(Translation)
Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of Housing, Planning and Lands Committee the 6th Term Kwun Tong District Council
Date: 7 May 2020 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 a.m. – 6:52 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Kwun Tong District Office, Unit 05-07, 20/F Millennium City 6, 392 Kwun Tong Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon
Present Arrival Time Leaving Time Mr CHENG Keng-ieong (Chairman) 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr FUNG Ka-lung (Vice-chairman) 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr BUX Sheik Anthony 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHAN Chris Ka-yin 9:46 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHAN Man-kin 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHAN Yik-shun Eason 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHAN Yiu-hung, Jimmy 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr CHOY Chak-hung 2:57 p.m. 6:52 p.m. Ms FU Pik-chun 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr HSU Yau-wai 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr HUNG Chun-hin 9:41 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr IP Tsz-kit 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr KAN Ming-tung, MH 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr KUNG Chun-ki 11:50 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Ms LAI Po-kwai 9:32 a.m. 5:19 p.m. Mr LAM Wai 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr LEE Kwan-chak 9:32 a.m. 6:30 p.m. Ms LEUNG Jannelle Rosalynne 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr LEUNG Tang-fung 9:32 a.m. 12:10 p.m. Ms LEUNG Yik-ting Edith 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr LI Ka-tat 9:50 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr LI Wai-lam William 9:32 a.m. 6:30 p.m. Ms LI Wing-shan 9:46 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr LUI Tung-hai, MH 9:32 a.m. 6:18 p.m. Mr MOK Kin-shing 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m.
1 Mr NGAN Man-yu 9:32 a.m. 12:04 p.m. Mr OR Chong-shing Wilson, MH 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr PANG Chi-sang 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr SO Koon-chung Kevin 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr TAM Siu-cheuk 9:32 a.m. 4:05 p.m. Mr TANG Wai-man Raymond 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Ms TSE Suk-chun 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr WAN Ka-him 10:08 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr WANG Wai-lun 9:46 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Mr WONG Chi-ken 9:32 a.m. 6:52 p.m. Ms WONG Ka-ying 9:32 a.m. 6:30 p.m. Mr WONG Kai-ming 9:32 a.m. 4:05 p.m. Miss WONG Ching-yi, May (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council)(3), Kwun Tong District Office
In Attendance Miss CHOI Gi-lam, Britney Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)1 Mr KO Choar-que, Keith Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Kwun Tong District Office Miss TAM Yuen-shan, Dilys Senior Housing Manager/Kowloon East 1, Housing Department Mr CHU Wing-chung, Simon Architect 65, Housing Department Ms KWAN Ka-pui, Jessie Senior Town Planner/Kowloon 5, Planning Department Mr LAU Chi-yuen, Spencer Senior Estate Surveyor/Kwun Tong (District Lands Office, Kowloon East), Lands Department Mr LAI Chi-ming Principal Estate Officer/Kwun Tong (District Lands Office, Kowloon East) Lands Department
Invitees Mr LAM Chi-man, David Principal Assistant Secretary (Planning and Lands)5, Item II Development Bureau Ms FOK Wai-yin, Emily Senior Property Manager (Project Division)1, Government Property Agency
2 Mr SIU Hing-tat, Frankie Valuation Surveyor (Project Division)12, Government Property Agency Mr LEUNG Siu-kau, Kelvin Chief Engineer/East2, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr KWOK Chun-wai, Stephen Senior Engineer/21(East), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr LAM Kan-sau Engineer/9(East), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr WONG Yin-chiu, Alex Technical Director, Land Supply/Municipal, AECOM Asia Company Limited Miss CHEUNG Shuk-fun, Debrey Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Kwun Tong)1, Social Welfare Department Mr YU Chun, Calvin Senior Executive Officer (Planning)22, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms TANG Wing-sze, Maria District Leisure Manager (Kwun Tong), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms YIP Wai-ting, Wendy Senior Librarian (Kwun Tong), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Miss LAU Wing-chuk, Celine Senior Librarian (Planning and Development), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Miss WONG Ying, Samantha Senior Engineer/Parking Project 4, Transport Department Mr FUNG Kin-ip, Kevin Senior Engineer/Kowloon District East (South), Transport Department Mr LEUNG Pak-wa Engineer/Kwun Tong 4, Transport Department Ms CHAN Ka-Yan Engineer/Kwun Tong 3, Transport Department
Mr LUK Sung-ki Senior Architect/23, Item III Housing Department Ms SZE Lai-hung, Lily Senior Planning Officer 3, Housing Department Ms HUI Sau-ling, Emilie Architect 109, Housing Department Mr KAN Sai-yin, Samuel Civil Engineer 35, Housing Department Mr LI Chor-yip, Jim District Engineer/Special Duty 3, Highways Department
3 Ms CHEUNG Suk-ling, Cindy Senior Transport Officer/Kwun Tong, Transport Department Mr HO Ming-him, Donald Engineer/Kwun Tong 1, Transport Department Miss CHEUNG Shuk-fun, Debrey Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Kwun Tong)1, Social Welfare Department
Mr MAK Chiu Senior Valuation Surveyor, Item IV Urban Division Rating and Valuation Department Ms TSANG Lai-wan, Katherine Technical Secretary (Operations), Support Services Division, Rating and Valuation Department
Ms SZE Lai-hung, Lily Senior Planning Officer 3, Item V Housing Department
Mr OR Chung-ming Senior Engineer/1 (East), Item VII Civil Engineering and Development Department Miss LAU Hoi-kun, Ida Senior Engineer/5 (East), Civil Engineering and Development Department Ms FU Kit-yee, Mandy Senior Resident Engineer, AECOM Asia Company Limited Mr CHING Yu-hung, Edwin Senior Resident Engineer, Hyder-Meinhardt Joint Venture Ms CHOY See-mun, Celia Resident Engineer, Hyder-Meinhardt Joint Venture Mr Law Yin-sang Chairman, Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association Mr LO Yuet-ping Vice-chairman, Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the second meeting of the Housing, Planning and Lands Committee (“HPLC”) under the 6th Term Kwun Tong District Council (“KTDC”).
4 I. Confirmation of Minutes of the Last Meeting
2. Members had no further comments or amendments and the minutes of the last meeting were confirmed.
II. Progress Report for Development of Anderson Road Quarry Site (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 1/2020) Proposed Project Scope for Quarry Park in Anderson Road Quarry (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 3/2020)
3. The representatives of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) and Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) presented the papers.
4. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
4.1 Mr LAM Wai expressed concern over the dust and noise problems brought by the existing infrastructure works. He remarked that there was no path connecting On Tai Estate and the quarry park in Anderson Road Quarry at the moment and there were no works in regard to the construction of such a path either. He asked CEDD how residents of On Tai Estate could travel to the quarry park and enjoy its facilities.
4.2 Mr HSU Yau-wai thanked CEDD for presenting the paper and enquired: (i) how CEDD would solve the traffic problem exacerbated by members of the public and visitors attracted to the quarry park after its development when the traffic in Anderson was already very congested at the moment; (ii) how CEDD would solve the problem of the shortage of parking spaces at On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate in face of the future population growth of 30 000 people; (iii) whether the lighting of the two footbridges connecting On Tat Estate and Anderson Road Quarry to be constructed would affect households on the middle and lower floors of On Tat Estate at night; and (iv) whether the proposed fire station to be constructed in Anderson Road Quarry would have any noise insulation facilities or measures as the proposed fire station would be in the vicinity of Hau Tat House and Him Tat House and the alarm and siren sounds of the broadcasting system of the fire station and fire engines might cause nuisances to nearby residents. In addition, he suggested departments provide wet markets and public swimming pools at the joint-user complex on Site G2 or other appropriate locations so as to alleviate the burden posed by residents of Anderson Road
5 Quarry Site on nearby community facilities in Kwun Tong in the future.
4.3 Mr MOK Kin-shing enquired whether the quarry park was positioned as a tourist attraction or a community park. He opined that if the quarry park was positioned as a tourist attraction, the quarry park should provide comprehensive tourism facilities, such as coach parking spaces, sufficient private car parking spaces, transport facilities and tourism support. If the quarry park was positioned as a community park, the quarry park should be more closely connected with neighbouring communities. However, the quarry park was in fact located at a remote location and the papers submitted by the departments did not show any road connecting the quarry park with On Tai Estate or Sze Shun Area. He enquired how nearby residents could get to the quarry park in the future. In addition, he remarked that the pedestrian links mentioned by the departments could only solve the commuting problem of residents, but not the traffic congestion in Kwun Tong. He pointed out that the traffic congestion problems at New Clear Water Bay Road, Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road were severe and KTDC would only support the development of Anderson Road Quarry if CEDD would consider how to improve the traffic in Sai Kung and Kwun Tong when carrying out development projects.
4.4 Mr IP Tsz-kit pointed out that the departments had said that the bus interchange at Tseung Kwan O Tunnel could be opened in the second half of 2020 and the Kowloon-bound carriageway might be completed by the end of 2020. However, the paper stated that pedestrian connectivity facilities were expected to be completed in 2021. He enquired whether CEDD would provide standard temporary barrier-free means of access if the bus interchange was opened without uncompleted pedestrian facilities. In addition, he remarked that complaints about the noise produced by the works at Lin Tak Road had all along been received from residents of Lam Tin, especially those of Hing Tin Estate and Hong Wah Court. He pointed out that he had been following up on that matter with CEDD continuously. However, only short-term improvement had been made whenever he had reflected the problem. He hoped CEDD could follow up on that proactively and use acoustic screens to always cover construction vehicles so as to reduce the noise impact on residents nearby.
4.5 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung hoped that the departments could reflect the traffic problems of the quarry park. In addition, he suggested providing public swimming pools at the joint-user complex on Site G2 so as to lower the
6 frequency of residents of Anderson Road using Kwun Tong Swimming Pool and Lam Tin Swimming Pool.
4.6 Mr WONG Chi-ken expressed concern over the problem of ancillary transport facilities. He pointed out that although there were pedestrian connectivity facilities at the moment, the location of Anderson Road was quite remote and transportation was still needed for connection. As road areas were difficult to increase, the traffic there might be more congested upon the future population growth of 30 000 people at Anderson Road and the completion of the quarry park. He enquired whether CEDD would consider expediting the construction of the East Kowloon Line (“EKL”) so as to facilitate the commuting of residents living at the uphill areas.
4.7 Mr Kevin SO remarked that Members across various political parties had raised a motion during the previous district council term, hoping that departments could submit effective traffic improvement solutions. KTDC would only agree with planning or housing developments after departments had submitted relevant solutions to KTDC. The paper submitted by CEDD presently, the same as the papers submitted in the past, did not include any new pedestrian connectivity facilities or railway connections. He expressed concern over the following matters: (i) although the greening zones of the quarry park would attract visitors, the design of the area next to the bus terminus at the end of the road of the quarry park did not include any parking spaces. Coaches might have difficulties in dropping off and picking up tour groups; (ii) the preliminary design of the quarry park did not include any parking spaces. He suggested LCSD include parking spaces in its planning so that the quarry park did not have to wait for many years as Kwun Tong Promenade had done for the provision of additional parking spaces; and (iii) the scope of the quarry park was large and sufficient ancillary facilities, especially toilets, should be provided. He opined that the design of Choi Wing Road Park was quite good. However, the toilet facilities there were not comprehensive. In addition, he pointed out that if residents of Sai Kung had to use the quarry park, they had to use the roads in Kwun Tong. He remarked that although Anderson Road Quarry Site was under the purview of the Sai Kung District Council (“SKDC”) and SKDC had endorsed that project, the departments should also listen to KTDC’s views, especially those in the traffic aspect.
4.8 Mr NGAN Man-yu clarified that Choi Wing Road Park was not that beautiful and the actual management of Choi Wing Road Park was only
7 average. He remarked that Choi Wing Road Park was not properly managed. The flowers there had withered and the toilet facilities there were damaged. In addition, as Choi Wing Road Park had adopted a green design, replacement of parts would take a few months. Toilets had occasionally been temporarily closed by LCSD in recent years. He pointed out that parks with special features were different from ordinary parks. He suggested managing parks with special features with another contract so as to better present their designed landscapes. In addition, he pointed out that the quarry park and the lake garden would attract visitors. Therefore, he worried that that might affect the lives of local residents. He took Jordan Valley Park and Choi Wing Road Park as examples. He remarked that those two parks had insufficient parking spaces or even no parking spaces, thereby causing serious traffic congestion.
5. The Vice-chairman expressed concern over traffic problems. He remarked that there would be a population intake of 30 000 people upon the completion of Tai Sheung Tok and Po Tat Estate and Sau Mau Ping would be significantly affected. He pointed out that the traffic was seriously congested at present after the completion of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate. Although CEDD was constructing lifts and carrying out road widening works, he worried that the population brought by the coming intake would offset the purposes of those works. In addition, he enquired whether the location of a proposed lift connecting Po Tat Estate and Lin Tak Road in figure 3 included in the paper of CEDD could be rearranged. He remarked that if the lift was relocated to Tat Shun House, pedestrians could travel to the bus interchange more conveniently. If the lift was relocated to somewhere near the escalators of Sau Fai House, it would be more convenient too. Also, he remarked that CEDD should consider the difficulties of the elderly and persons with disabilities in going upslope or downslope when considering the locations of lifts. He also suggested CEDD consider adjusting the location of the lift.
6. CEDD thanked Members for their views and responded as follows:
6.1 Impacts on surrounding environment posed by the works: CEDD would adopt appropriate mitigation measures in the course of construction so as to control dust emissions, noise emissions and surface runoff. CEDD would also spray water at construction sites and use low noise equipment and quiet methods to carry out works. CEDD would also maintain close communication with schools so as to avoid the noise produced by works from affecting students during examination periods. In addition, CEDD would also review the implementation of mitigation measures adopted in construction sites.
8 6.2 Lighting of footbridges: CEDD would pay attention to the specifications of lighting systems procured when constructing footbridges and also consider the angles of lighting and the use of lamp shades with an aim to minimising the impact on nearby residents;
6.3 Proposed fire station: relevant departments would give KTDC an introduction of relevant matters, such as facilities, measures of the fire station, etc., upon the completion of the design of the fire station.
6.4 Traffic condition of Anderson Road Quarry Site: CEDD was carrying out three proposed road improvement works projects outside the new development area at the moment, including: (i) improvement works at the junction of Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road; (ii) improvement works at the junction of Clear Water Bay Road and On Sau Road; and (iii) widening of a section of New Clear Water Bay Road (Kowloon-bound) near Shun Lee Tsuen Road. In addition, CEDD, with an aim to improving local traffic condition, would gradually commence three district road improvement works projects from 2021 to 2022, including the expansion of existing bus stops at Po Lam Road (near Po Tat Estate) and New Clear Water Bay Road (near Sing Yin Secondary School) and the provision of an additional minibus pick-up and drop-off point at Sau Mau Ping Road near Sau Fung Street.
6.5 Tseung Kwan O Tunnel Bus-Bus Interchange: CEDD had substantially completed the bus-bus interchange (Tseung Kwan O-bound) and was discussing with the Transport Department (“TD”) the arrangement of bus companies to conduct trial runs. Bus companies would install passenger facilities at the bus-bus interchange. TD would then inform KTDC of the commissioning date of the bus-bus interchange (Tseung Kwan O-bound). In addition, the works of the bus-bus interchange (Kowloon-bound) had been delayed. The reason for the delay included: (i) utility diversion works took more time than expected; (ii) rock excavation works were much more complicated than expected; and (iii) the production of prefabricated components had been delayed due to the epidemic. CEDD expected that the bus-bus interchange (Kowloon-bound) would be gradually completed by the end of 2020. CEDD would discuss with TD in respect of the arrangement of bus companies to conduct trial runs and implementation of the arrangements for the opening of the bus-bus interchange (Kowloon-bound) as soon as possible. In order to allow members of the public to use the bus-bus interchange as soon as possible, CEDD would
9 provide standard temporary pedestrian links to connect the bus-bus interchange before the completion of relevant pedestrian connectivity facilities.
6.6 Works at Lin Tak Road: CEDD was carrying out road widening works at Lin Tak Road and constructing carriageways to connect Sau Mau Ping Road and Lin Tak Road. CEDD would step up monitoring and management of the construction sites to alleviate the noise problem brought by the works.
