Minutes of the 20th Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee of the

Yau Tsim Mong District Council (2016-2019) Date : 16 May 2019 (Thursday) Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : Yau Tsim Mong District Council Conference Room 4/F, Mong Kok Government Offices 30 Luen Wan Street Mong Kok, Kowloon Present: Chairman

Mr CHOI Siu-fung, Benjamin Vice-chairman

Mr JO Chun-wah, Craig District Council Members

Mr IP Ngo-tung, Chris, JP Ms KWAN Sau-ling Ms WONG Shu-ming, MH Mr LAM Kin-man Mr CHAN Siu-tong, MH, JP Mr LAU Pak-kei Mr CHOW Chun-fai, BBS, JP Miss LI Sze-man Mr CHUNG Chak-fai Ms TANG Ming-sum, Michelle Mr CHUNG Kong-mo, BBS, JP Mr WONG Kin-san Mr HUI Tak-leung Mr YEUNG Tsz-hei, Benny, MH Mr HUNG Chiu-wah, Derek Mr YU Tak-po, Andy Co-opted Members

Mr CHAN Sik-ming Mr IP Siu-tak Mr SIU Hon-ping Mr CHAN Tak-lap Mr LEUNG Yiu-wah, Jackie Ms CHIN Pui-kwan Mr LEUNG Yui Representatives of the Government

Mrs ARON Laura Liang, JP District Officer (Yau Tsim Mong) Home Affairs Department Miss PONG Kin-wah,

Katherine Assistant District Officer (Yau Tsim

Mong) (1) Home Affairs Department

Ms PONG Sze-wan, Cecilia Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting), Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Ms HO Wing-sze, Marianna Senior Manager (Kowloon West/ Cultural Services)

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Mrs CHU LEE Mei-foon, Karen

Senior Librarian (Yau Tsim Mong) Leisure and Cultural Services Department

- 2 -

Mr LI Kuen-fat District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong)

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Ms CHIU Shui-man, Tabitha

Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Mr YIM Tsan-man Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon) Home Affairs Department In Attendance: Mr WONG Chi-wah, Fred Librarian (Yau Ma Tei Public Library) Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Ms LAU Siu-mui, Lily Manager (Kowloon West) Marketing,

Programme and District Activities Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Mr LI Wai-hei Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1 Home Affairs Department Mr TAM Ka-kei, Eric Senior Transport Officer/Yau Tsim Mong Transport Department Mr NG Chun-ling District Engineer/Mong Kok Highways Department Mr MA Hing-sum, Patrick Chief Health Inspector (Mong Kok) 1 Food and Environmental

Hygiene Department Mr CHOW Wai-chung Chief Health Inspector (Mong Kok) 3 Food and Environmental

Hygiene Department Mr SUNG Chung-man Assistant District Leisure Manager

(District Support) Yau Tsim Mong Leisure and Cultural

Services Department Mr KWOK Pang-chi Sergeant, Police Community Relations

Office (Yau Tsim) Hong Kong Police Force

Mr WONG Chor-kuen, Alfred

Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional East) 6

Environmental Protection Department

Mr LUI Sai-tat Chief Health Inspector (Yau Tsim) 1 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Secretary

Miss FUNG Sze-laam, Serena

Executive Officer (District Council) 4, Yau Tsim Mong District Office

Home Affairs Department

Opening Remarks The Chairman welcomed Members and government representatives to the meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”). Item 1: Confirmation of Minutes of Last Meeting 2. Minutes of the last meeting were confirmed without amendments. Item 2: Report by Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) on

Extension Activities and Usage of Public Libraries in March 2019 and Extension Activities Program Plan from June to July 2019 in Yau Tsim Mong (“YTM”) District (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 23/2019)

- 3 -

3. The Chairman welcomed Mrs Karen CHU, Senior Librarian (Yau Tsim Mong), and Mr Fred WONG, Librarian (Yau Ma Tei Public Library), of the LCSD. 4. Mrs Karen CHU briefly introduced the subject paper. 5. The Chairman thanked the representatives of the LCSD for joining the discussion on this item. There being no comments from Members, he ended the discussion on this item. (Mr Andy YU joined the meeting at 2:35 p.m.) Item 3: Report on District Free Entertainment Programmes and District Arts

and Cultural Events Organised by the LCSD for YTM District (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 24/2019)

6. The Chairman welcomed Ms Marianna HO, Senior Manager (Kowloon West/ Cultural Services), and Ms Lily LAU, Manager (Kowloon West) Marketing, Programme and District Activities, of the LCSD. 7. Ms Marianna HO briefly introduced the subject paper. 8. There being no comments from Members, the Chairman concluded that Members noted the paper and ended the discussion on this item. Item 4: Strong Request for Extension of Rain Shelter at Hoi Wang Road

(Charming Garden Section) and Provision of More Seats (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 25/2019)

9. The Chairman welcomed:

(a) Ms Cecilia PONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting) of the Yau Tsim Mong District Office (“YTMDO”);

(b) Mr YIM Tsan-man, Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon), and Mr LI Wai-hei, Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1, of the Home Affairs Department (“HAD”);

(c) Mr Eric TAM, Senior Transport Officer/Yau Tsim Mong of the Transport Department; and

(d) Mr NG Chun-ling, District Engineer/Mong Kok of the Highways Department.

(Mr Benny YEUNG joined the meeting at 2:47 p.m.) 10. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo introduced the paper and thanked the representatives of the government departments concerned for taking follow-up actions. When conducting a site inspection with the departmental representatives, he had reflected his suggestions on the location of rain shelter, including relocating the rain shelter to roadside when actual circumstances permitted, and reversing the rain shelter by installing supporting posts at

