Minutes of the 9th Meeting of the District Development and Environment Committee (DDEC) Southern District Council (SDC)
Date : 27 May 2013 Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : SDC Conference Room
Present: Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman of SDC) Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman of SDC) Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH (Chairman of DDEC) Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada (Vice-Chairlady of DDEC) Mr AU Lap-sing Mr AU Nok-hin Mr CHAI Man-hon Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung Mr CHU Lap-wai Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr LO Kin-hei Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Dr YANG Mo, PhD Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN Mr CHAN Man-chun Mr LEE Kwan-keung Dr MUI Heung-fu, Dennis Mr TSOI Chi-chung, Raymond
1 Absent with Apologies: Mr FUNG Wai-kwong Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent Mr LAU Kar-wah
Secretary: Miss CHENG Kwan-wai, Vivian Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department
In Attendance: Ms WAI Yee-yan, Christine District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss NG Kai-ting, Nettie Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss LIN Ming Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung, Jason Senior Engineer 4 (Hong Kong Island Division 2), Civil Engineering and Development Department Dr LEE Wai-tak, Anthony Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South) 3, Environmental Protection Department Mr CHOW Wing-che District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Southern), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr WONG Sun-man Housing Manager/Hong Kong 4, Housing Department Ms TAM Wai-chu, Rachel Deputy District Leisure Manager (Southern) 1, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms CHAN Oi-kwan, Josephine Estate Surveyor/Aberdeen (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department Miss YIU Yuk, Isabel Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department
2
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Dr Jaime SIN Senior Medical & Health Officer (Community Liaison) 2, Department of Health Mr MO Kai-hong Senior Field Officer (Avian Influenza), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 5): Ms Cindy TSANG Director, Townland Consultants Ltd. Mr Ben CHEUNG Senior Town Planner, Townland Consultants Ltd.
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 6 – Follow-up Item 4): Mr LEUNG Chung-lap Senior Engineer/HK2, Water Supplies Department Mr WAN Wai-yin Engineer/HK (Distribution 6), Water Supplies Department
Opening Remarks:
The Chairman welcomed Members and government representatives to the meeting.
2. The Chairman said that to facilitate smooth proceeding of meeting, according to Order 15(3) of the SDC (2012-2015) Standing Orders, all persons attending or sitting in the meeting should switch off all devices which might emit sound, and should not use any telecommunications devices for conversation during the course of the meeting. Each Member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item.
3. The Chairman continued that Mr WONG Ling-sun was sick and unable to attend the meeting, while Mr FUNG Wai-kwong and Mr LAU Kar-wah had informed the Secretariat in advance of their absence because of other engagements. The
3 Chairman invited Members to note and approve the leave application of Mr WONG Ling-sun.
Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the District Development and Environment Committee Meeting Held on 15 April 2013
4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the 8th meeting had been circulated to all Members and relevant government department representatives. The Secretariat had not received amendment proposals so far.
5. The minutes were confirmed by the Committee.
Agenda Item 2: Due Attention to Wild Birds in Southern District as a Precaution against H7N9 (Item raised by Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP) (DDEC Paper No. 21/2013)
(Dr YANG Mo, PhD, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai and Mr AU Nok-hin joined the meeting at 2:36 p.m., 2:43 p.m., 2:50 p.m. and 2:51 p.m. respectively.)
6. The Chairman welcomed the following departmental representatives to the meeting:
Department of Health (DH) - Dr Jaime SIN, Senior Medical & Health Officer (Community Liaison) 2
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) - Mr MO Kai-hong, Senior Field Officer (Avian Influenza)
7. Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling briefly introduced the reasons for raising the agenda item. Details were summarised as follows:
4 (a) wild birds were found clustering in many parts of the Southern District, which had become a persistent nuisance to residents. Also, in the face of the current outbreak of avian influenza (H7N9), it was particularly worrying that birds’ droppings might spread the virus; (b) the written replies from the departments concerned were quite generic. Departments concerned were asked about their specific plans to deal with wild bird congregation; (c) the main cause of wild bird congregation was bird feeding by people. The departments concerned were asked to advise on the prevention of wild bird congregation at source; (d) every year, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) would organise a market cleansing day and community clean-up activities, but these campaigns did not target at wild bird congregation; (e) the publicity and public education campaigns of the departments concerned did not target at prevention of H7N9 outbreak and wild bird feeding; and (f) apart from the congregation black-spots as stated in the written reply of the department concerned, it was wished that the department concerned could step up cleansing efforts in other black-spots including the road section at Shek Pai Wan near Teenage Warehouse Club, and strengthen liaison with private residential estates regarding the cleansing of birds’ droppings.
8. The Chairman asked if representatives from departments concerned had anything to add.
9. Dr Jaime SIN said that DH had nothing to add at the moment.
10. Mr MO Kai-hong supplemented as follows:
(a) AFCD was not empowered to prosecute wild bird feeding under existing legislation; (b) subject to environmental and conservation considerations, AFCD would not deliberately capture certain species of birds or animals for the purpose of reducing their population. If avian congregation became serious, residents might borrow bird cages from AFCD to capture wild birds, and then surrender them to AFCD for disposal; (c) after removing the existing wild pigeons, if there is food, new pigeons
5 from the surrounding areas would quickly move in to take their place. Thus, capturing wild birds could not eradicate the problem, and it was necessary to educate the public in the first place; and (d) upon receipt of complaints, apart from collecting avian samples for laboratory testing, AFCD would distribute information leaflets through management offices of the residential estates concerned to arouse public awareness of avian flu.
11. Mr CHOW Wing-che supplemented as follows:
(a) in the face of the threat of H7N9, FEHD had stepped up cleansing streets and public toilets, and used disinfecting solution to cleanse and disinfect public places where wild birds congregated every day; (b) would follow up on the cleansing work in the neighbourhood of Teenage Warehouse Club; and (c) notices had been posted at a number of public places where wild birds congregated in the Southern District to remind people not to feed wild birds. In case people failed to clean up the leftover feed in public places, FEHD’s law enforcement staff would issue fixed penalty tickets to the offenders according to the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness Offences) Ordinance.
12. Ms TAM Wai-chu supplemented as follows:
(a) notices had been posted at conspicuous locations in the venues of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to remind people not to feed wild birds, with a view to preventing wild bird congregation. After touching birds or their droppings, people should wash their hands immediately to prevent the further spreading of the virus; and (b) if people were found feeding wild birds or failing to clean up the places after feeding the birds, LCSD staff would take enforcement action according to the Pleasure Grounds Regulations Cap. 132 Section 11 or Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance in which appropriate.
13. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr CHU Lap-wai, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs
6 MAK TSE How-ling, Dr YANG Mo, PhD, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr LEE Kwan-keung raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
Measures taken by the departments concerned against avian influenza (H7N9)
(a) asked whether the Housing Department (HD) had cleaned public housing estates in the Southern District more frequently in the face of the H7N9 epidemic; (b) it was noted that some residents in public housing estates fed wild birds at their balconies, resulting that other units nearby were suffered from the nuisances of birds’ droppings. It was asked how HD would deal with the situation; (c) had followed up on pigeon congregation at the Repulse Bay Beach Car Park with LCSD previously, and questioned LCSD’s response that no wild birds were found clustering around the location concerned; (d) in 2012, FEHD had prosecuted 59 offenders for littering public places during feeding of wild birds. A Member asked about the percentage that involved private residential estates; and (e) government departments had the responsibility to regulate the precautionary measures against avian flu taken by private organisations such as cleansing contractors or property management companies.
