minutes of the 9th meeting of the planning, works and
TRANSCRIPT
1
Minutes of the 9th Meeting of
the Planning, Works and Housing Committee
Eastern District Council
Date: 18 June 2019 (Tuesday)
Time: 2:30 pm
Venue: Eastern District Council Conference Room
Present Time of Arrival (pm) Time of Departure
(pm)
Mr TING Kong-ho, Eddie 2:30 6:05
Mr WONG Chi-chung, Dominic 2:30 end of meeting
Mr WONG Chun-sing, Patrick 5:15 end of meeting
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, BBS, MH 2:30 3:00
Mr KU Kwai-yiu 2:30 end of meeting
Mr HO Ngai-kam, Stanley 2:30 end of meeting
Mr LEE Chun-keung 2:30 end of meeting
Mr LAM Sum-lim 2:35 6:40
Mr LAM Kei-tung, George 2:30 6:00
Mr SHIU Ka-fai, JP 2:30 2:45
Mr HUNG Lin-cham, MH 2:30 6:10
Mr CHUI Chi-kin 3:35 end of meeting
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong, Howard 3:20 end of meeting
Mr LEUNG Siu-sun, Patrick 2:40 7:05
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, David
(Chairman)
2:30 end of meeting
Mr HUI Lam-hing 2:30 5:05
Mr HUI Ching-on 2:30 4:00
Mr KWOK Wai-keung, JP 2:30 5:00
Mr MAK Tak-ching 2:30 6:10
Ms CHIK Kit-ling, Elaine 2:30 end of meeting
Mr WONG Kin-pan, BBS, MH, JP 2:45 end of meeting
Mr WONG Kin-hing 2:30 5:30
Mr YEUNG Sze-chun
(Vice-chairman)
2:30 3:15
Dr CHIU Ka-yin, Andrew 2:30 end of meeting
Mr CHIU Chi-keung, BBS 2:30 end of meeting
Mr LAU Hing-yeung 2:30 end of meeting
Mr CHENG Chi-sing, MH 2:30 end of meeting
Mr CHENG Tat-hung 2:45 7:05
Mr LAI Chi-keong, Joseph 2:40 5:00
2
Mr NGAN Chun-lim, BBS, MH 2:40 end of meeting
Mr LO Wing-kwan, Frankie, MH 2:45 3:45
Mr KUNG Pak-cheung, BBS, MH 2:30 end of meeting
Ms LAU Sing-she, Dana (co-opted
member)
2:30 end of meeting
Absent with Apologies
Ms LEUNG Wing-man, Bonnie
Ms CHOY So-yuk, BBS, JP
Mr KONG Chack-ho, Alex, MH (co-opted member)
In Regular Attendance (Government Representatives)
Mr LO Cheuk-lun, Rayson Assistant District Officer (Eastern)2, Eastern District
Office
Mr KWAN Yu-keung Senior Liaison Officer (3), Eastern District Office
Mr HO Kwok-fai, Godfrey Senior Engineer/6 (South), Civil Engineering and
Development Department
Mr NG Tak-wah Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong (2), Planning
Department
Mr CHAN Lok-kin, Victor Senior Estate Surveyor/Hong Kong East (3), District
Lands Office, Hong Kong East, Lands Department
Ms KWONG Tak-wai Chief Health Inspector (Eastern)3, Eastern District
Environmental Hygiene Office, Food and
Environmental Hygiene Department
Miss CHAN Wai-lin, Rose Senior Housing Manager/Hong Kong Island and
Islands 1, Housing Department
Mr CHAN Chun-nam, Donald Building Surveyor/B4-1, Buildings Department
Mr NG Cheuk-hang, Peter Engineer/Hong Kong (Distribution 1), Water Supplies
Department
Ms NG Yan-mei, Monie Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Eastern
District Office
Mr MAK Ka-ho, Charles
(Secretary)
Executive Officer I (District Council)2, Eastern
District Office
3
In Attendance by Invitation (Representatives from the Government and
Organisations)
Mrs CHAN NG Ting-ting,
Elina
Principal Assistant Secretary (Infrastructure and
Research Support), Education Bureau
Miss Winifred KAN Assistant Secretary (Infrastructure and Research
Support)2, Education Bureau
Mr LAM Hon-ming, Jack Project Manager (School Building)1, Education
Bureau
Mr WONG Ming-hau Principal, Hong Kong Chinese Women’s Club College
Mr YEUNG Chi-keung Vice Principal, Hong Kong Chinese Women’s Club
College
Mr K L WONG, Geoffrey Deputy Director, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers
& Development Consultants Limited
Mr K S WONG, Ken Senior Architect, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers
& Development Consultants Limited
Ms CHAN Ling, Jasmine Estate Surveyor/Chai Wan, District Lands Office,
Hong Kong East, Lands Department
Mr SIN Kwok-kei Senior Telecommunications Engineer (Regulatory 12),
Office of the Communications Authority
Ms CHUNG Wai-wai, Vera Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory 12),
Office of the Communications Authority
Ms Vivian CHAN Associate, SMEC Asia Limited
Ms Samantha KONG Engineer, SMEC Asia Limited
Mr William KWAN Associate Director - Network Design & Construction,
Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited
Mr Charles YEUNG Associate Director - International Business, Hong
Kong Broadband Network Limited
Mr DY Wai-fung, Peter Senior Manager, Building Rehabilitation, Urban
Renewal Authority
Ms YUN Sin-wah, Sarah
Senior Manager (Community Development), Urban
Renewal Authority
Mr CHAN Chi-wai
Acting Senior Engineer, Electrical & Mechanical
Services Department
Mr TSE Man-ho
Engineer, Electrical & Mechanical Services
Department
Mr CHAN Man-ho, Michael
Assistant District Engineer/North East, Highways
Department
Mr KWAN Wing-yip Engineer/Eastern 2, Transport Department
Mr LO Wai-pan, Eddie Senior Executive Officer (Planning)5, Leisure and
Cultural Services Department
4
Ms FAN Yuk-ling, Amy Deputy District Leisure Manager (Eastern)2, Leisure
and Cultural Services Department
Mr WONG Chi-yung Senior Engineer/District, Civil Engineering and
Development Department
Mr LO Sai-cheong, Michael Senior Engineer/Eastern, Drainage Services
Department
Mr MO Kin-wang, Jim Senior Engineer 3 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme),
Drainage Services Department
Mr SO Chi-ho Engineer/Eastern 3, Drainage Services Department
Dr LEE Hoi-ki, Olive Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)23,
Environmental Protection Department
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed all Members and Government representatives to the
meeting.
I. Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 8th meeting of PWHC
2. The Planning, Works and Housing Committee (PWHC) confirmed the above
draft minutes without amendment.
II. Report of Working Group
(PWHC Paper No. 20/19)
3. Members noted the report of the Working Group on Harbourfront
Development and Housing Management.
III. Partial Redevelopment of the Hong Kong Chinese Women’s Club College
at 2B, Tai Cheong Street, Sai Wan Ho
(PWHC Paper No. 21/19)
4. The Chairman welcomed Mrs Elina CHAN, Principal Assistant Secretary
(Infrastructure and Research Support), Miss Winifred KAN, Assistant Secretary
(Infrastructure and Research Support)2 and Mr Jack LAM, Project Manager
(School Building)1 of the Education Bureau (EDB), Mr WONG Ming-hau,
Principal and Mr YEUNG Chi-keung, Vice Principal of the Hong Kong Chinese
Action
Action
5
Women’s Club College (HKCWC College), Mr Geoffrey WONG, Deputy
Director and Mr Ken WONG, Senior Architect of the Ho & Partners Architects
Engineers & Development Consultants Limited (Ho & Partners) to the meeting.
