Southern District Council (2016-2019) (SDC) Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC)

Date : 15 July 2019 (Monday) Time : 5:48 p.m. Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present: Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP (Chairman of SDC) Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman of SDC) Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH (Chairman of DFMC) Mr CHAI Man-hon (Vice-Chairman of DFMC) Mr AU Nok-hin Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH Mr LO Kin-hei Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Ms YAM Pauline Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN

Secretary: Mr CHEUNG Wai-chun, William Executive Officer I (District Management), Home Affairs Department

In Attendance: Mrs MA CHOW Pui-fun, District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department

DFMC 22mins 1 Dorothy, JP Miss CHENG Wai-sum, Sum Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Ms YIP Wai-see, Priscilla 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 MAK Ho Man, Nathan Engineer (1), Home Affairs Department Ms CHOW Ka-yan Architect (Works) 3, Home Affairs Department Ms WAN Chi-ying, Jenny Architect (Works) 6, Home Affairs Department Mr LEE Kit-wai Inspector of Works (), Home Affairs Department Ms MAN Chi-nga, Flora District Leisure Manager (Southern), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr AU YEUNG Wai-ming, Authur Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Southern, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms ZHAO Yee, Emily Manager (Hong Kong West) Marketing, Programme and District Activities, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr CHONG Kin-yik, Stanley Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West & South (1), District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South, Lands Department Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West & South (2), District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South, Lands Department

For agenda item 4: Ms LAU Po-chu, Judy Executive Officer (Planning) 5, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms AU YEUNG Lai-sze, Jane Senior Project Manager 327, Architectural Services Department Mr FOK Kin-chuen Project Manager 374, Architectural Services Department

DFMC 22mins 2 Mr LAU Tak-cheung Architect (Partner), Percy Thomas Partnership (HK) Limited Mr LAU Wai-hung, Terry Project Architect, Percy Thomas Partnership (HK) Limited Ms YU Man-wah, Catherine Project Manager, Percy Thomas Partnership (HK) Limited

Mr TSE Kam-chuen Structural Engineer, APT Engineering Consultant Limited

Mr YUEN Chi-fai Assistant Structural Engineer, APT Engineering Consultant Limited

For agenda item 5: Mr LI Pun-hung Sergeant, Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator, Western District Police Community Relations Office, Hong Kong Police Force Mr NG Wing-chit Station Commander Fire Station Fire Services Department

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Members and the following government representatives to the meeting:

(a) Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)

(i) Ms MAN Chi-nga, Flora, District Leisure Manager (Southern);

(ii) Mr AU YEUNG Wai-ming, Authur, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Southern; and

(iii) Ms ZHAO Yee, Emily, Manager (Hong Kong West) Marketing, Programme and District Activities;

(b) Lands Department (LandsD)

(i) Mr CHONG Kin-yik, Stanley, Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West & South (1) (District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South); and

(ii) Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky, Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West &

DFMC 22mins 3 South (2) (District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South)

(c) Home Affairs Department (HAD)

(i) Mr MAK Ho Man, Nathan, Engineer (1);

(ii) Ms CHOW Ka-yan, Architect (Works) 3;

(iii) Ms WAN Chi-ying, Jenny, Architect (Works) 6; and

(iv) Mr LEE Kit-wai, Inspector of Works (Hong Kong).

2. The Chairman said that to avoid suspending the meeting due to an insufficient quorum, Members should, as far as practicable, advise the Secretary of their early withdrawal before the meeting, and inform the Secretariat staff before leaving the meeting.

3. The Chairman advised that to enhance the efficiency of the meeting, each Member was allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Minutes of the 21st Meeting held on 23 May 2019

4. The Chairman said that the draft minutes of the above meeting had been circulated to Members for comments before the meeting. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.

5. The minutes of the 21st meeting were confirmed by the Committee.

Agenda Item 2: Report on the District Free Entertainment Programmes and Other Arts and Cultural Activities in the Southern District organised by the LCSD

(DFMC Paper No. 17/2019)

6. Ms Emily ZHAO briefed the meeting on the district free entertainment programmes organised / to be organised by LCSD in the Southern District from May to November 2019 and the two applications for organising programmes jointly with district organisations, as well as the details of other arts and cultural activities held between May to September 2019, as detailed in DFMC Paper No. 17/2019.

7. Ms Emily ZHAO added that regarding the district free entertainment programmes,

DFMC 22mins 4 LCSD would act on the previous suggestion from Members by distributing extra copies of flyers to the ward offices of SDC Members in different areas. It was hoped that Members of the constituencies concerned would show their support for and assistance in distributing the flyers. It was noted that the turnout of the three activities under the Community Cultural Ambassador Scheme was lower than expected. The Windpipe Chinese Music Ensemble “Along the Silk Road” Touring Concert had to be cancelled due to unsettled weather. The turnout of another activity “Street Dance Theatre ─ Hidden Dragon” Touring Performance was lower than expected because of rain on the event day. As far “I Ain’t Afraid of No Jazz” Touring Concert had an attendance less than expected. It was likely that not many people knew about the art form of Jazz music and the audience were not familiar with the repertoire performed. In this regard, LCSD had reviewed the effectiveness of the activities and the arts group had been suggested to play music which was more familiar to the audience. The arts group had accepted the above suggestion and would make arrangement to take into account audience response in future.

8. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH opined that the concert on Operatic Songs only lasted for 2 hours which only allowed four songs and were not enough to satisfy the audience. Peking Opera and Cantonese Opera also faced the same problem. She maintained that LCSD had the responsibility to promote arts and cultural activities and suggested that LCSD consider starting the show earlier for the performances on intangible cultural heritage, such as Cantonese Opera and Cantonese Operatic Songs, in order to introduce the background or special characteristics of the songs during the performance, with a view to making the programmes more meaningful.

9. The Vice-Chairman commended LCSD for having reflected on the reason for lower attendance of its activities. He opined that Jazz music programme had proven to be not satisfactory, in particular, the selection of venue. Under hot weather and strong sunlight in the summer, both audience and the performers had to suffer. He hoped that LCSD could re-consider the selection of venues and explore new performance venues or consider places other than LCSD venues. He observed that busking on the street in general might be even more capable of attracting people than the programmes of high quality or high cost organised by LCSD. Therefore, LCSD was advised to note the above issues and conduct a review.

10. Ms Emily ZHAO responded that the duration of a programme depended on the art form and resources allocation. Each type of art form had a suggested programme length. The duration of Cantonese Operatic Songs or Cantonese Opera was already longer than that of the other types of programmes such as Children’s Theatre. For introduction of information of songs, some art groups would give an introduction to the audience, to help

DFMC 22mins 5 them acquire more understanding and knowledge about the art form and background. For performance of Cantonese operatic songs which were relatively familiar to the audience, less time would be devoted to the introduction by the art groups so that more time could be allocated to performance. On selection of venues, apart from organising activities at LCSD venues such as park, LCSD would also arrange for stage performances at other venues like Stanley Promenade, shopping malls or community halls and would choose locations with higher pedestrian flow as far as possible. Some of the performances, however, were performed in places where pedestrian flow might be lower for the purpose of promoting arts to new audiences. Depending on the effectiveness of its activities, LCSD would review the arrangement accordingly.

11. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH did not accept the response of LCSD. She pointed out that she did take part in some activities in the capacity as one of the audience but had not noticed any characteristics of the arrangement. She opined that the master of ceremony was not performing well as only the names of songs, singer, theme and set tunes were mentioned, without touching on the cultural inheritance, the characteristics of the excerpt as well as the hand movements, etc. She was very disappointed at LCSD’s work on cultural promotion. Apart from the Southern District, LCSD should also put more effort into the activities held in other districts so as to improve cultural promotion.

12. Ms Emily ZHAO replied that she would convey Members’ comments to the Programme Offices concerned. Besides, in addition to organising district free entertainment programmes, LCSD would carry out work to develop the audience through other arts and cultural activities, for example, the Community Cultural Ambassador Scheme and the School Performing Arts in Practice Scheme, during which demonstration performance, lecture or workshop would serve to facilitate interaction with the audience and cultural inheritance.

13. The Committee noted the above paper and approved two applications for joint organisation of programmes as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the paper.

Agenda Item 3: Report on the Organisation of Recreation and Sports Programmes and Management of Facilities in the Southern District by the LCSD (DFMC Paper No. 18/2019)

14. Mr Authur AU YEUNG briefed Members on the recreation and sports (R&S) programmes organised by LCSD from May to June 2019 and to be organised from August to September 2019 in the Southern District, Sport For All Day 2019, a summary of opinions by

DFMC 22mins 6 users of leisure services in the Southern District from March to May 2019, the usage of R&S facilities, assessment of the LCSD’s contractors’ service levels and greening work in the Southern District from May to June 2019, refurbishment / improvement project, proposals for funding application for District Minor Works (DMW) in 2019-20, recovery works for LCSD’s facilities damaged by the Super Typhoon Mangkhut in the Southern District, naming of the new sitting-out areas, proposed opening hours and no smoking arrangements, the construction of a footbridge with lifts to connect the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park and Ap Lei Chau Estate, as well as the provision of heated pool at the Pao Yue Kong Swimming Pool Complex in the Southern District, as detailed in DFMC Paper No. 18/2019.

15. Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP said that he had no comment on the naming of “Construction of a Sitting-out Area at the roof of No.3 Water Service Reservoir behind Chi Fu Fa Yuen” as “Pok Fu Lam No.3 Service Reservoir Sitting-out Area”. He asked whether the management, patrol and cleansing arrangements for the sitting-out area as well as its opening hours were the same as the other service reservoir sitting-out areas in other districts. He said that if the sitting-out area could be open as early at 7:00 a.m., more members of the public could enjoy it, especially the elderly. He agreed with the no smoking arrangements. In addition, he thanked LCSD for showing respect to the SDC all along and suggested that the department consider appointing athletes from the district as Sports Ambassadors of Southern District starting from the next term SDC onwards. This could also encourage the athletes in the district.

16. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH said that she was disappointed about the cleansing service levels of LCSD’s contractors, in particular in such areas as toilets and changing room. She requested LCSD to strengthen its supervision of the contractors in order to enhance their service performance up to the required standard. Furthermore, she enquired about how the course content for Tai Chi Made Easy Class was compiled as there were many branches of Tai Chi. It seemed that the course provided by Tai Chi Made Easy Class was too easy. She also requested enhancement of the Aerobic Dance Training Course.

17. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that some of the popular R&S programmes had been allotted relatively small quota. For instance, Badminton Training Course had received over 1 000 applications but the enrolment was confined to a quota of 300 odd participants only. He understood that more students would take part in the training course during summer vacation. Despite an increase in the year’s quota, the quota was smaller than that of 2017. He asked LCSD how the quota was determined. He suggested that additional resources be provided for more popular activities during the summer vacation in particular. While he understood that LCSD had previously said in its response that the department could not pool

DFMC 22mins 7 all resources into a single type of activity, he hoped that LCSD could make special arrangement during the summer vacation so that the problem of too many applicants competing for a limited quota could be relieved next year.

18. Mr Authur AU YEUNG gave a consolidated response that there would be stationing of security guards at the Pok Fu Lam No. 3 Service Reservoir Sitting-out Area. The cleansing contractor of LCSD would also clean up the venue on a regular basis. Concerning the opening hours of the venue, LCSD had not set out unified opening hours for any particular types of venues. Since no lighting system could be installed at the Pok Fu Lam No.3 Service Reservoir Sitting-out Area, LCSD proposed the daily opening hours for the sitting-out area to be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Yet, in view of Members’ comments, LCSD would consider an earlier opening hour for the summer at six o’clock in the morning depending on the actual sunrise hours. LCSD would consider specifying different sets of opening hours for summer and winter in order to satisfy the public need as far as possible. As regards the cleansing service levels of LCSD’s contractors, LCSD would continue to strengthen patrols and instruct the contractor concerned to improve cleansing of toilet and changing room. Since the cleansing contractor had just commenced a new contract from 1 April 2019 onwards, LCSD would closely monitor its performance with strengthened communication to ensure its service level. Moreover, regarding the enquiry on Tai Chi Made Easy Class, the class would normally have shorter training session than an ordinary Tai Chi training course. The moves and steps of Tai Chi taught in the Class would be simpler and easier to learn so as to enable the participants to grasp the Tai Chi moves and steps more easily, and promote learners’ interest in Tai Chi exercise. After the participants had completed the Class, they could continue to join the regular Tai Chi training courses. Concerning the programmes with relatively active enrolments, for example, Aerobic Dance Training Course, the quota for each of its class would be adjusted according to the size of the venue available. Furthermore, LCSD would make special arrangement during the summer vacation for those popular activities with more active enrolment, such as the Badminton Training Course. However, in organising the courses, LCSD also had to consider the need of general users for booking the venue facilities apart from fulfilling the public need for training courses. If a venue was used for the purpose of training class, the venue made available for booking would be reduced on the other hand. LCSD would conduct a review again and strike an appropriate balance between the needs of these two aspects. As for the suggestion of nominating Sports Ambassadors, he would relay the message to the LCSD headquarters for consideration.

19. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised an enquiry about the facilities damaged by the Super Typhoon Mangkhut. He would like to know how to delineate the responsibilities of

DFMC 22mins 8 different departments in handling the works for the respective areas of Big Wave Bay. In addition, he asked whether LCSD had a long term plan for the district in identifying land for constructing more district facilities, such as sports ground, in view of the fact that the booking for the existing venues had been saturated.

20. Mr Authur AU YEUNG replied that the general recovery works for in the aftermath of Super Typhoon Mangkhut had been completed. As regards the delineation of responsibilities of different departments, he could provide Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN with information on the area undertaken by LCSD after the meeting or arrange a site visit for a clearer picture. As regards identification of land for constructing district facilities, LCSD would review whether the R&S facilities in the district were enough from time to time. If there was a need to add facilities, LandsD would be consulted on the availability of a suitable location and the matter would be studied with the LCSD’s Planning Section and the relevant departments.

21. The Committee noted the paper and approved the naming of the “Pok Fu Lam No.3 Service Reservoir Sitting-out Area” and “Sassoon Road Sitting-out Area”, proposed opening hours and no smoking arrangements.

Agenda Item 4: Construction of a Footbridge with Lifts to Connect the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park and Ap Lei Chau Estate – Design Proposal (DFMC Paper No. 19/2019)

22. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives to the meeting for discussion of agenda item 4:

(a) Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)

(i) Ms LAU Po-chu, Judy, Executive Officer (Planning) 5;

(b) Architectural Services Department (ArchSD)

(i) Ms AU YEUNG Lai-sze, Jane, Senior Project Manager 327;

(ii) Mr FOK Kin-chuen, Project Manager 374;

(c) Percy Thomas Partnership (HK) Limited

(i) Mr LAU Tak-cheung, Architect (Partner);

(ii) Mr LAU Wai-hung, Terry, Project Architect;

DFMC 22mins 9 (iii) Ms YU Man-wah, Catherine, Project Manager;

(d) APT Engineering Consultant Limited

(i) Mr TSE Kam-chuen, Structural Engineer; and

(ii) Mr YUEN Chi-fai, Assistant Structural Engineer.

23. Ms Judy LAU and Ms Jane AU YUENG briefed Members and consulted Members’ views on the construction of a footbridge with lifts to connect the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park and Ap Lei Chau Estate – design proposal, as detailed in DFMC Paper No. 19/2019.

