(Translation)

Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee of Council (5th Term)

Date: 19 October 2017 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 a.m. Venue: Conference Room, Sham Shui Po District Council

Present

Chairman Mr YAN Kai-wing

Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH, JP Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy (Arrived at 9:45 a.m.) Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, BBS, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Arrived at 9:55 a.m.; left at 11:10 a.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 10:50 p.m.; left at 12:50 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin (Arrived at 11 a.m.) Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 11:30 a.m.) Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, BBS, JP (Arrived at 10:40 a.m.) Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr LEE Tsz-king, Dominic (Left at 1:30 p.m.) Mr LEE Wing-man Mr LEUNG Man-kwong Ms NG Yuet-lan (Left at 1:30 p.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP Mr WAI Woon-nam (Left at 11:30 a.m.) Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP (Arrived at 10:30 a.m.; left at 1 p.m.) Mr YEUNG Yuk (Arrived at 10:15 a.m.)

Co-opted Members Mr CHEUNG Tak-wai (Arrived at 9:38 a.m.) Mr FUNG Man-tao, Joshua (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.; left at 11:55 a.m.) Mr LI Kwing (Left at 12:55 a.m.) Ms TANG Mei-ching

- 2 - Action by

In Attendance Miss CHEUNG Yun-chee, Freda Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Mr WONG Leung-ping, Ben Senior Liaison Officer 2, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr LAI Huen-lam, Stephen Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1, Social Welfare Department Mrs CHENG IP Sau-fong, Susanna Senior Housing Manager/(KWS) 1, Housing Department Miss AU Mei-lin, Rebecca Senior Housing Manager/(KWS) 2, Housing Department Mr CHAN Yiu-keung, Dominic Senior Housing Manager/Redevelopment, Housing Department Mr FUNG Chi-hang, Victor Acting Senior Architect (1), Housing Department Ms CHU Yuet-han Acting Housing Manager/CP 5, Housing Department Ms WONG Lai-fong Housing Manager/KWS8, Housing Department Miss CHENG Kwok-lan Housing Manager/KWS3, Housing Department Mr CHAN Hau-chung Divisional Officer ( West), Fire Services Department

Secretary Mr CHU Ka-chun, Alex Executive Officer (District Council) 4, Sham Shui Po District Office

Absent

Members Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman

- 3 - Action by

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed members and representatives of government departments to the eleventh meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee (“HAC”).

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of minutes

2. The Committee confirmed the minutes of the tenth meeting held on 27 July 2017 without amendment.

Agenda Item 2: Matters for discussion

(a) The phased clearance programme for the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate The redevelopment of the older parts of Pak Tin Estate (Phases 12 and 13) (HAC Paper 76/17)

3. Miss Rebecca AU, Mr Victor FUNG, Mr Dominic CHAN and Ms CHU Yuet-han introduced Paper 76/17.

4. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following enquiries: (i) the current number of tenants and units of Blocks 9, 10, 11 (Phase 13) and Block 13 (Phase 12); (ii) the number of car owners and parking spaces affected by the demolition works under Phase 10 and the scheme to deal with the problem; (iii) the Department intended to rehouse the tenants of Phase 13 to Phases 7 and 8, and the tenants of Phase 12 to Phase 11, he enquired whether it was possible to allow the residents of Phases 12 and 13 to make their choice at the same time; (iv) the information on the size of newly-built units, etc. allocated to tenants.

5. Mr CHAN Wai-ming said that he noted that the Department would allow those Pak Tin Estate tenants who chose to vacate early to move to So Uk Estate which would be ready for occupation in mid-2018, he enquired of the Department about the number of units that would be reserved for tenants. He hoped that the Department would provide detailed information for reference of the District Council (“DC”).

6. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired about the reasons why Phases 12 and 13 of Pak Tin Estate could not be redeveloped at the same time, and considered that it was more desirable to have them redeveloped at the same time; (ii) many residents of Phase 12 hoped to move to So Uk Estate, but they worried about the availability of suitable units because Phase 13 would be demolished first and its tenants allowed to make selection first. He hoped that Phases 12 and 13 could be demolished at the same time, so that the tenants of both phases might make their selection at the same - 4 - Action by time; (iii) he enquired about the details of the new primary school to be provided by the Department and the Education Bureau (“EB”) at the site of Phase 12.

7. Ms TANG Mei-ching pointed out that the shop owners of Pak Tin Estate were affected by the redevelopment works with business slackened a great deal, and she raised the following enquiries: (i) the number of shop owners the Department had approached and their response to the arrangement regarding subsidies and the rent-free period; (ii) the difference in rent between the new shopping centre and the old one, she considered that if the rent charged by the new shopping centre was too high, the shop owners might not be able to afford; (iii) the data on the size of newly-built units.

8. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) as the car park of Pak Tin Estate would be demolished in April next year, he enquired whether the Department would liaise with relevant departments to convert the idle sites in the district into temporary car parks to cater to the demand for parking spaces in the district; (ii) he enquired when the old Pak Tin Catholic Primary School would be demolished, he worried that if the old school was to be demolished after the completion of the new one, the demolition works would cause serious nuisance to the students of the new school premises. Hence, he hoped that the Department would make satisfactory arrangement.