6.7 Lift tower connecting Po Tat Estate and Lin Tak Road: in regard to the accessibility of lift tower users, CEDD would provide ramps in the design so as to cater for the needs of wheelchair users. CEDD would also discuss with the Vice-chairman the design after the meeting.
7. LCSD thanked Members for their views and responded as follows:
7.1 The planning of the quarry park: in regard to the ancillary facilities of the quarry park, the proposed facilities included in the paper were at the relatively preliminary stage of works. LCSD would consider providing a certain amount of ancillary parking facilities.
7.2 Ancillary facilities: LCSD had been placing great importance on the ancillary facilities of the quarry park. When conducting the feasibility study and further planning on the proposed preliminary development, LCSD would carefully consider ancillary facilities, such as the locations of toilets and baby-sitting rooms, etc. so as to provide appropriate ancillary facilities at various locations of the quarry park.
7.3 Position of the quarry park: facilities of LCSD had been serving members of the public all along. The quarry park, as a part of the regional open space, was expected to be used by local individuals and members of the public from other districts.
7.4 Traffic impact assessments: LCSD would conduct various technical assessments when carrying out technical feasibility studies for works projects. A traffic impact assessment was in fact an important part of the study. Consultancies and contractors would conduct reviews in a holistic manner at that time, including reviews on the traffic impacts brought by the facilities or the necessity of complementary measures. LCSD would maintain close communication with relevant departments too.
10 8. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
8.1 Ms FU Pik-chun pointed out that CEDD had replied that there were three improvement works projects at New Clear Water Bay Road. One of the improvement works projects was the expansion of the bus stop outside Choi Hung Estate, New Clear Water Bay Road. She remarked that she had repeatedly reflected the problem of that location and had pointed out that the footpath there was wide enough for the implementation of works. However, the works were scheduled for commencement from 2021 to 2022. Also, she had suggested providing a junction at the roundabout outside Sing Yin Secondary School so as to divert the traffic flow travelling to Kwun Tong. She pointed out that CEDD had remarked that vehicles could turn into Choi Hing Lane, but CEDD had not taken into consideration that vehicles turning into Choi Hing Lane had to wait for buses to drive away from the bus stop there. She remarked that the travelling time from Lee On Road to Choi Hung had been three to five minutes originally and had increased to 20 minutes at present. She hoped departments could seriously consider the suggested solution so as to improve the traffic condition.
8.2 Mr LAM Wai enquired about pedestrian connectivity facilities at On Tai Estate and Sze Shun Area connecting to the quarry park. He remarked that there were nearly 50 000 people living at Anderson Road at the moment. He hoped that relevant departments could seriously consider providing additional parking spaces and study bus route development and road arrangements.
8.3 Mr Jimmy CHAN remarked that the traffic in Sau Mau Ping was congested. If the development of Anderson Road could not properly solve the problem of ancillary transport facilities, he believed Members would continue to raise many views at every meeting. He pointed out that Members had suggested providing flyovers to improve the traffic of the uphill areas at the 5th meeting of the Full Council held on 5 May 2020. However, departments had not expedited the implementation of improvement measures for traffic congestion or implemented Members’ suggestions. He expressed concern over the pedestrian connectivity facilities mentioned in the paper of CEDD as the construction of facilities had remained uncompleted over the years because the construction involved a land right problem or was still applying funds from the Legislative Council (“LegCo”). He hoped that CEDD could actively communicate with relevant departments so as to expedite the works progress and lower the reliance of
11 some members of the public on public transports.
8.4 Mr MOK Kin-shing hoped that the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) could give a clear response on how it would handle EKL. Without EKL, local traffic would be overloaded. He remarked that if EKL would not be constructed, Anderson Road Quarry Site should not be developed as well. He enquired how the quarry site or lake garden would be connected with neighbouring communities. In addition, LCSD had replied that the details of the quarry park had to be further studied. He suggested LCSD consult and discuss with KTDC after finishing their studies. If there was no specific information, he suggested the Chairman disapprove the development project in question.
8.5 Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong remarked that the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site had been discussed during the last KTDC term. He also remarked that Members across various political parties had requested provision of additional flyovers and the simultaneous completion of EKL and the development of Anderson Road Quarry. Both motions had been endorsed. However, departments had not accepted the suggestion related to the provision of additional flyovers and the construction of EKL had been missing too. He pointed out that if departments would properly manage the quarry park, the quarry park would attract many members of the public and tourists. Therefore, he worried that the quarry park might cause traffic congestion in the future. In addition, he remarked that the expected population intake of the development of Anderson Road Quarry had increased from 19 000 to 30 000 people. He doubted that departments would not provide additional road improvement facilities, connectivity facilities or ancillary facilities to cope with the population growth.
8.6 Mr KAN Ming-tung remarked that the development of Anderson Road Quarry and transport ancillary facilities, including footbridge, bus routes, roads and parking spaces, should be completed at the same time so as to minimise the impact on local residents. He remarked that the original intention of providing greening zones in the quarry park was good, but CEDD should also consider whether there were comprehensive transport facilities to support it. The reply of LCSD showed that the quarry park was still at the preliminary design phase. He suggested commencing the works of the quarry park upon the completion of all other projects under the whole development. He also pointed out that the works of the bus-bus interchange of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel had been delayed again and the
12 improvement works of the road travelling from Lin Tak Road to Tseung Kwan O was still at the stage of hill cutting. After members of the public had moved into Tai Sheung Tok, he did not know how they could travel to other places. Also, Members from various political parties had reached a consensus on different items in the previous KTDC term. He opined that if departments could closely collaborate, properly arrange the order of works and provide all ancillary facilities, they might have a greater chance in gaining the support of KTDC.
8.7 Mr NGAN Man-yu remarked that the paper mentioned that the facilities of the quarry park included a food stall, a pet garden, a cycling park, etc. However, the paper did not clearly state the information of traffic and parking facilities of the quarry park. He pointed out that Jordan Valley Park and Kwun Tong Promenade did not have sufficient parking facilities either. LCSD should learn a lesson from it. In regard to the reply of LCSD stating that the traffic impact assessment would only be conducted at the second stage, he asked LCSD how the mechanism would prioritise the traffic impact assessment and the assessment of the need for a food stall.
8.8 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk pointed out the previous term of KTDC had not endorsed the paper concerned and Members had clearly indicated that if the problem related to the traffic flow remained unsolved, departments had to attend meetings again for further discussion. He remarked that the departments’ traffic impact assessments had never included major roads in Kwun Tong, such as Clear Water Bay Road and Sau Mau Ping Road. He remarked that when he had still been a district councilor under the first term of KTDC, a department had predicted based on traffic models that the traffic congestion problem at Clear Water Bay Road would be out of control in around 2020. However, the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site had yet to be formulated when the prediction had been made by then. He pointed out that if there was no special increase in the road area of Kwun Tong, it was hard to convince Members to accept population growth of tens of thousands in the district. He remarked that besides details of planning, KTDC also paid attention to how the departments would solve the problems of flows of people and traffic. He opposed the solution as EKL was not present and the traffic at Clear Water Bay Road and Sau Mau Ping had not been improved, failing to divert flows of people and traffic significantly.
8.9 Mr Wilson OR remarked that he had witnessed the development of
13 Anderson Road, including the resumption of land, relocation of temples, completion of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate, change of land uses of nine sites, development of community halls and Tai Sheung Tok, etc. However, departments had been failing to solve the core problem of traffic congestion in Kwun Tong. He had suggested departments provide an elevated bypass to connect Anderson Road and Kwun Tong By-pass, but departments had remarked that that idea was impracticable. He opined that the act of CEDD’s collecting Members’ views was merely a gesture and CEDD would continue the following procedure without considering those views collected. He opined that CEDD had not respected the previous Members who had joined the discussion in regard to the development of Anderson Road. He raised suggestions as follows: (i) requesting CEDD to provide a written reply on matters concerned by Members, such as the absence of timetable for the completion of EKL and the pedestrian network system and the traffic congestion at Clear Water Bay Road, Sau Mau Ping Road and Lin Tak Road; (ii) the Chairman could consider convening inter-departmental meetings for the item concerned to further solve the traffic problems concerned by Members; and (iii) CEDD should submit traffic impact assessment in regard to the development of Anderson Road Quarry. If CEDD could not solve the problems, he said that it would be difficult for him to support the development.
8.10 Mr William LI remarked that there would be many planning items at areas around Laguna City and Cha Kwo Ling and the government departments’ way of conducting new planning was quite bureaucratic. He hoped that departments could seriously review the development of Anderson Road Quarry. He also pointed out that if departments could not provide proper transport ancillary facilities, Members of Civic Party would not support the development concerned.
8.11 Mr Kevin SO asked CEDD what the improvement had been made when comparing the current paper with the consultation papers of the 20th meeting of the Full Council (28 February 2019) and the 23rd meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee (“TTC”) (1 August 2019) under the 5th term of KTDC. He remarked that Members had pointed out the problem of transport ancillary facilities when discussing the development project concerned during the previous KTDC term. He also remarked that he would only consider agreeing with the planning in question if EKL and the development of Anderson Road Quarry could be completed at the same time. In addition, he remarked that he would not believe CEDD’s traffic impact
14 assessments anymore because although traffic impact assessments had repeatedly shown that projects were feasible, traffic problems had still occurred after people had started to move into those areas. Also, he pointed out that although the location of the quarry park was under the purview of Sai Kung, the traffic network connecting the quarry park was in Kwun Tong. The traffic system would be heavily burdened upon the population growth of 30 000 people and an increase in the number of tourists. He enquired whether CEDD would insist on developing the project if KTDC disapproved it while SKDC approved it.
8.12 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG pointed out that while carrying out housing development, the provision of proper transportation, ancillary facilities, open spaces and greening zones should be taken care of so as to provide residents with a comfortable living environment. She remarked that the traffic between Sau Mau Ping, Lam Tin and Kwun Tong Town Centre was very congested and there would be population growth of 30 000 people due to the development of Anderson Road Quarry. She worried that the traffic there might collapse. She enquired whether elevated bridges would be provided to divert traffic flows. Also, she pointed out that besides Po Lam Station, all other stations of EKL were underground stations. She suggested constructing elevated bridges and elevated stations at underground stations for development.
8.13 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung enquired whether EKL would be constructed in the future. In regard to traffic, he pointed out that the travelling time between Sau Mau Ping and Kwun Tong MTR Station had increased from five minutes to 25 minutes and there were many traffic lights along the roads travelling from On Tat and On Tai to Kwun Tong or Choi Hung, making it difficult to carry out further development under the current traffic flow. In addition, he remarked that there was a severe lack of parking facilities in On Tat and On Tai and the problem of illegal parking at the roadside was very serious. He hoped that departments could consider providing parking spaces to nearby residents.
8.14 Ms LI Wing-shan enquired whether CEDD had carried out any traffic impact assessment. If not, CEDD should not carry out any development without adequate studies. She took Shui Chuen O Estate as an example to point out that relevant departments were able to submit the report on the traffic impact assessment and all the documents before developing that estate. Also, she expressed concern on whether the number of locations
15 for conducting the traffic impact assessments was sufficient.
8.15 Mr Eason CHAN remarked that the ancillary transport facilities of On Tat and On Tai had a close connection with Lam Tin. For example, there were buses and minibuses connecting Lam Tin to On Tat and Shun Lee. The development of Anderson Road Quarry would also increase the mobility of population in Lam Tin. He also pointed out that emphasis should be placed on other relevant ancillary facilities when constructing housing. As departments could not provide satisfactory transport ancillary facilities, he was opposed to the construction of the quarry park.
9. The Vice-chairman enquired: (i) about the area and location of parking facilities of the quarry park and the number of parking spaces for vehicles, such as private cars, motorcycles, coaches, etc. He pointed out that the area of parking facilities would affect the problem of illegal parking in that area; and (ii) whether EKL would be constructed in the future. Also, he suggested CEDD draw reference from the usage of cable cars in Chongqing and provide cable cars at Tai Sheung Tok to connect Tai Sheung Tok to Kwun Tong Town Centre. He added that stops could be provided in the middle. He remarked that the cable cars could attract tourists and solve residents’ livelihood problems.
10. The Chairman enquired the departments: (i) whether EKL would be constructed in the future and about its latest progress; and (ii) how the departments would handle the matter if SKDC was in support of the solution while KTDC was opposed to it. He remarked that if the departments could not clearly answer the questions raised by Members in regard to the traffic, he could not exclude the possibility of asking CEDD to attend meetings for further discussion.
11. CEDD responded as follows:
11.1 Connection between On Tai Estate and Sze Shun Area and the quarry park: a lift tower between On Tai Estate and On Tat Estate was currently under construction to connect On Tai Estate and Sau Mau Ping. The lift tower would be connected with the quarry park nearby too.
11.2 Traffic problems: CEDD had evaluated the impact posed by the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site on nearby traffic in 2016 and 2019 respectively. The traffic review report conducted in 2016 had been uploaded to CEDD’s website for public access. In regard to the findings of the traffic impact assessment, CEDD had suggested a series of improvement measures, including widening a portion of New Clear Water Bay Road near
16 Shun Lee Tsuen Road by increasing the number of Kowloon-bound lanes from one to two, and adjusting the duration of the green signal of traffic lights at Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road during peak hours. CEDD had planned to cancel the signalised junctions at Lin Tak Road and Sau Mau Ping Road upon the completion of the proposed carriageways so as to divert vehicles to Tseung Kwan O Road smoothly, thereby improving the traffic condition at that area.
11.3 Pedestrian connectivity facilities: three pedestrian connectivity facilities from Hiu Kwong Street to Hiu Ming Street were under construction and were expected to be gradually completed at the beginning of 2021.
11.4 Progress of EKL: as invited by the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”), the MTR Corporation Limited (“MTRCL”) had submitted to the Government a proposal on the implementation of EKL based on the Railway Development Strategy 2014. Relevant policy bureaux and departments had received the proposal submitted by MTRCL and was now reviewing it. Relevant policy bureaux and departments had also requested MTRCL to provide further information and relevant details. MTRCL was considering relevant views and exploring feasible solutions, hoping to improve the design of the works project. When the details of proposed solutions, such as alignments, locations of railway stations and confirmed construction timetables, were ready, the Government would consult the public, including LegCo and relevant district councils, in accordance with established procedures. The Highways Department (“HyD”) was responsible for handling projects related to EKL.
11.5 Ancillary transport facilities for the quarry park: there would be a large transport terminus in the quarry park, providing parking spaces for buses, minibuses and taxis. The joint-user complex at Site G2 to be introduced by the Government Property Agency (“GPA”) later would also provide many parking spaces for private cars. TD would also conduct planning for ancillary transport facilities so that members of the public could travel to the quarry park.
12. TD responded that they had received the suggestion made by Ms FU Pik-chun in regard to the provision of an additional junction outside Sing Yin Secondary School and responded to it. TD would pay close attention to the traffic condition upon the completion of the extension of bus bays at the bus stop by CEDD. TD would also review relevant suggestions after that. TD noted Members’ views.
17 13. LCSD responded as follows:
13.1 Procedure of public works: the quarry park was implemented in accordance with the established procedure of the Government’s capital works projects. LCSD was now planning the preliminary scope of the works and proposed facilities. After collecting Members’ views and obtaining the support of district councils in principle, LCSD would draft a project definition statement and carry out a technical feasibility study. The quarry park was as steep as terraces. LCSD had to carefully evaluate various aspects when conducting the technical feasibility study and would conduct a conceptual design based on technical data. After completing the conceptual design, LCSD would visit relevant district councils to provide specific information and collect views of relevant district councils.
13.2 Information on facilities of the quarry park: the information on facilities of the quarry park (such as the number of such facilities) provided in the paper was quite detailed as LCSD was quite sure that it could make arrangements for such facilities. LCSD, when carrying out preliminary planning, had considered the provision of ancillary parking facilities in the quarry park. However, as the location of the quarry park was really steep and had little flat land, LCSD could only make specific plans for the number and location of ancillary parking facilities after obtaining more technical information by conducting the technical feasibility study. Therefore, although the food stall was a relatively less important facility, its feasibility was clearer and more certain at the current stage.
