Minutes of the 17th Meeting of
Central and Western District Council
Date
Time
Venue
: 8 January 2015 (Thursday)
: 2:30 pm
: Conference Room
14/F, Harbour Building
38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong
Present:
Chairman
Mr YIP Wing-shing, BBS, MH, JP*
Vice-chairman
Mr CHAN Hok-fung, MH*
Members
Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, BBS, JP
Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH
Mr CHAN HO-lim, Joseph*
Ms CHENG Lai-king
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP*
Mr CHEUNG Yick-hung, Jackie
Mr HUI Chi-fung
Mr IP Kwok-him, GBS, JP
Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH*
Dr Malcolm LAM
Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney
Miss LO Yee-hang*
Mr MAN Chi-wah, MH
Mr NG Siu-keung, Thomas, MH, JP*
Ms SIU Ka-yi*
Mr WONG Kin-shing*
(2:30 pm – 6:58pm)
(2:30 pm – 6:54pm)
(2:37 pm - end of the meeting)
(2:30 pm – 7:29pm)
(2:35 pm – 6:14pm)
(2:30 pm – 6:34pm)
(2:30 pm – 5:48pm)
(2:30 pm – 7:26pm)
(3:40 pm – end of the meeting)
Remarks: * Members who attended the whole meeting
( ) The time of attendance of the Member
-1-
Item 2(i)
Mr LEUNG Ka-wah, Michael
Mr WONG Wai-ming
Mr Kenrick KO
Mr LUK Yiu-wah, Everett
Mr YIP Koon-keung, Ken
Mr CHAIONG David, Stanley
Mr NGAN Siu-ming, George
Senior Liaison Engineer, MTR Corporation Limited
Operations Manager - Island Line and Tseung Kwan O Line,
MTR Corporation Limited
Project Communications Manager, MTR Corporation Limited
Chief Engineer/Railway Development 2-1, Highways
Department
Senior Engineer/Priority Railway 1, Transport Department
Chief Leisure Manager (HKW)
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
District Leisure Manager (Central & Western), Leisure and
Cultural Services Department
Item 2(ii)
Mr Michael MA
Mr AU Chun-ho, Wilfred
Item 6
Ms WONG Ming-wai
Director, Planning and Design, Urban Renewal Authority
Deputy Chief Manager, Planning and Design, Urban Renewal
Authority
Senior Executive Officer (District Council),
Central and Western District Office
Item 7
Miss LAU Siu-ha, Helen
Mr SIU Yik-ho, Steven
Ms Carmen Chu
Ms Theresa Yeung
Ms Apple Lau
Senior Town Planner/Urban Design 1, Planning Department
Town Planner/Urban Design 7, Planning Department
Director of Consulting, Ove Arup & Parteners
Director of Planning, Ove Arup & Parteners
Town Planner, Ove Arup & Parteners
Item 8
Mr WONG Wa-kei
Senior Engineer/NT 2, Highways Department
Mr LAI Fu-keung
Mr WONG Ka-lun, Alan
Mr LAU Ngai-keung
Mr LAI Shing-man
Ms CHU Wai-man
Ms Melanie Moore
Ms Sze Tsui-ngan
E/PHL(2), Highways Department
Engineer/Housing & Planning 3, Transport Department
Technical Director, Atkins China Limited
Chief Engineer, Atkins China Limited
Senior Engineer, Atkins China Limited
Representative of Pound Lane Concern Group
Representative of residents
-2-
Item 9 (iii)
Mr WONG Chi-pan, Ricky
Miss LEE Hoi-lun, Leonie
Mr CHU-ho, Larry
Ms TANG Tsui-yee, Caroline
Mr LAM Shu-kee, Philip
Item 10
Miss LEE Hoi-lun, Leonie
Miss TSANG Yuk-chi, Fiona
Mr TAM Chung-on, Alan
Mr WAI Kin-fai
Mr TSANG Tat-ming
Mr WONG Yuk-ping
Mr TSE Pui-keung, Derek
Mr LI Tat-sang, Steve
Dr LUK Chun-yin, James
Mr CHOW Siu-hung, William
Item 11
Mr CHEUNG Chi-yeung, Fabian
Mr LI Wang-fung, Gareth
Mr MOK Waij-yin, Edward
Mr LEUNG Hing-tung, Gary
Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2, Development Bureau
Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development
Bureau
Assistant Secretary (Harbour) 1, Development Bureau
Assistant Secretary (Planning)1, Development Bureau
Engineer/Central & Western 2. Transport Department
Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development
Bureau
Curator (Historical Buildings)1, Leisure and Cultural Services
Department
Senior Engineer/Southern & Peak
Transport Department
Ag. Senior Division Officer (New Projects)
Fire Services Department
Senior Division Officer
Fire Services Department
Assistant Division Officer (New Projects)11
Fire Services Department
Senior Town Planner/HK 5, Planning Department
Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Metro Assessment)3,
Environmental Protection Department
Country Parks Officer (HK), Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department
Nature Conservation Officer (HK), Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department
Senior Transport Officer/Transport Facilities Management,
Transport Department
Transport Officer/Transport Facilities Management 1, Transport
Department
Senior Engineer/Project 6, Electrical & Mechanical Services
Department
Electrical & Mechanical Engineer/Project 6/3, Electrical &
Mechanical Services Department
-3-
Item 12
Mr HONG Kwai-sum
Ms CHEUNG Wing-yan
Mr CHAN Kin-kwong
Mr LEUNG Ka-yin
Mr CHEUNG Chi-yeung, Fabian
Senior Engineer 2/Universal Accessibility, Highways
Department
Assistant Engineer 2/ Universal Accessibility, Highways
Department
Deputy Project Team Leader/Universal Accessibility
Programme, Civil Engineering and Development Department
Project Supervisor 1/Universal Accessibility Programme,
Civil Engineering and Development Department
Senior Transport Officer/Transport Facilities Management,
Transport Department
In Attendance:
Mr Wise CHOY
Mr CHING Chi-yan, Billy
Mr MAK Chi-biu
Mr LIU Chi-wai
Mr CHAIONG David, Stanley
Mr NGAN Siu-ming, George
Mr CHAN Nap-sang, Nelson
Miss CHOW Ho-kiu, Cheryl, JP
Mr CHAN Yun-man, Winston
Miss YU Yan-yan, Rosanna
Mr CHAN Shing-fung
Secretary
Ms WONG Ming-wai
District Commander (Western), Hong Kong Police Force
Police Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong
Kong Police Force
Chief Engineer/HK(1)
Civil Engineering and Development Department
District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent
(Central/Western)
Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Chief Leisure Manager (HKW)
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
District Leisure Manager (Central & Western), Leisure and
Cultural Services Department
Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department
Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department
Assistant District Officer (Central and Western)
Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Central and
Western District Office
Executive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western
District Office
Senior Executive Officer (District Council),
Central and Western District Office
-4-
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed guests and Members to the 17th meeting of the Central and
Western District Council (C&WDC).
He also welcomed Mr LUI Chi-wai, District
Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western) of Food and Environmental Hygiene
Department (FEHD), as well as Mr David CHAIONG, Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong
West) of Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), who succeeded Mr YIP Ming-bor
and Mr WONG Tat-ming respectively and attended the meeting for the first time.
Item 1:
Adoption of the agenda
(2:30 pm)
2.
Members had no comments on the agenda, so the Chairman declared the adoption of
the agenda.
Standing Items
Item 2: (i) Progress of the MTR West Island Line Project
- Progress of the Construction Works of the West Island Line
(C&W DC Paper No.1/2015)
(2:30pm - 3:30pm)
3. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL),
Highways Department (HyD), Transport Department (TD) and LCSD to attend the meeting.
4. Mr WONG Wai-ming, Operations Manager - Island Line and Tseung Kwan O Line of the
MTRCL, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the progress of the West Island Line (WIL) Project.
The MTR University of Hong Kong (HKU) Station and Kennedy Town (KT) Station
commenced service on 28 December 2014, and Sai Ying Pun (SYP) Station was expected to
open in the first quarter of 2015. In order to attract residents in SYP to use MTR service at
Sheung Wan (SW) Station or HKU Station, the MTRCL introduced a special discount
arrangement to passengers since the commissioning of the WIL until opening of the SYP
Station. To implement this initiative, the MTRCL had installed self-service machines in four
7-Eleven convenience stores in SYP so that passengers using Octopus cards could obtain
discount before they started their journey from SW Station or HKU Station. By doing so,
holders of Adult Octopus Cards would enjoy a discount of $2 while those of Concessionary
Octopus Cards $1. The MTRCL also collaborated with the operators of green minibus (GMB)
and Citybus Limited (CTB) to provide a six-month “interchange discount” to passengers of
GMB Routes No. 23, 23M, 54M, 58, 58A or CTB Route No. 43M, who might enjoy a discount
of $0.5. The current concessionary fare schemes of the MTRCL such as “MTR City Saver”,
“10% Discount for Every Same-day Second Trip”, “Monthly Pass Extra” and “Early Bird
Discount” were also applicable to the three MTR stations of the WIL.
5. Mr Michael LEUNG, Senior Liaison Engineer of the MTRCL, extended his gratitude to
Members for their support of the WIL, and gave a PowerPoint presentation on the works
progress of the SYP Station. He said that tesing of the building equipment and electrical and
mechanical (E&M) works of the concourse, platforms and pedestrian subways accessing to the
-5-
station was underway, and works for lift equipment was substantially completed. Regarding
the station entrance on Bonham Road, testing of installation works of all E&M facilities was in
progress. Regarding the station entrance in First Street/Second Street, the construction works
of main structure was completed, the internal renovation launched, and the installation works of
E&M facilities in the final stage. Regarding the station entrance at Sai Woo Lane, installation
works of the E&M facilities was completed and testing of such facilities was being conducted.
Construction works of the structure of station entrance at Ki Ling Lane and ground freezing
works at the pedestrian subway were being implemented, and the works as a whole was
expected to complete by the end of 2015. As to re-provisioning of recreational facilities, the
foundation works at KT Swimming Pool (Phase II) was launched in September 2014, and was
expected to complete by the beginning of the second quarter of 2015. Works at the coverage
area would be carried subsequently. After completion of the re-provisioning works, the KT
Playground, Forbes Street Temporary Playground and Smithfield Road Children’s Playground
had been taken over by the government departments concerned prior to the commissioning of
the WIL. With re-provisioning works in progress, the Hill Road Rest Garden, Sai Woo Lane
playground and Mui Fong Street Children’s Playground were expected to be handed over to the
departments concerned in the first quarter of 2015. The number of places affected by the
temporary traffic management measures was decreased from more than ten, as reported in the
last meeting, to nine.
6. Mr Kenrick KO, Project Communications Manager of the MTRCL, said that the MTRCL
had organised a series of promotional activities at community level between November 2014
and the commissioning date of the WIL which included: (a) visits to the HKU Station and KT
Station by Members of all the 18 District Councils, officers of the government departments
concerned, members of organisations for disabled persons and Community Liaison Group
members; (ii) press briefings for announcement of arrangements about commissioning of the
WIL, special discount offers to passengers prior to opening of the SYP Station and station
entrances for access by lift only; (iii) forums on works of station entrances for access by lift
only; (iv) participation in the Open Day of Bonham Road Government Primary School; and (v)
Open Days of the HKU Station and KT Station for enhanced understanding of facilities and
operations in the new MTR stations by visitors. The MTRCL held an opening cum
ribbon-cutting ceremony to mark the commissioning of the WIL, and participated in a basin
meal organised by local bodies, etc. To facilitate the public to use the two newly opened MTR
stations more smoothly, the MTRCL had printed leaflets such as guidelines to use of the new
MTR stations by passengers, provided additional signage to indicate station entrances for access
by lift only, deployed more staff to assist passengers within the stations and would enhance the
publicity in future when necessary.
7.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views.
comments were as follows:
The main points of their
(a) Mr WONG Kin-shing hoped that the MTRCL could give an account of the
re-provisioning arrangements about pavement because water-filled barriers occupying
half of the pavement at Whitty Street entrance of the KT Station were yet to remove.
The similar problem also occurred at the station entrance of HKU Station on Hill
Road. He also requested the MTRCL to cooperate with government departments like
the TD to return the occupied roads to users as soon as possible.
