R. District - 308 - R.

Appendix II - R Sha Tin District Summaries of Written/Oral Representations

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 1 All 1 - (a) Supports the provisional Item (a) DCCAs recommendations on R01 The supporting view is noted. (Sha Tin Town Centre), R02 (), R03 (Wo Che Estate), R04 (), R05 (Yue Shing), R06 (Wong Uk), R22 (), R25 (), R26 (Chung On), R27 (Kam To), R28 ( Town Centre), R29 (), R30 (Lee On), R31 (Fu Lung), R32 (), R33 (), R34 (Heng On), R35 (Tai Shui Hang) and R36 (On Tai).

(b) Objects to the provisional Item (b) recommendations on R07 This representation is not (Sha Kok) and holds accepted because if the entire reservation on the Shui Chuen O Estate is provisional delineated into one DCCA, the recommendations on R08 population of the DCCA (), R09 (Shui (29 387) will exceed the Chuen O) and R10 (Jat statutory permissible upper Chuen). Considers that limit (+77.04%). despite the populations of the above DCCAs will fall within the statutory permissible range, it is relatively undesirable to split Shui Chuen O Estate into two DCCAs.

* W: Number of written representations. O : Number of oral representations. R. Sha Tin District - 309 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O (c) Holds reservation on the Item (c) provisional The view is noted. recommendations on R11 (Chun Fung), R12 (Sun Tin Wai), R13 (Chui Tin), R14 (Hin Ka), R17 (), R20 (), R38 (Di Yee) and R39 (Bik Woo).

(d) Holds reservation on the Item (d) provisional This proposal is not accepted recommendations on R16 because: (), R18 () and R19 (Chui Ka). (i) the affected population Proposes to maintain the under the proposal made in boundary of R19 (Chui Ka) the representation (6 077) and transfer Carado Garden will be larger than that in from R16 (Wan Shing) to the provisional R18 (Tin Sum). It is recommendations (2 154) because Carado Garden is by 3 923; further away from Festival City in R16 (Wan Shing) (ii) according to the geographically, on the provisional contrary, it shares to use Tin recommendations, the Sam Street with Lung Hang population of R19 (Chui Estate and Tin Sam Tsuen in Ka) will become 18 417 R18 (Tin Sum) and they after absorbing Holford belong to the same Gardens from R16 (Wan community. The Shing), deviating from the representation considers that population quota by the proposal can even out +10.95%. However, the populations of the above according to the proposal DCCAs and improve the made in the representation, shape of R18 (Tin Sum). the population of R18 (Tin Sum) will substantially increase to 20 404 after absorbing Carado Garden from R16 (Wan Shing), deviating from the population quota by +22.92%. Comparatively speaking, the provisional recommendations are more desirable; and R. Sha Tin District - 310 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O (iii) although the shape of a DCCA is a relevant factor of consideration, it is confined by population distribution to a certain extent and is not a prime factor of consideration.

(e) Holds reservation on the Item (e) provisional This proposal is not accepted recommendations on R15 because: (Lower Shing Mun) and R21 (Chung Tin). (i) the populations of R15 Proposes to transfer Mei (Lower Shing Mun) and Chuen House of Mei Tin R21 (Chung Tin) will fall Estate from R21 (Chung within the statutory Tin) to R15 (Lower Shing permissible range. Mun) in order to maintain According to the the community established working characteristics of Mei Tin principles, adjustments to Estate provided that the their existing boundaries populations of these DCCAs are not required; and

will fall within the statutory (ii) according to the proposal permissible range. made in the representation, the population of R15 (Lower Shing Mun) (21 755) will exceed the statutory permissible upper limit (+31.06%).

(f) Objects to the provisional Item (f) recommendations on R23 This proposal is not accepted () and R24 (Chun because: Ma). Proposes to transfer Dragons Range from R23 (i) the number of affected (Fo Tan) to R24 (Chun Ma) DCCAs under the proposal as the population of R23 (Fo made in the representation Tan) is relatively larger. will be one more than that Also, there are local ties in the provisional between Dragons Range and recommendations. The R24 (Chun Ma) since Lai affected population under Ping Road is the only access the proposal will be larger, to Dragons Range. too; and R. Sha Tin District - 311 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O (ii) there is no sufficient objective information and justification to prove that the proposal made in the representation is obviously better than the provisional recommendations in terms of preserving local ties.

(g) Holds reservation on the Item (g) provisional This proposal is not accepted recommendations on R37 because the population of R37 (Yu Yan), R40 (Kwong (Yu Yan) will fall within the Hong) and R41 (Kwong statutory permissible range. Yuen). Proposes: According to the established working principles, adjustment  to transfer Mui Tsz Lam to its existing boundary is not and Ah Kung Kok required. Fishermen Village from R37 (Yu Yan) to R40 (Kwong Hong) because the residents of these two places need to use the roads in R35 (Tai Shui Hang), R39 (Bik Woo) or R40 (Kwong Hong) for access and their community ties with R37 (Yu Yan) are not strong. It is therefore more reasonable to transfer them to R40 (Kwong Hong); and

 to transfer To Shek, Chap Wai Kon, Ngau Pei Sha, and Kwun Yam Shan Village, etc. from R37 (Yu Yan) to R41 (Kwong Yuen). It is R. Sha Tin District - 312 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O because the above areas, together with R41 (Kwong Yuen), are all affected by the traffic at Tate’s Cairn Tunnel, and the proposal can even out the populations of the above five DCCAs.

2 R01 – 1 - Since the buildings of Sun Chui This proposal is not accepted Sha Tin Estate and Mei Tin Estate are because: Town delineated into different Centre DCCAs, and R19 (Chui Ka) (i) the number of affected straddles across the areas DCCAs under the proposal R11 – separated by the rail line of made in the representation Chun MTR , it is will be eight more than that Fung proposed: in the provisional recommendations. The R12 –  to transfer Mei Chuen House affected population under Sun Tin of Mei Tin Estate from R21 the proposal will be larger, Wai (Chung Tin) to R15 (Lower too; and Shing Mun) and absorb the R13 – entire Tung Lo Wan Hill (ii) the delineation Chui located in R01 (Sha Tin recommendations must be Tin Town Centre); based on the population distribution and relevant R15 –  that R15 (Lower Shing Mun) local factors. It is Lower only includes Mei Tin Estate inevitable that a DCCA is Shing and Mei Ying Court and that composed of more than Mun the areas surrounding Tai one community. Wai New Village, Sha Tin R16 – Heights and Road in Wan the DCCA be transferred to Shing R19 (Chui Ka);

R18 –  that R20 (Tai Wai) only Tin Sum includes May Shing Court and , that the R19 – area surrounding Tai Wai Chui Ka Village in the DCCA be transferred to R19 (Chui Ka) R20 – and to rename R20 (Tai Wai) Tai Wai as “Mei Lam”; R. Sha Tin District - 313 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O R21 –  that R19 (Chui Ka) also Chung absorbs Holford Gardens Tin from R16 (Wan Shing), that Sun Chui Estate in the DCCA be transferred to R13 (Chui Tin) and to rename R19 (Chui Ka) as “Tai Wai”;

 that R13 (Chui Tin) only includes the entire Sun Chui Estate, and that King Tin Court in the DCCA be transferred to R18 (Tin Sum), and to transfer Golden Lion Garden Stage II to R11 (Chun Fung) and World-Wide Gardens to other DCCAs; and

 to transfer Fung Shing Court, Village and Sha Tin Tau New Village from R11 (Chun Fung) to R12 (Sun Tin Wai) and absorb the area surrounding Chui Tin Street from R12 (Sun Tin Wai) and Golden Lion Garden Stage II from R13 (Chui Tin) and to rename R11 (Chun Fung) as “ Miu”.

