(Revised) Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of Council in 2020

Date: 5 May 2020 (Tuesday) Time: 9:30 a.m. to 8:10 p.m. Venue: Conference Room,

Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal Chairman Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting

Vice-chairman Mr. LAU Yung-wai Beginning of the meeting 6:21 p.m.

Members Mr. AU Chun-ho 9:49 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. AU Chun-wah Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. CHAN Chun-chit, Richard Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Ms. CHAN Wai-ka, Olive Beginning of the meeting 6:21 p.m. Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai 9:35 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. HO Wai-lam 9:36 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. LAM Ming-yat, Nick 9:35 a.m. End of the meeting Mr. LAM Yick-kuen Beginning of the meeting 1:30 p.m. Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting 1:30 p.m. Mr. LIN Kok-cheung, Dalu Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. MAN Nim-chi Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. MO Ka-chun, Patrick Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. SO Tat-leung Beginning of the meeting 6:22 p.m. Mr. TAM Yi-pui Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WONG Siu-kin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. WU Yiu-cheong Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YAM Kai-bong Beginning of the meeting 6:22 p.m. Mr. YIU Kwan-ho Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang 9:40 a.m. End of the meeting

- 2 -

Secretary Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

In Attendance

Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice, JP District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Miss LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany Assistant District Officer (Tai Po), Home Affairs Department Mr. LEE Kwok-chung District Commander (Tai Po), Hong Kong Police Force Mr. WONG Yue-to, Otto Police Community Relations Officer (Tai Po District), Hong Kong Police Force Mr. YAM Mun-ho District Social Welfare Officer (Tai Po/North), Social Welfare Department Ms. CHU Ha-fan, Jessica District Planning Officer/Sha Tin, Tai Po and North, Planning Department Mr. KWOK Kin-man, Alex District Lands Officer/Tai Po (District Land Office, Tai Po), Lands Department Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen Administrative Assistant/Lands (District Lands Office, Tai Po), Lands Department Ms. MAK Ka-ki, Maggie Chief Engineer (Atg.), N3, Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr. LI Kwok-keung, Vincent Senior Engineer / 11 (North), Civil Engineering and Development Department Mr. KWONG Ka-yin Chief Transport Officer/New Territories East, Transport Department Ms. WONG Mei-yin Chief School Development Officer (Tai Po), Education Bureau Mr. KWOK Chun-sum District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tai Po), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Mr. LAW Shau-mong Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing & Pest Control) 2, Tai Po, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Ms. LIU Pui-wah, Stella District Leisure Manger (Tai Po), Leisure and Cultural Services Department Ms. CHEUNG Kwai-yan Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Tai Po, Leisure and Cultural Services Department Mr. CHAN Kai-lam, Allan Chief Manger/Management (Tai Po, North and Shatin), Housing Department

Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin Senior Housing Manger/Tai Po, North and Shatin 2, Housing

- 3 -

Department Ms. LEE Ching-yee, Patty Senior Liaison Officer(1), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. WONG Yu-hang, Anita Senior Liaison Officer(2), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department Ms. LEE Ho-yee, Trazy Executive Officer I (District Council), Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department Mr. SO Ka-yu, Tel Executive Officer I (District Council) designate, Tai Po District Office, Home Affairs Department

Announcements

The Chairman welcomed Members and departmental representatives to the meeting and made the following announcements:

(i) Mr. KWOK Chun-sum, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tai Po) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) replaced Mr. LAI Siu-kwong, who had transferred out, to attend TPDC meetings from now on and was accompanied by Mr. LAW Shau-mong, Senior Health Inspector (Tai Po) to attend this meeting. (ii) Ms. MAK Ka-ki, Maggie, Chief Engineer (Atg.) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department(“CEDD”) replaced Mr. CHUNG Wing-hong, John, who had transferred out, to attend TPDC meetings from now on and was accompanied by Senior Engineer Mr. LI Kwok-keung, Vincent to attend this meeting. (iii) Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin, Senior Housing Manger/Tai Po, North and Shatin of the Housing Department (“HD”), Mr. WONG Yue-to, Otto, Police Community Relations Officer (Tai Po District) of Hong Kong Police Force (“HKPF”), Ms. CHEUNG Kwai-yan, Deputy District Leisure Manager (District Support) Tai Po of Leisure and Cultural Services Department (“LCSD”) and Mr. SO Ka-yu, Tel, Executive Officer I (District Council) designate, Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) of Home Affairs Department attended this meeting.

I. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the TPDC in 2020 on 7 January 2020 (TPDC Paper No. 17/2020)

2. Neither had the Secretariat received any proposed amendments prior to the meeting, nor did participants propose any amendments to the captioned minutes at this meeting. The said

- 4 -

minutes were confirmed without amendment.

II. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of the TPDC on 21 January 2020 (TPDC Paper No. 18/2020)

3. Neither had the Secretariat received any proposed amendments prior to the meeting, nor did participants propose any amendments to the captioned minutes at this meeting. The said minutes were confirmed without amendment.

III. Request to follow up on and explain problems of water supply and ageing of water pipes in Tai Po District (TPDC Paper No. 16/2020)

4. The Chairman welcomed Ms. WONG Dik-chi, Engineer/NTE (Distribution 4) and Mr. TUNG Ching-ho, Engineer/NTE (Customer Service) of the Water Supplies Department (“WSD”) to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item.

5. Mr. YIU Yeuk-sang introduced Paper No. 16/2020.

6. Ms. WONG Dik-chi responded as follows:

(i) The “Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains” which WSD had launched in 2000 had already completed and the “Water Main Asset Management Programme” was being implemented currently. Since old water mains (such as those which had been in use for 30-40 years) did not necessarily have problems, while the service life of water mains was just one of the factors affecting the normal operation of water mains. Hence, “Water Main Asset Management Programme” would conduct risk assessments on water mains based on materials, useful life, burst and leakage records and so on of the mains and arrange for replacement and improvement of mains. Relevant programmes would be carried out on an on-going basis with a view to optimising the water supply network territory wide. WSD understood that when replacing and rehabilitating water mains, traffic, shops and pedestrians would be affected to a certain extent, and the impact was particularly serious during peak hours and traffic congestions. She therefore hoped that member of the public would have understanding for that. Risk assessments were conducted in the hope that a balance could be struck between undertaking of works and priority for replacement of water mains, so as to minimise the impact on the public. In addition, WSD also conducted regular leak detection

- 5 -

work and installed leak noise loggers at some water mains to continuously monitor the conditions of mains such that once slight leakage occurred, the mains could be repaired as soon as possible to avoid bursts. (ii) As regards the water main burst incidents in Tai Po District during the past few months, WSD had immediately carried out emergency repairs for relevant government water mains and kept following up with Mr. Nick LAM on two incidents on Wan Tau Street. Replacement of some water mains along Wan Tau Street had already completed and the remaining works included the replacement of other mains and water mains connection works, which would progressively complete in phases starting from end of 2021. (iii) WSD had a 24-hour emergency hotline. Upon receipt of calls, emergency hotline staff would immediately notify personnel on duty in the district concerned to follow up, which was supposed to be the speediest and most direct way. Should Members fail to reach the emergency hotline because it was unanswered or busy, they were welcome to contact her any time for follow up. She might give Members in need her own contact details after the meeting for further communication and liaison too.

7. Mr. TUNG Ching-ho explained with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation (see Annex) flushing water (salt water) pipe burst incidents in Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate and the highlights were as follows:

(i) Pipes for inside service of Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate had been constructed by HD or its contractors, which were no different from private water pipes of other private housing estates. Generally speaking, WSD repaired primarily water mains on the streets and was not responsible for repairing private water pipes in private housing estates. WSD had received a report on 15 January about leakage of a flushing water (salt water) pipe of 150 mm diameter in the pipes for inside service of Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate. WSD staff had on 16 January contacted the management companies of Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate (i.e., Synergis Management Services Limited and Top Property Services Co. Ltd.) and held a meeting on the same day with DC Members, representatives of Lands Department (“LandsD”), HD and Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) to discuss matters concerned. WSD representatives had already communicated with relevant management companies at the meeting to check if the latter understood that they were responsible for repairing relevant pipes. The management companies were aware of the said responsibility. However, the question which currently remained to be resolved was that upon completion of the repairs, how the costs should be apportioned.

