Minutes of the 7th Meeting of Food, Environment, … · Web viewMinutes of the 7th Meeting of Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (2016-2017) Central and Western District

Minutes of the 7th Meeting ofFood, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (2016-2017)

Central and Western District Council

Date : 9 February 2017 (Thursday)

Time : 2:30 pm

Venue :Conference Room14/F, Harbour Building38 Pier Road, Central, Hong Kong

Present:ChairladyMs SIU Ka-yi*

Vice-chairmanMr YEUNG Hok-ming (Beginning of the meeting – 5:57 pm)

MembersMr CHAN Chit-kwai, Stephen, BBS, JP (2:35 pm - end of the meeting)Mr CHAN Choi-hi, MH*Mr CHAN Ho-lim, Joseph (Beginning of the meeting – 3:00 pm)Mr CHAN Hok-fung, MH*Ms CHENG Lai-king (2:33 pm - end of the meeting)Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, JP (Beginning of the meeting – 3:00 pm)Mr HUI Chi-fung (2:57 pm - 4:58 pm)Mr KAM Nai-wai, MH*Mr LEE Chi-hang, Sidney, MH (Beginning of the meeting – 3:35 pm)Miss LO Yee-hang (Beginning of the meeting – 5:54 pm)Mr NG Siu-hong*Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing*Mr YIP Wing-shing, BBS, MH, JP*

Co-opted MembersMr CHENG Chi-shing, David*Mr HO Chi-wong*Mr LAU Kam-sing, Dickie (2:53 pm - 4:00 pm)Mr LEE Wai-keung (Beginning of the meeting – 5:10 pm)Mr WONG Sai-kit*

Remarks: *Members who attended the whole meeting ( ) Time of attendance of Members

1

Guests

Item 5Mr AU Chun-ho, Wilfred Urban Renewal Authority General Manager (Planning & Design)

Ms YUN Sin-wah, Sarah Urban Renewal Authority Senior Manager (Community Development)

Item 6Miss CHOW Sze-yan, Cilian Environmental Protection

DepartmentEnvironmental Protection Officer

(Waste Transfer and Development)12

Item 7Mr Larry CHU Development Bureau Assistant Secretary (Harbour) 1

Mr JJ AUSTIN Planning Department Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong 4

Mr Gary YIU Lands Department Estate Surveyor/Western & Harbourfront (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South)

Item 8Mr Derek Armstrong CHAN Fire Services Department Divisional Commander, Hong Kong

Central DivisionMr LAM Yiu-sun Fire Services Department Assistant Divisional Officer (Policy)1

Mr YAN Man-kit Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

Senior Electrical and Mechanical Engineer/Consumer Installations

Ms WONG Kam-ling, Candy Buildings Department Building Surveyor/A3-SD

Mr WONG Ka-fai, Simon Home Affairs Department Senior Division Officer (Licensing Authority)

Mr HUNG Tak-shing Home Affairs Department Assistant Division Officer (Licensing Authority)

Item 9Mr CHOI Yiu-kwok, Kent Leisure and Cultural

Services DepartmentDeputy District Leisure Manager (Central and Western) 2

Mr CHAN Chak-wing, Esmond Highways Department District Engineer/West

Item 10Mr HUI Kar-nung Food and Environmental

Hygiene DepartmentChief Health Inspector 1



Item 12Mr CHAN Chak-wing, Esmond Highways Department District Engineer/West

2

Mr HUI Kar-nung Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

Chief Health Inspector 1



Mr LI Ming-cham, Gordon Buildings Department Senior Professional Officer/Joint Office 1

Ms LEUNG Wai-nor, Cherry Buildings Department Professional Officer 4/Joint Office 1

Item 14Mr LAM Chi-hang, Augustine Highways Department Landscape Architect/Vegetation

Maintenance

Mr LAM Ding, Brian Highways Department Landscape Architect/Vegetation Maintenance (Technical Secretary)

In AttendanceMrs WONG HO Wing-sze,

Susanne, JPCentral and Western District

OfficeDistrict Officer (Central and Western)

Ms WONG Suet-yi, Penny Central and Western District Office

Assistant District Officer (Central and Western)

Ms YEUNG Wing-shan, Grace Central and Western District Office

Senior Executive Officer (District Council)

Miss YU Yan-yan, Rosanna Central and Western District Office

Senior Executive Officer (District Management)

Ms WONG Kam-ling, Candy Buildings Department Building Surveyor/A3-SDMr CHAN Chak-wing, Esmond Highways Department District Engineer/WestMr LEUNG Yin-man, Kevin Hong Kong Police Force Police Community Relations Officer

(Central District)Mr CHAN Chun-ping Hong Kong Police Force Neighborhood Police Co-ordinator

(Central District)Mr CHAN Wai-man Hong Kong Police Force Assistant Police Community Relations

Officer (Western District)Mr FAN Ka-yin Hong Kong Police Force Neighbourhood Police Co-ordinator

(Western District)Mr HUI Kar-nung Food and Environmental


Mr CHOI Yiu-kwok, Kent Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Deputy District Leisure Manager (Central and Western) 2

Mr LAM Wai-chuen, Eddie Civil Engineering and Development Department

Senior Engineer 7 (Hong Kong Island Division 1)

Dr WONG Chi-fai, Derek Environmental Protection Department

Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South) 13

Mrs MAK LEUNG Suet-mui, Cherry

Lands Department Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and

3

South)

SecretaryMiss TAM Lok-yin, Jovita Central and Western District

OfficeExecutive Officer (District Council) 3

Absent with Apologies:/

Opening remarks

The Chairlady welcomed Members and representatives of government departments to the 7th meeting of the Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (FEHWC) (2016-17). On behalf of FEHWC, the Chairlady extended his welcome to Mrs MAK LEUNG Suet-mui, Senior Estate Surveyor/West (District Lands Office, Hong Kong West and South) of the Lands Department, who was replacing Mr CHAN Wai-kit; Mr CHAN Chak-wing, District Engineer/West of the Highways Department, who was replacing Ms LEUNG Yuen-hei; Mr LEUNG Yin-man, Police Community Relations Officer (Central District) of the Hong Kong Police Force, who was replacing Mr CHUNG Kin-yeung; and Dr WONG Chi-fai, Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)13 of the Environmental Protection Department, who was replacing Mr LAW See-hon.

Item 1 - Adoption of the agenda(2:30 pm)

1. Members had no comments on the agenda and the agenda was adopted.

Item 2 - Confirmation of the minutes of the sixth meeting of FEHWC on 27 October 2016(2:31 pm – 2:32 pm)

2. The Chairlady said that proposed amendments to the minutes of meeting had been received before the meeting. The proposed amendments were forwarded to Members on 8 February along with the fourth batch of papers. Members had no comments on the said amendments. The Chairlady declared that the minutes of the meeting were confirmed.

