Minutes of the 6Th Meeting of the Economy, Development and Planning Committee (EDPC) Southern District Council (2020-2023) (SDC)

Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the Economy, Development and Planning Committee (EDPC) Southern District Council (2020-2023) (SDC)

Date: 18 May 2021 Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: SDC Conference Room

Present: Mr LO Kin-hei (Chairman of SDC) Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN (Vice-Chairman of SDC and Chairman of EDPC) Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael (Vice-Chairman of EDPC) Mr CHAN Hin-chung Mr CHAN Ping-yeung Ms CHAN Yan-yi Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun Ms LI Shee-lin Mr POON Ping-hong Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus Mr YIM Chun-ho Mr YU Chun-hei, James

Absent: Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany

Secretary: Mr LEE Lok-him, Milton Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance: Mr TSANG Wing-keung, Rico Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department Mr LEUNG Cho-chiu, Mafty Estate Surveyor/Aberdeen, Lands Department Mr. LING Chi-wai, Jimmy Engineer/13 (South), Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms LO Kit-sheung Housing Manager/HKI7, Housing Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Ms FONG Fong, Niki Public Relations Manager – Property & Projects, MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona Associate, DLN Architects Limited

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Professor CHAN Ying-shing Associate Dean (Development and Infrastructure), Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong (HKU) Mr Eddie YIU Senior Assistant Director, Estates Office, HKU Mr Jason LUK Assistant Director, Estates Office, HKU

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed members and standing Government representatives to the meeting, and said the following:

(i) in view of the latest situation of the Coronavirus Disease 2019, this meeting was not open to the public in order to reduce the risk of crowd gathering. EDPC members and media were advised to bring their own masks and water. Before entering the venue, all persons were subject to checking of body temperature with the assistance of the staff of Southern District Office, and are required to use the “LeaveHomeSafe” mobile app to scan the venue QR code, complete a health declaration form and declare whether he/she was under the compulsory quarantine; and (ii) each member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. Moreover, members should inform staff of the Secretariat if they had to leave the meeting early.

2. The Chairman said that, on 13 May 2021, the Secretariat received a “Notification of Absence from Southern District Council/Committee/Working Group Meetings” (Notification of Absence) from Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany, stating that she could not attend this meeting for the reason of “fulfilling civic obligations as required by the law (e.g. serving as a juror or acting as a witness in a trial)”, with the detail being: “not granted bail by the court”. According to the SDC Standing Orders,

the Committee shall decide whether her application of absence should be accepted; and

3. The Chairman asked members whether they would accept the application of absence submitted by Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany. Members had no objection, the Committee accepted the above application of absence.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 5th EDPC Meeting held on 23 March 2021

4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the aforesaid meeting had been circulated to members for comments. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.

5. The minutes were confirmed by the Committee.

Agenda Item 2: Follow up the Latest Progress of Wong Chuk Hang Comprehensive Development Area (EDPC Paper No. 8/2021) (Item raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa)

(Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH joined the meeting at 2:37 p.m.)

6. The Chairman welcomed Ms FONG Fong, Niki, Public Relations Manager - Property and Projects of MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), and Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona, Associate of DLN Architects Limited, to the meeting.

7. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to brief members on the agenda item.

8. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa briefly introduced the agenda item as follows:

(i) He thanked MTRCL representatives for attending the meeting and he was disappointed about the absence of representatives from the Transport Department (TD). He opined that the discussion of the agenda item would involve traffic proposals, and he hoped that TD representatives would

attend the meeting and give response. He asked the Chairman to note the matter and convey the comments to the relevant department, requesting its representatives to attend meetings in the future to show respect; (ii) He learnt that MTRCL would provide a walkway in the Wong Chuk Hang Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) to connect MTR Wong Chuk Hang Station to the junction at Shum Wan Road and also provide public open space (POS). The facilities would be convenient for the public, particularly the residents in the district. He hoped that MTRCL would show members the detailed designs of both facilities; (iii) He hoped that MTRCL would reserve connection point in the CDA for the future construction of a footbridge connecting to the junction at Shum Wan Road. He had suggested an alternative proposal that involved the connection of the CDA and the proposed Wong Chuk Hang Community Complex (WCHCC). However, as far as he knew, the CDA might not be able to connect to WCHCC due to technical constraints, and MTRCL could no longer change the connecting point. Although TD and the Invigorating Island South Office (IISO) had responded more proactively in their written replies than before, the Government had not made any commitment so far. Similarly, no Government Department had made it explicit that it would seek resources for constructing a footbridge, which brought the project to a standstill. SDC initially hoped that the completion of the South Island Line (East) and WCHCC could be synchronised. However, with the commissioning of the South Island Line (East) for a long time, the funding application for constructing WCHCC had still not been submitted to the Legislative Council for deliberation mainly because of the failure to confirm the connecting location of the footbridge and the project cost required; (iv) IISO had mentioned in its written reply that it hoped to provide convenience to pedestrians going to and from the vicinity of Wong Chuk Hang and improve the traffic situation. He considered that TD and relevant departments should take the opportunity to implement the key initiatives in the Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address. In addition, he learnt that IISO was reviewing the redevelopment of Pao Yue Kong Swimming Pool. If the said proposal on footbridge connection could not be implemented in the end, he hoped that IISO would consider connecting the footbridge to Welfare Road and Shum Wan Road near Pao Yue Kong Swimming Pool; and

(v) He hoped that the relevant departments would report to the Committee the latest progress of the WCHCC project.

9. The Chairman said that before the meeting, the Secretariat had invited TD to send representatives to the meeting but the department said that they were not able to do so.

(Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun, Ms LI Shee-lin and Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael joined the meeting at 2:45 p.m., 2:51 p.m. and 2:52 p.m. respectively.)

