DFSC Minutes 5/2020 Sha Tin District Council Minutes of the 5Th Meeting of the District Facilities Management and Security Affai

DFSC Minutes 5/2020

Sha Tin District Council Minutes of the 5th Meeting of the District Facilities Management and Security Affairs Committee in 2020

Date ： 24 September 2020 (Thursday) Time ： 3:00 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 CHIU Chu-pong (Chairman) DC Member 3:00 pm 7:37 pm Mr CHAN Wan-tung (Vice-Chairman) ” 3:00 pm 7:37 pm Mr CHING Cheung-ying, MH DC Chairman 3:00 pm 7:37 pm Mr WONG Hok-lai, George DC Vice-Chairman 3:00 pm 7:08 pm Mr CHAN Billy Shiu-yeung DC Member 3:23 pm 4:41 pm Mr CHAN Nok-hang ” 4:11 pm 7:23 pm Mr CHAN Pui-ming ” 3:00 pm 7:37 pm Mr CHENG Chung-hang ” 3:15 pm 7:37 pm Mr CHENG Tsuk-man ” 3:08 pm 5:05 pm Mr CHEUNG Hing-wa ” 3:00 pm 7:37 pm Mr CHOW Hiu-laam, Felix ” 3:00 pm 7:02 pm Mr CHUNG Lai-him, Johnny ” 3:15 pm 7:37 pm Mr HUI Lap-san ” 3:15 pm 7:23 pm Mr HUI Yui-yu ” 3:00 pm 4:41 pm Mr LAI Tsz-yan ” 3:49 pm 5:26 pm Dr LAM Kong-kwan ” 4:38 pm 5:23 pm Mr LI Chi-wang, Raymond ” 3:25 pm 7:06 pm Mr LI Sai-hung ” 3:10 pm 7:07 pm Mr LI Wing-shing, Wilson ” 3:00 pm 6:23 pm Mr LIAO Pak-hong, Ricardo ” 3:06 pm 7:15 pm Mr LO Tak-ming ” 3:00 pm 5:55 pm Mr LUI Kai-wing ” 3:00 pm 7:06 pm Ms LUK Tsz-tung ” 3:00 pm 6:31 pm Mr MAK Tsz-kin ” 3:00 pm 7:06 pm Mr MAK Yun-pui, Chris ” 3:54 pm 5:05 pm Mr NG Kam-hung ” 3:05 pm 7:37 pm Ms NG Ting-lam ” 3:21 pm 5:05 pm Mr SIN Cheuk-nam ” 3:00 pm 5:35 pm Mr TING Tsz-yuen ” 3:00 pm 4:45 pm Mr TSANG Kit ” 3:33 pm 5:02 pm Ms TSANG So-lai ” 3:00 pm 4:02 pm Mr WAI Hing-cheung ” 3:00 pm 6:39 pm Mr WONG Ho-fung ” 3:00 pm 7:37 pm Ms WONG Man-huen ” 3:00 pm 5:57 pm Mr YAU Man-chun ” 3:13 pm 4:00 pm Mr YIP Wing ” 3:00 pm 4:53 pm Mr YUNG Ming-chau, Michael ” 3:00 pm 7:37 pm

1 Present Title Time of joining Time of leaving the meeting the meeting Ms CHAN Cheuk-yu, Cherry Executive Officer I (District Council) 2/ (Secretary) Sha Tin District Office

In Attendance Title Ms WONG Kwan-yee, Jenny Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) (1) Ms WONG Yuen-shan, Candice Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) (2) Mr YUEN Chun-kit, Derek Senior Executive Officer (District Council)/ Sha Tin District Office Mr WONG Chun-wai, Edmund Senior Liaison Officer (North)/ Sha Tin District Office Mr LIU Wai-man, Raymond Senior Executive Officer (District Management)/ Sha Tin District Office Mr HO Sing-yan, Simon District Secretary/ Sha Tin District Office Mr LAU Ting-fung, Toby Executive Officer (General)/ Sha Tin District Office Ms YU Wai-ting, Amy Executive Officer (District Council) 1/ Sha Tin District Office Ms LEE Yin-ching, Karen Executive Officer (District Council) 3/ Sha Tin District Office Mr NG Fuk-sing Senior Inspector of Works (Sha Tin)/ Sha Tin District Office Ms KONG Po-yee, Alice Chief Leisure Manager (New Territories East) (Atg)/ Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms WONG Sau-kuen, Joe District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin)/ Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms CHAN Siu-kin, Ester Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Sha Tin/ Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEUNG So-ping, Selina Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 21/ Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr CHEUNG Hang-yiu, Galax Executive Officer (Planning) 21B/ Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LEE Mei-yee Senior Librarian (Sha Tin)/ Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr LEUNG Siu-ming, David Architect (Works)8/ Home Affairs Department Mr CHAN Ying-ho Senior Architect/ Ho & Partner Architects Engineers & Development Consultants Limited Mr WONG Kam-fa Architect Assistant/ Ho & Partner Architects Engineers & Development Consultants Limited Mr CHAN Chi-kit Analyst Programmer/ Integrated Global Solutions Limited

2 Absent Title Mr MOK Kam-kwai, BBS DC Member (Application for leave of absence received) Mr SHAM Tsz-kit, Jimmy ” ( ” ) Mr SHEK William ” (No application for leave of absence received) Mr LO Yuet-chau ” ( ” ) Mr YEUNG Sze-kin ” ( ” )

Action Welcome Message

The Chairman welcomed all members and representatives of government departments to the fifth meeting of the District Facilities Management and Security Affairs Committee (DFMSC) of this year.

2. The Chairman welcomed Ms Alice KONG, Chief Leisure Manager (New Territories East) (Atg) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to the meeting.

Application for Leave of Absence

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

Mr Chris MAK Official commitment Mr MOK Kam-kwai ” Mr Jimmy SHAM ”

(Note: Mr Chris MAK attended the meeting at 3:54 pm.)

4. Members unanimously approved the applications for leave of absence submitted by the members above.

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Meeting Held on 24 June 2020 (DFSC Minutes 4/2020)

5. Ms TSANG So-lai proposed the following amendment:

“paragraph 55(b): residents nearby were worried about the noises after the completion of the said project. Therefore, she suggests that the area of the children’s playground be located farther away from the residential area. In addition, she said there was a serious mosquito problem in the sitting-out area, and she hoped that the relevant departments would step up their work in termite control; and ”

6. Members unanimously endorsed the amended minutes.

3 Action Matters Arising

Responses of Government Departments to Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting (Paper No. DFS 28/2020)

7. Members noted the above paper.

Discussion Items

Proposal to Reserve Multi-purpose Halls of Community Halls for Owners’ Corporations and Owners’ Committees to Convene General meeting (Paper No. DFS 29/2020)

8. Mr TING Tsz-yuen supported the suggestion of Sha Tin District Office (STDO) as Kam Ying Court Owners’ Corporation (OC) of his constituency once needed to cancel its general meeting out of a problem in venue application. He asked about item 12 “OCs and OComms applying to reserve a timeslot in a hall of a community hall shall submit an application for reservation of timeslot to the Building Management Liaison Team of the STDO on or before the last 5 working days of March, June, September and December every year” of the Proposal. If not less than 5% owners requested to convene a General Meeting but the date was not counted as an application in June, September or December, he asked what support the STDO could provide.

