Action Minutes of the 8Th Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee Eastern District Council

Action Minutes of the 8th Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee Eastern District Council

Date: 11 April 2019 (Thursday) Time: 2:30 pm Venue: Eastern District Council Conference Room

Present Time of Arrival Time of Departure (pm) (pm) Mr TING Kong-ho, Eddie 4:22 end of meeting Mr WONG Chi-chung, Dominic 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Chun-sing, Patrick 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Kwok-hing, BBS, MH 2:30 4:10 Mr HO Ngai-kam, Stanley 2:30 end of meeting Ms LI Chun-chau 2:30 end of meeting Mr LEE Chun-keung 2:30 5:30 Mr LAM Sum-lim (Vice-chairman) 2:30 end of meeting Mr SHIU Ka-fai 2:30 end of meeting Mr HUNG Lin-cham, MH 2:30 end of meeting (Chairman) Mr CHUI Chi-kin 3:40 end of meeting Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong, Howard 2:53 end of meeting Mr LEUNG Siu-sun, Patrick 2:30 end of meeting Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, David 2:30 end of meeting Mr HUI Lam-hing 2:30 end of meeting Mr HUI Ching-on 2:30 end of meeting Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Aron, JP 3:00 4:15 Mr MAK Tak-ching 2:55 end of meeting Ms CHIK Kit-ling, Elaine 2:30 end of meeting Mr WONG Kin-pan, BBS, MH, JP 2:40 end of meeting Mr WONG Kin-hing 2:30 5:00 Mr YEUNG Sze-chun 2:30 end of meeting Dr CHIU Ka-yin, Andrew 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHIU Chi-keung, BBS 2:30 end of meeting Mr LAU Hing-yeung 2:30 5:00 Mr CHENG Chi-sing 2:30 end of meeting Mr CHENG Tat-hung 2:30 end of meeting Mr LAI Chi-keong, Joseph 2:30 5:45

1 Action Mr NGAN Chun-lim, MH 2:40 5:50 Mr LO Wing-kwan, Frankie, MH 2:30 5:40 Mr KUNG Pak-cheung, BBS, MH 2:30 5:00 Mr KWOK Wing-kin (co-opted 2:30 end of meeting member) Mr YUEN Kin-chung (co-opted 2:33 end of meeting member)

Absent with Apologies

Mr KU Kwai-yiu Ms LEUNG Wing-man, Bonnie Ms CHOY So-yuk, BBS, JP

In Regular Attendance (Government Representatives)

Mr CHAN Sheung-man, Simon, JP District Officer (Eastern), Eastern District Office Ms NG Yan-mei, Monie Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Eastern District Office Mr CHAO Ka-man, Stanley Senior Liaison Officer (1), Eastern District Office Ms WONG Sze-man, Queenie Senior Liaison Officer (2), Eastern District Office Ms KONG Kei-kei, Hayley Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Eastern District Office Mr LEUNG Kin-tak, Kenneth Executive Officer (District Management), Eastern District Office Mr LUK Chi-kwong Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms TAM Shiu-mei District Leisure Manager (Eastern), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms TANG Wing-sze, Maria Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern, Leisure and Cultural Services Department

2 Action Mr TONG Tung-kit, Terry Senior Librarian (Eastern), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAM Sin-yee, Iris Senior Manager (Hong Kong East/ Cultural Services), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms TANG Wai-yan, Zoe Manager (Hong Kong East) Marketing, Programme and District Activities, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr LAU Hin-yau, Ricky Architect (Works)2, Home Affairs Department Mr PANG Kam-ping Senior Inspector of Works (Hong Kong), Home Affairs Department Mr CHAN Hoi-sing Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South), District Lands Office, Hong Kong East Ms HAU Tsun-tsun, Kenix Executive Officer I (District Council)1, (Secretary) Eastern District Office

In Attendance by Invitation (Representatives from the Government and Organisations)

Ms CHAN Chui-mei, Carina Liaison Officer-in-charge (Community Affairs)2, Eastern District Office Ms LAU Po-chu, Judy Executives Officer (Planning) 5, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr WONG Wing-lim, William Property Services Manager/Project Management 14, Architectural Services Department Mr NG Wai-hung, Henry Project Manager, Cheung Hing Construction Limited Mr SHEK Ka-kui Project Coordinator, Cheung Hing Construction Limited

3 Action Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed all Members and government representatives to the meeting, particularly Mr Terry TONG, Senior Librarian (Eastern) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), who succeeded Ms LAM Fong. In addition, Members were also asked to declare their interests pursuant to Section 48 of the Standing Orders of the Eastern District Council (the Standing Orders) when necessary. He asked Members to declare their interests before discussing related agenda items and submit the declaration form to the Secretariat for record purpose and for ruling on the interest(s) declared.

I. Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 7th Meeting of DFMC

2. The District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC) confirmed the above minutes without amendment.

II. Report on District Free Entertainment Programmes and Other Arts and Cultural Activities Organised by the LCSD in the Eastern District (DFMC Paper No. 12/19)

3. The Chairman welcomed Ms Iris LAM, Senior Manager (Hong Kong East/ Cultural Services) and Miss Zoe TANG, Manager (Hong Kong East) Marketing, Programme and District Activities of the LCSD to the meeting.

4. The Chairman asked Members to declare their interests.

5. The interests declared by Members were as follows:

Name of Members Interests in the Relevant Organisations WONG Kwok-hing Director, The North Point Kai-fong Welfare Advancement Association* NGAN Chun-lim Executive Director, The North Point Kai-fong Welfare Advancement Association* * The members were associated with the organisation in executive capacities. They remained silent during the discussion of the application concerned, and abstained from decision-making or voting for the application.

6. The Chairman indicated that in accordance with the arrangement for handling declaration of interests, as Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr NGAN Chun-lim had

4 Action declared that they were associated with The North Point Kai-fong Welfare Advancement Association in executive capacities, they should remain silent during the discussion of the application for the co-organised programme, and should abstain from decision-making or voting for the application.

7. Ms Iris LAM of the LCSD briefed the meeting on Paper No. 12/19.

8. The DFMC noted the above Paper and approved the two applications for the co-organised programmes.

III. Report on the Usage and Extension Activities of LCSD’s Public Libraries in the Eastern District (DFMC Paper No. 13/19)

9. The Chairman welcomed Mr Terry TONG, Senior Librarian (Eastern) of the LCSD to the meeting. Mr Terry TONG of the LCSD briefed the meeting on Paper No. 13/19.

10. The views and enquiries of 4 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr WONG Kwok-hing asked the LCSD to proactively consider extending the opening hours of Siu Sai Wan Public Library as strongly requested by many elderly people.

