Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the HKSAR Fourth Term of Wong Tai Sin District Council (Summary Translation)
Date: 6 November 2012 (Tuesday) Time: 2:30 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Wong Tai Sin District Council, 6/F, Lung Cheung Office Block, 138 Lung Cheung Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon
Present:
Chairman:
Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP
Vice-chairman:
Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH
Wong Tai Sin District Council Members:
Ms CHAN Man-ki, Maggie, MH Mr. CHAN On-tai Mr. CHAN Wai-kwan, Andie Mr. CHAN Yim-kwong, Joe Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP Mr. HO Hon-man Mr. HO Yin-fai Mr. HUI Kam-shing Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Ms KWOK Sau-ying Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH Mr. MOK Chung-fai, Rex, MH Mr. MOK Kin-wing Mr. MOK Ying-fan Mr. SHUM Wan-wa Mr. SO Sik-kin Ms TAM Heung-man Ms TAM Mei-po Mr. TING Chi-wai, Roy Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP Mr. WONG Kit-hin Mr. WONG Kwok-tung Mr. WONG Kwok-yan Mr. WONG Yat-yuk Hon. WU Chi-wai, MH Mr. Yuen Kwok-keung, Stephen
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 1
In attendance:
Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP Director of Buildings BD ) Re.: Mr. KWOK Pang-hung Senior Structural Engineer BD ) Item (III)(i) Ms NG Ka-yin, Pamela Administrative Assistant/Director of Buildings BD )
Mr. HONG Kwai-sum Senior Engineer 2/Barrier-Free Access HyD ) Re.: ) Item (III)(ii)
Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric Head of Community Development URA ) Re.: Mr. Michael MA Director, Planning and Design URA ) Item (III)(iii) Mr. WONG Chi-man Senior Manager of Planning and Design URA ) Ms KWOK Wing-kam Senior Manager of Community Development URA )
Ms CHING Suk-yee Chief School Development Officer EDB ) Re.: (Wong Tai Sin) ) Item (III)(iv) Mr. CHAN Hung-to Senior Education Officer EDB ) (School Places Allocation)2 )
Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona District Planning Officer/Kowloon PlanD ) Re.: Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard Senior Town Planner/Kowloon 4 PlanD ) Item (III) (v) Mr. NG Shui-kwong, Ivan Senior Estate Surveyor/Kwun Tong District Lands Office, ) Kowloon East ) Mr. CHEUNG Mun-kit Senior Engineer/Land Supply TD ) Mr. FONG Shung-kit Engineer/Wong Tai Sin TD )
Dr. SO Ho-pui Director WTSDHSC ) Re.: Dr. WONG Tak-cheung Director WTSDHSC ) Item (III)(vi) Ms TANG Fung-ki, Ivy Honorary Secretary WTSDHSC ) Ms WONG Ho-yee Executive Director WTSDHSC )
Mr. LAM Sai-hung Principle Assistant Secretary (Transport) 7 THB ) Re.: Mr. LEUNG Sai-ho Assistant Secretary (Transport) 7B THB ) Item (III)(vii) Mr. YEUNG Kong-sang Chief Engineer/Railway Development 1-3 RDO/HyD ) Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard Senior Town Planner/Kowloon 4 PlanD ) Mr. Francis LI Senior Liaison Engineer MTRCL ) Mr. Yean NG Design Manager – Shatin to Central Link MTRCL ) Mr. Carmeron CHIN Senior Construction Engineer – Tunnel MTRCL ) Ms CHAN Fong-ting Public Relations Manager MTRCL )
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 2 Mr. SHIU Wai-chuen, William, JP District Officer (Wong Tai Sin) WTSDO Mr. CHOW Oi-wang, Toby District Commander (Wong Tai Sin) HKPF Ms Lily NG District Social Welfare Officer SWD (Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung) Mr. CHAN Yiu-keung Senior Property Service Manager HD (Wong Tai Sin, Tsing Yi, Tsuen Wan and Islands) Mr. CHUI Si-kay, Peter Senior Engineer/6 (Kowloon) CEDD Mr. AU Siu-fung, Kelvin Senior Transport Officer/Wong Tai Sin TD Mr. LAM Hok-hay, George District Leisure Manager (Wong Tai Sin) LCSD Mr. HO Ming-tong District Environmental Hygiene FEHD Superintendent (Wong Tai Sin) Mr. CHIK Yu-fai, Freddy Assistant District Officer (Wong Tai Sin) WTSDO Mr. HO Chi-hang, Bruce Senior Executive Officer WTSDO (District Management) Mr. TING Tin-sang Senior Liaison Officer 1 WTSDO Ms PANG Suk-wah, Phyllis Senior Liaison Officer 2 WTSDO Ms TANG Wai-lan, Cecilia Executive Officer I (District Council) WTSDO
Secretary:
Ms LAM Pui-fun, Maggie Senior Executive Officer (District Council) WTSDO
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed all to the 7th meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC), in particular Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP, Director of Buildings, Mr. KWOK Pang-hung, Senior Structure Engineer of the Buildings Department (BD) and Ms NG Ka-yin, Pamela, Administrative Assistant/Director of Buildings.
2. The Chairman welcomed Mr. AU Siu-fung, Kelvin, Senior Transport Officer/Wong Tai Sin of the Transport Department (TD) who stood in for Mr. FAN Yung-kuen, Vincent; Mr. CHUI Si-kay, Peter, Senior Engineer/6 (Kowloon) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) who stood in for Mr. LO Kam-yan, Anthony; and Mr. CHAN Yiu-keung, Senior Property Service Manager (Wong Tai Sin, Tsing Yi, Tsuen Wan and Islands) of the Housing Department (HD) who stood in for Mrs. SUNG CHEUNG Mun-chi.
3. The meeting recorded a vote of thanks for the Secretary of WTSDC for her contribution as she would post out shortly.
4. The Chairman told Members that a list of proposed discussion time for agenda items of the 7th meeting was tabled and Members raised no objection to it.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 3 I. Confirmation of the Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council held on 4 September 2012
5. Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the WTSDC held on 4 September 2012 were confirmed without amendment.
II. Progress Report on Matters Arising from the 6th Meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC Paper 82/2012)
6. Members noted the paper.
III(i) Director of Buildings’ Visit to Wong Tai Sin District Council
7. The Chairman welcomed Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP, Director of Buildings and other representatives of BD to WTSDC.
8. Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP said he was glad to come to WTSDC and meet Members. He then gave a brief introduction of BD’s duties:
(i) Monitoring Building Safety
BD was charged to improve the quality of built environment by monitoring private buildings and related construction works, promoting building safety, and formulating and implementing construction standards concerning safety, health and environment of private buildings in accordance with the Buildings Ordinance;
BD was responsible for vetting architectural drawings of new buildings, carrying out audit checks to ensure safety of construction works/sites, and issuing occupation permits upon completion of new buildings. Regarding the quality of construction environment, BD had launched certain initiatives in recent years to encourage property developers to use environmentally-friendly facilities in new buildings, so as to promotion environmental protection, innovative building designs and quality of living space. BD had also formulated guidelines in 2011 to promote sustainable building designs.
As for existing buildings, BD took enforcement actions to reduce the dangers and nuisances caused by unauthorised building works (UBWs) and advertising signs. Also, the department promoted proper and timely repair and maintenance of buildings, drainage, slopes, etc.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 4 (ii) Handling of UBWs
Before 2011, BD would first remove new UBWs or those with imminent danger. Also, it had taken major annual operations for more than a decade to deal with/remove high-risk UBWs from exterior walls of buildings, such as metal cage structures and flower racks, among others. It was believed that most of the high-risk UBWs had been removed after these major operations.
After a review carried out in 2011, the Government opined that resources should be directed to less dangerous UBWs, which were large in number. In this connection, a new set of enforcement guidelines had been effective on 1 April 2011. According to the new guidelines, priority would also be accorded to the removal of UBWs at rooftops, podiums, scavenging lanes, light wells and other exterior portions of buildings, regardless of the risk level and whether they were newly built. In addition, BD had been carrying out major annual operations since 2011 to inspect and remove UBWs from rooftops, podiums, scavenging lanes and light wells of some 500 target buildings;
Also since 2011, BD had been carrying out major annual operations against UBWs related to subdivision of flats. About 150 target buildings would be identified annually, to which proactive inspections would be carried out. If unauthorised flat subdivision, or overloading of floor or blocking of escape route by partition wall was found, BD would take enforcement actions to rectify the irregularities.
In response to the fire incident at stalls in Fa Yuen Street in 2011, BD changed the selection criteria for target buildings in 2012. BD had selected old buildings near stalls as well as 30 factory buildings allegedly involved in flat subdivision as target buildings to be checked for UBWs. In 2011 and 2012, a total of eight buildings in Wong Tai Sin had been selected as target buildings;
Besides UBWs in the urban area, BD had also stepped up its enforcement efforts against UBWs at village houses in the New Territories since 1 April 2012. Targets were UBWs constituting serious contravention of the law and posing higher potential risks to building safety. During the first round of action, BD had mounted large-scale clearance operations in villages some-by-one and issued removal orders against UBWs. To
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 5 date, nine target villages and 2400 village houses in the New Territories had already been inspected, and more than 120 removal orders had been issued. For UBWs at village houses constituting less serious contravention of the law and posing lower risks to building safety, a Reporting Scheme for UBWs in New Territories Exempted Houses had been introduced on 1 April 2012. Under the scheme, owners of NT village houses with UBWs might report such UBWs to BD, appoint qualified personnel to conduct inspections, and verify the safety of the same every five years. By doing so, they might retain the UBWs temporarily. The scheme would end on 31 December 2012.
(iii) Maintenance of Buildings
Regarding maintenance of buildings, BD had introduced a few schemes in recent years, namely Operation Building Bright (OBB), Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme (MBIS), Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme (MWIS) and Minor Works Control System (MWCS);
OBB
Jointly launched by the Government, the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) and the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in 2009, OBB aimed primarily at achieving the dual objectives of creating more job opportunities for the construction sector, in particular the building maintenance sector, and improving building safety. Target buildings of OBB aged 30 or above. A grant amounting to 80% of the cost of repair, subject to a ceiling of $16,000 per household, would be provided for the owners, who would have to pay the remaining 20% of the cost of repair. Up till now about 1 500 buildings had been repaired under the sponsorship of OBB, among them 39 were located in Wong Tai Sin;
MBIS and MWIS
Officially launched on 30 June 2012, MBIS required that all buildings aged 30 or above be inspected and repaired every 10 years. In this connection, BD would select 2 000 buildings every year for both MBIS and MWIS to be carried out concurrently, and another 3 800 buildings for MWIS only. Under MWIS, buildings aged 10 years or above should be inspected once every 5 years. MBIS/MWIS would be implemented in each of the four quarters, during which about
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 6 500 buildings would be selected for MBIS and 950 for MWIS. BD had sent pre-notification letters to owners of the target buildings to be inspected in the first quarter, so that they would have ample time to prepare for it. About 6 months after the pre-notification letters were sent, BD would issue statutory notices to owners of target buildings and require them to carry out building inspection; whereas for MWIS, statutory notices would be issued to owners of target buildings one or two months after the pre-notification letters were sent;
MWCS
MWCS was launched on 31 December 2010, since then minor works coordinated by Prescribed Building Professionals (PBPs) and carried out by Prescribed Registered Contractors (PRCs) could commence through the simplified requirements, without the need to obtain BD’s prior approval of plans and consent in writing for the commencement of the works. It was hoped that MWCS would help owners to carry out minor household works including installation of air-conditioner supporting frames, small canopies etc., without the prior approval of plans from BD. As most of the repair works of existing buildings were covered by MWCS, owners who had their buildings inspected by qualified personnel under MBIS might carry out the necessary repair works in accordance with the simplified procedures under MWCS. He hoped that owners would find the new arrangement convenient to them;
Regarding MBIS, the Government would join hands with HKHS and URA to provide technical advice and subsidy on the cost of the first prescribed building inspection to owners, according to the rateable values of the properties. Owners might address their enquiries to, or seek advice from these two organisations upon receipt of the notification for building inspection;
In consideration of building safety problems associated with unauthorised flat subdivision, BD formally amended the relevant regulations on 3 October 2012, so that flat subdivision could be regulated under MWCS. In this connection, erection of partition walls, construction of raised platform for hiding new drainages, etc. should be carried out in a workmanlike manner by PBPs or PRCs, to ensure that building safety was not affected.
(Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP and Ms TAM Heung-man arrived at the meeting at 2:45 p.m.)
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 7 9. Mr. CHAN Yim-kwong, Joe considered that the report on the collapse of building in To Kwa Wan highlighted that the incident was not related to subdivision of flats. Although this might be true, it had made people think that the Government had no intention to take any action against flat subdivision. At present, flat subdivision did not contravene the law as long as the works concerned were reported and carried out in accordance with MWCS. However, street wisdom revealed that licensed firms did not always adhere to the established rules, whereas most of the subdivided flats were operated illegally at present. Mr. CHAN enquired what one could do to report or complain against alleged illegal flat subdivision and the works concerned, and how BD would follow up such cases.
10. Hon. WU Chi-wai, MH pointed out that there was an obvious conflict of interest concerning MWIS. Some recent cases revealed that during an inspection, the qualified person might suggest the clients to repair their windows. However, as the person was an employer of an aluminium window contractor, it would be beyond imagination that he would tell his clients no repair works were needed. In fact, they could be very nitpicking. It was difficult to resolve such potential conflict of interest. MWIS required that windows of buildings aged 10 years or above should be inspected once every five years, implying that the trade concerned would receive a large number of orders regularly, and much conflict of interest would be involved. Since MWCS alone could not prevent conflict of interest, he enquired how BD would resolve the problem. As for the identification of source of water seepage by the Joint Office established by BD and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), he understood that a test would first be carried out by FEHD, before the case was referred to BD. Generally speaking, there were two factors that made investigation difficult: 1) an investigator might not be admitted into the flat concerned; and 2) the colour water test and humidity test currently used were rather outdated. When handling claims regarding water seepage, the Small Claim Tribunal would accept findings of other source identification methods. In this connection, he asked if BD had any schedule for updating the Joint Office’s source identification methods, so that water seepage cases could be handled more effectively.
11. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH hoped that BD would submit a paper or provide Members with the powerpoint information on its duties. He said he had asked BD how it would plug the loopholes concerning the registration of warning notices against titles of subject premises in the Land Registry. However, despite the registration of warning notices against titles of many flats in San Po Kong due to the failure to carry out works required by BD, these flats might still be traded freely and the new owners had to take up the works concerned. On the other hand, if an owner did not sell his flat and ignore BD’s repair orders, the owners’ corporation concerned would suffer from the dispute-prone management problem resulted. He enquired what preventive measures would be taken by BD to stop unscrupulous owners from making use the loopholes in legislation. As an example, he said there was an unauthorised rooftop structure which had existed for four years, and the owner kept collecting rent during this period of time. The case reflected the red tape of Government departments, and owners who removed their UBWs as required by the removal orders would complain about the unfairness in
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 8 enforcement. Therefore, BD should review the prosecution procedure, increase the manpower, and enforce in a fair manner. BD had mentioned that inspection would be carried out in 30 industrial buildings that might involve flat subdivision. As flat subdivision was not uncommon in San Po Kong, he asked if members of the public could ask owners concerned to produce the licences and; to what department - BD or the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) should the complaints be lodged. He urged BD to draw up specific guidelines, so that Members might refer to the guidelines and help owners of flats living underneath the subdivided ones to deal with problems such as water seepage, overloading of power supply, blocking of escape routes, structural defects, etc. He opined that BD should improve the policy for inspection, monitoring and reporting of flat subdivision as far as practicable.
12. Mr. CHAN On-tai remarked that BD should first solve people’s housing problem as some people had to live in subdivided flats because they had financial hardship and they had no other choice. The supply of subdivided flats was triggered by the demand. Hong Kong’s GDP had grown from $150 billion in 1997 to $180 billion in 2012, but the population size had grown from 5 million to 7.5 million during the same period. In 1997, 15% of the population were high income and rich people, and income per capita at that time was HK$150,000. He estimated that the annual income per capita now was HK$75,000. As the average monthly income of Shenzhen citizens was about RMB¥4,000, and due to the appreciation of RMB, annual income per capita in Shenzhen could be as much as HK$70,000, which was roughly equal to the level of Hong Kong people. People needed to live in subdivided flats since they were forced to do so by the present economic situation of Hong Kong. To solve the problem of flat subdivision, the Government should formulate effective measures, such as building more temporary housing. In response to the large number of new immigrants who had come and settled in Hong Kong in 1950s, the Government had built temporary housing to meet these people’s housing need. The top priority of the Government was to settle down Hong Kong people in a safe place and let them work with peace of mind. Regarding building maintenance and safety, BD might make reference to the practice of HD, which had appointed 30-odd reputable contractors to carry out the works concerned. Similarly, BD might consider deploying its own contractors to repair buildings of those in need or without an owners’ corporation, at a reasonable charge, so that people would not waste their own money or Government subsidy on unreliable contractors. In the past decade or so, Hong Kong’s political development had been successful and the public was anticipating economic development now. Therefore, he reminded all Government departments that livelihood issues, in particular the housing problem, should be solved by economic means.
13. Mr. HUI Kam-shing further commented on the problem of flat subdivision put forth by Mr. CHAN Yim-kwong, Joe and Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH. He opined that BD had to eradicate the problem, but queried if it could actually enforce the legislation that regulated flat subdivision works under MWCS and required applications be made in this regard. He also enquired what a member of the public could do or to whom a report could be directed if he suspected that there was non-compliant flat subdivision or non-compliant works were being carried out by unauthorised contractors. Given that
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 9 flat subdivision were indoor works, how could BD know that works were being carried out and enforce accordingly. To curb the problem of squatter huts, HD had once formed the Squatter Control Section to take up the duties relating to control and demolition of squatter huts. The Section would immediately remove any new squatter huts found. BD should now ensure that upon the enactment of the relevant legislation, it could actually take enforcement actions and stop the unauthorised works immediately. This was essential to curbing the problem. If no enforcement action could be taken, it was meaningless to enact the legislation. First of all, BD had to improve the reporting procedure and step up its publicity efforts, so that people would understand that the department was empowered to, and capable of enforcing the relevant legislation. After adequate deterrent effect was achieved, BD should start working on the outstanding probleMs Most water seepage cases in private buildings were related to flat subdivision. In this connection, he asked how BD would ensure that living condition of those who suffered from flat subdivision upstairs could be improved gradually. Finally, he opined that HD should be the department responsible primarily for housing matters, but BD and HD should work in tandem with the Social Welfare Department (SWD), so that occupants of rooftop flats and other UBWs affected by demolition could be resettled properly.
14. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH opined that after 10-odd years, BD’s removal operations targeting urban UBWs that were new or posing immediate risks had started to bear fruit. Most of the high-risk UBWs had been demolished, and coverage of the operations was now being extended to low-risk UBWs and UBWs of village houses in the New Territories. He opined that BD had done an applausable job in this regard. Dr. WONG raised two points. Firstly, the problem of flat subdivision was all along serious in Wong Tai Sin, in particular inside factory buildings. While he understood that BD currently inspected as many as 200 buildings territory-wide annually, few of these buildings were in Wong Tai Sin. Therefore, he hoped that BD would look at the problem of flat subdivision in Wong Tai Sin squarely, deploy more manpower and step up the enforcement efforts, in a bid to prevent fire in subdivided flats and protect public safety. Secondly, as the limited manpower of BD could not cope with the vast number of buildings in the territory, the department might emphasize more on publicity and public education on building safety. For instance, it could produce booklets or souvenirs for distribution to primary and secondary schools, or APIs for Road Show and other mass media, so as to increase public awareness of building safety and their own responsibilities.