24. Mr. LAU Tak-cheung, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (Reference Information), presented the details of construction of a footbridge with lifts to connect the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park and Ap Lei Chau Estate – design proposal to Members.

25. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the agenda item, with details summarised as follows:

(a) a Member relayed the view of quite a number of residents that the inward slanting balustrade would narrow down the passageway of the footbridge. He enquired whether consideration would be given to using vertical balustrade for the footbridge;

(b) a Member had no comment on the design concept of Ap Lei Chau Estate sitting-out area, but suggested providing a cover for the barrier-free access at the lift tower of Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park to facilitate people in need. She suggested reducing the size of the lift tower wherever possible to avoid blocking the view. She suggested that adopting lighter and more lively colours and avoiding using concrete-like grey colour for the structure;

(c) a Member thanked the departments concerned and consultant for adopting the comments given at a workshop held earlier on. She enquired whether women would be subject to the risk of upskirting when using the staircases. She said that the wire mesh balustrade of the footbridge should extend to the bottom to prevent objects from falling off the footbridge. Consideration should be given to the future need for repair and maintenance when choosing the colour, and colour that was too light or too dim should be avoided. Regarding the design of Ap Lei Chau

DFMC 22mins 10 Estate sitting-out area, she said that both options were acceptable. But she received requests from quite a number of residents who demanded the addition of facilities for kids. She hoped that a decision on the provision of facilities should be made only after the users’ views had been consulted;

(d) a Member said that the project would involve some leisure facilities in Ap Lei Chau Estate. She suggested adding arbours and leisure facilities for kids in the park and providing a cover for the barrier-free access;

(e) a Member suggested incorporating the performance stage of Ap Lei Chau Estate into the design proposal. He said that the performance stage was next to the community hall with low usage. He suggested demolishing the performance stage and replacing it with other facilities or upgrading the facilities of the performance stage so as to increase its usage; and

(f) a Member enquired about the pedestrian flow of the sitting-out area and whether the views of the community stakeholders and users on the redesigned sitting-out area had been consulted. He said that the walking distance from the original location of the footbridge to the park was short. He enquired whether any study on the number of users of the footbridge and lift tower had been conducted to ensure that the public money was used properly. As the footbridge, staircases and lift tower covered a large area, he suggested reducing the size of the whole structure wherever possible. He appreciated the proposal for providing a viewing platform at the lift tower, but commented that the external area of the structure covered by concrete was relatively large.

26. Mr LAU Tak-cheung gave a consolidated response that it was required that the project area had to accommodate two lifts, staircases and lift waiting areas. Consideration also had to be given in the design to divert the pedestrians using the staircases and lifts, especially those during the morning and evening peak hours as well as people staying at the viewing platform to appreciate the scenery. If the size of the lift tower was further reduced, it would become crowded during peak hours. He said that the entry/exit points of the barrier-free access were connected to level ground to suit the needs of the elderly and disabled. Moreover, clear signage had been provided at the entrance of Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park to indicate the location of the barrier-free access. Similar signage would also be added at the lift tower and staircases. He said that the light grey and timber look aluminium strips adopted in the design proposal were to match the colour and design adopted for the distinctive Wind Tower in the vicinity. The facilities in the fitness area were suitable for

DFMC 22mins 11 both young and old, and could suit the needs of different age groups. He further said that wire mesh balustrade would be included in the staircase design. As there were no gaps between the timber look aluminium strips, there should be no danger of women users being upskirted. The wire mesh balustrade was slanting outward first and then inward. The design could prevent children from climbing the balustrade and objects from falling off the footbridge. Furthermore, the design proposal for the footbridge had taken into consideration the walking routes and habits of the nearby residents.

27. Ms Jane AU YEUNG gave a consolidated response that the existing coverage and transparent design of the lift tower was the most optimised proposal that could reduce visual obstruction. During the feasibility study, the construction cost was preliminarily estimated to be around $100 million. Since there was no lift tower at the site currently, it was not possible to estimate the pedestrian flow. But it could be expected that upon commissioning of the lift tower, more pedestrians would be attracted to use the lift to enter and leave the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park. The existing sitting-out area at Ap Lei Chau Estate was a connection point of the footbridge project and was under the purview of the Housing Department (HD). As it would be affected by the project, upon completion of works, the sitting-out area and facilities in the fitness area would be reprovisioned and upgraded under the project to suit the needs of users of different age groups. She said she would consult the views of residents of Ap Lei Chau Estate on the facilities in the sitting-out area through the relevant departments including HD. She further said that under the project, only the sitting-out area and fitness facilities would be reprovisioned and upgraded, while the provision of leisure facilities for kids was not included in the project plan. But she would forward the views to HD for consideration. If HD made the relevant request, some existing facilities could be replaced with leisure facilities for kids, provided they were within budget. The performance stage under HD’s purview near the project site was not included in the current project plan. If Members considered it necessary to refurbish the stage facilities, she could relay the request for renovating the performance stage to HD. The renovation would be carried out separately from the current project to avoid affecting the progress of the project.

