Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of Central and Western ...
Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of
Central and Western District Council
|Date |: |7 July 2016 (Thursday) |
|Time |: |2:30 pm |
|Venue |: |Conference Room |
| | |14/F, Harbour Building |
| | |38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong |
Present:
Chairman
Mr YIP Wing-shing, BBS, MH, JP*
Vice-chairman
Mr CHAN Hok-fung, MH*
Members
|Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, Stephen, BBS, JP* | |
|Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH* | |
|Mr CHAN Ho-lim, Joseph* | |
|Ms CHENG Lai-king |(2:35pm - 3:38 pm) |
|Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP |(2:35 pm - 5:19 pm) |
|Mr HUI Chi-fung |(2:35pm - 4:53 pm) |
|Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH* | |
|Miss LO Yee-hang* | |
|Mr NG Siu-hong* | |
|Ms SIU Ka-yi* | |
|Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing* | |
|Mr YEUNG Hok-ming* | |
Remarks: * Members who attended the whole meeting
( ) The time of attendance of the Member
|Item 5(i) | |
|Mr Wilfred AU |General Manager (Planning and Design), Urban Renewal Authority |
|Ms Katty LAW |Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group |
| | |
|Item 5(ii) | |
|Mr WONG Chi-pan, Ricky |Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2, Development Bureau |
|Miss LEE Hoi-lun, Leonie |Assistant Secretary (Heritage Conservation) 3, Development Bureau |
|Mr CHU Ho, Larry |Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1, Development Bureau |
|Mr NG Tit-ho, Leo |Engineer/Central and Western 2, Transport Department |
|Ms TSOI Shuk-mei, May |Estate Surveyor/Central (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South), Lands Department |
|Mr Kim K W MAK |Executive Director of Corporate Affairs, The Hong Kong Jockey Club |
|Mr John LATTER |Head of Property Project Management, The Hong Kong Jockey Club |
|Mr Kenneth LEE |Senior Project Manager, The Hong Kong Jockey Club |
|Mr Philip HO |Senior Public Affairs Manager, The Hong Kong Jockey Club |
|Mr John TANG |Head of Public Affairs, The Jockey Club CPS Limited |
|Ms Katty LAW |Convenor, Central and Western Concern Group |
| | |
|Item 6 | |
|Mr LAI Yiu-kei, Samson |Assistant Director (Waste Management Policy), Environmental Protection Department |
|Mr LAM Kam-charn |Senior Engineer (Special Duties), Environmental Protection Department |
| | |
|Items 7-8 | |
|Dr FUNG Yu-kei, Anne |Assistant Director of Health (Health Promotion), Department of Health |
|Dr CHIM Pak-wing |Senior Medical and Health Officer (Health Promotion)1, Department of Health |
|Dr LUI Siu-yun |Medical and Health Officer (Community Liaison)1, Department of Health |
| | |
|Item 9 | |
|Ms Samantha SIU |Public Relations Manager - Projects and Property, MTR Corporation Limited |
|Mr Henry TSANG |Design Manager - South Island Line, MTR Corporation Limited |
|Mr CHIU Chi-keung |Senior Construction Engineer - Civil, MTR Corporation Limited |
|Mr LEUNG Tak-kuen, Anka |Senior Engineer/South Island Line 1, Highways Department |
|Mr SHEK Man-pong, Lawrence |Engineer/Priority Railway 5, Transport Department |
| | |
|Item 10 | |
|Mr IP Siu-keung, Bryan |Assistant Principal Immigration Officer (Removal Assessment and Litigation) 1, Immigration |
| |Department |
|Mr LAM Yiu-kwong |Chief Immigration Officer (Removal Assessment) 2, Immigration Department |
| | |
|Item 11 | |
|Ms CHAN Yee-lai |District Commander (Western), Hong Kong Police Force |
|Mr LEE Kai-kit, Jack |Superintendent (2) (Planning and Development), Hong Kong Police Force |
|Mr KO Chun-kit, Nick |Executive Officer (2) (Planning and Development), Hong Kong Police Force |
|Mr LAM Ding-fung |District Social Welfare Officer (Central Western, Southern and Islands), Social Welfare |
| |Department |
| | |
|Item 13 | |
|Mr LAM Yuk-kwan |Divisional Commander (Hong Kong Central), Fire Services Department |
|Mr PANG Yuk-lung, Michael |Chief Building Surveyor/Fire Safety, Buildings Department |
|Mr LEUNG Yun-hing, Patrick |Principal Land Executive/Land Control and Lease Enforcement, Lands Department |
| | |
|Item 14 | |
|Mr Mason HUNG |General Manager, Event and Product Development, Hong Kong Tourism Board |
|In Attendance: | |
|Ms CHAN Yee-lai |District Commander (Western), Hong Kong Police Force |
|Ms CHOW Wing-yee |Police Community Relations Officer (Western District), Hong Kong Police Force |
|Mr MAK Chi-biu |Chief Engineer/Hong Kong (1), Civil Engineering and Development Department |
|Mr LIU Chi-wai |District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Central and Western), Food and Environmental |
| |Hygiene Department |
|Mr CHAIONG David, Stanley |Chief Leisure Manager (Hong Kong West), Leisure and Cultural Services Department |
|Mr CHIU Hak-pui, Christopher |Chief Transport Officer/Hong Kong, Transport Department |
|Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, Susanne, JP |District Officer (Central and Western) |
|Miss LAM Bing-bing, Erica |Assistant District Officer (Central and Western) |
|Miss YU Yan-yan, Rosanna |Senior Executive Officer (District Management), Central and Western District Office |
|Miss HUI Lok-yam, Noel |Acting Executive Officer I (District Council), Central and Western District Office |
|Secretary | |
|Ms WONG Ming-wai |Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Central and Western District Office |
|Absent with Apologies | |
|Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney, MH | |
|Opening Remarks |
| The Chairman welcomed guests and Members to the fifth meeting of the Central and Western District Council (C&WDC). The Chairman |
|remarked that two firemen were killed and a number injured in the No. 4 Alarm Fire at mini-storages in Ngau Tau Kok on 21 June 2016. |
|He had, on behalf of all Members of the C&WDC, written to the Fire Services Department to extend their condolences to the families of |
|the deceased firemen and regards to other injured fire officers, as well as to pay solemn tribute to firemen for their bravery and |
|selfless devotion. The Chairman invited Members to stand and observe a minute of silence. |
| |
|Item 1: Adoption of the Agenda |
|(2:35 pm) |
|The Chairman remarked that as the department representative attending the discussion of the C&W DC Paper No. 86/2016 “Proposed |
|establishment of a religious and cultural trail in the Central and Western District” had other official engagement, to facilitate his |
|attendance, the agenda had been revised upon the Chairman’s agreement to change the order of discussion for the said paper. In |
|addition, given the emergency nature of a No. 4 Alarm Fire at a mini-storage facility on 21 June 2016 involving safety of life, the |
|Chairman, upon consent of the Member concerned for deferring the discussion of his submitted paper “Concern over the odour problem of |
|sewer at the Belcher Bay and Praya Kennedy Town”, agreed to advance the discussion on “How will the Government resolve the predicament |
|we face with mini-storages?” (C&W DC Paper No. 90/2016) at today’s meeting. (Order of discussion for the paper being deferred had to be |
|re-arranged) |
|There being no comments from Members, the Chairman declared the adoption of the revised agenda. |
| |
|Item 2: Confirmation of the Minutes of the 4th C&W DC Meeting held on 19 May 2016 |
|(2:35 pm – 2:38 pm) |
|The Chairman said that the draft minutes of the fourth C&WDC meeting were emailed to Members by the Secretariat on 28 June 2016 and the|
|proposed amendment from Mr Joseph CHAN was tabled for Members’ perusal. |
|Members had no comments on the draft of the amended minutes and the Chairman declared that the minutes were confirmed. |
| |
|Item 3: Action Checklist on Matters Arising from the Last Meeting |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 79/2016) |
|(2:38 pm – 2:40 pm) |
|The Chairman asked Members to refer to the checklist for the progress of follow-up of different items. |
| |
| |
| |
|Item 4: Chairman’s Report |
|(2:40 pm – 2:41 pm) |
|On behalf of the C&WDC, the Chairman congratulated Mr Sidney Lee for being awarded Medal of Honour on 1 July 2016. |
|In addition, the 12th Central & Western District Festival Organizing Committee (12th C&WDF OC) was formed with 84 members at the first |
|meeting held on 13 May 2016. “Family fun at the Central & Western District” was chosen as the theme of this year’s festival, with |
|focuses on promoting youth development, parent-child fun interaction and community participation. There were 12 programmes/work areas |
|under the 12th C&WDF OC, including parent-child programme, youth programme, elderly programme, area committee programme, photo contest, |
|recreation and sports programme, arts and culture programme, women programme, opening ceremony programme, closing ceremony programme, |
|and finance and community liaison. Small group meetings had also been scheduled for each programme to discuss the preparatory work. As|
|for financial arrangements, in addition to the funding of $900,000 earmarked and approved by the C&WDC, the 12th C&WDF OC planned to |
|raise sponsorship of about $1.8 million, and the sponsorship drive was underway. |
| |
|Standing Items |
|Item 5(i): Report on the Projects under the Urban Renewal Authority in the Central & Western District |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 80/2016) |
|(2:41 pm – 3:27 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and the Central and Western Concern Group (CWCG) to the |
|meeting. |
|Mr Wilfred AU, General Manager (Planning and Design) of the URA, reported on the progress of URA’s projects in the Central and Western |
|District as follows: |
| (a) |Mr AU said that the scaffold at the Market Block of the H18 Peel Street/Graham Street Redevelopment Scheme had been |
| |dismantled. As it would take some time to conduct water tests, the URA hoped that occupation permit could be obtained |
| |this month. Besides, the walkway at Gage Street had been widened, so no obstruction would be caused even if hawking |
| |activities took place there in future. As regards application for Fresh Provision Shop Licence, the URA had submitted |
| |the required documents and plans to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) for assessment. Subject to |
| |the issuance of occupation permit by the Buildings Department (BD), it was expected that some of the fresh food shop |
| |operators might commence renovation works in August 2016 at the earliest. The URA expected to host Graham Street |
| |market vibrancy promotional activities together with shop operators and the C&WDC in October 2016 after all the |
| |operators had commenced business. The walkways at Graham Street and Peel Street had also been widened without |
| |affecting the hawker stalls, so that an additional walkway was available for use by members of the public while hawker |
| |stalls on both sides of the streets were not required to change their hawking locations. Besides, a public roadside |
| |parking slot was provided at the roadside of the Market Block facing Gage Street to ease the existing traffic |
| |congestion problem caused by the loading/unloading of goods. In addition, the URA had offered assistance in |
| |reconstruction of hawker pitches for hawkers at the adjoining Sites A and C who had joined the “Assistance Scheme for |
| |Hawkers in Fixed-pitch Hawker Areas” offered by the FEHD. The relevant works were expected to be completed around July|
| |2016. The URA expressed gratitude for the FEHD’s assistance. Mr AU remarked that the title of the promotional |
| |activities would also be based on the logo chosen by the stall operators of the bazaar. The “blend of the old and new”|
| |would be the theme of future promotional activities, representing enhanced market vibrancy against the background of |
| |old clients and old stall operators in a new bazaar. |
| (b) |Mr AU reported on the progress of the H19 Wing Lee Street/Staunton Street project. He remarked that the development |
| |parameters of Site B were being discussed and the URA would prepare the revised Master Layout Plan submission to the |
| |Town Planning Board (TPB) once the parameters were confirmed. He said that demolition of No. 16 Wa In Fong West was |
| |completed whilst demolition works of Nos. 8-10 Shing Wong Street were under preparation and expected to be completed |
| |this year. Since other buildings within the site were wholly/partially owned by other parties, the URA could not |
| |implement demolition works for these buildings. |
| (c) |Concerning Western Market, the removal works for the vent shaft decoration of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) had |
| |commenced, which would allow better appreciation by the public of the façade of the building upon completion. Mr AU |
| |said that subject to the finalisation of the painting proposal by the MTRCL, the works were expected to be completed by|
| |the third quarter of 2016. |
| (d) |As regards Central Market, the URA’s Design Consultant had submitted the design information to the TPB and would |
| |prepare the general building plans upon fulfillment of the planning approval conditions. Works could only commence |
| |upon approval of the building plans by the BD and land being granted. Mr AU said that the URA meanwhile was liaising |
| |with the Lands Department (LandsD) on the land grant arrangement to facilitate early commencement of works. The URA |
| |had conducted a site inspection with experts in June to explore ways to conserve and restore the external wall in order|
| |to conduct some advance construction works, such as the removal works for asbestos completed earlier. In addition, |
| |comments were received earlier from the C&WDC and the TPB expressing the aspiration for widening of the footpath at |
| |Queen Victoria Street. The URA had discussed this with the Transport Department and the Highways Department, and both |
| |departments considered the proposal feasible. However, it was found that a 13-metre-long parking space was yet to be |
| |provided during its discussion with the FEHD on parking space. The URA hoped that relevant government departments |
| |could co-ordinate to facilitate the progress of the project and remained cautious about the progress in the next |
| |quarter. |
|Ms Katty LAW, Convenor of the CWCG, briefed Members on the research on the historic tenement house remains in Cochrane Street/Gutzlaff |
|Street. The briefing was summarised as follows: |
| (a) |Ms LAW said that architect and Australian conservation expert had conducted a field study earlier at the invitation of |
| |the CWCG and provided views after the study, including the approaches adopted by overseas countries or the Mainland for|
| |conservation of similar historic sites and remnants. Walking down the rear lane at Wellington Street, one would see 10|
| |tenement houses of back-to-back, edge-to-edge design, with the estimated year of completion dated back to 1879. |
| |Large-scale green brick and granite foundation was found at the site. She continued that following the change of |
| |building laws after the plague in 1903, tenement house of this kind was no longer being built. Examples of in-situ |
| |conservation were provided by the Australian conservation expert, including the Glasshouse at Port Macquarie of |
| |Australia, where historical remnants were on display at the basement with glazed ceiling; The ROCKS in Sydney of |
| |Australia, where new structures were added to manifest the historical remnant; and The ROCKS in Sydney of Australia, |
| |where a youth hostel with an education centre for displaying history was built on top of the large archaeological site |
| |and was well received by students. She said that reference could be made to these examples in handling the remnant at|
| |Cochrane Street/Gutzlaff Street. |
| (b) |The CWCG had invited architect to prepare a preliminary layout plan for Cochrane Street/Gutzlaff Street. It initially |
| |considered to preserve the tenement houses of back-to-back, edge-to-edge design with glazed canopies, with the |
| |provision of an exhibition venue inside to introduce this historical remnant. Given that the historical remnant was |
| |located entirely in the public open space of the site, Ms LAW suggested that the historical remnant could be saved from|
| |demolition by blending it into the design of the exhibition venue in the public open space. She said that it was a |
| |waste to demolish historical remnants and by doing so contravened the international principles on heritage protection |
| |and the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China. She hoped that the remnant could be preserved |