- 4 -

roadside. He asked the departmental representatives to explain the study result of the site inspection on that day. 11. Ms Cecilia PONG said that she had had a site inspection with Mr CHUNG Kong-mo earlier and the yellow rain shelter mentioned in the paper was located outside Block 9 of Charming Garden at Hoi Wang Road. As observed from the site inspection, it should be possible to extend the rain shelter for about four metres. As it was next to a manhole cover, the Works Section proposed constructing another set of rain shelter at a length of about six metres beyond the manhole cover and its reserved space and in a straight line with the existing one. Since a lamp post and a manhole cover were near the roadside, relocation of the rain shelter to the roadside might obstruct the above facilities. It might not be possible to specifically identify the actual locations and directions of underground pipes by only referring to the layout plan, so the Works Section considered that ground investigation was required to determine the locations of the pedestals of the future rain shelter. The cost of ground investigation was estimated to be $50,000. 12. The Chairman asked the Member submitting the paper to put forward a proposal for district minor works (“DMWs”) on the subject proposal to the YTMDO. 13. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo noted the response of the YTMDO in respect of the extension of the coverage of the rain shelter and asked whether the YTMDO would provide seats for the new rain shelter. Regarding his proposal of relocating the rain shelter to the roadside when actual circumstances permitted, he hoped that the departmental representatives could give a specific response regarding its feasibility. 14. Mr HUI Tak-leung raised the following questions and views: (i) he asked whether there was any width or length restriction on the design of the rain shelter; (ii) he asked whether the structural safety of this type of structures would be affected because of their excessive length; and (iii) he hoped that when planning and designing relevant works projects in future, government departments could consider from the perspective of the public more often, rather than carrying out improvement works after Members reflected the deficiency of facilities. 15. Mr CHAN Sik-ming said that the project cost estimate of $50,000 mentioned by the YTMDO representative included the cost of ground investigation. He enquired about the specific scope of the ground investigation works. 16. Mr YIM Tsan-man responded that regarding the provision of more seats suggested by Mr CHUNG Kong-mo, the department would first conduct ground investigation to study whether there was sufficient space in the foundation to tie in with the extension and provision of rain shelters and seats. The department would align the rain shelter with the bus stop shelter nearby as far as possible. The cost of ground investigation of $50,000 included the study on the feasibility of the extension and provision of rain shelters and seats. He said that as there was a bus stop shelter nearby with which the rain shelter could be aligned, the proposal of reversing the rain shelter was not desirable. 17. Mr CHUNG Kong-mo showed his understanding of the viewpoint of “alignment”, but he hoped to know whether the proposal of moving the rain shelter towards the road and reversing the rain shelter was restricted by actual conditions or technical difficulties. 18. Mr YIM Tsan-man said that as there was a manhole cover, it was not suitable to

- 5 -

provide a rain shelter there. 19. The Chairman suggested approving in principle the subject proposal and the cost of ground investigation of $50,000 for the YTMDO to take follow-up actions and report to this Committee in due course. There was no objection. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman then ended the discussion on this item. (Mr LEUNG Yui joined the meeting at 2:51 p.m.) Item 5: Calling for Prompt Action to Convert FEHD’s Existing Storage Area

for Refuse Collection Bins under Prince Edward Road West Flyover into Space for Community Activities / Leisure Ground (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 26/2019)

20. The Chairman said that the written response of the Lands Department (“LandsD”) (Annex 1) had been emailed to Members for perusal before the meeting. He then welcomed:

(a) Ms Cecilia PONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting) of the YTMDO;

(b) Mr YIM Tsan-man, Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon), and Mr LI Wai-hei, Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1, of the HAD; and

(c) Mr Patrick MA, Chief Health Inspector (Mong Kok) 1, and Mr CHOW Wai-chung, Chief Health Inspector (Mong Kok) 3, of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”).

21. Mr WONG Kin-san provided supplementary information on the paper and said that the paper was divided into two parts with details as follows: (i) part one of the paper suggested converting the location stated in the paper into an open space. He had learnt that his initial proposal of conversion into meeting rooms had not been accepted by the Government, but he still hoped to go for a less preferable option by seeking to convert the location into an open space; and (ii) the purpose of part two of the paper was to pursue responsibility. He had submitted a similar paper in July last year, and it had at that time revealed that no action had been taken at the works site under Ferry Street Flyover and no progress had been made. The relevant government department had then undertaken to catch up with the works progress as far as possible. In February this year, the departmental representative had also said that the tendering process had been underway, and it had been hoped that the works would commence in March for completion within five months, i.e. in August this year. However, the departmental representative had said at the Committee meeting in April that tender assessment had only commenced at that time, and indicated in Paper No. 33/2019 for this meeting that while tender assessment had been completed, the department was waiting for the grant of temporary land allocation permit by the LandsD endlessly. The actual commencement date for the works under Ferry Street Flyover could not be confirmed so far, while there was no definite schedule for commencing the works under Prince Edward Road West Flyover. He urged the representatives of the relevant government departments to give a definite response to this Committee about the two projects. 22. Ms Cecilia PONG responded as follows:

(i) At the Committee meeting on 4 April, the YTMDO had reported the progress

- 6 -

of the works under Ferry Street Flyover to Members and said that the tendering work had been completed earlier, but the works could only commence after the temporary land allocation was granted by the LandsD. The representative of the LandsD had told her that the relevant document could be issued within this week. She would continue to follow up on the matter closely. The Works Section would also cooperate to implement the works.

(ii) She thanked the FEHD for its cooperation and noted that the FEHD had applied to the LandsD for prolonging the use of the area under Prince Edward Road West Flyover.

(iii) She had had a site inspection to the area under Prince Edward Road West Flyover with Mr WONG Kin-san. According to on-site assessment, planter pots could be placed along the two sides under the flyover, and the YTMDO had consulted the LCSD on this proposal. The department had said that placing planter pots near the road would be conducive to the growth of plants. Additional notice boards or display panels of the Yau Tsim Mong District Council (“YTMDC”) could also be provided there by the YTMDO. The area could become a new community space after greening and beautification.

23. Mr HUI Tak-leung expressed regret that the YTMDO representative had just responded that the land allocation permit had not been received. He did not understand why the YTMDO could not do anything about the grant of land allocation permit by the LandsD. As Members had said, the content of the paper had been discussed for a long time, and he asked whether the YTMDO could make a commitment that the land allocation permit could be obtained within one week for works commencement. He hoped that the District Officer (Yau Tsim Mong) (“District Officer”) could give a response on the above matter. He was shocked that the LandsD had not taken follow-up actions efficiently, accordingly the progress of the whole project came to a standstill. 24. Mr WONG Kin-san said that the works proposal came from the YTMDC of the last term. At that time many District Councillors had submitted the paper, including Ms KO Po-ling and Mr Francis CHONG who no longer served on the Committee. The then incumbent Superintendent of the FEHD had also supported the subject proposal, and it had already been the fifth Superintendent of the FEHD since then. However, there had not been any progress for the works and, worse still, approval had been awaited endlessly. He questioned whether the department considered that there was no need to report the works progress to this Committee. Members had repeatedly enquired about the works progress, but the LandsD only indicated in its written response that it would take follow-up actions in accordance with procedures. Given that the District Officer had undertaken to take remedial action and catch up with the works progress, he asked why the YTMDO was still waiting for the document of approval. Furthermore, regarding the use of the area under Prince Edward Road West Flyover, he asked whether the YTMDO would consider providing seats other than planter pots or notice boards to tie in with its usage as leisure or activity space. 25. Ms WONG Shu-ming shared the anger of Mr WONG Kin-san. She considered that the LandsD’s written response to the DFMC was perfunctory. In her view, if the LandsD delayed in giving concrete response, thereby affecting the inter-departmental coordination of the works, Mr WONG Kin-san could consider lodging a complaint with the Office of The Ombudsman directly or discussing the matter further at a DFMC meeting, and inviting the LandsD again to send its staff to attend the DFMC meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