9. The responses of Mr Edmund WONG, Senior Liaison Officer (North) of the STDO were consolidated below:

(a) the proposal aimed at helping OCs comply with the regulations on General Meeting stated in the Building Management Ordinance (Ordinance) or the Deeds of Mutual Convenant (DMCs). Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 3 of the Ordinance stipulated that the Management Committee (MC) should hold an annual general meeting not earlier than 12 months, and not later than 15 months, after the date of the first or previous annual general meeting. The STDO received a number of comments from local OCs or Owners’ Committees (OComms) which they faced difficulty in applying for a venue of their General Meetings. Therefore, he suggested this reservation system to help OCs and OComms convene their General Meetings;

(b) it was proposed to submit timeslot reservation applications to the Building Management Liaison Team of the STDO before the last five workings days of March, June, September and December every year. The reason was to cope with the applications for first round booking under the Guidelines on the Use of Facilities in Sha Tin Community Centres / Community Halls (Guidelines) in January, April, July and October every year; and

(c) according to the Ordinance, the chairman of the MC should convene a general meeting of the OC at the request of not less than 5% of the owners for the purposes specified by such owners within 14 days of receiving such request, and hold a general meeting within 45 days of receiving such request. OCs needed to follow the current arrangements of the Guidelines in applying for a hall. The STDO would deal with the current difficulties when convening the general meeting first and review room for improvement later.

4 Action 10. The views of Mr WAI Hing-cheung were summarised below:

(a) he asked, according to the record of the STDO, which community halls were less occupied by local organisations on Saturday nights. The proposal mentioned about reserving timeslot on Saturday nights for OCs and OComms in Sha Tin to convene general meetings. Assuming the usage of Ma On Shan Community Halls was very high, local OCs and OComms intended to hold general meetings on Saturday nights, they might need to go to a more distant venue which caused inconvenience; and

(b) a general meeting was usually not smooth in the first hour, as the quorum was not met or too many people attended the meeting which led to a longer registration time. If there were more agenda items, reserving 4 hours might not be sufficient to complete a meeting.

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

(a) most of the OCs in Sha Tin District invited the STDO to send a representative to their General Meetings so the STDO should know the time required for a general meeting convened by OCs of over and below 50 units;

(b) the questionnaire of the STDO should make reference to the average figure of the time required for General Meetings of the past 1 year or the current term provided by OCs;

(c) residential courts in Sha Tin were mostly large ones. 1 to 2 hours would already have been spent before the generally meeting could be formally started. He considered that 4 hours were not sufficient to complete a meeting; and

(d) some residential courts said that they had to cancel their general meetings as the STDO could not book a community hall. Currently, the usage of community halls was very high and the demand could not be met. The Paper did not list out the number of OCs in Sha Tin District.

12. The Chairman asked why the targets of the questionnaire were not OCs and OComms. He cited Pok Hong Estate as an example. Previous general meetings were usually convened from 2 to 5 pm on Sunday. School halls or community halls were usually booked. He suggested reserving timeslots on Sundays and it was more appropriate to have afternoon rather than night timeslots.

13. Mr NG Kam-hung said that preparation time and meeting time were rather long for a general meeting. He said that OCs usually booked a school to convene a general meeting. Resources of community halls should not be deployed for OCs and OComms of Sha Tin District to convene a general meeting as some residential courts were rather distant from community halls and locations of community halls were inconvenient. He also asked why the STDO did not attend the general meeting of Ka Keng Court.

14. The Chairman said that the reserved timeslots were rather controversial and asked the STDO to explain its absence from the General Meeting of Ka Keng Court.

5 Action 15. The responses of Mr Edmund WONG were consolidated below:

(a) the proposal involved 13 community halls and suggested that from April 2021, OCs and OComms could consider nearer community halls when making applications;

(b) regarding whether the proposed reservation timeslots were sufficient for OCs to complete a general meeting, he stressed that the proposal intended to help OCs fulfill the statutory responsibility of OCs to convene a general meeting;

(c) based on his understanding, the agenda of an annual general meeting must include the tabling of financial statements, and according to Article 27 of the Ordinance, an audit report had to be tabled at an annual general meeting. Furthermore, according to paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the Ordinance, a new term of MC should be appointed at the second annual general meeting and thereafter at every alternate annual general meeting. It was understood that most of the annual general meetings could finish within 4 hours and they would employ a company to conduct electronic counting of votes to speed up the meeting; and

(d) the third part of the questionnaire was “supporting OCs and OComms in Sha Tin District to convene general meetings” and the result of item 16 “Do you agree if every community hall reserved a fixed timeslot of a consecutive 4 hours every month for OCs and OComms in Sha Tin District to apply for convening general meetings?” showed that more than 80% agreed with 4 hours while about 60% agreed with 6 hours. The result of item 17 “The usage of community halls in Sha Tin District was so high. According to previous booking record of community halls, there were relatively more vacant timeslots on Saturdays than weekdays while timeslots on Sundays were open for groups to apply for organisation of ad hoc events. If the proposal let OCs and OComms in Sha Tin District book the timeslots lasting for a consecutive 4 or 6 hours without limitation on the exact time, do you agree?” showed that more than 80% agreed with 4 hours while only about 70% agreed with 6 hours. It could be concluded that they considered that reservation of Saturday timeslots for OCs and OComms caused a relatively low impact. the STDO would review this arrangement later depending on the responses.

16. Ms Amy YU, Executive Officer (District Council) 1 of the STDO said that the STDO distributed a questionnaire to community halls in Sha Tin District from September 2019 to February 2020. The targets were users of community centres and community halls, i.e. event participants and organisers were included.

17. Mr Edmund WONG said that whether to book a school hall was an internal administrative decision of the school. If no OC applied for the reserved timeslots of community halls, the Secretariat would re-allocate them to the public. As for the general meeting of an individual residential court mentioned by Mr NG Kam-hung, he would let the colleague concerned follow up on the issue later.

18. The Chairman asked why Sunday afternoon timeslots could not be reserved and why the targets of the questionnaire were contradictory to the suggestions.

19. Mr NG Kam-hung asked how the STDO would handle the problem if the 4 hours reserved were not sufficient to finish the meeting. Also, the preparation fees were rather high for convening a meeting. Only 507 responses were received for this questionnaire. He asked whether the questionnaire was

6 Action representative enough. He said that a 14-day notice would only be given for a general meeting and asked how the STDO could reallocate those reserved timeslots for public use.

20. The Chairman said that the 14-day notice of the general meeting was about the agenda. The months of general meetings were decided in advance and thus reservation of timeslots were not related to issue of agenda.

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

(a) asked the STDO about the situations and arrangements of other 17 districts on similar issue. He opined that the STDO should assist OCs and OComms in applying for a venue for annual general meeting, such as discussion with schools;

(b) if reserved timeslots of community centres and community halls were full, how the STDO would deal with it; and

(c) community centres and community halls should be reserved for residents to organise activities. Reservation of timeslots for OCs and OComms to convene general meetings seemed to be against the original intention of community centres and community halls.

22. The views of Mr CHENG Tsuk-man were summarised below:

(a) he asked if the 4 hours reserved were not sufficient to finish a meeting, whether the STDO would lengthen the timeslots;

(b) he said that large residential courts had more residents and there would be more debates when having general meetings. Therefore, the required preparation time and meeting time were longer; and

(c) he opined that the STDO should assist OCs and OComms in applying for a venue for annual general meeting, such as more discussion with schools.

23. Mr WAI Hing-cheung said that Mr Edmund WONG did not answer to his enquiries. He asked whether the STDO looked into the lower usage of community centres and community halls on Saturdays and whether OCs had made any applications to the STDO for booking community centres and community halls in the past. He noticed that OCs and OComms usually convened annual general meetings on weekday nights or Sundays. It was unusual to have such meetings on Saturdays. He asked whether OCs and OComms would choose Saturday timeslots to convene annual general meetings and who the targets of the questionnaire were.

