(Translation)
Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee of Sham Shui Po District Council (5th Term)
Date : 21 July 2016 (Thursday) Time : 9:30 a.m. Venue : Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council
Present
Chairman Mr YAN Kai-wing
Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, BBS, MH, JP (Arrived at 9:35 a.m.) Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Arrived at 9:50 a.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 11:15 a.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, BBS, JP (Arrived at 9:45 a.m.) Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman (Arrived at 9:42 a.m.; left at 1:00 p.m.) Ms NG Yuet-lan (Arrived at 9:38 a.m.; left at 12:08 p.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP (Arrived at 9:45 a.m.; left at 2:43 p.m.) Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr YEUNG Yuk (Arrived at 10:00 a.m.; left at 2:42 p.m.)
Co-opted Members Mr CHEUNG Tak-wai (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr FUNG Man-tao (Arrived at 9:36 a.m.) Mr TSUNG Po-shan (Arrived at 9:50 a.m.; left at 1:50 p.m.)
- 2 - Action by
In Attendance Miss CHEUNG Yun-chee, Freda Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Mr WONG Leung-ping, Ben Senior Liaison Officer 2, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr LAI Huen-lam, Stephen Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1 Mr LEE Chi-yin Senior Housing Manager/KWH 1, Housing Department Miss AU Mei-lin, Rebecca Senior Housing Manager/KWH 2, Housing Department Mr HO Kwok-shing, Julian Senior Architect (9), Housing Department Mr LAU Wing-leung Property Service Manager/S (KWH) 5, Housing Department Mr CHAU Chi-fai Property Service Manager/S(KWH) 3, Housing Department Ms LUI Suk-ching Housing Manager/KWH 2, Housing Department Mr YIP Chi-kei Maintenance Surveyor (SSP), Housing Department Mr LAU Kin-hei, Louis Senior Transport Officer/Sham Shui Po, Transport Department Ms LAW Hau-yee, Maggie Senior School Development Officer (SSP) 3, Education Bureau Mr LEUNG Yun-hing, Patrick Principle Land Ex/LC & LE (Land Control and Lease Enforcement Section), Lands Department Mr TSE Tak-fei Acting Divisional Commander (Kowloon West), Fire Services Department Mr LAU Chi-wai Station Commander, Cheung Sha Wan Fire Station, Fire Services Department Ms CHAN Pui-man, Claudia Senior Building Surveyor/Fire Safety 4, Buildings Department Mr FU Sau-bong Engineer/Customer Services (Inspection) Kln, Water Services Department Mr CHAN Chun-kit Professional Officer 4/Joint Office 2, Buildings Department Miss LEUNG Ka-wai Chief Health Inspector 1, Sham Shui Po, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr YUEN Hoi-man
Secretary Mr CHU Ka-chun, Alex Executive Officer (District Council) 4, Sham Shui - 3 - Action by
Po District Office
Absent with Apologies
Members Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic Mr LEE Wing-man
Absent
Member Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP
Co-opted Members Mr CHENG Man-fai Ms TANG Mei-ching - 4 - Action by
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed members and representatives of government departments to attend the fourth meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee (“HAC”).
2. The Committee noted the leave applications from Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Dominic LEE.
Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of minutes
3. The Committee confirmed the minutes of the third meeting held on 19 May 2016 without amendment.
Agenda Item 2: Matters for discussion
(a) Request for a review on the rent adjustment mechanism of public rental housing (“PRH”)(HAC Paper 35/16)
4. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai introduced Paper 35/16.
5. Miss Rebecca AU introduced Response Paper 47/16.
6. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) a number of local groups had expressed concerns about the PRH rent adjustment mechanism and hoped that the Hong Kong Housing Authority (“HA”) would waive rent increase for tenants with financial difficulties; (ii) the PRH rent adjustment mechanism had been a topic of public debate for a decade. He enquired why HA had not accepted the proposals emerged from the discussion and enhanced the mechanism; (iii) he requested HA to undertake a review of the mechanism.
7. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) the subject mechanism, which provided for both upward and downward rent adjustments and the arrangement to cap the rent increase, was designed in such a way that the PRH rent would be set at an affordable level for tenants; (ii) HA claimed that inflation would have no bearing on tenants’ income, but the fact was that inflation would increase tenants’ living costs and reduce their purchasing power; (iii) the Government should have the capacity to absorb the effects brought about by inflation-induced increase in construction and building management costs of PRH; (iv) he hoped that HA would review the mechanism on a regular basis and incorporate other indicators such as inflation and consumer price indexes into the mechanism.
8. The Chairman invited the Department to provide supplementary information regarding the pros and cons of adopting inflation as an indicator if HA had already - 5 - Action by considered doing so.
9. Miss Rebecca AU gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) The PRH rent adjustment mechanism was developed by dedicated personnel after extensive discussion and wide consultation, and the current statutory PRH rent adjustment mechanism was first put into effect in January 2008.
(ii) With the aim of reviewing the domestic rent policy, the ad hoc committee set up by HA had conducted a wide consultation between 9 March and 9 June 2006 to collect public views on the ad hoc committee’s initial study findings. After taking into account all relevant factors and the pros and cons, the ad hoc committee endorsed the Report on the Review of Domestic Rent Policy in November 2006, and proposed to establish a rent adjustment mechanism that was based on the income of PRH tenants. Members could refer to the report for details.
(iii) At present, adjustment would be made to PHR rent with reference to the changes in tenants’ income, but not the increase in consumer prices and inflation. The arrangement was designed to protect tenants since consumer price indexes could only reflect the changes in commodity and service prices, but not the changes in tenants’ income and affordability.
(iv) She would relay members’ suggestions to the relevant sections.
10. Ms CHAN Wing-yan remarked that elderly retirees generally lived on a modest income and would suffer the most if there was an increase in rent. She hoped that HA would also consider providing a waiver for the elderly households on top of the households with difficulties in its review.
11. The Chairman concluded that HA had conducted a consultation on the PRH rent adjustment mechanism as early as 2006 but it had yet to respond to the demands of the public. He requested HA to review the PRH rent adjustment mechanism and provide written supplementary information in response to members’ suggestions (including building the inflation factor into the mechanism, as well as taking into account the needs of the poor households, the households with difficulties and the elderly households) made in HAC Paper 35/16 and during the meeting.
(b) Request for the Government to shoulder responsibility for the excess lead found in drinking water (HAC Paper 36/16)
12. Mr CHAN Wai-ming introduced Paper 36/16. - 6 - Action by
13. Mr LEE Chi-yin introduced Response Paper 48/16.
14. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) arrangements were being made by HA for a contractor to replace pipes for the affected housing units but the works progress was unsatisfactory. Quite a number of residents had complained about the poor work attitude of the contractor who failed to establish full communication with them. Taking Wing Cheong Estate as an example, the Department estimated that the pipes replacement works in the common areas would be completed in March 2017 and then housing units would have the pipes replaced, but so far it had yet to finalise the compensation plan and briefed the affected residents on the details of the works; (ii) he requested HA to provide the pipe replacement schedule and replace the pipes in the affected housing estates as quickly as possible; (iii) he asked the Department to consider providing a rental waiver for the affected residents as a means of compensation; (iv) he requested the departments concerned to follow up on members’ views, review the system, bear the responsibility and pacify the affected residents.
15. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he requested the Department to provide additional information about the pipe replacement progress in the affected housing estates; (ii) the Government should hold the contractor accountable and the department head concerned should take the responsibility and stand down; (iii) he enquired how the Government would handle the compensation claims made by the affected residents; (iv) he requested the Government to explain the review mechanism.
16. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the one who tabled Paper 36/16 was just closing the barn door after the horse had left; (ii) according to the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water (“the Commission of Inquiry”), the department head concerned would not be held accountable for the matter; (iii) the contractor had not replaced the filter in the filter device, which rendered the device useless; (iv) legislators from the pan-democratic camp had moved to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate incidents of excess lead in drinking water but the motion was defeated; (v) the Government should solve the technical problems associated with the pipe replacement as quickly as possible in order to mitigate the project-induced impact on the residents; (vi) quite a number of residents in Un Chau Estate were worried about the excess lead in drinking water and water supply problems; (vii) he wondered if the Government had rolled out any measures to take care of the affected residents; (viii) he enquired if the Government would consider making use of other water quality examination methods to ascertain the number of affected housing estates and residents; (ix) he enquired if the cost of the pipe replacement works would be borne by the Government or the contractor, and what the Government would do to ensure the quality of the works.
