Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the District Development and Housing Committee (DDHC) Southern District Council (2016-2019) (SDC)

Date: 23 September 2019 Time: 2:30 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 LAM Kai-fai, MH (Chairman of DDHC) Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH (Vice-Chairlady of DDHC) Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Mr AU Nok-hin Mr CHAI Man-hon Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr LO Kin-hei Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Ms YAM Pauline Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN Mr LAW Kam-hung Ms LAW Siu-fong

Absent with Apologies: Mr CHOI Tsung-mang Ms TAM May-bo, Jeanette Dr WONG Yat-lung, Philip

1 Secretary: Mr LEE Lok-him, Milton Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance: Mrs MA CHOW Pui-fun, Dorothy, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department 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 CHEUNG Wai-chun, William Executive Officer I (District Management), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHOW Man-hong, Mann Senior Town Planner/HK 5, Planning Department Ms TSE Wing-sheung, Doris Senior Estate Surveyor/South (Acting) (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department Mr AU YEUNG Wai-ming Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Southern, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms TENG Ka-yee, Carrie Engineer/1 (South), Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms LO Kit-sheung Housing Manager/HKI7, Housing Department Ms WONG Cho-kwan Engineer/HK (Distribution 3), Water Supplies Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis District Planning Officer/Hong Kong, Planning Department Mr CHOW Man-hong, Mann Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong 5, Planning Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Mr SO Wing-kin Engineer/Southern 1, Transport Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Mr WAI Kam-fat, Danny Chief Health Inspector (Southern) 1, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

2

Ms LI Lai-ha, Liz Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Members and standing government representatives to the meeting.

2. The Chairman invited Members to note that to facilitate smooth proceeding of the meeting, according to Order 15(3) of the SDC Standing Orders, all persons attending or sitting in the meeting should switch off all devices which might emit sound, and should not use any telecommunications devices for conversation during the course of the meeting. Each Member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. According to the Secretary’s estimation, the meeting would finish at 5:10 p.m. at its earliest. Members should inform the Secretariat staff if they had to leave the meeting early.

Items for Discussion

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 22nd DDHC Meeting held on 18 July 2019

3. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the aforesaid meeting had been circulated to all Members and relevant government department representatives. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.

4. The minutes were confirmed by the Committee.

Agenda Item 2: Proposed Amendments to the Approved Pok Fu Lam Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H10/17 (Item raised by Planning Department) (DDHC Paper No. 22/2019)

(Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr FUNG Se-goun and Ms YAM Pauline joined the meeting at 2:44 p.m., 2:45 p.m., 2:52 p.m. and 2:57 p.m. respectively.)

3

5. The Chairman welcomed Mr KAU Kin-hong, Louis, District Planning Officer/Hong Kong and Mr CHOW Man-hong, Mann, Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong 5 of the Planning Department (PlanD) to the meeting.

6. The Chairman invited the representatives of PlanD to briefly introduce the paper.

7. Mr Louis KAU said that PlanD submitted the proposed amendments to the Pok Fu Lam Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H10/17 (the OZP) to the Metro Planning Committee (MPC) of the Town Planning Board (TPB) for consideration on 6 September 2019 and MPC agreed that the proposed amendments to the OZP are suitable for public inspection under section 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance. The amendments would be gazetted and exhibited for public inspection on 27 September 2019 for two months.

8. Mr Mann CHOW, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, briefed Members on the proposed amendments to the OZP, mainly the proposed amendments made to facilitate Cyberport Expansion, deletion of the obsolete alignment of Route 7 and the associated proposed amendments, and some technical amendments to the OZP and its Notes.

9. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP raised the following comments and enquiries:

Proposed Amendment Items

(a) Cyberport Expansion (Amendment Item A1):

(i) a Member said that according to the Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong, it was recommended that the height of buildings in any proposed development along the waterfront should be lower than that of inland buildings to form a building compound with a gradual height profile, thereby minimising obstruction of views caused to inland buildings by those on the waterfront. However, the proposed building height of the Cyberport Expansion was not in line with this recommendation;

4

(ii) a Member commented that the Cyberport Expansion would have an impact on local traffic. However, there was a lack of communication among the Transport Department (TD), the Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited (HKCMCL), and this Committee/the community. It resulted in discrepancy between the planned traffic improvement works and the residents’ expectations. He hoped that PlanD would explain whether the planned traffic improvement works had already been finalised or consultation was still required;

(iii) a Member worried that the provision of a car park and access road at grade would result in a reduction of public open space. He thus requested for provision of the said facilities underground;

(b) Pieces of land along the waterfront of Waterfall Bay and its park (Amendment Item B1):

(i) a Member enquired whether the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate would be affected by the rezoning of several pieces of land adjoining the existing Waterfall Bay Park to “Open Space” (“O”);

(c) Area to the south of Wah Kwai Estate and Ka Lung Court (Amendment Item B2):

(i) a Member welcomed PlanD’s proposal of rezoning the area to the south of Wah Kwai Estate and Ka Lung Court to “O”. This area served as a tree transplanting site during the construction of the South Island Line (East). It was currently under the management of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) and would be handed over to the Government in 2021. According to the past experience, she anticipated that the Housing Department (HD) would then take up the management of the site. However, she considered that as the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) put a heavier emphasis on the management of park facilities, such as provision of playgrounds for children and fitness equipment for elders, it would be better for LCSD to take up the management of the site. She understood that procedurally, HD might be required to take up the management of the site first after handover of the site to the

5

Government, but she hoped that it would be put under the management of LCSD ultimately;

(d) Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel Western Portal (Amendment Item C3):

(i) a Member said that the site of the western portal of Hong Kong West drainage tunnel would be rezoned to “Government, Institution or Community” (“G/IC”). She enquired about the actual use of the site;

(e) Excision of sea areas along Sandy Bay and Waterfall Bay (Amendment Item E):

(i) a Member enquired on the reasons for excising the sea areas along Sandy Bay and Waterfall Bay from the OZP, for example, whether environmental factors such as changes in the shoreline or reclamation necessitated this amendment;

Other Proposed Amendments to the OZP

(f) a Member said that SDC had conducted a Consultancy Study for the Promenade from Kennedy Town to Aberdeen and proposed constructing a promenade to connect Kennedy Town and Cyberport. The implementation of the proposal put forth in the consultancy study might be affected by the proposed amendments to the OZP. The Member commented that PlanD should consider the development of the promenade when mapping out the long-term planning for the Southern District. Another Member said that besides the aforementioned consultancy study, funding had been granted under the District Minor Works programme of SDC for conducting a number of works for connecting the waterfront of Pok Fu Lam. He was disappointed that the proposed amendments to the OZP and its Explanatory Statement as well as the papers submitted to the MPC did not reflect SDC’s views on enhancing the connectivity of the waterfront. Nevertheless, he noted that the link between Cyberport Waterfront Park and Sandy Bay was mentioned in paragraph 7.7.2 of the Explanatory Statement of the OZP;

(g) a Member said that the obsolete alignment of the Route 7 should have

6

been deleted earlier. The Member commented that the proposed planning design with coastal roads as axes was outdated and therefore supported the amendment. Also, the Member said it was fortunate that the Government did not implement the project concerned in the Southern District, or else the residents could not enjoy the waterfront;

(h) a Member said that the Government was unlikely to develop Route 7 again in future. Instead, the Government would focus on implementing the South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) project. As it was not necessary to construct a carriageway on the site concerned for the development of Route 7, he recommended that the relevant departments should construct a promenade for public use. If a coastal walking trail or cycle track could be constructed to link up the waterfront of Wah Kwai Estate and Kennedy Town, it would help boost the overall image of Hong Kong;

(i) a Member said that PlanD proposed to rezone some sites of the OZP as “G/IC”. The Member enquired about the types of facilities which could be set up on these sites after rezoning and whether the land use was already restricted at the present stage. For example, he enquired whether construction of obnoxious facilities was forbidden or approval from TPB should be secured for such purpose. Another Member commented that PlanD proposed to rezone some sites of the OZP from “Road” to “G/IC”. It showed that the Government attached great importance to community development;

Other Comments

(j) a Member said that HKCMCL had consulted the Committee on the Cyberport Expansion Project and received support from the Committee. However, the Committee requested that the implementation of SIL(W) must be confirmed. He enquired whether PlanD would relay this strong demand of the Committee to TPB. Another Member enquired whether PlanD had reserved sufficient land for the future development of SIL(W); and

(k) a Member said that while the Government had shelved the Route 7 project, the railway could not replace roads completely, e.g. roads were essential to coaches and goods vehicles. Also, in view of the upcoming East

7

Lantau Metropolis development, the vehicular flow to and from the Southern District via the west of Hong Kong Island would increase. He thus enquired of PlanD about the future traffic and transport planning.

