Minutes of the 9th Meeting of the Planning, Works and

1

Minutes of the 9th Meeting of

the Planning, Works and Housing Committee

Eastern District Council

Date: 18 June 2019 (Tuesday)

Time: 2:30 pm

Venue: Eastern District Council Conference Room

Present Time of Arrival (pm) Time of Departure

(pm)

Mr TING Kong-ho, Eddie 2:30 6:05

Mr WONG Chi-chung, Dominic 2:30 end of meeting

Mr WONG Chun-sing, Patrick 5:15 end of meeting

Mr WONG Kwok-hing, BBS, MH 2:30 3:00

Mr KU Kwai-yiu 2:30 end of meeting

Mr HO Ngai-kam, Stanley 2:30 end of meeting

Mr LEE Chun-keung 2:30 end of meeting

Mr LAM Sum-lim 2:35 6:40

Mr LAM Kei-tung, George 2:30 6:00

Mr SHIU Ka-fai, JP 2:30 2:45

Mr HUNG Lin-cham, MH 2:30 6:10

Mr CHUI Chi-kin 3:35 end of meeting

Mr CHEUNG Kwok-cheong, Howard 3:20 end of meeting

Mr LEUNG Siu-sun, Patrick 2:40 7:05

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, David

(Chairman)

2:30 end of meeting

Mr HUI Lam-hing 2:30 5:05

Mr HUI Ching-on 2:30 4:00

Mr KWOK Wai-keung, JP 2:30 5:00

Mr MAK Tak-ching 2:30 6:10

Ms CHIK Kit-ling, Elaine 2:30 end of meeting

Mr WONG Kin-pan, BBS, MH, JP 2:45 end of meeting

Mr WONG Kin-hing 2:30 5:30

Mr YEUNG Sze-chun

(Vice-chairman)

2:30 3:15

Dr CHIU Ka-yin, Andrew 2:30 end of meeting

Mr CHIU Chi-keung, BBS 2:30 end of meeting

Mr LAU Hing-yeung 2:30 end of meeting

Mr CHENG Chi-sing, MH 2:30 end of meeting

Mr CHENG Tat-hung 2:45 7:05

Mr LAI Chi-keong, Joseph 2:40 5:00

2

Mr NGAN Chun-lim, BBS, MH 2:40 end of meeting

Mr LO Wing-kwan, Frankie, MH 2:45 3:45

Mr KUNG Pak-cheung, BBS, MH 2:30 end of meeting

Ms LAU Sing-she, Dana (co-opted

member)

2:30 end of meeting

Absent with Apologies

Ms LEUNG Wing-man, Bonnie

Ms CHOY So-yuk, BBS, JP

Mr KONG Chack-ho, Alex, MH (co-opted member)

In Regular Attendance (Government Representatives)

Mr LO Cheuk-lun, Rayson Assistant District Officer (Eastern)2, Eastern District

Office

Mr KWAN Yu-keung Senior Liaison Officer (3), Eastern District Office

Mr HO Kwok-fai, Godfrey Senior Engineer/6 (South), Civil Engineering and

Development Department

Mr NG Tak-wah Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong (2), Planning

Department

Mr CHAN Lok-kin, Victor Senior Estate Surveyor/Hong Kong East (3), District

Lands Office, Hong Kong East, Lands Department

Ms KWONG Tak-wai Chief Health Inspector (Eastern)3, Eastern District

Environmental Hygiene Office, Food and

Environmental Hygiene Department

Miss CHAN Wai-lin, Rose Senior Housing Manager/Hong Kong Island and

Islands 1, Housing Department

Mr CHAN Chun-nam, Donald Building Surveyor/B4-1, Buildings Department

Mr NG Cheuk-hang, Peter Engineer/Hong Kong (Distribution 1), Water Supplies

Department

Ms NG Yan-mei, Monie Senior Executive Officer (District Council), Eastern

District Office

Mr MAK Ka-ho, Charles

(Secretary)

Executive Officer I (District Council)2, Eastern

District Office

3

In Attendance by Invitation (Representatives from the Government and

Organisations)

Mrs CHAN NG Ting-ting,

Elina

Principal Assistant Secretary (Infrastructure and

Research Support), Education Bureau

Miss Winifred KAN Assistant Secretary (Infrastructure and Research

Support)2, Education Bureau

Mr LAM Hon-ming, Jack Project Manager (School Building)1, Education

Bureau

Mr WONG Ming-hau Principal, Hong Kong Chinese Women’s Club College

Mr YEUNG Chi-keung Vice Principal, Hong Kong Chinese Women’s Club

College

Mr K L WONG, Geoffrey Deputy Director, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers

& Development Consultants Limited

Mr K S WONG, Ken Senior Architect, Ho & Partners Architects Engineers

& Development Consultants Limited

Ms CHAN Ling, Jasmine Estate Surveyor/Chai Wan, District Lands Office,

Hong Kong East, Lands Department

Mr SIN Kwok-kei Senior Telecommunications Engineer (Regulatory 12),

Office of the Communications Authority

Ms CHUNG Wai-wai, Vera Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory 12),

Office of the Communications Authority

Ms Vivian CHAN Associate, SMEC Asia Limited

Ms Samantha KONG Engineer, SMEC Asia Limited

Mr William KWAN Associate Director - Network Design & Construction,

Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited

Mr Charles YEUNG Associate Director - International Business, Hong

Kong Broadband Network Limited

Mr DY Wai-fung, Peter Senior Manager, Building Rehabilitation, Urban

Renewal Authority

Ms YUN Sin-wah, Sarah

Senior Manager (Community Development), Urban

Renewal Authority

Mr CHAN Chi-wai

Acting Senior Engineer, Electrical & Mechanical

Services Department

Mr TSE Man-ho

Engineer, Electrical & Mechanical Services

Department

Mr CHAN Man-ho, Michael

Assistant District Engineer/North East, Highways

Department

Mr KWAN Wing-yip Engineer/Eastern 2, Transport Department

Mr LO Wai-pan, Eddie Senior Executive Officer (Planning)5, Leisure and

Cultural Services Department

4

Ms FAN Yuk-ling, Amy Deputy District Leisure Manager (Eastern)2, Leisure

and Cultural Services Department

Mr WONG Chi-yung Senior Engineer/District, Civil Engineering and

Development Department

Mr LO Sai-cheong, Michael Senior Engineer/Eastern, Drainage Services

Department

Mr MO Kin-wang, Jim Senior Engineer 3 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme),

Drainage Services Department

Mr SO Chi-ho Engineer/Eastern 3, Drainage Services Department

Dr LEE Hoi-ki, Olive Environmental Protection Officer (Regional South)23,

Environmental Protection Department

Opening Remarks

The Chairman welcomed all Members and Government representatives to the

meeting.

I. Confirmation of the Draft Minutes of the 8th meeting of PWHC

2. The Planning, Works and Housing Committee (PWHC) confirmed the above

draft minutes without amendment.

II. Report of Working Group

(PWHC Paper No. 20/19)

3. Members noted the report of the Working Group on Harbourfront

Development and Housing Management.

III. Partial Redevelopment of the Hong Kong Chinese Women’s Club College

at 2B, Tai Cheong Street, Sai Wan Ho


4. The Chairman welcomed Mrs Elina CHAN, Principal Assistant Secretary

(Infrastructure and Research Support), Miss Winifred KAN, Assistant Secretary

(Infrastructure and Research Support)2 and Mr Jack LAM, Project Manager

(School Building)1 of the Education Bureau (EDB), Mr WONG Ming-hau,

Principal and Mr YEUNG Chi-keung, Vice Principal of the Hong Kong Chinese

Action

Action

5

Women’s Club College (HKCWC College), Mr Geoffrey WONG, Deputy

Director and Mr Ken WONG, Senior Architect of the Ho & Partners Architects

Engineers & Development Consultants Limited (Ho & Partners) to the meeting.

