Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the District Development and Housing Committee (DDHC) Southern District Council (2016-2019) (SDC)
Date: 18 July 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 CHOI Tsung-mang Mr LAW Kam-hung Ms LAW Siu-fong Dr WONG Yat-lung, Philip
Absent with Apologies: Ms TAM May-bo, Jeanette
Secretary: Miss CHOW Cheuk-ying, Karen 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 CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department Ms KO Wing-yee, Amii Senior Estate Surveyor/South (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 Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy Engineer 13 (South Development Office), 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 WONG Chung-lai, Frank Project Director, Prudential Surveyors International Limited Mr NG Sai-hee, Victor Advisor, Prudential Surveyors International Limited Ms ZHU Weihan, Vivian Team member (Planning and Transport), Prudential Surveyors International Limited Mr WONG Wing-chun, Ben Research Officer, Prudential Surveyors International Limited Mr KWAN Chun-hei, Zac Research Officer, Prudential Surveyors International Limited Mr LEUNG Siu-chee Marine Manager/Licensing & Port Formalities (3), Marine Department Mr TAM Wai-man Senior Assistant Shipping Master/South, Marine Department Mr LI Hui-fung, Kevin Senior Transport Officer/Southern, Transport Department Mr CHEUNG Kwok-fai, Ivan Senior Engineer/Southern, Transport Department
2
Mr LI Yick-chun Engineer/Housing & Planning 2, Transport Department
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Ms YAM Ya-ling, Eva Principal Assistant Secretary for Innovation & Technology (3), Innovation and Technology Bureau Ms MAK Kai-ting, Salina Assistant Secretary for Innovation & Technology (3A), Innovation and Technology Bureau Mr Peter YAN Chief Executive Officer, Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited Mr Howard CHENG Chief Operating Officer, Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited Mr Joel CHAN Architect & Director, P & T Group Ms CHEUNG Lai-yung Managing Director, Ozzo Technology (HK) Limited Mr CHEUNG Kwok-fai, Ivan Senior Engineer/Southern, Transport Department Mr HUNG Tsz-hin Engineer/Southern, Transport Department
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4):
Ms CHOI King-chi, Angie Public Relations Manager - Projects & Property, MTR Corporation Limited Ms KWAN Siu-yi, Christine Director, DLN Architects Limited Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona Associate, DLN Architects Limited Mr FONG Hiu-fung, Jason Estate Surveyor/RD/U3 (Railway Development Section/Urban Office), Lands Department Mr CHEUNG Kwok-fai, Ivan Senior Engineer/Southern, Transport Department
Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 6): Mr WAI Kam-fat, Danny Chief Health Inspector (Southern) 1, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr LAU Wai-cheung Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing/Pest Control), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Opening Remarks:
The Chairman welcomed Members and standing government representatives to the meeting.
3
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 8:55 p.m. at its earliest. Members should inform the Secretariat staff if they had to leave the meeting early.
Part 1 – Items for Discussion
Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 21st DDHC Meeting held on 27 May 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 Chairman also reported the following matters:
(a) Progress of the South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)): The Secretariat wrote to the Chief Secretary for Administration (CS) on 14 June 2019 to invite him or the Secretary for Transport and Housing for a meeting with DDHC Members to discuss the relevant progress. The Secretariat was awaiting the reply from CS. Members could refer to the post-meeting notes in paragraph 45(b) of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting. Moreover, the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB) had invited the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) to submit the proposal for SIL(W) since June 2019; and
(b) Aberdeen Market Modernisation Programme (MMP): The Secretariat had written to the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene (DFEH) on 14 June 2019 to express Members’ views and invite her and the Assistant Director (Market Special Duties) for a meeting with DDHC Members to discuss the relevant progress. The Secretariat was awaiting the reply from DFEH. Members could refer to the post-meeting note in paragraph 74 of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting.
4
(Post-meeting note: (i) THB replied DDHC on 15 August 2019 regarding the progress of the SIL(W) and the Secretariat forwarded the reply to Members accordingly; and
(ii) The Deputy Director (Administration and Development) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), other representatives of FEHD and representatives of the Architectural Services Department met with Members on 27 August 2019 to exchange views on the Aberdeen MMP.)
4. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired about the progress of SIL(W). He said that according to the information from the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB), THB had invited MTRCL to submit the proposal for SIL(W) in June 2019. He hoped that MTRCL would give a briefing on the related matters, including the location of the land reserved by the Lands Department (LandsD) for railway construction. The Chairman replied that it was not appropriate to discuss the related matters under the agenda item, and the progress of SIL(W) was mentioned in the papers submitted by ITB for Agenda Item 3 “Matters Arising – Cyberport Expansion Project”. He advised that Members could raise their comments during the discussion of Agenda Item 3 if they wished to do so.
5. The Chairman continued that prior to the meeting, the Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals for the draft minutes of the aforesaid meeting. He asked Members whether they had any amendment to make.
6. The minutes were confirmed by the Committee.
Agenda Item 2: Progress of the Planning and Development Study of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau and Other Related Areas and the Related Matters (DDHC Paper No. 17/2019)
(Ms YAM Pauline, Mr AU Nok-hin, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus, Mr CHOI Tsung-mang and Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP joined the meeting at 2:37 p.m., 2:41 p.m., 2:43 p.m., 2:47 p.m., 2:56 p.m., 2:58 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. respectively.)
5
7. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the Consultant and government departments to the meeting:
Prudential Surveyors International Limited (a) Mr WONG Chung-lai, Frank, Project Director; (b) Mr NG Sai-hee, Victor, Advisor; (c) Ms ZHU Weihan, Vivian, Team member (Planning and Transport); (d) Mr WONG Wing-chun, Ben, Research Officer; (e) Mr KWAN Chun-hei, Zac, Research Officer;
Marine Department (f) Mr LEUNG Siu-chee, Marine Manager/Licensing & Port Formalities (3); (g) Mr TAM Wai-man, Senior Assistant Shipping Master/South;
Transport Department (h) Mr LI Hui-fung, Kevin, Senior Transport Officer/Southern; (i) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-fai, Ivan, Senior Engineer/Southern; and (j) Mr LI Yick-chun, Engineer/Housing & Planning 2.
8. The Chairman said the following:
(a) At its 3rd meeting on 17 April 2019, the Working Group on Planning and Development Study of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau and Other Related Areas (WGALC) had discussed the proposed planning strategy and development options put forward by the Consultant. Subsequently, the Committee endorsed the revised proposed options by circulation of papers (DDHC Paper No. 10/2019) on 25 April 2019; and
(b) To collect public views on the proposed options, the Second Public Consultation Session was held at Ap Lei Chau Sports Centre on 14 May 2019. After consolidation and analysis of the views collected, the Consultant had further revised the planning strategy and development options. The Committee had discussed the revised options at a workshop held on 27 June 2019. Upon discussion, the Consultant prepared the finalised planning strategy and development options with details given at Annexes 1 to 3 to the DDHC Paper No. 17/2019.
6
9. The Chairman invited the Consultant to brief Members on the information of the finalised planning strategy and development options.
10. With the aid of PowerPoint presentation, Mr Frank WONG briefly presented the progress of the Planning and Development Study of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau and Other Related Areas and the related matters, including the finalised proposed development options of the East, Central and West Parts of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau.
11. The Chairman said that the Planning and Development Study of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau and Other Related Areas lasted for about 30 weeks, during which 12 interviews with stakeholders were conducted and two Public Consultation Sessions were held to collect views from the stakeholders and residents. A workshop was also held on 27 June 2019 to discuss the planning strategy and development options. The Consultant had prepared the finalised planning strategy and development options for DDHC’s consideration and examination. Therefore, it was hoped that Members could focus their discussion on Annex 3 to the DDHC Paper No. 17/2019.
12. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH declared that he was the Chairman of the Southern District Dragon Boat Racing Committee and the Vice Chairman of the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee.
13. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying declared that she was the Chairlady of the Aberdeen Dragon Boat Race Committee.
14. The Chairman noted the above declarations made by Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, and said that they could continue to participate in the discussion and voting of this agenda item.
15. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui and Mr AU Nok-hin raised the following comments and enquiries:
7
Overall Planning Strategy and Development Options
(a) Several Members said that the Consultant had made an analysis of the public views on the planning and development of the waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau to ascertain if they would conform to the outline zoning plan and government policies. Members were pleased that specific planning and development strategy options had been drawn up eventually. A Member appreciated that the Consultant had kept abreast of time when drawing up proposals such as constructing underground smart parking. It was hoped that the recommendation could help solve the problem of illegal parking on Ap Lei Chau Main Street;
(b) Some Members gave credits to the Consultant for making every effort to collect views from the public and the Council in spite of the tight timeframe and limited resources, and coming up with the finalised planning strategy and development options that had fulfilled the aspirations of the majority of stakeholders and residents. Furthermore, a Member was glad to learn that the overall development proposal had incorporated the inclusive concept into its design with the theme of “traditional fisherman culture” in its design elements;
Development Options for the Eastern Waterfront Area
(c) A Member suggested that apart from considering the addition of landing steps for Site E-1, consideration should also be given to installing cat ladders on the seawall to replace the existing ladders which had been built by the public on their own in order to ensure the safety of users. Some other Members agreed with the above suggestion and pointed out that they did not mean to suggest provision of a pier for berthing of large vessels but only landing steps for the sake of safe landing and boarding of ships for the users;
(d) A Member proposed that the development options of the four sites in the eastern area should be interchangeable, whereas each of the sites should also be studied to identify the suitable land use in future with a view to optimising utilisation of these sites in the most effective way;
8
(e) Several Members supported the study of developing recreational facilities, such as inclusive playgrounds and facilities related to dragon boat activities on Site E-3. It was pointed out that dragon boat activities could showcase the traditional features of the district;
(f) A Member said that since quite a number of underground utility ducts had been laid beneath Site E-4, it was thus not suitable to provide a community garden on Site E-4. She suggested constructing a pet park on Site E-4, which would be more feasible and would not affect the underground utilities;
(g) A Member was glad to learn that the request of residents to study the possibility of adding an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area had been included in the proposed development options. It was hoped that the proposal would be followed up proactively in the next term of the Southern District Council (SDC). Another Member pointed out that as the South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) had been put into operation, it was uncertain if the MTRCL would undertake to bear the expenditure of adding an MTR exit, making it more difficult to implement the proposal. Yet, the Member stressed that residents living in the eastern waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau had been enduring the problem of traffic inconvenience and hence the Council should consider taking forward the proposal proactively. Another Member said that while he understood the residents had strong aspirations for adding an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area, implementation of the proposal would entail huge difficulties, the problem of funding in particular. He worried that the proposal would only give residents a false hope;
Development Options for the Central Waterfront Area
(h) A Member had doubts about the feasibility of providing underground smart parking at Site CO-1. If any study found that construction of underground smart parking was not feasible in future, he expected that there could be other alternative options;
9
Development Options for the Western Waterfront Area
(i) Some Members supported the study of constructing a slope park on Site WO-2. Based on some relevant overseas examples, the play equipment provided in a slope park was quite interesting and should be popular among children in the district. Members also pointed out that Site WO-2 was close to Sites W-2 and W-3 and the project on the construction of a footbridge with lifts to connect the Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park and Ap Lei Chau Estate would be completed in a few years. It was thus suggested that the proposed development options for Sites WO-2, W-2 and W-3 should be studied together as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the addition of facilities to Wind Tower Park should also be considered in the short term for public enjoyment;
Other Comments
(j) A Member was concerned about the follow-up arrangement after the finalised planning strategy and development options had been endorsed. He pointed out that the SDC had conducted quite a number of studies, the proposals of which had not been materialised. To implement the development options for the waterfront area of Ap Lei Chau, the departments concerned might either need to seek funding from the Legislative Council (LegCo) or make changes to some government policies; and
(k) A Member proposed that residents’ views should be further scrutinised in order to address the issues specifically in future. He mentioned the example of constructing a cycling park at the north shore of Ap Lei Chau promenade, which was not recommended by the Consultant for the time being. He suggested looking into the residents’ aspiration further to ascertain whether they wished to have a cycling track constructed or simply hoped that cycling would be allowed in the park at the north shore of Ap Lei Chau.
16. The Chairman invited the representatives of the Consultant to respond.
17. Mr Frank WONG gave a consolidated response as follows:
10
(a) Taking into account the views collected from the workshop held in June 2019, the Consultant had revised the proposed development options, for example, the short-term and long-term development options for Site E-3. He thanked all Members for holding a positive attitude towards the finalised planning strategy and development options. As regards implementation of the development options, it should be left to the next term SDC to follow up;
(b) The proposal for adding a pet park in the short-term development options for Site E-4 was feasible. Subject to the Committee’s agreement, revision could be made accordingly;
(c) Concerning the addition of an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area, the exact location had not yet been identified. If it was decided to continue to follow up that item, the exact location and other details would have to be deliberated again;
(d) Concerning the construction of underground smart parking at Site CO-1, further study could be carried out in future, including examining whether the vehicles waiting outside the carpark would cause traffic congestion in the vicinity and the solutions if so;
(e) Regarding the suggestion of studying the proposed development options of Sites WO-2, W-2 and W-3 together, if a study was to be carried out in future, that suggestion would serve as a reference;
(f) As regards Members’ proposal for adding facilities to the Wind Tower Park in the short term, he pointed out that the short-term and medium-term development options of Site W-1, i.e. “Enrich the existing exhibition content” and “Interactive design is added in the exhibition hall”, should not be confined to improving the existing content displayed in the exhibition hall but could also include carrying out improvement works to other locations on Site W-1; and
(g) There were proposals from several respondents at the public engagement sessions for constructing cycling tracks. However, the provision of cycling tracks would reduce the number of existing facilities, and hence affect users of those facilities. To minimise the impact on the users, the
11
Consultant had once considered an option to construct a cycling park in figure-eight shape or L-shape. Yet, having regard to the examples in other cycling parks, it was considered that the size of the Ap Lei Chau waterfront could hardly fulfill the site area requirement for the construction of a cycling park. Therefore, it was proposed that an active open space be built on a portion of the site in the East Part.
18. The Chairman invited representative of the LandsD to respond.
19. Ms Amii KO responded that if the development options were to be implemented in future, the department concerned would need to apply for land allocation or seek assistance from LandsD. LandsD would handle the relevant applications under the established procedures.
20. The Chairman invited representative of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to respond.
21. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that if the development options were approved, LCSD would follow up and make corresponding arrangements under its work purview.
22. The Chairman invited representative of the Planning Department (PlanD) to respond.
23. Mr Vincent WONG responded that PlanD noted the findings of the consultancy study. PlanD would provide comments from planning perspectives to individual project proponents as far as possible.
24. The Chairman invited representative of the Marine Department (MD) to respond.
25. Mr TAM Wai-man gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) If more specific development options were recommended in future, MD would give advice on matters about ship navigational safety and marine traffic; and
12
(b) Concerning the provision of cat ladders on Site E-1, the proposal was different from those ordinary landing steps. If implemented, the relevant safety and management issues had to be taken into account. The Consultant might provide suggestions on those issues.
26. The Chairman invited representatives of the Transport Department (TD) to respond.
27. Mr Kevin LI responded that TD would review the usage of the existing landing steps managed by TD along Ap Lei Chau in the light of the proposal for adding landing steps at Site E-1 to assess whether additional landing steps were necessary.
28. Mr Ivan CHEUNG responded that TD planned to conduct a pilot study on the automatic parking systems (pilot study) at Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan. TD would examine the effectiveness of the pilot study and review the feasibility to apply the automatic parking system at suitable locations in other districts.
29. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH and Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:
Overall Planning Strategy and Development Options
(a) Some Members thanked the Consultant for making every effort to conduct the study within a tight timeframe and was glad that after thorough study, the finalised planning strategy and development options of the Ap Lei Chau waterfront areas had been drawn up;
Development Options for the Eastern Waterfront Area
(b) A Member pointed out that the cost of adding cat ladders was smaller than that of the landing steps. It was hoped that the proposal for adding cat ladders could be included in the study area of Site E-1;
(c) A Member mentioned that although TD had all along said it would make arrangement to facilitate the construction of landing facilities in the
13
Southern District as far as possible, under its current policy, TD would only support provision of a pier only if there was an increase in public ferry routes. As such, the up-to-standard landing facilities in the eastern waterfront area had been insufficient over years. He asked whether the departments concerned could assist in taking forward the job. Another Member would like to know the differences in various types of landing facilities in terms of their usage and design so as to help the Committee follow up at the meeting;
(d) A Member proposed that the development options for Sites E-1 to E-4 should be interchangeable in order to allow more flexible and effective use of the land and greater flexibility in planning and implementation of the proposals;
(e) A Member hoped that LCSD could proactively follow up and facilitate implementation of the proposal to construct a pet park on Site E-4 to optimise the use of land resources;
(f) Several Members said that while they understood the difficulty in adding an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area, further study might be conducted to tackle the difficulty. Members did not mean to give any false hope to residents by raising such proposals. They pointed out that there had been precedent cases of adding exits to an existing MTR station such as Lee Tung Street, Wanchai where a new exit was added to the MTR station after its redevelopment. In addition, some residents who attended the Second Public Consultation Session strongly urged for the addition of an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area. In future, if any entity agreed to bear the cost, the proposal of adding an MTR exit in the eastern waterfront area might be materialised. Another Member pointed out that as the Government had invited MTRCL to submit a proposal on SIL(W), it would be an opportune time to request MTRCL to consider the possibility of adding an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area in its study;
(g) A Member said that he did not mean to oppose to the addition of an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area and understood residents’ strong aspiration for the proposal. However, as a District Councillor, he opined that he had a responsibility to explain to the residents the difficulties
14
involved, including the source of funding. MTRCL’s usual practice was to request the owners who put up the proposal to bear the cost. Therefore, it was necessary to reflect the actual problems to residents when making the suggestions. Otherwise, it would only give a false hope to the residents. Another Member also said that he did explain to the public in the Second Public Consultation Session about the difficulty in implementing this proposal. It was the responsibility of District Councillors to explain to residents the difficulties involved;
Development Options for the Central Waterfront Area
(h) A Member welcomed the pilot scheme rolled out by TD for the construction of underground smart parking. Some other Members said that as illegal parking on Ap Lei Chau Main Street was serious, residents of Ap Lei Chau would benefit if the proposed construction of underground smart parking was implemented on Site CO-1 in future. Thus, it was hoped that TD could follow up proactively by seeking funding from the LegCo for commencement of the works in order to solve the problem of parking space shortage in the Southern District;
Development Options for the Western Waterfront Area
(i) A Member was delighted to learn that a technical feasibility study could be conducted on the construction of an access to Tai Wong Kung Temple, and hoped that the SDC in the next term could follow up the matter proactively;
(j) A Member pointed out that the existing facilities in the parks of Hong Kong were not interesting, and thus fully supported the proposal for constructing a slope park which had also gained other Members’ support in general. In this regard, it was hoped that if the addition of a slope park was to be implemented in future, the Council would not object to taking forward the works which provided more modern facilities in place of the existing recreational facilities;
Other Comments
15
(k) A Member proposed that the future waterfront area should accommodate both the cyclists and pedestrians at the same time. In this connection, all access should reserve adequate width for the passage of both pedestrian and bicycle users when implementing the development options;
(l) A Member said that the SDC had conducted consultancy study on various projects, such as the study on “Sustainable Tourism of Southern District - The Role of Wong Chuk Hang and Adjoining Areas” in the past. However, implementation of the proposals recommended in the report was not satisfactory. Thus, same problem should be avoided for the study in question. Under section 61(b) of the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547), the functions of a District Council included “where funds are made available for the purpose, to undertake - (i) environmental improvements within the District; (ii) the promotion of recreational and cultural activities within the District”; if feasible, he suggested carrying out some relatively simple options with District Minor Works (DMW) fund but was worried that the SDC might not be able to take forward some relatively complicated planning options under section 61(a) of the District Councils Ordinance. He proposed that the next term SDC should implement those simple and more feasible options first, whereas the other more complicated items should be left for the relevant departments to seek funding or to solicit sponsorship, or even to work with other organisations in a collaboratively to implement the proposals. He pointed out it was rare for SDC to seek sponsorship or collaborate with other organisations to implement the works projects of SDC. Yet, his suggestion could make up the deficiency in funding and avoid long waiting time, and ensure the implementation of proposals as early as possible to satisfy the public needs;
(m) A Member was concerned about how the aforesaid options were to be followed up and implemented in future, in particular those short-term options. He cited the fact that some short-term options were proposed to be followed up by the District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC). Since there were still a lot of DMW-funded projects pending completion, he was worried that the short-term development options could not be implemented within five years if only DMW funding was used. Thus, he suggested seeking additional resources for implementation of the options as soon as possible; and
16
(n) A Member opined that the meeting should focus on discussing the proposed planning development options put forward by the Consultant. Details about the follow-up actions to be taken by departments could be discussed in future.
30. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH raised an enquiry on the rules of order. She opined that even though the addition of an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area had a certain degree of difficulty, as a District Councillor, she ought to follow up proactively. She pointed out that while Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr LO Kin-hei claimed themselves as responsible District Councillors, she stressed that not only Members from the Democratic Party were considered responsible District Councillors.
31. Mr AU Nok-hin raised an enquiry on the rules of order. He said that he had withdrawn from the Democratic Party and had become an independent person. He also reiterated that he had no intention to accuse Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH of being an irresponsible District Councillor.
32. The Chairman said the following:
(a) He pointed out that the above discussion on a District Councillor’s duties was not about rules of order. Members were asked to respect other participants at the meeting;
(b) He pointed out that the majority of the public who attended the Second Public Consultation Session suggested incorporating the proposal of adding an MTR exit to the eastern waterfront area into the development option. In the light of public’s comments, the Consultant added the proposal under the short-term development option, i.e. “An addition of MTR exit requires a project proponent, who should conduct the feasibility studies, including examining the location, technical and financial viability studies, and bear all related costs”. If the Committee agreed to the proposal, it was not necessary to discuss further the details and difficulties of adding an MTR exit. Discussion should focus on other revised contents instead in order not to waste the time of the meeting; and
(c) Regarding the addition of landing facilities, the Consultant had incorporated the proposal into the short-term development option, i.e.
17
“Relevant department(s) to study the local demand for landing steps and related situations and decide whether additional landing steps and improvement works are needed”. If the Committee agreed to the proposal, the Committee concerned could discuss the details such as funding sources in future.
33. The Chairman invited the representatives of the Consultant to respond.
34. Mr Frank WONG said that he had nothing to add.
35. The Chairman invited the LandsD representative to respond.
36. Ms Amii KO responded that LandsD was not a works department. If the development options were to be implemented, the proposal had to be submitted by the relevant works department.
37. The Chairman invited the LCSD representative to respond.
38. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG said that he had nothing to add.
39. The Chairman invited the representative of PlanD to respond.
40. Mr Vincent WONG said that he had nothing to add.
41. The Chairman invited the representative of MD to respond.
42. Mr TAM Wai-man said that MD was not responsible for the construction of landing facilities.
43. The Chairman invited the representatives of TD to respond.
44. Mr Kevin LI responded that TD would review the usage of the existing four sets of landing steps managed by TD at the north shore of Ap Lei Chau and would also consider the necessity and possibility of adding landing steps on Site E-1 in respect of its navigational suitability and safety of vessels, etc.
45. Mr Ivan CHEUNG responded that the pilot study on the underground automatic parking system would investigate the technical feasibility, land requirement,
18 financial and operational management arrangements for the system. Subject to the study result, TD would consider the feasibility to construct automatic parking system in other districts.
46. The Chairman asked Members whether they agree to the following revisions made in Annex 3 based on the above discussion:
(a) For Site E-1, the short-term proposal be revised as “Relevant department(s) to study the local demand for landing steps / cat ladders and related situations and decide whether additional landing steps / cat ladders and improvement works are needed”; its medium-term proposal be revised as “Additional landing steps / cat ladders can be constructed if there is such demand”; and
(b) For Site E-4, the short-term proposal be revised as “A passive open space can be built, such as temporary landscaped gardens / pet park, etc.”
47. Members raised no objection.
48. The Chairman concluded that –
(a) the Committee endorsed the short-, medium- and long-term development options for the East, Central and West Parts of the Waterfront Area of Ap Lei Chau given at Annex 3, as well as the above revised development options for Sites E-1 and E-4;
(b) the electronic version of the endorsed planning strategy and development options would be sent to all Members and uploaded onto the homepage of SDC. The Consultant would produce a leaflet stating the development options for dissemination to the public.
(c) The Secretariat would provide the relevant government departments with the finalised planning strategy and development options for perusal, and the respective Committees stated in Annex 3 would follow up the development proposals. Since the composition of the Committees under the next term SDC might be different from those of the current term,
19
Committees to be responsible for following up the recommendation would be subject to the structure of the next term SDC; and
(d) Members commended the Consultant for making every effort to collect views from the Council, the stakeholders and the public, draw up the revised planning strategy and development options in a timely manner, and render professional services despite the limited resources and tight timeframe.
(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat uploaded the finalised planning strategy and development options onto the SDC homepage and have forwarded them to the relevant government departments for follow up. The electronic version was also sent to the Committee Members accordingly.)
Agenda Item 3: Matters Arising – Cyberport Expansion Project (Includes agenda item on “Supplementary Information on the Cyberport Expansion Project” raised by Innovation and Technology Bureau and Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited and motion on “Associated Works of Cyberport Expansion” moved by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN) (DDHC Paper No. 18/2019)
49. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the departments and organisations concerned to the meeting:
ITB (a) Ms YAM Ya-ling, Eva, Principal Assistant Secretary for Innovation & Technology (3); (b) Ms MAK Kai-ting, Salina, Assistant Secretary for Innovation & Technology (3A);
Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited (HKCMCL) (c) Mr Peter YAN, Chief Executive Officer; (d) Mr Howard CHENG, Chief Operating Officer;
P&T Group
20
(e) Mr Joel CHAN, Architect & Director;
Ozzo Technology (HK) Ltd. (f) Ms CHEUNG Lai-yung, Managing Director; and
TD (g) Mr HUNG Tsz-hin, Engineer/Southern 2.
50. The Chairman said that the Committee had discussed the “Cyberport Expansion Project” (the Project) at the last meeting. Since Members wished to obtain further details, ITB and HKCMCL had provided supplementary information on the Project. Moreover, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN had moved a motion on the “Associated Works of Cyberport Expansion”, which was seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon. Besides, the Secretariat had received an amendment motion moved by Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH and seconded by Mr AU Lap-sing, MH at the meeting. Given that the above agenda item, original motion and amendment motion revolved around the same subject, it was suggested that the items be discussed jointly.
51. The Chairman read out the original motion and amendment motion, as follows:
(a) “Original Motion”: (Moved by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon)
“In consideration of the expansion of Cyberport, the Southern District Council requests the implementation of three associated projects which will improve the connection between Cyberport and the neighbouring communities, and provide greater convenience for everyone: the improvement of nearby road junctions; a pedestrian bridge over Waterfall Bay; and an elevated walkway along the shore between Telegraph Bay and Sandy Bay.”
(b) “Amendment Motion”: (Moved by Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH and seconded by Mr AU Lap-sing, MH)
“In consideration of the expansion of Cyberport, the Southern District Council requests improvement of nearby road junctions as well as taking forward the
21
construction of the SIL(W) with stations and pedestrian connections constructed in the vicinity of Cyberport, which will improve the connection between Cyberport and the neighbouring communities, and provide greater convenience for everyone.”
52. The Chairman invited the representatives of ITB and HKCMCL to brief Members on the content of the paper.
53. During her presentation of the paper, Ms Eva YAM said that fostering the development of innovation and technology (I&T) was an important policy area of the Government. Not only could I&T propel economic development, it could also enhance the livelihood of the people, such as facilitating the public’s access to transport and elderly care services. As such, the Government had injected more than $100 billion in I&T development over the past two years. Cyberport played an integral role in the overall I&T development. Transforming ideas into products and solutions, start-ups were also an important component of I&T development. So far, Cyberport had nurtured over 600 start-ups, three of which had become “unicorns” within the industry. Since the existing office space and common area of Cyberport were almost fully utilised, the Government intended to expand the Cyberport campus to provide more office space.
54. Ms Eva YAM continued that in response to Members’ views expressed at the last meeting regarding the implementation of SIL(W) and the improvement of pedestrian connections between Cyberport and its vicinity, she had provided a reply with details set out at Annex 1 to DDHC Paper No. 18/2019 and Reference Information 1. She stressed that as the Project was still at the conceptual stage, Members were welcomed to provide views on the project design, works programme and future operation, etc., so that HKCMCL could take their comments into account at the detailed design stage later on. ITB would consult SDC on the detailed design before seeking funding approval from the LegCo.
55. Mr Peter YAN briefed Members on the occupancy of office space and The Arcade as well as information relating to the Waterfront Park and public space in Cyberport, with details set out at Annex 1 to DDHC Paper No. 18/2019. Moreover, he illustrated the visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding areas with the aid of PowerPoint presentation as detailed in Reference Information 1.
22
56. With the aid of PowerPoint presentation, Mr Joel CHAN briefed Members on the traffic impact of the Project and the proposed road improvement works, with details set out in Reference Information 1.
