Minutes of the 20th Meeting of the District Development and Housing Committee (DDHC) Southern District Council (2016-2019) (SDC)

Date: 25 March 2019 Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: SDC Conference Room

Present: Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH (Vice-Chairman of SDC) Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH (Chairman of DDHC) Dr MAK TSE How-ling, Ada, MH (Vice-Chairlady of DDHC) Mr AU Lap-sing, MH Mr AU Nok-hin Mr CHAI Man-hon Ms CHAN Judy Kapui Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH Mr CHU Lap-wai Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Mr LO Kin-hei Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Ms YAM Pauline Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN Mr LAW Kam-hung Ms LAW Siu-fong Ms TAM May-bo, Jeanette Dr WONG Yat-lung, Philip Mr CHOI Tsung-mang

Absent with Apologies: Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP

Secretary: Miss CHOW Cheuk-ying, Karen Executive Officer (District Council) 2, Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

1

In Attendance: Mrs MA CHOW Pui-fun, Dorothy, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss CHENG Wai-sum, Sum Assistant District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Ms YIP Wai-see, Priscilla Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr CHAN Ip-to, Tony Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms LO Kit-sheun Housing Manager/HKI7, Housing Department Mr LING Chi-wai, Jimmy Engineer 13 (South Development Office), Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms HA Chung-wan, Joanne Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Southern, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms KO Wing-yee, Amii Senior Estate Surveyor/South (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department Mr WONG Wai-yin, Vincent Senior Town Planner/HK 1, Planning Department Ms WONG Cho-kwan Engineer/HK (Distribution 3), Water Supplies Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Ms WONG Wai-ling, Ivy Senior Estate Surveyor/Land Supply (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Mr CHENG Ka-man, Gavin Assistant Environmental Protection Officer (Regional S)31, Environmental Protection Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Ms HO Chui-hang Senior Engineer/Consultants Management 6, Water Supplies Department Mr Tommy CHAN Senior Resident Engineer, AECOM

2

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed Members and standing government representatives to the meeting.

2. The Chairman invited Members to note that to facilitate smooth proceeding of meeting, according to Order 15(3) of the SDC Standing Orders, all persons attending or sitting in the meeting should switch off all devices which might emit sound, and should not use any telecommunications devices for conversation during the course of the meeting. Each Member would be allotted a maximum of two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item. Members should inform the Secretariat staff if they had to leave the meeting early.

3. Dr CHU Ching-hong, BBS, JP was absent due to sickness. According to the SDC Standing Orders, his application for leave of absence was accepted.

Part 1 – Items for Discussion

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 19th DDHC Meeting held on 28 January 2019

4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes of the aforesaid meeting had been circulated to all Members and relevant government department representatives. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposals so far.

5. The minutes were confirmed by the Committee.

3

Agenda Item 2: Motion on the Objection to the Inclusion of Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into this Year’s Land Sale Programme (Item raised by Mr AU Nok-hin) (DDHC Paper No. 7/2019)

(Ms YAM Pauline, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui and Mr FUNG Se-goun joined the meeting at 2:36 p.m., 2:47 p.m. and 3:37 p.m. respectively.)

6. The Chairman welcomed Ms WONG Wai Ling, Senior Estate Surveyor/Land Supply (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South) of the Lands Department (LandsD) to the meeting.

7. The Chairman said that in addition to Mr Au Nok-hin’s motion (i.e. the Original Motion) set out in the agenda, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH had also proposed an amended motion (i.e. Amended Motion 1) prior to the meeting. Since the Original Motion and Amended Motion 1 were of the same nature, they would be discussed jointly. The content was as follows:

(a) “Original Motion”: (Moved by Mr Au Nok-hin, seconded by Mr LO Kin-hei)

“This Council strongly objects to the Government’s decision to include Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into this year’s Land Sale Programme and once again betrayed the Ap Lei Chau residents. Ap Lei Chau is one of the world’s most densely populated islands. Any residential development will inevitably have severe impact on the nearby residences and schools. Besides, this Council is extremely discontented with the Government’s encroachment on a pet garden project that has been included in the District Minor Works programme, which is in conflict with this Council and tramples on the aspiration of the residents for the construction of pet garden at the said location. The Government has time and again been using the unevenly distributed open space shown in the Aberdeen Outline Zoning Plan to conceal the fact that there are excessive residential developments with too little open space in Ap Lei Chau. This Council sternly refuses to accept such a response given by the government department, and demands that the Land Sale Programme be withdrawn immediately to open up the site for use as a pet garden.”

4

(b) “Amended Motion 1”: (Moved by Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung MH, seconded by Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Ms LAM Yuk-chun MH and Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH)

“The Government has been granting approval for residential developments in Ap Lei Chau without long-term planning for the development of the island. The imbalance in the planning of developments has led to an ever-increasing growth in the population of Ap Lei Chau which has become one of the most densely populated islands in the world. Even though the MTR South Island Line (East) (only 3-car train service is provided) has been put into operation, the drastic rise in population has overloaded the severely inadequate roads, traffic and facilities in the communities of the island. Therefore, this Council strongly objects to the Government’s inclusion of Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into this year’s Land Sale Programme. In the meantime, we also urge the Government to seek a broad spectrum of opinions from the residents before deciding on the most suitable land use for the aforesaid part of land.”

8. The Chairman continued that the written replies from the government departments concerned were set out at Annex 2 to DDHC Paper No. 7/2019, and that the aforementioned motions would be discussed one by one. The Chairman first invited Mr AU Nok-hin to brief Members on the Original Motion.

9. Mr AU Nok-hin briefed Members on the Original Motion as follows:

(a) the Government’s decision to include Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into the Land Sale Programme was indeed a betrayal of residents’ interests. With the Government implementing several Land Sale Programmes, the residents of Ap Lei Chau did not wish to see more residential developments, especially luxurious residential buildings, in the area. If the aforesaid Land Sale Programme was approved, it would only increase the population density of Ap Lei Chau, making the lives of the residents more hectic. It would also render the development of open space impossible. He urged Members to join hands to object to the land sale proposal so as to reflect the views of the residents in the Southern District; (b) there were a number of schools and residential developments such as Larvotto and Lei Tung Estate in the vicinity of the site. The overcrowding of Ap Lei Chau would be further aggravated upon the completion of the proposed property development. Moreover, Ap Lei Chau was already among the most densely populated islands in the world, hence he objected to the Government’s plan to implement residential development on such a small lot;

5

(c) Ap Lei Chau had seen a number of developments through land sale in recent years, but such developments were not indeed for meeting demand for housing development of Hong Kong, but to push up property prices to satisfy the needs of private property developers. As regards the proposed project, the concerned lot near Larvotto was previously a refuse collection point of the former Urban Council, and was very small. If the lot was to be used for developing luxurious residential buildings, more private cars would be plying through Ap Lei Chau which would put additional burden on the traffic of the Southern District. In this connection, he enquired the LandsD about the number of units and parking spaces that might be developed in that lot; (d) Working Group on District Minor Works Projects of SDC had approved developing the area into an open space, and his proposal back then was to develop a pet garden. The relevant departments considered that a pet garden could not be built at that stage after site visits, but some basic leisure facilities would be provided in the area. But no progress had been made after a year. He said that the Development Bureau (DEVB) should consult the Southern District Office (SDO) before carrying out land sale. As such, he criticised relevant departments for showing no respect to SDC’s decision and acting against people’s will. He was willing to make corresponding amendments to the part regarding “pet garden” mentioned in the Original Motion so as to take into account the latest development; and (e) he was dissatisfied with the written responses of the departments: (i) the Planning Department (PlanD) mentioned in its response that the site had been zoned for residential use and hence it was suitable for housing development. He commented that such response failed to fully reflect the truth that the lot was actually an unused land left behind from the development of Larvotto many years ago, and should not be taken as land suitable for housing development. Moreover, by the same token, he enquired whether the land in the vicinity of Hong Kong True Light College would be used for residential development because that piece of land was zoned for residential use; and (ii) LandsD had even sought Members’ support for the development of that lot in its response, which he found baffling.

10. The Chairman invited Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH to brief Members on the Amended Motion 1.

6

11. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH briefly presented the Amended Motion 1 as follows:

(a) recently, the Committee had conducted consultations regarding the planning and development on the waterfront area at Ap Lei Chau North. A number of local organisations and residents had already expressed their opinions, and put forward proposals on the direction of the overall development of Ap Lei Chau. She hoped that the views of Ap Lei Chau residents on future development could be reflected to LandsD through the amended motion. Some residents pointed out that the population of Ap Lei Chau had reached the limit, and the transportation and community facilities within the Southern District were overloaded due to huge visitor flow. She believed that if the Government insisted on pursuing the Land Sale Programme for residential use without conducting any consultation, Ap Lei Chau would inevitably be perceived and actually become an overcrowded living area, which might arouse tension between the Government and residents; (b) she emphasised that not all residents opposed the further development of Ap Lei Chau. Some local residents who had been living in Ap Lei Chau since childhood welcomed the development opportunities of population growth. They understood that the evolution of Ap Lei Chau from a small island lacking planning and development in the past to a place with convenient transportation and a pleasant living environment had been the result of developments over the years. However, the core issue was how development should be achieved. The definition of development was so broad that, in addition to economic and population growth, it also included sustainable development in social and environmental aspects; and (c) she emphasised that the Government should conduct comprehensive and extensive consultations and listen to the opinions of various stakeholders and residents before deciding on the future land use of Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137. Otherwise, it would once again fail to fulfil the expectation of Ap Lei Chau residents. She also considered a pet garden just one, but not the only, option for development.

12. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH supplemented that she strongly objected to the Government’s decision to include Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into this year’s Land Sale Programme. She said that the planning application for rezoning the Ap Lei Chau Service Centre of Dah Chong Hong (Motor Service Centre) Limited at Lee Nam Road of Ap Lei Chau as a housing site had been rejected by the Town Planning Board (TPB). The Government should make reference to the aforesaid example which was similar to the land included in the current Land Sale Programme. She did not oppose to the construction of a

7

pet garden on Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 but hoped that the Government could seek the opinions of residents before deciding on the future use of the lot.

13. Ms CHAN Judy Kapui supplemented that she was concerned about the traffic impact of the proposed Land Sale Programme. Ap Lei Chau Bridge was currently the only route that connected Ap Lei Chau to other districts. The proposed Land Sale Programme would increase the population of Ap Lei Chau and the traffic load on Ap Lei Chau Bridge. Therefore, she objected to the proposed Land Sale Programme. In addition, the Government should conduct extensive consultations before deciding on the future use of of lot.

14. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had just received another amended motion (i.e. Amended Motion 2) moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa. Since the amended motion, the Original Motion and Amended Motion 1 were of the same nature, they would be discussed jointly. The content was as follows:

(a) “Amended Motion 2”: (Moved by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa, seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon)

“This Council strongly objects to the Government’s decision to include Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into this year’s Land Sale Programme which once again betrayed the Ap Lei Chau residents. The Government has time and again been using the unevenly distributed open space shown in the Aberdeen Outline Zoning Plan to conceal the fact that there are excessive residential developments with too little open space in Ap Lei Chau. It has also neglected the fact that Ap Lei Chau is one of the world’s most densely populated islands, and any residential development will inevitably have severe impact on the nearby residential buildings and schools. This Council believes that the construction of luxurious residential buildings will not pass the traffic impact assessment and the new residential buildings will cause further congestion at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road. This Council objects to the inclusion of Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 into this year’s Land Sale Programme and requests the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to allocate funding for the construction of a pet garden so as to address the aspiration of the local community.”

15. The Chairman invited Mr TSUI Yuen-wa to brief Members on the Amended Motion 2.

16. When briefing Members on the Amended Motion 2, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said that the amended motion was in line with the Original Motion and Amended Motion 1, with some

8

textual differences. He hoped Members would support it and said that he would also support the Amended Motion 1.

