Minutes of the 5th Meeting in 2018 of the District Facilities Management Committee of the Tai Po District Council

Date: 13 September 2018 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 a.m. – 12:29 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Tai Po District Council Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. CHAN Cho-leung, MH Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice-chairman Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick Beginning of the meeting 11:20 a.m. Members Mr. AU Chun-wah 10:19 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. CHAN Siu-kuen, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHENG Chun-ping, JP Beginning of the meeting 12:08 p.m. Mr. CHENG Chun-wo Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai 9:48 a.m. End of the meeting The Honourable CHEUNG Hok-ming, GBM, GBS, JP

Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Dr. LAU Chee-sing Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LAU Yung-wai Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LI Wah-kwong, Rex Beginning of the meeting 12:20 p.m. Mr. LI Kwok-ying, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP 9:42 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. LO Hiu-fung 9:42 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric, MH 9:38 a.m. End of the meeting Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement 9:42 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Man-chuen 9:45 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. YU Chi-wing, Ken 9:41 a.m. End of the meeting Secretary Mr. NG Chi-kin, Eric

Beginning of the meeting

End of the meeting

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

- 2 -

In Attendance Ms. LUI Siu-chu, Andy, JP District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Ms. LEE Kai-ying, Iris Assistant District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Ms. LIU Pui-wah, Stella District Leisure Manager(Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Ms. LUI Lok-sze, Joeva Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) (Tai Po),

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

Services Department Mr. NG Chi-keung, Barry Senior Librarian (Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural Services

Department Mr. LEUNG Cheuk-ming, Rico Senior Manager(NTE)Promotion, Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Mr. CHAN Wing-yiu, Ronald Administrative Assistant/Lands (Atg.), District Lands Office,

Tai Po, Lands Department Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Senior Executive Officer (District Council)/Tai Po District

Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. LEUNG Suk-mei, Rebecca Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Tai Po

District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. WONG Yu-hang, Anita Senior Liaison Officer (2) , Tai Po District Office, Home

Affairs Department Mr. SO Wing-kai Senior Inspector of Works, Tai Po District Office, Home

Affairs Department Mr. LAU Chun-ming Inspector of Works (3), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs

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

Department Mr. LAI Tat-chi, Alvin Senior Architect (Works)2, Home Affairs Department Ms. CHAN Ho-shan, Susana Architect (Works)9, Home Affairs Department Ms. TANG Suet-fun, Joy Architectural Executive, WCWP International Limited Mr. MOK Wai-kin, Johnny Director, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers & Development

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

Development Consultants Limited

Opening remarks The Chairman welcomed participants to the meeting and extended his welcome to Mr. LAU Chun-ming, Inspector of Works of Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) who would from now on attend DFMC meetings.

- 3 -

I. Confirmation of the minutes of the 4th meeting in 2018 of the DFMC on 12 July 2018

(TPDC Paper No. DFM 20/2018) 2. The Chairman reported that neither had the Secretariat received any proposed amendments to the minutes of the last meeting, nor did Members propose any amendments to the said minutes at this meeting. The said minutes were confirmed without amendment.

II. Matters about Consultants of District Minor Works 3. The Chairman welcomed the following persons to the meeting for discussion of this agenda item:

(i) Mr. Alvin LAI, Senior Architect (Works)2 of Home Affairs Department (“HAD”); and

(ii) Ms. Susana CHAN, Architect (Works)9 of HAD. 4. Mr. Alvin LAI recapped the matters concerning the engagement of consultants of District Minor Works (“DMW”) (see Annex 1). 5. The Vice-chairman raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) DMW currently faced the huge backlog of unfinished projects due to the long time required for taking forward the projects, as well as the escalation of project costs.

(ii) As regards the time required for taking forward DMW projects, each time when residents suggested that he adopt special project designs, he would recommend that such projects not to be taken forward by term consultant companies (“term consultants”) as far as possible since it would usually take two years or more for term consultants to take forward a DMW project. He enquired if Home Affairs Department (“HAD”) would take into consideration their manpower allocation and deployment while tendering for term consultants, and indicated that some term consultants failed even to complete a simple draft design of rain shelter after spending one year.

(iii) Had the Government set a fixed percentage for the consultancy fee charged? Since public money would be used to build such district facilities, construction costs of projects would increase if the consultancy fees concerned were too high, thus creating constraints on DC Members in proposing district facilities for residents.

(iv) He recommended that HAD allow term consultants to adopt a hybrid design between that of their own and those standard designs of other departments in the light of the

- 4 -

actual circumstances such that not only would the workload of term consultants be reduced but the project construction costs could also be lowered by adopting standard designs of which construction costs were less expensive.

6. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) He hoped that HAD could provide the PowerPoint file used just now for elaboration for Members’ reference after the meeting.

(ii) The purpose of entrusting term consultants with DMW projects for follow up was to deal with issues of the projects on a commercial basis with a view to expediting completion. However, the effect was currently unsatisfactory.

(iii) Many DMW projects did not involve excessive design elements (for instance, construction of covered benches), progress of those followed up by term consultants was nevertheless slow. He enquired if it was because technical issues (such as applying for excavation permits from Highways Department (“HyD”)) with relevant departments were involved, whether term consultants had problems communicating with other government departments, or if term consultants had already undertaken too many projects. Should progress of some projects had exceeded the alert level of HAD, would HAD issue warning to the term consultants concerned or consider blacklisting them?

7. Dr. LAU Chee-sing raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) That HAD sent its representative to elaborate on this topic at DFMC was the result of a DMW project at the last DFMC meeting to build a rain shelter of which the construction cost had been rather high and aroused media concern, in particular the consultancy fee of about $1 million for a project of which the estimated construction cost was approximately $6 million, thus taking up more than 10% of the total expenditure of the entire project, which was a relative high proportion in the industry. Construction cost of other rain shelters in the district built by Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) Works Section in the past had been about $2 million. As per his experience in the engineering profession, the larger the scale of a project, the smaller the percentage in the total expenditure the consultancy fee should take up. Hence, he enquired if the term consultant fees were calculated based on the total number of projects during the entire contract term. If the term consultant had to undertake 20 to 30 projects in 18 districts territory-wide during the entire contract term, involving project amounts totalling over tens of millions of dollars, the proportion which consultancy fees took up should be lowered accordingly.

(ii) Many projects took more than three years to complete from the time they had been proposed. Despite the fact that term consultants would keep following up on the

- 5 -

projects they had been entrusted with until the projects either completed or were shelved after being confirmed as infeasible, why the contract duration of term consultants was set as three years?

(iii) Had term consultants entered into contracts with HAD to undertake all project entrustments during a certain period? Or would HAD decide on a project-by-project basis which term consultant would be entrusted with a project?

8. Mr. Alvin LAI responded as follows:

(i) Since its implementation in 2008, DMW Programme had taken forward numerous projects territory-wide. Simple facilities could in general adopt standard designs whereas for those more complicated ones, HAD had introduced term consultants with a view to offering facilities with innovative designs to make Hong Kong cityscape more beautiful and livelier.

(ii) Some Members were of the view that DMW projects undertaken by term consultants usually took longer to be taken forward and he concurred with such views. Notwithstanding, he asked Members for their understanding that projects which were taken forward by the Government had to be carried out in accordance with established requirements and procedures and no single step could be omitted. HAD would continue to proactively co-ordinate the progress of various DMW projects with a view to expediting completion. At present, DMW projects for which HAD was responsible fell into two modes of implementation, namely, projects with standard design carried out by Work Section of the District Office concerned, and those with design elements to be taken forward by term consultants. In the case of the former, the design phase and some advance work could be saved and tendering exercise could be carried out sooner while time required for taking forward such projects was also shorter. Should DC Members consider standard designs suitable, they could consider adopting such designs when establishing the projects so as to reduce the time required for taking forward the projects.

(iii) HAD currently had established mechanism to manage DMW projects taken forward by term consultants. In addition to project managers who were responsible for monitoring progress of various projects and liaising with term consultants in a timely manner, senior architects also held monthly meetings with term consultants to monitor the work progress. Chief engineers of HAD would meet with the term consultants on a quarterly basis to supervise the progress and issue warnings to the term consultants concerned should any work progress be found unsatisfactory. Besides, Assistant Director would chair the quarterly meetings of the Consultant Review Committee to review the performance of term consultants and vet their quarterly performance reports. What term consultants scored in their performance reports would directly affect their chance to take part in Government projects.

- 6 -

(iv) Term consultants of DMW projects were selected through open tender. Competitive term consultants would be selected based on their competence and fees proposed which also reflected the prevailing market price. Term consultancy fees were calculated based on the construction cost of each project multiplied by the proposed percentage returned by the term consultant. Despite the fact that it was characteristic of DMW projects to be large in quantity, relatively simple and lower in construction costs, each project had its uniqueness and was subject to various procedures. As such, consultancy fees would not drop because of the additional number of projects with which the term consultant was entrusted, nor would there be any economy of scale. In 2000, many schools in Hong Kong had been converted from half-day to whole-day operation and new school premises had to be built as a result. The same design could be applied to many new school premises and the design fees could therefore benefit from the economy of scale and dropped. Nonetheless, the said situation was not applicable to DMW projects.

(v) HAD had no objection to term consultants’ drawing reference from standard designs of other departments, which, if deemed suitable, could be incorporated into their design. However, since term consultants were hired with public funds to provide project design services, HAD hoped that their design would be creative and original. It would not be in line with the principle of cost-effectiveness to have facilities which belonged completely to standard design built by term consultants.