57. The Chairman asked Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN to present the original motion first.
58. With the aid of PowerPoint presentation, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN presented the original motion, with details set out in Reference Information 2. He remarked that:
(a) he expressed support for the amendment motion;
(b) among the views collected from 900 residents in Pok Fu Lam, 56% of the respondents were against the Project;
(c) in view of the concern expressed by residents about the current low occupancy rate of Cyberport’s office space, he had already recommended that HKCMCL should strengthen the communication with residents so as to respond to their views and remove such misunderstandings;
(d) additional photomontages had been provided by HKCMCL to illustrate the visual impact of the proposed Project on the surrounding areas, but not Baguio Villa. He requested HKCMCL to provide photomontages that represented what would be seen at Cyberport from the rooftop of President Tower at Baguio Villa;
(e) residents had expressed concern as to whether there would be a reduction in public space in Cyberport as a result of the expansion works. In addition, regarding the intended uses and design of the Waterfront Park adjacent to the Cyberport campus, he was of the view that HKCMCL should review the relevant process and make better arrangements to facilitate the participation of residents through the engagement of the community in the planning process, instead of merely showing residents the drawings prepared beforehand;
(f) apart from the Project, the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate and Queen Mary Hospital as well as the expansion of The University of Hong Kong
23
(HKU) would also bring about traffic impacts. Therefore, he wished to obtain the relevant traffic impact assessment (TIA) report, so that sufficient information could be made available for him to comment on the traffic improvement works proposed by HKCMCL;
(g) HKCMCL had failed to address residents’ aspiration for the future planning of The Arcade. He said that the existing services provided by The Arcade had been unable to meet the needs of residents. He continued that residents wished for more daily necessity stores in the shopping mall upon completion of the expansion project. In this connection, he requested HKCMCL to provide information on the detailed planning of the shopping mall;
(h) given that the Government had earmarked $5.5 billion for the expansion of Cyberport, through the motion, he would like to urge the Government to consider carrying out the associated works. He continued that as the Project would have significant implications on the district, the Government should carry out the associated works in one go, although consideration might also be given to obtaining funding approval for these projects separately and coordinating the timing of construction projects. Besides, despite that some of the proposed works had been included in the DMW programme under the purview of SDC, it was highly probable that those projects would fail to materialise due to the high cost of those projects which might exceed funding ceiling. He highlighted that the Project would enhance the connectivity between the Cyberport waterfront and Wah Fu Estate, thereby benefiting local residents. As such, he hoped that the Government would carefully consider his suggestions;
(i) he said that only after making reference to the relevant TIA reports could he comment on the design of road improvement works proposed by HKCMCL. Nevertheless, he commented on the following road improvement works: (i) adding footpaths along Sassoon Road; (ii) widening Sha Wan Drive junction; (iii) widening the junction of Victoria Road and Sandy Bay Road; (iv) improving the junction of Victoria Road and Cyberport Road; (v) cutting back the slope to make space for the construction of layby for a bus stop at Cyberport Road opposite to Residence Bel-Air Phases 4 to 6; and (vi) improving the design of roads and tackling illegal parking near The Arcade. He suggested further
24
deliberating the above improvement works upon receipt of the TIA report concerned after the meeting; and;
(j) it had been revealed in a study conducted by TD in support of the “Walk in Hong Kong” initiative that apart from traffic demand, waterfront layouts should also take visual appeal into account. Similarly, the PlanD’s “Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong” laid down that the design of waterfront areas should take such factors as connectivity and visual appeal into account. As the Cyberport campus was located at the waterfront, the findings and guidelines released by the above departments and the design direction recommended by the Harbourfront Commission should be taken into consideration in implementing the Project.
59. The Chairman asked Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH to present the amendment motion.
60. During his presentation of the amendment motion, Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH remarked that:
(a) he did not object to the original motion. Indeed, amendments had been moved to the original motion with the aim of providing supplementary information that highlighted the need to improve the external transport network, as well as clarifying the position of the Committee for the early implementation of SIL(W);
(b) during its previous discussions on the major development projects in the Southern District such as the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, the Committee had stressed the need to consider such projects in conjunction with the implementation of SIL(W). Instead of merely serving the interests of individual development projects, the railway project was as a whole conducive to the development of the entire Southern District. For instance, more than half of the residents in the Southern District, including those living in Ap Lei Chau and Wong Chuk Hang, had directly benefited from the commissioning of the SIL(E). Nevertheless, residents in Aberdeen and Pok Fu Lam still needed to take feeder buses to MTR stations;
25
(c) he was delighted to know that the Government had invited MTRCL to submit a proposal for the construction of SIL(W) in June 2019. Nevertheless, he was of the view that the Government should change its mindset. Instead of considering the construction of SIL(W) having regard to population growth upon the intake of residents at the redeveloped Wah Fu Estate, the Government should implement both projects concurrently; and
(d) the residents’ prime concern was the possible traffic problems arising from the additional people flow as a result of the Project, especially those associated with the external transport network. It had been mentioned in the paper ways to enhance the external transport network, which included negotiation with franchised bus and minibus operators on improvement measures. Yet, apart from the aforesaid measures, the Government should expedite the implementation of SIL(W). It was imperative for the Government to include a “Cyberport Station” when determining the railway alignment and provide comprehensive pedestrian connections, with a view to enhancing connectivity between Cyberport and the neighbouring communities.
61. The Chairman asked Members to give their views, including whether or not they supported the Project as well as their comments on the original motion and amendment motion.
62. Mr LAW Kam-hung, Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr LO Kin-hei, Ms YAM Pauline and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:
Intentions Expressed on Cyberport Expansion Project
(a) a number of Members expressed support for or had no objection to the Project;
(b) a Member pledged support for the Project. Considering that the project was able to create job opportunities, encourage sustainable entrepreneurship in the I&T sector and attract more patrons to Cyberport. She had high hopes for the Project;
26
Intentions Expressed on the Proposed Motions
(c) a Member said that traffic arrangements were a key consideration factor in determining whether or not to support the Project. Instead of opposing to the Project, both the original motion and amendment motion had indeed highlighted the conditions necessary for a successful project;
(d) a number of Members supported the amendment motion because it covered a more comprehensive range of areas;
(e) a Member commented that the objective of the original motion was different from that of the amendment motion. As the latter had primarily aimed to push for the implementation of SIL(W), presumably the Committee would express support for it in the hope of enlisting the help of HKCMCL to achieve the goal in a concerted effort. Yet, the original motion had proposed specific measures to enhance connectivity between the Cyberport and its surrounding areas with a view to seeking funding approval for the implementation of the Project. Following its failed attempts to seek funding for the works proposed during past discussions on the connectivity of the area concerned, SDC would like to take the opportunity to secure funding commitment for the associated works. Therefore, fellow Members should support the original motion as well;
SIL(W)
(f) a Member said that owing to the difficulties encountered in attracting talented jobseekers to work in the inaccessible Cyberport, quite many tenants had relocated their offices to the neighbourhood of MTR stations. Judging from that, the implementation of SIL(W) was crucial to the future development of Cyberport. As far as he knew, the Government had invited MTRCL in June 2019 to submit a proposal for the SIL(W) project. Given that MTRCL had been invited to submit proposals for a number of new railway projects at the same time, he urged HKCMCL to help strive for the early implementation of SIL(W). Moreover, the Government should also conduct consultation on railway alignment and site selection for the stations as early as practicable. Regarding the prioritisation of
27
railway projects, another Member understood from previous experience that SIL(W) was likely to be accorded top priority;
(g) a Member said that HKCMCL seemed to suggest that it had nothing to do with the implementation of SIL(W). As a matter of fact, to strive for the construction of Ocean Park Station, the Ocean Park had joined hands with SDC in its fight for the implementation of SIL(E) in the past. Therefore, HKCMCL should make reference to the above example. Given that the people flow towards the Ocean Park had been greatly boosted upon commissioning of SIL(E), another Member expected similar benefits to Cyberport upon commissioning of SIL(W);
(h) a Member said that when attending the opening ceremony of an event taking place at Cyberport earlier, he was delighted to see that many eSports related venues and high-tech gadget stores had sprouted in The Arcade. However, to boost people flow, it was essential to improve traffic connections. Given that the risk of congestion was higher for land transport than railway, she wished for early implementation of the SIL(W) to enhance development of Cyberport;
(i) a Member said that currently, HKCMCL and its tenants had provided their staff with shuttle bus services operating between Cyberport and the vicinity of Aberdeen Centre, which had created pressure on the road network in Aberdeen. Upon completion of the Project, the additional people flow towards Cyberport would exert even greater pressure on the road network in the surrounding areas. Therefore, it was considered that the construction of SIL(W) would help alleviate the above traffic problem. Another Member considered that the railway link conducive to tackling the overall traffic problems in the district;
(j) a Member said that SIL(W) was an essential project for the western part of the Southern District. As railway alignment and spatial distribution of railway stations, etc. would have implications on future projects, including the associated works to enhance connectivity between Cyberport and the surrounding areas as proposed in the original motion, she expressed concern about the prioritisation of various works projects, and requested the departments concerned to clarify;
28
Other Traffic Matters
(k) a Member enquired about the anticipated flow of people and goods, and number of parking spaces in car parks upon completion of the Project, as well as details of the relevant TIA report;
(l) a Member said that the road improvement works proposed by HKCMCL were merely minor remedial works which would not completely resolve related traffic problems. Another Member opined that the road improvement works proposed by HKCMCL were white elephants and the information was insufficient, and that in particular, the road improvement works for the junction of Victoria Road and Pok Fu Lam Road would not be able to cope with the future traffic demand generated from the redeveloped Wah Fu Estate. However, a Member was of the view that HKCMCL had put a lot of thoughts into the design of the road improvement works and she hoped that those works would dovetail the commissioning of SIL(W);
