Www.districtcouncils.gov.hk



Minutes of the Nineteenth Meeting ofCentral and Western District CouncilDate:16 May 2019 (Thursday)Time:2:30 pmVenue:Conference Room14/F, Harbour Building38 Pier Road, Central, Hong KongPresent:ChairmanMr YIP Wing-shing, SBS, MH, JP(2:31 pm – 8:33 pm)Vice-chairmanMr CHAN Hok-fung, MH, JP*MembersMr CHAN Chit-kwai, Stephen, BBS, JP*Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH, JP(2:31 pm – 8:35 pm)Ms CHENG Lai-king*Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP(4:51 pm – 9:50 pm)Mr HUI Chi-fung(2:31 pm – 8:18 pm)Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH*Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney, MH*Miss LO Yee-hang, MH(2:31 pm – 8:36 pm)Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie*Mr NG Siu-hong*Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing*Mr YEUNG Hok-ming*Mr YOUNG Chit-on, Jeremy*Remarks:???*Members who attended the whole meeting??( ) ?Time of attendance of the MemberItem 5Ms LI Mei-sheung, Michelle, JPDirector of Leisure and Cultural Services, Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMr CHIU Chung-yan, CharlsonSenior Staff Officer (Headquarters), Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMr HUNG Tak-chuen, BenjaminChief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong West), Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMiss LEE Mei-ling, MelindaChief Librarian (Management)1, Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMr LO Wai-pan, EddieActing Chief Executive Officer (Planning)1, Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMs LIM Ting-ting, SylviaDistrict Leisure Manager (Central and Western), Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMs LEE Yuk-kit, GlendySenior Librarian (Central & Western), Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentItem 6(i)Mr AU Chun-ho, WilfredDirector (Planning & Design), Urban Renewal AuthorityMr Christopher WONGGeneral Manager (Planning & Design), Urban Renewal AuthorityMs Michelle TONGSenior Manager (Acquisition & Clearance), Urban Renewal AuthorityMs Katty LAWConvenor, Central and Western Concern GroupMr LEE Wing-kinSocial Worker, Christian Family Service CentreMiss Annie SHENGMember, Friends of the 30 Houses NeighbourhoodItem 6(ii)Mr LEE Hong-nin, RobinChief Assistant Secretary (Works)2, Development BureauMs LEE Cho-yi, JoeyAssistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation)3, Development BureauMr LAI Henry Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1, Development BureauMs Katty LAWConvenor, Central and Western Concern GroupItem 7Mr LAM Sze-loong, AdrianAssistant Secretary for Transport and Housing (Transport)2A, Transport and Housing BureauMr LAM Sau-sang, SamsonAssistant Commissioner/Planning, Transport DepartmentMr LAU Hon-wai, SimonChief Engineer/Strategic Studies, Transport DepartmentMs SHIU Lai-ming, NanaSenior Engineer/Strategic Studies 1, Transport DepartmentMr MOK Ying-kit, KennethChief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport DepartmentMr CHENG Kwan-nang, ClarenceSenior Engineer/Central &Western, Transport DepartmentMr FONG Shung-kit, GeorgeSenior Engineer/Smart Mobility 3, Transport DepartmentMs FONG Wai-man, SelinaSenior Engineer/Walkability 2, Transport DepartmentMr TSE Ming-yeungDistrict Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceMiss KWOK Sin-manPolice Community Relation Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceItem 8Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Susanne, JPDistrict Officer (Central and Western)Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, GraceSenior Executive Officer (District Council), Central and Western District OfficeMs BOOK King-shun, EmmaExecutive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western District OfficeItem 9Mr YAM Ho-san, JoseCommissioner for Heritage, Development BureauMr LEE Hong-nin, RobinChief Assistant Secretary (Works)2, Development BureauMr SHUM JinAssistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation)2, Development BureauMr CHAN Hoi-singChief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South), Lands DepartmentMs YAM Lai-chun, CindyPrincipal Estate Officer/Hong Kong West & South (2) (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands DepartmentMr TSE Ming-yeungDistrict Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceMiss KWOK Sin-manPolice Community Relation Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceItem 10Dr AU Sze-man, VanessaPrincipal Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South), Environmental Protection DepartmentDr CHENG Kin-wuiSenior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)6, Environmental Protection DepartmentMr CHEUNG Hiu-wai, GeorgeSenior Building Surveyor/A3, Buildings DepartmentMr CHIM Sui-pangSenior Structural Engineer/Site Monitoring (B), Buildings DepartmentMr YAM Kwok-kitSenior Structural Engineer/Heritage 1, Buildings DepartmentMr TSE Ming-yeungDistrict Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceItem 11Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Susanne, JPDistrict Officer (Central and Western)Mr CHAN Hoi-singChief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South), Lands DepartmentMs YAM Lai-chun, CindyPrincipal Estate Officer/Hong Kong West & South (2) (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands DepartmentMr LEE Tze-wahDistrict Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western), Food and Environmental Hygiene DepartmentMr MOK Ying-kit, KennethChief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport DepartmentItem 12Mr MOK Ying-kit, KennethChief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport DepartmentMr LO Chun-hong, DennisSenior Transport Officer/Housing and Projects, Transport DepartmentMr TSE Ming-yeungDistrict Commander (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceMiss KWOK Sin-manPolice Community Relation Officer (Central District), Hong Kong Police ForceMr LEE Tze-wahDistrict Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western), Food and Environmental Hygiene DepartmentMr WONG Kam-pui, MichaelChairman, Po Sau Tong Ginseng & Antler Association Hong Kong Limited Mr LIN Hei-hingChairman, The Hong Kong Federation of Chinese Medicine Sector LimitedIn Attendance:Ms WONG Siu-hing, QueenieDistrict Commander (Western District), Hong Kong Police ForceMiss LI Ka-yanPolice Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong Kong Police ForceMr WONG Chi-leungSenior Engineer/7 (South), Civil Engineering and Development DepartmentMr LEE Tze-wahDistrict Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western), Food and Environmental Hygiene DepartmentMr HUNG Tak-chuen, BenjaminChief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong West), Leisure and Cultural Services DepartmentMr MOK Ying-kit, KennethChief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport DepartmentMrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Susanne, JPDistrict Officer (Central and Western)Mr MOK Chi-kin, JivSenior Executive Officer (District Management), Central and Western District OfficeMs BOOK King-shun, EmmaExecutive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western District OfficeSecretaryMs YEUNG Wing-shan, GraceSenior Executive Officer (District Council), Central and Western District OfficeOpening RemarksThe Chairman welcomed all to the nineteenth meeting of the Central and Western District Council (C&WDC). As there were quite a lot of items on the agenda, it was proposed that each Member be given two minutes to speak each time to facilitate efficient discussion. Second round follow-up questions and comments by Members would depend on the availability of time. He appealed to Members for cooperation and reminded Members to declare interests as necessary and appropriate.The Chairman said that the Secretariat was informed by Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr NG Siu-hong before the meeting of their request to make an oral statement. Under Order 30 of the C&WDC Standing Orders, a member who wished to make an oral statement at a meeting should inform the Secretary before the meeting, but the oral statement should not take more than five minutes. The Chairman said he had no comment on this and Members were not required to make any response. He invited Mr HUI Chi-fung to make an oral statement.Mr HUI Chi-fung said that the request for an oral statement was due to the Government's proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO), and that the amendments would affect every person living and/or working in the Central and Western District. He understood that it was not possible to submit a paper to the full Council for formal discussion at the remaining meetings. Therefore, he would like to make an oral statement to put on record that the Democratic Party firmly opposed the Government's position of amending the FOO, and it also wished to condemn the Government led by the Chief Executive for going against public opinion by forcing through the amendments to FOO, which had further torn the community apart and put everyone in Hong Kong in danger. He also appealed to the royalists to stop giving indiscriminate support to the Government, remarking that the proposed amendments had even caused fear among those who generally took a neutral stand in regard to supporting the Government. In light of the amendments’ long-term impact on Hong Kong, he hoped that Members from the pro-establishment camp would stop supporting the Government to force through the amendments to FOO. He continued that the amendments to FOO, as he had just mentioned, was putting Hong Kong people in danger, and also went against the human rights of people as protected by the Basic Law and relevant International Covenant. He hoped the general public would understand that once the amendments were passed, the actual and objective outcome would be that any Hong Kong citizen who was alleged by Mainland China to have committed an offence could be extradited to Mainland China for trial. Mr HUI said he was well aware that the judicial system in Mainland China was not trustworthy. Also, the legal system in Mainland China was not sound and there was no rule of law at all. His team had seen a number of dissidents being subjected to "forced disappearance", "suppression", "physical restraint", or even died in prison. He queried why the judicial system of Hong Kong should be allowed to interface with that of Mainland China, as which would leave human rights in Hong Kong unprotected. He also understood that it was not as simple as extradition of Hong Kong people to Mainland China for trial. In addition to amending the FOO, amendments to Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance was also proposed. He learned that Mainland authorities had ordered that the Hong Kong Government could make arrests and execute various orders under the laws of Hong Kong, including seizure of property, assets and accounts. He said this was a terrible act, which was tantamount to carrying out Mainland China’s orders directly in Hong Kong via the law enforcement agencies of the Hong Kong Government, thereby making Hong Kong part of Mainland China right away, which was horrifying. In this connection, he opined that Hong Kong people should have freedom from fear. He believed that the proposed amendments to the said ordinances was completely against the values of Hong Kong people. Putting political stance aside, Hong Kong people craved for prosperity and stability, living and working in peace and contentment, and good jobs. If the proposed amendments were passed, Hong Kong people would not have peace of mind in every single moment of living in Hong Kong, for they would lose freedom at any moment, and their hard-earned assets could be forfeited at any time because of political stance and attitude. He queried whether this was aimed to force Hong Kong people to withdraw their capital and emigrate from Hong Kong, just like some dissidents in Hong Kong who had to go into exile overseas, thereby turning Hong Kong into a closed and authoritarian place. He stressed that if the amendments were passed, Hong Kong would be finished for having come to an end. No need to wait until 2047, Hong Kong would already become an inland city in China and lose its original character. He wished to put this on record for the knowledge of every Hong Kong citizen, government official, journalist, and so on, who were all Hong Kong people. He appealed to people living and/or working in the Central and Western District to voice out on the amendments to FOO to let the Government and Members from the pro-establishment camp know that public opinion was firmly and strongly against such amendments. He reiterated his firm opposition to amending the FOO.The Chairman invited Mr NG Siu-hong to make an oral statement.Mr NG Siu-hong hoped that the relevant government officials could convey the message to the Chief Executive. He said he was the District Councillor of the constituency where the Chief Executive resided, and believed that the Chief Executive and her family, when going out, would see banners hung all over the constituency area by him stating opposition to amending the FOO. Remarking that there were mass movements for several consecutive days with some 130?000 people taken to the street, he enquired whether the Chief Executive had heard the voices of people from all walks of life and around the world through the walls of the Government House. He had ceaselessly set up street stations, distributed leaflets and broadcasted in the district. He said that most of the residents in the Mid-Levels were aware of the shortcomings of the amendments to FOO and opposed it, many of them even chanted against it. He asked why the Chief Executive regarded the voice of the people as nonsense. He said he did not wish to see the passing of the amendments, nor did he wish to see any serious conflicts breaking out in House Committee of the Legislative Council. He appealed to the Chief Executive to revoke the highly controversial amendments to FOO and handle the Taiwan homicide case by other means. He said that perhaps the Chief Executive would not listen to what he, the public and the democrats said, and considered that under the current political system, the Chief Executive within the walls of the Government House might well ignore the voice of the people and act unfairly. However, he asked the Chief Executive to look outside at the houses in the Mid-Levels and the sky, as he believed that the heaven and history were watching all these happenings. He also hoped that the Chief Executive, who was born and raised in Hong Kong, could think twice before ruining the justice in Hong Kong. He also expressed his wish to speak to Members from the pro-establishment camp that the amendments to FOO was ignoring public opinion and undermining the system. It did not help solve the Taiwan homicide case and had numerous shortcomings. He hoped that Members from the pro-establishment camp would listen to the views of academics or residents around, or even their own conscience. He was worried that amending the FOO would put Hong Kong in a difficult situation, and asked Members belonging to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) whether they simply followed the instructions of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to promote the amendments to FOO with great efforts. He continued that in any case, he and Members from the pro-democracy camp would follow their conscience to oppose the amendments to FOO. He would continue to set up street stations, distribute leaflets and broadcast throughout the district, and appealed to the public to oppose the amendments to FOO, hoping that residents would voice out together against injustice through various means.Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said Mr HUI Chi-fung had just now claimed that he represented the Democratic Party, but as far as Mr YEUNG knew, the Democratic Party had suspended Mr HUI’s membership. He therefore asked whether Mr HUI could represent the Democratic Party, and was worried that the Democratic Party’s name was being stolen and used.Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda(2:42 pm – 2:45 pm)Mr HUI Chi-fung said he had no comment regarding adoption of the agenda but wished to make an enquiry. He said that the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services joined the meeting today to meet with C&WDC members, and in the past he had raised that the C&WDC would adopt different treatment whenever Secretaries of Departments or Directors of Bureaux visited the C&WDC. He remarked that in the last term of the C&WDC, Secretaries of Departments or Directors of Bureaux visiting the C&WDC would be arranged to attend full Council or committee meetings to meet with Members. In this term, however, most Secretaries of Departments or Directors of Bureaux did not attend full Council or committee meetings to meet with Members, instead they only exchanged views with District Councillors in the form of tea sessions. For example, the Secretary for Justice did not attend full Council meeting of the C&WDC. He therefore hoped that the Secretariat or the District Office would explain the arrangements for officials visiting the C&WDC. In addition, he hoped that government officials, be they Heads of Departments, Directors of Bureaux or Secretaries of Departments, would attend full Council meeting, rather than meeting with District Councillors in the form of tea sessions, so that members of the public would know about the presence of government officials at the meetings and could observe or express views at the meetings.The Chairman said that Mr HUI's enquiry was outside the scope of the agenda. He suggested to discuss the matter under "Any other business".Mr HUI Chi-fung said that as one of the agenda items was “Meeting the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services”, he wished to know, before considering whether to adopt the agenda, the reasons for the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services to attend the full Council meeting while other government officials had other arrangements.The Chairman said that he had no intention not to address Mr HUI’s enquiry, but it should be dealt with under “Any other business”. Since this meeting featured a visit by a Head of Department to the C&WDC, such item was included in the agenda. On the other hand, the arrangements for visits by Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux was not relevant to the agenda of this meeting. He said he respected Mr HUI's views and asked the District Officer to answer Mr HUI's enquiry when discussing "Any other business".Mr HUI Chi-fung suggested that the matter could either be discussed under “Any other business” or formally discussed at a meeting of the Working Group on Central & Western District Council Affairs.The Chairman reiterated his respect for Mr HUI’s views and said that the matter would be discussed under “Any other business”.There being no further comment from Members, the agenda was adopted.Item 2: Confirmation of the Minutes of the 18th C&WDC meeting held on 7 March 2019(2:45 pm)The Chairman said that the Secretariat had sent the draft minutes of the eighteenth C&WDC meeting to Members on 8 May 2019 by e-mail. The Secretariat had not received any amendment proposal to the draft minutes from Members before the meeting. Members had no comment on the draft minutes of the eighteenth meeting and the Chairman declared that the minutes were confirmed.Item 3: Action Checklist on Matters Arising from the 18th C&WDC Meeting(C&W DC Paper No. 44/2019) (2:45 pm)The Chairman referred Members to the checklist for the progress of follow-up of different items.Item 4: Chairman’s Report(2:45 pm)The Chairman had nothing particular to highlight.Item 5: Meeting the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services(2:46 pm – 4:06 pm)The Chairman welcomed Ms LI Mei-sheung, JP, Director of Leisure and Cultural Services (D of LCS) and other representatives of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to the meeting. He then invited Ms LI to brief Members on the work of the LCSD.Ms LI Mei-sheung, D of LCS, said she was pleased to be able to attend the C&WDC meeting to meet with Members and share LCSD's efforts in collaborating with the C&WDC to enhance leisure and cultural services in the district. She said that she would introduce the five areas of LCSD’s work with the aid of PowerPoint presentation. The first area was recreation and sports. In respect of district facilities, there were four sports centres in the Central and Western District, two swimming pools (located in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and Kennedy Town respectively), 113 other recreational venues, and 9.13 hectares of various types of greening facilities. In addition, given the convenient location of the Central and Western District, territory-wide facilities such as the Hong Kong Park Sports Centre, Hong Kong Squash Centre, Hong Kong Park, and Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens could also be found there. Regarding recreational and sports activities, she said that the LCSD was pleased to receive about $6.7 million from the C&WDC in the year 2019-2020 for co-organising 1?388 activities, benefitting more than 80?000 participants. Activities of a diversified nature were being organised, including those catering for different age groups and social groups such as children, elders, people with disabilities and the disadvantaged. Besides, she said that the LCSD also organised territory-wide recreational and sports activities for districts’ participation, including the biennial Hong Kong Games which was greatly supported by the 18 District Councils. She also commended the Central and Western District for its outstanding performance in the Sixth Hong Kong Games held two years ago. The district won a total of 18 medals in the eight sports competitions, including eight gold, six silver and four bronze medals. It also came first in badminton and basketball and second in table tennis, and was the overall first runner-up of the Sixth Hong Kong Games. She said that the Seventh Hong Kong Games had already commenced in 28 April 2019 and the competitions were underway. She hoped that the Central and Western District would achieve even better results. Apart from the Hong Kong Games, the LCSD would hold the Sport For All Day on the first Sunday of August each year, where a wide variety of programmes would be organised in the 18 districts for the participation of everyone in Hong Kong. Last year, the event was held at the Hong Kong Park Sports Centre in the Central and Western District. More than 2?000 people participated in the event, with many brought along the elderly and the youth. She said that this year the event would be held on 4 August at Shek Tong Tsui Sports Centre. The event adopted "Stay Active, Healthy and Happy!" as the slogan. She hoped that Members would continue to support the event. In addition, she thanked the Council for collaborating with the LCSD. In promoting community recreational and sports activities, the LCSD had received funding of over $6 million from the C&WDC in each of the past four years. In 2019-2020, the LCSD had also received funding $6.7 million from the C&WDC to organise 1?388 activities. She also thanked the Council for its support to the LCSD in implementing district minor works projects over the past years. This year, the District Minor Works programme had allocated over $1 million to the LCSD for the implementation of two improvement schemes.The second area was works programmes and improvement schemes. D of LCS said that the LCSD had taken over the management of Mount Davis Playground since 2007. To improve the playground facilities, an improvement scheme had been carried out to enhance the safety standards and service levels of the facilities. Works carried out included the replacement of floor tiles, seating and fences, which were completed in December 2018. She thanked the Council for its funding support for the project. In addition, improvement works had been carried out in the Fung Mat Road Sitting-out Area for the provision of a pet corner, which was completed in December 2017 and the project cost was over $2 million. In addition, provision of arbour and installation of wall-mounted lights had been carried out in West End Park. Albeit a minor works project, it was believed that the upgrading of the facilities would provide more convenience to the park users. On the other hand, the department received funding of some $500,000 from the C&WDC last year to carry out landscaping works at 22 different recreational venues in the Central and Western District. Also, distinctive flowers and plants were planted during the Mid-Autumn Festival, Christmas and Lunar New Year to enhance amenity and greening effect as well as add festive atmosphere. This included landscape improvement of Mount Austin Playground and the roadside amenity areas in Justice Drive roundabout.The third area was public library services in the Central and Western District. D of LCS said that the Central and Western District had a population of about 240?000. There were three static public libraries in the district, including a major library at Hong Kong City Hall (City Hall) which was distinctive and historic, a district library at Shek Tong Tsui and a small library at Smithfield. In addition, she said that the department had set up a mobile library service point in the Central and Western District next to Sheung Wan Cultural Square in May 2016. She said that in light of the gradual changes in the reading habits of Hong Kong people, the department would keep abreast of the times by promoting diversified activities and services in addition to printed books. She said that various facilities and services were available in physical public libraries, including adult and junior lending services, reference enquiry service, multimedia information services and so on. Besides, she said that the department would continue to collaborate with local organisations to implement the Community Libraries Partnership Scheme. She was grateful that with the support of all parties concerned, nine community libraries had been set up in the Central and Western District, including those located in the ward offices of Members. She said that Members interested in setting up a community library could contact the department. Also, she said that in addition to hardware, software was also essential in the provision of library services to cultivate a reading habit. Hence, as promoted by the Chief Executive, the department launched a series of reading activities under the theme "Discover and Share the Joy of Reading" on the World Book Day on 23 April 2018 to encourage the public to read, provide new impetus to public libraries, and create joyful and lively ambience. She said that this year the department would step up collaboration with local organisations and various units to promote reading under different themes. On the other hand, the department had also set up “pop-up libraries” in some shopping malls and public spaces outside library premises to encourage residents to read. Besides, the department would also promote e-reading in addition to printed books. On e-resources, the department had 76 e-databases covering Chinese, English, ancient and modern, and arts and science, as well as 11 e-book collections (over 290?000 e-books). These were aimed to keep pace with the times and facilitate the use of e-books by young people, so that apart from physical library, young people could also enjoy the e-book services at home. She said that the department had successfully sought funding from the Legislative Council to develop a “Smart Library” system in future. It involved the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology to fully support the development of a self-service scheme. It was hoped that the provision of smart services would bring about more convenient library services to the public. For instance, the issue of how to use self-service library more efficiently would be explored which would help identifying more cost-effective ways to extend library service hours. On the other hand, she said that the Hong Kong Music Centre of the Music Office under the LCSD (located inside Hong Kong Arts Centre on Harbour Road in the district) had more than 900 trainees, of which about 190 were from the Central and Western District. The centre offered some 30 large and small-scale activities, benefitting as many as 16?000 people.The fourth area was performing arts. As regards venues and facilities, D of LCS said that City Hall was a territory-wide cultural facility and major performing arts venue. It had a 1?434-seat concert hall, a 463-seat theatre, a 111-seat recital hall and a 590-square metre exhibition hall. She said that although City Hall was a venue serving the whole territory, residents of the Central and Western District had benefitted the most from its location. Another performance arts venue in the Central and Western District was the Sheung Wan Civic Centre. It housed a 480-seat theatre, a 150-seat lecture hall, a 360-square-metre exhibition hall and six small venues including music practice rooms and a dance practice room. She said that the department had implemented a Venue Partnership Scheme, under which support was given to groups/organisations to provide quality performing arts programmes to residents of the Central and Western District at close range. She expressed gratitude to the C&WDC for providing funding of more than $400,000 annually to stage two free cultural and art performances in different places in the Central and Western District each month, including music, dance and small-scale drama performances. In addition, the department would deepen the implementation of the Community Cultural Ambassador Scheme to provide a platform for small and medium-scale performing arts groups to showcase their talents so that residents could participate in arts activities or workshops at close range. She also thanked the C&WDC for supporting the department to implement the Community Oral History Theatre Project since September 2018. The project collected the oral histories of the elderly to come up with a drama script, and providing an opportunity for the elderly to act their stories on stage. The performances had already been staged at Tai Kwun and Sheung Wan Civic Centre.The last area was museums and culture. D of LCS said that Dr Sun Yat-sen Museum in the Central and Western District was a facility with unique architectural and historical features. The museum was holding a fun day and exhibition to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement. In addition, the Hong Kong Visual Arts Centre at Hong Kong Park was an arts venue where public art schemes would be held from time to time, making it a "site for pilgrimage" for visual arts workers. She pointed out that public art did not necessarily require a fixed venue, as public spaces could be made use of for its promotion. Hence, the department launched the public art project “City Dress Up: Seats ? Together” during the period of celebration of the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to the Motherland in 2017. Under the project, artworks were displayed in the 18 districts for public viewing, including the innovative seats created by artists in the Central Pier Waterfront and the Central and Western District Promenade - Central Section, allowing members of the public to appreciate and enjoy public art in everyday lives. In addition, she said that many large-scale arts performances were held in the Central and Western District given its strategic location. An example was “Lumieres Hong Kong” co-presented by the LCSD and the Association Culturelle France Hong Kong in 2017, which attracted 300?000 visitors. The event would be held again this year from 28 November to 1 December on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon, including the Central and Western District. On the other hand, she said that there were many intangible cultural heritage (ICH) items in the Central and Western District, some of which had been inscribed onto the national list of ICH, such as the Yu Lan Ghost Festival of the Hong Kong Chiu Chow Community. There were also the Earth God Festival, Man Cheong Festival, Lo Pan Festival, etc. which had been included in the ICH inventory of Hong Kong. The department hoped to collaborate with the C&WDC to provide more arts, cultural, leisure and recreational programmes for residents of the Central and Western District.The Chairman thanked D of LCS for her detailed presentation on the Government's policies on leisure and cultural development, as well as information on new activities in the Central and Western District. He invited Members to raise questions to D of LCS.(a)Ms NG Hoi-yan understood that the LCSD was responsible for managing many park facilities. She said that on 8 March 2019, she conducted a joint inspection with staff of the LCSD, the Architectural Services Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department of facilities in Caine Lane Garden, and gave views. She said that after the onslaught of Typhoon Mangkhut in Hong Kong last year, many trees, play equipment, fences and other park facilities inside the garden needed to be repaired. However, the repair works still had not completed in March this year. While understanding that the LCSD had to handle the recovery work at many parks and was burdened with heavy workload, she hoped that in case the parks were seriously damaged or hit by typhoon in the future, the department could expedite the repair works so that the facilities would be available for public enjoyment as soon as possible. Besides, in view that some places within the Central and Western District had become tourist attractions and filming sites, she hoped that the department could pay attention to the problems arisen. She said that filming crews were often seen filming in Caine Lane Garden. However, there was no proper management on filming activities. She noted that filming crews often occupy venues without prior application, and staff of the department did not ask them to leave nor advise them to vacate the venue for residents’ use. In addition, she said she had mentioned earlier the hope for the provision of water dispenser in Caine Lane Garden. She said that Caine Lane Garden had a long history and the repair works of the damaged children's play equipment and elderly fitness facilities had been completed. She hoped that the department could solve the problem of water pressure and water source as soon as possible in order to provide water dispenser in children's playground and elderly fitness corner.(b)Mr YOUNG Chit-on thanked D of LCS for visiting C&WDC. As District Councillor of the Peak constituency, he was grateful to the staff of LCSD for their facilitation in implementing a number of positive projects during his tenure, including the speedy completion of the works at children's playground for public use before the Peak Galleria was re-opened in full. Also, he expressed his appreciation for the provision of an Inclusive Park for Pets in Victoria Peak Garden, saying that he had promoted the Inclusive Park for Pets to Peak residents who kept pets. In addition, he said that water dispenser had been installed in Brewin Path Garden pending water quality testing by the Water Supplies Department. He hoped that the water dispenser could be ready for use before the summer vacation so that the public could drink more water in hot weather. However, he said that although staff of the LCSD were willing to listen to Members' views and offer facilitation, he considered that the design of facilities adopted by the department in replacing playground facilities remained rather conservative. He noted that the department had invited designers from non-governmental organisations to design some smaller parks to make them more aesthetically pleasing. However, the department would eventually give up adopting certain designs for safety or other reasons, thereby falling short of public expectations for innovative parks. He opined that if the department had more discussion with Members before launching the works projects, it would know that Members did support creative park designs.(c)Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing welcomed the extension of opening hours on Sundays and public holidays at a number of public libraries across the territory since July 2018. He considered that the policy was effective, and hoped that it could be continued and extended to libraries not yet covered by the policy. He said that at present many people could only visit libraries during holidays, and he hoped that the opening hours of public libraries could be extended. Besides, he was pleased to see the provision of a book sterilizer at the Shek Tong Tsui Public Library last year through his lobbying effort. He said that the facility was well received by the public and he hoped the measure could be extended to other libraries. He believed that book sterilizer was a common facility in other countries, not something hi-tech. He remarked that many libraries in Mainland China were equipped with advanced book sterilizers. He hoped that the department could keep pace with the times by providing book sterilizers in more libraries. In addition, he said D of LCS had mentioned just now that there were several libraries in the Central and Western District including City Hall Public Library. However, he considered that City Hall Public Library was one that served the city territory-wide and far away from the residential areas. He had been striving for the setting up of a library in Sheung Wan, including suggesting to convert the Technical Processing Office at Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building into a library or setting up a library at the bus lay-by next to Sheung Wan Fire Station. On the other hand, he said that the department had failed to curb touting activities, making it difficult for the public to hire LCSD’s venues. Lastly, he said that the swimming season was approaching and he was concerned about the lifeguard manpower of swimming pools. He did not wish to see the closure of swimming facilities in the two beautiful swimming pools in the Central and Western District during summer holiday due to insufficient lifeguards, thus depriving the public’s use of those facilities. He hoped that D of LCS would provide feasible solutions to the problems raised by him.