- 6 -

(ii) WSD was also responsible for repairing fresh water mains and flushing water mains on the streets, catchment areas and water treatment works, excluding pipes in private housing estates, public rental housing and Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) housing estates. Besides, WSD had contacted relevant management companies (i.e. registered agents) before this meeting which had already received HD’s letters elaborating on their responsibilities. (iii) Intake of Chung Nga Court and Fu Heng Estate had taken place in 1990 and 1991 respectively, i.e. almost 30 years ago. The management companies concerned also understood that water pipes in the housing estates had been in use for quite some time and required regular inspection and servicing. WSD could provide technical support when necessary.

8. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) Fu Heng Estate was a housing estate under the Tenants Purchase Scheme (“TPS”) and had formed its owners’ corporation (“OC”). The OC and the management company it had appointed (i.e. Top Property Services Co. Ltd.) were responsible for the management of the estate. Chung Nga Court was a private housing estate and its OC and the management company the OC had appointed (i.e. Synergis Management Services Limited) were responsible for the management of the estate. Rights and obligations regarding maintenance of salt water pipes were clearly stated. HD had already explained to relevant DC Members and management companies clearly at the meeting WSD had mentioned just now and via other channels, and had replied in writing as well. (ii) The maintenance and repair responsibilities of pipes and facilities of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court had been clearly stipulated in accordance with the land leases of relevant estates. Clause No. 5.11(a) of the lease of Fu Heng Estate stipulated that the lessees of the lot (i.e. all property owners of Fu Heng Estate) were required to allow adjoining lot (including Chung Nga Court) to use facilities such as pipes and mains of Fu Heng Estate to transmit and provide utility and other services (such as water, electricity, gas and so on) to and from the aforementioned land of the adjoining lot. Clause No. 5.11(b) stipulated that there was reserved unto the lessees, tenants and so on of adjoining land the right of free ingress, egress and regress to and from Fu Heng Estate for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining, repairing and renewing facilities such as pipes and mains referred to in Clause No. 5.11(a). However, the lessees, tenants and so on of adjoining land would have to restore and reinstate at their costs damages done to Fu Heng Estate arising from exercising such rights. In addition, Clause No. 5.11(c) also stated that property owners of Fu Heng Estate were responsible for the repair, maintenance and renovation

- 7 -

of the aforementioned facilities such as pipes and mains, of which relevant costs were to be borne by property owners of Fu Heng Estate. Hence, as regards the pipe leakage incident on the lot of Fu Heng Estate on 15 January 2020, it was the responsibility of all property owners of Fu Heng Estate to maintain and repair pipes and facilities. That said, the OC of Fu Heng Estate and the management company it had appointed should be responsible for coordination and maintenance. (iii) According to the terms of Fu Heng Estate’s Deed of Mutual Covenant (“DMC”), the OC of Fu Heng Estate and the management company it had appointed were responsible for the maintenance, repair and coordination of facilities in the common areas of the estate. Fu Heng Estate’s DMC covered part of the underground pipes such as pipes and drainage channels laid under the roads of Hong Kong Housing Authority (“HA”). Should the services provided be intended for the common use and benefit of the Estate as a whole and not just any particular part thereof, such were common areas and facilities of which maintenance and repairs should be the responsibility of the OC of Fu Heng Estate and the management company it had appointed. The aforementioned terms had been clearly stipulated in the Government lease and the DMC when the land was sold and relevant terms had been repeatedly explained to stakeholders concerned during communications. As such, stakeholders should be clear about relevant situation. (iv) As far as public rental housing (“PRH”) tenants and owners of non-residential facilities of Fu Heng Estate were concerned, HA would apportion the management and maintenance costs of relevant common facilities in accordance with the requirements of the DMC and all management shares which had been stipulated. Should there be any unexpected incidents regarding routine management, DC Members could contact relevant management companies, i.e. Top Property Services Co. Ltd. for matters concerning Fu Heng Estate and Synergis Management Services Limited for matters relating to Chung Nga Court. Members might also contact relevant staff of HA so as to provide residents appropriate assistance. WSD would maintain contact with the OCs and relevant management companies to explain to them what had not been clarified in the hope that stakeholders would understand the rights and obligations of the housing estates as a whole to undertake maintenance and repairs required. In addition, staff of management companies were also duty bound to explain with their property management expertise to OCs relevant provisions of the Government lease and the DMC of the housing estates concerned. Should OCs and relevant management companies be unclear about their rights and obligations, they were advised to seek legal opinions from legal advisors of the OCs in order to understand their