28. The Chairman, Mr AU Nok-hin, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised further comments and enquiries on the issue, with details summarised as follows:

(a) a Member was satisfied that some progress had been made for the project after SDC had lobbied for it for a long time, and that the departments concerned had adopted most of the views given in the workshop and had completed the

DFMC 22mins 12 preliminary design within a short time. He held the view that as Ap Lei Chau Estate was under the purview of HD instead of LCSD, the SDC Member of the constituency concerned might have the clearest picture of the situation. As regards whether the improvement of the performance stage should be incorporated in the project, the Committee need not arrive at a conclusion at the meeting. He agreed that the primary concern was that the project funding application submitted to the Legislative Council (LegCo) should not be affected. Moreover, he enquired whether the Committee had to select the design option for the sitting-out area at the meeting, and whether it could be considered at a later stage if it was not an issue of principle. He suggested providing covers for seats in the design and adding recreational facilities for kids at the sitting-out area to promote inter-generational harmony;

(b) a Member enquired whether the wooden planks on the footbridge would bend upward after prolonged use and suggested adding covers for the open air seats;

(c) a Member said that incorporating the works for the performance stage and the neighbouring flower bed into the project was a good proposal and she had also put forth the proposal to ArchSD. But since the facilities and sites were under HD’s purview, they would not be incorporated in the project. She said that it would be best if the improvement works could be carried out under the project, and the new facilities could be put under the purview of HD in future. She said that currently there were covers for the seats in Ap Lei Chau Estate sitting-out area. Regarding the facilities and area to be used in future, she hoped to consult the residents’ views during the detailed design stage; and

(d) a Member was satisfied with the overall design proposal. He said that since the project had to meet various needs, it must inevitably occupy some space. He suggested using light materials at the detailed design stage so that the footbridge and lift tower would not block the view. Since some connection points of the footbridge would be located within the boundaries of Ap Lei Chau Estate, he enquired about the procedures and progress of land allocation and whether it would affect the implementation schedule. He opined that the design of Ap Lei Chau Estate sitting-out area was only at the preliminary stage. It seemed that Option 2 with a turfed area was more preferable. But the final decision would depend on the detailed design. He opined that if possible, consideration could be given to incorporating the works for the performance stage and the neighbouring flower bed into the project;

DFMC 22mins 13

(e) a Member was of the view that as the project was currently at the preliminary design stage, it would be opportune to discuss the demolition or upgrading of the performance stage which did not occupy a large area. He considered that Option 2 for the sitting-out area was more preferable because the other option had not made good use of the green space. If the use of space could be optimised, then one or two sets of leisure facilities could be added.

29. Ms Jane AU YEUNG gave a consolidated response that the southern foundation of the Wind Tower footbridge would be located at Ap Lei Chau Estate sitting-out area. ArchSD had been maintaining liaison with HD on issues relating to the works site and land lease. The area of the foundation was not large and would be included in the land lease of Wind Tower Park so that it would be put under the purview of LCSD in future. The issues relating to the land lease were administrative procedures. The work and time required had been included in the implementation schedule of the project. Regarding the improvement of the performance stage, she said that the funding for the project was different from that used by HD. If the improvement works for the performance stage and the flower bed were incorporated into the project, the project would be delayed. If the improvement works were to be carried out by HD, coordination could be done during implementation of the project.

30. Mr LAU Tak-cheung gave a consolidated response that the timber-like floor was highly durable anti-skid materials. A viewing platform would be provided on the lift tower for the public to appreciate the scenery of Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter and Shek Pai Wan. The see-through timber-like strips were also provided on the staircases to minimise obstacle to the view.

31. The Chairman concluded that DFMC supported the design proposal, and requested the departments concerned to implement the project as soon as possible with a view to consulting the Panel on Home Affairs of LegCo in 2019-20. Subject to LegCo’s funding approval by mid-2020, the construction works would commence in early 2021 for completion in the fourth quarter of 2022. It was hoped that the various departments would follow up with the Committee as appropriate during the detailed design stage.

(Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr FUNG Se-goun and Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH left the meeting at 6:20, 6:40, 6:49, 6:54 and 7.04 p.m. respectively. Ms Emily ZHAO left the meeting at 6:21 p.m.)

DFMC 22mins 14 Agenda Item 5: Introducing a Grass Moratorium Period for Yuk Kwai Shan, Ap Lei Chau (DFMC Paper No. 20/2019)

32. The Chairman welcomed Mr LI Pun-hung, SGT PCRO SUP (NPC) WDIST of Hong Kong Police Force and Mr NG Wing-chit, Station Commander Ap Lei Chau Fire Station, Fire Services Department (FSD), to the meeting for discussion of agenda item 5.

33. Briefing Members on the agenda item, Mr LO Kin-hei said that the natural mountain trail of Yuk Kwai Shan was steep and a highly difficult hiking trail. Many hikers were accidentally injured, hit by heat stroke or even trapped on hill, and had to call for rescue by the Police, FSD or Government Flying Service. Moreover, since some sections of the mountain trail had been trampled too much, it was difficult for the vegetation to grow, resulting in loose and eroded soil. Although it was difficult to completely forbid hikers to go hiking there, he hoped, through discussion of the agenda item, to introduce a grass moratorium period and advise the public and hikers from the perspective of ethics to refrain from hiking temporarily during the said period, so as to allow sufficient time for the nature to rest and revive.