15. Ms CHAN Man-ki, Maggie commented on water seepage and registration of warning notices against titles of the subject flats. According to her district service experience, some UBWs were essential. For instance, there was not much space between old buildings in Wong Tai Sin. Due to the frequent drop of objects from height, some residents had to build a canopy. Hence, they would be in a dilemma when they received a removal order, as it was impossible to block glass bottles and other rubbish falling from height without a canopy. She suggested that a mediation system be introduced to handle such cases. Although the title registration system was underpinned by an appeal mechanism, provision of mediation service after a title was
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 10 registered and before an appeal was made could help the Bureau, the law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders understand the actual circumstances. In addition, it could encourage flat owners to abide by law, and protect their safety, too. Registration of warnings against titles had no deterrent effect, as the flats concerned could still be traded freely. Therefore, she enquired if BD would issue advisory notices to banks and suggest them lower the loan-to-value ratio, or even discourage banks to provide loan to the owners concerned. As for water seepage, the problem could be caused by flat subdivision, poor maintenance, the flat upstairs, or even originated from common area of the subject building. Hence, the colour water test commonly used might not be reliable, and thus the flat owner might have to appoint a professional to investigate the cause of water seepage. In this regard, she enquired if the Government could provide a list of such professionals, or provide the service at a reasonable charge. Furthermore, as water seepage might involve a number of parties, she enquired if BD would introduce a mediation system.
16. Mr. SO Sik-kin said when the Joint Office had been formed by BD and FEHD a few years ago, owners’ corporations (OCs) and building management personnel had cherished high hope to its effectiveness, but it was disappointing that BD failed to identify the source of water seepage in most of the cases referred to it. He said once the owner of a flat having water seepage had planned to fix the problem, but he refused to do so after being notified of BD’s finding, making simple cases complicated. Mr. SO enquired whether colour water test was the only method used in the identification of the source of water seepage. He was disappointed by the poor effectiveness of this method, and suggested that better methods, such as infrared or thermo tests, be used by BD and FEHD to help people affected. Regarding flat subdivision, he said he had visited many subdivided flats and the environment of these flats was scary. To increase the rate of return, an owner would divide a large flat into a few suites and raise the floor level to hide the drainage pipes. Doing so would create additional loading to the floor slab. However, if the floor was not raised, the pipes had to be moved to the exterior walls, creating visual impact and worsening water seepage. He said he had told the Chief Executive (CE) that about 20 000 people were currently living in subdivided flats in factory buildings and even coffin-sized units visited by Prof. Anthony CHEUNG, GBS, JP. Even if these 20 000 people could be resettled in public housing, these 20 000 factory-turned subdivided factory would not disappear automatically, because other people would be moving in. He urged BD to try its best to get rid of flat subdivision. Regarding UBWs, he shared with Members what had happened in the housing estate he lived. In the estate, there was a kiosk built more than two decades ago. The kiosk, comprising four guard posts used by some six or seven security guards, had become dilapidated and suffered from water seepage and ground settlement due to lack of maintenance. The residents had then built a new one, as advised by HKPF. Despite the fact that the new kiosk was safer and more beautiful, it had to be demolished as it had been found illegal afterwards. Mr. SO had checked the plot ratio and confirmed that the new kiosk could be built. Also, the kiosk had been reprovisioned in-situ on a private lot and approval had already been obtained from BD. Therefore, the residents were confused about the Lands Department (LandsD)’s refusal, and they had no idea about what methods or channels were available to solve
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 11 the problem. Reprovisioning of the kiosk concerned the interest of all residents of the estate, who were puzzled with the departments’ uncooperative stance. He hoped that BD would shed some light on this.
17. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP understood the difficulty facing BD – it could not cope with the ever-increasing number of problems due to resource constraint. UBWs had been a hot topic earlier on, and people living in the New Territories had commented much on this. People living in the urban area and the New Territories made cross-reference to each other’s practice. BD was responsible for matters pertaining to small houses, roof top flats, flat subdivision, huts, registration of warnings against titles, asbestos-containing construction materials, etc., but it had outsourced many of its services to under-skilled contractors. Hon. CHAN suggested BD apply to the Legislative Council (LegCo) for additional resources. While new and old elements could be found in Wong Tai Sin, the district was primarily an old district. Different districts had different problems, so BD should relay DCs’ views to CE and prioritise its actions, instead of waiting indefinitely. The Government had kept saying it would develop the creative industries, but its policy was doing the opposite. The Government was in the favour of real estate developers, and forced people to leave the factory units in which they engaged themselves in creative industries, so that hotels, boarding houses or residences could be built on the sites concerned. As the subject department, BD should warn other departments that no alteration works should be carried out in the problematic factory buildings, because this would create fire safety probleMs He hoped that BD would reflect the situation to the SAR Government faithfully, to help residents of Wong Tai Sin to solve the imminent problems concerned.
18. Mr. HO Hon-man quoted a case involving a family living in a subdivided flat in the past 8-9 years. Due to rental consideration, the family had moved from Mong Kok to San Po Kong and then to Yuk Wah Crescent in Wong Tai Sin. On behalf of the family, he enquired if there was any way to know which subdivided flats were safe. He had discussed this matter with OCs of old buildings, and suggested that architectural drawings provided by BD be displayed compulsorily at entrance foyers of buildings to help residents identify any change in the layout. A hotline should also be provided for reporting irregularities. This information might help people who were seeking a subdivided flat through a real estate agent to avoid flats with altered core walls. If provision of additional public housing was a long-term solution to the problem of flat subdivision, display of layout plans could be a short-term one that might facilitate prosecution and help potential subdivided flat residents to look for a safer dwelling.
19. Mr. WONG Tat-yuk hoped that BD would provide an inspection timetable for target flats in Wong Tai Sin. As for the regulation of flat subdivision, BD should consider providing useful information through the mass media or DC members for tenants’ reference. Moreover, he enquired how BD would co-ordinate with FEHD on investigation and prosecution in respect of water seepage cases, in a bid to reminding the residents to take remedial measures.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 12 20. Mr. MOK Ying-fan opined that flat subdivision and water seepage were both long-standing probleMs Since the officials were not living beneath a flat with a ceiling damaged badly by the water seepage originated from the flat above, they had no idea about how bad the nuisance could be. Despite the fact that BD had to solve a number of problems with limited resources and manpower, it had to give high priority to issues that people were most concerned about. None of the WTSDC’s previous discussions on the problem of water seepage had been fruitful, and the problem persisted after each and every review. Mr. MOK hoped that this meeting was an exception, and pointed out that he would not talk about flat subdivision as many other Members had already done so. However, he urged Government departments to submit a paper on their work or provide relevant data for Members’ reference before visiting a DC.
21. Ms TAM Heung-man said the problem of water seepage had remained unsolved for a very long time, thus it might be necessary to review the handling procedure concerned. Politically, the departments concerned might find it difficult to enforce the law as Mr. Paul CHAN, the Secretary for Development was also involved in flat subdivision and irregularities were found in his properties. Moreover, he had yet to provide an explanation to the public. In this connection, she asked the Director of Buildings to convey a message to Mr. CHAN and tell him that as a Government official as well as a role model for the people, he had to resolve the problems of his own properties.
22. Mr. HO Yin-fai said despite the difficulties, BD still had to tackle the existing probleMs For low-risk UBWs, owners might only report the same to BD instead of removing the UBWs immediately. He enquired if this was a long-term strategy. Some people would remove their UBWs immediately upon receipt of BD’s removal order but some would not. Hence, he enquired how the Director of Buildings would tackle the problem in the long run. On the other hand, conversion of commercial/residential or commercial flats into “private kitchens”, bars or other venues was not unusual, and the conversion might involve alteration of layout. He enquired if BD would take action only upon receipt of complaint, and whether the department would proactively deploy its staff to inspect or gather information on the illegal change in layout. He urged BD to look into the problem squarely. In addition, he commented that abandoned signboards at exterior walls of buildings could be dangerous to the pedestrians, and asked what BD would so to tackle the problem.
23. Mr. MOK Kin-wing was concerned about subdivided flat residents’ need for housing, and worried that the subdivided flats in old buildings or commercial/factory buildings might both be in breach of the Fire Services Ordinance and the Buildings Ordinance and subjected to enforcement actions. However, on top of very high property price at present, the waiting list for public housing had hit 200 000. He enquired how BD would tackle flat subdivision – whether it would rectify all of them in one go, or step by step according to a prescribed schedule. Also, he asked if BD would delay its actions against subdivided flats until the residents concerned were resettled in public housing, in a bid to find a balance in the policy.
(Mr. WONG Kwok-tung arrived at the meeting at 3:35 p.m.)
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 13 24. Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP thanked Members for their comments. Some Members understood that the department was suffering from a shortage of manpower. However, Government departments’ manpower problems had to be solved according to an established mechanism, so BD could not apply to the LegCo direct for provision of additional resources. His response to Members’ enquiries was summarised below:
(i) Flat Subdivision
Some people opined that the Government should not enforce against flat subdivision as it was needed to meet the livelihood needs of some. He emphasised that BD did not intend to enforce against all subdivided flats, since not all of them had irregularities. Although some subdivided flats were small and did not provide a comfortable living environment, BD would not enforce against them if they did not cause any structural impact on the subject building. BD would focus on building works that would affect building and personal safety, regardless whether these works involved flat subdivision. As Members had mentioned, people needed to settle down in a safe place and work with peace of mind, so a subdivided flat could be consider a safe dwelling, as long as it posed no risk. However, if a subdivided flat had building or fire safety implications, it could never be considered as a safety dwelling that met one’s housing need. Therefore, BD would gauge the seriousness of different kinds of building problems and direct its limited resources to tackle the more serious ones first;
BD had been mounting large-scale annual operations against target buildings of the year since 2011. In 2011 and 2012, the department had inspected 150 and more than 300 target buildings respectively, and issued removal orders in respect of unauthorised flat subdivision works therein. Some of the irregularities had been rectified as per the removal orders. BD would continue to take enforcement actions until all of the unauthorised works that affected building safety were rectified. During routine inspections, BD would only look into general building problems in public places and exterior of a building because it was difficult for BD to enter individual flats, and the department did not have the necessary resources to carry out inspection on a daily basis. Therefore, citizens and residents were welcomed to report to BD any alleged unauthorised alteration works in their buildings, and the department would certainly investigate accordingly.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 14 If one wished to know whether the flat he would like to rent or buy was legal and free from alteration, he might check the approved layout plan of the flat concerned at a fee at the website of BD. He might also check the plan in person, or send a representative to do so at the department’s Building Information Centre in Mongkok. BD understood that some OCs already had a copy of the approved layout plan for residents’ reference. It had also issued guidelines on flat subdivision to guide people how to carry out an initial check on the building safety of a flat, such as the presence of a small sub-divided cubicle, in a bid to increase people’s awareness of building safety when they rent subdivided flats.
(ii) Repair of Buildings
Being an enforcement department, BD could not provide maintenance and repair services to flat owners direct. However, If the department was of the view that a flat was dangerous and needed repair, it would issue a repair order to the owner concerned. According to the law, BD could appoint its contractor to carry out the repair works and recover from the owner the works and supervision cost, as well as a surcharge only if the owner did not arrange the works by himself. In addition, HS and URA would also provide support and advice to owners, to help them arrange for the repair works and appoint a registered contractor or an authorised person. It was hoped that efforts of URA and HS could avoid sub-standard works and collusion, and help owners carry out repair works in a legal and quality manner.
(iii) Unauthorised Structures.
Before demolishing an unauthorised structure, such as rooftop flats, BD would liaise with HD and SWD to provide the necessary assistance to the residents concerned, if they had no other place to live. The Government’s policy provided that no one would become homeless due to its enforcement actions;
Two different types of enforcement actions against unauthorised structures would be taken by BD. For structures that required immediate attention, the department would issue removal order direct. Owners concerned who did not comply with the order would be prosecuted. In addition, the department might appoint a contractor to remove the unauthorised structures. For unauthorised structures that were less dangerous, BD would first issue a warning notice and register the notice against the title of the subject premises at the Land Registry. BD understood that
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 15 the registration might not be an effective way to make an owner remove his unauthorised structure. However, future buyers of the property would know the presence of unauthorised structure through the registration, and make informed decision accordingly. BD also knew that some banks, before approving a mortgage application, would check the title of the subject premises at the Lands Registry. Approval of the mortgage application concerned or the loan-to-value ratio might be affected by the said registration;
Canopies retrofitted by individual owners to block objects thrown from height were unauthorised structures if they were not built legally. These structures would not be legalised due to the need for blocking objects thrown from height. An owner who needed to build a canopy might apply to BD for doing so in a legal manner. If the canopy’s build quality and design complied with the standards set out in the Buildings Ordinance, among others, BD would give approval so that the canopy could be built legally by the owner. For small canopies, the owners might only need to appoint a registered contractor to carry out the works and inform BD in accordance with MWCS, instead of seeking approval from the department. As to the re-construction of guard posts mentioned by Member, if no formal application had been made before commencement of works, the new guard posts were illegal, unauthorised structures and thus had to be demolished. However, residents might make a formal application for rebuilding the guard posts legally.
(iv) MWIS
The law provided that only PRCs and PBPs were entitled to inspect windows. As a PRC was qualified to repair a window, Members pointed out that MWIS might cause conflict of interest, and those who inspected windows might exaggerate their tear and wear. In this connection, BD had taken certain precautions. First, all PBPs and PRCs should be registered with and regulated by BD, and submit a report to the department after a window inspection. Also, the department had issued a code of practice on window inspection for PRCs’ and PBPs’ observation. If they failed to do so, BD might take disciplinary actions against them, and even prosecute those who had breached the law. On the other hand, the law also permitted owners not to appoint the PBP or PRC who had inspected their windows to carry out the repair works, to prevent the PBP or PRC from exaggerating the need for repair works.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 16 (v) Signboards
BD proactively identified dangerous or abandoned signboards at the streets. When inspecting a building, it would also inspect signboards in the vicinity. More than 1 600 dangerous or abandoned signboards were removed by the department every year. During annual large-scale clearance operations, BD would issue removal orders to request owners to remove large signboards that were illegal but safe. Due to the resource constraint, BD could only remove some 100 large signboards every year according to a prescribed priority. BD would continue its work in this regard and hoped that all large signboards with immediate or potential danger could be removed eventually.
(vi) Water Seepage of Buildings
BD emphasised that water seepage was about maintenance and management of buildings, and the Government’s involvement aimed primarily at tackling the possible hygiene nuisance caused by water seepage. The law empowered the Government to issue a nuisance notice to owner of the flat that caused water seepage and required him to carry out the necessary repair works to stop the water seepage. However, the Government was in no position to look into a water seepage case if no hygiene nuisance was caused. Therefore, the Joint Office had to identify the source of water seepage through investigation and tests after receiving a complaint, in order to determine whether it had the right to enforce the law. The investigation and tests might take a long time to complete as they required entry to the flat that might be causing the water seepage, and often the occupants of such flats were uncooperative or could not spare time to facilitate the investigation. Moreover, non-destructive tests – the only tests that BD could use – were rather time-consuming. In view of the above, BD would appreciate Members’ understanding. He denied that in 99% of the cases the department could not identify the source of water seepage, as pointed out by Members; and commented that when replying to a LegCo question, BD had revealed that (the success rate) was more than 1%. According to past experience, the existing colour water test was effective. When it failed to identify the source, it was most likely that the water seepage was originated not from the flat immediately above the one troubled. In this circumstance, it was difficult to trace the source as BD could not deploy its staff to test every single flat in the building. He hoped that members of the public could understand such a limitation;
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 17 BD had studied the feasibility of using newer testing methods but found them unsatisfactory. For instance, infrared test might only detect the humidity of a certain place, but it could do nothing about tracing the source of water seepage. That being said, BD was now working with the Innovation and Technology Commission to explore more effective methods but the research was still underway;
Water seepage relating to Home Ownership Scheme flats was also handled by the Joint Office. Upon receipt of complaints, the Joint Office would carry out the investigation as usual, and take enforcement actions if it was 100% sure about the source of water seepage. This was different from the cases in which individual member of the public claim, through the Small Claims Tribunal, for compensation from the owner of flat allegedly causing water seepage. The Small Claims Tribunal might base its judgement on expert views, but the law required that no enforcement action should be taken by Joint Office unless it was 100% sure about the source of water seepage, even though the experts had already proven the same. BD also hoped that the problem of water seepage could be solved by mediation, but it had to work out the implementation details first. The two policy bureaux responsible for handling water seepage were seeking long-term solution of the problem and reviewing the complaint handling procedures.
(vii) Conversion of Commercial Buildings into Other Uses
For a licensing application involving conversion of commercial premises into private kitchen or bar, the licensing authority would not approve the application unless it was satisfied that that the alteration works involved was safe and legal. While the licensing authority might not be able to regulate bars and restaurants that operated without a licence, the law enforcement departments might take actions against them. Illegal alteration of layout on commercial premises was less likely to cause building safety problems than on residential ones. However, BD would accord priority to cases involving alteration-related structural safety problems, or fire safety problems caused by obstruction of escape routes. As BD could not send its staff to inspect buildings everyday, it would appreciate the public’s co-operation to report to the department any alleged illegal alteration that might cause safety problems. The department would then initiate investigation immediately.
(Mr. WONG Kit-hin left the meeting at 3:45 p.m.)
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 18 25. The Chairman thanked BD’s initial response to Members’ enquiries and comments. Due to the time constraint, he asked the last two Members to speak and advise other Members to forward their views to BD in writing.
26. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung commented that BD’s tolerance to subdivided flats which had no immediate structural danger, and the description of “safe places” were counteracting the Government’s efforts to suppress property prices. All subdivided flats were for profit-making, and the trading prices for subdivided flats were much higher than that for old buildings. As a result of flat subdivision, property prices in the area concerned had risen many times. BD’s lukewarm attitude in law enforcement was damaging the Government’s efforts in suppressing property prices. This was an important issue as its attitude would encourage trading of old flats and subsequently, further subdivision of flats. Rent for an ordinary old flat was only $7,000, but after subdivision the rent could rise to $20,000, which was more than double. BD should not try to shirk its responsibility. Instead, it should provide further explanation.
(Mr. CHAN Wai-kwan, Andie left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)
27. Mr. CHAN On-tai reiterated that to tackle the problem of flat subdivision form its root, the Government should designate temporary housing areas as soon as possible to settle residents of subdivided flats. Regarding water seepage, BD should consider improving its handling procedures. For example, it might refer to the practice of the Towngas, which charged $9 per user household every month and provided free safety inspection to gas cooking burners. In this regard, the Government might consider appointing some honest service providers to provide service to the public at a flat charge. Given that FEHD and WSD might take up to one or two years to investigate a water seepage case referred by the Joint Office but the investigation might not be fruitful, he suggested the Government consider outsourcing the service to the private sector. He urged BD to look into the problem of water seepage squarely, and improve the handling procedure.
28. Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP thanked Members for their comments and said he would proactively consider different ways to handle water seepage in buildings. However, he pointed out that BD could not provide inspection service similar to those provided by the Towngas, as the department was not conferred with the right, nor was it responsible to do so. He also had no idea about which department could provide such service. Regarding the problem of flat subdivision, BD was certainly not turning a blind eye to it. However, the department had no right to tackle or take law enforcement action against flat subdivision if it was done so without breaching the law. He reiterated that not all subdivided flats constituted breach of law.
29. The Chairman said Members had put forth lots of comments on BD’s work and he believed that the department would note and consider these comments. He thanked Mr. AU and other representatives of BD for visiting WTSDC.
(Mr. AU Choi-kai, JP, Mr. KWOK Pang-hung and Ms NG Ka-yin, Pamela left the meeting at this juncture.) (Mr. TING Chi-wai, Roy left the meeting at 4:10 p.m.)
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 19 III(ii) The New Policy of “Universal Accessibility” (WTSDC Paper No. 83/2012)
30. The Chairman welcomed Mr. HONG Kwai-sum, Senior Engineer 2/Barrier-Free Access of the Highways Department (HyD), and drew Members’ attention to the paper submitted by nine WTSDC Members of DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch (Annex I).
