Minutes of the 3rd Meeting in 2019 of the District Facilities Management Committee of the Tai Po District Council

Date: 9 May 2019 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 a.m. – 12:09 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Tai Po District Council Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. CHAN Cho-leung, MH Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice-chairman Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Members Mr. AU Chun-wah Mr. CHAN Siu-kuen, MH, JP

9:37 a.m. 9:32 a.m.

End of the meeting End of the meeting

Mr. CHENG Chun-ping, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHENG Chun-wo 9:32 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai 9:44 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Mr. LAM Yick-kuen

9:32 a.m. Beginning of the meeting

End of the meeting End of the meeting

Dr. LAU Chee-sing Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LAU Yung-wai 9:32 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. LI Kwok-ying, BBS, MH, JP 9:32 a.m. 11:57 a.m. Mr. LI Wah-kwong, Rex 9:32 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. LO Hiu-fung 9:39 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric, MH 10:04 a.m. End of the meeting Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Man-chuen 9:32 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. YU Chi-wing, Ken Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

Secretary Ms. NG Suet-yau, Sharon

Beginning of the meeting

End of the meeting

Executive Officer (DC)4/ Tai Po District Office/ Home Affairs Department

- 2 -

In Attendance Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice, JP District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Miss LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany Assistant District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Ms. LO Chi-yun, Daisy Assistant Director (Nature Conservation), Environmental

Protection Department Ms. NG Miu-fa, Thebe Senior Administrative Officer (Nature Conservation),

Environmental Protection Department Mr. LI Tat-sang, Steve Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Strategic

Assessment)6, Environmental Protection Department Ms. HEUNG Ching-yee, Alice Chief Leisure Manager (New Territories East), Leisure and

Cultural Services Department Ms. LIU Pui-wah, Stella District Leisure Manager (Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Ms. CHEUNG Kwai-yan Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Tai Po,

Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr. CHAN Kam-shing, Eddie Senior Executive Officer (Planning)7, Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Miss LO Wai-yin, Phoenix Executive Officer (Planning)7, Leisure and Cultural Services

Department Mr. NG Chi-keung, Barry

Senior Librarian (Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Ms. LEUNG Miu-yin, Karen

District Lands Officer/TP (District Lands Office, Tai Po), Lands Department

Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen Senior Land Executive/Small House 1 (District Lands Office, Tai Po), Lands Department

Mr. HUI Kam-chau, Calvin Estate Surveyor/N (District Lands Office, Tai Po), Lands Department

Ms. CHAN Ho-shan, Susana Architect (Works)9, Home Affairs Department Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Senior Executive Officer (District Council)/Tai Po District

Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. LEUNG Suk-mei, Rebecca

Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

Mr. SO Wing-kai

Senior Inspector of Works, Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

Mr. LAU Chun-ming

Inspector of Works (3), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

Ms. YIP Lisa Liaison Officer (7), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

- 3 -

Miss CHU Yim-kwan Senior Architect, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers &

Development Consultants Limited Mr. MAK Cheuk-kai, Ryan Senior Architect, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers &

Development Consultants Limited Mr. CHU Bo-hei, Boris Architect, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers &

Development Consultants Limited Mr. TAM Yat-hei, David Assistant Architect, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers &

Development Consultants Limited

Applicant for absence

Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Member

Opening remarks The Chairman welcomed participants to this meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”) and made the following announcements:

(i) He welcomed Mr. LAM Yick-kuen to join DFMC.

(ii) He welcomed Assistant District Officer (Tai Po) Miss Tiffany LEUNG to attend DFMC meetings from now on.

2. The Chairman advised that Mr. LI Yiu-ban was unable to attend the meeting owing to other commitments and had submitted application for absence to the Secretariat before the meeting. Pursuant to Order 51(1) of the Standing Orders, TPDC would only give consent to applications for absence from meetings filed on the grounds of sickness, jury service, attendance at another meeting or an activity on behalf of the DC, attendance at a Legislative Council (“LegCo”) or Executive Council meeting, confinement or paternity leave. Therefore, no consent could be given to the application filed by Mr. LI Yiu-ban.

I. Confirmation of the minutes of the 2nd meeting in 2019 of the DFMC on 14 March 2019 (TPDC Paper No. DFM 11/2019) 3. The Chairman reported that neither had the Secretariat received any proposed amendments to the minutes of the last meeting, nor did Members propose any amendments to the said minutes at this meeting. The said minutes were confirmed without amendment.

- 4 -

II. Development of a golf course at a closed landfill in Shuen Wan (TPDC Paper No. DFM 12/2019) 4. The Chairman welcomed Assistant Director (Nature Conservation) Ms. Daisy LO, Senior Administrative Officer (Nature Conservation) Ms. Thebe NG and Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Strategic Assessment) Mr. Steve LI of the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) and District Lands Officer/TP Ms. Karen LEUNG and Estate Surveyor Mr. Calvin HUI of District Lands Office Tai Po (“TPDLO”) to the meeting for discussion of this agenda item. 5. Ms. Thebe NG recapped TPDC Paper No. DFM 12/2019 regarding the progress updates on the development of a golf course at a closed landfill in Shuen Wan project (“Shuen Wan golf course project”). 6. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised the following views and questions:

(i) He enquired about the area of land which Sha Lo Tung Development Company Limited (“SLTDC”) would offer to the Government in exchange for some 50 hectares of land at Shuen Wan.

(ii) He opined that when taking forward the Shuen Wan golf course project, EPD should take into consideration the impact of future operation of the golf course would have on the surrounding environment, such as nearby residential areas, Ting Kok Road, Tai Po Industrial Estate and so on. As regards the design of the golf course, EPD should consider setting the shot direction facing away from Fortune Garden. Besides, to avoid affecting the landscape of Ting Kok Road, he also opposed the erection of poles for installation of large-scale blocking nets.

