Minutes of the 2Nd Meeting of Building Management, Environmental Hygiene & Works Committee (2020-2021) Central and Western District Council

Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of Building Management, Environmental Hygiene & Works Committee (2020-2021) Central and Western District Council

Date : 5 March 2020

Time : 2:30 pm

Venue : Conference Room 14/F, Harbour Building 38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong

Present: Chairlady Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie*

Vice-chairman Mr WONG Weng-chi*

Members Ms CHENG Lai-king* Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Victor* Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH* Mr HUI Chi-fung (2:55 pm – end of the meeting) Mr NG Siu-hong* Ms WONG Kin-ching, Cherry* Mr YIP Kam-lung, Sam (2:33 pm – end of the meeting) Mr HO Chi-wang* Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Fergus* Mr PANG Ka-ho (2:32 pm – end of the meeting) Miss YAM Ka-yi, Camille (2:27 pm – end of the meeting)

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

Guests Item 4: Mr LEUNG Wai-kau, Buildings Department Chief Officer/Site Monitoring Sergeant Mr CHIM Sui-pang Buildings Department Senior Structural Engineer/Site Monitoring (B) Ms YIM Yuen-ling, Monika Buildings Department Senior Building Surveyor/Site Monitoring 1 Mr CHIU Chi-chung Environmental Protection Senior Environmental Protection Department Officer (Regional South)1 Mr TAM Sze-wai, Vincent Transport Department Engineer/Central and Western 2 Mr WONG Lok-sang Highways Department District Engineer/West Ms YAM Lai-chun, Cindy Lands Department Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South) Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky Lands Department Principle Estate Officer/Hong Kong West and South (2) Ms Dorothy NIEH Hong Kong Police Force Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) Mr WONG Siu-kei Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator (Central District) Mr MA Chi-wai, Alan Hong Kong Police Force District Operations Officer (Central District) Mr YU Kong, James Hong Kong Police Force Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) Mr FUNG Chi-wai, Victor Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator (Western District)

Item 5: Dr LEUNG Wai-yiu, Agriculture, Fisheries and Veterinary Officer (Avian Influenza Anthony Conservation Department Surveillance)

Mr CHONG Hon-ming Food and Environmental Chief Health Inspector 3 Hygiene Department

Item 6: Mr Alex LAU MTR Corporation Limited General Manager-Safety & Quality Mr Thomas YICK MTR Corporation Limited Senior Manager-Station Maintenance Miss Lilian YEUNG MTR Corporation Limited Public Relations Manager-External Affairs

Mr LO Kam-cheung Electrical and Mechanical Chief Engineer/Energy Efficiency B Services Department Miss YEUNG Yuet-wa Electrical and Mechanical Senior Engineer/Energy Efficiency Services Department B1

Item 7: Ms YAM Lai-chun, Cindy Lands Department Chief Estate Officer (District Lands Office, Hong Kong East, West and South) Mr NG Tsz-wing, Ricky Lands Department Principle Estate Officer/Hong Kong West and South (2) Mr CHEUNG Chun-kee Lands Department Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South) Mr WONG Lok-sang Highways Department District Engineer/West

Item 8: Mr CHONG Hon-ming Food and Environmental Chief Health Inspector 3 Hygiene Department

Item 9: Mr LAU Yu-hang, Henry Central and Western District Senior Liaison Officer (Community Office Liaison) Item 10(i): Mr CHONG Hon-ming Food and Environmental Chief Health Inspector 3 Hygiene Department Miss WONG Sze-ki, Carol Central and Western District Assistant District Officer (Central and Office Western) Miss CHOI Ting-ting, Chloe Central and Western District Executive Assistant (District-led Office Actions Scheme)

Item 10(ii): Mr NGAI Chi-choy Buildings Department Building Surveyor/Slope Safety 2

In Attendance Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Central and Western District District Officer (Central and Western) Susanne, JP Office

Miss WONG Sze-ki, Carol Central and Western District Assistant District Officer (Central and Office Western)

Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Central and Western District Senior Executive Officer (District Grace Office Council) Mr POON Yui-chau, Buildings Department Senior Building Surveyor/A3 William Mr WONG Lok-sang Highways Department District Engineer/West Ms Dorothy NIEH Hong Kong Police Force Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) Mr WONG Siu-kei Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator (Central District) Mr MA Chi-wai, Alan Hong Kong Police Force District Operations Officer (Central District) Mr YU Kong, James Hong Kong Police Force Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) Mr FUNG Chi-wai, Victor Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator (Western District) Mr CHONG Hon-ming Food and Environmental Chief Health Inspector 3 Hygiene Department Ms CHAN Miu-ling Leisure and Cultural Services Deputy District Leisure Manager Department (Central and Western) 2 Mr WONG Chi-leung Civil Engineering and Senior Engineer/7 (South) Development Department Mr CHIU Chi-chung Environmental Protection Senior Environmental Protection Department Officer (Regional South)1 Mr CHEUNG Chun-kee Lands Department Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South) Mr LOK Yin-ming Water Supplies Department Engineer/Hong Kong (Distribution 2) Ms YANG Ka-yee Development Bureau Assistant Secretary (Tree Management) 2 Miss CHAN Po-lam Agriculture, Fisheries and Wetland and Fauna Conservation Conservation Department Officer (Special Duties 1)

Secretary Ms CHENG Cheuk-yan, Central and Western District Executive Officer (District Council) 3 Charmaine Office

Absent with Apologies: Miss CHEUNG Kai-yin Mr YOUNG Chit-on, Jeremy

Opening remarks

1. The Chairlady welcomed Members and representatives of government departments to the 2nd meeting of the Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee (“BEHWC”) (2020-2021).

2. On behalf of the BEHWC, the Chairlady welcomed Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”), who had replaced Ms LI Yat-fung; Ms Dorothy NIEH, Police Community Relations Officer (Central District), who had replaced Ms KWOK Sin-man; Mr WONG Siu-kei, Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator (Central District), who had replaced Ms TO Lai-shan; Ms YANG Ka-yee, Assistant Secretary (Tree Management) 2 of the Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section under the Development Bureau, and Miss CHAN Po-lam, Wetland and Fauna Conservation Officer (Special Duties 1) of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, both of them attended the meeting for the first time;.

3. To avoid prolonged group gathering, the Chairlady proposed adopting the following arrangements at the meeting:

 the duration of the meeting would not exceed four hours;  members of the public would not be allowed to observe the proceedings of the meeting where possible;  the Secretariat would maintain minimum manpower;  reporters of the media or assistants of Members entering the Conference Room had to register with their real names and phone numbers to facilitate tracking where necessary (the number of reporters/assistants should not be too many owing to the small area of the Conference Room);  persons entering the Conference Room were required to have their temperatures taken, and the Secretariat had provided a non-contact infrared thermometer;  all attendees should bring along and wear masks;  the Secretariat would not provide tea cups at the meeting to ensure hygiene. Only tetra pack drinks would be provided. Members could bring along their own water flasks.

Item 1 : Adoption of the agenda (2:33 pm to 2:35 pm)

4. The Chairlady indicated that the paper submission deadline for government departments was 13 February. The Secretariat circulated on 25 February a Paper titled “Arrangements for processing applications regarding outside sitting accommodation of restaurants” submitted by the Central and Western District Office (“C&WDO”). She received a suggestion from Ms CHENG Lai-king that this Paper be incorporated into the agenda item for the meeting today. The Chairlady therefore agreed that this Paper be included in the agenda item.

5. The Chairlady indicated that the paper submission deadline for Members was 19 February.

The Secretariat received on 24 February a Paper titled “The Lands Department’s ridiculous approach to handling roadside bamboo poles (No. 3-7 Queen’s Road West in Sheung Wan) Strong request for the Government to enhance the efficiency in handling roadside construction waste and bamboo poles” submitted by Mr KAM Nai-wai and Ms NG Hoi-yan. This Paper was the second Discussion Paper submitted by Mr KAM Nai-wai to this meeting. In addition, the Secretariat also received on 27 February a Paper titled “Concern over dog excreta problem in Kennedy Town” submitted by Ms WONG Kin-ching. According to the Standing Orders, the Chairlady could approve shorter notice for a Discussion Paper if she considered it appropriate. If there were fewer than 10 Discussion Papers, the Chairlady could consider accepting more than one Discussion Paper from a Member. As there were fewer than 10 Discussion Papers for this meeting, the Chairlady agreed that this Paper be incorporated into the agenda of this meeting.

6. The Committee had no comment on the agenda. The agenda was adopted.

Item 2 : Confirmation of the minutes of the 1st BEHWC meeting held on 23 January 2020 (2:35 pm to 2:36 pm)

7. The Chairlady indicated that no proposed amendment to the draft minutes of the 1st meeting had been received prior to the meeting. As Members did not propose any amendments to the draft minutes of meeting, the Chairlady declared that the minutes were confirmed.

Item 3 : Chairlady’s report (2:36 pm to 2:37 pm)

8. The Chairlady indicated that the Secretariat had circulated the following information papers to Members for perusal earlier on:

Paper No. Title of Paper Circulation Date 4/2020 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department 25 February 2020 Anti-mosquito Campaign 2020 (Phase I) in Central and Western District 5/2020 Arrangements for processing applications regarding 25 February 2020 outside seating accommodation of restaurants 6/2020 Civil Engineering and Development Department 27 February 2020 Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme 7/2020 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department 27 February 2020 Achievements of the Central/Western District 2020

Year-end Clean-up

Item 4 : Strong request for the Government to step up prosecution against non-complying Authorised Persons and contractors of redevelopment sites (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 8/2020) (2:37 pm to 3:17 pm)

9. The Chairlady invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr KAM Nai-wai indicated that the District Council had discussed this issue last year. He opined that the Buildings Department (“BD”) shirked its responsibility because the BD stated that construction vehicles parked outside a construction site were not within its purview. He displayed photos taken when he passed by construction sites in the district. Irregularities of construction sites took place frequently rather than occasionally. He enquired why the transportation of construction materials by a crane within a construction site to a vehicle which was parked outside the construction site and occupied a pavement or vehicular road did not fall within the purview of the BD. He said the BD only inspected each construction site fewer than twice a month on average in the district. He opined that the BD shirked its responsibility and was a “rubbish government department”. He asked why the BD had never prosecuted any contractor or relevant Authorised Persons and accused the BD of covering up offenders. He had requested an officer at the rank of Chief Officer to reach him by phone. However, he had not received any phone call. He asked the BD for an explanation. In addition, he opined that the Police only talked about prosecution on the road where the construction site was located and did not release the number of prosecution cases instigated against the contractors. He opined that the Police had not prosecuted the contractors. Apart from firing tear gas on other occasions, he asked what “black cops” had done. He hoped that the departments concerned including the Police and BD would give a reply pertaining to the number of prosecution cases against contractors and Authorised Persons.

(b) Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that there were many construction sites in Sheung Wan and Mid-levels. The construction site at No. 62C Robinson Road was very narrow. The pavement was occupied from time to time. The construction site occupied half of Robinson Road when advance works were carried out. In view of the arrangement on work from home and suspension of classes, impacts were generated on residents because there were many domestic dwellings in the vicinity. She asked if the construction site could be requested to implement works which were less noisy from 7:00 am to 9:00 am. More noisy works could be carried out from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm with a view to minimising noise nuisance. Moreover, she would like to know about whether the number of fixed penalty tickets issued as stated in the written reply of the Police referred to the location outside the construction site or was an overall figure in the vicinity of the construction site.

(c) The Chairlady indicated that she had consulted residents on the Temporary Traffic Arrangements (TTA) for the construction site at No. 42-46 Tung Street. The reply of the Transport Department (“TD”) showed that some residents and shops were opposed to the arrangement. She had clearly reflected residents’ opposition to the trial arrangement at the construction site. However, she was aware that the consultant would implement the trial arrangement at the construction site. A representative of the consultant indicated that if she did not attend the trial arrangement, a video featuring the process of the trial would be sent to her for record. She asked if the TD would ignore the opposition of residents and shops and endorse the TTA. She would also like to know how the opposition against the TTA application at No. 42-46 Tung Street by the residents and shops would be handled.

10. Mr LEUNG Wai-kau, Chief Officer/Site Monitoring of the BD, said he tried to reach Mr KAM Nai-wai last Friday by phone. However, nobody answered the call after he had waited for one minute and a voice mail function was unavailable for him to leave a message. He disagreed with Mr KAM Nai-wai that the BD was a “rubbish department”. The BD had monitored construction works on private land under the Buildings Ordinance (“Ordinance”), Cap. 123. Any street or access road vested in and maintained by the Government was exempted from the provisions of the Ordinance. As such, the BD was not vested with the authority to instigate prosecution against loading or unloading of construction materials on the vehicular road. The photos displayed by Mr KAM Nai-wai showed the irregularity on a vehicular road maintained by the Government and the BD did not have the authority to initiate prosecution under the Ordinance. The Labour Department had clear guidelines on the lifting operation of cranes. If the guidelines of the Labour Department were breached, he believed the Labour Department would follow up and institute prosecution. If the BD found that a construction site occupied a pavement or vehicular road, the BD would give an advice or relay the case to the relevant government department to follow up. He explained the content of one of the photos displayed by Mr KAM Nai-wai. The photo showed that something was lifted from the construction site to a vehicle. The front part of the vehicle protruded onto a vehicular road. According to the prevalent provisions of the Ordinance, the BD was responsible for monitoring the construction works on the construction site. As shown in the photo, the front part of the vehicle protruded onto the vehicular road. While loading and unloading of construction materials on a construction site was allowed, it was a parking issue when the front part of the vehicle protruded onto the vehicular road and was not related to construction works governed by the Ordinance. He stressed that the location of the construction works was very important because the BD was vested with the authority by the Ordinance to monitor construction works on private land. In other words, the BD could enforce the Ordinance when the construction works were carried out on private land. The BD had sought the Department of Justice’s advice on lifting operation. The BD could only take enforcement action under the Ordinance only when the lifting operation was carried out within a construction site. If the Ordinance was contravened, the BD would instigate prosecution under the Ordinance. The Labour Department was responsible for lifting operation in general. Redevelopment sites in Hong Kong usually utilised most of the area of the sites to develop the first three floors. Relevant persons of a construction site would therefore apply for TTA with a view to temporarily occupying the pavement or vehicular road outside the construction site to load and unload

8 construction materials. Construction industry in Hong Kong was currently in an abyss of distress. If the TTA for construction sites could not be approved, the industry could no longer survive. Given the conditions of small construction sites, loading and unloading of construction materials on roads was inevitable. If a contractor illegally parked its vehicles at the roadside, the Police could probably initiate prosecution. In his opinion, the best option was to achieve a consensus about movements of construction vehicles. All parties concerned tried to make a concession to minimise inconvenience to the public. If temporary use of vehicular roads for all time slots was opposed to without having any regard to whether implementation of works on redevelopment sites was possible, he believed that the works in most of the redevelopment sites in Hong Kong could hardly be carried out. In response to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s enquiry, noise control was under the purview of the Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) and operation hours of construction sites were not governed by the Ordinance. He reiterated that the BD would conduct inspections upon receipt of a report. In the event that a pavement or vehicular road was found to be occupied, the BD would remind the relevant parties that applications for TTA should be lodged to the department concerned in advance if works or lifting of construction materials had to be carried out on the pavements or vehicular road outside a construction site even though loading and unloading of construction materials outside a construction site (such as on a road) was not governed by the Ordinance and the BD was not vested with the authority to instigate any prosecution under the Ordinance.

