(Translation)

Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of Housing, Planning and Lands Committee the 6th Term Kwun Tong District Council

Date: 21 May 2020 (Thursday) Time: 9:34 a.m. – 3:42 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Kwun Tong District Office, Unit 05-07, 20/F Millennium City 6, 392 Kwun Tong Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon

Present Arrival Time Leaving Time Mr CHENG Keng-ieong (Chairman) 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr FUNG Ka-lung (Vice-chairman) 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr BUX Sheik Anthony 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr CHAN Chris Ka-yin 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr CHAN Man-kin 9:44 a.m. 1:05 p.m. Mr CHAN Yik-shun Eason 9:38 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr CHAN Yiu-hung, Jimmy 9:34 a.m. 11:07 a.m. Mr CHEUNG Man-fung 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong 9:38 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr CHOY Chak-hung 9:58 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Ms FU Pik-chun 9:42 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr HSU Yau-wai 9:38 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr HUNG Chun-hin 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr IP Tsz-kit 9:38 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr KAN Ming-tung, MH 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr KUNG Chun-ki 10:41 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Ms LAI Po-kwai 10:46 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr LAM Wai 9:43 a.m. 1:05 p.m. Mr LEE Kwan-chak 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Ms LEUNG Jannelle Rosalynne 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr LEUNG Tang-fung 11:15 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Ms LEUNG Yik-ting Edith 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr LI Ka-tat 9:34 a.m. 1:05 p.m. Mr LI Wai-lam William 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Ms LI Wing-shan 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr LUI Tung-hai, MH 9:34 a.m. 1:05 p.m. Mr NGAN Man-yu 2:30 p.m. 3:42 p.m.

1 Mr PANG Chi-sang 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr SO Koon-chung Kevin 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr TAM Siu-cheuk 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr TANG Wai-man Raymond 9:39 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Ms TSE Suk-chun 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr WAN Ka-him 9:49 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr WANG Wai-lun 9:46 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Mr WONG Chi-ken 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m Ms WONG Ka-ying 9:34 a.m. 3:42 p.m. Miss WONG Ching-yi, May (Secretary) Executive Officer (District Council)(3) Kwun Tong District Office

In Attendance Miss CHOI Gi-lam, Britney Assistant District Officer (Kwun Tong)1 Mr KO Chor-que, Keith Acting Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Kwun Tong District Office Miss TAM Yuen-shan, Dilys Senior Housing Manager/Kowloon East 1, Housing Department Ms KWAN Ka-pui, Jessie Senior Town Planner/Kowloon 5, Planning Department Miss LAM Sau-wai, Jade Estate Surveyor/Kai Tak Airport (District Lands Office, Kowloon East), Lands Department Mr LAI Chi-ming Principal Estate Officer/Kwun Tong (District Lands Office, Kowloon East), Lands Department

In Attendance Mr WONG Chi-kwong, Tony, JP Deputy Government Chief Information Officer, Item I Office of the Government Chief Information Officer Mr WONG King-man, Kingsley Assistant Government Chief Information Officer (Industry Development), Office of the Government Chief Information Officer Mr TANG Kin-hing, Dantes Senior Systems Manager (Smart City)2, Office of the Government Chief Information Officer Mr IP Kwok-leung, Nelson Chief Engineer/Lighting, Highways Department

2 Mr WONG Kuo-yang, Edwin Deputy Head of Energizing Kowloon East Office, Item II Energizing Kowloon East Office Ms CHEUK Yuk-ming, Carol Senior Place Making Manager (Planning), Energizing Kowloon East Office Ms Carol HUI Director, Urban Planning, AECOM Ms Yoko CHEUNG Associate Director, Urban Planning, AECOM

Mr Myron NG Assistant General Manager - Community Relations, Item III Link Asset Management Limited Mr Nick YIU Senior Manager - Community Relations, Link Asset Management Limited Mr Leo LEUNG Officer - Community Relations, Link Asset Management Limited

Ms LUK Lai-fun, Katherine Architect 52, Item IV-V Housing Department

Absent Mr MOK Kin-shing Mr WONG Kai-ming Mr OR Chong-shing Wilson, MH

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed the attendees to the third meeting of the Housing, Planning and Lands Committee (“HPLC”) under the 6th Term Kwun Tong District Council (“KTDC”).

Item I – Pilot Multi-functional Smart Lampposts Scheme (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 13/2020)

2. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had received a letter from Mr CHOY Chak-hung, Mr LI Ka-tat and Ms Rosalynne LEUNG about multi-functional smart lampposts. Members could refer to the letter tabled.

3. Ms Rosalynne LEUNG presented the paper.

3 4. The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (“OGCIO”) presented the paper. It also explained and introduced various devices inside and applications of smart lampposts to Members. OGCIO also addressed Members’ concern expressed in the letter over thermal imagers, information obtained by smart devices and data processing.

5. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

5.1 Mr CHAN Man-kin appreciated the OCGIO’s showing devices and applications of smart lampposts. He asked: (i) how the data collected would be managed and used; (ii) if an independent Smart Lampposts Technical Advisory Ad Hoc Committee (“SLTAAHC”) with statutory power would be established and comprising members who were representatives elected by members of the public or recognised by international human rights organisations; and (iii) how SLTAAHC would give confidence to members of the public because its members might be replaced by someone else anytime. In addition, he stated clearly that he would not support the use of smart lampposts under the circumstances that the data could not be monitored effectively, members of the public had not been informed clearly if the data would be abused, and the Government had not mended its relationship with the public. Yet, he opined that OGCIO should continue its studies and implement the use of that technology after the relationship between the Government and the public was mended. He suggested SLTAAHC conduct consultations through district councils so that the public could learn about the current situation of smart lampposts and reflect their concern and worries.

5.2 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung understood that technology needed advancement. Besides, smart city development might also be a future trend. Yet, he believed that it was not a suitable time to implement the Pilot Multi-functional Smart Lampposts Scheme (“Pilot Scheme”). The reasons were as follows: (i) the public sense of distrust towards the Government had been growing regarding the Government’s collection of data; (ii) the Member was worried that if the Pilot Scheme was endorsed at KTDC, the lampposts could not be removed even if opposition arose in the future; and (iii) even though smart lampposts did not collect real-time data, and only collected relatively low resolution images, the Member was worried that the lampposts could still submit the data, complemented by other cameras in the surroundings, to the Government or departments for other purposes.

4 He reiterated that under the present circumstances of the lack of trust between the public and the Government, he could not accept the existence of such a kind of surveillance lampposts.

5.3 Ms WONG Ka-ying agreed that technology and a city needed advancement. However, there were still many problems with smart lampposts, including: (i) the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance had been established in 1996, but the law lagged behind advancement of times and could not protect the public; (ii) the public were diffident in the Government and suppliers of smart lamppost devices because mainland suppliers’ leakage of information often happened; (iii) the Member doubted that the thermal imaging technology would not only be used for calculating traffic flows, but also surveilling pedestrians’ activities; and (iv) the Member doubted that the 5G technology had weak penetrating power, and could not penetrate walls easily. Besides, there were many tall buildings in Hong Kong, which meant that upgrading the 4G technology to 5G would not make a big difference in the use of the network. Moreover, it might be very costly to construct 5G infrastructure. In addition, she also asked: (i) which departments could have access to the data collected; (ii) if the data collected would be destroyed, how that would be done; (iii) about coverages of 5G and 4G base stations; and (iv) in view of development of the 4G and 5G technologies, how big the deviation between the estimated cost for operating the 5G network in the future and the current cost would be.

5.4 Mr Chris CHAN said that KTDC had earlier voiced its objection against the Pilot Scheme. He wondered if the Government would continue to implement it. He asked: (i) if OGCIO could ensure smart lampposts would not install cameras that were exposed to the outside. If it breached its promise, who would be held accountable; (ii) apart from the exhibition and roadshows, what other public consultation approaches were available; (iii) organisations participating in examination of the Pilot Scheme and the timetable; (iv) if thermal imagers would be used for calculating flows of people; and (v) if it was necessary to use Bluetooth signal senders to serve the positioning purpose, and he doubted the use of those senders because the public might be connected to those senders without being aware of that. He related that he could accept the original design of device containers. Nonetheless, he reiterated that device containers should have no transparent windows or hidden cameras.

5 5.5 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG thanked OGCIO for its patient explanation. She also thought that OGCIO was the most sincere department and said that its original intention had been good. Nevertheless, since the Government had been implementing smart lampposts without an open manner and credibility, OGCIO had no way to clear public worries. She gave two examples to explain that: (i) the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”)’s staff had earlier said that the cameras could not capture human images clearly. Yet, when pressed by Members’ questions, it had said that they had that function on the contrary. Since government departments had concealed facts already, risks of the existence of smart lampposts could not be underestimated; and (ii) the design of the music fountains at Kwun Tong Promenade had been amended after KTDC had endorsed the amendment, but the departments concerned said that the approval could not be revoked because KTDC had expressed its support for the original design. She was worried that there was not any mechanism for development to be amended after it had been endorsed by district councils. Therefore, she was opposed to implementation of smart lampposts. Furthermore, she enquired: (i) whether the public data collected by smart lampposts would be stored at cloud storage of the Government or outside Hong Kong; and (ii) about backgrounds of the independent third-party experts engaged by OGCIO, the selection criteria in engaging the experts, as well as whether any open tendering exercise had been conducted for that.

5.6 Mr IP Tsz-kit remarked that OGCIO had introduced smart lampposts very patiently. It had also brought the devices for demonstration in the hope of securing KTDC’s support. He said that OGCIO had not addressed the enquiries Members had put forward in the fourth meeting of the Full Council, i.e. whether the membership of SLTAAHC would include human rights representatives and task forces with statutory power, as well as the details about the exhibition that OGCIO had been discussing and organising with the Kwun Tong District Office (“KTDO”), such as the preliminary locations under planning. Moreover, he related that some of the members of the public had currently noticed that newly installed street lamps looked like smart lampposts in their appearances and also worried that people might be surveilled by cameras even though OGCIO had said that smart lamppost cameras would not surveil human images. However, the public lacked trust in the Government. They would not believe that

6 smart lampposts did not have any surveillance function. He suggested KTDC conduct a public opinion poll to allow the public to learn more about the current situation of smart lampposts and express their views. He agreed that technology needed advancement, but smart lampposts should be constructed only with public consent and the Government’s respect to people’s privacy. Yet, without any public opinion poll or extensive support from people, he said that he could only stand against the implementation of the lampposts.