17. Mr TSUNG Po-shan raised the following views: (i) the report of the Commission of - 7 - Action by
Inquiry stated that the government department concerned had used an improper method to examine water quality, and he held that a greater number of housing estates would have been involved if water quality examination was carried out with the use of the first drawn water; (ii) experts on water quality examination and the general public shared the view that water quality examination should be carried out with the use of the first drawn water, the Government should arrange a full-scale examination of water quality and deal with the problems as quickly as possible to set the public’s mind at rest.
18. Ms Zoé CHOW raised the following views and enquiries: (i) examinations revealed that excess lead was found in drinking water in quite a number of housing estates (including Kai Ching Estate, Un Chau Estate, Wing Cheong Estate, etc.) under the Housing Department (“HD”); (ii) the Department were now repairs the pipes in Kai Ching Estate but the progress was unsatisfactory; (iii) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu and she had visited Cheung Sha Wan Estate to examine the pipes in the estate, and found that there was lead. While HD claimed that examinations revealed that there was no excess lead in the drinking water, she considered that the pipes would still pose health hazards when they became worn out; (iv) the accuracy of the water quality examinations conducted by the Government should be taken with a grain of salt as they did not use the first drawn water for testing; in this connection, she enquired if the Government would carry out another water quality examination in all housing estates by using first drawn water; (v) she enquired what the Government would do to ensure contractors comply with the relevant requirements during construction.
19. Mr KONG Kwai-sang agreed with the requests put forth in Paper 36/16. Nevertheless, he held that since the members who had submitted the paper now requested the defaulting officials to be held accountable for the lead-in-water incident, the political parties concerned should not have voted against the motion moved by the legislators to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate the incident.
20. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Government should give a detailed account of how it would follow up on the lead-in-water problem and hold the defaulting officials accountable; (ii) the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood had long been engaged in assisting the affected residents, for instance, making arrangements for the Alliance of Drinking Water Victims to seek legal advice on the compensation plan; (iii) the former HA chairman accepted the responsibility for the substandard-piling incident and stood down even when the accountability system had yet to be introduced. The incumbent HA chairman should not shirk his responsibility on the excuse that he had to handle the lead-in-water problem; (iv) he enquired about HD’s timetable of pipes replacement in the common areas and housing units in the affected housing estates; (v) while the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) had arranged for social workers to follow up on the health conditions of the affected children, the Education - 8 - Action by
Bureau (“EDB”) failed to follow up on the health conditions of the kindergarten students. He requested that appropriate arrangements be made by EDB and SWD for six-year-old children; (vi) HA should arrange a full-scale water quality examination by using first drawn water as suggested in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry to put the public’s mind at ease.
21. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) he disagreed that the members who had submitted Paper 36/16 was closing the barn door after the horse had left; (ii) the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong had made clear its stance regarding the lead-in-water incident, and the Commission of Inquiry, the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) and HD had also followed up on the problem and reported the findings of their investigations; (iii) the Government, the defaulting officials and the contractor should all bear the responsibility. He found the current arrangements made by the Government unacceptable and held that the Government had the responsibility to compensate the affected residents; (iv) he requested the Department to give an account of whether another water quality examination would be conducted to ease the public’s concerns.
22. Mr LEE Chi-yin gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Commission of Inquiry recommended the Government to take the initiative to arrange water quality examination for all public housing estates. In this regard, DEVB had formed an international expert panel on water safety which would be responsible for, among others, formulating water sampling protocol, establishing the acceptable lead content level and water quality examination results, and planning for follow-up actions with a view to solving the problems as quickly as possible. When the international expert panel’s proposals were finalised, the Government would have HA’s full cooperation on the follow-up work.
(ii) HA had requested contractors to work out appropriate pipe replacement proposals for different types of housing units. At the same time, HD had also discussed issues associated with law enforcement by the Water Authority with the Water Supplies Department (“WSD”). Before finalising any plans for interior works, HA must first take full account of the possible repercussions of various proposals, including issues associated with law enforcement by the Water Authority, issues of the design and layout of the housing units , the inconvenience caused to residents, etc., and strike the right balance among these factors for the purpose of replacing substandard pipes as soon as possible.
(iii) At present, no timetable had been worked out for replacement of outdoor - 9 - Action by
pipes in the three affected public housing estates. He would seek information from the relevant section and convey members’ views to the Department.
23. Mr LAU Wing-leung gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) Publiccould convey their views about the poor service of the contractors to their customer service ambassadors or to the Department through proper channels.
(ii) Contractors would first carry out pipe replacement works in common areas. The Department would inform the affected residents of the arrangements for indoor pipe replacement after examining issues related to law enforcement by the Water Authority, interior design, etc.
24. Mr Stephen LAI gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The Department of Health (“DH”) would refer children who were affected by the lead-containing water and diagnosed with developmental delay to SWD for follow-up, no matter whether they were six years old or above or below that age.
(ii) SWD would consider the overall needs of the affected children and coordinate the relevant follow-up actions.
25. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquires: (i) he did not believe that the Government would accept the recommendations by the Commissioner of Inquiry and arrange a full-scale examination of water quality; (ii) he requested HD to submit its indoor pipes replacement plan and schedule in the next meeting; (iii) he enquired whether members would make a unanimous request for the principal official to stand down; (iv) he requested HD to explain the correlation between the replacement of indoor pipes and law enforcement by the Water Authority.
26. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) the members who had submitted Paper 36/16 were either closing the barn door after the horse had left or burning the bridge after crossing it; (ii) he did not believe that HD would follow up the matters in accordance with the recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry, and was discontented with the Department for failing to make available pipes replacement plan and schedule; (iii) he urged the Committee to write to the Government and request the principal official to stand down.
27. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) she expressed her discontentment - 10 - Action by with the pro-establishment camp which had opposed the invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate the lead-in-water incident in the Legislative Council, but requested the defaulting officials to be held responsible for the incident in the District Council; (ii) she agreed that action should be taken to hold the officials concerned responsible for the incident and hoped that the relevant departments could act as the gatekeepers to ensure the safety of drinking water.
28. The Chairman concluded that HAC expressed concerns about the issues pertaining to excess lead found in water. The Committee requested HD to convey members’ views to the policy bureau concerned and provide supplementary information regarding the report by the Review Committee on Quality Assurance Issues Relating to Fresh Water Supply of Public Housing Estates, water quality examination plan, pipe replacement schedule, etc., for members to follow up in the next meeting.
(c) Concern over the move-in arrangements and supporting facilities of So Uk Estate (HAC Paper 37/16)
29. The Chairman remarked that upon his repeated requests to HD, a representative from its Development and Construction Division (“DCD”) had finally been sent to attend the meeting. He welcomed representatives from EDB, SWD, the Transport Department (“TD”) and DCD to attend today’s meeting, and added that given the Committee was concerned about numerous housing matters in the district, he suggested discussing Paper 37/16, matters relating to the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate on the checklist under the “Follow-up matters”, and the housing issues contained in the report of the Working Group on Public Housing (“WGPH”) en bloc. In addition, he distributed Discussion Paper 7/16 (which was tabled in the second HAC meeting) for members’ reference.
30. Mr KONG Kwai-sang introduced Paper 37/16.
31. Mr LEE Chi-yin introduced Response Paper 49/16.
32. Mr Julian HO added the following remarks with the aid of PowerPoint:
(i) He understood that members were deeply concerned about the works progress of So Uk Estate, and thus HD’s progress reports had been submitted to HAC or WGPH continuously.
(ii) According to its original plan, the Department estimated that the occupation permit for the works of So Uk Estate Phase 1 could be obtained at the end of the second quarter of this year. Due to frequent rainfalls, the works of part of the retaining wall, the covered pedestrian pavement (which divided the two phases of the construction site), etc., were affected and the Department - 11 - Action by
was not able to obtain the occupation permit as scheduled.
