(Translation) Minutes of the 9th Meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee of District Council (5th Term)

Date: 15 June 2017 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 a.m. Venue: Conference Room, Council

Present

Chairman Mr YAN Kai-wing

Members Mr CHAN Kwok-wai Mr CHAN Wai-ming, MH Ms CHAN Wing-yan, Joephy (Arrived at 9:36 a.m.; left at 12:30 p.m.) Mr CHENG Wing-shun, Vincent, MH (Arrived at 11 a.m.) Mr CHEUNG Wing-sum, Ambrose, (Arrived at 10:20 a.m.) BBS, MH, JP Ms CHOW Wing-heng, Zoé (Arrived at 11 a.m.; left at 1:00 p.m.) Mr CHUM Tak-shing (Arrived at 12:15 p.m.) Mr HO Kai-ming, Kalvin Mr KONG Kwai-sang (Arrived at 9:57 a.m.) Mr LAM Ka-fai, Aaron, BBS, JP (Arrived at 9:53 a.m.) Mr LEE Wing-man (Left at 1:00 p.m.) Mr LEUNG Man-kwong (Left at 1:30 p.m.) Mr LEUNG Yau-fong Ms NG Mei, Carman Ms NG Yuet-lan (Arrived at 10:15 a.m.) Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, MH, JP Mr WAI Woon-nam Mr YEUNG Yuk (Arrived at 9:55 a.m.)

Co-opted Members Mr CHEUNG Tak-wai (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.) Mr FUNG Man-tao, Joshua (Arrived at 9:50 a.m.; left at 11:35 a.m.) Mr LI Kwing (Left at 11 a.m.) Ms TANG Mei-ching (Arrived at 10:05 a.m.)

- 2 - Action by

In Attendance Miss CHEUNG Yun-chee, Freda Assistant District Officer (Sham Shui Po) 2 Mr WONG Leung-ping, Ben Senior Liaison Officer 2, Sham Shui Po District Office Mr LAI Huen-lam, Stephen Assistant District Social Welfare Officer (Sham Shui Po) 1, Social Welfare Department Mrs CHENG IP Sau-fong, Susanna Senior Housing Manager/(KWS) 1, Housing Department Miss AU Mei-lin, Rebecca Senior Housing Manager/(KWS) 2, Housing Department Mr CHAU Chi-fai Property Service Manager/S (KWS) 2, Housing Department Mr WONG Lap-yan, Ivan Chief Health Inspector 1, Sham Shui Po district, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms OR Siu-shan Senior Health Inspector (Joint Office), Sham Shui Po District, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Miss IP Wai-ting Acting Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control), Sham Shui Po District, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr KOO Chi-hong Health Inspector (Pest Control), Sham Shui Po district, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms KO Mei-yee, Bon Senior Professional Officer/Signboard Control 1, Buildings Department Mr SHEK King-fai Professional Officer 3/Joint Office 2, Buildings Department Mr NG Mun-sing Town Planner/Sham Shui Po 2, Planning Department Ms LI Kit-sum, Sumie Senior Estate Surveyor/Sham Shui Po (District Lands Office, Kowloon West), Lands Department Mr LAU Kin-hang, Kenneth Assistant Police Community Relations Officer (Sham Shui Po District), Police Force

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

Absent

Members Ms LAU Pui-yuk Mr WONG Tat-tung, Dennis, MH, JP

- 3 - Action by

Opening Remarks

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

2. The Committee noted that Ms LAU Pui-yuk was unable to attend the meeting that day.

Agenda Item 1: Confirmation of minutes

3. The Committee confirmed the minutes of the eighth meeting held on 13 April 2017 without amendment.

Agenda Item 2: Matters for discussion

(a) Serious and long-term nuisance caused to neighbours by tenants of public housing estates (HAC Paper 22/17)

4. The Chairman introduced Paper 22/17.

5. Miss Rebecca AU introduced Response Paper 32/17.

6. Mr Stephen LAI introduced Response Paper 33/17.

7. Mr Kenneth LAU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) It was the main duties of the Police to safeguard and protect life and property, and to prevent and fight crime. Under circumstances of emergency or when the case concerned involved criminal offence, residents suffering from nuisance and the security guards of the premises might seek police assistance.

(ii) If the person concerned was suspected to be mentally ill, the Police would, after having obtained consent from that person, refer the case to the Social Welfare Department (“SWD”) for follow-up.

8. The Chairman raised the following enquiries: (i) how the Police could obtain consent from the person who was suspected to be mentally ill; (ii) whether the Housing Department (“HD”) would hold meetings regularly with relevant departments to follow up on nuisance problems caused to neighbours in public rental housing (“PRH”) estates; (iii) whether Members and the residents affected could raise items for discussion at such meetings.

9. Miss Rebecca AU responded that the Department would request assistance from relevant departments in accordance with the circumstances of individual cases. In - 4 - Action by addition, the Department would hold half-yearly meeting with SWD to enhance collaboration.

10. Mr Kenneth LAU responded that in order to safeguard the privacy of members of the public, the Police would, according to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, try to obtain the consent of the suspected mental patient when necessary and practicable, and refer the case to relevant departments for follow-up.

11. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views: (i) quite a number of tenants in Fu Cheong Estate had been subject to the nuisance caused by a tenant for a long time; although HD and the Police had sent officers to meet the residents affected, the frontline staff of HD, who could not judge whether or not the person being complained was mentally ill and did not have sufficient authority, could only give advice and could not follow up on the matter effectively; (ii) as PRH tenants were forbidden to cause nuisance to others as stipulated in their tenancies signed with the Hong Kong Housing Authority (“HA”), the Department should devise relevant measures to assist frontline staff in performing their duties.

12. Ms Joephy CHAN remarked that some tenant in Lai Kok Estate kept a large quantity of garbage inside the flat, thus causing environmental hygiene problems and affecting residents in the neighbourhood. Although HD and SWD had all along followed up on the aforesaid case, the matter was still unsolved. She enquired whether the relevant departments had any other alternatives to handle the situation.

13. Miss Rebecca AU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) The Department would, according to the current guidelines, investigate whether the tenants being complained had any misdeeds and send staff to advise them to stop causing nuisance to neighbours. The Department would implement the Marking Scheme for Estate Management Enforcement against non-compliant tenants; for tenants which had accrued 16 points within two years, the Department could issue Notice-to-quit in pursuance of the Housing Ordinance to terminate the subject tenancies, and the tenants so involved could apply for review under the current mechanism.

(ii) According to the current guideline, upon receiving noise complaints from tenants, the resident HD staff at housing estates would, by “reasonable person approach”, investigate and follow up on the situation to affirm whether the noise concerned was unacceptable, and advise them to stop causing nuisance. If the tenant suspected to have caused nuisance to others was found to act queerly or suspected to be mentally ill, the Department would refer the case to SWD or the Police for follow-up. - 5 - Action by

(iii) Regarding the nuisance case in Fu Cheong Estate, the matter had already been properly dealt with by the Department under the assistance of the Police and the residents.