5.7 Mr Eason CHAN thanked OGCIO’s extremely heartfelt introduction of smart lampposts. He said that Hong Kong’s technology lagged behind that of northern European cities. Hong Kong should make use of the data collected to formulate measures to solve the current traffic problems. Yet, the present discussion on smart lampposts had only focused on their functions. What was more important was political issues arising from the lampposts. He said that even if the Government had promised to engage people with credibility in the membership of SLTAAHC to manage the data collected, he could not accept and would not support the provision of smart lampposts before the constitutional system was improved and democratised.

5.8 Ms Edith LEUNG said that in the current term of KTDC, all the Members agreed that power should be returned to people. Therefore, when there were controversies, the district should be consulted. She suggested the Chairman allocate a small amount of funds to conduct a professional public opinion poll on smart lamppost issues in order to ask the public about their acceptance level towards changes to and various devices of smart lampposts, and to allow Members to make decisions again based on results of the opinion poll.

5.9 Mr LEE Kwan-chak related that when presenting the paper, OGCIO had said that images captured by cameras of smart lampposts or information collected by the lampposts would not be stored inside the lampposts, but they would be uploaded for analysis. He asked where the information would be stored before analysis. He was also concerned about the following: (i) whether the information would be obtained by others for other purposes after being uploaded; and (ii) even if OGCIO recorded images with low resolution cameras, more information could be obtained later by digital recovery. He hoped that OGCIO could explain the above issues. Otherwise, it would be hard

7 for him to support provision of smart lampposts.

5.10 Mr CHOY Chak-hung stated that regarding the Pilot Scheme, OGCIO had participated in about five informal and formal meetings of the current term of KTDC. He said that OGCIO was very sincere. It had also taken smart lamppost devices to HPLC for demonstration. Yet, Members had a clear stand. More discussion would mean a waste of each other’s time. He agreed with Ms Edith LEUNG’s views and thought and the current term of KTDC should advocate returning the power to people. He hoped that the Chairman would let OGCIO hold roadshows to introduce its work first. Then, KTDC could allocate $80,000 to $100,000 to an organisation with credibility to conduct a public opinion poll to collect views on smart lampposts from residents of Kwun Tong District. By that, Members could make decisions again according to public opinions.

5.11 Mr LI Ka-tat expressed his high appreciation towards OGCIO’s brief introduction. He thought that OGCIO was very sincere. He believed that the Pilot Scheme could not be implemented because of public confidence and political issues, which were problems that technology could not solve. He said that even if OGCIO promised not to install certain devices, or public opinions agreed to use the lampposts, he would not support the use of them because what he supported was democracy instead of public opinions. Besides, the use of smart lampposts was doubtful.

6. OGCIO thanked Members for their views and responded as follows:

6.1 The mechanism for provision of additional smart lamppost devices: OGCIO had completely accepted SLTAAHC’s views, and the public could have access to SLTAAHC’s report at a website. Currently, smart lampposts had already been made free of cameras. OGCIO also promised that if any new equipment was needed to be provided in the future, security risk and privacy impact assessment would first be conducted by independent third-party organisations. Then, district councils would be consulted. OGCIO would install the devices concerned afterwards.

6.2 Collection management and use of data: at present, smart lampposts did definitely not collect personal privacy data but only traffic flow,

8 meteorological and air quality data. They did not store any data either. They only transferred the data to related departments for analysis. All the data and analysis results were disseminated only at a public data platform, DATA.GOV.HK. Traffic flow data could be used for managing traffic while meteorological and air quality data were transferred to the Observatory and the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) for scientific analysis. Through micro-meteorological data of various districts, the departments could assess meteorological changes at Kwun Tong District or all over Hong Kong. The data were also useful in district management and studies. Anyone and any organisations might download the data free of charge.

6.3 Personal privacy protection and data security: OGCIO engaged independent third-party experts by way of open procurement to conduct assessment on security risks and privacy impacts regarding various devices on smart lampposts and their applications. The organisation responsible for the privacy impact assessment was a multinational professional accounting firm with a branch company at Hong Kong. On the other hand, the one responsible for the information security assessment was a local technology company. Both of the companies met professional standards of work requirements. For example, officers assessing information security should have recognised qualifications in information security.

6.4 Bluetooth signal senders: bluetooth signal senders were passive devices. They only sent signals to active devices, such as smart phones and computers, for positioning. The principle was the same as that of mobile phones’ scanning of QR codes. QR codes were also passive devices. Interested members of the public needed to take the initiative to scan the codes to collect data sent. Therefore, bluetooth signal senders did not collect any surrounding data. Members of the public could also switch off the receiving functions of the devices in hands to stop receiving signals sent by bluetooth signal senders.

6.5 Device container design: smart lampposts had been made free of cameras already. They did not collect any images. Therefore, the device containers were in a sealed storage design without any transparent window to prevent devices inside the containers being exposed to the outside. ..

9 6.6 Enhancement of public confidence in smart lampposts: OGCIO believed that if it explained details of smart lampposts to the public in a transparent and open way, that could ease public worries. The methods included: (i) introducing the equipment, design, security risk assessment report and privacy impact assessment report of smart lampposts at district councils; and (ii) holding district exhibitions to allow Members and the public to experience the operation and applications of the devices in person and learn about the information that the devices could collect. OGCIO had currently been consulting KTDO for identification of a suitable venue to hold a district exhibition. Views from Members were also welcomed.

7. The Chairman thanked OGCIO for participating in KTDC’s several meetings and introducing the situation of smart lampposts. However, since many doubts related to the Government’s credibility were beyond the department’s ability to clear, HPLC could not support the Pilot Scheme for the moment. The Chairman related that the current term of KTDC aimed at returning the power to people. KTDC would later request additional funding from the Finance and Administration Committee so as to conduct a professional public opinion poll on smart lampposts. On the other hand, OGCIO could continue with its studies. Members could make judgement by themselves and exchange views with OGCIO when results of the public opinion poll were available.

8. OGCIO thanked HPLC for its support for continuation of its studies and exhibition work. If KTDC conducted a public opinion poll on the Pilot Scheme in the future, OGCIO suggested conducting it after the public had got a relatively clear understanding of the Pilot Scheme, related devices and applications through the exhibition. OGCIO also welcomed collaboration with district councilors in arranging special sessions for district councilors to guide residents through the exhibition and introduce highlights of it.

9. The Chairman agreed with OGCIO’s views. It also asked OGCIO to let KTDC know the exhibition period, and leave the contact details to KTDC for interested Members to contact OGCIO.

10. OGCIO said that it would continue to communicate with staff of KTDO.

11. The Chairman thanked OGCIO again for attending HPLC’s meeting and introducing the Pilot Scheme.

12. Members noted the paper.

10 Item II – Planning and Urban Design Review for Developments at Kai Tak Runway Tip (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 14/2020)

13. The Energizing Kowloon East Office (“EKEO”) presented proposals on the Planning and Urban Design Review for Developments at Kai Tak Runway Tip.

14. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

14.1 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung opined that the lawn of Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1 should not provide too many swings lest public activity space would be obstructed. He suggested: (i) only providing one big swing that imitated how an aeroplane took off and landed for the public to take photos; and (ii) reserving items of ex-Kai Tak Airport as far as possible in memory of changes of the old airport.

14.2 Mr WAN Ka-him remarked that except on holidays, the Cruise Terminal had few visitors. The Member hoped that the development project could attract more visitors. He was concerned about that the Tourism Node site would sold by way of land sale and developed by developers. He also asked how EKEO could ensure that developers would properly construct traffic facilities and pedestrian links to facilitate public access to Kai Tai Runway Tip.

14.3 Mr Anthony BUX said that the design of the developments at Kai Tak Runway Tip was very beautiful. However, he was concerned about and asked the following: (i) there was news that when conducting a feasibility study on an environmentally friendly linkage system for Kowloon East (“EFLS”), it had been found that it was infeasible to construct a monorail. Therefore, the Member was concerned about how members of the public could go to Kai Tak Runway Tip; (ii) traffic of Kowloon Bay was already very congested at the moment. If the public came from other areas, they would definitely enter Kai Tak via MegaBox. In face of an increase in the traffic flow volume in the future, how EKEO would solve traffic congestion problems; (iii) no vehicles would be allowed to enter Kai Tak Runway Tip. The Member was concerned about how the public could go to that place; and (iv) whether EKEO had discussed potential impacts to be brought by the project concerned with Hong Kong Children’s Hospital nearby and a new emergency hospital to be commencing operation in 2025.

11 For example, whether the time for rescues would be delayed because of the increase in the traffic burden. He hoped the Chairman would request EKEO to clarify the above matters.

14.4 Mr PANG Chi-sang stated that the developments at Kai Tak Runway Tip were similar to the situations of the future major government development projects at Kwun Tong District discussed earlier. That meant that only a development plan was available and no ancillary transport facilities or improvement measures were mentioned. He said that when wine carnivals had been held at Kai Tak in the past, no comprehensive ancillary transport facilities had been provided. That had made the public queue and wait for several hours to enter and leave Kai Tak. He hoped that the Chairman could request the department to give an account on the future ancillary transport facilities before explaining content of the development project.

14.5 Mr KAN Ming-tung related that the development project of Kai Tak Runway Tip was very beautiful. Yet, EKEO should consider the holistic planning of Kowloon East carefully. He said that he had got to know several months before that the Government would not construct EFLS. However, Kai Tak Runway Tip was at a remote location without convenient feeder transport. It had been difficult to disperse flows of people when holding large-scale events in the past. He suggested: (i) EKEO draw experience from overseas examples and provide more parking spaces as far as possible to facilitate public access; (ii) EKEO consider provide one or two more retired airliners for exhibition; and (iii) EKEO reserve the existing lawn area.