(iii) He worried that errant golf balls would affect the safety of residents nearby. 7. Mr. CHENG Chun-ping indicated that he did not oppose the land exchange between SLTDC and the Government, but members of the public had hoped for years that the golf course at Shuen Wan would in the future be opened to the public. EPD had once recommended that 20% of the opening hours be reserved for public use, but he was of the view that popular timeslots (such as holidays) should be included in the said 20% of the opening hours for the convenience of the public. Hence, he requested that EPD provide relevant information and details. He would oppose this project before the said information became available. 8. Mr. Patrick TANG said that when taking forward the Shuen Wan golf course project, EPD should take into account the impact on the surrounding environment, for instances, the daily access to Ping Shan Chai might be obstructed and nearby housing estates affected during the construction period. In addition, he raised that residents in the area concerned knew little about the latest progress of the project while EPD had so far not replied to enquires members of the public had

- 5 -

made. Hence, he recommended that EPD introduce to the public more details about land planning involved in this project and the impact the project had on the surrounding environment. 9. Ms. Daisy LO responded as follows:

(i) Lands Department (“LandsD”) currently verified the scope of land exchange and land title between the Government and SLTDC, hence, the exact area of land exchange was still unknown to the Government.

(ii) As far as the impact of the Shuen Wan golf course project on the surrounding environment was concerned, the golf course was required to comply with relevant requirements of the Government during construction and operation. Hence, future operation of the golf course would have no impact on the residential areas.

(iii) The Government would lay down the requirement that the golf course must be opened to the public and relay to SLTDC Members’ opinions about the provision of more popular timeslots for public use. In addition, the Government would also draw reference from prevailing opening hours and fees of other government and private golf courses, and continue negotiating with SLTDC. Should there be any specific information, EPD would report to DFMC again.

(iv) As regards the impact of the Shuen Wan golf course project on Ping Shan Chai, relevant departments would follow up in this regard once the project was confirmed so as to minimise the impact this project would have on residents of Ping Shan Chai.

10. Mr. Patrick TANG hoped that EPD would consult residents in the surrounding area before implementing the project. 11. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised the following views and questions:

(i) He hoped that EPD would report relevant details to DFMC once the exact area of land exchange was known.

(ii) Since the shot direction of the proposed golf course would face Ting Kok Road, it was therefore possible that golf balls might hit vehicles or passers-by in the surrounding, or might even break windscreens of vehicles and pose threat to the safety of surrounding environment and members of the public. He also opined that erecting poles on the exterior of the golf course for installation of large-scale blocking nets would affect the landscape of the said site. However, there was no mention of the above factors in the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) report and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the EIA report and the findings.

12. Mr. CHENG Chun-ping said that members of the public had hoped for years that a public golf course could be provided in Tai Po District. He worried that members of the public would need to

- 6 -

pay expensive admission fees and therefore demanded that EPD consult TPDC and relevant stakeholders on opening hours and fees of Shuen Wan golf course, otherwise he would oppose this project. 13. Mr. LAU Yung-wai raised the following views and questions:

(i) There was a habitat of endangered birds at the southern end of the construction site of the golf course. According to recent statistics of some green groups, some 76 collared crows dwelled at Shuen Wan landfill. He enquired if EPD would take into account the aforesaid factor when vetting the EIA report, or had already formulated corresponding measures to protect endangered birds.

(ii) EPD should specify in the land exchange agreement the measures to protect endangered birds. He recommended that some 6.1 hectares of plantation be retained at the selected site, including at least 1.2 hectares of plantation at the southern end of the construction site to serve as a habitat for collared crows, and additional plantation of some 10 hectares be provided as a habitat for birds. Besides, he also suggested that the Shuen Wan golf course project be carried out in three phases.

(iii) EPD required that SLTDC must reserve 20% of the opening hours for public use. He requested that more popular timeslots such as weekends and public holidays be opened to the public to facilitate public access to golfing and prevent Shuen Wan golf course from being privatised.

14. Ms. Daisy LO responded that as far as the requirement to open Shuen Wan golf course for public use was concerned, when drawing up the land exchange conditions, the Government would request that SLTDC submit details regarding operation arrangement of the golf course such as timeslots opened for public use, booking procedures, fees and so on for the Government’s approval. 15. Mr. Steve LI responded as follows:

(i) EPD currently vetted the EIA report in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (“EIA Ordinance”) and the public consultation period was from 4 April to 3 May 2019, during which members of the public could review the EIA report in detail and put forward views. EPD would consider in accordance with the statutory procedures opinions of the Advisory Council on the Environment and the public (including DC Members) before deciding whether to approve, approve with conditions or reject the EIA report. As the EIA report was now being vetted, EPD was not in a position to comment on the content and conclusion of the report in the meantime.

(ii) EPD was required to vet the EIA report in accordance with the EIA Ordinance. In

- 7 -

terms of hazard assessment, EPD would take into consideration risks arising from manufacturing, storing, using and transporting dangerous goods. Relevant dangerous goods included gaseous fuels stipulated in Gas Safety Ordinance, and other dangerous goods specified in the Dangerous Goods Ordinance. Risks arising from errant golf balls which golfers shot beyond the golf course by mistake did not fall within the scope of the above hazard assessment.

(iii) As regards conservation of the habitat of collared crows, he recommended that Members refer to sections on ecology conservation in the EIA report.

16. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised the following views:

(i) Shot beyond the golf course, golf balls might affect vehicles and passers-by nearby and even injure passers-by or lead to accidents. However, there was no mention of the said factors in the EIA report. He considered the risk to the public caused by errant golf balls shot beyond the golf course an important factor to consider and SLTDC must give regard to the safety of the public when preparing the EIA report, so as to allay worries of members of the public. Hence, he was dissatisfied with the content of the EIA report.

(ii) He was of the view that timeslots available for public use must be provided daily and asked EPD to deal with relevant matters fairly.

17. The Chairman said that in addition to requesting that Shuen Wan golf course be opened for public use and that fees be set at a reasonable level, he also demanded that the golf course be opened to young people in Tai Po District for training purpose. As regards the design of Shuen Wan golf course, he recommended that when designing the layout and direction of fairways of the golf course, EPD and SLTDC communicate with Members and consider the impact the golf course would have on the surrounding environment, so as to safeguard the safety of residents. 18. Mr. Patrick TANG raised that both the design and EIA report of the golf course would need to be approved by relevant departments such as EPD and Transport Department (“TD”), he requested that EPD note the above views put forward by Members and follow up. He also recommended that EPD seek views from TPDC before making any decisions in relation to the project. 19. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views:

(i) He took Fanling golf courses as an example. Despite the fact that the courses offered timeslots for public use, popular timeslots such as holidays and general holidays were not included, rendering it inconvenient for members of the public to go golfing at the said courses. He was of the view that the Government must play a dominant role in deciding on the timeslots which Shuen Wan golf course would open

- 8 -

for public use for the convenience of members of the public.

