Minutes of the 4th Meeting in 2018 of the Environment, Housing and Works Committee

of Tai Po District Council Date: 11 July 2018 (Wednesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. – 7:18 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Tai Po District Council (“TPDC”) Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. CHAN Siu-kuen, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice-chairman Mr. LI Wah-kwong, Rex Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Members Mr. AU Chun-wah Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Dr. LAU Chee-sing Mr. LAU Yung-wai Mr. LI Kwok-ying, BBS, MH, JP Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Mr. LO Hiu-fung Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric, MH Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, BBS, MH, JP Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis Mr. YAM Man-chuen Mr. YU Chi-wing, Ken

Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

2:42 p.m. Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

End of the meeting 6:20 p.m.

End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting

6:33 p.m. 5:24 p.m.

End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting

Co-opted Members Mr. LEE Siu-man Mr. LI Kam-chung

Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

End of the meeting

6:57 p.m.

- 2 -

Secretary Mr. LEUNG Chung-wa, Alvin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Executive Officer (District Council) 1 / Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) / Home Affairs Department (“HAD”)

In Attendance Ms. LEE Kai-ying, Iris Assistant District Officer (Tai Po) / TPDO / HAD Mr. LAU Chun-him, Kenny Acting Senior Town Planner (Tai Po) / New Territories District

Planning Division / Planning Department (“Plan D”) Mr. NG Hon-wing, Wallace Acting Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional North) 1

/ Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin Senior Housing Manager / Tai Po, North & Sha Tin Region 2 /

Estate Management Division / Housing Department (“HD”) Ms. WONG Yim-tao, Anissa Senior Architect / Architectural Section 6 / HD Ms. SIU Wun-nam Architect / Architectural Section 6 / HD Mr. CHOW Tat-yan Civil Engineer / Civil Engineering Section 1 / HD Mr. CHAN Lai-cheung Planning Officer / Planning Section 1 / HD Ms. CHAN Sin-yee, Perin, Sindy Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Tai Po / North) 1 / Social

Welfare Department (“SWD”) Ms. WONG Fung-ping Project Manager (School Building) 3 / Education Bureau (“EDB”) Mr. MA Hon-chiu Chief Health Inspector 1 / Tai Po District Environmental Hygiene

Office / Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) Ms. LUK Pui-man Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing / Pest Control) / Tai Po District /

FEHD Mr. NGAN Wing-hong, Victor Engineer / 20 (North) / North Development Office / Civil

Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) Mr. LEE Ka-ho Engineer / Housing Projects 1 Unit / CEDD Mr. MA Sing-yuen, Ray Division Commander (Tai Po) / Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”) Mr. LAU Ka-yip Assistant Division Commander (Operations) (Tai Po) / HKPF Mr. CHAN Wing-yiu, Ronald Administration Assistant / Lands (Acting) / District Lands Office,

Tai Po (“TPDLO”) / Lands Department (“Lands D”) Mr. CHOW Kin-keung Senior Lands Executive / Control / TPDLO / Lands D Mr. WONG Yiu-ming, Brian Deputy District Leisure Manager (Tai Po) 2 / Leisure and Cultural

Services Department (“LCSD”) Ms. TSUI Wing-har, Tanya Engineer / Tai Po 1 / Drainage Services Department (“DSD”) Mr. TSANG Chi-wai, Terence Structural Engineer / C2-3 / Buildings Department Mr. HUI Ka-kit District Engineer (Tai Po) / Highways Department (“HyD”)

- 3 -

Mr. LEE Chi-wai Senior Assistant Shipping Master / Harbour Patrol Section (4) / Marine Department (“MD”)

Mr. LAM Chin-yuk Marine Inspector II / Harbour Patrol / MD Ms. MA Flora Senior Transport Officer / Tai Po / Transport Department (“TD”) Mr. CHEUNG Wai-fung Engineer / Tai Po 2 / TD Mr. TANG Sze-wai, Ray Associate (Transport) / Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited

(“OAP”) Mr. CHIU Kwan-suen Senior Community Relationship Manager / Link Asset Management

Limited (“The Link”) Mr. CHAN Wai-kit Portfolio Manager / The Link Mr. SHUM Kwun-hung Senior Maintenance Officer / The Link Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Senior Executive Officer (District Council) / TPDO / HAD Ms. LEUNG Suk-mei, Rebecca Senior Executive Officer (District Management) / TPDO / HAD Mr. CHAN Lok-him, Dennis Executive Officer (Development) / TPDO / HAD Ms. LI Hiu-man, Christine Executive Officer (District-led Actions Scheme) / TPDO / HAD

Applicant for absence

Mr. CHAN Cho-leung, MH

Absent Mr. KWOK Wing-kin

Opening remarks The Chairman welcomed Members and departmental representatives to the meeting of the Environment, Housing and Works Committee (“EHWC”), and congratulated Mr. CHEUNG Hok-ming on being awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal, Ms. XIAO Qi-mei the Medal of Honour, as well as Mr. WAN Koon-kau, Ms. CHEUNG Lai-chu and Mr. CHAN Pui-tim the Chief Executive’s Commendation for Community Service. 2. The Chairman made the following announcements:

(i) Mr. CHAN Cho-leung was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments and had submitted a notice of absence to the Secretariat before the meeting. Pursuant to Order 51(1) of the TPDC Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”), the EHWC would only give consent to a Member’s application for absence from

- 4 -

meetings filed on the grounds of sickness (including sickness due to pregnancy), jury service, attendance at another meeting or activity on behalf of the District Council (“DC”), attendance at a Legislative Council (“LegCo”) or Executive Council meeting, confinement or paternity leave. Pursuant to the above requirements, no consent could be given to his application.

(ii) Mr. MA Sing-yuen, Ray, Division Commander (Tai Po) of the HKPF, attended the meeting.

(iii) Mr. CHAN Yiu-wa, Andrew of the FEHD had been transferred out and succeeded by Mr. MA Hon-chiu, who would from now on attend the meetings.

(iv) Ms. CHEUNG Oi-yee, Violette of the HKPF had been transferred out and succeeded by Mr. LAU Ka-yip, who would from now on attend the meetings.

(v) Mr. WONG Chin-wo of the EPD had retired, and Mr. NG Hon-wing, Wallace attended the meeting on his behalf.

(vi) Ms. CHAN Cheuk-ling, Kathy of the Plan D was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments, and Mr. LAU Chun-him, Kenny attended the meeting on her behalf.

I. Confirmation of the minutes of the 3rd meeting in 2018 of the EHWC on 9 May 2018 (TPDC Paper No. EHW 30/2018)

3. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received a proposed amendment from the HKPF, and the details had been set out in TPDC Paper No. EHW 30/2018. Members did not propose any other amendments at the meeting. The above minutes were confirmed after incorporating the amendment proposed by the HKPF.

II. Public housing developments at Chung Nga Road West (TPDC Paper No. EHW 31/2018)

4. The Chairman welcomed the following people to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item: Ms. WONG Yim-tao, Anissa, Architect, Ms. SIU Wun-nam, Architect; Mr. CHOW Tat-yan, Civil Engineer; Mr. CHAN Lai-cheung, Planning Officer; and Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin, Senior Housing Manager of the HD; Mr. LEE Ka-ho, Engineer of the CEDD; Ms. CHAN Sin-yee, Perin, Sindy, Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Tai Po / North) of the SWD; Ms. WONG Fung-ping, Project Manager of the EDB; Ms. Flora MA and Mr. CHEUNG Wai-fung, Senior Transport Officer and Engineer respectively of the TD; Mr. Kenny LAU, Senior Town Planner of the Plan D; as well as Mr. TANG Sze-wai, Ray, Associate (Transport) of the OAP.

- 5 -

5. Using PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Anissa WONG introduced the public housing developments at Chung Nga Road West, including the project location, background of the developments, concept plans and development parameters, landscape studies, works schedules, etc. She pointed out that the captioned development was at the initial conceptual design stage and Members were welcome to comment. After the comments had been collected, the HD would liaise with other departments concerned to review the design and devise enhancement plans. In addition, the department would also begin ground investigation works at the government sites at Chung Nga Road West this year so as to have a more comprehensive understanding of the site. 6. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received a letter from Members (Annex 1) before the meeting. He asked Mr. YAM Man-chuen to introduce the paper. 7. Mr. YAM Man-chuen introduced the paper. 8. Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The reason why the TPDC asked the HD to launch another consultation about the

public housing developments at Chung Nga Road West years ago was to find out the situation of the district after the development of Area 9 in Tai Po. Although the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po had not yet been completed, he could foresee that the situation in future would not be good.

(ii) Back then, he and some Members had put forward a number of specific requests to the Government as a condition for supporting the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po. The requests included widening Chung Nga Road; constructing a complex with social welfare facilities, leisure and recreation facilities, as well as large vehicle parking spaces; enhancing the transport facilities in the district; and allocating public rental housing units with priority given to Tai Po residents who were on the waiting list. However, the Government had not fulfilled its promises so far.

(iii) With respect to parking spaces, he indicated that at present, many large vehicles, including commercial vehicles owned by nearby residents, were parked illegally on Chung Nga Road, a place with virtually no parking spaces for large vehicles. If the number of public housing units continued to rise, he believed that the number of commercial vehicles would only continue to increase. As such, there would be nowhere to accommodate these vehicles unless a carpark for large vehicles was constructed.

(iv) Regarding transport facilities, given that the population in Area 9 in Tai Po would increase by about 20 000 and there would be various facilities and schools in the area, he criticised the department for having no detailed plans and giving no account

- 6 -

of what transport facilities and services would be provided in the area, such as what public transport services would be arranged for the residents in Area 9 to commute to other districts, etc.

(v) Some Members had demanded that when the department allocated the housing units in Area 9 in Tai Po, it should give priority to Tai Po residents who would soon be allocated public housing units. In this way, they could continue to live in Tai Po District with less impact on their daily life.

(vi) When the HD proposed the public housing developments at Chung Nga Road West in 2014, it indicated that there would be one school premises in the developments. As the birth rate was falling, he at that time had already doubted whether it was necessary for the Government to build a new school premises there. He had also enquired whether the department’s proposal to construct the school premises was to cope with the population growth and the needs of school-age children, or simply to replace the old school premises with the new one on a “one-for-one” basis. However, the department had not responded to the enquiries so far.

(vii) Medical facilities were inadequate in the district. The third community medical centre was just empty talk, and the hospital expansion project was nowhere to be seen. Further population growth would increase the burden of the hospital.

(viii) He categorically asked the HD to fulfil its earlier promises and resolve the above district problems first. Otherwise, it would be difficult for him to support the public housing developments at Chung Nga Road West.

9. Mr. KWAN Wing-yip’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) As many district problems remained unresolved, further problems would arise if the public housing developments at Chung Nga Road West were endorsed without careful thought. Therefore, he found it difficult to support the development projects.

(ii) When developing new development areas in the past, the Government were more focused on the relevant infrastructure, community facilities, transport facilities, etc. In recent years, however, several public housing developments in Tai Po District were poorly planned with obvious shortage of infrastructure. He saw no convincing reasons for supporting the developments concerned.

(iii) If the Government increased the provision of housing units and brought in more population without implementing any measures to provide additional facilities in the district, it would be tantamount to depriving the existing residents of their rights. As such, he found it irresponsible to support the developments without careful thought, and had no choice but to object to them.

- 7 -

(iv) Comparing the development parameters of the developments in 2014 with those in 2018, he asked why the estimated population in the developments would decrease by 500, provided that the overall number of units remained unchanged. Was this because of the change in the type of housing to be built by the department (i.e., from public housing to other subsidised housing)?