11. Mr TAM Sze-wai, Engineer/Central and Western 2 of the TD, said from the perspective of traffic management, the primary concern was if TTA would pose unnecessary or significant impact on the safety and convenience of road users and operation of public transport in the consideration of applications. If the TD did not object to an application after the aforesaid principle was taken into account, the applicant would generally be advised to consult buildings and shops which were potentially affected, relevant government departments and public transport operators. The TD would request adjustments of TTA where necessary. For instance, an adjustment could be made on time slots in which TTA was carried out with a view to minimising impacts on the neighbourhood. In response to the Chairlady’s comments on the application for TTA for the construction site at No. 42- 46 Tung Street, he said the contractor had consulted the shops in the vicinity from December 2019 to January 2020 and the result showed that most of the shops did not object to the TTA. However, some shops were concerned about the safety posed by the TTA and raised objection. In view of the aforesaid concern, the contractor would like to conduct a one-day trial to address the concern over safety and ensure road safety. Stakeholders’ views on the TTA could be sought so that the contractor could optimise the TTA. After the one-day trial was completed, the contractor would submit a report including photos and videos of the trial, comments of residents and response of the contractor. Subsequently, the Police and TD would further consider the application for the TTA.

12. Mr YU Kong, Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) of the Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”), said the role of the District Council was to offer comments about people’s livelihood to the Government and government departments would try to attend its meetings and answer questions. It was hoped that policies could be adjusted and the community could be improved through this co-operation. He opined that Mr KAM Nai-wai’s insulting comments such as “rubbish department” and “black cops” could not achieve the aforesaid purpose. He hoped that

9 the Chairlady would remind Mr KAM Nai-wai not to use insulting language to address government departments.

13. The Chairlady asked the Police to respond to Members’ comments first.

14. In response to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s enquiry about the number of prosecution cases, Mr MA Chi-wai, District Operations Officer (Central District) of the HKPF, said that the Police did not have records about the number of prosecution cases for specific locations. He could only provide the number of prosecution cases in the vicinity of the construction site for Members’ information. Besides, the Police issued a summon in respect of the construction site at Jervois Street to prosecute a contractor for illegal occupation of a parking space meter. Apart from this, the Police had not made special records about other summons.

15. In response to Ms CHENG Lai-king’s enquiry about noises of construction sites, Mr CHIU Chi-chung, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South) 1 of the EPD, said that apart from percussive piling works, there was no specific restriction on general construction works from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm in normal working days. If percussive piling works would be performed, a contractor was required to apply to the EPD for a Construction Noise Permit for percussive piling works. If the EPD received a complaint against construction noise from general construction works, the EPD would usually discuss with the contractor concerned and advise the contractor to commence noisy works at a later time every day and all parties could make a concession.

16. Mr KAM Nai-wai said if “black cops” did not want to be addressed as “black cops”, they should do the job of “white cops”. He said if the Commissioner of the Police or the District Officer found the language insulting, they could leave the meeting. However, he opined that the department should reveal to the public that they were not “black cops” or “rubbish departments”. He opined that the departments did not instigate prosecution and they “received their salaries without doing their job”. Citing “the Buildings Ordinance, Cap, 132, Laws of Hong Kong”, he said the Ordinance empowered the BD to “control risks posed by construction works so that workers at construction sites, people in the vicinity of construction sites and neighbouring building, structures and land will not be at risk”. He opined that he had presented a case of genuine risk. He asked why the construction materials such as soil lifted from the construction site at No. 117 Jervois Street to the street and a large amount of soil put at the roadside did not constitute a danger. He believed it was a danger and the department was lying and turned a blind eye to public safety. He asked “what the department was if it was not a piece of trash”. He said he would relay all the cases to the Office of The Ombudsman. He opined that all the government departments did not follow up the problem, did not patrol and take appropriate enforcement action. He stressed that he hoped the contractors could carry out the works legally. He said among all the construction sites he had pinpointed, only three of them had applied for TTA. He opined that the BD should not allow a construction site which had not applied for TTA to operate. The BD should request the construction sites to apply for TTA and relay the cases to the Labour Department, TD or HKPF to follow up. He indicated that he wrote complaint letters every day to the departments and asked them to handle the cases. However, there was no prosecution at all. He requested that this item be listed as a standing item and asked the BD, the Police, Labour

Department and EPD to provide figures of their patrols at construction sites in Central and Western District and the number of prosecution cases. He opined that all the departments “received their salaries without doing their job”.

17. Mr LEUNG Wai-kau of the BD responded that according to Section 41(c) of the Ordinance, a street outside a construction site and vested in and maintained by the Government was exempted from the provisions of the Ordinance. As for Members’ concern over lifting operation, he indicated the BD could only take enforcement action under the Ordinance which did not however set out any stipulation on lifting operation. He said the BD had written to the persons concerned of the construction sites mentioned by Members to remind them prior application for TTA to the relevant department was required for the implementation of works or transportation of materials on a pavement or vehicular road outside the construction site. He had mentioned that the construction industry was in distress because he hoped that more tolerance could be made in the discussion of TTA so that construction sites could implement the works legally and safely and impacts on the public could be minimised. As for the safety of lifting operation, the BD could generally not regard lifting operation which was in line with the guidelines of the Labour Department as dangerous. The BD would relay the cases concerned to the relevant department for scrutiny. However, he hoped that Members should understand that it was common for a construction site to use the road outside temporarily to load or unload building construction materials. If construction works were hindered due to prohibition on temporary use of roads outside construction sites, the number of old buildings in the district would be on the rise and building safety problems would surface. He stressed that replacement of old buildings by redevelopment generated a positive impact on the community. The BD therefore hoped that the redevelopment which was in compliance with the Ordinance in the first place could be implemented smoothly. If a construction vehicle’s front protruded from the construction site, the Police was responsible for the law enforcement. He said law enforcement actions taken by the BD without the authority conferred by the Ordinance would be questioned and subject to legal proceedings.

(Post-meeting note: According to the information, among the nine construction sites mentioned by the Members in the aforesaid Paper, eight of them had applied to the relevant department for TTA as at 1 April 2020. TTA was approved for five of the sites. The remaining one construction site would also lodge an application after a foundation works contract was awarded.)

18. Mr YU Kong of the HKPF said he had requested the Chairlady to make a ruling about the speech given by Mr KAM Nai-wai. He said if a Member was dissatisfied with the performance of a government department, “disappointment” or “room for improvement” could be used. He asked Mr KAM Nai-wai if expressions like “black Member”, “agitated Member” or “Member who snapped” could be used when Mr KAM Nai-wai’s own performance was dissatisfactory. He opined that one should treat others as he would like to be treated and requested the Chairlady to make a ruling.

19. The Chairlady said the Committee enjoyed freedom of speech and she respected Members to express their views at the meeting. She indicated that as the Police wrote to the Radio Television Hong Kong about the content of “Headliner”, the Police had its own way to deal with the views expressed by other people. She said the ruling of the Chairlady was not required and hoped that the

Police would not argue about it. She said the public had perceived the performance of the Police and would make their own judgement.

20. Mr YU Kong of the HKPF indicated that freedom of speech was not unlimited and insulting expressions should not be accepted. The Police expressed regret about it.

21. The Chairlady indicated that since the Commissioner of Police attended a meeting of the Central and Western District Council (“C&WDC”), the Police had been requested to clarify what the insulting wording was. However, the Police had never stated what the wording was. She hoped that the Police would not waste the time of the meeting and she would not allow the Police to respond.

22. Mr YU Kong of the HKPF said he had not wasted the time of the meeting. He had just stated that the wording was “black cops” and “rubbish department”.

23. The Chairlady opined that the Police had its own way to deal with the views like the case of “Headliner”. She would not make any ruling because she opined that Members would be responsible for their own speech. She asked if any Members had any questions.

24. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), indicated that as she had said in other previous meetings, Members and government departments had maintained a co-operative and supportive relationship. Citing discussion of this item as an example, she said every department had assigned one or more representatives to participate in the discussion. It showed that the departments were concerned about the item. She agreed that Mr KAM Nai-wai had previously discussed this issue and the C&WDO attached a lot of importance to it. She was pleased to relay to the policy Bureaux concerned the limitations of prevalent Ordinances as stated by Members. She said if Members opined that there was room for improvement for departments, the departments would be willing to improve and the C&WDO would assist in co-ordination. However, she hoped that all parties would pay respect to one another during a meeting. If the wording was uttered continuously, she believed that the community and residents would not be benefited.

25. The Chairlady asked if there was any supplement from Members.

26. Ms Dorothy NIEH, Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) of the HKPF, said Mr KAM Nai-wai talked about Cap. 132 of Laws of Hong Kong. She said Cap. 132 was about public health. She would like to know if Mr KAM Nai-wai wanted to make a rectification.

27. Mr KAM Nai-wai indicated that the Ordinance should be Cap. 123, Laws of Hong Kong.

28. The following motion proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“The Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee of the Central and Western District Council (C&WDC) strongly requests the Buildings Department and the Police to

12 immediately institute prosecution against non-complying Authorised Persons and contractors of redevelopment sites in the district.”

(12 affirmative votes by: Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr HO Chi- wang, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Mr PANG Ka-ho and Miss YAM Ka-yi.)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

29. The following motion proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“The Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee of the C&WDC strongly requests the Buildings Department and the Police to inspect redevelopment sites in the district every day to check how the materials and wastes are transported to/from the sites by the contractors and the other non-compliant operations, then report the records of inspections to the District Council every month. Those sites include: No. 117-119 Bonham Strand, No. 48 Connaught Road West, No. 56 Wing Lok Street, No. 86 Wing Lok Street, No. 10 Hillier Street, No. 94 Bonham Strand, No. 42- 46 Tung Street, No. 15 Western Street/Third Street junction and No. 62 Robinson Road.”

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

30. The following motion proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“The Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee of the C&WDC strongly requests that the Buildings Department must consider how the site materials and wastes are transported to/from the sites and the location for stacking of construction materials before approving the redevelopment site plans and schemes.”

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

31. The following motion proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“The Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee of the C&WDC strongly requests that the Transport Department must consult the District Council and Member of the constituency concerned before approving temporary traffic arrangements relating to the redevelopment sites.”

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

32. The Chairlady said Mr KAM Nai-wai proposed that this item be incorporated as a standing item of the BEHWC. She would handle the proposal when standing items were discussed in Item 10 at the meeting.

Item 5 : Concern over congregation of pigeons and birds and problem of bird droppings in Sai Ying Pun (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 9/2020) (3:17 pm to 3:56 pm)

33. The Chairlady invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Miss YAM Ka-yi indicated that congregation of pigeons and bird droppings had been a long-standing issue of the district. She recently found that many people fed feral birds on the streets and some even fed them at home. In addition, after she received a report about a bird carcass, she notified the FEHD to take care of the carcass at once. She opined that the publicity carried out by the FEHD and AFCD was very similar. However, the problem of bird feeding had never been resolved. She suggested that the departments enhance publicity to maximise the effectiveness. In addition, she had requested the FEHD to step up prosecution against offenders of bird feeding. However, two dedicated enforcement teams set up by the FEHD only instigated 13 prosecution cases in the last four years and she opined that the prosecution number was low. She was concerned that there would be an outbreak of bird flu.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai opined that congregation of birds was quite serious in Central and Western District. He asked if the FEHD could identify black spots of congregation of birds, arrange street cleaning at these spots on a regular basis and prosecute offenders of bird feeding. He said some people fed birds out of love and turned a deaf ear to the publicity. However, the departments could make various kinds of publicity. He hoped that the FEHD could provide supplementary information on the schedules of cleaning of black spots and prosecution after the meeting. He indicated that he had written to the FEHD earlier on to reflect that someone fed feral pigeons near Fat Hing Street Children’s Playground and feral pigeons fouled the window edges of flats in Queen’s Terrace. He requested the FEHD to follow up the problem.

(c) The Vice-chairman would like to know more about the patrols, routes of patrol and schedules of the two dedicated enforcement teams of the FEHD. As feral bird problems were rampant in the district, he was not sure if two teams were adequate to tackle the problem.

(d) Ms CHENG Lai-king said pigeons gathered on trees at the streets and pavements were covered with bird droppings. The FEHD had to clean streets. She said a resident put food in his balcony to feed pigeons. The property management company of the building concerned had sought her assistance and asked the resident not to put food to attract pigeons and cause nuisance to neighbours. She previously called 1832 to report a case of bird carcass at Robinson Road. However, she received a notification by phone after a few hours that no bird carcass was found at the location. She believed that workers of the FEHD had disposed the carcass and did not wait for staffers of the AFCD to handle the carcass. She would like to be informed of how a member of the public who found a bird carcass could report to the case to the Government and the procedures of handling of bird carcasses by the departments.

(e) Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated that the District Council had discussed the problem of feral pigeons many times. He said only 13 prosecution cases in the last three years were inadequate and opined that the Government had not tried its best to prosecute offenders of bird feeding. In addition, not many people in every district fed pigeons. However, offenders kept feeding pigeons for a long time. He therefore suggested that prosecution on the basis of intelligence would be effective. He would like to know if the department could obtain information on the specific time slots and locations where offenders showed up regularly and if intelligence was gathered in this respect. Besides, he said the District Council had adopted a motion requesting the Government to consider other measures to tackle the problem of feral pigeons in addition to education and prosecution. Some foreign countries had successfully controlled the growth rate of feral pigeons by mixing medicine with food. He opined that the FEHD could make reference to the installation of bird spikes which would not hurt feral pigeons at black spots of congregation of birds in the Central. Furthermore, he opined that the FEHD could issue Nuisance Orders at private places and asked if such Orders

had been issued. He also hoped that the AFCD could provide the District Council and property management companies of buildings with bird repellent liquid to attain short- term effects. The AFCD should render assistance to private property and owners’ corporations directly in dealing with feral pigeons. Finally, he had previously proposed that the District Council hire a consultant to study the problems of feral birds. Otherwise, it was impossible to solve the problems in the absence of policy adjustment and enhancement of bird control measures. It was hoped that the District Council or government departments could reconsider carrying out the study.

