The 2Nd Meeting of the Housing and Development Planning Committee (HDPC) of the Kowloon City District Council (KCDC)

The 2nd Meeting of the Housing and Development Planning Committee (HDPC) of the Kowloon City District Council (KCDC)

Date: 19 May 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Kowloon City District Office

Present: Chairman: Mr LAI Kwong-wai Vice-chairman: Mr WONG Wing-kit Members: Miss CHAU Hei-man Mr PUN Kwok-wah, JP (Arrived at 2:41 p.m.) (Left at 6:23 p.m.) Mr LEE Hin-long Mr KWOK Tin-lap Mr LAM Tak-shing Mr YUM Kwok-tung, Pius The Hon LEE Wai-king, Starry, SBS, (Left at 3:56 p.m.) JP Mr YEUNG Chun-yu (Arrived at 2:39 p.m.) Mr TSANG Kin-chiu Mr SIU Leong-sing Miss MAK Sui-ki, Jakki Mr FUNG Man-tao, Joshua Mr HE Huahan (Left at 6:35 p.m.) Dr KWAN Ka-lun Mr MA Hei-pang Mr NG Po-keung, MH (Arrived at 4:01 p.m.) (Left at 5:02 p.m.) Mr HO Hin-ming, BBS, MH Mr CHO Wui-hung, MH (Arrived at 4:49 p.m.) (Left at 6:30 p.m.) Mr CHEUNG King-fan (Arrived at 2:38 p.m.) (Left at 6:58 p.m.) Mr YANG Wing-kit (Left at 6:14 p.m.) Dr KWONG Po-yin

Secretary: Mr CHIU Tai-wai, David Executive Officer I (District Council), Kowloon City District Office

Absent: Ms LEUNG Yuen-ting

In Attendance: Miss TSE Yik-ching, Alison Assistant District Officer (Kowloon City) Miss MAK Wai-man, Senior Liaison Officer (Building Sandy Management), Home Affairs Department Mr MAK Chung-hang Senior Town Planner / Kowloon 2, Planning Department Mr CHIU Ying-cheung Senior Property Service Manager (Kowloon West and Sai Kung), Housing Department Ms Alisa TSE Senior Building Surveyor / E3, Buildings Department Mr MA Chun-hang Engineer / Kowloon (Customer Services) Inspection, Water Supplies Department

Attendance by Invitation: Item 1 Ms AU Kit-ying, Brenda, Head of Energizing Kowloon East JP Office, Development Bureau Mr WONG Kuo-yang, Deputy Head of Energizing Edwin Kowloon East Office, Development Bureau Ms HUI Ka-lam Town Planning Director, AECOM Miss CHEUNG Man-yee Town Planning Associate Director, AECOM

Item 2 Mr LUK Hung-yin, Martin Senior Estate Surveyor / Urban Renewal 5 (Urban Renewal Section), Lands Department Mr LI Chung-wing, Ken Estate Surveyor / Urban Renewal 2 (Urban Renewal Section), Lands Department 3

Mr Quincy HUI Senior Manager (Acquisition and Clearance), Urban Renewal Authority Ms YAN Sin-wah Senior Manager (Community Development), Urban Renewal Authority

Item 3 to 5 Mr LAM Ming-wai District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kowloon City), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Miss LEE Hin-yui, June Senior Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society Mr SUEN Yiu-fai Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society Mr YIU Hon-sang, Nick Senior Community Relationship Manager, Link Asset Management Limited Mr Leo LEUNG Community Relationship Officer, Link Asset Management Limited Miss LAI Sau-chun Housing Manager / Kowloon West and Sai Kung 1, Housing Department Ms YAM Wai-sum, Isis Assistant Housing Manager / Tenant (Kowloon West and Sai Kung 1) 1, Housing Department

Item 6 Miss LEE Hin-yui, June Senior Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society Mr SUEN Yiu-fai Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society

Item 7 Ms HUNG Wai-man Senior Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society

Ms TANG Hiu-wan Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society

Item 8 Mr LAU Hin-wa, Alick Housing Manager / Kowloon West and Sai Kung 5, Housing Department Ms WU Po-tim Assistant Housing Manager / Tenant (Kowloon West and Sai Kung 5) 1, Housing Department Mr MOU Kwun-chi Assistant Property Manager, China Overseas Property Services Limited

Item 9 Miss LAI Sau-chun Housing Manager / Kowloon West and Sai Kung 1, Housing Department Ms YAM Wai-sum, Isis Assistant Housing Manager / Tenant (Kowloon West and Sai Kung 1) 1, Housing Department

Item 11 to 13 Mr LAM Ming-wai District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kowloon City), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Miss LEE Hin-yui, June Senior Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society Mr SUEN Yiu-fai Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society

Item 14 to 15 Mr CHAN Chak-chuen, Housing Manager / Kowloon West Henry and Sai Kung 4, Housing Department

Item 16 Mr TSOI Hok-tin, Ivan Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Reduction and Recycling) 15, Environmental Protection Department

Item 17 Mr CHAN Tsz-fung Senior Executive Officer (Planning) 12, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms LAM Wai-ki, Vicky Project Manager 376, Architectural Services Department

Item 18 Mr KWAN Yee-fai, Mike General Manager (Planning and Design), Urban Renewal Authority Mr Eugene YUE Senior Manager (Community Development), Urban Renewal Authority

Item 19 Ms NG Chun-wei, Angel Senior Estate Surveyor / Wong Tai Sin (District Lands Office, Kowloon East), Lands Department Mr KWAN Yee-fai, Mike General Manager (Planning and Design), Urban Renewal Authority Ms YAN Sin-wah Senior Manager (Community Development), Urban Renewal Authority

Item 22 Mr CHAN Fu-shan Divisional Commander (Kowloon Central), Fire Services Department Mr WONG Ping-kuen Assistant Divisional Officer (Dangerous Goods) 1, Fire Services Department Mr CHEUNG Pik-shing Senior Station Officer (Dangerous Goods), Fire Services Department Mr LEUNG Lok-chuen Senior Divisional Occupational Safety Officer (2) (Operations Division) (Kowloon Region), Labour Department Mr LAU Kin-chung Divisional Occupational Safety Officer (Operations Division) (Kowloon-1 District Office), Labour Department

Item 23 Miss LEE Hin-yui, June Senior Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society Mr SUEN Yiu-fai Manager (Property Management), Hong Kong Housing Society Mr CHAN Hei, Horace Senior Engineer / Gas Standards B1, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

Item 24 Miss MAK Wai-man, Senior Liaison Officer (Building Sandy Management), Home Affairs Department

Item 25 Mr LAM Ming-wai District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kowloon City), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr FUNG Chi-hung, Eric Senior Telecommunications Engineer (Spectrum Planning) 2, Office of the Communications Authority Mr LEE Shun, Wilson Senior Telecommunications Engineer (Regulatory 12), Office of the Communications Authority

* * *

The Chairman of the Housing and Development Planning Committee (HDPC) welcomed Members, representatives of government departments and attendees to the meeting.

2. Before discussing the agenda items, the Chairman reminded Members to declare interests in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Kowloon City District Council (Standing Orders). If Members’ property rights, occupation or investment etc. involved conflict of interest with the items to be discussed later, they should make a declaration before the discussion so that he would consider if the members 7 concerned should withdraw from the discussion or voting. In addition, according to Order 36(2) of the Standing Orders, the quorum for the committee meetings was half the number of committee members. As HDPC had 24 members, once there were less than 12 members present at the meeting, the Chairman would adjourn the discussion immediately.

The Feasibility Study of the Planning and Urban Design Review for Developments at Kai Tak Runway Tip (Paper No. 01/20)

3. Ms HUI Ka-lam, Town Planning Director of AECOM, introduced the Paper with the main points as follows:

(i) The feasibility study was to review the planning, urban design and development proposals for the Kai Tak Runway Tip (KTRT) area, thus providing guidelines for the development of the Tourist Node site and the surrounding open spaces and achieving multiple effects and synergy with the nearby Kai Tak Cruise Terminal with a view of turning KTRT into an attractive spot.

(ii) The feasibility study took into account of the merits of the awarded and shortlisted schemes of the Kai Tak Fantasy International Ideas Competition, including the water-related concepts from Healthy Cities, that is, developing a tortuous eco-shoreline along the typhoon shelter and incorporating a water channel. However, in consideration of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and other factors, the final proposal would not alter the shoreline to a substantial extent. Instead, the distinctive concepts of cityscape and urban design would be highlighted.

(iii) The design aimed to combine the existing Kai Tak Runway Park (KTRP) Phase 1 with the proposed KTRP Phase 2 and develop the place into an aviation-themed park. KTRP Phase 2 would construct a River Valley with facilities including a harbour with interactive water landscape features, a 45-metre setback area with a river park and an entry plaza themed on convergence, forming a water channel extending to Kai Tak Waterfront Promenade.

(iv) The River Valley would provide a water recreation area and a facility building would be built in the vicinity. The architectural design of the building would resemble the Air Traffic Control Tower of Ex-Kai Tak Airport. An area for exhibiting old items from the former airport, toilets, dining area and facilities related to recreational water activities would be provided inside.

(v) The design proposal would echo with the general layout and the piazza could enhance air ventilation, visual compatibility and connection between space and human. A 13-kilometre Greenway would also be provided at KTRT for co-use by pedestrians and bicycles.

(vi) Shing Fung Road was currently open and its Landscaped Platform could link the Tourist Node site with Kai Tak Cruise Terminal. A public transport interchange with buses and minibuses would be provided at the tip of Shing Fung Road and parking spaces would be offered in the basement of KTRT behind Shing Fung Road for the use of vehicles like tourist coaches. Moreover, the at-grade level was vehicle-free so that pedestrians could walk freely.

(vii) To strengthen the aviation theme, KTRP Phase 1 would maintain the permanent exhibition of the retired aircraft of the Government Flying Service and it was proposed that a Take-off Lawn facing Victoria Harbour and a large Take-off Swing be provided at KTRP so as to let people experience a simulated take-off. Characteristic seatings and play equipment with the theme of aviation would also be set up in KTRP.