(b) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said that many local residents welcomed the
commissioning of the WIL, but some worried about security problems at the station
entrance in Forbes Street because of dim lighting. As the entrance was close to many
-6-
buildings nearby, he understood that excessive luminity would cause nuisance to
residents and thus recommended the MTRCL to propose an effective solution
facilitating maintainence of law and order without causing nuisance to the local
community.
(c) Miss LO Yee-hang enquired about the opening arrangement of entrances of the SYP
Station which would commence service in the first quarter of 2015. As reported, the
self-service machines installed in SYP would cease to provide service after opening of
the SYP Station. She worried that local residents near the station entrance at Ki Ling
Lane could obtain no more discount even if that entrance was still unavailable for use
by that time. She opined that the MTRCL should install more self-service machines
within the area affected by the project such as inside the convenience store 7-Eleven at
Shop C on Ground Floor in Tin Hing Mansion on Des Voeux Road West.
(d) Mr Sidney LEE recommended the Administration to install self-service machines near
the market in Centre Street where the pedestrian flow was high. He also
recommended the Administration to enhance the feeder bus service with increased
frequency during commuting hours in the morning and evening. In addition, he
opined that re-opening of King George V Memorial Park, Hong Kong could take place
earlier in the second quarter of 2015 because the foundation works of re-provisioning
had been completed already. Even if the whole park could not be returned then, the
Administration should at least return some of the facilities to the public for use.
Finally, he requested the MTRCL to open the SYP Station as scheduled.
(e) Mr CHAN Choi-hi requested the MTRCL to follow up on some burnt smell found at
the time of closing train doors and on the problem of water leakage occurred earlier at
the HKU Station. He was concerned about the traffic situation at the station entrance
on Hill Road of HKU Station, proposing additional provision of pedestrian crossing
signage at the site. He was also concerned about that in Whitty Street of KT Station,
proposing removal of water-filled barriers from pavement especially those installed
opposite the entrance as soon as possible to avoid potential hazards. Finally, he
requested for returning King George V Memorial Park, Hong Kong to the public for
enjoyment in the first or second quarter of 2015.
(f) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai appreciated the Open Days of new MTR stations organised to the
public and visit to the HKU Station arranged for the C&WDC by the MTRCL. He
opined that the Administration should enhance the feeder bus service. For example,
Centre Street should be taken as the interchange point for bus routes 23 and 3B to
facilitate convenient access of residents at Mid-Levels to the HKU Station for using
MTR service. He also suggested that early opening of facilities in the SYP Station
(e.g. lifts in unpaid zone) should be arranged for use by residents, and shared the views
of other Members about “returning roads to the public for use”. Finally, he requested
the MTRCL to reopen KT Swimming Pool according to schedule.
(g) Ms CHENG Lai-king considered that the WIL failed to serve as a “community
railway”, and that the MTRCL had made improper arrangements for the opening
ceremony held on 27 December 2014. When she was about to submit a petition to
the Chief Executive that day, the public relations officers of the MTRCL rudely
stopped her from doing so and took photos and video about her without obtaining her
prior consent. As she came to know the opening ceremony only through the mass
media, she queried whether the MTRCL only invited selected guests to attend the
-7-
ceremony. In addition, she criticised that the amount of discount (i.e. $2) given to
residents living in the vicinity of the SYP Station through self-service machines were
too little because they were affected by the project most, and suggested that the amount
of discount be increased to $4. She had proposed to the TD earlier for relocating the
bus stops of routes 23, 3B, 40 and 40M closer to Entrance C of the HKU Station so
that residents might interchange for buses to the vicinity of Robinson Road and
Conduit Road more conveniently. As the said location was still a works site, she
recommended the MTRCL to discuss her proposal with the TD.
(h) Mr KAM Nai-wai shared the view that the WIL failed to serve its original intent of
construction as a “community railway”. He suggested that the C&WDC and
residents be consulted in the course of determining locations for installing self-service
machines by the MTRCL, and that more such machines be installed. He also shared
the view that water-filled barriers in works sites should be removed and
commissioning date of the SYP Station announced as soon as possible. He reflected
residents’ discontent towards the cancellation of bus route M47. Finally, he suggested
that lifts installed at the HKU Station should be made available for use by the public
round the clock.
(i)
Mr IP Kwok-him stated that most residents in Western District supported the
commissioning of the WIL with the exception of some who lodged complaints on the
noise nuisance caused by the ventilating duct installed at Entrance C of the KT Station
because such outlet directly faced the access of Kwun Lung Lau. He recommended
the MTRCL was to adjust the angle of the outlet, provide a shelter construction, and
include the wording of “Luen Bong Apartment” in the signage installed at the said
entrance.
(j)
The Vice-chairman opined that the WIL served well as a “community railway”. He
agreed to other Members’ concern over road safety at station entrances in Whitty
Street, Hill Road and Smithfield, as well as requested for confirming the opening date
of the SYP Station. He was also concerned about the frequent occurrence of false
alarms at the KT Station. He proposed to improve the shelter construction in
Smithfield Sitting-out Area appearing to be of no practical use, provide a small bicycle
park at the flat land opposite the E&M plant building of the KT Station, include the
wording of “Cayman Rise” in the signage installed at the respective entrance for
indication, as well as provide a shelter construction at Entrance A near the minibus
stand. The MTRCL was recommended to conduct joint site visits with the LCSD for
studying the proposals.
(k) The Chairman said that Western District had emerged with new vitality with improved
traffic situation after the WIL had commissioned service. The C&WDC would
conduct a comprehensive review of its service upon commissioning of the entire WIL.
The ancillary facilities and signage at entrances of these stations were found to be
inadequate in the two MTR stations currently in service. For example, additional
signage should be provided outside the lift tower at the HKU Station. The C&WDC
would continue to reflect its views about the WIL to the MTRCL.
8. Mr Michael LEUNG of the MTRCL gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) Regarding entrances of MTR stations, a minor works project was being implemented
at the entrance in Whitty Street of the KT Station for improvement of pedestrian
-8-
crossing. During a joint visit to the said site with Members conducted earlier, the
staff of the MTRCL requested the contractor to reduce the project boundary so that the
usable space on the pavement could be widened from 1.5 metres to 2 metres, and
undertook to expedite the re-provisioning of traffic lights and other facilities there as
soon as possible. Regarding the station entrance at Hill Street of the HKU Station,
discussion regarding provision of additional railings and signage among the MTRCL,
HyD and TD was in progress. Regarding the pedestrian crossing beside the GMB
stand on Smithfield, the Administration understood that residents were yet to get
acquainted with the new arrangements and would consider providing additional
signage in due course.
(b) Regarding King George V Memorial Park, Hong Kong, tunnelling works at the
subway entrance was launched at earlier time. As it took time to implement
backfilling of shafts, demolition of works structures and repair of facilities, the
MTRCL would, together with the contractor, make estimation of the project progress
and report the returning date to the C&WDC in the next meeting.
(c) The MTRCL would discuss with engineers on ways to improve the lighting problem at
the station entrance on Forbes Street.
(d) The MTRCL would arrange a site visit to the SYP Station for Members in due course.
The MTRCL and HyD would respectively carry out widening works and diversion of
underground pipes at Bonham Road Government Primary School at the same time, the
temporary loading/unloading area had to be removed.
(e) Re-provisioning works of the KT Swimming Pool (Phase II) was expected to complete
by the end of 2016.
(f) Although the operating hours of lifts installed at the HKU Station were from 6 am to 1
am or so, the MTRCL had to conduct inspection and maintenance of lifts during the
remaining period.
The MTRCL had replied the stakeholders and Students’
Association of the HKU about this earlier to seek their understanding in this matter.
(g) The MTRCL would conduct site visit with parties concerned to study the proposed
shelter construction at KT Station.
9. Mr Kenrick KO of the MTRCL gave his response as follows:
(a) The SYP Station was scheduled to commence service by the end of the first quarter in
2015. Owing to a large number of inspection and testing to be taken prior to opening
of the station, the opening date could not be confirmed temporarily and would be
reported to the C&WDC in future.
(b) Despite the various reports about the commissioning date presented by the mass media
earlier, only commissioning arrangements of the WIL announced by the MTRCL were
authentic ones. The MTRCL would announce the opening date of the SYP Station in
due course, and had planned to arrange for a visit to the station by the C&WDC before
opening.
(c) The “SYP Station Pre-opening Special Discount Promotion” (Pre-opening
Promotion) was implemented after considering views given by Members, but various
-9-
factors of site identification such as availability of appropriate internal space, power
supply, repair and maintenance and so on had to be considered for installation of
self-service machines to provide discount for passengers. By adopting Members’
suggestion, the MTRCL had increased the number of self-service machines to be
provided from three in the original plan to four.
(d) There existed difficulties in providing feeder bus service before opening the SYP
Station. Having studied the views of residents collected, the MTRCL opined that the
Pre-opening Promotion would be a more appropriate arrangement.
(e) Regarding arrangements for the celebrating ceremony, the MTRCL had directly issued
invitation to guests (including all Members of the C&WDC) for attending the
ceremony before arranging interviews with the media about the event. In case of
undesirable hospitality that day, the MTRCL would like to give its sincere apology
about this and would review the arrangement for improvement in future.
(f) The MTRCL would consider increasing the number of signage at appropriate locations
of station entrances to better serve passengers.
(g) The report on false alarms at MTR station would be reflected to and followed up by
the department concerned of the MTRCL responsible for operation.
10. Additional views given by Members were as follows:
(a) Mr WONG Kin-shing was satisfied with the arrangement of the MTRCL by including
some more local buildings in the signage installed at station entrances, but
recommended to remove the wording of “Western Court” from the signage installed at
the station entrance in Whitty Street because demolition of the said building was about
to take place.
(b) Ms CHENG Lai-king stated that the title “Tung Wah Hospital (TWH)” had to be
displayed according to requirement of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals and be placed
on the top of the title list in the signage installed at the entrance of the SYP Station
near the TWH.
(c) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai reiterated that Centre Street should be taken as the interchange
point for bus routes 23 and 3B to facilitate residents at Mid-Levels to use the MTR
service at the HKU Station.
(d) Mr CHAN Choi-hi suggested that the MTRCL should provide an additional signage at
the pedestrian crossing at the junction of Queen’s Road West and Hill Road.
11. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the MTRCL and government departments for
attending the meeting.
Item 2: (ii) Report on the projects under the Urban Renewal Authority in
the Central & Western District
(C&W DC Paper No . 3/2015)
(3:30pm - 3:50pm)
- 10 -
12. The Chairman welcomed the representative of Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to attend
meeting.
13.
Mr Wilfred AU, Deputy Chief Manager for Planning and Design of the URA, reported
on the progress as follows:
(a) The Buildings Department (BD) had approved the plans of the Central Oasis project.
However, the works could be launched only after Lands Department (LandsD) had
formally granted the site to the URA. Originally intended for short-term landscaping,
the marquee completed in 2010 had been erected for five years. To safeguard public
safety and prepare for carrying out conservation works of the external wall, the
marquee including its metal frame would be removed gradually from March 2015.
(b) Trial pile of Peel Street/Graham Street Development Scheme (H18 project) was in
progress. After the findings of trial pile were approved by the BD, the URA could
have more accurate estimation about the completion date of the fresh food retail block
and would report the progress update to the C&WDC then. Operators of the current
fresh food shop in Sites A and C would move to the fresh food retail block in Site B
upon its completion, and continue their business in a seamless manner. The non-fresh
food shop operators currently operating in Sites A and C also undertook to move out on
or before 31 March 2015 as stated in the contract. According to the relocation plan,
the URA had made arrangements for demolition of buildings, which would be carried
out in phases rather than in a one-off operation, to reduce the impact on the market as a
whole. Demolition of the buildings on No. 1-3, Gage Street was underway, and the
next phase of works would be commenced in March 2015.
(c) Drainage diversion in Cochrane Street was delayed for about one month due to the
new road closure arrangement launched by the Police earlier, and was expected to
complete in July 2015. The beautification project at Cochrane Street Sitting-out Area
was implemented according to the design agreed by the C&WDC, and the target
completion date of half of the works items or so was January 2015. It was hoped that
some of the facilities could be open for use by the public before the Lunar New Year
subsequent to the acceptance procedure by departments concerned.