(d)Mr NG Siu-hong said that summer was approaching and the weather was hot. The mosquito problem in the district had become more serious as weather changed. He considered it necessary to step up anti-mosquito measures in parks, and cited that Aedes albopictus were found breeding in the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens last year. Besides, he said that the hygiene conditions of toilets in some parks were unsatisfactory. For example, long-term corrosion was observed in the toilet floor in Kwong Hon Terrace Garden where dirt tended to accumulate. He hoped that renovation works could be carried out to repave the floor, improve the drainage, replace rusty drain covers, and enhance the ventilation of or provide air-conditioning in the toilets. Furthermore, he said that for residents of his constituency, City Hall Public Library was far away and they had to take transport to get there. He said residents of his constituency considered that City Hall Public Library was far away from them and as a district library, it could only serve the Central’s business area. At present, the library was mainly used by working people rather than residents. Also, he opined that the planning standards for libraries had not kept pace with the times, and said the previous planning standards had remained unchanged for many years. He hoped that additional library could be provided in the district. He also considered that the Government had too few mobile library vans. Even if there were suitable parking places, library vans could not be arranged to station. On the other hand, he said that a unit claiming itself a charitable organisation had been given priority to hire the football pitches of Victoria Park in the name of a charity on 1 July this year. However, that unit had not organised any charity activities last year. He suspected that the unit was intended to occupy the venue to thwart the July 1 procession. He asked that for a charity which had succeeded in hiring a venue because it had waited overnight, whether the department needed not check if the activities it organised were related to charity, and whether it required such a large venue to organise the event concerned. He said that such arrangement would undermine the reputation of the Government and LCSD as the football pitches were used to be the starting point of the procession in the past. He hoped that the department could review and propose ways to improve the present situation in order to convince the public that the Government had made a fair arrangement.(e)Mr HUI Chi-fung said that he had received an increasing number of public complaints about performances by so-called "dama" (meaning middle-aged Chinese women) and other performers in the Central Harbourfront which had caused serious noise nuisance. He said that although there was no residential dwelling in its vicinity, the Central Harbourfront was a place for leisure for residents of the Central District. Now members of the public complained that there was no place for taking a rest from the Outlying Island Ferry Pier all the way to the harbourfront areas along Central Piers No. 9 and 10. In light of this, he hoped that the department could address these nuisances at places under its management. He stressed that he did not wish the authorities to impose restrictions or use licensing to prohibit performances. However, he considered that there should be objective criteria to facilitate judgement by staff. He cited an example that if most people considered that noise existed or it was obvious that performers received rewards for staging performances, it could be deemed a nuisance. He said that the department should step up efforts in giving advice to and have appropriate communication with performers for proper management, including setting up different zones or allocating time slots for performers. He said that perhaps the measures needed not be mandatory, but communication was necessary to respond to public aspirations. He pointed out that this problem not only affected residents but also Hong Kong's cityscape, as tourists to Hong Kong might be disturbed when visiting this attraction. He hoped the department would take the initiative to address this issue concerning the portion of Central Harbourfront that fell under its purview. Besides, he said that the suggestion to convert the Technical Processing Office at 9/F of Sheung Wan Civic Centre into a library had been discussed at the Council for many years. However, it had not been implemented so far, which was unfair. He hoped that the arrangement could be explored during the tenure of the current D of LCS. Furthermore, he pointed out that the issue of insufficient lifeguards had been a long-standing problem. He said that parents were angry because they could not let their children swim in leisure pools for two consecutive summers due to insufficient lifeguards. He remarked that the department on one hand said that the pay of their lifeguards should be broadly comparable with that of their private sector counterparts, but on the other was reluctant to review the grade structure of lifeguards, thus angering the public. He hoped that D of LCS could address the issue of insufficient lifeguards.(f)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming opined that apart from temporary closure of swimming pools due to insufficient lifeguards, the LCSD had to improve the notification mechanism for temporary closure of swimming pools. He said that the present situation was not satisfactory as many parents only learned about the temporary closure due to insufficient lifeguards after arriving at the outside of swimming pool entrance, which made them disappointed. He believed that improving the notification mechanism would enable residents to know in advance the temporary closure of some facilities in swimming pools (such as leisure pool), so that they would not bring their children there. The department should have known whether there were sufficient lifeguards on duty in the morning and thus could announce relevant information early to inform residents. He reckoned that the daily opening of swimming pools with sufficient lifeguards was the most basic need of the public. If there were insufficient lifeguards on duty, the notification mechanism should be improved to prevent members of the public learning about the temporary closure of some facilities only after they arrived at the swimming pool. In addition, he did not understand why the hygiene conditions of toilets in LCSD parks were worse than that of those in sports centres. He opined that while the utilisation rate of toilets and the equipment in parks might affect the hygiene conditions of the toilets, the public would expect the hygiene conditions of toilets in parks to be comparable to those in sports centres. He hoped the department could make improvement in this regard.(g)Mr LEE Chi-hang said that the top floor of Sai Ying Pun Market had been vacant for many years due to the policy on chilled chickens in the early years. The Council had been striving to convert the top floor of Sai Ying Pun Market into a small library and study room. He also pointed out that he had moved a motion at a Culture, Leisure & Social Affairs Committee meeting of the C&WDC in 2016 on converting the top floor of Sai Ying Pun Market into a small library and study room, which was unanimously passed by all Members and co-opted members present at the time. Consultation had been conducted on the proposal later, and results of the consultation together with information on the "one person, one letter" campaign by members of the public had also been submitted to the Secretary for Food and Health. However, it was still unknown whether the bureau was willing to make such arrangement. He asked if the LCSD was willing to convert the place into a small library and study room if the Food and Health Bureau was willing to hand over the place. He said that even if the small library could only provide basic computer equipment, Internet devices and newspapers and magazines, it would be sufficient for public use. He did not wish the place to remain vacant for a long time. In addition, he said he had received many public complaints about South Asians and foreign domestic helpers gathering and picnicking at Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park at nighttime. They had also left a lot of rubbish behind and caused noise nuisance and poor hygiene. He hoped the department could take note of and follow up on this issue.(h)Ms CHENG Lai-king appreciated that the LCSD's artificial turf soccer pitch in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park was open for public hiring for cricket training. She said that in the past, there was difficulty in providing barrier-free facilities in many parks in the Mid-Levels due to the presence of steps. She remarked that at the meeting of the Working Group on District Minor Works held on the day before this meeting, the provision of barrier-free access at the Seymour Road entrance of Caine Road Garden was discussed. However, as the site involved slope works, it would require the LCSD, District Office or C&WDC to bear the works cost of $5 to $6 million. The proposal therefore had to be abandoned. She pointed out that at present, residents had to walk along the side of the road to the main entrance on Caine Road before they could get into Caine Road Garden, which was quite dangerous and the situation was not satisfactory. Hence, she hoped the use of other barrier-free facilities (such as lifts) could be explored to benefit residents using wheelchair to take rest in the park. Also, she believed that the current sports facilities were backward and hoped that the department would provide additional sports facilities, such as generator bike which could convert the energy produced when people were exercising into electricity to reduce carbon emissions, so that environmental protection could be promoted while residents were exercising. She also hoped that venue or facilities for rock climbing could be provided in the Central and Western District. Furthermore, she said that the quota for application for performance venues at City Hall and Sheung Wan Civic Centre was often full. She hoped that the department would explore ways to increase cultural and recreational facilities in the district. On the other hand, she said that she had been requesting for the conversion of the Technical Processing Office at Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building into a library since the commissioning of the building, but nothing had changed so far. She hoped that the place could be converted into a library to facilitate use by residents living in areas between Central and Shek Tong Tsui and in the Mid-Levels. Lastly, she hoped that in replanting trees in the aftermath of Typhoon Mangkhut, more flowering trees could be planted to increase the city’s attractiveness. As regards lifeguards on duty, she said that information about red flags hoisted at beaches would be broadcasted on the radio in early years. She hoped that if some of the swimming pool facilities had to be closed due to insufficient lifeguards, such information could also be released to the public through radio broadcasts. She considered it unrealistic for the public to call staff of swimming pool to ask if the swimming pool was open.(i)Mr KAM Nai-wai said that Ms LI was already in office during the last term of the C&WDC. He said that the Council had discussed and requested the setting up of a library in Sheung Wan in the past 20 years, but there had been no progress so far. He opined that mobile library, smart library and "pop-up library" were no alternatives to Sheung Wan Library as the function of physical library was not limited to book borrowing, there were still other functions that could be performed. He said that apart from the Technical Processing Office at the 9th floor of Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building, the government land adjacent to the Sheung Wan Fire Station could also be considered for setting up a library. Remarking that since the Chief Executive wished to set up various community facilities at the site, and the results of his survey showed that more than 90% of the respondents hoped that a library be set up at the site or the Technical Processing Office be relocated there to make room for a library at the Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building, he hoped that the department could arrange to set up the Sheung Wan Library. In addition, he said that mobile library van only stationed at Sheung Wan Cultural Square every two weeks, making it difficult for the public to remember the dates of library van visit. He believed that if the library van came once a week, it would be easier for residents to remember the dates of library van visit. Furthermore, he said that the utilisation rate of venues in the civic centre was very high and hoped that the department could consider providing additional cultural venues at the government land adjacent to Sheung Wan Fire Station. He said that as a District Councillor for nearly 20 years, he had applied for hiring the venues of Sheung Wan Civic Centre less than 10 times since the venues were often full and District Councillors did not enjoy concessionary rates for venue hiring. He opined that it was unfair to District Councillors as they organised free activities for residents but could not enjoy concessionary rates, and thus hoped that the Government could provide concessionary rates to District Councillors for hiring civic centre venues. Lastly, he hoped that staff of the department would follow up with him the maintenance and protection of trees on the footpath of Lok Ku Road after the meeting to prevent members of the public from being tripped over by the trees when passing by.(j)Mr CHAN Choi-hi asked if it was possible to increase the frequency of mobile library visit to once a week. Remarking that there were only 12 public mobile library vans in Hong Kong, he hoped that the number of mobile library vans could be increased so that the number of service points in the Central and Western District could also increase. Furthermore, he said that at present it was difficult for many members of the public and organisations to hire LCSD’s venues and enquired whether it was possible to set up temporary tents on the lawns in some larger parks to better utilise LCSD’s venues and increase the space available for organisations to hold events. He said that this suggestion, albeit unusual, was worth exploring. In addition, he said that the enclosed design of Fung Mat Road Sitting-out Area had resulted in low usage rate and he suggested providing an additional entrance to the south. Lastly, he asked if it was feasible to cooperate with the Civil Aid Service to train retirees to obtain lifeguard qualification and serve as volunteers in order to solve the problem of insufficient lifeguards.(k)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai welcomed D of LCS’s visit to the C&WDC to listen to views and thanked the LCSD for facilitating collaboration among the Government, the business sector and the community to promote sports development in the Central and Western District. He said that resources was essential for good performance and appreciated the Government's provision of additional resources in recent years to promote sports development. Also, he hoped that community resources could be increased. He opined that the department should invest more, particularly in respect of venue, in order to further promote sports for all. He cited an example that if there was no tennis court, the public would not be able to practise tennis to improve their skills. He said that while national sports association had new venues, there was no indoor tennis court and thus tennis practice was subject to weather conditions, which was not satisfactory. He suggested the provision of cultural and sports venues at Mount Davis. In addition, given the increasing demands on parks by various stakeholders, including the provision of "Wi-Fi hotspots" and water dispensers, he believed these demands reflected that parks needed renovation and injection of innovative elements. He said that some members of the public had complained to him that the waiting time for using the female toilet in Chater Garden was half an hour. He reckoned that the department should take the initiative to implement provisional arrangements and explore the provision of additional facilities. Furthermore, he said that relevant departments and organisations had actively promoted items of intangible cultural heritage in recent years. However, he believed that the coordination of various aspects still had room for improvement. For example, the Yu Lan Ghost Festival required large venues and assistance from the department in setting up incense burning facilities. He hoped that the department could study relevant arrangements. Lastly, he said that among the various Conserving Central projects, Tai Kwun was now open and had become a facility of international standard. He hoped that more people would visit Tai Kwun. He suggested that the department could increase subsidies to promote these activities and step up publicity efforts to give Hong Kong citizens and students a deeper understanding of this Conserving Central project, a landmark of local historical architecture and culture.(l)The Vice-chairman considered that staff of the LCSD deserved encouragement. He said that District Leisure Manager (Central and Western) often lead colleagues to communicate with Members in solving problems relating to leisure and recreation in the Central and Western District, and he expressed his gratitude for this. He opined that the department should address some hardware facilities on the policy level because, as mentioned just now by D of LCS, many facilities in the Central and Western District were used by people across the territory and not confined to residents in the Central and Western District. In addition to some territory-wide facilities, residents in the district also found it difficult to hire many sports facilities in the Central and Western District due to their convenient geographical locations, resulting in the prevalence of touting activities. He said that he had seen people queuing up outside a sports centre at as early as 4:00 to 5:00 am for hiring the venue. Hence, he reckoned that there was an acute shortage of venue in the Central and Western District, and hoped that the department could explore the possibility of constructing leisure and recreational facilities at the site adjacent to Sheung Wan Fire Station and the government land at Victoria Road to increase provision of such facilities in the district for use by residents. In addition, he said that the facilities managed by government departments, including those by the LCSD, tended to be homogeneous and lacking in innovation. He said that District Officer (Central and Western) and District Leisure Manager (Central and Western) had helped develop an innovative waterfront park in Shek Tong Tsui and adopted innovative thinking in designing the Fung Mat Road Sitting-out Area. However, he believed that new elements could be incorporated into the facilities’ design to attract public usage as well as to avoid homogeneity and the lack of attractive features in all park facilities. He cited an example that he had travelled with his children to visit parks in other countries. The facilities in those parks, though not many in number, had attractive features which were good enough to keep children playing for quite some time. Hence, he hoped that the department could incorporate innovative elements compatible with local characteristics in the facilities’ design to make the parks more interesting. Lastly, he said that in general signage would be put up at park entrance stating activities that were prohibited in the park. However, he reckoned that over-prescription would make parks a place merely for people to sit. He hoped that the park rules could be reviewed at opportune time and welcomed the relaxation of rules in some parks. For example, kids were allowed to ride bicycle and toy scooter in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park. He hoped that other parks could also relax regulation to allow the public to carry out different kind of activities in the parks. He said that the Central and Western District was a densely built and populated area and parks was an important place to take a rest. It would be a waste of the park facilities if many activities were banned. He hoped that D of LCS would review the park rules to increase diversification of leisure space.(m)The Chairman thanked District Leisure Manager (Central and Western) for leading her team to facilitate district development. He said that the swimming pool in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and the Kennedy Town Swimming Pool in the Central and Western District, especially their jacuzzi facilities, were very popular among the elders. However, he said that some elders had relayed that the pool water temperature was low during the few days when Cold Weather Warning was in force in early 2019. He said that he had inspected with staff of the LCSD and learned that LCSD’s staff had done a lot of work on this. He had sent a letter earlier suggesting that pool water be heated some time ahead of the opening hour of swimming pools, but it was not implemented due to manpower and electricity costs. The solution finally adopted was to cover the water surface with transparent plastic material to slow down heat loss. He thanked the LCSD for their flexibility in handling the matter which had enabled an improvement to the situation. He said that Hong Kong was not always cold, but if the heating system of swimming pools needed some time to raise the water temperature, consideration should be given to studying how to speed up the water temperature increase with the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, so that a specific water temperature could be maintained even in the coldest time which could help prevent affecting people’s health. He opined that district minor works could help addressing the problem. He also suggested that the department should complement in other areas, such as arranging their staff to go to work earlier. He cited an example that if Cold Weather Warning was expected on the following day, staff could be arranged to go to work earlier to raise the water temperature in advance, thereby enabling elders in the district to enjoy swimming pool facilities comfortably. In addition, he said that after the typhoon, LCSD’s staff had conducted many site inspections and noted that many trees were too large to be handled manually. The trees would take several months to remove by hydraulic platform vehicles. He said that although trees posing immediate danger had been cleared after the typhoon, but those that were too large to be handled manually needed several months to remove. He understood that there were only a limited number of hydraulic platform vehicles in Hong Kong, but still hoped the progress of clearing could be accelerated in the future. Furthermore, he said that insufficient lifeguards was a long standing problem and should not be solely borne by D of LCS. He said that seasonal lifeguards appointed on contract terms only had an employment period of a few months and their work was insecure. Also, many private residential buildings and large establishments in the district also had swimming pools and they offered higher salary to recruit lifeguards. He understood that the department had allocated additional resources to bring the salary of its staff closer to the market level. However, recruitment was still difficult due to various factors. He hoped that D of LCS could discuss with the relevant parties on how to step up efforts and raise the pay level to solve the problem of insufficient lifeguards. Lastly, he thanked staff of the department for their dedication and assistance in promoting the Hong Kong Games organised through the joint efforts of the Government, the business sector and the community, which had enabled residents of the Central and Western District to participate in the eight sports of the Games, and enhanced their sense of belonging and bring honour to the district.D of LCS thanked Members for their valuable comments and make a consolidated response to Members' views. She said that Mangkhut was a super typhoon and caused great damage to Hong Kong. She thanked residents of the district and Members for their great support, and said many government departments had strived to complete the recovery work as soon as possible. She said that under the leadership of the Chief Secretary for Administration, government departments were particularly concerned about recovery work after the typhoon. They would also draw lessons from last year’s experience, including improving the standard of departmental equipment and coordination between various departments, so that a swift response could be made if similar situations occurred in future. In addition, she said that recovery work had been carried out expeditiously after the passage of Typhoon Mangkhut, including priority handling of trees or facilities that posed immediate danger. Other areas were also being followed up, but if building rehabilitation works was involved, it had to be arranged by the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD). Regarding tree replanting and maintenance, she said that the department’s plan was “right species at the right place”. The department was in favour of planting more flowering plants to bring more colour to the city, and people needed not go to other places to appreciate trees and flowers.D of LCS continued to respond to Members' concerns on the recreational and sports facilities in the Central and Western District. She said that regarding the problem of homogeneity of children's play equipment in parks mentioned by a Member, the department had launched a trial scheme in Tuen Mun Park. The scheme featured a competition which aimed to involve the public in the design process. Winning works from the competition would be incorporated into the design by architects and landscape architects to develop an innovative inclusive playground. She said that the trial scheme had been well received by all parties and the department found the results encouraging. The department was summing up the experience of the trial scheme and studying the feasibility of adding new elements to various type of parks or suitable places. Besides, she remarked that the ArchSD had also completed a consultancy report on children's playground design, which suggested that parks could be more diversified. She said that the LCSD would explore increasing the diversity of play equipment in suitable locations to make it more fun and challenging for children to play, while taking into account the needs of people with different abilities. Also, she hoped that parks would be a place for the public to relax and carry out various types of activities. The department had launched “Inclusive Park for Pets” in various parks, including Victoria Peak Garden, since 1 January 2019. The department would sum up experience later in the year to explore whether it was appropriate to allow pets in certain parks. She said that the department had also provided trial spots for young children to play balance bikes. On the premise of safety, a trial implementation of a shared-use pavement for cyclists and pedestrian would be launched at Kwun Tong Promenade, provided that the footpath concerned must have sufficient width to accommodate the facilities. She pointed out that the department had been trying new things in various aspects in recent years and hoped to remove barriers in order to allow the public to enjoy parks to the fullest. The department hoped that it could continue to adopt more innovative thinking. Regarding issues concerning maintenance and cleaning, she said that summer was approaching which might be favourable for mosquito breeding. Staff of the LCSD was making every effort to continue carrying out and step up mosquito, midge and rodent prevention and control work before the onset of the rainy season. In addition, the department was very concerned about the hygiene management of toilet facilities. She pointed out that the toilet facilities in some parks were generally intended for use by people using the park or sports facilities. However, there were many tourists in the Central and Western District, and many people who temporarily used the park facilities or passed by the parks would also use the toilet facilities therein. The Financial Secretary had mentioned in the Budget about upgrading the facilities managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), including the improvement of toilet facilities, environmental hygiene and level of convenience. She said that in the planning of new venues in future, the LCSD would make reference to the FEHD’s studies and experience. In addition to users, the population in other districts which needed to be taken care of would also be taken into account in the planning and design to ensure the provision of sufficient toilet facilities. She was aware of the uniqueness of the Central and Western District and was happy to listen to more views. For short-term measures, she welcomed views from Members on how to improve the drainage and ventilation of toilet facilities, on which the department would follow up. As for venues/facilities fallen into disrepair which were difficult to handle immediately and minor works was required, the department would be happy to listen to views so as to devise middle-to-long term measures and make appropriate improvement. Regarding park management, she cited large parks such as the Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park as an example. She considered that parks should be for the free enjoyment by the public though they should not cause nuisances to others. She said that at present the parks causing the most serious nuisance to the public were not located in the Central and Western District, instead it was Tuen Mun Park and Hoi Sham Park in Kowloon City. The department intended to amend the Pleasure Grounds Regulation (Cap. 132 sub. leg. BC) to empower the LCSD to issue summons against those who commit offences in response to complaints from nearby residents, which would make it easier for LCSD’s staff to enforce the law. She said that she had attended a meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs to listen to views. If there were suggestions that the department should adopt a tougher stance in handling the matter, the department would conduct in-depth studies and hoped to address the problem more effectively by means of legislative amendment and law enforcement. Regarding problems including night time nuisance at Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and refuse left behind by users, the department would closely monitor and properly follow up. As regards venue facilities, she said that Hong Kong was facing the problem of insufficient venues. Subject to land use compatibility, the department wished to consider opening up more space for public use. However, the Central and Western District was already a built-up area and there was not much land left for development. The department would closely monitor the sufficiency of new space in the district and explore ways to solve problems from a "single site, multiple uses" perspective. Regarding the provision of diversified park facilities, she said that generator bike had been installed in five LCSD venues as trial spots. The department shared Members’ views on encouraging the public to exercise while promoting green living. She said that if the facility was well-received by the public, the department would study and actively consider providing this kind of facilities in suitable venues for public use. In addition, the department wished to study how to enable various sports to be carried out in the same venue. This was the approach adopted by the department in arranging venues for cricket practice. She expressed understanding to the reasons for the lack of tennis court in the Central and Western District, and said that although land was not available for constructing tennis courts in the district, the department could still hold tennis events at the tennis courts in the nearby Wan Chai and Southern Districts. She said the department wished to enhance the provision, renewal, repair, maintenance and management of venue facilities. The department had also followed up on the installation of water dispenser at several locations. However, while the LCSD provided space for installation of water dispenser, facilitation by the ArchSD and the Water Supplies Department was required in taking forward the works. All in all, the department would follow up on various fronts. She hoped that parks and public space could be filled with elements of happiness, beauty and artistic atmosphere for the public to enjoy and have fun.Regarding Members' concern on swimming pools, D of LCS said that the two swimming pools in the Central and Western District were very beautifully designed and the public was satisfied with the facilities. She said that the department was very concerned about the manpower situation of lifeguards. She said that the department employed both civil service lifeguards and non-civil service contract (NCSC) seasonal lifeguards. As swimming pools and bathing beaches had peak and non-peak swimming seasons, it would not be possible to convert all lifeguard positions to full year civil service posts on cost effectiveness. She said that the department encountered no major difficulties in recruiting civil service lifeguards and it had been enhancing training in various aspects. However, as the department had encountered difficulties in recruiting seasonal lifeguards in the past, it would recruit some 80 and 100 lifeguards respectively this year and in the coming year, and would arrange for more flexible deployment of civil service lifeguards to different workplaces. In addition, the department would substantially increase the remuneration of NCSC seasonal lifeguards. She said that the monthly salary of NCSC seasonal lifeguards was around $17,000, similar to that in the private market. The department would conduct survey on private sector pay levels each year to keep the pay of NCSC seasonal lifeguards comparable with that of their private sector counterparts. However, part-time lifeguards would also be recruited as the department still faced difficulties in recruiting seasonal lifeguards. It was now coordinating with various stakeholders to congregate community power in the hope to facilitate the recruitment of part-time lifeguards. The recruitment targets included members of the Civil Aid Service. The department would also explore the feasibility of establishing a uniformed group and allocate resources to enable young people who wished to become lifeguards to participate in swimming and life saving training at young age. She welcomed other suggestions from Members' and the department would provide facilitation as much as possible. She said that views put forward by this district were more important, because if the suggestions were made by other districts, the lifeguards trained might tend to serve the areas to which they belonged and might not be willing to report for duty cross district. In addition, she said that for temporary closure of swimming pool facilities, priority would be determined according to the levels of utilisation of swimming pools. She agreed with what Members said just now that the public should be notified well in advance on temporary closure of swimming pool facilities. She said that at present, temporary closure of swimming pool facilities would be announced on LCSD’s website. The department would further explore ways to disseminate relevant information to the public in a more effective manner as soon as possible to prevent members of the public from being disappointed when they arrived to find they could not use the facilities. Regarding the jacuzzi of Kennedy Town Swimming Pool, she said that not many swimming pools had jacuzzi facilities. The temperature standard set by the World Health Organization (i.e. 26 to 28°C) had to be taken into consideration in installing such facilities. For passive swimming pool facilities, the department would normally set the temperature to about 28°C. The department would explore ways to prevent heat loss of swimming pool water and other temporary improvement measures without the need for alterations in order to solve the problem of insufficient water temperature level immediately after the daily opening of swimming pools.In response to Members' views on library services, D of LCS said she once lived and worked in the Central and Western District for a long time and often used facilities of the Central and Western District. She agreed that some of the facilities in the Central and Western District were serving the whole territory. She often visited the City Hall Public Library and liked it a lot as it had resources which could not be found in other libraries. However, she also understood the needs of residents of the district regarding library services. She said that according to the current planning guidelines, library services in the Central and Western District was in line with the requirements of the guidelines. Being responsive to residents’ demand, the department had set up a mobile library service point at Sheung Wan Cultural Square. She said that at present mobile library van would visit the said service point once every two weeks. The department might consider to explore adjusting the current service hours to a half-day service every week to meet the actual needs of residents without deploying additional resources. In addition, she said that a pilot scheme on new mobile library service would be launched later this year. The department was studying the parking locations to better meet the needs during festival days. As the Technical Processing Office at Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building occupied an area of about 2?600 square metres, no suitable site was identified for its relocation for the time being. Hence, there was no plan to set up a library at the current location of the Technical Processing Office in Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building. As regards setting up a library at the site adjacent to Sheung Wan Fire Station or at the top floor of Sai Ying Pun Market, the department would be happy to continue listening to views and further step up activities relating to community library and “pop-up library”. On the other hand, she said that a book sterilizer had been provided in Shek Tong Tsui Library. The department would take account of relevant views and consider providing the facility in other libraries.D of LCS continued to respond to Members' views on intangible cultural heritage, remarking that the department attached great importance to intangible cultural heritage. This year marked the 10th anniversary of Inscription of Cantonese Opera onto the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, the department was planning to organise a series of celebration activities and would be happy to take account of the views on ancillary facilities.Regarding the concerns on leisure and cultural facilities, D of LCS said that the utilisation rate of City Hall and Sheung Wan Civic Centre had exceeded 99%. Due to the excessive number of applications, City Hall had to reject 80 to 90% of applications for venue hiring. Also, the department often had to discuss with the applicants about shortening the duration of hire due to insufficient venues. In the case of the Central and Western District, it was believed that the commissioning of Tai Kwun would help divert arts groups to use venues therein. The department would also consider allowing the applicant organisations to hire suitable parks under its purview for holding some short-term events. Although park venues would not be available for long term hire, the department would be happy to listen to views in order to explore ways to make flexible arrangements for the use of venues.The Chairman said that further questions or comments from Members could be conveyed to D of LCS in writing. He thanked D of LCS for attending the meeting and closed the discussion on this item.Standing ItemItem 6(i): Progress Report on Urban Renewal Authority’s Projects in Central & Western District(C&W DC Paper No. 45/2019) (4:06 pm – 5:21 pm)The Chairman welcomed representatives of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), Central and Western Concern Group (CWCG), Christian Family Service Centre, and Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood to the meeting. He then invited representatives of the URA to present the paper.Mr Christopher WONG, General Manager (Planning & Design) of URA, updated the meeting on the progress of the projects. The main points were as follows:(a)Final inspection for H18 Site B was being conducted and it was tentatively expected that site visits would be arranged for Members to the public open space adjourning Peel Street and Graham Street and shops in early June. Besides, the URA was currently liaising with shop operators who were interested in renting the 10-odd shops within Site B. In line with the views expressed by Members at the previous C&WDC meeting, the URA again advertised the letting of the shops within Site B in April 2019. Relevant details could be provided to Members during the site visit.