9. Miss Rebecca AU responded as follows:

(i) At present, there were 346 parking spaces for private vehicles and motor cycles in Pak Tin Shopping Centre, and the letting rate was about 80%. Such parking spaces would be leased out until March 31 next year and the Department would notify the affected vehicle owners in advance.

(ii) At present, quite a number of parking spaces in the Shopping Centre were rented by non-residents of Pak Tin Estate. The Department would put in place a mechanism to give priority to the processing of applications for the parking spaces in the Shopping Centre made by Pak Tin Estate residents, in order to offset the decrease in the number of parking spaces due to the demolition of car park, and minimise the impact on residents.

(iii) The Department would make appropriate deployment so that some hourly parking spaces in Pak Tin Estate would be used as monthly and hourly parking spaces, and some parking spaces for goods vehicles would also be turned into parking spaces for private vehicles. Meanwhile, in the adjacent housing estates such as , Shek Kip Mei Estate and Chak On Estate, there were parking spaces available for application by non-residents, and this might alleviate the shortage problem of parking spaces. - 5 - Action by

(iv) The Department would continue to take an open position and identify other suitable locations for car parking purpose.

(v) The works regarding Phases 7 and 8 was scheduled to be completed by 2019/2020 when 94 car parking spaces would be provided.

10. Mr Dominic CHAN responded as follows:

(i) According to the data, there were about 1 400 tenants in Phase 13 and about 800 odd tenants in Phase 12. The redevelopment of Phases 7 to 8 of Pak Tin Estate could provide 2 030 units which would be used to rehouse the tenants of Phase 13 affected by the demolition works, while the 1 088 units provided after the redevelopment of Phase 11 would be used to rehouse the tenants of Phase 12 affected by the demolition works. Since the units provided after the redevelopment of Phases 7 to 8 would be inadequate to rehouse the two batches of residents at the same time, hence the demolition works had to be carried out by two phases.

(ii) Regarding the reservation of units in Phase 2 of So Uk Estate, if not affected by other factors, arrangement could be made for the combined processing of early removal applications submitted by affected residents of the two phases. Regarding the number of units reserved, the Department was for the time being processing the registration of tenants so as to understand their demand for So Uk Estate units. He reiterated that with limited resources, the Department had to balance the needs of rehoused tenants and Public Rental Housing (“PRH”) applicants and make appropriate allocation.

11. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu requested the Department to provide information on the size of various types of units.

12. Mr Dominic CHAN responded that, Note 2 in HAC Paper 76/17 submitted by the Housing Department (“HD”) had set out the range of internal floor area of modular flats recently completed (i.e. type A units with internal floor area from 14.1 to 14.5 square metres; type B units with internal floor area from 21.4 to 22 square metres; type C units with internal floor area from 30.2 to 31 square metres; type D units with internal floor area from 35 to 36.1 square metres). Type A units were suitable for 1-or-2-person families; type B units were suitable for 2-or-3-person families; type C units were suitable for 3-or-4-person families; type D units were suitable for 4-or-5-person families. Subject to the availability of resources, HD would as far as possible allocate units with area reaching the ceiling of the standard to affected residents.

13. Mr Victor FUNG responded as follows: - 6 - Action by

(i) The housing estates newly provided by the Housing Authority (“HA”) adopted the established space allocation standard, namely a minimum of 7 square metres of internal floor area per person, when carrying out design work, and such allocation standard was also applicable to PRH residents affected by redevelopment. Since 2008, the standard modular flat design had been adopted for all new development projects of HA that were at the design stage; and HA had subsequently standardised the internal floor area of PRH units and Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) flats, and started to apply such standard to the PRH development projects designed in mid-2012 (including the redevelopment of Phases 7, 8 and 11 of Pak Tin Estate). This kind of units were completed one after another in recent years, residents were generally satisfied with the overall planning and design of the estate. The Department in designing new housing estates would adopt the same standard and rehouse affected residents with consideration to the rehousing resources that were available at the time.

(ii) In arranging rehousing, HA would, according to established space allocation standard, make allocation to affected tenants according to their family size. Under the current policy, the Department would as far as possible reserve adequate number of newly-built units in the same district or neighbouring districts for the rehousing of estate residents affected by redevelopment projects.

(iii) HD was aware that Pak Tin Catholic Primary School would be moved to new school premises, and according to current planning, the site of the existing Block 13 of Pak Tin Estate, after clearance, would be used for the construction of a new primary school by EB. As for the proposal of rebuilding the old school premises in-situ apart from providing new school premises, HA would collaborate with EB with regard to the design of the overall redevelopment, and reserve part of the land in Pak Tin Estate for EB to construct suitable school premises.

14. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following proposals: (i) the Department should demolish Phases 12 and 13 at the same time so that residents could select flats simultaneously to avoid the situation that residents of Phase 12 still unable to select flats of their choice after residents of Phase 13 had moved out; (ii) the Department and EB should give consideration to building Pak Tin Catholic Primary School and the other buildings of Pak Tin Estate during the same period so as to minimise the impact to residents and students.

15. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he was dissatisfied - 7 - Action by with the response of the Department, and considered that the Department should clear the buildings of the two phases and allow affected residents to enjoy the right of flat selection at the same time. The Department should be public-oriented and cater to the demands of residents; (ii) HA had mentioned that the units for rehousing the residents of Phases 12 and 13 would be specially designed to cater to residents’ needs, but the Department now pointed out that the units for rehousing would be the same as other units in terms of the standard adopted, it seemed that the Department had failed to fulfil its promise; (iii) he considered that the units after redevelopment should enable residents to improve their living environment, however, the unit allocated to a 5-person family merely complied with the standard of 7 square metres per person, and was too small for a 5-person family. He enquired of the Department whether it would exercise discretion in the allocation of units for 5-person and 6-person families; (iv) he considered that the Department should scrutinise the number of residents and non-residents among the tenants of car parking spaces, and solve the shortage problem of car parking spaces so that there would not be any illegal parking in the neighbourhood of Shek Kip Mei; (v) he pointed out that the moving of Pak Tin Catholic Primary School to Cheung Sha Wan was undesirable, and that in-situ redevelopment was a better option.

16. Ms NG Yuet-lan pointed out that it was regression for the Department to reduce the size of newly-built units without consulting DC and the public and such practice would lower the living standard of the grassroots.

17. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) he considered that it was improper for the Department to apply the same allocation standard across the board to tenants affected by redevelopment and applicants on the waiting list; (ii) he requested the Department to provide the completion timetable of the redevelopment scheme because the completion date must be taken into account in the selection of premises for rehousing purpose; (iii) he considered that Phases 12 and 13 should be redeveloped at the same time; (iv) he urged the Department to provide data on the portfolio of the families affected so that members could know the actual circumstances.

18. Mr YEUNG Yuk pointed out that it was unacceptable for the Department to reduce flat size so that the redeveloped units were smaller than the original ones by 6 to 7 square metres, thus compromising the living standard of residents. He reckoned that households living in units with a size of 7 square metres per person were actually overcrowded households, and that such allocation standard was not normal and should not be applied to redevelopment schemes.

19. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong had views as follows: (i) he proposed that the Department should exercise discretion in the allocation of units to 5-person families so that there would - 8 - Action by not be a large number of overcrowded households applying for the Living Space Improvement Transfer Scheme; which would give rise to much frontline work and problem of management; (ii) he urged the Department to provide as soon as possible the timetable for the redevelopment of Pak Tin Catholic Primary School and hoped that the old school premises would not be demolished after the opening of the new primary school as the works would affect the operation of the new primary school.

20. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu added that the Department, in the allocation of units, should make more allowances for families with two elders and, depending on their health status, let them enjoy the right of selecting units with bedrooms.

21. Miss Rebecca AU responded that the Department had analysed the data in respect of the renting of parking spaces and was fully aware of Pak Tin Estate residents’ demand for parking spaces. The Department would keep watch of the application for parking spaces, but based on projection according to the current basis, the figure was more or less the same as present. The Department would make adjustment in case the demand for parking spaces has outstripped supply.

22. Mr Dominic CHAN responded as follows:

(i) The Department was currently taking registration of residents’ wishes in order to calculate the number of So Uk Estate units that must be reserved for rehousing purpose. Since the Department must also consider the demand of PRH applicants, it could not provide the exact figure for the time being.

(ii) As Phases 7 and 8 and Phase 11 of Pak Tin Estate, which would which be completed at different time, would be used as rehousing resources for the demolition of Phases 13 and 12 respectively, the target demolition dates of the two phases were scheduled to be April 2020 and January 2021. In order to recover the land for the construction of PRH as soon as possible, the allocation of rehousing resources for the two phases to be demolished must be processed separately. Households affected by the clearance of Phase 13 must immediately move out after accepting the allocation of PRH unit, and the three blocks of PRH must be vacated before the target demolition date for redevelopment, while households affected by the demolition of Phase 12 also had to immediately move out after accepting the allocation of PRH unit and that block of PRH must be vacated before the target demolition date for redevelopment.

(iii) Since the number of units of Phases 7 and 8 was obviously inadequate to provide the rehousing resources required for the demolition of two phases, - 9 - Action by

and the number of various types of units of Phases 7 and 8 was also different from that required for the clearance of Phases 13 and 12, it was necessary to use Phases 7 and 8 and Phase 11 as the rehousing resources for the demolition of Phases 13 and 12 respectively, in order to cater to the needs of rehousing. Due to the different completion dates of different rehousing resources, the two phases must be cleared by phases.

23. Mr Victor FUNG added that EB was responsible for the construction of school premises, and the Department would cooperate as far as possible on the estate level, and keep watch of the impact of the scheme on Pak Tin Estate residents.

24. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu requested the Department to give response on the arrangement of unit allocation.

