Yuen Long District(Open in New Window)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appendix III - M Yuen Long District Summaries of Written Representations Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations 1 M02 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Shui Pin to move Shui Pin Tsuen and because the resultant population of Villa by the Park from M09 M02 would be 23,348, which M09 – to M02. exceeds the upper permissible limit Ping Shan (+35.79%). South 2 M05 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Tai Kiu to move Hop Yick Plaza, because the resultant population of Kui Fat Building or nearby M06 would be 23,268, which M06 – old residential buildings exceeds the upper permissible limit Fung from M05 to M06. (+35.33%). Cheung 3 M12 – 5 These representations The supporting views are noted. Tin Shing support the demarcation proposals for this DCCA. 4 M13 – 3 These representations The supporting views are noted. Shui Oi support the demarcation proposals for these 11 M14 – DCCAs. Shui Wah M15 – Chung Wah M16 – Yuet Yan M17 – Fu Yan M18 – Yat Chak M19 – Tin Heng M20 – Wang Yat Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations M22 – Kingswood South M23 – Tin Yiu M24 – Tsz Yau 5 M12 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Tin Shing to re-delineate Tin Yau because the resultant population of Court, Tin Yiu Estate and the proposed Yiu Yau DCCA and M23 – Tin Tsz Estate in M12, M23 the proposed Tin Tsz DCCA would Tin Yiu and M24 according to the exceed the permissible limits as 1999 DCCA boundaries, ie follows: M24 – Yiu Yau (formerly M12), Yiu Yau: 39,252 (+128.29%) Tsz Yau Tin Yiu (formerly M13) and Tin Tsz: 12,860 (-25.21%) Tin Tsz (formerly M18). 6 M13 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Shui Oi to move Shui Sum House because the resultant population of from M13 to M14 because: M14 would be 23,416, which M14 – (a) Shui Sum House exceeds the upper permissible limit Shui Wah belongs to Tin Shui (1) (+36.19%). Estate in M14 and shares the same building management with the other 5 blocks of the Estate; (b) Shui Sum House is closely related to Shui Lung House/Shui Chuen House of Tin Shui (1) Estate in terms of community ties and geographical link, and the only access to Shui Shum House is through Shui Lung House/Shui Chuen House; (c) for the past two DCs elections, the residents of the 6 blocks were in the same constituency and went to the same polling station to vote; Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations and (d) the above proposals would bring about a better shape for M13 and M14. 7 M13 – 1 The representation proposes: The representation is not accepted Shui Oi (a) the same as item 6; and because the resultant population of (b) moving Wah Yuet M15 would be 23,093, which M14 – House of Tin Wah exceeds the upper permissible limit Shui Wah Estate from M14 to (+34.31%). M15. M15 – Chung Wah 8 M13 – 3 These representations These representations are not Shui Oi propose the following: accepted because the resultant (a)(i) moving Shui Sum population of M15 would be 29,240, M14 – House of Tin Shui (1) which far exceeds the upper Shui Wah Estate and Shui Fai permissible limit (+70.06%). House of Tin Shui (2) M15 – Estate from M13 to Chung M14, and transferring Wah Wah Sui House, Wah Yau House and Wah Yuet House of Tin Wah Estate from M14 to M15 so as to keep the boundaries of the two existing DCCAs, namely Shui Oi (formerly M14) and Tin Shui (formerly M15) unchanged; (ii) renaming M14 as Tin Shui; and (iii) combining Tin Wah Estate in M14 and M15 and Tin Chung Court in M15 to form one DCCA; and (b) same as proposal (a) except moving Shui Choi House of Tin Shui (1) Estate from Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations M13 to M14, and retaining Shui Fai House of Tin Shui (2) Estate in M13. 9 M14 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Shui Wah to split M14 into 2 DCCAs, because the resultant population of namely, Tin Shui DCCA and the proposed Tin Wah DCCA would Tin Wah DCCA. be 12,835, which exceeds the lower permissible limit (-25.35%). 10 M14 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Shui Wah to group the whole of Tin because: Wah Estate in M14 and M15 (i) if a separate DCCA is M15 – (total of 7 blocks) into one delineated for Tin Wah Estate, Chung DCCA because: the resultant population would Wah (a) community ties and be 12,835, which exceeds the identification should be lower permissible limit preserved; and (-25.35%); (b) the split of the Estate (ii) if part of Tin Wah Estate (ie into 2 DCCAs would Wah Choi House, Wah Long confuse electors. House, Wah Yat House and Ancillary Facilities Block) in M15 has to be transferred to M14 to keep the whole of the Estate intact, the resultant population of M14 would be 24,972, which exceeds the upper permissible limit (+45.24%); and (iii) if the other part of Tin Wah Estate (ie Wah Sui House, Wah Yau House and Wah Yuet House) in M14 has to be transferred to M15 to keep the whole Estate intact, the resultant population of M15 would be 29,240, which also exceeds the upper permissible limit (+70.06%). 