(ii) There was a habitat of endangered birds at Shuen Wan landfill and an ecosphere had already been formed. Hence, he recommended that EPD designate a site to conserve the endangered birds concerned.

(iii) He agreed that golf balls shot beyond the golf course would pose danger to members of the public. Since similar scenarios might happen at other golf courses too, he opined that if the EIA report of Shuen Wan golf course would take into consideration this factor, those of other golf courses should also include the said factor.

20. Dr. LAU Chee-sing indicated that the EIA report had mentioned potential risks of Shuen Wan golf course during operation, yet, no consideration had been given to the risks to surrounding environment and the public posed by golf balls being shot beyond the fairways. He and Mr. Patrick TANG had already written to EPD in connection with the above issues to express their concern. He also hoped that DFMC would request that EPD and SLTDC consider the risk of golf balls being shot beyond the golf course and put forward corresponding measures. 21. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that according to statistics of green groups, there were no more than some 300 collared crows territory-wide, among which about one-third dwelled at Shuen Wan landfill. Vegetation at the said site would need to be removed while taking forward the project and doing so would have a far-reaching impact on the birds. Hence, he opined that EPD must put forward corresponding measures to conserve the birds and ecology at the site. Besides, he also agreed that the golf course must be opened to young people in Tai Po District for training purpose. 22. Ms. Daisy LO responded as follows:

(i) LandsD would require in the lease conditions of the golf course that the operator must adopt reasonable planning and measures to avoid affecting the safety of the surrounding environment and members of the public.

(ii) EPD noted Members’ views including the risks arising from errant golf balls being shot beyond the golf course. EPD would relay to SLTDC and request that the aforementioned factors be considered when designing the golf course. As regards the operation of Shuen Wan golf course, EPD would be happy to report to DFMC again once specific details concerning the land exchange arrangement and design of the golf course became available.

23. The Chairman said that EPD should give more consideration to the impact of the golf course on the environment and residents along Ting Kok Road. He hoped that EPD would listen to views Members had raised above, including opening the golf course for use by members of the public and young people, conserving endangered birds and keeping the daily access to Ping Shan Chai, and follow up accordingly.

- 9 -

24. Dr. LAU Chee-sing indicated that he hoped DFMC would demand that EPD and SLTDC, when preparing the EIA report, take into account the risk of golf balls being shot beyond the golf course and put forward corresponding preventive measures. Despite the fact the LandsD had established requirements for the planning of golf courses, relevant conditions might not necessarily specify that SLTDC had to consider the risk of golf balls being shot beyond the golf course. As such, he worried that SLTDC would undertake construction works in accordance with the existing EIA report, which would be contrary to public interest. He also recommended that EPD and SLTDC consult the Advisory Council on the Environment on the EIA report. 25. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu said that the design of Shuen Wan golf course involved change in land use of major site, EPD therefore needed to seek views from stakeholders and DC Members. Given the fact that the constituencies of Dr. LAU Chee-sing and Mr. Patrick TANG were adjacent to the proposed site, she recommended that EPD meet with DC Members and persons who opposed this project to seek their views. 26. Mr. Patrick TANG requested that EPD give consideration to the risks to surrounding environment and members of the public brought forth by golf balls being shot beyond the golf course and make response, so that Members could follow up on the issue when discussing with EPD the design of the golf course in the future. 27. The DFMC agreed to write to EPD to express Members’ opinions mentioned above. (Post-meeting note: the said letter was already issued to EPD on 18 June 2019.)

III. Position of the District Minor Works Funds and Progress Report on the Approved District Minor Works Projects (TPDC Paper Nos. DFM 13/2019, DFM 13a/2019, DFM 13b/2019, DFM 13c/2019, DFM 13d/2019, DFM 13e/2019, DFM 13f/2019 and DFM 13g/2019) 28. The Chairman requested that Members note the position of the District Minor Works Funds and the Progress Report on the Approved District Minor Works Projects. He advised that the DFMC currently had an approved project estimates of $80.98 million, of which around $39.56 million was for 2019/20 and approximately $41.42 million for 2020/21 and thereafter. 29. The Chairman asked the representatives of the term consultants, the Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) and Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) to report the progress of projects. He welcomed Senior Architects Mr. Ryan MAK and Miss CHU Yim-kwan, Architect Mr. Boris CHU and Assistant Architect Mr. David TAM of Ho & Partners Architects Engineers & Development Consultants Limited to the meeting for the discussion of this item.

- 1 0 -

(A) DMW projects with the term consultant Ho & Partners Architects Engineers &

Development Consultants Limited as works agent (Items (1) to (18) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 13/2019, TPDC Paper Nos. DFM

13a/2019, DFM 13b/2019, DFM 13c/2019 and DFM 13d/2019) 30. Mr. Boris CHU recapped the feasibility study report of Project Item (4) TP-DMW215“Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Tai Wo Road connecting footbridge NF97”

