Minutes of the 2 Meeting of the Working Group on District

DMW 2 min 1

Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the

Working Group on District Minor Works (DMW) Projects

Recreation and District Facilities Committee (RDFC)

Southern District Council (SDC) (2020-2023)

Date : 29 September 2020

Time : 2:30 p.m.

Venue : SDC Conference Room

Present:

Mr LO Kin-hei (Chairman of SDC)

Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN (Vice-Chairman of SDC)

Mr TSUI Yuen-wa (Chairman of RDFC and Chairman of Working Group)

Mr CHAN Ping-yeung (Vice-Chairman of RDFC)

Mr YIM Chun-ho (Vice-Chairman of Working Group)

Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo

Mr CHAN Hin-chung

Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael

Ms LI Shee-lin

Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH

Mr POON Ping-hong

Ms CHAN Yan-yi

Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun

Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin

Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus

Miss YUEN Ka-wai, Tiffany

Mr YU Chun-hei, James

Secretary:

Mr CHEUNG Wai-chun, William Executive Officer I (District Management),

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

DMW 2 min 2

In Attendance:

Mr LEUNG Ying-kit Senior Executive Officer (District Management),

Southern District Office, Home Affairs Department

Ms CHENG Siu-ping, Jessica Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West & South (1),

District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South,

Lands Department

Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West & South (2),

District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South,

Lands Department

Mr AU YEUNG Wai-ming, Arthur Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support)

Southern, Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Miss CHAN Mei-ling Assistant District Leisure Manager (District Support)

Southern, Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Ms CHOW Ka-yan, Chowee Architect (Works) 3, Home Affairs Department

Ms WAN Chi-ying, Jenny Architect (Works) 6, Home Affairs Department

Mr PANG Kam-ping Senior Inspector of Works (Hong Kong),

Home Affairs Department

Mr WONG Bun Inspector of Works (Hong Kong) 1,

Home Affairs Department

For agenda item 3:

Mr Kelvin CHAO Senior Architect, Leigh and Orange Limited

Ms Grace KUNG Assistant Project Designer, Leigh and Orange Limited

Opening Remarks:

The Chairman welcomed members of the Working Group and the following

government representatives to the meeting:

(a) Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD)

(i) Mr AU YEUNG Wai-ming, Arthur, Deputy District Leisure

Manager (District Support) Southern;

DMW 2 min 3

(ii) Miss CHAN Mei-ling, Assistant District Leisure Manager (District

Support) Southern;

(b) Lands Department (LandsD)

(i) Ms CHENG Siu-ping, Jessica, Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong

West & South (1), District Lands Office / Hong Kong West &

South;

(ii) Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky, Principal Estate Officer / Hong Kong West

& South (2), District Lands Office / Hong Kong West & South;

(c) Home Affairs Department (HAD) Works Section

(i) Ms CHOW Ka-yan, Chowee, Architect (Works) 3;

(ii) Ms WAN Chi-ying, Jenny, Architect (Works) 6;

(iii) Mr PANG Kam-ping, Senior Inspector of Works (Hong Kong); and

(iv) Mr WONG Bun, Inspector of Works (Hong Kong) 1.

2. The Chairman said that in view of the latest situation of the Coronavirus

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, this meeting was not open to the public in order

to reduce the risk of crowd gathering. Members and media were advised to bring

their own masks and water. Before entering the venue, all persons were subject to

checking of body temperature with the assistance of the staff of Southern District

Office (SDO), and were required to complete a health declaration form and declare

whether he/she was under the 14-day compulsory quarantine.

3. The Chairman said that to avoid suspending the meeting due to the absence

of a quorum, members should, as far as practicable, advise the Secretary of their early

withdrawal in advance, and inform the Secretariat staff before leaving the meeting.

To enhance the efficiency of the meeting, each member was allotted a maximum of

two 3-minute slots to speak in respect of each agenda item.

DMW 2 min 4

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of the Minutes of the 1st Meeting held on 14

July 2020

4. The Chairman said that the draft minutes of the above meeting had been

circulated to members for comments before the meeting, and the Secretariat had not

received any amendment proposal so far.

5. The Working Group confirmed the minutes of the 1st meeting.

Agenda Item 2: Funding Applications for District Minor Works Projects

(DMW Paper No. 4/2020)

Annex I: Projects with HAD Works Section as works agent

6. Mr LEUNG Ying-kit briefed members on the funding application for

“Improvement works to the ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau (Phase

2)”, as detailed in Annex I to DMW Paper No. 4/2020.