Mrs Elina CHAN of the EDB, Mr Geoffrey WONG of the Ho & Partners and Mr

WONG Ming-hau of the HKCWC College briefed the meeting on Paper No.

21/19.

5. The views and enquires of 12 Members about the issue were summarised as

follows:

(a) Mr HUI Lam-hing supported the EDB’s decision to commence the

works. However, he was concerned about the noise and dust generated

and the impacts on the residents nearby and the teachers and students

and hoped that the EDB would thoroughly assess and monitor the

situation.

(b) Mr MAK Tak-ching said that local residents had high expectations of

the development of the College and hoped that the College could liaise

closely with the EDB to ensure that the works would meet the teaching

needs of the College.

(c) Mr LAU Hing-yeung supported the works, however, as the teachers and

students used Shau Kei Wan Road mainly for access to the College, they

would have to pass through the proposed access of the construction site.

He was concerned about the safety of the teachers and students for

access to the College and hoped that the EDB could make prudent

consideration when planning the works. He also hoped that the

College could adopt appropriate measures to ensure that the teachers and

students would not be affected by the noise during classes.

(d) Mr LAM Sum-lim enquired the authority about the noise insulation

measures to be adopted, and hoped that the EDB could give an account

of the impacts of the works on the teachers and students, the residents

nearby and the traffic in the vicinity. He indicated that the roads in the

vicinity of the College were narrow and was worried that the access of

the works vehicles would cause traffic congestion.

(e) Mr HUNG Lin-cham supported the authority to commence the works in

order to meet the teaching needs of the College, and also asked the

College to pay attention to the impacts on the student learning at the

Action

6

commencement of the works.

(f) Mr Eddie TING supported the redevelopment and said that it would be

beneficial to the students. He also thanked the College for the efforts

in enhancing teaching quality and asked the EDB and the College to

maintain communication with the stakeholders during the works.

(g) Mr Dominic WONG said that the redevelopment would be beneficial to

both the student learning and the teachers’ working environment and

hence he supported the commencement of the works. He hoped that

the works would be completed as scheduled at the end of 2023, and also

reminded the EDB to maintain communication with relevant

departments so that both the teachers and the students could use the new

facilities as soon as possible.

(h) Mr KU Kwai-yiu supported the EDB to commence the works and

expressed that the redevelopment would be beneficial to both the

teachers and students in teaching and learning. However, he reminded

the EDB to be extremely cautious in handling construction waste

containing asbestos and pay attention to the impacts of the works on the

neighbouring traffic as well as to the access of teachers and students.

(i) Mr Patrick LEUNG was pleased to support the redevelopment and

hoped that the EDB and the College would consider adopting new

technologies in the demolition of the school hall in order to minimise the

disturbance during classes. At the same time, he also hoped the EDB

would maintain communication with the residents nearby in order to

minimise the impacts of the works on their daily lives.

(j) Mr LEE Chun-keung welcomed the EDB to commence the works and

remarked that there was a practical need for redevelopment as there was

inadequate teaching facilities. He hoped that the EDB would

endeavour to provide more teaching facilities through the

redevelopment. He also reminded the EDB to explore the trenches

before the foundation works to avoid project delays due to the presence

of caverns.

(k) Mr WONG Kin-pan supported the works but he noticed and was

concerned about the impacts of the works on the access to the fire

station and the traffic in the vicinity. Hence he hoped that the EDB

would carefully consider the arrangements for access to the construction

Action

7

site. He was also worried about inadvertent entrance into the

construction site by students and hoped the contractor would set up a

alert area outside the hoardings for the avoidance of such things.

(l) Mr CHIU Chi-keung said that the EDB already had detailed planning

and was confident that the works would commence smoothly.

However, he pointed out that both buses and mini-buses had to pass

through Tai Cheong Street, and so hoped that the EDB could try to avoid

increasing the traffic load. He also hoped that the College could

provide effective acoustic insulation facilities at the construction site so

that the teachers and students would have a suitable environment for

classes.

6. Mrs Elina CHAN of the EDB, Mr Geoffrey WONG of the Ho & Partners and

Mr WONG Ming-hau of the HKCWC College responded to the views and

enquiries of Members as follows:

EDB

(a) Mrs Elina CHAN thanked Members for their support and suggestions

for the works and also understood their concerns on the impacts of the

works on the surrounding environment and traffic, as well as the safety

of the teachers and students in accessing the College during the works.

Mrs Elina CHAN explained that there were already railings along the

pavement of Tai Cheong Street to prevent teachers and students from

walking in the driveway. On the other hand, works vehicles were not

allowed to access the construction site both during and after classes of

the College, in order to relieve the pressure on the traffic in the vicinity

and safeguard the teachers and the students. Regarding Members’

hope for the works to meet teaching needs, Mrs Elina CHAN indicated

that facilities under the works were provided according to the

prevailing schedule of accommodation of a standard secondary school

in order to provide those standard facilities currently fall short of in the

College. The works was expected to be completed in the fourth

quarter in 2023 and the EDB would endeavour its early completion so

that the College could use the new facilities as soon as possible.

Ho & Partners

(b) Mr Geoffrey WONG indicated that the works contract would clearly

Action

8

stipulate that all works vehicles were not allowed to access the

construction site during and after classes. Hoardings would also be

erected in the surrounding areas of the construction site in order to

safeguard the teachers and students. In addition, after site inspection, it

was confirmed that there was no asbestos in the College premises.

Regarding noise pollution, soil samples had been explored and slab

foundation would be used instead of piling for the new wing so as to

reduce the noise level generated from the foundation work. Apart from

erecting acoustic screens or noise enclosures, the contractor would

measure the noise level of all classrooms in order to ensure that the

noise level generated from the works complied with the noise restriction.

In addition, he indicated that all the drawings had been approved by

relevant government departments and revision of the access points of the

construction site at this stage was not feasible. However he believed

that by controlling the access time of the works vehicles to the

construction site, pedestrian could be safeguarded and the impacts on the

surrounding traffic could be reduced. He also mentioned that two trees

within the construction site would have to be removed and two trees

would be replanted after works completion as compensation while the

two trees near the College entrance would have to be removed

temporarily during the works and be transplanted in the College’s

premises after works completion.

HKCWC College

(c) Mr WONG Ming-hau thanked Members’ for their concern and support

of the College redevelopment. He also expressed that the College

would include the works as an area of concern in the next academic year

for all teachers and would also continue to liaise with all parents in order

that all parties would be informed of the works progress. The College

would maintain communication with the contractor during the works in

order to resolve the various issues like safety, noise, dust and

transplanting of trees, etc. and would also maintain close liaison with

relevant departments.

7. After discussion, the PWHC supported the EDB for implementing the works

and hoped for its smooth implementation.

Action

9

IV. Gazettal under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance

Cap. 127)

Proposed Installation of a Cable System TKO Connect from Siu Sai Wan

to Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region Waters


8. The Chairman welcomed Mr Victor CHAN, Senior Estate Surveyor/Hong

Kong East(3), Ms Jasmine CHAN, Estate Surveyor/Chai Wan of the District

Lands Office (Hong Kong East) (DLO), Mr SIN Kwok-kei, Senior

Telecommunications Engineer (Regulatory 12), Ms Vera CHUNG, Senior

Regulatory Affairs Manager (Regulatory 12) of the Office of the Communications

Authority (OFCA), Ms Vivian CHAN, Associate and Ms Samantha KONG,

Engineer of the SMEC Asia Limited (SMEC), Mr William KWAN, Associate

Director Network Design & Construction and Mr Charles YEUNG, Associate

Director - International Business of the Hong Kong Broadband Network Limited

(HKBN) to the meeting. Mr Victor CHAN of the DLO, Mr William KWAN of

the HKBN and Ms Vivian CHAN of the SMEC briefed the meeting on Paper No.