(d) There had been community activities and exhibitions organised by many non-profitmaking organisations at the G7 Centre in Wing Lee Street during the last quarter.
Other organisations were also welcome to hold events at the venue in the future.
(e) Regarding Western Market, the URA thanked the support of the C&WDC for staging
an exhibition on the history of Hong Kong clothing industry co-organised by cloth
merchants and Telford recreation Club Ltd. Information on history of the industry,
fabrics and materials displayed in the exhibition were provided by the cloth merchants
operating in Western Market and Mr CHENG Po-hung. The exhibition was held at
the Western Market from mid-December 2014 to 15 January 2015. It would then held
at the Central Gallery on 2/F of Central Oasis from 16 January to 15 February 2015.
In addition, the URA had extended the tenancy of Western Market with the
Government for two more years to February 2017.
14. Mr HUI Chi-fung requested the URA to explain why the works in Site B under the H18
project was delayed and eport on the schedule of the project. He also enquired the URA about
the compensation schemes provided for residents in the vicinity and shop operators relocated
- 11 -
previously.
15. Mr Sidney LEE stated that improvement in works site management at Yu Lok Lane was seen
recently, and hoped that the URA would continue to instruct the contractor to enhance site
management.
16. Mr Michael MA, Director, Planning and Design of the URA, explained that delay of the H18
project was due to subsoil problem in Central. Formation works of the project was to take
place at a ground of more than 120 metres in thickness, exceeding that of the works sites of The
Center. To avoid adverse effects caused by the project on old buildings in the area, the BD
required the conduct of test pile, inspection of findings and granting of approval before
launching the construction works. He said that if the BD approved the current test pile, the
URA might report the works schedule of the fresh food retail block at the next C&WDC
meeting. Regarding the fairness to shop operators at the redevelopment site, he opined that the
delay in project would not have negative impact on the eleven fresh food shops to be relocate to
the block because they could run their business at Sites A and C normally during this period and
move to the fresh food retail block to continue their business in a seamless manner.
Completion time of the fresh food retail block also had nothing to do with the relocation of the
remaining non-fresh food shops. At the request made by operators of these shops in October
2013, the URA had agreed that relocation could be delayed for 15 months more and carried out
in 5 phases because the operators needed more time to clear stocks and find new shops to
continue their operation. Therefore the URA did not break any promise at all. He also
pointed out that the URA, upon receipt of complaints lodged on site management at Yu Lok
Lane, had immediately instructed the contractor to supervise their workers for improvement, and
would follow it up closely.
17. Mr HUI Chi-fung said that the MTRCL provided compensation scheme for delayed
commissioning of the SYP Station, and asked why the URA did nothing to make up for the
non-fresh food shop operators affected by the delay of the project, which had deprived such
shop operators of the opportunity to be patronised by residents nearby and had thus reduced the
vitality of the market in Central.
18. Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired of the exact dates of the tenancy regarding Western Market
and the schedule of obtaining approval by the BD about trial pile in Site B under the H18
project.
19. Mr Michael MA, Director, Planning and Design of the URA, responded that the tenancy of
Western Market had been extended to February 2017. It was expected the BD would examine
the findings of trial pile by the end of January 2015 for full implementation of foundation works
at Site B under the H18 project. He explained that hydraulic piling was required due to
geographical constraints at Site B of the H18 project. As this kind of piling was uncommonly
used in Hong Kong, the BD had to process it in a very rigorous manner. Regarding the
non-fresh food shop operators in Sites A and C, he explained that the URA had acceded to their
request of extending the deadline of relocation to March 2015 on grounds of gaining more time
to find suitable shops to continue their business. It was understood that some shop operators
had already found suitable shops in the district to carry on their operation. According to
contract, the URA would refund half of the accumulated rents to these operators in the course of
relocation to facilitate more flexible arrangement of capital for them.
20. Mr HUI Chi-fung was discontented with the URA for its delay in works at Site B of the H18
and for the compulsory relocation of shops by 31 March 2015. He hoped that the URA could
- 12 -
give the affected shop operators greater flexibility in relocation before deadline, or even extend
the deadline of relocation until completion of the works at Site B.
21. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the URA for attending the meeting.
Item 3:
(3:50pm)
Chairman’s Report
22. The Chairman said that the C&WDC would conduct a study tour to Guangxi Province
during the Easter holidays in April this year for exchange on culture and conservation, including
visit to the rapidly developed economic areas of Nanshan District and Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong
Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone of Shenzhen. Arrangement for the study
tour was underway and details would be announced in due course.
Item 4:
Confirmation of the minutes of the 16th C&W DC meeting held on
16 October 2014
(3:50pm - 3:55pm)
23. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had sent the draft minutes of the sixteenth C&WDC
meeting to Members on 19 December 2014 by e-mail, and asked Members to comment on the
draft minutes.
24. Mr Jackie CHEUNG stated that paragraph no. 96 on page 18 of the draft Chinese minutes
had recorded his discontent with Mr HUI Chi-fung for his misbehaviour of making “double
speech” during meeting. He pointed out that he had asked the staff of the Secretariat to detailly
record in the minutes what he would say during the meeting. The most important part was the
length of time, that is, the period when Mr HUI started repeating his statements ceaselessly from
the formal discussion of “Item 1: Adoption of the agenda” to the start of Mr CHEUNG’s
speaking. As Mr HUI’s “double speech” behaviour had lasted for more than one and a half
hours, Mr CHEUNG reiterated that setting out the period of time about such misbehaviour in the
minutes was important. Besides, it would be difficult for the public to understand what
“double speech” behaviour was and how long it had lasted for if they only read the written
record. For this reason, he opined that it was necessary to amend the relevant record and read
out his amendments and requested the Secretary to record his verbal amendments.
25. The Chairman considered that Mr Jackie CHEUNG should propose his amendments
specifically in writing to the Secretariat for follow-up.
26. Mr Jackie CHEUNG requested for the Chairman’s permission to let him read out his
amendments again and undertook to submit his proposed amendments in writing to the
Secretariat in due course.
27. The Chairman explained that it was a usual practice for Members to submit proposed
amendments in writing.
28. Mr Jackie CHEUNG said that he had read out his amendments when he requested for
making amendments to minutes of meeting previously. This would help clarify the contents of
proposed amendments, facilitate responsible persons to make precise written record and enable
- 13 -
the public who accessed to audio recording of meetings only to understand the contents of
amendments.
29. The Chairman further explained that it was common for Members to request for making
amendments to minutes of meeting. Members concerned should simply submit their proposals
in writing, which would then be incorporated in the minutes of the meeting for confirmation.
30. Mr HUI Chi-fung objected to the amendments made by Mr Jackie CHEUNG, and suggested
that it should be decided through voting.
31. The Chairman considered that it was unnecessary for other Members to amend Mr Jackie
CHEUNG’s proposed amendments because such contents only involved his personal remarks
which would be confirmed in the next meeting. He reiterated that Mr CHEUNG’s request was
noted, and it was needless to spend time to read it out.
32. Mr Jackie CHEUNG strongly requested to record his proposed amendment because many
people only listened to the audio recording of meetings online. If he was not allowed to read
out the proposed amendments, such people would not know the contents of his amendments.
He explained that he had deliberately reminded the Secretariat to put what he said on record in
the last meeting but the record was still incomplete in the end. Owing to the confusion at that
time, he had no intention to blame anyone for such omission. However, he strongly requested
the Chairman once again to permit him to spend half a minute or so to read the amendments out.
33. The Chairman pointed out that there was no precedence about reading out proposed
amendments by Members during meetings in the past and he did not want to set a new example
about this. As minutes of the meeting would cover all amendments proposed by Members, the
public could access to the details through the Internet. He agreed to Mr Jackie CHEUNG’s
request because each Member had the right to propose amendments which they considered
appropriate to any minutes of meeting. He also understood the crux of Mr CHEUNG’s
concern. He asked Mr CHEUNG to submit his proposal to the Secretariat for making
arrangement to confirm it by circulation.
34. Mr HUI Chi-fung did not agree to confirm amendments to minutes of meeting by circulation
because it was not the way used in the past to deal with such cases.
35. The Chairman explained that the amendment concerned was yet to confirm in this meeting
and had to be confirmed by circulation.
36. Mr HUI Chi-fung opined that the proposed amendment should be confirmed in the next
meeting because confirmation by circulation was not used for similar cases previously.
37. The Chairman responded that the C&WDC had all along been using this method to confirm
amendments to minutes of meeting.
38. Mr HUI Chi-fung opined that it would be appropriate to confirm the amended minutes of the
previous meeting and the minutes of this meeting (i.e. two minutes in total) in the next meeting.
39. Mr Sidney LEE requested the Chairman to make a ruling about this.
40. The Chairman said that Members understood the reasons of Mr Jackie CHEUNG’s request
for making amendments to minutes of meeting. Besides, the public might access to the audio
- 14 -
recording of meetings uploaded to the C&WDC website through the Internet. He asked Mr
CHEUNG again to propose his amendments in writing to the Secretariat for follow-up.
41. Mr Jackie CHEUNG respected the Chairman’s ruling and would submit his proposed
amendments to the Secretariat in writing as advised.
42. The Chairman stressed that all Members were entitled to request for making amendments to
minutes of the meeting.
43. Mr Jackie CHEUNG added that the C&WDC might confirm amendments to minutes of
meeting by circulation without pending until the next meeting.
44. The Chairman agreed to Mr Jackie CHEUNG’s supplementary remarks.
Item 5:
Action checklist on matters arising from the last meeting
(C&W DC Paper No. 4/2015)
(3:55pm)
45.
The Chairman asked Members to refer to the checklist for the progress of follow-up of
different items.
Discussion Items
Item 6:
Recruitment of Executive Assistants, Project Co-ordinator and Project
Assistant by the Central and Western District Council (2015-2016)
(C&W DC Paper No. 9/2015)
(3:55pm - 3:58pm)
46. The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the Central and Western District Office
(C&WDO) to the meeting.
47. Ms WONG Ming-wai, Senior Executive Officer (District Council) of the C&WDO,
recommended the continual employment of six Executive Assistants, one Project Co-ordinator
and one Project Assistant in 2015-2016 to assist in implementing the routine activities and
initiatives of the C&WDC. The total expenditure for the employment of those dedicated staff
was $1,860,942, including salary, contract gratuity and Mandatory Provident Fund
contributions.
48. There being no objection to the paper, the Chairman declared that the continued employment
of the abovementioned staff for the year 2015-2016 was endorsed.
Item 7:
Planning and Design Study on the Redevelopment of Queensway Plaza,
Admiralty – Feasibility Study Recommended Development Scheme
(C&W DC Paper No. 7/2015)
(3:58pm - 5:00pm)
49. The Chairman welcomed representatives of the Planning Department (PlanD) to the
meeting.
- 15 -
50. Miss Helen LAU, Senior Town Planner/Urban Design 1 of the PlanD, said that the
“Planning and Design Study on the redevelopment of Queensway Plaza, Admiralty – Feasibility
Study” (Study) was launched in January 2014, aiming to investigate the feasibility in
redeveloping the Queensway Plaza for commercial uses (including Grade A office and retail
uses) and to make recommendations to upgrade the existing public realm thereof with
convenient pedestrian connections to Central and Wan Chai. The PlanD proposed a
preliminary Recommendation Development Scheme (RDS) at this stage to collect Members’
views, and would launch detailed technical assessments such as traffic and sewage disposal at
the following stage. To ensure the accessibility of footbridge link during the redevelopment,
Members were also requested to recommend on footbridge arrangements and related temporary
measures during implementation of works.
51. Ms Theresa Yeung, Director of Planning of Ove Arup & Parteners, gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the RDS, and stated that the Study Site primarily covered the Queensway Plaza
and its adjoining Government land encompassing Drake Street, Tamar Street, Rodney Street and
Admiralty Garden. About 30% of the Study Site was constrained by the existing MTR station
and associated underground structures. After conducting in-depth examination of the structural
constraint of development, it was proposed to delineate the eastern portion of the Queensway
Plaza (with a site area of 6 220m2) as the development site, while the existing walkway portion
(with a gross floor area (GFA) of about 2 100m2) at its western portion would be retained with
enhancement to its exterior and rooftop. Two initial options were formulated in the Study on
the development site, and preliminary assessments of these options about the broad feasibility of
each option, together with the respective merits, were included in the RDS. The RDS proposed
the development of a commercial tower cum dining facilities atop a four-storey podium for
dining and retail uses and a basement of four levels. The key design features were highlighted
as follows:
(a) To provide a Grade A office development (with the flexibility to include some hotel
floorspace) of about 80 000m2 in area to meet the enormous demand for such uses in
the Central/Admiralty area.