13.3 Parking facilities of Anderson Road Quarry site: the quarry park would provide ancillary parking facilities and the joint-user complex at Site G2 would be equipped with a public car park.
14. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
14.1 Mr CHAN Man-kin pointed out that the road improvement works of CEDD transferred the problem from one place to another. He took the works in regard to the widening of Lin Tak Road as an example and pointed out that the works would transfer the problem to Lam Tin. He disagreed with Mr KAN Ming-tung and opined that the quarry park should be constructed first and housing development should be shelved if the project was to be developed. He opined that if departments could not improve the ancillary transport facilities, it would affect residents living near the development
18 project, residents of Kwun Tong and residents who would move in in the future. He hoped the Chairman could unify Members’ views and asked the Chairman to request members of LegCo present at the meeting to refuse to grant funding for the development project concerned.
14.2 Mr LAM Wai pointed out that the lift tower located between On Tai Estate and On Tat Estate mentioned by CEDD should be located near Oi Tat House. The walking distance between On Tai Estate and the lift tower was quite long. The crossing facilities there were poor and there had been traffic accidents there in April. He remarked that the lake garden was next to On Tai Estate but there was a lack of convenient pedestrian connectivity facilities. Residents had to walk to Oi Tat House, On Tat Estate, to take the lift and walk for a distance before arriving at the lake garden. He hoped that CEDD could provide additional pedestrian connectivity facilities in order to provide convenience to residents. In addition, he pointed out that according to figure 1 in paper no. 1/2020, all pedestrian connectivity facilities were located at Sau Mau Ping and there were no such facilities at Sze Shun Area and On Tai Estate. He would be happy to see staff of CEDD conduct on-site inspections to gain an understanding of the needs of residents.
14.3 Mr Jimmy CHAN did not oppose Members’ suggestions. However, he opined that Hong Kong needed continuous development. He pointed out that Members had mentioned problems related to livelihood and traffic in the district. He hoped CEDD could make more preparation and conduct more studies seriously so as to convince Members that the development concerned could benefit residents in the district. Also, he appreciated that the staff of CEDD had been maintaining close communication with district councilors and informing district councilors about the progress of the provision of facilities in the district. He hoped that CEDD could maintain regular communication with district councilors so that Members could reflect livelihood problems or residents’ views to CEDD.
14.4 Mr MOK Kin-shing hoped that departments could clearly answer the questions raised by the Chairman about how departments would handle the matter if SKDC was in support of the solution while KTDC was not. He pointed out that LCSD had mentioned that the construction of the quarry park had been encountering a number of geographical problems and Members had many views in regard to the traffic impact assessment. He enquired about the necessity of constructing the quarry park as the park
19 would increase people flow, affecting the traffic of nearby community. Also, he hoped DEVB could squarely answer the questions related to EKL as CEDD had been repeating the same answer during 2017 to 2019. He hoped that departments could provide a construction timetable if EKL was to be constructed. He pointed out that if the construction of EKL was further delayed for 20 or 30 years, the line might be useless by then.
14.5 Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong remarked that planning should be carried out holistically instead of part by part. In regard to the problem of parking spaces, he pointed out that planning should be kept abreast of the times. Despite the lack of parking spaces, residents of remote areas would still buy vehicles for easy commuting. Therefore, the situation of illegal parking should be included in the traffic impact assessment. Also, he asked CEDD why the original plan of accommodating 19 000 people was used as the foundation of the design and no plans for the provision of additional traffic or community facilities for accommodating 30 000 people was included.
14.6 Mr KAN Ming-tung stressed the importance of overall planning again. He opined that traffic facilities, roads, the bus-bus interchange, etc. should be completed at the same time. He remarked that DEVB should lead other departments and monitor the progress of the works so that all works could be completed at the same time, thereby minimising the commuting problem of residents in the district.
14.7 Mr Kevin SO hoped departments could provide the link of the website of the traffic impact assessment to the Secretariat so that the Secretariat could pass it to Members. As CEDD had pointed out that it had conducted a traffic impact assessment for the project, he would like to know whether Sau Mau Ping Road, Hip Wo Street behind Sau Mau Ping Road, and New Clear Water Bay Road were included under the scope of CEDD’s assessment. He questioned why different departments had to carry out traffic impact assessments respectively for the same area and why the departments were unable to clearly answer questions, such as questions related to the number of parking spaces in the car park, the area of parking spaces, proposed bus routes and minibus routes, etc.
14.8 Mr Raymond TANG pointed out that although the paper was only for reference and KTDC, as an advisory body, had only limited influence, he believed that there was a need to raise opposite views. He pointed out that if CEDD could not provide sufficient ancillary facilities, he would not
20 support the development of Anderson Road Quarry.
14.9 Ms LI Wing-shan remarked that only the traffic impact assessment conducted in 2013 was available on the Internet and that assessment was conducted based on a population of 23 000 people. The assessments conducted in 2016 and 2019 were unavailable. She doubted if CEDD had conducted an assessment based on the latest population that could be accommodated. In addition, she pointed out that the traffic flows of many roads mentioned in the assessment had far exceeded their capacities. However, the paper did not mention how such a situation could be handled.
15. CEDD responded as follows:
15.1 Traffic impact assessment: CEDD had evaluated the traffic impact posed by the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site on nearby traffic. The scope of the assessment included the whole Kwun Tong District and the assessment was made based on the assumption that Anderson Road Quarry would accommodate a population of 30 000 people. CEDD had suggested a series of medium-term measures based on the report. CEDD hoped that relevant measures could be completed before members of the public started to move into flats under the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site so as to improve the traffic in the district. CEDD would give a reply to the arrangement of circulating the report after the meeting.
15.2 Ancillary transport facilities: site formation and infrastructure works for Anderson Road Quarry Site were underway. CEDD was also conducting the works for junction facilities, junction improvement and road improvement, hoping that all ancillary transport facilities could be completed before people started to move into Anderson Road Quarry. In addition, CEDD hoped that Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel could be completed in 2021. CEDD believed that the completion of the tunnel could significantly divert the traffic flow at uphill areas.
15.3 Strengthening the communication between various areas: in regard to the works for the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site, CEDD had established community liaison groups and would invite Members and stakeholders of various areas to join the groups. CEDD would report on the latest works progress to the groups regularly. Members of the public could find out the information on works underway and works progress on CEDD’s website. If there was any road diversion that might affect
21 members of the public and vehicles, CEDD would first contact Members of the concerned constituency and only implement the road diversion after negotiating the best solution.
15.4 Public transport terminus: the public transport terminus would be a large interchange with a length of 90 metres and four carriageways.
15.5 Pedestrian connectivity facilities: the three pedestrian connectivity facilities at Hiu Kwong Street and Hiu Ming Street were about to be completed. In regard to the remaining pedestrian connectivity facilities proposed, CEDD was applying to LegCo for funds and the works for those facilities were expected to be commenced in mid-2020 or by the end of 2020. The works for four pedestrian connectivity facilities were underway at the moment. CEDD hoped that pedestrian connectivity facilities in the district could be improved as soon as possible.
16. DEVB responded that THB and HyD were responsible for coordinating the development of EKL. MTRCL had submitted the proposal to DEVB for its perusal. DEVB would reflect Members’ views to THB and HyD for their reference and consideration.
17. LCSD responded that LCSD had been attaching great importance to views raised by all stakeholders, Members and individuals in the district and had been adopting an open attitude. LCSD noted Members’ concern over the ancillary facilities of the quarry park and would carefully consider Members’ views when developing the works at the following stage so that the ancillary facilities of the park could cater for the needs of park users or regional needs. In addition, CEDD stressed that it would draft the project definition statement and carry out the technical feasibility study in accordance with the established procedure for implementing capital works and visit KTDC again to consult Members after finishing the preliminary conceptual design.
18. The Chairman hoped departments could submit the report on the traffic impact assessment to the Secretariat as soon as possible so that the Secretariat could pass it to Members for their reference. The Chairman concluded that Members present in the meeting had reservations about the development of Anderson Road Quarry and some even opposed it. He asked members of LegCo present in the meeting to carry out gate-keeping work for district councils. The Chairman pointed out although the paper was only for information purpose, KTDC would take the initiative to invite departments and MTRCL to join the meetings of TTC or even convene special meetings to request departments to give an account on the traffic problems and EKL. The Chairman hoped departments could apply to LegCo for funds and implement works after obtaining the consent and support of district councils.
22 19. Mr Wilson OR remarked that he was the only LegCo member who was present at the meeting and his stance was clear. He pointed out that if departments were unable to solve traffic problems, they might have difficulties in securing support from LegCo. He suggested the Chairman write to relevant policy bureaux, such as THB and DEVB, in the name of HPLC, so as to reflect Members’ concern and KTDC’s stance.
20. In regard to the item in question, the Chairman received an extempore motion raised by Mr MOK Kin-shing and seconded by Ms LI Wing-shan. The extempore motion was as follows:
“The Housing, Planning and Lands Committee was opposed to all development projects of Anderson Road Development Area as the departments were unable to raise effective improvement measures for traffic problems.”
21. Mr MOK Kin-shing presented the motion.
22. Members’ views on the motion were as follows:
22.1 Mr LAM Wai supported the part related to traffic problems of the motion. However, he expressed reservations about the wording “opposed to all development projects of Anderson Road Development Area”. He pointed out that many residents had already moved into Anderson Road and there was a lack of community facilities there. He opined that the Government could first develop the joint-user complex and social welfare organisations at Site G2 and there was no need to raise opposition against all development projects.
22.2 Mr HSU Yau-wai pointed out that Members had reached a consensus on the traffic congestion in Kwun Tong. He opined that besides the joint-user complex at Site G2, the Government should also develop pedestrian connectivity facilities and basic infrastructure so that residents could travel conveniently.
23. The Chairman remarked that he had received an amendment motion raised by Mr LAM Wai and seconded by Mr HSU Yau-wai and Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong. The motion suggested making amendments to the extempore motion. The content of the motion was as follows:
“As the departments could not propose effective improvement measures for traffic problems, the Housing Planning and Lands Committee requested suspension of most of the
23 development projects of Anderson Road Development Area. However, basic infrastructure projects, such as social welfare facilities, pedestrian links, etc. should be continued.”
24. Mr LAM Wai presented the amended motion.
25. After discussion and voting, the amended motion was carried with 36 votes in favour, zero vote against and zero abstention.
26. The Chairman asked the departments to note the proposal.
27. Mr Wilson OR hoped the Chairman could write to relevant policy bureaux in the name of HPLC so as to reflect the situation of the present meeting.
28. The Chairman accepted the views raised by Mr Wilson OR. He would write to relevant policy bureaux to ask them to give an account on the traffic development.
29. Members noted the paper.
(Post-meeting note: the Secretariat wrote to THB, DEVB and LCSD on 12 June 2020 and received a reply from THB on 13 July. The reply letter was forwarded to Members.)
Proposed Facilities of the Joint-user Complex Project on Site G2 Anderson Road Quarry (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 2/2020)
30. GPA presented the paper.
31. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
31.1 Mr LAM Wai agreed with the provision of facilities in the joint-user complex on Site G2. He expressed concern over: (i) the uneven distribution of social service facilities between On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate. He pointed out that the proposed joint-user complex next to On Tat Estate would provide many social welfare facilities while On Tai Estate Ancillary Facilities Block was only equipped with a care centre and a training centre; and (ii) the lack of convenient pedestrian connectivity facilities for residents of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate to travel to the joint-user complex. He suggested: (i) constructing covered pedestrian links or footbridges to connect On Tai Estate with the joint-user complex;
24 (ii) relocating the integrated children and youth services centre and the integrated family service centre in the complex to On Tai Estate Ancillary Facilities Block; and (iii) drawing reference from the automatic parking system used in the Mainland when developing the car park of the complex so as to properly utilise the storey height of the car park.
31.2 Mr HSU Yau-wai suggested: (i) providing a wet market and public swimming pools in the complex; (ii) providing child care services at On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate as those two estates had many working families and children from those families lacked care; (iii) providing covered footpaths connecting the complex and Oi Tat House; (iv) providing covered footpaths connecting Sau Mau Ping Market and Oi Tat House; and (v) developing an underground car park in the complex so as to provide more parking spaces.
31.3 Mr MOK Kin-shing enquired: (i) whether Kwun Tong residents could use the facilities in the complex, such as the community hall, and whether residents of On Tai Estate and On Tat Estate could use the facilities in the complex as the complex was located under the scope of Sai Kung; (ii) whether the population of Sai Kung was enough to require the Government to provide the proposed social welfare facilities in the complex; (iii) how many parking spaces would be provided in the car park. He hoped that departments would not decide on the number of parking spaces based on the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”) so as to meet the actual needs of the community; (iv) whether the residents’ need for a market was considered; and (v) whether the Members’ approval of the amended motion would affect the progress of the project concerned.
31.4 Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong remarked that the joint-user complex at Site G2 was within the scope of Sai Kung. He enquired whether residents of On Tat Estate could apply for using the facilities in the complex. He also pointed out that departments should not follow HKPSG when deciding on the number of parking spaces. He hoped that GPA could further increase the number of parking spaces.
31.5 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG suggested developing an underground car park so as to provide more parking spaces. She also suggested providing child care services. She hoped departments could provide sufficient parking spaces and stadia for residents of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate and residents who would move into Anderson Road Development Area in the future.
25 31.6 Mr Kevin SO remarked that HKPSG was outdated. He enquired: (i) about the information on parking spaces planned to be developed in Kwun Tong; (ii) whether the library would be a district library or a small library; (iii) which kind of social welfare facilities would be provided based on regions; and (iv) whether the integrated community centre for mental wellness in the complex was under the purview of Kwun Tong or Sai Kung. He pointed out that if the integrated community centre for mental wellness was under the purview of Sai Kung, the centre might have difficulties in taking the cases in Kwun Tong. He suggested the Social Welfare Department (SWD) take care of residents of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate when conducting planning.
31.7 Mr WONG Kai-ming pointed out that the application for minor relaxation of building height restriction had to be made in regard to the increase of the height of the complex from 200 metres above Principal Datum (“mpd”) to 210mpd. The application required the permission of the Town Planning Board (“TPB”). He asked GPA about the handling method if the application was rejected. He hoped that the joint-user complex could be developed so that residents of Anderson Area could enjoy it, thereby reducing residents’ needs for facilities outside Anderson Area and improve traffic condition. Also, in regard to the aspirations of developing an underground car park raised by some Members, he worried that the rock stratum of the foundation might make the works more difficult.
32. The Vice-chairman believed that the utilisation rate of the joint-user complex on Site G2 would be very high. In addition, there would be many social welfare organisations inside the complex. He expressed concern over: (i) the number of lifts in the complex; (ii) the provision of lifts that only travelled to the floors on which day care centres for the elderly, residential care homes for the elderly and special child care centre were located: and (iii) on which floors social welfare facilities would be located. He suggested that facilities for the elderly should be placed on lower floors.
33. DEVB responded as follows:
33.1 Number of parking spaces: in the past, the Government would first carry out a detailed design for a proposed building before consulting district councils. Therefore, detailed information, such as the actual number of parking spaces, could be provided. However, if amendments had to be made because of different views, the process of the entire development would be much longer. Therefore, the Government would consult district councils
26 about preliminary suggestions and the combination of uses and conduct a detailed design after collecting views. A detailed design could give people a clearer idea on the number of parking spaces.
33.2 Design of the car park: if the car park had to dig deeper, the cost, time and difficulties of the works would all increase significantly. After balancing the situations of various aspects, DEVB had suggested a preliminary design consisting of a basement of two levels as a car park. Also, besides the joint-user complex, DEVB could also consider providing different kinds of parking spaces under other development projects to cater for the parking demand.
33.3 Public parking spaces: parking spaces mentioned in HKPSG were private parking spaces, such as those parking spaces of resident buildings for the use of residents or visitors only. Public parking spaces were extra parking spaces provided out of the requirements of HKPSG for fulfilling the parking needs of the public. DEVB had communicated with TD and gained an understanding from TD that there was keen demand for parking spaces in the district and there were problems of illegal parking near On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate. Therefore, DEVB would strive to provide more public parking spaces where practicable.