34. Mr Ricky NG responded that since Yuk Kwai Shan was a public place, erecting a signage or giving advice to the public to suspend hiking during the concerned period was outside the purview of the District Lands Office (DLO). In general, DLO would erect notice board at fenced-off Government land site under under DLO’s management in order to prevent trespassing or illegal dumping. He said that DLO would not fence off the hiking trail which was a public place and had no comment regarding the issue.

35. Mr LI Pun-hung responded that the types of requests for assistance in relation to Yuk Kwai Shan received by the Police between 2017 and 2019 included accidental injuries, sickness and requests for police assistance, etc. The peak period was between April and June every year. He said that the total number of requests for assistance in relation to Yuk Kwai Shan was declining. Conceivably that was due to the public’s awareness of the difficulty of the mountain trail in Yuk Kwai Shan. The Police hoped that the public would refrain from rashly challenging mountain trails of high difficulty so as to reduce the chance of getting hurt.

36. Mr NG Wing-chit responded that FSD handled 51 cases relating to Yuk Kwai Shan between 2017 and 2019. The types of rescue operations included mountain rescue, false alarm with good intent, ambulance services and vegetation fire. The number of rescue cases

DFMC 22mins 15 was relatively small between July and September every year, and the total number of requests for assistance in relation to Yuk Kwai Shan was also declining. The decreasing number of vegetation fire cases might be related to the decrease in vegetation. He said that FSD had no comment regarding the proposal put forth under the agenda item.

37. Mr LO Kin-hei thanked the Committee Chairman for approving the agenda item. He agreed that the total number of requests for assistance in relation to Yuk Kwai Shan was declining, probably because the novelty of hiking in Yuk Kwai Shan had worn off. Besides, the public also began to be aware of the difficulty of the mountain trail in Yuk Kwai Shan. He expressed regret for the gradual loss of vegetation on Yuk Kwai Shan, and hoped to secure support from SDC for introducing a grass moratorium period for Yuk Kwai Shan so as to allow sufficient time for the nature to rest and revive. He added that he only hoped that SDC could reach a consensus on giving advice to the public in future. He also welcomed other suggestions such as the erection of signage. He understood that the number of requests for assistance in the second quarter might be greater than that in the third quarter. But the grass moratorium period could be designated at a period between July and August during which the weather was hot with plentiful rainfall and frequent typhoons. He wished to know the best time for growth of vegetation so that the moratorium period could be adjusted to the most suitable months in future and there could be two grass moratorium periods every year. He suggested that SDC produce publicity banners to be displayed at different entrances of Yuk Kwai Shan to advise the public to attend to personal safety.

38. Mr AU Nok-hin said that SDC could declare its stance or use ropes to cordon off the entrances of Yuk Kwai Shan. Reference could be drawn from the practice of closing the hiking trails of Mount Fuji in Japan, where ropes were used to cordon off the entrances and signage was erected to remind people hiking on their own to attend to personal safety. He suggested that the grass moratorium period be designated at a period between July and August and the public should refrain from going hiking in hot summer.

39. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that although the total number of requests for assistance in relation to Yuk Kwai Shan was declining, many members of the public still went up Yuk Kwai Shan without adequate preparation and thus had to call for rescue by the Police and FSD, which was not desirable for the people’s safety and the entire society. Holding the view that safety should be given primary consideration, he said that SDC could add signage with gentle reminder in order to prevent recurrence of accidents.

40. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired whether the erection of signage by SDC would incur any additional liability.

DFMC 22mins 16

41. The Vice-Chairman said that the main purpose of signage was to remind the public to attend to personal safety. He suggested that SDC designate a specific grass moratorium period. The general public cared for the nature. The supervision of netizens, who might upload acts of damaging the nature or other irregularities on the internet for open comments, might have a greater deterrent effect than imposition of fines. He said that a simple notice could be displayed while fellow Members could remind the public to refrain from going up Yuk Kwai Shan during the period concerned. He also suggested that the MTR Corporation Limited consider displaying notices in the MTR station. He added that SDC should promptly commence the publicity efforts in the following month and conduct a review within one year’s time.

42. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH enquired which department was responsible for the management of Yuk Kwai Shan. The department concerned could consider adding a banner at the foot of the hill to advise the public to refrain from hiking during the period concerned.

43. Mr Ricky NG responded that according to the land status plan, Yuk Kwai Shan was not a country park boundary under the purview of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and had not been allocated to LCSD for management, it might be a public place for joint management matrix to be applied on.

44. The Chairman concluded that the purpose of introducing a grass moratorium period for Yuk Kwai Shan was not only to allow the nature to revive. What was more important was to reduce the number of accidental injuries sustained by hikers. Although there might be difficulties and disagreement in implementation, Members in general agreed to advise the public in the form of 日 gentle reminder to refrain from hiking during the hot summer in July and August every year so as to allow sufficient time for the nature to rest and revive. If any signage was to be erected, the basic content was to advise the hikers to act according to their abilities. He said that DFMC had reached a consensus that Members would disseminate the message to residents, hikers or mass media immediately after the meeting, and could further discuss the issue if there were more specific suggestions in future.

