Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the
Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (2014-2015)
Central and Western District Council
Date
Time
Venue
: 15th January 2015
: 2:30 pm
: Conference Room
14/F, Harbour Building
38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong
Present:
Chairman
Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney*
Vice-chairman
Dr Malcolm LAM
Members
Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, BBS, JP*
Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH*
Mr CHAN Ho-lim, Joseph*
Mr CHAN Hok-fung, MH*
Ms CHENG Lai-king*
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP
Mr CHEUNG Yick-hung, Jackie
Mr HUI Chi-fung
Mr IP Kwok-him, GBS, JP
Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH
Miss LO Yee-hang*
Miss SIU Ka-yi*
Mr MAN Chi-wah, MH*
Mr NG Siu-keung, Thomas, MH, JP*
Mr WONG Kin-shing*
Mr YIP Wing-shing, BBS, MH, JP*
Co-opted Members
Miss LAU Wai-yan, Vienna*
Mr LI Po-ming
Mr LUI Hung-pan*
Ms NG Hoi-yan, Bonnie*
Mr YEUNG Hok-ming*
Remarks:
(beginning of the meeting – 4:44 pm)
(beginning of the meeting – 4:50 pm)
(beginning of the meeting – 3:56 pm)
(beginning of the meeting – 4:54 pm)
(beginning of the meeting – 3:12 pm, 4:50 pm – end of the meeting)
(2:30 pm – 4:13 pm)
(2:54 pm – end of the meeting)
* Members who attended the whole meeting
( ) Time of attendance of Members
-1-
Guests
Item 4
Mr KWOK Wai-fan,
Home Affairs Department
Franco
Mr WONG Man-chung, Home Affairs Department
Indiana
Item 5
Mr WONG Chak-sun,
Jason
Miss YU Yan-yan,
Rosanna
Item 6
Mr LIU Chi-wai
Item 7
Mr WONG Ka-lok
Mr YIP Ping-lam
Item 8
Mr KWOK Kin-man,
Alex
Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department
District Environmental Hygiene
Superintendent (Central/Western)
Drainage Services
Department
Drainage Services
Department
Senior Engineer/Project Management 3
Lands Department
Senior Estate Surveyor/Land Control and
Lease Enforcement (District Lands
Office/Hong Kong East, West and
South)
Police Community Relations Officer
(Western District)
Neighbourhood Police Coordinator, Police
Community Relations Office (Western
District)
District Environmental Hygiene
Superintendent (Central/Western)
Officer-in-charge (Sai Ying Pun)
Hong Kong Police Force
Mr LIU Chi-wai
Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department
Central and Western District
Office
Item 9
Mr YU Wai-shing,
Frederick
Mr LUI Yu-man,
Timothy
Item 10
Mrs MAK LEUNG
Suet-mui, Cherry
Senior Administrative Officer (4)
Government Property Agency Senior Property Manager (Acquisition,
Allocation and Disposal) Projects and
Special Duties
Central and Western District
Senior Executive Officer (District
Office
Management)
Mr CHING Chi-yan,
Billy
Mr FAN Ka-yin
Ms WONG Man-ling,
Christine
Assistant Director (4)
Hong Kong Police Force
Development Bureau
Planning Department
Lands Department
-2-
Assistant Engineer/Project Management 9
Assistant Secretary (Harbour) Special
Duties
Senior Town Planner/Housing and Office
Land Supply 5
Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District
Lands Office, Hong Kong West and
South)
In Attendance
Miss CHOW Ho-kiu,
Cheryl, JP
Mr CHAN Yun-man,
Winston
Ms WONG Ming-wai
Miss YU Yan-yan,
Rosanna
Ms WONG Kam-ling,
Candy
Mrs MAK LEUNG
Suet-mui, Cherry
Ms AU Shui-fan
Central and Western District
Office
Central and Western District
Office
Central and Western District
Office
Central and Western District
Office
Buildings Department
District Officer
Lands Department (District
Lands Office, Hong Kong
West and South)
Hong Kong Police Force
Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District
Lands Office, Hong Kong West and
South)
Neighbourhood Police Coordinator, Police
Community Relations Office (Central
District)
Police Community Relations Officer
(Western District)
Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator, Police
Community Relations Office (Western
District)
District Environmental Hygiene
Superintendent (Central/Western)
Deputy District Leisure Manager (Central
and Western) 2
Senior Engineer 11 (Hong Kong Island
Division 1)
Senior Environmental Protection Officer
(Regional South) 1
Mr CHING Chi-yan,
Billy
Mr FAN Ka-yin
Hong Kong Police Force
Mr LIU Chi-wai
Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department
Leisure and Cultural Services
Department
Civil Engineering and
Development Department
Environmental Protection
Department
Mr CHOI Yiu-kwok,
Kent
Mr WONG Siu-wah,
Pierre
Mr LAW See-hon, Sean
Hong Kong Police Force
Secretary
Miss YIP Kit-wai, Angel Central and Western District
Office
Assistant District Officer
Senior Executive Officer (District Council)
Senior Executive Officer (District
Management)
Building Surveyor/A3-SD
Executive Officer (District Council) 3
Absent with Apologies
Mr YEUNG Ho-kei
Opening Remarks
The Chairman welcomed Members and representatives from government
departments to the 6th meeting of the Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee
(FEHWC) (2014-15). The Chairman extended special welcome to Mr LIU Chi-wai, District
Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western) of the Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department (FEHD) and Mr Pierre WONG, Senior Engineer 11 (Hong Kong Island
Division 1) of the Civil Engineering and Development Department who succeeded Mr YIP
Ming-bor and Ms YAU Man-shan, Doris respectively. The Chairman also welcomed Ms AU
Shui-fan, Neighbourhood Police Coordinator (Central District) of the Hong Kong Police
Force (HKPF) and Mrs Cherry MAK, Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office,
-3-
Hong Kong West and South) who attended the meeting on behalf of Mr SOO Wan-lok and Ms
WONG Yuet-kwan, Mandy respectively.
Item 1:
Adoption of the Agenda
(2:30 pm)
2.
The Chairman said that the agenda was revised on 13 January 2015.
no comments from Members, the agenda would be adopted.
Item 2:
If there were
Confirmation of the Minutes of the 5th Meeting of FEHWC on 23 October
2014
(2:31 pm)
3.
Members had no comments on the minutes of the 5th meeting of FEHWC and the
minutes were confirmed.
Item 3:
Reports of the Chairman and Working Groups
(2:31 pm – 2:32 pm)
4.
The Chairman said that the Secretariat had passed the following information papers
for Members’ perusal through circulation:
No.