(b) Mr Patrick WONG enquired whether the number of items processed by Self-service Library Station (SLS) at Island East Sports Centre Sitting-out Area (SLS(E)) in January and February as listed in Annex III of the Paper had reached its maximum capacity. He asked whether the LCSD planned to enhance publicity with a view to maximise the facility utilisation if it had not reached saturation.

(c) Mr LAM Sum-lim remarked that the number of library materials borrowed from SLS(E) was similar to that of a mobile library. Therefore, he hoped the LCSD would proactively consider replacing some mobile libraries with SLSs to effectively encourage local residents to read and enhance children’s interest in reading physical books.

5 Action (d) Mr CHIU Chi-keung relayed residents’ complaints about insufficient copies of newspapers in Yiu Tung Public Library and hoped the LCSD could increase the number of copies provided.

11. Mr Terry TONG of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

(a) The LCSD would later follow up with relevant Member about increasing the number of newspaper copies in Yiu Tung Public Library.

(b) Annex III of the Paper listed the figures on borrowing, returning and pick-up of library materials from SLS(E). The LCSD also noted that nearly 70% of the users used SLS(E) for returning library materials. In addition, the average daily processing volume in January and February had not reached saturation and the facility utilisation could be further improved.

(c) Apart from the SLSs in Eastern District and Tsim Sha Tsui set up in the past two years, the LCSD would also set up a SLS in Sha Tin District in mid-2019. After the commissioning, the LCSD would evaluate the cost-effectiveness, reader acceptance and capacity as a substitute for other library facilities, etc, of the relevant SLS. He would also relay Member’s suggestion of replacing some mobile libraries with SLSs to the LCSD.

(d) There were currently three district libraries and three small libraries in Eastern District. The opening hours of the three district libraries had been extended in 2009. Since the services and facilities of a district library were more comprehensive than a small library, extending the opening hours of a district library would be more cost-effective than a small library which was supplementary in nature. Nevertheless, the LCSD would record Member’s views and look into the extension of opening hours of Siu Sai Wan Public Library when resources were available in future.

12. The DFMC noted the above Paper.

6 Action IV. Report on LCSD’s Recreational and Sports Activities and Facilities Management in the Eastern District (DFMC Paper No. 14/19)

13. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern), and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting. Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD briefed the meeting on Paper No. 14/19.

14. The views and enquiries of 4 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr WONG Kwok-hing thanked the LCSD for accepting the suggestion of expanding the fitness room at Chai Wan Sports Centre by taking up some spaces in the store room, and enquired about the works progress as well as commissioning date.

(b) Mr Patrick LEUNG enquired whether the “Refurbishment Works of 7/F of Quarry Bay Sports Centre” could be completed on schedule in June, whether applications for booking of the facilities in July would be accepted by then, and whether users knew about the status.

(d) Mr Patrick WONG enquired whether the LCSD could provide the usage rate of fitness rooms under its purview in the above Paper.

15. Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

(a) “Expansion Works of Fitness Room at Chai Wan Sports Centre” had commenced on 18 March 2019 and was expected to be completed in July.

(b) “Refurbishment Works of 7/F of Quarry Bay Sports Centre” had commenced in February 2019 and was expected to be completed in June. The works included renovating the acoustic panels and impact absorbing mattings of the multi-purpose arena, repairing the ceilings, replacing the sports flooring, as well as repairing the basketball backstops, squash

7 Action courts, men’s and ladies’ changing rooms and toilets, and accessible toilet. The LCSD would put up notices showing the expected completion date and allow sufficient time for public booking.

16. The DFMC noted the above report.

V. Funding Application Submitted by Eastern District Office for District Minor Works (DMW) Project – Improvement Works for Rain Shelters at Tong Shui Road, North Point, Eastern District (DFMC Paper No. 15/19)

17. The Chairman welcomed Ms Hayley KONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management), and Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Executive Officer (District Management) of the Eastern District Office (EDO) to the meeting. Mr Kenneth LEUNG of the EDO briefed the meeting on Paper No. 15/19.

18. The views and enquiries of 18 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr CHENG Tat-hung agreed with the spirit of the Paper in principle. He observed that although the existing shelters were often occupied whenever he passed by, due to the relatively narrow size, insufficient coverage and unsatisfactory environmental hygiene conditions, few people would stay there on rainy days. Nevertheless, the preliminary works estimates of $4.8 million was too high and the number of beneficiaries might not increase substantially due to various constraints. Therefore, he questioned whether it was worthwhile to implement the works from the value-for-money perspective and hoped the term consultant would look into cost-saving proposals when conducting the feasibility study for the works with reference to the construction of Sitting-out Area adjacent to Heng Fa Chuen Block 30.

(b) Mr Joseph LAI agreed that the Eastern District Council (EDC) was responsible for enhancing district facilities. As the environmental hygiene in the vicinity of the works site was unsatisfactory due to congregation of feral pigeons, there was an actual need for improvement.

8 Action However, he doubted whether pedestrian flow and usage rate of the facilities were sufficient grounds for implementing the works, and whether public funds were used properly. In addition, he enquired about the cost ceiling of each District Minor Work (DMW) project and the feasibility of Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and other relevant department(s) conducting large-scale clean-up actions at the site.

(c) Mr WONG Kin-pan said he had inspected the proposed works site and noted that due to limited coverage of the existing five rain shelters and excessive demand for the facilities, some members of the public used items such as tarpaulin sheets to increase the coverage. He opined that the facilities had become an eyesore and adversely affected the image of EDC as a government department for supervising and monitoring authority of DMW facilities. As the facilities were popular among local residents (especially the elderly) and tram passengers, he agreed to allocate $200,000 to conduct a feasibility study for the works. After which the term consultant would draw experience from the planning of some sitting-out areas in the district and prepare two to three cost options depending on actual circumstances for DFMC’s consideration of implementing the works in future.

(d) Mr MAK Tak-ching worried that, as compared with other rain shelter works with standard design in the district, the relatively high preliminary estimates of the works would exceed the cost ceiling for each DMW project. In light of stringent public supervision over the use of public funds, he expressed concern about whether the works were in line with the value-for-money principle and hoped the term consultant could keep the cost of works options as low as possible when preparing the options to avoid public criticism against the EDC for luxurious projects.

(e) Mr WONG Kwok-hing leveraged on his familiarity with the North Point area, where he had been an EDC Member since 1991 and had lived in for many years, to support the necessity of the aforementioned works and indicated that his view was shared by many local residents. He understood that Members expected the works to be in line with the value-for-money principle, but he opined that it was more important to use the funds wisely. He agreed to conduct the feasibility study at $200,000 first, after which the term consultant would prepare options for the DFMC to consider and explore room for cost reduction.

