Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the HKSAR Third Term of District Council (Summary Translation)

Date: 5 July 2011 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Council, 6/F, Lung Cheung Office Block, 138 , Wong Tai Sin,

Present:

Chairman:

Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP

Vice-chairman:

Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP

Wong Tai Sin District Council Members:

Mr. CHAN Lee-shing Ms. CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr. CHAN On-tai Mr. CHAN Wai-kwan, Andie Mr. CHAN Yim-kwong, Joe Mr. CHOI Luk-sing, MH Mr. CHOW Ching-lam, Tony, MH Mr. CHUI Pak-tai Mr. HO Hon-man Mr. HO Yin-fai Mr. HUI Kam-shing Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Ms. KWOK Sau-ying Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr. LAM Man-fai, JP Dr. LAU Chi-wang, James, BBS, JP 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 1 Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH Mr. MOK Chung-fai, Rex, MH Mr. MOK Kin-wing Mr. MOK Ying-fan Dr. SHI Lop-tak, Allen, MH, JP Mr. SO Sik-kin Mr. TO Kwan-hang, Andrew Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH Mr. WONG Kwok-tung Mr. WONG Kwok-yan Mr. WONG Yat-yuk Mr. YUEN Kwok-keung

Absent with Apologies:

Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH

In attendance:

Mr. Wilson FUNG Executive Director, Corporate AA ) Re.: Item Development ) III(i) Ms. Ivy CHAN General Manager, Corporate AA ) Development )

Mr. YIU Tze-leung Community Services Secretary TWGHs ) Re.: Item Mr. TSENG Wei-yen, Director Urbanage International ) III(ii) William Limited, Architects ) Ms. WONG Fung-yee Assistant Community Services TWGHs ) Secretary (Youth and Family ) Services) ) Ms. YIU Yan-yee Programme Coordinator TWGHs ) (Family and Youth Counselling) ) Mr. TAM Po-lam Senior Property Officer TWGHs ) Mr. YUE Chi-kin, Eric District Planning Officer / PlanD ) Kowloon )

Mr. SHIU Wai-chuen, District Officer (WTS) WTSDO William, JP

Ms. NG Wing-yin, District Commander HKPF

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 2 Clara (Wong Tai Sin) (Ag.) Ms. Lily NG District Social Welfare Officer SWD (Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung) Ms. TAM Kwai-fan, Senior Engineer / 6 (Kowloon) CEDD Irene (Ag.) Mrs. SUNG CHEUNG Chief Manager/Management HD Mun-chi (Wong Tai Sin, Tsing Yi, Tsuen Wan and Islands) Mr. AU Siu-fung, Chief Transport Officer / Kowloon TD Kelvin (Ag.) Ms. LI Yat-fung, Kathy District Environmental Hygiene FEHD Superintendent (Wong Tai Sin) (Ag.) Mr. LAM Hok-hay, District Leisure Manager LCSD George (Wong Tai Sin) Mr. CHUNG Chan-yau, Senior Executive Officer WTSDO Patrick (District Management) Mr. TING Tin-sang Senior Liaison Officer 1 WTSDO Ms. Phyllis PANG Senior Liaison Officer 2 WTSDO Suk-wah Miss HONG Siu-yin, Executive Officer WTSDO Ivy (District Council) 4

Secretary:

Ms. LAM Pui-fun, Senior Executive Officer WTSDO Maggie (District Council)

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the 23rd meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC), especially Executive Director, Corporate Development Mr. Wilson FUNG and General Manager, Corporate Development Ms. Ivy CHAN of Airport Authority (AA) who attended the meeting for agenda item III(i).

2. The Chairman welcomed the newly appointed District Social Welfare Officer (Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung) Ms. Lily NG of Social Welfare Department (SWD), District Commander (Wong Tai Sin)(Ag.) Ms. Clara NG of (HKPF), Chief Transport Officer/Kowloon (Ag.) Mr. Kelvin AU of Transport Department (TD) and District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Wong Tai 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 3 Sin)(Ag.) Ms. Kathy LI of Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD); as well as Senior Engineer (Ag.), Ms. Irene TAM of Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) who stood in for Chief Engineer Mr. LO Kam-yan Anthony, who was unable to attend the meeting due to other official commitments.

3. The Chairman informed Members that Mr. Rex MOK and Dr. WONG Kam-chiu had been awarded the Medal of Honour by the Chief Executive. Two awardees shared their joy with the meeting.

4. Members noted that Mr. WU Chi-wai was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments.

5. Members were informed that a suggested schedule for discussion were tabled and raised no objection to it.

I Confirmation of the Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council held on 17 May 2011

6. The minutes of the 22nd meeting of WTSDC held on 17 May 2011 were confirmed without amendment.

II Progress Report on Matters Arising from the 22nd Meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC Paper 46/2011)

7. Members noted the paper.

III(i) Hong Kong International Airport Master Plan 2030 (WTSDC Paper 47/2011)

8. The Chairman welcomed Executive Director, Corporate Development Mr. Wilson FUNG, and General Manager, Corporate Development Ms. Ivy CHAN of Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK).

9. Mr. Wilson FUNG thanked WTSDC for the opportunity to introduce AAHK’s development plan for the next two decades. He made a PowerPoint presentation on the paper. On 2 June 2011, AAHK had published the Hong Kong 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 4 International Airport Master Plan 2030 (Master Plan 2030) and started a three-month public consultation exercise. Highlights of Master Plan 2030 were as follows:

(i) Background

Since the inception of Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) in 1998, AAHK had invested HK$18 billion in various infrastructures. Through the updating of 20-year Master Plan and regular five-year review, AAHK aimed to set out the strategic direction of the airport’s future development. The first and the second Master Plans were published in 2001 and 2006 respectively. With the publication of Master Plan 2030, the third in the row, AAHK hoped to consult the public on the HKIA’s future development direction.

HKIA was not merely a piece of transport infrastructure. In fact, HKIA also supported the four economic pillars of Hong Kong – financial services, trading and logistics, tourism and industry and commerce, and professional services by providing broad and efficient air traffic network.

(ii) Service Demand for the Next 20 Years

AAHK had spent three years to prepare Master Plan 2030, with the assistance of International Air Transport Association Consulting (IATA), which was responsible for assessing the service demand for HKIA in the next 20 years. It was revealed that the air traffic demand would reach about 97 million passengers, 8.9 million tonnes of cargo and 602,000 flight movements per year by 2030. In fact, HKIA handled 51 million passengers and 4.1 million tonnes of cargo in 2010, making it the busiest airport in the world in terms of freight throughput.

(iii) Development Options

AAHK proposed two development options:

(a) Two-runway System

The option did not build new runway, but AAHK suggested

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 5 that apron and terminal concourse, automated people mover, baggage handling system, Terminal 1, roads and public transport facilities be improved. It was estimated the extension would cost HK$23.4 billion (in 2010 dollars). This option would enable HKIA to handle a maximum of 420 000 flight movements per year, with annual passenger and cargo throughput increased to 74 million and six million tones respectively. However, this option could not enable HKIA to handle the estimated air traffic demand in 2030, as its maximum runway capacity would be reached in around 2020.

(b) Three-runway System

This option involved a major infrastructural investment and the reclamation of 650 hectares of land in north of the existing airport island. A new runway and taxiway, as well as a new terminal concourse and apron, would be built. In addition, the automated people mover system would be extended to connect the new facilities with Terminals 1 and 2; whereas Terminal 2 would be converted to provide immigration clearance service. Moreover, the area between the two existing runways would be converted into a cargo apron, to improve HKIA’s cargo handling capacity. The estimated cost for this option was HK$86.2 billion (in 2010 dollars). After inception of the third runway and its associated facilities, HKIA would handle a maximum of 620 000 flight movements per year, and meet forecast annual passenger and cargo throughput of 97 million and 8.9 million tones by 2030 respectively.

(iv) Comparison between the Two Options

Master Plan 2030 compared the two options from five perspectives:

(a) Air Connectivity:

HKIA was one of the busiest airports in the world,

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 6 connecting Hong Kong with about 160 destinations. In addition to meeting travellers’ needs, this extensive international air traffic network also secured Hong Kong’s position as an international commercial hub in the region. The following might happen if expansion of air traffic network was stopped:

(1) Once the maximum runway capacity was reached, no more new airline could join the market. In addition, existing airlines might have to cancel certain less-profitable flights to provide flight slots, and they would not be able to introduce new destinations or increase frequency of existing routes.

(2) When all flight slots were taken up, it would be difficult for HKIA to cope with operational delays flexibly due to weather or other unforeseen incidents.

(3) About 30% of existing travellers were on transfer, thus any delay could make Hong Kong a less attractive international / Asian traffic hub.

