(Translation)

Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the Development, Planning and Transport Committee 5th District Council Special Administrative Region

Date : 4 June 2019 (Tuesday) Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : District Council Conference Room, Office

Present Chairperson Ms LEE Kwun-yee, Kenny, MH

Vice-Chairperson Mr LAM Wai-man, Wind, Anson

Members Mr NG Kam-chun, Stephen, BBS, MH, JP Dr CHOW Kit-bing, Jennifer, BBS, MH Dr TANG King-yung, Anna, BBS, MH The Hon TSE Wai-chun, Paul, JP Ms NG Yuen-ting, Yolanda, MH Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan, MH Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy, MH Mr LEE Man-lung, Joey Miss YEUNG Suet-ying, Clarisse Mr CHENG Ki-kin Ms CHUNG Ka-man, Jacqueline

Co-opted Members Ms LAU Pui-shan Mr NG Kwok-shing Mr NG Hoi-shing Dr CHEUNG Charlton

Absent With Apologies Ms CHING Lei-yuen

Representatives of Government Departments Miss LAU Hei-yue, Hayley Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), Home Affairs Department Miss CHAN Sum-yee, Rita Senior Liaison Officer (Community Affairs), Wan Chai District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr MAK Hon-sum, Ronnie Senior Estate Surveyor/HKE(2), Lands Department Mr TANG King-yan, Sunny Town Planner/Hong Kong 8, Planning Department Mr CHOY Ka-ming Sergeant District Traffic Team (Wan Chai), Hong Kong Police Force Mr YU Wing-lun, Alan Senior Environmental Protection Officer(Regional South)4 Environmental Protection Department Mr LAI Sing-chuen, Gary Senior Transport Officer/Wan Chai, Transport Department Mr TANG Siu-chung Engineer/Wan Chai 2, Transport Department Mr TANG Wei-an, Mark Engineer/ Wan Chai 3, Transport Department Mr TSE Chau-tong, Franklin Senior Engineer/9 (South), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHAN Kai-yin District Engineer/Wan Chai, Highways Department Mr HO Wai-ming Engineer/ HK (Distribution 4), Water Supplies Department

Representatives of Other Government Departments and Organisations Mr TO Chi-hung Engineer/Construction 6, Water Supplies Department Mr FU Chi-yet Engineer/Hong Kong East 1, Drainage Services Department Mr CHEUNG Sai-kwong, Tony Senior Engineer 4/Central Wanchai Bypass, Highways Department Ms CHENG Pui-man Senior Electrical & Mechanical Engineer / Major Works, Highway Department Mr Eric WONG Senior Resident Engineer, AECOM Asia Company Limited Ms Lydia LEE Senior Resident Engineer, AECOM Asia Company Limited Ms FUNG Chi-shan, Athena Senior Project Manager 122, Architectural Services Department Mr CHAN Chun-fung, Alfred Project Manager 178, Architectural Services Department Miss CHAN Suet-yi Landscape Architect/10, Architectural Services Department Mr CHAN Ka-leong Chief Health Inspector 1, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr CHAN Chi-sing Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control)1, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr CHAN Hoi-sing Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East) Lands Department Mr Jacky LEE Senior Building Surveyor/Hong Kong East 2, Buildings Department Mr CHIANG Wai-kan Registered Social Worker, Wan Chai Methodist Centre for the Seniors Mr HO Nai-wing, Terence Senior Officer, Methodist Centre Mr WONG Wai-lun, Ricky Marketing Officer, Methodist Centre Ms CHAN Lai-ming, Ring Marketing and PR Manager, Hong Kong Automobile Association Mr LO Tin-sown Chairperson, Wan Chai Community Association Mr LAU Lee-lam Manager, St. James’ Settlement Ms LEE Pui-yi, Rebecca Vice Chairperson, Hong Kong Industry and Commerce Association Ltd. Mr NG Chak-sum, Sam Chairperson, Happy Valley Community Association Ms CHU Siu-lai Chairperson, Wan Chai Yin Ngai Society Ms AU Kam-yi, Holly Vice Chairman, Hongkong Soong Ching Ling Goldkey Training Foundation Ltd Ms LEE Pui-sze, Carol Vice Officer of Creative Arts Hongkong Soong Ching Ling Goldkey Training Foundation Ltd Mr IP Ming Chairperson, Man Yue Club Ltd Mr HO Chun-leung Project Manager, Man Yue Club Ltd Ms YUNG Chi-wai, Esther Chief Engineer / S4 Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr TSANG Hing-lung, Henry Senior Engineer / 1 (S) Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms TENG Ka-yee, Carrie Engineer / 1 (S) Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr LEONG Weng-hong, AECOM Asia Company Limited Francis

Secretary Mr KO Chin-hung, Simon Executive Officer (District Council) 3, Wan Chai District Office, Home Affairs Department

Action Opening Remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members and representatives of government departments to the 22nd meeting of the Development, Planning and Transport Committee (DPTC) of the Wan Chai District Council (WCDC).

2. The Chairperson informed the meeting that Mr LUK Kwok-on, Anthony, Senior Town planner/Hong Kong 3 of the Planning Department (PlanD) was unable to attend the meeting due to other engagements and he was stood in by Mr TANG King-yan, Sunny, Town Planner/Hong Kong 8. In addition, Ms CHEUNG Pui-kay, Carrie, District Operations Officer (Wan Chai) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) was unable to attend the meeting due to other engagements and she was stood in by Mr CHOY Ka-ming, Sergeant District Traffic Team (Wan Chai). The Chairperson asked Members to note the above information.

3. The Chairperson asked Members to note the papers and agenda with suggested discussion time on the conference table. To ensure the meeting was conducted in an efficient manner, the discussion would be timed. A maximum of two rounds of speeches was allowed for each agenda item, and each Member would have a two-minute speaking time in each round of speeches.

Item 1: Confirmation of Minutes of the 21st Meeting of DPTC of WCDC

4. The Chairperson stated that the Secretariat had received a proposed amendment from Miss Clarisse YEUNG prior to the meeting.

5. Members present raised no other amendments. The minutes of the 21st meeting were confirmed by means of a motion moved by Ms Yolanda NG and seconded by the Vice-Chairperson Mr Anson LAM.

Item 2: Position of WCDC Funds Appropriated to the DPTC for 2018/2019 (DPTC Paper No. 35/2019)

6. The Secretary briefly introduced the paper.

7. The Committee noted the above paper.

Item 3: Summary of Major Temporary Traffic Arrangements in Wan Chai District – Transport Department (DPTC Paper No. 36/2019)

8. Mr Gary LAI of the Transport Department (TD) briefly introduced the paper.

9. The Committee noted the above paper.

Item 4: Major Small-scale Traffic Improvement Works Completed, Underway or being Planned in Wan Chai District by Transport Department/Highways Department in the Past Two Months and their Schedules (DPTC Paper No. 37/2019)

10. Mr CHAN Kai-yin of the Highways Department (HyD) briefly introduced the paper

11. Mr Mark TANG of TD supplemented that the pedestrian lights installed at the junction of Fleming and (Item No. HK/11/02146) had commenced operation on 3 June. TD would keep monitoring the traffic condition at the junction and make adjustments accordingly.

12. The Committee noted the above paper.

Item 5: Summary of Works in Wan Chai District – Civil Engineering and Development Department (DPTC Paper No. 38/2019)

13. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:

Water Supplies Department Mr TO Chi-hung Engineer/Construction 6 Drainage Services Department Mr FU Chi-yet Engineer/Hong Kong East 1 Highway Department Mr Tony CHEUNG Senior Engineer 4/Central Wanchai Bypass Ms CHENG Pui-man Senior Electrical & Mechanical Engineer/ Major Works Architectural Services Department Ms Athena FUNG Senior Project Manager 122 Mr Alfred CHAN Project Manager 178 Ms CHAN Suet-yi Landscape Architect/10 AECOM Asia Company Ltd Mr Eric WONG Senior Resident Engineer Ms Lydia LEE Senior Resident Engineer

14. Mr Franklin TSE of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) briefly introduced the paper.

15. Dr Jennifer CHOW enquired about the handover of the construction site of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass (CWB) after the commissioning. Besides, she pointed out that the road improvement works at Hing Fat Street and Victoria Park Road were still underway and she asked about the completion date of the works.

16. The Chairperson pointed out that a fatal traffic accident happened at CWB last week. She asked about the causes and investigation progress and whether the accident took place because of the design of the bypass.

17. Ms Lydia LEE of AECOM responded as follows:

i. The road improvement works at Hing Fat Street were expected to be completed in late September this year. The construction site near Watson Road and Hing Fat Street would be handed over to the relevant government departments in 2020. She would report the progress to DC in due course.

ii. The fatal traffic accident happened last week at CWB was unrelated to the design of CWB. According to her understanding, the accident was induced by the driver’s sudden loss of consciousness, causing the vehicle to run out of control and hit against the concrete barrier.

18. The Chairperson enquired about the resumption date of the waterworks at Fenwick Street (PWP No. 043WA Category A). She hoped that the Water Supplies Department (WSD) could speed up the work progress.

19. Mr To Chi-hung of WSD responded that the connection works of gas pipes at the main laying works site at Fenwick Street by the Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited (Towngas) were in progress. Such works were expected to be completed in August, thus the progress of the water mains laying works would be slightly delayed. However, WSD would urge the contractor to accelerate the work progress. The waterworks were expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2020.

