1

Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of District Development and Environment Committee (DDEC)

Southern District Council (SDC) Date : 26 March 2012 Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : SDC Conference Room Present: Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP (Chairman of SDC) Mr CHAN Fu-ming (Vice-Chairman of SDC) Mr LAM Kai-fai, MH (Chairman) Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Ada (Vice-Chairlady) Mr AU Lap-sing Mr AU Nok-hin Mr CHAI Man-hon Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung Mr CHU Lap-wai Mr FUNG Se-goun, Fergus Dr LIU Hong-fai, Dandy Mr LO Kin-hei Mr TSUI Yuen-wa Mr WONG Ling-sun, Vincent Dr YANG Mo, PhD Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN Absent with Apologies: Mr FUNG Wai-kwong Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH Secretary: Miss MONG Tan-nei, Daniela Executive Officer (District Council) 2,

Home Affairs Department Miss CHENG Kwan-wai, Vivian Executive Officer (District Council) 2 (Designate),

2

Home Affairs Department In Attendance: Ms WAI Yee-yan, Christine, JP District Officer (Southern), Home Affairs Department Miss WONG Choi-yan, Joyce Assistant District Officer (Southern),

Home Affairs Department Ms LAI Yuet-yee, Elaine Senior Executive Officer (District Management),

Home Affairs Department Mr YUEN Woo-kok, Anthony Senior Engineer 4/HKI 2,

Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHAN Yiu-kin Senior Environmental Protection Officer/South 3,

Environmental Protection Department Ms TAM Chi-man, Doris District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent/Southern,

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms POON Yin-yee, Jenny Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office, Hong

Kong West and South) Lands Department

Mrs CHAN LEUNG Ka-ling, Sandy

Deputy District Leisure Manager (Southern)1, Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Miss YIU Yuk, Isabel Actg Senior Town Planner/HK1, Planning Department Mr WONG Sun-man Housing Manager/HK 4, Housing Department Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 2): Dr LAM Kwok-lun, Alain Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Waste

Management Policy) Environmental Protection Department

Mr LEUNG Sheung-mo, Jason Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Management Policy) Environmental Protection Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 3): Mr FAN Yung-kai Assistant Director (Operation)2

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr CHENG Sui-on Actg Divisional Officer (Planning Group)2,

Fire Services Department

Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 4): Mr LEE Kui-biu, Robin Deputy Head of Civil Engineering Office (Port & Land),

3

Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr WONG Chi-pan, Ricky Senior Engineer / Projects 4,

Civil Engineering and Development Department Attending by Invitation (Agenda Item 6): Ms WONG Shuk-fan, Elisa Senior Manager (Cultural Services) HK West,

Leisure and Cultural Services Department Opening Remarks: The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives from government departments to the meeting. 2. The Chairman informed the meeting that the prior to the meeting, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH had notified the Secretariat that she was not able to attend the meeting because of other engagement. The Committee noted and approved her leave of absence. However, Mr FUNG Wai-kwong’s leave of absence was not accepted. 3. The Chairman said that to facilitate smooth proceeding of meeting, according to Order 15(3) of the SDC Standing Orders (2012-2015), 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. Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the draft minutes of the District Development

and Environment Committee meeting held on 20 February2012

4. The Chairman said that prior to the meeting, the draft minutes had been circulated to Members and relevant government department representatives. The proposed amendments were listed in Reference Information 1 and tabled at the meeting. 5. The Chairman informed the meeting that the two proposed amendments were put forward by Mr FUNG Se-goun and the representatives of the Hong Kong International School respectively, which were mainly polishing the text and

4

supplementing information that did not involve fundamental changes to the contents. 6. As no other proposed amendments was received at the meeting, the minutes and the proposed amendments were confirmed by the Committee. Agenda Item 2: Public Consultation on Municipal Solid Waste Charging

(Item raised by Environmental Protection Department) (DDEC Paper No. 9/2012)

7. The Chairman advised that in January 2012, the Government published a consultation document on municipal solid waste (MSW) charging which the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) had launched a three-month public consultation on the introduction of charging as an economic means to reduce the generation of MSW. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives from EPD to the meeting to brief Members on the details of the consultation document:

- Dr LAM Kwok-lun, Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Management Policy)

- Mr LEUNG Sheung-mo, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Management Policy)

8. Dr LAM Kwok-lun started with broadcasting a 8-minute video to briefly outline the international experience in waste charging and key considerations for the implementation of such a system in Hong Kong. Details were summarised as follows-

(a) The proposed charging was aimed to further reduce waste generation in Hong Kong and it was not a means to raise revenue for the Government;

(b) Internationally there was no one-size-fits-all approach to implementing MSW charging. Overseas experiences showed that a “Quantity-based” system could provide a strong economic incentive to reduce waste and drive the requisite behavioural change;

(c) Implementation of a “Quantity-based” system required more complicated complementary measures, and illegal dumping might also arise. New York City had shelved a similar scheme due to the same concern;

(d) Owing to the great difficulties in implementing a “Quantity-based” system for domestic waste, some overseas jurisdictions implemented

5

“Quantity-based” charging in commercial and industrial (C&I) sector only; and

(e) In the discussion on the need to introduce MSW charging, we need to consider the unique challenges facing Hong Kong. EPD would base on the community consensus to map out the way forward.

9. Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr CHU Lap-wai, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Dr LIU Hong-fai, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, Dr YANG Mo, PhD, Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the related subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A number of Members had reservation on the proposed charging and were concerned with the implementation difficulties. Due to the limited authority at district level and that most residential developments in Hong Kong were high-rise buildings, it would be very difficult to monitor the waste charging by volume of each household and the consequential illegal waste disposal problem;

(b) a Member commented that the current public consultation by the Government did not accompany with proposals on the related preventive measures for illegal waste disposal. Once the waste charging came into effect, some people might try to evade the fee by using other means of waste disposal, or even dumped their waste illegally, which in turn affected the environment and hygiene;

(c) a Member referred to the domestic waste charging in Taipei City where people had to monitor each other, thus destroying neighbourhood harmony;

(d) a Member pointed out that at present, Hong Kong relied on litter bins to maintain environmental cleanliness and hygiene. The Government should provide concrete proposals on waste management associated with the proposed waste charging, including the frequency of regular waste collection by refuse collection vehicles and how to deal with illegal waste disposal etc.;

(e) a Member said that tourism was one of the important pillars in the economy of Hong Kong with huge amount of tourists visiting the city every year. If the charging scheme were to be implemented, it would be necessary to reduce the number of or even complete removal of litter bins in public places, which would bring inconvenience to tourists and the society as a whole. Besides, without effective monitoring measures in place, the

6

illegal waste disposal resulted would do harm to the environment and hygiene and deter tourists, and more seriously, undermine the image of Hong Kong as an international financial centre. All these would have far-reaching implications on Hong Kong economy;

(f) a Member considered that a step-by-step approach should be adopted and the charging should be imposed on the C&I sector and industries like the construction industry first as they generated a large volume of waste. The Government would then work on a long-term plan for a comprehensive MSW charging;

(g) a Member said that it was not suitable to implement a charging scheme for domestic waste at this stage and the Government should try to change the lifestyle of the general public through civic education and publicity, for example, encouraging people not to buy excessive amount of food in order to reduce food and domestic waste;

(h) a Member commented that public awareness of waste separation and recycling had been increased in recent years, which showed the success of the Government in the promotion of waste separation at source. It was proposed that the Government should consider further heightening public awareness of recycling through enhanced education in schools, expanding the types of recyclables (for example, glass and food waste), improving the design of recycling bins and the locations to increase usage, and providing waste separation bins at public places such as beaches;

(i) a Member learned that related government departments had discussed with developers to suggest less internal partitions and other non-essential facilities so as to produce less bulky MSW and reduce wastage. He asked related departments about the progress of the discussion with developers;

(j) a Member maintained that the premise of the proposed charging was that the Government should not gain profit from its implementation. He was concerned that the income generated from the charging should be used for environmental protection purposes such as supporting local recycling industry, in particular those with low profit margin;

(k) a Member said that people had the right to choose their own way of living, and hastened implementation of the proposed charging would cause inconvenience to people; and

(l) a Member commented that the Committee should not reject further consideration of the environmental policy in the long run just because the proposed charging would bring a less convenience and less comfortable lifestyle to people, otherwise, there would be no progress in this policy.