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

(a) Sha Tin District had a total of 158 OCs and OComms of buildings of 50 or more units. He asked whether the STDO had data which showed these 158 OCs and OComms needed to use community centres and community halls to convene annual general meetings in the previous 3 years. He also asked about the booking situation;

(b) he asked how the STDO would deal with the overtime problem if the reserved 4 hours were not sufficient to finish a meeting; and

7 Action (c) he wanted to know why the targets of the questionnaire were not OCs and OComms.

25. The Chairman said he would let the STDO give response first before proceeding to the next round of questions.

26. The responses of Mr Edmund WONG were consolidated below:

(a) considering various factors and that there were more vacant Saturday timeslots, and Saturdays were better than weekdays, he once attended some OC meetings which were held on Saturdays;

(b) the proposal aimed to help OCs fulfill requirement of the Ordinance or DMCs on annual general meeting. He suggested that OCs could consider convening their meetings at longer sessions on Sundays if they were expected to last longer than 4 hours;

(c) he said that according to the current proposal, reserving the timeslot of 6-10 pm on the first Saturday of each month should meet the needs of OCs and OComms in convening general meetings. He said that this proposal aimed to provide one more option by applying for community centres and halls, apart from schools; and

(d) he said that some administrative regions in other 17 districts practised this arrangement of reserving timeslot for OCs and OComms.

27. Ms Amy YU added that according to the usage statistics of multi-purpose halls in community centres and community halls in 2019, the usage rate of timeslots of 6-10 pm on weekends were about 60% while those on weekdays were about 80%. This showed a rather low usage in multi-purpose halls in community centres and community halls in Sha Tin District during those timeslots on weekends.

28. The Chairman agreed with the STDO’s intention to optimise the use of community centres and halls but hoped that the STDO could review its targets of the questionnaire.

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

(a) according to item 19 “What do you think about supporting OCs and OComms in convening general meetings in community halls?” of the questionnaire, among the 14 opponents, 5 of them said that “OComms can book a school hall nearby”. He said residential courts that did not have enough space for meetings could be encouraged to book a conference room for meetings;

(b) moreover, 3 of the opponents said that “OCs or Mutural Aid Committees basically have their own locations for meetings”. He opined that the public were not well-informed of the support of the STDO on OCs; and

(c) 1 opponent said that “OCs mostly have their meetings together with their meals in a Chinese restaurant. The fees can be settled by public reserves, so I do not think that they have pressing needs”. In his opinion, this could see that the STDO could not make the public understand the functions and importance of supporting OCs.

8 Action 30. The Vice-Chairman said that current participation rate of annual general meetings were very high and it was hard for OCs to book school halls. He asked whether there were plans to help OCs rent halls in secondary/primary schools, especially those larger ones.

31. Mr CHENG Chung-hang said that residents’ participation depended on the location of the annual general meetings. In some occasions, OCs faced difficulties in booking local school halls and needed to book one in another district. He asked whether the STDO could help OCs book one in a local school.

32. The views of Mr HUI Yui-yu were summarised below:

(a) he agreed with the views of other members that reservation timeslots should include Saturdays and Sundays;

(b) he opined that if the 4 hours reserved were not sufficient to finish a meeting, the STDO should give OCs sufficient preparation time before formally convening their general meetings and lengthen the period when necessary;

(d) the STDO should review the practice if they found that the timeslots reserved on Saturdays could not meet the demand; and

(e) due to the epidemic, many OCs had not convened general meetings for many months. the STDO proposal was supposed to be launched only from April 2021. He asked how the STDO could help if OCs needed to convene general meetings before that.

33. The Chairman said the leave application of Mr Chris MAK was cancelled and let the STDO respond before going to the next round of questions.

34. The responses of Mr Edmund WONG were consolidated below:

(a) community impacts needed to be balanced when considering how many timeslots were to be reserved for general meetings of OCs and OComms;

(b) he noted the view of Mr HUI Yui-yu and would timely review the proposal after its implementation;

(c) he reiterated that the proposal aimed to help OCs fulfill their statutory responsibility to convene general meetings and would review the arrangement later. He opined that the problem of convening annual general meetings should be focused and solved at this stage; and

(d) he said that not many OCs complained to him that they faced difficulties in booking schools. Therefore, he suggested that members could consider providing fixed timeslots in community halls.

9 Action 35. The views of Mr CHAN Pui-ming were summarised below:

(a) he asked whether the STDO had confirmed that the OCs could not convene general meetings due to difficulties in venue application, and what the related data were;

(b) he requested the STDO to provide data on booking of the STDO’s community halls/centre by OCs and OComms for convening general meetings in the previous 5 years;

(c) he asked whether the STDO could tell them how many OCs failed to comply with the regulation of convening annual general meetings within 12 to15 months;

(d) community halls/centres seemed to lack ancillary facilities such as those for electronic counting of votes. He doubted whether OCs really needed to use community halls; and

(e) he suggested that some maintenance works might be discussed during annual general meetings. Those residents working in the engineering industry might not be able to attend if such meetings were held on Saturdays.

36. The views of Mr TING Tsz-yuen were summarised below:

(a) regarding Mr CHAN Pui-ming’s question on how many OCs and OComms booked the STDO's community halls/centers for their general meetings, he said that Kam Ying Court applied to convene their annual general meeting in Heng On Estate Community Centre in February but they were notified that the venue was unavailable not until the night before the meeting;

(b) he said that there were only 2 community halls in Ma On Shan District and hoped that the LCSD could promptly complete Ma On Shan Area 103 Sports Centre so that one more community hall was available; and

(c) he pointed out that the reason for some OCs and OComms not convening meetings might not be failure to apply for venue. He considered that members should support the STDO’s proposal.

37. Mr LAI Tsz-yan asked whether the STDO tried to understand needs of residential courts for venue, such as booking of schools.

38. The views of Mr Chris MAK were summarised below:

(a) based on his understanding, the STDO did not actively respond to OCs’ needs, such as organisation of talks;

(b) if OCs could expect the dates of their annual general meetings and submit prior venue applications, he asked why the STDO could not reserve those dates, just like the reservation arrangement for other departments; and

10 Action 39. Mr NG Kam-hung doubted about the observation of Mr Chris MAK that some OCs failed to comply with the requirement of convening one annual general meeting every year and pointed out that the STDO attended those meetings by invitation.

40. Mr MAK Tsz-kin opined that the questionnaire was not comprehensive and the STDO should further understand OCs’ needs. The STDO’s proposal could not benefit all residential courts. For example, there was no community hall/centre in Fo Tan District. It was still very inconvenient for the OCs there to convene annual general meetings in community halls/centres of other districts. He asked whether the STDO could coordinate with schools for OCs to find venues. Sui Wo Court OC once received a notification from a primary school before the meeting that the venue was not available due to maintenance works of the hall.

41. Mr SIN Cheuk-nam was dissatisfied that the questionnaire did not consult OCs and opined that the STDO should try to directly understand the needs of OCs, inform them of related arrangements and make follow-up.

42. The Vice-Chairman asked whether the STDO did not receive any notification from OCs that they faced problems in booking of venues and opined that the STDO could support OCs to identify venues at schools.

43. The responses of Mr Edmund WONG were consolidated below:

(a) he pointed out that the STDO held annual regular talks to help OCs and invited departments or professionals to explain different professional knowledge;

(b) as for supporting OCs to convene annual general meetings, the Home Affairs Department (HAD) developed a software “Easy Count System” for counting votes which were available for download in HAD website;

(c) the questionnaire collected views from current users of community halls. He said that the STDO could try to understand OCs’ will in booking venues; and

(d) regarding the question of the Vice-Chairman asking whether the STDO did not receive any notification from OCs that they faced problems in identifying venues, he clarified that what he meant was not receiving notification from OCs that they faced problems in booking school halls. They were trying to deal with the problem with available resources of the STDO, i.e. community halls/centers.

44. Mr TING Tsz-yuen proposed a provisional motion as follows:

“The District Facilities Management and Security Affairs Committee of the Sha Tin District Council requests the Home Affairs Department to change the reservation of 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm on the first Saturday as stated in Paper No. DFS 29/2020 to 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Sunday, so as to give support to the owners’ corporations and owners’ committees and facilitate residents’ attendance. Meanwhile, the Committee requests the Administration to urge the schools in the district to lend the premises to the owners’ corporations and owners’ committees in the district for convening general meetings.”