R. Sha Tin District - 314 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 3 R01 – 1 - Proposes: This proposal is not accepted Sha Tin because: Town  to transfer The Riverpark Centre from R11 (Chun Fung) to (i) if Vista Paradiso and

R01 (Sha Tin Town Centre); Oceanaire are to be R11 – Chun transferred from R26 Fung  to transfer Grandway (Chung On) to R35 (Tai Garden, Grandeur Garden Shui Hang), the population R19 – and residential buildings of R35 (Tai Shui Hang) Chui Ka surrounding the area between (29 153) will exceed the Tsuen Nam Road and Chik statutory permissible upper R20 – Fuk Street from R19 (Chui limit (+75.63%). Tai Wai Ka) to R20 (Tai Wai) and Besides, as Ma On Shan rename R19 (Chui Ka) as Recreation Ground and R26 – Chung “Sun Chui”; Sports Ground located in On R26 (Chung On) have no  to transfer Vista Paradiso and population, there is no R27 – Oceanaire from R26 (Chung need to adjust the Kam To On) to R35 (Tai Shui Hang) boundaries; and and also to transfer Ma On R28 – Shan Recreation Ground and (ii) the populations of R01 Ma On Sports Ground in the DCCA (Sha Tin Town Centre), Shan to R34 (Heng On); R11 (Chun Fung), R20 Town Centre (Tai Wai), R27 (Kam To),  to transfer The Waterside R28 (Ma On Shan Town R30 – and Marbella from R27 Centre), R30 (Lee On), Lee On (Kam To) to R28 (Ma On R31 (Fu Lung), R32 (Kam Shan Town Centre) and Ying) and R33 (Yiu On) R31 – rename R27 (Kam To) as will fall within the Fu Lung “Kam Fung”; statutory permissible range. According to the R32 –  to transfer Kam Lung Court established working Kam from R31 (Fu Lung) to R30 principles, adjustments to Ying (Lee On) and rename R31 their existing boundaries R33 – (Fu Lung) as “Fu Po”; and are not required. Yiu On  to transfer On Luk Street R34 – Park from R32 (Kam Ying) Heng to R33 (Yiu On). On

R35 – Tai Shui Hang R. Sha Tin District - 315 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 4 R07 – 1 - In the light of increasing This proposal is not accepted Sha Kok population in the foreseeable because: future, proposes to create two R08 – new DCCAs at Shui Chuen O (i) the number of affected Pok Estate. Details are as follows: DCCAs under the proposal Hong made in the representation  the DCCA Jat Min comprises will be one more than that R09 – , Yue Shing in the provisional Shui Court and ; recommendations. The Chuen affected population under O  the DCCA Sha Kok the proposal will be larger, comprises Sha Kok Estate, too; and R10 – and Fui Yiu Ha Jat New Village; (ii) the delineation Chuen recommendations are made  the DCCA Pok Hong on the basis of overall comprises consideration from a macro and Tsok Pok Hang San perspective. No special Tsuen; and emphasis to any DCCA will be given. It is  Shui Chuen O Estate is split proposed in the into two DCCAs, each representation to create including nine blocks. two new DCCAs at Shui Chuen O Estate. In view of the needs to create new DCCAs in other locations of the Sha Tin District so that their populations will be brought within the statutory permissible range, the proposal to create two new DCCAs at Shui Chuen O Estate is therefore not desirable.

R. Sha Tin District - 316 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 5 R07 – 5^ 1 (a) Propose : Item (a) Sha Kok This proposal is not accepted  to transfer Holford because: R08 – Gardens from R16 (Wan Pok Shing) to R15 (Lower (i) the number of affected Hong Shing Mun); and DCCAs under the proposal made in the representations R09 –  to transfer Mei Ying will be one more than that Shui Court and some of the in the provisional Chuen buildings of Mei Tin recommendations. The O Estate or Mei Chi House affected population under of Mei Tin Estate from the proposal will be larger, R13 – R15 (Lower Shing Mun) too; Chui to R21 (Chung Tin). Tin (ii) after receiving the Reasons are summarised as representations, the EAC R14 – follows: conducted a site visit and Hin Ka noticed that Holford  it is expected that the Gardens located in R16 R15 – property development atop (Wan Shing) is Lower MTR Tai Wai Station in R19 geographically closer to Shing (Chui Ka) will be completed Grandeur Garden and Mun in 2022 or 2023, at which Grandway Garden located time the population of the in R19 (Chui Ka), being R16 – DCCA concerned will only separated by Mei Tin Wan substantially increase and Road and connected by Shing exceed the statutory crossing facilities such as permissible upper limit. lifts and footbridges. On R17 – Hence, a re-delineation will the contrary, there is longer Keng be required; distance from Holford Hau Gardens to R15 (Lower  in the future, it is likely that Shing Mun). Therefore, R18 – Holford Gardens needs to be geographically, it is more Tin Sum transferred to other DCCAs desirable to transfer again as a result of the Holford Gardens to R19 R19 – substantial increase in the (Chui Ka); Chui Ka population of R19 (Chui Ka). Frequently transferring (iii) according to the projected R21 – Holford Gardens to different population in 2019, R19 Chung DCCAs is unfair to the (Chui Ka) has more Tin residents there; and capacity than R15 (Lower