Annex II: Project with HAD Term Consultants as works agent

7. Mr LEUNG Ying-kit briefed members on the additional funding

application for “Construction of a rainshelter near Stanley Mound Fresh Water

Pumping Station Extension on Stanley Gap Road”, as detailed in Annex II to DMW

Paper No. 4/2020.

8. Regarding the “Improvement works to the ex-Harbour Mission School site

in Ap Lei Chau (Phase 2)”, Mr CHAN Ping-yeung enquired about the feasibility of

installing solar-powered lighting. He was worried that in case the proposed

solar-powered lighting was found impracticable only after its implementation and had

to be reverted to the installation of electric lighting, the time spent would be wasted.

9. Mr PANG Kam-ping responded that the Works Section had experience in

installing solar-powered lighting in other areas. He pointed out that it was dark at

the said lot during night time, but there was sufficient light at the nearby roads and

buildings. If someone went from the adjacent areas to the said lot, the solar-powered

lighting might appear to be dimmer. After conducting a site visit with the supplier

concerned, it was considered that the said location was exposed to sunlight, and thus

DMW 2 min 5

suitable for the use of solar-powered lighting. He explained that 18-watt LED light

bulbs would be adopted. When the solar batteries were fully charged, they would be

able to operate for 21 consecutive days and provide electricity supply to the

solar-powered lighting for six hours per day even without sunlight.

10. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung continued to ask whether the brightness of the

solar-powered lighting installed by the Works Section was equivalent to that of the

lighting installed by the Highways Department at the pedestrian footpath in Ap Lei

Chau Praya. He said that if the solar-powered lighting was bright enough to allow

users to see people and objects around, the brightness was considered acceptable.

11. The Working Group supported the funding applications as set out in

Annexes I to II.

12. The Working Group agreed to recommend the above funding applications

as endorsed by the Working Group for RDFC’s approval.

(Mr LAM Ho-por, Kelvin, Mr LO Kin-hei, Mr Kelvin CHAO, Ms Grace KUNG and

Mr PANG Cheuk-kei, Michael joined the meeting at 2:37 p.m., 2:38 p.m., 2:50 p.m.,

2:50 p.m. and 3:03 p.m. respectively.)

Agenda Item 3: Progress Report on DMW Projects in Southern District

(as at 14 September 2020)

(DMW Paper No. 5/2020)

13. The Chairman welcomed Mr Kevin CHAO, Senior Architect and Ms Grace

KUNG, Assistant Project Designer, of Leigh and Orange Limited for discussion of

agenda item 3.

14. Regarding the “Construction of landmarks for the Literary Trail in the

Southern District - Xu Dishan Plain”, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that there were

many abandoned items in the cemetery area on the periphery of the sitting-out area

(SOA) which were not cleared by the cemetery. He requested SDO to contact the

cemetery to clear the periphery area of the venue. The Chairman asked the

Secretariat to take follow-up action after the meeting.

DMW 2 min 6

(Post-meeting note: SDO contacted the Office of the Chinese Christian Cemetery in

November 2020, and was informed that the area concerned had

been tidied up.)

15. Regarding the “Beautification works near the Sandy Bay Drainage Services

Department Sewage Screening Plant at Sha Wan Drive”, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said

that the project had been put forward for more than 10 years, but it came to a standstill

because of the tree problem, he hoped that SDO could provide assistance in

facilitating the early completion of the project by the department concerned.

16. The Secretary responded that currently the site had been enclosed and

managed by LandsD. If the chain-link fences were removed to open up the site, the

trees on the site had to be maintained by LCSD. According to the approach for

general DMW projects, LCSD would be responsible for the work related to flowers

and trees, while HAD Works Section would construct dwarf walls on the periphery of

the site based on the comments of the project proponent. For the handover of trees,

SDO, together with the project proponent and relevant departments, had conducted a

site visit early this year and reached a preliminary consensus, but further discussion

on the arrangements for the handover of trees had to be conducted with relevant

departments in view of the recent update of the works technical circular by the

Development Bureau (DEVB).

17. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that LCSD, after conducting a site visit

with relevant departments, agreed to take charge of the maintenance of trees of the

venue after its opening up, but the department currently responsible for the

maintenance of those trees had first to assess tree conditions and carry out tree care

work as appropriate to the satisfaction of LCSD before the trees were handed over to

LCSD.

18. Mr Ricky NG responded that according to the works technical circular of

DEVB which took effect in April this year, LandsD was not responsible for the trees

within the scope of DMW projects, rather, it would be responsible for one-off tree

works only. As the trees would eventually be handed over to LCSD, the project

proponent department should take follow-up action.

19. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN pointed out that the responsible officer of LandsD

at the earlier stage could exercise flexibility in one-off tree works. At the site visit

early this year, the representative of LandsD agreed to take charge of tree works on

the spot. However, after the transfer of the officer concerned, the new officer did not

DMW 2 min 7

provide facilitation to the work. Hence, it was still impossible to complete the

project after almost 10 years. He requested LandsD to complete the tree works as

soon as possible based on the consensus reached at the site visit early this year.

20. Mr Ricky NG responded that, after checking records, it was found that the

recent report on the assessment of tree health was prepared by SDO rather than

LandsD. In addition, the Special Duties Task Force (Task Force) under LandsD

would continue to handle one-off tree works for tree complaint cases. The

department had previously requested the Task Force to carry out tree works to the

standards of LCSD. Nevertheless, the Task Force was unable to do so for the

following two reasons. Firstly, the cost of tree works in DMW projects could not be

paid by LandsD. Secondly, the removal of trees arising from the DMW project

concerned was not approved by the department, accordingly the works could not be

implemented. He added that the project was led by SDO, which should be

responsible for following up on relevant tree works.

21. Mr LEUNG Ying-kit responded that there was a lack of experts in tree

management at SDO. To his understanding, the report on tree assessment prepared

by SDO earlier at the request of relevant department had not been accepted. As a

result, it was difficult for SDO to take follow-up action based on the report. Yet, the

tree experts of LandsD and LCSD could carry out professional assessment of trees.

22. Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun did not understand why SDO had carried out

tree assessment at that time. In his view, as there was no tree expert at SDO, and the

report on tree assessment had not been accepted, the simplest way was direct handling

of tree works by LandsD.

23. The Chairman suggested that LandsD should handle relevant tree problem

by means of one-off tree works. If LandsD could not handle the works due to cost

concern, it could make reference to the regular grass cutting project in which funding

for DMW projects would be provided to LandsD to pay for the tree works. He asked

whether members agreed to the arrangement.

24. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN reiterated that LandsD had earlier agreed to carry

out the works during the site visit, but currently another officer of LandsD denied the

promise made at that time, the project then came to a standstill. He requested

LandsD to solve the problem as soon as possible. He jokingly said that it might

simply take a few minutes if he handled the works in person.

DMW 2 min 8

25. Mr LO Kin-hei commented that if LandsD ignored its previous promise

because of a change of an individual officer, he worried that LandsD would adopt the

same approach in handling other DMW projects in the future. Therefore, he

considered that the Working Group had to exercise prudence in dealing with the issue

to avoid recurrence of similar incidents in the future.

26. The Chairman said that this incident had well illustrated the administrative

problem within LandsD, and that if a precedent was to be set on this occasion, many

future DMW projects would probably be affected. He suggested conducting a site

visit again, during which a tree assessment would be carried out by an expert from

LandsD for clarifying individual responsibilities, with a view to avoiding works delay.

27. Mr Ricky NG responded that according to LandsD’s record, at that time the

department had only agreed to vet and approve the recommendation report on the

preservation and removal of trees instead of undertaking the works of tree removal.

While agreeing that the site was currently under the purview of LandsD, he said that

according to the relevant circular issued by DEVB, LandsD would merely conduct

tree-related works in response to individual complaints, and that under the current

project, the trees would be handed over to LCSD for maintenance in the future, which

was within the project scope.

28. The Chairman said that as far as he knew, Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN had

previously lodged a complaint with LandsD. As such, he asked why LandsD had not

taken any action so far.

29. Mr Ricky NG responded that Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN’s complaint was

relevant to the DMW project which involved the handover of trees to LCSD.

30. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that LandsD had on the spot agreed to

conduct one-off tree works during a site visit in early 2020, thus, this on-the-spot

decision had not been formally documented. He pointed out that the bureaucracy in

LandsD had impeded the works. Should LandsD need an official record, he could

prepare the relevant documents to request the departmental representatives who had

attended the site visit to confirm by signing.

31. In closing, the Chairman said that RDFC would arrange a site visit to

clarify individual responsibilities. However, if LandsD took follow-up action and

DMW 2 min 9

completed the tree works upon receipt of the formal complaint, the site visit would be

cancelled.

32. Regarding the “Beautification of South Bay Road (near Petrol Station)”,

Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun said that the site concerned had been used by the Civil

Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) for temporary storage of

construction materials. It was not until June 2020 that the site was handed over to

LandsD. Given the lack of sitting-out facilities in South Bay at present, and the site

concerned was larger in size than the one previously approved for allocation to

another DMW project, he considered that it was no longer appropriate to adopt a

co-management mode in providing simple facilities for beautification at the site. To

avoid under-utilisation of space, he suggested that the site should be taken over by

LCSD for constructing a smoke-free sitting-out area.

33. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that LCSD noted the suggestion made

by the member concerned and would follow up to review on a host of factors such as

the planned land use and topography.

34. The Chairman said that in response to the Secretary’s earlier enquiry, the

Planning Department had indicated that the site had been zoned “Open Space”, on

which construction of sitting-out facilities was always permitted.

35. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH opined that implementing simple beautification

works at the site concerned was a waste of land resources indeed, and suggested that

LCSD should take over the management of the site and provide sitting-out facilities.

36. Mr LO Kin-hei expressed his respect for the view of SDC member of the

local constituency concerned. However, by making reference to the previous project

at the ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau, LCSD had indicated that a

sitting-out area could hardly be constructed and thus could only open up the site under

a co-management mode. He asked LCSD to provide its previous considerations for

reference.

37. The Chairman said that as far as he knew, owing to certain land title issues

pending clarification, the co-management mode had been adopted as a stopgap

measure for the ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau at that time. If

LCSD deemed it appropriate to use the site for development purposes, he agreed that

DMW 2 min 10

the view of SDC member of the local constituency concerned on its development into

a sitting-out area should be respected.

38. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that he did not have relevant

information about the ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau on hand and

would check and report after the meeting. Besides, as the new proposal of the

development site is larger than the original one and provision of leisure facilities is

also requested, the estimated construction cost might have substantial increase in

comparison with the estimated cost of the original project.

(Post-meeting note: After checking the information on the project at the ex-Harbour

Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau, LCSD found that the

District Facilities Management Committee (DFMC) under the

last-term SDC had agreed in principle to implement this project

at its meeting on 24 November 2016. As DFMC members wished

to remove the chain-link fences surrounding the area and open up

the site as soon as possible, it was suggested that the site would

be co-managed by various departments, among which LCSD was

responsible for green planting and horticultural maintenance.)

39. The Chairman suggested that LCSD should look into the situation by

conducting a site visit with Mr Jonathan LEUNG Chun, and if necessary, he himself

and the Secretariat might participate as well.

40. Regarding the “Construction of a rainshelter for bus stop near Yar Chee

Villas on Chi Fu Road”, Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo enquired whether the design of the

rainshelter, including its colour and location, would be the same as the one shown in

the photo in Appendix 1 to the paper.

41. Ms Chowee CHOW responded that the then DFMC had agreed to construct

the relevant rainshelter with a standardised design in April 2016. The rainshelter

would be made of stainless steel and installed with environmentally friendly wooden

seats. She added that regarding the colour of the rainshelter cover, the consultant

would choose the most suitable colour in accordance with the technical requirements

set out in the tender documents and the shading effects needed at the location of the

rainshelter concerned. If necessary, the Works Section could provide members with

colour samples in compliance with the requirements for selection.

DMW 2 min 11

42. Ms CHAN Yan-yi enquired about the progress of the “Beautification of the

area next to Marina South on Ap Lei Chau Drive”.

43. Mr PANG Kam-ping responded that during the trial pit work, the Works

Section had discovered abandoned conduits under the ground which were not suitable

for stormwater drainage. Therefore, it was suggested that the approach for natural

flowing of stormwater be adopted.

44. The Chairman hoped that the works agent could update the progress of the

relevant works in the paper before the meeting, so that members would be informed

of the latest progress to avoid spending time at the meeting to make enquiries every

time.

45. Regarding the “Grass cutting in the Southern District 2019”, Mr POON

Ping-hong asked whether new grass cutting locations, such as Tin Wan Praya Road,

could be proposed when the project was underway.

46. The Chairman suggested relevant member provide specific proposals and

follow up with the Secretariat and the Works Section after the meeting to see whether

the proposals were feasible while taking into consideration funding availability and

fairness at the same time.

47. Mr WONG Yui-hei, Angus enquired about the details of the “Improvement

works to existing railing at Nam Ning Street, Southern District” under “Minor

improvement works 2019”.

48. Mr PANG Kam-ping responded that since the original railing hindered the

growth of the nearby tree, the Works Section had reduced the size of the original

railing to make room for the tree growth.

49. Mr Kevin CHAO and Ms Chowee CHOW, with the aid of PowerPoint

presentation (Reference Information 2), briefed the Working Group on the revised

feasibility study report of the “Provision of lighting at the pedestrian footpath in Ap

Lei Chau Praya”, including the project location, the design of the lighting and the

rough cost estimate for lighting provision. In response to members’ comments at the

last meeting, the consultant had proposed to install 65 bollard lights and 4 lamp posts

in the revised report.