31. Mr. HONG Kwai-sum introduced the paper. While the Government had been retrofitting barrier-free access facilities to walkways (i.e. footbridges and pedestrian subways), it would expedite the relevant works in view of the aging population and for the convenience of the public. On 21 August 2012, CE announced a new policy of “Universal Accessibility”. Under the new policy, lifts would be installed at public walkways when necessary to bring convenience to the people. Also, when considering the retrofitting of barrier-free access facilities, lifts and ramps would be treated equally. This was a change from the current practice, viz. the Government would now consider installing lifts, when necessary and when circumstances warranted, at walkways where there was already a standard ramp installed. To expedite the implementation of works, the Government would seek approval from the Legislative Council (LegCo) Finance Committee (FC) to provide a dedicated allocation for this “universal accessibility” programme on an annual basis. A public consultation exercise on this initiative had ended on 31 October. HyD was now consolidating the views collected and would submit a proposal for DCs’ discussion by the end of the year or early next year, so as to prioritise works projects and carry out the feasibility study, with a view to starting the construction works as soon as possible. Regarding proposed works projects in areas managed by the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), the Link REIT (the Link) or private developers, the Government would like to ask these parties to work hand in hand with it and provide a barrier-free environment to the community.
(Mr. WONG Yat-yuk left the meeting at 4:15 p.m.)
32. Mr. LAI Wing–ho, Joe said the nine DC Members of DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch welcomed the Government’s new policy of “Universal Accessibility”, but requested that priority of individual works projects be reviewed. Views of the nine Members were summarised below:
(i) Proposed Barrier-free Facilities in Wong Tai Sin
(a) WTSDC had endorsed the establishment of the Working Group on Barrier-free Facilities in Wong Tai Sin (WGBFF) on 3 July 2012 and proposed a total of 20 works projects. Most of the proposed facilities were located at places with high pedestrian flow and imminent needs, as well as places where improvement should be made promptly;
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 20 (b) After consolidating the proposals received, HyD had to take a series of actions, such as public consultation exercise, feasibility study, design, funding application, tendering exercise, etc. in respect of every proposed works project. Given the time-consuming workflow, Members were worried that existing needs might not be met in a timely manner;
(c) Among the 20 works projects proposed by WTSDC, some involved multiple departments or land owners, such as HyD, Housing Department (HD), the Link and OCs. In this connection, Members enquired how the Government would co-ordinate efforts of these departments and parties in the implementation of the new policy, and provide barrier-free access facilities at strategic locations;
(ii) Suggestions about the New Policy of “Universal Accessibility”
(a) The Government was requested to use wisely the funding earmarked specifically for this initiative, so as to ensure that priority was given to the provision of barrier-free facilities in walkways with high volume of pedestrian movement;
(b) Procedure should be streamlined so that works could be completed in not more than three years;
(c) Inter-departmental endeavours should be co-ordinated properly to ensure smooth progress of works;
(iii) Personal comments on the paper submitted by HyD
(a) Regarding “provision of about $100 million is expected in the coming year, rising to over $1 billion annually in the few years following” [para. 5(b)(i) of the paper], he enquired about the meaning of “rising” and how it was achieved. In consideration of the fact that there were more than 230 proposed projects and some of them could commence any time, he enquired if the provision of $100 million would be used solely to cover construction cost of the projects, or design fees would be covered as well;
(b) Para. 7 of the paper set out that among the 230 projects, more than 170 were being carried out by HyD and the remaining 60-odd were proposed by DCs and other district-based stakeholders, viz. there were only three to four projects in every district. In this connection, he was concerned whether the public’s needs could be met;
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 21 (c) Regarding para. 10 of the paper which set out that the Government would urge MTRCL, the Link and private developers to join hands and provide a “universally accessible environment”, he was concerned whether LandsD would undertake that it would not ask the relevant parties for regrant premium in respect of the change of land use necessitated by the construction of barrier-free accesses or installation of new elevators.
33. Mr. SO Sik-kin said CE had undertaken that “no livelihood issue is too trivial” and the public welcomed the introduction of the policy of “Universal Accessibility”. He opined that it could be difficult to introduce a policy, thus the Government should work around the barriers. Many barrier-free facilities involved the use of private lots. For instance, the use of Tsui Chuk Garden Commercial Complex would be required for the construction of barrier-free access serving Tsui Chuk Garden. Although the Government might install elevator for only one staircase, this would not fully solve the problems facing Tsui Chuk Garden. He thus suggested the Government simplify the procedure for provision of barrier-free access facilities by means of legislation, so that such facilities could be provided in an estate even though the owners could not agree on the same unanimously, since some of them might have passed away, migrated abroad or been unwilling to voice their intention. He had also consulted the legal services sector and noted that OCs were formed under the law to represent all owners in the management of the estates concerned. Therefore, an OC might consider barrier-free facility projects proposed by the Government on owners’ behalf. He also pointed out that after many years of discussion, the Government finally agreed to consider retrofitting an elevator to connect a footbridge at Pang Ching Court with Chuk Yuen Road. However, the project was only one of the improvements to be made to Chuk Yuen, and by no means the last piece of the puzzle that perfected the barrier-free accesses in Chuk Yuen, nor could it allow residents to go to Lok Fu MTR Station from Chuk Yuen Road via Ma Chai Hang Road. Therefore, the Government should provide more resources to perfect the barrier-free accesses. He added that as the development plan pertaining to the works site at Ma Chai Hang Road had yet to be formulated, the Government might set aside part of the site to improve the barrier-free accesses in Chuk Yuen. He emphasised that the proposal had been discussed for many years, and urged the Government to pay more attention to the residents’ feelings and needs.
34. Hon. WU Chi-wai, MH welcomed the new policy of “Universal Accessibility” and commented that it would help remove the obstacles to the retrofitting of barrier-free accesses. However, he was worried that it was infeasible to retrofit barrier-free facilities at certain streets due to the lack of space for elevator towers. Also, it could be difficult to build an elevator tower on a slope due to space constraint. He enquired how the Government would handle such proposals, or just turn them down direct. In addition, the new elevator might not be attached directly to the existing structure, thus he enquired if construction cost of the link bridge concerned would be covered by the policy-specific funding as well, or a separate funding application should be made. In response to HyD’s stance, viz. it would consider DCs’ views when
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 22 deciding the priority of individual projects, he commented that the department should provide scientific data, such as the volume of pedestrian movement, and criteria for prioritisation, for Members’ reference and discussion, so as to avoid any dispute. Moreover, the proposed streamlining of consultation exercise might involve revision of deed of mutual covenant and thus he suggested that the Government might, in addition to seeking consensus from all residents of the estates concerned, consider revising the deed of mutual covenant in a way that was lawful and agreed by estate residents in general, so that the projects would not constitute a cause for raising interrogation regarding properties concerned.
35. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH said under CE’s new policy of “Universal Accessibility”, a total of 230 escalators/elevators would be built in the 18 districts of the territory, among them 13 would be built in Wong Tai Sin. He agreed that “no livelihood issue is too trivial” and thus welcomed the new policy which would provide barrier-free accesses to the elderly, the disabled and children. The problem of ageing population was particularly serious in Wong Tai Sin, and many buildings in the district were built at hillside, necessitating the need for a comprehensive network of barrier-free access facilities. He commented that the Government should consider the question of property right when retrofitting barrier-free access facilities for existing footbridges, such as those in Tsui Chuk Garden and Chuk Yuen North Estate, because doing so might require occupation of places in estates. He noted that generally speaking HyD was responsible for works at ground level, thus he enquired which departments would be responsible for works to be carried out in space beyond, and asked the Government to follow up and provide assistance accordingly. He was also concerned about the possible shortage of engineers and technicians specialised in the installation, maintenance and repair of elevators and escalators, in view of the massive number of projects to be launched under the new policy. Therefore, he suggested the Government assess the situation, step up the relevant training efforts and recruit extra staff to cope with the needs. In addition, regarding para. 5(b)(i) of HyD’s paper which set out that “provision of about $100 million is expected in the coming year, rising to over $1 billion annually in the few years following”, he opined that the provision was inadequate since each of the 18 districts would only obtain a few tens of million dollars every year even though the Government provide $1 billion to the territory annually. As the project cost had been hiking continuously in the past few years, he was worried that progress of works would be affected due to insufficient funds.
36. Mr. HUI Kam-shing did not object to the new policy of “Universal Accessibility” but hoped that the policy could actually achieve the intended goal, so that public money would not be wasted. Wong Tai Sin’s WGBFF could discuss the proposed locations of elevators to be retrofitted and the urgency of individual retrofitting projects. He suggested the Government let DCs to decide the priority of the retrofitting works in their respective districts. Also, he agreed that individual projects should be prioritised using objective data, as this would less likely to cause controversy between Members, and the decision would be more objective. He emphasised that local stakeholders and DCs had better understanding of local needs and thus the priority of projects should be determined by them. He was concerned about
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 23 whether the Government had set any timeframe, within which all projects should be completed, and commented that the Government should consider the priority of projects in terms of necessity, instead of any preset timeframe. Similarly, priority of allocation of funds should be decided according to the importance of individual projects, otherwise the more important ones accorded with a lower priority might have to be shelved, and less important ones were carried out. This was a waste of public money.
37. Mr. HONG Kwai-sum thanked Members for their comments. His response was summarised as follows:
(i) More than 230 projects had been proposed to date, among which 170 involved walkways without barrier-free facilities, and prompt retrofitting was required for law compliance. The remaining 60 or so were proposals received by the Government in the past. After the announcement of the policy of “Universal Accessibility” by CE, HyD had received a number of suggestions from the public. The department was consolidating these suggestions, with a view to submitting the same for DCs’ discussion as soon as possible;
(ii) HyD noted WTSDC’s views on prioritisation of individual works projects, and would obtain data from TD on pedestrian flow of walkways concerned. Therefore, Members could determine the priority of retrofitting works in Wong Tai Sin promptly, so that these works could be commenced as soon as possible;
(iii) The Government would earmark adequate funding for projects under this initiative every year. In addition to constructing barrier-free access facilities, part of the funding would be set aside for feasibility studies; and
(iv) Regarding the proposed construction of barrier-free facilities in private lots, HyD would identify a solution with LandsD; whereas proposed projects relating to HD venues would be considered and followed up by HD.
38. The Chairman said WTSDC had all along attached high importance to the provision of barrier-free accesses. At the meeting held on 3 July 2012, WTSDC had endorsed the establishment of WGBFF. The policy of “Universal Accessibility” was primarily about walkways managed by HyD. After a number of meetings, WGBFF had found that one of the major obstacles in the provision of barrier-free access facilities was that the proposed works would involve a number of Government departments or organisations. For instance, LandsD’s sites or private lots might be required for the provision of lift towers serving footbridges of HyD or HD. He hoped that WGBFF could help departments, organisations and land owners reach consensus, and submit a report to the Government. The policy of “Universal Accessibility” was introduced to benefit the general public. Therefore, it should not be applicable only to walkways
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 24 managed by HyD, but walkways managed by all departments. According to past experience, it could be difficult, if not possible to carry out works on private lots. Therefore, the Government should identify a solution for these cases and remove the administrative barriers that prevented the introduction of the policy, so as to proceed to the construction stage and benefit the public as soon as possible.
39. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP was concerned about the allocation of public resources, and commented that the funds to be earmarked, viz. up from about $100 million in the coming year to about $1 billion annually in a few years, were inadequate. Many communities in Hong Kong were located beside a hillside, and quite a few people had said they were envy of the Hillside Escalator Link between Central & Mid-levels. She welcomed the Government’s new policy, which was in place to tackle the existing problems squarely. However, she commented that the Government had failed to provide adequate money to meet the needs of the community. She pointed out that WTSDC had submitted a proposal for HyD’s consideration, and the department would ask WTSDC to determine the priority of individual works projects after consolidating all the views. She hoped that the policy could benefit every one in Hong Kong, including the elderly and the disabled, housewives, etc., thus the Government should consider setting aside more funds to meet the needs. For instance, the footbridge at Tsui Chuk Garden would cost more than $10 million, and enormous resources would be required in the provision of barrier-free access at Shatin Pass Road. Moreover, in view of the large number of steep roads in various districts in the territory, she was concerned about how the Government would determine whether barrier-free facilities should be retrofitted at a certain place. She opined that the public would object to any selection criteria drawn up by the Government at this stage, so the latter would better consider this matter from users’ perspectives, and provide more resources. She emphasised that she welcomed the policy, but commented that the resources to be earmarked were inadequate to solve the existing probleMs The Government should handle livelihood issues, including aging population, the needs of disabled people, the direction of the policy of barrier-free accesses, the needs of the general public, etc., very carefully. She reiterated that she welcomed the policy, but objected to the formulation of guiding principles, which might create conflicts among members of the public.
40. Mr. CHAN On-tai opined that due to resource constraints of the Government, consideration should be made to the volume of pedestrian flow at places where retrofitting of elevators was proposed. He had, on numerous occasions, told Government departments that no elevator should be installed at the footbridge across Ma Chai Hang Street near Lung Cheung Government Secondary School (KF60). This was because the footbridge was not supported by any bus stop or pedestrian crossing facility and it was far away from residences, discouraging people from using it. Therefore, he was dissatisfied that HyD insisted to waste public money and install an elevator there. He commented that HyD should collect and publicise relevant information, including views of disabled people and residents concerned, and only install an elevator if the public supported to do so. Otherwise, it would be a waste of public money. Maintenance of the elevators in future should be considered, too. He emphasised that HyD’s policy was outdated and, to avoid wasting public money, lifts should only be retrofitted at places where they were needed.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 25 41. The Chairman said WGBFF had put forth 20 suggestions for HyD’s consideration and follow-up actions. He asked the department to note Members’ views and thanked Mr. HON Kwai-sum for attending the meeting.
(Mr. HONG Kwai-sum left the meeting at this juncture.)
III(iii) The Arrangement of Conservation Park in Urban Renewal Authority’s Nga Tsin Wai Village Project (WTSDC Paper 84/2012)
42. The Chairman welcomed Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric, Head of Community Development, Mr. Michael MA, Director of Planning and Design, Mr. WONG Chi-man, Senior Manager of Planning and Design, and Ms KWOK Wing-kam, Senior Manager of Community Development of the Urban Renewal Authority’s (URA’s).
43. Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric thanked WTSDC for the opportunity for URA to report on the progress of conservation project about Nga Tsin Wai Village since the meeting held in April. After thorough discussion with departments and local leaders concerned, and on the basis of the information provided by WTSDC in April as well as professionals’ advice on the planning and design of the Conservation Park, URA had worked out a new design for the park. Mr. Micheal MA would explain to WTSDC the design of K1 Nga Tsin Wai Village in detail, in a bid to secure support from more Members.
44. Mr. Michael MA made a Powerpoint presentation on the design of the Nga Tsin Wai Village Conservation Park. Highlights were as follows:
(i) Design Concept
URA attached high importance to the design concept of the project and had thus invited Mr. Tony LAM, the architect-cum-conservation expert who had turned Lui Seng Chun into the Hong Kong Baptist University School of Chinese Medicine to draw up the design concept of the Conservation Park.
Despite the renewal works of Kai Tak River, URA hoped that a moat-like design could be adopted after studying historical documents and discussing with Mr. LAM. For centuries, there had been a moat in front of the village. Even though the boundary wall of the village had been gone, the moat-like design would highlight the ambience of the walled village.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 26 As agreed with WTSDC, URA would preserve the “Three Treasures”, as well as eight undamaged buildings. In addition, the central axis joining the gatehouse and Tin Hau Temple would also be highlighted. It was hoped that the adoption of Chinese garden design would re-create the narrow alleys unique to wall villages. The said design would also be echoed by the wall itself to enhance the ambience of the walled village. Also, the Government would set aside some places in front of the village for greening which, together with the reflection on the river, would echo the old moat in front of the village. A modern twist would also be given to the Chinese garden design which featured short partition walls. A similar design could be found in Pak Tsz Lane Park in Central.
Indoor or outdoor exhibition venues might be provided near Tin Hau Temple and the gatehouse to enable the village for both active and passive amenities.
(ii) Exhibition Venue
Short walls could be built to flank the gatehouse, in a bid to create the ambience of walled village and indoor space created by extension works might be used for multimedia exhibitions on, among others, history of Nga Tsin Wai Village. Further discussion with WTSDC was required to determine the target users of the venue.
(iii) Eight Village Houses
The eight existing village houses would be preserved and some of them might be converted into exhibition venues showing daily lives in the past as well as relics found in the village. Old houses at Bo Pi Liao Street in Manka, Taipei were also preserved to hold exhibition on daily lives in the past.
(iv) Teahouse
A landscaped teahouse would be provided for tea tasting.
(v) Mini Piazza
The space in front of Tin Hau Temple might be used as a mini piazza, which might be used to hold activities if necessary. Collaboration with WTSDC might also be sought.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 27 (vi) Reprovisioning of Public Toilet
Three potential sites for reprovisioning of public toilet had been considered. Among them, the recommended site was the one nearest to the existing public toilet – less than one minute’s walk. The recommended site faced the park, and there was a walkway at the other side, making the upcoming toilet accessible from and beyond the park 24 hours a day. In addition, participants of activities would find the toilet a convenient one as it faced the activity venue in front of the Tin Hau Temple as well as the reprovisioned village office. The second candidate site was somewhat farther away from the existing toilet. The third one was at the leftmost side of the gatehouse. In view of the direction of prevailing wind in Hong Kong, the architect had pointed out that odour of the toilet might be carried to the Conservation Park. Due to design and technical considerations, the department was of the view that it was more desirable to relocate the toilet to the site nearest to the existing one. The final decision would be made after consulting DC Members.
(Ms KWOK Sau-ying left the meeting at 4:55 p.m.)
45. Ms TAM Heung-man appreciated URA’s attempt to handle matters concerning the acquisition of people’s flats. Unfortunately, some residents were still dissatisfied with that, and thus she urged URA to keep up its efforts. She drew URA’s attention that about six to seven years ago, URA and WTSDC had discussed this topic already. However, residents and shops of Nga Tsin Wai Village now considered that the compensation was too low when the actual acquisition took place. The existing shop owners hoped that they could continue their business in situ or in the vicinity. However, the mere amount of compensation made then unable to rent shops from the Link and continue their business. She suggested that HD be invited to explore jointly the feasibility of making low-rent on-street shops in Tung Tau Estate or its vicinity available to these shop owners, so that they could continue their business and serve residents of Nga Tsin Wai Village. She pointed out as an example that there was still one hair salon in the village which provided services to the residents, in particular the elderly. Residents in the vicinity treasured these services, too. In addition, some residents might take legal actions, in a bid to delay the reprovisioning of the park. She hoped that the park could be reprovisioned as soon as possible as there were not many parks adopting nostalgic design in the vicinity of Tau Tau Estate. As people might take legal actions or even apply for judiciary review, she commented that URA should address people’s requests as soon as practicable. In particular, she urged URA to discuss with residents who attended the meeting as bystanders, as they were very dissatisfied with the arrangement.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 28 46. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP said she had been following up this matter for two decades and was dissatisfied with the proposal despite how beautiful the design was. The proposed design was like a number of human organs, with a gap in the middle through only which one could see the sky. Although the design was not quite eye pleasing, the Government turned a blind eye to views of WTSDC and the residents and insisted that the current design should be adopted. She said it was regrettable that despite the Governments’ excuses, Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd. (CKH) could keep on making acquisition and the door for negotiation was open until the very last moment. The park was small, thus it was not right to relocate too many things. She enquired whether the two blocks to be built by CKH would open to the park, and emphasised that the park should not be used as the backyard of the Lee’s family. It was unacceptable that the Government adapted itself to them. On the other hand, in view of the fact that the design did not include the existing village office, she enquired about the use of the village office in future, and pointed out that both the Tin Hau Temple and the gatehouse should not be relocated. Many antiquities and relics would be unearthed when the park was being built. Even though CKH had already demolished many things, it did not mean that nothing was buried underground. She did not object to the construction of moat in front of the park, but commented that it was not right to build a dirty stream casually. As Kai Tak River – to be beautified in the future – was not far away, consideration should be given for the Government, instead of a property developer, to take the lead in the construction of the moat. The park should not be managed by a property developer, or CKH, for the sake of convenience. Instead, the park and Kai Tak River should be managed by the non-government organisations. Any treasure unearthed in the park should be recorded and inspected by archaeologists. Since URA had much concern about the compensation package to be offered to the villagers, she commented that despite the provisions in the ordinances concerned, shop owners should be allowed to continue their business. The Government turned a blind eye to the history of this ancient village, which had been established 600 years ago, so no discussion could be satisfactory. Therefore, she only hoped that minimal change would be brought to this very small place. Also, she enquired if any space would be available for the annual Taiping Qingjiao, as she would find it hard to explain to the village head if not. A professor of the Chinese University Hong Kong was also dissatisfied with the fact that a relic in Wong Tai Sin would be turned into something like this, but he could only face the reality. URA had made substantial effort to design the project, but it could not compensate the loss.
