R. Sha Tin - 128 - R. Sha Tin Appendix III - R Sha Tin District Summaries of Written Representations Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations 1 All 3 The representations The supporting views are noted. DCCAs support the demarcation proposals for all DCCAs in the district. 2 R01 – 1 The representation The representation is accepted Sha Tin suggests to move Pristine because: Town Villa from R19 to R01, (i) although Pristine Villa is Centre instead of to R02 because: separated from R01 by Shing (a) it is closely related to Mun Tunnel Road, it is closer to R02 – R01 in terms of similar R01 than R02 in terms of Lek Yuen community facilities geographical, community and and private residential traffic link; and R19 – developments; Chung (ii) the resultant population of R01 Tin (b) residents of Pristine and R02 would be within the Villa can easily reach permissible limits: R01 on the polling day by village bus or R01: 20,317(+17.61%) walking; R02: 13,825(-19.97%) (c) as Pristine Villa is close to R01, it would be convenient for the DC member to serve the needs of residents there; (d) if the same DC member can serve the Sha Tin / Tai Wai areas and the Pristine Villa, problems relating to them may be easily resolved; (e) if the population quota exceeds the permissible limit upon the proposed transfer, Man Lai Court could be moved from R01 to the adjacent Tai Wai R. Sha Tin - 129 - R. Sha Tin Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations area to address the over-population problem; (f) the population in Tung Lo Wan area will increase drastically after 2007 because of future developments; and (g) the parking facility in R02 is insufficient which may cause the electors to abstain from voting. 3 R02 – 7 These representations The representations are not Lek Yuen propose to move King Wo accepted because: House of Wo Che Estate (i) King Wo House, together with 4 R03 – from R02 to R03 because schools, 1 police station and 2 Wo Che the separation of King Wo disciplined services q uarters, are Estate House from the rest of Wo geographically separated from Che Estate would affect the rest of Wo Che Estate by the community integrity Fung Shun Street; and the sense of belongings for the (ii) King Wo House has been residents. included in R02 since 1994; and (iii) it would affect the existing boundary of R03, which should not be changed since the population in R03 is within the permissible limits. 4 R02 – 4 These representations Proposal (a) is not accepted Lek Yuen object to the proposed because: groupings of R02, R14, (i) Mei Tin Estate (with a R14 – R18 and R19 and propose population of around 9,500) is Lower to: geographically more related to Shing R19 and has all along been Mun Proposal (a) included in R19; (i) maintain the 2003 R17 – DCCA boundary for (ii) Carado Garden is geographically Sun Chui R02; separated from R17 by Tin Sam area in R16; R18 – (ii) maintain the 2003 Tai Wai DCCA boundary for (iii) there are supporting views for R. Sha Tin - 130 - R. Sha Tin Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations R19 but to move Mei the demarcation proposals for R19 – Tin Estate from R19 to R02, R14, R17, R18 and R19 Chung R14; (see items 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15 and Tin 29); (iii)maintain the 2003 DCCA boundary for (iv) the proposal will cause R18; and substantial changes to the existing boundaries of Mei Tin (iv)move Carado Garden as well as Lower Shing Mun from R14 to R17 and affect a large number of electors. With the population in order to even out the distribution and geographical population in the DCCAs factors taken into consideration, concerned and to reduce it would be more appropriate to changes to the boundaries retain Mei Tin Estate in R19; concerned to preserve and community integrity and local ties; (v) the unaltered boundary of R17 will need to be changed. Proposal (b) (i) maintain the 2003 Proposal (b) is not accepted DCCA boundary for because: R02; (i) the resultant population of R14 (22,580) would exceed the upper (ii) maintain the 2003 permissible limit (+30.71%); DCCA boundary for R19 but to move Mei (ii) Mei Tin Estate (with a Tin Estate from R19 to population of around 9,500) is R18; geographically more related to R19 and has all along been (iii)move back Mei Shing included in R19; and Court from R18 to R19; and (iii)there are supporting views for the demarcation proposals for (iv)move Tai Wai Village R02, R14, R18 and R19 (see and the adjacent private items 1, 5, 9, 10, 15 and 29). buildings from R18 to R14 in order to even out the population of R14 and R18, to preserve the community integrity and local ties of R02 and R19 and to avoid splitting the private residential developments in Tai Wai town centre into two R. Sha Tin - 131 - R. Sha Tin Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations different DCCAs for community integrity reason. 