84/2014
Document Title
Circulation Date
FEHD Thematic Mosquito Prevention and Control 3 December 2014
Special Operation
85/2014
FEHD Year-end Cleaning Operation in Central & Western 11 December 2014
(C&W) District in 2015
86/2014
Co-organised Application of Working Group on Greening 10 December 2014
and Beautification Works in the C&W District of the
Central and Western District Council (C&WDC) –
“Green Stalls” in Hong Kong Flower Show 2015
FEHD First Phase of Anti-rodent Campaign 2015 in 31 December 2014
C&W District
87/2014
7/2015
Actions Taken Against the Obstruction Caused by Waste 8 January 2015
Recycling shops
11/2015
FEHD Anti-mosquito Campaign 2015 (Phase I) in C&W 6 January 2015
District
5.
The working group reports were forwarded to Members along with the second batch
of papers on 7 January. Members were asked to note the contents of the paper.
-4-
Item 4:
Review of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344)
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 2/2015)
(2:32 pm – 3:38 pm)
6.
The Chairman said that the consultation period of the ordinance review would end on
2 February 2015 and advised the Secretariat to submit the draft minutes of the current meeting
to the Home Affairs Department (HAD) for reference by the end of the consultation period.
7.
Mr Franco KWOk, Assistant Director (4) of the HAD, gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the public consultation on the review of the Building Management Ordinance
(BMO). The summary of the contents was as follows:
(a) The Review Committee on the Building Management Ordinance (the Review
Committee) was set up in 2011. It published an interim report concerning the
review of the BMO in 2013 and the HAD issued two guidelines accordingly. The
Review Committee submitted a final report to the Government in 2013 and the HAD
drafted a consultation paper in respect of the report.
(b) The consultation paper put forward four major proposals: (1) decision-making
procedures of large-scale maintenance projects; (2) requirements concerning the
collection and verification of proxy instruments; (3) formation of owners’
corporations (OCs); and (4) appointment and remuneration of deed of mutual
covenant (DMC) managers.
(c) Decision making procedures of large-scale maintenance projects: the paper proposed
to raise the quorum from the current 10% to 20% of the total number of owners or to
raise the required percentage of shares of votes at the meeting for the passage of
resolutions from 50% to 75%. The figures were for reference only and could be
adjusted having regard to public views. The aim of the proposal was to reduce the
chance of future disputes through enhancing owners’ participation in the course of
discussion. The department proposed to select one of the two options to avoid
affecting the implementation of essential works (e.g. the works ordered by
government departments) due to the high threshold. Meanwhile, the department
would like to consult the public on the definition of large-scale maintenance projects.
One of the factors to consider was that the procurement of routine services of OCs
(e.g. cleansing and security) and essential building maintenance projects (e.g. works
required to be carried out according to government orders) should not be
unreasonably hindered. A possible option was to define large-scale maintenance
projects by a certain percentage of the annual estimated works expenditure of the OC
or a specific amount of maintenance fees each flat would have to contribute to the
project. Other relevant suggestions included:
(i)
It was proposed that the notice of the OC meeting at which voting of
resolutions on large-scale maintenance projects would take place should be
given at least 21 days before the meeting, as opposed to the existing 14 days; it
was also proposed that the notice of the meeting should set out and remind
each owner the expenses they might have to bear in conspicuous text to
enhance the transparency of the meeting.
(ii)
It was proposed to impose additional requirements on the tender process of
-5-
large-scale maintenance projects, including displaying a copy of the invitation
to tender at a prominent place of the building and allowing inspection of the
tender documents by owners.
(iii) When a general meeting of the OC at the request of not less than 5% of the
owners was convened to discuss large-scale maintenance projects, it was
proposed (1) to require the management committee (MC) Chairman to place
the discussion item requested by the owners on a high priority on the agenda;
and (2) that the Vice-chairman should convene the general meeting in place of
the Chairman when the office of the MC Chairman was vacant; where no
Vice-chairman was elected, the MC should appoint one of its members to
convene the general meeting; and where the MC failed to appoint any member
to convene the general meeting, those owners who had requested to convene
the general meeting might nominate a representative among themselves to
convene the general meeting.
(d) Requirements concerning the collection and verification of proxy instruments: it was
proposed to adopt a package of measures to tighten the arrangement concerned,
including:
(i)
The MC Secretary/convenor had to state clearly in the notice of meeting as to
the exact location of the proxy collection boxes and the timing for opening the
boxes to inspect and count the proxy instruments;
(ii)
The proxy boxes should be double-locked and placed in a prominent location
of the building. The two keys of each box should be held by the MC
Secretary/convenor and a third party respectively. The boxes should be
opened by the two key holders in the presence of witnesses;
(iii) Only the original copy of the proxy instruments would be accepted;
(iv) The list of flats with proxy instruments lodged should be displayed in a
prominent place of the building at least 24 hours before the meeting and until
seven days after the meeting; and
(e) Formation of OCs: it was proposed to lower the threshold for OC formation from
30% to 20% of shares in aggregate. It was also proposed to impose eligibility
criteria on the convenor similar to those currently applied to MC members under
paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the BMO, including the convener should not be a
bankrupt and had not, within the previous five years, been convicted of an offence
with an imprisonment for a term exceeding three months.
(f) Appointment of DMC managers: it was proposed to either (1) lower the threshold for
terminating the appointment of DMC manager from 50% to 30% of shares in
aggregate; or to (2) limit the term of appointment of DMC managers to five years.
During the first two years of appointment, the DMC manager should assist the
owners to form an OC or an owners’ committee, or to appoint an owner’s
representative.
Consideration should be given to whether the proposed
arrangements, if implemented, should be applicable to both new and existing
developments or to new developments only.
-6-
(g) Remuneration of DMC managers: in the light of the existing mechanism that linked
the remuneration rate to the total expenses, it was proposed to (1) reduce the ceiling
on the remuneration rate of DMC managers by a specified percentage each year; (2)
set different ceilings for developments of different scales; (3) exclude a specified list
of expenditure items which did not involve any value-added services by the DMC
manager (e.g. electricity charges, water bills, etc.) from the formula for calculating
the remuneration of the DMC manager, and (4) for certain expenditure items
incurred by the headquarters or parent company of the DMC manager (e.g. services
provided by the DMC manager’s accountants who served more than one
developments), the DMC manager should provide the owners with a detailed
breakdown on how the service fee of the headquarters or parent company was
apportioned among the developments they served. As the above proposals might
have significant impact on the level of remuneration of DMC managers,
consideration should be given to whether the proposed arrangements, if implemented,
should be applicable to both new and existing developments or to new developments
only.
