350
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
clear up junk on the roadside. This would give owners of the junk time and chance to remove the stuff a bit, rendering the Urban Services Department staff unable to clear up the disorderly environment. In view of the situation, has the Urban Council considered ways of improvement?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):—This question concerns the clearance of junk on the roadside and they cause obstruction to our cleansing operations and ask whether the Council has considered ways of improvement.
The term junk is commonly used to refer to some unwanted household articles which have been discarded by their owners. To remove junk of this nature, there is normally no need to serve any notice and the departmental staff do collect a great deal of such junk in the normal course of their daily duties.
Junk, though discarded in public place so as to cause obstruction, but may nevertheless be required for future use by the owners. In this case, if the owner is known, he should be advised to remove the same immediately, failure to do so will render him liable to prosecution under section 22 subsection (1) Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance Cap. 132.
However, in cases where the owners of discarded junk cannot be ascertained or located, the departmental staff may have to attach notices to the articles requiring the owners to remove the same within such period, being not less than 24 hours, as may be specified in the notice and to prevent recurrence of such obstruction within two weeks, this is probably the situation referred to in the question by Mr. FUNG. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in articles being removed and finally seized and disposed of, if not reclaimed within 7 days.
If the owner of the junk obstruction tries to juggle with law by removing the articles aside a little, the enforcement staff may use their discretion to deal with the situation and seize the articles depending on how far away the obstruction has been removed. In any case, the beat sweeper is able to clean up the place where the obstruction has been caused and the objective of law is achieved. On the other hand, if obstruction is removed far away enough, a fresh notice can always be served on it at the new location and this will make the owner on the move again.
I am satisfied that existing legislations for the control of cleansing operation is adequate, but reviews can always be conducted at any time in the light of fresh experience. This is a regular ongoing exercise.
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that the department has not taken enforcement action. However, by observation, the department has been very tolerant. Let me cite an example, at Apliu Street in Sham Shui Po. I noticed that quite often people just put the unused refrigerators and old TVs on street. I don't know why they are allowed to do so.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 196 of 201
351
In fact it is very unsightly putting the refrigerators and TVs on the pavement. Besides it causes obstruction to pedestrians as well as motorists.
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—The problem referred to by Mr. FUNG in Apliu Street is quite connive and recalcitrant. I think some shopkeepers are not public spirited and they put their own goods or articles occupying public places. From my experience, there is a similar problem in Mong Kok in Fife Street and this problem was dealt with by the District Office in the blitz operations at regular interval to discourage shopkeepers to put their own goods in the public places. I think I would suggest the department to look into this aspect of problem.
MR. JOSEPH Y. S. CHAN (in Cantonese):—I don't know whether this can be regarded as a supplementary question. Mr. Chairman, you have to decide whether I am allowed to ask this question or not. Concerning articles placed on the roadside, sometimes, the staff of the department do remove the articles to another place, e.g. sometime they would remove it next to the RCP or to underneath a flyover. Usually, these are household items or old refrigerators or unused furniture. In fact, in Causeway Bay, underneath the flyover, there are a lot of articles of this nature. The USD staff may remove the articles to that vicinity or they want to sell it eventually to be used by other people. But this sort of practices are causing problem because they are an eyesore in addition to causing obstruction to road users. I don't know whether this can be regarded as a supplementary question.
CHAIRMAN (in English):—It is not really but it sounds like a statement. Dr. LEUNG, would you like to deal with that?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—I would rather prefer to look into the problem before I attempt to answer.
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN (in Cantonese):—My question is very simple. According to the answer by Dr. LEUNG, perhaps he has never visited Apliu Street but I go there very often myself. So may be we should arrange for a site visit to Apliu Street, so that Members of the Committee can have a first hand look at the actual situation and can consider improvement measures. Is that possible?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—I understand that Mr. CHAN'S question is whether we should arrange a visit in the future occasions to look into the problem at Apliu Street. I beg to have a chance to correct Mr. CHAN that I have been to Apliu Street before and that is why I quote that the problem is very similar to Fife Street that shopkeepers occupying the roadside spaces to display their articles and commodities. I think the problem is to launch a blitz operation by the District Office at regular intervals so as to discourage the shopkeepers in such malpractices.