9 Action

(f) Mr CHIU Chi-keung emphasized that the EDC had been implementing DMW projects based on the value-for-money principle. He opined that no one would use tarpaulin sheets to connect the existing rain shelters as mentioned by Members if the facilities had a low usage or did not meet public demands. Therefore, he agreed to conduct a feasibility study on the works first and implement the works when feasible.

(g) Mr Aron KWOK indicated that the number of benches at the rain shelters were increased from two to five due to an increase in users. However, due to limited resources and constraints in technologies for the DMW Programme in its early years, the relevant departments failed to overcome the geographical constraints in building a large and continuous rain shelter. As many residents in the neighbouring area often rested and chatted in the facilities, users had also strongly requested for connecting the rain shelters and enhancing their weather-protection function, if implemented, the works would greatly improve the environment, beautify the cityscape and provide a more effective shelter to users. Therefore, he agreed to implement the aforementioned works and asked the relevant departments to expeditiously take follow-up actions.

(h) Mr Andrew CHIU paid tribute to the DC Member of the constituency for relaying local demand for the implementation of the works to the EDC. However, he worried about the impact of poor quality works on the image of the community and the EDC as well as accountability issues. He expressed concern about whether resources could be used properly and emphasized the importance of cost-effectiveness. He also used the construction of sitting-out area adjacent to Heng Fa Chuen Block 30 for the enjoyment of local residents as an example to reiterate that the focus of his political party was whether the works implemented by the EDC could benefit local residents (especially those living in the vicinity of the proposed works site).

(i) Mr Dominic WONG declared that he lived in North Point and passed by the site every day. He indicated that many people rested at there and it was a gathering place for many elderly people. In addition, connecting the existing rain shelters with tarpaulin sheets would adversely affect the tourist attractiveness of Chun Yeung Street. Also stagnant water would accumulate on rainy days, resulting in mosquito infestation and other environmental hygiene problems. Therefore, he supported the

10 Action implementation of the works and opined that the works should adopt a safe and secure design and replace the tarpaulin sheets to protect public interest and user safety.

(j) Mr HUI Ching-on said he often passed by the site, and noted that the benches were insufficient to provide a rest area for a large number of people. As such, he recognised the need for the works. He also opined that unless the cost was unreasonable, the EDC should implement relevant works for facilities that required improvement and term consultant should conduct a feasibility study for the works first and explore an option that could maximise the use of space at lower costs.

(k) Mr HUI Lam-hing said he often went to the site, and noted that it was a rest area for many elderly people. He opined that engaging term consultant for implementing the improvement works would inevitably cost more than constructing a new rain shelter with standard design. He reiterated that the EDC should serve the public and agreed that a feasibility study for the works should be conducted first before considering its implementation.

(l) Ms LI Chun-chau indicated that despite the popularity, the rain shelters failed to meet users’ needs. As a result, some members of the public or hawkers took the initiative to connect them with banners or tarpaulin sheets. She also opined that Members should not place political wrangling before public needs. In addition, she enquired how the preliminary works estimates was calculated. She agreed to allocate funds for engaging term consultant to conduct a feasibility study for the works first, and evaluate its cost upon completion of the study.

(m) Mr Stanley HO enquired how the preliminary estimates of the proposed work was calculated. Given the high pedestrian flow and high usage rate of facilities at the site, the improvement works could benefit the public. Therefore, he supported the aforementioned works.

(n) Mr David LEUNG opined that a people-oriented approach should be adopted and blind pursue of cost-effectiveness should be avoided in implementing the works. He indicated that due to limited coverage of the existing five rain shelters and excessive demand for the facilities, items such as tarpaulin sheets were used to increase the coverage, which showed a strong public demand for such facilities and the necessity for

11 Action the improvement. Therefore, he supported the EDC to allocate funds for conducting a feasibility study on the works and the DMFC to discuss and decide whether to implement the works upon completion of the study.

(o) Mr CHENG Chi-sing indicated that feral pigeons often congregated at North Point Terminus adjacent to the aforementioned site, and pigeon droppings and rainwater accumulated on the makeshift canopies was prone to mosquito infestation and would affect environmental hygiene. He opined that as enhancing the existing rain shelters would substantially improve the site environment, a feasibility study should be conducted before referring to the DFMC for discussing the scope and cost of the relevant works upon the establishment of the technical feasibility of the works.

(p) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung supported the allocation of funds for the works, but worried that it would be difficult to avoid the congested underground utility services and pipelines when constructing the foundation of the rain shelters. He opined that $4.8 million might not be sufficient to implement the works.

(q) Mr LAM Sum-lim declared that he lived in North Point and had no doubt that the site had a high pedestrian flow. He commented that whether the preliminary works estimates of the site of approximately 48 square meters (m²) was too high was a matter of opinion. Furthermore, given the high cost of carrying out general trades in recent years, if Members decided not to implement the works solely based on the cost, many DMW project proposals made for public convenience and welfare would not be duly discussed and implemented, and it would be meaningless for Members to make suggestions. As such, he opined that a feasibility study should be conducted first and the DFMC could then examine the relevant cost after the term consultant submitted the report.

(r) The Chairman indicated that he was familiar with the situation of the site and hoped to arrange a site visit for the DFMC to understand residents’ needs. He pointed out that the EDC should balance the cost-effectiveness of DMW project to ensure proper use of public funds as well as the needs to implement improvement works for public welfare. He said that the DFMC had previously reported to the relevant departments about the high cost of government works and hoped that the consultancy fees would be lowered. He also indicated that many works

12 Action would not be implemented if their implementation was solely determined by the cost. Regarding the aforementioned works, even though the preliminary works estimates was high, vetoing the proposal at this stage would be ignoring the actual need for the improvement works. Therefore, he proposed to allocate $200,000 for conducting a feasibility study, after which the term consultant would be engaged to formulate a practicable proposal that could improve the environment, satisfy public demand and save public funds. He did not rule out the possibility that the DFMC might decline the proposed works due to high cost upon completion of the feasibility study. In addition, he indicated that the cost ceiling for each DMW project was $30 million and reiterated that the EDC was jointly accountable for decisions made at DFMC meetings.

19. Mr Kenneth LEUNG of the EDO responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

(a) According to the existing mechanism, the cost ceiling for each DMW project was $30 million. The preliminary works estimates of $4.8 million listed in the Paper was a ballpark estimate preliminarily calculated by the term consultant based on a basket of factors, such as the neighbouring environment and the conditions of the facilities (for example, whether the works site was located at expressway access, whether the trees in the vicinity would be affected by the works, whether underground utility services and pipelines could be visually detected at the preliminary stage etc.), after visiting the proposed works site. Only after the completion of feasibility study (such as ground investigation, tree risk assessment etc.) was the term consultant able to grasp the actual circumstances of the underground utilities as well as the technical and policy requirements of relevant departments or public utility companies on the proposed large-scale rain shelter works before carrying out designs and providing a more precise works estimates.