- 7 -

26. Mrs ARON Laura Liang responded that there was indeed a great delay in the works under Ferry Street Flyover. The YTMDO had proceeded to coordinate with other departments to catch up with the works progress. While the YTMDO was striving to catch up with the works progress, it would still depend on the progress of the work under the purview of other departments. 27. Mr YIM Tsan-man added that the Works Section initially considered that the proposal of provision of seats was feasible. 28. Mr Derek HUNG noted that the paper had been discussed for a long time and the District Officer had also undertaken to catch up with the works progress as far as possible, but the perfunctory attitude of the LandsD had affected the works which required inter-departmental coordination. He supported the proposed use of the area under Prince Edward Road West Flyover raised by the Councillor of the constituency. He also expressed his views that there should be sufficient lighting under the flyover and on both sides of the road. The utilisation of space should also be maximised in the design to avoid long-term occupation by any person in future. 29. The Chairman asked Members for their views on how to deal with the paper and whether further discussion was required for the item. 30. Mr WONG Kin-san said that if the Chairman was confident that a representative of the LandsD would attend the next DFMC meeting upon invitation and could ensure that the response of the representative would be satisfactory, he would show support to further discuss this item, otherwise it would not be very meaningful nor necessary to do so. 31. The Chairman said that the District Officer had given a response in this respect. 32. Mrs ARON Laura Liang said that the YTMDO noted the delay and the concern of the Committee. The YTMDO would continue to coordinate with the relevant departments actively to catch up with the works progress. 33. The Chairman said that the YTMDO would continue to follow up on and coordinate the matter concerning the LandsD. He then suggested that Members endorse in principle the proposals of the provision of planter pots under Prince Edward Road West Flyover, the provision of YTMDC notice boards and seats, and the improvement of lighting. The YTMDO would be tasked to take follow-up actions on this item and report to this Committee in due course. There was no objection. 34. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman ended the discussion on this item. Item 6: Report on the Organisation of Recreation and Sports Activities and the

Management of Facilities in YTM District by the LCSD (March 2019 to July 2019) (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 27/2019)

35. The Chairman welcomed Mr LI Kuen-fat, District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong), Ms Tabitha CHIU, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, and Mr SUNG Chung-man, Assistant District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, of the LCSD.

- 8 -

36. Ms Tabitha CHIU briefly introduced the subject paper. 37. Ms WONG Shu-ming thanked the LCSD for taking the initiative to propose improvement works for the recreation and sports facilities of Lai Chi Kok Road/Canton Road Garden. She said that there were signs of damage to the arbours in the garden, but no repair of the arbours was mentioned by the department in the paper. She hoped that the department could take action altogether. 38. Ms Tabitha CHIU said that the paper did not set out fully the details of the improvement works. She said that the department would examine whether other repair or improvement works were required in carrying out the improvement works, and would deal with the damage to the arbours raised by Ms WONG Shu-ming altogether. 39. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman ended the discussion on this item. Item 7: Report on the DMWs and Environmental Improvement Projects at the

LCSD’s Venues in YTM District in 2016-2019 (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 28/2019)

40. The Chairman welcomed Mr LI Kuen-fat, District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong), Ms Tabitha CHIU, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, and Mr SUNG Chung-man, Assistant District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, of the LCSD. 41. Ms Tabitha CHIU briefly introduced the paper. 42. There being no comments from Members, the Chairman ended the discussion on this item. Item 8: Funding Application for DMWs and Environmental Improvement

Projects in LCSD’s Venues in YTM District in 2019/20 (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 29/2019)

43. The Chairman welcomed Mr LI Kuen-fat, District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong), Ms Tabitha CHIU, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, and Mr SUNG Chung-man, Assistant District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, of the LCSD. 44. Ms Tabitha CHIU briefly introduced the paper. 45. Mr Andy YU said that he had had a site inspection with the representative of the LCSD earlier regarding the provision of elderly fitness equipment at Cherry Street Park and had also studied the preferences of the local community. They welcomed the provision of riders. (Ms Michelle TANG joined the meeting at 3:25 p.m.)

- 9 -

46. The Chairman suggested endorsing the subject works proposal and the relevant funding. There was no objection. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman then ended the discussion on this item. Item 9: Greening of Tai Nan Constituency and Enhancement of Fitness

Facilities in Lai Chi Kok Road / Tai Nam Street Sitting-out Area (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 30/2019)

47. The Chairman said that the written response of the LCSD (Annex 2) had been emailed to Members for perusal before the meeting. He then welcomed:

(a) Ms Cecilia PONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting) of the YTMDO; and

(b) Mr LI Kuen-fat, District Leisure Manager (Yau Tsim Mong), and Ms Tabitha CHIU, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Yau Tsim Mong, of the LCSD.