10. The Chairman invited the representatives of MTRCL to respond.

11. Ms FONG Fong, Niki, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation (PowerPoint 1), gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) The MTR Wong Chuk Hang Station property development had been named “THE SOUTHSIDE”. The project comprised six development packages and had been awarded to different developers to take forward the construction works. The project would include the construction of 14 towers to provide a total of around 5 200 residential units, as well as a shopping mall, POS and a 24-hour covered pedestrian walkway. The packages of the project were expected to be completed in phases from 2022 to 2027; (ii) The social welfare facilities in Package 1 of the project was expected to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2022 and the subsequent work would be undertaken by the Social Welfare Department (SWD). The developer would maintain communication with SWD to ensure a smooth handover; and (iii) The mall in Package 3 of the project was expected to be completed in 2023. By then, the pedestrian walkway connecting the MTR station, the mall, the bus terminus at Nam Long Shan Road, the public light bus terminus at Police School Road and social welfare facilities would also be open 24 hours a day to provide easy access for the public.

12. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona, with the aid of PowerPoint 1, briefly introduced the design of the pedestrian walkway, the mall and POS.

13. The Chairman said that given the complexity of the content of the PowerPoint presentation provided by MTRCL, it was difficult for members to read the information on the display screen in the conference room. He asked the Secretariat to provide the printed version of the PowerPoint presentation or upload it onto the SDC website for members’ reference, and hoped that the relevant department and organisation would submit reference papers to the Secretariat as early as possible in future meetings.

14. The Secretariat provided the printed version of PowerPoint 1 to members and uploaded it onto the SDC website. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona continued to introduce the design of the pedestrian walkway, the mall and POS.

15. The Chairman asked whether MTRCL had prepared a three-dimensional model of CDA for members’ reference. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona responded that it had not been prepared.

16. The Chairman said that in view of the high complexity of the presentation content, the availability of a reference model would provide better clarity.

17. The Chairman invited members to raise comments or enquiries.

18. Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) According to the PowerPoint presentation of MTRCL, both social enterprises and “Government, Institution or Community” (“GI/C”) facilities were co-located in the mall. He enquired about their respective uses and locations; (ii) According to SWD’s written reply, the Hostel for Moderately Mentally Handicapped Persons (HMMH) and the Integrated Vocational Rehabilitation Services Centre (IVRSC) would commence service in 2025-26, i.e. after the intake of most residents of THE SOUTHSIDE. Although the above arrangements had been confirmed in the preliminary planning of the CDA, the developer might not draw the attention of buyers that HMMH and IVRSC would be built in the CDA during the sale of the property. Given the long-term resistance to such social welfare facilities from the public, he was worried that conflicts would arise between the residents and the service users of the social welfare facilities in future, and enquired about MTRCL’s views;

(iii) He requested MTRCL to provide more details on the multi-purpose performance space on LG/F, including whether it was located outdoors or indoors, and whether it was connected to the POS on the same floor; and (iv) Based on the explanation of the representative of MTRCL, mall visitors had to transfer to another lift on 2/F to reach all floors of the mall, and residents had to transfer to another lift when going from their residences to the landscape deck. Considering such arrangement time-consuming and inconvenient, he requested the representative of MTRCL to explain in detail.

19. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He was not too worried that conflicts would arise between the residents of THE SOUTHSIDE and the users of the social welfare facilities, pointing out that people’s dissatisfaction over social welfare facilities stemmed from their discriminatory mindset. He stressed that SDC and the departments concerned had to make it clear that the provision of HMMH and IVRSC in the CDA was a requirement in land grant conditions, and residents should not have discriminatory mindset; (ii) SDC had earlier expressed the hope that the multi-purpose performance space on LG/F would be located indoors which would meet the specifications similar to those of a concert hall for various types of music performances, but in the current design, it seemed that only the open space in the atrium of the mall was designated as multi-purpose performance space. Although it was located indoors, specifications of a concert hall were not adopted, which gave rise to a discrepancy between the actual situation and the original expectations of SDC. He requested the representative of MTRCL to respond; (iii) He considered the design of the pedestrian walkway very complicated and confusing, which would cause inconvenience to the public travelling between MTR Wong Chuk Hang Station and various facilities in the CDA. As the member of the constituency, he had followed up on the 24-hour pedestrian walkway all along, and requested that the provision of the 24-hour pedestrian walkway by MTRCL be stipulated in the land grant conditions of the CDA. Although MTRCL did provide the walkway at present, its design failed to facilitate residents’ access. He therefore queried that MTRCL aimed at discouraging the use of the footbridge to ensure that the privacy of residents would be protected upon intake of

residents of the development project, thereby increasing the appeal of the property and raising its sale price. He hoped that MTRCL would examine afresh the design of the footbridge from the perspective of providing facilitation to the public; and (iv) He enquired whether the covered walkway connecting the mall and the “GI/C” site referred to the road next to the bus terminus or the walkway in the CDA.

20. Mr POON Ping-hong said that based on his work experience in the hostel for mentally handicapped persons, the inhumane arrangement of transferring to another lift in the mall and the tortuous pedestrian walkway would create obstacles to hostel staff and mentally handicapped persons. Coupled with the insufficient number of lifts, inconvenience would also be caused to wheelchair users. He did not expect that the pedestrian walkway could provide a direct access to various social welfare facilities, but hoped that MTRCL could take into account the needs of hostel lodgers and review the design of the pedestrian walkway.

21. The Chairman invited the representative of MTRCL to respond and asked whether more graphics could be provided for reference.

22. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona responded that the difference in the height of Nam Long Shan Road and Heung Yip Road was about 20 metres and the level of the said “GI/C” facilities (i.e. HMMH and IVRSC) was equivalent to 3/F of the mall, which were close to the upper part of Nam Long Shan Road. As escalators and staircases would be provided on 2/F of the mall, people could reach the floor where HMMH and IVRSC were located simply by taking the escalator or walking up one level. To set off from HMMH and IVRSC, people could reach the main area of the mall by taking the escalator or walking down one level to 2/F of the mall. Another point to note was that the pedestrian walkway aimed to enable people to access HMMH and IVRSC safely and comfortably without crossing the vehicular access or being affected by the weather. She stressed that in addition to lifts, escalators and other facilities would be available in the mall for the convenience of the people accessing MTR Wong Chuk Hang Station. She clarified that the 24-hour pedestrian walkway, which would still be open beyond the operating hours of the MTR station, was indicated by the purple line in the PowerPoint presentation. She also reiterated that it was in fact quite convenient to access HMMH and IVRSC during the operating hours of the mall and MTR station.