| |in-situ, and reiterated that the provision of exhibition venue was just a preliminary proposal and hoped that the C&WDC|
| |could, together with the CWCG, further explore its feasibility. |
| (c) |Ms LAW said that she had earlier met with the Complaints Division of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Secretariat. |
| |LegCo members requested a meeting be convened by a committee under the URA to listen to the briefing by the CWCG. The |
| |CWCG would update the C&WDC on the latest information for follow-up on the approach for preserving the remnant. The |
| |Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) and the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) would also further discuss on the |
| |remnant’s grading issue. |
|The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows: |
| (a) |Mr HUI Chi-fung said that not much progress was made on the historic tenement house remains in Cochrane Street/Gutzlaff|
| |Street since the last C&WDC meeting. He said that the only information available was that the AAB would not convene a |
| |meeting to discuss nor accord grading to the remnant. He hoped that the URA could provide the public with more |
| |information on the remnant. Besides, he said that the lack of information had made it difficult for the C&WDC to |
| |follow up and was thus unable to examine the issue comprehensively. He strongly condemned some government departments |
| |for their attitude in responding to this issue, and hoped that next time letters could be issued in the name of the |
| |C&WDC requesting the departments concerned, including the BD, the AMO, the AAB and the LandsD, etc., to attend |
| |committee meeting. In addition, he enquired of the URA about the H18 project, asking the current progress of and |
| |approach in handling Wing Woo grocery and whether it was still included in the H18 project. Besides, he pointed out |
| |that regarding the H19 project, the moving in of new tenants had caused nuisance to residents. He hoped that the URA |
| |could report to the C&WDC on details about the new tenants and whether clashes had taken place. In addition, he also |
| |objected to increasing the development density of the H19 project and enquired if the URA could expedite the works |
| |progress of Central Market while awaiting approval. |
| (b) |Mr NG Siu-hong said that suggestion had been made to the URA Executive Director, Mr Michael MA Chiu-tsee, on making |
| |reference to conservation approaches adopted overseas, but was dismissed at that time. Mr NG hoped that the URA could |
| |respond on whether application of overseas conservation approaches in Hong Kong was feasible. Besides, he remarked |
| |that people reckoned that the Central Market project was lacking progress and conservation works were lacking |
| |transparency, while the final design had deviated from the details announced and did not meet what the public foresaw. |
| |He hoped that the URA could provide the CWCG, the C&WDC and the public with more drawings. In addition, he enquired if|
| |the vent shaft of Western Market would keep its existing colour or be repainted with new colour for easier |
| |identification. |
| (c) |Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said that H19 Site B had been left vacant for some time and was full of potential dangers. Some |
| |engineers pointed out that units in buildings in Site B with open windows might pose danger. He enquired about the |
| |number of buildings with potential dangers in Site B and, among which, the number of buildings involving private |
| |ownership. He further enquired how the URA would manage these buildings. He remarked that while the BD had posted |
| |notice there, no subsequent follow-up action had been taken since the buildings located there were not occupied. In |
| |addition, he enquired if Nos. 10 to 12 Wing Lee Street was not included in the project’s major conservation area. |
| (d) |Ms SIU Ka-yi objected to increasing the plot ratio and development density of the H19 project, remarking that there was|
| |potential safety problem with the project. She explained that although dangerous buildings under the purview of the |
| |URA had been demolished, there still existed other dangerous buildings involving private ownership. In addition, she |
| |pointed out that the BD could not respond to the issues as it did not attend C&WDC meetings. She said that the |
| |buildings concerned posed danger and thus worried residents nearby. She also doubted whether the order issued could |
| |effectively address the safety problem. She said that she had conducted a site inspection at the site together with an|
| |expert, but the findings gathered deviated from the order issued by the BD. She relayed the expert’s opinion that the|
| |windows, verandahs and brackets of the buildings were all subject to risks; whereas the BD said that it had issued an |
| |order and there was no immediate danger. She doubted that given both parties held different expert opinions, which |
| |party should be held responsible if something unfortunate happened. She said that government departments should put |
| |projects involving risks of injuries and fatalities into perspective, and hoped that the BD would closely follow up the|
| |matter. |
| (e) |Ms CHENG Lai-king reckoned that Hung Mo Kew Street in the H18 project was of high historical value, and hoped that it |
| |could model on the PMQ where the Original Site of Central School was on display under glazed ceiling, so as to save and|
| |preserve each and every heritage site. She suggested that low walls could be erected in the H18 project, as in the |
| |case of the youth hostel next to the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals. She enquired whether glazed materials could be used |
| |for display of the brick walls and city walls in the H18 and H19 projects to showcase the city’s tenement houses in |
| |their former glory. Besides, a crevice was found in Central Market which appeared dangerous, and she hoped that the |
| |URA could follow up speedily. In addition, she objected to the relaxation of height restriction for the H19 project. |
| (f) |Mr KAM Nai-wai was concerned about the relocation of cloth traders in Western Market. He pointed out that URA’s report|
| |had made no mention of the issue and hoped to learn about its progress. He also requested the URA to give an account |
| |on the planned location for relocating the cloth traders and how it would handle objection from cloth traders against |
| |relocation, as well as the progress of its negotiation with government departments in its next report. He hoped that |
| |the URA would answer these enquiries and report the progress of the issue at the next meeting. |
| (g) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi criticised the unsatisfactory progress of the Central Market project and hoped that the URA could |
| |provide a detailed timetable on or list out the relevant work in the coming 12 months. He also enquired if the URA |
| |could provide the vent shaft decoration pattern of Western Market. Besides, he enquired about the costs involved in |
| |the conservation approach proposed by the CWCG. |
| (h) |Mr Stephen CHAN declared that he was a member of the AAB. He said that the AAB had discussed about the remnant in |
| |Cochrane Street/Gutzlaff Street and decided to convene a meeting together with the URA for thorough discussion. He |
| |said that the AAB would not accord grading to heritage sites and historic residential houses. He indicated that in the|
| |event a monument was found, the AAB would first conduct an examination and propose to keep the monument initially, and |
| |would convene a meeting jointly with the URA as soon as possible to discuss its preservation. |
| (i) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said that structure and building safety were not the only problems facing the H19 project, there was |
| |also law and order problem. Earlier presence of people was found in the project area. The H19 site had been left |
| |vacant for some time and no person was managing it. He was concerned that the safety of residents nearby would be |
| |affected if offenders were hiding in the site. Moreover, he enquired that given the buildings concerned had structural|
| |safety problem, who should be held responsible if something unfortunate happened. He said that the fact that doors and|
| |windows of the buildings in the site could be open by anyone had constituted a community safety concern, and thus hoped|
| |that the URA could follow up and propose solutions. |
| (j) |Mr Joseph CHAN was concerned about the relocation of cloth traders and other shops in Western Market. He noted that |
| |cloth traders and other shops wished to continue their business operations in situ. He enquired if shops on the first |
| |and ground floors of Western Market could continue their business during the repair works on the top floor. Noting |
| |that Western Market had to be handed over to the Development Bureau (DEVB) upon completion of the repair works, he |
| |enquired whether the existing cloth traders and shops could continue their business in situ after the repair works were|
| |completed. He hoped that the URA could give a reply at the meeting or relay the issue to the DEVB for follow-up. |
| (k) |The Chairman said that settlement of the cloth traders was a deep-rooted problem and hoped that they could continue |
| |their business in Western Market so as to preserve the industry’s characteristics. He said that the URA, if unable to |
| |give a reply on the issue, should relay the issue to the DEVB for follow-up and reply. In addition, he pointed out |
| |that the collapse of the Central Police Station (CPS) Compound had aroused public concern on other monuments. Given |
| |Central Market had been idle for over 10 years, there were problems with the structure of the building due to the |
| |long-term permeation of fish and poultry blood into the reinforcement of the substructure, resulting in swollen |
| |reinforcement and spalled concrete. He hoped that the URA could give details on the current situation and notify the |
| |C&WDC and relevant responsible departments. |
|Mr Wilfred AU of the URA gave a consolidated response as follows: |
| (a) |As regards the Peel Street/Graham Street Redevelopment project, Mr AU reiterated that the URA would, subject to |
| |technical feasibility, explore the relocation of some of brick and stone remains in the public open space at Site C. |
| |In response to the briefing given by the CWCG, he said that the current location of the brick and stone remains was |
| |used as retaining wall. Should the brick and stone remains be put on display in future, it should be able to convey |
| |the historical meaning identified by the CWCG and carry an educational function concurrently whilst ensuring safety. |
| |Besides, technical feasibility was yet to be ascertained. He said that URA’s representative would attend the AMO |
| |meeting in September and listen to the views of the AMO in order to explore how to blend the brick and stone remains |
| |into the public open space. |
| (b) |For the H18 project, the URA would preserve the façade of Wing Woo grocery. Documents for the proposal had been |
| |submitted and approved by relevant government departments. While conservation of the façade was in line with the |
| |street ambience in Graham Street, discussion on the preservation of the brick and stone remains was focused on the |
| |historical significance of the back-to-back, edge-to-edge tenement houses. Mr AU reckoned that these were two |
| |different sets of value. |
| (c) |As for the nuisance caused by new tenants of the H19 project, Mr AU hoped that more information could be provided by Mr|
| |HUI for follow-up by the URA. Besides, Wing Lee Street was not under the URA’s project area. As regards the law and |
| |order issue in Site B, Mr AU said that the URA had demolished some of the buildings owned in entirety by it; whereas |
| |wooden hoardings had been put up around those not yet demolished due to technical difficulty with regular inspection |
| |conducted by security guards. However, the URA was in no position to interfere with the remaining buildings not owned |
| |by it. In addition, he reiterated that instead of applying to the TPB for relaxation of the height restriction, the |
| |URA was only considering increasing the development parameters of Site B. |
| (d) |Concerning the crevice found in Central Market, Mr AU remarked that as Central Market comprised several separate |
| |structures, it was believed that the crevice was the joint between two structures. He supplemented that the LandsD had|
| |conducted a site inspection in early June and would carry out some maintenance activities. |
| (e) |Regarding Western Market, the URA did not consider it appropriate to stick to the old colour of the vent shaft, and |
| |hoped to table the proposal for Members’ reference at the next meeting as it was still consulting the view of the |
| |MTRCL. As for the relocation of cloth traders in Western Market, Mr AU said that the tenancy for management signed |
| |between the URA and the Government would expire in February 2017, and the URA indicated that the maintenance works on |
| |the top floor would not start prior to the expiry of the tenancy. He said that it was not known whether Western Market|
| |would still be handed over to the URA upon expiry of the tenancy. He remarked that the URA had discussed with the |
| |cloth traders and proposed the location for relocation; whereas the cloth traders wished to continue their business in |
| |Western Market. Members would be informed of any further development at the C&WDC meeting to be held in October. |
| (f) |With regard to enhancing the transparency of the Central Market project, Mr AU said that the planning application |
| |approved by the TPB had been passed to the C&WDC for reference, while the building plan was still pending BD’s |
| |approval. The URA would update the C&WDC from time to time on any further development. |
| (g) |Concerning the works schedule, Mr AU said that the URA, whilst continuing to follow up with the Government on the land |
| |grant arrangement, hoped that the approval of building plans could be obtained soonest possible in the coming six |
| |months. He said that the URA meanwhile had conducted other advance construction works, such as submission of plans for|
| |erection of hoardings to the BD and removal of asbestos in the building. |
|The Chairman thanked the representatives of the URA and the CWCG for attending the meeting. He requested the URA to respond in writing|
|after the meeting questions raised by Members that it failed to answer at the meeting. |
|Ms SIU Ka-yi requested the BD to reply to and follow up on the enquiries raised by her at the meeting. |
| |
|Item 5(ii): Conserving Central |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 81/2016) |
|(3:27 pm – 4:15 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Development Bureau (DEVB), the Transport Department (TD), the Lands Department |
|(LandsD) and the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) to the meeting. |
|Mr Ricky WONG, Chief Assistant Secretary (Works) 2 of the DEVB, reported on the progress of the “Conserving Central” project as below: |
| (a) |Central Police Station (CPS) Compound: Façade of Block 4 (i.e. the Married Inspectors’ Quarters) of the CPS Compound |
| |partially collapsed at night on 29 May 2016. The Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO) of the DEVB, the HKJC, the |
| |Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), the Buildings Department (BD) and other relevant government departments/offices|
| |inspected the site on the day following the incident, and also attended an informal meeting of the C&WDC on 31 May |
| |2016. After the incident, the HKJC’s contractor had carried out emergency strengthening works for the east portion of |
| |the Married Inspectors’ Quarters. Upon completion of the relevant works, the BD, together with the Registered |
| |Structural Engineer for the project completed their inspection on 7 June and confirmed that the east portion was safe |
| |and stable. With BD’s agreement, the Police re-opened the temporarily-closed section of Arbuthnot Road on the same |
| |day. Propping installation inside the west portion of the Married Inspectors’ Quarters started on 20 June 2016. The |
| |HKJC had set up an independent review panel comprising outside professionals to look into the cause of the incident, |
| |reflect on the incident and recommend future safety measures. The panel was chaired by Dr Greg Wong, a past President |