10. Mr Louis KAU gave a consolidated response as follows:

Proposed Amendment Items

(a) Cyberport Expansion (Amendment Item A1):

(i) the Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong recommended that buildings along waterfronts should have lower height than buildings located inland. As for the Cyberport Expansion Project, it was subject to a maximum building height of 65 metres above Principal Datum, while the “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Cyberport” zone behind it was subject to a maximum building height of 85 metres above Principal Datum. As such, a varying building height profile had been adopted. While some Members said that the Arcade, Cyberport would have a lower height than the extended portion to be constructed in future, the Cyberport development as a whole had adopted a varying building height profile, according to the maximum building heights stipulated in the OZP;

(ii) regarding the traffic impact, the consultant of HKCMCL had submitted the traffic impact assessment report which included several proposed road improvement schemes. Some Members had expressed their views on the proposals in detail. PlanD would forward the views to HKCMCL for consideration and discussion with TD. Since the proposed road improvement schemes were still in the design stage, gazettal of and public consultation on the projects might be required in accordance with the Road (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance when the works were implemented, depending on their scope and the actual needs;

(b) Cyberport Waterfront Park (Amendment Item A2):

8

(i) the Cyberport Expansion Project would occupy an area of about 1 ha within the existing space of Cyberport Waterfront Park, while HKCMCL had undertaken to provide at-grade public open space of not less than 5 000 square metres as well as public open space of about 4 000 square metres on different floors of the extended portion. Therefore, the Cyberport Expansion Project would result in a loss of only several hundred square metres of public open space, which would pose a minor impact on the entire public open space. HKCMCL had also undertaken to enhance the existing public open space so as to provide better facilities for public use;

(ii) PlanD was of the view that waterfront areas should be open for public use wherever possible. Therefore, HKCMCL proposed to provide a 15-metre wide promenade and connect the existing public open space to the planned “O” zone in the north so as to form a connected waterfront promenade. Besides, among the various proposed amendments to the OZP, PlanD had rezoned some coastal areas to “O” to reflect the aspirations of the public and SDC as well as the planning intention of connecting the waterfront of Pok Fu Lam. The implementation of the aforesaid planning intention would depend on detailed study and the resource allocation of the relevant departments;

(c) Pieces of land along the waterfront of Waterfall Bay and its park (Amendment Item B1):

(i) the proposed amendment to the OZP would not affect the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate;

(d) Area to the south of Wah Kwai Estate and Ka Lung Court (Amendment Item B2):

(i) the rezoning of the area to the south of Wah Kwai Estate and Ka Lung Court to “O” would only affect land use planning. The OZP imposed no restrictions on the management rights and obligations. PlanD was aware of the residents’ demand for leisure facilities. Regarding a Member’s suggestion that the area should be managed

9

by LCSD in future, PlanD would forward the view to the relevant departments after the 2-month public consultation period;

(e) Hong Kong West Drainage Tunnel Western Portal (Amendment Item C3):

(i) rezoning the site at the western portal of Hong Kong West drainage tunnel to “G/IC” was to reflect its current use as a drainage tunnel portal by the Drainage Services Department (DSD);

(f) Excision of sea areas along Sandy Bay and Waterfall Bay (Amendment Item E):

(i) the sea areas along Sandy Bay and Waterfall Bay were originally reserved for the construction of the proposed Route 7. As the Government had decided not to implement the alignment as shown on the OZP, there was no need to reserve the sea areas for the construction of roads, hence it was proposed to excise relevant area from the OZP;

Other Proposed Amendments to the OZP

(g) most rezoning of sites to “G/IC” in the proposed amendment items was to reflect the existing uses of the sites, except the following two: (i) a site at Sandy Bay was reserved for a proposed school development (e.g. international school) at the request of the Education Bureau (EDB), but there was no implementation timetable; and (ii) a site at Tin Wan Praya Road near Wah Kwai Estate was a temporary works area of DSD and there was no specific proposed use of the site. Under the OZP, uses always permitted in “G/IC” zones did not include obnoxious facilities. Before the construction of such facilities as sewage treatment or filtration facilities, refuse transfer stations, etc., TPB’s approval of the relevant planning application must be obtained first. Under the existing mechanism, the OZP could ensure sites zoned as “G/IC” would not cause unnecessary nuisance to the neighbouring residents;

Other Comments

10

(h) when submitting the proposed amendments to the OZP to TPB, PlanD had relayed the SDC’s views, including the motions on the Cyberport Expansion Project passed by DDHC earlier on which requested taking forward the construction of SIL(W) as soon as possible. TPB had also noted the SDC’s concern over the impact of the Cyberport Expansion Project on the neighbouring pedestrian and traffic connections. Upon confirmation of the construction of SIL(W) in future and should the relevant ancillary facilities, such as air outlets, exhaust outlets, etc., be required, PlanD would make corresponding arrangements on the OZP; and

(i) when exploring the development of East Lantau Metropolis, the Government would take into consideration the traffic connection between East Lantau Metropolis and Hong Kong Island. SDC’s views would be consulted as appropriate.

11. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr LAW Kam-hung raised the following comments and enquiries:

Proposed Amendment Items

(a) Cyberport Expansion (Amendment Item A1):

(i) a Member asked PlanD to respond to the comment that the heights of buildings at the proposed Cyberport 5 ran counter to the development recommendations given in the Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong;

(ii) reiterating that the provision of an at-grade car park and road link would affect the Waterfront Park users, a Member requested that the facilities should be provided underground;

(b) A site at Sandy Bay (Amendment Item C1):

(i) a Member said that as a number of local school sponsoring bodies had expressed views on whether an additional international school should be established in the Southern District, he wished to know

11

the rationale behind PlanD’s recommendation of the reservation of a site at Sandy Bay for the development of an international school and whether PlanD had considered and compared other development uses, such as reserving the site for development by the University of Hong Kong;

(ii) another Member said that there were several schools in the vicinity of the site, which was located at a dead-end road. Without the support of railway, establishing a new international school would add to the traffic burden of the area. He thus considered it absurd to reserve the site for an international school. Moreover, the site included part of the waterfront area of Sandy Bay. As SDC intended to construct a promenade at the waterfront area of Sandy Bay, he suggested to reserve a waterfront area along Sandy Bay and to Telegraph Bay for the future promenade;

Other Proposed Amendments to the OZP

(c) a Member said that in view of the idea of public enjoyment of the waterfront as advocated by some members of the public, he suggested reserving part of the waterfront site for the future development of a promenade, which could facilitate connection of the various waterfront areas in the district and development of a complete promenade, so that the public could have more opportunities to enjoy the waterfront;

(d) using the approved Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K22/6 as an example, a Member said that TPB had imposed definite restrictions on area shown as “Comprehensive Development Area” which required reservation of some areas adjoining the waterfront for the construction of promenades. He considered that the requirement could serve as a frame of reference. TPB should impose similar conditions or restrictions on future proposed developments within the area covered by the OZP to ensure that the relevant government departments or project proponents would provide promenades for public enjoyment when implementing the development projects. Moreover, when planning for the connection of promenades in different sites, PlanD could draw reference from the past SDC papers and the ideas of the proposed projects that had been discussed by SDC for the alignment of the promenade;

12

(e) a Member said that fellow Members and the PlanD representative who attended this meeting would vacate the office someday, while the OZP would continue to exist and serve as a planning guideline for the district. He thus requested that it should be explicitly specified in the proposed amendments to the OZP that the waterfront area must be used for developing a promenade in future. Another Member reiterated that the site originally reserved for the construction of Route 7 should be rezoned for the purpose of constructing a promenade; and

(f) a Member enquired whether the OZP had included all waterfront sites and whether there were specified land uses and planning intentions for these sites, such as pumping stations and sewage infrastructure, etc. He was worried that there were still some sites without planning intentions in the waterfront area.