(b) According to EDO records, some Members had suggested improving the five rain shelters during the last EDC term. However, the suggestion was not followed up due to technical constraints at that time. The EDO and the Works Section of Home Affairs Department (HAD) had also explored the feasibility of retaining the five rain shelters and welding the shelters together with baffles to increase the coverage. However, it was not implemented due to technical and safety considerations. Moreover, despite EDO’s regular clean-up operations and advice, some members of

13 Action the public persisted to connect the rain shelters with various items for protection from exposure to the elements. Taken into account a strong public demand for the facilities, and the design elements as well as safety risks of various improvement works options, the EDO suggested engaging a term consultant to study the conversion of the existing five independent rain shelters into one large rain shelter of approximately 48m². After the $200,000 feasibility study was endorsed, the EDO would examine different works options with the Works Section and term consultant for Members’ consideration in the hope of satisfying community needs and meanwhile ensure proper use of public funds.

20. After discussion, the DFMC unanimously recommended the EDC to allocate $200,000 under the DMW Programme for conducting a feasibility study on the works.

(Post-meeting note: The EDC endorsed the above funding application at the meeting on 30 April 2019.)

VI. Request for the Provision of a Fitness Room in Siu Sai Wan Sports Ground (DFMC Paper No. 16/19)

21. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern), and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting. Mr David LEUNG briefed the meeting on Paper No. 16/19.

22. The views and enquiries of 8 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr WONG Kwok-hing understood the LCSD’s difficulties in providing a fitness room in Siu Sai Wan Sports Ground. He also thanked the LCSD for the improvements works at the store room in Chai Wan Sports Centre to expand the existing fitness room. He suggested the LCSD proactively discuss with Housing Department (HD) on converting the vacant ground-floor storeroom of the basketball court (i.e. covered playground) of former TWGHs Lee Chi Hung Memorial Primary School (the School) into a fitness room (the Suggestion). He hoped District Officer (Eastern) (DO (Eastern)) could co-ordinate interdepartmental efforts to better

14 Action utilise the site for public interest.

(b) Mr LEE Chun-keung commented that as public attention to sports activities increased, the suggestions in the Paper could respond to public demand for Sport for All. He indicated that the LCSD could draw reference from South Korea’s practice in providing outdoor fitness equipment and examine the provision of waterproof fitness equipment in its parks and promenades for public use.

(c) Mr David LEUNG indicated that local demand for a fitness room had increased after the commissioning of Siu Sai Wan Complex, and the requests listed in the Paper were aimed at responding to the existing policy of Sport for All. He agreed that the relevant departments could carefully consider the Suggestion and hoped DO (Eastern) could co-ordinate interdepartmental efforts for public interest.

(d) Ms Elaine CHIK reflected that despite Siu Sai Wan residents’ strong demand for fitness facilities, fitness room was not provided in the Siu Sai Wan Complex. She hoped the LCSD and relevant departments could explore the feasibility of the Suggestion or providing fitness room(s) in other location(s) in the district. She also hoped DO (Eastern) could co-ordinate interdepartmental efforts to better utilise the site and respond to public demand.

(e) Mr Aron KWOK indicated that the Government owed the large population of Siu Wai Wan residents a comprehensive overall planning of the area and the relevant departments had failed to seize the time to provide a fitness room in Phase II of Siu Sai Wan Complex. Therefore, it was now time to follow up on the Suggestion so as to provide a place for Siu Sai Wan residents for enhancing their physical fitness.

(f) Mr HUI Lam-hing indicated that the overall supporting facilities in Siu Sai Wan area were good, but there was no MTR access and fitness room in the area. He urged the relevant departments to implement the Suggestion in response to the trend of Sport for All to spare local residents the trouble of travelling a long distance to Chai Wan for using fitness room.

(g) Mr CHIU Chi-keung indicated that fitness room was not provided in Siu Sai Wan Sports Ground and Phase II of Siu Sai Wan Complex due to

15 Action design constraints. He hoped DO (Eastern) could co-ordinate interdepartmental efforts in following up on and implementing the Suggestion to enable community use of the site.

(h) Mr WONG Kin-pan said that he had relayed his views about opening up sports and fitness facilities of all schools in Hong Kong for community use to the Secretary for Home Affairs, and some schools in Eastern District had agreed to it. In addition, he hoped DO (Eastern) could co-ordinate interdepartmental efforts in exploring the feasibility of releasing the long-vacant covered playground of the School for development into a community sports venue.

23. DO (Eastern) responded that currently the School premises was jointly operated by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications and Employees Retraining Board. He had also discussed with various departments, including Planning Department (PlanD), HD and Lands Department (LandsD), about the relevant uses of the School’s covered playground. He noted that Members hoped to better utilise the site to enhance the quality of community facilities. He would continue to liaise with various departments and inform EDC upon further progress.

24. Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

(a) The LCSD’s fitness rooms were currently located in the sports centres under its purview. The provision of a fitness room should take into consideration various supporting facilities and manpower arrangements at proposed new location, including toilets, booking offices and security facilities etc. The LCSD would conduct further study and make response after inspection on the proposed site suggested by Members.

(b) Currently the LCSD provided outdoor fitness facilities such as fitness stations and elderly fitness corners at Siu Sai Wan Road Garden, Siu Sai Wan Sitting-out Area No. 1 and Siu Sai Wan Promenade for local residents’ use.

25. The Chairman concluded that Siu Sai Wan residents had a strong demand for fitness facilities and hoped the LCSD would proactively consider the Suggestion. He also asked DO (Eastern) to co-ordinate interdepartmental efforts.

16 Action LCSD, EDO 26. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to include the agenda item in matters arising.

VII. Solemnly Requesting the LCSD to Squarely Face the Problems of Abuse or Touting Activities of Leisure Facilities Requesting the LCSD to Update the Leisure Link System and to Plug the Loophole Regarding Priority Booking (DFMC Paper No. 17/19)

27. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern) and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting. Mr CHENG Tat-hung briefed the meeting on Paper No. 17/19.

28. The views and enquiries of 11 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr CHENG Tat-hung stated that as discovered by reporters, the Leisure Link system network at some booking offices would be suddenly interrupted when booking opened, leading to unsuccessful online bookings. He enquired about the underlying reasons for such issue, the statistics on cases where hirers’ right to book recreational and sports facilities was suspended due to unauthorised transfer or touting of user permit in the past 2 years, the effectiveness of the relevant penalty system, whether the LCSD had reported to the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) regarding the cracking of verification codes of Leisure Link e-Services System (LLES) by members of the public or organisations using computer programmes, whether the LCSD should consider improving the existing verification code system, whether the LCSD had contacted the HKPF for follow-up on syndicated touting activities which did not involve the use of false instruments, the frequency of LCSD’s surprise checks and whether the LCSD would further step up relevant actions.