14.6 Mr Chris CHAN enquired: (i) whether the water of the “river valley” would be sea water or other water. He was worried that if it would be sea water of Typhoon Shelter, the water would be contaminated already; (ii) whether the inclusive park for pets would be reserved after additional facilities were provided for Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1; and (iii) whether EKEO had assessed what impacts would be brought by the proposed facilities to the existing users.

14.7 Ms Rosalynne LEUNG said that the Government’s urban planning was relatively poor. For instance, the design of the quarry park under the Anderson Road Quarry Site Development Project was very beautiful, but no consideration had been given to traffic facility arrangements.

12 She hoped that EKEO would explain future traffic arrangements in details. For example, she would like to know if more bus routes would be provided to facilitate visitors’ access in order to alleviate the existing inconvenient traffic situation of Kai Tak Cruise Terminal.

14.8 Mr CHOY Chak-hung doubted the feasibility of conducting water activities at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter because those activities could not exist in harmony with ships anchored nearby and the water of that area was seriously polluted. He also asked: (i) if EKEO would get back the right to use Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter from the Marine Department (“MD”); (ii) many members of the public ran at Kwun Tong Promenade at present, but there were not any shower and storage facilities. He had relayed the situation to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”), but LCSD said that the park did not serve the purpose of running. Instead, it was provided to serve quiet activities. Therefore, the department had refused to provide shower and storage facilities. The Member asked EKEO if it would provide those facilities for the public to use when they took part in sports activities in the future; and (iii) in view of the fact that the transport of Kai Tak Cruise Terminal was inconvenient and few people went there, whether adequate parking spaces would be provided for the public to go there. In addition, he was opposed to the provision of a pedestrian and cycle shared path. He took Tai Mei Tuk as an example and said that pedestrians and bicycles could not co-exist in harmony. He said that since the development project in question was located within the Kowloon City District Council (“KCDC”)’s administrative boundaries, he would also respect views from KCDC.

14.9 Mr Eason CHAN asked (i) about the cost of the works of the development project of Kai Tak Runway Tip; (ii) if EKEO could provide more figures about the planning, such as the estimated future volume of the flow of people to be brought by the project, given that the planning had not provided information about issues concerning the flow of people and ancillary facilities; and (iii) what ancillary transport facilities would be provided to cope with the growth in the volume of the flow of people. He also said that the paper should not use the wording “streamlining” but “improving”.

14.10 Mr HUNG Chung-hin related that there had recently been news that the feasibility study on EFLS had found that EFLS could not be

13 constructed. However, if that area did not have the linkages, EFLS and the flyover, all the vehicles would go to the shore of Kai Tak via Hong Kong Children’s Hospital and Shing Fung Road. Furthermore, he said that the Government intended to build at least eight large-scale buildings and commercial buildings at Kai Tak Runway Tip, opining that EKEO should give due consideration to how to handle traffic problems and should conduct traffic impact assessment in order to study if the road capacity could tie in with the future development.

14.11 Mr WANG Wai-lun stated that Kai Tak Runway Park provided a comfortable environment for the public to rest at the moment. Besides, the height limit for building under the Tourism Node development mentioned in the paper was 100 metres above principal datum (“mpd”). He was opposed to construction of buildings with heights reaching 100 mpd at Kai Tak Runway Tip because of the following reasons: (i) the several buildings would hinder the public from enjoying the scenery in that spacious open space; and (ii) the Member doubted if Kai Tak Runway Tip should be developed into a tourism area. He said that under COVID-19, people had thought over impacts brought by tourism to local residents, and a city without tourists had minimised occurrence of conflicts between people and vehicles on roads and people’s quality of life could be raised.

14.12 Mr Raymond TANG said that Kai Tak Runway Park would be provided with a water recreational sports area. He asked whether there would be canoes and water cycles. He was also concerned about the water quality problem at Kai Tak Cruise Terminal. He said that the Government poured cleansing agents to deal with the stinky smell from the dung canals at the seabed, but a large quantity of fish were killed. He asked how EKEO would strike a balance between the ecosystem and the water activity development.

14.13 Mr LEE Kwan-chak related that at the inclusive park for pets at Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1, molluscicide had been placed by someone in May 2019, but the park had remained open, which had led to worries that the molluscicide would be eaten by pets. Moreover, he analysed Kai Tak Area according to five essential elements in Chinese fung shui, i.e. “dragon, cave, sand, water, orientation”, and said that Kai Tak Runway Tip, where there was only one point of access, suffered a stagnant water situation. Since water signified flows of people, it

14 would be hard for that area to attract flows of people. He hoped that EKEO would think over the road linkage of the entire project to the outer areas.

14.14 Mr Kevin SO related that the existing Kai Tak Cruise Terminal would be a tourism node in the future, but there was a lack of ancillary transport facilities. Whenever a liner was anchored there, the traffic of that area became congested, and that led to traffic problems at the adjacent areas. Besides, the cruise terminal failed to attract the public or tourists to visit it, and restaurants there were going to be shut down. If Kai Tak Runway Tip was also developed, he was worried that the situation would be similar. He also asked the following: (i) it had said that there would be EFLS at Kai Tak Runway Tip for linkage, but there was news that the plan would be infeasible. He also said that the parking spaces had been inadequate already. He asked how EKEO would handle the higher flow of people to be brought by the development; (ii) whether the viaduct in the draft picture shown in the PowerPoint was a flyover, a footbridge or an EFLS viaduct; and (iii) the project concerned was situated at the administrative area of Kowloon City, so whether it was true that the project could be implemented as long as KCDC’s consent had been obtained, and whether KTDC’s opinions were for collection only. He reiterated that regarding development projects in Kwun Tong District or areas nearby, if the projects would affect traffic of Kwun Tong District and departments failed to explain them, it would be hard for KTDC to support the development projects.

14.15 Mr WONG Chi-ken stated that the design of Kai Tak Runway Tip Development was beautiful, but the problem of ancillary transport facilities had not been addressed. He said that if EFLS and the flyover were not constructed, Kai Tak Runway Tip Development would only rely on road transport. However, roads to Kai Tak were narrow. He doubted if roads of that area could accommodate a bigger flow of vehicles. Taking carnival activities organised at Kai Tak in the past as an example, he said that the traffic congestion could extend from Kai Tak to Hong Kong Children’s Hospital. In addition, he hoped that EKEO could provide actual figures about road traffic to KTDC and persuaded Members to accept that project with objective data.

15 14.16 Mr LAM Wai said that the most important to a city was roads. Yet, all the departments which had come to KTDC to consult Members on development projects had dodged traffic problems. He opined that before introducing development projects and explaining details of them, departments should provide transport data and give detailed accounts on proposed ancillary transport facilities. He asked about the number of additional bus routes or minibus routes plying to Kai Tak Cruise Terminal to be provided and hoped that EKEO could give an account on proposed ancillary transport facilities first.

15. EKEO thanked Members for their views and responded as follows:

15.1 EFLS: EKEO understood that Members were concerned about EFLS. The Civil and Engineering Development Department (“CEDD”) expected to complete the relevant detailed feasibility study by end-2020, and would publicise the study results and suggestions in due course.

15.2 Ancillary transport facilities: the Transport Department (“TD”) from time to time reviewed the public demand for transport of Kai Tak Runway Tip. The flow of people at Kai Tak Cruise Terminal was relatively low, and therefore the ancillary transport facilities currently provided could already satisfy the demand. There were several bus routes and green minibus (“GMB”) routes connecting to the five railway networks of the district, including bus route nos. 5R, 22, 22M and 5A and GMB route no. 86. There were also ferry services connecting to Kai Tak Runway Park Pier. TD had also announced that “water taxi” ferry services would commence operation by end-2020. When the developments at Kai Tak Runway Tip were progressively completed, a drastic increase in the flow of people would generate higher traffic demand. TD should review and increase bus and minibus services in a timely manner to cater for public needs.

15.3 The traffic and transport impact assessment report: the study had already conducted traffic and transport impact assessment on the proposed development purposes and scale. TD had also been consulted for the assessment. The scope of assessment had covered other development projects at Kai Tai Development Area and its adjacent areas. The assessment had shown that the proposed developments would not adversely affect the surrounding traffic.

16 15.4 Traffic improvement plans: regarding the fact that some Members thought that Shing Fung Road was often congested when liners used the terminal, EKEO stated that the traffic congestion situation could be alleviated after Shing Fung Road was re-aligned. The Government had also been implementing Route 6, including the Central Kowloon Route, Tseung Kwan O-Lam Tin Tunnel, Trunk Road T2 and Cha Kwo Ling Tunnel. When the above trunk roads were commissioned completely, they would function as Central-Wan Chai Bypass, which would significantly decrease the number of vehicles entering Kowloon East and provided feeder transport to the outer areas for Kowloon East.

EKEO remarked that when it had introduced the Kwun Tong Action Area Planning and proposals on a works feasibility study at KTDC the previous year, it had mentioned traffic improvement plans for the Kwun Tong Action Area and its adjacent areas. EKEO expected to consult KTDC later the current year on the study results of the Kowloon Bay Action Area, including traffic improvement plans.

15.5 The viaduct of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter: EKEO said that the viaduct was part of the feasibility study on EFLS. CEDD would complete the related study and publicise the study results.

15.6 Connection between Kai Tai Runway Tip and its adjacent areas: there would be two footbridges at the Tourism Node site. They would connect to the first floor and the roof of Kai Tak Cruise Terminal respectively. The former one would also connect to the viewing platform at Shing Fung Road, which would serve as a convenient viaduct network for public use. Moreover, the conditions of sale of the Tourism Node site would state requirements of constructing of the footbridges and other transport facilities.

