Minutes of the 3rd Meeting in 2019 of the Environment, Housing and Works Committee

of Tai Po District Council Date: 8 May 2019 (Wednesday) Time: 2:36 p.m. – 5:57 p.m. Venue: Conference Room, Tai Po District Council (“TPDC”) Present Time of Arrival Time of Withdrawal

Chairman Mr. CHAN Siu-kuen, MH, JP Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Vice-chairman Mr. LI Wah-kwong, Rex Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Members Mr. AU Chun-wah Mr. CHAN Cho-leung, MH Mr. CHOW Yuen-wai Mr. KWAN Wing-yip Mr. LAM Yick-kuen Dr. LAU Chee-sing Mr. LAU Yung-wai Mr. LI Kwok-ying, BBS, MH, JP Mr. LI Yiu-ban, BBS, MH, JP Mr. LO Hiu-fung Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric, MH Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement Ms. WONG Pik-kiu, BBS, MH, JP Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis Mr. YAM Man-chuen Mr. YU Chi-wing, Ken

2:43 p.m. Beginning of the meeting

2:43 p.m. 2:43 p.m.

Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

2:43 p.m. Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

2:40 p.m. Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

2:43 p.m. Beginning of the meeting

End of the meeting 5:17 p.m.

End of the meeting 5:52 p.m.

End of the meeting 5:55 p.m.

End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting End of the meeting

5:45 p.m. 5:06 p.m.

End of the meeting End of the meeting

5:38 p.m. End of the meeting End of the meeting

Co-opted Members Mr. KWOK Wing-kin Mr. LEE Siu-man Mr. LI Kam-chung

Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting Beginning of the meeting

4:30 p.m.

End of the meeting End of the meeting

- 2 -

Secretary Mr. LEUNG Chung-wa, Alvin Beginning of the meeting End of the meeting Executive Officer (District Council) 1 / Tai Po District Office (“TPDO”) / Home Affairs Department (“HAD”)

In Attendance Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice, JP District Officer (Tai Po) / TPDO / HAD Ms. LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany Assistant District Officer (Tai Po) / TPDO / HAD Mr. WONG Wing-hung, Stephen Project Director 2 / Transport and Housing Bureau (“THB”) Ms. CHAN Cheuk-ling, Kathy Senior Town Planner / Tai Po / New Territories District Planning

Division / Planning Department (“Plan D”) Ms. LUK Wai-yun, Connie Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Regional North) 1 /

Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin Senior Housing Manager / Tai Po, North and Shatin 2 / Housing

Department (“HD”) Mr. MA Hon-chiu Chief Health Inspector 1 / Tai Po District Environmental Hygiene

Office / Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) Ms. LUK Pui-man Senior Health Inspector (Cleansing and Pest Control) 1 / FEHD Mr. NGAN Wing-hong, Victor Engineer / 20 (North) / Civil Engineering and Development

Department (“CEDD”) Mr. KWAN Sum-hong Engineer / Maintenance 1D / CEDD Mr. NG Wing-hung Senior Engineer / Tai Po / Drainage Services Department (“DSD”) Ms. WONG Dik-chi Engineer / New Territories East (Distribution 4) / Water Supplies

Department Mr. CHENG Wun-chee District Engineer / Tai Po 1 / Highways Department (“HyD”) Mr. SOONG Ngar-ting, Martin Senior Structural Engineer / C2 / Buildings Department (“BD”) Mr. WAT Ka-fai, John Structural Engineer / C2-3 / BD Mr. YIU Yung-ngai Engineer / General Legislation 3 / 2 / Electrical and Mechanical

Services Department (“EMSD”) Mr. LAU Ka-yip Assistant Division Commander (Operations) (Tai Po) / Hong Kong

Police Force (“HKPF”) Mr. KWONG Po-yuen Patrol Sub-unit Commander 1 (Tai Po Division) (Acting) / HKPF Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen Administration Assistant (Acting) / Lands / District Lands Office,

Tai Po (“TPDLO”) / Lands Department (“Lands D”) Mr. CHAN Siu-hung Senior Land Executive (Acting)/ Control / TPDLO / Lands D Mr. WONG Kwok-wai, Anthony Deputy District Leisure Manager (Tai Po) 2 / Leisure and Cultural

Services Department (“LCSD”)

- 3 -

Mr. YEUNG Ka-hong, Eric Director / Development and Marketing / Hong Kong Housing Society (“HKHS”)

Mr. POON Yuen-fong Assistant Director / Property Management / HKHS Mr. FU Siu-lim Assistant General Manager / Corporate and Communication

Relations / HKHS Mr. LEE Wing-kong, Daniel Senior Manager (Building Rehabilitation) / Urban Renewal

Authority (“URA”) Mr. YU Ka-ki Senior Manager (Community Development) / URA Mr. LEE Yu-sau, Terence Senior Executive Officer (District Council) / TPDO / HAD Ms. LEUNG Suk-mei, Rebecca Senior Executive Officer (District Management) / TPDO / HAD Mr. TSANG Hei-wah, Charles Executive Officer (Development) / TPDO / HAD Ms. WONG Sin-man, Mabel Executive Officer (District-led Actions Scheme) / TPDO / HAD

Opening remarks The Chairman welcomed Members and departmental representatives to the meeting of the Environment, Housing and Works Committee (“EHWC”) and made the following announcements:

(i) He welcomed Mr. LAM Yik-kuen joining the EHWC;

(ii) He welcomed Ms. CHAN Hau-man, Eunice, District Officer (Tai Po), attending the meeting;

(iii) He welcomed Ms. LEUNG Wing-yin, Tiffany, Assistant District Officer (Tai Po), attending the EHWC meetings from now on;

(iv) Mr. WONG Yiu-ming, Brian, of the LCSD had been transferred out and succeeded by Mr. WONG Kwok-wai, Anthony, who would from now on attend the meetings; and

(v) Mr. CHAN Wing-yiu, Ronald, of the TPDLO was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments, and Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen attended the meeting on his behalf.

I. Confirmation of the minutes of the 2nd meeting in 2019 of the EHWC on 13 March 2019 (TPDC Paper No. EHW 24/2019) 2. The Chairman said that the Secretariat did not receive any proposed amendment before the meeting, and Members did not propose any amendment at the meeting. As such, the above minutes were confirmed without amendment.

- 4 -

II. “T-Home” Transitional Housing Scheme Project – Trackside Villas in Tai Po (TPDC Paper No. EHW 25/2019) 3. The Chairman welcomed Mr. WONG Wing-hung, Stephen, Project Director 2 of the THB; Mr. YEUNG Ka-hong, Eric, Mr. POON Yuen-fong and Mr. FU Siu-lim, Director (Development and Marketing), Assistant Director (Property Management) and Assistant General Manager (Corporate and Community Relations) respectively of the HKHS, to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. 4. Mr. Eric YEUNG went through the captioned paper. 5. Mr. WOO Kin-man, Clement’s comments were as follows:

(i) A lot of members of the public who were waiting for public housing had told him about their hardships. Together with the shortage of public housing, he supported the Government’s initiative to increase the supply of transitional housing, but was also concerned about its site selection.

(ii) As regards the Government’s plan to use Trackside Villas in Tai Po as a transitional housing project, many people living nearby opined that there were not enough facilities, including markets, shopping malls, recreational facilities and open space, etc., in the area. The transport facilities were also insufficient that even the provision of bus route 50R and Green Minibus route 28K, which were currently in service, could not meet the demand during peak hours. Therefore, he was worried that turning Trackside Villas into a transitional housing project would make the transport problem worse.

(iii) He opined that even though the policy to increase the supply of transitional housing was headed for the right direction, before turning Trackside Villas into a transitional housing project for families waiting for public housing, the Government had to carry out district consultation and study as regards ways to improve the facilities in the area.

(iv) Trackside Villas was so remotely located that vehicles had to travel past a long branch road of Tai Po Road to reach there. Therefore, it was not conveniently located for families with elderly people and children. However, as young people would fit in rather quickly, he opined that it would be better to turn Trackside Villas into a youth hostel and he asked the Government to give it a thought.

6. Mr. KWOK Wing-kin supported the Government’s initiative to provide more transitional housing. However, MTR Corporation Limited (“MTRCL”) had stopped accepting their employees’ applications for moving into Trackside Villas since 2007 that many units had been left vacant for over a dozen years. Therefore, he wondered why the MTRCL suddenly freed up the

- 5 -

site as a transitional housing project. As such, he asked about the contract terms for the MTRCL staff to rent Trackside Villas, such as whether they had to renew their tenancy yearly or the tenancy would not expire until a few years later. In addition, he asked whether the Government had discussed with the MTRCL to directly hand over the entire Trackside Villas to the HKHS for rental purposes. He opined that such a move would be more straight-forward and would not be limited by the 5-year duration of the project. 7. Mr. YAM Kai-bong, Francis’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He asked whether the title of Trackside Villas belonged to the MTRCL or the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (“KCRC”).