Item 3 – Action checklist on matters arising from the last meeting (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 6/2017)(2:32 pm)

3. The Chairlady invited Members to note the contents of the paper.

Item 4 – Chairlady’s report and working group reports(2:32 pm – 2:34 pm)

4. The Chairlady said that the Secretariat had already circulated the following information papers to Members for perusal earlier on:

No. Title of Paper Circulation Date67/2016 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department – Year-

end Cleaning Operation in Central & Western District in 23 November 2016

4

201768/2016 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department – First

Phase of Anti-rodent Campaign 2017 in Central & Western District

23 November 2016

69/2016 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department – Progress Report on Small Scale District Works in Central/Western District

5 December 2016

70/2016 Civil Engineering and Development Department – Landslip Prevention and Mitigation Programme, Natural Terrain Hazard Mitigation Works at Natural Hillsides above Magazine Gap Road and May Road, Mid-Levels, Hong Kong

20 December 2016

71/2016 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Anti-mosquito Campaign 2017 (Phase I) in Central & Western District

20 December 2016

9/2017 Demolition of Vacant School Building at Ka Wai Man Road, Kennedy Town

10 January 2017

13/2017 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department – Progress Report on Small Scale District Works in Central/Western District

1 February 2017

5. The Chairlady said that the working group reports were forwarded to Members on 23 January along with the first batch of papers.

Item 5 – Proposal on beautification of the streets adjoining The Centre (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 12/2017)(2:34 pm – 3:08 pm)

6. The Chairlady said that at the District Council (DC) meeting held on 19 January, it was agreed that FEHWC would follow up with this matter. She invited representatives of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to brief on the beautification works.

7. Mr AU Chun-ho, General Manager (Planning & Design) of URA, briefed the Committee on the proposal on beautification of the streets adjoining The Centre (“the Project”) and the estimated works schedule. He said that in addition to beautifying the streets adjoining The Centre, URA would also renovate the part at the ground level of The Centre designated for “Government, institution or community” use, so that members of the public could have access to six streets (Gilman’s Bazaar, Gilman’s Street, Wing On Street, Tung Man Street, Hing Lung Street and Tit Hong Lane) at the ground level of The Centre. The Project would enhance the accessibility and connectivity of the area, improve the existing surrounding environment for pedestrians and facilitate diversion of pedestrian flow at Des Voeux Road Central to alleviate congestion. To highlight the history of urban development in the district, the Project also planned to commemorate local historical heritage and coastlines of different years through repaving the streets; as well as erection of street signs with design details showing brief history of the streets, photos and coastlines of the old days. He also said that the Project would involve a number of streets managed by the Government, and there were hawkers under the management of FEHD operating business in some of those streets. Hence, prior to the commencement of the Project, URA had to discuss with many Government departments, such as the Lands Department, Highways Department (HyD) and FEHD, on the technical issues and obtain their approval beforehand, and it included securing support and permission from the management company of The Centre. As such, URA proposed to set up an inter-departmental working group with the Central and Western District Office (C&WDO) to solve the related

5

technical issues. Regarding the estimated works schedule, if the vetting and approval work could be completed in June, the first phase of the Project (Gilman’s Street, Wing On Street, Tung Man Street, Hing Lung Street) could commence in July/August for completion around the first/second quarter of next year. For the second phase of the Project (Tit Hong Lane, Gilman’s Bazaar), the tentative completion date would be sometime in the mid-term of next year.

8. The Chairlady invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

(a) Mr NG Siu-hong wanted to know whether the areas shaded white and grey on some of the plans could also be used. He said hawker stalls were historical features of the district and opined that they should be preserved as long as the environment was not compromised. He also hoped that apart from the coastlines, the Project could also commemorate the history and culture of hawker stalls.

(b) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said that the Project was worth supporting as it would facilitate the public by making the streets in the nearby areas highly accessible. He also welcomed and appreciated the design elements which commemorate the coastlines. However, as the Project would involve a number of technical departments, he wanted to know if C&WDO would be responsible for co-ordinating the work by setting up an inter-departmental working group to follow up and report work progress to FEHWC on a regular basis.

(c) Ms CHENG Lai-king enquired whether the adjoining streets would be linked up east-west as well as north-south. She pointed out that the most important thing about the walkway was accessibility and public convenience. She also hoped that the Project would include barrier-free access facilities. In addition to using non-slip materials, the design of the paving blocks could also be multi-coloured to highlight the unique history of various streets. She also reminded URA to pay attention to illumination to ensure the streets were adequately illuminated.

(d) Mr CHAN Choi-hi proposed that the year when various streets were named could be indicated to enhance the historical features. He also suggested URA to use different colour schemes and layouts so that pedestrians could easily distinguish different streets, and consider introducing a special night market in the Central District.

(e) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai considered that MTRCL’s way of documenting historical background with pictures and texts was a good model. Furthermore, he wanted to know if the ground level of The Centre would be available for use by NGOs.

(f) Mr CHAN Hok-fung supported the Project and hoped that the relevant departments could step up co-ordination in street management to enable early completion of the Project. He also hoped that the departments concerned would properly manage the public space upon completion of the Project.

(g) Mr WONG Sai-kit wanted to know how the relevant departments would cope with the issue of eateries taking up street space. Besides, upon completion of the Project, whether free access would be allowed at all entrances and exits at the ground level of The Centre, and whether there would be a time limit for accessibility.

6

(h) Mr CHAN Ho-lim acknowledged that the historical background of the above mentioned streets was worthy of sharing with the public and agreed to include the relevant elements.

(i) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming supported the Project and asked if URA would consider providing a standardized power supply system to all the hawker stalls during beatification works so as to ensure safety. He also wanted to know whether cleaning work of the adjoining streets would be taken up by the management company under URA.

(j) The Chairlady supported the Project and understood that it would involve many technical departments. She hoped the Project works could be started as soon as possible so as to provide accessible walkways for the public.

(k) Mr YIP Wing-shing also supported the Project and hoped that the design in commemoration of the coastlines would be adopted. He pointed out that the location was a historical memory of the Central District and hoped that apart from the beautification works, various departments could also work together to solve other problems such as environmental hygiene.

(l) Mr HUI Chi-fung also supported the Project. He hoped that the historical feature of the hawker stalls could be honoured and urged the departments concerned to properly manage the place and pay attention to street cleanliness in future.