Mrs Elina CHAN of the EDB, Mr Geoffrey WONG of the Ho & Partners and Mr
WONG Ming-hau of the HKCWC College briefed the meeting on Paper No.
21/19.
5. The views and enquires of 12 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr HUI Lam-hing supported the EDB’s decision to commence the
works. However, he was concerned about the noise and dust generated
and the impacts on the residents nearby and the teachers and students
and hoped that the EDB would thoroughly assess and monitor the
situation.
(b) Mr MAK Tak-ching said that local residents had high expectations of
the development of the College and hoped that the College could liaise
closely with the EDB to ensure that the works would meet the teaching
needs of the College.
(c) Mr LAU Hing-yeung supported the works, however, as the teachers and
students used Shau Kei Wan Road mainly for access to the College, they
would have to pass through the proposed access of the construction site.
He was concerned about the safety of the teachers and students for
access to the College and hoped that the EDB could make prudent
consideration when planning the works. He also hoped that the
College could adopt appropriate measures to ensure that the teachers and
students would not be affected by the noise during classes.
(d) Mr LAM Sum-lim enquired the authority about the noise insulation
measures to be adopted, and hoped that the EDB could give an account
of the impacts of the works on the teachers and students, the residents
nearby and the traffic in the vicinity. He indicated that the roads in the
vicinity of the College were narrow and was worried that the access of
the works vehicles would cause traffic congestion.
(e) Mr HUNG Lin-cham supported the authority to commence the works in
order to meet the teaching needs of the College, and also asked the
College to pay attention to the impacts on the student learning at the
Action
6
commencement of the works.
(f) Mr Eddie TING supported the redevelopment and said that it would be
beneficial to the students. He also thanked the College for the efforts
in enhancing teaching quality and asked the EDB and the College to
maintain communication with the stakeholders during the works.
(g) Mr Dominic WONG said that the redevelopment would be beneficial to
both the student learning and the teachers’ working environment and
hence he supported the commencement of the works. He hoped that
the works would be completed as scheduled at the end of 2023, and also
reminded the EDB to maintain communication with relevant
departments so that both the teachers and the students could use the new
facilities as soon as possible.
(h) Mr KU Kwai-yiu supported the EDB to commence the works and
expressed that the redevelopment would be beneficial to both the
teachers and students in teaching and learning. However, he reminded
the EDB to be extremely cautious in handling construction waste
containing asbestos and pay attention to the impacts of the works on the
neighbouring traffic as well as to the access of teachers and students.
(i) Mr Patrick LEUNG was pleased to support the redevelopment and
hoped that the EDB and the College would consider adopting new
technologies in the demolition of the school hall in order to minimise the
disturbance during classes. At the same time, he also hoped the EDB
would maintain communication with the residents nearby in order to
minimise the impacts of the works on their daily lives.
(j) Mr LEE Chun-keung welcomed the EDB to commence the works and
remarked that there was a practical need for redevelopment as there was
inadequate teaching facilities. He hoped that the EDB would
endeavour to provide more teaching facilities through the
redevelopment. He also reminded the EDB to explore the trenches
before the foundation works to avoid project delays due to the presence
of caverns.
(k) Mr WONG Kin-pan supported the works but he noticed and was
concerned about the impacts of the works on the access to the fire
station and the traffic in the vicinity. Hence he hoped that the EDB
would carefully consider the arrangements for access to the construction
Action
7
site. He was also worried about inadvertent entrance into the
construction site by students and hoped the contractor would set up a
alert area outside the hoardings for the avoidance of such things.
(l) Mr CHIU Chi-keung said that the EDB already had detailed planning
and was confident that the works would commence smoothly.
However, he pointed out that both buses and mini-buses had to pass
through Tai Cheong Street, and so hoped that the EDB could try to avoid
increasing the traffic load. He also hoped that the College could
provide effective acoustic insulation facilities at the construction site so
that the teachers and students would have a suitable environment for
classes.
6. Mrs Elina CHAN of the EDB, Mr Geoffrey WONG of the Ho & Partners and
Mr WONG Ming-hau of the HKCWC College responded to the views and
enquiries of Members as follows:
EDB
(a) Mrs Elina CHAN thanked Members for their support and suggestions
for the works and also understood their concerns on the impacts of the
works on the surrounding environment and traffic, as well as the safety
of the teachers and students in accessing the College during the works.
Mrs Elina CHAN explained that there were already railings along the
pavement of Tai Cheong Street to prevent teachers and students from
walking in the driveway. On the other hand, works vehicles were not
allowed to access the construction site both during and after classes of
the College, in order to relieve the pressure on the traffic in the vicinity
and safeguard the teachers and the students. Regarding Members’
hope for the works to meet teaching needs, Mrs Elina CHAN indicated
that facilities under the works were provided according to the
prevailing schedule of accommodation of a standard secondary school
in order to provide those standard facilities currently fall short of in the
College. The works was expected to be completed in the fourth
quarter in 2023 and the EDB would endeavour its early completion so
that the College could use the new facilities as soon as possible.
Ho & Partners
(b) Mr Geoffrey WONG indicated that the works contract would clearly
Action
8
stipulate that all works vehicles were not allowed to access the
construction site during and after classes. Hoardings would also be
erected in the surrounding areas of the construction site in order to
safeguard the teachers and students. In addition, after site inspection, it
was confirmed that there was no asbestos in the College premises.
Regarding noise pollution, soil samples had been explored and slab
foundation would be used instead of piling for the new wing so as to
reduce the noise level generated from the foundation work. Apart from
erecting acoustic screens or noise enclosures, the contractor would
measure the noise level of all classrooms in order to ensure that the
noise level generated from the works complied with the noise restriction.
In addition, he indicated that all the drawings had been approved by
relevant government departments and revision of the access points of the
construction site at this stage was not feasible. However he believed
that by controlling the access time of the works vehicles to the
construction site, pedestrian could be safeguarded and the impacts on the
surrounding traffic could be reduced. He also mentioned that two trees
within the construction site would have to be removed and two trees
would be replanted after works completion as compensation while the
two trees near the College entrance would have to be removed
temporarily during the works and be transplanted in the College’s
premises after works completion.
HKCWC College
(c) Mr WONG Ming-hau thanked Members’ for their concern and support
of the College redevelopment. He also expressed that the College
would include the works as an area of concern in the next academic year
for all teachers and would also continue to liaise with all parents in order
that all parties would be informed of the works progress. The College
would maintain communication with the contractor during the works in
order to resolve the various issues like safety, noise, dust and
transplanting of trees, etc. and would also maintain close liaison with
relevant departments.
7. After discussion, the PWHC supported the EDB for implementing the works
and hoped for its smooth implementation.
Action
9
IV. Gazettal under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance
Cap. 127)
Proposed Installation of a Cable System TKO Connect from Siu Sai Wan
to Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region Waters
(PWHC Paper No. 22/19)
8. The Chairman welcomed Mr Victor CHAN, Senior Estate Surveyor/Hong
Kong East(3), Ms Jasmine CHAN, Estate Surveyor/Chai Wan of the District
Lands Office (Hong Kong East) (DLO), Mr SIN Kwok-kei, Senior
Telecommunications Engineer (Regulatory 12), Ms Vera CHUNG, Senior
Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory 12) of the Office of the Communications
Authority (OFCA), Ms Vivian CHAN, Associate and Ms Samantha KONG,
Engineer of the SMEC Asia Limited (SMEC), Mr William KWAN, Associate
Director Network Design & Construction and Mr Charles YEUNG, Associate
Director - International Business of the Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited
(HKBN) to the meeting. Mr Victor CHAN of the DLO, Mr William KWAN of
the HKBN and Ms Vivian CHAN of the SMEC briefed the meeting on Paper No.
22/19.