^Of which, one representation contains 1 544 signatures from the public. R. Sha Tin District - 317 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O R22 –  the proposal can bring the Shing Mun) to absorb the Sui Wo population of R21 (Chung excess population of R16 Tin) closer to the population (Wan Shing); R23 – quota. Fo Tan (iv) it is an established practice Three representations consider that the delineation R25 – that: exercise for a DC ordinary Hoi election should be Nam  there are other DCCAs in Tai conducted on the basis of Wai (e.g. R13 (Chui Tin), the latest projected R26 – R14 (Hin Ka), R18 (Tin population figures as at 30 Chung Sum) and R21 (Chung Tin)) June of the election year. On that have a smaller Developments thereafter population than R19 (Chui will not be taken into R27 – Ka); and consideration; Kam To  the population of R19 (Chui (v) Holford Gardens has not R37 – Ka) is the closest to the been transferred multiple Yu Yan population quota. There is times. Holford Gardens no urgent need to adjust its originally belonged to R15 R40 – existing boundary. (Lower Shing Mun). Kwong Until 2015, as the Hong Two representations consider populations of that DCCA that: and two adjacent DCCAs R41 – exceeded the statutory Kwong  Mei Chuen House of Mei Tin permissible upper limit, a Yuen Estate is currently in R21 new DCCA Wan Shing (Chung Tin). Transferring was created at the location the adjacent Mei Chi House of Holford Gardens, and Mei Ying Court to R21 Festival City and Carado (Chung Tin) is more Garden. Grandeur appropriate in geographical Garden and Grandway terms (such as the sharing of Garden, which are in R19 community facilities); (Chui Ka) that absorbs Holford Gardens under the  there will not be any provisional completion of large-scale recommendations, residential projects in R15 belonged to the same (Lower Shing Mun) and R21 DCCA as Holford Gardens (Chung Tin) in the future. in 1999, 2003 and 2007; Hence, there will not be a substantial increase in population; and R. Sha Tin District - 318 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O  the population of R15 (vi) the representation received (Lower Shing Mun) can be with regard to the DCCA maintained at a similar level. boundaries for the 2015 DC Election as mentioned Two representations consider in the present that it is unreasonable not to representation referred to accept the representations the transfer of Holford concerned based on Gardens to R21 (Chung geographical factors. It is Tin), instead of to R15 because the distance between A (Lower Shing Mun). Kung Kok and Yu Chui Court Therefore, it is different in R37 (Yu Yan) is far apart and from this representation. both places have no community Furthermore, the EAC’s ties at all yet they are still in the view at that time, i.e. same DCCA. Holford Gardens is geographically separated  One of the representations from R15 (Lower Shing states that the geographical Mun) and R21 (Chung barrier between the Tin), remains valid; and surrounding area of Lower Shing Mun connecting Sha (vii) the composition of each Tin Heights and Mei Tin DCCA is determined by its Estate and Tai Wai New own unique features. It is Village in R15 (Lower Shing not appropriate to make Mun) is greater, whereas comparison solely based Holford Gardens and Lower on one factor. Shing Mun are a single entity. The proposal can better meet the statutory criteria for delineation.

 One of the representations states that the same proposal was made in a representation with regard to the DCCA boundaries for the 2015 DC Election. At the time, the EAC refused to accept the representation concerned and pointed out that Holford Gardens, Festival City and Carado Garden are located in the town centre of Tai Wai R. Sha Tin District - 319 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O using common community facilities. Taking into consideration the geographical and community factors, the cluster of residential buildings belongs to a relatively independent society with community integrity. They are geographically separated from Tai Wai New Village of R15 (Lower Shing Mun). However, it was pointed out in the representation that there was no direct access between Mei Tin Estate and Tai Wai New Village in R15 (Lower Shing Mun) as the two places were separated by a crematorium and a funeral parlour. Therefore, geographical factors should not be the reason for the refusal of the representation.

One representation considers that:

 there are no obvious links between Holford Gardens and R19 (Chui Ka) in terms of physical features and local ties. In addition, Tai Wai Market cannot serve as a connecting facility between both places as this relatively large public facility is used by residents of various areas in Tai Wai. Hence, this cannot be the reason to transfer Holford Gardens to R19 (Chui Ka); R. Sha Tin District - 320 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O  Holford Gardens originally belonged to R15 (Lower Shing Mun). Residents do not need to re-adapt to the DCCA and its public facilities;

 the proposal made in the representations can stabilise the populations of the adjacent DCCAs and no re-delineation will therefore be needed in the future; and

 similar to the practice used in delineating the surrounding area of Tai Wai in the past, Mei Tin Road is used as the separator in delineating the DCCAs near R19 (Chui Ka). The proposal can better reflect the geographical characteristics of the community.

(b) One representation Item (b) considers that the The view is noted. In drawing populations of some DCCAs up the provisional in the Sha Tin District are recommendations, the EAC has closed to the statutory strictly adhered to the statutory permissible upper limit or criteria under the EACO and its lower limit and that the working principles. The populations of adjacent recommendations were made on DCCAs are not effectively the basis of the projected distributed. Proposes that populations, existing DCCA changes should be made to boundaries and relevant local the boundaries of these factors. DCCAs to even out their populations. They include:

 R07 (Sha Kok), R08 (Pok Hong) and R09 (Shui Chuen O); R. Sha Tin District - 321 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O  R14 (Hin Ka) and R17 (Keng Hau);

 R22 (Sui Wo) and R23 (Fo Tan);

 R25 (Hoi Nam), R26 (Chung On) and R27 (Kam To); and

 R40 (Kwong Hong) and R41 (Kwong Yuen).

6 R08 – 1 - Holds no objection to the The view is noted. Pok provisional recommendations. Hong

R09 – Shui Chuen O

R10 – Jat Chuen

7 R08 – 1 1 (a) Query the projected Item (a) Pok population of R08 (Pok The projected population Hong Hong) as stated in the figures as at 30 June 2019 are provisional used for the delineation exercise R09 – recommendations. It is for the 2019 DC Ordinary Shui because the population of Election. As in the past, the Chuen R08 (Pok Hong) decreases projected population figures are O instead of increases after the provided by the AHSG, set up transfer of four villages to it specially for the purpose of the R10 – under the provisional delineation exercise under the Jat recommendations. The Working Group on Population Chuen representations consider that Distribution Projection in the miscalculation of population PlanD. The current population will affect the decision on distribution projections are delineation. The derived by using scientific and information provided in the systematic methodology based representation is as follows: on the results of the 2016 population by-census carried R. Sha Tin District - 322 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O  according to the paper of out by the C&SD as well as the the Development and up-to-date official data kept by Housing Committee of the relevant government the Sha Tin DC－ departments. Members of the Population of Public AHSG are all professional Housing Estates and departments which all along Private Sector have been responsible for Participation Scheme territory-wide population Courts in Sha Tin (as at census and projections on 1 June 2018), the population distribution. They population of Pok Hong possess the most up-to-date Estate is 16 615 in total; information on the population and and land and housing development, and the data are  according to the highly-accepted generally. Summaries of DCCA The EAC has all along relied on boundaries of DC the statistical figures provided Elections in 2011 and by the AHSG, which are the 2015, the projected only data available for the populations of R08 (Pok delineation exercise. Hong) were 17 186 and 16 341 respectively.