9. Mr AU Chun-ho of URA pointed out that URA intended to invite Dr TING Sun-pao, a scholar of history, and Mr CHENG Po-hung, a veteran expert on Hong Kong history, to assist in compiling the historical data of the area in order to provide the necessary historical materials for the Project. He also agreed with Members that management of the streets was a point to note. Therefore, he considered it necessary to set up an inter-departmental working group. In response to the question raised by Mr CHAN Chit-kwai, he said that certain areas at the ground floor of The Centre would still be leased to NGOs. He explained that upon completion of the Project, pedestrians could have access to adjoining streets from the ground floor of The Centre, while the grey area on the plan did not belong to URA. He also said that should any form of design could facilitate future management, URA was willing to discuss it with other departments within the inter-departmental working group. The Project mainly covered laying paving blocks and the erection of street signs, URA would not and could not demand relocation of the hawker stalls. Should the hawkers and FEHD give their consent, URA would also be happy to collaborate and assist them in reprovisioning of their hawker stalls. Referring to the importance of connectivity of various streets as pointed out by Ms CHENG Lai-king, URA would consider, in the long run, linking up places like the Central Market, the H18 project and the Central-Mid-Levels Escalator and Walkway in future. Meanwhile, the top priority was the beautification works to the indoor area on the ground floor of The Centre and at the adjoining streets. He also pointed out that apart from being a pedestrian passage, the indoor areas could also be used for holding different types of activities to promote multiple and flexible uses of space, as learned from the experience of the Oasis Gallery on the second floor of the Central Market. He hoped members at the inter-departmental working group could also support URA’s plan.

10. Regarding the issue of environmental hygiene of the streets, Mr HUI Kar-nung, Chief Health Inspector 1 of FEHD, responded that the department had taken this opportunity to step up prosecution and education efforts to encourage proper operation by restaurants. He said that apart from environmental hygiene education, the department had already reinforced prosecution

7

action. Since October this year, the department had conducted a number of blitz operations at the streets in the vicinity of The Centre (including Gilman’s Bazaar, Tit Hong Lane, etc.) and a total of 11 prosecutions were instituted against restaurants which had breached the law for acts like illegal expansion of business area, placing or washing eating utensils in the open air, and placing miscellaneous articles in the passageways and caused obstruction, etc. Amongst them, one restaurant would have its licence suspended for 7 days under the “Demerit Points System” (DPS) implemented by FEHD after conviction in court. It was believed that restaurant operators would abide by the law in their operation under enhanced law enforcement. As for the fixed pitch hawker stalls, the department would discuss with URA on their renovation and beautification.

11. The Chairlady concluded that as the Project was a complex issue involving a number of departments, after discussion with the District Officer (Central and Western) (DO(C&W)), it was proposed that DO(C&W) would first discuss and resolve the technical issues with the technical departments before submitting a proposal to FEHWC, and the issue would be dealt with then. She also hoped the Project could be completed smoothly and speedily.

Item 6 – Concern over the odour problem at the Island West Transfer (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 1/2017)(3:08 pm – 3:15 pm)

12. Mr CHAN Hok-fung pointed out that the Island West Transfer Station (IWTS) had been there for a long time. Yet due to a significant increase in the volume of refuge collected in the recent two years, the odour problem had deteriorated notably. He said he had paid a site visit to IWTS earlier on with representatives from the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) to get some preliminary insight of the issue. He also understood that the department would take follow-up action. He hoped that the department could implement short, medium and long-term solutions to reduce the impact of the odour on nearby residents. In addition, he considered that leachate dripping from refuse collection vehicles had improved, yet the moving speed of street-cleaning vehicles was not slow enough to have the streets properly cleaned. He hoped the department could follow up the issue.

13. Miss CHOW Sze-yan, Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Transfer and Development)12 of EPD, responded that EPD had invited nearby residents to visit IWTS in May 2016 and January 2017 and exchanged views with them on the operation and odour issue of the facility. She pointed out that EPD had foreseen in advance the quantity of refuge collected by IWTS would increase when the South East New Territories (SENT) Landfill ceased to accept non-construction waste from January 2016. Therefore, improvement works to IWTS had been carried out to enhance the efficiency of waste disposal and cope with the current volume of waste. For odour control, EPD had launched a phase-in ventilation duct inspection since 2016 and parts with minor defects were fixed immediately. There was also a scheduled plan for the replacement of some sections of aged ducting in the first quarter of 2017. Besides, EPD had finished replacing one main extraction fan inside the cavern and replacement of another main extraction fan was expected in February. Hopefully, further improvement in odour control could be achieved. For street-cleaning vehicles, EPD had conducted a trial test on the spot during a meeting with the residents to solicit their opinions on hydraulic efficiency and car speed. EPD would communicate with the contractors to improve the situation as soon as possible.

14. The Chairlady said she hoped the replacement of main extraction fans would help solving the odour problem and expected EPD to duly listen to the voices of Members and residents.

8

Item 7 – Utilisation of government sites along the waterfront in the Central and Western District

(C&W FEHWC Paper No. 2/2017)(3:15 pm – 3:37 pm)


(a) Mr CHAN Choi-hi hoped that the Development Bureau (DEVB) could provide the timetable for the development of government sites along the waterfront and their locations after the meeting. He also pointed out that a section of the waterfront sites was private land owned by the Shun Tak Centre in Sheung Wan. He believed that DC could try to communicate with the title owners with a view to make possible a continuous waterfront promenade.

(b) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai said that works for revitalising part of the harbourfront area at the Western Wholesale Food Market under the Signature Project Scheme was underway. It was hoped that all parties concerned would catalyze the formation of a continuous waterfront promenade. He also pointed out that the Belcher Bay Park was getting more and more crowded and hoped the park could be extended to the waterfront during the development of the waterfront promenade.

(c) Mr CHAN Hok-fung understood that the waterfront promenade could achieve continuity except for the sections at The Merton in Kennedy Town, the Western District Public Cargo Working Area, the carpark at Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and Fung Mat Road. At present, different sections of the waterfront promenade were managed by different government departments. In his opinion, the Government should consider establishing a Harbourfront Authority in the long run to unify the management of the entire habourfront. In addition, he pointed out that though DC could secure funds under the District Minor Works Programme to carry out enhancement works for some waterfront sites, no recurrent expenditure was there for future maintenance. He hoped DEVB could solve the problem.

(d) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming opined that the approach of developing and opening up the waterfront section by section was a right one. The Policy Address had also mentioned that the open space at Eastern Street North, Sai Ying Pun would be included in the technical feasibility study conducted for 15 sports and recreation facility projects. He hoped to know if DEVB had any preliminary timetable, such as the completion time of the study report.

