Minutes of the 3rd Meeting in 2020 of the Planning, Housing and Works Committee of District Council

Date: 11 May 2020 (Monday) Time: 3 p.m. - 7:48 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Council (“TPDC”)

Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. AU Chun-wah Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice-chairman Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Members Mr. AU Chun-ho Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHAN Chun-chit, Richard Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Ms. CHAN Wai-ka, Olive Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. HO Wai-lam Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LAM Ming-yat, Nick 3:04 p.m. 6:31 p.m. Mr. LAM Yick-kuen Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LAU Yung-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LIN Kok-cheung, Dalu Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. MAN Nim-chi Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. SO Tat-leung Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. TAM Yi-pui Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WONG Siu-kin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WU Yiu-cheong 3:51 p.m. 6:37 p.m. Mr. YAM Kai-bong Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YIU Kwan-ho Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

規劃、房屋及工程委員會_會議記錄_20200511 p.1

Secretary Ms. SY Ling-ling, Phoebe Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Executive Officer (District Council) 1 / Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) / Home Affairs Department (“HAD”)

In Attendance Mr. MO Ka-chun, Patrick TPDC Member Ms. LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany Assistant District Officer (Tai Po) / TPDO / HAD Ms. CHU Ha-fan, Jessica District Planning Officer / Sha Tin, Tai Po and North / Planning Department (“Plan D”) Ms. CHAN Cheuk-ling, Kathy Senior Town Planner / Tai Po / Plan D Mr. WU Yiu-chung, Tony Senior Town Planner / Country Park Enclaves (“CPE”) / Plan D Ms. CHAN Hiu-yan, Sharon Town Planner / CPE 3 / Plan D Mr. WONG Shu-tai, William Town Planning Graduate / CPE / Plan D Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin Senior Housing Manager (Tai Po, North and Shatin 2) / Housing Department (“HD”) Mr. CHAN Chun-ping, Johnny Senior Engineer / 1 / Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) Mr. YIP Pui-lam, Paul Engineer / 22 (North) / CEDD Mr. LEE Ka-ho Engineer / 1 / CEDD Mr. NG Wing-hung Senior Engineer / Tai Po / Drainage Services Department (“DSD”) Mr. WONG Kam-lun Senior Engineer / Drainage Projects 4 / DSD Ms. HAU Kwan-lee Engineer / Drainage Projects 21 / DSD Ms. WONG Dik-chi Engineer / East (Distribution 4) / Water Supplies Department (“WSD”) Mr. TUNG Ching-ho Engineer / New Territories East (Customer Services) Inspection / WSD Mr. CHENG Wun-chee District Engineer / Tai Po (1) / Highways Department (“HyD”) Mr. WONG Wing-wah Senior Structural Engineer / C2 / Buildings Department (“BD”) Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen Administration Assistant (Acting) / Lands / District Lands Officer, Tai Po (“TPDLO”) / Lands Department (“Lands D”) Mr. HUI Kam-chau, Calvin Estate Surveyor / North / TPDLO / Lands D Mr. PANG Hiu-fung Engineer / Tai Po 3 / Transport Department (“TD”)

Mr. WONG Chi-kin Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control) Tai Po 1 / Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) Mr. LAU Chung-hin Manager / The HKFYG Youth Hostel PH2 (“PH2”) / Hongkong Federation of Youth Groups (“HKFYG”) Mr. WONG Ting-bong Unit-in-charge / Tai Po Lions Youth Space for Participation, Opportunities and Training (“Tai Po Youth S.P.O.T.”) / HKFYG Mr. WONG Ying-kit, Romulus Assistant General Manager (Property Management) / Housing Society (“HKHS”) Mr. FU Siu-lim, Gary Assistant General Manager (Corporate and Community Relations) / HKHS Ms. LEUNG Ka-yan, Christine Property Manager / HKHS Mr. CHAN Tsz-wai, Stanley Technical Director / AECOM Asia Company Limited (“AECOM”) Mr. LAU Yau-fu Senior Engineer / AECOM Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Senior Executive Officer (District Council) / TPDO / HAD

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed participants to this Planning, Housing and Works Committee (“PHWC”) meeting.

2. The Chairman welcomed the following officials who would serve as standing departmental representatives at the PHWC meetings from now on:

(i) Ms. CHAN Cheuk-ling, Kathy, Senior Town Planner / Tai Po of the Plan D; (ii) Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin, Senior Housing Manager (Tai Po, North and Shatin 2) of the HD; (iii) Mr. YIP Pui-lam, Paul, Engineer / 22 (North) of the CEDD; (iv) Mr. NG Wing-hung, Senior Engineer / Tai Po of the DSD; (v) Ms. WONG Dik-chi, Engineer / New Territories East (Distribution 4) of the WSD; (vi) Mr. CHENG Wun-chee, District Engineer / Tai Po (1) of the HyD; (vii) Mr. WONG Wing-wah, Senior Structural Engineer / C2 of the BD; (viii) Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen, Administration Assistant (Acting) of the TPDLO; (ix) Mr. WONG Chi-kin, Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control) Tai Po 1

of the FEHD; (x) Ms. LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany, Assistant District Officer (Tai Po) of the TPDO; and (xi) Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of the TPDO.

3. The Chairman said that the PHWC originally hoped to invite the TD to send staff to attend the meetings on a regular basis. However, the TD indicated that as the works proposals covered a wide array of areas and a standing departmental representative could not be in charge of all of them, it would be more appropriate for the responsible officers of the relevant works to attend the meeting and explain to Members. Such an arrangement would be implemented on a trial basis for a few months. The PHWC would invite the TD to send staff to attend its meetings on a regular basis if Members found it necessary in the future.

I. Adoption of the TPDC Standing Orders

4. The Chairman said that the TPDC endorsed the adoption of the TPDC Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”) at its meeting on 7 January 2020. He asked Members to take note of and comply with the provisions of the Standing Orders.

II. Adoption of the Guidelines on Allocation of District Council Funds

5. The Chairman said that the TPDC endorsed the Guidelines on Allocation of District Council Funds by way of circulation on 30 March 2020, and the Guidelines came into effect on 1 April 2020. All TPDC Funds applications would be submitted to the Administration and Finance Management Committee for consideration and endorsement. He asked Members to take note of the arrangement concerned.

III. Brief on the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups Youth Hostel PH2 and its latest development (TPDC Paper No. PHW 4/2020)

6. The Chairman welcomed Mr. LAU Chung-hin and Mr. WONG Ting-bong, Manager of PH2 and Unit-in-charge of Tai Po Youth S.P.O.T. respectively of the HKFYG to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

7. Mr. WONG Ting-bong outlined the captioned paper.

8. Mr. LAM Ming-yat, Nick asked, given the rental period of PH2 was “2+2+1 years”, whether it meant that a review would be carried out after the tenants had completed their first two-year tenancies. He also asked how the HKFYG would deal with the tenants whose income had increased to a level that was above the income limit during the rental period.

9. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that young people in Hong Kong completed their Form 6 education at around 17 years old and entered the university at the age of 18, while some people would join the labour force. However, even if their assets had not exceeded the limit, they might not be able to afford the rent of PH2. He asked how the organisation came up with the age limit of its residents at 18 to 31, and whether it would review the age limit and adjust the relevant eligibilities in the future.

10. Mr. LAU Yung-wai’s questions were as follows:

(i) The tenancy period of PH2 was “2+2+1 years”, for a total of five years. If a tenant moved in at the age of 30, signed a two-year tenancy and exceeded the age limit during the tenancy, he asked whether the organisation would allow the tenant to continue living there for five years, or would not renew the tenancy once the tenant had exceeded the age limit. (ii) If a tenant temporarily moved out due to special circumstances (such as studying abroad for half a year), would he have to pay the rent for the period concerned? (iii) If a tenant failed to pay the rent during the tenancy period, would the organisation forcibly recover the unit, or would there be any other ways to deal with it?

11. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho asked whether PH2 had other daily management teams in addition to security and cleaning management teams. As regards the daily cleaning arrangements, did the management team had the rights to decide, or decisions would only be made after the cleaning workers had inspected the situation?

12. Mr. WONG Ting-bong responded as follows:

(i) The Government’s Youth Hostel Scheme (“YHS”) stipulated that the age limit for applicants was between 18 and 30. It was not determined by the HKFYG as the operator of the hostel. As to whether setting the age limit at 18 to 30 could provide comprehensive assistance for young people, the organisation would reflect its views on widening the age range to the Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”) can carry out reviews together. Tenants who exceeded the age limit of 30 during the tenancy period could continue to live there until the tenancy expired. For instance, an

applicant who turned 31 a few days after submitting the application could still move in. However, his tenancy would not be renewed on expiry. If the HKFYG and the HAB decided to raise the upper age limit after discussion, the tenancies of the relevant tenants would be renewed in accordance with the policy. (ii) The YHS stipulated that the total tenancy period of each tenant should not exceed five years, and their first tenancy period had to be two years. As the operator, the HKFYG came up with a “2+2+1 years” tenancy period arrangement for PH2. Similar to the tenancy period arrangement in the market, the first two-year tenancy was composed of a one-year fixed tenancy (i.e., surrender of tenancy was forbidden for both the property owner and the tenant) and a one-year flexible tenancy (i.e., surrender of tenancy was permitted for the property owner and the tenant in accordance with the tenancy terms). The second two-year tenancy was also composed of a one-year fixed tenancy and a one-year flexible tenancy, while the last one-year tenancy was a fixed one. Other non-governmental organisations, such as Po Leung Kuk (“PLK”) and Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (“TWGHs”), would gradually operate youth hostels in the future. Eligible young people could also apply for the youth hostels operated by other organisations, but the total tenancy period could not exceed the five-year limit stipulated in the YHS. (iii) PH2 operated on a self-financing basis with the rent set at 60% of the market level. In other words, the monthly rental income was about $200,000, and it also had to pay for the security and cleaning services provided by the outsourcing management company. Therefore, PH2 was facing certain operational pressures. In addition, based on the spirit of the contract, the organisation would continue to charge rent even if the tenant temporarily moved out. The HKFYG highly valued the communication with its tenants. Tenants were free to let the organisation know if they had run into any financial difficulties, so as to look for solutions. For instance, for the tenants whose income had been reduced due to the epidemic, the organisation would communicate with them and refer them to other service units that could offer help.

13. Mr. LAU Chung-hin responded as follows:

(i) PH2 would provide regular security and cleaning services and set up different teams to take care of the tenant-related management work, such as inviting tenants to set up dedicated working groups and building management teams. With its 80 young tenants working in different industries, PH2 was like a small community. The organisation would like to make good use of their expertise, such as discussing with the tenants who worked in the property management industry on ways to improve its building management, so as to allow the young people and the organisation to

work together to manage the entire building, come up with ways to make this space more comfortable, and share life skills and financial skills with each other, etc.

14. Mr. CHAN Chun-chit, Richard asked whether the organisation would or had already introduced a third-party arbitration and mediation mechanism in PH2’s tenancies to deal with tenancy issues.

15. The Chairman said that the HKFYG came to the district council (“DC”) to outline the PH2 project before its construction. The focus at that time was that young people could not afford the high property price, but their income had exceeded the limit for applying for public housing units. These were the reasons why the project came about. According to the captioned paper, the project took the 75th percentile of the monthly earnings of employed persons aged 18 to 30 in 2018 as the income limit, i.e., $21,000. After paying the $5,000 rent, tenants were left with about $15,000 to spend. Having deducted the daily expenses, they might only have about $5,000 left for savings. Hence, tenants could only save about $300,000 after renting the units for five years. As the income limit for each tenant was $21,000 and the asset limit was $364,000, even if they managed to save $300,000 to $400,000 after living there for five years, would it meet the organisation’s expectation to help the youth people who participated in the project to save money for down payment? He had doubts whether the project could really help young people. In addition, he also asked whether the organisation would consider fine-tuning the eligibility criteria for PH2.

16. Mr. WONG Siu-kin said that the operator discussing the building’s daily management with the tenants was, to a certain extent, shifting its management duties to the tenants, and opined that the operator should take up most of the management duties. In addition, setting the rental level of PH2 from $4,248 to $8,670 and imposing an income limit would create considerable burden on young people. As PH2 had put in place a rent adjustment mechanism, he asked under what circumstances the rent would increase or decrease.

17. Mr. WONG Ting-bong responded as follows:

(i) All the board members of the HKFYG were professionals. Among them, there were legal consultants who could provide the organisation with legal advices regarding the tenancy. As regards the operation and management of the youth hostel, the HKFYG would work together with the HAB, and had to obtain the HAB’s consent before making any decisions, while tenancy matters would also be dealt with by the HAB. (ii) In the past, the YHS was labelled as a scheme to help young people save money for home ownership. As the Chairman calculated just then, it was not a bad thing that tenants were able to save about $300,000 to $400,000 in five years. However, in

light of runaway prices and continued inflation, it was difficult to buy a property with this amount of money. Therefore, the organisation would enlist the advices of financial planners to teach tenants how to manage their wealth, save money, plan or invest, so as to put their money to good use. There was way too much coverage in the media that the YHS was a project to help young people save money. In fact, however, the YHS was a transitional policy that focused on the diversified development of young people. Young people’s assets were not just money. They could also build interpersonal networks, as well as pick up financial management and independent living skills in the youth hostel. (iii) Even if the tenants’ income had exceeded the limit due to promotion and salary increase during the tenancy period, the HKFYG would not prevent them from living in the units. However, a tenant had to move out once he had bought his own property, so as to free up the unit for other people in need. The policy review was not up to the HKFYG. However, as the operator of the first YHS project in Hong Kong, the HKFYG would take a proactive role in reflecting opinions to the HAB, so as to allow the bureau to make corresponding adjustments when reviewing the policy. (iv) The HKFYG had an undeniable responsibility in the hostel’s management. The HKFYG and the outsourcing company would be responsible for the daily cleaning and security of the building. While the HKFYG would make every effort to enhance the cleaning and security services of the hostel, unilateral management was inefficient. Therefore, the HKFYG would like to work with young people to think about, put in place and take forward management methods that suited them, such as creating a culture in the hostel to foster the concepts of sharing and joint management when the tenants moved in, so as to enhance hostel management. The HKFYG staff and outsourcing company would stand by the tenants, but young people’s participation in the entire process was indispensable. (v) The rental level of PH2 would be adjusted according to the annual market rent survey result. As market rent fluctuated, if it fell, PH2’s rent would also be adjusted proportionally.

18. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the Hong Kong SAR Government rolled out the “Mediate First” Pledge campaign in 2009, the new Arbitration Ordinance in 2011, and the new Mediation Ordinance in 2013 as the mediation mechanisms other than litigation. He asked whether PH2 had a penalty mark mechanism, and how it would deal with situations such as tenants defaulting on rent or violating the hostel’s rules. If the HKFYG’s legal consultants dealt with the relevant disputes using the existing mechanisms, the HKFYG would have to bear a substantial amount of legal expenses, and the procedures would be rather lengthy. In the paper concerning civil law reform, the arbitration and mediation mechanisms were adopted to replace the time-consuming

civil proceedings to resolve problems in a quick and inexpensive manner. He would like to express the opinions concerned and suggested the HKFYG introduce the corresponding mechanisms so as to resolve disputes in a less expensive manner.

19. Mr. MAN Nim-chi thanked the representatives of the organisation for outlining the benefits of the projects to Members. The HKFYG was the operator of the first YHS project in Hong Kong, providing an alternative solution for young people who could not afford their housing needs. Although the number of units provided by the YHS was limited, he hoped that it could bring about a benchmark effect to allow young people to accumulate wealth and help them develop in society in the future. Regardless of the effectiveness of the project, he hoped that the organisation would make every effort to reflect their views to the Administration and, if the project was effective, identify sites to roll out similar projects in the future.

20. Ms. CHAN Wai-ka, Olive said that due to the Wuhan pneumonia epidemic, the economy was sluggish and the unemployment rate on the rise. The younger generation was vulnerable to dismissal and financial pressure as they were less experienced. At present, the median income of young people in Hong Kong was about $15,000. After deducting about $5,000 to $8,000 for rent, about $2,000 for utility bills and about $4,000 to $5,000 for meals, there was not much left in their monthly income. Being unemployed for just one month would render young people unable to make ends meet for the next month and subject them to tremendous pressure in their daily life. She asked whether the HKFYG would consider waiving rents when tenants were facing imminent unemployment and financial pressure, so as to relieve their pressure and allow them to find a new job as soon as possible.

21. Mr. SO Tat-leung asked that when the HKFYG said that it hoped its tenants could enhance their life skills, whether it was talking about cooking, cleaning and household chores skills, etc. Besides, as PH2 operated as a hostel, would there be any warden or regulations? In addition, did the HKFYG had the rights to terminate the tenancy on its own initiative, and under what circumstances would the tenancy be terminated?

22. Mr. WONG Ting-bong responded as follows:

(i) He would reflect Mr. Richard CHAN’s comments to the organisation for follow-up action and consideration. The YHS was a new project for both the HKFYG and Hong Kong as a whole. Therefore, he highly welcomed comments from all sectors so that the policy concerned could help young people. (ii) The youth hostels operated by the PLK and TWGHs would be constructed in Long Ping and Central respectively. As the operator of the first youth hostel in Hong Kong, the HKFYG hoped to reflect the visions, problems discovered and rooms for improvement to the Administration, so as to jointly create an excellent YHS

together and allow young people to have a better development. (iii) The HKFYG had been in close contact with the tenants to discuss and learn about their employment status. Since the signing of tenancy agreement in March, no tenant had been dismissed. The rental market usually collected a two-month deposit from the tenants, and the HKFYG originally had also done so. Nevertheless, a one-month deposit had been reimbursed to its tenants in the first month they had moved in, in the hope of tiding over the difficult times together and providing assistance for the tenants who had been dismissed, suffered salary cut or had other financial difficulties. As there might be more unknown challenges in the future, the HKFYG was willing to listen to the needs of young people, work with government departments and social workers to tide over the difficult times with tenants and help them deal with their problems.

23. Mr. LAU Chung-hin said that the tenants had been living in the hostel for about two months. Some young people who were living on their own for the first time would ask the HKFYG about life skills such as cooking and laundry, etc. Young people were also learning different aspects of life such as interpersonal relationships, communication, time management, emotion management, schoolwork and entertainment, etc. As they would express opinions to the HKFYG and participate in the hostel’s management, he believed that there would be growth in all aspects.

24. Mr. WONG Ting-bong added that some tenants had run into different life skill difficulties. For instance, they would seek help from the HKFYG staff for not knowing how to set up wireless network and other device. The staff sometimes even had to reply them until the early hours. While PH2 was not a perfect project, it was hoped that it could walk and share with young people, so that young people could have a better development.

25. The Chairman said that the challenge at the first stage was the first two-year tenancy. He hoped that the HKFYG and the departments concerned could invite DC Members to participate in the relevant review groups or meetings for their opinions. He also hoped that the HKFYG could schedule a visit to the hostel for DC Members to communicate with the tenants once the epidemic had eased, so that DC Members could better understand the needs and difficulties of the tenants.

26. Mr. WONG Ting-bong said that the HKFYG planned to invite DC Members to participate in the housewarming party in the youth hostel, visit the units, and communicate with tenants once the epidemic had eased, i.e., around June to July.

27. The Chairman said that the HKFYG could contact the Secretariat if there were any updates.

I V. Request to discuss the additional provision of roads, car parks and parking facilities in Area 9 (TPDC Paper No. PHW 5/2020)

28. The Chairman welcomed Mr. HUI Kam-chau, Calvin, Estate Surveyor / North (TPDLO) of the Lands D, Mr. PANG Hiu-fung, Engineer / Tai Po 3 of the TD, as well as Mr. CHAN Chun-ping, Johnny, and Mr. LEE Ka-ho, Senior Engineer / 1 and Engineer / 1 respectively of the CEDD to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. In addition, the Secretariat received complaints from members of the public earlier, requesting the departments concerned to follow up on the damaged road surface of Chung Nga Road caused by the construction works in Area 9, as well as the construction and noise emission at the construction site of Phase 1 of Fu Tip Estate during the restricted construction hours. The departments concerned had followed up on the complaints, and he also asked the departments concerned to pay more attention when carrying out the works concerned.

29. Mr. HO Wai-lam outlined the captioned paper.

30. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that according to the information provided by the Development and Construction Division of the HD, the recreational facilities in Tai Po Area 9 included a covered multi-purpose basketball court, a neighbourhood elderly centre and retail facilities (including fresh provision shops in the form of street shops), and a social welfare building would also be provided on Chung Nga Road East. Inside the building, there would be a child care centre, integrated support services for people with severe physical disabilities, an early education and training centre, a day care centre for the elderly, as well as a residential care home for the elderly. In terms of transportation and parking facilities, there would be a bus terminus, green minibus stops and taxi stands in Tai Po Area 9. The development projects at Tai Po Area 9 and Chung Nga Road East would provide a total of over 250 parking spaces for private vehicles, more than 20 parking spaces for light goods vehicles and more than 50 parking spaces for motorcycles. The HD provided such an amount of parking spaces in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”). To avoid causing nuisance and safety problems to residents in the future, the department opined that it was not appropriate to provide parking spaces for heavy goods vehicles in the estates.

31. Ms. Kathy CHAN said that the Plan D had designated the site concerned as Residential (Group A) 9. Its planning intention was public housing development, and the HD was mainly responsible for the implementation of the development project. The HKPSG set out that all relevant policy bureaux and departments of the Government should draw up general standards for the relevant facilities in accordance with the policy scopes and development needs under their purview, as the reference for development and planning purposes.

32. Mr. LEE Ka-ho said that the CEDD had engaged a consultant to draw up a traffic impact

assessment report for the public housing development projects in Tai Po Area 9, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West. The report had set out three junction improvement proposals, which mainly concerned junction widening works including improving the junctions between Chung Nga Road and Chuen On Road South, between Chung Nga Road and Chuen On Road North, as well as between Chuen On Road and Tai Po Area 9. The works concerned commenced in August 2017 and were expected to be completed in the middle of 2020. After the completion of these works, it was believed that the additional traffic flow brought about by the afore-mentioned public housing developments could be coped with.

33. Mr. HO Wai-lam said that the department’s response earlier on was simply a statement on existing information. The various views put forward by DC Members at different meetings, such as the proposed provision of car parks at the basement of some facilities, had not been accepted. The development projects concerned could only provide about 200 parking spaces, which was not enough. Citing Shui Chuen O Estate as an example, he said that even though the estate had more than 400 parking spaces, illegally parked vehicles could still be found from the bottom of the hill to the top. In addition, Shui Chuen O Estate had a two-lane access road, while the development projects of Tai Po Area 9 and Chung Nga Road East could only rely on Chung Nga Road alone. As Chung Nga Road was already seriously congested during peak hours at present, why did the department think that a single road alone could cater for the traffic demand of such a large housing estate? He opined that the problem could not be resolved simply by widening the junctions and certain road sections.

34. Mr. MAN Nim-chi’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He once said at a Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”) meeting that planning and transportation were closely linked. The road condition between Estate and Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital (“Nethersole Hospital”) was obvious to all, not to mention that Tai Po Area 9 was located on the hill above Nethersole Hospital. He asked whether the Government had considered the impact on the traffic in the vicinity when constructing a public housing development project with 6 000 units there. He did not want to see the construction of a new public housing estate taking away resources from its nearby housing estates. At present, Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court had limited outbound transportation resources. What would the residents of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court think if the large-scale public housing project of Tai Po Area 9 was constructed at the mid-levels of the hill above? Geographically speaking, was to the far left of Tai Po Area 9, while the Mont Vert-bound Road was somewhere closer to the right. In the design proposed by the department at the earlier stage, Tai Po Area 9 mainly relied on Chung Nga Road for access. However, as Chung Nga Road surrounded Nam Wan Road, while the

traffic on Nam Wan Road was extremely heavy in the morning, he hoped that the department would come up with more innovative ideas to resolve the traffic problem. (ii) The Plan D should take the initiative to suggest the departments concerned fine-tune the HKPSG. He once mentioned at a TTC meeting that while the car park at Tai Yuen Estate was five-storey high, the number of vehicles had also substantially increased in the 20 to 30 years after the estate was built. Although he did not encourage residents of public housing to own private vehicles, he opined that increasing the plot ratio of the car park could be considered. Tai Po Area 9 would have about 200 parking spaces and a market, as well as facilities such as minibus stops and bus stops. However, they would not be enough. The department should think about how residents of Tai Po Area 9 would suffer 10 years after moving in for having only Chung Nga Road as the access road. In the past, Tai Yuen Estate had to deal with chaotic traffic condition only after the construction of Fu Heng Estate in the vicinity. He suggested that the department should have foresight to come up with a practical and specific design.

35. Mr. MO Ka-chun, Patrick said that some households in Tai Po District were affected by the clearance of housing estates. To his understanding, the HD had promised to relocate them to Fanling. However, as these residents had been living in Tai Po District for many years, moving them out of Tai Po District without proper planning would affect their community support. He asked whether the HD would take this opportunity to reserve some units in Tai Po Area 9 to rehouse the residents affected by clearance. In addition, he would also like to know whether the department would consider allocating one to two buildings in the Tai Po Area 9 development project for the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme or Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”).

36. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) DC Members had also discussed this subject in depth at the previous term DC. He did not understand why the various departments believed that the problems raised by DC Members were not major issues, or not even problems at all. In terms of roads and parking facilities, the CEDD would widen three junctions. However, as mentioned by some DC Members earlier on, traffic congestion did not appear on Chung Nga Road only, but also on the entire Nam Wan Road and all the MTR station-bound roads in the district, and widening three junctions alone would not be enough to resolve the problem. He opined that new roads or viaducts had to be built to divert the vehicles. (ii) He asked whether the number of parking spaces currently provided in the areas of

Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court and after the completion of Tai Po Area 9 met the HKPSG’s requirements. The Chief Executive (“CE”) often mentioned the “single site, multiple use” policy initiative. Therefore, the department had changed part of the land use in the football-cum-rugby pitch works project in Tai Po Area 33 to add a large-scale car park, providing more than 300 parking spaces for large goods vehicles, coaches and other vehicles. Having checked the information on car parks in Taipei City, he found that some car parks in the city were built underneath primary and secondary schools, stadiums and parks, such as the underground car park at Taipei Municipal Yongjian Elementary School. He did not know how big the school was, but the car park provided 211 parking spaces for vehicles and more than 80 parking spaces for motorcycles. If he remembered correctly, there were two primary schools in Tai Po Area 9. He asked whether the underground area of these schools and some areas of Chung Nga Road East could be excavated to build car parks. The Police was also carrying out work such as asking the drivers to drive their vehicles away or towing away the vehicles on Chung Nga Road, etc. However, the illegal parking problem had not yet been resolved. In addition, dangerous situations often took place there, mainly because one of the lanes was fully occupied by the illegally parked vehicles, forcing other vehicles to cross the lane. In addition, as Chung Nga Road was curved, serious traffic accidents might take place when vehicles crossed the lane. Therefore, he hoped that the department would not use the existing views or standards as an excuse, but to make judgements based on the actual situation in each district. (iii) Tai Po Area 9 had no wet market despite being a large-scale public housing project. Citing Ching Ho Estate as an example, he pointed out that there was only one supermarket and one fresh provision shop in the estate. If residents wanted to buy food, they would have to take a ride to Shek Wu Hui or walk for more than 10 minutes to Choi Yuen Estate to do so, showing that planning was far from perfect. When arranging for the residents to move in, the Government had to take care of the residents’ shopping, parking and transportation needs. He opined that department was capable of finding examples of “single site, multiple use”, and hoped that it was not too late to enhance the planning of Tai Po Area 9 so as to meet the residents’ needs.

