such as the EPD, the ArchSD and the BD could undertake a fresh review on the green roof policy and formulate detailed guidelines, particularly on the plant species that could be planted, the bearing capacity of buildings, etc.

69. Mr WONG Cheuk-kin said he was more concerned about the property project of the “landscape deck”? (琉森花園) of Tin Shui Wai Public Transport Interchange (“PTI”). According to the written replies from government departments, the maintenance and repair works of the “landscape deck” were not undertaken by government departments. He enquired whether the ownership of this property belonged to the Government as it was built by a private developer. Besides, in February this year, the ArchSD sent staff to this PTI to inspect its ceilings. He enquired whether the inspection would be regular. Moreover, each building had its bearing capacity. If overloaded, there would be a certain impact on its structure or it would even pose the danger of collapse. He enquired whether the ArchSD or the BD had exercised regulation and issued guidelines on the loading of buildings for property owners to understand the bearing capacity of their properties under the existing legislation. He noticed a lot of trees had been planted on the “landscape deck”. They kept growing and their weight kept increasing. In this connection, he enquired whether the ArchSD had provided guidelines for the related contractors or maintenance companies to require them to measure the size of trees regularly and control their weight. Finally, he learnt from the Internet that currently, some electronic instruments could monitor the structure of buildings. He suggested the Government introduce these instruments and appoint outsourcing contractors to install these instruments at monuments or some buildings at risk, regularly monitoring whether they posed the danger of collapse or tilting.

70. Mr Zachary WONG said greening had a positive effect on temperature, which was thus worthy of promotion, but unfortunately, many people were dismayed at greening rooftops after the CityU incident. He hoped the Government could expeditiously conduct a comprehensive review on the green roof policy and issue some guidelines. If legislation was required, it would be necessary to make legislative amendments. He said some buildings in Yuen Long District were currently provided with green roofs. For some of them, provision of green roofs was already considered during construction and full calculations on the bearing capacity and structural safety of the buildings had been made. However, some green roof projects were conducted after the completion of the buildings. If those were Government buildings, it was believed that full calculations on their bearing capacity and structural safety had also been made. Nevertheless, Members had mentioned that for some buildings, when green roof projects were first conducted, the trees planted were young and small but as the trees grew and the drainage system of buildings aged, leakage or structural damage would result, which could impose potential danger on some older buildings. For this reason, he hoped government departments could step up inspection. He commended the security guard for her alertness in the collapse of the green rooftop of the sports centre at CityU. She immediately evacuated the students when she heard cracking sounds and saw ashes falling off from the ceiling of the sports centre and so there were no casualties. He held the view that problems that could be identified visually through visual inspection of building structure were

29 already very serious and at a rather late stage. Regular structural surveys and investigations had to be carried out to identify potential structural issues. He enquired whether the private developer had submitted a construction report to the ArchSD or the BD during the construction of the “landscape deck” and whether relevant departments would currently examine the reports of developers to see if the data were in line with the actual ones in structure or mechanics. As learnt, the CityU incident might also have involved errors in the calculation of structural bearing capacity. He felt that relevant departments had a duty to examine the situation of the “landscape deck”.

71. Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen said it was already fortunate that the collapse of the green rooftop at CityU led to no casualties. He recalled that when the Government promoted green roofs a few years earlier, many schools applied to the Government for conducting green roof projects. Some of the schools constructed in around 2000 and some old school buildings were approved, but later some schools were not approved. He held the view that the Government might have found problems with the green roof policy already. He said when some schools first carried out roof greening, works were simpler as only grass and flowers were planted, but later some schools planted trees on the roofs, which became heavier as trees grew, with roots even gripping into the concrete layer, aggravating the problem. He said in about 2012, when dealing with the rooftop problem of small houses in the New Territories, the Government required owners to hire authorised persons (“APs”) or technically competent persons to supervise the works even though the rooftops were constructed with simple materials only. In comparison, green roof projects were more complicated, so stricter supervision was required. He hoped the Government would expeditiously inspect all school buildings with green roofs. Besides, many old mansions in rural areas had been declared as historic buildings. Owners of these buildings could apply for a grant of not more than $1 million from the Government to carry out maintenance works. However, the said amount was insufficient to cover the required costs of the repairs of the historic buildings on the whole. He hoped the authorities could allow flexibility in the ceiling of grant.

72. Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH considered rooftop greening a good policy and supported its policy direction, but then there were some regulatory and construction problems, such as how a green roof should be provided and how regular maintenance and regulation should be carried out. He noticed that relevant departments only conducted visual inspection of the “landscape deck”. The inspection was considered completed if no leakage was found. Such methods were worrying. In fact, the departments should formulate some specifications to inspect the structural safety of the green roofs of Government and private buildings, in particular, the ArchSD should set up a dedicated team to assist relevant departments, such as the LCSD and its AMO, in the regular monitoring of the structural safety of buildings and provide technical support. He was worried that after the CityU incident, many people would be distressed by the safety issues of green roofs and would never set up a green roof again or would even remove the green roof that had already been set up, turning a good-will policy into a serious problem. Therefore, he suggested the buildings-related departments improve the legislation and regulations so that the EDB, the LCSD and relevant departments could promote the green roof policy under sound regulation. He did not hope that bureaux or departments would take the CityU incident as an excuse to require green roofs of schools, parks and buildings to be removed.

73. Mr TO Ka-lun considered rooftop greening a good policy. Rooftop greening, as well as urban greening, could mitigate the urban heat island effect. On the premise of global

30 warming, the green roof policy should be supported. The CityU incident was an isolated case that no one wished to see. Regardless of any errors in judgment or non-compliance involved in the incident, the authorities should continue to promote green roofs and even vertical green facades vigorously. He urged the authorities to set up an inter-departmental task force for the CityU incident and strengthen regulation and law enforcement, as well as public education, to solve the urban problems of rising temperatures and air pollution on this basis.

74. Mr CHOW Wing-kan said currently the Government provided financial assistance in the form of grants to the owners of privately-owned graded historic buildings for them to carry out minor maintenance works by themselves, but subject to the ceiling of $1 million. Although there was no restriction on the number of times they could apply for the grant, the total costs could be higher if the grant was used to repair the entire historic building with a piecemeal approach. He suggested the AMO conduct a comprehensive assessment of these historic buildings and then provide the owners concerned with a one-off grant to repair the buildings, which would save more resources and be more effective. In recent years, Professor JIM Chi-yung of the University of Hong Kong had been promoting rooftop greening in Hong Kong vigorously to improve air quality. He opined that in carrying out green roof or vertical green façade projects, contractors should clearly compute the bearing capacity of the ceiling and the loading supported by the walls including lateral wind resistance before the construction of the buildings, as well as estimate the impact on the bearing capacity due to aging of buildings when working out the plans and so on. He said the BD could provide contractors with technical advice on the scale of the greening projects that could be conducted. Moreover, he understood that some banks had set up funds for schools to apply for greening the roofs of their buildings or for growing plants on the roofs so as to improve the temperature of the top floors of the school buildings or take the roofs as places for learning activities. The aim of these funding schemes was to advocate environmental education, without regard to the bearing capacity of the buildings. Meanwhile, greening of buildings could also lead to the breeding of mosquitos. Therefore, he hoped relevant departments could provide technical guidelines and assistance in mosquito control and prevention in public places.

75. Mr MAK Ip-sing said the fortified structure in Ha Pak Nai, Yuen Long, declared as a statutory monument, was a place of refuge for Dr Sun Yat-sen and his compatriots back then. The fortified structure was a private property. Its owner had discussed with the District Office repeatedly and finally, the AMO erected display boards near the structure to introduce the history of the monument. He hoped the AMO and relevant departments would assist in the repair works of the monument. Besides, regarding rooftop greening, in many private buildings, greening works were not only carried out on their roofs but also podiums. Some podiums were greened by directly planting in the concrete layer, resulting in water seepage and drain blockage. He once sought assistance from the Joint Office for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints to deal with the water seepage problem but podiums were not private residential units. There was no way to follow up even if the seepage from the podiums was affecting the on-street shops downstairs. If the water seepage problem was left unattended, it would lead to rusting of reinforcement and spalling off of concrete, posing lots of danger. He considered there was a grey area and hoped the relevant departments could provide assistance.

