(Translation)
Minutes of the 15th Meeting of the Development, Planning and Transport Committee 5th Wan Chai District Council Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Date : 10 April 2018 (Tuesday) Time : 2:30 p.m. Venue : District Council Conference Room, Wan Chai District Office
Present Chairperson Ms LEE Kwun-yee, Kenny, MH
Vice-Chairperson Mr LAM Wai-man, Wind, Anson
Members Mr NG Kam-chun, Stephen, BBS, MH, JP The Hon TSE Wai-chun, Paul, JP Ms NG Yuen-ting, Yolanda, MH Mr LEE Man-lung, Joey Ms LEE Pik-yee, Peggy Mr WONG Wang-tai, Ivan, MH Miss YEUNG Suet-ying, Clarisse Mr CHENG Ki-kin Dr TANG King-yung, Anna, BBS, MH Ms CHUNG Ka-man, Jacqueline
Co-opted Members Ms LAU Pui-shan Ms CHING Lei-yuen Mr NG Kwok-shing Mr NG Hoi-shing Dr CHEUNG Charlton
Representatives of Government Departments Miss LAU Hei-yue, Hayley Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), Wan Chai District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms CHAN Siu-ping, Daphne Senior Liaison Officer (Community Affairs), Wan Chai District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms CHAN Ching-han, Peggy Senior Estate Surveyor/HKE(2), Lands Department Mr LUK Kwok-on, Anthony Senior Town Planner/HK 3, Planning Department Mr YUEN Ka-wang Acting District Operations Officer (Wan Chai),
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 1 - Hong Kong Police Force Mr LEE Nai-yeung Officer-in-charge District Traffic Team (Wan Chai), Hong Kong Police Force Mr YU Wing-lun, Alan Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South) 4, Environmental Protection Department Mr CHAN Chi-pong, Steven Senior Transport Officer/Wan Chai, Transport Department Mr TANG Siu-chung Engineer/Wan Chai 2, Transport Department Mr HO Yick-man, Evan Engineer/14 (South), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr CHAN Kai-yin District Engineer/Wan Chai, Highways Department
Representatives of Other Government Departments and Organisations Mr MA Hon-wing, Wilson Chief Engineer, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr WONG Chi-leung Senior Engineer, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr LEE Hon Engineer, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr Francis LEONG Executive Director, AECOM Asia Company Limited Mr Henry CHAN Chief Resident Engineer, AECOM Asia Company Limited Mr Jacob TSUI Senior Resident Engineer, AECOM Asia Company Limited Miss WONG Sin-yan Engineer/Consultants Management 11, Water Supplies Department Mr CHOW Man-chung Resident Engineer, AECOM Asia Company Limited Mr TO Chi-hung Engineer/Construction Division (6), Water Supplies Department Mr WONG Ho-man Building Surveyor, Buildings Department Mr TSANG Heng-wick, Simon Principal Estate Officer/ Hong Kong East (2) (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East), Lands Department Ms WAI Yee-yan, Christine Assistant Director of Administration, Administration Wing, Chief Secretary for Administration’s Office Mr CHAN Tai-chi Senior Engineer 1/Central Wanchai Bypass, Major Works Project Management Office, Highways Department Ms LI Oi-yin, Yanny Senior Engineer/Shatin-Central Link (6), Highways Department Mr LEUNG Shui-cho, Horace Projects Communications Manager, MTR Corporation Limited Mr CHAN Wing-yin, William Liaison Engineer I, MTR Corporation Limited Mr LAM Wai-tak, Walter Construction Manager – Shatin-Central Link (Civil), MTR Corporation Limited Mr YIU Chi-on, Vincent Senior Construction Engineer – Civil, MTR Corporation Limited Mr MAN Wai-keung Engineer/ New Territories 4-3, Highways Department Mr LAW Ho-kin, John Engineer/ Covered Walkway, Transport Department Mr HO Kin-sing, Charles Senior Engineer/ Covered Walkway, Transport Department Ms Carmen CHU Director, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited Mr Ray TANG Associate, Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited Mr CHAN Chi-shing Officer-in-charge, District Traffic Team (Eastern District), Hong Kong Police Force
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 2 - Mr LO Tin-sown Chairperson, Wan Chai Community Association Mr HOW Ming-shing Centre-in-charge, The HK Buddhist Association, C&Y Centre Mr LO Yee-wan Welfare Worker, The HK Buddhist Association, C&Y Centre Ms Phoebe CHING Part-time Welfare Worker, The HK Buddhist Association, C&Y Centre
Absent with Apologies Dr CHOW Kit-bing, Jennifer, BBS, MH
Secretary Ms AU Yat-ping, Janet Executive Officer (District Council)3, Wan Chai District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr KO Chin-hung, Simon Executive Officer (District Council)3 (Designate), Wan Chai District Office, Home Affairs Department
Action Opening Remarks
The Chairperson welcomed Members and representatives of government departments to the 15th meeting of the Development, Planning and Transport Committee (DPTC) of the Wan Chai District Council (WCDC).
2. The Chairperson extended welcome to Mr Anthony LUK, Senior Town Planner/HK 3 of the Planning Department (PlanD), Mr YUEN Ka-wang, Acting District Operations Officer (Wan Chai) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), Miss Hayley LAU, Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai) and Mr Simon KO, Executive Officer (District Council)3 (Designate) of WCDC, for they attended the meeting for the first time.
3. The Chairperson asked Members to note that Mr Evan HO, Engineer 14 (South) stood in for Mr Franklin TSE, Senior Engineer 9 (South) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), who was unable to attend the meeting because of other engagements. In addition, Dr Jennifer CHOW had informed the Secretariat prior to the meeting that she was unable to attend the meeting due to sickness. According to Section 51(1) of the Standing Orders of the 5th WCDC, the Committee would give consent to her notification of absence from the meeting after she had submitted a medical certificate.
4. The Chairperson asked Members to note the papers and the agenda with suggested discussion time on the conference table. She informed attendees that the meeting would be timed to ensure it be conducted in an efficient manner. A maximum of two rounds of speeches were allowed for each agenda item, and each Member would be allowed to speak for two minutes in each round of speeches.
(Post-meeting note: Dr Jennifer CHOW submitted the medical certificate on 11
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 3 - Action April 2018.)
Item 1: Confirmation of Minutes of the 14th Meeting of DPTC of WCDC 5. The Chairperson stated that the Secretariat had received a proposed amendment from Miss Clarisse YEUNG prior to the meeting.
6. Members present raised no other amendments. The minutes of the 14th meeting were confirmed by means of a motion moved by Ms Yolanda NG and seconded by the Hon Paul TSE.
Item 2: Position of WCDC Funds Appropriated to the DPTC for 2018/2019 (DPTC Paper No. 20/2018)
7. The Committee noted the above paper.
Item 3: Summary of Major Temporary Traffic Arrangements in Wan Chai District – Transport Department (DPTC Paper No. 17/2018)
8. Mr Steven CHAN of the Transport Department (TD) briefly introduced the paper.
9. The Committee noted the above paper.
Item 4: Major Small-scale Traffic Improvement Works Completed, Underway or being Planned in Wan Chai District by Transport Department/Highways Department in the Past Two Months and their Schedules (DPTC Paper No. 19/2018)
10. Mr CHAN Kai-yin of the Highways Department (HyD) briefly introduced the paper.
11. Miss Clarisse YEUNG pointed out that the broadening works for the safety refuge at Tung Lo Wan Road near St. Paul’s Hospital had not yet been included in the planned minor works. She asked when the works would be conducted.
12. Mr TANG Siu-chung of TD replied that the works were being discussed by the Technical Services Branch, and he would follow up on the matter with Miss Clarisse YEUNG after the meeting.
13. The Committee noted the above paper.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 4 - Action
Item 5: Summary of Works in Wan Chai District – Civil Engineering and Development Department (DPTC Paper No. 18/2018)
14. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting for discussion of agenda item 5:
Water Supplies Department Mr TO Chi-hung Engineer Ms WONG Sin-yan Engineer/Consultants Management Division
Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr MA Hon-wing, Wilson Chief Engineer, South Development Office Mr WONG Chi-leung Senior Engineer, South Development Office Mr LEE Hon Engineer, South Development Office
AECOM Asia Company Ltd Mr Francis LEONG Executive Director Mr Henry CHAN Chief Resident Engineer Mr Jacob TSUI Senior Resident Engineer Mr Chow Man-chung Resident Engineer
15. Mr Evan HO of CEDD briefly introduced the paper.
16. Mr Wilson MA of CEDD said that they were going to brief Members on the arrangements for the commissioning of Road P2 and the associated roads at Wan Chai North under Wan Chai Development Phase II (WDII), which were necessary for the future commissioning of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass. He added that documents with detailed information would be prepared for Members’ perusal after the meeting.
17. Mr Jacob TSUI of AECOM Asia Company Ltd (AECOM) briefed Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation on the arrangements for the commissioning of Road P2 and associated roads in Wan Chai North under WDII.
18. The Chairperson raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. Given the hasty submission of the paper, Members could not fully understand the arrangements for the commissioning of Road P2 and associated roads in Wan Chai North; ii. She asked how the traffic flow at Wan Chai North would be
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 5 - Action affected by the arrangements; and iii. She stated that the Committee needed additional information and projection on the traffic flow to evaluate the impact of the arrangements on the traffic in Wan Chai North. She suggested that such arrangements should be further discussed at the 16th meeting of WCDC.
19. After discussion, the Committee asked CEDD to send representatives to the 16th meeting of WCDC to brief Members on the detailed arrangements for the commissioning of Road P2 and associated roads, as well as the impact on the traffic flow in Wan Chai North.
20. Mr Wilson MA of CEDD thanked the Committee for the comments. He promised that documents with detailed information would be prepared, and their representatives would brief Members on the relevant arrangements at the 16th meeting of WCDC.
21. The Vice-Chairperson raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. Water supply to a large number of residents at Jardine's Lookout was suspended for about four hours starting from about 5:30 p.m. on 9 April 2018. He called the hotline of the Water Supplies Department (WSD) at 8 p.m. to enquire about the situation, yet the staff replied that WSD could not provide water wagons to the residents since the causes of the water suspension remained unknown; ii. He enquired about the causes of the above temporary water suspension and the reasons for WSD for not providing any emergency water supply by water wagon.
22. Mr TO Chi-hung of WSD replied that since the colleagues present at the meeting were mainly responsible for the new works projects, they had no knowledge of the water suspension incident at Jardine's Lookout. As such, he would follow up on the matter with the colleagues concerned and replied the Committee after the meeting.
23. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She pointed out that a large number of complaints about the works of WSD had been received recently. The matters under complaint included the excessive works area on roads, and improvements were only made after reflecting the issue to the contractor. ii. She stated that many sites without works being underway were not open for public use. iii. She hoped that the notifications of WSD works could be given in a more efficient manner, and WSD could make
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 6 - Action improvements as a whole.
24. Mr TO Chi-hung of WSD stated that they would request the contractors to pay attention to the occupation of roads for carrying out WSD works, so as to minimise the traffic impact. He also promised that WSD would strengthen monitoring.
25. The Vice-Chairperson enquired of WSD again about the reasons for not providing any water wagon.
26. Mr TO Chi-hung of WSD answered that the provision of water wagons were overseen by other colleagues, and he would look into the matter with the colleagues concerned.
27. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of CEDD, WSD and AECOM for attending the meeting.
(Representatives of CEDD, WSD and AECOM left the meeting after discussion.)
(Post-meeting note: WSD submitted supplementary information on the water supply suspension at Jardine's Lookout to the Committee after the meeting, and such supplementary information was circulated for Members’ perusal by the Secretariat on 27 April 2018.)
(The Hon Paul TSE left the meeting at 3 p.m. and Ms Jacqueline CHUNG joined the meeting at 3 p.m.)
Item 6: Storage of Building Construction Materials (DPTC Paper No. 22/2018) (Revised)
28. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting for discussion of this agenda item:
Buildings Department Mr WONG Ho-man Building Surveyor
District Lands Office (Hong Kong East), Lands Department Mr TSANG Heng-wick, Principal Estate Officer/ HKE (2) Simon (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East)
29. Ms Peggy LEE supplemented the following regarding the written question:
i. She explained that she raised this written question because she
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 7 - Action did not know from what departments she should seek assistance when handling many cases concerning obstruction of roads and walkways by bamboo scaffolds and bamboo members. Government departments normally would refer the cases to relevant departments, yet she was unsure about which departments were being referred to;
ii. Obstruction of roads by construction materials would create blind spots to drivers and endangered the safety of pedestrians. Although the situation was serious, it often took several days to resolve a case;
iii. She hoped that the departments concerned could provide clearer guidelines, so that Members could know what departments they should contact when handling similar cases in the future.
30. Ms Yolanda NG supplemented the following regarding the written question:
i. The above problem was severe in Causeway Bay. Her office had invited government departments to inspect the blackspots, and provided photos of the blackspots for follow-up actions. However, normally only the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) would reply. Staff of EPD would hang banners with warnings at the blackspots, and FEHD would assist in clearing the construction wastes although the cases might not fall within its purview. Nevertheless, contractors of FEHD might not be able to handle bulky wastes;
ii. While she acknowledged that such problem might be due to the lack of self-discipline among the public, she hoped that the departments concerned could adopt a more proactive approach to address the matter since the issue had become commonplace;
iii. She asked whether government departments could take up the role as a coordinator to handle the issue.
31. Mr CHAN Kai-yin of HyD replied as follows:
i. According to the existing mechanism, if construction wastes (not mixed with domestic wastes) were reported obstructing public roads under the management of HyD, HyD would arrange road works contractors to clear the wastes as soon as possible. HyD would also handle cases referred by other departments;
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 8 - Action
ii. If such construction wastes obstructing public roads were still useful, HyD would refer the cases to the Lands Department (LandsD) which would process the cases according to the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance. If such wastes were not cleared after the deadline, HyD would assist in the clearance work, subject to availability of resources and the actual situation.
32. Mr Simon TSANG of LandsD replied as follows:
i. If the construction materials were related to the building works, LandsD would refer the cases to the Buildings Department (BD) for follow-up. If necessary, a statutory notice would be posted pursuant to the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28), requiring the concerned parties to cease the occupation of unleased government land before a specified date;
ii. If construction wastes were disposed of at public roads, LandsD would refer the cases to HyD according to Circular Memorandum No. 1/2009 issued by the Environment Bureau (EB) for follow-up actions;
iii. If such construction materials were not wastes, LandsD would first post a statutory notice pursuant to Cap. 28. If such construction materials were not cleared before the deadline, they would be treated as wastes and the cases would be referred to HyD for clearance pursuant to Circular Memorandum No. 1/2009 issued by EB.
33. The Chairperson asked if a statutory notice was posted pursuant to Cap. 28, how much time would the occupier be granted to clear the construction materials.
34. Mr Simon TSANG of LandsD stated that it was required by law that the occupier must be given one full day of notice. If the statutory notice was posted today, government departments could only take actions on the day after tomorrow.
35. The Chairperson asked BD if there was any mechanism to notify building or works contractors to better utilise the materials if they were found to be construction materials.
36. Mr WONG Ho-man of BD replied as follows:
i. BD was empowered by the Buildings Ordinance (BO) to
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 9 - Action regulate the planning, design and construction of buildings and associated works on private land and, for this purpose, to prescribe such building standards on various aspects such as structural and fire safety as well as sanitation. However, the BO did not confer power on BD to handle the construction materials disposed of at public roads or institute prosecution.
ii. Nevertheless, when BD received complaints from the public or referrals from other government departments, it would inspect whether the building plans of the construction works concerned had been submitted to BD for approval under BO or whether the construction works were conducted under the Minor Works Control System. BD would also try to contact the contractor concerned to handle the construction materials and wastes properly.
iii. For interior repair works and construction works classified as “exempted building works”, the contractors were not required to submit a plan or give notification to BD. BD would refer these fly-tipping of construction wastes at public roads to HyD, FEHD and LandsD for follow-up actions.
37. Ms Peggy LEE raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. Although LandsD would post statutory notices, she noted that most cases had not been followed up even when the notices expired, and it might take three to four days to resolve a case; ii. She asked LandsD if the construction materials obstructing public roads were usable, what department should be contacted for follow-up actions.
38. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. It was difficult for the general public to distinguish between construction materials and construction wastes. She asked whether the departments concerned could provide clear and objective guidelines.
ii. She stated that although notices would be posted in accordance with the law by the departments concerned, no reply had been received after a complaint was lodged in most cases;
iii. She pointed out that for cases where the occupiers had occupied government lands with construction wastes without paying any rent, the land value issue involved should be handled by the departments concerned.
39. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised the following comments and enquiries:
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 10 - Action
i. She pointed out that additional resources were required to handle the matter. Construction wastes such as glass and metal window frames would pose potential risks to the public, especially persons with mobility impairment and the disabled. She reckoned that this problem should be resolved as early as possible;
ii. She commented that it was time-consuming to refer such cases between different departments, and she asked whether the departments concerned could propose a more efficient measure to solve the matter;
iii. She said that if the departments concerned did not have sufficient resources, the Council could request additional resources from the government to handle the issue.
40. Dr CHEUNG Charlton raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. He pointed out that the replies from the departments concerned did not answer the enquiries raised by Members directly;
ii. He said that HyD and LandsD needed to spend one day to confirm if the construction materials being disposed of on public roads were wastes. But according to the reply of EPD, they could tell whether such materials were wastes or not in less than one day;
iii. He asked EPD whether they could directly determine if the construction materials on public roads were wastes or not, and clear the wastes according to the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354).
41. Other Members raised the following comments:
i. Members of the public had to pay a fixed penalty of $1,500 for littering, which was disproportionate to the penalty for occupation of government lands with construction materials;
ii. It was suggested that the departments concerned should view the footages of CCTV installed near the blackspots and study the feasibility of increasing the penalty to strengthen the deterrent effect.
42. The Vice-Chairperson stated that the occupation of government lands with construction wastes would endanger the safety of the public. He reckoned that the accumulation of construction wastes on government lands should be tackled immediately.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 11 - Action
43. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the replies of the departments. She reckoned that they were trying to pass the buck to each other, leaving the issue unresolved. She pointed out that construction wastes were stored in the roadside skips in the past, yet nowadays they were disposed of on the roads and walkways, and the situation had been worsening;
ii. She agreed that the penalty for the occupation of government lands with construction materials was disproportionate with that for littering, therefore she supported the introduction of heavier penalty to produce a greater deterrent effect, otherwise this issue might pose danger to members of the public;
iii. She suggested that the Wan Chai District Office (WCDO) should assist in coordinating the efforts of the departments concerned to solve the issue.
44. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:
i. She hoped that the issue would not be transferred to other departments. According to the written reply from the Police earlier, if the construction wastes had caused severe road obstruction or posed imminent danger to road users, the Police had promised to remove such construction wastes as soon as possible;
ii. She pointed out that many problems came from those construction materials that did not pose immediate danger but caused nuisances to local residents. For instance, the emission of fugitive dust would affect the environmental hygiene and traffic. She hoped that the Committee could focus the discussion on this aspect;
iii. She agreed that WCDO should assist in coordinating the efforts of different departments to solve the matter.
45. The Chairperson acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. She pointed out that her constituency had the same problem, causing great nuisances to the public. She commented that the Government was duty-bound to monitor the situation, and she suggested that WCDO should assist in coordinating the efforts of different departments to resolve the issue.
46. Miss Hayley LAU, Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), noted Members’ concerns on the matter. WCDO would communicate with the departments concerned to explore other effective measures.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 12 - Action
47. Members asked BD whether there were measures regulating the storage of building materials by contractors, and whether they would proactively handle building materials placed on public roads.
48. Mr WONG Ho-man of BD responded as follows:
i. If the works concerned were the ones on which the contractors should submit a plan to BD for approval or those carried out under the Minor Works Control System, BD would contact the contractors concerned to handle the construction wastes;
ii. He explained that in general, the delivery and storage of construction materials were part of the works planning and materials management by the contractors. Contractors were responsible for transferring the building materials to the sites, as well as disposing of the construction wastes according to the works progress in a timely manner, and this area of work was not under the supervision of BD.
49. A Member pointed out that the Government had introduced a number of mandatory building inspection and maintenance schemes. Since there were many old buildings in Wan Chai, the contractors could only place the construction materials on the roads and walkways near the buildings.
50. The Chairperson stated that she had learnt from the replies of various departments that construction wastes could be handled by different departments, including EPD, HyD and FEHD. However, at present, the storage problem of construction materials was more serious. She requested LandsD to clear the construction materials placed on roadsides within 24 hours, and she hoped that LandsD could strengthen monitoring and execution.
51. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked EPD that if construction wastes were found occupying the roads, whether they could be cleared immediately pursuant to the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), instead of being handled by LandsD in accordance with Cap. 28 of the laws of Hong Kong.
52. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She expressed her anger to the replies of the departments. She pointed out that the main cause of the problem was the implementation of various schemes by the Government, for example, Operation Building Bright, Fire Safety Improvement Works, Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme and Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme. She was of the view that the departments concerned should give clear guidelines on disposal of construction waste arising from demolition works
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 13 - Action in the practice notes;
ii. She pointed out that apart from Lai Tak Tsuen, the majority of buildings in Wan Chai were privately owned, therefore the storage problem of construction wastes was more severe. She added that the Government should not just issue orders without solving the associated problems;
iii. She asked the Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai) to relay their opinions to the Development Bureau (DEVB). She reckoned that the departments concerned should set out ways of handling construction wastes when issuing orders in the future, as well as specifying the penalties for improper disposal of wastes.
53. The Chairperson commented that the matter required follow-up actions on a long-term basis. She suggested that the matter should be included in the “Action Checklist of District Issues”, and the departments concerned should regularly report to the Committee on the latest situation.
54. Miss Hayley LAU, Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), said that Members’ concerns on the issue were noted. She added that WCDO would discuss the matter with LandsD, EPD, BD and HyD etc. after the meeting, with a view to coming up with better ways for the disposal of construction materials and wastes through departmental coordination.
55. The Chairperson asked LandsD again that whether construction wastes could be cleared within 24 hours upon receipt of a notification.
56. Mr Simon TSANG of LandsD replied that there were legislative requirements and limitations. According to the legal advice, the occupier must be given a full day’s notice. For instance, if the notice was posted today, the government department could only take actions on the day after tomorrow at the earliest.
57. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:
i. She did not understand how the 24-hour’s notice was calculated. According to her understanding, if the notice was posted at 11 a.m. today, the government department could take actions at 11 a.m. on the following day;
ii. She pointed out that the bigger problem these days was that no actions were taken even when the notice had expired. In some cases, Members had to remind the departments concerned that the notice had expired, or no notice had been posted although indiscriminate disposal of construction
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 14 - Action materials was reported.
58. Mr Simon TSANG of LandsD further explained that according to the legal advice, the occupier should be given one full day’s notice to handle the construction materials. As such, if the notice was posted today, the government department could only take actions on the day after tomorrow at the earliest.
59. Dr CHEUNG Charlton pointed out that according to the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354), EPD could take law enforcement actions against dumping of construction wastes. He asked if any construction materials were confirmed to be wastes, whether EPD could take actions to clear them immediately.
60. Mr Alan YU of EPD replied as follows:
i. If the disposal of construction wastes violated the Waste Disposal Ordinance, EPD would conduct law enforcement actions. EPD would step up inspections targeting disposal of construction wastes, and would institute prosecution when sufficient evidence had been collected.
ii. Regarding the clearing of wastes, EPD would notify HyD to arrange clearance actions. He added that no time limit was stipulated in the relevant legislation.
iii. Since construction materials were not wastes, they were not under the control of the relevant legislation. If complaints were received by EPD, they would refer the cases to LandsD for follow-up actions.
61. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked how the construction materials and wastes could be distinguished.
62. Mr Alan YU of EPD replied as follows:
i. Construction wastes could be easily identified. Since construction wastes were normally mixed with various materials, such as soil and bamboo members, they could be identified by visual inspection.
ii. On the other hand, construction materials were normally arranged and stored tidily without mixing with other materials.
63. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of BD and LandsD for attending the meeting. In addition, she summarised Members’ requests as follows:
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 15 - Action
i. The matter should be included in the “Action Checklist of District Issues”;
ii. Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai) was requested to coordinate with different departments to continue to follow up on this issue.
(Representatives of BD and District Lands Office (Hong Kong East) of LandsD left the meeting after discussion.)
(Post-meeting note: WCDO submitted supplementary information on the storage of construction materials to the Committee after the meeting, and such supplementary information was circulated for Members’ perusal by the Secretariat on 23 May 2018.)
Item 7: Noise Nuisance Arising from Street Performances (DPTC Paper No. 23/2018)
64. The Chairperson asked Ms Peggy LEE to briefly introduce the written question.
65. Ms Peggy LEE briefly introduced the written question and raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. Street performances showcased the vitality of society. However, street performances during peak hours had led to noise nuisances in the district. Take Exit A3 of Wan Chai MTR Station as an example, there were street performances from morning till night. Although most residents found that street performances in the morning were acceptable, a large group of audience would gather during peak hours (e.g. 6 p.m. onward), blocking the access of the MTR station and road intersections nearby. As a result, the residents found it difficult to pass through the MTR station when they were on their way home, and the street performances had made the station very crowded;
ii. After 9 p.m. or even after 11 p.m., some performers continued to generate noises with their amplifiers. Some residents had requested the performers to turn off their amplifiers, and suggested them performing at open spaces or locations without any residence during night time. However, those performers ignored residents’ requests and even turned up the volume of their amplifiers, therefore the residents resorted to the Police for help. In general, the Police would not give priorities to this kind of complaints, thus police officers would not arrive at
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 16 - Action the scene immediately after receiving the call. Even when the Police had warned the performers, they would continue their performances after a while;
iii. She stated that according to the reply given by EPD earlier, noise nuisance complaints were mainly handled by HKPF, while EPD would only provide technical support. She reckoned that Exit A3 of Wan Chai Station was not the only location with noise nuisance problem. She asked HKPF that whether the Police had advised the performers to move to other venues at night or when a large crowd was gathered;
iv. She reiterated that this problem had caused great disturbance to the residents. Sometimes the performers were kept making noises at midnight, and the situation was unbearable. She hoped that the Police could propose a definite solution which could strike a balance between the public’s well-being and the rights of the performers, so that street performers could continue to perform, while the daily lives of the residents would not be affected.
66. Members raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. There were many performers giving performances and generating noises at Exit A3 of Wan Chai Station and the footbridge at O’Brien Road every day, and some residents complained to the Police on a daily basis as well. Some local residents had contacted Members for help, and Members had called the Police to seek for assistance. Although the Police admitted in the phone conversation that they were aware of the street performances at O’Brien Road, the Police had never instituted any prosecution;
ii. A Member doubted if the street performers were Hong Kong residents or tourists. She asked if the street performers who were visitors were subject to any legislative control.
67. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She agreed with Ms Peggy LEE that Exit A3 of Wan Chai Station was not the only location with noise nuisance problem. Street performances had also caused nuisances at various pedestrian precincts in Causeway Bay, and the situation had become out of control. She was of the view that if no action was taken before the gathering of performers, the issue would become more complicated to resolve in later stage;
ii. She reckoned that a clear message should be conveyed to the
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 17 - Action street performers, telling them that their performances should be for public enjoyment. However, when their performances caused nuisances to residents living in the surrounding area, or even affected their daily lives, such performances would not be welcomed, and the situation was far from ideal;
iii. She asked the Police if they would adopt measures such as issuing fixed penalty tickets (FPTs), giving advice or coordinating with the street performers when handling these cases,;
iv. She enquired of the Police about the number of cases handled in the past, and what kind of challenges had been encountered;
v. She commented that the situation in Causeway Bay was more complicated since it involved different political parties and certain offensive street performances. Therefore, she hoped that an appropriate solution could be formulated before the location became another venue of street performances.
68. The Chairperson asked the Police to reply to Members’ comments and enquiries.
69. Mr YUEN Ka-wang of HKPF replied as follows:
i. Since the public had the freedom to perform on the streets, the Police could only take stringent law enforcement actions when the performances damaged public peace, endangered the safety of pedestrians or severely affected the traffic. Otherwise, the Police would only advise the performers to leave or issue verbal warnings. He stated that most street performers would lower the volume or even leave the spot after being advised by the Police;
ii. If noise nuisance complaints against street performances were repeatedly received, the Police would step up patrols at the location concerned in order to avoid the recurrence of noise nuisance after police officers had left.
70. Ms Peggy LEE commented that in the best case scenario, performers would be willing to leave after being advised by the Police. However, in reality, many foreigners and non-local residents performed outside Exit A3 of Wan Chai Station, and they would not leave right away after being advised. She hoped that the Police could propose some specific measures and future plans to improve the street performance problem at Exit A3 of Wan Chai Station and the footbridge at O’Brien Road, such as formulating a concrete patrol duty timetable to ensure that the performers would not cause road obstruction.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 18 - Action
71. A Member asked if the Police would check the identity cards of the street performers apart from advising them to leave.
72. Mr YUEN Ka-wang of HKPF replied as follows:
i. In general, police officer would request the street performers to produce their identity cards;
ii. Regarding the formulation of specific measures and future plans to tackle the noise problem at Exit A3 of Wan Chai Station and the footbridge at O’Brien Road, the Police needed to further consider the allocation of resources and the actual situation before formulating relevant solutions.
73. The Chairperson asked the Police to strengthen patrols during night time at locations where noise problem was frequently reported, with a view to avoiding the occurrence of noise nuisance caused by street performances. In addition, since this matter was a long-term issue, she suggested that this issue should be included in the “Action Checklist of District Issues” for follow-up actions.
74. Ms Peggy LEE hoped that the Police could submit a written reply for Members’ perusal via the Secretariat after new measures and future plans had been formulated.
(Post-meeting note: HKPF submitted supplementary information on the noise problem caused by street performances to the Committee after the meeting. The Secretariat circulated the supplementary information to Members for perusal on 16 May 2018.)
Item 8: Requesting the Authorities Concerned to Conduct Comprehensive and Proper Planning for Causeway Bay and Maintain Caroline Hill for “Government, Institution and Community” Uses (DPTC Paper No. 30/2018)
75. The Chairperson welcomed Ms Christine WAI, Assistant Director of Administration of Chief Secretary for Administration’s Office (Administration Wing) to the meeting.
76. The Chairperson asked Ms Christine WAI to briefly introduce the latest progress of the future development of the Caroline Hill Road site.
77. Ms Christine WAI clarified that she attended the meeting mainly to answer questions about the proposed construction of a Judicial Complex for District Court (JCDC) at Caroline Hill Road site by the Judiciary, while the
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 19 - Action relevant planning matter should be explained by the representatives of PlanD.
78. The Chairperson asked Miss Clarisse YEUNG to briefly introduce the written motion.
79. Miss Clarisse YEUNG briefly introduced the written motion as follows:
i. The uses of the Caroline Hill Road site had been discussed by the Council for many times, and she had expressed her views at the Legislative Council (LegCo) as well, yet the departments concerned had refused to conduct consultation first. She pointed out that although the proposal was endorsed by the Public Works Subcommittee (PWSC) of LegCo, lots of information was revealed only during the final discussion. She opined that the Government aimed to seek funding from the Finance Committee (FC) first before undergoing the town planning process and consultation;
ii. She reckoned that WCDC should play a role in the planning of land use. Since Caroline Hill Road site was the last large-scale site for community use in Wan Chai, it was very important to the district. She raised the motion because she hoped that the government could conduct a thorough consultation, with a view to satisfying the needs of local residents for community facilities, as well as listening to the opinions of district organisations and social welfare groups.