(b) To provide retail/dining floorspace of about 13 000m2 in size to meet the huge demand
for eating places by visitors and people working in the area.
(c) To maintain the ridgeline landscaping of Hong Kong Island as viewed from the Tsim
Sha Tsui by imposing restriction building height of not exceeding 203mPD.
(d) To implement re-provisioning of an open space on ground level of about 1 370m2 in
area including a generous at-grade landscaped entrance plaza for the development with
an old and valuable tree (OVT) preserved in-situ. In addition, an open space having
an area about 1 775m2 would be provided along the terraced garden at various levels
(directly accessible from ground level to each level of the retail podium), an open-air
elevated landscaped plaza (at the main walkway level) and a podium garden forming
an open space network within the development. Open space of a total area of 3
145m2 was proposed in the RDS, which was some 85% bigger than the existing
Admiralty Garden (about 1 700m2 in area).
(e) To provide an elevated and landscaped green link connecting the preserved Queensway
Plaza walkway and its rooftop open space to Chater Garden and, via the re-provisioned
landscaped pedestrian walkway along the eastern side of Drake Street, to Harcourt
- 16 -
Garden.
(f) To provide new vertical connection points with barrier free access connecting the
Admiralty Station concourse level, ground level and main elevated walkway level at
the Study Site.
(g) To improve the general streetscape by adopting the improvement proposals set out in
the “Traffic Study for Admiralty - Feasibility Study” completed by the TD in 2012
regarding traffic arrangement of the PTIs at Admiralty West and Admiralty East. All
existing bus routes and GMB routes would remain unchanged and the taxi stand would
also be retained at grade.
(h) To avoid using busy road sections in the design of the RDS for minimised impact of
the project on the traffic nearby.
(i)
To implement re-provisioning of all affected public facilities including a newspaper
stand and a refuse collection point within the Study Site.
(j)
It was a project involving a total non-domestic gross floor area (GFA) of about 93
300m2 and a plot ratio (PR) of 15. A generous landscaped entrance plaza would be
created along Queensway to present the new development as well as to provide a
suitable growing environment for an existing OVT (i.e. lacebark bottle tree), which
would be preserved in-situ with some vegetation in the surrounding.
(k) Apart from retaining the walkway of Queensway plaza, the appearance of this portion
would be enhanced and related to the final architectural definition of the new
commercial development. As the existing environment of PTIs at Admiralty were
dark, it was recommended to use lighter colour and appropriate smog-resistant sealant
for renovation to enable easier maintenance in future, and provide brighter landscaping
with enhanced vitality of visual amenity.
(l)
As improvement at the rooftop open space of Queensway Plaza would be constrained
by the restrictions on additional structure loading, the RDS adopted landscape design
that helped improve the existing environment, and connected the rooftop open space to
the terraced garden for provision of public open space.
(m) Subject to Members’ comments given during the meeting, the PlanD might further
refine the design of the RDS and would conduct detailed technical assessments prior to
implementation of the works to ensure that the project would not have significant
impact on the area. The findings and recommendations of the Study would serve as a
basis of the subsequent Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) amendment and land disposal
52. The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments
were as follows:
(a) The Vice-chairman agreed that it was necessary to provide more commercial premises
to solve the shortage problem, but was concerned about the impact of such
development on air ventilation, lighting and ancillary facilities nearby. In view of the
enormous pedestrian flow at Admiralty Station currently, he worried that this project
would exert greater pressure on facilities in the surrounding, but the RDS did not
provide the figures of the pedestrian flow assessment. He did not appreciate the
- 17 -
design of the elevated landscaped plaza. Situated at the courtyard of Admiralty
Centre, the plaza would be absent from natural light and easy to accumulate pollutants.
For this reason, he suggested that the site should be changed to somewhere facing the
Queensway.
He enquired about the temporary traffic arrangements during works
implementation, and how the existing traffic could be improved through the RDS. As
illegal parking of goods vehicles was serious at the suggested location, a loading and
unloading area had to be set up there to meet the need. However, the RDS did not
mention any solution about this.
(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai said that high-rise building was not developed on top of Queensway
Plaza originally because the density of buildings nearby was already high, and that
Queensway Plaza was intended to become a buffer and ventilation. He criticised that,
apart from setting out proposals on optimisation of facilities in the garden, the
development stated in the RDS would have adverse effect on ventilation and had no
solutions addressing to the problems about pesestrian flow, vehicular flow and wind
direction, etc. For these reasons, he did not support the RDS. He enquired about the
details of land use at the site such as the planned use; development restriction and
building height; information on assessment of air permeability, pedestrian and traffic
flow; as well as the possibility of obtaining approval granted by departments
concerned. He asked about the accuracy of the figures provided by the Government,
and requested that such data be submitted to the C&WDC for perusal. He reiterated
that he would not support the RDS proposing development of “pencil buildings”.
(c) Ms CHENG Lai-king described the RDS as an extreme case of pencil-building
development because the lots concerned were of extremely high land price. She
would raise objection to the RDS for reasons below. Although the RDS included
optimisation of a public open space of 1 700 m2 on ground level, it was criticised that
the green terraced podium of 1 775 m2 to be provided on the rooftop of the shopping
mall would become a place accumulating exhaust air arising out of vehicles driving on
Queensway without positive contribution to the public in the future. Queensway
Plaza was already surrounded by high-rise buildings like Admiralty Centre and United
Centre, and therefore no more buildings should be built there. As pedestrians could
not access from Admiralty Centre to Central Government Offices (CGO), they had to
made use of the footbridge outside Entrance A of Admiralty Station to Tamar Park, and
the problem was difficult to solve. In addition, she was concerned about the land
lease of the project in future, and queried if the public open space of the terraced
podium would be under the management of the developer in the end. It might
become a selling point of property sale and would not be open to the public for
enjoyment. She suggested that dining facilities should be provided in the project such
as food court, and asked whether the four levels of basement could be developed into
underground streets like that in Taiwan. Finally, she was concerned about whether
the building proposed in the RDS would link up Admiralty Station directly, and
requested the PlanD to make an assessment of the additional passenger load on MTR
service arising out of the project.
(d) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai stated that the area of Central East was a PTI where the public
would go to various districts on Hong Kong Island by using MTR service. It would
become more important in the future because the Admiralty Station would become the
merging point of the Shatin Central Line (SCL), South Island Line (SIL) and WIL
already in service. He stated that the existing Harcourt Road car park was saturated
already, and recommended the Administration to provide an additional car park cum
- 18 -
additional bus and GMB routes of such transportation means to connecting places
throughout the Hong Kong Island, making full use of its geographical advantages.
He also had reservation on the proposed building height of the project. He considered
that the project should fully utilise the feature of Admiralty as a PTI by providing
public transport facilities and increasing the related facilities.
(e) Mr CHAN Choi-hi hoped that the PlanD could provide a third option, or merge the two
options already in existence through striking a balance between them. He pointed out
that the building would be reaching the top of the ridgeline of Victoria Peak because
the permitted building height was as high as 203 metres. As the design of the
building was subject to change, more schemes should be proposed at the study stage
for consideration by the public and C&WDC. This project would become the
opportunity for improving the Admiralty as a whole and underground development
should take place in future such as establishing taxi stand in the basement in order to
turn the open space on ground level to a pedestrian precinct. He opined that the
lacebark bottle tree thereat, an OVT, should be conserved in situ, and that a terraced
greening space would be inconvenient to users. The greening space should be
provided on ground level to facilitate convenience for use by the public.
(f) Mr MAN Chi-wah considered that exploration of new land supply was inevitable due
to shortage of land in Hong Kong. However, premature conclusion about the RDS
should not be reached in the study stage. He suggested that various aspirations of the
public should be listed out and solutions sought for improvement first. He opined
that one of the objectives of the project was to improve the chaotic road traffic in the
vicinity such as the parking problem involving various types of vehicles. He pointed
out that the proposed hotel would, most probably, offer fine dining service.
Contrarily, it was estimated that the demand for dining facilities affordable by the
general public at Admiralty would ascend after commissioning of the SCL and SIL.
As such, he hoped that the project could help meet this need. Understanding that it
was almost unlikely to provide an open space on ground level, he suggested that the
rooftop open space should be designed to facilitate better air permeability, and that the
development be constructed in a streamlined and elongated manner to enhance
ventilation. He stressed that arrangements of temporary traffic management for
vehicles and pedestrians during project implementation had to be clearly indicated or
problems might be caused.
(g) Mr Joseph CHAN stated that the road traffic at Admiralty had been very busy. As
this area was adjacent to Garden Road which connected to the main roads accessing to
the Peak, Mid-Levels, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay, the proposed development of
commercial building would unquestionably have negative impact on traffic. The
Administration should give residents in Peak & Mid-Level areas an explanation why
the project would not adversely affect their travelling between their residence and other
parts of Hong Kong Island and other places. He also opined that the building height
of Option A was 203 mPD which would affect the surrounding environment
negatively.
(h) Mr HUI Chi-fung hoped that the Government could explain the urgency of
implementing the project, and considered that the benefit brought by space retained in
the urban area through abandoning the proposal of development might be greater to the
economy in real term. He criticised that the development pattern of the project was
indifferent to that of other previous developments which included demolition of the
- 19 -
original buildings, construction of skyscrapers, and provision of public greening space
with low accessibility and low utilisation rate by the public. He worried that the
entrances of terraced gardens and landscaped plaza was unfavourable to the public for
access, and hoped the PlanD would clarify the distribution of open space on each floor.
He added that the 50-storey building would change the overall impression of the city
as a whole, and the boundary-wall design would arouse an unpleasant feeling among
the public. Having considered the design and limited information available, he
objected to the proposal.
(i)
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan opined that it was impossible for our society to exist
without development in face of keen competition from other places in the region, but
the way of development was debatable. He agreed to the orientation of seeking land
for development, and raised three questions. (a) How would the RDS improve the
facilities that were inadequate currently without adversely affecting the original ones?
(b) Could the plot ratios of the two options be reduced? (c) As stated, the development
principle of Option A aimed to respect the ridgeline as viewed from the opposite side
of the harbour, and that of Option B aimed to maintain the stepped building height
profile in the area. In other words, did it imply that Option A could not maintain the
stepped building height profile in the area? He stated that although the RDS
proposed to provide dining and retail facilities, the final scheme would tend to provide
more retail facilities because developers would like to have brand name stores to be
their tenants for much higher rental earned. Therefore the Administration should
ensure that the project would be able to provide a sufficient number of dining facilities
affordable by the general public such as food court in the future. As the commuting
traffic at Admiralty Station was overloaded already, the current situation would
definitely be worsened after the completion of a 50-storey office building if an
appropriate solution to divert passenger flow was absent. He hoped that the
Administration could propose crowd control measures without affecting the existing
facilities.
(j)
Mr WONG Kin-shing opined that development was needed but queried that there were
some other places within the district such as the new Central harbourfront for
development of private office (Grade A) other than at Queensway Plaza. Admiralty
was an important PTI and the pedestrian flow would further increase upon
commissioning of the SCL and SIL. The RDS should focus on solving traffic
congestion, easing the enormous pedestrian and vehicular flows. He suggested that
the PlanD should review the RDS afresh.
(k) Mr IP Kwok-him opined that it was necessary for a society to have development which
would bring improvement and driving force to a community. He agreed that the site
of redevelopment at Queensway Plaza was not an ideal one but, given shortage of land
supply in Central, he did not object to the proposal if ideal planning was provided for
the proposed development. He also supported other appropriate spatial development
in the urban area, and objected to have development in country parks and other green
belts. He suggested that there should be dining facilities affordable by ordinary
people provided in the project, and that an access connecting the CGO, Tamar Park and
Legislative Council Building be provided for use by the public round the clock.