- 8 -

rights and obligations under the Government lease and DMC.

9. Mr. HO Wai-lam indicated that he concurred with the user-pay principle which WSD and HA had put forward. Notwithstanding, the problem at present was not whether the housing estates were willing to take responsibility. Rather, there was no clear guideline about the proportion to be shared between Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court. Fortunately, one of the two estates concerned was willing to advance relevant maintenance costs, or residents would have had no fresh water supply till now. When selling the titles years ago, HD had not expected that relevant issues would occur, and was therefore indeed duty bound to clarify the rights and obligations instead of simply recommending OCs and management companies to consult legal advisors themselves, whereby trying not to get involved. Given the several incidents of main bursts in Tai Po District, HD would need to seriously consider how it could help relevant estates clarify their rights and obligations. Despite the fact that HD representatives had once acknowledged responsibilities concerned, it had failed so far to provide relevant information and the issue had remained unresolved as a result.

[HD’s post-meeting note: HD clarified that HD representatives had not acknowledged relevant responsibilities.]

10. Mr. MAN Nim-chi raised the following views:

(i) As the main burst incident had occurred in early January, Fu Heng Estate had indicated that owing to the financial confusion of the previous terms of OC, some construction drafts had gone missing. Hence, construction details shown in the Powerpoint presentation were therefore very precious. He hoped that WSD would provide him the Powerpoint file which had just been displayed. (ii) HD had sold Fu Heng Estate to the OC in accordance with the DMC and the intake of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court had been in 1990 and 1991 respectively. Any incidents on HD’s emergency vehicular access would lead to finger-pointing between the OCs of Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court, while HD would only use the DMC as a shield and cite Clause No. 5.11 to say that OC of Fu Heng Estate had to bear all responsibilities, whereby giving rise to other problems. The road surface at the location of the said main burst (i.e., the vehicle gate at Chung Nga Court when turning left from Chung Nga Road) was bumpy. No repair had been done due to unclear division of powers and responsibilities. Vehicular flow was rather high at the said site where a lot of vehicles ran through, among which were heavy vehicles. On the day when the main burst had occurred, the OC of Fu Heng Estate had to

- 9 -

turn off the stopcock of the pipe concerned because soil erosion at the site had been observed and might lead to land subsidence. Besides, as HD had authorised the OC of Fu Heng Estate to manage the said site, the OC also worried that what it had done on that day might have gone beyond its authority. Hence, he requested that HD send its representatives to visit the said site for inspection. (iii) Owing to the confusion of the previous terms of OC, the pipeline alignment diagrams had been lost and it was currently impossible to know which part required repairing. Hence, he enquired if HD could furnish a copy of relevant diagrams. Tai Po Area 9, which was being built currently, might encounter the same situation decades later. Relevant parties should not continue to determine via legal proceedings who should be accountable, whereas HD could provide more information to help follow up so as to enable a smoother process. Both Fu Heng Estate and Chung Nga Court were in his constituency, he found it equally difficult no matter which estate he offered assistance to. Hence, he hoped that HD would have understanding for the difficulties of DC Members when facing members of the public. There had been main burst incidents near Wan Tau Tong Estate, Tak Nga Court, King Nga Court and Yat Nga Court last year, he therefore hoped that HD would keep in mind how DC Members were beset by the incident.

11. The Chairman said that several TPS estates in the district involved pipes of shopping malls, residents and WSD. Nonetheless, this agenda item discussed primarily matters concerning the ageing and replacement of pipes. He therefore requested that Members contact HD after the meeting to discuss how to follow up on questions about rights and obligations of individual housing estates.