(ii) Some residents of Trackside Villas indicated that those who lived here were all KCRC staff under the old regime. Therefore, he asked why the MTRCL would deliberately keep Trackside Villas vacant instead of renting it to its staff.

(iii) Residents of Trackside Villas mainly relied on the feeder buses provided by the MTRCL to travel to Tai Po Market MTR Station. He asked whether the Government would provide them with sufficient transport facilities if the number of residents increased in future.

(iv) Even though the captioned paper had stipulated that the HKHS tended to continue leasing Trackside Villas to the MTRCL staff that chose to live there at the currently agreed rental level, they were worried that whether the arrangement would change.

8. From a housing perspective, Mr. YAM Man-chuen opined that the MTRCL handing over Trackside Villas to the HKHS for operation and management under a short-term loan for five years was of a relatively short duration. He asked how the MTRCL would assess the effectiveness five years later, such as whether the occupancy rate of the housing was reasonable, etc. He also asked about the Administration’s plan if the occupancy rate of Trackside Villas was extremely high, like whether it would consider extending the loan of Trackside Villas as a temporary housing project every five years, etc. In addition, he pointed out that Trackside Villas was originally a staff quarter of the MTRCL. Therefore, he was concerned whether the Government would resume the site under the pretence of taking forward the captioned project and then change the land use when there was no more MTRCL staff living there in future, as so to develop other luxury residential projects to make a profit. He hoped that the Administration would respond to this. 9. Mr. TAM Wing-fun, Eric said that he had learnt about the captioned project from the media earlier on. To his knowledge, after Trackside Villas had turned into a temporary rental housing project, the MTRCL staff would still live there, which meant that there would be two types of residents in the property. Therefore, he would like to know how the HKHS would manage the property. Besides, he opined that Trackside Villas was remotely located and surrounded by many tall trees, making it rather dark and gloomy. Also, as there were close to no facilities in Trackside

- 6 -

Villas, he wondered if it was suitable for families with elderly people and young children. He pointed out that while the Administration allowing people in need to move into Trackside Villas might improve their living environment, the facilities in the vicinity might be worse than what they had at the moment. As a result, their overall quality of life might not be improved by much. However, he opined that young people might suit the living environment of Trackside Villas better as far as their daily routine and adaptability were concerned. Therefore, it might be better to turn Trackside Villas into a youth hostel. 10. Mr. Eric YEUNG responded as follows:

(i) As Trackside Villas was only a 5- to 10-minute drive from Kwong Fuk Estate, Tai Po town centre and Tai Po Market MTR Station, residents could use the facilities there in future.

(ii) Trackside Villas was not a brand new development project that 252 units had already been constructed for residential purposes. The HKHS would like to make good use of these existing housing resources for transitional housing purposes, so as not to leave them vacant and result in wastage.

(iii) The HKHS believed that when the MTRCL constructed Trackside Villas years ago, it had thought about the residents’ needs for facilities for their daily lives, and the units’ design was also suitable for families.

(iv) The HKHS would carefully consider Members’ suggestion on turning Trackside Villas into a youth hostel, and would discuss with the THB on ways to further improve the scheme, so as to make good use of housing resources while catering for the daily needs of the residents.

(v) The HKHS had to learn more from the MTRCL about the tenancy of the existing tenants of Trackside Villas. It also had to further discuss with the THB and the MTRCL as to whether the entire Trackside Villas project would be handed over to the HKHS as a public rental housing project. The aim of the HKHS taking Trackside Villas on loan as a transitional housing project at present was to make good use of these housing resources to help the families in need to move in as soon as possible.

(vi) As regards the rental level for the MTRCL staff, the HKHS was discussing with the MTRCL and tended to keep it at the current level. However, it would only be confirmed after the MTRCL had communicated with its staff.

(vii) If society still had a great demand on transitional housing after the expiry of the five-year loan, the HKHS would keep an open mind and be willing to continue to operate Trackside Villas. However, specific arrangements would be subject to discussion with the THB and the MTRCL.

- 7 -

(viii) The HKHS launched the transitional housing project in Yue Kwong Chuen last year. While there were both public housing residents and the newly-moved in transitional housing residents, the property management work was no different from that in other housing estates. Therefore, the HKHS was also confident in managing Trackside Villas well.

11. Mr. Stephen WONG responded as follows:

(i) The relevant lot of Trackside Villas was under the purview of the East Rail Line and was used as a staff quarter after the merger of the two railway companies in 2007. As the vacancy rate of Trackside Villas was rather high, the MTRCL would like to make good use of these housing resources and, therefore, handed it over to the HKHS for operation and management by way of a short-term loan. The THB would study ways to enhance the project after listening to Members’ comments.

(ii) To resolve the housing problem in the long run, the Government had to build more public housing units. However, as the supply of public housing units could not be increased in a short period of time, the THB would assist and foster different transitional housing projects initiated and implemented by the non-government sector (such as Trackside Villas), and would also co-ordinate different government departments in terms of policies. For instance, the Plan D and the BD had offered many exemptions and dealt with the matters concerned in a lenient manner.

(iii) As at May 2019, there were over 600 transitional housing units in Hong Kong. The THB hoped that it could increase the supply of transitional housing units through the Trackside Villas project and social partnership.

12. Mr. LO Hiu-fung said that apart from the environmental and facilities problems of Trackside Villas mentioned by Members earlier on, he was also worried that conflicts would arise easily when families from different backgrounds moved into the same unit. He also opined that the units should be allocated to the elderly people or young people, who were more inclusive and tolerant to each other. In addition, he pointed out that as the waiting time for public housing was often more than five years, there would still be demand for transitional housing after the expiry of the five-year loan. Therefore, the five-year duration of the project was rather short. As such, he suggested the Administration consider implementing the project in a “5+5” model, which meant that if the HKHS could operate it well in the first five years, it could extend the project for another five years. 13. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) Some people had been waiting for six years and were still unable to be allocated with a public housing unit, and the waiting time for singleton applicants was even longer. Therefore, she opined that it was good for the Government to provide

- 8 -

transitional housing to alleviate the hardship of families that had been waiting for public housing.

(ii) Even though some people who had been waiting for public housing had been allocated with an interim housing unit in places such as Po Tin Estate in Tuen Mun and Tin Yan Estate in Tin Shui Wai, they had not lost their opportunity to be allocated with a public housing unit because of it. As such, she asked whether those who were waiting for a public housing unit would lose their opportunity to be allocated with one if they had been allocated with a unit in Trackside Villas.

(iii) Over 7 000 public housing units would be constructed in Tai Po District in the coming years, including those in the projects in Area 9, Chung Nga Road East and Chung Nga Road West, etc., and the amount was substantial. Therefore, she asked whether those who had moved into Trackside Villas would no longer be eligible for waiting for public housing. She opined that those who had been waiting would generally want to be allocated with a public housing unit directly. As such, she asked whether the HKHS would provide options for those who were waiting for public housing when allocating these transitional housing units, and remind them of the matters concerned.

(iv) People waiting for public housing were less well-off in general. After being allocated with a transitional housing unit, they would at least have to buy some electronic appliances and furniture. As Trackside Villas was remotely located, the residents’ transport expenses would be higher, and it would be difficult for wheelchair users or people with medical needs to go out. Therefore, Trackside Villas might not be suitable for people waiting for public housing.

(v) There were some village schools in Tai Po District that could serve as transitional housing after renovation. However, the Government had proposed making use of Trackside Villas as a transitional housing project without fully consulting the district or even offering other alternatives. He found it less than satisfactory.

(vi) For people living in “cubicle apartments” who were waiting for public housing, moving into Trackside Villas could indeed improve their living environment. However, she believed that people waiting for public housing would prefer being allocated with a typical public housing unit instead of a transitional housing unit located in the mid-levels but lacked daily necessities, transport infrastructure and recreational facilities. Therefore, she hoped that the Government would review whether the consultation for this project was sufficient, and study whether there were other locations in Tai Po District that was worth considering.

14. Mr. YAM Man-chuen’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He clarified that the public housing project in Chung Nga Road West had not been endorsed by the TPDC yet.

- 9 -

(ii) He was worried that the MTRCL would, under the pretence of taking forward this project, apply for changes in land use in future and turn it into a private land for development. He would like the THB or the HKHS to make a response.

(iii) He understood that the bureau and the HKHS were mainly introducing the captioned project at this meeting. However, as the title of the land involved belonged to the MTRCL, he really hoped that the MTRCL could explain why it was willing to put Trackside Villas on loan for transitional housing purposes, or his doubts would not be dispelled.