DMW 2 min 12

50. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that he had noted that the dragon boat club

would lift dragon boats onto the water with a crane lorry, which would possibly

damage the lighting posts. Despite that the dragon boat club had agreed to the above

design, he hoped that the Works Section and the consultant would provide a layout

plan clearly indicating the locations of lighting as an official record of confirmation

and agreement to the lighting locations by the dragon boat club. Given that the crane

lorry for lifting dragon boats might damage the new lighting posts in the future, it was

necessary to clarify the responsibilities for relevant damage.

51. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung said that installing bollard lights on the pedestrian

footpath might cause obstruction to pedestrians and the driving route of the crane

lorry transporting dragon boats. He suggested installing lighting on Type II railings

proposed to be erected at the waterfront instead. Not only could it save space, but it

could also solve the problem of inadequate lighting. He said that reference could be

made to the design of railings with lights in the “Extension of the Waterfall Bay Park

(for Connecting to the Cyberport)”.

52. Regarding a member’s suggestion to install lighting on Type II railings, Ms

Chowee CHOW responded that since the space required for the footings of the current

railings might be different from that for the railings with lighting posts, the consultant

needed to conduct another feasibility study and consult the Port Works Division of

CEDD. She added that previously the dragon boat club had no comment on bollard

lights and the distance between bollard lights and railings, but merely advised against

installing lamp posts next to the railings. If necessary, the consultant could ask the

dragon boat club about the size of the crane lorry and logistics of transporting dragon

boats in detail.

53. The Chairman said that if the recommendations in the current feasibility

report were not adopted, but another study was to be conducted on the installation of

lighting on railings, it would require a longer time to complete the project.

54. Mr LO Kin-hei said that the aim of installing lamp posts was to provide

illumination, and the revision to the design of lighting posts would not make a big

difference to him. To put it simply, he said that it was still acceptable even if

fluorescent lamps were mounted on the railings. Therefore, he could not understand

why the consultant had reservations for installing lighting posts on railings, and he

hoped that the consultant could give a more convincing reason.

DMW 2 min 13

55. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung shared the view that the illumination function of

lighting posts was more important than the design, therefore the lighting fittings

needed not be very attractive in appearance. He believed that the time needed for

consulting the department would not be too long. Moreover, he clarified that

installing bollard lights on the pedestrian footpath would obstruct the driving route of

the crane lorry instead of the lifting of dragon boats.

56. The Vice-Chairman took the Kellett Bay waterfront as an example, and said

that bollard lights were easily damaged and might require frequent repair and

maintenance in the future. He therefore did not suggest installing bollard lights at

the pedestrian footpath of the Praya. As he had learnt that there would be long-term

development of the Praya, he was worried that the provision of bollard lights would

hinder the development and waste public money. He therefore preferred the

provision of lighting with simple design on the railings at the Praya.

57. The Chairman agreed that the provision of lighting at the pedestrian

footpath would adversely affect the route for jogging and strolling.

58. Ms Chowee CHOW gave a consolidated response that there was a lack of a

fixed support to the footings for installing lighting or directly mounting fluorescent

lamps on the railings. Accordingly, it would require further study on issues

concerning waterproofing, durability and security. She said that she could further

discuss the matter with members after the meeting.

(Post-meeting note: Since the design of bollard lights set out in the feasibility study

report had not been accepted by the Working Group, the Works

Section and the Secretariat contacted Mr CHAN Ping-yeung, the

member of the constituency concerned, on 30 September 2020.

It was agreed that the consultant would carry out another round

of feasibility study on integrating the design of railings and

lighting to serve as the second option of the project. Mr CHAN

Ping-yeung agreed to adopt the proposal of installing four lamp

posts underneath Ap Lei Chau Bridge, and the works would be

carried out together with the remaining lighting works upon the

completion of the project “Replacement of existing railings at Ap

Lei Chau Praya with Type II railings”.)

DMW 2 min 14

59. Regarding the “Beautification of ex-WSD works site on Ap Lei Chau Praya

Road”, Ms CHAN Yan-yi hoped that LCSD would take over the site in the long run to

construct a pet garden. She said that she originally hoped to have a pet garden at the

site at Ap Lei Chau Praya Road near Larvotto (Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137), but

the site was eventually included in the Land Sale Programme. She considered that a

number of Larvotto residents had kept pets but no pet garden was available near Lei

Tung. Hence there was a strong demand for pet gardens.

60. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that the department could study the

feasibility of the proposal if RDFC endorsed the change of the scope of the project.