23. The Chairman asked on which floor of the mall the entrance/exit of the MTR station would be located. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona responded that it would be located on 1/F of the mall.

24. The Chairman continued to ask whether there were ground level entrances of the “GI/C” facilities. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona responded that the main entrance of the said facilities was on ground level, which is equivalent to 2/F of the mall. By walking up one level to 3/F, which is the location of the said facilities, the mall can be reached after passing the covered walkway.

25. The Chairman enquired about the location of the Rehabus stop. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona showed the location to members with the aid of PowerPoint presentation.

26. The Chairman invited the representative of MTRCL to respond to the enquiries about the multi-purpose performance space.

27. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona responded that the performance space was a part of the atrium of the mall and was visually connected with the POS. According to the layout plan and conceptual plan of the mall, the performance space was close to the main entrance of the mall and POS. MTRCL would reserve ancillary facilities for electricity supply in the area to facilitate the staging of various performances.

28. The Chairman invited the representative of MTRCL to further explain how to manage the multi-purpose performance space, e.g. whether reference would be made to the activities organised in MTR Hang Hau Station such as exhibitions, temporary bazaars, etc. Besides, to his understanding, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa hoped that the multi-purpose performance space would be a formal performance venue with a stage, sound equipment and other facilities, rather than just an open space at the atrium of the mall. He requested revising the design of the multi-purpose performance space, otherwise members would not support the development plan.

29. Ms FONG Fong, Niki responded that MTRCL was exploring the usage of the multi-purpose performance space. The initial plan was to allow different organisations to use it for holding activities such as performances and ceremonies, and the addition of new elements to the performance space was also being considered, detailed arrangements are yet to be confirmed. MTRCL would make reference to the practices of other shopping malls, in the hope of providing a comfortable shopping

environment and performance space for shoppers and local people. MTRCL would also maintain communication with members on the above issues after the meeting. In addition, according to the lease conditions, after the completion of the construction works by the developer of Package 1 of the project, the social welfare facilities would be handed over to SWD, which would then select suitable organisations for operation of the facilities. As for the operation of social enterprise facilities in the mall, MTRCL was searching for suitable non-government organisations by liaising with different parties, with a view to understand their operating models and visions, to cater for the needs of residents in the Southern District.

30. The Chairman asked MTRCL to provide a written reply on the management of the multi-purpose performance space after the meeting.

31. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries.

32. Ms CHAN Yan-yi raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) She asked on which floor HMMH and IVRSC would be located. In addition, the mentally handicapped persons living in HMMH might need to take Rehabuses and other vehicles to attend follow-up consultations quite often, and in general they had limited mobility and might even need to wear helmets. It would cause inconvenience to them if they had to transfer to several lifts from HMMH to the car park. She asked whether MTRCL would provide a dedicated vehicular access at the entrance/exit of HMMH for their use; (ii) She asked whether the proposed footbridge and pedestrian walkway were all located indoors and equipped with air-conditioning and ventilation systems; and (iii) She asked whether MTRCL would consider allowing street performers to give non-profit-making performances in the multi-purpose performance space.

33. The Chairman asked the representative of MTRCL to respond.

34. Ms FONG Fong, Niki responded that there would be direct vehicular access to Package 1 with parking space outside HMMH and IVRSC to provide convenience for persons concerned to board or alight from vehicles. In addition, the pedestrian walkway in the mall was barrier-free access with air-conditioning.

35. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona added that she was not the designer of Packages 1 and 2 of the project, but as far as she understood, the covered pedestrian walkway near the bus terminus in Package 2 was semi-indoor. The air-conditioning system would be available after entering the mall through the walkway.

36. The Chairman said he understood that the MTRCL representative in attendance might not have full knowledge of the relevant design. He asked MTRCL to provide detailed information on the pedestrian walkway and multi-purpose performance space after the meeting.

37. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) According to the PowerPoint presentation and explanation of the MTRCL representative, the mall would be equipped with lifts connecting LG/F to 3/F. However, given that no barrier-free facilities were available on 3/F, the service users and staff of HMMH and IVRSC would have to transfer to another lift on 2/F of the mall to reach 3/F. He asked whether under the current design, it was possible to take lift to 3/F directly from LG/F and then walk to HMMH and IVRSC located on the same floor; and (ii) Mr TSUI Yuen-wa had said earlier that the residents of THE SOUTHSIDE should not have discriminatory mindset towards the service users of HMMH and IVRSC as they should have known that the two facilities would be provided in the mall. He could not agree with the statement made by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa for whom he showed great respect, and believed that SDC should promote social inclusion and explain to residents the needs of different people in society, with a view to achieving harmony in the community. Therefore, they should not hold the view that the setting up of HMMH and IVRSC was self-inflicted by residents.

38. The Chairman asked the representative of MTRCL how HMMH and IVRSC were described in the sales brochure. Ms FONG Fong, Niki responded that the developer was responsible for the sales arrangement, without the relevant information in the sales brochure on the spot, it was unable to explain clearly but could provide the supplementary information to members after the meeting.

39. The Chairman invited members to raise comments and enquiries.

40. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He believed that Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun’s criticism against him was a misunderstanding. He was only responding to Mr LO Kin-hei’s concern that the residents of THE SOUTHSIDE might discriminate against the service users of HMMH and IVRSC and treat them with hostility. He clarified that he was only pointing out that the developer had set aside land to build these social welfare facilities at the preliminary stage of the project, and he would despise the residents if they still had discriminatory mindset. He stressed that the statement he had made earlier echoed Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun’s comment, with a common intention to promote social inclusion; (ii) He initially thought that the walkway of the mall in Package 2 was located at grade near the bus terminus, but after clarifying with the MTRCL representative, he was aware that it was actually located on 3/F of the mall. Yet, according to the proposed design, the connecting point of the footbridge would be facing Welfare Road but not Shum Wan Road. If a footbridge was to be built at Shum Wan Road in the future, it would be quite far from the connecting point, and given that the current alternative proposal would connect the footbridge to WCHCC, he opined that the above design was quite different from his initial expectation and the location of the footbridge’s connecting point was inappropriate; and (iii) The MTRCL’s design of the POS was almost the same as the previous design. Although the POS was limited in size, he hoped that MTRCL could provide additional seats and children’s play area, and suggested that sheltered seats be provided. While he understood that POS was a part of the mall, he stressed that POS should be provided for public use, and hoped that MTRCL would come up with a design for the comfort and convenience of the public.