(iv) A Member had earlier asked why the MTRCL no longer allowed its staff to apply for moving into Trackside Villas. He opined that it was a question that the MTRCL had to answer. He pointed out that as Trackside Villas was originally a staff quarter of the MTRCL, he was concerned whether the measure to turn it into a transitional housing project would undermine the staff’s rights and interests.

(v) He regretted that the MTRCL did not send any representatives to attend this meeting. He also hoped that the HKHS could help shoulder the supervisory role and prevent the MTRCL from applying for land use changes to make a profit five years later.

15. Mr. Francis YAM’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) As there was no MTRCL representative at this meeting, no response could be given as to why its lower level staff was not allowed to apply for moving into Trackside Villas.

(ii) As turning Trackside Villas into a transitional housing project would increase the population in the area, he asked whether the Government had consulted the DC Member of the constituency concerned and the residents of the housing estates nearby (e.g., Care Village and Chateau Royale, etc.) about this project.

(iii) Residents of Trackside Villas said that the briefing session arranged by the MTRCL was held in such a short notice that even though everyone living there was MTRCL staff, there was little room for discussion with the MTRCL. He opined that it would be better for the MTRCL to strengthen its communication with its staff as regards this issue.

(iv) He disagreed with the suggestion of turning Trackside Villas into a youth hostel. He explained that as the units in Trackside Villas were rather big, and that it was less comfortable for a lot of family members to live in a sub-divided unit than for singletons to do so, the targets of Trackside Villas should mainly be families. Families with different number of members should be allocated with the appropriate units according to the established standards for housing allocation of the HKHS or the Housing Authority (“HA”). In addition, as young people and elderly people had

- 10 -

different lifestyles and living patterns, conflicts would arise easily if they lived together. Therefore, it would be better to assign one unit to one family.

(v) Apart from the residential building, Trackside Villas also had clubhouse facilities for the MTRCL staff. Therefore, he asked whether the other residents could use these facilities in future. If these facilities would not be provided in future, would the Administration make good use of the clubhouse area and turn it into residential or other purposes?

16. Mr. KWOK Wing-kin said that the MTRCL submitted an application to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”) in 2010 which suggested changing the land use of the area of Trackside Villas from “Other Purposes” to “Residential Purposes”. He asked whether the THB had studied with the MTRCL to hand over the entire Trackside Villas to the HKHS or the HA for rental housing purposes. He also asked whether the bureau had asked about how the MTRCL would deal with Trackside Villas five years later. He indicated that the bureau should not merely focus on resolving the problem of transitional housing, but to carry out long-term land use planning instead. Turning Trackside Villas into a public housing project would be a good move as it could indeed increase the public housing supply and save residents the trouble to move again. 17. Mr. LEE Siu-man’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He agreed with Ms. WONG Pik-kiu and opined that it would be better to take forward this transitional housing project under the “5+5” model.

(ii) If the captioned project would only last for five years, how would the Government deal with the residents who could not be allocated with a public housing unit in the same district afterwards?

(iii) He opined that it was good for the Government to provide transitional housing. However, as the Government had not explained in detail how it would settle those who had moved in five years later, the residents might be worried about their future. Therefore, he suggested the Government provide clear guidelines as regards the specific arrangement five years later. For instance, whether the residents could be allocated with a housing unit in the same district or choose to live in their preferred public housing unit five years later, etc.

(iv) He supported the suggestion of turning Trackside Villas into a youth hostel as young people who could earn a living might be promoted and earn more while they were living there, so that they could improve their living environment five years later. In comparison, family applicants had to take care of their children who would go to the primary schools and secondary schools in the district gradually, and they would be affected if they could not settle down in the same district. He hoped that the Government would pay attention to the situation.

- 11 -

18. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) The MTRCL did not respond as to why it no longer accepted its staff’s application to move into Trackside Villas and, after Trackside Villas had been turned into a transitional housing project, whether it would continue to allow its staff to apply for the staff quarter in Trackside Villas, or whether there would be measures to accord priority to the staff, etc. He indicated that Members had to wait for the MTRCL to respond before deciding whether to support this project. Therefore, he hoped that the THB or the parties concerned could make a response.

(ii) If a family had been waiting for public housing for more than three years and had actual housing needs, he believed that resolving the housing issue would be their top priority. Therefore, as long as the facilities nearby were not too bad, these families would generally choose to move into these transitional housing units first.

(iii) Situated near luxury houses and resettlement area, Trackside Villas was not too remotely located that residents of Care Village and Wong Yi Au nearby also walked to Kwong Fuk Estate and Tai Po Market for other transportation services or shopping. He agreed that it was necessary to consider the surrounding facilities for the residents of Trackside Villas, but stressed that the priority was to resolve the housing problems of the families in need.

(iv) One of the admission criteria was that the applicant had to belong to the family category and had been waiting for public housing for three years or more. As the loan period of the project was five years, it would be eight years since these families started waiting for public housing until the completion of the project, which meant that they should have been allocated with a public housing unit in theory. However, if some of the residents had not been allocated with a public housing unit after eight years while the loan period of the project could not be extended, how would the Government settle these residents? Would it accord priority to these residents for the allocation of other temporary housing? He opined that the Government had to explain these specific arrangements clearly or it would not be fair for the applicants.

19. Mr. Eric YEUNG responded as follows:

(i) As regards the tolerance issues of different families living together, the HKHS had referred to the operation of the Community Housing Movement and found that after the non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) had paired up families of different backgrounds and structures (such as single-parent family, etc.), the residents could help each other out. Therefore, in the Trackside Villas project, apart from directly renting the units to eligible families as their independent residence, the HKHS would also assign different families to the same unit through the pairing by the NGOs, and to provide support on daily necessity, employment and education, etc.

- 12 -

for the family members during the stay, so as to make good use of the housing resources while taking care of the needs of the residents.

(ii) The HKHS kept an open mind as regards the arrangement of Trackside Villas after the end of the five-year loan period, and whether there would be an extension mainly depended on if transitional housing policy was still in effect at that time. If the transitional housing policy was still in effect after the expiry of the loan period, the MTRCL was willing to continue putting Trackside Villas on loan. Also, if the departments concerned agreed to extend the due date of the temporary waivers for land use, the HKHS would proactively consider catering for the people’s housing needs on a continual basis.

(iii) Transitional housing was not a housing category under the public housing system. Eligible persons could decide on their own whether to apply to move in after learning about various aspects such as the terms of application, living environment, transport infrastructure and daily necessities, etc. People waiting for public housing were not obliged to choose to move into transitional housing, and the HKHS would not take the initiative to allocate transitional housing to those waiting for public housing. He stressed that all applications for transitional housing were made voluntarily and the applicants could also visit the site before deciding whether to move in or not. Even if the applicant declined to move in eventually, his application for public housing would not be affected.

(iv) The application for public housing would not be affected even if the applicant had moved into transitional housing. However, in order to make good use of housing resources, the transitional housing unit that the public housing applicant was living in had to be returned if he was allocated with a public housing unit in future, so that the HKHS could renovate and re-allocate the unit to other applicants. If each unit of Trackside Villas could be lived by two families on a consecutive basis, it was estimated that as many as 400 to 500 families or over 1 000 people would benefit from this project.

(v) As regards the Member’s question on whether the MTRCL had any plan to change the land use, the HKHS had no such information but could forward Member’s question to the MTRCL.

(vi) The HKHS would like to take this EHWC meeting to learn about the comments of Tai Po residents about the captioned project from Members. The HKHS would carefully consider the comments of all Members and study ways to improve the project.

(vii) As regards Members’ suggestion that the allocation of Trackside Villas units had to follow the established standards on housing allocation of the HD or the HKHS to avoid wastage of housing resources, the HKHS accepted the views and would study ways to make good use of the units in Trackside Villas, so as to increase the number

- 13 -

of families that would benefit from it.

(viii) As the applicants for transitional housing had been waiting for public housing for three years and the loan period of this project was five years, the applicants could have been allocated with a public housing unit during these eight years. However, whether they could be allocated with a public housing unit or not was subject to other factors, such as the supply of public housing and the area of choice of the applicants, etc.

20. Mr. Stephen WONG responded as follows:

(i) The THB welcomed Members to provide more sites for transitional housing, and the bureau would endeavour to take forward the transitional housing projects initiated and implemented by the non-government sector.

(ii) He reiterated that as in May 2019, there were only 613 transitional housing units across the territory.

(iii) In November 2018, the TPB announced and agreed that the permanent buildings (including those in business zones, comprehensive development area and other specified uses zones) in the urban and new town areas being used as transitional housing projects for five years or less that were co-ordinated by the task force under the THB and had secured policy support could be regarded as a temporary use always permitted under the Outline Zoning Plans concerned. Therefore, transitional housing fell under the category of temporary land use and if the MTRCL would like to change the land use of Trackside Villas after the expiry of the project, it would still have to make an application to the Government and be approved by the Lands D.