33.4 Suggestions related to the provision of a market and public swimming pools: the provision of facilities depended on whether departments had requested the provision of relevant facilities in the joint-user complex. Swimming pools were large facilities and were normally provided at locations with a population of more than 200 000 people. In addition, the Housing Department (“HD”) would consider based on the situation of the district the necessity of providing a market. HD did not request a market in the joint-user complex, but it would provide certain retail floor areas for supermarkets and shops selling fresh food under public housing development projects. Three commercial sites were also reserved at Anderson Road Quarry Site. Those sites could provide retailing facilities, fulfilling residents’ needs of buying daily necessities.
33.5 Service targets of facilities in the complex: in regard to Members’ enquiries on whether residents in Kwun Tong could use the facilities in the complex, DEVB had expected that many residents in Kwun Tong would use those public parking spaces in the complex. In regard to the service targets of other facilities, DEVB would leave that to relevant department to provide
27 supplementary information.
34. The Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) responded as follows:
34.1 Child care services: SWD had been receiving views reflecting the keen demand of child care services in Kwun Tong. Public housing development projects in Kwun Tong would reserve sites for the provision of child care facilities, including Lei Yue Mun Estate Phase IV, Pik Wan Road, Wang Chiu Road and Tak Tin Street. In regard to the development of Anderson Road Quarry, SWD would review with relevant departments to see whether more spaces could be reserved for the provision of child care facilities.
34.2 Demarcation of social welfare facilities: most social welfare facilities proposed under the project concerned were not bound by region and everyone could enjoy those facilities. Only the use of the integrated family service centre and the integrated children and youth centre were demarcated. Although the integrated family service centre and the integrated children and youth centre would handle cases on a regional basis, some drop-in services and group activities were not restricted by that.
34.3 On Tai Estate Ancillary Facilities Block: the planning of the integrated family service centre and the integrated children and youth services centre were made according to the population. Those services could not be provided at On Tai Estate Ancillary Facilities Block immediately. SWD noted Members’ suggestions and would make further consideration when formulating planning and demarcation.
35. In regard to the use of community halls, the Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)1 responded that community halls generally accepted the applications from all organisations. The Kwun Tong District Office would also further communicate with the Sai Kung District Office in regard to the arrangements of community halls.
36. LCSD responded that the library would be a small library. The proposed major facilities included a children’s library, an adult library, a current issues reading area, extension activities rooms, a display area for books and a students’ study room.
28 37. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
37.1 Mr Raymond TANG enquired how many places in the 100 proposed residential care places mentioned in the paper were subsidised residential care places.
37.2 Mr HSU Yau-Wai remarked that the reply given by DEVB seemed to reject the request for the provision of public swimming pools. He hoped DEVB could consider: (i) the request for the provision of public swimming pools so as to reduce the utilisation rate of Kwun Tong Swimming Pool; (ii) providing a wet market as the market near On Tat Estate was small, failing to cater for the needs; (iii) providing covered footpaths connecting to the joint-user complex; and (iv) whether the basement consisting of two levels would be enough for the car park.
37.3 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk remarked that the integrated family service centre in the joint-user complex was under the purview of Sai Kung based on the administrative demarcation. He worried that that centre might not be able to provide services to residents of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate due to the administrative demarcation and cases might need to be transferred to other integrated family service centres in Kwun Tong. He worried that the integrated family service centre might fail to transfer some urgent cases in a timely manner, such as cases related to domestic violence. He hoped that SWD could solve the long-existing problem of administrative districts of social welfare facilities and review whether Kwun Tong District could be included in its service scope. Also, as the community halls in the joint-user complex needed the cooperation of SKDC, he worried that SKDC might give priority to organisations in Sai Kung when handling applications.
37.4 Mr Wilson OR agreed with Mr TAM Siu-cheuk and hoped that SWD could review the relevant situation. In addition, he could not accept SWD’s reply, which had mentioned that SWD would rely on service units already developed or expected to be developed to provide child care services, as the population of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate or people going to move into those two estates were mainly young families and the lack of child care services had long been criticised. He hoped that SWD could review whether the provision of child care facilities was enough in a holistic manner so as to avoid family problems.
29 37.5 Mr LAM Wai thanked SWD for its reply and hoped that SWD could first implement the facilities in the joint-user complex so as to relieve the needs in the district. He opined that the development of Anderson Road Quarry Site did not have reasonable planning. He hoped that departments could seriously consider providing some facilities to enhance the convenience of the area. In addition, he pointed out that earlier planning had proposed to construct out-patient clinics at the site next to On Tai Estate Ancillary Facilities Block. However, the paper did not mention it. He hoped to know whether that matter was a part of the development of Anderson Road Quarry and the progress of it.
37.6 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung remarked that the service boundaries of SWD had been very clear in the past. Funding and Service Agreements also listed out its service targets. He enquired whether SWD could ensure that social welfare facilities located in Sai Kung, especially residential care homes for the elderly, integrated children and youth services centres, integrated family service centres and urban hostel for single persons would provide services to families of Kwun Tong.
37.7 Mr Kevin SO thanked SWD for its reply. He remarked that there were two integrated community centres for mental wellness in Kwun Tong at the moment. However, as there were more and more cases, the services provided might not be enough. He hoped that departments could be more flexible in demarcating service boundaries or allocating resources. He suggested including On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate in the service area and changing the integrated family service centres to be directly managed by SWD or stating the arrangement specifically in outsourcing contracts.
37.8 Mr MOK kin-shing pointed out most services provided by social welfare facilities were not territorial services in nature and were opened for applications. However, according to SWD’s service guidelines, integrated children and youth services centres were regulated by service boundaries. He remarked although SWD would handle some service units flexibly, that was only extra service. He worried SWD might have difficulties in asking staff of Wong Tai Sin and Sai Kung to provide services to Kwun Tong residents. He also worried the two integrated children and youth services centres at On Tat Estate and the joint-user complex might be incompatible. He hoped SWD could give a clear response to the arrangements for integrated children and youth services centres, integrated family service centres and integrated community centres for mental wellness.
30 38. DEVB responded as follows:
38.1 Planning of social welfare facilities: besides the joint-user complex, other sites under the Government, organisations, community sites or public housing development projects would also provide various community facilities. Therefore, facilities not provided in the joint-user complex might be provided at other locations. Departments would consider the population of nearby areas and existing service facilities when carrying out planning.
38.2 Covered footpaths: DEVB would explore the feasibility of providing covered footpaths when carrying out the detailed design so that users could travel to the joint-user complex comfortably and enjoy the services provided there.
38.3 Car parks: DEVB would actively consider how to provide more public parking spaces so as to meet the parking needs in the district. DEVB would also consider the suggestion raised by Members in regard to the automatic parking system when carrying out the detailed design. DEVB opined that each solution had its own pros and cons. For example, increasing the number of basement levels would increase the time and difficulties of the works.
38.4 Use of social welfare facilities: the purpose of constructing the joint-user complex was to provide convenience to members of the public. Although service boundaries had to be taken into account when providing some of the services, DEVB believed that relevant departments would not allow the facilities to be unable to serve people in need simply because of the service boundaries.
39. SWD responded as follows:
39.1 Residential care places for the elderly: all residential care places were subsidised by the Government.
39.2 Demarcation of service boundaries of social welfare facilities: SWD would reflect Members’ views on integrated family service centres, intergrated community centres for mental wellness and integrated children and youth services centres to its headquarters, thereby providing more appropriate services to members of the public.
31 39.3 Child care services: SWD understood that there was great demand for child care services in Kwun Tong and SWD had reserved spaces for the construction of four nurseries. In regard to the development of Anderson Area, SWD would review with relevant departments to see whether more child care facilities could be provided.
40. The Chairman concluded that a number of Members were worried about SWD’s demarcation of service boundaries. He hoped that departments could collect Members’ views and attend meetings of KTDC again to introduce relevant planning after carrying out detailed planning. He hoped that departments could consult LegCo after that.
41. Members noted the paper.
III. Proposed Public Housing Developments at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street in Lam Tin and Public Works Programme Item No. B084TI (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 4/2020)
42. HD presented the paper.
43. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
43.1 Mr Eason CHAN expressed discontent as HD had only submitted a paper with a total of six pages to introduce the public housing developments concerned. He had conducted consultations and residents’ meetings in regard to the project. 1 000 people had cast their votes and more than 70% of them were opposed to the construction of public housing estates at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street, Lam Tin. The reasons for opposition and concern were as follows: (i) the project could not solve the existing traffic problems, including the overloading of the escalators at Lam Tin MTR Station, illegal parking at Tak Tin Street and On Tin Street, and narrow roads that obstructed buses from driving in and out; (ii) the lack of proper planning or reallocation for Kwun Tong. The roads of Kwun Tong were still using the planning in the 1950s and 1960s. For example, the footpath of Kai Tin Road was very narrow and no widening works had been conducted; (iii) as residents of Lam Tin, Laguna City and Sceneway Garden had to share Kai Tin Market and Tak Tin Market, how HD would solve residents’ needs for markets in face of the population growth; and (iv) the works would take almost nine years to complete. The noise produced would cause long-term nuisances to St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin) and Nord
32 Anglia International School Hong Kong.
43.2 Mr IP Tsz-kit hoped that Members present at the meeting could indicate their stances as far as possible. He opined that infill buildings should not be casually built when there was no overall improvement in traffic and healthcare facilities in Kwun Tong as it might affect the original lifestyle of the existing 130 000 Lam Tin residents. He was concerned: (i) that the public housing developments would increase the pressure in traffic and healthcare systems in the long-term, such as extending the waiting time of United Christian Hospital; (ii) that the situation of illegal parking at On Tin Street was severe. The road there was very narrow. The parking spaces at On Tin Street proposed by HD might not be able to solve the traffic congestion there; (iii) that there would be many engineering trucks driving in and out during the construction period, causing traffic accidents easily; (iv) about the impact of the works posed to nearby schools; and (v) as the population in Kwun Tong was large, constructing infill buildings in a boiling frog approach would eventually lead to the overloading in Kwun Tong. Also, he remarked that many residents of Lam Tin, especially the elderly, did not support the developments.
43.3 Mr KAN Ming-tung remarked that he had conducted a survey in regard to the public housing developments and the favourable and unfavourable views collected were fifty-fifty. He pointed out that people supported the developments because there was a lack of housing. On the other hand, the reasons for opposing it included: (i) Kwun Tong might have difficulties in accommodating two additional public housing estates as its population had reached over 100 000 people; (ii) a lack of ancillary transport facilities, including escalators connecting to MTR stations and bus routes; and (iii) the environmental impact on nearby public housing estates and schools. He hoped that HD could first ease the worries of members of the public before considering the construction of public housing at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street, Lam Tin.
43.4 Ms WONG Ka-ying remarked that Lam Tin was fully occupied and HD should not take infill buildings as its direction of development. She noticed that the beneficiaries of the 500 proposed units for one or two persons under the public housing development project at Tak Tin Street were the elderly. She believed that the pressure on local healthcare facilities would increase. Also, she pointed out that the traffic was busy and the road condition was unsafe. There had been two fatal accidents over the
33 past few months. The project concerned would increase population mobility and result in an increase in the chance of accidents. She stressed that she would not support the project if HD could not provide comprehensive planning.
43.5 Mr Wilson OR reiterated that the Government should seek lands for housing construction by using various methods so as to tackle the excessive backlog of applications for public rental housing. However, under the congested traffic, the lack of social welfare facilities, the lack of healthcare facilities and the tight supply of leisure facilities, HD should not consider conducting infill building developments in Lam Tin. He enquired: (i) whether the Government had considered the impact of population growth on local traffic, social welfare facilities, environmental hygiene and healthcare; (ii) about the expenses of the works for the public housing developments; (iii) if the funding for the developments was used for developing other projects, whether more units could be constructed to benefit more people; and (iv) whether the development would be continued or shelved if the problems of local traffic, social welfare facilities and healthcare remained unsolved. He hoped that departments could provide comprehensive written replies on those problems. Also, he hoped that departments could understand that KTDC would only support the developments if the developments could improve Lam Tin residents’ life
43.6 Mr William LI was disappointed with the paper submitted by HD. He pointed out that there were many flats around the proposed public housing developments. He expressed concern on whether HD had conducted any environmental impact assessment.
44. HD thanked Members for their views and responded as follows:
44.1 Background information of the project: HD had been consulting Members on the developments since 2018 and had listened to Members views on various aspects, including views related to the entire community. HD had also progressively conducted coordination with other government departments in the course of the consultation. Although the construction site was small and had its restrictions, HD would make amendments on the original design and layout accordingly so as to improve existing community facilities (such as roads, parking spaces and recreational and social welfare facilities, etc.).
34 44.2 Market facilities: the public housing developments at Ping Tin Street and Tak Tin Street, Lam Tin were next to Hing Tin Market, Tak Tin Market and Kai Tin Market. HD remarked that there were enough markets at the moment and the scope of the developments was relatively small. Therefore, HD opined that the developments would not increase the pressure on nearby facilities.
44.3 Expenses of the works: as the works were still at the preliminary stage, HD could not provide relevant information at the moment.
44.4 Reasons for proposing the implementation of the public housing developments at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street: HD remarked that Members had opined that the two public housing developments under the project concerned were infill buildings. However, HD remarked that the Government would find lands in various districts by all means. Be they big or small lands, or be they disposable or potential lands, the Government would also consider constructing public housing on them. Members of the public in Hong Kong had keen demand for housing at the moment. HD hoped Members could support the developments so as to relieve the pressure of people long waiting for public rental housing.
44.5 Traffic impact assessment report: the Hong Kong Housing Authority (“HA”) had engaged a consultancy to conduct a traffic impact assessment for the public housing developments. The consultancy had carried out a traffic flow census on the traffic volume at nearby major junctions during the peak hours of one of the weekdays in October 2017, which had been 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The result showed that there were frequent pick-up and drop-off activities outside Nord Anglia International School Hong Kong at On Tin Street during the morning peak hours, preventing vehicular flows from Tak Tin Street (East-bound) from turning right to On Tin Street, thereby causing a long traffic queue. Therefore, the Government had suggested carrying out improvement works under works project no. B084TI, including the road improvement works near the entrance of Nord Anglia International School Hong Kong and the provision of additional roadside parking spaces. In addition, according to the data of the traffic flow census conducted that day, it was estimated that the roundabout at Kai Tin Road and Tak Tin Street should have enough capacity to cater for future needs.
35 44.6 Width of Kai Tin Road: as Members had pointed out that Kai Tin Road was not wide enough, HD would relay those views to TD so that TD could follow up on that matter.
44.7 Ancillary transport facilities: the scale of the public housing developments at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street were relatively small, providing only about 900 units. As the public transport services provided at that area were relatively convenient, HD expected that the traffic flow during morning and evening peak hours was only one to two vehicles per minute. Therefore, HD opined that the project concerned would only slightly affect nearby traffic. HD understood Members’ concern over local traffic problems. HD would like to collect Members’ views by consulting KTDC and strive to include Members’ views into the works design for the road improvement works under works project no. B084TI so as to improve the traffic condition at Tak Tin Street.
44.8 Escalators of Lam Tin MTR station: the escalators were located at areas under MTRCL’s purview, HD would reflect Members’ views to MTRCL.
44.9 Illegal parking problem: the public housing development project at Ping Tin Street would provide an appropriate number of parking spaces based on HKPSG in order to fulfill the parking requirement of the project. Therefore, it was estimated that the burden on parking spaces in the district would not be enhanced.
44.10 Environmental impact posed by the works on nearby campuses: under the preliminary design, the public housing developments at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street would use footings and socketed steel H-piles or bored piles. It was a relatively quiet construction method to adopt such kinds of piles. Also, HD would request contractors to fulfill the Environmental Protection Department’s requirements on noise and dust when constructing buildings. HD would also request contractors to use quieter machines, provide temporary noise barriers and spray water regularly.
44.11 Reports on environmental impact assessments: the building construction works in question did not belong to a designated works project stated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. Therefore, there was no need to carry out environmental impact assessments under the ordinance.