(f) Ms WONG Kin-ching agreed that enforcement action against offenders of bird feeding should be stepped up. She had personally witnessed that a person fed feral pigeons at the bus stop of Belcher Bay. She said feeding of feral pigeons would entail congregation of feral pigeons and attract rodents, posing environmental hygiene problems. The offence should stringently be dealt with. Besides, she asked the FEHD if there were any special protocol in cleaning bird droppings. If there was no protocol, she suggested that the practice of the District-led Actions Scheme be followed. A list of black spots was prepared for more frequent cleaning because bird droppings were filthy and might spread diseases.

(g) Mr HO Chi-wang indicated that there were many black spots of pigeons in Central and Western District. He said he had lived in Eastern Street for years and the black spots of pigeon feeding were in the vicinity. He said there was no pigeon feeding many years ago. However, pigeons began to gather about ten years ago at Eastern Street. Subsequently, Eastern Street and Mui Fong Street were closed due to the development of the West Island Line. Pigeons no longer gathered at those locations. He opined that pigeons would not gather if there was no feeding. Prohibition of feeding was the solution to the problem. He objected to the installation of bird repellent devices such as bird spikes to prevent bird gathering as proposed by some Members in the Paper because these devices would hurt pigeons and would work only at the early stage. Once pigeons were accustomed to them, they would still gather if there was feeding. He said the penalty for bird feeding was like littering and the fine was $1,500. He indicated that pigeons gathered in Water Street and Kui Yan Lane as well. He was aware that someone had been charged with littering a few days ago. However, there would not be any improvement after people were charged. Staffers of the FEHD distributed leaflets, but there was no change in people’s behaviour. He therefore opined that the laws should be amended.

(h) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai noticed that the reply of the FEHD stated there were only 13 prosecution cases in the last three years. He would like to know the number of operations conducted by the FEHD and if staffers experienced any difficulty accounting for the small number of prosecution cases. He concurred with Mr HO Chi- wang that a penalty of $1,500 could not deter offenders. He opined that the government departments and the Legislative Council should amend the prevalent

legislation or enact a new ordinance to target illegal animal feeding. Moreover, he was opposed to the installation of bird repellent devices such as bird spikes proposed in the Paper because the effectiveness of bird spikes installed at the Central-Mid-Levels escalator and Cheung Sha Wan MTR Station was limited. Many birds were injured or killed by bird spikes. He said some overseas countries used some new bird repellents such as laser or audio frequency devices which were approved by the World Wild Fund. It was hoped that the Government would consider using bird repellent devices which were more humane and harmless to birds.

(i) Mr PANG Ka-ho enquired about the patrol area of the two dedicated enforcement teams of the FEHD. He opined that fines of $1,500 imposed on offenders repeatedly were not a long-term effective measure. However, bird spikes would hurt birds. He opined that laser or ultrasound bird repellent devices could be employed. However, expert opinion should be sought to determine whether these devices were humane and cost-effective. As such, he opined that scientific findings and safety should be the basis of long-term measures. He opined that expert study was required to look into the cause and consequences of congregation of birds. Furthermore, some people continued to feed birds after they were fined. They had satisfaction in feeding birds and psychological issues were involved. In his opinion, the Government should also consider how these psychological issues pertaining to bird feeding could be addressed. Moreover, he opined that a fine of $1,500 imposed on offenders was inadequate and therefore asked if enactment of legislation to target bird feeding would be considered.

34. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the FEHD, said that in response to the enquiry made in the Paper about the number of prosecution cases in the vicinity of Sai Ying Pun, the written reply stated that there were 13 prosecution cases from 2016 to 2019. From 2016 to 2019, there were 132 prosecution cases in total in Central and Western District. He said the FEHD was aware that feral pigeons frequently gathered at some locations and cleaning of these places had been increased to two to three times a week. Besides, there were surprise inspections as well. He said the two dedicated enforcement teams were set up in the end of 2017 and 2019 respectively. The teams were mainly comprised of officers at the rank of foreman and patrolled in Central and Western District. They took enforcement actions under public cleansing laws including bird feeding in public places. As private premises were privately managed, owners’ corporations and property management companies should remind residents to maintain hygiene and not to feed birds. Owners’ corporations and property management companies could exercise authority under Deeds of Mutual Covenant. They could seek legal advice and take appropriate actions where necessary. He said if a member of the public found a bird carcass on a street, he could phone 1823 and staffers of the AFCD would handle the case. In addition, he said staffers of the FEHD had patrolled Fat Hing Street Children’s Playground and issued a fixed penalty ticket to the person concerned two days prior to the meeting. The FEHD would continue to follow up this issue.

35. Dr LEUNG Wai-yiu, Veterinary Officer (Avian Influenza Surveillance) of the AFCD, indicated that after the AFCD received an enquiry about pigeons, staffers would be dispatched to

17 investigate and take samples to test if avian influenza was involved. Negative results had so far been detected for all the cases in the district. He said if staffers of the AFCD found that someone fed birds or left residue of food on the ground during the investigation, the information would be passed to the FEHD. Besides, if the AFCD received an enquiry about nuisance of pigeons at a domestic dwelling, information on pigeon repellent such as various pigeon repellent measures and the risk involved would be provided. The complainant would decide whether he would take the measures. He indicated that the AFCD had offered samples of pigeon repellent liquid to Members and property management companies for trial use. Generally speaking, it would take one or two months for the repellent liquid to take effect. If a complainant found that the repellent effective, he could buy it on his own. He said if Members wanted to distribute samples of repellent liquid to buildings on request, he could be reached after the meeting. In addition, the AFCD devoted its resources to play Announcement of Public Interest (“API”) on television and educate the public not to feed feral pigeons. In wake of the epidemic, the frequency of the broadcast of the API concerned probably dropped. After the epidemic was under control, the AFCD would request a higher frequency of the broadcast of the API. The AFCD was planning to set up street counters near black spots of congregation of birds in the territory to strengthen education. He said the AFCD conducted a survey last year in places where feral birds gathered. It was found that other feral birds such as spotted doves were present apart from feral pigeons in most of the black spots. As such, the AFCD was concerned that the fertility of other feral birds would be impaired if they accidentally took contraceptive drugs for a long period of time. He said that as the locations and time slots of bird feeding were scattered, the effectiveness of the contraceptive drugs was undermined. The AFCD therefore did not consider administering contraceptive drugs for the time being. However, the AFCD would keep an eye on the latest development and review the measures. Finally, he indicated that if a member of the public found a bird carcass on a street, he could phone 1823. A contractor commissioned by the AFCD would handle the carcass according to the time and location of the report. Places like hospitals or schools would be accorded priority. The AFCD could provide people or property management companies with guidelines on handling of bird carcasses where necessary.

36. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), indicated that the FEHD had instituted over 100 prosecution cases in Central and Western District in the last three years. She noticed that some Members had talked about people who fed birds due to love. She said that as these people usually left at once after they fed birds, the FEHD encountered some difficulties. As such, the C&WDO encouraged Members and shops in the vicinity to provide information on the time slots in which these people fed birds so that the C&WDO could co-ordinate and arrange enforcement actions with the FEHD. Moreover, she indicated that the FEHD had put up publicity banners near Cochrane Street and successfully prosecuted an offender at specific time. The conditions of this location had improved. However, the problem spread to the streets near The Center. The C&WDO and FEHD would continue to follow up the issue. She said according to her understanding, the Government had studied the use of new technology such as Sonar to disperse pigeons. However, this technology was not effective in Hong Kong due to the actual conditions and had not been employed. She indicated that the department would continue to study new measures to deal with the problem. Apart from this, she said the C&WDO had previously collected from Members information on black spots of congregation of pigeons for the purpose of enhancement of cleaning

18 under the District-led Actions Scheme. Fat Hing Street mentioned by Mr KAM Nai-wai had been included on the list. She welcomed any information on black spots of congregation of pigeons and bird feeding in private residential estates and the C&WDO would follow up. Finally, she indicated that the C&WDO could discuss with the FEHD and AFCD about publicity options.

37. The Chairlady invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr YIP Kam-lung indicated that he found bird carcasses on the streets several times and phoned 1823. Staffers of the AFCD notified him two days later that no bird carcasses were found. He opined that staffers went to the locations a few days later and he believed that the carcasses had been disposed. He said there was room for improvement for 1823 and suggested that the AFCD launch a direct line to receive reports from the public and handle the reports at once. He was concerned that cleaning workers of the FEHD did not have professional knowledge to handle bird carcasses. It was hoped that frontline workers could be provided with guidelines. Besides, he indicated that the tram terminus at Whitty Street was a black spot of bird droppings.

(b) Ms CHENG Lai-king requested the C&WDO to incorporate a black spot of bird droppings at the staircases of No. 100 Caine Road into the District-led Actions Scheme because there were a lot birds gathered on the huge trees there and cleaning was needed from time to time.

38. Dr LEUNG Wai-yiu, Veterinary Officer of the AFCD, asked Mr YIP Kam-lung to provide the case number so that he could follow up. He said, generally speaking, after the AFCD received a report relayed by 1823, prompt action would be taken and 1823 was reminded not to make any procrastination. Furthermore, he said 1823 was a widely known government hotline. One of the options of the hotline was report of bird carcasses. From the perspective of deployment of resources, the AFCD would like to use 1823 to handle all the reports of bird carcass found on the streets. Members of the public could also email the AFCD during office hours. The AFCD would promptly ask the contractor to follow up the case.

39. Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD said that, generally speaking, the AFCD would be notified to follow up if workers of the FEHD found bird carcasses on the streets.

Item 6 : Concern over cooling tower of MTR detected with Legionella which threaten the health of the residents (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 10/2020) (3:56 pm to 4:18 pm)

40. The Chairlady invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. Mr KAM Nai-wai said according to the reply of the MTR, water testing was conducted every three months by the contractor. He would like to know if the water testing was conducted on regular basis and asked if the frequency of the testing could be increased to once a month. In his opinion, it was unacceptable that Legionella was found in the cooling towers of the MTR. He asked to what frequency of cleaning of the cooling towers could be increased. He would like to be informed of the locations of the cooling towers because Sai Ying Pun Station, HKU Station and Kennedy Town Station were very close to residential buildings. He asked if Sheung Wan Station was only equipped with ventilation opening without a cooling tower. He enquired about the frequency of cleaning of the ventilation opening by the MTR and asked if the frequency could be increased in wake of the situation.

41. Mr Alex LAU, General Manager – Safety and Quality of the MTR Corporation Limited (“MTR Corporation”), said the MTR Corporation attached a lot of importance to the cleaning and hygiene of cooling towers. He said a fresh water cooling tower was usually a cooling facility in the air-conditioning and chilling process. Among the 96 existing stations in the MTR network, some stations were equipped with cooling towers which were independent systems to dissipate heat of the air-conditioning devices in the stations. The air-conditioning devices in other stations used air- cooled or sea water-cooled refrigerating machines to dissipate heat. Generally speaking, cooling towers were located outside the stations and separated from the air-conditioning systems in the stations. The air-conditioning systems in the stations were completely enclosed. The conditions were like a split type air-conditioner. Water in the cooling towers would not generate any impact on staffers and passengers in the stations. The MTR Corporation had formulated the procedures of repairing, cleaning and disinfection of the cooling towers and water testing according to the code of practice published by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (“EMSD”). Professional contractors and repair technicians were commissioned to carry out the aforesaid procedures. In view of the incident at Choi Hung Station, the MTR Corporation had immediately shut down the four cooling towers concerned. Disinfection and cleaning were performed according to the code of practice published by the EMSD. Water samples were subsequently tested. The MTR Corporation received notification from the relevant department on 3 March that the water quality was up to standard. The MTR Corporation recommissioned the cooling towers concerned on the evening of the same day.

42. Mr Thomas YICK, Senior Manager – Station Maintenance of the MTR Corporation , said that the MTR Corporation had carried out maintenance and repair according to the code of practice promulgated by the EMSD. Professional contractors and repair technicians were commissioned to clean the cooling towers at least once six months and disinfect the cooling towers on a monthly basis. Samples were taken and then sent to laboratories for analysis. The contractor conducted water testing pertaining to Legionella once every three months and the testing was undertaken by

20 independent accredited laboratories. The MTR Corporation would continue to closely monitor the quality of water in the cooling towers and stay in touch with the relevant government departments. There were currently 20 cooling towers in the stations in Central and Western District. These cooling towers were located at Harcourt Road near Harcourt Garden, Exit C of Sai Ying Pun Station, HKU Station near Pok Fu Lam Road, Kennedy Town Station near the mini-bus terminus. In wake of the incident at Choi Hung Station, the MTR Corporation had carried out additional cleaning and disinfection of cooling towers in all the stations including those in Central and Western District. Water samples were also collected for analysis. It was estimated that results could be available in mid-March. The last Legionella tests on water samples of the cooling towers in the stations of Central and Western District were conducted in the end of November last year and in the beginning of February this year. The results showed that Legionella count in the water samples of cooling towers in all the stations did not exceed the limit. The ventilation buildings in Central and Western District were located at Harcourt Road near Harcourt Garden, Supreme Court Road, Lung King Street, Charter Road, Lung Wo Road, Hong Kong Station near hotel podium, Man Kwong Street, New Market Street, Exit C of Sai Ying Pun Station, HKU Station near Pok Fu Lam Road and in the vicinity of Forbes Street Temporary Playground hard-surface pitches and Kennedy Town Station near the mini- bus terminus. Ventilation buildings were an integral part of the MTR system. Their major function was to maintain air circulation in the stations and draw fresh air into the stations. The MTR Corporation made regular patrols and would enhance the cleaning of the ventilation systems, especially exhaust shutters, where necessary.

43. Mr LO Kam-cheung, Chief Engineer/Energy Efficiency B of the EMSD, indicated that the EMDS was notified on 13 February that Legionella count of the water samples of Choi Hung Station exceeded the acceptable level. The EMSD issued Nuisance Notice to the MTR Corporation on the same day according to the authority vested by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and requested the MTR Corporation to follow up cleaning and disinfection of the cooling towers at once. Subsequently, water samples were collected for analysis. The Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health notified the EMSD on 3 March that the bacteria count of the water samples were lower than the action level. As such, the MTR Corporation recommissioned the cooling towers concerned. Nevertheless, the MTR Corporation had enhanced patrols and disinfection of the cooling towers. The EMSD would take follow-up action to avoid recurrence of the incident.

44. Mr KAM Nai-wai asked the MTR Corporation if the cooling towers were cleaned once a year only and hoped that the frequency of collection of water samples for testing could be raised to once every two or three months. He asked if the EMSD regularly requested reports of water samples from the MTR Corporation or followed up only after an incident took place.

