Sai Kung District Summaries of Written Representations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Q. Sai Kung - 133 - Q. Sai Kung Appendix III - Q Sai Kung District Summaries of Written Representations Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations 1 All 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. DCCAs supports the demarcation proposals for all DCCAs in the district as they are in line with the statutory criteria and working principles. 2 All 1 The representation: Item (a) DCCAs (a) objects to the The representation is not accepted demarcation for Q06 as because: it will undermine the community integrity; (i) it has not explained how the and demarcation proposal for Q06 will undermine the community (b) supports the integrity; demarcation proposals for all the remaining (ii) it is necessary to re-delineate the DCCAs of the district. boundaries of the current Q06 and the new Q06 comprises solely two private housing estates, i.e. Bauhinia Garden and Tseung Kwan O Plaza (please see also item 5(d)); and (iii)there are supporting views for the demarcation proposal for Q06 (see items 1 and 3 below). Item (b) The supporting view is noted. 3 Q06 – 2 The representations The supporting views are noted. Po Kwan support the demarcation proposal for Q06. Q. Sai Kung - 134 - Q. Sai Kung Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations 4 Q07 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Wai Do supports the demarcation proposal for Q07 as the DCCA is comprised solely of private housing estates, thus enhancing community homogeneity. 5 Q07 – 71 (a) These representations: Item (a)(i) Wai Do (i) query the accuracy In this demarcation exercise, the of the population EAC has to rely on the population figures which the figures provided by the AHSG. EAC adopted for AHSG had conducted this demarcation comprehensive researches before exercise and quote compiling the relevant data by a other figures for systematic methodology. For the reference; reason of fairness and consistency, the EAC considers it necessary to (ii) propose to split use the same set of population Ocean Shores and distribution projections with the Metro Town I and same basis and the same cut-off date Metro Town II - Le (i.e. 30 June 2011) for all DCCAs; Point and let Ocean Shores become a Items (a)(ii) and (iii) DCCA alone as its estimated The proposal is not accepted population has because: reached 18,329; and (i) it would involve the addition of one more seat for Sai Kung (iii)suggest that Metro District Council which is outside Town I, Metro the EAC’s jurisdiction; or Town II and Shin Ming Estate be (ii) alternatively, in order to vacate a grouped together to DCCA for Metro Town I, Metro form a new DCCA. Town II and Shin Ming Estate, the populations of the (b) Sixty-seven of the neighbouring DCCAs will have representations also to be moved, which will affect propose to: many DCCAs including three originally unaltered DCCAs (i) group Ocean Shores (Q09, Q10 and Q12) and cause with Shin Ming substantial changes to their Estate in the same existing boundaries; and DCCA, put Metro Town II together (iii)there are supporting views for with Choi Ming the demarcation proposals for Q. Sai Kung - 135 - Q. Sai Kung Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations Court in one DCCA Q07, Q08 and Q09 as well as an and let Metro Town objection to separating the I and the entire Kin Metro Town from Ocean Shores Ming Estate form a (see items 1, 2 and 4). DCCA; or Item (b)(i) (ii) put Ocean Shores and Metro Town I The proposal is not accepted together in Q07, because the resultant population of move Metro Town the new DCCA, which comprises II to join Choi Ming Metro Town I and Kin Ming Estate Court in Q09; and (25,575), will exceed the upper group the entire Kin permissible limit (+47.99%). Ming Estate and Shin Ming Estate in Item (b)(ii) Q08. The proposal is not accepted (c) Fifty-two of the because: representations opine that the merger of (i) the resultant population of Q08 Ocean Shores and (25,246) will exceed the upper Metro Town will thin permissible limit (+46.08%); out the community resources in the (ii) it will affect the boundary of DCCA; Q09, the population of which is within the permissible range and (d) Six of the a change in its boundary is not representations also necessary; and question the reason why Ocean Shores is (iii)there are supporting views for put in the same DCCA the demarcation proposals for with Metro Town I and Q07, Q08 and Q09 as well as an Metro Town II - Le objection to separating the Point but Lohas Park Metro Town from Ocean Shores can be separated from (see items 1, 2 and 