(l)
Mr Jackie CHEUNG supported the development project because Admiralty would
become an important transport hub and development in this area was understandable.
He suggested that some floors should be reserved for community use such as provision
- 20 -
of common community services to the public or establishment of a library for public
use. He also pointed out that people travelling from Central to Admiralty might need
to pass through the open-style shopping mall at Queensway Plaza which would be
closed at night because of security reasons. He suggested that an access open to the
public round the clock be provided in the future development.
(m) Mr Thomas NG stated that new interchange arrangements for the existing bus terminal
would be introduced because there was insufficient space on ground level at Admiralty.
Significant changes on roads (e.g. widening of Queensway east bound) would also take
place. During the development process, the PlanD had to consider providing public
transport service facilities carefully including parking and interchange of public
transportation means, etc. He also stated that development programmes might take
place at Rumsey Street Car Park and Murray Road Car Park. No matter how high the
new building developed under the project would be, it was still difficult to cope with
the huge demand for parking spaces if no additional parking space was to be provided
in the development.
(n) The Chairman said that development was an absolute necessity of our society.
Otherwise, Hong Kong would fall behind in the competition with other cities. He
stated that as the traffic optimisation scheme previously adopted by the TD failed to
yield satisfactory results, any new project to be implemented at Admiralty should tie in
with improvements to the traffic situation in the area. He suggested that the design of
Shun Tak Centre could be taken as reference in that vehicles could drive through some
of the lowest levels. Better planning of public spaces and greening initiatives were
required because more people would go to Admiralty for interchange of public
transport after commissioning of the SCL. In his opinion, it was necessary for the
Administration to provide in the new development with dining facilities affordable by
ordinary people, enhanced accessibility by taxis and other vehicles, as well as
improved air ventilation in the area. He would support the RDS if it contained
solutions to improve the transport ancillary facilities in the area.
53. Miss Helen LAU of the PlanD responded that the PlanD would study Members’ comments
given such as provision of dining facilities for the general public, impact of building height on
air ventilation, greening space and traffic improvement for refinement of the design of the
proposed development.
54. Ms Theresa Yeung of the Ove Arup & Parteners responded that preliminary assessment
regarding air ventilation of the project had been conducted in order to ensure good airflow in the
area. Regarding views to ridgeline, the Metroplan guidelines on landscape stipulated that any
development project should provide a 20% building free zone below ridgelines concerned.
The proposed open space would adopt an open design connecting the green rooftop of
Queensway Plaza walkway and other buildings in the vicinity.
55. Ms Carmen Chu of the Ove Arup & Parteners responded that the next stage of work was to
incorporate Members’ comments and refine the RDS. The future plan of pedestrian and traffic
networks would tie in with the ancillary facilities of the comprehensive pedestrian and traffic
networks in the district and new harbourfront area. Considering that there would be
commercial buildings with parking space developed in the New Central harbourfront, the project
team and TD would study on the appropriate parking arrangement of the project. As there
would be new rail lines commissioned in the future, technical assessment in the next phase
would include estimation of pedestrian and traffic flow at the proposed development after
- 21 -
commencing service of the new rail lines. She stressed that the RDS had also focused on
long-term complementary projects which would be implemented in phases in the course of
works. She pointed out that the project would be commenced only after commissioning of the
new rail lines, and the project team would make use of the opportunity brought by the related
facilities to improve the traffic problems nearby as complementary measures to the project.
For example, the TD would reorganise the existing bus routes and related facilities after the SIL
had commenced service.
56. The Chairman hoped that the PlanD would consolidate Members’ comments and submit a
revised proposal to the C&WDC for discussion.
57. Miss Helen LAU of the PlanD responded that the PlanD would take into account Members’
comments for further refinement of the RDS and conduct technical assessment in the next phase.
The findings of the Study would be reported to the C&WDC in due course.
58. The Chairman thanked representatives of the PlanD and Ove Arup & Partners for attending
the meeting.
Item 8:
Proposed Pound Lane escalator project - Findings of the public
consultation and initial enhancement scheme
(C&W DC Paper No. 6/2015)
(5:00pm - 6:10pm)
59. The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the HyD, TD and Atkins China Limited to
the meeting.
60. Mr WONG Wa-kei, Senior Engineer/NT 2 of the HyD, briefed Members on progress of the
proposed Pound Lane escalator project (escalator project). Upon completion of its public
consultation exercise on the escalator project in the third quarter of 2013, the HyD had refined
the original proposal in accordance with the findings of the consultation, and reported it to
“Working Group on the Concern over the Development of Uphill Escalator in the Central &
Western District” (WG on Escalator) under the C&WDC in September 2014.
61. Mr LAI Shing-man, Chief Engineer of Atkins China Limited, gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the findings of the public consultation and major proposals of the preliminary
refined scheme were stated below.
(a) Public engagement activities arranged during the exercise included: (i) setting up of a
dedicated website for the public to express their views on the project; (ii) distribution
of pamphlets to residents living within 150 metres of the project site; (iii) organisation
of roving exhibitions in the MTR Central Station, SW Civic Centre and SYP
Community Complex to introduce the proposed project; and (iv) holding of 25 focus
group meetings to collect views of various stakeholders like Members, the public and
local concern groups, etc.
(b) During the exercise, the consultant received about 5 000 submissions through different
channels while the numbers of support of and objection to the proposal were more or
less the same. Issues of public concern included necessity for the project, usage of
facilities, project cost, conservation of environment and historic buildings, impact of
the project on environmental and substitute proposals, etc.
- 22 -
(c) According to the research findings, the elevation between Tai Ping Shan Street and
Bonham Road was about 50 metres. The estimated usage of the proposed Pound
Lane escalators would be approximately 10 000 times a day, and the whole journey
would take about six minutes. The project would provide the public with a more
comfortable and convenient means for travelling between Central and Mid-Levels. It
was also estimated that the whole journey would take about 45 minutes for wheelchair
users. The refined scheme proposed to install seven escalators, nine stairlifts and an
elevated footbridge. Compared to the original scheme, the refined one would have
one less escalator provided, which was originally planned for installation in Tai Ping
Shan Street and outside the Pound Lane Public Toilet.
(d) Most objections raised by members of the public might be addressed by mitigation
measures and the refined scheme, and the proposed solutions included: (a) turning of
the existing slope on the east of the Bonham Road Rest Garden into a garden to
make up for the loss of Bonham Road Rest Garden; (ii) demolition and re-provisioning
of the boundary wall of No. 4 Hospital Road, which was classified as a Grade II
Historic Building by Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), for widening of the
existing pavement with respective negotiation about the details between the HyD and
AMO in progress; (iii) relocation of the U-turn facility originally proposed at Blake
Garden to Upper Station Street, avoiding occupation of land and felling of trees in
Blake Garden; (iv) demolition of a section of the stone staircase at Pound Lane off the
Blake Garden and incorporation of its remaining part to the redeveloped staircase; (v)
removal of the parapet wall of the existing staircase beside Fook Chak Building to
make way for the escalator avoiding alteration of the existing retaining wall of Blake
Garden; and (vi) deletion of the lower part of escalator originally proposed for
installation near Pound Lane Public Toilet, and narrowing of the stairway in Pound
Lane between the entrance of female toilet and Po Yee Street to make way for
construction of the upper part of escalator, thus avoiding demolition of Pound Lane
Public Toilet and potential impact on Kwong Fook I Tsz.
(e) In conclusion, residents had divergent views on the project with similar ratio in support
and objection while the Government was open to implementation of the escalator
project.
62. Ms Melanie Moore of Pound Lane Concern Group expressed her views.
of her comments were as follows:
The main points
(a) The refined scheme only made improvements in the technical aspect, but other more
important issues were overlooked. She wondered if the HyD had overestimated the
usage of Pound Lane escalators and stated that, according to a study carried out in
2010, the number of pedestrians travelling to and from Pound Lane was about 1 829
per day, which was substantially smaller than the number of 10 000 users per day as
estimated by the HyD and consultant.
(b) As the Administration had never published the estimated expenditure on maintenance
and repair of escalators, it was hoped that the Administration would publish these
figures including costs of maintenance, repair and works implementation of escalators
before launching the consultation exercise so that the public could have a better
understanding of the overall budget of the project and parties responsible for such
expenditure.
- 23 -
(c) The Administration had never conducted any study to explore the necessity of the
project at district level. It should also explore other substitutions of the escalator
project for implementation in the district such as provision of pedestrian links between
MTR SYP Station and redevelopment of Tung Wah Hospital.
(d) Pound Lane was a place full of historical and cultural features. Despite advancements
in engineering techniques nowadays, the escalator project would definitely result in
damage of stonewall trees and staircase of special features at Pound Lane, the OVT in
Blake Garden, as well as all cultural relics witnessing the transformation of Hong
Kong. It was hoped that the Administration would face these problems squarely
without focusing on improvement in technicality only.
63. A representative of residents Ms Sze Tsui-ngan said that Pound Lane was an access she had
to use during her residence in Sheung Wan for more than thirty years. Being an aged person,
she found it difficult to climb up and down the staircase at Pound Lane. Elderly persons
residing nearby also it very inconvenient to climb the staircase. Regarding conservationists
objecting to the escalator project, she considered that they were unaware of the needs of elderly.
She pointed out that the refined scheme had properly taken care of the necessity of conservation,
and hoped that it could be implemented as soon as possible to facilitate more convenient access
by local residents especially the elderly.
64.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their
comments were as follows:
(a) Ms SIU Ka-yi stated that the elderly residing in the vicinity of Pound Lane found it
very difficult to climb up and down the 350-step staircase for visiting clinics or
hospitals nearby. She considered that the refined scheme had already ensured the
attention to conservation and retained the retaining wall of Blake Garden, an OVT and
Kwong Fook I Tsz, etc. The project should be implemented because it also gained
support from religious groups, hospitals, schools and most residents in the local
community. Understanding the worries of some residents and organisations over the
refined scheme, she expected that the Administration would continue to adopt
improved techniques for works implementation for minimising adverse impact of the
project on residents. She reflected that inaccessibiltiy had forced some elderly to
relocate out of the community in which they had lived for many years. She stressed
that it was not a “white elephant project” because the expenditure was used to improve
the living of local residents.
(b) Mr MAN Chi-wah stated that concern groups often objected to the proposed
development projects in the district including the escalator project on grounds of
conservation and heritage preservation. Even if the refined schemes had proposed
solutions to solve problems, they would raise some other reasons of objection. As
such, he opined that they would only hinder development of the district. Regarding
queries about pedestrian flow of the proposed facilities, he said that implementation of
a development project and site selection should meet the need of residents as a whole.
As pedestrian flow was only one of the various factors of consideration, it should not
be taken as the sole factor in decision-making. Many locations had been identified
for consideration before choosing Pound Lane as the project site. Pound Lane might
not be the best choice, but it was an ideal place after taking into account various
factors. He considered other proposals not viable, and residents’ genuine need of the
- 24 -
facility should be the critical determinant to decide if the project was to be carried out.
Adopting a hesitant attitude by the C&WDC might cause the public to suffer from
more expensive project cost eventually.
(c) Mr Sidney LEE pointed out that construction of escalators at Centre Street had been
delayed for more than one decade due to objection, and therefore hoped that the
escalator project could be implemented as soon as possible to enhance the living of
residents. He said that the refine scheme proposed by the Administration had met the
need of conserving monument. It was hoped that concern groups could understand
the urgent need of local residents especially the elderly for escalators to be installed
there. He stated that the decisive factor for construction of barrier-free facilities
should be the actual need of residents rather than pedestrian flow. Although the
number of users justifiable for provision of escalators was difficult to define, it was
confirmed that many people needed the proposed elevators. Therefore he supported
the refined scheme.
(d) Mr CHAN Choi-hi stated that the consultation findings presented by the HyD only
indicated the number of respondents supporting and opposing the proposal without
stating their reasons. It was hoped that the HyD would brief Members about such
reasons. He suggested that the HyD should collect views from various sectors for
further review because the refined scheme was simply a preliminary plan, and reflected
that local residents were eager for early commencement of the project. He also stated
that the most important factor to implement the project was the need of residents and
environment instead of pedestrian flow being the sole consideration. He opined that
the current proposal was the best one up till then. In view of relevant discussion
taken place for many years, the escalator project should be launched as soon as
possible to expedite development in the area.