31 76. Mr YEE Wing-kan, Senior Structural Engineer/C3 of BD, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) Alteration or addition works of private buildings were under the regulation of the BD in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123). The provision of green roofs for existing buildings was, in fact, regarded as alteration and addition works. In other words, the works concerned were subject to the law. In general, unless such alteration and addition works were exempted works or minor works, any person intending to carry them out would have to appoint an AP to submit plans to the BD. Works could only commence upon the consent of the BD;

(2) With regard to green roof projects, the related works would increase the loading on the structure of the building by, for example, planting grass and trees and filling with soil, and also affect the drainage system of the building. At the same time, a multitude of issues, including the bearing capacity in the original design of the building, the need for consolidation and the impact on the emergency escape route and the approved plot ratio of the building, had to be taken into account. Therefore, APs had to be appointed to co-ordinate the relevant works and provide owners with advice;

(3) Many Members were worried about situations like whether rooftop greening would cause water seepage in buildings or whether the roofs would collapse as the trees thrived. APs would take into account the above factors and the design of the building, as well as its present condition, when auditing the works concerned, and advise the owners on the need to submit plans to the BD. Moreover, upon completion of the works, these APs could also provide professional advice regarding tree care, building and drainage repair, etc.;

(4) As regards the “landscape deck” issue that Members were concerned about, BD’s records showed that the current greening installations of the deck were not added after the approved plan was published. They already existed in the approved plan at that time. In other words, the APs at the time had already included the projected loading of the green deck in the plan and the approved design. He believed safety should not be an issue if the deck was under proper maintenance as in the case of private property;

(5) Two guidelines were issued by the BD in May. One was to remind APs and registered professionals of the points to note when they were appointed to carry out green roof projects. The other one was issued to tertiary institutions and headmasters of primary and secondary schools to remind them of the areas they had to pay heed to when greening the roofs of their school buildings. In the long run, the BD was in the process of developing a guideline for owners and the general public regarding the common building greening works in Hong Kong; and

(6) Regarding monuments and historic buildings, the BD would provide the AMO with assistance, if necessary.

32 77. Mr Wilfrid KAM, Property Services Manager/Tin Shui Wai & Tuen Mun-West of the Architectural Services Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) The ArchSD attached great importance to building safety during the roof greening works for Government buildings, regardless of whether the works were carried out during construction of the new facilities or after completion of existing ones. The ArchSD would carefully consider factors such as the rooftop space, structural loading capacity, drainage and leakage proof before commencement of works. The ArchSD would also carry out routine maintenance after completion of works, including preventive investigation and repair, regular visual inspections and paying heed to any abnormal situations reported by the management offices of the facilities. If any abnormal situations were encountered, the ArchSD would immediately deploy staff to follow up. Where leakage and cracks were detected, repair works would be arranged immediately;

(2) Depending on the reports of the management offices and the overall situation, the ArchSD would decide to conduct inspection and investigation into Government buildings to ensure building safety. In the light of the collapse of the green rooftop at CityU, the ArchSD conducted a comprehensive investigation into Government facilities with green roofs in May and June. No problems were found in their overall condition and structure; and

(3) As regards the “landscape deck”, the upkeep of the finishes of the PTI under the deck was under ArchSD’s responsibility while that of the structure was under the private developer’s responsibility. On 17 February, the ArchSD sent staff to inspect the ceiling of the PTI and found no leakage or cracks. The condition was acceptable.

78. Mr Alvin LAU, Property Services Manager/Special Duties 21 of the Architectural Services Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) The ArchSD had all along been assisting other government departments in the upkeep of Government facilities. With regard to historic buildings, the AMO was mainly responsible for their management. It conducted inspection visits of monuments annually to ascertain the conditions of historic buildings. The ArchSD had also arranged preventive repair and regular inspections. For example, both Tai Fu Tai Mansion, San Tin and Ping Shan Tang Clan Gallery in the district were managed by the AMO. Over the last couple of years, the ArchSD and the AMO had conducted inspections and repairs. In the next one to two years, repair works would also be conducted to ensure that these monuments were maintained in good condition. In case of structural issues, the ArchSD would certainly have specific measures to deal with them, such as monitoring with instruments whether the structural issues had deteriorated. If necessary, structural engineers would be arranged to be involved in the work concerned. Meanwhile, as these monuments had their own management arrangements, the ArchSD would closely liaise with the departments managing these monuments. Follow-up actions would be taken immediately if urgent maintenance was required; and

33 (2) Members had just mentioned the situation of the fortified structure in Ha Pak Nai. As the structure had been occupied before, the DLO had recovered the land and the structure, which were then managed by the LCSD. The ArchSD was involved in the inspection and strengthening works in the fortified structure this month and completed the relevant funding application. In the coming six months, the ArchSD would provide the fortified structure with temporary stabilisation and decide on how to carry out permanent reinforcement under the advice of the LCSD.

79. Mr KWONG Ying-wai, Chief School Development Officer (Yuen Long) of the Education Bureau, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) He thanked Members for their questions and understood that Members were concerned about the schools as the safety of students was very important;

(2) School buildings were also under the regulation of the Buildings Ordinance. Therefore, when conducting the relevant works, schools should engage an AP and Registered Structural Engineer to have an assessment and make a submission to the BD (for non-estate schools) or the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) (for estate schools) for its formal approval as in the case of general buildings;

(3) In the course of its contacts with schools, the EDB understood that many schools were interested in carrying out green roof projects as part of environmental education. In addition, after some schools had completed their green roof projects, the temperature of the floor below the roof was slightly reduced, which showed that the greenery had a certain effect. However, headmasters remained cautious because if the greening works were damaging the school structure, including ceilings and external walls or even the water-proofing membrane, it would in fact affect the maintenance and repair of the school;

(4) Normally, schools carried out greening works by applying for the Environment and Conservation Fund. The EDB had also issued guidelines to schools to clearly explain the issues that had to be considered and the bureaux and departments that had to be consulted before the greening works. Schools planning to carry out greening works would have to obtain prior approvals from the EDB, the BD (for non-estate schools) or the THB (for estate schools), the Fire Services Department and the Department of Health. The relevant application procedures were quite rigorous; and

(5) Regarding the roof greening issue that the public were currently concerned about, the EDB, in conjunction with the DEVB, the THB, the BD, the ArchSD and the EPD, organised a briefing session last week for schools to understand the issues that warranted attention when carrying out green roof projects and maintenance. The EDB would maintain close liaison with schools and provide them with assistance on issues related to roof greening.

80. Mr WONG Cheuk-kin hoped the ArchSD or the BD would explain the areas that were not clear enough in the response just now. First, did the property ownership of the

34 “landscape deck” belong to the Government? If the deck collapsed, which party would be held responsible? Secondly, how often would the relevant departments conduct inspection of the “landscape deck” and some buildings with a potential risk of collapse such as monuments and historic buildings? Thirdly, the response just now appeared that the relevant departments would carry out repairs if structural issues such as cracks were found during their visual inspection. If structural issues were found only during visual inspection, would there be sufficient time to remedy the situation? He said if the roof of the sports centre at CityU was not overloaded, breaking the fire hose and thus resulting in water leaking from the ceiling, nobody knew the roof would pose a potential danger of collapse. In his view, the authorities should formulate guidelines or even regulate with legislation in respect of some buildings with high risks so that the owners concerned could understand the bearing capacity of their buildings and be required to carry out regular maintenance.

81. Mr TANG Cheuk-yin enquired whether the AMO would deploy staff to inspect Tang Ching Lok Ancestral Hall, which was a Grade 1 historic building. He was worried that the historic building was being eroded by termites and the timber beams of its roof ridges were also curved.

82. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said the “landscape deck” was in his constituency a few years ago. From construction to completion of the deck, he assisted relevant departments in following up the PTI issue. He understood that under the lease, the Government Property Agency (“GPA”) had the ownership of the PTI while the ownership of the landscape deck belonged to Central Park Towers. The landscape deck was a public open space open to the public. Its ownership and maintenance responsibilities belonged to Central Park Towers. However, the PTI under the landscape deck was under the ownership of the GPA.

83. Mr YEE Wing-kan thanked Mr Daniel CHAM for explaining the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the “landscape deck”. According to his information, as Mr CHAM mentioned, the “landscape deck” was constructed by a private developer at that time. The developer had already submitted plans to the BD in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance and only commenced construction after obtaining its consent. Currently, the deck was owned by a private developer.

84. Mr Wilfrid KAM added that the maintenance of the “landscape deck” including its structure was under the private developer’s responsibility while that of the finishes of the PTI under the deck was under ArchSD’s responsibility. In other words, the structural maintenance and repair of the entire PTI were undertaken by the private developer. As regards Members’ enquiry on how often the relevant departments would investigate the buildings, in general, it depended on the condition of the buildings, but the ArchSD would normally carry out a comprehensive investigation every two to three years. If the management offices of the facilities reported building structural issues to the ArchSD, the ArchSD would increase the frequency of investigations.