(4) The absence of new airlines and new destinations would limit travellers’ choice and thus they might have to pay more to travel. Hence, the local aviation industry’s competitiveness would be adversely affected.

(b) Economic Benefits

According to AAHK's estimation, Option 1 and Option 2 would generate a total of HK$432 billion and HK$912 billion ( both in 2009 dollars) in economic net present value (ENPV) over the next 50-year. In 2008, the total economic contribution made by the local aviation industry amounted to 4.6% of Hong Kong’s gross domestic product (GDP). Contribution of HKIA to Hong Kong’s GDP in 2030 under Option 1 would drop to 3.3% of Hong Kong’s GDP; whereas the ratio would remain unchanged at 4.6% if Option 2 was adopted.

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 7

In 2008, HKIA provided 62 000 direct jobs. Option 1 would increase the number of jobs to 101 000; whereas the number for Option 2 would be 141 000, on top of 199 000 indirect and induced employment. In other words, Option 2 would provide nearly 340 000 jobs, among which almost 80% would be skilled and manual in nature. Most of the jobs would have in-service training.

(c) Construction Cost

Construction cost of Option 2 was higher because it involved substantial reclamation efforts and construction of a large number of supporting facilities. The said works would cost HK$38.9 billion, amounting to 45% of total construction cost. In addition, construction of new runway and taxiway, as well as terminal concourse and apron serving the third runway in Option 2 would cost more than HK$20 billion.

(d) Funding

In late June, AAHK announced its performance for the last fiscal year, and paid a final dividend of HK$3.1 billion to the Government. AAHK had long been operating under prudent commercial principles. Since 2003-04 fiscal year, AAHK had made a total dividend payment of more than HK$22 billion to the Government, including the sum mentioned above. Regarding HKIA’s infrastructural investment, Options 1 and 2 would result in cumulative funding shortfall of HK$25 billion and HK$102 billion respectively after debt financing, according to the projected passenger and freight throughput. Despite its good financial position and business performance, AAHK could not afford to take up the project by its own. Upon completion of the consultation exercise, AAHK would discuss with the Government on finance matters with the chosen option. (e) Environment

Master Plan 2030 was a strategic development plan. Therefore, the proposed infrastructure had yet to be

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 8 underpinned by statutory EIA. AAHK had carried out initial assessment to a number of environmental factors before it shortlisted the environmental friendly development options. When an option was chosen, AAHK would carry out the statutory EIA. Findings of initial assessment were as follows:

(1) Water Quality

Option 2 involved reclamation. About 40% of the proposed reclamation works would be carried out at contaminated mud pits (CMPs), instead of natural seabed. The Government had designated the area as a CMP site in the 1990s, and the works site was far away from marine park and North Lantau where ecological values were high. Therefore, it was believed that the reclamation works would not cause significant impacts on marine life in the area.

(2) Marine Life

Chinese white dolphins mostly inhabited at the west of Lantau Island, the waters at Tai O, and the Marine Park at Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau. They were spotted at the waters north of HKIA on rare occasions. However, AAHK would certainly take into account the Chinese white dolphins when carrying out EIA, and identify possible mitigations to minimise impacts on these animals.

(3) Air Quality

By simulation, AAHK had gauged the possible impact on air quality caused by 300 000 to 600 000 flight movements, the maximum number of flights that could be handled by the three-runway system; and found that the air quality was compliance with Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives (HKAQO). As the Government was reviewing HKAQO, AAHK would conduct the statutory EIA according to the

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 9 revised standards.

(4) Noise

AAHK had published a set of estimated NEF contours in 1998, setting out the predicted noise level when the existing two-runway system had reached its capacity. Apart from part of Sha Lo Wan, all residential areas and sensitive receivers of noise fell beyond the area surrounded by NEF 25 contour. Having simulated the noise pattern of the three-runway system, AAHK expected that the NEF 25 contour would move northward toward the sea, and the residential area would remain unaffected. Detailed NEF would be carried out as part of EIA.

(v) Public Consultation

In addition to visiting all DCs, AAHK would also held three public forums, a large exhibition, and meeting with various stakeholders. Also, Social Science Research Centre of Hong Kong University had been appointed to conduct an independent survey and report on the public’s views.

(Mr. Joe LAI arrived at the meeting at 2:45 p.m.)

10. Mr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH thanked AAHK representatives for visiting WTSDC and consult Members on Master Plan 2030. Mr. WONG said he, as well as other practitioners of the logistic industry, supported AAHK’s proposed construction of the third runway. He quoted a study report and commented that utilisation of the existing two-runway system had reached 93% of its designed capacity, and despite the possible improvement measures the maximum capacity would be reached in 2017. It would take 10 years to construct the new runway. The runway would not be ready until 2021 even though the construction works were commenced next year, Mr. WONG was concerned about competition from the neighbouring regions. For instance, the number of runways in Shanghai Pudong Airport and Baiyun Airport would both be increased to five by 2015 and 2020 respectively, and the first new runway of the latter would be commissioned as early as next year. Moreover, two international express cargo operators, namely FedEx and UBS, had set up their Asia-Pacific transhipment centres in Guangzhou and respectively. Therefore, he opined that Hong Kong had eminent needs for the third runway to strengthen its edge in the 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 10 aviation industry. In addition, he remarked that AAHK should consider the mode of financing for the runway project carefully, as the adoption of “users-pay” principle would inevitably affect the logistic industry. He was worried that the industry would be discouraged from using HKIA due to the increasing cost. As this would impede the growth of the aviation industry, he suggested that examples be taken from the Mainland and Canada, where passengers would be charged with an airport development fee ranging from several tens to several hundred dollars. Finally, he urged AAHK to handle the environmental issues properly. Adoption of overseas practices or new reclamation methods put forth by some engineers should be considered proactively, so that environmental impacts and risk of ground settlement could be minimised.

11. Mr. Joe LAI considered that Hong Kong needed the third runway, but he disagreed to spend so much money to build a new one. As the construction cost was as high as $136.2 billion, he worried that the growth of HKIA and the economy of Hong Kong would be adversely affected. To recovery the construction cost, AAHK might have to increase the aircraft docking fee and impose new levies. Considering the airport development experience in Greater Delta (GPRD), an increase in fee levels would affect the competitiveness of HKIA. Hence, he urged AAHK to consider the development cost prudently and identify more viable options. He opined that the two options currently put forth by AAHK were not ideal as they might not be based on scientific reasoning and long term development needs of HKIA. Apart from commenting that the options failed to take into account the way forward for HKIA, Mr. LAI pointed out that the proposed location (of the third runway) set out in Option 2 was not perfect because cost of reclamation would increase with depth of water. He thus suggested that (the third runway) be built at Deep Bay where water was shallow, making it easier to carry out reclamation works and causing less environmental problems. He urged AAHK to provide further data and study findings for the public’s discussion.

12. Mr. SO Sik-kin praised HKIA for the state-of-the-art and thoughtfully designed infrastructural and supporting facilities. During a visit to HKIA and Cathy City, he had been impressed by, and be proud of the excellent baggage handling system and emergency plan. Mr. SO supported the construction of the third runway in principle, but worried about the high cost and environmental impacts. He pointed out that Tung Chung was densely populated and sensitive to noise produced by aircrafts during take-off and landing, thus urged AAHK to plan the project carefully. Having said that, he agreed that this infrastructural investment would create a large number of jobs, and suggested that HKIA might cooperate with other GPRD airports, including those in Macau, and Guangzhou, to form a complete network of air traffic.

13 Mr. MOK Kin-wing supported the proposed extension of HKIA as set out in

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 11 Master Plan 2030, and agreed that construction of new runway could create jobs and facilitate the local economic growth. He pointed out that in the “Outline of the 12th Five-Year Plan for the National Economic and Social Development of the People's Republic of China”, Hong Kong was positioned as a shipping centre. However, Hong Kong still had to face competition from neighbouring cities, especially those in GPRD. The throughput of Yantian Port and Guangzhou Port had been catching up with, or even exceeded Hong Kong, implying our edge in sea transport was diminishing. With the myriad of international flights, Hong Kong still had an advantage in air traffic. In view of the extension of Guangzhou Baiyun Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport and Shanghai Pudong Airport, Hong Kong should put more efforts into the construction of new runway to strengthen its position of aviation hub and maintain the competitiveness of HKIA. He pointed out that extension of airport was an infrastructural investment that would generate different kinds of return, such as new jobs and economic growth, and thus a good investment. Regarding the shortage of funds, he had reservation about imposition of new duties, collection of airport development fee and increase of aircraft docking fee for their possible impacts on HKIA’s competitiveness. Therefore, he suggested that AAHK consider issuing bonds, which would not only provide a new investment channel, but also encourage strategic investment to AAHK, facilitating HKIA’s long term development. He agreed that there should be a division of labour between HKIA and the neighbouring airports. In addition, connectivity among these airports should be improved by provision of hoverferry, feeder bus and railway services, etc.