41. The Chairman believed that there would be greater flexibility in the design and planning of POS. He enquired whether MTRCL could adopt creative design and asked about the existing design direction.

42. Ms FONG Fong, Niki noted Mr TSUI Yuen-wa’s concern about the POS design. She pointed out that MTRCL would provide seats near the lawn of POS. It would also consider offering family-friendly facilities for parent-child activities. In

addition, POS aimed to provide comfortable leisure environment for the public with lawn, water feature and family-friendly facilities etc. for all ages.

43. The Chairman asked the MTRCL representative to respond whether they would consider installing shelters for seats.

44. Ms LEE Wing-kei, Fiona responded that part of the POS would be covered by the mall but the proposed seats would be located outdoors.

45. The Chairman asked MTRCL to provide the Committee with the supplementary information about the provision of shelters for seats in the POS after the meeting.

46. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He thanked MTRCL for sending a representative to attend the meeting who had endeavoured to explain the design of the facilities in CDA to members. However, he opined that the PowerPoint presentation was not detailed enough for members to give useful comments solely based on the presentation. He quoted an example that the PowerPoint presentation showed the conceptual plan of the POS. However, he believed that the water feature, greenery sitting space and interactive play sculpture were only preliminary conceptual images. He needed to review the design of seats before giving any constructive comments. He pointed out that MTRCL had the professional knowledge and would need some room for design, he would not give comments at the moment; and (ii) As seen from the shopping malls in other new development areas such as the Lohas Park in Tseung Kwan O, it seemed as if quite many POS were owned by the malls or only open to the residents concerned. According to the conceptual plan of CDA, the POS would be open to the public. He reiterated that he hoped MTRCL and the developer would allow all members of the public to use the said space.

47. The Chairman raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) According to the original design, the POS of a development project near North Point Ferry Pier was a lawn, but a variety of commercial facilities

were available at the location at present. He asked whether activities would likewise be allowed to stage at the POS in CDA, or alternatively, whether a community-oriented approach would be adopted across the board. He asked MTRCL to give a written reply after the meeting; (ii) The main entrance/exit of the mall was facing the underground passage at Wong Chuk Hang Public Transport Interchange (PTI). Characterised by a monotonous design, the PTI was dimly lit, with a vegetation cover barely survived due to the lack of sunlight for a prolonged period of time. The location concerned had become an eyesore. He asked MTRCL to put forward a proposal to enhance the external appearance of the main entrance/exit, e.g. improving natural lighting provision and removing the aesthetically unpleasing vegetation cover. Heung Yip Road had become a major road in Wong Chuk Hang upon completion of Wong Chuk Hang Station. As such, he urged MTRCL to consider enhancing the external appearance of the mall facing Heung Yip Road; (iii) Although the PTI concerned was under the purview of TD, he considered that MTRCL and the developer could put forth concrete proposals to enhance the PTI’s external appearance, including modifying the detailed design and structural plans, SDC would then urge TD and the Highways Department to consider the implementation of the proposals, so as to increase the popularity of Wong Chuk Hang among members of the public; and (iv) He urged MTRCL to undertake to follow up the above matters after the meeting, and report the progress to members at the next meeting.

48. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa raised the following comments and enquiries:

(i) According to the conceptual plan of POS, MTRCL had already set aside a spacious area for emergency access. However, he queried that the emergency access needed not occupy so much space, believing that this arrangement actually aimed to make the mall look even more spectacular. He opined that MTRCL could, instead, utilise space to provide additional seats and parent-child facilities, and that it was essential to provide sheltered seats; and (ii) Package 1 of the development was targeted for completion in 2022. Yet, it was anticipated that the HMMH and IVRSC under SWD would not be completed until 2025. Based on his experience over the years, the actual completion time of the latter might be delayed for a year or two. He

expressed utter disappointment over this. He believed that the developer had finalised the design of the facilities concerned and was putting up flats under Package 1 of the development for sale. Given the lack of action from SWD, he opined that the Government’s administrative issues had caused undue delays in the provision of services for the needy. As SWD had not sent any representative to the meeting, he requested the Secretariat to convey the above comments to SWD accordingly.

49. In closing, the Chairman thanked the representative of MTRCL for attending this meeting, and looked forward to maintaining a close working relationship with MTRCL. He invited its representatives to attend the next meeting with additional information responding to members’ views and suggestions offered. He further welcomed MTRCL to contact members at any time to make meeting arrangements if it is easier to show models or drawings at their offices.

(Post-meeting note: MTRCL is aware of members’ comments and enquiries, and is now conducting in-depth studies on related issues and will continue to maintain communication with members.)

Agenda Item 3: Cyberport Expansion Project (EDPC Paper No. 7/2021)

50. The Chairman said that the representatives of the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) and the Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited (HKCMCL) were absent from this meeting, so he would introduce the captioned issue in his capacity as the member of the constituency concerned.

51. The Chairman gave an introduction with computer slides (Powerpoint 2) as follows:

(i) On 10 May 2021, ITB consulted the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting (the Panel) of LegCo for its views on the Cyberport Expansion Project. On the same day, It also submitted the EDPC Paper No. 7/2021 to the Committee to outline the latest progress of the project, including the construction of the Cyberport 5 and the enhancement of the Cyberport Waterfront Park. ITB hoped to obtain funding approval from the Finance Committee of LegCo in mid-2021, with a view to commencing

the relevant construction works in the fourth quarter of 2021 and completing them in 2025. The residents of Pok Fu Lam were deeply concerned about this expansion project; (ii) At the aforementioned Panel meeting, ITB and HKCMCL played a video about the Cyberport Expansion Project to present its preliminary design concepts. The images of Powerpoint 2 were extracted from the video. He was disappointed that the representatives of ITB and HKCMCL were unable to give an introduction in person at this meeting; (iii) He compared the site plan of the Cyberport Expansion Project with the outline zoning plan, and found that the proposed areas of the Cyberport 5 and the waterfront park did not seem to match with their actual locations. The residents nearby hoped to know the exact location of the Cyberport 5, the budget for the enhancement of the Cyberport Waterfront Park, and how the Cyberport and Sandy Bay would be connected; and (iv) At the Panel meeting, the Secretary for Innovation and Technology said that ITB would maintain communication with various stakeholders to solicit their support for the Cyberport Expansion Project. The Chief Executive Officer of HKCMCL also said that he had reached a consensus with SDC members at the previous SDC meetings to maintain communication with residents through SDC on the improvement measures of the Cyberport in the future. However, he was disappointed that the aforementioned two people could not respond to the relevant enquiries at this meeting.