| |of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. The other two panel members were Mr Benny Lai, who was a Registered |
| |Structural Engineer, and Mr Simon Wiltshier, a Chartered Structural Engineer from Australia. |
| (b) |Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road: The revitalisation project of the former Police Married Quarters on |
| |Hollywood Road, the PMQ, had organised a series of events since its commissioning in April 2014, including the recent |
| |“Hong Kong on Steps”, “PMQ Fruit Jamming Market” and “Hong Kong Food Truck Festival”. According to statistics, the |
| |number of visitors since its opening till the end of May 2016 was over 7.1 million. With regard to the media’s recent |
| |concern about issues such as the rental level and the project being too commercialised, the Administration had |
| |contacted the PMQ for follow-up. |
| (c) |Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui’s Central Compound: All four historic buildings at the Central site would be preserved. |
| |Having taken into account the relocation of a public hospital (i.e. Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital) to another |
| |district and the growing population in the development area, the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (HKSKH) proposed the |
| |development of a non-profit-making private hospital at the Central site. The hospital would offer local residents an |
| |alternative to the medical services provided by the public hospitals. The HKSKH was working on the conceptual design |
| |of the proposal, including the building bulk and height in order to provide not less than 274 numbers of patient beds |
| |as required by the Administration. The HKSKH would also blend in the four historic buildings at the Central site in |
| |the design. The progress of the relevant design work and assessments was satisfactory. The HKSKH would further |
| |consult the C&WDC regarding the revised proposal when the above assessments were completed and detailed design was |
| |available. |
| (d) |Former French Mission Building (FMB): The Court of Final Appeal was relocated from the FMB to the old Supreme Court |
| |building at 8 Jackson Road, Central in September 2015. The Department of Justice (DoJ) would take over the FMB and |
| |provide space in the FMB for use by legal services and dispute resolution institutions after carrying out the necessary|
| |renovation. The DoJ and the departments concerned were taking forward the preparatory works for the renovation of the |
| |FMB, and briefed the C&WDC on the details of the proposed works on 10 March 2016. |
| (e) |Former Central Government Offices (CGO) Complex: Renovation works for the Main and East Wings were completed and some |
| |offices of the DoJ had been relocated in the third quarter of 2015. Besides, the Government decided to preserve and |
| |re-use the West Wing. The funding application for the renovation works of the West Wing was submitted to the |
| |Legislative Council Public Works Subcommittee on 11 June 2016 and the proposal was endorsed for submission to the |
| |Finance Committee. Relevant departments were making preparations for other pre-construction works. The target |
| |completion date for the works was end 2018. On the arrangement of railings in the former CGO, the DoJ and the DEVB |
| |responded in March 2016 to comments made by the C&WDC at the meeting in January 2016 and reported the latest progress. |
| |The C&WDC would be further briefed when the detailed arrangements had been worked out. As regards the railings and |
| |gates covered by the West Wing renovation project, the fence at the top of the slope within the West Wing site along |
| |Lower Albert Road would be lowered and the gate within the site would be replaced by drop-arm barriers for vehicular |
| |control. |
| (f) |Murray Building: The DEVB recommended the conversion of Murray Building into a hotel, and the development project was |
| |tendered out in November 2013. The Master Layout Plan (including the traffic review) and the Landscape Master Plan |
| |were approved in December 2014 and April 2015 respectively. The building plans submitted by the developer were also |
| |approved by the BD in February 2015. The DEVB and the TD passed the traffic review information of the project to the |
| |C&WDC for reference in June 2016. It was expected that the conversion project would be completed by the end of 2018. |
|Mr Larry CHU, Assistant Secretary (Harbour)1 of the DEVB, briefed Members on the progress of the New Central Harbourfront project. He |
|indicated that part of Sites 1 and 2 was still required for the works associated with the Central – Wan Chai Bypass. The Harbourfront |
|Commission (HC) had submitted its final report on the proposed establishment of a Harbourfront Authority to the Chief Executive. The |
|DEVB would work with the HC to identify the best way forward in harbourfront development. |
|The Chairman remarked that a letter to the C&WDC and the DEVB from the Central & Western Concern Group (CWCG) was tabled for reference.|
|He invited the Convenor of the CWCG to speak. |
|Ms Katty LAW, Convenor of the CWCG, expressed views on the former CGO Complex and the PMQ. Ms LAW said that the CWCG had all along |
|been paying attention to the conservation and revitalisation of the former CGO, in particular the design, greening and accessibility of|
|the public open space proposed to be open to public. She indicated that the CWCG requested the Administration to remove all |
|unnecessary fences and gates to facilitate public access to and use of the public space. In addition, regarding the recent media |
|reports on the PMQ, she remarked that the CWCG was worried about the revitalisation project getting increasingly commercialised and |
|whether there were collusion between business and Government as well as exchange of benefits privately regarding tenancy matters. She |
|said that the CWCG requested the C&WDC and relevant authorities to properly follow up and look into the matter in order to curb |
|situations that were not in the public interest. She requested the Administration to make public the fees charged by the Government on|
|the project operator and whether the leasing work undertaken by the operator was contrary to public interest. |
|The Chairman invited the HKJC to speak on the collapse of the façade of the CPS Compound. |
|Mr Kenneth LEE, Senior Project Manager of the HKJC, reported that right after the partial collapse of the façade of the CPS Compound, |
|propping works had been carried out by the HKJC to strengthen the east portion of Block 4 (i.e. the Married Inspectors’ Quarters). He |
|said that the works were completed on 6 June 2016. Subsequently, representative of the HKJC had inspected the site together with |
|representatives of the DEVB, the AMO and the BD, as well as the contractor. Besides, Block 4 (i.e. the Married Inspectors’ Quarters) |
|was surrounded by a screen consisting of two layers. After the said strengthening works were completed, structural engineer together |
|with representative of the BD conducted inspection and assessment on 7 June 2016, and notified the Police right after they confirmed |
|the building concerned was safe. The Police then re-opened roads nearby for public use the same day afternoon. As for the west |
|portion of Block 4, construction workers had retained the reusable construction materials gathered from the rubble of the collapsed |
|façade, including wood flooring and coping stones of the verandah, which were put in reserve. The HKJC had also engaged registered |
|contractor to demolish the timber purlins on the roof of the collapsed part and reinforce the west portion with additional shoring |
|support, and the damaged steel staircase was also removed. He said that given the structure of Block 4, only a maximum of 7 workers |
|would be allowed to access and stay at the site during the works period. He further said that the HKJC was discussing with relevant |
|authorities on the progress of the resumption of the revitalisation project. At present, apart from the resumption of works at |
|Arbuthnot Auditorium, Old Bailey Galleries and E Hall, other works under the revitalisation project were still under suspension. |
|The Chairman invited Members to raise enquiries and express their views. Their comments were summarised as follows: |
| (a) |Mr HUI Chi-fung was shocked by the collapse of the façade of the CPS Compound and expressed regret for the incident. |
| |He was puzzled at the occurrence of the accident despite the revitalisation project was overseen by several parties, |
| |and requested the HKJC and relevant authorities to give an account to the public on the cause of the collapse. He |
| |queried that the relevant parties might tackle the accountability issues and investigation, etc., of the incident in a |
| |low profile after the establishment of the review panel. He requested the HKJC and relevant authorities to assess the |
| |overall impact of the collapse on the compound from different perspectives including heritage conservation, such as the|
| |historical significance and degree of damage of the compound, in order to give an account to the public. He also |
| |quoted words from the representative of the HKJC that before the collapse took place the contractor had carried out |
| |strengthening works for Block 4 of the compound; but the works failed to reinforce the façade nor prevent it from |
| |collapse. The HKJC nevertheless continued to resort to strengthening works to resolve the crisis after the incident. |
| |He therefore queried about the effectiveness of the HKJC’s approach to this matter. Reckoning the seriousness of the |
| |incident, he suggested an independent commission of inquiry be appointed by the Chief Executive to look thoroughly into|
| |the incident. He also hoped that the HKJC would announce the projected completion date of the entire revitalisation |
| |project and the projected date for opening to public. In addition, he again strongly requested the Administration to |
| |remove the fences in the former CGO Complex and the gates in the Main and West Wings. In response to the briefing |
| |given by the DEVB on the PMQ, he remarked that the project’s operation was in chaos and involved conflict of interest, |
| |giving the public an impression of collusion between business and the Government. He requested the Administration to |
| |disclose the direction of investigation and the regulatory measures on prevention of conflict of interest and ensurance|
| |of fairness. He also enquired how the Administration would prevent the over-commercialisation of revitalisation |
| |projects. |
| (b) |Mr NG Siu-hong said that there were divergent views in the community about the cause of the façade collapse. Some |
| |reckoned that the accident was due to lack of maintenance of the compound whilst others opined that it was a result of |
| |the damage done to the compound by the revitalisation or strengthening works. He enquired if the Administration would|
| |solemnly investigate the cause of the accident and hold the parties involved responsible. He further enquired of the |
| |Administration about the anticipated time required to complete the whole investigation process. To prevent recurrence |
| |of accident, he hoped that the Administration would examine whether similar works had affected the internal structure |
| |of other parts of the compound. In addition, he relayed that the PMQ was over-commercialised, coupled with high rental|
| |and the shops and services provided being too expensive for the general public, making the project contrary to the |
| |original intention of revitalisation and incapable of promoting art development in Hong Kong, as well as against public|
| |interests. |
| (c) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming enquired of the HKJC about the responsibilities of Gammon Construction, the contractor engaged for |
| |the CPS Compound revitalisation project, in connection with the façade collapse, and whether negligence was involved in|
| |the works conducted. He also invited the HKJC and the DEVB to explain the relevant indemnity clauses. |
| | |
| (d) |Mr Joseph CHAN expressed support for the use of the HKSKH’s Compound for the development of a hospital and hoped that |
| |relevant government departments could make efforts to facilitate its early completion to provide medical services for |
| |residents. In addition, he remarked that conversion of Murray Building into a hotel would seriously affect the traffic|
| |flow in the Peak and Mid-levels, and requested the TD to submit relevant data and evaluation reports to facilitate |
| |discussion. He supplemented that he had made several requests to the TD for assessing the impact of the Murray |
| |Building development project on traffic in the nearby areas, but the Administration had not given any concrete |
| |response to his request. He pointed out that duplicate content was found in the paper submitted by the DEVB for this |
| |meeting and thus requested the Administration to review and make improvement. |
| | |
| (e) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi understood that completion and opening of the CPS Compound revitalisation project would be delayed as a|
| |result of the collapse. He enquired about the works progress and projected opening date of the project. |
| (f) |Mr Stephen CHAN declared that he was a member of the Heritage Working Group set up by the Jockey Club CPS Limited |
| |(JCCPS). Citing his own personal experience, he opined that the HKJC had been taking the revitalisation project |
| |seriously. He remarked that the accident provided an opportunity to review the broad direction of conservation works |
| |and also reflected the impact of the project on traffic nearby. He requested the TD to study ways to improve the |
| |ancillary transport facilities of the site concerned in order to ease the traffic in the surrounding areas. He also |
| |enquired about the opening date of the revitalisation project. Besides, he was disappointed about the business |
| |operations of the PMQ as featured in media coverage, reckoning that the PMQ was originally intended for promoting arts |
| |education and arts development in Hong Kong. He opined that the project contractor should explain to the C&WDC about |
| |its direction on operation. In addition, he opined that given the HKSKH’s Compound was to be developed into a |
| |hospital, the healthcare services and level of charge should be affordable to the public. |
| (g) |Ms SIU Ka-yi considered that the Administration must investigate whether conflict of interest and exchange of benefits |
| |privately were involved in the business operations of the PMQ and give an account to the public. |
| (h) |The Chairman reckoned that various factors contributed to the façade collapse. While he understood that investigation |
| |took time, he hoped that the parties concerned would look thoroughly into the cause of the incident to prevent its |
| |recurrence. He opined that the incident should be evaluated from different perspectives and the compound should be |
| |confirmed structurally safe before opening to public. |
|Mr Kim MAK, Executive Director of Corporate Affairs of the HKJC, undertook that the HKJC would spare no efforts to look into the cause |
|of the collapse, and indicated that the HKJC had instructed the project team, comprising Authorized Person, Registered Structural |
|Engineer and Registered Contractor, to fully complement government departments including the BD to carry out the relevant investigation|
|works. He further indicated that the HKJC had consulted The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers and with its assistance, set up an |
|independent review panel which was tasked with reviewing the revitalisation project. The panel comprised 3 engineers with conservation|
|background plus many years of overseas and local experience. Putting safety as a top priority, the HKJC would finish the strengthening|
|works step by step to minimise the impact on the public. He said that upon completion of the entire project, a comprehensive safety |
|assessment would be conducted and approval would be sought from the BD, so as to ensure safety of the facilities concerned before their|
|opening to public in phases. He supplemented that to ensure conservation works were being properly carried out, the HKJC would seek |
|the views of the Antiquities Advisory Board and brief the C&WDC on the progress. |