48. The Chairman said that Mr LI Kuen-fat and Ms Tabitha CHIU represented the Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”) and the LCSD to attend the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. 49. Miss LI Sze-man provided supplementary information on the paper and said that Lai Chi Kok Road / Tai Nam Street Sitting-out Area was located at the centre of Tai Nan constituency and with high utilisation rate. She suggested providing new types of fitness facilities there. Given that the buildings on the two sides of the sitting-out area were relatively tall, she hoped that the bureau and the works departments could proceed to study how to improve the greening there. In addition, residents had relayed to her that the location was the core area of Tai Nan constituency with bus stops nearby, so they hoped that toilets could be built to provide convenience to the public. 50. Ms Tabitha CHIU said that she had had a site inspection with Miss LI earlier and the department was actively following up on the subject proposal. Regarding the proposal of provision of toilets, consideration should be given to the relatively large area occupied by toilets. Although Lai Chi Kok Road / Tai Nam Street Sitting-out Area had an area of 1 000 square metres, a large number of facilities had been provided there, including more than 70 seats and several pavilions, leaving little available space. On the other hand, the department was arranging another site inspection with the Technical Unit to study the proposal of improving fitness facilities. The department would also follow up with the Architectural Services Department about the proposal of greening, and would report to the Committee and apply for funding in due course. 51. There being no further comments from Members, the Vice-chairman ended the discussion on this item. Item 10: Provision of “Eyes in the Sky” at Crime Black Spots to Ensure

Community Safety (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 31/2019)

52. The Chairman said that the written response of the FEHD (Annex 3) had been emailed to Members for perusal before the meeting. He then welcomed:

- 10 -

(a) Ms Cecilia PONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting)

of the YTMDO;

(b) Mr KWOK Pang-chi, Sergeant, Police Community Relations Office (Yau Tsim) of the Hong Kong Police Force;

(c) Mr Alfred WONG, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional East) 6 of the Environmental Protection Department; and

(d) Mr LUI Sai-tat, Chief Health Inspector (Yau Tsim) 1 of the FEHD. 53. The Chairman said that Ms Cecilia PONG represented the HAB and the YTMDO to attend the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. 54. Mr CHAN Siu-tong provided supplementary information on the paper, and said that quite a number of robbery cases had occurred in YTM District, some of which had taken place in Tsim Sha Tsui. He considered that the installation of closed circuit television (“CCTV”) cameras, i.e. “eyes in the sky”, at those high-risk places commonly known as “black spots” could assist the Police in crime detection and prevention. He thanked the FEHD for including the area of Man Sing Street in its list. He also hoped that the Police and Members would support his suggestion of installing CCTV cameras at locations where weapon-carrying, robbery and theft cases had occurred in the previous one or two years. The said locations were mostly shops selling watches, jewellery and other high-value goods and were crime black spots. 55. The Chairman said that the paper was divided into two parts from his understanding. Part one suggested the FEHD install “eyes in the sky”, while the second part focused on crime prevention and suggested the installation of CCTV cameras in the vicinity of watch, jewellery and other shops. He asked the Member submitting the paper whether discussion on part one was not required.

56. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that as the FEHD had mentioned its follow-up arrangements in its written response, there was no need to further discuss that part. (Mr Derek HUNG left the meeting at 3:40 p.m.) 57. The Chairman said that Members might discuss the suggestion in part two of the paper regarding the installation of “eyes in the sky” near jewellery shops to prevent serious crimes. 58. Mr KWOK Pang-chi said that it was the Police’s stance to support all proposals that would effectively prevent and detect crimes. Regarding the installation locations and their priorities, Members were asked to discuss and make suggestions. 59. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) on crime prevention and enforcement, Members were laymen only. Members needed the Police’s advice as to whether its operations would be affected after the installation of CCTV cameras. For example, the Police was conducting covert surveillance operations somewhere, and the rash installation of CCTV cameras might affect the Police’s enforcement actions and evidence collection. Accordingly, he emphasised that Members needed to listen to the Police’s advice; (ii) this Committee mainly discussed DMWs projects. If the scope of discussion involved

- 11 -

professional knowledge, such as transport and highways, the Committee would invite the relevant departments to send their staff to attend the meeting for discussion; and (iii) due to resource constraints, Members hoped to know which locations were most suitable for and in most pressing need of installation of CCTV cameras. Members understood the confidentiality of Police’s work. If the Police considered that the installation at certain locations might obstruct the Police’s enforcement, Members only wished to know the fact and would not ask for the reasons.

60. Mr CHAN Siu-tong raised the following views: (i) he considered that the Chairman did not need to worry about causing obstruction to Police’s enforcement. This Committee had earlier approved at a meeting the proposed upgrading of the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct and its funding, and lawbreakers had now known the camera locations. He did not understand why the Chairman was worried about his subject proposal, and that the Police’s actions would be known in advance and thus obstructing crime detection; and (ii) he hoped that other Members could provide opinions on the installation locations, and that if the Police considered that there were suitable installation locations, it could submit a paper at the next DFMC meeting. (Mr LEUNG Yui left the meeting at 3:50 p.m.) 61. The Chairman said that: (i) he reminded Members that the item of upgrading the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct had not been raised by the DFMC for discussion, rather, the DFMC had been authorised by the YTMDC at its full council meeting on 24 January 2019 to follow up on the item. As the item of the last DFMC meeting had been a continuation of the discussion at the full council meeting, Members had not been required to clarify the authority for discussion of the item on that day. Furthermore, at the DFMC meeting on that day, as the YTMDC had authorised the follow-up discussion and resolution at its full council meeting, the DFMC had not discussed the issue of terms of reference; (ii) as the discussion and resolution at the last DFMC meeting were not regular decisions made by the DFMC, if Members hoped to discuss at a DFMC meeting the proposal of the use of funding for DMWs to install CCTV cameras, they should first examine the authority and whether it was suitable to grant funding. He emphasised that the item of the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct should not be compared with the captioned item; (iii) the DFMC, on behalf of the full council, had discussed the issue of the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct at the last meeting. In other words, it had been a discussion on the continuation of the operation of the existing system, which had been a legitimate expectation in the legal aspect. However, the subject proposal was different from the above item and not a legitimate expectation. The standards and thresholds for it were different as well; (iv) he reiterated that this Committee was not a professional committee under the scope of security. He was not particularly worried about affecting Police’s enforcement but only pointed out that Members had to note whether the Police would consider that the installation at certain locations would cause inconvenience to its work before the discussion. He also hoped that the Police and other professional departments could lead Members in the discussion; (v) as the Police representative had indicated support for all proposals for effective prevention and detection of crimes, he asked why the Police did not install CCTV systems with its departmental funding, but other departments had been required to apply for funding to install CCTV systems for the detection of crimes by the Police; (vi) the LCSD had also applied for funding to install CCTV systems in the parks under its management, but the proposal had been made for designated venues. If a CCTV system could be installed on every street, then the whole YTM District would be full of CCTV cameras; (vii) Members required objective statistics to determine whether CCTV cameras should be installed. In addition, as this issue fell within the scope of professional security