(iv) Transitional housing was not public housing and they were independent from each other.

(v) Deciding whether the site of Trackside Villas would be used for constructing public housing in future fell under the purview of the Plan D but not the THB.

21. The Chairman’s conclusion was as follows:

(i) The TPDC supported the construction of public housing. The public housing projects in Area 9 of Tai Po and Chung Nga Road East were under construction, while the project on Chung Nga Road West was being discussed.

(ii) As he was the DC member of the constituency concerned, many residents had shared their views with him about the Trackside Villas project. He indicated that Trackside Villas was remotely located with insufficient transport facilities and daily necessities. While residents could take feeder bus route 50R to go out, they could

- 14 -

only take taxi at night as the route provided services during daytime only.

(iii) There were many big trees lining the two sides of the branch road of Tai Po Road towards Trackside Villas, making it rather dim and creepy at night. Therefore, some Members were concerned whether it was a suitable location for families to move in, and suggested turning Trackside Villas into a youth hostel. In response to these comments, he asked the THB to send staff to consult the DC Member of the constituency concerned as well as other stakeholders, and to think about ways to improve the project after consolidating these comments.

III. Introduction to the Lift Modernisation Subsidy Scheme (TPDC Paper No. EHW 26/2019) 22. The Chairman welcomed Mr. LEE Wing-kong, Daniel, and Mr. YU Ka-ki, Senior Manager (Building Rehabilitation) and Senior Manager (Community Development) respectively of the URA; as well as Mr. YIU Yung-ngai, Engineer of the EMSD to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. 23. Mr. YIU Yung-ngai and Mr. Daniel LEE went through the techniques in enhancing the aged lifts and the details of the Lift Modernisation Subsidy Scheme (“Subsidy Scheme”) respectively. 24. Mr. LEE Siu-man’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He had experienced lift incidents and opined that enhancing lift safety would further ease the mind of members of the public.

(ii) Lifts in Hong Kong travelled from the ground floor to the top floor at a very high speed in general. Therefore, he asked if the European standard safety measures that had just been introduced were applicable to all lifts.

(iv) At present, some lifts were equipped with intercom and Closed-circuit television systems, but people inside could hardly receive any mobile signals. He opined that in the event of any incident, it would be better if those inside the lifts could use the mobile phone to call for help. Therefore, he would like to know whether the Administration could make any improvement on that.

25. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that the URA and the EMSD had arranged seminars for property management companies, corporations of owners (“COs”) and owners’ committees (“OCs”) so that they could know more about the Subsidy Scheme and to encourage their participation. However, as the participation rate of the activity was low, many residential estates were not sure about the scheme and were unable to submit applications. As such, he asked whether the Administration would step up its promotion efforts, or even take the initiative to organise briefing sessions in all

- 15 -

districts (such as Tai Po District), and contact all the property management companies, COs and OCs, etc., in the district to participate in and take forward the scheme. 26. The Chairman opined that this Subsidy Scheme was a good initiative and asked the URA and the EMSD to listen to Member’s views and organise more briefing sessions in the district for publicity. 27. Mr. YIU Yung-ngai responded as follows:

(i) The lift safety components that had just been mentioned were suitable for both high-speed and low-speed lifts.

(ii) According to the international standard, mobile signal reception inside the lift was not among the safety concerns for the time being. However, some commercial buildings had lifts that could receive mobile signals and the EMSD would also proactively consider this suggestion.

28. Mr. Daniel LEE said that the URA had organised a total of 11 briefing sessions in various districts for the Subsidy Scheme. For Tai Po District, the URA had been organising briefing sessions on a regular basis through its district partners to introduce the various subsidy schemes of the URA, and the last briefing session was held in April 2019. The URA was happy to attend the briefing sessions on DC Members’ invitation to promote the captioned Subsidy Scheme where necessary. The URA would also refer to the experience of the first round of the Subsidy Scheme when launching the second round so as to study ways to enhance the promotion efforts. 29. Mr. KWAN Wing-yip agreed that the Subsidy Scheme helped ensure the safety of buildings and lifts, but was concerned that when the URA implemented such a large-scale subsidy scheme in Hong Kong, whether the contractors or component suppliers in the market could meet the demand, and whether these companies would take this opportunity to raise the price. He knew that the URA could provide consultancy services for housing estates that had applied for subsidy. However, as some of the housing estates had to enhance a substantial number of lifts, he was worried that they would encounter difficulties during the actual implementation. He also shared the experience of a housing estate that had participated in the window inspection scheme, expressing his concerns about whether the URA could guarantee that the contractors responsible for lift modernisation had the professional qualifications required and good service quality so as to take forward the scheme smoothly. 30. Dr. LAU Chee-sing said that there were many accidents involving aged lifts in the past where the relevant safety standard could not be met even after prolonged repair. Therefore, he was pleased to see the URA launch the captioned Subsidy Scheme. He asked whether a private residential building with OC but not CO was eligible to participate in the Subsidy Scheme, and which private residential buildings were not the eligible targets.

- 16 -

31. Mr. Daniel LEE responded as follows:

(i) As there were only about 40 lift contractors registered with the EMSD, the market might not be able to meet the demand if all housing estates participating in the Subsidy Scheme were allowed to engage contractors at the same time. As such, the URA would process the applications in phases. It was expected that about 1 000 to 1 200 lifts would be dealt with in the first phase spanning a few years, and the details would be discussed by the steering committee concerned.

(ii) The free consultancy service provided by the URA would not only help the housing estates draw up lift modernisation proposals, but also use the standard documents provided by the URA and tender for lift contractors on the URA’s electronic platform. As of the date of the meeting, 26 lift contractors had successfully registered on the electronic tender platform of the URA. If there was any tender offered by housing estates, the URA would inform them to participate in it. The URA expected that more lift contractors would register on the electronic platform in future to enhance the competition.

(iii) The URA would not ban private residential building without COs from participating in the Subsidy Scheme. However, the owners had to pay attention to whether there was any stipulation in the Deed of Mutual Covenant of the building that allowed owners to decide to carry out works by convening a meeting among the owners, and the decision had to be binding on all owners.

(iv) The URA would, on its own or through its district partners, contact the “three nil” buildings (i.e., buildings without property management companies, COs and owners’ organisation) to find out whether they were interested in participating in the said Subsidy Scheme. If there were “three nil” buildings interested in participating in the said Subsidy Scheme, the URA would arrange for lawyers to check the Deed of Mutual Covenant of the building and provide legal advices, so as to study ways to implement the works.

32. As regards Member’s enquiry about the safety of lift works, Mr. YIU Yung-ngai responded that only lift contractors that had been registered with the EMSD could carry out the lift modernisation works, and the works could only be carried out in the presence of lift workers registered with the EMSD. Upon completion of the works, the contractors had to arrange for a thorough examination on the lift by a lift engineer registered with the EMSD to make sure that the lift was in safe working order. Subsequently, the EMSD would send staff to the site to check and ensure that the lift had been installed properly and all safety components were operating in good order.

- 17 -

33. The Chairman supported the Government’s initiative to allocate resources to enhance lift safety and hoped that the URA could continue to step up the publicity efforts of the said Subsidy Scheme.

IV. Request for improving the scheme of installation of Internet Protocol cameras at refuse dumping blackspots (TPDC Papers No. EHW 27/2019 & EHW 38/2019) 34. Mr. LAU Yung-wai went through TPDC Paper No. EHW 27/2019. 35. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded as follows:

(i) He stressed that the Internet Protocol (“IP”) cameras were just tools to facilitate law enforcement. To deter violation of law and instigate prosecution effectively, the FEHD had to first identify the targets it had to crack down on, and analyse the pattern and motive of the breaches, so as to carry out targeted publicity and education work as well as to draw up law enforcement strategies, in the hope of changing the behaviours, habits and mentality of the offenders within a short period of time, and encouraging them to establish a law-abiding behavioural pattern.

(ii) Whether an IP camera could be successfully installed at a particular location often depended on the environmental factors and the effectiveness of encouraging correct behaviour. Under normal circumstances, the FEHD might not be able to successfully crack down on refuse dumping simply by installing IP cameras. For instance, some refuse dumping blackspots were outside the FEHD’s refuse collection points and those who dumped the refuse might have no intention to break the law. However, installing IP cameras and extending the opening hours of refuse collection points could change these bad habits.

(iii) The IP camera installation scheme had to work together with various law enforcement strategies, including preliminary education and targeted blitz actions, etc., so as to deter the offenders who had got used to breaking the law.

(iv) If refuse dumping took place frequently near where IP cameras had been set up, the FEHD would closely monitor the situation, as well as plan for and take effective law enforcement actions. The FEHD would ask the contractor to adjust the location and shooting angle of the IP camera where necessary, so as to enhance the deterrence and law enforcement efforts.