(v) The area of the site earmarked for constructing a primary school premises was comparable to that of the housing development site at Chung Nga Road West. With the decline in the number of students, school places in Tai Po District were not fully taken. Moreover, as a site in nearby Area 9 in Tai Po had already been earmarked for constructing a school premises, he wondered whether it was necessary for the Government to earmark a large site at Chung Nga Road West for constructing a school premises. In addition, he also wondered whether the Government had overestimated the number of students and the demand for school premises. If it turned out that there were not enough students enrolling in the school, it would be a waste of the valuable land resources. He opined that changing the land use of the site and constructing social welfare facilities could effectively enhance the various services which were highly sought-after at present, such as elderly and rehabilitation services.

10. Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis’s comments were as follows:

(i) He had reservations about the public housing developments at Chung Nga Road

West.

(ii) He recognised the high demand for public housing in society, but opined that such demand should not override the worries of nearby residents about the captioned developments. He indicated that if the views of the existing residents were not fully reflected, it would be rather unfair to them as well as those moving into the new developments in future.

(iii) The HD had stated that there was private land within the developments at Chung Nga Road West, which meant that the Government could build public housing by acquiring private land without having to waste time on the “Grand debate on land supply”. He opined that the Government could increase public housing supply by following this direction first.

(iv) The traffic problem in Tai Po District persisted, and traffic congestion on Tolo Highway had even become commonplace. Upon the completion of the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, there would be an additional 20 000 people in the district. Together with the developments at Chung Nga Road West, they would surely give rise to more serious traffic congestion. Therefore, he opined that the Government should monitor the situation at this juncture before dealing with the developments at Chung Nga Road West at the next stage.

- 8 -

(v) There was traffic congestion on Chung Nga Road, but it was less serious than that on Nam Wan Road. He pointed out that all public buses and taxis travelling between Tai Po Market MTR Station and Fu Heng Estate, Tai Po Centre, Tai Yuen Estate, Fu Shin Estate, Kwong Fuk Estate, etc., would travel past Nam Wan Road. He enquired whether the Government had considered ways to relieve traffic congestion on Nam Wan Road and deal with the traffic condition experienced by vehicles running between the northern and southern parts of Tai Po. He opined that if traffic congestion could not be resolved, it would be difficult for the residents to go to work or go to school after they had moved into the housing developments.

(vi) Regarding transport facilities, the proposed public transport terminus in Area 9 in Tai Po consisted of two bus access roads and one minibus access road for setting up bus stops and minibus stops. However, such facilities were inadequate for the residents in the entire community and Fu Heng Estate. It was therefore suggested that more bus stops or minibus stops should be set up below the ground level of other proposed facilities in the developments so as to meet the demand.

(vii) There were only some 30 parking spaces in the developments at Chung Nga Road West, which were definitely not enough to cope with the current demand of local residents, not to mention the future situation when residents started moving into the new housing developments. He understood that the HD was not responsible for the parking spaces outside the developments. However, if the department would like the TPDC to support the developments, he hoped that the Government would conduct inter-departmental consultation. In particular, as housing and transport issues were under the purview of the same policy bureau, the bureau should definitely review altogether whether the parking spaces surrounding the developments were adequate. He had earlier suggested the bureau build an underground carpark beneath Chung Nga Road West or the school site in Area 9 in Tai Po to provide parking spaces for private or heavy vehicles.

(viii) He was concerned about the insufficient retail and catering facilities. He knew that there were a small number of retail facilities in the developments at Chung Nga Road West and Area 9 in Tai Po, but there was no full-scale wet market to cater for the needs of the local residents.

(ix) He was perplexed by the fact that the HD did not provide any markets for public housing developments in recent years. For example, Ching Ho Estate and Cheung Lung Wai Estate in North District had more than 7 000 and 2 000 flats respectively, but the department did not provide any markets for the residents, who could only rely on supermarkets for their daily necessities. He indicated that as the problem had already arisen in the housing estates in North District, he could not understand why the department still made the same mistake and replicated the problem in the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and Chung Nga Road West.

- 9 -

(x) Were there enough primary school students in Tai Po District to support the construction of two primary schools with 36 and 30 classrooms respectively? As some of the schools in Tai Po District were facing the risk of under-enrolment, was it appropriate to earmark sites in the captioned developments for constructing school premises, as far as optimising the use of land was concerned? He said that the site concerned had to be re-planned by, for example, building an underground carpark with hundreds of parking spaces below the ground level of the site, setting up a public transport interchange on the ground level to accommodate bus stops for various bus routes, and providing various social welfare facilities and elderly services on the lower floors and higher floors respectively of the building, etc. He opined that this was a mutually inclusive solution which could not only meet the long-term demand of Tai Po residents for community facilities, but also secure support for the developments.

11. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai’s comments were as follows:

(i) With a growing population in Tai Po District, the Government had to put in place various facilities and measures in advance, such as those for transport.

(ii) As illegal parking had become a very serious problem on Chung Nga Road, how would the Government deal with the situation after the completion of the new housing estates? The HD had stated that it would provide 28 parking spaces in the developments at Chung Nga Road West, which he believed could not cope with the demand. He and several Members had earlier proposed building an underground carpark in the developments to resolve the problem of insufficient parking spaces in Tai Po District, but the Government did not respond to their proposal directly. He opined that the problem could never be resolved if the departments kept passing the buck to each other.

(iii) He was concerned about the lack of wet markets in these large housing estates (namely the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West). He indicated that while the HD had stated that various retail facilities would be set up there in future, the relevant information had not been available yet. Meanwhile, he was disappointed with the department as it had given no account of such details as the areas of shops and the types of products to be sold / services to be delivered, etc.

(iv) One of the reasons for the residents of Fu Heng Estate to raise objection was that the Government did not provide wet markets or shopping centres in the new housing estates, thus increasing the burden on the existing facilities in Fu Heng Estate in an indirect manner.

(v) The Government should formulate plans as regards transport facilities, such as the provision of public transport interchanges, etc., for the captioned developments as

- 10 -

early as possible. Citing Shui Chuen O Estate as an example, he indicated that many transport-related problems gradually emerged only after the completion of the housing estate. He hoped that the Government would do a better planning job to prevent the recurrence of similar problems.

12. Mr. YAM Man-chuen’s comments were as follows:

(i) The residents in the northern part of Tai Po had long been faced with the problem of

inadequate transport facilities, community facilities and hospital services.

(ii) He stressed that he was not against the provision of additional housing without a reason. He indicated that he would certainly show his support if the provision of housing could improve the lives of and benefit the local residents. However, with regard to the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West, he criticised the Government for completely overlooking the quality of life of the nearby residents and the new population in future. This situation was far from ideal.

(iii) As the estimated population in the developments at Chung Nga Road West was as many as 2 900, a mere 28 parking spaces was seriously inadequate. On the other hand, most of the illegally parked vehicles on Chung Nga Road were medium and large vehicles. However, apart from Tai Po Industrial Estate, there was virtually nowhere else in the district for these vehicles to park. Owing to construction works, these illegally parked vehicles had relocated to Ting Lai Road or even the Tai Po Tau area. He opined that if the Government could not meet the residents’ demands, he expected that the future residents would not be able to use the services and facilities they deserved either, and it was therefore not advisable to provide additional housing.

(iv) The construction of new housing required the support of nearby residents. To secure the support of the existing residents, the Government had to fulfil its earlier promises, including providing feeder bus service for the residents, resolving the shortage of community facilities (such as libraries), etc.

(v) He was concerned about the issues concerning retail facilities. He indicated that there was only Fu Heng Shopping Centre, which offered a limited selection of shops, in Fu Heng Estate. Most of the residents doing grocery shopping would rather go to Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Wo or Tai Po Hui Market. The developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West would bring in an additional population of over 20 000, but there were only few shops and no markets. As such, future residents would have to go to Fu Heng Estate to do the shopping. This was no different from taking away some of the resources available to the residents at Fu Heng Estate, who therefore raised objection.

- 11 -

(vi) He stressed that it was very important to consider how to plan from the residents’ perspective. He hoped that the Government could draw on the experience and learn from the situation in Shui Chuen O Estate and Ching Ho Estate, as well as review the captioned housing developments, so as to prevent any irreversible and harmful consequences due to planning mistakes which would be taken by the residents eventually.

(vii) Unless the Government could meet the demands put forward earlier by the residents regarding the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West, he would oppose the housing developments at Chung Nga Road West.

13. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu’s comments were as follows:

(i) In the previous term of the TPDC, the EHWC had endorsed the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East, but had reservations about the developments at Chung Nga Road West.

(ii) There were nearly 5 000 units in the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East. Looking at the situation in all districts in Hong Kong, the TPDC strongly supported the Government in the construction of public housing. It had also put forward many views to the Government as regards the surrounding environment, district facilities, classroom ratios in the school, etc. However, as the discussion paper focused more on explaining the later stage of the developments, it could easily mislead members of the public who were waiting for public housing and hoping for a housing unit in the same district. Moreover, it was also unfair to Tai Po District if members of the public had all their hopes rested on the public housing developments in Tai Po District.

(iii) She had earlier proposed using the school site in Area 9, Tai Po for the construction of housing, and estimated that two more blocks could be constructed. While the Government eventually retained the school site, it had constructed an infill public housing block about 40-storey high on Chung Nga Road West. This move was far from ideal. She considered it inappropriate to build a single public housing block in the developments at Chung Nga Road West, and thus unnecessary to push for detailed discussion about the peripheral facilities in the developments.

(iv) Opposite to the developments at Chung Nga Road West was Chung Nga Court, a subsidised housing under the Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”). She hoped that the departmental representatives could put themselves into others’ shoes and understand how the residents in Chung Nga Court did not want the Government to build public housing near their homes. Therefore, she suggested the Government build housing of the same level as Chung Nga Court at the site concerned. In addition, she indicated that the current planning there was so poor that it was not

- 12 -

conducive to community management.

(v) In view of the insufficient number of primary school students in Tai Po District, if the Government was to build schools in the developments at Chung Nga Road West, more cross-boundary students would be attracted to go to school in Tai Po District. This would give rise to issues concerning the infrastructure. For example, students who felt sick would have to use the accident and emergency room, the paediatric ward, etc., in the hospital. She specifically suggested the Government resume the school site in the developments at Chung Nga Road West and change the public housing developments into other types of subsided housing (such as HOS flats, etc.) to benefit the residents in Tai Po District.

14. Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick’s comments were as follows:

(i) At a meeting with the HD’s staff to discuss the captioned issue as early as end-June

2018, he had expressed his views which were similar to those of other Members. However, the discussion paper submitted by the department today was exactly the same as the one used at that earlier meeting, showing that the department had not considered the views collected during the consultation.

(ii) If the school site in the developments was not endorsed, the HD should optimise the use of that site. For example, it might consider Members’ proposal to use the site for building community facilities, carparks, markets and so on, so that the nearby residents could use these facilities, and that they could receive the relevant services without having to go to other districts. He opined that this could not only meet the residents’ demand, but also ease the pressure on traffic as fewer residents would have to travel to other districts.

(iii) There was a lack of parking spaces in the vicinity of the developments at Chung Nga Road West. The Government’s provision of only 28 parking spaces in a 39-storey building was obviously not enough to resolve the parking problem of the residents.

(iv) He did not want to oppose the captioned public housing developments, but reiterated that the HD should seriously consider changing the use of the school site to meet the residents’ needs and secure stakeholders’ support for the developments.

15. Mr. LAU Yung-wai’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He opined that the crux of the problem was the lack of infrastructure.