(b) Mr MAK Tak-ching reflected public suspicions of touting activities at Sai Wan Ho Sports Centre. He also noted that as the media had previously reported in detail, touting activities involved profit-seeking syndicate operations and deprived the public of the right to use the recreational and sports facilities. Therefore, he expressed concern about whether the LCSD had sought police intervention and opined that the HKPF should

17 Action also respond. Meanwhile, he enquired about the offence committed by the touts, and suggested the LCSD encourage the public to proactively report on relevant activities. In addition, he suggested the LCSD better utilise smart ID cards or other information technologies to enhance the booking procedure.

(c) Mr HUI Ching-on pointed out that although Eastern District had a huge population, there were few indoor recreational and sports facilities. He opined that it was more difficult to book such facilities in Eastern District compared with other districts. In addition, he reflected public views that it had been faster to book such facilities at booking offices in person than online. However, the situation had reversed probably because some people used computer programmes for booking. He opined that it was unfair to those who went to booking offices in person for booking and suggested the LCSD give priority to them as well as delay the opening of booking via LLES.

(d) Mr Howard CHEUNG said that the LCSD’s response only explained the anti-touting regulations and preventive measures against any breach of booking regulations. He enquired whether the LCSD had set up mechanism for handling suspected touting cases and provided relevant guidelines to the staff of booking offices.

(e) Mr LEE Chun-keung opined that the existing penalties for people engaged in touting activities were too loose. He enquired about the number of cases where hirers’ right to book recreational and sports facilities was suspended due to unauthorised transfer or touting of user permit, whether the LCSD would introduce legislation to combat touting activities, and how the LCSD prevent standby hirers from successfully hiring the venues for touting activities when hirers failed to take up the booked session.

(f) Mr CHUI Chi-kin enquired how the LCSD would plug the loopholes in LLES or Leisure Link Self-service Kiosks (LLSSKs) arising from their inapplicability of real-name registration.

(g) Mr Andrew CHIU said the existing anti-touting measures failed to achieve deterrent effect. In addition, he opined that the network instability of LLES was caused by obsolete servers and programmes, as such the relevant system should be upgraded to cope with the current

18 Action network traffic. He hoped to continue following up on the agenda item and asked the unit responsible for the “Leisure Link” online booking system to give an account of the ways to improve system stability.

(h) Mr HUI Hing-lam relayed the views of some members of the public that successful bookings of recreational and sports facilities were often dominated by some people. He hoped the LCSD could improve the booking programme so that members of the public could have equal opportunities to hire the facilities.

(i) Mr Patrick LEUNG worried that the excessive number of sports associations eligible for priority booking would reduce the opportunities for general public to use the venues. He also expressed concern about how the LCSD verify the eligibility of the sport associations which were given priority in booking venues, such as whether inspections and visits would be conducted to ensure their eligibility.

(j) Mr YUEN Kin-chung said that currently touting activities were operated by syndicates which would openly tout the user permits online. He enquired whether the activities were illegal and, if yes, whether the LCSD had requested the HKPF to step up enforcement actions to combat the activities.

(k) Mr Joseph LAI said that syndicated touting activities would impair public rights and interests and abuse public funds. He opined that the LCSD should strengthen communication and co-operation with the HKPF, adjust the time arrangements for facilities booking at booking offices and via LLES, and improve LLES.

29. Ms Maria TANG and Ms TAM Shiu-mei of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

(a) In the past 2 years, the LCSD had no confirmed cases where hirers’ right to book recreational and sports facilities was suspended due to unauthorised transfer or touting of user permit. From time to time, the LCSD would remind venue staff to step up inspections of user permits and identification documents of users and conduct surprise checks when necessary. The LCSD would contact the HKPF when problem arose and LCSD staff would definitely contact the HKPF for follow-up actions if someone was discovered to be or suspected of using false instruments for

19 Action venue hiring. Previous cases such as the creation of fraudulent Leisure Link Patron accounts by collecting information of amateur-league athletes and the making of false identification documents had been referred to the HKPF for investigation.

(b) Regarding the inapplicability of implementing real-name registration for bookings via LLES or LLSSKs, the LCSD requested hirers to sign in personally to verify the information on the user permit before using the venue. The LCSD would also step up inspections and conduct surprise checks when necessary to combat touting activities and facilitate public booking of facilities.

(c) The LCSD reminded members of the public not to disclose personal information to unidentified persons for venue booking on their behalf.

(d) In order to be eligible for priority booking, organisations or sports associations must submit their respective Certificate of Registration of a Society or Certificate of Incorporation for LCSD’s verification before booking. The LCSD would check against the user permits and the identity documents of the hirers with LCSD’s records when the relevant organisations signed in. After the relevant organisations signed in, the LCSD would also conduct surprise checks when necessary to ensure that the permit holders were genuine hirers.

(e) The LCSD planned to launch a new online facility booking system, which was currently in the design stage. In addition, the LCSD would relay Members’ suggestion of adjusting the time arrangements for booking at booking offices and via LLES to Leisure and Cultural Services Headquarters and the Computerized Booking Unit.

LCSD 30. After discussion, the DFMC asked the LCSD to note Members’ views and agreed to include the agenda item in matters arising.

VIII. DMW Project Recommended by Eastern District Council Member – Requesting the LCSD to Level and Repave the Floor of Mount Parker Road Sitting-out Area (DFMC Paper No. 18/19)

31. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong

20 Action Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern) and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting. Mr WONG Kin-pan briefed the meeting on Paper No. 18/19.

32. The views and enquiries of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr WONG Kin-pan hoped to conduct a site visit with the relevant works department(s) and further relay users’ views to them.

(b) Mr Andrew CHIU suggested the LCSD provide photos of the proposed site and the relevant works.

33. Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD responded that the LCSD currently did not have any photos of the proposed site and the relevant works. After the DFMC endorsed to support the aforementioned works in principle, the LCSD would submit the funding proposal together with the relevant photos and documents to the DFMC for approval.

34. After discussion, the DFMC endorsed to support the aforementioned works in principle and passed it to the LCSD for follow-up actions.

IX. Report on the 6th Meeting of the DMW & FM Working Group (DFMC Paper No. 19/19)

35. The DFMC noted the above meeting report and endorsed to recommend the EDC to allocate a fund of $1,450,000 under the DMW Programme for carrying out the three projects mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Paper.

(Post-meeting note: The EDC endorsed the above funding applications at the meeting on 30 April 2019.)