(iii) So Uk Estate Phase 1 was made up of six domestic blocks (2 917 units in total), 47 parking spaces (14 of them for light goods vehicles), an estate office and a welfare and community block (including an early education and training centre, a small group home and a hostelfor physically handicapped persons).
(iv) The Department was applying for the occupation permit from the Independent Checking Unit, staff members of which were now inspecting So Uk Estate. Upon issue of the occupation permit, the Department would invite members to visit So Uk Estate Phase 1 and arrange intake of tenants as soon as possible.
33. Mr CHAU Chi-fai gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) After the issue of the occupation permit, the property management company commissioned by the Department would write to invite PRH applicants who had accepted the allocation offer to go through the intake formalities at the So Uk Estate property services office. Upon arrival, the applicants would be briefed and arrangements would be made for them to have a visit tour to their allocated units.
(ii) When applicants’ personal data and their eligibility were verified, the Department would invite them to sign the tenancy agreement on the spot, and collect the rent and deposits from them. Upon completion of the intake formalities, the Department would issue the keys to the tenants and provide them with relevant intake information. On top of that, the Department would arrange for decoration contractors, SWD and voluntary agencies to set up booths at appropriate spots in the housing estate to provide information and services to the residents.
34. Mr Stephen LAI introduced Response Paper 50/16.
35. Mr Louis LAU responded that TD had a trial run with the operator of minibus route 45B on 19 July this year. Given there would be an increase of residents following the redevelopment of So Uk Estate, the minibus company would arrange five to six minibuses to operate on route 45B and the fare would be set at $3.9 as in the past, together with a concessionary fare of $2 for the elderly. Besides, the minibus company would adjust the frequency of the minibus and make appropriate traffic arrangements depending on the number of residents and how the intake went. - 12 - Action by
36. Ms Maggie LAW gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) To dovetail with the intake at So Uk Estate Phase 1, EDB had printed the “Notes on Application for Admission to Schools in Sham Shui Po” and a list of primary schools in the district. Parents in need of such information could obtain it at the temporary So Uk Estate Office located on the ground floor of Un Wai House in Un Chau Estate. They could also bring along the notice issued by HD to seek assistance from EDB.
(ii) The affected parents could apply for admission to Primary One in September this year for their children at the School Places Allocation Section of EDB on 2/F, Manulife Financial Centre, Kwun Tong before 31 August this year. As for parents whose children had to be transferred to other primary schools, they could approach EDB’s Education Office in Kowloon Tong. The Bureau would make referral depending on the vacancy of the primary schools in the district.
(iii) EDB could make arrangement for the affected students to be admitted to primary schools in September this year, and their admission applications would not be undermined by the delay of intake at So Uk Estate.
37. Mr KONG Kwai-sang enquired whether HD had set aside some units in So Uk Estate for residents who were affected by relocation or redevelopment projects.
38. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the move-in date of So Uk Estate had been further delayed. While residents might have to continue living in their existing rental units, some were even made homeless. There were also parents who were not able to arrange for their children to be admitted to appropriate schools; (ii) he enquired how many people to whom EDB had offered school-place-related assistance; (iii) as HD and its contractor should be held responsible for the works delay in So Uk Estate, he enquired whether the Department would give a rental waiver to the soon-to-move-in residents of So Uk Estate as a form of compensation.
39. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she was concerned about the intake arrangements for So Uk Estate; (ii) according to a number of residents, the Department had yet to announce the move-in date and this made it impossible for them to decide whether to retain their existing rental units. She wondered whether the Department had maintained any communication with the residents in question; (iii) she enquired about the number of residents to be moving into So Uk Estate Phase 1, and the number of staff deployed by HD to arrange the intake of tenants; (iv) she enquired about the details on unit allocation of So Uk Estate and whether some units had been reserved for other purposes; (v) she wondered if SWD’s pamphlet contained any school admission - 13 - Action by information and if social workers would be arranged to support residents.
40. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired when the Department would finalise the move-in date for So Uk Estate. Since it would still take some time after the issue of occupation permit for the Department to make arrangements for more than 2 000 households to move into the estate, the actual move-in date would be further delayed; (ii) to mitigate the impact arising from the delay, he requested EDB and HD to adopt a people-first approach, arrange the affected residents to move into the estate and facilitate school admission for the affected students as soon as possible; (iii) he requested HD to provide a copy of the PowerPoint notes to members for reference after the meeting.
41. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street development project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street development project concern groups had requested the Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) to make clear whether it could arrange for the affected residents to move into So Uk Estate and he hoped that HD could respond to whether adequate units had been reserved to accommodate the residents in question; (ii) over the last five weeks, he and Mr CHAN Wai-ming had held talks with URA over the matter and wrote to URA on 7 July this year requesting it to follow up the matter. URA had replied on 14 July; (iii) he and Mr CHAN Wai-ming had a meeting on 19 July this year with representatives of URA and HD to discuss the subject matter, and HD indicated on 20 July that a corresponding number of units in So Uk Estate of various sizes would be provided to accommodate the eligible residents affected by the aforesaid development projects. He hoped that HD could confirm the arrangements.
42. Ms Carman NG raised the following enquiries: (i) details on the overall ancillary transport services in So Uk Estate; (ii) whether it was necessary for residents to take a minibus to go outside So Uk Estate to do grocery shopping; (ii) social welfare facilities available near So Uk Estate; (iv) details on unit allocation of So Uk Estate and the exact move-in date; (v) whether HD had reserved some units in So Uk Estate to accommodate the residents affected by relocation; (vi) whether TD could arrange adequate minibus services for the residents following the announcement of intake arrangements by HD.
43. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he welcomed the block naming plan for So Uk Estate by HD and commended SWD for making social welfare facilities available in So Uk Estate; (ii) he hoped that the relevant departments could enhance communication to facilitate early identification of people with service needs; (iii) he enquired whether SWD and social welfare agencies such as New Life Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association would continue providing social welfare services on an on-going basis after the residents had moved in; (iv) he wondered if there was any mechanism in place which enabled SWD, DH and the Hospital Authority to maintain - 14 - Action by regular communication to provide services to people with needs; (v) he wondered if HD would rename the estate as “So Uk New Estate” and if lifts and barrier-free access would be put in place in the estate; (vi) he enquired about details of the overall ancillary transport services.
44. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he got in touch with an representative of URA in June this year to follow up on the relocation requests made by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street development project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street development project concern groups, and learned that URA was awaiting a reply from HD; (ii) according to the Government’s redevelopment strategy for old districts, HD was obligated to allocate PRH units to rehouse the affected tenants who met the eligibility criteria; (iii) he enquired about the details on unit allocation of So Uk Estate; (iv) he requested the Department to respond to whether adequate units had been reserved to accommodate the affected residents, and he urged HD and URA to foster closer communication to address the relocation issue expeditiously.
45. Mr LEE Chi-yin gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) When a new PRH estate was completed, the Department would deploy resources flexibly depending on needs with a view to allocating the housing units to applicants on the waiting list and people affected by relocation or redevelopment expeditiously.
(ii) As HA was one of the agents to handle the rehousing matters for URA, the Department would act upon URA’s requests and reserve a corresponding number of units in So Uk Estate of various sizes to accommodate the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street redevelopment project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street redevelopment project.
46. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded that among the 2 917 units in So Uk Estate Phase 1, the Department had reserved around 2 000 units for applicants on the PRH waiting list, and the rest would be allocated to people from other categories, such as those affected by relocation or clearance.
47. Mr Julian HO gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) The Department had installed proper barrier-free access and facilities in So Uk Estate Phase 1, including two lifts connecting Po On Road to Blocks 1 to 3 of So Uk Estate, six footbridges connecting various parts of So Uk Estate, etc. In So Uk Estate Phase 2, there would also be covered walkways, footbridges, lifts, etc., to facilitate residents’ access. - 15 - Action by
(ii) In Block 1 of So Uk Estate, a lift connecting to bus stop would be installed and the works was scheduled to complete at the end of this year.
(iii) The Department had finalised the naming of So Uk Estate and therefore other naming proposals would not be considered at the moment.