(h) The HAD was consulting the 18 District Councils concerning the review. The
consultation period would last for 12 weeks from 11 November 2014 to 2 February
2015. Members were welcome to raise any other views, if any, after the meeting.
8.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(a) Mr CHAN Hok-fung held the view that the proposal did not address the problem in a
targeted manner. It was inappropriate to regulate different types of buildings by a
single ordinance. For example, even though the percentage of shares in aggregate
required to form an OC in large housing estates was lowered from 30% to 20%, it
was still very difficult. He suggested that the consultation paper should propose
specific measures to regulate buildings of different scales. He agreed to strengthen
the regulation of the procedures of meetings, but he did not think that such a kind of
regulation could tackle the problem of bid-rigging. He pointed out that bid-rigging
was a deep-rooted problem of the industry. He had repeatedly reflected the problem
to the Central and Western District Office (C&WDO) and the Independent
Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) at the District Council meetings but there
had been no improvement. He was of the view that in order to tackle the problem
of bid-rigging effectively, consultants must be regulated. He indicated that some
owners were opposed to a certain project and the same 5% of owners repeatedly
requested to convene a general meeting. As a result, the projects could not be
conducted. He suggested that the HAD should impose a ceiling on the number of
requests made by not less than 5% of the owners to the chairman of an MC for the
convening of general meeting on the same issue.
(b) Mr IP Kwok-him said that the review on the BMO was timely. He agreed with Mr
CHAN Hok-fung that the key problem of large-scale maintenance projects at present
was bid-rigging in the tendering process. He pointed out that the suggestion of
raising the required percentage of shares of votes for the passage of the resolution to
75% would make building maintenance projects difficult to be carried out. He
suggested that the right of the 5% of owners to request to convene a general meeting
-7-
should be regulated by limiting the number of times of meeting they could request on
the same issue. He also suggested that buildings of different scales should be
handled separately by setting different thresholds of shares in aggregate for
terminating the appointment of DMC managers.
(c) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai opined that it was necessary to amend the BMO, but had
reservation about raising the quorum of meetings to 20%. He worried that it would
be difficult to convene meetings when the number of owners required was doubled.
He considered that raising the required percentage of shares of votes for the passage
of resolutions to 75% was unnecessary, unless for maintenance projects involving a
larger amount of money which could be considered on an individual basis. He
agreed that the notice of the meeting should be advanced to 21 days before the
meeting so that more owners could join the meeting. He also agreed to the
tightening of the requirements concerning the collection and verification of proxy
instruments, lowering of the threshold for terminating the appointment of DMC
managers to 30% of shares in aggregate and the proposed remuneration of DMC
managers as set out in the consultation paper. He shared the views of Mr CHAN
Hok-fung and Mr IP Kwok-him on convening a general meeting at the request of 5%
of the owners.
(d) Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that he discussed the issue with the OCs in the district and
MC members after the issuance of the consultation paper. They worried that raising
the quorum to 20% of the total number of owners would make meetings difficult to
convene, particularly for those old buildings. Furthermore, he considered that
raising the required percentage of shares of votes for the passage of resolutions to
75% of the shares of votes at the meeting would delay the implementation of projects.
He opined that the consultation paper had yet to deal with problems concerning the
transparency and bid-rigging of maintenance projects. In addition, he considered
that the proposal for displaying the list of flats with proxy instruments lodged in a
prominent place of the building at least 24 hours before the meeting was acceptable,
but there was no need to display the list until seven days after the meeting.
(e) Ms CHENG Lai-king pointed out that some owners rejected the maintenance
projects as they did not understand the list of expenditure items. In this connection,
she agreed that the amount of expenses that each owner might have to contribute
should be displayed early and clearly. She suggested that recommendations should
be made in the consultation paper to address the problem of bid-rigging. She
suggested that the remuneration of DMC managers should be revised from a
percentage to an actual amount.
(f) Mr MAN Chi-wah suggested that the regulation over OCs should be lenient rather
than rigid. He suggested that the quorum of OC meetings should be maintained at
10% of the total number of owners, but the final decision should vary with the
number of owners in the building. He did not agree that the notice period should be
advanced to 21 days before the meeting. He agreed to limit the number of meetings
on the same subject convened by 5% of the owners. He agreed that when no
general meetings could be convened as a result of the office of the MC Chairman
being vacant, the MC Vice-chairman and members should convene the meeting in
order of their capacity. However, it would be appropriate for MC members, if any,
to convene the meeting. He considered that there should be a mechanism in place
-8-
for OCs to terminate DMC managers. However, he considered that the percentage
of shares of votes for terminating the appointment of DMC managers should be
determined according to the scale of the housing estate. He agreed that
participation of owners was important and suggested that a mandatory requirement
for owners’ participation should be introduced into the next legislative amendment.
(g) Mr HUI Chi-fung pointed out that there was a relatively large number of tenement
buildings and private buildings in his constituency and most flats of the tenement
buildings were rented out. It was very difficult to convene meetings for those
buildings. He said that there were two OCs in some tenement buildings with two
flats on each floor. Consent from both OCs was required when carrying out
maintenance projects. If the quorum and the required percentage of shares of votes
for the passage of the resolution were raised as suggested in the consultation paper, it
would render maintenance works more difficult. He considered that apart from the
remuneration of DMC managers, the scale of the buildings should also be applied to
other aspects in setting restrictions. He pointed out that the consultation paper had
yet to deal with the problem of bid-rigging and suggested incorporating the views of
the Anti-bid Rigging Alliance in the consultation paper. For instance, to enhance
the deterrent effect, clear guidelines and penalties should be introduced in the
procurement process. He generally supported the new requirements for DMC
managers and hoped that the relevant requirements could be implemented in the
existing and new buildings.
(h) Mr WONG Kin-shing pointed out that the requirement of tender opening under
current legislation was very strict. Tenders had to be opened by three members,
which was a large number for tenement buildings with a few number of owners.
However, resolutions to select the contractor could be passed as long as 10% of the
total number of owners attended the meeting and 50% of the shares of votes at the
meeting were obtained. In other words, the decision of contractor selection could
be made by a single owner in some buildings. He had reflected the problem to the
Building Management Liaison Team of the C&WDO but solutions could not be
worked out to date. He suggested that special attention be given to the selection of
contractors in buildings with two flats on each floor but a few number of owners in
legislative amendments.
(i) Mr Jackie CHEUNG considered that raising the quorum to 20% of the total number
of owners was preferable to raising the shares of votes at the meeting required for
passage of resolutions to 75%. This was because if the shares of votes required for
passage of resolutions were raised to 75%, some owners with shares of more than
25% could delay works implementation. Moreover, he agreed that the quorum
should only be raised when discussing large-scale maintenance projects as it was
unlikely for general meetings to be attended by 20% of the total number of owners.