X. The Financial and Progress Reports on DMW Projects of Eastern District for the Financial Year of 2018-19 (DFMC Paper No. 20/19)

36. The Chairman welcomed Mr Ricky LAU, Architect (Works)2, and Mr PANG Kam-ping, Senior Inspector of Works (Hong Kong) of the HAD; Ms Maria TANG,

21 Action Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern, Ms Judy LAU, Executive Officer (Planning)5, and Mr Terry TONG, Senior Librarian (Eastern) of the LCSD; Ms Hayley KONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Executive Officer (District Management), and Ms Carina CHAN, Liaison Officer-in-charge (Community Affairs)2 of the EDO to the meeting.

37. The views and enquiries of 8 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

“Provision of Handrails at the Junction of Yiu Hing Road and Nam Hong Street”

(a) Mr CHIU Chi-keung said that the relevant owners committee did not oppose to the installation of handrails within its estate. Since the EDO had long consulted the relevant departments about the aforementioned works and rainy season was approaching, he hoped the EDO could expedite the implementation of the works.

“Replacement of Potted Plants to Planters along Kornhill Road (near Tai Koo Station Exit C)” “Landscape Beautification of Safety Island outside Shipyard Lane”

(b) Mr Patrick LEUNG hoped the relevant departments could expeditiously solve the problems related to the works and implement the works.

“Construction of Pet Garden at Sheung On Street, Chai Wan” (E-DMW227)

“Construction of Covered Walkway outside Chai Wan Road Sitting-out Area No. 1, Chai Wan, Eastern District” (E-DMW350)

(d) Mr LEE Chun-keung enquired about the progress of the works.

“Feasibility Study on the Development of a Temporary Community Garden adjacent to Quarry Bay Park Phase II” (E-DMW349)

(e) Mr Andrew CHIU said that according to the HAD, the carrying out of trial pit excavation was approved by the LandsD. He noted that part of

22 Action the works site was located within harbourfront area and the MTR protection boundary, and enquired about the relevant details as well as the depth of the excavation.

(f) The Chairman said the DFMC expressed concern about the period of use of the site and hoped the relevant departments could ensure prudent use of public money by expediting the works to extend its period of use.

“Redeveloping Part of Choi Sai Woo Park as a Pet Garden” (E-DMW223)

(g) Mr YUEN Kin-chung enquired about the time required for conducting the feasibility study of the works.

“Construction of a Sitting-out Area adjacent to Heng Fa Chuen Block 30” (E-DMW082)

(h) Mr Stanley HO enquired how the relevant departments would improve the lighting of the site to avoid affecting residents in the vicinity.

38. Mr Kenneth LEUNG of the EDO, Mr Ricky LAU of the HAD and Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

EDO

“Provision of Handrails at the Junction of Yiu Hing Road and Nam Hong Street”

(a) Since the proposed works site involved private lot, the EDO had to consult relevant legal and policy advice to safeguard the interests of the EDC and the Government. The EDO would ask the Department of Justice and the relevant policy division of the HAD to reply promptly in the hope that the works could be finalised and commenced shortly.

“Replacement of Potted Plants to Planters along Kornhill Road (near Tai Koo Station Exit C)” “Landscape Beautification of Safety Island outside Shipyard Lane”

(b) The EDO was following up on residents’ comments on the preliminary design of the works. It hoped to discuss with the project proponents shortly and would report to the DFMC or its working group after the

23 Action development direction of the works was confirmed.

“Construction of Covered Walkway outside Chai Wan Road Sitting-out Area No. 1, Chai Wan, Eastern District” (E-DMW350)

(c) The EDO was in parallel arranging to consult the relevant stakeholders and conduct a feasibility study on the works, and hoped to receive further information soon to facilitate discussions with project proponents and the DFMC on the works.

HAD

“Construction of Pet Garden at Sheung On Street, Chai Wan” (E-DMW227)

(d) The works had been substantially completed. The HAD was currently arranging the handover of the site from the contractor, and would open the site to the public in due course after the handover.

“Feasibility Study on the Development of a Temporary Community Garden adjacent to Quarry Bay Park Phase II” (E-DMW349)

(e) As required under the conditions of the excavation permit issued by the LandsD, approval from the Harbourfront Commission and the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) was required for conducting excavation works. The Harbourfront Commission had approved the relevant works. The ground investigation works had commenced and trial trenching would commence upon MTRCL’s response. The depth of the excavation would be about 1 meter (m).

“Construction of a Sitting-out Area adjacent to Heng Fa Chuen Block 30” (E-DMW082)

(f) The LCSD had advanced the switch-off time of half of the lighting from 10 pm to 9 pm after the last meeting. The term consultant was examining the installation of lamp shades at the aforementioned venue, and was currently working with the contractor, lead department and maintenance department(s) to arrange the relevant matters.

LCSD

24 Action “Redeveloping Part of Choi Sai Woo Park as a Pet Garden” (E-DMW223)

(g) The LCSD had handed over the works details provided by the Hongkong Electric Company, Limited and Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) to Water Supplies Department for conducting feasibility study.

39. After discussion, the DFMC noted the above Financial and Progress Reports, and endorsed to continue funding the minor works approved but unfinished as set out in the Paper in 2019-2020.

XI. Progress Report of Items Arising from Previous DFMC Meetings (DFMC Paper No. 21/19)

(i) Request the LCSD to Strengthen Regulatory Measures in response to Concerns about High Bacteria Content in the Water from the Drinking Fountains in LCSD parks in the Eastern District Request the Authorities to Conduct Full Investigation and Adopt Rectifying Measures in response to Concerns about the Quality of Water from Drinking Fountains and Cleanliness of Water Supply Facilities at Government Venues

40. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern), and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting.

41. The DFMC noted the written reply of the Department of Health (DH).

42. The views and enquiries of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Andrew CHIU thanked the LCSD and Electrical and Mechanical Services Department for following up on the issues and asked the LCSD provide information on the locations of drinking fountains to be replaced in the Quarry Bay Park.

(b) Mr CHUI Chi-kin asked the LCSD for details of the replacement of drinking fountains, such as the number of drinking fountains to be replaced and the expected completion date.

25 Action

43. Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD said she would reply to relevant Members later.

DH, LCSD 44. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item.

(ii) Strongly Condemn the Departments Concerned for Ignoring Public Opinion and Wasting Public Money and Request to Re-pave the Entire Boardwalk at the Quarry Bay Promenade with Eco-friendly Wood-plastic Composites with Better Durability

45. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern) and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD, Mr William WONG, Property Services Manager/Project Management 14 of the ArchSD, Mr Henry NG, Project Manager and Mr SHEK Ka-kui, Project Coordinator of Cheung Hing Construction Limited to the meeting.