11 Action Mr LAI Tsz-yan, Mr CHAN Wan-tung, Mr WONG Ho-fung, Mr George WONG, Mr Billy CHAN, Mr TSANG Kit, Mr NG Kam-hung, Mr CHIU Chu-pong, Mr Chris MAK, Mr Michael YUNG, Mr YAU Man-chun, Mr CHAN Pui-ming, Mr CHAN Nok-hang and Mr HUI Yui-yu seconded the motion.

45. Members unanimously endorsed the provisional motion in paragraph 44.

46. The Chairman announced the end of this agenda item.

2020-2021 District Facilities and Improvement Works Proposals (Paper No. DFS 30/2020)

47. The Chairman said that the Working Group on District Facilities and Improvement Works held their second meeting in the morning of 24 September. Members could refer to the relevant papers.

48. Mr Michael YUNG said that he had some opinions on item ST-DMW378 “Provision of Cover for the Pedestrian Walkway from Hang Tai Road near Kam Tai Shopping Centre to the Entrance/Exit of MTR Station”.

49. The Chairman said that the works item mentioned by Mr Michael YUNG would be discussed under Paper No. DFS 35/2020. Members would be invited to give views on the feasibility study reports of 6 works item pending approval and 1 new works item.

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

(a) he was concerned about the location of the rain shelter works at A Kung Kok Shan Road. The current contractor engaged by the Drainage Services Department (DSD) needed to build a temporary rain shelter near the Neighborhood Advice-Action Council Harmony Manor in view of the demand of the community and the works location was near to the link road of the future Treatment Works. He asked whether these two factors affected the works;

(b) he said that current design of all rain shelters were all the same and asked whether it was possible to increase the number of design and improvise the facilities;

(c) he pointed out that there were comments suggesting addition of a road crossing facility at Greenwood Terrace and asked how to deal with the contradiction between the works and the rain shelter works at the road opposite Greenwood Terrace;

(d) he asked how to deal with different views of the community on the rain shelter works at City One, Sha Tin; and

(e) he pointed out that the problem of over-commitment led to the delay in approval of the installation works of the Elderly Fitness Corner in Kak Tin Playground. He asked if the project would be initiated in this meeting, when the works could be completed and whether some resources of this financial year could be allocated to settle the fees.

51. Mr CHAN Pui-ming said that regarding rain shelter works in Kwong Sin Street and Siu Lek Yuen Road, after elaboration at the working group meeting in the morning, as a number of wires and pipes were found in trial pits, it was hoped that the STDO could try to understand from relevant

12 Action departments why the works were not cancelled. He pointed out that as there were more buses and minibuses in Kwong Sin Street and the costs of wiring and pipe improvement works were high, the works fees should not be borne by the Sha Tin District Council (STDC). He asked whether there were other means to build a rain shelter in view of the dense wires and pipes throughout Kwong Sin Street.

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

(a) he said that he conducted a site inspection with the HAD staff on the location of the rain shelter works at A Kung Kok Shan Road. He pointed out that other works were in progress at that location and the actual circumstances were different from the photos in the Paper. He asked whether the current works in progress would affect the overall plan; and

(b) he asked whether the feasibility study report of building a rain shelter in A Kung Kok Shan Road included an estimation on number of users. He pointed out that according to the map, the rain shelter was located at the innermost roundabout of A Kung Kok Shan Road which mainly served the Neighborhood Advice-Action Council Harmony Manor. However, there was no information on the number of staff that would use the rain shelter. Moreover, there was one minibus stop at the Roundabout which provided two grids of covered waiting facility. Therefore, he asked whether the new rain shelter at A Kung Kok Shan Road functionally coincided with the covered facility of the minibus stop. As these two facilities both provided rain shelter for people waiting for bus, he did not agree to spending extra resources on another rain shelter. He opined that public money should be spent prudently. He stressed his hope of the inclusion of an estimation on number of users in the feasibility study report submitted by the department, so as to make better use of public money.

53. Mr MAK Tsz-kin said that the Transport Department (TD)’s proposal to add a road crossing facility near the road opposite Greenwood Terrace would bring major obstacles to the rain shelter works. The road crossing facility proposed by the TD was right next to the rain shelter. Vehicles could not park at the road crossing facility while passengers could not board/alight near the rain shelter. Therefore, the rain shelter lost its function. He did not hope that the works which had been prepared for 3 to 4 years would be blocked again. He hoped that the STDO could consult local OCs and residents on these 2 items.

54. The views of Mr TSANG Kit were summarised below:

(a) he pointed out that seats were included in the provision of rain shelter works of ST- DMW428 and ST-DMW459 while those of ST-DMW471, ST-DMW472 and ST- DMW473, seats were not included. He asked whether seats could be added into these 3 works items; and

(b) he agreed with the view of Mr Michael YUNG in introducing new design which should be non-monotonous but still provided the same function.

13 Action 55. Ms WONG Man-huen said that she once discussed the two rain shelter works of her constituency with the STDO engineers and the public hoped that the works could be completed soon. However, she personally hoped that members could prudently control the costs of works. She understood that different people had different needs but as the works were paid by taxpayers, she hoped that members and the STDO could follow up on the costs together.

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

(a) he found that the design of every cover was very similar but the difference between the costs was nearly one fold. He asked whether the costs were affected by size, utility services or depth of covers;

(b) in some area where the underground utility lines were dense, the foundation of rain shelters was built on the ground to avoid utility lines, which deprived the rain shelter of its main function. He hoped that similar situations could be avoided. He pointed out that some areas were more in need of rain shelters but the previous planning made the provision of facilities which facilitated the public impossible. He expressed regret about that; and

(c) he hoped that the contractor or the STDO could explain the costs of covers. He cited the example of Wo Che Estate which costed about $1 million but in some areas only costed over $500 thousands.

57. The Vice-Chairman pointed out that the Paper should be updated in line with the commencement and completion dates. For example, the Paper showed that the completion date of item ST-DMW443 was October 2020 but the works had not yet even started. He was of the view that the Paper should be updated as far as practicable.

58. The responses of Mr CHAN Ying-ho, Senior Architect of the Ho & Partners Architects Engineers & Development Consultants Limited were consolidated below:

(a) regarding the question on item ST-DMW428 Provision of Rain Shelter at A Kung Kok Shan Road, the consultancy firm pointed out that the new road of the DSD was built at the south of the existing roundabout. After liaising with the contractor earlier, it was understood that the works would be completed in around May next year. Then, the rain shelter works came afterwards. The consultancy firm also said that they were liaising with the Highways Department (HyD) and the TD on the site handover without affecting the progress of both works. Therefore, the DSD’s works should not affect the rain shelter works much;

(b) regarding the question on the need of rain shelter works in A Kung Kok Shan Road, the consultancy firm pointed out that the existing green rain shelter was for temporary use which was not supported by foundation works. It was highly possible to be removed at any time. The proposed new rain shelter was a permanent structure with foundation support and would not be easily removed;

14 Action (c) regarding the design of the rain shelter, the consultancy firm said that they would consider adopting a new and improved design in future works. He also pointed out that the current design was slightly different from the 9 rain shelters completed last year. The consultancy firm would continue to improve the design in their new rain shelter works;

(d) regarding the question on item ST-DMW435 Provision of Rain Shelter at Kwong Sin Street and Siu Lek Yuen Road. The consultancy firm said that under normal circumstances, they would try to find a way to build rain shelters. However, as the underground utility lines of Kwong Sin Street were too dense and there was a thick cement layer, the foundation had to be built above the ground if underground utility lines had to be avoided and only the abovementioned rain shelters with no rain shelter function could be built. Moreover, foundation works above the ground would block pedestrian flow. The consultancy firm said that they could look into how to carry out foundation works of rain shelters without affecting underground utility services through the use of technology;

(e) regarding the question on the costs of rain shelters, the consultancy firm said that they had explained at the meeting of the Working Group that the cost differences were mainly due to the sizes. The cost estimates were calculated by multiplying the rate per square metre by size. The consultancy firm also said that normal tendering procedures were carried out before constructing the rain shelter while the costs were subject to tender prices of the contractor. Usually, contractors submitted a tender based on the market price and the consultancy firm had no control over the tender prices. After receiving the tender documents, the consultancy firm considered the technical aspect and prices and tried to choose a contractor at lower prices. The costs were based on the market prices at the time of tender submission. He pointed out that previous tender prices did not exceed the budget approved by the STDC and they were usually lower than that. The remaining amount would be returned to the STDC; and

(f) regarding the question on user estimation and the need for seats, he said that the works were based on the proposal of the proponent who planned the works based on local needs. He considered that the proponent already had an idea on the number of users. He asked the Secretariat to elaborate.