47. Mr. MOK Ying-fan shared Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP’s views, and said at that time only he and Mr. LAM Man-fai had raised objection to the construction of buildings in the Nga Tsin Wai Village but what had followed was history. The situation in the past was different from that in 2012, as people nowadays attached high importance to civic rights. As a result, incident such as the Lung Mei Beach had become a hot potato. That being said, URA should face the music and consult the village office on matters concerning the works and changes to be bought to the village. After all, the village belonged to the NG’s family. Moreover, he requested URA to provide more information on the moat, including its source and outlet. Regarding URA’s proposed adoption of landscaping design in Suzhou style, Mr. MOK commented
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 29 that even though both Hong Kong and Suzhou were located in the southern part of China, the former belonged to Lingnan of Guangdong province, thus Lingnan style, including architectural elements such as the “spatula-ear” design, should be adopted instead. Kowloon Walled City Park was large enough for occasional lectures, guided tours, etc., and consideration could also be made to host lectures on history in the Conservation Park in Nga Tsin Wai Village. As the village formed part of Hong Kong’s history, the Hong Kong Archaeological Society should be invited during the land resumption stage to carry out archaeological survey and excavation, and the press had reported that URA had decided to do so. While WTSDC had discussed matters concerning compensation, he commented that it was not in a position to comment on such monetary matter. However, he opined that URA should attach importance to the needs of existing residents and shop owners and communicate with them. In the long-run, the villagers would move away from the village. Hence, the URA should not take a hard line stance to achieve this goal. Upon completion of the residential project, the monetary return generated from the sale of merely two or three flats should be able to cover the compensation they requested.
48. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH raised two points about the design of the Conservation Park in Nga Tsin Wai Village. Firstly, it was the only walled village in the urban area that was left more or less intact. In addition to the uniqueness and the traditional Chinese layout, the walled village had historical, cultural and educational significance, too. According to the conservation plan, eight village houses would be converted to host exhibition of daily lives and history of the walled village. He hoped that docents could be provided, as suggested by Mr. MOK Ying-fan, to explain to visitors the daily lives and tradition of people living in the walled village. Secondly, the Conservation Park, upon completion, could join Wong Tai Sin Temple, Chi Nin Nunnery, Nan Lian Garden and other temples in Wong Tai Sin to form another tourist attraction highlighting the history and culture of China. As these attractions would attract visitors from local, the mainland and aboard, they would promote consumption activities in the district. He hoped that URA and the Hong Kong Tourist Board could communicate and co-operate more closely, so that more people would know and appreciate Wong Tai Sin and even the entire Kowloon East.
(Mr. Joe CHAN left the meeting at 5:10 p.m.)
49. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung said the upcoming buildings in the park were built by a joint venture of CKH and URA. At the meeting, URA pretended that it was working for the interest of people and it would build the axis and the moat. However, there was a huge conflict of interest because URA was one of the developers. He remarked that the independent Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) should be consulted at least. He also commented that URA was in no position to speak and could never be impartial as it was both a developer and an entity tasked to work for people’s rights. He shared Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP’s views, and opined that URA was a developer and thus should not attend the meeting in such a high profile and claim that it had considered all matters relating to the development of Conservation Park, as well as conservation of antiquities and relics in Wong Tai Sin. An independent third party should be invited to the meeting instead.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 30 50. Mr. MOK Ying-fan added that AAB had considered that there was no need to preserve Nga Tsin Wai Village but need to be reaffirmed after review of relevant materials. He said the existing public toilet opened 24 hours a day and no change should be made in this regard.
51. Ms TAM Heung-man informed the meeting of two cases. In the first case, URA had closed the kitchen of a unit so that it could not be used by the residents concerned. In the second case, URA stopped the water supply of an acquired unit, which shared the water supply with the unit next door. As a result, water supply to the latter was stopped, even though the unit had yet to be acquired. She commented that it was totally unacceptable.
52. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP said the two buildings to be built by CKH would affect the entire Tung Tau Estate. That area enjoyed good ventilation and was cool even when the weather was hot. The upcoming buildings would block the wind channel connecting Kowloon Bay and the area, so she urged the Government to ensure that the buildings would not cause any screen effect as the Latitude did. She had raised objection to URA’s decision on a number of occasions but what to be done had been done. She urged the Government to pay attention to this point as two small geographical constituencies in Tung Tau would be affected. She shared Mr. WONG Kwok-tung’s views, and reiterated that the two buildings would be taller than those in Tung Tau Estate and thus affect ventilation. In consideration of the fact that the community attached high importance to the problem of screen effect nowadays, she warned that great care should be exercised, and assistance might be sought from CUHK’s Prof. NG to measure the wind force. She had previously submitted the above views to URA and objected to the construction of buildings, but no one listened to her.
53. The Chairman said along the Kai Tak River, there was a green belt running from Wong Tai Sin Police Station, via Tung Wui Estate and Kai Tak Development Area to the seashore, breaking only at Nga Tsin Wai Village. At the side of the village near Kai Tak River, there was a carriageway that was not part of the URA’s project. Even so, he hoped that URA could move the carriageway to somewhere else, and use the space made available to widen the area beside for 10-odd feet, so that the two sections of the green belt beside Kai Tak River could be joined together. A similar arrangement could be found between Tung Wui Estate and Lee Kau Yan Memorial School, which were connected to the walkway adjacent to Kai Tak River with a footbridge.
54. Mr. Michael MA said URA had endeavoured to adopt feasible suggestions put forth by Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP and Mr. MOK Ying-fan in the years. He said he had mentioned Suzhou style because short walls would be built to separate the park in the middle and the residences flanking it, rather than making the park a full duplication of a Suzhou garden. The two rows of bushes could separate the Conservation Park with the residential area. In between the two rows of bushes would be the Conservation Park whereas outside which would belong to the property developer. As agreed with the property developer, the Conservation Park would be
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 31 financed, designed, built and managed by URA, and everything inside, including the public toilet, would be managed by it as well. The upcoming public toilet would be better equipped than the existing one and open 24 hours a day. As the public toilet would open to the park, the ventilation system would be designed very carefully. In response to the views of Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP and Mr. MOK Ying-fan, he said it was difficult to identify archaeologists in Hong Kong. URA had sought consent from Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) and would appoint a team of archaeologists to take charge of certain excavation works, and report to AMO of the items found underground. In response to Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH’s enquiry about the availability of space for lectures and exhibitions, he replied that the additional space flanking the gatehouse could be used for these purposes, and said if WTSDC thought the proposal acceptable, URA would like to report to WTSDC regularly and discuss with it the detailed design concerned, including the provision of guided tours and content of the exhibitions. In addition, it would work together with WTSDC and identify ways to benefit the district. Regarding the ventilation problem mentioned by Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP, he said URA had invited experts to carry out tests on ventilation, and found that little adverse impact would be caused as the two new blocks would be elevated 15m above ground level and arranged in a cascade. Miss WONG Yuen Sheung, Ophelia, JP, Deputy Director of Planning had once mentioned that Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP was concerned much about the ridgeline of the Lion Rock. He commented that the residential blocks beside the park would not block the ridgeline. Regarding traffic arrangements, vehicular access would be located at the back of the park, if the public toilet was reprovisioned at the proposed location; whereas URA held an open attitude as to whether the road in front of the park would be beautified and turned into a pedestrian area. URA was currently working on the design of the space in front of the village earmarked by the Government for greening purposes. A design compatible with Kai Tak River would be adopted, and URA might report to WTSDC regularly on the design and greening proposal in the vicinity of the area.
55. In response to questions about compensation raised by three Members, Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric clarified that there was an established policy on the level of compensation in respect of a building, be it built on Government or private land, or legal or illegally built. The compensation amount was not calculated on the basic of the profit of the project or this would lead to chaos. He explained to Ms TAM Heung-man that frontline staff of URA’s Acquisition & Clearance Division had been discussing with occupants and residences matters concerning compensation, but it did not necessarily mean everyone affected was happy about the level of compensation as each of them had his own consideration. However, he undertook that URA would keep in touch with the stakeholders through meetings or face-to-face contact. Although URA had never escaped from its duties, it could not guarantee that the stakeholders could be satisfied. Regarding Ms TAM Heung-man’s accusation of URA’s alleged misdeed, viz. disconnecting the water supply of a unit, he said during a site inspection, URA’s representative had explained to Ms TAM that the water supply disconnected belonged to an acquired unit, instead of the one next door, which had yet to move away and kept using the tap of the acquired one all along. Having received the complaint, URA had reconnected the water supply at the material night and the
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 32 reconnection had been reported by the press. He guaranteed that the park would be managed by URA and the cost to be incurred would not be shifted to someone else. Regarding villagers’ possible legal actions or judiciary review mentioned by Ms TAM, URA respected people’s rights and would act in accordance with the court’s judgement when appropriate. It would not insist on its own plan and had no right to override the court’s judgement and offer other forms of compensation.
56. The Chairman said he had been meeting with URA and the villagers affected, and had also written to URA. He believed that an important question to address was about the level of compensation for certain premises. He respected the policy, viz. different yardsticks would be applied in the determination of the level of compensation in respect of different types of buildings, including those with historical value as well as unauthorised ones. However, as he had once pointed out at a meeting with URA, profit and goodwill generated from villagers’ commercial activities were not considered in the calculation of compensation. What URA provided was subsidy rather than compensation as the structures concerned was illegal ones built on places that did not belong to the villagers. However, given that these structures had existed for long, he enquired if URA could make the calculation on the basis of “commercial loss”, as in the case of the Kowloon Walled City project. Even though villagers were not making huge profit from their businesses, they could at least make a living. They could not survive with the current level of compensation, viz. just more than $30,000. He commented that URA might make reference to Housing Department’s approach adopted in the Kowloon Walled City Park project and demolition of Tai Hom Village, and provide another compensation package for the villagers, who could provide evidence to prove the commercial loss they had suffered. He believed that many Members were following up compensation matters for the villagers but it was impossible to discuss individual cases at this meeting. Therefore, he hoped that WTSDC Members could act as middlemen between URA and the villagers outside the meeting. Also, he hoped that commercial loss could be incorporated in the calculation of compensation, otherwise it would be difficult to reach a consensus. URA said it did not breach any legislation and would take legal actions if necessary. He commented that this was not a proper way to solve century-old problems. He welcomed URA to consult WTSDC on the revised design of the landscaped park, as well as future management and use of the park.
57. Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH wondered if the date of demolition had been confirmed, given that discussion on demolition of Nga Tsin Wai Village had lasted two terms of WTSDC. Fortunately there had not been many rainy days and typhoons this year, but the village houses could only become more dilapidated if the project was postponed for another one or two years, making it more difficult to preserve them. Therefore, he hoped that a demolition date could be determined as soon as possible, so that WTSDC could discuss the resettlement arrangement. He also shared the same question with Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP and asked if entrances of the two luxury residential blocks would be located in the park. He commented that it should be stated clearly in the deed of mutual covenant that the park would be managed by URA, and the arrangement should not be changed even if the residents of the blocks or the developer pushed for it.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 33 58. Ms TAM Heung-man concurred with the Chairman’s views, in particular the point about commercial loss. She opined that Government officials might exercise discretion, so URA should be compassionate. The tap might be an illegal one and it was URA’s responsibility to close the units acquired. However, if it had known that the residents next door was using the same tap, the officer concerned had to remind the household to apply for a legal tap and allow it to use the existing one albeit it was illegal in the interim. URA, however, had acted meanly to the residents without the slightest sense of sympathy. She commented that this was why people thought that the Government was bossy.
59. The Chairman said interested villagers might liaise with WTSDC, its committees or individual Members after the meeting.
60. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP concurred with the Chairman on the handling of the case, viz. WTSDC would liaise with villagers again afterwards. She commented that many Members of WTSDC, including the Chairman, were experienced in demolition and redevelopment matters. During the renewal of Wong Tai Sin, HD had made painstaking efforts to resettle more than 7 000 households. Therefore, she opined that URA should resettle the residents as well, rather than insist to stick to its guidelines. She also emphasised that URA should clearly state that the place did not belong to CKH, the developer, as this was an issue relating to land lease. URA said the village office would be part of the project but it was not mentioned at all in the plan, thus she was worried that the village office would be demolished and converted to other uses. She did not want to see anything new, but a mentioning of the village office in the plan so that it would not be gone and the “Three Treasures” became two when follow up actions were taken. The project might outlast this term of WTSDC. If matters were not recorded clearly, the next term of WTSDC might find it difficult to follow up. Therefore, relevant matters including management, financing, ownership of entrance and ground level, etc. should be recorded clearly, so that CKH could not make use of their wealth and influence to take advantage. Also, a written record could guarantee that WTSDC would not be said to be supportive to the proposal during the consultation. She shared Mr. WONG Kwok-tung’s view about the inappropriateness of URA’s dual identity, but commented that nothing could be done as it was the Government’s policy. She understood the difficulties facing Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric and Mr. Michael MA, but remarked that it was still necessary to record the relevant matters clearly so that this term of WTSDC could be accountable to the coming terMs Therefore, all of the questions asked at this meeting should be properly documented.
61. In reply to the enquiries of Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP and Mr. WONG Kwok-tung about whether CKH’s residential blocks would share the entrance with the park, Mr. Michael MA reiterated that there would be two rows of trees between the park and the residential development, which would be accessed via a separate entrance. Management cost of the park would be borne by URA and would not be passed onto individual owners. Although no representative from Lands Department attended the meeting, the arrangement was set out in the deed being prepared, which would also set out that the village office would be left to the villagers, rather than any property
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 34 developer or URA. The proposed reprovisioning of public toilet might make space available for providing access to the future development. If necessary, URA and the architect would discuss with Members the details concerned. In addition, Mr. Tony LAM was an enthusiast of conservation and he might share his views with WTSDC in this regard. URA would keep in touch with WTSDC.
62. Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric remarked that the points raised by Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP were very important. He undertook that the topics discussed would be recorded in writing, so that no grey area would be left to frustrate citizens, villagers and residents of Wong Tai Sin.
63. The Chairman concluded that Nga Tsin Wai Village was the first development proposed by the predecessor of URA. URA should not only report that it had amended the landscape design according to WTSDC’s comments. Instead, issues such as compensation to be given to the people, problems relating to removal and demolition, numbers of household that an agreement had been made, etc., should also be reported. He believed that Members attending the meeting would welcome residents affected to tell WTSDC what they thought, and make appointment with URA to discuss their cases. A new project would involve a number of commercial probleMs Therefore, any adjustment to be made to the original proposal had to be underpinned by commercial compensation, as in the cases of demolition of Kowloon Walled City and Tai Hom Village. He hoped that URA would study WTSDC’s views and report to WTSDC. If necessary, special meetings could be held to discuss with residents affected on their individual cases. He thanked representatives of URA for attending the meeting.
(Mr. CHOI Yan-sang, Eric, Head of Community Development, Mr. Michael MA, Director of Planning and Design, Mr. WONG Chi-man, Senior Manager of Planning and Design, and Ms KWOK Wing-kam, Senior Manager of Community Development of URA left the meeting at this juncture.).
(Ms CHAN Man-ki, Maggie, MH and Mr. MOK Ying-fan left the meeting at 5:45 p.m.)
III(iv) Proposal on Zoning of Former Kai Tak Airport Site and School List (By District) (WTSDC Paper 85/2012)
64. The Chairman welcomed Ms CHING Suk-yee Chief School Development Officer (Wong Tai Sin) and Mr. CHAN Hung-to, Senior Education Officer (School Places Allocation)2 of the Education Bureau (EDB), as well as Ms KAM Yim-mui, Chairperson of the Wong Tai Sin District Primary School Heads Association, Ms LAU Yiu-hung, Chairperson of the Wong Tai Sin Secondary School Heads Association and Dr. HO Sai-mun, Convenor of the Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Places Co-ordinating Group.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 35 65. Mr. MOK Chung-fai, Rex, MH introduced the paper. The Wong Tai Sin District School Liaison Committee, the Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Heads Association and the Wong Tai Sin District Primary School Heads Association attached high importance to district zoning of the former Kai Tak Airport site and the demarcation of school nets. In this connection, they agreed the following for WTSDC’s consideration and discussion:
(i) The Government should finalise district zoning and announce the result as soon as possible, and clearly state to which district the former Kai Tak Airport site would belong, so that parents to be moving into Kai Ching Estate and Tak Long Estate could make school choices for their children, and schools in Wong Tai Sin could prepare for the planning of education well in advance;
(ii) During planning, the Government should consider daily lives of people, home-school distance, safety of students, supply and demand for secondary, primary and kindergarten places, and development of education in the district, so that the established principle of “vicinity” could be adhered to; and
(iii) Government departments should ensure that supporting community and educational facilities and services were ready in advance to meet the needs of residents, parents, students and schools in the area, so as to avoid the possible imbalance and chaos that might affect the stability and harmony of the community.
He recalled that WTSDC had discussed the designation of part of the Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA) under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin. During the discussion, Members had suggested the Kowloon City District Council and the Kwun Tong District Council be consulted. In this connection, he enquired about the latest progress of the consultation exercise and whether the suggestion was feasible, so that parents and schools could make preparation for that well in advance.
66. Mr. MOK Kin-wing said S.K.H. Yat Sau Primary School and S.K.H. Ching Shan Primary School, both in Choi Hung Estate at present, would be reprovisioned in KTDA with the facilities improved. Since students of the schools were mostly residents of Choi Hung and its vicinity, he enquired if the two schools would fall into Kowloon City or Wong Tai Sin School Net, and whether children studying in kindergartens in Choi Hung could study in the two schools according to the principle of “vicinity” after the reprovisioning. In addition, some school heads had told him their concerns about the provision of ancillary facilities after reprovisioning of schools. For instance, the route of bus no. 5M, frequency of buses during peak hours in the morning, the completion date of the pedestrian subway connecting Choi Hung and KTDA, etc. At previous meetings, WTSDC had also discussed the possible inclusion of public
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 36 housing estates and facilities into the Wong Tai Sin district. In this connection, he enquired about the latest position of the above matters.
(Mr. HO Yin-fai and Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH left the meeting at 5:50 p.m.)
67. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP shared Mr. MOK Kin-wing’s views, and commented that the policy should be relevant to the actual circumstances. The administrative boundary of KTDA, and to which district the public housing estates and facilities therein belong, had yet to be determined. Therefore, EDB should not include the two primary schools in another school net, as this would have grave implications to school netting arrangement and how students went to school. Every student and parent in Wong Tai Sin hoped that they could choose a desirable school from the Wong Tai Sin School Net and thus EDB should not include these schools to another school net brutally. EDB should consider views of the grassroots in Wong Tai Sin in the demarcation of school net, and plan the same in a “natural” manner.
68. Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH remarked that school nets should not be demarcated arbitrarily. Instead, the demarcation should be based on objective data, such as the number of students in an area. After reprovisioning in KTDA, the two primary schools were near Kwun Tong district geographically but administratively the new locations fell within Kowloon City district, whereas both schools were located in Wong Tai Sin district originally. Therefore, all of the three districts were possible choices in the demarcation of school net. As the two primary schools would not be reprovisioned until 2015, they would enrol students from Wong Tai Sin in 2012-14 and from the school net to be announced later from 2015 onwards. If KTDA was not included in the Wong Tai Sin School Net, secondary schools in the district might have to close due to under-enrolment, so EDB should not rush and decide the demarcation subjectively. He enquired about the support measures to be taken and the anticipated student enrolment number if the demarcation of school net was revised in 2015. Then he commented that EDB should provide information on every district’s student enrolment number, student-school place ratio and proposed support measures to be taken for Members’ information and discussion.
69. Mr. HUI Kam-shing shared Mr. WU Chi-wai, MH’s views and opined that the number of students and the change of it could be used as parameters for educational planning. Discussions on the transitional arrangements pertaining to the schools’ reprovisioning from Choi Hung to KTDA, articulation arrangements for students in Choi Hung Estate, etc. should be based on objective data, which were scarce at the present stage. However, he opined that the discussions should begin as soon as possible, so that parents and schools would be informed of the arrangements concerned. He enquired if the prevailing policy provided that geographical coverage of an administrative district and the corresponding school net should be superimposed on each other, and commented that it might be easier to demarcate a school net according to the size of primary school-age population instead of the geographical coverage of the administrative district concerned.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 37 70. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP emphasized that existing natural parameters such as students’ daily lives, schooling pattern, social network, student-student relationship, etc. should be considered in the demarcation of school nets. The two primary schools were near Wong Tai Sin district and thus they should remain in the Wong Tai Sin School Net under the principle of “vicinity”, as reiterated by the school heads associations. In addition, the Government should, for the interests of students and to ease the worries of schools and parents, announce the demarcation result as soon as possible. Regarding the demarcation of administrative districts, the Government should clearly demarcate KTDA which did not belong to any administrative district originally, and consider the fact that Wong Tai Sin was the only district in the territory that did not have any coastline. FTU had submitted a paper to WTSDC and requested the Government to plan reasonably, viz. designating part of KTDA under the jurisdiction of Wong Tai Sin administrative district.
71. The Chairman said KTDA was the site of the former Kai Tak Airport, which had never belonged to any administrative district. Geographically, however, KTDA was near Kowloon City and hence currently it belonged to the Kowloon City administrative district. As KTDA would be rezoned into commercial, residential, leisure and conservation areas, the Government should review the appropriateness of such demarcation. The Government was replanning Kai Tak and its vicinity under the initiative of “Energizing Kowloon East”. Therefore, if KTDA was designated as part of Kowloon City, the Government was actually “Energizing Kowloon West”, showcasing the lack of coordination between government departments. He recalled that he had suggested the former CE and Chief Secretary for Administration plan KTDA as a new district. He used the proposed development plan for Kwun Tong Promenade as an example and said he could not accept the concept that one might go to Kowloon City from Kwun Tong on foot. He requested the Government to decide the demarcation of administrative district and school net in KTDA before people moving into the area to avoid causing confusion to them. He thanked the school heads for attending the meeting and bringing the matter to WTSDC for discussion. As parents had the right to choose a school before they moved into KTDA, the problem should be solved before the two primary schools were reprovisioned into the area. In this connection, WTSDC urged the Government to decide on the demarcation of administrative district and school net as soon as possible, and asked Mr. William SHIU, JP to provide a brief introduction on demarcation of administrative districts.
(Ms TAM Heung-man left the meeting at 6:05 p.m.)
72. Mr. CHAN Hung-to thanked Members for their advice. He said EDB had started the school net demarcation exercise in 2010. After the finalisation of the school netting arrangement in July 2011, EDB had received comments from the public on the same, as well as requests for designation of part of KTDA under the Wong Tai Sin administrative district. Therefore, EDB had yet to finalise the school netting arrangement so that it could seek more views on these matters. As people would start moving into KTDA in late 2013, they would then enquire about the school netting arrangement for the area. That was why EDB planned to announce the same by the
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 38 end of the year. In line with the principle of “vicinity”, the Primary School Places Allocation Mechanism was school net-based, whereas the coverage of a school net was determined by geographical coverage of administrative districts, provision of transport facilities/services and demand/supply of school places. A secondary school net was demarcated to match the corresponding administrative district in which the primary schools were, so that the principle of “vicinity” could be adhered to. On the other hand, an administrative district would be subdivided into a few primary school nets. For instance, there were two primary school nets in Wong Tai Sin, namely Nos.43 and 45. Some people opined that KTDA was near San Po Kong, so schools there should be included in a school net of Wong Tai Sin according to the principle of “vicinity”. However, demarcation of school net had more to do than that, because during stage 1 of the primary school places allocation exercise, the Discretionary Places Admission Stage, cross-net selection of schools was acceptable. For children who failed to secure a school place during the stage, school places would be allocated through computer lot drawing, on the basis of their parents’ choices, the “random number” assigned, and the school net the students belonged to. Hence, a student living in a certain place in Wong Tai Sin that fell into School Net No. 43 would be allocated with a school place in a school in the same school net (i.e. No.43) during stage 2 of the school places allocation exercise (90% of the school places would be allocated during this stage). Even if KTDA was included in School Net No. 43, an applicant would be allocated with any school in the school net but not necessarily one in San Po Kong nearby. In fact, allocation of school places would be based on the geographic coverage of school net in the administrative district, parents’ choice and the random number assigned. As for transportation, as KTDA was in the urban area with well developed traffic network, there was not much controversy in this regard. Another important consideration was demand and supply of school places, so EDB would consider the same in both Wong Tai Sin and Kowloon City. The above planning criteria and stakeholders’ views would all be considered when EDB was deciding the school netting arrangement.
73. Mr. Rex MOK, MH commented that if Kai Ching Estate was included into the Kowloon City School Net, it would be sharing the same school net with Oi Man Estate. Hence, a student living opposite to Choi Hung Estate might be allocated with a school place in Oi Man Estate. Members should consider whether the situation was reasonable in the perspective of traffic arrangement. Wong Tai Sin was short of suitable sites for school development. Many primary schools in the district would be reprovisioned in Kowloon City, Tseung Kwan O, Kowloon Tong, Kwun Tong, etc. after whole-day conversion. With the inclusion of primary schools in KTDA in the Kowloon City School Net, the number of primary school places in Wong Tai Sin would further reduce, disrupting the balance between demand and supply. Moreover, the next agenda item would be about the change of land use of a site at Fung Shing Street, Ngau Chi Wan from school development to residential purpose. He was puzzled why the Administration reprovisioned primary schools in Wong Tai Sin to neighbouring districts and did not build new ones on the designated site. Nevertheless, he hoped that the school netting arrangement for KTDA could be finalised as soon as possible.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 39 74. Dr. HO Sai-mun, Convenor of the Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Places Co-ordinating Group thanked the Chairman for inviting him to attend the WTSDC meeting. Primary and secondary schools in Wong Tai Sin attached high importance to the development of education in the district. At the latest meeting of the Wong Tai Sin District School Liaison Committee (WTSDSLC), the Wong Tai Sin District Secondary School Heads Association and the Wong Tai Sin District Primary School Heads Association, Members of WTSDSLC had discussed the school netting arrangement for KTDA and expressed their concerns about whether there was reasonable plan for housing and educational development. WTSDSLC discussed with Mr. Michael SUEN, the then Secretary for Education (SED) the planning of educational development as early as in February 2011. In June 2011, 25 heads of schools in Wong Tai Sin sent a jointly signed letter to the then SED and expressed their views on planning of school development in Wong Tai Sin. The school sector hoped that EDB could finalise the school netting arrangement for KTDA as soon as possible and provide information on size of school-age population, change in the numbers of primary and secondary schools, population size of the district and conceptual plan for educational development in Wong Tai Sin. As EDB had not adequately consulted the school sector on the school netting arrangement, he hoped that WTSDC would relay their views to EDB. He was deeply concerned about the school netting arrangement for KTDA and said even though coverage of a school net would normally tally with the corresponding administrative district, there were exception cases. In consideration of the vast size of KTDA, heads of schools in Wong Tai Sin had previously advised EDB to exercise discretion and not to base the school net on the geographical coverage of the corresponding administrative district. As the potential residents of KTDA should have the right to know what primary schools were available to them, EDB should announce the school netting arrangement by December this year, so time was running out. On the other hand, he had requested EDB to make special arrangements before the schools were reprovisioned in KTDA, and handle the matter flexibly before the school netting arrangement was finalised. Primary and secondary schools in Wong Tai Sin maintained a strong tie with each other, the district itself was harmonious, and the ecology of education was well-balanced too. If primary schools in KTDA were excluded from the Wong Tai Sin School Net, the district would lose six primary schools in 10 years, and the well-balanced ecology of education would be disrupted. In addition, students’ living habit, safety en route to schools and traffic arrangement were important considerations. If the school netting arrangement was announced too late, the schools would not have sufficient time for the necessary planning work. Therefore, he hoped Members would reach a consensus on the school netting arrangement as soon as possible so that the schools could plan their tasks more effectively and meet the students’ needs. He also hoped that WTSDC would comment on the above proposal.
75. The Chairman thanked Dr. HO for voicing the opinion on behalf of the primary and secondary schools in the district, and invited EDB representatives to respond to Dr. HO, viz. whether the school net might not necessarily be based on the administrative district, what would be transitional arrangements to be taken by EDB, and whether there would be under-enrolment in secondary schools if six primary schools in Wong Tai Sin were moved out of the district.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 40 76. In response to Members’ and Dr. HO’s enquiries, Mr. CHAN Hung-to said in 1980s, school places in neighbouring school nets were insufficient so special arrangement had been made to designate certain schools to school nets that did not tally with their corresponding administrative districts. The situation in KTDA at present was vastly different from that in the past. It was impractical that all of the schools in KTDA were designated to a school net irrelevant to the demarcation of administrative district, as this was against the principle of “vicinity” and the expectation of parents in the area. Also, provision of school places, population of school-age children, resources for the society, etc. were all calculated on the basis of administrative district. If the demarcation of school net was done otherwise, resource mismatch would occur on top of unnecessary disputes. Therefore, EDB had to consider this matter very carefully, but it had an open mind on stakeholders’ advice. He reiterated that EDB had planned to announce the school net demarcation result for KTDA in July last year, but the announcement had been postponed as the bureau would like to listen to more stakeholders and consider their needs more thoroughly. Regarding the call for temporary arrangements to be made before the schools were reprovisioned in KTDA, such as allowing parents to choose schools from two different school nets in the central allocation stage, he commented that it might be impractical and also unfair to parents living in the same administrative district but not in KTDA as they could only choose schools in one school net. EDB would make a decision after considering stakeholders’ views and needs carefully.
(Hon. WU Chi-wai, MH left the meeting at 6:15 p.m.)
77. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung shared Dr. HO’s view on the need for schools to plan their tasks, as failure to do so would affect their effective operation. He disagreed with EDB’s stance about the need to make a school net tally with the corresponding administrative district. He was worried that the needs of schools and students could not be met as the bureau would only tackle this problem with the prevailing administrative arrangement and had not taken into consideration the principles of the agenda item. EDB mentioned that in 1984 and 1986, two schools were included into a school net that belonged to another administrative district. If EDB now insisted that a school net should be superimposed with an administrative district, its sole consideration was for administrative convenience only instead of from the educational perspective. The arrangement also failed to address the needs of students and schools. He thus hoped that EDB could consider the demarcation of school net from the educational perspective.
78. Mr. HUI Kam-shing said this was an important topic for both schools and students. One of the three principles in the demarcation of school net, as mentioned by EDB representatives, was supply and demand of school places. However, the bureau did not provide any information on the supply and demand of school places, as well as future educational planning in school nets No.34 and 43, so it was impossible to discuss this matter. On the other hand, EDB said that it had decided on the demarcation of school net in July 2011 but continued its consultation exercise in view of the public’s opinion. He could not understand why WTSDC had not been consulted until a paper was submitted by WTSDSLC. He was also worried that a decision rushed by WTSDC might not be an ideal or desirable one.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 41 79. The Chairman said EDB should not apply the general principles in the handling of this matter. Mr. Rex MOK and the WTSDSLC had pointed out that some primary schools in Wong Tai Sin would be reprovisioned in KTDA, and two housing estates in KTDA would be available for occupation in December 2013. However, these events would occur at different times, so the general principle in handling school netting issues could not solve the problem concerning KTDA. In view of the urgency, EDB should identify a suitable solution within this month, and the general principles should not be applied. Whichever school net would KTDA fall into, both Kowloon City District and Wong Tai Sin District would be affected. As a result, the schools’ student intake policy before and after people moving in KTDA might be inconsistent, and the school net the students belonged to might be changed over time. He asked EDB to address the request of WTSDSLC and Members promptly by identifying a case specific solution and a consistent student intake policy, and advising on the coverage of Wong Tai Sin Administrative District from an educational perspective.
80. Mr. YUEN Kwok-keung, Stephen enquired if the problem could be solved if the part of KTDA where the schools and public housing estates were located were included into the Wong Tai Sin Administrative District.
81. Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP shard Mr. HUI Kam-shing’s views and commented that if EDB could consider schools’ needs and plan in advance in view of factors such as school development, district administration, etc., there would not be any need to discuss and decide on the issue in such a tight timeframe. She remarked that the society had changed and stakeholders would seek help from various councils if the Government failed to respond to social issues. She did not understand why EDB had yet to decide on the demarcation of school net and inform schools of the result. Also, she commented that EDB should discuss with schools to reach a consensus rather than having a discussion initiated by a submission from the WTSDSLC.
82. Mr. William SHUM, JP responded on the demarcation of administrative districts. He thanked WTSDC and representatives from the school heads of primary and secondary schools in Wong Tai Sin for their advice. As a representative of HAD, he pointed out that WTSDC had discussed the coverage of Wong Tai Sin Administrative District in May this year. KTDA was managed by the Civil Aviation Department in the past. According to the District Councils Ordinance, KTDA was part of the Kowloon City Administrative District. Any change or amendment in the demarcation would involve legislative amendment and a series of actions. When determing the demarcation, the Government would consider a number of factors, including the distribution of population, geographical location, historical background, livelihood implications, and views of the relevant DCs and residents. HAD would listen to and consider views of all stakeholders in the demarcation exercise, during which the need for redemarcation would also be gauged. If redemarcation of administrative districts was agreed by all stakeholders, it was necessary to seek the approval of the CE and the Executive Council on the same in accordance with the established procedures pertaining to legislative amendment, and the vetting and endorsement of the LegCo. As the demarcation had a bearing on electoral matters, it was also necessary to seek approval
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 42 from the Electoral Affairs Commission before any change could be made. The above procedures were all essential. The school netting arrangement was a more urgent one and could not be solved timely by changing the boundary of DC constituencies. To meet the needs of schools and students, EDB should work out suitable transitional arrangements. As to the question on whether the transitional arrangements would become permanent, it depended on whether the administrative districts would be redemarcated. Many Members and WTSDSLC had pointed out that the schools in questions should remain in the Wong Tai Sin School Net, and schools in the district had cooperated well with each other for years. As the District Officer of Wong Tai Sin, he hoped that EDB would devise a solution so that the schools in question could be included in the Wong Tai Sin School Net and thus the need for cross-district schooling could be reduced. The need for any change in the demarcation of Wong Tai Sin Administrative District and the need for consulting other stakeholders together with Members’ views would be passed to HAD for consideration.
83. As a conclusion, the Chairman urged EDB to carry out an initial study on Members’ concerns, suggestions and the proposed transitional arrangements, and report the findings at the meeting of WTSDC’s Community Building and Social Services Committee to be held on 13 November 2012, so that Members could take follow-up actions in a timely manner. Regarding the transitional arrangements, he asked EDB to work out carefully with due regard to the views of WTSDC and Kowloon City DC on the school netting arrangement and its implications to both districts. Furthermore, he invited Mr. William SHIU, JP to convey WTSDC’s view on the demarcation of Wong Tai Sin Administrative District and the serious issues rooted from the problems on education for HAD’s attention. He thanked EDB’s representatives for attending the meeting.
(Ms CHING Suk-yee, Mr. CHAN Hung-to, Ms KAM Yim-mui, Ms LAU Yiu-hung and Dr. HO Sai-mun left the meeting at this juncture.)
III(v) Proposed Amendment to the Approved Ngau Chi Wan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K12/16 (WTSDC Paper No. 86/2012)
84. The Chairman welcomed Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona, District Planning Officer/Kowloon and Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard, Senior Town Planner of the Planning Department (PlanD), Mr. NG Shui-kwong, Ivan, Senior Estate Surveyor of District Lands Office, Kowloon East, and Mr. CHEUNG Mun-kit, Senior Engineer and Mr. FONG Shung-kit, Engineer of TD.
85. Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona said she was glad to attend the WTSDC meeting to brief Members on the proposed amendment to the approved Ngau Chi Wan Outline Zoning Plan, viz. rezoning a site at Fung Shing Street from “Government, Institute or Community”(GIC) to “Residential (Group B)”. She invited Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard to introduce the paper.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 43 86. Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard gave a Powerpoint presentation on the paper. Highlights were as follows:
(i) Background
The Government had spared no effort to expand land resources to meet housing and community needs and to facilitate economic development. In his Policy Address 2011-12, CE had proposed that a review be conducted to explore the possible conversion of GIC sites into residential uses, provided that these sites had no immediate uses or concrete implementation plans. The major premises of the rezoning was not to affect the long-term supply of the facilities concerned but to meet residents needs.
After careful consideration, PlanD proposed that a 0.67 ha site at Fung Shing Street, Ngau Chi Wan be rezoned for residential development. The site had originally been reserved for provision of a primary school and was currently levelled and vacant. At present, most of the buildings at Fung Shing Street were residences, including Scenic View north of the site in question, disciplined services quarters and Aria Kowloon Peak further away. South of the site was an archery ground at Ngau Chi Wan Park; west of the site was another part of the Park, whereas Choi Fai Estate and Choi Wan Estate lay southeast of the site. The lot had once zoned as “Residential (Group B)” in Ngau Chi Wan Draft Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K12/12 in August 2001 for medium density development. After gazetting the above, the Town Planning Board (TPB) had received different views and thus decided to rezone the lot as GIC to provide more land resources for provision of schools, as necessitated by the new policy objective of the then Education Department. The lot had been zoned GIC after the gazette of the above amendment in May 2002.
At present, as EDB had no concrete timetable for building the primary school, PlanD suggested the site be rezoned from GIC to Residential (Type B) for medium density residential development. The department would identify another primary school site in Wong Tai Sin.
(ii) Proposed Amendments
To ensure that density of the residential development concerned would not exceed that of the neighbouring residences, PlanD proposed the following planning restrictions:
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 44 (a) The site would be used for medium density development with a maximum plot ratio not exceeding 5, same as that for Scenic View;
(b) Building height on the lot would be capped at 190 metres above Principal Datum (mPD), which was similar to the building height restriction for Scenic View;
(c) Based on the assessment on the impact on ventilation, PlanD suggested a non-building area with a width of 5m be provided at the northern portion of the site which would act as a buffer between the site and Scenic View. A building gap with a width of 10m (and a building height restriction of 90 mPD) would also be provided in the middle to enhance the air flow between the northern and southern sides of Scenic View; and
(d) A 0.01ha sitting-out area adjacent to the site would be rezoned as Residential (Type B) to reflect the actual boundary of the existing park.