46. The interests declared by Members were as follows:

Name of Member Interests in the Relevant Organisations Andrew CHIU Member, Taikoo Shing Management Liaison Council Chairman, Taikoo Shing Stage V Representative Committee

47. Mr William WONG of the ArchSD added that after conducting a site visit with relevant Members at the Quarry Bay Promenade (Promenade) on 7 March 2019, the ArchSD now proposed to fill up the space underneath the original flooring with lightweight concrete before the laying of granite slabs. Information on the comparison of the refurbishment materials, such as granite, solid wood and eco-friendly wood-plastic composites, was also provided for DFMC’s reference and discussion. He said during the construction period, the timber boardwalk at the Promenade would be divided into Zone A and Zone B, and there were two options for the proposal. For Option 1, Zone A and Zone B would be entirely closed during a total construction period of 150 days (i.e. 5 months); for Option 2, the works would be carried out in two phases with a total construction period of 180 days (i.e. 6 months). During phase 1, Zone A and Zone B would be entirely closed for implementing overall works, and Zone B would be opened first upon completion of the overall works. The entire area would be opened upon the completion of phase 2 works.

26 Action

48. The views and enquiries of 9 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr CHENG Tat-hung asked the ArchSD to send copies of the PowerPoint presented at the meeting to Members. In addition, he enquired whether the Promenade would be interrupted and entirely inaccessible if Option 2 was chosen, and whether the carpark outside the Promenade would be sealed off by chain-link fencings.

(b) Mr WONG Kin-pan indicated that carrying out the works at Zone B first under Option 2 would interrupt the Promenade. He enquired whether it was technically feasible to divide the works into northern and southern (i.e. closer to the harbour) sides so that the public could still pass through part of the Promenade to lessen the impact on them. He also opined that if the suggestion was infeasible, the section to be refurbished should be closed during the construction period, the works should be carried out from east to west, and the completed part should be opened to the public by phases to avoid accidents in the construction area during the construction period. He also suggested the ArchSD follow the example of some LCSD venues to use the rougher side of the granite slabs as floor surface and pay attention to the gradient requirement of the granite paving to facilitate runoff discharge into the harbour.

(c) Mr CHIU Chi-keung agreed to pave the boardwalk with granite slabs due to its functionality and lower cost compared with the other two materials. Meanwhile, he reminded the ArchSD to step up monitoring of the works to ensure that the paving gradient enabled effective runoff discharge for easy maintenance in future. In addition, he supported to divide the works into northern and southern sides so that the Promenade could be used to a limited extent during the construction period. He said if the works were divided into Zone A and Zone B, the ArchSD should ensure proper connection and, where possible, consider providing a temporary access for public use.

(d) Mr Patrick WONG opined that a durable and slip-resistant material should be used for the paving to reduce safety hazards to users on rainy days and prevent major repairs in future. In addition, he said the current lighting along the boardwalk was too bright and users might be affected. Therefore, he hoped the ArchSD would pay attention to the cable routing

27 Action and the positioning of the lighting during construction. In addition, he said if the works were to be carried out in northern and southern sides separately, the ArchSD should ensure that the width of the access to be opened for use should be reasonable or, if impossible, consider closing the entire section and shortening the construction time at its best. He also opined the DFMC should propose to the ArchSD the works direction of closing the entire section instead of voting on Option 1 or 2, and asked the ArchSD to shorten the construction time if practicable.

(e) Mr Andrew CHIU said he had consulted the representatives of owners of Taikoo Shing Management Liaison Council on the aforementioned matters, and reflected that they hoped to save public funds and prevent frequent repairs in future. He thanked the ArchSD for explaining the information on different materials in detail and preparing the works options for DFMC’s consideration. He agreed to the option of granite paving and opined that its construction cost was reasonable and it was in line with public interest as well as the principle of effective use of public funds. He opined that the ArchSD’s proposal of dividing the works into eastern (Zone B) and western (Zone A) sides was not ideal, and supported dividing the works into northern and southern sides, so that part of the Promenade could still be opened to public. If the aforementioned suggestion was technically infeasible, he suggested providing a temporary access and asked the ArchSD to notify residents of the details of the closure in advance and shorten the construction time at its best to reduce the impact on residents. In addition, he enquired whether the LCSD agreed with the contractor’s works option.

(f) Mr YEUNG Sze-chun indicated that there were safety and maintenance issues with the existing timber boardwalk. He opined that the ArchSD’s comparison of the three types of refurbishment materials could facilitate District Council (DC) members to provide information to the public. However, he worried that the two works options of the ArchSD would affect Promenade users and opined that it would be most ideal if the ArchSD could carry out the works by phases to enable public use of part of the facilities in the meantime. He also asked the ArchSD to discuss with the DFMC when further works proposals were available.

(g) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that during the site visit, the ArchSD also explained that granite paving was more durable and cost less. However, he asked the ArchSD to pay attention to the slip-resistance of the

28 Action materials to ensure user safety. In addition, he enquired whether the construction cost would include replacing the wooden railings in the relevant area with stone railings.

(h) Mr MAK Tak-ching hoped the ArchSD could learn from experience to select suitable materials. He also supported using granite for paving the boardwalk and carrying out the works by phases.

(i) Mr NGAN Chun-lim agreed that the works should be divided into Zone A and Zone B and suggested carrying out the works by phases. He hoped that a safe passage would be provided to the public if feasible, so that the public could pass through the construction area during construction period. However, if the above suggestion was infeasible, the entire construction area should be closed.

49. Mr William WONG of the ArchSD, Mr Henry NG of Cheung Hing Construction Limited and Ms TAM Shiu-mei of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

ArchSD

(a) As regards the safety concerns, the ArchSD would pave the boardwalk with the rougher and slip-resistant side of granite slabs and pay attention to the paving gradient to prevent water accumulation on rainy days. Meanwhile, the ArchSD would also adjust the light intensity as appropriate.

(b) The existing wooden railings at the aforementioned area would be retained, but the damaged part would be refurbished during the construction period.

(c) The ArchSD and the contractor understood that dividing the works into Zone A and Zone B might cause inconvenience to users, and had explored the feasibility of dividing the timber boardwalk into northern and southern sides for refurbishment. However, it could not be implemented due to various factors.

Cheung Hing Construction Limited

(d) The contractor understood users’ needs. However, as the area where

29 Action pavilions were not provided was about 4m wide, and the floor surface should be filled with lightweight concrete first before laying granite slabs, dividing the construction area into northern and southern sides would give rise to connection issues. Also, if solid wood or eco-friendly wood-plastic composites was to be selected, the existing metal support systems had to be removed entirely before installing new ones. Therefore, it would be technically difficult to divide the works into northern and southern sides.

(e) If the works were divided into Zone A and Zone B, the location and quality of connection would comply with ArchSD’s specifications. Meanwhile, as the area next to the timber boardwalk was occupied by planters and was not designed for pedestrian access, the contractor worried that they might be held accountable if someone tripped over when passing through. Therefore, the contractor did not recommend providing a temporary access in the construction area during the construction period, and opined that the entire area should be closed during the construction period.