37. Mr. Richard CHAN’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He used to live in Fu Heng Estate and was well aware how remote it was from the geographical point of view. At present, as Tai Po Area 9 was built in a more remote area than Fu Heng Estate, serious problems would definitely arise if the relevant facilities were not improved. The provision of 250 parking spaces for

private vehicles, 50 parking spaces for motorcycles and 22 parking spaces for goods vehicles in Tai Po Area 9 was not enough. In addition, as there were two primary schools in Tai Po Area 9, the traffic condition there would definitely be extremely chaotic when students went to school and left school. If schools had picnics or activities, coaches would have difficulties entering the campus to pick up students, leading to congestion on the entire road. Therefore, the department had to take the situation concerned into consideration. (ii) He asked why the HD and the CEDD did not provide any papers relating to the study they had carried out on Tai Po Area 9 for Members’ reference.

38. Mr. Nick LAM asked whether some units of Tai Po Area 9 would be reserved for the residents of older housing estates (such as Tai Yuen Estate) so as to rebuild the estates.

39. Mr. TAM Yi-pui’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He and some DC Members had visited the vicinity of Tai Po Area 9 to learn about the road obstruction caused by the recycling industry. According to his observation, the recycling workshop on Chung Nga Road near Nam Hang Tsuen would keep items on the road. After the completion of the project in Tai Po Area 9, the department had to plan for the workshops that already existed in the community. (ii) The illegal parking problem on Chung Nga Road had been around for a long time. After the completion of the project in Tai Po Area 9, traffic flow would definitely increase, which might obstruct the vehicular access to Nethersole Hospital and lead to serious problems. He opined that the department could be more aggressive and follow the examples of Ma Wan and Discovery Bay by prohibiting private vehicles from entering and exiting Tai Po Area 9, as well as operating bus routes so as to replace private vehicles and change the commuting habits of the residents. The Government should have macro planning to reduce the traffic as much as possible when there were too many private vehicles in Hong Kong.

40. Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The current concept of public road planning in Tai Po Area 9 showed that the department did not anticipate the problems that would arise when a substantial number of people would move in in the future. He asked if more than 7 000 households, i.e., about 20 000 to 30 000 people, moved into Tai Po in the future, whether the department had considered the capacity of the roads inside Tai Po District or those towards other districts. (ii) Facilities and service frequency of minibuses and buses in Shui Chuen O Estate

would not increase until the residents had moved in. Although people would move into the housing projects in Tung Chung in 2024, the relevant facilities would not be provided until 2026. As Fu Tip Estate would be completed in the first quarter of 2023 and the HD had just mentioned that there would be facilities such as child care centre, wet market and elderly day care centre, he asked when these facilities were expected to be completed and opened. (iii) He asked whether the TD had any plans or specific bus route proposals to connect Tai Po Area 9 to the urban area in Tai Po and other areas.

41. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) She thanked Members for their comments. She would also convey the comments concerned to the subject officers of the department. (ii) The HD would allocate the newly built public housing units in accordance with the established policy of public housing allocation, i.e., random computer batching according to the applicant’s order of registration, family size and public housing district, subject to the availability of public housing resources when the applicant was due for allocation. At present, public housing applications were divided into four districts, namely Urban, Extended Urban, New Territories and Islands districts, and Tai Po District belonged to the New Territories. For the sake of fairness, all eligible public housing applicants who had chosen the New Territories would have the opportunity to be allocated with public housing units in Tai Po District, including newly built and recovered units. Therefore, the HD could not accord priority to the public housing applicants and residents affected by clearance who were living in Tai Po by allocating them with public housing units in Tai Po Area 9 and Fu Tip Estate. In addition, applicants generally could not request to live in a specific district, housing estate, new / recovered unit, unit type or facilities, etc. Under special circumstances, if applicants had medical reasons and / or social factors that supported their special allocation requests, and were recommended by the relevant government departments or institutions (such as the Social Welfare Department or the Hospital Authority), the HD would try to make an arrangement according to the recommended allocation request wherever possible, subject to the availability of resources, on a case-by-case basis. (iii) In principle, the HD would refer to the completion date of the housing estate and try its best to arrange for the facilities to be completed at the same time, so as to facilitate the residents.

42. Ms. Kathy CHAN indicated that the policy bureaux and departments of the Government would draw up, review and update the relevant HKPSG in a timely manner in accordance with the

policy scopes and development needs under their purview. For instance, in recent years, a population-based calculation standard had been introduced to the HKPSG for social welfare facilities. As the standards on the number of parking spaces were determined by the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) and the TD, it would be more appropriate for the departments concerned to respond to it. As regards the suggestion on constructing underground car parks at facilities such as schools and parks, the Plan D would co-operate by way of reviewing the needs for submitting a planning application or rezoning, etc., if the relevant policy bureaux or departments found the suggestion necessary and feasible.

43. Mr. PANG Hiu-fung responded as follows:

(i) The TD was preparing to carry out a regional traffic and transportation study in Tai Po. The study would review the overall traffic condition in Tai Po, look for effective ways to deal with the overall traffic problems at busy road sections in Tai Po, and recommend appropriate traffic improvement facilities and road safety facilities. Tender was being invited for the study concerned which was expected to begin in August 2020. With the progress of the study and the results of the consultancy study, the department might implement short-term traffic management measures as regards the traffic condition at certain locations, including Nam Wan Road, Kwong Fuk Road and in the area of Tai Po Centre, so as to improve the traffic condition in a short period of time, and prepare for longer-term projects where works had to be carried out. The department would consult the DC on the measures concerned in a timely manner. (ii) The TD would come up with the criteria for parking spaces for private vehicles in the HKPSG. In addition, the TD was also reviewing the content with the aim of increasing the number of parking spaces for private vehicles in future housing development projects. The TD would consult the stakeholders on the proposed amendments in a timely manner, and the revised guidelines was expected to be promulgated in 2020. (iii) Regarding Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s concern about the bus and minibus routes in Tai Po Area 9, he would reply him after obtaining the relevant information from the Transport Officers of the department after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: As regards the reply mentioned in Paragraph 43(iii) above, the Transport Operations (New Territories) Division of the TD explained to Mr. WONG Siu-kin by phone on 24 June 2020 that the department had been keeping an eye on the development and move-in date of the housing project in Tai Po Area 9. As for the bus routes, the DC would usually be consulted by way of bus route development one year before the completion and move-in date of the housing estate.)

44. Mr. Johnny CHAN said that the traffic assessment study carried out by the CEDD was an assessment on the existing roads mainly based on the estimated traffic flow generated from different parts of the development projects in Tai Po Area 9, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West (such as residential units, schools and markets), so as to understand the impact of the development projects on roads and junctions. The improvement works on the three junctions proposed in the report concerned were already in progress and were expected to be completed in the middle of 2020. The report concerned had also been vetted and approved by the TD and the HD.

45. Mr. LAM Yick-kuen said that there were four districts for the allocation of public housing units, and Tai Po Area 9 belonged to New Territories district. The facilities (such as transportation facilities) for public housings in Urban district were better than those in Tai Po Area 9. He opined that most members of the public would choose public housings in Urban district due to factors such as transportation expenses, commuting time and school nets, etc. He asked whether the HD would provide more parking facilities and other facilities for public housings in the rural area, or consider adopting designs for public housings in New Territories and Islands districts that were different from those in Urban district, so as to provide members of the public an incentive to opt for public housings in New Territories and Islands districts. To him, the designs of all public housings in Hong Kong were exactly the same. There was no difference in terms of unit size and living area per capita, etc., while the designs of public housings and HOS units had not been enhanced for quite some time. In addition, as the exterior design of HOS units and public housings allowed people to easily identify them as public housings or HOS units, it might have a labelling effect and affect the residents’ feelings.

46. Mr. MAN Nim-chi asked, as the remarks of Item 2.1 of the planning brief of Tai Po Area 9 / Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West of the HD were endorsed by the District Planning Conference on 9 May 2016, whether it meant that some items under the project, such as the number of rental housing units, could be fine-tuned. He also asked what the item that the Plan D mentioned could be fine-tuned was. In addition, he would like to follow up on Mr. Patrick MO’s question just then, that whether the entire development project of Tai Po Area 9 could only serve as public housing units, or if there could be changes.

47. Mr. Patrick MO said that to his understanding, the HD would try to adopt local rehousing as far as possible when rebuilding old estates, as in the cases of Upper and Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estates. Meanwhile, the Urban Renewal Authority would also offer a compensation based on the value of a seven-year-old unit in the same region when acquiring an old building. Therefore, local rehousing was a reasonable expectation for the affected residents who also hoped to maintain connection with the old community. In addition, many squatters in his constituency (i.e., ) had been affected by the Government’s acquisition of green area and turning them into

private housing. The Government had the responsibility to take into account the feelings of residents as much as possible, rather than provided housing units in Fanling which were quite far away from major facilities for the affected residents whose lives would change forever. Therefore, he opined that the HD should consider handling the rehousing cases of the affected villagers in a flexible manner.

48. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that there was a shortage of parking spaces in Tai Po District. The DC had been proposing the construction of underground car parks for some time, and had also proposed building them in the complex project of Tai Po Area 1, the park near Law Ting Pong Secondary School, the playground in Ha Hang Area 31 and the development project of Tai Po Area 9. However, the Plan D had passed the buck to the THB without offering any solution. This agenda item asked for a discussion on improving the issue, rather than the departments to pass the buck. In addition, he opined that the relevant guidelines of the HKPSG were outdated and Tai Po was also facing a shortage of parking spaces. Therefore, he hoped that the various departments could put forward effective solutions to deal with the shortage of parking spaces in Tai Po District.

49. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the Plan D had just stated that it would not mind amending the HKPSG if the departments found it necessary. He would like to know which departments could make a request to amend the HKPSG, so that DC Members could make a request to them.

50. The Chairman’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He had mentioned on different occasions that the HKPSG was outdated. The existing criteria were not in line with the actual situation, and future development planning by the departments based on the HKPSG could not meet the future needs. After the facilities were completed, people’s needs had increased accordingly. He hoped that the Plan D would revise the HKPSG as soon as possible and think about ways to meet the needs of social development, instead of applying the planning standards drawn up more than 30 years ago to the development 30 years later. The department had to be more forward-looking.

(ii) He asked whether the departments concerned could reconsider adding a road from Fu Tip Estate to Fung Yuen before the completion of the works project of Tai Po Area 9. He indicated that at the beginning of the planning for Fu Tip Estate, DC Members were worried that Fu Tip Estate would encounter traffic congestion or obstruction to rescue as there was only one road. In addition, whether it was at the TTC meetings or this meeting, the TD or other departments had indicated that they would study several junctions in the district so as to improve the congestion on Nam Wan Road from the crossroad of Fu Heng Estate to the crossroad of Tai Wo Road. However, he still did not know how improvements could be made by the departments. He asked whether the departments concerned could explain the

preliminary plans to Members.

(iii) As the new term of DC had just begun, some new DC Members might not be familiar with the papers, plans and condition of the work sites of Tai Po Area 9. He hoped that the departments would provide the relevant papers for Members to get a grasp on the development project concerned.

(iv) Although the HD had indicated that it had no plans to rebuild Tai Yuen Estate, there was no land available in Tai Po town centre for the construction of public housing and rehousing of residents of old housing estates. If Tai Yuen Estate was to be rebuilt, it would take years to plan and complete the works. He hoped that the department would think about the planning of the entire community.

51. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) The designs of new housing estates and HOS units were based on family size and established planning requirements. (ii) When new housing estates were completed, the HD would generally allocate the units in accordance with the public housing allocation policy. To her understanding, a small number of units would be reserved for the residents affected by clearance, but the arrangements concerned would be dealt with by the Public Rental Housing Application Section of the department. She would convey Members’ comments to the section concerned after the meeting. (iii) There was no plan to rebuild Tai Yuen Estate for the time being.

52. Mr. PANG Hiu-fung said that the TD would review the requirements on parking space for private vehicles in the HKPSG, so as to increase the number of parking spaces for private vehicles in future housing development projects. In addition, regarding Members’ concern that there was only one road connecting Chung Nga Road and Tai Po Area 9, the TD would closely monitor the traffic condition concerned. In addition, the TD would carry out traffic planning and transportation study on the congestion problem at other junctions in the district (such as Nam Wan Road). Tender would be invited in August, and there was no short-term traffic improvement proposal for the time being.