20. The Chairperson asked the Department concerned to maintain close liaison with the Council and report on the work progress on a regular basis.

21. Dr Jennifer CHOW asked whether HyD would report to the Council on the air quality monitoring data after the operation of the air purification system at the East Ventilation Building of CWB resumed. Furthermore, she asked whether TD would consider conducting a study to enhance the pedestrian lights after the commissioning of CWB.

22. Ms Lydia LEE of AECOM responded that after conducting on-site inspections by engineering staff and communicating with TD, it was discovered that the duration of the green light of the pedestrian lights had already been adjusted to the longest. Nevertheless, engineering staff would keep monitoring the condition of the pedestrian crossing.

23. Mr Tony CHEUNG of TD responded that TD had provided the data regarding the concentration of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at the eastern portal and inside the bypass to the Committee after last meeting. The air quality was found normal as the concentration of NO2 inside the bypass was far below the limit set by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD).

24. The Chairperson asked TD to continue monitoring the air quality and thanked the representatives of the Departments concerned for attending the meeting.

(Representatives of WSD, the Drainage Services Department, HyD, Architectural Services Department and AECOM left the meeting after discussion.) (Mr CHENG Ki-kin and Co-opted Member Ms LAU Pui-shan joined the meeting at 2:40 p.m.)

Written Question Item 6: Concern over Street Management of Great George Street, East Point Road, Paterson Street, Kingston Street and Cleveland Street, and Review of Walkway Enhancement Programme for North-eastern Part of Causeway Bay (DPTC Paper No. 31/2019)

25. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:

Food and Environment Hygiene Department Mr CHAN Ka-leong Chief Health Inspector 1 Mr CHAN Chi-sing Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control)1 Lands Department Mr CHAN Hoi-sing Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East)

26. Ms Yolanda NG briefly introduced the written question:

i. The Walkway Enhancement Programme for north-eastern part of Causeway Bay could bring positive impacts to the beautification of walkway and environmental hygiene as well as improve the walking experience of the members of the public. However, problems were identified in the procedures of delegating the management of the walkway to the contractor by the government.

ii. She pointed out that some applicants would like to carry out seasonal beautification works in the relevant road section. She had been consulting the residents over the years and found that they would be delighted to see the relevant beautification works if no commercial purposes are involved as they could enhance the walking experience of the public.

iii. She pointed out that the incident of “Christmas railing” happened last two years. When she handled the cases, she found out that the Departments concerned raised no objection when the applicant applied for the display of yarn decorations. However, after such Christmas decorations were displayed, the applicant realised that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) had the authority to remove the decorations. Considering the deep concern of the public regarding the incident, she would like to discuss the matter at the meeting to obtain a consistent explanation from different departments.

27. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquires:

i. She opined that the incident was controversial. She pointed out that certain public spaces were managed by private enterprises at present and this would raise public awareness on environmental hygiene and the public right of usage.

ii. She asked whether any corresponding policy bureaux could provide an explanation. She opined that new practice of street management to foster a cultural ambience of the community was desirable but problems might arise in the details. For instance, the yarn decorations might raise hygiene concerns. However, the written response from the departments involved did not mention the users’ accountability or the policy consideration about public engagement. She agreed that this matter required further follow up.

28. Dr CHEUNG Charlton pointed out that it was not a new practice to display non-commercial publicity materials on railings. For instance, under the existing policy, non-governmental organisations could apply to LandsD for the display of non-commercial banners at specific railings. He considered that a similar policy should also be established for other non-commercial publicity materials apart from banners.

29. Mr CHAN Ka-leong of FEHD responded as follows:

i. For matters concerning street management, the major responsibility of FEHD was maintaining environmental hygiene. If obstruction on street cleaning or unlicensed hawking activities was identified, FEHD would handle the matter with priority and take enforcement action according to the actual situation.

ii. According to their observations, the yarn decorations displayed on the railings did not cause any environmental nuisance and involved no perceptible commercial element. Therefore no enforcement action was taken by FEHD.

iii. In general, FEHD would not grant approval to the application of displaying yarn decorations at roadside.

30. Mr CHAN Hoi-sing of LandsD responded as follows:

i. LandsD examined applications of displaying non-commercial publicity materials on roadside railings in accordance with the “Management Scheme for the Display of Roadside Non-commercial Publicity Materials Implementation Guidelines” (the Guidelines). Stringent requirements on the size and content of such publicity materials were stipulated in the Guidelines.

ii. According to the record, no designated spot of display had been established by the LandsD in accordance with the Guidelines along the concerned roadside railings at the walkways in north-eastern part of Causeway Bay. As such, LandsD would not consider relevant applications.

31. Mr Mark TANG of TD responded as follows:

i. TD considered the application mainly on traffic grounds. In other words, the decorations involved in the application for public display should not obscure the sight lines of drivers or pedestrians, block any traffic signs or traffic lights, or obstruct pedestrian flow.

ii. The decorations involved in the application for public display should not appear alike to the traffic signs or traffic lights so as not to confuse road users.

iii. Moreover, the decorations involved in the application for public display should not be placed near road junctions so that motorists would not be distracted.

32. Mr CHAN Kai-yin of HyD responded as follows:

i. The owner of the relevant road section had proposed earlier to the Government to conduct beautification works, including the replacement of road facilities such as concrete pavers of the public pedestrian walkways, railings and bollards, at their own cost. The owner signed an undertaking in August 2013, agreed to bear the responsibilities for the renewal of the above road facilities as well as the maintenance and repairs of the renewed facilities. The replacement works were completed in March 2016.

ii. The undertaking signed between the relevant owner and the Government primarily involved the replacement and maintenance arrangements of the road facilities, yet street management was not covered. HyD was mainly responsible for monitoring the concerned maintenance works for such road facilities by the owner of the relevant road section to ensure it was conducted in accordance with the terms listed in the undertaking.

iii. Regarding the proposal submitted earlier by the owner’s agent for art decoration display on the existing railings, since such art decorations would not bring negative impacts to the road facilities of which maintenance was managed by the owner or HyD, HyD had no comment on the proposal. Nevertheless, HyD requested the relevant agent to seek advice from other relevant government departments.

33. Ms Yolanda NG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She pointed out that HyD was the only department which had provided a reply about the duration of the contract, indicating that HyD was the department which signed the agreement with the developer in the first place.

ii. She held the view that the replacement, maintenance and repair arrangements of road facilities were part of street management. She pointed out that although this application was submitted by the owner of the road section who happened to be accountable for the maintenance and repair of the road section, anybody could submit an application for displaying art decorations on the street. She opined that this incident involved the public right to use such facilities.

iii. Although the department concerned had clarified that the developer who entered into an agreement would not enjoy greater advantages than the public when they apply for displaying art decorations, she considered that it was necessary to further discuss the rights and obligations when members of the public submitted similar applications. She asked which government departments were responsible for evaluating the relevant applications. Besides, she pointed out that the relevant policies should also be applicable to other roads and streets which were not covered in the Walkway Enhancement Programme for north-eastern Part of Causeway Bay.

34. Miss Clarisse YEUNG left the following comments:

i. She pointed out that the number of road sections managed by private corporates had increased in recent years, and this raised public concerns that whether the Government had formulated relevant policies to accommodate the public preference for the use of public spaces.

ii. She opined that it seemed that the government departments which attended the meeting could not answer the enquiries of the Council due to the limitations of their own terms of reference. She suggested that the enquiries should be submitted to relevant policy bureaux for follow up actions and replies.

35. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG provided the following comments:

i. She pointed out that from the perspective of residents, the subject art decorations were rather simple installations and would be displayed merely for a short period of time, rather than permanently.

ii. She stated that in fact the applicant had applied for displaying art decorations during Christmas every year, thus she suggested that the Wan Chai District Office (WCDO) should assist in coordinating the processing of applications with different departments to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill.

36. Miss Hayley LAU of WCDO stated that placing art decorations on transport facilities on public roads would involve issues of environmental hygiene, road safety and maintenance, etc. WCDO was willing to coordinate the efforts of departments concerned to resolve the matter. WCDO would follow up on the matter with various departments after the meeting.

37. Ms Yolanda NG asked whether WCDO would take up the role as a coordinator when similar applications were received by government departments in the future. The departments concerned could therefore respond to the relevant applications efficiently, instead of issuing Notices of No Objection individually. She opined that the above arrangement would be better for both members of the public and frontline staff of the departments concerned.

38. The Chairperson considered that it would be optimal if WCDO could coordinate works by different departments in the works of street management and expedite the handing of district issues. She hoped that the communication and coordination among the departments concerned could be strengthened and each department could take the initiative to perform their duties and responsibilities.

39. Mr CHAN Ka-leong of FEHD responded that FEHD adopted an open attitude on the suggestions. He believed that communication among the departments concerned could be enhanced and inter-departmental meetings could be organised to process similar applications in the future.

40. Mr CHAN Hoi-sing of LandsD responded that LandsD would cooperate with other departments proactively.

41. Mr CHOY Ka-ming of HKPF replied that the major duty of HKPF was law enforcement. HKPF would continue to strengthen law enforcement at the relevant road sections, with a view to minimising the nuisance to residents and ensuring road safety.