14. Mr Stephen LAI gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) Social workers upon obtaining consent from the suspected mental patient or the family members living with him/her, would advise the suspected mental patient to receive suitable treatment, and refer the case to the Integrated Community Centre for Mental Wellness responsible for providing mental health service in the district for counselling services, and follow up on the medical treatment of the suspected mental patient. If the nuisance concerned involved criminal offence, the Department would bring the case to the attention of the Police for follow-up.

(ii) According to the Mental Health Ordinance, if the Department wanted to send a suspected mental patient to hospital for observation and medical treatment, it must have sufficient evidence showing that the person concerned was suffering from mental disorder and that his/her behaviour would pose danger to himself/herself or others, and obtain written confirmation from a registered medical practitioner and the order of a District Judge or a Magistrate before detaining the person concerned in a hospital.

15. Mr Kenneth LAU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) Pursuant to Section 71B of Medical Health Ordinance, if a police officer reasonably believed that a person was suffering from mental disorder and that it was necessary to protect the person concern or other people, the Police might take that person into custody and send him to hospital for medical examination, and make necessary arrangement for his medical treatment and care. That person could be detained in hospital for not more than 24 hours.

(ii) As the aforesaid practice involved the deprivation of personal freedom, the Police would give prudent consideration to various factors before exercising such authority.

16. Mr LEUNG Man-kwong raised the following views and enquiries::(i) he agreed that the Police must give prudent consideration to various factors before taking action; (ii) he enquired how the Police could determine whether the nuisance behavior of the tenant in Fu Cheong Estate or any other persons would pose danger to themselves or others; (iii) he suggested that the relevant departments should provide guidelines and examples of such case for reference of frontline staff. - 6 - Action by

17. Ms Joephy CHAN raised the following views and enquiries: (i) she hoped that SWD could provide assistance to patients so that nuisance could be mitigated; (ii) she enquired how the Police could determine whether the nuisance behavior of the person concerned would pose danger to others; (iii) she pointed out that some tenant in Lai Kok Estate kept a large quantity of stuff and garbage inside the flat and caused environmental hygiene problem, but HD could only give advice and could not effectively follow up on the problem; (iv) as the current legislation and support were inadequate, relevant departments should review the situation.

18. The Chairman raised the following views: (i) the nuisance case pointed out by members reflected the failure in effective solution of problems under the current mechanism, therefore the relevant departments should assist each other and review relevant guidelines to safeguard the tranquility of estate; (ii) under the current arrangement, HD would hold half-yearly meeting with SWD. He hoped that the relevant departments could increase the number of meeting, step up collaboration and allow Members to raise cases for discussion at the meeting for early solution of the problem; (iii) if necessary, members could raise questions at the meeting of the Working Group on Public Housing for further follow-up.

19. The Committee noted the reports made by HD, SWD and the Hong Kong Police Force, and asked the relevant departments to enhance collaboration.

(b) Request for the Government to set out when the redevelopment plans for aged estates could be launched (HAC Paper 38/17)

20. Mr Kalvin HO introduced Paper 38/17.

21. Miss Rebecca AU introduced Response Paper 48/17.

22. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) the Department pointed out that the demand for PRH was earnest now and that large-scale redevelopment would substantially decrease the number of PRH units that might be allocated to needy households. However, he did not mean to request the Government to immediately demolish all the 22 aged housing estates with redevelopment potential; (ii) HA would consider whether individual housing estates would be redeveloped according to four basic principles but even though Wah Fu Estate did not comply with the aforesaid principles, the Government still pushed forward relevant redevelopment scheme; (iii) he asked the Department to provide information on the structural condition of Pak Tin Estate, Shep Kip Mei Estate and , and the cost effectiveness of the repair works made to these housing estates; (iv) with adequate rehousing resources in Sham Shui Po District (“SSP District”), and the completion of a large number of subsidised public housing in the past few years, the Government should as soon as possible launch the redevelopment of aged housing estates, - 7 - Action by relax plot ratio and increase housing supply; (v) he asked the Department to formulate a 5-year rolling period for redevelopment schemes and enhance the transparency of such schemes; (vi) taking Shep Kip Mei Estate as an example, as the redeveloped units of Phase 6 were used for rehousing the tenants of Blocks 19 and 20, the Department could continue with the relevant redevelopment scheme by demolishing Blocks 19 and 20.

23. Mr WAI Woon-nam raised the following views: (i) he disagreed that the redevelopment of aged housing estates would decrease the number of PRH units available for allocation as pointed out by the Department; (ii) the Department could make use of the redeveloped units of Phase 6 of Estate to rehouse the residents of Blocks 19 and 20, and increase housing supply through the relaxation of plot ratio; (iii) the Department would generally announce the arrangement of redevelopment of housing estates three years prior to the commencement of the demolition works, but in respect of the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate, no 3-year rolling period was provided; (iv) the Department could within the 3-year rolling period arrange the applicants on the waiting list to move into units that were already vacated and continue to implement the relevant redevelopment scheme; (v) there were no suitable units for rehousing purpose in the vicinity of Wah Fu Estate, but , Estate and the newly-redeveloped housing estates at the reclamation area in Sham Shui Po could provide such resources, therefore the Department should launch the redevelopment of aged housing estates as soon as possible.

24. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Government had all along constructed new PRH estates, and at the same time pushed forward the redevelopment of aged housing estates, so the Department should not withhold redevelopment in the excuse of pressure of waiting for PRH units; (ii) the waiting time for PRH applicants had increased from 3 years to 4.6 years, the Department should formulate long-term housing development plan and expedite the redevelopment of aged estates, increase housing supply and shorten the waiting time; (iii) HA would give consideration to four basic principles when deciding whether or not to carry out redevelopment of individual housing estates, he considered that Shek Kip Mei Estate, with its prime location in the urban area, possessed redevelopment potential and was in compliance with HA’s principles; (iv) the Department could rehouse affected residents to the units in Phase 6 of Shek Kip Mei Estate, and he enquired of the Department about the reasons for not finalising the relevant redevelopment scheme.

25. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) the Department mentioned in its paper that the average waiting time for PRH units was 3 years, however, the actual waiting time had already increased from 3 years to 4.6 years, so the relevant information was not accurate; (ii) in the face of wealth inequality problem and the overheated property market in Hong Kong, the Government should build more subsidised housing, PRH units - 8 - Action by and Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) units, and increase land and housing supply to cater to public needs; (iii) he asked the Department to follow up on the requests mentioned in Paper 38/17, and launch the redevelopment of aged housing estates as soon as possible.