14. Mr. HO Yin-fai said Hong Kong needed the third runway to maintain the competitiveness of the aviation industry and strengthen its position as an aviation hub. To compete with Mainland and other countries, Hong Kong should build a new runway. It would lose its advantage in the aviation industry and become an ordinary city. He urged AAHK to control the construction cost carefully, and step up publicity to the public on the need of a new runway and the costing details. In addition, he was concerned about a High Court case on the non-compliance with statutory requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao (HZM) Bridge, and reminded AAHK to thoroughly consider the project’s impacts on water quality, noise level and the people, so as to prevent recurrence of similar incidence. As Master Plan 2030 did not provide any details on environmental protection, he urged AAHK to study this matter as soon as possible for compliance with statutory requirements. 15. Mr. WONG Yat-yuk opined that the high development potential and viability of Option 2 were conducive to the development of local economy and aviation industry. He enquired if AAHK had considered adoption of hi-tech materials to reduce the construction cost, and asked if procurement arrangements would be made to counteract the construction cost hike due to fluctuations in the price of raw materials. He believed that the public would welcome the new jobs resulted from this investment

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 12 project. As it was estimated that almost 200 000 staff members would work in the airport daily (based on the assumption that 80% of the staff should be on duty everyday), and the passenger throughput would hit 97 million trips in 2030, viz. 260 000 trips per day on average, there would be more than 400 000 people going to and from the airport everyday. Therefore, he urged AAHK to give due consideration to the provision of transport services in the planning stage, and improve the MTR and bus services serving HKIA. Currently, no airbus service was provided to the area north of Lung Cheung Road, causing inconvenience to the people. Hence, he urged AAHK to coordinate the services provided by bus companies and the MTR Corporation.

16. Dr. Allen SHI, MH, JP said as a frequent user of HKIA, he was proud of HKIA’s design and services, which were both better than other airports. He pointed out that more Hong Kong people were eager to travel abroad and there were new airports in many Mainland cities which brought new transfer passengers to HKIA. Dr. SHI also noted that many Mainland airports had made reference to the design of HKIA. He supported AAHK’s proposed construction of the third runway, and opined that cost was less important than the continual development of Hong Kong as a door to the world. If the development of HKIA stopped and no more new infrastructure was provided, Hong Kong would be caught up by other areas, or even be marginalised.

17. In response to Members’ views and enquiries, Mr. Wilson FUNG said:

(i) Cost

Master Plan 2030 was merely a development outline and AAHK had yet to proceed to detailed design stage. The cost figures currently available were the best possible estimate according to AAHK’s previous infrastructural investment and by no mean final. After the consultation exercise, AAHK would conduct detailed design and EIA, and findings would be used to revise the estimated cost. Master Plan 2030 set out the cost of the two options in 2010 dollars, as well as in money-of-the-day prices calculated from tender price indices (TPI) provided by the Government. TPI was estimated to increase at the rate of 5% per annum from 2011 to 2014, 5.5% per annum for the followed five years, and 3% per annum thereafter. The TPI-adjusted cost for Option 2 was HK$136.2 billion (at money-of-the-day prices).

(ii) Financial Arrangement

Master Plan 2030 did not provide any financial arrangement in 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 13 respect of the project. AAHK might obtain funds from the Government, its own sources of income and debt financing such as issuance of bonds and shares. Once an option was chosen, AAHK would discuss with the Government to identify a suitable financing package. The construction cost might not be passed onto the logistic industry or airlines immediately. AAHK would consider various financing packages, including direct injection of money by the Government. The phased project spanning 20 years would be started with reclamation, and other items would be implemented gradually according to actual volume of passenger traffic. Therefore, it was not necessary to settle the construction cost in a single instalment.

(iii) Environmental Impacts

Environment was a shared concern among a number of district councils. Regarding reclamation, “Deep Cement Mixing” (DCM), a new method that had never been used in Hong Kong was proposed in AAHK’s technical study report. Despite the high cost, DCM did not require to remove the mud from rocks on the seabed as traditional reclamation methods did. In addition, AAHK would ensure that non-dredge reclamation method was used in all of the reclamation works, to minimise impacts on water quality and marine life. Hence, it called for public understanding of the high cost. Regarding noise, AAHK had proposed a number of noise mitigation measures when briefing the Council on Master Plan 2030, such as turning the south runway (the one nearest to residential buildings in Tung Chung) into a reserve runway at night. It was technically infeasible with the existing two-runway because maintenance works were carried out in the runway at night. A three-runway system could provide 102 flight slots per hour. As there were fewer aircraft movements at night, it might be sufficient to open the north runway and the proposed new runway only, and use the south runway as a reserve runway. As a result, the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 25 contour would not move southward and the residents in Tung Chung would not be affected. Design works and EIA were expensive in infrastructural projects, hence AAHK would carry out the statutory EIA after consultation exercise was completed and the Government had endorsed a development option. Having studied all environmental matters thoroughly, AAHK would carry 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 14 out another public consultation. We assured the public that the construction works would not be commenced until the EIA report was endorsed and an environmental permit was obtained.

(iv) Cooperation with Greater

The neighbouring airports were totally different from HKIA in terms of role, size and mode of operation. Cooperation between HKIA and Shenzhen International Airport had been strengthened. The two airports exchanged information on transfer passengers to facilitate transfer activity. Currently, there were more than 200 airports in Mainland China, but only 59 of them provided immigration service. The Guangzhou Baiyun Airport and Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport were primarily domestic airports, whereas HKIA provided international flights with almost 80% of its users were international passengers. In other words, there was not any cut-throat competition between HKIA and the two airports which were serving a different aviation market. At present, there were only 20 international flights at Shenzhen International Airport, connecting the cities in Southeast Asia such as Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. With the limited number of international flight routes, HKIA could not be replaced. HKIA and GPRD cooperation would be based on market needs and concerted efforts by all stakeholders. The Government was actively studying the development of high-speed railway, so as to strengthen the linkage between HKIA and Mainland airports. AAHK welcomed the suggestions, and pointed out that passenger and freight volume of the local aviation market would have a compound annual growth rate of 3.2% as stated in the consultancy report; whereas the rate for GPRD would be about 6%. Despite the higher rate in GPRD, the report predicted that the expanded five GPRD airports would fail to meet the demand for aviation services in 2030, with an annual “unmet demand” of about 147 million (sic.). There was not any cut-throat competition between HKIA and GPRD airports which had distinct roles in the aviation market. Thus there was room for cooperation.

(vi) Construction Materials

Choice of construction materials would be considered at the detailed design stage, thus no concrete arrangement had been

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 15 made.

(vi) Location

At the beginning of the consultation exercise, AAHK had also published the technical study report underpinning the Master Plan 2030. The report, which was available in AAHK’s website, set out the fifteen options considered by AAHK, including two about locating the new runway at Lung Kwu Tan or south of Lantau Island, as if a new airport was to be built. However, the two proposed options were found unviable because: (1) strengthen transportation should be provided to connect the new airport with the urban area, incurring more money than building a new runway on the existing airport island; (2) the existing airport railway was capable to handle the additional passengers resulting from the new runway, and it was not economical to invest in new land transport infrastructures; and (3) To serve as an international aviation hub for transfer passengers, AAHK should work closely with airlines and build new interconnection between the two airports. Provision of effective interconnection was very expensive and technically difficult. The development of twin airport system was different in various places, but there were not many successful cases. Moreover, it was undesirable to build a runway offshore, as proposed in the options which would cause more significant impacts on the natural reserve.

(vii) AAHK had assessed various options, and found that the two options set out in Master Plan 2030 were better and more cost-effective. Thus, these two options were used to consult the public.

(Mr. CHAN On-tai arrived at the meeting at 3:25 p.m.) 18. The Chairman thanked Executive Director, Corporate Development Mr. Wilson FUNG, and General Manager, Corporate Development Ms. Ivy CHAN of AAHK and requested AAHK to note and follow up the comments of Members.

(Mr. Wilson FUNG and Ms. Ivy CHAN left at this juncture.)

III(ii) Proposed TWGHs Holistic Centre for Youth Development (WTSDC Paper 48/2011)

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 16 19. The Chairman welcomed Community Services Secretary of Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (TWGHs) Mr. YIU Tze-leung and Director of Urbanage International Limited, Architects (Urbanage) Mr. TSENG Wei-yen, William, who attended the meeting for this agenda item.

