1994 — Page 66

Page 66 of 115

129

128

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

THE HONOURAble Man Sai-CHEONG (in Cantonese):—I would like to follow up on this. Paragraph four of the reply says that the Department acting on behalf of the Council has been actively negotiating with the Government for more lands in convenient locations for open space developments. I would like to know whether there is any mechanism for USD representatives to initiate the acquisition of more of these convenient locations, especially when there is a redevelopment of old inner city sites? How can USD ensure that the requests of the Urban Council can be given priority consideration?

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese): Actually, Mr. MAN'S question has been answered in paragraph three of the reply. The mechanism is that according to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, it is incumbent upon the Government to provide a minimum of 15 hectares of open space for every 100 000 persons. This is not only something USD staff would be fighting for, but the Central Government would also be allocating lands in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines.

THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese):-I don't think the question has been answered. Paragraph three has to do with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. My question is on the mechanism available. Is there a Government 'central committee' on which the Urban Council is represented to deliberate on land use?

MR. RONNIE Wong Man-ChHIU (in Cantonese):-I understand that there are inter-departmental committees on land use. When suitable sites for development into sitting-out areas are identified, USD would be informed. However, whether the department would report to us each time about these sites is something that needs to be worked out with the department. For instance, recently the department had turned down the offer of some landfill sites initially but attempted to get them back subsequently. There are certain inter-departmental committees to work on these sites.

MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in Cantonese):-I would like to ask a follow-up question on paragraph seven. One of the sentences says that facilities in parks and sitting-out areas would be upgraded. I would like to know whether parks with historical relics would be included as well. For example, in Choi Sai Woo Park, North Point, there is a hundred years old dam grown with algae. I would like to know whether these historical relics would be included in the course of upgrading the facilities in these parks?

MR. RONNIE Wong Man-CHIU (in Cantonese):-It is normally included as it is under Urban Council Park Management but I also believe that we will deal with them on their merits. Historical relics would also sometimes yourself be dealt with by the Antiquities Advisory Board formerly chaired by Mr. YUEN.

MR. LEUNG KAM-TAO (in Cantonese):—I would like to ask a follow-up question on paragraph seven which says that upon upgrading of the facilities, the utilisation

Page 66 of 115

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

rates can be improved. I would like to know whether consideration has been given to improving the traffic and transport arrangements, for instance, can we consider increasing the number of car park spaces, so that more organisations and motorists can make use of these venues for recreation? Or maybe you can introduce free shuttle bus services so that more citizens can be attracted to these facilities?

MR. RONNIE Wong Man-chiU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, every time a new park is being designed, USD staff will discuss with the Recreation Select Committee on facilities in its surrounding areas. Accessibility and transport arrangements will always be considered by the Recreation Select Committee in consultation with the Department.

MR. CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese):-I have three questions. The first question is whether there is any plan to conduct another survey on the condition of the facilities this year or the coming year? It is because the last survey was carried out in 1992. My second question concerns the facilities of parks and gardens. I take my daughter to a Western District park very often. However. I notice that many facilities there are out of order and not repaired. I would like to know whether upgrading these facilities can become one of our performance pledges because this is very important. If the facilities are run down and worn out, and you don't upgrade them, utilisation rates will automatically decline.

My third question has to do with paragraph six. I do not agree that certain parks are remotely located. In fact, they are very close by, but unfortunately they are not very well known because there is no clear directional signs. For example, in Whitty Street there is a small garden which is very obscure and people do not know it very well. I think it is a waste of resources if the directional signs are not clear. Although the facilities are very close by, people do not use them because they do not know their existence.

MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese):-Mr. CHAN's first and third questions are suggestions and will be considered by the Recreation Select Committee. His first question concerns whether another benchmark survey will be conducted and his third question relates to directional signs of parks and gardens. As regards the second question on whether upgrading facilities would become one of our performance pledges, I will go back and check and if upgrading of facilities is not included, I will seek to include them into our performance pledges.

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Paragraph seven of the reply says that since 1989, 23 parks and playgrounds have been improved and the project has now been largely completed. I would like to know whether the Recreation Select Committee of USD has any ways to find out whether the utilisation rates of these parks and playgounds have improved after their upgradings, so that we can gauge whether the money spent is cost-effective?

Page 66 of 115