(b)Foundation works in H18 Site A were near completion. Excavation and retaining wall works would commence shortly. A multi-purpose activity hall would be provided on the lower ground floor of the site and the land surface would be used for public open space. Residential blocks would be constructed on top of the podium above the ground. The public open space, upon completion, would link up with the public open spaces of Sites B and C. Project works was expected to be completed by 2021/22.(c)H18 Site C had the largest area among the three H18 project sites. It was also the core area for linking up Graham Street with the Mid-Levels Escalator system. Foundation works within Site C would be carried out in the second quarter and preliminary preparatory work was underway. The URA attached great importance to construction safety and conservation related protective works of the project. The preserved portion included the ruins at Cochrane Street, former Wing Woo Grocery at No. 120 Wellington Street and the external fa?ade of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street, etc. The URA had mentioned at previous meeting that temporary shoring and protective measures required for the ruins had been completed. The entire process of the project would also be supervised by professional conservation consultant and engineers. Hoardings and fences would be put up around the preserved portion to protect the buildings therein. Strengthening works for the preserved portion of former Wing Woo Grocery at No. 120 Wellington Street was being carried out, and covered walkway along a portion of Graham Street (adjacent to No. 120 Wellington Street) was being constructed to protect the shop and stall operators operating near Wellington Street/Graham Street and enable them to continue their operation. The location had become a landmark entrance. Since the iron frame erected during the temporary shoring works would only be dismantled upon completion of the redevelopment works, the URA was studying short-term measures for its beautification with a view to highlighting the characteristics of the market and using the iron frame’s location for artistic creation. In addition, the URA would discuss with shop and stall operators on how to improve the ventilation system to provide a desirable business environment in the market, as well as to provide adequate lighting. Due to the short-circuit problem occurred before, the URA would explore whether temporary fire service equipment could be provided and upgraded using the iron frame. For Nos. 26A to C Graham Street, the external fa?ade facing Graham Street was preserved in accordance with the requirements of the approved Master Layout Plan and approved works plan. Works for conserving the external fa?ade would be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the plans approved by the Government. Also, the Graham Market art bazaar would be held in the public open space of Site B and the shops in the end of 2019. The URA would update the C&WDC when more information was available.(d)The H19 project was being taken forward along the direction set out in the Chief Executive's 2018 Policy Address, as well as from the revitalisation perspective in line with C&WDC’s requests and a study would be conducted in this respect. The URA had commissioned an experienced consultancy team, SVhk (Social Ventures Hong Kong), to conduct a community study in the first half of this year. In the past few months, the team had met with various stakeholders to listen to different views, including those from District Councillors, Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood, local organisations and schools. After collecting the views, the team started to focus on in-depth discussions with different organisations in the last two months, as well as conduct in-depth analysis of the views collected to understand the actual needs of the district and anticipate future situations. The organisations involved included residents in the district, District Office and C&WDC. Mr WONG said that the community study had worked out some directions and initially received many positive responses. For example, the team was considering to adopt knowledge transfer as one of the directions given the many heritage in the Central and Western District, such as the traditional printing trade, the historic 30 Houses within H19 and the Hong Kong News-Expo nearby, and the exchanges between the elders and children was also a form of knowledge/experience transfer. Body-mind harmony was another direction under consideration by the team, as it was believed that the local community needed public open space and richer cultural ambience, as well as a tranquil environment. Mr WONG said that the details would be provided to the C&WDC upon completion of the study report. For Nos. 60 to 62A Staunton Street within H19, some properties under URA’s ownership would be converted for transitional housing and renovation works were being carried out. In addition, Government’s approval for amending the use of G/F, 5 Wing Lee Street to non-domestic use had been obtained and suitable organisation would be identified for such purpose. At present, nine buildings within H19 had been fully acquired by the URA. Renovation works was expected to commence at the end of this year. The URA would wait until the completion of the study report and refer to the recommendations in order to work out the project design of H19. It also had to wait for the Town Planning Board (TPB) to formulate an overall planning for the area. On 6 May 2019, the Lands Department accepted URA’s application for access to the government land at No. 6 Shing Wong Street within H19 to carry out inspection and assessment works for the existing temporary shoring at No. 4 Shing Wong Street and structural safety of the retaining wall between No. 6 and 6A Shing Wong Street. Upon completion of the inspection and assessment works, the URA would consider using the vacant land as temporary public open space for public enjoyment. The Hong Kong News-Expo had contacted the URA in the hope that the URA could help promote the News-Expo in the vicinity of Shing Wong Street. The URA would therefore use the hoarding at the vacant land to promote the News-Expo. The URA had also made initial contacts with the nearby residents and school organisations for participation in the beautification of the periphery fencing. The URA stressed that it placed great emphasis on the concept of community integration underlying the entire project, and would base on the community study report to improve the overall design concept of revitalisation and fine-tune the whole integration proposal.(e)Regarding C&W-005 Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project, about 72% of interests had accepted the acquisition offer. Ex-gratia allowance and rehousing arrangement was being offered to eligible tenants. The URA was currently handling some 20 tenants who lived in residential properties acquired by the URA, some of these tenants had received the ex-gratia allowance arrangement offered by the URA.(f)For Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme, the TPB had submitted the draft Development Scheme Plan (DSP) to the Chief Executive in Council for approval and the URA was awaiting the result. The URA would continue to explore concepts of revitalisation and would improve Lee Sing Street Playground. It would discuss with the C&WDC on a more specific proposal later.(g)As regards the Central Market Revitalisation Initiatives, in April 2019, the TPB rejected the revised proposal submitted by the URA for footpath widening and opined that a more spacious crossing place should be provided. The URA was proactively discussing with the Government in order to revise the design as soon as possible for submission to the TPB.(h)For H6 CONET, eight events were held there in the past three months, and a total number of 31 events would be held there from May to August 2019, including music sharing and exhibitions. In addition, H6 CONET provided free “E lockers” for the public to use as storage of personal goods. Street beautification works had been completed. On the other hand, of the 11 hawker stalls nearby, beautification works of five stalls had been completed with participation of the stall operators in the arts creation process. Regarding the ‘mural art wall’ initiative in the vicinity of H6 CONET, several buildings agreed to participate in the initiative. Arts creation was being carried out in a building at Hing Lung Street. Draft designs, if available in future, would be provided to Members for reference. The URA hoped that the street facelift concept would be extended to Graham Market within H18.(i)Regarding Western Market, its tenancy would be extended to February 2020. The URA would continue to discuss with the cloth trade operators in the Western Market about the relocation arrangements.Mr Wilfred AU, Director (Planning & Design) of URA, pointed out that there were media reports that the URA had jumped the gun in the construction work at H18 Site C. He would like to take this opportunity to clarify at the C&WDC meeting. He said that according to their records back to 2007, at the time the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) declared in March 2009 that 1?444 buildings might need to be graded, the URA already proposed conservation of the external fa?ade of No. 120 Wellington Street and Nos. 26A to C Graham Street in 2007. Meanwhile, the URA had also briefed the C&WDC on the proposed Master Layout Plan, which had been approved by the TPB. In addition, he said that according to the records of communication between the URA and C&WDC in recent years, various parties had suggested that a historic building grading exercise should be conducted for the buildings within the project boundary. For example, in 2014, there were suggestions that the building at No. 118 Wellington Street should be graded. The URA then took the initiative to contact the former owner of No. 118 Wellington Street, proposing that the terrazzo sign of Nam Wah Ink Company should be kept by the URA and the owner had no objection to it. The URA later proposed that the terrazzo sign be incorporated into the design of the public open space of Site C. Besides, in October 2015, there were suggestions that the AAB should grade the ruins at Cochrane Street. Although no grading was given, the URA still incorporated the ruins into the design of the public open space of Site C to manifest its historical significance. Meanwhile, the URA had also mentioned at C&WDC meeting that the external fa?ade of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street would be conserved. Later in 2017, there were suggestions for conserving the building at No. 120 Wellington Street in its entirety, and at the time the C&WDC also suggested conserving the building as much as possible. The URA's response was that the building could be conserved, but trade-offs had to be made. The URA wished to retain the external fa?ade of No. 120 Wellington Street. If the whole building was to be preserved, the public could only access the ground floor and have a view of the building envelope, but could not access the first and second floors. Afterwards, the URA attended the full Council meeting of C&WDC in March 2017 to brief the Council on the work progress of No. 120 Wellington Street, and had mentioned that the URA would preserve the external fa?ade of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street. This had been put on record in the minutes of the relevant C&WDC meeting. Mr AU said that the URA started to prepare the tender document of the project after listening to the views of the C&WDC and obtaining approvals from relevant government departments for the conservation proposal, and then invited tenders from developers. Mr AU said that the URA had also attended meeting of the Concern Group on Urban Renewal Projects in the Central and Western District of the C&WDC afterwards. At the meeting, members of the concern group enquired about the conservation proposal of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street. The URA provided a written reply to the concern group in October 2017 explaining how the original fa?ade would be protected and the fa?ade design of the setback balcony. The URA hoped that members of the public would be able to access the first and second floors of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street and the additional floor that interfaced with the original fa?ade, where they could look across Graham Street from the preserved fa?ade balcony. The URA hoped that this would help preserve the ambience of the entire Graham Street. Mr AU stressed that the URA had maintained a high degree of transparency in the conservation of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street. The URA reported at the C&WDC meeting in July 2018 that the external fa?ade of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street would be protected, and had explained at the C&WDC meeting in January 2019 how the strengthening works for the external fa?ade of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street would be carried out, which would not involve any demolition works. He said that “jumping the gun to demolish” was a very serious allegation against the URA. Mr AU stressed that the URA had kept reporting to the C&WDC on how protective measures would be carried out properly before commencement of other works. Mr AU understood that at present there were views hoping that Nos. 26A to C Graham Street would be graded. He opined that whether works had commenced or not would never affect the AAB and the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) in grading of monuments. The URA also had to wait for the Government to issue approval documents before it could carry out the alteration works for conserving the building’s external fa?ade. He said that the URA would commence the works in compliance with the terms of the contract at this stage. Mr AU hoped that the Council and the public would understand that the URA had been taking forward the project in accordance with the Approved Master Layout Plan of 2007, and had taken the initiative to put forward conservation proposal before the building was graded. In addition, in taking forward the works at H18 Site C, the URA had always maintained a high degree of transparency in communication with the C&WDC. Only if demolition works took place without prior notice could it be regarded as concealment and jumping the gun. Moreover, the URA had also appointed conservation architect and structural engineer as consultants to provide professional advice on conservation of the building to preserve the street ambience of Graham Street after revitalisation. Lastly, Mr AU said that the URA had always respected the views of the Council and it drew up the terms of contract only after a consensus had been reached in the Council. As the joint venture developer was required to observe the contract terms, the URA also had to respect the spirit of the contract. He called for understanding from all sectors of the community.The Chairman invited Ms Katty LAW, Convenor of CWCG, to speak on the item. In response to the URA's remark that for the three pre-war tenement buildings within H18 only the external wall of the building at the front end could be conserved, Ms LAW queried whether this conservation approach was reasonable. She pointed out that the three connected tenement buildings had been in existence at Graham Street for a long time, and the CWCG had not been able to figure out why whenever a redevelopment project was included in the URA's business scope, the AMO would never take the initiative to grade any building within the project boundary. In the case of Wing Woo Grocery, it was because concerned individuals had submitted a report that the AMO finally conducted a grading exercise. The URA had subsequently changed from conserving the external fa?ade to conserving the whole building. She opined that the three connected tenement buildings were being left out and efforts should be made to preserve them. Since the AMO’s grading exercise was underway, she hoped that the AMO could the studies earnestly and draw up a report for public reference. She also said that if the buildings were architectural heritage in the Central District worthy of preserving and as long as they were not yet demolished, efforts could be made to strive for their preservation. She said that the URA and developer could try their best to contemplate how to revise the plans in order to conserve the three connected tenement buildings in their entirety. She said that in terms of structural stability, these tenement buildings might be more stable than Wing Woo Grocery and might thus have a higher feasibility of conservation. She stressed that a large-ditch effort should be made to preserve these buildings, so that architectural heritages of different eras surrounding Graham Market, including 1920s architecture, the 19th century Wing Woo Grocery, and the old tenement house remains on Cochrane Street, could be manifested. She did not wish to see that the conservation effort would become too late because URA had signed contract with the developer. Instead, she believed that it was worthwhile to spend more time on improving the design. Regarding H19, she said that the Chief Executive in Council supported conservation of the project site. She was particularly concerned about the arrangement for a “Green Belt” site within the project, worrying that the URA would remove that “Green Belt” site. She said that the Planning Department's (PlanD) studies all recommended greening in the existing public open space in Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun to improve air ventilation of the district. The PlanD had also proposed preserving the existing trees as far as possible. She considered that the trees, together with the surrounding tenement buildings, formed a beautiful landscape, which allowed the public to appreciate the tenement buildings under the shade of the trees. She said that the URA presented the preliminary design of the project at the C&WDC meeting in January 2019. It was noted that the trees would be removed and two buildings of several storeys would be constructed. She indicated that through contacts with residents, it was learned that the trees were highly cherished by them and they hoped that the trees would be preserved to make the area a beautiful public open space. She suggested that the URA, PlanD and Development Bureau (DEVB) should preserve all the existing trees within the area concerned and designate the area as open space and green space of the local community, such as community living room or community garden, etc. She said that only by doing so could the ambience of the area be conserved. Also, apart from static activities, the area could be used for many different purposes. She opined that the buildings to be constructed by the URA might be incompatible with the nearby tenement buildings, whereas the ambience of open space could better serve the purpose of conservation. This would allow people to appreciate the tenement buildings in an environment encircled by green trees, which she considered was a better alternative.The Chairman invited Mr LEE Wing-kin, Social Worker of Christian Family Service Centre, to speak on the item. Mr LEE said that his social worker team had been paying attention to the residents affected by the Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project (C&W-005) and Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme (C&W-006). He learned that the URA had issued letters informing that the projects had acquired 18 units and was negotiating with the tenants, of which a small number of cases had been dealt with. He said that according to past work experience, rehousing would be a very long process. Often, residents would be very anxious, saying that they had submitted documents to the URA but were not being updated on the progress. He hoped that the URA could provide more information on ex-gratia allowance and rehousing, including how many households demanded ex-gratia allowance and how many demanded rehousing, and hoped that the URA could expedite the handling of the matter. Regarding the allocation of public housing, he said that through contacts with the residents, he learned that they were very concerned about this aspect. He hoped that the URA could provide more information on rehousing flats so that the Council could have more specific information.The Chairman invited Miss Annie SHENG, Member of Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood, to speak on the item. Miss SHENG said that during a year of actual participation in Shing Wong Street, she came into contact with a wide range of local residents and stakeholders. During the process of reconciliation over the year, Miss SHENG said she was delighted that the URA could handle the H19 redevelopment area from a conservation perspective. She said many residents believed that a bottom-up approach should be adopted for open space, and to the neighbourhood, conservation of old trees was a way to minimise the harm caused. Founded in 2018, Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood was a social organisation established by shop owners, professionals and residents. Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood not only cared about residents of the neighborhood and their living quality, but also the key to community integration. In the process of reconciliation between Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood and URA, all along they had no opportunity to talk face to face with the responsible officials. The URA, in conducting a community study through social enterprise consultant, had no actual contact with her team. She asked, given that the neighbourhood had its own team (i.e. Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood) and many external connections, why that team could not have direct dialogue with the relevant organisations. Also, in meeting and exchanging views with SVhk, URA officials did not attend to listen to views either. In addition, protecting old trees and maintaining the vitality of the neighbourhood were the strongest aspirations of Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood. She used a model to show Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood’s idea of the public space in the area. She said that according to URA's plan, the construction of low-rise building would mean no living space for the old trees, and there would be more gross floor area but less open space. If no building was to be built and the old trees were placed there instead, there would be a natural terraced landscape to provide a great playground for children and pets. She believed that trees did not only provide shade, but was also a spiritual indicator of the local community. Residents hoped that an oasis could be preserved in the Central and Western District. She pointed out that in Taiwan and other places many policies were bottom-up and local community-oriented. In February 2018, the DEVB also confirmed the allocation of $1 billion for use by non-governmental and community organisations. She considered that the 40-square-metre public space was extremely valuable to the local community. In a high density area with closely-packed high-rise buildings like the Central and Western District, a green space should be retained. She hoped the URA could hear the voice of the public.The Chairman invited Members to speak.(a)Ms NG Hoi-yan said that with regard to H18, the presence of built heritage like the said pre-war tenement buildings in the busy city area of Central and Western District was hard to come by. She hoped that the URA could preserve the buildings in their entirety as far as possible, for the buildings would lose their original characteristics if only the external fa?ade was to be retained. For H19, she said that when the project works commenced, she often saw the piling of construction waste at the junction between Aberdeen Street and Staunton Street as she walked past. She hoped that the URA would closely monitor the works to avoid the piling of construction waste, particularly as there were many elderly people passing by. In addition, regarding consultation of the local community on H19, she had attended the relevant exchange session the day before this meeting and opined that not many views were received from residents at the session. Instead, the consultant of the host organisation (i.e. SVhk) had expressed many opinions and asked, given that the URA had presented the tentative proposal for H19 at the C&WDC meeting in January 2019, why it did not present the proposal to the public through the community consultation exchange session. She reckoned that this would become a fake consultation. The fact that the URA kept the tentative proposal away from the public and only presented it at C&WDC meeting was unfair to the public, and had deprived the public’s right to know. She also hoped that the green space within the project boundary and trees therein would be preserved, and that in announcing the proposal in future, details on how the open space would be greened up and retained would be provided to the Council and the public.(b)Mr NG Siu-hong indicated that he had submitted a motion against demolition of the three pre-war tenement buildings in the H18 project area. He said that the three pre-war tenement buildings should not be demolished at this stage as they were pending heritage assessment. Also, he considered that tenement buildings were invaluable as they highlighted the development of the whole town area at different stages, and could also form an integral stage with Wing Woo Grocery and "Hung Mo Kew". He continued that when Site B was completed earlier, many residents found the place attractive with tourists and residents headed there to take pictures. He considered it important to preserve items of communal history, and after the heritage assessment result was released, the public should be consulted again on whether the said tenement buildings should be demolished. He said that the amended motion requested the URA to obtain approval document from the Government before demolishing the tenement buildings. He believed that the URA would definitely obtain the approval document; even for a monument pending heritage assessment or a graded monument, the Government would issue the necessary approval document to the URA for demolition as well. He expressed the wish for proper conservation, and made his views clear to the URA that he would make his best effort to oppose the demolition of the three pre-war tenement buildings, so as to hold himself accountable to the history of the Central and Western District. Regarding H19, he said the URA had mentioned in the PowerPoint presentation that hoarding beautification works would be carried out. He was in favour of the beautification works, but opined that a simple and unadorned design should be adopted, and should not have overwhelming commercial ambience or target at attracting tourists. He hoped that the tranquil ambience of the neighbourhood could be preserved, and the situation where tourists gathered for photo-taking causing obstruction to the residents should be avoided. He said that it would be undesirable if the community ambience was destroyed before redevelopment had even started.(c)Mr HUI Chi-fung agreed that concerning the demolition of the three pre-war tenement buildings within H18, the URA had not jumped the gun in carrying out the works nor hidden anything from the Council, and that the URA had it fact repeatedly mentioned about the relevant proposal at the meetings. However, he did not understand that for the redevelopment of H18, why every time it was non-government experts who recommended buildings with conservation value within the project area and the URA was only willing to make concessions by revising the scheme after the community and the media had expressed their concerns. He reckoned that the URA was duty-bound to consult the AAB before project commencement and conduct a comprehensive review of the buildings to expedite the grading procedures and ascertain the buildings to be conserved. He believed that the rationale provided by non-government experts was sufficient to support that the three pre-war tenement buildings had historical significance. He said that if the URA demolished the three tenement buildings before the relevant grading was announced, it would arouse public discontent. He pointed out that "preservation of buildings of historical interest" was one of the six statutory functions of the URA, and queried whether the URA had omitted this aspect from the very beginning of the project. He reiterated his hope that valuable built heritage could be preserved, and the decision as to whether the tenement buildings were to be demolished should be made after the relevant grading was announced. Even if it would result in progress delays, decision to demolish the three pre-war tenement buildings should not be made in haste. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the local community.(d)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming enquired about the rehousing arrangement for tenants affected by the Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project (C&W-005). He learned that after the acquisition of flats and before asking tenants to move out, the URA would provide each tenant household a six-month rent-free period for the URA to handle matters relating to sale and purchase of property interests. However, as this time the URA had failed to complete the ex-gratia compensation and rehousing for tenants within six months after the acquisition of flats, the tenants hoped that they could continue to live in their original flat due to the difficulty in renting accommodation and the fear of suffering losses if they were allocated public housing unit after renting a flat. He suggested that the URA should continue to provide tenants with rent-free period, concessions or other suitable rehousing option and allow tenants to continue living in their original flat until it properly completed the compensation procedures.(e)Mr LEE Chi-hang said that for Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project, he had asked the URA about the progress of ex-gratia allowance and rehousing arrangement for tenants at the previous meeting. He thanked the URA for taking the initiative to contact him afterwards and provide relevant information. He welcomed the remark by the URA that there were sufficient flats on Hong Kong Island to rehouse six tenant households who might be eligible and wished to be rehoused, and noted that the remaining 12 tenant households intended to accept cash compensation. He shared Mr YEUNG Hok-ming's view that the URA should make concessions to tenants prior to the completion of compensation and rehousing to ease their anxiety. He hoped that should there be any progress on the project, the URA could keep the Council informed by providing supplementary information in writing. He also hoped that the URA would handle the ex-gratia allowance and rehousing arrangement as soon as possible, remarking that the URA had started to contact tenants at the end of last year to early this year and some residents were anxious about the matter. He reckoned that the procedures for verifying the eligibility of tenants for rehousing would not be too complicated. He also believed that if there was any difficulty, the concern group would be happy to assist tenants in providing information for identity verification in order to speed up the rehousing process.(f)Ms CHENG Lai-king said she saw that Nos. 26A to C Graham Street within H18 project area were enclosed with hoardings and worried that the three tenement buildings would be demolished. She agreed that the URA had mentioned in the paper that the external fa?ade of the buildings would be retained. However, she said that there had been no significant changes for the three tenement buildings since 1997; and every time she walked past the buildings, if she saw trees on the rooftop, she would ask the URA whether the trees would affect the buildings’ structure and whether their removal was necessary. She personally thought that the three buildings would be conserved in their entirety. She enquired that according to URA’s proposal, if only the fa?ade facing west would be retained, whether the fa?ade could be seen in the new building in the future. She continued that the project was commenced in September 1997 and it had been nearly 22 years since then. Currently, public awareness and views on conservation were very different from the past. She considered that it would be ideal if Nos. 26A to C Graham Street could be preserved in their entirety for public visit in the future, and believed that the URA had sufficient funds to properly conserve the three tenement buildings. She also pointed out that since community organisations indicated that preserving tenement building in its entirety was feasible, the feasibility of preserving Nos. 26A to C Graham Street in their entirety should be considered so as to manifest the unique features of Central as a historic town district at the heart of Hong Kong. Besides, she said that H18 was centrally situated among Tai Kwun, PMQ and Central market, so Nos. 26A to C Graham Street and Wing Woo Grocery must have their conservation value. In addition, she said that she had participated in three consultation sessions on H19 held by SVhk. There was no mention of URA’s plan to construct building at Shing Wong Street and remove the trees there at any of the three sessions. She criticised that the consultation sessions only mentioned that the area would become very attractive after redevelopment, and considered this deceptive. She hoped the URA would provide complete information for the organisation to carry out study.(g)Mr KAM Nai-wai asked why the representative of Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood said that they could not have direct talk with the URA nor participate in the relevant consultation sessions. He hoped that the URA would explain how the door to communication could be opened. In addition, he said that he used to live in No. 24 Graham Street for many years and was therefore quite familiar with Graham Street. He pointed out that the URA had said in the past that Wing Woo Grocery could not be preserved, but had later changed its words. He hoped that the URA would strive to preserve Nos. 26A to C Graham Street and Wing Woo Grocery technically. Regarding Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme, he asked whether the project had been approved by the TPB, whether property valuation could only be conducted after obtaining approvals from TPB and the Government, when the acquisition offer would be made after obtaining approval from the Government, and about the length of time allowed for owners to consider the acquisition offer.(h)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said that in the past, the URA used to say that it was impossible to preserve Wing Woo Grocery in whole, but now it said that was feasible. He pointed out that the AAB had also discussed about Nos. 26A to C Graham Street in the past, but only acknowledged that the three tenement buildings were historic buildings and had not conducted in-depth discussion on their grading. He enquired of the URA whether the case of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street would be similar to Wing Woo Grocery, that is, preservation in whole was feasible.