Stepping up cleansing and publicity and public education efforts
(a) as the “District Cleansing Day” would be launched by FEHD on 5 June 2013, it was wished that apart from the black-spots listed in Appendixes I and II (Annex 4), FEHD could step up cleansing efforts at other hygiene black-spots suggested by Members; (b) suggested using the funding of the Environmental Protection and Hygiene Working Group (WG) under DDEC to support cleansing initiatives in the district; (c) agreed that large-scale extermination of wild birds was neither a humanitarian approach nor an effective measure to cut off the source of wild bird congregation. At present, the departments concerned had posted notices at places under their charge to deter wild bird feeding, and the effect was quite limited. It was suggested that
7 inter-departmental coordination should be encouraged for stepping up cleansing efforts in congregation black-spots in the Southern District. Also, based on local situation, the departments concerned should consider cooperating with local bodies such as SDC or the Southern District Healthy and Safe Association to organise large-scale publicity campaigns in the district to educate people against wild bird feeding for the prevention of avian flu; (d) given that avian flu viruses like H5N1 and H7N9 kept mutating, it was worried that avian congregation might render other birds in the community susceptible to infection, which in turn affected human health. For instance, birds’ droppings problem at Wah Kwai Estate was acute, and with a kindergarten and sheltered workshop close by, community acquired infection situation could be very serious in the event of avian flu outbreak. Therefore, it was necessary to take precautions beforehand; and (e) avian congregation not only posed potential threat of avian flu, but also affected environmental hygiene. It was understood that driving away wild birds was not easy, but at least the department concerned should step up cleaning on the droppings at congregation black-spots to perhaps about twice or three times a day to ensure environmental hygiene.
Other comments
(a) wished that relevant departments could strengthen publicity and public education and enhance the notification mechanism for the public to report congregation black-spots so as to facilitate cleansing work by related departments; (b) AFCD data showed that most of the complaints concerning wild pigeons in the Southern District came from Wah Kwai Estate. It was suggested that a scientific method should be used to assess whether the complaints stemmed from persistent wild bird nuisances or they were merely repeated complaints from a handful of residents; (c) asked if the transmission mode of H7N9 virus had been confirmed medically; (d) was dissatisfied with DH representative’s response. A Member commented that departmental representatives should demonstrate sincerity at SDC meetings and show respect to Members even when
8 detailed written replies were provided prior to the meeting. The representatives should briefly present the key points of the paper out of respect; (e) it was said that in the Mainland all infection cases would be reported to the Central Government before Hong Kong was notified, and that DH of Hong Kong had no direct contact with the health authorities in Guangdong province. If this was the case, it was wished that the Government could enhance information exchange with the Mainland authorities; (f) commended DH for its excellent precautionary work against infectious diseases since the outbreak of “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome” (SARS in short) in 2003; (g) asked if DH agreed that avian congregation would pose a serious threat to public health. If yes, it was asked whether DH would enable the public to report avian congregation directly to related government departments through the 1823 hotline or other centralised notification mechanisms; (h) for some lonely elderly, keeping pets was a way to find a purpose in life, which helped to keep their physical and mental health in good conditions. However, in most public housing estates in Hong Kong, tenants were prohibited from keeping pets on ground of public health, so some elderly might turn to feeding wild birds. DH was asked whether it agreed that the problem of wild bird feeding was originated from the loneliness of the elderly. If yes, it was asked whether other measures should be adopted to maintain public health, so as to allow the elderly in public housing estates to keep pets, thus creating a more harmonious community; and (i) avian flu was an important public health issue, which had a bearing on the economy, livelihood as well as governance in Hong Kong. Avian flu virus was a longstanding issue in the human community. However, because of the enormous monetary benefits associated with vaccine production, development of anti-viral medicines and scientific research funding and so on, the impact of H7N9 outbreak and the virus itself might be exaggerated by the media and political parties. Members of the public and the departments concerned should take a practical approach to the epidemic, and deal with the matter and take appropriate precautions according to the actual situation.
9 14. Dr Jaime SIN clarified that DH had nothing to add regarding the congregation of wild birds only. She then elaborated on the prevention and control measures taken against avian influenza A (H7N9). Details were summarised as follows:
(a) the Centre for Health Protection (CHP) maintains close liaison with the World Health Organization (WHO) and health authorities in the Mainland in order to monitor the latest development and obtain timely and accurate information about the disease. A notification mechanism is in place among the Mainland, Macao and Hong Kong for serious public health emergencies. The Mainland and Hong Kong has also set up a direct communication channel; (b) influenza A (H7) is a statutorily notifiable disease, so all suspected or confirmed cases are required to be notified to CHP. CHP has worked with hospitals (including those under Hospital Authority and private hospitals) to enhance the laboratory testing for avian influenza A (H7N9). When there is a suspected case, the patient concerned would be sent to the hospital for isolation and his/her specimens sent for laboratory testing. Normally, testing results could be available in a few hours, and CHP would release the testing results to the public as soon as possible. Particularly for human infections of avian influenza A (H7N9), CHP issues daily press release to update the public on the investigation of suspected cases over the previous day; (c) according to the WHO’s risk assessment on the epidemic, human cases of avian influenza A (H7N9) are likely to be infected through exposure to infected poultry/bird or its contaminated environment such as wet markets. DH has stepped up publicity efforts to advise people not to visit wet markets with live poultry in the affected areas so as to reduce the risk of avian influenza A (H7N9) infection; (d) additional manpower has been deployed to enhance temperature screening of arriving travellers at boundary control points. Suspected cases would be referred to public hospitals for further investigation so as to reduce the risk of introducing the disease into Hong Kong. DH has implemented a series of port health measures which include broadcast of health messages, display of posters and distribution of information leaflets at boundary control points. Also, regular updates on disease information are provided to the tourism industry through meetings and correspondences;
10 (e) has arranged with airlines to conduct in-flight broadcast of health messages to alert travellers from affected countries/areas; (f) would continue to monitor relevant recommendations on port health measures made by the WHO. At present, there is no recommendation on travel restrictions made by the WHO because of the emergence of avian influenza A (H7N9) virus infection in humans; and (g) to date, the Mainland has recorded 131 cases of avian influenza A (H7N9) virus infection in humans, including an imported case from the Mainland to Taiwan. As of today, there were 33 suspected cases fulfilling the notification criteria, but no confirmed case yet in Hong Kong.
15. Mr MO Kai-hong gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the congregation black-spots as listed in AFCD’s written reply included public reports on wild birds and related droppings problem, or complaints cases about wild birds nesting on the air-conditioners of residential buildings; (b) for the time being, AFCD had no plan to launch a district-specific publicity campaign for the Southern District, nevertheless, a territory-wide broadcast was in place to remind the public not to touch or feed wild birds; and (c) the collection of wild bird carcasses for laboratory testing aimed to verify whether outdoor birds carried avian flu virus. To date, all testing samples were avian flu negative, showing that the birds in the Southern District did not carry avian flu viruses (including H5N1 and H7N9).
16. Mr CHOW Wing-che gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the 59 prosecutions made by FEHD in 2012 was a territory-wide figure; (b) since wild bird feeding was not an offence by itself, FEHD staff had to wait until the feeder had finished feeding without cleaning up the place to issue a fixed penalty ticket. Therefore, FEHD had difficulties in providing proof and prosecuting such an offence; (c) to raise public awareness of public health, FEHD had organised the “Territory-wide Cleansing Campaign” on 28 April 2013, and Mr SO
11 Kam-leung, GBS, JP, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, and SDC Members had been invited to promote cleansing and environmental hygiene in the district; (d) FEHD would also organise a “District Cleansing Day” on 5 June 2013 to carry out intensive clean-up work at five hygiene black-spots in the district (Appendix II to Annex 4). FEHD would keep the situation in various black-spots in view; and (e) regarding the two congregation black-spots in the Southern District as listed in Appendix I (Annex 4), FEHD had dispatched workers to clean up birds’ droppings every day, and advised people not to feed birds at these locations.
17. Ms TAM Wai-chu gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) LCSD had followed up on the pigeon congregation problem at the Repulse Bay Beach Car Park and given a reply in April 2013. Since the problem was resolved, the written reply (Annex 5) gave a general overview of the current situation only. However, LCSD would pay attention to the future correspondences; and (b) LCSD would step up cleansing birds’ droppings at venues under its charge.
