DHC Minutes 4B/2020 Sha Tin District Council Minutes of the Meeting Of

DHC Minutes 4b/2020

Sha Tin District Council Minutes of the Meeting of the Development and Housing Committee in 2020

Date : 3 July 2020 (Friday) Time : 3:02 pm Venue : Sha Tin District Council Conference Room 4/F, Sha Tin Government Offices

Present Title Time of joining Time of leaving the meeting the meeting Mr CHAN Nok-hang (Chairman) DC Member 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr NG Kam-hung (Vice-Chairman) ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr CHING Cheung-ying, MH DC Chairman 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr WONG Hok-lai, George DC Vice-Chairman 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr CHAN Billy Shiu-yeung DC Member 4:24 pm 6:16 pm Mr CHAN Pui-ming ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr CHAN Wan-tung ” 6:15 pm 6:16 pm Mr CHENG Chung-hang ” 3:34 pm 5:33 pm Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr CHOW Hiu-laam, Felix ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr HUI Lap-san ” 3:02 pm 5:33 pm Mr LAI Tsz-yan ” 6:15 pm 6:16 pm Mr LI Chi-wang, Raymond ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr LI Sai-hung ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr LI Wing-shing, Wilson ” 3:02 pm 4:04 pm Mr LIAO Pak-hong, Ricardo ” 3:02 pm 5:20 pm Mr LO Tak-ming ” 5:35 pm 6:16 pm Mr LUI Kai-wing ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr MAK Tsz-kin ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr SHAM Tsz-kit, Jimmy ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr SIN Cheuk-nam ” 3:02 pm 5:34 pm Mr TING Tsz-yuen ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr TSANG Kit ” 4:56 pm 5:54 pm Mr WAI Hing-cheung ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Mr WONG Ho-fung ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Ms WONG Man-huen ” 3:06 pm 3:36 pm Mr YAU Man-chun ” 3:09 pm 5:45 pm Mr YIP Wing ” 3:02 pm 4:39 pm Mr YUNG Ming-chau, Michael ” 3:02 pm 6:16 pm Ms LIU Sin-yi, Angela (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council) 5, Sha Tin District Office

In Attendance Title Mr WONG Shek-hay, Sebastian Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) (2) Mr YUEN Chun-kit, Derek Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Sha Tin District Office Mr LAI Wing-chi, Derek District Environment Hygiene Supt (Sha Tin), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

( 1 ) In Attendance Title Mr LAU Chun-him, Kenny Senior Urban Planner/Sha Tin, Planning Department Mr WOO Tim Senior Estate Surveyor/South East (District Lands Office, Sha Tin), Lands Department Ms NGO Po-ling Senior Housing Manager/TNS1, Housing Department Mr LEUNG Chin-hung Engineer/NTE (Distribution 1), Water Supplies Department

In Attendance by Invitation Title Ms CHU Ha-fan, Jessica District Planning Officer (Sha Tin, Tai Po and North), Planning Department Mr LEE Ho-ching, Adrian Town Planner/Sha Tin (3), Planning Department Mr WOO Tai-on, Gabriel Project Team Leader/Housing, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHENG Kam-pong, Patrick Senior Engineer (2), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr LUI Siu-kwan, Jack Engineer (3), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr LO Edwin Project Manager, Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited Ms LEE Shuk-fan Chief Engineer, Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited Mr LEE Yiu-kee, Harry Engineer, Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited Mr HUI Yuk-hung Principal Environmental Consultant, Ramboll Hong Kong Limited Ms WONG Elim Senior Planning Officer (6) (Acting), Housing Department Ms HO Yin-ni, Amy Senior Architect (20), Housing Department Mr YUEN Kin-yip, Alan Senior Civil Engineer (4), Housing Department Mr LAI Kwok-leung, Horace Architect (87), Housing Department Mr TSO Shun-lai, Marcus Civil Engineer (7), Housing Department Mr NGAI Hiu-kan, Wilfred Engineer/Ma On Shan, Transport Department Mr WONG Chun-wai, Edmund Senior Liaison Officer (North), Sha Tin District Office Mr CHUNG Hon-wai, Thomas Senior Engineer/Tech Support 3 (Acting), Water Supplies Department

Absent Title Mr CHENG Tsuk-man DC Member (Application for leave of absence received) Mr CHUNG Lai-him, Johnny ” ( ” ) Dr LAM Kong-kwan ” ( ” ) Mr MAK Yun-pui, Chris ” ( ” ) Mr MOK Kam-kwai, BBS ” ( ” ) Ms NG Ting-lam ” ( ” ) Mr SHEK William ” ( ” ) Ms TSANG So-lai ” ( ” ) Mr CHIU Chu-pong ” (No application for leave of absence received) Mr HUI Yui-yu ” ( ” ) Mr LO Yuet-chau ” ( ” ) Ms LUK Tsz-tung ” ( ” )

( 2 ) Action The Chairman welcomed members and representatives of government departments to the resumption of the fourth meeting of the Development and Housing Committee (DHC) of the year.

2. The Chairman informed all attendees that media representatives, being present as observers, were taking photographs and making video and audio recordings. He said that the air- conditioning for the meeting would be provided until 8:00 pm. During the epidemic, there would be conference room cleaning service at 6:30 pm.

3. Mr Michael YUNG said that the meeting should be held at 2:30 pm, 15 minutes had already passed now. He wanted to clarify whether it would be legitimate to start the meeting now.

4. Ms Angela LIU, Executive Officer (District Council) 5 of the Sha Tin District Office said that according to Order 12 (2) of the Sha Tin District Council Standing Orders (Standing Orders), “If a quorum is not present at the commencement of the meeting or in the course of a meeting, the Chairman shall direct the Secretary to summon those members of the Council not present. If after 15 minutes a quorum is not present, the Chairman shall adjourn the meeting forthwith.” The Chairman did not direct the Secretariat to summon those members not present regarding the 15 minutes before announcing the start of the meeting.

5. Mr Michael YUNG said that the resumption of meeting was scheduled to be held at 2:30 pm but the meeting was started at 3:04 pm. He pointed out that the meeting would discuss the amendments to the outline zoning plan. He was worried that the legitimacy of the meeting would be questioned in the future, and asked whether the assistant district officer would seek legal advice.

6. Mr Sebastian WONG, Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) (2) said that there was no additional comment on the explanation of Standing Orders from the Secretary.