4). Bauhinia Garden and form a new DCCA Item (c) with Oscar by the Sea; and Distribution of community resources is not a factor of consideration for (e) One of the delineating the boundaries of representations further DCCAs. comments that the demarcation proposals Item (d) favour the political parties but not The re-delineation of Ocean Shores independent in Q07 and Lohas Park in Q24 are candidates. two separate cases. Q. Sai Kung - 136 - Q. Sai Kung Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations As the populations of the current Q06 (25,134, +45.43%) and Q11 (24,291, +40.56%) exceed the upper permissible limit, it is necessary to add the new DCCA at a place close to these two DCCAs so as to alleviate in one go their population overflow. Grouping Oscar By The Sea together with Lohas Park to form a new DCCA (i.e. Q24) will not only bring the population of the current Q06 within the permissible range, but also allow room for the new Q06 to absorb the excessive population of Q11 by taking Tseung Kwan O Plaza from Q11. Also, there are supporting views for the demarcation proposal for Q24 (see items 1 and 2). Item (e) The EAC has not taken into account factors with political implications in the demarcation exercise. 6 Q12 – 1 The representation objects Proposal (A) Nam On to the demarcation proposals for Q12 and Q20 The proposal is not accepted Q19 – and put forth two proposals because: Hau Tak as follows: (i) the resultant population of Q20 Q20 – (a) Proposal (A) (22,224) will exceed the upper Fu Nam permissible limit (+28.60%); (i) move Residence Oasis from Q20 to Q19 since (ii) it will affect the existing it is closer to Hau Tak boundaries of Q19 and Q20, the Estate geographically populations of which are within and it has no the permissible limits and a community ties with change in their boundaries is not the remaining parts in necessary; Q20; (iii)the split of Tak On House and (ii) move Tak On House Tak Yue House from Hau Tak and Tak Yue House Estate will adversely affect the from Q19 to Q20 community integrity of Hau Tak because these two Estate; and Q. Sai Kung - 137 - Q. Sai Kung Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations buildings and the (iv) there are supporting views for remaining buildings of the demarcation proposals for Hau Tak Estate are Q12, Q19 and Q20 (see items 1 separated by Sheung and 2). Ning Road geographically and the Proposal (B) – Options A and B community ties between them are The proposals are not accepted relatively weak; and because: (iii)move East Point City (i) the resultant population of Q12 from Q12 to Q20 in (23,028) will exceed the upper order to make up for permissible limit (+33.25%) the decrease of under both options; population in Q20, (ii) they will cause changes to the because the proposal will existing boundaries of Q19 establish closer community and/or Q20, which should not be ties, achieve better altered as their populations are population distribution in within the permissible limits; each the 3 DCCAs, enable the population of Q12 to (iii)residents of Chung Ming Court fall within the permissible have established strong range and eliminate the community identity and local need to re-delineate the ties with those of Hau Tak boundary of Q19 in the Estate in Q19 and they have future since decrease in common concerns and population in Hau Tak objectives because of the close Estate will be compensated proximity of these two housing by the increase in estates; and population from the future intake in Residence Oasis. (iv) there are supporting views for the demarcation proposals for (b) Proposal (B) Q12, Q19 and Q20 (see items 1 and 2). If proposal (A) is not adopted because of the need to preserve community integrity of Hau Tak Estate, Option A (i) move Yu Ming Court from Q20 to Q19; (ii) put East Point City into Q20 to group together Q. Sai Kung - 138 - Q. Sai Kung Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations with Fu Ning Garden and Residence Oasis in the same DCCA; and (iii)move Chung Ming Court from Q19 to Q12. If proposal (A) is not accepted for reasons other than preservation of community identity of Hau Tak Estate, Option B (i) move Chung Ming Court from Q19 to Q12; and (ii) move East Point City from Q12 to Q19. 7 Q24 – 2 The representations: Item (a) Wan Po (a) considers that the See item 5(a)(i). population forecast of Q24 (14,572) has been Items (b) and (c) underestimated; and In drawing up the demarcation (b) comments that there proposals, the EAC has adhered were frequent changes closely to the statutory criteria under to delineation of Oscar the EAC Ordinance and its working by the Sea as it has principles.