Appendix III - K Tsuen Wan District Summaries of Written Representations

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

1 All 9 These representations The supporting views are noted. DCCAs support the demarcation proposals for all DCCAs in the district. But four of these representations indicate their objections should there be any other representations proposing transferring Fairview Garden from K13 to K16 because they think the housing types and the residents’ needs which require the DC member’s service are different in these two areas.

2 K07 – 1 This representation The representation is not accepted Tsuen proposes to retain Kam because: Wan Fung Garden in K08 (i) the resultant population in K07 Centre because: (12,367) would exceed the (a) it would adversely lower permissible limit K08 – affect the voter turnout (-28.07%); Allway rate because the (ii) the location of polling stations is residents of Kam Fung not a consideration for Garden have got used delineating DCCAs; and to casting their votes at (iii) no substantial reason in support the polling station in of reason (b) is presented. Allway; (b) it would adversely affect the community integrity of Tsuen Wan Centre; and (c) geographically, Kam Fung Garden is closer to Allway than to Tsuen Wan Centre.

3 K08 – 1 This representation The representation is not accepted Allway proposes to allocate Chuen because Chuen Lung Village was Lung Village from K08 to transferred from K12 to K08 in the K12 – K12. 1999 DCs Election at the request of

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

Tsuen the Tsuen Wan Rural Committee, on Wan account of the village’s ties with the Rural East Tsuen Wan Town Centre. With the population distribution and geographical factors taken into consideration, it would be more appropriate to retain the village in K08. 4 K14 – 1 This representation The supporting view is noted. Lei Muk supports the demarcation Shue East proposals for these DCCAs. K15 – Lei Muk Shue West

5 K14 – 2 These representations The representations are not accepted Lei Muk object to transferring because: Shue East Yeung Shue House of Lei (i) the resultant population in K15 Muk Shue Estate from (10,487) would fall below the K15 – K14 to K15 because: lower permissible limit Lei Muk (a) Yeung Shue House is (-39.01%); Shue geographically (ii) the reasons given are not West separated from the sufficient; and other blocks of Lei (iii) there is a representation Muk Shue Estate in supporting the proposals for K15; and K14 and K15 (see item 4). (b) Yeung Shue House is closely linked with Toa Shue House and Fung Shue House in K14 in terms of community concerns and building management; they are new blocks in the estate and have formed a community of their own and the transfer of Yeung Shue House to K15 would affect the community integrity.

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

6 K16 – 1 This representation The supporting view is noted. Shek Wai supports the demarcation Kok proposals for these DCCAs. K17 – Cheung Shan

7 K16 – 3 These representations The representations are not accepted Shek Wai object to transferring Shek because: Kok Lan House of Shek Wai (i) the resultant population in K16 Kok Estate from K17 to (12,804) would fall below the K17 – K16 because: lower permissible limit Cheung (a) Shek Lan House has (-25.53%); Shan close relations with (ii) the reasons given are not Shek Kuk House and sufficient; and Shek Tsui House in (iii) there is a representation terms of building supporting the proposals for management, K16 and K17 (see item 6). community setting and geographical link; and (b) if only Shek Lan House is transferred to K16, the community integrity of these three buildings would be hampered.

Tsuen Wan District Oral Representations Received at the Public forum on 24 January 2003

Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations

8 K16 – 1 This representation (i) For (a), see item 7. Shek Wai proposes: (ii) The proposal of renaming the Kok (a) same as item 7(a); and DCCA is accepted, but it should (b) renaming K17 as be renamed as “Cheung Shek” K17 – “Shek Cheung” because Cheung Shan Estate has Cheung because it would a larger population (6,023) than Shan better reflect the Shek Wai Kok Estate (Part) identity of the DCCA. (5,631).