20. Mr. YIU Tze-leung was glad to visit WTSDC. He sought Members’ support to the proposed Holistic Centre for Youth Development (HCYD) by making a PowerPoint presentation. Highlights were as follows:

(i) Design Concept

HCYD together with community rest garden would become a landmark in . A theatre in HCYD would also become an icon of district arts and cultural activities.

(ii) Location

HCYD would be located at an open space at the intersection across Sam Chuk Street, Tsat Po Street and King Fuk Street, which had been reserved by Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) for providing an 11-a-side soccer pitch. The HCYD would be integrated into the development of the Kai Tak East Playground (KTEP).

(iii) Facilities

In consideration of the fact that no theatre in Wong Tai Sin and neighbouring districts, including Ko Shan Theatre, could accommodate 600 people, DC Members and people concerned with district arts and cultural development considered that a larger theatre was required, as revealed by TWGHs in the preliminary consultation stage. HCYD would provide a theatre with 600 seats. In addition, the number of seats would be adjustable. For instance, school activities required fewer seats, but more were required for major performances. Moreover, a youth hostel with capacity of 100-150 guests would be provided to accommodate the exchange and performance groups. Various kinds of activity rooms, such as dancing room, multimedia room, music room, conference room, etc. would also be available for hiring by organisations and the general public.

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 17

(iv) Activities

In addition to programmes for personal development for youths, HCYD would also arrange cross-border sharing and activities in relation to history and culture of China. Moreover, it would mobilise volunteers and young people in Wong Tai Sin to perform volunteer services in Hong Kong and the Mainland.

(v) Design

HCYD would provide open space in the district. Residents might access to and use HCYD’s Community Plaza and Roof Cultural Green Garden freely. As TWGHs attached great importance to greening, it would adopt an environmentally conscious design that blended with the surroundings, with a green coverage of 75%. A horizontal arrangement of low density buildings would also be adopted to minimise HCYD’s visual impact on the vicinity.

(vi) Consultation and Level of Fees

TWGHs would carry out local consultation and invite input from the local communities as well as individuals/organisations which were concerned about youth development. Facilities of HCYD would be opened to locals and the public. The fees would be set at an affordable level to youth and other people. TWGHs would use the income to offset HCYD’s losses.

(vii) Collaboration

TWGHs would collaborate with WTSDC, as well as schools, arts and cultural / resident groups in the district to implement the HCYD project. Members were welcomed to comment on the project, and their support was sought.

21. Mr. William TSENG of Urbanage made a PowerPoint presentation on design of HCYD. Highlights were as follows:

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 18 (i) Location

HCYD would be located at the open space at the intersection across Sam Chuk Street, Tsat Po Street and King Fuk Street. Walkway would be provided to connect HCYD with Kai Tak City.

(ii) Design Concept

A significant portion of HCYD would be green space. Greening and landscaping would be provided at the Community Plaza, HCYD and the theatre. All buildings would be open to the public, and all existing greeneries would be retained.

(a) Design of HCYD

All parts of HCYD would be connected together by a jogging track, which would start from the Community Plaza. A horizontal arrangement of buildings would be adopted to limit the height of all structures to a maximum of three to four storeys. A walkway would be provided to connect HCYD and the theatre to the rooftop greenery; whereas special ventilation arrangement to be adopted in the walkway outside the theatre would work in tandem with the design of HCYD to minimise impact on micro-climate. Environmental friendly design would be adopted for the 600-seat theatre, to maintain the natural airflow of the HCYD. The Community Plaza would be open to the public, who could access to all rooftops via a ramp. An outdoor stage with around 500 seats would also be provided next to the Community Plaza. A variety of leisure facilities, such as pavilion, Tai Chi / morning exercise’s equipment would be installed at the rooftop area between the Community Plaza and the theatre. Greening would be provided at the rooftop of theatre for people to play Tai Chi or conduct small-scale performance.

(b) Facilities

Arts, cultural and leisure elements would be incorporated into the design of facilities at HCYD.

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 19

(c) Area

Gloss site area of HCYD would be 9 000 m2, with a building coverage of about 50%. Green coverage and net operating floor area of HCYD would be about 7 200 m2 (around 75%) and 7 210 m2 respectively.

(iii) Revised Design Proposal

It was proposed that the layout of HCYD be turned round by 180º. Hence, the Community Plaza would be located at King Fuk Street, and entrance of HCYD would be relocated from King Fuk Street to Tsat Po Street. The revised layout would improve connection between HCYD and the adjacent football pitch. A large open space would be formed with the upcoming housing estate at King Fuk Street. Also, the new layout would improve traffic and pedestrian flow in the vicinity.

22. The Chairman said a submission from Kowloon East (Annex I) was tabled. He invited Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH to introduce it.

23. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH introduced the submission (Annex I). TWGHs which was the largest welfare agency in Hong Kong, was providing , elderly care and medical services to locals in need. TWGHs’ planned HCYD in Wong Tai Sin would extend and diversify its community services. San Po Kong was adjacent to the upcoming Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA). As the industrial buildings in San Po Kong were being redeveloped into residential uses, the number of residents, in particular young people, would increase. This would trigger a growth in demand for community facilities, such as youth development centre, community theatre, community piazza, cultural and arts venue, etc. The establishment of TWGHs’ HCYD would be a drive to the development of youth services in Wong Tai Sin. Mr. LEE welcomed the establishment HCYD at the former industrial building site at the intersection of Sam Chuk Street, Tsat Po Street and King Fuk Street, and commented that:

(i) Location

San Po Kong was a busy commercial area. In addition, the development of logistic industry gave rise to frequent traffic congestions. Sam Chuk Street and Tsat Po Street were rather

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 20 narrow, and would become main roads after major road alignment. In this connection, TWGHs should consult Highways Department (HyD), Transport Department (TD), Wong Tai Sin Police Station, etc. in the planning stage, to avoid adverse traffic impacts during construction and after commissioning of HCYD.

(ii) Facilities

There were youth hostel, theatre, dancing room, music room, art studio, conference room, Community Plaza, etc. HCYD would become activity venues for local residents, art groups and young people. TWGHs was suggested to simplify the hiring/borrowing procedures and offer rental concession to non-profit-making organisations, so that it could serve the community with what it took.

(iii) Design

The design principles of HCYD, which centred on low density and greeneries, were supported and appreciated. In the densely packed industrial area, such a development would instil a sense of freshness to the community, and would improve air quality as well.

(iv) Provision of Car Park

A multi-level underground car park should be built underneath HCYD. Besides serving users of HCYD, the car park might address the demand for parking spaces in the district. Terms of tenancy would be considered in due course.

(v) Management

Since HCYD would not be commissioned in the near future, its management model could be determined at a later stage, with reference to hiring/borrowing arrangements of similar venues.

Mr. LEE hoped that HCYD could be built as soon as possible, and urged the relevant Government departments to provide the necessary support proactively, so that a platform could be provided in Wong Tai Sin on which activities such as healthy living camping, arts and cultural activities, community involvement, volunteers services, etc. could be held to foster healthy life styles and positive values among young people. 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 21

(Mr. Joe CHAN left the meeting at 3:40 p.m.)

24. Mr. LAM man-fai, JP said no youth facilities was provided in Wong Tai Sin, hence he welcomed the construction of HCYD by TWGHs. As HCYD would be located at a valuable site near KTEP and an LCSD open space adjacent to the Rhythm Garden, it should be planned holistically, taking into account the public housing estate site, development of Shatin to Central Link depot, and the entrance of the underground city in KTDA. According to the current design, entrance of the underground city would be located midway between HCYD and KTEP, causing vast traffic flow and noise pollution. In addition, users of HCYD and the playground were required to cross the very busy carriageway, resulting in dangerous conditions of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. He opined that if the section starting from East be sunken beneath the playground, noise and pedestrian flow implications could be reduced. In addition, he supported the provision of underground car park as suggested by Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH. He also commented that a theatre was too small to accommodate 600 audiences and said a drama troupe had pointed out that loss was inevitable unless an 800-seat or bigger venue was available. In this connection, he suggested an addition of 200 seats be provided in the theatre. Moreover, he enquired PlanD about the original zoned use of the site and the supporting features planned, as well as availability of more suitable site in the vicinity for HCYD.

25. Mr. SO Sik-kin said TWGHs was the largest welfare agency in Hong Kong, holding fund-raising activities in all housing estates annually and serving local people in need. In recent years, TWGHs was extending its services to cover young people as well. Mr. SO supported the extension of youth services, as well as the establishment of HCYD in Wong Tai Sin, with no youth facilities. The design of HCYD was fully in line with KTDA, which would be developed into an environmental friendly city and connected with Rhythm Garden and HCYD by a footbridge and an underground walkway respectively. WTSDC needed a large activity venue to organise activities. The 400 000 residents in Wong Tai Sin, comprising mainly elderly and youth, needed a large venue too. Therefore, he suggested 1 000 seats be provided in the theatre of HCYD to facilitate community development. He was also concerned about the venue borrowing procedures, and the mode of collaboration with welfare organisations in Wong Tai Sin. He commented that the non-profit-making TWGHs might cooperate with local groups for the benefit of residents in Wong Tai Sin.