17. Mr CHAI Man-hon supplemented as follows:

(a) if there was any maladministration on the part of the relevant departments, District Councils (DCs) had the responsibility to relay it to the Government. He added that the Government should not dispute with DCs over committed works at small lots, or else DCs would defend robustly. For example, in the past, SDC had endorsed earmarking a lot at Route 4 off Ka Lung Court for developing an “open space” and requested the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to apply for funding for provision of a park to cater for the needs of the community. However, the lot was unexpectedly rezoned a dumping site serving MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) instead of an “open space”. If it were not for MTRCL to abandon the plan, he would have continued the complaint procedures. He considered that reference should be made to the above case in handling the current Land Sale Programme. Since SDC had decided on the works project to be implemented on the lot before the Government did, the Government should respect the decision; (b) according to the District Administration Scheme, departments should gauge DCs’ opinions. Also, the District Councils Ordinance stipulated that a DC should, where funds were made available for the purpose, to undertake environmental improvements, the promotion of recreational and cultural activities and community activities within the district. He said that the Government’s treatment of the lot was procedurally improper. Since SDC had submitted its development plan more than a year ago, he believed that if the Government had other development proposals, it should provide reasonable justifications for SDC’s consideration instead of giving priority to land sale over everything else to an extent that SDC’s decision should be overridden; and (c) except for the reply from the Secretariat, the respective replies from PlanD and LandsD were unsatisfactory. LandsD even expected Members to support the Government’s Land Sale Programme, without giving any response on the issue that the lot had already been included into the District Minor Works Programme of SDC. Moreover, he enquired whether LandsD had consulted SDO about the proposed planning of the lot before finalising the Land Sale Programme, and if yes, what SDO’s reply was. He said that if the relevant departments could not give a detailed response to the above issues, he would request the Ombudsman to take follow-up actions.

9

18. Ms WONG Wai-ling responded that LandsD had consulted DEVB on the content of the Original Motion and the Amended Motion 1. She continued that housing was one of the most imminent livelihood concerns of the community. In view of the public’s keen demand for housing, the Government had to continue to increase housing land supply by adopting a multi-pronged approach. The site (Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137) was mainly zoned “Residential (Group A)” on the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H15/33 and was suitable for housing development. The Government had included the site in 2019/20 Land Sale Programme for land sale for private housing use. As housing development at the site would benefit the community as a whole, she hoped that Members would render support.

19. Mr Vincent WONG responded that the site (Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137) was mainly zoned “Residential (Group A)” on the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H15/33 and was suitable for housing development. Moreover, according to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, the provision of existing and planned open space in Ap Lei Chau was sufficient to cater for the needs of the local residents, including the new population to be brought by the proposed development project.

20. Mr CHAN Ip-to replied that responses from the Secretariat of SDC were set out at Annex 2 to the paper. Moreover, the Secretariat did not receive a notification before the announcement of the Land Sale Programme.

21. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LAW Kam-hung, Mr LO Kin-hei, Ms CHAN Judy Kapui, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH, Ms YAM Pauline, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr AU Lap-sing, MH and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised the following comments and enquiries:

Comments on Overloaded Population

(a) many Members objected to the Land Sale Programme because of the excessively dense population in Ap Lei Chau; (b) a Member said that many old buildings on Main Street, Ap Lei Chau had been redeveloped as high-rise buildings and many buildings had been acquired for redevelopment into taller buildings, which would eventually give rise to population growth. If the Government still went ahead with the plan to sell the above lot to private developers, the burden on the facilities in the area would increase;

10

(c) a Member pointed out that apart from the redevelopment project in Wah Fu, planning applications for rezoning the former site of Hong Kong School of Motoring and the site of Ap Lei Chau Service Centre, Dah Chong Hong (Motor Service Centre) Ltd. for residential use, as well as the proposed residential project to be carried out after the sale of the lot in the current discussion were all related to Ap Lei Chau. She commented that the constant addition of single-block private buildings in the district had worsened the overcrowding problem, but the number of private housing units that could be provided was insignificant; (d) a Member pointed out that the population of Ap Lei Chau accounted for over 30% of the total population in the Southern District. PlanD should divide the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan into Aberdeen Outline Zoning Plan and Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan to facilitate more accurate analysis;

Comments on Traffic

(e) many Members wanted to know the results and relevant traffic flow data of the traffic impact assessments the relevant departments conducted with regard to the proposed property development for reference; (f) a Member said that the traffic flow of Ap Lei Chau Bridge was very high. If the population increased further, the growing severity of traffic congestion would scare off customers, even though the additional population would bring business opportunities. Furthermore, the current illegal parking issue was already very serious in the vicinity of Sham Wan Towers and had gravely affected the surrounding traffic. If the population increased, the situation would deteriorate further. She urged the relevant departments to take the above situation into account and make improvement; (g) a Member said that there were many development projects in Ap Lei Chau, but the existing traffic facilities could not cope with them. Besides, MTRCL’s railway network was not covering the entire Ap Lei Chau district. As Ap Lei Chau Bridge provided the only access, there would be serious impacts in case of incidents. In addition, if luxurious residential buildings were to be developed on that piece of land, the residents would probably travel by private cars, which would add to the traffic burden of Ap Lei Chau Bridge; (h) a Member, citing examples, said while PlanD held that the existing open spaces and traffic facilities could cater for the needs of Ap Lei Chau, the resurfacing works of Ap Lei Chau Drive on 16 and 17 March 2019 had led to traffic congestions. This showed that if there was an accident in the district, the

11

existing traffic network could not cater for the needs. She therefore believed that upon completion of the residential development, the burden on traffic would only increase ceaselessly;

Comments on the Departments

(i) many Members were disappointed with the relevant departments for deciding at their will to announce the Land Sale Programme without conducting DC consultation. A Member said that previously the Government also sold land to developers for building Marina South without consulting the DC. The residents’ request back then was to provide MTR exits at the site after completion of the South Island Line (East); (j) a Member said that SDO was not notified of the Land Sale Programme. He considered that it revealed communication problems among the departments. As stated on HAD’s website, the mission of HAD included “facilitate and promote the work of DCs” and “enhance channels of communication between the Government and the public”. While DCs represented members of the public in reflecting their views, various departments did not respect the principle that “DCs are an integral part of the District Administration Scheme and play a vital role in promoting the well-being of the community” when DCs conducted projects proposed by the community; (k) a Member said that he was disappointed with PlanD and LandsD. He considered that their responses not only failed to provide any professional opinion, but also failed to mention clearly whether a leisure park could be built on the said lot; (l) a Member was discontented with LandsD for distorting the truth. He pointed out that SDC had already endorsed the use of the said lot as open space, but the Government had however included the lot in its Land Sale Programme. He considered that it was procedurally inappropriate. If the relevant departments could not give reasons as to why residential developments should override other developments, he would continue to investigate and find out who should be responsible. He also considered that the Government’s move had posed a challenge to DCs and adversely affected the power of DCs; (m) a Member said that the relevant departments used to conducting DC consultation on individual planning applications. He suggested that the relevant departments review whether that approach was suitable for the community, and enquired about the comprehensive planning direction for Ap Lei Chau. He considered that

12

since PlanD was not able to provide a comprehensive development direction for the district, members of the public often objected to residential projects; (n) a Member urged the relevant departments not to develop lots zoned for residential use, which did not require rezoning, on the sole ground of housing development without regard to the comprehensive planning, before a comprehensive planning was available. He reiterated that he hoped the relevant departments would conduct planning in a forward-looking manner;

Comments on Open Space and the Construction of Pet Garden

(o) a Member said that the Southern District was vast and had many country parks. Therefore its open space was relatively large. However, in light of the overcrowded living environment of Hong Kong, it was believed that no one would oppose to opening up more open spaces; (p) a Member said that with regard to the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H15/33, PlanD had the responsibility to explain to Members the reasons why the site should not be developed into a leisure park and why the development of residential projects should override other land use options; (q) a Member said that, in order to analyse whether there were enough open spaces in Ap Lei Chau, it was necessary to prepare a separate outline zoning plan for Ap Lei Chau. She pointed out that the population of Ap Lei Chau accounted for one-third of the total population of the Southern District, but the open spaces shown on the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan had included the open spaces of Aberdeen. Therefore the figures were inaccurate, and more open spaces should be reserved for Ap Lei Chau; (r) many Members said that pet-keeping was not allowed in South Horizons and Ap Lei Chau Estate, while taking pets for walks was prohibited within the public areas of housing estates such as Marina South, Sham Wan Towers and Larvotto. Besides, pet gardens had been provided at various places in Ap Lei Chau. Therefore, they held reservation or even objected to the proposed use of the site as a pet garden. The Government should conduct comprehensive consultation with residents before deciding on the most suitable land use for the site. Another Member pointed out that the relevant site was suitable for setting up facilities for the elderly in the face of ageing population. Another Member said that many residents living in housing estates which pohibited pet walking had to take their dogs for walks along Ap Le Chau Praya Road. Therefore, he suggested building a pet garden;

13

Other Comments

(s) many Members said that the relevant departments should conduct thorough consultations with residents before finalising the land use option for the site; (t) many Members enquired about the scale of the proposed development project, including the respective numbers of floors, units and parking spaces; (u) a Member requested the Departments to respond on whether the claims that Government’s decision had “betrayed the Ap Lei Chau residents” and that the Government had no “long-term planning for the development of Ap Lei Chau” in the Original Motion and Amended Motion 1 respectively were true. He further requested relevant data so that Members could be able to make reasonable judgement; (v) a Member said that he would vote against the Original Motion, but that did not mean he objected or agreed to the Land Sale Programme. He only disagreed with the wordings of the Original Motion which read “this Council strongly objects to the Government’s decision…and once again betrayed the Ap Lei Chau residents” and the provision of a pet garden on the site; (w) a Member believed the Departments should make use of the limited land resources to cope with issues such as ageing population; and (x) a Member wished to know the land sale procedures of the proposed project. In 2010, PlanD had reviewed the details of the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan with SDC, and informed SDC that the height restriction of buildings would be relaxed after the approval of environmental and traffic impact assessments. However, the approved plan at the time did not show the development scope of the lot. He asked whether PlanD would submit environmental and traffic impact assessment reports regarding the Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137. Besides, he asked whether it would carry out rezoning and amendment, and review the land uses of individual sites in the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan. He continued that if amendments were required for the above outline plan, the existing environmental and traffic impact assessment reports would not be applicable any more.

22. Ms WONG Wai-ling gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) the site was mainly zoned “Residential (Group A)” on the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan. LandsD’s plan to sell the land aimed to cater for and take forward its long-term planning intention, with a view to meeting the

14

needs of the public and pursuing the Government’s policy on housing supply in the long run; (b) according to the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan and relevant legislations, a domestic plot ratio of eight was generally allowed in the “Residential (Group A)” Zone. Given the approximate 1 100-square-metre area of the existing Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137, it was expected that a total domestic floor area of about 8 800 square metres could be constructed. The number of flats would be determined by the design proposal of the future developer; and (c) the number of parking spaces would be stipulated by the Transport Department (TD) with regard to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines.

23. Mr Vincent WONG gave a consolidated response that open space was always permitted on the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan. Moreover, “Residential (Group A)” Zone had been covered during the discussion on relaxing building height restrictions in 2010. Under the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan, the “Residential (Group A) zone” at the site is subject to a building height restriction of 140 metres above Principal Datum, and relevant land use had been included in the aforesaid zoning plan.

24. Mrs MA CHOW Pui-fun, JP responded that apart from supporting the operation of DCs, District Offices would also conduct local consultation exercises at the request of various departments on issues such as land use and traffic, etc.

25. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr LO Kin-hei raised the following comments and enquiries:

Comments on Departments

(a) many Members were dissatisfied with the responses from the relevant departments, and hoped that they could improve the land sale procedures and carry out their duties properly; (b) many Members said that if the departments concerned did not consider withdrawing the land sale proposal, they would lodge a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the departments for maladministration. A Member also stressed that the land sale procedures for the proposed project had violated the District Administrative Scheme and DCs Ordinance;

15

(c) a Member hoped that LandsD could relay Members’ request for withdrawing the Land Sale Programme to DEVB; (d) a Member requested LandsD to account for the lack of local consultations with SDC and SDO, and enquired whether local consultation exercise had not been conducted in all previous Land Sale Programmes;

Other Comments

(e) a Member said that with the advances in information technology, it was more convenient for members of the public to express their views nowadays. He was concerned that departmental actions taken without careful consideration might give rise to dissatisfaction from members of the public and create more problems in the future; (f) a Member said that a proposal to prioritise the project for the “Improvement works to the site at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road near Larvotto” would be submitted to the District Facilities Management Committee to expedite the approval of funds for the works so as to enable the residents to enjoy the facilities as soon as possible and prevent the residential project from taking its place; (g) a Member said that years ago when MTRCL planned to set up a dumping point at the waterfront of Kellett Bay, SDC had enhanced the design of the planned park by ascertaining the facilities in the park and working out the amount of money required per square metre. He believed that by exercising the aforesaid administrative power, SDC had provided sufficient grounds for the Government to abandon the plan of setting up a dumping point; (h) a Member pointed out that during the discussion on the relaxation of building height restriction under the Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan in 2010, PlanD mentioned that environmental and traffic impact assessments had been conducted. He said that the assessments had not covered the land in question, and up till now he could not confirm the location of the lot for sale on the Government’s GeoInfo Map. He enquired whether a new round of environmental and traffic impact assessments would be conducted for the proposed land sale so as to fully assess its impacts; (i) a Member considered that Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 was an unused land left behind from the development of Larvotto. Located between Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot Nos. 133RP and 129, the lot was small and not explicitly shown on the GeoInfo Map. He pointed out that there were several similar narrow strips of land such as Ap Lei Chau Service Reservoir and Lei Tung Estate in the Southern

16

District. He enquired whether the lots would also be included for development in the future; (j) a Member took Marina South as an example and pointed out that only about 110 private residential units were provided under the project. With an area even smaller than Marina South, developments on the lot would only have insignificant impact on the housing supply in Hong Kong. Furthermore, single-block private residential projects often encountered management and design issues; and (k) a Member supported preparing separate Approved Outline Zoning Plans for Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau. He said that the open space shown in the current Approved Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan were unevenly distributed.

26. When giving a consolidated response, Ms WONG Wai-ling said that if the proposed use of the sale site was in line with the designated use and long-term planning intention specified in the Approved Outline Zoning Plan, there was no established procedure requiring conduction of local consultation for the proposed land sale.

27. When giving a consolidated response, Mr Vincent WONG said that the proposed project was in line with the development use as approved in the Outline Zoning Plan. When planning for new development projects, the relevant departments could include the impact assessments on traffic impacts, air and ventilation, etc. into the land sale conditions and request the developer to conduct assessment to support the feasibility of the project.

28. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Amended Motion 2. Amended Motion 2 was passed with four votes in favour, two against and 13 abstentions.

29. The Chairman invited Members to vote on Amended Motion 1. Amended Motion 1 was passed with 18 votes in favour, zero against and two abstentions.

30. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the Original Motion. The Original Motion was passed with four votes in favour, one against and 15 abstentions.

31. The Chairman concluded that the departments should be clear about the Committee’s concerns and views on the issues. Moreover, he hoped that PlanD would relay Members’ views to TPB.

17

Agenda Item 3: Motion on the Request for Rezoning of the Site of Tin Wan Praya Road Concrete Batching Plant as Open Space (Item raised by Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH) (DDHC Paper No. 8/2019)

(Dr WONG Yat-lung left the meeting at 3:50 p.m.)

32. The Chairman welcomed Mr CHENG Ka-man, Assistant Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South) 31 of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) to the meeting.

33. The Chairman said that the motion was moved by Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH and seconded by Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH. The motion was as follows:

“The Southern District Council strongly objects to the granting of short term tenancy by open tender again for the purpose of developing a concrete batching plant, and requests the Planning Department to rezone the aforesaid site as ‘open space’ immediately with a view to providing more green area and public open space for the residents.”

34. The Chairman invited Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH to introduce her motion.

35. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH said that the site of the concrete batching plant at Tin Wan Praya Road was granted to Excel Concrete Limited (Excel) by means of a short term tenancy (STT). Upon confirmation by Excel and LandsD, it was learned that the concrete batching plant would move out in late March 2019 and the site would be vacant. She did not want LandsD or PlanD to continue to develop a concrete batching plant at the site and pointed out that the heavy traffic of concrete vehicles had caused road damage and generated dust, rendering the environmental condition extremely poor. Moreover, as Wah Kwai Estate and Ka Lung Court were rather close to the concrete batching plant, the plant had caused considerable nuisance to the residents and traffic congestion in the area. She hoped that the Government would sympathise with the residents’ situation and formulate long-term plans to rezone the said site as open space.

36. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH added that although the operation of the Tin Wan concrete batching plant had seen improvement under its current management, and the Working Group on Monitoring of Tin Wan Concrete Batching Plant had also assisted in monitoring the operation of the plant, residents of Tin Wan, Wah Kwai Estate, Ka Lung Court and South Horizons still often relayed to him environmental nuisances and noises produced

18

by vessels. In addition, serious traffic accidents had also occurred in the area of the plant. SDC had been paying close attention to the site and had also requested LandsD to identify a new site for constructing the concrete batching plant, but such efforts had been in vain. He commented that given the current limited market demand for concrete, coupled with the voluntary return of the site by the concrete batching plant, it was a good opportunity to rezone the site as open space.

37. Ms KO Wing-yee responded that at present the site of the concrete batching plant at Tin Wan Praya Road was granted to Excel by means of an STT. Excel had informed the District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South (DLO) in writing of the termination of the existing STT with effect from 31 March 2019. Under the relevant provisions of the tenancy agreement, Excel should remove all the structures and facilities within the STT site before handing it over to the Government. As extra time was required to remove the structures and facilities, Excel had applied to DLO for delaying the return of the site. After obtaining the support from the relevant policy bureau and consultation with the relevant departments, LandsD had approved Excel’s application for the delayed return of the site subject to certain conditions.

38. The Chairman enquired about the deadline of the delayed return of the site. Ms KO Wing-yee responded that Excel had applied for the delayed return of the site by six months for removing structures and facilites in compliance with the requirements of such departments as the Buildings Department (BD) and EPD. LandsD had approved Excel’s application for the delayed return of the site by six months with conditions.

39. Mr CHENG Ka-man responded that EPD noted the public’s concern about the potential environmental impact of the demolition of the concrete batching plant. Under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, the contractor has to give notice to EPD before commencing the demolition works of the concrete batching plant and ensure that the works were carried out in accordance with the requirements set out in the Regulation. The contractor shall also comply with the requirements of various environmental ordinances during the demolition works. EPD would inspect and monitor the demolition works of the concrete batching plant from time to time to reduce the impact on nearby residents.

40. Mr Vincent WONG responded that the site of the concrete batching plant was zoned “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Aggregate/Cement Handling and Concrete Batching Area” on the Approved Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H15/33. Concrete batching plant use at the site was always permitted. The Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) was conducting a study on concrete

19

supply in Hong Kong and findings from the study were expected to be available in 2020. Taking into account the findings from the study, the Government would carefully consider the future land use of the site of the Tin Wan concrete batching plant and consult SDC. Moreover, as the site was adjacent to the Aberdeen Depot of the Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited (Towngas), which was a Potentially Hazardous Installation, the potential risks of any future development of the site including open space must be considered.

41. Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH, Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mr CHAI Man-hon raised the following comments and enquiries:

Expression of Support for the Motion

(a) a number of Members expressed their support for the motion; (b) a Member said that the residential areas affected by the concrete batching plant were vast, which included Wah Kwai Estate, Ka Lung Court, Tin Wan and South Horizons. PlanD should review whether the site was a suitable location for developing a concrete batching plant and take the opportunity to rezone the site as open space; (c) a Member said that PlanD had insisted on the development of a concrete batching plant at the site despite SDC’s strong opposition. For the well-being of the residents, she would continue to oppose to the development of a concrete batching plant at the site; (d) a Member said that the Government should consider the public’s request to rezone the site as open space with a view to improving traffic, and environmental hygiene and condition, etc. in the vicinity; (e) a Member said that while he understood the demand for concrete in Hong Kong, PlanD should have in place long-term plans when the concrete batching plant ceased operation. For the health of the residents, the said site should be rezoned as open space without re-tendering for developing a concrete batching plant;

Comments on the Depot

(f) a Member said that the site was adjacent to the Aberdeen Depot of Towngas, which was a Potentially Hazardous Installation. However, PlanD had permitted the development of a concrete batching plant next to the site, increasing its risk. He queried that PlanD was using this as an excuse to reject the development of the site as open space;

20

(g) a Member asked whether PlanD had conducted any risk assessment on the depot, which was adjacent to the site, to evaluate the impact on the safety of soil structure and the surrounding environment of the site, as well as the extent of the problem in case of an explosion. She asked PlanD how the development of a concrete batching plant could be considered suitable if the Government believed that the development of the site as open space was potentially risky due to the depot; (h) a number of Members said that the depot and the concrete batching plant were both Potentially Hazardous Installations and their close proximity would only increase the overall risks and the probability of chain accidents. Therefore, it was suggested that PlanD refrain from allowing the development of a concrete batching plant at the site and rezone the site as a Green Belt site to reduce the risks to the residents. Another Member said that the expansion of Green Belt areas could also compensate the lack of public open space in the vicinity; (i) a Member was dissatisfied with PlanD’s response. He said that PlanD was already aware that the depot was a Potentially Hazardous Installation, and thus potential risks of any future development of the site including open space must be considered. He asked why PlanD had neglected the potential risks brought by the existing depot to the open space at the Kellett Bay Waterfront and the residents of Wah Kwai Estate and Ka Lung Court. In this regard, he suggested that PlanD remove the depot from the site along with the concrete batching plant;

Comments on the Planned Use of the Site of the Tin Wan Praya Road Concrete Batching Plant

(j) a Member enquired LandsD and PlanD about the future planned use of the site; (k) a Member hoped that PlanD could also rezone the peripheral sites of the concrete batching plant including the temporary car park, so that nearby residents could enjoy appropriate facilities;

Comments on the Impact of the Concrete Batching Plant on the Public

(l) several Members said that a number of Members of the constituency and the residents had strongly opposed the development of a concrete batching plant at the site but were ignored. Over the years, the residents had been forced to endure the impacts brought by the concrete batching plant, especially in the environmental aspect such as air pollution;

21

Other Comments

(m) a Member said that despite the long discussion on the issues, PlanD would always respond that the planning of land use would be subject to demand at the end of each contract term; (n) a Member was dissatisfied that the representatives from DEVB were willing to meet with individual Members of the Legislative Council and SDC but did not attend the meeting of SDC. He considered it disrespectful to SDC; (o) a Member was concerned that approval had been given for the concrete batching plant to extend the return of the site by six months. In spite of safety concerns and the need to reduce the impacts on the residents, the time period was nonethless too long; (p) a Member enquired DLO about the conditions of delayed return of the site, and stressed that the concrete batching plant should not continue to produce concrete during demolition; (q) a Member enquired whether DLO would consider early resumption of the site if the demolition works of the concrete batching plant were completed ahead of schedule; (r) a Member hoped that the relevant departments would connect the site of the concrete batching plant to the Kellett Bay Waterfront so that the public could enjoy more open space; (s) a Member enquired whether the existing trees would be retained upon the demolition of the concrete batching plant and whether the Leisure and Cultural Services Department would take over the tree management matters; and (t) a Member said that while the site of the concrete batching plant could not be rezoned within a short period of time, the Committee should make clear its stance. Upon the removal of the concrete batching plant, the departments should prepare a final report to assess the mode of operation of the plant, including issues of noise and dust control.