15.7 Parking spaces: the development of the Tourism Node site would provide adequate parking spaces, with private car parking spaces included, according to proposals of the study and TD. To tie in with the vehicle-free environment of Kai Tak Runway Tip, vehicles and buses would directly enter an underground car park at the Tourism Node site via the re-aligned Shing Fung Road. On the other hand, a public transport interchange would be provided on the ground floor to facilitate public use. The Tourism Node site would provide adequate parking spaces for coaches, loading/unloading activities and

17 motorcycles. Kai Tak Runway Park would also provide an appropriate number of motorcycle parking spaces to allow the public to have different transport means of access to Kai Tak Runway Tip.

15.8 Using the Tourism Node site for tourism development: the development of the Tourism Node site matched the planning intentions of the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan (“KTOZP”). Its aim was to provide land to serve related purposes, including commercial, hotel, leisure and recreational purposes, as well as construction of a public viewing corridor. In the future, Kai Tak Runway Tip could provide various activity elements during the daytime and nighttime to make the entire development more vibrant.

15.9 Developing the Tourism Node site in the land sale approach: EKEO would formulate a development outline for the Tourism Node site, and introduce suitable requests and limits into the conditions of sale to serve as guidelines for future development.

15.10 Works and construction costs: the Tourism Node site would be implemented in the land sale approach, and Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1, part of Phase 2A and Phase 2B would be implemented in the public works approach. To enable the public to use part of the park during the works, the park would be developed in phases. The Architectural Services Department was designing the park. Around 15 200 square metres in Kai Tak Runway Phase 2A would be implemented as public open space within a private development project. It would be designed, constructed, managed, operated and maintained by the developer of the Tourism Node site. The Government would sign a subsidiary agreement with the future developer and establish a committee to monitor the operation of the “river valley” and its adjacent public open space.

15.11 The shared path at Kai Tak: CEDD had conducted a “pedestrian and cycle shared path” pilot scheme which had lasted for six months at Kwun Tong Promenade to assess the public acceptance level towards sharing open space with cyclists. The results showed that the public in general welcomed and accepted the shared path scheme. The shared path at Kai Tak, which would be about 13 kilometres long and about eight metres wide for a large part, would be more spacious than the road section at Kwun Tong Promenade, where the above pilot

18 scheme had been implemented. There would be enough space for the public and cyclists to share.

15.12 The inclusive park for pets: LCSD’s “inclusive parks for pets” pilot scheme at Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1 had substantially been completed. It would examine if the pilot scheme would be extended. According to observations, the public had got along well with pets at the park at weekends and no problem had arisen. EKEO would discuss with LCSD if LCSD could continue to use Kai Tak Runway Park as an inclusive park for pets.

15.13 Provision of an additional retired aeroplane for exhibition: apart from the existing retired fixed-wing aircraft provided at Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1 for permanent exhibition, EKEO would consider the Member’s suggestion of providing an additional retired aeroplane for exhibition.

15.14 Themed swings: EKEO would choose swings that suited the proportion in order to match the aviation theme and imitate the taking off and landing states of aeroplanes.

15.15 Shower facilities: EKEO would explore with LCSD the feasibility of adding shower facilities at Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1 and Phase 2. Meanwhile, the “river valley”, which would be operated and managed by the future developer of the Tourism Node site, would provide shower facilities.

15.16 Water quality of the “river valley”: the “river valley” would take a role different from those of other water facilities sharing Typhoon Shelter. The “river valley”, which would be more suitable for families to have fun, would use fresh water for the public to have water activities. The “river valley”, with a depth of around 1.3 to 1.5 metres, would be suitable for playing stand-up paddling, donut boats and jet-skis, providing a wide range of water activities for the public.

15.17 Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter: EKEO and MD had publicised the Guidelines for Co-using Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter in November 2017 and raised the width of the water channel near the shore from 50 metres to 100 metres to encourage more water activities to be conducted at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter when there was no typhoon.

19 A number of large-scale competitions and events had also been held at Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter, such as an internal dragon boat competition held in 2019. A non-pleasure vessel mooring area had been provided at Typhoon Shelter so that water activites could be conducted safely.

15.18 Water quality and odour problems of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter: the Government had in recent years implemented a number of improvement measures to alleviate the water quality and odour problems of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. Studies had found that implementing interception at the upstream area and a water pumping scheme could effectively improve the water flow of a place, which would help relieve the odour problems of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter and the Kai Tak Approach Channel. CEDD would provide a new pumping station at the Kai Tak Approach Channel and remodel the water intake of the pumping station at the former runway. Besides, EKEO would also lay related sewage pipes and remodel the water outlets. EPD had handled most of the illegally connected pipes. The remaining cases had also been transferred to related departments for follow-up actions. The odour problem of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter would be obviously alleviated continuously.

15.19 The height limit on buildings: the heights of the proposed buildings at the Tourism Node site complied with the height limit stipulated in KTOZP, which was 100 mpd. Studies had also suggested that suitable space be reserved for provision of viewing corridor to maintain balanced development. The future development should refer to the guidelines on the development of harbourfronts and adopt a design with buildings of different heights to match the surroundings, including the cruise terminal.

16. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:

16.1 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung hoped that the lawn at Kai Tak Runway Tip Phase I could be kept. He also opined that providing one retired aeroplane for exhibition would already be enough. However, he wondered if the aeroplane type could be changed. He said that the pedestrian and cycle shared path was very suitable for holding cycling races or activities. If EKEO could learn from Hong Kong’s previous experience in planning venues of international cycling races, that

20 location should be very suitable for conducting criterium races. By that, the shared path would not be limited to serving a leisure and recreational purpose. Furthermore, he was worried that although the design of Kai Tak Runway Tip Park was beautiful, there would also be few visitors. He also asked EKEO if it would implement traffic measures in phases when formulating the design to facilitate people’s access so that they would not need to walk to Hong Kong Children’s Hospital for taking transport.

16.2 Mr WAN Ka-him stated that in the department’s response, the problems about the demand for and supply of transport had been mentioned. Yet, even in the economics, there was a theory that supply could lead to demand. He thought that EKEO could neither convince Members to support the development project in question nor convince Members that the traffic problems could be solved after Kai Tak Runway Tip was developed and people and visitors could have convenient access to it. The detailed reasons were as follows: (i) the conclusion of the feasibility study on EFLS would not be available until the end of 2020; (ii) the existing bus routes only provided point-to-point services; (iii) Route 6 could not alleviate the traffic problems; and (iv) the bus routes mentioned by EKEO had all along existed. The Member doubted if the services were adequate.

16.3 Mr Anthony BUX expressed his disappointment towards EKEO’s response to the traffic aspect. He said that EKEO had introduced the new emergency hospital in the Traffic and Transport Committee under the fifth term of KTDC in the hope of securing support from Members for the construction of the hospital. Nonetheless, the hospital management could not answer how ambulances could reach the hospital from Kowloon East and Kowloon West within a shortest period of time. He was worried that after the Kai Tai Runway Tip Development Project was completed, that would lead to a large flow of vehicles into the area, which would be incompatible with the new emergency hospital. He stated that the new emergency hospital and Hong Kong Children’s Hospital were put at the first priority. He said clearly that if the Government could not provide a sufficient explanation to ensure that the two hospitals would not be affected in the traffic aspect, he would not support the development project concerned.

21 16.4 Mr KAN Ming-tung related that EKEO could learn from the scattering parking space design of the Kowloon West Cultural District so that the public could reach the destination easily. He also hoped that EKEO could think from the perspective of members of the public when arranging traffic and parking spaces.

16.5 Mr HUNG Chun-hin said that the traffic problems could not be ignored in the Kai Tak Runway Tip Development Project. In EKEO’s response, it had been mentioned that Route 6 could not solve the traffic flow problems to be brought by the development project. He believed that if there would not be any public transport modes, Members would find it hard to support the use of the site for commercial purposes. Moreover, he said that planning problems had all along existed in Kwun Tong District. Many sitting-out areas could only be reached by taking vehicles. That was why sitting-out areas or cultural and recreational venues needed to be added in the new development area at present. He stated that if CEDD’s feasibility study report concluded that the development of EFLS was infeasible, EKEO needed to think what alternative solutions could substitute for the viaduct or EFLS.

16.6 Mr WANG Wai-lun related the maximum height of buildings at the Tourism Node site was 100 mpd, but the developer could apply to TPB for relaxation of the height limit, i.e. the developer could construct buildings taller than 100 mpd. He was worried that the developer would seek to optimise its profits and adopt the maximum height and maximum plot ratio. He hoped the Planning Department (“PlanD”) and government departments would further limit the heights of the buildings, and suggested that only buildings with heights of 50 mpd or below should be built. If large-scale buildings were going to be built, he stated that he would firmly object to the development project.

16.7 Mr Raymond TANG enquired: (i) about the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs of Kai Tak Runway Park; and (ii) about the space that would be handed over to LCSD or a contractor for management and operation. He said that if the project was not cost-effective, or could not meet Kwun Tong residents’ recreational needs, EKEO might not be able to secure Members’ support.

16.8 Ms Edith LEUNG stated that all the Members were concerned about the local traffic problems, which might not be solved simply by

22 building a road under the development project. The department should first solve the existing traffic problems and calculate the future development burden subsequently. She said that from newspaper and technicians, she had learnt that the monorail of EFLS might not be constructed. Besides, CEDD’s report, which would be completed by the end of 2020, might also say that due to various factors or a high construction cost, the development of EFLS was infeasible. Nevertheless, she was worried that the study time involved would be wasted. The time could originally have spent on other projects. She thought that the department should not only say that the item was infeasible. Instead, it should also say what alternative solutions were available. If the construction cost of the monorail was high, she suggested: (i) the monorail design be changed to be something like the airport express; and (ii) drawing reference from express transport systems, such as train taxis, and the construction cost might be reduced as a result. The aim was to link up the entire Kai Tak Area and the Kwun Tong Industrial Area, ease flows of people and minimise Kwun Tong’s traffic burden.