(ii) According to the figures provided by the EDB, 2018 was the year when the Primary One intake reached its peak, after which the number would decline year after year. He did not understand why the bureau had to earmark sites in the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and Chung Nga Road West for the construction of two new school

- 13 -

premises with 36 and 30 classrooms respectively. Furthermore, as the school premises in Tai Yuen Estate had been re-opened as a time-limited school, namely NTWJWA Christian Remembrance of Grace Primary School, there would be a number of new schools in the district at the same time. Consequently, some other existing schools might be closed because of under-enrolment, leading to a vicious cycle. He enquired the EDB about the Primary One intake for 2026 and the years after, and whether it had enough justifications for the construction of new school premises.

(iii) In view of the large area of the site earmarked for the construction of schools, as well as the limited space in town centre, the department should optimise and change the use of the site, such as constructing an underground carpark, etc. He indicated that the HD’s plan in 2018 comprised only two more parking spaces than the plan in 2014, and opined that the standards stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”) could not meet the actual needs. He indicated that the number of vehicles would keep increasing before the expected completion of the developments in 2026. As such, he criticised the standards in the HKPSG for being out of date, and it would be illogical to set the number of parking spaces in future on the basis of these standards. In this connection, he suggested building a large-scale underground carpark at the site concerned to provide more parking spaces.

(iv) Apart from the underground carpark, he suggested setting up a public transport interchange on the ground level. On the upper floors, there would be retail shops, a wet market and even a community hall, etc. He indicated that almost all public housing estates had a community hall, but this newly developed housing estate only had one plaza / ball court for residents’ congregation but no community hall. Residents who needed an indoor area for congregation had to go to Fu Heng Estate, but would nevertheless take away some of the resources available to the existing residents.

(v) He opined that the bureau should consider the problems of the entire community in a comprehensive manner, and try to think out-of-the-box to resolve the problems of these new developments altogether. For example, the supply of parking spaces in Tai Po District or even throughout Hong Kong fell short of the demand. The bureau should not be constrained by the inherent limitations of the HKPSG and the like, but instead build large-scale carparks in these new developments to resolve the problems faced by the entire community.

(vi) Many members of the public were disappointed when they had been allocated public housing units in remote areas such as Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai, etc., as the infrastructure there was inadequate. They felt as if they were “Pioneers”. He indicated that compared with decades ago, the situation nowadays was different as the Government was not developing satellite towns. If the new developments were adjacent to other housing estates, the Government should think more carefully about

- 14 -

the infrastructure in the vicinity so as to provide the residents with a favourable environment to “live” in rather than to “survive”.

(vii) He enquired whether the Plan D could relax the requirements of the HKPSG or help improve the community in other ways.

16. Dr. LAU Chee-sing’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He opined that the provision of only about 30 parking spaces were really not enough for such large-scale developments. However, he noticed that a triangular site, which was located between Chung Nga Road and the new road leading to the burial grounds, had not been planned for any specific use. As the site covered a rather large area, he suggested the Government consider providing parking spaces there for the nearby residents.

(ii) When the developments at Chung Nga Road West were being discussed at the LegCo some years ago, some Members were concerned about whether the existing road facilities could accommodate the traffic burden that would came along with the developments. Back then, the Government stated that it would take relevant follow-up actions, but the TPDC had received no such information so far.

(iii) Although not many parking spaces would be provided in the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and Chung Nga Road West, as many residents had to go to work or go to school after moving in, many public transport and school buses were expected to enter the areas. Therefore, he enquired whether the TD had any plans to widen the section of Chung Nga Road between Area 9 in Tai Po and Ting Kok Road. He added that both sides of the afore-mentioned road section were fully parked with vehicles at present, and the future population growth would further increase the demand for road spaces. As Chuen On Road Garden was at the side of that road section, and spaces could be freed up for the Government to widen Chung Nga Road to increase traffic flow, he hoped that the TD could give a response in this regard.

17. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) He had criticised the HKPSG on many occasions for being impractical and failing to meet local needs. However, every government department had to comply with such unrealistic standards while working on new developments, and this practice was far from ideal. He hoped that the department responsible for the HKPSG would review the problems and inform the department head of the situation.

(ii) When the Government was planning the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, many proposals had already been put forward. One of them was to construct a new road connecting Area 9 in Tai Po with Fung Yuen so that vehicles could enter Tolo

- 15 -

Highway directly, with a view to easing the traffic on Nam Wan Road. However, the Government had rejected the proposal for various reasons. If the Government did not even consider this proposal, he would have no incentives to support the developments at Chung Nga Road West. He opined that as long as the Government was determined to resolve the problems, no problems were unresolvable.

(iii) As shown in the assessment on the traffic on Nam Wan Road conducted by the Government earlier, Nam Wan Road was able to accommodate the increased population arising from the new developments. However, as a TPDC Member and resident in Tai Po District, he could not see how Nam Wan Road could accommodate the increased traffic flow, especially in case of accidents. He indicated that any traffic accidents, whether they took place on Tolo Highway, Nam Wan Road, Kwong Fuk Road, Tai Wo Road or other major roads in the district, would lead to serious traffic congestion or even paralyse the traffic between Fu Heng and Tai Po Market. He enquired how the Government would deal with the situation.

(iv) The Government had to clearly show the residents the benefits of the housing developments, telling them, for example, what measures had been taken by the Government to reduce the impacts of the developments on them, and what new facilities would be provided in future, such as shopping centres, markets, large-scale public transport interchanges, etc. Otherwise, it would be difficult to secure the support of residents and Members.

(v) A newly completed housing estate in Shek Kip Mei did not have a community hall either, but instead had a complex consisting of various social welfare facilities with a scale even larger than a neighbourhood community centre. He wondered why the Government could not provide the same type of facilities in the developments in Tai Po, and enquired whether it was because the housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West were so scattered that they could not be considered as a whole. He opined that if there were no additional facilities, bringing more population into the district would be tantamount to taking away some of the resources available to the residents in Fu Heng Estate, and it was therefore not difficult to understand why the residents were against the developments.

(vi) The redevelopment of Tai Yuen Estate, including the rehousing of the residents in the estate, might take several years. However, there were virtually no vacant flats in Tai Po District which were of the same scale as those of Tai Yuen Estate for rehousing the residents. Meanwhile, the Plan D and the HD did not deal with the developments in Area 9, Tai Po and the redevelopment of Tai Yuen Estate altogether. By merely focusing on the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West, the Government well and truly lacked long-term vision.

- 16 -

(vii) Only when the Government was willing to make changes and satisfy the above-mentioned requirements would he consider supporting the developments at Chung Nga Road West.

18. Mr. YU Chi-wing, Ken’s comments were as follows:

(i) He opined that when the HD persuaded Members to support the housing developments, it had to discuss the distribution of facilities on the periphery of the developments in a comprehensive manner, rather than consider each ancillary facility such as parking spaces, transport and shopping centres, etc., one by one.

(ii) With a large number of flats in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West, the population would also increase accordingly. He opined that the school site should be used for constructing an integrated service centre to cope with the demand for infrastructure among the residents in and around Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court so that their resources would not be taken away.

(iii) When Po Heung Estate was under planning years ago, it was initially supposed to provide only about 30 parking spaces. However, the Government eventually managed to provide about 100 parking spaces there, which showed that it had the capacity to provide more parking spaces. He hoped that the Government could meet the needs of the community.

19. Mr. LEE Siu-man indicated that the junction between Nam Wan Road and Ting Kok Road was the main access for ambulances entering or leaving Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital (“Nethersole Hospital”). As the housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West would substantially increase population and traffic flow, he believed that the road traffic would be greatly affected. He enquired if the Government had considered whether the housing developments concerned would hinder the emergency rescue services. 20. Ms. Anissa WONG responded as follows:

(i) Turning the school site into social welfare facilities, carparks, complexes and so on

might involve changes in the planned use of the site. The HD would have to study the feasibility of the proposal jointly with the relevant departments including the Plan D and the EDB, etc.

(ii) The developments at Chung Nga Road East provided various social welfare facilities, including the Integrated Support Service for Persons with Severe Physical Disabilities, a child care centre, an early education and training centre, a day care centre for the elderly, and a residential care home for the elderly. Meanwhile, there was also a neighbourhood elderly centre and two kindergartens in the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po.

- 17 -

(iii) The proposed number of units remained unchanged while the anticipated population decreased because there were changes in the flat combination of one / two-person units, two / three-person units and three / four-person units, and thus the anticipated population decreased accordingly.

(iv) As there was already a public transport interchange in the developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, the HD would study with the TD whether it was necessary to set up another public transport interchange in the developments at Chung Nga Road West.

(v) The developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East provided retail facilities that covered an area of over 5 000 square metres. In Area 9 in Tai Po, there were supermarkets, eight to ten ground floor shops selling fresh food, frozen meat shops, grocery stores, convenience stores, bakeries, fast food restaurants, Chinese restaurants, chain stores, pharmacies, clinics, household appliance stores, electrical appliance stores, barber shops, etc. In addition, the developments in Chung Nga Road East also had several shops such as fast food restaurants, convenience stores, snacks shops, barber shops, etc.

(vi) The developments in Chung Nga Road West currently provided rental housing. Regarding Members’ proposal concerning the conversion to HOS flats, she would relay the views to the department to review whether the proposal was feasible.

(vii) She would inform the department of the views about the redevelopment of Tai Yuen Estate.

(viii) Regarding Members’ proposal to provide additional parking spaces on the idle site between Chung Nga Road and the new road leading to the burial grounds, she put forward a number of considerations, including (1) an ancient tree was present there; (2) as part of the site was beyond the planned area for public housing, it would be necessary to carry out a separate study with the Plan D as to whether the proposal to provide more parking spaces was feasible; and (3) the site, which was long and rather narrow, would pose certain difficulties to parking. However, she indicated that the department would still study whether the proposal was feasible.

21. Ms. WONG Fung-ping’s comments were as follows:

(i) Currently, there were 18 public primary schools in Tai Po District which operated a

total of 78 Primary One classes in the 2017/18 school year. In recent years, the primary schools in Tai Po District had to exercise flexibility to increase temporarily the number of students allocated per class. Therefore, there was no under-enrolment in Primary One classes.

(ii) The EDB expected that the school-age population in Tai Po District would continue to increase. Therefore, it was necessary to earmark enough school sites to meet the planning needs arising from future population development.

- 18 -

(iii) According to the prevailing mechanism, the bureau would earmark sites for the construction of schools having regard to population and social service needs, so as to align with the development of the population and the relevant public housing in the district; to meet the community’s demand for various education services and support the relevant policies, which included addressing the need for the reprovisioning of existing schools; to meet the demand for schools places in the district; and to satisfy the needs of Hong Kong’s school system in terms of diversified development, etc.

(iv) The school sites earmarked could not only meet the planning needs arising from the future population development, but also be used for reprovisioning the ill-equipped schools. The bureau would closely monitor the actual circumstances in the district and make good use of the sites to meet education needs.

22. Mr. Kenny LAU said that the relevant policy bureaux or departments were responsible for the provision, standard and changes of community facilities as stipulated in the HKPSG. The Plan D assumed a co-ordinating role only. For example, Members could enquire the Transport and Housing Bureau or the TD about the insufficient parking spaces and the revision of the standards. 23. Mr. CHEUNG Wai-fung responded as follows:

(i) The CEDD would carry out a number of road improvement works in the vicinity of Chung Nga Road, including improving the junction off Tai Po Hospital near Chung Nga Road, Chuen On Road and the access road in Area 9 in Tai Po; improving the junction off Nethersole Hospital near Chung Nga Road and Chuen On Road; and reprovisioning the junction at Chung Nga Road leading to Pinehill Village.