(e) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai welcomed the participation in discussion by representatives of
concern groups and residents because it was necessary for the public to reach a
consensus and thus achieve a win-win result through discussion among different
stakeholders in the society. However, discussion should not be deadlocked and
should strike a balance, making the final decision according to the overall interest in
the community. He opined that convenient transportation facilitated enhanced
accessibility which was an important aspect to promote the sustainable development of
the society. Within the area, residential use concentrated on the southern part while
commercial use northern one. It was of utmost importance to improve the
accessibility between these two parts.
He recalled that the proposed
Central-Mid-Levels Escalator and Walkway System (Escalator & Walkway System)
also encountered much opposition prior to implementation many years ago.
However, the fact spoke for itself in that the project had greatly improved the
accessibility in the area, facilitating more convenient travelling by residents, as well as
promoting development of local economy and tourism. He also stated that the refined
scheme of the HyD was more comprehensive than the original one in terms of meeting
the development and conservation needs. However, the refined scheme failed to
properly retain the old boundary wall at No. 4 Hospital Road which was a Grade II
historic building. It was hoped that the HyD could take remedial actions about it.
(f) Ms CHENG Lai-king asked about the statistical methods used by the HyD to count
pedestrians travelling to and from Pound Lane. She opined that the HyD had counted
pedestrians who were not local residents such as participants of guided tours, resulting
- 25 -
in inaccurate data collected. She also opined that Pound Lane had a long history
because it was an area where the Chinese communities agglomerated during the very
early period of development of Hong Kong, and that construction of elevators would
destroy historic buildings and unique cultural features there. She raised three
questions on: (a) the schedule of the escalator project; (b) the possibility of extending
the escalators to Robinson Road and Conduit Road so as to connect Mid-levels area;
and (c) the feasibility of additional provisions of lifts connecting Po Hing Square, Tai
On Terrace and Bonham Road to facilitate enhanced convenience for residents to travel
downhill and uphill. She wondered if the HyD had not made good use of the
opportunity regarding the redevelopment of Tung Wah Hospital to be implemented
soon. She also wondered if the HyD had overestimated the urgency of the escalator
project and did not provide adequate justifications of choosing Pound Lane as the
project site.
(g) Mr KAM Nai-wai stated that he had submitted a proposal about installing escalators at
Pound Lane to the then C&WDC as early as in 2003. He understood that the
ascending trend of conservation awareness had resulted in opposition to the escalator
project, but divergent views helped enrich the contents of discussion and urge the
Administration to improve the proposal. He opined that it was unadvisable for the
C&WDC to ignore opposing views and treat them as barriers because the proposal
might encounter more difficulties for implementation if the raised objections were not
handled properly. He agreed with Ms CHENG Lai-king in that the Government
should respond to all reasonable enquiries made by Members. Finally, he suggested
that the HyD should conduct a community impact assessment and gave the public a
clear account of the reasons why Pound Lane was chosen as the project site so that
opponents might have better understanding of it.
(h) Mr IP Kwok-him thanked the Administration for the arrangement of various activities
for public consultation, and for continuous refining of the proposal according to
consultation findings. He stated that many roads in C&W District were narrow,
leading to a huge demand for uphill access to aid convenient travelling by residents.
He recalled that the project to install escalators at Centre Street also received
objections before its implementation. Such proposal was endorsed at last due to
consideration of the interest of residents as a whole. He opined that as long as the
Administration carefully examined all comments given by residents and sought
solutions in a pragmatic manner for betterment of the proposal, the problems could
definitely be solved. He also reflected that most residents nearby expected that the
escalator project should be carried out without delay.
(i)
Mr HUI Chi-fung stated that as there had been a long time for discussion on the
escalator proposal, Members should have clear understanding of justifications for and
against such proposal by different organisations. He stressed that both sides
supporting and opposing the escalator proposal should be respected, but he had
reservations on the refined scheme. He did not agree to the populist argument like “It
is necessary to construct the facility even if there is only one user”. He stated that
implementation of the escalator project simply due to need of a few residents without
considering pedestrian flow and refusal to adopt this criterium to measure the demand
of the facility by the public would result in mismatch of resources and waste of public
fund which was an irresponsible act. He opined that the greatest public interest
should be taken as the untimate consideration when making the final decision about the
proposal. Before making the final decision, factors like cost-effectiveness and
- 26 -
efficient use of resources had to be taken into account. Finally, he asked the HyD
whether it was confirmed that construction of escalators in Pound Lane was the most
cost-effective method and the best way to improve accessibility in the area.
(j)
Miss LO Yee-hang said that successful conservation did not equal abandonement of
opportunity for development. Conservation should be conducted in response to the
changing demand, and should meet the need of community development. She cited
the construction of the Escalator & Walkway System as an example. That proposal
also received a number of objections then, but its value was recognised by its users
from all districts after commissioning. She said that conservation need should not be
taken as the sole factor of consideration for endorsement of the proposal. Long-term
development of and residents living in the area should also considered. Therefore she
supported the expeditious construction of escalators at Pound Lane.
(k) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said that Members generally agreed to the escalator
proposal except Mr HUI Chi-fung, and that the C&WDC should no longer be
indecisive in this matter after discussion. Instead, the next round of public
consultation should be launched as soon as possible, and proceed to decision-making
after analysing views collected in the consultation exercise.
(l)
The Vice-chairman stated that it was necessary for the district to improve its facilities
for promoting sustainable development of the community. For example, the
escalators installed at Sands Street facilitated more convenient access by residents,
especially the elderly, and brought better living to local residents. He said that
inaccessibiltiy was the reason of relocation to other areas for some elderly. In his
opinion, ignoring the need of the elderly without providing barrier-free facilities and
weakening the neighbourhood with strong emotional ties in the community were
actually contradictory to the intent of conservation. In addition, justifications given
by opponents were not convincing. Providing a solution to address the accessibility
problem of local residents could help maintain the atmosphere and emotional tie and
help enhance cohesion in the community. Therefore the C&WDC should support the
escalator project. He hoped that the HyD could commence the second round of
public consultation as soon as possible, listening to comments given by various sectors
and formulating corresponding solutions.
(m) Mr Sidney LEE opined that the asrgument of Mr HUI Chi-fung was totally
inconceivable because the Government should not ignore the demand for barrier-free
facilities by users in need even they were the minority group. Allocation of resources
was not a justifiable reason to non-provision of barrier-free facilities, but was probably
a kind of disability discrimination violating the “Declaration on the Rights of Disabled
Person” and “Disability Discrimination Ordinance”.
(n) The Chairman pointed out that many buildings in the area were among the hills. With
energy conservation being a persistent principle upheld by the C&WDC, he supported
the escalator project because construction of uphill escalators could reduce the use of
vehicles for travelling by the public and facilitate fast delivery of a large number of
people for interchange of public transportation. He reminded that the Escalator &
Walkway System and escalators installed at Centre Street were well received by local
residents. Regarding the enquiry raised by some Members and concern groups about
the estimated number of users, he responded that the decisive factor of endorsing the
escalator project should be the development potential of the area rather than the current
- 27 -
pedestrian flow at the road section concerned. He expected that the HyD could
implement the escalator project as soon as possible so that the elderly in the area would
be benefited.
65. The main points of response given by Mr LAI Shing-man, Chief Engineer of Atkins China
Limited, were as follows:
(a) The consultant had hired part-time statisticians in November 2014 to collect statistical
data regarding pedestrian flow at Pound Lane.
(b) The refined scheme aimed to avoid destroying historical monuments in the
surrounding area of Pound Lane, and to reuse old bricks taken from the former
staircase. The HyD would continue to study how to solve the problems and improve
the scheme at technical level in order to meet the need of residents.
(c) There might not be sufficient space to install both escalator and lift in Pound Lane at
the same time. It might not be feasible to use lift development to aid or replace
escalator installation at Pound Lane due to the limited carrying capacity of a lift and
reduced cost-effectiveness arising out of the construction of a footbridge to tie in with
lift installed. Lifts thus could not substitute escalators having a much higher carrying
capacity.
66. Mr LAI Fu-keung of the HyD stated that it mainly aimed to report on the findings of the
public consultation and briefed Members on the refined scheme in the meeting. If Members
supported the escalator project, the HyD would conduct a second round of public consultation as
soon as possible. Taking reference to the arrangement of the first round of public consultation,
the HyD would upload the refined scheme and related information to its website. However, a
detailed schedule of works implementation was yet to draw up at the current stage. Mr KAM
Nai-wai suggested that a community impact assessment should be carried out because it was
unnecessary to conduct a small-scale assessment of the escalator project at area level. He also
stated that study on implementation of works without damaging the boundary wall at No.4
Hospital Road by the HyD and other departments concerned were underway.
67.
The main points of additional comments given by Members were as follows:
(a) Ms SIU Ka-yi hoped that the related public consultation could be conducted and the
escalator project implemented as soon as possible, and that the HyD would take the
elderly into account in this matter. The HyD should arrange for publicity about the
consultation exercise to local residents apart from collecting views of the public
through its website.
(b) Mr HUI Chi-fung was discontented with the HyD for not responding to his question.
He asked the Administration again if it was confirmed that construction of escalators at
Pound Lane was the most cost-effective option which might benefit most of the public
at the same time. Although he agreed to the standpoint of the C&WDC of being
sympathetic to the need of the elderly, he reminded the elderly that escalators would,
apart from bringing convenience to users, result in opening of more bars and
restaurants in the area upon its completion. As a consequence, land price in the
vicinity might probably rise and attract developers to engage in redevelopment. The
community and environment of Pound Lane would then undergo tremendous changes,
and local residents might lose a tranquil place to enjoy their living. He hoped that the
- 28 -
elderly could fully understand the consequences of supporting the proposal.
(c) Mr KAM Nai-wai disagreed to the decision of the HyD of not conducting a
community impact assessment for the proposal. He opined that the second round of
public consultation should be carried out simultaneously with such assessment. He
continued to explain that Pound Lane had formed a small and unique community, and
an assessment of impact on the community would help the HyD handle the possible
objections in the future. He hoped that the HyD would reconsider his suggestion,
give an account of the refined proposal as soon as possible before conducting public
consultation, and explain how to avoid damaging the boundary wall at No. 4 Hospital
Road during implementation of works.
(d) The Chairman stated that the Administration had to take into account local residents
affected by the escalator project including the elderly who were weak in computer
operation when conducting the public consultation. He requested for provision of
additional channels to collect public views.
68. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the HyD, TD and Atkins Consultants Limited
for attending the meeting
Standing items:
Item 9:
(iii) Conserving Central
(C&W DC Paper No. 2/2015)
(6:10pm - 6:20pm)
69. The Chairman welcomed representatives of the Development Bureau (DEVB) and TD to the
meeting
70. Mr Ricky WONG, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works)2 of DEVB, briefed Members on the
progress of the Conserving Central project as follows:
(a) The revitalisation works of Central Police Station (CPS) Compound were underway,
and were scheduled for completion in phases between the end of 2015 and early 2016.
The site was expected to be open to the public in 2016. On 2 December 2014, the
plan for building a footbridge to connect the site to the Escalator & Walkway System
was approved by the Chief Executive in Council, and the preparation work by the
Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) was in progress.
(b) Since the commissioning of the PMQ at the site of the Former Police Married Quarters
on Hollywood Road in April 2014, the number of visitors was 2.6 million by
December 2014.
(c) The Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH) was preparing the details of the revised
proposal, and was consulting the relevant bureaux and departments. The
Administration, together with HKSKH, would consult the C&WDC when HKSKH
had come up with a more concrete revised proposal.
(d) It was expected that the former French Mission Building (FMB) would be available for
adaptive re-use in 2015 after relocation of the Court of Final Appeal to the old
Supreme Court building at 8 Jackson Road, Central. The Department of Justice (DoJ)
- 29 -
and the departments concerned were taking forward the preparatory works for the
renovation of the FMB. The DoJ would brief the C&WDC on the arrangement as
well as the works required when the details were available.
(e) The renovation works for the Main and East Wings of the Former CGO Complex
commenced in July 2013. It was expected that the renovation works would be
completed in the first quarter of 2015. For the works related to the relocation of the
DoJ to the West Wing, the relevant Technical Feasibility Study had been completed,
and preparation work was being carried out by the relevant departments for the
pre-construction work. The target completion time for the works was end 2017.