- 12 -

which was unfamiliar to Members, they would easily cross the line if they came to a resolution on their own, so the professional advice of the Police was required to facilitate discussion and funding approval; and (viii) if the Committee set a precedent to make a resolution on this type of works and determine on its own the installation of CCTV systems on streets, it would be like opening a floodgate which could not be closed. 62. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that he did not quite understand the legal knowledge mentioned by the Chairman, but from Paper No. 28/2019, he was aware that the LCSD had installed CCTV cameras in MacPherson Playground. He asked why cameras could be installed in MacPherson Playground but not high-risk locations in Tsim Sha Tsui. Moreover, the FEHD had given a written response to the suggestion of installing Internet Protocol (“IP”) cameras at Ferry Point near Man Sing Street in the subject paper and had indicated that the department had included the above location in the list of proposed locations for its IP camera installation scheme. He asked the YTMDO for the number of proposals regarding the installation of CCTV cameras that had been endorsed at DFMC meetings in the past. He also asked whether the DFMC had the authority to use the funding for DMWs to install CCTV cameras. 63. The Chairman reiterated that other than the venues managed by the LCSD, and the continuation of the discussion on the item of the full council meeting regarding the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct, the DFMC had not endorsed any applications for CCTV systems which were not under the LCSD. 64. Mr Andy YU raised the following views: (i) he had reservations about the installation of CCTV cameras. At first, it had been mentioned during the installation of CCTV cameras at Sai Yeung Choi Street South that the system was temporary, but it had become permanent after the resolution at the last meeting; (ii) he considered that other than the protection of community safety, protection of the privacy of the public was also required. The Member submitting the paper had listed some locations without indicating exactly whether they were tourist areas or residential areas. He pointed out that the relevant guidelines laid down by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“PCPD”) had set out specifically that the nuisance caused to the lives of the public should be reduced as far as possible when implementing monitoring measures. On the precondition that the above principle was considered, he believed that the Police did not have enough information today to propose the locations suitable for installing CCTV cameras; and (iii) in the discussion of the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct, the media had mentioned the relevant guidelines of the PCPD specifying that CCTV cameras should mainly be used to achieve deterrent effect other than for evidence collection. Whether the footages could be given in evidence would be another matter. The images recorded should not capture the face of members of the public as far as possible. He hoped that the Member concerned could consider the guidelines. 65. Mr LAM Kin-man raised the following views: (i) regarding the discussion on the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct, his and Mr Andy YU’s stance was very clear that they had opposing views. He considered that although CCTV cameras were used to prevent crimes, they also monitored the public and affected the right of freedom of the public. He believed that the continued operation of the above system had been endorsed after detailed consultation and for pressing reasons. The department concerned had also consulted the PCPD and the Department of Justice; (ii) he had great reservations about the approval of funding at the meetings of the YTMDC and its Committees for implementing measures involving the monitoring of the public which would affect their right of freedom; and (iii) he would not object to strengthened anti-crime measures by the Police, but the Police

- 13 -

should use its internal resources. If funding for DMWs had to be applied through the DFMC for the installation of CCTV system, he would certainly raise objection. 66. The Chairman said that the legal terminologies he mentioned were intended to provide reference to Members during their discussion. He particularly pointed out the floodgate argument that once there was a precedent, it would be difficult to turn back in future. By then unlimited exaggeration would be absolutely possible, and the installation of CCTV cameras along the whole street would be claimed as necessary. 67. Mr WONG Kin-san raised the following views: (i) he did not support the subject proposal. Given that the DFMC had already wasted $1.5 million at the last meeting for continue provision of a CCTV system for a former pedestrian precinct, why should Members continue to waste further amounts of $1.5 million. He believed that Members might not support this proposal again and considered that it was not worthwhile to waste public money in this manner; (ii) he very much agreed with what the Chairman had said. He pointed out that the YTMDC had been high-handed in the way that it had made an unnecessary voting and had then requested the DFMC to follow up on the item. The DFMC had no choice but to approve funding of $1.5 million to extend the operation of the CCTV system at Sai Yeung Choi Street South. He did not understand why mistakes had to be repeated to continue to waste public money; and (iii) he agreed with the Member submitting the paper that there were many shops selling watches, jewellery and other high-value goods in YTM District, making the area a high-risk place more prone to crimes. He hoped that the Police could provide their views in this respect. As many Members had concerns over crimes, he asked whether the Police would step up anti-crime operations to ease the mind of the public, shop tenants and Members. 68. The Chairman said that the DFMC had been authorised at the full council meeting of the YTMDC to discuss the upgrading of the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct and allocate funding, and he had never said the YTMDC was high-handed. 69. Mr KWOK Pang-chi responded as follows:

(i) Regarding the issue of whether the Police was using funding from the YTMDC rather than its internal funding to install CCTV cameras, he said that the Police did not take the initiative to request the DFMC to assist in installing CCTV cameras. The Police only expressed its stance on this item that if the measures were effective in combating, preventing and detecting crimes, the Police would show support in principle. As to whether the funding for DMWs had to be used, and whether installation was required at a specific location, the Police had no particular view.

(ii) The Police had reservations about the handling and maintenance of CCTV cameras after installation. The Police was not clear about matters regarding the handling and maintenance of the system as well as the details of footage retrieval.

(iii) Crimes had indeed taken place at the high-risk places mentioned in the subject paper. He read the statistics of the following three types of crimes for Members’ reference: in the year before, there had been two robbery cases, one burglary case and one theft case at Middle Road; one theft case at Peking Road; one robbery case, two burglary cases and eight theft cases at Canton Road near Harbour City; one robbery case, three burglary cases and nine theft cases at Haiphong Road.

