Minutes of the 4Th Meeting of the Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (2014-2015)

Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (2014-2015) Central and Western District Council

Date : 24th July 2014 Time : 2:30 p.m. Location : Conference Room 14/F, Harbour Building 38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong

Present:

Chairman Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney*

Vice-chairman Dr Malcolm LAM (2:57 pm – end of the meeting)

District Council Members Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, BBS, JP (2:30 pm – 4:53 pm) Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH* Mr CHAN Ho-lim, Joseph (2:34 pm – 4:24 pm) Mr CHAN Hok-fung, MH* Ms CHENG Lai-king (2:38 pm – end of the meeting) Mr CHEUNG Yick-hung, Jackie (3:44 pm – 5:17 pm) Mr HUI Chi-fung (2:30 pm – 5:14 pm) Miss LO Yee-hang (2:58 pm – 5:05 pm) Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH* Miss SIU Ka-yi* Mr MAN Chi-wah, MH* Mr NG Siu-keung, Thomas, MH, JP (2:48 pm – end of the meeting) Mr WONG Kin-shing* Mr YIP Wing-shing, BBS, MH, JP*

Co-opted Members Miss Lau Wai-yan, Vienna (2:30 pm – 4:54 pm) Mr LI Po-ming (2:38 pm – end of the meeting) Mr LUI Hung-pan (2:46 pm – end of the meeting) Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie* Mr YEUNG Ho-kei*

Remarks: * Members who attended the whole meeting ( ) Time of attendance of Members

Guests

Item 4 Mr LAI Yiu-kei, Samson Environmental Protection Assistant Director (Waste Management Department Policy) Mr LEUNG Siu-kong, Environmental Protection Senior Engineer (Waste Management

- 1 - Eddie Department Policy Division)

Item 5 Miss YUEN Wai-yin, Environmental Protection Assistant Director (Water Policy) Amy Department Mr KOO Siu-long Drainage Services Department Engineer/SD1

Item 6 Mr LAU Jun-yan, Alex Home Affairs Bureau Assistant Secretary for Home Affairs Ms WONG Fung-yee, Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Assistant Community Services Margaret Secretary (Youth & Family) Mr TAM Po-lam Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Senior Architect (Construction & Maintenance) Ms LAU Yuen-ping, Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Architect (Construction) Monika Mr FONG Ying-kit, Ivan Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Assistant Planning Officer Mr Daniel HO CYS Associates (Hong Kong) Associate Director Ltd. Mr Patrick YAU CYS Associates (Hong Kong) Associate Director Ltd. Mr Kenneth TO Kenneth To & Associates Ltd. Managing Director

Item 7 Mr LAW See-hon, Sean Environmental Protection Senior Environmental Protection Department Officer (Regional South) 1

Item 8 Mr Stephen HO The Hongkong Electric Co.,Ltd. Manager (Sustainable Development) Ms Christianne LAM The Hongkong Electric Co.,Ltd Manager (Community Investment)

In Attendance Miss CHOW Ho-kiu, Central and Western District District Officer Cheryl, JP Office Mr CHAN Yun-man, Central and Western District Assistant District Officer Winston Office Ms WONG Ming-wai Central and Western District Senior Executive Officer (District Office Council) Ms YEUNG Lai-ching, Central and Western District Senior Executive Officer (District Regent Office Management) Mrs CHEUNG CHOY Buildings Department Building Surveyor/A3-SD Suk-ling, Aka Mr LAM Chi-ming, Lands Department (District Senior Estate Surveyor/Central Kempis Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South) Ms AU Shui-fan Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Coordinator, Police Community Relations Office (Central District) Mr LAI Fai-keong Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Coordinator, Police Community Relations Office

- 2 - (Central District) Mr CHING Chi-yan, Hong Kong Police Force Police Community Relations Officer Billy (Western District) Mr FAN Ka-yin Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Coordinator, Police Community Relations Office (Western District) Mr YIP Ming-bor Food and Environmental District Environmental Hygiene Hygiene Department Superintendent (Central/Western) Mr CHOI Yiu-kwok, Leisure and Cultural Services Deputy District Leisure Manager Kent Department (Central & Western) 2 Ms YAU Man-shan, Civil Engineering and Senior Engineer 8 (HK Island Division Doris Development Department 1) Mr LAW See-hon, Sean Environmental Protection Senior Environmental Protection Department Officer (Regional South) 1

Secretary Miss YIP Kit-wai, Angel Central and Western District Executive Officer (District Council) 3 Office

Absent with Apologies Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP Mr IP Kwok-him, GBS, JP Mr YEUNG Hok-ming

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives from government departments to the 4th meeting of the Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (FEHWC) (2014-15). The Chairman also welcomed Ms AU Shui-fan and Mr LAI Fai-keong, Neighbourhood Police Coordinators of the Police Community Relations Office (Central District) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) who attended the meeting on behalf of Mr SIT Wai.

Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda (2:30 pm)

2. As there were no comments from Members, the agenda was adopted.

Item 2: Confirmation of the M inutes of the 3 rd M eeting of FEHWC on 5 June 201 4 (2:31 pm)

3. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received an amendment on the time of attendance proposed by Ms Bonnie NG before the meeting. As Members had no comments on the amended minutes of the 3rd FEHWC meeting, the amended minutes were confirmed.

- 3 - Item 3 : Reports of the Chairman and W orking G roups (2:31 pm – 2:32 pm)

4. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had passed the following papers to Members through circulation:

No. Document Title Circulation Date 52/2014 The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) 6 June Progress Report of Minor Works in the Central and Western (C&W) District 53/2014 Application for the C&W District Council (DC) Fund 24 June Allocation (2014-15) by the Working Group on Greening and Beautification Works in the C&W District: “Community Planting Day 2014” in the C&W District 54/2014 The FEHD Anti-rodent Campaign 2014 (Phase 2) in the 24 June C&W District 56/2014 Application for the Environmental Protection Department 27 June (EPD) Fund Allocation (2014-15) by the C&W District Environmental Protection and Improvement Working Group: A total of 4 items 65/2014 The FEHD Anti-mosquito Campaign 2014 (Phase 3) in the 23 July C&W District

Item 4 : Development of a Community Green Station (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 61/2014)

(2:32 pm – 3:22 pm)

5. Mr Samson LAI, Assistant Director (Waste Management Policy) of the EPD, briefed Members on the paper as follows:

(i) As announced in the 2014 Policy Address, the Government would set up a station (formerly known as Community Green Station (CGS)) in each of the 18 districts and provide funding to non-profit making organisations for the operation of CGSs. The project would serve to enhance environmental education and provide necessary support to facilitate wider public participation in waste reduction and recycling. Planning work for the project had commenced in the C&W District. Upon commissioning, the project would be named as “Development of a CGS in the C&W District”.

(ii) On environmental education, the project would focus on promoting the concept of “Recycle Clean”. Operators should educate the public through various activities on the types of materials that could be recycled and the proper recycling procedures for different materials.

(iii) Regarding the support for waste reduction and recycling at the district level, the project would be funded by the Government so that the operators could

- 4 - have resources to arrange collection vehicles to collect these recyclables of lower value from various housing estates with a view to enhancing collection service and supporting wider public participation in recycling. Meanwhile, the operators had to deliver the recyclables to appropriate facilities for recycling.

(iv) Up to now, the Government had confirmed the project sites in 10 districts, among which the construction works in Shatin and Eastern Districts had been commenced and tenders were being invited for operating the service contract for the project in Shatin. Most of the DCs generally supported the project while some opined that the Government should pay attention to the site management and promotion strategy so that the public would not misunderstand that CGS was a refuse disposalpoint. The EPD would incorporate more green elements to the project for the beautification of community. Moreover, environmental education activities would be organised for the public. There were views that the public would confuse the CGS with refuse depot. Therefore, the project would be named as “Development of a CGS in the C&W District”.

(v) Given the limited land resources in the C&W District, the EPD and the Lands Department (LandsD) were identifying the project site and the study was still in progress. The EPD suggested the provision of no less than 1 500 square metres of the site for office, environmental education, recycling support and greening purposes. The location should be accessible to local residents so as to facilitate their participation in environmental education activities.

6. The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows:

(i) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai supported the project and considered it necessary to implement the project in the 18 districts. He suggested the EPD enhance promotion on recycling andrelax conditions for operators to include organisations other than those covered by Section 88 of Inland Revenue Ordinance.

(ii) Mr CHAN Choi-hi supported the above project. He recommended the FEHD to help identify suitable sites. Moreover, he suggested the FEHD design a mascot for promotion and communicate with DC Members of the constituency concerned and the local community upon selection of the sites. He also enquired about the management and operation mode of the project.

(iii) Ms CHENG Lai-king supported the project. She opined that it was difficult to identify sites in the C&W District and suggested the department consider using the area underneath the flyover. In addition, she pointed out that it was impossible to provide convenience to all residents regardless of the location of the project site. She hoped the recyclables would be donated to the needy and suggested the FEHD allocate part of the land adjacent to the existing refuse depot for the project.

- 5 - (iv) Mr MAN Chi-wah supported the vision of the project, yet he indicated that the department did not provide any specific details. He opined that it was contradictory for the department to identify an easily accessible site for the project without causing nuisance to the residents nearby. He proposed to set up a management committee to encourage the participation of DC Members of the constituency and the community in project management. He suggested the Government consider setting up fixed collection points for recyclables and outsourced to recyclers to mitigate the nuisance to the residents.