He considered it unnecessary for notices of meetings to be given to owners 21 days
in advance and that the notices of meetings should set out in detail the items of
large-scale maintenance, the summary of the tender and the cost of building
maintenance. He welcomed the lowering of the threshold for OC formation and
proposed that owners with shares of not less than 5% could nominate a representative
among themselves to convene a meeting for the purpose of owners’ committee
appointment and OC formation. He disagreed with the five-year limitation on the
term of appointment of DMC managers but agreed to the proposal that DMC
-9-
managers should assist owners to form an OC or appoint an owners’ committee
during the first to second years of appointment.
(j) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan considered that it necessary to review the BMO. He
thought that except the proposals on the appointment and remuneration of DMC
managers which were comparatively desirable, other proposals could not help much
to resolve the existing problems of building management. He said that the disputes
concerning bid-rigging of building maintenance projects were centred on capital cost
and bid-rigging. The department’s proposal to raise the quorum of OC meetings
and the shares of votes required for passage of resolutions would not help resolve
disputes and would only increase the difficulty in holding a meeting. As for the
proposal to define large-scale maintenance projects by a percentage of the budget or
the amount the owners of each flat would have to contribute to the project, he
doubted whether the department had taken into account the possibility that someone
might split a project into smaller parts with the intention of bypassing the definition
of large-scale maintenance projects. He relayed the worries of some major housing
estates about displaying in a prominent place of the building the list of flats with
proxy instruments lodged at least 24 hours before the meeting as the number of
proxy instruments involved was quite large.
(k) Mr KAM Nai-wai agreed with Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan that the proposals in the
consultation paper could not resolve the problems of building maintenance. He
understood that the department aimed to raise the transparency of OC meetings and
resolve problems through greater participation of owners, but in fact many buildings
would not be able to implement maintenance works as a result. He suggested the
department study ways to resolve problems from the guidelines on supplies
procurement and anti-bid rigging. He agreed that tenement buildings and major
housing estates should be managed in different ways and they could not be regulated
under the same legislation. For example, it was difficult to implement the proposal
of proxy instrument collection in tenement buildings.
(l) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said that he had two meetings with the OCs in the district
after the issuance of the consultation paper. The OCs indicated that the proposals in
the consultation paper would increase their burden. He worried that owners would
be discouraged to join the OC as they would have to shoulder more responsibilities.
He agreed that while the transparency of OC meetings should be improved, the
department should also step up supervision over contactors and consultants to solve
the problems of exorbitant maintenance costs and bid-rigging. He was concerned
that if a list of flats with proxy instruments lodged be displayed in a prominent place
of tenement buildings until seven days after the meeting, OCs would be held
responsible in the event that the list was deliberately damaged during its display.
He proposed lowering the threshold for terminating the appointment of DMC
managers at a general meeting of the OC to below 30% of shares in aggregate.
(m) Ms Bonnie NG said that OCs were not able to verify the authenticity of proxy
instruments and asked how the department would help OC members.
(n) The Chairman shared Members’ view that the consultation paper did not address the
problems and considered that owners would still find it difficult to terminate the
appointment of DMC managers even if the threshold was lowered to 30%. He
- 10 -
suggested that the term of appointment of a DMC manager be limited to a few
months upon formation of an OC and the OC should sign a new contract with the
appointed DMC manager upon expiry of its term of appointment.
9.
Mr Franco KWOK thanked Members for their views. He fully understood that
while different housing estates would share common problems, they also face different
problems because of their difference scales. Therefore, the department hoped to gauge
views widely by launching a consultation exercise and target individual problems. The
department aimed to achieve several objectives through the consultation: improving the
transparency and legitimacy of OCs, facilitating OCs’ duties, facilitating the formation of OCs
and giving owners flexibility in terminating the appointment of DMC managers. He said
that bid-rigging should be tackled by a multi-pronged approach. On one hand, enforcement
departments or organisations such as the HKPF and the ICAC had been keeping track of the
problem and the HKPF even had a task force to tackle it. Bid-rigging was a potential
anti-competitive conduct which would be handled under the future Competition Ordinance.
On the other hand, owners were encouraged to attend OC meetings and participate in the
decision-making process so as to enhance the legitimacy of meetings and prevent disputes.
He pointed out that the additional requirements on the tender process in the consultation paper
were added in accordance with the provisions under the existing procurement code. He
indicated that the Anti-bid Rigging Alliance proposed a parallel increase of the quorum and
the required percentage of shares of votes for the passage of the resolution, which was even
tighter than the department’s suggestion. The department would educate owners about
bid-rigging prevention by means of publicity and education. The HAD was, in cooperation
with the HKPF, ICAC, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and the Hong Kong Housing
Society (HKHS), carrying out relevant publicity activities. Buildings under the subsidy
schemes of the URA or the HKHS would be given professional assistance from tender
invitation to tender opening. The HAD launched the “AP Easy” Building Maintenance
Advisory Service Scheme last year, with a view to assisting OCs to invite tenders for the
appointment of consultants to carry out maintenance works. He understood Members’
concern over the increase in the workload of some OCs due to the display of proxy
instruments, but the proposal would be effective in enhancing the transparency of OCs. The
department would amend the details required in the document after gauging various views.
In response to Ms Bonnie NG’s enquiry about the authenticity of proxy instruments, he said
that proxy instruments regarded as counterfeits mainly because they were overdue, not in the
approved format or bore incorrect signatures as considered by the chairman. It was therefore
proposed in the consultation document that the list of flats with proxy instruments lodged
should be displayed in a prominent place of the building for verification by owners to address
the problem. In response to the Chairman’s proposal, he said that there was a similar
proposal concerning the termination of appointment of DMC managers in the consultation
document. Under the proposal, the term of appointment of the DMC manager was stipulated
and the DMC manager was required to assist in the formation of the OC. The OC would
then discuss and decide on the management company afterwards.
- 11 -
Item 5:
Request for Revitalisation of the Whole Block of the Ex-Western
Magistracy Building
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 1/2015)
(3:38 pm - 3:54 pm)
10.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(i) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said that a related paper was discussed in 2010. It was
proposed in the paper that the Government Property Agency (GPA) should release
the whole block of the ex-Western Magistracy Building for community development
purpose because of a lack of community facilities in the district. At that time, the
GPA did not send representatives to attend the meeting and its written response was
similar to the written response this time. He said that although the GPA had decided
to provide part of the block for the use of the public, what the residents requested
was the revitalisation of the whole block of the ex-Western Magistracy Building for
community purpose, with a view to solving the problem of insufficient community
facilities in the district. He pointed out that in 2011, Mrs Carrie LAM, the then
Secretary for Development (SDEV), agreed that priority should be accorded to the
use of the building for community purpose if there was such a need. Given that the
district was currently in such a need, he did not understand why the GPA allocated
the building to government departments. In addition, he said that the GPA had not
yet provided information about the expiry of tenancy of government departments.