- 14 -

70. The Chairman said that the statistics mentioned by the Police only focused on the few streets mentioned in the paper. Under the precondition of resource constraints, if the installation of CCTV cameras was to be considered, instead of focusing on the few streets mentioned in the paper, other streets in YTM District should also been taken into consideration. 71. Mr Andy YU asked the Police which types of crimes mentioned above could be combated with the help of a CCTV system. 72. Mr CHAN Siu-tong raised the following views: (i) the YTMDC was not high-handed. The YTMDC had authorised at its full council meeting the DFMC to follow up on the item, and Members had voted to decide whether to endorse the proposal after some discussions at the last DFMC meeting. It was different from what Mr WONG Kin-san had said, i.e. Members had no choice; and (ii) the project cost of installing CCTV cameras in MacPherson Playground was $712,000 only, including the installation of 14 sets of outdoor colour CCTV cameras and five sets of supporting and base frames, as well as the laying of network cables, wiring and optical fibre cables, which was not as expensive as the project cost of $1.5 million for the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct. 73. Mr WONG Kin-san did not understand why the Committee had been cheated at the last meeting. The installation of 14 CCTV cameras in MacPherson Playground had cost $712,000 only, while upgrading the eight CCTV cameras in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct had cost $1.5 million. He asked how the relevant department had calculated the project cost of $1.5 million, and if the subject proposal was endorsed, whether the department could provide a project cost estimate. 74. Ms WONG Shu-ming understood why Mr CHAN Siu-tong had submitted this paper as it was relevant to community security after all. She asked under what circumstances the relevant departments would determine the locations requiring the installation of CCTV cameras. A day before the meeting, she had expressed views on privacy concerns in the thematic programme “A Closer Look” and understood that a balance should be struck between protection of privacy and the security needs for installing CCTV cameras. She asked that if a considerable number of robbery cases had occurred at a certain place, whether the Police would decide that CCTV cameras were required there. If no specific criteria were laid down, it was difficult to persuade others why monitoring devices were required at a certain street but not another.

75. The Chairman was very disappointed that the Police was not fully prepared for this meeting. If the proposal was endorsed, the Police would also be a user of the CCTV system in future. In his view, the Police had not considered from the perspective of the DFMC to make good use of the funding. If the Police did not intend to apply for funding on its own to install a CCTV system, but waited and reaped the benefits after the DFMC approved the funding, he would feel extremely disappointed. He hoped that the departmental representatives attending future DFMC meetings would be better prepared and give consideration from the perspective of the Committee to allow limited resources to be used properly. 76. Mr KWOK Pang-chi responded as follows:

(i) The Police did not set out any guidelines to require the installation of CCTV cameras after the occurrence of a certain type of crime. Besides, installation

- 15 -

of CCTV cameras was just one of the approaches to prevent and detect crimes. The Police had all along attempted to use different approaches to reduce crimes, including stepping up the patrol by uniformed police officers, parking of police vehicles at crime black spots to enhance deterrent effect, strengthening intelligence gathering at some places, etc.

(ii) He reiterated that the Police did not apply for funding from the DFMC for installing CCTV cameras. The Police only adopted an open attitude towards the subject proposal. Generally speaking, if resources were available at the community level for installing CCTV cameras, and the installation was helpful in crime prevention and detection, the stance of the Police was supportive. However, the Police had no relevant information in the meantime as to which street in YTM District should first be considered for installing CCTV cameras under the precondition of resource constraints.

77. The Chairman said that there was currently no sufficient information for discussion. Members could raise follow-up questions on the response of the departments, but they were asked not to raise new proposals. 78. Ms WONG Shu-ming said that the Member submitting the paper raised this proposal because he considered it necessary, while it was another matter as to whether other Members and the government departments concerned agreed to the proposal. The Police had also indicated that there were no specific criteria on the need to install CCTV. In future DFMC meetings, other Members might submit relevant papers. In the circumstances, no matter whether Members agreed to the installation, it was necessary to understand clearly at this meeting whether the DFMC had the authority to discuss the matter. 79. Mr WONG Kin-san said that the departments had not given a response regarding the cost. If the cost was high, he might not support. As Members had different views, voting would be required to decide on the matter. Members should be held accountable to the public, and this Committee had approved the funding of $1.5 million at the last meeting in the item regarding the CCTV system. Now, to decide whether to show support by voting, the Committee should first be informed of the project cost estimate at the least. 80. Mrs ARON Laura Liang said that no concrete response could be given at this stage. DMWs mainly aimed at following up on the proposals of DFMC Members. Generally speaking, the YTMDO would first study the feasibility of the projects with the works departments, then carry out preliminary preparation work, and then report to the DFMC and apply for funding in due course. Apart from the CCTV system in the former pedestrian precinct, the LCSD had also applied to the Committee for the funding for DMWs to install CCTV cameras. Considering from another perspective, she believed that the original intent of the Member’s submission was based on the crimes in the area concerned. She considered that it was most appropriate to let the Police determine how to prevent and detect crimes, and to give flexibility to the Police to consider and select the most suitable approach for crime prevention and detection. 81. The Chairman said that, as he had said, professional departments should lead the discussion. When the Police applied for funding from the DFMC in future, Members should also note whether there were sufficient reasons for the Police to apply for funding for DMWs instead of using internal resources. 82. Mr WONG Kin-san said that Members had learnt a lesson from the last meeting. If

- 16 -

Members cast votes in haste without knowing the cost estimate, they might make a wrong decision again. If voting was carried out in this manner, he would vote against it. 83. The Chairman said that he had never indicated that a voting would be carried out for this item. This Committee had no sufficient information for the time being, and the lead department did not lead Members to make a decision. 84. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that this Committee had all along been open and civilised. If there was more opposition than support, he would certainly not insist on the matter. As the District Officer had given an explanation of the authority and Members had voted by open ballot at the last meeting, it was sufficient to prove that this Committee had the authority to discuss and endorse the project. 85. The Chairman reiterated that he had indicated that this Committee had the authority to discuss and endorse the project. 86. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that voting could be carried out by open ballot. At the last meeting, the Committee had approved the funding of $1.5 million for upgrading the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct by voting. He said that armed robbery cases and other crimes of varying degrees of seriousness had occurred at all of the locations set out in the subject paper, but Members had opposing views on this proposal. 87. The Chairman said that from his understanding, if Members insisted on voting by ballot, Members could also request to do so by secret ballot. As Mr CHAN Siu-tong insisted on voting by ballot, the Committee would commence the voting procedure. The matter to be voted had been set out in the proposal of DMWs in the subject paper which read: request for the provision of “eyes in the sky” at crime black spots in YTM District to prevent serious robbery cases and protect the law and order in the community. 88. Mr Chris IP considered that the above comments of Mr CHAN Siu-tong failed to reflect the whole picture. At the last DFMC meeting, the discussion on the CCTV system in ex-Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct had been divided into two parts. When Members cast their votes after the first part, they had clearly known the installation locations, as well as the cost, specifications and quantity of the system. Members had cast their votes when the above statistics and information were complete. Their voting decision was another matter. At that time, six Members present at this meeting had cast opposite vote, including Mr CHAN. He considered that Members must also obtain the relevant statistics and information at this meeting before votes could be cast. 89. Ms WONG Shu-ming suggested Members vote on whether they agreed to carry out a preliminary study on the subject proposal, and then pass it to the relevant department to carry out a study, and select a suitable location which would not go against the guidelines of the PCPD. The relevant department would report to this Committee for Members to consider again whether to approve funding. 90. Ms KWAN Sau-ling asked where the relevant department would conduct the preliminary study. She also asked whether the Police had conducted public opinion polls on the installation of CCTV system. 91. The Chairman said that Ms KWAN Sau-ling was too late to raise the question, so the department concerned was not required to give a response.