80. The Chairperson asked Mr Anthony LUK of PlanD to reply.
81. Mr Anthony LUK of PlanD replied as follows:
i. The written replies by DEVB and PlanD were attached at Annex I to Paper No. 30/2018. If the site had to be rezoned for commercial developments or judicial facilities, the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) must be revised;
ii. According to the existing mechanism, PlanD must consult the District Council on the revised OZP. They might visit WCDC in the second quarter of this year to present the details, including the proposed land use, public facilities and traffic arrangements, etc.
82. Members raised the following comments:
i. The use of the site was discussed many years ago, and the use of the site to alleviate the traffic of the surrounding area was
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 20 - Action considered. However, after years of discussion, no conclusion had been made on the land use;
ii. A Member stated that Mr Joey LEE had raised an amended motion, and it was hoped that views from different Members could be sought;
iii. A Member hoped that the Government could clarify the proposed use of the Caroline Hill Road site.
83. Dr CHEUNG Charlton raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. He asked TD that if the transportation facilities of Wan Chai could meet the needs should the site be rezoned for commercial use. LegCo Members from various political parties had already raised similar concerns. He added that WCDC was greatly worried that Causeway Bay would become over-commercialised. He hoped that the departments concerned could provide the latest statistics of the traffic impact assessment (TIA), and he criticised that the departments concerned had never submitted relevant information for discussion by the Committee in the past decade;
ii. Regarding the construction of JCDC, he reckoned that it was not desirable to arrange all community facilities in the prime locations on Hong Kong Island. He pointed out that the JCDC could be built in further areas on Hong Kong Island to alleviate the busy traffic in the core region.
84. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. A Member mentioned that a consultation had been conducted many years ago, yet she stressed that a consultation could only be conducted when a concrete proposal was available. She stated that the Council only learned from the on-going discussions that 100 000 square metres were planned for commercial use, and 700 000 square metres were for the construction of the JCDC. She criticised that a lot of information was not provided during the Council’s discussion, but only disclosed during the discussions at LegCo ;
ii. She pointed out that the departments concerned had not submitted TIA of the proposal so far. It was even more inconceivable that the departments concerned had proposed to relocate the minibus stop at Pak Sha Road to Caroline Hill Road. She reckoned that Leighton Road had no spare capacity to absorb additional traffic. The Administration had
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 21 - Action completely ignored the views of the Council in making such a relocation proposal;
iii. She was surprised to hear from a Member that Mr Joey LEE would submit an amended motion. Since no relevant paper had been presented, she hoped that Mr Joey LEE could make a clarification;
iv. She pointed out that it was not possible for the Council to endorse the proposal in the absence of sufficient information. She requested the Government to conduct a formal consultation. She asked what the Government would do if the proposal failed to pass the town planning procedures despite being approved by PWSC of LegCo for direct submission to FC for funding, making it impossible to provide 70 000 square metres for the construction of the JCDC .
85. The Vice-Chairperson reiterated that he had raised opposition to the government’s proposal to rezone the Caroline Hill Road site for commercial use at the meeting on 21 July 2017, and now he was still against the proposal to rezone the site for commercial developments.
86. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She commented that the paper had reflected that PlanD and other government departments had not taken the opinions of the Council seriously. Apart from the late submission of papers to the Council, the Government had failed to take the views of the Council into further consideration in the planning process;
ii. Regarding the land use planning of the Caroline Hill Road site, the Council had all along had the hope that it could be utilised for providing residential and government facilities. She added that Causeway Bay could not afford another site for commercial developments;
iii. A Member had mentioned the proposed relocation of the minibus station at Pak Sha Road to Caroline Hill Road. She stated that the Committee and the government departments had raised their concerns over the traffic in Wan Chai in different occasions, and she hoped that a designated site could be made available for the provision of a minibus and bus interchange in Wan Chai. She added that no TIA had been conducted for the above proposal;
iv. She hoped that the Government would attach greater
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 22 - Action importance to the opinions of the Council on land use planning in the future.
87. Members raised the following comments:
i. Land resources were one of the scarcest resources of Hong Kong, and the Caroline Hill Road site had been left idle for a long time. The Government had consulted the Council in the past, and had proposed utilising half of the site for commercial use, and another half for residential developments, while the underground space would be developed into a transport interchange to improve the traffic and air quality of Wan Chai;
ii. The precious land resources should be put to good use to cater for the local needs of Wan Chai. It was understandable that a judicial complex was needed, but the Government should first consult the Council and conduct thorough discussion on land use;
iii. Grave concerns were raised about the burden on the transportation facilities in Wan Chai. The best land use plan could only be made after thorough discussions.
88. The Chairperson commented that the Government should carry out in-depth consultations on the land use and future development of the site with the Council and the public. Consultation on the rezoning of the Caroline Hill Road site for commercial developments was in particular important since this would aggravate the traffic problem in Wan Chai. She further explained that the vehicular flow in the district had been increasing, and she was worried that the transportation network might not be able to cope with any further increase in traffic flow.
89. The Chairperson stated that an amended motion raised by Mr Joey LEE and seconded by Mr Ivan WONG was received at the meeting, and it read “The DPTC of WCDC urges the Government to consult WCDC and the stakeholders in the district before confirming the future use of the Caroline Hill Road site.”
90. The Chairperson asked Mr Joey LEE to make further explanation.
91. Mr Joey LEE stated that he agreed with the views of most of the Members. He was against the proposed rezoning of the Caroline Hill Road site for commercial purpose, therefore he submitted a more comprehensive and flexible amended motion based on the original motion.
92. A Member commented that given the scarcity of land resources, the motion should not impose any preconditions on the land use, and more options
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 23 - Action should be made available for consideration by the public.
93. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following comments:
i. At the meeting on 6 March 2018, the Council had discussed the “Draft Causeway Bay OZP”. The Council disagreed with the OZP and requested PlanD to make further amendments;
ii. She reckoned that it was not an opportune time to discuss the land use of the Caroline Hill Road site, yet she agreed that the Government should devote greater effort to launching consultation;
iii. She pointed out that the “Draft Causeway Bay OZP” had not been endorsed yet, thus moving a motion at this stage might restrict the land use of the Caroline Hill Road site. She was of the view that the “Draft Causeway Bay OZP” should be discussed first before urging the Government to conduct thorough consultations.
94. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised the following comments:
i. She agreed with Ms Jacqueline CHUNG. Although Caroline Hill Road was included in the “Draft Wong Nai Chung OZP”, both OZPs belonged to Wan Chai District and were closely related;
ii. She explained that she moved the motion because she wished to express her views before the proposal was submitted to FC for funding approval. If FC approved the funding application, the Government would not need to listen to the views of the Council. She pointed out that if the proposal was not approved by Town Planning Board (TPB) eventually, the JCDC with an area of 70 000 could not be built, and by then the planning process had to restart from scratch. As such, she reckoned that the current procedures were not appropriate;
iii. She reiterated that the original motion only requested the Government to conduct a formal consultation on the rezoning of site for commercial use and the construction of the JCDC, and it did not restrict the land use. She stressed that Wan Chai required lands for various purposes;
iv. She opined that the amended motion moved by Mr Joey LEE only indicated a general procedure, and its nature was not the same as the original motion.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 24 - Action
95. Ms Peggy LEE asked whether a funding application could be made to FC and no consultation with the District Council would be required, after the proposal was approved by PWSC. She hoped that the departments concerned could clarify the relevant procedures.
96. Mr Anthony LUK of PlanD replied as follows:
i. He said that the funding applied by DEVB from LegCo was used for the demolition of the old buildings at Caroline Hill Road, and the funding was not related to the future land use. He stated that even after the funding application was endorsed, the funding could only be used for the demolition works, but not for the future construction of the JCDC. Regarding the land use of the Caroline Hill Road site, PlanD must consult WCDC on the amendments to OZP;
ii. To meet the local needs as reflected by Members, DEVB and PlanD had stated in paragraph 4 of the written reply that other public facilities would be provided. Moreover, the results of TIA would be included in a paper, which would be submitted altogether in the future to the District Council for Members’ perusal, so that WCDC could raise its views on the proposed commercial developments and the construction of the JCDC.
97. Members raised the following comments:
i. The departments concerned should first consult WCDC on the future land use of the site with a view to avoiding unnecessary misunderstanding;
ii. A Member stated that he/she was not against the proposal to reserve part of the site for the construction of the JCDC.
98. Dr CHEUNG Charlton raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. He commented that if the motion was too flexible, it could not reflect the stance of WCDC. He reiterated that the stance of WCDC on this matter had been clear, i.e. it was against the over-commercialisation of the site;
ii. According to Section 21 of the Standing Orders of WCDC, the Chairman should determine whether a motion accepted for amending the original motion constituted a direct negation of the original motion. He asked how the amended motion constituted a direct negation of the original motion.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 25 - Action 99. The Chairperson explained that literally, Mr Joey LEE’s motion asked for a more comprehensive consultation, while the original motion moved by Miss Clarisse YEUNG was more specific as it asked for a consultation with district organisations and government departments.
100. Members raised the following comments:
i. Mr Anthony LUK had already clarified that the funding would only be used on the demolition work, thus the discussion on land use was unnecessary. However, it was stressed that WCDC should be consulted on any major developments, especially issues concerning the transport facilities and land use;
ii. The construction of the JCDC was just one of the options, and there was no need to make too many presumptions. A more open attitude should be adopted when discussing the land use.
101. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised the following comments:
i. She reiterated that the original motion did not mean that the site must be used for building a community complex. She added that all suggestions were just possible options, yet the Government must communicate with WCDC before commencing the demolition work since the objective of the demolition was rezoning. She considered that the Government had greatly deviated from the proper procedures, and set a bad precedent;
ii. She explained that the difference between the original and the amended motions was that the latter did not indicate the stance of WCDC on the government’s proposal, while the former could reflect the views of WCDC to FC of LegCo;
iii. She pointed out that if the demolition work would limit the possible development options. She reckoned that although the buildings were dilapidated, they could still be used to serve different purposes.
102. Mr Ivan WONG raised the following comments:
i. As the seconder of the amended motion, he disagreed with Miss Clarisse YEUNG;
ii. He considered that the amended motion could encourage the Government to respect the views of WCDC, and it had greater coverage, flexibility and binding effect than the original motion.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 26 - Action
103. A Member opposed both the original and the amended motions, but agreed that the Government should not skip the consultation.