(vi) It took time to take forward DMW projects not only because Government procedures had to be followed, lengthy issues related to land grant in recent years also led to delays in tender invitation where land grant was not secured and tender exercise could not be conducted even though the term consultants had already completed project design and preparation of tender documents. Recently, there had been land grant applications for DMW projects in other districts that had not been approved for two years. He asked DC Members to assist HAD in striving for land grant from relevant departments so as to speed up taking forward the DMW projects.

(vii) At present, the contract duration of DMW project term consultants was three years, during which all projects entrusted to the term consultant would be undertaken by the term consultant concerned. Even if the term consultant was entrusted a project on the last day of the contract duration, the consultant concerned would have to complete all six works stages. Generally speaking, term consultants would in the beginning of the contract duration need some time to get themselves familiar with the operational flow, hence, the contract duration should not be too short. However, if the duration was too long, pricing of consultancy fees might become out of tune with the market level, therefore, the three-year term was a more suitable option.

(viii) HAD would send via the Secretariat the PowerPoint file of this report to Members for reference.

- 7 -

9. The Vice-chairman raised the following views:

(i) When taking forward DMW projects, both term consultants and TPDO Works Section should follow the same procedures (such as consulting relevant departments and carrying out site explorations), he hoped that HAD could strengthen control over the time term consultants required for completing project design. He pointed out that it took significantly shorter for TPDO Works Section to produce works drawings and when handling site allocation applications, Tai Po District Lands Office (“TPDLO”) would also notify them should problems be identified. Different situations related to gazettal and objections from members of the public and so on might also be involved. It was thus difficult to demand that site allocation applications be approved within a specific timeframe.

(ii) The question-mark shaped design of rain shelter widely used for DMW projects has currently become obsolete. He would not have adopted the said design had there not been an urgent need to build a rain shelter at Tai Wo East earlier. He said that such rain shelters were facilities of HAD and represented the work of HAD. If question-mark shaped and L-shaped rain shelters had the same foundation design, he recommended that HAD design and provide more standard designs of different models for districts to consider and adopt.

10. Mr. LAU Yung-wai raised the following views:

(i) At present, it took pretty long for term consultants to take forward a project. He opined that prolonging the time for taking forward a project was merely a way term consultants adopted to justify the high consultancy fees. He said that shortly after on-site inspection with the proponents, TPDO Works Section could provide proponents with works drawings and file funding application with DFMC, whereas there was often no significant progress in an entire year as reported by the term consultants. He could not see how HAD played its monitoring role.

(ii) Standard designs which HAD currently provided lacked diversity and were not quite suitable. For instance, the question-mark shaped rain shelter design was not only outdated, its function to provide shelter against the rain was also questionable, otherwise, Ms. WONG Pik-kiu would not have proposed the expansion of the existing question-mark shaped rain shelter on Wan Tau Kok Lane earlier. Notwithstanding, HAD continued to extensively adopt the design of question-mark shaped rain shelter in various districts. He was of the view that when determining as to whether or not standard designs would be adopted, factors such as topography should be taken into consideration. However, he failed to see that HAD would review such designs or offer more designs which were up-to-date. For example, five to eight designs of rain shelter could be provided for consideration. He did not

- 8 -

want to see that proponents often opted to entrust the design work to term consultants simply because they did not want to adopt the standard designs for rain shelter. Yet, rain shelters of identical design might in the end be built by the same term consultant, which would make people wonder if public money had been spent appropriately.

(iii) Had HAD looked into the difference in consultancy fee levels between those in the market and the ones for DMW projects? He understood that Government projects required higher standards and the fees charged would be higher accordingly. But how big should the difference be which could be considered reasonable? Were there any criteria? The larger the scale of projects, the smaller the proportion the consultancy fees should take up in the construction cost. However, a uniform proportion was adopted for DMW projects where the ratio which consultancy fees took up in the construction cost remained the same for all projects, thus showing a discrepancy between this situation and the understanding of members of the public.

(iv) Contract of term consultants was three years in duration. He enquired if HAD took initiative to invite those companies to bid to become term consultants. He noticed that term consultants in the past were more or less the same as those current ones and therefore enquired if there was any mechanism which allowed new companies to take part and become term consultants. He understood that experience in carrying out projects was among the criteria HAD adopted for selecting term consultants, but would this lead to the result that companies selected to become term consultants were always those contractors which had been awarded public works contracts for years? Besides, if such companies had in the past built facilities queried by the media, for instances, “rain shelters providing no shelter against the rain”, “Eskimo graves” and “pyramid walls”, would their scores in the selection be affected?

11. Mr. YAM Man-chuen raised the following views and questions:

(i) In recent years, many works projects encountered bid-rigging. When selecting term consultants, had HAD come across the problem of bid-rigging? Had HAD worked together with Competition Commission regarding the content of the tender document? Or was there any way to reduce the risk of bid-rigging?

(ii) In addition to rain shelters, he recommended that HAD also provide additional standard designs for other categories of works for DC Members’ consideration.

12. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views:

(i) While browsing Government websites concerning DMW projects, he had noticed that designs of DMW projects in other districts were different from those of Tai Po District. If reference could be drawn from such designs which could be adopted

- 9 -

and entrusted to Works Section of district offices for implementation without having the term consultants to design anew, a lot of time would be saved. He also recommended that HAD offer additional standard designs for DC Members’ consideration. It would be a good news for the progress of taking forward a project as a whole if engineering design could complete sooner.

(ii) At present, the Government’s management of underground facilities was unsatisfactory. As a result, projects of different scales from building of elevators to provision of seats with foundations encountered problems with underground facilities (such as drainage reserves’ being involved) during the process of being taken forward.

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

(i) When proposing DMW projects, DC Members were geared to the functionality of the facilities concerned and did not specify by whom the projects should be taken forward when submitting their proposals. Only when taking forward the projects, it would be considered if standard designs should be adopted or term consultants should be hired to design anew in accordance with factors such as land or space.

(ii) When submitting engineering designs to DFMC for vetting, only options designed by term consultants and the construction cost of such designs were reported without providing options adopting standard designs for Members’ comparison and consideration.

(iii) It took years to take forward several DMW projects, for instance, the project “Provision of a sitting-out area in Lung Mei Village, Ting Kok Road, Tai Po”, on which he followed up, had been proposed by a DC Member of his constituency in the previous term and was in the meantime expected not to complete until February 2019. As a member of the engineering industry, he understood that personnel concerned had spared no effort in assisting in taking forward the projects. Nonetheless, it took too long indeed to implement DMW projects. He raised that progress stage of projects had not been shown in the progress summary of previous DMW projects, while progress stage of projects was now indicated for record purpose.

(iv) This agenda item arose from the construction cost of a DMW project being handled at the last DFMC meeting. He noticed that it had been mentioned in the report which HAD presented just now that the costs of architectural and quantity surveying consultants were borne by HAD. He recommended that such fees be shown separately from construction costs of projects in the cost information submitted to DFMC in the future to avoid misunderstanding.

14. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu raised the following views:

- 1 0 -

(i) The term consultant had worked out an estimated construction of $6.3 million for the

project “Provision of pavement railings, covered walkway and signage at Wan Tau Kok Lane, Tai Po” which she had proposed. Had the term consultant at the stage of preliminary design notified her of the project’s construction cost and difficulties, she could have saved the substantial amount of time spent on following up on the said project. She recalled that after having visited the site with HAD (Works Section) repeatedly, she had learned from the meeting with HAD (Works Section) on 25 January 2018 that the estimated construction cost of the facility, which was still known as “covered walkway” then, was $4.4 million while a gap between its L-shaped design and the existing rain shelter would not be covered. Upon completion, rainwater would flow towards the said gap whenever it rained and a “waterfall” would be formed, which would arouse criticism. Hence, she had at that time suggested that the design be revised to cover the said gap and there could then be a clearer picture of the estimated construction cost. However, the project had been taken forward to the stage of detailed design and tender exercise would be carried out shortly. Among the estimated construction cost were the trial pit cost of $220,000 and consultancy fee of $795,900. She considered the $5 million construction cost rather expensive but as a project proponent, she hoped that she could make some contribution to the district. She had learned later on that costs of lighting system, drainage system, distribution boards and trial pits were also included in the estimated costs, while there were opinions that pedestrian flow at the proposed location was insufficient, she therefore agreed to withdraw this project.

(ii) Another DMW project “Construction of covered walkway at Plover Cover Road near Kwong Fuk Football Ground” which she had proposed had also been withdrawn since the term consultant had estimated the construction cost of this project to be as high as $19.2 million, in which costs to stabilise nearby slopes had not yet been included. She indicated that she was no expert in engineering but simply proposed what residents requested. She hoped that after DC Members identified sites for DMW projects, HAD would tell them covers of what length would be suitable for being provided at such sites and the approximate construction costs, and could recommend that the length of the proposed cover be reduced should the construction cost be too high. Moreover, she noticed that the construction cost of a set of rain shelter which TPDO Works Section had built in rural constituency was no more than $500,000. Hence, she recommended that multiple sets of such rain shelters be built at some locations and have the rain shelters linked up. She hoped that HAD could provide more relevant information for proponents’ reference, instead of having to withdraw the project proposals after repeated on-site inspections and discussions had been done.