- 17 -

92. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that as in the past, information such as project cost might not be available when a project proposal was submitted to the DFMC. Members would generally make a proposal first for the relevant department to carry out a feasibility study for the works and report the information to Members in due course. Members would then consider again whether funding should be approved. If Members considered that the cost of a certain project was too high by then, they could vote against the project. If Members considered that it was not worthwhile to carry out a study for a certain project proposal, they could also reject the whole concept directly. He said that all Members present were not first-time participants in a DFMC meeting, and he did not understand why a Member would consider that the relevant information should be available before votes could be cast. 93. The Chairman said that generally speaking, even if the DFMC was requested to endorse the proposal in principle only, Members should at least be provided with the minimum basic information, but there was not even a specific installation location. 94. Mr CHAN Siu-tong said that he had provided the street names in the paper, and was just awaiting the Police’s study and proposal for the exact locations. 95. Mr Chris IP said that if the Committee gave approval to conduct the above study, with reference to the example of Sai Yeung Choi Street South, the relevant department should discuss the details about the private places at the relevant location with the stakeholders. 96. Mr Benny YEUNG asked whether votes would now be cast to endorse the proposal in principle, and then the relevant department would consider the installation locations, project cost, as well as the specifications of cameras and coverage of recording, etc., after which Members could consider again whether to support funding approval. 97. The Chairman said that approval in principle only meant an approval based on the information obtained by this Committee at this meeting. If a project proposal was endorsed in principle, the relevant department should take follow-up actions on the feasibility study, project cost, etc. afterwards. 98. Ms WONG Shu-ming said that it was not necessary to extend the scope of discussion to the locations other than those in the project proposal. She had suggested that Members could vote on whether to agree to carry out a preliminary study on the subject proposal for the Police and the YTMDO to select suitable locations, conduct consultation as appropriate and provide a suitable quotation for decision by Members at future DFMC meetings. She considered that this approach was fair and hoped that the Chairman could adopt her suggestion. 99. The Chairman said that this item had been discussed for a long time and sufficient time had been given to Members to ask questions. He would not accept any further questions. He suggested voting on the project proposal set out in the proposal of DMWs in the paper. The locations of the project proposal, as stated in the paper, were “the areas in the vicinity of the goldsmith shops at Peking Road, Harbour City, Haiphong Road, Middle Road, etc.”. 100. Mrs ARON Laura Liang said that based on the past practice of applying for installation of CCTV systems, the department concerned would in general take the lead to follow up. For example, the LCSD would take the lead to follow up on the installation work in the parks under its management, while the FEHD would do most of the follow-up work targeting refuse dumping. As this proposal was related to crimes, she suggested the

- 18 -

Committee authorise the Police to take the lead to follow up, while the YTMDO would provide assistance in funding and procedural matters. 101. Mr KWOK Pang-chi said that the Police would select suitable locations on the streets involved in the project proposal. 102. The Chairman said that after some discussions just then, Members unanimously considered that it would be most suitable for the Police to lead Members in the discussion. He asked the Police to carry out the relevant study, work with the YTMDO and report to the Committee on the study in due course. 103. Voting result: The Vice-chairman, Mr Chris IP, Ms WONG Shu-ming, Mr CHAN Siu-tong, Mr CHOW Chun-fai, Mr CHUNG Kong-mo, Mr Benny YEUNG, Mr LAU Pak-kei, Ms KWAN Sau-ling, Miss LI Sze-man, Mr CHUNG Chak-fai, Mr CHAN Tak-lap, Ms CHIN Pui-kwan and Mr IP Siu-tak voted for the proposal (14 votes); Mr LAM Kin-man, Mr WONG Kin-san, Mr Andy YU and Ms Michelle TANG voted against the proposal (4 votes); the Chairman, Mr HUI Tak-leung, Mr CHAN Sik-ming and Mr SIU Hon-ping abstained (4 votes). 104. The Chairman announced that the above proposal was endorsed. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman ended the discussion on this item. (Mr CHOW Chun-fai left the meeting at 4:34 p.m.) Item 11: DMWs Programme: Proposal on Central Reserve

(YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 32/2019) 105. The Chairman welcomed:

(a) Ms Cecilia PONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting) of the YTMDO; and

(b) Mr YIM Tsan-man, Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon), and Mr LI Wai-hei, Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1, of the HAD.

106. Ms Cecilia PONG briefed Members on the content of the paper. 107. Ms WONG Shu-ming said that there had been many typhoon-related incidents last year and asked whether the earmarked funds of $4.2 million was sufficient. 108. Ms Cecilia PONG said that she would check with the department about the expenses involved in typhoon-related incidents. (Post-meeting note: The HAD indicated that $3.57 million of the central reserve in 2018/19

had been spent, while the remaining $630,000 had been returned for DMWs projects. Likewise, the HAD had earmarked $4.2 million under the block vote in 2019/20 as central reserve to carry out emergency works in various districts. To ensure optimal use of resources, the HAD would closely monitor the use of funds in various districts and review whether it was necessary to make re-allocation in the middle of the financial year. If necessary, the HAD would apply for additional resources from the

- 19 -

Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau to deal with emergencies.) 109. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman ended the discussion on this item. Item 12: Progress Report on DMWs Projects Led by YTMDO in 2019-2020

(as at 21.4.2019) (YTMDC DFMC Paper No. 33/2019)

110. The Chairman welcomed:

(a) Ms Cecilia PONG, Senior Executive Officer (District Management) (Acting) of the YTMDO; and

(b) Mr YIM Tsan-man, Senior Inspector of Works (Kowloon), and Mr LI Wai-hei, Inspector of Works (Kowloon) 1, of the HAD.