(v) Mr HUI Chi-fung said that the project was a new idea and it was difficult to envisage that the project would not cause nuisance to nearby residents and its difference with refuse depots in general. He pointed out that no specific details of the project were provided and extensive discussions must be held with the DC and the community for the idea to mature. As there were non-profitmaking organisations engaging in recycling at present, he was concerned that whether the project would take over their functions and its effectiveness. He indicated that each of the districts had its own characteristics of waste recycling and enquired whether the project could handle the recycling of the large quantity of glass bottles in SOHO and how to mitigate the nuisance caused by recycling.

(vi) Mr Joseph CHAN welcomed the EPD’s decision to allocate more resources to promote the culture of “use less, waste less” at the district level. He pointed out that there was a hung demand among the residents of his constituency for glass and food waste recycling and enquired whether the department would include the recycling of food wastes in the project in future. He enquired whether the project could cope with the demand for recycling in the entire C&W District and how the department would allocate the recycling quota to various districts. He further enquired about the transport arrangement of recycling and asked whether residents of the entire C&W District could be served. He hoped the department could step up publicity for the project in order to beneift more students and members of public.

(vii) Miss SIU Ka-yi supported the project and opined that there were difficulties in identifying a site of not less than 1 500 square metres as proposed by the department. Moreover, she considered the project site selection had limited the residents served and suggested the department expand the types of recyclables to be collected.

(viii) Mr WONG Kin-shing said that it was difficult to educate the public on recyclable cleansing and suggested the department step up public education. Moreover, he enquired how the department would handle the matter if the non- profit making organisations operating the project closed down upon project commencement.

(ix) Mr CHAN Hok-fung suggested the department consider using collection vehicles for recycling on a pilot basis and collecting wastes at designated times and venues to reduce the project cost. He urged the department to accord high priority to tackling the hygiene problem caused by frequent overflowing of

- 6 - recycling bins in the district.

(x) Mr YIP Wing-shing supported the project and advised the department to carefully consider the site selection and the impact on existing recyclers.

(xi) Mr Thomas NG asked the department whether multi-storey buildings would be built on the project site.

(xii) The Chairman agreed with the views of the above Members and said that it would cause nuisance to residents if the project site was easily accessible. Moreover, he considered that it was difficult to identify a vacant site for the project due to space constraint in the district. He also agreed that the department could consider according priority to food waste recycling. He suggested the department recycle non-competitive goods on a pilot basis first.

7. Mr Samson LAI stressed the importance of “clean recycling” and said the project was mainly aimed at educating the public on recycling. He pointed out that the EPD had proactively approached various non-profit making organisations before project implementation and thus the tendering exercise in Shatin received good response. He understood that it was difficult to identify a site of not less than 1 500 square metres in the C&W District and there was no plan to set up the CGS adjacent to the refuse depot of the FEHD in principle to avoid disturbing its operation and this was not in line with the objective of promoting environmental education. He indicated that the CGS in the Eastern District would be located underneath the Island Eastern Corridor while the CGS in Shum Shui Po would be located underneath the West Kowloon Corridor. Therefore, the department would proactively consider setting up the CGS in the C&W District underneath flyovers where practicable. In response to Members’ suggestion to broaden the types of recyclables, he pointed out that due to the low recycling value of glass bottles and fluorescent lamps, the project would not overlap with recycling services available in the market. Moreover, regarding the proposal of recycling old furniture and clothing, he indicated that the organisations concerned could recommend the proposal to the operators of the project if the items could be recycled properly and sustainably. Meanwhile, the department hoped the operators could set up a resource centre to answer enquiries of the public on recycling. He stated that there were many old buildings in the C&W District and some were without property management companies. There was hardly any space for placing three-colour recycling bins. It was hoped that the project could render assistance to the parties concerned. He said that the Government would not solely rely on this project to recycle glass bottles, and that glass bottle recycling programmes would be implemented at territory-wide level. He said that operators would be regulated by contract terms which would incorporate the views of local stakeholders on the organisation of activities promoting environmental recycling. He believed that the project would be successful with the coordination of various parties. The department would conduct a retendering exercise if the operator withdrew from the project.

8. The Chairman concluded that Members generally supported the project but as there was no information regarding site selection and contractor for the project at present, he suggested the department provide more information for further discussion.

- 7 - Item 5: Further Enhancing Coastal Water Quality of Victoria Harbour (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 57/2014)

(3:22 pm to 3:53 pm)

9. Miss Amy YUEN, Assistant Director (Water Policy) of the EPD, briefed Members on the paper as follows:

(i) Stage 1 of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS) was commissioned in 2001 and construction of HATS Stage 2A was under way with a view to improving the water quality of Victoria Harbour. However, there were still residual pollution discharges from various activities in densely populated urban areas into the urban coastal waters, causing odour and aesthetic problems along the coastal areas of Victoria Harbour.