17. EKEO responded as follows:

17.1 Traffic and transport impact assessment: EKEO remarked that the scale and development parameter of the proposed development project had already struck a balance among various factors. It had also reviewed the traffic and transport impact assessment with TD carefully. Even if there was no EFLS, the development project would not bring negative impacts to the traffic. Furthermore, according to real-time information about vacant parking spaces in the district, there were still very adequate indoors parking spaces during peak hours in Kwun Tong District. The local traffic congestion situation was mainly attributed to occupation of traffic lanes on the two sides of roads by illegally parked vehicles. Such a problem could only be alleviated by enforcement enhancement by enforcement agencies.

17.2 Ancillary transport facilities: there would be many different types of ancillary transport facilities at Kai Tak Runway Tip, such as buses, minibuses, ferries, cycles, motorcycles and coaches. Meanwhile, there would be adequate parking spaces for motorists’ use.

23 17.3 The impact to the hospitals near Kai Tak Runway Tip brought by the development project: vehicles would reach Hong Kong Children’s Hospital or the emergency hospital of Kai Tak Development Area mainly via Shing Cheong Road, instead of Shing Fung Road. Besides, the re-aligned Shing Fung Road would be more spacious and facilitate traffic.

17.4 The height limit on buildings: EKEO explained that the maximum height of a building at the Tourism Node site stipulated in the KTZOP was 100 mpd. What the illustration showed was an illustrated design for future development. The future development could comprise different building designs. Any development purposes adopted by the developer at the Tourism Node site would require approval of the Town Planning Board (“TPB”). If the developer applied for relaxation of the height limit with individual creative designs, Members could express their views to TPB by that time.

17.5 Management and operation of Kai Tak Runway Park: Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1, part of Phase 2A and Phase 2B would be rolled out in the public works approach and managed by LCSD in the future. Since it took time for LCSD to formulate users’ needs, the estimated maintenance and operation costs could not be provided at the present stage. When the project was submitted to the Legislative Council for application for funding in the future, EKEO would consult district councils in due course.

Another part of Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 2A would be the “river valley” and a facility building, which would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained by the developer of the Tourism Node site. The Government would sign a subsidiary agreement with the developer and establish a committee to monitor the developer’s operation. The Government would allow the developer to lease the space to serve private purposes, including charging items and catering services, under a limit on the number of allowed days. On the remaining days, the space should be open to the public. By that, the Government could ensure public open space within a private development project could be utilised properly.

17.6 EFLS: flexibility had been reserved in the design of Kai Tak Runway Tip Development. If EFLS was constructed in the future,

24 complementary measures could be conducted. The detailed feasibility study, being conducted by CEDD at the moment, was scheduled for completion by end-2020. CEDD would conduct consultation work in due course.

17.7 Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1: EKEO noted that Members hoped that an appropriate area would be kept at the lawn area of Kai Tak Runway Park Phase 1 for public use.

17.8 The retired aeroplane exhibition: EKEO noted that Members hoped that there would not be too many aeroplanes to be exhibited.

17.9 Cycling races: the emergency means of access next to the cruise terminal was unsuitable for holding cycling races because it should be kept smooth. The pedestrian and cycle shared path would mainly be used for leisure and recreational purposes. Due to the constraints of the venue, it would be unsuitable for holding cycling races. EKEO would also pay attention if it could arrange specific events at other venues.

18. The Chairman related that Members had raised improvement opinions regarding the cultural, recreational and sports aspects of the development project concerned. He hoped that EKEO could consider them. Some of the Members did not support or had reservations towards the development of the project because there was no EFLS or public transport modes complementing the project at the moment. The Chairman welcomed the department to come to KTDC again to give accounts on the results of the detailed feasibility study on EFLS and the alternative solutions. He also said that although the paper concerned was only for Members’ reference, and EKEO had also confirmed after the traffic and transport assessment that the development project would not bring an excessive traffic burden to the adjacent areas. Nonetheless, Members were still very worried about that. The Chairman hoped that EKEO could give a clear account on the development directions of EFLS and public transport modes as soon as possible.

19. EKEO remarked that government departments which were responsible for the project would consult stakeholders, including district councils, in due course after the completion of the EFLS feasibility study.

20. Members noted the paper.

25 Item III – The Link’s Support Scheme for Small and Medium-sized Tenants and Adjustment in Rent of Car Parking Spaces

21. Link Asset Management Limited (“the Link”) presented the Link’s Support Scheme for Small (“the Support Scheme”) and Medium-sized Tenants and matters about adjustment in the rent of car parking spaces.

22. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

22.1 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung opined that the Support Scheme could only provide limited assistance for the tenants. The Link should enhance its support. He said that one shop in Hiu Lai Shopping Mall had already closed. He hoped the Link could consider putting forward new measures to help small shops. In addition, he related that all the car owners thought that it was not enough to just freeze the rent. The Link should consider reducing the rent.

22.2 Ms TSE Suk-chun related that the rent of Lei Yue Mun Plaza had indeed been reduced. However, in recent months, the tenants would rather stop the operation of their shops to save their operation expenses. She hoped that the Link could enhance the rent reduction measure for the tenants. She was also concerned about the inadequate supply of air-conditioning at Lei Yue Mun Plaza. Furthermore, she said that there was a serious shortage of parking spaces at Yau Tong. Yet, there were quite many parking spaces at the car park of Ko Chun Court. It was because the rent of its parking spaces was higher than those of the car parks under the purview of the Housing Department (“HD”). Taking the car parks of Ko Cheung Court and Ko Chun Court as examples, the rent of the car park of Ko Cheung Court was $2,460 while that of Ko Chun Court was $3,820. The rent of the Link’s car park was 55% higher than that of HD’s car park. She said that car owners chose to park their cars illegally because they could not afford the rent. She hoped the Link could reduce the rent accordingly.

22.3 Mr KAN Ming-tung said that quite many tenants of Kai Tin Shopping Centre had reflected that they suffered difficulties in maintaining their businesses, especially those who sold non-necessities. The Link needed to think about the proportion and planning of retail shops after some of the shops closed down. Moreover, he said that quite many car owners would rather choose to park their cars illegally due to the

26 high rent of the Link’s car parks. Besides, the present utilisation rates of the Link’s car parks were lower than before. That had also led to the problem that people often complained to the police that enforcement actions had not been taken against the illegal parking problem. He hoped that the Link could reduce the rent of the car parks drastically under the current poor economic circumstances.

22.4 Ms WONG Ka-ying related that Kai Tin Shopping Centre had currently been under large-scale renovation. She asked if the rent of the shopping centre would be raised after the renovation. She said that she did not hope that rooms in Kai Tin Shopping Centre, a relatively large-scale shopping centre in the district, would be left vacant substantially because of the rent problem. She also hoped that the Link would duly consider the rent problem. Moreover, she said that the Link had not mentioned whether the rent of the parking spaces would be adjusted upwards or downwards in the introduction. She also believed that the Link’s petrol discounts and car detailing special offers could not actually help car owners since the basic expenses of car owners were parking fees. She hoped that the Link would consider adjusting the rent of the parking spaces downwards, which would also help reduce the occurrence of illegal parking in the district.

22.5 Mr IP Tsz-kit stated that quite many Members had mentioned that the parking spaces in the Link’s car parks had not been used up. He hoped that the Link would review if it should scare all the cars away by continuing to raise the rent. He said that illegal parking occurred at both Kai Tin and Tak Tin, but there were still many parking spaces at the car parks. Furthermore, he related that Kwun Tong District was a relatively poor district among the 18 districts. The Link’s discounts on car detailing could not really help car owners. What they needed the most was cheap parking spaces. He hoped the Link would consider adjusting the rent of the car parks downwards.

22.6 Mr Eason CHAN was concerned about the following: (i) the reduction in the rent for the tenants were not enough. Although the Link said that it would handle the cases according to their situations, but the Member felt that the Link still handled them with a uniform approach. He hoped that the Link could give special care to small shops selling non-necessities, such as beauty products and groceries; (ii) shopping centres should comprise a wide variety of shops. If unpopular and

27 non-mainstream small shops closed down due to the epidemic, they could not be replaced by supermarkets. The Member hoped that the Link could consider if it could exercise more discretionary power and further reduce the rent for specific shops; and (iii) regarding the impact of the rent of the Link’s car parks, given that the Link played a dominating role in provision of parking spaces, if the rent of the parking spaces was not reduced, that would lead to illegal parking and more chances of occurrence of traffic accidents. He said that he understood the Link was a listed company, but he also hoped that the Link could shoulder its social responsibility at the moment.

22.7 Mr LUI Tung-hai said that it was out of his expectation that the Link was willing to attend KTDC’s meeting and thanked the Link for its participation. However, he opined that the Support Scheme’s help was only minimal, which could not really help ordinary private car owners and shop tenants. The car detailing and petrol discounts given were helpless. He stated that the Link had been raising the rent annually by 10% or 20% over the past 10-odd years, which had been far beyond the inflation rates. Even though the Link, as a listed company, had to take shareholders’ interests into account, the Member still hoped that the Link could think over its social responsibility and consider waiving the rent amid the epidemic.

22.8 Ms FU Pik-chun related that she had been a district councilor for 10-odd years. She was happy to see the Link participate in the present meeting. Yet, the measures and special offers adopted under the epidemic, which the Link had introduced, were inadequate indeed. She hoped that the Link would: (i) reduce the rent of shops to shoulder its social responsibility, apart from freezing the rent of car parks; and (ii) introduce Welcome, apart from Park N Shop, into Shun Lee Shopping Centre since the improvement works at the centre had made the number of supermarkets on the upper floors become one only, which had originally been two, and caused inconvenience to residents.

22.9 Mr HUNG Chun-hin said that it was out of his expectation that the Link had introduced the Support Scheme. He also thought that it was a good attempt to provide special offers under the epidemic. Nonetheless, he was concerned about assistance for the cooked food market. He pointed out that many residents did not dine out amid the epidemic, which affected the cooked food market the most. He hoped

28 that the Link could provide more concessions for the cooked food market.

22.10 Mr HSU Yau-wai asked the following: (i) there was a shortage of parking spaces at On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate, but there were adequate parking spaces at a shopping centre of the Link. The Member asked if the Link would open some of the parking spaces for residents of On Tat Estate and On Tai Estate to rent, having regard to special situations; and (ii) whether the Support Scheme covered markets managed by contractors but under the Link’s purview, such as Po Tat Market and Sau Mau Ping Market.