59. Ms Karen LEE, Executive Officer (District Council)3 of the STDO said regarding the users statistics and the need for addition of seats, the related information was submitted by members based on the requirements of the works when they submitted district minor works proposals.

60. Mr Ricardo LIAO was dissatisfied that district minor works only relied on the comments of the proponent without estimating the number of users when looking into the feasibility. He said that if the pedestrian flow and number of users were not calculated, he requested to include these statistics into the overall feasibility study. He opined that relevant data were necessary to determine whether the fund would be used properly. He reiterated that these were public money and number of users affected the effectiveness of the rain shelter. He opined that it was not ideal to build a rain shelter without estimating the pedestrian flow.

15 Action 61. The responses of Mr David LEUNG, Architect (Works)8 of the HAD were consolidated below:

(a) regarding the works of ST-DMW471, he was notified that the TD proposed to add road crossing facility about 1 week before but the TD had not yet formally submitted the works proposal to the STDO. He pointed out that according to the procedures, the TD would submit the proposal to the STDO for local consultation before notifying the respective Member of the constituency concerned, i.e., Mr MAK Tsz-kin, and refer to him for consultation with residents of the constituency; and

(b) regarding the question on estimation of number of users, he said that after the HAD received district minor works proposals submitted by members, they would first conduct preliminary feasibility study. If the works were feasible, they would be submitted to the Working Group and then endorsed by the DFMSC. Feasibility studies would be conducted upon endorsement. He pointed out that feasibility studies of district minor works did not include estimation of users as members were required to provide the number of beneficiaries on the proposal form of district minor works. If members needed to further understand the number of local beneficiaries, he said that members’ suggestion could be considered.

62. Mr Ricardo LIAO said that data provided by the proponent alone could not reflect the reality. He reiterated that preliminary work of feasibility studies included users statistics. Otherwise, it was very unsatisfactory not to have users statistics to show the effectiveness of the rain shelter.

63. The Vice-Chairman asked whether Mr David LEUNG could conduct a site inspection with the respective Members of the constituencies concerned to facilitate substantial communication.

64. Mr David LEUNG said that overall costs would rise if statistics on pedestrian flow and usage were included in each item of district minor works. He pointed out that, for example, items ST- DMW414 and ST-DMW416 were more remote and no study on pedestrian flow had been carried out. If the Members of the constituency concerned considered it necessary, he could consider including such statistics but it would not be counted as a regular procedure, as the feasibility study of each item was carried out after Members of the constituencies concerned had consulted with the local residents. Regarding the question on costs, he said that the Department would try to complete the works with the least amount if circumstances allowed. However, costs were not only affected by those of similar works in Sha Tin District, but also by the price changes in other districts. He continued to explain that the cost difference of rain shelters and the cost was also subject to the sizes.

65. The Vice-Chairman said that according to the response of Mr David LEUNG, a feasibility study would include users statistics.

66. Ms Ester CHAN, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Sha Tin of the LCSD responded to the works of the Elderly Fitness Corner in Kak Tin Playground and said that the works had been submitted to the Working Group on 17 June this year. However, due to over-commitment, the works needed to be re-submitted to the Working Group today. If the project could be initiated in this meeting, the works could start in December this year. It was estimated that the cash flow of this year was $700,000 which would be used for site formation and installation of drainage system. Separately, $1.3 million would be spent on installation of lights, other elderly fitness equipment, etc. in the financial year 2021/22.

16 Action 67. Mr Ricardo LIAO considered that it was not ideal that there was no estimation of pedestrian flow for the rain shelter works at A Kung Kok Shan Road. He requested the Department or the consultancy firm to carry out estimation to facilitate future works implementation. He did not wish to see the use of public resources on private purposes.

68. The Vice-Chairman reminded the LCSD that they needed to clearly state the subhead of Kak Tin Playground.

69. Members unanimously endorsed the above paper.

Information Items

Report on the Management of Recreation and Sports Facilities in Sha Tin (Paper No. DFS 31/2020)

70. Mr CHAN Pui-ming said that he and the LCSD representative visited the newly opened Che Kung Temple Sports Centre this morning and currently there was no data on its usage. He said that the manhole covers outside were not well installed. Wheelchairs might be trapped and he worried that disabled persons booking the venue would be affected. He asked whether other departments could follow up on the question the area outside was not managed by the LCSD.

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

(a) he opined that the setting of the entrance of Che Kung Temple Sports Centre was not ideal and fences were once put up which led to damage of road surface. However, the HyD did not properly deal with the problem. He asked whether the road surface could be repaved;

(b) he said that there were two types of manhole covers outside the sports centre with different styles and sizes installed on the barrier-free access, which should be improved; and

(c) he opined that the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) only considered aesthetics, but not daily usage and operation in their design. The overall design was not satisfactory. He gave the following examples:

(1) environmentally friendly woods were placed outdoors. Moss grew during rainy season and users might slip easily;

(2) no slope was designed on both sides of the stairs, causing stagnant water and moss. He worried that mosquitoes and insects might be attracted to lay eggs;

(3) the design of glass top cover was not preferable as stagnant water was easily found on the flat surface, which should be slightly tilted to facilitate water flow; and

17 Action (4) regarding lighting, the external wall outside the office facing Sha Tin Wai Road adopted glass to gather natural light. However, staff privacy was not considered and so papers were put onto the glass to block the strong sunlight. The glass design led to uneven distribution of sunlight. He considered that the ArchSD should accept views in considering practicality in their venue design, apart from aesthetics.

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

(a) he opined that the ArchSD’s design had improved but still had room for improvement in terms of lighting, ventilation, greening and environmental friendliness. He said that new design and materials could be adopted such as anti-slip floor tiles; and

(b) he agreed that the problem of manhole covers needed to be solved and pointed out that the road surface outside on the left were uneven. This was unsatisfactory and hoped that the HyD and relevant departments could follow up on these problems.

73. Ms WONG Man-huen hoped that the LCSD could relay the views to the ArchSD. She considered that the architectural design of the sports centre was mordern but it could be more convenient to the public and fit users’ needs better. She pointed out the following 3 problems:

(a) wooden floor would be difficult for the LCSD to manage. For example, the wooden floor of Kwun Tong Promenade had already become uneven and poorly maintained;

(b) the check-in counter was found in a rather hidden location on the ground floor, so as the main stadium; and

(c) no changing room was set up in the main stadium, such a design caused inconvenience to users. She hoped that the ArchSD could discuss with the LCSD to understand the needs of users when building sports centres in the future.

74. Mr Felix CHOW was concerned about the problem of wooden floor in the sports centre. He asked whether more consideration could be made when choosing materials. He concerned about the lighting system works of Lok Yuen Path Children’s Playground. After works completion, it was found that all pipes were exposed. He asked whether some visual adjustments could be made.

75. Mr CHING Cheung-ying said that he personally appreciated the architectural design and facilities of the sports centre very much. However, it was rather humid due to the proximity to hills and woods, and thus more attention had to be paid to prevent the wooden floor from getting rotten. He guessed that the sports centre should be welcomed by residents but the possible nuisance should be noted to avoid affecting other venue users and visitors.