7

10. Dr LAM Kwok-lun gave a consolidated reply in respond to Members’ comments:

(a) The existing landfills in Hong Kong were expected to be gradually filled up one by one starting 2014, it seemed that publicity and education alone were unable to produce any speedy results. Therefore, a multi-pronged approach of waste reduction; recovery; and proper treatment for sustainable waste management was needed to address the imminent waste management problem in a timely manner;

(b) the waste recovery rate in Hong Kong had been increasing progressively in recent years. The “Programme on Source Separation of Domestic Waste” had covered over 80 per cent of Hong Kong’s population since its launch in 2005. To further promote waste reduction, EPD would continue the enhancement of recycling network and complementary measures, develop a wider coverage of the community recycling points, and through face-to-face promotion to encourage members of the public to participate in waste reduction and recycling;

(c) overseas experiences showed that successful implementation of MSW charging was effective in promoting waste reduction and recovery. The Government launched the public consultation on MSW charging to deliberate the need to introduce waste charging as an economic means to reduce the generation of waste;

(d) the Government had been allocating resources to support recycling business and non-government organisations (NGOs) in promoting glass recovery, and had been actively explored the feasibility of various options, such as “green procurement” and “producer responsibility schemes”, to support the recovery of recyclables with limited market such as glass and rechargeable battery;

(e) on food waste management, Hong Kong was producing about 9 000 tonnes of waste every day, including about 3 000 tonnes food waste and around 800 tonnes of which come from the C&I sector. The two Organic Waste Treatment Facilities (OWTF) under planning would treat about 500 tonnes of food waste generated from the C&I sector. EPD would also encourage the public and relevant trades to reduce food waste generation and keeping of good environmental habits through promoting the “Save Food Day” and “Green Lunch Charter”, and encouraging Chinese restaurants to provide 6-course instead of 8-course dinner banquets. Besides, EPD would

8

allocate resources to promote on-site food waste treatment at community level; and

(f) EPD was maintaining an open mind on the proposal of imposing the proposed MSW charging on the C&I sector first, before gradually extending to domestic sector. However, we had some 11 000 composite buildings where mixing between domestic waste and C&I waste was common. As separate collection of these wastes was not an easy task, there could be operational issues when implementing partial charging only to C&I establishments in these buildings.

11. Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Dr LIU Hong-fai and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) a Member said that compared with the proposed charging, consumers were more inclined to pay the charge on materials at the retail shops at the same time when they did the purchase, and also the latter was more easier to implement. Besides, this approach could educate the public more specifically about the concept of waste reduction at source;

(b) a Member was concerned that the implementation of the proposed charging would lead to the situation that even the more conscientious people, who would not dump their waste illegally or without any thought, would stock up their waste until the charged garbage bags were full before disposing of them, thus adversely affecting the environmental hygiene. Considering that the Government wanted to achieve the goal of “healthy city”, it should strike a balance between public hygiene and protecting the environment;

(c) a Member cited the area of Aberdeen as an example and said that as many restaurants situated among residential premises, the illegal disposal of C&I waste had been a long standing problem. If the proposed charging was enacted, it was anticipated the situation would further deteriorate because of the increased operational cost. Even if the proposed charging could be implemented smoothly, the restaurants would surely transfer the cost to consumers which failed to actually reduce waste at source;

(d) a Member understood that solutions were urgently needed for waste management. However, it should not detach from the actual situation in society when considering the problem. For instance, despite the fact that many restaurants offered the choice of “less rice” in support of

9

environmental protection, the community in general still needed time to gradually change the traditional mentality, especially in reducing the number of dishes and amount of food in banquets;

(e) a Member commented that there was vast room for improvement in waste separation and said that proper waste separation could effectively address the problem of waste disposal at domestic level. Therefore, it was not necessary to endorse the proposed charging in haste; and

(f) a Member said that the Government had started promoting the said recycling scheme three or four years ago, under which the producers would recover their products and pay a treatment fee for the materials. However, since the products recovered contained itinerary and counterfeit goods, most producers did not want to take the risk. At last, the scheme was run by an NGO with the financial aids from the Government. The recycling factory opened by the NGO was located in Tsing Yi.

12. The Chairman welcomed Members to give their comments on the five questions in Chapter 8 of the paper directly to EPD during the consultation period. 13. In closing, the Chairman pointed out that the proposed MSW charging involved changes to the current waste collection mode, the habits of the public and consumers and the related legislation. Most of the Members were in doubt of its implementation as the current arrangements were obviously insufficient to cope with the proposal charging. The Committee understood that proper waste management was urgently needed in view of the present environment and conditions in Hong Kong. However, given the difficulties in its implementation, it was hoped that EPD could note the views of Members to adopt an approach of “resolving the simple issues before the difficult ones” and tackle the waste management problem through enhanced education and publicity first. The feasibility of the proposed MSW charging could be further explored after the proposal was revised and consensus was reached in society. (Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr FUNG Se-goun and Dr YANG Mo, PhD joined the meeting at 2:35 p.m., 2:43 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. respectively.) Agenda Item 3: Public Consultation on Management of Fixed Pitch Hawker

Areas (Item raised by Food and Environmental Hygiene Department)

(DDEC Paper No. 10/2012)___ ___________________________

10

14. The Chairman said that in February 2012, the Government published a consultation document on the management of fixed pitch hawker areas, which outlined the improvement measures for management of fixed pitch hawker areas and a voluntary licence surrender scheme for fixed pitch hawkers proposed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). A three-month consultation exercise had been launched subsequently. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives to the meeting: FEHD

- Mr FAN Yung-kai, Assistant Director (Operations) 2 Fire Services Department - Mr CHENG Sui-on, Actg Divisional Officer (Planning Group) 2

15. Mr FAN Yung-kai introduced the content of the consultation paper, including the potential fire risks in hawker areas, the prevailing situations of fixed pitch hawker stalls, and the proposed short, medium and long-term improvement measures. Related discussion items were as follows:

(a) As the actual situations of various hawker areas differed, no one single package of measures could be applied to all hawker areas in the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. Therefore, FEHD would carry out a thorough consultation and study the feasibility of various options for each hawker area;

(b) it was suggested that the proposed measures should be implemented at the fixed pitch hawker area at Fa Yuen Street in Mongkok first, and then FEHD would study their effectiveness and applicability to other hawker areas;

(c) FEHD would report to the district councils where hawker areas were situated the feasibility of implementation of the proposed options and listen to their views;

(d) at the present stage, FEHD planned to adopt the approach of “starting with those which are easier to implement first”, and implement the option of “overnight storage of commodities only inside enclosed metal stall structures (without the need to dismantle the stall)” first because metal structures could contain the spread of fire, and trying as far as possible to resite hawker stalls in front of staircase discharge points of buildings in order to minimise the “chimney effect” in case of a fire; and

11

(e) progressively required all hawker stalls to use materials which offer a fire resistance period of at least one hour, instead of ordinary metals, to construct the “cabinets” .