18. Mr WONG Sun-man gave a consolidated response as follows:
Precautionary measures
(a) domestic tenants of HD’s public rental housing estates were permitted to keep small household pets, except for pigeons and dogs; (b) as a matter of fact, HD had advised residents to refrain from feeding wild birds. In case residents failed to clean up the places after feeding wild birds, HD would deal with the matter under the “Marking Scheme for Estate Management Enforcement” (the Marking Scheme). For serious case that the household concerned accrued 16 penalty points within two years, HD might terminate the tenancy and recover the flat concerned; (c) HD would step up cleansing efforts at places where wild birds congregated, including picking up wounded, sick or dead birds. Also, suitable pruning of trees would be implemented to minimise the
12 habitats for wild birds; and (d) would step up supervision and monitoring on environmental hygiene, pay attention to cleanliness of HD markets, and display posters to remind residents the importance of environmental hygiene and cleanliness.
Contingency measures
(a) a communication mechanism was in place in HD and CHP to closely monitor the infectious disease; and (b) HD would issue guidelines to the cleansing contractors or property management companies, requiring them to carry out drills and make sure that there were sufficient equipment and materials to cope with the infectious disease.
19. Mr AU Lap-sing and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying continued to raise comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) asked how pet owners should ensure cleanliness of their pets to prevent the spread of the infectious disease; and (b) asked how HD would deal with nuisances to nearby residents caused by wild bird feeding in the units of public housing estates.
20. Mr WONG Sun-man supplemented that in case of nuisances caused by wild bird feeding in the flats of public rental housing estates, the department would deal with them under the Marking Scheme. Such misdeed might also constitute a breach of condition of the tenancy agreement. In the past, a flat of a household had in fact been recovered by the HD for committing such misdeed.
21. The Chairman said that although the H7N9 epidemic in the Mainland had seemed to be alleviated, while there was no confirmed case in Hong Kong so far, government departments and the public should not slacken in their vigilance. He urged the departments concerned to enhance cleansing public places, arouse public awareness of public health, and continue to update Members of the latest epidemic situation in the Mainland in due course.
22. The Chairman suggested that WG under DDEC should be tasked to invite local organisations to submit funding applications for organising publicity and public
13 education programmes in the district, with a view to raising public awareness of environmental sanitation.
23. Members agreed to the said arrangements.
(Mr CHAN Man-chun left the meeting at 3:05 p.m.)
Agenda Item 3: Inclusion of Ex-Aberdeen Fire Station Site in Land Sale Programme (Item raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa)
(DDEC Paper No. 22/2013)
24. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefly introduced the reasons for raising the agenda item. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) for utilisation of land resources, SDC had spent a lot of time and efforts on studying the potential uses of the ex-Aberdeen Fire Station (AFS) site and had put forward a number of options, including: (i) a government complex; (ii) a civic centre; (iii) a community plant nursery; and (iv) a worksite for the Water Supplies Department (WSD) to replace the current one at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. Nevertheless, the departments concerned had not accepted any of the above recommendations so far; (b) at present, the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) had launched a programme to collaborate with the commercial premises in Wong Chuk Hang area, under which HAB rented the commercial units with public money for use by arts groups. Nevertheless, the programme was a short-term plan only, so he requested that special provisions should be made in the Land Sale Conditions of the ex-AFS site requiring the developer to reserve a certain percentage of floor area inside the commercial premises for permanent “Government, Institution or Community” (GI/C) use. This arrangement not only helped save public money, but also streamlined administrative procedures. Furthermore, it could help promote the development of local arts; (c) at the SDC meeting on 14 March 2013, the Director of Planning had not given a concrete reply on reserving floor area for permanent GI/C use. As such, he reiterated that the Government should grasp this
14 opportunity to include the said provisions in the Land Sale Conditions before putting up the site for sale. He wished that the departments concerned could seriously consider and accept SDC’s views; and (d) the inclusion of the ex-AFS site into the Land Sale Programme (LSP) meant that the Southern District would lose a GI/C site, which was unfair to the residents of the Southern District.
25. Miss Isabel YIU gave a response as follows:
(a) the Planning Department (PlanD) had indicated in previous meetings that the long-term land use planning of the ex-AFS site was under review and departmental consultation was underway; (b) any proposed amendments to the land use zoning should be submitted to the Town Planning Board (TPB) for consideration, and then be gazetted in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO) for consultation with the public and SDC; (c) during the departmental consultation, the departments concerned had indicated that there was no need to develop G/IC facilities on the ex-AFS site. Besides, there were sufficient G/IC and open space provisions in the Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau planning scheme areas. Therefore, PlanD considered rezoning the site for other alternative uses appropriate. Since the ex-AFS site was located close to the Wong Chuk Hang Business Area, from the land use planning perspective, the site was considered suitable for business use; (d) regarding the reservation of floor area in the future commercial premises for G/IC use as proposed by a Member, PlanD had consulted concerned departments and none of the government departments indicated the need to use the ex-AFS site for such purpose; and (e) as for Mr TSUI Yuen-wa’s recommendation to reserve part of the floor area in the future commercial premises for use as a performance venue, PlanD could consult relevant departments again on the demand for such use and consider whether the intended purpose should be incorporated in the future development of the site.
26. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the Lands Department (LandsD) drew up Land Sale Conditions based on the planned use of a site. During the departmental consultation
15 earlier on, it was confirmed that the departments concerned did not need the ex-AFS site for GI/C purpose; (b) the Government would announce the LSP every financial year, and the LSP for 2013-14 was released on 28 February 2013. The objective of the announcement was to provide the market with information about anticipated land supply and facilitate the necessary preparation by the market. The departments concerned would accord priority to expedite the completion of relevant procedures so as to ensure land supply; and (c) since the LSP involved sensitive market information, LandsD would not carry out consultation on the LSP or individual sites therein.
27. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
Disregard for SDC’s views
(a) SDC had repeatedly discussed the short- and long-terms uses of the ex-AFS site since 2009, and SDC Members had put forward a number of options, including long-term uses such as government offices and government complex; and short-term uses such as arts development, public engagement programmes of MTR projects and a replacement worksite for WSD. However, all along the departments concerned did not listen to SDC’s views. A Member was discontented with such attitude; (b) SDC had a thorough understanding of local situation as well as public views and local needs. The Government should consider strengthening the role played by SDC in town planning. As for the inclusion of the ex-AFS site in the LSP, a Member urged the departments concerned to trust SDC Members’ judgment on local needs and pay due attention to the actual needs of the district and incorporate provisions to require the reservation of part of the floor area for GI/C use in the Land Sale Conditions; (c) if such provisions could not be incorporated in the Land Sale Conditions of the ex-AFS site as a compensation, a Member asked whether the departments concerned would reserve land in the neighbourhood of Wong Chuk Hang for GI/C use as a compensation;
16 (d) PlanD stated that sufficient GI/C sites had been reserved in the Southern District, furthermore, they had already consulted other departments on the proposal to reserve part of the floor area for GI/C use earlier. The departments concerned had replied that art performance venue was under the category of GI/C use, and they had no such need at the moment. Even though PlanD could carry out a departmental consultation again, the answer would still be the same, and it would only be a waste of SDC’s time; (e) the Government intended to rezone the GI/C site for other purposes, but did not communicate with SDC beforehand, and only consulted the public and SDC on the matter according to the procedures prescribed in the TPO. However, based on past experiences, it seemed that TPB did not pay too much attention to SDC’s views. Therefore, the Government should change the consultation mode by communicating with SDC on the preliminary conceptual plan before submitting the proposed amendments to land use zoning to TPB, in order to strengthen the role of SDC in the town planning framework. This arrangement was crucial for the Government to administer the delegation of responsibility to District Councils. The Chairman of SDC had suggested this during a meeting with the Chief Executive on 16 May 2013, and the response was positive; (f) PlanD was commended for convening an informal meeting with SDC Members recently concerning the rezoning of the reserved site for Route 4. It was wished that in future the departments concerned would not consult SDC just because of the established procedures as stated in the TPO; and (g) the land sale system had fundamental drawbacks. There was a gap between land available for sale as shown in the LSPs and the actual land supply for 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. Yet SDC’s aspiration was superseded by the LSP in land use planning. It was asked how the departments concerned would deal with SDC’s views.
Reversal of town planning procedures
(a) the practice of putting the ex-AFS site in the LSP before submission of the rezoning application had obviously reversed the town planning procedures.