Open Space
(m) a Member asked Cyberport not to fence off the lawn of the Waterfront Park during the expansion works. At present, the lawn was under-utilised and there were insufficient recreational facilities. He hoped Cyberport could tap the potential of the lawn to provide public open space through effective planning;
(n) a Member said that a suggestion to provide more open space was put forward at the last meeting. He was delighted with HKCMCL’s positive response at this meeting, including active consideration being given to allowing public access to the rooftop of Cyberport 5;
Enhancing Connectivity with Surrounding Areas
(o) with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, a Member briefed fellow Members on the proposal for enhancing connectivity between Cyberport and the surrounding areas, with details set out in Reference Information 2. He said that SDC had passed the motion “Urge the HK Government to start implementing section by section a promenade linking Kennedy Town
29
to Aberdeen, as far as practicable along the waterfront” in 2011. Rather than merely coping with the needs of local pedestrians, the pedestrian link in question was intended to enable members of the public to enjoy waterfront facilities. Also, given that guidelines on the improvement of waterfront sites had been stipulated in the “Urban Design Guidelines for Hong Kong” and promulgated by the Harbourfront Commission respectively, he hoped that reference would be made to the aforesaid guidelines in the planning of the Project;
(p) he continued that the proposed pedestrian bridge connecting Cyberport and Waterfall Bay could shorten the distance between the two places by 1.1 kilometres, thereby saving 16 minutes of walking time and reducing the likelihood of accidental fall from the cliff. Though the project had already been included in the DMW programme under the purview of SDC, it was envisaged that its cost would exceed the funding ceiling of a DMW project. Furthermore, the proposed elevated walkway along the shore between Telegraph Bay and Sandy Bay could provide a barrier-free access for the convenience of the public travelling to and from Cyberport. Not only could the public and Cyberport benefit, the traffic burden could also be alleviated. Besides, the walkway could connect the Waterfront Park in Cyberport to the HKU’s sports facilities at Sha Wan Drive. In fact, a similar elevated walkway had been provided in Deep Water Bay. Such associated works were relatively simple and less costly;
(q) he further commented that he had moved the original motion to request the Government to enhance the connectivity between Cyberport and its surrounding areas. If the Project was a private development, the developer would have definitely sought to attract visitors from the surrounding areas of Cyberport via a well-connected transport network, instead of being deterred by the tedious land acquisition procedures involving different government departments. He requested the Government to consider his suggestions and carry out the associated works as soon as possible;
(r) a Member said that the implementation of the associated works, e.g. pedestrian access, etc. in tandem with the major project for the expansion of Cyberport as proposed in the original motion would bring benefits to the Southern District and members of the public. Another Member
30
expressed support for the proposal for enhancing connectivity between Cyberport and its neighbouring communities;
(s) given the circuitous links between different phases of Cyberport at present, a Member enquired whether a footbridge would be constructed to connect Cyberport 5 with The Arcade or other phases. If implemented, it would reduce the inconvenience caused to visitors and residents;
(t) a Member said that given that the Government had proposed to earmark funding for the expansion of Cyberport, if the associated works proposed in the original motion were to be carried out concurrently, additional funding would have to be sought. In fact, there had been similar cases in the past. Citing the construction of the Hong Kong Science Park (HKSP) and the Pak Shek Kok Promenade as an example, the Government announced construction of the project in 1999. The site with an area of 1 100 square metres (m2) originally reserved for landscaping and recreational purposes was only rezoned for the development of a promenade and cycling track in 2003. Funding approval was given for the project costing more than $200 million. In view of the similar nature of HKSP and Cyberport, the above example could serve as a useful reference. In addition, a provision of $82.2 million had been sought from the LegCo in the 2017-18 financial year for the construction of a waterfront promenade on an open space site with a total area of 6 700 m2 adjacent to the Hong Kong Children’s Hospital (HKCH). The project encompassed installation of benches, tree planting and associated landscaping works, as well as construction of a children’s playground and public toilets, etc. Both examples illustrated that should there be a shortfall of facilities, the Government should consider carrying out works for provision of additional facilities at the planning stage to address public needs. All in all, the associated works proposed in the original motion could enhance the connectivity and accessibility of pedestrian links in the district for the benefit of the public. Even if the projects might not be implemented in parallel with the Cyberport Expansion Project, it was hoped that the Government would consider implementing them by seeking additional funding or initiating the projects separately;
Collection of Views
31
(u) a Member said that as local residents were more familiar with the actual situation in the district, such as environmental hygiene nuisances and air pollution issues, etc., he suggested that HKCMCL set up a community liaison group for holding regular meetings with local stakeholders, so as to gauge the views of the residents, the SDC and the Area Committee concerned. Such arrangement was conducive to working out solutions in a more effective and comprehensive manner. Another Member agreed with the above suggestion, saying that as the community liaison groups for the expansion of the Ocean Park and the construction of SIL(E) were proven to be successful, the related arrangement was worthy for consideration;
Information Provided
(v) a Member said that the presentation materials provided by HKCMCL were a little too general and the photomontages were not satisfactory, Cyberport had yet to provide visual materials with either a tech-savvy appeal or three-dimensional effects;
(w) a Member was aware that the presentation materials prepared by HKCMCL were a little simple due to the short interval between the announcement of earmarking $5.5 billion for the expansion of Cyberport as proposed in the 2019-20 Budget and the meeting. Notwithstanding that, HKCMCL had tried its best to prepare the information for submission to the Committee; and
Other Comments
(x) a Member said that given the on-going commitment of Cyberport to promoting the development of digital technology in Hong Kong, Cyberport should consider how technology might be integrated into everyday life. However, HKCMCL had not mentioned that in the paper. To ensure effective implementation, he suggested Cyberport conduct pilot projects and collaborate with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or other business organisations in the district, e.g. the Ocean Park.
63. Ms Eva YAM gave a consolidated response as follows:
32
(a) she thanked Members for their valuable input and support for the Project;
(b) in view of Members’ strong wish for the implementation of SIL(W), ITB would relay Members’ views to and maintain close liaison with the THB. In view of the great pedestrian flow and benefits expected to be brought to Cyberport upon completion of SIL(W), it was believed that HKCMCL would support the SIL(W) project;
(c) ITB and Cyberport were actively examining the TIA report on the Project with TD. Pending finalisation of its details, the report was not available for Members’ perusal for the time being. PlanD would submit a rezoning application in relation to the expansion project in due course. The TIA report would be put in the public domain as it would be a supporting document for application. Members were welcomed to discuss its details with ITB;
(d) she believed that HKCMCL had taken note of Members’ comments on details of the works programme, including no fencing-off of the Waterfront Park during the construction period, etc., and that it would be willing to consider setting up a community liaison group to gauge public views, including comments on the design of the Waterfront Park;
(e) with the presence of a number of start-ups in Cyberport, many of them should be willing to promote their products and services in the district in partnership with the community to enable the integration of technology into everyday life; and
(f) ITB noted Members’ proposals for constructing a pedestrian bridge over Waterfall Bay and an elevated walkway along the shore between Telegraph Bay and Sandy Bay. Such proposed works and the Project should be dealt with separately. ITB would actively follow up with the departments concerned.
64. Mr Peter YAN gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) while that residents’ request for visual openness could not be fully taken into account at the present stage, the Project would not cause a significant
33
visual impact on a number of key public viewing points, as reflected in the previously shown photomontages. HKCMCL would continue to collect views from residents, with a view to mitigating the impact on them;
(b) HKCMCL would step up communication with residents for collecting views on enhancing facilities at the Waterfront Park, so as to facilitate the participation of residents in the Southern District in the design of communal facilities therein;
(c) improvement works were underway at The Arcade. To honour the spirit of contractive obligations, HKCMCL was progressively enhancing shopping facilities to meet residents’ needs having regard to the order of expiration of existing tenancies;
(d) HKCMCL would step up community liaison work, including the setting up of a community liaison group through deployment of additional resources and manpower, and maintain close liaison with SDC for collecting further views from Members;
(e) he shared the Member’s view that Cyberport should enhance co-operation with NGOs. In light of the fact that Cyberport had joined hands with Aberdeen Kaifong Welfare Association and schools in the Southern District, etc. in the past, he was confident that HKCMCL was able to promote a wider use of Cyberport-based technology in the district through close liaison and interface with SDC in the future. In addition, for better community co-ordination, SDC was welcomed to refer any enquiries from local organisations interested in partnership with Cyberport to HKCMCL;
(f) in response to a Member’s enquiry about the pedestrian links between different phases of Cyberport, he pointed out that there was a plan to construct a pedestrian access connecting Cyberport 5 and The Arcade, whilst the latter had already been connected to other phases of Cyberport. Upon completion of the proposed pedestrian access, Cyberport would become an interconnected building cluster that provided greater accessibility; and
34
(g) regarding the construction of HKSP and the Pak Shek Kok Promenade as well as the waterfront promenade adjacent to HKCH mentioned by a Member, HKCMCL would make reference to those examples accordingly.
65. Regarding the Member’s proposal on the construction of a pedestrian bridge over Waterfall Bay, Mr AU YEUNG Wai-ming replied that the DFMC had approved funding for the conduct of a project feasibility study at its meeting on 29 September 2016, and the procedures for obtaining funding approval and engaging consultant had been completed in March 2017. Having completed site investigation and preliminary consultation with relevant government departments, the consultant was seeking the comments from the Advisory Committee on Appearances of Bridges and Associated Structures on the preliminary design proposal, so as to ensure design viability. The progress of the project concerned would be reported to DFMC in due course.
66. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH enquired whether Waterfall Bay fell outside the boundary of Cyberport, and said that that piece of information was relevant to the feasibility of providing a pedestrian bridge over Waterfall Bay as proposed in the original motion. Ms Eva YAM responded that Waterfall Bay did not fall within the boundary of Cyberport.
67. Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:
(a) regarding the examples concerning HKSP and Pak Shek Kok as well as HKCH cited by him previously, a Member supplemented that likewise, the associated facilities as stated in the finalised proposals had not been included in their respective project scopes at the outset. Citing the construction of HKSP and the Pak Shek Kok Promenade as an example, he said that to attract visitors and talents, space had been set aside for leisure, beautification and connection purposes during the construction of HKSP Phases 1 and 2, which was known as the Pak Shek Kok Promenade. Another example was the promenade occupying an area of 6 700 m2 adjacent to HKCH. The final cost for the construction of promenade, playground, public park, sitting-out facilities and public toilets, etc. was $82.2 million only, which showed that constructing a promenade might not be so costly;
35
(b) another example was projects carried out by MTRCL. He pointed out that it was necessary to dovetail construction works within the railway boundaries (e.g. construction of stations, installation of railway tracks and procurement of trains, etc.) with the provision of ancillary facilities at railway stations (e.g. bus stop, taxi stand, pedestrian access and footbridge, etc.). He said that the two works programmes should be implemented concurrently even though they might not be directly related. He continued that though the projects proposed in the original motion fell outside the development scope of Cyberport 5, the construction activities should be sychronised as they were in fact interrelated. As a matter of fact, the Government also had gained experience in implementing associated works during the same period. For the above reasons, he considered that the Government should seek funding approval for the projects proposed in the original motion in one go, or even more linkage facilities should be included. Lastly, he called on fellow Members to support the original motion;
(c) a Member said that the original motion had focused on the road works and pedestrian links in the vicinity, whereas the amendment motion was about the implementation of SIL(W). Given that both the original motion and the amendment motion were about the associated works of the Project, he suggested that the Chairman split his conclusion into two parts, namely Members’ views on the Project, and their views on the original motion and amendment motion;
(d) a Member was delighted to note that HKCMCL had responded to Members’ request for additional photomontages to illustrate the visual impact of the proposed Project on the surrounding areas. However, he reiterated that photomontages illustrating the visual impact of the Project on Baguio Villa had yet to be available. As a SDC Member of the local constituency, he had the responsibility to act as a channel of communication between the residents and HKCMCL. As such, he requested HKCMCL to provide photomontages that represented what would be seen at Cyberport from the rooftop of President Tower at Baguio Villa; and
(e) a Member wished to obtain the relevant TIA report as soon as possible to facilitate discussion with the departments concerned on the proposed road
36
junction improvement works, otherwise it would be difficult to make amendment after the report has been submitted to the Town Planning Board (TPB) for perusal and public consultation concluded. He also suggested that ITB consult relevant stakeholders on the road improvement works concerned as soon as possible. In fact, among the inhabitants in the district, seasoned highway engineers were available to provide expert advice. He would welcome the consultant approaching him for more information.
68. The Chairman said that since the original motion and amendment motion had not contradicted each other, both motions would be put to vote.
69. The Chairman asked Members to vote on the amendment motion first, to be followed by the original motion. Mr CHAI Man-hon requested to vote by open ballot. 19 Members (not including the Chairman) were present at the time of voting.
70. The amendment motion was carried with 19 votes for it (namely Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Ms YAM Pauline, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Mr CHOI Tsung-mang, Ms LAW Siu-fong, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr AU Lap-sing, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH), zero vote against it and zero abstention.
71. The original motion was carried with eight votes for it (namely Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Mr CHOI Tsung-mang, Ms LAW Siu-fong, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr TSUI Yuen-wa), zero vote against it and 11 abstentions (namely Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr FUNG Se-goun,, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Ms YAM Pauline, Mr AU Lap-sing, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH).
72. In closing, the Chairman concluded as follows:
(a) it was envisaged that the Project was not only conducive to attracting more technology companies and start-ups to set up their offices in Cyberport but could also provide a pathway for young people to pursue a career in I&T. While the Committee supported the Project in principle,
37
the voting results of the original motion and amendment motion showed that the Committee had grave concern over its implications on traffic conditions and livelihood of the people. In particular, the implementation of SIL(W) was the prime concern of the Committee. He urged ITB to note Members’ strong wish for the construction of that railway link;
(b) the construction of SIL(W) was supposed to be an integral part of the Project. As such, HKCMCL should, apart from modifying the design of the relevant roads and junctions, learn from the Ocean Park’s persistent endeavor in pushing for the successful implementation of SIL(E), and urge for the early implementation of SIL(W);
(c) furthermore, it was proposed in the original motion and amendment motion to enhance the connectivity between Cyberport and the neighbouring communities. Though the associated works were beyond the scope of the Project, they were closely related to it. Having assessed the impacts of the Project on the Southern District from a macroscopic perspective, the Committee stressed that it was imperative for the Government to address those impacts and work out solutions; and
(d) lastly, he urged HKCMCL and the departments concerned to submit the TIA report, address Members’ views, set up a community liaison group and relay Members’ views to TPB.
Agenda Item 4: Follow up the Progress of the Provision of Pedestrian Walkways, Public Open Space, Construction of Connection Point to Facilitate Linkage of MTR Shopping Mall with Footbridge and Provision of Performance Venue in the Wong Chuk Hang Comprehensive Development Area (Item raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa) (DDHC Paper No. 19/2019)
(Mr LAW Kam-hung, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai, MH, Mr AU Lap-sing, MH and Ms YAM Pauline left the meeting at 5:40 p.m., 6:00 p.m., 6:21 p.m., 6:30 p.m. and 6:36 p.m. respectively.)
38
73. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from the organisations and department concerned to the meeting:
MTRCL (a) Ms CHOI King-chi, Public Relations Manager, Projects & Property;
DLN Architects Limited (the Construction Company) (b) Ms KWAN Siu-yi, Director; (c) Ms LEE Wing-kei, Associate; and
LandsD (d) Mr FONG Hiu-fung, Estate Surveyor/RD/U3 (Railway Development Section/Urban Office).
74. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to briefly introduce the agenda item.
75. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefed Members on the agenda item, with details summarised as follows:
(a) he wished to follow up the progress of planning and design of the Wong Chuk Hang Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) and raised his views as soon as possible, for fear that it would be difficult to make amendments once the design had been finalised. As planning was still at an early stage, he understood that MTRCL and the departments concerned might not be able to respond to all enquiries in a comprehensive manner. However, he hoped that discussions on facilities with initial designs, such as public open space (POS), could be carried out;
(b) according to the design, there would be an emergency vehicular access (EVA) in the POS. He enquired whether such EVA was included as part of the POS with an area of approximately 1 300 m2;
(c) the department concerned had mentioned that a pedestrian walkway would be built inside the shopping mall adjacent to the POS to connect the residential area of Sham Wan to the MTR Station. However, the current design layout showed that the pedestrian linkage would be the covered pedestrian walkway outside the shopping mall. He hoped MTRCL
39
would clarify if Members had misunderstood the design or not;
(d) although TD had not promised to construct a footbridge connecting the shopping mall with Shum Wan Road, the Southern District Office (SDO) mentioned that a footbridge connection point would be reserved in the future Wong Chuk Hang Community Complex (WCHCC). He asked whether MTRCL would make room to cater for the proposed connection point at WCHCC apart from reserving space in the MTR station for linkage with Shum Wan Road. On that point, he hoped that MTRCL and the departments concerned could avoid miscommunication to ensure future planning would not be affected;
(e) he enquired when the Landscape Master Plan (LMP) mentioned in the response from the PlanD would be disclosed for consultation with SDC; and
(f) he asked if the pedestrian walkway connecting the MTR Station and Sham Wan would cover only Packages One to Three of the Wong Chuk Hang Station Property Development (the Development) the tenders of which had been awarded by MTRCL; or it would also cover Packages Four and Five of the Development, which had not been tendered yet. He worried that if the pedestrian walkway could only be opened after the completion of Packages Four and Five of the Development, it could hardly provide convenience to residents as early as possible.
76. Ms CHOI King-chi gave a brief response as follows:
(a) the Development covered a total area of approximately seven hectares, and was being developed in phases. Tenders for Packages One to Three of the Development had been awarded and were being implemented by three different developers. With regard to Mr TSUI Yuen-wa’s enquiry, the POS, covered pedestrian walkways, footbridge connection point and performance venue in Wong Chuk Hang Shopping Mall under the Development involved different packages, and were at the preliminary design stage and awaiting approval from the relevant departments. The information provided by MTRCL in the current stage was preliminary and would be subject to change as the designs of the relevant facilities were
40
being enhance;
(b) to serve the community, the 24-hour covered pedestrian walkways were aligned to connect Wong Chuk Hang Station with the new bus stops and minibus stops to be provided on Police School Road and the two community facilities under the Development through Wong Chuk Hang Shopping Mall. The walkways would be constructed by various developers of the relevant packages, which would initially include the developers of Packages One to Three of the Development;
(c) according to the land grant conditions of the Development, developers were required to reserve a connection point in Package Two of the Development for the construction of a footbridge on Nam Long Shan Road. The exact location of the connection point was pending discussion and confirmation by the developers and the relevant departments, including the department responsible for providing the footbridge;
(d) according to the master layout plan (MLP), the developer of Package Three of the Development was required to reserve an area in the shopping mall with a gross floor area of not less than 300 m2 for the provision of a performance venue. It was tentatively planned to be located at the atrium of the shopping mall to facilitate viewing of performance from higher levels. The shopping mall was tentatively scheduled for completion in 2023 and the tenant mix had yet to be confirmed. If a multi-theatre cinema was to be provided in the shopping mall, MTRCL would request the operator to explore the feasibility of designating one of the houses as a performance-cum-cinema house. The relevant plans had yet to be confirmed, and approval from the relevant departments would be required; and
(e) the POS occupying an area of about 1 300 m2 would be open to the public round the clock. MTRCL would be responsible for the management and maintenance work in the future and the developer of Package Three of the Development would be responsible for the design.
77. With the aid of PowerPoint Presentation (Reference Information), Ms KWAN Siu-yi responded to the enquiry on the POS as follows:
41
(a) the geographical setting of the POS in Package Three of the Development had given rise to a number of constraints on the design. First of all, about three-fifths of the site area of Package Three of the Development covered the former Wong Chuk Hang Depot, which meant the land was not flat. The adjoining Nam Long Shan Road was rather steep as well. Furthermore, apart from the only street frontage facing Nam Long Shan Road, the other three frontages did not face the streets. Taking into account the above factors, the POS currently proposed by the Construction Company was already at the best location under the existing constraints. Facing a relatively flat section of Nam Long Shan Road, the POS provided the longest extension that allowed the public to enter directly;
(b) the area of the POS had been increased from 1 000 m2 in the previous design proposal to not less than 1 300 m2 as currently proposed. Since greening works would be carried out on 40% to 50% of the site area, green area would also increase accordingly;
(c) for the sake of public safety and compliance with the relevant fire safety legislations, the provision of EVA for accessing the POS was required. Given the limited street frontage of the site of Package Three of the Development, the Construction Company had minimised the space occupied by the EVA in the current proposed location; and
(d) the POS served as a relatively large gathering spot providing two staircase-style green area for enjoyment by members of the public and green lawns for children to play. Dry fountain entertainment space and interactive play sculpture would also be provided for the enjoyment of different age groups. In addition, taller trees would be planted in areas adjoining Nam Long Shan Road to act as barriers against noise and pollution.