15. Mr. LO Hiu-fung raised the following views:

- 11 -

(i) Whether or not the construction cost of a project was expensive hinged upon with

what project the comparison was made. Construction costs of projects followed up on by term consultants were indeed higher than those facilities built by TPDO Works Section or engineering firms in the market. Hence, he agreed that expenditure such as consultancy fees and trial pit costs should be listed separately in the estimated construction costs of projects submitted by term consultants to DFMC in the future so as to clearly illustrate of what items the estimated construction costs were made up.

(ii) DC Members acted from the perspective of the residents and took into consideration the functionality and practicality while it was rather subjective as to whether a facility was aesthetic or not.

(iii) He recommended that HAD introduce a penalty mechanism in past performance of the companies concerned to the selection criteria for term consultants to deal with the situation where term consultants performed unsatisfactorily in terms of cost-effectiveness and work progress. A project which he had proposed had been taken forward for two years and yet remained in the stage of feasibility study. He hoped that the introduction of a penalty mechanism could serve as some kind of alert or reminder.

16. The Chairman said that it took almost one year for some projects to carry out their preliminary studies which remained unfinished. He enquired if the contract signed between HAD and the term consultants required the latter to complete the preliminary studies within a specific timeframe. If not, HAD should look into setting up a mechanism to impose regulation. 17. Mr. Alvin LAI responded that HAD in general required that term consultants complete feasibility studies within three to six months, while the actual time required would depend on the progress of the term consultants in obtaining information from relevant departments and works such as site investigation, followed by studies and estimation of project costs. Upon completion of preliminary studies, term consultants, term consultants would need to consult relevant departments on the results of the studies and complete a draft for the lead department’s and HAD’s approval, and then report to DFMC. 18. The Chairman raised that the term consultant currently failed to meet the requirement of completing the aforementioned work within three to six months. Hence, he hoped that HAD would step up monitoring so as to expedite the completion of preliminary studies of projects. 19. Mr. Alvin LAI responded to Members’ views and enquiries as follows:

(i) HAD currently worked on some standard designs of rain shelters, in some of which

- 1 2 -

greening elements were incorporated. He hoped that the said designs could be presented to DFMC upon completion so that Members could have more standard designs to choose from when putting forward project proposals.

(ii) He did not mean to suggest that DC Members opt for standard designs for future DMW projects, rather, Members could consider adopting standard designs should they find such designs suitable. The advantage of standard designs was that time spent on design could be saved and projects could as a result complete sooner. If need be, Members could of course engage term consultants to design facilities with more distinctive features.

(iii) HAD would spare no effort in making improvement should there be areas where it had not done well in monitoring the work of term consultants. HAD would continue to step up its monitoring under the existing mechanism and meet with the management of term consultants where necessary to demand that the latter enhance management and human resources. If need be, projects that encountered difficulties would be given special treatment to cater for the requests of DC Members as far as practicable with a view to speeding up the progress.

20. The Chairman believed that should Members in the future have any enquiries regarding the above matters, they could contact HAD Architect Ms. Susana CHAN who would be able to answer their questions. He thanked Mr. Alvin LAI for attending this meeting to explain to Members the workflow of engaging term consultants. 21. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that some of the questions he had raised remained unanswered by HAD and requested that HAD provide a written reply after the meeting. (Post-meeting note: Mr. Alvin LAI had explained to Mr. LAU Yung-wai immediately after the meeting that term consultants for DMW projects were selected through open tender and consultants in Band 1 of the List of Consultants of the Architectural and Associated Consultants Selection Board (“AACSB”) were invited to participate. Competitive term consultants would be selected based on their competence and fees proposed which also reflected the prevailing market price. Moreover, work performance of term consultants would affect their chance to succeed in bidding for Government projects in the future. Mr. Alvin LAI also clarified that HAD had not been responsible for projects such as “Eskimo graves” and “pyramid walls”.)

III. Position of the District Minor Works Funds and Progress Report on the Approved District Minor Works Projects (TPDC Paper Nos. DFM 21/2018, DFM 21a/2018, DFM 21b/2018, DFM 21c/2018 and DFM 21d/2018)

- 1 3 -

22. The Chairman requested that Members note the position of the District Minor Works Funds and the Progress Report on the Approved District Minor Works Projects. He advised that the DFMC currently had an approved project estimates of $79.5 million, of which around $32.5 million was for 2018/19 and approximately $47 million for 2019/20 and thereafter. 23. The Chairman asked the representatives of the term consultant companies (“term consultants”), the Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) to report the progress of approved District Minor Works (“DMW”) projects. He welcomed the following persons to the meeting for the discussion of this item:

(i) Ms. Joy TANG, Architectural Executive of WCWP International Limited;

(ii) Mr. Johnny MOK, Director of Ho & Partners Architects Engineers & Development Consultants Limited; and

(iii) Mr. Boris CHU, Architect of Ho & Partners Architects Engineers & Development Consultants Limited.

(A) DMW projects with the term consultant WCWP International Limited as works agent (Items (1) to (3) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 21/2018) 24. Ms. Joy TANG reported as follows:

(i) Project Item (1) “Provision of a sitting-out area in Lung Mei Village, Ting Kok Road, Tai Po”: works underway and were expected to complete in February 2019.

(ii) Project Item (2) “Provision of a sitting-out area at the former Shu Yan School site in Cheung Shue Tan Village”: due to inclement weather condition, the project was expected to complete in October 2018 and a preliminary handover would be carried out with LCSD and the project proponent.

(iii) Project Item (3) “Provision of Rainshelters on Existing Benches outside Tai Po Hui Market and Cooked Food Centre”: construction of a rain shelter on Wan Tau Street had already completed and an handover meeting with the proponent and TPDO was being arranged.

25. The DFMC endorsed the report by the term consultant. (B) DMW projects with the term consultant Ho & Partners Architects Engineers &

Development Consultants Limited as works agent (Items (4) to (13) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 21/2018) 26. Mr. Boris CHU reported as follows:

- 1 4 -

(i) Project Item (4) “Conversion of the open space near Block 10 and 19 of Tai Po

Centre, On Pong Road into a children’s playground and elderly sitting-out area”: TPDLO had already granted site allocation on 14 August 2018. The term consultant currently prepared the tender documents and tender exercise of the project was expected to be conducted in end of September 2018.

(ii) Project Item (5) “Provision of Elderly Fitness Equipment at the Ting Kok Road Outside Ting Nga Court, Tai Po”: awaiting Transport Department (“TD”)’s reply if it would bear the construction costs of the ramp.

(iii) Project Item (6) “Provision of sitting-out area outside Tai Po Sports Ground, Tai Po”: the term consultant currently worked on the detailed design. Should TPDLO grant the land boundary application as scheduled, tender exercise of the project was expected to be carried out in early January 2019.

(iv) Project Item (7) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Tai Wo Road connecting footbridge NF97”: the term consultant had reported in end of July 2018 the relevant works to the Advisory Committee on the Appearance of Bridges and Associated Structures (“ACABAS”) and was revising the drawings in accordance with the views of ACABAS at this stage. It was expected that ACABAS would be consulted again in October 2018.

(v) Project Item (8) “Provision of Sitting-out Area and Children’s Playground at Nai Chung, Tai Po”: topographical survey in relation to this project had already completed in July 2018 and the term consultant was currently vetting the topographical survey report. Should no technical problem be identified, the feasibility study report was expected to be submitted at the WGDW meeting in October 2018 for advice.

(vi) Project Item (9) “Proposed Rain Shelters at Classical Gardens and Kam Shek New Village, Tai Po”: the term consultant had completed trial pit works in end of August 2018 and no technical issue was identified in the preliminary survey assessment. The feasibility study report was expected to be submitted at the WGDW meeting in October 2018 for advice.

(vii) Project Item (10) “Construction of Rain Shelter at Po Nga Road near Tai Wo Plaza, Tai Po”: the term consultant had completed trial pit works in end of August 2018 and no technical issue was identified in the preliminary survey assessment. The feasibility study report was expected to be submitted at the WGDW meeting in October 2018 for advice.

(viii) Project Item (11) “Provision of Rain shelters in Tai Po Kau Constituency (Mayfair By The Sea, Wong Yi Au, Ta Tit Yan and Cheung Shue Tan)”: now awaiting the result of TPDO (Works Section)’s tender exercise for term contractor. Should the Works Section be able to award tender in early September while Highways

- 1 5 -

Department (“HyD”) could also issue Excavation Permit within the expected timeframe, trial pit works would be expected to complete in October 2018.

(ix) Project Item (12) “Provision of Shelter at Fung Yuen Road”: now awaiting the result of TPDO (Works Section)’s tender exercise for term contractor. Should the Works Section be able to award tender in early September while HyD could also issue Excavation Permit within the expected timeframe, trial pit works would be expected to complete in October 2018.

(x) Project Item (13) “Extension of the Existing Covered Walkway at Nga Wan Road near Uptown Plaza, Tai Po”: now awaiting the result of TPDO (Works Section)’s tender exercise for term contractor. Should the Works Section be able to award tender in early September while HyD could also issue Excavation Permit within the expected timeframe, trial pit works would be expected to complete in October 2018.

27. Mr. Francis YAM raised the following views and questions:

(i) Project Item (4) “Conversion of the open space near Block 10 and 19 of Tai Po Centre, On Pong Road into a children’s playground and elderly sitting-out area”: tender exercise of the project would be conducted in end of September 2018, would the works timetable be updated accordingly?