26. Mr CHAN Kwok-wai raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he disagreed that the redevelopment of aged housing estates would decrease housing supply and was dissatisfied with the Department’s response; (ii) the Government should select suitable estates for redevelopment to increase housing supply; (iii) there were quite a number of newly-completed PRH estates in SSP District, hence there would be adequate units in the vicinity of redeveloped estates for rehousing purpose. He enquired why the Government did not finalise the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate and Shek Kip Mei Market.

27. Mr YEUNG Yuk raised the following views and enquiries: (i) there would be quite a number of newly-completed PRH estates in SSP District in the coming few years and the number of residents would increase. It would be necessary for the Government to provide adequate supporting facilities to improve the living environment of residents; (ii) in respect of the aging problem of Shek Kip Mei Estate, he enquired why the Department did not follow up on the situation; (iii) the Department considered that the redevelopment of aged housing estates would prolong the waiting time for PRH, thus creating more pressure on HA. Yet the implementation of Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme (“GSH”) caused a decrease in the number of PRH units and could not help shorten the waiting time for PRH applicants. Hence he criticised the incompatibility of the housing policies of the Department.

28. Miss Rebecca AU gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) In determining the redevelopment of individual estates including Shek Kip Mei Estate, HA would give consideration to four basic principles, namely the structural condition of the buildings, the cost effectiveness of repair works, the availability of rehousing resources in the vicinity of redeveloped estates as well the potential for in-situ redevelopment. In addition, the Department would carry out detailed investigation of the estate concerned under the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme to formulate schemes for improving estate facilities and the overall living environment.

(ii) To cater to the needs of different people, HA, apart from building PRH and HOS units, also allowed applicants to own their own flats through the implementation of GSH.

(iii) She would reflect members’ views to the Department.

29. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Government - 9 - Action by should appropriately select aged housing estates for redevelopment and made plans as soon as possible; (ii) due to the ageing problem, there were problems of concrete spalling and water seepage in quite a number of PRH estates, he enquired whether the Department had assessed the structural condition of relevant estates in SSP District to ensure safety.

30. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he considered that among the four principles of redevelopment adopted by HA, the availability of suitable units for rehousing purpose in the vicinity of redeveloped estates was the most important one; (ii) the Department was now carrying out repair works in Lai Kok Estate and Nam Shan Estate, and it was expected that the Government would proceed with the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate and Pak Tin Estate; (iii) there were adequate units for rehousing purpose in SSP District, so the Government should, as soon as possible, launch the redevelopment of aged housing estates and relax plot ratio to increase housing supply; (iv) the increase of private housing supply could not help curb property price, the Government should make long-term planning to increase the provision of PRH units.

31. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views: (i) a large quantity of private units had been completed in the past five years, but property price was still on the rise; (ii) the housing problem of Hong Kong was not attributed to the overall inadequate supply of housing but to the decrease in the completion of PRH and HOS units in the past 20 years, so HD had the responsibility to follow up on the problem; (iii) the Government should increase the provision of HOS units and set means test in response to the demand for “Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People”; (iv) he hoped that HD would grasp the opportunity and make good use of the newly-completed PRH units in SSP District for rehousing purpose and launch the redevelopment of aged housing estates as soon as possible.

32. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he enquired about which party was responsible for the appointment of HA members and what authority HA members possessed; (ii) the Chairman of the Subsidised Housing Committee failed to handle the housing problem effectively, and relevant members and HD should deal with the housing problem in Hong Kong with people-oriented approach.

33. The Chairman concluded that: (i) the Response Paper of HD was unable to respond to the demands set out in Paper 38/17, members did not agree that the redevelopment of aged housing estates would affect the progress of construction and the current allocation of PRH units; (ii) the Government had the responsibility to seek land for the construction of PRH, and at the same time redevelop aged housing estates in an appropriate manner. He asked HD to grasp the opportunity and launch the redevelopment scheme as soon as possible. - 10 - Action by

34. The Committee noted the report by HD and asked the Department to immediately launch the redevelopment of aged housing estates.

(c) Concern over the mosquito problem in (HAC Paper 39/17)

35. Mr CHAN Wai-ming introduced Paper 39/17.

36. Mr CHAU Chi-fai introduced Response Paper 49/17.

37. The Chairman enquired about why the Department only provided two mosquito trapping devices at So Uk Estate.

38. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded that Phase 1 of So Uk Estate consisted of six buildings, the Department would provide two mosquito trapping devices and give consideration to providing more devises if necessary.

39. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and enquiries: (i) as So Uk Estate was built against the hillside, the vegetation on the slope and the stagnant water made it vulnerable to mosquito problem, he enquired what specific measures the Department had adopted in the management of the slope in question; (ii) when the Department would employ mosquito trapping devices, and whether there were other measures (such as the distribution of mosquito repellent patches for use of residents) to deal with the situation; (iii) how the Department would assess the mosquito problem and whether there were any specific indicators; (iv) he asked the Department to identify the source of problem and adopt a suitable solution to it.

40. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded as follows:

(i) The Department would review the anti-mosquito efforts carried out to the slope, clear the blocked drains and avoid the stagnation of water.

(ii) The Department already received the quotation for mosquito trapping device from relevant companies, and would arrange installation after the completion of procurement procedures as soon as possible. In addition, the Department would discuss about the use of mosquito repellent patches with the management company.

(iii) The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) was responsible for monitoring the Ovitrap Index. Estate offices would, according to the observation made by staff members and the opinions reflected by residents, focus their anti-mosquito efforts in areas that were seriously infested with mosquitoes. - 11 - Action by

41. Ms Joephy CHAN remarked that the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) had adopted the use of solar-powered mosquito trapping device that was more environmentally friendly, she enquired whether the Department would acquire the same type of mosquito trapping device.

42. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded that the Department had acquired LPG type of mosquito trapping device, and for the time being had no intention to purchase solar-powered ones.

43. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong remarked that ever since the demolition of So Uk Estate by the Department for redevelopment, the estate was subject to the infestation of mosquitoes. Apart from asking the contractor to follow up on the problem, the Department should also coordinate with the large-scale anti-mosquito efforts carried out by FEHD on the slopes and to the grass to enhance effectiveness.

44. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views: (i) there were quite a number of new effective anti-mosquito devices on the market, the Department might together with LCSD provide such devices in parks and such areas that were seriously infested with mosquitoes; (ii) as the effect of mosquito larvicidal oil might be affected by the falling of rain, the Department should make reference to weather forecast and flexibly arrange timely spraying of mosquito larvicidal oil.

45. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) although the work on the control and prevention of mosquitoes had been outsourced, the Department should still be held responsible for following up on the problem; (ii) despite the spraying of mosquito larvicidal oil in rainy days might not be effective in killing mosquitoes, the Department should deploy staff to undertake the anti-mosquito work in a flexible manner, for instance, to remove stagnant water and to avoid the blockage of drains, etc.; (iii) he proposed that the Department should place mosquito sticky traps at So Uk Estate to assess the mosquito infestation situation; (iv) the infestation of mosquitoes and that of culicoides should be dealt with in different manner, he asked the Department to check whether So Uk Estate was infested with mosquitoes or culicoides.