17 Lack of policy support
(a) currently the low rents of the factory buildings/godowns in Wong Chuk Hang area had attracted many tenants from the creative industry. With the re-development of Wong Chuk Hang area, the rental units in these factory premises would probably vanish in future. HAB should formulate policy directions to protect and promote the growth of creative industry in the long run, with relevant departments such as LandsD and PlanD followed up on related work. It was suggested that a meeting should be arranged for SDC to discuss with HAB the development of creative industry in the Southern District.
28. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) from land use planning perspective, there were a number of uses always permitted under the Schedule of Uses of the “G/IC” zone in the outline zoning plan. However, designation of a particular use for an individual site was not determined by PlanD. Relevant bureaux or departments should determine the demand on need basis before making further consideration; (b) following the discussion on short- and long-term uses of the ex-AFS site at the DDEC meeting in March 2012, PlanD had carried out a departmental consultation on Members’ proposals. At that time, LCSD and the Government Property Agency (GPA) had stated that they did not need the site for constructing a civic centre or government complex. Subsequently, PlanD consulted other departments, and no department had indicated the need to retain the ex-AFS site for other G/IC uses. Also, with reference to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, there was no deficit of G/IC provision in the Southern District, so PlanD considered rezoning the site for other uses; (c) given that the area of ex-AFS site was relatively small, PlanD had reservation on the feasibility of reserving part of the floor area for G/IC use in the future commercial premises. Moreover, PlanD alone could not decide whether floor area in the future commercial premises should be reserved for arts performance purpose. Nevertheless, PlanD could consult relevant bureaux and departments including HAB and LCSD on the proposal; (d) announcing the LSP was outside the ambit of PlanD. The purpose of
18 early announcing the LSP by the Government was to provide the market with the information about anticipated land supply and facilitate the necessary preparation by the market. Amendments to land use zoning of the site should be processed in accordance with the established procedures under the TPO before the site could be put up for sale in the market; (e) there were other G/IC sites reserved in the Southern District, including the ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau and the site near Ocean Park. She shared the views of Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, and said that if necessary, PlanD would be happy to exchange views with SDC on land uses through informal meetings; and (f) the development of the creative industry was a policy matter. If there was policy support from relevant bureaux or departments for the provision of a G/IC facility, normally PlanD would be tasked to identify a suitable site for such use. However, for the time being, PlanD had not received request from the bureaux or departments concerned needing the ex-AFS site for G/IC use.
29. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) LandsD noted Members’ views and their concerns over the uses of the ex-AFS site; and (b) the role of LandsD was relatively passive in the drafting of the Land Sale Conditions. Normally, LandsD would draft the Land Sale Conditions based on the land uses designated by PlanD, after which the conditions would be submitted to District Lands Conference (DLC) for consideration and approval.
30. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP and Mr CHAI Man-hon continued to raise comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) the sufficiency of GI/C sites in the Southern District was only one of the factors when considering whether amendments to land use zoning should be approved. PlanD should take all factors into account, including traffic capacity and compatibility with the surrounding environment and unique features of the district after land rezoning; (b) under the framework of the District Administration Scheme, the Southern District Office (SDO) was responsible for reflecting SDC’s
19 views to the bureaux or departments concerned to enable the Government’s understanding of local needs. SDC had strived for the construction of government offices and a government complex for a very long time, but PlanD said that the departments concerned had no need for GI/C uses. In this regard, SDO was asked about its stance on the matter; and (c) according to the data in 2009, government departments’ expenditure on renting office premises in the Southern District amounted to $4,430,000. It was believed that rents in the district would surge drastically after the commissioning of the South Island Line (East). Thus, the reservation of floor area for GI/C use could facilitate local organisations, while at the same time, such premises could be available for use by government departments which could help reduce the expenditure on government offices rental. It was hoped that the departments concerned could seriously consider the proposal.
31. Ms WAI Yee-yan, JP supplemented that:
(a) GPA was responsible for coordinating the need for government offices. Like other government departments, SDO would reflect only its needs for office space to GPA which would handle inter-departmental coordination; and (b) regarding SDC’s views on various matters such as the promotion of arts and culture, SDO would forward the written records to relevant bureaux and departments for consideration.
32. Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) asked whether SDO had requested for additional office space before, and if the request, if any, had not been entertained, did it imply that SDO had no such need. The Member concerned asked whether SDO could seek the policy support from HAB if SDC still felt the actual need for additional office space; (b) SDC had proposed repeatedly for the construction of a government complex or the like in the past, but all ignored by PlanD. It was asked how much attention the government departments concerned paid to SDC’s views in the consultation procedure. In addition, enquiry
20 was raised about how government departments would deal with the possible diverging views between the departments concerned and SDC; and (c) the number of SDC staff was increasing and the size of their work stations was quite small. Moreover, SDC Members had requested the Secretariat to enhance its support. It was asked whether SDO had reflected such needs to GPA.
33. The Chairman reminded Members to concentrate the discussion on the agenda item.
34. Mr AU Nok-hin continued to raise comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) if SDC Members considered there was an actual need for the construction of a government complex at the ex-AFS site or using it for other GI/C purpose, normally what channels SDO would use to forward such requests; and (b) with respect to the rezoning of the ex-AFS site, asked whether SDO had reflected the proposal of the construction of a government complex to the departments concerned.
35. Ms WAI Yee-yan, JP supplemented that:
(a) she thanked Members for their concern on the work environment of SDO staff; (b) the office area of all government departments was calculated based on the staff number in the offices concerned. The current floor area of the office premises of SDO complied with the prevailing standard; and (c) SDO was not the only user department of the government complex. Also, GPA was responsible for coordinating the layout of various departmental offices in a government complex.
36. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) agreed that the sufficiency of G/IC provisions in the district was only one of the considerations in determining the rezoning. Other factors including the impact of rezoning on the surrounding landscape,
21 environment and traffic would also be considered. Also, relevant departments would be consulted on the matters. PlanD would submit the proposal to TPB only if it was confirmed that the proposed rezoning would not have adverse traffic and environmental impact on the area; (b) since PlanD had no authority to decide whether the site should be reserved for a specific G/IC use or designated to particular user departments, PlanD had to seek advice from relevant bureaux or departments. It would reserve the site for a specified use to a particular department only after the bureaux or departments concerned had determined their needs with relevant policy support. For instance, having considered the population growth in Wong Chuk Hang in future and community aspirations, the departments concerned had confirmed there was a need to construct a community hall, so PlanD had reserved a piece of G/IC site for constructing a community hall. As a matter of fact, SDO or SDC would not be the sole users of the proposed government complex, therefore, after learning SDC Members’ views in 2009, PlanD had consulted relevant departments on the matter. Nevertheless, GPA had replied that there was no need for a government complex in the Southern District at the moment; and (c) regarding the reservation of floor area for the use of the creative industry or as an arts performance venue, PlanD could further consult the bureaux or departments concerned on the suggestions.
37. In closing, the Chairman concluded that Members were concerned with the fact that the Government did not pay due attention to the role of SDC in district administration and town planning. As SDC Members had a thorough understanding of the local situation and were highly sensitive to local needs, they actively put forward many views to various government departments for consideration. Nevertheless, in meeting local needs, due to various reasons, there were always diverging views between government departments and SDC. For instance, SDC had thoroughly studied the short- and long-term uses of the ex-AFS site and come up with a number of options, but these efforts ended in vain because of various practical difficulties. So it was understandable that SDC Members felt disappointed. The Chairman hoped Members could continue their endeavors in local affairs, and actively put forward proposals to the Government and pursue their causes at a suitable time.
38. The Chairman agreed that SDC should work with HAB to explore the
22 development of the creative industry in the Southern District in the long run, but considered that it would be more suitable to discuss the subject at the meetings of Community Affairs and Tourism Development Committee under SDC. As for the proposal of reserving part of the floor area in the future commercial premises for the development of local arts and culture or GI/C uses, the Chairman invited PlanD representative to reflect the views of the Committee to the bureaux or departments concerned, and make every effort to take the matter forward.