|Mr Ricky WONG of the DEVB responded that the base rent for shop space with an area of some 400 square metres at the PMQ was $18,000 per|
|month. In support of the arts development in Hong Kong, up-and-coming practising designers interested in renting these shop space |
|would enjoy a 20% to 50% discount on rent, with an extra 5% discount for renting shop space on the 3rd and 4th floors and an extra 10% |
|discount for the 5th floor or above. The actual rents paid would depend on the floor level rented. He explained that as the project |
|was operating on a self-financing basis, sustainable operation must be ensured alongside conservation of historic buildings and |
|promotion of arts development in Hong Kong. He said that the PMQ was currently charging eight shops market rent as funding to support |
|the operation of some 120 art studios of the project. To ensure that the project was in line with public interest, the PMQ was |
|requested to periodically submit to the Administration an audited accounting report to give a clear account of income and expenditure, |
|while the operation issues of the project would also be followed up by the department concerned. As regards removal of the fences in |
|the former CGO Complex, Mr WONG said that the DoJ had earlier met and listened to the request of representatives of the Government Hill|
|Concern Group. Issues concerning the design of the open space and the arrangement of the fences had been referred to the relevant |
|section of the DEVB for follow-up. From the perspective of public open space design, if the existing fences within the public open |
|space were considered not necessary upon assessment, the DEVB would incorporate the recommendation on removal of the fences into the |
|detailed design of the public open space and would consult the C&WDC prior to finalising the design. In addition, he remarked that the|
|TD passed the latest traffic data of Murray Building to the C&WDC Secretariat in early June 2016. |
| |
|Mr Leo NG, Engineer/Central and Western 2 of the TD, said that the traffic flow in the morning and afternoon periods included downhill |
|and uphill trip attraction and trip generation in order to compare the difference between uphill and downhill traffic. The findings |
|showed that offices attracted a higher traffic flow than hotels. Therefore, he concurred with the conclusion of the DEVB’s report, |
|i.e. the conversion of Murray Building into a hotel would not impose tremendous pressure on the traffic in the surrounding areas. |
|Mr Joseph CHAN enquired if latest data was used in preparing the traffic review report. |
|Mr Leo NG of the TD responded that the data in the report had been submitted at the nineteenth meeting of the last term of the C&WDC; |
|whereas information submitted at this meeting was the detailed explanation on some of the data in the report. |
|Mr Joseph CHAN opined that the information provided in the TD’s report was insufficient and failed to reflect the impact of vehicles |
|entering/leaving hotel and tourists’ travelling routes after leaving hotel on traffic in nearby areas. He also said that he had raised|
|the issue as early as in the last term of the C&WDC, but the department had not taken the matter seriously. |
|The Chairman enquired whether the TD would take into account Mr Joseph CHAN’s comments and submit an updated report. |
|Mr CHAN Choi-hi enquired whether the TD would consider providing average figures to facilitate traffic flow assessment. |
|Mr Leo NG of the TD said that the department would elaborate further the information submitted earlier after the meeting. |
|The Chairman remarked that traffic congestion was severe on Garden Road and hence the Administration should, prior to implementation |
|of any development plan in that area, give an accurate account on the impact of the project concerned to the daily lives of residents |
|and traffic nearby. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Discussion Items |
|Item 6: The Central & Western Community Green Station |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 82/2016) |
|(4:15 pm to 4:50 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) to the meeting. |
|The Chairman invited the representatives of the department to introduce the paper submitted by the EPD. |
|Mr Samson LAI, Assistant Director (Waste Management Policy) of the EPD, pointed out that the Community Green Station (CGS) initiative |
|was a new waste management measure. The EPD was gradually implementing the project by developing a CGS in each of the 18 districts. |
|The CGS project would be operated by non-profit organisations (NPOs) with government funding to enhance environmental education and |
|help collect different types of recyclables (especially low-value ones) in the local community, with a view to promoting green living. |
|The department briefed members of the Food, Environment, Hygiene and Works Committee of the C&WDC in 2014, but no proposal was |
|submitted at that time as the site search was still undergoing. During this period, the first two CGSs respectively in Sha Tin and the|
|Eastern District had been commissioned successively. On the whole, the two CGSs had made initial success since commissioning, among |
|which changing the negative impression that members of the public had of recycling work and the waste recovery volume had been on the |
|rise. On environmental education, venues were provided in the CGSs for organising various kinds of environmental activities. |
|Regarding recycling support, the operators, through partnering with housing estates and property management companies, collected |
|low-value recyclables such as electrical appliances, glass, compact fluorescent lamps and rechargeable batteries periodically with |
|collection vehicles. In addition, the Eastern CGS also set up temporary booths in public area with a view to support and promote |
|recycling in areas with many single-block buildings. The EPD was studying to enhance relevant measures. As for the Central & Western |
|CGS, site search was commenced in 2014 but the detailed plan was yet to be worked out. The site search had been a challenging task |
|given that most of the land in the Central and Western District were developed land. The EPD noted that the C&WDC had discussed |
|earlier on how to make better use of land underneath flyovers, such as the site underneath Connaught Road West Flyover. After a site |
|inspection, the EPD considered the site concerned, with an area of around 10 000 square metres, was smaller than that of other CGSs and|
|was subject to various development constraints. However, as the site was accessible via a pedestrian access, consideration could still|
|be given to using it for developing the Central & Western CGS by ensuring compatibility in design and making the necessary |
|modifications. The EPD was seeking views on the matter. If consensus was reached that the site underneath Connaught Road West Flyover|
|could be considered for developing the Central & Western CGS, the EPD would press ahead with a feasibility study and report on the |
|latest progress in due course. |
|The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows: |
| (a) |Miss LO Yee-hang said she wished to know the project timetable and enquired whether other problems would be involved in|
| |the project implementation. She requested the EPD to provide the concrete plan and design for Members’ reference once |
| |available. |
| (b) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming concurred with the direction of the project for collection of low-value recyclables so as not to |
| |compete with the private sector for profits. However, he criticised the project for being ineffective in easing the |
| |problems of polluting streets and the environment and occupation of pavement caused by recyclable collection activities|
| |of private recyclers. |
| (c) |Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing was concerned that operating a CGS at the site underneath Connaught Road West Flyover would affect |
| |residents nearby as the site was in close proximity to residential areas. He said that CGSs had high operating cost |
| |and low income as recyclables collected were mostly of low-value. He enquired how CGSs could sustain their operation |
| |and whether they had to rely on long-term government funding. |
| (d) |Mr Joseph CHAN remarked that slopes and retaining walls in the Mid-levels had to be taken into account, and suggested |
| |the use of plants of longer-lived species for easy maintenance. He pointed out that Hong Kong was lagging behind in |
| |glass recycling and suggested considering the provision of mobile vans for glass recycling with a view to achieving |
| |better utilisation of resources. |
| (e) |Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan shared the view that the site search in the district had been difficult and said that residents in |
| |the vicinity also had comments on this. He was concerned that the piling up of recyclables at CGS would affect the |
| |environment, and suggested that residents in the vicinity should be adequately consulted before taking a final decision|
| |on site selection. |
| (f) |Mr KAM Nai-wai pointed out that if the site underneath Connaught Road West Flyover was chosen as the location for the |
| |proposed CGS, it would be suitable only for conducting environmental education work such as holding seminars, since |
| |operation of recycling activities would tend to cause environmental hygiene problem and residents’ opposition would |
| |ensue. He remarked that residents might use handcarts to deliver recyclables to the collection points. If collection |
| |point was to be set up in the middle of carriageways, road safety problem would have to be taken into account to |
| |prevent accidents. |
| | |
| (g) |Mr Stephen CHAN reckoned that the Government should inject more resources and initiate more planning. He opined that |
| |despite the site underneath Connaught Road West Flyover was not the best location for developing CGS, the proposal |
| |could be further improved, such as lighting and pedestrian and vehicular access arrangement. He pointed out that the |
| |establishment of CGS would help promote recycling industry in the district and enhance public education. |
| (h) |The Vice-chairman pointed out that there were inadequacies in the Government’s environmental protection policy as it |
| |had no policy on regulating private recycling operators. Meanwhile, members of the public were not being provided with|
| |any knowledge on waste classification from the manufacturing processes. He criticised government departments for |
| |following different policies and failing to act in concert, and suggested changing the design of litter bins by adding |
| |separate compartments for recyclable and non-recyclable refuse. He said that current urban planning had made no |
| |provision for corresponding recycling facilities, and suggested the setting up of clean recycling centre on a site in |
| |the Western Part of Kennedy Town and the provision of recycling facilities next to refuse collection points. |
| (i) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that the site area underneath Connaught Road West Flyover was too small and thus far from |
| |satisfactory. However, the recommendation was still a good move as it allowed optimisation of land underneath |
| |flyovers. He said that the EPD had not thoroughly reviewed the report on the effectiveness of CGS. He suggested that |
| |the Government should start from policy formulation and ancillary facilities and that government departments should |
| |complement each other in taking forward the works. |
| (j) |The Chairman said that the C&WDC was in great support of environmental protection and greening and shared the view that|
| |environmental education should start from childhood. There was a need for designating an area in the Central and |
| |Western District for promotion of environmental education, which would allow for improvement and optimisation of CGS |
| |and organising periodical activities for students and children from community groups in the district. He pointed out |
| |that the current proposed site for CGS was in close proximity to residential areas, and thus requested the EPD to gauge|
| |the views of nearby residents in advance. He reminded that the design of the CGS should take into account road safety |
| |problem and odour control of the CGS to avoid causing nuisance to residents. |
|Mr LAI of the EPD gave a consolidated response, saying it was concurred that the setting up of the Central and Western CGS underneath |
|Connaught Road West Flyover was not the most satisfactory arrangement, but further consideration could still be given to the |
|recommendation after considering various factors. The EPD would continue to examine the technical feasibility of the recommended site |
|while continuing with the site search to see if a more suitable location could be found. He said that the department was committed to |
|ensuring the Central and Western CGS project could serve the purpose of community beautification through appropriate design whilst |
|providing off-street loading/unloading space. The EPD would gauge public views on the recommended site once technical feasibility was |
|further confirmed. In addition, he pointed out that the Government had made gradual progress in other waste reduction/recycling |
|measures, such as implementation of waste charges, waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling, glass bottle recycling and the |
|Recycling Fund, as well as the new law against street obstruction. He said that the Central and Western CGS project was different from|
|other private recyclers as it would mainly collect low-value recyclables, and believed that its operation would be satisfactory. |
|The Chairman thanked the guests for attending the meeting. |
| |
|Item 7: “Joyful@HK” Campaign |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 83/2016) |
|(4:50 pm to 5:05 pm) |
|The Vice-chairman welcomed departmental representatives to the meeting. |
|With the aid of PowerPoint presentation, Dr CHIM Pak-wing, Senior Medical and Health Officer (Health Promotion)1 of the Department of |
|Health (DH), introduced the campaign as follows: |
| (a) |Background: The Government announced in the 2015 Policy Address to conduct a three-year territory-wide public education|
| |and publicity campaign to promote mental health and mental well-being. To take this initiative forward, the Advisory |
| |Group on Mental Health Promotion was formed under the Review Committee on Mental Health in 2015 to oversee and launch |
| |the “Joyful@HK” Campaign. |
| (b) |Objectives: The objectives of the campaign were to (1) increase public engagement in promoting mental well-being; and |
| |(2) increase public knowledge and understanding about mental health. The campaign aimed to encourage the public to |
| |integrate three key elements, i.e. “Sharing”, “Mind” and “Enjoyment” (SME), into their daily life to enhance mental |
| |health. In addition, by increasing public’s knowledge and understanding of common mental health problems such as |
| |anxiety disorders for adolescents, mixed anxiety and depressive disorder for adults, and dementia for the elderly, the |
| |campaign aimed to encourage people to detect the problems and seek help earlier, as well as to reduce stigmatisation. |
| (c) |The campaign had four components: In respect of mass media advertising and publicity activities, the opening ceremony |
| |of the campaign was held on 29 January 2016 with Ms Sammi Cheng being appointed the campaign ambassador and singing a |
| |theme song named “Through the Hurdles”; besides, a thematic website and a Facebook fan page for the campaign had been |
| |launched. Apart from information on the campaign and knowledge on mental well-being, there was also a page called “My |
| |Pledge” in the thematic website for the public to make “Sharing”, “Mind” and “Enjoyment” pledges for integration into |
| |their daily life. Moreover, a new set of TV and radio Announcement in the Public Interest had been developed and a |
| |series of four panel comic strips on mental well-being promotion targeting at adolescents and young adults had been |
| |published on the Facebook fan page since June 2016; and a series of health educational materials on mental health |
| |promotion had also been developed. In addition, other publicity activities conducted between January and April 2016 |
| |included radio programmes, advertisements in public transport, newspapers, social media and internet platforms, as well|