7. The Chairman said that a special meeting could be convened to follow up on the issues that needed to be handled in this resumption meeting, so as to relieve the doubts from Mr Michael YUNG after discussing with the Vice-Chairman.

8. Mr Michael YUNG said that he supported the National Security Law and was concerned about the legitimacy of the meeting.

9. Mr Raymond LI said that he respected the Chairman’s decision and suggested that the rules of procedure could be discussed in the Finance and General Affairs Committee (FGAC).

10. The Chairman said that according to Order 54 of Standing Orders “The Chairman of the Council shall ensure observance of all the Standing Orders. His or her decision on a point of order shall be final”. He asked the Chairman of the Sha Tin District Council (District Council) to decide whether the meeting should be continued.

11. Mr CHING Cheung-ying said that although the start of meeting was delayed, there was a quorum within a relatively reasonable time. He believed that this was a completely legitimate meeting. He had just discussed with the Vice-Chairman of District Council, the meeting could be adjourned for a few minutes and be convened in the form of a special meeting with the original agenda at the same venue, which would not contradict the purpose of the resumption meeting scheduled today. He judged that although it was more than 30 minutes late, there was a quorum

( 3 ) in the meeting, so it was a completely legitimate meeting.

12. The Chairman thanked Mr CHING Cheung-ying for the explanation. He pointed out that the resumption meeting was scheduled to be held at 2:30 pm and the meeting was indeed delayed. He suggested announcing cancellation of the resumption meeting due to a lack of quorum and holding a special meeting for DHC at 3:20 pm. He asked the members to stay in the conference room.

13. Mr WAI Hing-cheung would like to know whether the special meeting to be held later would be legitimate and whether it would be necessary to notify members and officers of the official time, venue and date of the special meeting at a designated time.

14. Mr Michael YUNG would like to know if the meeting was adjourned and held later again, how the applications for leave of absence of the eight members should be processed.

15. Mr YAU Man-chun apologised to the members for his late arrival. As the Chairman of FGAC, he believed that all the members should take responsibility if the meeting was adjourned due to a quorum was not present after 15 minutes of scheduled starting time at 2:30 pm of the meeting. He said that the Chairman of District Council could exercise his power. He had suggested that a special meeting be held at the football pitche at Wong Chuk Yeung Street to oppose the use of Chun Yeung Estate as a quarantine centre, but the Chairman did not adopt his opinion at that time. He pointed out that he would support the Chairman if he ruled that there was a quorum to continue the meeting.

16. The views of Mr Wilson LI were summarised below:

(a) he agreed with rigorous handling and had reservations about the statement of the Chairman that 15 minutes would only be counted after he announced the start of meeting. However, he said that sometimes the Chairman was not able to arrive at the conference room on time at 2:30 pm. If a meeting was announced to be started at 2:40 pm after the Chairman’s arrival, it was reasonable that there was a quorum after 15 minutes later till 2:55 pm;

(b) it was unreasonable if the meeting was scheduled to be held at 2:30 pm but announced to be started at 7:30 pm;

(d) he suggested that the Standing Orders be reviewed at the FGAC; and

(e) he believed that when there was a sufficient quorum and group of officers, the meeting should be continued without any opposition from government representatives, especially when the discussion item today was Man On Shan’s plan which was an emergency to the public.

17. Mr CHING Cheung-ying said that according to the Standing Orders, as the Chairman of the District Council, he reviewed and judged the procedures of this meeting and no longer suggested handling it as a special meeting. He said that after waiting a relatively reasonable time, the meeting was held legitimately when there was a quorum and the presence of officers around 3:00 pm. He pointed out that the meeting was currently being held at a reliable venue and asked the members to stop debating because the chance of challenging the Standing Orders was very slim.

( 4 )

18. Mr Raymond LI said that the District Office and the Secretariat did not point out that the meeting was illegitimate after the Chairman officially announced the start of meeting at around 3:00 pm. Therefore, he suggested continuing the agenda and he respected the decisions of the Chairman of District Council and the Chairman of this committee.

19. Mr Ricardo LIAO said he wanted to convene the meeting when there was a sufficient quorum and suggested that the issue of waiting for meetings be followed up at FGAC meeting.

20. Mr LI Sai-hung said that the meeting was called at 2:30 pm but it had not officially started at 2:45 pm. There was a chance of being challenged by law.

21. Mr YAU Man-chun said that according to Order 12 (2) of the Standing Orders, “If a quorum is not present at the commencement of the meeting or in the course of a meeting, the Chairman shall direct the Secretary to summon those members of the Council not present. If after 15 minutes a quorum is not present, the Chairman shall adjourn the meeting forthwith.” This article also gave the Chairman the power to convene a meeting immediately and he said that he supported the decision made by the Chairman.

22. Mr Wilson LI agreed with the statement of Mr YAU Man-chun after reading the Standing Orders. He believed that the words were clear and would respect the final decision from the Chairman.

23. The views of the Chairman were summarised below:

(a) he understood the concerns about the legitimacy of the meeting of Mr Michael YUNG and Mr WAI Hing-cheung;

(b) since it was the first time such situation had been encountered, he suggested FGAC follow up if necessary; and

Application for Leave of Absence

24. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received applications for leave of absence in writing from the following members:

Mr CHENG Tsuk-man Official commitment Mr Johnny CHUNG ” Dr LAM Kong-kwan ” Mr Chris MAK ” Mr MOK Kam-kwai ” Ms NG Ting-lam ” Mr SHEK William ” Ms TSANG So-lai ”

25. Members unanimously approved the applications for leave of absence from the above members.

( 5 ) Discussion Item

Site Formation and Infrastructure Works for Housing Sites in Ma On Shan – Feasibility Study and Proposed Amendments to the Approved Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/MOS/22 (Paper No. DH 16/2020)

26. The Chairman welcomed the Planning Department (PlanD), the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited, Ramboll Hong Kong Limited, the Housing Department (HD) and the Transport Department (TD) to the resumption meeting and invited the departmental representatives to respond to the questions from the members at the last meeting.