46. Ms Joephy CHAN said that she learnt that LCSD used solar-powered mosquito trapping devices in Phase 2 of and the leisure area in Yau Yat Chuen, and therefore might consider the employment of new environmental friendly mosquito trapping devices to enhance the effectiveness of anti-mosquito efforts.

47. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views: (i) So Uk Estate was built against the hillside, with vegetation on the slope and the construction works on Phase 2 being carried out, the area was vulnerable to the infestation of mosquitoes and insects. Therefore, he asked relevant departments to follow up on the infestation of mosquitoes and - 12 - Action by culicoides of that estate; (ii) he proposed that the Department should join in with FEHD to monitor the ovitrap index in So Uk Estate; (iii) he asked the Department to strengthen the monitoring of the stagnant water problem at the construction site of Phase 2 and consider introducing penalty to increase the construction companies’ awareness of the prevention and control of mosquitoes.

48. Mr CHAU Chi-fai responded that the Department would follow up on members’ views and strengthen its communication with FEHD to jointly control mosquito infestation. Apart from that, the Department would continue to keep watch of the works environment and anti-mosquito measures at the construction site of Phase 2.

[Post-meeting note by HD: The Department had installed mosquito trapping devices and mosquito repellent patches within the estate in the end of June, and the housing estate was for the time being free from culicoides nuisance.]

49. The Chairman concluded by requesting HD to follow up on members’ views and to step up anti-mosquito efforts.

(d) Concern over the accident of a signboard fallen down at Un Chau Street (HAC Paper 40/17)

50. Mr Vincent CHENG introduced Paper 40/17.

51. Ms Bon KO introduced Response Paper 51/17.

52. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views and enquiries: (i) as the Validation Scheme for Unauthorised Signboards (“the Validation Scheme”) was a voluntary scheme, the risk posed by unauthorised signboards would still exist if relevant parties refused to take part in the Scheme. For the sake of ensuring safety, he proposed the Department formulate a comprehensive signboard regulatory system and carry out timely inspection; (ii) quite a number of signboard owners had not complied with the requirements of Minor Works Control System and failed to submit application to the Department for the carrying out of works. He enquired about the number of non-compliant cases and the number of persons being convicted in the past few years; (iii) he suggested the Department step up publicity to shop owners on the problems caused by unauthorised signboards and the relevant penalty in order to increase deterrent effect.

53. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Validation Scheme was a voluntary scheme, and he considered that there was room for improvement; (ii) he enquired whether the signboard owners concerned had applied to the Department for the erection of such signboards; (iii) although the Department could locate dangerous or abandoned signboards through inspection carried out by its staff or reports made by the - 13 - Action by public, the general public might not be able to judge the potential hazard posed by signboards; (iv) the Department should enhance publicity and assign professionals to step up inspection, and encourage the erection of compliant signboards by the relevant parties; (v) in view of the incident involving the falling of signboard at Fuk Wing Street years ago, the Department had disposed of quite a number of abandoned signboards at Fuk Wing Street and Fuk Wa Street. He asked the Department to work out a plan to inspect and demolish other abandoned signboards in the district.

54. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views: (i) years ago, the Department had disposed of the large signboards hung on external walls and had, upon members’ request, demolished unclaimed and abandoned signboards, but the problem had not yet been entirely solved. Several months ago, a bus that ran along Castle Peak Road bumped into a large signboard hung above the pavement and caused its falling down, he urged the Department to step up inspection and request signboard owners to hire registered persons for the erection of compliant signboards; (ii) as regards the signboard that fell down at Un Chau Street, it was fastened by screws and such kind of signboards were insecure and posed potential hazard; he asked the Department to follow up on the matter.

55. Mr Kalvin HO raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the signboard that fell down at Un Chau Street was unauthorised signboard, he enquired whether the restaurant in question had notified the Department of the erection of such signboard; (ii) as pointed out by the Department, there were currently a total of about 120 000 signboards, he asked the Department to provide additional information on the number of unauthorised signboards, the number of inspections conducted by the Department, the number of signboards already demolished and the number of convicted cases; (iii) there were quite a number of unclaimed and abandoned signboards at the “three-nil” buildings in the territory, and in case such signboards fell down by accident, the property owners might have to accept the legal liability, he enquired in what ways the Department would assist the property owners to follow up on the situation.

56. Mr LEE Wing-man was dissatisfied with the performance of the Buildings Department (“BD”), and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) accidents involving the falling of signboards occurred from time to time, he enquired whether the Department had examined the safety of about 120 000 signboards in the territory; (ii) despite the issue of demolition order to the owners of unauthorised signboards, potential risks still existed before the actual demolition of the signboards, he asked the Department to review the situation; (iii) to ensure public safety, the Department should immediately demolish any signboards found to be dangerous during inspections, and demand expenses from relevant parties; (iv) there were cases in which the signboards were erected by shop premises without paying attention to the objection of owners’ corporations (“OCs”) of the buildings concerned. Yet due to the shortage of expenses to follow up on the matter by legal means, - 14 - Action by the signboard was still there.

57. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Department monitored the erection of signboards by means of the Minor Works Control System implemented in 2010; (ii) the independent investigation team of HD had carried out visual inspection to check whether there were unauthorised building works at and advised relevant persons to follow up on the matter; (iii) he enquired whether the Department would by similar means conduct inspection to check the safety of signboards in the territory, and take enforcement action according to the law.

58. Ms Bon KO gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) The Validation Scheme was a voluntary scheme, and the signboard owners who wanted to participate in the scheme might apply to retain the unauthorised signboards for the continuous conduct of related commercial activities. Unauthorised signboards that were validated could be retained for five years, after which the signboard owners must apply for revalidation again. Under the Minor Works Control System, a signboard owner might first remove the unauthorised signboard before erecting an authorised one. In addition, under the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme, the Department also required property owners to carry out prescribed inspection to their buildings (including signboards) once in every ten years.

(ii) The Department had conducted 25 inspections in SSP District during the period from early 2016 to the end of May 2017 and issued Dangerous Structure Removal Notices requiring signboard owners to demolish the dangerous signboards. Regarding unauthorised signboards being constructed or newly erected, the Department would issue statutory orders to signboard owners, and demolish other unauthorised signboards by means of large-scale clearance action. The Department for the time being was unable to provide information on the number of unauthorised signboards and the number of convicted cases.

(iii) The Department implemented a pilot scheme in 2014 while large-scale clearance action at target streets such as Fuk Wing Street, etc. was carried out; 80 Removal Orders and Dangerous Structure Removal Notices were issued. The parties concerned had complied with the orders and some shop owners had even participated in the Validation Scheme.