36 44.12 Social welfare facilities: the proposed public housing was located at a well-developed area and there were a number of social welfare facilities nearby, such as integrated children and youth services centres, neighbourhood elderly centres, community halls, education facilities, a library and multi-purpose rooms inside Lam Tin Complex, etc. As the scope of the public housing developments at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street was relatively small, HD believed that the project concerned would not increase pressure on community facilities. Moreover, HD, after reviewing the adequacy of local facilities with relevant departments (such as SWD), had confirmed that a child care centre would be provided under the development at Tak Tin Street.
44.13 Healthcare facilities: Lam Tin Polyclinic was next to the proposed public housing. HD had contacted with the Food and Health Bureau (“FHB”) in regard to general out-patient clinics. In planning and developing public healthcare services, FHB and the Hospital Authority would take into account a number of factors, including population growth, demographic changes, projected demand for healthcare services, growth rates of services of individual specialties, possible changes in healthcare services utilisation patterns, etc. The Government would continue to pay close attention to the demand for public primary healthcare services in Kwun Tong District (including Lam Tin) and develop and make planning for facilities needed so as to meet the long-term healthcare needs of the district.
45. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
45.1 Mr Chan Man-kin pointed out that HD had not mentioned demolition of parks for the construction of public housing when conducting a consultation in 2018. He asked HD how many people among the targets of the consultation had been in support of the project concerned and when the traffic impact assessment had been carried out. He remarked that there were two schools around the construction sites of the proposed public housing. He hoped that the Chairman could ask HD to carry out an environmental impact assessment and submit the assessment to KTDC. He also hoped that the Chairman could lead HPLC to raise objection against the developments concerned as there was no detailed information available for discussion at the moment. He was opposed to HD’s construction of infill buildings in a developed community. He suggested HD develop brownfield sites.
37 45.2 Mr Eason CHAN enquired why the works in such a small construction site required nine years to complete and how to define whether the noise produced by works was acceptable or unacceptable. He remarked that HD should submit a report on the traffic impact assessment and objective figures to reflect the works impact. In regard to district facilities, he disagreed with the saying of HD and pointed out that having provided facilities did not mean having provided enough facilities. Although there were Hing Tin Market and Kwong Tin Market in Lam Tin, no one was operating those stalls in those two markets and most people would only shop at Tak Tin Market and Kai Tin Market as they provided a relatively wide-range of shops. In addition, he pointed out that there was keen demand for public housing and the Government should seek lands from elsewhere and review its population policy. Also, people going to move in under the development project in question would travel to other places, increasing the burden on the traffic system of Kwun Tong.
45.3 Mr IP Tsz-kit opined that HD did not understand the condition and livelihood of Kwun Tong. He pointed out that HD had said that there were sufficient market facilities in Lam Tin, but the fact was that residents in the district would not go shopping at Hing Tin Market. Also, he pointed out that even if additional parking spaces were provided by HD, the problem of traffic congestion in the district could not be solved. He explained that there were many parking spaces in the district, but the Government, with its arms folded, just allowed the Link REIT to increase the rent of those parking spaces, forcing members of the public who could not afford the rent to park their vehicles illegally. He questioned that: (i) the traffic impact assessment had only focused on the areas of the two construction sites; (ii) even though HD said they would adopt a quieter way to carry out the works, St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin) would be seriously affected by the noise as the construction site of the proposed public housing was just next to St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin). He took the slope cutting works at Lin Tak Road as an example. CEDD had also pointed out that a quieter method had been adopted to carry out the works at Lin Tak Road. However, residents of Hong Wah Court, which was only one street across the construction site, had complained about the noise problem caused by the works every day; and (iii) there were social welfare facilities in Lam Tin, but the provision was not enough. He enquired whether HD had consulted St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin) in regard to the project concerned. He remarked that HD’s plan to construct infill buildings at a well-developed area would affect 130 000 existing Lam Tin residents and opined that that was unfair. He hoped the
38 Chairman could request the Government in the name of HPLC to give an account on the environmental impact assessment, the report on the traffic impact assessment and healthcare pressure, and review whether constructing of additional public housing buildings in Kwun Tong was suitable.
45.4 Mr KAN Ming-tung remarked that constructing public housing at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street, Lam Tin, would cause many problems, including noise nuisances posed on nearby schools. He enquired when HD had carried out the traffic impact assessment and doubted that the actual situation might not be reflected if the assessment had been based on the average traffic volume throughout the day.
45.5 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung pointed out that the public housing developments mentioned by HD in its reply would accommodate 1 700 people. However, HD had pointed out that the developments would not affect the traffic of that area. He disagreed with HD.
45.6 Ms WONG Ka-ying was opposed to the development project concerned. She enquired whether staff of HD had conducted on-site inspections to gain an understanding on the lifestyle of Lam Tin residents or whether HD had just relied on the reports made by the consultancy to learn about the situation of that area. In addition, she expressed concern over: (i) the reason for the works of the two small construction sites to be conducted separately; (ii) noise nuisances posed on students and staff of the St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin) during the construction period; and (iii) HD’s failure in taking the problem of school places in the district into consideration regardless its decision to provide a child care centre under the project at Tak Tin Street; and (iv) the difficulties in making appointments at the Lam Tim Polyclinic. She worried that the Lam Tin Polyclinic might not be able to bear the pressure produced by the population growth.
45.7 Mr William LI pointed out that HD had failed to clearly answer the questions raised by Members. He further enquired: (i) about the number of parking spaces; (ii) about the volume produced by bored piling during the construction; and (iii) whether HD could provide the environmental impact assessment.
45.8 Mr Kevin SO remarked that the problem of illegal parking at On Tin Street and the frequent pick-up/drop-off activities outside Nord Anglia International School Hong Kong since 2014 had led to the problem of traffic
39 congestion. Vehicles at Tak Tin Street could not turn right to On Tin Street. As a parent with eight years’ experience in driving his children to school, he pointed out that the parking area proposed by HD could not solve the problem because it was caused by the lifestyle of people and the frequent activities of school buses. In addition, he opined that Lam Tin residents might not be able to accept the dilution of community facilities. He agreed with Members of Lam Tin and was opposed to the development project concerned.
46. The Chairman enquired: (i) whether HD could submit the report on the traffic impact assessment to the Secretariat after the meeting so that the Secretariat could pass the report to Members; (ii) although HD was not required to conduct environmental impact assessments procedure-wise, whether HD would conduct environmental impact assessment if a request in the name of KTDC was made; and (iii) whether HD had consulted St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin) in regard to the public housing developments.
47. HD responded as follows:
47.1 Result of the consultation done in 2018: HD understood that Mr CHAN Man-kin had not supported the public housing developments back then. However, HD hoped to understand Members’ expectations towards the project at the community level by consulting KTDC.
47.2 Reasons for developing the projects at Tak Tin Street and Ping Tin Street separately: HD had got to know from the consultation conducted in 2018 that members of the public would like to continue to use the gateball court at Ping Tin Street Open Space during the construction period. HD had decided to carry out the works of the two projects separately so that members of the public could continue to use the gateball court. After HD developed the platform above the bus stop under the project at Tak Tin Street into a gateball court and upon the intake of people into the public housing at Tak Tin Street, the gateball court could be opened for public use. After that, the project at Ping Ting Street would immediately commence. According to the above plan, the works of the public housing development project at Tak Tin Street were expected to commence in 2022 and be completed in 2026 while the works of the public housing development project at Ping Tin Street were expected to commence in 2026 and be completed in 2031. The two works would take nine years to complete. HD pointed out that Members could also consider the simultaneous construction of those two projects so as to shorten the total construction
40 period to about four years. Members of the public could still use the nearby gateball courts during the construction period.
47.3 Report on the traffic impact assessment: HD had conducted the traffic impact assessment by conducting an on-site traffic flow census during the peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m) of one of the weekdays in October 2017. As the report of the traffic impact assessment was still a draft, HD would like to collect Members’ views through KTDC and then further improve the report. When HD had finished the final report on the traffic impact assessment, they would publicise it for public and Members’ perusal.
47.4 Provision of community facilities: when planning public housing developments, HD would draw reference from HKPSG and consult relevant departments and local individuals so as to consider the provision of suitable social welfare and education facilities under the developments.
48. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
48.1 Mr CHAN Man-kin enquired which Members had been in support of constructing infill buildings under the project concerned in the consultation conducted in 2018. He suspected that the widening of Lin Tak Road could not improve the traffic in Kwun Tong and would divert the traffic flows of Sau Mau Ping and On Tat Estate to Lam Tin. The parking spaces constructed at On Tin Street could not solve the traffic problem there too.
48.2 Mr Eason CHAN remarked that he had planned earlier to write a proposal on improvement works for Lam Tin (North) Bus Terminus for Members’ discussion. Focusing on the severe illegal parking problem in that area and the lack of parking spaces, the proposal would suggest constructing car parks and buildings. However, TD had pointed out that the concerned site had gone under the purview of HD already. He enquired whether the site could be released for other purposes if KTDC was opposed to the development project concerned. In addition, he hoped that HD could provide objective figures on the traffic and logistic aspects so as to support its claims. He pointed out that HD had planned to construct infill buildings without careful planning. He hoped that the Chairman could, on behalf of KTDC, reflect Members’ opposition to HD.
41 48.3 Mr IP Tsz-kit pointed out that the department had not answered the questions raised by Members. The paper also failed to show how HD would work with other government departments or carry out in-depth communication with stakeholders in the district. Many Lam Tin residents did not know the existence of the public housing developments. Also, he hoped that HD could give a clear account on: (i) whether HD had consulted St. Paul’s School (Lam Tin) in regard to the proposed public housing developments; (ii) whether HD would carry out an environmental impact assessment to assess the impact posed on nearby residents during the construction period; and (iii) whether HD had considered the increased burden on existing healthcare facilities and traffic after the population intake.
48.4 Mr KAN Ming-tung remarked that the escalators at Lam Tin MTR Station were very congested at the moment, seriously affecting residents’ commuting. Although HD had pointed out that the population growth of 1 700 was a small figure, he opined that the population capacity of Lam Tin was saturated already. He pointed out that although Lam Tin had gone through urban development, there were still no comprehensive planning and reviews, given that the old planning and design for accommodating 60 000 to 70 000 people was still in use to cope with the existing population of 130 000 people.
48.5 Ms WONG Ka-ying would like to invite relevant departments to conduct on-site visits so that departments could understand the actual situation and lifestyle of residents of that area under the lead of Members of the concerned constituencies or Lam Tin.
48.6 Mr CHOY Chak-hung enquired whether the report on the traffic impact assessment would be made available for public access. In addition, he pointed out that the population of Kwun Tong South was already near 400 000, the existing traffic problems would remain even with the provision of Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel and Trunk Road T2. He hoped Members of Lam Tin could take the lead in raising an extempore motion to oppose the project concerned. Mr CHOY Chak-hung, in his capacity as the Chairman of KTDC, also pointed out that if there was no significant improvement in traffic condition within four years, all infill building developments raised by relevant departments would not be allowed to be tabled for consultations in KTDC.
42 48.7 Mr William LI remarked that HD had not directly answered the questions raised by Members and enquired again: (i) whether HD would conduct an environmental impact assessment if the Chairman suggested HD do so on behalf of KTDC; (ii) about the number parking spaces; and (iii) the volume of noise produced by bored piling during the construction.
48.8 Ms LI Wing-shan pointed out that the information provided in HD’s paper was insufficient for Members to carry out discussion. She hoped that HD could upload the paper to its website for public access before visiting KTDC for a consultation.
49. HD replied that the report on the traffic impact assessment was still under drafting and was therefore not available for public access yet. When HD had completed the final report of the traffic impact assessment, it would make it available for public access. Also, HD hoped that KTDC could understand the public housing demand and would support the project concerned so as to shorten the waiting time for public rental housing applications and relieve the pressure of people long waiting for public rental housing.
50. The Chairman remarked that KTDC did not support the current plan and hoped HD could note Members’ views and amend the project. He pointed out that the infill building development at Hiu Ming Street in the past was also controversial. The Chairman suggested writing to HD in the name of HPLC to request HD to conduct an environmental impact assessment and submit the report on it.
51. Mr CHOY Chak-hung expressed discontent after learning that the project would take nine years to complete. He also expressed discontent with HD’s saying that the purpose of the project was to take care of the housing needs of the grassroots. He supported the suggestion of writing to HD and hoped to clearly state the following in the letter: (i) a number of Members strongly opposed the implementation of infill building developments in Kwun Tong; (ii) Members were discontent with HD’s failure in providing the traffic impact assessment and the lack of information in the paper for discussion; and (iii) the reasons for Members to be opposed to the project concerned.
52. Mr Kevin SO supported the Chairman’s suggestion and hoped that the letter could clearly reflect to relevant policy bureaux the opposition of KTDC towards the development project concerned and the reasons for the opposition. In addition, he expressed discontent with the statement made by the Senior Architect/23 of HD (“SA/23/HD”). He pointed out that there were a number of infill building developments in Kwun Tong, such as those at Yau Lai Estate and Hiu Ming Street. KTDC’s opposition towards the project concerned did not mean that KTDC neglected the needs of the grassroots.
43 53. The Chairman asked the Secretary to clearly record the views raised by the two Members. The Chairman also asked SA/23/HD to review the project concerned and understand Members’ discontent. In addition, the Chairman asked HD to consider whether Kwun Tong, a place with such a dense population, was suitable for implementing infill building developments.
54. Members noted the paper.
(Post-meeting note: the Secretariat wrote to HD on 11 June 2020 and received its reply on 2 July. The reply letter was forwarded to Members.)
IV. District-based Building Numbering Campaign in Kwun Tong District (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 5/2020)
55. The representatives of the Rating and Valuation Department (“RVD”) presented the paper.
56. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
56.1 Mr LUI Tung-hai enquired: (i) which buildings fronting or abutting on public streets at Cha Kwo Ling, Yau Tong were required to display building numbers; (ii) whether the building numbers originally used were consistent with those provided by RVD. As based on past experience, the situation of two units being provided with the same number might occur if information was to be provided by the public to RVD for the allocation of building numbers; and (iii) about the materials for making the number plates. He hoped that the Government could standardise plate making so as to avoid the inconsistency of appearances and locations of number plates.
56.2 Mr Chris CHAN expressed concern over the District-based Building Numbering Campaign. He enquired whether RVD could produce number plates as RVD had already allocated numbers to shops or buildings. He also enquired whether RVD could issue letters to shops or buildings, requesting them to put up the number plates provided by RVD. He opined that that could reduce the administrative cost. Also, he suggested RVD to give relevant number plates to KTDC for distribution if RVD could not send the number plates produced to shops or buildings.
44 56.3 Mr CHOY Chak-hung enquired about the effectiveness of the campaign in other districts. He reflected that technology companies had encountered difficulties in producing mobile map applications of Hong Kong. Those companies had to spend much time observing building numbers and some of the numbers were not in order. He asked RVD whether enforcement actions had been taken in other districts according to the law. He remarked that most buildings at Ngau Tau Kok Area, Yee On Street and Cha Kwo Ling did not have any owners’ corporations or mutual aid committees. He enquired how RVD would handle that situation. In addition, he suggested unifying the format of number plates so that members of the public could see the plates clearly. He remarked that some places had put the number plates into plastic films or hung the plates with plastic straps. However, those number plates had been bent and the colour of those plates had faded. He suggested RVD explore the feasibility of standarising the appearances of the number plates.
56.4 Mr Eason CHAN suggested renaming the campaign in Chinese from “地區 性門牌” to “地區門牌”.
57. RVD responded as follows:
57.1 Materials of number plates: RVD had made suggestions on the sizes and colours of number plates. However, there were no restrictions on the materials of number plates. For example, some owners would paint their building numbers with non-fading paint on their external walls at the entrances of buildings. As long as the number plates were not affected by the weather and were renewed when dilapidated, that practice was also acceptable.
57.2 Sizes of number plates: RVD had suggested guidelines in regard to the sizes of number plates. Details were set out on RVD’s website. Proper display of building numbers could provide convenience to visitors or enforcement and rescue officers when accidents occurred.
