CHAPTER 7 Development Bureau Lands
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER 7 Development Bureau Lands Department Buildings Department Provision of public open space in private developments Audit Commission Hong Kong 30 October 2014 This audit review was carried out under a set of guidelines tabled in the Provisional Legislative Council by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on 11 February 1998. The guidelines were agreed between the Public Accounts Committee and the Director of Audit and accepted by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Report No. 63 of the Director of Audit contains 10 Chapters which are available on our website at http://www.aud.gov.hk Audit Commission 26th floor, Immigration Tower 7 Gloucester Road Wan Chai Hong Kong Tel : (852)28294210 Fax : (852) 2824 2087 E-mail : [email protected] PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS Contents Paragraph EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 – 1.12 Audit review 1.13 Acknowledgement 1.14 PART 2: POSPD ACCESSIBILITY 2.1 POSPD patronage 2.2 – 2.5 Accessibility 2.6 Areas for improvement 2.7 – 2.23 Audit recommendations 2.24 – 2.25 Response from the Administration 2.26 – 2.27 PART 3: POSPD MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE 3.1 Some POSPDs not being properly maintained 3.2 Areas for improvement 3.3 – 3.7 Audit recommendation 3.8 — i — Paragraph Response from the Administration 3.9 Short opening hours of some POSPDs 3.10 Areas for improvement 3.11 – 3.18 Audit recommendations 3.19 Response from the Administration 3.20 BD’s monitoring of POSPDs 3.21 Areas for improvement 3.22 – 3.24 Audit recommendation 3.25 Response from the Administration 3.26 PART 4: DISSEMINATION OF POSPD INFORMATION 4.1 Uploading of POSPD Lists onto Lands D and BD websites 4.2 – 4.3 Areas for improvement 4.4 – 4.14 Audit recommendations 4.15 – 4.16 Response from the Administration 4.17 – 4.18 Public awareness of POSPDs 4.19 Areas for improvement 4.20 – 4.21 Audit recommendation 4.22 Response from the Administration 4.23 – 4.24 PART 5: PROVISION OF POSPD FACILITIES 5.1 Implementation of 2011 POSPD Guidelines 5.2 – 5.5 Areas for improvement 5.6 – 5.12 — ii — Paragraph Audit recommendation 5.13 Response from the Administration 5.14 Provision of POSPD facilities 5.15 – 5.16 Areas for improvement 5.17 – 5.24 Audit recommendations 5.25 Response from the Administration 5.26 Monitoring of compliance with POSPD requirements 5.27 Areas for improvement 5.28 – 5.31 Audit recommendations 5.32 Response from the Administration 5.33 PART 6: WAY FORWARD 6.1 Achievement of objectives of providing POSPDs 6.2 – 6.6 Fulfillment of TPB planning conditions 6.7 – 6.8 Implementation of POSPD Design 6.9 – 6.10 and Management Guidelines Audit recommendation 6.11 Response from the Administration 6.12 Appendices Page A : Patronage of POSPDs revealed in Audit Survey 72 – 73 (March to July 2014) B : Acronyms and abbreviations 74 — iii — — iv — PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS Executive Summary 1. The policy of incorporating public open spaces (and other public facilities) into a private development has been in force since 1980, with the objectives of achieving integrated design, optimisation of land use and better site planning and utilisation; and synchronising the availability of the public facilities with the envisaged population intake of private development projects. 2. The Development Bureau (DEVB) is responsible for setting and reviewing policies on provision of public open spaces (POSs). The Lands Department (Lands D) and the Buildings Department (BD) are responsible for monitoring compliance with relevant land lease conditions and conditions under some Deeds of Dedication, including the provision and maintenance of public open spaces, by the pertinent developers or building owners. As of August 2014, according to related information uploaded onto the websites of the Lands D and the BD, there were respectively 60 and 2 public open spaces in private developments (POSPDs). 3. In recent years, the subject of POSPD has attracted significant public attention where some media reports have covered cases involving denial of public access, tight restrictions on use and other management problems relating to POSPDs. Since March 2008, the Lands D and the BD have uploaded onto their websites POSPD Lists for information of the public. Furthermore, the DEVB promulgated in January 2011 the POSPD Design and Management Guidelines for reference by property owners, management agencies and the general public. From January 2011 to August 2014, seven new POSPDs had been provided in non-industrial developments. The Audit Commission (Audit) has recently conducted a review of the provision of POSPDs with a view to identifying areas for improvement. — v — Executive Summary POSPD accessibility 4. Some POSPDs had low patronage. Audit Survey of 36 POSPDs found that 10 POSPDs recorded low levels of patronage, each of which on average only recorded less than 10 visitors during a two-hour period. In Audit’s view, owing to the low patronage of some POSPDs, the objective of providing POSPDs for recreational uses to serve the needs of local residents and the general public who can enjoy and use the surroundings in a leisurely manner may not have been fully achieved (paras. 