(Ms. KWOK Sau-ying left the meeting at 3:45 p.m.)

26. Mr. CHOI Luk-sing, MH said inadequate activity venues were found in Wong Tai Sin, with 400 000 people. Therefore, a theatre with 800-1 000 seats, instead 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 22 of only 600, should be provided in HCYD. In addition, TWGHs should also consider the traffic arrangement for 600-800 people to access HCYD at the same time. Given that WTSDC and local welfare organisations would enjoy Government subvention or rental waiver, he asked TWGHs to consider similar concession be provided to benefit more people.

27. Dr. James LAU, BBS, JP hoped that construction of HCYD could be commenced as soon as possible. He pointed out that TWGHs was not in a position to plan the supporting facilities in the vicinity. Instead, this should be done by relevant Government departments; and WTSDC might discuss with LCSD on possible improvement to the football pitch at KTEP. The public housing to be built on the site opposite KTEP would be vulnerable to noise from Prince Edward Road East. However, the noise problem could be effectively alleviated if the flats were designed to face HCYD and the playground. Moreover, such design might provide extra space for building more public housing flats, and dovetail with development of the vacant site adjacent to Rhythm Garden. A subway connecting Kai Tak City had been proposed by HD. In this connection, WTSDC might negotiate with HD proactively to secure a safe design to the users. According to the revised design, the green space of HCYD and the playground would be connected. The Government might wish to identify good uses on the top of the entrance of Kai Tak City, which was still a vacant site. Also, King Fuk Street would become a cul-de-sac, providing a chance for the Government to green the street for public. He also opined that a cover should be provided to the outdoor stage to minimise the influence of weather. Finally, he suggested vertical greening be applied to the exterior walls of the public housing, and visual enhancement for the entrance of Kai Tai Underground City be provided.

(Mr. CHUI Pak-tai arrived at the meeting at 3:55 p.m.)

28. Mr. Joe LAI welcomed and supported the construction of TWGH’s HCYD in Wong Tai Sin, as it could consolidate the community and provide support to the youth in Wong Tai Sin, a district with many elderly and young people. The Youth Square in Chai Wan had been the focus of attention, but now its popularity fell short of expectation. Therefore, he urged TWGHs to plan HCYD carefully, so that youngsters’ expectation could be met. As San Po Kong was an industrial area, the traffic was rather chaotic. The condition was further complicated by the loading and unloading of goods in the area. He agreed that an underground car park should be provided at HCYD, to minimise private cars parked at the roadside and caused traffic congestion. In addition, the underground car park might generate extra income for TWGHs and subsidise operation of HCYD. Moreover, he suggested the playground beside HCYD be improved by LCSD, and commented that bus services at Rhythm Garden should be improved as HCYD would attract cross-community users, including those from Kwun 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 23 Tong.

(Mr. MOK Ying-fan left the meeting at 4:00 p.m.)

29. Ms. Maggie CHAN welcomed the establishment of a youth-centric HCYD at which arts and cultural activities would be held. The paper set out that a youth hostel with capacity of 100-150 guests would be provided at HCYD to accommodate exchange and performing groups. In this connection, she enquired about the number of rooms and the rate concerned. As HCYD would be operated in a self-financing basis, she enquired if the hostel places would be open to the general public, or only to groups performing in HCYD. In addition, would TWGHs provide accommodation to Mainland exchange groups that could not secure hostel places? She commented that the lack of practice venues in the district had driven young people to rent industrial buildings, which were becoming unaffordable in recent years due to rent hike. Despite the provision of various activity rooms in HCYD, the paper did not set out any information about practice venues. She was concerned about the use of hostel places, and requested TWGHs to provide more details, including rates, availability, etc. Finally, she considered that HCYD should be planned as if it was part of KTDA. Regarding change of land use, the paper set out that “in view of the existing sports facilities including indoor recreational centre and football field in the vicinity”. In this connection, she enquired if consideration had been given to avoid repetition of facilities (e.g. theatres) in HCYD and KTDA.

30. Mr. CHAN On-tai supported the new design of HCYD, and enquired if the football pitch at KTEP could be converted into a multi-purpose playground similar to the one at Sai Tso Wan, so that base-ball pitch and other facilities could be provided to utilise the site. He agreed that provision of underground car park at HCYD could generate extra income and improve traffic condition, especially the high traffic flow after the completion of KTDA. In addition, he enquired if supporting facilities such as skylight, cover, sound system, etc. would be provided at the Community Plaza. To fully use the hostel places and prevent waste of resources, he suggested priority be accorded to performers and the unused places be open to the public.

(Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)

31. Mr. HO Hon-man supported the establishment of HCYD and commented that the activities rooms could meet Wong Tai Sin’s needs. With the revitalisation of the industrial buildings, the organisations were no longer affordable to high rent. He opined that the location of HCYD was unsatisfactory as loading and unloading by trucks and many logistic companies nearby always caused traffic congestion. Even the Police could do nothing about. There were better locations in Wong Tai Sin, such as 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 24 the former site. He worried that HCYD project would become another West Kowloon project, and commented that it would be better to build HCYD at the former Tai Hom Village site, instead of a location surrounded by industrial buildings and suffered from traffic problems, especially during long vacations. The Police and TD failed to solve the traffic problems. The roads would not be widened in the foreseeable future and the usage of industrial buildings would not be changed. In addition, more heavy vehicles were expected because many new repair workshops were being established in the area. Therefore, TWGHs should consider the location of HCYD very carefully.

32. Mr. HUI Kam-shing welcomed the establishment of HCYD and hoped that it could be completed as soon as possible. He enquired if TWGHs would charge discounted fees for activities designed for youths in Wong Tai Sin, who were target users of HCYD. He also opined that it was passive to provide venues for public uses. Instead, TWGHs might organise arts and cultural activities for youth proactively to foster their personal development. In addition, TWGHs might also cooperate with local organisations to recruit young people in joining the training programmes.

33. Mr. Rex MOK, MH enquired if HCYD would only be an activity venue for organisations, or it would be an activity organiser itself. In addition, he enquired if there was difference between HCYD and other youth centres in Wong Tai Sin, and whether activity fees charged by the self-financed HCYD would be higher than those subvented by Social Welfare Department (SWD). The hostel in HCYD was a unique feature in the urban area. In this connection, consideration could be made to use the hostel as a residential camp site. Schools in Wong Tai Sin might choose not to go to remote areas such as Sai Kong, the outlying islands, etc. but they could organise two-day-one-night residential camp in HCYD. In consideration of the hardship faced by the self-financed Youth Centre, Mr MOK reiterated his concern over the level of fees charged by HCYD. TWGHs’ paper set out that facilities in HCYD would be rented out at rates comparable to similar facilities in the district. In this connection, he enquired if TWGHs would rent out the facilities to schools in a discounted rate as LCSD did. Also, he worried that the self-financed HCYD would accord priority to other organisations and make it difficult for schools to rent the venue.

34. Mr. Andie CHAN welcomed TWGHs’ establishment of HCYD in Wong Tai Sin. He was concerned about the traffic in location of HCYD as traffic congestion was usual in its vicinity. The traffic problem could only be worsened by the extra pedestrian flow to HCYD. He also enquired if organisations and residents in Wong Tai Sin might enjoy priority in using HCYD, and commented that priority should be accorded to schools and youths in Wong Tai Sin. Furthermore, he advised TWGHs to handle the possible noise complaints in respect of the open air stage tactfully. 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 25

35. Mr. MOK Kin-wing welcomed the provision of HCYD. In view of the wide concern about the lack of personal goals had encouraged the post-80s generation to turn to social movements, he supported the provision of a platform through which recreation, arts and cultural activities could be arranged for these young people. In addition, he opined that TWGHs might, apart from providing a platform, proactively invite youth organisations in Wong Tai Sin to conduct cultural, recreation and arts performances regularly. Moreover, TWGHs might also invite art groups which rented industrial building units in San Po Kong as practising venues to organise joint activities. As HCYD would be operated on a self-financing basis with level of charges comparable to similar facilities, it might offer discounted rates for non-profit-making organisations, art groups and youth organisations in the district. Finally, he suggested that organisations be allowed to set up stalls in open areas of HCYD for displaying and selling art work, in order to attract people to HCYD and fully utilise its space.

36. Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH supported TWGHs’ proposal on HCYD as it would benefit Wong Tai Sin, and praised the design of HCYD. Since an 11-a-side football pitch had been previously planned on the proposed HCYD site, Mr. KAN enquired if LCSD considered that additional football pitch was required in Wong Tai Sin, and whether alternative football pitch site was available if the one mentioned was used for other purposes. He commented that both youth facilities and recreational facilities were inadequate in Wong Tai Sin.

37. Mr. CHUI Pak-tai was concerned about ways to increase patronage of HCYD. He opined that location was one of the important factors that would make HCYD a popular, lively, versatile and multi-functional venue. In view of the facts that HCYD lacked diversity and that the proposed site was far away from schools and institutions, Mr. CHUI worried about its attractiveness. In a nutshell, he commented that the proposed site was unsatisfactory.

(Mr. Joe LAI, Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH and Mr. Andrew TO left the meeting at 4:15 p.m.)

38. Mr. Eric Yu said the proposed HCYD site was zoned as open space on the “, and San Po Kong Outline Zoning Plan” (OZP). According to the OZP, the site would be used to provide sitting-out area to those working in the business/commercial zone, and to meet the needs of the increased population as new housing would be built in Residential (Group D) zone. Therefore, the proposed HCYD was not located in an ideal site. The site was part of the open 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 26 space. In addition, the proposed site with the open space and facilities near Rhythm Garden and the Diamond Hill Comprehensive Development Area would form a large open space for leisure and government/institution/community uses. Therefore, PlanD opined that a HCYD site should be considered from a macro point of view and match with other land uses.

39. Mr. George LAM said LCSD had originally planned to build an 11-a-side football pitch at the proposed HCYD site. Currently, the Government was actively promoting the development of football in Hong Kong. Although adequate football pitches were available in Wong Tai Sin, few sites in the territory were suitable for building standard football pitches. HD was responsible to take up the whole development of the public housing project with the proposed HCYD site and the KTEP site. Having discussed with WTSDC and other relevant departments, LCSD had an open mind on TWGHs’ proposal, in view of the merits of HCYD. When a public housing project was implemented, HD would study with LCSD on developing KTEP and the sitting-out area near Rhythm Garden. In addition, San Po Kong was an industrial area, hence there might be truck-related traffic problems that required TWGHs’ attention. LCSD would continue to discuss with departments concerned and identify suitable football pitch sites.

40. Mr. Kelvin AU commented that the industrial area in San Po Kong had adequate traffic support. The area was served by many bus and minibus routes that connected the district to most other areas in Kowloon and via Prince Edward Road East, and King Fuk Street. In addition, there was also an MTR feeder route – GMB Route No. 20M. He also opined that TWGHs should consider to provide sufficient car parks in HCYD to meet the public needs.

41. Mr. YIU Tsz-leung thanked Members for their advice. His feedback was summarised below:

(i) Services

TWGHs also concerned about utilisation rate of HCYD, as a low utilisation rate would be subjected to criticism by the public and TWGHs. To increase the utilisation rate, TWGHs would promote HCYD to its own youth services network, as well as schools/organisations in Wong Tai Sin. In addition, cultural and arts groups in the district which suffered from shortage of venues were also target hirers of HCYD. In addition to residents in San Po Kong, other organisations might use HCYD as well, and the

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 27 theatre might benefit the entire Kowloon East. TWGHs would proactively invite other organisations to provide services at HCYD, and organise joint activities by means of voluntary services. TWGHs would manage HCYD by itself, instead of contracting out the management to commercial entity. We would not use the management mode of the Youth Square in Chai Wan. As a non-profit-making organisation, TWGHs would only use its income to serve the community.

(ii) Level of Fees

Self-financing operation had no direct relationship with level of fees. For instance, the activity fees charged by DC members’ office might be lower than that charged by a youth centre. According to TWGHs’ experience in providing district-based services, exceedingly high activity fees would be subject to public criticism. Hence, TWGHs would normally adjust the fee level with reference to people’s affordability and standard of living. In addition, it would secure sufficient funds to keep and maintain the facilities of HCYD properly.

(iii) Facilities

Youth hostel, theatre, multimedia room, dancing room, art studio, etc. would be provided in HCYD. As these facilities were complementary to each other, they might help increase the utilisation rates of the theatre and other facilities. Some facilities, such as the hostel, would be open to the local residents for organising music camp, art camp, etc.

(iv) Traffic

HCYD was still under planning and the site was subject to the approval of relevant departments. Hence, actual data concerning parking spaces and other facilities were unavailable. However, TWGHs would take into account the traffic in the vicinity. In view of the increased traffic and pedestrian flow when

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 28 programmes were being held in the theatre, and the fact that HCYD was located in an industrial area, TWGHs would consider the opening hours of the theatre very carefully. As the theatre would be primarily used for activities in the evening, TWGHs would consider the traffic capacity of the area as far as practicable, and wish the Government to improve the transport facilities.

(v) Management and Operation

Youngsters were target users of HCYD. However, HCYD was open to all residents of the district, instead of a few young people or organisations. Rather than manned by a large team of TWGHs staff, HCYD would be operated by members of the public and volunteers through partnership with other organisations. In addition, TWGHs would organise joint activities with other organisations, and offer concessions to meet the public’s needs. Mode of operation of comparable facilities would be adopted, hence commercial entities would be charged with normal and reasonable rent, whereas non-profit-making/community organisations and schools would enjoy a discount. TWGHs noted Members’ views and would consider improving the concept of operation. A detailed rental policy would be put forth at the public consultation in due course.

(vi) Location

TWGHs had been applying to the Government for land exchange for implementing other projects for 15 years, but it was not successful. Although the proposed HCYD site was not perfect, all sites had its own merits and shortcomings. Therefore, TWGHs considered that it would be better to implement the project as soon as possible, rather than putting the project on hold pending an ideal site. LandsD had provided a number of sites for TWGHs’ consideration. In view of the facts that these sites had various shortcomings and the present site was ready for immediate implementation of the project, TWGHs considered that the site was the best choice and sought WTSDC’s favourable consideration.

(Ms. Maggie CHAN left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.) 20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 29

42. The Chairman added that when TWGHs partnered with WTSDC and local cultural groups, it should consider WTSDC’s role in the provision of district facilities. For instance, WTSDC had partnered with and advised on the management of Nan Lian Garden. In addition, as WTSDC had adopted the concept of “plan together, build together and share together” in the provision of facilities in the district, he urged TWGHs to consult local residents through area committees, major housing estates, etc. Moreover, it might organise workshops similar to those concerning KTDA or arranged by Drainage Services Department, so that the public could participate in the HCYD project continuously.

43. The Chairman said WTSDC welcomed and supported the establishment of HCYD in Wong Tai Sin by TWGHs, and requested TWGHs to report the progress of the project to WTSDC. He thanked Mr. YIU Tze-leung for introducing HYCD to Members, and asked TWGHs to note and follow up on Members’ views.

III(iii) Rescheduling of Meeting Dates of Wong Tai Sin District Council and Its Committees (WTSDC Paper 49/2011)

44. The Chairman invited the Secretary to introduce the paper.

45. The Secretary said as announced by the in June, DC would cease operation on 15 September 2011. The relevant paper (Annex II) had been distributed to Members and was currently on table. In this connection, the meetings of WTSDC and its committees should be rescheduled. The WTSDC meeting would be held on 6 September 2011. The revised meeting dates were set out in the paper. The Secretary reminded Members that meeting of District Facilities Management Committee would be held in the morning of 25 August 2011.

46. Members endorse the revised meeting dates set out in the paper.

IV Progress Reports

47. The Chairman drew Members’ attention that the Progress Report of the 22nd Meeting of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee held on 28 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 55/2011) was on table.

(i) Progress Reports of the 22nd Meeting of the Community Building and Social

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 30 Services Committee held on 24 May 2011 (WTSDC Paper 50/2011)

48. Members noted the paper.

(ii) Progress Report of the 22nd Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee held on 31 May 2011 (WTSDC Paper 51/2011)

49. Members noted the paper.

(iii) Progress Report of the 22nd Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee held on 7 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 52/2011)

50. Members noted the paper.

(iv) Progress Report of the 22nd Meeting of the Finance, General and Economic Affairs Committee held on 14 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 53/2011)

51. Members noted the paper.

(v) Progress Report of the 21st Meeting of the Housing Committee held on 21 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 54/2011)

52. Members noted the paper.

(vi) Progress Report of the 22nd Meeting of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee held on 28 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 55/2011)

53. Members noted the paper.

(vii) Progress Report of the 15th Meeting of the Working Group on Government and Public Utilities Works Projects held on 7 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 56/2011)

54. Members noted the paper.

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 31

(viii) Progress Report of the Wong Tai Sin District Management Committee Meeting held on 10 June 2011 (WTSDC Paper 57/2011)

55. Members noted the paper.

V. Date of Next Meeting

56. The 24th meeting of WTSDC would be held on 6 September 2011 (Tuesday) at 2:30 p.m.

57. The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Wong Tai Sin District Council Secretariat Ref: WTSDC 13-5/5/53 Pt.16 July 2011

Note: Should there be any discrepancies between the Chinese and English versions, the Chinese version shall prevail. This English summary translation is for reference only.