(viii) The improvement proposal for KTRP Phase 1 and the development proposal for KTRP Phase 2 would be implemented as public works projects. The Tourist Node site would be disposed through land sale. The developer would be responsible for developing the public open space within the Tourist Node site as well as the River Valley and the adjoining open space within KTRP Phase 2A, plus constructing, managing and maintaining the relevant public transport facilities and pedestrian connections.

4. Mr YANG Wing-kit’s opinions were consolidated as follows: (i) he enquired about the location of the footbridge connecting Kwun Tong Ferry Pier; (ii) he asked about the development of monorail; (iii) he pointed out that the timber boardwalk for running at Kwun Tong Promenade was always damaged and scattered with rubbish, and pedestrians constantly tripped and fell over. Thus, he requested the Bureau to carefully consider the materials used at Kai Tak Promenade; (iv) he pointed out that the water quality of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter was not good and he was worried about the health of people who took part in water recreational activities; (v) he raised that since some of the key facilities were still at the study stage, he was concerned that some places had to be closed for the construction works in the future and the reprovisioning of facilities would cause wastage; and (vi) he enquired whether it was cost-effective to maintain the water quality of the River Valley.

5. Mr HO Hin-ming’s opinions were consolidated as follows: (i) KTRP Phase 1 was an Inclusive Park for Pets. He requested the Bureau to give an account on whether a consultation was conducted with users in respect of the works and whether the park would be closed for various works projects; (ii) he enquired whether the River Valley would be connected to the adjacent nullah; (iii) he suggested expanding the River Valley in a bid to increase the space for recreational water activities; (iv) he asked whether places were reserved for keeping recreational water equipment such as kayaks; (v) he pointed out that the Bureau did not consult marine recreational associations in Kowloon City District; and (vi) he queried about the feasibility of organising large water recreational activities like dragon boat races at the River Valley.

6. Mr HE Huahan’s opinions were as follows: (i) he enquired about the results of the second consultation on the monorail project and how the existing design concepts aligned with the consultation result; (ii) he pointed out that there had long been vehicle-pedestrian conflicts along the Greenway in Kwun Tong. Thus, he requested the Bureau to explain the outcomes of the trial scheme and roll out improvement proposals; (iii) he asked about the feasibility of reprovisioning the Air Traffic Control Tower of Ex-Kai Tak Airport; (iv) he pointed out that there was a lack of pet-related facilities in the district. Thus, he suggested providing the relevant facilities in KTRP; and (v) he suggested displaying the components of the Ex-Air Traffic Control Tower in the imitation air traffic control tower to be built.

7. Mr CHEUNG King-fan’s opinions were summarised as follows: (i) he pointed out that KTRT had no convenient transport links. Thus, he requested to 10 increase the number of stops of public transportation in Site 3 to 5 in Area 4B; (ii) he queried about the feasibility of providing pet-friendly public transportation running to and fro KTRP and nearby locations; and (iii) he advised the Bureau to pay heed to the risks that pets might pose to children when considering the provision of characteristic seatings and recreational facilities.

8. Mr MA Hei-pang’s opinions were summarised as follows: (i) he enquired whether recreational water activities could only be conducted at one spot in the River Valley and he requested to increase the space for recreational water activities; (ii) he pointed out that a report in 2016 showed that Kai Tak Nullah had an E.coli level of 1500 to 2000 cfu per 100 millilitres. Thus, he requested the Bureau to illustrate how to improve the water quality so that the E. coli level of less than 610 cfu per 100 millilitres could be met; and (iii) he advised the Bureau to make reference to the approaches adopted by Sydney and Singapore and make a better planning for the water body of Kai Tak.

9. Dr KWONG Po-yin pointed out that the water body of Kai Tak linked up with Victoria Harbour. Thus, she suggested the Bureau to discuss how to improve the overall water quality in Hong Kong with government departments.

10. Ms Brenda AU, Head of Energizing Kowloon East Office of the Development Bureau (DEVB), gave a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) was now conducting the feasibility study on Phase 2 of the Environmentally Friendly Linkage System including the way and the point of linkage between Kwun Tong and KTRT and the study was expected to be completed and released within this year. DEVB had allowed room for flexible planning and spaces for development so as to tie in with the final design proposal. However, as the Bureau had to conduct a technical feasibility study and apply for funding from the Legislative Council, the works could not commence in the short term. The Bureau would collaborate with CEDD and thus the problem of the reprovisioning of facilities would not exist.

(ii) The Transport Department was responsible for the planning of public transportation. The Bureau would relay the relevant 11

opinions to the Department.

(iii) The Greenway at Kwun Tong Promenade was a trial scheme of CEDD. Since the boardwalk was welcomed by the public despite its narrowness, the damage caused was greater than expected. The Bureau was now testing new materials with the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) and reducing the use of woody materials. In addition, since Kai Tak Promenade was far wider than Kwun Tong Promenade, the Bureau was of the view that the vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and the road damage there would be less serious.

(iv) The Inclusive Park for Pets was a trial scheme of LCSD. Since the scheme was well-received, the Bureau believed that the Inclusive Park for Pets in KTRP would be retained. The Bureau would provide characteristic seatings and recreational facilities on such a basis and hammer out a design to separate the park from the facilities appropriately.

(v) Considering that the River Valley occupied an area of 3 200 square metres and there were two locations in Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter which could be used for recreational water activities, Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter and KTRT could provide a total of four places for organising aquatic recreational activities and storing the relevant facilities.

(vi) The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) had all along been monitoring the water quality of Kai Tak, which had reached the safety standards for secondary contact recreation, that is, the standards at which boating activities were allowed, in the recent two years. Moreover, during rainstorm, the dry weather flow interceptors at Jordan Valley would stop functioning and the pollutants on the shore would be diluted by the rain and discharged into the sea. The Bureau would contact major aquatic sports centres and stop them from carrying out recreational water activities in the short term.

(vii) The River Valley used tap water and a filtration system to maintain 12

its water quality. The water body of the River Valley was not connected to that of Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. Therefore, though the water quality of the typhoon shelter was not satisfactory, the aquatic recreational activities to be carried out at the River Valley would not be affected. Furthermore, EPD was currently addressing the problem of misconnection of wastewater pipes while CEDD was conducting the works of the District Cooling System in Kai Tak Development Area. Upon completion of the works, the relevant facility would extract seawater from To Kwa Wan and get discharged into Kai Tak Approach Channel in order to further improve the water quality of Kai Tak. The Bureau would continue to collaborate with government departments to monitor and better the water quality.

(viii) Since the operation of the Ex-Kai Tak Airport was suspended in 1998, the relevant components had been kept for many years. If the Air Traffic Control Centre was going to be reprovisioned, safety and maintenance problems might occur. The Bureau tended to display the components of the former airport at different locations and provide a theme restaurant in the resembled air traffic control tower to be built. The Bureau had assisted the developer of Kai Tak Sports Park in contacting LCSD to discuss the issue of displaying components at different locations.

(ix) To avoid closing the entire park for conducting the works and to reserve spaces for public use, KTRP was divided into Phase 1, Phase 2A and Phase 2B for development. ArchSD was drawing up a more detailed design for the park and the Bureau would report to KCDC in due course.

(x) The Bureau and the consultant appointed had made reference to the design of harbourfronts in many cities and endeavored to transform Kai Tak Promenade into a vibrant place.

(xi) The Bureau noted Members’ opinions on the relevant consultation and invited water activity groups in Kowloon City District to make proposals to the Bureau.

(xii) The River Valley mainly targeted at families. With boats berthing nearby, Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter was designated for water activities requiring higher level of skills. When large aquatic recreational activities such as Hong Kong International Dragon Boat Championships were held, Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter was the designated venue.

11. The Chairman made a conclusion and requested the Bureau to carefully consider Members’ opinions.

Resumption of Land at Wing Kwong Street / Sung On Street in To Kwa Wan in Kowloon for the Implementation of Development Project KC-014 by the Urban Renewal Authority (Paper No. 02/20)

12. Mr Martin LUK, Senior Estate Surveyor / Urban Renewal 5 (Urban Renewal Section) of the Lands Department (LandsD), introduced the Paper and invited Members to raise opinions on Development Project KC-014.

13. Mr LEE Hin-long’s opinions were consolidated as follow: (i) he requested the Department to explain the formula for calculating compensation for Projects KC-009 to KC-014; (ii) he enquired the Department how to ensure that the relevant property owners and occupants understood the situation and received a reasonable amount of compensation during the land resumption process in Project KC-014; (iii) he requested to adopt a people-oriented approach to handle the resettlement of small businesses; and (iv) he pointed out that though some residents supported the redevelopment of old districts, they were dissatisfied with the relevant redevelopment policies. Thus, he requested the Bureau to firstly arrange rehousing for residents before launching projects in the future.

14. The Hon Starry LEE’s opinions were consolidated as follow: (i) she pointed out that expediting the redevelopment of old districts was the aspiration of residents in the district. Thus, she supported the project; (ii) she enquired the Department about the ways to handle cases in which property owners and occupiers refused to accept the compensation and the availability of an appeal system; and (iii) she said that there were people who refused to accept the compensation during the land resumption process in every development project. Thus, she hoped that the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) could discuss suitable solutions with the 14 stakeholders so as to minimise the effects of the project on them.

15. Mr Pius YUM’s opinions were highlighted as follow: (i) he pointed out that since the Bureau had conducted the freezing survey of Project KC-014 on 22 June 2018 and tenancy agreements for private buildings were normally signed for two years, with one year on fixed term and one year optional. Property owners might increase the rent when renewing the tenancies with tenants; (ii) he asked about the average time required for land resumption in a project; (iii) he demanded the Bureau to present the number of tenants who were accorded local rehousing under Projects KC-009 to KC-013 and whether there were sufficient properties in the district to rehouse all the tenants concerned; and (iv) he stated that though residents supported the redevelopment, it did not mean that they would accept an unreasonable amount of compensation.

16. Mr YANG Wing-kit said that residents in To Kwan Wan supported expediting the redevelopment of old districts but they were worried about the rehousing arrangements.