78. Mr FONG Hiu-fung gave a brief response as follows:
(a) according to the lease conditions governing Aberdeen Inland Lot No. 467 (AIL467), MTRCL, as the grantee of the lot, should at its own expense
42
construct covered pedestrian walkways in shortest possible routes to link up the buildings and all major facilities within the lot, and the facilities, such as public bus stops, outside the lot;
(b) Packages One to Three of the Development had yet to be approved by LandsD. Upon receipt of the development submission from MTRCL, LandsD would examine whether the design of the pedestrian walkways was in line with the requirements of the lease conditions; and
(c) according to the lease conditions governing AIL467, MTRCL should at its own expense construct and provide a POS of not less than 1 300 m2 by September 2026. The owner of the shopping mall of Package Three Development thereafter should properly manage and maintain the POS for public enjoyment free of charge. Notice should be displayed in prominent location specifying that the space was open to public. LandsD might take appropriate lease enforcement actions if breaches of the said lease conditions were found.
79. Mr Ivan CHEUNG briefed Members on the reply as follows:
(a) TD would ensure that the connection point for pedestrian walkways would be reserved by MTRCL in accordance with the requirements of the MLP of CDA, planning approval conditions and lease conditions. The design of pedestrian walkways was only at preliminary, TD would consider the arrangement of the connection point when approving the layout plans; and
(b) in regard to development proposals for the construction of connecting facilities linking up with an MTR station, TD would provide comments on pedestrian connectivity with reference to the design of the connecting facilities from a traffic viewpoint.
80. Mr Vincent WONG briefed Members on the reply as follows:
(a) the Planning Brief (PB) for the CDA Site in Wong Chuk Hang prepared by PlanD in 2011 stipulated that the CDA should be provided with direct and weather proof pedestrian walkways linking the rail station and the public transport interchange (PTI) as well as the bus and public light bus terminus. It also stipulated that the opening hours of the pedestrian
43
walkways should tie in with the operating hours of the rail and bus services. Furthermore, the PB specified that there should be convenient pedestrian walkways within the CDA to connect the proposed rail station / bus terminus / minibus terminus to the Wong Chuk Hang Business Area to the north and Staunton Creek nullah;
(b) MTRCL submitted the MLP of the CDA (Ref: A/H15/254) to TPB in 2012, and provided the design scheme of the 4-metre wide covered pedestrian walkway as required by the PB. Since it was only a preliminary conceptual design, the applicant did not provide design details of the pedestrian walkway. When TPB approved the MLP in 2013, one of the approval conditions required the applicant to design and provide a pedestrian circulation system to the satisfaction of the Commissioner for Transport or the TPB. PlanD would provide comments to relevant departments when considering the submission of building plans for the proposed pedestrian walkway in accordance with the requirements of the approved MLP and relevant approval conditions; and
(c) according to the PB prepared in 2011, MTRCL was required to provide not less than 1 000 m2 of open space for the enjoyment of the public outside the residential development area. MTRCL should also be held responsible for the management, repair and maintenance of the POS. On 18 July 2011, PlanD consulted SDC on the PB. The PB did not specify whether other persons were allowed to participate in the management of the POS. In the MLP of the CDA that MTRCL submitted to TPB in 2012, the area of the proposed POS was increased to 1 300 m2 as requested by SDC. The MLP also specified that MTRCL would undertake its management, repair and maintenance. According to the approved MLP, one of the approval conditions had required MTRCL to provide and implement an MLP to the satisfaction of the Commissioner for Transport or TPB. In this connection, MTRCL submitted a proposed MLP covering Package Three of the Development (including the POS) on 31 May 2019. PlanD would consult the relevant departments on the landscaping and design, and would consider the relevant layout plans.
81. Mr Tony CHAN briefed Members on the reply and said that SDO had requested TD to consider the construction of a footbridge in accordance with SDC’s views, and it was planned to reserve a footbridge connection point at WCHCC to
44
cater for the construction of the footbridge. SDO would continue to follow up the matter with relevant departments.
82. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:
Public Open Space
(a) a Member said while MTRCL claimed that the area of the POS had increased from 1 000 m2 to 1 300 m2, the EVA was still located within the POS. He continued that some years ago, MTRCL had been incorporating the EVA in its calculation of the POS area and came up with an aggregate area of 1 300 m2, in which approximately 20% to 30% would be used as the EVA. He considered that although the EVA was not a frequently used facility, it was not an open space neither. Therefore, he expressed discontent with MTRCL’s deployment of different concepts to obscure the facts;
(b) a Member stated that, according to the current design, although the POS had included elements like greening zones, and public interactive sculptures, etc., he was not satisfied with the initial layout of the POS, and doubted its utilisation rate. He was concerned whether MTRCL had made effective use of the site. He stressed that he did not want the POS to become an ancillary area to the shopping mall. If it would be used for advertising and promotional activities in the future, members of the public might not know the area was actually a POS. In addition, he pointed out that there were quite a lot of concrete platforms in the POS, which made him worried that the POS would become an access point to the shopping mall, and the original purpose of setting up a POS would be defeated;
(c) a Member said that, in general, one of the major sources of visitor flow of a building was the PTI of the MTR station. Hence, the abovementioned POS was not supposed to be the major access point of the Development. The major access point should be the PTI at Wong Chuk Hang Station instead. To help plan the location and design of the POS and procure suitable facilities, he considered it necessary to study the visitor flow to ensure effective utilisation of resources. He also enquired about the expected flow and movement of people patronising the POS;
45
Emergency Vehicular Access
(d) a Member mentioned that it was not the first time that SDC and MTRCL had divergent views regarding on the EVA should be included as a part of the POS. He enquired the reasons for setting up the EVA within the POS. He asked whether it was due to the requirements of the relevant fire safety legislation or the lack of alternative sites;
(e) a Member said while he hoped that there would not be too many restrictions on the use of the POS, the relevant terms and conditions prescribed by LandsD should not be too either. For example, LandsD should stipulate that the developers must not impose too many private rules to excessively restrict users of the POS. Allowance should also be made for MTRCL and SDC to discuss the restrictions concerned. He continued that despite the inclusion of an EVA, the use of the POS could still be fairly optimised if there were fewer restrictions. He enquired about the actual operation and restriction of an EVA located within the POS, such as whether pets were allowed;
(f) a Member pointed out that most of the area adjacent to the existing EVA was not open space. Therefore, he believed that if no obstruction would be caused to fire service vehicles using such access, certain decorations or acceptable facilities should be allowed in the POS, so as to fully utilise the site;
Pedestrian Walkways
(g) a Member said that the discussion paper showed that the pedestrian walkways were located within the CDA, but did not clarify if they were located inside the shopping mall. He hoped that MTRCL and the departments concerned could explain that;
(h) a Member enquired about the expected visitor flow direction and the position of the covered pedestrian walkways. He urged MTRCL to provide more information to the Committee;
Other Comments
46
(i) a Member mentioned that, currently, plants were only found at the exit of Wong Chuk Hang Station near Heung Yip Road. He believed that the environment of the whole district, instead of one single exit, should be enhanced; and
(j) a Member said that PlanD mentioned in its response that the MLP concerned had been approved. If the relevant document was not classified as confidential information, he hoped that PlanD could discuss the content of the document with the Committee. He considered failure to establish an ideal open space in the CDA would be a planning deficiency for the Southern District.
83. Ms KWAN Siu-yi gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) she stressed that the POS was currently at an initial design stage. The Construction Company expected to obtain views from the Members at the meeting. She noted Members’ opinions on the POS, including their requirements regarding quality;
(b) regarding the views on the location of the EVA, she reiterated that the development site had three non-street-facing frontages. One of them faced the PTI under Wong Chuk Hang Station, at which access of any fire escape was prohibited by the Fire Services Department. The remaining two frontages faced the Wong Chuk Hang Depot with a height of two to three storeys, which neither allowed access of fire escapes. Besides, to avoid height differences, fire escapes could not be set up at the sloped section of Nam Long Shan Road. Due to the above restrictions, fire escapes must be accessed via the relatively smooth section of Nam Long Shan Road. In addition, if the POS was moved to other locations in the CDA to accommodate the access of fire escape, it was estimated that over 50% of the site would be on a sloped area, causing inconvenience for children and elderly. Therefore, the current site for the POS was a relatively good location considering various factors. After several site inspections, the Construction Company also considered the current site of the POS satisfactory and comparatively spacious;
47
(c) the designs of the EVA and POS would synchronise perfectly with each other. Also, fences or columns would be avoided so as to prevent the POS users from noticing the location of the EVA; and
(d) the current EVA would have its access point at a relatively smooth section. Less space was required for vehicular access as compared to the original plan. The total area required for the EVA was also smaller than that of the original plan, that was, less than 30 m2.
84. Ms CHOI King-chi gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) The shopping mall under Package Three of the Development was scheduled for completion in 2023. The POS was at the preliminary design stage and the future management matters had yet to be finalised. MTRCL noted Members’ views and understood public’s aspiration for a pet-friendly POS; and
(b) the idea of constructing 24-hour covered pedestrian walkways was to provide a convenient public access connecting a new integrated entrance near Exit B of Wong Chuk Hang Station via the shopping mall, and extending to the bus stops, the mini bus stops and the two social welfare facilities to be provided in the future. In addition, MTRCL would retain the existing at-grade footpath encircling the entire development project to facilitate access to Wong Chuk Hang Station, Heung Yip Road, bus stops and minibus stops, etc.
85. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:
Public Open Space
(a) a Member understood that given the need for developers to consider various aspects of the project, the design of POS was not accorded priority. However, he hoped that more members of the public would be able to enjoy the POS. According to the current design of the POS, the actual greened area that could be enjoyed by the public was less than 50 percent of the total area, while the rest of the area would serve as access connecting the shopping mall or PTI. As such, apart from the interactive
48
play sculptures, he suggested that the POS be provided with more passive amenities so as to optimise its utilisation as well as fulfilling its original design concept;
(b) a Member enquired about the actual size and capacity of the POS;
(c) a Member suggested employing additional crowd-attracting design elements such as large televisions showing major sports events;
(d) a Member said that there was past cases in which the utilisation rate of POS had been adversely affected because it was located on the top storey of a building or subject to excessive restrictions. In that regard, he hoped that MTRCL would consult the Committee on the conditions of using the POS to avoid disputes in the future;
Pedestrian Walkways and Footbridge
(e) a Member was pleased to learn that 24-hour covered pedestrian walkways would be located inside the shopping mall. He believed that if they were built outside the shopping mall, they would not be different from the existing walkways and would serve little purpose;
(f) a Member once again enquired whether MTRCL would make room to cater for the proposed connection point at WCHCC apart from reserving space in the MTR station for linkage with Shum Wan Road, lest affecting future planning as a result of miscommunication between MTRCL and the departments concerned;
Consultation with SDC
(g) a Member enquired PlanD when the LMP of the Development would be disclosed to the public and the schedule of consultation with SDC;
(h) a Member hoped that MTRCL could promise to maintain close communication with SDC and exchange views on various details in relation to the CDA project by means of formal and informal meetings or
49
briefing sessions, in order to inform Members of the project progress and relevant details;
Other Comments
(i) a Member enquired about the area, application requirements and capacity of the performance venue. Besides, he hoped that schools and non-governmental organisations in the district could be given priority to apply for using the performance venue, in order to avoiding competition with business establishments and alleviating the pressure on the highly-utilised community halls and community centres; and
(j) a Member enquired whether there were any terms in the lease conditions of the CDA project specifying that police officers were permitted to enter and perform duties.
86. Ms CHOI King-chi gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) MTRCL understood that Members were concerned about the CDA project. Therefore, it would continue to maintain close liaison with SDC. When detailed information was available, MTRCL would be glad to arrange private developers responsible for the matters concerned to communicate with Members in due course;
(b) she welcomed suggestions such as installing large televisions in the POS, and would reflect the views to the relevant departments of MTRCL;
(c) she noted Members’ concerns regarding the rules and regulations for users of the POS, and would reflect their views to the relevant departments of MTRCL; and
(d) according to the lease conditions of CDA, the developers were required to reserve a connection point for the footbridge in Package Two of the Development. As to whether the footbridge would be connected to WCHCC, further study by the departments concerned, including the department responsible for the provision of the footbridge would be required.
50
87. Mr FONG Hiu-fung responded that the lease conditions for the CDA did not contain similar clause permitting entry of police officers for discharge of duties.
88. Mr Ivan CHEUNG responded that the CDA has reserved a footbridge connection point on the opposite side of Shum Wan Road junction. If the WCHCC was planning to connect the CDA, the project proponent should further liaise with the relevant departments and the developer. TD would provide comments on the suggested pedestrian connectivity designed by the relevant departments from a traffic viewpoint.
89. Mr Vincent WONG responded that the submission of LMP was to fulfil one of the approval conditions, the handling procedure of which was different from that of a planning application. The publication of a planning application to invite public comment was required under the Town Planning Ordinance, whereas the fulfilment of approval condition for LMP was only required for submission to the Director of Planning or TPB. In regard to the LMP, PlanD would give suggestions and advice based on the scheme approved by TPB. If the applicant put forward an improvement to the approved scheme, PlanD would make comments based on user friendliness and whether there were any improvements to the approved scheme.
90. Mr Tony CHAN responded that SDO would continue to maintain close liaison with TD and to follow up matters of the footbridge according to TD’s professional advice.
91. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN agreed to the proposal for analysing visitor flow in the vicinity of the CDA first. He was of the view that the project design should not be based on the MLP approved years ago, but should be adjusted in the light of the current physical environment. Furthermore, public consultation procedures should be established. He hoped MTRCL would undertake that when there were updates on the project, it would consult SDC and the residents in the constituency concerned on aspects including the layout, design and land use distribution.
92. The Chairman concluded that since the CDA was an important development project in the Southern District, its ancillary facilities were also of vital importance. He urged MTRCL to note, consider and look into Members’ comments and requests, and to make necessary arrangements as soon as possible. He also asked MTRCL to maintain communication with SDC, exchange updated information
51
and consult the Committee to collect Members’ views on various aspects of the project, such as its design, with a view to enhancing the development.
Agenda Item 5: Request the Government to Increase Resources to Properly Lay a Mountain Trail from Yuk Kwai Shan to Ap Lei Pai (Item raised by Mr LAW Kam-hung) (DDHC Paper No. 20/2019)
93. The Chairman said that Mr LAW Kam-hung was unable to introduce the agenda item, as he had left the meeting because of other engagements. But Members could continue to raise comments on the item.
94. When briefing Members on PlanD’s response, Mr Vincent WONG said that while the mountain trail was not clearly delineated in the agenda item, conceivably the proposed footpath fell within areas zoned “Green Belt” and “Coastal Protection Area” (CPA) on the Approved Aberdeen and 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 in areas within the OZP boundary. However, development of “footpath” within “CPA” zone required planning permission from the TPB. Currently, PlanD had not received any planning application for the development of a footpath in that area.
95. Ms Amii KO responded that if the relevant department decided to implement the proposal, LandsD would provide comments on the detailed proposal from land administrative point of view, and facilitate implementation of the proposal by the relevant department according to LandsD’s established procedure and practice.
96. Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP raised the following comments and enquiries:
(a) a Member opposed to the proposal put forth under the agenda item. He pointed out that the DFMC had discussed the provision of mountain trail from Yuk Kwai Shan to Ap Lei Pai in the past few years, and received views from local residents and hikers who objected to the laying of artificial mountain trails. He further said that there was already an artificial mountain trail from Lei Tung to South Horizons and hoped that the original scenery of the natural trail from Yuk Kwai Shan to Ap Lei
52
Pai could be preserved with minimal artificial reconstruction so that hikers would not lose the fun of hiking through the natural trail. The preservation of a natural trail and the provision of an artificial trail also enabled the public to make a choice according to their interest;
(b) a Member said that the agenda items on the improvement of hiking trails were previously discussed at meetings of the Working Group on District Minor Works Projects. He knew that Mr LAW Kam-hung was not a Member of that Working Group, and so was unable to raise the relevant agenda item for discussion by that Working Group. As such, if Mr LAW Kam-hung still wished to put up a mountain trail improvement proposal that was supported by local residents, he would be willing to go hiking with Mr LAW Kam-hung and other Members on the mountain trail from Yuk Kwai Shan to Ap Lei Pai to review whether the improvements were necessary; and
(c) a Member said that in the 1970s and 1980s, mountain trails covered with granite were very popular among hikers. But hikers preferred natural trails, and the natural scenery that could be preserved in Hong Kong had been declining. Most of the hikers thus objected to the laying of artificial mountain trails. As such, he had reservation about the proposal under this agenda item.
97. In closing, the Chairman said that to his understanding, Mr LAW Kam-hung, in view of the danger of the mountain trail, raised the agenda item in order to advise the relevant department to consider closing the relevant section of the mountain trail or increase resources to properly lay a mountain trail to avoid the occurrence of accidents in future. The Chairman said that as just proposed by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, fellow Members might consider arranging for a site visit to the relevant section of the mountain trail before deciding whether further discussion was necessary.
Agenda Item 6: Progress Report on Planning Works in the Southern District (DDHC Paper No. 21/2019)
98. The Chairman welcomed Mr WAI Kam-fat, Danny, Chief Health Inspector (Southern) 1 and Mr LAU Wai-cheung, Senior Health Inspector
53
(Cleansing/Pest Control) of 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)
99. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired about the progress on the planning for the ex-Shek O Quarry site in future.
100. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the planning of the site largely depended on whether the Highways Department (HyD) would hand over the site to the LandsD upon the expiry of the Temporary Government Land Allocation (i.e. 31 December 2019). He therefore hoped that HyD would confirm the matters relating to the handover of the site.
101. Mr Vincent WONG responded that the site was zoned “Undetermined”. The PlanD understood Members hoped that the long-term use of the site would be confirmed as soon as possible. The land use review for the site would be conducted in due course, and relevant government departments including the LCSD and TD would be consulted on proposals, the views of the SDC would be sought. PlanD was prepared to listen to Members’ suggestions and comments in order to facilitate more comprehensive consideration on the land use of the site.
102. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying was concerned about the traffic condition of the site. As the road sections surrounding the site were rugged, she advised the department to consider the traffic capacity of the area and the arrangement for ancillary facilities when approving any application for the site.
103. Ms Amii KO responded that LandsD had received an application for Short Term Tenancy for the purpose of Hong Kong International Sailing Centre (the proposed sailing centre). The application was being circulated to the relevant departments for preliminary comments. LandsD had requested the applicant to provide supplementary information on the technical aspect, such as details of the proposed sailing centre and arrangement for transport supporting facilities to serve the proposed sailing centre. Reply from the applicant was being awaited. Besides, LandsD had requested the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) to invite the applicant to present their proposal to SDC, and HAB noted LandsD’s suggestion.
54
Agenda Item 7: Any Other Business
104. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had not received any proposed items under “Any Other Business”.
Part 2 – Date of the Next Meeting
105. The Chairman advised the meeting that the 23rd DDHC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 23 September 2019 (Monday).
106. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Secretariat, Southern District Council September 2019
55