(ii) With the development of new waterfront promenades on both sides, Victoria Harbour had become increasingly accessible to the public. In light of rising public aspirations for a pleasant harbourfront, the EPD would find more effective solutions with a view to improving the quality of the coastal waters of Victoria Harbour and alleviating the aesthetic and odour problems at near shore waters.

(iii) The EPD would conduct a consultancy study to identify targeted solutions through prevention at source and implementation of pollution control measures. The main points of the proposed scope of study were as follows:

(a) to carry out initial baseline surveys to establish overall conditions of near shore pollution levels in Victoria Harbour; (b) to review overseas experience in combating near shore water pollution that might be applicable to Victoria Harbour; (c) to identify priority areas for improvement; (d) to carry out evidence-based reviews of individual areas to identify pollution sources affecting regional coastal waters, e.g. expedient connection survey and non-point source pollution survey, etc.; (e) to carry out regional environmental investigation to assess the nuisance such as aesthetic and odour arising from the near shore water pollution; (f) to review the current schemes, legislative provisions and institutional arrangements combating near shore water pollution; (g) to explore practicable measures to prevent pollution at source (e.g. rectify any mis-connections in the sewerage and stormwater drainage systems, undertake land use planning, review the legislative provisions to enhance enforcement efficacy, etc.) and reduce pollution discharges through implementation of pollution control measures (e.g. engineering solutions and clean up actions, etc.); and (h) to formulate recommendations and timetable to enhance the overall water quality of Victoria Harbour, in particular the priority areas for improvement and areas of concern of the local community, with the long-

- 8 - term objective of enhancing its leisure and amenity value.

(iv) The EPD had consulted relevant experts and organisations on the direction and contents of the consultancy study. After consulting the views of DCs and other stakeholders, the EPD would formulate the detailed scope and requirements of the consultancy study for consultation of the Panel on Environmental Affairs of the Legislative Council (LegCo).

(i) Mr MAN Chi-wah enquired what measures would be taken by the EPD to follow up the matter and improve the water quality of Victoria Harbour upon completion of the consultancy study report. Furthermore, he asked whether the EPD had sufficient manpower to tackle near shore pollution and suggested the department step up enforcement actions.

(ii) Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired about the estimated cost of conducting the consultancy study and suggested other departments step up enforcement actions to reduce pollution at source.

(iii) Mr HUI Chi-fung asked whether the impacts on the water quality of Victoria Harbour arising from reclamation works would be included in future consultancy studies.

(iv) The Chairman indicated that HATS Stage 1 had been commenced in 1994 and asked why the consultancy study was only conducted 20 years after its commencement. In addition, he hoped that the EPD would respond to the proposal of releasing the existing office space of HATS Division, Drainage Services Department (DSD) at Western Magistracy Building for community use as discussed in the C&WDC on a number of occasions.

11. Miss Amy YUEN said that HATS contributed to the improvement in the water quality of Victoria Harbour. However, the numerous types of pollution discharges from various activities in urban areas had caused aesthetic and odour problems along the coastal areas of Victoria Harbour. The EPD hoped to find out the specific reasons causing near shore pollution through the study, so as to jointly formulate effective solutions with various departments. The EPD was consulting the DCs concerned and would draw up the actual estimate for the study after collecting views from various parties. Generally, reclamation works could only be carried out after relevant assessment had been conducted in accordance with established procedures.

12. Mr KOO Siu-long, Engineer/SD1 of the DSD, said that he would provide the information on the office of HATS Division after the meeting as he did not have the information at hand. He indicated that the DSD, the EPD, the FEHD and the Buildings Department (BD) had been jointly conducting works for misconnections of drainage pipes and that the DSD had shown support to the study plan.

- 9 - 13. The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows:

(i) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai enquired, apart from the discharges at Pearl River Estuary, what factors had caused excessive total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) and when HATS Stage 2A and Stage 2B would be commenced and completed.

(ii) Mr HUI Chi-fung enquired about the proportion of impacts arising from reclamation works on water pollution and suggested including it in the consultancy study.

14. Miss Amy YUEN said that apart from the higher background level of the discharge from Pearl River, the sewage discharged from the four existing preliminary treatment works located between North Point and Central as well as the surface run-off were also factors affecting the TIN level. It was expected that major works of HATS Stage 2A would be completed this year and would come into operation next year. The sewage discharged from the preliminary treatment works would then be treated properly. In addition, HATS Stage 2B required more substantial investment. The department would review the implementation of Stage 2B from time to time in response to the water quality and the latest technological development. For each reclamation project, it was necessary to go through relevant statutory procedures and assessment before project commencement. Various monitoring works would also be carried out during the works period. A baseline survey would be included in the consultancy study to assess the near shore pollution of various parts of the Victoria Harbour.