22/19.


follows:

(a) Mr KWOK Wai-keung welcomed the works and said that it would

enhance market competition. However he opined that the works might

cause seawater pollution by sea-bed sediments which in turn affected

inshore fishing operation and therefore the company should

communicate with and consult the fishermen first on the possible

impacts of the works on the fisheries industry. He was also of the view

that the PWHC should vote whether to approve the project only after

there was no public worries pending the consensus of the fishermen.

He also said that Members should agree with the continuous

consultation by the company and only consider approving the project

upon availability of all consultation results.

(b) Mr WONG Kin-hing was baffled by the works procedures and said that

the company should submit the works to the PWHC for discussion upon

approval by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and the

Marine Department (MD). He then continued to query whether the

works would be beneficial to the Eastern District and even the whole of

Action

10

Hong Kong apart from generating profits for the company. He also

pointed out that post-typhoon restoration works was in progress at the

works site and was concerned that the works would affect the progress

of the restoration. He also requested that the works should only be

carried out during daytime to avoid disturbance to the residents.

(c) Mr Eddie TING expressed that the document highlighted that the

company should submit a Marine Traffic Impact Assessment (MTIA) to

the MD and queried why the works was submitted to the PWHC for

discussion before the completion of the MTIA. He opined that

discussion of the works was impossible before availability of all

information. He was also concerned that there might be impacts on the

Siu Sai Wan fishermen brought by the works. As there was no urgency

in carrying out the works, he hoped that the company would consult the

fishermen bodies before submitting it to the PWHC for discussion.

(d) Mr LAM Sum-lim was concerned about the livelihood of the fishermen.

Currently there was still a considerable amount of inshore operations in

the Victoria Harbour. Although the discussion paper stated that the

impact of the works on the quality of the seawater was minimal, there

was no mention of compensation proposal in case of a serious pollution.

He urged the company to communicate with the fishermen bodies first

to avoid affecting the livelihood of the fishermen by the works.

(e) Mr WONG Kin-pan enquired the DLO the reason why there were fixed

cable manholes for the laying of submarine cables in Tseung Kwan O

and yet there were no such facilities in Siu Sai Wan such that laying of

submarine cables were required every time. He said that there was

quite a number of fishermen living in the Eastern District and hoped that

the company could communicate with the relevant mutual-aid

associations of fishermen for their understanding of the impacts of the

works on their livelihood. In addition, he expressed that since the

works had not secured approval from all the relevant government

departments yet, it was inappropriate for the PWHC to hold any

discussion. Therefore he hoped that the company would wait until all

the relevant departments and stakeholders have voiced their comments

before the works was submitted to the PWHC for discussion.

(f) Mr Dominic WONG agreed with some of the Members that the

company should consult the agriculture and fisheries sector first before

Action

11

the PWHC could start the discussion. He indicated that there was no

urgency for the works and he urged the company to wait until all the

comments were available before the works was discussed at the PWHC.

(g) Mr CHIU Chi-keung welcomed the company to increase market supply

but indicated that in the past, the departments would consult the

stakeholders first for the laying of cables, and he did not understand why

the current works was submitted to the PWHC for discussion without

first seeking adequate communication with the stakeholders. He also

pointed out that the works would affect the livelihood of the Shau Kei

Wan fishermen, and hope that the company would give an account of the

environmental impacts caused by the works. He expressed that the

PWHC played the role of the goalkeeper, and should start the discussion

pending the consensus of all the stakeholders.

(h) Mr Andrew CHIU was pleased to learn that the works had secured the

support of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (CEDB)

which was crucial to the information and technology development in

Hong Kong and he would be highly supportive of the implementation of

the works. He also commended the company for the comprehensive

documentation provided. As regards the concern of some of the

Members that the stakeholders had not been consulted, he said that the

PWHC could agree in principle for implementing the works first and

circulate the information when available for its early commencement.

(i) Mr Joseph LAI thanked the company for the respect of the PWHC. He

expressed that the works would enhance people’s livelihood and support

from various departments had been secured, the PWHC should

endeavour to support the implementation for the benefits of the

community. He asked Members to support the works for its early

commencement.

(j) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung said that in the past all the relevant departments

or sections had consulted the Hong Kong Offshore Fishermen

Association before the laying of cables but consultation could not be

seen in the discussion paper provided. He urged the company to

consult the aforesaid association and explain the impacts of the works on

the inshore fisheries.

(k) Mr HUI Lam-hing indicated that the EPD and the agriculture and

Action

12

fisheries sector were the key stakeholders of the works. Therefore, it

was impossible for the PWHC to hold any discussion before approval

was obtained from the stakeholders.

(l) The Chairman said that the works would require the approval of various

departments which was not contained in the relevant documents. He

agreed with the Members’ concern that some departments or

stakeholders might have different views about the project and hence he

urged the company to take the initiative to communicate directly with

the stakeholders like the fisheries constituency. He also indicated that

the PWHC understood the works content but views of the departments

and the stakeholders had to be considered before making any decision.

10. Ms Vivian CHAN of the SMEC, Mr Victor CHAN of the DLO, Mr SIN

Kwok-kei of the OFCA, Mr William KWAN of the HKBN responded to the views

and enquiries of Members as follows:

SMEC

(a) As regards the impacts of the works, the SMEC had already conducted

the fisheries impact assessment (FIA) and applied to the EPD directly

for the environmental permit. She reiterated that the marine works

would only last for three days at sea. According to the analysis of the

Project Profile, the sediments disturbed during the works would settle

onto the seabed within a few minutes and she opined that the impacts on

the fisheries would be minimal. She also explained to Members about

the whole application procedure, including applying for the permits

from the LandsD and EPD, and also arrange for publication in the

Gazette after approval from all the departments involved. Therefore,

she reassured all Members that the works would only commence after

approval had been secured from all the relevant departments.

(b) As regards the comments by some Members why the works was

submitted to the PWHC for discussion before the completion of all

assessments, she indicated that marine traffic was ever-changing and

MTIA could only be conducted a short time before works

commencement for submission to the MD for assessment. The SMEC

would ensure that all the necessary assessments would have been

completed before works commencement. In addition, she also thanked

Members for their views, and would continue to liaise with various

Action

13

stakeholders through the Eastern District Office (EDO) and fine-tune the

details of the works to meet the needs of the stakeholders.

DLO

(c) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) had

been consulted about the works and DLO would liaise with the various

stakeholders through the EDO. He also remarked that the fishermen

could apply to the LandsD and AFCD for compensation in case of loss

caused by the works.

(d) He also said that the cable draw pit in Sai Kung was constructed by the

Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation but there was no

similar facilities in the Eastern District. Therefore, marine works was

necessary whenever there was laying of submarine cables. He also

thanked Members for their comments and expressed that the DLO and

the company would be pleased to communicate with the stakeholders

through the EDO according to the established procedures and respect the

views of all parties on the works. He also understood the Members’

worries and concern on the possible environmental impacts of the works

and whether environmental permit could be secured.

OFCA

(e) The cable system had secured the support of the CEDB and would foster

the development of Hong Kong towards becoming the data centre hub of

Asia Pacific region. He stressed that the government had endeavoured

to maintain provisions of cables both locally and internationally in order

to satisfy all the customers’ needs for telecommunication services.

Currently there was one submarine cable connecting Siu Sai Wan and

Tseung Kwan O providing services while another was under laying.

The cable system under planning was the third one linking the two

places which would greatly enhance market competitiveness and

provide more options for telecommunication users within the districts.

HKBN

(f) He thanked Members for their views and would ensure that the works

would be carried out in full accordance with the established procedures

of the government. He also indicated that the works would facilitate

Action

14

other works for the building of a Smart City which would enhance the

communication facilities of the Eastern District and local residents

would be able to enjoy better services. Therefore, he believed that the

works would gain the support of all stakeholders. He also

supplemented that the contractor had ample experience in handling

similar works items and would certainly maintain communication with

the stakeholders and reflect their views to Members for information.