85. Mr Alvin LAU said the ArchSD would normally conduct investigation and repair on the timber beams of the buildings concerned every one to two years in respect of monuments and historic buildings, particularly items with high risks, such as buildings being

35 eaten up by termites. This type of facility was managed by the AMO. If the presence of termites was detected, AMO staff would notify the ArchSD immediately for follow-up actions. Of course, such work was only for items managed by government departments.

86. Mr Zachary WONG said public facilities that were constructed with the assistance of private developers by the Government would normally be under the Government’s ownership and management responsibilities upon completion. Why was it different for the “landscape deck”? Had this already been set out in certain clauses?

87. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said in his understanding, during the construction of the “landscape deck” back then, the relevant clauses under the lease were very complicated with different colours describing the ownership and management responsibilities of the landscape deck and the various parts of the PTI under the landscape deck. In the past, many private property development projects would provide public open spaces under the management of private developers. This was the case for the “landscape deck”.

88. Mr TANG Cheuk-yin said the Department did not answer directly whether staff would be deployed to inspect Tang Ching Lok Ancestral Hall, which was a Grade 1 historic building. He hoped relevant departments would follow up.。

89. Mr TO Ka-lun said he did not understand why Mr Zachary WONG’s question was not answered by the representative of the relevant department but by Mr Daniel CHAM.

90. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said he was very familiar with the entire process of the development of Central Park Towers from construction to intake. He hoped with his knowledge, Members would understand the historical background of this property project, which was already approved by the TPB.

91. Ms Lily CHIU, District Lands Officer (District Lands Office, Yuen Long), added that according to the written reply from the DEVB, the “landscape deck” sat on private lot and so the deck was also a private lot which was owned by the private developer.

92. The Vice-chairman concluded that he believed the majority of Members supported the direction of the green roof policy, but were also very concerned about building structure. Many Members had reflected that the guidelines in relation to roof greening were unclear, in particular the issues that warranted attention when carrying out the works, the plant species that could be planted, the requirements on plan submissions to relevant departments, etc. He hoped the Department could widely disseminate information on the above areas when developing a guideline for owners and the general public. Moreover, he hoped the relevant departments would step up inspection of buildings with green podiums or buildings with high risks such as monuments and historic buildings. He also hoped that visual inspection would be aided with instruments so that the structural safety of the buildings concerned could be thoroughly inspected.

36 Item 5: Questions from DC Members: Mr WONG Wai-yin, Zachary, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr MAK Ip-sing, Ms CHAN Mei-lin and Mr TO Ka-lun proposed to discuss “the application for putting up banners and policy on removing unauthorised banners” (YLDC Paper No. 54/2016) 93. The Chairman asked Members to take note of Paper No. 54/2016, which was about the proposal of Mr Zachary WONG, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr MAK Ip-sing, Ms CHAN Mei-lin and Mr TO Ka-lun to discuss “the application for putting up banners and policy on removing unauthorised banners”. He also asked Members to take note of the replies from LandsD and FEHD.

94. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives to the meeting for answering Members’ enquiries:

Lands Department District Lands Officer Ms Lily CHIU (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) (Regular representative) Administrative Assistant/Lands Mr Kelvin WONG (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department District Environmental Hygiene Mr CHEUNG Pui-chung Superintendent (Yuen Long) (Regular representative)

95. Mr Zachary WONG said that he joined four other Members in raising the issue because they found that all LegCo and DC Members in Hong Kong were displaying publicity banners incorrectly. In theory, all the banners displayed by Members currently had to be removed. As they understood from the relevant LandsD’s guidelines, Members displaying the banners should specify the approval number and display period at the top right-hand corner of the banner. He understood that the illustrative plan in the guidelines set out the tenure of Members’ term with their LegCo or DC, which had to be stated in day, month and year as well. However, the banners displayed by Members were generally not in line with the above requirement as only the wording of the tenure of the LegCo or DC term was printed. He hoped the LandsD would clarify the specifications for the display of publicity banners by Members. Besides, he understood that in accordance with the guidelines, the LandsD would normally not approve banners that would affect road safety but he actually saw banners being put up at public transport interchanges, zebra crossings, pedestrian crossings, etc. He believed some were designated spots but some were not. He made enquiries of the LandsD whether the locations within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side of some zebra crossings or pedestrian crossings were assigned as designated spots. In addition, he considered the service provided by the outsourced service contractors (“contractors”) appointed by the DLO not satisfactory. Another Member once put up a banner at his designated spot and he made enquiries of a contractor on ways to tackle it. The contractor suggested that he place his banner directly over another Member’s banner, but he believed such act was unauthorised. The contractor even suggested that he put up the banner in a nearby location, but he indicated to the contractor that the nearby location was not a designated spot allocated to him by the DLO and displaying banners in such locations would lead to prosecution. He had been fined before too after someone moved his banner from his designated spot to a nearby location. He did not follow the contractor’s advice eventually. Lastly, the DLO and the FEHD were carrying out weekly inspections and clearance of banners the display of which was

37 unauthorised. However, the written reply indicated that only designated spots would be inspected. Therefore, he noticed some banners were still in place after displaying for a year at non-designated spots. He hoped relevant departments would conduct a review.

96. Mr MAK Ip-sing opined that the current allocation method of designated spots was unfair. For example, currently in a DC constituency, there were basically about 120 to 150 locations for displaying banners legally. Each DC Member of the constituency would be allocated 10 designated spots, regardless of the size of the constituency. DC Members would carry out publicity and disseminate district information, as well as assist the Government in the implementation of its work. To a certain extent, the locations for them to display publicity materials were inadequate. He said apart from some 10 spots for local organisations to apply for displaying their publicity materials, other locations for displaying publicity materials were all allocated to LegCo Members and each LegCo Member was also allocated designated spots in respective districts, some of which were even always left vacant. In his view, the Government was confusing cause and effect. Not only did DC Members have to tie in with the Government in implementing district work such as eliminating mosquitoes and improving law and order, they also had to deal with complaints from the public and disseminate district information. Only 10 designated spots were available. The number was indeed too small and disproportionate. He suggested the Government adjust the number of designated spots allocated to each DC Member to, for example, at least 20.

97. Mr YIU Kwok-wai said he had received a letter from the DLO recently concerning its strict enforcement of the guidelines for the display of publicity materials. He considered that the relevant authorities should handle each segment of their work properly before enforcing the guidelines strictly. For example, it was inadequate to allocate only 10 spots to each DC Member. Consideration should be made to increase the number. Also, signage on designated spots was unclear, sometimes even damaged or faded. Therefore, it was not fair for the relevant authorities to only issue a letter to notify Members that failing to comply with the relevant guidelines, their banners would be removed by contractors and they would also be prosecuted. Besides, other than the scenarios mentioned by Members just now, sometimes he saw that the designated spots were obstructed by lamp posts. Members could not achieve the intended publicity effect displaying their publicity materials in these locations. He held the view that the above situations were even more worthy of attention before strict enforcement of the law. Furthermore, at the meeting of the Working Group on Publicity of YLDC chaired by him, a Member suggested producing banners to publicise the Meet-the-Public Scheme. However, it was learnt that the DLO would not allocate designated spots to DC Secretariat for putting up such banners. He hoped the DLO would explore ways to improve it.

98. Ms CHAN Mei-lin said she had encountered quite a lot of problems since the LandsD outsourced the management of the display of roadside non-commercial publicity materials. For example, when she was choosing 10 designated spots in the last term of DC, there were only one to two streets for her to choose from to display publicity materials other than the no banner zones. She could only find 10 spots after spending quite some time and then proposed to the contractor by calling them, but the calls were always unanswered and the contractor was slow in taking follow-up action. She spent two to three months to put up banners in several locations eventually. Besides, she said under the relevant guidelines, no banner zones included locations within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side of pedestrian crossings, signal-controlled crossings, zebra crossings or cautionary crossings, on central

38 divider of roads and within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side of all road junctions. However, she recently saw publicity banners on roadway safety islands in the vicinity of Tin Yiu Estate and Kingswood Richly Plaza. She hoped the DLO would clarify whether the requirement had been relaxed.

99. Ms WONG Wai-ling reflected that the new paint of some railings had covered the numbers marking the locations of designated spots. In addition, some of the re-painted numbers were not marking locations in line with original ones, shifted left or right by one to two feet. Under such circumstances, if a banner was put up in the location as indicated by the number, it would occupy the location adjacent to it. She hoped the relevant departments could improve the situation. Moreover, she had reflected the above situation to the contractor, but the contractor appeared like not knowing anything. Besides, she had been asking the contractor for the allocation of a banner location at the entrance and exit of Tin Chung Court since the beginning of the year to date, but was rejected because that location was not within the constituency. She explained to the contractor that the location originally allocated to her was not at the entrance and exit of the estate where people would pass by. Unfortunately, the contractor refused to understand the actual situation. She suggested the DLO improve the service with the contractor. Meanwhile, she hoped that the relevant departments would notify Members of changes in the locations or numbers of designated spots. Members would be glad to tie in with the arrangement.

100. Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH was of the view that quite a number of problems arose due to the lack of communication between Members and contractors when contractors dealt with issues relating to the display of publicity materials by Members. He also held the view that the relevant departments were not making enough efforts to deal with the unauthorised display of publicity materials by commercial or other organisations. It gave Members the impression that the relevant departments only made strenuous efforts to deal with the unauthorised display of publicity materials by Members, which was unfair. He often reflected to the FEHD that there were always commercial banners, boards, advertisements of drainage companies, etc. at roadsides and pavements in Kingswood North, but he rarely saw clean-up of these unauthorised publicity materials or prosecution instituted against the commercial organisations concerned by the relevant departments. He hoped the relevant departments would step up inspection of these locations, remove the unauthorised commercial publicity materials displayed and contact the organisations concerned based on the information on these materials to notify them of the enforcement actions that would be taken by the authorities, which might institute prosecution in cases with sufficient evidence to achieve a deterrent effect. Besides, he was allocated two contiguous designated spots and hoped to put up a banner of the size of two spots there. He made enquiries of the DLO about the application procedures that he could follow for the display of such banners so as to make the best use of the banner location to publicise the district work of Members.

101. Mr KWOK Keung, MH said quite a number of more serious cases of unauthorised display of publicity materials were noted near the time of the LegCo Election. Many people filled crowded places like those along Road and crossroads with flags, which were unattended most of the time. The flags flying along roadways affected driver visibility. He hoped the DLO and FEHD would step up inspection and immediately remove the publicity materials that would affect road safety and institute prosecution.

39 102. Mr CHEUNG Muk-lam said people normally put up banners in places with a large flow of people. For this reason, he noted many commercial publicity banners by real estate companies and restaurants along the roads such as the vicinity of Shan Ha Road and Long Tin Road, with a particular large number of occurrences on Saturdays and Sundays, obstructing the views of drivers. He enquired whether government departments would enforce the law and institute prosecution against these commercial publicity banners. He noted some departments had cleaned up the banners but they re-emerged not long afterwards. Therefore, he suggested the relevant departments trace the people concerned based on the contact information on these publicity materials, give warnings and instigate prosecution, stepping up law enforcement.

103. Mr CHOW Wing-kan said the worst situation of publicity materials being displayed in public places happened at dusk when easy-mount frames were erected intensively on pavements. In more crowded places like the vicinity of Castle Peak Road – Yuen Long Section near the Bank of China and the footbridge connecting West Rail , easy-mount frames could be seen everywhere and in the evening, the frames would be removed. He believed the setup and removal of these easy-mount frames could have been arranged by a dozen companies which provided restaurants, beauty salons, etc. with publicity avenues. He urged the Police or the FEHD to follow up this situation.

104. Ms Lily CHIU, District Lands Officer (District Lands Office, Yuen Long) of the Lands Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) The display of bills or posters on Government land including display of roadside publicity materials would be an offence unless such display was with the written permission of the Government by virtue of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132). The FEHD, in exercising the powers conferred by the above Ordinance, would remove the unauthorised commercial and non-commercial publicity materials;

(2) To deal with the display of non-commercial publicity materials on the roadside in an orderly manner, in 2003, the Government authorised some officers in the LandsD to give permission for the display of roadside non-commercial publicity materials under the above Ordinance. Therefore, the LandsD formulated implementation guidelines and had already consulted the LegCo and various DCs before issuing the guidelines. She believed Members were very familiar with the guidelines. As stated in the guidelines, the LandsD would grant different locations to DC Members or relevant organisations for putting up banners. Display of banners at any locations other than those granted by the LandsD would be an offence. The FEHD could remove banners the display of which was unauthorised in accordance with the above Ordinance;

(3) According to the current arrangement of the LandsD, there were outsourced service contractors in each district conducting monthly inspections of designated spots. As regards Members’ views of contractors not inspecting non-designated spots, in fact, if contractors found that someone had put up banners at non-designated spots during inspections of designated spots, they would refer the cases to the FEHD for follow-up and law enforcement actions;

40 (4) Regarding Mr Zachary WONG’s views on specifying the display period at the top right-hand corner of the banner, in fact, apart from the method set out in the illustrative plan in the guidelines, the contractors of the LandsD sent a letter to the Members concerned on 10 May to explain that the LandsD could accept wording of the tenure of Members’ term with their LegCo or DC. However, the letter also indicated that the LandsD considered the information unclear if Members only printed the words “Term of Office” at the top right-hand corner of the banner. Therefore, the letter reminded Members that they were required to specify the tenure of their relevant term. Thus, the LandsD accepted not only the display period stated in day, month and year, but also the tenure of Members’ term with their LegCo or DC in words;

(5) As to Mr Zachary WONG’s views just now on whether publicity materials could be displayed in locations within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side, the guidelines had set out clearly that no publicity materials could be displayed in locations within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side of pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings or cautionary crossings. As for central divider of roads, the LandsD had consulted the DCs and the LegCo in 2010 and 2011 respectively and confirmed that no publicity materials could be displayed on central divider of roads to meet road safety requirements. The LandsD had also consulted the TD when setting up designated spots, so all designated spots should meet road safety requirements, but she could follow up with Mr WONG after the meeting whether unauthorised display of publicity materials was found at the locations he pointed out;

(6) Regarding room for improvement in the performance of contractors as reflected by Members, the LandsD had heard their views and would gather more information from contractors and require them to improve their service and follow up the work in accordance with the relevant guidelines;

(7) As regards the display of publicity flags, commercial banners, boards, easy-mount frames, etc. along the roads and in crowded locations as reflected by Mr KWOK Keung, Mr CHEUNG Muk-lam, Mr LEE Yuet-man and Mr CHOW Wing-kan, the LandsD was empowered to give permission for the display of roadside non-commercial publicity materials only. Law enforcement actions against unauthorised display of publicity materials would be under the purview of the FEHD. The relevant guidelines were very clear that the LandsD would only give permission for the display of non-commercial publicity materials. Therefore, all the commercial publicity materials displayed in public places were not permitted by the LandsD. The FEHD could take enforcement actions in accordance with the above Ordinance. Many Members had proposed the FEHD to pursue the responsibility of the commercial organisations concerned and require them to pay a fine. This would be responded by the FEHD representative later;

(8) Regarding the inadequate number of designated spots (i.e. 10) allocated to each DC Member as reflected by Mr MAK Ip-sing and Mr YIU Kwok-wai, the LandsD had already consulted the LegCo and various DCs before issuing the guidelines in 2003. It was also only after many rounds of consultation at that time that the number of designated spots was set. However, after listening to Members’ views in this regard now, she would reflect to the LandsD;

41 (9) With regard to the unauthorised display of banners on roadway safety islands in Tin Shui Wai mentioned by Ms CHAN Mei-lin, in fact, the display of publicity materials on roadway safety islands was prohibited. The DLO, in conjunction with the FEHD, would follow up the situation of the locations concerned;

(10) Regarding the difficulty in identifying the correct locations of the allocated designated spots after the Highways Department (“HyD”) had repaired the roadside railings which erased the numbers marking the locations of some spots as reflected by Ms WONG Wai-ling, in fact, the DLO had already instructed the contractors to affix the relevant number labels back as soon as the HyD had repaired the railings, but she understood that there could be some delay. Therefore, the HyD was asked to notify the DLO when repairing railings. If Members found that the designated spots were not indicated clearly, they could contact the DLO anytime to require the contractors to affix the relevant number labels back as soon as possible; and

(11) Regarding Mr LEE Yuet-man’s views on his intention to put up a larger banner at the two contiguous designated spots, the relevant guidelines had restricted the size of banners. She hoped Members could tie in with the DLO as much as possible. Meanwhile, the guidelines were formulated after a long period of consultation and applied to all districts. She hoped Members could display publicity materials in accordance with the guidelines.