42. Mr CHAN Kai-yin of HyD responded that HyD upheld an open attitude on the suggestions and would cooperate with other departments proactively.

43. Mr Mark TANG of TD stated that TD maintained an open mind on the suggestions and would continue to provide advice on traffic matters.

44. Ms Yolanda NG supplemented that her suggestion mentioned earlier was to request WCDO to coordinate the processing of the relevant applications by the departments concerned as soon as they were received, instead of after the artworks had been on display.

45. Miss Hayley LAU of WCDO stated that WCDO would strengthen the communication with the departments concerned when handling matters related to road enhancement.

46. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of the relevant departments for attending the meeting.

(Representatives of FEHD and LandsD left the meeting after discussion.)

(Mr Stephen NG joined the meeting at 3:00 p.m. while the Hon Paul TSE left the meeting at 3:00 p.m.)

Item 7: Concern over the Impact of the Demolition and Redevelopment of on the Community (DPTC Paper No. 32/2019)

47. The Chairperson welcomed Mr Jacky LEE, Senior Building Surveyor of the Buildings Department (BD), to the meeting.

48. Ms Yolanda NG briefed Members on the written motion:

i. She opined that the contractor had already commenced the construction works before the demolition works were formally carried out. She criticised that such works were not the advance works of the demolition as mentioned in the paper. For example, the contractor removed the chimney about two weeks before, causing dust emission and noise pollution in the vicinity of the construction site.

ii. She had lodged a complaint to the relevant parties and the contractor explained that such works were advance works. She pointed out that the public could hardly distinguish between advance works and the official construction works. She also opined that as long as construction works were underway, precautions such as hoarding should be taken. She was concerned about the impact on the community when the demolition works began.

iii. She pointed out that as the demolition and redevelopment of the Excelsior was a six-year project and it was a landmark of Wan Chai, it was believed that the project would arouse significant public concern. Therefore, she raised the issue for discussion at the Council’s meeting.

49. Mr Alan YU of EPD responded as follows:

i. The demolition and redevelopment of the Excelsior was regulated by the relevant environmental legislations. EPD had contacted the contractor to remind them to be cautious of the environmental pollutions that might be caused by the works, and to meet the requirements of the relevant environmental legislations. EPD also urged the contractor to implement pollution control and mitigation measures in order to reduce the impact to the vicinity of the construction site.

ii. EPD would strengthen patrols with reference to the observations by Members. If any violation of environmental legislation was identified, EPD would carry out investigation and take law enforcement actions.

50. Mr Jacky LEE of BD responded as follows:

i. According to the existing legislations, if the work was one of the 126 works under the Minor Works Control System (MWCS), such works could be carried out without approval or agreement from BD.

ii. Regarding the demolition of the chimney of the Excelsior, he would contact authorised persons or the contractor to check whether it was one of the minor works under MWCS and whether such works complied with other requirements of MWCS. He would provide supplementary information to the Council at a later stage.

51. Mr CHOY Ka-ming of HKPF responded as follows:

i. According to the traffic inspection conducted by the Police in the vicinity of the Excelsior, the number of cargo vehicles going to the Excelsior had decreased significantly and the traffic in the vicinity of and Cannon Street had improved.

ii. The Police would continue to pay attention to the traffic condition in the area and deploy frontline officers to strengthen law enforcement, with a view to ensuring traffic safety and smooth traffic flow.

52. Mr Sunny TANG of PlanD responded as follows:

i. PlanD was mainly responsible for regulating the land use and restricting the development scale in accordance with the Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs). The Excelsior was marked as “commercial (1)” in the Causeway Bay OZP No. S/H6/17 with a building height restriction at 135 metres above Principal Datum.

ii. As the Excelsior would be redeveloped to a commercial building, it complied with the land use requirement of “commercial (1)”. Furthermore, the contractor should also comply with other regulations of the government, including the environmental legislation.

53. Ms Peggy LEE pointed out that although according to Noise Control Ordinance, the contractor could start the work at 7 a.m. every weekday, she hoped that EPD could foster better communication with the contractor for a postponement to after 8 or 9 a.m. to reduce the noise nuisance to residents.

54. Ms Yolanda NG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She pointed out that most of the residents were off on Saturday and suggested that EPD should request the contractor to avoid major works on Saturday in order to minimise the nuisance to the community.

ii. She was concerned about the works that had already commenced and stated that some resident said that they were suffered from different health problems like allergic rhinitis due to the dust from the construction site.

iii. She pointed out that the written response of BD did not state that the contractor could carry out the minor works under Buildings Ordinance without the approval and agreement from BD before the commencement of the demolition. She requested BD to strictly implement the measures mentioned in the written response when monitoring the demolition and redevelopment of the Excelsior.

55. Mr Jacky LEE of BD responded as follows:

i. The main purpose of the hoarding and demolition safety measures of the Excelsior was to prevent dust emission and concrete spalling during the demolition of the buildings in order to ensure the safety of pedestrians. The relevant hoarding and safety measures must comply with the guidelines of BD and also be agreed by BD before installation.

ii. He would provide the information about minor works of the demolition and redevelopment of the Excelsior that had completed or were in progress to the Council for the information of Members and the public.

56. Ms Yolanda NG added that the information she requested further from BD was the list of works that could be commenced in the Excelsior construction site without the review and agreement of BD in August. Furthermore, she demanded high-level safety measures be put in place for the commenced works to prevent air and noise pollution.

57. The Chairperson asked BD to provide information about the works that were ready to commence after the meeting and the method to monitor and ensure the demolition and redevelopment complied with the legislation.

58. Mr Alan YU of EPD responded that EPD would strengthen the patrolling in order to ensure that the works complied with the environmental legislation. Furthermore, he would also relay Members’ opinions to the contractor that the contractor should defer the start of works in order to reduce the nuisance towards the residents.

59. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of the government departments for attending the meeting.

(Representatives of BD left the meeting after discussion.)

(Post-meeting note: BD submitted supplementary information about the minor works of the demolition and redevelopment of the Excelsior which were completed or in progress. The Secretariat has circulated such supplementary information to Members for reference.)

Discussion Items Item 8: Applications for WCDC Funds

60. The Chairperson reminded Members to fill out the “Registration Form for Declaration of Interests” as necessary and to notify her of any conflict of interest as well as withdraw from the meeting as appropriate in discussing the relevant funding applications.

(a) Wan Chai Tree Study and Guided Tour Programme (DPTC Paper No. 45/2019) Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation under Funding Application Amount ($) ($) 45/2019 Wan Chai Tree Wan Chai 55,000 55,000 Study and Methodist Guided Tour Centre For Programme the Seniors

61. The Chairperson welcomed Mr CHIANG Wai-kan, Registered Social Worker of Wan Chai Methodist Centre for the Seniors to the meeting.

62. Mr CHIANG Wai-kan briefed the Members on the funding application paper of “Wan Chai Tree Study and Guided Tour Programme”.

63. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She opined that the activities of the event were redundant. She enquired of the organisation what knowledge was expected to be passed to the elderly through the tree workshop.

ii. She opined that the time of the photography workshop was rather short and asked whether the elderly would use their own mobile phones as camera. She also opined that the information was not clear enough.

iii. She asked what information would be included in the Tree Register, and whether the information of all the trees in Wan Chai would be included. She further enquired about the compilation method of the Tree Register and if printed version was needed.

iv. She enquired of the organisation whether environmental protection was considered in the production of the banner, whether it was a must to produce a banner and whether green materials would be used.

64. Mr CHIANG Wai-kan responded as follows:

i. The old and valuable trees were a feature of Wan Chai. Therefore, the Centre hoped to enhance the elderly’s knowledge of the trees and their sense of belonging to Wan Chai through the workshop.

ii. He believed the elderly should be able to grasp the basic photo taking techniques taught in the photography workshop. It was expected that the participants would use their own mobile phones as camera but he also encouraged them to bring their own cameras.

iii. If the elderly wished to learn more photo taking techniques after the workshop, they could attend other photo taking courses held by the Centre, further promoting the sense of worthiness among the elders.

iv. The Tree Register included 20-30 common tree species in Wan Chai. The purpose of its printing was to deepen the public knowledge of the Wan Chai District and to demonstrate its beauty to the residents.

v. He would request the producer to use green materials for the production of the banner. It was expected to use fabric.

65. The Chairperson complimented on the concept of the plan. She said that since the Development Bureau (DEVB) had suggested planting native trees in different districts after Typhoon Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, she advised the organisation to teach the elderly how to distinguish between native and foreign tree species in the workshop.

66. A Member reckoned that professional knowledge was required for editing the Tree Register, thus suggested the organisation should cooperate with the government departments. Moreover, the Member asked why the organisation purchased the personal accident insurance for the outdoor event though they had already purchased the public liability insurance for the whole event.

67. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She asked again what kind of knowledge they expected the elderly to gain through the tree workshop and criticised the organisation for failing to sufficiently prepare and clearly answer her enquiries.

ii. She considered the event as redundant and merely a combination of a few workshops with a compilation of Tree Register.

iii. She opined that a detailed planning of the book editing and publishing was essential and questioned whether the Tree Register could be successfully published and proved effective with the limited estimated budget of $30 each copy. She hoped that the organisation could clear up her doubts or she would not support the application.