16. Mr Larry CHU, Assistant Secretary (Harbour) 1 of DEVB, responded that the waterfront in the Central and Western District was a long stretch of land. Different sections had different uses or were at different stages of planning and implementation. Even though a particular site was designated as open space, its development schedule would be affected by various factors. Therefore, it was difficult for the Government to provide a detailed timetable for completion of the entire waterfront development project. However, the Government could provide the relevant location map of waterfront sites for Members’ reference. With regard to the proposed initiative to develop waterfront promenade at the Eastern Street North Carpark to link up the existing Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and the Western Wholesale Food Market, the Chief Executive had already announced in the 2017 Policy Address that the departments concerned would carry out a feasibility study on the project within five years. According to established public works

9

procedures, the lead time required for a project from approval to commencement of works was three years in general should there be no special technical difficulties. This covered setting the scope of the project, soliciting views of different stakeholders on the design, and applying for funding from the Legislative Council. Regarding Members’ proposal to establish an authority to carry out unified management of the open space at the waterfront, previously the Harbourfront Commission had also proposed the establishment of a statutory Harbourfront Authority as a one-stop shop for the design, development and management of the waterfront. The 2017 Policy Address mentioned that there was a general consensus in the community for the need of a new mindset in taking forward harbourfront enhancement. However, it was premature to establish a statutory Harbourfront Authority. The Government had decided to first partner with the Harbourfront Commission and implement harbourfront enhancement initiatives through a dedicated team with dedicated funding. DEVB hoped to keep exploring a model for the unified management of the waterfront in the future. Regarding the recurrent expenditure raised by Members, according to established public works procedures, Category A projects costing more than $30 million would normally include their recurrent operating expenditures in the estimates before submission to the Legislative Council Finance Committee for approval. For other Category D projects, the recurrent expenditures would be borne by the departments concerned. DEVB would continue to closely liaise with various departments and hoped that the issue could be solved within the context of the Harbour Office to be formed later.


(a) Mr HUI Chi-fung hoped that DEVB would reserve space for the development of a cycling track along Hong Kong Island North when a forward-looking overall development of the waterfront was planned. He also hoped that the cycling track could serve the purpose of commutation on top of being a leisure and entertainment facility. He asked whether DEVB also had this vision when formulating plans for the waterfront.

(b) Mr CHAN Choi-hi reiterated that he wished DEVB could provide a preliminary timetable for the development of government sites along the waterfront. He also wanted to know how the Bureau would communicate with stakeholders of unconnected private sections along the promenade. Moreover, he also asked whether the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) structure could be removed and whether relocation of the bus terminal at Shing Sai Road would be considered.

18. Mr Larry CHU, Assistant Secretary (Harbour) 1 of DEVB, responded that during the development planning of waterfront sites in urban areas, the Government would concurrently scrutinize the feasibility of constructing a cycling track. Wherever possible, a cycling track and related facilities would be added to facilitate the public using bicycles for leisure or short-distance commutation purposes. For example, in the Stage 2 Public Engagement conducted between June and August 2016 on the Urban Design Study for the Wan Chai North and North Point Harbourfront Areas, the Planning Department had recommended in the proposed Master Layout Plan to reserve space for constructing a cycling track for leisure purpose, including ancillary facilities for a bicycle-rental system. Other than the large-scale projects being planned, most of other waterfront sites on northern Hong Kong Island had already been developed. DEVB had to study the suitability of individual site for the development of a continuous cycling track. Regarding the issue of linking up the section at Shun Tak Centre, as the land was privately owned, the Government had to obtain the consent of all the title holders in order to go forward with the development. Since the ownership of Shun Tak Centre was rather fragmented,

10

it was pretty difficult to discuss with all the title holders and obtain consensus from them. In addition, he said that there was plan to relocate the bus terminal at Shing Sai Road to the west of Kennedy Town in future. He would also liaise with the relevant department after the meeting to find out more about the C&ED structure near Pier No. 1 in Central.

19. The Chairlady concluded that she hoped the relevant departments would provide information such as preliminary schedule and site location map to the Committee after the meeting.

Item 8 – Concern over the report on “space capsule” flat (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 3/2017)(3:37 pm – 4:00 pm)


(a) Mr HO Chi-wong expressed concern over the safety of space capsules. He considered that ways to improve existing legislation for proper regulation of space capsules should be studied in order to ensure the safety of occupants. He also hoped that space capsules could be monitored in a multi-regulatory manner including specifications on materials used.

(b) Miss LO Yee-hang said that in the written reply of the Office of the Licensing Authority (OLA) under the Home Affairs Department (HAD), it was said that inspection on a suspected unlicensed bedspace apartment would be conducted within 8 working days upon receipt of any report. She would like to know the current progress of the investigation and whether any prosecution action was taken.

(c) Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing was concerned about the fire safety of space capsules. He believed that if no department was there to regulate space capsules, it would pose a serious fire hazard. He hoped the Government would not wait for accidents to occur before taking action. He also wanted to know what follow-up action had been taken up by HAD.

(d) Mr CHAN Hok-fung said that there were legal loopholes in the existing legislation because “bedspace apartment” only refer to flats in which there were 12 or more bedspaces. A flat with only 11 bedspaces was not required to obtain bedspace apartment licence, nor did it subject to direct regulation from other departments. He believed there should be a department to uniformly regulate space capsules. He also proposed the authority to review the existing legislation and promptly oversee the various problems of space capsules.

(e) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming would like to know if space capsules were regulated under the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance (Cap. 572, Laws of Hong Kong) and whether flats with only 11 bedspaces were regulated under the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance. He believed most occupants of space capsules were probably tourists. Since tourists were not familiar with the surrounding environment of the premises, in the event of an accident, the situation would be even more chaotic and dangerous. He hoped the authority could think about the issue.

11

(f) Mr LEE Wai-keung considered the space capsules a time bomb and hoped the authority could draw up guidelines and provide solutions to help Owners’ Corporations solve the problem as soon as possible.

(g) The Chairlady said OLA stated that it had already checked the relevant premises and taken follow-up action. She wanted to know whether the findings of OLA could satisfactorily prove that the premises concerned was involved in operating an unlicensed bedspace apartment. In addition, she asked whether departments were completely powerless to do anything should there were less than 12 beds in the premises. She also hoped that apart from acting on complaints, the departments concerned could also take their own initiative to inspect the relevant units.

(h) Ms CHENG Lai-king also hoped that the authority would not wait to take remedial measures only when accidents had occurred. Due enforcement action should be implemented to prevent accidents from happening.

21. Mr Derek Armstrong Chan, Divisional Commander of Hong Kong Central District of the Fire Services Department (FSD), responded that though inspection had never been conducted inside the premises concerned, they had paid five visits to the public area of the building and issued three Fire Hazard Abatement Notices. It was ensured that the building had complied with the requirements stipulated in the Notice to eliminate the fire hazards in public places. On the other hand, the departmental operational unit had already devised a contingency plan for the building and had collected information like escape routes within the building and nearby water sources.

22. Mr YAN Man-kit, Senior Electrical and Mechanical Engineer/Consumer Installations of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, said that he had no further comment on Members’ questions.

23. Ms WONG Kam-ling, Building Surveyor/A3-SD of the Buildings Department (BD), responded that the model and layout of the space capsules would also have different impacts on the stability of the building structure. Therefore, it was important to know each case before deciding on the follow-up action. Generally speaking, any private building unit used for sublet rooms or bedspace purpose that involved no building works was not under the purview of BD. However, should building works (except exempted works) were involved, they could only be carried out subject to BD’s approval or in accordance with the requirements under the “Minor Works Control System”. Without BD’s prior approval, any building, construction, alterations and additions works would be regarded as unauthorized building works. BD would take appropriate enforcement actions on unauthorized structures in accordance with the existing law enforcement policies. The department had made an inspection visit to the above premises and investigation was still underway. No relevant information was available for the time being. BD could furnish a written reply to FEHWC after the investigation, if necessary.