11 M15 – 1 The representation proposes The representation is not accepted Chung the following: because: Wah (a) delineating Tin Chung Court to form one for proposal (a) M16 – DCCA, which should be although the resultant population of Yuet Yan renamed as Tin Chung; the proposed Tin Chung DCCA Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations M17 – and would still be within the permissible Fu Yan (b) grouping Tin Fu Court limits, there is little scope for in M17 and Tin Yuet adjustment for Tin Chung Estate to Estate in M16 into one form a DCCA on its own because DCCA, which should be the adjacent DCCAs will then be renamed as Yuet Fu. unduly affected by the suggested change and their corresponding populations will exceed the permissible limits; and for proposal (b) (i) the resultant population of the proposed DCCA of Yuet Fu would be 28,544, which far exceeds the upper permissible limit (+66.01%). (ii) there are supporting views for the demarcation proposals for M17 (see item 13). 12 M16 – 3 These representations These representations are not Yuet Yan propose: accepted because: M17 – (a) the same as item 11(b); for proposal (a) Fu Yan and see item 11 (b). (b) grouping Tin Chak M18 – Estate in M18 and Tin for proposal (b) Yat Chak Yan Court in M17 into a (i) the resultant population of the DCCA, which should be proposed DCCA of Chak Yan renamed as Chak Yan. would be 24,474, which exceeds the upper permissible limit (+42.34%). (ii) there are supporting views for the demarcation proposals for M17 (see item 13). 13 M16 – 6 These representations The supporting views are noted. Yuet Yan support the demarcation proposals for M17 and M17 – object to any other proposals Fu Yan for combining Tin Fu Court in M17 and Tin Yuet Estate in M16 to form a DCCA. Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations 14 M18 – 3 These representations These representations are not Yat Chak propose to group Tin Yat accepted because the resultant Estate in M18 and M20 and population of the suggested DCCA M20 – Grandeur Terrace in M20 would be 24,346, which exceeds the Wang Yat into a DCCA. upper permissible limit (+41.60%). 15 M19 – 4 These representations These representations are accepted Tin Heng propose to allocate Heng because: Tung House and Heng Wan M20 – House of Tin Heng Estate (i) the community integrity could Wang Yat from M20 to M19 so that the be maintained in that the whole whole Estate (14 blocks) is of the Tin Heng Estate would be kept within M19 because: put in the same DCCA; and (a) the separation of the 2 (ii) a better population distribution blocks from the rest of would be achieved in M20, from the Estate would hamper 20,156 (+17.23%) to 17,301 the community integrity (+0.62%); although the resultant and create population of M19 would be inconvenience to the 21,913, which would exceed the residents of these two upper permissible limit blocks in seeking (+27.45%). assistance from their DC member; and (b) the resultant populations of both M19 and M20 would not exceed the permissible limits. 16 M21 – 5 These representations The supporting views are noted. Kingswood support the demarcation North proposals for this DCCA. 17 M22 – 6 These representations The supporting views are noted. Kingswood support keeping Locwood South Court, Sherwood Court and Chestwood Court within the same DCCA. 18 M22 – 5 These representations These representations are not Kingswood propose to move Tin Lai accepted because the resultant South Court from M22 to M24 to population of M24 would be 26,215, preserve its community ties. which exceeds the upper permissible M24 – limit (+52.47%). Tsz Yau Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations 19 M23 – 3 These representations These representations are not Tin Yiu propose that: accepted because: M24 – (a) Yiu Hing House and for proposal (a) Tsz Yau Yiu Shing House of Tin although the resultant population of Yiu (1) Estate in M23 the proposed Tin Yiu DCCA would merge with Tin Yiu (2) still be within the permissible limits Estate (in M24) to form (+11.81%), there is little scope for M23; and these parts of Tin Yiu Estates to form a DCCA on their own because (b) Yiu Foo House, Yiu this would result in some of the Hong House, Yiu Man DCCAs in the northern part of Tin House and Yiu Yat Shui Wai exceeding the permissible House of Tin Yiu (1) limits.