42. Ms KO Wing-yee gave a consolidated response as follows:

(a) regarding the application for the six-month extended occupation by the concrete batching plant, LandsD had consulted the relevant policy bureau and other departments concerned including BD and CEDD in examining whether the application was justifiable. Upon discussion, the departments considered that the extension by six months was reasonable;

22

(b) the approval of the extended occupation of the site by Excel was subject to conditions, including paying the rent and administrative fees incurred for the six-month extension period and complying with the relevant legislations of BD and EPD throughout the demolition works, etc; and (c) as for tree matters, LandsD had requested the concrete batching plant to submit a tree assessment report as a condition of extended occupation, so as to assess the health conditions of the trees and whether they affected the underground facilities. LandsD’s Tree Unit would examine the situation before deciding whether or not to retain the trees.

43. Mr CHENG Ka-man responded that during the demolition works, the contractor commissioned by the concrete batching plant shall comply with requirements of various environmental legislation, including adoption of appropriate dust control measures, handling wastewater and waste appropriately and compliance with the time restriction on carrying out construction activities under the Noise Control Ordinance, etc. EPD would inspect and monitor the demolition works from time to time to reduce the impact on nearby residents.

44. On the land use of the site of the concrete batching plant, Mr Vincent WONG said that a study on concrete supply was being conducted. If the relevant policy bureaux and concerned government departments considered the site suitable to be released for other purposes, PlanD would carry out detailed study on the long-term use of the site.

45. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, MH raised the following comments and enquiries:

Comments on the Planned Use of the Site of the Tin Wan Praya Road Concrete Batching Plant

(a) a Member said that he had been opposing to the development of a concrete batching plant at Tin Wan Praya Road and pressing for rezoning of the site for years. He stressed that he did not completely object to the development of concrete batching plants by the Government. He had suggested developing concrete batching plants at other sites which met with little local opposition at that time, but the Government had not accepted his suggestion. He commented that PlanD was inflexible in considering the suggestion of rezoning the site; (b) a Member enquired if PlanD would conduct a study on the use of the site at Tin Wan Praya Road. Given that the site was adjacent to the waters and that similar

23

sites were not available on Hong Kong Island, PlanD should leverage on the site’s advantage of proximity to the waters and plan its use accordingly. For instance, consideration could be given to zoning the site for special marine uses instead of the provision of parks or residential development;

Comments on the Impact of the Concrete Batching Plant on the Public

(c) a Member said that PlanD should not forget the historical fact that years ago due to the demolition of Tin Wan Estate, some of the residents had been relocated to Wah Kwai Estate, where they had been forced to live in the neighbourhood of the concrete batching plant. For years the residents had been suffering from dust nuisance which was not what they desired. In her opinion, the Government in the first place should not develop public housing in the vicinity of the concrete batching plant. However, since public housing had already been developed there, the Government should take the opportunity of the removal of the concrete batching plant to rezone the site as open space; (d) a Member said that despite their knowledge about the close proximity of the concrete batching plant to the residential areas, the departments concerned had nonetheless relocated the residents to the neighbourhood without regard to their well-being. Air pollution caused by the concrete batching plant affected the living environment of nearby residents, and in particular affected the health of the elderly in the area. For the well-being of the residents, the concrete batching plant should cease operation as soon as possible;

Comments on the Demand for Concrete

(e) a Member recalled that about a decade ago, according to the Government, the concrete batching plant had to continue its operation at Tin Wan Praya Road so as to facilitate the supply of concrete for the construction of such large-scale works projects as the MTR South Island Line (East) and Central-Wan Chai Bypass. However, those works projects had been completed and very few large-scale facilities were to be constructed on the Hong Kong Island in the short run. Moreover, as only precast units would be used for public housing development in the future, there was little demand for concrete. Hence, it would be unjustifiable for the Government, for the purpose of construction works, to retain the site for developing a concrete batching plant, and doing so would demonstrate the Government’s lack of sincerity in addressing the issue;

24

(f) a Member enquired CEDD about the future demand for concrete for construction works projects on Hong Kong Island, including MTR South Island Line (West) and road works related to the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate etc.;

Comments on the Submission of Reports

(g) a Member urged the departments concerned to submit a report on the analysis of the inadequacies and areas for improvement regarding the management of the concrete batching plant, which would be conducive to enhancing the management of other concrete batching plants; (h) a Member noted that CEDD was conducting the “Study on Concrete Supply in Hong Kong – Feasibility Study”. He enquired whether CEDD could provide the relevant information and whether SDC could advise on the study. Moreover, he enquired about other factors to be considered by the Government in developing a concrete batching plant apart from examining whether the subject site was in close proximity to gas depots, which were Potentially Hazardous Installations. He commented that while the development of a concrete batching plant close to the waters would facilitate transport, the distance from residents should also be considered; (i) a Member enquired if SDC would review the environmental impact assessment reports on the Tin Wan concrete batching plant over the past few years; and

Other Comments

(j) a Member said that LandsD had invited open tender for developing the site opposite to the Tin Wan concrete batching plant into a temporary car park, which was also used by the said plant. She enquired whether LandsD would rezone the site of the said car park or conduct a re-tender exercise for its use as a car park upon the removal of the Tin Wan plant.

46. Ms KO Wing-yee responded that the tenant of the car park opposite to the Tin Wan concrete batching plant was the same as that of the said plant, who had applied to terminate the tenancy of the car park in April 2019. In accordance with TD’s advice, a re-tender exercise would be launched for the car park site as a public car park.

47. Mr CHENG Ka-man responded that EPD’s staff had conducted inspection at the Tin Wan concrete batching plant from time to time during its operation, followed up on

25

complaints, and monitored its operation to ensure compliance with the requirements of environmental legislation.

48. Mr Vincent WONG responded that in case the policy bureaux or departments considered that there was a need to rezone the site at Tin Wan Praya Road for other land uses, PlanD would conduct detailed studies taking into account the features of the site and its surrounding environment.

49. Mr LING Chi-wai responded that the “Study on Concrete Supply in Hong Kong – Feasibility Study” was conducted by the Mines Division of the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of CEDD. He would ask the colleagues to provide Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN with the relevant information after the meeting.

50. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised an enquiry on the rules of order and said that CEDD should also revert to SDC apart from contacting him.

(Post-meeting note: (i) CEDD is undertaking a study on concrete supply in Hong Kong, which is to review the baseline profile of the current supply chain of ready-mixed concrete in Hong Kong and formulate strategy to ensure the security and stability of concrete supplies to meet projected needs of housing and infrastructure developments, including forecasting the demand for all planned development projects, reviewing the concrete production and supply technology as well as the logistics arrangements, and identifying potential sites, at strategic locations, suitable for new concrete batching plants. In determining the potential concrete batching plant sites, due consideration will be given to relevant factors, including the region(s)/area(s) where the shortage of supply is anticipated, land use compatibility, potential environmental impacts, transport and traffic impacts, and accessibility and connectivity of the concrete batching plants (e.g. whether the sites are close to seafront to facilitate the transport of large quantities of constituent materials of sand and coarse aggregate for concrete production). The study is tentatively scheduled to complete in 2020.

(ii) Regarding the existing concrete batching plant at Tin Wan, the study will assess the significance of the Tin Wan concrete

26

batching plant to the concrete demand of Hong Kong Island, particularly with respect to the construction in the Southern District (e.g. the construction of South Island Line (West) and Wah Fu Estate redevelopment). With the assessment results, the allocation of the supply chain of ready-mixed on Hong Kong Island will be planned, and a site search will be conducted for suitable locations to establish concrete batching plants. CEDD together with all other departments concerned will consult the SDC when there are preliminary findings from the study in 2020.)

51. The Chairman invited Members to case votes. The motion was passed with 16 votes in favour, one against and zero abstention.

Agenda Item 4: Progress Report on Planning Works in the Southern District (DDHC Paper No. 9/2019)

(Ms TAM May-bo and Ms LAW Siu-fong left the meeting at 4:48 p.m.)

52. The Chairman welcomed the following departmental representatives to the meeting:

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) (a) Mr WAI Kam-fat, Danny, Chief Health Inspector (Southern) 1; (b) Mr TSE Hon-lam, Health Inspector (Cleansing SD);

Water Supplies Department (WSD) (c) Ms HO Chui-hang, Senior Engineer/Consultants Management 6; and

AECOM Asia Company Limited (d) Mr Tommy CHAN, Senior Resident Engineer.

(I) Matters discussed at previous meetings that required follow-up actions

 Ex-Shek O Quarry (Annex 1 – page 2 of the discussion paper)

53. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that DDHC had received different proposals on the planned use of the site, including the construction of a water sports centre and buildings,

27

etc. She opined that whatever the future planning of the site might be, the problems of narrow roads and lack of proper walkways remained, and it was difficult for people to board and alight public transport. The site was also close to the main access road used by residents of Shek O, Big Wave Bay, Cape D’Aguilar and Stanley. If the ex-Shek O Quarry site was used for the construction of a water sports centre, despite its seasonal use, the vehicular flow of the relevant road section would inevitably increase. A relevant example was the Ocean Park. Areas in the vicinity of the Park would suffer from serious traffic congestion whenever large-scale events were held. In this connection, she urged the relevant department to study thoroughly the vehicular and pedestrian flow that would be generated by the proposed land use as well as the impacts, traffic impact in particular, on the residents of the surrounding areas such as Shek O, Big Wave Bay and Red Hill Peninsula.

54. Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired PlanD about the precise meaning of “PlanD will review the zoning of the subject site and consult the District Council on the proposal” as mentioned in the paper. He said that the Committee had already discussed the inclusion of a lot with a small area in the Land Sale Programme under Agenda Item 2 at the meeting. He was worried that PlanD might include the site into the 2020-2021 Land Sale Programme of the Government if the Committee had not indicated its planning intention for the site upon expiry of the Temporary Government Land Allocation (i.e. 31 December 2019). He thus wished to know whether PlanD would conduct a study of a larger scale that went beyond collecting views on land sale, in the same way as, for example, the Government conducted a study on the development of the ex-Lamma Quarry. Moreover, PlanD should also consult DDHC’s views on the land use as early as possible rather than consult the Committee only after the site had been included in the Land Sale Programme. The Committee should also clearly indicate its stance on the planning and development of the site.

55. Mr Vincent WONG responded that PlanD had not received any proposed development of the site and was reviewing the land use. It would report to the Committee if there was any further update.

56. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that the Government had conducted consultation on the planning and development of some ex-quarry sites before. For instance, it had consulted SDC on the option of using parts of the ex-Lamma Quarry site for leisure, hotel development or residential purposes. He enquired when PlanD would consult SDC and called on fellow Members to proactively convey their views to PlanD and clearly indicate the Committee’s stance lest the Government would exercise “executive hegemony” in future.

28

57. Mr LO Kin-hei said that similar to the discussion of Agenda Item 2 at the meeting, PlanD’s performance was not satisfactory as it had not made proper planning and drawn up a consultation time table for the ex-Shek O Quarry site. Besides, he enquired when MTRCL would hand over the site. In fact, the immersed tube project for the Shatin to Central Link should have been completed and MTRCL should be able to hand over the site to LandsD. He continued that the said site which was near the waterfront would generally be considered by developers as a site with development potentials and high land premium. He urged PlanD to plan for the site as early as possible so as to reduce the chance of leaving the site vacant, and give a clear account of the planning for the site and the time table for consulting DDHC.

58. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired which department was responsible for updating the progress report of the item. He said that according to a document of a Legislative Council meeting held on 16 January 2019, in response to “LCQ16: Long-term development for sites of the quarries which have ceased or will cease operation shortly”, the Secretary for Development said that “the Government has earlier received a short-term tenancy (STT) application for the use of the ex-Shek O Quarry site for water sports purposes”. But that was not included in the progress report submitted to DDHC. He requested the responsible department to give an explanation and provide the latest information.

59. Mr Vincent WONG responded that PlanD had noted Members’ comments. PlanD was reviewing the land use of the site, which was currently zoned “Undetermined” and there was no proposal to rezone the site for housing development in the short run. When there was any proposal in future, PlanD would consult DDHC.