(iv) As per members’ request, the Department could provide a copy of the PowerPoint notes after the meeting for reference.
48. Mr Louis LAU gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) On top of minibus route 45B, the KMB would introduce route 6P running between So Uk and Yau Tong, which would have three trips during both the morning peak period (i.e. 7:00 a.m., 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m.) and the afternoon peak period (i.e. 6:00 p.m., 6:20 p.m. and 6:40 p.m.), starting in mid-August this year. The KMB would also consider increasing the frequency, subject to residents’ needs.
(ii) In the So Uk Estate Bus Terminus, there were route 2 to Tsim Sha Tsui Ferry Pier, route 112 to Pak Fuk Road in North Point, route 796C to Oscar by the Sea, route 970 to Cyberport, and route 970X to Aberdeen.
49. Ms Maggie LAW gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) EDB had stayed in touch with HD, and printed a list setting out the primary schools in Sham Shui Po District (“SSP District”) (including addresses and telephone numbers), notes on application for admission, and the telephone numbers of School Places Allocation Section and Education Office. Parents in need of making admission arrangements for their children could obtain such information at the temporary So Uk Estate Office located on the ground floor of Un Wai House in Un Chau Estate. Aside from seeking assistance from EDB, parents could also approach schools in SSP District on their own.
(ii) From June to mid-July this year, the Education Office had received 17 applications for transferring to another school to attend Primary 2 and 4 due to relocation, and 12 of which had been dealt with.
50. The Chairman enquired how many staff HD would deploy to arrange for the intake of more than 2 000 households and how long it would take to complete the intake process.
51. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded that the property management contractor would - 16 - Action by deploy adequate manpower to process the intake. After the issue of the occupation permit, the property management contractor would invite PRH applicants in phases to go through the intake formalities, and it was expected that around 150 cases could be processed each working day.
52. Mr Stephen LAI gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) SWD’s “Booklet on Community Resources for So Uk Estate Residents” provided information about the community facilities, schools and social service organisations in the neighbourhood of So Uk Estate. The Department would give the booklet to the residents when they went through the intake formalities. A copy of which would also be provided to members by then for perusal.
(ii) On top of the social welfare facilities in the estate, residents with needs could also make use of the social welfare facilities in Cheung Sha Wan Community Centre, including Cheung Sha Wan Integrated Family Service Centre, Hong Kong Society For the Protection of Children Cheung Sha Wan Nursery School, SWD’s Family and Child Protective Services Unit and Lai Chi Kok Social Security Field Unit, etc. There were also other facilities located near So Uk Estate, such as the Christian Youth Service Centre in Lei Cheng Uk Estate and Caritas Cheng Shing Fung District Elderly Centre.
(iii) SWD and social welfare organisations would make door-to-door visits to the newly moved-in households, subject to their agreement, through the So Uk Estate Partnership Programme for the purpose of making early identification of families with needs and taking follow-up actions. In addition, the Salvation Army and New Life Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, with funding from the Community Investment and Inclusion Fund, had rolled out a three-year social capital development project in April this year with a view to strengthening neighbourhood support among newly moved-in residents in So Uk Estate.
(iv) SWD would step up its communication with DH, DH’s maternal and child health centres, child care centres as well as kindergartens in the district through the Comprehensive Child Development Service with a view to making early identification of children with service needs and provide support to their parents.
53. The Chairman enquired what ancillary transport services would be provided by TD to facilitate the residents’ travel between So Uk Estate and Sham Shui Po East. - 17 - Action by
54. Mr Louis LAU responded that the residents might consider taking bus route 6P which would pass by Woh Chai Street and Tai Hang Tung Road.
55. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he gave credits to TD for providing bus service from mid-August this year and enquired whether the starting date could be advanced to early August; (ii) it would take HD around one month’s time to complete the intake formalities of all households if the Department was to process 150 move-in cases each day. He enquired whether the Department could accord priority to three to four-member households with young children so that these parents could make arrangements for school transfer as early as possible; (iii) he enquired how many units in So Uk Estate HD would set aside to rehouse the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street redevelopment project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street redevelopment project.
56. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following enquiries: (i) whether the staff deployed to HD through outsourcing (“outsourced staff”) were working five days per week; (ii) whether the Department could make some appropriate deployment arrangements with the contractor so that some of the outsourced staff would work on Saturdays and Sundays to expedite the intake process.
57. The Chairman raised the following enquiries: (i) whether it was the Department’s established policy that it would make arrangements for members to visit So Uk Estate Phase 1 only after the issue of the occupation permit; (ii) when the Department would make arrangements for members to visit So Uk Estate Phase 1.
58. Mr Julian HO gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) In accordance with the established practice of the Department and based on safety considerations, HD would make arrangements for members to inspect newly built housing estates only after the issue of the occupation permit.
(ii) The Department would arrange for three move-in ambassadors to follow up on the technical problems put forth by residents regarding flat facilities.
59. Mr CHAU Chi-fai gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) At present, HD’s estate offices operated five days per week and intake formalities would be performed from Monday to Friday.
(ii) It was necessary for the Department to collate the data stored on its computer system on Saturdays and Sundays, during that time staff would not be able to access to the system. - 18 - Action by
(iii) As a general rule, the Department would invite PRH applicants to go through the intake formalities based on their allocation order, and would endeavour to complete all the cases as soon as possible. The Department would take into consideration members’ views to see if priority could be accorded to three to four-member households with young children when performing the intake formalities.
60. Mr LEE Chi-yin responded that HD, as per URA’s requests, would set aside corresponding number of units of various sizes in So Uk Estate to rehouse the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street redevelopment project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street redevelopment project, and would do its utmost to cater for the needs of the affected residents.
61. The Chairman enquired whether TD could exercise flexibility in providing bus services and arrange them to start in early August this year to tie in with the intake progress of So Uk Estate.
62. Mr Louis LAU responded that the Department, after discussing with the bus company, had come to the view that mid-August of this year would be the most appropriate time.
63. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he hoped that HA could take a people-first approach, arrange for some staff to work on weekends and accord priority to three to four-member households with young children when performing intake formalities; (ii) he requested TD to exercise flexibility and get the bus services going as soon as possible.
64. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he failed to see the correlation between HD’s computer system and the question of whether the Department could arrange for its staff to work on weekends. He enquired whether it was because the outsourced staff were unable to access the Department’s computer system that they could not work on weekends; (ii) he hoped that HD could adopt a people-first approach, expedite the intake process and rehouse the residents affected by URA’s redevelopment projects as soon as possible; (iii) he hoped that the Department could take members’ views into consideration.
65. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded that HD’s computer system was centrally controlled. During the weekends when the data were being collated, staff members of both HD and the management contractor were denied access to the system.
66. The Chairman concluded that the Committee noted the reports made by EDB, HD, TD and SWD, and invited HD to take members’ views into consideration (including - 19 - Action by making arrangements for members to visit So Uk Estate before intake of residents and starting the intake process as soon as possible), and requested TD to exercise flexibility in transport arrangements so that it could tie in with the intake progress. HAC invited HD, EDB and SWD to provide supplementary information after the meeting.
67. The Chairman made a further enquiry about whether it was HD’s common practice or policy to arrange a site visit for members to a newly built housing estate only after the issue of the occupation permit.
68. Mr Julian HO responded that it was a common practice which was adopted to ensure safety.
69. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) if such site-visit arrangement was no more than a common practice, DCD could arrange for members to visit So Uk Estate before intake of residents so that they could give their views from a user’s perspective; (ii) a number of PRH projects were now in progress in SSP District, and all members wished to pay a visit to these housing estates during the construction stage so that they could give their views to the Department in a timely manner; (iii) he hoped that the Department could comply with members’ requests where possible and arrange for members to visit So Uk Estate Phase 1 as soon as possible.
70. Mr Julian HO gave a consolidated reply as follows:
(i) He would convey members’ views to the Department.
(ii) Generally speaking, DCD, together with estate management staff, would arrange site visits for the interested members after the issue of occupation permits.