105. Mr CHEUNG Pui-chung, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Yuen Long) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) He thanked Members for their concern on this issue. In fact, the FEHD was also very concerned about the illegal display of banners and had been working closely with the DLO in dealing with this problem. Many banners were successfully seized in every joint operation. Letters were sent to the persons concerned after the operations to recover the costs of removing the publicity materials;

(2) The FEHD would intensify its law-enforcement efforts against the unauthorised display of commercial banners, but the number of successful prosecutions currently was very low, primarily because in the process of gathering evidence, it might not be able to fully prove the identity of the beneficiaries or owners of the banners. Therefore, taking a step backward, the FEHD would continue to carry out joint operations or departmental actions to clean up these commercial banners; and

(3) The FEHD had done a lot of work in the past in respect of the problem of easy-mount frames on the walkways in Yuen Long Town and Tin Shui Wai, including the 96 special operations between May and 19 June, seizing 204 easy-mount frames and issuing 45 fixed penalty notices. Moreover, prosecution against two cases of street obstruction had been instituted. Under the actions taken in the past one and a half months, the FEHD noticed that people setting up easy-mount frames between noon and around 5 p.m. had restrained themselves, but the situation after 6 p.m. was completely different. However, the FEHD had gained a full understanding of the routes taken by the

42 people setting up the easy-mount frames and carried out ambushes and instituted prosecutions along these routes. Still, the situation of easy-mount frames being placed illegally would continue. The FEHD had undertaken a fresh review on the strategies to deal with the problem and starting from today, they would deal with the problem in Yuen Long Town with another strategy. He hoped the situation would improve expeditiously.

106. Mr Zachary WONG was of the view that the present situation appeared like Members were more liable to be fined for displaying publicity materials for public duties, whereas the relevant departments were cleaning up the commercial publicity materials, the display of which was unauthorised, free of charge because it was more difficult to recover the costs from commercial organisations. Regarding the issue of inspections of non-designated spots that would also be conducted by contractors as the District Lands Officer mentioned, he cited a counter-example. In around October to November last year, villagers of Ma Tin Tsuen opposed the construction of a home for the elderly and a church near their village, putting up banners on the roadside which were still not removed. Lastly, he enquired whether the DLO could make known to the public the identity of Members who were allocated with designated spots and considered that these locations for displaying publicity materials were public assets. Members would also need to disclose their telephone number if they purchased a mobile phone with the remuneration package for Members. Therefore, he believed the identity of Members allocated with designated spots did not involve personal privacy.

107. Ms CHAN Mei-lin said the District Lands Officer just replied that no banners could be put up on roadway safety islands, but she did see banners on the two safety islands in the vicinity of Tin Yiu Estate and Kingswood Richly Plaza and both locations were affixed with DLO’s number labels. She hoped the DLO could explain whether publicity materials could be displayed at these locations.

108. Mr TO Ka-lun said only two designated spots had been allocated to him within the large area of Yuen Long District. He had written to the DLO to apply for more designated spots but was one by one rejected by the DLO on grounds of road safety, obstructing pedestrians and vehicles, etc. He found the reasons for refusal not valid and had written to the DLO again indicating that he would not accept these reasons and hoped the District Lands Officer could follow up his application.

109. Ms Lily CHIU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) Regarding Mr Zachary WONG’s views, as mentioned just now, if contractors found that someone had put up banners beyond designated spots illegally during inspections of designated spots, they would refer the cases to the FEHD for follow-up actions. In addition, the LandsD would not permit any person to display commercial publicity materials on Government land. The FEHD would not require referrals from the DLO when taking law enforcement actions against unauthorised display of commercial publicity materials. Regarding the banners in Ma Tin Tsuen, the DLO, in conjunction with the FEHD, would follow up the issue after the meeting;

43 (2) As regards Mr Zachary WONG’s views that the identity of Members allocated with designated spots did not involve personal privacy, the DLO also mentioned in its written reply that the locations concerned involved the personal data of the DC Members concerned, so if any person wished to obtain such information, prior consent from the Members concerned would be required. LandsD’s guidelines in this regard applied to all districts. If Mr WONG hoped to obtain the information of the DC Member who used a particular designated spot, the DLO could assist to seek the consent of the Member concerned;

(3) As to Ms CHAN Mei-lin’s enquiry about whether publicity materials could be displayed on roadway safety islands, as mentioned just now, the DLO would not permit any person to display publicity materials on roadway safety islands and would follow up the locations with unauthorised publicity materials indicated by Ms CHAN after the meeting; and

(4) As regards the allocation of only two designated spots as reflected by Mr TO Ka-lun and his suggestion of other locations for displaying publicity materials being one by one rejected by the DLO on grounds of road safety, she hoped Mr TO could understand that if he would like to use some new locations in which the DLO had never permitted any person to display publicity materials, the DLO had to consult relevant departments, particularly on whether the display of publicity materials in those locations could meet road safety considerations. If not, the DLO had to reject the relevant requests. The DLO could follow up with Mr TO after the meeting and find some designated spots that would not only meet road safety considerations but also his requirements. However, if Mr TO only intended to display publicity materials in some locations that the DLO had never permitted any person to, the DLO would indeed need to consult relevant departments. Such application would take longer to process, but the DLO would instruct the contractors to deal with it expeditiously.

110. The Chairman said in his concluding remarks that the District Lands Officer had explained all sorts of issues in detail and clarified how the display period should be specified on Members’ publicity materials. A Member had mentioned that it was inadequate to allocate only 10 designated spots to each Member. He hoped the District Lands Officer could assist to reflect to the LandsD and urged the LandsD to review the relevant guidelines to explore whether the number of locations for DC Members to display banners could be increased. Besides, as pointed out by Members just now, the problem of unauthorised display of commercial publicity materials was indeed very serious. His banner had been covered by a commercial banner before too. Therefore, he hoped the FEHD could step up enforcement. Members had also mentioned the lack of communication between contractors and Members. The District Lands Officer said she would instruct the contractors to strengthen communication with Members to deal with the display of their publicity materials properly. He also hoped the DLO would follow up the situation reflected by Mr TO Ka-lun. He thanked the department representatives again for their responses.

Item 6: Question from DC Member: Mr CHAM Ka-hung, Daniel, BBS, MH, JP proposed to discuss the attendance of representatives of relevant bureaux and departments at meetings of YLDC and its Committees (YLDC Paper No. 55/2016)

44 111. The Chairman asked Members to take note of Paper No. 55/2016, which was about the proposal of Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP to discuss the attendance of representatives of relevant bureaux and departments at meetings of YLDC and its Committees. He also asked Members to take note of the reply from HAD.

112. The Chairman said that many Members expressed the relevant views at the meetings of Committees. If there was nothing to add, he proposed that Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP would speak on behalf of Members.

113. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said that he raised the issue on behalf of Members. The reply from the HAD mentioned that relevant government departments would arrange to reply to the DC or send representatives to attend meetings according to the actual situation. In other words, he queried whether the departments could send no representatives to DC meetings. He was aware that past Chief Secretaries for Administration had issued a memorandum to ask departments to attend DC meetings. The reply from the HAD pointed out that 22 Heads of Departments met with DC Members regularly, but the core of the problem did not lie in whether these Heads had paid a courtesy visit to the DC. Rather, the situation was that after Members had put forward the issues at DC meetings, the CRCS&HC, the T&TC, etc. and invited relevant departments to send representatives to the meetings to give responses, some of the departments with no regular representatives were not represented at the meetings, nor did they provide written responses. At the CRCS&HC meeting on 3 May, the discussion on two agenda items was deferred to 5 July as requested by Committee Members because the departments were not represented at the meeting. He, as the Chairman of the CRCS&HC, had to invite the relevant departments again to the next meeting too, which was time-consuming. One of the issues belonged to the purview of the Labour Department (“LD”) but the LD was not represented. He needed to write to the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to express Committee Members’ concerns. The other issue was on niches. The Food and Health Bureau (“FHB”) was not represented at the meeting, nor did it provide a written reply. He had to write to the Secretary for Food and Health to express his dissatisfaction. As regards the former, the LD even indicated in its written reply on behalf of the Labour and Welfare Bureau that no representatives would be sent to the meeting of the CRCS&HC on 5 July. For this reason, he contacted the Assistant Commissioner for Labour (Occupational Safety), Mr WU Wai-hung, directly, who replied that the Commissioner for Labour would attend the DC meeting on 6 September where the issues that Members put forward at the CRCS&HC and other matters relating to labour policy could be discussed together. However, he held the view that problems that could be solved by Committees should be handled by Committees. The above situation in effect encouraged Members to escalate matters that Committees could deal with to DC meetings for discussion where even more senior officials were present. He cited another example. He hoped to discuss the proposed Tuen Mun Western Bypass with the HyD at the T&TC meeting on 12 May. The HyD not only did not send representatives to the meeting, the written reply was also limited. The HyD was only willing to reply that it would be represented at the T&TC meeting on 22 July after he reflected the above situation directly to the Secretary for Transport and Housing on another occasion. He considered it very undesirable if Chairmen of Committees or Members often needed to reflect to the responsible Directors of Bureaux directly to urge the relevant departments to be represented at meetings. In the Policy Address, the Chief Executive put forward the concept of “addressing district issues at the local level and capitalising on local opportunities”. He opined that it would be difficult to implement this concept if departments were not represented at DC meetings. He hoped the HAD could assist in reflecting Members’ views to relevant bureaux/departments (“B/Ds”) to ask them to attend DC meetings to answer Members’ enquiries.