(ii) As regards the traffic capacity of the junction near the developments concerned, according to the Traffic Impact Assessment Report of the CEDD, it was expected that the additional traffic flow would become manageable upon the completion of the works mentioned in paragraph (i) above. After the residents had moved into the housing estates concerned, the TD would also closely monitor the situation.

24. Mr. LEE Ka-ho responded as follows:

(i) The CEDD had earlier commissioned a consultant to conduct the Traffic Impact

Assessment on the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West.

(ii) The CEDD would widen the northern and southern junctions between Chung Nga Road and Chuen On Road, as well as the junction between Area 9 in Tai Po and Chuen On Road. The CEDD and the HD were carrying out the road improvement works concerned. According to the report by the consultant, the traffic flow arising

- 19 -

from the developments would become manageable upon the completion of the works.

(iii) The CEDD noted the change to the main access to the developments at Chung Nga Road West (i.e., moving from the east of the developments at Chung Nga Road West to its west). The CEDD would work with the HD and the TD to review the impacts of the change. He believed that there would not be any significant impact on traffic if the change in the developments was minimal.

25. The Chairman’s comments were as follows:

(i) A number of Members had expressed their views clearly, but the departments

concerned failed to respond to their demands. Moreover, it was not desirable to provide additional units indiscriminately while affecting the daily life of nearby residents.

(ii) Area 9 in Tai Po, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West would provide about 8 000 units in total, but the existing infrastructure failed to meet the demand.

(iii) Generally speaking, there were insufficient parking spaces in Tai Po District. He opined that using the primary school site to construct a multi-storey carpark could benefit the entire Tai Po District. Taking Po Heung Estate as an example, Members at that time had asked the Government to provide 200 additional parking spaces, but the Government ended up providing only 100 more. He indicated that many vehicles were currently waiting outside the carpark at Po Heung Estate, whereas the vehicles which had not yet found a parking space continued to run on the road, thus putting more burden on traffic. This proved that Members were able to see through the problem and their comments were to the point.

(iv) He asked the HD and relevant departments to solicit and consider Members’ demands, and seek the EHWC’s views on the developments at Chung Nga Road West in due course.

26. Apart from the traffic improvement works introduced earlier by the TD and the CEDD, Dr. LAU Chee-sing enquired whether the Government would consider using part of Chuen On Road Garden to widen Chung Nga Road (e.g., from four lanes to six) so as to increase the traffic capacity of the road section concerned.

27. Mr. Ray TANG said that for the road widening works on Chung Nga Road near the junction of Chuen On Road, part of the garden would be used to widen a section of the road so as to increase traffic capacity. 28. Mr. LAU Yung-wai was surprised by the EDB’ remarks about the continuous growth of the school-age population in Tai Po District in future. He indicated that according to the report

- 20 -

submitted by the EDB two months earlier, 2018 was the year when the Primary One intake reached its peak at 65 700. However, it would go down to 55 700 in 2019, and remain more or less the same as the figure in 2019 in the following years. He opined that as the number of school-age children decreased, it was not necessary to earmark two school sites in the captioned developments. In this connection, he asked the bureau to provide figures of the anticipated Primary One intake in Tai Po District from 2019 to 2026 or even the subsequent years, and explain why the number of school-age children would decrease everywhere in Hong Kong but increase only in Tai Po District. He also asked the bureau about the justifications for earmarking the two school sites. 29. Ms. WONG Fung-ping said that the information concerned could not be provided at the meeting. She would relay Members’ views to her colleagues in the department for follow-up actions. According to the projections of the planned population, it was necessary for the bureau to earmark school facilities in Tai Po District. 30. Mr. YAM Man-chuen opined that many views of Members were based on the fact that the school sites could be converted to other uses. Therefore, he urged the EDB to inform the EHWC at the next meeting whether the school sites had to be retained and whether the decision was final. If yes, there would be no need for further discussion. 31. Regarding the views put forward by Members, Mr. AU Chun-wah urged the relevant departments to review thoroughly what changes could be made to the developments before carrying out another consultation. In addition, he asked various departmental representatives to prepare adequate information for the next consultation and, if necessary, invite relevant colleagues to attend the meeting and respond to Members’ questions. 32. The Chairman stated that Members had made their demands and asked the departments concerned to follow up. If there were any changes to the developments, another consultation with the EHWC would be required.

III. Second Phase of Anti-rodent Campaign 2018 in Tai Po District

(TPDC Paper No. EHW 32/2018) 33. Mr. MA Hon-chiu introduced the captioned paper. 34. Mr. AU Chun-wah indicated that this was the second phase of anti-rodent campaign in 2018 but it was not effective. As the rodent problem was still very serious on the streets and in the housing estates in Tai Po District, he enquired the FEHD and the HD what feasible measures could be taken to get rid of rodents more effectively.

- 21 -

35. Mr. LO Hiu-fung’s comments were as follows:

(i) He opined that the rodent and mosquito problems could not be eradicated, and it would be more appropriate for the campaign to be re-named as “Rodent Prevention Campaign”.

(ii) Although the FEHD’s staff had been working hard on their anti-rodent and anti-mosquito efforts, the results were not noticeable. For example, there were still rodents in the flower beds in the vicinity of Kam Shek New Village. He hoped that the department could step up its prevention efforts.

(iii) In addition to the figures in the regular reports, he hoped that the FEHD could describe more specifically the effectiveness of its anti-rodent efforts. Taking this report as an example, he noted that while the department had set up a total of 4 853 rodent cage traps, he would like to know how many rodents the department had captured using these traps. In addition, he also noted that while the department had collected 210 dead rodents, he would like to know how many operations had been carried out in total until the 210 dead rodents were collected.

(iv) He opined that it was meaningless for the department to report on the number of rat holes it had filled as the rodents could dig other rat holes at any time.

36. Mr. Francis YAM indicated that the FEHD was currently tackling the rodent problem mainly by means of publicity, education or anti-rodent campaigns. He enquired how the department would cope with the rodent problem found in such places as private premises, housing estates, private shopping centres or markets, etc., and whether it would take law enforcement actions. He added that although the FEHD and the LCSD had been making efforts to kill rodents in the areas under their purview, if rodent or pest problems were found on private premises, it would give members of the public an impression that such problems still existed in society. Therefore, he would like to know the numbers of law enforcement actions taken and prosecutions initiated.

37. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded as follows:

(i) As restaurant licences were issued by the FEHD, it could initiate prosecutions in the

event of rodent problem. If rodent problem was found on private premises, the department would provide them with information to promote the correct ways of handling rubbish, so as to prevent rodent problem.

(ii) The department had been submitting discussion papers according to established practice. However, it would review the content of the papers and make necessary improvements based on Members’ views.

(iii) The department would compare the outcomes of its weekly anti-rodent operations so as to decide on the locations for the next phase of anti-rodent operations. The locations set out in Annex II of the discussion paper were places with more serious

- 22 -

rodent problem. In addition, the department would also keep in view whether it was necessary to change the locations of the operations.

38. The Chairman suggested Members exchange their contact details with Mr. MA so that the hygiene problem in the district could be addressed instantly. He said that the rodent problem in some parts of the district had become less serious, and hoped that the department would keep up with the good work. 39. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) The HD would step up the cleaning efforts in places with serious rodent and mosquito problems, and clear rubbish more frequently to prevent its accumulation. In the event of extremely serious cases, the department would also seek professional anti-rodent and anti-mosquito advice from the FEHD.

(ii) Prevention of rodents and mosquitoes in HOS estates was jointly managed by the owners’ corporations and the property management companies of the housing estates. Therefore, the department would convene management committee meetings on a regular basis to remind the owners’ corporations, property management companies, cleansing contractors and so on to do their job properly and enhance co-operation with each other to achieve better efficiency.

(iii) The department collaborated with the FEHD to prevent rubbish and domestic waste from piling up at the refuse depots or storage areas of public housing estates, thus affecting environmental hygiene. The department would also clear stagnant water to prevent mosquito proliferation.

(iv) Through organising activities, the department would also convey the message of maintaining home hygiene to the residents in public housing estates.

40. Mr. LEE Siu-man enquired whether the department could kill rodents by using alternative methods such as glue traps, in addition to rodent cage traps and poisonous baits. 41. Mr. LAU Yung-wai opined that the HD should not focus its anti-rodent efforts on markets only, as other places such as Tai Wo Neighbourhood Community Centre were also faced with serious rodent problem. He asked the department to take notice and take follow-up actions. 42. Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement enquired whether Kwong Fuk Estate was included as one of the locations in the second phase of anti-rodent campaign.

43. Mr. MA Hon-chiu said that from an animal welfare point of view, glue trap was a cruel way to kill rodents, and therefore the department had set up rodent cage traps as an alternative. In addition, he would enquire the relevant colleagues about the situation in Kwong Fuk Estate and

- 23 -

reply to the Members concerned after the meeting. 44. Mr. LEE Siu-man opined that the department’s duty was to kill the rodents, which had nothing to do with animal welfare. He would like the department to give an explanation.

45. Mr. MA Hon-chiu said that the department would review the feasibility of killing rodents with glue traps and would report to the EHWC at the next meeting.

46. The Chairman was also concerned about whether the method adopted by the FEHD to kill rodents was correct, and hoped that the department would follow up on Members’ views and make improvement.

IV. Reports by various departments concerned regarding the street management and

environmental hygiene issues in Tai Po District (TPDC Paper No. EHW 33/2018)

47. Mr. MA Hon-chiu introduced the captioned paper.

48. In addition to the regular reports by the FEHD, the Chairman asked the various departments concerned to report on the law enforcement or follow-up actions taken in Lane Square in Tai Po, particularly at the three hygiene and obstruction blackspots (namely the backdoor at PARKnSHOP in Lane Square in Tai Po, the motorcycle parking spaces in Heung Sze Wui Square, and the fire gate on Tai Kwong Lane), in the past two months.

49. The reports of the government departments were summarised as follows:

(i) After the inter-departmental joint operation on 8 May 2018, the TPDO co-ordinated

another joint operation on 13 June in Lane Square in Tai Po, including Tai Kwong Lane, Tai Wing Lane, Tai Ming Lane, Kwong Fuk Lane and Heung Sze Wui Square, with the participation of the TPDO, the FEHD, the HKPF, the TPDLO, the Fire Services Department (“FSD”), the HyD and the BD. The FSD dispatched fire engines to the scene and found that a scaffold being erected on Tai Wing Lane was obstructing the access of fire engines, and had immediately asked the scaffolders at the scene to deal with the situation. In addition, regarding the noise problem from some shops in Lane Square in Tai Po as suggested by some Members at the previous meeting, the TPDO had invited the EPD to attend the inter-departmental meeting held in June 2018 to follow up on and understand the law enforcement actions taken by the department. The EPD would participate in the inter-departmental joint operation in July.

- 24 -

(ii) The HKPF continued to take traffic enforcement actions in Lane Square in Tai Po and Heung Sze Wui Square, issuing 54, 45 and 5 fixed penalty tickets in May, June and July (as at 6 July) 2018 respectively at the said locations. In addition, the HKPF had also issued 37, 38 and 21 fixed penalty tickets respectively on Kwong Fuk Road during the said period.

(iii) During the inter-departmental joint operation on 13 June 2018, the TPDLO issued 3 statutory notices and warning letters to the shops in Lane Square in Tai Po for setting up immovable decking in public area.