| |as the Joy@HK Promotion Van travelling to various locations bringing joyful moments. The DH would continue to carry |
| |out other publicity activities, such as family run and TV programmes, etc., in the coming two years. |
| (d) |The second component concerned establishing partnerships: The campaign emphasised the establishment of partnerships |
| |with different parties, including district councils, business sectors, academic institutions, non-government |
| |organisations and so on, in the hope to further promote mental well-being. |
| (e) |The third component concerned the Community Partnership Programme: The programme would be commissioned by the Health |
| |Care and Promotion Fund of the Food and Health Bureau (FHB), in which local academic institutions, via partnering with |
| |community partners (such as non-profit organisations and Healthy City Projects), would implement various evidence-based|
| |interventions for mental health promotion in the community targeting at adolescents, adults and the elders. The |
| |programme aimed to continuously promote mental well-being and enhance the public’s knowledge of common mental health |
| |problems at district level. |
| (f) |The fourth component concerned research and evaluation: A local university was commissioned to conduct a pre-campaign |
| |study to monitor the mental well-being of the public. A post-campaign evaluation was also anticipated to be carried |
| |out to provide reference for future direction of mental health promotion. |
| (g) |District involvement was essential to the success of the campaign. It was hoped that the C&WDC could carry out |
| |activities to echo the campaign. Examples included (1) publicising the thematic website, “My Pledge” page and the |
| |Facebook fan page; (2) conducting activities to facilitate members of the public to practice “Sharing”, “Mind” and |
| |“Enjoyment”; and (3) promoting public’s knowledge and understanding of common mental health problems so as to reduce |
| |stigmatisation. |
|The Vice-chairman invited Members to raise enquiries and express their views. Their comments were summarised as follows: |
| (a) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi remarked that the classification of common mental health problems of adolescents, adults and the elders|
| |under the campaign was rigid and inflexible. For instance, elderly people might also have depression problem. |
| |Besides, while the campaign could help members of the public to detect mental health problems, there was a lack of |
| |ancillary support facilities. |
| (b) |The Vice-chairman said that he would know nothing about the campaign if not for the introduction given by the |
| |department at the meeting. While expressing strong support for the concept of the campaign, he reckoned that publicity|
| |efforts should be stepped up to popularise the campaign. |
|Dr Anne FUNG, Assistant Director of Health (Health Promotion) of the DH, responded that the reason for focusing on the common mental |
|health problems of the three age groups was that it would be difficult for the campaign to cover too many types of mental health |
|problems given its initial three-year duration. Besides, a pre-campaign analysis of local statistics had been conducted and the |
|decision was made after discussion by the Advisory Group on Mental Health Promotion. Upon completion of the three-year campaign, a |
|review might be conducted to extend the campaign to cover other mental health problems. As regards ancillary support facilities, the |
|Review Committee on Mental Health formed by the FHB was responsible for co-ordinating a concrete action plan comprising ancilliary |
|support facilities. Regarding the effectiveness of publicity, she hoped that the C&WDC could echo the campaign to inculcate the |
|concept of “SME” in the community. |
|The Vice-chairman suggested the DH consider promoting the campaign in collaboration with other departments such as the Leisure and |
|Cutural Services Department (LCSD), since the LCSD had generated a high level of positive publicity in the sports arena which could |
|complement this campaign so as to enhance its effectiveness. Lastly, he thanked the representatives of the DH for attending the |
|meeting. |
| |
|Item 8: Promotion of Organ Donation |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 84/2016) |
|(5:05 pm to 5:20 pm) |
|The Vice-chairman welcomed the representatives of the Department of Health (DH) to the meeting. |
|Dr Anne FUNG, Assistant Director of Health (Health Promotion) of the DH, introduced the promotion measures on organ donation. Her |
|presentation was summarised as follows: |
| (a) |Dr FUNG explained the reasons for and the importance of promotion of organ donation. She said that despite medical |
| |advancement, organ transplant had become the only hope for some patients with organ failure in order to live on. |
| |Between 2014 and 2015, the annual average number of deaths in Hong Kong was 45 000 to 46 000. However, there were on |
| |average less than 200 deceased persons every year whose clinical conditions were fit for organ donation, since only |
| |individuals who were certified brain dead can be organ donors. Moreover, since consent by family members was required |
| |before the organ transplantation, in reality, less than half of the deceased patients suitable for donating organs |
| |could successfully donate their organs. |
| (b) |Dr FUNG said that at present there were over 2 000 patients in Hong Kong waiting for an organ transplant every day on |
| |average, the number of patients waiting for kidney transplant alone was already close to 2 000. She said that one |
| |organ doner could in fact save several people’s lives – two kidneys, liver, lung, heart, cornea, skin and bone. |
| (c) |Dr FUNG said that the DH had taken various measures to promote organ donation, including the establishment of the |
| |Garden of Life in Kowloon Park where the landscape design and architecture of the garden echoed the theme “Light Up |
| |Lives” through organ donation. However, despite the DH’s dedicated efforts in promoting organ donation, a downward |
| |trend was still noted in the number of people willing to donate their organs between 2013 and 2014. |
| (d) |With a view to identifying incentives for and causes of reservation against organ donation, the DH conducted a focus |
| |group study in 2015. The study revealed that the views of participants who were unwilling or had not yet decided to |
| |donate organs included traditional beliefs such as the traditional mindset of full body burial, objection by family |
| |members, the issue being irrelevant to young people, and elderly people who considered their organs as not suitable. |
| |Other concerns included insufficient knowledge on transplantation procedure, worries over doctors' failure to rescue |
| |and disfigurement of the deceased, worries over data security and have limited knowledge about the operation of the |
| |Centralised Organ Donation Register (CODR). |
| (e) |The FHB set up the Committee on Promotion of Organ Donation in April 2016. The Committee, in collaboration with |
| |various departments, institutions and community groups, was responsible for co-ordinating activities for promoting and |
| |facilitating organ donation and invited different organisations, corporations and groups to become signatory of the |
| |Organ Donation Promotion Charter. Dr FUNG said she was pleased that the C&WDC had signed the Charter and the Chairman |
| |had also attended the signing ceremony on 25 June 2016. She said that at present over 150 organisations had signed the|
| |Charter and undertaken to encourage members to register at the CODR and share their wish of donating organs with their |
| |family members, and encourage the public to express their wish for organ donation through different channels. Dr FUNG |
| |indicated that at present the number of registrations recorded on the CODR was 208 000 and the target was to increase |
| |the number to 400 000 by the end of 2016. |
| (f) |Dr FUNG appealed to all to help promote organ donation via “Organ Donation 3S” (Sign-up, Speak-out and Spread-out) in |
| |order to encourage members of the public to register at the CODR. The CODR was established by the DH in 2008 to |
| |provide members of the public with a convenient channel to register their wish to donate organs after death. The |
| |Register would enable medical personnel responsible for organ donation to know upon the patients' death about their |
| |wish to donate organs, so that they might approach the patients’ families as soon as possible to seek their consent for|
| |prompt arrangement of organ transplants. The first S, Sign-up at the CODR: those who wished to donate organs only had |
| |to complete the form and return it to the DH by post or by fax, or register online. Upon receiving their |
| |registrations, the DH would contact them by telephone to verify their personal particulars. After verification, the |
| |information would be stored in the CODR. For those who had signed the organ donation card, they had to carry it at all|
| |times. However, they were also encouraged to register in the CODR as the CODR did not have any record for those who |
| |had signed the organ donation card. The second S, Speak-out: the DH appealed to those who had registered to speak out |
| |to their families of their wish to donate organs, as half of their family members would refuse to donate the organ(s) |
| |of the deceased due to various reasons, including being uncertain about the wish of the deceased. The third S, |
| |Spread-out: the DH hoped that members of the public could spread out the message to their family and friends and get |
| |their support, so as to create an atmosphere in our society that supported organ donation. |
| (g) |Dr FUNG said that more information could be obtained by visiting the “Organ Donation” thematic website, which featured |
| |a toolkit (including PowerPoint presentations and scripts) and infographics for reference. In addition, materials for |
| |promotion of organ donation could be obtained by completing the electronic request form at the website and returning it|
| |to the DH. Lastly, she appealed to all to press “Like” button on the Organ Donation@HK Facebook page and obtain |
| |relevant information on organ donation, such as touching stories and short film sharing. |
| | |
|The Chairman invited Members to express their views. Their main points of their comments were as follows: |
| (a) |Mr Stephen CHAN said that he was in support of the promotion of organ donation, but enquired whether organ donation |
| |would cause delay to the burial arrangement. |
| (b) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi said he had suggested making reference to overseas practice some 10 years ago that where deceased |
| |persons have not raised any objection before death to organ donation, they would be deemed to have given consent to |
| |donate their organs for transplant after death. The then Secretary for Food and Health indicated that such practice |
| |was still under consideration as public views here in Hong Kong were different from that of overseas countries. He |
| |opined that the number of registrations recorded on the CODR remained small, even though it was expected to increase |
| |from 200 000 to 400 000 following the promotion initiatives, and thus reckoned that legislation should be enacted to |
| |ensure all members of the public were recorded on the CODR. |
| (c) |The Chairman expressed support for organ donation. He appealed to Members to support the Organ Donation Promotion |
| |Charter and encouraged Members to put up posters at their DC member offices to help promote organ donation. |
|Dr Anne FUNG of the DH responded that organ transplant operations had to be performed promptly after patients were certified brain |
|dead, thus the burial arrangement of the donors would not be affected. Concerning the overseas practice as mentioned by Mr CHAN |
|Choi-hi, the FHB would conduct surveys in the coming months to gauge public views in order to see if a change in policy was considered |
|necessary. |
|The Vice-chairman thanked the guests for attending the meeting and said that the C&WDC was in support of organ donation promotion. |
| |
|Item 9: Latest Progress of Admiralty Station Extension Under the South Island Line (East) Project |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 85/2016) |
|(5:20 pm to 5:35 pm) |
|The Vice-chairman welcomed the representatives of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), the Highways Department (HyD) and the Transport |
|Department (TD) to the meeting. |
|The Vice-chairman said that the paper was submitted by the MTRCL and invited the representative of the MTRCL to introduce the paper. |
|Ms Samantha SIU, Public Relations Manager (Projects & Property) of the MTRCL, pointed out that as at the end of May 2016, the overall |
|works for South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) were 96% completed. At Admiralty Station, the construction of the station structure, |
|fitting-out and electrical and mechanical (E&M) works were now progressing in full swing. In view of the current progress, the target |
|opening of SIL(E) remained at the end of 2016. However, the construction challenges at Admiralty Station Extension had put the target |
|commissioning date at a certain risk. |
|Mr CHIU Chi-keung, Senior Construction Engineer – Civil of the MTRCL, pointed out that excavation work for the Admiralty Station |
|extension was completed, and construction of the tunnel structures and structural works for the station extension had been completed. |
|Construction of the cavern structure had been completed and fitting-out and E&M works were underway. Structural works for Harcourt |
|Garden was in progress. Construction of the shaft in Hong Kong Park was complete and the work site was handed over to the Shatin and |
|Central Link (SCL) project. To allow for the extension works, an entrance and egress were provided at the work site at Harcourt Garden|
|with the site entrance at Queensway and egress at Harcourt Road. To make way for the drainage and sewerage pipes connection works, |
|Rodney Street entrance was closed since the first quarter of 2016. A temporary traffic management scheme (TTMS) had been implemented |
|on Rodney Street from early March 2016 in phases for carrying out drainage and sewerage pipes connection works. Part of Rodney Street |
|would be temporarily narrowed while pedestrian access and traffic lanes would be maintained. |
|Mr Henry TSANG, Design Manager - South Island Line of the MTRCL, pointed out that the timetable to complete the remaining works for the|
|Admiralty Station was extremely tight due to logistics challenges and congested site conditions. To achieve the target of opening |
|SIL(E) in the end of 2016, it was necessary to optimise the use of above ground spaces in Harcourt Garden for logistics storage and |
|transportation to the station. As such, the Harcourt Garden reprovisioning works had to be reprioritised. It was originally planned |
|that the landscaped deck level in Harcourt Garden would be open to public simultaneously with the commissioning of the SIL(E), it was |
|now suggested to open only the part of the landscaped deck level connecting to CITIC Tower Footbridge. Members of the public might |
|access the footbridge or Rodney Street using a staircase and escalator from street level or a lift that connected to the station |
|concourse. |
|The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views. Their main points of their comments were as follows: |
| (a) |Mr Stephen CHAN hoped that the MTRCL could hand over the section along Justice Drive in order to reduce the impact on |
| |local traffic. He enquired the MTRCL of the timetable for implementation of traffic diversions on Rodney Street. |
| (b) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that Harcourt Garden had been closed for some time and requested the MTRCL to expedite the |
| |handover of the garden in order to reduce the impact on the public. He enquired how the MTRCL would handle the |
| |management and reprovision of trees in the garden. |
|Ms Samantha SIU of the MTRCL responded that the site mentioned by Mr Stephen CHAN should be the one located near the work site at Hong |
|Kong Park, where the TTMS in connection with the SIL(E) remained in effect to facilitate the construction of the SCL. She would relay |
|the comment to concerned colleagues for follow-up. |
|Mr Henry TSANG of the MTRCL remarked that the foremost priority was commissioning the SIL(E) as early as possible and they would, |