(iii) Details of Development
The size of the residential site was about 0.69ha, which would be formed by the proposed rezoning of a GIC site (approx. 0.68ha) and a small sitting-out area (approx. 0.01ha) into Residential (Type B). The plot ratio would not exceed 5 and the building height would be capped at 190mPD. In addition, a 5m non-building area and a 10m building gap were also proposed. It was anticipated that about 570 flats could be built, providing a gloss floor area of about 34 700 m2. (Mr. SIU then showed members two computer graphic images, illustrating the view east from Ngau Chi Wan Park and the view northwest from the podium of Choi Fai Estate respectively.)
(iv) Consultation and Procedure of Amendment
PlanD had consulted departments concerned to ascertain that the proposed residential development would not overload the existing infrastructures. These departments had not made any special comments on the proposed amendment. Generally speaking, PlanD’s proposed amendment would not cause any adverse impacts on traffic, environment, ventilation and visual amenity.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 45 After collecting Members’ advice, PlanD would, according to the established practice, submit the proposed amendment to Town Planning Board’s (TPB’s) Metro Planning Committee (MPC) for consideration. If MPC supported the proposed amendment, TPB would gazette the amended outline zoning plan according to section 5 of the Town Planning Ordinance and carry out a two-month public consultation, during which members of the public might submit their comments on the amendment to TPB.
87. The Chairman noted that a paper against the proposed amendment had been received before the meeting. The paper was submitted by the Chairman and members of the Scenic View OC and jointly signed by 1 167 occupants. He invited Mr. WONG Kwok-yan to introduce the paper tabled (Annex II).
88. Mr. WONG Kwok-yan introduced the paper. DAB was of the view that PlanD’s proposed amendment to the Approved Ngau Chi Wan Outline Zoning Plan was a rush decision and it failed to consult residents of the area adequately. DAB objected to the proposal as the amendment had implications to the planning of the area but the department had no intention to take any measures to address issues relating to traffic, infrastructure, sewage, etc, in particular traffic. At present, residents of Choi Wan Estate, Scenic View, Disciplined Services Quarters and Aria Kowloon Peak suffered much from traffic congestion. The road connecting these developments and the MTR station was especially busy during peak hours, thus it would be impossible to cope with the extra traffic brought by the 570 additional flats to be built at Fung Shing Street. If the department did not take appropriate measures to solve the above problems satisfactorily, DAB would object to the proposal.
(Hon. CHAN Yuen-han, SBS, JP left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.)
89. Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe was concerned about the traffic condition in the area. He shared Mr. WONG Kwok-yan’s view and opined that the living condition in Scenic View, Disciplined Services Quarters and Aria Kowloon Peak was good, but the traffic condition was terrible. There was often traffic congestion in the vicinity of Fung Shing Street during peak hours. The Traffic and Transport Committee (T&TC) of WTSDC had discuss the traffic condition in the vicinity of Choi Wan, such as Fung Shing Street, Ngau Chi Wan Road, Clear Water Bay Road, etc.; and WTSDC Members concerned (including Mr. SHUM Wan-wa, Mr. WONG Kwok-yan and Mr. WONG Kwok-tung) had commented on the matter extensively. However, he had no confidence to the Government departments’ policies, and had the feeling that these departments were unable to solve the traffic problem. In addition, there were many uncompleted works, such as the works being carried out at Fung Shing Street near Yuet Ming House, and also at the pavement of the street. Therefore, he questioned whether anyone would believe that the traffic problem of the area could be solved satisfactorily. As a result of the works, the two-way street had been converted into a one-way street, worsening the problem of traffic congestion. He urged the Government to consider
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 46 seriously the proposed joining of the two sections of Fung Shing Street, or identify other improvements. HKPF and TD were very much concerned about the traffic congestion at the junction of Lung Cheung Road and Clear Water Bay Road, too. At present, traffic control was in place at the junction as there was a fire station nearby. As a result, traffic volume of Clear Water Bay Road between Choi Wan and Lung Cheung Road was low. He opined that the traffic problem of that area should be solved first before effective discussion and assessment on the feasibility of providing additional residential flats thereat.
90. Mr. SHUM Wan-wa shared the views set out in DAB’s paper and put forth by Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe. He was worried that the addition of 570 residential flats would paralyze traffic of the area, and commented that the consultation exercise could be done more carefully as the paper submitted by PlanD only focused on rezoning of land for construction of residential flats, but failed to provide any data or analysis to support the claim that no significant impact on traffic, ventilation and visual amenity would be caused by the proposed amendment. He pointed out that the paper was similar to the one gazetted by TPB a decade ago and at that time, people had objected to the rezoning of the site as Residential (Type B) due to traffic consideration. TD had proposed to TPB some traffic improvements measures to solve the traffic congestion problem, including the addition of traffic light at Jat’s Incline near Good Hope School, permission for right-turning traffic at Fung Shing Street southbound into Clear Water Bay Road, and traffic management measures at Ping Shek minibus stand. However, the prevailing traffic condition was still unsatisfactory. Both bounds of Clear Water Bay Road were narrow, with only two lanes each. He described Clear Water Bay Road as the main artery of Wong Tai Sin but traffic congestion was found at more than 70% of the road. If more than 1 000 new residents were drawn to the area by the new residential development, he was afraid that Hong Kong would become an international laughing stock. He suggested PlanD consider building residential flats at other sites, such as Anderson Road nearby at which a small community with a population of 30 000-40 000 was planned. He said that TD had studied the feasibility of building a flyover to alleviate the traffic congestion at Anderson Road, and hence suggested PlanD develop the area along the road, so that no further traffic load would be added to Clear Water Bay Road. Also, he commented that it would be irresponsible for WTSDC to endorse the proposed amendment and paralyse traffic in the area. In consideration that six schools in Wong Tai Sin would be closed in the coming decade, he queried if the site should be used to build primary schools instead of residences.
91. Dr. WONG Kam-chiu, MH said Hong Kong suffered from insufficient land supply and land resources in the urban area were particularly scarce. Hence, he commented that one should not complain about the high flat prices and the long waiting time for public housing while raising objection to the Government’s effort to create new land resources to increase flat supply. According to the plot ratio applicable to the area, buildings would be capped at 30 storeys and thus only a few hundred flats would be provided, but the Government should still consult WTSDC, and apply to TPB for the development. He and his fellow Members were all concerned about the rezoning’s possible impacts on traffic and the other residents. Thus, he urged PlanD to carry out traffic impact assessment and consult local stakeholders, so that the plan would be supported by the public and data.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 47 92. Mr. HUI Kam-shing opined that the grassroots in Hong Kong were suffering from the shortage of housing, and hence the Government should not use the site to build private housing as doing so would only produce a few hundred flats. This would have little to do with the volatile private property market, but adverse effects to the residents nearby. In addition, as the site had been zoned as GIC, the Government should consider providing suitable facilities within the proposed residential site, rather than making profit by rezoning it. He would not support the proposed amendment if the site was not rezoned for the development of public housing.
93. Mr. HO Hon-man said there was no improvement to the traffic condition at junctions at Choi Wan, Fung Shing Street, New Clear Water Bay Road and Clear Water Bay Road in the past few years. He would not support the proposed amendment unless PlanD proposed measures to improve the traffic condition in the vicinity of Clear Water Bay. As mentioned by Mr. SHUM Wan-wa, the small community at Anderson Road would become home of tens of thousands of people, and the only major accesses to this small community would be Tseung Kwan O Tunnel or Clear Water Bay Road. If no improvement to road traffic was made today, the traffic condition could only be worsened when new residences were built. He pointed out that the 1st term of WTSDC had discussed the joining of the two sections of Fung Shing Street near Hilltop Gardens and Aria Kowloon Peak respectively. Hence, he suggested PlanD adopt the views of WTSDC and the residents of Hilltop Gardens in solving the existing traffic problem. If PlanD could not provide improvement measures, he would object to the proposed amendment.
94. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung was extremely dissatisfied with PlanD’s handling of the issue. He had enquired with PlanD about the use of the site in question, and received the department’s written reply on 15 October 2012 stating that PlanD was following up the matter and would answer his question as soon as possible. Instead of writing to him, PlanD had only submitted a paper on proposed amendment to WTSDC on 1 November 2013. He opined that PlanD did not respect DC Members and requested the department to investigate this matter and provide a response. However, he would not object to the proposed amendment to protect the interests of flat owners of Aria Kowloon Peak and Scenic View if PlanD was addressing people's pressing needs. He pointed out that PlanD had been saying that the site would be made available for planting since 2008, and that under the site was a landfill, so it should not be used for construction of car park as any excavation could release the landfill gas and cause explosion. The department’s proposed construction of residences was contradictory to its previous reply. It also failed to satisfy the reasonable expectations of local residents, and did not provide an explanation to them. A decade ago the site had been zoned as GIC in view of the low volume of pedestrian traffic. With the increased population today, however, the department suggested that the site be rezoned as residential. He respected experts’ advice but commented that their advice was based on analysis of data and thus might not reflect the actual situation. Therefore, their advice should only be used as a reference, rather that the only information in support of the proposal. He pointed out that waiting time for minibuses in the area was long, and TD should not trust data only and turn a blind eye to the actual circumstances. He then reiterated that it was DC Members’ responsibility to protect the interest of local residents, so he strongly urged the departments concerned to adopt views of Members and residents.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 48 95. Mr. MOK Chung-fai was concerned about the choice of primary school sites, and enquired whether PlanD had identified suitable primary schools sites, the locations of these sites, and whether the department would consult WTSDC on this matter.
96. Ms TAM Mei-po said WTSDC had been attaching high importance to matters concerning traffic and provision of barrier-free access facilities in Choi Wan. She pointed out that PlanD’s presentation failed to provide an introduction of the comprehensive development plan of the area. At present, Choi Wan had a population of 30 000-40 000 and the problem of traffic congestion was serious. If new residences were built, the problem would be worsened since more than a thousand new residents would be moving into the area. Moreover, the carriageways and pavements at Clear Water Bay Road were so narrow that they were unable to meet even the current needs of local residents. In this connection, she hoped that PlanD would provide detailed information on land use and transport planning to facilitate discussion.
97. Using the five private buildings being built on a vacant site near Ngau Chi Wan Market as an example, Mr. LEE Tat-yan, MH pointed out that even though these buildings were located near the MTR station, the occupants might still use their own cars and cause traffic congestion. Apart from asking departments concerned to consider the traffic condition of the area, he commented that the incident also showcased the loophole on the Government’s long-term land use planning. As a DC Member for years, he had suggested that the two sections of Fung Shing Road be connected to improve the traffic in Choi Wan but his suggestion had never been accepted by departments concerned, and the traffic congestion worsened. He reiterated that traffic was the most important consideration to be made when planning new residential development.
98. Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe enquired about the traffic arrangement to be made upon the completion of five 60-storey buildings on the former site of St. Joseph’s Home for the Aged, and whether vehicles for Fung Shing Street had to take Ping Ting Road East.
99. Mr. William SHIU, JP clarified that this was the first time he heard about the information set out in the Powerpoint presentation. Generally speaking, HAD, as a Government department, supported PlanD’s initiative to increase land supply for more residences to meet the demand. Regarding the choice of individual sites, HAD had to reflect views of local residents. He enquired about the definition of “departments concerned had been consulted”. In 2001, about 3 000 submissions in response to the proposed amendment submitted by TPB had been received, including more than 1,700 objections from local residents. At that time, WTSDO had faithfully reflected residents’ views, and commented that thorough discussion, in particular on provision of traffic facilities, should be made before using the site for residential development. WTSDO and WTSDC received residents’ views on this matter from time to time. Also, he and other staff of WTSDO often paid site visit in the vicinity of Fung Shing Street, and found “bottlenecks” at the street (Clear Water Bay bound) and at the location where two lanes merged into one. Therefore, WTSDO had pointed out that suitable traffic
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 49 arrangement should be made, and that land use should be determined on the basis of local development. In addition, WTSDO had clearly stated that this matter was extremely controversial. He thus queried about the claim that “Government departments raised no objection to the proposed rezoning”. He believed that WTSDC was not going to turn down the construction of residences on the site, but such development should be underpinned by suitable support measures. Therefore, he suggested that traffic matters should be address squarely. He reiterated that WTSDC did not object to using the site for development. However, the development should be supported by suitable traffic arrangements and premised on the settlement of the existing traffic problems, which were matters of concern of residents and Members.
(Mr. WONG Kwok-yan left the meeting at 7:25 p.m.)
100. Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona responded to Members as follows:
(i) The site had been reserved for the construction of disciplined services quarters at early stage so consideration had been made to provide the necessary infrastructures to support residential development thereat. Afterwards, in consideration of the nearby residents’ objection to residential development and the pressing need for building schools, the Government had decided that the site be used for building a primary school;
(ii) Regarding the definition of “departments concerned had been consulted”, PlanD had consulted technical departments on the adequacy of existing infrastructures in support of residential development on the site, and invited these departments to comment on the development’s possible impacts on traffic, environment, ventilation and visual amenity. These departments had not raised any objection. As for the discrepancy between desktop study of data and the actual traffic condition, it was necessary to invite TD to provide a detailed explanation;
(iii) The Government had decided as early as 2001 that the site in question, as well as the site on which Aria Kowloon Peak was located, would be used for residential development, and carried out traffic impact assessment accordingly. Findings of the assessment revealed that if the site was used for residential development, no adverse impact would be caused to the traffic network in the vicinity of Fung Shing Street. The relevant technical departments had also commented that the 0.69 ha site was so small that it would only provide 500-odd flats for some 1 000 residents. Thus, it would not create huge traffic flow and would not overload the traffic facilities and infrastructures in the vicinity.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 50 101. Mr. William SHIU, JP added the Powerpoint presentation was vague and did not mention which departments, including technical departments, were involved. Given that traffic was the focus of discussion, as well as a major concern of Members and the general public at this meeting, he requested PlanD to state clearly in the Powerpoint presentations or meeting papers in the future which departments had been consulted, to avoid the recurrence of similar incident that could mislead the public.
102. Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona added that the technical departments concerned included LandsD, EPD, TD, etc. In addition, HAD had also been consulted..
103. The Chairman invited Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona to respond first to Members’ views and enquiries, and let TD’s representative to respond to comments on traffic arrangements afterwards.
104. Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona continued to respond to Members’ enquiries, and left traffic matters to TD’s representative.
(i) Upon PlanD’s consultation, technical departments including TD had commented that the development in question would not increase population significantly, so the traffic impact should be moderate and the infrastructures therein could cope with the increased population. Since the development plan was found acceptable by departments concerned, the paper did not set out the problems that might be caused by rezoning of the site;
(ii) As to the question of whether a larger population could be accommodated in the new development near Anderson Quarry, PlanD had submitted a paper to consult Kwun Tong and Sai Kung DCs. It was anticipated that the public housing development in Anderson and the new development in Anderson Quarry would accommodate about 48 000 and 20 000 new residents respectively for optimal land use for housing development. As the land resources was earmarked for long-term housing development but there was an urgent need for the Government to meet the short- and medium-term housing needs, PlanD had to identify urban sites readily available for development. The site at Fung Shing Street earmarked for building a primary school had been left vacate for 10 years and had no concrete time-table for its construction. Hence, PlanD suggested that the site be used for residential development first, and another school site be identified afterwards;
(iii) PlanD agreed that supply of land for housing development was inadequate, and hoped that the 0.69ha site could be used flexibly to increase the supply of flats;
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 51 (iv) While rezoning the site as “Residential (Type B)”, PlanD had yet to decide whether private housing, public housing or subsidised housing would be built;
(v) PlanD had consulted departments concerned on the proposed use of the site for the provision of other community facilities. Despite the fact that certain facilities, such as hospital, police station, etc. fell short of needs, departments concerned did not have any plan to provide additional facilities. Moreover, they should also consider what community facilities were suitable for the site, in view of its size, location, etc. Actually, some facilities were incompatible with the site. In consideration of the planning history, PlanD was of the view that the site would better be used for residential development;
(vi) She apologised to Mr. WONG Kwok-tung who was discontented about PlanD’s failure to provide him with a written reply. She also said the site was located right beside, but not part of a landfill, which had been designated as a park. As the site was beside the landfill, it was a Consultation Zone that required an assessment be carried out to ensure that no adverse environmental impact would be caused by development. Unlike the adjacent landfill, the site had been zoned as GIC and thus piling could be carried out for the construction of disciplined services quarters, residences, schools, etc.;
(vii) PlanD had suggested primary school sites for EDB’s consideration. Moreover, it would proactively follow up technical issues concerning these sites; and
(viii) The former site of St. Joseph’s Home for the Aged was a CDA and the developer had obtained TPB’s approval for development. It had also proposed a series of traffic arrangements, such as providing new road junctions and extending Wing Ting Road to accommodate the additional traffic.
105. Mr. CHEUNG Mun-kit concurred with Mr. WONG Kwok-tung’s view that both data and site inspections were needed to obtain a true picture of the actual situation, and thus he would base his response on findings of technical study and vehicle count. According to TD’s pervious studies, if about 570 flats of 60m2 were built on the site, about 40 more vehicles would use Fung Shing Street and Clear Water Bay Road every hour during the peak period in the morning, viz. less than one additional vehicle per minute. According to the above estimation, the new residences would have minimal impact on the traffic network in the vicinity. In October, TD had also conducted traffic flow statistics and on-site inspection at the signal-controlled junction of Fung Shing Street and Clear Water Bay Road to assess whether extra traffic could be accommodated.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 52 The initial findings revealed that the 570-odd residences to be built on the site would not create any significant impact on traffic . On the other hand, issues concerning the GMB service in the vicinity of Scenic View would be followed up by Mr. AU Siu-fung, Kelvin, Senior Transport Officer.
106. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung commented that PlanD’s paper was misleading and hoped that this was only a typo as the wordings might mislead people to think that HAD supported the amendment. On the other hand, he was shocked to know that PlanD’s proposed amendment was based on analysis of data taken in 2001. He opined that the data was outdated and building new residences on the site would worsen the situation and arouse grievances among members of the public. Therefore, he suggested PlanD consider providing community facilities, such as library, etc. as appropriate.
107. The Chairman concluded that it was an established practice for PlanD to consult DC on proposed change in land use. He opined that it was not desirable to dig into the visual and environmental impacts caused by the inflow of new residents at this meeting. Instead, he advised Members to focus on issues concerning pedestrian flow and traffic. In response to the policy of “Universal Accessibility” announced by CE, WTSDC had established WGBFF on 3 July 2012 and accorded high priority to problems in Choi Wan, Tsui Chuk and Pang Ching. On the other hand, WTSDC had been discussing improvements to traffic in Choi Wan Estate, in particular the joining of the two sections of Fung Shing Street and traffic congestion at Clear Water Bay Road and New Clear Water Bay Road for more than 15 years. Even if the site was not rezoned as residential, the said problems still existed. WTSDC did not support the change of land use of the Fung Shing Street site proposed by PlanD because of traffic problems primarily. If PlanD intended to rezone the site for residential development, it should first address the problems of vehicular and pedestrian traffic congestion before seeking WTSDC’s support. He concluded that WTSDC objected to PlanD’s proposed amendment, and suggested that: (1) T&TC was urged to study as soon as possible the feasibility of accommodating two-way traffic at the section of Fung Shing Street between Clear Water Bay Road and New Clear Water Bay Road, so that vehicles for Kwun Tong might take New Clear Water Bay Road as well; (2) departments concerned were requested to remove the water-filled crowd control barriers placed at Fung Shing Street for the provision of temporary pavement, so as to free the traffic lane for vehicles and improve pedestrian flow; (3) departments concerned were requested to study the feasibility of opening the intersection of Lung Cheung Road and Clear Water Bay Road, since vehicles going to Ping Shek Estate or Wong Tai Sin from Ngau Chi Wan Village had to take a very indirect route - U-turn at Choi Wan Estate and take New Clear Water Bay Road and then Clear Water Bay Road. At present, pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes were already very high, thus construction of new residences would add further traffic load to the area and create adverse impacts. He reiterated that if PlanD failed to provide a complete traffic solution, WTSDC would not support the proposed amendment. He also suggested PlanD continue the public consultation exercise.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 53 (Miss LUNG Siu-yuk, Fiona, District Planning Officer/Kowloon and Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard, Senior Town Planner of the Planning Department (PlanD), Mr. NG Shui-kwong, Ivan, Senior Estate Surveyor of District Lands Office, Kowloon East, and Mr. CHEUNG Mun-kit, Senior Engineer and Mr. FONG Shung-kit, Engineer of TD left the meeting at this juncture.)