52. The Chairman invited members to express their views and raise questions.

53. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun said that the turf of the Cyberport Waterfront Park was poorly managed. According to the paper, HKCMCL would re-lay the turf. He asked whether the company would capitalise on the expansion project to explore sustainable modes of turf management. On a different note, although there were numerous start-ups in Hong Kong, from what he knew, even the start-ups which had outstanding products and won prizes found it difficult to secure enough office space to develop their businesses. Moreover, it was pointed out in many news reports that the meeting rooms in the Cyberport had a high vacancy rate. Therefore, he opined that the greatest need was in providing additional office facilities, not large conference halls.

54. The Chairman suggested issuing a letter to ITB and HKCMCL after collecting the views and questions of members.

55. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael put forward the following views and questions:

(i) HKCMCL had all along been supporting and encouraging young people to pursue a career in the innovation and technology sector through different schemes, such as providing them with seed money and start-up funds. He asked if more support could be provided given the current economic slump; (ii) As start-ups were still in the growth stage and not many staff members attended meetings, they might not need to use large conference halls, but needed more office space instead. The Cyberport 5 would provide office and co-working space with a total floor area of about 36 000 square metres. He enquired about the ratio of the area of offices to the area of co-working space; (iii) The construction of the Cyberport 5 would reduce the area of the Cyberport Waterfront Park. However, the park was one of the larger open spaces in the Southern District, where residents of Pok Fu Lam, Wah Fu, Chi Fu and even Stanley go for walking, running and various leisure activities. He asked how the Government Departments concerned would compensate residents for the reduction in park area; and (iv) At the meetings of SDC and various Committees, members repeatedly urged the Government to take forward the construction of the South Island Line (West) (SIL(W)) as soon as possible, and this issue was also of great concern to the Southern District residents. As the Cyberport Expansion Project was expected to create many jobs and the development of the Wong Chuk Hang CDA would increase the traffic burden in the district, it would be difficult to cope with the huge traffic demand without adequate transport facilities. Therefore, he requested ITB to work with the other Departments concerned and maintain close communication with the Committee to take forward the construction of the SIL(W) as soon as possible.

56. The Chairman suggested issuing a letter to ITB and HKCMCL after the meeting to convey the views and questions of members on the Cyberport Expansion Project, covering such areas as the budget for the enhancement works of the Cyberport Waterfront Park, turf management, office space as well as the connection between the Cyberport and the Sandy Bay. The residents of Pok Fu Lam had also expressed to him their hope of having different types of recreational facilities as well

as water dispensers for pedestrians and dogs in the Cyberport. Members could put forward other views and questions to the Secretariat after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had not received other views and questions from members after the meeting. The Chairman had issued a letter to ITB and HKCMCL on 24 June 2021 with details at Annex 1. ITB’s and HKCMCL’s reply is at Annex 2.)

Agenda Item 4： Progress Report (EDPC Paper No. 9/2021)

 Development of The University of Hong Kong

(I) Annex 1: Update on Progress Report

57. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) to the meeting:

(a) Professor CHAN Ying-shing, Associate Dean (Development and Infrastructure), Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine; (b) Mr Eddie YIU, Senior Assistant Director, Estates Office; and (c) Mr Jason LUK, Assistant Director, Estates Office.

58. The Chairman invited the representatives of HKU to brief members on the progress of the development project.

59. Professor CHAN Ying-shing said that to alleviate the shortage of doctors in Hong Kong, the Government had in 2018 requested the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine (Faculty of Medicine) to increase the annual number of medical school places from 235 to 295 successively, and that the Food and Health Bureau (FHB) had also intended to further increase the number of medical school places of HKU and The Chinese University of Hong Kong by 35% before 2030. Constructed two decades ago, the academic building at No. 21 Sassoon Road had currently reached its original designed capacity, its classrooms and teaching laboratories even could not accommodate all students. In view of this, HKU had reflected a lack of campus space and relevant facilities to the Government, and already secured funding approval from the LegCo to increase the provision of relevant facilities in the short term.

However, the teaching needs remained unaddressed. Therefore, HKU had put forward a mid-term proposal on the construction of an academic building for the Faculty of Medicine in the green belt next to No. 3 Sassoon Road. The representatives of HKU aimed to give a specific presentation of the project concerned and seek members’ views at this meeting.

60. Mr Jason LUK, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, briefly introduced the HKU’s proposed construction of a new academic building on an extension site east of No. 3 Sassoon Road, including design concept, development parameters, schematic design and building orientation, pedestrian network, vehicular access and view points, etc., with details at PowerPoint 3.

61. The Chairman asked members to raise comments and enquiries.

62. Mr LO Kin-hei was impressed by the clarity of the HKU’s PowerPoint presentation, which demonstrated its sincerity in communication with members. He was agreeable to the proposed project because his overall impression was that the new academic building would neither adversely affect the ridgeline nor create a negative visual impact on nearby buildings. He envisaged increased people and vehicular flows upon commissioning of the new building, but relevant data had not been available during the above presentation. He asked HKU to provide supplementary information in this regard. Besides, at present, as medical school students had to make an incredibly laborious trip uphill on foot to take public transport, he supported the design characterised by building blocks with stepping profile to connect Northclot Close and Victoria Road. Lastly, he asked whether the future Queen Mary Hospital (QMH) Station of the SIL(W) could tie in with the Faculty of Medicine’s campus development.

63. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that according to the overall design, the proposed academic building comprising four blocks had made it possible to provide four landscape decks. However, he queried that such an architectural design might lead to a waste of deck space. As such, he asked whether consideration would be given to making good use of deck space, e.g. providing recreational and leisure facilities on the decks adjoining Blocks C and D for the use of students and staff.

64. Mr YIM Chun-ho said that as far as he knew, the LegCo had approved funding for the HKU’s expansion project back then, including improvement works for the bus stop at Pok Fu Lam Road near QMH. Noting that HKU had discussed with

19 the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) on matters relating to the released site, he wished to know the latest progress and the target completion date of the bus stop improvement works.

65. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun supported the idea of providing landscape decks at the proposed academic building. However, given that the building masses would be elevated from the slope through four main structural cores, even though the plants underneath the building needed not be removed, they might be permanently shielded from the sun, thus limiting their growth. He asked what maintenance measures would be adopted to preserve the natural habitat of such plants. Besides, he enquired about the possibility of providing leisure facilities on the landscape decks while keeping the green design intact.

66. The Chairman repeated the above enquiries raised by the member concerned, as well as raise the following comments and enquiries:

(i) He asked whether consideration would be given to constructing a footbridge to connect QMH and the proposed academic building; (ii) He asked when a traffic impact assessment (TIA) would be conducted for the proposed academic building under the development project, and considered that the assessment concerned should take into account data involving vehicles, buses, the railway system and people flow, as well as the relationship between QMH and the proposed academic building; (iii) He enquired of HKU how to collect views from nearby residents, including those living in Royalton, Radcliffe and in the vicinity of Northcote Close, considering that the proposed academic building would impose an impact on such residents; (iv) He enquired of HKU whether consideration had been given to other sites feasible for the construction of the academic building and alternative development parameters; and (v) He asked HKU how to make compensation for the affected green belt.

67. Professor CHAN Ying-shing gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) When the annual number of newly-enrolled medical school students increased to about 400 in the future, the number of relevant staff and research personnel would increase proportionately. At present, medical school students had to walk from Pok Fu Lam Road to Sassoon Road to

attend classes at the existing academic building. Upon completion of the new academic building, they could enter Block A via the pedestrian entrance at Pok Fu Lam Road, where a footbridge would be provided to connect the buildings at Nos. 3 and 5 Sassoon Road. HKU was exploring the possibility of connecting the proposed building to the bus stop at Pok Fu Lam Road. However, it was necessary to study with the Government whether such an arrangement would affect pedestrian circulation in the vicinity. Nevertheless, he envisaged that the number of pedestrians travelling from Pok Fu Lam Road to Sassoon Road would decrease in the future. Therefore, people flow was not a matter of concern for HKU; and (ii) Some service vehicles would enter the building via the entrance at Northcote Close; nevertheless, he considered that the existing traffic flow at Northcote Close seemed not very high, whereas the proposed Main Drop-off at No. 5 Sassoon Road was already a vehicular access currently. Hence, he was confident that the proposed academic building would not cause a serious traffic impact on the neighbourhood. However, a detailed study had yet to be conducted by the consultant.

68. Mr Eddie YIU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) After seeking MTRCL’s advice on its idea about SIL(W), HKU had learnt that one of the stations would be provided underneath QMH. HKU would work with MTRCL on the connectivity between the future station and at-grade pedestrian facilities; (ii) The preliminary study on the proposed academic building was underway. HKU intended to commission a design consultant between the third and fourth quarter of 2021 to explore different ideas and architectural concepts, e.g. constructing either a subway or footbridge leading to QMH. Besides, HKU would construct an elevated pedestrian access to connect various academic and research buildings along Sassoon Road, as well as QMH and the future MTR station, so as to avoid posing risk to pedestrians who had no choice but to walk on the narrow pathways; (iii) Rather than a traditional building design, the concept of “building on a slope” was adopted for the proposed academic building. The idea of underpinning the entire building masses with four main structural cores aimed to optimise site potential. Exorbitant construction and maintenance costs would be incurred if basement excavation was required in the construction of the academic building at the foot of the hill, and there

would be insufficient daylight in the building as well. However, he said that the design proposal concerned was still at the feasibility study stage, and the consultant had yet to conduct a detailed study and refine the architectural design; and (iv) HKU had already submitted a preliminary TIA report to the Government, which included projected vehicular flows in the vicinity. He stressed that as HKU did not wish to see that the proposed academic building would create a significant traffic impact on Pokfulam area, the building concerned would provide dozens of parking spaces only. HKU anticipated that the majority of students and staff would travel to and from the academic building by public transport. The project consultant would submit a more detailed assessment report to the Government in due course.

69. Mr Jason LUK gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) Regarding the works progress of the bus stop at Pok Fu Lam Road, HKU had expressed its wish to LCSD on 17 March 2021 to authorise the contractor to occupy the site concerned for carrying out works. However, in response, LCSD had merely agreed verbally without giving a written confirmation so far. Since the contractor was ready to carry out the necessary works at any time, it was hoped that LCSD would confirm the arrangements as soon as possible in order to catch up with the construction schedule; (ii) Regarding making good use of the landscape decks, HKU valued the importance of outdoor non-classroom facilities in teaching. As the landscape decks would allow students to carry out a variety of small group learning activities, HKU wished to provide more green spaces wherever possible for the use of students and the public. The building blocks would be connected by barrier-free accesses. Since the roofs of Blocks A and B would be installed with such facilities as machine rooms, their rooftop decks would not be open to protect public safety; (iii) In fact, HKU had sought advice from relevant departments such as the Planning Department (PlanD) on the development parameters of the project. PlanD had considered the proposed net operating floor area and plot ratio of the project reasonable, neither over-utilising the site concerned nor overlooking greening needs by merely taking teaching needs into account;

(iv) HKU would be delighted to hear views on the proposed academic building from residents living in the vicinity of Northcote Close. He reiterated that the current design proposal was only a preliminary one, and looked forward to drawing up a finalised design proposal acceptable to various stakeholders; and (v) The idea of underpinning the entire building masses with four main structural cores aimed to reduce the impacts on the landscape and trees concerned. The consultant commissioned by HKU had conducted a preliminary tree study, and its findings had revealed that the adoption of such a design could minimise the impact on trees. HKU’s construction team would continue to study the matter concerned and explore options to reduce the impact on trees.