|depending on the works progress, explore the possibility of accelerating the opening of certain parts of Harcourt Garden. The MTRCL |
|had earlier briefed the C&WDC on arrangement for trees in Harcourt Garden and there was no significant change to the plan. It would |
|further brief the C&WDC upon finalisation of the Harcourt Garden design. Given that the final stage of traffic diversions on Rodney |
|Street was a permanent measure, the MTRCL had no comment on this. |
|The Vice-chairman invited the TD to respond to the traffic diversions on Rodney Street. |
|Mr Lawrence SHEK, Engineer/Priority Railway 5 of the TD, said that a temporary traffic management scheme was currently implemented on |
|Rodney Street for carrying out the MTRCL’s works. Concerning the improvement works at Rodney Street, traffic diversions would only be |
|implemented upon completion of the construction of the SIL(E) and after reinstatement and handover of the road surface to the |
|Government. |
|The Vice-chairman thanked the guests for attending the meeting. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Item 10: Concern over the Impact of the Torture Claim Policy on Hong Kong |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 87/2016) |
|(5:35 pm to 5:48 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Immigration Department (ImmD) to the meeting and invited discussion on the paper. |
|The main points of Members’ comments were as follows: |
| (a) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi enquired if the ImmD or the Government would consider providing a regular place for temporary |
| |accommodation of torture claimants whose applications were still under process. |
| (b) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming concurred with the suggestion of Mr CHAN Choi-hi. He remarked that since some tenement buildings on |
| |First and Second Streets were rented out to refugee federations for use as premises, there were often suspected |
| |refugees accessing these buildings, causing psychological impact on the residents and law and order issue as these |
| |buildings had no management company servicing them. Being constantly approached by residents for assistance, he hoped |
| |that the Government could help ease their concerns. |
| (c) |The Chairman remarked that occasionally there were crimes involving “asylum seekers”, and that the Government should |
| |handle the issue by taking effective measures or adjusting policies. In view of the pluralistic nature of the Hong |
| |Kong society, local born South Asians were also deeply troubled and affected by the many current problems caused by |
| |South Asian “asylum seekers”. |
| (d) |Mr NG Siu-hong remarked that the ImmD should increase manpower and resources to handle the refugee issue. In addition,|
| |he objected to the withdrawal of Hong Kong from the Torture Convention as the problem was rooted in the speed of |
| |processing refugee cases. He opined that Hong Kong should not withdraw from the Torture Convention as it involved |
| |protection of human rights. In addition, he was also concerned about how the Government would step up combating crimes|
| |involving refugees and address the livelihood problem of refugees in Hong Kong, lest it would become a cause of crime. |
| |Lastly, he objected to introducing closed camps for refugees. |
| (e) |The Vice-chairman said not that the Government did not want to address the refugee problem, the reality was that |
| |refugees used various pretexts to delay or even representation by lawyers or federations to thwart the screening |
| |process. The problem could not be solved with refugees being unco-operative, even if the Government unilaterally |
| |speeded up the process. However, the Government should also step up enforcement action or even forbid refugees from |
| |accessing urban areas or working as illegal workers. |
| (f) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming supplemented that in respect of protecting human rights, those of the residents in the Central and |
| |Western District should be the first priority. These “bogus refugees” were causing threats to local residents and the |
| |human rights of Hong Kong People should come first. He requested the Government to take effective measures to |
| |forestall the influx of “bogus refugees” to Hong Kong. |
|Mr Bryan IP, Assistant Principal Immigration Officer (Removal Assessment and Litigation)1 of the ImmD, responded that the unified |
|screening mechanism (USM) commenced its operation on 3 March 2014 for non-refoulement protection. Through the USM, the department had |
|identified some major source countries of refugees and the stalling tactics deployed by refugees. In light of this, the department |
|would address the problem from four major dimensions, including: |
| (a) |Pre-arrival control: The Government would try to intercept illegal immigrants and claimants abusing the USM at the |
| |source and update the definition of “unauthorized entrants” under the Immigration Ordinance for more effective penalty |
| |against human smuggling by sea or land. It would also continue its collaboration with relevant authorities on |
| |strengthening enforcement against smuggling syndicates. Meanwhile, targeting visitors from major refugee source |
| |countries, it was planned to introduce requirement of pre-arrival registration and review visa-free arrangement as |
| |necessary in 2016. |
| (b) |Screening procedures: The Government would clearly stipulate the screening procedures under the USM and hoped to |
| |complete the screening procedures of all the applications submitted swiftly against stalling tactics. It also |
| |suggested tightening the overall timeframe for screening claims, prohibiting abusive behaviour and screening out |
| |manifestly unfounded claims early, as well as reviewing the provision of publicly-funded legal assistance by setting |
| |out the scope and limits on such provision. In addition, it would step up the capacity of the Torture Claims Appeal |
| |Board in processing appeals and the ImmD’s capability to collect, at major source countries, country of origin |
| |information useful in scrutinising claims. |
| (c) |Detention: The ImmD suggested to strengthen its power to detain claimants in order to detain more claimants pending |
| |screening or whilst screening/appeal, and would identify and refurbish suitable facilities for expanding immigration |
| |detention capacity if necessary. |
| (d) |Removal and enforcement: The department aimed to repatriate immigrants whose applications were refused as soon as |
| |possible and would strengthen liaison with local Consulate Generals (CGs) of major source countries to expedite the |
| |removal process. On combating syndicates and related criminal activities (e.g. illegal workers). The department would|
| |step up publicity in Hong Kong and in major source countries. |
|Mr NG Siu-hong remarked that the ImmD had put forward various measures and hoped that the measures would be strictly enforced. |
|However, the C&WDC should not recommend withdrawal from the Refugee Convention before the department had even tried to step up |
|enforcement action. He hoped that the refugee issue could be resolved through law enforcement. |
|The Chairman concluded that the problem would ultimately hinge on Government policy and thanked the representatives of the department |
|for attending the meeting. |
| |
| |
|Item 11: Progress of Revitalizing the Western Police Married Quarters |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 88/2016) |
|(5:48 pm to 6:10 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) and the Social Welfare Department (SWD) to the meeting. |
|Ms CHAN Yee-lai, District Commander (Western) of the HKPF, said that the plan of the Government Property Agency (the Agency) and the |
|relevant departments of developing the said married quarters into government offices was finally not implemented. The HKPF obtained |
|the policy support from the Security Bureau (SB) last year to commence a study on the option of redeveloping the site into departmental|
|quarters. Regarding Members’ concern on the structural safety of the building, the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) arranged|
|for inspection of the building by structural engineer in June 2016 and no structural problem was identified. Meanwhile, regular |
|maintenance of the retaining wall had been carried out. In addition, between early 2016 and June 2016, repair and maintenance work for|
|the façade and windows had also been carried out and protective screen was provided on the façade to prevent loosened wall tiles and |
|broken windows from causing accidents during typhoon. |
|The Chairman invited Members to raise questions and express their views. Their comments were summarised as follows: |
| (a) |Miss LO Yee-hang expressed support for the revitalisation and redevelopment of the Western Police Married Quarters into|
| |police quarters. She enquired whether the department would redevelop buildings or carry out internal refurbishment and|
| |about the project timetable and ancillary facilities. In addition, she suggested that community facilities or venues |
| |could be provided at the site after revitalisation. |
| (b) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming opined that the site and the building, apart from being Government resources, were also resources of |
| |the community and therefore should not be left vacant for a long time. Despite the building had undergone repair works|
| |in June 2016 and no structural problem was found as mentioned by Ms CHAN Yee-lai, given the building was still of an |
| |old and dilapidated appearance, he hoped that the departments concerned would commence planning and construction works |
| |as soon as possible to optimise the utilisation of the site and prevent it from being vacant. |
| (c) |Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing said that many residents in the area considered it a waste for the quarters to be left vacant. The |
| |quarters were aging with appearance of cracks, and there had once been a large crack on the façade. Although the crack|
| |had been repaired recently and Ms CHAN Yee-lai said that the building had no structural problem, there still remained a|
| |lot of dilapidation and defects in the quarters. It was hoped that relevant departments could optimise the use of the |
| |site as soon as possible. He hoped that relevant departments could timely put forward planning option and enquired if |
| |part of the site and the building would be designated for community use. |
| (d) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi expressed support for timely optimisation of the use of the site and had no objection to its continued |
| |use as police quarters. He hoped that relevant departments could confirm the works schedule and announce relevant |
| |details as soon as possible. In addition, given the façade opposite Chiu Sing Nam Acupuncture on Queen’s Road West was|
| |off-line from the building itself, it was suggested that the façade be moved backward during redevelopment so as to |
| |widen the pavement. |
| (e) |Mr Stephen CHAN expressed support for the re-use of the building as police quarters, and it would even be better if |
| |certain community facilities could be provided simultaneously. He enquired that given the different requirements for |
| |sites used for institutional purposes and quarters development, if a “Government, Institution or Community” (GIC) site |
| |was continued to be used as police quarters, whether the plot ratio had to be calculated afresh. He hoped that |
| |relevant government departments could provide information, such as the number of quarters units and whether other |
| |facilities would also be provided alongside. |
| (f) |The Vice-chairman said that despite the site would not be used for community purpose as hoped, he supported the option |
| |for redeveloping the site into police quarters and hoped that the relevant plan could be implemented as soon as |
| |possible. He opined that buildings should not be left vacant, as the conditions of the building structure of vacant |
| |buildings tended to deteriorate at a faster rate compared with buildings with occupants. This was because regular |
| |maintenance and repair works would be carried out for buildings with occupants and thus the building structure would |
| |remain in a better state. In addition, he reckoned the enclosing wall of the Western District Police Station (No. 7 |
| |Police Station) near Queen’s Road West an architectural feature with a watch tower on top of it; whereas such |
| |characteristics were absent in new police stations. Hence, it was hoped that the watch tower could be preserved and |
| |its characteristics be highlighted as far as possible in planning and design, so as to blend in with the overall design|
| |of the No. 7 Police Station to ensure compatibility and harmony of the proposal. |
| (g) |The Chairman said that the Western District was developing rapidly with the commissioning of the West Island Line, and |
| |thus there was a lack of public space in the district for purposes such as recreational and cultural activities and |
| |accommodation of facilities like study rooms. In light of this, it had been hoped that the existing old police |
| |quarters could be redeveloped into a community services complex. Besides, Members had all along been lobbying for the |
| |provision of additional public space in the Western Magistracy Building for conversion into multi-purpose activity |
| |room, which might be used as meeting venue by owners’ corporations in the district to meet local development needs. |
| |Upon learning recently that the existing old police quarters would be redeveloped for continued use as police quarters |
| |to benefit more police officers, he expressed strong support for it. |
|In response to the enquiry by Miss LO Yee-hang, Ms CHAN Yee-lai of the HKPF said that the building was not suitable for refurbishment |
|given its current conditions. The HKPF was consulting relevant departments and would, after obtaining their consent, conduct a |
|feasibility study on the overall planning of the entire building. As regards provision of other facilities, she said that as the |
|building had a fixed plot ratio, allocation of some spaces for other uses would significantly reduce the number of quarters units. |
|Given that there was a shortfall in departmental quarters for police officers at the rank-and-file level, the department needed to take|
|into account whether the allocation of spaces for other uses would affect the number of quarters units. Regarding whether the pavement|
|opposite Chiu Sing Nam Acupuncture and Queen’s Road West could be widened, the HKPF would further discuss with relevant departments on |
|the feasibility of widening the pavement. A new design had to be drawn up for the watch tower and the façade if pavement widening was |
|to proceed. Concerning the cracks found in the building, the Planning and Development Branch had been followed up on the matter. |
|Mr Jack LEE, Superintendent 2 (Planning and Development) of the HKPF explained that the project, being a redevelopment project, needed |
|to be implemented in accordance with the Capital Works Programme (CWP). The Police was currently preparing a project definition |
|statement (PDS) to establish the project scope for endorsement by the SB. After that, the PDS would be passed to the ArchSD for |
|feasibility study, and subject to due process, funding application would be submitted to the Legislative Council upon Government’s |
|approval for commencement of works. As regards plot ratio, the Police was liaising with the ArchSD and the Planning Department with a |
|view to maximising the number of units to be built in order to fully utilise the site. The ArchSD would be responsible for the design |
|and might adopt a "design and build" approach, under which the contractor would be responsible for engaging a consultant to carry out |
|the design work, while the construction works would be carried out by contractor. With respect to the façade, the building was |
|affirmed safe at present after assessment by the ArchSD. In addition to the protective screen mentioned earlier, fences were also put |
|up at a lower level of the quarters to prevent any small objects slipping through the protective screen from injuring members of the |
|public. Devices had also been installed by the ArchSD on the enclosing wall for monitoring its conditions. The ArchSD would continue |
|to keep in view and follow up on the situation by inspecting the reading every quarter for monitoring purposes. |
|Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said that the pavement off Chiu Sing Nam Acupuncture was substandard and needed to be widened if the redevelopment |
|project was to proceed. At present, the pavement was wide enough for the passage of only one wheelchair, so that oncoming pedestrian, |
|if any, had to walk back a long distance to allow the passage of the wheelchair. In addition, if a redevelopment plan had been drawn |
|up, was it possible to demolish the existing building first. He opined that in view of the high repair and maintenance cost, the |
|building should be demolished first while details of the redevelopment could be discussed later. This could help save repair and |
|maintenance expenses and ease the safety threats posed by the building. |
|Mr Jack LEE of the HKPF responded that with regard to pavement widening, the Police would explore the issue with relevant departments |
|to improve the current situation. As regards whether to demolish the quarters first, the ArchSD had carried out relevant studies and |
|explored related matters. However, it was found that the building constituted a structure supporting the retaining wall, which might |
|entail complicated demolition works and high costs and was therefore not cost-effective. Hence, it was now decided that the demolition|
|works would be carried out alongside the implementation of the redevelopment plan. |
|The Chairman concluded that the Western Police Married Quarters would once again be used as police quarters. He hoped that the |
|programme for construction of new police quarters could be implemented as soon as possible. |
| |
| |
| |
|Item 12: Strong Opposition to the Government’s Disregard of Public Opinion by Announcing Land Sale Programmes in Advance |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 89/2016) |
|(6:10 pm to 6:14 pm) |
|The Chairman said that the Development Bureau, the Lands Department, the Planning Department and the Leisure and Cultural Services |
|Department had given a consolidated reply but did not send any representative to the meeting. |
|The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows: |
| (a) |The Vice-chairman said that Members submitted the paper because there was dissatisfaction in the community with the |
| |land sale arrangements, and considered that government departments should attend the meeting as far as possible to |
| |explain the announcement of land sale arrangements. He opined that the use of the site might remain undesignated given|
| |that the outline zoning plan of the site was still subject to approval by the Town Planning Board, thus the inclusion |
| |of the site in the land sale list would easily arouse the concern of some members of the public as to whether the |
| |Government had included sites pending permission as land available for sale in order to increase the amount of land |
| |available for sale. Besides, he said that the Government had then undertaken to use the site for provision of changing|
| |room and toilet facilities for users of pitch/court nearby. However, the site was currently allocated to the Highways |
| |Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department for storage of materials and placing litter bins |
| |respectively, and the Government had even planned to put it on sale. He enquired how the Government’s promise of |
| |providing changing room and toilet facilities was to be kept. In addition, it was said in the reply that the public |
| |could make use of the toilet facilities in the nearby pitch/court in Ka Wai Man Road Garden and Catchick Street |
| |respectively. The Vice-chairman opined that these toilet facilities could not meet the need for ancillary facilities |
| |for pitch/court concerned as they were far away from the pitch/court and people have to go uphill to get there, and |
| |remarked that the toilet facilities at the entrance of Sai Ning Street was a better alternative. He hoped that the |
| |Chairman could pass the minutes of today’s meeting to the Secretary for Development to keep him abreast of Members’ |
| |views on this issue. |
|The Chairman closed the discussion on this item and said that the C&WDC would write to the Secretary for Development on the above |
|issue. |
| |
|Item 13: How will the Government resolve the Predicament we face with Mini-storages? |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 90/2016) |
|(6:14 pm to 6:45 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representatives of the Fire Services Department (FSD), the Buildings Department (BD) and the Lands Department|
|(LandsD) to the meeting. |
|The Chairman invited Members to raise enquiries and express their views. Their comments were summarised as follows: |
| (a) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi enquired how the FSD would deal with the numerous mini-storages and unlicensed mini-storages in close |
| |proximity to residential areas in the district. He hoped that apart from relying on public reports, the FSD could also|
| |gather relevant intelligence to expedite a comprehensive inspection of all mini-storages near residential areas. |
| (b) |Mr NG Siu-hong enquired of the government departments concerned about the enhanced frequency and details of inspections|
| |of mini-storages in the Central and Western District. Besides, he enquired whether there would be an upgrade of fire |
| |safety standards and amendment of the Ordinance to clearly define whether persons in charge of mini-storages were held |
| |liable for articles stored in the storages in order to comply with relevant requirements. For the requirement on |
| |automatic sprinkler systems, he enquired whether such installations should be enhanced. In addition, concerning |
| |subdivided units in industrial buildings or industrial building units operated as a "mini-storage" in name but in fact |
| |used for residential purpose, he enquired of relevant departments about the current situation in the Central and |
| |Western District and whether enforcement would be stepped up. |
| (c) |Mr YEUNG Hok-ming said that industrial buildings, apart from having mini-storages, also housed converted residential |
| |units or subdivided units, thus he was concerned that if fire broke out in industrial building at night, it would be |
| |damaging to the residents. He therefore hoped that the FSD could step up inspections. He said he noted that many |
| |industrial building units in the district had been converted into residential units, and hoped that the FSD would take |
| |extra heed when carrying out inspections. He could provide relevant information to the department where necessary. |
| (d) |Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing expressed his grief over the passing of firemen while fighting a fire in a mini-storage facility in |
| |Ngau Tau Kok and reckoned this a lesson to be learned by all. Given that there were many mini-storages in the |
| |industrial buildings in the Central and Western District, with some of which in close proximity to residential areas, |
| |he enquired whether relevant departments would implement any measures or actions in the short term to help |
| |mini-storages in breach of the Fire Services Ordinance to improve and comply with the ordinance. In addition, with |
| |regard to articles stored in mini-storages, he enquired whether there was any requirement or guideline to prevent the |
| |storage of flammable substances or explosives. |
| (e) |As regards the FSD’s report that inspection had been carried out in six industrial buildings and 14 mini-storages |
| |therein, Miss LO Yee-hang enquired if the FSD had carried out inspection in small mini-storages in shopping malls or |
| |buildings. |
| (f) |Mr Stephen CHAN reckoned that mini-storages were effective in meeting the needs of the public. However, he opined that|
| |monitoring should be strengthened in the wake of this unfortunate incident. Given that many old factories in the |
| |district were converted into mini-storages, he hoped that mini-storages in the district which were in breach of the law|
| |could be regulated in the wake of this incident. For mini-storages failing to comply with relevant requirements, he |
| |reckoned that they could be requested to suspend operation where necessary, while relevant departments should be |
| |allowed to exercise discretion in law enforcement. |
| (g) |The Vice-chairman said that the mini-storage industry had seen a rapid development in recent years and enquired whether|
| |there was any existing legislation that regulated mini-storages and whether specific licence was required for operating|
| |mini-storages. He doubted why automatic sprinkler system was not installed in some mini-storages if compliance with |
| |relevant ordinances was required for operating of mini-storages, and therefore reckoned that there was no existing |
| |legislation to regulate mini-storages. In view of this, he queried what existing legislation could relevant |
| |departments base on in enforcing law and requesting mini-storages to address the problem and make improvement. In |
| |addition, there was no existing legislation regulating the types, handling and registration procedures of articles |
| |stored in mini-storages. He enquired about the relevant departments’ approach in handling the problem as this might |
| |involve privacy issues, and opined that clear and detailed provisions should be set out in making legislation. He |
| |hoped that the FSD would follow up and handle the mini-storages in residential areas at once. Lastly, he hoped that |
| |the FSD could provide data on mini-storages in the Central and Western District. |
|Mr LAM Yuk-kwan, Division Commander (Hong Kong Central) of the FSD, thanked Members for their condolences and support extended on |
|behalf of the families of the firemen who were unfortunately died on duty. He said that the inter-departmental working group formed to|
|enhance the fire safety of mini-storages convened its first meeting on 27 June to discuss short, medium and long-term measures to |
|enhance the fire safety of mini-storages and similar premises. For short-term measures, the FSD had, in collaboration with the BD, the|
|LandsD and the Labour Department (LD), begun territory-wide inspection of mini-storages and similar premises on 28 June to check if |
|there was any breach of the existing statutory requirements. Inspections would first target mini-storages located in industrial |
|buildings without automatic sprinkler systems, followed by other mini-storages. Based on the information available on the Internet, |
|there were approximately some 400 mini-storages in Hong Kong, of which about 134 were on Hong Kong Island with 129 located in |
|industrial buildings and five in non-industrial buildings. More accurate figures would be available upon completion of the inspection |
|in the next two months. The relevant departments would take enforcement actions as soon as possible if there was any non-compliance. |
|For example, where fire hazards were identified in mini-storages, the FSD would issue fire hazard abatement notices in accordance with |
|the Fire Services Ordinance (Chapter 95 of the Laws of Hong Kong), and would even request operators to carry out works to remove fire |
|hazards. The BD would issue order for removal of unauthorised building works under the Buildings Ordinance (Chapter 123 of the Laws of |
|Hong Kong). |
| |
|For medium-term measures, the FSD would meet with major operators of mini-storages and request them to take all possible management |
|measures to improve fire safety as soon as possible, including increasing the number of security personnel, preventing storage of |
|dangerous goods and strengthening fire prevention training for their employees, etc. For long-term measures, the Security Bureau would|
|lead an inter-departmental working group, with members comprising representatives from the Development Bureau, the FSD, the BD, the |
|LandsD, the Planning Department and the LD, to study how to improve fire safety in mini-storages and discuss how to amend the law in |
|order to strengthen the regulation of mini-storages. At present, there were 14 mini-storages in the Central and Western District, of |
|which 12 were located in four industrial buildings where two of these buildings were without automatic sprinkler systems; the remaining|
|two mini-storages were located in the non-domestic portion of a composite building and a commercial building respectively. Hence, |
|there were altogether six buildings with the presence of mini-storages in the Central and Western District. Fire personnel inspected |
|five of the mini-storages between 29 June and 4 July, and the FSD had contacted the operators of the remaining nine mini-storages to |
|speed up the inspection works. No locations with fire safety hazards were identified in the five mini-storages being inspected, while |
|the presence of suspected unauthorised building works and other deficiencies, such as exit/directional signs, in these storages had |
|been referred to relevant departments at once. As regards the statutory regulation of mini-storages, he said that there was currently |
|no legislation regulating mini-storages in Hong Kong. However, in terms of fire safety, fire hazard abatement notices would be issued |
|in respect of locations with fire safety hazards in mini-storages under the Fire Services Ordinance (Chapter 95 of the Laws of Hong |
|Kong); whereas for regulation of dangerous goods and flammable substances, application for dangerous goods licence had to be made to |
|the Dangerous Goods Division of the FSD for storage in excess of the exempted quantities. Pursuant to the Dangerous Goods Ordinance |
|(Chapter 295 of the Laws of Hong Kong), any person who contravened the provision committed an offence and was liable to a fine of |
|$25,000 and imprisonment of six months. Since mini-storages were mostly located in industrial buildings, they should comply with the |
|fire and building safety requirements at the time those buildings were completed. Besides, operation of mini-storages should also |
|comply with the Deeds of Mutual Covenant. |
|With respect to the short term measure of conducting inspections of old industrial buildings, the FSD set up an Industrial Building |
|Enforcement Team in April 2010 to follow up on the irregularities identified in industrial buildings. Between April 2010 and May |
|2016, the enforcement team conducted 10 868 follow-up inspections and issued 2 864 fire hazard abatement notices and instituted eight |
|prosecutions directly. The FSD had also referred some other suspected irregularity cases to relevant departments for follow-up. In |
|the wake of this mini-storage fire, the FSD had, in collaboration with the BD, the LandsD and the LD, expedited the territory-wide |
|inspection of mini-storages to check if there was any breach of the existing statutory requirements. The departments would consider |
|follow-up action such as prosecution and issuing advice or fire hazard abatement notices where necessary. The FSD would conduct |
|inspections of all types of buildings, including industrial buildings, in the course of performing daily routine duties, and would take|
|enforcement actions pursuant to relevant legislations if non-compliance with the Fire Services Ordinance and the Dangerous Goods |
|Ordinance was found during inspections. Besides, it would continue to promote fire prevention so as to raise awareness of fire safety |
|among owners, occupants and property management staff of industrial buildings. Enforcement actions would also be taken to enhance fire|
|safety in industrial buildings. |
|Mr Michael PANG, Chief Building Surveyor/Fire Safety of the BD, said that there was no specific legislation for regulating |
|mini-storages at present; however, similar to all buildings for other purposes, mini-storages should comply with the requirements of |
|the Buildings Ordinance. With respect to fire safety, mini-storages must comply with the relevant requirements on the provision of |
|means of escape and means of access for firefighting and rescue purposes. In relation to structural safety of buildings, the floor |
|slabs of mini-storages must conform to the relevant loading requirements. Detailed requirements were set out in the codes of practice |
|issued by the BD. If non-compliance of the said requirements was found in the joint inspections by the departments concerned, the BD |
|could issue relevant orders under the Buildings Ordinance to require the owners to rectify the irregularities. In addition, the BD |
|commenced a large-scale operation against conversion of industrial buildings for residential purposes and subdivided domestic flats in |