16. Mr AU Lap-sing, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, spoke on this subject. Their enquiries and comments were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member said that as the proposed options by FEHD, including “overnight storage of commodities only inside enclosed metal stall structures (without the need to dismantle the stall)” and “dismantling of stalls and removal of all commodities after close of business at night”, would cause nuisances to stall owners and nearby residents, they were not sound measures in the long run;

(b) a Member was concerned that most of the hawker areas were located in densely populated districts and close to residential buildings, so fire would spread easily. He suggested that vacant premises such as the Causeway Bay Market should be better utilised. Resiting hawker stalls indoors not only facilitated management, but also the fire-fighting equipments in the premises could be utilised. Moreover, this could pave the way for the development of large-scale hawker market, which was conducive to economic growth and tourism development;

(c) a Member said that there were around 50 hawker stalls in the district, and their number, business scale, types of goods sold and existing problems were all different from those of other districts, therefore, FEHD should not just base on the Fa Yuen Street fire last year and targeted all its efforts to deal with a single issue on an ad hoc basis without eradicating the root of the problem, and use a bundling approach in implementing a single package of measures to all districts across the board. As a result, the long-term planning and development of hawker areas and Hong Kong would be hampered;

(d) a Member asked whether FEHD could review the current policy and flexibly re-arrange the locations of hawker stalls to facilitate management and enhance the surrounding environment without cancelling hawker licences. Moreover, FEHD could also consider delegating related authority to the districts to monitor the day-to-day management of hawker areas, with a view to curing the problems in a timely manner;

(e) a Member said that many people agreed that hawking activities could bring

12

a vibrant ambience and special features to the streets, so the discussion should focus on the enhanced management of hawker areas such as tackling the problems of noise nuisances and safety instead of whether they should be retained. He suggested that FEHD should make reference to the practice in some European countries where street stalls were leased out on short-term tenancy or by auction, which could facilitate the review on the effectiveness of the measures annually and implement corresponding enhancement measures;

(f) since FEHD had proposed to cancel hawker licences at the last meeting, a Member asked whether this agenda item duplicated with the topic at the last meeting; and

(The Chairman clarified and supplemented that this agenda item aimed to

discuss the management of fixed pitch hawker areas, including a voluntary licence surrender scheme aiming at releasing vacant spaces for the resiting of hawker areas, therefore, this subject was different from the one at the last meeting which concerned cancellation of hawker licences.)

(g) a Member said that before the Government had a clear view on the

positioning of hawker stalls, it was difficult to formulate a long-term development direction. Therefore, it was necessary for the Government to clarify its stance on hawker stalls first - whether the hawking trade should be treated as a tradition that could not be shaken off, or a sustainable business mode, or a welfare policy for the “privileged persons” left over by history, or a local feature that should be given an extra push.

17. Mr FAN Yung-kai gave a consolidated reply on Members’ comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) It is the Government’s established hawker management policy to strike a proper balance between allowing legal hawking activities on the one hand and maintaining environmental hygiene and protecting the public from nuisance on the other;

(b) hawker management policy has kept abreast of the times. Therefore, the authority had drawn on the experience of the Fa Yuen Street fire, and had formulated a series of short, medium and long-term improvement measures. The consultation paper aimed to set out the proposed hawker management options in a general direction, and the authority would consider the views of

13

various District Councils, and carry out in-depth analysis and study on the situations of various districts;

(c) as regards the arrangements for succession to and transfer of hawker licences, the authority had completed a review on hawking licensing policy in 2009, and decided that for all new hawker licences, they should not be allowed for further succession or transfer; and

(d) FEHD noted the suggestion of the Member concerned for resiting hawkers indoor and the views expressed on such suggestion.

18. In closing, the Chairman said that the Committee opined that the proposed measures for management of fixed pitch hawker areas as put forward by FEHD in response to the Fa Yuen Street fire could not address the problems associated with fixed pitch hawker areas in the district. Therefore, he suggested that the Secretariat should follow up on this matter, and arrange FEHD and Members to inspect the hawker areas in the district first, and then put forward appropriate recommendations with respect to the observations and the views of Members. [Post-meeting note: The Secretariat and FEHD had arranged Members to inspect the

fixed pitch hawker areas in the district on 19 April 2012.] Agenda Item 4: Enhancing Land Supply Strategy: Reclamation Outside

Victoria Harbour (Three motions separately moved by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying will be discussed under this agenda item)

(DDEC Paper No. 11/2012)___ ___________________________ 19. The Chairman said that the Government had proposed the “Enhancing Land Supply Strategy” (the Strategy) to increase land supply in Hong Kong so as to meet the demand for land in future. One of the options recommended in the Strategy was to enhance land supply by reclamation outside Victoria Harbour. The Government was consulting the public on 25 possible reclamation sites and also to conduct board technical assessments on these sites, of which eight to ten potential sites would be short-listed for reclamation in the third quarter of this year. Two of the possible sites were Sha Wan at Pok Fu Lam and Shek O Quarry. The Chairman welcomed the following representatives of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) to the meeting:

14

- Mr LEE Kui-biu, Department Head of Civil Engineering Office (Port &

Land) - Mr WONG Chi-pan, Senior Engineer/Projects 4

20. Mr LEE Kui-biu, with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, introduced the proposed reclamation as recommended in the Strategy, which included the urgency and reasons for the need to increase land supply, the existing and proposed land supply options and their pros and cons, the progress of public consultation and the future plans of CEDD. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) In a recent press conference, CEDD had announced 25 possible reclamation sites, which included 3 artificial islands, 2 reclamations to connect islands, 13 reclamations upon artificial or disturbed shoreline, and 7 reclamations upon natural but not protected shoreline which were of minor ecological value;

(b) the Stage 1 public engagement aimed at hearing the views of the public and departments concerned on enhancing land supply by reclamation and rock cavern development, and also the views on the eight initial site selection criteria developed based on the principle of sustainable development. Meanwhile, CEDD had no particular preference to any of the proposed reclamation sites;

(c) the three urgent issues faced by Hong Kong presently were the “shortage of land”, “imbalance among land supply options ” and “dilemma in handling public fill”. Hence the Government wished to enhance the land supply in Hong Kong through six land supply options, including “rezoning land”, “redevelopment”, “land resumption”, “reuse of ex-quarry sites”, “rock cavern development” and “reclamation”;

(d) as the above six land supply options had their own pros and cons, and both reclamation and land development would result in irreversible outcome, it was not desirable to heavily rely on or reject any one of the land supply options, but a balanced application of the six land supply options could achieve complementary results;

(e) CEDD would formulate the site selection criteria based on the results of the Stage 1 public engagement, and then select eight to ten possible reclamation sites. After which, public consultation would be conducted in the communities concerned the Government would provide technical details such as proposed land use, environmental impact, traffic and other

15

supporting facilities, etc. Subject to the support of local residents, CEDD would commence the feasibility study of the proposed reclamation sites and draw up related mitigation measures. The proposed reclamation sites would also have to go through statuary procedures as stipulated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, the Town Planning Ordinance, and the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance. After going through the statutory procedures, CEDD would seek support from the relevant District Councils and with the District Council’s support, CEDD would then seek funding approval from the Legislative Council for various reclamation projects.