(iv) In addition to the continuous participation in the inter-departmental joint operations, the HyD had also followed up on the environmental hygiene problem in other parts of Tai Po District as suggested by some Members at the previous meeting. The follow-up actions included clearing the vegetation on the footbridge at the Tai Po Centre bus terminus, the construction waste on On Po Lane, and the rubbish stuck in the gaps between paving blocks near Wong Siu Ching Clinic.

(v) During the inter-departmental joint operation on 13 June, the BD did not find any retractable canopies that required action. In addition, according to the BD’s records, the scaffold that was obstructing the access of fire engines on the day of operation was erected temporarily by the shop owner for executing the unauthorised signboard removal order issued by the BD. After being advised, the shop owner had adjusted the scaffold. Based on the recent observation by the BD’s staff, the scaffold concerned was not clearly obstructing the access roads.

(vi) The TD had earlier proposed removing two parking spaces for goods vehicles in Heung Sze Wui Square and had conducted district consultation on the proposal. As opposing views had been received, the department was considering revising the proposal, which were expected to finish within two weeks. After that, a district consultation would be carried out again as regards the new proposal.

(vii) Regarding the noise problem from the shops in Lane Square in Tai Po, the EPD had received a total of 13 complaints in the first half of 2018, of which 6 were received between May and June 2018. The complaints had been followed up and investigated. At present, two cases of suspected breaches in February 2018 were at the prosecution stage and court proceedings were expected to begin in mid-July. The EPD stated that the noise problem in Lane Square in Tai Po had been reduced since law enforcement actions were taken.

50. Mr. LI Kwok-ying said that he had reservations about the removal of the two parking spaces for goods vehicles in Heung Sze Wui Square, and hoped that the TD would make minor changes or relocate them somewhere else. Otherwise, the removal of the parking spaces would only result in more items being placed there.

- 25 -

51. At the meeting, Mr. AU Chun-wah displayed the photographs he had taken at different parts of Lane Square in Tai Po on the day of the meeting, so as to show the departmental representatives the problems of street hygiene and shop front extensions in the district. His comments were summarised as follows:

(i) Some shops ultimately closed down after being prosecuted by the EPD due to noise

problem. He stressed that he did not want these non-compliant shops to close down. However, as they could not exercise any self-control, the government departments had to take law enforcement actions using the powers they were vested with. Therefore, he suggested the EPD deal with the noise-making shops in Lane Square in Tai Po with reference to previous cases.

(ii) In May and June 2018, the FEHD initiated only 22 and 20 prosecutions respectively against illegal shop front extension in Lane Square in Tai Po, which was equivalent to an average of less than one prosecution per day. He opined that the department had neither stepped up its prosecution efforts nor done its best to conduct inspections. In particular, many fruit stores were used to placing fruits outside for sale, and this situation had never improved. If the department issued one penalty ticket per day, the projected number of prosecutions per month would be at least 30.

(iii) Although the vegetable stall opposite Tai Po Complex no longer placed items on the carriageway, it was still placing items on the pedestrian way. Therefore, he asked the FEHD to take follow-up actions.

(iv) There were also two hygiene blackspots at Jade Plaza, including (1) the flower shop and vegetable stall facing Tai Po Sports Association Li Fook Lam Indoor Sports Centre, where items such as trolleys and foam boxes were placed beside the flower beds; and (2) the fruit store facing McDonald’s and the bus stop, where items were often placed beside the railings near the telephone booth. However, the FEHD initiated only eight and one prosecutions in May and June 2018 respectively against illegal shop front extension at Jade Plaza. This showed that the department had neither increased the number of inspections nor initiated prosecutions. Therefore, he urged the department to take follow-up actions in a proactive manner.

(v) He noticed three fixed penalty tickets, one of which was issued in the morning of 9 July 2018 and the other two in the morning of 11 July 2018, on the windscreen of a goods vehicle which had long been parked in Heung Sze Wui Square. In his opinion, this proved that the goods vehicle had never left the said location from 9 to 11 July. He said that although the vehicle had been parked for more than 24 hours, the HKPF had not initiated any prosecution. Therefore, he urged the HKPF to follow up on the situation and initiate prosecution.

(vi) Some shops in Lane Square in Tai Po had constructed immovable concrete decking outside their shops. He urged the TPDLO to take follow-up actions.

- 26 -

(vii) The problem of items being placed at the backdoor of PARKnSHOP had persisted for a long time, but the departments concerned were still unable to come up with a feasible and effective solution. As some of the rubbish placed on the gutter might be washed down the sewer, the FEHD and the EPD should be responsible for following up on the issue and examining whether any shops had violated the law.

(viii) There was another goods vehicle on Tsing Yuen Street which had long been parked near a vegetable stall for loading and unloading. He asked the departments concerned to take follow-up actions.

(ix) Regarding the objections to the removal of the two parking spaces for goods vehicles in Heung Sze Wui Square as reported by the TD earlier, he had every reason to believe that the objections came from those with vested interests in these parking spaces, as the two goods vehicles had long been parked there and no one else could use the parking spaces. Therefore, the department had to consider carefully whether to accept the opposing views. As regards considering changes to the use of the parking spaces, the department also had to think twice. For example, if they were converted to parking spaces for private vehicles, it might allow the nearby garages to occupy the spaces for car-washing, which likewise would lead to the problem of prolonged occupation of parking spaces.

52. Mr. LAU Ka-yip said that the HKPF had prosecuted against vehicles which had been parked in non-parking spaces or occupying multiple parking spaces. It had issued seven, five and two penalty tickets respectively in each month from April to June 2018. As regards the prolonged parking of vehicles, the HKPF would further investigate the problem.

53. The Chairman enquired the TD about the details of the objections.

54. Mr. CHEUNG Wai-fung said that some suggested that the parking spaces for goods vehicles should be retained or changed to other uses. The department was considering various options, including (1) converting the parking spaces for goods vehicles to ones for private vehicles, and examining whether the nearby parking spaces for private vehicles could be converted conditionally to ones for goods vehicles; (2) removing the parking spaces for goods vehicles; and (3) converting whole-day parking spaces for goods vehicles to ones for night-time only. 55. The Chairman asked the TD to consult the DC Member of the constituency concerned after revising the proposal. Having witnessed the goods vehicles obstructing the parking of other private vehicles, he urged the HKPF and the TD to take follow-up actions in a proactive manner.

56. Mr. LAU Yung-wai’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The illegal shop front extension at Greenery Plaza, Chui Wo Lane, Kau Hui Chik

Street and Chui Lok Street was so serious that there were violations almost every

- 27 -

night. However, there were only a handful of prosecutions. He enquired whether the FEHD carried out on-site inspections during business hours only.

(ii) The situation on Mei Sun Lane was also deteriorating. He asked the department to report on the number of prosecutions against illegal shop front extension on Mei Sun Lane starting from the next meeting.

(iii) As there were many eateries at all the above locations, the shops’ rubbish or illegal shop front extension would cause nuisance to the residents. Therefore, he asked the FEHD to take follow-up actions in a proactive manner.

(iv) Construction waste had often been dumped on Chui Wo Lane. If the problem was not dealt with in a timely manner, others might follow suit and dump rubbish onto the pile of construction waste that would be as high as a mountain. He asked the EPD to step up its patrol and law enforcement efforts.

57. The Chairman asked the representatives of the FEHD and the EPD to exchange their contact details with Members so that the environmental sanitation problems they encountered in the district every day could be addressed promptly. He also hoped that the departments concerned could continue to improve the environment in the district.

58. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu’s comments were as follows:

(i) After the previous meeting, the HyD and its contractors had removed all cigarette

butts and rubbish in the gaps between paving blocks thoroughly, and the gaps were so clean that she highly commended their efforts.

(ii) Generally speaking, government departments would take follow-up actions in a proactive manner after receiving Members’ views. However, there was little civic awareness among the public that people often dumped cigarette butts everywhere. Therefore, she opined that the Tobacco Control Office under the Department of Health should also step up its law enforcement efforts. In addition, she asked the FEHD to enhance its publicity and education efforts by putting up more banners to remind members of the public not to dump cigarette butts everywhere, or they would be prosecuted.

(iii) The FEHD had earlier increased the number of street washing vehicles to improve street sanitation. However, she indicated that from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. before the cleaning started, there was still a lot of rubbish on the streets. In this connection, she enquired whether the department could deploy cleaners to clean the streets earlier starting from 6 a.m.

59. The Chairman hoped that Ms. WONG Pik-kiu would help relay the views to the relevant heads of bureaux / departments at the joint meeting of the DC Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the 18 districts, so as to increase the district resources to enhance the cleaning efforts.

- 28 -

60. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) Previously, the EHWC had written to the Director of Food and Environmental

Hygiene as well as the Director of Lands about the Management Scheme for the Display of Roadside Non-commercial Publicity Materials Implementation Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), and a reply had been received from the departments concerned. However, he found the replies unacceptable.

(ii) In the letter, the EHWC had stated clearly Members’ demands, which included relaxing the requirements for the display position of approval details, giving prior notice before removing publicity materials, lifting the restrictions on promoting fee paying non-profit-making activities, etc. He opined that many rules and regulations had already restricted the offices of DC Members from organising profit-making activities. Therefore, he could not understand why the department could not relax the restrictions on the display of non-commercial publicity materials.

(iii) According to the reply, the departments concerned had consulted the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) and considered it not possible to give prior notice before removing the non-compliant publicity materials. However, he stressed that as the problems involving publicity materials were trivial (such as minor mistakes in the approval details, etc.), the law enforcement departments should exercise discretion in dealing with the matter. In addition, the Lands D stated in the reply that it was only responsible for ascertaining whether the publicity materials that had been put up were unauthorised or non-compliant with the requirements of the Guidelines, whereas the removal of non-compliant publicity materials were arranged by the FEHD. He opined that as it was the Lands D’s duties to manage and approve the publicity materials of DC Members and to determine whether they complied with the requirements of the Guidelines, whereas the FEHD took actions based on the Lands D’s judgements, discretion should also be exercised by the Lands D. However, having expressed his views on this issue on many occasions, he was not pleased that the department had not taken any follow-up actions.

(iv) As DC Members and their offices seldom co-organised activities with the DC, it was impractical for the Lands D to “relax” the requirements.

(v) He was disappointed that none of the departments relating to street management was willing to attend the meeting to listen to Members’ views, and opined that none of the views put forward by Members at the meeting would mean anything at all.

(vi) The FEHD often explained to him that it would not remove any non-compliant publicity materials until complaints had been received. He, however, indicated that a DC Member was once selling flags for a fund-raising activity, and his pull-up banner was removed by the department as soon as he was away from where he was for just a moment. He had also put up publicity materials on a Saturday morning,

- 29 -

but they were removed by the department on the same day. He criticised the department for taking different approaches to handling the publicity materials of DC Members and those for commercial purposes. While some commercial publicity materials remained untouched after being put up for two or three weeks, non-commercial publicity materials of DC Members were quickly removed. It was totally unfair.

61. Mr. CHAN Wing-yiu, Ronald responded as follows:

(i) The Guidelines, applicable everywhere in Hong Kong, were formulated after

prolonged consultation and amendment. The Lands D would remain impartial and execute the requirements of the Guidelines in Hong Kong using the same criteria.

(ii) According to the Guidelines, the department was not vested with the powers to exercise discretion to deal with DC Members’ non-compliant publicity materials.

(iii) The department understood that frontline staff might run into difficulties when dealing with non-compliant publicity materials. Therefore, it was currently collecting their views and reviewing the relevant internal guidelines.

62. Mr. MA Hon-chiu said that regarding the situation mentioned earlier by Mr. AU Chun-wah, while he could not verify immediately whether the frontline staff took actions only after complaints had been received, he believed that it was actually the case. He had to find out more about the situation before confirming whether it was. He reiterated that the FEHD would remain impartial in taking law enforcement actions regardless of whether the publicity materials were commercial or not, and would initiate prosecution in case of any breaches.