17. Mr HO Hin-ming pointed out that a standard criterion had to be adopted when drafting the compensation proposal. Thus, he enquired in which aspect the Bureau would make concessions.

18. Mr Martin LUK of LandsD said that he would provide a written reply in respect of the compensation issue of Projects KC-009 to KC-013.

19. Mr LEE Hin-long expressed dissatisfaction over Mr Martin LUK’s reply. He opined that officials had the responsibility of explaining the definition and differences of rateable values and business areas in the formula for calculating compensation in different development projects to the public.

20. Mr Martin LUK of LandsD reiterated that he would provide a written reply in respect of Members’ questions.

21. Ms YAN Sin-wah, Senior Manager (Community Development) of URA, gave a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) URA would deploy dedicated staff to handle cases of property owners and tenants and explain to them the compensation and 15

rehousing arrangements.

(ii) People affected by the redevelopment could go to the neighbourhood centres of URA in person, or contact with URA by phone or email or through District Council members.

(iii) If necessary, URA could provide information about the rehousing arrangements for tenants after the meeting.

(iv) The majority of residents supported Project KC-014. URA had acquired 95% of property rights in a short time after making acquisition offers to the property owners. URA would continue to contact and discuss with the remaining property owners proactively.

22. Mr Quincy HUI, Senior Manager (Acquisition and Clearance) of URA, made a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) URA had acquired 95% of property rights in Development Project KC-014 and would continue to arrange compensation and rehousing for tenants.

(ii) After approving the land resumption and resuming the property titles, the Government would issue compensation offers to eligible occupants. In general, occupants should revert the vacant possession of properties to the Government within six months from the date of the reversion of property titles. If occupants still did not accept the compensation offers after the deadline, URA, in the capacity of a government agent, would commission lawyers to request occupants to revert the vacant possession of properties to the Government in accordance with the established mechanism.

(iii) Since a stringent mechanism had been adopted on the compensation arrangements, URA could not violate the mechanism and give extra compensation. URA would discuss the time for late return of properties with occupants depending on individual circumstances.

23. Mr LEE Hin-long once again expressed strong dissatisfaction over Mr Martin LUK’s reply and he enquired about the timetable for moving out and 16 demolition under the redevelopment project.

24. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu expressed strong dissatisfaction over Mr Martin LUK’s reply. He considered that Mr LUK wasted the time of the Committee and thus he gave a reprimand to him.

25. Mr Martin LUK of LandsD responded that the tenants of commercial properties affected by Development Project KC-014 were entitled to the open market value, if any, of their interest in the commercial properties, plus an ex-gratia allowance equivalent to three times the amount of the rateable value of the resumed properties prevailing at the date of reversion, or they could make statutory claims for business loss under the Lands Resumption Ordinance. He stated that he would study the cases of Projects KC-009 to KC-013 and provide a written reply after the meeting.

26. Mr KWOK Tin-lap expressed strong dissatisfaction over Mr Martin LUK’s reply and he commented that a written reply could not give full and timely answers to questions and follow-up questions raised by Members. He further put forward the following opinions: (i) he asked whether the Bureau had exercised discretion in view of the pandemic; (ii) he pointed out that an approach of rehousing before clearance was adopted in new development areas such as Kwu Tung North and Fanling North. Thus, he queried why the same approach was not adopted in this project; and (iii) he pointed out that the rehousing proposal for residents in rooftop accommodation was different from that of other occupants. Thus, he demanded the Bureau to make an explanation on this.

27. Mr Pius YUM asked whether the difference in the rehousing proposal for residents in rooftop accommodation was owing to the fact that the occupiers held no legal title to their places. He pointed out that DEVB had issued letters to the concern group in 2019 to express support for the resumption of business of small shop tenants. Thus, he enquired whether the Bureau would adopt the same approach for Projects KC-009 to KC-014.

28. The Chairman requested the Bureau to provide the contact information of the relevant case officers.

29. Mr Quincy HUI of URA responded that given that some of the occupiers still had not found suitable properties to move in owing to the recent pandemic, URA had discussed with them the date of moving out. He said that since the occupiers of 17 rooftop accommodation held no title to their places, URA only had capacity to handle the compensation and rehousing issue for residents in rooftop accommodation upon acquisition of property titles of the entire buildings or completion of land resumption by the Government.

30. Ms YAN Sin-wah of URA stated that she would provide the contact information of case officers after the meeting. She further pointed out that the “Local Shop Arrangement” was once introduced in the Sung Hing Lane/ Kwai Heung Street project to allow owners of dried seafood shops to move back to the original place and continue the operation of business after redevelopment but the response was unsatisfactory.

31. The Chairman made a conclusion and requested departments to get better prepared before attending the next meeting so that the discussion would be more effective.

(Post-meeting notes: LandsD had sent a written reply to the relevant shop tenants affected by the redevelopment in To Kwa Wan on 2 June 2020 and explained the compensation offer for legal occupants of commercial properties in detail. A copy was sent to the Secretariat of KCDC.)

Strong Request for Further Enhancing Rodent Prevention and Disinfestation Measures in Oi Man Estate (Paper No. 03/20) Request for Following up the Serious Rodent Infestation Problem in Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate (Paper No. 04/20) Strong Request for Addressing the Rodent Infestation Problem in Housing Estates (Paper No. 05/20)

32. The Chairman stated that the abovementioned three agenda items were related to rodent infestation, he announced that they would be handled together after consulting Members’ opinions. He asked Members to refer to the written replies submitted by the departments prior to the meeting, i.e. Documents No. 1, 2, 26 and 27 tabled.

33. Mr HE Huahan introduced Paper No. 03/20 and requested to enhance 18 rodent prevention and disinfestation work in Oi Man Estate.

34. Miss Jakki MAK introduced Paper No. 04/20 and requested to give an account of the rodent disinfestation work in Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate and follow up on the rodent infestation problem.

35. Mr YANG Wing-kit introduced Paper No. 05/20 and requested to address the rodent infestation problem in Lok Man Sun Chuen and follow up on the shortage of rat glue traps.

36. Mr LAM Ming-wai, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Kowloon City) of Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), gave a response with the main points as follows:

(i) The Department was mainly responsible for street cleaning, trapping and eliminating rats in public places, filling rat holes, deploying staff to inspect housing estates and so on.

(ii) Since Oi Man Estate was under the purview of the Housing Department (HD), the main tasks of FEHD were to assist in inspecting public places in housing estates, maintain close contact with the staff from HD and the Link Asset Management Limited (the Link) and give them advices on rodent prevention.

(iii) The Department would normally inspect each public housing estate in the district once every three months. However, given that the rodent infestation problem in Oi Man Estate was serious, the Department had increased inspections to once a month and had inspected Oi Man Estate 12 times and Ho Man Tin Estate four times in the past 12 months.

(iv) The Department discovered during inspections that some rat baits were damped or expired and were not replaced. Also, the storage of rubbish was unsatisfactory. They had informed HD and the Link to follow up. The Department found during the following inspection that the relevant situation had improved.

(v) The Department had carried out education and publicity on rodent 19

prevention and control in Oi Man Estate in March and April 2020 and would hold exhibitions in Ho Man Tin Estate in June.

37. Miss June LEE, Senior Manager (Property Management) of the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS), made a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The Society had installed rat guards, barbed wires and anti-rodent nets at flats on lower floors in Lok Man Sun Chuen and would install rat guards for residents on other floors when necessary.

(ii) The Society had all along been arranging cleansing contractors to regularly collect refuse, cleanse rubbish bins, check and replace rat baits every two weeks, fill up rat holes and distribute rat glue traps to needy households, etc.

(iii) The Society had accepted the advices given by FEHD to install transparent plastic sheets at the lower part of the gates of each block in Lok Man Sun Chuen, install anti-rodent metal plates at the lower part of steel cages placed outside flats on lower floors and replace rat baits with that of other brands twice a week. The number of rats caught by the Society increased after implementing the abovementioned measures.

(iv) The Society would follow up with the distribution of rat glue traps after the meeting.

38. Miss LAI Sau-chun, Housing Manager / Kowloon West and Sai Kung 1 of HD, gave a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The offices of HD in Oi Man Estate and Ho Man Tin Estate had implemented multi-pronged measures on rodent disinfestation including inspecting public places in the estates every day, removing refuse properly, filling up rat holes, placing more rat baits, increasing the number of rodent trapping devices and so on.

(ii) The Department had requested the cleansing contractor of Oi Man Estate in November 2019 to hire an expert for rodent disinfestation, who was responsible for placing rat baits based on rodent trails and 20

rodent carcasses in order to enhance the effectiveness of rodent control.

(iii) The Department had accepted the advices given by FEHD and installed rat guards at pipes on external walls of lower floors of all blocks in Oi Man Estate. In June 2020, rat guards would be installed at pipes on external walls of upper floors of one block in the estate on a trial basis and the effectiveness of the relevant measures would be observed.

39. Mr Leo LEUNG, Community Relationship Officer of the Link, made a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The Link would conduct rodent control work in areas under its management and review the effectiveness of the work regularly. Moreover, the Link had arranged a professional pest control contractor to carry out inspections and rodent disinfestation work.

(ii) The Link would cleanse the cooked food stalls and refuse collection points in Oi Man Estate with 1 in 49 diluted bleach water twice a day and conduct large cleaning work once a week. In addition, the Link would place and change rat baits at key locations twice a week, check the baits every two to three days and immediately replace the baits gnawed or damped.

(iii) The Link would cleanse Ho Man Tin Market and the refuse collection points with 1 in 49 diluted bleach water twice a day and place anti-rodent plastic plates filled with rat baits every night after cleansing. Also, the Link had arranged a professional pest control contractor to carry out rodent prevention work once a week.

(iv) The Link had implemented various anti-rodent measures including keeping public places such as planters clean, installing rat guards at the lower part of gates, installing anti-rodent nets at refuse collection points, inspecting nullahs regularly and conducting desilting works whenever there was clogging of nullahs.

(v) The Link would conduct inspections and follow up rodent 21

prevention work with FEHD and make adjustments according to the suggestions given by the Department.