20110718-3_DC[M23].doc 32 Annex Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs

Practical Arrangements for the 2011 District Council Election

PURPOSE

This paper sets out the key electoral arrangements proposed by the Electoral Affairs Commission (“EAC”) for the 2011 District Council (“DC”) Election to be held on 6 November 2011.

BACKGROUND

2. The EAC is a statutory and independent body responsible for the conduct and supervision of elections. The EAC, supported by the Registration and Electoral Office (“REO”), is making preparations for various electoral arrangements for the 2011 DC Election. Some of the key practical arrangements relating to polling stations, counting of votes and submission of election advertisements (“EAs”) are set out in the following paragraphs.

PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS

Polling Date and Nomination Period

3. In accordance with section 27 of the District Councils Ordinance (Cap 547), the Chief Executive has determined 6 November 2011 as the date for holding the fourth DC ordinary election. The relevant notice was published in the Gazette on 3 June 2011.

4. Section 9 of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (District Councils) Regulation (Cap. 541F) provides that the nomination period is to be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer (“CEO”). The same section provides that the nomination period must not be less than 14 days or more than 21 days, and that it must end not less than 28 days and not more than 42 days before the date on which the election is to be held. It is an established practice to set a 14-day nomination period and, also, allow roughly five weeks for candidates’ canvassing activities between close of nomination and the polling day. Following this practice, we plan to set the nomination period for the coming election from 15 to 28 September 2011. The nomination period will be gazetted in due course.

1 Number and Allocation of Polling Stations

5. There are at present about 3.43 million electors registered for the geographical constituencies (“GCs”). The 2011 voter registration drive is under way. The deadline for application for registration is 16 July 2011. The final voter registration figure for the upcoming DC Election will be available when the 2011 Final Register of GC electors is published in accordance with section 20 of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Registration of Electors) (Legislative Council Geographical Constituencies) (District Council Constituencies) Regulation (Cap 541A). With the launch of the 2011 voter registration publicity campaign on 11 June 2011, the REO estimates that there will be about 3.5 million GC registered electors who are eligible to cast votes in the 2011 DC Election.

6. To cater for casting of votes, at least one polling station will be set up in each of the 412 DC Constituency Areas (“DCCAs”). For those DCCAs which cover a large geographical area, the REO will set up more than one polling station therein to facilitate electors to cast their votes. Depending on the number of contested DCCAs, the REO will set up around 560 ordinary polling stations in the 2011 DC Election. We aim to have at least 90% of the polling stations set up at venues accessible to electors with disabilities, as compared to 85% for the 2010 Legislative Council (LC) By-election. Assuming that there would be no fewer than 3.5 million registered electors, about 6,250 electors will be assigned to each polling station on average. This is similar to the figure in the 2007 DC Election. For Members’ information, in the 2007 DC Election, out of the 405 DCCAs, the seats for 41 DCCAs were elected uncontested. For the remaining 364 DCCAs, 488 polling stations were set up on the polling day.

7. Apart from ordinary polling stations, 22 dedicated polling stations (“DPSs”) will be set up at the penal institutions of the Correctional Services Department (“CSD”) for registered electors imprisoned or remanded under the custody of the CSD to cast votes in the election. We also plan to set up three DPSs at police stations across the territory for registered electors who are remanded or detained on the polling day by law enforcement agencies (“LEA”) other than CSD, such as the Police, Independent Commission Against Corruption, Customs and Excise Department, to cast their votes.

Vote Counting Arrangements

8. Same as that of the 2007 DC Election and the 2008 LC Election, the vote counting will be decentralised to be conducted at individual polling stations. Under this arrangement, a polling station (other than a small polling

2 station, a special polling station and a DPS as explained in paragraph 9 below) will be converted into a counting station immediately after the close of poll. When the counting station is re-opened, candidates and their agents, the media and members of the public are allowed to be present in the counting station to observe the count. Questionable ballot papers will be separated during the counting process for determination of validity by the Presiding Officers (“PROs”). Candidates and their election or counting agents may make representations during the determination process.

9. To protect the secrecy of votes, ballot papers of the small polling stations (with fewer than 200 registered electors), special polling stations (for use by electors with disabilities) as well as all DPSs (after sorting by DCCAs at the Ballot Paper Sorting Stations) will be delivered to the respective main counting stations for mixing with other ballot papers cast therein by other electors before counting.

10. Upon completion of the count at a counting station, the PRO will make known the counting results to the candidates or their agents, who will then have the opportunity to request recount of votes. If there is such a request which is accepted by the PRO, the recount will be performed on-the-spot. If there is no request or further request for a recount1, the PRO will report the result of the counting of votes to the Returning Officer (RO) of the DCCA concerned, who will formally announce the election result when the results of all the relevant counting stations in the DCCA have been finalised.

Design of Ballot Papers and Ballot Boxes

11. Same as in the 2007 DC Election, candidates will be allowed to have certain specified particulars relating to them printed on the ballot papers in the 2011 DC Election. The size of the ballot papers will be similar to those of the 2007 DC Election. The candidate will be invited to check the final proofs of the ballot papers to ensure that the information contained therein is accurate before the ballot papers are printed. A full-scale checking on the ballot papers will also be conducted to ensure that they are correctly and properly printed.

12. The REO will carefully and thoroughly test the ballot boxes to be used in the 2011 DC Election and will ensure that the provision of the ballot boxes is adequate to cater for a 100% turnout of registered electors.

1 Or if such request is rejected by the PRO as being unreasonable in accordance with section 80A(5) or 80B(5) of Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (District Councils) Regulation (Cap 541F).

3 Address Labels

13. Under section 37 of the District Councils Ordinance (Cap 547), a validly nominated candidate may send free of postage one letter to each elector of the constituency for which he is nominated. The purpose is to enable the candidate to mail EAs to promote or advertise himself to electors. To facilitate candidates, it has been an established practice of the REO to provide each candidate upon request with a set of address labels pertaining to the electors in the constituency. Under the present arrangement, the address labels are printed on an individual basis (i.e. one address label for one elector). There has been a suggestion from some Members that candidates should be allowed a choice to have the address labels printed on a household basis (i.e. one address label for one household) to suit their own needs.

14. On the printing of labels, it is noted that there were practical difficulties in determining whether or not electors sharing the same address belonged to the same family or household in some circumstances. Moreover, the right of access to EAs of individual electors would be of utmost importance and should not be compromised, particularly when public resources are involved in the printing of the address labels and posting of the advertisements. Furthermore, to facilitate candidates, a mark “H” is currently placed on the address labels with two or more elector sharing the same address and a mark “I” for the others. If a candidate wishes to send his EAs on a household basis, he may just send only one mail to the addresses marked “H”. Also, each validly nominated candidate will receive, in addition to the address labels, a computer disc (referred to as Candidate Mailing Label System “CMLS”) containing the mailing information of electors (including the names, addresses and email addresses of electors) extracted from the Final Register. Candidates may therefore make use of the information in the CMLS to generate address labels according to their own needs. Having regard to these considerations, the REO will continue with the existing practice to provide address labels to candidates on an individual basis and has already initiated necessary action for procurement and the required printing work.

Declaration of Electronic EAs

15. We note that sending EAs through electronic means by candidates to electors is getting more and more popular. We are making effort to facilitate the submission of these EAs which are displayed, distributed or otherwise used electronically (e.g. electioneering messages on Facebook, Twitters and websites) to ROs. Subject to enactment of necessary amendments to the relevant sections of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (District Council) Regulation (Cap 541F) and the comments received from the public consultation exercise on the Election Guidelines, candidates will be allowed to

4 submit an electronic copy each of these EAs to the ROs, together with the related declaration, electronically in accordance with the method, formats, and standard to be prescribed by the EAC in its Election Guidelines. These EAs would also be made available for public inspection electronically at ROs’ offices. For those EAs of which prior submission to ROs are not practicable (e.g. electioneering messages of interactive and spontaneous nature through social networking and communication websites on the Internet), candidates are also allowed to deposit with the ROs the declaration and electronic copies of the EAs by the end of the first working day following the day on which the concerned EAs are displayed, distributed or otherwise used. Pending comments received from the public consultation exercise and the experience to be gained in future elections, consideration will be given to extending this arrangement to other forms of EAs if practicable.