(b) Propose to set up a polling Item (b) station at Shui Chuen O The EAC has referred the Estate in the 2019 DC relevant view concerning the Election because the arrangement on polling station arrangement of setting up to the REO for consideration. two polling stations at Pok Hong Estate for electors of Pok Hong Estate and Shui Chuen O Estate respectively to cast their votes in the 2018 LegCo By-election gave rise to misunderstanding and chaos. Also due to the absence of sufficient directions on the polling day, some electors went to a wrong polling station and as a result were unable to vote. R. Sha Tin District - 323 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O One representation also proposes to set up a polling station at kindergartens, schools or social welfare organisations. If there are no indoor venues at Shui Chuen O Estate suitable for setting up a polling station, may consider setting up an outdoor polling station.

(c) One representation objects Item (c) to the transfer of Sha Tin This proposal is not accepted Wai, Sha Tin Wai New because according to the Village, Fui Yiu Ha and proposal made in the Tse Uk Village to R08 representation, the population (Pok Hong) and proposes of R10 (Jat Chuen) (21 592) to retain them in R10 (Jat will exceed the statutory Chuen) instead. It is permissible upper limit because: (+30.08%).

 delineation of DCCA boundaries should be conducted under the principle of affecting the least number of DCCAs;

 Sha Tin Wai, Sha Tin Wai New Village, Fui Yiu Ha and Tse Uk Village originally belonged to the DCCA Jat Min in 2015 and they should continue to be included in R10 (Jat Chuen); and

 since 2011, Sha Tin Wai, Sha Tin Wai New Village, Fui Yiu Ha and Tse Uk Village together with Tsok Pok Hang San Tsuen and Tsang Tai Uk R. Sha Tin District - 324 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O have been delineated into the same DCCA. On the premise that electors’ views and community integrity are to be honoured, the above places should continue to be included in R10 (Jat Chuen).

8 R08 – 1 - (a) Proposes: Item (a) Pok This proposal is not accepted Hong  to transfer one block of because: Estate Phase 2 R09 – from R38 (Di Yee) to (i) the number of affected Shui R39 (Bik Woo) and the DCCAs under the proposal Chuen remaining two blocks to made in the representation O R37 (Yu Yan); will be two more than that in the provisional R10 –  to transfer Ah Kung Kok recommendations; Jat Fishermen Village from Chuen R37 (Yu Yan) and (ii) based on the 2015 original Greenhill Villa from R38 DCCA boundary, the R14 – (Di Yee) to R40 (Kwong populations of R39 (Bik Hin Ka Hong); and Woo) and R40 (Kwong Hong) will exceed the R15 –  to transfer Kwong Lam statutory permissible upper Lower Court from R40 (Kwong limit, hence, the EAC Shing Hong) to R41 (Kwong proposed to create the new Mun Yuen). DCCA R38 (Di Yee)

in-between the above two R16 – It is because: DCCAs so that the Wan populations of the DCCAs Shing  the populations of R38 concerned would fall

R17 – (Di Yee) and R39 (Bik within the statutory Keng Woo) are only about permissible range. The Hau 16 000 while those of provisional R40 (Kwong Hong) and recommendations do not R18 – R41 (Kwong Yuen) are affect other DCCAs of Tin Sum only about 13 000. The which the populations will situation therein are fall within the statutory R19 – completely different permissible range; and Chui Ka from that at Shui Chuen R. Sha Tin District - 325 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O R20 – O Estate and the area (iii) please see items 4(ii) and Tai Wai near Tai Wai where their 8(d)(ii). populations are R21 – increasing. Hence, Chung disagrees with the Tin creation of the new DCCA R38 (Di Yee) at R22 – the proposed location; Sui Wo  there are no ties between R23 – the area in the south of Fo Tan MTR and Ah Kung Kok R37 – Fishermen Village in Yu Yan R37 (Yu Yan);

R38 –  the proposal made in the Di Yee representation can release one DCCA for R39 – the creation of a new Bik DCCA at Shui Chuen O Woo Estate (item (b) below) or the area near Tai Wai R40 – (item (d) below) to solve Kwong the problem of Hong population exceeding the permissible upper limit; R41 – and Kwong Yuen  the populations of the above four DCCAs will be adjusted to fall within the range from 16 000 to 19 000 after the proposed adjustments, which are more desirable than the provisional recommendations.

R. Sha Tin District - 326 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O (b) To best comply with the Item (b) EAC’s working principles, This proposal is not accepted population figures and because: statutory requirements, proposes that: (i) please see item 4(ii); and

 the boundary of R08 (ii) the delineation (Pok Hong) remains recommendations must be unchanged; based on objective data of population distribution.  R10 (Jat Chuen) shall Community services comprise buildings under provided by DC members the DCCA Jat Min in the is not the relevant factor of last term (excluding Shui consideration. Chuen O Estate) and maintain its original name “Jat Min”; and

 Shui Chuen O Estate be split into two DCCAs.

It is because:

 it is estimated that the population of Shui Chuen O Estate, after its completion, will be as high as 30 000. The creation of R09 (Shui Chuen O) with a population of up to some 20 000, and the substantial increase of the population of and the changes made to R10 (Jat Chuen) as made in the provisional recommendations are neither in line with the statutory criteria nor the working principles; and

R. Sha Tin District - 327 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O  Jat Min Chuen is far away from Shui Chuen O Estate and it will be difficult for a DC member to take care of the needs of two estates. Including one of the phases of Shui Chuen O Estate in R10 (Jat Chuen) will make it difficult for the residents to seek assistance. This will also increase the burden on the DC member of R09 (Shui Chuen O) and cause unfairness.

(c) Proposes to transfer the area Item (c) surrounding from This proposal is not accepted R17 (Keng Hau) to R14 because the populations of R14 (Hin Ka) for the purposes of (Hin Ka) and R17 (Keng Hau) evening out the populations will fall within the statutory of the two DCCAs and permissible range. According greater fairness. to the established working principles, adjustments to their existing boundaries are not required.

(d) Proposes: Item (d) This proposal is not accepted  to transfer May Shing because: Court from R20 (Tai Wai) to R21 (Chung (i) the number of affected Tin); DCCAs under the proposal made in the representation  to transfer Mei Chuen will be four more than that House of Mei Tin Estate in the provisional from R21 (Chung Tin) to recommendations. The R15 (Lower Shing Mun); affected population under the proposal will be larger,  to form a new DCCA by too; comprising buildings R. Sha Tin District - 328 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O surrounding Sha Tin (ii) the delineation Heights in R15 (Lower recommendations are made Shing Mun) together on the basis of overall with Holford Gardens in consideration from a macro R16 (Wan Shing), perspective. No special Grandeur Garden, emphasis to any DCCA Grandway Garden and will be given. It is buildings in the north of proposed in the MTR Tai Wai Station in representation to create a R19 (Chui Ka); and new DCCA at the relevant location. However,  to transfer Tin Sam from among the DCCAs as R18 (Tin Sum) to R19 mentioned in the (Chui Ka) and to form a representation, only R16 DCCA by absorbing (Wan Shing) has a Carado Garden in R16 population exceeding the (Wan Shing) and Lung statutory permissible upper Hang Estate in R18 (Tin limit. In view of the Sum). needs to create new DCCAs in other locations It is because: of the Sha Tin District so that their populations will  the aggregate population be brought within the of R15 (Lower Shing statutory permissible Mun), R16 (Wan Shing), range, the proposal to R19 (Chui Ka) and R20 create a new DCCA at this (Tai Wai) amounts to location is therefore not 78 000 and therefore a desirable; and new DCCA should be created at this location; (iii) the delineation and recommendations must be based on the population  only one block (Mei distribution and relevant Chuen House) of Mei local factors. It is Tin Estate is included in inevitable that a DCCA is R21 (Chung Tin) and it composed of more than is not in line with the one community. principle of community integrity.