(iv) The Department would annually select target streets for carrying out large-scale clearance action against unauthorised signboards, including the demolition of various kinds of signboards hung on the external walls, on the - 15 - Action by

roof tops of buildings and above shop fronts, and the issue of Removal Orders and Dangerous Structure Removal Notices to signboard owners.

(v) Upon receiving reports on unauthorised signboards from the public, the Department would deal with the cases according to the current policy concerning unauthorised building works.

(vi) The Department would issue Dangerous Structure Removal Notices to those persons who were in breach of regulation, and require signboard owners to remove dangerous or abandoned signboards. If the parties concerned failed to do so within the specified period, the Department would arrange government contractors to carry out demolition on their behalf.

(vii) It was an usual practice for newly opened restaurants to erect signboards, and FEHD upon receiving licence applications submitted by restaurants, would refer such cases to the Licensing Unit under BD, but for renewal applications, no reference would be made. According to record, prior approval from BD had not been obtained for the erection of the signboard that fell down at Un Chau Street, so it was an unauthorised signboard. However, since it was not the first time for the restaurant involved to apply for restaurant licence, the Department had not received relevant information in respect of the erection of that signboard.

(viii) Early this year, the Department distributed leaflets through FEHD on the Validation Scheme to shop owners who applied for licence renewal in order to encourage them to participate in the Validation Scheme. In addition, the Department had in the first quarter of this year issued advisory letters to chain stores, banks and transport operators to encourage them to participate in the Validation Scheme.

(ix) There were quite a number of “three-nil” buildings in SSP District. If the Department discovered any abandoned or dangerous signboards at such buildings, it would issue Dangerous Structure Removal Notices to the signboard owners, requiring them to carry out demolition; if the persons concerned failed to carry out demolition as scheduled, or under emergency circumstances, the Department would arrange government contractors to demolish the dangerous signboards and demand relevant expenses from the persons concerned.

(x) Quite a number of signboards were erected without the consent of property owners. Upon receiving reports, the Department would take enforcement action according to the current policy concerning unauthorised building - 16 - Action by

works.

[The Chairman left the Conference Room and the meeting was chaired by Mr CHAN Wai-ming.]

59. Mr Aaron LAM raised the following views: (i) some restaurants would erect signboards on the external walls of buildings, and consult OC’s opinions before the commencement of works; (ii) since the strong light of signboards would affect residents, relevant departments such as FEHD, BD, the Fire Services Department, etc. should, apart from requiring the submission of plans, also consider asking the applicants to provide letters of consent by the residents’ associations, OCs or management companies of the buildings concerned when they considered licence renewal applications.

[The Chairman returned to the Conference Room and resumed chairmanship of the meeting.]

60. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Department should review whether the plans of the signboards complied with the requirements or not, and remind applicants to obtain the consent of management companies or OCs beforehand; (ii) in case the buildings did not have OCs and could not manage the signboards, he enquired whether the Department would examine the signboards on their behalf and take law enforcement action according to the law; (iii) he proposed that the Department should optimise the Validation Scheme, and send staff to inspect the buildings and shop premises and ask them to participate in the Scheme for the sake of ensuring safety; (iv) the Department had demolished many dangerous signboards at Castle Peak Road, but some shops still hung their illegal signboards, he asked the Department to follow up on that; (v) he proposed that the Department, when issuing the statutory notices of mandatory building inspection, should require property owners to check at the same time whether their signboards already erected were safe.

61. Ms Bon KO gave a consolidated response as follows:

(i) There were quite a number of “three-nil” buildings in SSP District. It might be difficult for parties concerned to obtain property owners’ consent for the erection of signboards at such buildings. If the signboards proposed to be erected at such buildings were in compliance with the requirements of the Buildings Ordinance, the Department would grant approval to the plans according to legislation, but this did not constitute any grant of land ownership. If an applicant proposed to erect signboards on the common external wall of a building, the Department, in approving the plans, would notify the OC, the mutual aid committee or the management company. - 17 - Action by

(ii) The Department would actively consider stepping up inspection of shop-front signboards, carry out visual inspection on various types of signboards and take law enforcement action according to the law.

(iii) The Department would follow up on members’ views and check the records to see whether there were any unauthorised building works, illegal signboards and such other projections among the target buildings under the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme, and then take follow-up action.

62. The Committee noted the report by BD, and asked the Department to follow up on members’ views.

(e) Request for the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints to allocate more resources for the handling of water seepage problem in private buildings (HAC Paper 41/17)

63. Mr Vincent CHENG introduced Paper 41/17.

64. Mr Ivan WONG responded as follows:

(i) The Joint Office for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints (“JO”) formed by FEHD and BD would adopt the one-stop operation mode in handling reports of water seepage. Generally speaking, JO would investigate water seepage cases by three stages. In the first stage, seepage nuisance of the case had to be established; in the second stage, preliminary investigation would be carried out, and colour water tests on drainage pipes or reversible pressure tests on water supply pipes would be conducted. If the source of water seepage could not be identified in the second stage, the Office had to appoint a contract consultant company to assist in the conduct of detailed investigation in the third stage, including monitoring the level of dampness at the points of water seepage, carrying out water ponding tests, water spray tests and reversible pressure tests on water supply pipes, to identify the source of seepage. Once the source of seepage was identified, JO would, pursuant to the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, issue Nuisance Notice to the relevant parties, requiring the mitigation of nuisance within the specified period.

(ii) In case of more complicated water seepage complaint cases, for example, water seepage occurred intermittently or there were several sources of water seepage, JO generally needed more time to carry out investigation and tests to identify the causes. If the property owners/tenants refused to cooperate or when the sources of water seepage were inside vacant flats, JO had to - 18 - Action by

seek court warrant before entering the flats concerned for investigation, hence the time required would be prolonged.

(iii) There were many causes of water seepage; JO would conduct investigation of the complaint cases as soon as possible by conducting a series of appropriate non-destructive tests. The electronic hygrometer and colour water test adopted by JO had been effective and were widely used, with the colour water test being the most direct method in identifying the source of water seepage.

(iv) JO appointed a consultant company on a trial basis to use infra-red detector and microwave detector in identifying the source of water seepage, but such kind of indirect test was vulnerable to the influence of environmental factors, thus leading to a decline in accuracy, so it was necessary to conduct other tests and refer to other information to effectively confirm the source of water seepage.

65. Mr SHEK King-fai responded that in order to enhance the effectiveness of investigating the source of water seepage, JO appointed a consultant in October 2014 to study the latest technologies in identifying the source of water seepage, including the use of infra-red detector and micro-wave detector, etc., and the study was expected to be completed by this year.

66. Ms OR Siu-shan responded as follows:

(i) JO received a total of 2 466 cases of complaint in respect of SSP District in 2016 and had processed 2 075 cases in the same year. Among those cases, the source of water seepage was identified in respect of 653 cases (accounting for about 31% of completed cases), the water seepage situation stopped during the investigation period in respect of 507 cases (accounting for about 24% of completed cases), and the source of water seepage could not be identified in respect of 252 cases (accounting for about 12% of completed cases), and 663 cases (accounting for about 32% of completed cases) were classified as cases not to be investigated.