40. Mr CHO Wui-hung’s opinions were consolidated as follows: (i) he pointed out that the rodent infestation problem in Oi Man Estate had persisted for many years, and the main reason behind was that some people fed wild pigeons and stray cats and the food debris would help the reproduction of rodents. A number of departments had taken joint operations last year, which began to deliver results in August. However, the rodent infestation problem exacerbated again after the Lunar New Year holiday this year. Thus, he opined that the Department could not solely rely on publicity but to step up inspections and prosecutions actively; (ii) he requested the Link to strengthen inspections on the hygiene conditions of food premises under its management; (iii) he requested HD to install rat guards on every floor; and (iv) he pointed out that the new rat glue traps were ineffective to capture rats.

41. Mr YANG Wing-kit pointed out that though HA had implemented different measures, the results were insignificant. He also reckoned that the effectiveness of requesting the cleansing contractor to hire an expert for rodent disinfestation was in doubt. Thus, he requested HA to take a more proactive approach.

42. Miss Jakki MAK’s opinions were consolidated as follows: (i) she pointed out that the rodent infestation problem had extended to different floors in Oi Man Estate. Thus, she demanded to install rat guards on every floor; (ii) she said that according to the Department’s record, approximately 40 complaints on rodent infestation in residential flats in Oi Man Estate were received in the past year and the cleansing company had caught around 70 rodents in public places. Nevertheless, the number of complaints she received were over 40. Thus, she enquired whether the Department had underestimated the rodent infestation problem and she requested for the installation of rat guards on every floor; (iii) she stated that the Link had arranged the pest control contractor to carry out rodent control work in Ho Man Tin Estate once a week. Thus, she queried whether the Link had adopted a similar practice in Oi Man Estate; (iv) since the public spaces in the estate were managed by different departments, she requested FEHD, HD and the Link to conduct joint inspections; and (v) she asked about the test results of adding sugar into rat baits.

43. Mr TSANG Kin-chiu demanded HD and HA to provide the data of rodent infestation in Chun Seen Mei Chuen and Ma Tau Wai Estate and the measures implemented. 22

44. Miss CHAU Hei-man pointed out that there were markets and food premises next to Ka Wai Chuen and the rodent infestation problem occurred in public spaces at the centre of the estate. Thus, she requested FEHD and HA to give an account of the rodent control work and its effectiveness.

45. Mr WONG Wing-kit, the Vice-chairman, expressed the following opinions: (i) he pointed out that the rodent infestation problem in some shopping malls in the district was serious. Thus, he enquired whether HD and the Link had communicated with shop owners and taken follow-up actions; (ii) he stated that some planters in the district were always filled with food debris and rubbish. Thus, he requested HD to follow up proactively; and (iii) he said that the rodent infestation figures provided by the Department remained low. Thus, he suspected that some residents did not report the cases and this caused the Department to underestimate the problem.

46. Ms Isis YAM, Assistant Housing Manager / Tenant (Kowloon West and Sai Kung 1) 1 of HD, gave a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The Department agreed to step up inspections and prosecute persons who fed wild pigeons and would contact the Special Operation Unit for taking action.

(ii) The Department had purchased new rat glue traps from another supplier and would review their effectiveness.

(iii) The Department would explore the possibility of installing rat guards at more locations in the abovementioned estates with the works section.

(iv) The Department believed that some residents did not report the rodent infestation problem in their flats and some cleaners did not report cases of rodent carcasses found. Thus, the Department could only take the relevant figures as a reference and arrange for the rodent control work such as placing rat baits.

(v) The Department would conduct inspections in housing estates in the district with FEHD every two months and would listen to Members’ 23

opinions and liaise with the Link to carry out joint inspections.

(vi) According to the report of the cleaning company, after adding sugar to rat baits, the number of rodent carcasses found increased. However, since the Department used rat baits of different brands interchangeably, next round of testing would be conducted next month.

(vii) As the Department did not have the rodent infestation figures of Ma Tau Wai Estate temporarily, cases would be referred to Ma Tau Wai Property Services Management Office after the meeting and they would contact Members directly for follow-ups.

47. Mr Leo LEUNG of the Link made a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The Link understood the importance of hygiene in markets and food premises and would strengthen the cleansing of the relevant areas.

(ii) The Link had arranged the same pest control contractor to be responsible for the pest control work in Ho Man Tin Estate and Oi Man Estate.

(iii) The Link was willing to conduct joint operations with other departments to enhance the effectiveness of rodent disinfestation work.

(iv) The Link would enhance communication with owners of shops in Homantin Plaza so that rodent control work could be carried out properly.

48. Miss June LEE of HKHS responded that the Society did not have the rodent infestation figures of Chun Seen Mei Chuen and Ka Wai Chuen temporarily. Nonetheless, to her understanding, the rodent infestation problem at both sites was not that serious. The Society would continue to carry out regular rodent control work including holding meetings with cleansing contractors from time to time, placing rat baits, filling up rat holes and so on. The Society would arrange cleansing contractors to provide assistance if any shop owners in the relevant estates were in need, and they would tie in with the rodent disinfestation work of FEHD as well. 24

49. Mr LAM Ming-wai of FEHD gave a reply with the main points as follows:

(i) The Department would step up enforcement actions against persons who fed wild pigeons.

(ii) The Department would conduct more joint inspections with HD and the Link.

(iii) The Department would send staff to carry out inspections in Ka Wai Chuen every three months and offer suggestions to HKHS based on the results of inspections.

50. The Chairman stated since no other opinions were raised by Members, he announced that the discussion of this item was over.

Further Follow-up to the Installation of Canopies on the Sloping Road Adjacent to Block A to Block E by the Hong Kong Housing Society (Paper No. 06/20)

51. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by HKHS prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 2 tabled.

52. Mr YANG Wing-kit introduced the Paper. He urged HKHS again to provide canopies at the sloping road at Lok Man Sun Chuen.

53. Miss June LEE of HKHS made a reply, with the main points as follows:

(i) As the pavement concerned was relatively narrow and close to the road, to keep the pavement unobstructed, HKHS did not consider it appropriate to install canopies at the pavement section. In addition, the installation of fixed or retractable canopies at the sloping road adjacent to Block A to Block E involved the consideration of the stability of the slopes. Therefore, the Society deemed it inappropriate to conduct such works at the location concerned.

(ii) HKHS expressed understanding of residents’ situation. After striking a balance between their needs and safety concerns, the 25

Society planned to place a sun umbrella next to one of the benches on the sloping road on a trial basis and monitor the use of it and the effect.

54. Mr YANG Wing-kit believed that the installation of canopies was not difficult and thus, he did not think that the works concerned would affect the stability of canopies. He requested HKHS to commission structural engineers to conduct relevant studies.

55. Miss June LEE of HKHS noted Mr YANG Wing-kit’s opinion and stated that as the temporary placement of a sun umbrella was a simpler and more feasible option, the Society would first observe the use of them and the effectiveness.

56. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for Reviewing the Refuse Collection Measures in Ka Wai Chuen (Paper No. 07/20)

57. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by HKHS prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 2 tabled.

58. Miss CHAU Hei-man presented the Paper. She asked HKHS to withdraw the measures of placing large refuse bins at lift lobbies on each floor and to reconsider placing these bins inside the refuse rooms with doors.

59. Ms HUNG Wai-man, Senior Manager (Property Management) of HKHS, responded that as no rubbish bin was placed on each floor of the buildings in Ka Wai Chuen in the early years, quite a number of residents would dispose of their refuse at various places on the floor which led to environmental hygiene problems. Since 2018, the Society had been installing rubbish bins at lift lobbies on each floor with a view to reducing the problem of inconsiderate refuse disposal. However, a small amount of residents did not dispose of their refuse properly by putting them into these rubbish bins, which badly impacted the environmental hygiene. Hence, the Society would consider adjusting the location of the rubbish bins concerned and make effective communication with residents nearby.

60. Mr YANG Wing-kit pointed out that there were a similar measure and 26 problem at Lok Man Sun Chuen, yet he appreciated the intention of implementing such measure. As a small number of residents refused to use pedal rubbish bins, he suggested that the Society should step up the education of residents, replace the pedal rubbish bins with the drop-in-type and collect refuse more frequently in order to cope with the problem. He also enquired about the feasibility of installing closed-circuit television systems.

61. Miss CHAU Hei-man made a consolidated response as follows: (i) as only a few of the residents did not dispose of refuse properly, she advised HKHS to introduce penalties for such behaviour; (ii) she expressed support for the suggestion of collecting rubbish more frequently so as to reduce the impact of stench from refuse on nearby residents; and (iii) she pointed out that after the installation of rubbish bins on each floor, residents dumped large household garbage more frequently at that location. Hence, she asked HKHS about the countermeasures that could be taken.

62. Ms HUNG Wai-man of HKHS gave a response, with the main points as follows:

(i) HKHS did not establish a demerit point system, therefore, the Society would issue advisory or warning letters to households that did not dispose of rubbish properly.

(ii) The Society would review every blackspot on each floor with cleaning contractors and discuss how to effectively increase the frequency of rubbish collection.

(iii) HKHS recognised the importance of educating residents and thus, they had already taught residents the proper ways of refuse disposal and the right use of rubbish bin through estate newsletters or by putting up notices near rubbish bins.

(iv) In most cases, the Society would look for the residents who disposed of large household garbage by going through records of visitors that delivered new furniture. Then, these residents would be demanded to clear the garbage they dumped. If the accountable residents could not be found, cleansing companies would arrange clearance of the garbage as soon as possible.

(v) HKHS held an open mind on the installation of closed-circuit television systems and was willing to take any effective measures to solve the problem.

63. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for Improving the Odour Problem of Sewers in Kai Long Court (Paper No. 08/20)

64. Mr WONG Wing-kit, the Vice-chairman, invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by HD prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 24 tabled.