12. Mr. WONG Siu-kin raised the following views and questions:

(i) Had the location of a main burst been on Government land, he believed that WSD would have been able to deal with it swiftly. However, what made relevant incidents difficult to handle was the location of the main burst which happened to be on HD and private land, which involved the issue of HA’s selling public assets of Hong Kong in the 1990s. In December last year, salt water supply for Wan Tau Tong Estate had been suspended for seven days, which had led to disputes among OCs of four housing estates in relation to the apportionment of maintenance costs. The location of the main burst was in Wan Tau Tong Estate while the main concerned supplied salt water to four estates concurrently. Based on the user-pay principle, all estates concerned should pay the maintenance costs. However, OCs of estates other than Wan

- 10 -

Tau Tong Estate queried why other estates were held accountable for a main burst in Wan Tau Tong Estate. The said disputes had lasted for a while. The OCs had subsequently written to HD, which had responded that in accordance with the DMC and relevant regulations, maintenance costs concerned had to be borne by property owners of Wan Tau Tong Estate. He asked HD if HD and TPDO were duty bound or should play the role of mediator should similar situations arise in the future where there were disputes among estates in relation to apportionment of costs and no consensus could be reached. (ii) Could OCs of private housing estates seek advice from WSD on matters relating to maintenance of pipes in the precincts of housing estates (for instance, replacing underground pipes by above-ground ones to facilitate future maintenance)?

13. Ms. Olive CHAN raised the following views:

(i) As a newly elected DC Member, she knew little about the distribution of water mains in the district. To her understanding, some water mains in Tai Po District had been in use for over 30 years. She hoped that WSD could label salt water and fresh water mains in constituencies P15 and P16 with different colours on the map to indicate the years and whether or not they required urgent repairs, and mark with solid lines and dotted lines the diameters of pipes and the thickness of material used, such that she could have a better understanding about the service life of pipes. She also hoped that WSD would furnish water supply network details of constituencies P15 and P16 as well as those of other constituencies which might affect water supply in her own constituency. (ii) Water main bursts occurred frequently in Tai Wo Estate and WSD staff had to come to the site to turn off the valves. Hence, she also wished to know where the valves were located.

14. Mr. SO Tat-leung said that water main burst had occurred more than once on Lo Fai Road in his constituency (i.e. Constituency) end of last year. WSD staff had indicated that it might have been caused by ageing water mains. Hence, he asked WSD if it would inspect other neighbouring mains which had been in use over a similar period of time after repairing the burst mains, so as to prevent main bursts from occurring nearby.

15. The Vice-chairman raised the following views and questions:

(i) The report which the Ombudsman had published in 2018 had pointed out that the leakage rate of WSD pipes was 15.2%, while WSD indicated that

- 11 -

improvement to the leakage rate was seen after it had completed the “Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains”. WSD’s target at that time was to reduce the leakage rate to below 10%. He asked about the leakage rate at present. (ii) There were some 8 000 kilometres of water mains territory wide, of which 3 000 kilometres had been replaced during the past 20 years while 5 000 kilometres had yet to be replaced. He was sceptical about the effectiveness of monitoring instead of “Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains”. He cited the two main burst incidents in Tai Po District early this year as examples: the main burst on Kwong Fuk Road on 14 February was so serious that water was knee-deep, whereas there had also been a main burst on Wan Tau Street outside Tai Po Complex on 2 May. Why there had continuously been main bursts at the same location while WSD had indicated that it would keep monitoring? (iii) The “Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains”, which had been launched in 2000, had completed in 2018 and problems that remained had not been dealt with, while monitoring was unable to detect problems in advance. He thanked WSD for replacing water mains of Tai Po Industrial Estate two years ago which significantly reduced the number of main burst incidents. During the period between 2016 and 2017 when the replacement works had not been undertaken, the entire Ting Kok Road would have been affected had there been any main bursts in Tai Po Industrial Estate. It was thus evident that large-scale replacement of mains could effectively improve the situation. He agreed that mains did not necessarily need to be replaced every 30 to 40 years, whereas parts might not necessarily be fit for use over extended period of time. Some frontline engineers had pointed out that water pressure and problems of parts and components often led to ruptures of parts and bursts at connection points. Minor rehabilitation fell short of effectively solving the problem since after one spot was rehabilitated, another spot would burst. Without regularly monitoring the condition of parts and carrying out replacement, nor looking in a focused manner into spots where bursts frequently occurred, the problem could indeed not be solved effectively by monitoring alone. He hoped that WSD would consider launching the “Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains” anew targeting at mains and parts which had been in use for a long time. While WSD had said just now that the “Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains” might have an impact on busy road sections, he was of the view that WSD should adopt the reduced dig technique which required no road closure, such that the impact on members of the public could be minimised. (iv) During the last DC term, WSD had tried out the Water Intelligent Network