(ii) Reasons for not carrying out investigation included the failure to establish water seepage nuisance, the humidity level was below 35, the location of the source of water seepage inside the flat of the complainant or the withdrawal of complaint by the complainant.

67. Mr CHAN Wai-ming raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he considered that the progress of investigation undertaken by JO was so slow that the source of water seepage in some cases could not be identified even after a long time of investigation. He - 19 - Action by queried whether JO could effectively follow up on complaint cases of water seepage; (ii) he enquired whether the Office had used such technologies as infra-red detector to trace the source of water seepage; (iii) he enquired about the number of cases for which the Department had sought court warrant, and whether such warrant could help the collection of evidence and the investigation work; (iv) he enquired whether the Department could expedite the processing of water seepage complaint cases.

68. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) the performance of JO in handling water seepage complaints was not satisfactory; (ii) the study had been carried out by the Office for about three years, and it was not effective; (iii) in order to enhance the effectiveness of investigation, the Office should as soon as possible use infra-red detector and micro-wave detector to trace the source of water seepage rather than outsource the relevant work to consultant company.

69. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the progress of investigation undertaken by JO was so slow that there were no outcome for some cases even after a long period of investigation, and quite a number of people had to hire surveyors to look for the source of water seepage by means of infra-red detector and microwave detector. She enquired why JO did not make use of the relevant technologies; (ii) as quite a number of private premises in SSP District aged over 30 years, there was substantial increase in the number of water seepage complaint cases, she therefore asked the Department to employ new technologies to expedite the handling of the problem.

70. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) he proposed that JO should investigate the flat with water seepage problem as well as its upper and lower floors and use more modern method to carry out tests; (ii) in order to achieve greater effectiveness, JO should set the time limit for seeking court warrant so that the investigating officers could enter the premises and carry out investigation work as soon as possible; (iii) some management companies had proposed to the OCs the use of some kind of new chemical solution (a kind of fluorescent agent) to identify the source of water seepage, he enquired about how the colour water test was conducted and whether consideration would be given to the use of new chemical solution.

71. Mr KONG Kwai-sang raised the following enquiries: (i) the progress of investigation undertaken by JO was so slow that for some cases, the source of water seepage could not be identified even after a long period of investigation, he enquired whether this was attributed to the shortage of manpower, and whether the Office would increase its manpower; (ii) if water seepage problem involved the tenants on the upper floors, he enquired about how the Department would do to follow up on the case; (iii) he enquired of the Department about the reasons for not using the latest technologies. - 20 - Action by

72. Mr Vincent CHENG raised the following views and enquiries: (i) as residents were seriously affected by the water seepage problem, JO had the responsibility to follow up on the matter as soon as possible. However, the progress of investigation was so slow that for some cases, the source of water seepage could not be identified even after a long period of investigation, and hence could not effectively offer assistance to the complainants; (ii) among the cases with the source of water seepage identified, he enquired about the number of cases with nuisance mitigated; (iii) he was dissatisfied with the progress of the study undertaken by the Office and its performance, and asked the Office to employ new technologies as soon as possible to enhance effectiveness.

73. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the Director of Audit’s Report pointed out that the progress of investigation conducted by JO was slow, and the Office should increase resources to enhance the effectiveness of handling water seepage problem in respect of private premises; (ii) despite the colour water test was widely adopted, it might not be able to identify the source of water seepage within a short period of time; (iii) although the tests conducted by the Office showed that the humidity level was below 35 for some cases, but such result might not reflect the actual water seepage situation. The Office should employ new equipment instead of conventional equipment to cover a larger testing area and enhance the accuracy; (iv) if the flat owners of upper floors refused to cooperate, the time required for investigation would be prolonged substantially, the Office should use modern technologies such as infra-red detector and microwave detector, etc. to shorten the time of investigation; (v) he enquired about the aim of study conducted by the Office; (vi) he understood the difficulties confronted by the Office in law enforcement, but considered that the Office had the responsibility to expedite the handling of water seepage problem.

74. The Chairman raised the following enquiries: (i) when the Office would fully utilise modern technology such as infra-red detector, etc.; (ii) apart from applying for court warrant, whether there were any other alternatives to quicken the pace of investigation.

75. Ms OR Siu-shan responded as follows:

(i) Among the water seepage complaint cases regarding SSP District handled by JO in 2016, court warrants had been sought successfully in respect of 7 cases; as for the period from January to May in 2017, court warrants had been sought successfully in respect of 4 cases.

(ii) Before making an application for court warrant, the Office would issue the Notice of Intended Entry (“NIE”) to the occupant. If the Office still could not contact the owner/occupant or the owner/occupant refused to cooperate after the issuance of NIE, the Notices of Intention to Apply for Warrant of - 21 - Action by

Entry (“NOIA”) would be issued, and in case JO still could not obtain the response of the owner/occupant, it would apply to the court for a warrant to authorise its staff to enter the premises concerned for investigation.

(iii) From June 2016 to May 2017, the Office issued 35 NOIAs, and most occupants upon receiving the notices were willing to cooperate with the investigation. Only 8 occupants still refused to cooperate and the Office had no other alternative but to apply for court warrant.

76. Mr SHEK King-fai responded as follows:

(i) The Office generally would employ the most direct, effective and widely-adopted method, such as the colour water test, water ponding test, water spray test, etc. to check the source of water seepage. In addition, the Office would also implement a pilot scheme and use modern technologies such as infra-red detector and microwave detector, etc. to deal with more complicated cases.

(ii) In order to enhance the effectiveness of investigation, the Office appointed a consultant company in October 2014 to study 100 odd cases of water seepage by three stages. After the completion of the second stage of study, the consultant company submitted the third interim report to the Office in May this year, and the remaining 40 cases would be processed from July this year. The Office would regularly hold meetings with the consultant company to monitor the study progress and the entire study was expected to be completed by this year.

(iii) In the aforesaid plan, the Office would study various modern technologies, including infra-red detector and microwave detector, and consider the adoption of a new colour water test. Since the study was not yet completed, the Office for the time being could not report on the outcome of the study.

77. The Chairman enquired whether the Office would employ relevant technologies if the study was completed by the end of this year.

78. Mr SHEK King-fai responded that the Office expected to have the study completed by the end of this year, but for the time being, there was no timetable for the utilisation of relevant technologies.

79. The Chairman asked the Office to quicken the pace of study, commence public consultation and make use of relevant technologies as soon as possible, and make timely applications for court warrant to expedite investigation. - 22 - Action by

80. Mr CHUM Tak-shing raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the length of time required by the Office to apply for a court warrant; (ii) whether the Office could by means of using such technology as infra-red detector, to reduce the nuisance caused to occupants on the upper floors and to quicken the pace of investigation; (iii) the ten odd tests being studied by the Office now did not involve new technologies and were already adopted by some companies; (iv) he asked the Office to review the manpower arrangement.