(ii) Mr CHAN Hok-fung said that meeting rooms and dance rooms in the district were
frequently in short supply. He often received complaints from residents that they
could not make reservation for the venues.
Furthermore, the ex-Western
Magistracy Building, which was close to residential areas, was conveniently located.
He thus expected the GPA to first vacate some places used for storage of
miscellaneous items and documents for public use. He agreed with Mr YEUNG
Hok-ming that the C&W District was facing serious challenges in social welfare in
recent years, for instance, eviction faced by non-profit-making organisations. As
the building was very suitable for the use by such organisations or institutions, he
urged the GPA to provide a timetable for the vacation of the building.
(iii) The Chairman said similar papers were discussed in 2008 to 2009 and site visits were
conducted. The problem had been discussed for years but there was no positive
response to the demand of the district. It was not until recently that the GPA gave a
response, but another year was needed before the building could be open to the
residents in the district. He hoped that the GPA would heed the views of Members.
(iv) Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired if the GPA had any long-term plan to develop the
building which was a Grade 2 historic building. She suggested the GPA report to
the C&WDC again when there was a concrete plan.
(v) Mr YIP Wing-shing thought that the GPA needed to review the practice of using
historic buildings and expensive lots as government offices. He proposed to write
to the department concerned, requesting it to address the needs of the public. He
pointed out that as mentioned by Mr CHAN Hok-fung, some of the
non-profit-making organisations were facing eviction. The service provided to
- 12 -
residents in the C&W District would be affected as a result. He said that the GPA
had never explained the development of the former Western Police Station Married
Quarters and the ex-Western Magistracy Building. He proposed to write to the GPA,
or even the Chief Executive, requesting the GPA to listen to good advice and to
address the needs of the public.
11.
Mr Jason WONG, Senior Property Manager (Acquisition, Allocation and Disposal)
Projects and Special Duties of the GPA, said that under the existing government policy,
priority would be accorded to allocate government-owned premises to meet departments’
accommodation needs. Since the ex-Western Magistracy Building was a government-owned
property and had all its space allocated to government departments for long-term use, whereas
the user departments therein did not have any reprovisioning plans, and public expenditure
would be incurred in reprovisioning the user departments currently accommodated in the
building, the Administration did not have a plan to reprovision the user departments therein or
change the current use of the building. Should the Administration considered there was a
need to reprovision the user departments in the building or change its current use in future, the
departments concerned, including the Development Bureau (DEVB) and the Antiquities and
Monuments Office, would be consulted. In response to Members’ enquiry about the
long-term use of the building, Mr Jason WONG reiterated that as the building had been
allocated for the long-term use of government departments in accordance with the existing
industrial policy, the Government had no plan to change the current use of the building for the
time being.
[Post-meeting note: The GPA had the following additional remarks concerning its attendance
of FEHWC meetings: The GPA attended the meeting of the FEHWC under the C&WDC on
14 January 2010 to discuss the development of the ex-Western Magistracy Building for
community use and did actively respond to the issues raised at the meeting. The GPA did
not send representatives to attend the meeting on 17 February 2011 because a written response
had been provided. At the two subsequent relevant meetings on 26 April 2012 and 15
January 2015, the GPA sent representatives to the meeting in addition to providing written
responses. It finally made part of the second floor of the building available for use as
community facilities such as multi-purpose rooms and meeting rooms, etc. having regard to
the views of the C&WDC and the HAD.]
12.
Mr WONG Kin-shing said that he visited the site in 2009. During the visit, the
Drainage Services Department (DSD) responded that relocation to other places was possible.
He understood that it was the Government’s policy that priority should be accorded to allocate
government-owned premises to meet departments’ accommodation needs, but he suggested
the department handle the use of the ex-Western Magistracy Building in a more appropriate
way. He supported Mr YIP Wing-shing’s proposal of writing to the departments concerned
to strongly condemn the GPA for being bureaucratic.
13.
Mr YEUNG Hok-ming pointed out that the GPA’s policy ran contrary to the
Government’s policy visions. He suggested writing to the DEVB to request that the whole
block of the ex-Western Magistracy Building be open for public use.
14.
After voting, the following motion proposed by Mr YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr IP
Kwok-him, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Miss LO Yee-hang and Miss
SIU Ka-yi was passed.
- 13 -
Motion: “To strongly request for revitalisation of the whole block of the ex-Western
Magistracy Building for provision of comprehensive community service to residents
in the district.”
(23 Members voted for the motion: Mr Sidney LEE, Dr Malcolm LAM, Mr YIP Wing-shing,
Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr IP Kwok-him (authorised Mr CHAN Hok-fung to vote on his
behalf), Mr KAM Nai-wai, Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Ms CHENG Lai-king, Mr MAN Chi-wah,
Miss LO Yee-hang, Mr Joseph CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Miss SIU Ka-yi, Mr Thomas NG,
Mr WONG Kin-shing, Mr Jackie CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Miss Vienna LAU,
Mr LI Po-ming, Mr LUI Hung-pan, Ms Bonnie NG, Mr YEUNG Ho-kei (authorised Dr
Malcolm LAM to vote on his behalf) and Mr YEUNG Hok-ming)
(No Member voted against the motion)
(No Member abstained from voting)
15.
The Chairman said that a letter together with the draft minutes of the current meeting
would be sent to the Chief Secretary for Administration to relay Members’ views.
Item 6:
Concern over the Problem of Overpowering Stench in the Public Toilets at
the Junction of Wing Lok Street and Bonham Strand
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 3/2015)
(3:54 pm – 4:00 pm)
16.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(i) Miss SIU Ka-yi pointed out that upon completion of the refurbishment works, the
stench emanated from Wing Lok Street Public Toilet had been mitigated, but there
was still some odour. She had conducted a number of site visits and found that the
problem was not due to inadequate cleaning. In this connection, she submitted a
discussion paper to find out from the FEHD the reasons for the odour emitted from
the public toilet. As indicated in the FEHD’s reply, the strong odour was caused by
the improperly covered underground manhole cover within the fenced area of
Sheung Wan Market. She went to the public toilet before the meeting and did not
find any odour.
(ii) Mr CHAN Hok-fung pointed out that prior to the refurbishment works, there was
overpowering stench from the public toilet.
He had expected significant
improvement upon completion of the works, but there were still complaints from
shops nearby. He hoped the FEHD could ensure that ancillary facilities within the
works area were in normal condition upon completion of the maintenance works.
