Whilst the duty roster Members appreciated the feelings of the shop operators, they were of the view that the matter could not be pursued further. The shop operators were advised of Members' decision accordingly. Nonetheless, in the light of experience of this case, the Principal Government Highway Engineer was requested to consider whether there were more effective ways of consulting District Board members before similar projects were implemented in future. In reply, the Principal Government Highway Engineer confirmed that in future, models and computer aided perspective drawings would be used to convey a clearer architectural impression of new highway projects to District Board members. He also advised that a special committee had been formed in the Highways Office to examine the appearance and environmental impact of highway projects.
Appeal for Inheritance of Tenancy (C 1726/85)
A woman complained to UMELCO about the decision of the Housing Manager of a public housing estate to refuse her request to inherit the tenancy of her deceased mother in the estate. She stated that the Housing Manager had offered the tenancy to her married sister.
Upon enquiry, the Housing Manager concerned explained that the appellant had moved out for a lengthy period in the past and had not returned to the estate until the death of her mother. On the other hand, as the appellant's sister and her family had been residing with the deceased in the premises for a long time, it was therefore proper to offer the tenancy to the sister on grounds of genuine residence.
Following the referral of the case to the Housing Manager, the complainant was interviewed by the staff of the estate. In view of the complainant's claim that she was faced with financial and housing problems, the Housing Manager agreed to refer her case to the Director of Social Welfare for compassionate consideration. Subsequently, the Director of
Social Welfare recommended that the complainant be offered compassionate rehousing. The problem was thus satisfactorily resolved.
Unable to Help
Appeal against the Construction of Columbarium on Peng Chau Island (C 2262/84)
Representatives of three villages near Nam Wan on Peng Chau Island appealed to UMELCO against the construction of a columbarium in close proximity to their villages. They stated that the proposed columbarium would seriously disturb the 'fung shui' of the villages and the peace of mind of nearby residents. They claimed that although Government had consulted the Peng Chau Rural Committee and the Peng Chau Area Committee before deciding on the site, they had not been consulted. They therefore urged the authorities to consider constructing the columbarium at Pak Wan or Tai Lei Island, failing which the project should be shelved.
After consultation with the Director, NT Services, District Lands Officer (Islands) and District Officer (Islands), UMELCO were advised that the claim that the proposed columbarium would affect the 'fung shui' of the villages was not substantiated. The Peng Chau Rural Committee and the Peng Chau Area Committee of the Islands District Board had supported the proposed project mainly on the grounds that Peng Chau was desperately in need of a columbarium. Moreover, the Pak Wan site the villagers suggested was not suitable because it was a traditional burial ground and extensively covered with graves. It was also situated high up the hill which made access to it difficult. If the columbarium were to be constructed there, it would involve removal of graves, compensation and finding alternative space for re-burials. This would greatly increase the cost of what was only a small columbarium of 500 niches and would probably frustrate it altogether. The sites at Long Kei Pak suggested by the villagers were too distant and lacked proper access. The remoteness of their location together with the steep topography and the exposed out-look militated against these sites, not to mention the extensive geotechnical works which would be required. As regards Tai Lei Island located on the west of Peng Chau Island, all the land available had been committed, and hence there was no question of building the proposed columbarium there.
The villagers' representations and the replies from the Government authorities were subsequently considered by the duty roster Members. Members decided that the appeal could not be supported and the representatives were informed accordingly.
Appeal for Compensation (C 202/85) The appellant's family owned a piece of land in Fanling. They had erected 85 structures on the land and rented them out. In early 1985, he was informed by Government that the land would be resumed for development in July. Subsequently, the Housing Department posted survey notices on the structures informing the residents of the pre-clearance survey. Following this his tenants had refused to pay any rents to him. The appellant then demanded the Housing Department to compensate him for the financial loss because he felt that the Housing Department should not have notified the tenants of the clearance so far in advance. He also demanded the authorities to delay offering rehousing to his tenants until they had paid their rental arrears. His demands having been refused, he appealed to UMELCO. As a side issue, he also complained that the survey notices posted on the structures were not in order because they did not bear the signature of any official.
The Director of Housing was asked to clarify the position. In his reply, the Director explained that it was the practice of the Housing Department to give as much notice as possible to residents affected by clearances so that they would have more time to prepare for their removal. As regards the survey notices in question, he confirmed that they were properly posted with the signatures of the staff of the Department. However, it might be possible that the signatures had faded after being exposed in the open.
As regards the appellant's claim for compensation, the District Lands Officer (North), advised that despite the posting of clearance notices by the Housing Department, the appellant's right as landowner was not affected. He could still demand payment of rents from his tenants until his property formally reverted to the Crown on expiry of the Resumption Notice. As such, Government was not liable for any financial loss incurred by the landowner due to the failure of his tenants to pay rent. Furthermore, as
72
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.