9. The views and enquires of 12 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr KWOK Wai-keung welcomed the works and said that it would
enhance market competition. However he opined that the works might
cause seawater pollution by sea-bed sediments which in turn affected
inshore fishing operation and therefore the company should
communicate with and consult the fishermen first on the possible
impacts of the works on the fisheries industry. He was also of the view
that the PWHC should vote whether to approve the project only after
there was no public worries pending the consensus of the fishermen.
He also said that Members should agree with the continuous
consultation by the company and only consider approving the project
upon availability of all consultation results.
(b) Mr WONG Kin-hing was baffled by the works procedures and said that
the company should submit the works to the PWHC for discussion upon
approval by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and the
Marine Department (MD). He then continued to query whether the
works would be beneficial to the Eastern District and even the whole of
Action
10
Hong Kong apart from generating profits for the company. He also
pointed out that post-typhoon restoration works was in progress at the
works site and was concerned that the works would affect the progress
of the restoration. He also requested that the works should only be
carried out during daytime to avoid disturbance to the residents.
(c) Mr Eddie TING expressed that the document highlighted that the
company should submit a Marine Traffic Impact Assessment (MTIA) to
the MD and queried why the works was submitted to the PWHC for
discussion before the completion of the MTIA. He opined that
discussion of the works was impossible before availability of all
information. He was also concerned that there might be impacts on the
Siu Sai Wan fishermen brought by the works. As there was no urgency
in carrying out the works, he hoped that the company would consult the
fishermen bodies before submitting it to the PWHC for discussion.
(d) Mr LAM Sum-lim was concerned about the livelihood of the fishermen.
Currently there was still a considerable amount of inshore operations in
the Victoria Harbour. Although the discussion paper stated that the
impact of the works on the quality of the seawater was minimal, there
was no mention of compensation proposal in case of a serious pollution.
He urged the company to communicate with the fishermen bodies first
to avoid affecting the livelihood of the fishermen by the works.
(e) Mr WONG Kin-pan enquired the DLO the reason why there were fixed
cable manholes for the laying of submarine cables in Tseung Kwan O
and yet there were no such facilities in Siu Sai Wan such that laying of
submarine cables were required every time. He said that there was
quite a number of fishermen living in the Eastern District and hoped that
the company could communicate with the relevant mutual-aid
associations of fishermen for their understanding of the impacts of the
works on their livelihood. In addition, he expressed that since the
works had not secured approval from all the relevant government
departments yet, it was inappropriate for the PWHC to hold any
discussion. Therefore he hoped that the company would wait until all
the relevant departments and stakeholders have voiced their comments
before the works was submitted to the PWHC for discussion.
(f) Mr Dominic WONG agreed with some of the Members that the
company should consult the agriculture and fisheries sector first before
Action
11
the PWHC could start the discussion. He indicated that there was no
urgency for the works and he urged the company to wait until all the
comments were available before the works was discussed at the PWHC.
(g) Mr CHIU Chi-keung welcomed the company to increase market supply
but indicated that in the past, the departments would consult the
stakeholders first for the laying of cables, and he did not understand why
the current works was submitted to the PWHC for discussion without
first seeking adequate communication with the stakeholders. He also
pointed out that the works would affect the livelihood of the Shau Kei
Wan fishermen, and hope that the company would give an account of the
environmental impacts caused by the works. He expressed that the
PWHC played the role of the goalkeeper, and should start the discussion
pending the consensus of all the stakeholders.
(h) Mr Andrew CHIU was pleased to learn that the works had secured the
support of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (CEDB)
which was crucial to the information and technology development in
Hong Kong and he would be highly supportive of the implementation of
the works. He also commended the company for the comprehensive
documentation provided. As regards the concern of some of the
Members that the stakeholders had not been consulted, he said that the
PWHC could agree in principle for implementing the works first and
circulate the information when available for its early commencement.
(i) Mr Joseph LAI thanked the company for the respect of the PWHC. He
expressed that the works would enhance people’s livelihood and support
from various departments had been secured, the PWHC should
endeavour to support the implementation for the benefits of the
community. He asked Members to support the works for its early
commencement.
(j) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung said that in the past all the relevant departments
or sections had consulted the Hong Kong Offshore Fishermen
Association before the laying of cables but consultation could not be
seen in the discussion paper provided. He urged the company to
consult the aforesaid association and explain the impacts of the works on
the inshore fisheries.
(k) Mr HUI Lam-hing indicated that the EPD and the agriculture and
Action
12
fisheries sector were the key stakeholders of the works. Therefore, it
was impossible for the PWHC to hold any discussion before approval
was obtained from the stakeholders.
(l) The Chairman said that the works would require the approval of various
departments which was not contained in the relevant documents. He
agreed with the Members’ concern that some departments or
stakeholders might have different views about the project and hence he
urged the company to take the initiative to communicate directly with
the stakeholders like the fisheries constituency. He also indicated that
the PWHC understood the works content but views of the departments
and the stakeholders had to be considered before making any decision.
10. Ms Vivian CHAN of the SMEC, Mr Victor CHAN of the DLO, Mr SIN
Kwok-kei of the OFCA, Mr William KWAN of the HKBN responded to the views
and enquiries of Members as follows:
SMEC
(a) As regards the impacts of the works, the SMEC had already conducted
the fisheries impact assessment (FIA) and applied to the EPD directly
for the environmental permit. She reiterated that the marine works
would only last for three days at sea. According to the analysis of the
Project Profile, the sediments disturbed during the works would settle
onto the seabed within a few minutes and she opined that the impacts on
the fisheries would be minimal. She also explained to Members about
the whole application procedure, including applying for the permits
from the LandsD and EPD, and also arrange for publication in the
Gazette after approval from all the departments involved. Therefore,
she reassured all Members that the works would only commence after
approval had been secured from all the relevant departments.
(b) As regards the comments by some Members why the works was
submitted to the PWHC for discussion before the completion of all
assessments, she indicated that marine traffic was ever-changing and
MTIA could only be conducted a short time before works
commencement for submission to the MD for assessment. The SMEC
would ensure that all the necessary assessments would have been
completed before works commencement. In addition, she also thanked
Members for their views, and would continue to liaise with various
Action
13
stakeholders through the Eastern District Office (EDO) and fine-tune the
details of the works to meet the needs of the stakeholders.
DLO
(c) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) had
been consulted about the works and DLO would liaise with the various
stakeholders through the EDO. He also remarked that the fishermen
could apply to the LandsD and AFCD for compensation in case of loss
caused by the works.
(d) He also said that the cable draw pit in Sai Kung was constructed by the
Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation but there was no
similar facilities in the Eastern District. Therefore, marine works was
necessary whenever there was laying of submarine cables. He also
thanked Members for their comments and expressed that the DLO and
the company would be pleased to communicate with the stakeholders
through the EDO according to the established procedures and respect the
views of all parties on the works. He also understood the Members’
worries and concern on the possible environmental impacts of the works
and whether environmental permit could be secured.
OFCA
(e) The cable system had secured the support of the CEDB and would foster
the development of Hong Kong towards becoming the data centre hub of
Asia Pacific region. He stressed that the government had endeavoured
to maintain provisions of cables both locally and internationally in order
to satisfy all the customers’ needs for telecommunication services.
Currently there was one submarine cable connecting Siu Sai Wan and
Tseung Kwan O providing services while another was under laying.
The cable system under planning was the third one linking the two
places which would greatly enhance market competitiveness and
provide more options for telecommunication users within the districts.
HKBN
(f) He thanked Members for their views and would ensure that the works
would be carried out in full accordance with the established procedures
of the government. He also indicated that the works would facilitate
Action
14
other works for the building of a Smart City which would enhance the
communication facilities of the Eastern District and local residents
would be able to enjoy better services. Therefore, he believed that the
works would gain the support of all stakeholders. He also
supplemented that the contractor had ample experience in handling
similar works items and would certainly maintain communication with
the stakeholders and reflect their views to Members for information.