(ii) Project Item (7) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Tai Wo Road connecting footbridge NF97”: had ACABAS recommended major amendments to the proposed cover? Would the term consultant report relevant amendments to the proponent or DFMC subsequently?

28. The Chairman enquired how often would ACABAS hold a meeting and why it took three months before Project Item (7) would be followed up on with ACABAS. 29. Mr. Boris CHU responded as follows:

(i) Project Item (4): tender exercise for this project was tentatively scheduled to be carried out between end of September and early October 2018, details of which would be reported by HAD.

(ii) Project Item (7): ACABAS recommended PMMA materials be used for the proposed cover in place of polycarbonate materials which were already outdated. However, since PMMA material cost 20% to 30% more than polycarbonate while the term consultant had also used polycarbonate materials, which were more economical, for projects carried out for HAD earlier, they would check with ACABAS why it had recommended that the materials used be changed, and furnish supplementary information about using polycarbonate materials. Besides, the term consultant slightly amended relevant designs after having taken the structure of the entire cover

- 1 6 -

into consideration, and would report to DFMC again upon completion. ACABAS held a meeting once a month. However, since the design of cover involved bridge columns and retaining walls nearby, the term consultant needed time to obtain relevant plans from HyD in order to know about the condition of underground pillars before reporting the amendments in design to ACABAS.

30. The DFMC endorsed the report by the term consultant. (C) DMW projects reported by the TPDO (Items (14) to (49) in Annex 2 to DFM 21/2018, TPDC Paper Nos. DFM21a/2018, DFM

21b/2018, DFM 21c/2018 and DFM 21d/2018) 31. Mr. SO Wing-kai gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (14) “Construction of drainage and van track from Au Tsai to San Wai, Tai Hang”: the Works Section had checked the land information with TPDLO on 31 August 2018 and requested that TPDLO help put up notices.

(ii) Project Item (15) “Improvement to open space near Tai Hang Rural Committee at Tai Hang, Tai Po”: works had already commenced on 9 July 2018 and were expected to complete in October 2018.

(iii) Project Item (16) “Reconstruction of pavilion near public pier at Tap Mun, Sai Kung North, Tai Po”: works had commenced in August 2017 and had initially been scheduled to complete in March 2018. However, completion was now expected to be postponed to September 2018.

(iv) Project Item (17) “Improvement to supporting facilities at east coastal area, Ting Kok, Tai Po”: the Works Section had conducted an on-site inspection with Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (“AFCD”) on 2 August 2018 and confirmed the location of the proposed facilities.

(v) Project Item (18) “Provision of rainshelters at Ma Po Mei, Chai Kek and San Tong, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po”: the Works Section had already filed on 3 September an application with TPDLO for site allocation in relation to the works at Ma Po Mei. Site allocation for the proposed rainshelter at San Tong Tsuen had already been granted by TPDLO in April 2018 and the Works Section would conduct land surveying and tree assessment to facilitate engineering design. The Works Section currently prepared the tender documents and would first carry out the construction works of the rainshelter at Chai Kek Tsuen.

(vi) Project Item (19) “Construction of pavilion at Yung Shue O, Sai Kung North, Tai Po”：works had commenced in March 2018 and had initially been scheduled to

- 1 7 -

complete in August 2018. However, completion was now expected to be postponed to September 2018.

(vii) Project Item (20) “Replacement of generator at Sha Tau, Tung Ping Chau, Sai Kung North, Tai Po”: Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (“EMSD”) had in March 2018 commenced the works and completed the installation of power generating unit which was being tested and related electricity wiring was being installed in the meantime. It had initially been expected that power supply would become available for residents’ use but was now expected to be postponed to September 2018.

(viii) Project Item (21) “Provision of systematic letter boxes at Tai Hang, Lam Tusen River, Chung Uk Tsuen, Tap Mun New Fisherman’s Village, Ting Kok Long Ha Tsuen, Tai Om and Ha Hang, Tai Po”: the installation of letter boxes in Chung Uk Tsuen had commenced in July 2018 and were expected to complete in October 2018. TPDLO had on 10 August 2018 replied in relation to land information for the works to install systematic letter boxes at riverside of Lam Tsuen River, and indicated that no objection had been received. The Works Section currently sought advice from relevant departments. Besides, the Works Section had conducted an on-site inspection with relevant persons in relation to the letter box works at Tai Om on 3 August 2018 and ascertained the location of the proposed letter boxes. The Works Section had confirmed with relevant persons the location of the proposed letter boxes at Ha Hang and checked with TPDLO the land information on 31 August 2018 and requested that TPDLO help put up notices. WGDW had endorsed at the meeting on 15 August 2018 to increase the project estimates to $1.2 million. The Works Section now applied to DFMC for increasing the project estimates to $1.2 million.

(ix) Project Item (22) “Improvement to the rainshelter cum benches near Sung Tak Wong Kin Sheung Memorial School”: the tree assessment report in relation to the proposed footpath leading to Wong Siu Ching Clinic (i.e. Item 1 in the project overview) and relevant departments both indicated that the proposed footpath would adversely affect the trees nearby. The Works Section had on 1 August 2018 notified the project proponent that it would not construct the said footpath. As regards replacement of or improvement to existing benches outside Tai Po Sung Tak Wong Kin Sheung Memorial School (i.e. Item 2 in the project overview), the Works Section now enquired of HyD if it agreed to the relevant improvement works.

(x) Project Item (23) “Provision of footpath and passing places at Tung Tsz Road, Tai Po”: the Works Section was carrying out land surveying and tree assessment to facilitate engineering design.

(xi) Project Item (24) “Improvement of footbridge at Ma Kwu Lam, Sai Kung North, Tai Po”: the Works Section was carrying out land surveying and tree assessment to facilitate engineering design.

- 1 8 -

(xii) Project Item (25) “Provision of footpath and resting place along Lam Tsuen River, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po”: the Works Section had conducted the tendering exercise and was currently vetting the tenders.

(xiii) Project Item (26) “Provision of temporary waste storage point at Ko Lau Wan and Tap Mun, Sai Kung North, Tai Po”: WGDW and DFMC had endorsed at their respective meetings on 21 February 2018 and 8 March 2018 to allocate $300,000 to carry out this project. The Works Section had conducted the tendering exercise and was currently vetting the tenders.

(xiv) Project Item (27) “Provision of handrail near Full King Building, Tai Po”: works had commenced on 26 July 2018 and were expected to complete in September 2018.

(xv) Project Item (28) “Construction of handrail and paving near Tak Nga Court, Tai Po”: TPDLO had already granted site allocation on 16 May 2018. The Works Section currently prepared the tender documents.

(xvi) Project Item (29) “Improvement and widening to footpath at Yuen Leng, Kau Lung Hang and Tai Wo, Tai Po”: TPDLO had on 22 August 2018 replied in relation to land information and indicated that no objection had been received.

(xvii) Project Item (30) “Provision of rainshelters with benches at Fung Yuen, Tai Wo and Yuen Leng Kam Fung Garden, Tai Po”: the Works Section currently applied from HyD for an excavation permit regarding the construction of rain shelter on Fung Yuen Road. TPDLO had already replied on 17 August 2018 in relation to the land information about the rain shelter next to the minibus stop of Tai Wo Village and indicated that no objection had been received. The Works Section had completed the trial pit works for the construction of rain shelter at the minibus stop of Yuen Leng Kam Fung Garden, and recommended suitable rain shelters for the proponent’s consideration in accordance with the quantity and location of underground facilities. WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 15 August 2018 to allocate $2 million to undertake this project. The Works Section now applied to DFMC for the fund allocation of $2 million to carry out the project.

(xviii) Project Item (31) “Construction of paving and benches near Tai Wong Yeh Temple at Yuen Chau Tsai, Tai Po”: TPDO had already sent World Wide Fund for Nature (“WWF”) an invitation for meeting and negotiation.

(xix) Project Item (32) “Provision of a sitting-out area and installation of handrails and barrier-free ramp outside Plover Cove Garden on Po Wu Lane”: TPDLO had on 2 August 2018 replied in relation to land information. WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 15 August 2018 to allocate $500,000 to undertake the works to replace and place benches concerned anew as well as to provide several sets of handrails. The Works Section now applied to DFMC for the fund allocation of $500,000 to carry out the aforementioned works.

- 1 9 -

(xx) Project Item (33) “Construction of pavement at Shan Liu Road, Tai Po”: TPDLO had put up notices on 16 May 2018 and forwarded on 30 July 2018 land information together with 25 letters of objection to TPDO for follow up. The Works Section would discuss with the proponent again.

(xxi) Project Item (34) “Construction of rainshelter cum benches at San Fu, Tai Po”: the Works Section would arrange for trial pit works to ascertain the quantity and location of underground facilities.

32. Members raised the following views and questions:

(i) Dr. LAU Chee-sing indicated in relation to Project Item (17) “Improvement to supporting facilities at east coastal area, Ting Kok, Tai Po” that he had during the on-site inspection with the Works Section and AFCD on 2 August 2018 provided advice with a view to fine-tuning the project location. As relevant departments put up notices some two to three weeks ago, head of the village concerned had enquired about the content of the project’s information board, while AFCD had already provided information about the Marine Code. Since the said village head expressed objections, AFCD currently followed up with him and handled the issue.