SMEC, DLO,

OFCA, HKBN

11. After discussion, the PWHC noted the discussion paper and asked the

relevant departments and company to communicate with the stakeholders before

submitting the Paper again to the meeting for discussion.

V. Introduction of Lift Modernisation Subsidy Scheme


12. The Chairman welcomed Mr Peter DY, Senior Manager, Building

Rehabilitation and Ms Sarah YUN, Senior Manager (Community Development) of

the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), Mr CHAN Chi-wai, Acting Senior Engineer

and Mr TSE Man-ho, Engineer of the Electrical & Mechanical Services

Department (EMSD) to the meeting. Mr Peter DY and Ms Sarah YUN of the

URA and Mr TSE Man-ho of the EMSD briefed the meeting on Paper No. 23/19.


follows:

(a) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that there were resident who have expressed

that addition of brake device was infeasible in the lifts of their buildings

because of the lift car and asked if the EMSD could provide any

assistance in that regard. He also enquired the URA the calculation of

the rateable value in the eligibility criteria.

(b) Mr Howard CHEUNG enquired the URA the percentage of the total

number of lifts in the Eastern District to the total number of lifts

subsidised under the Scheme. He also indicated that using the rateable

value as one of the criteria to determine the eligibility for application

would exclude those buildings with high rateable values. However,

there were safety issues for the lifts in those buildings not included in

the Scheme and he hoped that the URA could adjust the ceiling of the

rateable value upward. In addition, he also enquired the URA the

Action

15

details about the briefing sessions held between April and May and also

hoped to know the responses of the Owners’ Corporations (OCs) and the

management companies of the residential estates.

(c) Mr CHUI Chi-kin enquired the URA whether applicant buildings could

only receive a subsidy of $20,000 to appoint consultants not arranged by

the URA. He also asked the URA how the ceiling of the rateable value

was determined and whether it would be adjusted in future.

(d) Mr LAM Sum-lim welcomed the URA to launch such a Subsidy

Scheme but pointed out that the current Scheme only covered ongoing

works resulting in intentional delays in works completion for some

buildings in order to be eligible for the subsidy. He opined that the

Scheme caused inconvenience to the public. He also asked how the

URA would help those buildings that had not appointed consultants to

manage the follow-up services.

(e) Mr Eddie TING welcomed the Scheme but said that residents had

reflected to him that engagement of contractors for the supervision of lift

maintenance was required if brake system was to be added under the

Scheme. The requirement would render the current maintenance

contract void and hence he asked the URA how they could help those

buildings. He also urged the URA to join with the EDO to assist in the

coordination of the whole lift modernisation works for those “three nil”

buildings.

(f) Mr LEE Chun-keung understood that point system was adopted for the

selection of buildings eligible for subsidy under the Scheme, and he

hoped that the URA could explain the number of points that the

buildings had to obtain in order to be eligible for the subsidy. He also

asked the URA whether the lifts were ineligible for the Scheme to

further enhance the lift safety if the lifts had already equipped with all

the essential safety devices as required under the Scheme.

(g) Mr MAK Tak-ching was concerned about the responses of the residents

and OCs towards the Scheme and hoped that the URA could brief

Members of owners’ concerns expressed during the briefing sessions.

He was also worried about the way to apportion the subsidy for the lift

maintenance if the consultant was to be responsible for various

maintenance works of the entire building. In addition, he also enquired

Action

16

the URA about the application period in the second half of 2019 for the

Scheme.

(h) Mr CHENG Tat-hung said that the URA has issued invitation letters to

about 4 000 buildings in January 2019 to encourage their participation in

the Scheme. He enquired whether those buildings without the

invitation letter could participate in the Scheme or not. He also

remarked that the rateable value which was one of the eligibility criteria

had been maintained at $162,000 and hoped the URA would make

adjustment. At the same time, he asked the URA to consider relaxing

the application criteria in order to cover buildings with higher rateable

value, and also prioritise those buildings with lifts already out of order

under the Scheme.

(i) Mr WONG Kin-pan was pleased to support the Scheme but said that the

briefing of the URA was over simplified. He learnt that it was difficult

for some lifts to add the required safety devices from his experience

during assistance to residents. He hoped that the URA could provide

the number of cases to be approved in the second half of 2019 and asked

the URA to provide direct contact for public enquiries.

(j) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung said that appointment of consultant was required

under the Scheme during the tendering process for cost estimation.

However, if the works was bided by another company, the consultant

might not bother to follow up with the works, and in the end it was the

residents who suffered.

14. Mr Peter DY of the URA and Mr TSE Man-ho of the EMSD responded to the

views and enquiries of Members as follows:

EMSD

(a) With technological advancements in lifts nowadays, the space required

for installing new devices had reduced substantially. If the consultant

indicated that addition of safety devices was infeasible due to

insufficient space, residents might consider replacing other parts at the

same time for the addition of safety devices. As regards the issue of

maintenance contract, in order not to affect the existing lift maintenance

contract by the lift modernisation works, the EMSD had specifically set

the Scheme for a period over six years, so that modernisation works

Action

17

could be arranged after the expiry of the existing maintenance contract.

He also mentioned that currently there were a total of 41 lift contractors

available in Hong Kong and the residents were not bound to take the

advice of the existing contractors. He also suggested the residents to

actively consider replacing the entire lift if it had been in use for more

than 30 years in order to enhance cost-effectiveness.

URA

(b) The URA stressed that the Scheme was not on a “first come first serve”

basis. The URA would consider the application as long as the

application and the necessary documents were submitted during the

application period. He asked Members to encourage residents to

submit their applications during the first round in order not to miss the

application period. As regards the ceiling of the rateable value, he said

that the URA would review the ceiling every year and the current one

was set in 2017. If a rise in rental resulted in the reduction of

beneficiaries, the URA would suggest the government to adjust the

ceiling upward. He reiterated that all subsidised applicants had to

obtain a quotation from an eligible works company by tender in the

market in order to encourage fair competition and a more reasonable

price could be obtained.

(c) As regards the subsidy for the works consultant under the Scheme,

owners might apppoint those provided by the URA free of charge or

appoint their own consultants, and the subsidy was capped at $20,000

per lift.

(d) The subsidy under the Scheme was capped at $500,000 per lift.

According to the estimation of the EMDS, the subsidy amount was

sufficient to cover the costs of addition of essential safety devices. The

Scheme had also taken into consideration the financial affordability of

the elderly and hence owner-occupiers aged 60 or above would receive

higher subsidy amount than the general owners. The URA understood

that there might be queries over the apportionment of the subsidy.

However, as situation varies from building to building, residents were

reminded to pay attention to the terms and conditions of the deed of

mutual covenant of the building. In addition, the URA had also

accepted invitation or taken the initiative to attend meetings of various

applicant buildings for briefing and a designated officer was assigned

Action

18

for each case for follow-up.

(e) As at mid-June, the URA had received a total of 18 applications from

buildings in the Eastern District. Members were also asked to remind

residents to submit the applications by 31 July. The second round

would commence at the end of the year.

15. After discussion, the PWHC noted the briefing of the URA and supported the

authority to continue implementing the scheme.

VI. Urging the Departments Concerned to Clarify their Respective Rights and

Responsibilities regarding the Intersection of Lin Shing Road and Cape

Collison Road to Facilitate the Provision of Lay-bys for Buses and Public

Light Buses As Soon As Possible


16. The Chairman welcomed Mr Victor CHAN, Senior Estate Surveyor/Hong

Kong East(3) of DLO, Miss Rose CHAN, Senior Housing Manager/Hong Kong

Island and Islands 1 of Housing Department (HD), Mr Michael CHAN, Assistant

District Engineer/North East of Highway Department (HyD) and Mr KWAN

Wing-yip, Engineer/Eastern 2 of Transport Department (TD) to the meeting. Mr

KUNG Pak-cheung briefed the meeting on Paper No. 24/19.