(Post-meeting note: BD staff had inspected the above premises and no unauthorized structures were found there. Therefore, BD would not follow up the matter any further.)

24. Mr WONG Ka-fai, Senior Division Officer (Licensing Authority) of HAD, responded that the complaint was received in last October, and HAD had completed the investigation of the premises recently. He pointed out that someone was allegedly operating an unlicensed guesthouse within the premises in contravention of the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance. The department would take prosecution action against the party concerned. As

12

judicial proceedings had already commenced, it was inappropriate for the department to disclose further information on the case. Apart from this case, HAD and FSD would exchange information with other law enforcement agencies after inspections to closely monitor the premises and see whether their operation had violated any other related provisions, with a view to take follow-up action in due course.

25. The Chairlady was concerned about the safety issue of “space capsules”. She hoped the departments concerned could proactively carry out their duties and maintain close liaison, rather than just taking follow-up action in the wake of media reports or Members’ complaints.

26. Mr CHAN Hok-fung believed that there were many cases of online rental in the district. Although they might not have anything to do with compliance to the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance, the premises were still used for commercial purposes and posing potential safety hazards. It was also hoped that the departments could pay more attention to this situation.

27. In conclusion, the Chairlady hoped that all departments concerned would actively follow up Members’ opinions.

Item 9 – Request for extensive tree planting at Queen Street/Queen’s Road West/Connaught Road West


28. The Chairlady invited the Member submitting the paper to supplement on the topic.

29. Mr KAM Nai-wai would like to know which department was in charge of tree planting and final decision making. He also pointed out that the locations of tree planting proposed by him were, relatively speaking, rather spacious. However, the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) replied that more tree planting was not possible as the locations had to facilitate accessibility by the disabled and were confined by underground facilities. He hoped to know how the criteria of tree planting sites were determined and whether underground facilities were immovable.

30. The Chairlady asked should planting of big trees at a particular location was impracticable due to underground constraints, could the authority consider planting other species for greening purpose.

31. Mr CHOI Yiu-kwok, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Central and Western)2 of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), responded that according to existing arrangements, a number of departments including LCSD and even private developers could all plant trees along pavements after consulting departments concerned. In the case of LCSD, for resource allocation consideration, the department would generally first plant trees at recreational venues under its purview. Yet if there were greening plans proposed by other departments, LCSD would consider taking over the newly planted trees for tree maintenance. Moreover, he agreed with CEDD’s views towards the tree planting locations proposed by the Member concerned. However, since LCSD hadn’t conducted any detailed study on the sites, so he could not further comment on the issue.

32. Mr CHAN Chak-wing, District Engineer/West of HyD, responded that HyD was mainly responsible for road maintenance works. If relevant departments had any tree planting proposal, they were willing to provide technical advice. He pointed out that planting trees at road junctions might affect the vision of road users. In addition, he agreed with CEDD’s views

13

towards the underground facilities. Most of the underground spaces of existing walkways in the district were already fully laid with public utility facilities. There might not be enough space for tree roots to grow healthily.

33. Mr LAM Wai-chuen , Senior Engineer 7 (Hong Kong Island Division 1) of CEDD, indicated that he had nothing further to add in this regard.

34. The Chairlady asked if the relevant departments had checked whether the underground facilities were movable or not.

35. In response, Mr CHAN Chak-wing of HyD said that the underground space needed for tree planting was relatively extensive and the underground facilities could not be arbitrarily moved.

36. The Chairlady suggested the relevant departments to pay a site visit to the proposed locations with Mr KAM Nai-wai to confirm the viability of tree planting.


(a) Mr KAM Nai-wai pointed out it was the residents’ desire to plant trees and believed that departments should trade-off various options. He would conduct site visits with relevant departments to get an idea whether certain underground facilities could be relocated and hoped that the departments would not just give a flat rejection.

(b) Mr NG Siu-hong wanted to know the standards adopted by the departments in deciding tree planting locations.

38. Mr CHOI Yiu-kwok of LCSD responded that LCSD had no information on roadside tree planting. However, if LCSD was to plant trees in its leisure and recreational venues, certain distance would be maintained between trees to ensure sufficient space and nutrients for tree growth. Besides, soil of the chosen tree planting locations had to be of certain depth to make allowance for root growth.

39. Mr CHAN Chak-wing of HyD responded that when planting trees on existing pavements, one had to consider whether the remaining width was wide enough to keep pedestrians’ flow unobstructed. The Transport Department could advise on this aspect. Generally speaking, a minimum width of 1.2 metres was required for wheelchair users to pass through.

40. In conclusion, the Chairlady hoped relevant departments would follow up the matter with the Member concerned after the meeting and study the viability of planting trees at the proposed locations.

Item 10 – Concern over the enforcement of the fixed penalty for shop front extensions (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 5/2017)(4 : 12 pm – 4 : 41 pm)

41. This agenda item was chaired by the Vice-chairman.

42. The Vice-chairman invited Members to express their views and raise questions on the issue. The main points of Members’ comments were as follows:

14

(a) Mr CHAN Hok-fung considered that the problem of shop front extension (SFE) had somewhat abated since the implementation of the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance last year. But after a lapse of time, the problem recurred. He wanted to know if the department had any solutions available.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai pointed out that during the period from 24 September 2016 to 15 January 2017, FEHD had only issued 62 Fixed Penalty Notices related to SFE. He considered that enforcement action could be stepped up and enquired about the yardstick of law enforcement adopted.

(c) Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing wished to know whether the Ordinance was applicable to the accumulation of goods on pavements when supermarkets loading and unloading goods. He considered these acts prosecutable.

(d) Mr NG Siu-hong found that a number of bars were putting their tables, chairs and accessory items onto the pavements and creating noise problems as well. Yet no effective actions were seen taken against them. He wanted to know if this Ordinance was directed only at hawkers and not bars.

(e) Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that the problem of obstruction of shop front pavements in the district was serious. He proposed the department to review the level of penalties and consider other methods such as confiscation of goods so as to effectively tackle the problem of street obstruction. In addition, he considered that the department could take videos of obstructions during their daily routine inspections to reinforce law enforcement.

43. The Vice-chairmen agreed that the problem of street obstruction by shops in the district was serious. He pointed out that like shops opposite the Shek Tong Tsui Market and those along Centre Street, they didn’t just occupy the pavements, but also traffic lanes. The daily life of residents was seriously affected. He believed that the department’s enforcement action was inadequate.