15. The Chairman concluded that a majority of Members supported the consultancy study concerned.

Item 6: Youth Hostel Scheme – Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (TWGHs) Sheung Wan Youth Hostel (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 58/2014)

(3:53 pm – 4:43 pm)

16. Ms Margaret WONG, Assistant Community Services Secretary (Youth & Family) of the TWGHs, briefed Members on the paper as follows:

(i) The Chief Executive announced in July 2012 that the Government would provide non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with the full capital cost for developing hostels and associated facilities under the Youth Hostel Scheme (the Scheme). In February 2013, the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) announced at the meeting of the Panel on Home Affairs of the LegCo about the implementation of the TWGHs project in Sheung Wan.

(ii) In order to achieve the policy objectives, the HAB had set the policy framework for the Scheme as follows: (a) Rental and tenancy period: The rental should not exceed 60% of the market rent of flats with similar size in the nearby areas. In order to

- 10 - facilitate the turnover of hostel units, the first tenancy should be at least two years, which could be renewed for an aggregate of no more than five years. (b) Age and permanent residence of target tenants: The target tenants should be working youths (including self-employed) who were Hong Kong permanent residents aged between 18 and 30. (c) Income limits: The income level of a one-person household applicant should not exceed the 75th percentile of the monthly employment earnings of employed persons aged between 18 and 30, and the income level of a two-person household applicant should not exceed twice the level of a one-person household. (d) Asset limits: The total net asset limit for a one-person household should not exceed $300,000 while that for a two-person household should not exceed $600,000. (e) Property ownership: The applicants should not solely or jointly own any residential property in Hong Kong, or hold any residential property in Hong Kong through a company.

(iii) The proposed site of the youth hostel in Sheung Wan was located at 122A-130 Hollywood Road (the site at which former TWGHs Lee Sai Chow Memorial Primary School was situated) with an area of about 445 square meters. It was preliminarily estimated that the gross floor area was about 8 000 square meters.

(iv) The youth hostel would be a 18-storey building with 120 single rooms and 93 double rooms, with a view to providing a total of 306 hostel places.

(v) The proposed site was currently zoned for “Government, Institution or Community” (G/IC) use with a building height restriction of eight storeys. The TWGHs was planning to apply to the Town Planning Board (TPB) for amending the outline zoning planand rezoning the site to “G/IC(2)” where “Residential Institution” use and relaxation of building height restriction to 18 storeys were permitted.

(vi) The planning application was expected to be submitted to the TPB in August 2014 so that the TPB could assess the application by the end of this year.

(i) Miss SIU Ka-yi supported the Scheme. She said that the DC had received many comments from the residents, including those who would like to know the data of various assessment studies conducted by the specialist consultants appointed by the TWGHs and the visual impact brought by the proposed height of the youth hostel on the buildings nearby, such as Grandview Garden. She suggested adding green elements to the design but did not agree to open the rooftop garden to the public. She also said that the tenants of the youth hostel were not likely to use the car park and suggested opening it for the mobile library van to park.

- 11 - (ii) Mr Joseph CHAN said that there was no concrete data in the assessment report to explain the traffic impact brought by the proposed youth hostel. Therefore, he requested the TWGHs to provide specific information.

(iii) Mr HUI Chi-fung enquired whether the HAB would conduct biennial reviews upon completion of the Scheme to facilitate understanding of the assistance provided by the youth hostel to young people. He also enquired when the Scheme would be completed and whether it would be extended. Besides, as the number of hostel units was rather small, he enquired how the suitable tenants would be selected if the number of eligible applicants was greater than that of hostel units.

(iv) Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired whether the TWGHs could provide more information regarding the visual impact brought by the youth hostel on the buildings in the vicinity of Bridges Street, and whether the stone door frame engraved with the characters “dao wo” (“蹈和”) at Ping On Lane be preserved during the demolition of the TWGHs Lee Sai Chow Memorial Primary School. She also enquired whether environmental friendly design would be adopted for the facilities of the hostel, and whether the hostel would be leased to local organisations. She hoped that a community liaison group could be formed. In addition, she asked whether a three-person household could apply for the hostel units and under what circumstances the tenants would be required to move out of the hostel, and whether the application for double rooms was opened to married couples only.

(v) Mr CHAN Choi-hi suggested making reference to the practice of setting up a community liaison group by the University of Hong Kong at the opening of the residence hall at Lung Wah Street. He opined that it would be insufficient to provide only six rooms for disabled persons and suggested increasing the number to 10 to 12.

(vi) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai supported the Scheme and agreed to exempt the tenants from asset test for the renewal of tenancies. However, he had reservations about the application for “minor relaxation” of building height restriction to be submitted by the TWGHs to the TPB. He commended the design of the hostel for uncovering the east façade of Man Mo Temple.