(i)The Vice-Chairman pointed out that the URA had repeatedly stated that the buildings within the H18 project area were dilapidated. He would worry about safety issues every time he walked past Wing Woo Grocery. He said the URA had already made it clear that even if Wing Woo Grocery was preserved in whole, it could not be open for public visit and thus only the external fa?ade could be retained. He opined that if the situation of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street was same as Wing Woo Grocery, that is, only the external fa?ade could be preserved and the buildings could not be open for public visit or use, then this conservation method was of little meaning, neither could he accept this as conservation. He believed that there were many other conservation methods in addition to preservation in whole, including the flexible use of buildings properly. He said that many conservation projects in Mainland China were better than those in Hong Kong. Instead of simply keeping an old building, the building would undergo revitalisation to make conservation more effective. He said that he also had a fond memory of the ambience of old tenement buildings. However, if the structural condition of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street made it impossible to preserve the buildings in their entirety and open for public visit, he reckoned that it would be much simpler to preserve the fa?ade only with new structure attached to the back of the fa?ade, so as to allow the public to enter the building and visit each floor to experience the ambience of pre-war buildings. He hoped that the URA would give a reply as to whether the structural condition of Nos. 26A to C Graham Street would allow preservation in their entirety, and only if the answer was in the positive would he support the option of preservation in whole.Mr Wilfred AU of URA gave a consolidated response to Members’ comments. He said that for Nos. 26A to C Graham Street in H18, staff of the AMO had inspected the buildings earlier. It was found that there was no staircase at the portion between No. 26B and C Graham Street for accessing the upper floors, and the roofs were partly collapsed. He said that originally the three pre-war, second generation tenement buildings were residential dwellings, so the buildings’ structure was designed to support domestic buildings. According to the approved Master Layout Plan, no residential use was identified for Site C, so the three tenement buildings would be for commercial use. He said the conservation consultant had remarked that the three tenement buildings were living proof of the “residences above and shops below” pattern of the century-old Graham Street market. The URA hoped to preserve this characteristic in a meaningful way by retaining the external fa?ade of the buildings. However, he stressed that the preservation would not be like that of the Ruins of St Paul's, instead it was hoped that the tenement buildings, after conservation, could combine other initiatives for public use to allow the public a glimpse of the former look of the buildings. He hoped that the public would be able to see the existing portions of the tenement buildings, and the conservation architect believed that the fa?ade was most worthy of preservation. He said that the fa?ade would be integrated with the new structure in compliance with the requirements of the Buildings Ordinance and the Fire Safety Ordinance. The upper floors would be open for public visit. The new structure would also be equipped with barrier-free access to cater for the needs of the disabled. He pointed out that in taking forward this project, the URA had set up a panel of advisors for the locals to suggest ways to carry out conservation. He agreed that public views on and demand for conservation were very different from the past, and so continuous improvement had been made between 2016 and 2019. He reiterated that the URA was conserving instead of demolishing the buildings. He said it was impossible to anticipate what grading would be accorded to No. 26A and B Graham Street. If higher grading was accorded, the Government would have its own administrative measures in place to suspend the works. He also said that even if no grading was given, the developer still had to comply with the necessary procedures in carrying out the conservation work. He said that the URA did not carry out conservation work based on the gradings of buildings. Regarding the enquiry by Mr CHAN Chit-kwai about the possibility of preserving Nos. 26A to C Graham Street in whole, Mr AU said that the project information had been submitted to the AMO earlier. The AAB had also read the relevant information and learned about the conservation proposal of the project. Since request for grading assessment on the tenement buildings had been received, the AAB might handle the matter through alternative means. He said that all the information was open to public access. Previous conservation proposals and plans had also been submitted to government departments, including the AMO, in the form of building plans for vetting and approval. He hoped the public would understand that the URA was also subject to the terms of the contract.As regards H19, Mr Wilfred AU of URA said given that the C&WDC had been paying attention to the project’s progress, a preliminary report was presented to Members at the C&WDC meeting in January 2019. At the time, he made it clear that the relevant proposal and design were still preliminary ideas and intended only as a response to the Council’s enquiry on the project progress. Hence, the URA had not included the design concept of constructing a two to three-storey building on the vacant land at Nos. 4 to 10 Shing Wong Street in SVhk’s consultation content. He said that he had contacted the Central 30 Houses Kaifong Yulan Association and some residents currently living in Light Home flats on Wing Lee Street in person, and had never forbidden SVhk to contact Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood. He stressed that SVhk did have contact with Friends of the 30 Houses Neighbourhood, though the person(s) being contacted at the time might not be the representative who attended and spoke at this meeting. He continued that in order not to interfere with contacts between SVhk and surveyed organisations, the URA would not attend meetings between SVhk and surveyed organisations as far as possible, entrusting SVhk to consolidate the views and meeting outcome and convey them to the URA. However, he said that the URA would still hold informal meetings with various groups and welcome organisations to contact the URA, remarking that the URA would not close the door to communication.Ms Michelle TONG of URA responded on the Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project (C&W-005) and Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme (C&W-006). She said that for the Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project, among the tenant households of the 18 residential units acquired, 12 demanded for ex-gratia allowance and the remaining six demanded rehousing. After the completion of registration and eligibility vetting, ex-gratia allowance and rehousing arrangement was successively offered to four tenant households. One of them was being offered rehousing and the remaining three were given ex-gratia allowance. As regards rehousing units, it was expected that for the whole project, 10-odd households would choose rehousing. The URA had reserved 21 units on Hong Kong Island with the Hong Kong Housing Authority/Hong Kong Housing Society. It was believed that the said number of units would be sufficient for rehousing. As for other tenant households, the URA was expediting the vetting of their eligibility for receiving ex-gratia allowance and rehousing. For tenant households that chose rehousing, in addition to providing address proof, each member of the household was required to provide income and asset proof to prove that they met the eligibility criteria for public housing of the Hong Kong Housing Authority/Hong Kong Housing Society. Hence, more time would be required for vetting and approval. In handling matters relating to ex-gratia allowance, tenant households were also required to provide documents to prove whether they had been registered in the freezing surveys or previously lived in the affected unit. As the amount of ex-gratia allowance would vary depending on tenant households’ date of moving in, they were required to provide sufficient proof for completion of the vetting and approval procedures. Currently, only after the vetting and approval procedures were completed and rehousing and ex-gratia allowance offered to tenant households would the URA agree with tenant households on the date of moving out. Tenants who were still at the stage of eligibility vetting for ex-gratia allowance and rehousing could continue to rent the relevant units. As for provision of rent-free period, it was a special arrangement made by the URA for owner-occupiers who had accepted the acquisition offer. Since owner-occupiers had to find another residence and arrange for renovation of and relocation to their new home, which would usually take a longer time, the URA would, upon request of the owner-occupiers, allow them to continue living in the relevant units for three months under licence agreement upon completion of the sale and purchase procedures. Fees would only be charged if the owner-occupiers subsequently required more time for moving out. Regarding the Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme, she said that the project was still pending approval. Upon obtaining approval, the approach would be the same as for the Sung Hing Lane/Kwai Heung Street Redevelopment Project. The URA would make acquisition offers to owners within two to three months, and owners had 60 days to decide whether to accept the offer. For owners accepting the offer, after they provided a legal representative, the legal representative of both sides would arrange exchange of contracts and signing of sale and purchase agreement to complete the transaction.Mr Wilfred AU of URA added that for Queen’s Road West/In Ku Lane Development Scheme (C&W-006), the TPB had approved the draft Development Scheme Plan submitted, which was pending submission to the Chief Executive in Council for approval. After obtaining formal approval, the URA would make acquisition offers to owners within two to three months from the date of approval. He said that the acquisition offers would be close to the market price.The Chairman said that the item had entered the voting stage. He said that under Order 21 of the C&WDC Standing Orders, an amended motion or re-amended motion must relate to the terms of the original motion. Also, the Council must first take a vote on the amended motion. If the amended motion was not passed, a vote on the original motion should be taken. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the re-amended motion. The following re-amended motion was not adopted after voting:Re-amended motion:“This Council opposes the demolition of the pre-war tenement buildings at No. 26A-C Graham Street, which are monuments pending assessment, and an open consultation should be conducted after the AAB issues the relevant assessment result; also, the relevant works must stop immediately.”(Proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung and seconded by Mr NG Siu-hong)(5 affirmative votes:Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms NG Hoi-yan)(8 dissenting votes:Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)(1 abstention vote: Mr CHAN Chit-kwai)The Chairman invited Members to vote on the amended motion. The following amended motion was adopted after voting:Amended motion:“This Council opposes the demolition of the pre-war tenement buildings at No. 26A-C Graham Street before the URA obtains the approval document for the works issued by the Government.”(Proposed by Mr CHAN Hok-fung and seconded by Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing)(10 affirmative votes:Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)(5 dissenting votes:Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms NG Hoi-yan)(0 abstention vote)Mr HUI Chi-fung raised a point of order. He said that as the Chairman did not cast a vote when the re-amended motion was put to vote, only 14 votes were cast. He asked how this would be recorded in the minutes of meeting.Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of the Central and Western District Office (C&WDO), said that the names of Members casting an affirmative, dissenting or abstention vote would be recorded clearly in the minutes of meeting. For Members who did not cast a vote, their names would not be shown.Mr HUI Chi-fung hoped that the names of those Members who did not cast a vote would also be shown in the minutes of meeting.The Chairman closed the discussion on this item.Item 6(ii): Conserving Central(C&W DC Paper No. 46/2019)(5:21 pm – 6:02 pm)The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the DEVB and CWCG to the meeting.Mr LEE Hong-nin, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works)2 of DEVB, said that the latest updates on the eight projects under “Conserving Central” had been set out in the paper. He highlighted the following projects:(a)Central Police Station (CPS) Compound (Tai Kwun): Tai Kwun recently organised a thematic heritage exhibition called “Trolleys Central”, showcasing the stories of trolleys in Central and Western District. This exhibition explored the transformation of the landscape and cityscape in the area through the years by demonstrating the progress of trolley designs. The new Tai Kwun education activity “Heritage Education Courtroom Theatre” had been rolled out since mid-March 2019 for schools to participate with an aim to immerse students in Tai Kwun’s heritage atmosphere to learn about the history and development of Hong Kong’s judicial system. The activity was held at Block 9 (i.e. the former Central Magistracy) where revitalisation works had recently completed. On 9 March 2019, Tai Kwun also invited Members to visit the former Central Magistracy and see performances by students in the “Heritage Education Courtroom Theatre”. Since its opening, the number of visitors to Tai Kwun had exceeded 3 million.(b)Former French Mission Building: The renovation works were in full swing and expected for completion in mid-2020.(c)Former Central Government Offices: The renovation works were near completion. According to the information provided by the Department of Justice, due to weather and inspection and testing of fire service installations, the renovation works were expected for completion in the second quarter of 2019.The Vice-chairman invited Ms Katty LAW, Convenor of CWCG, to speak on “Conserving Central”. Ms Katty LAW spoke on the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui’s (HKSKH) application for private hospital development in its Central Compound. She said that the TPB, after examining CWCG’s planning application, considered it necessary to impose building height restriction (BHR) on the site concerned. It thus recommended the PlanD to conduct a study on setting BHR. However, when she attended TPB’s meeting last Friday, she was surprised to find that the PlanD had “tailor-made” a BHR for the HKSKH. She remarked that one of the BHRs proposed by the PlanD was 135 mPD, which was similar to the height of the 20-odd-storey private hospital proposed to be built by the HKSKH. Also, the PlanD only offered two BHR options for selection by TPB members, namely 135 mPD and 120 mPD. She also pointed out that the TPB Chairman had remarked at the said meeting that the project was already at a very advanced stage of planning. It gave her a feeling that a choice had been made on behalf of TPB members and they could only choose between two options, i.e. 135 mPD and 120 mPD; and some TPB members indicated that it was difficult to choose. She also indicated that during the discussion, even though some TPB members said that according to their understanding, there would be traffic problem in the area, the Government did not provide any relevant data at all. She said that in addition to HKSKH’s application for providing 90 car parking spaces in the area, the building at Nos. 3 to 6 Glenealy also applied for providing 70 car parking spaces. Hence, the two development projects in the area would bring about the provision of over 100 car parking spaces. She said that many residents had relayed to the CWCG that there was already traffic congestion in the area. She considered that it would be problematic if traffic issues as well as impact of the proposed private hospital on the surrounding environment and heritage cluster were ignored in the development planning and that TPB members were asked to make a choice between two inappropriate BHR options. She said that the TPB would revise the planning brief and conduct public consultation again. She hoped that meeting participants would keep the matter in view, and stressed that the proposed development would definitely affect the built heritage of "Conserving Central" and would have serious impact on the area’s traffic.The Vice-chairman invited discussion on the paper. Members’ comments were as follows:(a)Regarding the recovery option for Block 4 of the CPS Compound, Ms NG Hoi-yan enquired about the expected time for completion of the negotiation and the possibility of revising the design of the "goggle" style large windows. She said many residents had reflected that the "goggle" design was incompatible with other buildings. She hoped that the DEVB would listen to public opinions and act in accordance with the wishes of the people. In respect of liquor licence, she said that she had to attend a number of liquor licence hearings relating to premises within Tai Kwun later. She remarked that the DEVB and Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) did not carry out any monitoring on liquor licence in respect of premises within Tai Kwun. For example, the operating hour of Tai Kwun should be until 11:00 pm, but in applying for a liquor licence, the restaurants therein had set the last liquor selling hour at 3:00 am, thereby turning Tai Kwun into a private party venue. She said that as a monument, Tai Kwun belonged to the general public. Occupation of Tai Kwun by some people for private use after closing should not be tolerated. In addition, she was concerned about the accident at PMQ last month. Some workers responsible for venue decoration were accidentally injured during the preparation of exhibition. In regard to the accident, she asked the DEVB about the regulation over the management company of PMQ and the management company's reporting and handling procedures after the accident.(b)Mr NG Siu-hong was concerned about the noise problem of Tai Kwun’s Prison Yard, saying that large loudspeakers were still being used in the venue which generated loud noises and affected residents. He said that some of these events were free and some were commercial events, and sometimes the whole venue would be leased to private companies for holding company anniversary celebrations, parties, etc. He opined that in that case, not only that the venue could not be used by the public, but the noise generated from these activities would also affect nearby residents. He said that he had relayed the matter to Tai Kwun, but Tai Kwun did not respond. He expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of regulation over Tai Kwun by government departments and said that Tai Kwun had not given an account of information on the lease of venues to private companies, including the monthly frequency of venues being used for private events, venue fees, and information on the leasees and number of events held by them, etc. He considered that Tai Kwun had low transparency and the events held there also affected residents. He was also concerned that large loudspeakers were often used in events held at Tai Kwun, and queried that this had violated the earlier pledge concerning noise levels and was therefore inappropriate. In addition, he was concerned about what he saw in a private event held at the Prison Yard where liquor was provided lavishly. He also saw that visitors holding liquor bottle sitting all over the Prison Yard, some of them even smoked, vomited, got drunk and laid on the floor, just like being at Lan Kwai Fong. He said that he had reported the situation to the Police, but the organiser had relocated the stall that supplied liquor inside when the Police arrived and only asked the public relations staff to deal with the Police. The Police later explained that the event had a specific guest list, but he had doubts about it because he saw that any person who was admitted would be given liquor. He believed that this reflected poor management and the DEVB should be responsible for this. He also said that the attitude of Tai Kwun in responding to Members was extremely unsatisfactory. It was difficult for Members to make appointment to meet with representatives of Tai Kwun. Even if an appointment could be made, the meeting time was extremely short. He enquired whether the DEVB should monitor these issues. In addition, he said that he also shared the concern of Ms NG Hoi-yan about the design of the “goggle” style large windows of Block 4. He considered that the design was unsightly and would affect the surrounding ambience. He asked about the possibility of scrapping the design.(c)Mr HUI Chi-fung hoped that the DEVB would listen carefully to the Council’s criticism on Tai Kwun. He said that Tai Kwun had been criticised by Members since its opening, but he could not see any action taken by the DEVB, in particular concerning the noise from the Prison Yard. This had already led to problems with the overall governance of Tai Kwun. He said that there was no improvement to the noise problem so far, which not only affected residents, but also reflected the arrogance of Tai Kwun. He said that District Council members were representative of public opinion, but Tai Kwun did not even once respond to their request for meeting, nor did it send representative to meet with Members and residents. And the situation had deteriorated according to the continuous observation by Members. Regarding the supply of liquor at an event mentioned by Mr NG Siu-hong, he queried why Tai Kwun as a place to promote contemporary art and heritage with its historical value being acknowledged would allow its venues be leased to banks for commercial promotion and to private companies for holding private parties. He said that he had expressed concern on the above situation to the DEVB and asked whether such practice would violate the tenancy agreement between the DEVB and Tai Kwun, but the DEVB did not respond. Hence, he hoped that the DEVB would respond later on. He also pointed out that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the DEVB for failure to take action on these issues for residents and the Council. He said that Tai Kwun as a whole had become a "little kingdom" in lack of management and failed to live up to the trust of the Council. He said that Tai Kwun might become a renowned tourist attraction in Hong Kong, but it would not bring benefits to the community. He even considered that Tai Kwun was sacrificing community benefits for its own business interests. Regarding the HKSKH’s Central site, he asked why DEVB’s paper did not cover the updated information mentioned just now by Ms Katty LAW, Convenor of the CWCG. He opined that the DEVB, rather than community groups, should be the one to report on the progress of HKSKH’s project. He enquired why the DEVB had not consulted the Council on the updated information on BHR and kept Members in the dark. He considered that it was a dereliction of duty of the DEVB.(d)Ms CHENG Lai-king said that when visiting Tai Kwun, it was easy to note that the catering industry occupied a relatively high percentage of space therein. She pointed out that the initial plan of Tai Kwun was that food and beverage would account for about 30% of the space, and she could clearly see the sale of alcoholic beverages by the food and beverage establishments when she visited Tai Kwun. Hence, for consultation on liquor licence of premises within Tai Kwun, even if the applications stated that the last liquor selling hour was 10:00 pm, she would also object to them. She opined that Tai Kwun should not be a place for drinking. No liquor licence should be issued to premises within Tai Kwun, only food and beverage services catered for casual family outings should be allowed. She said that Tai Kwun was now nicknamed “Jiu Guan” (meaning “pub” in English), and its conditions after 11:00 pm were comparable to Lan Kwai Fong. She opined that the HKJC did not take account of Members’ views, and so the DEVB should exert pressure on the HKJC in this regard. Also, she said some residents had relayed the serious problems of noise and drinkers at Chancery Lane, and residents with children had indicated that the impact of noise was huge. She understood that the HKJC had to spend a huge amount of money in conserving Tai Kwun and needed to break even. However, she believed that to handle this matter properly, the HKJC itself should object to the applications of the bars therein. While understanding that the profit of selling liquor was high, she said that liquor should not be sold in Tai Kwun as there were already places for drinking nearby, such as SoHo and Lan Kwai Fong. Regarding the HKSKH’s Central site, she was concerned about the triangular-shaped glass curtain wall design of the hospital which had been under discussion for many years, and said that she had no knowledge of the current progress. She would like to know whether the proposed hospital with a height of 120 mPD was very tall, and whether it was taller than Government House and the HKSKH’s residential buildings currently situated at Upper Albert Road. She was worried that the HKSKH’s site as a religious place, construction of a hospital thereon might be overwhelming. She considered that in coordinating the project, the DEVB should not condone the HKSKH for not reporting to the C&WDC. She urged the DEVB not to be a "toothless tiger".(e)Mr KAM Nai-wai said that at the previous meeting, it was mentioned that the problems of Tai Kwun would be discussed in detail at working group meeting. However, it seemed that the situation was getting worse. He hoped that the Council would write to the HKJC requesting it to attend the next C&WDC meeting to answer Members’ questions. He said the fact that HKJC allowed the restaurants in Tai Kwun to sell liquor until 3:00 am showed that the task of managing Tai Kwun had been entrusted to the wrong person. He hoped that the DEVB would provide the C&WDC a copy of the agreement signed by the DEVB and HKJC to see if it did not include any control provision, resulting in the inability of the DEVB to regulate any situation different from what was originally expected by the Council. He said that he was not prohibiting any food and beverage in Tai Kwun, but did not wish to see the Council kept receiving complaints on problems arising from holding private parties, supplying liquor, selling liquor until 3:00 am or the use of large loudspeakers that caused noise nuisance to residents. He even said that Tai Kwun had turned a deaf ear to Members’ views. He reckoned that it seemed that Members were unable to have direct contact with the HKJC management, which was unreasonable and he considered it as inconceivable. Hence, he requested writing to the HKJC demanding it to send representative to attend the next C&WDC meeting to explain to Members the relevant situation and how to handle Tai Kwun’s operation.(f)Mr CHAN Choi-hi asked about the reason for not inviting representative of the HKJC to attend the meeting. He hoped that the DEVB could invite the HKJC to attend the next meeting. He reckoned that Members had raised a lot of questions on HKJC’s management matter in the past six months, and the HKJC should face the public and C&WDC. He suggested that apart from writing to the HKJC, a letter should also be issued to the Liquor Licensing Board (LLB) in the name of the C&WDC stating Members’ view that the liquor selling hours should not go beyond 11:00 pm. He said that in the past few months the C&WDC had met with the HKJC and expressed its views to the latter, but the situation kept deteriorating. He opined that the Council should remind the LLB to perform its gatekeeping role. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the slow progress in the recovery of Block 4 of Tai Kwun, and hoped that the DEVB could urge the HKJC to complete the works as soon as possible. He said that so far the number of visitors to Tai Kwun had exceeded 2 million, but the recovery works of Block 4 were still on-going. He hoped that the progress could be expedited. As for Murray Building, he reckoned that the project had been completed and the hotel was opened in 2017, so it might no longer be necessary for DEVB’s paper to provide regular updates on the project. Regarding the HKSKH’s Central Compound, he said the public hoped that the HKSKH could attend C&WDC meeting to report the project progress. He asked if it was possible to invite the HKSKH to attend the next meeting, and hoped that HKSKH’s representative and the C&WDC could have an exchange on the project.(g)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said that for Central Market, before the design concept of "floating oasis" was scrapped, an advisory committee had been set up and a selection exercise conducted, with various tasks underway. He reckoned that Central Market was an important project and a key component of the “conservation trio". However, since the URA scrapped the "Central Oasis", there was not much information on the new development direction of Central Market. The only thing known was that modification works were carried out for the external wall of Central Market. He said that although Members had some dissatisfaction about Tai Kwun, Tai Kwun had kept on listening to the views of the Council in the course of project development with a serious attitude. That was why the key elements of Tai Kwun could be retained. He suggested that the C&WDC should be consulted as early as possible on the hardware design and future use of Central Market, so that the project progress would not deviate from the Council’s expectations. He also said that he had no knowledge of the operation of the Central Market Escalator Link, and hoped that a specific introduction would be provided in the report for the next meeting.(h)Regarding the issue of liquor licence concerning Tai Kwun, Mr YOUNG Chit-on said that he and Ms CHENG Lai-king were members of the Advisory Committee of HKJC’s CPS Compound project. Earlier at a meeting of the Advisory Committee, he had conveyed C&WDC members’ concerns on drinkers’ behaviour or late-night noise problem stemmed from liquor licence, which had caused nuisance to the surrounding residents. However, no improvement was seen so far and he expressed concern about the situation. He said that he did not consider it necessary to ban the issuance of liquor licence to premises within Tai Kwun across the board due to noise nuisance. He opined that premises that did not apply for a liquor licence might also generate noise. On the contrary, many premises with liquor licence did not cause noise problem at all. He said that it would be a pity if the "imperial sword" was to be used to pressure the LLB to veto all liquor licence applications. As a place of heritage interest or entertainment, Tai Kwun could leave some space for tourists or office workers to relax after work. Getting a liquor licence did not necessarily mean that trouble would ensue, and he did not support the vetoing of all liquor licence applications. He said that the HKJC and Members should first, within their authority, advise the operators involved to stop activities that caused public nuisance. He said that as he passed by Tai Kwun, he noted that some places therein were very noisy, but there were also places where no serious noise problem was found. Hence, he did not agree that the misconduct of some operators should affect all the food and beverage establishments. Instead, actions should be taken against those operators who had caused huge negative impact in order to improve the situation.(i)The Chairman shared Members’ views and said that he was very supportive of the provision of food and beverage facilities in the course of enhancement and revitalisation of Tai Kwun to add vibrancy. The provision of food and beverage and liquor sales did not mean that problems would ensue. He said that some congee/noodle shops had also applied for liquor licence, so the problem laid in how to manage them. He said that he had repeatedly stressed at the meetings that the liquor selling hours should not go beyond 12:00 midnight as there were residential dwellings in the vicinity of Tai Kwun. Now that liquor was sold until 2:00 am, which would definitely cause nuisance to residents and turn Tai Kwun into another Lan Kwai Fong, and this was undesirable. He supported the suggestion made by other Members that heads of Tai Kwun and HKJC be invited to attend C&WDC meeting to talk face to face with District Council members. He reckoned that heads of Tai Kwun and HKJC did not listen to the voice of Members against liquor sales until late at night, and did not respect the Council’s views by keep setting the last liquor selling hour at 2:00 am when applying for liquor licence renewal. He reiterated his vehement opposition to liquor sales by the food and beverage establishments in Tai Kwun to until 2:00 am which had caused nuisance to residents. He also agreed that the C&WDC should write to the HKJC and LLB to convey the views of Members.Mr LEE Hong-nin, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works)2 of DEVB, gave a consolidated response. In respect of Tai Kwun, he said that it was opened in May 2018 and had been revitalised to become a cultural, leisure and heritage landmark. He pointed out that the number of visitors to Tai Kwun, including Hong Kong citizens and overseas visitors, had exceeded 3 million in just a year’s time, which was remarkable and also reflected the unique attractiveness of the venue. He said that as a certain degree of flexibility must be allowed for the revitalisation project of Tai Kwun, the venue arrangements, management and events, etc. of Tai Kwun were fully entrusted to Tai Kwun at present; the DEVB played no part in these activities. The role of the DEVB was to conduct regular inspections, and Tai Kwun would also submit reports on various aspects to the DEVB. As regards the Advisory Committee mentioned by a Member, its role was to assist in monitoring the overall performance of Tai Kwun. He added that Tai Kwun was spacious with a gross floor area of 300?000 square feet, of which 37% was assigned for heritage appreciation and contemporary art. Another 36% was public access and electrical and mechanical installations, and the remaining 27% was for commercial use, including food and beverage facilities and retail shops. He also pointed out that Tai Kwun had more than 40?000 square feet of outdoor space for leisure purposes. As for liquor sales, he said that the opening hours of Tai Kwun since its opening were 10:00 am to 11:00 pm, most of which was daytime. The food and beverage services mentioned just now were mainly nighttime activities. Also, most of the cultural and leisure activities would be held both outdoors and indoors. There were also exhibition halls and exhibitions, etc. These activities was among the reasons for the popularity of Tai Kwun. On liquor licence, he added that Tai Kwun had made liquor licence applications to the LLB under the existing mechanism. Regarding Members’ enquiries on the design of Block 4, he said that the HKJC had attended meetings of the AAB and C&WDC several times and consulted members of the AAB and C&WDC on various designs at various stages. The last time the HKJC did so was in October 2018 when it attended C&WDC meeting to present the recovery options of Block 4. The HKJC was aware of the concerns of Members and had pledged to take these into full consideration in order to improve the recovery proposal. It was now preparing the detailed design and formulating the relevant construction method. He pointed out that Block 4 was right next to the Parade Ground with high pedestrian flow nearby. Careful consideration was needed to formulate the construction method. The HKJC was negotiating with the expert team on this. As for issues concerning noise and the operation of Tai Kwun, he said that after the last C&WDC meeting, the Director of Tai Kwun and his team attended the meeting of the Working Group on Concern over the Development of the Central Police Station Compound and Former Police Married Quarters on 20 March 2019. At the meeting, the Tai Kwun team explained and presented their work on noise management in detail, as well as the short-term and long-term measures to reduce noise nuisance.As regards the PMQ, Mr LEE Hong-nin of DEVB said that PMQ would report to the DEVB on a regular basis the overall performance of the project and information such as visitor numbers. Regarding the work accident happened in PMQ, the relevant management activities and venue arrangements were in charge of by the PMQ. The DEVB was also aware of the incident and would maintain close communication with the PMQ to understand the relationship between the accident and the cultural activities/operation of the design and creative workshop units of PMQ. Regarding the progress of the Central Market project, he would convey Members’ views to the URA. He hoped that the URA would report on the latest project design progress at the next meeting.For HKSKH’s redevelopment proposal, Ms LEE Cho-yi, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation)3 of DEVB, said that the TPB just had a meeting last Friday to discuss the proposed amendment to the Approved Central District Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). As far as the DEVB was aware, the PlanD would consult the C&WDC on the proposed amendment at the C&WDC meeting in July in accordance with the established plan-making process. The PlanD would later provide a paper on details of the amendment for Members’ reference. She also said that the DEVB had conveyed the discussion details of the said TPB meeting to the HKSKH, including the wish expressed by TPB members at that meeting for the HKSKH to provide more information during the plan amendment stage, such as information on design, height and traffic. The DEVB would continue to maintain close communication with the HKSKH and report to Members on the latest developments of the project.The Vice-chairman said that a letter in the name of the C&WDC would be issued to invite the HKJC to attend the next C&WDC meeting in July to explain Tai Kwun’s situation.Mr KAM Nai-wai said that he had requested at the meeting for the DEVB to provide details of the agreement signed between the DEVB and HKJC in order to understand how the DEVB monitored the HKJC.The Vice-chairman asked the DEVB to provide the relevant information after the meeting.Mr LEE Hong-nin, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works)2 of DEVB, said that he had sought legal advice on disclosure of the details of the tenancy agreement signed between the DEVB and HKJC. As the tenancy agreement involved commercial and other information, it was not appropriate to disclose its details.Mr HUI Chi-fung said that the Council had via the Secretariat invited the HKJC to attend the previous C&WDC meeting, but to no avail. He asked the Secretariat about the reason for HKJC’s refusal. Also, he remarked that some Members suggested writing to the LLB to express the Council’s stance that liquor sales should not be allowed after midnight. He hoped that the Secretariat could follow up on this matter.Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of C&WDO, said that some Member had suggested inviting representatives of the HKJC to attend the C&WDC meeting held in March. The DEVB later contacted the Member concerned via the Secretariat, and the Member agreed that representatives of the HKJC would first attend meeting of the working group for detailed discussion and would not be required to attend full Council meeting for the time being. As for this full Council meeting held in May, the Secretariat had not received beforehand any request from Members for HKJC representatives to attend, and the DEVB did not invite HKJC representatives either. She said the Secretariat could write to invite HKJC representatives to attend the next C&WDC meeting.The Vice-chairman said that besides issuing a letter inviting the HKJC to attend the next meeting, the C&WDC would also write to the LLB to request the last liquor selling hour of the food and beverage establishments in Tai Kwun be set at 12:00 midnight.Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that some people had been arrested for operating unmanned aircraft systems at the Central Harbourfront. He opined that the Police could step up patrol and inspection to prevent this from happening again.In response to the DEVB's remark that the details of the agreement could not be disclosed to the C&WDC, Mr KAM Nai-wai said that he did not need to know the trade secrets in the agreement. He only wished to know how the DEVB could monitor the HKJC. Also, he hoped that the DEVB would provide information on the regulatory provisions and how to resume the management from the HKJC. The DEVB could provide an executive summary if the original text could not be provided. He expressed the wish to understand whether the DEVB was capable of monitoring the HKJC, and his concern was Tai Kwun’s impact on residents, not Tai Kwun’s scale.The Vice-chairman asked the DEVB to provide the required supplementary information after the meeting.Ms NG Hoi-yan said about writing to the LLB, she opined that the last liquor selling hour should be 11:00 pm instead of 12:00 midnight as the closing time of Tai Kwun was 11:00 pm.Ms CHENG Lai-king said that Tai Kwun was open until 11:00 pm and no entry was allowed starting from 11:00 pm. Hence, she suggested that the last liquor selling hour should be 10:00 pm, and said that it would of course be most desirable not to sell liquor any more.The Vice-chairman said that if Members could not reach consensus on the last liquor selling hour, then the letter to be issued could only state that Members suggested that liquor sales after midnight should not be allowed, and would not set out any suggested last liquor selling hour.Mr KAM Nai-wai said that the closing time of Tai Kwun was 11:00 pm. Even if Members could not reach consensus, the letter should not only state that "liquor sales after midnight should not be allowed”. Instead, it should set out the different views expressed by Members.Ms CHENG Lai-king said that visitors’ entry into Tai Kwun would not be accepted after 11:00 pm, but the restaurants therein opened until 3:00 am, thereby allowing the restaurants to serve as places for “wild drinking” from 11:00 pm to 3:00 am. In light of this, it would be appropriate for the opening hours of the restaurants to be aligned with the closing time of Tai Kwun.The Vice-chairman said that the Council’s letter to the LLB could not impose restrictions on the operating hours of the food and beverage establishments, but it could make recommendations on the liquor selling hours in respect of the liquor licence issued. He added that the letter would set out the various last liquor selling hours suggested by Members, including 10:00 pm, 11:00 pm and 12:00 midnight, and would convey the relevant views to the LLB.Mr HUI Chi-fung said that he had tried to request the agreement document between Tai Kwun and the DEVB under the Code on Access to Information. However, his request was rejected because the agreement involved commercial activities and disclosure of the operation of Tai Kwun, which would damage the interests of Tai Kwun. He considered such saying ridiculous, as the operation of Tai Kwun would directly affect residents. However, the details of the agreement could not be known through request made by the Council or under the Code on Access to Information. He queried how the parties concerned could be accountable to the Council and residents.The Vice-chairman asked the DEVB to provide the Council with the required supplementary information after the meeting, and closed the discussion on this item.[Post-meeting note: Regarding Members’ concern on the operation of Tai Kwun, the DEVB said that the Tai Kwun team had to submit documents and reports (for example, annual reports covering details such as visitor numbers, promotion activities and financial statements) to the Government on a regular basis for monitoring of Tai Kwun’s operational performance.]Item 7: Smart Mobility – Intelligent Traffic ManagementElectronic Road Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central Core District(C&W DC Paper No. 47/2019) (6:02 pm – 7:42 pm)The Chairman welcomed representatives of the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB), Transport Department (TD) and Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) to the meeting.Mr KAM Nai-wai asked whether the attendance list was prepared by the Government. He did not understand why no politically accountable officials (including Directors and Deputy Directors of Bureaux, Political Assistants) attended the C&WDC meeting to consult Members on such an important policy.The Chairman invited the representatives of TD to present the paper and replied that Members could ask the Government about the attendance list.Mr LAM Sau-sang, Assistant Commissioner/Planning of TD, said that the traffic congestion problem that had plagued Central for long was getting more serious. Given that Central was the core business district in Hong Kong, TD opined that there was an urgent need to address the traffic congestion problem appropriately. Mr LAM remarked that the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) Pilot Scheme (the Pilot Scheme) had four objectives, namely (i) reducing traffic flow and alleviating traffic congestion; (ii) enhancing the efficiency of road space; (iii) upholding the policy of according priority to mass carriers; and (iv) improving roadside air quality. He pointed out that the high number of vehicles, limited space and frequent commercial activities all contributed to the current traffic congestion problem in Central and the traffic flow of private cars in Central during peak hours was extremely high. TD was aware that some vehicles (commonly known as "chauffeur-driven vehicles") occupied road space in the district for a long time, and were involved in illegal parking and illegal loading/unloading activities which congested the roads. TD wished to tackle the problems head-on and in a multi-pronged approach. Mr LAM said the three letters “E”, “R” and “P”, apart from representing “Electronic Road Pricing”, also carried deeper meanings in various aspects and manifested the multi-pronged approach. “E” represented enhancement of the effectiveness of traffic management. By reducing traffic flow, road space was spared to facilitate roadside loading/unloading activities and buses picking up/setting down passengers; the impact these activities caused on road traffic situation could thus be minimised. “E” also represented enforcement. TD would need to enhance enforcement efficiency and hoped to achieve this by implementing smart enforcement. “R” represented road space optimisation. Public transport services would be enhanced consistently to encourage more members of the public to use mass carriers. “P” represented parking and pedestrians. TD wished to make good use of technology by installing user-friendly new generation parking meters at on-street parking spaces and identifying suitable locations for building smart car parks to increase the number of parking spaces. TD would also continue to enhance the pedestrian environment to encourage the public to walk more and “park and walk”. Mr LAM pointed out that many cities, including Singapore and London, had successively implemented their ERP scheme in the previous 20 years as an effective traffic management tool to address the traffic congestion problem. With Hong Kong being among the first batch of cities which studied the ERP scheme, TD wished to listen to different parties and improve the scheme before implementing it in near future. Mr LAM invited Mr LAU Hon-wai, Chief Engineer/Strategic Studies of TD, to present the preliminary ideas of the Pilot Scheme.Mr LAU Hon-wai of TD, presented the current traffic condition of Central Core District. The traffic speeds on roads such as Queen’s Road Central, Des Voeux Road Central and Wyndham Street, etc. were below 10 km/hour during peak hours and were merely faster than an adult’s average walking speed. Hence, the traffic congestion problem required immediate attention. The annual average daily traffic entering and leaving Central Core District had increased from around 463?300 vehicles in 2003 to around 503?400 vehicles in 2017, representing an increase of about 10%. Expansion capability of the road and transport infrastructure in Central Core District was extremely limited and the increase in the traffic flow would definitely aggregate the traffic congestion. Taking the peak hour traffic as an example, vehicles which provided personalised services took up around 75% of the total traffic flow, among which private cars accounted for about 45% and taxis took up about 30%. Goods vehicles accounted for about 12% and motorcycles took up about 3%. Other public transport vehicles, including buses and public light buses, accounted for about 8% only, which provided services to around 50% of the road users (around 500?000) whereas private cars, despite taking up about 45% of the traffic flow, served only around 200?000 road users. In other words, the efficiency of private cars was far lower than that of mass carriers.Mr LAU Hon-wai of TD continued to present the targets and anticipated results of the Pilot Scheme. Like the four objectives presented by Mr LAM Sau-sang of TD just then, it was hoped that the scheme could reduce the traffic flow by 10% to 15% during peak hours, increase the average vehicle speed by 3 to 5 km/hour (an increase of around 20% to 30%), shorten waiting time at traffic signals at some relatively congested junctions from the current three cycles to about one cycle, and reduce annual emissions from vehicles by 2?800 tonnes, which was equivalent to planting over 100?000 trees and could improve the air quality. TD would also establish an adjustable review mechanism and review the Pilot Scheme based on the experience gained and its effectiveness after the Pilot Scheme had been introduced for a year. A review would be carried out every two to three years subsequently, with a view to ensuring that the Pilot Scheme brought its desired effect into play.Regarding the complementary measures for the Pilot Scheme, Mr LAU Hon-wai of TD remarked that a complete pedestrian access network was in place in Central Core District. TD would further enhance the accessibility of the pedestrian network and improve the existing pedestrian walkways and crossing facilities, with a view to building a walkable environment under “Walk in Hong Kong”. For parking, TD wished to reduce the number of vehicles entering Central Core District. Having taken the actual needs of the public into account, TD would study the possibility of providing additional public parking spaces under the development projects undertaken around the periphery of the area and improving the existing pedestrian walkways. The aim was to encourage members of the public who chose to drive to park their vehicles on the periphery of the core business district and walk along the convenient pedestrian walkways to enter the district. TD had preliminarily identified three locations for provision of additional parking spaces in the district, including the development of a vertical lifting and horizontal sliding type automated parking system at Chung Kong Road in Sheung Wan, the commercial development of the former Murray Road Multi-storey Car Park Building and the project on expansion of Hong Kong City Hall. It was envisaged that a minimum of 600 public parking spaces would be provided.In relation to the preliminary ideas and consideration concerning the Pilot Scheme, Mr LAU Hon-wai of TD remarked that TD demarcated the preliminary proposed area of the Pilot Scheme with a focus on frequently congested areas in Central Core District, hoping that road space could be used effectively and impact on residents could be reduced. Residents living in Mid-Levels could use Caine Road, Garden Road, Cotton Tree Drive, Hollywood Road, Aberdeen Street, Bonham Strand, Morrison Street and Central–Wan Chai Bypass (CWB), etc. to commute between different areas such as Sai Wan, Admiralty and Wan Chai because those roads were not included in the Pilot Scheme. For the charging mechanism, under a multi-pronged and targetted Intelligent Traffic Management approach, TD suggested a “cordon-based” mechanism, meaning that motorists had to pay when entering the area which was under traffic management during peak hours. In other words, motorists were charged per pass. The charging mechanism was simple and easily comprehensible, and was supported by more members of the public and stakeholders according to a public engagement exercise conducted by TD in 2016. Meanwhile, the mechanism had been successfully implemented in many overseas countries, which would facilitate the implementation of the Pilot Scheme. The Pilot Scheme would flexibly realise the concept of “variable charges at variable periods”. TD stressed that the scheme was not aimed at increasing government revenue. The Government would consider providing additional recurrent resources broadly equivalent to the net revenue to be generated from the Pilot Scheme for improving public transport services and encouraging wider usage. The Pilot Scheme would be launched in tandem with the “Intelligent Transport System and Traffic Management” initiatives under “Smart Mobility”. It would adopt the Radio Frequency Identification technology and would be supplemented by Automatic Number Plate Recognition in identifying vehicles entering the area covered by the Pilot Scheme. TD would ensure that the handling of personal data under the Pilot Scheme complied with the Data Protection Principles of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486).Mr LAU Hon-wai of TD gave an overview of the current traffic flow on the major roads in Central Core District, including the change in traffic flow on major roads such as Pedder Street, Wellington Street and Queen’s Road Central, etc. on a daily basis. From 8:00 am to 8:00 pm on weekdays and from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays, the traffic flow on the major roads was high and there were serious traffic congestion, which required efficient handling. As for the exemption arrangements, TD would take the carrying efficiency of various vehicles and their economic contribution into account when determining the charging level and making decisions concerning exemption and concessionary arrangements, in the hope to optimise the use of limited road space and reduce vehicle emissions. To encourage the public to take mass carriers, transport vehicles such as franchised buses, residents’ service buses, school buses, public light buses and trams might be granted exemption. If the Pilot Scheme was successfully implemented, traffic would become smooth, journey time would be shortened and it would be easier for members of the public to estimate the waiting time. At least 500?000 passenger trips would benefit per day. Emergency service vehicles including ambulance and fire engines would be granted exemption to avoid impeding their access. Vehicles possessing a Disabled Person’s Parking Permit would also be exempted. For taxis and goods vehicles, TD would review their impact on road traffic before studying further and handling the details. Taxis took up 30% of the total traffic flow with fewer than two passengers per trip on average and occupied an amount of road space comparable to that of private cars. However, taxis provided personalised and point-to-point transport service and some members of the public or residents in the area did have the actual need to take taxi and hence, the charging level for taxis might be lower than that of private cars. Goods vehicles accounted for 10% of the total traffic flow. Although roadside loading and unloading activities in Central had impeded traffic, goods vehicles needed to enter Central during peak hours owing to their operational needs. As goods vehicles played a crucial role in sustaining commercial activities in Central, they were encouraged to provide delivery services during non-peak hours under the Pilot Scheme, so that traffic could be diverted and roadside could be used effectively for picking up/setting down passengers and loading/unloading goods. TD had collected views from different stakeholders including transport sector, professional bodies, academics and green groups, etc. when producing preliminary ideas and the preliminary views were that they agreed to tackle the traffic problem in Central Core District. The stakeholders were generally in favour of the concepts of the Pilot Scheme and suggested stepping up the legal effect of the scheme, especially on vehicles which waited for a prolonged period on roadside. For way forward, TD would continue to liaise with local communities and stakeholders and collect views to determine the details of the scheme. Lastly, information regarding the details and background of the Pilot Scheme was available on the TD’s dedicated webpage and Facebook page.The Chairman invited discussion on the item and remarked that Friends of the Earth (HK), academics, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in Hong Kong and Hong Kong Public Governance Association all submitted papers to this meeting.(a)Ms NG Hoi-yan said she had written a thesis on ERP when she was in university and Hong Kong had lagged behind other regions in formulating the Pilot Scheme only now. She agreed with the concept of alleviating air pollution but pointed out that the paper did not mention anything related to the charge/exemption arrangements for residents living in Mid-Levels. She asked whether TD had taken the actual needs of the residents living in Mid-Levels into account and requested TD to provide more information about the charges.(b)Mr YOUNG Chit-on said the findings of the survey conducted earlier showed that more than half of the residents living at the Peak agreed with the concepts of the Pilot Scheme. However, the residents preferred that the Government first tackled the problem of illegal parking in Central before implementing the Pilot Scheme. He supported the concepts of increasing the traffic speed and smoothing the pedestrian flow but he had reservations about the scheme. Regarding the Pilot Scheme area, as many residents reflected that when using Western Harbour Crossing, they had to pass through the waterfront and piers, which were also within the charging area, he suggested that these road sections be excluded from the scheme to ensure smooth traffic. In terms of implementation hours, he pointed out that the proposal did not provide any statistics on peak hours and exemption levels, etc. He worried that the charging level would be too high; but if the charging level was too low, the measure might not have a deterrent effect or could not change the commuting pattern of motorists.(c)Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing said the policy content was rather primitive and the charging mechanism could not effectively resolve the problem of “chauffeur-driven vehicles” (prolonged parking at or circulating around inner streets). He opined that owners of “chauffeur-driven vehicles” were financially sufficient and the charging scheme might be ineffective to them. He remarked that the scheme had not detailed the charge and statistics. If taxis were not granted exemption, the charge would be passed on to their passengers who needed to pass through Central. In addition, to bypass the charging area under the scheme, motorists would instead use CWB or roads at Mid-Levels. Roads at Mid-Levels, which were outside the charging area, would be more congested as a result. He also opined that the scheme did not mention any complementary measures. He said parking spaces in the district were very insufficient currently and the scheme did not mention any initiatives which could assist the public in parking their vehicles without entering the charging area. He said he could not support the proposal when there was a lack of details. He hoped that the Government would think over the overall complementary measures before making suggestions.(d)Mr NG Siu-hong said the ERP Scheme was a scheme with no complementary measures, statistics, exemption arrangement or consultation. Regarding the complementary measures, the park-and-ride concept was promoted in the ERP schemes implemented by overseas countries and the public was encouraged to take public transport or walk after parking their vehicles. However, Rumsey Street Car Park was about to be demolished and Murray Road Multi-storey Car Park had already been demolished. As the Government incessantly demolished car parks for revenue from land sale, the public had nowhere to park. In addition, he said to solve the traffic problem in Central, instead of charging the residents, the problem of private cars waiting at roadside to pick up passengers had to be tackled first. As for statistics, TD had mentioned about using Caine Road or Aberdeen Street as the alternative route at the previous meeting. He asked whether statistics could be provided to support the proposal. He commented that the said alternative proposal was to pass on the air pollution and congestion problems to the residential area at Mid-Levels and it was unfair. For exemption arrangement, he said the proposal did not mention whether taxis, residents in the district and adjacent areas could be exempted from paying the charge. It was also unfair to include the residents in the charging scheme directly under the proposal. As regards consultation, he pointed out that the Government had not held residents’ meetings and continued to implement the scheme even though no support had been enlisted after consulting District Council members. He continued that the demographic distribution in the opinion poll (tabled Annex V) was problematic. Respondents were not categorised into residents living in Central District and adjacent areas, and residents living in Central and Western District only took up some 10% of the total number of respondents. As most respondents did not live in the district, the poll failed to look into whether residents living in the district would be affected, what complementary measures were demanded by them and what the exemption arrangement should be. Hence, he opposed to the ERP scheme.(e)Miss LO Yee-hang agreed with the direction of being environmentally friendly and reducing the number of vehicles, but she pointed out that the paper submitted by the Government did not mention about the charging arrangement. She opined that the charge would pose no impact on “chauffeur-driven vehicles” and vehicles loading/unloading passengers/goods, and the Government had not provided any facilities to address the problem of insufficient parking spaces. She was also concerned that vehicles taking alternative routes to avoid the charge would affect residents living in Mid-Levels when they used the roads and might bring the congestion problem to Sheung Wan and Sai Ying Pun. She opined that the Government needed to submit statistics of a larger scope to prove that the proposal could effectively reduce the number of vehicles entering Central. She stressed that her major concern was that the proposal had insufficient complementary measures and suggested that the Government submit the proposal to C&WDC again after sufficient complementary measures were included.(f)Mr HUI Chi-fung said it was not a bad idea to induce motorists not to drive into the more congested areas in Central by providing economic incentives under the ERP scheme and he considered it worth supporting. However, he did not support the proposal put forward by the Government. He did not comprehend why the name of the scheme was changed from “Electronic Road Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central and its Adjacent Areas” to “Electronic Road Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central Core District”, and why the proposed area was revised. Furthermore, he opined that the Government should conduct an impact assessment concerning the charging level to serve as the basis of the discussion. He also proposed that to be fair, residents living in the district who frequently used the roads should be exempted from paying the ERP charge. He said that in the case of London, residents living in the area concerned were given a 90% discount. He said the charging area the Government designated was too small and more people would opt for roads outside the charging area such as Sheung Wan and Mid-Levels, etc. as a result. In the end, the roads would become even more congested. He also remarked that the “cordon-based” charging mechanism was unfair because it particularly affected vehicles commonly used by the general public in daily life, such as goods vehicles, taxis and private cars, but would have no impact on “chauffeur-driven vehicles”, which were parked inside the district for a prolonged period and caused severe congestion in the district. Hence, he suggested employing the “time-based” charging mechanism (charging in accordance with the duration of parking) adopted by large-scale car parks and applying different charging mechanisms to different types of vehicles. He said that he did not support the proposal as a whole and hoped that the Government could withdraw the proposal. An extensive consultation should be conducted before another proposal was submitted to C&WDC for discussion.(g)Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan agreed with the objectives of the proposal but was doubtful about its effectiveness. He opined that traffic congestion at major roads in Central was caused by “chauffeur-driven vehicles” and goods vehicles loading and unloading goods. However, the proposal could not solve these two problems. In addition, he said the Government claimed in the presentation that a total of 600 parking spaces would be provided and the commercial development of the former Murray Road Multi-Storey Car Park Building would supply more parking spaces. Yet, the fact was, Murray Road Multi-Storey Car Park had been demolished and the number of parking spaces which would actually be provided was less than that previously provided. In other words, the situation would only be further worsened. While Members expected the Government to supply parking spaces to make up for those lost due to the demolition of the car parks, the Government claimed that the development would supply more parking spaces. Mr CHEUNG opined that it was a substitution of concepts and parking spaces were not actually increased as a complementary measure to discourage vehicles from entering Central Core District. Hence, he opined that it was difficult to implement the proposal. He also pointed out that although the Government claimed that relevant scheme had been implemented effectively in other countries, the information given only showed the effectiveness of relevant scheme at the initial stage. The mid-term and long-term situations were unclear. He hoped that the Government could provide information which showed the long-term effectiveness of relevant scheme. Finally, he said the traffic congestion caused by “chauffeur-driven vehicles” outside New World Tower was extremely serious. The traffic queue built up from the layby of Mandarin Oriental Hotel which even extended to the traffic lane had severely affected traffic. He opined that the Government must first address these problems.(h)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said the general public would support the concepts of taking public transport more often and reducing environmental pollution. However, after reading the current proposal, he was personally against both the content and concepts of the proposal. He said the statistics and arrangements provided by the Government were unreasonable. According to the Government, the commercial development of the former Murray Road Multi-storey Car Park Building could provide at least 100 parking spaces and the expansion of Hong Kong City Hall could provide a minimum of 150 parking spaces. However, these parking spaces in total still could not make up for the 170 and 324 parking spaces originally available at Hong Kong City Hall and the former Murray Road Multi-storey Car Park respectively. In other words, the Government still had not filled up the number of parking spaces. He opined that the Government was misleading when saying that there would be an increase in parking spaces. He remarked that “chauffeur-driven vehicles” was the main cause of traffic congestion in the district. In addition, vehicles bypassing the charging area would trigger traffic congestion near the periphery and increase carbon emission but the scheme did not take these into account. Therefore, he did not support the scheme. He also pointed out that the proposal did not mention about the charge. He opined that administration costs could not be covered if the charge was too low. However, a charge too high could not deter the “chauffeur-driven vehicles”’ because their owners could afford it. As a result, public resources could not be used in an effective manner and would be occupied by the rich. Therefore, he opined that the scheme would not be very effective. In the end, the charging area would only become larger with ever increasing charges, thereby putting the cart before the horse. He suggested that the Government study how to increase the number of parking spaces and solve the traffic congestion problem caused by “chauffeur-driven vehicles” first, before considering the implementation of the ERP scheme.(i)Mr LEE Chi-hang said the Government had studied ERP since 1983 but still, no result was produced after decades of years. He could not comment on the preliminary ideas of the proposal at the moment but opined that the statistics provided by the Government were unclear. A thorough consideration was needed before putting forward another new proposal. He said the 600-odd parking spaces in the district could not at all accommodate the 200?000-odd private cars entering into the district every day. Under the scheme, people who could not afford the charge would bypass the charging area and the air pollution problem would remain unsolved. He also opined that “chauffeur-driven vehicles” was the main cause of traffic congestion in the district and given that the owners of “chauffeur-driven vehicles” did not mind paying, the charging scheme could not solve the traffic congestion problem in the district. He opined that the number of vehicles should be reduced at source and the public should be encouraged to use public transport more often.(j)Ms CHENG Lai-king opposed to the implementation of the scheme. She opined that as the public had to pay to use the roads under the scheme, some motorists who did not wish to pay would bypass the charging area and make a detour to Mid-Levels instead. As a result, the air pollution problem would be brought to Mid-Levels and the Peak, thereby worsening the situation. Hence, she strongly opposed to the scheme. She also pointed out that the Government had neither provided a timetable concerning the proposal nor proper complementary measures for public transport to support the proposal. She said the residents in Mid-Levels she interviewed all strongly opposed to the scheme and did not understand why the name of the scheme was changed. Besides, she asked whether a vehicle carrying wheelchair users would be regarded as a vehicle possessing a Disabled Person’s Parking Permit. Furthermore, she said she saw many cross-boundary drivers using the bus-only lane at Caine Road every day. She opined that TD issued licences at will and caused the number of vehicles to increase incessantly. However, TD offered no solution to address the problem and the scheme in turn punished the general public, as they were asked to pay when using the roads. In the end, only the rich could afford using the roads and so, she strongly opposed to the implementation of the scheme.(k)Mr KAM Nai-wai was dissatisfied that no politically accountable officials attended the meeting and consulted C&WDC concerning such an important issue. He opined that the officials disregarded public opinions. He said commercial activities in Central were frequent because the Government incessantly built commercial buildings in Central. Meanwhile, illegal parking was increasingly common because of the continuous demolition of car parks in the district by and the lax enforcement efforts of the Government. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the Government to propose the implementation of ERP after that. He also commented that when the scheme was introduced, most motorists would bypass the charging area and in turn make other areas severely congested with traffic. He expressed dissatisfaction that the Government was unable to provide traffic statistics to reflect how traffic was affected and so, he was strongly against the paper and the scheme. He also said he would oppose to every motion which did not object to the scheme. He clearly stated that he opposed to the paper, as well as the ERP Pilot Scheme.(l)Mr CHAN Choi-hi hoped that the scheme would not be demonised and opined that the scheme had its own merits. He believed that the name of the scheme was changed because the Government was receptive to opinions and agreed that the focus could be shifted from “Central and its adjacent areas” to “Central Core District”. He suggested reducing the scope of the charging area. For example, areas south of Queen’s Road Central could be excluded from the scheme and the details could be further discussed in detail. He had conducted a survey on the scheme and some 60% of the 1?500 respondents supported the scheme. Around 70% of the respondents supported the “user pays” principle. He welcomed different parties to carry out further studies and said owing to limited resources, his survey was territory-wide and did not focus on Central and Western District only. Furthermore, he said the findings also showed that over 70% of the respondents supported “variable charges at variable period”, in which, for example, motorists would not be charged during non-peak hours like night-time and very early in the morning. He opined that “chauffeur-driven vehicles” was not an appropriate term because some of the vehicles were owned by Uber. He hoped that the public would not label the vehicles as “chauffeur-driven”, as the society should not be “anti-rich” and everyone should be treated equally. He added that the scheme should be looked at using cost and benefit analysis and commented that the scheme could smooth the traffic and benefit 500?000 passenger trips of public transport.(m)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai corrected Mr HUI Chi-fung and said in the case of the UK, residents living in the area concerned were exempted from 90%, instead of 10%, of the charge. He opined that to implement the Pilot Scheme successfully, the residents concerned should be offered better exemption arrangements, and pointed out that the inability of the Government to provide specific information on the exemption arrangement was a reason why the scheme could not win support from the majority of people. He opined that the scheme did have its strengths and could bolster Central and Western District as a core business district because it could improve air quality and alleviate traffic congestion. He pointed out that London had implemented a similar scheme since the 2000s and the current trend showed that more and more commercial districts would implement the scheme as well. As Hong Kong was an international city, he opined that the scheme should be considered. Nevertheless, he also agreed that there were many inadequacies in the paper submitted by the Government. He remarked that the Government intended to introduce three schemes but the first two were not rolled out successfully. Proposal for traffic rationalisation among the three road harbour crossings was abolished and many public complaints were received regarding the CWB project, which was considered as not bringing enormous benefits. He said that commissioning of the CWB had rendered a tunnel near Rumsey Street, originally connecting Admiralty and Mid-Levels, inaccessible, and as a result motorists had to drive past Central harbourfront area and more congested areas. He said the public was dissatisfied with the situation and hence, it became more difficult for the Government to implement the third project, that is, the ERP scheme. Finally, he hoped that the Government would listen to Members and suggested short-term to mid-term solutions. Moreover, there should be clear definitions of exemption and concessionary arrangements. In-depth discussions should also be held with the sector and a consensus should be reached so that the ERP scheme could be implemented successfully.