22.11 Mr CHEUNG Pui-kong stated that he had been shocked to know that the Link would attend KTDC’s meeting and thought that the Link would probably like to leave a record in KTDC and prove that it had introduced the Support Scheme. He believed that was a good start and hoped that the Link could also consult Members when raising the rent of shops in the future. In addition, he said that the current help regarding the rent was only minimal. He hoped that the Link could practically further reduce the rent of shop tenants and car owners using the car parks. Moreover, he wished to relay the rodent infestation problem at Sau Mau Ping Shopping Centre to the Link and requested it to further step up its rodent control work.

22.12 Mr WONG Chi-ken was concerned about the following: (i) shop tenants of Lok Wah Market and Lok Wah Shopping Centre, particularly those small ones, had relayed that they could not afford the rent. Some of them had even been unable to pay the rent on time. Shop tenants whose businesses were not related to necessities, such as beauty parlours and salons, had been affected the most seriously; (ii) two or three floors of Lok Wah Estate Car Park remained unused chronically, but the rent had been increasing; and (iii) shopping centres and markets under the Link’s purview should follow the Government to advocate “supporting employment”. The Member hoped that the shopping centres and markets mentioned above could engage more management, cleaning and security officers so that their environments could be improved.

22.13 Mr LI Ka-tat said that the market and shopping centre near the place where he lived were almost empty. His family would rather walk for

29 30 minutes to Shui Wo Street Market, which was under FEHD’s purview, to buy foodstuffs. He appreciated that the Link, as a listed company, could come to KTDC for consultation. He also suggested the Link learn from the thinking logic of overseas business models. He said that sustainable development departments were provided overseas, which made society able to maintain a relatively balanced environment and develop sustainably. He agreed with what some of the Members had said and thought that shops of businesses such as Chinese traditional face threading, repair of clocks and watches, locksmithing, etc. would be hard to start again and might be substituted when they were closed down. He hoped the Link would think about how to shoulder social responsibility and operate its business in a sustainable development direction.

22.14 Mr Raymond TANG appreciated the Link’s forward-looking ability. He also said that the Link’s Support Scheme had been introduced several months earlier than the Government’s Anti-epidemic Fund. Nevertheless, the initial assistance amount of the Support Scheme, which was only $80 million, was inadequate. Taking the closing down of Vietnam Café at Sau Mau Ping Shopping Centre as an example, he pointed out that even relatively large-scale restaurants had closed down amid the epidemic. Therefore, small shop tenants at markets were probably affected more seriously. He also said that markets would be handed over to the Link for management in the future and asked if there was room for shop rent reduction. He agreed with what Mr LI Ka-tat had said in the respect of sustainable development. He hoped the Link could understand small shop tenants’ difficulties. Furthermore, he said that many car owners also hoped that the Link could reduce the rent of its car parks.

23. The Chairman said that apart from the problems about the cooked food market of Tsui Ping Area, which Mr HUNG Chun-hin had mentioned, education organisations could also obtain around $40,000 as assistance from the Anti-epidemic Fund. Yet, schools had not resumed schooling, making many education organisations suspend their businesses. The Chairman hoped that the Link could provide additional assistance. Moreover, some Members had said that many organisations had closed down under the epidemic. The Chairman hoped that the Link could make use of such a chance to think over the combination of shops at shopping centres and markets so that they could consist of a wider range of shops and provide types of shops that were not available originally.

30 24. The Link thanked Members’ views and responded as follows:

24.1 The amount of assistance under the Support Scheme: regarding that many Members had said that the amount of assistance of the Support Scheme should be raised, the Link responded that in light of the continuous impact of the epidemic on the shop tenants after the scheme introduction, it had decided to raise the estimated amount from $80 million to $300 million. The Link would also keep reviewing if the assistance amount of the Support Scheme was adequate.

24.2 Changes in consumption desire: after the relaxation of the group gathering prohibition and Mothers’ Day, the Link had noted that there had been an increase in consumers’ consumption desire and the volume of flows of people had also increased by 20% to 30%. The Link would also continue to roll out special offers to encourage consumption in the hope of boosting the shop tenants’ sales.

24.3 Supporting employment and recruitment: the Link would support employment and engage more cleaning staff at shopping centres so as to restore consumers’ confidence in going shopping at the shopping centres.

24.4 Sustainable development: since becoming a listed company, the Link had been highly concerned about matters about sustainable development. Taking the market industry as an example, the most difficult part was to find shop tenants to provide services, such as selling pork and fresh fish because those trades were usually categorised as offensive trades. The Link had discussed with government departments on occupation training and tried to put more efforts in improving the environmental hygiene in order to attract more youngsters to enter the industry. If Members were interested in the sustainable development of shopping centres and markets of the community, they could contact the Assistant General Manager - Community Relations of the Link after the meeting.

24.5 Rent of shop tenants: the average rent per square foot of the Link’s retail premises in 2019 had been $69.6. In the meantime, the average rent per square foot of retail premises at Kowloon in the private sector had been $181 already. Nonetheless, the Link would keep reviewing the rent of its shop tenants. Due to the epidemic, the link would

31 consider if it could provide waivers when discussing rent adjustment or renewing rental contracts with shop tenants. If Members found any departments of the Link treating their work with neglect, Members were welcome to directly contact the representatives who were present at the meeting in order to speed up the follow-up process.

24.6 Parking spaces of car parks: regarding whether parking spaces of a car park could be made available for renting by tenants of other estates, the Link stated that according to the land lease, the parking spaces could only be rented by residents of the estate of the car park. However, in certain individual cases, parking spaces were allowed to be used by residents of nearby estates.

Car parks under the Link’s purview would not allow themselves to be fully parked because some of the parking spaces needed to be reserved for visitors, such as residents visiting the shopping centres and relatives and friends visiting residents living in the estates. The Link said that it had been aware that the parking situations of its car parks had been unsatisfactory for more than half a year. Many people parked their cars illegally and often obstructed means of fire safety access. If the Link found such a situation, it would immediately report it to the police for enforcement actions. The Link would also keep paying attention to that situation.

24.7 Supply of air-conditioning at Lei Yue Mun Shopping Centre and the rent of Kai Tin Shopping Centre after renovation works: the Link related that regarding the inadequate supply of air-conditioning at Lei Yue Mun Shopping Centre and the rent situation of Kai Tin Shopping Centre after renovation works, as reflected by Members, it would learn more about the situations with the company later and liaise with related Members again to provide related information.

(Post-meeting note: the community relations section of the Link went to Lei Yue Mun Shopping Centre with Ms TSE Suk-chun on 27 May 2020 to learn about and follow up on the matters about the supply of air-conditioning.)

25. The Chairman said that many Members had mentioned the Link’s previous failure in attending KTDC’s meetings. He hoped that the present meeting was a good start for closer communication between the two sides. The Chairman hoped that the Link would

32 think if it could assist certain businesses that needed special help. He also related that any cases that needed special help could contact the Link’s representatives.

Item IV – Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road (Phase 2)

26. Mr WAN Ka-him asked HD if it had not prepared any paper and why there was not any paper available. Besides, he wondered how HD could give an account and have discussion with KTDC without any paper. He also said that HD disrespected KTDC.

27. The Chairman stated that the Secretariat had already submitted the meeting agenda to HD in advance. He also asked why there was not any paper available and if HD intended to give an account to KTDC with the Progress Report of Public Housing Projects under HD (“Progress Report”).

28. HD responded that it was not true that it had not prepared any paper. Members could refer to information about the works of the Public Housing Development at Wang Chiu Road (“Housing Development”) mentioned in the Progress Report. As regards the detailed project development, works progress, etc. of the Housing Development, HD said that Members could refer to Paper No. 6/2020 for the second meeting of HPLC (7 May 2020), which also contained HD’s paper for consultation of KTDC in 2017 and 2018.

29. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

29.1 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk said Members expected there would be a paper available for discussion for an individual agenda item, which was an established practice. However, he did not know why no paper was available for the present agenda item. Moreover, the Progress Report, mentioned by HD just then, was a regular agenda item for Members’ enquiring about the progress of individual projects. He related it was unsuitable for the discussion on the agenda item in question to be held by the Architect of HD (Architect/HD). Instead, the discussion should be held by architects involved in the project. He hoped the Chairman would lead KTDC to request HD to assign related colleagues to the next meeting to give detailed explanations on that Housing Development, including explanations on carriageways, traffic, ventilation, building orientations, etc.

29.2 Mr Anthony BUX said that he was highly concerned about that there were quite many changes to the Housing Development, including: (i)

33 the number of flats to be provided in Wang Chiu Road (Phase 1) had increased from 2 650 to 2 670 while the estimated number of people to be accommodated had also increased from 6 600 to 7 400, which was a situation that had also appeared in Wang Chiu Road (Phase 2); (ii) at the second meeting of HPLC, HD had said that the works of the Housing Development would commence by the end of 2020; and (iii) originally, the works of Phase 1 and those of Phase 2 of the Housing Development would commence separately, but that had been changed and they would commence at the same time at present. In addition, he asked: (i) why the Housing Development was still regarded as a project whose “detailed design was still underway” in the Progress Report, given that the design had been completed; and (ii) at present, the works of Phase 1 and those of Phase 2 of the Housing Development would commence at the same time, but they would not be completed at the same time. Phase 1, which would only consist of three blocks, would contrarily be completed earlier than Phase 2, which would consist of two blocks. He said that HD should give a clear account on the changes to the details of the Housing Development and stressed the design and planning of the project concerned was unsuccessful. He stated clearly that he would not support that project and expressed his disappointment towards HD’s failure in preparing a paper for Members’ discussion.

29.3 Mr Eason CHAN related that HD’s attitude was poor and insincere. He said that there were quite many newly elected Members in the new term of KTDC. They might not be very clear about development projects in the district. Nevertheless, HD had not considered providing papers and giving an account on the latest progress of the project concerned. Moreover, he said that papers submitted by HD to KTDC had been very short. They had consisted of only several pages to introduce the Housing Development without mentioning anything about ancillary facilities under the project.