71. The Chairman enquired about the redevelopment progress of Shek Kip Mei Estate and Shek Kip Mei Estate Market.
72. Mr Julian HO responded that the redevelopment projects of the third, sixth and seventh phases of Shek Kip Mei Estates were handled by other architects. But as far as he knew, the Department had already started the tendering process.
73. The Chairman remarked that members, local residents and stall operators were all very concerned about the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate and Shek Kip Mei Estate Market, and a number of unofficial redevelopment plans were now making the rounds among the public. He hoped that the Department would report on the redevelopment progress and respond to the residents’ demands. - 20 - Action by
74. Miss Rebecca AU gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) The various housing projects in SSP District were handled by different architects and at the moment the Department had yet to work out a redevelopment schedule for Shek Kip Mei Estate and Shek Kip Mei Estate Market.
(ii) The foundation works for the third, sixth and seventh Phases of Shek Kip Mei Estate were expected to complete between August and September this year. The contracts for the superstructure works concerned were put out to tender on 18 March this year, and contractors had submitted their tenders on 29 April. HA was currently assessing the tender bids. The superstructure works would start upon the completion of the foundation works.
75. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai raised the following views: (i) market stall operators were very concerned about the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Market; (ii) it was hoped that the Department would announce the redevelopment plan for the Shek Kip Mei Estate as soon as it was finalised, so as to allow ample time for the people who would be affected to make preparations for relocation.
76. Mr Kalvin HO remarked that residents in Shek Kip Mei Estate hoped that the Department would implement the redevelopment plan as soon as possible, as it would help improve their living environment.
77. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu requested DCD to send its representative to attend the fifth meeting of the District Council (“DC”) scheduled on 6 September this year to report on the redevelopment plan for Shek Kip Mei Estate.
78. The Chairman invited HD’s representative to convey members’ requests and the Secretariat to write to the Department, requesting DCD to send its representative to attend the next HAC meeting so that members could follow up on matters related to the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate.
(d) Redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate (HAC Paper 38/16)
(e) Request for the Planning Department to report on the results of the Town Planning Board meeting held on 24 June for the discussion of the planning application of Tai Hang Sai Estate (A/K4/67) and the follow up work (HAC Paper 39/16)
79. The Chairman remarked that Papers 38/16 and 39/16 were similar in nature and suggested that they be discussed en bloc. He then proceeded to introduce Paper 38/16. - 21 - Action by
80. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) in the absence of any representatives from the Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (“HKSHCL”) and the Planning Department (“PlanD”) in the meeting, he was of the view that there was no need to introduce Paper 39/16; (ii) PlanD had a duty to send a representative to the meeting to give a response to Paper 39/16, and he hoped that Assistant District Officer (“ADO”) (SSP)2 would take note of this situation; (iii) he remarked that Response Paper 51/16 failed to give a substantive reply to members’ enquiries, while the attached notes of meeting did not have a Chinese version; (iv) he censured PlanD and the relevant departments for failing to send their representatives to the meeting and requested to put this on record; (v) he requested PlanD and the relevant departments to provide written response to members’ enquiries raised in Paper 39/16 after the meeting.
81. The Chairman remarked that since the relevant government departments and HKSHCL had failed to send their representatives to the meeting, he invited members to refer to the joint written reply (Paper 51/16) by PlanD and the Lands Department (“LandsD”) and the written reply by HKSHCL (Paper 52/16).
82. ADO(SSP)2 remarked that upon the receipt of Papers 38/16 and 39/16, the Secretariat had done its utmost to invite the relevant departments and HKSHCL to attend the meeting but was informed that they were unable to send their representatives to the meeting. If necessary, the Secretariat could convey members’ views to the relevant departments and HKSHCL.
83. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) he was of the view that ADO(SSP)2 had a duty to liaise with the relevant departments and HKSHCL, urging them to send their representatives to the meeting and give a specific reply to members’ enquiries; (ii) the redevelopment plan for Tai Hang Sai Estate had a bearing on thousands of residents. While the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) had given a conditional endorsement of the redevelopment plan by HKSHCL, he believed that there would be no problem for HKSHCL to comply with the conditions. He hoped that the HKSHCL could give a clear account of how it would rehouse the residents; (iii) he was discontented that no representatives from the relevant departments and HKSHCL had been sent to the meeting to give an account of the redevelopment and rehousing plans, and requested the Committee to write to PlanD to express regret.
84. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he shared Mr LEUNG Yau-fong’s views and expressed his discontent with the Department’s failure to send its representative to the meeting and give a specific reply to members’ enquiries; (ii) PlanD had a duty to answer members’ enquiries and enlighten the Committee and the affected residents about the relevant arrangements and follow-up issues; (iii) on top of writing to PlanD to express regret, the Committee should also demand the Department to follow up on issues relating to the redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate, and give a specific reply in - 22 - Action by writing to address the enquiries contained in Paper 39/16 by August this year; (iv) he suggested DC Chairman to invite PlanD to send its representative to attend the DC meeting on 6 September; (v) the District Officer should convey members’ views to the relevant departments in the District Management Committee meeting.
85. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) he was of the view that PlanD’s written reply (Paper 51/16) had failed to aptly address members’ enquiries and suggested that the Committee Chairman convey this to PlanD and request the Department to provide a written response by 6 September for DC to follow up; (ii) the Committee should maintain its communication with HKSHCL and continue to follow up on this matter; (iii) ADO(SSP)2 and the Secretariat had done their best to invite the relevant departments and HKSHCL to send their representatives to attend the meeting.
86. The Chairman remarked that the Committee expressed its regret for PlanD’s failure to send its representative to the meeting to answer members’ enquiries. The Committee would write to PlanD, requesting the Department to give a specific reply in writing to members’ enquiries contained in Paper 39/16. Depending on the content of the reply, the Committee might consider inviting the Department again to send representative to the meetings in future.
(f) Concern over Urban Renewal Authority’s unscrupulous arrangement of allocating units with burst sewers to tenants (HAC Paper 40/16)
87. The Chairman remarked that the members who submitted Paper 40/16 finalised the paper only a few days ahead of the meeting, and thus URA was unable to send a representative to the meeting. He referred members to URA’s written reply (Paper 56/16).
88. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu introduced Paper 40/16.
89. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) members had discussed the issue of rehousing the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street development project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street development project. He had received a submission prior to the meeting from the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street development project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street development project concern groups expressing their views and would arrange an evening meeting for URA and the residents to exchange views; (ii) some of the affected residents remarked that URA had required them to sign a letter of intent and a letter of undertaking. He invited views from members.
90. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu agreed that arrangements should be made for URA to have an evening meeting with the residents. He enquired whether arrangements would be made for representatives of the concern groups to express their views in the meeting. - 23 - Action by
91. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) he concurred with setting up the evening meeting and requested to put on record the views he made just now and HD’s response; (ii) he and Mr CHAN Wai-ming met with representatives of URA and HD on 19 July this year, and requested URA to extend the deadline by which local residents were required to sign the letter of intent as a means to allow time for the residents to have a good grasp of the overall arrangements before deciding whether to make an application for residence in So Uk Estate. Besides, URA had agreed that the affected residents could indicate their wish to reside in So Uk Estate on the letter of intent before the occupation permit was issued to HD.
92. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired how many units HD had reserved in So Uk Estate to rehouse the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street development project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street development project, and whether the number of units reserved was adequate; (ii) he wondered whether HD had confirmed the aforesaid arrangement in writing indicating that it would meet the residents’ demand of rehousing in the same locality; (iii) given the change of circumstances, even though residents had signed the letter of intent, they should not be moved to other housing estates now; (iv) he suggested that the Committee write to censure URA for failing to send a representative to the meeting.
93. The Chairman remarked that URA was unable to send representative to the meeting since the content of Paper 40/16 was finalised at a later date.
94. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) though the content of Paper 40/16 was finalised at a later date, still URA was able to prepare written reply 56/16. In the absence of a URA representative, members could not follow up on the matter effectively; (ii) according to the information provided by URA, 92 PRH units were now needed to rehouse the affected residents. If HD had reserved a corresponding number of units in So Uk Estate, he enquired whether it meant that at least 92 units had been set aside in So Uk Estate; (iii) it was an undesirable arrangement that some of the affected residents would be rehoused to So Uk Estate, while some would be rehoused to units vacated by chance; (iv) DC should follow up the matter with HD and URA to ensure that the affected residents would be properly rehoused.