(v) As regards Member’s suggestion of installing IP cameras with 360-degree lens, the FEHD headquarters had noted the comment and would study whether the suggestion was technically feasible.

- 18 -

36. Ms. LUK Pui-man went through TPDC Paper no. EHW 38/2019. 37. As regards the FEHD’s plan to install two IP cameras at each refuse dumping blackspot, Mr. LAU Yung-wai asked whether the department would install them diagonally to get rid of blind spots. 38. Mr. LEE Wah-kwong, Rex, the Vice-chairman, asked whether the FEHD would remove some of the IP cameras installed at locations that were not on the installation order list of IP cameras in Tai Po District. 39. Mr. LO Hiu-fung’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) As regards the installation order of IP cameras, he opined that the sequence adopted by the FEHD on this occasion was more reasonable as it did not only make reference to the number of complaints of the blackspots concerned, but also the amount of refuse illegally dumped at these blackspots.

(ii) He was pleased to see that the two refuse dumping blackspots, namely “the location in front of Pan Chung Refuse Collection Point” and “Kam Shan Refuse Collection Point”, were first and fourth on the installation order list of IP cameras respectively. He also called for the department to speed up the implementation of the scheme so as to minimise the residents’ displeasure about the current situation.

(iii) He hoped that the FEHD could conduct site inspection with him at the two said blackspots to find out the suitable locations to install the IP cameras.

(iv) IP camera installation was only of an auxiliary nature that the key was whether the FEHD had taken effective blitz prosecution or not. He said some residents had told him that the FEHD had deployed officers to Chung Shun Lane between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. for blitz prosecution actions. However, it was not a time period where refuse dumping often took place as the offenders usually dumped refuse sometime between the evening and the early morning. Therefore, he doubted the effectiveness of such actions.

(v) As regards the afore-mentioned situation, he asked whether the FEHD had scheduled blitz prosecution at suitable time periods, and whether the blitz action would discontinue once the IP cameras had been installed.

40. Mr. TANG Ming-tai, Patrick’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He opined that the IP cameras had been doing a good job and said that the amount of refuse at the blackspots was not necessarily correlated to the seriousness of the breaches. Instead, the number of complaints over the past year could reflect the seriousness of the breaches more objectively. He explained that as there were 34

- 19 -

complaints as regards Nam Hang Village Refuse Collection Point, it showed that the illegal refuse dumping issue there was relatively serious.

(ii) The situation had improved a lot after the FEHD had installed IP cameras at Tai Po Tau Refuse Collection Point. While it would be the most ideal to install cameras with 360-degree lens, he was more concerned about the number of IP cameras the FEHD’s monitoring system could monitor at the same time. In addition, once progress had been made at certain blackspots with IP cameras, the department would relocate the IP cameras to other blackspots. As a result, problems had returned to those blackspots that had shown progress.

(iii) He thanked the FEHD for their efforts in the rural area in the past. He asked if the department could request more resources from the Government, so as to install IP cameras at more refuse dumping blackspots and enhance the monitoring and prosecution efforts of the department.

41. Mr. CHAN Cho-leung’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He had witnessed offenders dumping refuse before. Luckily, the FEHD was proactive in taking follow-up actions.

(ii) He asked when the department planned to install the IP cameras at the refuse dumping blackspots according to the order on the list.

(iii) There were only 15 blackspots on the list, and there was refuse dumping problem at other blackspots not on the list as well. He suggested the department send staff for blitz inspection at these refuse dumping blackspots during daytime as usual, and deploy plainclothes staff for ambushes in the evening. He believed that it could crack down on the problem effectively.

42. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded as follows:

(i) As regards the shooting angle of IP cameras, the FEHD had noted the method suggested by Members. While whether the IP cameras could be installed diagonally depended on the physical environment of the individual locations, the department would expand the surveillance area of the cameras as much as possible.

(ii) What the department took forward in Tai Po District not long ago was just a pilot scheme, and the one that was being taken forward at present was the official one. Therefore, the department would install the IP cameras according to the installation order list of IP cameras in Tai Po District. He indicated that there were a total of 15 blackspots on the list. However, the department expected to install only seven and three IP cameras in the district in the third and fourth quarters of 2019 respectively.

- 20 -

(iii) If the IP cameras had captured any illegal refuse dumping, the computer would help shortlist the time periods when violation took place more frequently according to the behavioural patterns, and the department would then arrange for blitz prosecution. If Members could provide information in this regard, the department could also try to deploy staff for blitz prosecution.

(iv) While he understood that complaint figure was an important benchmark for ranking the installation order of IP cameras, the headquarters had suggested using the quantity of refuse as the primary and objective benchmark. As such, the quantity of refuse would be given more weighting when ranking the order.

(v) As the monitoring of IP cameras’ video footage would be digitalised, if the computer had detected any illegal refuse dumping, it would send the information concerned to each district, and the FEHD’s district offices would carry out the prosecution concerned.

(vi) As regards the locations not covered by IP cameras, the FEHD would also deploy staff for blitz prosecution if illegal refuse dumping had been found.

43. Mr. Patrick TANG’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) He asked whether the FEHD planned to install just one IP camera at each of the 15 blackspots on the list, and to maintain the operation and monitoring of the other existing IP cameras.

(ii) He said he understood that the department was using a digitalised method to monitor the refuse dumping blackspots, and stressed that the reason why he hoped that the department would fight for additional resources was to increase the number of IP cameras (such as increasing from 15 to 30 per district).

(iii) He stressed that the quantity of refuse had nothing to do with whether they were dumped illegally or not. Therefore, it was inappropriate to rank the installation order of IP cameras according to the quantity of refuse. Instead, the number of complaints could better reflect the situation of illegal refuse dumping, and he also hoped that the department could forward his comments to the headquarters.

44. Mr. LEE Siu-man supported the FEHD’s blitz actions to crack down on illegal refuse dumping. In addition, some villagers had complained to him that a vehicle of the FEHD contractor was dumping refuse somewhere. As such, he asked whether the department allowed the contractors to gather all the refuse collected in a certain place before transporting them in one go 45. Mr. CHAN Cho-leung said that a lot of refuse were dumped at the blackspots in the area of Nam Wa Po every day. If the FEHD had deployed staff for blitz inspection, it would be impossible to have zero prosecution in the past year. He opined that the department should step up and review its prosecution efforts.

- 21 -

46. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded as follows:

(i) The FEHD installed IP cameras at the refuse dumping blackspots in the hope of educating members of the public not to dump refuse. It did not want to achieve the goal by installing more IP cameras at various locations.

(ii) If refuse dumping had improved after the installation of IP cameras, the department would relocate the IP cameras to other blackspots so as to cover different areas.

(iii) A Member said that the FEHD contractor had dumped refuse somewhere. He said that the contractor was responsible for dealing with the refuse collected in a proper manner. Therefore, in the event of the afore-mentioned situation, he asked the Member to provide more information for the department to take follow-up actions.

(iv) Whether the department could lodge a successful prosecution depended on whether the breach was substantiated. For example, when the refuse collection point was full, even if the department had noticed that someone had illegally dumped refuse next to the refuse collection point, it might not instigate a prosecution. However, as long as the department had sufficient justifications, it would definitely prosecute the offenders.

47. Mr. CHAN Cho-leung stressed that he was concerned about the effectiveness of the enforcement efforts of the FEHD staff but not the IP camera scheme itself. He pointed out that while the department had sent the task force to prosecute those who had dumped refuse illegally, the number of prosecution was very low. As such, he asked what the task force had done in the past and how effective their prosecution efforts were. 48. The Chairman said that as many people dumped refuse in the rural area, Members suggested the FEHD deploy more task force to the refuse dumping blackspots which were not covered by IP cameras for ambush and blitz prosecution actions. He believed that these initiatives would help prosecute the offenders successfully. 49. Mr. MA Hon-chiu suggested that Members could provide the refuse dumping blackspots for the department to deploy the task force to carry out blitz operation in a timely manner. 50. Mr. CHAN Cho-leung said that the FEHD was supposed to know the situation of each and every refuse collection point in the rural area of Tai Po. If there was serious refuse dumping problem at certain refuse collection points not on the afore-mentioned list, the department could deploy the task force for blitz operation. He believed that the initiative could help prosecute the offenders successfully. 51. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded that they would take follow-up actions.

- 22 -

52. The Chairman opined that the installation scheme of IP cameras at refuse dumping blackspots was effective. For example, after the department had installed IP cameras at Dragon Fountain, the situation there had improved. In view of this, he suggested the EHWC write to the departments concerned to ask the Administration to allocate more resources for the installation of more IP cameras in the district (especially in the rural area). In addition, the EHWC also agreed to the installation order list of IP cameras proposed by the FEHD. (Post-meeting note: The EHWC had written to the FEHD on 24 June 2019.)