45. Mr Alex LAU of the MTR Corporation responded that the MTR Corporation had complied with the Code of Practice promulgated by the EMSD all along and thorough cleaning was conducted at least once every six months. Disinfection and water testing was conducted on a monthly basis to ensure that standards were met. Legionella count was examined once every three months.

46. Mr LO Kam-cheung of the EMSD said that the EMSD monitored the water quality of the cooling towers according to the authority conferred by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance. It conducted random patrol on cooling towers in all districts including the MTR stations every year and collected samples for analysis. If bacteria count was found to exceed the prescribed level, a Nuisance Notice would be issued and owner of the cooling tower concerned would be asked to follow up and make rectification. In view of this incident, the EMSD had stepped up patrol of cooling towers of the MTR Corporation and collected water samples for testing.

47. Ms CHENG Lai-king hoped that the organisation concerned took prompt preventive measures to avoid recurrence of a similar incident and government departments should intensify monitoring so that the public would be relieved. It should be ensured that there would be no recurrence causing public concern. She hoped that the MTR Corporation would send the reports of testing to Members of the relevant constituencies so that Members could answer questions of residents.

48. Mr Alex LAU of the MTR Corporation responded that the MTR Corporation shared the view that precautions were important and would continue to work on improvement measures with the experts hired by the MTR Corporation.

49. Mr LO Kam-cheung of the EMSD concurred with Ms CHENG Lai-king. He said the best measure to combat Legionnaires’ disease in cooling towers was prevention including routine maintenance, cleaning, disinfection and collection of water samples for analysis on a regular basis. With the root cause being addressed, the risk of Legionnaires’ disease could be minimised. In view of this incident, the EMSD had stepped up patrol of cooling towers in other MTR stations and collected water samples for testing. As the owner of the cooling towers, the MTR Corporation was requested to conduct proper repair and maintenance to ensure good quality of water in the cooling towers. Reports on testing of water samples should be submitted to the EMSD for surveillance.

50. The following motion proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“The Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee of the Central and Western District Council strongly requests the MTR to step up cleaning and washing of the cooling towers, vent shafts and ventilation systems of all the MTR stations.”

(13 affirmative votes by: Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr YEUNG Sui-yin, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr YIP Kam- lung, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Mr PANG Ka-ho and Miss YAM Ka-yi.)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

Item 7 : The Lands Department’s ridiculous approach to handling roadside bamboo poles (No. 3-7 Queen’s Road West in Sheung Wan) Strong request for the Government to enhance the efficiency in handling roadside construction waste and bamboo poles (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 11/2020) (4:18 pm to 4:44 pm)

51. The Chairlady invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr KAM Nai-wai opined that the department had not made a reply on how efficiency in handling roadside construction waste and bamboo poles could be enhanced. He cited the reply from the department that the complaint was received by 1823 in December 2019. However, the case was referred to the FEHD and he asked the FEHD how the case would be followed up. He indicated that this kind of complaints should be addressed by the Lands Department (“LandsD”). After the LandsD put up a notice at the location, the problem was dealt with by the HyD. He opined that these procedures were unreasonable and he did not know “what this Government was”. Various departments had failed to remove the bamboo poles for several months and Members had to individually reach all the departments. He noticed that there was construction waste in the vicinity of Forbes Street from time to time and the waste had not been removed after a month. He said that the bamboo poles outside his office were eventually cleared by himself personally. He asked how the departments could fulfil the requirements for clearing bamboo poles and construction waste in five working days as stated in the motion. Besides, a staffer of his office phoned a one- stop officer of the LandsD and the staffer was told to reach anther colleague of the LandsD. When the other colleague was reached, the staffer was told no fax had been received and was asked to contact the previous officer of the LandsD. He found the whole incident ridiculous. He would like to know if the one-stop officer should be responsible for “one-stop” services and follow up the case brought up by the Member all the way through. In addition, he hoped that the department would provide a contact number for contact outside office hours.

(b) Ms WONG Kin-ching opined that staffers of 1823 were unable to properly handle cases like this because they did not know to which department cases should be referred. Citing bird carcasses as an example, she said she had previously reached the AFCD directly and the department handled the case on the same day. She noticed something which she was not sure were construction materials or construction waste at Cadogan Street. When she called 1823 about it, the staffer asked her whether the things were construction materials or construction waste and whether they were placed on the pavement or vehicular road. The staffer said as the case involved different departments, it would take at least one week or a longer time to handle the case. She hoped that the training of 1823 staffers should be strengthened and they should

familiarise themselves with the duties of different departments. She asked the HyD, LandsD and HKPF to explain what the public could do to speed up removal of the materials on the streets.

52. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the FEHD, said if the FEHD received a complaint pertaining to bamboo poles, the case would be referred to the LandsD for following up. After the FEHD received the case on 27 December 2019, the case was referred to the LandsD to follow up on 28 December. The complainant was informed of the referral.

53. Mr NG Tsz-wing, Principle Estate Officer/Hong Kong West and South (2) of the LandsD, said if construction waste was illegally dumped on a public road, it was not required to inform the person who dumped the waste and the ambit of the LandsD was not involved. As such, 1823 or the department could reach the HyD directly to clear the waste. As bamboo poles probably involved personal property, the LandsD would arrange a site inspection upon receipt of a complaint as soon as possible. If the staffer found at the location that bamboo poles were unlawfully placed on a public road, the LandsD would put up a notice according to Cap. 28, Laws of Hong Kong, requesting the occupant to remove the bamboo poles before a deadline and stop occupying government land. According to the laws, a notice should be posted for at least one day. If the LandsD put up a notice on Monday and after 24 hours starting from Tuesday, the HyD could arrange clearing on Wednesday. A notice with at least three days in advance was required prior to the clearing arrangement. As for the bamboo poles on the roadside of No. 3-7 Queen’s Road West, Sheung Wan, the LandsD received a fax of complaint on 9 January. On 10 and 13 January, the Land Boundary Map was prepared to verify whether the location of bamboo poles was on private land or government land during site inspection. As 11 and 12 January were Saturday and Sunday and were not working days, a staffer posted a notice at the location on 14 January. On the afternoon of the same day, the HyD was notified that clearing could be conducted after the deadline stated in the notice passed. The LandsD had put up a notice within 3 workings days and notified the HyD to follow up.

54. Mr WONG Lok-sang, District Engineer/West of the HyD, said usually the HyD had to wait for the land enforcement action (posting of notice) taken by the LandsD before it could make arrangement to clear construction materials illegally placed on a public road. Moreover, if construction waste was illegally put on a road, the HyD would try to find out if illegal dumping of construction waste was ongoing or if the source of dumping could be identified. The HyD would consider notifying the EPD to follow up.

55. Mr YU Kong, Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) of the HKPF, said he had nothing to add.

56. The Chairlady said Ms WONG Kin-ching had made enquiry of the Police. She asked if Ms WONG Kin-ching needed to repeat her question or the Police had nothing to add after the question was asked.

57. Mr YU Kong of the HKPF said generally speaking, if the Police found discarded bamboo

24 poles and construction waste on a vehicular road, the HyD would be notified. If discarded bamboo poles and construction waste were found on a pavement, the FEHD would be notified.

58. Ms WONG Kin-ching asked how the general public could tell the difference between construction materials and construction waste and assist the 1823 staffers in handling their complaints. She asked whether the LandsD or HyD would jointly follow up a case if a member of the public phoned 1823 and was unable to tell whether the materials were construction materials or construction waste. She would like to know how the people who dumped the materials could be traced. She asked if the department would prosecute these people and if any prosecution had been initiated. In addition, she enquired about the content of the notice and the purpose of posting the notice. She opined that only posting a notice without clearing construction materials gave the public an impression that the government departments did not do their job.

59. Mr KAM Nai-wai opined that the departments were ridiculous. He said the representative of the FEHD indicated at the meeting that the case had been referred to the LandsD in December last year. However, the representative of the LandsD said the fax from the Member was received on 9 January. The representative of the HyD said that clearing would be arranged upon receipt of a case. He asked what the performance pledges were for these departments and asked them if they could finish clearing within five days upon receipt of a complaint. He said people did not know what these departments were responsible for and they only knew that the problem was unresolved. Besides, he opined that the departments had not answered the questions of Ms WONG Kin-ching. He said according to the reply of the LandsD, a reply would be made within 10 ten days after a complaint was received. However, he said the reply only stated that a complaint had been received. He asked the LandsD and HyD how they could clear construction waste and bamboo poles discarded on a pavement or vehicular road within five days and if they could undertake to solve the problems within five days. Finally, he asked the LandsD and HyD to submit to the District Council monthly reports on handling of roadside construction waste and bamboo poles. For instance, the dates on which complaints were received, the dates on which notices were posted, the dates on which clearing was finished or waste was disposed and the dates on which they finished handling the cases.

60. In response to Members’ enquiry on differentiation between construction waste and construction materials, Mr NG Tsz-wing, Principle Estate Officer/Hong Kong West and South (2) of the LandsD, said that staffers of 1823 knew to which departments these two items should be referred. If a member of the public could not tell the difference, he could phone 1823 to follow up. Illegally dumped construction waste could be referred to the HyD at once for clearing. As construction materials probably involved personal property, the LandsD could only render assistance by posting notices under Cap. 28, Laws of Hong Kong. Being given a notice of not less than one day, an occupant would be requested to stop occupying government land and to remove all the articles concerned before the deadline. He said the LandsD needed at least three days to make a notification by posting a notice. In the meantime, the collaboration of the HyD was necessary to complete the clearing. Generally speaking, after the LandsD received a complaint about illegally placed bamboo poles, a site inspection would promptly be conducted and a notice would be posted where necessary to facilitate clearing of the bamboo poles by the HyD. As for the complaint case concerning No. 3-

7 Queen’s Road West, he said according to the information, the LandsD received a fax of complaint after 6:00 pm on 9 January. He was not aware of the referral by the FEHD. However, he would go through the relevant records and make a reply.

61. Mr WONG Lok-sang, District Engineer/West of the HyD, said if the HyD received a complaint about construction waste and construction materials or noticed a problem during patrol, it would promptly handle the problem with the collaboration of the departments concerned. As some cases might involve other departments, more time could be needed. The HyD would deploy manpower to work on the problems as soon as possible.

62. The following motion proposed by Mr KAM Nai-wai and seconded by Ms NG Hoi-yan was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“The Building Management, Environmental Hygiene and Works Committee of the Central and Western District Council strongly requests the Government to increase the efficiency and speed in handling roadside bamboo poles and construction waste, and requests the Government to finish clearing discarded bamboo poles and construction waste within five days upon receipt of a complaint.”

(11 affirmative votes by: Ms NG Hoi-yan, Mr WONG Weng-chi, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr NG Siu-hong, Ms WONG Kin-ching, Mr YIP Kam-lung, Mr HO Chi-wang, Mr LEUNG Fong-wai, Mr PANG Ka-ho and Miss YAM Ka-yi.)

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

63. The Chairlady requested the LandsD and HyD to submit monthly reports on the handling of roadside construction waste and bamboo poles. For instance, the dates on which complaints were received and the dates on which clearing was conducted and finished. The LandsD and FEHD were asked to explain the complaint case in writing.

64. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), indicated that representatives of departments had just explained the case and their limitations. She said as the number of cases handled by the departments was large, she suggested that the reports convey the number of cases completed on schedule and offer explanation for cases that could not be completed as scheduled. She said the aforesaid reports were more practicable than reports listing all the cases.

Item 8 : Concern over dog excreta problem in Kennedy Town (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 14/2020) (4:44 pm to 5:04 pm)

65. This item was chaired by the Vice-chairman.

66. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Ms WONG Kin-ching said that not only dog faeces but also dog urine posed hygiene problem to the environment. The conditions in summer were even worse. She said the area off Phase II of The Metro and the pavement outside Catchick Street Garden were black spots because dogs frequently urinated and defecated at these locations. Owners usually poured water and then walked away. Odour accumulated day by day and environmental hygiene was degraded. In addition, she said some residents told her that a foreign person let his dog defecate in flower planters to “apply fertilizers”. These acts were unacceptable to Hong Kong people and contrary to the legislation. She would like to know more about the enforcement and education provided by the relevant departments.

(b) Ms CHENG Lai-king said all the streets at Mid-Levels were plagued by hygiene problems caused by dog excreta. People had to walk cautiously. She took photos of dog excreta and handed them to the FEHD, but she believed that it was not the best solution. She was uncertain if the problem of dog urination could be regulated by legislation. Dogs liked to choose specific locations to defecate. She hoped that education should be strengthened to dissuade people from allowing their dogs to defecate on the streets and impair environmental hygiene. She said the dog excreta bags distributed by the C&WDO under the District-led Actions Scheme were very useful.

(c) Mr KAM Nai-wai declared that his residence was located at Lyttleton Road. He said dog excreta was always found outside his residence. He understood that animals were unable to control the time for their defecation. The problem of dog faeces had been improved in recent years. However, only the problem of dog urine still remained unresolved. He opined that odour and traces of dog urine could not be eliminated by pouring water only. He said dog owners who allowed their dogs to urinate anywhere could not be prosecuted under prevalent legislation. Street cleaning became the only option. He opined that the conditions at Lyttleton Road were better in winter than in summer. He suggested that Members provide a list of black spots and requested the department to step up the frequency of cleaning. Frequency of cleaning could be increased to three times a week in summer subject to the availability of resources with a view to eliminating odour.

(d) Mr YIP Kam-lung said the area off his office at Chiu Kwong Street was devastated by dog excreta and he was furious. He said dog owners who let their dogs urinate anywhere could not be prosecuted and he could only rely on owners to pour water to mitigate odour of dog urine. He said the current publicity failed to convey messages to dog owners that dog defecation anywhere was against the law and causing nuisance to others. He was aware that the C&WDO had distributed dog excreta bags and hand

sanitisers via the District Council of the last term under the District-led Actions Scheme, but the problem could not be resolved effectively. He requested the FEHD to step up patrol, post notices at black spots, provide collection bins and banners and educate both foreigners and Hong Kong people to maintain a clean environment. He opined that the C&WDO and District Council should adopt a more direct approach in disseminating messages of environmental hygiene to the public.

(e) Miss YAM Ka-yi indicated that the problem of dog excreta was not only found in Kennedy Town and was rampant in the Mid-Levels and university constituency. She said the FEHD issued prosecution notices to two people in Kennedy Town in one year and opined that the figure of prosecution cases was low. She asked if the two enforcement teams of the FEHD were responsible for all the enforcement actions in Central and Western District and appreciated the efficiency of the FEHD in dealing with problems in general. However, she opined that the root cause of the problem was dog owners and education should be intensified to solve the problem. She said the words on banners were too small and people might not be able to read clearly. She opined that street cleaning by the FEHD was inadequate. When officers of the FEHD and she patrolled previously, stains were found on roads. She hoped that the FEHD should increase the frequency of street cleaning and monitor the contractors more closely.