LCSD

(f) The LCSD accepted the contractor’s option and opined that safety was LCSD’s prime concern in any circumstances.

50. The Chairman responded that the all Members agreed to the adoption of granite paving. Regarding the works option, the DFMC had to make a trade-off between the facilitating measures proposed by Members and safety concerns raised by the departments.

LCSD, ArchSD 51. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to the replacement of the timber boardwalk at the Promenade with natural granite paving and close the entire area for the works. The DFMC reiterated its hope for an early completion of works given the large number of boardwalk users and agreed to continue following up on the agenda item.

(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had circulated copies of the PowerPoint presented by the ArchSD at the meeting to Members on 7 May 2019.)

30 Action (iii) Concern over the Use of Maintenance Materials at the Jogging Trail of Quarry Bay Park Requesting the Departments Concerned to Research on a Practical and Effective Mitigation Measure As Soon As Possible Request the Authorities to Expeditiously Formulate Work Plans and Provide a Timetable on Upgrading All Cycling Facilities along the Jogging Trail at Quarry Bay Park and Replacing Safety Matting in Children’s Playgrounds

52. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern), and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD, and Mr William WONG, Property Services Manager/Project Management 14 of the ArchSD to the meeting.

53. The views and enquiries of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Andrew CHIU was pleased to know that the LCSD had successfully applied for funding for upgrading the jogging trail and cycling track at the Quarry Bay Park, and hoped the ArchSD could expeditiously complete the preliminary works, such as developing designs. In addition, he hoped the replacement of safety matting in children’s playgrounds could be completed on schedule in June.

(b) Mr Patrick WONG thanked the departments for explaining the content and progress of the works in detail, and hoped they could urge the contractor for early completion of the second phase of the works in June so that local children could enjoy the facilities during the summer vacation.

54. The Chairman concluded by asking the departments to expedite their follow-up actions.

LCSD 55. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item.

(iv) Improvement Works to Planters at Greig Road Sitting-out Area to Widen the Entrance of the Sitting-out Area

56. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong

31 Action Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern) and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting.

57. The views and enquiries of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Patrick LEUNG indicated that due to high pedestrian flow at the works site, he hoped the works could be expeditiously completed to facilitate public access.

(b) Mr Howard CHEUNG also hoped the works could be completed as soon as possible to facilitate access to the sitting-out area.

58. The Chairman concluded by asking the LCSD to expedite their follow-up actions.

LCSD 59. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item.

(v) Concern that Lack of LCSD Lifeguards Might Hinder the Safety of Swimmers

60. The Chairman welcomed Mr LUK Chi-kwong, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong East), Ms TAM Shiu-mei, District Leisure Manager (Eastern) and Ms Maria TANG, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Eastern of the LCSD to the meeting.

61. Mr CHUI Tsz-kin was concerned how many of the commitments made by the LCSD on improving the aforementioned problem since the submission of the aforementioned Paper could be materialised. He also pointed out that currently there were insufficient seasonal lifeguards and questioned that the creation of four civil service lifeguard posts in Eastern District was insufficient. In addition, he enquired why the LCSD carried out annual maintenance for Siu Sai Wan Swimming Pool in May rather than during winter. He expressed concern whether the LCSD could address the problem of frequent partial closure of Chai Wan Swimming Pool although the LCSD responded that they would deploy staff to other swimming pools in the district.

62. Ms Maria TANG of the LCSD responded to the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

32 Action

(a) As Siu Sai Wan Swimming Pool was a heated swimming pool and more swimming pools in the district would be opened with swimming season approaching, the LCSD would carry out maintenance works at Siu Sai Wan Swimming Pool in May and June to facilitate its opening in winter.

(b) The LCSD had recruited a total of 80 civil service lifeguards so far to replace seasonal lifeguards in the hope of enhancing manpower stability. However, it also depended on the assumption of offices by new employees. The LCSD would continue recruiting seasonal lifeguards. However, despite LCSD’s enhanced publicity efforts and improvement in the remuneration package of lifeguards, the recruitment was still constrained by market supply and demand.

LCSD 63. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to follow up on the agenda item every other meeting.

(vi) Requesting to Improve the Pet Garden Facilities at Quarry Bay Promenade Maximising the Use of the Pet Garden at Quarry Bay Promenade to Promote a Caring Culture for Animals in the Community/ Urging the Government to Promote Pet Gardens in Cultivating a Community Caring Culture for Animals

64. The Chairman welcomed Ms Judy LAU, Executives Officer (Planning) 5 of the LCSD to the meeting.

65. The DFMC noted the written reply of the Development Bureau (DEVB).

66. Mr Andrew CHIU said the local community expressed concern about the re-provisioning of the pet garden. He hoped the LCSD would give an account to relevant Members after obtaining further information on the ideas and progress of the land owner.

DEVB, LCSD 67. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item upon further progress.

(vii) Protecting the Woodside Site and Building a Tai-chi Leisure Trail

68. The DFMC noted the written replies of the Education Bureau (EDB) and Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD).

33 Action

EDB, PlanD, 69. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda CEDD item upon further progress.

(viii) Quarry Bay Park Phase II (Stages 2 and 3) - Progress Report Request to Develop the Open Space next to Quarry Bay Park Phase II into a Rest Garden/ Implementation of the “Temporary Community Garden Programme”

DEVB, LCSD 70. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item upon further progress.

(ix) Requesting to Review the Use of Shau Kei Wan Market to Provide Residents with Appropriate District Facilities Future Development of Shau Kei Wan Market Requesting a Change in Use of Shau Kei Wan Market

71. The DFMC noted the written replies of the FEHD and the Government Property Agency (GPA).

FEHD, GPA, 72. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda PlanD item upon further progress.

(x) Concern about Material Safety of the Artificial Turf Pitch at Quarry Bay Park (Phase 1)

LCSD, ArchSD 73. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item upon further progress.

(xi) Replacement of Children’s Playground Facilities at Greig Park

LCSD 74. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item upon further progress.

(xii) Requesting the LCSD to Provide More Children’s Recreational Facilities in the Areas Concerned and to Proactively Follow up on the Renovation of the King’s Road Playground in North Point

LCSD 75. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item upon further progress.

34 Action

(xiii) Requesting the Government to Set up an Inter-departmental Working Group for Establishing an Integrated Database on Underground Facilities

DEVB, Highways 76. After discussion, the DFMC agreed to continue following up on the agenda Department item upon further progress.

XII. Date of the Next Meeting

77. The meeting ended at 5:55 pm. The 9th Meeting of the DFMC would be held at 2:30 pm on 30 May 2019 (Thursday).

Eastern District Council Secretariat May 2019