• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the Economy, Development and Planning Committee (EDPC) Southern District Council (2020-2023) (SDC) Date: 21 May 2020 Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: SDC Conference Room Present: Mr LO Kin-hei (Chairman of SDC) Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN (Vice-Chairman of SDC and Chairman of EDPC) Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael (Vice-Chairman of EDPC) Mr CHAN Hin-chung Mr CHAN Ping-yeung Ms CHAN Yan-yi Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun Ms LI Shee-lin Mr POON Ping-hong Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus Mr YIM Chun-ho Mr YU Chun-hei, James Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany Secretary: Mr LEE Lok-him, Milton Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department In Attendance: Mr CHENG Kong-chung, Francis, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss CHENG Wai-sum, Sum Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department 1 Ms YIP Wai-see, Priscilla Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHEUNG Wai-chun, William Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms CHAN Grace Senior Liaison Officer (1), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department Ms KWAN Yuen-ling Elaine Senior Estate Surveyor/South, Lands Department Mr. LING Chi-wai, Jimmy Engineer/13 (South), Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms LO Kit-sheung Housing Manager/HKI7, Housing Department Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Ms. TANG Po-kwan, Anny Senior Manager (Tourism) 21, Tourism Commission Mr. LEUNG Siu-chee Marine Manager/Licensing & Port Formalities (3), Marine Department Mr. TAM Wai-man Senior Assistant Shipping Master/South, Marine Department Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Ms. TANG Po-kwan, Anny Senior Manager (Tourism) 21, Tourism Commission Mr. Howard CHUK General Curator, Ocean Park Corporation Ms. Una LAU Public Affairs Director, Ocean Park Corporation Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Mr. KAU Kin-hong, Louis District Planning Officer/HK, Planning Department Mr. WONG Wai-yin, Vincent Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department 2 Opening Remarks: The Chairman welcomed members and standing government representatives to the meeting, and said the following: (i) in view of the latest situation of the Coronavirus Disease 2019, this meeting is not open to the public in order to reduce the risk of crowd gathering. EDPC members and media are advised to bring their own masks and water. Before entering the venue, all persons are subject to checking of body temperature with the assistance of the staff of Southern District Office, and are required to complete a health declaration form and declare whether he/she is under the 14-day compulsory quarantine; and (ii) Each member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. It is estimated that the meeting could finish at around 6:10 p.m. Moreover, members should inform staff of the Secretariat if they had to leave the meeting early. Items for Discussion Agenda Item 1: Construction of Vehicular Access Connecting Pok Fu Lam Road and Staff Quarters in Pok Fu Lam by the Dairy Farm Company Limited (EDPC Paper No. 4/2020) (Item raised by Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo) (Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin and Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus joined the meeting at 2:33 p.m. and 2:36 p.m. respectively.) 2. The Chairman invited Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo to brief members on the agenda item. 3. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo briefly introduced his agenda item as follows: (i) On 5 March 2020, the Court of First Instance of the High Court had ruled against the Lands Department (LandsD) for violating the land grant conditions and ordered the LandsD to approve the application submitted by Dairy Farm Company Limited (Dairy Farm) for constructing a vehicular access connecting its staff quarters on Pok Fu Lam Road to 3 allow access of maintenance or construction vehicles to the staff quarters in future. Currently, the staff quarters were being abandoned and could not be reached by vehicles; (ii) If the Government did not appeal against the court decision, there were chances that the areas adjacent to the site might be used for constructing carriageway, flyover or a road in any other form in future, which might constitute a need for demolition of certain squatters from Pok Fu Lam Village and removal of the vegetable garden ploughed by the villagers over the years. Some of the villagers might be compelled to leave their home if it ended up being used for low density residential development in future. All the above scenarios served to illustrate the far-reaching implications of the court decision, which were likely to provoke a series of social conflicts. He thus hoped that the relevant departments would address the issue properly; (iii) At present, there were about 400 households in Pok Fu Lam Village with a population of around 3 000 people. Most of the villagers were living in two-storey squatters with three generations in each of the families. Life in the village was comparable to that of a self-sufficient farmer. With a strong sense of belonging towards Pok Fu Lam Village, the villagers had been organising two guided cultural tours per month and events like Pok Fu Lam Fire Dragon Dance to attract the attention of other people over Pok Fu Lam Village while passing on their culture; (iv) Many historians and archaeologists had regarded Pok Fu Lam Village as the only traditional village on Hong Kong Island. According to a demographic statistics of 1872, there were already over 300 people dwelling in Pok Fu Lam Village. Later, Dairy Farm set up a pasture in Pok Fu Lam in 1886 to begin its business. In the 19th century, Dairy Farm had an increasing demand for labour. While Pok Fu Lam Village had provided them with an abundance of human resources, the village itself had been growing in magnitude and developed into the earliest livestock-oriented farming community in Hong Kong at that time; (v) According to the archive of 1966 of the then Legislative Council, the site concerned was originally a piece of private land. As a lot of land registration information was lost during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, the Government conducted a fresh land survey and registration with the residents again in the same year. Owing to the complexity of the registration procedure at that time, some of the villagers might not be able 4 to make registration afresh for the site concerned which ended up as a piece of Government land; (vi) The villagers had grave concern about the future of Pok Fu Lam Village in respect of its planning or even any removal plan. Currently, some of the squatters in Pok Fu Lam Village were dilapidated and rotten by termites, but the villagers still hesitated whether or not they should spend money for carrying out renovation works. If Pok Fu Lam Village was subject to a Government’s plan of removal in future, it would affect the villagers’ willingness to carry out renovation. Therefore, some villagers were hoping to be informed whether or not the Government would conduct a removal exercise, and of the compensation proposal under its removal plan; and (vii) He asked whether the Government would lodge an appeal against the Court’s ruling. 4. The Chairman invited representatives of the relevant departments to respond. 5. Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent said he had nothing to add. 6. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine said that LandsD had provided its reply in the relevant paper. Since LandsD had not received a proposal from Dairy Farm concerning the construction of a vehicular access, the department had nothing to add at this stage. 7. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy said he had nothing to add. 8. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries. 9. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo said he understood that without any information from the Dairy Farm, it was difficult for LandsD to provide a solid reply. Yet, he wished to ask again whether the Government would file an appeal against the Court’s ruling. 10. Ms KWAN Yuen-ling, Elaine said that regarding the question about whether the Government would appeal against the court decision, members could access to the relevant information through official channels. As the case had entered into legal proceedings, LandsD had nothing to add for the time being. 5 11. Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo said that given the appeal period which only lasted for 21 days, it was believed that the Government ought to have made the decision as to whether an appeal should be filed or not. If LandsD could not give a reply for the time being, he would let the villagers know the situation truthfully. 12. Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany raised the following comments and enquiries: (i) There was a saying that “Before Hong Kong was formed, there existed a Pok Fu Lam Village already”. The existence of Pok Fu Lam Village could be dated back to as early as 1819 with record in literature which served to prove its long-standing history; and (ii) While she understood that different departments had to act within their own purview, given that the planning issue of Pok Fu Lam Village would lead to widespread concerns over the collective memory of various stakeholders and historical value, etc., she hoped that the relevant departments could take into account the above factors in making their response.

Load more

  76

Copy Link