27. Ms Jessica CHU, District Planning Officer (Sha Tin, Tai Po and North) of the PlanD gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) the government adopted a multi-pronged approach in housing policy, boosting land supply by reviewing land use (including “Green Belt”), developing brownfield sites, caverns, reclamation and new development area, promoting Land Sharing Pilot Scheme and Transitional Housing Scheme, to meet the needs of the public;

(b) the department completed the Study on Existing Profile and Operations of Brownfield Sites in the New Territories last year. There were 450 hectares of brownfield sites that were closer to existing new towns and the existing highways and larger in size, which might have relatively higher potential for development. From the 160 hectares of brownfields reviewed in the first round, eight groups of brownfield clusters were located in Yuen Long, Tuen Mun and Tai Po, involving a total of 36 hectares of brownfields. The total area of land proposed for public housing development and would be amalgamated with adjoining land parcels were covering 63 hectares. CEDD had launched a feasibility study on the eight brownfield clusters in the middle of this year, hoping to transform the “potential sites” into “disposed sites” as soon as possible to meet the housing needs of the public;

(c) in the previous housing policy, the public-private housing ratio was 60:40. The ratio had been updated to 70:30 since 2018;

(d) among the 4 plots of housing land in the project, 3 plots of land would be developed for public housing and the number of units would account for 85%;

(e) she added that the society demanded both public and private housing, therefore the government had the responsibility to provide stable land for public and private housing;

(f) regarding members pointing out that the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) was outdated, she stated that some of the guidelines were formulated earlier which might be different from the expectations of some members of the public; therefore the department was now cooperating with policy departments to formulate, review and revise HKPSG regularly regarding the latest policies and measures;

( 6 )

(g) the department revised the standards based on the population regarding the elderly welfare facilities and child care facilities with Labour and Welfare Bureau in 2018 and 2020 respectively;

(h) regarding parking spaces, the Transport and Housing Bureau replied to the Legislative Council on 27 November 2019 that the TD was reviewing the guideline on the provision of private car parking space in the HKPSG, hoping to increase the number of private car parking spaces in future housing development projects;

(i) regarding ancillary facilities, the department had reserved enough land to provide two clinics in Ma On Shan. The one located near Yan Chai Hospital Tung Chi Ying Memorial Secondary School had been completed, and the other one had already reserved the site of the Renaissance College. It was believed that the relevant departments would implement the development as soon as possible;

(j) the department would make known to the Social Welfare Department (SWD) that members wished to provide public or affordable homes for the elderly as much as possible, so that the SWD would consider members’ views when allocating relevant facilities;

(k) she pointed out that hospital facilities were provided by cluster form; Sha Tin District belonged to New Territories East Cluster; and Union Hospital, Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH) and CUHK Medical Centre were currently doing addition works and adding new facilities. The location was not too far from Ma On Shan;

(l) this proposed development would provide more welfare facilities in public and private project. 3 plots of land developed by HD would provide facilities for the elderly, young children and persons with disabilities, while private housing also required that developers were required to provide homes of 150 for the elderly, which would be allocated by SWD;

(m) the department reserved a piece of land next to the public housing in Project D to build a primary school (namely Project E) to meet the needs of the new population. Project E belonged to the same school net as Project A and B1;

(n) the department reserved land for open space development, and believed that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) would closely discuss with the members the priority of the project. She pointed out the Sai Sha Road Pet Garden had been completed, and the Hang Ming Street Garden was being planned. The department would report to LCSD that members would like to know the progress status of Monte Vista open space;

(o) regarding the landscape, ventilation and visual aspect of public housing, the architects would use the design concept of “slim buildings”: each building was to be spaced 15 metres apart to look more transparent and have better air circulation hopefully. The department also conducted an air ventilation assessment, and the proposed housing development would not cause unacceptable effect on the air ventilation;

( 7 ) (p) there were 2 780 trees out of the 3 560 that might need to be removed in the development project. The authorities would replant trees at a ratio of 1:1 on the slopes, roads and nearby locations of the development project for compensation. Each development project had a designated greening ratio, which could not be lower than 20%; and

(q) after careful inspection by the department with the consulting company and the CEDD, the project item of the plan would not affect the azaleas in Ma On Shan.

28. Mr Gabriel WOO, Project Team Leader/Housing of the CEDD gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) according to the Traffic Impact Assessment Report, the volume/capacity(V/C) ratio of the roundabout near CUHK was to be kept below 0.85 by 2035, while the roundabout of Chak Cheung Street/Science Park Road was estimated to be 0.91; therefore it would be converted into a signalised junction, also the direction of CUHK would be widened to a 3-lane carriageway and a separate lane would be set up to Chak Cheung Street in the direction of Hong Kong Science Park (HKSTP) to increase the reserved capacity by 53%;

(b) by 2035, it was anticipated that the reserved capacity of Kam Ying Road junction would only be 15%, while enhancing the signal control at Sai Sha Road/Kam Ying Road junction would increase the traffic capacity of the entire junction;

(c) after widening the carriageways of Sai Sha Road (westbound) and Nin Fung Road (northbound), vehicles of Projects A and B1 could directly go to the urban area without passing through the roundabout, thereby increasing the traffic capacity;

(d) widening the road section from the exit of the roundabout of Ma On Shan Tsuen Road/Ma On Shan Road/Hang Hong Street to Ma On Shan Tsuen Road, in order to let large vehicles, including buses, to pass through;

(e) widening a section of Tate’s Cairn Highway southbound outside A Kung Kok Fishermen Village from a three-lane carriageway to a four-lane carriageway. It was anticipated that the Volume/Capacity(V/C) ratio would fall from 1.19 to 0.88. Related improvement project would move on to the detailed design after rezoning to cope with future construction projects;

(f) in view of future housing development, Ma On Shan Tsuen Road would be widened. In additional, Hang Hong Street to the proposed service reservoirs would be changed to a standard two-lane carriageway with walkways on both sides. The CEDD hoped that the improved slanted road would be suitable for buses;

(g) in terms of environment, the project area was outside the country park. About 3 560 trees were found in the project area and about 2 700 trees were actually affected. The government would conduct detailed ecological surveys in next stage, and formulate appropriate mitigation to reduce the impact on the ecological environment;

( 8 ) (h) in terms of heritage, as most of the heritage buildings including Shun Yee San Tsuen and the site structures of Mineral Preparation Plant were at a certain distance from the proposed housing development land, those historical buildings would not be affected;

(i) one of the pillars next to the Mineral Preparation Plant might be affected by the route of the Ma On Shan Road widening project, CEDD would conduct related Heritage Impact Assessment and cooperate with mitigation and monitoring during the work period to minimise the impact; and

(j) the current housing project design did not affect the entrance of 110ML tunnel, the CEDD would consider whether it would be necessary to provide walkways when drafting the detailed design. The entrance of 240ML tunnel was 240m high, which is outside the scope of the works.