60. Ms Amii KO responded that LandsD would provide supplementary information of the STT application for the site after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: DLOhas previously received an STT application in respect of the land for sailing centre purpose. In regard to the application, the DLO is currently verifying the information submitted, and will later consult the relevant departments and bureaux. Local consultation through the District Office will then follow.)

61. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said she understood that sometimes it took time to take forward a project. But what matters most was to make the correct decision. For example, the Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) had discussed the proposed traffic control measures for Tai Tam Road (Dam Section) and received various views. After thorough

29

discussion, it was decided that a traffic signal should be installed there. Subsequently, many members of the public commended that the installation of traffic signal could effectively relieve the traffic congestion of the road concerned. Regarding the ex-Shek O Quarry site, she urged PlanD to proactively collect public views and consult DDHC in due course.

62. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said again that at the Legislative Council meeting on 16 January 2019, in response to a Legislative Councillor’s question about the “Long-term development for sites of the quarries which have ceased or will cease operation shortly”, the Secretary for Development said that “The site is zoned ‘Undetermined’ on the approved Tai Tam and Shek O Outline Zoning Plan, and the Government will review the long-term use of the site in due course. Pending the formulation of the long-term use, the Government has earlier received a short-term tenancy application for the use of the ex-Shek O Quarry site for water sports purposes. LandsD is processing the application in accordance with the established mechanism”. He enquired why the above information was not included in the progress report, which was less accurate than the information available on the Internet. He expressed discontent at the department’s provision of outdated information and requested an explanation. He was also concerned whether the other parts of the progress report contained the latest information. He emphasised that the department concerned had the responsibility to ensure that information in the papers submitted to DDHC was the most up-to-date.

63. Mr Vincent WONG responded that PlanD had updated the progress report according to the latest planning information.

64. The Chairman enquired whether PlanD learned about the STT application for the use of the site for water sports purposes, and whether the application would be included in the proposed planning. Moreover, in view of the expiry date of the Temporary Government Land Allocation of the site on 31 December 2019 as mentioned by a fellow Member, he urged PlanD to formulate a planning option and proposal as early as possible and consult DDHC before the expiry date, lest the planning option would be endorsed hastily without the consent of SDC at the end of 2019 when SDC had suspended operation due to the election.

65. Mr Vincent WONG responded that PlanD had taken note of Members’ comments and would provide supplementary information of the latest STT application for the site after the meeting. Moreover, PlanD would work closely with relevant government departments on the review of land use and consult DDHC in a timely manner.

(Post-meeting note: PlanD will provide statutory and district planning comments once information for the proposed sailing centre is available from LandsD.)

30

66. The Chairman said that as the current term of SDC was going to expire by the end of 2019, he suggested that Members raise an agenda item for thorough discussion at the next meeting. He urged PlanD to proactively collect the various departments’ views on the site and consult the Committee on the suggestions to avoid leaving the site vacant.

(II) Water Supplies Department – Progress Report on Other Works in Southern District

 PWP No. 191WC/A (Annex 4 – pages 10 to 13 of the discussion paper)

67. Ms WONG Cho-kwan said that to fully implement “PWP No. 196WC – Implementation of Water Intelligent Network, Remaining Works”, WSD had to establish District Metering Areas (DMAs) and Pressure Management Areas (PMAs) in different districts in order to collect data for monitoring purposes and to take measures to improve water mains with leakage problem. The DMAs and PMAs would be established in stages. The project with Contract No. 10/WSD/14 which involved the construction of pressure management and district metering installations in Major Fresh Water Supply Zones of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, including Aberdeen and Red Hill, was being implemented. The works nature of this Contract involved excavation of the working pits of approximately 2m long, 1.5m wide and 1.5m deep and installation of flowmeter, pressure loggers and pressure reducing devices. On receipt of a Member’s enquiry concerning the project earlier on, WSD had liaised with the responsible person of the project and would consult the SDC Member of the constituency concerned and discuss the associated temporary traffic arrangement and works schedule after confirming the location of the working pit and before commencing the works.

68. The Chairman said the WSD representative’s report set out above was about the supplementary information of a new project which was not shown on the Progress Report.

69. Ms YAM Pauline said that WSD had discussed the project with her more than a week ago. She asked WSD to provide the relevant information after the meeting.

31

70. Ms WONG Cho-kwan responded that WSD was aware of Members’ concern over the DMAs and PMAs established under the Water Intelligent Network (WIN) and would thus provide Members with the relevant drawings in April 2019 for reference. Besides, WSD had also provided Ms YAM Pauline with the drawing associated with Contract No. 10/WSD/14. After updating and adjusting the drawings as well as drawing up the works schedule, WSD would provide the relevant information to Members before commencing the works.

(Post-meeting note: WSD had provided the respective locations and coverage of the completed and planned DMA chambers in the Southern District, and the demarcation of responsibilities with respect to maintenance and repair of water main to the Secretariat. The Secretariat had relayed the information to Members on 25 April 2019.)

71. Ms YAM Pauline said that relevant works, including installation of sensors, maintenance works and emergency repairs of burst pipes, were required for the mains at a number of locations in Aberdeen. As Aberdeen was the centre of the Southern District, works carried out in daytime would affect the traffic whereas works carried out at night would affect the rest time of the residents. She thus opined that WSD had to carefully consider the pros and cons. She had installed WSD’s mobile app and had received notifications of water suspension arrangements. As WSD often failed to notify the SDC Member of the constituency concerned when carrying out works, and to report the works progress, and even failed to respond to Members’ enquiries, she hoped that WSD could increase the transparency of the works undertaken and actively report the progress of any excavation works and temporary water suspension, so that Members could have sufficient time to liaise with the stakeholders. It was very important to establish an effective notification mechanism. Moreover, she hoped that WSD would liaise with the relevant Member after consolidating the information of Contract No. 10/WSD/14.

72. Mr CHAI Man-hon commended WSD for the improved communication arrangement. Not long ago, due to inadequate coordination between different sections under WSD during the implementation of works, temporary water suspensions occurred frequently and dissatisfaction among the residents. It was also difficult for the Housing Department (HD) and the relevant housing estate management companies to make preparation. As a result, upon resumption of water supply, the water was turbid. He urged WSD to maintain good communication and enhance the coordination work with the stakeholders to ensure smooth implementation of works.

32

73. The Chairman urged WSD to strengthen its communication with Members, especially the SDC Members of the constituencies concerned. In addition to the works announcements issued by WSD, the SDC Member of the constituency concerned could also help issue notices to remind the residents to make necessary preparation. When carrying out works, WSD should also be aware of the residents’ concerns and make corresponding improvement. In addition, he called on WSD to provide the information of WIN as soon as possible.

(Post-meeting note: The project information of Contract No. 10/WSD/14 provided by WSD is at Annex.)

74. Ms YAM Pauline noted that the works at Aberdeen Praya Road (near Bayshore Apartments) were 75% complete currently. She enquired whether the works could be completed in March 2019 as scheduled.

75. Ms HO Chui-hang responded that the mainlaying works at Aberdeen Praya Road (near Bayshore Apartments) were substantially completed. In April 2019 a test would be conducted after the main was filled with water. The reinstatement of drains, plants and traffic island would then be carried out subsequently. She said that the works had been affected by a number of factors. The most serious problem was the influx of underground water during the tunnel excavation and mainlaying works, which required extra temporary facilities to protect the workers’ safety. She apologised for the works delay.

76. Ms YAM Pauline said due to the delay of WSD’s works at Aberdeen Main Street (near Fung Tin Street), she had reported the wrong completion date to the residents. She was thus discontented at WSD’s failure to notify her of changes in the completion date in a timely manner. Besides, she said that WSD had not replied to her enquiry concerning the completion date of the works at Aberdeen Praya Road (near Bayshore Apartments). She was also discontented that WSD, knowing that the test for the works would be conducted in April 2019, did not update the Progress Report accordingly. She considered WSD was providing misleading information.

77. Apologising for the delay of works at Aberdeen Main Street (near Fung Tin Street), Ms HO Chui-hang emphasised that WSD had made every effort to expedite the works. But since there were some unexpected problems, such as underground water seepage which was more serious than expected, the works were delayed for about one month. The progress of works at Aberdeen Praya Road (near Bayshore Apartments) recorded in the Progress Report was the situation in late February 2019. Currently, the mainlaying works

33

were substantially completed, i.e. more than 75% complete. But since it took time to fill the large-sized main with water, the pressure test could not be conducted until April 2019. It was expected that the entire project could be completed in July 2019 upon completion of all the reinstatement works.

78. The Chairman said that even if the works were delayed due to unforeseen problems, WSD should still notify the residents and SDC Members as soon as possible. Otherwise, SDC Members would be put in an embarrassing situation for releasing incorrect information when they replied to residents’ enquiries according to WSD’s outdated information. Moreover, works delay should also be recorded in the Progress Report. He opined that the duty of the Government and SDC Members was to serve the public and hoped that the aforesaid situation would not occur again.

(III) Civil Engineering and Development Department – Progress Report on Other Works in Southern District

 PWP No. 341DS (Annex 4 – page 14 of the discussion paper)

79. Mr AU Nok-hin said that the upgrading works of Ap Lei Chau Preliminary Treatment Works (PTW) were “substantially completed” while those of other PTWs were “completed”. He enquired about the difference between the two in terms of the works progress.

80. Mr Jimmy LING responded that the term “completed” meant that the PTW was in operation with no remaining works, whereas the term “substantially completed” meant that the PTW was in operation but some remaining works that would not significantly affect the operation of the PTW were still underway. He would follow up with the Drainage Services Department (DSD) after the meeting to understand the situation and give a clear explanation in the next Progress Report.

81. Ms YAM Pauline enquired why Mr Jimmy LING replied to Member’s enquiry concerning the “Progress Report on Other Works in Southern District” on behalf of WSD and DSD as he was not a representative of those two departments.

82. Mr Jimmy LING responded that the representative from CEDD had all along been responsible for replying to Members’ enquiries concerning the “Progress Report on Other Works in Southern District” (Annex 4) so that the officers of other departments could handle the work of the relevant projects as soon as possible.

34

83. The Chairman said that as Mr Jimmy LING was conversant with issues related to the projects, he could often provide sufficient information to Members’ enquiries. If necessary, he would also relay Members’ comments to the relevant departments.

 PWP No. Head 705 Subhead 5001BX/D (Annex 4 – pages 15 to 18 of the discussion paper)

84. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that as the landslip prevention and mitigation works for Slope No. 15NE-A/CR454 at Tai Tam Road Catchwater, Slope No. 15NE-A/C192 at Tai Tam Road, Slope No. 15NE-A/C193 at Tai Tam Road and Slope No. 15NE-A/C240 near the junction of Stanley Gap Road and Headland Road would be completed successively, she called on CEDD to meticulously check whether any problems had arisen in the aforesaid slopes in the aftermath of Typhoon Mangkhut and whether further strengthening works were necessary. She emphasised that CEDD should accord top priority to the safety of the public when carrying out the works and should avoid completing the works hastily for meeting the completion target.

85. Mr LING Chi-wai responded that he had noted Member’s comments and would request GEO under CEDD to pay attention to the slope safety so as to protect the safety of the public.

86. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that Slope No. 15NE-A/C176 at Tai Tam Road occupied a vast area. But the carriageways there were very narrow and the stone wall adjacent to the carriageways could not be demolished. He further said that when there were buses running on both lanes of that road section at the same time could not move on due to the narrow carriageways. According to CEDD’s past practice, it would not widen the roads while carrying out slope works. But to ensure road safety, CEDD should cut part of the slope to make room for road widening, which should not involve a lot of resources. CEDD said that it had no plan to carry out the works because it had not received any requests from TD. But if the department concerned would not widen the road while carrying out the slope works, it should then indicate when the road widening works would be carried out. He continued that as it took about one year to complete the slope works and the carriageway had to be closed for one year as well, resources would be wasted if road widening works were not carried out in parallel with the slope works, resulting in poor works efficiency and resource effectiveness as well as additional nuisance to the public. Using the aforesaid slope as an example, he emphasised that the Committee should not support CEDD’s landslip prevention and mitigation works carried out without any plan of road widening.