Reduction of Paper Consumption on Election-related Materials

16. For environmental protection reasons, we will continue to adopt various measures to reduce paper consumption on election-related materials including:

(a) providing address labels of electors (except those who have provided REO with their email addresses) to candidates only upon request;

(b) email addresses of electors, if available, will be provided to candidates;

(c) promoting electors to register their e-mail addresses with the REO through GovHK and encouraging candidates to send their EAs by electronic means to electors who have provided their e-mail addresses;

(d) maintaining the space allocated to each candidate on the introductory leaflet at 1/4 of a A4 page as in 2007 DC Election; and

(e) using recycled paper or paper made from wood-pulp derived from sustainable forest to print electoral documents as far as practicable.

Furthermore, all electoral documents such as candidates’ introductory leaflets and ballot papers will be printed with environmentally friendly ink.

5 Other Related Measures

17. Other key measures which we propose to put in place to ensure the smooth conduct of the 2011 DC Elections include:

(a) Organisation and set-up of the Central Command Centre : A Central Command Centre (“CCC”) will be set up at REO’s Caroline Hill Road Office on the polling day to oversee the conduct of the poll and provide central command and helpdesk/support services.

(b) Compilation of voter turnout statistics : The Statistical Information Centre will be set up inside the CCC to collect and consolidate voter turnout statistics and counting results collected from the polling and counting stations via fax machines. The same arrangement was made in the 2008 LC Election and 2010 LC By-election which had proved to be efficient and reliable. The voter turnout figures will be made available to the public through press releases and the dedicated website for the 2011 DC Election on an hourly basis.

(c) Staff recruitment : About 15,600 civil servants from various Government Bureaux/Departments are expected to be recruited and trained to carry out polling and vote counting duties on the polling day.

(d) Staff training : Briefing sessions on the polling and counting procedures and arrangements including hands-on practice of counting duties will be arranged for staff. Polling Management Training which includes crisis management, quality polling service, training on emotional quotient, and experience sharing workshop will be organised for staff at the supervisory level. For staff who are deployed to compile statistical returns on the polling day, specialised training on statistical work will also be organised for them.

(e) Contingency planning : An emergency depot will be set up in each of the 18 administrative districts to provide quick replenishment of supplies to the polling stations where necessary. Each emergency depot will be equipped with vehicles for urgent deployment if the need arises. We will

6 draw up a comprehensive contingency plan to deal with various kinds of incidents on the polling day.

ADVICE SOUGHT

18. Members are invited to express views on the proposed arrangements set out in this paper.

Registration and Electoral Office June 2011

7 Appendix I

(Letterhead: Office of LEE Tat-yan, Wong Tai Sin District Council Member)

To: Community Services Division, Tung Wah Group of Hospitals

4 July 2011

Dear Sir,

Views on Establishing Holistic Centre for Youth Development in San Po Kong

The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (TWGHs) which is the largest welfare agency in Hong Kong, is providing education, elderly care and medical services to locals in need. TWGHs plans to establish a Holistic Centre for Youth Development (HCYD) in the district to extend and diversify its community services.

San Po Kong is one of the districts that will benefit from the Kai Tak Development project, which is being rolled out in phases. As the industrial buildings in San Po Kong are being redeveloped into residential uses, the number of residents, in particular young people, will increase. This will trigger a growth in demand for community facilities, such as youth development centre, community theatre, community piazza, cultural and arts venue, etc. The establishment of the TWGHs’ HCYD in the industrial area of San Po Kong will be a big drive to the development of youth services in Wong Tai Sin.

TWGHs started planning HCYD long ago. I welcome and support its decision to establish HCYD at the former industrial building sites at the intersection of Sam Chuk Street, Tsat Po Street and King Fuk Street.

Regarding the mission, proposed arrangements and supporting features of HCYD set out in the paper, I would like to point out that:

1. San Po Kong is still a busy commercial area with enormous traffic and pedestrian flows. In addition, the development of logistic industry gives rise to frequent traffic congestions. The streets around the site chosen by TWGHs, namely Sam Chuk Street, Tsat Po Street and King Fuk Street, are rather narrow, and will become main roads after major road alignment to be taken place. In this connection, TWGHs should consult Highways Department, Transport Department, Wong Tai Sin Police Station, etc. in the planning stage, to avoid unnecessary traffic impacts caused by HCYD during construction and after commissioning.

20110705-Letter from LEE Tat-yan-e.doc

2. Regarding facilities to be provided in HCYD, it is beyond doubt that the youth hostel, theatre, dancing room, music room, art studio, conference room, outdoor stage, etc. will be welcome to local residents, especially young people, as well as art groups. I hope that TWGHs will simplify the hiring/borrowing procedures as far as possible, and offer rental concession to non-profit-making organisations, so that it can serve the community with what it takes.

3. I support and appreciate the design principles of HCYD, which centre on low density and greeneries. In some densely packed industrial buildings, a green and low-density development will instil a sense of freshness to the community, and will improve air quality as well.

4. I’d like to suggest a multi-level underground car park be built underneath HCYD. Besides serving users of HCYD, the car park may address the demand for parking spaces in the district. Certainly, tenancy matters of the parking spaces are subject to further consideration.

5. Since HCYD will not be commissioned in the near future, its management can be made at a later stage, with reference to hiring/borrowing arrangements of similar venues.

I hope that HCYD can be built as soon as possible, and urge the relevant Government departments to provide the necessary support actively, so that a platform can be provided in Wong Tai Sin on which healthy life styles and positive values can be fostered among young people through activities such as healthy living camping, arts and cultural activities, community involvement, volunteers services, etc.

LEE Tat-yan Member of Wong Tai Sin District Council

20110705-Letter from LEE Tat-yan-e.doc Annex II

Suspension of Operation of District Councils

In accordance with section 27 of the District Councils Ordinance (DCO) (Cap 547), the Chief Executive has specified 6 November 2011 as the date for holding the ordinary election for the fourth term of District Councils (DCs). We understand from the relevant paper of the Legislative Council Panel on Constitutional Affairs (see Annex I) submitted by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau that the nomination period is proposed to be set from 15 to 28 September 2011.

2. In accordance with section 28 of the DCO, the Director of Home Affairs (DHA) may, to facilitate the holding of a DC election, determine a date with effect from which the operation of the DCs is to be suspended until the commencement of the term of office of the members elected at that election. The purpose of suspending the operation of DCs is to ensure a level playing field for all candidates in the election.

3. Having regard to the nomination period of the election for the new DC term, DHA has decided to suspend the operation of DCs with effect from the commencement of the nomination period (suggested as 15 September 2011) until the end of the current DC term, i.e. 31 December 2011. DHA will give notice in the Gazette of the details in due course.

4. The following activities shall cease during the suspension of operation of DCs:

(a) meetings of DCs and their committees and working groups; (b) activities and programmes organised or co-organised by DCs and their committees and working groups; and (c) the Meet-the-public Scheme.

5. As stipulated in section 28(4) of the DCO, DHA may permit a DC or its committees to hold special meetings during the suspension period in consideration of individual circumstances. DHA shall exercise this power with caution and permission would only be granted having regard to individual circumstances and if the circumstances so warrant. 6. During the suspension period, should DC members express their views on district matters or government policies, they should do so in their personal capacity just like any other members of the public.

7. DC members serving on government advisory bodies in their personal capacity and not in the capacity of DC members may continue to attend meetings of such advisory bodies during the suspension period. They should express their views at the meetings in their personal capacity as they always do.

8. The term of office of incumbent DC members would not be affected by the suspension of operation of DCs. DC members may continue to carry out other duties, including referral and handling of complaints from the public. Ward offices may operate as usual. DC members will continue to be eligible for honorarium, Miscellaneous Expenses Allowance and Expenses Reimbursements1 until the end of the term. Upon cessation of office, incumbent DC members may apply for Winding-up Expenses Reimbursement to cover the legitimate expenses incurred necessarily for the winding-up of office and for discharging DC business during the winding-up period within one month after the cessation of office.

9. During the suspension period, DC members who intend to stand for re-election should observe the principles of fairness and impartiality. DC members should abide by the election laws and the Guidelines on Election-related Activities in respect of the 2011 District Council Election laid down by the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC). Any complaints related to the breach of law or the Guidelines would be referred to the EAC for follow-up action.

10. In order that activities initiated by DCs may be implemented in the first three months of the new DC term from 1 January to 31 March 2012, 5% to 10% of the DC funds for this financial year of the current DC term should be reserved for use by DCs of the new term.

Home Affairs Department June 2011

1 including Operating Expenses Reimbursement and Setting-up Expenses Reimbursement.

2