81. Mr KONG Kwai-sang remarked that relevant technologies had already been widely used, he enquired of the Office about why it was necessary to conduct study and consult the public.

82. Mr LEUNG Yau-fong raised the following views and enquiries: (i) why the Office did not use the relevant technologies to expedite investigation; (ii) he asked the Office to report on the content of the study and make applications for court warrant early.

83. Ms OR Siu-shan responded that before making an application for court warrant, the Office would issue NIE and NOIA to the owner concerned, and court warrant would be applied for if it still did not get the owner’s response, and the entire procedure generally took about three to four months.

84. Mr SHEK King-fai responded that in employing new technologies, the Office must take into consideration problem of providing evidence, and the special circumstances of individual cases, for example, the extent of water seepage, or if more than one source of water seepage was involved. After completing the study, the Office would consider the adoption of relevant technologies to speed up the investigation of the source of water seepage.

85. The Chairman enquired whether the Office could fully employ new technologies to accelerate the pace of investigation.

86. Ms NG Yuet-lan raised the following views and enquiries: (i) the public for the time being might hire the service of surveyors and make use of new technologies to conduct tests. She enquired whether the Office would purchase relevant equipment to conduct tests for the public affected; (ii) she proposed that the Committee follow up on the matter until the Office decided when new technologies would be fully adopted.

87. Mr SHEK King-fai responded as follows:

(i) JO would carry out investigation of the source of water seepage by three stages, with the staff of FEHD was responsible for the investigation work of the first and second stages. If the source of water seepage could not be identified in the second stage, the Office would conduct professional - 23 - Action by

investigation in the third stage by hiring contract consultant company to assist in the detailed investigation.

(ii) The Office anticipated to have the study report completed by the end of this year, but for the time being there was no timetable for the utilisation of the relevant technologies.

88. The Chairman concluded that the Committee had intended to follow up on the matter at the meeting held in October this year, but due to the concern shown by members, he proposed to follow up on the matter at every meeting.

89. The Committee asked JO to expedite the processing of water seepage problem in private buildings, and agreed to follow up on the matter at the next meeting.

(f) Request for making good use of land that has been vacant for a long time (HAC Paper 42/17)

90. Ms Carman NG introduced Paper 42/17.

91. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had, prior to the meeting, invited the Lands Department (“LandsD”) and the Planning Department (“PlanD”) to send officers to attend the meeting, but they gave a negative reply. He asked members to refer to the written response of LandsD (Paper 52/17) and the written response of PlanD (Paper 53/17).

92. Miss Rebecca AU introduced Response Paper 50/17.

93. The Chairman enquired whether HD had any specific plan regarding the use of that piece of land at present.

94. Miss Rebecca AU responded that consideration was being given to the use of that piece of land for temporary car parking purpose to increase the supply of car parking spaces in Pak Tin Estate. However, the Department was still carrying out feasibility studies with other departments, and there was no specific plan for the time being.

95. Ms Carman NG raised the following views: (i) with surface channels adjacent to the land close to the slope to the west of Pak Wan Street, relevant departments should from time to time send their staff to clean the site for the prevention of mosquito breeding; (ii) that piece of land, being a green area, should be properly planned by relevant departments; (iii) in planning the use of that piece of land, HD should work in line with the construction progress of Pak Tin Estate and give consideration to pedestrian safety in the vicinity; (iv) the District Council (“DC”) should follow up on the issue and consider increasing facilities thereat through the minor works programmes. - 24 - Action by

96. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu remarked that the Transport Affairs Committee would follow up on the inadequacy of parking spaces in SSP District. He considered that if the Government had the intention to provide a temporary car park thereat, the matter should be followed up by dedicated departments such as the Transport Department (“TD”).

97. Ms Carman NG remarked that as there was no standing representative of PlanD to attend the meetings of this Committee, in order to effectively follow up on the matter, she proposed to invite PlanD to make response to the paper at DC Full Council meeting.

98. Ms TANG Mei-ching was dissatisfied with HD’s response, and raised the following views and enquiries: (i) PlanD pointed out in Paper 53/17 that the land was a green area, she queried whether HD could construct a temporary car park thereat; (ii) Pak Tin Estate was under redevelopment now and the Government had the responsibility of putting forward specific proposals and consulting residents’ opinions so as to optimise land resources.

99. Miss Rebecca AU responded that PlanD was responsible for the long-term planning of that piece of land. The Department would follow up on members’ views and study with other departments the possibility of other short-term uses.

100. The Chairman concluded by requesting HD to timely consult DC after the completion of feasibility studies.

[Post-meeting note by HD: HD had carried out preliminary study about the proposal of using the land close to the slope to the west of Pak Wan Street for rental parking spaces, but owing to the peripheral environment and topography of the site and in consideration of the potential safety problem caused to pedestrians by commuting vehicles if the land was used for parking purpose, the Department would not continue with the study of using the site for parking purpose.]

(g) The redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate should uphold the original intention of taking care of the housing needs of low-income families as set out in the land lease (HAC Paper 43/17) and the Checklist of follow-up actions of matters discussed in the 8th meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee (HAC Paper 44/17)

101. The Chairman remarked that as Paper 43/17 and item 1 of the Checklist of follow-up actions in Paper 44/17 were similar in nature, he suggested the two items be discussed together.

102. The Committee agreed to discuss the two items together.

103. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu introduced Paper 43/17 and pointed out that he wanted to move a provisional motion. - 25 - Action by

104. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had, prior to the meeting, invited the Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”), the Development Bureau (“DEVB”) and Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited (“HKSHCL”) to send officers to attend the meeting, but they gave a negative reply. He asked members to refer to the written response of PlanD (Papers 54/17 and 55/17), the joint written response of HD and LandsD (Paper 56/17), the written response of LandsD (Paper 57/17) and the written response of HKSHCL (Paper 47/17).

105. Ms Sumie LI introduced Response Paper 57/17.

106. The Chairman enquired which policy bureaux or departments LandsD would approach upon receiving applications regarding the modification of lease conditions.

107. Ms Sumie LI responded that according to the content of application, the Department would consult the opinions of relevant policy bureaux and government departments such as PlanD, TD, the Water Supplies Department, etc. upon receiving applications regarding the modification of lease conditions.

108. Mr NG Mun-sing introduced Response Paper 54/17.

109. Mrs Susanna CHENG introduced Response Paper 56/17.

110. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu remarked that the Government had no objection in principle to the latest plan proposed by HKSHCL because the Redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate was conducive to the increase of public housing supply, be they subsidised rental units or subsidised sales flats, but he considered that: (i) the housing problem was not attributed to the inadequate supply of private premises, but because the Ten-year Housing Programme of the Government was ineffective in helping the low-income families. The Government should review the target beneficiaries of redevelopment schemes, and make reference to current sale or rental arrangement of HOS scheme or PRH in order to assist the low income class; (ii) LandsD should consider the matter seriously and respond as to whether the Government consented to help the low-income families; (iii) the housing problem of Hong Kong should be handled by THB, and enquired which policy whether THB or DEVB was responsible for the approval of land lease.