25. Mr Dominic CHAN pointed out that the Department would allocate units according to the space allocation standard.

26. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the Working Group on Public Housing (“WGPH”) had been following up on the redevelopment of PRH and hoped that the Department would send staff of the Pak Tin Estate redevelopment section to attend the meeting of WGPH on a regular basis; (ii) he requested the Department to provide the construction progress of premises and list out the number of floors constructed every week.

27. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu requested HD to disclose the assessment information in respect of the car park for members to follow up.

28. The Chairman concluded as follows: (i) the Committee and WGPH would continue to follow up on the matter, and requested HD to provide information on the construction progress and report the latest progress regarding the construction of the new primary school; (ii) since only one car park would remain after the demolition of Pak Tin Estate car park, it would not be able to accommodate the vehicles that were deprived of parking spaces as a result of the demolition of car park. He urged the Department to solve the problem of inadequate parking spaces before demolishing the car park; (iii) he proposed that the Department should learn residents’ rehousing wishes at the time of carrying out registration; (iv) he urged the Department to honour the commitment and ensure that the new units to be allocated as a result of the demolition of Pak Tin Estate would not be smaller than the units of Shek Kip Mei Estate to be allocated in 2012 when the demolition of Phases 7 and 8 was carried out; (v) he thanked the Department’s effort and requested the Department to follow up on the views of the Committee.

- 10 - Action by

(b) Redevelop Shek Kip Mei Estate immediately (HAC Paper 77/17)

29. The Chairman remarked that as Paper 77/17 and item 2 under follow-up matters were similar in nature, he proposed the two items be discussed together. Members had no objection.

30. Mr Kalvin HO introduced Paper 77/17.

31. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu added as follows: (i) in its efforts to strive for the relaxation of plot ratio, HA had undertaken to redevelop Shek Kip Mei Estate and agreed that Shek Kip Mei Estate met the four requirements for redevelopment. He did not understand why the situation had changed lately and considered that HA had broken its promise; (ii) the situation of Mei Tung Estate was the same as that of Phases 19 and 20 of Shek Kip Mei Estate, he queried why development could be carried out in Mei Tung Estate but not in Shek Kip Mei Estate; (iii) there seemed to be maladministration on the part of HA for its failure to notify residents and shop owners three years in advance of the completion of rehoused units.

32. Miss Rebecca AU responded as follows:

(i) She understood and was aware of members’ concern about the redevelopment scheme, and reiterated that there was no concrete redevelopment plan for Shek Kip Mei Estate for the time being.

(ii) Premises rebuilt at the sites of Phases 3, 6 and 7 would be allocated to PRH applicants on the waiting list. If residents of Shek Kip Mei Estate had special needs to move to the premises of Phases 3, 6 and 7, the Department would, depending on the circumstances of individual cases, give compassionate consideration.

(iii) The Department had discussed the problem of the old market of Shek Kip Mei with DC years ago, but no promise had been made in respect of redevelopment. The Department would, in consideration of circumstances, carry out improvement works to the market in order to improve the business environment. The new shopping facilities at the site of Phase 6 which were now being constructed included shops and market stalls. The Department would give consideration to district and market needs in its design, with the hope that the new and old commercial facilities within Shek Kip Mei Estate could complement each other and attract more customers. - 11 - Action by

33. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) he hoped that the Department could finalise the timetable for redevelopment as soon as possible; (ii) he considered that one housing estate could not accommodate two markets, and queried how the Department would deal with the owners of ground floor shops of the demolished buildings; (iii) he reckoned that since the old market was quite worn out and could not compete with new markets, the Department should take the opportunity of redeveloping Phase 6 to relocate the entire market, in order to provide desirable business environment; (iv) he asked the Department to follow up on members’ views.

34. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the Department should first make assessment before planning the market of Phase 6. He believed that the Department originally intended to replace the old market with the new one but currently indicated the hope of having the new and old markets complementing each other, this reflected that the Department probably had not conducted any assessment at the time or tried to conceal the facts, and such practice was undesirable; (ii) he considered that one housing estate could not accommodate two markets; it would be difficult for the shop owners of the old market to survive; (iii) he pointed out that the situation of Mei Tung Estate was very similar to that of Shek Kip Mei Estate, and hoped that the Department could treat redevelopment issues equally, otherwise it would amount to maladministration.

35. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) DC was the advisory structure of the Government but the Department paid no attention to the opinions of DC and residents; (ii) as it was not possible for one housing estate to accommodate two markets, the relevant arrangement was unreasonable; (iii) she hoped that the Department would take heed of the opinions of DC and not to do anything that might compromise the interests of the grassroots.

36. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) despite the submission of detailed information by the shop owners of the old market, the Department still indicated the necessity of making assessment and could not give a firm response, hence affecting the business operation of the shop owners; (ii) he hoped that the Department could respond to residents’ demand, and would not ignore the needs of residents simply for the sake of achieving the goal of building houses; (iii) he requested the Chairman to consider allowing the representatives of shop owners to speak.

37. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai raised the following views: (i) quite a number of shop owners hoped to move to the new market, he hoped that the Department could allow them to choose whether to move to the new market or not; (ii) the nine “numbered blocks” of Shek Kip Mei Estate had become dilapidated, but the Department still did not carry out redevelopment, thus affecting residents’ living quality. He hoped that the Department - 12 - Action by would finalise the timetable for redevelopment as soon as possible.

38. Ms LAU Pui-yuk raised the following views: (i) she was disappointed with the Department’s breaking of promise made in the past to redevelop the Estate, and pointed out that the spalling of concrete was serious at the “numbered blocks” of Shek Kip Mei Estate. She hoped that the Department would carry out its responsibilities and finalise the timetable for redevelopment as soon as possible; (ii) the reconstruction of the “numbered blocks” could not only improve the living environment of residents but also provide more units, so she did not understand why the Government had dragged its feet; (iii) she queried why optimisation of market had not been carried out, and pointed out that it was not appropriate to have two markets in one housing estate.

39. The Chairman proposed inviting the representatives of shop owners to express opinions on “one housing estate two markets”. Members had no objection. The representatives of shop owners who were in attendance at the meeting expressed their hope that the Department would finalise the relocation arrangement for shop owners of the old market and release relevant information timely.

40. Miss Rebecca AU responded as follows:

(i) She noted the views of members and shop owners, and would reflect them to the Department.

(ii) There was established policy on redevelopment, and the Department would consider whether individual housing estates could be incorporated into the list of redevelopment programmes on the basis of four principles. And, according to such principles, there was no exact timetable in respect of the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate for the time being.

(iii) She understood the business environment would be affected and competition would become more acute if there were two markets in one housing estate. However, the new shopping facilities including shops and market stalls being constructed at the site of Phase 6 of Shek Kip Mei Estate would adopt a new mode of operation, in the hope of minimising the impact on the shop owners of the old market.

41. Ms LAU Pui-yuk asked the Department to provide detailed information regarding the mode of operation of the new market.

42. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai enquired of the Department about the arrangement for the shop owners of Shek Kip Mei Estate and requested the Department to provide the plan and - 13 - Action by timetable for redevelopment.

43. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) Shek Kip Mei Estate was the first public housing estate in , and the shop owners now affected were hawkers originally. He requested the Department to seriously consider their needs in drawing up the redevelopment scheme; (ii) he considered that the Department should have decided whether the market would be redeveloped upon the formulation of the redevelopment programme, therefore, he requested the Department to disclose immediately the details so that shop owners could be prepared in advance. In case the Department decided not to implement redevelopment, it should carry out improvement works to the old market, such as installing air-conditioning facilities and improving the pipes, etc.

44. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he agreed that it was complicated to carry out large-scale redevelopment, but considered that it was worthwhile to do so as redevelopment could improve the situation of old districts; (ii) with the relaxation of plot ratio of Phases 3, 6 and 7 of Shek Kip Mei Estate, the number of units had increased by more than 400. Currently, Phases 3, 6 and 7 currently provided a total of over 1 500 units, and the Department might consider the allocation of 600 to 700 units for rehousing affected tenants; (iii) the Department years ago had indicated the intention to provide a new market and would make assessment as to the possibility of allowing the shop owners of the old market to move in. Yet the current practice of the Department seemed to have gone back on its words and misled the shop owners and tenants; (iv) he queried about the mode of operation of the new market and considered that the Department should give a clear account on that.

45. Miss Rebecca AU reiterated that there was no timetable in respect of the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate and the market for the time being, and there was no concrete information regarding the planning of the new market available, only the direction of development could be provided for the reference of DC.

46. The Chairman said that a provisional motion (Motion 1) moved by Mr Kalvin HO and seconded by Mr TAM Kwok-kiu was received.

47. The Chairman added as follows: (i) the Committee and HD had repeatedly discussed the issues of redevelopment and the new market, with shop owners in attendance at the meetings to give opinions. However, the Department now indicated that the new market would not be used to accommodate the shop owners of the old market; hence the shop owners affected were disappointed and perplexed; (ii) as the building section and the commercial section of the Department knew about the content of the redevelopment programme better, he proposed that the Department should send the staff of those two - 14 - Action by sections to attend the meeting to explain the mode of operation of the new market.

48. Mr Kalvin HO introduced the content of Motion 1 as follows: “HD is strongly reprimanded for going back on its words and ignoring its previous promise made to residents and shop owners in the past. This Committee requests HD to immediately announce the redevelopment of Blocks 19, 20 of Shek Kip Mei Estate with Phase 6 for the rehousing of affected residents. Meanwhile, the redevelopment of the old market of Shek Kip Mei Estate should also be announced immediately with the new market at Phase 6 reserved to relocate existing shop owners.”

49. Mr LEE Wing-man suggested adjourning the meeting for 15 minutes.

50. The Chairman announced that the meeting would be adjourned for five minutes.

[The meeting was adjourned for five minutes.]

51. The Chairman announced that the meeting was resumed and said that another provisional motion (Motion 2) moved by Mr CHAN Kwok-wai and seconded by Ms LAU Pui-yuk was received.

52. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai introduced the content of Motion 2 as follows: “HD is strongly reprimanded for ignoring the demands of residents and shop owners. This Committee requests HD to immediately announce the redevelopment of the “numbered blocks” of Shek Kip Mei Estate with the goal of in-situ rehousing. Meanwhile, the redevelopment of the old market of Shek Kip Mei Estate should also be announced immediately with the new market at Phase 6 reserved to relocate existing shop owners.”

53. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu enquired whether Motion 1 and Motion 2 were parallel motions.

54. The Chairman considered that as Motion 1 and Motion 2 were not contradictory to each other in terms of content with only slight difference in the scopes involved, so the two motions should be parallel motions.

55. Ms LAU Pui-yuk considered that Motion 1 was mainly concerned with the redevelopment of Blocks 19, 20 of Shek Kip Mei Estate with Phase 6 for rehousing purpose, while Motion 2 expressed Members’ concern for the entire housing estate. Motion 2 also emphasised the hope of being offered, by the Authority, the option of in-situ rehousing, so it should be regarded as an amended motion.

56. The Chairman pointed out that Motion 1 and Motion 2 were not contradictory to - 15 - Action by each other in terms of content with the same direction and objectives.

57. Mr Kalvin HO agreed that the two motions were parallel motions.

58. The Chairman determined that Motion 1 and Motion 2 were parallel motions, and said that he had received a written authorisation in which Mr Ambrose CHEUNG appointed Mr CHAN Wai-ming to act as his proxy to vote.

59. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu proposed to amend Motion 2 by adding the wording of “This Committee strongly opposes ‘the one estate two markets’ practice in Shek Kip Mei Estate.” to its end.

60. The Chairman remarked that the mover of Motion 2 could decide to accept the amendment proposal or not, and the mover of Motion 1 could also make similar amendment.

61. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai indicated that he would not amend Motion 2.

62. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu moved an amended motion (Motion 3) in respect of Motion 2 with content as follows: “HD is strongly reprimanded for ignoring the demands of residents and shop owners. This Committee requests HD to immediately announce the redevelopment of the “numbered blocks” of Shek Kip Mei Estate with the goal of in-situ rehousing. Meanwhile, the redevelopment of the old market of Shek Kip Mei Estate should also be announced immediately with the new market at Phase 6 reserved to relocate existing shop owners. This Committee strongly opposes ‘the one estate two markets’ arrangement in Shek Kip Mei Estate.”

63. The Chairman announced that the meeting would be adjourned for two minutes.

[The meeting was adjourned for two minutes.]

64. The Chairman announced that the meeting was resumed.

65. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu indicated his wish to withdraw Motion 3 and proposed to amend the content of Motion 1 by adding the wording of “This Committee strongly opposes ‘the one estate two markets’ arrangement in Shek Kip Mei Estate.” to its end.

66. The Chairman announced that the Committee unanimously passed Motion 1 and Motion 2, and agreed to forward the motions and members’ views to the Transport and Housing Bureau.

- 16 - Action by

Agenda Item 3: Follow-up matters

(a) Checklist of follow-up actions of matters discussed in the 10th meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee (HAC Paper 78/17)

67. The Chairman asked members to refer to the written responses of HD, the Planning Department, the Lands Department and Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (“HKSHCL”) in respect of Item 1 under follow-up matters (Papers 85/17, 86/17, 87/17).

68. The Committee noted the report by HD and agreed to continue following up on the matter.

69. The Chairman asked members to refer to the written response of HD (Paper 88/17) and invited the representatives of HD to give an update on Item 3 under follow-up matters.

70. The Committee noted the report by HD and agreed to continue following up on the matter.

71. The Chairman asked members to refer to the written response of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) (Paper 89/17) and invited the representatives of HD to give an update on Item 4 under follow-up matters.

72. Mrs Susanna CHENG added that the Department carried out pest control and publicity and education work from early August to end-November this year at different housing estates, in particular those with more complaints of rodent infestation such as Lai Kok Estate and Fu Cheong Estate, to complement with the anti-rodent operations in designated target areas implemented lately by FEHD.

73. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he considered that rodent infestation was directly related to the hygiene condition of markets. Taking Nam Shan Estate as an example, as the market of that estate closed later at night, quite a lot of leftovers were left unattended by shop owners after the completion of cleansing services, thus causing rodent infestation problem. He considered that the Department should review the time of cleansing services and refuse collection; (ii) the Response Paper of the Department mainly set out the data on PRHs. Since , despite being a private housing estate, was similar to a public housing estate in nature, he hoped that the Department would also arrange related publicity and education work in Tai Hang Sai Estate.

74. The Chairman asked HD and the Secretariat to reflect the views to FEHD after the - 17 - Action by meeting.

75. Mr KONG Kwai-sang said that Lei Cheng Uk Estate, which was located adjacent to a designated target of FEHD, also had severe rodent infestation problem, he hoped that the Department could consider providing cleansing service to the areas in the vicinity of designated target areas as well.