III(vi) Healthcare Document 2012: Progress Report on WTS District Community Diagnosis (WTSDC Paper No. 87/2012)
108. The Chairman welcomed Dr. SO Ho-pui and Dr. WONG Tak-cheung, Directors of Wong Tai Sin District Healthy & Safe City (WTSDHSC), and the organisations’ Honorary Secretary Ms TANG Fung-ki, Ivy, and Executive Director Ms WONG Ho-yee.
109. Dr. SO Ho-pui made a Powerpoint presentation on the paper, and hope that the progress report could be used to relay to the Government the district’s needs for healthcare services in the future. Highlights of the paper were as follows:
(i) Background of the Report on Community Diagnosis Study Report
With subsidy provided by WTSDC, WTSDHSC had appointed Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) to prepare a report on community diagnosis study in 2009-10. The study had been carried out in the form of questionnaire survey, focus group discussion and data analysis. The report had been submitted to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2010, which had conferred upon Wong Tai Sin district the title of “International Safe Community”;
(ii) Findings
The study revealed that respondents were dissatisfied with healthcare services in the district, in particular A&E service and specialist medical services provided by the Government, which had scored the lowest marks. The respondents opined that the Government’s out-patient services failed to meet the needs, resulting in long waiting time. As none of the three public hospitals in the district provided A&E service, residents had to receive treatment in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) or Kwong Wah Hospital (KWH), which belonged to another district. The findings tallied with the opinion survey conducted by Members of WTSDC, which had revealed that residents hoped that A&E and specialist services be provided by the three hospitals in the district, and priority be given to them for using healthcare services in the district.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 54 (iii) Situation in Wong Tai Sin
According to the Hospital Authority’s (HA’s) hospital map, Wong Tai Sin’s location was unique and thus the three hospitals in the district belonged to two clusters, namely Kowloon West and Kowloon Central respectively; whereas the portion of Kowloon West Cluster in Wong Tai Sin was cut part by Kowloon Central Cluster. As A&E service was not provided in any hospital in Wong Tai Sin, residents seeking the service should go to QEH or KWH of Kowloon Central Cluster, or United Christian Hospital (UCH) of Kowloon East Cluster. Moreover, as follow-up treatment would be provided by the cluster that one received A&E treatment, thus residents of Wong Tai Sin might not receive follow-up treatment in their own district after treatment at A&E.
About 50% of A&E service users went to QEH, and others went to KWH and UCH. Every year, more than 70 000 residents in Wong Tai Sin were hospitalised. However, among the 18 000-odd patients admitted into Our Lady of Maryknoll Hospital (OLMH) and Hong Kong Buddhist Hospital (HKBH), only about 7 000 (10%) were residents of Wong Tai Sin, who were outnumbered by patients from other districts, indicating that inadequate beds were reserved for our residents. Also, among the 480 000-odd cases of specialist out-patient attendance, only 57 000-odd had been handled by OLMH and HKBH, which had also handled 20 000 cases involving non-Wong Tai Sin residents. In other words, the two hospitals had handled 70 000-odd cases.
According to HA’s annual report 2010/11, about 27 000 beds were provided by HA’s hospitals, but only around 1 000 were in Wong Tai Sin. This showed that the number of beds in the district was inadequate. The geriatric day hospital attendance in Wong Tai Sin was about 10 000. The number was reasonable when compared with the territory-wide number of 140 000 handled by HA. On top of the fact that only about 100 of the 5 000-odd doctors employed by HA were working in the three hospitals in Wong Tai Sin, the number of nurses in the district was below average, making it impossible for the hospitals to provide healthcare services in a timely manner.
According to findings of population census 2011, there were about 420 000 residents in Wong Tai Sin, among them 17.6% were aged 65 or above. The percentage was above the territory-wide average of 13%, which was expected to rise to 18.8% in ten years. This indicated that Wong Tai Sin was suffering from the serious problem of aging population.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 55 He concluded that among the 70 000-odd cases seeking medical attention, only 10% of the residents could be admitted into hospitals in the district; whereas among the 18 000 patients admitted into hospitals in Wong Tai Sin, only 40% were residents of the district. Regarding out-patient specialist services, only 12.8% of the 488 000 cases were attended by OLMH and HKBH. Given that 17.6% of the 420 000 residents in Wong Tai Sin were aged 65 or above, more than 3 000 beds would be required after ten years when the proportion of population aged 65 or above rose to 18.8% according to the above-mentioned projection. Even more beds would be needed if the proportion of elderly people in the district rose. Currently, HA provided 4.4 beds to every 1 000 people, below the standard of 5.5. According to the plan at hand, less than 900 additional beds would be available in the coming decade, thus the problem of inadequate beds would only be worsened.
(iv) Suggestion
WTSDHSC made six short-, medium- and long-term suggestions as follows: fully utilise the resources of the three hospitals in Wong Tai Sin to provide services to residents of the district; integrate services provided by Wong Tai Sin Hospital (WTSH), OLMH and HKBH; build footbridges, elevators, escalators and other barrier-free access facilities to connect WTSH and OLMH with the MTR station nearby for residents’ easy access to these hospitals. In the long run, it was hoped that A&E and specialist out-patient services would be provided in the redeveloped hospital(s), so as to improve the services both in terms of variety and capacity. If A&E service was provided in OLMH, extended nursing service and additional beds might be provided in WTSH. Furthermore, collaboration with non-Government organisations or community partners might be made to meet the service requirement for chronic diseases necessitated by the problem of ageing population.
110. Mr. HO Hon-man said WTSDC had been paying close attention to the absence of A&E service in the district. The two hospitals nearest to Wong Tai Sin, namely QEH and KWH were located in busy areas. Once, he went to KWH from Tsz Wan Shan during peak hours. Despite the siren, it had taken about 40 minutes for the ambulance to arrive. Therefore, he hoped that A&E service could be provided in Wong Tai Sin. After meeting Chief Executive of HA and Chief Executive of the cluster concerned, he had learnt that due to lack of support, no A&E service would be provided in the renovated OLMH. Thus he hoped that A&E service could be provided in KTDA instead. In addition, he requested a timetable be provided so that the residents could reasonably expect when the service would be available. On the other
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 56 hand, he had once taken a taxi from Wang Tau Hom to Caritas Medical Centre via Lung Cheung Road. As the journey had taken only 10 minutes, he enquired, besides providing an A&E department in the district, whether ambulances could be deployed flexibly, viz. sending the patient to the hospital nearest to the place where the ambulance call was made to shorten the journey time. Furthermore, he enquired if the delayed transport to hospital had led to increased mortality rate in Wong Tai Sin.
111. In consideration of the past discussion on absence of A&E service in the district, the Chairman suggested that the topic not be discussed at this meeting. Also, he said at the meeting of 18 DC Chairmen held some time ago, he had talked to Dr. KO Wing-man, BBS, JP, Secretary for Food and Health (SFH) about the shortcomings of the healthcare services in Wong Tai Sin and asked him to conduct review of relevant services and the clusters to which the district belonged. Moreover, as it was anticipated that the upcoming renovation works at OLMH and BH would bring some 1 000 new beds to the district, he suggested that the Food and Health Bureau (FHB) and HA be requested to draw up the development plans for these hospitals in a way that each hospital would provide a unique set of specialist services (including A&E), so as to make all services available to the residents of Wong Tai Sin in the near future.
112. Mr. SO Sik-kin opined that the study report reflected the healthcare problems in Wong Tai Sin and enquired if A&E and various specialist services could be provided by hospitals in Wong Tai Sin through amalgamation of the hospitals and division of labour. To this end, he suggested the existing hospitals be renovated or redeveloped. Given the close proximity between OLMH and WTSH, he suggested the two hospitals be merged to provide an A&E department. In addition, 24-hour out-patient service should also be considered, so that fewer residents needed to seek medical services from other districts.
113. Dr. WONG Tak-cheung said an A&E department was provided both in Pok Oi Hospital and the upcoming North Lantau Hospital, and thus remarked that provision of A&E department was not determined on the basis of the size and specialist services available in a hospital.
114. Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe thanked WTSDHSC for co-ordinating the preparation of the Progress Report on WTS District Community Diagnosis, and commented that the report was a reflection the healthcare problems in the district. He said planning for the extension works for OLMH had commenced and HA had indicated that it would adopt views concerned on a limited basis. As the plan had yet to be finalised, he suggested views of WTSDC be consolidated as soon as possible after the meeting, and be sent to HA before the plan was finalised, for the benefit of the residents of Wong Tai Sin.
115. Mr. YUEN Kwok-keung, Stephen pointed out that residents of the district were always dissatisfied with A&E and out-patient services. He concurred with the Chairman on the proposed provision of A&E and various specialist services by the three hospitals in Wong Tai Sin through division of labour, and suggested WTSDC write to HA on this matter.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 57 116. Mr. MOK Chung-fai, Rex opined that Healthcare Document 2012 clearly stated the shortcomings of the healthcare services in the district. He said the extension of OLMH opened an opportunity for provision of new healthcare services, and thus enquired about the timeframe of the extension works. He worried that writing a letter was not an effective way to urge HA to look at the healthcare problems in Wong Tai Sin squarely.
117. Dr. WONG Tak-cheong said Dr. York CHOW, the former SFH had approved the redevelopment plan for OLMH in 2010 and the hospital had also finished the technical feasibility study report. However, HA had decided that priority would be given to the redevelopment of Kwai Chung Hospital, and detailed planning for the development of OLMH had yet to be carried out.
118. Mr. William SHIU, JP said from the perspective of societal needs, people in the district attached high importance to medical and community healthcare services. Local organisations and other stakeholders hoped that better body check, healthcare and specialist medical services, in particular dental care, could be provided to the elderly. He hoped that HA or FHB would consider the above, either in the submission of the report or during the discussion in the future. He also thanked Dr. SO Ho-pui, Dr. WONG Tak-cheong and Dr. WAT Chung-ming, Nelson for preparing the report. In addition, he suggested that specialist medical services provided by charitable organisations in the district, e.g. Sik Sik Yuen, might also be mentioned in the report, so that HA could get a full picture of the supply and demand of healthcare services in the district. As residents in Wong Tai Sin were primarily the elderly and the grassroots, he opined that they had more imminent needs for public healthcare services than for private services. Therefore, he suggested WTSDC cooperate with WTSDHSC to introduce projects to secure the provision of, and improve the healthcare services in the district.
119. The Chairman concluded that WTSDC would forward Healthcare Document 2012 to SFH and invite him as well as HA’s Chief Executive to a meeting and listen to views about healthcare services in the district. If necessary, a special meeting could be held to discuss the above. He once again thanked WTSDHSC for the detailed paper about healthcare services in Wong Tai Sin, and hoped that the organisation would continue to support community development.
(Post-meeting note: The Secretariat wrote to SFH, as well as the Chief Executive of HA on 16 November 2012.)
(Dr. SO Ho-pui and Dr. WONG Tak-cheung, Directors of Wong Tai Sin District Healthy & Safe City (WTSDHSC), and the organisations’ Honorary Secretary Ms TANG Fung-ki, Ivy, and Executive Director Ms WONG Ho-yee left the meeting at this juncture.)
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 58 III(vii) Shatin to Central Link (Wong Tai Sin Section) (WTSDC Paper No. 88/2012)
120. The Chairman welcomed the Transport and Housing Bureau (THB)’s Principle Assistant Secretary Mr. LAM Sai-hung and Assistant Secretary Mr. LEUNG Sai-ho, HyD’s Chief Engineer / Railway Development Mr. YEUNG Kong-sang, PlanD’s Senior Town Planner Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard, MTRCL’s Senior Liaison Engineer Mr. Francis LI, Design Manager Mr. Yean NG, Senior Construction Engineer Mr. Carmeron Chin and Public Relations Manager Ms CHAN Fong-ting to the meeting for this agenda item.
121. The Chairman said at the meetings held on 28 August and 19 October, the Task Force on Shatin to Central Link (TFSCL) of WTSDC discussed the progress of the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) project. Decision of TFSCL was set out in the discussion paper. No supplementary information was provided by THB, HyD or MTRCL.
122. Mr. CHAN On-tai introduced the submission tabled (Annex III), pointing out that THB should be responsible for solving the problems concerning the SCL project. Generally speaking, the public welcomed the project as they thought that it would meet their needs. However, THB had yet to address the residents’ concerns about the impacts on traffic and pedestrian safety caused by the temporary works site entrance at the Ma Chai Hang Recreation Ground (MCHRG). As a policy bureau, THB should be responsible for co-coordinating relevant departments’ efforts in ensuring that MTRCL’s project would be in order before commencement of works, and formulating various mitigating measures to protect the safety of people in the vicinity of the Ma Chai Hang works site and to ease people’s road safety concern. Since 2009, he had been drawing THB’s attention to the problems concerning Ma Chai Hang Road, including its one-lane, two-way traffic arrangement, and the fact that the road was steep and narrow. Moreover, the bus stop at Ma Chai Hang Road southbound was an en route stop for six bus routes. Although residents of Tin Wang Court and Tin Ma Court had to go to the bus stop via the footbridge across Ma Chai Hang Road and the pedestrian crossing at Ma Chai Hang Road near Chuk Yuen Road, the Government and MTRCL suggested that a works site entrance be provided at the bus stop for Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB)’ routes No.103 and 2B at Ma Chai Hang Road southbound. He worried that the entrance would affect the safety of residents of Tin Wang Court and Tin Ma Court. He met the representatives of HyD and MTRCL on 28 September to discuss this matter and relay people’s concerns. However, the Government and MTRCL had yet to provide further explanation to their choice, viz. providing a works site entrance at the existing bus stop, and to clarify how they would ensure the safety of people crossing the entrance. He was worried about the competition between pedestrians and vehicles, traffic congestion, pedestrian safety and the excessive traffic that exceeded Ma Chai Hang Road’s capacity if the works site entrance was set up as proposed by the Government and MTRCL since there were already six bus routes using the road and there would be up to 25 dump truck journeys per hour. There were often students in the vicinity of MCHRG and some of them were even unaccompanied, so they were likely to be victims of traffic accidents since dump trucks were tall. In this connection, he objected to the provision of works site entrance at Ma Chai Hang Road.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 59 123. Mr. SO Sik-kin was concerned about the location of the temporary works site entrance at MCHRG, albeit he understood that it was difficult to identify an ideal location at Ma Chai Hang Road to serve this purpose. The construction works might last a few years, and the dump trucks would pass the bus stop and stir up dust and soil, causing nuisance to the public and air pollution. Therefore, the Government and MTRCL should endeavour to minimise the impacts of works on the public. As the traffic at Ma Chai Hang Road was heavy, the Government and MTRCL should consider widening the road and consult local stakeholders in this regard. On the other hand, the barrier-free facilities proposed by THB were supported by some of the residents of Tsui Chuk Garden, while objected by some others. The primary reason for the objection was that the proposed facilities would only connect Tsui Chuk Garden with Chuk Yuen Road but not MCHRG, thus the design was by no means desirable. A barrier-free access could serve as a quick, easy way access of the nearby MTR station, so that residents could use other forms of transport if the traffic at Ma Chai Hang Road or Chuk Yuen Road was affected by the works. He reiterated that the barrier-free access should be running from Tsui Chuk Garden to MCHRG. Knowing that the discussion about reprovisioning of MCHRG was still underway, Mr. SO suggested that barrier-free access might be built in phases, and the Government should consider extending the barrier-free access to MCHRG when deciding the reprovisioning arrangement for MCHRG, and create the project accordingly. On the other hand, he had received a copy of the Government’s letter to the Incorporated Owners’ of Tsui Chuk Garden. While it was set out in the letter that the tunnelling works would not affect the structural safety of buildings along the railway, he commented that the letter left more to be desired and thus urged the Government and MTRCL to meet representatives of residents of Tsui Chuk Garden and discuss the unresolved issues.
124. Mr. HUI Kam-shing said residents of Chuk Yuen had always opposed the acquisition of MCHRG as temporary works site and worried that doing so might affect the traffic condition. From the perspective of engineering, however, the Government and MTRCL were of the view that MCHRG was a better temporary works site among others and the public had to accept that, albeit reluctantly. As the works would last for many years, the residents would certainly be affected and thus the Government and MTRCL had to attend to the people’s concerns squarely, adjust the location of the works site entrance, and consult local stakeholders through the community liaison groups in a timely manner. In addition, some residents of Chuk Yuen South Estate objected the reprovisioning of the 11-a-side football pitch and requested that MCHRG be converted into a park or a large greenery cum sitting-out area and the jogging trail be fully open for public use, so that the residents could live in a better environment after the completion of works.
125. The Chairman said WTSDC attached high importance to the SCL project and had established TFSCL to follow up. At the meeting held on 19 October, TFSCL had discussed and endorsed the written submission prepared by Mr. SO Sik-kin and Mr. HUI Kam-shing. Mr. CHAN On-tai had also put forth concrete suggestions at the meeting. Also, he thanked the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) for its assistance in the reprovisioning of MCHRG. As the said reprovisioning would only
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 60 commence after completion of works, WTSDC would continue to follow up this matter. On the other hand, TFSCL’s representatives including Mr. SO Sik-kin, Mr. HUI Kam-shing and Mr. CHAN Wai-kwan, Andie, as well representatives of Government departments concerned and MTRCL carried out a site visit on 31 October to inspect the arrangement pertaining to the use of MCHRG as a temporary works site, whereas he, Mr. CHAN On-tai and representative of WTSDO had inspected the traffic condition at Ma Chai Hang Road on 5 November and discussed the suitable location for the works site entrance. He would put forth a proposal later. He also opined that it was undesirable to provide the works site entrance at a bend at Ma Chai Hang Road southbound or the vicinity of Chuk Yuen South Estate, and noted Mr. CHAN On-tai’s concerns and worries about pedestrian and road safety.
126. Mr. LAM Sai-hung responded that THB, government departments concerned and MTRCL had attended meetings of WTSDC and TFSCL on a number of occasions to discuss progress of the SCL project (Wong Tai Sin section). He thanked Members for their concerns about the project, and had carried out a number of site visits to inspect the works arrangements. When deciding the location of the entrance of the temporary works site at MCHRG, the Government and MTRCL had to strike a balance among many factors, including the road safety at Ma Chai Hang Road. In addition, MTRCL had formulated a number of mitigating measures to ensure the safety of the site, personal safety of the public and smooth flowing of traffic.
127. Mr. Francis LI of MTRCL responded that the proposed temporary works site entrance at MCHRG was the best one among all of the feasible ones. Having noted Members’ concerns about pedestrian and road safety, MTRCL realised that provision of a works site entrance near a bus stop could be worrisome. In this connection, MTRCL would put adequate signs at the entrance and deploy works site ambassadors to provide pedestrian and vehicular control when dump trucks moved in or out the site, with a view to ensuring that no one would cross the entrance at these junctures. Also, drivers would be instructed not to drive their dump trucks in or out of the site when passengers were boarding or alighting at the bus stop, and to pay attention to the traffic condition.