17. The PWHC noted the consolidated reply of all the departments concerned.


follows:

(a) Mr LEE Chun-keung supported the clarification of the land rights and

responsibilities of the site by the departments. Currently, there was

always traffic congestion and frequent vehicle-pedestrian conflicts in the

road section. The clarification of land rights and responsibilities would

help speed up the enhancement works and he hoped that the departments

would fast-track the processing of the works.

(b) Mr NGAN Chun-lim remarked that he noted the complexity of land

rights and responsibilities of the road section during the site inspection

on 20 May and so he hoped the departments would strengthen

communication and complement with each other for early

Action

19

commencement of the works.

(c) Mr KUNG Pak-cheung hoped that the departments would clarify the

roles played by each of them and the updated progress for Members’

understanding of the works progress and schedule.

(d) Mr WONG Kin-pan thanked the various departments for following up

the works. Currently Cape Collinson Road was heavily congested

during Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals causing inconvenience

to Chai Wan residents. He hoped that the departments would

collaborate with each other and endeavour to complete the works in

2020.

(e) Mr KU Kwai-yiu agreed with the departments for clarifying the land

rights and responsibilities in order to implement the road enhancement

works but he hoped that the departments would take into consideration

the pedestrian flow to ensure a smooth flow for both people and vehicles

in the road section.

(f) Mr CHUI Chi-kin agreed to the traffic improvement by the departments

at Cape Collinson Road with a view to resolve the congestion during

Ching Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals. However, he hoped that the

department would explain in detail to Members how the works would

commence for their better understanding of the works and comments.

(g) Mr CHIU Chi-keung hoped that the departments would explain in detail

to Members about the works for their better understanding and hope the

departments would speed up the commencement in order to improve the

traffic conditions in the area.

19. Miss Rose CHAN of HD, Mr Victor CHAN of DLO, Mr Michael CHAN

of HyD and Mr KWAN Wing-yip of TD responded to the views and enquiries of

Members as follows:

HD

(a) The HD thanked Members for their views to the works. The relevant

departments had conducted a site inspection on 20 May and arrived at a

consensus after communication. The HD would transfer the land to the

relevant departments for works commencement.

Action

20

DLO

(b) The DLO thanked Members for their views. As regards the removal of

trees from the site, the DLO had sought professional advice and would

approve the application for tree removal after approval of the works had

been secured from the PWHC.

(c) The various departments had arrived at a consensus regarding the

intersection at Cape Collinson Road and would start with the transfer of

the road section first. As regards the revision of the vesting order of

land, the DLO was currently consulting the relevant policy bureaux and

departments regarding the land issue of the neighbouring columbarium,

and would complete the revision of the scope of vesting order as soon as

possible after obtaining agreement from the policy bureaux and the

departments.

HyD

(d) The HyD had submitted the planting and tree felling report to the

LandsD for approval in mid-May and it was expected that the works

would commence upon the approval of the report in mid-July.

(e) The expected completion date as provided by the HyD was subject to

various factors and the transplanting of the trees alone would take five

months. The HyD understood the distress suffered by Chai Wan

residents and would step up their effort for early completion of the

works.

TD

(f) The TD remarked that the lay-bys at the site was the enhancement

measures suggested by the traffic consultant in response to the provision

of columbarium by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department

(FEHD). As regards the concern of some Members about the impacts

of the works on the pavement, the TD said that space had been allowed

for the construction of a 6-metre-width pavement which would be

sufficient to cope with the daily pedestrian flow. During the Ching

Ming and Chung Yeung Festivals, the TD would implement crowd

safety management measures in order to ease the flow of people.

Action

21

20. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to the early commencement of the

works and include the issue the issue in matters arising.

VII. Concern about the Future Management Mode of “Boardwalk

underneath Island Eastern Corridor” under Planning and the

Introduction of Commercial Elements to the Project


21. The Chairman welcomed Mr Godfrey HO, Senior Engineer/6 (South) of Civil

Engineering and Development Department (CEDD), to the meeting. Mr Andrew

CHIU briefed the meeting on Paper No. 25/19.

22. Members noted the consolidated reply of the Development Bureau (DEVB)

and CEDD.


follows:

(a) Mr CHENG Tat-hung understood the effort of the CEDD in constructing

the Boardwalk. He enquired whether the Boardwalk would be handed

over to the private sector for management since the CEDD would not

suggest the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) to

manage the Boardwalk. He was worried that the private sector would

introduce commercial elements in the Boardwalk which would lead to a

substantial increase in pedestrian flow affecting the traffic flow between

North Point and Quarry Bay.

(b) Mr NGAN Chun-lim opposed to the introduction of commercial

elements in the Boardwalk and expressed that the CEDD should only

provide open spaces or a cafeteria at the Boardwalk. He hoped that the

CEDD would submit the management mode to the PWHC for

discussion before making any decision and give an account to the public

for the decision.

(c) Mr CHENG Chi-sing said that it had been planned for the LCSD to

manage the Boardwalk with the setting up of angling zone, cycling

tracks, etc. He expressed that the construction of the Boardwalk was

fully funded by the government and hence did not understand why it

Action

22

would be managed by the private sector. He asked the CEDD to give a

detailed account of it.

(d) Mr Andrew CHIU pointed out that the CEDD had all along planned to

assign the LCSD to manage the Boardwalk. However, through the

blog of the Secretary for Development, it was known that the Boardwalk

might not be handled over to the LCSD for management and he was

worried that the Boardwalk would be handed over to the private sector

for management with the introduction of commercial elements. He

also said that there was a wide variety of facilities at the harbourfront

including, amongst other things, a pet park. He hoped that the CEDD

would explain whether the current Pleasure Grounds Regulation

sufficient for the management of the facilities. He also suggested the

LCSD to review the current legislations and study the ways to integrate

bicycles and pets as parts of the Boardwalk facilities and organize a

management advisory committee by inviting stakeholders,

non-government representatives and professionals to advice on the ways

to enable the public for enjoyment of the Eastern harbourfront.

(e) Mr MAK Tak-ching said there had always been commercial elements,

like bicycle rental, etc., in government parks and there was no need to

highlight it. Therefore when he noticed that the Secretary for

Development stated the introduction of commercial elements, he was

concerned that the Boardwalk would be handed over to the business

sector for management and turned to a business site. He continued to

point out that there had been open spaces managed by the business

sector with substantial amount of business elements for soliciting

business, which had caused adverse impacts on the open space culture in

Hong Kong.

(f) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that the Boardwalk traversed properties of

various business conglomerates including hotels, residential estates, etc.

He was worried that the public would not be able to enjoy the

Boardwalk equally if it was managed by the private sector. He opined

that the LCSD was competent in managing the Boardwalk and hoped the

CEDD to give an account for not handing over it to the LCSD for

management but adopting other management modes instead.

(g) Mr Howard CHEUNG indicated that if the CEDD intended to outsource

the management of the Boardwalk by way of short term tenancy, the

Action

23

terms of the tenancy should be disclosed for discussion. In addition, he

enquired the CEDD why there was operation plan for the DEVB before

the completion of public consultation.

(h) Mr LEE Chun-keung enquired the CEDD how the decision of handing

over the management to private sector was arrived at and urged the

CEDD to explain the final operation approach.

24. Mr Godfrey HO of CEDD responded that the purpose of constructing the

Eastern Boardwalk was to provide the public with an open space at the

harbourfront and the management of the future Boardwalk was not finalised yet.