(f) In December 2014, the LandsD had approved the master layout plan regarding the
redevelopment of Murray Building submitted by the developer who would submit the
building plans to the BD for approval in the next stage.
71. Mr Larry CHU, Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1 of the DEVB, said that as some parts of
Sites 1 and 2 at New Central Harbourfront were still required for the works associated with the
construction of the Central - Wan Chai Bypass, the development of the two sites would take
some time to materialise. The Harbourfront Commission (HC) and DEVB had completed the
Phase II Public Engagement Exercise on the proposed establishment of a Harbourfront
Authority (HFA) in December 2014. Issues under consultation included whether Sites 1 and 2
of the new Central Harbourfront would be allocated to the HFA. The DEVB and HC were
consolidating the views collected and considering the way forward.
72. The main points of comments given by Members were as follows:
(i)
Mr Sidney LEE hoped that the target group of the private hospital to be developed at
the site of HKSKH’s Compound would be the ordinary people in order to meet the
needs of residents on Hong Kong Island.
(ii) Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired about the future use of Hall D and Hall F of the former
Victoria Prison building within the CPS Compound. She also asked if the FMB could
be open for visit by the public to appreciate the distinctive architectural style of the
building.
(iii) The Vice-chairman opined that the “PMQ” project was a successful example of
conservation, and expected that the project at CPS Compound could have the same
achievement. He asked when the footbridge connecting the CPS Compound and
Escalator & Walkway System would be completed because he worried about the traffic
confusion that might take place on Hollywood Road if the said footbridge was yet to
complete when the CPS Compound was officially opened in 2016. Regarding the
Central Harbourfront, he opined that the organisation of World Carnival and
installation of a giant Ferris Wheel would help revitalise the waterfront, hoping that the
sites concerned could be leased to various groups to hold events prior to
implementation of the final plan.
(iv) Mr CHAN Choi-hi recommended the Administration to consider setting up a
conservation trail to join the sites of these conservation projects when they were well
developed in future. The proposal would facilitate more effective access of visitors to
different destinations, form a new scenic spot and provide more information about
such projects to tourists and local residents. He also suggested that the management
- 30 -
of PMQ should consult the C&WDC about holding of large-scale events as promptly
as possible and, when available, provide related data for traffic impact assessment of
such events in the district.
73. Miss Leonie LEE, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3 of the DEVB, responded
that the HKSKH planned to develop a private hospital at its site in Central. The DEVB
planned to modify the land lease by stipulating that medical services to be provided thereat had
to be non-profit-making. HKSKH would consult the C&WDC again when more specific
information was available.
74. Mr Ricky WONG of the DEVB gave a consolidated response as follows:
(a) Hall D and Hall F of the former Victoria Prison at the CPS site would be used for
interpretation of the former use of the premises. The DEVB and HKJC would brief
Members of the relevant arrangements in phases, and explain the uses of each building
in the site.
(b) Regarding the schedule for building a footbridge connecting the CPS Compound to the
Escalator & Walkway System, the project received objection after gazettal in February
2014 and was finally adopted in December 2014, after a period of ten months to deal
with the objections. As it would take 24 months to construct the footbridges, the
DEVB and HKJC were jointly studying the feasibility of shortening the project to
eighteen months. By doing so, it was expected that the footbridge would be
completed by the time the CPS Compound commenced service in 2016, meeting the
need of the increased pedestrian flow caused by opening of the CPS Compound.
(c) The DEVB would optimise the dedicated website and provide more relevant
information to facilitate better understanding of the Conserving Central projects by the
public.
(d) To alleviate the problem of pedestrian flow at PMQ, the management of PMQ would
announce the information about its programmes to be held in the following month and
take special measures of crowd control when large-scale events were held. It was
hoped that the public could study the programme information before visiting PMQ.
The DEVB would continue to follow this up and communicate with parties concerned
to avoid excessive pressure exerting on the local traffic by large-scale events held
there.
75. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the DEVB and TD for attending the meeting
Item 10:
Objection to a proposed hotel development on Lugard Road at the Peak
(C&W DC Paper No. 10/2015)
(6:20pm - 6:50pm)
76. The Chairman welcomed representatives of the DEVB, LCSD, TD, Fire Services
Department, PlanD, Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and the Agriculture, Fisheries
and Conservation Department (AFCD) to the meeting.
77. The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments
were as follows:
- 31 -
(a) Mr Joseph CHAN said that Lugard Road, being a popular hiking place in Hong Kong,
was part of the “Hong Kong Trail”, which was recently elected by a globally
authoritative travel magazine “Lonely Planet” as one of the top ten hiking trails in
Asian cities, attracting several thousands of visitors every day on average. His three
main reasons for objection to the proposed development were stated as follows. (a) The
first reason was traffic problem because the road was narrow with bends. Although
the narrowest section was only about 1.8 metres wide, the developer planned to use
1.475-metre-wide vehicles to carry staff and inhabitants of the hotel. Therefore when
there were vehicles driving on the road, it would pose hazards to road users. (b) The
second reason was environmental problem. It was necessary to construct a larger
septic tank for the hotel which would directly have adverse impact on the natural
environment nearby and ecological environment of Pokfulam Country Park. (c) The
third reason was fire safety problem. As fire engines and ambulances of regular size
could not access to the property through the road, the consequence of large-scale
accident, if any, could be disastrous. Although he supported conservation of
monuments, the Administration should strike a balance between conservation of
monument and ecology and seek some other ways to preserve the property at No. 27
Lugard Road.
(b) Mr MAN Chi-wah wondered if the residence on No. 27 Lugard Road could be
preserved by some other ways other than the form of hotel development. He stated
that the electric vehicles could be arranged for use during non-peak hours to avoid
vehicle-pedestrian conflict. Regarding fire safety, he opined that other special criteria
might be used to safeguard the hotel against fire hazard if the hotel development could
not meet all requirements of the fire safety system as that required for buildings in
urban areas. He did not object to preserve the residence at No. 27 Lugard Road by
means of hotel development.
(c) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai declared that he was a member of the Antiquities Advisory Board
(AAB). He agreed with the proposal of preserving the property in the form of a
heritage hotel because demolition would definitely be a worse option. He agreed that
the proposed hotel development would result in some traffic problems on Lugard
Road, and therefore had recommended the departments concerned to study the
feasibility of using smaller electric vehicles to serve hotel users. He had reservation
on the motion.
(d) Ms CHENG Lai-king wondered if electric vehicles could meet the need of a large
number of visitors, and stated that most members of the public objected to the
proposed hotel development. She asked about the schedule of granting approval to
the application of the project and which department would be responsible for
processing the application for alteration of the property to a hotel.
(e) Mr KAM Nai-wai opined that alteration of the property at No. 27 Lugard Road to a
hotel would definitely have several negative impacts including increased pedestrian
flow, vehiclular flow and requirement of ancillary facilities. He opposed the
proposed hotel development at No. 27 Lugard Road, and suggested that other options
be explored for preservation of the building.
78. Miss Leonie LEE, Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3 of the DEVB, said that the
residence at No. 27 Lugard Road in the Peak had been accorded with a Grade II status by the
- 32 -
AAB as a Grade II historic building. Alteration and revitalisation of the residence into a hotel
was a preservation-cum-development proposal commensurating with the Grade II status and
heritage value of the residence, as well as achieved a proper balance between heritage
conservation and private property development, preserving both the building and its original
appearance. The Town Planning Board (TPB) approved the planning application for the
proposed hotel development at a meeting in 2013. Subsequently, the applicant made some
amendments to the approved plan which included: (i) reducing the number of rooms in hotel
development from 17 to 12; (ii) prohibiting vehicles travelling to and from the hotel between
9:00 am and 7:00 pm on Saturday, Sunday and public holiday, and limiting the frequency of
using the road section by vehicles to 2 per hour only during the permitted period; and (iii)
setting up an educational centre to facilitate visitors and the public to learn the history about the
residence. Therefore the applicant submitted another planning application to the TPB. She
said that the new planning application was being processed by TPB and, from the perspective of
heritage conservation, the proposal of preserving the residence for opening to the public was
worth supporting.
79. Mr Alan TAM, Senior Engineer/Southern & Peak of TD, said that the TD would strike an
equilibrium between pedestrians’ right to use Lugard Road and right of owner of the building at
No. 27 Lugard Road to travel to and from the building with vehicles when it gave comments to
the TPB on the proposal regarding traffic management of the road concerned. It would also
apply appropriate restrictions to vehicles using Lugard Road so as to achieve harmonious use of
the road section. It was pointed out that the proposed amendment of introducing prohibition
periods for vehicles and restrictions on vehicles using the road during non-peak hours could help
achieve shared use of the road section by both pedestrians and vehicles harmoniously.
80. Additional views given by Members were as follows:
(a) Mr Joseph CHAN said that the majority of the public objected to the proposed hotel
development. In a signature campaign conducted earlier, more than 120 000
objections were received, and about 95% of respondents objected to the proposal
during a public consultation conducted by the TPB. He did not agree to the TD,
reiterating that restrictions on vehicles could not achieve harmonious use of the road
section by both pedestrians and vehicles. It was because there were many hotel users
and shuttle service of electric vehicles could not be managed easily. As for
conservation, he opined that it was not a genuine conservation programme because,
apart from retaining the appearance of the building only, there would be demolition of
the interior decoration, garden and swimming pool and construction of a glass house.
He opined that a genuine conservation programme should be able to retain the original
style of the property and the natural environment in the surrounding.
(b) Mr MAN Chi-wah asked if Lugard Road was available for use by vehicles currently.
He also enquired about the normal number of road users per day and the width of the
narrowest section of the road.
81. Mr Alan TAM of the TD reiterated that prohibition of vehicles travelling on the road during
certain periods and restrictions on vehicles travelling on the road during non-peak hours would
be able to achieve harmonious use of the road section. He pointed out that the former owner of
the building concerned on Lugard Road had also been a vehicle owner and user. Data collected
indicated that there would be about two pedestrians using the road per minute on weekdays, the
two narrowest road sections were places near No. 27 and No. 1 on Lugard Road, and the widest
road section was about 3.8 metres in width.
- 33 -
82. Mr Derek TSE, Senior Town Planner/HK 5 of the PlanD, added that No. 27 Lugard Road
was zoned “Residential (Group C) 2” in The Peak Area OZP in which residential use was a use
always permitted and planning permission was required for hotel development. The
development could not exceed the maximum plot ratio 0.5 and the maximum number of storey
was 4. He said that the applicant had submitted further information to TPB which would be
announced on 9 January 2015. The public could then give their comments on the application
during the consultation period of three weeks. The application had also been scheduled for
consideration by the Metro Planning Committee under TPB on 6 February 2015.
83. Mr Thomas NG did not agree to TD’s response because there would be a large number of
hotel users whose travelling time was uncontrollable.
84. Ms CHENG Lai-king asked if this development was a commercial use.
85. Mr Derek TSE of the PlanD responded that a hotel development situated within a
“Residential (Group C) 2” site without other land uses was under application.
86. The Vice-chairman asked Members to vote on the motion, and after voting, the following
motion was adopted:
Motion:
“To object to the proposed hotel development at No. 27 Lugard
Road due to its potential adverse impact on traffic and
environment of the area, and recommend the Administration to
consider preserving the building concerned by other methods
without undesirably affecting the hiking trail along Lugard
Road and the natural environment in the surrounding.”
(14 voted for the motion:： Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN
Hok-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms
CHENG Lai-king, Mr CHAN
Choi-hi, Mr Sidney LEE, Miss LO
Yee-hang, Mr Joseph CHAN, Ms
SIU Ka-yi, Mr HUI Chi-fung
(authorised Ms CHENG Lai-king),
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr
Jackie CHEUNG, Mr Thomas NG,
Mr WONG Kin-shing)
(1 voted against the motion: Mr MAN Chi-wah)
(2 abstained from voting: Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Dr Malcolm
LAM (authorised Mr CHAN
Chit-kwai)
87. The Chairman thanked the guest for attending the meeting.
Item 11:
Central-Mid-levels Escalator and Walkway System - Refurbishment Project of
Travelators and Escalators
(C&W DC Paper No. 5/2015)
- 34 -
(6:50pm - 7:15pm)
88. The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the TD and Electrical and Mechanical
Services Department (EMSD) to attend meeting.