76. The responses of Ms Joe WONG, District Leisure Manager (Sha Tin) of the LCSD were consolidated below:

(a) as for the material of the wooden floor, it was understood that as the venue was partly outdoor, the ArchSD chose the pre-processed materials which were suitable for outdoor use. The LCSD would pay extra attention to that when managing facilities and adopt appropriate measures to keep the wooden floor dry, especially during rainy seasons;

18 Action (b) in view of the distance between the main stadium and check-in counter, the LCSD would put up instructions at more prominent locations at the entrance to remind users of the locations of check-in counter and various facilities;

(c) the LCSD had already noticed that there was no changing room and washroom in the main stadium at the design stage. The LCSD had repeatedly discussed with architects on the feasibility of providing changing room and washroom, and finally succeeded in adding washrooms for male, female and disabled persons. However, due to insufficient space, changing room could not be located on the same floor;

(d) regarding possible impact of group activities on users, the LCSD would closely monitor the situation and enhance management through site staff; and

(e) regarding the concern on pipe exposure of the lighting system in Lok Yuen Path Children’s Playground, the LCSD would grow ornamental plants on the flower beds to cover pipes and improve the scenery.

77. The Vice-Chairman said that members mentioned the problems of damaged road surface and manhole covers at the entrance of Che Kung Temple Sports Centre. He hoped that the LCSD could take follow-up action with the HyD.

78. Ms Joe WONG said that since early this year, the Department had been following up on the problem of uneven road surface at the entrance of the sports centre with the HyD. The LCSD would continue to follow up with relevant departments.

(Post-meeting note: After the meeting, the LCSD discussed the suggestions on improvement of the facilities on the road surface at the entrance of the sports centre with the ArchSD, HyD and TD, including repavement of road surface and replacement of manhole covers which complied with the standards of pavement facilities. The manhole improvement works at the entrance of the sports centre were completed on 21 October. Moreover, relevant engineering departments agreed with the need to repave the road surface and would arrange prompt implementation upon confirmation of works details.)

79. The Vice-Chairman hoped that the LCSD and HyD could follow up on the uneven road surface on the left outside Che Kung Temple Sports Centre as mentioned by Mr Wilson LI.

80. Mr Michael YUNG said that the LCSD did not seek members’ views at the detailed design stage. He pointed out that the DFMSC needed to monitor works items and local facilities management of the LCSD and the STDO. He opined that the LCSD should review the procedures on processing new works.

81. Ms Selina LEUNG, Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 21 of the LCSD said that Che Kung Temple Sports Centre was a capital project. According to prevailing procedures, departments would seek DC’s views on proposed facilities and design idea of the works before carrying out detailed design and seeking funds from the Legislative Council. As the works required time for completion, the original design might not reflect new elements. The LCSD would try to inform the ArchSD of the updates as soon as possible and follow up with the ArchSD on planning future works.

19 Action 82. The Vice-Chairman said that the discussion item would be ended if there were no other enquiries.

Report on the Fitness Equipment (Paper No. DFS 32/2020)

83. Mr CHENG Chung-hang would like to know the usage rate of fitness facilities near Sha Tin Rowing Centre. He noticed that the number of residents were low with low usage rate. He pointed out that as Sha Tin Rowing Centre could only accommodate limited number of visitors, the space for fitness facilities would be used when holding major rowing competitions. Cycling tracks were found nearby, so residents would also use that space to learn cycling. He also asked about the consultation when planning to install the fitness facilities.

84. Ms Jenny WONG, Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) (1) said that as the fitness facilities were located outdoors, no statistics were compiled but the STDO staff conducted site inspection from time to time to check the condition of the facilities and see if they were damaged, required repair, etc. They would pay extra attention to the facilities near Sha Tin Rowing Centre.

85. Mr CHENG Chung-hang said that the facilities were under strong sunlight and they were not professional ones. The usage rate was so low even at night. Moreover, Sha Tin Rowing Centre and The Chinese University of Hong Kong might use the space to carry out different activities. If the space was vacant, the usage rate could be higher.

86. The Vice-Chairman asked whether the STDO would respond on the feasibility of the proposal of Mr CHENG Chung-hang.

87. Ms Jenny WONG said that those facilities were set up under the Signature Project Scheme. The previous STDC set up an ad hoc working group to discuss the locations. As the facilities were completed already, their removal costs needed to be considered.

88. The Vice-Chairman said that the discussion item would be ended if there were no other enquiries.

Report on the Services and Promotional Activities of Public Libraries in Sha Tin (Paper No. DFS 33/2020)

89. Members noted the above documents.

Report on the Management of Community Halls in Sha Tin (Paper No. DFS 34/2020)

90. Mr CHING Cheung-ying asked about the maintenance arrangement of Sun Tin Wai Community Hall. He quoted from the STDO that the venue had to be closed out of safety concern as ceiling spalling was found. However, when it was used as a community testing centre 2 weeks ago, the STDO did not adopt any safety and protection measures and it continued to be closed after being used as a community testing centre. He said that the public was dissatisfied with the STDO’s arrangement and hoped that the STDO could tell when the maintenance works would be completed.

20 Action 91. Mr Ricardo LIAO said that he received an email from the STDO requesting him to submit written explanation on irregularities of using community centres/halls before 28 September. According to the letter, he did not come to use the facilities on 4 May and 8 July 2020 and the location was a hall in Kwong Yuen Community Hall. He asked the STDO whether there were more irregular practices or absence under the epidemic, compared to the situation before the epidemic.

92. Mr Raymond LIU, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) of the STDO said regarding the maintenance arrangement of Sun Tin Wai Community Hall, as cement spalling and cracks were found on the hall ceiling, the situation was not satisfactory and repairs were arranged. When they knew that Sun Tin Wai Community Hall was to be used as a community testing centre, they immediately informed the Housing Department (HD) to conduct another site inspection and arrange for emergency repairs to remove cement with potential danger and ensure the safety of members of the public who went for a test. They expected that the remaining maintenance works would be completed in mid- October. Sun Tin Wai Community Hall could be opened to the public upon inspection.

93. Ms Amy YU said that the STDO had sent emails to contact person of all organisations to inform them of the opening arrangement of community centres/halls under the epidemic. The email also mentioned that they needed to inform the STDO in written form for any cancellation of their activities. If the STDO found that they did not come to use the facilities without submitting written notification and justifications, the STDO would urge them to submit the same.

94. Mr Ricardo LIAO asked the STDO whether there were more irregular practices or absence under the epidemic, compared to the situation before the epidemic. He opined that written notification would increase the workload of the organisations.

95. Mr Michael YUNG said that he once requested relevant departments to provide explanation on issues related to the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599G) (“prohibition on group gathering”) but did not receive a response. He opined that as organisations did not have sufficient knowledge on the “prohibition on group gathering”, they could not provide a written explanation on cancellation of the activities. He criticised that there were defects in the practice of District Officer (Sha Tin).

96. Mr Ricardo LIAO asked whether there were more irregular practices or absence under the epidemic, compared to the situation before the epidemic, and how the STDO would deal with the organisations which did not submit written notifications.

97. Mr CHING Cheung-ying said that it was rather bureaucratic and uncompassionate to request organisations to submit written notifications on cancellation of activities under the “prohibition on group gathering”.

98. Mr CHAN Pui-ming asked under the “prohibition on group gathering”, whether the STDO could communicate more with organisations or consider simplifying the procedures of submitting written notifications.

99. Mr WONG Ho-fung said that the Demerit Point System of the STDO had the deterrent effect but under the epidemic, the STDO should have more communication with application organisations on the arrangements.

21 Action 100. The Vice-Chairman asked whether the STDO had special arrangements in view of the epidemic or continued this bureaucratic practice of requesting for explanation from applicant organisations.