53. Ms. Kathy CHAN responded as follows:

(i) According to the planning brief of Tai Po Area 9 / Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West, the suggested housing type for this development project was public rental housing (public housing), and the remarks stated that the project should retain flexibility to allow changes in the combination of housing types, so as to cope with the changes in the demand for public and subsidised housing (such as HOS units).

Since the number of people in different housing types would be slightly different, should there be a change in the combination or number of housing types, the population-based supporting facilities would have to be fine-tuned correspondingly. (ii) The construction of underground car parks in accordance with the principle of “single site, multiple purposes” was under the TD’s purview. If the department suggested constructing one, the Plan D would work together to review its feasibility.

54. The Chairman asked whether the TD had considered Members’ suggestion to make good use of the underground space to build car parks, such as building them at schools and the development projects of Tai Po Area 9.

55. Mr. PANG Hiu-fung said that he could not provide the relevant information for the time being, and would ask the relevant staff after the meeting to give a reply.

56. Mr. Richard CHAN said that he hoped that the TD would not reply that it had no information. The department should have replied Members that there were such plans and reported on the discussion progress of the plans.

57. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang, the Vice-chairman’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) Since the previous term DC, DC Members had been advocating the construction of underground car parks at Area 9, but there had been no progress so far. On the contrary, an underground car park could be built at Po Heung Estate. He asked whether there were any ways to expedite the construction progress. He said that as a dozen or so elected Members had suggested the construction of underground car parks, he hoped that the departments would consider their views. (ii) He asked whether it was possible to build an additional road behind Nethersole Hospital to connect Ting Kok Road, or a viaduct next to Yung Ting Hin near Fung Yuen to connect Ting Kok Road and Tolo Highway, so as to alleviate the current traffic condition on Ting Lai Road and Chung Nga Road.

58. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that at the meetings of the previous term DC and this meeting, many DC Members had suggested the construction of underground car parks in the district. He hoped that the department would consider adding underground car parks to all planning projects in the area of Tai Po town centre and remote area, so as to increase the number of parking spaces. He also hoped that the department could report on the study outcome of the suggestion concerned and put forward specific proposals at the next meeting, and add the option of constructing underground car park to the new development projects in the district that had not yet started, so as to provide more parking facilities for Tai Po residents.

59. Mr. HO Wai-lam hoped that the departments concerned would consolidate Members’ comments on the provision of car parks or other facilities in the district. As such, the Plan D could take note of their views and put forward specific proposals, instead of resorting to carrying out studies and widening road junctions as the solutions.

60. The Chairman asked the department to reply to the relevant Members via the Secretariat after checking the information relating to the questions raised by Members. In addition, since many Members were highly concerned with the said project and had put forward a lot of comments and questions, the departmental representatives might have to ask the responsible officers concerned of the department about them. Therefore, he suggested incorporating this agenda item into Matters Arising of the next meeting, so as to follow up on the matters relating to the provision of roads and the construction of underground car parks in Tai Po Area 9. He asked the departmental representatives to prepare sufficient information or invite the responsible officers to attend the next meeting so as to answer Members’ questions.

61. The PHWC agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion.

V. Clarification of the management rights and obligations of the Housing Department as a developer and stakeholder for the section of public road between Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court (TPDC Paper No. PHW 6/2020)

62. The Chairman welcomed Mr. TUNG Ching-ho, Engineer / New Territories East (Customer Services) Inspection of the WSD to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

63. Mr. HO Wai-lam outlined the captioned paper.

64. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that regarding the maintenance rights and obligations of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court, the department had already explained in detail at the DC meeting on 5 May 2020. There were flushing water pipe leaks in Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court in mid-January 2020, and the leaks were at the common area and facilities of the housing estate. Both the land lease and deed of mutual covenant (“DMC”) of Fu Heng Estate clearly stipulated that the Owners’ Corporation of Fu Heng Estate and its management company (i.e., the DMC’s manager) were responsible for the maintenance of this area, and the HD had also explained the situation many times through different channels. The Housing Authority (“HA”) still had ownership of some of the residential and non-residential facilities, and had been sharing the management and maintenance cost of the common area and facilities concerned in accordance with the DMC’s requirements and the prescribed number of management shares.

65. Mr. CHENG Wun-chee said that the HyD was not responsible for the maintenance of the road concerned.

66. Mr. Calvin HUI said that the road section concerned belonged to Fu Heng Estate. According to the relevant land lease terms, the property owners of Fu Heng Estate had to be responsible for its repair, but the land lease did not specify who or which party was responsible for it. If it was necessary to clarify the maintenance rights and obligations of the road section concerned among the owners, the documents signed by the HD and each owner should be checked.

67. Mr. TUNG Ching-ho indicated that the WSD was notified of flushing water pipe bursts in Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate on 15 January 2020. The WSD staff then contacted the management company concerned on 16 January, and the two management companies of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court were well aware of their responsibility to repair the public pipes. The management companies concerned completed the maintenance works quickly and the problem that had to be resolved now was how to share the maintenance cost. He explained that the department would only consider whether the WSD was responsible for repairing the pipes, but the WSD was not responsible for the maintenance of pipes in Fu Heng Estate and Ching Nga Court. Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court were housing estates built by the HD in the early days. While the HD was responsible for the maintenance of all the pipes in unsold housing estates, the sold units would operate like a private housing estate that the management company would be responsible for their maintenance.

68. Mr. HO Wai-lam said that the HD and the WSD had been using the “user-pay” principle as a reply since mid-January. While the DMC stipulated that Fu Heng Estate was responsible for repairing the road section concerned, it did not specify how to share the maintenance cost. In contrast, the DMCs of other housing estates clearly specified which party would pay for maintenance. He had just shown the HD representative a picture in which the area inside the gate of Chung Nga Road had been highlighted in brown. When the HD sold the housing estate, it paid Fu Heng Estate $100,000 for handing over the management of the public facilities in the area concerned, which meant that the HD had to share the management rights and obligations of the facilities on the ground. However, it did not deal with the sharing proportion of underground facilities, which was obviously an oversight. He asked why the department was unwilling to cover the loophole concerned. The two housing estates were not unwilling to pay the maintenance cost, but had no idea how to share it. That was why he asked whether the HD had played a co-ordinating role in it. An HD staff once told him that the problem should be dealt with by the two housing estates through legal proceedings, but he disagreed. He mentioned at the previous meeting that the pipes should not be repaired only after numerous unnecessary lawsuits. He hoped that the HD would take the matters concerned seriously.

69. The Chairman asked whether Mr. HO Wai-lam would like the HD to clearly define the proportion of cost sharing among the two parties was because the land lease had stipulated the rights and obligations of each party, but not the proportion they had to be responsible for.

70. Mr. HO Wai-lam indicated that the two housing estates concerned were willing to pay for the expenses. He asked why the HD could not help the two parties clarify the proportion of rights and obligation so as to save the unnecessary lawsuits. He also asked what should be done if another pipe burst took place at this road section in the future.

71. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that the HD’s emergency vehicular access between Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate had not been properly managed for many years. The flushing water pipe burst had given rise to many problems relating to engineering concepts, such as the concepts of ground and underground level. He continued that the HD was only passing the buck when it said that Fu Heng Estate could enter the underground area to carry out maintenance works, while the department would not manage it. As there were vehicles accessing this road section, it had also given rise to problems such as vehicle control, security and pedestrian flow. He understood that there were restrictions in the DMCs for sold housing estates, but it did not specify the proportion of cost sharing. At the DC meeting, he had also talked about the area in the square mentioned by Mr. HO Wai-lam not long ago. Even though the area was in a dilapidated state, vehicles from Fu Heng Estate, Chung Nga Court and the car park of Link REIT would all go past it. If Fu Heng Estate was responsible for the management of the area concerned, could it lower the gate to prevent the access of other vehicles? The HD should propose the proportion of cost sharing or specific ways to deal with it. The HD was able to pay Fu Heng Estate $100,000 to manage the brown area more than a decade ago. However, when the underground pipe burst, it said that the problem had to be dealt with in accordance with the DMC.

72. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) Regarding the picture provided by DC Members, the DMC of the building concerned clearly stipulated that the HA offered the housing estate a one-off payment of $100,000 at that time to cover any future maintenance cost of the road section in the square. The department did not ask the owners’ corporations or management companies to resort to lawsuits to clarify the proportion of cost sharing. Instead, it wanted the management companies to seek legal advice so as to allay their concerns. Every housing estate had its own management company, which should have the expertise to explain the terms of the DMC and government land lease to the owners’ corporation and its Members. (ii) The water pipe burst in mid-January 2020 took place at the flushing water pipe in the common area of the public housing estate. Regarding a Member’s question about whether the HD was responsible for the facilities on the ground but not

underground pipes, she indicated that the DMC had clearly stipulated that Fu Heng Estate had to allow the nearby land (including Chung Nga Court) to use the facilities of Fu Heng Estate, such as pipelines and pipes, to transport and supply public facilities as well as other utilities (such as water, electricity, towngas, etc.) and access the afore-mentioned land. In addition, the terms also reserved the rights to give the tenants of nearby land free access to Fu Heng Estate for inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of facilities such as the afore-mentioned pipelines and pipes. If Chung Nga Court damaged the road section concerned when carrying out maintenance works for its own facilities under Fu Heng Estate, the housing estate concerned should compensate and pay for the relevant expenses. (iii) Regarding the flushing water pipe burst that took place at the facilities in the common area of the housing estate on 15 January, to put it simply, Fu Heng Estate was responsible for the maintenance of the location concerned. In addition, as the owner of the unsold residential and non-residential facilities of the housing estate, the HA had always been sharing the costs of maintenance and management for the facilities in the common area concerned in accordance with the DMC requirements and the prescribed number of management shares.

73. The Chairman said that according to the HD’s reply, Fu Heng Estate was responsible for the maintenance of the road section concerned. In other words, other stakeholders, including Chung Nga Court, were not responsible for it. In addition, as Fu Heng Estate was responsible for dealing with the road section concerned, it meant that there were three stakeholders, namely the Owners’ Corporation of Fu Heng Estate, the HD and Link Asset Management Limited, which were responsible for the sold part, unsold part and shopping arcades of the housing estate respectively.

74. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that the Chairman’s statement was correct. She reiterated that the HD had been sharing the daily maintenance and management cost of the facilities in the common area concerned in accordance with the DMC requirements and the prescribed number of management shares.

75. Mr. HO Wai-lam said that the HD originally replied Members that it adopted the “user-pay” principle, but now indicated that the housing estate using the pipes concerned needed not share the maintenance cost. Based on that statement, as Fu Heng Estate was responsible for managing the pipes concerned, if similar incidents took place in the future, would Fu Heng Estate have the rights to suspend water supply for more than a month after consulting legal advice through normal procedures, thus depriving other housing estates of water supply?

76. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that if the HD did not try to find out the proportion of cost sharing, the conflict between the residents of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court would only deepen. Residents of Chung Nga Court might hate Mr. HO Wai-lam for Fu Heng Estate taking away

Chung Nga Court’s money, while residents of Fu Heng Estate would also hate him for representing Chung Nga Court. Therefore, he hoped that the HD would help look for a solution. He also asked what criteria or data the HD used to come to the conclusion of paying Fu Heng Estate $100,000 on behalf of Chung Nga Court as the maintenance cost for the afore-mentioned area in the square.

77. The Chairman said that the pipe concerned, located at the underground of Fu Heng Estate, supplied water to Chung Nga Court, and would not affect Fu Heng Estate even if it burst. Fu Heng Estate just happened to be responsible for the maintenance of the road section concerned. In other words, Fu Heng Estate had the rights not to repair it and Chung Nga Court would have no flushing water supply as a result. He found such a distribution of rights and obligation unfair as the residents of Chung Nga Court were the ones who suffered, while Fu Heng Estate was the one who paid for the cost. He asked whether the HD could clarify the rights and obligation concerned so that Chung Nga Court, as a user, had to shoulder its share of responsibilities. He also hoped that the HD would respond in detail.

78. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she fully understood the conflicts between Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate over this incident. However, there were more than one Tenants Purchase Scheme (“TPS”) housing estate under the HA. As she mentioned earlier, the government land lease and the DMCs of the buildings had set out the rights and obligations of each HOS or TPS housing estate in full with no grey area. She would ask the relevant officers how the HD decided to pay $100,000 for the maintenance of the afore-mentioned road section in the square years ago, so as to understand what information was used to come up with the amount.

(Post-meeting note: According to Remark 8 in the sales brochure of Fu Heng Estate, the owners of Fu Heng Estate had to allow the Government, as well as the owners, residents, visitors, other authorised persons and their vehicles of the neighbouring Chung Nga Court (Tai Po Town Lot No. 89). to use part of its vehicular access. Owners of Fu Heng Estate were responsible for part of the management, repair and maintenance, while the expenses would be shared according to the proportion of the construction area of Fu Heng Estate and the neighbouring Chung Nga Court (Tai Po Town Lot No. 89). Based on the afore-mentioned proportion, the HA was responsible for 25% of the total expenses for the use of the afore-mentioned part on behalf of the neighbouring Chung Nga Court (Tai Po Town Lot No. 89).)

79. Mr. HO Wai-lam asked whether the HD would deploy staff for the co-ordination work. If the HD was willing to do so, the afore-mentioned problem would be easily resolved.

80. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that the HA representative who was in charge of Fu Heng Estate often provided advice on the daily management of the housing estate and attended the management committee meetings, so as to communicate with different stakeholders on various

problems.

81. Mr. HO Wai-lam opined that the HD was passing the buck. He also asked why the cost could not be shared according to the proportion of ownership or population, etc.

82. The Chairman asked Mr. HO Wai-lam and Mr. MAN Nim-chi to review with the housing estates and the HD whether there was still room for discussion. If they had any difficulties, they could refer the matter to the PHWC for follow-up action, or invite the subject officer of the department to the meeting for answering Members’ questions and co-ordination.

VI. Concerns about the latest development of converting Trackside Villas in Tai Po into a “T-Home” Transitional Housing Scheme (TPDC Papers No. PHW 7/2020, PHW 8/2020 and PHW 9/2020)

83. The Chairman welcomed Mr. WONG Ying-kit, Romulus, Mr. FU Siu-lim, Gary, and Ms. LEUNG Ka-yan, Christine, Assistant General Manager (Property Management), Assistant General Manager (Corporate and Community Relations) and Property Manager respectively of the HKHS to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. He said that the MTR Corporation Limited (“MTR”) informed the Secretariat via email on 4 May that it was unable to send any representative to the meeting due to business arrangements. However, it had provided a written reply as regards the agenda item concerned earlier. Members could refer to TPDC Paper No. PHW 9/2020 for details.

84. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho outlined the captioned paper.

85. Mr. Romulus WONG responded as follows:

(i) The project involved the MTR and the HKHS. If DC Members and residents had any requests as regards matters under the HKHS’s purview, the HKHS would try its best to respond to and satisfy them. The HKHS held two briefing sessions for the residents of Trackside Villas on 11 January and 18 February respectively to communicate with and explain to a large number of residents, so that they could know more about the mode of operation of Trackside Villas in the future and the contract details. The HKHS had submitted a relevant paper to the Secretariat before attending this meeting. (ii) The MTR would hand over Trackside Villas to the HKHS for operation and management on 1 August 2020 for transitional housing purpose for a period of five years, i.e., from 1 August 2020 to 31 July 2025. The HKHS would renovate 185 units as transitional housing for those in need. The HKHS tentatively planned to

accept public applications from mid-to-late May. According to the schedule, it was hoped that the first batch of people in need could move into Trackside Villas on 1 August. (iii) During the two afore-mentioned briefing sessions, residents asked about the shuttle bus services and maintenance arrangements for the units in the future. The MTR would reply on the shuttle bus arrangement. As for the units’ repair, the HKHS would be responsible for the repair if the interior installation was damaged due to normal wear and tear instead of vandalism. Such an arrangement was more or less in line with how the HKHS operated its public housing estates. In addition, residents also asked about the communication mechanism of Trackside Villas in the future. In this regard, the HKHS indicated that its staff would be stationed at Trackside Villas for direct management. The residents were relieved to know that they could reflect opinions to the HKHS staff stationed at the estate at any time. Some MTR staff who were still living in Trackside Villas were worried that the renovation works in the future would cause nuisance to them. While the HKHS explained that renovation works were inevitably noisy, it also pledged to make proper arrangements wherever possible. As some employees on shift duty might have to rest at home during day time, the HKHS also pledged to maintain close contact with them when carrying out renovation works in the future, and would also try to postpone the drilling works as much as possible so that MTR staff could rest in the morning. (iv) The arrangement upon the expiry of five-year rental period was subject to the future intentions of the Government and the MTR. After people had moved into Trackside Villas, the HKHS would once again discuss with the relevant units in a timely manner.

86. Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He asked what contract based on which the HKHS and the MTR pledged to the DC that the MTR would hand over Trackside Villas to the HKHS for management. If the MTR would no longer work with the HKHS five years later, Trackside Villas would be handed back to the MTR for management, and the renovation cost of Trackside Villas funded by public coffers would have been spent in vain. In other words, the Government would have paid the renovation cost on behalf of the MTR. (ii) He asked whether the renovation cost would be fully paid by the HKHS or shared with the MTR, and about the legal basis of the contract. (iii) To his knowledge, Trackside Villas had clubhouse facilities (including a swimming pool and a fitness centre, etc.). Therefore, he asked whether these facilities would be open to residents after the HKHS had taken over the full management of

Trackside Villas in the future. If yes, which party would be responsible for the management, and would additional fees be necessary?

87. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho said that some residents told him earlier that the HKHS would deploy on-site supervisors to several vacant units while renovation works were underway. He was pleased with the arrangement and opined that it could minimise the impact on the households. He asked that after the completion of renovation works, if the household on the upper floor unit was a HKHS tenant while that on the lower floor unit an MTR employee, and water seepage on the upper floor unit had affected the lower floor unit, whether the on-site HKHS staff would help deal with it. If no, how would they expect to deal with these disputes?

88. Mr. Romulus WONG responded as follows:

(i) According to the land lease, the lot of Trackside Villas was used as a staff quarters of the former Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, and the HKHS and the MTR had secured the Government’s support before launching the transitional housing project. In addition, the MTR had also applied to the Lands D for an exemption to change the original land grant provision of the project concerned to turn it into a transitional housing project for a period of five years. On this basis, the HKHS would sign an agreement with the MTR to set out the management and mode of operation of the project during the five-year rental period, as well as the HKHS’s role in the project. Put it simply, the MTR would hand over the entire project (including the site and units) to the HKHS during the afore-mentioned five-year period, and the HKHS would manage and operate the project on a self-finance basis to provide transitional housing for those in need. (ii) As for the renovation cost, the HKHS had secured government assistance through the Community Care Fund (“CCF”) to fund the renovation of vacant units in Trackside Villas. The renovation works would comply with the standard of public housing and be carried out on a need basis so as to meet the basic needs of residents, and no additional and extravagant decoration works would be carried out. (iii) In view of the HKHS’s renovation of Trackside Villas as a transitional housing, the MTR had also decided that the MTR staff clubhouse facilities would stop running during that period. The HKHS would not use additional resources to run the clubhouse as transitional housing was aimed at meeting the basic accommodation needs of those in need. (iv) As the HKHS was responsible for the entire project, it would operate the project in more or less the same way as how it was operating its public housing at present. If there was water seepage on an upper-floor unit, all the lower-floor unit had to do was to inform the HKHS, and the HKHS would deal with it directly and resolve the

seepage problem with no referral needed.

89. Mr. WONG Siu-kin’s questions were as follows:

(i) As the HKHS indicated that it would use the CCF to pay for renovation, he asked about the cost of the entire renovation project and whether the CCF would cover the amount in full. (ii) As the HKHS used public money to renovate an MTR staff quarters, he asked whether the HKHS would be concerned about the suspected transfer of benefits if the MTR restore the ownership of Trackside Villas after the contract expired five years later. In addition, had the HKHS discussed or negotiated with the MTR regarding the cost of the works? What would be the consequences if the MTR decided to restore its management rights five years later?

(iii) He asked that if the clubhouse would cease operation, whether the HKHS would rebuild the club house for residential use. As public housing estates might have facilities such as basketball courts and cricket grounds, he asked why Trackside Villas, as a transitional housing project, would provide no recreational facilities for its residents and stopped running its clubhouse facilities.

90. Mr. Romulus WONG responded as follows:

(i) The Government assisted the HKHS in applying for the CCF, and there were different mechanisms to monitor the use of funding during the process. Based on the current situation, after receiving funding for the entire project, the HKHS would appoint a contractor to renovate the units in accordance with the normal tender procedures. As mentioned earlier, the renovation criteria were more or less the same as those of the public housing under the HKHS’s purview. After the completion of the entire project, the CCF had to submit a report and review whether there were any changes in the number of works projects, while the HKHS also had to submit a complete financial report to the CCF. The funding, if unused, could not be used for other purposes, as it could only be used for the renovation of Trackside Villas. (ii) The HKHS had no plans to rebuild the clubhouse for residential use for the time being, as it opined that the main purpose of the project was to resolve the housing problem of those in need. As running a clubhouse cost money, the HKHS did not want to increase the cost of Trackside Villas project and affect the rental level of those who had to move in. The HKHS would like to spend the money only if and when necessary, and thus would not run the clubhouse facilities. (iii) The HKHS had carried out on-site inspections before rolling out the project. As it

opined that the units had to be renovated before allowing those in need to move in, and the units should not be too extravagant, it would refer to the basic living standard of public housing. At present, the project had set a goal of five years, and it should be more than enough for those in need to live there for five years.

VII. Strong objection against the rezoning application for Tsiu Hang in Tai Po (TPDC Paper No. PHW 10/2020)

91. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho outlined the captioned paper.

92. The Chairman said that the TD had submitted a written reply to DC Members’ paper. He asked Members to note that the reply was sent to Members by email on 8 May and was now on the meeting table.

93. Ms. Kathy CHAN said that the rezoning application concerned was submitted by a private developer, not by the Government. Therefore, the Government was not obliged to consult the DC on this rezoning application. The Plan D had consulted the relevant government departments (including the TD) on this rezoning application. In addition, according to the Town Planning Ordinance, public comments received during the statutory exhibition period would be submitted to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) together with the rezoning application for consideration. Since the statutory exhibition period had expired, if DC Members or the PHWC would like to express opinions as regards the captioned paper to the TPB, they could do so in the form of departmental comments via the TPDO.

94. Mr. Patrick MO’s questions were as follows:

(i) After going through the papers, he noticed that the developer had originally applied for the construction of 600 to 700 units, and the application had also been approved. Therefore, he would like to know why the application was approved. (ii) From the perspective of public administration, everything had to follow the established procedures. For instance, the Government’s decision to produce the reusable CuMask+ without inviting tenders had been questioned by many members of the public. While a lot of interests and benefits were involved in this project, the Government had not considered taking it forward by way of public auction or Application Mechanism. Such a move might be questioned by members of the public.

95. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho said that the area was poorly planned with no government, recreational and parking facilities nearby. The projects in Tsiu Hang and Yau King Lane would

provide an additional 4 000 or so units in the future. Without proper planning, the situation would only get worse. Although the Plan D had zoned some of the nearby land as “Government, Institution or Community” sites that could be used for government, parking or public facilities, if no government department was willing to build the facilities there, he was worried that the department had no authority to make such a request.

96. Ms. Kathy CHAN responded as follows:

(i) The original plot ratio of the site was 0.6. Later, the private developer applied to the TPB to increase it to 1.2. According to the government policy at that time, if the technical assessment (on various aspects such as the carrying capacity of transportation and infrastructure, as well as the impact on the surrounding environment) had shown that such an increase was feasible, consideration could be given to approve the application to double the plot ratio of a low-density development land with a plot ratio of less than 1. Since the technical assessment report submitted by the applicant at that time had shown that there would not be any negative impact, the TPB had approved the rezoning application concerned. (ii) The land use zones on the outline zoning plan were of a general nature. As to when these land uses would be put in place, the departments concerned would make a decision in accordance with their resources and priority.

97. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He was disappointed with the department’s reply. There were no government facilities or shopping arcades in the area of Tsiu Hang and Yau King Lane. If the departments started constructing these facilities only after the residents had moved in, the residents would have to take transportation to somewhere else to meet their daily needs while waiting for the construction to complete. As a result, it would also increase the traffic burden of the nearby area. If these facilities were not constructed after planning, it would make life very difficult for the residents there. (ii) To his knowledge, there was a site in Tsiu Hang that was temporarily under the CEDD’s purview. Therefore, he would like to know whether a bus terminus would be built there. If yes, he hoped that the department would provide the relevant timetable.

98. Mr. Patrick MO asked whether the department would consider developing the land by way of public auction, so as to enhance transparency and allay public concern.

99. Ms. Kathy CHAN said that the proposal to set up a public transport interchange in Tsiu Hang

would be taken forward by the TD. In addition, as the land concerned was partly owned by the private sector and partly owned by the Government, the Government could not put the entire land to public auction.

100. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho hoped that the Secretariat would ask the TD about the questions he had just posed after the meeting, including when the bus terminus would be put in place, ways to resolve the traffic problems nearby (including the narrowness of the area near Yau King Lane Roundabout), and shortage of car parks, etc.

101. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to follow up on the matters concerned with Mr. YIU Kwan-ho after the meeting, and convey the questions to the TD.

VIII. Request to discuss the suspected illegal construction of fencing at Tai Po Police Station and the Hong Kong Police Force New Territories North Regional Headquarters and the occupation of public places by water-filled barriers (TPDC Paper No. PHW 11/2020)

102. Mr. KWAN Wing-yip outlined the captioned paper. He added that as the fences concerned were constructed by the Architectural Services Department (“ArchSD”) which was unable to send any representative to this meeting, if the PHWC would continue to discuss this agenda item at the next meeting, he hoped that the ArchSD representative could attend the meeting.

103. The Chairman said that the ArchSD had submitted a written reply to Members’ paper. He asked Members to note that the reply was sent to Members by email on 8 May and was now on the meeting table.

104. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen said that the Lands D was responsible for lands administration work, including leasing, allocation and recovery of land for various development purposes and other purposes, as well as regulating government land in accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28). The Ordinance stipulated that its provisions would not affect the rights or authority obtained by the Government or any public officers through other legislation. It meant that the use of government land by government departments for official duties would not constitute illegal occupation of government land under the Ordinance.

105. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s questions were as follows:

(i) Government departments might have obtained the Lands D’s authorisation before putting in place temporary facilities such as water-filled barriers or metal barriers, and would remove them after the completion of works project or activity.