(vii) Mr KAM Nai-wai enquired whether there were places in the rooms for cooking and about the estimated rent. He also requested the TWGHs to account for the proposed height of the hostel at 18 storeys and elaborate on its impact on Man Mo Temple.

(viii) Mr CHAN Hok-fung supported the Scheme. Nevertheless, he relayed residents’ concerns about the impact of the hostel on the view of their flats. He enquired whether the TWGHs and the HAB had liaised with the affected residents. He agreed to the suggestion of setting up a community liaison group to enable young tenants to integrate into the community.

- 12 - (ix) Mr LI Po-ming enquired whether the site was zoned for recreational or residential use. He reckoned that the higher the hostel the better it would be, for it would be able to accommodate more young people. He enquired of the TWGHs about the mechanism for rent increase and whether there was a mechanism for termination of tenancy.

(x) Mr YIP Wing-shing supported the Scheme, taking the view that it could meet the aspirations of young people for their own living space. He advised the TWGHs to carefully address the issue regarding the impact of the hostel on its surrounding buildings. He agreed to set up a community liaison group to link the hostel tenants to the residents in the vicinity and DC Members of the constituency. He called for the adoption of more green designs.

18. Mr Alex LAU, Assistant Secretary of the HAB, said that the target tenants of the Scheme were working youths aged between 18 and 30. The rent should not exceed 60% of the market rent of flats in similar size in the nearby areas so that young people were given an opportunity to accumulate more savings for upward mobility. The HAB had consulted the Panel on Home Affairs of the LegCo on the Scheme’s framework in February 2013 and received its support. He responded that the rent would be adjusted with the prevailing price index in a timely manner and double rooms were not restricted to married couples. The first tenancy lasted for three years, which could be renewed for an aggregate of no more than five years. In order to provide more rooms, cooking equipment would only be provided in the common kitchen on the second floor of the hostel. As the hostel would be operated by a NGO on a self-financing basis, it had to provide enough hostel places to achieve fiscal balance. He remarked that the HAB would discuss and review the interface between the Scheme and the eligibility for public housing with the departments concerned.

19. Mr Daniel HO, Assistant Director of CYS Associates (Hong Kong) Ltd., said that in response to the hostel’s needs, two parking spaces for private cars, a loading/unloading space for goods vehicles and a pick-up/drop-off space for small coaches would be provided. The consultant had also conducted a traffic impact assessment at the roads in the vicinity of Hollywood Road with reference to the projected traffic flow in 2022 and found that the Scheme would have no negative impact. Regarding the environmental aspect, as the proposed hostel would be installed with a central fresh air supply system and split-type air- conditioners, it would not be affected by vehicle emissions and the smoke nuisance generated from Man Mo Temple. A high-ceiling design with a height of 13.25 metres would be adopted for the ground floor to enable the viewing of Man Mo Temple from different angles. As the height of the hostel (94.8mPD) would be lower than that of Grandview Garden (130.6mPD), the view of 11 floors of the latter would not be obstructed. Besides, with the two buildings located at a distance from each other rather than densely packed, he believed that the visual impact would be acceptable. He also undertook to preserve the stone door frame engraved with the characters “dao wo” (“蹈和”) at Ping On Lane as far as possible.

20. Ms Margaret WONG agreed to Members’ suggestions and said that the TWGHs would strive to incorporate more green elements into the design and consider increasing the hostel places for disabled persons. She added that there would be a pantry on each floor of the hostel. Sharing the view that there was a need to strengthen the communication among

- 13 - the residents, community and DC Members, she undertook to consider setting up a community liaison group.

21. The Chairman said that Members did not object to the TWGH’s application for the change of land use and relaxation of height restriction for the hostel to be submitted to the TPB in principle.

(i) Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired whether there were windows in the rooms for ventilation.

(ii) Miss SIU Ka-yi enquired of the consultant whether only the view of 11 floors of Grandview Garden would not be obstructed by the hostel.

23. Mr Daniel HO responded that there were windows for ventilation and the hostel would not obstruct the view of the 11 floors of Grandview Garden that were higher than its main roof.

24. The Chairman concluded that the Committee suggested the TWGHs and the HAB consult the residents in the vicinity on the proposed height of the hostel at 18 storeys. The Committee did not object to altering the statutory land use of the proposed site of the hostel.

Item 7: Concern over the I mplication of the S tructural C onditions of “Cadogan” in Kennedy Town on the S urrounding E nvironment (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 55/2014)

(4:43 – 4:52 pm)

25. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had written to the BD on 2 July 2014, inviting it to send representatives to the meeting to join the discussion. The BD replied in writing on 10 July that it could not send representatives to the meeting and suggested Mrs Aka CHEUNG, the standing representative of the BD, convey the proposals to the colleagues concerned after the meeting for follow-up actions.