57.3 Standardised production of number plates: most flat owners or owners had displayed their building numbers properly and immediately after RVD’s allocation of numbers. If public funds were used to produce number plates for people who did not display their building numbers, that might cause unfairness. Moreover, the production cost of number plates was not high. For example, owners could print their numbers on paper and display them at
45 the entrances of their premises after laminating the paper. As long as the number plates were properly displayed at prominent positions of the entrances and were not susceptible to the impact of the weather, the practice was acceptable.
57.4 Effectiveness of the campaign: RVD had promoted the District-based Building Numbering Campaign in other districts, including Tsuen Wan, Sham Shui Po, Sha Tin, Wan Chai and Central and Western District and the campaign was very effective. After RVD had issued promotional letters and leaflets, the contractors had found during their inspections that 80% to 90% of owners had already displayed their building numbers properly.
57.5 Enforcement and prosecution actions: as relevant individuals had taken follow-up actions and displayed their numbers immediately after receiving advice or warning letters from RVD, it had made no prosecution action so far.
57.6 Supplementary information: RVD believed that the campaign had responded to the views given by the Office of the Ombudsman in the direct investigation report in 2015, which suggested RVD organise more district-based building numbering campaigns and step up enforcement actions.
58. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
58.1 Mr Chris CHAN enquired about the number of buildings or shops that had failed to show their building numbers properly. He enquired why RVD did not produce cheap number plates for shops or buildings to put up if RVD would like to implement the building number campaign on a large scale. He remarked that painting the building numbers was unsightly, affecting the cityscape. In addition, he remarked that providing standardised number plates to buildings or shops would be more effective and could help policemen or ambulancemen to carry out their work. He hoped RVD could consider his suggestion.
58.2 Mr LUI Tung-hai remarked that the number plates of many countries or regions that were relatively less developed when compared with Hong Kong were produced by their government. He did not understand why Hong Kong people had to paint their building numbers by themselves. Also, he hoped departments could provide the list of buildings at Cha Kwo Ling that
46 had failed to display their building numbers properly. If departments discovered that there was a need to issue letters to relevant shops or buildings after inspections, he also hoped that departments could send copies of those letters to him so that he could provide assistance.
58.3 Mr Raymond TANG enquired whether offices of Members were required to display number plates.
58.4 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung opined that if the Government could coordinate the production of the number plates, the number plates would be clearer. Also, persons-in-charge of buildings could purchase number plates from RVD so as to avoid mistakes or unsightly designs.
59. RVD responded as follows:
59.1 Number of buildings in the district that had failed to display building numbers properly: the contractor had started to inspect the situation of the numbering campaign at the end of March and had inspected around 300 number plates so far. However, the epidemic had slowed down the progress. As the inspection work was still underway, RVD could not provide relevant figures at the moment.
59.2 Members’ request for samples of promotional letters issued by RVD: RVD remarked that it could make arrangement for that.
59.3 The necessity of displaying building numbers outside the offices of Members: if RVD had allocated a building number to the premises, the person concerned should display the building number allocated.
59.4 Standardised production and distribution of number plates: RVD remarked that some owners might have their own building plates already and some might have to produce number plates in line with the style of their shops or buildings so as to match the appearances of their shops or buildings. Those owners might not like standardised building number plates. Therefore, the implementation of standardised production and distribution of number plates might be relatively difficult.
60. The Chairman hoped that RVD could send copies of the letters issued by RVD to relevant Members if RVD discovered the need to write to shops or building after inspections so that Members could provide assistance. In addition, the Chairman hoped that RVD could
47 consider the other views raised by Members. The Chairman remarked that if Members had any other views, they could contact the staff of RVD present at the meeting.
61. Members noted the paper.
(Post-meeting note: the Secretariat sent RVD’s samples of promotional letters in regard to the display of building numbers to Members for their reference on 19 May 2020.)
V. Major Future Government Projects in Kwun Tong District (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 6/2020)
62. The representative of the Planning Department (“PlanD”) summarised the consultation work done by various departments in KTDC in the past and introduced the Government’s major development projects that would gradually be implemented in Kwun Tong in the coming five to ten years.
63. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
63.1 Mr LUI Tung-hai raised the following views on the major future government projects in Kwun Tong in the coming five to ten years.
63.1.1 Proposed public housing development at Pik Wan Road Site A and Site B, Yau Tong: he pointed out that the development project would provide 3 000 residential units, a polyclinic and public facilities. He expected that there would be a large flow of people. The sites were neither close to nor far away from Yau Tong MTR Station. Many residents would go to the MTR station on foot. However, the current facilities had diverted the people flow to the east of Lei Yue Mun Road. He worried that vehicle-pedestrian conflicts might occur when pedestrians crossed the road. He hoped PlanD could review that problem.
63.1.2 Public housing development at Lei Yue Mun Phase 4 at Yan Wing Street, Yau Tong: he pointed out that piling works of the development project was underway and many nearby residents had complained about the noise caused by the works. He remarked that he had issued a letter to HD, asking for improvement, but the improvement made was limited. He hoped that HD could step up its monitoring.
48 63.1.3 Housing development of Ex-Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site: he remarked that location was a blind spot. People had to pass through many narrow roads at Laguna City in order to enter that location. However, the Government’s report on the traffic impact assessment said that there was no problem. He explained that the location could only make limited amendments and traffic problems would occur undoubtedly. He hoped that the Government could review transport planning so as to handle the commuting of residents of the 2 000-odd residential units in the future without affecting the traffic of Laguna City and Sceneway Garden.
63.1.4 Long-term development of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen: he pointed out that the Government had been carrying out research on the long-term development of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen since the middle of 2019. However, the Government had not contacted Members, residents and KTDC for one year. Residents did not know the current progress of the research, future development, resettlement policies or compensations. He hoped that the Government could communicate with local residents and consult them as soon as possible.
63.2 Mr LEE Kwan-chak pointed out that according to the information of TPB, 8 024 people were opposed to the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road as there was a lack of traffic and market facilities. He remarked that when the population growth to be brought under the project was counted in, the two markets would be shared by over 80 000 people.
63.3 Mr KUNG Chun-ki expressed concern over the situation of the public housing development at Lei Yue Mun Phase 4 at Yan Wing Street, Yau Tong. He pointed out that the construction site was carrying out foundation formation works and many residents had been complaining about the serious noise disturbance. He remarked that the noise problem was relieved after he had written to the contractor. He had discussed with HD about the suspension on noisy works. However, HD was worried that the delay in works might lead to the violation of contracts in regard to the piling works and housing construction works to be carried out upon the completion of foundation formation works. Therefore, the noisy works could not be suspended. He pointed out that many people had to work and study at home under the epidemic. He expressed discontent with HD’s failure in
49 making humane arrangements. In regard to the ancillary facilities upon the completion of the works, he remarked that the current ancillary facilities in Yau Tong were not enough. He had discussed with bus companies about the provision of additional bus routes, but the bus companies had pointed out that there was no space in the bus terminus for additional bus routes. In addition, he pointed out that the works included the construction of a car park and believed that that would pose certain pressure to the traffic. In regard to that, he enquired: (i) whether the driving test route at Yau Tong would be cancelled due to the increase in traffic pressure; and (ii) whether the crossing at Yan Wing Street behind the roundabout could be included as infrastructure under the project concerned. He pointed out that there would be many vehicles turning into Yan Wing Street in the future and it might be dangerous for residents of Lei Yue Mun Estate to cross the road.
63.4 Ms TSE Suk-chun raised the following views on the public housing development projects:
63.4.1 Proposed public housing development at Pik Wan Road Site A and Site B, Yau Tong: she pointed out that the last term of KTDC had failed to reach a consensus on how to build the footbridge. PlanD had decided to provide additional traffic lights near To Mei House, Yau Mei Court, eventually. However, she opined that that was unsatisfactory as providing additional traffic lights would make Lei Yue Mun Road more congested. Also, PlanD had decided to lengthen the time of the pedestrian green signals as there were a number of schools nearby so as to facilitate students’ crossing the road. However, that decision would make vehicles run even more slowly. She hoped PlanD could discuss with Yau Mei Court and connect the footbridge to Yau Mei Court so as to divert the pedestrian and vehicle flows.
63.4.2 Public Housing Development at Lei Yue Mun Phase 4 at Yan Wing Street, Yau Tong: she remarked that the noise produced by the current piling works could be heard by residents of Ko Ching House, Ko Ching House, seriously disturbing residents. In addition, in regard to the provision of additional traffic lights at Ko Chiu Road near Yau Tong Community Hall, she hoped PlanD could consider that vehicles might turn into Yan Wing Street from the roundabout.
50 63.5 Mr Eason CHAN pointed out that the town planning of Kwun Tong had neither improved nor reviewed the ancillary transport facilities. For example, Lam Tin was still using the road planning of the 1950s and 1960s. In regard to the proposed public housing development at Pik Wan Road Site A and Site B, Yau Tong, he remarked that the construction sites were located between Lam Tin and Yau Tong. Yau Tong was now under development and many vehicles terminating at Lam Tin passed through Yau Tong. The construction sites were located exactly at the only road travelling from Lam Tin to Yau Tong. He pointed out that except Lei Yue Mun Road, there were no pick-up/drop-off points near the construction sites and the ancillary transport facilities there were insufficient. The roads there were narrow and the flow of people was high. He asked PlanD about the transport planning for areas around the construction sites.
63.6 Mr HUNG Chun-hin pointed out that there were 35 public housing estates in Kwun Tong at the moment and more public housing estates would be constructed in the future. However, there were no relevant ancillary facilities. He remarked that Kwun Tong could not accommodate additional public housing developments anymore. In regard to the public housing development at Hiu Ming Street, Kwun Tong, he expressed concern on the inconvenience in traffic at Hiu Ming Street. If housing was to be constructed there, PlanD should attend meetings of various committees for discussion. PlanD should also consider ancillary facilities and transport planning of the nearby areas.
63.7 Ms LI Wing-shan strongly opposed the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road and the reasons were as follows: (i) the completion of Kai Ching Estate and Tak Long Estate had brought ventilation problems; (ii) insufficient ancillary transport facilities would lead to the failure in coping with the population growth; (iii) there was a lack of leisure facilities; and (iv) invisible problems would brought by dense population, such as problems of neighbourhood relationships and mental health.
63.8 Ms Edith LEUNG pointed out that according to the data of the Population and Household Statistics Analysed by District Council District published by the Census and Statistics Department on 31 March 2020, the situation of Kwun Tong as follows: (i) it had a population of 694 000 people and was the most densely populated district of Hong Kong; (ii) it had the lowest average income among all the districts; (iii) it had the lowest percentage of owner-occupier households. 67% of its population were tenants; (iv) it had
51 the oldest population in Hong Kong; and (v) it was the region with the greatest population growth. The population of Kwun Tong would reach 750 000 people after five years. She remarked that Kwun Tong would be developed as the second core business district. However, the traffic and population pressure on Kwun Tong was also the greatest across the territory. There were many commercial and public housing sites in the district. Wan Chai was a core business area too, but the population density of Wan Chai was the lowest in the territory. She doubted that PlanD’s planning for Kwun Tong was unfair and the reasons were as follows: (i) it was unclear whether the standards for road planning were applicable for both industrial and residential areas; (ii) the standards for parking space planning had not been reviewed for a long time. The ratio of parking spaces to public housing flats had been about 1 to 10 in the past and the current ratio was about 1 to 40; and (iii) no community facilities for the elderly and poverty were provided to cope with the needs of the community.
63.9 Mr PANG Chi-sang pointed out that there were three housing development projects near Yau Tong, but there were only limited community facilities. If the needs of residents could not be met, he advised against developing any housing project in Kwun Tong.
63.10 In regard to the public housing development at Hiu Ming Street, Mr CHEUNG Man-fung remarked that the population and traffic capacities of Kwun Tong were both saturated. He enquired why PlanD had chosen to construct additional public housing in Kwun Tong and whether PlanD had to continue to construct infill buildings at Hiu Ming Street, a street with a relatively high building density. In addition, he pointed out that he had written to HD on 9 December 2019 in regard to the community complex at Hiu Kwong Street, requesting HD to publicise the construction contract of the public housing development at Hiu Ming Street, Paper Nos. 5/2017, 6/2017 and 7/2017, the layouts and design drawings of the community complex at Hiu Kwong Street and the plan of the public housing development. He pointed out that according to HD’s reply on 31 December 2019, HD was still following up on it. However, no floor plans had been provided by HD so far. He expressed discontent with that. Also, he pointed out that residents were worried about the counselling centre for psychotropic substance abusers in the community complex. Some residents did not know there were such facilities in the community complex. He hoped that HD could give an account on it. He also hoped that HD could arrange meetings to explain why a counselling centre for
52 psychotropic substance abusers was provided there.
63.11 Mr Anthony BUX opposed the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road. He remarked that Mr LEE Kwan-chak, Mr WAN Ka-him and he had accompanied Christian Action to submit about 8 000 representations to oppose the project. He remarked that despite the fact that PlanD had not yet approved the change of the land use of the site of the development project in the 5th KTDC term, HD had already submitted a paper to KTDC, hoping KTDC would approve Phase 1 of the development. The paper was endorsed by KTDC in light of the agenda. HD had even expelled the Christian Action afterwards. He pointed out that the paper had mentioned that the project was supposed to commence in 2018. However, the works had been yet to commence and HD had only said that the project would be completed in 2025. He remarked that residents had expressed concern over the delay of the commencement of works. There were rumors that there was a cavity and therefore it was unable to develop that location. He had written to TD and HAD, suggesting changing the site into a temporary car park. TD had replied that Phase 2 of the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road was expected to commence by the end of 2020 and its progress would not be affected by the progress of Phase 1. He worried that HD would only construct Phase 2 and abandon Phase 1, which would provide 1 500 square metres of retailing facilities, a child care centre and a residential care home for the elderly. He could not accept HD’s decision of constructing Phase 2 first. Also, he asked HD about the reason for the delay in the commencement of works at Wang Chiu Road and the difficulties encountered.
63.12 Mr William LI expressed concern on the housing development at Ex-Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site. He remarked that that location was isolated and the only ancillary facility there was Laguna Plaza next to the site. He opined that the development would increase the burden on Laguna City. He enquired: (i) about the application on the planning of Cha Kwo Ling submitted by the developer and the latest progress of the public private partnership programme; and (ii) the progress of constructing a carriageway connecting Kaolin Mine Site and Cha Kwo Ling Road. He pointed out that the entrance of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen was only 4 metres wide and was therefore unable to accommodate an extra single two-lane carriageway. As the Government had announced to redevelop Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen, an opportunity had been created. He enquired whether a carriageway would be constructed to divert the flows of people and traffic at Cha Kwo Ling
53 Road and Sin Fat Road upon the population intake of Kaolin Mine development. He hoped departments could organise residents’ meetings so that relevant stakeholders (such as the owners’ committee of the Laguna City) could raise their views.
63.13 Mr WAN Ka-him raised the following doubts to PlanD in regard to the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road: (i) widening only a number of junctions could not solve the traffic problem; and (ii) the department had expelled non-profit making organisations and Christian Action upon land resumption, but it still had no idea about the commencement date of the works at the moment and allowed engineering vehicles to operate there continuously, disturbing nearby residents. He also expressed concern over: (i) the lack of parking spaces of newly completed public housing; (ii) the serious illegal parking problem of coaches at Kowloon Bay; and (iii) that many social welfare organisations would be unable to move into there to provide services if PlanD decided to construct Phase 2 first.
63.14 Ms LAI Po-kwai remarked that there were only 104 parking spaces under Phase 1 of the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road. There were increases in both the vehicle number and population, but the number of parking spaces remained unchanged. The ratio of parking spaces was neither adjusted nor improved. She pointed out that after the completion of the public housing at Wang Chiu Road, many residents of On Tat Estate, On Tai Estate and Wang Chiu Road would travel to Choi Hung to make interchanges. However, it was already difficult for members of the public to get on MTR trains at Choi Hung MTR Station during peak hours. She enquired whether the Government had evaluated the capacity of Kwun Tong Line. She suggested providing day care centres for the elderly at Choi Hung under the project.