contained in TPDC Paper No. DFM 13a/2019 and supplemented that if the proposed stormwater drain was to be connected to the gullies of Highways Department (“HyD”) (Option 1), the construction cost was $6.024 million and the project was expected to commence in early January 2020 and would take 10 months to complete. If the proposed stormwater drain was to be connected to the public stormwater drains of Drainage Services Department (“DSD”) (Option 2), the estimated construction cost was $7.37 million. The project was expected to commence in July 2020 and would take 12 months to complete. The term consultant would strive for HyD’s acceptance of Option 1. 31. The Chairman said that since HyD had not yet confirmed if it allowed the connection of the proposed stormwater drain to its gullies, he requested that DFMC endorsed the construction cost of $7.37 million. Should the term consultant obtain HyD’s approval, the balance would be returned to DMW Funds. 32. Members raised no objection. The Chairman announced that the above feasibility study report and updated construction costs were endorsed. 33. Mr. Boris CHU recapped the feasibility study report of Project Item (5) TP-DMW227“Provision of Sitting-out Area and Children’s Playground at Nai Chung, Tai Po”contained in TPDC Paper No. DFM 13b/2019 and supplemented that the construction cost was estimated to be $9.5 million. The project was expected to commence in early May 2020 and would take 10 months to complete. 34. The DFMC endorsed the above feasibility study report. 35. Miss CHU Yim-kwan recapped the feasibility study report of Project Item (14) TP-DMW252“Provision of Rainshelters in Tao Po Kau Constituency (Chong San Road, Deerhill Bay)”contained in TPDC Paper No. DFM 13c/2019 and supplemented that the construction cost was estimated to be $2.7 million. The project was expected to commence in April 2020 and would take six months to complete. 36. The DFMC endorsed the above feasibility study report.

- 11 -

37. Miss CHU Yim-kwan recapped the feasibility study report of Project Item (15) TP-DMW253 “Construction of covered walkway at Tat Wan Road near Wan Hang House” contained in TPDC Paper No. DFM 13d/2019 and supplemented that the construction cost was estimated to be $2.115 million. The project was expected to commence in early March 2020 and would take eight months to complete. 38. The DFMC endorsed the above feasibility study report. 39. Mr. Boris CHU reported the progress of projects as follows:

(i) Project Item (1) “Conversion of the open space near Block 10 and 19 of Tai Po Centre, On Pong Road into a children’s playground and elderly sitting-out area”: works had already commenced on 28 March 2019.

(ii) Project Item (2) “Provision of Elderly Fitness Equipment at Ting Kok Road Outside Ting Nga Court, Tai Po”: TPDLO had already received LCSD’s application for site allocation on 4 February 2019 and consulted relevant departments in the meantime.

(iii) Project Item (3) “Provision of sitting-out area outside Tai Po Sports Ground, Tai Po”: TPDLO had already approved the site allocation application on 16 April 2019. Tender invitation of the project was expected to take place in Q2 in 2019.

(iv) Project Item (6) “Proposed Rain Shelters at Classical Gardens and Kam Shek New Village, Tai Po”: the project proponent had already requested at the meeting of the Working Group on District Works (“WGDW”) on 17 April 2019 that the rain shelter works near Phase 2 of Classical Gardens be shelved. The project cost would drop from $3.2 million to $2.1 million. The term consultant currently prepared the tender documents and tender invitation of the project was expected to take place in Q2 in 2019.

(v) Project Item (7) “Construction of Rain Shelter at Po Nga Road near Tai Wo Plaza, Tai Po”: the term consultant currently prepared the tender documents and tender invitation of the project was expected to take place in Q2 in 2019.

(vi) Project Item (8) “Provision of Rain shelters in Tai Po Kau Constituency (Mayfair By The Sea, Wong Yi Au, Ta Tit Yan and Cheung Shue Tan)”: the feasibility study report had been endorsed at the WGDW meeting and DFMC meeting on 27 February and 14 March 2019 respectively. The term consultant currently worked on the preliminary design of the project.

(vii) Project Item (9) “Extension of the Existing Covered Walkway at Nga Wan Road near Uptown Plaza, Tai Po”: the feasibility study report had been endorsed at the WGDW meeting and DFMC meeting on 27 February and 14 March 2019 respectively. The term consultant currently worked on the preliminary design of the project.

- 1 2 -

40. Miss CHU Yim-kwan reported the progress of projects as follows:

(i) Project Item (10) “Provision of a sitting-out area in CARE Village” and Project Item (11) “Provision of sitting-out area at Po Sam Pai Tsuen, Tai Po”: tree and topographical survey had already completed in April 2019 and the term consultant would vet the survey report in May. Should there be no technical problem with the project, the feasibility study report was expected to be submitted at the WGDW meeting in June 2019 to seek Members’ views.

(ii) Project Item (12) “Optimisation of the open space and facilities in San Wa On Lane, Tai Po Tau”: tree and topographical survey had already completed in April 2019 and the term consultant would vet the survey report in May. The project proponent concerned had requested that greening work be undertaken within the works area and LCSD currently followed up with relevant departments.

(iii) Project Item (13) “Provision of a sitting-out area in San Uk Tsai, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po”: tree and topographical survey had already completed in April 2019 and the term consultant would vet the survey report in May. As regards the retention of the existing Chinese pavilion, TPDO (Works Section) would carry out an assessment on the structure of the said pavilion.

(iv) Project Item (16) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Road (Yuen Chau Tsai Section) near Kwong Fuk Estate”: trial pit works already completed in March 2019. The term consultant currently prepared the feasibility study report.

(Post-meeting note: After preliminary study, there were unidentified underground facilities at the site of the proposed rain shelter. The term consultant would look further into the feasibility of the project.)

(v) Project Item (17) “Provision of children leisure facilities and elderly fitness facilities at Tseng Tau Tsuen”: tree and topographical survey had already completed in April 2019 and the term consultant would vet the survey report in May. Should there be no technical problem with the project, the feasibility study report was expected to be submitted at the WGDW meeting in June 2019 to seek Members’ views.

(vi) Project Item (18) “Construction of Covered Walkway at Nam Wan Road Adjacent to footbridge NF132”: trial pit works had already completed in April 2019. The term consultant currently prepared the feasibility study report. Should there be no technical problem with the project, the feasibility study report was expected to be submitted at the WGDW meeting in June 2019 to seek Members’ views.