SMEC, DLO,
OFCA, HKBN
11. After discussion, the PWHC noted the discussion paper and asked the
relevant departments and company to communicate with the stakeholders before
submitting the Paper again to the meeting for discussion.
V. Introduction of Lift Modernisation Subsidy Scheme
(PWHC Paper No. 23/19)
12. The Chairman welcomed Mr Peter DY, Senior Manager, Building
Rehabilitation and Ms Sarah YUN, Senior Manager (Community Development) of
the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), Mr CHAN Chi-wai, Acting Senior Engineer
and Mr TSE Man-ho, Engineer of the Electrical & Mechanical Services
Department (EMSD) to the meeting. Mr Peter DY and Ms Sarah YUN of the
URA and Mr TSE Man-ho of the EMSD briefed the meeting on Paper No. 23/19.
13. The views and enquires of 10 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that there were resident who have expressed
that addition of brake device was infeasible in the lifts of their buildings
because of the lift car and asked if the EMSD could provide any
assistance in that regard. He also enquired the URA the calculation of
the rateable value in the eligibility criteria.
(b) Mr Howard CHEUNG enquired the URA the percentage of the total
number of lifts in the Eastern District to the total number of lifts
subsidised under the Scheme. He also indicated that using the rateable
value as one of the criteria to determine the eligibility for application
would exclude those buildings with high rateable values. However,
there were safety issues for the lifts in those buildings not included in
the Scheme and he hoped that the URA could adjust the ceiling of the
rateable value upward. In addition, he also enquired the URA the
Action
15
details about the briefing sessions held between April and May and also
hoped to know the responses of the Owners’ Corporations (OCs) and the
management companies of the residential estates.
(c) Mr CHUI Chi-kin enquired the URA whether applicant buildings could
only receive a subsidy of $20,000 to appoint consultants not arranged by
the URA. He also asked the URA how the ceiling of the rateable value
was determined and whether it would be adjusted in future.
(d) Mr LAM Sum-lim welcomed the URA to launch such a Subsidy
Scheme but pointed out that the current Scheme only covered ongoing
works resulting in intentional delays in works completion for some
buildings in order to be eligible for the subsidy. He opined that the
Scheme caused inconvenience to the public. He also asked how the
URA would help those buildings that had not appointed consultants to
manage the follow-up services.
(e) Mr Eddie TING welcomed the Scheme but said that residents had
reflected to him that engagement of contractors for the supervision of lift
maintenance was required if brake system was to be added under the
Scheme. The requirement would render the current maintenance
contract void and hence he asked the URA how they could help those
buildings. He also urged the URA to join with the EDO to assist in the
coordination of the whole lift modernisation works for those “three nil”
buildings.
(f) Mr LEE Chun-keung understood that point system was adopted for the
selection of buildings eligible for subsidy under the Scheme, and he
hoped that the URA could explain the number of points that the
buildings had to obtain in order to be eligible for the subsidy. He also
asked the URA whether the lifts were ineligible for the Scheme to
further enhance the lift safety if the lifts had already equipped with all
the essential safety devices as required under the Scheme.
(g) Mr MAK Tak-ching was concerned about the responses of the residents
and OCs towards the Scheme and hoped that the URA could brief
Members of owners’ concerns expressed during the briefing sessions.
He was also worried about the way to apportion the subsidy for the lift
maintenance if the consultant was to be responsible for various
maintenance works of the entire building. In addition, he also enquired
Action
16
the URA about the application period in the second half of 2019 for the
Scheme.
(h) Mr CHENG Tat-hung said that the URA has issued invitation letters to
about 4 000 buildings in January 2019 to encourage their participation in
the Scheme. He enquired whether those buildings without the
invitation letter could participate in the Scheme or not. He also
remarked that the rateable value which was one of the eligibility criteria
had been maintained at $162,000 and hoped the URA would make
adjustment. At the same time, he asked the URA to consider relaxing
the application criteria in order to cover buildings with higher rateable
value, and also prioritise those buildings with lifts already out of order
under the Scheme.
(i) Mr WONG Kin-pan was pleased to support the Scheme but said that the
briefing of the URA was over simplified. He learnt that it was difficult
for some lifts to add the required safety devices from his experience
during assistance to residents. He hoped that the URA could provide
the number of cases to be approved in the second half of 2019 and asked
the URA to provide direct contact for public enquiries.
(j) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung said that appointment of consultant was required
under the Scheme during the tendering process for cost estimation.
However, if the works was bided by another company, the consultant
might not bother to follow up with the works, and in the end it was the
residents who suffered.
14. Mr Peter DY of the URA and Mr TSE Man-ho of the EMSD responded to the
views and enquiries of Members as follows:
EMSD
(a) With technological advancements in lifts nowadays, the space required
for installing new devices had reduced substantially. If the consultant
indicated that addition of safety devices was infeasible due to
insufficient space, residents might consider replacing other parts at the
same time for the addition of safety devices. As regards the issue of
maintenance contract, in order not to affect the existing lift maintenance
contract by the lift modernisation works, the EMSD had specifically set
the Scheme for a period over six years, so that modernisation works
Action
17
could be arranged after the expiry of the existing maintenance contract.
He also mentioned that currently there were a total of 41 lift contractors
available in Hong Kong and the residents were not bound to take the
advice of the existing contractors. He also suggested the residents to
actively consider replacing the entire lift if it had been in use for more
than 30 years in order to enhance cost-effectiveness.
URA
(b) The URA stressed that the Scheme was not on a “first come first serve”
basis. The URA would consider the application as long as the
application and the necessary documents were submitted during the
application period. He asked Members to encourage residents to
submit their applications during the first round in order not to miss the
application period. As regards the ceiling of the rateable value, he said
that the URA would review the ceiling every year and the current one
was set in 2017. If a rise in rental resulted in the reduction of
beneficiaries, the URA would suggest the government to adjust the
ceiling upward. He reiterated that all subsidised applicants had to
obtain a quotation from an eligible works company by tender in the
market in order to encourage fair competition and a more reasonable
price could be obtained.
(c) As regards the subsidy for the works consultant under the Scheme,
owners might apppoint those provided by the URA free of charge or
appoint their own consultants, and the subsidy was capped at $20,000
per lift.
(d) The subsidy under the Scheme was capped at $500,000 per lift.
According to the estimation of the EMDS, the subsidy amount was
sufficient to cover the costs of addition of essential safety devices. The
Scheme had also taken into consideration the financial affordability of
the elderly and hence owner-occupiers aged 60 or above would receive
higher subsidy amount than the general owners. The URA understood
that there might be queries over the apportionment of the subsidy.
However, as situation varies from building to building, residents were
reminded to pay attention to the terms and conditions of the deed of
mutual covenant of the building. In addition, the URA had also
accepted invitation or taken the initiative to attend meetings of various
applicant buildings for briefing and a designated officer was assigned
Action
18
for each case for follow-up.
(e) As at mid-June, the URA had received a total of 18 applications from
buildings in the Eastern District. Members were also asked to remind
residents to submit the applications by 31 July. The second round
would commence at the end of the year.
15. After discussion, the PWHC noted the briefing of the URA and supported the
authority to continue implementing the scheme.
VI. Urging the Departments Concerned to Clarify their Respective Rights and
Responsibilities regarding the Intersection of Lin Shing Road and Cape
Collison Road to Facilitate the Provision of Lay-bys for Buses and Public
Light Buses As Soon As Possible
(PWHC Paper No. 24/19)
16. The Chairman welcomed Mr Victor CHAN, Senior Estate Surveyor/Hong
Kong East(3) of DLO, Miss Rose CHAN, Senior Housing Manager/Hong Kong
Island and Islands 1 of Housing Department (HD), Mr Michael CHAN, Assistant
District Engineer/North East of Highway Department (HyD) and Mr KWAN
Wing-yip, Engineer/Eastern 2 of Transport Department (TD) to the meeting. Mr
KUNG Pak-cheung briefed the meeting on Paper No. 24/19.