63. The Chairman said that the EHWC had earlier written to the departments concerned at the request of Members, and the Guidelines and the departments’ replies were applicable everywhere in Hong Kong. On the other hand, he pointed out that as the primary duty of DC Members was to serve the community, he asked the FEHD and the TPDLO to be more considerate of their work and to deal with all publicity materials in the same way.

64. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) He welcomed the Lands D to collect views from frontline staff, but was at the same

time disappointed that the department (including the FEHD) did not listen to the views of the users (including DC Members).

(ii) He opined that the example he had just cited provided evidence against the FEHD’s claim that no follow-up actions would be taken until complaints had been received.

(iii) It did not make sense that the FEHD removed only 14 non-compliant commercial banners in Tai Po District in May and June 2018. If the department opined that

- 30 -

there was not enough information on the banners to verify the identities of the owners, he suggested the department consult the DoJ or explore the possibility of addressing the problem by amending the legislation.

(iv) Having compared the fees claimed by the department for the removal of commercial and non-commercial publicity materials, he reiterated that the approaches taken by the department were unfair. He also opined that it was unreasonable to give better treatment to commercial publicity materials but crack down on non-commercial ones.

(v) He called on the FEHD to step up its efforts to remove the bicycles at the railings or the marketing materials of broadband service providers, especially those in the Kwong Fuk Road area. If necessary, he could inspect the situation in the district with the FEHD.

(vi) The HD collected rubbish from the major refuse collection points of its housing estates at rather long intervals. Very often, clearing work would be carried out only when there was a big pile of rubbish, which could easily give rise to rodent problem. Therefore, he asked the FEHD to help clear the rubbish more frequently.

V. Reports by various departments concerned regarding the clearing of rubbish and sludge in Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River in Tai Po (TPDC Paper No. EHW 34/2018)

65. The Chairman welcomed all departmental representatives to attend the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

66. At the meeting, representatives of the CEDD, the FEHD, the EPD, the MD and the DSD reported on the captioned paper one by one and introduced the clearing of rubbish and sludge in Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River.

67. Mr. LEE Siu-man said that while there was no pier in Lam Tsuen River, he found some tools such as self-made staircases and ropes for getting on and off the boats at some parts of Lam Tsuen River near Kwong Fuk Bridge and Tai Po Fire Station. In case of accidents, he had no idea who should be held accountable. He did not support the idea of getting on and off the boats at Lam Tsuen River, and the lack of proper boarding facilities might also lead to danger.

68. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu’s comments were as follows:

(i) Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River were very important to Tai Po as they ran

through many parts of the district.

- 31 -

(ii) The CEDD would not arrange for the clearing of sludge on the river bed until it had reached to a certain level. However, the relevant standards, which covered all the river channels in Hong Kong, might not be applicable to Lam Tsuen River. She indicated that she made a complaint as the sludge in Lam Tsuen River always gave out a foul and unbearable smell.

(iii) She suspected that the cause of the foul smell in the river channels was related to the poor hygiene of the river wall, and enquired which department was responsible for the cleaning work. She also hoped that the government departments would report on ways to tackle the foul smell of the river channels.

(iv) The reason why sewage flowed into Lam Tsuen River was because of the leakage of an ageing sewer, and it had nothing to do with the eateries and shops in Lane Square in Tai Po. Therefore, the EPD handing out pamphlets to the shops would not help much. What was more important was how to stop the sewage in the sewers from flowing into Lam Tsuen River.

(v) As Lam Tsuen River was not a typhoon shelter, the MD should consider carefully whether to allow boats to be parked there. With an increasing number of boats on Lam Tsuen River, she suggested that the MD, which was able to contact most of the boat owners, should meet with the boat owners and ask them to move their boats away. In the event of any violations, the department should issue penalty tickets to them. Otherwise, they would wrongly believe that the department permitted the parking of boats on Lam Tsuen River. She indicated that some boat owners in fact did not want to keep their boats, but were simply unable to deal with them properly. If necessary, she was willing to work with the MD to tackle the problem of boat parking on Lam Tsuen River.

(vi) She reiterated her hopes that the river channels in Tai Po would not only remain clean and beautiful, but also bring fresh air to the residents. Otherwise, they would only become a burden of the district.

69. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) The issue being discussed by the EHWC was the overall sanitation of Lam Tsuen

River and Tai Po River. Nevertheless, as every department had its own duties, they would only report their own concerns. Therefore, he suggested establishing a regular mechanism under which a certain department would co-ordinate with other relevant departments to follow up on the problems in Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River on a long-term basis.

(ii) While government officials might not necessarily be able to notice the foul smell emitted from the river channels during inspection, the nearby residents and those strolling near the river were always troubled by it. He asked the government departments to be considerate of the residents’ situation, and opined that they

- 32 -

should not rely on what they learned from their brief observation on the day of inspection as the grounds for not taking any follow-up actions. In this connection, he hoped that the departments concerned would clear the sludge in the river channels at least once a year, in addition to performing its regular cleaning duties.

(iii) The oil spilling from boats would affect the cleanliness of river channels. Furthermore, the noise emitted from the boats that entered and left the river channel at dawn and dusk also caused nuisance to the residents on both sides of the river. At present, there were nearly 100 boats on Lam Tsuen River. In the absence of stringent regulations, the number might continue to rise, and the nearby residents would ultimately bear the brunt. He asked the departments to take the problem seriously.

70. Mr. LAU Yung-wai’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The term “regular monitoring” was often used in the reports of the department, but

no specific details were provided. He hoped that the department would report more specific details, such as how many times the monitoring had been conducted, when they were conducted, what actions had been taken, etc.

(ii) The foul smell in Lam Tsuen River had persisted for a long time. The EPD should identify the source of the foul smell, rather than simply attributing the problem to the rubbish and sludge in the river channel and referring it to other departments for follow-up actions.

(iii) Did the MD have any established mechanism in place to deal with unlicensed boats (e.g., removing the boats if their owners could not be reached within three months)?

(iv) As more than 20 boats had often been parked under Kwong Fuk Bridge, the 10-metre minimum width requirement of the river channel could hardly be met. There were also tree stumps at some points under the bridge, and he suspected that they were used by boat owners to secure their boats. Therefore, he hoped that the departments concerned would remove them and find out why they existed.

71. Mr. Clement WOO opined that although government departments were making every effort to launch various livelihood projects in the community, the negative impression created by poor environmental hygiene still lingered in the public’s minds. On the other hand, as he had on many occasions complained that the river channel was not wide enough, he was pleased to know that the MD was concerned about the situation. However, he added that whether the river channel was 10 metres wide did not matter, as he was more concerned about the management of boats. For example, after the rainy season, water entering the boats would cause them half-submerged in water, and stagnant water on the boats might give rise to mosquito proliferation. He wondered which departments should deal with such problems. He hoped that the departments could work tougher to improve the environment of the community.

- 33 -

72. Mr. LEE Siu-man said that there were no pier facilities in Lam Tsuen River, and it would be dangerous to get on or off the boats by other means. Therefore, the MD should not issue licenses to the boats parked on Lam Tsuen River. In addition, noticing that there were no boats parked on Shing Mun River in Sha Tin, he asked whether the approaches taken for Lam Tsuen River and Shing Mun River were different.

73. Mr. NGAN Wing-hong, Victor said that the CEDD was primarily responsible for assisting the DSD in the desilting works so as to keep the river channel clear. If the CEDD found that the river bed level was higher than the standard stipulated by the DSD, desilting works would be carried out. Regarding the questions about the cleaning of river walls and the number of desilting works conducted, he would pass them along to the staff at the Port Works Division of the CEDD for follow-up actions.

74. Mr. MA Hon-chiu indicated that the FEHD was primarily responsible for clearing the rubbish floating on the river. Clearing work would be carried out about once a week, and its frequency could be increased where necessary.

75. Mr. LEE Chi-wai responded as follows:

(i) Shing Mun River in Sha Tin, located behind Ma Liu Shui Marine Police Base, was

a prohibited zone, where no boats were allowed in. In contrast, Lam Tsuen River was accessible to all boast as it was not a prohibited zone.

(ii) According to the Shipping Ordinances, boats fitted with engines had to apply for a licence. Among the 98 boats parked on Lam Tsuen River, 91 were fitted with engines and therefore had to apply to the MD for a licence. The seven remaining boats were not fitted with engines.

(iii) Boats could drop their anchors in any places except Victoria Harbour and prohibited anchorage areas. Meanwhile, the MD had no powers to restrict any boats from entering Lam Tsuen River.

(iv) If boat owners had signed a declaration to the MD indicating their intention to abandon their boats, the MD could help collect the boats concerned. In such cases, boat owners could contact the MD for follow-up actions.

(v) The MD would regularly inspect Lam Tsuen River to see whether there were any abandoned or problematic boats. The MD would also remove the abandoned boats if there was any.

(vi) If necessary, the MD would participate in the inter-departmental joint operation to improve the environment of Lam Tsuen River together.

- 34 -

76. Ms. TSUI Wing-har, Tanya said that according to the DSD’s continuous monitoring in May and June 2018, the drainage in the upstream section of Lam Tsuen River in Tai Po (west of Kwong Fuk Bridge) and the upstream of Tai Po River (south of Tai Po Market MTR Station) was still satisfactory, and no substantial amount of deposit had been found on the river bed. When the water level was low, the DSD would keep conducting careful examination to see whether it was necessary to arrange for the clearing of rubbish and deposit on the river bed.

77. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu’s comments were as follows:

(i) When the water level was low, it would be easier to see how much sludge and

rubbish had been accumulated on the river bed. Therefore, she asked the staff of the DSD to provide their contact details so that she could directly send them photographs of the river channel when the water level was low, so that the department could understand the actual situation.

(ii) She hoped that the departments concerned could draw up a timetable for the clearing of sludge, thus enabling Members to explain the situation clearly to the residents.

(iii) The MD had just pointed out that the approaches taken for Lam Tsuen River and Shing Mun River were different. She asked the MD to invite LegCo Member, Hon. HO Chun-yin, Steven, to attend the next meeting to explore the possibility of designating Lam Tsuen River as a prohibited zone as a way to prevent the unauthorised parking of boats.

(iv) She asked the departments to continue with their reports at the next meeting. 78. The Chairman suggested the EHWC invite the relevant departmental representatives to inspect in person the situation of the river channels in the district, so as to facilitate further follow-up actions to be taken by the EHWC.

79. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) As the CEDD had just responded that the problem would be referred to the staff at

the Port Works Division for follow-up actions, he suggested the EHWC invite those staff directly to attend the next meeting for discussion.

(ii) Issues relating to Hong Kong’s legislation should be responded to by representatives of government departments, and inviting LegCo members to attend the meeting was inappropriate.

80. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu clarified that earlier she intended to suggest the MD invite Hon. HO Chun-yin, Steven to participate in on-site inspections and discuss the problem of boat parking at Lam Tsuen River with fishermen.

- 35 -

81. The Chairman suggested Ms. WONG Pik-kiu co-ordinate the inspection by assisting in inviting the relevant departments and Members to conduct on-site inspections and, if necessary, follow up on the issues at the EHWC meetings.

82. Dr. LAU Chee-sing said that he and the relevant departments conducted an on-site inspection on the situations of the river channels several years ago, and found that the river channels were more likely to give out foul smell under direct sunlight especially when the sky was clear and the water level was low. However, no follow-up actions had ever been taken and the problem remained unresolved. He agreed to inspect the river channels, but opined that it should be done so during low tides so that the sludge on the river bed could be seen clearly. In addition, if Members would like to designate Lam Tsuen River as a prohibited zone, he suggested the EHWC make the request by writing to the departments concerned.

83. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai added that there were a lot of differences between Shing Mun River and Lam Tsuen River. For instance, Shing Mun River was wider and had a number of sports centres. As to whether Lam Tsuen River could be designated as a prohibited zone, he opined that a study could be conducted with reference to the relevant legislation.

84. The Chairman said that the EHWC focused mainly on the clearing of rubbish in the river channels and the sludge on the river bed. The licensing of boats and the designation of river channel as a prohibited zone were not under the purview of the EHWC. He stressed that the sanitation problem of the river channel could not be resolved in one go, and suggested conducting on-site inspection before carrying out further discussion at the next meeting. (Post-meeting note: The said inspection was scheduled for 3 September 2018.)

VI. Progress report of the Working Group on Tai Po District Environmental Controls (TPDC Paper No. EHW 35/2018)

85. Mr. Ronald CHAN asked Members to take note of the captioned paper.

86. Mr. CHAN Lok-him, Dennis reported on the details of the Inter-Departmental Bicycle Clearance Operations (“Joint Operations”):

(i) The TPDO carried out four Joint Operations with the TD, the TPDLO, the FEHD

and the HKPF on 11 May, 31 May, 8 June and 28 June 2018 respectively, during which the departments concerned had put up 218, 428, 245 and 284 notices respectively, with 53, 137, 47 and 91 bicycles confiscated respectively.

(ii) In the above four operations, a total of 137 shared bicycles had been confiscated.

- 36 -

(iii) The next Joint Operation was tentatively scheduled for mid-July. 87. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that the newspapers had recently reported that a shared bicycle company would leave the Hong Kong market, but the company had not explained how to clear the shared bicycles on the streets. He indicated that if the company did not remove the bicycles on the streets in the end, the Government might have to clear them with the use of public money, causing certain nuisance to the Government and the residents. Therefore, he enquired whether the Government had any strategies in place. In addition, he enquired whether the departments would step up their efforts in clearing the bicycles of this company during the Joint Operations.

88. Mr. Clement WOO indicated that many items had been placed under some of the bridges and flyovers in the district, which he worried would give rise to environmental hygiene problems or crimes. For example, he said that a large tent was often set up under the flyover near Yuen Chau Tsai off Wang Fuk Court. With limited pedestrian flow in the area at night time, residents passing by were worried about their own safety. He had made a number of complaints, but after the HKPF was called, the police officers did not find it suspicious and left the scene. He pointed out that the items placed there were occupying government land and should be dealt with by the TPDLO. He also asked when these items would be cleared. 89. Mr. CHOW Kin-keung said that regarding the situation mentioned by Mr. Clement WOO, the TPDLO would send representatives to carry out on-site inspections and take follow-up actions.

90. Mr. Patrick TANG said that some residents had complained that many bicycles were parked at the junction outside Mont Vert and obstructing the pedestrian way. However, these bicycles would be away early in the morning and did not return until late in the evening, as they were parked outside the residential estate only in the early morning and at night. He had asked the relevant government departments to take follow-up actions. However, as they were parked there outside the business hours, the government officials could not see any bicycles being parked there when they arrived at the scene. He knew that the TD was looking into changing the design of the railings, to which users would not be able to secure their bicycles. On top of that, he enquired whether there were any other ways to address the problem. He asked the Government to come up with solutions, such as exploring whether the law permitted the departments to remove the bicycles as soon as notices had been put up to inform the owners.

91. Mr. Dennis CHAN said that the departments concerned had cleared the illegally parked bicycles outside Mont Vert during the Joint Operation on 28 June 2018, and the TPDO would also arrange for further Joint Operations to remove the illegally parked bicycles at this blackspot.

92. Mr. Patrick TANG indicated that there were bicycles obstructing the pedestrian way outside Mont Vert every day, and the Joint Operations, which were conducted only once every few months to clear the bicycles, could not help improve the situation. He hoped that the Government would

- 37 -

study and improve the bicycle clearance procedures so as to resolve the afore-mentioned problems.

93. Mr. LO Hiu-fung indicated that there were also many illegally parked bicycles along the way from Elegance Garden to Uptown Plaza and Tai Po Market MTR Station. Given the high mobility of bicycles, he opined that the Government’s practice of clearing the bicycles by way of putting up notices was highly ineffective. In addition, he pointed out that the Government had earlier demolished the railings at the pedestrian subway outside Tai Po Market MTR Station. It had not only got rid of the illegally parked bicycles there, but also widened the pedestrian way. It was a practice that we should refer to. 94. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai indicated that many muddy shared bicycles had recently been placed near Tai Wo Bridge. He suspected that they had just been recovered from Lam Tsuen River. Apart from obstructing the pedestrian way, these bicycles also affected environmental hygiene. He hoped that the departments concerned could improve the ways to deal with these bicycles.

95. The Chairman asked the departments concerned to take note of Members’ views and take follow-up actions accordingly, and the bicycle-related issues would be further discussed at the Working Group on Road Safety Campaign and Cycling Network Development under the Traffic and Transport Committee.

VII. Reports of working groups

(i) Working Group on Environmental Protection and Optimisation

96. Mr. LI Wah-kwong, Rex, Chairman of the Working Group, reported that the Working Group held its first meeting in 2018 on 26 June 2018. During the meeting, the Working Group endorsed four DC Funds applications submitted by Trash2Treasure Association, The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups Tai Mei Tuk Outdoor Activities Centre, Green Sense as well as Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (details were set out in TPDC Paper No. EHW 36/2018 (revised)). If the funding applications of the above activities were endorsed by the EHWC, the Working Group would report the progress of the activities to the EHWC on a regular basis.

(ii) Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing Development in Tai Po

97. Mr. LI Kwok-ying, Chairman of the Working Group, reported that the Working Group held its second meeting in 2018 on 28 June 2018. During the meeting, the HD continued to report on the number of vacant public housing units in the district, stated the progress of the public housing developments in Area 9 in Tai Po and on Chung Nga Road East, and briefed on the various mitigation measures against site nuisance. The Working Group would continue to keep track of

- 38 -

the progress of the projects.

VIII. Applications for DC Funds (TPDC Paper No. EHW 36/2018)

98. The Chairman invited Members to declare their interests regarding the four DC Funds applications submitted to this EHWC meeting for vetting as necessary.

99. The Secretary reported as follows:

(i) Pursuant to Orders 48(9) and 48(10) of the Standing Orders, a Member had to

declare interests if he found that he had direct personal interests, pecuniary interests or other interests in an application for DC Funds under consideration, or had links with the benefitted party or the potential benefitted party.

(ii) The Secretariat had compiled a declaration form (see Annex 2) based on the information collected. It had set out the links between Members and the hosting, partnering or co-hosting organisations concerned.

100. The Secretary asked Members to check the information contained in the declaration form and make amendments or give supplementary information where necessary. In addition, he also asked Members to declare interests if they had any direct personal interests, pecuniary interests or other interests in the applications for DC Funds under consideration.

101. Members agreed with the information contained in the declaration form.

102. The Chairman said that according to the information contained in the declaration form, Mr. CHAN Cho-leung and Mr. Rex LI, the Vice-chairman, held substantive positions, namely Chairman and Member respectively, in another unit under The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups, but had no pecuniary interests or other interests. He proposed that Mr. CHAN Cho-leung and Mr. Rex LI, the Vice-chairman, were not required to withdraw from the meeting when processing the funding application of the activity concerned, but had to remain silent during the discussion and abstain from resolution or voting on the funding application. Nevertheless, the EHWC could ask them to provide supplementary information where necessary.

103. Members agreed with the approach proposed by the Chairman.

104. The Secretary introduced TPDC Paper No. EHW 36/2018.

105. The Chairman said that if Members were satisfied that the four DC Funds applications above were covered under the scope of the DC Funds while benefitting people living, working or

- 39 -

attending schools in the district, they could consider endorsing the applications.

106. Mr. LAU Yung-wai enquired about the DC Funds application submitted by The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups Tai Mei Tuk Outdoor Activities Centre. He indicated that the organisation did not set out the estimated expenditure for first aid rental service when it held the activities in 2017. Therefore, he would like to know about the first aid arrangements for 2018.

107. The Secretary responded that the organisation planned to invite Hong Kong St. John Ambulance or Hong Kong Red Cross to provide first aid service for the activities in 2018. As regards the information on the activities in 2017, he would contact Mr. LAU Yung-wai after the meeting to give supplementary details.

108. The EHWC resolved to:

(i) Allocate $54,565 to Trash2Treasure Association for co-organising “From Food

Waste to Mushroom” with the Working Group on Environmental Protection and Optimisation (“Working Group”).

(ii) Allocate $51,134 to The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups Tai Mei Tuk Outdoor Activities Centre for co-organising “‘Love Our Ocean’ Marine Conservation Adventurous Challenge” with the Working Group.

(iii) Allocate $48,200 to Green Sense for co-organising “Green Living in Tai Po 2018” with the Working Group.

(iv) Allocate $52,000 to Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden for co-organising “Green Living Activity Series” with the Working Group.

IX. Any other business

(1) Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection 2018-19 (TPDC Paper No. EHW 37/2018)

109. The Chairman said that under the Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection, the EPD would continue to allocate $200,000 to the TPDO via the HAD in 2018 for implementing publicity activities on district environmental education, waste reduction at source, recycling, etc. The theme in 2018 was “Dump Less, Save More, Recycle Right”. Details had been set out in TPDC Paper No. EHW 37/2018.

110. The EHWC agreed to continue with its participation in the captioned programme in 2018, and would pass the funding application to the Working Group for follow-up actions.

- 40 -

(2) Flooding at the carpark of Fu Heng Estate (TPDC Paper No. EHW 38/2018)

111. The Chairman welcomed Mr. CHIU Kwan-suen, Senior Community Relationship Manager, Mr. CHAN Wai-kit, Portfolio Manager, and Mr. SHUM Kwun-hung, Senior Maintenance Officer of The Link; as well as Ms. Tanya TSUI, Engineer of the DSD, to attend the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. 112. Mr. Eric TAM introduced TPDC Paper No. EHW 38/2018.

113. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received the relevant paper (Annex 3) on the captioned issue submitted by Members before the meeting. He asked Mr. YAM Man-chuen to introduce the paper.

114. Mr. YAM Man-chuen introduced the paper.

115. Mr. CHIU Kwan-suen said that the flooding was caused by the blockage of public sewer manhole, which had led to the backflow of sewage to the carpark of Fu Heng Estate. On the day of the incident, the management company had arranged for the vehicles to leave wherever possible so as to avoid damage by flood. Meanwhile, the management company and the DSD had also deployed vacuum tankers and water pumps to drain the area. As a result, the situation was largely under control, and the damage to vehicles had been minimised. After the public sewer manhole had been repaired by the DSD on 6 July 2018, the carpark had resumed normal operation without any sewer blockage.