(ii) Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, proponent of Project Item (22) “Improvement to the rainshelter cum benches near Sung Tak Wong Kin Sheung Memorial School”, indicated that the floor tiles on the section of walkway between Wong Siu Ching Family Medicine Centre and the nearby elevator had been paved 30 years ago. While the elevator was being constructed earlier, floor tiles on the said walkway section had not been replaced at the same time for fear that passage of large construction vehicles might lead to subsidence of the new floor tiles since construction materials had to be transported via the fire services access near Wong Siu Ching Family Medicine Centre. At present, the elevator had been completed and commissioned for service for a while and the intersection between the red and white floor tiles at the said site and the road section near the planters involved the precincts owned by Tai Po Centre and required its consent, which she had obtained earlier from the stakeholders of Tai Po Centre. She said that a road section at Plover Cove Garden nearby also involved the precincts owned by Plover Cove Garden. HyD had already finished replacing the floor tiles of the road section under its management whereas the road section managed by Plover Cove Garden had so far not been dealt with. Should the Works Section encounter difficulties when taking forward projects, she recommended that reference be drawn from the approach mentioned above.

She understood that the black railings next to Wong Siu Ching Family Medicine Centre could not be removed at present. She had an on-site inspection with LCSD earlier and learned that a slope at the said location with many trees was managed by LCSD. Since members of the public would begin to queue at 7 a.m. from Monday

- 2 0 -

to Friday at the entrance to Wong Siu Ching Family Medicine Centre where mosquito problem was serious, she had already requested that Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) deploy staff to carry out anti-mosquito work and that LCSD step up mosquito control efforts at the said site. In addition, the rain shelter cum benches near Tai Po Sung Tak Wong Kin Sheung Memorial School were managed by HyD. She had conducted on-site inspection with relevant departments and found out that the said benches were used during the period between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. by elderly people rather than parents waiting to pick up their children after school. At present, such benches were covered only by some wooden bars instead of a shelter against the rain. Being aware of the fact that the benches concerned were managed by HyD, she hoped that the Works Section could complete the works plans as soon as possible.

(iii) Mr. Rex LI, proponent of Project Item (24) “Improvement of footbridge at Ma Kwu Lam, Sai Kung North, Tai Po”, said that no objection to this project had been received, rather, there had been some misunderstandings about the alignment of the footbridge and the issues concerned had been resolved after discussion. He enquired if notices would have to be put up again for the project and hoped that relevant work could commence as quickly as possible.

(iv) As regards Project Item (31) “Construction of paving and benches near Tai Wong Yeh Temple at Yuen Chau Tsai, Tai Po”, Mr. Clement WOO enquired if there was any progress.

(v) Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, proponent of Project Item (32) “Provision of a sitting-out area and installation of handrails and barrier-free ramp outside Plover Cove Garden on Po Wu Lane”, said that relocation of eight benches outside Block A of Plover Cove Garden was included in the project overview. She had consulted Block A of Plover Cove Garden, the owners’ corporation (“OC”) and the management company of Plover Cove Garden earlier and obtained their consent. She said that the existing benches were placed outside the public toilet of Plover Cove Road Market. Although it was convenient for members of the public to shop and for transport of goods, such benches had no armrests and street-sleepers could lie on them, which hindered the cleansing of the surrounding areas. Moreover, some members of the public smoked there and the second-hand smoke reached the flats on the lower floors of Block A, about which she had received many complaints. Hence, she suggested that the said benches be relocated to where the nearby planters and emergency gate were.

(vi) Mr. LO Hiu-fung, proponent of Project Item (34) “Construction of rainshelter cum benches at San Fu, Tai Po”, pointed out that enquiry of land information and work to put up notices for this project had both completed. He commended the Works Section for its efficiency and hoped that the project could commence as soon as possible.

- 2 1 -

33. Mr. SO Wing-kai noted Members’ views and responded as follows:

(i) Project Item (22): the Works Section would check with HyD again for details about the ownership of the walkway between Wong Siu Ching Family Medicine Centre and the elevator connecting to the footbridge of Tai Po Centre in order to find out works to pave floor tiles under DMW Programme could be carried out for which parts of the said road section. The Works Section would notify the proponent after looking into the case. Besides, since the rain shelter cum benches near Tai Po Sung Tak Wong Kin Sheung Memorial School were managed by HyD, the Works Section currently consulted HyD on the works plans and was awaiting the latter’s reply.

(ii) Project Item (24): the Works Section had checked with the village head and the project proponent the alignment option and the project would be carried out in accordance with the original alignment which had already been agreed upon. The Works Section currently conducted land surveying and would file a site allocation application with TPDLO after obtaining land boundary information and confirming the official works boundary with the proponent. Works would be carried out according to the final alignment option. Should amendment to the alignment be required, the Works Section would submit boundary plans to TPDLO so that notices could be put up again.

(iii) Project Item (31): WWF had so far no plan to discuss the project with TPDO. The Works Section had learned that the lease of WWF would end soon and relevant parties might change the tenancy area of the new lease and zone the project site as Government land, in which case the Works Section would no longer need to discuss with WWF in connection with this project.

(iv) Project Item (32): the Works Section had conducted an on-site inspection with the proponent earlier and now planned to relocate 16 benches, which were movable rather than fixed on the ground and there were armrests in the middle too. The Works Section would contact the proponent shortly to ascertain where the benches should be placed. Should it turn out to be not satisfactory, the Works Section could relocate the benches to somewhere else.

(v) Project Item (34): the Works Section would carry out trial pit works shortly to see if changes would need to be made to the design of the foundations of the proposed cover. The Works Section would commence relevant works as quickly as possible.

34. The Chairman reported on the estimated costs for the following projects:

(i) Project Item (21) “Provision of systematic letter boxes at Tai Hang, Lam Tusen River, Chung Uk Tsuen, Tap Mun New Fisherman’s Village, Ting Kok Long Ha Tsuen, Tai Om and Ha Hang, Tai Po”：updated construction cost was $1.2 million.

- 2 2 -

(ii) Project Item (30) “Construction of rainshelters cum benches at Fung Yuen, Tai Wo and Yuen Leng Kam Fung Garden, Tai Po”: estimated construction cost was $2 million.

(iii) Project Item (32) “Provision of a sitting-out area and installation of handrails and barrier-free ramp outside Plover Cove Garden on Po Wu Lane”: estimated construction cost was $500,000.

35. Members raised no objection. The Chairman announced that the estimated construction costs of the above three projects were endorsed. 36. The DFMC endorsed the report by the Works Section of TPDO. 37. Ms. Lisa YIP gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (35) “Provision of pavement in Tai Po Tau Road”: TD had indicated at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 that it already had some preliminary ideas about the proposed pedestrian walkway. Since planters and trees were involved at the proposed project site, TD currently explored solutions to tackle this.

(ii) Project Item (36) “Construction of a covered walkway connecting the elevator at the footbridge of Uptown Plaza and the entrance of Wan Tau Tong Estate”: the proponent agreed that HAD (Works Section) followed up and examined this project to construct a covered walkway after TD completed the works to improve existing pedestrian crossing facilities at the entrance to Wan Tau Tong Estate. TD had indicated at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 that the area of works to improve existing pedestrian crossing facilities at the entrance to Wan Tau Tong Estate involved subways and cycling track, it would take longer to examine relevant improvement solutions.

(iii) Project Item (37) “Provision of District Council notice board at the footbridge near Tai Po Mega Mall and Plover Cove Garden”: HAD (Works Section) had completed in May 2018 the revised location plan and currently sought views from the proponent. A Member had indicated at the DFMC meeting on 12 July 2018 that OC of Tai Po Centre had reservation about this project, and recommended that views from residents be sought. TPDO had relayed relevant messages to the proponent after the meeting and asked the proponent to collect views from the OC and local community concerned on the proposed project.

(iv) Project Item (38) “Provision of pavement railings, covered walkway and signage at Wan Tau Kok Lane, Tai Po”: TD had replied in August 2018 regarding the provision of bollards linked up by iron chains on Wan Tau Kok Lane that it had already issued the work order and in August 2018 to request that HyD commence the works. Generally speaking, HyD would need three months to complete relevant works.

- 2 3 -

The principal proponent had indicated at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 his decision to withdraw the rain shelter works from this proposal. As regards the provision of signage, the principal proponent had said at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 that since provision of signage would be required for the relevant location only upon completion of the project “Construction of covered walkway near Wan Tau Kok Lane at Kwong Fuk Road”, no location map would be provided at this stage for TPDO to forward to Hong Kong Tourism Board (“HKTB”) for follow up.

(v) Project Item (39) “Optimisation of Sam Mun Tsai Pier”: Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) had already completed in June 2018 the marine ground investigation study for Sam Mun Tsai Pier and would consult relevant stakeholders shortly. The technical research report was expected to complete in mid-2019.

(vi) Project Item (40) “Construction of Rain Shelter at Po Nga Road near Tai Wo Plaza, Tai Po”: the proponent hoped that Link REIT would consider afresh expanding the cover within its premises to connect with the one within Housing Department (“HD”)’s premises. Link REIT had replied in September 2018 that it would not expand the cover within its premises. HD indicated that HAD (Works Section) had to appoint authorised persons to submit relevant information to the Independent Checking Unit (“ICU”) under the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) for approval. ICU had replied in September 2018 that this project could be exempted from the approval procedure and it was not required to appoint any authorised persons to submit relevant information to ICU for approval. As regards the cleansing arrangement for the cover, HD had indicated in August 2018 that it would follow up and discuss with FEHD once detailed design became available. At this stage, the HAD (Works Section) continued to follow up on this project.