(iii) Mr LUI Hung-pan said that the situation had improved upon completion of the
refurbishment works. He enquired whether the stench was a result of ineffective
cleansing operations due to the design of the public toilet. He pointed out that since
no alteration had been made to the manhole, he considered that the stench of the
public toilet was irrelevant to the manhole and suggested that the department should
step up cleansing efforts.
- 14 -
17.
Mr LIU Chi-wai, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western)
of the FEHD, said that the department would continue to monitor the hygienic condition of
the public toilet and would carry out inspections and step up cleansing the public toilet with
the Architectural Services Department, if necessary, to ensure a stench-free environment.
18.
The Chairman was concerned that arranging the same group of staff to inspect the
toilets frequently might affect their odour perception. He suggested changing the staff
responsible for toilet inspection regularly.
Item 7:
Losses of Residents in Fung Shing Building Caused by Main Burst
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 4/2015)
(4:00 pm – 4:09 pm)
19.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(i) Miss LO Yee-hang indicated that the DSD had responsibility for monitoring the
works outsourced to contractors and the main burst should have been prevented.
She asked whether the department had made any mistakes in the selection of
contractor. Furthermore, she enquired about the arrangements for claims in respect
of loss. She pointed that out affected residents generally could not provide receipts
showing the monetary value of the properties lost. She asked how the department
could help those residents.
(ii) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming enquired when the DSD could offer compensation proposals
to residents. He pointed out that the incident had occurred for a year and the
residents might already have discarded the damaged furniture. He worried that the
contractor and the insurance company might refuse to compensate residents for the
loss. He stated that in order to safeguard the public’s interests, the Government
should first compensate residents for the loss caused by public works and recover the
cost from the contractor and the insurance company later. He considered that the
department should have come up with a compensation proposal for long.
20.
Mr WONG Ka-lok, Senior Engineer/Project Management 3 of the DSD, indicated
that the main burst had occurred in the course of works execution and third party insurance
was procured under the works contract. The department would follow up the relevant
liability matters according to the terms of the insurance policy. In response to Miss LO
Yee-hang’s enquiry on the schedule of claims, he said that the contractor and the insurance
company had been discussing the terms of the insurance policy and liabilities matters for
many times. The department would actively follow up the matter with the contractor and the
insurance company. According to the response given by the insurance company and the
contractor, it was expected that a consensus could be reached within around two weeks. The
insurance company would later arrange a loss adjuster to handle the claims and hoped to offer
compensation proposals to some of the affected residents within a month. The Government
had been monitoring public works and the department would continue to urge the contractor
to step up checking of the layout plan of public facilities prior to the commencement of the
works, use suitable mechanical plants during the works and strengthen staff training. In
response to Mr YEUNG Hok-ming’s proposal to speed up the handling of claims, he said that
- 15 -
in general, if there were bodily injuries or damage to properties of third parties accidentally
caused in the course of public works, it was necessary for the insurance company of the
insurance policy procured under the works to arrange necessary procedures, including
investigating causes, ascertaining liabilities, gathering information and processing claims, etc.
Throughout the whole process, the DSD would actively provide necessary assistance in
handling the claims, including maintaining close liaison with the loss adjuster and the
contractor in following up the claim cases, and hoped to simplify the claim procedures as far
as possible and complete them as soon as possible.
21.
The Chairman proposed that the schedule of claims should be put on record for
follow up by Members.
Item 8:
Concern over the Street Obstruction Arising out of Empty Coffins Illegally
Placed on the Pavement off Kwan Yick Building Phase III
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 5/2015)
(4:09 pm - 4:32 pm)
22.
The Vice-chairman chaired the discussion of this item.
23.
The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
The main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
(i)
Miss LO Yee-hang said that departments shifted responsibilities to each other.
She opined that the Department of Justice (DoJ) should advise the HKPF whether
to prosecute those who obstructed the pavement and it was inappropriate for the
DoJ to comment on the incident at the current stage. However, as the coffin had
been placed on the pavement for a long time, she did not understand why the issue
was not handled by any departments. She said that not only did the coffin obstruct
the street illegally, but also affected environmental hygiene and obstructed views of
drivers. She did not understand why prosecution could not be made and hoped the
Police could give an account.
(ii)
Mr Joseph CHAN said that illegal street obstruction was also common in his
constituency. As various departments were involved in the handling of illegal
street obstruction, handling such a problem might take a long time because which
departments would be involved was dependent on the responsible departments of
the obstructed road section and the type of materials causing street obstruction.
He urged the departments to enhance communication to resolve the problem as
soon as possible. He agreed with Miss LO Yee-hang that street obstruction was
not only unsightly, but also affected pedestrians’ safety, drivers’ views and
environmental hygiene, and might even lead to fire hazard. He suggested
departments proactively handle the issue.
(iii) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming disapproved of the TD for denying responsibility on the
grounds that the matter was outside its purview. He pointed out that the area
obstructed by the coffin was next to the car park of the building, which had severely
affected the views of drivers and he worried that this would lead to traffic accidents.
Moreover, the coffin had been there for more than half a year and was occupied by
someone. The OC of the Kwan Yick Building Phase III reflected to him that some
- 16 -
residents did not dare to go to the section of the pavement. He said that the
departments only minded their own business and questioned how they could protect
the rights in daily life of residents in the vicinity.
(iv) Mr LUI Hung-pan declared interest that he was working in Kwan Yick Building
Phase III. He witnessed that half of the entrance/exit of the building had been
closed for a long time because of its proximity to the coffin. He found it
lamentable that there were continuous complaints from the elderly living in Kwan
Yick Building Phase III at the outset of the event, but they no longer voiced their
objections recently and simply avoided the road section obstructed by the coffin.
(v)
Mr LI Po-ming enquired of the departments whether the prolonged placement of
the coffin on the road would constitute adverse possession. He also enquired
whether residents of Kwan Yick Building Phase III and drivers who often used the
car park of the building could apply for injunction to resolve the problem.
(vi) Mr CHAN Hok-fung said that demonstrations were allowed as long as they did not
affect residents. He said that the coffin was placed in the setting of a mourning
hall, which had a severe psychological impact on residents. He suggested
Members and representatives of government departments conduct a site inspection
during the small hours. He indicated that the entrance/exit of Kwan Yick Building
Phase III was once closed as it was affected by demonstration. He said it was
unreasonable that residents fell victim to the demonstration. He urged the
departments concerned to give an account on the timetable in handling street
obstruction and address the issue as soon as possible.
(vii) The Chairman suggested passing the case to the Social Welfare Department to
follow up, which would communicate with and provide assistance to the relevant
parties concerned.
(viii) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming indicated that the occupier was not a street sleeper and had
a fixed abode.