89. Mr Gary LEUNG, Electrical & Mechanical Engineer/Project 6/3 of the EMSD, gave a
PowerPoint presentation on the refurbishment project of travelators and escalators under the
Escalator & Walkway System (Refurbishment Project) as below:
(a) Comprising three travelators and 18 escalators, the Escalator & Walkway System was
about 800 metres long and had been in operation for over 20 years since its
commissioning in 1993. As the Escalator and walkway system had been reaching
the end of its economic serviceable life with increasing failure rate and maintenance
costs, the TD had applied funding to arrange refurbishment for items including the
power and control system, electric motors, gear sets, steps, chains and chain sheaves,
handrails and pallets.
(b) The TD proposed to implement the Refurbishment Project in three phases, and had
collected preliminary views from various sectors of the community by the end of 2013.
It currently consulted the stakeholders such as C&WDC, residents and shop operators
about the works arrangements in order to work out the best solution through
coordination. It would try its best to maintain smooth and continuous accessibility of
the Escalator & Walkway System, and post notices about arrangements at conspicuous
places during implementation of the project.
(c) The TD planned to invite tenders for the first stage in mid-2015 to refurbish a total of
seven escalators in phases according to the sequence: 22E – 23E (Robinson Road to
Conduit Road), 19E – 21E (Mosque Street to footbridge at Robinson Road) and 14E
– 15E (Elgin Street to Caine Road). The project was preliminarily expected to start in
2017 and complete by 2018.
(d) The second stage involved phased refurbishment of three travelators in the sequence
of 6T (footbridge at Wellington Street to footbridge at Lyndhurst Terrace), 5T and 7T
(footbridge at Queen’s Road Central to footbridge at Hollywood Road), and the two
escalators 8E and 9E connecting Hollywood Road. The project was preliminarily
expected to start in 2018 and complete by 2020.
(e) The third stage involved phased refurbishment of escalators in the following
sequence: 10E - 11E (Hollywood Road to Staunton Street), 12E - 13E (Staunton Street
to Elgin Street), 16E - 17E (Caine Road to Chico Terrace), 18E (Chico Terrace to
Mosque Street) and 1E - 2E (Central Market).
The project was preliminarily
expected to start in 2020 and complete by 2023.
90. Mr Fabian CHEUNG, Senior Transport Officer/Transport Facilities Management of the TD,
said that the TD would organise four area consultative forums after consulting the C&WDC at
this meeting, inviting residents and shop operators to attend and give their comments. Having
consolidated views collected, the TD would review the arrangements of the Refurbishment
Project and consult the C&WDC again prior to the tendering exercise of the project.
91. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their
comments were as follows:
- 35 -
(a) Mr Jackie CHEUNG said that the WG on Escalator had discussed and agreed to the
refurbishment works, and should be carried out as soon as possible. He pointed out
that as there was no staircase beside the three escalators between Mosque Street and
Robinson Road, local residents had to take a detour for access when the refurbishment
works was in progress. Therefore he suggested that the TD should launch the
proposed installation of lifts before commencement of the refurbishment works so as
to facilitate travelling of residents nearby during implementation of works. He also
suggested that refurbishment works of two escalators should be carried out
simultaneously to shorten the period of works implementation.
(b) Mr MAN Chi-wah supported early implementation of the project in phases. He
suggested that refurbishment works at the three escalators between Mosque Street and
Robinson Road should be carried out in the very last stage for gaining time to arrange
for other measures to facilitate access by residents. He also requested to minimise the
period of works implementation.
(c) Mr Sidney LEE requested the TD to inform Members of the arrangement about the
area consultative forums as early as possible.
(d) Ms CHENG Lai-king agreed that refurbishment works at the three escalators between
Mosque Street and Robinson Road should be carried out in the last stages, and that the
proposal of installing lifts be submitted to the HyD for inclusion under the “Make it
easy to get around” or “universal accessibility” programme (Programme) at its
discretion. She reminded the departments concerned that they should inform
Members and local residents of the arrangement about the area consultative forums as
early as possible because the Lunar New Year holidays were in late February 2015.
(e) The Chairman supported the implementation of refurbishment works and hoped that
the departments concerned would be amenable to appropriate comments collected.
92. Mr Fabian CHEUNG of the TD said that the TD would notify Members, tenants, residents
and shop operators in the area about the four area consultative forums and invite them to attend
via Hongkong Post Circular Service. The forums were tentatively scheduled to be held in
SYP Community Complex and SW Civic Centre. He said that the TD would endeavour to
expedite the works and, when necessary, study ways to enhance public transportation services
between Central and Mid-levels to reduce the inconvenience caused to the public.
93. Mr Edward MOK, Senior Engineer/Project 6 of the EMSD, gave his response as follows:
(a) The EMSD would continue to discuss the project arrangements with the industry and
contractors.
(b) The current proposal of works arrangement was a preliminary viable plan having
achieved a balance among technicality, geographic location and progress of works.
Nevertheless, the TD would continue putting efforts to seek opportunity to further
refine the proposal. The works arrangements would be carried out after collecting
public views, but cost and time of the project were subject to adjustment.
(c) The TD would strive to shorten the period of construction, re-arrange some works
procedures causing no nuisance to residents for implementation in the evening, as well
- 36 -
as maintain smooth and continuous connection of the Escalator & Walkway System
during execution of works.
94. Additional comments given by Members were as follows:
(a) Mr Thomas NG considered that implementation of works at the three escalators
between Mosque Street and Robinson Road should be implemented in the latest stages,
and this arrangement would not affect the overall progress of the project.
(b) Mr Jackie CHEUNG strongly objected to the refurbishment works of the three
escalators between Mosque Street and Robinson Road to be carried out before the lifts
were installed.
95. The Vice-chairman thanked representatives of the TD and EMSD for attending the meeting.
Item 12:
Request for installation of a lift to connect Mosque Street and the existing
overhead escalator at Robinson Road
(C&W DC Paper No. 8/2015)
(7:15pm - 7:30pm)
96. The Vice-chairman welcomed representatives of the HyD, TD and Civil Engineering and
Development Department (CEDD) to attend meeting.
97. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their
comments were as follows:
(a) Mr Jackie CHEUNG gave a film presentation to brief Members on the current situation
of the three sections of escalators between Mosque Street and Robinson Road. As
there was no staircase beside these escalators, local residents had to take a detour for
access during implementation of the Refurbishment Project. He therefore requested
the Administration to include the proposed installation of lift in the Programme, and
complete the installation works before commencement of the retrofitting programme
as a substitute project to facilitate travelling of residents nearby during construction
works. He also requested the Administration to respond in writing the three questions
stated in his paper. If the Administration failed to provide a satisfactory solution, he
did not rule out the possibility of taking more intensified actions including organisation
of demonstration by residents at offices of the HyD and submission of another
discussion paper at the next meeting.
(b) Ms CHENG Lai-king said that, during a joint site visit by the C&WDC and
departments concerned conducted last year, it was preliminarily opined that the
proposed installation of lift on Mosque Street was technically viable. She stated that
the WG on Escalator had discussed on redeployment of resources under the
Programme for installation of lifts in Mosque Street, but was not optimistic about
adoption of the proposal by the Administration. She enquired whether the project
could be completed before 2023 if the proposed installation of lift was submitted for
inclusion under the Programme,.
(c) Mr MAN Chi-wah supported the proposal of installing a lift, but did not agree that
implementation of the proposed installation of lift would be bundled with that of the
- 37 -
Refurbishment Project. He suggested that lift installation should be proposed to the
HyD for consideration in the next round of Programme, and that refurbishment works
of the three escalators between Mosque Street and Robinson Road carried out in the
latest stages.
(d) Mr Sidney LEE opined that they should request for inclusion of one more item,
namely, installation of a lift at the site beside the three priority projects selected under
the Programme, and that the Administration should “deal with special tasks with
special means”.
98. Mr Fabian CHEUNG of the TD stressed that the TD would collect views of Members and
the public as far as practicable and took them into account during its review of the arrangements
for the Refurbishment Project. He said that the TD would strive to shorten the period of works
execution and enhance the ancillary facilities of public transport in the vicinity so as to reduce
the inconvenience caused to the public.
99. Mr HONG Kwai-sum of the HyD said that the Government launched the Programme in
August 2012, inviting the public to recommend locations at existing public walkway to the
Administration for retrofitting barrier-free access facilities such as installation of lifts. In the
first half of 2013, the HyD consulted all the 18 District Councils in the territory on the priorities
to implement the retrofitting works at the recommended locations, and each District Council
was requested to select three locations for priority implementation of works. At present, the
HyD and CEDD were preparing for the implementation of the priority works items. After the
first batch of works at priority sites were all launched smoothly in the territory, the
Administration would work out the schedule of implementing on the projects at remaining sites
recommended by the public, having considered the progress of works, views of District
Councils, labour supply of the construction industry, resources of departments concerned and
public opinion, etc.
100.
The Vice-chairman asked Members to vote on the motion, and after voting, the
following motion was adopted:
Motion:
“The C&WDC strongly requested the Government to install a
three-storey lift in Mosque Street (at the location shown in the
diagram attached) connecting the Robinson Road section of the
Central-Mid-Levels Escalator and Walkway System as soon as
possible.”
(Proposed by Mr Jackie CHEUNG, Mr YIP Wing-shing and Mr
Thomas NG)
(15 voted for the motion:： Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN
Hok-fung, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms
CHENG Lai-king, Mr CHAN
Chit-kwai (authorised Mr YIP
Wing-shing), Mr Sidney LEE
(authorised Mr Jackie CHEUNG),
Mr MAN Chi-wah, Miss LO
Yee-hang, Mr Joseph CHAN, Ms
SIU Ka-yi, Mr HUI Chi-fung
(authorised Ms CHENG Lai-king),
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr
- 38 -
Jackie CHEUNG, Mr Thomas NG,
Mr WONG Kin-shing)
(0 voted against the motion)
(0 abstained from voting)
101.
Mr Jackie CHEUNG walked out to express his discontent about this.
102.
The Vice-chairman thanked the representatives of departments for attending the
meeting.
Item 13: Members’ Written Reports
(7:30pm)
103.
The Chairman said that the District Fight Crime Committee (Central and Western
District) had held its 3rd meeting (2014-2015) on 24 October 2014 and would hold its 4th
meeting (2014-2015) on 16 January 2015.
104.
Members had nothing to add.
Item 14: Work Reports of the Committees under C&WDC
(7:30pm - 7:31pm)
105.
The Chairman asked Members to note the subject matter of the following papers:
(i) Cultural, Leisure and Social Affairs Committee
(C&W DC Paper No. 11/2015)
(ii) District Facilities Management Committee
(C&W DC Paper No. 12/2015)
(iii) Finance Committee
(C&W DC Paper No. 13/2015)
(iv) Food, Environment, Hygiene and Works Committee
(C&W DC Paper No. 14/2015)
(v) Traffic and Transport Committee
(C&W DC Paper No. 15/2015)
Item 15: Reports of the Working Groups under C&WDC (2014-2015)
(7:31pm)
106.
The Chairman referred Members to the papers.
had nothing to add.
- 39 -
The chairmen of the working groups
Item 16:
Report on the 192nd meeting of the Central & Western District Management
Committee
(C&W DC Paper No. 16/2015)
(7:31pm - 7:32pm)
107.
The 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. 17/2015)
(7:32pm)
108.
The Chairman referred Members to the paper.
Item 18: Any Other Business
(7:32pm)
109.
There being no other business.
Item 19: Date of the Next Meeting
(7:32pm)
110.
The Chairman announced that the eighteenth meeting would be held on 19 March
2015. The paper submission deadline for government departments would be 26 February
2015, while the paper submission deadline for Members would be 4 March 2015.
111.
The Chairman declared the meeting closed and thanked the guests and Members for
attending the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 pm
The minutes were
Chairman:
Secretary:
confirmed on 19.3.2015
Mr YIP Wing-shing
Ms WONG Ming-wai
Central and Western District Council Secretariat
March 2015
- 40 -