12. Mr Louis KAU gave a consolidated response as follows:

Proposed Amendment Items

(a) Cyberport Expansion (Amendment Item A1):

(i) while some Members mentioned that the Arcade, Cyberport had a lower building height than the building in the extended portion to be constructed in future, the Cyberport development on the whole was higher than the extended portion. The overall design was thus a varying building height profile, in line with the Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong;

(ii) PlanD would relay a Member’s suggestion of providing an underground car park and road link to HKCMCL for consideration and study;

(b) A site at Sandy Bay (Amendment Item C1):

(i) PlanD rezoned a site at Sandy Bay to “G/IC” and reserved it for the proposed school development at the request of EDB. According to the established mechanism, PlanD would review the site reservation

13

after three years and the bureau and department concerned would be enquired whether the site reservation was still necessary. If not, PlanD would release the site for other uses;

Other Proposed Amendments to the OZP

(c) Before any proposed development restrictions are imposed on the OZP by PlanD, comprehensive study should be conducted. Since relevant departments had not conducted a detailed technical study for the alignment and design of the promenade at Sandy Bay, it was currently difficult to explicitly specify the amount of land to be reserved for the alignment of a promenade on the OZP. He appreciated Members’ comments on and aspirations for the connectivity of promenade and emphasised that PlanD agreed to open waterfront areas for public enjoyment wherever possible. If it was confirmed that the site at Sandy Bay would be used for school development, PlanD would request specification in the conditions of land grant that suitable area had to be reserved for a waterfront promenade. However, the alignment and design of the waterfront promenade had yet to be confirmed; and

(d) in response to a Member’s suggestion of rezoning the sites originally reserved for the construction of Route 7 directly for the purpose of constructing a waterfront promenade, he said that as relevant departments had not conducted technical study on the suggestion, the sites could not be rezoned as suggested at present.

13. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that PlanD had not responded to his concern that the development of an international school at a site at Sandy Bay would further add to the traffic burden of the area.

14. Mr AU Nok-hin said while he understood that PlanD reserved the site for the proposed international school at the request of EDB, he was dissatisfied that EDB always tried to seek land in the Southern District for establishing international schools whenever it failed to identify suitable sites in other districts. He was of the view that education should not be commercialised. Establishing an international school in Pok Fu Lam would aggravate the local traffic burden directly. It was also expected that the proposed Lantau Tomorrow project would bring additional vehicular flow on the western part of Hong Kong Island. The Government should thus duly consider the

14 traffic impact caused by the establishment of an international school. Moreover, some local schools located in the district were of the view that the establishment of an international school would give rise to enrolment difficulties of local schools. In this connection, he urged PlanD to relay his comments to EDB.

15. Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP said that before EDB requested reservation of a site for the proposed international school, it should consult SDC and explain the related traffic impact and mitigation measures. As a matter of fact, apart from a theme park located in the Southern District, more than one quarter of the international schools in Hong Kong were located in the Southern District. The vehicular flow generated had posed a heavy burden on the local traffic. In view of the public housing developments in Pok Fu Lam South which would result in an increase of residential units by 11 900 and population by 35 000, as well as other development projects in the district, he considered it unwise to establish another international school in the Southern District. Moreover, many students residing in other districts studied in international schools located in the Southern District, which meant that the international schools in the Southern District did not exclusively serve the residents in the district. He considered that this was an unreasonable planning.

16. Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP further said that SDC had conducted the Consultancy Study for the Promenade from Kennedy Town to Aberdeen before and forwarded the study report to the relevant departments for consideration. He could not understand why PlanD said that a study has to be conducted before reserving a site on the OZP for the development of a waterfront promenade. He hoped that PlanD could make reference to the aforesaid study report and then reserve a site for the promenade. The Secretariat would provide the study report for PlanD’s reference in due course.

(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat provided PlanD with the report of the Consultancy Study for the Promenade from Kennedy Town to Aberdeen on 24 September 2019).

17. Mr Louis KAU responded that the development in Pok Fu Lam was governed by the Pok Fu Lam Moratorium, which was an administrative measure. In case the site was confirmed for school development in future, the policy bureau and project proponent concerned had to assess its associated traffic impact. He believed that EDB would consult SDC regarding the matter in a timely manner and reiterated that the rezoning was to prepare for the long-term land use at EDB’s request. There

15 was no definite plan and implementation schedule at the current stage.

18. In closing, the Chairman said the following:

(a) PlanD’s proposed amendments to the OZP were mainly to facilitate the Cyberport Expansion and make associated adjustments to the planning scheme boundary and amendments to land use zonings. He considered it a timely act for PlanD to consult DDHC on the proposed amendments to the OZP at its last meeting within the current term of SDC. Otherwise, it would complete the public consultation without consulting SDC. PlanD’s timely consultation showed respect to SDC. He urged PlanD to relay DDHC’s views to TPB;

(b) DDHC did not object to the proposed amendments relating to the Cyberport Expansion Project and other technical amendments to the OZP. But several Members had expressed concern over a number of issues, including the problems generated by the proposed international school project which SDC strongly opposed. He requested PlanD to note DDHC’s comments, which should be relayed to the relevant bureau and department;

(c) he was pleased to learn that PlanD would give a holistic consideration on connecting the promenades at the waterfront area of Pok Fu Lam and hoped that PlanD would make reference to the recommendations given in the report of the Consultancy Study for the Promenade from Kennedy Town to Aberdeen. Even though there would be staff turnover in PlanD, it must ensure that the results of previous studies conducted by SDC would be preserved and continue to be followed up; and

(d) given that the SIL(W) was not mentioned in the proposed amendments to the OZP, he hoped that PlanD would make corresponding arrangement in the proposed amendments so as to take forward the implementation of the railway project.

Agenda Item 3: Amendment to Land Licence of Holy Spirit Seminary and

16

Tenancy Agreement of the Neighbouring Shipyards to Enhance Connectivity between the Communities in Sham Wan and Ocean Court (Item raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr LO Kin-hei) (DDHC Paper No. 23/2019)

19. The Chairman welcomed Mr SO Wing-kin, Engineer/Southern 1 of TD to the meeting.

20. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr LO Kin-hei to briefly introduce the paper.