101. The responses of Ms Amy YU were consolidated below:

(a) in view of the epidemic, when the STDO informed organisations of the opening arrangement of community centres/halls, they had already reminded organisations to submit written notifications and justifications for cancellation of proposed activities. She pointed out that this was an existing procedure in line with the Guidelines. If organisations cancelled their activities due to the epidemic or other circumstances, the STDO would consider on a case-by-case basis whether to further deal with the irregular practices; and

(b) she said that it was more frequent than before for organisations not coming to use the facilities during the epidemic.

102. Mr WONG Ho-fung said that based on his understanding, it was not feasible for organisations to submit written notifications 4 weeks in advance. He was disappointed that the STDO did not adopt some flexible measures.

103. The Vice-Chairman reminded that members requested Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) to give a response.

104. Ms Jenny WONG said that the questions would be answered by her colleagues.

105. The Vice-Chairman reiterated that members requested Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) to give a response.

106. Ms Amy YU pointed out that according to the Guidelines, an organisation had to give notification and cancel the use of the allocated timeslot at least 14 days before the date of activity. They understood that organisations might not be able to make a decision and notify the STDO at least 14 days before the date of activity due to the epidemic. Therefore, the STDO did not mention in the notification to organisations that they had to give notification on cancellation of activities at least 14 days before the date of activity.

107. The Vice-Chairman requested Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) for a response. He wanted to know whether the STDO had exercised any discretion under the present epidemic.

108. Mr CHAN Pui-ming said that organisations could not submit a written notification on cancellation of activities in advance as they could not foresee the opening arrangements of community centres/halls under the epidemic. He asked whether the Liaison Officer informed the application organisations of the related arrangements before opening community centres/halls.

22 Action 109. Ms Jenny WONG said that the STDO had exercised special arrangements for booking community centres/halls in view of the epidemic. If the number of participants failed to meet the minimum requirement or the organisation failed to submit an activity cancellation application 14 working days in advance, the STDO already exempted the demerit points and the requirements of providing written notification. The STDO requested for a written notification only if an organisation did not come to use the facilities without any written notice. Upon receipt of written notification, demerit points would not be deducted from such organisations.

110. Mr Michael YUNG said that the minimum requirement of users of community centres/halls was higher than the current restriction under the “prohibition on group gathering”. He did not understand why the STDO still deducted points from organisations and said that he would request District Officer (Sha Tin) to attend all STDC meetings if Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) failed to give a response.

111. Mr Ricardo LIAO said that the STDO failed to provide the exact figures on whether there were more irregular practices or absence under the epidemic, compared to the situation before the epidemic. He pointed out that organisations might need to consider the latest development of the epidemic before deciding whether to continue the activities and might not be able to give prior notice. He requested the letters be retrieved and criticised that Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) did not make enough preparation before this meeting.

112. The Chairman asked whether 30 letters of warning/suspension shown in the paper were issued before receiving any explanation and asked about the respective numbers of letters of warning/suspension. He asked whether the STDO could exercise discretion or retrieve the issued letters of warning/suspension in view of the epidemic.

113. Ms Amy YU said that the STDO would contact the responsible persons of the organisations and invite them to submit a written explanation before issuing the warning letters. The STDO would review the documents submitted by the organisations before deciding whether to issue a warning letter. The letters also stated that organisations could submit a written representation in respect of the STDO’s handling of their irregularities.

114. The Chairman suggested that Mr Ricardo LIAO and Mr Michael YUNG could provide a letter on the situation met by these organisations for the STDO to exercise discretion.

115. Mr Raymond LI asked whether members had the right to make decisions on letters of warning/suspension.

116. The Vice-Chairman said that the STDO could draft a reply slip for organisations to explain whether their situations were related to the epidemic and asked the STDO for special arrangements.

117. Mr Michael YUNG said that the STDO should let the Working Group on the Management of Community Halls and Libraries discuss the problem. He asked whether the STDC Chairman could arrange a meeting with District Officer (Sha Tin).

118. Mr Ricardo LIAO said that he did not reply to the STDO letter because of heavy workload. He said that Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) had not given response regarding the exact figures of irregularities or failing to come and use the facilities during and before the epidemic.

23 Action 119. The Chairman agreed with the Vice-Chairman’ suggestion to draft a reply slip for organisations which did not come to use the facilities or submit an application for activity cancellation 14 working days in advance, so as to reduce their workload in drafting an explanation. He pointed out that the STDO had not yet provided the exact figures of irregularities or failing to come and use the facilities during and before the epidemic.

120. Ms Candice WONG, Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) (2) said that the STDO noted members’ views and would review and look into the possibility of simplifying the procedures of exercising discretion.

121. The Chairman asked whether the STDO could not provide the usage figures before and during the epidemic.

122. Ms Candice WONG said that she had nothing to add.

123. The Chairman asked whether the STDO could provide detailed figures of irregularities or failing to come to use the facilities during and before the epidemic to Mr Ricardo LIAO. Regarding the 30 letters of warning/suspension, he asked whether the STDO could contact the organisations for explanation or let the Working Group on the Management of Community Halls and Libraries discuss the issue.

124. Ms Candice WONG said that according to the Guidelines, the organisations concerned might submit a written representation for the District Officer (Sha Tin)’s consideration within two weeks from the issue date of the warning letter. The District Officer (Sha Tin) might consider exercising discretion if she found the representation justified.

125. Mr Michael YUNG said that DFMSC was responsible for the management of community halls. He knew that a fire occurred in Lek Yuen Estate. He wanted to know how the community halls would be arranged to help the victims and whether Lek Yuen Community Hall would be immediately requisitioned. As Lek Yuen Community Hall was not a shelter, he wanted to know whether supplies such as beds and whether Wo Che Community Hall would be opened if that Lek Yuen Community Hall was full.

126. Mr Raymond LI said that currently many victims in Lek Yuen Estate needed assistance. He asked what arrangements the STDO would make and whether Wo Che Community Hall or Lung Hang Estate Community Centre would be opened if Lek Yuen Community Hall was full.

127. The Chairman announced to suspend the meeting which would be continued after the cleaning of the Conference Room.

128. The Chairman announced to continue the meeting and reminded members that the air conditioning was reserved until 7 pm. He asked whether the STDO had any response to the fire of Lek Yuen Estate and related arrangements of the community halls.

129. Ms Jenny WONG said that the STDO had opened Lek Yuen Community Hall. According to preliminary understanding, there were two persons registered for assistance currently but the STDO knew that the number of evacuated persons reached a few hundred. Therefore, they were considering to open Wo Che Community Hall. As colleagues were working there, no substantial information could be provided at this stage.

24 Action 130. The Chairman asked Ms Jenny WONG whether the two persons were hurt.

131. Ms Jenny WONG said that the two persons registered for assistance.

132. Mr NG Kam-hung asked why the air conditioning was only reserved till 7 pm while a meeting usually could not be finished by 7 pm.

133. Mr CHAN Pui-ming asked whether family-based holiday camps such as Wu Kai Sha Youth Village could be arranged to provide shelters for the victims of Lek Yuen Estate as Lek Yuen Community Hall and Lung Hang Estate Community Centre did not have showering facilities and were not ideal living spaces.

134. Mr Michael YUNG asked whether the STDO contacted the HD to understand the current status of Lek Yuen Estate. For example, power of which floor was cut, as chronic patients might not be able to use their device due to power outage, and gas pipe inspection should be arranged, etc. He said that he could not grasp the actual circumstances of the scene of the fire in Lek Yuen Estate, such as opening arrangements of community halls and when the victims could return to their units. He also asked whether the STDO contacted the Social Welfare Department (SWD).

135. Mr George WONG hoped that the two Assistant District Officers (Sha Tin) coordinated the assistance work in Lek Yuen Estate after the meeting and asked how many STDO staff were working there.

136. Mr Ricardo LIAO asked how many STDO staff were working there and whether the STDO devised any emergency plan. He said that the District Officer (Sha Tin) would be able to help the residents if she took charge at the scene.