24.
Mr Alex KWOK, Senior Estate Surveyor/Land Control and Lease Enforcement
(District Lands Office/Hong Kong East, West and South) of the Lands Department (LandsD),
responded that the limitation period for acquisition of Government land thorough adverse
possession was 60 years in general.
25.
Mr Billy CHING, Police Community Relations Officer (Western District) of the
HKPF, pointed out that the incident had been a matter of concern to the HKPF. It involved a
protester who would like to appeal to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government
in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The police had communicated with her
dozens of times since mid-July 2014 but she ignored the advice of the police. The police
understood that the conduct concerned was a nuisance to the public, thus the police had
consulted the DoJ twice on whether the protestor had committed any nuisances offences in
public places and street obstruction offences. The police received an interim reply from the
DoJ in mid-December 2014. It needed to continue to follow up on certain aspects and take
supplementary statements from members of the public. In mid-January 2015, the police
resubmitted the case to the DoJ and was waiting for its reply.
- 17 -
26.
Mr LIU Chi-wai, District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central/Western)
of the FEHD, responded that the FEHD would continue to keep an eye on the location and
keep it clean.
27.
Ms Christine WONG, Officer-in-charge (Sai Ying Pun) of the C&WDO, said that the
C&WDO had been monitoring the situation and keeping close contact with other departments.
The C&WDO would assist in the coordination of joint departmental operations if necessary.
28.
The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
The main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
(i) Miss LO Yee-hang asked the HKPF if there was a timetable regarding the response
from the DoJ.
(ii) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming asked the HKPF to explain in detail how it reflected to the
DoJ the street obstruction incident. He worried that the DoJ did not realise the
seriousness of the incident. He proposed to write to the DoJ to explain that the
incident was affecting the normal life of nearby residents.
(iii) Mr CHAN Hok-fung suggested the FEHD arrange large-scale cleansing operation at
the location concerned, with a view to improving the environmental hygiene of the
surrounding area.
29.
Mr Billy CHING of the HKPF pointed out that the police sought advice from the DoJ
in early August 2014. In September 2014, the police received a reply from the DoJ and took
follow-up action. The police submitted the case to the DoJ again in November 2014 and
received a reply in mid-December 2014, asking it to follow up certain matters. In
mid-January 2015, the police resubmitted the case to the DoJ but it was not known when the
DoJ would reply. He said that the police had taken statements from the nearby residents and
the affected car owners. As the police needed to contact the residents for more information
on the incident and to further clarify the incident to the DoJ, the follow-up action might take
some time.
30.
The Vice-chairman opined that as the HKPF had submitted the statements concerned
to the DoJ, it was not necessary to write to the DoJ.
31.
Mr LIU Chi-wai of the FEHD responded that the location concerned was in good
hygienic condition. In addition, the incident was related to a protester and it was beyond the
purview of the FEHD to handle demonstrations and related articles. The FEHD would
continue to monitor the cleanliness of the location concerned.
32.
Mr CHAN Hok-fung said that the FEHD did not conduct routine cleansing operation
at the demonstration area and suggested the department maintain the environmental hygiene
there.
33.
The Vice-chairman suggested the FEHD provide a written response after the
meeting.
- 18 -
Item 9:
Opening of the Military Dock in Central and Returning the
Harbourfront to the Public for Enjoyment
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 6/2015)
(4:32 pm - 4:55 pm)
34.
Mr HUI Chi-fung supplemented the contents of the paper. He pointed out that after
the completion of the works of the military dock, it might take a long time before the Hong
Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army could take over the management of the dock.
The works had been completed but the site was still fenced off. He proposed to remove the
fences if there was no security concern or if no works were in progress. In addition, he
suggested the DEVB consider letting out the site through a short-term tenancy (STT) for
suitable temporary use, including providing the land to other bureaux, departments or
organisations other than the Government, with a view to opening up the land for public use.
35.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(i) Ms CHENG Lai-king asked about the planning process of the military dock and the
time required for the judicial review. She suggested that the commitment made by
the Garrison in 2000 that it would open the area of the site of the military dock to the
public as a part of the promenade when it was not in military use should be fulfilled
as soon as possible.
(ii) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai asked whether the proposed temporary opening of the military
dock would be subject to any legal restrictions.
(iii) Mr HUI Chi-fung asked about the timetable and the relevant procedures for the
formal handing over of management of the military dock to the Garrison.
According to his understanding, the procedures involved the enactment of local
legislation and the takeover preparation by the Garrison. He asked about the
timetable for the procedures. He asked whether it was the Government’s policy to
make available unallocated land or allocated land pending taking over by
departments through an STT and whether such an arrangement would be applicable
to the military dock. He asked the department to explain the reasons for not
opening the military dock facility. He said that there was no need to fence off the
site when awaiting the Garrison’s takeover. He pointed out that some government
sites would not be fenced off before allocating them to other organisations. He
referred to some public complaints against the unsightly fenced off site. The
department responded to the complaint and removed the fences until they were taken
over by the relevant organisations. He asked whether there was such a policy and
whether it was applicable to the military dock.
(iv) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said it was pointed out in the paper that where the
long-term use was yet to be determined or was not yet due for implementation, the
department would try to put the site to appropriate temporary use through STTs.
However, the site had been designated as a military dock facility for its long-term use.
The progress on handover was delayed because of the judicial review. Putting aside
the issue of judicial review, he asked the department whether it was appropriate to
make the site available for STT purpose.
- 19 -
36.
Mr Frederick YU, Assistant Secretary (Harbour) Special Duties of the DEVB,
pointed out that the Town Planning Board endorsed the amendments to the Central District
(Extension) Outline Zoning Plan in relation to the military dock in February 2014 and the
decision was subject to judicial review. The site was fenced off while the judicial review
was pending and the exact end date was unknown. He pointed out that the site was zoned
for military use and some facilities were installed there. Owing to maintenance and security
considerations, it was inappropriate to open the site for public use when awaiting handover to
the Garrison. Furthermore, it was a usual practice for the LandsD to fence off the site before
handing over it to the relevant department. He pointed out that the time of handing over the
site to the Garrison could only be finalised after the completion of all the relevant procedures.
37.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(i) Mr HUI Chi-fung enquired about the procedures before handing over the site to the
Garrison for use if there was no judicial review. He also asked whether local
legislation or the Garrison’s readiness to prepare for the takeover was needed and
what the timetable should be. He asked about the current stage of the judicial
review proceedings and the estimated time required for the procedures. According
to his understanding, it was not essential for the LandsD to fence off the site. In this
connection, he asked why the department did not open the site for public use first.
(ii) Mr MAN Chi-wah asked how long the other procedures after the completion of the
judicial review would take.