65. Mr CHEUNG King-fan introduced the Paper. He requested to improve the odour problem of sewers in Kai Long Court.

66. Mr Alick LAU, Housing Manager (Kowloon West and Sai Kung 5) of HD, figured that the odour probably originated from a grease trap of a restaurant in Kai Long Court Retail Block after follow-ups. Staff from HD had already sealed all sides of the grease trap cover in order to stop the odour from spreading. Daily cleansing work at that location was also stepped up. During a recent visit, the management company did not detect any odour. They would continue to closely monitor the situation in a bid to prevent the problem from happening again.

67. Mr WONG Wing-kit, the Vice-chairman, stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for Installing U-traps in Draining Pipes Toilets of Oi Man Estate (Paper No. 09/20)

68. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by HD prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 25 tabled.

69. Mr CHO Wui-hung presented the Paper. He requested HD to install U-traps for the pipes at Oi Man Estate and raised the following enquiries: (i) he asked if the pipes of Oi Man Estate were in compliance with the current standard even though it met the past standard; (ii) he enquired HD if they would install U-traps for households in need; and (iii) he asked whether the Department would carry out a 28

comprehensive feasibility study and perform renovation work to move all the drainage facilities in toilets like vent pipes to the external walls.

70. Miss Jakki MAK remarked that she had urged the Department to conduct an extensive check on the pipes of Oi Man Estate due to the severe COVID-19 infection. Hence, she requested the Department to provide details of the investigation conducted and its result.

71. Miss LAI Sau-chun of HD responded with the main points as follows:

(i) Drainage facilities in buildings of the Housing Authority (HA) were all in compliance with the then building standard and the environmental hygiene requirements.

(ii) The Department had reminded residents to pay attention to the condition of the drainage facilities at their housing units and seek help from estate offices as necessary. As installing U-traps required changes in pipes and might affect neighbouring units, the Department must carry out a feasibility study and ask for residents’ consent before the commencement of the work.

(iii) Regarding Member’s enquiries about whether the pipes of Oi Man Estate were in compliance with the current standard and whether a comprehensive feasibility study would be carried out, HD would arrange Maintenance Surveyors to meet with Members for follow-up action after the meeting.

72. Ms Isis YAM of HD replied that the Department had checked the roof vent pipes of all buildings of Oi Man Estate and carried out vent pipe inspections for more than 100 households that were concerned about the condition of the pipes. All results showed that the vent pipes were in compliance with the standard.

73. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Concern over the Incidents of Objects Being Thrown from a Height in Tak Long Estate (Paper No. 10/20)

74. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by HD prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 20 tabled.

75. Mr HE Huahan introduced the Paper. He thanked the Department for installing three monitoring cameras within a short period of time. He also asked the Department to step up law enforcement against those who breached any regulations.

76. Mr CHEUNG King-fan commented that it was also important to strengthen the relevant publicity work as an incident of falling window once occurred in Tak Long Estate at 8 pm.

77. Mr CHIU Ying-cheung, Senior Property Service Manager (Kowloon West and Sai Kung) of HD, noted Members’ opinions and said that would relay their views to the relevant department after the meeting.

78. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for Stepping up Anti-epidemic Work in Housing Estates (Paper No. 11/20) Request for Strengthening the Management and Cleaning Work of Old Buildings in the Midst of the Epidemic (Paper No. 12/20) Request to the Housing Department for Making Immediate Update of the List of Buildings Housing People under Compulsory Quarantine and Enhancing the Provision of Household Anti-epidemic Kits (Paper No. 13/20)

79. As all of the above agenda items were related to anti-epidemic work and relevant kits, after consulting Members, the Chairman announced that all items would be discussed together. He also invited Members to refer to the written replies submitted by departments prior to the meeting, i.e. Documents No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 31 tabled.

80. Mr YANG Wing-kit presented Paper No. 11/20 and requested to review and step up anti-epidemic work in housing estates.

81. Mr LAM Tak-shing introduced Paper No. 12/20 and urged to strengthen the cleaning work of old buildings in the district, step up inspections and improve the problem of misconnection and illegal modifications of pipes.

82. Miss Jakki MAK presented Paper No. 13/20. She requested an immediate update on the list of buildings housing people under compulsory quarantine, so that residents of related buildings could take more stringent measures as soon as possible. She also asked the Department to enhance the provision of household anti-epidemic kits.

83. Mr HE Huahan said that there was a confirmed case of COVID-19 in Tak Long Estate. He thanked HD for making response actions and conducting cleaning work in a short period of time. He also aired the following opinions: (i) he believed the Department should carry out regular cleansing operation instead of cleaning after confirmed cases were found; (ii) he pointed out that the protective equipment for the frontline staff of HD was far more outdated than those for the Department of Health (DH), therefore, he requested to enhance the quality of the equipment concerned; and (iii) he advised the Department to allocate additional resources more proactively and provide anti-epidemic supplies in the buildings in the future.

84. Mr LAM Tak-shing requested the Department to allocate more resources for carrying out anti-epidemic work and handling better the work related to environmental hygiene such as waste handling and rodent control.

85. Mr SUEN Yiu-fai, Manager (Property Management) of HKHS, replied that the Society had adopted multiple anti-epidemic measures since January 2020, including strengthening the cleaning work in lobbies and lifts, placing different antiseptic supplies, stepping up inspections on pipes and vacant apartments, forming dedicated teams to check the draining pipes and arrange repair works for households, checking in on elderly singletons and couples and referring elderly people in need to social welfare organisations to get anti-epidemic supplies, and putting up educational notices.

86. Mr CHIU Ying-cheung of HD gave a reply, with the main points as follows: 31

(i) The Department had enhanced cleansing work, which included cleansing public areas with 1:99 diluted household bleach and cleaning buildings with confirmed cases using 1:49 diluted household bleach.

(ii) Upon receiving notification from the Centre for Health Protection (CHP), HD promised to inform Members of the constituency concerned about the confirmed cases as soon as possible.

(iii) The Department would study Members’ opinions and conduct more comprehensive cleaning operations regularly, improve the equipment of frontline staff and mobilise additional resources to purchase anti-epidemic supplies.

87. Mr LAM Ming-wai of FEHD gave a response, with the main points as follows:

(i) In response to the COVID-19 infection, the Department would, depending on individual circumstances, provide limited refuse removal and disinfection services for public areas in some private properties that lacked management.

(ii) FEHD noted Mr LAM Tak-shing’s opinions and would allocate additional resources in order to better handle the work on other aspects.

88. Ms Alisa TSE, Senior Building Surveyor / E3 of Buildings Department (BD), made a response, with the main points as follows:

(i) The Department would follow up on the report cases of defective drainage system in housing units. If cases of illegal draining pipes connection posing severe hygiene or environmental nuisance were found, FEHD would issue orders to the owners concerned or consider making prosecution against non-compliant owners.

(ii) If CHP suspected that the source of infection of certain cases was related to the drainage system of a particular housing unit, the 32

Department would provide professional advice to the owner.

(iii) The Department always encouraged owners to conduct regular check and maintenance work on the drainage system. To facilitate this, a set of guidelines was devised and uploaded to the website of BD.

89. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request to the Hong Kong Housing Authority for Deferring the Date of Returning Housing Units in View of the Epidemic of COVID-19 (Paper No. 14/20) Request for Simplifying the Procedures of Applying for the Rent Assistance Scheme under the Hong Kong Housing Authority (Paper No. 15/20)

90. As both of the above agenda items were related to pandemic relief measures, after consulting Members, the Chairman announced that both items would be discussed together. He invited Members to refer to the written replies submitted by departments prior to the meeting, i.e. Documents No. 22 and 28 tabled.

91. Mr WONG Wing-kit, the Vice-chairman, introduced Paper No. 14/20, stating that some of the public rental housing tenants who moved into Kwun Tak Court did not need to pay triple net rent plus rates when applying for an extended stay due to the pandemic. He requested HKHS to explain the criteria for exempting the payment of rents and rates.

92. Mr WONG Wing-kit, the Vice-chairman, presented Paper No. 15/20. He asked HKHS to streamline the application procedure of the Rent Assistance Scheme.

93. Mr Henry CHAN, Housing Manager (Kowloon West and Sai Kung 4) of HD, made a reply, with the main points as follows:

(i) The existing policy of “Surrender of Public Rental Housing Flats upon Acquisition of Other Forms of Subsidised Housing” was a longstanding policy of HD. The Department also amended its 33

internal guidelines in regard to the pandemic, so as to exercise flexibility in handling applications for an extended stay due to the pandemic.

(ii) He handled and approved three applications in total for an extended stay from tenants moving from Ho Man Tin Estate to Kwun Tak Court. If tenants were moving to Kwun Tak Court from other housing estates, they must submit their applications to their respective estate offices together with the relevant documents like renovation contracts or orders so as to prove that the delay was beyond their control. The Department did not have standard criteria for calculating the extension date. The staff of HD would exercise discretion when handling each application on a case-by-case basis.

(iii) The Department had stepped up the promotion of the Rent Assistance Scheme in response to the pandemic since 29 April and would exercise discretion to allow applicants with special circumstances to submit proof of income for one month. As qualified tenants would be granted two years of rent reduction, they had to promise that when their income increased after the pandemic making them no longer eligible for rent reduction, they must initiate an application to cancel the rent reduction.

94. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for Giving an Account of the Current Arrangements of the Programme on Source Separation of Domestic Waste in Public Housing Estates (Paper No. 16/20)

95. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written replies submitted by departments prior to the meeting, i.e. Documents No. 21 and 32 tabled.

96. Miss Jakki MAK introduced the Paper. She remarked that there were complaints about service contractors not carrying out recycling work properly. Thus, she asked HD to provide details on the effectiveness of the Programme on Source Separation of Domestic Waste, such as the recycling rate and whether the quantity of 34

recovered recyclables met the established standard.

97. Mr CHIU Ying-cheung of HD responded that as the disposed items in plastic waste separation bins often overflowed, service contractors would store excessive plastic bottles temporarily in other recycling bins and such an act might have caused complainants to misunderstand. The Department would ask contractors to store the excessive recyclables. He also expressed satisfaction with the effectiveness of the programme.

98. Mr Ivan TSOI, Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Reduction and Recycling) 15 of EPD, replied that the Department had not received complaints about service contractors not carrying out recycling work properly so far. They would maintain liaison with HD and inspect the situation.

99. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Concern over the Progress of the Construction of the Avenue Park at Kai Tak (Paper No. 17/20)

100. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by LCSD prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 6 tabled.

101. Mr CHEUNG King-fan presented the Paper. He requested the Department to report the progress of the construction of the Avenue Park at Kai Tak.

102. Ms Vicky LAM, Project Manager 376 of ArchSD, responded that the outbreak of COVID-19 caused slight impact on the work progress. However, the construction could still be completed as scheduled in the first quarter of 2021. In the second quarter of 2021, the park would be open for public use. Contractors had adopted and strictly enforced dust control measures in a bid to minimise the nuisances caused to residents.

103. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Strong Request for Giving an Account of the Progress of the Pilot Scheme for the Redevelopment of Buildings of Civil Servants’ Co-operative Building Society in Kowloon City District (Paper No. 18/20)

104. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by URA prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 7 tabled.

105. Mr YANG Wing-kit introduced the Paper. He requested URA to give an account of the progress of the Pilot Scheme for the Redevelopment of Buildings of Civil Servants’ Co-operative Building Society (CBS) in Kowloon City District and implement the scheme as soon as possible. He also put forward the following opinions: (i) he asked the Authority whether the public was informed that the commencement of the redevelopment work would be postponed; and (ii) he advised that the flat-for-flat exchange should be carried out based on the area of the flat instead of the property price.

106. Mr HO Hin-ming pointed out that there were different types of civil servants' quarters in Hong Kong, therefore, similar quarters should be redeveloped in order to prevent repercussions from stakeholders due to the great difference in the buildings. He added that the land premium was included in the price of the civil servants’’ quarters sold in the early days but the policy of charging land premium was applied to these buildings later. Due to the exorbitant land costs, the chances of successfully redeveloping these buildings were slim.

107. Mr MA Hei-pang made various comments, with the main points as follows: (i) he stated that since the pilot scheme was put forward by the Authority in 2018, no further announcement of relevant news was made. Residents affected by the pilot scheme were worried about their future and thus, he requested the Authority to explain the progress of the pilot scheme as soon as possible; and (ii) he requested for a full consultation of residents in the district before any measures were implemented.

108. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu enquired whether the Authority legal research on land leases of different types of civil servants' quarters was conducted.

109. Mr Pius YUM hoped that URA could inform the public about the commencement date of the redevelopment project.

110. Mr Mike KWAN, General Manager (Planning and Design) of URA gave a response, with the main points as follows:

(i) URA would follow the proposal put forward in the 2018 Policy Address and first choose buildings that were aged, of a lower density and with the plot ratio not fully utilised for redevelopment. The Authority would also give priorities to those that were in the vicinity of public housing estates and their ancillary facilities in a bid to increase housing supply.

(ii) URA had picked two groups of suitable CBS buildings in 2019, which comprised of over 30 blocks in total.

(iii) The redevelopment work was originally scheduled at the beginning of this year. However, considering that the pandemic of COVID-19 remained severe and conducting freezing survey might worsen the spread of the virus in the community, URA decided to postpone the commencement of the redevelopment projects. Besides, time was required to adjust the regular practices for acquiring basic information of residents from the freezing survey first and obtaining other information such as economic characteristics, housing preferences and social impact assessments through other channels.

(iv) URA was going to organise a large-scale community talk after the commencement of the project so as to explain the planning procedures and the compensation criteria to residents. In view of the pandemic, the talk would be delivered in the form of online video.

(v) It would take time for URA to process the details of the scheme. However, details concerned must be kept confidential before the scheme was finalised. URA would inform the public about the updates when available.

111. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for Solving the Problem of Confusion Caused by the Title Deed for Old Buildings in Kowloon City (Classed As HOUSE) in Order to Release More Land for Redevelopment Sooner (Paper No. 19/20)

112. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written replies submitted by departments prior to the meeting, i.e. Documents No. 8 and 9 tabled.

113. Mr NG Po-keung presented the Paper. He requested the Department to exercise discretion in handling matters related to regrant premium and provide assistance in solving the problem of Government leases containing a HOUSE restriction, in a bid to expedite the progress of redevelopment in the district.

114. Mr HO Hin-ming asked whether the Department could take the initiative to modify the land leases concerned.

115. Ms Angel NG, Senior Estate Surveyor / Wong Tai Sin (District Lands Office, Kowloon East) of LandsD, responded with the main points as follows:

(i) Land lease was a contract signed by the Government, through LandsD, in the capacity of a landlord, with a lessor (commonly known as “land owner”) for the use of a piece of land. Land lease was a form a legal contract. Once a land lease was signed and executed, the terms therein could not be modified without the consent of the contracting parties (i.e. the Government and the lessor). Contracting parties had the responsibility and obligation to respect the spirit of the contract and comply with the terms of the land lease.

(ii) In response to the enquiry of the number of buildings in Lung Shing constituency which were classed as HOUSE in the lease terms, she pointed out that as there was a large number of private lots in the constituency, substantial human resources were required to conduct such a survey. In view that there was a vast amount of land administration work to deal with by the staff, the Department did not have capacity to compile and provide the relevant statistics at this stage.

(iii) LandsD had issued Practice Note (P.N.) No. 3/2000 in 2000 to help the industry prepare development plans in compliance with land leases when coming across the lease terms with the restriction of “ONE HOUSE”. According to the Practice Note, “ONE HOUSE” must have a main entrance and a secondary entrance under normal circumstances and therefore, it did not necessarily refer to a detached house. Even if the number of entrances of a multi-storey building complied with the relevant regulations, it might not be regarded as breaching the term of “ONE HOUSE”. As lease terms and situations varied from one case to another, it was necessary to consider each case on its own merits. In addition, the Department had issued P.N. No. 3/2000A as a supplement of P.N. No. 3/2000 in view of the judgement handed down by the Court of Final Appeal about a land lease containing the restriction of “ONE HOUSE” in 2013, so as to provide general guidelines to the industry for drawing up building plans.

(iv) The Department did not withhold the redevelopment projects of land lease containing a “HOUSE” restriction. Under the current land administration policy, land owners could apply to LandsD for modifying the current lease conditions for a more extensive or a different type of development in accordance with the prevailing town planning requirements, so as to optimise the utilisation of land resources. If the lease modification was granted by the Government, LandsD would work in accordance with an established and well-tried mechanism and procedures to charge a land premium equivalent to the difference in land values between the development permitted under the existing lease conditions and that permitted under the new lease terms (commonly known as regrant premium). LandsD would ensure that the amount was reasonably assessed on the basis of full market value so that it would comply with the public interest.

116. Mr Mike KWAN of URA made a response, with the main points as follows:

(i) The matter of land leases fell within the purview LandsD, and thus, URA would not give any comments. 39

(ii) URA had adopted the “planning first, conducting works later” policy direction and commenced development study in Lung Tong District. The Authority would first study the problem in the district and map out improvement measures, and then consider if it was feasible to bring benefits to the community by restructuring and replanning. URA would initiate viable options and push ahead the redevelopment plan.

(iii) The regrant premium for land lease modification by URA was waived by the Government and thus, URA did not have to pay the premium if the redevelopment project involved a land lease containing a HOUSE restriction.

(iv) URA welcomed Members’ suggestions on the redevelopment of Lung Tong District, such as the elements URA should add or remove.

117. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu advised to expedite the redevelopment work in the area of 5 Streets and 13 Streets in To Kwa Wan and carry out the work in a larger scale.

118. Ms YAN Sin-wah of URA thanked Mr YEUNG Chun-yu for his opinions. She hoped Members could understand that URA was unable to announce any details before the gazettal as the Department had to take into account the actual operation and the confidentiality issue.

119. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Concern about the Development of the Lands in Central and Southern Kai Tak (Paper No. 20/20)

120. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written replies submitted by departments prior to the meeting, i.e. Documents No. 10, 11, 12 and 34 tabled.

121. Mr CHEUNG King-fan presented the Paper, stating that the residents in the district objected to the proposal of allocating Site 1B3 to house temporary offices 40 and also demanded to halt the allocation of Site 1J3 for other temporary uses.

122. Ms Alisa TSE of BD gave a reply, with the main points as follows:

(i) As works contractors of the Government were required to carry out works for buildings in urban area, such as urgent repair works, dangerous structure removal works or temporary stabilisation works, it was essential to set up short term warehouses in urban areas for the storage of parts and machineries.

(ii) As the temporary site at Wai Lok Street in Kowloon Bay had to be returned to the Drainage Services Department to conduct works, BD had therefore applied for the use of temporary site 1J3 as a substitute of the old site in 2018. The relevant government departments and the Task Force on Kai Tak Harbourfront Development were already consulted.

123. Mr MAK Chung-hang, Senior Town Planner / Kowloon 2 of Planning Department (PlanD) replied that he would not raise objection as long as the allocation concerned did not affect the construction of proposed facilities at the site in the long term.

124. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for an Early Study and Planning about Constructing a Multi-storey Car Park and a Community Hall and Other Facilities at Lee Kee Memorial Dispensary and Kowloon City Market (Paper No. 21/20)

125. The Chairman invited Members to refer to the written reply submitted by DEVB prior to the meeting, i.e. Document No. 13 tabled.

126. Mr LAM Tak-shing introduced the Paper. He requested DEVB to lead and coordinate different departments in planning and studying the plan of expanding of Lee Kee Memorial Dispensary and Kowloon City Market. He also asked the Bureau to incorporate facilities like parking lots and community halls into the project.

127. Mr HO Hin-ming criticised DEVB for being irresponsible as they had proposed to redevelop the locations mentioned above eight years ago, yet they stated in the written reply that “if sites like Kowloon City Municipal Services Building and Carpenter Road Park were redeveloped in the future, the Bureau would cooperate with relevant departments”.

128. Mr MAK Chung-hang of PlanD responded that as the aforementioned locations were used to provide municipal and healthcare services at the moment, the Bureau would have to consider the impact of the plan on the existing services and would take time to make arrangements when the relevant departments decided to carry out redevelopment and relocation.

