33 -
Honourable Members will therefore appreciate that, as far as existing rooftop structures are concerned, enforcement action is targeted at those which may pose a threat to life or property. It will be irresponsible on the part of Government if action is not taken against these structures. I think this point is shared by Honourable Members.
Before speaking on the suggestion of a territory-wide occupation survey of rooftop structures, I will deal with one point. This is the concern that many transactions of rooftop structures are undertaken by solicitors and estate agents. This tends to give the impression that the structures are legal structures. We have discussed this with the Law Society. The Society, I understand, has reminded its members that in handling transactions involving or likely involving unauthorised structures, the illegality and the liability to demolition of such structures should be fully disclosed to the prospective seller and purchaser. Members of the Society have also been reminded to ask purchasers to employ professional surveyors to check the property against approved building plans where there is reason to suspect unauthorised structures exist. We will consider whether anything further need to be done, in conjunction with the Attorney General's Chambers and the legal profession.
The Motion requests that the Government conduct a territory-wide occupation survey of rooftop structures. Before we undertake such a survey, we need to establish clearly from the outset what the objectives of the survey are. Is the objective of the survey to assess the scale of the problem with a view to finding out ways and means to minimise it? Is the objective also to work out a programme to identify and clear those structures which pose the most danger to life and property? Or is the objective to demolish all the illegal rooftop structures and rehouse their occupants? If the objective is the last one, it will not serve a useful purpose. As the Secretary for Housing has clearly stated, the existing criteria for rehousing are already well- established and well-known. The policy is reasonable and fair. We do not want such a survey to be used as a basis to change the existing rehousing policy. Neither do we want such a survey to arouse false expectations on the part of the occupants.
It is estimated that about 40,000 private buildings in the territory have rooftop structures. Not all these structures are for domestic use and some are built by the owners of flats in the same building. To conduct a worthwhile and comprehensive survey, it would be necessary to visit all such structures to establish their status and to register the personal details of the occupants. Further checks would be needed to determine ownership of structures and those occupants who genuinely live there. This may not always be possible. Our very preliminary estimate is that such an enormous task would require some 80 full-time staff over one year and its cost would be in the order of $20 million. Also, the results of such a survey would be of limited usefulness unless additional resources were regularly devoted to update the particulars.