17. The PWHC noted the consolidated reply of all the departments concerned.
18. The views and enquires of 7 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr LEE Chun-keung supported the clarification of the land rights and
responsibilities of the site by the departments. Currently, there was
always traffic congestion and frequent vehicle-pedestrian conflicts in the
road section. The clarification of land rights and responsibilities would
help speed up the enhancement works and he hoped that the departments
would fast-track the processing of the works.
(b) Mr NGAN Chun-lim remarked that he noted the complexity of land
rights and responsibilities of the road section during the site inspection
on 20 May and so he hoped the departments would strengthen
communication and complement with each other for early
Action
19
commencement of the works.
(c) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung hoped that the departments would clarify the
roles played by each of them and the updated progress for Members’
understanding of the works progress and schedule.
(d) Mr WONG Kin-pan thanked the various departments for following up
the works. Currently Cape Collinson Road was heavily congested
during Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals causing inconvenience
to Chai Wan residents. He hoped that the departments would
collaborate with each other and endeavour to complete the works in
2020.
(e) Mr KU Kwai-yiu agreed with the departments for clarifying the land
rights and responsibilities in order to implement the road enhancement
works but he hoped that the departments would take into consideration
the pedestrian flow to ensure a smooth flow for both people and vehicles
in the road section.
(f) Mr CHUI Chi-kin agreed to the traffic improvement by the departments
at Cape Collinson Road with a view to resolve the congestion during
Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals. However, he hoped that the
department would explain in detail to Members how the works would
commence for their better understanding of the works and comments.
(g) Mr CHIU Chi-keung hoped that the departments would explain in detail
to Members about the works for their better understanding and hope the
departments would speed up the commencement in order to improve the
traffic conditions in the area.
19. Miss Rose CHAN of HD, Mr Victor CHAN of DLO, Mr Michael CHAN
of HyD and Mr KWAN Wing-yip of TD responded to the views and enquiries of
Members as follows:
HD
(a) The HD thanked Members for their views to the works. The relevant
departments had conducted a site inspection on 20 May and arrived at a
consensus after communication. The HD would transfer the land to the
relevant departments for works commencement.
Action
20
DLO
(b) The DLO thanked Members for their views. As regards the removal of
trees from the site, the DLO had sought professional advice and would
approve the application for tree removal after approval of the works had
been secured from the PWHC.
(c) The various departments had arrived at a consensus regarding the
intersection at Cape Collinson Road and would start with the transfer of
the road section first. As regards the revision of the vesting order of
land, the DLO was currently consulting the relevant policy bureaux and
departments regarding the land issue of the neighbouring columbarium,
and would complete the revision of the scope of vesting order as soon as
possible after obtaining agreement from the policy bureaux and the
departments.
HyD
(d) The HyD had submitted the planting and tree felling report to the
LandsD for approval in mid-May and it was expected that the works
would commence upon the approval of the report in mid-July.
(e) The expected completion date as provided by the HyD was subject to
various factors and the transplanting of the trees alone would take five
months. The HyD understood the distress suffered by Chai Wan
residents and would step up their effort for early completion of the
works.
TD
(f) The TD remarked that the lay-bys at the site was the enhancement
measures suggested by the traffic consultant in response to the provision
of columbarium by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
(FEHD). As regards the concern of some Members about the impacts
of the works on the pavement, the TD said that space had been allowed
for the construction of a 6-metre-width pavement which would be
sufficient to cope with the daily pedestrian flow. During the Ching
Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals, the TD would implement crowd
safety management measures in order to ease the flow of people.
Action
21
20. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to the early commencement of the
works and include the issue the issue in matters arising.
VII. Concern about the Future Management Mode of “Boardwalk
underneath Island Eastern Corridor” under Planning and the
Introduction of Commercial Elements to the Project
(PWHC Paper No. 25/19)
21. The Chairman welcomed Mr Godfrey HO, Senior Engineer/6 (South) of Civil
Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), to the meeting. Mr Andrew
CHIU briefed the meeting on Paper No. 25/19.
22. Members noted the consolidated reply of the Development Bureau (DEVB)
and CEDD.
23. The views and enquires of 8 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr CHENG Tat-hung understood the effort of the CEDD in constructing
the Boardwalk. He enquired whether the Boardwalk would be handed
over to the private sector for management since the CEDD would not
suggest the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to
manage the Boardwalk. He was worried that the private sector would
introduce commercial elements in the Boardwalk which would lead to a
substantial increase in pedestrian flow affecting the traffic flow between
North Point and Quarry Bay.
(b) Mr NGAN Chun-lim opposed to the introduction of commercial
elements in the Boardwalk and expressed that the CEDD should only
provide open spaces or a cafeteria at the Boardwalk. He hoped that the
CEDD would submit the management mode to the PWHC for
discussion before making any decision and give an account to the public
for the decision.
(c) Mr CHENG Chi-sing said that it had been planned for the LCSD to
manage the Boardwalk with the setting up of angling zone, cycling
tracks, etc. He expressed that the construction of the Boardwalk was
fully funded by the government and hence did not understand why it
Action
22
would be managed by the private sector. He asked the CEDD to give a
detailed account of it.
(d) Mr Andrew CHIU pointed out that the CEDD had all along planned to
assign the LCSD to manage the Boardwalk. However, through the
blog of the Secretary for Development, it was known that the Boardwalk
might not be handled over to the LCSD for management and he was
worried that the Boardwalk would be handed over to the private sector
for management with the introduction of commercial elements. He
also said that there was a wide variety of facilities at the harbourfront
including, amongst other things, a pet park. He hoped that the CEDD
would explain whether the current Pleasure Grounds Regulation
sufficient for the management of the facilities. He also suggested the
LCSD to review the current legislations and study the ways to integrate
bicycles and pets as parts of the Boardwalk facilities and organize a
management advisory committee by inviting stakeholders,
non-government representatives and professionals to advice on the ways
to enable the public for enjoyment of the Eastern harbourfront.
(e) Mr MAK Tak-ching said there had always been commercial elements,
like bicycle rental, etc., in government parks and there was no need to
highlight it. Therefore when he noticed that the Secretary for
Development stated the introduction of commercial elements, he was
concerned that the Boardwalk would be handed over to the business
sector for management and turned to a business site. He continued to
point out that there had been open spaces managed by the business
sector with substantial amount of business elements for soliciting
business, which had caused adverse impacts on the open space culture in
Hong Kong.
(f) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that the Boardwalk traversed properties of
various business conglomerates including hotels, residential estates, etc.
He was worried that the public would not be able to enjoy the
Boardwalk equally if it was managed by the private sector. He opined
that the LCSD was competent in managing the Boardwalk and hoped the
CEDD to give an account for not handing over it to the LCSD for
management but adopting other management modes instead.
(g) Mr Howard CHEUNG indicated that if the CEDD intended to outsource
the management of the Boardwalk by way of short term tenancy, the
Action
23
terms of the tenancy should be disclosed for discussion. In addition, he
enquired the CEDD why there was operation plan for the DEVB before
the completion of public consultation.
(h) Mr LEE Chun-keung enquired the CEDD how the decision of handing
over the management to private sector was arrived at and urged the
CEDD to explain the final operation approach.
24. Mr Godfrey HO of CEDD responded that the purpose of constructing the
Eastern Boardwalk was to provide the public with an open space at the
harbourfront and the management of the future Boardwalk was not finalised yet.