70. In response, Mr Eddie YIU said that regarding site selection for the proposed academic building, during the discussion with FHB on increasing the number of medical school places two years ago, HKU had reflected to FHB about the difficulty in expanding teaching spaces through spatial reconfiguration owing to scarcity in campus spaces. HKU had also considered redeveloping the existing academic building. However, it was necessary to relocate existing facilities to temporary premises, but the nearby buildings had already reached their full capacity. According to its mid-term proposals, HKU would optimise the use of the existing site for constructing a new clinical training amenities centre at No. 6 Sassoon Road with about 700 places and training facilities for medical and nursing students on placement. However, after considering various options, HKU had opined that a substantial plot of land was still needed for the construction of a new academic building. Moreover, located in proximity to the academic building at No. 3 Sassoon Road, The Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research at No. 5 Sassoon Road and the Faculty of Medicine Building, the subject site was conducive to HKU’s deployment of teaching and human resources. Subject to the approval of the proposal on the academic building by the Government and the Town Planning Board (TPB), HKU could promptly proceed with the design and works programme, with a view to completing the works in 2026. Lastly, he reiterated that HKU would be more than happy to give an account of the project concerned to nearby residents and listen to their views.

71. The Chairman asked whether HKU was consulting nearby residents on the project.

72. Mr Eddie YIU responded that at present, individual residents had approached HKU regarding the proposed academic building. Despite that the Faculty of Medicine had its own teaching needs, HKU was aware of the concerns of nearby residents. In this connection, HKU was preparing to consult nearby residents on the project concerned. The development of the proposed academic building would be taken forward in accordance with three themes/architectural principles, including: (1) to create a healthy environment and contribute to the community; (2) to enhance the connectivity between Victoria Road and Pok Fu Lam Road for the convenience of residents; and (3) to establish the concept of a city oasis and conserve the natural habitat wherever possible. HKU would work with the design team and other professionals to meet the above principles.

73. The Chairman said that according to HKU, service vehicles would enter the building from the vehicular entrance at Northcote Close. Yet, he pointed out that there was barely any footpath along the extremely narrow and steep Northcote Close, and that there was a school nearby and nearby residents were mostly elderly people. Hence, he expressed concern about the arrangements for service vehicles, and asked HKU to respond later on.

74. The Chairman asked members to raise comments and enquiries.

75. Mr LO Kin-hei recalled that during the planning of the construction of the academic building at No. 3 Sassoon Road back then, he had already expressed his wish to connect the academic building and QMH by a footbridge, but it was already too late by the time he put forward his recommendation. Therefore, he wished to put forward his recommendation regarding the proposed academic building at the early design stage. According to the site plan provided by HKU, supposedly, a deck would be provided near Royalton for students and staff travelling to and from the proposed academic building. In this connection, he asked whether consideration would be given to widening the footpath along or expanding bus bays at Pok Fu Lam Road, so as to make good use of the deck adjoining the proposed academic building. Also, given that quite many vehicles entered QMH from the road junction east of Royalton at present, he asked whether consideration would be given to improving traffic arrangements at the location concerned. Lastly, he agreed to connect various academic buildings at Sassoon Road by footbridges. Nevertheless, he pointed out that further connecting such buildings to QMH would bring convenience to all users.

76. Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael enquired of HKU whether free school bus service would be provided for students, and whether a sheltered school bus stop would be provided at the proposed academic building.

77. The Chairman enquired of HKU how to make compensation for the loss of green belt. Also, he deemed it extremely important to consult community stakeholders nearby in a timely manner, saying that his office would be happy to assist in organising meetings. Lastly, he urged HKU to assist in dealing with traffic problems associated with the site concerned and in its periphery.

78. Professor CHAN Ying-shing gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) As indicated by Mr LO Kin-hei, it had already been too late for him to put forward his recommendation regarding the academic building at No. 3 Sassoon Road back then. However, it was not really the case because HKU had remained mindful of his proposal. HKU’s original plan did not include the construction of footbridges connecting the student hostels at Sassoon Road. After consulting the stakeholders, HKU had sought funding approval from the Government for constructing a footbridge at the academic building at No. 3 Sassoon Road connecting various student hostels and the footbridge to QMH, it is expected to be in operation in the spring of 2022; (ii) HKU was contemplating increasing the number of access points between the proposed academic building and QMH. Nevertheless, constructing an additional footbridge might create a visual impact. Therefore, HKU was exploring the feasibility of constructing a subway leading to QMH; and (iii) He noted members’ views on the traffic issues at the junction of Pok Fu Lam Road. Nonetheless, as the location concerned was outside the boundary of the subject site, it was necessary to further discuss how to follow up on the matter.

79. Mr Jason LUK gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) Upon completion of construction of the proposed academic building, students and members of the public could directly access the bus stop at Pok Fu Lam Road via the landscape deck of the building without passing through the existing walkway. Besides, HKU did not wish to remove several existing valuable trees along the walkway of Pok Fu Lam Road.

Owing to the above reasons, HKU had no plan to widen the existing walkway; and (ii) Regarding the designation of Northcote Close as the services vehicular access, HKU anticipated that upon completion of construction of the proposed academic building, the flow and usage frequency of service vehicles of the road section concerned would not exceed that of the building at No. 21 Sassoon Road, and that heavy vehicles would be prohibited from using this entrance. HKU had discussed the related arrangements with TD during the preliminary study. At that time, TD had pointed out that the provision of additional vehicular entrances at Pok Fu Lam Road or Victoria Road would impose an even more significant traffic impact on the neighbourhood. Thus, HKU deemed it more appropriate to designate Northcote Close as a services vehicular access. HKU would proceed to explore the availability of other suitable sites for providing entrances at the next stage.

80. In response, Mr Eddie YIU added that HKU would endeavour to cope with students’ needs to travel between the main campus and the Faculty of Medical Building upon completion of construction of the new academic building. He thanked the Chairman for offering help in organising residents’ meetings and giving an account of the project to residents.