68. Dr CHEUNG Charlton agreed on the concept of the Tree Register. He further suggested including the stories between the trees and the elderly in the district to enrich the content.

69. Mr CHIANG Wai-kan responded as follows:

i. He thanked for the Members’ opinions. He would ask the relevant government departments for the information of the trees.

ii. The preliminary concept of the project was to invite the Committee to write an article for the Register and to collect stories between trees and elders. The register would begin with the stories and then the information of the trees, with a view to enhancing the residents’ the knowledge of trees in Wan Chai.

iii. As various outdoor activities were included in the event, the Centre hoped, as advised by the insurance company, to better protect the participants by purchasing personal accident insurance.

70. A Member said that many of the elderly were professional in different aspects so the event should be aimed to encourage them to try a new hobby. Furthermore, regarding the high insurance premium of the event, the member requested the organisation to get quotations from three insurance companies and compare prices to ensure an effective use of funds.

71. The Chairperson thanked Mt CHIANG Wai-kan for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Mr CHIANG Wai-kan left the meeting.)

72. The Secretary informed the meeting of the exemption items applied by the organiser.

73. Dr CHEUNG Charlton agreed on adding stories between trees and the elderly in the Tree Register and suggested that the organisation should include this idea in the funding application.

74. Members raised no objection. The Chairperson announced that the Committee endorsed the funding application and the exemption items.

(Mr Ivan WONG joined the meeting at 3:25 p.m.)

(Post-meeting note: 1. The organiser revised the funding application paper of “Wan Chai Tree Study and Guided Tour Programme” based on the comments raised by the Committee after the meeting. The Secretariat has circulated the revised funding application paper to Members for perusal. 2. The Funding and General Affairs Committee (FGAC) endorsed the application for WCDC Funds at its 22nd meeting on 18 June 2019. For details, please refer to FGAC Paper No. 121/2019.)

(b) 2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety Simulated Driving Experience Fun Day (DPTC Paper No. 46/2019)

Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation Amount Funding under Amount ($) Application ($) 46/2019 2019 Wan Chai Methodist 255,145 255,145 District Road Centre Safety Simulated Driving Experience Fun Day

75. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:

Methodist Centre Mr Terence HO Senior Officer Mr Ricky WONG Marketing Officer Hong Kong Automobile Association Ms Ring CHAN Marketing and PR Manager

76. Mr Terence HO briefed the Members on the funding application paper of “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety Simulated Driving Experience Fun Day”.

77. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked what kind of green power would be used at the Green Dynamic Road Safety Town. Moreover, he enquired whether the event could be organised in an outdoor venue as the indoor venue required a rent as high as $32,000. He stated that other events held at Southorn Playground in the past could accommodate over 2 000 people and it was also a more convenient venue for the participants.

78. Mr Terence HO responded as follows:

i. They had enquired different venues but most of the outdoor venues had been occupied. Moreover, the event could be managed more effectively and held as scheduled even on rainy days if it was organised indoor.

ii. Electric cars for kids would be featured at the Green Dynamic Road Safety Town to promote road safety to children.

79. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquires:

i. She agreed with Dr CHEUNG Charlton that the rent of $32,000 was expensive. She asked the organisation which the outdoor venues they had enquired, whether all the dates had been booked and whether cheaper venues were available.

ii. She enquired of the organisation about the targeted quality standard of the event. She stated that activities of different standards would involve varied levels of expenditure. For example, master of ceremonies with better skills might require higher service charge.

iii. She opined that a large number of printed materials would be used in the activity and asked the organisation whether the ceremony of the event could be simplified to reduce the resources needed. Furthermore, she suggested that the materials used for producing the promotional materials should be listed in the paper.

80. The Vice-Chairperson enquired about the age limit of the electric cars as he was worried about the safety of the young participants.

81. Mr Ricky WONG responded as follows:

i. He stated that the car simulators used in the Road Safety Simulated Driving Experience would be immobile during operation and were suitable for use by children of 5 years old or above. Furthermore, staff would be assigned to guide participants at each simulator to ensure their safety.

ii. The banners would be made of Oxford nylon or other recyclable materials.

82. Mr Terence HO supplemented as follows:

i. Apart from printing promotional leaflets, they would also utilise online social media platforms to promote the event to the community, with a view to avoiding wastage generated by printing excessive promotional materials.

ii. The performance section of the event would include 150 performers from 20 organisations in total. Since it would be a large-scale event, quality master of ceremonies would be needed.

83. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of the applicant organisation for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Mr Terence HO, Mr Ricky WONG and Ms Ring CHAN left the meeting.)

84. The Secretary informed the meeting of the exemption items applied by the organiser.

85. Miss Clarisse YEUNG objected to the funding application and exemption items.

86. Other Members raised no objection and the Chairperson announced that the funding application was endorsed by the Committee.

(Post-meeting note: FGAC endorsed the application for WCDC Funds at its 22nd meeting on 18 June 2019. For details, please refer to FGAC Paper No. 122/2019.)

(c) Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities (DPTC Paper No. 42/2019) (d) Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019 (DPTC Paper No.47/2019) Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation Amount Funding under Amount ($) Application ($) 42/2019 2019 Wan Chai Wan Chai 93,280 93,280 District Road Community Safety On-street Association Education Activities 47/2019 Wan Chai Green Wan Chai 115,772 Life Gala 2019 Community Association

87. The Chairperson stated that since Wan Chai Community Association submitted two funding applications to the Council to organise “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities” and “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019”, she advised the organiser to first introduce both applications and the Council would discuss both agenda items in one go.

88. Members raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

89. The Chairperson welcomed Mr LO Tin-sown, Chairperson of Wan Chai Community Association to the meeting.

90. Mr LO Tin-sown briefed Members on the application of “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”.

91. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She pointed out that funding was endorsed by the Council to organise a similar activity last year and eco-friendly utensils were distributed to the public. She was an observer of the activity and some participants reflected to her that the design of the utensils could be improved. She suggested that the organisation could adopt a more professional design.

ii. She pointed out that the organisation applied funding to produce three to four pull-up banners every year, thus she suggested that the organisation should produce reusable pull-up banners for future activities.

iii. She proposed that the activity should be held at Causeway Road (outside Queen’s College), instead of Wun Sha Street in since the former had greater pedestrian flow while the latter was more crowded.

92. Dr CHEUNG Charlton enquired about the relationship between distributing folders during the activity and promoting traffic safety messages. Besides, he opined that the production cost of each folder at $12 was rather expensive. He shared that he had printed 1 000 folders recently at a cost of around $6 each. He wondered why the production cost of each folder by the organisation was so high.

93. Mr LO Tin-sown responded as follows:

i. Due to the change of venue, promotional pull-up banners needed to be reproduced.

ii. He stated that an activity had been held outside Queen’s College in the past, yet the pedestrian flow was not high. He believed that more people would pass by Wun Sha Street in Tai Hang since it was close to the wet market.

iii. He explained that the $12 production cost of each folder included the design cost as well.

94. Miss Clarisse YEUNG pointed out that there was no market in the vicinity of Wun Sha Street in Tai Hang. To her knowledge, the pedestrian flow there would not be higher than that outside Queen’s College. Besides, she opined that it was unreasonable to reproduce the banners because of the change of the venue and she hoped that the organisation would give serious consideration to her suggestions.

95. The Chairperson encouraged the organisation to accept the suggestions raised by the DC Member regarding the activity venue and consider producing reusable pull-up banners. She also enquired about the materials of the folders.

96. Mr LO Tin-sown answered that polymer which contained fabrics would be used to produce the folders.

97. Mr LO Tin-sown briefed Members on the funding application of “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019”.

98. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She opined that although the event was named as a green gala, the actual activity was irrelevant to environmental protection. She pointed out that games of the event, such as trampolines, were expensive and she commented that there were many other eco-friendly games that could effectively disseminate the message at a lower cost and would better match with the theme of the event.

ii. She also asked if the many items intended for the ceremony were necessary.

iii. She was surprised that bottled drinks would be used in the event and opined that other green measures, such as providing water dispensers, should be adopted instead. She considered the planning of the event a failure to fulfil the requirements of a promotion campaign to raise the public awareness in environment protection.

99. Dr CHEUNG Charlton opined that the nature of the activity could fit any purposes and would become a family event by simply revising the event title, indicating the weak connection between the activities and environmental protection. Moreover, he pointed out that the use of printed materials, power generators and bottled drinks was not eco-friendly at all.

100. Mr LO Tin-sown responded as follows:

i. Display boards which contained information of environmental protection would be placed by EPD during the event and devices of waste treatment would be showcased as well.

ii. They would consider replacing bottled drinks with water dispensers.

iii. Trampolines were provided since they would like to include family-friendly elements in the activity so as to draw participants with children in.

101. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She criticised that this event did not live up to its name as an environmental activity because one-time items would be produced and hence generated wastes. She expressed dissatisfaction that the event was wrongfully promoted as an eco-friendly programme, and opined that the Council would become the subject of public criticism for this. The display of information boards by EPD did not necessarily make the event a green programme and she asked mockingly whether the programme would turn into a promotion campaign for traffic safety if display boards were placed by TD. She criticised the case as “crying up wine and selling vinegar” and stressed that the organisation must consider thoroughly on enhancing the programme.

ii. She commented that if the organiser preferred family-friendly elements in the activity, there were many other options. It was unnecessary to spend $15,000 on renting trampolines.

iii. She pointed out that $10,000 was sufficient to cover the total cost of some activities funded by the Council, thus she considered the rent for the trampolines was wantonly wasteful.