29. The views of Mr Wilson LI were summarised below:

(a) the current Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratio of the roundabout of Sai Sha Road/Nin Wah Road/Nin Fung Road was 0.47. It would be 1.1 in 2035 without improvement plans and 0.82 after improvement. Cheung Muk Tau would have 4 buildings of over 40 floors and Shap Sze Heung private buildings consisting of 9 500 apartments . He asked if the traffic capacity could bear the volume in the future;

(b) he would like to know the details about the V/C ratio at the junction of Sai Sha Road/Kam Ying Road turning 1.15 without improvement plans and 0.95 after improvement in 2035;

(d) in respect of ancillary transport facilities, he pointed out that the government could not increase the frequency of minibuses and buses;

(e) regarding the 3 560 trees being affected, he was worried that the overall ecological environment would be impacted;

(f) he opined that department was not able to provide an in-depth analysis regarding the infrastructure design, living environment and other supporting facilities;

(g) as the development location was close to Ma On Shan Country Park, he would like to know the impact of the buildings on the landscape, air circulation and view; and

(h) he and the residents had reservation about this plan. They even opposed it as they were worried that the living environment, transportation facilities, parking spaces, healthcare facilities and building ventilation would affect the quality of life of the residents.

( 9 ) 30. The views of Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa were summarised below:

(a) he would not be able to directly compare the V/C ratio at Chak Cheung Street/Science Park Road roundabout in 2019 with the reserved capacity at the intersection in 2035;

(b) he would like to know how to deal with the existing Ma On Shan Tsuen Road after the road was widened;

(c) the heritage site of the Mineral Preparation Plant might be affected by the project; he asked whether the site was a declared monument; and

(d) in the future, if there was a large number of opinions demanding that the mineral preparation plant should not be affected, he asked whether the department would have other plans to widen the road without affecting the site.

31. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:

(a) in response to Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa, when Chak Cheung Street was a roundabout, it was calculated based on the V/C ratio; but after it was changed to a signalised system, it would be calculated based on the reserved capacity of the intersection;

(b) 0.85 was the critical value. The value exceeding 0.85 meant the beginning of congestion. The value exceeding 1 meant traffic jam;

(c) he pointed out that “Geotechnical Appraisal Report for site 3 to 5, 4.3.1 Due to confidential nature and tight programme of this agreement, no project specific ground investigation was conducted at site 3, 4 and 5”. He estimated that the reference of geotechnical information might be the geotechnical information of T7 roads or maintenance of adjacent slopes. He asked whether the rezoning of land would cause a high risk when the geotechnical information was limited;

(d) he pointed out that paragraph 8.3.5 of Final Preliminary Drainage and Sewerage Study Report explained that the design flow capacity rate of Ma On Shan Sewage Pumping Station was 2.04 cubic metres per second. When all the projects were completed, the maximum design flow capacity rate would be 2.35 cubic metres per second. The mitigation measure was to increase the flow pump; he would like to know whether the pressurised water pipe of downstream could withstand the relevant flow, capacity and pressure;

(e) he read that “Final Preliminary Utility Study Report, 7.3.2 Aircraft crash. The study areas in Ma On Shan are not located in arrival or departure flight path of Chek Lap Kok Airport, there is no risk of large aircraft crashing to the ground and damaging to the pipeline. Pipeline failure due to the aircraft crash is considered non predictable”;

(f) Ma On Shan was the flight path; he asked the department whether they had considered that the third runway was affected by minor changes in the flight path;

( 10 ) (g) regarding “Final Report of Assessment on Ma On Shan Water Treatment Work, Aircraft crash HA2003. As MOSWTW was considered locating directly under the flight path of commercial aircraft”, he would like to know how the department considered the distance and altitude restrictions of the flight path;

(h) regarding “The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report” 4.7.8, he asked if the noise over 70 decibels at the building was affected by the traffic flow on the T7 road; and

(i) he asked that why the Salt Water Zone and Fresh Water Supply of Final Preliminary Water Supply Report were covered, whereas the Water Supplies Department was willing to provide plumbing diagrams.

32. The views of Mr Ricardo LIAO were summarised below:

(a) he asked, when Chak Cheung Street/Science Park Road roundabout was changed to a signalised junction, whether it would cause traffic backflow in the roundabout outside University Station. He gave an example that when a traffic accident occurred at the Kai Leng Roundabout in the North District, the traffic in Sheung Shui would be paralysed; and

(b) Tate’s Cairn Highway southbound near A Kung Kok Fisherman Village was changed from a three-lane carriageway to a four-lane carriageway to solve the bottleneck congestion problem. He was worried that this would be more prone to traffic accidents and cause more serious traffic jams.

33. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:

(a) the section of “Strategic Cavern Area No.19 – Ma On Shan” in Cavern Master Plan mentioned that a number of geological features, such as faults and photo lineaments, were identified within and in the areas surrounding the cavern areas. He asked the CEDD to carefully study whether it was suitable for development;

(b) he would like to know when the Ma On Shan road improvement project was started to be studied, why not all the road improvement works were included in the EIA report, and why the department did not improve the traffic first before studying the housing development; and

(c) he asked why the ecological report conducted ecological impact assessments of animals and plants in summer and winter instead of once every three months.

34. Mr SIN Cheuk-nam said he agreed with Mr CHAN Pui-ming on the traffic problems in Ma On Shan. He asked why the development of the Ma On Shan brownfield land, i.e. the land in the Whitehead Barbecue of Wu Kai Sha, was not prioritised. He pointed out that the land faced the sea and hence had a higher value. He asked whether the government had tried to reclaim brownfield land and why it chose to develop green areas in country parks first.

35. The views of Mr Felix CHOW were summarised below:

(a) he opined that adding the population near Shun Yee San Tsuen and the heritage site of the Mineral Preparation Plant was inconsistent with the original historical features;

( 11 )

(b) he was concerned about the problem of the Chak Cheung Street roundabout. He pointed out that the traffic flow in North District and Tai Po relied on the Tolo Highway. He was worried that if a traffic accident occurred there, it would affect the traffic in Fo Tan and the Science Park;

(c) he deemed that Ma On Shan had a large population already and the green belt of country parks should not be used for housing development; and

(d) he understood that society had a strong demand for housing and hoped that the department would listen more to the opinions of the public when planning.