The CEDD would continue to listen to public views in this regard. Meanwhile,

the CEDD would maintain communication with the LCSD. Currently the CEDD

was conducting preparatory work for the tendering exercise of the consultancy

agreement for the next phase of the works, including scrutinising and studying the

management mode of the Boardwalk. The detailed design stage was expected to

commence at the end of the year and options would be formulated timely for

consulting the PWHC.

25. Mr Andrew CHIU, on behalf of Mr CHENG Tat-hung, Mr Joseph LAI, Mr

Patrick LEUNG, Mr Howard CHEUNG, Mr MAK Tak-ching, Mr KU Kwai-yiu,

Mr WONG Chun-sing, Ms Bonnie LEUNG and Mr CHUI Chi-kin, made a

statement as follow:

“The Mover and signatory Members of this Paper reiterated that the

harbourfront was a place for public leisure and not a commercial area,

particularly given the fact that the Eastern Harbourfront was narrow and also

a major residential area in the Hong Kong Island; hence there should not be

any commercial elements in the management mode of the Boardwalk

underneath the Island Eastern Corridor and the Quarry Bay Promenade so

that residents of the Eastern District could enjoy a serene harbourfront.”

CEDD 26. After discussion, the PWHC urged the department to take into full account of

Members’ views.

VIII. Progress report of matters arising from previous PWHC meetings


27. The Chairman welcomed Mr Eddie LO, Senior Executive Officer

Action

24

(Planning)5 and Ms Amy FAN, Deputy District Leisure Manager (Eastern)2 of

LCSD, Mr NG Tak-wah, Senior Town Planner/Hong Kong (2) of Planning

Department (PlanD), Miss Rose CHAN, Senior Housing Manager/Hong Kong

Island and Islands 1 of HD, Mr Geoffrey HO, Senior Engineer/6 (South) and Mr

WONG Chi-yung, Senior Engineer/District of CEDD, Mr Donald CHAN,

Building Surveyor/B4-1 of Buildings Department (BD), Mr KWAN Yu-keung,

Senior Liaison Officer (3) of EDO, Mr Michael LO, Senior Engineer/Eastern, Mr

Jim MO, Senior Engineer 3 (Harbour Area Treatment Scheme) and Mr SO Chi-ho,

Engineer/Eastern 3 of Drainage Services Department (DSD), Ms KWONG

Tak-wai, Chief Health Inspector (Eastern)3 of FEHD, Mr KWAN Wing-yip,

Engineer/Eastern 2 of TD, Dr Olive LEE, Environmental Protection Officer

(Regional South)23 of EPD and Mr Michael CHAN, Assistant District

Engineer/North East of HyD to the meeting.

(i) Strong Request for Building a District Library Next to Eastern Law Courts

Building as Soon as Possible/

Scope of Development of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Wan/

Preliminary Design Plan of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Wan/

Revised Design Proposal of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Wan/

Latest Design Proposal of the Joint User Complex at Lei King Road/

Joint User Complex at Lei King Road/

Request to Implement the Lei King Road Joint User Complex Project as

Soon as Possible

28. Mr Eddie LO of LCSD supplemented on the latest progress and indicated that

consultation of the project with the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative

Council was conducted on 29 April 2019 and support secured. Currently the

project item was pending scrutiny by the Public Works Subcommittee (PWSC).


follows:

(a) Mr NGAN Chun-lim was pleased to learn of the progress of the project

and also enquired the LCSD whether funding would be available in

mid-year.

(b) Mr KU Kwai-yiu was pleased with the progress of the project item and

enquired the LCSD about the provision for it.

(c) Mr Patrick WONG asked the LCSD to elaborate on the procedures for

Action

25

the funding application and also hoped that the LCSD could at the same

time commence the preparatory work for the subsequent tendering

exercise in order to shorten the implementation time of the project.

30. Mr Eddie LO of LCSD replied that the LCSD was seeking funding approval

from the Legislative Council of $673.6 million for the construction of the

Complex. The project item was under the scrutiny by PWSC for subsequent

approval by the Finance Committee (FC). If funding approval of the project by

the FC could be obtained by mid-2019, the works could commence at the end of

2019 the earliest and complete at the end of 2022. The Architectural Services

Department would commence work as soon as funding was approved.

All Attendees 31. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda

item.

(ii) Request to Construct a Swimming Pool at Quarry Bay/

Strongly Request the Government to Make Good Use of the Land

Resources by Constructing a Standard Indoor Swimming Pool on the

Side of Aldrich Garden/

Construction of an All-weather Indoor Swimming Pool with Green Concept

at the Side of Tung Hei Road, Shau Kei Wan/

Greening and Leisure Facilities at Tung Hei Road/

Suggestion to Construct a Multi-storey Sports Centre on the Side of Aldrich

Garden


follows:

(a) Mr NGAN Chun-lim pointed out that the residents have been longing

for the feasibility study report of the works from the LCSD for

discussion by the Eastern District Council (EDC), and also hoped that

the LCSD could elaborate on the follow-up schedule.

(b) Mr LAM Sum-lim hoped that the LCSD could provide a specific

schedule of the project and also urged the LCSD to designate the project

as the training facilities for elite athletes to provide them with

appropriate training venue.

33. Mr Eddie LO of LCSD replied that the LCSD had all along actively listening

to the views on the proposed project raised by the District Council in order to

Action

26

optimise land use and meet sports development and local demand. Pursuant to

the government’s principle of “single site, multiple use”, the LCSD was studying

the feasibility of providing other facilities in the project for providing more

comprehensive facilities for the residents of the Eastern District. As the

proposed project was one of the 15 sports and recreation facility projects that

feasibility study would be conducted as mentioned in the 2017 Policy Address of

the Chief Executive, the LCSD would actively press ahead with the planning work

and consult the District Council where appropriate on the progress of the project

so that the technical feasibility study of the project could be conducted in

accordance with the established procedures.


item.

(iii) Making a Strong Request to Put the Open Space at the Junction of Siu Sai

Wan Road and Harmony Road into Use as Soon as Possible

Providing District Health Centre cum Social Welfare Facilities at Siu Sai

Wan

35. Members noted the written replies of the departments.

36. Ms Elaine CHIK was pleased to learn the replies from the various

departments and hoped that the works would commence soon.


item.

(iv) Making a Request to Change the Triangular Provisional Land next to

Heng Fa Chuen Bus Terminal into Permanent Motorcycle Parking

Spaces

38. Mr Stanley HO said that a site inspection was conducted with the TD earlier

on and there was some discrepancy with their reply over the progress of the

agenda item and he hoped that the TD would endeavour to provide the latest

progress report. He also indicated that two years had lapsed for the agenda item

and urged the TD to speed up the implementation.

39. Mr KWAN Wing-yip of TD and Mr CHAN Man-ho of HyD responded to the

views and enquiries of Members as follows

Action

27

TD

(a) The TD would revise the plan as soon as possible for the HyD to carry

out the works.

HyD

(b) The HyD understood that the TD would have to make minor

amendments to the details of the works and would provide technical

support. It was expected that works would commence in the fourth

quarter of the year.


item.

(v) Requesting the Government to Handle Properly the Problem of Shortage of

Ancillary Facilities for Living in the Estate after the Sale of Hing Man

Commercial Centre/

Requesting the Government to Handle the Problems Arising from the

Change of Ownership of the Commercial Centre of Hing Man Estate

and Take Care of the Basic Daily Needs of Residents

41. Miss Rose CHAN of HD supplemented on the latest progress of the works.

The renovation of the shopping mall had been completed and apart from the

existing supermarket, round-the-clock convenience store, snack shop and ATM

machine, a new eatery specialising in cart noodles would soon commence business

operation. The HD would closely liaise with the owner of the shopping mall to

ensure that the residents would be provided with the necessary retail facilities.


follows:

(a) Mr LAU Hing-yeung was pleased to learn that the renovation work of

the shopping mall had been completed and also thanked the owner for

opening the newly provided lift for pedestrian use starting next month.