81. The Chairman thanked the representatives of HKU for attending the meeting to brief the Committee on the plan regarding the construction of the proposed academic building. He reiterated his request that HKU should reconsider the road design of Northcote Close, and undertook that his office would assist HKU in organising residents’ meetings.

(Post-meeting note: HKU has convened a meeting on 3rd June 2021 with the local community, including representative from Ebenezer School & Home for the Visually Impaired, residents from Northcote Close, Royalton 1 & 2 and Radcliffe, to collect feedbacks for the proposed development.)

 Aberdeen Harbour Expansion

82. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus said that with the approach of the fish moratorium, it was hoped that the Marine Department could address the issues

26 concerning mooring management and the shortage of berthing spaces in the Aberdeen Typhoon Shelter even though expansion works had yet to be carried out.

 Development of Former St. Peter’s Secondary School

83. In response to the recent appointment of the new Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong, Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus enquired when the vacant school premises (VSP) could be surrendered to the Government, and wished to know the progress in the communication between the Lands Department (LandsD) and the Education Bureau (EDB).

84. Mr LEUNG Cho-chiu, Mafty replied that LandsD was waiting for EDB’s notification on the timetable of surrender of the VSP and the related matters.

85. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun urged EDB to provide updates on the progress in writing given that the surrender of the school premises had been dragging on for so long.

86. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus agreed that EDB should give a written reply. Moreover, given the Island Road Government Primary School’s intent to cease operation in the 2024/25 school year, he opined that EDB should co-ordinate with relevant departments in a timely manner to discuss possible uses of the site concerned, with a view to tying in with major infrastructure projects to be carried out in the Southern District in the future, including SIL(W) and the “Invigorating Island South” initiative, etc. Hence, he urged EDB to respond in one go.

(Post-meeting note: The reply from EDB was as follows: EDB is discussing with the School Sponsoring Body concerned on the surrender of the former school premises of St. Peter’s Secondary School. Regarding the to-be-vacant school premises of Island Road Government Primary School, EDB will, in accordance with the prevailing VSP handling mechanism, assess the VSP's suitability for school or other educational uses having regard to factors including the size, location, physical conditions, etc., of the VSP, as well as the educational needs and relevant policy measures. When EDB confirms that the VSP is not required to be retained for school use, EDB will, in accordance with the Central Clearing House Mechanism, inform the Planning

Department and other relevant departments (such as LandsD and the Housing Department) for PlanD’s consideration of suitable alternative long-term uses.)

 Ex-Shek O Quarry

87. The Chairman said that the Chief Executive (CE) had announced in the 2021 Policy Address the “Invigorating Island South” initiative. Despite that the development of the Ex-Shek O Quarry site was part of the initiative, its progress had not been reflected in the progress report.

88. The Vice-Chairman asked PlanD to respond.

89. Mr TSANG Wing-keung, Rico replied that in 2021 Policy Address, the CE had proposed to develop the Ex-Shek O Quarry site into a water sports centre. From the planning perspective, since the site concerned was zoned “Undetermined” on the Approved Tai Tam and Shek O Outline Zoning Plan, it was necessary to submit an application to the TPB before carrying out any development project. No relevant application had been received at this stage.

90. The Chairman urged the department concerned to include the above subject in the progress report.

91. The Vice-Chairman asked LandsD whether it had anything to add.

92. Mr LEUNG Cho-chiu, Mafty said that he had nothing further to add.

 Development of The University of Hong Kong (continued)

93. Mr LO Kin-hei said that the Modular Integrated Construction method would be used for the proposed HKU’s student residence in Wong Chuk Hang. As far as he knew, this construction method could reduce construction nuisance caused to the surrounding area. HKU had previously consulted SDC in this regard. He hoped that HKU could arrange members to join a site visit at the construction site in due course.

(II) Annex 2: Planning Department – Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District

94. The Vice-Chairman said that on 14 May 2021, the CE in Council had approved the draft Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H19/13 that incorporated amendments mainly involving the rezoning of the Maryknoll House site from “Government, Institution or Community” to “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Residential Development with Historic Building Preserved”. Despite minor amendments, he did not wish to see that the Maryknoll House as a Grade 1 historic building would be demolished or converted to a clubhouse for the enjoyment of rich people. He invited the department concerned to take note of the above view.

(III) Annex 3: Civil Engineering and Development Department – Progress Report on Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Works in Southern District

95. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun enquired about the latest works progress of Slope No. 15NW-B/C54 at Island Road.

96. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy responded that the contractor was carrying out the works concerned, and that the project was targeted for completion in August 2021.

97. The Vice-Chairman understood that the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) had been unable to carry out road widening works alongside with the projects of Slope No. 15NE-B/C72 at Big Wave Bay Road, Slope No. 15NE-A/C126 at Stanley Gap Road and Slope No. 15NE-D/R5 at Hoi Tsui Tsuen for such reasons as availability of construction funding. As the road sections concerned had caused a great deal of inconvenience to pedestrians and other road users, he hoped that if possible, CEDD would give priority consideration to widening those walkways along the aforesaid road sections in the future.

98. The Chairman disagreed with CEDD’s claim that it was not possible to widen walkways, and considered that CEDD should instead provide walkways or buffer areas wherever possible, because even though such walkways were likely to be very narrow, it was better than nothing at all. He said that CEDD’s response to the widening of walkways was unacceptable, and would be happy to conduct a site visit with the department concerned to explore in depth the feasibility of widening walkways.

99. The Vice-Chairman shared the Chairman’s view, and said that as pedestrian crossing facilities in the vicinities of Stanley and Shek O were far from satisfactory, he would be happy to join the above site visit as well.

100. Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy noted the Chairman’s view, and said that that such a view would be conveyed to the Geotechnical Engineering Office after the meeting.

101. The Vice-Chairman looked forward to joining the site visit in due course. He believed that Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun would also agree with this arrangement because Pokfulam Constituency, Bays Area Constituency and Stanley & Shek O Constituency had been facing the same issue.

Agenda Item 5: Any Other Business

102. The Vice-chairman said that there was no other business.

Part 2 - Date of the Next Meeting

103. The Vice-chairman advised the meeting that the 7th EDPC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 20 July 2021 (Tuesday).

104. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council July 2021