95. Mr LEE Chi-yin responded that the Allocation Section of the Department had noted the contents of URA’s letter, and would take follow-up action. As per URA’s request, the Department would make available a corresponding number of units of various sizes in So Uk Estate to rehouse the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street redevelopment project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street redevelopment project.
96. The Chairman remarked that the Committee requested HD to provide adequate number of units in So Uk Estate to rehouse the residents affected by the Tonkin Street/Fuk - 24 - Action by
Wing Street redevelopment project and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street redevelopment project, and agreed that after this meeting, arrangements would be made with URA to meet the affected residents to follow up on the matter.
97. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu enquired whether arrangements could be made for representatives of the concern groups to express their views.
98. The Chairman responded that the Committee had listened to the concern groups’ views ahead of the meeting and would put their views on record.
[Post-meeting note: the Tonkin Street/Fuk Wing Street development project concern group and the Castle Peak Road/Un Chau Street development project concern group were of the view that redevelopment should be coupled with a well-conceived resettlement plan. URA should adopt a people-first approach, retain local community network, improve residents’ livelihood, and implement same-locality rehousing.]
(g) Concern over fire safety issues of industrial buildings in Sham Shui Po District (HAC Paper 41/16)
Any other business
(a) Strongly request the Sham Shui Po District Council to urgently hold a special meeting to follow up on the problems posed by the No. 3 alarm fire broke out at Cheong Fat Factory Building at Un Chau Street (HAC Paper 46/16)
99. The Chairman remarked that since Papers 41/16 and 46/16 were both related to fire safety in buildings in the district, he suggested that they be discussed en bloc. He welcomed representatives from the Fire Services Department (“FSD”), the Buildings Department (“BD”) and LandsD to attend today’s meeting.
100. Mr CHAN Wai-ming introduced Paper 41/16.
101. The Chairman remarked that though Mr YUEN Hoi-man, one of the members who submitted Paper 46/16, was not a member of this Committee, he would attend this meeting in the capacity of a person in attendance and would participate in discussion.
102. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong introduced Paper 46/16.
103. The Chairman referred members to the joint written reply from the Security Bureau (“SB”), DEVB, FSD, BD and LandsD (Paper 53/16), PlanD’s written reply (Paper 54/16), and LandsD’s written reply (Paper 55/16).
104. Mr TSE Tak-fai responded that FSD had not exempted industrial buildings - 25 - Action by completed before 1973 from the requirements for installing fire service facilities, and would regulate the fire service facilities in those industrial buildings in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance and the then-prevailing statutory requirements.
105. The Chairman raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired about the division of labour among the government departments and how they ensured that the uses of old industrial buildings were in compliance with the law; (ii) he enquired about the number of mini-storages in SSP District and whether the specifications of their fire-service facilities were up to the required standard; (iii) he hoped that the relevant departments could give a reply to the enquiries contained in the paper.
106. Ms Claudia CHAN gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) BD, FSD, Labour Department and LandsD had started to conduct inspections in stages of some 500 mini-storages now in Hong Kong since 28 June this year. The inspections, which were scheduled to be completed in two months’ time, would first be targeted at mini-storages without an automatic-sprinkler system, before extending to other mini-storages.
(ii) If any buildings were found to have breached the Buildings Ordinance during the inspections, the BD would issue an order to the owners according to the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123), requiring them to rectify the breaches.
(iii) The Government had set up an inter-departmental working group with members coming from the SB, DEVB, BD, FSD, LandsD and PlanD, and would consider enhancing the fire safety level of mini-storages through legislative amendments.
107. The Chairman enquired whether the inter-departmental working group would submit a review report.
108. Ms Claudia CHAN responded that the inter-departmental working group was still reviewing the situation and no further information was available yet.
109. Mr Patrick LEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) LandsD would issue warning notices to owners if they were found to have breached the conditions of their land leases, requiring them to rectify the breaches by specified deadlines.
(ii) If the owners failed to comply with LandsD’s requirements, the Department - 26 - Action by
would refer their warning notices to the Land Registry for registration (commonly known as “imposing an encumbrance”), and if necessary would consider taking further actions to enforce lease conditions including re-entering the properties in question.
110. The Chairman raised the following enquiries: (i) the number of industrial buildings and mini-storages in SSP District; (ii) whether the Government had an inspection schedule for the industrial buildings in SSP District.
111. Mr TSE Tak-fai gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) According to available data at present, there were around 500 mini-storages across the territory, and mini-storages were found in some 50 premises in SSP District, involving 15 buildings.
(ii) As at 20 July this year, the Department had inspected 26 premises in SSP District and it was envisaged that inspections of the remaining premises would be completed in two months’ time. To address members’ concerns, the Department had completed inspection of Cheong Fat Factory Building before 20 July this year, and found that 16 units in the building had been used as a mini-storage, in which some fire-service facilities and exit signs were found to be defective. The Department had referred the matter to a task force for follow-up.
(iii) While at present no law was in place to regulate mini-storages, still the Department would inspect the fire service facilities and fire escapes in the relevant buildings to see if they were in compliance with the Fire Services Ordinance.
112. Mr YUEN Hoi-man thanked FSD for their inspection of the buildings in SSP District. He enquired about the amount of manpower and resources deployed by LandsD to check whether the owners in the district had breached their leases.
113. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following enquiries:(i) the causes of the fire in Cheong Fat Factory Building; (ii) whether FSD and BD had encountered resistance when they inspected Cheong Fat Factory Building and other buildings in the district, and the rate of successful inspections; (iii) whether there were any locations in the Sham Shui Po District which had been granted a licence to store dangerous goods; (iv) if there was potential hazard, whether the Government could revoke the licence and repossess the premises; (v) whether FSD and BD had found any sub-divided units or other potential fire hazards during their inspections in the district. - 27 - Action by
114. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following enquiries: (i) whether FSD and BD would confine their inspections only to buildings with mini-storages, and whether the inspections would cover the whole block; (ii) the number of sub-divided units in SSP District; (iii) how the Government had handled the problems with regard to sub-divided units in SSP District; (iv) whether the team of social workers under BD had offered assistance to people living in sub-divided units.
115. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views and enquiries: (i) sub-divided units in some buildings in Kwun Tong were registered as mini-storages, if such units caught fire, they would present an impediment to fire fighters’ rescue operations. She enquired whether members could refer those cases to the departments concerned for priority follow-up; (ii) she enquired whether FSD and BD staff had entered the relevant units when they carried out inspections of the buildings in SSP District; (iii) the number of mini-storages which were used for residential purpose in SSP District; (iv) she requested the departments to follow up on the problems arising from mini-storages and sub-divided units.
116. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) while FSD had not exempted industrial buildings completed before 1973 from the requirements for installing fire service facilities, it regulated the fire service facilities in those industrial buildings in accordance with the then-prevailing statutory requirements, he considered such practice behind the times; (ii) given two blazes had taken place recently, he enquired whether FSD would impose more stringent requirements on fire service facilities in buildings, and tighten regulations on mini-storages and sub-divided units; (iii) he enquired about the procedures for making legislative amendments; (iv) there were reports that some of the injured were living in the mini-storages in Cheong Fat Factory Building, he enquired what the government departments would do to regulate the situation.
117. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the fires occurred at Cheong Fat Factory Building and Amoycan Industrial Centre both showed that the Government was lax in its regulation of old industrial buildings; (ii) the Government should impose more stringent regulation on the fire service facilities in old industrial buildings; (iii) if owners were required to upgrade their fire service facilities at their own cost, they would offset the cost by raising rent, which would in turn place greater burden on tenants and hamper the development of the creative industries, he enquired whether the Government could provide subsidy to the owners; (iv) whether the Government had made resources available to the relevant departments for inspection of buildings across the territory; (v) how long it would take to complete the inspection of all old industrial buildings which had fire hazard in Hong Kong.