45 114. Mr Edward MAK, JP gave a consolidated response as follows:

(1) He thanked Mr CHAM for his views and Mr Zachary WONG and Mr LEUNG Ming-kin for reflecting the same concern when the Director of Home Affairs met with Members just now. The District Office and its District Council Secretariat for District Council business understood that Members hoped to interact directly with government representatives. As indicated in HAD’s reply, DCs were the Government’s crucial partners in implementing the District Administration Scheme. It attached great importance to the views of DCs and their Members. The DC Secretariat had been working hard in urging department representatives to attend DC meetings as requested by Members and the Government had even issued a General Circular to remind the departments to work with DCs, appointing senior officers to meetings as far as practicable when conducting consultation exercises. If unavailable, the departments should provide an explanation through the Secretariat;

(2) The HAD arranged 22 Heads of Departments, who were more closely related to the livelihood of society, to visit the DCs in each DC term to listen personally to the views of DC Members, 21 of whom visited YLDC in the last term. Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux even visited YLDC and exchanged views with Members from time to time. During the last DC term, both the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development and the Secretary for Education visited YLDC. The CS even paid two visits, one of which to attend the meeting of YLDC to conduct consultation on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. The Secretary for Food and Health also visited the current YLDC earlier and exchanged views with Members. Besides, some senior Government officials would attend YLDC meetings for specific issues. In addition to the CS mentioned just now, in the last DC, Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries and Commissioners attended a total of eight meetings to answer Members’ enquiries; and

(3) YLDC and its Committees invited departments to meetings from time to time to respond to questions and motions. If the B/Ds were unavailable, they could provide a written reply as the response. The last YLDC invited 42 B/Ds to the meetings to respond to 490 questions and motions raised by Members. B/Ds appointed representatives to attend meetings for 512 times and failed to do so for 51 times. When Members put forward their agenda, the Secretariat would forward it to relevant departments as soon as possible for follow-up actions so that they could have sufficient time to prepare their responses and arrange officers to attend the meeting. If Members were dissatisfied with the attendance of a department, the District Office and the Secretariat would assist to reflect to the relevant department.

115. Mr Zachary WONG said since the beginning of the current YLDC term, not only did a government department not send representatives to attend meetings, it did not provide written replies either. Besides, during the last YLDC term, the CS only met with YLDC Members at Yuen Long Theatre, which could not be regarded as a visit to YLDC.

46 116. Mr Edward MAK, JP said the case in which a government department did not provide written replies as pointed out by Mr WONG was about an issue at the CRCS&HC meeting on 3 May. After the meeting, the Secretariat followed up with the responsible bureau which had provided a written reply. As regards the meeting between the CS and YLDC Members at Yuen Long Theatre mentioned by Mr WONG, he hoped Mr WONG could provide more information.

117. Mr Zachary WONG said the meeting was held during the term of office of the former District Officer (Yuen Long). At that time, the CS visited Yuen Long District and arranged to meet with YLDC Members at Yuen Long Theatre instead of the Conference Room of YLDC, as if the CS was summoning DC Members. He was not satisfied with the arrangement, so he did not attend. Moreover, he said he had not yet received the reply from the relevant government department mentioned just now.

118. Mr Daniel CHAM, BBS, MH, JP said the reply was related to niches and was given by the FHB. He would arrange to discuss the matter at the CRCS&HC meeting on 5 July. The District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Yuen Long) of the FEHD would attend the meeting to answer Members’ enquiries. Besides, he opined that among the 51 times that departments were not represented at meetings, in fact, only one to two departments were frequently not represented. If the departments were not represented and Members were not satisfied with the written replies, the Chairmen of the Committees would have to defer the agenda to the next meeting, making it difficult to control the meeting time.

119. Mr Edward MAK, JP said the Secretariat would continue to follow up with relevant departments on individual issues, in the hope that they would attend the meetings and respond as far as practicable. Regarding CS’ meeting with YLDC Members at Yuen Long Theatre, he believed the arrangement might have been made to fit her schedule only. As pointed out just now, the CS met with Members twice in the last YLDC. She did attach great importance to the DC.

120. The Chairman concluded that DCs were important district advisory organs. Members unanimously agreed that departments should appoint representatives to attend DC meetings to answer Members’ questions as far as practicable. As pointed out by Mr CHAM, a small number of departments were attending the meetings not in line with Members’ expectations. He hoped the HAD or the Yuen Long District Office would assist in reflecting Members’ views to relevant departments to urge them to appoint representatives to attend meetings of YLDC and its Committees in the future.

121. Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH held the view that the majority of Members had the habit of reading meeting papers in detail. He hoped certain departments would refrain from thinking that Members would not read the meeting papers and so they did not need to provide written replies. He considered it even more necessary for Members to pay heed to DMC’s meeting papers so as to keep pace with the follow-up of matters discussed by the DMC.

122. Mr Zachary WONG suggested that if the District Office hoped that Members could understand the matters discussed by the DMC, the best approach would be to invite all

47 Members to attend meetings of the DMC. He would definitely attend every meeting, listening carefully to each discussion item.

Item 7: 2016-17 Work Plan of Yuen Long District Office (YLDC Paper No. 56/2016) 123. The Chairman asked Members to take note of Paper No. 56/2016, which briefly introduced the work plan of YLDO for 2016-17. He also asked the District Officer (Yuen Long), Mr Edward MAK, JP to briefly introduce the paper.

124. Mr Edward MAK, JP briefly introduced the paper.

125. Mr Zachary WONG enquired about the differences between the revised version and the original version and advised to mark the revisions in different fonts in the future.

126. The Secretary added that the revision was to update the dates in paragraph 41.

127. The Chairman thanked Mr Edward MAK, JP for his introduction and said the YLDO implemented a number of initiatives every year, particularly the District-led Actions Scheme, etc. He hoped the YLDO would continue to work for the well-being of the residents of Yuen Long District.

128. Members noted the work plan of YLDO for 2016-17.

Item 8: Report on work progress of District-led Actions Scheme 129. The Chairman asked the District Officer (Yuen Long), Mr Edward MAK, JP, and the Assistant District Officer (Yuen Long)1, Mr Steve WONG, to report the progress of the DAS.

130. Mr Edward MAK, JP said the various actions under the DAS had commenced smoothly, including publicity and education and the law enforcement actions conducted by relevant law enforcement authorities. Regarding illegal extension of business area, relevant departments had already carried out clearance work on unauthorised platforms and structures in the new action locations. As for enhancing grass-cutting/anti-mosquito efforts, relevant departments had enhanced grass-cutting and carried out publicity on mosquito prevention. He also asked Mr Steve WONG to briefly introduce the specific details.

131. Mr Steve WONG briefly introduced the specific details.

132. Mr Zachary WONG hoped that the YLDO would discuss with the DLO ways to enhance co-ordination to clear the unauthorised platforms in shops. Recently, he wrote to the YLDO and the DLO in relation to the removal of unauthorised platforms. The YLDO replied that the matter was an integral part of DLO’s work, whereas DLO’s reply indicated

48 that there was already the DAS, so the YLDO should co-ordinate follow-up actions with relevant departments. In his view, both replies seemed to indicate that they would not deal with the issue. He urged the District Officer (Yuen Long) to follow up with the District Lands Officer/Yuen Long. If there was no specific and reasonable explanation, he would consider writing to the Office of the Ombudsman (“the Office”) for assistance.

133. Mr Edward MAK, JP thanked Mr Zachary WONG for his views. He understood that Mr Zachary WONG was referring to the action location, Yu King Square, under the previous Pilot Scheme, where unauthorised platforms were placed at some shops again. Under the Pilot Scheme, it was true that relevant departments continued to closely monitor the location and would again conduct blitz operations, where appropriate, to deal with it. He understood that the DLO would continue to invoke the relevant land administration legislation to follow up the isolated cases of unauthorised platforms. The YLDO would also continue to co-ordinate, under the DAS, the relevant cases involving unauthorised platforms and structures that required an interdepartmental task force to deal with and carry out interdepartmental publicity and law enforcement actions in the action locations already agreed by the DC and the DMC.

134. Mr Zachary WONG said he was not only concerned about the action locations under the Pilot Scheme and the DAS but also noticed that there were serious isolated cases of unauthorised platforms on some streets in Yuen Long Town not yet included in the scheme. He enquired whether the DLO would follow up on it.