5 R02 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Lek Yuen supports the demarcation proposals for these four R14 – DCCAs. Lower Shing Mun R18 – Tai Wai R19 – Chung Tin 6 R02 – 2 These representations The representations are not Lek Yuen object to move Pristine accepted because: Villa and Tung Lo Wan (i) the resultant population of R18 R18 – from R19 to R02 and (23,720) would exceed the upper Tai Wai propose to move Pristine permissible limit (+37.31%); Villa from R02 to R18 and R19 – because: Chung (a) Pristine Villa is too far (ii) the EAC has to rely on the Tin away from R02, population forecasts provided by causing much the AHSG for the conduct of inconvenience to the this exercise and it is necessary electors; to use the same set of population data with the same basis and (b) Pristine Villa is closely same cut-off date in projecting related to R18 in terms the population for all DCCAs. of geographical link and community ties; It should however be noted that a modified proposal is accepted (see (c) the DC member of R02 item 2). has no knowledge of the interests of the residents in Pristine Villa; and (d) two new developments are expected to start in Tung Lo Wan whereby a new DCCA should be formed there to R. Sha Tin - 132 - R. Sha Tin Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations cope with the increasing population. 7 R02 – 1 The representation objects The representation is not accepted Lek Yuen to move Pristine Villa, because the resultant population of Tung Lo Wan and Yau Oi R19 (22,975) will exceed the upper R19 – Tsuen from R19 to R02 permissible limit (+33.00%) if Chung because: Pristine Villa, Tung Lo Wan and Tin (a) Pristine Villa, Tung Lo Yau Oi Tsuen are to be retained in Wan and Yau Oi Tsuen R19. are adjacent to the development in R18 It should however be noted that a but far away from R02, modified proposal is accepted (see thus causing much item 2). inconvenience for the residents to seek the assistance of the DC member at R02; and (b) Pristine Villa, Tung Lo Wan and Yau Oi Tsuen are different from R02 in terms of geographical link and community ties. 8 R12 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Chui Tin supports the demarcation proposals for R12 and R17 – R17. Sun Chui 9 R14 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Lower supports the demarcation Shing proposals for R14. Mun 10 R14 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Lower supports the inclusion of Shing Carado Garden in R14. Mun 11 R14 – 1 The representation objects The suggestion is not accepted Lower to separate Tai Wai Village because: Shing in R18 and Tai Wai New (i) both villages are geographically Mun Village in R14 into two separated from each other by DCCAs beca use: blocks of private buildings and R18 – (a) they belong to the same Tai Po Road; R. Sha Tin - 133 - R. Sha Tin Item DCCAs No. of Representations EAC’s views no. concerned representations Tai Wai village office “村公 所”; and (ii) Tai Wai Village and Tai Wai New Village have all along been (b) strong community ties included in two DCCAs; and exist between these villages. (iii) there are supporting views for demarcation proposals for R14 and R18 (see items 1, 5, 9 and 15). 12 R15 – 1 The representation The representation is not accepted Keng Hau suggests to rename R15 as because the location of Hin Keng “Hin Keng” because: Estate covers both R15 (Keng Hau) (a) Hin Keng Estate can and R13 (Hin Ka) (five blocks in reflect the identity of R15 and four blocks in R13). The the DCCA; Chinese name of R13 has already reflected the Chinese characters of (b) Hin Keng, instead of Hin Keng Estate and Ka Tin Court Keng Hau, is indicated (ie “Hin” and “Ka”). Further on government reflection of Hin Keng Estate in signboards; R15 would cause confusion. (c) the name of Hin Keng Estate is shown on buses and minibuses; and (d) Keng Hau is not the name of a place, and is therefore not representative. 13 R16 – 1 The representation The supporting view is noted. Tin Sum supports the demarcation proposals for R16.