2.2 to 2.4 and 6.4). 5. Sites not being easily accessible. According to the 2011 POSPD Design Guidelines, a POSPD should be provided at a location having clear visibility, and at grade or on the ground level. However, Audit site inspections revealed that POSs 5, 6B and 7 were located on podiums high above the ground level and members of the public needed to walk up long staircases or take passenger lifts before reaching the sites. Audit also noted that two passenger lifts provided at POS 7 to facilitate public access to the public open space had ceased to be provided for public use since 2002. However, the Lands D could not compel the building owners to resume the passenger lift service for public use because such a requirement had not been included as a land grant condition. Audit Survey further found that POSs 5, 6B and 7 had low patronage, on average recording only 4, 1 and 7 visitors during a two-hour period (paras. 2.4(b) and 2.7 to 2.14). 6. Uninterrupted access not provided. The land leases of the pertinent POSPDs generally require owners of POSPDs to provide uninterrupted public access to the sites. However, Audit’s seven site inspections at POS 1 from January to June 2014 found that a gate at the entrance to the POSPD was closed with a metal chain which was locked up by a padlock. Furthermore, Audit’s five site inspections at POS 31 from January to August 2014 found that the gates at Entrance A to the related development and Entrance B to POS 31 were both closed and locked with a notice requesting visitors to make a phone call for assistance from the management office. The site access arrangement at POSs 1 and 31 may be at variance with the pertinent lease condition of permitting public access to and use of the open areas. Audit Survey also found no visitor at POS 1 and on average only one visitor at POS 31 during a two-hour period (paras. 2.4(b) and 2.15 to 2.23). — vi — Executive Summary POSPD management and maintenance 7. POSPDs not always properly maintained. According to the DEVB, pertinent building owners are generally required under the related land leases to manage and maintain POSPDs to the satisfaction of the Lands D. However, Audit site inspections in July 2014 revealed that POS 4 was covered with long grass and fallen tree branches, and some furniture and fittings at POS 15C were not properly maintained (paras. 3.2 to 3.6). 8. Short opening hours of POSPDs. According to the 2011 POSPD Management Guidelines, the daily opening hours for public access to a POSPD should not be less than 13 hours. However, Audit examination revealed that the daily opening hours of six POSPDs under the purview of the Lands D were less than 13 hours, ranging from 6 to 12 hours. In Audit’s view, the short opening hours would have reduced the public’s enjoyment of the public facilities (paras. 3.10 and 3.18). 9. Public use of POS 40 being obstructed. POS 40 comprising POS 40A and POS 40B was under the purview of the BD. However, Audit site inspection in August 2014 revealed that construction materials were stored inside POS 40A and various equipment items inside POS 40B, both of which had obstructed public use of the public facilities (paras. 3.22 to 3.24). Dissemination of POSPD information 10. POSPDs provided before 1980 not included in POSPD Lists. According to the DEVB, owing to the small number of POSPDs commissioned before 1980, the POSPD Lists compiled by the Lands D and the BD only include POSPDs which have been open for public use since 1980 (para. 4.3). 11. Sites not included in POSPD Lists. According to the DEVB, the promulgation of POSPD Lists would help enhance public awareness of the existence and locations of POSPDs, and facilitate public monitoring of POSPD owners in fulfilling their responsibilities of managing and maintaining the POSPDs. However, Audit examination revealed that 3 POSPDs which had been open for public use for 7 to 14 years were not included in the Lands D’s POSPD List because certificates of — vii — Executive Summary compliance had not been issued for the related developments, and 2 other POSPDs which had been open for public use for 6 and 7 years were also not included in the POSPD Lists compiled by the Lands D and the BD, owing to the absence of related conditions in the land leases or deeds of dedication (paras.