21. With the aid of PowerPoint presentation, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefed Members on the paper with details summarised as follows:

(a) if the public walked to Ocean Court from Sham Wan via Nam Long Shan Road and Heung Yip Path, it would take about 30 minutes. If they walked to Ocean Court from Sham Wan along Shum Wan Pier Drive and the waterfront, it would take about 10 minutes only. However, as three shipyards were operating under short term tenancies (STTs) on the waterfront site between Ocean Court and Jumbo Aberdeen Pier, the public were unable to walk to and fro between Sham Wan and Ocean Court directly. Considering that SDC had endorsed funding for the District Minor Works (DMW) project “Construction of a Sitting-out Area nearby the Sea Shore at Shum Wan” in which a basketball court near Shum Wan Pier would be converted into a children’s playground, he commented that if a footpath could be provided on the waterfront site concerned, it could bring convenience to the residents around Sham Wan;

(b) at a meeting of the Southern District East Area Committee (EAC) in June 2019, he put forth three proposals for study with a view to constructing a proper footpath for public use, namely, (i) relocation of the shipyards; (ii) inclusion of terms in the STTs requiring the persons-in-charge of the shipyards to open up part of the shipyard areas for provision of a public access road; and (iii) if the above proposals were not feasible, consideration could be given to constructing a footpath between the shipyards and Holy Spirit Seminary;

17

(c) according to preliminary observation, the area between the shipyards and Holy Spirit Seminary comprised mainly slopes. However, he was uncertain whether sufficient space was available for constructing a footpath there. He hoped that the Lands Department (LandsD) would provide the Committee with the relevant information including the relevant drawings in due course. He also hoped that TD and the Highways Department would conduct a technical feasibility study accordingly; and

(d) after he raised the said proposals at the EAC meeting, the shipyards’ representatives expressed worries about the possible relocation of the shipyards and some members of the public were concerned that the traditional ship repair industry was dwindling. He understood these concerns. However, he also had to consider the needs of the public. Therefore, on the premise that the operation of the shipyards and Holy Spirit Seminary would not be affected, he proposed constructing a footpath for the sake of greatest public interest.

22. Briefing Members on TD’s response, Mr SO Wing-kin said that TD had no objection in principle to the proposed footpath connecting Sham Wan and Ocean Court. However, the neighbouring facilities should be taken into full consideration, including the operation of the shipyards and Holy Spirit Seminary as well as other tenancy arrangements. If a feasibility study on constructing a footpath was to be conducted by relevant government departments or SDC, TD would give advice on traffic engineering aspect accordingly.

23. Briefing Members on LandsD’s response, Ms Doris TSE said that the subject proposal involved three STTs for boatyard and storage, and a Government land licence (GLL) granted to Holy Spirit Seminary for amenity purpose. Taking into account the present use of STTs and GLL, the preferred option was to make full use of GLL for the construction of the proposed footpath, subject to feasible alignment and detailed design of the same to be provided by relevant government departments. If the subject proposal was endorsed by SDC, and the implementation, future management and maintenance responsibilities were agreed to be taken up by relevant government departments, LandsD would assist the project proponent to negotiate with the Licensee for re-delivery of the required land for the implementation of the subject proposal.

18

24. The Chairman enquired whether LandsD was more inclined to discuss resumption of the required land with Holy Spirit Seminary, rather than amending the STTs of the shipyards if the said proposal was to be implemented.

25. Ms Doris TSE said that in view of the operational needs of the shipyards, as well as the need to secure policy support from relevant policy bureaux and departments in order to amend the STTs of the shipyards, LandsD was more inclined to discuss re-delivery of the required land covered by GLL with Holy Spirit Seminary. As far as land management was concerned, LandsD could study the re-delivery of part of the site covered by GLL of Holy Spirit Seminary. However, it was vital that the alignment and detailed design of the proposed footpath was technically feasible.

26. Briefing Members on the response from PlanD, Mr Mann CHOW said that the proposed footpath fell within areas zoned “O”, “Green Belt” (“GB”) and “G/IC” on the approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/H15/33. According to the Covering Notes of the OZP, the provision of footpath was always permitted within “O”, “GB” and “G/IC” zones of the OZP. In this connection, PlanD had no objection to the proposed footpath.

27. Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr AU Lap-sing, MH, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH and Ms YAM Pauline raised the following comments and enquiries:

Connectivity between Sham Wan and Ocean Court

(a) several Members agreed that the construction of a footpath could bring convenience to the residents;

(b) a Member pointed out that due to the lack of proper road facilities and clear signs, many citizens travelling to and fro between Sham Wan and Ocean Court did not know that an access was available at the waterfront area concerned. Another Member said that he had visited the shipyards to conduct a site inspection on the nearby environment. He said that the access between the shipyards was not open for public use originally, and guessed that it was set up only for the convenience of the shipyards’ workers. He learnt that the shipyards would not prevent the public from

19

using the access under safe conditions;

(c) a Member said that MTRCL constructed a pedestrian bridge to link up Heung Yip Path and Ocean Court, the purpose of which was to encourage residents around Aberdeen to walk to MTR Wong Chuk Hang Station to take the MTR. The construction of the pedestrian bridge aroused public concern on the connectivity between Sham Wan and Ocean Court. The users of the pedestrian bridge were mainly people travelling to and from MTR Wong Chuk Hang Station, as well as citizens heading to Heung Yip Path to do exercises and those to Pet Garden for leisure purposes. The proposed construction of a footpath primarily aimed at benefitting the residents of Sham Wan. The Member anticipated that the pedestrian flow generated by the proposed footpath would be comparable to that of Heung Yip Path at present, and the overall pedestrian flow would not increase rapidly;

Impacts on the Shipyards

(d) several Members objected to relocation of the shipyards and making amendment to the shipyards’ STTs as proposed, and considered that it was essential to retain the shipyards and keep the tenancies unchanged. Under the premise that the operation of the shipyards would be unaffected and their tenancies untouched, they agreed that a study about constructing a footpath on the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary should be conducted;

(e) a Member said that the ship repair industry was declining. However, sampans operating around Jumbo Floating Restaurant and Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter relied heavily on the three shipyards for routine repair and maintenance at present, and these sampans played a major role in promoting the fishermen’s culture and tourism of the Southern District. Hence, it showed that the shipyards still had their unique value of existence. If the shipyards could not continue operation, it would not only affect the livelihood of workers in the ship repair industry, but also had an indirect impact on the livelihood of people engaging in marine-dependent businesses such as fishermen;

(f) citing the shipyard at Ap Lei Chau as an example, a Member pointed out

20

that amending the tenancy would cause operational difficulties to the shipyard. Another Member pointed out that the three shipyards were resettled in the site concerned by the Government in the past and their tenancies should not be amended;

(g) a Member emphasised that he recognised the importance of the shipyards to the marine-dependent businesses and fishermen’s culture in the Southern District. Hence, he did not request for full resumption of the land granted to Holy Spirit Seminary under GLL and the site where the three shipyards were located. Ultimately, the proposal of constructing a footpath might only involve repair of the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary with no impact on the shipyards at all. However, if the results of the detailed study showed that a small area of the shipyard site was required in order to construct the footpath, he hoped that the shipyards would consider working in tandem for the sake of public interest. Another Member reiterated that he did not wish to stir up antagonism among Holy Spirit Seminary, the shipyards and members of the public. The agenda item aimed to request the relevant government departments to conduct a feasibility study on constructing a footpath according to the Committee’s consensus;

(h) quoting the content of an interview conducted earlier with the person-in-charge of one of the shipyards, a Member said that sufficient space was vital to the operation of shipyard. Even if the shipyard area was slightly reduced, the operation might already be adversely affected. She commented that as the area required for constructing a footpath had yet to be ascertained, it was difficult to request the shipyards to promise to allocate part of their land at this stage;

(i) a Member said that procedures generating dust and odour such as paint-spraying and plastering would be carried out at the shipyards during operation. Also, heavy tools such as ropes would be used, which might cause inconvenience and unnecessary risk to passers-by. Thus, the Member was concerned whether the said location was suitable for the construction of a footpath. Another Member expressed concern as to whether the insurance obligations should be taken up by the Government or the shipyards if an accident happened after the commissioning of the proposed footpath;

21

(j) a Member said that according to the findings of an on-site inspection, the shipyards had a very limited area for operation. Thus, the proposal of allocating part of the shipyard site for constructing a footpath was not feasible. Besides, the land of the shipyards was a coastal site where the ground was very slippery. It was not suitable to serve as a footpath;