Agenda Item 4: Anti-mosquito Campaign 2013 (Phase II) in Southern District (Item raised by Food and Environmental Hygiene Department)
(DDEC Paper No. 23/2013)
39. The Chairman invited Members to note the contents of the paper.
40. Mr CHOW Wing-che briefly introduced the results of the Anti-mosquito Campaign 2013 (Phase I) and the details of the Anti-mosquito Campaign 2013 (Phase II).
41. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) suggested organising activities such as a slogan competition for injecting creative elements in the tagline of the anti-mosquito campaigns; (b) mosquito problem was acute in the neighbourhood of Lee Chi Road, Main Street Ap Lei Chau and Wai Fung Street in Ap Lei Chau. It was wished that FEHD could step up anti-mosquito efforts at mosquito breeding grounds; and (c) enquired about the ovitrap indexes recorded in the Southern District for the past few months.
42. Mr CHOW Wing-che gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) hoped that the tagline could help reinforce the anti-mosquito messages
23 among residents, and would reflect the proposal of incorporating creative elements in the slogan to FEHD headquarters; (b) would pay attention to the mosquito problem in Ap Lei Chau as mentioned by the Member concerned; and (c) the ovitrap indexes recorded in the Southern District for the past few months were summarised as follows:
Aberdeen and Deep Water Bay Pok Fu Lam Ap Lei Chau and Repulse Bay January 2013 0% 0% 0% February 2013 0% 0% 0% March 2013 0% 0% 0% April 2013 1.8% 10.9% 5.5%
The ovitrap indexes of the said regions were far below the alert level (20%), and FEHD would keep in view the mosquito problem in the district.
43. The Chairman wished that FEHD could incorporate creative elements when designing the tagline of the anti-mosquito campaigns as far as possible so as to reinforce anti-mosquito messages amongst local residents. Also, with the approach of summer and rainy season, it was hoped that FEHD would continue with its vigorous anti-mosquito efforts.
Agenda Item 5: Discussion on the Planning Application concerning the Government Land to the East of Ap Lei Chau Praya Road (Item raised by Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH) (DDEC Paper No. 26/2013)
44. The Chairman welcomed the following consultants’ representatives to the meeting:
Townland Consultants Ltd.
． Ms Cindy TSANG, Director ． Mr Ben CHEUNG, Senior Town Planner
24 45. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH briefly presented their reasons for raising this agenda item. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) the shipyards at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road had established their roots in the Southern District for over a hundred years, and the sites were officially zoned for shipyards and industrial purposes in 1986. SDC had been paying attention to the historic values and development of the existing shipyards. In previous Committee meetings, Members had agreed to retain the shipyard sites and discussed in detail the lease terms of the re-tendering. At the Committee meeting on 15 April 2013, LandsD reported that the re-tendering of the shipyards sites would be implemented as soon as possible; (b) on 15 May 2013, shortly before the re-tendering by LandsD, it was suddenly learned from the newspapers that a developer had submitted an application to TPB for planning permission for a Yacht Centre-led Mixed Development (Proposed Yacht Centre) on the shipyards sites, creating great anxiety among shipyard operators. SDC had not been informed of this new development beforehand and was dissatisfied with the developer and the departments concerned for the lack of communication; (c) the existing shipyards provided maintenance and repair services mainly for fishing boats and passenger carrying vessels and such operations had to be carried out on a slipway. However, the design of boat-yards in the Proposed Yacht Centre did not meet the technical requirements of such operations, so these two kinds of facilities were not the same thing. If it was unable to provide proper maintenance and repair services for fishing boats, then a wide range of associated trade and industries, including machinery, electric appliances, hardware and even restaurants and catering, would be affected. Furthermore, it would be hard for shipyard operators to change to different jobs, thus their livelihood would be seriously affected; (d) enquired about the exact date and leasing term in the re-tendering, so that the trade could plan ahead; and (e) enquired TPB about the consultation procedure for the planning application and the factors of consideration in granting approval. Also, TPB was urged to play its role as a gate-keeper.
46. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) regarding the re-tendering of the 16 government lands at Ap Lei Chau Praya
25 Road for shipyard uses, LandsD had earlier sought the advice of relevant bureaux/departments and SDC, and had conducted local consultation through the SDO. LandsD had decided that the shipyard sites would be leased under short-term tenancy (STT) for shipyard use and an open tendering would be arranged soon; and (b) news of arranging the re-tendering exercise in May 2013 was released in LandsD website beforehand. LandsD was actively working towards this target and would inform SDC immediately when there was new development.
47. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the government land to the east of Ap Lei Chau Praya Road fell within an area zoned “Industrial” (“I”) on the approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan, which had been used for shipyard and workshop purposes since 1986. PlanD had noted SDC’s previous views concerning the shipyard sites; (b) according to section 16 of the TPO, any person could submit an application for planning permission to TPB. Upon receipt of the subject planning application, TPB published the document of the planning application for public inspection on 14 May 2013 in accordance with the TPO. Synchronously, PlanD released related information of the application to the concerned district councillors on the same day. Owing to the preference of Members in receiving information by e-mail or post, they might get the information at a slightly different time; (c) any person could make comments on the application direct to TPB or through SDO within the first three weeks of the public inspection period (i.e. from 14 May to 4 June 2013); (d) PlanD would consult relevant bureaux/departments at the same time. The comments collected during the consultation, including those from relevant bureaux/departments, members of the local community and the general public, would be submitted to MPC of TPB for consideration; and (e) PlanD could not provide the stance on the planning permission. Normally TPB would consider planning applications mainly from planning perspectives, and would take into account the advice of relevant bureaux and departments on aspects including technical factors, traffic and environmental impacts and public opinions before making a final decision.
26 48. The Chairman said that SDC had begun discussion on shipyard sites at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road since the last term. As there were new Members in this term, and that many residents and representatives from related trade were present at the meeting, he briefly explained the background information to provide reference and a basis of discussion for Members:
(a) the sites at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road had been used for shipyard and workshop purposes since 1986 to support the development of local fisheries and marine industries; (b) the MPC under TPB considered two applications for amendment of plan on August 2011, which recommended retaining half of the sites for shipyard use, while the other half would be rezoned for other purposes (open space and boatyards). At that time, TPB rejected the applications and the land use of the sites remained industrial to support the continued operation of the existing shipyards and workshops, which provided maintenance and repair services for local fishing fleets and yachts; (c) during the Committee’s discussion of the shipyard sites in March 2012, a Member pointed out that the Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter was the most important economic asset of the Southern District and the only typhoon shelter with shipyards in Hong Kong besides Shau Kei Wan, Stonecutter’s Island and Tsing Yi. At that time, the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) also maintained that it was necessary to retain the shipyard sites, while the Marine Department (MD) anticipated a rise in the demand for ship maintenance and repair services in view of the growing number of vessels operating in Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter. Therefore, the Committee at the time agreed to and was in support of retaining the shipyard sites for the maintenance, repair and storage of small and medium vessels to support the development of fishing and related marine industries rooted in the Southern District; (d) the Committee had repeatedly and thoroughly discussed the re-tendering of the STT shipyard sites since July 2012, which covered specific issues including the leasing terms and keeping of dogs in shipyards. At the meeting on April 2013, LandsD said that the contents of the STT had been drawn up and an open tender would be carried out shortly; (e) in May 2013, SDC Members suddenly learned from the newspapers that a planning application was submitted and received a consultation document published by LandsD; (f) according to section 16 of the TPO, any person could submit an application
27 to TPB for planning permission. Except for larger-scale projects which involved regional interest, District Councils normally would not discuss planning application put forward by individuals, so LandsD did not arrange for the applicant to attend this meeting. In fact, the applicant had not thought of consulting SDC but after learning of this Committee meeting, they proposed to attend to hear DDEC’s views. To enhance the effectiveness of discussion, the Chairman did not object to the applicant’s presence at this meeting; and (g) the information provided by the consultants’ representatives and the Southern District Shipbuilding Association Limited’s letter were tabled for Members’ reference.
49. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHU Lap-wai, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr LEE Kwan-keung raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
Re-tendering
(a) Noting that it was already 27 May 2013 as on the day of this meeting, a Member asked LandsD about the exact date of the re-tendering and the lease period; and (b) due to the news of the proposed development of the Yacht Centre, the number of bids and bid price might be increased significantly. It was worried that the existing shipyard operators might not be able to continue their operation at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, so hoped related departments could pay attention to the matter when processing the tenders.