V. Second phase of Anti-mosquito Campaign 2019 in Tai Po District (TPDC Paper No. EHW 28/2019) 53. Mr. MAN Hon-chiu introduced the captioned paper. In addition, he indicated that the FEHD would organise the promotional activity for the first phase of anti-rodent campaign and the second phase of anti-mosquito campaign in Tai Po District at 10 a.m. on 22 May 2019. He had distributed the schedule of the activities concerned to Members at this meeting and welcomed Members for their active participation. 54. Mr. AU Chun-wah found the anti-mosquito campaign organised ever year overrated as there were still a lot of mosquitoes in the district after the campaign was over. He understood that it was impossible for the FEHD to get rid of all the mosquitoes and he was not blaming the department. However, he hoped that other government departments could work together to carry out anti-mosquito work properly. He indicated that as mosquitoes usually appeared in parks, public housing area and construction sites (such as the construction site in Area 9 of Tai Po and the LCSD’s construction site on Plover Cove Road), inter-departmental collaboration was required to resolve the problem. Otherwise, regardless of how hard the FEHD had been working to get rid of the mosquitoes outside these facilities, it would not be able to get rid of those inside of them. 55. Mr. LO Hiu-fung’s comments and questions were as follows:

(i) As regards the 21 Pest Control Teams deployed by the FEHD for anti-mosquito work during the said anti-mosquito campaign, he asked whether the department had sufficient manpower. For the action on 16 April, the department had arranged for the contractors to visit Shek Kwu Lung Village, Kam Shan Village, Tung Mau Square, Tung Sau Square, Tung Fat Square and Tung Cheong Street for anti-mosquito work in a single morning. As such, he wondered if the contractors could carry out anti-mosquito work at all these locations carefully.

(ii) Apart from stagnant water on the ground, sludge and blockage in the drains would also give rise to mosquitoes. As such, he asked whether the department had carried

- 23 -

out the preventive and cleaning work properly.

(iii) He had been to Kam Shan Village with the department staff for anti-mosquito work and noticed that the staff did not carry out the work in the entire Kam Shan Village. Therefore, he was worried that the FEHD was just making up the numbers without actually getting rid of the mosquitoes at every location.

(iv) To his knowledge, two of the 21 Pest Control Teams mentioned were newly formed after the DC had asked for additional resources. All workers were equipped with a full set of anti-fog gear and carried out the anti-mosquito work by fogging, and the result was satisfactory. He called on the FEHD to allocate its own resources to purchase the equipment, instead of purchasing them only after the DC had made such a request.

(v) He agreed that anti-mosquito work relied on the collaboration of the departments. He opined that if there was no department clearing the sludge in the drains, cleaning the planters and cutting the grass at the parks, it would all be in vain regardless of how much larvicidal oil the FEHD had applied. As such, he hoped that the departments could enhance their co-ordination in the anti-mosquito work.

56. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded as follows:

(i) The FEHD contractor would carry out anti-mosquito work at the afore-mentioned locations on a regular basis. If it did not have enough time to visit all the locations, the contractor would inform the department for alternative arrangement.

(ii) The department had purchased the fogging equipment for anti-mosquito work, and had sufficient manpower for anti-mosquito work.

(iii) The FEHD and the LCSD had carried out joint anti-mosquito operations before. The FEHD would make suggestions to the LCSD as regards anti-mosquito work where necessary.

VI. Annual District Plan of the Housing Department (2019/20) (TPDC Paper No. EHW 29/2019) 57. Mrs. CHIU TSE Shuk-yin went through the captioned paper. 58. Members did not have any comments or questions.

VII. Buildings Department – The Annual Report on matters affecting people’s livelihood in Tai Po District in 2019 (TPDC Paper No. EHW 30/2019)

- 24 -

59. The Chairman welcomed Mr. SOONG Ngar-ting, Martin and Mr. WAT Ka-fai, John, Senior Structural Engineer and Structural Engineer respectively of the BD, to the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. 60. Mr. Martin SOONG went through the captioned paper. 61. Dr. LAU Chee-sing asked about the number of buildings in Tai Po District to which the BD had issued directions for fire safety improvement works in accordance with the Fire Safety (Commercial Premises) Ordinance and the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance, and the number of these buildings that had followed the directions concerned. 62. Mr. Martin SOONG said that he would provide Dr. LAU with the information concerned after the meeting. 63. The Chairman asked the BD to provide the EHWC with the supplementary information for Members’ reference. (Post-meeting note: According to the information provided by the BD, as at April 2019, the department had issued fire safety directions to 188 buildings. In addition, the number of fire safety directions issued and discharged / revoked in Tai Po District were listed as follows: Year Number of Fire Safety Directions

Issued Number of Fire Safety Directions

Discharged / Revoked (*) 2007 18 0 2008 24 2 2009 26 1 2010 30 3 2011 26 10 2012 39 12 2013 64 12 2014 246 15 2015 169 7 2016 86 10 2017 44 3 2018 108 1 Total 880 76

* The number concerned included the fire safety directions issued that year and those issued not in that year.)

- 25 -

VIII. Reports by the departments concerned regarding the street management and environmental

hygiene issues in Tai Po District (TPDC Paper No. EHW 31/2019) 64. Mr. MA Hon-chiu went through the captioned paper. 65. In addition to the regular reports by the FEHD, the Chairman also asked the departments concerned to report on the law enforcement efforts or follow-up actions taken at Lane Square in Tai Po in the past two months. 66. The reports of government departments were summarised as follows:

(i) The TPDO co-ordinated a total of two inter-departmental joint operations on 28 March and 24 April 2019 at Lane Square in Tai Po, Heung Sze Wui Square, and Kwong Fuk Road near Lane Square, with the participation of the TPDO, the FEHD, the HKPF, the TPDLO, the HyD, the Fire Services Department (“FSD”), the BD and the EPD. In addition, at the inter-departmental meeting in March, the TPDO had followed up on the unauthorised extension of business by shops in the area of Jade Plaza and Chui Lok Street. As regards the situation at Jade Plaza, the TPDO had inspected the site with Mr. AU Chun-wah and the FEHD staff on 3 April, and the EHWC Chairman and the DC Member of the constituency concerned were unable to attend due to other commitments. After inspection, the TPDO had forwarded the issue to the HD and the LCSD for follow-up actions. As regards Chui Lok Street, as the street obstruction problem caused by shops was more serious in the early hours, the FEHD, the HKPF and the EPD agreed to carry out an inter-departmental joint operation in the early hours. The operation concerned was carried out at 11:30 p.m. on 12 April, and the departments concerned would continue to keep an eye on the situation there and enhance their law enforcement efforts in future. The TPDO would also continue to keep in view the said situation and work with the departments concerned to review the effectiveness of the operations. The TPDO would also co-ordinate inter-departmental joint operations where necessary.

(ii) The HKPF continued to help various departments deal with street obstruction problems caused by the shops at Lane Square in Tai Po in a proactive manner. Apart from participating in the inter-departmental joint operations, the HKPF and the FEHD had also carried out special operations on an irregular basis in March and April 2019 to clear the streets in the area of Heung Sze Wui Square, and progress had been made. As regards the number of prosecutions, the HKPF had issued a total of 8 summonses at Lane Square in Tai Po in March and April 2019, and 77 fixed penalty tickets between February and April against vehicles for traffic offences.

(iii) During the two afore-mentioned inter-departmental joint operations, the TPDLO had

- 26 -

issued a total of one statutory notice and warning letter to the shops at Lane Square in Tai Po for setting up an immovable decking in public area.

(iv) The HyD had participated in the two afore-mentioned inter-departmental joint operations, during which it did not find any problem that had to be resolved.

(v) During the two afore-mentioned inter-departmental joint operations, the BD did not find any retractable canopies that required immediate action.

(vi) The EPD had been participating in the inter-departmental joint operations to deal with the noise coming from the loudspeakers at the shops at Lane Square in Tai Po. From early 2019 to the day of the meeting, there were a total of eight convicted cases involving loudspeaker noise coming from the shops. The department would continue to follow up on other similar cases and pay attention to the situation concerned. In addition, the EPD had also conducted joint operations on Chui Lok Street with the HKPF and the FEHD, and would continue to keep an eye on the situation and reminded shops not to make noises that would disturb the people nearby.

67. Mr. AU Chun-wah’s comments were as follows:

(i) As the vegetable and fruit stores opposite Tai Po Complex had once again put trolleys that were full of goods next to the fire gate, he had asked the FSD to take follow-up actions. At first, the FSD said that it had neither violated the Fire Safety Ordinance nor obstructed the fire escape. However, upon his repeated requests, the department finally sent fire engines to the site and asked the shopkeepers to deal with the items.