Agenda Item 6: Review on the Southern District Council Notice Boards (DFMC Paper No. 21/2019)

45. Mr Tony CHAN briefed Members on the paper, as detailed in DFMC Paper No. 21/2019.

DFMC 22mins 17

46. Mr LO Kin-hei said that the SDC notice board outside Lei Tung Shopping Centre was removed with only the external frame remaining around one month ago. He enquired how that notice board was handled and why the notice board was removed when the discussion on SDC notice boards had yet to reach a conclusion. He said he did not agree that information to be posted on all of the notice boards had to be consistent and suggested posting information that suited local needs. Besides, since the information of District Councillors and SDC had already occupied a certain proportion of space of the notice board, it was difficult to display other information. He said it was mentioned at the last meeting that the notice boards should be properly utilised and the notice boards in different areas should display different information.

47. Mr AU Nok-hin believed that the SDC notice board at Lei Tung Station was originally provided by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC). But subsequently the handover arrangements failed to be completed and the key was also lost. As a result, the notice board was removed. He suggested that the District Councillor of the constituency concerned determine the information to be posted on the notice boards. He also suggested making reference to the practice in other districts and posting maps on the notice boards.

48. The Vice-Chairman said that the internal part of the notice boards was rather dim and there was some distance between the notice board and the glass door. It was difficult for the public to read the information posted on the notice boards, either due to reflection of sunlight in the daytime or due to poor illumination. He suggested that when changing the design of the SDC notice boards, one could consider removing the external frame and putting the displayed information on a plastic plate. Not only could it facilitate updating of information posted on the notice boards, but could also avoid the problem of not being able to open the notice board due to loss of the key.

49. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that the notice boards to be retained should be properly utilised. There should be no mandatory requirement to display the agendas of SDC meetings on the notice boards. People who were concerned about SDC meetings could in fact obtain the agendas online or observe the proceedings of the meetings, and there was no need to learn about the discussion of the meetings through the notice boards. The posting of agenda on the notice boards also required additional manpower. He agreed that information related to SDC, such as the Southern District Signature Projects, as well as other publicity items of the Government, such as posters of voter registration, should be posted. If it was not appropriate to entrust a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with the management of the notice boards, some space could be made available for local NGOs to post and promote

DFMC 22mins 18 their activities or information so that the space of the notice boards could be used properly.

50. The Secretary responded that due to works for the (East), MTRC had arranged for reprovisioning of the SDC notice board at Lei Tung Shopping Centre earlier on and planned to hand over the notice board upon its completion. However, the Works Section of HAD and MTRC had visited the site and found that the notice board did not meet the standards of the Southern District Office (SDO). MTRC was requested to rectify the notice board which would be handed over to SDO for maintenance if it complied with the requirements. Thus, the removal of the SDC notice board was not due to loss of the key. He said that Members who considered it necessary to modify the design of SDC notice boards could discuss the issue under the procedures of district minor works. Moreover, the posting of agendas of SDC meetings on SDC notice boards could enable people who had no access to the internet to obtain the relevant information.

51. Mrs Dorothy MA gave a consolidated response that since District Councillors were familiar with the local conditions of their respective constituencies, each District Councillor could give advice on the removal or retention of notice boards in his/her own constituency. Regarding the information posted on SDC notice boards, since the notice boards represented SDC as a whole rather than individual Councillors, a consensus among District Councillors was required. District Councillors should also consider whether the information posted should be related to SDC. For example, if an NGO invited SDC to be a co-organiser of an activity, it had to obtain SDC’s consent. By the same token, if SDC allowed the posting of activities or information of NGOs on the SDC notice boards, the SDC should establish formal approval procedures to avoid causing misunderstanding. Moreover, in response to Members’ requests and suggestions, SDO would clean and update the SDC notice boards six times a year, i.e. about once every two months.

52. Mr LO Kin-hei enquired about the latest update of the notice board outside Lei Tung Shopping Centre because his decision on the notice board would depend on the situation. He said there was no need to unify the content of all SDC notice boards. Since the SDC logo was printed on publicity leaflets of activities co-organised with SDC or funded by SDC, these leaflets should be eligible for being posted on the notice boards. He suggested making proper use of the space by allowing the notice boards in different areas to display activity information relevant to those areas.

53. Mr LEE Kit-wai responded that when carrying out the handover procedures with MTRC earlier on, it was found that apart from the materials for the notice board frame which complied with the specification, the remaining parts did not meet SDO’s requirements and

DFMC 22mins 19 hence SDO did not accept the notice board reprovisioned by MTRC. According to the discussion between the two parties, MTRC would reinstall the notice board and ensure that the remaining parts would comply with the specifications.

54. The Chairman concluded that the Committee started to review the SDC notice boards at the meeting held in November 2018 and had collected quite a number of Members’ views since then. He agreed that the space of the notice boards should be used properly. Since there was one more meeting before the expiry of the current term of SDC, he agreed on the proposed addition and removal of notice boards as set out in the paper. He also agreed that the remaining half of the space of the notice boards should be used by SDO on a trial basis for posting activities or information of SDO or LCSD. Whether the information to be posted on all of the notice boards should be consistent would be discussed by the next term of SDC. The Chairman asked SDO to follow up according to the proposals set out in the paper and review the arrangements as appropriate.