(f) The Vice-chairman asked if the two enforcement teams of the FEHD were the same teams for anti-pigeon feeding. He enquired about the number of members of the teams and the frequency and time of their patrols.

67. Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD indicated that the two dedicated enforcement teams were the same teams for anti-pigeon feeding. Each team was comprised of four members and responsible for dealing with contraventions of the ordinances relating to public hygiene including littering in Central and Western District. He indicated that the FEHD instigated two prosecution cases against dog owners who let their dogs foul the streets last year. He said the FEHD encountered some difficulties in the enforcement. When staffers of the FEHD patrolled the black spots of dog excreta, they found that most of the owners took care the excreta of their dogs. Only a small number of owners took care of their dog’s faeces when they were aware that they were being watched. As such, the figure of prosecution cases was low. He indicated that the problem of dog excreta exacerbated at Catchick Street and High Street in recent years and had requested his colleagues to pay more heed to the problem. The FEHD distributed leaflets at hot spots of dog walking from time to time and would continue to enhance education. As for the size of words on banners, the designs of banners were mostly co-ordinated by the headquarters, he would improve the designs where possible.

68. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), indicated that the C&WDO had kept an eye on the problem of dog excreta. The problem of dog urine was also noticed on the streets at Mid-Levels. Members were therefore invited to provide information on black spots of dog urine under the District-led Actions Scheme earlier on. If Members agreed that the District-

28 led Actions Scheme for the next year should continue to target hygiene problems, she hoped that the black spots of pigeon droppings, dog excreta and so on that were discussed at this meeting could be cleaned once more under the Scheme. This was because cleaning and enforcement could not be effective if no specific locations were targeted. If the black spots identified by Members and departments could be cleaned under the Scheme, the effect would be more remarkable and beneficial. Moreover, she said if the C&WDO produced pet cleaning bags again in the future, Members’ views on the materials used would be sought. She said a pet carnival was conducted with a small organisation a few years ago to publicise responsibilities of dog owners. Some activities were also held to educate domestic helpers. Information on the relevant ordinances and penalties was conveyed in different languages. She suggested that similar activities be held at the new pet facilities after the epidemic was over. Finally, she suggested that resources of the District-led Actions Scheme be employed to produce banners tailor-made for Central and Western District to improve flexibility.

69. Ms CHENG Lai-king suggested that the activities mentioned by Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze be discussed and studied in the Working Group on Animal-friendly in the Central & Western District.

Item 9 : Arrangements for processing applications regarding outside seating accommodation of restaurants (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 5/2020) (5:04 pm to 5:35 pm)

70. The item was chaired by the Vice-chairman.

71. Mr LAU Yu-hang, Senior Liaison Officer (Community Liaison) of the C&WDO, presented the Paper. He indicated that under current regulations, if a restaurant would like to use outside seating accommodation (“OSA”) for dining purpose, prior permission of the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene should be obtained. The FEHD would generally conduct consultation on an application via the C&WDO. As for an OSA application in a public place for private profit-making purposes, the Food, Environment, Hygiene and Works Committee of the previous term C&WDC resolved at the meeting of 31 January 2008 that all subsequent similar applications would be objected by the District Council. As such, it was not necessary to consult the District Council on individual applications. The following terms of the C&WDC all agreed with the resolution. The C&WDO had handled applications concerned according to this instruction all along. In other words, the District Council would object to using a public place for OSA for private profit-making purposes. The C&WDO would also conduct consultation on the application with the Area Committee and the adjacent left building and right building of the building in which the application premises situated. As for OSA applications in private premises for private profit-making purposes, the Government respected the right of private property. However, the Government understood that development at private premises would probably affect residents. Taking into account the impacts of individual applications on the district and residents, the C&WDO would therefore make consultation on an application with the Area Committee and/or Member of the relevant constituency, the building in which the application premises situated and the adjacent left building and right building of the building in which the application premises situated. He asked the Committee to consider if it agreed to adopt

29 the previous resolution on OSA applications as depicted in the Paper for the years from 2020 to 2023.

72. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr NG Siu-hong said according to the experience of last year, photos provided under an OSA application in a private place for private profit-making purposes blurred and the area covered was not clearly indicated. He had requested clear photos and detailed information on the application. However, as the applicant failed to provide the information, he eventually had to conduct a site visit. Finally, he opined that residents in the vicinity would be affected and he strongly objected to the application. However, the department approved the application without offering detailed assessment criteria. He opined that applicants were not required to be responsible to the District Council under the current mechanism. He suggested that the FEHD and applicants should consult the District Council.

(b) Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that the Food, Environment, Hygiene and Works Committee had previously resolved that it would object to all applications concerned. She noticed that relevant papers were circulated and she brought up this item for discussion at this meeting. She said a lot of restaurants used private places for OSA in the vicinity of Staunton Street, posing impacts and noises to residents. She opined that if residents had to call the Central Police Station frequently for assistance because of this, the problem could not be resolved. She hoped that this discussion would make people who intended to apply for OSA in the district to think twice. This was because the streets in the district were narrow and unsuitable for OSA. She said some applicants had been uncooperative and failed to provide detailed information in the past. Furthermore, she said there were many illegal OSA in the district (e.g. near The Centre at Queen’s Road Central). She asked the departments to inspect the number of seats of the restaurants if applications were not approved and hoped that applicants would clearly provide all the information.

(c) Mr KAM Nai-wai indicated that the population density of Central and Western District was high and OSA posed significant nuisance to the surrounding residents. He opined that this new term of the District Council should assume the previous stance of the District Council and object to all OSA applications in public places for private profit- making purposes. As for private places, he opined that there was no need to consult the Area Committee of which he did not approve. However, applications should be submitted to the District Council for consultation and discussed by the BEHWC.

(d) Mr YIP Kam-lung indicated that the District Council had been overtly opposed to OSA applications. He would like to be informed of the number of OSA applications in public places or private places for private profit-making purposes that were approved by the FEHD since 2008. Besides, he opined that in spite of the clear stance of

objection of the District Council, applicants should be requested to submit applications to the District Council for Members’ information.

(e) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai opined that the District Council should continue to adopt the previous stance and object to occupation of public places by restaurants for private profit-making purposes. Furthermore, he said OSA did not only generate noise and light nuisance to the neighbourhood, but also gave rise to hygiene problems and security risk. He suggested that the C&WDO expand the scope of consultation to include stakeholders within 50 meters of an application premises and ensure residents were informed and their voices were heard.

(f) Miss YAM Ka-yi believed that the District Council would continue to object to the use of public places for OSA for private profit-making purposes. She said places for public use were inadequate. If applications were approved, residents would be affected. She opined that the transparency of OSA applications in private places for private profit-making purposes should be enhanced and the District Council should be consulted.

73. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), indicated that the C&WDO would be pleased to make co-ordination according to the requests of Members and would ask applicants to provide clear photos and detailed information. She supplemented that the Area Committee would consider applications and then submit their reports to the District Council in the past. The District Council previously circulated each of the OSA applications in public places for private profit-making purposes. However, as the District Council resolved that all applications would be objected, the FEHD did not need to consult the District Council about the applications. According to her knowledge, the number of applications had been low and no applications had been approved since then. As for applications involving private places, applicants were not requested to consult the District Council probably due to respect of private property. The C&WDO had no comment on consultation with the District Council on applications in the future and supported to enhance the transparency in handling applications. However, as the FEHD might have a time limit for the consideration of applications and the number of applications involved was small, she suggested that applications be discussed at meetings or handled by circulation. She said according to the standard consultation procedures, the C&WDO would consult on an application with the adjacent left building and right building of the building in which the application premises situated. In recent years, the consultation area had been expanded to the entire street in wake of individual incidents with greater impact on the neighbourhood. Members’ views were welcome.

74. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the FEHD, indicated that the FEHD received one OSA application in public place for private profit-making purposes in 2018 and 2019 respectively. In 2018 and 2019, the number of application approved was zero. As for OSA applications in private places for private profit-making purposes, four applications were received in 2018 and one was approved in the same year and six applications were received in 2019 and one was approved in the same year. Generally speaking, when the FEHD considered an application, in

31 addition to the consultation via the C&WDO, the views of other relevant departments such as the Fire Services Department, BD, LandsD, Planning Department, HyD and EPD were sought.

75. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), indicated that the C&WDO was pleased to assist Members in requesting more detailed information from applicants. She respected the views of Members who wanted to be consulted by departments. However, she said that the Area Committee comprised many local people and professionals who offered comments. The C&WDO would like to retain this system.

76. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr HUI Chi-fung hoped that the District Council would preserve the previous stance on the objection to all OSA applications in public places for private profit-making purposes. As for applications involving private places, he requested the department to submit all applications to the District Council for consideration. He noticed that the number of applications was low and it was practicable to consult the District Council on all applications in terms of administration. He opined that the District Council should be consulted on all OSA applications in public places for private profit- making purposes in the future.

(b) Mr YIP Kam-lung opined that as the number of applications was low, he suggested that the District Council discuss all applications in the future and the transparency should be enhanced. He opined that the Area Committee was a government organisation and the District Council was also an important consultation body. He indicated that while the District Council respected the right of private property, it did not mean that the District Council would not object to using private places for OSA for private profit- making purposes. He opined that government departments should disclose to the public the criteria in consideration of applications. He said he had been opposed to the disbandment of the Urban Council and the surrender of the functions of the municipal services to an administrative organisation. He opined that the system of Urban Council should be resumed and five requests should be acceded to.

77. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO supplemented that applications were usually handled by circulation in the past. She suggested that the performance pledge or time limit of the FEHD in considering an application be taken into account when Members decided whether applications would be circulated or discussed by the District Council.

78. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the FEHD, indicated that he would provide the details of the performance pledge or time limit for processing an application after the meeting.

79. The Vice-chairman asked the FEHD to supplement the information concerned.

80. The Vice-chairman indicated that he had received a written impromptu motion proposed by Mr NG Siu-hong and seconded by Mr HUI Chi-fung. He said the impromptu motion was accepted by one third of Members at the meeting. The written impromptu motion was as follows:

“To enhance transparency, vigilance and comprehensiveness in approving and conducting consultation by the FEHD on applications regarding outside seating accommodation of restaurants involving the use of private premises for private profit-making purposes, this Committee requests that the FEHD, accompanied by the representatives of the applicants, must be enquired by this Committee first when approving the applications.”

81. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin suggested the Member who put forward the motion make amendment to the wording form “accompanied by the representatives of the applicants, must be enquired by this Committee” to “accompanied by the representatives of the applicants, must consult this Committee”.

82. Mr NG Siu-hong agreed to revise the wording as suggested by Mr YEUNG Siu-yin.

83. Mr HO Chi-wang suggested the Member who put forward the motion revise the word “for profit-making purposes” to “for profit-earning purposes”.

84. Mr PANG Ka-ho opined that “for profit-earning purposes” conveyed a negative meaning. He opined that there was no problem to adopt the original wording “for profit-making purposes”.

85. The Vice-chairman suggested adopting Mr PANG Ka-ho’s comment and not revising the word “for profit-making purposes”.

86. Within the time limit of two minutes, there was no proposed amendment to the impromptu motion. The following impromptu motion proposed by Mr NG Siu-hong and seconded by Mr HUI Chi-fung was adopted upon deliberation and voting:

“To enhance transparency, vigilance and comprehensiveness in approving and conducting consultation by the FEHD on applications regarding outside seating accommodation of restaurants involving the use of private premises for private profit-making purposes, this Committee requests that the FEHD, accompanied by the representatives of the applicants, must consult this Committee first when approving the applications.”

(0 dissenting vote)

(0 abstention vote)

Item 10(i) : Standing item – Handling of refuse dumped beside litter containers on pavements (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 12/2020) (5:35 pm to 6:37 pm)

87. This item was chaired by the Vice-chairman.

88. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the FEHD, presented the Paper. He said the number of black spots of refuse dumped beside litter containers and recycling boxes remained to be 29. From June 2019 to January 2020, 1 346 prosecution cases were instigated against people who illegally dumped refuse in the district. As for progress of installation of internet protocol cameras (“IP cameras”), IP cameras were installed at seven and three black spots of illegally dumped refuse in the district in August 2019 and December 2019 respectively. From August 2019 to January 2020, 33 prosecution cases were initiated with the assistance of IP cameras. Besides, from June 2019 to January 2020, the FEHD issued a total of 34 Default Notices to contractors for contraventions or breach of contract. Finally, from June 2019 to January 2020, 74 complaints about refuse dumped beside litter containers and recycling boxes in the district were received in total.

89. The Chairlady indicated that another representative of the C&WDO was invited to give a brief account of street cleaning to which funds were previously granted by the District Council and environmental cleaning under the District-led Actions Scheme.

90. Miss WONG Sze-ki, Assistant District Officer (Central and Western), briefed the Committee on environmental cleaning under the District-led Actions Scheme. There were mainly four types of work: regular cleaning, cleaning service targeted at hygiene black spots, cleaning the common areas of “three-nil” buildings and cleaning of streets and “three-nil” buildings in wake of the coronavirus. As far as regular cleaning was concerned, the C&WDO continued to deploy resources to the FEHD to enhance cleaning of public places with severe hygiene and dog excreta problems in the district. Three rounds of cleaning services, each lasting for three months, had been provided in 2019/20 and 30 locations were covered. The third round of regular cleaning service commenced on 1 December 2019 and would be concluded on 31 March 2020. The C&WDO wrote to Members on 3 January 2020 to solicit their views on locations requiring cleaning. Locations for cleaning were discussed with the FEHD and updated according to the comments of Members. The relevant information was emailed to Members on 5 February 2020 for their information. As for cleaning service targeting hygiene black spots in the district, the C&WDO continued to commission contractors to strengthen cleaning of private streets, back lanes and common areas of “three-nil” buildings that were plagued by environmental hygiene problems and rodent infestation; to enhance disposal of bags of rubbish at black spots; and to alleviate the problem of pigeon droppings in the district by cleaning. Three rounds of cleaning services, each lasting for three months, had been provided in 2019/20 to target hygiene black spots in the district. The third round of cleaning service commenced on 20 January 2020 and ended on 28 March 2020. The C&WDO wrote to Members on 3 January 2020 to solicit their views on locations requiring cleaning. On 5 February 2020, information was consolidated and emailed to Members for information. In addition, the C&WDO had arranged the use of pressure washer surface cleaners to clear streets if possible as proposed by the District Council of the last term.