44. Mr HUI Kar-nung, Chief Health Inspector 1 of FEHD, responded that the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance implemented last year was an additional enforcement tool available to the department. It mainly targeted at illegal display and sale of merchandise outside shops and applicable to SFE cases which were obvious, evident and caught red-handedly, where offenders were issued Fixed Penalty Notices on the spot. In addition, the department would also maintain its practice of issuing summons against SFEs and adopt other enforcement tools as appropriate. In case of serious non-compliance, law enforcement officers could go further to initiate prosecution under the existing legislation and leave it to the Court to impose higher penalties commensurate with the gravity of individual case. Regarding enforcement standards, the department would take into consideration the actual site conditions, including the width of pavements and the pedestrian flow. For recycling shops and supermarkets occupying public spaces, apart from law enforcement by the Police, if the department noticed that the items concerned were obstructing its cleaning work, it would take follow up action under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance. For other cases such as bars whose operation required getting food business licences from the department, it was believed that the DPS and summons could achieve a better deterrent effect as once the restaurant was convicted when summoned to court, its food business licence would be temporarily suspended for seven days under the DPS implemented by the department. Such penalty was even heavier than the issuance of “Fixed Penalty Notices”. Furthermore, the

15

department had noticed the conditions at Shek Tong Tsui, Centre Street and Belcher’s Street, and targeted crackdowns on these blackspots were underway, including joint operations with the Police three times per week and enhanced patrols by the Hawker Control Teams.


(a) Mr NG Siu-hong hoped that the department could provide the number of eateries with licences suspended under DPS and consider a two-pronged approach to solve the problem of SFE through various means.

(b) Mr KAM Nai-wai pointed out that although the department had targeted at cracking down the blackspots of SFE, he did not find the result notable. SFEs at those blackspots were still rampant. He considered enhanced law enforcement necessary.

(c) Mr CHAN Hok-fung hoped to understand the yardstick of law enforcement by the department, such as whether there was any tolerance level. He also considered that relying on the Ordinance against obstruction of the department’s cleaning work alone could not solve the problem, whilst fixed penalty should not only be directed at illegal display and sale of merchandise outside shops. In addition, if the situation hadn’t improved even after crackdown on SFE blackspots, he wondered whether it was due to under-staffing in the department or ineffectiveness of the law.

(d) Mr CHAN Choi-hi hoped that FEHD could submit monthly prosecution figures to the Committee and enquired whether C&WDO could work with FEHD under the “District-led Action Scheme” and organise operations against SFEs. In addition, he pointed out that there was a serious noise problem from a vegetable stall. Although the issue should be handled by the EPD, he also hoped that FEHD could advise the stall concerned.

(e) Mr Wong Sai-kit hoped to know more about food business licence suspension and what further action could be taken against non-compliance of the suspension order.

46. The Vice-chairman hoped that FEHD would furnish the figures on food licence suspension in the Western and Central District in the past three years and review whether the yardstick of law enforcement was too lenient. He also cared about the safety of elderly scavenging cardboards on the roadside in local areas. He hoped the department could pay more attention and step up efforts to crackdown the blackspots.

47. Mr Hui Kar-nung of FEHD responded that under the existing DPS for food business licences, the licence of a restaurant would be suspended for seven days if 15 points or more were accumulated within a period of 12 months for the first time. 10 points would be registered for conviction of illegal expansion of business area. Therefore, if a licensee was summoned and convicted twice under the relevant Ordinance within a period of 12 months, his licence would be suspended for seven days. During the period of licence suspension, the department would inspect the premises three times a day at different hours. If the restaurant failed to comply with the “DPS” and continued to operate, its licence would be revoked. In addition, the department also noticed that some shops, although did not display and sell merchandise outside shops, had disposed rubbish such as packaging materials on the pavements. Therefore, the department had

16

started taking enforcement action after stepping up publicity campaign recently. A Fixed Penalty Notice was issued to the person-in-charge of a shop at Centre Street for indiscriminate disposal of rubbish. The department also urged shop operators to dispose the packaging materials properly to solve the problem of roadside cardboard scavenging by the elderly at source. Moreover, the department would advise business operators making loud noise in their day-to-day operations to behave. He would supplement the number of restaurants with suspended licence after the meeting.

48. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), clarified that the personnel whom the “District-led Action Schemes” had recruited were not civil servants so it was difficult for them to perform law enforcement duties. However, publicity on environmental hygiene in this respect could be strengthened. The issue of law enforcement could also be followed up at the District Management Committee with relevant departments.

49. In conclusion, the Vice-chairman hoped that FEHD would take effective actions against the problem, especially at those blackspots.

Item 11 – Request for the Government to review the location of litter bins in the Central and Western District




(a) Mr HUI Chi-fung found that the litter bins in the District were unevenly distributed. On the one hand, certain commercial areas and streets were full of litter bins, which were used by commercial tenants as refuse collection points and drawing smokers to gather around. On the other hand, some streets lacked litter bins and residents found it difficult to find one at suitable location. He hoped the department would review the standards and arrangements for placing litter bins in the area. Besides, he would like to know about FEHD’s plan for reduction of litter bins.

(b) Mr NG Siu-hong wanted to know if there were any objective standards for the placement of litter bins.

(c) Ms CHENG Lai-king suggested that the department should make more publicity efforts to educate the public, telling them litter bins were meant to facilitate the disposal of litter by pedestrians rather than serving as refuse collection points. She supported FEHD’s efforts to gradually reduce the number of litter bins and agreed that members of the public should be encouraged to develop the habit of waste separation for recycling.

(d) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai considered the direction of reducing the number of litter bins appropriate but opined that the number of three-colour recycling bins should be increased at the same time. In addition, for the sake of cleanliness, he advised the department to collect refuge at shorter intervals and step up prosecution works.

17

52. Mr HUI Kar-nung of FEHD replied that regarding the placement of litter bins, FEHD would base on the conditions of the streets in the area including pedestrian flow, width of the pavements, amount of rubbish produced and so on. They would also consider the views of DC, the local communities and the public on the environmental hygiene in the district. Then appropriate litter bins would be placed at suitable locations for public use. He said should Members considered the distribution of litter bins was no good, FEHD would make appropriate adjustments at the various locations pinpointed by individual Members. FEHD did notice some people had disposed of their household waste at the side of litter bins. Therefore, the department had stepped up publicity and education recently. For example, “Keep Clean Ambassador Ah Tak” televised in Announcement of Public Interest had presented the proper way to dispose rubbish. Moreover, the department had also planned to step up prosecution against residents or commercial tenants for disposal of bagged rubbish beside litter bins. The Steering Group on the Modification of Recycling and Refuse Collection Facilities in Public Places under the Environment Bureau was conducting a consultancy study to review the design and placement standards for litter bins and recycling bins, so as to set directional parameters. Upon completion of the review, FEHD would make reference to the parameters and formulate relevant policies to gradually reduce the number of litter bins in the area, so as to tie in with the quantity-based Municipal Solid Waste Charging Scheme to be implemented in future.

53. Mr HUI Chi-fung supported the department’s initiative to reduce the number of litter bins in commercial areas. However, it should also ensure that litter bins were available in areas with less pedestrian flow. He hoped the department would take heed of the nuisance to pedestrians caused by smokers gathering around litter bins.