With the completion of the renovation work of the shopping mall, he

urged the relevant departments to liaise closely with the merchant

tenants in order to avoid causing any impacts on neighbouring traffic

flow.

Action

28

(b) Mr CHUI Chi-kin said that the agenda item focused on the insufficient

facilities for the daily necessities of the residents, and he opined that the

residents would still find it inconvenient with the current situation of the

shopping mall. He condemned the government for being helpless to

meet the basic daily needs of the residents as decisions rested on the

hands of the shopping mall owner.

43. Miss Rose CHAN of HD responded that the Housing Authority as the deed

of mutual covenant manager would definitely liaise closely with the shopping mall

owner and reflect residents’ views.


item.

(vi) The Revised Proposal of Harbourfront Boardwalk in Eastern District

Submitted by Civil Engineering and Development Department to

Harbourfront Commission

45. Members noted the consolidated reply of DEVB.


follows:

(a) Mr Patrick WONG said that the people were all looking forward to the

completion of the boardwalk and hoped that the CEDD would continue

following up with the works progress.

(b) Mr Andrew CHIU understood that further study would be required for

the boardwalk project. He hoped that the options submitted by the

CEDD to the EDC for consultation would be able to meet the needs of

the stakeholders on various aspects, and also requested the CEDD to

submit to EDC for Members’ views first before the next round of public

consultation.

(c) Mr WONG Kin-pan hoped that the CEDD would consult the EDC first

before submitting the comments collected during the three public

consultations to the policy bureaux or the Legislative Council for

consideration in order to ensure that views of local residents were

incorporated.

Action

29

(d) The Chairman enquired the CEDD whether it would be possible to duly

prepare the information before the next meeting for submission to the

PWHC for discussion.

47. Mr Geoffrey HO of CEDD responded that the CEDD noted Members’

support and concern on the works and remarked that Members’ suggestions and

views on the boardwalk would be considered as well at the design stage of the

works. The CEDD expected to commence the consultancy study of the project

design stage at the end of the year and planned to publish the works in the Gazette

in 2020. The CEDD would definitely submit the proposed option to the PWHC

for discussion before publishing it in the Gazette to gauge Members’ views on the

option.


item.

(vii) Concern over the Ageing Problem of Old Buildings and Request for

Enhanced Inspection on External Walls of Buildings/

Discussion on 5-billion-dollar building maintenance and fire engineering

subsidies

49. Members noted the consolidated reply of DEVB, URA and Security Bureau

(SB).

50. Mr KWAN Yu-keung of EDO supplemented on the latest work progress.

The District Building Management Liaison Team of the EDO would continue to

provide courses on building management to local residents as in the past,

particularly for those living in the aged buildings or the “three nil” buildings.


follows:

(a) Mr LAM Sum-lim indicated that there had been a case that approval for

completion of fire services works had been obtained from the Fire

Services Department (FSD) and yet no approval could be obtained from

the BD, hence he hoped that there would be mutual coordination

between the departments to provide more support to residents.

(b) Mr WONG Kin-pan said that both the Operation Building Bright 2.0

and the Fire Safety Improvement Works had already been completed on

Action

30

30 October 2018 and hence enquired the BD whether there would be

another round of plans.

(c) Mr Dominic WONG said that there were residents who had received

notice from the FSD for the renewal of fire service facilities but fire

service works had just been carried out a couple of years ago. The

residents were baffled as a result. He enquired the reason why the FSD

requested frequent carrying out of fire service works affecting the

livelihood of people.

52. Mr Donald CHAN of BD responded that under normal circumstances, the

BD would be responsible for the approval of building construction works while

the FSD for the approval of fire service installation and equipment, which were

two entirely different professional arenas. In the event of more complicating

works, Members could contact the relevant staff or arrange for face-to-face

discussion as circumstances warranted.


item and asked DEVB or SB to response whether amendment to the fire

legislation was necessary.

(Post-meeting note: The supplementary information from the SB was passed to

Members on 22 August 2019.)

(viii) Request to Study and Implement Preventive Measures along the Coast of

Heng Fa Chuen/

Strong Request for the Installation of Temporary Floating Breakwater at

Waters off Heng Fa Chuen

54. Members noted the consolidated reply of DEVB.


follows:

(a) Mr Stanley HO thanked the DSD for taking the corresponding measures

promptly, and yet did not understand why the LCSD had not constructed

any protective facilities yet. He opined that the works progress had

been slow and hoped the DSD would seriously follow up with the

progress.

Action

31

(b) Mr CHENG Tat-hung asked the DSD for the information on the

temporary floating breakwater at the Ap Lei Chau Preliminary

Treatment Works (ALCPTW) and also the works schedule.

(c) Mr Andrew CHIU reminded the DSD that Heng Fa Chuen residents

were very concerned about the works. He urged the DSD to carefully

consider erecting a notice board at the works site to give an account of

the progress and details of the works to the residents and pedestrians to

get them informed of the progress.

56. Ms Amy FAN of the LCSD and Mr Jim MO of the DSD responded to the

views and enquiries of Members as follows:

LCSD

(a) The LCSD thanked Members for their views and explained that the

works had already commenced and the main structure of the protective

measures near Heng Fa Chuen would be completed within June while

the whole project would be completed in July.

DSD

(b) The DSD had started collecting data in May until November on the

temporary floating breakwater of the ALCPTW and was in collaboration

with the CEDD and its consultant to study the effectiveness of the

facility.


item.

(ix) Requesting to Conduct Review on the Planning Guidelines of the Town

Planning Board Concerning the Redevelopment Planning of Pan Hoi

Street, Quarry Bay

58. Members noted the written rely of the DEVB.

59. Mr NG Tak-wah of PlanD supplemented that the Town Planning Board

(TPB) had no concrete timetable to review the TPB Guidelines (the Guidelines).

The applicant for the redevelopment at Pan Hoi Street had applied for deferment

of the consideration of the application in order to provide further information as a

Action

32

response to the views collected.


follows:

(a) Mr Andrew CHIU enquired the PlanD whether the redevelopment was

to be discussed in way of internal meeting by the Metro Planning

Committee (MPC) of the TPB without participation from the public.

He also enquired the attitudes of the PlanD on the review of the

Guidelines as their attitudes would also affect the attitude of the MPC.

In addition, he also urged the PlanD to reply to the PWHC on the works

progress with details in writing but not just give verbal report at the

meetings.

(b) Mr WONG Kin-pan asked the PlanD to submit the information of the

entire Pan Hoi Street redevelopment to the District Council to enable

Members’ understanding of the works details to faciliate discussion.

61. Mr NG Tak-wah of PlanD responded to the views and enquiries of Members

as follows:

(a) TPB meetings were open to the public and all the documents prepared

for the planning applications were uploaded to the TPB website for

public inspection. As regards the consideration of planning

applications, the TPB would take into consideration various factors

including the use of the site under application, the direction of the

planning, the environment, traffic, design and the comments of the

relevant government departments and the public before making the final

decision. The PlanD would also provide the TPB with its comments

on applications.

(b) The planning application at the Pan Hoi Street involved a private

development project. For access to the information and relevant

documents of the application, the public might visit the Planning

Enquiry Counters of the PlanD and the Public Enquiry Service Centre of

the Home Affairs Department for inspecting the relevant documents, or

the Secretariat of the TPB and the internet for summaries of the

applications.

Action

33

All Attendees 62. After discussion, the PWHC asked the departments to note the Members’

views and provide the latest progress before the District Council meeting. The

PWHC agreed to continue following up on the agenda item and delete TD as one

of the relevant departments.

(x) Concern about the Damaged Ground Floor Planters at Wing Tai Road and

Tsui Wan Street

63. Members noted the written reply of the WSD.

64. Mr KU Kwai-yiu thanked the HD for maintaining active liaison with

Members on the progress in reinstating planters at Wing Tai Road and Tsui Wan

Street.