129. Mr HO Hin-ming asked the Secretariat to issue a letter to DEVB, requesting the details of the progress schedule and asking the Bureau to commence planning studies for the redevelopment plan.

130. After consulting Members, the Chairman instructed the Secretariat to issue a letter to DEVB to express Members’ opinions and announced that the discussion of this item was over.

(Post-meeting note: After the minutes of this meeting were endorsed, the Secretariat issued a letter to DEVB and attached the relevant extracts from the minutes to express Members’ opinions.)

Call for Departments to Strictly Enforce the Law to Curb Illegal Paint Spraying in Vehicle Repair Workshops (Paper No. 22/20)

131. The Chairman invited Members to peruse the written replies given by various departments before the meeting, namely Documents No. 16, 17, 23 and 33 tabled.

132. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu presented the Paper and said that the frequent paint spraying work at garages seriously affected the health and daily life of residents, and thus he requested different departments to help curb the work. He also went on to express the following opinions: (i) residents should be advised to video the process of paint spraying and then report to the relevant department to facilitate law enforcement; and (ii) he pointed out that when the garages carried out the work, they usually closed 42 doors and thus, he requested the relevant departments to adjust the way of inspection.

133. Mr Pius YUM enquired if the Fire Services Department (FSD) would inspect garages on a regular basis.

134. Dr KWONG Po-yin asked if residents inhaled some unknown gas and felt sick, whether or not FSD would help identify the source of the gas and prepare evidence to facilitate the prosecution by EPD.

135. Mr CHAN Fu-shan, Divisional Commander (Kowloon Central) of FSD, in reply, made the following main points:

(i) All the dangerous goods commonly found in garages were classified as dangerous substances under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance and its subsidiary legislations, and the classification and the statutory exempt quantity of such substances were elaborated in detail in the Ordinance. Anyone who stored or conveyed dangerous goods in excess of the statutory exempt quantity stated in the Ordinance without holding a valid dangerous goods licence might have contravened Section 6 of the Ordinance and would be liable to a fine of HK$25,000 and an imprisonment for 6 months upon conviction.

(ii) The Department could only take enforcement action against excessive storage of dangerous goods in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Ordinance, and thus, no action could be taken in regard to any paint spraying process videoed by residents. In case the Department discovered the relevant process during inspection, the case would be referred to other departments for follow-up actions.

(iii) In case the Department received any report about unknown gas causing discomfort to residents, and the Department found that the gas originated from a garage, the case would be referred to other departments for follow-up actions and special inspection would be arranged to check if the garage in question stored dangerous goods in excess of the statutory exempt quantity.

136. Mr LEUNG Lok-chuen, Senior Divisional Occupational Safety Officer 43

(2)(Operations Division)(Kowloon Region) of Labour Department, in reply, made the following main points:

(i) The Labour Department (LD) was responsible for the enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and their subsidiary legislations so as to guarantee the occupational safety and health of employees at work.

(ii) The paint spraying process which affected public safety and health as mentioned above fell outside the purview of LD. If the Department discovered such cases during inspection, referral would be made to the relevant department for follow-up actions.

(iii) The Department once sent staff to the garage operating at 5 Ming Lun Street for inspection. According to the information collected, the premises were not used as work places as specified in the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance or industrial undertakings in the Factory and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance. During the inspection, no employees were found working at the premises, and thus the requirements for reporting the establishment of workshops spelt out in the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance and enforced by LD were not applicable.

137. Mr WONG Ping-kuen, Assistant Divisional Officer (Dangerous Goods) 1 of FSD, replied with the following main points:

(i) LD would conduct inspection based on the videos from residents about the suspected storage of dangerous goods in excess of the exempted quantity. However, the videos would only be regarded as evidence, and the Department would not take enforcement action simply based on the videos.

(ii) Since 2015, the Department had adopted a risk-based approach to inspect garages in Hong Kong, and had executed 894 inspections at 399 garages in Kowloon City District in the past 3 years.

(iii) The inspection team of the Department would also conduct 44

inspections at night.

138. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Strong Request for Government Intervention to Ask Liquefied Petroleum Gas Suppliers to Cancel and Refund the Monthly Maintenance Fee (Paper No. 23/20)

139. The Chairman invited Members to peruse the written replies given by various departments before the meeting, namely Documents No.29 and 30 tabled.

140. Mr YANG Wing-kit presented the Paper and stated that owing to the drop in the number of households using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), supplier companies needed to charge maintenance fees in order to achieve a fiscal balance. He was worried that if the supplier companies closed down, some households might have to give up using LPG, so he asked the Government to intervene and advised HKHS to consider a rent reduction to lower the operation cost of the supplier companies.

141. Mr Horace CHAN, Senior Engineer / Gas Standards 1 of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Services Department, in response, said that as the Department was only responsible for enforcing the Gas Safety Ordinance and regulating issues related to gas safety while the level of maintenance costs was a matter of commercial operation, the Department was unable to offer advice.

142. Ms June LEE of Hong Kong Housing Society, in reply, gave the following main points:

(i) The LPG system used by the households in Lok Man Sun Chuen was designed and installed by ExxonMobil Hong Kong Ltd. while the maintenance and repairs services were provided by Chong Hing Co. Ltd.

(ii) Starting from 1 April 2020, Chong Hing Co. Ltd. launched a monthly maintenance charge plan charging each household HK$9 per month, providing them with services including the first annual appointment for check-up / repair of stoves (excluding the cost of parts), regular safety inspections, and free replacement of soft 45

rubber pipes of cooking stoves and other services.

(iii) All along, a similar monthly maintenance charge plan was offered by the Hong Kong and China Gas Co. Ltd. and in other rental housing estates under HKHS, and the implementation of the plan was widely accepted by the industry. In view of this, he opined that there was nothing inappropriate about the launching of the plan by Chong Hing Co. Ltd.

(iv) In regard to the rental policy of HKHS, the market rent would be charged, yet the views of Mr YANG Wing-kit would be taken into account for rent adjustment in the future.

143. Mr YANG Wing-kit added that HKHS should try to discuss the issue directly with the petroleum supplier.

144. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Request for the Provision of Free Legal Advice Service on the Deed of Mutual Covenant and Building Management of Private Housing Estates (Paper No. 24/20)

145. The Chairman invited Members to peruse the written replies given by the department concerned before the meeting, namely Document No. 15 tabled.

146. Dr KWAN Ka-lun presented the Paper and requested for the provision of free legal support services regarding the deed of mutual covenant and building management for owners of private housing estates.

147. Dr KWONG Po-yin asked whether the Department could provide assistance to small property owners of buildings which were unable to form an owners' corporation or required to attend court due to problems related to the deed of mutual covenant and building management.

148. Ms Sandy MAK, Senior Liaison Officer (Building Management), in reply, gave the following main points:

(i) The Government had always encouraged and assisted owners to set up suitable resident organisations and provided them with various support services, including legal support services, with a view to assisting them to fulfil the responsibilities of managing their own buildings.

(ii) The Home Affairs Department (HAD) worked in collaboration with the Law Society of Hong Kong to launch free Legal Advice Service on Building Management to arrange voluntary lawyers to meet with applicants such as body corporates, owners' corporations, mutual aid committees and property owners by appointment and provide free oral legal advice on building management.

(iii) HAD worked in collaboration with the Law Society of Hong Kong to launch a three-year pilot scheme, namely Free Outreach Legal Advice Service on Building Management, in September 2019. Under the scheme, lawyers with experience in handling building management matters would be assigned to serve the successful body corporate applicants by providing free legal services for up to six hours, including attending the pre-meetings of owners corporation meetings, reading the information related to the meetings as submitted by owners’ corporations, attending the owners corporation meetings to provide legal opinions so as to ensure the smooth progress of meetings.

(iv) HAD also launched the Building Management Dispute Resolution Service, established Panel of Advisors on Building Management Disputes and Free Mediation Service Scheme for Building Management to help resolve complex building management matters so as to help settle disputes.

(v) Mandatory provisions were spelt out in the Building Management Ordinance to supplement the deeds of mutual covenant to guarantee the rights of small property owners.

149. The Chairman stated that as no other opinions were raised by Members, the discussion of this item was over.

Concern about the Level of Electromagnetic Radiation from the Transmission Device on the Rooftop of Ma Tau Kok Road Public Toilet (Paper No. 25/20)

150. The Chairman invited Members to read the written replies given by the departments concerned before the meeting, namely Documents No. 18 and 19.

151. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu introduced the Paper and asked about the measurement results of the electromagnetic radiation level of the transmission device on the uppermost floor of Ma Tau Kok Road public toilet, and whether feasible measures for lowering the radiation level were identified. He also raised the following opinions: (i) he enquired whether the owners' corporations of the buildings in the vicinity and Members of the constituency concerned would be consulted before the installation of the base station; and (ii) if the Bureau had no plan to consult the residents, compensation should be offered to them.

152. Mr HO Hin-ming deemed that the top floor of public toilets was under the jurisdiction of the Government, and therefore he asked about the criteria for allowing private organisations to install transmission stations and other facilities.

153. Mr MA Hei-pang’s views were summarised as follows: (i) he enquiried whether the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) would supervise the installation of base stations in private properties; (ii) as there were different international standards for non-ionizing radiation levels, he asked if the Office would adopt more stringent standards; (iii) OFCA should give an account of the data measured on the site; and (iv) OFCA would propose targeted measures and monitoring plans to promote the popularisation of 5G networks or not.

154. The Chairman hoped to obtain the information about the guidelines for different departments to consider the installation of base stations, and he suggested that the procedure of consulting neighborhood residents when reviewing the applications in the future should be introduced. He also agreed to adopt stricter standards of radiation safety.

155. Mr Pius YUM’s views were summarised as follows: (i) he enquired whether the Bureau had consulted residents and Members of the constituency concerned before setting up this base station; (ii) he asked if it was a fact that the level of 48 non-ionizing radiation at base stations was relatively low when compared with that of the direction towards which the signal was transmitted from the base station. He stressed again the importance of consulting residents in the vicinity; and (iii) it was pointed out that KCDO had collected opinions of residents in the neighbourhood on the issue of adding spotlights, so he suggested that OFCA adopt the practice.