36. The views of Mr CHENG Chung-hang were summarised below:

(a) he suggested implementing traffic improvement measures in Ma On Shan first, then considering whether to increase the proportion of residential housing;

(b) he deemed the improvement plan for the bottleneck of Tate’s Cairn Highway would not help solve the traffic problem;

(d) he suggested that the department observe the flow of people on Ma On Shan Tsuen Road during holidays and try to separate the road from the footpath to ensure the safety of visitors.

37. The views of the Vice-Chairman were summarised below:

(a) he thanked the PlanD for explaining the distribution of brownfields in detail;

(b) he did not oppose the construction of public housing but he did not want country parks destroyed;

(d) he asked whether the current hospitals in Sha Tin could handle one-tenth of the population of Hong Kong. He pointed out that Union Hospital was a private hospital with high fees and not all citizens could afford it;

(e) he said that the scope of the school network was very wide and the new school was not close to the housing estate;

(f) he pointed out that there were peaks more than 700 metres high in Ma On Shan, while newly built houses were 250 metres above the main level. He was concerned about the ventilation issues;

(g) according to the claim from the department that 2 700 trees would be replanted, he asked about the locations which could replant the 2 700 trees in Ma On Shan;

( 12 ) (h) he asked the department not to confuse the bushes with the 3 560 trees within the scope of the project;

(i) although the department stated that it would not affect azaleas, he would like to point out that the ecological environment, including butterflies, bees, etc. was closely linked;

(j) he was concerned about the conservation of the heritage site at the mineral preparation plant in Ma On Shan, including the mine hanger, 110ML and 240ML mines, as well as the community changes in Wan’s Lodge, Mid-levels and the mine areas, etc.; and

(k) regarding the development of 9 500 new flats in Shap Sze Heung and Cheung Muk Tau, he asked how the department would solve the traffic problem of Nai Chung to Sha Tin.

38. The views of Mr HUI Lap-san were summarised below:

(a) he agreed that the housing problem was urgent but he had reservations about the infill method to build houses in Cheung Muk Tau and Ma On Shan Tsuen;

(b) he felt pity that thousands of trees were cut down;

(c) he considered that the expansion of Tate’s Cairn Highway to four lanes still needed to support the traffic flow in Tai Po and North District, and it would not help to ease the traffic flow of the Tate’s Cairn Tunnel which had only two lanes;

(d) he considered that building houses on the hill would affect the landscape; and

(e) he asked the department to thoughtfully consider adding tens of thousands of people to Ma On Shan and providing a comprehensive transportation network.

39. Mr CHAN Pui-ming would like to add that the area of forest land within the ecological impact assessment study scope of projects C to G was 85.28 hectares, and the number of trees to be felled due to the proposed development of projects A to G and related works exceeded 2 700.

40. The views of Mr Billy CHAN were summarised below:

(a) according to the HKPSG, Sha Tin District currently lacked more than 800 places regarding community care service facilities, 1 100 places in residential homes for the elderly and 600 places in child care centres. He would like to know when the department would provide relevant facilities; and

(b) he was dissatisfied that the PlanD did not send a representative to attend the Culture, Sports & Community Development Committee (CSCDC) to answer questions. He asked the department to send officers to attend the resumption meeting on 10 July.

( 13 ) 41. The response of Ms Jessica CHU were summarised below:

(a) the brownfield in Whitehead was planning a 15-hectare Whitehead Sports Park, which was a recreational facility and the department had no intention to develop residential or other uses;

(b) she emphasised that the plan did not involve country park areas but only the “green belt” outside the country park;

(c) the landscape assessment was of medium impact, so appropriate arrangements and greening would be made on height design and spacing of the buildings to reduce the impact;

(d) regarding the site of the mineral preparation plant, the department had avoided affecting Shun Yee San Tsuen and church communities in the layout. However, the elevated road might affect one pillar. The CEDD would reduce the impact on the detailed design plan. The government had consulted various government departments, including the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) on the layout. The AMO considered that the current layout was acceptable. The department would conduct a heritage impact assessment in a timely manner to reduce the impact on the mine;

(e) regarding the concerns of members about the traffic impacts caused by the development of the 9 500 units of integrated development zone in Shap Sze Heung, the consultant company had conducted a careful study on the 9 500 units and the four new housing projects;

(f) the 160 hectares of brownfields reviewed in the first batch were partly due to development restrictions, including being located under power cables, scattered in locations, or difficult to connect to major roads due to geographic reasons, making it difficult to reintegrate into public housing development. The department expected to complete the review of the remaining 290 hectares of land by the end of this year;

(g) the department suggested a 1:1 compensation for forest land, including 1 hectare of artificial slope planted forest land in the development area and 3.3 hectares near the development area;

(h) in response to the traffic flow arising from housing development, traffic improvement measures would be completed before the completion of the housing;

(i) the road widening project in Ma On Shan Tsuen would help to improve the existing narrow footpaths and roads;

(j) according to the HKPSG, private hospitals were also included in the provision of hospitals. It could not be ruled out that some citizens wished to have the services of private hospitals. In addition, the Prince of Wales Hospital would have an additional 800 beds;

( 14 ) (k) in terms of social welfare facilities, the HKPSG only introduced population benchmarks in 2018 to plan facilities for the elderly and children. The relevant standards were long-term goals, and the department had been making due consideration with SWD based on the actual services provided;

(l) the department was committed to add social welfare facilities in the new development plan. For example, the development project required the HD to provide neighbourhood centres for the elderly, day care centres, child care centres, residential homes for the elderly and district support centres for the disabled, etc.;

(m) hospitals and cultural and recreational facilities would be determined by Food and Health Bureau (FHB), Hospital Authority and Home Affairs Bureau in accordance with the needs of the region and population development and the priority of resource utilisation;

(n) the buildings of the Ma On Shan Mine were not statutory monuments, and those that might be affected by the project belonged to the third-class historical buildings; and

(o) in response to Mr Billy CHAN, the department had provided written replies to the questions raised by the CSCDC and could follow up on the concerns of the members after the meeting.

42. Mr Patrick CHENG, Senior Engineer (2) of the CEDD gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) in terms of tree compensation, the 2 750 affected trees could be replanted in the housing development area, roadsides and forest land compensation locations;

(b) the department had consulted the Lands Department and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) that the forest land compensation location was close to Cheung Muk Tau and Ma On Shan Tsuen totalling 4.3 hectares;

(d) in response to the development projects, the department would cooperate with the development of the cavern sewage treatment plant of the Drainage Services Department to optimise the drainage network system of the Ma On Shan sewage pumping station; and

(e) after obtaining the approval of the Water Supplies Department, the covered part of the water supplies support would be followed up with Mr Michael YUNG after the meeting.