The CEDD would continue to listen to public views in this regard. Meanwhile,
the CEDD would maintain communication with the LCSD. Currently the CEDD
was conducting preparatory work for the tendering exercise of the consultancy
agreement for the next phase of the works, including scrutinising and studying the
management mode of the Boardwalk. The detailed design stage was expected to
commence at the end of the year and options would be formulated timely for
consulting the PWHC.
25. Mr Andrew CHIU, on behalf of Mr CHENG Tat-hung, Mr Joseph LAI, Mr
Patrick LEUNG, Mr Howard CHEUNG, Mr MAK Tak-ching, Mr KU Kwai-yiu,
Mr WONG Chun-sing, Ms Bonnie LEUNG and Mr CHUI Chi-kin, made a
statement as follow:
“The Mover and signatory Members of this Paper reiterated that the
harbourfront was a place for public leisure and not a commercial area,
particularly given the fact that the Eastern Harbourfront was narrow and also
a major residential area in the Hong Kong Island; hence there should not be
any commercial elements in the management mode of the Boardwalk
underneath the Island Eastern Corridor and the Quarry Bay Promenade so
that residents of the Eastern District could enjoy a serene harbourfront.”
CEDD 26. After discussion, the PWHC urged the department to take into full account of
Members’ views.
VIII. Progress report of matters arising from previous PWHC meetings
(PWHC Paper No. 26/19)
27. The Chairman welcomed Mr Eddie LO, Senior Executive Officer
Action
24
(Planning)5 and Ms Amy FAN, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Eastern)2 of
LCSD, Mr NG Tak-wah, Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong (2) of Planning
Department (PlanD), Miss Rose CHAN, Senior Housing Manager/Hong Kong
Island and Islands 1 of HD, Mr Geoffrey HO, Senior Engineer/6 (South) and Mr
WONG Chi-yung, Senior Engineer/District of CEDD, Mr Donald CHAN,
Building Surveyor/B4-1 of Buildings Department (BD), Mr KWAN Yu-keung,
Senior Liaison Officer (3) of EDO, Mr Michael LO, Senior Engineer/Eastern, Mr
Jim MO, Senior Engineer 3 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme) and Mr SO Chi-ho,
Engineer/Eastern 3 of Drainage Services Department (DSD), Ms KWONG
Tak-wai, Chief Health Inspector (Eastern)3 of FEHD, Mr KWAN Wing-yip,
Engineer/Eastern 2 of TD, Dr Olive LEE, Environmental Protection Officer
(Regional South)23 of EPD and Mr Michael CHAN, Assistant District
Engineer/North East of HyD to the meeting.
(i) Strong Request for Building a District Library Next to Eastern Law Courts
Building as Soon as Possible/
Scope of Development of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Wan/
Preliminary Design Plan of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Wan/
Revised Design Proposal of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Wan/
Latest Design Proposal of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Road/
Joint User Complex at Lei King Road/
Request to Implement the Lei King Road Joint User Complex Project as
Soon as Possible
28. Mr Eddie LO of LCSD supplemented on the latest progress and indicated that
consultation of the project with the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative
Council was conducted on 29 April 2019 and support secured. Currently the
project item was pending scrutiny by the Public Works Subcommittee (PWSC).
29. The views and enquires of 3 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr NGAN Chun-lim was pleased to learn of the progress of the project
and also enquired the LCSD whether funding would be available in
mid-year.
(b) Mr KU Kwai-yiu was pleased with the progress of the project item and
enquired the LCSD about the provision for it.
(c) Mr Patrick WONG asked the LCSD to elaborate on the procedures for
Action
25
the funding application and also hoped that the LCSD could at the same
time commence the preparatory work for the subsequent tendering
exercise in order to shorten the implementation time of the project.
30. Mr Eddie LO of LCSD replied that the LCSD was seeking funding approval
from the Legislative Council of $673.6 million for the construction of the
Complex. The project item was under the scrutiny by PWSC for subsequent
approval by the Finance Committee (FC). If funding approval of the project by
the FC could be obtained by mid-2019, the works could commence at the end of
2019 the earliest and complete at the end of 2022. The Architectural Services
Department would commence work as soon as funding was approved.
All Attendees 31. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(ii) Request to Construct a Swimming Pool at Quarry Bay/
Strongly Request the Government to Make Good Use of the Land
Resources by Constructing a Standard Indoor Swimming Pool on the
Side of Aldrich Garden/
Construction of an All-weather Indoor Swimming Pool with Green Concept
at the Side of Tung Hei Road, Shau Kei Wan/
Greening and Leisure Facilities at Tung Hei Road/
Suggestion to Construct a Multi-storey Sports Centre on the Side of Aldrich
Garden
32. The views and enquires of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr NGAN Chun-lim pointed out that the residents have been longing
for the feasibility study report of the works from the LCSD for
discussion by the Eastern District Council (EDC), and also hoped that
the LCSD could elaborate on the follow-up schedule.
(b) Mr LAM Sum-lim hoped that the LCSD could provide a specific
schedule of the project and also urged the LCSD to designate the project
as the training facilities for elite athletes to provide them with
appropriate training venue.
33. Mr Eddie LO of LCSD replied that the LCSD had all along actively listening
to the views on the proposed project raised by the District Council in order to
Action
26
optimise land use and meet sports development and local demand. Pursuant to
the government’s principle of “single site, multiple use”, the LCSD was studying
the feasibility of providing other facilities in the project for providing more
comprehensive facilities for the residents of the Eastern District. As the
proposed project was one of the 15 sports and recreation facility projects that
feasibility study would be conducted as mentioned in the 2017 Policy Address of
the Chief Executive, the LCSD would actively press ahead with the planning work
and consult the District Council where appropriate on the progress of the project
so that the technical feasibility study of the project could be conducted in
accordance with the established procedures.
All Attendees 34. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(iii) Making a Strong Request to Put the Open Space at the Junction of Siu Sai
Wan Road and Harmony Road into Use as Soon as Possible
Providing District Health Centre cum Social Welfare Facilities at Siu Sai
Wan
35. Members noted the written replies of the departments.
36. Ms Elaine CHIK was pleased to learn the replies from the various
departments and hoped that the works would commence soon.
All Attendees 37. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(iv) Making a Request to Change the Triangular Provisional Land next to
Heng Fa Chuen Bus Terminal into Permanent Motorcycle Parking
Spaces
38. Mr Stanley HO said that a site inspection was conducted with the TD earlier
on and there was some discrepancy with their reply over the progress of the
agenda item and he hoped that the TD would endeavour to provide the latest
progress report. He also indicated that two years had lapsed for the agenda item
and urged the TD to speed up the implementation.
39. Mr KWAN Wing-yip of TD and Mr CHAN Man-ho of HyD responded to the
views and enquiries of Members as follows
Action
27
TD
(a) The TD would revise the plan as soon as possible for the HyD to carry
out the works.
HyD
(b) The HyD understood that the TD would have to make minor
amendments to the details of the works and would provide technical
support. It was expected that works would commence in the fourth
quarter of the year.
All Attendees 40. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(v) Requesting the Government to Handle Properly the Problem of Shortage of
Ancillary Facilities for Living in the Estate after the Sale of Hing Man
Commercial Centre/
Requesting the Government to Handle the Problems Arising from the
Change of Ownership of the Commercial Centre of Hing Man Estate
and Take Care of the Basic Daily Needs of Residents
41. Miss Rose CHAN of HD supplemented on the latest progress of the works.
The renovation of the shopping mall had been completed and apart from the
existing supermarket, round-the-clock convenience store, snack shop and ATM
machine, a new eatery specialising in cart noodles would soon commence business
operation. The HD would closely liaise with the owner of the shopping mall to
ensure that the residents would be provided with the necessary retail facilities.