41. Mr. Patrick TANG, proponent of Project Item (12), indicated that land allocation of the current project site was obscure with some parts belonging to LandsD and some others to other departments. Hence, he recommended that an U-shaped drainage be provided as clear boundary not only to serve as demarcation but also help divert water accumulated on the surface of the

- 1 3 -

ground so as to dovetail with the sitting-out area and facilities in the future. He recommended that after TPDLO granted site allocation, TPDO (Works Section) be asked to help provide U-shaped drainage and then greening works be carried out by LCSD. 42. The Chairman requested that the term consultant discuss with the Works Section and LCSD to clarify land boundary of the project site. 43. Mr. SO Wing-kai said that to take the project “Provision of a sitting-out area at the former Shu Yan School site in Cheung Shue Tan Village” as an example, there was a drainage surrounding the project site. Upon completion of the whole project, the term consultant was responsible for connecting the said drainage, of which subsequent repair and maintenance would be taken care of by the Works Section. As regards Project Item (12), should the term consultant be responsible for providing the U-shaped drainage, the Works Section would agree to take care of subsequent repair and maintenance. 44. Ms. Susana CHAN advised that provision of U-shaped drainage fell beyond the scope of this project while the provision of drainage would not only increase the cost but also extend the construction period. She indicated that as the term consultant was preparing the preliminary design plan and feasibility study report, no consideration had been given to provision of U-shaped drainage at the project site. Provision of drainage would involve a large works area and might affect drainages of nearby housing estates. As such, it could not be determined at this meeting as to whether or not U-shaped drainage could be provided at the project site. She also recommended that DSD take charge of drainage works of this project. 45. The Chairman raised that since provision of U-shaped drainage fell beyond the scope of this project, he recommended that the term consultant first complete the scope of work for which it was responsible. He also suggested that TPDO carry out one rural public works, i.e. the provision of U-shaped drainage to connect existing ones. He requested that Home Affairs Department (“HAD”)(Works Section) put forward relevant solutions or invite relevant departments to assist in solving the problem. 46. Mr. Patrick TANG raised the following views:

(i) The scope of works should not be determined by the term consultant alone, but discussed by the proponent and relevant departments together with meeting public demands as the goal. Given the fact that estimated costs of DMW projects could be adjusted both upward and downward, he considered it unfair to the public that the term consultant refused to revise the scope of works.

- 1 4 -

(Post-meeting note from HAD (Works Section): provision of U-shaped drainage fell beyond the scope of this project. The proponent was required to file a separate application for the new scope of works, only then the term consultant could follow up further.)

(ii) Pursuant to TPDLO’s requirement, the works area had to be clearly demarcated to facilitate not only LCSD’s landscaping work within the boundary but also repair and maintenance by relevant departments. Apart from U-shaped drainage, he also recommended that tiles be laid on the boundary for clear demarcation at the said site.

(iii) Problems of unclear delineation of responsibilities among relevant departments often occurred while DMW projects were being carried out. Hence, he opined that the mode of operation should be improved.

47. The Chairman requested that the Secretariat arrange for a meeting between Mr. Patrick TANG and representatives of the Works Section, LCSD and DSD to discuss how to taken forward this project. 48. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views and questions:

(i) Project Item (9): He was aware that the project’s feasibility study report had already been endorsed at the WGDW meeting and DFMC meeting on 27 February and 14 March 2019 respectively. He enquired about the progress of the project and whether the term consultant currently worked on the detailed design.

(ii) Project Item (18): He enquired about the result of the trial pit works. 49. Mr. Boris CHU responded in connection with Project Item (9) that the term consultant currently worked on the preliminary design and preparation of plans and had already written to relevant departments to seek views, now awaiting departments’ reply. 50. Miss CHU Yim-kwan responded in connection with Project Item (18) that the term consultant had not identified any underground pipes or facilities at the project site. However, there was a tree at the site and the term consultant currently discussed with LCSD how to handle the said tree. 51. The Chairman indicated that the preliminary design of the project took too long to complete and hoped that the term consultant could follow up on relevant works as quickly as possible. 52. The DFMC endorsed the report by the term consultant.

- 1 5 -

(B) DMW projects reported by the TPDO (Items (14), (19) to (55) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 13/2019, TPDC Paper Nos.

DFM 13e/2019and DFM 13f/2019) 53. Mr. SO Wing-kai gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (14) “Provision of Rainshelters in Tao Po Kau Constituency (Chong San Road, Deerhill Bay and Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout)”: as regards the rain shelter next to the bus stop at Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout on Tai Po Road, the Works Section currently carried out tender invitation.

(ii) Project Item (19) “Construction of drainage and van track from Au Tsai to San Wai, Tai Hang”: TPDLO had received views from one resident during the notice display period. TPDLO had referred the case to TPDO for follow up and the Works Section would discuss with the proponent.

(iii) Project Item (20) “Improvement to supporting facilities at east coastal area, Ting Kok, Tai Po”; after discussion with relevant persons, the Works Section would build two sets of signage, four sets of directional signs and connecting footpath at the project site. The Works Section currently designed the working drawings.

(iv) Project Item (28) “Construction of rainshelters cum benches at Fung Yuen, Tai Wo and Yuen Leng Kam Fung Villa, Tai Po”: as regards the works at Yuen Leng Kam Fung Villa, DSD had indicated that there were underground facilities of DSD at the project site. The Works Section had already conducted an on-site inspection with the proponent and DSD on 4 April 2019, now awaiting DSD’s reply.

(v) Project Item (30) “Provision of a sitting-out area and installation of handrails and barrier-free ramp outside Plover Cove Garden on Po Wu Lane”: project content included removal of existing benches and provision of handrails. The Works Section carried out tender exercise currently.

(vi) Project Item (38) “Repairs to Wilson Trail Section 8 (near Hong Lok Yuen), Tai Po”: the Works Section currently filed a funding application of $3 million with DFMC to undertake this project.

(vii) Project Item (39) “Provision of rainshelters at Shuen Wan Constituency (San Tau Kok Village, Po Sam Pai Village, Fortune Garden & near The Beverly Hills at Sam Mun Tsai), Tai Po”: the Works Section currently filed a funding application of $2 million with DFMC to undertake this project.