35

87. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that among the 19 slopes in the Southern District for which landslip prevention and mitigation works would commence in the coming year, eight were located in her constituency. She said that approval had been granted to commence the works in 2019. It was believed that the relevant contracts had been signed and no changes could be made at the present stage. Therefore, she opined that the suggestion for road widening works was not applicable to these slopes. But she hoped that the Chairman could issue a letter to the relevant department to convey the Committee’s aspiration for road widening. Moreover, she hoped that the contractor could review whether any problems had arisen in the slopes in the aftermath of Typhoon Mangkhut and whether additional maintenance and strengthening works were required. Where necessary, it should apply for extra resources from the department concerned to ensure sufficient fund for completing the works and avoid the situation in which the works failed to be completed due to bankruptcy of the contractor.

88. Ms YAM Pauline wished to know the exact location of Slope No. 11SW-D/CR78 at Aberdeen Main Road. She said that as Aberdeen Main Road occupied a vast area, it was difficult to locate the slope solely based on its reference number. Moreover, the relevant department had not provided a map showing the location of the works. She called on the relevant department to make improvement in future.

89. Giving a consolidated response, Mr LING Chi-wai said that he would relay Members’ comments to GEO for follow-up and request the latter to provide Ms YAM Pauline with a map indicating the location of Slope No. 11SW-D/CR78 at Aberdeen Main Road. In view of Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying’s worry about the slope safety after the typhoon, he would request GEO to give an account of the current status of the slopes and works in question to the relevant Member after the meeting. Besides, he would relay Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN’s request for road widening carried out in parallel with works for Slope No. 15NE-A/C176 at Tai Tam Road to GEO for follow-up.

(Post-meeting note: CEDD has forwarded Members’ comments to GEO for follow up.)

90. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that the request for road widening works carried out in parallel with slope works at Tai Tam Road was not his personal request, but a collective aspiration of the residents in the Southern District. He said that the existing danger at that location was unacceptable and wished to request CEDD and TD to carry out road widening in parallel with the slope works in the name of SDC.

36

91. Supporting Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN’s suggestion, Mr LO Kin-hei agreed that the road there was narrow and called on the relevant departments to consider widening the road while carrying out the slope works.

92. The Chairman agreed that some roads in the Southern District were relatively narrow, but considered it quite difficult to request the relevant departments to widen all the narrow roads. He thus suggested raising an agenda item on roads with imminent danger, such as the road section of Tai Tam Road where Slope No. 15NE-A/C176 was located as mentioned by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, for in-depth discussion by the Committee. He considered it difficult to have a thorough discussion on the issue just by following up on the progress report.

93. Mr CHAI Man-hon said that a number of Members had raised agenda items for discussion at various meetings. But the issues were often followed up subsequently by way of progress reports. He opined that even if an agenda item was raised for discussion at the next meeting, given the limited time allowed for Members to speak, it was still difficult to follow up effectively. He thus suggested holding a workshop to discuss the issue and inviting the departmental representatives responsible for the issue to attend. Besides, the slopes to be followed up should not be restricted to that mentioned by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN above.

94. Mr FUNG Se-goun said that the issue had been discussed for a number of times. During a meeting between SDC Members and the Director of Civil Engineering and Development (DCED) earlier on, he had also raised the issue. DCED said that CEDD would not take the initiative to carry out road widening works, but would lend support to other departments’ requests. In this connection, he agreed with Mr CHAI Man-hon’s suggestion of holding a workshop. He said that the relevant departments such as the Highways Department, TD and CEDD should be invited to study which roads in the various areas of the Southern District required road widening and then plan for the work at the next stage.

95. The Chairman agreed with the suggestion of holding a workshop and said that Members who were concerned about the issue could then have a thorough discussion with the relevant departments.

96. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN suggested handling the issue of widening the road section of Tai Tam Road where Slope No. 15NE-A/C176 was located first, which might then be used as an example for working out a long-term solution for other slopes. He said

37

although the relevant departments had said for several times that it was quite difficult to carry out road widening in parallel with the landslip prevention and mitigation works, he hoped that the aforesaid slope could be handled as soon as possible lest the relevant departments would fail to commence the works on the pretext of insufficient time.

97. The Chairman said that the workshop need not focus on the works for just one slope. He opined that a priority could be set for the works based on criteria such as the imminent danger of the slopes and the roads, and the principle of resolving simple issues first before the difficult ones. Finally, the Chairman invited the Secretariat to arrange for the workshop.

(Post-meeting note: As road widening works fall within the terms of reference of T&TC, T&TC held a workshop to discuss the issue on 25 April 2019.)

(IV) Housing Department – Progress Report on Public Housing Works in Southern District (Annex 5 – page 19 of the discussion paper)

98. Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired about the number of objections to the proposed public housing developments at Pok Fu Lam South and Wah Fu Estate redevelopment received by CEDD so far, as well as the number of objections that had been handled. He hoped that HD could add the information in the next Progress Report.

99. Ms LO Kit-sheung responded that HD had noted the Member’s comment and would provide the figures in the next Progress Report after obtaining the statistics from the relevant department.

(Post-meeting note: During the statutory periods of relevant gazettes for the proposed road and sewerage works under Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance and Water Pollution Control (Sewerage) Regulation, CEDD did not receive any response on the proposed sewerage works, but received 242 responses on the proposed road scheme which included one support and 241 objections. For the 241 objections, six of them have been withdrawn unconditionally, and other objections are under processing.)

38

100. The Chairman urged the departmental representatives to make adequate preparation before the meeting so that they could reply to Members’ enquiries instantly at the meeting, or else they could only reply at the next meeting, which meant a delay by two months.

101. Concurring with the Chairman’s comment, Ms YAM Pauline opined that departmental representatives attending meetings should reply to Members’ enquiries instantly at the meeting instead of saying that the requested information would be provided after the meeting.

102. The Chairman said that all departmental representatives should make adequate preparation before the meeting, which was their primary duty to the SDC.

(V) Food and Environmental Hygiene Department – Progress Report on District Minor Works in Southern District

 Preliminary Project Plan of Construction Works (Annex 6 – page 20 of the discussion paper)

103. Commenting on the slow progress of installing air-conditioning system in Aberdeen Market, Mr CHAI Man-hon enquired about the works progress as at March 2019. Moreover, he hoped that the project would have a clear direction and progress before the expiry of the current term of SDC, and that the funding application could be submitted to the Legislative Council as soon as possible.

104. Mr Danny WAI responded that in the Budget Speech delivered in 2018, the Financial Secretary announced that $2 billion would be earmarked for implementing a Market Modernisation Programme over the next 10 years, which would entail a comprehensive review of nearly 100 existing public markets and improvement works, including installation of air-conditioning systems and major overhaul. The first modernisation programme to be implemented would be the major overhaul of the Aberdeen Market, which was expected to cost over $200 million. FEHD hoped that after the overhaul, there would be a conveniently located market for buying fresh provisions in the district which met the conditions of being clean, bright, dry, tidy and orderly with wide passageways that were easily accessible by strollers and wheelchairs.

39

105. Mr Danny WAI further said that FEHD had formed a special duties team, and organised meetings of the Market Management Consultative Committee with the SDC Member of the constituency concerned and the market stall operators in July, August and October 2018 and will take forward the market modernisation programme. FEHD was discussing the Stay/Leave/Relocation Option with the stall operators and had noted their views on the various options. FEHD was consolidating and reviewing the information including SDC Members’ comments, and would maintain close liaison with the stall operators with a view to reaching a consensus as soon as possible. Besides, FEHD had carried out the preliminary work for the feasibility study for the project in collaboration with the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD).

106. Mr CHAI Man-hon was pleased to see that FEHD had made adequate preparation to answer his question. Moreover, he enquired whether FEHD could propose an agenda item for discussing “Modernisation Programme of Aberdeen Market” before the expiry of the current term of SDC, say at the two upcoming meetings.

107. Ms YAM Pauline said that as the project of installation of air-conditioning system in Aberdeen Market had now evolved into the “Modernisation Programme of Aberdeen Market”, she hoped that FEHD would keep Members informed of the progress of the programme so that Members could reply to the public enquiries.

108. Mr Danny WAI responded that FEHD had explained the Stay/Leave/Relocation Option to the SDC Member concerned and stall operators and taken note of their views. FEHD was consolidating and reviewing the information and would maintain close liaison with the stall operators and SDC Member with a view to reaching a consensus on the arrangements as soon as possible. FEHD would notify the relevant stakeholders as soon as possible when there was any further update.

 Commenced Works (Annex 6 - page 21 of the discussion paper)

109. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said it was shown in the Progress Report that the construction site of Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village Public Toilet had already been handed over to the contractor for implementation, and the project was expected to be completed in the third quarter of 2019. She understood that the project might be delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. Moreover, as the location concerned was on a major road where many residents in Stanley would board and alight from public transport, she hoped that FEHD would provide a concrete layout plan of the public toilet for reference.

40

110. Mr Danny WAI responded that regarding the said project, FEHD had not yet received the latest information from ArchSD, and the expected completion date remained to be the third quarter of 2019 at the moment. FEHD would inform the Committee upon receipt of further information. Besides, FEHD would contact the Member concerned on the layout plan of the public toilet after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: FEHD contacted the Member concerned on 25 April 2019 with regard to the information on Wong Chuk Hang San Wai Village Public Toilet.)

(VI) Progress Report on Temporary Government Lands Allocation in Southern District

 TGLA No./File Ref. GLA-THK1892 L/M 988/SHMS/82 A (Annex 7 - page 23 of the discussion paper)

111. Mr CHAI Man-hon opined that as the project concerned had been completed, it was not necessary for DSD to apply for extension of the site on Tin Wan Praya Road. He hoped that DSD would hand over the site as soon as possible in order to vacate the site for other public uses.

112. Ms Amii KO said that DLO had only received from DSD the application for extension period up to 30 June 2019 for the time being. No further information had been received yet. DLO would contact DSD after the meeting to learn more about the latest situation, and make an enquiry with DSD as to whether the site concerned could be handed over at an earlier time.

(Post-meeting note: Upon DLO’s enquiry, DSD indicated the handover date of the site would need to be extended to 30 September 2019.)

113. Dr MAK TSE How-ling, MH said that as the site on Tin Wan Praya Road had a bearing on Wah Kwai and Tin Wan, she hoped that DLO would notify her and Mr CHAN Fu-ming, MH upon receiving the latest updates.

114. The Chairman asked DLO to note Members’ views.

41

Agenda Item 5: Any Other Business

115. Ms YAM Pauline hoped that WSD would improve its notification mechanism and information dissemination. She supported WSD’s assigning representatives to attend the meetings on a regular basis. However, she hoped that WSD would duly update the information papers for submission to DDHC in order to enable Members to carry out discussion based on the latest information and avoid wasting time.

116. The Chairman requested WSD to note Member’s views. WSD would assign representatives to attend the meetings of DDHC on a regular basis.

Part 2 – Date of the Next Meeting

117. The Chairman advised the meeting that the 21st DDHC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 27 May 2019 (Monday).

118. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council May 2019

42 Annex

Southern District Council District Development and Housing Committee

Water Supplies Department Contract No. 10/WSD/14 Introduction

Background

Contract No. 10/WSD/14 was awarded in June 2015 by Water Supplies Department to Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Co. Ltd for the construction of pressure management and district metering installations in Aberdeen, Central, Eastern, Western, Sai Wan, Red Hill, Kowloon West, Tsuen Wan, Sai Kung and Tuen Mun Major Fresh Water Supply Zones. Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited is the engineering consultant undertaking the supervision of construction works of this contract.