(k) a Member pointed out that the actual areas occupied by the shipyards were greater than the tenancy areas designated by LandsD. The Member said that the persons-in-charge of the shipyards should consider public interest, and take the initiative to allocate land beyond the tenancy areas for public use without involving SDC and government departments. Otherwise, the fire safety, emergency accesses and tenancy areas of the shipyards should be placed under close scrutiny;

Implementing and Following up the Proposal

(l) a Member said that if the construction of a footpath on the slope of Holy Spirit Seminary was technically feasible, it might only require simple works and repairs to provide the residents with a proper footpath;

(m) a Member considered that LandsD’s response was positive and wished to learn more about the procedures for negotiating resumption of land with Holy Spirit Seminary, including whether LandsD would proceed with the procedures if SDC agreed to the construction of a footpath. Another Member suggested that SDC should issue letters to the relevant policy bureaux first, in order to put forth the proposal of constructing a footpath. Also, SDC should request for appointing a relevant government department as the project proponent to facilitate follow-up on the proposal;

(n) a Member was concerned that although the departmental representatives present did not object to the proposal of constructing a footpath, no department was willing to play an active role in following up the proposal. The Member hoped that the departments would not adopt a compartmental attitude;

(o) a Member suggested that a negotiation should be held with the shipyards

22

shortly. Also, LandsD should include terms in the STTs, requiring the shipyards to rearrange the respective tenancy areas and allocate a temporary access for public use. In the long run, a study should be conducted on the proposal of constructing a footpath on the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary. Another Member said LandsD had clearly stated that the proposal of negotiating resumption of the required land covered by GLL with Holy Spirit Seminary was more feasible. In this connection, she commented that the short-term proposal of rearranging the land of the shipyards should not be raised. She also requested the relevant government departments to proactively study the construction of a permanent and proper footpath on the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary;

(p) regarding the study on construction of the proposed footpath, a Member enquired which government department would be responsible for the study and enquired about the timetable. The Member also raised an enquiry on the pedestrian flow required to support the implementation of this facility, as well as the anticipated project scale and cost;

(q) a Member said that the relevant government departments should consider in the study whether constructing a footpath at the location concerned was truly in line with the interests of the community;

(r) several Members put forth proposals respectively, which did not require amendment to the tenancies of the shipyards, namely, constructing a footbridge on the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary or providing a footpath bypassing the shipyard site in a way similar to constructing hiking trails in country parks;

(s) a Member commented that it would not be very difficult to construct a footpath on the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary. If the proposal could not be implemented under the DMW Programme of SDC, reference might be drawn from the construction of a staircase on the slope beside Queen Mary Hospital by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). This construction project was completed within four months. It showed that a construction project could be promptly finalised and commence when it was undertaken by an appropriate works department;

(t) a Member hoped that the relevant government departments would provide

23

clearer information, including the number of shipyards whose tenancies were involved in the proposal, the area of the land granted to Holy Spirit Seminary under GLL, and the actual responses on the proposal from the various departments, etc.;

Other Comments

(u) a Member urged PlanD to clarify which land use zone the shipyard site fell within;

(v) a Member said that if the department concerned was to conduct a study on the construction of a footpath, it must duly consult the views of the stakeholders. The Member was worried that the future rezoning of the site might make it impossible for the shipyards to continue operation and result in a conflict between the Government and the people;

(w) a Member said that EAC had a discussion on the issue, during which the Committee Members held opposite views. Moreover, according to her memory, when Members visited the site with the departments concerned, some departmental representatives seemed not to support the proposal;

(x) a Member said that if it was finally decided that some part of the slope within the site under the GLL of Holy Spirit Seminary was to be resumed, attention must be paid to the issue of compensation for resumed land. Citing the example of a plan to widen the walkway on Shum Wan Road a number of years ago, he said that as the Government needed to resume part of the site under the GLL of S.W.C.S. Chan Pak Sha School to widen the walkway on Shum Wan Road, it had to identify land elsewhere to compensate the school. But finally the walkway could not be widened while the school still received compensation. He hoped that the department concerned would draw a lesson from this and avoid the recurrence of similar situations; and

(y) a Member said that before implementation of the proposal, consideration should be given to the impacts on the entire Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter, including the ecological environment as well as operation of the shipyards and the marine-dependent businesses, etc. She held the view that although the construction of a footpath could bring convenience to the

24

residents, a proper balance must be struck between the interests of the various parties involved in the various options.

28. The Chairman invited the TD representative to respond.

29. Mr SO Wing-kin responded that there was already a walkway linking Shum Wan Road and Heung Yip Path for people to go between Sham Wan and Ocean Court. The footpath proposed by Member was for leisure purpose with no immediate necessity on transport grounds. In case there was a development plan for the site concerned in future, TD would advise the project proponent to consider providing a footpath.

30. The Chairman invited the LandsD representative to respond.

31. Ms Doris TSE responded that LandsD was not a public works department. If the project was to be implemented, a definite and feasible alignment as well as the site area required should be proposed to LandsD before it could assist the project proponent and the relevant stakeholders to negotiate for re-delivery of the site. In case the project was confirmed, LandsD would take corresponding actions in land administration.

32. The Chairman enquired about the specific follow-up work that would be carried out by the department in case the project was confirmed.

33. Ms Doris TSE responded that by reference to the DMW Programme of District Councils (DCs), a government department should act as the project proponent and explicitly propose to LandsD the site area required. LandsD would then assist to negotiate with the Licensee on the arrangements for re-delivery of the site. Since LandsD was not a public works department, it could not take the lead in implementing the project.

34. The Chairman enquired whether the project proponent had to be DC if reference was made to the DMW Programme. Ms Doris TSE said that either DC or a public works department could act as the project proponent.

35. The Chairman invited the PlanD representative to respond.

36. Mr Mann CHOW responded that the proposed footpath spanned across

25 several zones, including “O”, “GB” and “G/IC” zones. Part of the shipyard site fell within the “GB” zone, whereas the portions of the shipyards that extended to the seaside was not covered by the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau OZP No. S/H15/33.

37. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr LO Kin-hei, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Mr CHAI Man-hon and Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP raised the following comments and enquiries:

Impacts on the Shipyards

(a) a Member said that a standard road should be 1.5 m wide. If after thorough study, it was found that the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary could only provide a space that was 1.3 m wide, then the shipyards should give prime consideration to the public interest and allocate an area 0.2 m in width for the construction of a footpath. Compared with the proposal he put forth at an EAC meeting earlier on, he had made quite a lot of compromise in the current proposal. He only wished to achieve a win-win situation. But if the shipyards still refused to budge an inch under this situation, he would propose to review whether the operation of the shipyards met all legal requirements and might even request relocation of the shipyards;

(b) a Member said that if the shipyards had to allocate an area 0.2 m in width for the construction of a footpath and resulted in reduced space, consideration could be given to requesting LandsD to allocate a space elsewhere with comparable area to the shipyards, or providing assistance according to the operational needs of the shipyards. Another Member said that as the shipyards were operating under STTs, it was not possible to allocate an area 0.2 m in width under the existing mechanism. Any alteration involving the STTs might require retendering by LandsD. Another Member supplemented that the 0.2 m width was only an example. The area actually required had yet to be determined in a study;

(c) a Member did not object to the construction of a footpath under the

26

premise of not affecting the core facilities and operation of the shipyards;

(d) a Member said that when the shipyards were in operation, vessels had to be hauled out of the water before repair and maintenance work could be carried out, or else it would be difficult to carry out work for the bottom of the vessels during high tide periods. Repair and maintenance work for vessels required assistance of various types of bulky machines. All these required a certain amount of space. Not knowing whether the shipyards were able to allocate the required area, it was difficult to directly request the shipyards to promise to allocate the area for the construction of a footpath at the present stage;