(viii) Project Item (41) “Provision of systematic letter boxes in Tai Po (2018/19)”: the Works Section had in recent years adopted a centralised implementation of works to provide systematic letter boxes in Tai Po to meet the needs of villages, while Members would not need to use their personal DMW project quotas. Should Members find it necessary to provide systematic letter boxes to villages in their

- 1 6 -

constituencies, they were welcome to submit applications to the Works Section. 54. Dr. LAU Chee-sing, proponent of Project Item (33), raised that TPDLO had received 25 objection letters during the notice display period. He enquired how DFMC would deal with objections to DMW projects. 55. The Chairman advised that DFMC was so far not empowered to handle objections to DMW projects. He asked the Works Section to respond to the above question put forward by Dr. LAU Chee-sing. 56. Mr. SO Wing-kai responded that under prevailing mechanism of TPDO, upon receipt of objections to DMW projects, TPDO would discuss with persons who raised objection with a view to resolving differences. Before consensus among TPDO, proponents and persons lodging objections could be reached, implementation of projects in question would be put on hold. 57. The Chairman advised that taking Project Item (19) as an example, TPDO had in February 2019 received views from one resident while the justifications and demands of the person lodging objection had so far remained unknown to the proponent. He said that progress of some DMW projects had often been delayed as a result of objections lodged by a handful of members of the public. He requested that the Works Section actively deal with objections to projects and recommended that TPDO arrange for meeting and discussion between proponents and persons lodging objection, with a view to working out solutions. 58. Dr. LAU Chee-sing hoped that meeting could be arranged for discussion with those 25 persons lodging objection, and enquired how the Works Section would handle the case should the said persons still insist on opposing this project after the meeting. 59. The Chairman requested that the Works Section first arrange for a meeting with persons lodging objection to facilitate communication and explain to them the reason for implementing the project was to meet the need of members of the public. Should they remain firm on their view, he hoped that the lead department would make a decision and clearly explain to persons lodging objection as well as the proponent whether the project could be implemented further. 60. Mr. Rex LI indicated in connection with Project Item (35) that he was aware of the project site being an Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”) site. He therefore hoped that the Works Section would provide relevant plans and information such that he could check with AFCD. He also asked the Works Section if the project could be implemented further. 61. Mr. SO Wing-kai responded that the site where the proposed lay-by would be provided belonged to AFCD. The Works Section would contact AFCD and provide Mr. Rex LI relevant plans and information.

- 1 7 -

62. The Chairman recommended that the Works Section contact AFCD and handle views from relevant departments as soon as possible, with a view to accelerating implementation of the project. 63. Mr. Patrick TANG raised the following views and questions:

(i) Project Item (19): Members of Executive Committee of Tai Po Rural Committee (“TPRC”) had enquired about the progress of this project earlier. The Works Section had reported in the progress summary contained in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 13/2019 that views had been received from one member of the public. He hoped that the Works Section could clearly state what the said views were and follow up as quickly as possible.

(ii) Project Item (28): As regards works at Yuen Leng Kam Fung Villa, he thanked the Works Section for its efforts in having finally confirmed the existence of DSD’s sewer at the project site. The said sewer, however, was no longer in use and he had recommended that DSD remove it to facilitate the implementation of this project. He asked the Works Section to urge DSD to reply as soon as possible.

(iii) Project Item (33): He recommended that the proponent hold a meeting at the village office to discuss the project content with the Chairman of village office, village head and residents.

(iv) Project Item (35): He recommended that the Works Section check the time limit of AFCD’s lease of the site concerned and check with AFCD if works could be carried out on that site.

64. The Chairman recommended in connection with Project Item (33) that Dr. LAU Chee-sing convene a meeting at the village office to communicate with various stakeholders so as to understand the justifications for supporting and opposing the project. 65. Miss Tiffany LEUNG advised that under the existing mechanism of various District Offices in handling objections to projects, neither District Offices nor DCs were empowered to judge if the objections were valid. Should TPDO forcibly determine that the objections were invalid and continue taking forward the project, persons lodging objection might become intensely resentful. She would discuss with Dr. LAU Chee-sing and relevant persons after the meeting how objections to the project could be effectively handled with a view to taking forward the project further. She also supported optimal use of negotiation to discuss with stakeholders in the hope that differences could be resolved and objections properly dealt with, so that the project could be taken forward further. 66. The Chairman said that if objections were handled by negotiation alone, he worried that persons lodging objection could not be convinced and problems not resolved.

- 1 8 -

67. Dr. LAU Chee-sing indicated that he agreed to hold a meeting at village office. However, personal information of some persons lodging objection was kept confidential, rendering contact with them difficult. 68. The Chairman recommended that relevant villagers handle objections by means of voting and forward voting results to relevant departments for follow up. Besides, after heeding both supporting and objecting views, project proponents had to weigh the pros and cons to decide if they would continue taking forward the projects. 69. Mr. Patrick TANG opined that departments would need to gradually explore and formulate a mechanism to handle objections to projects in order to resolve problems. 70. Mr. Clement WOO raised that proponents put forward projects benefitting the public but failed to continue taking forward such projects owing to objection of a handful of members of the public. Since personal information of persons lodging objection was kept confidential, proponents were unable to communicate with them. Hence, he hoped that there would be channels for proponents to meet and discuss with persons lodging objection. 71. Mr. Rex LI recommended that TPDO consider writing to those persons lodging objection so that project proponents could meet with them for discussion, or taking a vote on whether or not to continue taking forward a project. 72. The Chairman was of the view that members of the public had indeed the right to determine if a project should be implemented and therefore suggested that TPDO invite those persons lodging objection to the meeting and explain in advance that a vote would be taken to decide whether or not a project would be taken forward further. 73. Mr. Patrick TANG raised that TPDO would be in no position to undertake the responsibility if it decided to continue taking forward a project while those persons lodging objection did not take part in the meeting and voting. He recommended that TPDO look into ways to deal with objection properly and carry out district consultation upon receipt of objection, so as to ensure that the mechanism was just and fair. 74. The Chairman advised that voting was only the first step in handling objection. TPDO could refer to the voting results in the first place and then decide in accordance with its guidelines whether to take forward a project or not, so as to avoid delaying the progress of project. 75. The Chairman reported the estimated costs of the following projects:

- 1 9 -

(i) Project Item (38) “Repairs to Wilson Trail Section 8 (near Hong Lok Yuen), Tai Po”: construction cost was $3 million.

(ii) Project Item (39) “Provision of rainshelters at Shuen Wan Constituency (San Tau Kok Village, Po Sam Pai Village, Fortune Garden & near The Beverly Hills at Sam Mun Tsai), Tai Po”: construction cost was $2 million.