43. The response of Mr Gabriel WOO was summarised below:

(a) the current traffic flow from Sai Kung to Sai Sha Road was relatively small, with a V/C ratio of about 0.47. The V/C ratio of 1.10 by 2035 would include Cheung Muk Tau and adjacent development projects. The improvement project aimed to reduce the traffic flow from the public housing in Cheung Muk Tau to the

( 15 ) roundabout, and to widen part of the southbound direction of Sai Sha Road to make future traffic smoother;

(b) the signal-control was calculated based on the reserved capacity, and the roundabout was calculated based on the V/C ratio;

(c) the design of the New Ma On Shan Tsuen Road would try to follow the original route for widening works to reduce the impact on the environment and vegetation. The design standard was dual lanes and footpaths to ensure safety;

(d) the 225m on the main horizontal datum was the height limit of the public housing building and the platform that would be built in Project D in the future;

(e) the pillars that might be affected by the project might be demolished or relocated when necessary. The department would conduct a heritage impact assessment in the next stage and submit the relevant report to the AMO; and

(f) the entrance to the 240ML tunnel could still be reached on foot and would not be affected by the current project.

44. Mr Edwin LO, Project Manager of the Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited said that according to the guidelines of Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and the HKPSG, the chlorine cylinder of the Ma On Shan Water Treatment Plant was a potentially dangerous device in the project area. After taking into account the proposed development of Ma On Shan and conducting a risk assessment, the risks that the Ma On Shan Water Treatment Works posed to the community, including the leakage of chlorine caused by plane crashes or landslides were at an acceptable risk level.

45. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:

(a) he stated that the Queen’s Statue Wharf was relocated in 2007 and had not yet been reset. He had reservations about the relocation plan of part of the heritage site of the mineral preparation plant; and

(b) according to the District Council document in 2014, the proposed clinics in Area 2B of Sha Tin and Area 90B of Ma On Shan had been reserved in order to meet the long-term medical service demand. Regarding the Area 90B, it was currently lent to Renaissance College as a stadium and Kam Fai Court would soon be occupied, he asked when the clinic in Area 90B would be built.

46. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:

(a) he said that the AMO was under the management of the Development Bureau and therefore had no opinion on the possible impact on third-class historic buildings. However, he expressed that he could not accept the structures of the mineral preparation plant that might need to be demolished and believed that the structures of the mine were in a group;

(b) he asked why the EIA report did not mention the presence of bats in the mine;

( 16 ) (c) he would like to know how many licensed houses in Ma On Shan Tsuen would be affected by the replanting areas of Projects A, C and D from District Lands Office/Sha Tin;

(d) he asked the department how to deal with the impact of the proposed building on noise sensitive receiver (NSR); and

(e) due to the epidemic, the residents were unable to attend the meeting. He requested the PlanD and the CEDD to meet with the residents of Ma On Shan Tsuen as soon as possible, to consult and explain the research progress of the entire project and its impact.

47. The views of the Vice-Chairman were summarised below:

(a) he was disappointed by the response from the department to the traffic and landscape impacts of projects A and B1, road connecting 2.73 hectares of private housing and Grade 3 historic buildings;

(b) he did not understand why the country park under the jurisdiction of the AFCD could be used as a 4.3-hectare tree replanting area after being burnt;

(c) he pointed out that although the Prince of Wales Hospital would add 800 beds, the development plan would increase the population by more than a thousand;

(d) he pointed out that the Ma On Shan Mine would be divided into two non- interconnected parts due to the development plan and that the Grace Youth Camp was a result of years of efforts fighting for it; and

(e) he was worried this project would affect the reputation of Hong Kong UNESCO Global Geopark.

48. The responses of Ms Jessica CHU were summarised below:

(a) the department had already reserved land in Area 90B for the construction of clinics. She would report to the relevant authorities the views of members hoping the relevant clinics would be completed as soon as possible. She also pointed out that due to lack of funding and purview, the department was unable to build relevant clinics;

(b) the tree compensation area was not within the boundaries of country parks or geoparks but in the “Green Belt” of the Ma On Shan outlined zoning plan;

(c) although the “Green Belt” was currently being rezoned, the authorities had conducted the necessary assessments and proved that it would not cause unacceptable impacts; and

(d) she would discuss with Mr Michael YUNG on the arrangement for consulting the residents of Ma On Shan Tsuen under the epidemic prevention measures after the meeting, and hoped that the Sha Tin District Office could assist in the arrangement.

( 17 ) 49. Mr Gabriel WOO said that, referring to the slides, the project would not affect the structures of the mineral preparation plant, and the current design had the potential to affect the height of one of the pillars. As for whether to reset near the original site, it would be studied in the next batch.

50. Mr Patrick CHENG said that the noise problem would be solved through different mitigation measures, including the treatment of silent roads, adjustment of the seating and position of non-residential buildings and the use of sound-absorbing window, etc., in order to reduce the noise to about 70 decibels.

51. Ms Amy HO, Senior Architect (20) of the HD said that during the detailed design stage, the department would conduct environmental assessment studies and submit the assessment report to the EPD for approval, including noise assessment and corresponding mitigation measures.

52. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:

(a) he asked the department if they could make a public statement to submit the revised project to the Town Planning Board for revision after conducting district consultation and meeting with local residents; and

(b) he asked whether his motion and the provisional motion that Mr CHAN Pui-ming would propose later could be settled together in this agenda.

53. The Chairman said that moving the agenda would have to be supported by a majority of present members.

54. Mr CHAN Pui-ming suggested settling the motion of Mr Michael YUNG first, and then his provisional motion.

55. The Chairman said that more than half of the members agreed on moving the agenda.

Motion

Motion by Mr YUNG Ming-chau, Michael on Opposing the Rezoning of Eight Housing Sites in Ma On Shan for Residential Land Use Prior to Improvement on the Existing Infrastructure (Paper No. DH 24/2020)

56. Mr Michael YUNG read out the motion in Paper No. DH 24/2020.

57. Mr TING Tsz-yuen indicated his support for the motion of Mr Michael YUNG. As some of the current Standing Orders were outdated, he asked the department to facilitate and improve the traffic in Ma On Shan before consulting the District Council. He would like to join as a seconder of the motion.