128. The Chairman said many residents had to go to the bus stop at Ma Chai Hang Road southbound to get a bus via the footbridge across Ma Chai Hang Road. The arrangements for them to pass through the works site entrance was undesirable and unacceptable. During a site visit at Ma Chai Hang Road, he had revealed that it was not desirable to provide the works site entrance at the bus stops of KMB route nos. 103 and 2B at Ma Chai Hang Road southbound as this would affect passengers waiting for buses. He suggested the bus bay be lengthened and the carriageway be widened, so that as many as three buses could stop at the bus bay concurrently. Also, he suggested the pavement of Ma Chai Hang Road southbound be extended eastwards to expand the bus waiting area. The extension might involve removal of trees or part of footbridge structures, and it would take at least one year and require co-ordination between different departments. In this connection, he suggested the Government and MTRCL carry out the extension as far as practicable, and first provide a temporary carriageway near the proposed works site entrance for the use of vehicles during the initial works
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 61 stage (e.g. vehicles for site investigation, etc.). Upon the completion of the pavement extension works, MTRCL might move the works site entrance northwards towards Chuk Yuen Road to reduce the impacts caused to the residents nearby.
129. Mr. SO Sik-kin supported MTRCL’s deployment of works site ambassadors to assist in pedestrian and vehicular traffic management, but requested MTRCL to display the contact number of the site manager at a prominent location of the works site entrance, so that the manager could be contacted direct in case of emergency. He also commented that MTRCL should consult residents on the arrangements for the works site entrance, and review/amend the arrangements in a timely manner.
130. Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP said during peak hours – two in the morning and two in the evening - pedestrian flow at the bus stops surged. Hence, he requested MTRCL to consider banning dump truck traffic at the works site entrance during these four hours, and carry out other processes in the site during these two periods, to strike a balance the works and people’s concerns over traffic safety. As the chairman of WTSDC’s Working Group on Government and Public Utilities Works Projects, he would keep an eye on the works’ traffic impact.
131. Mr. CHAN On-tai thanked Members for their concern about the temporary works site entrance at MCHRG and urged the Government to make public the traffic impact assessment report concerning the use of MCHRG as temporary works site, provide data of pedestrian flow, and assess whether the existing traffic facilities could cope with the increased vehicular traffic. The Government and MTRCL should formulate suitable mitigating measures to reduce the works’ impact on traffic. He reiterated that he disagree to the provision of works site entrance at the bus stop of KMB nos. 103 and 2B at Ma Chai Hang Road southbound, and was worried about the disruption of traffic when dump trucks at Ma Chai Hang Road northbound turned right and cut through the southbound lane for accessing the works site.
132. The Chairman said two resident site staff had been deployed to provide pedestrian and vehicular traffic control when necessary during the construction of Tung Wui Estate, but it might not be the best arrangement. After the site inspection on 31 October, TFSCL members had suggested the bus bay be modified and the carriageway at Ma Chai Hang Road be widened, so that more space could be available for accommodating buses picking up or dropping off passengers. Also, they suggested some of the footbridge structures be removed to allow widening of the pavement eastwards, so that ample space would be available for people waiting for buses as well as other pedestrians. The volume of dump truck traffic should be small during the initial works stage, so it might not cause much impact on the residents if the entrance of MCHRG near Ma Chai Hang Road was used as a temporary works site entrance. MTRCL might also consider Members’ proposed ban of dump trucks during peak hours, as well as deployment of staff to man the entrance to ensure pedestrian safety. He asked the Government and MTRCL whether the suggestions were technically feasible.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 62 133. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung said MTRCL should be responsible for the consequences if it commenced works regardless of pedestrian and road safety.
134. Mr. LAM Sai-hung responded that THB had noted Members’ concerns about volume and safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. During the design stage, MTRCL had carried out a traffic impact assessment, which revealed that the works had no significant implication on the traffic at Ma Chai Hang Road. THB understood that the works would take time to complete, thus HyD would monitor if MTRCL had taken adequate measures to ensure pedestrian and road safety.
135. Mr. Francis LI replied that the initial assessment had revealed that it was technically feasible to extend the pavement eastward. MTRCL would study the suggestion in detail to ensure pedestrian safety. However, it had to discuss with TD and HKPF before the improvement works commenced.
136. Mr. SO Sik-kin held reservation to the findings of the traffic impact assessment, which had revealed that the works would have little impact on the traffic condition at Ma Chai Hang Road. He thus suggested the Government and MTRCL measure the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on site to obtain objective information about the actual situation.
137. The Vice-chairman asked the Government and MTRCL to comment on Mr. WONG Kam-chi, MH, JP’s proposed ban for dump truck traffic at the works site entrance during peak hours.
138. Mr. Francis LI responded that during the design stage MTRCL had carried out a traffic impact assessment and submitted the report to TD. The contractor would carry out another traffic impact assessment before commencement of works, based on the anticipated dump truck traffic volume to and from the site at different times of a day, and submit the findings to departments concerned for reference. Also, the dump trucks would primarily enter or leave the works site via Ma Chai Hang Road southbound, instead of turning right into the site from Ma Chai Hang Road northbound. MTRCL would study with the contractor the possible reduction of dump track traffic during peak hours in the morning, and display site manger’s contact number at a prominent position of the site entrance. MTRCL would also monitor impacts of the site’s operation on traffic volume and the public, and review arrangements concerning the temporary works site in a timely manner.
139. The Chairman asked MTRCL to follow up Members’ suggestions, in particular Mr. CHAN On-tai’s comments on the works site entrance’s safety impact on the residents. Also, MTRCL was requested to revise the location of the entrance and traffic arrangement concerned, with due regard to pedestrian and traffic safety. He also asked MTRCL to convene a Community Liaison Group (Ma Chai Hang and Chuk Yuen Section) meeting and consult stakeholders on the arrangements concerning the works site entrance. He also suggested that TFSCL might be appointed to decide on the arrangements concerning the temporary works site entrance at MCHRG, with a view to settling the matter as soon as possible. He urged MTRCL not to commence the works before consensus of all stakeholders was reached.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 63 140. Mr. William SHIU, JP concurred with the Chairman on his proposed follow-up actions.
141. Mr. CHAN On-tai requested the Government and MTRCL to explain to the residents the reason why the works site entrance had to be provided at Ma Chai Hang Road, a one-lane, two-way traffic road, instead of identifying an alternative. He also remarked that both the Incorporated Owners of Tin Ma Court and the Incorporated Owners of Tin Wang Court were against the provision of works site entrance at Ma Chai Hang Road.
142. Mr. LAM Sai-hung responded that departments concerned would prepare a letter to explain why the works site entrance had to be provided at Ma Chai Hang Road, and set out the consideration made before deciding not to provide the entrance at other places.
143. Mr. WONG Kwok-tung added that both the Government and MTRCL should be responsible for perfecting the arrangement pertaining to the works site entrance to address Members’ concerns.
144. Mr. SO Sik-kin added again that OCs might arrange a meeting and invite representatives of MTRCL and departments concerned to answer residents’ questions and discuss with them how to solve the probleMs In addition, he suggested the Government and MTRCL improve the design of the barrier-free access to be provided in Tsui Chuk Garden, viz. extending the barrier-free access to MCHRG and create a project in this regard. The departments concerned should build the barrier-free access in phase, viz the section between Tsui Chuk Garden and Chuk Yuen Road would be built first, followed by the extension connecting MCHRG when formulating the reprovisioning plan for MCHRG.
145. Mr. LAM Sai-hung responded that the Government was concerned about all works projects that would improve people’s livelihood, and thus it would continue to communicate with the public on the design of the barrier-free access to be provided in Tsui Chuk Garden.
146. Mr. CHAN On-tai added further that the indoor games hall (IGH) might be built near Ma Chai Hang Road for easy access of residents of Tin Ma Court and Tin Wang Court.
147. Mr. LAM Sai-hung responded that the Government would formulate the reprovisioning plan for MCHRG and design of the IGH on the basis of the views of WTSDC.
148. Mr. SO Sik-kin added further that the existing design failed to provide an easy access between the MTR station and Tsui Chuk Garden, and thus urged the Government to consider extending the barrier-free access to MCHRG when formulating the reprovisioning plan for MCHRG, and create a project for the extension works. He
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 64 thanked DO(WTS) for his unfailing efforts to coordinate departments concerned and study matters relating to the construction of barrier-free access in Tsui Chuk Garden. Also, he acknowledged the departments’ efforts, but advised the Government to pay attention to the public’s needs and improve the design of the barrier-free access. The pedestrian linkage system in Tsui Chuk Garden had never been perfect, thus he urged the Government to build the barrier-free access as soon as possible.
149. Mr. HUI Kam-shing shared Mr. SO Sik-kin’s concern, and pointed out that traffic condition at Tsui Chuk and Pang Ching areas had huge room for improvement. He requested the Government to commence the barrier-free access project in Tsui Chuk Garden as soon as possible for the benefit of the public.
150. Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe concurred with Mr. SO Sik-kin on the proposed extension of the barrier-free access in Tsui Chuk Garden to MCHRG, so as to achieve the goal of “Universal Accessibility”.
151. As a conclusion, the Chairman asked the Government and MTRCL to note and follow up Members’ views on the location of the temporary works site entrance to be provided at MCHRG, and to propose feasible alternatives and consult stakeholders, including the community liaison groups concerned. He also urged the Government to study the feasibility of extending the barrier-free access in Tsui Chuk Garden to MCHRG and report the progress to WTSDC in a timely manner. WTSDC would continue to follow up matters pertaining to the reprovisioning of MCHRG and design of the amenity facilities, and submit its views to the Government and MTRCL. The Government and MTRCL were also requested to consult local stakeholder thoroughly and carry out the reprovisioning by phases.
(Mr. LAM Sai-hung, Mr. LEUNG Sai-ho, Mr. YEUNG Kong-sang, Mr. SIU Yee-lin, Richard, Mr. Francis LI, Mr. Yean NG, Mr. Carmeron Chin and Ms CHAN Fong-ting left the meeting at this juncture.)
IV Progress Reports
(i) Progress Reports of the 6th Meeting of the Community Building and Social Services Committee held on 11 September 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 89/2012)
152. Members noted the paper.
(ii) Progress Report of the 6th Meeting of the District Facilities Management Committee held on 18 September 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 90/2012)
153. Members noted the paper.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 65 (iii) Progress Report of the 6th Meeting of the Traffic and Transport Committee held on 25 September 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 91/2012)
154. Members noted the paper.
(iv) Progress Report of the 6th Meeting of the Finance, General and Economic Affairs Committee held on 9 October 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 92/2012)
155. Members noted the paper.
(v) Progress Report of the 6th Meeting of the Housing Committee held on 16 October 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 93/2012)
156. Members noted the paper.
(vi) Progress Report of the 6th Meeting of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Committee held on 30 October 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 94/2012)
157. Members noted the paper.
(vii) Progress Report of the Wong Tai Sin District Management Committee Meeting held on 12 October 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 95/2012)
158. Members noted the paper.
(viii) Progress Report of the Working Group on Government and Public Utilities Works Projects Meeting held on 18 September 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 96/2012)
159. Members noted the paper.
(ix) Progress Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Working Group on Barrier-free Facilities in Wong Tai Sin held on 4 October 2012 (WTSDC Paper No. 97/2012)
160. Members noted the paper.
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 66 V Date of the Next Meeting
161. The eighth WTSDC meeting would be held on 8 January 2013 (Tuesday) at 2:30 p.m.
162. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Wong Tai Sin District Council Secretariat Ref.: HAD WTSDC 13-5/5/53 December 2012
[8](1)20121213-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-e 67 Annex I
(Letterhead: DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch)
Our Ref.: L/WTSDC/20121105_01/TLF
To: Chairman and Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council
5 November 2012
Welcome the New Policy of “Universal Accessibility” and Request for Reviewing the Priority of Individual Project Items
We have been pushing public and private bodies to improve accessibility of venues through various channels, in a bid to create an environment friendly to all people – including those with a disability – and make Hong Kong a barrier-free city. In this connection, the Government applied for the provision of $0.28 billion in last financial year for the design and retrofitting of barrier-free facilities for about 180 footbridges and pedestrian subways in the territory. DAB supports this initiative. In addition, we have been reiterating the pressing needs for providing barrier-free accesses in various locations in Wong Tai Sin at meetings of Housing Committee, District Facilities Management Committee and Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC), and requesting departments concerned to provide such accesses. However, our requests had not been acceded to due to resource constraint or the fact that the proposed locations involved various departments.
The new policy of “Universal Accessibility” recently announced by the Chief Executive is not only about the retrofitting of elevators to public walkways, it also marks the change of an important principle, which provided that no lift would be retrofitted by the Government if the walkway in question has been installed with a standard ramp. In other words, as long as site conditions permit, the Government will now consider installing lifts at walkways where there is already a standard ramp installed. We welcome this change, which is what the residents have been longing for; and opine that the policy itself is a belated answer to people’s aspirations.
Before the new policy of “Universal Accessibility” was announced, WTSDC had formed the Working Group on Barrier-free Facilities (WGBFF), which held its fist meeting on 7 August 2012. At the meeting, WGBFF identified locations at which barrier-free accesses were needed, facilities required, as well as departments in charge of every proposed project item. We understand that as at 25 September, there were 20 proposed project items in Wong Tai Sin, but only three of them had been included in the initiative, which comprises 230-odd items, as announced by the Highways Department (HyD). Therefore, we would like to voice the following worries and enquiries:
[8](1)20121231-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-Annex I-e 1
1. Under the new policy, a dedicated funding source will be established to fund the construction of barrier-free accesses on an annual basis. Given the large number of locations in the territory that have to be improved, the resource available is still inadequate. At present, dedicated funding is required to implement some 230 project items proposed by HyD, among them the construction of 10 items has commenced/ will commence, and investigation/planning work for some 160 is underway. Chronologically, funding will be available to these project items before those proposed by us under the new policy. However, most of the 20 project items proposed by WTSDC involve busy locations in the district, including some essential linkage for local residents. Therefore, these items are more imminently needed and involve larger volumes of pedestrian traffic. How can HyD strike a balance so that priority can be given to the most imminent items, in a bid to address the people’s pressing needs?
2. The paper titled “The New Policy of ‘Universal Accessibility” sets out that upon collation of all suggestions received, HyD will consult the relevant District Councils by the end of 2012 to determine priorities of the suggestions for implementation. HyD will also carry out technical feasibility study for these project items, before design works can be started. Given the long leading time to be spent on public consultation, feasibility study, design, funding application, tendering exercise, etc., how can HyD streamline the internal procedures to ensure early completion of the project items, as set out in the paper?
3. Among the 20 project items proposed by WGBFF, seven involved the Housing Department (HD), six involved multiple departments, and a few involved owners’ corporations. What will the Government do to provide the proposedbarrier-free facilities in these aspects?
To address people’s pressing needs and think what people think, we request that:
1. The dedicated funding should be used wisely. To meet the basic needs of local residents, priority should be given to proposed barrier-free facilities at locations where pedestrian volumes are large and utilisation rates are high, no matter these items were proposed before or after the announcement of the new policy;
2. Procedures should be streamlined. Currently, it takes at least three years from making funding application to completion of works. This is unreasonable and has to be changed;
[8](1)20121231-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-Annex I-e 2
3. If a proposed project item involves a number of departments, such as HD and private entities, the Government should act as a co-ordinator and try to solve any problems that may hinder the implementation of the project item. Departments concerned should not mind their own business only.
We should be grateful if WTSDC would relay our worries and views to the departments concerned, in a bid to facilitate the successful implementation of the new policy of “Universal Accessibility” and build a genuine barrier-free community.
DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council
Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr. HO Yin-fai Mr. HO Hon-man Ms. CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr. YUEN Kwok-keung Mr. WONG Kwok-yan Ms. TAM Mei-po
[8](1)20121231-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-Annex I-e 3 Annex II
(Letterhead: DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch)
Our Ref.: L/WTSDC/20121105_02/TLF
To: Chairman and Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council
5 November 2012
Comments on Proposed Amendment to the Approved Ngau Chi Wan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K12/16
We had no idea about the proposed amendment until a few days ago when the Planning Department (PlanD) submitted a paper (WTSDC Paper 86/2012) to the Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC), setting out that a site at Fung Shing Street beside the Scenic View would be rezoned from “Government, Institution and Community” to “Residential (Group B)”. The amendment is a significant one, so we are of the view that the amendment was made in a hurry and the residents concerned were not adequately consulted. In addition, we have received objection from these residents. As such, we object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1. Did PlanD consult the stakeholders and residents concerned adequately before proposing the amendment? What were their comments?
2. Traffic at Fung Shing Street and Clear Water Bay Road is busy and traffic congestion is not unusual. As the traffic volume is huge already, additional population brought by new residential development will certainly worsen the traffic problem. We opine that the existing ancillary transport facilities cannot cope with the additional traffic;
3. Besides the provision of ancillary transport facilities, we also wonder if the Government has seriously gauged whether the existing infrastructure of the area can cope with the increased population, as well as whether it would cause adverse impact on the environmental and visual aspects. Given its close proximity to the Scenic View, any residential development on the site will cause significant visual impact to the Scenic View. This is unfair to its residents; and
[8](1)20120103-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-Annex II-e 1 4. Despite the building height restriction set out in the proposed amendment to the outline zoning plan, we are worried about the possible screen effect caused by forthcoming buildings on the site which will further increase the temperature and hinder ventilation, affecting residents’ health directly.
We should be grateful if WTSDC would relay our views to PlanD to avoid causing any adverse impact on the community.
DAB Wong Tai Sin Branch Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council
Mr. KAN Chi-ho, BBS, MH Mr. LI Tak-hong, MH, JP Mr. LAI Wing-ho, Joe Mr. HO Yin-fai Mr. HO Hon-man Ms. CHAN Man-ki, Maggie Mr. YUEN Kwok-keung Mr. WONG Kwok-yan Ms. TAM Mei-po
Co-opted Members Mr. CHOY Tsz-kin, Timothy Mr. POON Cheuk-bun
[8](1)20120103-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-Annex II-e 2 Annex III
(Letterhead: Office of DC Member CHAN On-tai)
To: Chairman and Members of Wong Tai Sin District Council, Mr. William SHIU, JP, District Officer and Government departments
5 November 2012
We Strongly Object to the Provision of Dump Truck Entrance for MTR’s Shatin to Central Link (SCL) Project at Ma Chai Hang Road as This Would Threaten People’s Lives and Affect Their Health
Having consulted residents of Tin Ma Court and Tin Wan Court, we strongly object to the provision of dump truck entrance at Ma Chai Hang Road as proposed by the MTR Corporation Limited, since doing so will create dump truck traffic in front of the bus stop, competition of road between people and vehicles as well as between dump trucks and buses, severely threatening the lives of the residents.
1. The proposed dump truck entrance is located at the holding bay of bus routes nos. 102 and 2B half way between a bus stop and a footbridge. Since the bus stop serves six routes, it is used by a large number of commuters, in particular during peak hours. As the SCL project will last for a few years, there will be a large volume of dump truck traffic – up to 25 trips per hour - in front of the bus stop each and every day during the construction period. This will pose severe hazard to the safety of people waiting for buses.
2. Ma Chai Hang Road is steep, narrow and curvy, and there is only one traffic lane. Therefore, additional dump truck traffic near the bus stop will affect the traffic severely and cause traffic congestion.
3. Dump trucks are tall but the students are short. Also, some of them are not even accompanied by adults. They can easily become victims of traffic accidents if they run after buses on the way to school. The proposed dump truck entrance is only 30m away from Tin Wang Court, so emission and dust from dump trucks will affect residents’ heath and their living environment. We request this matter be discussed at meeting of WTSDC’s Task Force on Shatin to Central Link.
(Sgd.) (Sgd.) (Sgd.) CHAN On-tai YUEN Yip-yung YIP Pei-tak Member of WTSDC Chairperson of Tin Ma Chairperson of Tin Wang Court Owners’ Corporation Court Owner’s Corporation
[8](1)20130103-4_DC[M7](6.11.12)-Annex III-e