Agenda Item 7: Funding Applications of District Minor Works Projects (DFMC Paper No. 22/2019)

Appendix I: Project with HAD Consultants as works agent

55. Mr Tony CHAN briefed Members on the funding application with respect to “Construction of a rainshelter with seats near Yar Chee Villas on Chi Fu Road”, as detailed at Appendix I to DFMC Paper No. 22/2019.

Appendix II: Improvement Works Undertaken by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department

56. Mr Authur AU YEUNG briefed Members on the following funding applications, as detailed at Appendix II to DFMC Paper No. 22/2019:

(a) Improvement works to Southern District San Wai Village Sitting-out Area;

(b) Greening improvement work in some sections of the Seaview Promenade in (compensatory planting work after damages caused by Typhoon “Mangkhut”); and

DFMC 22mins 20 (c) Reforming of the platform and greening work at Big Wave Bay Beach

57. The Committee approved a total allocation of $2,949,900 for implementing all the items stated at the Appendices to the DFMC paper (i.e. projects stated in paragraphs 55 to 56 above).

Agenda Item 8: Proposed District Minor Works Projects in 2019 (DFMC Paper No. 23/2019)

58. Mr Tony CHAN briefly presented the 16 items of DMW proposals and their priorities as discussed and recommended for DFMC’s endorsement in principle by the Working Group on DMW Projects with details given in Appendix II to DFMC Paper No. 23/2019:

Priority Project Title

(1) Replacement of existing railings at Ap Lei Chau Praya with Type II railings; (2) Installation of Type II railings at a side of footpath and staircase near Manly House in Ap Lei Chau and removal of chain-link fencing; (3) Improvement works to staircase near the bus terminus at Ap Lei Chau Main Street; (4) Widening of footpath between Houses from No. 33A to 34B and the drainage near in Pokfulam Village and repaving it with anti-skid materials; (5) Improvement works to the trail connecting Deep Water Bay Road near Wong Nai Chung Gap and Island Road; (6) Improvement works to the trail connecting Cape D’Aguilar Road and Beach; (7) Improvement works to the trail connecting South Bay Beach and Chung Hom Kok Road; (8) Installation of signages along the coastal trail and pavement between Stanley and Chai Wan;

DFMC 22mins 21 (9) Construction of facilities at Sitting-out Area at Aberdeen Main Road/Ap Lei Chau Bridge Flyover (10) Beautification to the railings at Ap Lei Chau Praya linking Ap Lei Chau Waterfront Promenade and the roundabout near Sham Wan Towers; (11) Construction of a rainshelter near Marina South at Ap Lei Chau Drive; (12) Construction of a rainshelter near Sham Wan Towers at Ap Lei Chau Drive; (13) Construction of rainshelters outside Sham Wan Towers and Marina South at Ap Lei Chau Drive (East and West bounds); (14) Construction of a rainshelter at Lei Tung Estate Road near Yue On Court Road in Ap Lei Chau; (15) Replacement and extension of rainshelters (south and north bounds) at Wah Fu Road and Shek Pai Wan Road; and (16) Installation of hand railings and seats adjacent to the road from the restricted access at Lee Nam Road to Ap Lei Chau No. 2 Fresh Water Service Reservoir.

59. In consideration of the local residents’ safety, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH supported that priorities should be given to the implementation of “Replacement of existing railing at Ap Lei Chau Praya with Type II railings” and “Installation of Type II railings at a side of footpath and staircase near Manly House in Ap Lei Chau and removal of chain-link fencing”.

60. The Committee endorsed in principle the items stated at Appendix II to the paper and their priorities (i.e. items (1) to (16) in paragraph 58 above), and noted the arrangements of works agents for the projects concerned. The Committee agreed that priorities should be given to immediate implementation of “Replacement of existing railing at Ap Lei Chau Praya with Type II railings” and “Installation of Type II railings at a side of footpath and staircase near Manly House in Ap Lei Chau and removal of chain-link fencing”, in consideration of the local residents’ safety.

DFMC 22mins 22 Part II – Items for Information

Agenda Item 9: Report of the 16th Meeting of the Working Group on District Minor Works Projects held on 23 May 2019 (DFMC Paper No. 24/2019)

61. The Committee noted the report.

Agenda Item 10: Report of the 16th Meeting of the Working Group on Community Halls / Community Centres and Libraries Management held on 23 May 2019 (DFMC Paper No. 25/2019)

62. The Committee noted the report.

Agenda Item 11: Any Other Business

63. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa suggested advancing the discussion of “Funding Applications of District Minor Works Projects” and “Proposed District Minor Works Projects” at subsequent meetings. As the Committee meeting was held right after the meeting of the Working Group on DMW Projects, such an arrangement could enable the relevant departmental representatives to leave earlier after the discussion of these two agenda items.

64. The Chairman agreed with the arrangement and asked the Secretariat to note the above comment.

Agenda Item 12: Date of Next Meeting

65. The Chairman informed the meeting that the 23rd DFMC meeting would be held at the SDC Conference Room on Thursday, 19 September 2019 afternoon, right after the meeting for the Working Group on District Minor Works Projects.

66. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

DFMC 22mins 23

Secretariat, Southern District Council September 2019

DFMC 22mins 24