104. The Chairperson stated that another amended motion moved by Ms Peggy LEE and seconded by Ms Jacqueline CHUNG was received, and it read “The DPTC of WCDC urges the Government to consult WCDC on the Wong Nai Chung OZP, including the future use of the ex-Electrical and Mechanical Services Department site.”
105. The Chairperson stated that the latest amended motion would be handled first.
106. Dr CHEUNG Charlton commented that the departments concerned had applied funding for the demolition work, since the existing buildings complied with the current planning, but might not be compatible with the new planning. Therefore, retaining the existing buildings could allow additional flexibilities for future development as they could be utilised in the future.
107. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:
i. She pointed out that WCDC had thoroughly discussed the demolition work before. Since the existing buildings had been left idle for a long time, they might give rise to danger and rodent infestation. To ensure structural safety, WCDC agreed to carry out the demolition work. However, it had clearly expressed that their support did not mean that any planning could be approved without prior consultation;
ii. She supported the latest revised motion, since it mentioned the consultation on the Wong Nai Chung OZP, but she hoped that stakeholders in the community could also be included in the motion;
iii. She hoped that the departments concerned could clarify whether the demolition work was conducted without any preconditions.
108. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked BD to clarify whether the existing buildings were categorised as “dangerous buildings”.
109. Mr Anthony LUK of PlanD replied that the understanding of Ms Yolanda NG was correct. WCDC only supported the funding application for the demolition work at the previous meeting, and PlanD must consult WCDC on the amendments to OZP. He added that there were no preconditions for the demolition work. Under the Town Planning Ordinance, even when the
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 27 - Action consultation with the District Council was completed, any stakeholders and members of the public could make representations to TPB, and TPB would hold a hearing and invite persons who had made representations to the hearing to present their opinions.
110. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised the following comments:
i. Although WCDC had endorsed the demolition work in February 2016, the departments concerned stated at that meeting that they would consult TPB. However, the consultation had been repeatedly postponed, and the submission of relevant information to WCDC was further delayed. Even at today’s meeting, no complete TIA report was provided;
ii. The Caroline Hill Road site was mentioned in several Policy Addresses, but the development proposal had been revised constantly. She pointed out that the long-term planning of the Caroline Hill Road site should be discussed at this stage, since if no consensus could be reached on the future land use, retaining the existing buildings could provide greater flexibility. She emphasised that the height restriction for the site was three storeys, if the existing 11-storey building was demolished, spaces of eight storeys would be lost;
iii. She learned from the discussions at LegCo that the existing buildings could be rehabilitated at a cost of about $800 million. In other words, the 11-storey building could be retained for community use without the need to undergo the town planning procedures;
iv. She hoped that the amended motion could tell LegCo loud and clear about the stance of WCDC. WCDC should be consulted on the proposal before it was submitted to TPB for relevant procedures. She reckoned that it would give rise to misunderstanding among the public if the Government could commence the planning process after obtaining the consent from WCDC to carry out the demolition work.
111. The Chairperson stated that this matter would be included in the “Action Checklist of District Issues”. She pointed out that since every development step would have implication in the well-being of the public, she requested PlanD to thoroughly consult the public and WCDC on each of the proposals concerning the future development.
112. Mr Anthony LUK of PlanD reiterated that WCDC would be consulted on any amendments to OZP concerning a change in land use.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 28 - Action
113. The Chairperson stated that the latest amended motion moved by Ms Peggy LEE and seconded by Ms Jacqueline CHUNG would be handled first, and she asked Ms Peggy LEE to read out the amended motion, “The DPTC of WCDC urges the Government to consult WCDC and the stakeholders in the community on the Wong Nai Chung OZP, including the future use of the ex-Electrical and Mechanical Services Department site.”
114. After discussion, the amended motion moved by Ms Peggy LEE based on the original motion was passed in the presence of 16 Members, with 13 voting in favour (Co-opted Member Mr NG Hoi-shing, Co-opted Member Mr NG Kwok-shing, Co-opted Member Ms LAU Pui-shan, Mr Ivan WONG, Mr Joey LEE, Ms Yolanda NG, the Chairperson Ms Kenny LEE, the Vice-Chairperson Mr Anson LAM, Mr Stephen NG, Dr Anna TANG, Ms Jacqueline CHUNG, Ms Peggy LEE and Co-opted Member Ms CHING Lei-yuen), 1 voting against (Mr CHENG Ki-kin) and 2 abstaining from voting (Dr CHEUNG Charlton and Miss Clarisse YEUNG).
115. The Chairperson announced that the motion was passed, and she thanked Ms Christine WAI for attending the meeting.
(Ms Christine WAI left the meeting after discussion. Co-opted Member Ms LAU Pui-shan joined the meeting at 4:15 p.m.)
Item 9: Report on Progress of the Shatin to Central Link (DPTC Paper No. 24/2018)
116. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:
Highways Department Ms LI Oi-yin, Yanny Senior Engineer/ Shatin to Central Link (6) Mr CHAN Tai-chi Senior Engineer 1/ Central-Wanchai Bypass
MTR Corporation Limited Mr LEUNG Shui-cho, Projects Communications Manager Horace Mr CHAN Wing-yin, Liaison Engineer I William Mr LAM Wai-tak, Walter Construction Manager - Shatin to Central Link (Civil) Mr YIU Chi-on, Vincent Senior Construction Engineer - Civil
117. Representatives of MTR Corporation Limited (MTRC) briefed Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation on the latest progress of the
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 29 - Action Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project, including the construction works of the cross-harbour rail tunnels, the Exhibition Centre Station, rail tunnels of the Hong Kong Island section, and the community liaison work.
118. Dr CHEUNG Charlton raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. Since the crossing point off the Wan Chai Bus Terminus would be closed, the pedestrian connectivity to Causeway Bay, including Marsh Road and the footbridge at Canal Road, would be affected;
ii. He asked that when the crossing point was closed in the future, whether pedestrians would need to walk through Harbour Centre in order to go to Causeway Bay.
119. The Chairperson raised the following enquiries:
i. She asked whether the construction works would be delayed since MTRC needed to re-evaluate site safety following the discovery of wartime bombs in January and February;
ii. It was expected that the Tunnel Approach Rest Garden would be restored at the end of 2018 or in early 2019. She enquired about the time needed for the reprovisioning of the model car play area in the rest garden;
iii. She asked that when the footbridge connecting Harbour Centre and Wan Chai North would be constructed.
120. Mr William CHAN of MTRC replied as follows:
i. Most pedestrians of the bus terminus mainly commuted to and from Wan Chai Ferry Pier, Great Eagle Centre and Harbour Centre, therefore the closure of the crossing point off the bus terminus would be unlikely to affect the pedestrians. Although it would take extra time for the pedestrians to go to Causeway Bay from the bus terminus on foot, such arrangements could alleviate the traffic congestion in Wan Chai North;
ii. The construction of the model car play area was expected to commence in late 2018 and be completed in 2019. While the actual completion date depended on the progress of other works, MTRC would urge the contractor to complete the works as soon as possible;
iii. Regarding the permanent reprovisioning of the footbridge,
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 30 - Action MTRC anticipated that the construction of the first section would commence at the end of this year. Since the second section of the footbridge would span across the site of the SCL project, it could be built only when the current works were largely completed. Before the new footbridge was opened for public use, the temporary footbridge would be retained for pedestrians heading to and from the vicinity of Wan Chai Ferry Pier;
iv. Since wartime bombs were found in January, MTRC needed to evaluate the safety of the site before continuing the works. The works had already resumed and the target commissioning would remain in 2021.
121. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of HyD and MTRC for attending the meeting.
(Representatives of HyD and MTRC left the meeting after discussion.)
(Mr Ivan WONG, Mr CHENG Ki-kin and Co-opted Member Ms CHING Lei-yuen left the meeting at 4:50 p.m.)
Item 10: Study on Pedestrian Connectivity between Wan Chai and Sheung Wan – Transport Department and Highways Department (DPTC Paper No. 29/2018)
122. The Chairperson welcomed the following representatives to the meeting:
Transport Department Mr Charles HO Senior Engineer/ Covered Walkway Mr John LAW Engineer/ Covered Walkway
Highways Department Mr MAN Wai-keung Engineer/ New Territories 4-3
Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited Ms Carmen CHU Director Mr Ray TANG Associate
123. Mr Charles HO of TD stated that as announced by the Chief Executive in the 2017 Policy Address, the Government would actively take forward “Walk in HK” to encourage people to walk more so as to reduce the use of mechanised transport for short-distance commuting. In this connection, TD had appointed a consultant to study the pedestrian connectivity between Wan Chai and Sheung Wan. The study aimed to construct an east-west pedestrian connection, with a
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 31 - Action view to enhancing the walking network between Wan Chai and Sheung Wan. TD wished to consult the Committee on the proposal.
124. Ms Carmen CHU of Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited (OAP) briefed Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation on the preliminary ideas on pedestrian connectivity between Sheung Wan and Central, Central and Admiralty, Admiralty and Wan Chai and Wan Chai and Causeway Bay.
125. Ms Peggy LEE asked whether there was a definite timetable of the proposal and how the facilities would be constructed in phases.
126. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:
i. She commented that today’s presentation was more specific. She hoped that the pedestrian facilities connectivity could not only cover Central, Causeway Bay and Wan Chai, but also the Eastern District;
ii. She hoped that the pedestrian connections would be accessible, spacious and aesthetic, which could enable the public to have an enjoyable walking experience and appreciate the characteristics of each district;
iii. She added that the study should also cover the management, maintenance and cleaning responsibilities of the pedestrian connections after they were constructed;
iv. She was concerned about the connectivity between the harbourfront in Wan Chai North and downtown Wan Chai. She hoped that the study could enhance the connectivity of the entire Wan Chai District and allow greater community participation.
127. Dr CHEUNG Charlton supported the proposed widening of the walkway under the footbridge at Marsh Road. However, he had reservations about the widening of the walkway at Gloucester Road, as the pedestrian flow was not heavy and a widened walkway might affect the traffic.