21. Members present did not raise any enquires on the proposed reclamation sites. The Chairman said that the meeting would move on to the motion debate and invited Members to give views and vote on the three motions put forward by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying one after the others. 22. The Chairman said that subject to Order 18(2) of the Standing Orders, the proposer and the seconder of each motion would be allotted five minutes in total to speak on their motion, and during the discussion session, each Member (including the proposer) was allotted three minutes in his/her speaking. There would be only one round of speaking for each of the three motions. 23. The Chairman also suggested that Members should keep their speaking concise if their views were similar to that of the proposer; if not, they could elaborate their views in details for Members’ reference. As the location mentioned in Motion 1 was different from those of Motions 2 and 3, it was suggested that Members should discuss and vote on Motion 1 first, and then deal with Motions 2 and 3 afterward. Motion 1: To protect the livability of our neighborhoods and enjoyment by

our residents, the Southern District Council objects to new reclamation in Pokfulam. (Moved by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon)

24. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN summarised the views of residents and explained the reasons for raising the motion as follows:

(a) Recent construction works at Telegraph Bay for the development of the Cyberport and Bel-Air had caused inconvenience to local residents and

16

affected the Pok Fu Lam area. To date, around 1 600 submissions had been received and 2 000 residents’ signatures had been collected, which expressed strong objections to the proposed reclamation site at Sandy Bay in Pok Fu Lam;

(b) at present, the Government lacked a comprehensive population policy, and it could not rely solely on reclamation to obtain land to meet the long-term development needs of the territory;

(c) reclamation should be the last resort because it would cause irreversible impact on the environment. He suggested that the Government should try rezoning land first and better utilise existing vacant sites in the New Territories to meet the demand for land; and

(d) the proposed site involved community facilities such as the sports ground at Sha Wan Drive. Therefore, residents were concerned that reclamation would destroy the picturesque landscape in the vicinity of Pok Fu Lam, further deteriorate traffic congestions in the neighbourhood, and affect the “fung shui” of nearby cemeteries.

25. Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP, raised comments and enquiries on the related subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) a Member said that in the recent construction proposals for Route No. 4, the Government inclined to support the proposal which was more expensive and technically complicated for the tunnel connecting Aberdeen Praya Road and Kennedy Town. It showed the Government’s intention to preserve the shoreline and protect the surrounding environment. So he wished that the Government could stick to this position with the prime concern to protect the environment in this reclamation proposal;

(b) a Member said it was indisputable that population growth and shortage of land had become a pressing problem, but reclamation would bring about other marine ecological issues. The Government had not responded why it insisted on increasing the supply of residential properties through reclamation despite that there were still sites in the Application List without designated purposes, for instance, the Government had reserved a greenfield site at the Cyberport, and the land use of which had not been zoned. So he asked why not use the reserved site first instead of reclaiming the sea;

(c) a number of Members were concerned about the land uses of the reclaimed site and worried that the land obtained would be used to build luxury flats

17

that most people could not afford, and in the end property developers would reap the benefit, thus defeating the purpose of the reclamation for tackling the problem of shortage of land;

(d) a Member said that according to past information of the Planning Department, the road networks and public facilities in the Southern District had been planned for low density residential development. Even if reclamation could increase the supply of land and residential flats, the ancillary facilities in the district could not keep pace with population growth. Therefore, it might be necessary to keep reclaiming for land in future to meet the demand for land to provide additional facilities in the district. This would just become a vicious cycle; and

(e) a Member said that the Government should first clarify the positioning of the Southern District as a low density residential area and the overall future population policy of Hong Kong, so that the demand for land could be confirmed and a specific policy could be formulated for alleviating the pressure of shortage of land.

26. Mr LEE Kui-biu thanked Members for their views, and gave a consolidated reply on the comments and enquiries. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) The list of 25 possible reclamation sites was not a confirmed list of selected reclamation sites. The objective was to better understand how the public consider the initial site selection criteria, the location, extend and land use of the sites through listening to the views expressed about these possible sites. Based on the comments collected, CEDD would review and finalize the site selection criteria with a view to identifying potential reclamation sites. CEDD aimed to identify about eight to ten potential reclamation sites for conducting technical assessment and also consultation with the relevant local communities during the Stage 2 Public Engagement exercise which was planned to commence in the third quarter of 2012;

(b) reclamation was necessary for the long-term development of Hong Kong. However, he emphasised that the Government did not regard this as the only way to solve the shortage of land, but hoped to through a “six-pronged” approach to increase land supply holistically with a view to supporting the overall development of Hong Kong; and

(c) after the site selection criteria were confirmed, CEDD would fully consult public on the uses of the reclaimed land. Members could rest assured that the proposed reclamation sites did not necessarily relate to the provision of

18

luxury flats at the present stage. 27. The Chairman concluded that the Committee did not object to increasing land supply through the proposed reclamation projects for the overall interests of Hong Kong. He advised Members to vote on the motion of Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN with particular reference to the situation in the Southern District. 28. Members unanimously endorsed Motion 1 which was carried with 18 votes for it. Motion 2: To protect the enjoyment of Tai Tam Bay by residents, visitors

and watersports enthusiast, the Southern District Council objects to additional reclamation at Shek O Quarry. (Moved by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, Seconded by Mr CHAI Man-hon); and

Motion 3: Without a definite landuse planning and provision of transport

enhancement facilities for Shek O Quarry by the Government, the Southern District Council objects to the Government’s plan for zoning Shek O Quarry as a reclamation site. (Moved by Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Seconded by Mr CHAN Fu-ming and Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, JP)

29. The Chairman said that despite the different focal points in their objections, both Motions 2 and 3 aimed at objecting reclamation at Shek O Quarry, so he suggested that two motions should be discussed together. 30. The Chairman said that according to the Standing Orders, each Member was allotted three minutes in his/her speaking for each motion. In this case, if Members had different views from the proposers of the two motions, they could make good use of the six minutes allotted to present their own reasoning. However, if their views were similar to those of the proposers, they should keep their speaking precise and concise. Since all Members present had the right to vote and voting itself was already an expression of their stance, so he hoped this arrangement could help expedite the progress of the meeting. 31. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN thanked Members for their unanimous support for Motion 1 and proceeded to introduce the reasons for raising Motion 2. He said that

19

reclamation at Shek O Quarry would affect the nearby community; especially it would destroy the landscape of Stanley and Tai Tam, and deprive water sports enthusiasts of the right to enjoy the facilities at Tai Tam Bay. Moreover, the north of the reclamation site had been graded as “a site with special scientific value”, and its ecological value had been recognised. Therefore, reclamation at the area concerned should be avoided and the marine ecology there should be protected. In this connection, he proposed that SDC should object to the Government’s plan for re-zoning Shek O Quarry as a reclamation site before it had a clear land use planning for the site and proper transport support facilities had been provided. 32. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying introduced the reasons for raising Motion 3. Details were summarised as follow:

(a) All these years SDC and local residents were concerned about the land use of Shek O Quarry after restoration, and wished that it could be developed into an amenity area for public enjoyment. The last-term SDC had requested the Government to consult SDC first before devising the land use planning for the above site. Therefore, she proposed this motion to object the Government for failing to consult SDC before Shek O Quarry was included in the proposed reclamation site list;

(b) residents had grave concern over the irreversible impact of the proposed reclamation on the nearby environment and marine ecology; and

(c) located in a remote area, Shek O Quarry lacked transport support facilities and had to rely solely on the very narrow Tai Tam dam for access. In case reclamation took place, the extra traffic flow would burden the road network in the area of Shek O and Tai Tam, which would seriously affect the daily life of local residents.

33. Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, JP, MH, the seconder of Motion 3, supplemented that the vicinity of Shek O and Tai Tam was a country park with an immense rustic atmosphere. As the use of the reclaimed land had yet been determined, he worried that the natural landscape of the area would be destroyed eventually, thus deterring people from enjoying the rural landscape. Moreover, the Tai Tam dam for access to Shek O could not accommodate the extra traffic flow, so reclamation at Shek O Quarry would pose high risk to road safety in the area. 34. Mr CHAI Man-hon and Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP raised comments as follows:

20

(a) In the 1990s, SDC had already proposed to the Government for developing

Shek O Quarry into a recreational area for public enjoyment after restoration, but the departments concerned did not respond to this proposal so far. Instead, MTR Corporation Limited had been permitted to construct caissons at the site concerned, and now the site was even zoned a proposed reclamation site. This was totally unacceptable; and

(b) Shek O embraced natural landscape which was rarely found in Hong Kong. Reclamation would cause irreversible damage to these precious natural resources, and the Southern District and Hong Kong at a whole would have to pay a high price for it. Therefore, he requested the Government to carefully consider the proposal.

35. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the two motions proposed by Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN and Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying one after the other. 36. Members unanimously supported Motions 2 and 3 which were carried with 18 votes for them respectively. 37. The Chairman requested the department concerned to note the voting results of the above motions, and the Committee’s objection to carrying out reclamation at the two proposed sites in the Southern District. Agenda Item 5: Concerns on the Current and Future Provision of Male and

Female Toilet Facilities (Item raised by Mrs MAK TSE How-ling) (DDEC Paper No. 12/2012)

38. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling presented her reasons for putting forward this agenda item. She hoped that the Government could pay due attention to the comparatively long waiting time for using female toilets, and requested that more compartments should be provided in female toilets in areas managed by the Housing Department (HD) or in public places such as sports grounds and amenities under the charge of the Government. She further said that when renovating public toilets, consideration should be given to increasing the compartments in female toilets so as to shorten the waiting time, and also a review should be conducted to determine if the ratio at 1:1.5 as revised by the Development Bureau was sufficient.

21

39. The Chairman invited Members to note the written replies from LCSD, HD and FEHD as well as the correction to a typing error in the Chinese title of Annex 2. 40. The Chairman proposed that Members should focus their discussion on the following points to expedite progress of meeting:

(a) whether Members agreed to raise the male-to-female toilet compartment ratio for new toilets to 1:2; and

(b) suggestions on which toilet facilities in the Southern District required urgent attention from relevant departments for improvement.

41. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr FUNG Se-goun, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised comments and enquiries on the related subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) a number of Members supported increasing the ratio to 1:2 and upgrading facilities in toilets which the compartment ratios remained at 1:1 or 1:1.5;

(b) a Member enquired that in case urgent need for improvement was identified in certain toilets, would it be more efficient if the District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC) under SDC could seek emergency funding approval for the works;

(c) a number of Members requested relevant government departments to provide information on the progress of renovation works on public toilets in the Southern District, including the locations of toilet facilities which renovation works had been completed, were in progress and had been planned;

(d) a Member commented that there were many public toilets in tourist hot spots (e.g. Beach Road in Repulse Bay) in the Southern District. However, their size was small and the total number of compartments for male was more than that for female. It was advised that one or two large public toilets should be built to replace the existing smaller ones which would be more convenient for tourists and other users; and

(e) a Member suggested that Members should inspect the toilet facilities in their respective constituencies and report on the needs for upgrading.

42. The Chairman invited representatives of LCSD, HD and FEHD to respond to

22

Members’ comments. 43. Mrs CHAN LEUNG Ka-ling responded that LCSD had raised the male-to-female toilet compartment ratio to 1:2 wherever possible, for stance, the ratio adopted for Ap Lei Chau Wind Tower Park was 1:2.5. However, due to site constraint, the male-to-female toilet compartment ratio in some public toilets could not be improved for the time being. Nevertheless, LCSD would consider increasing the ratio to 1:2 or above in future, subject to no site limitation and availablility of resources. 44. Mr WONG Sun-man said that the number of female toilet compartments in toilet facilities under HD was more than that of male toilet compartments. HD would adopt a male-to-female toilet compartment ratio of 1:2 for all new public housing estates in the Southern District in future according its guidelines. Members were welcomed to forward information on toilet facilities that needed upgrading to the department for follow up and action. 45. Ms TAM Chi-man said that FEHD had adopted a male-to-female toilet compartment ratio of 1:2 in planning for new public toilets since 2004. As most of the public toilets in the district were built before 2004, if circumstances permit, FEHD would try to enhance facilities in existing toilets if possible during renovation, such as increasing the size of compartment, replacing the asiatic type water closet by pedestal type and changing trough urinals in male toilets into individual urinal bowls to increase privacy, etc. and these enhanced facilities would occupy more space. However, the goal of FEHD was to raise the male-to-female toilet compartment ratio to 1:2. FEHD had planned to renovate the public toilets in Shum Wan and Wu Nam Street in Aberdeen in a year or two with design to utilize more the limited space with a view to enhance the facilities and also to meet the standard if possible. 46. In closing, the Chairman said that the Committee welcomed the plans of various departments to raise the male-to-female toilet compartment ratio to 1:2. The Chairman further suggested a two-pronged approach: on the one hand, Members should give their advice on what improvement should be made to individual toilet facilities; and on the other hand, relevant departments should make a list on the toilets under their management that failed to comply with the above ratio and give detailed explanation on why no improvement could be made at the moment. Also, the departments concerned should provide the enhancement plans and work progress on those non-compliance toilets which, through renovation works, could be upgraded in

23

two or three years. Agenda Item 6: Short-term and Long-term Uses of the Site of Aberdeen Fire

Station after its Relocation (Item raised by Mr TSUI Yuen-wa) (DDEC Paper No. 13/2012)

47. The Chairman informed the meeting that both the Government Property Agency (GPA) and FSD were unable to send representatives to this meeting and he welcomed the following LCSD’s representative to the meeting:

- Ms WONG Shuk-fan, Elisa, Senior Manager (Cultural Services) HK West

48. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa explained his reasons for putting forward this agenda item. He hoped to utilise the existing premise of Aberdeen Fire Station (AFS) for the provision of district services by local organisations or for other purposes such as the promotion of art. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa said he understood that because of various restrictions, it was hard for the departments concerned to additionally allocate resources to take over the premises. Therefore, the discussion of this agenda item should focus on the interim/short-term options on the utilisation of the premises. Subject to the consensus of the Committee, FSD would be requested to suspend the demolition works until a new development plan for the site was confirmed by the Government, so that the resources could be utilised in the interim. 49. The Chairman invited Members to take note of the LCSD’s written reply which had already explained that the size of the AFS site was too small for constructing a civic centre. He hoped that Members could propose options other than the provision of a cultural centre during the discussion of the short- and long-term usages of the said site. 50. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mrs MAK TSE How-ling and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN raised enquiries and comments on the related subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) a Member commented that with the high ceiling height and the outdoor

space in its parking area, the AFS premises was most suitable to use as

24

studios by creative industry and arts groups. It was proposed that the Government should make reference to the example of the Government Logistics Department (GLD) premises located at Oil Street in North Point and consider leasing out the AFS premises to arts groups under an interim or short-term agreement after the relocation of the fire station;

(b) a Member pointed out that the last term SDC had raised this agenda item in 2008/2009. However, the concerned department had never quite worked out the future usage of the said premises after the relocation of the fire station. Even today, it still insisted that the premises would be demolished and the site would be returned to the Lands Department (LandsD) for other development purposes;

(c) a Member said that in 2008, the rental expenses of various government departments in leasing private premises in the Southern District for use as offices amounted to $4.43 million. If a multi-purpose government office building could be built on the AFS site, it could save the rental expenses of government departments in the long run;

(d) a Member commented that although industry in the Wong Chuk Hang area had been declined, it still had a lot of industrial buildings which resulted that there was a lack of sitting-out facilities. A political party had carried out a questionnaire survey in 2010, and 84% of the respondents supported the provision of basketball courts and sitting-out facilities in the area;

(e) a Member proposed that the quaint arbour inside the AFS premises should be retained and revitalised for the enjoyment of people living and working in the area; and

(f) a Member enquired that if the premises was retained, which department would be responsible for its management after the relocation of the fire station.