2. The contract commenced in July 2015 and the anticipated works completion date will be January 2021.

Purpose

3. The purpose of this contract is to implement district metering areas and pressure management areas in the existing fresh water supply system such that the data collected from the flowmeter and pressure logger can be used to analyse and to persistently monitor the condition of underground water mains. If any abnormal conditions such as leakage or slight rupture occur in the existing water mains, they can be interpreted and predicted through the variation of flow and pressure data collected from the said equipment. This would enable Water Supplies Department to be aware of any problematic underground water main in advance, and to carry out timely repairing and replacement works before their conditions deteriorate and causing extensive pipe burst and traffic disruption on busy road.

4. The works of this contract are considered as an effective preventive measure for reducing leakage and water loss from the existing underground water supply system. It can enhance the monitoring efficiency of the water supply system. Scope of Works

5. Under the Contract 10/WSD/14, there are 75 different works locations across Southern District as shown in the attached drawing.

Progress of Works

6. Up to the first Quarter of 2019, the construction works at 37 works locations have been completed under this contract in Southern District as shown in the attached Drawing.

Works Nature

7. The installation of flowmeter, pressure loggers and pressure reducing devices will be installed in the existing water supply system of the above mentioned major water supply zones. Before the installation, traditional open excavation will be adopted as the minor road opening at the above works locations in Southern District.

8. The works in these locations involve the followings:

(i) minor open excavation on road and footpath. The working pits are approximately 2.5 m long, 1.5 m wide and 1.5 m deep. The excavation of the working pits is generally less extensive than that would be required for replacing an underground water main; (ii) construction of underground chamber and laying of associated pipe works for accommodating the equipment; (iii) installation of the flowmeter, pressure loggers, pressure reducing valves and other associated equipment in the newly constructed underground chamber; and (iv) commissioning of the district metering area and pressure management area.

Traffic Issues

9. As most of the works locations involve open excavation in road and footpath, appropriate traffic impact arrangement (TTA) will be implemented during construction. Prior to construction, the TTA and the construction programme will be reviewed by Traffic Management Liaison Group which is formed by the representatives of Transport Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Highways Department and Bus Company etc. Consultation of the TTA will be carried out with the locals and district council members before construction.

10. For the works on footpath, minimum clearance of 1.2 m width will be provided for pedestrian passage. For the works on busy street or road, traffic mitigation measures will be adopted. These include arrangement of works in different stages; implementation of TTA during non-peak traffic hours; provision of temporary decking on excavated pits during non-working hours so that the road can be opened for public use etc.

Environmental Issues

11. During construction, the following measures will be adopted to reduce impacts to the environment and the public:

(i) Dust suppression such as regular sprinkler system will be implemented at the works place; (ii) Temporary cover of the excavated material with tarpaulin sheet and regular removal of construction material from site; (iii) Acoustic barrier or noise barrier or noise suppression instrument will be used to minimise construction noise. If construction works such as concrete breaking could not be avoided during road opening, noise alleviation measures such as limiting these noisy construction activities during certain working hours will be adopted to reduce the impact to the noise sensitive receivers such as school, residential areas, elderly centre etc.; and (iv) Other environmental issues such as construction wastewater and construction waste will be treated in accordance with requirements of Environmental Protection Department.

Temporary Suspension of Fresh water supply

12. Temporary suspension of fresh water supply might be required during the installation of the equipment in the existing water main. The water suspension would be arranged to suit the general water consumption mode in the existing supply zone. The temporary suspension period shall not exceed eight hours and be avoided during public holidays.

13. Consultation with the affected stakeholders and District Council Member through advance notification or meeting will be arranged to reduce the public inconvenience due to the fresh water supply interruption.

Coordination with other road works contracts

14. To further reduce the public inconvenience caused by this contract, coordination would be carried out with other government departments to resolve works interface between construction contracts. Through the close liaison with other government departments, the construction works could be arranged concurrently at the same locations with other government contracts in order to avoid repeated road opening which would otherwise affect the public life.

Public Liaison and Consultation

15. In order to reduce the public inconvenience and impacts due to the construction works, the affected stakeholders and District Council Members will be consulted in advance of the implementation of TTA, temporary suspension of fresh water supply etc.

16. A public liaison officer and enquiry hotline are also provided in this contract to enhance the communication and liaison with the public. Any public enquiry or complaints will be replied and followed up by the public liaison officer and the responsible staffs of this contract.

Responsible Staff

17. The responsible staff of Water Supplies Department, and Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited for this contract are shown below:

Name: Mr. Chan Man Tai Post: Project Coordinator/Project Mgt 16 Division/Organisation: Project Management Division, Water Supplies Department Tel: 2829 5662 Email: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Kelvin Chiu Koon Kau Post: Engineer’s Representative Organisation: Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited Tel: 2359 5703 Mobile: 9624 6820 Email: [email protected]

Name: Ms. Lim Ting Jin Post: Resident Engineer Organisation: Black & Veatch Hong Kong Limited Tel: 2359 5701 Mobile: 6827 6299 Email: [email protected] TSANG TSAI 曾仔坳 龍仔村 Long Tsai 大灣舊村 大灣肚

導管 Kau Tsuen Tai Wan Tsuen

Tai Wan 洪聖爺灣泳灘 AU HUNG SHING YEH To 北角咀 Pak Kok BEACH Tsui

Pipeline 大嶺村 Pak Kok 北角 PAK KOK Tai Ling 北角山 Tsuen SHAN 導管 Pipeline

(near Woodbury Court)

風采發電站

桔仔灣 Construction Period: T.B.C. Pok Fu Lam Road KAT TSAI 鐵砂塱 WAN Lamma

TIT SHA

Winds 蘆鬚城泳灘 LONG LO SO SHING SANDY BAY Hung Shing Ye BEACH 洪聖爺 (near Wai Oi House Laundry Drying Area) Construction Period: Completed Wai Kwai Estate 配水庫 Ser Res Construction Period: T.B.C. Yue Shi Cheung Road (near Aberdeen Wholesale Fish Market

配水庫 100 Ser Res

MOUNT DAVIS

200 Lo So Shing 200 南咀 Nam Tsui 蘆鬚城 摩星嶺 MOUNT 蘆荻灣 配水庫 Ser Res Lo Tik LAMMA ISLAND Wan

VICTORIA 269

DAVIS Estate

域 水泥廠 多

Cement

Works 利

配水庫 Ser Res 道

RO

南丫島 RO AD LUK CHAU WAN AD Kamikaze Grottos Kwun Lung 觀龍樓 配水庫

Ser Res Construction Period: Completed Aberdeen Promenade (near

Kennedy Town 鹿洲灣 Lau 神風洞 摩 星 導管 Telegraph Bay

鋼灣村 嶺 道 Village

Pipeline South Horizon Construction Period: Completed Cyberport 數碼港 Luk Chau 鹿洲村 Village WATERFALL BAY 貝沙灣 Residence Sok Kwu Wan Baguio Bel-Air ( SOK KWU WAN ) Villa 索罟灣

PICNIC BAY POK

on the Peak 索罟灣 貝沙灣 LUK CHAU

Bel-Air 南灣 South Horizon Construction Period: T.B.C.

鹿洲山

碧瑤灣 FU SHAN LAM

Ta Shui Wan

打水灣 ROAD 薄 HIGH WEST s

薄扶林花園

LUNG FU SHAN

扶 西高山 Phase 1,2 - South Horizon Drive 253

林 Pokfulam 道 龍虎山 Gardens 配水庫 Ser Res b 配水庫 MAGAZINE ISLAND Ser Res LING KOK SHAN asketball 華富 Sewage Treatment Wah Fu 配水庫 污水處理廠 Ser Res 鹿洲 LUK CHAU Estate 494 s

400 薄扶林村 Pok Fu Lam 火藥洲 菱角山 Works Phase 3 Village Ka Lung Court (near Tin Wan Shopping Centre) Construction Period: Completed Lee Nam Road 嘉隆苑 Construction Period: Completed Tin Wan Street Wah Kwai Estate Chi Fu Fa Yuen 華貴 置富花園

300

配水庫 Ser Res

c Pipeline

,4 San Shi Street (near Construction Period: Completed ourts) 200 東博寮海峽 - Yi Nam Road Ser Res 配水庫

( Lung Shan Pai ) 300 )

SHEK PAI WAN 200

Lee Chi Road Construction Period: Completed 污水處理廠

West Rock 導管

配水庫 石排灣 SHEK Ser Res

龍山排

Treatment 榕樹下 PAI Ha Construction Period: Completed Lee Wing Street Yung Shue 400 Sewage

Works WAN Construction Period: T.B.C. Ap Lei Chau Estate 配水庫 Construction Period: T.B.C. Aberdeen Main Road (near HSBC) Ser Res Mo Tat Old Village

ROAD 312 模達舊村 Construction Period: Completed Ap Lei Chau Praya Road (near Larvotto) 500 C

Construction Period: T.B.C. Wong Chuk Hang Road (near Aberdeen Technical School)

VICTORIA PEAK

200 200 552 扯旗山

South Horizons C 海怡半島 模達灣

Mo Tat Wan

配水庫 Ser Res 導管 Aberdeen West Typhoon Shelter

Construction Period: Completed Rehabilitation Centre

污水處理廠 Yue Kwong Road (near Fu Hong Society ABERDEEN Construction Period: Completed Aberdeen Promenade Public Toilet (near Aberdeen 模達新村 Mo Tat New Village

Construction Period: T.B.C. Aberdeen Main Road

s 300 300 香港仔西避風塘 Construction Period: T.B.C. Lei Tung Estate Road itting-out Treatment VICTORIA KELLETT 奇力山 Sewage MOUNT

爐峰峽

Works 石

400 400

排 Pipeline

TUNG O WAN GAP 灣

EAST LAMMA CHANNEL LAMMA EAST 501

道

PRAYA 東澳灣 Ap Lei Chau Estate 鴨洲 御庭園 The Oasis JARDINE'S Tin Wan Estate 觀龍角 配水庫 CORNER 田灣 Ser Res 鴻福苑 Court Hung Fuk

配水庫 ROAD Ser Res a rea) Construction Period: Completed Aberdeen Praya Road

House

A

P L

SHEK PAI WAN E

) 石排灣 C I

) H 悅海華庭 Ser Res Marina Habitat 利東 配水庫 A U B

NGAI TAU 山頂纜車

YUK KWAI SHAN R C Peak Tramway

崖頭 I D

G TIN WAN SHAN 玉桂山 漁安苑 E

AP LEI CHAU R O 鴨洲

田灣山 A AP LEI PAI Yue Kwong Lei Tung 香港仔海傍道 漁光 D

Estate

鴨排 Chuen PE Shek Pai Wan 石排灣 大 Yue On

Court AK 道

Estate Water Treatment 中

252 RO 深灣軒 Sham Wan 濾水廠 配水庫 Towers Ser Res Ser Res Works Larvotto 南灣 配水庫

AD

配水庫 Ser Res MA

MOUNT GOUGH G

300

AZ

歌賦山 香港仔南避風塘

山頂道 I

黃竹角 NE 配水庫 Wong Chuk Kok Ser Res 配水庫

Typhoon Shelter Ser Res Aberdeen South SHAM WAN

深灣 GAP

配水庫

Ser Res 香港仔海峽

RO

WONG AD

鴨咀

Assistance Rock 200

深灣9號 馬 己 仙

Marinella

ABERDEEN CHANNEL ABERDEEN

峽

PO CHONG 布廠灣

Admiralty

道

CHUK 配水庫 金鐘 Ser Res WAN MAGAZINE 馬己仙峽 BENNET'S HILL GAP 雅濤閣

Broadview TAI SHUE 大樹灣 Construction Period: T.B.C. Heung Yip Road (near United Industrial Building) Court

HANG 班納山 WAN Construction Period: Completed Ap Lei Chau Praya Road Barracks 214 軍營

ROAD C 配水庫 Ser Res Construction Period: Completed Welfare Road (near Marinella)

Pipeline

100

R

O N

N

A

A H G N

D O A L M S

導管

黃 QUEEN'S ROAD QUEEN'S

竹 Construction Period: T.B.C. 坑 Heung Yip Road (near Nam Long Shan

道 港島

灣仔峽

GAP WAN CHAI Range Firing 靶場 ( NAM LONG SHAN ) EAST 4 Construction Period: T.B.C. Yip Fat Street (near Shum Wan Road (near Po Chong Construction Period: Completed BRICK HILL Construction Period: T.B.C. Yip Fat Street (near One Island South) 南朗山 1

告士打道 皇 深水角 Construction Period: T.B.C. Sham Shui Kok Nam Long Shan Road ( near 2 Welfare Road)

Wan Chai 金馬倫山

CAMERON 灣仔 后 Construction Period: T.B.C. Heung Yip Road (near Wong Chuk Hang Recreation Ground) Shum Wan Road (near Aberdeen Marina Club) Construction Period: T.B.C.