102. Dr CHEUNG Charlton pointed out that activities listed in the paper included singing and dancing performances, short drama on environmental protection and game booths. However, the organiser answered that information boards by EPD would be on display when being asked about the connection between the activities and the theme of environmental protection. It revealed that the major activity of the event was not sufficiently relevant to environmental protection. In fact, it was just another parent-child event in disguise.

103. Mr LO Tin-sown replied that they would revise the content of the programme by incorporating more eco-friendly elements.

104. The Chairperson suggested that the organisation could include more messages of environmental protection in the quiz as well as introduce art and crafts which promoted green lifestyle into the game booths.

105. Ms Peggy LEE pointed out that power supply was provided by Southorn Playground for large-scale events, thus there was no need to rent the power generator. She suggested that additional environmental protection elements should be included in the paper. For instance, workshop of enzyme detergent production, game booth to teach children how to categorise wastes and recycle used items could be added. The trampolines should be replaced by other items which were more relevant to environmental protection. She also advised the organisation to revise the application paper for Council’s evaluation.

106. The Vice-Chairperson stated that the organisation could consider adding a workshop to create musical instruments or art decorations with used items. He opined that the activities were indeed not in line with the theme of environmental protection.

107. The Chairperson encouraged the organisation to revise the application document after listening to the views of Members, such as removing the trampolines as it was unrelated to the theme and including other activities which could promote environmental protection. She reiterated that electricity generator was unnecessary if power supply was provided by Southorn Playground. She thanked Mr LO Tin-sown for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Mr LO Tin-sown left the meeting.)

108. The Secretary supplemented the meeting the exemption items applied by the organiser for “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”.

109. Miss Clarisse YEUNG and Dr CHEUNG Charlton raised objection to the funding application and exemption items.

110. Other Members raised no objection. The Chairperson announced that the funding application and exemption items of co-organising “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities” were endorsed by the Committee.

111. The Secretary supplemented the meeting the exemption items applied by the organiser for “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019”.

112. The Chairperson pointed out that the application paper of “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019” needed further revision and the funding amount applied slightly exceeded $100,000. She suggested that the funding application could be vetted by circulation of papers after the application paper had been revised by the organisation.

113. Members raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

(Mr CHENG Ki-kin and Co-opted Member Ms LAU Pui-shan left the meeting at 4 p.m.)

(Post-meeting notes: (1) The organiser has revised the funding application of “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities” in accordance with the comments offered by the Committee. The Secretariat has circulated the revised funding application to Members for perusal. (2) FGAC endorsed the funding application of “2019 Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities” at its 22nd meeting on 18 June 2019. For details, please refer to FGAC Paper No. 123/2019. (3) The organiser has revised the funding application of “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019” in accordance with the comments provided by the Committee and the funding amount applied was reduced to $98,890. (4) The Committee endorsed the revised funding application of co-organising “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019” by circulation of papers on 14 June 2019. (5) FGAC endorsed the funding application of “Wan Chai Green Life Gala 2019” at its 22nd meeting on 18 June 2019. For details, please refer to FGAC Paper No. 126/2019.)

(e) Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3 (DPTC Paper No. 48/2019) (f) Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai (DPTC Paper No. 49/2019) Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation Amount Funding under Amount ($) Application ($) 48/2019 Venturing into St. James’ 70,000 70,000 Abandoned Sites Settlement in Wan Chai 3 49/2019 Exhibition of St. James’ 238,700 238,700 Miniature Settlement Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai

114. The Chairperson stated that since St. James’ Settlement submitted two funding applications, “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3” and “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai”, to the Council, she suggested that the organiser should first introduce the applications for discussion by the Council on both agenda items in one go.

115. Members raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

116. The Chairperson welcomed Mr LAU Lee-lam, Manager of St. James’ Settlement, to the meeting.

117. Mr LAU Lee-lam briefed Members on the funding application of “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3”.

118. Members raised no enquiry.

119. Mr LAU Lee-lam briefed Members on the funding application of “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai”.

120. A Member commented that both programmes were very meaningful since they could introduce the history of Wan Chai to the public and tourists. He opined that it would be very challenging to create miniatures of buildings in Wan Chai with balloons. He agreed that balloon art might be an emerging job opportunity and he held the view that both activities were worth promoting.

121. Miss Clarisse YEUNG stated that it was the third year for “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3” to submit funding applications. She suggested that the year should not be printed on the promotional materials, including the pull-up banners, so that they could be reused in the future.

122. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked how many balloons were needed to create a miniature building. He pointed out that the instructor’s fee for the exhibition of miniature balloon buildings and balloon art workshop was $3,000 per hour and was higher than that for the miniature balloon buildings workshop, which was $900. He enquired about the reasons for the difference.

123. Ms Yolanda NG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She pointed out that she had raised opposition to the inclusion of Happy Mansion in “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 2” last year since there were still residents living in the mansion. Organising guided tours would cause nuisance to the residents.

ii. The organisation excluded the guided tours to Happy Mansion in its funding application last year. However, guided visits to Happy Mansion were arranged in other activities which were not sponsored by the Council.

iii. She was surprised to find that Happy Mansion was included in the funding application this time. She criticised that the organiser failed to realise nuisance inflicted on the residents. She believed that the residents would not want their homes to be labelled as an “abandoned site”.

124. Ms Peggy LEE expressed anticipation to “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai” and enquired about the venue of the activity.

125. Dr Jennifer CHOW remarked that “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai” was very innovative. She also noted that, as mentioned in the paper, workshop fees would be collected by the relevant company or service unit. She invited the organiser to clarify whether extra expenses would be incurred.

126. Mr LAU Lee-lam responded as follows:

i. The instructor’s fees of different instructors varied. Several tutors would be appointed for the programme and the tutor who won the world champion would charge a higher fees.

ii. It was expected that more than 100 000 balloons would be used in the entire event. Since the balloons were made of eco-friendly materials, the cost would be higher.

iii. The workshop fees to be collected by the relevant companies or service units referred to those collected by their companies for the instructors. No additional fee would be incurred.

iv. He pointed out that the guided tours to Happy Mansion held in the past only covered the area outside Happy Mansion and the participants did not enter the mansion. Although different people would interpret “abandoned sites” differently, he did not intend to introduce abandoned places from a negative perspective. On the contrary, he would like to promote to the public via the activity that abandoned places could serve various purposes and, despite the public misunderstanding that they were useless, they could be “upgraded” to become valuable places.

v. They were identifying the venue for the balloon exhibition at present. It was anticipated that the exhibition would be held at Ming Hua Hall yet they would like to find a bigger hall for the exhibition.

127. The Chairperson pointed out that since there were residents living in Happy Mansion, organising guided tours would create nuisances to them. She asked the organisation to remove Happy Mansion from their activities, regardless whether they were funded by the Council or for internal purpose.

128. Mr LAU Lee-lam replied that he respected the opinions expressed by Members and Happy Mansion would be removed from the route.

129. Ms Yolanda NG pointed out that with regard to the matter of Happy Mansion, she could not agree with the organisation’s justification of “upgrading” abandoned sites. She reiterated that there were still residents living in Happy Mansion and they had been suffering tremendous pressure on the acquisition issue. If the organiser insisted on labelling Happy Mansion as an abandoned site, this might be deemed as a tactic to help the acquisition by the developer.

130. Miss Clarisse YEUNG was informed that the organisation had arranged guided visits to Happy Mansion in other activities which were not funded by the Council. She held the view that this matter must be investigated in a serious manner and opined that the organiser should consider the interests of different stakeholders when organising visits to abandoned places. Although the organiser intended to introduce abandoned places from a positive perspective, the negative impression of the phrase “abandoned sites” was so strong to distract the mass media and the public attention from the positive idea. Therefore, the organisation should handle the matter carefully to avoid misleading the public that the guided tours took advantage of residents of old buildings.

131. The Chairperson thanked Mr LAU Lee-lam for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Mr LAU Lee-lam left the meeting.)

132. The Secretary informed the meeting of the exemption items applied by the organiser for “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3”.

133. Ms Yolanda NG requested the organisation to remove Happy Mansion from the route stated in the application paper and reply in a written form that they would not bring nuisances to the residents in similar activities in the future.

134. Members raised no objection. The Chairperson announced that the funding application and exemption items of co-organising “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3” were endorsed by the Committee.

135. The Secretary informed the meeting of the exemption items applied by the organiser for “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai”.

136. Members raised no objection. The Chairperson announced that the funding application and exemption items of co-organising “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai” were endorsed by the Committee.

(Dr Anna TANG, Mr Ivan WONG and Co-opted Member Mr NG Hoi-shing left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.)

(Post-meeting note: (1) The organiser has revised the funding application of “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3” and submitted supplementary information in accordance with the comments provided by the Committee. The Secretariat has circulated the revised funding application and supplementary information to Members for perusal. (2) FGAC endorsed the funding application of “Venturing into Abandoned Sites in Wan Chai 3” at its 22nd meeting on 18 June 2019. For details, please refer to FGAC Paper No. 124/2019. (3) FGAC endorsed the funding application of “Exhibition of Miniature Balloon Buildings in Wan Chai” at its 22nd meeting on 18 June 2019. For details, please refer to FGAC Paper No. 125/2019.)