26. Mr CHAN H ok-fung said that the incident was just the tip of an iceberg. Similar situations had occurred at the Ibis Hotel and Full Harvest Building at Hau Wo Street where the newly constructed buildings had affected the surrounding environment. He was concerned that the BD had not consulted or informed the public and DC Members about the details of design when granting approval to building plans. He asked whether the BD had conducted site visits and assessed the impact of buildings on residents nearby before approval was granted. Furthermore, he pointed out that as the clubhouse walls of “Cadogan” were in white, other flats in the vicinity became hotter due to light reflection. In view of this, he pointed out that the BD did not fully consider the design.

27. Mrs Aka CHEUNG said that BD staff would conduct site visits before and after granting

- 14 - approval to building plans. However, she did not have the detailed information and would check with the colleagues concerned and provide the supplementary information after the meeting. She would refer the issue concerning the clubhouse of “Cadogan” raised by Mr CHAN Hok-fung to the colleagues concerned.

28. Mr CHAN Hok-fung proposed writing to the Secretary of Development to reprimand the BD for its failure to send representatives to the meeting to join the discussion and consider the implication of the structural conditions on the surrounding environment during the approval process.

Item 8: “Smart Power Fund” Scheme of Hongkong Electric Company, Limited (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 59/2014)

(4:52 – 5:14 pm)

29. The Chairman declared that he had participated in the design of the Scheme and was a member of the Vetting Committee. Therefore, he asked the Vice-chairman to chair the meeting on his behalf.

30. Mr Stephen HO, Manager (Sustainable Development) of the Hongkong Electric Company Limited (HK Electric), briefed Members on the Scheme as follows:

(i) To encourage and help Owners’ Corporations (OCs) of residential buildings or composite buildings with substantial portions for residential use to improve the energy efficiency performance of their existing building services installations for communal use, the Smart Power Fund (the Fund) would provide subsidies, on a 50/50 matching basis, to assist in implementing the corresponding projects.

(ii) OCs satisfying the following criteria were eligible to apply: - OCs (registered under the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344)) of residential buildings or composite buildings with substantial portions for residential use, and - the corresponding buildings were located within the HK Electric’s service territory.

(iii) Priority would be given to: - single-block residential buildings or composite buildings with substantial portions for residential use - cases recommended by DCs, NGOs or green groups - buildings previously audited by the HK Electric under its Energy Audit Programme

(iv) Improvement works (excluding addition works) to upgrade the energy efficiency performance of existing building services installations (including lighting, electrical installations, air-conditioning, lifts and escalators) for communal use were eligible for application. Only project items that contributed directly to the improvement of energy efficiency of relevant building services installations were eligible for

- 15 - subsidies.

(v) 50% of the actual expenditure on the approved energy efficiency project items would be reimbursed subject to a maximum of HK$200,000 per each building per application. Under special conditions to be justified by the applicant organisation, the HK Electric and the Vetting Committee would consider, case by case, to accept funding application up to HK$300,000 per each building per application.

(vi) Regarding the application and vetting process, the HK Electric would conduct a preliminary on-site inspection upon receipt of the application. The Vetting Committee of the Fund would assess the applications quarterly. The recipient organisation should start the project within 12 months and complete it within 24 months after the announcement of application results. Upon completion of the project, the recipient organisation had to submit a complete statement of accounts together with the project completion report. A joint site post-installation inspection between the recipient organisation and the HK Electric would be carried out and funding would be granted upon completion of the inspection.

(vii) DC Members and Members were invited to facilitate the implementation of the Scheme at the district level, such as making recommendations and referrals on buildings that were eligible for the Scheme and engaging the HK Electric in appropriate activities to introduce the Scheme to residents.

31. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows:

(i) Mr WONG Kin-shing enquired whether there was any restriction on the age of buildings and whether OCs had to appoint consultants to assess the energy efficiency of the works concerned before applying for the Fund.

(ii) Miss SIU Ka-yi welcomed the less stringent eligibility criteria for the Scheme. She enquired whether applicants had to appoint professionals to verify the energy efficiency brought by the works concerned before funding could be granted.

(iii) Mr MAN Chi-wah said that the cost of OCs would be increased if the HK Electric required applicants to conduct energy efficiency assessment for the works concerned. He suggested the HK Electric arrange its own professionals to conduct the assessment. He enquired whether the HK Electric would consider the applications from district organisations.

(iv) Ms CHENG Lai-king asked whether it was the HK Electric’s only request that the energy efficiency of buildings be enhanced as a whole and there was no need to provide exact figures.