63.15 Mr WONG Wai-lun remarked that the purpose of constructing flats was to provide flats for people to live in, and therefore housing development should be people-oriented. He quoted an example of a resident of Shun Lai House, Yau Lai Estate. That resident had waited for a public rental flat for a long time. However, the resident had to bear the noise from Lei Yue Mun Road after moving into the flat. He hoped that departments could think from the users’ perspective and consider whether the housing construction could make people’s life more comfortable.
54 64. PlanD responded as follows:
64.1 Functions of PlanD: PlanD understood Members’ concern over the traffic congestion in Kwun Tong and planning of the road network and railway transport system. Although those matters were not within PlanD’s scope of functions, PlanD would reflect Members’ views to relevant departments. PlanD was mainly responsible for preliminary land use planning. In regard to Members’ views over the designs of traffic and ancillary facilities under individual projects, PlanD would relay those views to the promoters of those projects so that they could ease the concern and worries of KTDC and local individuals.
64.2 HKPSG: HKPSG had a total of 12 chapters, summarising the technical areas undertaken by different departments. The standards for parking spaces of different kinds of vehicles were formulated based on the views of TD and other relevant departments. PlanD had noticed from public papers that TD was now reviewing the standards for parking spaces for commercial vehicles and facilities of goods vehicles’ loading and unloading activities under HKPSG and the standards for private car parking spaces with an aim to updating relevant standards, thereby increasing the number of private parking spaces under future housing development projects as far as practicable. TD was now conducting studies. The newly-revised parking standards were expected to be announced within 2020. Also, the Government would, based on the principle of “single site, multiple use”, provide additional public parking spaces under Government, institution or community facilities and open space development projects, such as the joint-user complex on Site G2 in Anderson Road Quarry.
64.3 Community ancillary facilities under public housing development projects: as always, HD would provide various community and welfare facilities, such as child care and elderly facilities, etc., under suitable public housing development projects, hoping to serve residents and make up for the lack or insufficiency of facilities in the district.
64.4 Long-term development of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen: CEDD had been carrying out relevant studies. PlanD would reflect to CEDD that residents hoped that CEDD would hold a prompt visit to the area to communicate with them. Moreover, PlanD had reflected the concern of local individuals over matters related to rehousing arrangements and ancillary transport facilities to CEDD. PlanD remarked that TPB was handling an application of planning
55 permission in regard to redevelopment of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen submitted by a private developer. TPB, when considering the application, would review and consider the traffic capacity of that area, technical feasibility of the proposed development and views of government departments and the public, etc.
64.5 Housing development of Ex-Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site: the paper mentioned that CEDD had visited KTDC and the concerned area during 2014 to 2016 to explain the works related to the formation of land and the ancillary transport facilities under the development of Ex-Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site. CEDD had noted the residents’ aspirations of constructing a road connecting Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen. PlanD had reflected the view to CEDD, hoping that the feasibility of connecting Ex-Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site to Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen could be included in the studies on the development of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen.
65. HD responded as follows:
65.1 Purpose of constructing flats: in face of the keen demand for public housing of the society, the Government had adopted a multi-pronged approach to utilise land resources and identify suitable sites for public housing development in different parts of the territory. HD would also consult relevant government departments when making planning for public housing so as to provide suitable social welfare and other ancillary facilities.
65.2 Community complex at Hiu Kwong Street: in regard to Members’ aspirations to know more about the facilities in the complex and the details of the counselling centre for psychotropic substance abusers in the community complex, HD would reflect Members’ enquiries to SWD.
65.3 Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road: the works of Phase 1 and Phase 2 were expected to commence at the same time. The procedure in relation to the change of land use was underway. After completing the procedure and receiving the funding for social welfare facilities, the tendering procedure of the construction works could commence. The works of Phase 1 and Phase 2 were expected to commence in 2021 and be completed in 2025. Also, HD would reflect to SWD Members’ suggestion in regard to the provision of additional day care centres for the elderly under the project in Choi Hung.
56 65.4 Proposed Public Housing Development at Pik Wan Road Site A and Site B, Yau Tong: relevant government departments had consulted KTDC about the development concerned before. HD would reflect Members’ views on technical problems to relevant departments, such as the walkability of pedestrian links, etc. In regard to Members’ suggestion of connecting the footbridge to Yau Mei Court so as to separate people from traffic, HD would reflect it to relevant departments. However, HD had noticed that the suggestion might involve private property interests. HD had also noticed that the proposal had been opposed the housing estate concerned earlier.
65.5 Public Housing Development at Lei Yue Mun Phase 4 at Yan Wing Street, Yau Tong: relevant staff of HD would carry out follow-up actions, step up its monitoring of noise emitted by works and request the contractor to implement appropriate management and mitigating measures on the environmental impact so as to minimise the impact of the works on the surrounding areas.
66. The Chairman remarked that Members had expressed great concern on various public housing development projects. The Chairman asked the Secretary to contact HD after the meeting to help it provide relevant contact information of various public housing development projects to Members so that Members could raise views easily.
67. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
67.1 Mr Raymond TANG remarked that Sau Yun House was constructed after the reconstruction of the community centre in Sau Mau Ping. He opined that constructing infill buildings in a community without proper ancillary facilities would bring many problems to residents there. Those problems included: (i) entries and exits of many concrete mixers and refuse collection vehicles during the construction period; and (ii) traffic congestion caused by trucks parked by the roadside as many flats needed renovation after the completion of housing. In regard to the public housing development at Hiu Ming Street, as Hiu Ming Street was narrow, he expressed concern on whether the road could cater for the traffic needs brought by the population growth. Also, he pointed out that the aim of public housing policy was to provide members of the public with a place to live in before they could afford flats in the private sector. However, the poor traffic condition of public housing could hardly meet the traffic needs of the grassroots.
57 67.2 Mr HUNG Chun-hin remarked that Kwun Tong was no longer suitable for public housing development. He enquired about the standards that the Government had adopted in choosing Kwun Tong for constructing infill buildings or constructing public housing.
67.3 Mr PANG Chi-sang pointed out that KTDC did not oppose the construction of public housing. However, the Government should provide proper community facilities when carrying out developments. He remarked that many private development projects would be completed in Yau Tong in the future, such as the development at Tung Yuen Street. He expressed concern on whether HD had made proper transport planning to cater for the future population growth. As PlanD had remarked that they were only responsible for preliminary planning and might not be able to handle implementation problems, he hoped PlanD would explain what planning was available for Yau Tong.
67.4 Mr Anthony BUX remarked that HD’s reply had pointed out that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road would commence in 2020 at the same time and be completed in 2025. He expressed discontent with HD’s failure in informing Members of and giving a clear account on the material changes of the works. He hoped the Chairman could include a new agenda item in the next meeting, requesting HD to give a clear explanation on the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road.
67.5 Mr William LI was happy about PlanD’s decision of providing new carriageways when the opportunity arose. He asked CEDD when CEDD had included the provision of new carriageways in their studies and when the study results would be ready.
67.6 Mr WAN Ka-him pointed out that according to PlanD and HD’s replies, no amendments had been made to the preliminary planning of the development at Wang Chiu Road. He questioned whether the departments had neglected the views of Members and residents. Although Members had mentioned that traffic and social welfare facilities needed improvement, no amendments had been made to the project too. Also, he remarked that the Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road had changed from completion in phases to simultaneous completion. However, he, as a district councilor, did not know anything about the change too.
58 68. PlanD responded as follows:
68.1 Study on Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen: according to the timetable of CEDD, the study was expected to be completed by the end of 2020. PlanD had passed views related to the construction of link roads to CEDD for its further studies. PlanD would consult KTDC and local stakeholders at a suitable time.
68.2 Duties of government departments: the Government had various technical departments and those departments were responsible for different aspects, such as geotechnical engineering, technologies and transports. Departments should perform their functions respectively. PlanD would reflect Members’ views on technical problems of individual projects and public concern to relevant departments so that those departments could address and follow up on the issues in a timely manner.
69. HD responded as follows:
69.1 Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road: the Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road was divided into two phases. The main reason for renewing the works timetable was that the procedure of rezoning required much time. PlanD had to wait for the completion of the abovementioned procedure and the grant of funds for social welfare facilities to SWD before carrying out a tendering exercise for the works. New Horizons Building was now under demolition. The Lands Department (“LandsD”) expected that Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be passed to HA in December 2020 for the construction of public housing. If Members had other enquiries, HD would provide supplementary information in writing.
70. The Chairman remarked that Members had not reached a decision on Phase 2 of the Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road during the 5th term of KTDC. HD said that HD would consult KTDC again at that moment. The Chairman hoped HD could deploy relevant staff to attend the next meeting to give an account on the latest progress and whether the public housing development at Wang Chiu Road would be developed in phases or in combination. In addition, the Chairman hoped PlanD could understand the pressure faced by Kwun Tong posed by population growth and the lack of ancillary transport facilities. He urged PlanD to reflect the views collected to its relevant colleagues.
71. Members noted the paper.
59 (Post-meeting note: the Secretariat distributed relevant contact information of various housing development construction sites mentioned in the paper to Members on 20 May 2020 for their reference.)
VI. Temporary Vacant Government Sites Available for Greening/Community Uses Within Kwun Tong District Boundary (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 7/2020)
72. The representatives of LandsD presented the paper.
73. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
73.1 Mr Eason CHAN pointed out that most greening projects mentioned in the paper were located at Cha Kwo Ling except the one at Clear Water Bay Road. He remarked that Cha Kwo Ling did not need greening work and worried that the rodent infestation problem at Cha Kwo Ling would become more serious after greening. In addition, he expressed concern over the maintenance work and management after greening. He enquired how LCSD would shoulder the responsibility after the completion of greening work for the sites of LandsD.
73.2 Mr PANG Chi-sang remarked that carrying out greening work on small sites often gave rise to management problems, such as the green belt next to the Ngau Tau Kok MTR Station. He pointed out that there was no need for LandsD to visit KTDC for consultations and discussion if no feasible subsequent solutions to solve the cleaning and maintenance problems of green belts were provided.
73.3 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung expressed concern over the management problems of temporary vacant government sites. If sites were left unmanaged after greening, rodent and mosquito infestation problems might occur.
73.4 Mr MOK Kin-shing remarked that as the areas of the sites were small, the Government should carefully consider their uses. Also, he hoped LandsD could pay attention to the cleaning and management and hygiene condition of temporary vacant government sites.
60 73.5 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG enquired how greening work would be conducted.
73.6 Mr LUI Tung-hai pointed out that three sites mentioned in the paper belonged to Chai Kwo Ling. He remarked that those sites would be included in the future development of Cha Kwo Ling and opined that deploying resources for developing those sites might be unsuitable. Also, he hoped that LandsD could clean dead branches regularly and follow up on anti-mosquito and anti-rodent work.
73.7 Mr WANG Wai-lun suggested LandsD provide maps and pictures of the temporary vacant government sites in the paper as that information was difficult to find in LandsD’s website.
74. The Chairman clarified for the departments that temporary vacant government sites had not undergone any greening work. The sites stated in the paper were just proposed items.
75. LandsD replied that the temporary vacant sites shown on LandsD’s website were yet to be developed and were available for applications by non-government organisations. In regard to daily management, LandsD had engaged contractors to carry out anti-mosquito and anti-rodent work.
76. The Chairman pointed out that Members had expressed concern over the daily management of the sites without being designated with long-term uses and had expressed discontent with the anti-mosquito, anti-rodent and grass pruning work carried out by contractors. The Chairman hoped that LandsD could review whether the daily management of temporary vacant government sites could be enhanced.
77. Members noted the paper.
VII. Concern over the Impact of Blasting Works of Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel on Residents of Cha Kwo Ling (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 8/2020)
78. The Chairman pointed out that the Secretariat had received a letter from Mr CHOY Chak-hung before the meeting. The letter was about the impact posed on residents by the blasting works of Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel. Members could refer to the letter tabled.
61 79. Mr CHOY Chak-hung presented the letter.
80. The Chairman remarked that the Secretariat had received a letter submitted by Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association before the meeting. The Chairman asked Members to refer to the letter tabled.
81. The representatives of Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association presented the letter.
82. The representatives of LandsD presented the paper.
83. Members raised enquiries and views as follows:
83.1 Mr LUI Tung-hai remarked that the representatives of Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association had told the truth. He opined that requests of the residents were reasonable. He remarked that the commencement of Trunk Road T2 and Tsuen Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel could relieve the traffic congestion in Kwun Tong. Therefore, he hoped that the works could be completed as soon as possible. However, the Government had to take care of the interests of residents of Cha Kwo Ling. As the district councilor of that constituency, he had maintained close communication with residents, CEDD and the contractor of the works. He noticed that residents were discontent with the following matters: (i) the monitoring results of the contractor were different from what the residents felt; (ii) residents had requested that blasting works be carried out with restraints, such as reducing the amount of blasting explosives and the speed of blasting. Although the situation had got better every time after the residents had reflected their views, the situation had relapsed after some time, showing that there was room for improvement in terms of the monitoring; and (iii) in regard to maintenance, the contractor had organised a volunteer team and carried out about 30 items of maintenance works for around 10 households. However, the members of the volunteer team were workers of the contractors. He pointed out that if maintenance works were carried out by professionals, the results would be desirable.
Also, he agreed with the five demands raised by residents in regard to the works of Trunk Road T2. He remarked that Tsuen Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel had adopted an open blasting method and the locations were mainly located at Lam Tin, which were a bit far away from Cha Kwo Ling. However, the works of Trunk Road T2 would be carried out at the bottom of the hill at Cha Kwo Ling. He believed the works would pose a greater
62 impact on residents of Cha Kwo Ling than before and opined that the reasonable rights of residents should be protected. Also, he suggested the contractor carry out a comprehensive survey or record before the commencement of works, such as recording the condition of flats with video cameras, so that the monitoring data could be more accurate and the monitoring could be more comprehensive. If the quantity of cracks at flats increased after the commencement of works, people would know that the increase in the quantity of cracks was caused by the works, thereby avoiding conflicts. Also, he suggested enhancing communication with residents by maintaining sufficient communication channels and maintaining communication with residents all the time. In addition, although the cost might be relatively higher, he opined that the contractor should adopt excavation instead of finding solutions to solve the problems brought by blasting works.
83.2 Mr MOK Kin-shing remarked that he had met with Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association. He understood that that situation had continued for some time. He had requested for assistance from relevant departments. He remarked that although there was a volunteer team to assist in maintenance, the whole blasting process would still cause disturbance to residents. He pointed out that Cha Kwo Ling was a squatter area and squatters were built with simple materials and were easy to collapse. He remarked that squatters had already gone through open blasting and residents’ life might be in danger if underground blasting works were to be carried out. Also, he hoped departments could give an account to residents on how departments would listen to residents’ views and communicate with residents to improve the situation.
He remarked that departments used the structure of Tin Hau Temple at Cha Kwo Ling as a monitoring point. However, he opined that the building method of Tin Hau Temple was relatively secure and its condition was different from that of normal flats. He also pointed out the necessity of the five demands raised by residents and hoped departments could understand residents’ feelings.
83.3 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung opined that the five demands raised by Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association were reasonable. He hoped that LandsD could ensure the safety of flats to residents when carrying out the works. Also, he suggested setting up monitoring points at residents’ flats so as to monitor the impact on flats posed by the works. As squatters were mainly
63 constructed by metal plates and bricks, he hoped the contractor could deploy staff to understand the situation or carry out maintenance works if cracks were found. He also hoped that LandsD could pay more attention to residents’ needs.
83.4 Mr CHOY Chak-hung hoped the Senior Engineer of CEDD could answer the questions raised by residents and give accounts on views such as blasting works with excessive emissions and the situation of moving the goalposts in regard to monitoring points. Also, he remarked that the five demands were mainly about Trunk Road T2. He pointed out that the works would be carried out at the bottom of the hill at Cha Kwo Ling and the impact would be even bigger. Therefore, he agreed with the five demands raised by residents. The contents of the demands were as follows: (i) conduct evaluations before the commencement of works and works should be suspended if there was any structural damage; (ii) publicise the data collected by evaluations; (iii) carry out the works with non-blasting methods; (iv) remove construction waste by marine transport; and (v) listen to residents’ views more frequently during the construction period.