61. The Chairman responded that the intention of the member of the

constituency concerned to construct a pet garden at the project site had been very clear.

He hoped that the department could explore the feasibility along this direction.

62. Ms CHAN Yan-yi added that as shown in the information provided by

HAD earlier, the scope of the works concerned was small and did not cover the whole

site. She asked whether another DMW project proposal had to be submitted if the

project was changed to construction of a pet garden and the scope would have to

cover the whole site.

63. The Chairman responded that the proposal concerned was similar to the

project “Beautification of South Bay Road (near Petrol Station)” just discussed. It

was subject to the scale of the project and consideration of RDFC.

64. Regarding the “Replacement of amenity railings at Victoria Road with

bollards (from Scenic Villa Drive to Bisney Road)”, “Replacement of amenity railings

at South Bay Road with bollards (No. 4A-22 and opposite to No. 55)”, and

“Replacement of amenity railings at Victoria Road with bollards (from Pokfulam

Road Cemetery to roundabout at Mount Davis Road)”, the Chairman indicated that

according to previous arrangements, conducting a joint tender exercise for similar

projects could help enhance efficiency and expedite the process. Hence, he

suggested combining the said projects.

65. Mr LO Kin-hei suggested allowing members to propose similar projects

later so that the projects could be handled jointly to save time.

DMW 2 min 15

66. The Vice-Chairman said that he would like to know whether other

beautification projects could be handled jointly.

67. The Chairman concluded that the three projects to be handled jointly were

“replacement of amenity railings with bollards”, which did not involve beautification

works. Since members had no objection, the Working Group agreed to the said

arrangement.

68. The Chairman enquired about the progress of the “Improvement works to

the trail between the Rock Carvings at Wong Chuk Hang and the Lady Clementi’s

Ride”, and he hoped that the Works Section could carry out a site investigation as

soon as possible and provide the progress schedule.

69. Mr PANG Kam-ping responded that the said project would commence

upon completion of the site investigation, subject to the availability of manpower

resources. He added that the site investigation would commence in early October

this year.

70. Regarding the “Construction of benches near Lei Chak House in Ap Lei

Chau Estate”, Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH considered that the project title should be

changed to “Construction of benches near the bus stop outside Lei Chak House in Ap

Lei Chau Estate”. The Chairman agreed to the change of the project title concerned.

71. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung pointed out that the “Replacement of existing

railings at Ap Lei Chau Praya with Type II railings” project was related to the

“Provision of lighting at the pedestrian footpath in Ap Lei Chau Praya”. He hoped

that the consultant could consider combining the above two projects so that space

could be saved and lighting could be provided at the same time. He continued that

the alighting position for dragon boats and crews had to be taken into consideration

when carrying out the works, and a gate should be added there. The Chairman asked

the consultant to note and follow up the comments.

72. Ms CHAN Yan-yi proposed to delete the “Improvement works to the site at

Ap Lei Chau Praya Road near Larvotto” project because the site concerned had been

designated for private housing development. The Chairman agreed to the

arrangement.

DMW 2 min 16

73. Regarding the “Construction of five rainshelters on Sandy Bay Road”, the

Secretary said that it had been agreed at the last meeting of the Working Group in the

last term that the number of rainshelters would be reduced from seven to five. The

location maps of respective rainshelters had already been circulated to members by

email on 13 July 2020 for their acknowledgement, and the project title had been

amended accordingly. The Chairman agreed to the arrangement.

74. Regarding the “Construction of a sitting out area with grass at the roof of

Victoria Road Fresh Water Service Reservoir at Sassoon Road”, Mr Paul

ZIMMERMAN said that the SOA would be open for use the next day, and expressed

his gratitude to the departments concerned and the term consultant.

75. Ms LAM Yuk-chun, MH asked whether it had been confirmed that the

“Construction of public toilet at Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road Playground” project would

commence by the end of 2020.

76. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that tender assessment was targeted to

be completed by October 2020 and the project would commence by the end of this

year. LCSD would continue to follow up with the Architectural Services

Department (ArchSD) on the progress of the project. The project was expected to

be completed by the end of 2021.

77. Regarding the “Construction of a SOA at the roof of Pok Fu Lam No. 3

Water Service Reservoir behind Chi Fu Fa Yuen”, Mr LAM Andrew Tak-wo thanked

LCSD for its efforts, saying that the SOA concerned had been open for use. He

asked LCSD about the possibility of amending the house rules to allow dogs, and

adding sun shading facilities in response to residents’ views. Besides, noticing that

the SOA concerned had been overgrown with weeds recently, he asked LCSD to carry

out weeding as soon as possible.

78. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that the Water Supplies Department

(WSD) had imposed loading restriction on the facilities provided on the roof of the

service reservoirs. The loading of the existing facilities provided at the concerned

SOA was near the upper limit. Besides, the SOA was located at open high land with

strong wind and no static staff was attend at the site, provision of movable tents was

inappropriate for safety reason. He further said that an undergrowth cutting was

carried out before the opening of the SOA and he would closely monitor the operation

of undergrowth cutting. Regarding the vegetation outside the SOA, WSD was

DMW 2 min 17

responsible party for the maintenance work. Toward the suggestion of opening up of

the SOA for dog entry. As for the suggestion of allowing dogs into the venue,

members could raise the discussion at relevant meetings.

79. The Chairman said that the suggestion of allowing dogs into the venue

might be discussed at the meeting of the Working Group on Animal Rights. Besides,

he said that a pavilion had also been provided inside Wong Chuk Hang Service

Reservoir Rest Garden. He considered that demand for such facilities would be

generated with a high utilisation rate of the venue. He invited LCSD to ask WSD

about its feasibility.

80. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN enquired about the progress of the “Extension of

the Waterfall Bay Park (for Connecting to the Cyberport) (Feasibility Study)”.

81. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that they still had to discuss the

maintenance responsibility of the facility with relevant departments. The Transport

Department mentioned in a reply that since the proposed footbridge was not a public

road and there were alternative routes to reach the locations at two ends, the

maintenance responsibility of the footbridge was outside the ambit of the department.

ArchSD also reiterated that the footbridge involved civil engineering structure which

was outside the ambit of ArchSD. Meanwhile, as a large portion of the footbridge

was beyond the boundary of the park under LCSD, ArchSD considered it was

inappropriate to take up the maintenance works. He understood members’ concerns

about the project progress and LCSD also wanted to confirm the future management

and maintenance responsibilities of the facility as early as possible. However, LCSD

was not a works department, the repair and maintenance of the facility had to be taken

up by relevant works departments. He said that LCSD would continue to follow up

and negotiate with the relevant departments.

82. Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN considered it appropriate that the matter was

handled under an inter-departmental mechanism with the assistance of the District

Officer. He said that there had been fatal accidents as a result of slipping and falling

on rocks during rainstorms, and many people would travel to and from Wah Fu Estate

and the Cyberport via this location. He continued to point out that the project had

been proposed for years. It was hoped that relevant departments could clarify the

responsibility for repair and maintenance as soon as possible. He hoped that the

District Officer could take the lead to handle the matter as early as possible.

DMW 2 min 18

83. The Chairman agreed that SDO should serve as a bridge among

departments to help solve the problem concerned.

84. Regarding the “Construction of fitness equipment and drinking fountains

near Heung Yip Path”, the Chairman enquired about the location map for the project.

85. Ms Jessica CHENG responded that LandsD had requested LCSD to

provide a land requirement plan for the development, so that LandsD could ask the

MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) to return the site as early as possible for LCSD

to construct facilities. However, no response had been received from LCSD so far.

86. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG responded that a consensus on the site area had

been reached during the site visit with the Chairman and LandsD earlier. He noted

that LandsD was still carrying out the tree assessment procedures with MTRCL.

LCSD would apply for site allocation only after the completion of the assessment.

87. The Chairman added that on the day of the site visit, he and the

representatives from LandsD, SDO and LCSD had clearly delineated the site area on a

map provided by LandsD. He said that the above issue had been solved. He asked

whether the tree issue between LandsD and MTRCL had yet to be settled.

88. Ms Jessica CHENG admitted that the tree issue had not yet been settled.

She clarified that LandsD requested LCSD to delineate the site area on the map

provided by LandsD but the response from LCSD had not been received so far.

89. The Chairman enquired of LandsD whether LCSD had been requested to

provide a written response.

90. Ms Jessica CHENG responded that this request had been made by the

Estate Surveyor of the district.

91. The Chairman asked whether LCSD could respond to LandsD’s request

expeditiously.

92. Mr Arthur AU YEUNG replied that he would follow up the request.

93. The Chairman said that the project concerned had been dragging on since

October 2019, and opined that such a bureaucratic practice had all along been the

DMW 2 min 19

subject of criticism and always been caused by LandsD. He queried why tree

assessment had still not been completed since the commissioning of the MTR South

Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) in 2016. He also pointed out that the relevant boundary

at the ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau had not been defined so far.

He expressed grave dissatisfaction with LandsD’s arrangements.