116. Using PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Tanya TSUI briefed Members on how the DSD had helped with the drainage of the carpark on the day of the incident (the diagram showing the locations of pipes had been set out in Annex 4). She stressed that the public sewers and public sewer manholes maintained by the DSD (i.e., Manhole No. 3 and its downstream area) were still free of blockage during the incident. However, the drainage system at Fu Heng Estate (i.e., the sewers and the sewer manholes between Manhole No. 2 and the carpark of Fu Heng Estate) had been seriously blocked. To help relieve the backflow of sewage to the carpark of Fu Heng Estate and reduce the impact on public hygiene, the DSD immediately arranged for a contractor to enter Fu Heng Estate to help desilt some of the private manholes and sewers that had been seriously blocked. Vacuum tankers, water pumps and the like had also been deployed to facilitate the discharge of sewage to other sewers at the estate. While some of the seriously blocked sewer manholes and sewers were being desilted, large pieces of congealed grease and sludge had been flushed to the downstream public sewers maintained by the DSD and got stuck there. Therefore, the DSD had to carry out excavation works next to Manhole No. 3 to clear the large pieces of congealed grease and sludge stuck in the public sewers.

- 41 -

117. The Chairman thanked the DSD and the HKPF for their assistance in resolving the flooding at the carpark of Fu Heng Estate.

118. Mr. Eric TAM pointed out that more than 100 vehicles at the carpark were submerged in sewage during the incident, and enquired how The Link would compensate the vehicle owners for their losses. In addition, regarding the large pieces of congealed grease and sludge found in the sewers as mentioned earlier by the DSD, he enquired whether such large pieces of congealed substances would build up in the sewers of residential units in general. He would like to know why the sewage pipes were blocked in this instance so as to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

119. Mr. YAM Man-chuen’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) As the flooding occurred at the carpark, he hoped that The Link would explain its

compensation proposal to the vehicle owners as soon as possible, regardless of who should be held accountable.

(ii) The DSD had proved that the flooding was not caused by the blockage of public sewer manholes, and hoped that the sewage in private sewers would not flow into and block the public sewers again. Therefore, he would like to continue to follow up on the incident with Mr. Eric TAM and the relevant departments, with a view to identifying the stakeholders of these private sewage pipes.

(iii) He enquired whether the government departments could assist in clarifying the ownership and management rights of the private sewers concerned, especially the sewers for which the management responsibilities had not been set out in the deed of mutual covenant.

120. Dr. LAU Chee-sing indicated that he had dealt with many pipe blockage and flooding cases. He would like to know such details as the diameter and invert level of the sewage pipes concerned, so that he could assist in finding out the cause of the incident (such as whether sewage had flowed back from the public sewage pipes to the private ones and the carpark of Fu Heng Estate).

121. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He opined that the root cause of pipe blockage in this instance had to be singled out

before determining who should be held accountable. Otherwise, The Link and the DSD would only pass the buck to each other. He enquired which department would be responsible for investigating the cause of the incident.

(ii) He criticised The Link for its poor liaison efforts after the flooding and its failure to give a clear account of the incident. He indicated that on the day of the incident (29 June), the staff of The Link only repeatedly stated that the flooding was not related

- 42 -

to the company. It was not until the early hours of the following day did The Link arrange for an outsourced drainage company to carry out on-site inspection. This was by no means a responsible action. He opined that The Link, being a large corporation, should have checked its pipes right after the incident and take immediate actions without delay if any problems had been found.

(iii) He enquired whether the DSD and The Link had checked their own pipes to see if they were free of blockage at present.

(iv) As the staff of The Link could not be reached in general, he opined that The Link should strive to enhance its liaison and communication with Members in future.

(v) He enquired which department was responsible for the management of sewage pipes on private premises, including the supervision of their daily management, inspection and maintenance, and how the department would monitor these private sewage pipes.

(vi) The DSD had indicated that some large pieces of congealed substances had been flushed from the private sewage pipes to the public ones while the pipes were being desilted. He opined that the DSD or the EPD had the responsibility to investigate whether the presence of these congealed substances in sewage pipes had breached the relevant environmental legislation.

(vii) On the day of the incident, the sewage pipe layout plans possessed by the DSD, The Link or the management company were inaccurate. He enquired whether the HD had provided the layout plans for the owners’ corporations concerned and The Link when it sold the public housing units years ago. If yes, he wondered why an accurate layout plan could not be provided on the day of the incident.

(viii) On the day of the incident, he stayed at the scene until around 5 a.m. together with Mr. WU Cheuk-him and the DSD staff. He indicated that the DSD deployed manpower and water pumps from other districts to offer assistance at the scene on that day. Meanwhile, the department’s staff had also been providing support at the scene, and did not leave the scene until everything possible had been done. He highly commended the DSD staff for their efforts, which had not only reduced the impact on the residents, but also helped the vehicle owners save money on repairing their vehicles.

122. Mr. Patrick TANG enquired whether the person in charge of the private sewage pipes was liable for the pipe blockage or sewage backflow, if deposits that were not recommended to be discharged through sewage pipes had been flushed to the public sewage pipes by way of the private ones. He indicated that Members might have to assist the vehicle owners in handling the insurance claims, and therefore he would like to ask the DSD about the liability issues.

- 43 -

123. Mr. YAM Man-chuen’s questions were as follows:

(i) He enquired whether The Link would consider compensating the vehicle owners concerned by offering a one-month rental waiver or other concessions.

(ii) He enquired whether the TPDLO, the DSD and the relevant departments could state clearly which of them was responsible for the management of private sewage pipes, so as to help pursue responsibilities and process the claims. Most importantly, they had to ensure that the private sewage pipes were free of blockage so that similar incidents would not happen again.

124. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu said that the DSD had just stressed that it was not responsible for the flooding incident. However, she opined that this was not necessarily the case. For example, she said that a tenement building on Luk Heung Lane in Tai Po was also fitted with sewage drains and rainwater drains. Yet no matter how hard the residents cleared the drains, the furniture store there would always be flooded by sewage / backflow of rainwater during rainy days. The DSD subsequently arranged for the clearing of public sewage pipes in the area, and there had not been any backflow of rainwater since. She said that citing the above example was not to suggest that the DSD was responsible for the flooding at the carpark of Fu Heng Estate. However, she hoped that the department would learn from experience and clear the public sewage pipes on a regular basis. 125. Mr. Eric TAM agreed with Mr. YAM Man-chuen’s views, and opined that it was necessary to clarify the ownership and management rights of private sewage pipes. He added that he was very much surprised that the sewage pipe layout plans possessed by the management company under the HD, the owners’ corporation of Fu Heng Estate, the owners’ corporation of Chung Nga Court, The Link and the DSD on that day were different from each other, and the pipes shown on the layout plans could not be connected to one another. In addition, at present no one was willing to take up the management responsibility for some of the pipes. He was worried that serious problems might arise in case of blockage. He indicated that Fu Heng Shopping Centre, Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court were all constructed by the HD but were subsequently sold by the HD one after another. Therefore, he opined that the HD should have a complete layout plan showing the location of the pipes concerned. He hoped that the TPDLO and the HD would proactively meet the relevant DC Members and stakeholders to clarify the management responsibilities of the sewage pipes and above-ground facilities in a collaborative manner. 126. Mr. CHIU Kwan-suen responded as follows:

(i) The Link was the victim in the incident and had already reported the incident to the insurance company. Vehicle owners who would like to make claims or enquire about the matters concerned could contact The Link, which would pass the case to the insurance company for follow-up actions.

- 44 -

(ii) According to the layout plan in Annex 4, Manholes No. 1 and No. 2 were part of the public sewage pipes outside the purview of The Link. Meanwhile, the manhole at the corner between Manholes No. 0 and No. 1 was a terminal manhole managed by The Link, through which sewage was discharged to the public sewage pipes. However, he indicated that this layout plan did not have complete information as regards the location of the pipes and did not fully show the entire drainage system. Looking at this layout plan alone, one might be mistaken that sewage from Fu Heng Shopping Centre would be discharged directly to the public sewage pipes.

(iii) As regards this flooding incident, the blocked sewage pipe was located at Manhole No. 2, which was part of the public sewage pipes outside the purview of The Link. Sewage from other housing estates would also be discharged from there to Manhole No. 3, but currently only The Link had admitted that it was one of the stakeholders of this public sewage pipe. In this connection, The Link would later meet the relevant stakeholders to discuss which party should be responsible for the various parts of the entire drainage system, so as to determine the responsibilities for future maintenance and repair.

127. Mr. CHAN Wai-kit responded as follows:

(i) He thanked the relevant Members for their assistance in contacting the representatives of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court on the day of the incident.

(ii) The sewer of Chung Nga Court was connected to Manhole No. 1, but the existing layout plan did not show the source of this sewer. The Link was only one of the users of Manhole No. 1, and so far it had not been able to determine the responsibilities for the repair, maintenance and management of these sewage pipes with the representatives of Fu Heng Estate or Chung Nga Court.

(iii) On the day of the incident, sewage did not flow back from the sewage pipes on Chung Nga Road to the carpark of Fu Heng Estate. In fact, as sewage could not be discharged from Manholes No. 1 and No. 2 to the sewage pipes on Chung Nga Road, it had flowed back to the carpark of Fu Heng Estate.

128. Ms. Tanya TSUI responded as follows:

(i) Regarding the case on Luk Heung Lane in Tai Po, as the U-trap at the back alley there was located on a private land lot, the private owner should be responsible for its regular maintenance and repair to ensure that the pipe was free of blockage. The DSD and the HyD had checked the public rainwater drainage system under their purview and confirmed that the backflow of rainwater / sewage was caused by the blockage of this U-trap, whereas the public sewage pipes and manholes were not blocked. This case was similar to the backflow of sewage at the carpark of Fu Heng

- 45 -

Estate.

(ii) The DSD could not pursue liabilities regarding objects being flushed into the public sewage pipes. In view of the oil, leftover and the like found in the sewage pipes, she asked the EPD to give response as to whether it could take follow-up actions accordingly.

129. The Chairman opined that as the properties concerned were all sold by the HD, the HD and the TPDLO should have comprehensive information about the sewage pipes. There should not be any unclear delineation of responsibilities. 130. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin believed that the Housing Authority had already shown the relevant legal documents and layout plans clearly during the transaction process when it sold such properties as Fu Heng Shopping Centre and the carpark years ago. She opined that the owners’ corporations and the management companies could not find the information in a short period of time simply because the information was age-old and the incident happened out of the blue. So far, neither the owners’ corporations concerned nor The Link had contacted the HD to obtain information about the sewage pipes concerned. The HD could provide appropriate assistance where necessary. 131. Mr. Wallace NG responded as follows:

(i) The EPD conducted a number of inspections at the restaurants and eateries in Fu

Heng Shopping Centre in early-July 2018 and found that some eateries were suspected of illegal discharge of sewage.

(ii) The department had taken sewage samples from the scene for tests and gathered evidence accordingly. It would consider prosecuting the non-compliant shops depending on the test results of the sewage samples. On the other hand, the EPD had reminded the eateries concerned that their discharge of sewage had to comply with the requirements under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. It had also asked the persons in charge of the eateries to clean their grease boxes, grease tanks, grease traps, etc., more frequently, and hire collectors to deliver the isolated grease to the Grease Trap Waste Treatment Facility for proper disposal.

(iii) The department would step up inspection at the eateries in the vicinity of Fu Heng Shopping Centre and continue to follow up on and monitor the situation.

132. Mr. Ronald CHAN said that as Fu Heng Estate was constructed a long time ago, the layout plan possessed by the TPDLO might be incomplete. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to obtain the information concerned from the HD, and the TPDLO would also be pleased to help.

- 46 -

133. The Chairman opined that it was of utmost importance that the residents did not suffer unnecessary losses, and therefore matters relating to insurance and claims should be followed up properly. He suggested the DC Members concerned continue to liaise with the relevant departments and stakeholders after the meeting to follow up on the matters together. He also hoped that the departments could work with each other in a proactive manner to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

X. Date of next meeting

134. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 12 September 2018 (Wednesday).

135. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat August 2018