118. Mr LAM Ka-fai raised the following views: (i) the several catastrophic fires in the past had made the Legislative Council pass the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance (Cap. - 28 - Action by
572). In the light of the two recent blazes, the Government should amend the law with a view to improving the fire service facilities in old industrial buildings and regulating the uses of industrial buildings; (ii) the Government should give a grace period for such buildings to meet the higher requirements for fire service facilities, and consider providing financial assistance; (iii) he urged the relevant departments to relay members’ views to the inter-departmental working group.
119. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he was deeply grieved by the recent blazes. While the Government had introduced short-and medium-term measures in the wake of the blazes, they had yet to produce any real effects; (ii) after the enactment of the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance (Cap. 572), the Government had carried out inspections in more than 40 000 buildings across the territory. He enquired how many of which had been found to be in compliance with the Ordinance and how many prosecutions had been brought against the offending owners; (iii) the Government had used to require the fire service facilities of old industrial buildings to meet the then-prevailing requirements only, but it now determined whether such facilities were up to the required standard based on new laws, leaving many owners at a loss what to follow; (iv) since many people could only afford to live in old industrial buildings due to high rents in private housing, the Government should review whether the fire service facilities installed there were in compliance with the existing laws, and consider whether such buildings were suitable for residential use.
120. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu agreed that the Government should review whether industrial buildings were suitable for residential use if they complied with relevant statutory requirements, and he was of the view that some people were made homeless because the Government had failed to address the housing shortage in Hong Kong and yet it chose to regulate sub-divided units. He enquired about the number of old industrial buildings and sub-divided units in SSP District and hoped that the Government could try to address the problems stemming from old industrial buildings and sub-divided units by introducing some stopgap measures, such as interim housing.
121. The Chairman raised the following enquiries: (i) what irregularities had been found in the old factory buildings and dangerous goods stores in SSP District, and what follow-up actions had been taken by the relevant departments; (ii) whether the fire service facilities in old industrial buildings could be improved through legislation; (iii) how to rehouse people living in sub-divided units; (iv) what the causes of the fire at Cheong Fat Factory Building were.
122. Mr TSE Tak-fai gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) FSD was still looking into the causes of the fire at Cheong Fat Factory Building. The Department had collected relevant evidence and enlisted the - 29 - Action by
assistance of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department in the investigation, and at this stage the Department opined that the cause was not suspicious.
(ii) The Department had successfully inspected 26 premises with mini-storages operating on them in SSP District, and all the owners were willing to cooperate with the inspection by the Department.
(iii) Cheong Fat Factory Building had not applied for a licence to store dangerous goods, but in the course of the inspection, the Department found that there were nine compressed gas cylinders stored in the building and had referred the case immediately to the relevant division for follow-up. Besides, the Department had found sub-divided units at two locations inside the building, and referred the case immediately to BD for follow-up.
(iv) In addition to taking follow-up action on complaints and conducting inspection of the buildings concerned, the Department would conduct regular inspections (and inspect the whole building if necessary). When irregularities (such as unauthorised building works) were found during inspection, the Department would follow up the matter in accordance with the law and refer the case to other departments for follow-up, depending on the circumstances.
(v) The procedures for making legislative amendment were rather complicated, the Government would take stakeholders’ views into consideration, and inspect the structure of old buildings before going into discussion about how to amend the law.
(vi) The Department would encounter various challenges when it came to legislative amendment, and resources would be a problem if improvement was to be made to the fire service facilities and installations in old industrial buildings. For instance, industrial buildings constructed before 1973 would have to make room to accommodate a large water tank and be retrofitted with a fire sprinkler system, and some industrial buildings might not be able to comply with such requirements due to structural constraints.
(vii) The Department anticipated that the inspection of all mini-storages would be completed in two-months’ time, and would initiate prosecution action and issue a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice against any breach of the Fire Services Ordinance. After the fire at the mini-storages in Amoycan Industrial Centre, the Department had inspected the site and issued 20 Fire Hazard Abatement Notices. - 30 - Action by
(viii) The Department agreed that improvement should be made to the fire service facilities and installations in old industrial buildings, but was not in a position to give an answer to the enquiry about whether the Government would provide financial assistance in this regard.
123. Ms Claudia CHAN gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) In the wake of the fire at Cheong Fat Factory Building, BD had inspected the site and found that there were two locations which showed signs of being used as a dwelling. BD had applied for and obtained a Closure Order from the District Court. As the relevant owners had since stopped using them as a dwelling, the Department had issued a notice of expiry of the Closure Order and now the units in question had been re-opened.
(ii) The Department would inspect the whole building, as well as the mini-storages operating within, to see whether there was any breach of regulations, and would take immediate follow-up action if any unit was found to have been used as a dwelling.
(iii) The Department had launched a number of large-scale operations against sub-divided units in industrial buildings in SSP District over the last few years. According to the present data, the Department had inspected 7 industrial buildings in SSP District, and found that there were 53 sub-divided units. The Department had issued 5 Removal Orders, all of which had been complied. Besides, the Department’s social worker team would lend support to people affected by the operations and found to have emotional or housing problems.
(iv) The Department would first contact the operator of a mini-storage before entering it for inspection, and would apply for a warrant from the court according to the Buildings Ordinance if the Department was unable to get in touch with the operator.
(v) The Department, along with other government departments such as FSD, had held meetings with members from the sector, in which they had been briefed on the relevant requirements and encouraged to follow up on the problems identified expeditiously.
(vi) If members came to know of any buildings in Kwun Tong which had rental sub-divided units, they were welcomed to refer them to the Department for follow-up. - 31 - Action by
(vii) The inter-departmental working group was conducting a study on how to amend the law to enhance the fire safety standard of mini-storages.
124. Mr Patrick LEUNG gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) Besides sub-divided units and mini-storages, a number of industrial buildings were found to have changed the uses of some areas, which were in breach of the lease. The Government had announced the risk-based enforcement arrangements against lease breaches involving change of uses in industrial buildings. Starting from 29 August this year, cases involving uses in breach of the lease and posing a greater potential risk to safety would be prioritised in the first round of LandsD's enforcement action. Premises with lease-breaching uses that attracted members of the public, and at the same time located in an industrial building where there were premises issued with Licences for Manufacture and/or Storage of Dangerous Goods by FSD, would be targeted for the first round of the Department's enforcement action.
(ii) For the six industrial buildings the units in which were confirmed to have lease-breaching uses that attracted members of the public, the Department would issue a warning letter to the unit owners starting from 29 August, requiring rectification of the breach of uses within 14 days. Should the owners fail to rectify the breach upon expiry of the warning period, the Department would commence the procedures to retrieve the units.
(iii) As the Department would focus its efforts to deal with the aforesaid problems, in the absence of additional resources, other work might be delayed and he asked for the public’s understanding.
125. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) while BD had issued 5 Removal Orders against sub-divided units in the industrial buildings in the district and urged the tenants to move out, the problem did not go away as there were still chances that the tenants would move to other sub-divided units in other districts; (ii) he enquired how the team of social workers under BD could support these people.
126. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) BD’s enforcement arrangements went counter to the principle of revitalising industrial buildings and encouraging creative industries; (ii) it was hoped that FSD could improve the fire service facilities in these industrial buildings, provide advice from the technical point of view and consider amending the law; (iii) members had long been in support of FSD’s policy and helped the Department promote the requirements laid down in the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance to those living in private buildings; (iv) the Government should consider strengthening manpower to deal with the problems, and provide financial assistance to - 32 - Action by people in need to help them improve the fire service facilities in their buildings; (v) HD and SWD should be in support of the Government to deal with the problems stemming from sub-divided units.
127. Ms Claudia CHAN gave a consolidated response as follows:
(i) Industrial buildings were not suitable for residential use due to safety consideration.
(ii) When enforcement actions were taken against problems related to sub-divided units, the team of social workers under the Department would keep in touch with SWD, District Offices and HD, and seek relevant departments’ assistance if necessary, such as making enquiries about housing allocation and offering funds applications. In addition, the team of social workers would also explain to the tenants the reasons behind the Department’s enforcement actions, offer relocation advice and other support services.