- 12 -

(“WIN”). Relevant techniques had been in use for years overseas to effectively improve leakage rate. He therefore could not understand why WSD did not accelerate the implementation of WIN. He enquired how many WIN trial points had been added in Tai Po District as compared with the last DC term and what progress had been made. He hoped that WSD would give regard to the specific circumstances of Tai Po District in a focused manner to perfect the water supply network as a whole, so that impact on daily lives of members of the public could be minimised while reducing wastage of resources.

16. Mr. Patrick MO raised the following views and questions:

(i) While WSD would conduct routine leak detection, DC Members had to rely on reports of residents to learn about leakage problems in the district which were not obvious. For instance, should there be stains of darker colour on the road surface, only with the help of TPDO and other professionals it would become clear that there were ageing problems with underground pipes. While the Government implemented the open data plans, he enquired if WSD would consider uploading the water supply network to the internet after simplifying it to facilitate public inspection and lessen the workload of WSD at the same time. He cited Lands Department (“LandsD”) as an example of outstanding performance in terms of opening data to the public, giving members of the public access to information of sites on the website of Town Planning Board. (ii) Taxi drivers took water unlawfully from time to time in rural areas (for example, from public toilets for car washing). Despite Internet Protocol (IP) cameras of FEHD being installed at some of the locations, WSD rarely took enforcement actions.

17. Mr. AU Chun-wah raised the following views and questions:

(i) DC Members were unable to obtain sufficient information via WSD 24-hour emergency hotline to answer residents’ enquiries and therefore wanted to contact the engineers in-charge on-site. However, as he had requested hotline staff to help ask engineers on duty or person in-charge on-site to contact DC Members such that the latter could have more details to disseminate to the community, and discuss matters such as whether water tanks would be placed and how water would be supplied and so on, hotline staff usually turned down relevant requests straight away. Yet, WSD personnel had at the meeting entertained relevant requests and indicated that hotline staff would be notified of the arrangement concerned. He hoped to reflect the said situation.

- 13 -

(ii) Reflux had occurred a few years ago in Fu Heng Estate due to clogged drains and the car park was flooded as a result. However, it had not been possible at that time to clarify which stakeholders should be responsible for the drain in question. Departments and management companies had provided several drawings which were all different, while HD had even indicated that it had nothing to do with that. Fu Heng Estate had in the beginning been a public housing estate and HD was supposed to be principally responsible and duty bound to furnish the most comprehensive drawings. Despite HD’s claim that relevant drawings could be obtained from special departments, given that incidents concerned had occurred in both Wan Tau Tong Estate and Fu Heng Estate, he recommended that HD take the initiative to contact stakeholders concerned to provide them the most complete drawings with a view to minimising disputes. Until now, while salt water burst incident had occurred again in Fu Heng Estate, the problem concerning stakeholders in connection with the clogged drain incident last time had remained unresolved so far. He asked how serious the situation had to become before HD would take the initiative to offer assistance. In spite of the housing estate’s being sold, HD remained the stakeholder with a major share.

18. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin responded as follows:

(i) As regards the salt water burst incident in Wan Tau Tong Estate in December 2019, the neighbouring estates were namely Yat Nga Court, King Nga Court and Tak Nga Court. HD had already contacted all stakeholders concerned with no delay to have a meeting for the discussion of maintenance matters. Just like Fu Heng Estate, Wan Tau Tong Estate was also a TPS estate. As the flats were being offered for sale, it had been clearly stipulated in the Government lease and the DMC that Wan Tau Tong Estate had to be responsible for the management, repair and maintenance of common areas and facilities in the estate, while property owners of Wan Tau Tong Estate should comply with the requirements of the aforementioned lease and DMC to apportion relevant maintenance costs. As one of the property owners of the residential part and non-residential part of the lot of Wan Tau Tong Estate, HA had all along apportioned relevant maintenance and management costs in accordance with the number of owner’s shares as well as lease of any other rights and grants. Besides, HA had also divested the car park and shopping mall of Wan Tau Tong Estate and relevant property owners were also required to bear responsibility. Since the section being repaired in Wan Tau Tong Estate on that day had been an underground salt water pipe and involved no estate access, hence, HA as a property owner of the non-residential part of the lot was not required to apportion relevant costs pursuant to the easement lease

- 14 -

of Wan Tau Tong Estate. As a property owner of the residential part of the lot, HA had all along apportioned relevant maintenance and management costs in accordance with the number of owner’s shares as well as lease of any other rights and grants. (ii) When selling housing estates, HA had already given clear explanation in all documents. If relevant housing estates might involve non-residential facilities, over the years users had always been required to submit drawings to the Independent Checking Unit under Buildings Department (“BD”) whenever they carried out alteration or improvement works in the non-residential sections. Hence, the Independent Checking Unit had the latest records of drawings while the Land Registry would keep record of land boundary and lot documents of each housing estate. OCs or management companies of housing estates might conduct a search at relevant departments for information concerned. As WSD had mentioned just now, although the estates had been built by HA, once sold, they were no different from private housing estates and would subsequently be managed by the OCs they formed and the management companies would be responsible for coordination and maintenance work. During routine management and maintenance, HA and HD personnel would make corresponding cooperation. TPS estates had management committees in which HA representatives also participated, and held meetings with relevant OCs regularly to discuss various issues and provide advice. HD would continue to maintain contact and communication with OCs.

19. Mr. Allan CHAN said that as TPS estates or housing estates had already formed their OCs, their management and maintenance work were taken over by respective OCs and management companies. When carrying out repair, maintenance and other works, requirements of Government lease and DMC should be observed. Professional management companies should engage professional management personnel capable of understanding the content of DMC and Government lease. HA and HD staff were only members of the management committees to offer advice and assistance at meetings of management committees.

20. Ms. WONG Dik-chi indicated that regarding Ms. Olive CHAN’s request that WSD furnish records of water pipe network in her constituency and the suggestion that the pipes be distinguished and labelled by different colours, solid and dotted lines, records of water pipe network, which were of numerous quantities and types, were not drawn in the way as Ms. Olive CHAN requested. Notwithstanding, she would contact Ms. Olive CHAN after the meeting to see how additional information could be provided.

21. Ms. Olive CHAN said that water main bursts were serious in her constituency and

- 15 - property management companies of housing estates did not realise that pipes in the surrounding areas could have certain impact on the housing estates. Hence, she hoped to have more understanding about the situation of pipes in the surrounding areas to facilitate coordination. She did not mean to ask WSD to provide relevant information on the spot, and opined that WSD could spend some months to prepare and provide her relevant information.

22. Ms. WONG Dik-chi responded as follows:

(i) She would provide information of current leakage rate in Hong Kong to Mr. LAU Yung-wai after the meeting. (ii) As regards the section of Wan Tau Street where main burst incidents had occurred on 14 February and earlier, according to WSD’s planning, part of the rehabilitation works had already completed while the remaining pipe works would also be carried out. Currently, some underground pipes at the said site had already been replaced but connection had yet to complete because the connection points involved busier road sections. WSD would need to communicate with Transport Department (“TD”) and HKPF to decide how to connect. WSD was aware of the leakage on the road sections concerned and had kept monitoring. Hence, WSD had plans to undertake rehabilitation