76. The Chairman enquired about the reasons why inspections were made more frequently in some housing estates, and hoped that HD and FEHD would strengthen the cleansing work in the district.

77. Mrs Susanna CHENG responded that in the paper submitted by FEHD, the area behind Tai Hang Tung Estate was a newly-added spot of inspection, and the frequency of inspection depended on the actual circumstances of individual cases.

78. The Committee noted the content of the written response of FEHD and the report by HD, and agreed to have the matter followed up by WGPH.

79. The Chairman asked members to refer to the written response of Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) in respect of Item 5 under follow-up on matters (Paper 90/17).

80. Ms NG Yuet-lan said that the “Demand-led Schedme” was the demand of residents, and considered that the Committee should reflect public views.

81. The Committee noted the content of the written response of URA and agreed to continue following up the matter.

82. The Chairman asked members to refer to the written responses of HD and Link Asset Management Limited (“LINK”) (Papers 91/17 and 92/17), and invited the representatives of the Fire Services Department (“FSD”) and HD to give an update on Item 6 under follow-up matters.

83. Mr CHAN Hau-chung responded that, in order to ensure the use of emergency vehicular access by fire services vehicles and ambulances, the Department, upon discovering obstruction, would report the case to the management authorities concerned. In the past three months, the Department no longer received any complaints about the obstruction of emergency vehicular access.

84. Miss CHENG Kwok-lan responded as follows: - 18 - Action by

(i) The management office of Lai Kok Estate had stepped up patrol and had hung a number of banners regarding the prohibition of the parking of vehicles to remind drivers.

(ii) Loading and unloading areas had been provided outside Lai Mei House of Lai Kok Estate, and there were signboards regarding the prohibition of the parking of vehicles at the emergency vehicular access in between Lai Lan House and Lai Ho House. The situation improved a great deal after security guards had stepped up patrol and adopted the practice of driving away illegally parked vehicles immediately.

(iii) The Department would continue to strengthen road control action and closely liaise with property management companies to ensure emergency vehicular access free from obstruction.

85. The Committee noted the written response of LINK and the reports by HD and FSD, and agreed that it was no longer necessary to follow up on this matter at the next meeting.

86. The Chairman asked members to refer to the written response of HD (Paper 93/17) and invited the representatives of HD to give an update on Item 7 under follow-up matters.

87. Mrs Susanna CHENG introduced Paper 93/17.

88. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the recovery of food waste territory-wide could not be handled by a single government department; (ii) being the largest property owner in Hong Kong, HD had the responsibility to consider the hardware and facilities of new housing estates so as to support the food waste recovery scheme as a whole; (iii) the food waste recovery scheme implemented in Nam Shan Estate and Lai Kok Estate had achieved good results, he hoped that the Department could continue the implementation of such scheme in various housing estates.

89. The Committee noted the report by HD and agreed to continue following up on the matter.

Agenda Item 4: Reports from Working Groups under the Committee

(a) Report from the Working Group on Public Housing (HAC Paper 79/17)

90. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

(b) Report from the Working Group on Private Premises and Urban Revitalisation (HAC - 19 - Action by

Paper 80/17)

91. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

Agenda Item 5: Any other business

(a) Funding Applications from the Working Group on Public Housing (HAC Papers 81/17 and 82/17)

92. The Chairman reminded Members to declare interest in accordance with Sham Shui Po District Council Standing Orders (“Standing Orders”) and said that, if a Member disclosed an interest, the Chairman had to decide whether he should speak or vote, should remain in the meeting as an observer, or should withdraw from the meeting.

93. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he supported the funding applications of “Social Capital Development Project for New Estates 2017” and “Good Neighbour Project in Sham Shui Po Housing Estates 2017” in principle, but considered that the expenditure regarding the souvenirs to be distributed during visits had deviated from the funding criteria, and the Committee should review whether or not the funding criteria could no longer cater to the development needs of the community; (ii) as it was quite common to have the expenditure of individual items deviated from the funding criteria, he considered that the Committee should apply standardised criteria to consider all applications for DC funds, therefore he would abstain from voting.

94. Ms NG Yuet-lan said that the tuition fees in the application of “Social Capital Development Project for New Estates 2017” had also deviated from the funding criteria and proposed laying down standardised criteria in future. She would abstain from voting in respect of this application.

95. The Chairman said that he had received a written authorisation in which Mr Dennis WONG appointed Mr Vincent CHENG to act as his proxy to vote.

96. Ms NG Yuet-lan considered that the practice of allowing absent members to authorise other members to vote as their proxies was inappropriate, and queried whether they had read the papers concerned carefully.

97. The Chairman pointed out that all papers were distributed to members for their reference before the meeting.

98. The Committee voted on Paper 81/17 by open ballot and the result was as follows: - 20 - Action by

For : Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG (voted by Mr CHAN Wai-ming as a proxy), Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG (voted by Mr Vincent CHENG as a proxy), Mr YAN Kai-wing, Mr CHEUNG Tak-wai (13)

Against : (0)

Abstain : Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Ms TANG Mei-ching (6)

99. The Chairman announced the voting result: 13 members voted for the paper, no member voted against it and 6 members abstained, and that Paper 81/17 was endorsed.