128. The Chairperson raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She raised concern about the idea of building a new footbridge near the central reserve at Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts (HKAPA). She commented that the proposed footbridge was very close to the flyover at Arsenal Street, and this might endanger the safety of the pedestrians and adversely affect the streetscape, thus a pleasant walking experience was unlikely. She asked the departments
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 32 - Action concerned that whether similar designs were used in other districts, and whether the altitude of the walkway could be adjusted to avoid being parallel to the carriageway;
ii. She pointed out that there was no pedestrian crossing at the junction of Fenwick Street and Gloucester Road, and pedestrians had to use a two-storey footbridge at Gloucester Road to go to Lockhart Road and HKAPA. Many members of the public reflected that the elderly and the disabled found it hard to use the footbridge. She hoped that the departments concerned could also study the feasibility of providing pedestrian crossing facilities at the above location.
129. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following comments:
i. She welcomed the proposal, yet she commented that many proposals initiated by the Government were not implemented successfully. She hoped that this proposal could be put into implementation;
ii. She agreed to widen the walkway from Percival Street to Canal Road along Jaffe Road, and hoped that the works could be carried out successfully. She said that illegal parking was serious at the above location, and there were often long queues outside the restaurants, causing obstruction to the pedestrians;
iii. She had reservations about the widening of the walkway at the bend under Canal Road Flyover, since the sharp and dangerous bend might be a blind spot for drivers. She reckoned that adjusting the existing motorbike parking space would be more feasible;
iv. She was concerned about the dim walkway at Marsh Road. She pointed out that the space was not fully utilised since it was used as a place for storage of tools by FEHD;
v. She commented that the study only focused on the east-west connectivity. More thoughts should be given to the north-south connectivity, so as to enable the public to obtain a better walking experience.
130. Ms Carmen CHU of OAP responded as follows:
i. The entire planning consisted of the short, medium and long-term proposals, and it was hoped that the proposals with higher feasibility could be implemented first. In general, it would not take more than five years to design and roll out a short or medium-term proposal. Thus, greater focus would
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 33 - Action be given to the implementation of the short-term proposal;
ii. As for the long-term proposal, since it involved engineering design of greater complexity, underground pipelines, and progress of other construction works, a definite timetable was not available at this stage. However, they would follow up on the proposal taking into account the progress of the SCL project and other works projects;
iii. Regarding suggestions on the widening of the walkway at Canal Road and the reprovisioning of the motorbike parking space, she stated that they would consider the overall enhanced design of the bend;
iv. With respect to the widening of the walkway at Gloucester Road, she pointed out that they would consider the suggestion and evaluate the traffic flow at the above location;
v. She explained that the study would first focus on the east-west connectivity of Wan Chai before further studying the north-south connectivity, in order to tie in with the planning of Wan Chai North Harbourfront;
vi. Regarding the proposed footbridge near the central reserve at HKAPA, she said that the footbridges at Mong Kok Road and Tai Ho Road in Tsuen Wan were two examples for reference. She explained that plants and hoarding could be provided on the footbridge to separate the pedestrians and vehicles.
131. The Chairperson thanked the representatives of TD, HyD and OAP for attending the meeting.
(Representatives of TD, HyD and OAP left the meeting after discussion.)
Item 11: Report on the Progress of Matters Arising of the DPTC of the WCDC (DPTC Paper No. 21/2018)
132. The Chairperson welcomed Mr CHAN Chi-shing, Officer-in-charge of District Traffic Team (Eastern District) of HKPF to the meeting.
133. The Chairperson invited Members to raise comments and enquiries on the “Action Checklist of District Issues”.
134. Ms Peggy LEE raised the following comments and enquiries:
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 34 - Action i. She wished to follow up the gazettal of the Hopewell Centre II (HCII) project. She enquired of LandsD whether Hopewell had submitted a plan for approval.
ii. She asked EPD to pay attention to the noise nuisance problem arising from the works site of HCII, in particular in the vicinity of Kennedy Road on Saturdays. She said that she had reflected the problem to the contractor, China Overseas Land & Investment, which in response, had enhanced the noise mitigation measures for the works site. The measures had been effective, but complaints from nearby residents had been received in the recent six months. She hoped that EPD could work out a noise mitigation proposal with China Overseas Land & Investment, such as arranging the noisy works to be commenced after 9:30 a.m. on Saturdays, and conducting a review to see if the noise mitigation measures for the works site were adequate. Since the project would be completed in 2022, she hoped that EPD would follow up on the situation on a continuous basis.
135. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She wished to follow up the relocation programme of the tram power substation. She pointed out that some problems had been identified during the ground investigation carried out at this stage. She discovered last month that there were hoardings for waterworks inside the works site at Causeway Road. In response to her enquiry, Hong Kong Tramways Limited (HK Tramways) said that underground pipes suspected to be managed by WSD were found inside the works site, but eventually, the pipes were confirmed to be not within the purview of WSD. She said that although HK Tramways had given her a detailed reply, it threw no light on the works progress. She had provided HK Tramways with a sample of works notice for reference. However, no works notice had been received from HK Tramways so far. She asked HK Tramways to inform the Committee if any new issues were identified in the course of works.
ii. Since HK Tramways did not take the initiative to inform the Council of the works progress, she often visited the site and took photos for record purpose. She opined that HK Tramways had been passive in making responses and failed to honour its promise to the Council.
136. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG raised the following comments:
i. She enquired about the illegal parking at 220-230 Gloucester Road and the proposed erection of railings. Regarding the consultation work conducted by the department concerned, she opined that there were inadequacies in relation to the consultation targets. She
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 35 - Action learned that TD would ask the district office to assist in consulting the stakeholders within 50 metres from the affected area. However, TD had not made public the background of the respondents of the consultation. Although the erection of railings in some road sections was not allowed under the relevant ordinance, those included in the consultation might not be able to fully reflect the views of the local residents. Those with vested interests would certainly be opposed to the erection of railings. Therefore, she hoped that the district office could provide the Committee with supplementary information about the background of the consultation targets.
ii. According to Annex II, only a few inspections were conducted to 220-230 Gloucester Road and the section of Hennessy Road between Canal Road West and Tin Lok Lane. The local residents said that illegal parking was most rampant during lunch hours. Many vehicles were illegally parked on the road for repair, causing obstruction to pedestrians and road traffic. She hoped that the Police would step up inspection and law enforcement.
137. Miss Clarisse YEUNG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. According to the reply given by MTRC, it had maintained communication with the management office and the owners’ corporation (OC) of Park Towers. Yet no significant progress had been made in the installation of a lift at Tin Hau Station. She hoped that MTRC could enhance its communication with the relevant parties in order to expedite the installation of a lift at Tin Hau Station.
ii. In regard to the lost trip problem of Citybus Route 11, she enquired if TD and the bus company had paid attention to the arrival time at intermediate stops or the road traffic apart from conducting a bus count at Central Ferry Piers Bus Terminus. She pointed out that many passengers could not get on the bus at Tai Hang Road when the bus was returning to Tai Hang. She was of the view that the problem of Citybus Route 11 was yet to be resolved. She asked TD and the bus company to inform the Committee that whether statistics had been collected at the two bus stops at Tai Hang Road, including the one at 1 Tai Hang Road and the one at Li Kwan Avenue, to see if any passengers could not get on the bus.
iii. She pointed out that the number of the planning application for 4-4C Tai Hang Road had changed from A/H6/80 to A/H6/82. She said that many residents had received the consultation document before holidays which aimed to consult the residents on the planning application. In fact, the residents had earlier called for the Government to introduce a legislative amendment to ban applicants
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 36 - Action from consulting the public before long holidays. She hoped that PlanD could give a response to this matter.
138. Ms Yolanda NG supplemented that as told by HK Tramways, it would inform the public of the consultation on the greening proposal between April and late June. However, no such information had been received so far. She called for HK Tramways to provide the relevant information as soon as possible.
139. The Chairperson invited the representatives of the departments concerned to respond to Members’ comments and enquiries.
140. Mr Alan YU of EPD said that according to the departmental record, inspections had been conducted to the works site of HCII project, which revealed that no construction works were carried out on the works site during the restricted hours. At present, the contractor mainly carried out the works during non-restricted hours. EPD had received noise complaints involving the above works site, and had communicated with the contractor with a view to working out noise mitigation measures. As far as he knew, noisy works would commence at a later time during daytime, and noise insulating fabric would be used within the area of the works site. EPD would continue to follow up with the contractor to minimise the noise nuisance caused to the local residents.
141. Ms Peggy CHAN of LandsD said that representatives of LandsD and Hopewell had attended WCDC meeting held on 9 January 2018 to discuss the gazettal procedures. LandsD had been following up on the matter with Hopewell.
142. Mr Steven CHAN of TD responded as follows:
i. Members’ views were noted. TD would urge HK Tramways after the meeting to timely report to the Committee on the details and progress of the works to relocate the tram power substation;
ii. Bus trips of Citybus Route 11 starting from Central Ferry Piers Bus Terminus were generally provided in compliance with the requirements. However, the arrival time at intermediate stops might sometimes be slightly delayed due to the road traffic condition. TD would provide information about the service at intermediate stops in the document to be submitted next time.
143. Miss Hayley LAU, Assistant District Officer (Wan Chai), said that those within 50 metres from the affected area had been consulted on the “proposed installation of iron poles at 220-240 Gloucester Road (near Canal Road West)” in accordance with the established procedures. She said that supplementary information about the relevant consultation work could be provided to the Committee after the meeting, and they could discuss with the relevant
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 37 - Action departments the consultation area and targets when consultation was needed in the future.
144. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG said that it was alright to consult those within 50 metres from the affected area. However, the consultation results were not representative because WCDO did not give any information on the background of the respondents. Those within 50 metres might include residents, OCs, shop tenants, etc. It was common for the respondents to provide their name and signature only. Those who expressed opposition might be the customers of garages, and their views were not representative of what local residents in mind.
145. Mr Anthony LUK of PlanD said TPB was required to conduct public consultation upon receipt of a planning application under the Town Planning Ordinance. It was required by law that a three-week public consultation should be conducted. The planning application in question was made available for public inspection between 13 March 2018 and 3 April 2018. 30 March was a public holiday. Under the existing legislation, the Administration had no power to prohibit individual applicants from submitting a planning application before long holidays. Upon receipt of a planning application, PlanD would follow the established procedures by promptly informing the Member of the constituency concerned via email, publicising the planning application in newspapers, and posting up notices to inform nearby residents. Members of the public could submit their views to TPB.
146. Miss Clarisse YEUNG thanked PlanD for its reply. She said that she had a good knowledge of the relevant Ordinance, and the Council had earlier discussed its inadequacies. PlanD was not asked to explain the Ordinance or the relevant procedures, but to propose a solution or improvement measures. For example, PlanD could consider introducing a legislative amendment so that residents could not be asked to make a response before long holidays. In the first week after receipt of the consultation document, the Member of the constituency concerned needed time to collate the information, consult the professionals and appealed to the local residents to give a response. She opined that the applicant brought so much inconvenience to the residents and wasted a lot of resources since it submitted an application in January before the Lunar New Year and then re-submitted the application in March before Easter holidays. Moreover, she was dissatisfied with the Ordinance since it favoured developers. Being a representative of the general public, she raised the issue with the departments concerned and asked them to follow up.
147. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked the Secretariat to update the number of the planning application of 4-4C Tai Hang Road to A/H6/82.
148. The Chairperson said that Mr Joey LEE had expressed his hope that the issues of Lai Tak Tsuen be included in the “Action Checklist of District Issues”. Members raised no objection.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 38 - Action 149. Miss Clarisse YEUNG said that WSD had carried out waterworks at Tung Lo Wan Road near School Street and the bus stop there was therefore relocated. There was always illegal parking on the left lane of westbound Tung Lo Wan Road (towards Causeway Road), causing obstruction to buses heading to the bus stop and vehicles heading to the inner streets of Tai Hang. She asked the Police to step up inspection and law enforcement.
150. A Member pointed out that the illegal parking problem at King Kwong Street and Yick Yam Street had not improved, and asked the Police to step up law enforcement. The Member also suggested TD assign double yellow line road marking at King Kwong Street near the bus stop. Moreover, the complaint hotline of Happy Valley Police Station was very busy, thus complaints of illegal parking from members of the public could not be promptly handled. The Police was asked to make improvements.
151. Ms Jacqueline CHUNG said that the illegal parking problem at 220-230 Gloucester Road, the section of Hennessy Road between Canal Road West and Tin Lok Lane and the road section under Canal Road Flyover from Leighton Road to Gloucester Road had not improved. However, only a small number of inspections had been conducted to the above locations. She asked the Police to step up inspection and law enforcement. Noting the rampant illegal parking at the section of Jaffe Road between Percival Street and Canal Road East, which blocked pedestrians’ view when they were crossing the road, she asked the Police to pay attention to the problem, and hoped that such problem could be included in the action checklist for follow-up actions.
152. Members agreed with the suggestion about assigning double yellow line road marking at King Kwong Street to curb double or triple parking, which had caused obstruction to buses entering the bus stop.
153. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:
i. The document showed that a large number of inspections had been conducted, and the numbers of inspections and complaints regarding blackspots no. 6-18 were well greater than the number of FPTs issued. Yet the numbers of FPTs issued at Spring Garden Lane, Amoy Street and Wun Sha Street were relatively high during some days.
ii. She acknowledged the busy traffic in Causeway Bay, and it might be more effective for the Police to ask the motorists to drive away through verbal warning than issuing FPTs. However, at streets where loading and unloading were common, vehicles tended to quickly return to the same location for loading and unloading after they were verbally warned to leave. In view of this, she was of the view that the Police should step up enforcement actions at such locations by issuing FPTs in order to combat illegal parking.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 39 - Action iii. She had commended the Police for their enforcement efforts in combating illegal parking. Since the Police had promoted the message that enforcement actions without prior warning would be taken in the district, she hoped that the Police could step up its efforts in issuing FPTs in busy streets.
154. Mr Joey LEE pointed out that there was a large number of FPTs issued at Dragon Terrace in December and February. Since Dragon Terrace fell within the purview of North Point Police Station and Happy Valley Police Station, he enquired about the distribution of the FPTs issued at Dragon Terrace. He opined that the illegal parking problem there was serious and it was necessary for the Police to step up inspection during night time and issue FPTs without prior warning.
155. Mr YUEN Ka-wang of HKPF responded as follows:
i. Members’ views on the above blackspots were noted. The Police had been maintaining strong level of law enforcement at the blackspots in the checklist. Officers were sent to inspect the illegal parking blackspots every day. The Police would deploy its resources flexibly to combat illegal parking and to ensure smooth traffic and road safety.
ii. Since Causeway Bay was a highly congested area, the first and foremost priority was to promptly address the congestion problem. Therefore motorists would be advised to drive away. Besides, to avoid traffic congestion during the issuance of FPTs, frontline police officers would take law enforcement actions according to the actual situation.
156. Mr CHAN Chi-shing of HKPF said that of the 78 FPTs issued at Dragon Terrace in February, 38 were from Wan Chai District and 40 from Eastern District. Frontline police officers were told to take law enforcement actions when a vehicle was driven from one police district to another police district, but was still in contravention of a traffic sign or road marking, causing obstruction or posing hazards to other road users. The police officers would later inform the police district concerned of the offence. Such cases would require staff deployment, but would not affect the decision made and law enforcement action taken by frontline officers.
157. Mr TANG Siu-chung of TD said that they would consider the Committee’s suggestion about assigning double yellow line road marking at King Kwong Street and would provide a reply later.
158. Ms Peggy LEE said that the noise nuisance problem at Noise Pollution Blackspot No. 19 “Wu Chung House Sitting-out Area” had been alleviated for the time being. She thanked LandsD and Hopewell for their concerted efforts.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 40 - Action However, she hoped that such noise pollution blackspot would be renamed as “Open Space off the Post Office on the Podium Level of Wu Chung House”. Activities such as boxing and oil massages on a massage bed were spotted at the above location up to 9:00 p.m. every Saturday. Hopewell had coordinated with the Police and enclosed the area with mills barriers. However, the situation at the open space off the Post Office had not improved. She called for EPD and the Police to follow up. She had provided the Police Community Relations Office with the relevant photos for record purpose.
159. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments:
i. Although EPD stated in its reply that no irregularities had been found, she had visited a number of blackspots to advise the persons concerned to reduce noise. For example, the works at Lee Garden One had been carried out until 2:00 a.m. between March and April; Sogo Department Store still carried out loading and unloading activities and removal of construction materials during night time. While night-time noise from restaurants in TOWER 535 had alleviated, noise nuisance would arise and continue until midnight when there was an event.
ii. She called for the Police and EPD to follow up on the road repair work carried out at the junction of Yee Wo Street and Pennington Street during night time. She received an email from the contractor on 8 March, asking her to express no objection to the work. After her repeated requests, representatives of HyD and the contractor conducted a site visit with her on 14 March. She told them about the needs of the local residents, and HyD promised to implement noise mitigation measures. Despite all these efforts, the contractor used four handheld breakers for breaking the road at midnight on 25 March. The contractor said no acoustic chambers were placed on the road due to uneven road surface. She immediately requested the contractor to adopt noise mitigation measures. After her repeated requests, only one acoustic chamber was provided by the contractor.
iii. EPD stated in its reply that the work in question was urgent in nature, and therefore the contractor did not and was not required to apply for a noise permit for works at night. She received an email on 8 March, stating that EPD and the Police had told the contractor that the work should not be commenced without her consent. She asked EPD under what circumstances the work was regarded as an urgent one, making it not necessary for the contractor to apply for a noise permit for night-time work before commencement of the work. She said that she had provided EPD with a video clip, but to her surprise, EPD replied that the contractor had not contravened any statutory requirements. Such a reply was unacceptable. She said that the local residents found the noise from the above work more
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 41 - Action annoying than that arising from any of the blackspots in the checklist. The noise from the work at Pennington Street had even affected the residents at Paterson Street, indicating how serious the situation was.
160. Mr Alan YU of EPD replied as follows:
i. EPD would step up inspection to the three noise nuisance blackspots, namely Lee Garden One, Sogo Department Store and TOWER 535.
ii. Upon receipt of a noise complaint about the work at the juncture of Yee Wo Street and Pennington Street, EPD had contacted HyD for details. For general work to be carried out on a holiday, the contractor should apply to EPD for a construction noise permit. However, emergency works such as works following a water main burst and urgent road repairs were exempted.
iii. In response to their enquiry, HyD said that the work carried out on 25 March was an urgent road repair work, and thus it was not regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance. Yet it should still comply with the requirements on urgent repair works imposed by HyD, including keeping down the noise and minimising nuisance to the nearby residents.
161. Mr CHAN Kai-yin of HyD replied as follows:
i. Since damages were found on the anti-skid road surface at the above location, which might affect traffic safety, especially the driving safety of buses, and might pose hazards to the public and cause a major property loss, HyD suggested promptly commencing the repair work.
ii. While a construction noise permit was not required for any urgent repair works, contractors were still required to take appropriate noise mitigation measures. Given the limited time, the contractor used four handheld breakers in the hope that the work could be completed as soon as possible. However, the contractor did not use any proper noise enclosures for the work. Upon receipt of a complaint, the contractor promptly used noise enclosures to mitigate the noise.
iii. He apologised to the local residents and the Member for the nuisance caused by the work. The contractor was warned and reminded to conduct a review to prevent any recurrence of similar incidents. HyD would also record the performance of the contractor in the assessment report.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 42 - Action 162. Ms Yolanda NG raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. She did not accept the reply from HyD which stated that the contractor had promptly installed noise enclosures upon receipt of a complaint. Being present at the scene, she asked the contractor to promptly install noise enclosures. However, the contractor delayed doing so and did not take any prompt action. After her repeated demands, the contractor only installed one noise enclosure. Apart from the four handheld breakers mentioned above, there was a power unit which was also not covered with a noise enclosure. The contractor covered the power unit with a noise enclosure only after she asked him to do so.
ii. Regarding the work carried out at Pennington Street during Lunar New Year holidays, HyD promised at that time that the work would only be carried out during daytime. The work was completed smoothly during daytime. Since there would be Easter and Ching Ming Festival holidays a few days after 25 March, she enquired why the work could not be arranged to be carried out during daytime of the holidays.
iii. The incident had been widely discussed on the social media. Some workers opined that the existing noise mitigation measures could not offer much protection to them, while other said that the acoustic chambers were hot and stuffy and they could still hear the noise when working inside, which might affect their hearing. She asked HyD to provide specifications for acoustic installations and information about the damages acoustic installations would bring to workers and the protection offered by HyD.
iv. She asked whether HyD had considered in a comprehensive manner how to enhance noise mitigation measures when there were works being carried out in busy areas. She asked HyD to provide the relevant information after the meeting.
163. Mr CHAN Kai-yin said that the requested information would be provided after the meeting for Members’ perusal.
164. The Chairperson asked HyD to pass the information to the Secretariat which would arrange for its circulation to Members.
(Ms Yolanda NG, Ms Peggy LEE and Co-opted Member Mr NG Hoi-shing left the meeting at 6:25 p.m.)