However, the water-filled barriers placed outside Tai Po Police Station was huge and were obstructing the road. He asked how the Lands D would deal with it if members of the public complained about these water-filled barriers. Apart from Tai Po District, water barriers had also been set up outside the police stations in North Point and Mong Kok and occupied part of the pedestrian walkways. Pedestrians had to cross the road or walk on the carriageway so as to walk past the pedestrian walkway outside the police station. He asked whether it was legal to use water-filled barriers to occupy the pedestrian walkway as an extension of the police station, and whether such a practice was subject to supervision. (ii) Many members of the public and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department’s Tree Team workers walked past the road outside Tai Po Police Station every day. Although the ArchSD indicated that the design of the fences at the police station could support a certain amount of weight, he wondered whether the three to four-metre-tall walls could support the considerable weight of the two-metre high fences and stainless steel framework built on top of them. In addition, even if the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) had the authority to construct the afore-mentioned facilities, and the relevant designs complied with the building standards, it should have provided the construction data concerned, so that the professional engineers could determine whether the ArchSD’s report was correct. He would like to invite the ArchSD to send staff to the next meeting to provide the technical data concerned.

106. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho said that he was living near Tai Po Police Station, and had witnessed the red hoardings outside the second floor of report room blown around by strong winds in the evening. As pedestrians would walk past the road under the report room, if the water-filled barriers accidentally toppled over and caused injury, whom should the injured hold accountable? Should it be the HKPF which set up the water-filed barriers, or the two departments which approved the setting-up of the water-filled barriers?

107. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that he had been living in Hong Kong for many years and opined that only those who thought they had the authority and were afraid of members of the public would behave like that. As he had earlier advised the government departments at meetings to distant themselves from the government departments who were doing something unjust, he hoped that the Lands D would understand Members’ views. Members were highly concerned with the safety of the pedestrian walkway, the Lands D was practising cronyism towards government departments by saying that it could not remove the water-filled barriers in accordance with the Ordinance. Therefore, he hoped that the department would understand that what members of the public were concerned with was the occupation of government land. He opined that the Government’s law enforcement actions depended on the identity of the person who put the items there. For instance, if he put something on the street, he believed that these items would be removed the very next day.

However, when other government departments took possession of government land by putting items there, the Lands D instead opted to refer to the Ordinance and said that the items could not be removed. He found it unreasonable.

108. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai said that the HKPF had set up the 1.8-metre-tall water-filled barriers outside the police station for a long time. Therefore, Members would like the department to explain the time limit for setting up the water-filled barriers there. As the HKPF had to apply in advance to set up metal barriers, he asked whether application had also been made for setting up water-filled barriers. If the HKPF opined that the social movement was not over yet, or found it necessary to set up water-filled barriers permanently, it might move the water-filled barriers further and further away or even surround the entire police station with them. Apart from drawing safety concerns, what the HKPF was doing also showed that its decisions could override everything. Last Saturday, an elderly person told him that the HKPF nowadays were like military police. It had given him a lot of food for thought. To his understanding, the road outside the police station was not under the HKPF’s purview. If the HKPF could continue to do that, did it mean that it had unlimited authority?

109. The Chairman said that the HKPF installed spotlights outside Tai Po Police Station in January 2020. Although some of them pointed towards the ground, they would still affect the daily routines of nearby residents due to refraction. Therefore, he had been asking the HKPF to change the direction of spotlights. While spotlight maintenance and changing their direction had to be carried out by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (“EMSD”), the HKPF and the EMSD had been passing the buck. As a result, it took two to three months to adjust the spotlights’ angle, and another two to three months to install the covers, before finally resolving the problem. As no department was willing to deal with such a simple problem at the beginning, it eventually took half a year to resolve it. Later, as the complaint had been forwarded to the CE and Commissioner of Police, it was dealt with promptly. All in all, it showed the HKPF’s poor attitude in dealing with the problem. As for the paper submitted by Mr. KWAN Wing-yip, Members were highly concerned with the support capacity of the fences installed on the police station’s walls and whether they could withstand strong winds. As Members were also worried that the water-filled barriers set up for a long time might be aging after being exposed to the weather, and that they might develop issues during the typhoon season, he hoped that the departments concerned would respond to it. In addition, he asked whether the FEHD had the responsibility and authority to deal with the water-filled barriers set up on pedestrian walkways.

110. Mr. WONG Chi-kin said that the government departments concerned usually set up items on the roads for official duties. Should there be enquiries, the FEHD would refer them to the departments concerned for replies.

111. The Chairman said that earlier on, some Members hoped that certain departments (such as

the ArchSD) would continue to respond to the afore-mentioned issues at the next meeting. However, several departments had just indicated that the facilities concerned belonged to the HKPF which, therefore, should answer the questions. Therefore, he would like to invite the HKPF to send staff to the next meeting to respond to them. As mentioned by Mr. YAM Kai-bong earlier, the setting-up of water-filled barriers on the pedestrian walkways had forced the pedestrians to walk on the carriageway, but the government department concerned had not earmarked a safe area for the pedestrians to walk through. Even though the situation took place outside North Point Police Station, he still hoped that the TD would send staff to the next meeting to respond to the questions concerned. He suggested incorporating the agenda item concerned into Matter Arising of the next meeting, and inviting the ArchSD, the HKPF and the TD to send staff to the meeting to respond to the questions.

112. Mr. KWAN Wing-yip would like the Lands D to respond to the comments and questions put forward by Members just then.

113. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen said that the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance governed the government land. This Ordinance stipulated that its provisions would not affect the authority or rights obtained by the Government or any public officers through other legislation, and the use of government land by government departments for official duties would not constitute illegal occupation of government land covered by the Ordinance. As for the uses and safety issues of pedestrian walkways, they were not under the Lands D’s purview.

114. Mr. AU Chun-ho said that as the occupation of government land for official duties was not covered by the Ordinance, he asked whether there were any restrictions on the area of land that government departments could occupy. If a department believed that it could expand the area of land it occupied indefinitely as necessary, the entire pedestrian walkway would be occupied by the department concerned.

115. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the Lands D representative had earlier indicated that the authority of other departments under other legislation was not under the Lands D’s purview. He would like the department to give a clear answer as to under what ordinances the HKPF was allowed to set up the water-filled barriers. Otherwise, the matters concerned would still be under the Lands D’s purview.

116. Mr. Nick LAM indicated that a Lands D official was transferred out after investigating the unauthorised building works involving a high-ranking Police officer. He opined that the Lands D should admit that it was afraid of the HKPF.

117. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen reiterated that according to the Ordinance, its provisions would not affect the authority or rights obtained by government departments or any public officers through

other legislation. Therefore, according to the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance enforced by the Lands D, setting up water-filled barriers did not constitute illegal occupation of government land, and thus did not require the Lands D’s approval in general.

118. Mr. AU Chun-ho said that the Lands D did not answer his question about whether the relevant provisions had restricted the area in which government departments could put their items. He asked whether government departments could occupy the entire road if they were allowed to put items there at will.

119. Mr. Richard CHAN said that the Lands D did not answer his questions either. The Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance cited by the department stipulated that the departments concerned had to be authorised by the relevant ordinance so as to use government land, and that would be the only instance which was not under the Lands D’s purview. He asked about the ordinance and authorisation based on which the HKPF could set up the water-filled barriers concerned. If the HKPF could name the ordinance, the Lands D would have nothing to do with the issues. If the Lands D representative here could not answer the questions, he suggested inviting the District Lands Officer to respond to it.

120. Mr. YAM Kai-bong said that for district minor works, the parties concerned had to apply for an excavation permit before enclosing the construction site and commencing excavation works. For the three enclosed areas outside Tai Po Police Station, including the area outside the entrance and vehicular gates of Tai Po Police Station, as well as the area outside the New Territories North Regional Headquarters, water-filled barriers had been set up on the pedestrian walkways. He asked whether a similar application had to be submitted to the HyD.

121. Mr. CHENG Wun-chee said that as setting up water-filled barriers did not involve road excavation works, it was not necessary to apply for an excavation permit.

122. Mr. Richard CHAN asked whether the HKPF setting up water-filled barriers was under the HyD’s purview.

123. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that as the Lands D stated that the departments concerned performing official duties were not covered by the Ordinance, he would like to know what official duties the HKPF was carrying out and what authority it had obtained that allowed it to set up water-filled barriers on the streets without prior application. He also asked whether there was a time limit for setting up water-filled barriers. He had heard that the HKPF had to put up road signs to block vehicular flow due to traffic problems, but both the HyD or the Lands D required that the sign could not be put up for a period of time longer than what performing the official duties needed. Therefore, he asked whether setting up water-filled barriers outside the police station was governed in a similar way.

124. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen said that there should be other departments that managed the land outside the police station. Therefore, the departments concerned should be responsible for it. As for the ordinance and authority based on which the HKPF could set up the water-filled barriers, he had no relevant information.

(Post-meeting note: After the meeting, the TPDLO asked the Tai Po Police District of HKPF about the ordinance and authority based on which the HKPF could set up water-filled barriers on the periphery of Tai Po Police Station, so as to answer Members’ questions.)

125. Mr. CHENG Wun-chee said that the HyD was mainly responsible for the construction and maintenance of public roads and subsidiary road facilities under its purview. Setting up water-filled barriers on the roads was a traffic management issue that was under the TD’s purview.

126. The Chairman advised that every department should prepare for the relevant information so as to answer the questions posed by Members today at future meetings.

127. Mr. Richard CHAN suggested inviting the District Lands Officer to attend the next meeting to answer Members’ questions. He also asked the Secretariat to invite the relevant subject officer of the TD to attend the next meeting.

(Post-meeting note: The TPDLO contacted Mr. Richard CHAN after the meeting to inform him that the TPDLO had asked the Tai Po Police District of the HKPF about the ordinance and authority based on which the HKPF could set up water-filled barriers on the periphery of Tai Po Police Station, for DC Members’ information at the next meeting. Therefore, Mr. Richard CHAN agreed that the District Lands Officer would not have to attend the next meeting.)

128. Mr. Nick LAM said that as the government departments were passing the buck, he expected that the TD representative would also indicate that the HKPF was responsible for the items on the road, and refer the HKPF-related matters to the HKPF for investigation.

129. The Chairman asked the departments concerned to prepare for the information according to their terms of reference, and continue to follow up on the issues concerned in Matter Arising of the next meeting. He also asked the Secretariat to invite the departments concerned, such as the ArchSD, the HKPF and the TD, to send representatives in charge of the fields concerned to the meeting to answer questions.

IX. Request to follow up on the law enforcement efforts and zoning at the government land in Lai Chi Shan (TPDC Paper No. PHW 12/2020)

130. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong and Mr. Patrick MO outlined Paper No. PHW 12/2020.

131. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen responded as follows:

(i) The TPDLO received the complaint earlier and issued a legal notice in accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance to request the occupier to stop occupying government land before the deadline. As the occupation continued after the deadline, the TPDLO took land control action on 4 May 2020 to clear two container structures on the government land concerned. As someone at the scene indicated that they needed more time to clear one of the containers, the contractor immediately cleared the other one. The TPDLO staff also visited the site this morning and found that the remaining container structure had been cleared. Therefore, the TPDLO would take care of the remaining container structure as soon as possible. (Post-meeting note: The TPDLO’s contractor finished taking down the remaining container structure on 6 June 2020, and put up a government land notice board at a suitable spot on the same day.) (ii) According to records, Lot GLA-TTP811 was allocated to the WSD as a construction site until 31 May 2024, while Lot GLA-TTP770 was allocated to the HyD as a storage until 31 December 2020. In addition, the TPDLO had also received a request from the HyD earlier, hoping to extend the land use period by half a year, i.e., until 30 June 2021. The TPDLO would process the application concerned.

132. Mr. Patrick MO said that many government land in the rural areas had been occupied and turned into open-air car parks. He asked the department to explain what follow-up action would be taken when similar situations took place.

133. Mr. YAM Kai-bong’s comments were as follows:

(i) He hoped that the department would follow up on the matters in points 2 and 3 of the paper as soon as possible. Although the HyD would like to extend the land use period of the government land under the vehicular flyover of Tolo Highway, he opined that many temporary car park lots near the site had been recovered. As such, he would like to turn the site into a temporary car park.

(ii) He hoped that the department would allocate more land for the parking of medium and heavy vehicles. Many medium and heavy vehicles would be parked overnight in the area between Tat Wan Road and Ma Wo Road. As a lot of vehicles would also be parked on both sides of the carriageway during the day, it was somewhat dangerous for the drivers. (iii) Many people rented out rural land for parking purposes. Therefore, the department should formally plan suitable places for members of the public to park their vehicles, so as to improve the planning. (iv) While the HyD stored the materials or spare materials for the noise barrier works of Tolo Highway at the site concerned, these materials had never been moved. He asked whether the HyD could store these materials somewhere else, so as to free up land which was closer to the urban area to be used by the residents in the area of and Lai Chi Shan.

134. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong would like to know the Lands D’s criteria for allocating land to other government departments. One of the land, which was allocated to the HyD to store construction materials near the construction site, was allocated based on the administrative needs of government departments. However, the shortage of parking spaces in the area of Tat Wan Road mentioned by Members was a livelihood issue. As there were not enough parking spaces for large vehicles near Tat Wan Road, large vehicles had to be parked at the roadside. These vehicles would not only be ticketed for illegal parking, but also obstruct other drivers. In addition, the refuse collection vehicles parked on Tat Wan Road would also affect the environmental hygiene. If the department accepted Members’ suggestion and allocated the land concerned for parking purposes, it would show that the department was more concerned about people’s livelihood. In addition, he would like to know whether the WSD would use Lot GLA-TTP811 for the construction of waterworks facilities or other purposes.

135. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen responded as follows:

(i) At present, the department had no information to prove that the site concerned was an illegal open-air fee-charging car park. If the department had such information, it would enhance its land control action. Generally speaking, if the department noticed any vehicles parked on government land, it would refer them to the HKPF for action. (ii) Regarding the planning question posed by Mr. YAM Kai-bong, he asked the Plan D to respond to it. (iii) The TPDLO had allocated the land concerned to the WSD for construction site use until 2024. If the department concerned took the initiative to return the land, reduce its area or shorten the land use period, the TPDLO would deal with it

according to the current guidelines.

136. Mr. WU Yiu-cheong said that his question just then was targeted at the Lands D’s criteria for reviewing land. He asked if the HyD would like to extend the land use period of the borrowed land while the TD would like to use it for parking purposes, what criteria would the Lands D use to decide whether to continue to allocate the land to the same government department or change the land use.

137. Ms. Kathy CHAN said that the afore-mentioned site was government land. According to the Covering Notes of Tai Po Outline Zoning Plan, for any temporary use of land or building (for a period not exceeding five years), as long as it complied with all other relevant legislation and government regulations, it needed not apply to the TPB for planning permission. As regards the proposed temporary car park or construction site uses, the TPB would not be against them as long as the afore-mentioned requirements had been met.

138. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen said that if the departments concerned wanted to extend the land use period of the land allocated, they had to provide reasons for the department’s consideration.

139. Mr. Patrick MO said that the land use period of Lot GLA-TTP770 had now been extended to 2021. He asked whether the department would consult the DC and nearby villages before further extending the land use period of the land concerned in the future. Lai Chi Shan Village hoped that the department could allocate part of the two lands for the construction of a village office. He hoped that the department would take note of the opinions concerned.

X. Annual District Plan of the Housing Department (2021/21) (TPDC Paper No. PHW 13/2020)

140. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin outlined the captioned paper.

141. Mr. LIN Kok-cheung, Dalu said that some residents of Kwong Fuk Estate told him that there was a problem with the water supply pressure of mid-floor households of the buildings. Therefore, he hoped that the HD would meet with him and Mr. YIU Kwan-ho after the meeting to learn about the operation of the water tank. In addition, some residents of Kwong Fuk Estate told him what kind of recreational and sport facilities they would like to have in the estate. He asked whether the HD would review and replace the type of these facilities when replacing the ones.

142. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho asked whether the HD had any plans to improve the water supply pressure in all buildings of Kwong Fuk Estate, except Kwong Yan House and Kwong Wai House. He also asked whether the department would replace all the aging recreational facilities and

elderly fitness facilities in the estate. He suggested the department invite him and Mr. Dalu LIN for an on-site inspection to find out what facilities in Kwong Fuk Estate had to be replaced and when it should be done.

143. Mr. AU Chun-ho’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He hoped that the department would carry out water supply pressure improvement works at the upper-floor households in Tai Yuen Estate in phases, and remind the management office that the road had to be enclosed when lifting the components to the top floor. He pointed out that it was dangerous for the residents to walk onto the carriageway because of road enclosure. (ii) Lots of discarded furniture were often placed near the refuse room of Tai Lok House and had led to rodent problems. He asked whether the HD would consider how to deal with these discarded large furniture so as to improve the environmental hygiene. (iii) Outside his ward office in Tai Lok House, a large part of pedestrian walkway paved with concrete blocks had become uneven due to the growth of tree roots. He asked the department to take note and see whether the paving units there had to be replaced.

144. The Chairman said that at the pervious term Environment, Housing and Works Committee meetings, he mentioned that there were collection points for large refuses next to the refuse rooms of public housing estates, and the broken branches and large refuses nearby would be left there. The FEHD staff once indicated that for large refuses, they had to wait until there was enough to fill up a large refuse truck to send them to the landfills, while the refuse trucks that were not fully loaded could not enter the landfills. In fact, however, several collection points for large refuses had been saturated, and one refuse truck alone could not pick up all the refuses. As a result, there were piles of refuses that had led to serious mosquito, pest and rodent problems. While the HD had indicated that it would discuss with the FEHD and inform the outsourcing management companies and the FEHD to enhance their clean-up efforts, the problem had been going on for more than a year and had not been resolved. Now that the HD was carrying out renovation works for large refuse rooms, he asked whether the department would consider adopting a more effective way to deal with refuses. Otherwise, refuses would continue to be found everywhere and occupy the carriageways and pedestrian walkways, thus affecting the environmental hygiene. He asked the department for assistance. He also indicated that after the residents had moved into Fu Tip Estate, there would be four large public housing estates in Tai Po District, and the amount of refuses would substantially increase. Therefore, he asked the FEHD to increase the frequency of refuse collection.

145. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that for the works in Kwong Fuk Estate, she would inform her colleagues in the property management division to explain the details and timetable of the works project, as well as whether the water supply pressure of other floors had to be enhanced, to the Members concerned after the meeting. As for Tai Yuen Estate, she had taken note of the comments raised by Members and the Chairman, and would forward them to the staff concerned. She would also invite the responsible officers to contact Mr. AU Chun-ho as regards the situation of the concrete paving units outside Tai Lok House to see whether to deal with it together with the works concerned, or take follow-up action next year. As regards refuse collection, she would ask the property managers to contact the Chairman to see if the frequency had to be increased.

146. Mr. WONG Chi-kin said that if it was not possible to pick up all the large refuses in one go, the HD would contact the FEHD staff who would deal with them as soon as possible or on the same day.

147. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho said that for large furniture refuse, apart from stepping up the clean-up efforts, many of the discarded furniture were still usable, and it would be a waste to throw them away. He suggested the HD consider promoting a furniture recycling programme or setting up recycling stations in public housing estates. In addition, there were vehicles from the outside dumping household refuses at the refuse collection points of housing estates, such as those at Kwong Yau House, Kwong Yee House and Kwong Ping House, etc. Therefore, he hoped that the HD would pay attention to the situation concerned.

148. Mr. Dalu LIN asked about the replacement of aging recreational facilities in Kwong Fuk Estate.

149. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she would ask the colleagues concerned to contact Members to see if they needed to visit the site to inspect the situation.

150. Mr. AU Chun-ho said that to his knowledge, rodent guards had been installed at the pipes on the top and ground floors of Tai Wing House. He asked when the device would be installed at the other buildings in the estate.

151. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin said that she would contact the frontline staff to answer Member’s questions.

XI. Amendments to the Draft Hoi Ha Outline Zoning Plan No. S/NE-HH/3 (TPDC Paper No. PHW 14/2020)

152. The Chairman welcomed Ms. CHU Ha-fan, Jessica, Mr. WU Yiu-chung, Tony, Ms. CHAN

Hiu-yan, Sharon, and Mr. WONG Shu-tai, William, District Planning Officer / Sha Tin, Tai Po and North, Senior Town Planner / CPE, Town Planner / CPE 3 and Town Planning Graduate / CPE respectively of the Plan D to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

153. Ms. Jessica CHU said that as the Hoi Ha Outline Zoning Plan involved the rural area that included an indigenous village, the Plan D outlined the amendments to this draft outline to the Rural Committee (“SKNRC”) on 16 April. At this meeting, the department would like to introduce the amendments concerned to Members and canvass their views. The representation period of the amendments was from 3 April to 3 June. She welcomed everyone to submit written representations to the TPB during the representation period.

154. Mr. Tony WU outlined Paper No. PHW 14/2020.

155. Mr. LI Yiu-ban’s comments were as follows:

(i) He thanked the Plan D for visiting the SKNRC on 16 April to outline the project. The matters concerned could be traced to a long time ago. When Hoi Ha Outline Zoning Plan was first drawn up in 2013, it had unfairly and completely deprived the indigenous residents of the New Territories of their rights to apply for the construction of New Territories Small Houses (“Small Houses”). It could be seen from the outline draft that houses had been built on most of the land, and an extremely limited amount of land was available for the construction of Small Houses. (ii) The colonial Government drew up the New Territories Small House Policy in 1972, which stipulated that the area within a 300-foot radius from the edge of the outermost house in a recognised village was a Village Environ, and Small Houses could be built within this area. In the late 1970s, the Government set up a country park system that had substantially reduced the area covered by the afore-mentioned 300-foot radius. All land outside the planning area was country park area while most of the planning area was private agricultural land. In 1991, the Government introduced the Town Planning Ordinance and established Village Type Development (“VTD”) zones for many villages. Regardless of whether it was government land or private land, one could apply for the construction of Small House only inside the zone concerned. In the 1990s, as these remote villages were surrounded by country parks, no planning was carried out. Since 2003, the Government had gradually incorporated 54 enclaves into country parks or drawn up statutory zoning plans. The planning at that time still reserved room for villagers to build Small Houses. Later, due to the TPB’s decisions, the VTD zones had further been reduced. Subsequently, some members of the public filed a judicial review (“JR”), claiming that the TPB had not taken into account the villagers’

demand for Small Houses in the next 10 years when drawing up the plans concerned. In the end, the JR was allowed by the court, and the outline zoning plan was returned to the TPB for re-consideration. The indigenous residents had considered asking the Government to lodge an appeal. However, as they did not agree with the previous version of the plan, if they asked the Government to lodge an appeal, it would mean that they agreed with the plan at that time. Therefore, they did not make such a request in the end, which had resulted in today’s situation. (iii) The earlier JR on Small House concessionary rights ruled that it was a traditional rights for indigenous residents to apply for the construction of Small Houses on private land within the VTD zones. However, one could not apply for the construction of Small House on government land or exchanged land. The Government had lodged an appeal for the ruling concerned. Before deciding whether the indigenous residents could apply for the construction of Small Houses on government land within the VTD zones, the TPB had already promulgated the afore-mentioned draft outline. As most of the land was government land, it had basically deprived the indigenous residents of Hoi Ha of the rights to construct Small Houses. The Government had repeatedly gone back on its pledges. The colonial Government could claim that the rural land was recovered for official purposes, carry out land forming on the suitable land under the Village Expansion Area (“VEA”) scheme, sell it to the eligible persons and charge them the cost of forming land. However, the last VEA in Tai Po was located in Shui Wai, and there was no such land since the re-unification of Hong Kong. As a result, the indigenous residents had been completely deprived of their rights to apply for the construction of Small Houses. (iv) When the Plan D visited the SKNRC to outline the zoning plan earlier, the village representatives were strongly against it. However, as there were just a handful of them, they only hoped that the TPB would wait until the appeal case had concluded to deal with the matters concerned, instead of rushing to approve the draft outline concerned today. Therefore, he would definitely oppose the draft outline concerned, and would also call on the villagers to submit their opinions to the TPB.

156. Mr. TAM Yi-pui’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) Citing the views of Ms. CHAN Ka-lam, Debby, a Member of Sai Kung District Council, as well as “Save Our Country Park” alliance (including Friends of Hoi Ha), he said that when the court ruled against the Government, it questioned how the estimated Small House demand for the next 10 years was calculated. The TPB, in its discussion paper (Paper No. 10626) of the meeting on 3 March 2020, pointed out that the figures on the estimated Small House demand for the next 10 years was

provided by the indigenous inhabitant representatives for the TPDLO’s reference. However, he wondered if there was any substance in these figures . According to the estimate, several dozens or even more than 100 people were expected to apply for the construction of Small Houses between 2013 and 2014. While the figure dropped to single digits in 2019, it had now rebounded slightly. However, between 2010 and 2019, 20 people had submitted applications. Three of the applications were successful, while the remaining 17 had been rejected. According to records, there was zero application in the past two to three years. Therefore, the TPDLO and the indigenous inhabitant representatives should explain how they came up with the estimated figures, so as to support their claim that a large number of people wanted to apply for the construction of Small Houses. (ii) He supported rezoning Green Belt (1) as it could protect the ecological environment more effectively compared with the general Green Belt. He had no opinion on reducing the VTD zone. According to the information provided by Friends of Sai Kung, there was a river at this location that was not shown on the map. As the land there was rather wet, drainage and sewage problems had to be resolved first if houses were to be built there. Friends of Sai Kung opined that the VTD zone should be further reduced so as to shorten its distance to the houses concerned. He opined that while the views were debatable, they were also justified. He inspected the area in March and found limited amount of water in the river. However, he believed that the water volume would increase substantially once the rainy season arrived. Therefore, the department should review whether such a wet piece of land was suitable for development purposes. (iii) The original draft was based on the coastline in the past, and the water level had risen due to the loss of marine sand. If the Coastal Protection Area was not set according to the high water mark at present, it would be problematic as the minimum distance from the septic tank and soakaway systems to high water mark would be less than 30 metres, and sewage might be discharged into the sea. He would like to know whether the Plan D had made any improvement in accordance with the court’s ruling earlier. (iv) He asked whether the Secretariat could provide an English translation as regards the discussion of this agenda item.

157. Mr. Terence LEE said that the minutes of DC meetings and committee meetings were all available in English. However, as translation took time, the English version could not be provided immediately.