Community Inclusion for a Win-Win Situation
(a) According to the executive summary of the proposed planning application (Annex 3), the planning application aimed at addressing the safety hazard, environmental problems and noise nuisances arising from the shipyard sites. However, the noise measurement taken at the Larvotto by the Environmental Protection Department earlier did not find that the noise generated exceeded the stipulated levels. Before the development of Larvotto, the developers and already known about the existence of the
28 shipyard sites. As it was confirmed that the operation of shipyards complied with related standards, the different stakeholders in the local community should find a way to co-exist together; (b) residents in Larvotto had the right to pursue a better living environment, but the current conflicts between industrial and residential uses stemmed from the Government’s lack of long-term planning for the sites on Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. To satisfy both the needs to provide a suitable operating environment for shipyards and the expectations of residents for a quality living environment, there is a need for long-term planning of the land. This requires THB to give policy directions and instructions for PlanD to rezone the land and LandsD to put in different terms for the sale of the land. However, THB had yet formulated the required policy directions; (c) in view of the practical difficulties in implementation and the lack of coordination in related trade and industry, it was believed that TPB would neither approve the subject planning application nor intervene in the re-tendering to be started shortly; and (d) understood the fundamental differences in the needs and opinions between the local residents and the shipyard operators. Nevertheless, the matter had already reached this stage, various stakeholders should try to understand and accept the intergrowth relationship between one another. Their relationship needed not be and should not be irreconcilable. On the contrary, they should try to discover their common goals and interest. It was recommended that Members should help residents and shipyards put aside their differences in order to discuss and come up with a win-win scenario for the long-term development of the said sites which could meet the operational needs of the shipyards and at the same time provide a better living environment for the residents, and then submit the proposal to the Government for consideration.
Consultation Procedures
(a) All SDC Members were notified of the planning application by PlanD on 14 May 2013, and MD had also informed the related trade and industry of the re-tendering exercise; (b) Members were familiar with local conditions and were dissatisfied with the developer for not communicating with SDC before submitting the planning application to TPB; (c) the planning application was so sudden and both SDC Members and the
29 trade and industry did not prepare for it. It was hoped that PlanD could consider extending the public consultation period so that various stakeholders could have sufficient time to discuss the matter and give their views; (d) the statutory public consultation period was three weeks. The public should reflect their views on the planning application to the applicant so that the applicant could apply to TPB for an extension; (e) according to the minutes of DDEC meeting on 30 July 2012, PlanD stated that “If the relevant policy bureaux such as THB considered it unnecessary to keep the sites for shipyard use, PlanD would review the land use thereat to determine the land use as appropriate”. SDC at the same time had reached a consensus that “SDC should spare no effort to retain the shipyard sites for repair, maintenance, storage, display and sales of small and medium vessels so that we can ensure the sustainable development of the fishing and marine industries rooted in the Southern District”. After nearly a year had passed, SDC still kept to its stance; and (f) according to section 16 of the TPO, any person could submit an application for planning permission, and it was not necessary for SDC to discuss every application. SDC would have no objection if the application concerned was in line with the consensus of SDC and the decision of TPB.
Impact of the Proposed Planning Application on Existing Shipyards
(a) The appearance design of the Proposed Yacht Centre was pleasing and it had merits in terms of enhancement to the surrounding environment and long-term planning, provided that the operating environment of the existing shipyards was not undermined and their operational needs safeguarded. It was requested that all the existing shipyards should be allowed to rent the boatyards in the future Yacht Centre at the current rent levels to continue their operation; (b) as there was already a yacht club in Sham Wan, the need for the Proposed Yacht Centre at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road was queried; (c) as seen from the information provided by the applicant, the design of the Proposed Yacht Centre did not have any elements for co-existence with the shipyard industry. Therefore, a Member said that it was not possible to comment on the design at the moment. However, if the applicant was sincere in seeking the views of related trade and SDC, future discussion of the detailed design was welcomed;
30 (d) enquired how the proposed planning application tied in with the re-tendering and whether the application could meet the needs of Aberdeen Harbour for shipyards; (e) the shipyards and the associated trade and industry located in the surrounding had historic values, though they were facing great cyclic changes and gradually phasing out. SDC should strive to preserve the traditional values of the Southern District and retain the shipyard sites. Also, the newer comers to the local community should respect the original characteristics of Aberdeen as a fishing harbour; and (f) the re-tendering was inevitable, but concerned that TPB’s approval to the planning application would affect the lease renewal of the shipyard sites in future. The related department was requested to elaborate on the impact of the re-zoning on the future lease renewal of the said shipyard sites.
(The Chairman clarified that the planning application in question did not involve re-zoning of the said sites and invited related department to answer the enquiries in detail later on.)
Lack of Long-term Planning
(a) After all, the disputes between industrial and residential uses in the community were originated from the poor planning and lack of long-term planning years ago. Due to the short lease period and cost, operators were reluctant to made a large investment on improving the peripheral environment. However, if a longer lease period or a long-term operating concession was granted, it was believed that the operators would be willing to make improvement to the surrounding area.
50. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) according to section 16 of the TPO, any person could apply for planning permission; (b) the planning application did not involve rezoning the industrial zone for other purposes. The applicant submitted the planning permission application to TPB as the applied uses were not always permitted within the “I” zone; (c) after receiving the application, TPB had to handle it according to the procedures stipulated in the TPO. As such, TPB published the document
31 of the planning application for public inspection on 14 May 2013, and on the same day, PlanD notified the SDC Members concerned of the application and released the related documents on its website; (d) the three-week collecting public comments period was a statutory procedure, no one had an authority to extend the period. Therefore, members of the public should raise their views to the Secretariat of TPB via email or in writing between 14 May and 4 June 2013. The comments and suggestions collected during the public consultation would be passed to TPB for consideration. Any comments submitted after the consultation period would not be forwarded to TPB for consideration; (e) upon receipt of the planning application, PlanD would seek the comments of related bureaux and departments, and such comments, together with information such as background information of the related sites, views and suggestions given by SDC previously and TPB’s reasons for rejecting the previous application for rezoning, would be submitted to the MPC under TPB for deliberation. TPB would balance various factors before making a final decision; and (f) more than one planning applications could be made for a site, while TPB could approve more than one planning applications for the same location. Nevertheless, only one approved planning application could be implemented in the future. Any existing use of any land would not be affected until the site was redeveloped. As the sites at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road were government land, comments of relevant bureaux and departments on the long-term use and the implementation feasibility of the site would be important in consideration of the planning application.
51. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) noted the concerns of Members and related trade on the schedule of re-tendering; (b) it was anticipated that the tendering would be carried out in May 2013. LandsD would notify SDC of the time in due course and inform the trade and industry of the actual schedule through MD; (c) the 16 sites would be let by way of STT for shipyard use, and of which, 14 sites obtained planning permission to use as shipyards in 1986, so the tenancy period would be seven years. As for the remaining two sites which were used as sawmill before returning to the Government, given that no planning permission was granted, they would put to shipyard use in this
32 re-tendering exercise and their tenancy period was five years; (d) the same procedure would be repeated in due course for LandsD to consider if the prevailing land use should be continued, which included seeking the advice of relevant bureaux/departments and SDC, and local consultation would be carried out through SDO; and (e) the upcoming re-tendering exercise would be an open tender, and tenderers were required to submit relevant information to LandsD for consideration. According to the normal practice of the Government concerning open tender, the highest bid price would be the main factor of consideration.