Item 9: Funding Applications under Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection 2019/20 (a) Smart Recycling, Low Carbon and Waste Less Campaign (DPTC Paper No. 50/2019) Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation Amount Funding under Amount ($) Application ($) 50/2019 Smart Hong Kong 69,800 69,800 Recycling, Low Causeway Carbon and Bay Industry Waste Less and Campaign Commerce Association

137. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:

Hong Kong Causeway Bay Industry and Commerce Association Ms Rebecca LEE Vice Chairperson Happy Valley Community Association Mr Sam NG Chairperson Wan Chai Yin Ngai Society Ms CHU Siu-lai Chairperson

138. Ms CHU Siu-lai briefed Members on the funding application of “Smart Recycling, Low Carbon and Waste Less Campaign”.

139. Dr CHEUNG Charlton made the following comments and enquiries:

i. He asked what items would be covered by the materials fees of the workshop since the workshop was mainly about recycling used items.

ii. He opined that it was not eco-friendly to produce pull-up banners for street counters and suggested that other more environmental friendly measures should be adopted.

140. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She did not see the point of the launching ceremony for the promotion of environmental protection. She opined that the non-reusable display boards produced for the launching ceremony were eco-unfriendly.

ii. She pointed out that residents in Wan Chai had reflected that the souvenirs distributed in the activity were unnecessary and the promotional effect could still be achieved by setting up street counters even if no gift was distributed. She held the view that the organisation should consider the necessity to distribute souvenirs to participants.

iii. She pointed out that photography service was provided in each session of the programme with a total budget of $4,500. She asked if the provision of photography service in every session was necessary.

141. Ms CHU Siu-lai responded as follows:

i. Upcycling used items to functional objects required the use of other materials, such as glue and ribbons, thus materials fees were needed for the workshop. However, relevant expenses would be claimed on an accountable basis.

ii. The display boards placed at the launching ceremony and the pull-up banners at the street counter would contain information about environmental protection, with a view to promoting messages of recycling and reusing to the public.

iii. According to the past experience, it was believed that distributing souvenirs to the participants could attract the public to learn more about environmental protection. The organiser would select gifts with practical use.

iv. Since the date of each workshop was different, a photographer had to be appointed at market rate. Photos of the activity would be uploaded to online social platforms, with a view to promoting environmental protection after the event.

142. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments:

i. She clarified that she did not oppose to the appointment of a photographer at market rate and asked if it was necessary to provide professional photography service in every session of the programme. She hoped that the organisation could review whether such arrangement was appropriate.

ii. She commented that the organisation’s reply on the launching ceremony was unconvincing. She hoped that the organisation could understand that many Wan Chai residents had reflected that there was no need to distribute gifts to the participants, with a view to minimising wastage.

iii. She pointed out that a number of groups, such as “Waste-no-mall”, had been conducting voluntary environmental protection works. She reckoned that the organisation should make reference to the practice of those groups and she opined that environmental protection messages could still be disseminated even if no souvenir was distributed to the participants. She reiterated that the organisation should stick to the consistent principle and adopt eco-friendly measures in the publicity work.

143. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked if there were only 20 participants in the upcycling workshop of used umbrellas. He commented that the workshop participation fee of $350 was relatively high and the money could be better utilised on more work.

144. Ms CHU Siu-lai replied that according to the preliminary quotation, the cost of the upcycling workshop of used umbrellas was $350 per person, of which the cost of tools and supplies were included. Due to the limitation of the venue, each workshop could only accommodate 20 participants.

145. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of the organisations for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Ms Rebecca LEE, Mr Sam NG and Ms CHU Siu-lai left the meeting.)

(Mr Stephen NG stated that he was a relative of the representative of Happy Valley Community Association, so he left the meeting during the closed-door discussion.)

146. The Secretary supplemented the exemption items applied by the organiser.

147. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised objection to the funding application.

148. Dr CHEUNG Charlton opined that the cost of umbrella was not high, yet the cost of organising the upcycling workshop of used umbrellas was too expensive. Therefore he also raised objection to the funding application.

149. Other Members raised no objection. The Chairperson announced that the funding application and exemption items of co-organising “Smart Recycling, Low Carbon and Waste Less Campaign” were endorsed by the Committee and agreed with the use of funding of Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection 2019/20 by the organiser.

(b) Eco-friendly Cooking Challenge (DPTC Paper No. 51/2019) Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation Amount Funding under Amount ($) Application ($) 51/2019 Eco-friendly Hongkong 78,641 - Cooking Soong Ching Challenge Ling Goldkey Training Foundation Ltd

150. The Chairperson welcomed Ms Holly AU and Ms Carol LEE, the Vice-Chairman and the Vice Officer of Creative Arts of Hongkong Soong Ching Ling Goldkey Training Foundation Ltd to the meeting.

151. Ms Carol LEE briefed Members on the funding application of “Eco-friendly Cooking Challenge” with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

152. Ms Peggy LEE made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She opined that the cost per participant of the activity was relatively high, thus she suggested that the number of participants should be increased to benefit more members of the public.

ii. She commented that the judges’ fee of $6,000 was quite expensive and asked that if it was necessary to appoint professional judges. Besides, she suggested that the organiser could consider inviting Members or representatives of WCDO to be the judges so as to save the relevant expenses.

153. Miss Clarisse YEUNG enquired about the materials used to produce the backdrop. She commented that it was not environmental friendly to produce a backdrop for a one-time activity.

154. A Member agreed that the cost per participant of the activity was relatively high and urged the organiser to consider adjusting the number of participants.

155. The Chairperson enquired about the details of the awards.

156. Ms Holly AU responded as follows:

i. Representatives of Towngas would teach professional environmental friendly cooking techniques as well as provide the venue and ingredients. However, the venue could only accommodate 24 persons in each session and the workshop fee was $600 per person so the cost per participant was higher. The venue would be provided by Towngas for free on the day of competition and she would consider raising the number of participants from 24 to 48, with a view to benefitting more members of the public.

ii. Towngas would recommend suitable judges for the competition. Nevertheless, she agreed with the suggestion raised by Ms Peggy LEE and would consider inviting Members or representatives of WCDO to be the judges so that relevant expenses could be lowered.

iii. To support environmental protection, they would consider producing the backdrop with satin and retaining it for reuse if the activity was organised again in the future.

iv. The awards of the activity included supermarket vouchers and trophies.

157. Dr CHEUNG Charlton gave the following comments:

i. He opined that even if the number of participants could be increased, the cost per participant of the activity would still be relatively expensive.

ii. He pointed out that the Committee had just endorsed an activity that used electricity as eco-friendly energy. He considered electricity more eco-friendly than gas and reckoned that the nature of this activity contradicted with that of the activity just endorsed by the Council.

158. Ms Holly AU responded that many citizens in Hong Kong still cook with gas nowadays and believed it would take some time before the prevalence of electric cooking. She hoped that, by taking part in the activity, participants learnt that there were low-carbon emission cooking methods even for cooking with gas.

159. Dr Jennifer CHOW pointed out that the cost of the cooking class accounted for half of the total expenses of the activity. She suggested the organiser could consider organising seminars or increasing the workshop fees collected from participants so that the event could benefit more members of the public.

160. The Chairperson asked the organiser to revise the funding application after listening to the comments provided by Members and she thanked the representatives of the organisation for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Ms Holly AU and Ms Carol LEE left the meeting.)

161. The Secretary supplemented the exemption items applied by the organiser.

162. Miss Clarisse YEUNG expressed opposition to the funding application.

163. Ms Peggy LEE reckoned that the prize of merit should be a trophy instead of supermarket vouchers. She commented that there was plenty of room for improvement for the activity.

164. The Chairperson suggested that the funding application could be vetted by circulation of papers after the application paper was revised by the organisation.

165. Members raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

(Post-meeting note: (1) The organiser has revised the funding application of “Eco-friendly Cooking Challenge” in accordance with the comments raised by the Committee and the funding amount applied was revised downward to $78,600. (2) The Committee endorsed the above revised funding application by circulation of papers on 25 June 2019 and agreed with the use of funding of Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection 2019/20 by the organiser.)

(c) Green Arts Delight (DPTC Paper No. 52/2019) Item 10: Application to the Committee for Co-organisation: “Eat Wise – Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes” (DPTC Paper No. 55/2019)

166. The Chairperson stated that since Man Yue Club submitted two funding applications to the Council to organise “Green Arts Delight” and “Eat Wise – Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes”. She suggested that agenda items 9(c) and 10 could be jointly discussed, the organiser could first introduce the applications and the Council could conduct a discussion after the representative of the organisation left the meeting.

167. Members raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

Paper No. Programme Title Applicant Funding Proposed Organisation Amount Funding under Amount ($) Application ($) 52/2019 Green Arts Man Yue 49,460 - Delight Club Ltd.

168. The Chairperson welcomed Mr IP Ming and Mr HO Chun-leung, Chairperson and Project Manager of Man Yue Club, to the meeting.