(n)The Vice-chairman described the scheme as an ostrich policy. The scheme would solve the traffic congestion problem in Central but would cause traffic congestion in areas outside Central, such as Sheung Wan, Wan Chai and Sai Wan. He said the Government kept referring to overseas countries as examples and emphasised how effective the schemes were at the initial stage. He hoped that the Government could provide information about the schemes implemented by these countries, including the scope and charge introduced at the initial stage, and whether the scope had been extended and the charge increased so far. If the scope was extended and the charge increased continuously afterwards, it proved that the schemes were unsuccessful and could not address the problem. He opined that the scheme did not target the main causes of traffic congestion in Central, like private cars and goods vehicles loading and unloading goods, but instead punished all motorists who used the roads. He said Queen’s Road Central, New World Tower, Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the opposite side of Theatre Lane were all illegal parking black spots but the Government turned a blind eye to them and did not designate prohibited zones to improve the situation. He opined that ERP could not resolve the problem at all. He said he would not oppose to the entire scheme and agreed that pavements should be improved and smart enforcement should be strengthened. Nevertheless, he opposed to implementing ERP at once at the current stage. He pointed out that ERP would not be necessary if enhancement of pavements and smart enforcement were effective. He opined that the Government should restrict goods vehicles from entering the designated areas during specific periods by giving administrative instructions. For example, the Government could restrict them from entering very busy districts during daytime, and step up smart enforcement to initiate prosecutions against illegal parking. He suggested imposing fines on motorists for illegal parking on a progressive basis and employing a points system to punish motorists who parked their vehicles illegally during very busy hours for enhanced deterrent effect. Lastly, he commented that the proposal provided inadequate information. Only the concepts were promoted and concrete details such as implementation hours, exemption arrangement and charges for different types of vehicles were not provided. He was surprised that many academics and green groups still supported the proposal under this circumstance, and opined that the Government was half successful in terms of promoting the policy. However, he opined that the proposal still could not address the major causes of traffic congestion in Central.(o)The Chairman welcomed the change of name of the scheme from “Central and its adjacent areas” to “Central Core District”. He believed that it was an improvement the Government had made to reduce the scope of the charging area after listening to opinions. He said there was a lack of parking spaces in Central and the Government demolished the original available parking spaces. Given that illegal parking was severe, he opined that it was reasonable for the Government to impose punitive charges on the offenders to manage the situation. He suggested introducing an electronically monitoring system under Intelligent Traffic Management first and implementing a pilot scheme to monitor traffic contraventions including illegal parking and unlawful use of roads in order to enhance enforcement efficiency and strengthen the deterrent effect, as well as to avoid clashes between the Police and members of the public when the Police issued fixed penalty tickets. However, he commented that implementing ERP would be unreasonable if sufficient parking spaces were not designated in the Core Business District. He opined that enforcement measures such as adopting an electronically monitoring system should first be implemented to resolve the problem before considering the introduction of ERP scheme. Besides, he remarked that motorists had paid taxes for their vehicles; requesting them to pay for using the roads would be unfair and unreasonable. The Government should start with improving other facilities and implement ERP afterwards. He also pointed out that the current proposal did not make clear the enhancement of ancillary facilities, Intelligent Traffic Management and other details. For example, it was suggested in the proposal that buses should be exempted from the ERP charge but it did not state whether residents’ service coaches, goods vehicles, motorcycles and taxis carrying persons with disabilities would have to pay the charge. He opined that the Government needed to discuss with various associations in the motor vehicle sector and provide relevant information to the public for consideration. He also said Central was the core financial and tourist area. If ERP was implemented, tourists would be discouraged from visiting Central and could hardly take taxi in the district. Besides, there were many private car parks in the district. For instance, International Finance Centre, The Center and Cheung Kong Center, etc. provided hundreds of parking spaces. If motorists used these parking spaces, not only did they need to pay the ERP charge but also have to pay the parking fee. Likewise, introduction of ERP would be unfair to residents living in Mid-Levels who needed to use the roads frequently. It was also impossible to ask them to completely switch to using smaller and narrower roads at Mid-Levels. Therefore, he hoped that the Government would listen to C&WDC, consult various sectors and stakeholders, and refine the proposal before consulting C&WDC again. He stressed that Members needed sufficient justifications to consider the feasibility of the policy. He also reiterated that the Government should first consider implementing an electronically monitoring system and smart enforcement before considering ERP. If problems concerning enforcement and complementary measures were solved, he did not object to imposing the charge at small-scale black spots like Queen’s Road Central. However, he hoped that the Government would first listen to C&WDC and various sectors and improve the scheme before consulting C&WDC and discussing with the residents again.(p)Ms CHENG Lai-king added that she hoped the entire Mid-Levels (Caine Road, Seymour Road, Robinson Road and Conduit Road above Hollywood Road) could be excluded from the ERP Pilot Scheme. Even constituencies including Sheung Wan and Tung Wah should be excluded because the roads there were all adjacent to the core district. It would be inconvenient to motorists if ERP was implemented because residents living in Mid-Levels, when driving into Queen’s Road Central, could only drive towards Admiralty and make a detour to go back to Sheung Wan in order to avoid paying the ERP charge. Hence, Ms CHENG opposed to the ERP Scheme and reiterated that residents living in Mid-Levels should not be charged because of using the roads.Mr LAM Sau-sang of TD gave a consolidated reply regarding Members’ comments. In connection with the change of name of the scheme, he said TD originally wished to cover a wider area in the scheme when conducting the study but later decided to focus on the core district. When considering the focus of the scheme, TD opined that it was necessary to address the traffic congestion problem and hoped to reduce the traffic flow. He was also aware that residents living in Mid-Levels or within the charging area were all concerned about the impact of the scheme on them. Among them, some had their own parking spaces, some took taxis and the majority of them took public transport. He commented that the current traffic congestion was caused by too many vehicles entering Central and the way to address the problem was to reduce the traffic flow and thereby increase road space, so that other activities could be carried out smoothly. TD knew that many residents took taxis and would therefore impose a lower charge for taxis than private cars when determining the charging level in future, hoping that the residents’ desires for taking taxis would not be affected as a result. TD would also explore other ways to handle the problem. As for the problem concerning “chauffeur-driven vehicles”, he said prolonged parking or circulation of private cars was observed inside the core district and the situation had to be dealt with in a multi-pronged approach. The paper also briefly mentioned that HKPF had taken many enforcement actions in relation to illegal parking, illegal stopping and illegal loading and unloading of goods. The future direction would focus on smart enforcement in the hope that the enforcement efficiency could be enhanced. HKPF had also formulated a pilot scheme concerning Electronic Fixed Penalty Tickets (E-Ticketing) and would roll it out during 2019-20. Frontline officers of HKPF would use handheld electronic devices to enhance the enforcement efficiency and the pilot scheme would be introduced in Central and Western District as well. In addition, some video detectors would be installed on a trial basis so that video analytic techniques could be used to analyse traffic congestion. The measure would be conducive to adducing evidence and carrying out enforcement actions. For example, prosecutions could be initiated against vehicles which stayed within yellow box marking or at bus stops. As for “chauffeur-driven vehicles”, some commented that a vehicle should be charged according to its duration of stay, i.e. the longer the time a vehicle stayed on the road within the charging area, the higher the charge. And those which were parked inside a car park should not be charged until they left the car park and were on the road again. Mr LAM, however, said it was complicated to adopt this mechanism because the challenge laid in accurately recording the time when vehicles entered and left a car park, which would involve privacy issues. Still, TD would try to study the feasibility of this arrangement. The charging mechanism was “cordon-based” when ERP was initially implemented in overseas countries because it was a relatively simple mechanism. The Government wished to implement other measures together with the scheme to achieve a satisfactory result. There would also be a review mechanism in future and improvement would be made when necessary. For charging level, he said a specific charging level had not been set at the current stage because TD was still conducting consultation work and meeting some of the members of the sector to consolidate the views of stakeholders from different sectors. TD needed to collect more views to enhance and refine the content of the scheme, and would also give an account on the charge later. For parking spaces, he said Central District was a well-developed area. As it was small with many vehicles passing by, more parking spaces should be supplied. The demand for parking spaces had been high for long and TD would strive to identify suitable locations and use smart parking systems to increase the number of parking spaces. He said the possibility of providing more on-street parking spaces could be explored if traffic congestion could be alleviated in future. Moreover, TD would employ technology to disseminate information. For example, new generation parking meters could detect whether a parking space was occupied and TD would release real-time information accordingly so that motorists would know which parking spaces were available for use, which could save their time for circulating on roads in search of parking spaces.Regarding the problem of goods vehicles loading and unloading goods, Mr LAM Sau-sang of TD opined that the problem could be handled in two approaches. Firstly, complementary measures should be provided because goods vehicles’ operation supported the operation of the entire business district and the Government needed to provide support. Secondly, TD would consider implementing appropriate measures to encourage drivers not to deliver goods during the busiest hours or to change their delivery pattern because some goods vehicle drivers parking their vehicles illegally had caused traffic congestion. He opined that the problem could be dealt with by imposing charges. He remarked that when traffic congestion was alleviated and there was more space on the roads, loading/unloading bays or passenger pick-up/drop-off points on the roadside could be officially designated. TD would closely liaise with C&WDC and hold discussions concerning pick-up/drop-off points for taxis or loading/unloading bays for goods vehicles. If possible, the locations of the current prohibited zones could also be adjusted. Mr LAM responded to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s enquiry about the implementation timetable and said TD was extensively collecting views at the moment such that the views could be referred to later when TD formulated a detailed proposal and explained to Members. As for public transport, he said mass carriers would be handled first according to the current policy. Yet, public transport services such as buses and public light buses could be enhanced only if the road conditions permitted. If road space was limited, the problem might not be solved with increased frequency of public transport services. Hence, reducing the traffic flow was still the most practical way to address the problem.Mr LAM Sau-sang of TD continued to respond to Members’ comments that there were too many vehicles in Hong Kong and the problem had to be tackled at the policy level by issuing fewer vehicle licences. He said the Transport Advisory Committee completed a detailed report in 2014, which proposed 12 measures on solving the problem of traffic congestion and one of them was ERP. It also stated that it was necessary to restrict the number of vehicle licences issued. THB and TD had been following up on the 12 measures and would continue to do so. For pedestrian accessibility, Mr LAM said enhancing the overall pedestrian facilities to provide a comfortable pedestrian environment had always been what TD wanted to achieve. On one hand, there would be fewer vehicles on roads and on the other hand, motorists could park their vehicles and walk into the business district at ease. He opined that the network in Central was overall well-established but some locations still required more effort. TD would consult C&WDC later again regarding the scheme. Finally, in response to comments that whether congestion on the periphery would be aggravated by the scheme because vehicles would bypass the charging area and use the roads on the periphery instead, Mr LAM said TD was aware that the situation had to be handled carefully. He said TD’s study did not only cover the current charging area, it also included traffic assessments for other areas. He said exemption/concessionary initiatives would also be introduced which would affect the traffic distribution. Staff of TD would also work on the provision of traffic lights at some junctions. He said this was only the first time TD consulted C&WDC regarding the scheme and TD would continue to communicate with C&WDC and other stakeholders in the sector. He also thanked various parties for taking the initiative to carry out surveys about the scheme, which had provided the Government with valuable information.The Vice-chairman wished to learn more about the current implementation in countries which the Government said had successfully implemented ERP, such as London and Singapore.The Chairman hoped that Members could keep their speech concise as the meeting had taken two hours longer than scheduled. He also hoped that colleagues of the departments could answer questions concisely. If a reply could not be given in the meeting, the departments concerned could listen to the views first and then carry out a comprehensive study and consult C&WDC again later.(a)Mr NG Siu-hong remarked that the Government had demolished a few hundred parking spaces and only reprovisioned 100-odd parking spaces. Still, the Government claimed that the number of parking spaces had increased. He wished to know whether the number of parking spaces had indeed increased or decreased. Mr NG also asked whether TD would consult affected residents living in Central and Western District, Central and Mid-Levels about the ERP scheme. He opined that the consultation conducted by the Government was defective and he could not accept it. As for using roads at Mid-Levels as alternative routes, he opined that roads at Mid-Levels had already reached their maximum capacity and could hardly accommodate additional vehicles. Hence, it was not suitable to use roads at Mid-Levels as alternative routes. The suggestion would also bring the air pollution and congestion problems in Central to Mid-Levels too. Besides, he said TD did not exempt residents living in the district and adjacent areas from paying the ERP charge and they needed to pay during their daily commute, which was utterly unfair to them. He reiterated that he strongly opposed to the ERP scheme.(b)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming hoped that parking spaces could be provided next to Sheung Wan Fire Station. He also pointed out more parking spaces should be provided in the former Murray Road Multi-storey Car Park Building after it was redeveloped and in City Hall Car Park after it was expanded or renovated. He emphasised that TD had undertaken to provide the parking spaces before, so even if the Pilot Scheme could not be implemented, TD still had to supply the parking spaces. In addition, he pointed out that identifying other locations in Central and Western District to supply more parking spaces was a request made by C&WDC and the department could not make excuses saying that the undertaking could not be honoured because the Pilot Scheme was not implemented.(c)Mr CHAN Choi-hi opined that two years would be too long for a review to take place after the implementation of the scheme and suggested carrying out a preliminary review one year after its implementation.(d)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said the Government had to guarantee that revenue generated from ERP would not go into the public coffers. Half of the amount should be used to provide concessions to subsidise passengers who used mass carriers and the other half should be used on roads, infrastructure and maintenance.(e)The Vice-chairman reiterated that he supported TD to implement measures such as smart enforcement and improving pedestrian facilities other than ERP. He opposed to ERP because the cost of motorists driving into Central was already very high currently. For instance, not only did they need to tolerate traffic congestion but also experience difficulty in finding a parking space. He said they drove into Central because they really needed to and had no other alternatives. Hence, they should not be punished by paying the charge. He stressed that ERP did not address the core problem. Moreover, he asked what the estimated capital cost of the entire ERP scheme was. He also hoped that TD could give supplementary information regarding the changes in the situations of other places after implementing ERP scheme.(f)Mr KAM Nai-wai responded to Mr CHAN Choi-hi’s views and said he did not discriminate against the owners of “chauffeur-driven vehicles”. He was simply illustrating a phenomenon where a chauffeur would drive around and wait for his boss. He definitely did not mean class struggles. He also said he was not demonising the ERP scheme. He just thought that it was necessary to take the actual situation into account, as currently traffic congestion was observed between Western Street and the portal of Western Harbour Crossing, and between Garden Road and Admiralty when members of the public got off from work. If ERP was implemented in future, motorists would not drive into Central District but would instead pass through roads like Garden Road and Western Street. He wondered how Members could be persuaded to support the scheme when TD could not even provide the basic traffic statistics. Mr KAM said as a C&WDC member, he had to express views on behalf of the residents living in the district. He believed that residents living in the New Territories would surely support the ERP scheme because smooth traffic in Central District would enable them to go home more easily. Therefore, if a territory-wide survey was conducted, the majority of the respondents would surely be in favour of the scheme. However, as a representative of the residents living in Central and Western District, he would be absolutely against the scheme if the scheme failed to address the residents’ worries, and the residents still needed to pay the charge on the way back home and Western Street and Garden Road remained extremely congested. Besides, he pointed out that the paper submitted to C&WDC by the Government was not supported by statistics and thus, it was impossible to ask Members to support the scheme. Mr KAM requested that the Government deploy staff to carry out consultation in the district, and invited politically accountable officials and Political Assistants to listen to the views of residents.(g)Mr HUI Chi-fung said that as a C&WDC member, it was very reasonable for him to put Central and Western District first. He personally opined that TD should expand the charging area and exempt residents living in the area from paying the ERP charge if TD wished to garner support from C&WDC members. He knew that there might still be voices of opposition but it would at least be an important step. He hoped that the Government would consider the suggestion.(h)The Chairman hoped that representatives of the Government would listen to every single view from Members and put the views on record clearly. Comments and enquiries made by Members, such as on details about the charge, should be taken into account altogether as well. He emphasised that it would be impossible for C&WDC to support the scheme in the lack of sufficient information.Mr LAM Sau-sang of TD said that TD had been following up the problem related to parking spaces and advanced technology would be used to increase the supply of parking spaces. Mr LAM responded to Mr CHAN Chit-kwai’s enquiry about the use of revenue generated from ERP. He pointed out that according to the 2019-20 Budget, the Government would provide additional recurrent resources broadly equivalent to the net revenue to be generated from ERP for public transport services. For the construction costs, he said concrete figures were not available at the current stage because an estimate which was of reference value could be made only when relevant complementary measures were also taken into account. Mr LAM responded to the Vice-chairman’s enquiry on the situation of other places that had implemented ERP. He cited London as an example and said the scheme had been implemented for some ten years. The charge had increased from five pounds to some 11 pounds. However, he opined that the rise in the charge did not mean that ERP scheme was ineffective, as the development and inflation in the city over the years could also contribute to the rise in the charge. Mr LAM responded to Members’ views concerning consultation, and said C&WDC would first be consulted and other stakeholders would be consulted afterwards. Mr LAM responded to Mr CHAN Choi-hi and said the possibility of advancing the time for review could be further studied. TD said they maintained an open mind concerning the suggestion of carrying out a preliminary review one year after the implementation of the scheme as long as there were sufficient statistics.The Chairman said that the item had entered the voting stage. He said that under Order 21 of the C&WDC Standing Orders, an amended motion or re-amended motion must relate to the terms of the original motion. Also, the Council must first take a vote on the amended motion. If the amended motion was not passed, a vote on the original motion should be taken.Mr HUI Chi-fung remarked that the issue had aroused grave public concern and Members also moved an amended motion and a re-amended motion in response to the original motion. According to the C&WDC Standing Orders, the re-amended motion would be voted on first. If it was adopted, the amended motion and original motion would not be read out and the public would not be able to know the content of the amended motion and original motion immediately. Therefore, he hoped that the Chairman could show the content of the original motion and amended motion. He worried that if the meeting ended too late, the original motion/amended motion/re-amended motion could not be uploaded to the C&WDC website on the same day for public information.Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of C&WDO, said that although the motion result would only be uploaded to the C&WDC website the day after this meeting, the motion, amended motion and re-amended motion had been uploaded to the C&WDC website one day after the list of motions was sent to Members (the day before the meeting). Hence, the public could immediately know the content of the original motion/amended motion/re-amended motion through the website.Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing said he had seen the content of the original motion, amended motion and re-amended motion on the C&WDC website.The Chairman invited Members to vote on the motion. After voting, the following re-amended motion was adopted:Re-amended Motion:“This Council considers it undesirable that the Government puts emphasis only on the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme for solving traffic congestion problem. The Government should carefully assess the impact of the ERP on residents and especially on traffic congestion situation in the district, including Mid-Levels, as pointed out by the Central and Western District Council. The Government should also consider other effective measures proposed by Members, enhance the overall package of measures under a multi-pronged approach, and then consult the District Council and the local community again.”(Proposed by Mr YEUNG Hok-ming and seconded by Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing)(9 affirmative votes:Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)(5 dissenting votes:Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms NG Hoi-yan)The Chairman closed the discussion on this item.Item 8: Request Abolition of C&WDC’s Proxy Voting System(C&W DC Paper No. 48/2019) (7:42 pm – 8:08 pm)The Chairman welcomed Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western) (DO(C&W)) and representatives of the C&WDO to the meeting. He invited discussion on the paper and Members’ views were as follows:(a)Mr HUI Chi-fung explained why he requested the abolition of C&WDC’s proxy voting system. He said the proxy voting system had been in place for a very long time and probably no paper could be referred to these days to find out why the system was set up at the very beginning. In recent years, some members of the 18 District Councils started to feel that the proxy voting system was problematic. They opined that the proxy voting system allowed some members who were absent from a meeting for a long time or did not attend a meeting to authorise another member to vote on their behalf. He said the public expected members to attend meetings and vote, and attending meetings and voting were the most important responsibilities of members. He said given that the society had high expectations on this, the C&WDC should keep up with the times and meet their expectations. Members should attend meetings in person, instead of relying on others to do the work for them. If Members could authorise another Member to vote on their behalf, it might give a bad impression to the public that Members were slack. He opined that C&WDC should defend its dignity and hence, he put forward the proposal to abolish C&WDC’s proxy voting system. He hoped that Members would support the proposal.(b)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming disagreed with Mr HUI Chi-fung’s saying that “authorisation meant slacking”. He said he had not used proxy votes before but remembered that Mr HUI Chi-fung had used proxy votes multiple times. He did not believe that Mr HUI Chi-fung was slack and opined that it was down to the public to decide whether Members were slack. He said Members were aware of all motions proposed in C&WDC in advance and there was no ad hoc motion. The public hoped that Members would express their views. If the proxy voting system was not in place, Members who were absent from the meeting because of illness or other commitments would not be able to vote and voice opinions on behalf of the public. It would be a loss to the public and he believed that it was not what the public wished to see. He also cited an example that if a Member had done something very improper and the C&WDC moved a motion to censure that Member, the public would also hope that other Members could represent them to express their opinions and censure that Member. Yet, without the proxy voting system, Members who were absent from the meeting because of illness or other commitments would not be able to censure the Member concerned on behalf of the public. He continued that C&WDC’s proxy voting system was very clear. Mr HUI Chi-fung had authorised Ms CHENG Lai-king to cast an affirmative vote on his behalf for installing CCTV at hygiene black spots for surveillance purposes. However, Ms CHENG had abstained from voting in the end as she considered that the proposal involved privacy issues and she had reservations about it. Mr YEUNG said that although Ms CHENG had voted on behalf of Mr HUI, she could still have her own opinions. The minutes of meeting and voting result also clearly showed Members’ voting intentions. Therefore, he opined that it would be a loss to voters if Members were deprived of the right to use proxy votes and could not vote when they were absent from meeting because of illness or other commitments.(c)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai remarked that the proposal to abolish the proxy voting system put forward by Mr HUI Chi-fung was meaningful only in other District Councils that accepted ad hoc motions. C&WDC had never accepted ad hoc motions and motions had to be submitted in advance to make sure that Members understood the motions well before authorising another Member to vote on their behalf. Hence, there was no situation where ad hoc motion had to be handled during a meeting and the voting intention of Members was not known when they authorised another Member to vote on their behalf. Mr CHAN opined that the proxy voting system had been in place for a long time, and Members from different parties had also opined that the system enabled them to vote and express opinions even if they could not attend a meeting. They did not want to be deprived of such right and hence, he disagreed with Mr HUI’s proposal.(d)The Vice-chairman said it was most unconvincing for Mr HUI Chi-fung to put forward the proposal because Mr HUI was still using proxy votes even after submitting the paper on 26 October 2018. He criticised Mr HUI for being a hypocrite. He opined that Mr HUI would be respected if he did not use proxy votes while requesting the abolition of the proxy voting system. He continued that it was necessary to maintain the proxy voting system. C&WDC did not accept ad hoc motions and so, every Member would state clearly his voting intention to the Member he authorised before authorising that Member to vote on his behalf. He continued that he agreed with the example cited by Mr YEUNG Hok-ming. Mr HUI Chi-fung had expressed his voting intention very clearly to Ms CHENG Lai-king at that time and authorised Ms CHENG to vote on his behalf pursuant to his voting intention; while Ms CHENG Lai-king also expressed her own voting intention clearly and casted her own vote accordingly. The minutes of meeting showed Mr HUI had used a proxy vote to hold himself accountable to his voters, so the Vice-chairman opined that the public would approve of Mr HUI Chi-fung using proxy votes to express opinions even if he could not attend the meeting. He disagreed with Mr HUI Chi-fung’s proposal and hoped that Mr HUI would respond only after he cleared his mind.(e)Mr YOUNG Chit-on said he disagreed with the abolition of proxy voting system. He pointed out that Members were elected by the public and were responsible for speaking for the public regardless of whether they could attend meetings. He opined that the proxy voting system had enabled Members to participate in discussions and express their views in a more effective manner. Conversely, problems would only arise if the proxy voting system was in place and Members did not use proxy votes when they could not attend a meeting. He said the proxy voting system was used when necessary, and only when Members were found to have abused such right and slacked off would a review be required. Indeed, he was more concerned about absence of Member from a meeting to discuss an item after putting forward a motion on the item concerned. He opined that such act was even more irresponsible and deserved more attention. He considered the assertion “abolishing the proxy voting system could stop Members from slacking or wasting public funds” not justified.(f)Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing said C&WDC members were clear about the content of the motion at the time they authorised another Member to vote on their behalf. There was no situation where Members were unclear about the motion and left the decision to others. He opined that Members were elected by voters and should be accountable to them. Minutes of meetings of the C&WDC also recorded clearly the voting intention of each Member. He continued that as a District Councillor, integrity was vital and one should be consistent on his words and deeds. If a Member requested the abolition of the proxy voting system but at the same time continued to use proxy votes, he would query whether the Member was acting against his conscience many times previously when using the proxy votes, and should therefore explain and apologise to the voters. He opined that Mr HUI Chi-fung should not use proxy votes anymore in future if he requested the abolition of the proxy voting system.(g)Ms CHENG Lai-king said Mr HUI Chi-fung was not the only one who put forward the motion to abolish the proxy voting system. She was also one of the Members who put forward the motion. She said C&WDC would accept ad hoc motions at the time when she first became a Member. At the time Members could draft a motion during the meeting and put to vote. The proxy voting system was also in place. She opined that such an approach was adopted in the light of the prevailing situation at that time. Currently, C&WDC was also governed by the Standing Orders, which stipulated that motion/amended motion/re-amended motion must be moved prior to a meeting. She believed that the reason for Members using proxy votes was because they had urgent matters to attend to and could not attend the meeting. She said C&WDC meetings were very open these days and dates of the meetings could be known beforehand. She herself considered attending C&WDC meetings as her top priority and she would ask the Member concerned clearly about his voting intention when she was authorised to vote on his behalf. When a Member from the Democratic Party put forward a motion, other Members from the Democratic Party would basically support the proposal as well. She wished the proxy voting system be abolished because she hoped that Members would attend C&WDC meetings in person to show the public that they had fulfilled their duties as District Councillors. She said it would be a commendable attitude. If the motion to abolish the proxy voting system was adopted, the C&WDC Standing Orders could state that “C&WDC had no proxy voting system”.(h)Mr KAM Nai-wai said he did not remember since when C&WDC adopted the proxy voting system. There was no proxy voting system back when he was a member of the Urban Council and Legislative Council. He opined that attending meetings to voice opinions and vote on behalf of the public should be a principle upheld by Members. He always believed that the public elected Members to voice opinions on their behalf so Members should attend meetings and vote. Members who did not attend meetings and vote did not deserve votes from voters. He understood that different Members might have different views but to him, if Members used proxy votes and did not attend the meeting in person to vote, the principle of representing the public to express opinions could not be upheld. In addition, he opined that if Members could be authorised to vote and attend meetings on behalf of other Members in C&WDC, then a meeting could still take place even if only one Member was present. He opined that it should not be the case and believed that Councils in other parts of the world did not function that way. He also said he disagreed with the saying that “it was immoral to object to the proxy voting system while continuously using proxy votes”. He said for example, people who were against functional constituencies would not be so stupid as to give up running for the functional constituency seats either, as they would suffer otherwise. Finally, he added that his stance was that leaving aside whether there were ad hoc motions, Members should attend meetings in person and vote on behalf of the public when they had won the votes from voters. He opined that it was the right attitude.(i)Mr HUI Chi-fung disagreed with the view that “a Member had the right and obligation to express views so even if he could not attend a meeting due to illness or other urgent commitment, he should authorise other Members to voice opinions on his behalf, or he would be deprived of the right to vote”. He opined that the public did not simply expect Members to express opinions. Rather, they hoped that Members could attend meetings and voice opinions in person, instead of authorising others to vote and express views. He continued that Members could apply for leave by presenting a medical certificate when they were sick. A former Member from DAB had also applied for maternity leave and was absent from a meeting earlier, and her reason for taking leave was accepted by C&WDC. He believed that if it was really necessary to apply for leave (e.g. sick leave), the public would not blame the Member for not attending a meeting in person. He continued that abolishing the proxy voting system could show that C&WDC was accountable to the public and Members would need to determine if attending meetings or handling other matters, be they official or personal, was more important. The public could thereby know what choice a Member had made and consider whether they would elect him again. Furthermore, he opined that ad hoc motion was not the key to determine whether the proxy voting system should be abolished. Since there was no ad hoc motion in C&WDC, every Member was aware of the motions that required voting on the day of the meeting. If a Member still chose to absent from the meeting, the public would know the Member’s priorities. Finally, he added that his earlier remark should be “the public perceived that Members could slack off if they could use proxy votes”, rather than “Members who used proxy votes previously must have slacked off”. He continued that although he had used proxy votes, Members from the DAB were the ones who used proxy votes the most. He opined that it was only the public’s impression on Members and hoped that the public could have a better impression on C&WDC in future. He hoped that C&WDC could be more dignified and hence, Members should support the abolition of the proxy voting system from this moment onwards.