128. The Chairman remarked that if the Government intend to retain and revitalise the old industrial buildings in Hong Kong, it was necessary to bring about an overall improvement to the fire service facilities of those buildings.
129. The Chairman concluded that the Committee thanked BD, FSD and LandsD for the follow-up actions they took on the fire safety problems in old industrial buildings, and hoped that the Government could introduce legislation to regulate the requirements of fire service facilities in old industrial buildings expeditiously.
Agenda Item 3: Follow-up matters
(a) Checklist of follow-up actions of matters discussed in the 3rd meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee (HAC Paper 42/16)
130. The Chairman referred members to Paper 42/16.
131. Ms Maggie LAW introduced Response Paper 45/16.
132. The Chairman enquired whether Pak Tin Catholic Primary School had accepted EDB’s relocation arrangement.
133. Ms Maggie LAW responded that Pak Tin Catholic Primary School had been allocated the new primary school premises in the development project at Tonkin Street in Cheung Sha Wan for relocation purposes. - 33 - Action by
134. The Committee noted EDB’s briefing, and came to the view that there was no need to follow this matter up in the next meeting.
135. The Chairman remarked that the Committee had discussed the redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate, and this matter would continue to be followed up in the next meeting. He then invited HD’s representative to give an update on Item 3 under follow-up matters.
136. Mr LEE Chi-yin reported as follows:
(i) The Department had promoted a food waste recycling scheme in 14 housing estates from 2012 to 2014, and the trial scheme had ended in July 2014.
(ii) At the moment, the Department did not have plans to promote a food waste recycling scheme in all PRH estates, but was of the view that the trial scheme had proved to be effective to a certain extent and would explore how to promote food waste recycling in PRH estates.
(iii) The Department would support the scheme put forth by the Government in 2014, and continued to make reduction of food waste in PRH estates its priority. The Department had collaborated with green groups to spread the message of food waste reduction in shopping malls, such as teaching business operators how to reduce food waste at source, encouraging them to separate food waste, conveying to the public the message of light meal and small portions, collaborating with business operators to offer green discount, and working with voluntary bodies to roll out leftover food donation scheme in Nam Shan Estate.
137. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views: (i) the report made by the Department was similar to the one it had made in the last meeting, and it was hoped that the Department would take members’ views into serious consideration; (ii) if the Department considered the trial scheme to be effective, a schedule for implementation of a full-scale food waste recycling scheme should be formulated expeditiously.
138. The Chairman remarked that it was hoped that the Department could implement a territory-wide food waste recycling scheme as it had proved to be effective in helping local residents form the habit of food waste recycling.
139. The Committee requested the Department to continue with the implementation of the food waste recycling scheme in Lai Kok Estate, Lai On Estate and Nam Shan Estate, etc., and agreed to follow up this matter.
140. The Chairman remarked that the Committee had already discussed the issues about - 34 - Action by the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate and the item would be followed up in the next meeting. He then invited HD’s representative to give an update on Item 5 under follow-up matters.
141. Ms LUI Suk-ching reported as follows:
(i) There would be 36 monthly rental parking spaces for motorcycles in So Uk Estate Phase 1, and 8 in Phase 2.
(ii) No hourly rental parking spaces would be provided for motorcycles in So Uk Estate, but the estate office would consider introducing hourly rental parking spaces for motorcycles, having regard to the actual supply and demand for such spaces.
142. Members noted the briefing of HD and agreed that there was no need to follow this matter up in the next meeting.
143. The Chairman invited WSD’s representative to give an update on Item 6 under follow-up matters.
144. Mr FU Sau-bong remarked that WSD had submitted a response paper in the last meeting and would like to take this opportunity to explain once again the mechanism through which the Department handled water seepage cases:
(i) According to the existing policy, upon receipt of a water seepage complaint, the Joint Offices (“JO”), which were set up by BD and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), would carry out thorough investigation and a number of tests to identify the source of the water seepage, such as conducting reversible pressure tests on water supply pipes which were suspected to be defective. For water seepage cases involving leaking water supply pipes, JO would refer them to WSD for follow up, which would require the consumers in question to repair the leaking inside services in accordance with the Waterworks Ordinance.
(ii) Upon receipt of a complaint about water seepage in a building, WSD would look up its record to confirm whether the case had been referred to the Department by JO and then follow it up accordingly. If the case had not been referred by JO, the Department would first refer it to JO for thorough investigations.
(iii) Where water wastage was identified, the Water Authority would issue a Repair Notice (“the Notice”) to the relevant consumers/agents in accordance - 35 - Action by
with the Waterworks Ordinance, requiring them to repair the leaking parts of the private or public water supply system inside a building, and then make a report to the Water Authority. If they failed to complete the repairs before the deadlines set out in the Notice, the Water Authority would issue a Disconnect Notice, urging them to complete the repair expeditiously. If they failed to do so, the Water Authority would consider disconnecting their water supply in accordance with the Waterworks Ordinance.
145. The Chairman remarked that the Committee had requested JO to optimise the handling mechanism, revisit the moisture content index, introduce advanced equipment and increase manpower so as to enhance the effectiveness of the way it handled water seepage problems. In this connection, he invited JO to give an update on Item 6 under follow-up matters.
146. Miss LEUNG Ka-wai reported as follows:
(i) The number of water seepage complaints received had gone up over 50 % since 2006 when JO was set up on a trial basis. As a means to strengthen its investigation capacity, the number of FEHD staff in JO responsible for investigating cases in Sham Shui Po had been expanded more than doubled.
(ii) As the wastage rate of contract staff was relatively high, JO had continuously expanded its permanent establishment to maintain a stable operation. In the years to come, JO would continue its efforts to replace contract staff with permanent headcounts to cope with the operation needs.
147. Mr CHAN Chun-kit reported as follows:
(i) The number of professional and technical BD staff in JO responsible for investigating cases in Sham Shui Po had grown from 60 to 64. In addition, JO had made contractual agreement with its consultant, requiring the latter to submit work reports and recruit more professional staff in order to expedite investigation of water seepage cases.
(ii) In response to the growing number of water seepage complaints received, JO would add one or two officers to meet the operation needs.
148. The Chairman enquired about JO’s progress on exploring the use of advanced equipment such as infrared detectors.
149. Mr CHAN Chun-kit responded that JO had been carrying out field tests on more than 100 cases and had yet to have the test results, and it was anticipated that the study - 36 - Action by would be completed in early 2017.
150. Mr CHUM Tak-shing enquired whether JO had explored the use of other advanced equipment (such as microwave detectors), in addition to infrared detectors.
151. Mr CHAN Chun-kit responded that apart from infrared detectors, JO had also explored the use of other advanced detecting devices, such as microwave detectors and radar.
152. The Committee noted JO’s briefing and WSD’s mechanism in handling water seepage cases, and agreed to follow this matter up half a year later.
153. The Chairman invited HD’s representative to give an update on Item 7 under follow-up matters.
154. Mr YIP Chi-kei reported as follows:
(i) The iron gate of a PRH unit was not the only security measure in place, security guards in block lobbies of PRH estates and occupants’ door locks could also enhance security effectively.
(ii) HD was unable to procure door locks of the highest specifications in the past due to technical limitations. But now, HD had increased the number of mixed door locks to the tune of 6 000 to minimise the scenario of “one key can open multiple gates” in newly commissioned PRH estates. Besides, the Department had required its contractor to confirm in writing that the door locks were in compliance with the Department’s requirements, and to allow the Department to conduct sampling tests.
155. The Chairman hoped that the Department could test as many door locks provided by the contractor as possible to ensure their compliance with the requirements.
156. The Committee noted HD’s briefing and agreed that there was no need to follow this matter up in the next meeting.
Agenda Item 4: Reports from Working Groups under the Committee
(a) Report from the Working Group on Public Housing (HAC Paper 43/16)
157. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.
(b) Report from the Working Group on Private Premises and Urban Revitalisation (HAC Papers 44/16) - 37 - Action by
158. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.
Agenda Item 5: Any other business
159. Members did not raise any other business.
Agenda Item 6: Date of next meeting
160. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 13 October 2016 (Thursday).
161. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 2:57 p.m.
District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Council October 2016