29.4 Ms LI Wing-shan said that there were quite many changes to the current project, but HD had not provided any paper. She believed that even if the Home Affairs Department had made amendments to the original paper, it would have been better than providing no paper. In addition, the previous related paper had mentioned that ventilation assessment had been carried out, but it was hard for people to understand the air ventilation assessment situation just by several

34 sentences. She hoped that HD could explain the impacts of the Housing Development in detail, especially the impact on Richland Gardens next to the development. Furthermore, she doubted if HD did not have anything to add except for Paper No. 20/2017 of KTDC, Paper No. 20/2018 of the Housing Committee under KTDC and Paper No. 15/2020 of HPLC under KTDC.

29.5 Mr LEE Kwan-chak said that in the previous meeting, problems about ancillary facilities had been mentioned. Yet, there was no paper available at present. He was not sure whether HD would develop in the past design or had any improvement plans. He reiterated that he was concerned about traffic and market ancillary facility problems. Currently, a total of 40 000 people shared two markets. Some of the residents went to Ngau Tau Kok Market, which also affected residents of To Tai and Upper and Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estates. He wished to learn more about if HD had made any improvement amendments to the project based on the discussion content of the previous meeting. If the answer was negative, he would doubt if HD ignored KTDC’s views.

30. HD said that it understood Members’ concern over the Housing Development and responded as follows:

30.1 Market ancillary facilities: HD had consulted KTDC on the Housing Development in May 2017. The Housing Development would provide retail facilities. Moreover, at HD’s design development stage, it would consider the community’s needs and provide retail facilities. HD had conducted retail facility assessment in 2017 and understood that Kwun Tong District lacked wet markets. Therefore, the Housing Development would not only provide supermarkets, but also an area of around 2 000 square feet for shops at Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Wang Chiu Road to sell fresh foodstuffs and oils to residents.

30.2 The works plan: PlanD had submitted the related outline zoning plan to TPB for its consideration in 2017, but a judicial review had caused delay to the re-zoning and approval procedures concerning the outline zoning plan. The related outline zoning plan had not been approved until April 2020. It had formally been displayed on 8 May. Therefore, the works of the Housing Development would commence immediately after that. They were scheduled for commencement in the first quarter of 2021. The works of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Wang

35 Chiu Road were scheduled for completion in the second half of 2025 and the first half of 2026 respectively.

30.3 Ventilation assessment: HD related that the ventilation assessment on the impact to the surroundings had to be transferred to related colleagues of the department for giving responses.

31. The Chairman said that he could not accept that HD had not prepared any paper, and HPLC would also request HD to come to HPLC again to introduce and discuss the Housing Development. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to write to HD to state KTDC’s discontent with the arrangement for the current meeting and request HD to give a clear account on the reasons for the project to have changed from being developed in phases into being developed simultaneously, as well as the environment impact to be brought by the project.

32. Members raised follow-up views and enquiries as follows:

32.1 Mr WAN Ka-him asked HD if it could promise that it would provide a paper in the next meeting and assign related colleagues to the meeting.

32.2 Mr Anthony BUX related that there were quite many changes to the Housing Development. Besides, HD had responded that the project had undergone a judicial review and required amendments for approval. Yet, HD had not discussed that with KTDC. The Progress Report said that the project was currently at the detailed design stage, which made him worried because unexpectedly, HD had said that it was still carrying out the detailed design at present, despite the fact that the design of the project had previously been reviewed. In addition, he was concerned about the number of flats to be provided and the impact on traffic to be brought by the estimated population growth. He also enquired how the additional 20 flats could accommodate about 1 000 more people. He hoped that the Chairman would request each department to explain in detail the changes to the project and why it involved a judicial review.

32.3 Mr CHOY Chak-hung hoped that Architect/HD would invite colleagues who had requested her to attend KTDC’s meeting to come to the next meeting of HPLC, submit a paper and clearly explain the Housing Development. Otherwise, HD would be required to come to meetings of the Full Council of KTDC for discussion. As the

36 Chairman of KTDC, he said that if HD was unwilling to attend KTDC’s meetings, Members of KTDC would also proactively visit HD to learn more about the project concerned and HD would not need to come to KTDC for consultation anymore in the future.

33. PlanD clarified for HD that the outline zoning plan mentioned just then was the Draft Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay Outline Zoning Plan. The judicial review did not involve the Housing Development of HD. Instead, it involved other amendments in the outline zoning plan.

34. Mr CHOY Chak-hung related that HD was not sure about its own responses and suggested it clearly explain the current situation again when its colleagues related to the Housing Development were present in the next meeting.

35. Mr LEE Kwan-chak hoped that Ms KWAN Hoi-yee, Irene and Ms YUEH Hung-kuk, Christine, Architects of HD, who were responsible for the Housing Development, would come to the next meeting of HPLC. Moreover, he said that HD’s response to market ancillary facilities could not solve the problems. That was because residents of Richland Gardens currently needed to go to Ngau Tau Kok Market, Ngau Chi Wan Market and even Shui Wo Street Market to buy foodstuffs while the provision of additional supermarkets following the population growth under the Housing Development could not solve the problems. He hoped that HD could further explain that in the next meeting. Furthermore, HD’s outline zoning plan had not been approved until May 2020. He asked why HD had been anxious to force Christian Action to leave.

36. The Chairman hoped that Architect/HD would relay Members’ discontent to HD. The Chairman would also ask the Secretariat to write to HD after the meeting to voice Members’ discontent with the arrangement for the present meeting, as well as matters that HD should give accounts on to the Members in the next meeting.

(Post-meeting note: the Secretariat wrote to HD on 28 May 2020 and received a reply on 23 June. The reply letter was forwarded to Members.)

Item V – Progress Report of Public Housing Projects under HD (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 15/2020)

37. HD presented the paper.

38. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

37 38.1 Ms TSE Suk-chun asked: (i) if more detailed information, such as the numbers of flats, the numbers of blocks, sizes of the flats, the numbers of floors at the buildings, etc. could be provided in the paper for the next meeting; (ii) how the numbers of parking spaces for each project were calculated; (iii) what type of parking spaces the 11 commercial private car parking spaces at Phase 1 of Wang Chiu Road belonged to; and (iv) why no parking spaces were arranged for the disabled under the Housing Development.

38.2 Mr HSU Yau-wai made the following enquiries regarding District Open Space at Anderson Road Site C2 Phase 1: (i) the completion date of the works in the paper was the second quarter of 2020, but it was already May at the moment. The Member wondered if the works could be completed before June; (ii) whether the horticultural works plan had been launched and what types of trees would be planted. He said that On Tat Estate was relatively windy. If trees were comparatively tall, they would fall down easily during the typhoon season. If the department did not have any information at the moment, he hoped that it could provide related supplementary information after the meeting.

38.3 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung enquired: (i) why Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Wang Chiu Road would provide 2 670 and 1 450 parking spaces respectively while there was not a big difference between the numbers of private car parking spaces to be provided by them; (ii) sizes of flats in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Wang Chiu Road and Phase 3 of Choi Fook Estate, the numbers of flats on each floor of the estates, as well as detailed ancillary facility information about whether the scale of each flat was designed to serve a single person or a family; and (iii) why Phase 3 of Choi Fook Estate, which would provide 1 110 flats, could accommodate 2 604 people while Phase 2 of Wang Chiu Road, which would provide 1 450 flats, could accommodate 4 250 people.

38.4 Mr TAM Siu-cheuk said that he did not agree to allow residents of Choi Fook Estate to use parking spaces of Choi Tak Estate, regarding Project KT24NR, Works of Phase 3 of Choi Fook Estate. He said that that was a problem with HD’s planning. He reiterated on behalf of residents of Choi Tak Estate that HD should not reserve parking spaces in Choi Tak Estate for residents of Choi Fook Estate to use. On the contrary, it should solve the parking space shortage problem.

38 38.5 Mr Eason CHAN stated that HD should add pictures showing the works progress in the paper so that Members could grasp the current situations of the works progress more easily. In addition, he said that instead of refraining from providing estimated costs of works, as well as the numbers of flats and the numbers of people to be accommodated based on the works expenses until the middle or later stages of the works, HD should provide the above information in the paper. That was because construction costs of works would also affect Members’ decisions on whether they supported the works projects.

39. HD thanked Members for their enquiries and responded as follows:

39.1 Supplementary information to the paper: there might be slight changes to the design of each project, and therefore HD could only provide the approximate numbers of flats to be provided. Besides, changes would also be made to the types of flats to be provided at the detailed design stages. Therefore, the paper could not set out in detail the numbers of flats to be provided under each type of flats. In regard to the works progress and estimated construction costs, HD would transfer the enquiries to related colleagues for further responses.

39.2 Formulation of the number of parking spaces: HD had calculated the number of parking spaces to be provided under each project according to the detailed guidelines laid down in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (“HKPSG”). It would also consult district councilors of districts concerned on individual projects. As regards the project at Wang Chiu Road, it was expected that it would accommodate a population that was bigger than that of the project at Lei Yue Mun. Yet, fewer parking spaces would be provided at the former considering the ratios between the numbers of people and parking spaces of the two projects because the number of parking spaces to be provided at Phase 4 of Lei Yue Mun had been calculated based on the upper limit of the formula. At that time, after consulting KTDC, HD had come to realise that there were inadequate parking spaces at Kwun Tong District. After discussing with Members of KTDC, HD had decided to provide 20 additional parking spaces.

39.3 Arrangements of parking spaces for the disabled at Wang Chiu Road: according to HKPSG, the project at Wang Chiu Road should also provide parking spaces for the disabled. The paper did not show that

39 probably because it contained relatively little information.

39.4 Anderson Road Area Open Space: it was estimated that the main contract works would be completed by end-June 2020 and the horticultural design works would commence by then. The horticultural design works were scheduled for completion in the third quarter. After the completion, the open space would be handed over to LCSD for management as soon as possible. HD would also provide supplementary information about types of tress to be planted under the planning of Anderson Road Area Open Space.