|industrial buildings since 2012. As of May 2016, a total of 99 industrial buildings suspected of having subdivided units were |
|inspected in the operation and 724 subdivided units were found, of which 84 were found to have been converted for residential purposes.|
|The BD had issued 110 removal or discontinuance orders against irregularities found, of which 65 orders had been complied with; while |
|29 prosecutions were instigated against owners who failed to comply with the orders issued. |
|Mr Patrick LEUNG, Principal Land Executive/Land Control and Lease Enforcement of the LandsD, said that the LandsD would review the land|
|lease conditions of buildings which were identified of having mini-storages in two months to see if the owners concerned had breached |
|the land lease conditions. If a breach was found, the LandsD would issue warning letters to the owners of the units concerned |
|requiring them to make rectification before the deadlines. If the breach was not rectified within a specified period, the LandsD would|
|register the warning letter at the Land Registry (commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance") and, where necessary, take further lease|
|enforcement actions including re-entering the units concerned. |
|The Chairman hoped that the Government could enhance inter-departmental co-operations to eradicate these law-breaching acts. He once |
|again paid tribute to the firemen who died in the Ngau Tau Kok blaze and expressed sincere wishes for speedy recovery of |
|other injured fire officers on behalf of all Members of the C&WDC. |
|The Vice-chairman enquired whether the BD would give priority to eradicate the problem of conversion of industrial building units for |
|residential purposes. |
|Mr Michael PANG of the BD responded that enforcement actions would be taken against conversion of industrial building units for |
|residential purposes in the large-scale operation mentioned earlier. As long as units were converted for residential purposes, the BD |
|could take enforcement actions pursuant to the Buildings Ordinance regardless whether they were subdivided units. |
|Mr CHAN Choi-hi enquired if relevant departments would conduct inspections on automatic sprinkler systems and other ancillary support |
|facilities such as water tanks. |
|Mr LAM Yuk-kwan of the FSD said that as revealed by the territory-wide industrial building survey conducted in 2010, a total of 358 out|
|of some 1 700 industrial buildings in Hong Kong had not installed any automatic sprinkler systems. These industrial buildings were |
|mainly located in Kwun Tong, Sham Shui Po, Wong Tai Sin, Kwai Tsing and Tsuen Wan districts. As regards maintenance of fire service |
|installations and equipment in buildings, any fire service installations or equipment installed in any premises should be kept in |
|efficient working order at all times and inspected by a registered contractor at least once in every 12 months. A certificate would be|
|issued to the owner or occupant concerned upon completion of the inspection, and a copy of which should be forwarded to the FSD within |
|14 days after completion of the inspection for checking. The FSD would conduct random check on the certificates upon receipt to ensure|
|that the fire service equipment was maintained in good working order at all times. |
|The Chairman invited Members to vote on the motion. The motion below was adopted after voting: |
|Motion: “The Central and Western District Council strongly requested the Government to legislate to regulate ‘mini-storages’ and set up|
|a licensing system to safeguard the life and property of the public.” |
|(Proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and seconded by Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Miss LO Yee-hang, Ms SIU Ka-yi, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming and Mr YEUNG |
|Hoi-wing) |
|(9 Members voted for the motion: Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr Stephen CHAN, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Ms SIU Ka-yi, Mr Joseph CHAN, |
|Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr YEUNG Hok-ming and Miss LO Yee-hang) |
|(0 Member voted against the motion) |
|(2 Members abstained from voting: Mr NG Siu-hong and Mr HUI Chi-fung (with Mr NG Siu-hong being his authorised representative for |
|voting)) |
|The Chairman thanked the representatives of the departments for attending the meeting. |
| |
|Item 14: Proposed Establishment of a Religious and Cultural Trail in the Central and Western District |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 86/2016) |
|(6:45 pm to 7:00 pm) |
|The Chairman welcomed the representative of the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) to the meeting and remarked that the letter from |
|Legislative Councillor Mr YIU Si-wing was tabled at the meeting. |
|The Chairman invited Members to express their views. The main points of their comments were as follows: |
| (a) |Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that according to the HKTB’s reply, five of the 12 recommended religious buildings had been |
| |included in the promoted routes of Self-Guided Walk (Travel Through Time and A Century of Architecture). He said that |
| |as suggested by designated studies, the remaining seven religious buildings were also of high historical value. Just |
| |as the HKTB’s reply that the religious background of buildings would not be the sole consideration for promotion, Mr |
| |CHAN emphasised that neither would he make the religious background of buildings his sole consideration and remarked |
| |that the 12 recommended religious buildings had their respective highlights in the city’s development as well as local |
| |history and culture. Hence, he proposed the establishment of a separate religious and cultural trail covering the 12 |
| |religious buildings and opined that the remaining seven religious buildings might be included in the existing promoted |
| |routes of the HKTB. |
| (b) |Mr Stephen CHAN opined that the Central and Western District was of paramount historical value given its long history |
| |and being well-developed, and consequently the Western District Literary Trail, the Central District Literary Trail and|
| |the Peak Trail were established previously. He indicated that the C&WDC had discussed about the establishment of a |
| |religious trail in the Central and Western District a few years ago; whereas the religious and cultural trail in the |
| |Central and Western District put forward this time covered culture in addition to religion to promote the highlights of|
| |the Central and Western District to the public and tourists through different sight-seeing trails. He reckoned that |
| |despite no concrete plan at this stage, approval could be granted to the proposal first, to be followed by further |
| |exploration. |
| (c) |Mr NG Siu-hong pointed out that St. Stephen's Church and the notable Kwun Yum Temple at Tai Ping Shan Street were not |
| |included in the recommended religious buildings and enquired about the criteria for defining or selecting religious |
| |buildings, such as scale, historical value and popularity among followers. In addition, he said that religious groups |
| |might not wish to open the venues for holding religious ceremonies for visits. |
|Mr Mason HUNG, General Manager, Event and Product Development of the HKTB, responded to Members’ comments as follows: |
| (a) |Mr HUNG expressed that he agreed in principle with the concept of religious and culture trail, but said that the |
| |implementation had to be handled prudently, such as defining of selection criteria and the wills of groups concerned. |
| |Citing Chi Lin Nunnery in Diamond Hill as an example, he said that despite repeated approach, active promotion to |
| |tourists by the HKTB was still not encouraged by the nunnery since the group concerned preferred to open the nunnery to|
| |visitors with knowledge on the religion it preached and Tang Dynasty-style architecture. He said that it would not be |
| |easy to establish a religious and culture trail, not that religious architecture was not worth promoting, but that this|
| |kind of religious and culture trails fell short of visitors’ expectation. He reckoned that there would not be much |
| |problem if the trail only focused on a single religion, such as Christianity or Catholicism, to attract Protestants or |
| |Catholics from around the world. However, the proposal put forward by Mr CHAN Choi-hi covered different religions, |
| |including Taoism, Buddhism and Christianity, etc.. Since followers would usually confine to visiting religious |
| |buildings of their interest and relevant to the religion they followed, visitors might not be interested in visiting a |
| |trail featuring multiple religions. |
| |(Post-meeting note: The Nan Lian Garden that Mr HUNG mentioned at the meeting should actually be Chi Lin Nunnery and |
| |that part of the minutes was rectified accordingly.) |
| (b) |Mr HUNG suggested that the trail should be in line with the travel pattern of the general public. The general public |
| |might wish to visit all district attractions, be they related to religious elements, cuisine or scenery. He opined |
| |that to promote religious travel, religious architecture could blend with the usual means of promoting tourism, such as|
| |the two multi-purpose trails, Travel Through Time and A Century of Architecture, which served as a tourist attraction |
| |point with historical and religious elements. Mr HUNG said that, if appropriate, consideration could be given to |
| |incorporating the 12 recommended religious buildings into these two trails. |
| (c) |Mr HUNG said that in the long run, following the opening of Tai Kwun and PMQ and the sprouting of art galleries on |
| |Hollywood Road, the HKTB was revisiting the tourism resources in the Central and Western District, starting from |
| |Wyndham Street to Possession Street and from Caine Road down to Queen’s Road Central in Central and Sheung Wan. The |
| |HKTB planned to divide Central and Sheung Wan into several zones, such as Lan Kwai Fong and Tai Kwun as one zone; |
| |Ladder Street to Sheung Wan’s Man Mo Temple as one zone; Possession Point and Tai Ping Shan as one zone; Hollywood |
| |Road, Elgin Street and Staunton Street as one zone; Hollywood Road, Wellington Street, Stanley Street and Lyndhurst |
| |Terrace as one zone; and PMQ and Gough Street as one zone. The HKTB would make reference to the views of expert with a|
| |view to re-ranking and consolidating the tourism resources and distinctive features of each zone, where areas in |
| |Central and Sheung Wan with distinct features would be re-packaged and promoted to tourists. The project was |
| |tentatively titled Old Town Central. Mr HUNG said that following the opening of Tai Kwun, the entire Central district |
| |right through to Pottinger Street and Hollywood Road as well as Sheung Wan (from PMQ to Man Mo Temple and Tai Ping Shan|
| |Street) would become areas with enhanced tourist appeal. He remarked that the proposed trail covering the 12 |
| |recommended religious buildings would involve a long route as the locations of these buildings were widespread, thus |
| |tourists might not be able to finish the whole route. He said that consideration would be given to identifying |
| |suitable place for blending in and promoting religious and cultural buildings to offer tourists a glimpse of the |
| |various distinct features of the district and as a means to promote the tourist attractions in the Central and Western |
| |District from a different perspective in order to address Members’ requests. |
|Mr CHAN Choi-hi said he hoped that an appropriate and feasible proposal on inclusion of the religious buildings into the existing |
|trails could be adopted as soon as possible. In response to the enquiry by Mr NG Siu-hong about the selection criteria for tourist |
|attractions, Mr CHAN said that these 12 religious buildings mainly served to stimulate discussion and he could recommend more religious|
|buildings for consideration by the HKTB after the meeting, though whether to accept or not would be subjected to the HKTB’s own |
|analysis. He opined that the inclusion of the 12 recommended religious buildings or other additional religious buildings in the |
|existing trails or the new Old Town Central project, or the singular religion and cultural trail such as a Christianity trail or |
|Catholicism trail mentioned earlier by Mr Mason HUNG were all feasible options. |
|The Chairman invited Members to vote on the motion. The motion below was adopted after voting: |
|Motion: “Establishment of a Religious and Cultural Trail in the Central and Western District.” |
|(Proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and seconded by Mr Stephen CHAN and Mr YIP Wing-shing) |
|(13 Members voted for the motion: Mr YIP Wing-shing, Mr CHAN Hok-fung, Mr Stephen CHAN, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr KAM Nai-wai, Ms CHENG |
|Lai-king (with Mr KAM Nai-wai being her authorised representative for voting), Ms SIU Ka-yi, Mr Joseph CHAN, Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing, Mr |
|YEUNG Hok-ming, Mr NG Siu-hong, Mr HUI Chi-fung (with Mr NG Siu-hong being his authorised representative for voting) and Miss LO |
|Yee-hang) |
|(0 Member voted against the motion) |
|(0 Member abstained from voting) |
|The Chairman thanked the representative of the HKTB for attending the meeting. |
| |
|Item 15: Members’ Written Reports |
|(7:00 pm) |
|The Chairman indicated that the District Fight Crime Committee (Central and Western District) held its first meeting for 2016-17 on 29 |
|April 2016, and would convene its second meeting for 2016-17 on 5 August 2016. |
|Members had nothing to add. |
|Item 16: Work Reports of the Committees under C&W DC |
|(7:00 pm to 7:02 pm) |
|The Chairman referred Members to the following papers. |
| (a) |Cultural, Leisure & Social Affairs Committee |
| |(C&W DC Paper No. 91/2016) |
| (b) |District Facilities Management Committee |
| |(C&W DC Paper No. 92/2016) |
| (c) |Finance Committee |
| |(C&W DC Paper No. 93/2016) |
| (d) |Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee |
| |(C&W DC Paper No. 94/2016) |
| (e) |Traffic & Transport Committee |
| |(C&W DC Paper No. 95/2016) |
| | |
|Item 17: Reports of the Working Groups under C&W DC (2016-17) |
|(7:02 pm) |
|The Chairman referred Members to the paper. The chairmen of the working groups had nothing to add. |
| |
|Item 18: Report on the 199th Meeting of the Central & Western District Management Committee |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 96/2016) |
|(7:02 pm) |
|The Chairman referred Members to the paper. |
| |
| |
| |
|Item 19: Reports on the Meetings of the Area Committees of the Central & Western District |
|(C&W DC Paper No. 97/2016) |
|(7:02 pm) |
|The Chairman referred Members to the paper. |
| |
|Item 20: Any Other Business |
|(7:02 pm to 7:03 pm) |
|There was no other business. |
| |
|Item 21: Date of the Next Meeting |
|(7:03 pm) |
|The Chairman announced that the sixth meeting would be held on 20 October 2016. The paper submission deadline for government |
|departments would be 28 September 2016, while that for Members would be 4 October 2016. |
|The Chairman declared the meeting closed and thanked the guests and Members for attending the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at |
|7:03 pm. |
|The minutes were |confirmed on 20 October 2016 | |
|Chairman: |Mr YIP Wing-shing |
|Secretary: |Ms WONG Ming-wai |
Central and Western District Council Secretariat
October 2016
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- mansfield state school
- imax theatre logo
- unit k 6 god is with us
- learning community charter school
- first australia
- greater saskatoon catholic schools greater saskatoon
- dufferin peel catholic district school board
- schools important information legoland windsor resort
- iowa fll application for
- minutes of the fifth meeting of central and western
Related searches
- department of the treasury bureau of fiscal
- the blue book of grammar and punctuation
- summary of the article modern management theories and practice
- copy of the nasw code of ethics
- assess the impacts of the french policy of assimilation on africans
- text of the fifth amendment
- examples of the fifth amendment
- summary of the fifth discipline
- you would be in which of the following phases of the segmentation process if you
- printable map of central and south america
- map of central and southern america
- the real story of adam and eve