R. Sha Tin District - 329 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O (e) To even out the populations Item (e) of these two DCCAs and This proposal is not accepted having regard to the because: possibility of over-estimating or (i) the affected population under-estimating the under the proposal made in populations of certain areas, the representation (1 651) proposes to transfer Pat Tsz will be larger than that in Wo Village and Wo Liu the provisional Hang together with recommendations (717) by buildings closer to the side 934; and of Wo Liu Hang Road from R23 (Fo Tan) to R22 (Sui (ii) the projected population Wo). figures as at 30 June 2019 are used for the delineation exercise for the 2019 DC Ordinary Election. As in the past, the projected population figures are provided by the AHSG, set up specially for the purpose of the delineation exercise under the Working Group on Population Distribution Projection in the PlanD. The current population distribution projections are derived by using scientific and systematic methodology based on the results of the 2016 population by-census carried out by the C&SD as well as the up-to-date official data kept by the relevant government departments. Members of the AHSG are all professional departments which all along have been responsible for territory-wide population census and projections on R. Sha Tin District - 330 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O population distribution. They possess the most up-to-date information on the population and land and housing development, and the data are highly-accepted generally. The EAC has all along relied on the statistical figures provided by the AHSG, which are the only data available for the delineation exercise.

9 R09 – - 1 Proposes that Shui Chuen O This proposal is not accepted Shui Estate Phase 1 be retained in because: Chuen R10 (Jat Chuen) and that the O new DCCA R09 (Shui Chuen (i) if Shui Chuen O Estate O) comprises Shui Chuen O Phases 2, 3 and 4 be R10 – Estate Phases 2, 3 and 4 delineated into the same Jat because: DCCA, the population of Chuen the DCCA (21 402) will  in the past two LegCo exceed the statutory Election and By-election, permissible upper limit residents of Shui Chuen O (+28.94%); Estate Phase 1 belonged to R10 (Jat Chuen). (ii) after receiving the Maintaining such delineation representation, the EAC can avoid confusion amongst conducted a site visit and residents with regard to their noticed that Shui Chuen O respective DCCAs; Estate Phase 1 is located in the centre of the Estate.  residents of Shui Chuen O Comparatively speaking, Estate Phase 1 are well used Shui Chuen O Estate Phase to seeking help from the DC 2 is nearer to the lifts member of R10 (Jat Chuen); which connect it to the area and down the hill and is closer to R10 (Jat Chuen)  Shui Chuen O Estate is built geographically; and on hillsides, of which Phases R. Sha Tin District - 331 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 1 and 4 are located up the (iii) the delineation hill. There are escalators recommendations must be and footbridges connecting based on objective data of Phases 4 and 2, which is population distribution. located down the hill. Community services Hence, the delineation of provided by DC members Shui Chuen O Estate Phases is not the relevant factor of 2, 3 and 4 in the same DCCA consideration. will make it more convenient for residents to seek help and for the DC member to provide services.

10 R09 – 6 # 1 (a) Propose to set up a polling Item (a) Shui station at Shui Chuen O The EAC has referred the Chuen Estate. Six representations relevant view concerning the O state that in the 2018 LegCo arrangement on polling station By-election, residents of to the REO for consideration. R10 – Shui Chuen O Estate had to Jat go downhill to vote at the Chuen polling station, thus causing inconvenience to them (especially the elderly).

(b) Six representations object to Item (b) the provisional This proposal is not accepted recommendations on because: including Shui Chuen O Estate Phases 1, 3 and 4 in (i) please see item 9(i) and the same DCCA, and (ii); and propose to include Shui Chuen O Estate Phases 2, 3 (ii) there is no sufficient and 4 in the same DCCA. objective information and Reasons are summarised as justification to prove that follows: the provisional recommendations will  five representations state affect the community that Shui Chuen O Estate integrity as mentioned in Phases 2, 3 and 4 have the representation. more in common in terms of the geographical

#All are template letters. R. Sha Tin District - 332 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O environment. Their social and humanistic qualities are highly similar;

 one representation states that residents of Shui Chuen O Estate Phases 2, 3 and 4 moved in at about the same time; and

 one representation states that during the 2018 LegCo By-election, residents of Shui Chuen O Estate Phase 1 belonged to R10 (Jat Chuen) and those of Phases 2, 3 and 4 belonged to another DCCA. The provisional recommendations will affect community integrity.

11 R09 – 31% - Propose to set up a polling The EAC has referred the Shui station at Shui Chuen O Estate relevant view concerning the Chuen each for R09 (Shui Chuen O) arrangement on polling station O and R10 (Jat Chuen) to the REO for consideration. respectively. R10 – Jat 30 representations consider that: Chuen  according to the last DC Ordinary Election, arrangements were made for residents of Shui Chuen O Estate to vote at the Girl Guides Association Pok Hong Camp

%Of which, 30 are template letters. R. Sha Tin District - 333 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O Site. As Shui Chuen O is built on hillsides, going to the polling station mainly involves walking on steep roads, making it extremely inconvenient for the residents; and

 it is observed that venues such as community halls, sports centres, schools, etc. are mainly acquired for use as polling stations in other DCCAs. Even though the relevant facilities cannot be found in the vicinity of Belair Gardens, a polling station can still be set up at a covered corridor. There are currently three kindergartens, two offices of the HD and one relatively large plaza at Shui Chuen O Estate. It is hoped to make good use of these venues to set up polling stations so as to bring convenience to residents of Shui Chuen O Estate.

One representation considers that:

 in the 2018 LegCo By-election, arrangements were made for electors of Shui Chuen O Estate to vote at the polling station at The Salvation Army Tin Ka Ping School in Pok Hong Estate, causing inconvenience to the electors. Arrangements that involve cross-DCCA voting are unreasonable; and R. Sha Tin District - 334 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O  there are three kindergartens, three offices of the HD and an open space with a covered walkway at Shui Chuen O Estate. Consideration can be given to choosing two of the venues as polling stations.