42. The views and enquires of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr LAU Hing-yeung was pleased to learn that the renovation work of
the shopping mall had been completed and also thanked the owner for
opening the newly provided lift for pedestrian use starting next month.
With the completion of the renovation work of the shopping mall, he
urged the relevant departments to liaise closely with the merchant
tenants in order to avoid causing any impacts on neighbouring traffic
flow.
Action
28
(b) Mr CHUI Chi-kin said that the agenda item focused on the insufficient
facilities for the daily necessities of the residents, and he opined that the
residents would still find it inconvenient with the current situation of the
shopping mall. He condemned the government for being helpless to
meet the basic daily needs of the residents as decisions rested on the
hands of the shopping mall owner.
43. Miss Rose CHAN of HD responded that the Housing Authority as the deed
of mutual covenant manager would definitely liaise closely with the shopping mall
owner and reflect residents’ views.
All Attendees 44. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(vi) The Revised Proposal of Harbourfront Boardwalk in Eastern District
Submitted by Civil Engineering and Development Department to
Harbourfront Commission
45. Members noted the consolidated reply of DEVB.
46. The views and enquires of 4 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr Patrick WONG said that the people were all looking forward to the
completion of the boardwalk and hoped that the CEDD would continue
following up with the works progress.
(b) Mr Andrew CHIU understood that further study would be required for
the boardwalk project. He hoped that the options submitted by the
CEDD to the EDC for consultation would be able to meet the needs of
the stakeholders on various aspects, and also requested the CEDD to
submit to EDC for Members’ views first before the next round of public
consultation.
(c) Mr WONG Kin-pan hoped that the CEDD would consult the EDC first
before submitting the comments collected during the three public
consultations to the policy bureaux or the Legislative Council for
consideration in order to ensure that views of local residents were
incorporated.
Action
29
(d) The Chairman enquired the CEDD whether it would be possible to duly
prepare the information before the next meeting for submission to the
PWHC for discussion.
47. Mr Geoffrey HO of CEDD responded that the CEDD noted Members’
support and concern on the works and remarked that Members’ suggestions and
views on the boardwalk would be considered as well at the design stage of the
works. The CEDD expected to commence the consultancy study of the project
design stage at the end of the year and planned to publish the works in the Gazette
in 2020. The CEDD would definitely submit the proposed option to the PWHC
for discussion before publishing it in the Gazette to gauge Members’ views on the
option.
All Attendees 48. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(vii) Concern over the Ageing Problem of Old Buildings and Request for
Enhanced Inspection on External Walls of Buildings/
Discussion on 5-billion-dollar building maintenance and fire engineering
subsidies
49. Members noted the consolidated reply of DEVB, URA and Security Bureau
(SB).
50. Mr KWAN Yu-keung of EDO supplemented on the latest work progress.
The District Building Management Liaison Team of the EDO would continue to
provide courses on building management to local residents as in the past,
particularly for those living in the aged buildings or the “three nil” buildings.
51. The views and enquires of 3 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr LAM Sum-lim indicated that there had been a case that approval for
completion of fire services works had been obtained from the Fire
Services Department (FSD) and yet no approval could be obtained from
the BD, hence he hoped that there would be mutual coordination
between the departments to provide more support to residents.
(b) Mr WONG Kin-pan said that both the Operation Building Bright 2.0
and the Fire Safety Improvement Works had already been completed on
Action
30
30 October 2018 and hence enquired the BD whether there would be
another round of plans.
(c) Mr Dominic WONG said that there were residents who had received
notice from the FSD for the renewal of fire service facilities but fire
service works had just been carried out a couple of years ago. The
residents were baffled as a result. He enquired the reason why the FSD
requested frequent carrying out of fire service works affecting the
livelihood of people.
52. Mr Donald CHAN of BD responded that under normal circumstances, the
BD would be responsible for the approval of building construction works while
the FSD for the approval of fire service installation and equipment, which were
two entirely different professional arenas. In the event of more complicating
works, Members could contact the relevant staff or arrange for face-to-face
discussion as circumstances warranted.
All Attendees 53. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item and asked DEVB or SB to response whether amendment to the fire
legislation was necessary.
(Post-meeting note: The supplementary information from the SB was passed to
Members on 22 August 2019.)
(viii) Request to Study and Implement Preventive Measures along the Coast of
Heng Fa Chuen/
Strong Request for the Installation of Temporary Floating Breakwater at
Waters off Heng Fa Chuen
54. Members noted the consolidated reply of DEVB.
55. The views and enquires of 3 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr Stanley HO thanked the DSD for taking the corresponding measures
promptly, and yet did not understand why the LCSD had not constructed
any protective facilities yet. He opined that the works progress had
been slow and hoped the DSD would seriously follow up with the
progress.
Action
31
(b) Mr CHENG Tat-hung asked the DSD for the information on the
temporary floating breakwater at the Ap Lei Chau Preliminary
Treatment Works (ALCPTW) and also the works schedule.
(c) Mr Andrew CHIU reminded the DSD that Heng Fa Chuen residents
were very concerned about the works. He urged the DSD to carefully
consider erecting a notice board at the works site to give an account of
the progress and details of the works to the residents and pedestrians to
get them informed of the progress.
56. Ms Amy FAN of the LCSD and Mr Jim MO of the DSD responded to the
views and enquiries of Members as follows:
LCSD
(a) The LCSD thanked Members for their views and explained that the
works had already commenced and the main structure of the protective
measures near Heng Fa Chuen would be completed within June while
the whole project would be completed in July.
DSD
(b) The DSD had started collecting data in May until November on the
temporary floating breakwater of the ALCPTW and was in collaboration
with the CEDD and its consultant to study the effectiveness of the
facility.
All Attendees 57. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(ix) Requesting to Conduct Review on the Planning Guidelines of the Town
Planning Board Concerning the Redevelopment Planning of Pan Hoi
Street, Quarry Bay
58. Members noted the written rely of the DEVB.
59. Mr NG Tak-wah of PlanD supplemented that the Town Planning Board
(TPB) had no concrete timetable to review the TPB Guidelines (the Guidelines).
The applicant for the redevelopment at Pan Hoi Street had applied for deferment
of the consideration of the application in order to provide further information as a
Action
32
response to the views collected.
60. The views and enquires of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr Andrew CHIU enquired the PlanD whether the redevelopment was
to be discussed in way of internal meeting by the Metro Planning
Committee (MPC) of the TPB without participation from the public.
He also enquired the attitudes of the PlanD on the review of the
Guidelines as their attitudes would also affect the attitude of the MPC.
In addition, he also urged the PlanD to reply to the PWHC on the works
progress with details in writing but not just give verbal report at the
meetings.
(b) Mr WONG Kin-pan asked the PlanD to submit the information of the
entire Pan Hoi Street redevelopment to the District Council to enable
Members’ understanding of the works details to faciliate discussion.
61. Mr NG Tak-wah of PlanD responded to the views and enquiries of Members
as follows:
(a) TPB meetings were open to the public and all the documents prepared
for the planning applications were uploaded to the TPB website for
public inspection. As regards the consideration of planning
applications, the TPB would take into consideration various factors
including the use of the site under application, the direction of the
planning, the environment, traffic, design and the comments of the
relevant government departments and the public before making the final
decision. The PlanD would also provide the TPB with its comments
on applications.
(b) The planning application at the Pan Hoi Street involved a private
development project. For access to the information and relevant
documents of the application, the public might visit the Planning
Enquiry Counters of the PlanD and the Public Enquiry Service Centre of
the Home Affairs Department for inspecting the relevant documents, or
the Secretariat of the TPB and the internet for summaries of the
applications.