58. Mr Michael YUNG proposed the following motion:

“Background

The CEDD granted the feasibility study contract (tender reference number CE 80/2014 (CE)) for “Rezoning of Eight Site Formation and Infrastructure Works in Ma On Shan District for Residential Land Use” in April 2014 for the construction of subsidised

( 18 ) housing. The project involved the site adjacent to the Ma On Shan Country Park, and the marked development scope including Ma On Shan Tsuen and Shun Yee San Tsuen; however, the government did not consult or notify the council and the public before granting the relevant contract. Since the beginning of the project, the public and district councillors have raised many questions, raising their concern about the impact of the project on nearby monuments, ecology, transportation and even community facilities. The views are summarised as follows:

1. The related projects lack comprehensive transportation network support. The population and traffic flow in Ma On Shan is saturated currently. The transportation hubs in and out of Ma On Shan to Ma On Shan Road, A Kung Kok Street and Shek Mun roundabout, as well as many tunnels and major roads in Sha Tin District, are extremely congested during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Furthermore, Kam Fai Court, Kam Chun Court and Yan On Estate Phase 2 are about to be completed. There will be an increase in population due to the Sai Kung Shap Sze Heung development project, Northeast New Territories Development Area, Queen’s Hill and Area 9 of Tai Po, plus the inaugural flow of the third-phase expansion of Science Park, such as the development of housing projects in the Ma On Shan Country Park area, will only make the traffic situation even more overwhelming in the future.

2. The project involves the construction of a 30-classroom primary school building. There is a lack of public transportation nearby. Students and teachers will have to rely on private transportations if they do not go to school on foot. As mentioned above, the transportation network in Ma On Shan District has been saturated. Students, teachers and parents driving private vehicles will inevitably make the congestion of nearby roads even worse.

3. The land for the project involves the border of Ma On Shan Country Park and the proposed development area includes green belts. The “three treasures of Ma On Shan” are iron ore, azaleas and indian muntjac, which are popular among the people in the city and are all in the Ma On Shan Country Park. The natural environment is not only a habitat for various wild animals, but also precious heritage mining sites. We are worried that the relevant project will cause irreversible damage to the ecological environment of the area, and the conservation and humanities will be ignored due to urban development.

4. In Ma On Shan Tsuen, Shun Yee San Tsuen and Ma On Shan Country Park, there is a lack of public facilities such as water supply, sewage and electricity systems, etc. required by large residential areas, which is very inconvenient. Pipes and water distribution reservoirs for fresh water and flushing water need to be added and sewage systems must be built. The above projects are very close to the scope of the country park, and the project will possibly have an irreversible impact on the ecological environment of the area.

Motion

The Development and Housing Committee of Sha Tin District Council understands that Hong Kong people have a strong demand for housing. However, the government has not fully improved the road network in Sha Tin to channel the additional traffic flow resulting from the population growth brought about by the development projects in Ma On Shan, Cheung Muk Tau in Sai Kung and Shap Sze Heung. The relevant project has caused irreversible damage to the natural environment in the Ma On Shan Country Park. Therefore, the Development and Housing Committee of Sha Tin District Council strongly opposes the government’s rezoning of the site adjacent to the Ma On Shan Country Park (i.e. the revised Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Approved Plan No. S/MOS/22 amendments

( 19 ) C, D, E, F and G) for developing subsidised housing, private housing projects and related supporting facilities.”

Mr CHAN Pui-ming, Mr TING Tsz-yuen, Mr CHENG Chung-hang, Mr HUI Lap-san, Mr Felix CHOW, Mr SIN Cheuk-nam, Mr NG Kam-hung and Mr Raymond LI seconded the motion.

59. Members unanimously endorsed the motion in paragraph 58.

60. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:

(a) he said that Sites A and B1 revised by S/MOS/22 were not in Sha Tin District but they relied on Sha Tin District for traffic, which would affect the well-being of Ma On Sha residents;

(b) he read out the background of his provisional motion:

“Two housing development projects in Cheung Muk Tau are within the constituency of Sai Kung North District Council in Tai Po in the Site formation and infrastructure works for the available land for housing development in Ma On Shan District – feasibility study (CE 80/2014), but they relied on the public transport network and road network to urban area of Ma On Shan District. Therefore, the Tai Po District Council is urged to reject the amendment A and B1 of the Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Approved Plan no. S/MOS/22 by the PlanD for the welfare of the residents of Ma On Shan District when the public transport and road network in Ma On Shan have not been improved.”; and

“The Development and Housing Committee of Sha Tin District Council urges the Tai Po District Council to reject the PlanD’s revisions to amendments A and B1 of the Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Approved Plan No. S/MOS/22, and to instruct the Tai Po Senior Transport Officer of the TD and the Sha Tin District Council to discuss how to resolve the pressure on the public transport network and road network in Ma On Shan District from development projects in Shap Sze Heung and Sai Kung North together.”

Mr Michael YUNG seconded the motion.

61. Mr TING Tsz-yuen agreed on the provisional motion of Mr CHAN Pui-ming. In addition to housing affairs, he pointed out that the Ma On Shan Police District needed to support Shap Sze Heung and Sai Kung North. He suggested adding “in the long run, the Sha Tin District Office should consider placing the above two lots under the jurisdiction of Sha Tin District” to the provisional motion, otherwise it would cause inconvenience when discussing bus routes in the future. He would like to join as a seconder of the provisional motion.

62. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:

(a) he expressed that he would consider the suggestions from Mr TING Tsz-yuen;

(b) he asked the Chairman to forward his provisional motion to the Chairman of the Tai Po District Council; and

( 20 ) (c) he put forward the amended provisional motion as follows:

“The Development and Housing Committee of Sha Tin District Council urges the Tai Po District Council to reject the PlanD’s revisions to the amendments A and B1 of the Ma On Shan Outline Zoning Approved Plan No. S/MOS/22, and to instruct the Tai Po Senior Transport Officer of the TD to discuss with the Sha Tin District Council how to solve the pressure on the public transport road network and community facilities in Ma On Shan and Sha Tin Districts caused by the development projects in Shap Sze Heung and Sai Kung North.”

Mr Michael YUNG, Mr TING Tsz-yuen, Mr HUI Lap-san, Mr CHENG Chung-hang and Mr Raymond LI seconded the motion.

63. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 62.

64. Mr Gabriel WOO added that as the mine had been in disrepair for a long time, he asked members to pay attention to safety if they wish to make a site visit.