(vii) Project Item (41) “Provision of Rainshelters in Tao Po Kau Constituency (Chong San Road, Deerhill Bay and Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout)”: the term consultant fees of all three rain shelter projects at Chong San Road and Deerhill Bay would be borne by HAD and no funding allocation under Tai Po District DMW Programme was required. The overall construction cost of the above three rain shelters had been preliminarily estimated to be $2.7 million, from which $1.2 million was for the advance work (including consultancy fee, trial pit and topographical survey fees and so on) (see Paper No. DFM 21a/2018 for details). Besides, TPDO (Works Section) would be responsible for the rain shelter project at Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout on Tai Po Road, of which the construction cost was estimated to be $500,000 (see Paper No. DFM 21b/2018 for details). WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 15 August 2018 to earmark $1.7 million in total and now applied to DFMC for the endorsement of the fund allocation of $1.7 million.

(viii) Project Item (42) “Construction of Taxi Stand and waiting facilities at Chung Nga Road, Tai Po”: the proponent agreed that HAD (Works Section) continued to follow

- 2 4 -

up on this project once TD completed the construction of the taxi stand.

(ix) Project Item (43) “Construction of cycle track from Tai Po Waterfront Park to Ting Kok Road, Tai Po”: TPDO noted that the proponent had in July 2018 written to the Director of Civil Engineering and Development to request that CEDD examine if the said cycle track routeing was feasible. After consulting relevant policy bureaux and departments, the Development Bureau had replied to LegCo Secretariat in August 2018 that CEDD currently concentrated its resources to complete a trunk cycle track between New Territories East and West. Given the fact that Tai Po Waterfront Park already connected to the official cycle track nearby, the Government had no plan to provide another cycle track to connect to Ting Kok Road under the New Territories East Cycle Track Network project. Since DEVB had already reiterated that it would not look into the provision of another section of cycle track, the project would not be able to be taken forward in the absence of a lead department and works agent. The proponent could submit under the enhanced arrangements for submitting DMW project proposals a replacement proposal to TPDC Secretariat.

(x) Project Item (44) “Construction of Covered Walkway near Wan Tau Kok Lane at Kwong Fuk Road”: the proponent had in July 2018 requested that relevant departments repair the deck of the nullah near the proposed cover on Kwong Fuk Road. TPDLO had replied in August 2018 that the said nullah belonged to an unallocated government land. Despite the fact that it was not the department responsible for repair and maintenance of the said nullah/deck, HyD had nevertheless followed up on the proponent’s request and replaced part of the damaged deck. However, HAD (Works Section) had in September 2018 raised that even though part of the deck had been repaired, the situation remained unsatisfactory. Hence, TPDO had once again urged TPDLO to clarify which department was responsible for the said nullah and was now awaiting the latter’s reply. As regards the large-scale traffic sign involved at the proposed location, TD had at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 indicated that it was discussing with HyD as to whether it would be viable to relocate the said traffic sign further to the front near the location off Jockey Club Off-course Betting Branch, and was now awaiting HyD’s reply.

Besides, TPDO (Works Section) and HAD (Works Section) had met with the proponent on 23 July 2018. As regards the cleansing arrangement of the proposed cover, TPDO (Works Section) indicated that scaffoldings would need to be erected next to the cover and the road section concerned would need to be temporarily closed too during cleansing to allow workers to clean the proposed cover. The proponent opined that scaffolding works would affect pedestrian and vehicular flows, hence opposed to cleansing operations carried out by erecting scaffolds. After consideration, the proponent said that the proposed cover could be cleansed on a need basis. Since the breeding season of egrets (March to August each year) happened to be the rainy season, daily cleansing of the top of the cover was therefore

- 2 5 -

not necessary. As regards the design of the cover, TPDO had reported to the proponent during the meeting that to facilitate workers’ access to the top of the cover to carry out cleansing work while taking into consideration the safety measures required for working at heights, TPDO had already requested from HD information about “cat ladder” and rescue ropes suitable for work on superstructures which were forwarded to HAD (Works Section) for follow up.

(xi) Project Item (45) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Road – Yuen Chau Tsai near Kwong Fuk Estate, Tai Po”: the overall construction cost had been preliminarily estimated to be $4.9 million, from which $865,000 was for the advance work (including consultancy fee, trial pit and topographical survey fees and so on). The term consultant fees would be borne by HAD and no funding allocation under Tai Po District DMW Programme was required. As regards the request Members and the proponent had raised at the DFMC meeting on 12 July 2018 that HAD (Works Section) give in the advance study report details such as itemised breakdown of costs, HAD (Works Section) had added a remark (in contract phase 3: construction cost would be reviewed once again at the detailed design stage) to the construction cost of $4.9 million in Paper No. DFM 21c/2018. WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 15 August 2018 to earmark $865,000 and now applied to DFMC for the endorsement of the fund allocation of $865,000.

(xii) Project Item (46) “Provision of benches at Tai Wo Bus Terminus”: TD had in August 2018 indicated that it was consulting HD and said at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 that it would reply in relation to the progress of this project as soon as practicable.

(xiii) Project Item (47) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Chuen On Road near Tai Po Hospital”: Tai Po Hospital had indicated in August 2018 that capital planning department of Hospital Authority (“HA”) currently took over to look into the proposal to provide covered walkway within the premises of the hospital. HA’s reply was being awaited at this stage.

(xiv) Project Item (48) “Construction of covered walkway at Tat Wan Road near Wan Hang House”: the overall construction cost had been preliminarily estimated to be $2.13 million, from which $730,000 was for the advance work (including consultancy fee, trial pit and topographical survey fees and so on)(see Paper No. DFM 21d/2018). The term consultant fees would be borne by HAD and no funding allocation under Tai Po District DMW Programme was required. WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 15 August 2018 to earmark $730,000 and now applied to DFMC for the endorsement of the fund allocation of $730,000.

(xv) Project Item (49) “Construction of Covered Walkway and benches at Nam Wan Road Adjacent to footbridge NF132”: HAD (Works Section) had completed the preliminary location map in July 2018. TPDO had sought views from the

- 2 6 -

proponent who was of the view that the coverage of the location map required amendments. HAD (Works Section) continued to follow up in the meantime.

38. Members raised the following views and enquiries:

(i) Mr. Eric TAM, proponent of Project Item (37) “Provision of District Council notice board at the footbridge near Tai Po Mega Mall and Plover Cove Garden”, said that the intent for him to propose this project was to provide a notice board to publicise DC activities and work and some Members subsequently suggested electronic bulletin board for better effect. However, many technical problems were identified when taking forward the project and the cost was estimated to be rather expensive. He was of the view that it was not worth wasting time and public money to take forward the project further and decided to withdraw this project. He would submit other project proposals as replacement.

(ii) Dr. LAU Chee-sing, proponent of Project Item (43) “Construction of cycle track from Tai Po Waterfront Park to Ting Kok Road, Tai Po”, said that he noted relevant departments’ replies regarding this project. He would discuss with other two proponents of this project, namely Mr. CHENG Chun-ping and Mr. Patrick TANG, other proposals for replacement. Another proponent of the project, Mr. CHENG Chun-ping, was dissatisfied with the replies of relevant departments and raised that the Government actively promoted the development of recreation and culture in recent years to enhance people’s sense of belonging to Hong Kong. For instance, the Government had injected a lot of resources to enhance Central promenade, Tsim Sha Tsui East and Whampao with a view to providing more places for members of the public to spend their leisure. At present, the cycle track from the end of Tai Po Waterfront Park to Ting Kok Road was rather narrow and bicycle accidents were frequent, hence it was necessary to improve the said road section. Even if a complete section of cycle track could not be built, he hoped that certain sections could be constructed. In addition, he recommended that a cycle track be built between Tai Mei Tuk and Shuen Wan and authorities concerned could explore the construction of elevated roads for road sections where mangroves were involved. Precedents of such works were plenty in the Mainland and Taiwan. He would prepare project proposals with the other two proponents shortly for parties concerned to consider. The Chairman advised that DC’s DMW funding allocation might not be sufficient to cover this project and therefore recommended that the proposal be submitted to the Government for follow up.

(iii) Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, proponent of Project Item (44) “Construction of Covered Walkway near Wan Tau Kok Lane at Kwong Fuk Road”, said that after replacing the damaged gutter cover on the pavement of Kwong Fuk Road on 14 August 2018, HyD had indicated to her that the damaged storm water drain did not fall within the scope

- 2 7 -

of maintenance which HyD was responsible for. HyD had arranged for a one-off gutter cover replacement by its repair team on grounds of public safety. She enquired if the location concerned was Government land or private land, and requested that TPDLO define as soon as possible since the location concerned involved coverage of this project. In addition, the traffic sign on Kwong Fuk Road had to be relocated or preparation of the cover drawings would be affected. She hoped that TD would follow up on this matter at subsequent meetings.