(e) a Member said that the shipyard area was a works site. Fellow Members had to wear protective equipment such as spikes and safety helmets when inspecting the shipyards earlier on, which showed that it was rather risky to enter the area. In case any accident involving members of the public happened at the area, the insurance obligation could not be borne by the shipyards alone. The Member thus did not support opening up of the shipyard site;

(f) a Member enquired whether the areas actually used by the shipyards were within the areas specified by the STTs and whether any emergency access, etc. was provided. The Member was of the view that the shipyards were not up to standard in terms of structural safety, fire service equipment, hygiene and environmental impact, etc.;

(g) a Member said that SDC had all along been handling district affairs in a pragmatic manner. It had earlier on discussed rearrangement of the shipyard locations along Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter with a view to reducing possible conflicts that might occur in future. He agreed that it was reasonable to establish shipyards in the Southern District which was of necessity to other marine-dependent businesses in the Southern District. The crux of the matter was thus to explore the feasibility of constructing a footpath at the back of the shipyards;

Implementing and Following up the Proposal

27

(h) showing photos of the relevant road section with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, a Member said that consideration could be given to constructing a footpath between the sites of Holy Spirit Seminary and the shipyards and emphasised that the original intent of the agenda item was to construct a footpath for the convenience of the residents under the premise of not affecting the operation of the shipyards;

(i) a Member reiterated that the department concerned should study the construction of a footpath at the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary and then submit feasible proposals for the Committee’s consideration. Fellow Members should not argue on the shipyard issue at the present stage. In view of the tense atmosphere in the community recently, fellow Members should discuss the agenda item in a calm mood. Another Member suggested that the issue should be followed up by a Committee responsible for district works in the next term of SDC;

(j) a Member urged LandsD to provide detailed information, including a map of the vicinity of Holy Spirit Seminary and the shipyards so that Members could understand how much land outside the shipyards could be allocated. Another Member said that before it was confirmed how much area the various parties needed to allocate, there was no need to determine which department would be the project proponent;

(Post-meeting note: LandsD provided the Committee with the supplementary information on 9 December 2019, with details given at Annex 1.)

(k) a Member commented that the shipyards’ representatives should clearly understand that the Committee advised the shipyards to provide an access road in the short run so as to provide local residents with an access between Sham Wan and Ocean Court. In the long run, the relevant department should study the suitability of constructing a footpath at the site and how to ensure pedestrian safety without affecting the operation of the shipyards, such as the need for reclamation to cope with the needs;

(l) a Member said that since no Government department was willing to act as

28

the project proponent, it was suggested that SDC should consider acting as the project proponent which would put forth planning and works proposals to the department officially, or implement the project under the DMW Programme. Another Member also said that SDC could consider playing the leading role. The simplest way to construct a footpath for public use was to draw reference from the project of providing hiking trails. The project could be implemented by making slight modifications, including amendment of the STTs, indication of the footpath on the map, adjustment of the locations of wire fences, etc., without carrying out complicated works. Another Member said that since the footpath would involve high construction cost which would exceed the funding ceiling of the DMW Programme, it was difficult to implement the project in this way. The Member commented that the Committee should try to reach a consensus first and then ask the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) to act as the project proponent. The Committee should also consider following up the issue at meetings of the Southern District Management Committee;

(m) a Member commented that THB and the Marine Department each should have a role to play on this matter;

Other Comments

(n) citing the example of an issue involving the shipyards at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road on which the shipyards and residents of Larvotto held different views, a Member said that the establishment of an effective platform for communication between the various stakeholders was conducive to settling the dispute and promoting community development;

(o) a Member said that the shipyards’ representatives had no say at the Committee meeting. He said he had liaised with the shipyards’ representatives and found that it was not the case that the shipyards would not budge an inch. He understood that the purpose of raising this agenda item was to ensure the construction of a footpath for the convenience of the residents. To get things done, the Committee should ask the relevant department to study the construction of the footpath rather than targeting the criticism at the shipyards which provided services for vessels in the Southern District. Moreover, Members should not speak threatening

29

words and create conflicts. Another Member pointed out that what other Members said just now had created the misunderstanding that as long as the STTs of the shipyards were involved, the shipyards would refuse to budge an inch. He thus understood why the fellow Member who raised this agenda item expressed dissatisfaction about this;

(p) a Member said that only after the Committee made official request to a government department would the department take follow-up actions accordingly. This issue reflected the situation of a lack of coordination among the departments. The Government should adjust its administrative structure and pattern so as to handle the conflicts in district affairs; and

(q) a Member said that while the agenda item had aroused a heated debate, it was hoped that fellow Members would be cautious about the words they used to avoid unnecessary disputes. Another Member said that it was not bad for Members to debate at a meeting. But since Members did not oppose the construction of a footpath in principle, there was no need to argue on this agenda item. The differing views only stemmed from the concern over the possible impacts of the construction of the footpath on the operation of the shipyards and the potential conflicts between the shipyards and the residents. He commented that the crux of the issue was how to take forward the project. The better way to proceed was to consult the views of the various parties including the residents and the shipyards’ representatives before the meeting and then discuss and work out a feasible solution with the relevant stakeholders.

38. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised an enquiry on the rules of order and said that a Member accused him of speaking threatening words and creating conflicts. Such an accusation was unfair to him and had distorted his original meaning. Besides, he commented that the Chairman should handle enquiries on the rules of order raised by Members immediately. The Chairman pointed out that this did not constitute an enquiry on the rules of order. He said that in previous Committee meetings, disputes also arose out of the use of words by Members. He explained that to facilitate smooth proceeding of the meeting, he did not handle the enquiry on the rules of order until now.

39. Mr LO Kin-hei raised an enquiry on the rules of order and said that SDC

30 had imposed certain constraints on the organisations which could attend the meeting. He commented that the Committee should allow representatives from the shipyards, Holy Spirit Seminary and other stakeholders to participate in the discussion of this agenda item so that the Committee could understand the views of the various parties. Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP said that when striving for the construction of the South Island Line (East), SDC had followed the example of the Legislative Council public hearings and invited the stakeholders to attend and speak at the relevant meetings. The successful completion of the public consultation on the railway project was attributable to the open-mindedness adopted by SDC. He hoped that the future SDC could continue the good practice.

40. The Chairman invited the TD representative to respond.

41. Mr SO Wing-kin responded that he had noted Members’ comments. In case any Government department studied the alignment of the proposed footpath, TD would provide advice on traffic engineering aspect. In case there was a development plan for the site concerned in future, TD would advise the project proponent to consider providing a footpath.

42. The Chairman invited the LandsD representative to respond.

43. Ms Doris TSE responded that LandsD was not a public works department and so could not provide the alignment of the proposed footpath. In case any Government department or project proponent provided the alignment of the proposed footpath, LandsD would take corresponding actions in land administration.

44. The Chairman invited the PlanD representative to respond.

45. Mr Mann CHOW said that he had nothing to add.

46. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised an enquiry on the rules of order and said that LandsD had not responded to his enquiry. Ms Doris TSE said that LandsD would provide the Committee with the situation of the structure within the shipyards area under the STTs after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: LandsD provided the Committee with the supplementary information on 9 December 2019, with details given at Annex 1.).

31

47. In closing, the Chairman said the following:

(a) in recent years various problems arose when the relevant department amended the STTs of shipyard sites. As a result, the shipyards’ representatives and some Members were gravely worried that the construction of a footpath might involve amendment of the shipyard STTs. He understood the aforesaid worry;

(b) while Members did not object to the construction of a footpath for the convenience of residents, they held different views on the way of constructing the footpath and the impacts of the proposal on the shipyards. As a matter of fact, Members need not argue over the way and details of constructing the footpath at the current stage. Instead, they could understand the various options of implementing the proposal and make reference to the views of EAC first, and then communicate with the shipyards’ representatives and the relevant stakeholders on issues such as road safety, insurance, ancillary facilities, etc.; and

(c) upon discussion of this meeting, the Committee had reached a consensus that a footpath should be constructed at the slope near Holy Spirit Seminary under the premise of not affecting the operation of the shipyards. To take forward the matter, it was proposed that the next term of SDC should consider assigning the relevant Committee to continue handling and following up on the issue, including deciding which department should be responsible for implementing the construction of the footpath and how to follow up effectively, etc. Whatever the final solution might be, the aim was to construct a footpath for the convenience of residents having regard to the operational needs of the shipyards. At the current stage, he urged LandsD to provide the Committee with information such as the relevant drawings for Members’ reference.