In addition, the C&WDO enhanced cleaning prior to and upon conclusion of large-scale festive events. Other than additional cleaning of some major streets in the district, the C&WDO commenced the cleaning of common areas of 72 “three-nil” buildings since December 2019 after making reference to practice of the previous year and in consultation with the FEHD. In response to the latest development of novel coronavirus, the C&WDO would step up cleaning the public streets and private back lanes in vicinity of the buildings with residents who were confirmed patients of COVID-19 or who had come back from Hubei to Hong Kong and were under home quarantine as announced on the website of the Centre for Health Protection. The C&WDO arranged to clean the common areas of additional 80 “three-nil” buildings since 24 February 2020 and invited Members to pinpoint locations requiring cleaning.

91. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr KAM Nai-wai noticed that accumulation of refuse was occasionally found at some black spots of illegal dumping of refuse near litter containers and recycling boxes that had been patrolled by the FEHD such as Elign Street, Mosque Street, Caine Road and Whitty Street. He asked if the FEHD would step up patrol and he would like to know if the frequency of patrol was once a day. He requested the FEHD to increase the frequency of patrol at locations with more than 10 offences to twice a day. The paper of the FEHD stated that the number of offences at the junction of Possession Street and Queen’s Road West, the bus stop off Hollywood Road Park, the junction of Lyttleton Road and Babington Path, and the area off Sheung Wan Municipal Services Building at Bonham Strand were low. However, the number of offences was inconsistent with his daily observation. In particular, the recycling boxes at the junction of Lyttleton Road and Babington Path were always full and refuse was accumulated. He would like to be informed of the schedules of patrol of the FEHD. He said he had written to the C&WDO to complain against the poor hygienic conditions near Tung Loi Lane and New Market Street and would like to know the frequency of regular cleaning of these locations conducted by the C&WDO. He also noticed that the C&WDO had arranged clearing of bags of rubbish at Possession Street. Although the above address was also on the blacklist of the FEHD, the problem of accumulation of rubbish was still serious at this location.

(b) Ms WONG Kin-ching opined that the number of prosecution cases was not high after IP cameras were installed by the FEHD. She noticed that people dumped refuse at locations without IP cameras after IP camera were installed at back lane of Hau Wo Street. She indicated that installation of IP cameras was contentious and she had reservation about the effectiveness. She noticed that the FEHD had issued many Default Notices to the contractors of street cleaning and would like to know if there were any penalties or other contractors would be selected. Finally, she would like to know how the list of “three-nil” buildings had been compiled by the C&WDO for selection by Members. She said Wing Shing Building at No. 24-26 Davis Street had

been demolished last year.

(c) Mr NG Siu-hong opined that the results of the patrols near Elign Street conducted by the FEHD could not reflect the true picture. He would like to know about the schedules of patrol of the FEHD and opined that the frequency of patrol was inadequate. He hoped that patrol and prosecution could be stepped up. He said there were many pubs in the vicinity of Elign Street and staffers of these bars usually put refuse on the street in the small hours. Patrols were ineffective if they were carried out in daytime. He was concerned that the FEHD had replaced litter containers with transparent plastic bags earlier on and environmental hygiene was impaired. Use of the litter containers and collection of refuse became inconvenient. He would like to know the number of litter containers that had been removed and the principles in the removal. He wondered if all the litter containers had been put back at their original locations. He said the FEHD had not consulted the District Council, residents and stakeholders about the removal of litter containers. He was opposed to the removal. He noticed that some litter containers had recently been put back to their original locations. However, he thought that used tissue paper should not be put into transparent plastic bags during the epidemic.

(d) Mr PANG Ka-ho indicated that the area outside Kennedy Town Centre at Belcher’s Street was a black spot of accumulation of refuse. Whenever he passed by this location, he saw that the litter containers and recycling boxes were full. He would like to know the frequency and schedule of patrol conducted by the FEHD. He suggested that the FEHD provide additional plastic recycling boxes or increase the frequency of clearing at this location. Apart from this, he said that the metal covers of recycling boxes there were damaged and requested the FEHD to repair them. He indicated that construction waste was accumulated at Sands Street, in particular the area off the escalator, from time to time and asked the FEHD to pay heed to the problem. As for Default Notices issued to the contractors of street cleaning, he enquired about the uniform of workers of contractors which was in breach of the contract. He would like to know if workers encountered any difficulties in this respect. Besides, he enquired the C&WDO about the exact location of the two sections of back lane between Catchick Street and Belcher’s Street in Kennedy Town where regular cleaning was conducted.

(e) Miss YAM Ka-yi asked the FEHD to review the patrols conducted at black spots of illegal dumping of refuse near litter containers and recycling boxes. She said refuse was dumped near litter containers at Lyttleton Road from time to time, attracting wild pigs to scavenge for food and causing rodent infestation. A vicious cycle was formed. She said some residents were unable to accurately identify plastic containers that could be recycled and mistakenly put plastic containers that could not be recycled into the boxes. She hoped that guidelines could be posted near the recycling boxes. She indicated that the District Council previously granted funds to clean streets. At about

8:00 am on 4 March, she found that the contractor had not arrived according to the schedule. After she reached the responsible party for enquiries about one hour later, she was told that a major pump was out of order. She learnt that the contractor began to clean the street after 10:00 am. However, she saw that a street washing vehicle drove away from the stone wall trees at Bonham Road. Subsequently, she found that some places scheduled for washing were dry and believed that the contractor had not cleaned these places properly. She reported the case to the FEHD and was told that a report would be available in the next week. She would like to be informed of the amount of funding granted by the District Council for street cleaning and the monitoring carried out by the C&WDO.

(f) Mr LEUNG Fong-wai indicated that during a briefing session of the District Council, a representative of the FEHD had promised screenshots of videos recorded by the IP cameras would be disclosed to Members and members of the public to show that pedestrians’ faces would not be clearly recorded. However, no such information had been provided as yet. Furthermore, he wrote to the FEHD to follow up and enquire about the specifications of the IP cameras, but no reply had been received. He hoped that the FEHD adopted appropriate measures in employing the relevant facilities in the enforcement to dissipate doubt of the public.

(g) Mr YIP Kam-lung indicated that the FEHD had previously removed litter containers in the district and replaced them with transparent plastic garbage bags and simple instruction signs. Environmental hygiene was seriously affected. Litter containers had not yet been put back at some locations for the time being. He opined that it was unacceptable and all litter containers should promptly be put back to their original locations. Moreover, rubbish was often accumulated near litter containers in the district. Some residents told him that litter containers were always full and they had to put the refuse next to the litter containers. They were consequently charged by the FEHD. On the other hand, corporate bodies of buildings did not comply with the laws and put bags of garbage on the roadside, awaiting collection by contractors. However, they were not prosecuted. In his opinion, double standards were perceived in the law enforcement. He opined that the FEHD should enhance clearing of litter containers and ensure litter containers were not full.

(h) Ms CHENG Lai-king said according to her knowledge, domestic garbage should usually not be dumped in litter containers. As many tenement buildings in the district did not hire a company to collect domestic garbage, she would like to know if assistance would be rendered by the C&WDO’s services in clearing bags of rubbish. She noticed that the uniform of street cleaning workers of the contractor commissioned by the FEHD was different from the previous one. She learnt from a worker that the FEHD had changed the contractor. However, she had not formally been notified by the FEHD. She said that the District Council had granted $500,000 to clean streets and received the schedules of street cleaning from the C&WDO. She would like to know

more about the street cleaning. She indicated that street cleaning was implemented by three parties, namely the FEHD, the District-led Actions Scheme of the C&WDO and projects funded by the District Council at the same time. She would like to know if their efforts were duplicated and asked the departments to provide the information on the use of the funds for Members’ information. She opined that the departments should consider whether rubbish clearing services for “three-nil” buildings should be provided in the long run and if the establishment of owners’ corporations and residents’ committee or hire of property management companies should be encouraged. She would like to know the arrangement of collection of bags of rubbish upon introduction of refuse fees. Finally, she asked if the FEHD had provided masks to frontline workers.

(i) Mr YEUNG Sui-yin indicated that he was opposed to granting of funds by the District Council for street cleaning due to limited effectiveness. He said an absence of schedules for street cleaning rendered monitoring impossible. The C&WDO had furnished the schedules for street cleaning earlier on. However, when he went to Sands Street according to the time of the schedule, there was no street cleaning. He opined that the department did not monitor the work. In his opinion, street cleaning should be a regular duty of the Government and should not use the District Council funds. He believed that removal of litter containers was a political decision at the expense of environmental hygiene. He opined that political consideration should not override people’s livelihood.

(j) The Chairlady indicated two trolleys were placed adjacent to the recycling bins at No. 99 Caine Road from time to time. Many residents misunderstood that it was acceptable to put garbage in the trolleys. She would like to know whether the trolleys belonged to the FEHD or its contractor. She said a person who was a confirmed case of novel coronavirus went to Man Mo Temple on 24 February. She asked if the FEHD had flexibly deployed more manpower of regular cleaning from other locations to clean Man Mo Temple in view of the special circumstances. She noticed that the Temple was cleaned under regular cleaning on 26 February. She would like to know if additional cleaning was conducted and enquired about the difference between the standards of special cleaning and regular cleaning.

(k) The Vice-chairman indicated that Members’ views could be summarised into six points: (1) litter container; (2) contractor; (3) bags of rubbish; (4) “three-nil” buildings; (5) street cleaning; and (6) special measures in response to novel coronavirus.

92. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), responded that the purpose of the District-led Actions Scheme was to make additional efforts on top of the regular duties of government departments to address the concern of Members or residents in the district. Pilot schemes on new improvement measures proposed by Members or residents could be carried out under this Scheme. For instance, the C&WDO used some of the resources under the Scheme to conduct

38 additional cleaning at hygiene black spots over which Members were concerned. The C&WDO co- ordinated with the FEHD on the locations and schedules of cleaning to avoid overlapping. Members were welcome to identify hygiene black spots and the C&WDO would examine the black spots and flexibly deploy resources. As for monitoring, the contractors were requested to submit the written reports under the District-led Actions Scheme and the C&WDO would conduct surprise inspections. As for failure of the contractors to wash the streets at scheduled time slots, she hoped that Members would understand that many locations were involved in a street cleaning operation carried out by a contractor. It was difficult for a contractor to arrive punctually at a specific location and the schedule could only provide an estimation of the time slots for street cleaning. She hoped Members could understand. As the number of locations for street cleaning funded by the District Council was small, it was practicable to provide schedules. However, as street cleaning and carried out by the FEHD were regular duties with a high frequency, it was difficult to provide detailed schedules. She welcomed Members to discuss with the C&WDO about monitoring of individual locations. She could make special arrangement to notify Members of the schedule for cleaning specific locations to facilitate monitoring by Members.

93. Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD indicated that the FEHD conducted daily patrols at the black spots of illegally dumped refuse next to litter containers and recycling boxes listed in the Paper. The FEHD would pay heed to the locations where hygiene needed to be improved as mentioned by Members. As for Default Notices issued to the contractors of street cleaning, major breaches of contract would affect their acquisition of upcoming contracts. Defaults such as uniform standards and absence from duty were not regarded as major breaches of contract. The FEHD had put back most of the litter containers to their original locations. A pilot scheme of new litter containers had been introduced to improve the design of litter contains. In the meantime, the FEHD would gradually reduce the number of litter containers to complement the long-term policy of the Government. As regards Miss YAM Ka-yi’s comments on street cleaning, he learnt that the street cleaning mentioned was not regular street cleaning conducted by the FEHD and had been arranged by the C&WDO. As such, the FEHD could not furnish the relevant information. He indicated that the FEHD would install and operate IP cameras according to privacy ordinances concerned. Apart from this, he would try to obtain information about the trolleys at No. 99 Caine Road as mentioned by the Chairlady after the meeting. As for the person who was a confirmed case of novel coronavirus and had visited Man Mo Temple, the FEHD had deployed resources and used 1:99 diluted bleach to clean the ground on the following day (Wednesday).

94. The Chairlady said Wednesday was a day for regular cleaning and asked the department to elucidate.

95. Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD explained that the FEHD used 1:99 diluted bleach to clean the vicinity of Man Mo Temple. 1:99 diluted bleach was not utilized in regular cleaning.

96. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that as there was a great deal of environmental hygiene work conducted by the FEHD and under the District-led Actions Scheme, it was difficult to provide detailed schedules for each item of the work. Schedules were also subject to

39 revision due to contingencies. She suggested that Members could reach the C&WDO for monitoring specified locations and the C&WDO could make special arrangement to assist Members in monitoring by providing the time of cleaning of the locations. As for Miss YAM Ka-yi’s comments on unsatisfactory street cleaning work funded by the District Council earlier on, she would follow up with the contractor concerned. If the performance of the contractor was unsatisfactory, the C&WDO would take action accordingly. For example, clarification would be requested and warnings would be issued. In response to Mr LEUNG Fong-wai’s concern over privacy problem posed by IP cameras, she said District Environmental Health Superintendent (Central/Western) had previously explained to Members and she would request the Superintendent to provide written information. She suggested that clear notice should be posted. As for Member’s concern over wild pigs which were attracted by refuse, she said the AFCD had previously studied the design of litter containers which were not easily knocked down by wild pigs and Members had been invited to view the design. She was pleased to invite Members to view the design again where necessary.

97. The Vice-chairman asked if the FEHD could provide screenshots of IP cameras.

98. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO said the FEHD was informed of the request. The department would vigorously improve the notification or the website could be included for information.

99. Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD indicated that if screenshots were disclosed to the public, the areas recorded by IP cameras would be made public and enforcement action would be impaired. He had reservation about it.

100. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr KAM Nai-wai hoped that the FEHD would make a breakdown of the number of patrols at the black spots of illegally dumped refuse next to litter containers and recycling boxes as listed in Annex One of the Paper, detailing the number of patrols in the morning/afternoon/at night. Besides, he asked to FEHD to increase the frequency of cleaning to twice a day if there were over 10 offences at a black spot in a day. The rest of locations could be cleaned at least once a day. He requested that the FEHD and C&WDO to provide schedules of street cleaning (e.g. in the morning/afternoon/at night) in respect of regular cleaning and cleaning funded by the District Council to facilitate Members’ monitoring.

(b) Miss YAM Ka-yi asked if the C&WDO had monitored the cleaning work funded by the District Council and said that some Members had never seen any street cleaning by the contractors. She disagreed with provision of schedule of street cleaning at specified locations because the contractors would pay more attention to these locations. She opined that Members could not monitor street cleaning for a long time. New type of litter containers had been used at Lyttleton Road. However, wild pigs still went

there to scavenge refuse near the new type of litter containers. She hoped that the department could review the relevant policy and step up patrols.