All Attendees 65. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to cease following up the agenda item.

(xi) Frequent Works Carried out at Night near 1090-1094 King’s Road (i.e. Bo

Fung Gardens) Caused Disturbance to Residents

66. Members noted the written reply of Hong Kong Police Force.

67. Mr Peter NG of WSD supplemented the latest works progress. The WSD

had temporarily suspended the works at the site and would resume works at the

end of June. It was expected that the water works would be completed at the end

of July.


follows:

(a) Mr Patrick LEUNG said that there was gas main works at the site,

followed immediately by water works and road re-surfacing at night,

causing nuisance to the neighbouring residents. He urged the WSD to

urge the contractor to reduce the noise level to minimise the impact on

the neighbouring residents.

(b) Ms Dana LAU pointed out that there were various works being carried

out every day at the site and hoped that both the WSD and the EPD

would closely monitor the implementation of the works to minimize

impacts caused by the works on the residents.

Action

34

(a) Mr Andrew CHIU said that the works progress by the government

contractor had been slow and hoped that the WSD would step up its

supervision on the contractor to complete all the works not yet

completed.

69. Mr Peter NG of WSD and Dr Olive LEE of EPD responded to the views and

enquiries of Members as follows:

WSD

(a) The WSD thanked Members’ for their views and the Consultants

Management Division would step up supervision to urge the contractor

to complete the works as soon as possible and ensure that all the works

carried out at night were in accordance with the works guidelines. The

WSD and the consultant would supervise and manage the contractor in

accordance with the established procedures. Regarding the works

information, the WSD would submit them after the meeting for

Members’ reference.

EPD

(b) The EPD thanked Members for their views and would deploy staff to the

site for surprise inspection in order to ensure that the works were carried

out in compliance with the Noise Control Ordinance.


item.

(xii) Request for a full review and improvement of the underground drainage

system of Eastern District, safeguarding the life and property of citizens/

Urging the Government to give an account of the severe floods caused by

heavy rain in Chai Wan/

Requesting the Government to express concern about the damages caused

by heavy rain on 19 October 2016 and develop flood prevention

measures/

Issues relating to the floods at the roundabout in Chai Wan/

Urging the Government to give an account of the severe floods caused by

heavy rain in Shau Kei Wan/

Request to fully review the floods in Eastern District of Hong Kong Island/

Review of anti-flooding preventive measures and their effectiveness in

https://tel.directory.gov.hk/0257000019_ENG.html

https://tel.directory.gov.hk/0257000019_ENG.html

Action

35

Eastern District/

Drainage Improvement Works at Fei Tsui Road, Chai Wan

71. Members noted the written reply of WSD.


follows:

(a) Mr KU Kwai-yiu enquired the DSD about the measures for flooding at

Chai Wan roundabout to be addressed before the rainy season.

(b) Mr LEE Chun-keung said that the agenda item was raised in 2016 and

had been discussed for three years, and yet without a solution. He also

pointed out that deployment of staff for flow interception merely could

not eradicate the problem.

73. Mr Jim MO of DSD and Ms. KWONG Tak-wai of FEHD responded to

the views and enquiries of Members as follows:

DSD

(a) The Projects Division of the DSD was in the course of designing the

improvement works of the Chai Wan roundabout in which gullies would

be provided to channel away water to the adjacent park. The DSD

expected to conduct the tendering exercise in mid-year and to

commence the works at the end of the year. The DSD would provide

the drawings of the improvement measures after the meeting for

Members’ reference. Before works completion, the DSD would deploy

a special task force to remove the fallen leaves and miscellaneous items

in the gullies at the roundabout when rainfall in Chai Wan area exceeded

40 mm.

(b) The DSD staff had made observations at the Chai Wan roundabout on 4

June during downpour and found that the collection of rainwater was

satisfactory except that there was slight flooding near Wan Tsui Estate.

After study, it was found that the flooding was due to the damage at the

inlet near the cemetery. The DSD had contacted the Roman Catholic

Cemetery to step up their efforts for repairs.

Action

36

FEHD

(c) The FEHD would continue regular gully cleansing and carry out

inspections when the red rainstorm warning signal or the No. 8 gale or

storm signal was in force in order to remove dried leaves and

miscellaneous items promptly.


item.

(Post-meeting note: The supplementary information from the DSD was passed to

Members on 22 August 2019.)

(xiii) Request to build a sports complex at the open space next to Quarry Bay

Park Phase II

75. Members noted the consolidated reply of departments.


follows:

(a) Mr Andrew CHIU opposed strongly to the construction of the sports

complex next to Quarry Bay Park Phase II on behalf of the Tai Koo

Shing residents living along the waterfront as the construction of a

comprehensive sports complex would obstruct the views of the Tai Koo

Shing households. He also raised the point that the report by the PlanD

on the harbourfront study had already reflected opposition from the

majority of local residents on the construction of a building thereat, and

hence he hoped the DEVB would seriously consider the requests of the

residents.

(b) Mr WONG Chun-sing said that the facilities at the site would be

reprovisioned in 2023 and hence it was not necessary to follow up with

the agenda at present.

All Attendees 77. After discussion, the PWHC agreed to cease following up on the agenda

item.

Action

37

(xiv) Request to Follow Up the Matters Concerning the Noise Barriers for

Blocks 16 and 17 of Heng Fa Chuen Immediately

78. The agenda item would be followed up upon further progress.

(xv) Requesting the Housing Department to Install Automatic Sensor Systems in

the Escalators in Public Housing Estates


(xvi) Proposal to Reprovision Chai Wan Ambulance Station and Construct

Departmental Quarters at the Junction of Sun Yip Street and Siu Sai

Wan Road, Chai Wan


(xvii) Request for Provision of Escalators in Braemar Hill area/

Request the Government to Speed up the Construction of an Escalator to

Go Directly to Braemar Hill/

Consultation Regarding the Preliminary Design of Braemar Hill

Pedestrian Link/

Consultation Regarding the Design of Braemar Hill Pedestrian Link/

Urging the Department Concerned to Reconsider the Planning of

Braemar Hill Pedestrian Walkway System/

Braemar Hill Pedestrian Link - Consultation on Revised Design


(xviii) Water Supplies Department Headquarters with Hong Kong and Islands

Regional Office and Correctional Services Department Headquarters

82. Members noted the consolidated reply of the WSD and Correctional Services

Department.


(xix) Concern over the Development Plan for the Site Next to Quarry Bay

Promenade at Hoi Yu Street/

Follow Up on the Proposed Construction of a 25-storey Industrial Building

at the Quarry Bay Promenade near the Exit of the Pet Garden at Hoi Yu

Action

38

Street/

Proposal on Enhanced Harbourfront Development at Hoi Yu Street, Quarry

Bay


(xx) Strong Request to Install a Lift for Connecting Hing Man Estate

Footbridge at Chai Wan Road and Tai Man Street


(xxi) Request to Provide Further Support to the Minority Owners to Lodge

Appeals under the Buildings Ordinance


(xxii) Requesting the Government to Review the Policy on Private Street

Resumption to Proactively Assist in Solving the Problems of Private

Streets


(xxiii) Request to Replace Old Glass Louvres in Public Housing Estates


IX. Date of the next meeting

89. The meeting ended at 7:15 pm. The 10th meeting of the PWHC would be

held at 2:30 pm on 10 September 2019 (Tuesday).

Eastern District Council Secretariat

August 2019

https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/east/doc/2016_2019/en/committee_meetings_doc/pwhc/15469/e_pwhc_2018_022_tc.pdf

https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/east/doc/2016_2019/en/committee_meetings_doc/pwhc/15469/e_pwhc_2018_022_tc.pdf

Documents

Minutes of the 9th Meeting of the Planning, Works and