158. Ms. Jessica CHU responded as follows:

(i) Mr. LI Yiu-ban and the village representatives concerned expressed their concerns to the Plan D on 16 April, and the department had also explained the court’s ruling to them. In light of the court’s decision, the Plan D had collected more information, including the number of Small House applications received, approved and rejected by the Lands D in the past 10 years, the estimated 10-year Small House demand submitted by the indigenous inhabitant representatives in the past 10 years, as well as the Small House applications pending processing by the Lands D, for the TPB’s reference. After reviewing all the afore-mentioned information, the TPB found it necessary to adjust the VTD zone concerned. In this regard, Mr. LI Yiu-ban and villagers could express their views to the TPB. (ii) A professional code of practice drawn up by the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) stipulated that the design and construction of septic tanks and soakaway systems had to comply with the relevant standards and regulations, such as having a 30-metre minimum distance from the high water mark to the river channel. Small House applicants were also required to hire accredited persons to carry out infiltration tests and submit the results to the Lands D to prove that the application site was suitable for installing septic tank and soakaway systems. When dealing with land allocations and applications for Small House construction near existing river channels and Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park, the Lands D also had to consult the departments concerned, including the EPD, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”), the DSD and the Plan D, so as to ensure that all the departments concerned had every opportunity to review and comment on the applications. The department also knew that even for applications for house construction within the VTD zone, the Lands D would also require villagers to carry out infiltration tests and submit the results to ensure that the construction of Small House there would not have any impact on the significant ecological environments such as Hoi Ha Wan. As such, it could be seen that the departments concerned had put in place mechanisms to regulate the septic tank and soakaway systems of Small Houses. (iii) The northern boundary of Hoi Ha Outline Zoning Plan was not set according to the high water mark. Instead, it was totally in line with the boundary of Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park to provide certainty, and avoid dual regulation or the lack of it. In recent years, a group had asked the Survey and Mapping Office (“SMO”) of the Lands D, requesting the department to update the changes in high water mark, and the Lands D had also sent staff to inspect the site. When the Plan D submitted the plan concerned to the TPB for consideration, it had also clearly informed the TPB about the changes in high water mark. For the sake of effective regulation, the boundary of the outline plan had to be seamlessly connected to the boundary of Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park, and should not be changed with the constantly changing high

water mark. (iv) The periphery of the planning area was surrounded by the marine park and country parks. Having reviewed the information of the relevant Small House applications, the TPB opined that the area covered by the VTD zone could be adjusted correspondingly to provide the relevant area with more protection, and therefore proposed rezoning part of the land as Green Belt (1). Stricter conservation control would be implemented in Green Belt (1), but it was not merely because of a river channel. She noted that Friends of Hoi Ha questioned the accuracy of the plan’s map base . In this regard, the TPB made use of the latest survey plans provided by the SMO of the Lands D when drawing up the outline zoning plan. In addition, survey plans were only one of the topographical information, and was mainly used for location reference. The TPB would also refer to other information, including land use survey records, lot boundary records, geological maps, aerial photographs, as well as on-site inspection results of the Plan D and other departments, etc., to determine the appropriate boundaries for land use zoning. At the same time, planning control was not implemented merely based on the map base of the outline plan, but the natural features and activities on the ground. For instance, river diversion and pond filling works would be regulated regardless of whether the river or pond concerned was shown on the map base. If someone diverted the river, reclaimed the land or filled the pond, etc., without permission, the Central Enforcement and Prosecution Section of the Plan D could also take law enforcement action. (v) For any comments, Members could submit written representations to the TPB. After hearing all the representations and relevant comments, the TPB would consider whether further amendments were to be made.

159. Mr. LI Yiu-ban’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) Since 1996, the AFCD had been carrying out consultation on the designation of Hoi Ha Wan as a marine park. When he was the Vice-chairman of the SKNRC at that time, the department said that only the area below the tidal zone would be designated as marine parks, and the living habits and conditions of residents on land would not be interfered with. To this day, many environmental protection groups had repeatedly pointed out that Hoi Ha Village had sewage discharged into Hoi Ha Wan. He opined that as the Government promised at that time that the life of residents on land would not be affected, the Government had the responsibility to set up a centralised sewage system or wastewater treatment system for the villagers in the event of sewage problems. In addition, the small river channel mentioned by Mr. TAM Yi-pui earlier used to be the farming area of villagers. As water flew

downwards, the river channel would disappear in February or March. When a typhoon hit Hong Kong, many rivers would appear in the vicinity. Therefore, he opined that the villagers should not be harassed in such a manner. (ii) Not all village representatives could get in touch with all the residents as some of them were living abroad. However, at a meeting on 16 April, the village representative of Hoi Ha Village stated that 21 indigenous residents had clearly expressed their interest in applying for the construction of Small Houses, and he could provide their names and contact information. (iii) The Plan D referred to the estimated Small House demand for the next 10 years to determine the area of the VTD zone. As the land concerned would maintain the status quo when no one applied for it, and no management or rental payment was required either, he did not understand why the Plan D insisted on reducing the area of the VTD zone and took away the opportunity of the people in need to apply in the future. He opined that as the number of villagers would increase, there was nothing wrong with expanding the VTD zone. Many urban residents mistakenly believed that the indigenous residents of the New Territories were given land at birth for the construction of Small Houses. However, the application process was painstaking instead. He said that the indigenous residents took environmental protection seriously. Otherwise, it would not be possible to set up country parks more than 40 years ago, as the residents of most villages used firewood as their main fuel and to make a living, such as selling them or trading them with boat squatters. However, for the benefit of Hong Kong as a whole, and members of the public happened to switch to kerosene stoves at that time, country parks had been set up. He opined that the sacrifices made by the indigenous residents should not be ignored. All planning work should carry out comprehensive studies to find out the underlying issues so as to plan for the future. We should not ignore history and plan for the future based on today’s situation alone.

160. Mr. TAM Yi-pui’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He agreed with Mr. LI Yiu-ban that the establishment of marine parks in the 1990s was to keep the life of Hoi Ha residents in the south of the marine park unaffected. However, it could not explain why there were only 20 applications for the construction of Small Houses from 2010 to 2019. He asked whether Mr. LI Yiu-ban, when providing the information of these 20-plus people who were interested in applying for the construction of Small Houses in Hoi Ha Village, could also provide information on when they indicated their interest to do so. In addition, the question of whether the poorly drainable wetland was suitable for development purpose also had to be considered.

(ii) He found it necessary to meet the relevant parties before 3 June to discuss and draw up proposals on the issues concerned. As the Government was responsible for safeguarding the water quality of marine parks, the newly-built visitor centre in Hoi Ha Wan would produce sewage, and Hoi Ha region also had ecological value, he hoped that the DSD would send staff to participate in the discussion of the sewage problem in the region concerned. He agreed to expand the Green Belt area, but at the same time understood the position of indigenous residents held by Mr. LI Yiu-ban. Therefore, he hoped that the environmentalists and villagers could directly communicate with each other.

161. Mr. LI Yiu-ban found it very difficult to change the minds of either party, and thus had no intention to continue discussing the issues concerned. The AFCD had built two toilets and bathrooms equipped with a biochemical treatment system in Wan Tsai Campsite near Hoi Ha Wan. The system was highly effective as the waste produced by the facilities had basically been decomposed by bacteria, and the remaining sewage could be directly discharged into the sea. As the site concerned was located outside Tolo Channel, its water quality control was relatively less stringent. If this method was applied to Hoi Ha Wan to treat the sewage from Hoi Ha Visitor Centre and Hoi Ha Village, it would be extremely beneficial to the environment, society and villagers. He estimated that setting up the facilities concerned would cost about $10 million , and there might be maintenance and management cost in the future. The Government had to resolve the sewage treatment problem effectively, and disputes might be avoided if these facilities were installed.

162. The Chairman said that as the afore-mentioned draft outline needed not be endorsed by the DC, Members could submit written representations to the TPB on or before 3 June. In addition, if Mr. TAM Yi-pui found it necessary to convene a co-ordination meeting, he could contact the departments and relevant stakeholders on his own.

XII. Drainage improvement works in Nam Wa Po (TPDC Paper No. PHW 15/2020)

163. The Chairman welcomed Mr. WONG Kam-lun and Ms. HAU Kwan-lee, Senior Engineer / Drainage Projects 4 and Engineer / Drainage Projects 21 respectively of the DSD, as well as Mr. CHAN Tsz-wai, Stanley, and Mr. LAU Yau-fu, Technical Director and Senior Engineer respectively of the AECOM to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

164. Mr. WONG Kam-lun outlined Paper No. PHW 15/2020.

165. Mr. LAM Yick-kuen said that he was the village representative of Nam Wa Po, and was

rather familiar with the flooding problem there. When it rained heavily, there would be severe flooding in a large part of the village, including the farms, squatters and roads near his home. In 2019, there were three to four severe flooding in the village, and urgent improvement was therefore necessary.

166. Mr. MAN Nim-chi said that the drainage in some low-lying areas near Nam Wa Po was being discharged slowly. When the rainy season came, rainwater often could not be discharged in a timely manner. Therefore, he hoped that the department would carry out improvement works as soon as possible.

167. Mr. Richard CHAN said that he used to live in Nam Wa Po and had an in-depth understanding of flooding. Some Nam Wa Po residents had told him that the flooding problem in the village was very serious. As some villagers had drowned after being flushed to Ma Wat River by heavy rainfall, he supported the works concerned. He opined that there was an urgent need to improve drainage, and hoped that the department would resolve the flooding problems in all low-lying areas nearby.

168. Mr. LI Yiu-ban supported the works concerned and raised the following questions:

(i) He would like to know the altitude difference between the inlet and outlet of the drainage channel, so as to understand whether the water pressure at the inlet could cope with the failure of Ma Wat River to drain away the water in time when water rose. (ii) Was there a natural river channel at the location concerned? If all the rainwater flew into the underground box culvert, would the original river channel disappear, or would the river diversion still be there? The presence of water flowing in the natural river channel even when water level was low would not lead to any sudden changes in the ecological environment nearby.

169. Mr. WONG Kam-lun thanked all Members for agreeing with the urgency of the works. He said that flooding in low-lying areas in the village at present was caused by the absence of proper rainwater drains to intercept rainwater from the hills. As such, rainwater would flow along the surface run-off to the low-lying areas and lead to flooding in the village. The rainwater drainage system improvement works currently proposed by the department was to expand an 60-metre long upstream surface drain, that would intercept rainwater from the upstream location and discharge it into Ma Wat River downstream through a 600-metre long underground box culvert.

170. Mr. Stanley CHAN said that the upstream was at an altitude of about +30 metres, and the downstream some +20 metres, with a difference of some 10 metres. As rainwater flew downwards, it would flow downstream along the nature river channel upstream.

171. Mr. Richard CHAN said that when he was living in Nam Wa Po in the past, he had experienced flooding up to the first floor, and could see how severe the flooding was. He asked whether the works concerned could alleviate the backflow of underground water in Nam Wa Po.

172. Mr. MAN Nim-chi asked what data the department had referred to when it decided to build drainage channels in the form of underground box culverts there.

173. Ms. HAU Kwan-lee said that at present, both Nam Wa Po and Tai Hang Village had drainage channels for drainage purpose. However, due to the excessive amount of rainwater from the hills, the existing drainage system could not collect rainwater effectively. The purpose of the works concerned was to intercept the waterflow higher upstream so as to share the burden of the existing drainage system. Both underground box culvert and surface channel made use of the principle of water flowing downwards, and their functions were similar. As the drains went through many areas in the village, including the existing walkways, building them as a box culvert could help maintain these walkways and their uses.

174. Mr. LI Yiu-ban said that when the Government carried out flood relief works for Wai Ha River in the past, he was strongly against the original practice and insisted on using box culvert to drain away the water using water pressure. The works had been completed for more than 10 years, and the system was still highly effective. In addition, as there was diversion in the original natural river channel, some of the rainwater still flew into the natural river channel every day. It had, as a result, maintained the ecological environment of the river concerned, and was actually very important. He hoped that the department would refer to the practice concerned and incorporate eco-friendly concepts into the drainage works so as to improve the environment.

175. The Chairman said that as Mr. LI Yiu-ban was highly experienced in village affairs, he hoped that the department’s officers would listen to his advice.

176. The PHWC supported the captioned works.

XIII. Formation of working groups (TPDC Paper No. PHW 16/2020)

177. The Chairman indicated that pursuant to Order 40(1) of the Standing Orders, a Committee could form no more than three standing working groups at the same time. There was one standing working group under the previous term Committee, namely the Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing Development in Tai Po. He asked Members to refer to Paper No. PHW 16/2020, and consider whether to form a Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing

Development and Management and endorse its terms of reference, or to form new working groups.

178. Members did not have any comment or question.

179. The Chairman announced that the Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing Development and Management would be formed under this term of PHWC, and the relevant terms of reference set out in Paper No. PHW 16/2020 had been endorsed. The Working Group concerned was a standing working group. He invited Members to nominate a Chairman for the working group.

180. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho nominated Mr. MAN Nim-chi as the Chairman of the Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing Development and Management, and the nomination was seconded by Mr. HO Wai-lam. Mr. MAN Nim-chi accepted the nomination.

181. As there was no other nomination, the Chairman announced that Mr. MAN Nim-chi was elected the Chairman of the Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing Development and Management.

X I V. Any other business

182. Members did not raise any other business.

X V. Date of next meeting

183. The next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 13 July 2020 (Monday).

184. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat June 2020