Action
33
All Attendees 62. After discussion, the PWHC asked the departments to note the Members’
views and provide the latest progress before the District Council meeting. The
PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item and delete TD as one
of the relevant departments.
(x) Concern about the Damaged Ground Floor Planters at Wing Tai Road and
Tsui Wan Street
63. Members noted the written reply of the WSD.
64. Mr KU Kwai-yiu thanked the HD for maintaining active liaison with
Members on the progress in reinstating planters at Wing Tai Road and Tsui Wan
Street.
All Attendees 65. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to cease following up the agenda item.
(xi) Frequent Works Carried out at Night near 1090-1094 King’s Road (i.e. Bo
Fung Gardens) Caused Disturbance to Residents
66. Members noted the written reply of Hong Kong Police Force.
67. Mr Peter NG of WSD supplemented the latest works progress. The WSD
had temporarily suspended the works at the site and would resume works at the
end of June. It was expected that the water works would be completed at the end
of July.
68. The views and enquires of 3 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that there was gas main works at the site,
followed immediately by water works and road re-surfacing at night,
causing nuisance to the neighbouring residents. He urged the WSD to
urge the contractor to reduce the noise level to minimise the impact on
the neighbouring residents.
(b) Ms Dana LAU pointed out that there were various works being carried
out every day at the site and hoped that both the WSD and the EPD
would closely monitor the implementation of the works to minimize
impacts caused by the works on the residents.
Action
34
(a) Mr Andrew CHIU said that the works progress by the government
contractor had been slow and hoped that the WSD would step up its
supervision on the contractor to complete all the works not yet
completed.
69. Mr Peter NG of WSD and Dr Olive LEE of EPD responded to the views and
enquiries of Members as follows:
WSD
(a) The WSD thanked Members’ for their views and the Consultants
Management Division would step up supervision to urge the contractor
to complete the works as soon as possible and ensure that all the works
carried out at night were in accordance with the works guidelines. The
WSD and the consultant would supervise and manage the contractor in
accordance with the established procedures. Regarding the works
information, the WSD would submit them after the meeting for
Members’ reference.
EPD
(b) The EPD thanked Members for their views and would deploy staff to the
site for surprise inspection in order to ensure that the works were carried
out in compliance with the Noise Control Ordinance.
All Attendees 70. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(xii) Request for a full review and improvement of the underground drainage
system of Eastern District, safeguarding the life and property of citizens/
Urging the Government to give an account of the severe floods caused by
heavy rain in Chai Wan/
Requesting the Government to express concern about the damages caused
by heavy rain on 19 October 2016 and develop flood prevention
measures/
Issues relating to the floods at the roundabout in Chai Wan/
Urging the Government to give an account of the severe floods caused by
heavy rain in Shau Kei Wan/
Request to fully review the floods in Eastern District of Hong Kong Island/
Review of anti-flooding preventive measures and their effectiveness in
Action
35
Eastern District/
Drainage Improvement Works at Fei Tsui Road, Chai Wan
71. Members noted the written reply of WSD.
72. The views and enquires of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr KU Kwai-yiu enquired the DSD about the measures for flooding at
Chai Wan roundabout to be addressed before the rainy season.
(b) Mr LEE Chun-keung said that the agenda item was raised in 2016 and
had been discussed for three years, and yet without a solution. He also
pointed out that deployment of staff for flow interception merely could
not eradicate the problem.
73. Mr Jim MO of DSD and Ms. KWONG Tak-wai of FEHD responded to
the views and enquiries of Members as follows:
DSD
(a) The Projects Division of the DSD was in the course of designing the
improvement works of the Chai Wan roundabout in which gullies would
be provided to channel away water to the adjacent park. The DSD
expected to conduct the tendering exercise in mid-year and to
commence the works at the end of the year. The DSD would provide
the drawings of the improvement measures after the meeting for
Members’ reference. Before works completion, the DSD would deploy
a special task force to remove the fallen leaves and miscellaneous items
in the gullies at the roundabout when rainfall in Chai Wan area exceeded
40 mm.
(b) The DSD staff had made observations at the Chai Wan roundabout on 4
June during downpour and found that the collection of rainwater was
satisfactory except that there was slight flooding near Wan Tsui Estate.
After study, it was found that the flooding was due to the damage at the
inlet near the cemetery. The DSD had contacted the Roman Catholic
Cemetery to step up their efforts for repairs.
Action
36
FEHD
(c) The FEHD would continue regular gully cleansing and carry out
inspections when the red rainstorm warning signal or the No. 8 gale or
storm signal was in force in order to remove dried leaves and
miscellaneous items promptly.
All Attendees 74. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda
item.
(Post-meeting note: The supplementary information from the DSD was passed to
Members on 22 August 2019.)
(xiii) Request to build a sports complex at the open space next to Quarry Bay
Park Phase II
75. Members noted the consolidated reply of departments.
76. The views and enquires of 2 Members about the issue were summarised as
follows:
(a) Mr Andrew CHIU opposed strongly to the construction of the sports
complex next to Quarry Bay Park Phase II on behalf of the Tai Koo
Shing residents living along the waterfront as the construction of a
comprehensive sports complex would obstruct the views of the Tai Koo
Shing households. He also raised the point that the report by the PlanD
on the harbourfront study had already reflected opposition from the
majority of local residents on the construction of a building thereat, and
hence he hoped the DEVB would seriously consider the requests of the
residents.
(b) Mr WONG Chun-sing said that the facilities at the site would be
reprovisioned in 2023 and hence it was not necessary to follow up with
the agenda at present.
All Attendees 77. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to cease following up on the agenda
item.
Action
37
(xiv) Request to Follow Up the Matters Concerning the Noise Barriers for
Blocks 16 and 17 of Heng Fa Chuen Immediately
78. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xv) Requesting the Housing Department to Install Automatic Sensor Systems in
the Escalators in Public Housing Estates
79. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xvi) Proposal to Reprovision Chai Wan Ambulance Station and Construct
Departmental Quarters at the Junction of Sun Yip Street and Siu Sai
Wan Road, Chai Wan
80. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xvii) Request for Provision of Escalators in Braemar Hill area/
Request the Government to Speed up the Construction of an Escalator to
Go Directly to Braemar Hill/
Consultation Regarding the Preliminary Design of Braemar Hill
Pedestrian Link/
Consultation Regarding the Design of Braemar Hill Pedestrian Link/
Urging the Department Concerned to Reconsider the Planning of
Braemar Hill Pedestrian Walkway System/
Braemar Hill Pedestrian Link - Consultation on Revised Design
81. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xviii) Water Supplies Department Headquarters with Hong Kong and Islands
Regional Office and Correctional Services Department Headquarters
82. Members noted the consolidated reply of the WSD and Correctional Services
Department.
83. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xix) Concern over the Development Plan for the Site Next to Quarry Bay
Promenade at Hoi Yu Street/
Follow Up on the Proposed Construction of a 25-storey Industrial Building
at the Quarry Bay Promenade near the Exit of the Pet Garden at Hoi Yu
Action
38
Street/
Proposal on Enhanced Harbourfront Development at Hoi Yu Street, Quarry
Bay
84. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xx) Strong Request to Install a Lift for Connecting Hing Man Estate
Footbridge at Chai Wan Road and Tai Man Street
85. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xxi) Request to Provide Further Support to the Minority Owners to Lodge
Appeals under the Buildings Ordinance
86. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xxii) Requesting the Government to Review the Policy on Private Street
Resumption to Proactively Assist in Solving the Problems of Private
Streets
87. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
(xxiii) Request to Replace Old Glass Louvres in Public Housing Estates
88. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.
IX. Date of the next meeting
89. The meeting ended at 7:15 pm. The 10th meeting of the PWHC would be
held at 2:30 pm on 10 September 2019 (Tuesday).
Eastern District Council Secretariat
August 2019