(Post-meeting note: LandsD provided the Committee with the supplementary information on 9 December 2019, with details given at Annex 1.)

Agenda Item 4: Progress Report on Planning Works in the Southern District

32

(DDHC Paper No. 24/2019)

(Ms CHAN Judy Kapui and Ms LAW Siu-fong left the meeting at 5:28 p.m. and 5:46 p.m. respectively.)

48. The Chairman welcomed Mr WAI Kam-fat, Danny, Chief Health Inspector (Southern) 1 and Ms LI Lai-ha, Liz, Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) to the meeting.

(I) Matters discussed at previous meetings that required follow-up actions

 Ex-Shek O Quarry (Annex 1 – page 2 of the discussion paper)

49. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that there had been no actual progress on the planning for the ex-Shek O Quarry site in future over the years. The current term of SDC was going to expire, but DDHC was still awaiting the supplementary information to be provided by the applicant of the short term tenancy (STT) to LandsD. He hoped that LandsD or the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) would give an account of the latest progress and submit the relevant supplementary information to SDC as soon as possible.

50. Mr Fergus FUNG said that the existing tenancy of the site would expire by the end of 2019, but the next lessee was not yet confirmed by now. He was pleased to note that an application for STT was received intending to use the aforesaid site as a Hong Kong International Sailing Centre, and opined that it could provide additional venue for residents to engage in recreational and sports activities. However, DDHC was still not informed of any details about the tenancy. He hoped that the relevant departments could give further response.

51. Ms Doris TSE responded that the applicant of the aforesaid STT was now following up the technical comments raised by the relevant departments, including sewerage and vessel berthing issues. Moreover, upon SDC’s request for the applicant to present their proposal to SDC, LandsD had relayed such request to HAB and the applicant. LandsD was awaiting their reply, and would report to SDC if there was any further update.

52. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired whether the word ‘International’ had

33 been included in the name of the applicant of the STT concerned. Also, she welcomed that the aforesaid site was used for the development of sports facilities. However, since the road sections surrounding the said location were narrow and rugged, she suggested that the department should consider the impacts of the STT concerned on the traffic of the district, adequacy of transport ancillary facilities and special transport arrangements during large-scale activities when approving the STT application concerned.

53. Ms Doris TSE responded that the applicant of the aforesaid STT was Hong Kong Sailing Federation, and the applied use was Hong Kong International Sailing Centre. LandsD noted Members’ concern about the STT on the aspects of transport and supporting facilities, and would relay the relevant comments to the applicant. If necessary, LandsD would request the applicant to submit supplementary information to the relevant departments for consideration.

54. The Chairman enquired about the latest progress of the aforesaid STT application.

55. Ms Doris TSE responded that the STT application had been circulated to the relevant departments for initial comments. The comments on the technical aspect had been put forward to the applicant. The applicant was now following up the relevant comments for compliance with the requirements of the relevant departments. LandsD would report to SDC if there was any further update.

56. Mr CHAI Man-hon advised that DDHC should explicitly raise its concern and suggestion to the relevant departments in respect of the aforesaid STT site application, including the need to resolve the relevant transport problems and open up the tenancy area for public use as far as possible. He commented that if the above suggestion could be raised as early as possible, the applicant and relevant departments would be able to understand the consensus of DDHC at an earlier time, so as to ensure that the final terms and arrangements of the STT would not significantly deviate from the comments of DDHC.

57. The Chairman enquired whether the STT application concerned would be approved before commencement of the next term of SDC (i.e. 1 January 2020) in order that the applicant could only present their proposal to SDC afterwards.

58. Ms Doris TSE responded that adequate lead time was required for

34 processing the STT application. It was expected that the application would not be approved before 1 January 2020. LandsD noted SDC’s request for the applicant to present their proposal to SDC before approval of the STT application, and had relayed such request to HAB and the applicant. LandsD also noted Members’ comments on the aspects of transport ancillary facilities and opening up the tenancy area for public use, and would relay the relevant comments to the applicant.

59. The Chairman said that the aforesaid STT application should not be approved before the next term of SDC commenced; otherwise, the suggestions of DDHC could not be implemented for the development of the item.

(II) Progress Report on Other Works in Southern District

 PWP No. 191WC/A (Annex 4 – page 12 of the discussion paper)

60. Ms YAM Pauline enquired about whether the report was showing an accurate progress for the replacement and rehabilitation of water mains at Aberdeen Praya Road and when the works would be completed.

61. Ms WONG Cho-kwan responded that the water mains laying works under the aforesaid project had been completed. Regarding the construction of washout pit and road reinstatement works pending completion, since the working pit was located at the planting area of LCSD, it was necessary to liaise with LCSD for the reinstatement arrangements of the plants surrounding the working pit. The aforesaid project was expected to be completed by October 2019.

62. Ms YAM Pauline said that LCSD had all along maintained good communication with SDC when following up the works projects in the Southern District. Thus, she did not consider that LCSD caused the delay in the works. Also, she asked whether the actual completion date of the aforesaid works was in early, mid- or late October 2019.

63. Ms WONG Cho-kwan responded that the Water Supplies Department (WSD) would provide the detailed progress and expected completion date of the aforesaid works to relevant SDC Member after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: WSD has provided information regarding the aforesaid

35

works progress to the above Member on 2 October 2019.)

 PWP No. Head 705 Subhead 5001BX/D – Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme (Annex 4 – pages 15 to 19 of the discussion paper)

64. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired about the progress of the landslip prevention and mitigation works for Slope No. 15NE-A/C241 at West of Eden View, Stanley Gap Road and Slope No. 15NE-B/C235 at Shek O Road.

65. Ms Carrie TENG responded that CEDD would provide supplementary information on the progress of the aforesaid works for the Member after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: CEDD provided the latest information on the works progress to the above Member on 21 October 2019.)

66. Mr Fergus FUNG said that the completion rates of various slope works were shown as percentage in the progress report, and the estimated or actual completion dates of the works were also indicated. He hoped that when making report to DDHC on the actual progress of the works in future, CEDD could also report whether the works concerned were commenced or completed on time, and report on the relevant delays accordingly. For safety consideration, slopes were normally stabilised with concrete during emergency slope repair works. However, the slopes covered by concrete were not aesthetic. He proposed that CEDD should consider carrying out greening works in tandem with the slope works.

67. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that Slope No. 15NE-A/C313 at Stanley Gap Road and Slope No. 11SE-D/CR698 at Tai Long Wan Village were affected by serious landslips in recent months. She requested CEDD to give a written response about the situations and the follow-up arrangement.

68. The Chairman asked CEDD to provide supplementary information on the progress of the aforesaid works for the Members after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: CEDD provided the latest information on the works progress to the above Members on 21 October 2019.)

69. Mr Fergus FUNG pointed out that currently, most of the carriageways

36 near the slopes in the Southern District were one-way two-lane roads. If automatic traffic lights were used during slope works, it would lack flexibility in regulating the traffic, thus leading to a greater tendency of causing traffic congestion. He urged CEDD to instruct its slope works contractors to regulate the traffic manually, so as to reduce traffic congestion.

70. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he visited the works sites previously and found littering of lunch boxes, plastic bottles and other refuse by the workers on the roadsides and slopes surrounding the works sites. In view of the district works undertaken by various departments, most of their works sites were in lack of refuse bins, leading to a serious problem of littering around the sites. The refuse might end up flowing into the sea and cause pollution to the marine ecosystem. In this connection, he requested written explanation from the works departments at the meeting (including CEDD and WSD) on the management of waste disposal at the sites of the respective district works, and whether any terms governing waste disposal at the works sites had been explicitly stipulated in the contracts signed with the contractors. As the above situation frequently occurred, he hoped that all the works departments could set out standard procedures with the contractors for handling waste at the works sites, so as to avoid reoccurrence of the problem.

(Post-meeting note: Replies from CEDD and WSD were given at Annex 2.)

71. Ms Carrie TENG responded that CEDD would review the operational procedures of refuse disposal for the slope works sites in the Southern District under its purview.

72. Regarding the Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying hoped that CEDD would follow up the progress of the slope works in Stanley and Shek O after the meeting.

73. The Chairman asked CEDD to follow up separately with the Member concerned after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: CEDD provided the latest information on the works progress to the above Member on 21 October 2019.).

(III) Housing Department － Progress Report on Public Housing Works

37

in Southern District

 Proposed Public Housing Developments at Pok Fu Lam South and Wah Fu Estate Redevelopment (Annex 5 – page 20 of the discussion paper)

74. Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired about the progress of the gazettal procedure conducted by the Chief Executive in Council for the aforesaid project. He hoped that the relevant procedure could be completed for submission to the Legislative Council (LegCo) as early as possible, such that LegCo could approve the funding as soon as possible after the resumption of its meetings and the objective of commencing the site formation works and road works in the second quarter of 2020 could be fulfilled.

75. Ms LO Kit-sheung responded that CEDD was following up the objecting views about the site formation works and road works. It was expected that the relevant funding application could be submitted to LegCo after the resumption of its meetings.

(Post-meeting note: In response to a Member’s enquiries, CEDD has provided the following updated information:

(i) The relevant works regarding the gazettes for the proposed road works of the “Site Formation and Infrastructure Works for Public Housing Developments at Pok Fu Lam South” is still in progress as of the end of September 2019.

(ii) The Government plans to submit the funding proposal of the proposed works to LegCo for funding approval in 2019-2020 legislative session.).

38

(IV) Food and Environmental Hygiene Department － Progress Report on FEHD District Minor Works in Southern District

 On Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village (Annex 6 – page 21 of the discussion paper)

76. Mr Fergus FUNG said that according to FEHD’s information, the works was expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2019. He asked if FEHD could provide a more exact date of completion.

77. Mr Danny WAI responded that the works was expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2019. If there was any further update from the Architectural Services Department, FEHD would provide the supplementary information to DDHC accordingly.

78. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying pointed out that the progress of the aforesaid works might be affected by frequent rainfall. She understood that the works completion date might therefore be postponed.

79. Mr Danny WAI said that he had nothing to add regarding the works completion date.

 Stanley Link Road Public Toilet and Stanley Main Street Public Toilet (Annex 6 – page 22 of the discussion paper)

80. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired about the exact location of Stanley Link Road Public Toilet. Also, she asked FEHD whether the Stanley Main Street Public Toilet had been closed for refurbishment works, and whether they would advise the public to use the nearby Stanley Waterfront Public Toilet instead.

81. Mr Danny WAI responded that the Stanley Link Road Public Toilet was near the refuse collection point of Stanley Main Beach. Also, there were two public toilets near Stanley Main Road, namely Stanley Main Street Public Toilet and Stanley Waterfront Public Toilet respectively. The former toilet had been closed in July 2019 for refurbishment works, and was expected to be reopened upon completion by November 2019.

39

Agenda Item 5: Any Other Business

82. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had not received any proposed items under “Any Other Business”.

83. The Chairman summarised the work of the current term of DDHC as follows:

(a) To facilitate the holding of the District Council election, the SDC operation would be suspended in the period between 4 October and 31 December 2019. Hence, this session was the last DDHC meeting in the current term of SDC;

(b) With the concerted efforts of all Members, DDHC had followed up numerous large-scale projects within this term of SDC, including the Public Housing Developments at Pok Fu Lam South, Cyberport Expansion Project, Aberdeen Market Modernisation Programme, Wong Chuk Hang Comprehensive Development Area and the Planning and Development Study of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau and Other Related Areas, etc. Some of the follow-up work on the above projects had even lasted for more than one term of SDC;

(c) DDHC actively reflected the aspirations and strived for the interests of residents in the Southern District. Also, the contributions and efforts made by the Members over the past four years had been put on record. Although some Members might not remain in the same post of the next term SDC, it was hoped that they would continue to support the work of SDC;

(d) Whenever there was discussion about livelihood-related issues, Members would have cross-party collaboration, seek consensus and embrace differences, in order to work together for the well-being of the Southern District. Even when discussing more controversial district issues, Committee Members would respect the views of the local Members and residents of the constituencies concerned. He considered that the pragmatic attitude of Members during discussions had facilitated the progress of various development projects in the district. He hoped that this good practice could be continued in the next term SDC, such that

40

various district issues would continue to be followed up effectively;

(e) He thanked the Southern District Office for enhancing the communication among various parties, such as giving assistance in inviting relevant government department representatives to attend the meetings. Moreover, he thanked various department representatives for their great efforts in following up various district projects. The projects would not have been implemented smoothly and making progress without the active cooperation and support of department representatives; and

(f) DDHC had discussions on many major projects, and Members had expressed different views on many aspects. As the Chairman of DDHC, he had tried his best to summarise and sum up all the views and aspirations of Members with discreet choice of word, but still had room for improvement in presiding over the meetings. Last but not least, he thanked Members for their tolerance and confidence towards him.

84. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council December 2019

41

Annex 1

Amendment to Land Licence of Holy Spirit Seminary and Tenancy Agreement of the Neighbouring Shipyards to Enhance Connectivity between the Communities in Sham Wan and Ocean Court

Regarding Member’s enquiry on the situation of the structure within the shipyard area under the short-term tenancies (STTs), the response and supplementary information from the Lands Department (LandsD) are as follows-

LandsD would arrange the District Survey Office/Hong Kong to conduct a land survey so as to verify if the shipyard tenant has occupied land outside the STT site. If it is confirmed that Government land outside the STT site is being occupied by the shipyard, LandsD would request the relevant tenant to rectify the situation before a specified date, or else enforcement action under the Tenancy Agreement would be taken by LandsD as appropriate.

Moreover, whether the emergency access, structural safety, fire service equipment, environmental hygiene conform to the standards fall outside the purview of LandsD.

Supplementary information provided by the Buildings Department is as follows -

Regarding building safety of the structures on the STT site, generally, the structures are restricted by the terms of Tenancy Agreement, including that they should comply with the requirements under the Buildings Ordinance.

Annex 2

PWP No. Head 705 Subhead 5001BX/D Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme

Regarding Member’s enquiry on management of waste disposal at district works sites, response from Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) and Water Supplies Department (WSD) are as follows -

CEDD’s response:

Rubbish collection bins have been provided in the works sites. The rubbish, which is stored in the rubbish collection bins, was collected and disposed of at designated disposal ground by the contractors regularly. The site supervision staff have been reminded to be mindful of the situation and be proactive in advising measures to the contractors for improving site cleanliness.

WSD’s response:

There are general contract requirements for public works contracts, including works contracts of WSD, on site cleanliness and tidiness. The Contractor is required to draw up a system and provide the necessary facilities, receptacles and transport for sorting, temporary storage and disposal of different types of waste materials. The Contractor is responsible to provide refuse collection bins, collect and dispose of the refuse at designated disposal ground. Under the contract requirements, we will monitor site cleanliness and tidiness through regular inspection. Regular meetings with the Contractor are arranged to review and improve their performance on site cleanliness and tidiness.