135. Mr LEE Yuet-man, MH held the view that the Pilot Scheme was in the correct direction with very good results, but there was still room for improvement. The majority of Members were very satisfied. He opined that work in various aspects, such as clearing unauthorised platforms in shops, grass-cutting, mosquito prevention and clearing illegally-parked bicycles, had won general acclaim and improved the appearance of Yuen Long. In addition, he said the removal of unauthorised platforms had all along been discussed in the DC and the DMC. As the scope of action locations had already been proposed by the DC and endorsed by the DMC, work in the relevant scope should commence. If some Members would like to commence work in other locations, they should have put it forward in the DC during the proposal and discussion of action locations for DMC’s decision. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the YLDO. He hoped a pragmatic approach could be adopted. For example, in the next review, Members could suggest expanding the scope of action locations, conducting law enforcement actions regularly and so on. He cited an example that he subjectively hoped that relevant departments could conduct daily clearance of the illegally-parked bicycles in his constituency, but it was not practicable. He understood that relevant departments would need to deal with the various action locations according to sequence. If he found signs of deterioration in some locations, he would contact the YLDO to examine the feasibility of increasing the frequency of clearing illegally-parked bicycles and enquire about the next action time. If the waiting time was too long, he would discuss with the YLDO again whether there was room for shortening the waiting time. He considered discussing with each other and accommodating each other to be the pragmatic approach to resolve problems step by step. If Members criticised the YLDO for not dealing with the issue because it failed to carry out daily clearance in response to the request of individual Members or even gave notice that a complaint would be lodged with the Office, he did not agree with this approach. He was of the view that the Office would handle complaints according to principles and justifications. If public officers had done nothing wrong, there was nothing to worry about.

49 136. Mr SIU Long-ming said it was evident that the Pilot Scheme was very effective. He commended the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme and said a significant improvement in illegal hawking in his constituency was noted. Residents indicated that substantial progress had been made in the cityscape when compared with many years ago. In addition, he pointed out that he was quite concerned during the initial stage of the DAS as illegal extension of the business area by shops in a few of the locations in his constituency was relatively serious. However, no strong opposition was received from shop operators after they were notified. Quite a number of them supported the relevant work instead. This showed that the scheme had indeed helped a lot in the improvement of cityscape. He said at that time some shop operators enquired whether they could erect platforms with wooden planks or metal plates to place and sell their goods after the relevant department had cleared the unauthorised platforms in shops. He once persuaded the shop operators not to do so and they also co-operated. At present, Fook Tak Street had improved significantly. Some operators removed their platforms and levelled the ground in accordance with the enforcement requirements of relevant departments. Another marked improvement was noted in the location when turning in to Sau Fu Street from Tung Lok Street. A very large platform used to be there, obstructing the access of baby cars. Now the shop operators had demolished the platform. Residents’ comments were unanimously favourable. Therefore, he considered the DAS very helpful indeed in terms of the improvement in cityscape and environmental hygiene.

137. Mr YIU Kwok-wai said though he did not express his appreciation for the DAS to the Director of Home Affairs earlier in the agenda, he actually applauded the scheme. He considered the main purpose of the DAS was to tackle some long-standing, major and difficult municipal issues through the joint actions by departments. As regards the scope of action, it had been proposed by the DC and confirmed by the DMC as Members had mentioned. He suggested that Mr Zachary WONG could write to the YLDO to express his intention to include his proposed locations in the scheme as action locations for further processing. He added that there were many municipal issues needing to be dealt with at Grandeur Terrace, Tin Shui Wai in his constituency. He needed to contact the Yuen Long District Environmental Hygiene Office of the FEHD to seek additional resources so that the FEHD Headquarters could redeploy its intelligence team to deal with the street obstruction problem by food premises in the locations concerned.

138. The Vice-chairman said he commended the scheme and made suggestions for improvement when he met with the Director of Home Affairs just now. With regard to illegally-parked bicycles, he continued to express his views in the DC and the DMC. Unfortunately, the relevant law enforcement departments failed to change their strategies. They were not able to do anything to some bicycles that were parked illegally during peak hours in the morning before work and were removed in the evening after work (i.e. the makeshift situation). Relevant law enforcement departments often indicated that they had to put up notices and could only clear the illegally-parked bicycles upon expiry of the notice period in accordance with the relevant legislation. The problem could not be solved unless legislative amendments were made. He said the relevant law enforcement departments could deal with the problem by virtue of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), which would immediately crack down on illegally-parked bicycles that constituted danger to pedestrians. However, the relevant law enforcement departments did not act in accordance with the law or exercise the authority delegated. They even indicated they did not have the resources to carry out immediate enforcement actions. He suggested that they could seek the resources of the DAS to carry out immediate enforcement work under the Summary Offences Ordinance.

50 At present, the relevant land administration enforcement departments had to carry out law enforcement work in accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28). Actions could only be taken 48 hours after the enforcement notice had been issued. He reiterated that he did not agree such practice could solve the problem. He and the residents in his constituency could no longer tolerate the relevant law enforcement departments’ bureaucratic way of doing things. He also pointed out that residents, especially children and the elderly, were often tripped over or chafed by bicycles when crossing the footbridge connecting and Fung Yau Street North. They complained why the footbridge could be obstructed by illegally-parked bicycles. As the Vice-chairman of the DC, he was very ashamed that the DC was unable to tackle this situation. He urged the relevant law enforcement departments to do their part in dealing with the problem. If there were no other alternatives, he could only lodge a complaint with the Office.

139. Ms Lily CHIU said the unauthorised platforms in shops by individual shop operators were not isolated cases. It involved street obstruction due to illegal placing and selling of goods and unauthorised building works (“UBW”), which should be handled inter-departmentally. The approach of “education followed by prosecution” would be easier for shop operators to accept and allow sufficient time for relevant departments to deal with the problems. Although the action locations under the DAS involving unauthorised platforms, UBW, etc. were co-ordinated by the YLDO, as the District Officer (Yuen Long) had pointed out if it was an isolated case of unauthorised platform, the DLO would definitely not shirk the responsibility and carry out law enforcement actions in accordance with relevant legislation. If the case involved the enforcement work of a number of departments or a number of shops on the whole street, it was believed that inter-departmental actions would be more effective and fair to the affected shop operators because the Government should not focus on a particular location on a particular street but the whole road section to carry out law enforcement.

140. Mr Edward Mak, JP thanked Members for their views. As a Member had pointed out, under the DAS, the action locations were proposed by DC Members and decided after discussions and prioritisation by the DC and the DMC. The previous Pilot Scheme and the current DAS co-ordinated the work among departments to deal with illegal extension by shops, i.e. clearance of platforms and unauthorised structures, in prioritised action locations through publicity and education and law enforcement actions with additional resources, in accordance with established procedures, legislation and purview of relevant law enforcement departments. If an individual location was involved with an isolated case or the purview of a single department, he believed the relevant law enforcement departments would deal with it according to legislation and their purview. If the case involved platforms and unauthorised structures, he believed Members could propose and consider whether it was necessary to include them in the DAS to deal with them when reviews on the effectiveness of the DAS were conducted from time to time. According to the mechanism of the Pilot Scheme and the DAS, if departments failed to resolve the problems effectively among themselves, the problems could be escalated to the relevant policy bureaux or even the CS for instructions where appropriate. Besides, the Vice-chairman mentioned the clearance of illegally-parked bicycles and considered that relevant law enforcement departments could invoke Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance to immediately crack down on illegally-parked bicycles. The Pilot Scheme and the current DAS were to enhance inter-departmental co-operation. However, relevant departments still had to follow existing legislation framework in taking law enforcement actions, including clearance of illegally-parked bicycles. He believed relevant law enforcement departments had already considered the enforcement conditions of relevant

51 legislation to decide whether to apply it or not. Even so, relevant law enforcement departments could still continue to consider the feasibility to step up enforcement under the legislation of their respective purview. He was aware that a relevant law enforcement department had sought legal advice from the Department of Justice regarding the issue. In fact, the Summary Offences Ordinance had been invoked, where appropriate, in Yuen Long Police District to clear some bicycles that posed danger to road safety. Apart from that, he was aware that the Vice-chairman had written to the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) to enquire about the matter. He believed the Police would respond properly.

141. Mr FOK Lok-sang, District Commander (Yuen Long) of the Hong Kong Police Force, said to deal with illegally-parked bicycles, the HKPF had already formulated operating guidelines with the TD on certain locations, such as public transport interchanges. Police Headquarters would also continue to work with the TD to study the formulation of applicable operating guidelines on other locations. Yuen Long Police District would continue to assist other departments in taking enforcement actions against illegally-parked bicycles, as well as pool existing resources and manpower for core policing duties.