(iv) Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai, proponent of Project Item (46) “Provision of benches at Tai Wo Bus Terminus”, indicated that he understood that TPDO had already made every effort to help him follow up on this project. He raised that placing four benches was very simple and straight-forward and involved no term consultant. Nonetheless, consultation of various departments had begun at Chinese New Year, which was in the beginning of this year, but not completed so far, while TD representatives had not replied regarding the works progress either. He felt indignant at the delays of this project.

39. Ms. Lisa YIP responded to Members’ enquiries and views as follows:

(i) Project Item (44): TPDO understood the proponent’s request and that relevant drains on Kwong Fuk Road were not under HyD’s purview, and was checking with TPDLO which department was responsible for the routine maintenance and repair of the drains at the said location. Besides, TPDO had all along followed up with TD on the matters regarding the large-scale traffic sign and was convinced that TD would be able to reply to the proponent about the progress at the next WGDW meeting.

(ii) Project Item (46): she understood that it had taken rather long to take forward the project and hoped that TD would be able to reply to the proponent about the progress at the next WGDW meeting.

40. The Secretary advised that Project Item (37) had been proposed at last-term DFMC and the proponent could not submit any replacement proposal after withdrawing the said project. Nonetheless, since the proponent still had available quota for projects in the current DC term, he could put forward new project proposals with his quota available. 41. The Chairman reported on the estimated costs for the following projects:

(i) Project Item (41) “Provision of Rainshelters in Tao Po Kau Constituency (Chong San Road, Deerhill Bay and Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout)”: the term consultant fees and advance work expenditure of projects at Chong San Road and Deerhill Bay were $1.2 million while the estimated construction cost of Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout was $500,000, totalling $1.7 million.

- 2 8 -

(ii) Project Item (45) “Construction of covered walkway at Tai Po Road – Yuen Chau Tsai near Kwong Fuk Estate, Tai Po”: the term consultant fees and advance work expenditure were $ 865,000.

(iii) Project Item (48) “Provision of Rain Shelter near Wan Hang House at Tat Wan Road, Tai Po”：consultancy fee and advance work expenditure were $730,000.

42. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the estimated construction costs, consultancy fees and advance work expenditure of the above three projects were endorsed. 43. The DFMC endorsed the report by TPDO. (D) DMW projects followed up by the Tai Po District Leisure Services Office of the LCSD (Items (50) to (56) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 21/2018) 44. Ms. Joeva LUI gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (50) “Beautification works (2017/18)”: LCSD currently followed up on the beautification works in celebration of the National Day to enhance the festive atmosphere.

(ii) Project Item (51) “Upgrading and improving of facilities for sitting-out area”: works at Lin Au Playground had already commenced in mid-June 2018 and LCSD was currently checking the venue notices and signs submitted by Architectural Services Department (“ASD”). The project as a whole was expected to complete in December 2018.

(iii) Project Item (52) “Provision of fitness equipment at Yuen Shin Park”: works to provide elderly fitness equipment had already commenced. LCSD Technical Unit would complete installation of three sets of fitness facilities in end of September 2018 and would invite the proponent to attend the handover meeting. ASD was currently vetting information about underground facilities in connection with the lighting system, which was expected to complete in January 2019.

(iv) Project Item (53) “Provision of leisure facilities at Chui Lok Street Garden”: LCSD had already reported to the proponent and LCSD Technical Unit had carried out tender exercise for the children fitness equipment. Procurement and installation were expected to complete in November end or early December 2018. LCSD currently worked with ASD to coordinate matters such as land formation and installation. LCSD had inspected earlier with the proponent the elderly fitness equipment which had been installed and the proponent was satisfied with the new lighting system at the venue which ASD had provided.

- 2 9 -

(v) Project Item (54) “Beautification Works in Leisure Venues and District Focal Interchange Points”: LCSD had at TPDO’s invitation in late July 2018 planted shrubs at 10 selected sites in the district for landscaping purpose. WGDW had endorsed earlier to allocate an additional funding of $550,000 and now applied to DFMC for the endorsement of the said fund allocation.

(vi) Project Item (55) “Improvement works at Tai Ming Lane Square”: since the project “Provision of sink at Tai Ming Lane Square, Tai Po” was not feasible, the proponent had agreed at the WGDW meeting on 15 August 2018 to shelve the said project and to replace it with this back-up proposal. Project overview included (1) replacement/provision of seats and shelter at the venue; (2) optimisation of seats and shelters of children facilities; and (3) beautification works. LCSD had reported to the proponent in end of August 2018 that replacement of seats at the venue had completed and would report to the proponent progress of the other two items later. Endorsement of DFMC was being sought now for allocating $30,000 to carry out the said beautification works.

(vii) Project Item (56) “Improvement works at Ting Tai Road Children’s Playground”: ASD and LCSD had already conducted an on-site inspection with the proponent in August 2018. Preliminary plans prepared by ASD were now being awaited for exploring if there would be sufficient space at the venue for placing several sets of fitness equipment as requested by the proponent.

45. Mr. LAU Yung-wai, proponent of Project Item (53) “Provision of leisure facilities at Chui Lok Street Garden”, enquired when the project was estimated to complete. 46. Ms. Joeva LUI responded that procurement for Project Item (53) was expected to complete between mid-November and end of November 2018 and subsequent installation of facilities would immediately follow. LCSD currently liaised with ASD to carry out land formation and installation of recreational facilities for children would complete in December 2018. Besides, relevant lighting works would progressively complete. It was hoped that the entire project would complete by end of March 2019. 47. Mr. LAU Yung-wai enquired if the lighting works of Project Item (53) could be carried out first, or only possible upon completion of the installation works. 48. Ms. Joeva LUI responded that the said lighting works had to dovetail with the venue closure procedure to carry out works. She would follow up with ASD on relevant matters. 49. The Chairman reported on the estimated costs for the following projects:

(i) Project Item (54) “Beautification Works in Leisure Venues and District Focal

- 3 0 -

Interchange Points”: construction cost updated to $1.95 million.

(ii) Project Item (55) “Improvement works at Tai Ming Lane Square”: estimated cost of the beautification works was $30,000.

50. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the estimated construction costs of the above two projects were endorsed. 51. The DFMC endorsed the report by Tai Po District Leisure Services Office of the LCSD. (E) DMW projects followed up by the Planning Section of the LCSD (Items (57) to (64) in Annex 2 to TPDC Paper No. DFM 21/2018) 52. Mr. Eddie CHAN gave supplementary remarks on the following projects:

(i) Project Item (57) “Provision of a sitting-out area in CARE Village”: LCSD currently followed up on the procedure to entrust the project to the term consultant for follow up.

(ii) Project Item (58) “Provision of sitting-out area at Po Sam Pai Tsuen, Tai Po”: LCSD currently followed up on the procedure to entrust the project to the term consultant for follow up.

(iii) Project Item (59) “Optimisation of the open space and facilities in San Wa On Lane, Tai Po Tau”: LCSD currently followed up on the procedure to entrust the project to the term consultant for follow up.

(iv) Project Item (60) “Provision of a sitting-out area in San Uk Tsai, Lam Tsuen, Tai Po”: LCSD currently followed up on the procedure to entrust the project to the term consultant for follow up.

(v) Project Item (61) “Integrated sitting-out area”: HAD (Works Section) and the term consultant had in August 2018 consulted the proponent on the preliminary assessment report and were currently following up on relevant assessment work.

(vi) Project Item (62) “Provision of children leisure facilities and elderly fitness facilities at Tseng Tau Tsuen”: HAD (Works Section) and the term consultant had already completed the preliminary assessment report and the construction cost of the project was roughly estimated to be $8.1 million, from which $1.4 million was for the consultancy fees and advance work (such as geophysical survey fees and so on). WGDW had endorsed at its meeting on 15 August 2018 the project’s consultancy fees and advance work expenditure of $1.4 million and now applied to DFMC for the endorsement of the project’s consultancy fees and advance work expenditure of $1.4 million.

- 3 1 -

(vii) Project Item (63) “Provision of fitness and elderly leisure facilities at Wan Tau Tong”: LCSD had in August 2018 provided comments on the preliminary assessment report to HAD (Works Section) and the term consultant for follow up. LCSD would contact HAD again and report to the proponent later.

(viii) Project Item (64) “Provision of elderly facilities at the space under the footbridge near Po Nga Court Hing Wo House, Tai Po”: LCSD had consulted the proponent in August 2018. HAD (Works Section) and the term consultant currently followed up on the assessment work and LCSD would follow up with HAD (Works Section) on the assessment result and then report to the proponent.

53. Mr. Ken YU, proponent of Project Item (63) “Provision of fitness and elderly leisure facilities at Wan Tau Tong”, indicated that he had conducted an on-site inspection earlier and negotiated the narrowing down of the construction site area. He enquired about the timetable of this project, including when fund allocation would be applied for and when the project would commence. Another proponent Mr. LO Hiu-fung raised that LCSD had already provided in August 2018 comments on the assessment report to HAD (Works Section) for follow up. He enquired about the progress of the relevant work. 54. Mr. Eddie CHAN responded in relation to Project Item (63) that LCSD would follow up with HAD (Works Section) on the progress of relevant work after the meeting and then report to the proponent. 55. The Chairman reported on the estimated costs for the following projects:

(i) Project Item (62) “Provision of children leisure facilities and elderly fitness facilities at Tseng Tau Tsuen”: consultancy fees and advance work expenditure were $1.4 million.

56. Members raised no question. The Chairman announced that the consultancy fees and advance work expenditure of the above project were endorsed 57. The DFMC endorsed the report by the Planning Section of the LCSD.