94. Mr LO Kin-hei did not wish to take extreme measures against LandsD’s

obstruction to the work of SDC, e.g. requesting LandsD to report on the progress of

various projects at every meeting and provide any missing information that was

essential to understanding relevant projects in writing. He considered that should the

two representatives of LandsD continue to address issues in this way, SDC did not

rule out the possibility of adopting the foregoing approach.

95. Ms Jessica CHENG responded that the site concerned could not be returned

because MTRCL had not completed the tree assessment procedures.

(Post-meeting note: According to the reply from the Railway Development Section

(RDS) to the District Lands Office (DLO), since MTR

Corporation Limited (MTRCL) had not given a satisfactory

response to the comments made by RDS on the relevant Tree

Removal Application, RDS was unable to further proceed with

the tree compliance checking procedures with MTRCL.

Meanwhile, RDS was considering to follow up with MTRCL as

to whether priority could be accorded in dealing with the tree

related issues on the concerned land so as to expedite its

handover. In addition, DLO had received a sketch map from

LCSD on 16 October 2020, and learned that LCSD had not

obtained funding and without any detailed planning of the

proposed fitness equipment and drinking fountains. As the site

was open and accessible through the public footpaths, DLO had

recommended that LCSD might conduct a preliminary inspection

on site direct for feasibility study.)

96. The Chairman said that the inability of LandsD to take over the site since

the commissioning of SIL(E) in 2016 had prevented the other department from taking

forward its project. He had wished to kickstart the preliminary work of the project

during the tree assessment process; nevertheless, the preliminary work had been

encumbered by LandsD as well at present.

DMW 2 min 20

97. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung noted that MTRCL had intended to return the

ex-Harbour Mission School site in Ap Lei Chau to LandsD long before, he suggested

that LandsD should discuss with MTRCL to sort out the land issue, in a bid to

implement weeding and other works under a unified approach.

98. Regarding the “Improvement Works for Information Panels of the Southern

District Coastal Trail” (Reference Information 1), Mr Paul ZIMMERMAN said that

the proposed design had been confirmed by email circulation earlier. He added that

the floor signs installed in the vicinity of No. 18 South Bay Road could be easily

overlooked. He hoped that an extra sign could be installed at that location.

99. The Chairman said that RDFC had agreed on the proposed design, and the

Secretariat had been asked to follow up members’ opinions.

100. Mr LO Kin-hei said that he found problems with the floor signs along the

Southern District Coastal Trail, including stains and rust, slippery to pedestrians, etc.

He asked whether any remedies could be taken during the maintenance period upon

completion of the works. He did not wish to see that any pedestrians slipped and got

hurted.

101. Ms Jenny WAN responded that the works had been completed in

November 2019 and the repair and maintenance period lasted for one year. She

noticed that the floor signs had got paint chipping and stains, etc. and would contact

the consultant and contractor to ask them to follow up.

102. The Chairman enquired whether the Works Section would request the

contractor to take any remedial measures to prevent pedestrians form slipping.

103. Ms Jenny WAN responded that the Working Group had discussed the

anti-skid design of the floor signs at its meeting held in March 2019. Back then,

members agreed to use bronze plates to produce the signs as originally proposed.

The consultant also proposed skid resistance design option, e.g. adding more surface

pattern to enhance the level of skid resistance. The proposed skid resistance design

had been agreed by the members of the Working Group at its meeting held in May

2019. She said that the Works Section would follow up the skid resistance issue of

the signs regarding the members’ comments.

DMW 2 min 21

104. The Vice-Chairman said that if the signs had got paint chipping, they had

lost their function of giving directions. He asked whether the Works Section would

change the material or the whole design. He opined that repainting could only treat

the symptoms but not the root cause of the problem. He hoped that there were more

radical improvement proposals.

105. The Chairman asked the Works Section to explore solutions after the

meeting. He was worried that if some members of the public slipped because of the

floor signs, SDC was culpable for the accidents. Thus, he hoped that the issue could

be solved as soon as possible within the maintenance period.

106. The Working Group noted that the financial report on DMW projects.

Agenda Item 4: Any Other Business

107. The Chairman said that there was no other business.

108. Mr CHAN Ping-yeung asked the Secretariat to make an enquiry with

members as to whether they wished to include any new lot in the proposed locations

for “Grass cutting in the Southern District 2020”.

109. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to make an enquiry with all members

after the meeting.

Agenda Item 5: Date of Next Meeting

110. The Chairman said that the next meeting would be held at the SDC

Conference Room in the afternoon on 17 November 2020 (Tuesday). The

Secretariat would notify members of the meeting time separately.

111. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:19 p.m.

Secretariat, Southern District Council

November 2020