142. The Chairman said the DAS was a success on the whole. As regards the situation of individual locations as raised by individual Members, Members could further follow up with relevant departments after the meeting.

Item 9: Progress reports of Committees i) Yuen Long District Management Committee(YLDC Paper No. 57/2016) ii) District Facilities Management Committee(YLDC Paper No. 58/2016) iii) Culture, Recreation, Community Service and Housing Committee(YLDC Paper No. 59/2016) iv) Environmental Improvement Committee(YLDC Paper No. 60/2016) v) Finance Committee(YLDC Paper No. 61/2016) vi) Town Planning and Development Committee(YLDC Paper No. 62/2016) vii) Traffic and Transport Committee(YLDC Paper No. 63/2016) 143. The Chairman asked Members to take note of Paper Nos. 57-63/2016 for the progress reports of the committees.

144. Mr MAK Ip-sing said the Finance Committee (“FC”) had discussed not accepting funding applications of new organisations for DC cultural, recreation and sports and social service activities for the coming quarter, but no such information was in its progress report. He requested supplementary information.

145. The Secretary said the FC meeting on 22 March decided to consult Committee Members whether to endorse the suspension of funding applications of new organisations for DC cultural, recreation and sports and social service activities for the fourth quarter of 2016-17 by circulation of papers. It was completed on 6 May and endorsed with 16 votes in favour and 5 votes against. The decision had already been stated in the post-meeting note of paragraph 17 of the minutes of the FC meeting on 22 March. As the paper circulation process was completed only after the YLDC meeting on 19 April, the circulation results were not able to be explained in the last FC progress report. The Secretariat would pay more attention to similar situations.

52 146. Ms YUEN Man-yee and Mr LEUNG Ming-kin said they voted against the suspension of funding applications of new organisations for DC cultural, recreation and sports and social service activities for the fourth quarter of 2016-17.

147. Mr Zachary WONG said it was still less than two quarters since the start of the new financial year. DC funding was already grossly inadequate. He had reservations about the suspension of funding applications and suggested that the FC could consider reducing the allocation for each activity appropriately to benefit more organisations.

148. Ms CHIU Sau-han suggested stating in relevant papers, such as progress reports, the numbers of votes in favour and against cast by Members during circulation of papers in the future, so that clearer information would be available. With regard to Mr Zachary WONG’s remarks, she stressed that the FC only decided to suspend the funding applications of new organisations for DC cultural, recreation and sports and social service activities for the fourth quarter of 2016-17, not suspending those of existing organisations. As the funding provisions for community involvement activities were limited, even if the new organisations were supported by many Committee Members to make DC funding applications, the FC would have to take account of the overall situation and make the above difficult decision. She said they could take the opportunity to review the YLDC Manual on the Use of District Council Funds (“the Manual”) to enhance the environment for district organisations to organise activities. The Vice-chairman of the FC and the Secretariat would commence initial review. A special meeting would also be convened later to discuss the details. She hoped Members would be aware of the relevant arrangements by the FC.

(Post-meeting note: the FC convened a special meeting on 16 August to review the Manual.)

149. The Chairman understood that the FC had made a difficult decision and believed that all Members agreed the DC should handle the funding applications of existing and new organisations fairly. As an FC Member, he understood there was much room for improvement to be made to the Manual and the FC had also commenced the review of the Manual. He hoped they would respect the culture of the Council. Even if individual Members did not fully agree with the motion, they should respect the decision if it had been approved by the Committee. He hoped that after the review of the Manual had been completed, new organisations would be able to apply for DC funding after the fourth quarter of 2016-17.

150. Members noted the progress reports of the Yuen Long District Management Committee and the six committees under YLDC.

Item 10: Any other business (i) Setting up of the Yuen Long District Team Selection Panel for the 6th Hong Kong Games (YLDC Paper No. 64/2016) 151. The Chairman asked Members to take note of Paper No. 64/2016 and said that in order to facilitate the selection of outstanding athletes in the districts by respective DCs for participating in various competitions of the Hong Kong Games (“HKG”) on behalf of the

53 districts, ensuring that the selection process was conducted in an open and fair manner, the 6th HKG Organising Committee suggested dealing with matters relating to selection of athletes in the district, including the setting up and wide promulgation of the relevant selection mechanism and methods for the district, such as eligibility, application period and selection schedule, by establishing a district selection committee/working group by each DC or through the existing Councils, which would also provide appropriate channels for public enquiries.

152. The Chairman asked Members to consider setting up the “Yuen Long District Team Selection Panel for the 6th Hong Kong Games” with one representative from each of YLDC, Yuen Long District Sports Association (“YLDSA”) and the LCSD on the panel. The Chairman added that in the last three HKG, the Vice-chairman of the CRCS&HC, Mr MAN Kwong-ming, represented YLDC to join the above selection panel. If no Members objected, he asked Members to endorse to continue with the same arrangement.

153. The Chairman also asked Members to endorse to invite the YLDSA to organise a team on behalf of YLDC to participate in the HKG. If no Members objected, he asked the Secretariat to send a letter after the meeting to invite the YLDSA and the LCSD to deploy staff to take up the relevant posts.

154. Members endorsed to set up the “Yuen Long District Team Selection Panel for the 6th Hong Kong Games” with one representative from each of YLDC, the YLDSA and the LCSD on the panel. Members also endorsed to continue with previous arrangement to have the Vice-chairman of the CRCS&HC, Mr MAN Kwong-ming, to represent YLDC to join the above selection panel. Besides, Members endorsed YLDC to invite the YLDSA to organise a team on behalf of YLDC to participate in the HKG. The Secretariat would send a letter after the meeting to invite the YLDSA and the LCSD to deploy staff to take up the relevant posts.

(Post-meeting note: the Secretariat wrote to the YLDSA and the LCSD on 21 June and they agreed to take up the relevant posts.)

(ii) Matters concerning withdrawal of membership from the Committees under YLDC 155. The Chairman asked Members to endorse the following applications of withdrawal of membership from the Committees:

Mr LEUNG Fuk-yuen withdrew from the CRCS&HC Mr TANG Cheuk-him withdrew from the TP&DC

156. Members endorsed the above applications.

(iii) Organ Donation Promotion Charter 157. The Chairman asked Members to take note of the letter to the Chairman of YLDC from the Secretary for Food and Health circulated by the Secretariat at the meeting. The letter invited YLDC to support the Organ Donation Promotion Charter and send two representatives to attend the kick-off ceremony of the Organ Donation Promotion Charter to

54 be held between 2:30 and 4:00 pm on 25 June 2016 at Conference Hall, 2/F, West Wing, Central Government Offices, 2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar, Hong Kong.

158. The Chairman asked Members to endorse YLDC to support the Organ Donation Promotion Charter and asked Members to raise their hands to indicate their interest in attending the kick-off ceremony of the Organ Donation Promotion Charter.

159. Members endorsed to support the above charter.

160. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to contact Members later so that arrangements could be made for interested Members to attend the kick-off ceremony.

(iv) Working Group on Age-friendly Community in Yuen Long District 161. The Chairman said the Working Group on Age-friendly Community in Yuen Long District held its first meeting on 16 June 2016, at which they endorsed to use the allocation of $53,000 provided by the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Elderly Commission in 2016-17 for each DC to organise age-friendly community activities, in line with the theme of “Embrace your Silver Age through Active Community Engagement”, and invited funding applications from elderly community centres / Neighbourhood Elderly Centres, as well as the responsible persons of district organisations in Yuen Long District, to organise activities between August 2016 and January 2017.

162. Mr Edward MAK, JP introduced the work directions in respect of the promotion of an age-friendly community in Yuen Long District to tie in with the Chief Executive’s Policy Address that the Government would make continuous efforts to develop Hong Kong into an age-friendly city.

(v) Other 163. Mr LUI Kin took the opportunity to thank Yuen Long Police District for assisting the owners’ committee of the shopping mall of In-Citi in dealing with a dispute between the old and the new management companies. It involved someone who was reluctant to hand over the management rights and affected the normal operation of the shopping mall by controlling public facilities, such as the air-conditioning system. Yuen Long Police District dealt with the incident actively and deployed Regional Crime Unit 1 to investigate the case.

164. Regarding the inadequate air-conditioning inside the Conference Room as reflected by Mr YIU Kwok-wai, the Secretary said the Secretariat had notified the relevant department to follow up.

165. The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. He thanked Members and departmental representatives for attending the meeting.

Yuen Long District Council Secretariat August 2016

55