52. Mr Ben CHEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) the applicant, Kerry Property Management Services Limited, submitted the subject planning application on behalf of the residents in Larvotto, with the aim mainly to reflect their expectations for the long-term development of the said sites and not for promoting the financial gain of the developer; (b) the planning application proposed four uses with the Yacht Centre as the main use, and the other uses included Marine Exhibit, Shop and Services and lastly Boat-yards. The applicant understood that the sites were currently used as shipyards and was also aware that a re-tendering exercise for the 16 sites was being arranged, so their proposed design specially included nine boat-yard facilities to cater for the needs of ship-repairing operations; (c) the nine boat-yard facilities could accommodate maximum 18 vessels of various size at the same time, and compared with the present capacity that each shipyard could accommodate one vessel only, the proposed design could utilise boat-yard facilities and space more effectively; (d) the lease period prescribed in the re-tendering exercise ranged from five to seven years only. The applicant believed that through long-term planning and management, a balance between the residential and industrial uses on the applied sites could be achieved. Therefore, the applicant put forward the proposed planning application to pursue a long-term solution that could benefit all stakeholders and hoped the Government could support the application; (e) the Proposed Yacht Centre was not intended as a club for the rich, its purpose was to meet the needs of local yachts for berthing facilities. Also, the nine boat-yards in the Yacht Centre could provide ship maintenance and repair services for both pleasure yachts and other vessels. The proposed
33 planning application could enhance the living environment of the residents in Larvotto and benefit other people in Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau as well; (f) the proposed plan was just the preliminary idea of the residents in Larvotto and the applicant hoped that further discussion with SDC could be carried out. Also, they would like to communicate with the ship-building and repairing sector for a more ideal proposal. If necessary, the applicant was willing to apply to TPB for a deferment so as to fully accommodate the views of stakeholders; and (g) understood and respected the fact that a re-tendering would be carried out for the 16 sites soon, and the applicant had no intention to obstruct the exercise. This was the reason for the proposed implementation schedule of the plan to target at 2023, meaning that the long-term planning would not be started until the leases of the STT shipyard sites expired.
53. Mr CHU ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Nok-hin, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling continued to raise comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:
Re-tendering
(a) Noting that WSD was still searching for a suitable replacement site for its worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road since local residents objected to its lease renewal, it was worried that the same problem would occur when the STT leases of the shipyard sites expired in five and seven years.
Impact of the Proposed Planning Application on Existing Shipyards
(a) The size of boat-yards was greatly reduced in the proposed plan. It was requested that the applicant should consider the livelihood of the shipyards and related sectors and let the operators rent the boat-yard facilities in the Proposed Yacht Centre at a lower price to continue their business when the seven-year STT expired; (b) the boat-yards in the proposed plan was mainly for the maintenance and repair of pressure yachts and their usages were different from those of the existing shipyards. It was hoped that the applicant could understand the actual needs of the sector and revise the contents of their proposal; and (c) enquired if the number of boat-yards (nine in total) as proposed in the plan could be adjusted.
34 Consultation Procedures
(a) The applicant had already expressed their willingness to apply for a deferment and asked PlanD representative about the reason why the consultation period could not be extended; and (b) it was hoped that PlanD could seriously consider the possibility of extending the consultation period to provide sufficient time for various stakeholders to give their views. This could enable the applicant to revise the proposal plan accordingly before submitting an application to TPB.
Other Comments
(a) There was a strong demand for land in Hong Kong, however, many facilities including yacht clubs, sports clubs, exclusive clubs, country clubs and international schools rented the land in the Southern District at just a nominal price. Thus, they had been using a lot of land and transport resources etc. of the Southern District and it was hoped that the departments concerned could take good care of the valuable resources of the Southern District and carefully consider the related planning application.
54. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) TPB attached great importance to public engagement during the course of planning, so established a three-week public consultation in the TPO. Since this was a statutory requirement, no one, including the applicant, could extend the above consultation period; (b) the views received beyond the statutory consultation period would not be considered by TPB; (c) normally, TPB would consider a planning application within two months upon receipt of the planning application. The planning application was tentatively scheduled for consideration by TPB on 21 June 2013. If required, the applicant could submit a request for deferment, with relevant justifications, to TPB for consideration; and (d) should Members wish to make comments on the planning application, it should be submitted to the Secretariat of TPB between 14 May and 4 June 2013.
35 55. In closing, the Chairman said that SDC continued to agree and support retaining the shipyard sites at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road for the maintenance, repair and storage of small and medium vessels to ensure the sustainable development of the fishing and related marine industries rooted in the Southern District. The Chairman invited PlanD to reflect the stance and views of SDC to TPB for reference.
56. The Chairman added that on the one hand, SDC, especially DDEC, had attached great importance to the development and economic growth of the district, in particular the long-term development of shipyard sector, and on other hand, it welcomed any efforts on environment enhancement to encourage the sustainable development of the district in the long run. The shipyards were current operating on STT only, and it would be difficult for the operators to make any long-term planning because of the cost. As no long-term investment could be made, this limited the regional development and enhancement to the environment. In previous discussions, the Committee had expressed displeasure and disappointment towards the Government’s lack of long-term planning, so he reiterated the request for related department to carefully study the long-term development mode of the shipyard sites and the further enhancement of environment on the base of shipyard uses. The Chairman understood Members’ wish to obtain a long-term land use planning for the sites through this planning application, but it was not appropriate for SDC to help lobby the proposed development plan for private developers. He proposed to urge related departments to study proposals for the long-term planning of the sites soon and an open tender should be conducted to enlist more developers to explore an optimal arrangement and design for the development.
57. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN proposed that the Committee should write to THB requesting a study on the policy orientation so that PlanD and LandsD could work out the planning further. Also, he hoped that the Committee could encourage the communication between shipyard sector and the local residents to achieve a win-win solution as far as possible.
58. The Chairman said that the role of the Committee was to facilitate the work of related departments in the planning for the district and it was not appropriate for the Committee to get involve in individual project planning of private developers. Nevertheless, the Member of the constituency concerned could help strengthen the communication between different stakeholders in the local community.
(Mr LO Kin-hei left the meeting at 5:41 p.m., and Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mr YEUNG
36 Wai-foon, MH, JP left the meeting at 5:56 p.m.)
Agenda Item 6: Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District (DDEC Paper No. 24/2013)
Renewal Application for WSD worksite at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road
59. The Chairman welcomed the following WSD’s representatives to the meeting:
． Mr LEUNG Chung-lap, Senior Engineer/HK2 ． Mr WAN Wai-yin, Engineer/HK (Distribution 6)
60. The Chairman invited the departmental representatives to report the latest progress on the search for a replacement site.
61. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan advised that LandsD approved the extension application of WSD’s maintenance depot at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road at the DLC on 9 May 2013, under which WSD could continue to use the site until 31 December 2013 or on the date the maintenance depot moved to the replacement site (whichever the earlier). Also, LandsD had proposed two suitable replacement sites on 8 May 2013: (i) government land at Tai Tam Reservoir Road near Hong Kong Parkview; and (ii) government land at Shui Choi Tin Village near Victoria Road. The two proposed sites were being circulated to related departments for comment. The views collected during the consultation would be forwarded to WSD for follow-up action as soon as possible.
62. Mr LEUNG Chung-lap reported that the lease renewal for the maintenance depot at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road was granted on 9 May 2013 and consultation for the two replacement sites was underway. Details were shown in Annex 1 (page 4 to 5).
63. Members noted the latest progress of the renewal application of the said worksite.
37 Ex- Shek O Quarry
64. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised enquiries as follows:
(a) the latest development of the site; and (b) enquired about the formation and restoration projects for the said site which was currently a worksite for the construction of MTR Shatin to Central Link.
65. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan said that she would supplement the requested information after the meeting.
[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information from LandsD, CEDD and Highways Department for Members’ reference on 15 July 2013.]
Request to Improve the Drainage System of the Villages in Southern District
(II) On Shek O Village, Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village, Kau Wai Village and Tai Hau Wan Village
66. Mr FUNG Se-goun hoped that FEHD could start the planning and preparation for the construction of a public toilet at Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village soon so that the works could be carried out immediately after MTR Corp returned the site to LCSD.
67. Mr CHOW Wing-che replied that FEHD had written to its Planning Section on 30 April 2013 about the recommendation with a view to building a new flushing toilet at the selected site as soon as practicable.
Provision of Facilities for the Convenience of Residents at the Government Land Adjacent to Jumbo Pier
68. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa asked FEHD if the existence of underground high voltage cables at the selected site of the proposed toilet was confirmed. If yes, he enquired if an alternative site was available. Also, he hoped to conduct a site inspection with related departments to explore the feasibility of building a public
38 toilet at another nearby location.