51. The Chairman invited representatives of PlanD, LCSD and LandsD to respond to Members’ comments first. 52. Miss Isabel YIU gave a consolidated response on the enquiries and comments of Members as follows:

(a) PlanD was reviewing the long-term use of the site, taking into account factors such as its location and the surrounding condition, demand for various land uses and its compatibility with the surrounding land uses. SDC would be consulted on the long-term use in accordance with the

25

established practice; (b) the site was located within the Wong Chuk Hang Business Area. From the

land use planning point of view, the site is suitable for commercial development. Regarding the proposed construction of a government office building on the site, GPA should assess the demand for such use in the district before deciding whether the site should be reserved for the provision of a government office building; and

(c) according to the outline zoning plan, temporary use not exceeding five years, provided that it complied with any other relevant legislation and Government requirements, was always permitted and no planning approval from the Town Planning Board (TPB) was required.

53. Ms WONG Shuk-fan invited Members to take note of the LCSD’s written response as detailed in Annex 3 of the concerned paper. She pointed out that the size of the site was too small for constructing a civic centre. LCSD welcomed the suggestion as made by some Members to allow arts groups to use the premises as offices or performing areas under interim/short-term agreement. However, owing to the limited resources and the established procedures, it was not possible for the LCSD to take over or manage the premises on either short-term or long-term basis. 54. Ms POON Yin-yee said that the user department would be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and management of the existing building on site. LandsD would take over the site only after the related department had moved out and that the building had been demolished. 55. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung, Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr TSUI Yuen-wa and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN continued to raise comments and enquiries on the subject. Details were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member said that there were cases in the past that government premises were leased out for other purposes, for example, the fire station in the old airport to the Police, the premises of GLD in Oil Street to art groups, the former Hollywood Road Police Married Quarters for revitalisation purposes, and the Central Police Station Compound as performance and exhibition venues etc. All these proved that it was not impossible to retain government premises for other purposes;

(b) a Member enquired if PlanD had to wait until FSD moved out and the premises was demolished to review the long-term land use of the site;

26

(c) a Member said that the present Aberdeen Social Security Field Unit of the Social Welfare Department was set up in a relatively remote location at Shum Wan in Wong Chuk Hang. It was proposed that subject to the permitted land uses of the said site`, the premises could be used as a social security field unit to facilitate the public;

(d) a Member said that earlier MTR Corp had expressed interest in the site. In case none of the government departments, art groups or social welfare organisations wanted to take over the premises because of financial reasons, consideration could be given to allowing MTR Corp to lease the premises for the development of public engagement programmes; and

(e) a Member said that since the issue came up in 2008, the Government so far had failed to make any progress on the short- and long-term usages of the site, and this was mainly due to the lack of coordination. As such, it was proposed that the District Facilities Management Committee under SDC should take up the coordinating role in discussing the future land use of the site after the relocation of the fire station.

56. In closing, the Chairman said that Members were generally of the view that the existing AFS premises should be retained to allow more time for discussing the short-term and long-term uses of the site. It was hoped that related government departments could note the views of Members and handle Members’ request with care, and did not use excuses to evade the question, thus wasting the valuable and existing resources. The Chairman requested the Secretariat to follow up on the written reply from GPA on the feasibility of constructing a government offices building on the said site. (Mr YEUNG Wai-foon, MH, JP and Dr LIU Hong-fai left the meeting at 6:22 p.m. and 6:40 p.m. respectively.)

Agenda Item 7: Concerns on the Varied Standard of Public Housing Estates

Facilities in the Southern District (Item raised by Mr CHU Lap-wai) (DDEC Paper No. 14/2012)

57. Mr CHU Lap-wai briefed the meeting on the reasons for raising the item. He enquired how the HD assessed the sufficiency of facilities at different housing estates and what procedures would be followed to renovate and upgrade those

27

facilities assessed as insufficient. In this regard, Mr CHU remarked that the HD should take the initiative to communicate with residents in different estates, for example, organising workshops regularly to collect their views. 58. Mr CHAN Fu-ming, Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, spoke on this subject. Their comments and enquiries were summarised as follows:

(a) As the overall living standard had risen over time, the design of new housing estates, while not necessarily better than that of the old ones, was usually given more thorough and comprehensive consideration. The HD was thus requested to duly renovate facilities in old housing estates which lagged behind those in the new ones so that resources could be allocated more evenly to the old estates;

(b) There were no toilets at public space and amenities such as basketball court in housing estates. And they were usually at a distance from residents’ homes which made it inconvenient for users. It was hoped that the HD would cater for users’ needs and provide toilets at public space of housing estates;

(c) Residents did not know how to use the recently renovated fitness facilities at Wah Lung Path at Wah Kwai Estate in the absence of new instructions; and

(d) Facilities constructed decades ago could no longer meet the needs of the ageing population in public housing estates in the district. The HD should review the estate facilities regularly. For example, they could draw reference from the department’s advisory committee, which had increased the number of seats, with shelters above, in response to the needs of the ageing population at Tin Wan Estate. The HD should evaluate the long-term needs of residents when building housing estates in the future.

59. Mr WONG Sun-man of the HD gave a consolidated reply to Members’ comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) when public housing developments were planned, the HD would provide facilities for new estates according to the requirements of the then Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines;

(b) the District Maintenance Offices (DMO) were responsible for reviewing the quality and suitability of completed facilities regularly. After estate management staff had collected the views on facility enhancement of an

28

estate, the HD would consider the feasibility of the proposals and the needs of the estate; the DMO would then submit the proposal on works design to the Estate Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) for discussion and finalisation of financial arrangements; after that the DMO would set out a timetable for commencement of works;

(c) recreational facilities of Tin Wan Estate and Ma Hang Estate were located close to the estates’ shopping centres and users might go there to use the toilets if necessary; and

(d) due to individual environmental constraints, public facilities in estates might not fully cater for the needs of all users. If Members considered it necessary to add or renovate facilities in a particular estate, they were welcomed to offer their specific advice to the EMAC of the estate. The HD would consider upgrading the facilities if situation allowed.

60. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying, Mr CHU Lap-wai and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN, continued to speak on this agenda item. Their comments and enquiries were summarised as follows:

(a) Ma Hang Estate was far away from Stanley Plaza and it was impractical for residents to go to the Plaza to use the toilets as suggested by Mr WONG Sun-man. Also, Members were not in a position to make relevant advice in EMACs as residents would be dissatisfied if ultimately a public toilet was built in proximity to their own building. It was hoped that the HD would address the needs of the residents and proactively consider providing more public toilet facilities in the estates;

(b) it was understood that design and management of public housing estates were undertaken by different sections and units under the HD and, therefore, factors considered by the design staff might not fully reflect the problems actually faced by the management staff. The HD should consult the public at the design stage in future public housing developments so that the facilities provided could suit the needs of the residents; and

(c) even DC Members could not comprehensively collect residents’ views on estate facilities. It was suggested that the EMACs should organise workshops on a regular basis to collect residents’ views and enhance communication with residents, thereby enabling timely response to the development needs of facilities in public housing estates.