IV. Arrangement of project proponents of District Minor Works (TPDC Paper No. DFM 22/2018) 58. The Chairman advised that current term DFMC had in the beginning of this term in 2016 made provisions for the arrangement of DMW project proponents, details of which could be found in Paper No. DFM 22/2018.

- 3 2 -

59. The Secretary introduced Paper No. DFM 22/2018. As regards Members’ concern at the last meeting about DC Members’ becoming “other proponents” of individual DMW projects, he supplemented that under prevailing practice, other DC Members could become “other proponents” of the DMW project concerned provided that the original proponent of the project agreed or made the request. Similar situations had also occurred in the current term DFMC. 60. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that he raised this issue at the last DFMC meeting not because he demanded the change of proponent of Project Item (6) “Provision of sitting-out area outside Tai Po Sports Ground, Tai Po”. He hoped that should similar situations (i.e. a project had taken up the quota of a Member of the previous term in his constituency while he could not succeed as the proponent of the project concerned under the prevailing arrangement) arise in the future, some respect could be shown to DC Members using the quotas of their own constituencies to propose projects. He also hoped that relevant departments and the Vice-chairman, who was the incumbent project proponent, would in the future notify and invite him should there be any progress of the project or should on-site inspection be required, such that he could give residents an account on the project. Moreover, in order to avoid subsequent problems with transition of proponents of DMW projects, he recommended that rules be laid down in the future instead of including other proponents solely based on the will of the incumbent proponents. He said that in the beginning of the term back then, he was a new Member and not familiar with the arrangement concerned, he therefore hoped that senior DC Members would in the future give some guidance to new Members and remind them of relevant arrangements so as to prevent similar cases from happening again. 61. The Chairman advised that the current term arrangement regarding DMW project proponents had been formulated in as early as 2016 and amendment was not possible during this term. He understood that Mr. LAU Yung-wai had been a new Member at that time and might not have understood the relevant arrangement. He recommended that future arrangement be discussed by DFMC of the next term. Besides, he recommended that Mr. LAU Yung-wai take initiative to contact the Vice-chairman to learn about the progress of the project concerned. 62. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that the Vice-chairman had agreed at the last DFMC meeting to update him on the progress of the project concerned, whereas he hoped that relevant departments could also collaborate accordingly.

V. Reports of working groups (I) Working Group on District Works 63. The Secretary reported as follows: the WGDW held its fourth meeting of this year on 15 August 2018, at which it followed up on the progress of approved DMW projects, and endorsed the estimated cost of five projects and consultancy fee and advance work expenditure of four projects

- 3 3 -

as follows:

(i) Project Item (21) “Provision of systematic letter boxes at Tai Hang, Lam Tusen River, Chung Uk Tsuen, Tap Mun New Fisherman’s Village, Ting Kok Long Ha Tsuen, Tai Om and Ha Hang, Tai Po”: refurbishment works cost was $1.2 million.

(ii) Project Item (30) “Provision of rainshelters with benches at Fung Yuen, Tai Wo and Yuen Leng Kam Fung Garden, Tai Po”: estimated construction cost was $2 million.

(iii) Project Item (32) “Provision of a sitting-out area and installation of handrails and barrier-free ramp outside Plover Cove Garden on Po Wu Lane”: estimated construction cost was $500,000.

(iv) Project Item (41) “Provision of Rainshelters in Tao Po Kau Constituency (Chong San Road, Deerhill Bay and Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout)”: consultancy fee and advance work expenditure of Chong San Road and Deerhill Bay were $1.2 million while estimated construction cost of Chung Tsai Yuen Lookout was $500,000, totaling $1.7 million.

(v) Project Item (45) “Construction of Covered Walkway at Tai Po Road - Yuen Chau Tsai near Kwong Fuk Estate, Tai Po”: consultancy fee and advance work expenditure were $865,000.

(vi) Project Item (48) “Provision of Rain Shelter near Wan Hang House at Tat Wan Road, Tai Po”: consultancy fee and advance work expenditure were $730,000.

(vii) Project Item (54) “Beautification Works in Leisure Venues and District Focal Interchange Points”: refurbishment works cost was $1.95 million.

(viii) Project Item (55) “Improvement works at Tai Ming Lane Square”: estimated construction cost was $30,000.

(ix) Project Item (62) “Provision of Children’s Play Equipment and Elderly Fitness Equipment at Tseng Tau Tsuen, Sai Sha Road, Tai Po”: consultancy fee and advance work expenditure were $1.4 million.

Details of WGDW’s discussion of the above projects could be found in the papers and annexes under Agenda Item III. (II) Working Group on Facilities Management 64. Dr. LAU Chee-sing, Chairman of the Working Group on Facilities Management (“WGFM”), reported that WGFM held its fourth meeting of this year on 15 August 2018. The Working Group noted the report by the TPDO on the management of community centre/community halls in June and July 2018 and the report by the LCSD on the management of local facilities under its charge in

- 3 4 -

May and June 2018. 65. The DFMC endorsed the reports by the two Working Groups.

VI. Any other business (I) Request to provide barrier-free access in Tai Po Civic Centre 66. The Chairman welcomed the following person to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item:

(i) Mr. Rico LEUNG, Senior Manager(NTE)Promotion of LCSD 67. The Chairman advised that Members including Mr. CHEUNG Hok-ming, Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, Mr. LI Kwok-ying, Mr. CHENG Chun-ping, Mr. Eric TAM and Mr. Clememt WOO had submitted before the meeting a letter regarding the “Request to provide barrier-free access in Tai Po Civic Centre” (see Annex 2). Mr. Eric TAM introduced the paper. 68. Mr. Rico LEUNG responded as follows: Tai Po Civic Centre (“TPCC”) was opened in 1985, which was a building interconnected with Tai Po Government Secondary School and had at the same time served as the assembly hall of the school. Before the school had ceased to operate, audience in need and people with disabilities could access the Auditorium of TPCC by using the lift inside Tai Po Government Secondary School. As the school had ceased operation in July 2014, the Education Bureau had agreed to entrust the lift of the school to TPCC for management until end of August 2017 to facilitate operation of the Auditorium of TPCC. Since the Signature Project Scheme converted Tai Po Government Secondary School into an arts centre, use of the said lift and toilets for persons with disabilities had to be suspended starting from 1 September of the same year until completion of the conversion works, whereas TPCC had provided on a long term basis mobile toilets for persons with disabilities since July 2017. Owing to service suspension of the lift, TPCC staff had already reminded people concerned when handling booking and ticketing requests while staff on duty would assist as far as practicable audience with mobility impairment in entering and leaving the Auditorium during performance. It was understood that the retrofitting works of Tai Po Arts Centre would complete in Q4 in 2018 and the lift and toilets for persons with disabilities would then be opened for TPCC use again. At the same time, provision of lift and other barrier-free access facilities were among the items of the upgrading works of facilities in TPCC, whereas the facilities were designed in accordance with the requirements and recommendations contained in the latest version of the Buildings Department’s Design Manual: Barrier Free Access. LCSD Planning Section also regularly reported to DFMC under TPDC the progress of this project. (II) Preparatory work before the typhoon season

- 3 5 -

69. Mr. LAU Yung-wai raised that the typhoon season was approaching and therefore enquired if TPDO would notify relevant departments in this connection to pay special attention to the issue as to whether or not Government’s outdoor lifts would be damaged by floods brought forth by typhoons. 70. Ms. Andy LUI indicated that a super typhoon would hit Hong Kong during the weekend and various Government departments had already made preparation in this connection. TPDO had contacted DC Members, Rural Committee and village representatives and so on whereas departments had held emergency meetings during the past few days to discuss measures to deal with the situation. She also requested that DC Members present ask groups, committees or offices to which they had links to remind residents and villagers to take preventive measures. TPDO would once again notify relevant departments and had already notified Drainage Services Department to pay attention to relevant river blackspots. Departments had undertaken preparatory work in accordance with the meeting convened a few days ago by the Security Bureau. 71. Mr. AU Chun-wah enquired what contingency plans TPDO would have and what communication channels were available in the event of unexpected circumstances. He said that the Democratic Party had written to the Secretary for Home Affairs to request that temporary shelters be open earlier instead of opening them only when typhoon signal No. 8 was hoisted, such that residents could make preparation in time and decide whether they would move to the shelters earlier. 72. Ms. Andy LUI advised that temporary shelters of HAD would not be open only after typhoon signal No. 8 was hoisted. During inclement weather, members of the public would only need to contact HAD and HAD would make arrangements as required. HAD had already received the letter from the Democratic Party. Some residents in low-lying areas and singleton elders might need to move to temporary shelters earlier. Should DC Members learn that such people would require assistance before the arrival of typhoon, they could at any time contact TPDO which would provide as much support as possible. 73. Mr. Francis YAM said that he and Mr. KWAN Wing-yip had noticed that preparations were being made for Mid-Autumn lantern carnival at Tai Po Waterfront Park. He enquired if venue decoration and installation of large lanterns were underway currently. 74. Ms. Andy LUI advised that the relevant event would take place at a venue managed by LCSD and TPDO had maintained close contact with LCSD and the organisers in recent days according to established procedures, and would make sufficient preparation.

VII. Date of next meeting

- 3 6 -

75. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 8 November 2018 (Thursday).

- 3 7 -

76. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:29 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat October 2018