156. Mr LEE Hin-long asked if the Bureau would provide assistance to the residents who felt worried about their health being affected by a base station installed at private places. He also pointed out that if the level of radiation at base stations met the safety standards, OFCA should make efforts to ease their worries.

157. Mr Eric FUNG, Senior Telecommunication Engineer (Spectrum Planning) 2 of the Office of the Communications Authority, in reply, made the following main points:

(i) The radio frequency radiation generated during the operation of the base station was non-ionizing radiation. According to the professional advice of the Department of Health (DH), the energy produced by non-ionizing radiation was not high enough to change the chemical properties of substances, nor could it break the chemical chain in human body and cause harm. Therefore, its impact differed a lot from ionizing radiation such as X-ray and nuclear radiation. In addition, the intensity of non-ionizing radiation also diminished rapidly with an increase in distance.

(ii) In accordance with the provisions about telecommunication licences, mobile network operators were required to submit applications to OFCA before using base stations. As the executive arm of the Telecommunications Authority, OFCA would review the level of radiation at base stations and conduct a technical assessment of the total radiation level at base stations to ensure that the total radiation level complied with the safety standards. The operator must also submit a measurement report within one month after base stations were put into use to ensure that these base stations complied with the radiation safety standards.

(iii) OFCA conducted field inspections in the areas around Ma Tau Kok Road Public Toilet and flats in the building at No. 1 Lung To Street 49

nearby in early May 2020. The results showed that the non-ionizing radiation level detected was far below the international non-ionizing radiation limit recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. And the measurement result of the flats in the building at Lung To Street was far below the non-ionizing radiation limit set. Since the measurement results complied with the safety standards, there was no need to follow up the situation of the base station.

(iv) No matter whether the base stations were located at private places or in government properties, OFCA adopted the same monitoring procedures including carrying out random field inspections to the base stations approved for use every year to gauge the radiation level there.

(v) If members of the public had doubts about the radiation generated by base stations near their homes, they could dial 2961 6648 for enquiries. OFCA would then arrange field surveys at their residences and explain the results of measurement.

(vi) After consulting DH, OFCA adopted the non-ionizing radiation limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection International Committee as radiation safety standards. The Committee was an independent science committee and the limits prescribed by it was approved by the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition, WHO found that there was no sufficient evidence indicating that human exposure to non-ionizing radiation levels below this limit would create a health impact. OFCA would continue to keep in touch with DH in respect of the non-ionizing radiation safety standards and remain updated with the latest information on radiation safety released by WHO and non-ionizing radiation protection committees.

(vii) The electromagnetic radiation generated by 5G base stations and the existing base stations (including 2G, 3G and 4G base stations) was non-ionizing radiation. Hence, in the matter of approval and supervision over all base stations, the same non-ionizing radiation safety standards and procedures would be adopted. 50

158. Mr Wilson LEE, Senior Telecommunication Engineer (Regulatory 12) of the Office of the Communications Authority, in reply, made the following main points:

(i) Mobile communication service was an important public service as it was closely related to people's daily life. The Government, thus, provided venues for mobile network operators to set up radio base stations in a bid to help them build a complete mobile network to meet public demand for mobile communication services.

(ii) When mobile network operators planned to install base stations in government properties, they were required to submit applications to relevant government departments in accordance with the established procedures, including the government departments which had to manage related venues (FEHD in this case, LandsD, Planning Department, ASD, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department and OFCA, etc.). And not until the department concerned had made a review on its own scope and showed approval or no objection would the Government Property Agency (GPA) sign a lease with the operator to allow the setting up of base stations and provision of mobile communication service.

(iii) When examining this application, OFCA considered that the installation of a base station could improve the network coverage in the vicinity of Ma Tau Kok Road Public Toilet, enabling the public to use mobile communication service at any time to gain convenient access to matters related to daily life, work or study. Thus, OFCA did not object to the application.

159. Mr LAM Ming-wai, District Environment Hygiene Superintendent of FEHD, replied that when studying an application for setting up a base station, the Agency would mainly consider whether the base station would affect the daily operation of the venues managed by the department concerned.

160. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu recommended that the Bureau should consider the relevant issues more from the perspective of residents, and consult nearby residents when studying the applications in the future. 51

161. To conclude, the Chairman made a summary and asked the Bureau to seriously study the opinions of nearby residents when reviewing the applications in the future.

Motion: Objection to Demarcate any Land Plots in Areas Designated As Residential (Group A) for the Provision of Columbaria (Paper No. 26/20)

162. The Chairman stated that the motion was raised by Mr Pius YUM, and was seconded by Mr Ma Hei-pang. The Chairman declared the motion valid. He also asked Members to read the written reply, i.e. Document No. 14 tabled, before the meeting.

163. Mr Pius YUM introduced the document and put forward a motion: Objection to Demarcate any Land Plots in Areas Designated As Residential (Group A) for the Provision of Columbaria.

164. The Chairman asked if any member would like to propose amendments to the motion.

165. The Chairman then invited the members in attendance to vote on the motion by show of hands on a named basis, and the results were as follows:

Support : 16 votes (Dr KWONG Po-yin, Mr HO Hin-ming , Mr MA Hei-pang, Dr KWAN Ka-lun, Mr YEUNG Chun-yu, Mr TSANG Kin-chiu, Mr SIU Leong-sing, Miss Jakki MAK, Mr Joshua FUNG, Mr Pius YUM, Mr LAM Tak-shing, Mr KWOK Tin-lap, Mr LEE Hin-long, Miss CHAU Hei-man, Mr WONG Wing-kit and Mr LAI Kwong-wai) Objection : 0 vote Abstention : 0 vote

166. The Chairman announced that the motion was passed.

Motion: Establishment of the Urban Renewal Concern Group (Paper No. 27/20)

167. The Chairman said that the motion was raised by Mr MA Hei-pang and seconded by Miss Jakki MAK. The Chairman announced that the motion was valid.

168. Mr MA Hei-pang presented the Paper and put forward the motion: Establishment of the Urban Renewal Concern Group.

169. The Chairman asked Members if any of them would like to move amendments to the motion.

170. Mr HO Hin-ming suggested an amendment, that is, to revise the name of the working group to “Working Group on Concern over the Planning and Redevelopment in Kowloon City District”.

171. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu enquired if the terms of reference of the working group could be revised in the future.

172. Mr David CHIU, the Secretary of HDPC, replied that, the terms of reference of this working group were exactly the terms of reference mentioned in the motion. In case that any member suggested to revise the relevant terms of reference, it must be discussed in the meeting of this committee.

173. The Chairman stated that the amendment motion was put forward by Mr. HO Hin-ming and was seconded by Mr LAM Tak-shing. The Chairman declared that the amended motion was valid. In accordance with Order No.21 of the Standing Orders, the amendment to the motion must first be approved by the District Council, and he asked Members to discuss if the amended motion was passed.

174. Mr Pius YUM disagreed to the addition of “Planning and” to the name of the Working Group and so he objected to the motion.

175. Mr LEE Hin-long asked Mr Ho Hin-ming to explain the reasons for suggesting the amendment.

176. Mr HO Hin-ming said that the working group should clearly state that its 53

terms of reference only included redevelopment strategies and planning matters in Kowloon City District, and therefore, he proposed such an amendment.

177. Mr LEE Hin-long commented that the suggested amendment implied that a comparison between the redevelopment work in Kowloon City District and other districts was not allowed and thus, he opposed to the amendment. He also asked the Assistant District Officer (Kowloon City) to explain whether the functions covered in the original motion tallied with the ones prescribed by Section 61 of the District Councils Ordinance.

178. Mr YEUNG Chun-yu opined that the laws and compensation mechanisms related to reconstruction were standard in Hong Kong and hence, he objected to the relevant amendments.

179. Mr Ma Hei-pang added that the terms of reference of the working group had already mentioned “in the District", so the relevant amendment was considered unnecessary.

180. Ms Alison TSE, Assistant District Officer (Kowloon City), responded that the terms of reference stated in the original motion indicated that the working group would focus on the redevelopment strategies and planning issues in Kowloon City District, and thus she did not object to the original motion.

181. The Chairman invited the members in attendance to vote on the amended motion moved by Mr HO Hin-ming by show of hands on a named basis, and the results were as follows:

Support : 2 votes (Mr HO Hin-ming and Mr LAM Tak-shing) Objection : 13 votes (Dr KWONG Po-yin, Mr MA Hei-pang, Dr KWAN Ka-lun, Mr YEUNG Chun-yu, Mr TSANG Kin-chiu, Mr SIU Leong-sing, Miss Jakki MAK, Mr Joshua FUNG, Mr Pius YUM, Mr KWOK Tin-lap, Mr LEE Hin-long, Miss CHAU Hei-man, Mr WONG Wing-kit and Mr LAI Kwong-wai) Abstention : 1 vote (Mr LAI Kwong-wai)

182. The Chairman announced that the amended motion moved by Mr HO Hin-ming was not passed.

183. The Chairman invited the members in attendance to vote on the motion by show of hands on a named basis, and the results were as follows:

Support : 14 votes (Dr KWONG Po-yin, Mr MA Hei-pang, Dr KWAN Ka-lun, Mr YEUNG Chun-yu, Mr TSANG Kin-chiu, Mr SIU Leong-sing, Miss Jakki MAK, Mr Joshua FUNG, Mr Pius YUM, Mr KWOK Tin-lap, Mr LEE Hin-long, Miss CHAU Hei-man, Mr WONG Wing-kit and Mr LAI Kwong-wai) Objection : 0 vote Abstention : 2 votes (Mr HO Hin-ming and Mr LAM Tak-shing)

184. The Chairman announced that the original motion was passed.

Date of Next Meeting

185. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held on 23 June 2020 and the closing date for submission of papers would be 8 June 2020. He then announced the adjournment of meeting at 8:20 p.m.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed on June 2020.

The Chairman The Secretary

KCDC Secretariat June 2020