69. Mr CHOW Wing-che agreed to arrange a site inspection for Members and related departments.
Utilisation of Facilities in Public Space at Stanley Plaza under the Charge of the Link
70. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN commented that the contents of the progress report did not give details on the matter and asked about the actual situation of this follow-up item.
71. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan responded that The Link had applied to LandsD for putting tables and chairs at two locations inside Stanley Plaza, and approval was granted to the one that concerned the public open space in February 2013. Earlier, LandsD had approved the other application relating to putting tables and chairs at non-building area but The Link submitted an appeal on the waiver fee . LandsD was handling the appeal at the moment. She said that they would include more detailed information in future progress report.
Planning Application for the “Comprehensive Development Area” Site in Wong Chuk Hang
72. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN asked about the use of retaining this information in the progress report.
73. Miss Isabel YIU recalled that Mr CHAI Man-hon had requested to retain this as a follow-up item in the progress report.
74. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa hoped to retain this information to enable Members to follow up on the hotel project.
75. The Committee agreed to retain this information.
PWP No. 191WC/A
76. Noting that traffic diversions had to be implemented occasionally in associated with the water works at Shum Wan Road, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa hoped that
39 WSD could communicate with the Member of the constituency and local residents on such diversions to avoid necessary complaints.
77. The Chairman invited related department to note the suggestion.
[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information from WSD for Members’ reference on 15 July 2013.]
PWP No. 013WS
78. Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised enquiries as follows:
(a) the reasons for the repeated works delay; (b) the latest progress of the works project; and (c) the arrangements made by related departments in preparation for the operation of the salt water supply system after works completion.
79. Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung said that he would follow up with WSD on those issues after the meeting and would submit the supplementary information to the Secretariat.
80. Mr WONG Sun-man responded that WSD and HD had conducted a site inspection two weeks ago and confirmed that a minor works would be carried out to connect the salt water supply system to the connection systems of Wah Fu (I) and (II) Estates. The works was tentatively scheduled in August 2013 and would be finished in one to two months.
[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information from WSD for Members’ reference on 15 July 2013.]
PWP Head 705 Subhead 5001BX
81. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mr FUNG Se-goun raised comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:
(a) some residents complained about the works at Ap Lei Chau Service
40 Reservoir started earlier in the morning which caused nuisances to residents, so the Member concerned wanted to know about the daily works schedule of the said project; (b) other than emergency repair, it was not suitable to carry out more than one slope works in the area of Repulse Bay Road and Island Road to avoid serious traffic congestions; (c) with swimming season approaching, people flow in the area of Repulse Bay would increase. It was hoped that the slope works in the area could be completed soon to avoid traffic congestions; and (d) related departments were asked to follow up on the stockpiling of construction materials and implementation of the temporary traffic arrangement of the relevant slope works in the areas of Shek O, Stanley and Big Wave Bay to ensure smooth traffic flow.
82. Mr CHEUNG Chin-hung said he would reflect the above to the Geotechnical Engineering Office of CEDD and would submit supplementary information to the Secretariat later on.
[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat emailed the supplementary information from CEDDfor Members’ reference on 15 July 2013.]
Progress Report on FEHD District Minor Works in Southern District
83. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP enquired about the progress of minor works.
84. Mr CHOW Wing-che reported that the Architectural Services Department had already started the tendering exercise for the project and the exact works schedule had not confirmed yet.
85. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP expected the department concerned to report the exact commencement date at the next meeting.
TGLA No. 6/SHGS/2013
86. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN commented that the villagers of Shui Choi Tin Village strongly opposed to the application of temporary site allocation.
87. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan responded that LandsD had not officially received any
41 objections so far but would note the views of Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and pass the views collected during the consultation period to WSD for follow up.
TGLA No. GLA-THK 1823
88. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that about the rezoning of the site at Cyberport Road as open space, even though the Highways Department’s (HyD) application to use it as worksite earlier had met with residents’ opposition, WSD still went ahead and applied for the site as worksite, which aroused the displeasure of local residents.
89. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan supplemented that the user department in the said application should be HyD. LandsD had received Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN’s views some time earlier which were passed to HyD for follow up.
90. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN reiterated that local residents were opposed to using the site for any worksite purposes.
91. The Chairman invited LandsD to note the above views.
TGLA No. 5/SHGS/2013
92. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mr FUNG Se-goun raised comments and enquiries as follows:
(a) the Tai Tam Reservoir Road site had been used as worksite for years which aroused dissatisfaction of residents. Recently, Members received a consultation document stating that WSD wished to extend the use period for another five years. However, the consultation document did not give any concrete details such as vehicle movements, usage of the site and reasons for extension. Given the insufficient information, residents’ objection was inevitable; and (b) it was recommended that more concrete information should be provided during local consultation to increase residents’ understanding of the needs for the worksite.
93. Ms CHAN Oi-kwan replied that the circulation information was provided by WSD, while local consultation was carried out through SDO. LandsD would reflect the point about insufficient information to WSD and request more information
42 so that Members and residents could know more about the details of the application.
Agenda Item 7: Any Other Business
(1) Fourth “Quit to Win” Smoke-free Community Campaign
94. The Chairman advised that the Secretariat had already uploaded related information document onto the online database of SDC before the meeting for Members’ reference.
95. The Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health (COSH) was going to organise the fourth “Quit to Win” Smoke-free Community Campaign (the Campaign) and hoped SDC could agree to the followings:
(i) continued support to the Campaign; (ii) consent to the use of SDC’s logo for publicity of the Campaign; and (iii) nominating local organisation(s) to work with COSH in promoting smoke-free message in local communities.
96. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP and Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH declared their interest as the Chairman and the Director of Southern District Healthy & Safe Association (SDHSA) respectively.
97. The Chairman said that the Secretariat did not receive any nomination from Members before the meeting, so he proposed to continue to nominate SDHSA to collaborate with COSH on the Campaign.
98. Members endorsed the proposed arrangement.
(2) City Gallery – “City Impression @ Neighbourhood” programmes and exhibitions
99. The Chairman said that to encourage participants to know about their communities and promote the theme of “Caring HK”, PlanD was planning a series of programmes and exhibitions and would like to invite 18 district councils to be its supporting organisations, which included:
43 (i) consent to the display of SDC’s logo as a supporting organisation of related programmes and exhibitions in the publicity materials; and (ii) assistance to publicize and promote related programmes and exhibitions in all sub-areas under SDC.
100. Members endorsed the proposed arrangement.
(3) Focus Group Meeting Council for Sustainable Development on “Municipal Solid Waste Charging”
101. The Chairman advised that earlier the Council for Sustainable Development had invited SDC representatives to join a focus group meeting to discuss the “Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Charging”. The Chairman of Environmental Protection and Hygiene Working Group, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, had attended the focus group meeting on behalf of SDC on 15 May 2013. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to briefly present the main points discussed at the meeting.
102. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa reported that the Government had just finished the assessment report on the first stage public consultation on the MSW charging and the results showed that more than 60% of the people supported the charging. The department concerned would conduct a public consultation on the levy and detailed implementation and the target groups of this consultation would include related trade and industries, the general public, owners’ committees and district councils.
103. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN commented that in the first stage public consultation, those who supported the MSW charging were mainly green groups, so it could not just take the face value of the assessment results that more than 60% of the people supported the charging.
104. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that the above public consultation period had ended and the Government had decided to implement the MSW charging but the levy details had not been confirmed yet. The objective of MSW charging was not to increase government revenue or recover part of the cost for handling MSW by the government. Its purpose was to achieve MSW reduction by raising public awareness of the fact that the landfills were soon to reach their capacity, also the environmental levy on plastic shopping bags passed by the Government previously was a success. He said that there were still many rooms for discussion in respect of MSW charging, and Members could give views in future public consultation stages.
44 Part 2 - Items for Information
Street Management Report (as at 30.4.2013) (DDEC Paper No. 25/2013)
105. Members noted the contents of the report.
Part 3 - Date of Next Meeting
106. The Chairman said that the 10th DDEC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 29 July 2013 (Monday).
107. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
Secretariat, Southern District Council July 2013
45