12 R10 – 1 - Objects to the provisional This representation is not Jat recommendations because: accepted because: Chuen  Shui Chuen O Estate and Jat (i) the delineation Min Chuen in R10 (Jat recommendations must be Chuen) are located up and based on the population down the hill respectively, distribution and relevant making them geographically local factors. It is separated; inevitable that a DCCA is composed of more than  the two estates are separated one community. Besides, by R07 (Sha Kok) and R08 Jat Min Chuen and Shui (Pok Hong), which will have Chuen O Estate originally a considerable bearing on the belonged to the same distribution of community DCCA; and resources and the continuity of services provided by the (ii) arrangements on district elected DC member; administration matters or community services  Jat Min Chuen is an old provided by DC members estate while Shui Chuen O are not the relevant factors Estate is a new housing of consideration. estate. Hence, electors have different community needs. The provisional recommendations will break community harmony; and

 it takes time for residents to go to the DC member’s office to seek help.

R. Sha Tin District - 335 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 13 R12 – 1 - Proposes to transfer Golden This proposal is not accepted Sun Tin Lion Garden Stage I from R12 because: Wai (Sun Tin Wai) to R13 (Chui Tin) or R19 (Chui Ka) because: (i) the population of R12 (Sun R13 – Tin Wai) will fall within Chui  residents of Golden Lion the statutory permissible Tin Garden Stage I pass by Sun range. According to the Chui Estate, meet with the established working R19 – DC member of the DCCA principles, adjustment to its Chui Ka and use the facilities there existing boundary is not every day; required; and

 the office of current DC (ii) the delineation member of R12 (Sun Tin recommendations must be Wai) is set up at Sun Tin Wai based on objective data of Estate up the hill, which population distribution. causes inconvenience to Community services residents of Golden Lion provided by DC members Garden Stage I to go there to and arrangement on polling seek help. On the contrary, station are not the relevant the office of the person who factors of consideration. provides services to residents The EAC has referred the of Golden Lion Garden Stage relevant view concerning I is located in the adjacent the arrangement on polling DCCA; and station to the REO for consideration.  residents of Golden Lion Garden Stage I are required to vote at the polling station at Sun Tin Wai Estate. This will affect their desire to vote.

R. Sha Tin District - 336 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 14 R14 – 1 - Objects to the transfer of This proposal is not accepted Hin Ka Holford Gardens from R16 because: (Wan Shing) to R19 (Chui Ka), R16 – and proposes to transfer it to (i) R14 (Hin Ka) and R16 Wan R14 (Hin Ka) or R18 (Tin Sum) (Wan Shing) are not Shing because: adjacent to each other. They are separated by R17 R18 –  Holford Gardens have been (Keng Hau). It is not Tin Sum delineated into different feasible to transfer the DCCAs multiple times, excess population of R16 R19 – rendering residents without a (Wan Shing) to R14 (Hin Chui Ka fixed DCCA; Ka);

 the population of R19 (Chui (ii) Holford Gardens in R16 Ka) is larger than those of (Wan Shing) and R18 (Tin adjacent R14 (Hin Ka), R18 Sum) are separated by (Tin Sum), etc. It is Festival City. It is not expected that the property desirable to transfer it to development atop MTR Tai R18 (Tin Sum); Wai Station will be completed in the near future. (iii) the delineation Its population will leave the recommendations must be adjacent DCCAs further based on objective data of behind; and population distribution. Community services  the provisional provided by DC members recommendations will is not the relevant factor of increase the workload and consideration; and pressure of DC member of R19 (Chui Ka). (iv) please see item 5(a)(v).

15 R14 – 1 - Taking into account community This proposal is not accepted Hin Ka integrity, proposes that R14 because the populations of R14 (Hin Ka) and R17 (Keng Hau) (Hin Ka) and R17 (Keng Hau) R17 – be re-delineated, details are as will fall within the statutory Keng follows: permissible range. According Hau to the established working  one of the DCCAs comprises principles, adjustments to their Hin Pui House, Hin Tak existing boundaries are not House, Hin Yeung House, required. Hin Hing House, Hin Yau House, Hin Wan House, Hin Fu House and Hin Kwai R. Sha Tin District - 337 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O House of Hin Keng Estate and renamed as “Hin Keng”; and

 the other DCCA comprises Village, Ha Keng Hau Village, Hin Tin Village, Ka Tin Court, Ka Shun Court, Ka Keng Court, Hin Yiu Estate, Hill Paramount, Parc Royale and Julimount Garden and renamed as “Ka Keng”.

16 R15 – 1 - It is expected that the This proposal is not accepted Lower population of R19 (Chui Ka) because: Shing will substantially increase after Mun the completion of the property (i) according to the proposal development atop MTR Tai made in the representation, R16 – Wai Station in the DCCA. To the population of R15 Wan avoid transferring Holford (Lower Shing Mun) Shing Gardens to another DCCA (21 159) will exceed the again in the next term and statutory permissible upper R19 – causing inconvenience to limit (+27.47%); Chui Ka residents there, proposes: (ii) the number of affected R21 –  to transfer Holford Gardens DCCAs under the proposal Chung from R16 (Wan Shing) to made in the representation Tin R15 (Lower Shing Mun); will be one more than that and in the provisional recommendations. The  to transfer Mei Ying Court affected population under from R15 (Lower Shing the proposal will be larger, Mun) to R21 (Chung Tin) too; and which is formed mainly by (iii) please see item 5(a)(iii) estates. and (iv).

R. Sha Tin District - 338 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 17 R16 – 1 1 Propose to transfer Carado Please see item 1(d). Wan Garden from R16 (Wan Shing) Shing to R18 (Tin Sum) instead of transferring Holford Gardens to R18 – R19 (Chui Ka). Tin Sum One representation considers R19 – that the population of R18 (Tin Chui Ka Sum) is relatively low and thus will be closer to the population quota after the proposed adjustment compared to that in the provisional recommendations.

One representation considers that the provisional recommendations will shatter several communities and proposes to rename R16 (Wan Shing) as “Tai Wai South” after the proposed adjustment.

18 R22 – 1 - To even out the population of This proposal is not accepted Sui Wo these two DCCAs, proposes to because: transfer Man Hang and The R23 – Grandville from R23 (Fo Tan) (i) the affected population Fo Tan to R22 (Sui Wo). under the proposal made in the representation (2 149) will be larger than that in the provisional recommendations (717) by 1 432; and

(ii) The Grandville in R23 (Fo Tan) is situated on a hill, which is geographically far apart from the main housing estates in R22 (Sui Wo).