76. Members raised no questions. The Chairman announced that the above report and construction costs were endorsed. 77. Ms. Lisa YIP gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (48) “Construction of Rain Shelter at Po Nga Road near Tai Wo Plaza, Tai Po”: HAD (Works Section) had already completed on 25 March 2019 the pre-feasibility study report (see TPDC Paper No. DFM 13e/2019). The overall construction cost of the project was tentatively estimated to be $1.8 million, among which $280,000 was for the advance work (including consultancy fee and trial pit fee). The term consultant fees would be borne by HAD and no funding allocation under Tai Po District DMW Programme was required. WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 17 April 2019 to allocate $280,000 for the advance work. DFMC’s endorsement of the fund allocation of $280,000 for the advance work of the project was now being applied for.

(ii) Project Item (49) “Construction of Taxi Stand and waiting facilities at Chung Nga Road, Tai Po”: HyD expected that works to provide taxi stand could be completed in December 2019. As regards the works to build a cover near the new taxi stand, HAD (Works Section) had just completed the English version of the pre-feasibility study report on 6 May 2019. Once the Chinese version of the said report became available, HAD (Works Section) and TPDO would consult the proponent.

(iii) Project Item (51) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Chuen On Road near Tai Po Hospital”: HAD (Works Section) had on 27 March 2019 indicated that since the works area involved DSD’s pipes and drainage reserve areas (“DRAs”), and therefore hoped that DSD could relax relevant requirements concerning DRAs to facilitate the taking forward of this project. DSD had on 3 May 2019 replied that a 1.5 metre distance should be kept between the cover and the drains concerned. HAD (Works Section) currently continued to follow up on relevant matters.

(iv) Project Item (54) “Provision of Rain Shelters near Wan Tau Tong Estate at Fung Wan Road, Tai Po”: as regards the works to provide a cover at the pick-up and drop-off area for private cars, HAD (Works Section) had already completed the pre-feasibility study report (see TPDC Paper No. DFM 13f/2019) on 27 March 2019. The overall construction cost of the project was tentatively estimated to be $2.6 million, among which $430,000 was for the advance work (including consultancy fee and trial pit

- 2 0 -

fee). The term consultant fees would be borne by HAD and no funding allocation under Tai Po District DMW Programme was required. DFMC’s endorsement of the fund allocation of $430,000 for the advance work of the project was now being applied for.

78. Mr. Ken YU, proponent of Project Item (45), indicated that the project had been proposed in as early as 2012. However, HyD put forward opinion on the project now which led to the suspension of the project’s implementation. He hoped that relevant departments would resolve problems as quickly as possible to avoid delaying the project. 79. Mr. Patrick TANG raised that progress of DMW projects was often delayed due to differences in views of relevant departments, and at times some projects even failed to be taken forward. As far as Project Item (45) was concerned, DSD and TD failed to properly divide their responsibilities and co-operate. To address the differences in views among relevant departments and clarify responsibilities of departments, he recommended that a meeting be held to discuss the division of work among relevant departments in relation to DMW projects and to enhance communication among departments to facilitate a smooth implementation of projects. 80. The Chairman requested that Ms. Lisa YIP first communicate with TD and arrange for the proponent to meet with TD, DSD and Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) to discuss solutions. 81. Ms. Lisa YIP responded as follows:

(i) Despite the fact that the proponent had in the year 2012/13 put forward Project Item (45), he had at that time hoped that the cover could be connected to the elevator which TD had proposed to build, and therefore agreed to start taking forward the project only upon completion of the said elevator. The elevator was completed in Q3 in 2016 and TPDO had since then followed up on the project actively, and had repeatedly arranged on-site inspections for the proponent and representatives of HAD (Works Section), TD, HyD and DSD to discuss the works area.

(ii) The location of the pillars of the proposed cover would involve HyD’s nullah. At the WGDW meeting on 17 April 2019, the project proponent had requested to meet with representatives of TD and HyD. TPDO had after the said WGDW meeting followed up on matters regarding the arrangement of a meeting and maintained close contact with the proponent. Views of both parties on engineering issues and positions had also been relayed to HyD and HAD (Works Section). In the meantime, TPDO actively arranged for the proponent to meet with representatives of HAD (Works Section), HyD and TD with a view to accelerating the implementation of this project.

- 2 1 -

82. The Chairman reported the estimated costs of the following projects:

(i) Project Item (48) “Construction of Rain Shelter at Po Nga Road near Tai Wo Plaza, Tai Po”: advance work expenditure was $280,000.

(ii) Project Item (54) “Provision of Rain Shelters near Wan Tau Tong Estate at Fung Wan Road, Tai Po”: advance work expenditure was $430,000.

83. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the advance work expenditures of the above projects were endorsed. 84. The DFMC endorsed the report by the TPDO. (C) DMW projects followed up by the Tai Po District Leisure Services Office of the LCSD (Items (56) to (61) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 13/2019 and TPDC Paper No. DFM

13g/2019) 85. Ms. CHEUNG Kwai-yan gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (59) “Improvement works at Ting Tai Road Children’s Playground”: improvement works concerned included the expansion of existing area of playground and fitness facilities, replacement of safety mats, children’s play apparatus, elderly fitness facilities and so on and the construction cost was estimated to be about $700,000. WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 17 April 2019 to allocate $700,000 for the construction cost. DFMC’s endorsement of the fund allocation of $700,000 was now being applied for to take forward the project.

86. The Chairman reported that the construction cost of Project Item (59) “Improvement works at Ting Tai Road Children’s Playground” was $700,000. 87. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the construction cost of the above project was endorsed. 88. The DFMC endorsed the report by Tai Po District Leisure Services Office of the LCSD. (D) DMW projects followed up by the Cultural Services Branch of the LCSD (Item (62) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 13/2019) 89. Mr. Barry NG reported as follows:

- 2 2 -

(i) Project Item (62) “Provision of 24-hour self-service library station in Yuen Shin Park, Tai Po”: works to provide the third self-service library station (“SSLS”) near Tai Wai MTR Station had already commenced on 5 March 2019 and were expected to complete in June 2019 where system testing would also be carried out. LCSD would gather usage data after the commissioning of the SSLS to comprehensively evaluate and analyse the scheme and examine the feasibility of providing a SSLS in Tai Po District.