(j)The Vice-chairman said Mr HUI Chi-fung was causing confusion. He said former Member Ms SIU Ka-yi applied for leave of absence from a meeting. Voting was another matter. He opined that a Member could apply for leave so that the attendance record would not be affected, but this was about attendance rate. Not being able to attend a meeting and thereby not being able to express views was another matter. Still, as former Member Ms SIU Ka-yi belonged to a political party, she could express her opinions through other Members of the same political party. He pointed out that Mr HUI Chi-fung had said “whoever attended meetings but had not commented should answer to voters”, and said he had found in the minutes of the 17th C&WDC meeting that there was an amended motion: “This Council requests Tai Kwun to stop hosting noise generating events in the Prison Yard adjacent to Chancery Lane and take effective measures to reduce noises in order to preserve the tranquillity of the residential neighbourhood of the Mid-Levels.” The amended motion was proposed by Mr YEUNG Hok-ming and seconded by Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing. 12 Members voted for the amended motion and no Member voted against it; one Member abstained from voting. The 12 affirmative votes were casted by Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing and Ms NG Hoi-yan. There was no dissenting vote and Mr YOUNG Chit-on abstained from voting. Hence, 13 Members had expressed their views and there were 15 Members in total in C&WDC. The Chairman did not vote because he had to host the meeting. In other words, one Member attended the meeting but did not express any view. The Vice-chairman asked Mr HUI Chi-fung whether Mr KAM Nai-wai, who was present at the said meeting but did not express views, had to explain to voters why he did not cast a vote. He said Members could explicitly authorise other Members to vote and express views on their behalf under the proxy voting system. Mr HUI Chi-fung often said that Members must voice opinions when they were present at a meeting, and had once insisted at a meeting that former Member Ms SIU Ka-yi must express her stance (i.e. for, against or abstention) even after she said she had no comment. He also pointed out that Mr KAM Nai-wai had for many times attended meetings without expressing views. He asked Mr HUI Chi-fung why he had not requested Mr KAM to express his views. He continued that Members had always respected each other and he hoped that Members would not keep hurting other people by claiming the moral high ground and pointing the finger at others.The Chairman announced that the item had entered the voting stage. He invited Members to vote on the following motion. The following motion was not adopted after voting:Motion:“This Council hereby repeals Order 32(2) of the Central and Western District Council Standing Orders, so as to abolish the Central and Western District Council’s proxy voting system.”(Proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung and seconded by Mr NG Siu-hong)(5 affirmative votes:Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms NG Hoi-yan)(10 dissenting votes:Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)(0 abstention vote)The Chairman closed the discussion on this item.Item 9: Strongly Request Development Bureau to Undertake Not To Hold "Heritage Vogue．Hollywood Road" and Similar Events on Hollywood Road Again in Future, and to Accept Responsibility and Apologise for Nuisance Caused to Public and Traffic Impact Brought to District by the Carnival(C&W DC Paper No. 49/2019)(8:08 pm – 8:31 pm)The Vice-chairman took the chair of the meeting.The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the DEVB, Lands Department (LandsD) and HKPF to the meeting. He invited departmental representatives to first give a brief response on the paper.Mr YAM Ho-san, Commissioner for Heritage of DEVB, said DEVB had given a written reply in response to the paper. He said "Heritage Vogue．Hollywood Road" was held at Hollywood Road (between Wyndham Street and Aberdeen Street), Tai Kwun and PMQ from 12:00 noon to 8:30 pm on 4 November 2018 (Sunday) and he played a video to show the details of the event. Mr YAM said DEVB consulted Traffic and Transport Committee of C&WDC on 20 September 2018 regarding the temporary traffic arrangements. Over 76?000 persons participated in the event on the day and the dedicated page on a social networking site also garnered more than 14?000 “likes” and followers. The cumulative number of visits to the page was about 290?000. DEVB also conducted a public survey on the day and collected over 6?000 questionnaires in total. 30% of the respondents were residents living in Central and Western District and more than 90% of the respondents said they liked the event and supported making it an annual event. DEVB also collected more than 130 questionnaires in the free shuttles on the day and 70% of the respondents were residents living in Central and Western District. Over 80% of the service users agreed that the free shuttle service facilitated their access, and said they would support organising the event on a yearly basis if the organiser continued to arrange a free shuttle service. Eight complaints, either lodged directly to DEVB or referred by other departments, had been received. Five of them were related to the temporary traffic arrangements, two of them were about noises and the remaining one concerned both the temporary traffic arrangements and noises. DEVB had followed up and handled all the complaints. DEVB explained that bringing inconvenience to the residents nearby on the day of the event was inevitable but the impact caused had been minimised as much as possible. DEVB had started to notify residential and commercial buildings, shops, car parks, and schools nearby, etc. of the temporary traffic arrangements related to the event since early October 2018, and distributed leaflets about the free shuttle service at affected bus stops one week before the event (28 October 2018, Sunday). For volume control, DEVB had arranged for different performance groups to perform at different places and times, and had reminded every participating organisation to control the volume.The Vice-chairman invited discussion on the paper and invited Members to express their views.(a)Ms NG Hoi-yan said according to the written reply given by DEVB, the purpose of organising the event was to deepen the public’s understanding about heritage conservation and the event included sketching, animation showcase workshops, action photography and old market exhibitions, etc. Yet, she opined that it was not a must to hold the activities at the abovementioned locations and in this manner. The activities could be held elsewhere. For example, similar exhibitions were also held at Tai Kwun and PMQ. Hence, she enquired why DEVB chose to fulfil the purpose by organising such a large-scale carnival that caused nuisance to residents. In addition, she said according to the statistics provided by DEVB, 76?000 persons took part in the event and 6?000 (around 7.9%) of them had filled in the questionnaires. 1?800 or 30% of the respondents were residents living in Central and Western District and 1?620 or 90% of them supported organising the event every year. She asked whether these 1?620 persons were fully representative and could show that most people supported DEVB in organising the event on a yearly basis. She said 4?000 units had been affected on Hollywood Road alone and assuming two persons living in each unit, 8?000 people were being affected. She wished to know what criteria DEVB used when determining if the event would become an annual one. For temporary free shuttles, DEVB remarked that most users were in support of organising the event again, as reflected in the questionnaires collected on the day. Ms NG said that she had used the free shuttle service twice on the day of the event and was refused to complete the questionnaire after she told the organiser that she was a C&WDC member, even though she had told the organiser that she lived at Caine Road. She requested DEVB to give an explanation. She reiterated that organising this kind of large-scale events which required road closures on Hollywood Road would cause great nuisance to residents, and stressed that it was not suitable to hold similar carnivals on Hollywood Road.(b)Ms CHENG Lai-king said she had used the free shuttle service multiple times on the day of the event and she was the only passenger in several rides. In one of the rides, a woman in her 90s who got on at Aberdeen Street insisted on getting off at Bonham Road but the driver refused to set her down there. Ms CHENG tried to persuade the driver and hoped the driver could discretionarily let the old lady get off because she was old and might not be able to recognise the roads nearby. She pointed out that the rerouting on the day had confused the elders and the support given by DEVB to the residents was also insufficient. Moreover, she said DEVB did not clearly show in the paper whether it was 90% of 6?000 respondents or 90% of 1?800 residents living in Central and Western District who supported the event. She also asked DEVB the total expenditure on the event. In addition, she said DEVB had hanged banners of the same colour on the two sides of the entire Hollywood Road and she suspected that it was illegal. She also suspected that the road signs installed on the day were without approval from relevant departments. Some parents had complained to her that the road signs installed posed danger and pedestrians almost walked straight into them. In addition, the iron wires for hanging directional signs installed at Bonham Road and Hospital Road were not handled properly and could easily injure children’s eyes. Improper handling of road signs was also observed at Aberdeen Street and the stairs opposite to PMQ. She had tried to protest to the Commissioner for Heritage but without success. All the problems on the day showed that DEVB’s arrangements were poor. She also said staff of the organiser refused to let her fill in the questionnaire that day and told her that her comments would not be taken note of. She also commented that there was serious traffic congestion at Aberdeen Street, Hollywood Road, Caine Road, Bonham Road and Wellington Street that day and hence, she strongly opposed to holding the event again in 2019.(c)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said he had participated in the carnival for two years and had also consulted conservation groups about the event. They opined that it was both rare and valuable that the public could appreciate a number of historic buildings and monuments during a given period of time, and the intention of the event was commendable. As for whether the location was suitable for holding the event, a further study could be conducted. Mr CHAN opined that it was difficult to identify another area which had so many historic buildings in Central and Western District other than Hollywood Road and so, Hollywood Road inevitably became the first choice for holding events related to heritage appreciation. Yet, he said if the event was to be held again, traffic arrangements should be paid attention to and reviewed because the current arrangements still had room for improvement. He personally opined that an event related to heritage appreciation which attracted 70?000 to 80?000 participants should be held again but many details had to be reviewed. He added that C&WDC also hoped the event would not cause nuisance to residents and DEVB should minimise the impact on residents.(d)Mr NG Siu-hong opined that traffic congestion on the day was very serious. There was heavy traffic congestion all the way from Aberdeen Street to Caine Road and residents living in Mid-Levels were greatly affected. He said Tai Kwun and PMQ had sufficient space to organise large-scale events but DEVB insisted on closing the main roads to organise the event, thereby causing serious traffic congestion. He said the questionnaire did not cover questions asking what the public think if the event was relocated to Tai Kwun or PMQ. He opined that DEVB should consider using the existing exhibition venues and space to attract public participation, instead of adopting a proposal which had serious impact on the traffic. Besides, he did not understand why the shuttles provided by DEVB did not go to any MTR station, and why other government departments did not stop DEVB from hanging banners all over the streets. He said that under normal circumstances, no banners should be hung on pedestrian islands and within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side of signalised junctions for road safety reasons. However, he saw that banners related to the event had been hung all over the vicinity of pedestrian islands and signalised junctions a week before the event. He asked whether relevant ordinances were not applicable to the event. He also asked from which government department did DEVB obtain such “legal” permit, on what principles did the department concerned base in approving the bureau’s application, and why the criteria were different from those applied to other units. He agreed with Ms CHENG that iron wires extending from the directional signs posed a danger to pedestrians, children in particular. As the pedestrian flow was high that day, the likelihood of accidents was even higher. He opined that the arrangements for the event had caused great nuisance to residents and hence, he opposed to organising the event in the same manner again.(e)Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that the Commissioner for Heritage could answer the following two questions and his reply would be put on record. The first question was whether DEVB had applied for approval from LandsD for hanging all the banners on the day of the event. The second question was whether DEVB had applied for approval from TD and LandsD for displaying all the road signs. Mr KAM asked why so many banners could be hung illegally if DEVB had not submitted any application. Besides, he hoped that DEVB could think from the perspective of the residents and see what negative impact the event had brought to the public. As the saying goes, “do unto others as you would have them done unto you”, closing other main roads like Bonham Road for organising similar events might also attract many members of the public/tourists but it, too, would cause nuisance to residents. He said he went past Wellington Street that day and found that traffic congestion was serious. He opined that the event should be held only if residents could accept it, or it would be counterproductive and arouse greater discontent among residents. In addition, he said the following wording “will not cause nuisance to the residents” in the re-amended and amended motions were meaningless because government departments always undertook before an event that there would be no nuisance caused to residents. Hence, moving the re-amended motion was not very meaningful and would only benefit the Government. He said he would oppose to both the re-amended motion and amended motion. He also explicitly said that he opposed to closing Hollywood Road for organising similar events.(f)The Chairman said he appreciated the programme of the event because the event gathered many cultural units together and demonstrated the culture of the entire old district at Hollywood Road. Coupled with the events held at Tai Kwun and PMQ, "Heritage Vogue．Hollywood Road" delivered reams of information and had successfully attracted many tourists. However, he also agreed that the event had many shortcomings and opined that the Administration should listen to C&WDC and the public. It should adopt measures to avoid causing nuisance to residents and should make reasonable and feasible traffic arrangements. He opined that the event was worth keeping but DEVB had to listen to C&WDC and take its views into account, so as to avoid similar nuisances being caused to residents and enhance the event’s arrangements.Mr YAM Ho-san of DEVB said every time when a similar event was held, DEVB would brief C&WDC on the arrangements for the event and listen to Members’ views with the greatest sincerity. For instance, shortening the duration of the event, setting up a temporary bus stop for bus route No. 26 near Tung Wah Hospital to facilitate visits to hospitalised patients and providing free shuttle service were all improvements made after listening to C&WDC’s views. If the event was to be held again in future, DEVB would make further improvements based on Members’ concerns to minimise impact on residents. Furthermore, in connection with a Member’s enquiry about the statistics, he replied that DEVB had collected over 6?000 questionnaires in total on the day. About 30% of the 6?000 respondents were residents living in Central and Western District and over 90% of the 6?000 respondents supported the event. As for the traffic arrangements and hanging of banners, DEVB had liaised with LandsD, Highways Department (HyD) and TD before the event, and displayed the road signs and banners only after gaining approval from the departments. DEVB did not rule out the possibility that there were some shortcomings in the contractor’s actual practice, and said they would pay more attention when organising events in future. Regarding the banners on the pedestrian islands, DEVB had obtained consent from TD and HyD for hanging the banners on the day of the event. Yet, due to some misunderstanding, the contractor hanged the banners sooner than planned. DEVB had requested the contractor to remove them immediately after learning what had happened and the banners were hung again only on the day of the event. He reiterated that DEVB would consult C&WDC again when similar events were to be held in future.The Vice-chairman announced that the item had entered the voting stage. The following re-amended motion was adopted after voting:Re-amended motion:“As the “Heritage Vogue．Hollywood Road” activity involves extensive road closure, it seriously affects road traffic in the area and its vicinity, and causes great inconvenience to the residents when they commute. This Council requests the Government to undertake not to hold “Heritage Vogue．Hollywood Road” on Hollywood Road if it cannot ensure that the event will not cause nuisance to the residents and affect road traffic, and to fully consult stakeholders in the district before holding any large-scale events.”(Proposed by Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, seconded by Mr YEUNG Hok-ming)(9 affirmative votes:Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Mr LEE Chi-hang, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YOUNG Chit-on)(4 dissenting votes:Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms NG Hoi-yan)(0 abstention vote)The Vice-chairman closed the discussion on this item and thanked the guests for attending the meeting.Item 10: Strongly Request Widening of Pavement along 4 Seymour Road and Exit of Caine Road Garden at Seymour Road, and Concern over Severe Nuisance caused by Noise and Vibration from Piling Works to Nearby Residents(C&W DC Paper No. 50/2019) (8:31 pm – 8:59 pm)The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and Buildings Department (BD) to the meeting.The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views.(a)Ms CHENG Lai-king said that piling works at the redevelopment site of 4 Seymour Road at Mid-Levels (former Merry Terrace) were finished on 21 March 2019. She said she submitted this paper in October 2018 and the piling works were in full swing at that time. Many residents had to leave their homes in order to be away from the noises. The piling works had also caused vibrations in buildings nearby and there were even cracks on the internal walls inside flats. She had complained to BD and EPD about the situation but no improvement had been made. The reply she received stated that the buildings were too old and cracks were normal. In addition, she pointed out that there was no pavement between the eastern side of the exit of Caine Road Garden at Seymour Road and the junction of Ladder Street currently, and the pavement outside 4 Seymour Road was very narrow. Therefore, she hoped that the pavement outside 4 Seymour Road could be widened through the works to benefit the residents.(b)Mr KAM Nai-wai opined that percussive piling severely affected nearby residents. He said there were many old buildings in Central and Western District and percussive piling greatly affected the old buildings in the vicinity. He commented that there were other ways to carry out foundation works other than piling and did not understand why the Government still allowed this kind of piling works. Moreover, he had lodged complaints many times regarding material transportation at construction sites and dump trucks parking and occupying pavements for lifting works. He opined that this was dangerous and asked whether the arrangements had been approved by government departments. He also asked HKPF and BD how they monitored irregularities outside construction sites. He further asked whether BD had requested site vehicles to park inside the construction site and stipulated that all loading and unloading of goods must be conducted inside the construction site when approving plans of works.(c)Mr NG Siu-hong said according to the reply given by the department, approval details of applications for site boundary setback could not be disclosed. In light of this, Mr NG asked whether the department could provide information regarding whether the site had a setback design. He commented that the setback could tally with the Government’s policy on pavement widening during redevelopment to improve pedestrian environment. Besides, he said there were other ways to carry out foundation works in addition to piling, and questioned why the Government still allowed piling works which created loud noises and high-frequency vibrations. He opined that it was not suitable to carry out percussive piling there because it was a high density area with many old buildings. Foundation works should be carried out in a manner which caused fewer nuisances to residents. He asked the department whether percussive piling was opted for to accommodate the wish of the developer to reduce costs.Regarding the approval process, Mr YAM Kwok-kit, Senior Structural Engineer/Heritage of BD replied that BD had no control over the content of foundation design proposal submitted to BD by building professionals. Whether BD would approve the building works would depend on (i) whether the building works complied with requirements of the Buildings Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, including whether the building works met the safety standards stipulated; and (ii) whether the works would affect the structural stability of the buildings nearby. BD had a stringent control system which monitored various types of building works in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation, with a view to ensuring that they were in line with the approved plans and Buildings Ordinance and safeguarding works and public safety. According to the Buildings Ordinance, a property owner needed to engage authorized persons to coordinate the foundation works and delegate a registered structural engineer to submit a foundation plan to BD before carrying out the foundation works. Staff of BD would vet the works design of the foundation plan submitted in detail and see whether precautionary measures and monitoring devices were in place during the course of works. Furthermore, staff of BD would pay a visit to the construction site and nearby buildings before approval to assess the impact brought by the works on the buildings nearby. BD would also request the registered structural engineer to submit a preliminary assessment report to anticipate whether the level of vibrations at nearby buildings due to percussive piling would exceed the limit stipulated. When the works began, the authorized person, registered structural engineer and registered contractor needed to adhere to the Code of Practice for Site Supervision and submit a site supervision plan to BD. Prior to the works, the registered structural engineer had to submit to BD an original record of each monitoring point and a report on the original condition of nearby buildings, so that it would be easier for BD to assess the impact of the works on nearby buildings in future. During the foundation works, the Site Monitoring Section of BD would also monitor whether building works were carried out in accordance with the approved plans and whether the vibrations caused had exceeded the limit set out in the approved plans. He reiterated that BD followed stringent procedures in approving plans.Ms BOOK King-shun, Executive Officer I (District Council) of C&WDO, added that in response to the written reply given by BD, the Secretariat had invited BD to provide the contact details of the developer or authorized person in order to have more details of the development project. An engineer from the team in charge of the developer said that a final design was not yet ready at the moment so it was still uncertain whether the pavement could be widened. The engineer added that even if a final design was available, the developer must obtain consent from the property owner before providing the design to a third party. Nevertheless, they said they noted Members’ comments and had contacted the Members concerned. The Secretariat had also forwarded the paper and the email replies given by government departments to the team in charge. In response to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s enquiry about whether the team in charge had made a written reply, Ms BOOK replied that the Secretariat contacted the team in charge by phone and the team did not provide a written reply.In response to Members’ question about whether percussive piling works could be banned totally, Dr AU Sze-man, Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South) of EPD, replied that the Government was highly concerned about the impact of percussive piling on nearby residents. To reduce the noise impact generated from percussive piling on nearby residents, percussive piling was prohibited between the hours of 7:00 pm and 7:00 am, or at any time on a general holiday under the Noise Control Ordinance. To further reduce the impact created by percussive piling works, the use of noisy piling equipment, such as diesel, pneumatic and steam hammers was banned under the Noise Control Ordinance; and generally only hydraulic hammers would be allowed. Currently, construction sites were required to apply to EPD for a construction noise permit according to the legal requirements, with a view to restricting the number of piling equipment used in the construction site, and restricting the duration of piling works to no more than three hours each day in urban areas, thereby minimising the noise impact on residents. As for whether it was possible to ban piling works completely, Dr AU said that this way of carrying out foundation works could not be completely replaced at the moment but most construction sites would try to replace percussive piling with other feasible methods. As geology, structure of buildings and works implementation had to be taken into consideration, EPD could not completely ban percussive piling works.In connection with Mr KAM Nai-wai’s multiple complaints about material transportation at construction sites and dump trucks parking and occupying pavements for carrying out works, Mr CHIM Sui-pang, Senior Structural Engineer/Site Monitoring (B) of BD replied that BD would advise the contractor if illegal occupation of roads was observed on site. He said according to the established procedures, before applying to HKPF and TD for a permit to occupy public roads for carrying out works, a contractor must assess in advance the impact of occupying public roads on traffic nearby and road safety. He added that although activities outside the construction site did not fall within the ambit of Buildings Ordinance, BD would still request registered contractors to comply with relevant ordinances in Hong Kong.Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) of HKPF, said that if a contractor needed to load and unload goods outside the construction site, especially by using lifting appliances, the contractor must apply to HyD for temporary approval. In general, TD and Traffic Management Division of HKPF would pay a site visit to the site upon recipient of the application to see whether temporary traffic signs and traffic lights had to be installed. Hence, if HKPF found that pavements were illegally occupied or relevant complaints were received, HKPF would advise the offender to leave at once. If the offender refused to leave, HKPF would prosecute the offender for breaching traffic regulations.The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views again.(a)Mr KAM Nai-wai asked EPD whether the three-hour restriction on piling works could be further tightened to 10 to 20 minutes, and whether piling works could even be banned. He asked whether the law stipulated that piling works had to be carried out for at least three hours. He said the piling works at 4 Seymour Road at Mid-Levels had continued for a year after the former Merry Terrace was demolished and 900 piles had been installed in total. He believed that it had caused enormous nuisance to residents nearby and did not understand why government departments would approve the works. He wanted to know whether regulations forbade the departments to ban the works. Besides, he asked BD when approving layout plans, whether site vehicles were required to be parked inside the construction site and whether goods must be loaded and unloaded inside the construction site. He opined that site vehicles would often be parked at public roads for unloading goods if BD did not request site vehicles be parked inside the construction site. He also asked if the contractor had not applied for temporary traffic approval, which department should be responsible for initiating prosecution and whether HKPF would initiate prosecution for the irregularities. He hoped that all government departments concerned would conduct formal public consultation on contractors’ application for special arrangements concerning roads and transport.(b)Ms CHENG Lai-king asked whether BD had the authority to ban percussive piling works at Mid-Levels, which was full of buildings, schools and churches. She said she had complained to BD about the use of percussive piling on the day the works began, but the reply she received was that since BD had approved the works no objection could be made and only the works schedule could be adjusted. She believed that this sort of situation would become increasingly common when more redevelopment projects got underway, thereby causing great nuisance to the public. She hoped that relevant government departments could address the problem. She also hoped that the contractor could carry out a consultation before applying for temporary fencing off of road surface. Besides, Ms CHENG hoped that BD could disclose relevant information when they learnt that the construction site could be set back for widening the pavement. She opined that information about whether roads could be widened should not be confidential.(c)Mr NG Siu-hong enquired about the possibility of setting back the construction site. Moreover, he pointed out that there were other ways to carry out foundation works in addition to piling, and asked why the Government still allowed piling. He pointed out that there were many old buildings in Central and Western District. As percussive piling would affect the structure of buildings that had been built for long, it was unsuitable to carry out percussive piling in the district. He suspected that BD had set low standards on the structural stability of buildings. Lastly, regarding the permitted hours of piling, he opined that BD favoured the contractor and caused a great nuisance to residents. He opined that the Government must make improvements.In connection with requesting site vehicles to be parked inside the construction site, Mr YAM Kwok-kit of BD replied that when approving a foundation plan, BD mainly approved the building works inside the construction site of private development, and the operational arrangements of the construction site were outside the ambit of approval of BD. Furthermore, in response to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s enquiry, he reiterated that BD had no authority to control the content of the foundation design proposal submitted by building professionals, but it would look at the impact of the method suggested by the building professionals on nearby residents and buildings. BD would also request building professionals to conduct a preliminary assessment to predict the level of vibrations caused by piling works to nearby buildings when they submitted a foundation plan. Generally, if the foundation works were in compliance with the Buildings Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation and did not affect the structural stability of the buildings nearby, and the vibrations caused by the foundation works did not exceed the limit stipulated, BD would accept the proposed foundation works.Dr CHENG Kin-wui, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)6 of EPD, replied that when processing application for construction noise permit, EPD would request the contractor to use as few piling equipment as possible. Moreover, under the present ordinance, EPD would restrict the duration of piling to three hours in urban areas, subject to how severe the noise impact on nearby residential area was. Only construction sites which were far from residential areas would be allowed to carry out piling works for a longer time. EPD would also try to schedule piling works during lunchtime and late afternoon, the time slots when members of the public were not at home, so that they would be less affected and the noise impact could be minimised. He added that EPD had also proactively discussed with the contractor and hoped that the duration of piling could further be shortened. At last they reached an agreement and piling works would only be conducted for two hours on Fridays. EPD also suggested that the contractor cover the piling location with noise insulating fabric. In addition, the contractor had also employed the use of 4-metre-high hoardings near Caineway Mansion to reduce the noise impact.In response to Mr KAM Nai-wai’s enquiry about whether HKPF had prosecuted offenders, Mr TSE Ming-yeung of HKPF replied that relevant statistics were not available at the moment and information about the number of prosecutions initiated since the beginning of 2018 would be submitted after the meeting.The Vice-chairman closed the discussion on this item.Item 11: Concern over Rules on Hanging of Banners by DC Members(C&W DC Paper No. 51/2019) (8:59 pm – 9:27 pm)The Vice-chairman welcomed DO(C&W) and representatives of the LandsD, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and TD to the meeting. He invited discussion on the paper.The Vice-chairman invited Members’ views on this item.(a)Mr KAM Nai-wai said the written reply given by Home Affairs Department (HAD) stated that pursuant to the Guidelines on the Remuneration Package for Members of the District Councils of the HKSAR, “commercial and profit-making activities are not allowed in a District Council member’s ward office”. Regarding this, he asked DO(C&W) whether District Council members could hold non-profit-making activities, such as a one-day tour to Ocean Park which was of non-profit-making nature. If the answer was no, he would not organise non-profit-making activities again in future and if the answer was yes, he hoped that LandsD could explain why the fee for the activities could not be listed on banners, given that relevant guidelines drawn up by HAD allowed Members to organise these activities. He did not understand why LandsD on one hand allowed Members to make use of banners to promote the activities but banners with the fee listed on them could not be hanged and would even be removed by LandsD. He remarked that the practice of not forbidding the activities but forbidding the listing of fees was unintelligible and questioned that LandsD’s relevant regulations were unreasonable. Mr KAM also pointed out that his -competitor in the election hanged banners every Lunar New Year but LandsD had not removed them. He questioned the enforcement standards of LandsD, and asked whether government departments took leave and hence no enforcement action would be taken during Lunar New Year. Besides, he said former C&WDC member Ms SIU Ka-yi (belonging to DAB) had hanged banners on Hollywood Road for a long time before and asked why it became unauthorised when Ms NG Hoi-yan (belonging to the Democratic Party) hanged banners at the same locations after she was elected as a C&WDC member. He opined that LandsD was having double standard and treated pro-establishment Members and pan-democratic Members differently. He hoped that LandsD could give an explanation.(b)Ms NG Hoi-yan asked whether all railings were managed by LandsD. She found on 27 February that FEHD had hanged banners promoting the message of keeping Hong Kong clean” respectively at the intersection between Des Voeux Road West and Water Street and the intersection between Des Voeux Road West and Whitty Street. Regarding this, she asked FEHD about its enforcement standards concerning the removal of unauthorised banners, and why FEHD, as an enforcement department responsible for removing banners, would also hang banners at unauthorised locations. She hoped that FEHD could give an explanation. (c)Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing said many banners hanged by DAB Members had also been removed by LandsD and FEHD. He said activities held by ward offices were all non-profit-making and non-commercial, and he did not understand why banners listing the fee of the activities would be removed by FEHD. In the end, Members could only list a contact number on the banners for enquiry on fees. Mr YEUNG also said LandsD required that the approval number must be shown at the top right corner of the banner and imposed requirements for the font size of the approval number. He opined that the requirements were overly detailed that they became unrealistic. He hoped that LandsD could explain how the standards were determined.