R. Sha Tin District - 339 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 19 R22 – 91& - (a) Propose to retain villages Items (a) and (b) Sui Wo namely Kwai Tei New These proposals are not Village, Kwai Tei Village, accepted because: R23 – Fo Tan Kuk San Tsuen and Fo Tan Wong Chuk Yeung, etc. in (i) if villages namely Kwai R23 (Fo Tan). Reasons are Tei New Village, Kwai Tei summarised as follows: Village, Fo Tan Kuk San Tsuen and Wong Chuk  villages in Fo Tan District Yeung, etc. are retained in share common culture and R23 (Fo Tan) or according history. Sha Tin has to the proposal (b) made in already been divided into the representation, the “Nine Yeuk” (九約) populations of R22 (Sui according to geographical Wo) and R23 (Fo Tan) will locations and inter-village deviate from the statutory ties, of which the “Fo Tan permissible range: Yeuk” (火灘(火炭)約) includes villages such as R22: 12 153, -26.78% Wong Chuk Yeung, Pat Tsz R23: 21 237, +27.94% Wo, Lok Lo Ha and Wo Liu Hang. The provisional (ii) Sha Tin has been divided recommendations will break into nine “Yeuk”s (約) in the historical heritage, the past. “Yeuk” (約) is community identities and an alliance of nearby local ties of villages in Fo villages. In fact, the Tan. villages included in some

“Yeuk”s (約) have been 90 representations consider that: delineated into different  residents of villages such as DCCAs from the first DC. Wong Chuk Yeung together with Pat Tsz Wo, Lok Lo Ha The villages included in and Wo Liu Hang share the “Fo Tan Yeuk” (火灘 common concerns, mainly 約) as mentioned in the about the overall planning of representations are the villages such as originally distributed in construction of village various DCCAs in 2015, houses, burglaries in villages, namely R22 (Sui Wo), R23 problems of hill roads and (Fo Tan) and R24 (Chun cleaning, which are different Ma). It is also the case from R22 (Sui Wo) for villages of other residents’ concerns about “Yeuk”s in the Sha Tin

&All are template letters. R. Sha Tin District - 340 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O local affairs. It will be District (e.g. San Tin and difficult for the DC member Tin Sam, which are under of that DCCA to take care of “Tin Sam Yeuk” (田心約), their needs which will in turn belong to R12 (Sun Tin harm villagers’ interests; and Wai) and R18 (Tin Sum) respectively).  having the same DC member to serve residents of various The EAC considers that villages can address to their although the villages needs more effectively. included in these “Yeuk”s (約) are located in different 47 representations state that: DCCAs, their villages

issues are all handled by  the villages usually organise the Sha Tin Rural community events together. Committee; If these villages are

delineated into different (iii) the delineation DCCAs, it will increase the recommendations must be difficulty to organise community events in the based on objective data of future; and population distribution. Arrangements on district  the villages have always administration matters or looked after one another and community services established unique local ties. provided by DC members The villages reflect views on are not the relevant factors village issues to the of consideration; Government and DC members on each other’s (iv) the delineation behalf. recommendations must be based on the population 43 representations state that distribution and relevant villagers have already cultivated local factors. It is a strong sense of belonging to inevitable that a DCCA is Fo Tan and have good composed of more than one relationship with villagers of community. Besides, R23 various villages. (Fo Tan) comprises of not only villages, but also some One representation considers private housing estates; and that: (v) it is an established practice  the main types of housing in that the delineation R22 (Sui Wo) are Home exercise for a DC ordinary Ownership Scheme estates election should be R. Sha Tin District - 341 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O and private housing, while conducted on the basis of that of the area surrounding the latest projected Kwai Tei New Village is population figures as at 30 village houses. June of the election year. Transferring these villages to Developments thereafter R22 (Sui Wo) under the will not be taken into provisional recommendations consideration. will make these residents of villages become the minority who will easily be neglected. On the contrary, there are still villages such as Pat Tsz Wo, Lok Lo Ha and Wo Liu Hang in R23 (Fo Tan). Retaining the area surrounding Kwai Tei New Village in R23 (Fo Tan) will be good for villagers to raise the same requests and protect their interests; and

 delineating various villages into different DCCAs will disperse the policy support provided by DC members and the Government and disable the effective deployment of resources.

(b) One representation further proposes to transfer the areas in the southwest of Fo Tan Road, San Chuk Street and Wo Sheung Tun Street, i.e. the areas surrounding Wo Sheung Tun Street subsidised sale flats development project and Fo Tan project, from R23 (Fo Tan) to R22 (Sui Wo).

R. Sha Tin District - 342 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 20 R23 – 1 - Holds no objection to the The view is noted. Fo Tan provisional recommendations.

21 R23 – 1 - Proposes to transfer the upper This proposal is not accepted Fo Tan development area because the number of affected along Lai Ping Road from R23 DCCAs under the proposal R24 – (Fo Tan) to R24 (Chun Ma). made in the representation will Chun It is because the population of be one more than that in the Ma R23 (Fo Tan) is relatively high provisional recommendations. while that of R24 (Chun Ma) is The affected population under relatively low. the proposal will be larger, too.

If there is a reversal of population flow of the two DCCAs after the proposed adjustment, proposes that the traditional lower Kau To Shan along Kau To Shan Road be transferred to R23 (Fo Tan).

22 R25 – 1 1 Support the provisional The supporting views are noted. Hoi recommendations. Nam

23 R25 – 2 1 Object to the transfer of the This proposal is not accepted Hoi private housing estates from because: Nam R26 (Chung On) to R25 (Hoi Nam) and propose to maintain (i) according to the proposal R26 – the boundary of R26 (Chung made in the Chung On). Reasons are summarised representations, the On as follows: population of R26 (Chung On) (21 655) will exceed  two representations consider the statutory permissible that Oceanaire has been upper limit (+30.46%), transferred to different while that of the new DCCAs for every term of DCCA R25 (Hoi Nam) election since intake, driving (7 111) will be below the its residents to seek statutory permissible lower assistance from different DC limit (-57.16%); members in different terms. This neither shows any care (ii) based on the 2015 original about the feelings of DCCA boundary, the Oceanaire’s residents, nor is populations of R26 (Chung R. Sha Tin District - 343 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O in line with the principle of On) and R36 (On Tai) will community integrity; exceed the statutory permissible upper limit,  one representation states that hence, the EAC needs to Oceanaire is linked with create the new DCCA R25 Baycrest, Vista Paradiso and (Hoi Nam) in-between the Chung On Estate, while two DCCAs so that the MTR of Ma populations of the DCCAs On Shan Line is in the centre concerned will fall within of the housing estates and the statutory permissible there are walkways between range, and Oceanaire is these housing estates for located in-between the two direct access. Therefore, DCCAs; the claim that Oceanaire is far away from these housing (iii) Oceanaire has not been estates is not true, and the transferred multiple times. EAC should have considered Oceanaire was built on a this during the last term. In site originally belonged to addition, the newly-built The R36 (On Tai) and hence Met. Bliss in R26 (Chung belonged to it after its On) is a housing estate of completion. In 2015, small flats with a population when the population of of only about 300, hence it is R36 (On Tai) exceeded the not justified to replace statutory permissible upper Oceanaire and Baycrest with limit, Oceanaire was The Met. Bliss; and transferred to R26 (Chung On); and  one representation considers that the increase of (iv) geographically, there are population in Sha Tin is walkways for the residents confined to certain areas of Oceanaire to go to other while the population and areas in R26 (Chung On). development characteristics However, comparatively of R26 (Chung On) are speaking, Oceanaire is relatively steady. even closer to the housing estates located in R25 (Hoi Nam).