90. The DFMC endorsed the above report. (E) DMW projects followed up by the Planning Section of the LCSD (Items (63) to (69) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 13/2019) 91. Mr. Eddie CHAN gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (63) “Integrated sitting-out area”, Project Item (64) “Provision of fitness and elderly leisure facilities at Wan Tau Tong” and Project Item (65) “Provision of elderly facilities at the space under the footbridge near Po Nga Court Hing Wo House, Tai Po”: HAD (Works Section) had already appointed a term consultant on 7 May 2019 to follow up on the above project and carry out project design.

(ii) Project Item (69) “Provision of a sitting-out area at Tai Po Tau Shui Wai”: LCSD had asked HyD earlier to resurface the road next to the project site per the proponent’s request so as to tie in with the greening works. HyD had already replied on 30 April 2019 that should other departments take up the resurfacing works which also complied with HyD’s standards, HyD would be willing to take up future repair and maintenance work.

92. Members raised the following views:

(i) Mr. Ken YU, proponent of Project Item (64), hoped that when working on project design, term consultants could communicate more with proponents so that the latter could provide comments on the project design.

(ii) Mr. Patrick TANG, proponent of Project Item (69), said that the project involved division of work among relevant departments and he opined that HyD should be responsible for the resurfacing work next to the project site. Hence, he recommended that TPDO take a leading role to invite representatives of relevant departments to a meeting to discuss DMW projects which involved division of work among departments.

- 2 3 -

93. The Chairman agreed to the above recommendation which Mr. Patrick TANG had made, and requested that the Secretariat invite representatives of relevant departments to meet with the project proponents for the discussion of DMW projects such as Project Items (12), (45), (69) and so on. (Post-meeting note: representatives of relevant departments had already met with project proponents on 13 June 2019 to discuss projects concerned.) 94. The DFMC endorsed the report by the Planning Section of the LCSD.

IV. Proposed allocation of central reserve under the District Minor Works Block Vote (TPDC Paper No. DFM 14/2019)

95. The Chairman advised that as with the arrangements in the previous three fiscal years, HAD recommended that $4.2 million from the DMW Block Vote of $360 million for the year 2019/20 be reserved for urgent works in different districts and other unexpected cash flow requirements. Besides, HAD recommended that $20 million from the DMW Block Vote be used to make centralised payments for consultancy fees and expenditure on resident site staff. Relevant arrangements would be the same as last fiscal year. 96. The DFMC endorsed the above recommendation.

V. Reports of working groups (I) Working Group on District Works 97. Mr. Patrick TANG, Chairman of the WGDW, reported as follows: the WGDW held its second meeting of this year on 17 April 2019, at which it followed up on the progress of approved DMW projects, and endorsed the estimated costs of six projects. (II) Working Group on Facilities Management 98. Dr. LAU Chee-sing, Chairman of the Working Group on Facilities Management (“WGFM”), reported as follows: WGFM held its second meeting of this year on 17 April 2019. The Working Group noted the report by the TPDO on the management of community centre/community halls in February and March 2019 and the report by the LCSD on the management of local facilities under its charge in January and February 2019.

- 2 4 -

99. The DFMC endorsed the reports by the two Working Groups.

VI. Any other business (I) Arrangements for submitting DMW project proposals 100. The Chairman advised that some Members had expressed at the DFMC meeting on 14 March 2019 their concern that should a DMW project proposal put forward in the year of 2019/20 be determined infeasible only in the next DC term, the quota for DMW projects in 2019/20 would be wasted while benefitting no member of the public. After discussion with TPDO, it was recommended that Members be allowed to submit an additional “back-up proposal” in the year of 2019/20, in other words each DC Member would be entitled to submission of one “first-choice” and two “back-up” proposals. Should the first-choice proposal be determined infeasible in the current or next DC term, the back-up proposal would be upgraded to become a first-choice proposal for lead departments to assess the feasibility. Notwithstanding, should the three DMW project proposals submitted in the year of 2019/20 be determined infeasible in the next DC term, Members were not allowed to submit any replacement proposals. 101. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the above arrangements were endorsed. The Secretariat would write to DC Members in relation to the arrangement to submit a second back-up proposal of DMW projects in the year of 2019/20. 102. The Chairman raised that since quotas for submitting DMW project proposals for the period of 2016-19 of some Members remained unused, he recommended that the Secretariat write to Members to brief them on the usage of their quotas for submitting DMW project proposals, and to suggest that Members submit before end of June 2019 their DMW project proposals for the period of 2016-19 such that vetting procedures of relevant working groups and committees could be completed within the current DC term. 103. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the above arrangements were endorsed. (Post-meeting note: the Secretariat had already written to DC Members on 24 May 2019 regarding the matters stated in paragraphs 100 and 102 above.) 104. The Chairman said that pursuant to the requirement DFMC had laid down in 2008, every DMW project proposal would first need to be submitted to relevant committees under TPDC for vetting before seeking endorsement from WGDW and DFMC. To expedite implementation of DMW projects, he recommended that at the beginning of the next DC term, Members consider obviating the step of having DMW project proposals vetted by relevant committees so as to reduce

- 2 5 -

the time required for taking forward projects. 105. Mr. Patrick TANG opined that to meet the needs of the public, relevant committees were not supposed to object to DMW project proposals. Hence, he agreed to the above recommendation the Chairman had put forward such that relevant departments could accelerate the preliminary design and preparation of feasibility study report of projects to avoid delaying the progress. (II) Updating member lists of Working Groups

(TPDC Paper No. DFM 15/2019) 106. The Chairman requested that Members note TPDC Paper No. DFM 15/2019 and its Annex 1, and consider endorsing the proposed member lists of Working Groups contained in Annex 1. 107. Members raised no questions. The Chairman announced that the aforementioned updated member lists of Working Groups were endorsed.

VII. Date of next meeting 108. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 11 July 2019 (Thursday). 109. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:09 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat June 2019