169. Mr HO Chun-leung briefed Members on the funding application of “Green Arts Delight”.

170. Miss Clarisse YEUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She commented that activities related to environmental protection and art should match with the theme, and execution quality of the programme should meet certain standards. She pointed out that the products made in the eco-friendly art workshop that would last for merely few hours might not bear high artistic value. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the organiser to expect 1 000 visitors in the exhibition of the workshop products.

ii. She pointed out that the meaning of the activity was twisted. She explained that there was no close relationship between the wood waste generated by typhoons and teaching the participants to reduce waste in daily life. Moreover, the wood waste caused by typhoons could be reused only after being processed. She believed that people with experience of handling wood resources would understand that and she hoped the organisation could conduct a more comprehensive research beforehand.

iii. She opined that the production of promotional materials generated wastes and it was important to ponder over the necessity to print a large amount of promotional materials for the promotion of an environmental campaign.

iv. She enquired about the handling of artworks after the exhibition.

v. She was of the view that the attractiveness of the artworks and the effectiveness to deliver the message of reducing waste at source should be evaluated when examining the funding application.

171. Dr CHEUNG Charlton made the following comments and enquiries:

i. He pointed out that the eco-friendly art workshop fee per person of $225 was relatively high. He asked what artwork would be produced in the workshop and why the fee was determined at $225 even though wood waste would be used.

ii. He commented that it was relatively expensive to spend $14,000 on decorating the exhibition venue of a one-time event and it did not comply with the principles of environmental protection. He enquired about the details of the exhibition venue decoration.

172. Ms Peggy LEE made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She opined that the organiser should list all expenditure items of exhibition venue decorations covered by the total of $14,000. Otherwise the Council would not be able to know the details of the venue setup and the relevant expenses.

ii. She pointed out that the eco-friendly art workshop would be conducted at Landale Street while the exhibition would be held at . She reckoned that the $2,000 one-off transportation cost was unnecessary and asked if the exhibition venue had not been confirmed by the organisation.

173. Mr HO Chun-leung responded as follows:

i. Since participants were beginners, the eco-friendly artworks produced would not bear high artistic value. However, it was hoped that the activity could help spread the message of environmental protection.

ii. It was hoped that, by taking part in the activity, the participants would understand that even wood waste generated by typhoons could be used to create artworks. Therefore wood resources in daily life could be reused as well.

iii. The decoration of the exhibition venue would be arranged by the contractor and the costs for display boards and insurance were included in the expenses.

iv. Since the exhibition venue was not confirmed, the $2,000 one-off transportation cost was an estimated amount and the relevant expense would be claimed on an accountable basis.

174. Dr CHEUNG Charlton reiterated that the cost per person of the eco-friendly art workshop, $225, was relatively expensive. However, according to the organiser’s response, the artistic value of the artworks was unlikely to be high. He asked the organisation to give further explanation. Besides, he agreed that the organisation should list every expenditure item for setting up the exhibition venue so that Members would understand how such funding were utilised.

175. Miss Clarisse Yeung made the following comments and enquires:

i. She opined that it was a waste of time for Members to conduct a round of speech to ask questions which were ignored by the organiser. She hoped that the representative of the organisation could answer Members’ enquiries seriously.

ii. She reiterated the production of promotional materials would generate wastes and it was not in line with the principles of environmental protection, which was the theme of the event. She asked the organisation to reply on the matter.

iii. She agreed that since the participants were beginners, their artworks would not bear high artistic value. Thus, it was unreasonable to anticipate that the exhibition would draw 1 000 visitors. She asked the organisation to explain how the number of visitors was projected.

176. Mr HO Chun-leung responded as follows:

i. Only a small amount of posters and leaflets would be printed for the programme and the promotional banner would be produced with fabrics. He explained that the physical promotional materials were produced to meet the need of the residents who did not have access to the internet in the district.

ii. Artworks created by the participants would be exhibited for free. It was hoped that visitors of the exhibition could reflect on environmental protection after looking at the artworks in the exhibition.

iii. He would contact the contractor and ask them to provide the details of the expenditure items for setting up the exhibition venue.

177. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked again why the participation fee of the eco-friendly art workshop was determined at $225 per person.

178. Mr HO Chun-leung explained that the $225 participation fee of the eco-friendly art workshop included the cost of wood waste, instructor’s fee and the charges of using the large machines to process the wood waste. He further stated that such amount was a relatively cheaper price offered by the institute after discussion.

179. The Chairperson asked the organisation to introduce the funding application of co-organising “Eat Wise – Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes”.

180. Mr HO Chun-leung briefed Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation on the funding application of co-organising “Eat Wise – Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes”.

181. The Chairperson enquired about the details of the estimated expenses and sources of funding.

182. Mr HO Chun-leung replied that the activity would utilise a funding amount of $250,000 granted by the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC).

183. Miss Clarisse YEUNG pointed out that an excessive supply of resources has been identified in the community. A number of residents in Wan Chai attached great importance to environmental protection and had been using eco-friendly lunchboxes. She opined that it was outdated and old-fashioned to conduct a promotional campaign by distributing souvenirs. She stressed that many residents were concerned about the use of funding by the Council so the Council should take the views of residents into careful consideration and determine with prudence the appropriateness of co-organising certain activities when evaluating funding applications.

184. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked which large machine would be used to process the wood waste in the eco-friendly art workshop and whether it would be placed at the workshop venue.

185. Mr HO Chun-leung stated that the large machine for processing the wood waste would be placed at the workshop venue and participants would use it under the guidance of the instructor. Besides, he clarified that there was no plan to produce promotional leaflets for “Eat Wise – Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes” as they planned to obtain relevant information from EPD.

186. Miss Clarisse YEUNG pointed out that she was referring to eco-friendly lunchboxes and commented that souvenirs were usually distributed in activities co-organised by the Council and EPD in the past. However, a number of residents reflected that they hoped that fewer items would be distributed since there were excessive resources and wastes should be avoided. She opined that the current situation was undesirable. Besides, she pointed out that launching ceremony, which was scheduled to be held at the event, was not well-received among the residents. Nevertheless, no improvement had been made so far on such arrangement.

187. Mr HO Chun-leung replied that according to his information, no eco-friendly lunchbox had been distributed in any activity in Wan Chai before and he considered it an innovative element. Besides, he would request an appropriate amount of promotional leaflets about food waste avoidance from EPD in accordance with the actual need.

188. Miss Clarisse YEUNG commented that the organisation did not fully understand the issue of resource distribution in the district. She pointed out that it was not an innovative activity since certain organisations, such as Towngas, often distributed eco-friendly utensils. She felt astonished that the organisation insisted that no eco-friendly lunchbox had been distributed in any activity in Wan Chai before. In addition, she opined that even if promotional leaflets were obtained from EPD, unnecessary resources would still be generated in the community, resulting in wastage.

189. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of the organisation for attending the meeting.

(Members conducted a closed-door discussion after Mr IP Ming and Mr HO Chun-leung left the meeting.)

190. The Chairperson asked Members to consider whether the Council should co-organise “Green Arts Delight” with the organisation and support the funding application.

191. Dr CHEUNG Charlton suggested that the Council should request the organisation to list every item of the relevant expenses.

192. Miss Clarisse YEUNG considered that using large machine to process wood waste was extremely dangerous. She stated that university students could operate such machines only after completing relevant courses and she considered the safety arrangement of the eco-friendly art workshop inappropriate. Besides, she was of the view that the Council should consider whether the activity matched with the theme of art and environmental protection. Otherwise it might create an impression to the public that the standard of activities funded by the Council had dropped.

193. The Chairperson suggested that the funding application should be vetted by circulation of papers after the organiser revised the funding application of “Green Arts Delight” in accordance with the opinions raised by Members.

194. Members raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.

195. The Chairperson asked Members to consider whether the Council should co-organise “Eat Wise–Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes” with the organisation.

196. Miss Clarisse YEUNG pointed out that the co-organisation application submitted by the organiser did not mention the use of funding provided by HKJC. Besides, the organisation did not provide the number of eco-friendly lunchboxes and promotional leaflets to be distributed during the activity. She rendered the activity unnecessary to the community.

197. The Secretary supplemented that according to the introduction of the organisation, the activity would utilise a funding amount of $250,000 granted by HKJC.

198. The Chairperson supplemented that according to the introduction of the organisation, about 5 000 lunchboxes would be distributed during the activity.

199. Miss Clarisse YEUNG was disappointed by the carelessness of the organisation in preparing the application paper and considered them underprepared. She pointed out that other organisations which applied for co-organising an activity were required to provide information such as the funding amount and sources of funding. She reckoned that the co-organisation application should be processed impartially in accordance with the general practice.

200. The Chairperson stated that Swire Group invited the Committee to co-organise an activity at Star Street last year and no funding from WCDC was applied. She commented that the co-organising application could be handled in the same manner this time.

201. Miss Clarisse YEUNG requested for the number of meetings of the Committee and paper number for comparison.

202. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:

i. As mentioned by the Chairperson earlier, there were established procedures to handle co-organising applications which did not involve funding of WCDC. For instance, the organisation would issue invitation letter to the Committee and introduce the activity details with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. It seemed to her the problem stemmed from the organiser’s failure to mention the source of funding in the invitation letter though they did it in the introduction.

ii. She did not agree with the organisation’s claim that no eco-friendly lunchbox had been distributed in any activity held in Wan Chai in the past. She stated that she had organised activity before in which foldable lunchboxes had been given. She was of the view that when distributing lunchboxes to the public, it was also essential to teach them how to use the lunchboxes and tips to develop an eco-friendly lifestyle. Besides, she did not oppose to the distribution of leaflets which provided information about environmental protection.

iii. She pointed out that the briefing presented by the organisation was different from the content in the paper submitted and the organiser had received opinions offered by Members which were very important in enhancing the programme. Therefore, she suggested that the organisation should revise the paper and provide additional information for the consideration of the Council.