39.5 Problems of parking spaces of Choi Fook Estate Phase 3: HD would relay the views to relevant staff for follow-up actions.

(Post-meeting note: HD responded that Choi Fook Estate Phase 3 Public Housing Development had been considered and planned holistically with Choi Fook Estate Phases 1 and 2 and Choi Tak Estate. According to requirements laid down in HKPSG, the Hong Kong Housing Authority had rezoned in accordance with the planning some of the hourly parking spaces at car parks of Choi Fook Estate Phase 1 and Choi Tak Estate to be private car parking facilities of Choi Fook Estate Phase 3 so as to optimise the use of existing resources. TD’s consent to that planning had also been obtained.)

40. Ms TSE Suk-chun related that she understood the works items might be slightly adjusted, but the numbers of buildings and floors planned by HD would probably not be changed. Besides, HD might also adjust information about sizes of flats in future papers. She opined that the paper did not provide adequate information. It was hard for Members to consider if the estimated population size or group under the housing project could be provided with adequate ancillary facilities in the local area. For example, if flats for one or two people were constructed, more elderly people would probably move into the area. Members needed to think if welfare facilities were enough. Furthermore, she enquired about types of welfare or education facilities to be provided at Lei Yue Mun Estate Phase 4.

41. HD responded that it would relay to its colleagues the request for supplementary information about the number of buildings to the paper. In addition, different welfare and education facilities were provided at Lei Yue Mun Estate Phase 4, including: elderly homes, neighbourhood elderly centres, day care centres/units for the elderly, on-site pre-school rehabilitation services offices, social and recreational centres for the disabled, support centres for persons with autism, kindergarten-cum-child care centres, retail facilities, etc.

40 42. The Chairman said that HD should provide more information to the paper later, such as the number of parking spaces for the disabled and the costs of the works. The Chairman enquired if HD could provide detailed information about designs and types of flats regarding certain housing estates to be completed in the near future, such as Choi Fook Estate Phase 3.

(Post-meeting note: HD responded that under general circumstances, information about the detailed designs and housing types of flats of a newly completed housing estate would be provided to persons allocated with flats when HD offered the flats for the persons’ reference.)

43. HD responded that it needed to discuss with its staff. If the works were nearly completed, it should be able to provide most of the information. It would also relay Members’ views to relevant colleagues for follow-up actions.

44. Members noted the paper.

(Post-meeting note: the Secretariat received on 25 May 2020 supplementary information submitted by HD regarding the types of trees to be planted under planning of the horticultural works at Anderson Road Area Open Space and forwarded it to Members.)

Item VI – HPLC Financial Statement (KTDC HPLC Paper No. 16/2020)

45. The Secretary presented the paper.

46. Members endorsed the paper.

Item VII – Any Other Business

47. The Chairman said the Secretariat had received before the meeting a letter from Mr WONG Chi-ken regarding the Estate Management Advisory Committee (“EMAC”) and estate offices.

48. Mr WONG Chi-ken presented the letter.

49. HD responded that it had an established procedure for renting venues to examine venues at housing estates that could be provided for residents to hold activities in order to protect tenants’ rights and ensure that various organisations could make applications fairly.

41 The approval letter also mentioned regulations for using venues. For instance, loudspeakers were not allowed to be used. Besides, during the activities, there were officers inspecting and recording activity situations in order to monitor if venues were used according to regulations. In 2016, HD had also revised its guidelines so as to strengthen its monitoring and management. If an organisation applied for holding an activity without observing regulations stated in the approval letter, or failed to hold the activity without notifying HD of the cancellation of the activity at least three days prior to the activity date, HD would not allow the organisation to apply for holding the same type of activities within 30 days from the next day of the activity date according to the current mechanism. Regarding situations of individual housing estates mentioned by Members, HD would also relay them to the department for enhancement of executive work of the management.

50. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

50.1 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung said that Sau Mau Ping Estate suffered noise nuisances. Sometimes, elderly people liked to play musical instruments with loudspeakers at public places at the housing estate. However, the estate office did not stop those people. Moreover, he asked if HD would provide suitable venues for residents to play musical instruments so as to avoid affecting nearby residents’ rests.

50.2 Mr Kevin SO said that he was discontent with HD’s response. Since the location being complained was under HD’s purview, he did not understand to which else department he still needed to relay the situations. He said that he had repeatedly lodged complaints to the manager of Lok Wah North Estate, but he still doubted if HD harboured the manager. HD had not dealt with the noise problems either. Besides, after receiving the complaints, HD had only assigned contractors to conduct inspections, which lacked a deterrent effect. He remarked that residents had phoned the security room and the officer-in-charge at the spots to complain, but no one had dealt with the situations. HD had afterwards only said that it had issued warning letters. He doubted if EMAC had refused to enforce the regulations even though it had found irregularities. It had been harbouring organisations and allowing them to conduct unauthorised activities. He said that he had relayed the situations to relevant staff, and suggested arranging HD’s staff to handle the matters on the days when the problems arose if the contractor could not handle the situations. Yet, HD had said that it could not make such arrangement.

42 50.3 Mr WONG Chi-ken related that he had made a complaint to a senior officer of HD about the incident of selling toilet paper. Although the officer had said that he/she would handle the complaint, it was left unresolved in the end. The Member doubted if HD harboured organisations and allowed them to openly conduct commercial activities at areas under HD’s purview. In addition, he asked if HD had provided suitable venues for residents to sing Cantonese operas and Canton pops, and questioned if EMAC had failed to perform its role in protecting residents’ rights, making residents to suffer chronic noise nuisances. He had suggested EMAC set up a mechanism to deal with irregularities with reference to KTDO’s practice in order to step up enforcement actions, establish a point-deducting system and issue warnings. Nonetheless, EMAC had not accepted his suggestion. He hoped the Chairman would take the lead and request HD to provide clear guidelines.

51. HD responded as follows:

51.1 Follow-up of the incident: HD would deeply explore the incident mentioned by Members and relay what they had reflected to the department. As regards the noise problems of Lok Wah North Estate caused by organisations’ activities and it was suspected that some organisations had conducted commercial activities, HD said that venue tenants were not allowed to conduct any commercial activities at rented areas. HD would seriously follow up on the matter and review the work situation for improvement.

51.2 Locations of venues for rent: as for whether suitable venues could be provided for elderly people to play musical instruments and sing, HD related that it depended on if suitable locations could be identified within housing estates. If there were proposals on suitable locations, HD could consider providing additional venues after consulting residents and securing their support through EMAC.

52. Members raised views and enquiries as follows:

52.1 Mr CHEUNG Man-fung remarked that the group gambling problem was serious. He often saw residents gather together to gamble at Sau Fu House. People who gambled in groups refused to leave the group gambling area because they were nervous about the games. As a

43 result, they obeyed calls of nature at areas nearby, affecting the overall environmental hygiene of Sau Mau Ping. Members hoped that the estate office could follow up on the group gambling problem.

52.2 Mr CHOY Chak-hung believed that Mr Kevin SO and Mr WONG Chi-ken should record cases of organisations’ irregularities in detail, such as incident dates and activity details. He also asked the Chairman to set up a case follow-up unit. He hoped that HD would respond to the following issues: (i) according to what Mr WONG Chi-ken had said, a senior officer of HD had said that he/she would handle the complaint about an organisation’s selling toilet paper at public places under HD’s purview, but the complaint had been left unresolved. The Member asked what actions HD had taken to deal with the complaint; (ii) whether HD could confirm that there had been a person selling toilet paper that day, and whether they were licensed hawkers; and (iii) what actions HD had taken after receiving a complaint about the noise problem at the open space, such as whether HD had given any advice to people involved and measured the volume of the sound in decibels to see if the volume was too high. He said that the property management problems of Lok Wah Estate had existed for a long time. He hoped HD would look into the above problems in detail after the meeting. Otherwise, Members might complain in the name of KTDC to the Office of the Ombudsman about maladministration of HD.

53. HD responded that if there were noise nuisances, officers would give advice immediately. If no improvement was made after repeated advice, officers would go forward to stop people concerned from emitting noise. In addition, concerning applications for use of venues approved by HD, the applicant organisers could not conduct commercial activities at rented venue areas. If HD found such irregularities, it might revoke its approval to use of the venues, and organisations concerned would not be allowed to hold activities of the same type within the coming 30 days. HD would also thoroughly follow up on the suspected irregularities mentioned by Members.

54. The Chairman remarked that he would allow time to HD to follow up on the incident and review effectiveness of its work. If the effectiveness was unsatisfactory, he would consider Mr CHOY Chak-hung’s suggestion of setting up a case unit responsible for following up on the incident for a long term. The Chairman hoped that HD would seize the opportunity to deal with the incident seriously and give HPLC a comprehensive response or take follow-up actions.

44 55. Mr CHOY Chak-hung related that HD had not dealt with noise nuisances and allowed people to have commercial activities at places under HD’s purview, causing unauthorised activities to continue as usual. From HD’s response, one could see that HD’s officers had neglected their duties since HD had established policy and the officers did not execute it. He hoped that HD would follow up on the problems he had put forward.

56. HD remarked that it would get to learn more about and follow up on the incident.

(Post-meeting note: HD has explored the incident in depth and comprehensively reviewed the regulating situations of use of venues at all public housing estates in Kowloon East. It has also officially disseminated all related latest work guidelines of the department to frontline managing officers of housing estates and gave special reminders on priority items, particularly the necessity of stepping up inspections in the course of activities, as well as th need to remind applicants of the requirement of obeying the regulations set out in the approval letters. Moreover, HD has reminded managing officers of housing estates that they should enhance communication with stakeholders to improve daily management work.)

57. The Chairman asked HD to follow up on the incident. He also did not exclude the possibility of asking HPLC to follow up on it.

Item VIII – Date of Next Meeting

58. The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m.

59. The next meeting was scheduled to be held on 23 July 2020.

The minutes of the meeting were confirmed on 7 September 2020.

Kwun Tong District Council Secretariat September 2020

45