(ii) As regards the afore-mentioned situation, he pointed out that the items were placed on the pedestrian way next to the fire gate which was right below the Tai Po District Office of the FEHD. Therefore, he asked whether the FEHD was aware of the situation concerned. If yes, how many operations had the department taken and had it instigated any prosecutions (for example, how many penalty tickets were issued in a month)?

(iii) During the TPDC meeting last week, he told the FEHD and the HKPF that the PARKnSHOP at Lane Square in Tai Po often put the goods at the passing bay in Heung Sze Wui Square. As the goods were placed on the road, the FEHD could not deal with the problem on its own. As such, he had also asked the HKPF to help take law enforcement actions.

(iv) The vegetable and fruit stores next to the supermarket often used the loopholes to evade the law enforcement actions of the FEHD and the HKPF. For instance, to evade law enforcement actions, they would move the goods onto the road whenever the FEHD staff was at the scene. When police officers arrived, however, they would move the goods onto the pedestrian way. He said that he had raised the same issue at the previous meeting as well, and therefore hoped that the afore-mentioned two

- 27 -

departments could enhance their co-operation so as to resolve the problem.

(v) As regards the cleaning of sewers or outfalls, he had raised the issue for over a year, but no improvement had been made. He did not understand why the FEHD staff did not notice the situation concerned and opined that the department should have taken the initiative to resolve the problem.

(vi) He criticised the FEHD staff for doing nothing even when they noticed breaches or hygiene problems outside the stores during their field operations. He also found it puzzling that not only were the Cleansing Section and Hawkers Section unable to perform their duties properly, there was also a lack of co-operation between them. As such, he suggested the department arrange for staff from Cleansing Section and Hawkers Section to patrol together, so that they could deal with the hawker and hygiene problems at the same time while on duty. He hoped that the department would consider it carefully.

(vii) As regards the number of prosecution, the FEHD only made four prosecutions in respect of the unauthorised extension of business by the shops at the fire gate on Tai Kwong Lane in April 2019, which meant that only one prosecution was made every week. He was not happy that there was no improvement whatsoever in the situation.

(viii) He pointed out that the FEHD team led by the incumbent District Environmental Hygiene Superintendent (Tai Po) had been highly proactive in dealing with the environmental hygiene issues in the district. However, he opined that the frontline officers were not strict enough when taking law enforcement actions and that they should have been more decisive in taking law enforcement actions against any breaches. These stores had been given lots of opportunities to make amends, and would have no one but themselves to blame if they had violated the law again.

(ix) The problem of unauthorised extension of business by the shops at Jade Plaza had been deteriorating and had spread all the way to the area under the purview of the HD and the LCSD (such as Tai Po Central Town Square and Tai Yuen Estate near the market, etc.). It required the departments to enhance their co-operation. Otherwise, the shops would use the loopholes to evade prosecution again.

(x) The street obstruction by the two fruit stores on Tai Kwong Lane and the shops on the back alleys nearby had been worsening and the location where they kept the fruits was getting closer and closer to the middle of the pedestrian way. However, the matters concerned were not mentioned in the FEHD’s report.

(xi) The vegetable and fruit store on Kwong Fuk Road near the pedestrian crossing always kept goods and various items next to the railings. Although the FEHD would deal with the situation every time he gave it the photos, he opined that it could not root out the problem and hoped that the department could take the initiative to enhance the patrolling efforts.

(xii) As regards the prolonged parking of a goods vehicle and the poor hygiene at Heung

- 28 -

Sze Wui Square, he asked about the progress of converting the parking spaces. 68. Mr. LAU Yung-wai said that the eateries in the area of Chui Wo Lane, Chui Lok Street and Kau Hui Chik Street extended their business area unlawfully and made noises every night. However, the prosecution figure of the FEHD was rather low that only four prosecutions were made in April 2019. He understood that the EPD and the FEHD had taken follow-up actions. However, as long as one shop had violated the rules, others would follow suit. Therefore, he opined that the departments had to crack down on such actions, and especially come down hard on those who had violated the rules in a substantial manner. Otherwise, it would only result in a vicious cycle. He hoped that the departments would carry out more joint operations to step up the law enforcement efforts, and allow him to participate in the relevant meetings or operation so that he could keep abreast with the progress. 69. Mr. MA Hon-chiu responded as follows:

(i) The Hawkers Section patrolled the area of Lane Square in Tai Po every day to check if any shops had violated the regulations. If the shop had corrected its wrongdoings after verbal warning, it was likely that the frontline staff would not make any prosecution, and therefore the prosecution figure was rather low. However, the department would continue to enhance its patrolling efforts.

(ii) As regards the cleaning of sewers or outfalls, the department had asked the staff of Cleansing Section to step up their cleaning efforts.

(iii) As regards the suggestion of the staff of Cleansing Section and Hawkers Section patrolling together, the department could make such an arrangement on a trial basis from time to time, so as to facilitate the joint operations by the two sections.

(iv) As regards the unauthorised extension of business by the fruit store, the Hawkers Section patrolled Lane Square in Tai Po every morning, and would increase the patrol frequencies and make appropriate prosecutions.

(v) As regards the unauthorised extension of business by eateries in the area of Chui Wo Lane, Chui Lok Street and Kau Hui Chik Street, the FEHD carried out blitz actions every month, and would increase the number of prosecution actions as well.

70. Mr. CHENG Wun-chee said that when the HyD carried out the works on converting the parking spaces in Heung Sze Wui Square, it had to co-operate with the metered parking space contractor of the TD. As the TD had recently replaced the contractor concerned, the works had been delayed. The HyD would co-ordinate with the TD in a proactive manner and it was expected that the afore-mentioned works could be completed by the end of June 2019. 71. The Chairman called on the HyD to be proactive in communicating with the TD so as to complete the works concerned as soon as possible.

- 29 -

72. Mr. AU Chun-wah said that even though the staff of the FEHD’s Hawkers Section visited Lane Square in Tai Po in the morning to warn the offending shops, these shops would continue to sell goods on the pedestrian way later in the day. If the department had deployed staff there to make prosecutions again, the number of prosecutions would not have been that low. He pointed out that these shops had already regarded the fine as part of the rental payment. As such, he did not understand why the department was still unwilling to take prosecution actions. In addition, he asked the HyD and the TD to follow up on the conversion of parking spaces in Heung Sze Wui Square in a proactive manner, and that they had to complete the works by the end of June 2019. Otherwise, the TD would have to be held accountable. 73. Mr. LAU Yung-wai indicated that the PARKnSHOP at the junction of Chui Lok Street and Chui Wo Lane often put its trolleys outside the shop, and there was so much refuse in the vicinity that it had led to environmental hygiene problems. Therefore, he hoped that the departments concerned could take follow-up actions. In addition, while he understood that it was rather difficult for the departments concerned to carry out joint blitz operations outside office hours, he expected that the participating departments could prosecute more offending shops and not to tolerate the violations easily. Otherwise, the problem would not be resolved effectively. He added that the shops that extended their business often created noise problem which affected the residents nearby. Therefore, they had to be dealt with in a stringent manner. 74. As regards the works on converting the parking spaces at Heung Sze Wui Square, the Chairman asked Members to enquire the TD about the progress at the Traffic and Transport Committee meetings. In addition, he also asked the departments concerned to follow up on the street obstruction by the shops in the area of Chui Lok Street after the meeting.

IX. Reports by the departments concerned regarding the clearing of rubbish and sludge in Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River in Tai Po (TPDC Paper No. EHW 32/2019) 75. The Chairman welcomed all departmental representatives to attend the meeting for the discussion of this agenda item. 76. At the meeting, representatives of the CEDD, the FEHD, the EPD and the DSD went through the clearing of rubbish and sludge in Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River one after another. 77. Dr. LAU Chee-sing indicated that a tree at the riverside of Shan Liu River near Ting Kok Road had grown so sideways that its branches and leaves were touching the river. Therefore, he was worried that the drainage of the river would be affected during heavy rain. He had called the Government hotline 1823 as regards this issue before. However, as of the date of the meeting, no

- 30 -

government department was willing to clean up. He said that this year’s rainy season was approaching and the problem was imminent, and therefore hoped that the departments concerned, such as the DSD, the TPDLO and the TPDO, etc., could inspect the site and discuss for ways to clean up. In addition, he pointed out that a big tree at the riverside of Wai Ha River near Shuen Wan Temple had been blown to a side by typhoon “Mangkhut” earlier. While some of its branches had been removed, its tree stump was still in the river. He added that even though the TPDLO had removed part of the tree, the remaining parts would still obstruct the river channel. Therefore, he would like the departments concerned to inspect the site to find out a solution. 78. The Chairman said that the Assistant District Officer (Tai Po) would contact Dr. LAU Chee-sing for details after the meeting. 79. Mr. LO Hiu-fung said that during the past two weeks, he noticed a lot of rubbish on both sides of the river channel under Kam Wo Bridge. The rubbish floated on the water during high tides and sank to the bottom of the river channel during low tide. Therefore, he asked how the FEHD and the DSD would deal with it. He said that as some members of the public would throw refuse into the river, he hoped that the departments concerned would step up the prosecution efforts and co-ordinate with one another to enhance the cleaning of rubbish in the river. In addition, as he also noticed a lot of weeds along the river bank, he asked which department should be responsible for removing them. 80. Ms. WONG Pik-kiu’s comments were as follows:

(i) After Members had raised their comments to the DSD as regards the handling of shared bicycles at the previous meeting, the department had been dealing with the shared bicycles removed from the rivers in a proactive manner, and was less dependent on the FEHD for removing them. No matter if the departments were reporting on the water quality of the rivers or the hygiene of the river banks, their goal was to keep Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River clean and clear. Therefore, she hoped that the DSD would continue to monitor the situation of the rubbish on the river bed.