(i) Works Projects Endorsed by the DFMC but Pending Completion (1) Greening and Beautification Projects in 2018-2019

(2) Greening and Beautification Projects in 2019-20

(3) Site Formation of Open Space under Ferry Street Flyover off Cherry

Street Park for Reprovisioning of FEHD’s Temporary Storage Area for Refuse Collection Bins under Prince Edward Road West Flyover, and Beautification of the Vacant Areas of Both Sites

(4) Reprovisioning, Replacement and Installation of Benches at Wylie

Road (5) Provision of Cover for Three Benches at Hoi Wang Road

(6) Replacement of Benches and Provision of Rain Shelters at Flower

Market Path (7) Replacement of Benches off Island Harbourview (Cherry Street and

Hoi Fai Road) in Tai Kok Tsui (8) Upgrading of Closed Circuit Television System in Ex-Mong Kok

Pedestrian Precinct (ii) Works Projects Endorsed in Principle by the DFMC

(1) Removal of Eight Stone Seats and Provision of Four Sets of Sheltered

Benches near Jordan Road Pedestrian Subway 111. Ms Cecilia PONG briefly introduced subject project (i)(1) and its progress.

- 20 -

112. The Chairman suggested deleting the item of subject project (i)(1). There was no objection. 113. Ms Cecilia PONG briefly introduced subject projects (i)(2) and (4) to (8) and their progress. 114. Ms Cecilia PONG briefly introduced subject project (ii)(1) and its progress, and asked Members to approve the relevant funding.

115. Mr LAU Pak-kei asked whether the project cost of $180,000 for subject project (ii)(1) had included the estimated expenses of $50,000 for trial pit excavation. He learnt from the paper that the project completion time was 2019 and asked whether the YTMDO could provide a more specific completion date. 116. The Chairman suggested approving the relevant funding for subject project (ii)(1). There was no objection. 117. Mr LI Wai-hei said that the project cost of $180,000 did not include the cost of $50,000 for trial pit excavation. The department was preparing the tender documents, and the project was expected to complete in September to October this year. 118. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman ended the discussion on this item. Item 13: To Examine Venue Booking Application(s) for Community Centres in

the District 119. The Chairman said that Community Engagement Workshop Limited had applied for hiring the hall of Henry G. Leong Yaumatei Community Centre on 21 December 2019 from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. for organising the “Youth Sumo and Judo Annual Competition” (literal translation) (Annex 4). He asked whether Members supported this application. 120. Mr WONG Kin-san said that the relevant guidelines had set out that venue booking applications from commercial organisations could not be accepted. He asked whether Community Engagement Workshop Limited was a commercial organisation.

121. The Chairman said that a limited company was not necessarily a commercial organisation in legislation.

122. Ms Cecilia PONG responded that Community Engagement Workshop Limited was a voluntary organisation. The DFMC had also approved the organisation’s venue booking application before.

123. The Chairman suggested approving the above application. There was no objection. There being no further comments from Members, the Chairman then ended the discussion on this item.

- 21 -

Item 14: Any Other Business 124. There being no other business, the meeting was closed at 4:51 p.m. The next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, 25 July 2019. Yau Tsim Mong District Council Secretariat July 2019

2019年 5月 16日

油尖旺區議會

地區設施管理委員會

要求儘快把太子道西天橋底現食環署垃圾箱存放處

改建成社區活動空間/休憩場地

位於太子道西天橋底之土地(「該土地」)現時以臨時政府撥地形式，

撥予食物環境衞生署(「食環署」)，作其街道清潔服務之清潔設備

貯物室。就標題議案倡議儘快把太子道西天橋底現食環署垃圾箱存

放處改建成社區活動空間 /休憩場地事宜，相信相關部門會就其範

疇作出考慮及回應。若相關部門就該土地的用途提出申請，本處會

按程序處理。

地政總署

九龍西區地政處

2019 年 5 月

Annex 1Only Chinese version is available

附件一

2016 至 2019 年度油尖旺區議會

地區設施管理委員會

康樂及文化事務署

就「綠化大南區 加強荔枝角道／大南街休憩處健身設施」

所作的書面回應

荔枝角道／大南街休憩處設有不同種類的座椅，包括單、雙及三座位

石椅、三座位金屬椅、三座位環保仿木膠質座椅及棋檯石椅，合共提供七

十四個座位供市民使用。另外，場內亦有三組石製及三組金屬支架涼亭，

供市民乘涼及避雨之用。

現時場內並未設有長者健體設施，在收到委員的建議後，本署會要求

工務部門研究加裝長者健體設施的可行性。如可行的話，便會向地區設施

管理委會申請撥款，以便進行有關工程。

為了增加區內綠化環境，本署已於荔枝角道／大南街休憩處種植不同

種類的喬木及灌木，並會適時進行護理工作，以提供綠化及舒適的休憩處

供市民享用。

康樂及文化事務署

油尖旺區康樂事務辦事處

2019 年 5 月

Only Chinese version is availableAnnex 2附件二

在罪案黑點增設天眼 保障社區安全

多謝油尖旺區議會陳少棠議員就上述標題事宜提呈文件，並

要求食物環境衞生署（下稱「本署」）作出回覆。本署現按職權

範圍就文件中提出的問題及建議綜合回覆如下：

本署一向十分關注油尖區（包括渡船角文成街一帶）的街道

潔淨及環境衞生情況。除每天安排清掃垃圾及不時進行街道清洗

服務外，本署積極安排人員在區內向胡亂棄置垃圾干犯潔淨罪行

的違行人士採取執法行動，以打擊違法棄置垃圾的行為。在 2019

年1月至4月期間，本署在區內（包括在渡船角文成街一帶）向胡

亂棄置垃圾的違例者共發出555張定額罰款通知書。

本署自 2018年 6月起在全港各區非法棄置垃圾黑點安裝網絡

攝錄機計劃，打擊非法棄置垃圾的行為。由於有關計劃效果顯

著，本署計劃從今年第三季起延長計劃兩年。就有關計劃，本署

稍後會徵詢油尖旺區議會食物環境衞生及工務委員會對安裝網

絡攝錄機地點優先次序名單的意見及同意，並按有關優先次序名

單在區內安裝網絡攝錄機。有關在渡船角文成街附近安裝網絡攝

錄機的建議，經已納入今次安裝網絡攝錄機名單內供委員考慮。

本署會繼續密切監察情況及採取適當行動，以保持街道整潔

及環境衞生。

食物環境衞生署

油尖區環境衞生辦事處

2019 年 5 月

Only Chinese version is availableAnnex 3附件三

Only Chinese version is availableAnnex 4

附件四