137. Mr Raymond LI asked which location at the scene the STDO staff was staying and how the STDO contacted the victims. He said that as he could not contact the STDO staff, he could not answer victims’ questions. He asked whether the STDO would obtain information of the victims from the Hong Kong Police Force to provide further assistance.

138. The Chairman hoped that Ms Jenny WONG could respond to members’ questions.

139. Ms Jenny WONG said that the Emergency Co-ordination Centre had been activated and the STDO had sent staff to provide assistance at the scene. Based on her understanding, the scene was still sealed off and so the relevant departments did not have any updates. The STDO had also contacted the SWD on the catering arrangements and dispatched supplies to Lek Yuen Community Hall. The STDO would consider arranging Wu Kai Sha Youth Village when necessary.

140. Mr Ricardo LIAO said that Ms Jenny WONG did not answer his question. He asked how the victims at the scene could contact the STDO for assistance.

141. The Chairman asked whether Ms Jenny WONG had any response to make.

142. Ms Jenny WONG said that she did not have anything to add.

25 Action 143. The Chairman said that the fire of Lek Yuen Estate was not related to the discussion items of the DFMSC but he already allowed members to discuss for over half an hour. He suggested that the STDO could send more staff to the scene and contact the local DC Member of Lek Yuen Estate for case referral.

144. Mr Ricardo LIAO said that Ms Jenny WONG did not answer his question on how the victims at the scene could contact the STDO to seek assistance.

145. Mr Michael YUNG said that the STDO could send more staff to the scene for coordination. He pointed out that Assistant District Officer (Sha Tin) failed to answer how the victims could contact the STDO for assistance and how the STDO would follow up.

146. The Chairman asked whether the STDO had set up a contact station for the victims to make registration and seek assistance.

147. Ms Jenny WONG said that she was currently contacting colleagues at the scene to confirm their location. Based on her understanding, the relevant departments had set up contact stations as per the existing procedures.

Information Paper

Progress Report on 2020-2021 District Facilities and Improvement Works (Paper No. DFS 35/2020)

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

(a) he asked about the progress of item ST-DMW378 “Provision of Cover for the Pedestrian Walkway from Hang Tai Road near Kam Tai Shopping Centre to the Entrance/Exit of MTR Station”. He pointed out that the works were proposed 5 years ago and there was still no progress at all and the STDO failed to follow up with other departments on the works requirements; and

(b) he pointed out that the engineering unit of the HAD failed to provide details of works in Ma Kam Street, such as expenditure breakdown and timetable. the STDO once mentioned that expenditure spent on works and feasibility study could not be processed separately. He knew that the Islands District Council once endorsed an item of installation of floodlight system in Yim Tin Playground. The approved fund for the feasibility study was $800,000 and then another works item of about $800,000 was endorsed this year as the study was nearly completed. He pointed out that some districts separately processed expenditures on works and feasibility study and asked why Sha Tin District could not follow. He opined that the practice of the STDO slowed down works progress.

149. Mr CHENG Chung-hang asked about the progress of the item ST-DMW378 and whether the temporary canopy proposed by GAW Capital Partners (GAW) complied with the requirements of the Advisory Committee on the Appearance of Bridges and Associated Structures (Committee). Also, he asked whether setting up the canopy needed to be approved by departments.

26 Action 150. The views of Mr Michael YUNG were summarised below:

(a) he cited as an example that the handling by the Independent Checking Unit (ICU) under HD of the staff rest room at Chun Yeung Estate Bus Stop, whether the temporary canopy proposed by GAW complied with the requirements of the ICU under the HD;

(b) he asked about the views of the Fire Services Department on the construction of the temporary canopy;

(d) he asked whether the STDO would convene a cross-departmental meeting.

151. Ms Jenny WONG said that the HAD had submitted the preliminary design for the Committee’s consideration and the Committee supported in principle the proposal. However, they suggested that the design should better seamlessly connect the entrance of the shopping centre. Due to the problem of site boundary, the Government could not construct the structure in private land. She said that Link Asset Management Limited once guaranteed to carry out the canopy works but after selling the site to GAW, GAW said that the entrance and the connection of the shopping centre would be relocated in the revitalisation works, it could further look into the feasibility of building a canopy only after completion of the revitalisation works. The works were completed currently and GAW was looking into whether temporary structure such as retractable canopy complied with the requirements of the Committee. The HAD would provide information on detailed requirements and drawings for GAW reference so that they could submit a proposal on temporary structure for the Committee’s consideration. If the Committee considered that the canopy complied with the requirements and GAW guaranteed to build the canopy, the Department would report to the Working Group and the works would proceed to voting stage.

152. Mr CHENG Chung-hang asked whether the Committee had confirmed the compliance of the temporary structure with their requirements and whether the Committee would provide basic standards for GAW reference.

153. Mr David LEUNG said that he had contacted the ICU and they were preparing the drawings and information to make further enquiries to relevant departments. The consolidated response on the detailed requirements and specifications would be provided to GAW for drafting of the papers on the temporary structure. The papers would then be submitted to the Committee for consideration.

154. Mr CHENG Chung-hang asked whether the HAD had discussed with the District Lands Office, Sha Tin the land premium issue, if a permanent canopy would involve land premium and fully utilise the plot ratio.

155. Mr Michael YUNG said that as minor works involved private land, the STDO could consider and decide whether to implement the works. He said that item ST-DMW18 “Covered Walkway between Lucky Plaza and the Footbridge to Lek Yuen Estate, Sha Tin District” could be a reference and requested the Secretariat to provide relevant papers. He further asked the STDO when a meeting on item ST-DMW378 would be held.

27 Action 156. Ms Jenny WONG said that GAW had reservation about setting up a permanent canopy but could study the information on the calculation of plot ratio with the Department. Moreover, if the requirements of the Committee were fulfilled, they could continue to look into setting up temporary structure.

157. Mr CHAN Pui-ming said that the STDO had not responded to his enquiry about handling the works and expenditure on the feasibility study separately. Additionally, GAW had not been informed of the requirements for making the rain shelter and coverage continuous set out by the Committee until the previous meeting. He considered that GAW had not ruled out the proposal for adding a permanent canopy, and that the STDO should have prepared the requirements of different departments and feasible proposals in advance for discussion at the meeting.

158. Mr Michael YUNG said that HAD did not respond to his question on whether such structures would involve land premium. He pointed out that apart from the requirements of the Committee, they needed to consider whether ICU would accept the plan and whether the plan contravened the existing law. He opined that a cross-departmental meeting should be held to discuss different views of departments.

159. The Chairman said that members should try to simplify their speeches.

160. The Vice-Chairman said that the STDO needed to respond to Mr Michael YUNG’s question on whether to convene a cross-departmental meeting.

161. The Chairman said that individual projects should be discussed with relevant members in respective meetings.

162. Ms Jenny WONG said that as there was currently no information on the temporary structure, the Department could not provide a substantial response. She considered that it would be more appropriate to discuss with other departments after having the preliminary design of the canopy.

163. Mr CHAN Pui-ming said that the STDO did not respond to his question on separate processing of expenditure on works and feasibility study.

164. Mr Michael YUNG said that item ST-DMW18 “Covered Walkway between Lucky Plaza and the Footbridge to Lek Yuen Estate, Sha Tin District” was similar to item ST-DMW378. He pointed out that the Department should devise a plan with other departments to complete the structure without contravening the law, but not discussing the preliminary drawings.

165. The Chairman suggested handing over this issue to the Working Group on District Facilities and Improvement Works.

166. Ms Jenny WONG said that the STDO would report to members after consulting other departments.

167. The Chairman said that the STDO would explain the problem of separate processing of expenditure on works and feasibility study to Mr CHAN Pui-ming in person.

28 Action Date of Next Meeting

168. The next meeting was scheduled to be held at 2:30 pm on 22 October 2020 (Thursday).

169. The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 pm.

Sha Tin District Council Secretariat STDC 13/15/50

December 2020