(c) Mr NG Siu-hong suggested that staffers of the FEHD be recorded by IP cameras and only their screenshots were provided to avoid disclosing faces of members of the public. In addition, he was concerned that prior notification of the FEHD would defeat the purpose of monitoring. He hoped that schedules of street cleaning be provided by the department. He asked if the FEDH had put back all the litter containers at their original places. If not, he would like to know the number of litter containers that had not been put back at their original places. He asked if the removal of litter containers was requested by the Police. He opined that the transparent plastic bags previously used to replace litter containers could spread germs and demanded an explanation from the department.

(d) Ms CHENG Lai-king opined that the function of monitoring was defeated if Members had an appointment with the contractor to clean a street. She said the woman, who was aged 69 and a patient of confirmed case, had visited many places in Central and Western District and requested that street cleaning be arranged on the same night to ease the worries of the public. She hoped that the District Council funds were used appropriately. Furthermore, she asked when the department would put back the recycling boxes for glass at Caine Road and Robinson Road for public use. She said the boxes were not dangerous.

101. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that the schedules of street cleaning funded by the District Council had previously been provided to Members. She concurred with Miss YAM Ka-yi that it was impossible for Members to monitor street cleaning for a long time. Likewise, it was also impossible for the C&WDO to monitor the contractors all the time. In addition to the reports submitted by the contractors as requested by the C&WDO, surprise inspections were conducted. The C&WDO would follow up with the contractor concerned the case mentioned by Miss YAM Ka-yi after the meeting and requested the contractor to give an explanation. She supplemented that the C&WDO had previously conducted a survey about the street cleaning under the District-led Actions Scheme and about 70% to 80% of respondents opined that environmental hygiene had been improved. Apart from this, a street washing vehicle went to more than one location and the area it washed covered different locations. As such, it was difficult to provide a schedule which was accurate to the nearest minutes. The schedule previously provided was an estimation. She understood it was difficult for a Member to wait for a contractor in the entire time slot. She explained the purpose of her previous suggestion was to facilitate Members to monitor the contractors at specified locations. She would make a special arrangement and asked a colleague to give a Member a prior notice on the day of street cleaning. She said the case mentioned by a Member was an unexpected case in that the major pump of the contractor was out of order and needed to go back for repair on that day. However, the C&WDO would follow up with the contractor the enquiry about the dry surface of the ground after the meeting. She stressed that the C&WDO could only provide a schedule in terms of am/pm because the schedule could hardly be accurate to the nearest minutes.

Surprise checks would also be conducted.

102. In response to Miss YAM Ka-yi’s comment on the conditions in the vicinity of Lyttleton Road near Babington Path, Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD indicated that the FEHD would pay more attention to the accumulation of refuse at this location. As for putting back of litter containers, he said if Members would like a litter container to be put at a location, he welcomed their views after the meeting so that the FEHD could make improvement. The FEHD previously used plastic transparent bags to replace litter containers due to safety reason and not upon request by other departments.

103. Ms Dorothy NIEH, Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) of the HKPF, responded that the Police had not requested the FEHD to remove litter containers from the streets.

104. Mr NG Siu-hong would like to know the latest information about putting back of glass recycling boxes.

105. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that the C&WDO had reached the EPD and had been informed that 70% of glass recycling services in Central and Western District had been resumed. The C&WDO would continue to obtain latest information from the EPD after the meeting.

106. Ms CHENG Lai-king would like to know why the District Environmental Health Superintendent (Central/Western) was absent from this meeting.

107. Mr CHONG Hon-ming of the FEHD said the District Environmental Health Superintendent (Central/Western) was on leave.

108. The Committee unanimously resolved that “Handling of refuse dumped beside litter containers on pavements” would be a standing item of the BEHWC for this term.

Item 10(ii) : Standing item – Leaking drains at Sands Street (C&W BEHWC Paper No. 13/2020) (6:37 pm to 7:01 pm)

109. This item was chaired by the Vice-chairman.

110. Mr NGAI Chi-choy, Building Surveyor/Slope Safety 2 of the BD, indicated that the BD had completed phase one and phase two of manhole repair works near the stone walls and was currently preparing the works for phase three. It was anticipated that papers for the works would be issued in March at the earliest for commencement of the works. The entire project was comprised of four phases. Phase four (i.e. the final phase) involved replacement works of some drains at No. 3-34 Sands Street. The BD was currently studying with the consultant the implementation of the final phase of the works.

111. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue.

The main points made by Members were as follows:

(a) Mr YEUNG Siu-yin said he noticed that the LandsD had planned to build a cover on the pavement in the vicinity. He would like to know if the works and subsequent repair works of the BD would be affected.

(b) The Chairlady indicated that some drains at No. 17-35 Sands Street were owned by the Government and some were privately owned. She would like to know if residents needed to pay for the works and opined that residents should not pay for the expenses.

(c) Mr PANG Ka-ho would like to know if the works under phase four covered the last section of the road at the back of Po Shu Mansion and Tse Lan Mansion or if works would be carried out at the section of road concerned. Furthermore, he previously had a site visit at Sands Street and agreed that leaking and odour at the slope had been mitigated. However, leaking was still found. He asked the BD if the drains at this location were effluent sewers or other type of the drains. He would like to know if the BD had recovered the repair fees or when the fees would be recovered. Finally, he would like to know the purpose of pipeline inspection of the underground drains.

112. In response, Mr NGAI Chi-choy of the BD said he believed that the building of the cover on the pavement by the LandsD would not affect the repair works of the BD because the works of the BD were mainly at the back lane near the upper stone wall at Sands Street. The BD would study with the relevant departments if the cover of the pavement would affect the repair of the stone wall or the nearby surface channel carried out by the owner or other departments in the future. As for the Chairlady’s concern over the fees of the works, he indicated that the works involved an effluent sewer and a rainwater pipe leading to Wing Tai Mansion via Po Shu Mansion and Tse Lan Mansion for the connection of the effluent sewer and rainwater pipe of the private buildings. Since the effluent sewers at this location were under private ownership, the BD issued repair orders in the end of 2016. As too many residents were involved, owners could not reach a consensus on the arrangement of works. Appeals against the repair orders had also been made. The BD applied the Buildings Ordinance to implement works for the owners last year and the fees incurred would be recovered from the owners upon completion of the works. The works from phase one to phase three mainly aimed to repair manholes and pipes. Works of phase three would be carried out at the back lane of No. 17- 43 Sands Street. Works of phase four mainly aimed to replace drains that were beyond repair. The BD was currently studying with the consultant to address technical issues. After the BD completed the works at the locations with the most serious leakage, the problem of odour and leakage had significantly been improved. The BD would keep an eye on the conditions. In response to Members’ enquiry about pipeline inspection of the underground drains, he said a camera was put inside the drains to examine so that the extent of damage of drains could be assessed. As such, a repair option which was more economical and entailed fewer impacts to the neighbourhood could be worked out. According to the results of the examination of underground drains, it was assessed that the conditions of about one-third of the drains were unsatisfactory or replacement was necessary. The works would be implemented in phase four.

113. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that the odour was very offensive prior to the repair works. At that time, the C&WDO used fences to cover the drains to alleviate impacts on residents. The C&WDO and the District Council jointly requested the BD to follow up. The C&WDO recently sent staffers to inspect the location and no odour was detected. However, as summer was approaching, the C&WDO would vigorously co-ordinate with the BD and endeavour to improve the hygiene conditions of the location. As for the building of the cover on the pavement, she had requested the department to co-ordinate with the BD when the works commenced to ensure no impact would be generated.

114. The Committee resolved that “Leaking drains at Sands Street” would remain to be a standing item of the BEHWC.

115. Ms WONG Kin-ching indicated that the meeting of the District Council had discussed the land use of and ground decontamination works at the site of ex-Kennedy Town incineration plant/ abattoir and adjoining area, and turning Cadogan Street Temporary Garden into a permanent park. As replies of departments were unclear and it would probably take seven years for the Civil Engineering and Development Department (“CEDD”) to complete the works and residents would be affected, she suggested that this item be included as a standing item of the BEHWC.

116. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that decontamination works were in line with the ambit of the BEHWC. However, she noticed that the District Council had previously arranged the discussion of development of Cadogan Street Temporary Garden into a permanent park at the meetings of the District Council and it was probably inappropriate for the BEHWC to discuss it.

117. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that there were decontamination facilities on the ground of Cadogan Street Temporary Garden. She suggested that the standing item be set as monitoring of decontamination of ex-Kennedy Town incineration plant, abattoir and Cadogan Street Temporary Garden.

118. Ms WONG Kin-ching hoped that there was no need to decontaminate Cadogan Street Temporary Garden. However, there was no concrete reply from the department and the reply was that Cadogan Street Temporary Garden had not been changed to a permanent use because of some unfinished procedures. However, the site had been zoned as park.

119. Mr KAM Nai-wai concurred with Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze. He suggested that the planning of Cadogan Street Temporary Garden be discussed by the Working Group on Town Planning of Central and Western District and decontamination be set as a standing item of the BEHWC. These issues could be discussed at a meeting of the District Council where necessary.

120. The Committee resolved that “Monitoring of the Ground Decontamination Works at the Site of Ex-Kennedy Town Incineration Plant/Abattoir and Adjoining Area” be a standing item for the BEHWC of this term.

121. Ms CHAN Miu-ling, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Central and Western) 2 of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”), supplemented that the naming of the Cadogan Street Temporary Garden depended on the nature of the site. As the land granted to the LCSD was temporary in nature, the name became Temporary Garden.

122. The Vice-chairman asked Members if they would like to add a standing item, namely “Strongly Urges the Government to Step Up Prosecution of the Non-complying Authorised Person and Contractor of the Redevelopment Site”.

123. Mr KAM Nai-wai suggested that the standing item be titled “Monitoring of Redevelopment Sites in the Central and Western District”. He requested the department to submit reports on a regular basis and invited representatives of the department to attend the meetings.

124. The Committee resolved that “Monitoring of Redevelopment Sites in the Central and Western District” be included in the standing item of the BEHWC of this term.

Item 11 : Any other business (7:01 pm to 7:57 pm)

125. The Chairlady said that Ms CHENG Lai-king, Chairlady of the District Council, would like to discuss three letters she had previously received for this item. The following item would be chaired by Ms CHENG Lai-king.

126. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that she had received three letters inviting nomination of representatives from the District Council. The Secretariat had previously sent the letters to Members for perusal. She indicated that the term of office for members of the Regional Advisory Committee of the Hospital Authority was two years from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2022. She asked if there was any nomination.

127. Mr YIP Kam-lung nominated Miss YAM Ka-yi and the Chairlady seconded the nomination.

128. Miss YAM Ka-yi indicated she was a registered nurse and believed that she was more familiar with medical affairs. She was willing to accept the nomination.

129. As there was no other nomination or objection from Members, Ms CHENG Lai-king declared that the C&WDC nominated Miss YAM Ka-yi to be the member of the Regional Advisory Committee of the Hospital Authority.

130. Ms CHENG Lai-king asked if there was any nomination for the member of Disciplinary Board of the Buildings Department under the Buildings Ordinance. The term of office was two years from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2022.

131. Mr HO Chi-wang nominated Mr YEUNG Sui-yin.

132. Mr YIP Kam-lung nominated the Chairlady.

133. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that as there was more than one nomination, a voting was necessary.

134. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin indicated that he would withdraw. Although he was the first person who showed interest in the post, he did not mind withdrawing if the Chairlady was also interested in the post.

135. The Chairlady was willing to accept the nomination.

136. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that there was only one nomination upon withdrawal of Mr YEUNG Sui-yin. The Committee endorsed that the Chairlady would take up this post.

137. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that the next item was nomination for the RTHK Programme Advisory Panel. The term of office was two years from May 2020 to April 2022. As she was interested in this post, the Chairlady would chair the meeting.

138. The Chairlady asked if there was any nomination for the RTHK Programme Advisory Panel.

139. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin nominated Mr HO Chi-wang and Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr PANG Ka- ho seconded the nomination.

140. Miss YAM Ka-yi nominated Mr YIP Kam-lung and Mr LEUNG Fong-wai seconded the nomination.

141. Mr KAM Nai-wai nominated Ms CHENG Lai-king and Mr HUI Chi-fung seconded the nomination.

142. The Chairlady said it was very likely that no candidates would obtain more than 50% of votes in the first round of voting. If it was the case, she suggested that the two candidates with the highest number of votes would proceed to the second round of voting. Besides, the Chairlady suggested that a secret ballot be conducted upon consultation of Members.

143. After the voting was concluded, Mr HO Chi-wang had 5 votes; Mr YIP Kam-lung had 4 votes; and Ms CHENG Lai-king had 4 votes. Ms CHENG Lai-king suggested that there was no need to conduct a second round of voting and the candidate with the highest number of votes should take up the post. Another candidate Mr YIP Kam-lung also agreed with this suggestion. The Chairlady declared Mr HO Chi-wang won.

144. Ms CHENG Lai-king reported that hand sanitisers had been sent to various locations and she asked the Secretary to report the distribution of the hand sanitisers.

145. The Secretary reported that the District Council used nearly $300,000 to purchase the first batch of 66 000 hand sanitisers. Among these hand sanitisers, half of them (i.e. 33 000 bottles) were evenly distributed to all the Members of the District Council. The other 50% were distributed to the major social welfare organisations and licensed private homes for the elderly in the district. There were large and small social welfare organisations in the district. Large organisations (i.e. running several centres) were given 4 000 bottles of hand sanitisers and small organisations (i.e. running fewer centres) were given 600 bottles of hand sanitisers and adjustments were made according to the need and actual conditions.

146. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that the District Council had also granted funds to purchase bleach, detergent, green scourers, gloves and towels.

147. The Secretary supplemented that the aforesaid articles would be packed into cleaning sets and about 31 000 sets had been purchased in total. In addition, the Secretariat was currently purchasing the second batch of 67 000 bottles of hand sanitisers. The Committee’s comments on the allocation of the cleaning sets and the second batch of hand sanitisers were sought.

148. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that the District Council distributed 50% of the first batch of hand sanitisers to Members of the District Council and the percentage was higher than that of the supplies previously distributed. She suggested that 15 000 cleaning sets be distributed to all the Members and the rest be distributed to the major social welfare organisations in the district.

149. Mr KAM Nai-wai asked the Secretariat to speed up uploading to the webpage of the District Council the list of cleaning items which would be distributed to Members of the District Council. He hoped that the name list of the social welfare organisations to which supplies would be distributed could be uploaded to the webpage as well for public perusal and to facilitate public monitoring. He asked the Secretariat to provided photos of the cleaning sets for publicity. He said as the space of offices of Members was inadequate to store all the cleaning sets and it would take time to distribute the cleaning sets, he asked the Secretariat to make arrangement for Members to choose to collect the cleaning sets in two or three batches. Furthermore, he enquired if allowances could be offered to Members for distribution of the anti-epidemic supplies. For instance, he wondered if Members could apply for transportation fees for transporting the anti-epidemic supplies.

150. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, District Officer (Central and Western), concurred with Mr KAM Nai-wai’s suggestion that name list of the social welfare organisations to which supplies would be distributed be uploaded to the webpage of the District Council. She indicated as the District Council funds were public money, Members were reminded to uphold transparency and equity in distributing the anti-epidemic supplies and prevent crowd gathering. Besides, as for Mr KAM Nai-wai’s suggestion on delivery of the cleaning sets to the offices of Members in batches, she understood the offices of Members probably did not have adequate space to store all the supplies in one go. However, as the District Council had devoted nearly all the available resources to the anti-epidemic measures, the remaining funds were probably inadequate for transportation of anti-epidemic supplies. She would look into different options after the meeting and checked if the remaining funds were

47 adequate for transportation expenses to facilitate Members’ work.

151. Ms CHENG Lai-king suggested that cleaning items be delivered to the offices of Members in two batches where possible and asked the Secretary to report the progress of purchase of the second batch of hand sanitisers.

152. The Secretary indicated that there were a total of 67 000 bottles of 30 ml hand sanitisers for the second batch.

153. Ms CHENG Lai-king asked Members if they agreed to allocate the hand sanitisers in the same way. In other words, half of the sanitisers would be given to Members. The Committee endorsed the aforesaid allocation arrangement. Ms CHENG Lai-king asked whether operational cost could be reimbursed if offices of District Members successfully purchased masks for distribution to people. For instance, she asked if expenses could be reimbursed if there were labels conveying names of Members on the packing boxes of masks.

154. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that according to conditions of contracts, the contractor should deliver the masks to the offices of Members once. The C&WDO would check if the District Council funds were adequate to pay for the additional transportation expenses incurred from Members’ request. If the funds were inadequate, the C&WDO would consider other alternatives. She supplemented that reimbursement of transportation fees under operational expenses generally referred to transportation fees for publicity materials. The views of the headquarters would be sought on transportation fees for masks or other anti-epidemic items. Besides, she reminded Members that Members should clearly state that the aforesaid anti-epidemic items were purchased by the District Council funds during the distribution of the items.

155. Ms CHENG Lai-king asked the Secretary to report the progress of purchase of masks.

156. The Secretary indicated that there was no progress for the first round of invitation to quotation from the supplier of masks made in Egypt. In the second round of invitation to quotation, no supplier offered any quotation. In the third round of invitation to quotation which had just completed, quotations from three suppliers were received as follows: The first type of mask was individually wrapped, $4 for each and made in Romania. The standard was EN14683 Type II. Date of delivery was within 10 days upon acceptance of the quotation. It could provide 1 600 boxes of masks amounting to 80 000 masks at maximum. The second type of mask was not individually wrapped, $4.8 for each and made in Indonesia. It could provide a maximum of 100 000 masks and the standard was BFE 95%. Date of delivery was 7 calendar days at the earliest. The third type of mask was not individually wrapped, $12 for each and made in Indonesia. The standard was ASTM Level 3 and it could provide a maximum of 100 000 masks. The existing District Council funds were inadequate to purchase all the masks. The Secretary said as the deadline for quotation would end on the afternoon of the date of the meeting, the Secretariat would need to reach the suppliers to confirm their quotations.

157. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO supplemented that as the purchase involved public money, many suppliers were reached to invite quotations. A supplier could provide quotations for masks with more than one standard. After the Secretariat sent invitations to quotation to over 200 suppliers, the Secretariat vigorously reached each supplier by phone to obtain information about their supplies and encouraged them to provide quotations. Moreover, she used the first round of quotation for masks made in Egypt as an example. A quotation offered by a supplier did not necessarily mean that the goods were in fact available. She asked if Members would agree if the Secretariat purchased masks from the supplier who could deliver the masks at the earliest and at the same time reached the other two suppliers. Members could consider purchasing from more than one supplier where necessary to make sure that masks could promptly be delivered.

158. Mr KAM Nai-wai did not agree to use the District Council funds to buy Indonesian masks at over $10 for each. He therefore disagreed with Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze’s suggestion to reach all the suppliers who had offered a quotation. He anticipated that when the masks were delivered at the end of March or in April, locally manufactured masks were probably available in the market. He believed that the prices of masks would drop at that time. The first type of mask, which was individually wrapped and $4 for each, was Type II mask made in Europe and could be delivered in 10 days. He thought they were acceptable. As a maximum of 80 000 masks were available for this type of mask, each Member could obtain about 53 boxes of masks according to the allocation arrangement of cleaning items. The number of masks was insignificant when compared to the enormous demand of the district. He asked the Secretariat if there were ways to purchase masks other than tendering. For example, he enquired if masks could be procured via the overseas Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices.

159. Mr YIP Kam-lung opined that the first type of individually wrapped mask was acceptable and he could only accept the second type of mask reluctantly. The third type of mask should not be considered. He asked if a sample of the first type of mask was available so as to ensure that the masks would not be too thin.

160. Miss YAM Ka-yi opined that $4 for one mask was totally unacceptable. She said the prices of masks were slightly dropping at present. Masks could always be purchased at dispensaries at this price. In her opinion, part of public money came from tax payers. If public money was used to buy masks at $4 each, she believed that people would regard them as expensive. She was therefore opposed to purchase of a mask at $4.

161. Ms CHENG Lai-king understood Miss YAM Ka-yi’s view. However, the Committee had failed to purchase any masks since the funds were granted by the District Council at the end of January.

162. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin indicated that he was the first Member to propose prompt purchase of masks. To his disappointment, masks could not be purchased as yet. He opined that desperate times called for desperate measures and therefore $4 for one mask was acceptable. As it was impossible to predict the epidemic development, the demand for masks would significantly surge due to panic purchase if there was an outbreak of the epidemic in the community. Members should not

49 haggle over prices during desperate times. Besides, the Secretariat should figure out how purchase could be secured and should not stick to tendering or procurement at the lowest bid. As there was currently an enormous demand for masks and many governments banned export of masks, 80 000 masks should be purchased first to allay public anxiety.

163. Mr LEUNG Fong-wai opined that it was meaningless to purchase 80 000 masks at $4 for each because 50 boxes of masks allocated to one Member could not help out and to the disappointment of the public. As such, he did not support any of the quotations.

164. Miss YAM Kai-yi indicated that if masks were purchased at a high price of $4 and then the masks were evenly distributed to all the Members, each Member would obtain about over 100 boxes of masks. However, as about half of the masks would be distributed to non-government organisations (“NGOs”), each Member would be allocated about 53 boxes of masks. Only a small number of residents could obtain the masks. She said if the District Council eventually approved the purchase of these masks, she would like to obtain the relevant certificates. She indicated although the epidemic was on-going, it was not the peak period.

165. Ms CHENG Lai-king asked if it was possible to purchase masks directly in the market instead of by tender and then make a reimbursement for the expenses.

166. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that it had been stressed many times in previous meetings that the District Council funds were public money. When funds were granted by the Legislative Council, quotations and tendering were required in the procurement. She had repeatedly stated that quotations were required to ensure transparency in procurement in answer to tax payers and the public. Being flexible in handling the procurement of masks, the Secretariat had clearly stated in the invitations to quotation that prices were not the only consideration and a lot of importance was attached to dates of delivery. She stressed that purchase of masks was not determined by the lowest bid. The Secretariat vigorously reached each supplier by phone. If it was aware that other suppliers might have the goods, they would be included in the list of invitation to quotation so that all the potential mask suppliers could be included. The Secretariat should remain impartial during the procurement and could not reach only one supplier.

167. Mr KAM Nai-wai enquired about the procedures of handling quotations by the Secretariat. If there were lower bids in the following day of the meeting, he asked whether the Secretariat would reject them. Besides, he opined that $4 for one mask was expensive and he personally would not buy a box of mask for over $150. However, he opined that masks which were individually wrapped were more expensive and the public had a demand for masks. While he understood that only 50 boxes of masks allocated to each Member were inadequate, the market would probably not be running out of masks when the District Council waited and purchased masks until more masks were available.

168. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin agreed that although this batch of masks did not fully meet Members’ expectation, they were better than none. He indicated that some residents told him that their masks had been used for a week or they were afraid to go out because they did not have masks. He hoped

50 that masks could be distributed even though the quantity was small.

169. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that she knew that the Secretary undergone a lot of hardship in the procurement of masks. She suggested that the Committee advise on the way the quotations of three types of masks should be handled. According to the discussion, the second and third type of masks would not be considered. She therefore asked if Members were willing to buy 80 000 the first type of individually wrapped Romania masks at $4 for each. A total of $320,000 would be involved. Members endorsed the purchase of the aforesaid masks with 9 affirmative votes, 2 dissenting votes and 2 abstention votes.

170. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that 50% of the anti-epidemic items would be given to Members and 50% be given to NGOs just like the previous arrangement. If Members would like to include more NGOs, they were welcome to bring it up to her. She said that the Area Committees were not included in the allocation list.

171. Mr YIP Kam-lung indicated that he chose to cast an affirmative vote because there were no masks in the market and could accept the quotation helplessly. He did not agree with $4 for one mask. He said if there were masks made in Hong Kong in the future, he suggested that the Committee consider buying these masks and he believed that prices would be lower.

172. Miss YAM Ka-yi indicated the reason for her objection was that the standard of the batch of masks was BFE 99%. It was a marginal standard and was not useful. She opined that the responsibility of procurement of masks vested in the Government and therefore did not agree to purchase a mask of this standard at $4.

173. The Vice-chairman said that according to his knowledge, some NGOs in other districts had too many masks in stock which were not fully distributed. He was not sure if 50% of masks should be given to NGOs. He said that if people wanted to donate masks, they would generally donate the masks to NGOs.

174. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that she had reached the NGOs in the district and most of them were running short of anti-epidemic items. She endeavoured to allocate some supplies to these NGOs under the District-led Actions Scheme at that time. However, the supply of masks was inadequate. According to her understanding, the NGOs in the district did not have a surplus of supplies.

175. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that if Members would like to revise the name list of NGOs for the distribution of anti-epidemic items, they could bring it up to her or the Secretariat.

176. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO agreed that the District Council should render assistance to people by procuring anti-epidemic items. She reminded Members of possible interference to the supply of the market and suggested that Members could consider the NGOs be classified according to their constituencies.

177. The Vice-chairman opined that the suggestion of Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze would help Members in referring people to NGOs to collect masks.

178. Ms CHENG Lai-king said the Secretariat would follow up the purchase of anti-epidemic items and the meeting would be chaired by the Chairlady.

179. Mr LEUNG Fong-wai said he had learnt a few hours ago that the 105th confirmed case of “Wuhan pneumonia” had previously gone to Smithfield Market according to the information of the Department of Health. He asked the FEHD if there were any contingency measures for the sanitisation and operation of Smithfield Market.

180. Mr PANG Ka-ho asked if the Centre for Health Protection had notified the FEHD of the aforesaid case. He asked the FEHD what measures were in place under the regular mechanism if a patient of a confirmed case had gone to Smithfield Market in the last 14 days. He asked how the FEHD would handle the case if there was no regular mechanism. Residents who had gone to the market were terrified. Moreover, he asked if the floors or stalls the patient had visited could be identified and public could be informed.

181. Mr CHONG Hon-ming, Chief Health Inspector 3 of the FEHD, indicated that he had been at this meeting and did not have much information about this case. However, he enquired of his colleague about this case and was told that the FEHD had received a notification from the Centre for Health Protection that a patient of confirmed case had visited Smithfield Market. The FEHD would arrange sanitisation of the market upon closure of the market on that night. As for the floor the patient had visited, he had no information for the time being. Generally speaking, after the FHED received a notification from the Centre for Health Protection, arrangement would be made to carry out sanitisation at the location concerned.

182. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO indicated that according to her understanding, the FEHD would finish sanitisation on that night and the operation hours of the market on the following day would not be disrupted. If there were any changes, Members would be notified. Besides, she suggested that the FEHD put up notices at the market to notify the public that sanitisation had been completed with a view to easing public concern.

183. Ms CHENG Lai-king indicated that Man Mo Temple had been closed for 14 days after a patient of confirmed case had visited there. She asked if the same arrangement would be made for Smithfield Market. She was concerned that closure of Smithfield Market would entail an enormous impact.

184. Ms WONG Kin-ching believed that the FEHD was mainly responsible for cleaning the common areas in the market. She asked the FEHD if stall operators would need to clean their own stalls and whether assistance would be rendered.

185. Mr PANG Ka-ho hoped that the Department of Health would provide Members with the latest

52 information at once. He believed that closure of the market could not be determined by the FEHD alone. The FEHD had to discuss with the Department of Health.

186. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin added that other than Smithfield Market, the patient of confirmed case had also visited the HSBC at Pedder Street, Bank of East Asia at Des Voeux Road Central, Chinese Medicine Clinic of Tung Wah Hospital at Po Yan Street in Sheung Wan, Ocean Empire Food Shop at Johnston Road and so on. He opined that the department should follow up.

187. The Chairlady opined that cleaning should be enhanced at Rock Hill Street, Po Yan Street and so on. She asked when cleaning could be arranged at the earliest.

188. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO explained that according to the practice of the C&WDO, apart from liaising with the Centre for Health Protection, the C&WDO also paid attention to the news. If it was aware that a patient of a confirmed case had visited some places in the district, the C&WDO would co-ordinate with the FEHD to arrange cleaning of the public places. As for private places, the C&WDO would render assistance where necessary. She said Man Mo Temple had previously been closed because of the heavy flow of visitors and small area of the temple. The authorities would discuss with the Centre for Health Protection whether it was necessary to close Smithfield Market.

189. Mr YEUNG Sui-yin indicated that a Chinese medicine practitioner of the Chinese Medicine Clinic of Tung Wah Hospital was also infected. He opined that the Chinese medicine practitioner posed a great risk because he contacted many people.

190. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze of the C&WDO said Tung Wah Hospital had relevant experience. She would reach Tung Wah Hospital after the meeting to obtain the latest information and she believed that the hospital would handle the case with caution.

191. The Chairlady indicated that she would reach Tung Wah Hospital as well to follow up this case.

Item 12 : Date of the next meeting (7:57 pm to 7:58 pm)

192. The 3rd meeting of the BEHWC would be held on 14 May 2020. The paper submission deadline for government departments would be 21 April 2020, while that for Members would be 27 April 2020.

193. The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 pm.

The minutes were confirmed on 21 May 2020

Chairlady: Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie

Secretary: Ms CHENG Cheuk-yan, Charmaine

Central and Western District Council Secretariat May 2020