Item 12 – Concern over the mossy staircases in the Central and Western District (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 8/2017)(4:56 pm – 5:06 pm)



(a) Mr LEE Wai-keung pointed out that the staircases in the district had moss problem, such as those at Tai Ping Shan Street; and he was also concerned about related safety issues. He wanted to know whether the department would conduct more inspections upon receipt of complaints and how the moss could be removed if chemicals were not used.

(b) Mr NG Siu-hong suggested using high-pressure water jets to clean the streets and staircases. He opined that this method could produce better result.

(c) The Chairlady was concerned about the safety issues caused by moss and hoped the department would remind outsourced workers to pay attention to the moss problem and deal with it properly.

56. Mr CHAN Chak-wing of HyD replied that the department was arranging surface improvement works for the staircases of Tai Ping Shan Street to prevent water ponding. In addition, the department would conduct regular inspections on pavements. If any defects were found, the department would arrange for repair works. Generally speaking, the department would inspect all pavements once a month, while some of the more popular locations would be inspected once every seven days. Should moss problems were found during inspections, the

18

department would contact FEHD for cleaning-up work.

57. Mr Hui Kar-nung of FEHD responded by saying that the department would routinely deploy street-cleaning vehicles to clean the streets, which would clean up moss at the same time. FEHD would remind staff to thoroughly remove the moss during street cleaning. He also pointed out that the department would use diluted bleach to scrub the ground, thereby slowing down the growth of moss. High-pressure hot water guns would also be used to clean the streets at viable locations.

58. Mr LEE Wai-keung believed that the mossy staircases at Tai Ping Shan Street had posed a serious problem. He hoped the department could identity effective new ways to solve the problem and put up signage to alert pedestrians of the slippery surface.

59. Mr Hui Kar-nung of FEHD replied that the department would consider reminding cleaning staff to monitor the situation and increase the frequency of cleaning.

60. The Vice-chairman hoped that HyD would finish the road improvement works as soon as possible and hoped FEHD would seal off the area concerned before the moss problem was solved.

Item 13 – Concern over the low efficiency of the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints in dealing with water seepage cases



(a) Mr YEUNG Hok-ming considered that the efficiency of the Joint Offices in case handling had improved. However, when the Joint Offices failed to identify the source of water seepage and required the contract consultant firms to conduct further investigation, the latter was slowing down the process. He hoped that the Joint Offices could properly supervise the consultant firms to enhance efficiency.

(b) Mr CHAN Choi-hi pointed out that the statistics of the Joint Offices showed that in almost one-tenth of the water seepage cases, the source of the problem could not be identified. He hoped to know how those cases were solved in the end and whether any further tracking investigations would follow. Besides, he also suggested the Joint Offices to draw on the scientific and technological development overseas and adopt new technologies to identify the sources of water seepage.

(c) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai disagreed that investigations should end simply because the source of water seepage was unidentifiable as the problem remains unresolved. He suggested that owners should also be encouraged to deal with the matter through negotiation even if the Joint Offices failed to identify the source of water seepage. Supervision over the consultant firms should also be enhanced.

(d) Mr CHAN Hok-fung pointed out that water seepage had caused a lot of nuisance to residents. He considered the current methods used to locate the source of water seepage were too single-sided and their effectiveness was doubtful. The departments concerned should review the existing investigation methods used.

19

(e) Mr YEUNG Hoi-wing considered the technology adopted by the Joint Offices outdated and suggested them to use new technical know-hows to identify the source of water seepage. He also hoped that FEHD would furnish the number of Nuisance Notices issued in respect of water seepage.

(f) Mr WONG Sai-kit hoped to know whether all cases where the Joint Offices failed to identify the source of water seepage would definitely be referred to the consultant firms for further investigation, and whether the number of cases of non-identifiable water seepage had included those cases referred to the consultant firms.

62. Mr Hui Kar-nung of FEHD replied that the department had issued over a hundred Nuisance Notices last year in relation to confirmed cases of water seepage. The Notice normally required the owner to complete the maintenance works within 28 days. Departmental staff would also go and inspect the relevant unit to ensure the owner had abated the nuisance within the specified period. If the situation had not improved, the department would continue to follow up. He said that in most cases, the flat owners would comply with the requirement of the Nuisance Notice. Moreover, during last year, there was only one single case where the department had to apply to the court for a Nuisance Order before staff could enter the premises of suspected water seepage for investigation. For other cases, under the liaison of the Joint Offices, owners/occupiers were willing to let relevant staff enter their premises for water seepage investigation.

63. Mr LI Ming-cham, Senior Professional Officer/Joint Office 1 of BD, responded that investigation work of a water seepage case conducted by the Joint Offices were divided into three stages. Stage I (confirming the existence of water seepage nuisance) and Stage II (initial investigation including colour water tests on drainage pipes or reversible pressure tests on water supply pipes) were carried out by Health Inspectors/Environmental Nuisance Investigators of the Joint Offices. Where the source of seepage could not be identified in Stage II, Stage III (professional investigation) would be required. In Stage III, the contract consultant firms of the Joint Offices would engage in detailed investigations and testing. The Joint Offices had also paid close attention to the supervision of the consultant firms. Meetings with the consultant firms were held every two weeks to follow up on each case. If the consultant firms were unable to enter into the premises concerned, the Joint Offices would assist in convincing the owners/occupiers. Should the attempt fail, a court warrant would be applied empowering any authorized officer to enter the premises. He pointed out that the number of water seepage complaints had surged in recent years. There were over 36 000 cases last year. Amongst them, water seepage was not serious in some cases or only occurred occasionally. However, the purpose of departmental investigation was to initiate prosecution under the Ordinance. Since criminal procedures were involved, the department had to collect evidence beyond reasonable doubt before instituting any prosecution. He stressed that in their letters to the persons concerned, it was stated that addressing the problem of water seepage was owners’ responsibility. They were encouraged to use different ways to communicate, such as arbitration, in order to solve the problem.

64. He said different technologies and equipment would be applied depending on the circumstances, and the commonly used colour water test was also an effective method acceptable to the court. In terms of new technologies, the Joint Offices had commissioned consultant firms to employ infrared camera and microwave tomography scanning device since 2015. However, the accuracy of these indirect tests varies with site circumstances, and they had to be supplemented by other tests or data in order to effectively confirm the source of water seepage. In 2014, the Joint Offices had commissioned a consultancy study to review the latest technological methods for identifying the source of water seepage in buildings. At present, several feasible new testing methods were selected for use and field tests were gradually being

20

carried out on more than 100 confirmed cases. It was hoped that ways to improve existing technologies and new effective testing methods could be identified upon completion of the consultancy report.

65. Regarding cases of unidentifiable water seepage source, the current practice was to suspend the investigation when all existing viable methods of investigation have been exhausted. However, if the situation had changed or when water seepage worsened, the Joint Offices would conduct re-investigation.