(d)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said his banners had been removed a few times because the font size of the approval number was not in compliance with the detailed specifications. He was even fined in the end. He opined that it was unacceptable. He also pointed out that sometimes even if the actual objective environment on the streets did not change, LandsD would request Members to relocate some of the banner locations that had been used for years for different reasons, such as when a member of the public lodged a complaint and when the location concerned was in breach of legislation or the guidelines. LandsD might even made such request by saying that the original approval for displaying the banner at the location concerned was defective, etc. He opined that as the actual objective environment did not change, even if adjustments should be made, they should be made after Members completed their term of office. He opined that the practice of LandsD was over-corrective and fussy. He hoped that the department could be people-oriented.(e)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai commented that ward offices listed the fee on the banners in order to provide the public with details of the activities. The activities held by Members were non-commercial and non-profit-making. He hoped that the department concerned could review the criteria related to “profit-making activities”, “commercial activities” and “derive profits”, etc. in the guidelines. He opined that Members did follow HAD’s guidelines and the activities held were non-profit-making. There was also no actual or potential conflict of interest. He hoped that the department concerned could review how situations involving actual conflict of interests should be regulated.(f)The Vice-chairman responded to Mr KAM Nai-wai’s views. He believed that DAB Members had their banners removed more often than Mr KAM did. He said LandsD had very stringent enforcement standards and there were even requirements on the size of the headshots on the banner. The headshot of the main subject must be bigger than that of the non-main subject and the size of the headshots was measured so precisely that even a one-millimetre variance was not tolerated. He opined that the practice of LandsD was over corrective. He pointed out that it was very difficult for banners produced using computer to meet such strict and detailed requirements. Members would be fined a few hundred dollars every time when a banner was removed by government departments. He opined that this was unreasonable and hoped that LandsD could thoroughly study what standards were necessary before issuing clear guidelines to avoid changing the requirements incessantly.(g)Mr YOUNG Chit-on said regarding the requirement that headshot of the main subject must be larger than that of the non-main subject on a banner. He said sizes of human heads varied. He had once been a non-main subject on a banner but his headshot was larger than that of the main subject. He hoped that relevant regulations could be made in a reasonable manner to prevent the image of Member on the banner being different from the real proportion due to the need to comply with regulations, thereby resulting in distortion.Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), responded to Mr KAM Nai-wai’s enquiry. She explained that Members could not engage in profit-making activities in ward offices pursuant to the Guidelines on the Remuneration Package for Members of the District Councils of the HKSAR and they needed to comply with the Management Scheme for the Display of Roadside Non-commercial Publicity Materials Implementation Guidelines set out by LandsD. In principle, HAD would not interfere with District Council members’ modus operandi and District Council members were only accountable to voters. The guidelines set out by HAD were merely used to monitor the use of public funds to ensure that public funds were spent on non-profit-making and non-commercial activities. Mrs WONG reiterated that HAD’s guidelines did not stop Members from organising fee paying activities as long as the principles concerning non-commercial and non-profit-making activities were followed. However, LandsD’s guidelines had to be followed if Members needed to use the designated spots managed by LandsD for hanging banners to promote the activities.Mr CHAN Hoi-sing, Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South) of LandsD, said he understood the dissatisfaction and views of Members. He said the responsibility of District Lands Offices (DLOs) was to enforce the relevant guidelines set out by LandsD and according to section 7(b)(i) of the guidelines, promotion of any commodities or fee paying activities shall not be permitted. For banners which only listed the contact number but not the fee as mentioned by a Member, staff of DLO would generally regard the banners as in compliance with the guidelines. In connection with the size of headshots on banners as mentioned by Members, Mr CHAN said LandsD would first give thought to the chief beneficiary. In principle, for designated spots allocated to Members by LandsD, the headshot or name of the Member should not be smaller than those of other persons on a banner. In general, DLO would ensure that the headshot of the chief beneficiary looked bigger than that of the non-chief beneficiaries. He stressed that staff of the DLO would pay more attention to Members’ opinions when enforcing the guidelines. Furthermore, in connection with holding non-profit-making activities, he said since it was stated in the guidelines of LandsD that promotion of fee paying activities shall not be permitted, as long as Members or other non-governmental organisations did not list the fee on the banners when promoting activities, all relevant cases would be treated on an equal basis. In response to Ms NG Hoi-yan’s question, Mr CHAN said the DLO would contact FEHD for follow-up actions after receiving complaints about unauthorised hanging of banners. Since the two locations Ms NG mentioned were not designated spots, the DLO had informed FEHD to handle the banners. Mr CHAN remarked that LandsD had relaxed the size restriction (2.5cm x 2.5cm) on some of the characters/digits, such as the digit “1”, of the approval number. It would be regarded as in compliance with the guidelines as long as the height of the characters/digits was not less than 2.5cm. Members could enquire with the DLO if they had any questions. In response to Mr KAM Nai-wai’s enquiry about some locations being no longer available for hanging banners, Mr CHAN said as some designated spots were located in No Banner Zones within 30 metres on the traffic upstream side of pedestrian crossings, Members concerned had already been asked to relocate the banners at the said designated spots after taking public safety into account and consultation with TD. There were also other Members affected in addition to Ms NG Hoi-yan. Mr CHAN apologised to the Members concerned for the inconvenience caused. He also thanked the Members for their cooperation and said the relocation had been completed.Mr LEE Tze-wah, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western) of FEHD, remarked that FEHD would remove banners that were displayed at public places without authorisation in accordance with the legislation. As it was DLO’s job to determine whether a banner was displayed without authorisation or was displayed in compliance with relevant guidelines set out by LandsD, every banner removal operation carried out by FEHD in respect of the unauthorised display of banner were in the form of joint operation with DLO. During the operations, if the DLO concerned said a particular banner was displayed without authorisation or did not comply with the LandsD’s guidelines, FEHD would remove the banner. In response to Ms NG Hoi-yan’s remark about the unauthorised display of banners by FEHD at two locations, Mr LEE said no relevant information was available at the moment but as a government department, FEHD would not abuse the power of displaying banners. As hanging banners on the roadside would involve issues of traffic and pedestrian safety, FEHD would consult relevant departments including TD and HyD in accordance with the established procedure if FEHD needed to hang banners on the roadside.Mr MOK Ying-kit, Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong of TD, said that TD would give views to LandsD regarding whether a particular location was suitable for hanging banners. In connection with the locations at Hollywood Road where banners were hanged, he learned that the issue arose because there was communication issues between relevant departments after upgrading of the crossing facilities. TD would review with LandsD the internal communication established during road improvement works and would enhance their communication when necessary.Mr KAM Nai-wai suggested writing to LandsD or HAD to reflect the problems Members had encountered when they hanged banners concerning activities held by them. He could not comprehend why the fee of the activities could not be listed on a banner if HAD allowed ward offices to organise non-profit-making activities and LandsD allowed Members to hang banners to promote non-profit-making activities. Mr KAM opined that by allowing promotion of non-profit-making activities as long as their fee was not listed on the banners, the departments concerned were deceiving themselves for deeming these activities as free. He suggested that LandsD consider requesting Members to state on the banners that the activities were non-profit-making, and let the public monitor. He hoped that District Officer would study the practice with LandsD and improve the arrangements accordingly. Besides, he said he would lodge a complaint to Office of the Ombudsman regarding LandsD not carrying out enforcement work during Lunar New Year.Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), added that as the locations for hanging banners pertained to public resources, LandsD had to ensure that public resources were not abused for commercial purposes. As the department’s current practice was that Members would not be asked to provide additional information, it would be hard for the staff of LandsD to determine whether an activity was a commercial one if fees could be listed. She understood that different Members had different opinions regarding whether fees should be listed. She would convey Members’ views to LandsD and discuss with LandsD how to handle the matter. As for the requirements on the font size of the approval number on banners, Mrs WONG said that the former District Lands Officer/Hong Kong West and South (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South) had circulated a letter to Members to explain that the guidelines did not stipulate that every character/digit must be 2.5cm x 2.5 cm in size. As the final guidelines did not specify relevant supplementary information, she suggested that LandsD also specify relevant standards in the final guidelines in detail. As Members opined that there were unclear areas, she suggested that the department explain to Members or their assistants regarding the guidelines and standards as necessary.The Vice-chairman said that he would write to Director of Lands in the name of C&WDC to convey Members’ views on the guidelines concerning banners. He hoped that LandsD could amend the guidelines concerning banners to meet the operational needs of Members.Item 12: Concern over Some Organisations’ Proposal of Designating Des Voeux Road Central as Pedestrian Area(C&W DC Paper No. 52/2019) (9:27 pm – 9:57 pm)The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of TD, HKPF, FEHD, Hong Kong Federation of Chinese Medicine Sector Limited and Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Industry Association Limited to the meeting.The Vice-chairman invited Mr LIN Hei-hing, Chairman of the Hong Kong Federation of Chinese Medicine Sector Limited, to speak. Mr LIN Hei-hing pointed out that Des Voeux Road Central was a major traffic corridor and was used by many cross-harbour routes. He opined that if Des Voeux Road Central was designated as a pedestrian precinct and could be used by trams only, buses had to be diverted via Connaught Road Central and Queen’s Road Central. Queen’s Road Central would then be overloaded. He pointed out that traffic congestion at Queen’s Road Central had already been very serious during the morning and evening rush hours and Connaught Road Central had already been used by many buses at the moment. If all the bus routes which were currently operating via Western Harbour Crossing were diverted via Connaught Road Central, it was estimated that all the buses’ dwell time would be doubled or even longer. Mr LIN said some organisations opined that designating Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct could reduce air pollution but he pointed out that it would in turn aggregate the air pollution problem in Connaught Road Central. Besides, vehicles from inner streets such as Wing Lok Street and Bonham Strand had to enter Connaught Road Central and severe traffic problems would be resulted. Mr LIN also quoted the Sai Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian precinct as an example and he worried that many street performers would be attracted to gather on Des Voeux Road Central after the road became a pedestrian precinct, and the section of Des Voeux Road Central from Pedder Street to Morrison Street would then become a performance space. He also pointed out that lots of foreign domestic helpers gathered in Chater Road pedestrian precinct during holidays these days. He worried that designating Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct would attract a good deal of foreign domestic helpers to gather and sit in the area, which would affect the cityscape. Hence, he strongly opposed to the proposal to designate Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct.The Vice-chairman invited Mr CHAN Tak-tai, Representative of the Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Industry Association Limited, to speak. Mr CHAN Tak-tai said he had discussed with the representatives of a few chambers of commerce the matters about designating Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct on the day of the meeting and all chambers of commerce opposed strongly to the proposal. He pointed out that all roads in Central had already been very congested with traffic. If Des Voeux Road Central was closed as a pedestrian precinct, all vehicles going to Sai Wan from Wan Chai or heading for Kowloon via Western Harbour Crossing could only pass through Queen’s Road Central and Connaught Road Central, rendering the roads severely congested. He also believed that it would increase the commuting time for members of the public working in the vicinity of Central, Sheung Wan and Sai Wan when they got off work. Hence, he opined that the proposal to designate Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct was totally unfeasible. Mr CHAN said roads in Hong Kong had already been very congested with traffic currently and the proposal to close Des Voeux Road Central was unrealistic.The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views.(a)Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said Des Voeux Road Central had been very busy since the founding of Hong Kong. He opined that designating Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct was wishful thinking, and traffic and transport problems such as shops loading and unloading goods in the vicinity were not given detailed consideration. Besides, the proposal would also affect 90 bus routes and 4?400 buses in total, and 20 bus stops had to be relocated. Mr CHEUNG said it would not be necessary for THB to implement ERP Pilot Scheme if Des Voeux Road Central was closed, as even implementing ERP could not solve the traffic problems. Mr CHEUNG hoped that the Government could study the feasibility of the proposal in a prudent and conscientious manner. He remarked that the proposal had already frightened residents and shop operators, and chaotic situations could be foreseen. Therefore, he hoped that the authority concerned could handle the matter with care in order not to cause public anxiety.(b)Mr YEUNG Hok-ming first stated that he resolutely opposed to the proposal to close Des Voeux Road Central, and said it was obvious that street performances in the Mong Kok pedestrian precinct had caused great nuisance to residents and pedestrians. Although the Mong Kok pedestrian precinct had a long history, it was abolished in the end. It could be seen that managing a pedestrian precinct effectively was difficult, even if various government departments jointly carried out enforcement exercises pursuant to the legislation. He did not believe that a management company alone was capable of managing Des Voeux Road Central pedestrian precinct properly. He added that there were individuals giving street performance at Central Pier every night since the abolition of Mong Kok pedestrian precinct and government departments encountered difficulties in monitoring the situation. Therefore, he strongly opposed to the proposal to designate Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct in the Central Core District.(c)Mr KAM Nai-wai said that in the past some people had also expressed the hope for Des Voeux Road Central to be open only for trams and pedestrians. The suggestion had been put forward for over 10 years. He opined that it was a vision and believed that the suggestion would trigger lots of objections and worries. He pointed out that the Mong Kok pedestrian precinct was a painful experience and Chater Road pedestrian precinct in Central was not a particularly good experience to many residents either. Hence, how to manage the pedestrian precinct was the first issue that needed to be addressed. He added that a traffic impact assessment would need to be conducted next, and that if the applicant organisation had attended the meeting, he would ask the organisation how the anticipated traffic impact could be addressed. For example, he would ask what would be the arrangements for the several thousand buses which required route diversion, whether the change was feasible and how traffic assessment work would be conducted. In addition, Mr KAM said residents would be worried about the traffic problem concerning vehicles entering from Morrison Street. He hoped that the applicant organisation could give a detailed explanation to the public and suggested that Members’ views expressed at the meeting be conveyed to the applicant organisation after the meeting. If possible, the applicant organisation could also be invited to give an explanation at C&WDC meeting.(d)Mr CHAN Chit-kwai pointed out that many streets in other parts of the world, including Convent Garden in London and Chinatown in Singapore, were designated as pedestrian precincts. As Hong Kong was a small place with a dense population, it was very difficult to designate a street as a pedestrian precinct. Besides, the Mong Kok pedestrian precinct was not a particularly successful attempt. Although the issue could still be discussed, the diversion problem involving 90 bus routes and 4?400 buses in total as a result of the daily road closure should be tackled first. From a realistic perspective, he opined that it would be difficult to solve the problem. He said Members would consider the proposal only if the applicant organisation could come up with a good solution to resolve the problem. If the applicant organisation wished to implement the proposed project, he hoped that the organisation could refer to the arrangements for the Sheung Wan Promenade organised by C&WDC. Also, the proposed project should not be implemented continuously and should be implemented by phases on a trial basis under a controllable situation, or it would be difficult for the proposal to succeed.(e)Ms CHENG Lai-king said closing Hollywood Road for a day previously had raised lots of concerns, so she was very worried about the applicant organisation’s proposal to close Des Voeux Road Central. She remarked that if Des Voeux Road Central was closed every day, it would be very difficult for residents and elders living in the Mid-levels to go to restaurants, banks and department stores, etc. located at Des Voeux Road Central in Sheung Wan because they needed to reach the destinations by taking both bus and tram. The closure would also bring inconvenience to passengers who were used to taking bus route No. 26 and bus routes which used Western Harbour Crossing. Ms CHENG pointed out that the situation of the proposed pedestrian precinct was different from that of the Chater Road pedestrian precinct. While Chater Road was highly accessible and alternative routes like Connaught Road Central and Des Voeux Road Central were available in the vicinity, Des Voeux Road Central (Sheung Wan Section) was a major traffic corridor and was where the tram terminus was located. She opined that the problem could not be solved by everyone taking tram instead. She was also doubtful about how the congestion problem caused by buses could be handled properly.(f)Mr LEE Chi-hang said the paper was submitted at the end of 2018 and the proposed project was originally planned to be implemented from April to June 2019 onwards. As it was May already, he believed that the proposal was not to be implemented for the time being. The written reply of HKPF also stated that the applicant organisation had not submitted further information either as of 29 April 2019. He wished to know whether the organisation had withdrawn the application, or whether it had amended the implementation timetable and would provide information later. Mr LEE also wished to know the Government’s position on the application and whether the Government opined that the traffic problem was hard to be resolved. He remarked that closing Hollywood Road for a day had already caused serious problems. It would be quite unconceivable if Des Voeux Road Central, a major traffic corridor at the heart of Central, was closed for three months or for a longer period of time, or was even designated as a permanent pedestrian precinct. He said if extensive consultation had not been conducted for the proposal, it would be difficult for Members to give views. Hence, he hoped that the Government could make its position clear and explain clearly to Members the actual situation of the application.(g)Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that the applicant organisation could conduct consultation to collect views. He also suggested conveying Members’ views expressed at this meeting to the organisation for consideration. Lastly, he hoped that the organisation would attend meeting and conduct consultation in the district.(h)The Vice-chairman said Members were in strong opposition to ERP and closure of Hollywood Road so he opined that no Members would support the proposal to designate Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct. He pointed out that the impact caused by the proposal would be more serious than that caused by the ERP Scheme and closure of Hollywood Road. While closure of Hollywood Road, which had greatly affected residents, only involved one bus route (No. 26), the proposal to designate Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct involved diversion of about 90 bus routes. He continued that Des Voeux Road Central was the core of the entire Hong Kong and many vehicles from Kowloon would also pass through there. Traffic congestion was already very severe at the moment and if vehicles were diverted to Connaught Road Central and Queen’s Road Central, the consequence would be dreadful. Implementing ERP there would also become meaningless. He opined that implementing the proposed project was just like announcing that vehicles could not pass through Central in future. He also said the proposal suggested that only trams would be allowed to use Des Voeux Road Central and he questioned about the relationship between the organisation and the Hong Kong Tramways Limited. Furthermore, the Vice-chairman said the Government had encountered many problems concerning land management, such as obstruction of streets by sales activities of telecommunications operators. He opined that the commercial value of Des Voeux Road Central was far higher than that of other places and it would be hard to imagine the forthcoming obstruction of roads after the proposed project was implemented. He considered that the proposal was like a property advertisement selling an unrealistic vision, so he could not and would not support such an impractical proposal. He also hoped that if government departments had to vet the relevant proposal, they would think thoroughly the impact the proposal would bring about to Hong Kong. It would be just like the time when Queen’s Road Central was blocked during “Occupy Central”. No vehicles could get through and Queen’s Road Central became like a pedestrian precinct. Shop operators nearby and even the entire Hong Kong had been affected tremendously during that period.Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), added that the applicant organisation sent an email to all 15 C&WDC members at 5:15 pm on 14 May saying that its long-term vision was to designate Des Voeux Road Central as a pedestrian precinct. The main content of the email was to propose the closure of Des Voeux Road Central from Morrison Street to Hillier Street on a trial basis for 90 days. The organisation initially proposed to carry out the trial implementation during April and May but the latest update was that it would be implemented from November 2019 to January 2020 instead. The applicant organisation would carry out a traffic impact assessment for this arrangement and the revised version of the assessment would be submitted to TD on 20 May. The organisation also said they would be happy to attend C&WDC meetings to give presentations and exchange ideas with Members.Mr LO Chun-hong, Senior Transport Officer/Housing and Projects of TD, said he noted the views of the representatives of shop operators and Members. He understood that Des Voeux Road Central had relatively busy traffic and was used by 90 bus routes. There were also 20 bus stops for both bounds. TD had received the details of road closure from the applicant organisation and the area covered the section of Des Voeux Road Central from Hillier Street to Morrison Street. It was inevitable to relocate some bus stops and divert some bus routes. TD was very concerned about the impact of the proposal on nearby shop operators and the arrangements for pick-up/drop-off points upon receipt of the proposal, and had given opinions to the organisation. As the traffic there was busy, TD worried that relocation of bus stops and diversion of bus routes would affect passengers and the lives of nearby residents. TD was currently conducting a study concerning the proposal and was waiting for the applicant organisation to give supplementary information. In response to the comments given by different attendees regarding the pedestrian precinct, Mr LO remarked that TD, together with various relevant government departments such as HKPF and FEHD, would perform their respective duties. While TD would implement traffic management measures, HKPF would maintain public order. If the proposal involved noise problems, relevant departments would strive to minimise the impact, and FEHD would also take improvement actions regarding the hygiene and cleaning problems caused by the proposal. TD would liaise closely with relevant government departments and was currently waiting for the applicant organisation to submit a further proposal.Mr TSE Ming-yeung, District Commander (Central District) of HKPF, said HKPF had not received the revised Traffic Impact Assessment yet. As the proposal involved diversion of many bus routes and relocation of bus stops, and the change of pedestrian flow might affect public order, HKPF could only give comments after receiving relevant information.Mr LEE Tze-wah, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western) of FEHD, said FEHD was responsible for handling environmental hygiene problems at the location concerned, regardless of whether the location was an ordinary road or a pedestrian precinct. If the organisation concerned submitted a proposal to FEHD, FEHD would carry out a study in detail accordingly. As a pedestrian precinct was also considered as a public place, FEHD would deal with problems no matter they were related to hawker control or environmental hygiene.The Vice-chairman said he would convey the views expressed at this meeting to relevant government departments and the applicant organisation so that it would know about the concerns of C&WDC. However, as the applicant organisation intended to conduct a pilot scheme from November 2019 to January 2020 and the said period happened to be the “window period” of C&WDC, he worried that the organisation might take this opportunity to actually implement the project. Hence, the Vice-chairman emphasised that without the consent of C&WDC, the applicant organisation must not implement the proposed project between November 2019 and January 2020. C&WDC endorsed writing to the applicant organisation to convey the views expressed by Members at the meeting and to emphasise that the proposed project could not be implemented before C&WDC granted consent.Mr KAM Nai-wai agreed with the Vice-chairman and opined that the applicant organisation should attend C&WDC meetings of the next DC term to conduct a consultation regarding the proposal.The Vice-chairman closed the discussion on this item.Item 13: Members’ Written Reports(9:57 pm)The Vice-chairman reported on behalf of the District Fight Crime Committee (Central and Western District) (DFCC) that the DFCC would hold its first meeting for 2019-20 on 17 May 2019 (Friday).Item 14: Work Reports of the Committees under C&WDC(9:58 pm)The Vice-chairman referred Members to the following papers.(a)Culture, Leisure & Social Affairs Committee(C&W DC Paper No. 53/2019)(b)District Facilities Management Committee(C&W DC Paper No. 54/2019)(c)Finance Committee(C&W DC Paper No. 55/2019)(d)Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee(C&W DC Paper No. 56/2019)(e)Traffic & Transport Committee(C&W DC Paper No. 57/2019)Item 15: Reports of the Working Groups under C&WDC (2018-19)(9:58 pm)The Vice-chairman referred Members to the paper. Ms NG Hoi-yan made a report on the Working Group on Concern over the Development of the Central Police Station Compound and Former Police Married Quarters, which held a meeting on 20 March 2019. At the said meeting, members of the working group reached a consensus urging that when events were being held in the PMQ, Staunton Street, Aberdeen Street, Hollywood Road, Shing Wong Street and Bridges Street should not be closed so as not to hinder the use of the roads. Also, she would like to know how this consensus of the working group could become the consensus of the full Council in order to relay such view to the PMQ.The Vice-chairman suggested that in order to relay the view to the PMQ, Ms NG Hoi-yan should submit a paper in the capacity of chairlady of the working group to the full Council for endorsement.Item 16: Report on the 213th Meeting of the Central & Western District Management Committee(C&W DC Paper No. 58/2019) (9:58 pm)The Vice-chairman referred Members to the paper.Item 17: Reports on the Meetings of the Area Committees of the Central & Western District(C&W DC Paper No. 59/2019) (9:59 pm)The Vice-chairman referred Members to the paper.Item 18: Any Other Business(9:59 pm – 10:06 pm)Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), responded to the enquiry raised by Mr HUI Chi-fung at the start of the meeting, saying that what Mr HUI referred to should be District Council’s (DC) meeting with Heads of Government Departments. She said that the mechanism for this kind of communication had been in place for a long time, with the purpose of providing more opportunities to Heads of Government Departments to understand the issues of concern to DCs and learn more about the districts. However, given there were many Heads of Departments, only some core departments, namely those with direct interface with the public, such as the LCSD, TD, and so on were arranged to attend DC meetings and meet with DC members. As for non-core departments, such as the Hong Kong Observatory, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, etc., flexible arrangements would be made according to the needs of DC members and departments or issues to be discussed, such as arranging on-site inspections. As regards visits by Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux, meeting with DC members was of course important, and it was believed that DC members as a linkage would communicate and convey district concerns. However, as the said visits also included meeting with non-governmental organisations or visiting new facilities in the district, coordination and time arrangement was necessary to cater for the various activities. The arrangements might also differ across districts. She added that for government officials meeting with the C&WDC in the form of tea session, such practice was also adopted by the last term of C&WDC. She noted that different Members held different views on this, and she could convey the views expressed by Members to the relevant parties. In addition, she said some Members had relayed that if more than one government official was to meet with the C&WDC at a meeting, it would reduce the time for the Council to discuss papers and thus affect progress of the meeting. This had also become a consideration in arranging the form of meeting. She said she would convey the different views to relevant parties for further examination.Mr KAM Nai-wai said that DC’s meeting with Heads of Departments or politically appointed Secretaries/Under Secretaries was very important to the Council and should not be skipped albeit it would result in prolonged meetings. Also, he opined that DC’s meeting with Directors of Bureaux and Secretaries of Departments should be open and transparent, and he could not understand the arrangement for closed meeting with Secretaries of Departments or Directors of Bureaux. In addition, he suggested that DC’s meeting with Heads of Departments or Directors of Bureaux could be arranged during additional/stand-alone meetings to avoid reducing the time for discussion of other agenda items.Ms CHENG Lai-king opined that DC’s meeting with Directors of Bureaux or Heads of Departments should be open and transparent, as members of the public might be interested in learning particulars of the meetings. Hence, she reckoned that this kind of meetings should be arranged to be held at meetings of the C&WDC. She suggested that meetings of the C&WDC could be scheduled to start earlier to accommodate for the said meetings.Mr NG Siu-hong shared the views of Ms CHENG Lai-king and Mr KAM Nai-wai that all meetings should be open and transparent. Minutes and recordings of meetings should also be provided to facilitate monitoring. Participation of organisations at meetings should also be allowed for them to express views. He opined that closed meetings was undesirable.The Vice-chairman hoped that DO(C&W) would convey Members’ views to the relevant parties for consideration of appropriate arrangements for the next term. He then closed the discussion on this item.Item 19: Date of the Next MeetingThe Vice-chairman announced that the twentieth meeting (i.e. the last C&WDC meeting of the current term) would be held on 4 July 2019. The paper submission deadline for government departments would be 12 June 2019, while that for Members would be 18 June 2019.For paper submission by Members, the Vice-chairman said that according to Order 13(4) of the C&WDC Standing Orders, no more than eight items (three being papers submitted by government departments and five being papers submitted by Members) should be raised for discussion at each meeting of the Council; any excess items should be disposed of in the form of written questions. As the next meeting was the last C&WDC meeting of the current term, the number of papers submitted by Members pending discussion had exceeded the number of papers that could be disposed of at the next meeting under normal circumstances. In line with the Standing Orders, the first five papers submitted by Members on the waiting list would be discussed at the next C&WDC meeting, and the remaining papers on the waiting list which were submitted before 18 June 2019 would be disposed of in the form of written questions. The Vice-chairman added that Members could still submit papers before 18 June 2019, though which might not be able to be raised for discussion at the said meeting and had to be disposed of in the form of written questions.Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that the Secretariat could provide information on the papers awaiting to be discussed at C&WDC and committee meetings, so that he could prioritise the papers submitted by himself.Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), responded that for C&WDC or committees with papers awaiting to be discussed, the Secretariat had regularly updated Members on the information and status of those papers. The Secretariat would provide Members with the relevant information again next week.[Post-meeting note: The Secretariat had sent information on the papers awaiting to be discussed at C&WDC and committee meetings to Members on 24 May 2019.]Mr CHAN Chit-kwai enquired whether he could change the sequence of papers submitted by himself.The Vice-chairman said that according to past practice, it would be for the Chairman of the full Council or committees to decide whether to approve the replacement of papers submitted, as some Members had indicated before that if a Member withdrew a paper for discussion, its place should be accorded to the paper immediately following it on the waiting list, instead of to another paper submitted by the same Member.Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), added that in the past, circumstances where the Chairman allowed a Member to change the sequence of papers he submitted mostly involved cases of urgency. Under normal circumstances, replacement of papers submitted would not be allowed.Mr KAM Nai-wai agreed that papers submitted should wait for their turn to be discussed. Unless in case of emergency, the sequence of papers submitted should not be changed. He was just thinking to convert a paper he submitted earlier to written question, so that a paper submitted by him at a later time could have the opportunity to be discussed at the next meeting.The Council agreed that the order for discussion of papers submitted should continue to be based on the position of the papers on the waiting list. In case a Member decided to withdraw a paper submitted, its place would be taken up by the paper immediately following it on the waiting list, and this was the consensus of the Council.The minutes wereconfirmed on 4 July 2019Chairman: Mr YIP Wing-shingSecretary: Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, GraceCentral and Western District Council SecretariatJuly 2019 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download