(Post-meeting note: (1) HyD submitted to the Committee after the meeting the supplementary information about the urgent repair work carried out on 23 March 2018.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 43 - Action The Secretariat circulated the supplementary information to Members for perusal on 27 April 2018. (2) WCDO submitted to the Committee after the meeting the supplementary information about the consultation area in respect of the “Proposed Installation of Iron Poles at 220-230 Gloucester Road near Canal Road West”. The Secretariat circulated the supplementary information to Members for perusal on 27 April 2018. (3) HK Tramways submitted to the Committee after the meeting the supplementary information about the greening proposal for the tram power substation at Causeway Bay Terminus. The Secretariat circulated the supplementary information to Members for perusal on 27 April 2018. (4) TD submitted to the Committee after the meeting the supplementary information about the provision of double yellow line at King Kwong Street near the bus stop. The Secretariat circulated the supplementary information to Members for perusal on 16 May 2018.)
Item 12: Applications for WCDC Funds
165. The Chairperson said that since Wan Chai Community Association had submitted two funding applications, namely “2018 Road Safety in Wan Chai Colouring Competition” and “Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”, she suggested combining the discussions for the two agenda items by asking the organiser to introduce the two funding applications first. The Committee would start the discussion after the representatives of the organiser left the meeting.
166. Member raised no objection to the Chairperson’s suggestion.
(a) 2018 Road Safety in Wan Chai Colouring Competition (DPTC Paper No. 25/2018)
Paper No. Project Applicant Suggested Funding under Title Funding Application Amount No. 25/2018 2018 Road Wan Chai $41,041 $41,041 Safety in Community Wan Chai Association Colouring Competition
167. Mr LO Tin-sown introduced the funding application for “2018 Road Safety in Wan Chai Colouring Competition”.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 44 - Action
168. Miss Clarisse YEUNG queried if the kick-off ceremony was necessary. She opined that the aim of publicity and exchange could be better achieved if the sum of $6,000 was used to set up a street booth instead of being spent on the backdrop and carpets. Besides, since the organiser would conduct publicity through schools, she was of the view that it was not necessary to set up the booth after school hours. Instead, the publicity exercise should target the general public. She also enquired if the total expenditure of the kick-off ceremony was only $6,000.
169. The Chairperson suggested that a road safety talk be held during the kick-off ceremony and the speaker should be from HKPF.
170. Mr LO Tin-sown noted the Chairperson’s suggestion, and said that they would contact the Police later. He continued that although they would write to school principals, not all the students would have a good understanding of the activity. Therefore the street booth was proposed to be set up after school hours to enhance publicity. Besides, the total expenditure of the kick-off ceremony was $6,000.
171. Miss Clarisse YEUNG asked the organiser how the design company would be chosen. She also asked if a fair and open recruitment exercise would be conducted in choosing a contractor.
172. Mr LO Tin-sown said that they would choose a suitable design company, and would send letters to advertising companies for recruitment purpose in accordance with the requirements.
173. The Chairperson asked if the design company could be hired by tender.
174. Mr LO Tin-sown replied that the design company could be hired by tender.
(b) Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities (DPTC Paper No. 26/2018)
Paper No. Project Applicant Suggested Funding under Title Funding Application Amount No. 26/2018 Wan Chai Wan Chai $67,100 $67,100 District Community Road Safety Association
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 45 - Action On-street Education Activities
175. Mr LO Tin-sown introduced the funding application for “Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”.
176. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked about the relevance of green tableware which was used for publicity to road safety. He enquired about their relevance in view of the considerable sum of $60,000 to be used in the promotional materials. He also asked if the expenditure on promotional materials could be reduced and the amount saved could be used on other promotional activities to enhance publicity.
177. A Member suggested using durable green tableware to enhance publicity, and asked if the organiser could change or provide additional publicity spots.
178. Mr LO Tin-sown responded that a road safety logo would be printed on the green tableware to promote the message of road safety. He said that they would consider changing or providing additional publicity spots.
179. The Chairperson thanked Mr LO Tin-sown for attending the meeting.
(Members started a closed-door discussion after Mr LO Tin-sown left the meeting.)
180. The Secretary provided supplementary information about the exemptions applied by the organiser in respect of “2018 Road Safety in Wan Chai Colouring Competition”.
181. Miss Clarisse YEUNG said that she did not think it necessary to hold a kick-off ceremony and the singing and dancing performances. Therefore she did not support the funding application.
182. With Dr CHEUNG Charlton abstaining from voting and other Members raising no objection, the Chairperson announced that the above-mentioned funding application for co-organisation and the exemptions under application were endorsed.
183. The Secretary provided supplementary information about the exemptions applied by the organiser in respect of “Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”.
184. Miss Clarisse YEUNG asked the Secretariat how many on-street activities
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 46 - Action of the same pattern had been organised by the organiser in the past. She opined that the organiser had organised similar activities every year, but no prior assessment of the effectiveness had been conducted. Therefore, she did not support the funding application.
185. Dr CHEUNG Charlton opined that the use of green tableware as promotional materials could not achieve the aim of promoting the message of road safety. Therefore, he did not support the funding application.
186. The Chairperson noted Miss Clarisse YEUNG’s comments, and asked the Secretariat to provide supplementary information after the meeting about the number of on-street education activities of the same pattern organised by the organiser in the past. She said that HKPF organised similar on-street education activities every year to promote the message of road safety. She hoped that all the parties concerned could work together to compile an activities assessment report.
187. Since other Members raised no objection, the Chairperson announced that the above-mentioned funding application and the exemptions under application were endorsed.
(c) Elite New Generation - Road Safety School Tour for Children (DPTC Paper No. 28/2018)
Paper No. Project Applicant Suggested Funding under Title Funding Application Amount No. 28/2018 Elite New The Hong $80,650 $80,650 Generation - Kong Road Safety Buddhist School Tour Association for Children Children and Youth Centre
188. The Chairperson welcomed Mr HOW Ming-shing, Centre-in-charge, Ms LO Yee-wan, the Welfare Worker and Ms Phoebe CHING, Part-time Welfare Worker of the Children and Youth Centre of The Hong Kong Buddhist Association.
189. Ms LO Yee-wan introduce the funding application for “Elite New Generation - Road Safety School Tour for Children”.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 47 - Action 190. The Chairperson asked if each of the seven primary schools would have at least 200 participants.
191. Ms LO Yee-wan responded that the number of participants would depend on the size of the school. The number of participants of 600 to be benefitted as stated in the funding application was an estimated number based on the number of participants of the last year’s activity.
192. Members raised the following comments and enquiries:
i. They asked why the inclusion of ethnic minority students was emphasised. ii. They asked among the seven primary schools mentioned, how many of them were mainly for ethnic minority students. iii. They opined that the number of participants to be benefitted should be over 600. iv. They enquired if the drama would be conducted in both languages since the target participants included ethnic minority students. v. They opined that the estimated cost of each poster of $15 was higher than similar cost proposed by other organisers. vi. They drew the organiser’s attention to the insurance issue which might be involved in the transport service items. vii. They asked if photography service would be arranged for all the schools. viii. They asked what promotional materials would be provided and how the message of road safety could be promoted.
193. Ms LO Yee-wan responded as follows:
i. In view of the fact that most of the promotional exercises and activities in Hong Kong were conducted in Cantonese, the organiser wished to take this opportunity to educate ethnic minority students on safety knowledge. Therefore, the promotional activities, drama and talk would be conducted in Cantonese or English, depending on the need of the schools. ii. The organiser would contact all the schools in Wan Chai and promote the project to them. The target was to include two to three schools admitting non-Chinese speaking students in the participating schools. iii. The number of participants to be benefitted as stated in the funding application was a conservative estimate. The organiser hoped that the actual number of beneficiaries would be more than 1 000. The number would be revised later. iv. Insurance for the transport service would be arranged by the contractor. v. All the schools would be provided with photography service to mark their participation.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 48 - Action vi. In regard to the estimated cost of a poster, the organiser had compared the quotations received. Since a small number of posters would be produced, the unit cost was relatively higher. vii. The promotional materials would be stationery items suitable for students. Information about the activity would be printed on the stationery items.
194. Members suggested the organiser provide further information about the promotional materials before the Committee submitted the funding application to the Funding and General Affairs Committee (FGAC) for approval.
195. The Chairperson asked the organiser to submit samples of the promotional materials to the Secretariat which would arrange them to be circulated to Members for comments.
196. Dr CHEUNG Charlton asked what the stationery item which cost $15 was. He suggested the organiser revise the estimated cost of the promotional materials.
197. The Chairperson asked the organiser to submit the revised funding application to the Secretariat.
198. The Chairperson thanked Mr HOW Ming-shing, Ms LO Yee-wan and Ms Phoebe CHING for attending the meeting.
(Members started a closed-door discussion after Mr HOW Ming-shing, Ms LO Yee-wan and Ms Phoebe CHING left the meeting.)
199. The Chairperson suggested vetting the funding application by circulation of papers after the organiser had revised the funding application.
(Post-meeting note: (1) In response to the Committee’s suggestion, the organiser revised after the meeting the relevant information in the funding application documents for “2018 Road Safety in Wan Chai Colouring Competition”, with the funding amount under application being reduced to $34,788. The Secretariat circulated the revised DPTC Paper No. 25/2018 to Members on 12 April 2018. (2) In response to the Committee’s suggestion, the organiser revised after the meeting the relevant information in the funding application documents for “Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”, but the funding amount under application remains unchanged. The Secretariat circulated the revised DPTC Paper No. 26/2018 to Members on 13 April 2018. (3) In response to the Committee’s suggestion, the organiser revised after the meeting the relevant information in the funding application documents for
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 49 - Action “Elite New Generation - Road Safety School Tour for Children”. After obtaining the Chairperson’s consent, the Secretariat arranged the revised DPTC Paper No. 28/2018 to be scrutinised by Members by circulation of papers on 13 April 2018. The Committee approved the revised funding application by circulation of papers on 23 April 2018, and the organiser was approved a funding amount of $80,150. (4) FGAC approved the two funding applications, namely “2018 Road Safety in Wan Chai Colouring Competition” and “Wan Chai District Road Safety On-street Education Activities”, at its 15th meeting held on 24 April 2018. For details, please refer to FGAC Papers No. 48/2018 and No. 49/2018. (5) The Secretariat circulated the supplementary information about Wan Chai Community Association seeking funding from this term of WCDC for organising on-street education activities to Members for perusal on 16 May 2018.)
Item 13: Any Other Business 200. Members raised no other business for discussion.
Date of Next Meeting 201. The Chairperson announced that the next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 5 June 2018 (Tuesday).
202. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Wan Chai District Council Secretariat May 2018
These minutes of meeting were confirmed on 5 June 2018.
5th term_dptc_min_15_e - 50 -