International School

Construction Period: Completed Nam Long Shan Road ( near Canadian 大 MOUNT Shum Wan Road (near Hospital Authority Laundry) Construction Period: T.B.C. Shum Wan Road (near Construction Period: Completed 道 410 Shum Wan Road (near Aberdeen Boat Club) Construction Period: T.B.C. 東 14

GLOUCE

ISLAND LINE 400

NAM Ser Res 配水庫 Wong Chuk Hang C 黃竹坑新圍 300

STER

FUNG

San Wai Pipeline

導管 STUBBS South Bay Road(near Metered Parking Space) Construction Period: Completed 200 MIDDLE GAP HENNESSY ROAD 軒尼詩道 ROAD RO

Scomber Building ROAD

ST 中峽 UB

AD 配水庫 BS

Ser Res

RO AD of Hong Kong 1 The Ngan Chau Ngam Pai

ABERDEEN TUNNEL 100 100

SHOUSON HILL 香港仔隧道 司

South Bay Road (near Ruby Court) Construction Period: Completed 徒 Ser Res 配水庫 HK Anti-Cancer Society)

DEEP WATER BAY 壽臣山 銀洲岩排 拔

2 Headland Road

Construction Period: Completed

司

道 深水灣

T 100 徒 emporary

南風道 Sitting-out Area 拔 NICHOLSON Construction Period: Completed Cape Road (near Leung Ma House) 聶高信山 The Leighton Hill

Causeway Bay 道 ) MOUNT 銅鑼灣 禮頓山 ) 11 Chung Hom Kok Road Construction Period: T.B.C. Water Treatment

DEEP WATER BAY Ser Res 配水庫 深水灣泳灘 配水庫 D E 濾水廠

E Works I

BEACH P MIDDLE ISLAND ndustrial Ser Res

( TONG PO CHAU )

WA 430 黃

( NGAN CHAU ) 銀洲 ROUND ISLAND

熨波洲 泥

涌

I

S TER

峽 L

A

道 10/WSD/14 D D N

BAY

R ) 68-70 Chung Hom Kok Road Construction Period: T.B.C.

O

Ngan Chau Tau Pai 銀洲頭排 WONG A D ROAD R E 電車路 TAU CHAU P U 深 Tramway LS C 水

A E

B 灣 A NAI rea) Y R 道

頭洲

O

污水處理廠 大坑道 Sewage Treatment Works TAI A CHUNG D HA NG

RO

GAP

REP

UL AD SE ROAD

配水庫

BA 淺水灣道 Ser Res

Stanley Village Road (near Post Office) Construction Period: T.B.C.

ROAD Y

REPULSE BAY Construction Period: Completed Police School Road (near College Married Quarters) 淺水灣

WONG NAI CHUNG 淺水灣泳灘 SOUTH BAY 勵德

Tsuen Lai Tak

Ser Res 配水庫

REPULSE BAY The Legend 南灣 黃泥涌峽 C 名門 BEACH GAP

MIDDLE BAY 南灣泳灘

SOUTH BAY 中灣 10 Shouson Hill Road Construction Period: Completed BEACH C MIDDLE BAY BEACH 12 Shouson Hill Road Construction Period: T.B.C.

CHUNG HOM WAN 中灣泳灘

Installations in Aberdeen, Central, Eastern, Western, Sai Wan, Red 舂坎灣

Hill, Kowloon West, Tsuen Wan, Sai Kung and Tuen Mun Major

200 200 Construction Period: Completed Repulse Bay Road Construction of Pressure Management and District Metering Ser Res 436 配水庫 LOOKOUT JARDINE'S Chung Hom Kok 渣甸山

TAI 433 400 陽明山莊

Hong Kong C Parkview

舂坎角 TAM

CHUNG HOM KOK 舂坎角泳灘

R

CHUNG HOM E BEACH

P 400 R VIOLET HILL

C U 紫羅蘭山 E

L 433

舂坎山 H

SHAN S S U

E

Construction Period: T.B.C. N Hoi Fung Path B E

G 300 R A

H Y

V

300 300

O

O R IR

O

M (near Stanley Knoll)

A Stanley Village Road Construction Period: Completed K

D RO

Range Firing 靶場 O

石礦場

K AD R Quarry (near Eden View)

Stanley Gap Road Construction Period: Completed O

Completed Construction Period: A Ma Hang Prison

323 D THE TWINS Fresh Water Supply Zones 淺水灣坳 TSIN SHUI WAN AU

孖崗山 300 Ma Hang Estate

300 307

馬坑

S

T

C A

大 N

L

潭

E

400 400

GAP GAP Y 水

SIU MA SHAN

塘 SHA SHEK 沙石灘 TAN 小馬山 Lung Tak Court C 道 龍德苑

R

O 300

Construction Period: T.B.C. Tai Tam Road CHEUNG LIN A 大潭中水塘 INTERMEDIATE

D 長連山 RESERVOIR SHAN STANLEY BAY TAI TAM

\M+0A8AA\M+0AC57\M+0B944 MOUNT BUTLER 赤柱灣 \M+0AE6C QUARRY GAP ( TAI FUNG AU )

( MA HANG SHAN ) 200 畢拿山 STONE HILL Tong Yan Pai 大風坳 C 馬坑山 Chek Chue

人排 赤柱 聖士提反灣泳灘 SUGAR LOAF 8 Pak Pat Shan Road Construction Period: Completed ( LO FU SHAN )

富豪海灣 400 Regalia Bay 400 老虎山

ST. STEPHEN'S

200 154 200 BEACH STANLEY PENINSULA Pak Kan 八間 Tai Tam 大潭

W

康怡花園

O N 赤柱正灘泳灘

赤柱半島

100 100 CHE PAU TENG

G STANLEY MAIN M TAI TAM MOUND BEACH 斜炮頂 A

大潭崗 K 夏萍灣泳灘 ( LIN FA TSENG SHAN ) HAIRPIN BEACH 赤柱炮台 Stanley Fort O K R

O BRIDGE HILL 129 A 蓮花井山

100 配水庫

D Ser Res 大潭篤水塘 TAI TAM TUK

RESERVOIR

500 500 NOTTING HILL 東熹苑 Tung Hei ( KWAI SHAN ) Court ( PAK SHA WAN )

TWEED BAY 白沙灣 配水庫 龜山 Ser Res 532

BOA VISTA 野豬徑 C MOUNT PARKER

400 東欣苑 Tung Yan Court

T 耀東 22 Stanley Village Road (near Construction Period: T.B.C. A I T 64 Wong Ma Kok Road Construction Period: Completed 柏架山 7 Stanley Village Road Construction Period: T.B.C. TUNG TAU WAN Tung Chun Stanley Village Road (near Banyan Villas) Construction Period: T.B.C. A

M 東駿苑 東頭灣 RO A D Court

260 R

TURTLE COVE 300 300

龜背灣

TURTLE COVE

O

龜背灣 泳灘 A

BEACH D 羅洲 LO CHAU C Yiu Tung Estate 507

TAI C TAI TAM GAP 9 Stanley Mound Road 筲箕灣道 Construction Period: T.B.C. TAM (near Tung Tau Correctional

Institution Exit)

Construction Period: Completed Wong Ma Kok Road

200 200 大潭峽 ( PAK PAT SHAN ) Construction Period: T.B.C. Wong Ma Kok C ROAD 29 Tung Tau Wan Road Construction Period: T.B.C. C RED HILL Red Hill Peninsula 50 Stanley Village Road Construction Period: T.B.C. 白筆山 Stanley Beach Road (near Construction Period: T.B.C. Carmel Road (near Carmelite Monastery) Construction Period Estate

紅山半島 100

大潭道 100

164 導管

Garden

Shau Kei Wan Kei Shau Pipeline 筲箕灣 TAI TAM BAY

TAI

OBELISK HILL 大潭灣 C 石碑山 TAM Ming Wah Fung Wah 峰華

石澳道 ROAD Dai Ha Path 大潭港 Red Hill HARBOUR 配水庫 Construction Period: Completed 明華大廈 Ser Res TAI TAM

Estate C

MOUNT COLLINSON SHEK 配水庫 Ser Res

Horizon Crest 大潭道 配水庫 Ser Res (near St. Stephen's College)

歌連臣山 O

興民

100 :15/3/2019 - 31/5/2019 100 Estate

Hing Man ROAD Service Ngam Hing Wah Construction Period: Completed Big Wave Bay Road Car Park 興華 山翠苑 Shan Tsui Court

Estate 200 200

柴灣坳

泥灣 WAN CHAI WAN AU CHAI

ROAD

爛 樂翠臺 配水庫

WAN 13 Big Wave Bay Road LAN Construction Period: Completed NAI 柴灣道 Neptune

Terrace

Ser Res 300 300

Ser Res

配水庫

100

TO TEI WAN 100 土地灣 Greenwood 康翠臺 Terrace p 東丫村 Village Tung Ah 爛泥灣村 Lan Nai Wan Village 348 layground 188 Pui Village 東丫背村 Tung Ah ) R eservoir 銀坑村 Ngan Hang Village 柴灣 配水庫 Ser Res

茵翠苑 Chai Wan Heng Fa POTTINGER GAP Yan Tsui Chuen ( MA TONG AU ) 土地灣村 Court To Tei Wan Village 下層鐵路

馬塘坳

Wan Tsui

環翠 怡翠苑

S Yee Tsui Railway Depot H

E O O K Estate Court

) 車廠

C 宏德居

R

O Walton

Estate A D under 4 翠灣 Tsui Wan Estate

杏花 Pak Sha Wan Heng Fa Chuen Fa Heng WAN CHAM SHAN

樂軒臺 Lok Hin 杏花

歌 Terrace DRAGON'S BACK DRAGON'S Yue Wan 雲枕山 連 漁灣 )

臣 Estate

杏翠苑 D'AGUILAR PENINSULA Court Hang Tsui 龍脊 角 Chai Wan 道 柴灣 Hok Tsui Lower Estate Tai Long Wan 老鼠排 鶴咀下村 Lo Shue Pai 雙四門 大浪灣

Village

C

100 鶴咀半島 100

打爛埕頂山 SHEK O PEAK

大風坳

WINDY GAP

D

E P

R A

C

O

'

A POTTINGER PEAK

A Treatment Works CAPE

D

G 污水處理廠

R

U A I 鶴咀村 L Hok Tsui

Village

砵甸乍山 COLL

200 200 Sewage

導管 曉翠苑 Pipeline Hiu Tsui

S H 312 Court

E K O I

R SO

O RO N AD

A N BIG WAVE BAY BEACH 大浪灣泳灘

D KWUN YAM SHEUNG SZE MUN D'AGUILAR PEAK 觀音山 小西灣 Siu Sai Wan ( HOK TSUI SHAN ) SHAN 富欣花園 Estate 配水庫 Ser Res Harmony

Garden

BIG WAVE BAY 鶴咀山 大浪灣 Kai Tsui Court Cheerful Garden 富怡花園 藍灣半島 Island Resort 佳翠苑 TSO TUI WAN

SHEK O BEACH 石澳泳灘 Shek O Village 石澳村 Fullview Garden

富景花園 ROCKY BAY BEACH 石澳後灘泳灘

ISLAND BAY 香島灣 ( SHEK O WAN )

ROCKY BAY

石澳灣 垃圾灣 LAP SAP WAN NGAN WAN