66. Mr CHAN Choi-hi considered that if microwave tomography scanning device was effective, could it be used right from the start instead of colour water test.

67. Mr LI Ming-cham of BD responded that at present the microwave tomography scanning device was still under trial to determine its actual effectiveness in the investigation of seepage water. Besides, the costs of using that device was relatively higher than the methods currently in use, and more time and resources were also required. Therefore, the Joint Offices had to give careful consideration in order to achieve optimal use of public funds.

68. In conclusion, the Chairlady hoped that the findings of the study would help solving the existing cases of non-identifiable water seeping source and hoped that the Joint Offices would revert to the Committee upon completion of the consultancy report.

Item 14 – Concern over the health condition of the trees in the Mid-levels (C&W FEHWC Paper No. 11/2017)(5:32 pm – 6:03 pm)


(a) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan hoped to know more about the guidelines on the maintenance of trees infected with Brown Root Rot (BRR) disease issued by the Tree Management Office (TMO), the roles of TMO and HyD in tree maintenance, whether experts of TMO had inspected the old and valuable tree infected with the disease at Caine Road and whether the current treatment methods were effective.

(b) Mr NG Siu-hong asked whether the departments had regularly inspected the trees within the district and whether professional methods were used for tree inspections.

70. The Chairlady said she was disappointed that the Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section of DEVB was absent from the meeting, and thought that HyD might not be able to answer the questions on its behalf. She also pointed out that the written reply had not indicated whether TMO and the expert panel had inspected the old and valuable tree at Caine Road and whether TMO had done anything apart from examining its roots. She said being the elected member of the constituency, she was not notified of anything from inspection to confirmed diagnosis of the infected tree. She hoped that the departments concerned would coordinate with each other and inform relevant district councillors on the health status of the trees as early as possible. She also wanted to know whether application of chemicals was effective; and if the BRR disease was not cured completely, how the department could ensure that other trees would not be infected.

71. Mr LAM Chi-hang, Landscape Architect/Vegetation Maintenance of HyD, responded that

21

as a division of labour, HyD was responsible for the daily maintenance of trees. Trees grown on slopes maintained by HyD were inspected at least twice a year. If trees were suspected of having BRR disease, the case would be reported to TMO in accordance with relevant guidelines and more detailed inspections would be done by TMO as necessary. Should any tree was confirmed to have the disease, TMO would give advice to the department and the department would administer treatment as recommended by TMO. He said that in addition to regular tree group inspections, the department would conduct thorough tree risk assessments on trees of particular concern, such as stonewall trees, twice a year. If necessary, various tools like resistograph would be used to examine the structure of the trees in depth. For the old and valuable tree HYD CW/5 at Caine Road, the department had asked TMO to carry out site inspection or to give expert advice or assistance.

72. The Chairlady said that it had been six months since that tree was confirmed with BRR infection. She hoped to clarify whether TMO had sent experts to carry out site inspection and whether the department would follow up the case with TMO in future.


(a) Mr CHAN Chit-kwai hoped the department would closely monitor and maintain unhealthy trees so as to avoid recurrence of tree collapse and caused injury to passers-by.

(b) Mr CHAN Choi-hi wanted to know about the rehabilitation progress of the tree at Caine Road and whether inspections on all trees at the Mid-Levels were possible. He expressed that there was also an ailing tree outside the Sai Ying Pun Station and hoped the department would pay attention to it.

(c) Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan wanted to know the meaning of tree maintenance in accordance with the guidelines on BRR disease, whether it referred to recommendations made by TMO for that particular tree or referred to the general guidelines of TMO. He also asked how the health condition of the tree had changed now since it was first confirmed with BRR infection.

(d) Mr NG Siu-hong questioned the effectiveness of visual assessment for tree inspections. He believed the department should adopt other more effective methods to inspect and maintain the trees.

74. Mr Lam Chi-hang of HyD replied that the department had attempted to seek expert advice or assistance from TMO after that tree was confirmed with BRR infection. A site inspection with tree experts was originally arranged by TMO on 13 January, but due to a change of schedule of the expert panel, the inspection on that day was cancelled. The department would continue to urge TMO to arrange another site inspection in order to work out a way for future maintenance of that tree and explore alternative ways to save the tree. Last year, the department had used chemicals on the tree twice, but effective chemical products to cure the disease were in fact not yet available, and the treatment was administered in the hope that it could help to control the disease. He pointed out that the department had been closely monitoring the tree so that any deteriorating condition could be detected promptly and followed up work could be taken accordingly. At present, TMO advised the department to maintain the tree according to the guidelines. However, the department also hoped to explore with TMO ways of treating the tree beyond those stated in the guidelines with a view to save the tree. He also stressed that after they had conducted a risk assessment and resistograph test, it was confirmed that structural

22

condition of the tree was still normal and there was no immediate danger of collapse. The department would continue to closely monitor the condition of the tree.

75. The Chairlady hoped that the department would take good care of that tree and ensure that other trees would not be infected. She suggested DO(C&W) to assist in coordinating HyD and TMO to follow up maintenance work of the tree.

76. Mrs WONG HO Wing-sze, DO(C&W), clarified that the main duties of TMO were at policy level, such as the development of guidelines and frameworks, rather than the direct maintenance of all trees territory-wide. However, she could help to coordinate with HyD and TMO to follow up the maintenance work of that tree. She also added that she had liaised with the relevant departments; hence apart from the existing notification mechanism on tree removal, if trees in the district were seriously infected with BRR disease in the future, the departments would try their best to notify C&WDO so that they could take appropriate follow-up action together with DC.

77. The Chairlady requested HyD to submit the latest tree inspection report of the district and follow up the necessary work with TMO.

78. Mr CHAN Choi-hi said that if the tree experts were going to conduct a site inspection, he hoped the department would invite Members to join.

79. The Chairlady agreed to request HyD to give prior notice to FEHWC if the tree experts were to conduct any site inspection.

Item 15 – Follow up on the problem of animals urinated and defecated on the streets in the Central and Western District

(C&W FEHWC Written Question No. 1/2017)(6:03 pm)

81. The Chairlady invited members to note the contents of the paper.

Item 16 – Any other business(6:03 pm)

81. The Chairlady announced that there was no other business.

Item 17 – Date of next meeting(6:03 pm)

82. The 8th FEHWC meeting would be held on 23 March 2017. The paper submission deadline for government departments would be on 2 March 2017 and paper submission deadline for Members would be on 8 March 2017.

83. The meeting was adjourned at 6:03 pm.

The minutes were confirmed on 23 March 2017Chairlady: Ms SIU Ka-yiSecretary: Miss TAM Lok-yin, Jovita

23

Central and Western District Council Secretariat February 2017

24

Documents

Minutes of the 7th Meeting of Food, Environment, … · Web viewMinutes of the 7th Meeting of Food, Environment, Hygiene & Works Committee (2016-2017) Central and Western District