111. The Chairman enquired to which policy bureaux or departments LandsD would refer the applications it had received regarding the modification of lease conditions.

112. Ms Sumie LI responded as follows:

(i) As the lot in question was under private treaty grant, so the application must be supported by relevant policy bureaux and approved by the authorities concerned. The bureaux concerned would consider in details the content of - 26 - Action by

application in accordance with their policy areas and scope of duties, and give their views.

(ii) Regarding the subsidised rental units or subsidised sales flats offered by the project, the Lands Office would consult the opinion of THB.

113. Mr Ambrose CHEUNG raised the following views: (i) Metro Planning Committee (“MPC”) of the Town Planning Board, in approving the planning application submitted by HKSHCL, had added two guideline clauses, namely the offer of subsidised rental units in the redevelopment scheme to rehousing the affected tenants of Tai Hang Sai Estate, and the modification of lease conditions would not be made before the satisfactory solution of the rehousing problem as required by MPC; (ii) when LandsD received any applications regarding the modification of lease conditions of that site, the relevant policy bureaux should first consult the residents of Tai Hang Sai Estate, the stakeholders and DC, before making approval; (iii) DC had the responsibility to follow up on the matter, he proposed that the requirement of consulting DC should be added to the provisional motion.

114. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu raised the following views: (i) he agreed with Mr Ambrose CHEUNG’s amendment proposal; (ii) the Redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate involved subsidised rental units or subsidised sale flats, THB had the responsibility to follow up on the matters concerned; (iii) he proposed to write to the Chief Executive-elect’s Office for the following up of the case by the next-term Government; (iv) he reiterated that low-income families should be the target beneficiaries of the redevelopment scheme.

115. The Chairman said that the Committee should vote on the provisional motion now and the content of the motion was as follows:

Regarding the provisional motion in respect of the land lease of Tai Hang Sai Estate

Uphold the original intention of the land lease of Tai Hang Sai Estate

Taking care of the housing needs of low-income families

“The Housing Affairs Committee of the Sham Shui Po District Council strongly requests that the redevelopment of Tai Hang Sai Estate must uphold the original intention of taking care of the housing needs of low-income families as set out in the land lease, and the SAR Government must consult the opinions of the residents of Tai Hang Sai Estate and other stakeholders (including the District Council) when considering matters relevant to the modification of lease conditions of Tai Hang Sai Estate.” - 27 - Action by

Moved by: TAM Kwok-kiu

Seconded by: Kalvin HO

116. The Committee agreed to vote by open ballot.

117. The voting result was as follows:

For : Mr CHAN Kwok-wai, Mr CHAN Wai-ming, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHUM Tak-shing, Mr Kalvin HO, Mr KONG Kwai-sang, Mr Aaron LAM, Mr LEUNG Yau-fong, Ms NG Yuet-lan, Mr TAM Kwok-kiu, Mr WAI Woon-nam, Mr YAN Kai-wing, Mr YEUNG Yuk, Ms TANG Mei-ching (15)

Against : (0)

Abstain : (0)

118. The Chairman announced that the provisional motion was carried and that the aforesaid motion would be forwarded to THB.

119. Mr TAM Kwok-kiu remarked that as the current-term Government is outgoing, he proposed to deliver the aforesaid motion to the Chief Executive-elect’s Office.

120. The Chairman remarked that the Committee might deliver the aforesaid motion to THB after the first of July this year.

121. The Committee noted the reports by HD, PlanD and LandsD, and agreed to deliver the aforesaid motion to THB.

Agenda Item 3: Follow-up matters

(a) Item 2 to Item 4 of the Checklist of follow-up actions of matters discussed in the 8th meeting of the Housing Affairs Committee (HAC Paper 44/17)

122. The Chairman remarked that the Committee had followed up on the redevelopment of Shek Kip Mei Estate in item (b) under matters for discussion. He asked the representatives of HD to give an update on Item 3 under follow-up matters.

123. Mrs Susanna CHENG introduced Response Paper 58/17.

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

125. The Chairman asked the representatives of FEHD and HD to give an update on Item - 28 - Action by

4 under follow-up matters.

126. Mr KOO Chi-hong responded as follows:

(i) FEHD had always been in close cooperation with HD in handling the rodent infestation problem. The Department would hold working group meetings with departments such as HD every month to facilitate the exchange of opinions and the sharing of experience. Besides, the experts of the Pest Control Advisory Section would attend those meetings to respond to technical questions. If necessary, the Department would also cooperate with other departments and assist them to follow up on cases of complaint and send its staff to carry out site investigations.

(ii) To curb rodent infestation, the Department would also hold health seminars for the general public, the staff of HD and contractors, to brief them on relevant information and demonstrate the method of applying baits, etc. In addition, the Department would hold a 9-day course for the staff of HD every year to enhance their knowledge of pest control.

127. Mrs Susanna CHENG responded that HD would continue to step up cooperation with FEHD, enhance cleansing work and education efforts in housing estates so as to strengthen pest control.

128. The Chairman remarked that rodent infestation in SSP District was serious, he enquired whether HD and FEHD would join hands in launching large-scale anti-rodent campaign in SSP District in addition to regular anti-rodent efforts.

129. Mr KOO Chi-hong responded as follows:

(i) The Department would join in with relevant departments to launch two large-scale anti-rodent campaigns in the district every year. Given the seriousness of rodent infestation in SSP District, the Department would try to collaborate with district bodies to follow up on the black spots of rodent infestation this year.

(ii) The Department would hold working group meetings with departments such as HD on a monthly basis. During those meetings, the Department could exchange opinions with the representatives of HD’s housing estates in SSP District with a view to strengthening cooperation.

130. The Chairman proposed to continue following up on the matter at the next meeting, and asked HD and FEHD to provide detailed information on the collaboration plan then. - 29 - Action by

131. The Committee noted the reports by HD and FEHD, and agreed to continue following up on the matter.

Agenda Item 4: Reports from Working Groups under the Committee

(a) Report from the Working Group on Public Housing (HAC Paper 45/17)

132. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

(b) Report from the Working Group on Private Premises and Urban Revitalisation (HAC Paper 46/17)

133. The Committee noted and endorsed the above report.

Agenda Item 5: Any other business

134. Members did not raise any other business.

Agenda Item 6: Date of next meeting

135. The next meeting would be held at 9:30 a.m. on 27 July 2017 (Thursday).

136. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 2:20 p.m.

District Council Secretariat Sham Shui Po District Office July 2017