(ii) Some residential buildings might have connected their sewers to the drainage by mistake and had thus discharged sewage into Lam Tsuen River. She asked whether the EPD could provide the prosecution figures of these cases.

(iii) The storm on 19 April had brought rubbish, weeds and unknown plants from Kam Shan River onto Kwong Fuk Estate. Had the FEHD not arranged for boats to clear the rubbish along the river channel the following day, there would have been lots of complaints. Therefore, she commended the FEHD for its efforts. In addition, she asked about the species of these unknown plants. If such plants were not cleaned up in time, they would have kept growing, obstructed the river channel, affected the water quality and suffocated the fish.

- 31 -

(iv) A street lamp at Tai Po Waterfront Park near the pier had broken down for a long time. It was later found that the CEDD was responsible for its management. As such, she hoped that the department could follow up on its repair.

(Post-meeting note: The CEDD repaired the afore-mentioned street lamp on 5 June 2019.) 81. The Chairman said that the weeds along both sides of the river had to be removed, and he hoped that the staff of the Works Section under the DO would help handle and follow up on the matter. In addition, he said that the TPDC Chairman was very familiar with the work of the departments and valued district works, and he was also pleased to see that the work division among departments had become clearer and that the river condition had improved. Therefore, he called on all departments to keep up their good work. As regards the issues concerning the street lamp at Tai Po Waterfront Park, he asked the CEDD to take follow-up actions after the meeting. 82. Mr. NG Wing-hung said that the DSD had also noticed a lot of rubbish on both sides of the river under Kam Wo Bridge recently. The department would study ways for improvement and contact Mr. LO Hiu-fung for follow-up actions. 83. As regards the questions raised by Members just now, the Chairman hoped that the departments would take the initiative to follow them up through co-ordination.

X. Progress report of the Working Group on Tai Po District Environmental Controls (TPDC Paper No. EHW 33/2019) 84. Mr. CHEN Wai-kuen asked Members to take note of the captioned paper. 85. Mr. TSANG Hei-wah, Charles reported as follows:

(i) Details of the Inter-Departmental Bicycle Clearance Joint Operations (“joint operations”) were as follows:

- The TPDO carried out four joint operations with the TD, the TPDLO, the FEHD and the HKPF on 13 March, 28 March, 4 April and 26 April 2019 respectively, before which the departments concerned had put up 195, 244, 437 and 179 notices respectively, and during which 42, 53, 54 and 41 bicycles had been confiscated respectively.

- In the above four operations, a total of 80 shared bicycles had been confiscated. - The next joint operation was tentatively scheduled for May 2019.

(ii) Details of the trial scheme to strengthen the crackdown on the illegally parked bicycles were as follows:

- 32 -

- The TPDO worked together with the TD and the HKPF to carry out two operations on 19 March and 15 April 2019 to crack down on the illegally parked bicycles in the vicinity of pedestrian subways No. NS153 and No. NS154 near Serenity Park and Tai Wo Neighbourhood Community Centre. During the two operations, the departments concerned had confiscated 12 bicycles, four of which were shared bicycles.

- The departments concerned expected that the next operation would be carried out in May 2019.

86. Mr. AU Chun-wah hoped that the departments could deal with the items on the railings when dealing with the bicycles. For instance, the scores of items that had been locked onto the railings on Kwong Fuk Road would not only obstruct the road users, but also damage the authorised promotional banners on the railings. As a result, the banners that had been damaged or fallen on the ground would be confiscated by the TPDLO staff, and those who put up the banners would have to pay the cleaning fees. He found it unfair. Even though the FEHD was prompt to deal with the items on the railings after being informed, he hoped that the departments concerned would be more proactive in removing the items on the railings at the same time during the said joint operations. 87. Mr. MA Hon-chiu said that the main purpose of the afore-mentioned joint operations was to remove the bicycles. As such, it might not be appropriate to remove the items on the railings at the same time. However, the FEHD would clear these items on the railings on a regular basis, and would increase the clearing frequency in response to Members’ comments.

XI. Vetting of district minor works project proposals to be recommended to the District Facilities Management Committee

(TPDC Paper No. EHW 34/2019) 88. The Chairman said that district works proposals had to secure the support of the committees concerned before being submitted to the District Facilities Management Committee (“DFMC”) for consideration. The Secretariat had received from Members 10 works proposals which the EHWC had to consider whether to recommend. The proposals concerned had been set out in TPDC Paper No. EHW 34/2019. 89. Members did not have any questions or comments. The EHWC agreed to recommend the works set out in the captioned paper to the DFMC.

XII. Allocation of DC Funds to the EHWC in 2019/20 (TPDC Paper No. EHW 35/2019)

- 33 -

90. The Chairman said that the TPDC endorsed the allocation of $230,000 (including an excess funding of $29,000) to the EHWC for the 2019/20 financial year at the meeting on 2 May 2019. Members were asked to take note of that.

XIII. Reports of working groups (i) Working Group on Environmental Protection and Optimisation 91. Mr. Rex LI, Chairman of the Working Group, reported that the Working Group held its first meeting in 2019 on 24 April 2019, and endorsed the DC Funds application of $40,000 for co-organising “Green Living in Tai Po 2019” with Green Sense. He invited Members to support the funding application of this activity. In addition, he indicated that the Secretariat had openly invited project proposals from all organisations and institutions to co-organise activities with the Working Group. The Working Group would convene meetings to discuss any application received, and welcomed Members for any comments. (ii) Working Group on Monitoring of Public Housing Development in Tai Po 92. Mr. LI Kwok-ying, Chairman of the Working Group, reported that as the Working Group had not received any progress report and complaints concerning public housing development projects recently, it had not held any meetings. The Working Group would convene meetings as soon as possible if Members had brought up any discussion topics.

XIV. Application for DC funds (TPDC Paper No. EHW 36/2019)

93. The Chairman invited Members to declare their interests regarding the DC Funds application submitted to the EHWC for vetting as necessary. 94. The Secretary went through the arrangement on interest declaration as follows:

(i) Pursuant to Orders 48(9) and 48(10) of TPDC Standing Orders, a Member had to declare interests if he found that he had direct personal interests, pecuniary interests or other interests in an application for DC Funds under consideration, or had links with the benefitted party or the potential benefitted party.

(ii) Based on the information collected before the meeting, the Secretariat did not find any Members having links with the applicant organisation. However, in addition to any links with the hosting / partnering / co-hosting organisation, a Member also had

- 34 -

to declare interests if he had any direct personal interests, pecuniary interests or other interests in an application for DC Funds under consideration.

95. No Members declared any interests at the meeting. 96. The Chairman said that if Members were satisfied that the DC Funds application set out in the captioned paper was covered under the scope of DC Funds while benefitting people living, working or attending schools in the district, they could consider endorsing the application. 97. The EHWC resolved to allocate $40,000 to Green Sense for co-organising “Green Living in Tai Po 2019” with the Working Group on Environmental Protection and Optimisation.

XV. Any other business (i) Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection in Collaboration

with District Councils 2019/20 (TPDC Paper No. EHW 37/2019) 98. The Chairman said that under the Community Participation Programme in Environmental Protection in Collaboration with District Councils, the EPD would continue to allocate $200,000 to the TPDO via the HAD in 2019 for carrying out publicity activities on district environmental education, waste reduction at source, recycling, etc. The theme in 2019 was “Dump Less, Save More, Recycle Right”. Details had been set out in TPDC Paper No. EHW 37/2019. He suggested the EHWC continue to participate in the captioned programme this year and pass the funding application to the Working Group on Environmental Protection and Optimisation for follow-up actions. The Working Group would openly invite local organisations to organise the activities. 99. The EHWC agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion.

XVI. Date of next meeting 100. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held at 2:30 p.m. on 10 July 2019 (Wednesday). 101. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

Tai Po District Council Secretariat June 2019