29

61. The Chairman concluded that the DDEC recognised the varied standards among public housing estates due to different historical backgrounds and physical environment. Through the discussion of this agenda item, the DDEC intended to express its concerns and remind the Government to consider the facility standards and residents’ needs in the construction of public housing estates. However, as there were different problems existing in different estates, it was hard to solve every single one of them in this meeting. Members were therefore encouraged to actively provide the HD and the EMACs with specific advice on the necessary improvements for housing estates in the district. 62. Mr WONG Sun-man noted the views of the DDEC and added that the HD would consult the concerned District Councils (DC) during the initial study stage when developing new public housing estates. 63. Mr CHAN Fu-ming said that apart from consulting the DC concerned when developing new public housing estates, the HD should actively follow up on the suggested addition of toilets in public estates. Such addition was beyond the scope of decision of EMACs but required the attention of departments at a higher level. 64. The Chairman requested the department concerned to note Members’ views. (Dr YANG Mo, Mr Fergus FUNG and Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN left the meeting at 6:53 p.m. and 7:02 p.m. respectively.) Agenda Item 8: Review on the Arrangements for the Allocation of Lands in the

Southern District by way of Short-Term Tenancy (Item raised by Mr AU Nok-hin) (DDEC Paper No. 15/2012)

65. Mr AU Nok-hin briefed the meeting on the reasons of raising this agenda item. He pointed out that short-term tenancy (STT) reduced tenants’ motivation to improve the environment and management of the leased sites, and resulted in viability difficulties. He hoped that LandsD would explain the details of STT, including the time of availability of the timetable for long-term development of existing STT sites in the Southern District, and the difficulties in planning the long-term development of sites assessed to be allocated only by way of STT.

30

66. Mr CHAI Man-hon, Mr LO Kin-hei and Mrs MAK TSE How-ling, spoke on this agenda item. Their comments and enquiries were summarised as follows:

(a) Not a few of sites in the district had long been allocated for temporary uses by way of STT, such as the ship-building yards near Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, South Bay and Po Chong Wan, which had renewed their tenancies for multiple times. Yet, as the tenants were uncertain whether they could run their business on the sites for a long time, they were unable to build a sense of belonging to the community and lacked any incentive to inject resources into the sites to improve the environment. The mode of STT thus affected the interests of residents nearby and the whole community in the long run. LandsD should seriously consider the arrangement of land allocation;

(b) A Member enquired whether there were adequate shipyards in Aberdeen to provide maintenance service for fishing vessels during fish moratorium, and about the total number of existing shipyards along the coastal area of Aberdeen; and

(c) LandsD would neither state the reasons for renewal of STT nor respond to the tenants’ and community’s views on tenancy renewal arrangement. It was suggested that LandsD should consider providing a list of STT sites in the district for public inspection in order to enhance transparency.

67. Ms POON Yin-yee of LandsD gave a consolidated response to Members’ views and enquiries as follows:

(a) It was LandsD’s responsibility to effectively administer the land resources of

Hong Kong. To optimise the land use, vacant government sites were leased out in various ways, e.g. through public tender or on STT;

(b) the policy bureau would consider to include vacant government sites suitable for sale in the land sale programme. Vacant sites not ready for long-term use would be leased out by way of STT to fully utilise land resources, thus striking a balance between long-term and short-term land uses;

(c) regarding the Water Supplies Department (WSD) site pointed out by Members, LandsD had to obtain the relevant information and would reply after the meeting;

(d) the tenancies of shipyards along the coastlines of Aberdeen and Ap Lei Chau were granted in early years, and most of the shipyards had been operating for many years. Injection of resources to improve the environment of the leased sites by the tenants would be welcomed by LandsD. The concerned

31

shipyard sites were zoned as “Industrial” in the Aberdeen & Ap Lei Chau Outline Zoning Plan, and there was no confirmed timetable for its long-term use at the moment. Therefore, the tenancies would be continued for periodic terms until more suitable long-term uses were identified;

(e) regarding Member’s enquiry on the number of shipyards in the Aberdeen area, LandsD would reply after the meeting; the tenants could decide whether to continue operating the shipyards based on their own situation and circumstances; and LandsD did not have the data on whether adequate shipyards were available for maintenance services for vessels during the fish moratorium;

(f) if there was a newly available vacant site pending long term development, LandsD would consult government departments on the appropriate temporary use e.g. using the site as car park through public tender. If no appropriate temporary use was identified and the site was not required by government departments, LandsD would disseminate through District Offices and the Social Welfare Department the relevant information, which would be updated every three months, for application by interested community or non-profit-making organisations. After district consultation and following applicable procedures, the site could be granted by allocation or by tenancy.

68. Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr CHAI Man-hon continued to speak on this agenda item. Their comments and enquiries were summarised as follows:

(a) A Member expressed discontent over the absence of response by the Department towards tenants’ and the district’s views on tenancy renewal arrangement;

(b) vacant sites should not be allocated for a single use by way of STT for a long period, since the tenants were reluctant to inject resources for environmental enhancement, resulting in incompatibility between the site and the nearby setting. Also, STT had brought greater difficulties on viability of business. It was suggested that LandsD should conduct a longer-term land use estimate of vacant sites. For an existing STT site with land use tallied with the estimated long-term use, a longer term tenancy should be granted to encourage the tenant to inject resources into the site to improve the environment; and

(c) it was understood that there were difficulties in the long-term planning of some vacant government sites in view of various factors, such as limitations

32

of geographical location and size, and the Government could only resort to STT to optimise the use. In this regard, the LandsD was requested to explain the difficulties in planning the long-term development of such sites as well as to state the time of finalisation of the timetable for long-term development of other sites.

69. Ms POON Yin-yee of LandsD gave a consolidated supplementary reply to Members’ comments and enquiries as follows:

(a) With regard to the district consultation for tenancy and allocation application, LandsD would notify the relevant government departments including District Offices the result of the application such that District Offices could inform the DC Member concerned ;

(b) decision on long-term planning of land use was to be made by the relevant policy bureau and LandsD was unable to provide the exact timetable for long-term development of each site; and

(c) each STT was granted on its own background, so it was difficult for LandsD to explain the reasons for the granting of every tenancy. If Members would like to enquire about individual cases, LandsD could provide supplementary information after the meeting.

70. The Chairman concluded that Members were concerned over the environmental and local problems brought about by STTs in the district and the timetable for long-term development of STT sites, however it was difficult to generalise all STT cases. It was suggested that the department concerned should collect information on the shipyard sites and WSD site, which were of greater concern to the Members, and provided supplementary information after the meeting. (Mr LO Kin-hei left the meeting at 7:22 p.m.) Agenda Item 9: Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District

(DDEC Paper No. 16/2012) Annex 1 – Progress Report on Planning Works in Southern District A/H17/127 Proposed Flat (Staff Quarters) 71. Miss Isabel YIU of the Planning Department (PlanD) added that, in response to the comments made by Government departments and Members in the meeting on 20 February 2012, the Hong Kong International School would enhance the proposal

33

and therefore requested the Town Planning Board (TPB) for further deferment of the consideration to 20 April. The Metro Planning Committee (MPC) had accepted the request and the application had not been considered by TPB. 72. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP asked whether the representative of PlanD would attend the meeting on 20 April and relay SDC’s views to the TPB before the meeting. 73. Miss Isabel YIU replied that the SDC had put forward their views to the TPB earlier on. PlanD would summarise the views of SDC in the paper and submit the public comments collected to the MPC for consideration. Annex 3 – Progress Report on Other Works in Southern District 186WC Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water Mains Stage 3 74. Mr CHU Lap-wai made the following enquiries on the waterworks at location (f) Aberdeen Reservoir Road Carriageway: The Aberdeen Reservoir Road Carriageway was the only carriageway connecting Shek Pai Wan Estate. Since the waterworks had been ongoing for some time and caused traffic inconvenience, he asked the department concerned if the works would be over upon completion of this stage. He would also like to know the anticipated completion date. 75. Mr YUEN Woo-kok of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) replied that the anticipated completion date of the entire project was December 2013. The CEDD would refer the enquiry to the WSD after the meeting for their direct reply to the Member on the actual completion date of the waterworks at location (f) Aberdeen Reservoir Road Carriageway. 432RO Aberdeen Tourism Project – Uplifting Works to Promenades of Aberdeen Harbour and Ap Lei Chau Main Street 76. The Chairman said that the project had been taken up by the District Facilities Management Committee and proposed that the item be deleted from the progress report of the DDEC.