203. The Chairperson stated that Swire Group invited the Council to co-organise “Community Upcycling Workshop” last year and the relevant paper number was 89/2018.

204. Dr CHEUNG Charlton noted that the organisation proposed distributing eco-friendly lunchboxes on the street. As there were many mobile residents in Wan Chai, he suggested the organisation should distribute eco-friendly lunchboxes during home visits so that the activity could benefit more residents in Wan Chai.

205. The Chairperson suggested the organisation should consider resubmitting the co-organisation application of “Eat Wise–Giving Away Eco-friendly Food Boxes” to the Committee the following meeting and providing additional information in the paper after consolidating Members’ views. Therefore, she did not agree to co-organise the activity for the time being. Although the funding amount of $250,000 for organising the activity was not provided by the Council, she reckoned that it would be inappropriate to evaluate the co-organisation application by circulation of papers.

206. A Member pointed out that the organisation merely applied for co-organising the activity with the Committee. Therefore the Committee only needed to consider whether to co-organise the event and such decision was irrelevant to the funding amount.

207. The Chairperson asked if Members agreed that the co-organisation application should be evaluated by circulation of papers after the organisation provided supplementary information.

208. Miss Clarisse YEUNG commented that a number of enquiries remained unresolved for this application, thus she requested the organisation to attend the following meeting and brief Members on the revised application. Then, Members would consider whether the Committee would co-organise the activity.

(Ms Peggy LEE left the meeting at 6:00 p.m.)

209. Ms Yolanda NG opined that Members had given a lot of opinions, which were very helpful to enhance the entire programme. She stated that elected Members bore the responsibility to share with the organisations about the elements required for organising an activity. She clarified that the organisation was not requested to provide the details of all expenditure items because no other organisations that submitted applications for assisting or co-organising an event without applying for WCDC funds had been asked to do so. She was of the view that the organisation could decide whether to resubmit a co-organisation application for discussion at the following meeting after considering the opinions from Members and revising the application.

210. Dr CHEUNG Charlton hoped that the organisation could accept the views of Members and enhance the activity so as to better utilise the resources of HKJC.

211. The Vice-Chairperson agreed that the activity and the way of distribution of the eco-friendly lunchboxes required further improvements so that the funding provided by the charity could be utilised efficiently.

212. The Chairperson agreed that comments of the Committee should be reflected to the organisation. She opined that the organisation could decide whether they should resubmit a co-organisation application for discussion at the following meeting after the application was revised.

(Post-meeting note: (1) The organisation revised the funding application of “Green Arts Delight” in accordance with the opinions raised by Members after the meeting. The funding amount applied remained unchanged. (2) The Committee endorsed the above revised funding application by circulation of papers on 19 July 2019 and agreed with the use of funding of Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection 2019/20 by the organiser.)

Item 11: Wan Chai Development Phase II－Design of Western Landscaped Deck (DPTC Paper No. 53/2019)

213. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:

Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms Esther YUNG Chief Engineer / S4 Mr Henry TSANG Senior Engineer / 1 (S) Ms Carrie TENG Engineer / 1 (S) AECOM Asia Company Limited Mr Francis LEONG Executive Director

214. Ms Esther YUNG of CEDD and Mr Francis LEONG of AECOM briefed Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation on Wan Chai Development Phase II－Design of Western Landscaped Deck (the Deck).

215. The Vice-Chairperson enquired whether the proposed Deck would be managed by the Government. He was worried that the Deck would become a performance venue for substandard performers and create nuisance to visitors hoping to enjoy the view of .

216. The Chairperson suggested the design at Happy Valley Recreation Ground could be a reference for the design of lighting of the Deck, with a view to attracting members of the public to visit the park at night. She further asked CEDD whether similar lighting design would be used on the podium lawn. Moreover, she suggested constructing an additional footbridge at the southern entrance of the Deck (near the podium garden of ), connecting and the Hong Kong Arts Centre, so as to enhance the accessibility between the southern and northern parts of Wan Chai.

217. Dr CHEUNG Charlton enquired about the budget of the construction work. He also agreed with the Chairperson’s suggestion and asked CEDD to implement measures to strengthen the accessibility between the southern and northern parts of Wan Chai.

218. Ms Yolanda NG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She opined that a relatively long pedestrian walkway would be provided along the Deck and believed beautification works for the surrounding environment was crucial to a pleasant walking experience. She also stated that the public would prefer a walkway decorated with unique installations.

ii. She pointed out that some members of the public might want to display artworks or perform at the Deck. Therefore, she asked the department concerned if they had any preliminary plans for art programmes that engage the public so that they could apply for using the Deck.

219. The Chairperson enquired about the estimated number of pedestrian of the Deck and whether the two lifts located at the northern end of the Deck could accommodate the needs of tourists and members of the public.

220. Ms Esther YUNG of CEDD responded as follows:

i. CEDD was discussing the management of the podium lawn of the Deck with relevant government departments. CEDD would report to the Council when further information was available.

ii. The Deck was designed for the public to enjoy the view of Victoria Harbour, rather than for the purpose as a general walkway. It was expected that the pedestrian flow within a short period of time would not be high. Therefore, they believed that the proposed number of lifts and stairways were sufficient to meet the need. TD would also provide parking spaces for coaches at Lung Wo Road to enhance public accessibility to the promenade.

iii. There were footbridges connecting the podium garden near Grand Hyatt Hong Kong at both Shui On Centre and the Hong Kong Art Centre. CEDD would ask relevant departments or organisations to install signs at appropriate places to guide the public to the Deck via the footbridges.

iv. According to the existing design of the walkway, sufficient light installations would be provided at the bottom of the cover of the walkway so lightings would not be added at the lawn. However, CEDD would conduct further study after considering the opinions raised by Members after the meeting.

221. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked again about the estimated budget of the construction works.

222. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She supported the design of the Deck as it could enhance the north-south accessibility of Wan Chai as well as provide sufficient green space.

ii. She was concerned about the grass maintenance of the Deck. She enquired whether the maintenance and its maintenance fee would be handled by LCSD.

iii. She enquired whether the members of the public needed to submit application if they would like to perform at the Deck.

iv. She enquired about the work schedule and whether the traffic of Lung Wo Road would be affected.

223. Dr Jennifer CHOW made the following comments and enquiries:

i. She supported the design and asked the departments concerned whether there would be cooperation with Hong Kong Art Centre or other organisations for outdoor art galleries or exhibitions.

ii. She enquired about the operation time of the lifts at the Deck.

iii. She enquired of CEDD whether tree planting would be included in the Deck and whether innovative elements would be incorporated in the design of the benches along the walkway.

224. Ms Esther YUNG of CEDD responded as follows:

i. Since CEDD was about to process the tender, the budget of the project was not to be disclosed. However, CEDD would make an appropriate estimation in accordance with the latest tender price index and commodity price index.

ii. LCSD would be responsible for the maintenance work of the lawn at the Deck while the relevant maintenance cost had been covered by the funding allocated for Wan Chai Development Phase II.

iii. With regard to the application for the use of the lawn at the Deck, CEDD was discussing the management matter of the lawn with relevant departments at present.

iv. Before commencing the construction works, the contractor had to conduct traffic impact assessment and formulate relevant measures for review and evaluation by relevant departments.

v. CEDD was seeking advice from the Hong Kong Arts Centre on displaying artworks or organising exhibitions at outdoor art galleries.

vi. The elevators at the platform would operate 24 hours daily.

vii. Since the Deck was situated near the seaside, it was predicted that the wind would be stronger and it would not be ideal for tree planting. Nevertheless, seasonal flowers would be planted in the flower beds on both sides of the platform for public enjoyment of different seasons.

viii. Seating area was included in the Deck for the public to enjoy the view of Victoria Harbour at leisure.

225. The Chairperson hoped that CEDD could consolidate the opinions offered by Members. Moreover, she hoped that the relevant works could be completed by the end of 2023 to enhance the accessibility between the northern and southern parts of Wan Chai. She thanked representatives of CEDD and AECOM for attending the meeting.

(Representatives of CEDD and AECOM left the meeting after discussion.)

(Miss Clarisse YEUNG and Dr Jennifer CHOW left the meeting at 6:35 p.m.)

226. Since some Members left the meeting due to other engagements, a quorum was no longer present. The Chairperson directed the Secretary at 6:37 p.m. to summon those Members who were not present in accordance with Section 12(2) of the Standing Orders of WCDC.

227. Since a quorum was not present after the Secretary had contacted all Members who were not present, the Chairperson announced at 6:52 p.m. the adjournment of the meeting.

Date of Next Meeting 228. The Chairperson announced that the next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 30 July 2019 (Tuesday).

Wan Chai District Council Secretariat July 2019

These minutes of meeting were confirmed on 30 July 2019.