38.
Mr Frederick YU of the DEVB pointed out that the DEVB always aimed to hand
over the military dock to the Garrison as soon as possible after the completion of all the
relevant procedures. Furthermore, the relevant departments would actively liaise with the
Garrison.
39.
The Chairman said that the bureau did not respond to Members’ enquiry on whether
legislative proceedings and other procedures were required for handing over the site to the
Garrison.
40.
Mr Frederick YU of the DEVB indicated that the site was different from other
military sites in Hong Kong in that those sites would not be open to the public when not in
military use. The Garrison had agreed that it would open the area of the site of the military
dock to the public as a part of the promenade when it was not in military use, having regard to
its operation and need for protecting the military dock. Therefore, relevant policy bureaux
were studying the arrangements for the suitable use of the site.
41.
The Chairman proposed that the department give a written response after the meeting
to the enquiries raised by the Members present. The Chairman invited Members to express
their views and raise questions. The main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
(i) Ms CHENG Lai-king asked whether the department would display clear notices to
remind the public that the site was a military facility lest they would breach the law
when the site was open to the public in future.
(ii) Mr HUI Chi-fung stated that the DEVB had provided a written response to his
- 20 -
enquiries. He proposed writing to the SDEV to convey the Committee’s views and
request the SDEV to respond to the question raised by him at the meeting.
42.
The Chairman pointed out that there was no enquiry on procedures such as local
legislation in the paper. He suggested that the department provide supplementary
information after the meeting.
43.
Mr HUI Chi-fung suggested that Members resolve whether the Committee should
write to the SDEV.
44.
The Chairman said that no Member agreed to write to the SDEV except Mr HUI
Chi-fung.
45.
Mr CHAN Hok-fung opposed writing to the SDEV at the present stage and
suggested handling the matter upon receipt of the response to be provided by the DEVB after
the meeting.
46.
The Chairman did not agree to write to the SDEV and suggested that the bureau give
a written response to Mr HUI Chi-fung’s question after the meeting.
Item 10:
Concern over the Growth of the Masonry Wall Trees on Hill Road
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 8/2015)
(4:55 pm – 5:05 pm)
47.
The Chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions.
main points of Members’ comments were as follows:
The
(i) Mr CHAN Choi-hi proposed that the department attach tree tags to the seven trees to
indicate their responsible departments. He requested the department to submit a
detailed report after the meeting, explaining when the department would make
follow-up arrangements and how it would ensure public safety and the health of the
existing trees.
(ii) Mr Joseph CHAN agreed with the proposal in the paper and requested the
departments concerned to try their best to retain the wild trees. Since there were
quite a number of hillsides, slopes and trees in the C&W District, the department
concerned often took follow-up action only after the public and Members reported
tree problems. He suggested that the department should carry out effective routine
monitoring and undertake maintenance in advance.
When problems were
diagnosed at an early stage, the department could carry out timely maintenance and
provide necessary supporting facilities to stabilise the trees, thereby extending their
lifespan. He suggested that the department should follow up the problematic trees
reported by the public as soon as possible and monitor them proactively and
effectively.
(iii) Mr WONG Kin-shing said that he had also received the e-mail from Mr CHAN.
He did not submit a discussion paper since the Chairman had already done so.
According to Mr CHAN, the upper and lower part of the retaining wall differed in
colour because the upper part with deeper colour was added to the original wall at a
- 21 -
later time and the tree was planted at that time. He worried that the tree was
unstable and might collapse as the roots of the tree were only anchored in the upper
layer of the retaining wall. The area concerned was located at the entrance/exit of
the car park of Shek Tong Tsui Market. The result would be disastrous in case of
tree collapse. He suggested the department conduct an inspection on the health of
the tree.
(iv) Mr MAN Chi-wah understood that the masonry wall trees were a characteristic of the
district. He suggested the department find out the survival rate of the trees before
installing steel frames or cables for stabilising the trees or report problematic trees to
the DC for determining whether to remove them.
(v) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming suggested that other than attaching tags to the seven trees to
indicate the responsible department, brief descriptions of the tree could also be
added.
48.
The Chairman said that he lived in Fu Yin Court which was close to the trees
concerned from 2003 to 2006 and he had all along been keeping in view the form of trees at
that time. He agreed with the public that the tree concerned was leaning towards the Shek
Tong Tsui Market and worried about the risk of collapse. He hoped the department could
take the matter seriously. Moreover, he indicated that there were trees at the rear lanes of
many buildings and on ramps. There was also a leaning tree at the back door of Lai Yin
Court at 110 Western Street. He had notified the departments concerned of the leaning tree
and was contacting the owner of the tree to follow up. He agreed with Mr Joseph CHAN
that instead of waiting for members of the public to report problematic trees, the departments
concerned should conduct inspection. He understood that the LandsD did not have sufficient
time to give a detailed response due to late paper submission and suggested the department
provide supplementary information after the meeting.
49.
Mrs Cherry MAK, Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office, Hong Kong
West and South) of the LandsD, said that she had just received the written response from the
Highways Department (HyD). According to the response, only one (T7) of the seven trees
(T1 - T7) was confirmed to grow on the retaining wall under the purview of the HyD.
However, the LandsD referred to the land status plan and preliminarily found out that all T1
to T7 was growing on the retaining wall. Nevertheless, the department would approach the
relevant departments for more details later. It was also asking the Tree Unit of the LandsD
for expert opinion on the health of trees, and the necessary follow-up and maintenance etc.
The department would provide a response to the suggestions of Members after the meeting as
well.
50.
The Chairman asked the LandsD to provide detailed information after the meeting.
Item 11:
Handling of the Bad Smell Problems in Belcher Bay
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 9/2015)
(5:05 pm - 5:06 pm)
51.
The Chairman asked Members to note the contents of the paper.
- 22 -
Item 12:
Action Checklist of the Matters Arising from the Fifth Meeting of
FEHWC
(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 10/2015)
(5:06 pm - 5:07 pm)
52.
The Chairman asked Members to note the contents of the paper.
Item 13: Any Other Business
(5:07 pm)
53.
No other business was raised by Members.
Item 14:
(5:07 pm)
Date of the Next Meeting
54.
The Chairman said that the 7th FEHWC meeting would be held on 26 March 2015.
The paper submission deadline for government departments would be 5 March 2015, while
the deadline for Members would be 11 March 2015. The Chairman thanked Members,
government representatives and guests for attending the meeting and announced that the
meeting was adjourned at 5:07 pm.
The minutes were
confirmed on 26 March 2015
Chairman:
Mr Sidney LEE
Secretary:
Miss Angel YIP
Central and Western District Council Secretariat
March 2015
- 23 -