32. Mr Stephen HO said that there was no restriction on the age of buildings under the Scheme. He pointed out that the Fund was primarily aimed at enahncing the energy efficiency of existing building services installations for communal use. He said that for

- 16 - simple works in general, such as replacement of energy-saving light bulbs including T5 tubes, fluorescent lamps and LED light bulbs, it was not necessary for applicants to appoint consultants to assess the energy efficiency of works. He pointed out that the Scheme was mainly targeted at residential buildings. As for non-residential buildings, the HK Electric had also provided other assistance such as free energy audit service and Energy Efficiency Loan Scheme. He also stressed that the works concerned must be able to enhance the energy efficiency of buildings.

33. The Chairman said that whether to appoint consultants to assess the energy efficiency of the works would depend on the scope and scale of applications. Applicants had to verify that the works could enhance energy efficiency. The Chairman pointed out that referral of suitable buildings for participation in the Scheme was not included in the terms of reference of any committees under the DC.

34. Mr Stephen HO supplemented that the improvement works for enhancing energy efficiency must comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Ordinance, including appointing registered energy assessors to verify that the building services installations involved in the works were in compliance with the Building Energy Code before the Form of Compliance could be issued.

35. Ms Christianne Lam, Manager (Community Investment) of the HK Electric, welcomed the DC and individual DC Members to refer eligible buildings to participate in the Scheme and would accord priority to the applications concerned.

36. Ms CHENG Lai-king suggested the HK Electric handle the applications of OCs interested in the Scheme directly and it was not necessary to accord priority to cases referred by the DC and individual DC Members.

Item 9 : Funding Application of FEHWC: Year-end Cleaning Campaign 2015 (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 63/2014)

(5:14 to 5:17 pm)

37. The Chairman said that the FEHWC of the C&W District was provided with an allocation of $132,000 this year and the FEHWC had endorsed an allocation of $38,250 to organise the “Anti-mosquito Campaign 2014”. The remaining allocation could be reserved for organising the “Year-end Cleaning Campaign 2015” which mainly included distribution of cleansing kits in four markets in the district and inspection of environmental hygiene of the streets nearby.

38. Mr CHAN Choi-hi proposed to reduce the cost of each cleansing kit to increase the quantity of kits for distribution.

39. After discussion, the Committee unanimously endorsed an allocation of $93,750 for organising the above activity. The Committee would submit the funding application to the Finance Committee for approval.

- 17 - Item 10 : Bad Smell Problems with the Drains in Belcher Bay (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 60/2014)

(5:17 to 5:18 pm)

40. Members noted the contents of the paper.

Item 11 : Notification Mechanism and Emergency Procedure Regarding Urgent Suspension of Water Supply and Progress of Replumbing Works in the C&W District (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 62/2014)

(5:18 to 5:19 pm)

41. The Chairman said that the FEHWC had discussed the concerns over the suspension of water supply in the Western District on the New Year’s Day at the first meeting on 16 January 2014 and the Water Supplies Department wrote to the Committee on 11 July 2014 to give an account of the department’s enhanced arrangement for the notification mechanism and contingency measures regarding urgent suspension of water supply as well as the latest progress on the replacement of aged water mains in the C&W District.

Item 1 2 : Action C hecklist of the M atters A rising from the Third M eeting of FEHWC (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 64/2014)

(5:19 to 5:20 pm)

42. Members noted the contents of the paper.

Item 13: Any Other Business

(5:19 to 5:21 pm)

43. Mr Kent CHOI, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Central & Western) 2 of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), reported the latest progress of the improvement and beautification works of the huge slope between No. 7 Lyttelton Road and Oaklands Avenue as follows:

(i) As the slope was overgrown with trees and other plants which caused darkness in the environment, the department was now discussing with the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) the proposals of beautification works, including hydroseeding on the slope, or planting of shade tolerant shrubs or ferns in existing vacant planting holes.

- 18 - (ii) To enhance greening effect, the ArchSD would provide additional planting holes on the cement surface of the slope ridge for planting climbing vegetation such that they could extend freely from the crest to the toe of the slope.

(iii) As for the knolls below the slope, due to the dark environment, the ArchSD would arrange for removal of gravels and debris on the ground before handing them over to the LCSD for beautification, including hydroseeding, or planting of shade tolerant shrubs or ferns where appropriate.

(iv) To prevent access to the slope by the public and dogs, the path at Lyttleton Road and Oaklands Avenue/Kotewall Road would be enclosed by fences.

(v) Bricks would be laid on the sides of the nullah near Beauty Court to prevent soil erosion, thereby reducing the chance of drainage blockage while steel plates would be installed on the nullah adjacent to the pavement of Lyttelton Road.

Item 14 : Date of the N ext M eeting (5:21 pm)

44. The next FEHWC meeting would be held on 23 October 2014. The paper submission deadline for government departments would be 30 September 2014, while the deadline for Members would be 8 October 2014. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:21 pm.

The minutes were confirmed on 23 October 2014

Chairman: Mr Sidney LEE

Secretary: Miss Angel YIP

Central and Western District Council Secretariat October 2014

- 19 -