34

Annex 4 – Progress Report on Public Housing Works in the Southern District 77. Mr CHAI Man-hon said the HD had earlier stated that it would renovate Wah Fu Commercial Complex, but there had not been any progress so far. He enquired the HD about the reason for still not being able to commence the works and official commencement date. He also enquired whether the HD would compensate those who had invested on the shops affected and suffered losses due to delay of the renovation works. 78. Mr WONG Sun-man of the HD responded that the Department did not have an exact timetable at the moment, but once further information on the matter was available, the HD would consult with EMAC members and DC members of the estate concerned. Annex 5 – Follow Up Items Request to Improve the Drainage System of the Villages in the Southern District 79. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP remarked that despite his earlier request for improvement of the drainage problems in Pok Fu Lam Village, the hygienic conditions in the village, which affected the environment in the whole community, had yet to be improved. As it would be summer soon, the drainage problems should be solved as soon as possible to prevent spread of diseases. However, the progress report by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) did not show any progress. He made the following enquiries and comments:

(a) He would like to know when the EPD would consult LandsD and PlanD, and when they would give a reply;

(b) whether the EPD had decided to implement the works concerned; (c) the works schedule; and (d) hoped to meet representatives of all departments concerned, relevant

Members and representatives of Pok Fu Lam Village for detailed discussion after the meeting.

80. Mr CHAN Yiu-kin of EPD responded that he could not answer the questions as he had in hand basic information only and that he would give supplementary information in writing or ask an officer in charge to explain in details at the next meeting.

35

81. Mr CHU Ching-hong, JP expressed his discontent at the EPD which was ill-prepared despite the fact that he had informed the Department through the Secretariat more than a month ago that he would enquire about the matter at this meeting. In the face of the acute and pressing drainage problems at Pok Fu Lam Village, the EPD should strive to implement the works as soon as possible with a view to solving the hygienic problems in the village completely. He also suggested that a meeting be scheduled for discussion with the department concerned. 82. The Chairman said that government officials should put themselves in the residents’ position and so the DDEC was very upset by the perfunctory manner of the DSD for failing to send a representative to attend the meeting. The DDEC was also enraged by the EPD representative for failing to give a response on the excuse that the meeting was running late. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to follow up on the issue and requested Mr CHAN Yiu-kin to inform the EPD of the DDEC’s request of attending the special meeting to discuss the solutions and works schedule with the SDC Chairman, DDEC and Pok Fu Lam Village representative(s), and confirming the date of meeting in two days. 83. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said the agenda item was about improvement of village drainage system in the Southern District. Apart from Pok Fu Lam Village, drainage problem was also found in Wong Chuk Hang Kau Wai Village, which was not mentioned in the paper. She enquired whether space could be spared around Wong Chuk Hang Kau Wai Village for handling the sewerage problem. 84. The Chairman said that this agenda item focused on Pok Fu Lam Village and suggested Mrs Ada MAK raise the problems concerning Wong Chuk Hang Kau Wai Village during the special meeting for follow-up by the department concerned. 85. Mrs MAK TSE How-ling said a site inspection in the district, which covered Wong Chuk Hang Kau Wai Village, was conducted by the previous term of SDC. However, the village was yet to be included in the discussion. She requested the department concerned to explain the reasons. 86. Miss Daniela MONG added that the previous term of SDC had discussed the drainage problems of four walled villages in the district. A study showed it was necessary to build a sewage pumping station in Pok Fu Lam Village, while different solutions were still sought for the three other walled villages due to environmental and topographical constraints. It was why only follow-up actions concerning Pok Fu

36

Lam Village was stated in the paper. She suggested the department concerned provide supplementary information on the progress of the study on Wong Chuk Hang Kau Wai Village after the meeting. 87. Mrs CHAN LEE Pui-ying said that drainage problem also existed in the vicinity of Shek O and Tai Long Wan and hoped the department concerned would include it in their discussion and follow-up work. Land Use of former Harbour Mission School, Ap Lei Chau 88. Ms CHEUNG Sik-yung revealed that the DC had been concerned about the use of the site since the previous term and had suggested that the nearby area should be widened and developed as a transport interchange or an open space. However, PlanD only indicated in the paper that the land use was under review and conclusion was yet to be drawn. It was hoped that detailed progress could be provided in the next meeting. 89. Miss Isabel YIU of PlanD pointed out that the site was zoned “Government, Institution or Community”. PlanD was in discussion with relevant departments regarding the development of the site, and more specific proposals would be reported in the next meeting. 90. Mr AU Nok-hin hoped that views of the local community could be considered in the policy making process. He enquired if the DC concerned could be informed of the discussion so that Members could take part in it or reflect their views on the latest proposals. He also asked the representative of LandsD to note that the WSD site mentioned in Agenda Item 8 was on Ap Lei Chau Praya Road, which was Item No. 8 (TGLA No. GLA-THK 1162) on page 28 of the paper (in Chinese). 91. The Chairman asked Miss Isabel YIU to note the views of the Members. 92. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa wanted to follow up on the MTRCL site. The Chairman considered that they should be discussed under “Any Other Business”. Progress Report on Lands Department Temporary Government Lands Allocation in Southern District Ap Lei Chau Praya Road (TGLA No. GLA-THK 1162)

37

93. Mr CHAI Man-hon considered that the revenue generated from land sale was so substantial that the Government would usually resume a site for sale without giving careful consideration to how to accommodate the original use of the site. It thus faced difficulties in identifying an alternative site for accommodating the original use upon land resumption. He questioned why the departments concerned did not determine the relocation site of the original use prior to land resumption for auction. 94. Ms POON Yin-yee of LandsD responded that according to the department’s understanding, the site in question was granted under government land allocation and not under STT arrangement. The subject case was relating to the renewal application by WSD for an existing site which was not required to be relocated for the purpose of land sale. Teleport, Chung Hom Kok (TGLA No. DLO/HS 594/SHG S/82 95. Ms CHAN LEE Pui-ying enquired about the current use of the site and requested the relevant plan be provided after the meeting for reference. 96. Ms POON Yin-yee of LandsD replied that the site was now under an temporary allocation application by the CEDD, and the relevant plan would be provided after the meeting for reference. (Mr AU Nok-hin left the meeting at 7:58 p.m.) Part 2 - Items for information Street Management Report (as at 29.2.2012) (DDEC Paper No. 17/2012) 97. Members noted the contents of the information paper. Any Other Business 98. Mr TSUI Yuen-wa hoped that the department concerned could explain the reason why the MTRCL temporarily withdrew the planning application for the above-station property development of Wong Chuk Hang Estate, which had been submitted to the TPB earlier on, and inform the meeting when the application would

38

be submitted again. He also remarked that the MTRCL should consult the DC for any new development so that Members’ views and amendments could be included in the proposal for submission. Nonetheless, the MTRCL bypassed the DC and submitted the application, obviously disregarding the views of the DC. He called for the DDEC to voice opposition against such improper practice. 99. Miss Isabel YIU of PlanD responded that, the MTRCL could submit any planning application in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance at any time and also had the right to withdraw it of its own accord. The Department did not know the reason for withdrawal of the application. 100. The Chairman indicated that the Secretariat received no other item for discussion. Part 3 - Date of Next Meeting 101. The Chairman informed the meeting that the 3rd DDEC meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. at SDC Conference Room on 28 May 2012 (Monday). 102. There being no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Secretariat, Southern District Council May 2012