Also, he remarked that Tin Hau Temple was used as the standards of monitoring at the moment. However, the structure of Tin Hau Temple was relatively secure. He suggested conducting a housing survey and recording the situation of flats through social worker teams, volunteers or volunteers of the contractor before carrying out the works of Trunk Road T2 so as to avoid future conflicts. In regard to monitoring, he suggested departments adopt more stringent standards, such as the standards of the amount of explosives to be used. He also suggested adopting excavation instead of blasting. He opined that the departments’ practice of only organising meetings with residents once every two to three months was unacceptable. He remarked that he would love to attend meetings and discuss with departments every month if necessary.
83.5 Mr William LI hoped that departments could respond to the five demands raised by Members. Also, he enquired the consultancy about the progress on the provision of a liaison centre at Cha Kwo Ling Waterfront.
83.6 Mr PANG Chi-sang remarked that the first phase of the blasting works had already affected the flats of residents and the departments could not ensure the safety of local residents’ property before the commencement of the second phase of the works. He opined that departments should raise a
64 convincing solution before carrying out the next phase of the blasting works. He hoped that departments could promise at the meeting that they would ensure residents’ property safety before carrying out the works.
84. CEDD thanked Mr LUI Tung-hai for his continuous assistance and responded as follows:
84.1 In regard to the works project of Tseung Kwan O – Lam Tin Tunnel:
84.1.1 Recruitment of volunteers: CEDD hoped to recruit more professionals to take part in the volunteer team so as to carry out better maintenance work and maintain better relationship with residents.
84.1.2 Standards for blasting works: CEDD clarified that the works had adopted the most stringent standards in Hong Kong. The standards adopted were the same as those of handling antiquities at other areas in Hong Kong.
84.1.3 Communication with residents: the department often communicated with residents. Apart from resident liaison groups, the department had been contacting and communicating with Members of the concerned constituencies and local stakeholders and would continue to maintain the relationships.
84.1.4 Blasting works with excessive emissions: subject to the law, CEDD had set up monitoring points within the area upon the request of the Mines Division. In the course of the communication between CEDD and residents, 17 households had requested for the provision of additional monitoring points. CEDD had provided additional monitoring points for them. In addition, CEDD remarked that at the beginning of the works, the provision of monitoring points had deficiencies as colleagues had installed monitoring points at locations as requested by residents instead of following the Mines Division’s standards on monitoring points, resulting in inaccuracy of the monitoring data. After discovering that the data had exceeded the standards after blasting works, CEDD had carried out investigations and discovered that the locations of the monitoring points were unsuitable. After discussing with the Mines Division, the Mines Division had also
65 replied that those locations were incorrect. After consulting the Mines Division and obtaining the agreement of the Mines Division, the department had reinstalled those monitoring points. CEDD apologised for the inconvenience caused by the amendments. CEDD hoped residents could understand that and would like to maintain a peaceful relationship with residents.
84.2 In regard to the works project of Trunk Road T2 and Cha Kwo Ling Tunnel:
84.2.1 Background information: the contract of the main works for Trunk Road T2 and Cha Kwo Ling Tunnel had commenced in October 2019. Trunk Road T2 and Cha Kwo Ling Tunnel formed the middle section of Route 6. Upon its completion, Route 6 would provide an important link among West Kowloon, Kai Tak and Tseung Kwan O. It was estimated that the journey time during peak hours between Tseung Kwan O Town Centre and Yau Ma Tei Interchange along Route 6 would be substantially reduced from 60-odd minutes to 10-odd minutes.
84.2.2 Ways of developing tunnels: the length of the whole tunnel from Cha Kwo Ling Waterfront to Lam Tin Interchange was about 400 metres. The consultancy had taken into consideration of the impact on Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen when designing the tunnel. A mechanical breaking method would be adopted for works at locations near Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen and a blasting method would be adopted for works at locations far away from Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen. Also, the Contractor would strive to minimise the impact on nearby facilities by adopting various methods, such as controlling the amount of explosives.
84.2.3 Survey for current condition of building baselines: the engineering team had earlier met with major stakeholders of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen, including Members of the concerned constituencies and Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association. The engineering team had understood the residents’ aspirations of having a survey for the current condition of building baselines. The engineering team had issued invitation letters to all the residents/owners in April to ask for their consent for the implementation of a survey for the current condition of the building baselines. Also, the engineering team would issue letters to residents/owners that had not replied yet.
66 The engineering team hoped Members and Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association could help to spread the message to villagers so that the survey could cover more buildings.
84.2.4 Handling methods of construction wastes: the contractor was actively considering transferring most construction wastes produced from the works of the tunnel through Kai Tak instead of passing through Cha Kwo Ling/Lam Tin. In regard to Members’ aspirations of carrying out the works safely and smoothly, the consultancy agreed with it and would pay more attention to it.
84.2.5 Provision of additional monitoring points: the engineering team would consult its Cha Kwo Ling community liaison group established under the works project on the monitoring points. More monitoring points could be installed if the consultancy could obtain residents’ consent.
84.2.6 Enhancing communication with the community: the engineering team would be happy to communicate and liaise with the community.
84.2.7 Community liaison centre at Cha Kwo Ling Waterfront: the engineering team was now preparing the establishment of a community liaison centre at Cha Kwo Ling Waterfront in regard to stakeholders’ views. The engineering team hoped that the location could be in the vicinity of Cha Kwo Ling Tsuen so as to facilitate communication.
85. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:
85.1 Mr MOK Kin-shing requested CEDD to provide the timetable of the condition survey and enquired about the method of evaluating the results of the survey. Also, he remarked that relevant evaluation should be conducted carefully to study whether the works would cause danger to the unit structures. In addition, he opined that CEDD should provide the timetable and complete the survey as soon as possible.
85.2 Mr CHOY Chak-hung asked departments to further explain the survey and opined that the survey could reduce conflicts. He suggested departments put more efforts in that. Also, he remarked that issuing letters to owners
67 was ineffective as some residents were tenants. He suggested departments contact residents through residents’ organisations under the concern group, the concern group itself and the volunteer team. In addition, he remarked that KTDC paid great attention to the works of Cha Kwo Ling. He opined that departments should communicate more with residents. Therefore, the practice of organising meetings with residents’ organisations only one time every two to three months was unacceptable.
85.3 Mr WANG Wai-lun remarked the works would affect Yau Lai Estate nearby and reflected that engineering vehicles were illegally parked at Yau Tong Road and Cha Kwo Ling Road instead of inside the construction site. He hoped departments could pay attention to that.
86. CEDD responded as follows:
86.1 Survey for current condition of building baselines and the timetable: the engineering team had issued invitation letters to villagers in early April 2020 and received their community liaison group’s views earlier. The engineering team would put up posters at eye-catching locations in the village and issue letters to invite residents again later. In addition, the letters were distributed by the engineering team to the mail boxes of respective households one by one, hoping that residents could receive relevant information more quickly and directly.
86.2 Illegal parking of engineering vehicles: CEDD understood Members’ enquiries and pointed out that CEDD had received the referral of relevant matter from TD and the Hong Kong Police Force. CEDD had instructed that engineering vehicles or engaged vehicles should not be parked illegally during the construction period, which was 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Contractors and their subcontractors would be punished if irregularities were found. However, as some drivers of the engineering vehicles were freelancers, it might be difficult to control them out of office hours. CEDD could only advise them not to do so.
In addition, he remarked that CEDD could adopt more stringent measures, such as marking down illegally parked engineering vehicles and terminating the contracts with those drivers. However, he opined that such a practice was cruel and could not help much. He hoped Members could help advise relevant drivers to strike a balance. Due to safety reasons and the implementation of works, there were not enough parking spaces inside the
68 construction site and freelancers had no right to park their vehicles inside the construction site.
87. The Chairman concluded that: (i) the Chairman requested the departments responsible for the works of Trunk Road T2 to expedite the implementation of the current condition survey so as to provide confidence to residents; (ii) departments should step up daily monitoring so as to avoid making the same mistake at monitoring points; (iii) in regard to the illegal parking problem, the Chairman suggested departments give warnings before adopting the most stringent measure. If repeated advice was ineffective, departments should discuss with relevant Members; and (iv) departments should maintain communication with KTDC and Cha Kwo Ling Residents’ Association.
88. Members noted the paper.
VIII. Maintenance and Management Arrangements for Drainage Pipe in Public Rental Housing Estates (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 9/2020)
89. The Chairman reported that the Secretariat had received a letter submitted by Mr Eason CHAN in regard to the problem of ageing public housing and buildings in Kwun Tong. Members could refer to the letter tabled.
90. Mr Eason CHAN presented the paper.
91. The representatives of HD presented the paper and responded to the letter.
92. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
92.1 Mr HUNG Chun-hin remarked that the paper had mentioned that HA would arrange a survey for leased units aged 10 to 30 years once every ten years. He pointed out that there were many units aged 10 years or above in Kwun Tong and enquired whether HD could provide supplementary information on which housing estates in Kwun Tong would carry out the Total Maintenance Scheme.
92.2 Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong was concerned about the situation that the leakage problem of drainage pipes located on the external walls of public housing estates had resulted in the dripping problem, disturbing households on lower floors. He pointed out that some public housing aged about 20 years and
69 the pipes of those housing estates had been ageing. He enquired whether HD could replace all those pipes so that households on middle or lower floors would not be disturbed by dripping water.
92.3 Mr WONG Chi-ken remarked that the problem of salt water backflow often occurred and salt water even penetrated flats on lower floors when the situation got worse. He enquired whether HD would provide additional anti-backflow facilities for flats on lower floors. Also, he pointed out that the sewers of many old-style public housing had problems including emitting unpleasant odours, being cracked or suffering leakage. He hoped that HD could replace all pipes to completely solve the problem caused by ageing pipes. Also, he had discovered that some flats were sharing the same seal traps. He worried that if a person under home quarantine was a confirmed case of COVID-19, the virus would spread to other flats through pipes. He pointed out that he had asked the estate office if an individual occupant had that concern, whether the estate office would follow up on the relevant matter for the occupant. He also hoped that HD could: (i) review whether there were any policies focusing on that kind of flats; and (ii) carry out inspections at all public housing estates in Hong Kong after the end of the epidemic so as to ensure that every flat had their own seal trap.
92.4 Mr Eason CHAN remarked that he was a user of the fourth generation public housing estates and his office was located in a third generation public housing estate. He remarked that the performance of pipes of the public housing estates under those two generations varied. He hoped that HD could provide after the meeting information on the salt water backflow situation in Kwun Tong District in recent years, such as the list of flats that suffered from that problem and the number of such cases. He took On Tin Estate and Ping Tin Estate as examples. He pointed out that On Tin Estate did not have the problem of salt water backflow. He expressed concern over the relationship between types of public housing estates and the problem of salt water backflow. He hoped that he could follow up on the ageing problem of public housing estates with HD during his tenure so as to safeguard residents’ rights and avoid the occurrence of difficult problems in the future.
92.5 Mr KAN Ming-tung pointed out that members of the public were very worried about the leakage of the virus in public housing estates, especially flats of public housing estates with pipes installed inside the flats. He remarked that following the ageing of public housing estates, many public
70 housing estates had started to have the problem of leakage and obstruction of pipes. He hoped that HD could check public housing estates of the third and fourth generations.
92.6 Mr Raymond TANG hoped that HD could pay attention to the locations of canopies when repairing pipes as there were many sewers and fresh water pipes there. Besides, pipes were seriously rusted, affecting the exterior walls of residents of the first floors. He remarked that residents had asked for help, pointing out that leakage at external walls had resulted in the concrete spalling inside their flats, thereby affecting the building structures. He pointed out that many public housing estates in Kwun Tong were quite old. He hoped HD could replace pipes when carrying out large-scale maintenance.
92.7 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung suggested that the Total Maintenance Scheme could increase the frequency of inspections, such as carrying out an inspection every five years. He remarked that the frequency of inspections could be enhanced to one inspection every three years if flats were relatively old so as to minimise the problems resulted from ageing pipes. HD could regularly review whether there were any new designs that could be adopted in public housing estates.
93. The Vice-chairman hoped that HD could review whether the frequency of inspections carried out under the Total Maintenance Scheme was too long as the current frequency was carrying out one inspection every ten years. Also, he pointed out that the salt water pipes of many households at Po Tat Estate had been cracked recently and might need maintenance. He pointed out that only pipes of certain blocks of the estate had problems. He remarked that although HD had requested the contractor to carry out maintenance in accordance with the guidelines, those works were only patchy fixes. Maintenance works would also affect flats with the same orientations inside a building, causing a suspension of water supply to those flats for a few days. He opined that HD should take the initiative to carry out comprehensive inspections and repair pipes if the same types of buildings or the same buildings frequently suffered that problem.
94. HD thanked Members for their views and responded as follows:
94.1 Provision of information: HD would provide KTDC with the information on public housing estates carrying out the Total Maintenance Scheme in Kwun Tong and the situation of salt water backflow after the meeting.
71 (Post-meeting note: the Secretariat received on 19 June 2020 the supplementary information on the Total Maintenance Scheme and the situation of salt water backflow submitted by HD. The information was forwarded to Members.)
94.2 Leakage of pipes: in regard to the nuisance posed on residents on lower floors by water dripping and leakage of pipes located near canopies, HD had been deploying maintenance staff to inspect the condition of pipes at public areas within public housing estates and carrying out repair and maintenance work if needed. In regard to matters related to the maintenance of pipes mentioned by Members, HD would reflect those matters to relevant public housing estates.
94.3 Problems of individual public housing estates: if individual public housing estates had special problems, Members or residents could reflect their views through the Estate Management Advisory Committee or estates management offices. HD would conduct follow-up actions by deploying engineering staff and professional maintenance surveyors to carry out inspections and formulate suitable solutions, such as carrying out maintenance or pipe replacement works, etc.
94.4 Total Maintenance Scheme: in regard to Members’ suggestion of shortening the duration of the Total Maintenance Scheme, HD would reflect the view to relevant departments.
95. The Chairman hoped HD could later provide the information that Members had asked for and consider Members’ views on the Total Maintenance Scheme so as to carry out maintenance and inspections more frequently.
96. Members noted the paper.
IX. Progress Report of Public Housing Projects under HD (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 10/2020)
97. The representatives of HD presented the paper.
98. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:
98.1 Mr HSU Yau-wai remarked that Project No. KT15NN-01, “District Open
72 Space at Anderson Road Site C2 Phase 1”, would be completed in the second quarter of 2020. He enquired when the district open space would be open for public use.
99. HD replied that the works were expected to be completed by the end of June 2020. In regard to the question of when the park could be opened for public use, HD replied that HD could not control the opening date as that project was an entrusted project. LCSD had carried out inspections and started HAnd-over process. After LCSD had reflected their views on the works to the engineering company, the project was expected to be passed to LCSD in the third quarter of 2020. Members could also ask LCSD about the opening date of the park at meetings of the District Facilities Management Committee.
100. Members noted the paper.
X. Establishment of a Working Group under HPLC (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 11/2020)
101. The Secretary presented the paper.
102. The Chairman reported that the Secretariat had received a letter from Ms Edith LEUNG, Mr HUNG Chun-hin, Mr IP Tsz-kit, Mr WONG Kai-ming and Mr WAN Ka-him before the meeting, requesting establishment of a “working group on concern for sub-divided unit residents’ rights”. Members could refer to the letter tabled.
103. Mr HUNG Chun-hin presented the paper.
104. Members endorsed the paper.
105. The Chairman pointed out that the Secretariat would issue a reply slip to invite Members to join the working group and attend its first meeting later. The Chairman and the Vice-chairman would chair the first meeting of the working group until the chairman of the working group was elected.
106. Members noted the arrangement.
73 XI. Proposed Outline for 2020/21 Work Plan of HPLC (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 12/2020)
107. The Secretary presented the paper.
108. Members endorsed the paper.
XII. Any Other Business
109. The Chairman pointed out that the Energizing Kowloon East Office would hold a briefing session at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow. He reminded Members who had enrolled for the briefing session to be there on time.
110. No other business was raised by Members.
XIII. Date of Next Meeting
111. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
112. The next meeting was scheduled to be held on 21 May 2020.
The minutes of the meeting were confirmed on 17 September 2020.
Kwun Tong District Council Secretariat September 2020
74