65. Members noted the above paper.

Questions

Question to be Raised by Mr LI Sai-hung on Volleyball Courts in Public Housing Estates (Paper No. DH 17/2020)

66. The Chairman welcomed the Ms NGO Po-ling, Senior Housing Manager/TNS1 of the HD.

67. The views of Mr LI Sai-hung were summarised below:

(a) he considered the response from HD to be vague and unable to solve the actual recreational needs of residents;

(b) the new poles in Sun Chui Estate were 2.2 metres to 2.3 metres high. However, the standard heights for female and male volleyball were 2.24 metres and 2.43 metres respectively. He said that some residents reported to him that it was difficult to carry out volleyball activities because the poles had no holes to adjust the height of the net;

(c) regarding the department’s claim that the recreational facilities provided in the housing estates were mainly for leisure use for residents, he cited the round table tennis table in Mei Tin Estate as an example, which made it difficult for residents to use it normally;

(d) he urged the department to increase the height of the poles of the volleyball court and allow the volleyball net to maintain a normal height, so as to increase the utilisation rate of the volleyball court; and

(e) he said that he had reported the issue of volleyball courts to the estate office but the staff pointed out that the current policy was set by the headquarters and therefore could not be handled individually.

( 21 ) 68. Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa said that the standard of the facility could change over time, including the demarcation of the basketball court. He asked if the HD would check with the LCSD in due course whether the facilities provided by the estates met the latest International Sports Federation standards and whether it would adjust the hardware.

69. Mr TING Tsz-yuen said that if the facilities of HD failed to keep up with the standards, corrections were needed. He considered that the government should not regard sports as a leisure activity. He urged that apart from the LCSD, other departments should actively prepare supporting facilities and vigorously promote sports instead of being static.

70. The views of Mr WONG Ho-fung were summarised below:

(a) he said that the four-person table in Mei Tin Estate was not used for playing table tennis. It was mainly used for playing cards or children climbing at present;

(b) he did not understand why the basketball court in Mei Mun House were two half basketball courts instead of a complete basketball court; and

71. The Chairman said that the focus of department was limited to the providing of facilities. The facilities completed early were provided in accordance with the original standards but the department did not consider the issue of keeping pace with the times. He gave an example that after the construction of fitness facilities for the elderly in Fung Shing Court, there was no floor mats and no cover installed. As a result, the excrement of birds from trees affected the use of residents. He said that Mr LI Sai-hung had reported to the estate office but still could not solve the problem. He hoped to follow up at the district board level but the department’s written reply asked members to report to the estate office. He considered the department to be lacking proactivity.

72. The responses of Ms NGO Po-ling were summarised below:

(a) the recreational facilities provided in public housing estates were mainly for residents’ leisure use. Most of the facilities were located outdoors and were not a formal competition venue;

(b) the department would install the relevant facilities with reference to the design standards. Since the completion period of the facilities were different, the setting standards were also different;

(c) regarding the facilities standards of respective housing estates that affect residents’ use, she could report relevant opinions to the works section for adjustments;

(d) the department was concerned about the situation in Sun Chui Estate and would contact the works section to follow up;

(e) the standards of housing facilities would refer to relevant guidelines during installation or maintenance, instead of following international standards; and

(f) she would report the members’ opinions to the works section.

( 22 ) 73. Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa said that outdoor facilities were not a factor affecting the competition venue. He asked the department to face up to the residents’ opinions on the facilities and allow flexible handling.

74. The views of Mr LI Sai-hung were summarised below:

(a) he said that he had previously reported his views to the estate officer in charge of the venue, and the officer had also contacted the works section and replied that the works section followed the HD’s standards and could not handle it individually, so he submitted this question;

(b) he asked the HD whether it would ask this question and consider changing it to meet the height standards for male volleyball or female volleyball, so that residents of all housing estates in Hong Kong who used volleyball courts would be benefited; and

(c) he asked whether Sun Chui Estate could meet the height standards of 2.24 metres for female volleyball and 2.43 metres for male volleyball. At the same time, the poles allowed users to fix the volleyball net and enjoy the fun of playing volleyball.

75. The views of Mr WONG Ho-fung were summarised below

(a) he hoped that the department would improve its policies and provide better housing estate sports facilities to residents; and

(b) he said that there was no football field in Mei Tin Estate. The nearest football field was already at the Tai Wai Playground and near the river. He asked the department to make improvements and plan for the future housing estates to be completed.

76. Mr Billy CHAN considered that the government did not value sports. He urged the department to report relevant opinions to the headquarters and improve the sports facilities in the estates, including volleyball and badminton courts, to meet the standards.

77. The responses of Ms NGO Po-ling were summarised below:

(a) she would bring the members’ opinions back to the works section for consideration;

(b) according to her understanding, the volleyball court in Sun Chui Estate should be changed to an adjustable-height pole to meet the height of the male and female volleyball team. She would report the opinions to the staff responsible for the Sun Chui Estate project for follow-up; and

78. The Chairman asked the representative of the HD to maintain communication with Mr LI Sai-hung after the meeting, hoping that the problem could be resolved.

79. Members noted the above paper.

( 23 ) Question to be Raised by Mr WAI Hing-cheung on Coverage of the Employment Support Scheme (ESS) to Estate Service Companies (Paper No. DH 18/2020)

80. The Chairman welcomed Ms NGO Po-ling, Senior Housing Manager/TNS1 of the HD and Mr Edmund WONG, Senior Liaison Officer (North) of the Sha Tin District Office to the meeting.

81. Mr WAI Hing-cheung said that he would like to propose two provisional motions after the follow-up question and asked the Chairman to count the number of people.

82. The Chairman said that since the number of members present was less than the quorum, the meeting was now adjourned for 15 minutes in accordance with Order 12(2) of the Standing Orders, and asked the secretary to call the absent members to attend the meeting.

(After adjournment)

83. The Chairman said that as the number of members present was still less than the quorum, he adjourned the meeting. As for questions that had not yet been discussed at this meeting, they would be discussed at the meeting on 17 July. In addition, he decided to circulate the two information papers, “Population of Public Housing Estates and Private Sector Participation Scheme Courts in Sha Tin” and “Brief on Water Safety Plan Subsidy Scheme”.

Date of Next Meeting

84. The next meeting was scheduled to be held at 2:30 pm on 17 July 2020 (Friday).

85. The meeting was adjourned at 6:16 pm.

Sha Tin District Council Secretariat STDC 13/15/50

September 2020

( 24 )