R. Sha Tin District - 344 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 24 R25 – - 1 States that Oceanaire has been Please see item 23(ii) and (iii). Hoi transferred to different DCCAs Nam for many times and there are no new housing estates or R26 – buildings nearby. Enquires Chung about the reason(s) for the On creation of new DCCA R25 (Hoi Nam).

25 R25 – 1 - The populations of R25 (Hoi This proposal is not accepted Hoi Nam) and R36 (On Tai) in the because the number of affected Nam provisional recommendations DCCAs under the proposal are obviously relatively low and made in the representation will R26 – it is proposed that: be three more than that in the Chung provisional recommendations. On  Sausalito be retained in R36 The affected population under (On Tai); the proposal will be larger, too. R27 – Kam To  R27 (Kam To) should only include Kam Fung Court and R28 – be renamed as “Kam Fung”; Ma On Shan  Vista Paradiso be transferred Town from R26 (Chung On) to the Centre new DCCA R25 (Hoi Nam) and that the DCCA should R29 – absorb those parts other than Wu Kai Kam Fung Court of R27 Sha (Kam To) and part of the buildings in R28 (Ma On R36 – Shan Town Centre) such as On Tai Fok On Garden; and

 Villa Athena be transferred from R29 (Wu Kai Sha) to R28 (Ma On Shan Town Centre), so as to relieve the situation of R29 (Wu Kai Sha) which has a relatively high population.

R. Sha Tin District - 345 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 26 R25 – 1 - Queries why the EAC only This representation is not Hoi recommended the creation of accepted because: Nam new DCCA R25 (Hoi Nam) in R26 (Chung On) and R36 (On (i) the population of R29 (Wu R26 – Tai) rather than making Kai Sha) will fall within Chung adjustment to the boundary of the statutory permissible On R29 (Wu Kai Sha). The range. According to the representation considers that established working R29 – R29 (Wu Kai Sha), comprising principles, adjustment to Wu Kai five private housing estates with its existing boundary is not Sha a projected population already required; close to the statutory R36 – permissible upper limit, is the (ii) it is an established practice On Tai DCCA with the largest that the delineation population in the Sha Tin exercise for a DC ordinary District. It is expected that, election should be upon intake of the new housing conducted on the basis of estate St. Barths in the second the latest projected quarter of 2019, the projected population figures as at 30 population of the DCCA will June of the election year. exceed the statutory permissible Developments thereafter upper limit. will not be taken into consideration; and

(iii) based on the 2015 original DCCA boundary, the populations of R26 (Chung On) and R36 (On Tai) will exceed the statutory permissible upper limit, hence, the EAC needed to create the new DCCA R25 (Hoi Nam) in-between the two DCCAs so that the populations of the DCCAs concerned will be brought within the statutory permissible range.

R. Sha Tin District - 346 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 27 R29 – 1 - (a) States that R29 (Wu Kai Item (a) Wu Kai Sha) is the DCCA with the Please see item 26. Sha largest population in the Sha Tin District and its population is close to the statutory permissible upper limit. It is expected that, upon intake of the new housing estate St. Barths in the DCCA in the first half of 2019 and given that the population has not been included in R29 (Wu Kai Sha), the population of the DCCA will exceed the statutory permissible upper limit. The representation queries that the EAC does not intend to strictly adhere to the statutory criteria (a) and (b).

(b) Despite that the population Item (b) of R29 (Wu Kai Sha) is The view is noted. nearly 8 000 more than those of some other DCCAs, the delineation of its DCCA boundary is still considered reasonable taking into account factors of community identity and local ties.

(c) Considers that the EAC Item (c) must uphold and adhere to The delineation the principle of “factors with recommendations must be political implications are not based on objective data of taken into consideration”, population distribution. and that the election must be Political factors will not be conducted in a fair and taken into consideration. impartial manner.

R. Sha Tin District - 347 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O 28 R36 – 1 - States that the English name of As the current name for R36 On Tai R36 (On Tai) is the same as that (On Tai) has been in use since of J11 (On Tai) in the Kwun 2003 and the majority of the Tong District. public are used to this name, changing the name may cause confusion amongst the public. Therefore, the DCCA R36 will retain its current name “On Tai” “鞍泰”. In respect of the new DCCA J11 (On Tai) in the District, to avoid confusion, EAC will recommend renaming the DCCA as “觀塘安泰” and “Kwun Tong On Tai” in English.

29 R37 – 1 - Proposes that: This proposal is not accepted Yu Yan because:  the new DCCA be composed R38 – of Greenhill Villa, Shek Mun (i) please see item 8(a)(ii); Di Yee Estate Phases 1 and 2; (ii) the number of affected R39 –  the Castello be retained in DCCAs under the proposal Bik R40 (Kwong Hong); and made in the representation Woo will be one more than that  the areas of A Kung Kok and in the provisional R40 – A Kung Kok Shan be recommendations. Kwong transferred from R37 (Yu Besides, A Kung Kok in Hong Yan) and R40 (Kwong R37 (Yu Yan) and A Kung Hong) to R39 (Bik Woo). Kok Shan in R40 (Kwong Hong) are located far away It is because: from adjacent main housing estates. Taking  the shape of the new DCCA geographical factor into R38 (Di Yee) looks strange consideration, the proposal and local ties within the made in the representation DCCA are questionable; on transferring the above areas to R39 (Bik Woo) is  the delineation is considered not obviously desirable; unreasonable as Shek Mun Estate Phase 1 and the (iii) Shek Mun Estate Phase 1 private housing estates and Garden Vista, Pictorial R. Sha Tin District - 348 - R. Sha Tin District

Item No.* DCCAs Representations EAC’s Views No. W O located at the riverfront are Garden as well as Ravana delineated into the same Garden located at the DCCA even with the Shek riverside in R39 (Bik Woo) Mun Industrial Area in have been delineated into between, while Shek Mun the same DCCA since Estate Phase 2 is delineated 2011. On the contrary, into another DCCA; and Shek Mun Estate Phase 2 is a newly-built housing  A Kung Kok and A Kung estate. Hence, there is no Kok Shan are far away from sufficient objective R37 (Yu Yan) and R40 information and (Kwong Hong) but are, on justification to prove that the contrary, adjacent to R39 the proposal made in the (Bik Woo). This proposal representation is obviously can also address the problem better than the provisional of under-population after the recommendations in terms proposed adjustments stated of preserving local ties; in the representation. and

(iv) although the shape of a DCCA is a relevant factor of consideration, it is confined by population distribution to a certain extent and is not a prime factor of consideration.

30 R38 – 2 - Support the provisional The supporting views are noted. Di Yee recommendations.