100. The Committee voted on Paper 82/17 by open ballot and the result was as follows:

For : Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG (voted by Mr CHAN Wai-ming as a proxy), Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr Dominic LEE, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Dennis WONG (voted by Mr Vincent CHENG as a proxy), Mr YAN Kai-wing, Mr CHEUNG Tak-wai (13)

Against : (0)

Abstain : Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Ms TANG Mei-ching (6)

101. The Chairman announced the voting result: 13 members voted for the paper, no member voted against it and 6 members abstained, and that Paper 82/17 was endorsed.

(b) Funding Applications from the Working Group on Private Premises and Urban Revitalisation (HAC Papers 83/17 and 84/17)

102. The Chairman reminded Members to declare interest in accordance with the Standing Orders and said that, if a Members disclosed an interest, the Chairman had to decide whether he should speak or vote, should remain in the meeting as an observer, or should withdraw from the meeting.

103. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu said that “Community Oral History Theatre Project - Sham - 21 - Action by

Shui Po District” had been organised for a number of years and he hoped that DC resources could be used to subsidise other innovative or cultural activities. Hence, he enquired whether this activity could apply for other subsidies, and requested Sham Shui Po District Office ( “SSPDO”) to respond.

104. Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 responded that the activity in question had applied for other funds in the past, including a government fund used for the promotion of community arts development. It was believed that the organiser in applying for this fund had also maintained communication with the Working Group on Private Premises and Urban Revitalisation (“WGPPUR”). If there were other suitable subsidy funds for community arts development, SSPDO would refer such information to relevant working groups under DC for reference.

105. Mr Vincent CHENG said that: (i) this activity was originally subsidised by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”), however, members of WGPPUR considered that it was very meaningful and so provided subsidies from DC funds to keep it going on. He would propose the organiser to try seeking other subsidies; (ii) WGPPUR had all along encouraged the organiser to increase the number of shows and to stage the shows in different community venues so that more members of the public could watch them, and this year, ten shows would be held.

106. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu considered that DO should follow up on the matter, and let other government departments give support so that this activity could be organised in a regular manner.

107. The Committee unanimously endorsed Paper 83/17.

108. The Chairman asked members to refer to Paper 84/17.

109. Mr Vincent CHENG said that: (i) this year was the third year to hold “Sham Shui Po Kaifong Festival”. It would be held from the first day to the third day of the Lunar New Year to provide new-year activities for members of the public who stayed in Hong Kong during the Lunar New Year. The Festival organised last year was warmly welcomed with several tens of thousands of participants; (ii) apart from DC funds, Shamshuipo Kai Fong Welfare Advancement Association (“KFWAA”) had also utilised its own resources to hold bazaar activities at the basketball court; (iii) a greater amount of funds was applied for this activity because the preparatory work had to be carried out before the new year and a great deal of manpower was required. WGPPUR hoped that KFWAA could draw conclusion from the past experience and consider expanding the scope of activity and increasing the number of stalls; (iv) the organiser would, by ballot, provide stalls of the bazaar to the - 22 - Action by grassroots so that they could do business.

110. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he considered that with greater consensus this DC was in a more advantaged position to hold bazaar activities; (ii) since the space in Maple Street Basketball Court was not adequate as it could only accommodate a dozen stalls, he hoped that for this year, the activity could be held in Maple Street Soccer Pitch, and enquired whether consideration would be given to expand the scope of activity so that resources could be put to the best use; (iii) he enquired whether reference could be made to the practice of lunar new year fair and let FEHD responsible for venue management and request the assistance of disciplined services; (iv) funding approval should be fair, open and justified, he pointed out that there were eight kaifong associations in the district, so he considered that other kaifong associations should have the opportunity to organise Kaifong Festival; and owing to the aforesaid view, he indicated his wish to abstain from voting.

111. Mr Vincent CHENG responded that he would like to have better policies on bazaars so that bazaar activities of larger scale could be organised. To the best of his knowledge, the organiser had also invited other kaifong associations and organisations to jointly organise the bazaar, and if other organisations were interested in participating in the activity, they might discuss it with WGPPUR.

112. The Committee voted on Paper 84/17 by open ballot and the result was as follows:

For : Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Ms Joephy CHAN, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG (voted by Mr CHAN Wai-ming as a proxy), Mr Aaron LAM, Ms LAU Pui-yuk, Mr LEE Wing-man, Mr LEUNG Man-kwong, Mr YAN Kai-wing, Mr Dennis WONG (voted by Mr Vincent CHENG as a proxy), Mr CHEUNG Tak-wai (12) Against : (0)

Abstain : Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Ms TANG Mei-ching (6)

113. The Chairman announced the voting result: 12 members voted for it, no member voted against it and 5 members abstained, and that Paper 84/17 was endorsed.

Agenda Item 6: Date of next meeting

114. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 14 December 2017 (Thursday).

- 23 - Action by

115. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 1:40 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office December 2017