Page 131 of 194
244
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Last year I spoke about housing, and this year I should like to pass on from the problem of housing the living to that of housing the dead, and to raise a question about our cemeteries. This Council controls and operates the Chinese cemetery at Wo Hop Shek. But there exist many private cemeteries serving the various religious communities as well as those controlled by the Chinese Permanent Cemetery Committee under the chairmanship of the Honourable the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. The first point I wish to make is in regard to charges. In the public cemetery controlled by this Council, the interment charges are $5.00 for a site in Section A, and $15.00 in Section B. In the private cemeteries, I understand the charge is generally $1,200 and may be as high as $1,500 for a site, which I understand is only 4 ft. x 8 ft. The discrepancy in the charges for public and private burial facilities seems excessive. I agree differences there must be, but I wonder if there are good reasons why the difference should be so marked? I understand that in the past, the practice of reserving sites in private cemeteries has been allowed, although I understand that this has now ceased or has been very much curtailed. I wish to ask if the authorities have any evidence of such plots being re-sold at greatly enhanced prices, and if so, whether this practice is widespread and whether it is keeping the cost of sites in private cemeteries artificially high? Mr. Chairman, on this question, I learned only last night from a well-known figure whom I know very well that about 10 years ago he had been offered a site. The offer was made to him at a price of $180,000 for a plot and now the price is much higher. Land is in such short supply, that cemeteries have become almost as much a problem as housing, and I heartily endorse the suggestion in paragraph 12 of our Aims that the modern facilities for cremation should be made more widely known.
I also wish to refer to the danger to pedestrians in demolition and construction work. There have been complaints in the Press about the obstruction of public thoroughfares by building materials. For example, a recent letter complained about conditions in Lyttelton Road. It should be a fairly simple matter for building materials to be stored on the site in such reasonable quantities as should not hold up the work of the builder, and at the same time not inconvenience the public. This is a matter partly for the Building Authority and partly for the Police. The fatality that recently occurred as a result of demolition work has also drawn public attention to this problem. I see that the Honourable the Director of Public Works has now written to all authorized architects informing them that additional power would be sought under the Buildings Ordinance to give him greater control over demolitions. These include the power to refuse consent to demolition work if the Building Authority is of the opinion that adjoining buildings are unduly endangered. Similarly, it would give him power to prohibit building work, including piling and excavations, which endangered nearby buildings. No doubt this drastic power will be held in reserve and applied only when adequate protective measures on the part of the builders are consistently disregarded. The Honourable Director of Public Works has further explained that the necessary inspection work involved in these measures would divert his staff from duties connected with the examination of plans. It is quite realized that priority must be given to the protection of the public in the matter of demolitions, but in view of complaints frequently heard about the delay in securing the Building Authority's approval of plans for new building projects, I strongly urge the Honourable Director of Public Works to take all steps to reduce the delays to a minimum. With regard to the obstruction of the public rights of way in places adjacent to building sites, careful inspection by the Building Authority might be made and action taken against persistent offenders. While I am on this subject, may I also remark upon the great inconvenience to both vehicular traffic and pedestrians from the number and duration of openings in our roads, and particularly in the crowded urban areas including the Central district. We all realize that the Town Planning Authority has evolved extensive, bold and imaginative schemes of development and that a great deal of trench work is necessary and that economic considerations demand that this shall be done in fairly large stretches. Long hold-ups cause general irritation, and I cannot help feeling that the road openings have been far too numerous and that the convenience of the general public has perhaps been too readily sacrificed.
The last point I wish to raise is that of air pollution and smoke nuisances in the urban areas, a matter on which, I am sorry to note, our Statement of Aims is silent. This question was raised by a member at the November meeting of this Council. The answers given seem to me to reveal some weakness in the Clean Air Ordinance of 1959 which governs the matter. The Health Officers and Health Inspectors are Smoke Abatement Officers under the Ordinance, but apparently they are concerned primarily with domestic premises and restaurants. These are of small importance compared to the pollution caused by industrial concerns which are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Labour. I think it will be generally agreed that there is considerable pollution of air from factories, particularly in the Kowloon City and Hung Hom areas. I think complaints about these have appeared quite frequently in the Press. I should like to ask what steps are taken to reconcile the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Labour in regard to pollution of the atmosphere from industrial concerns with the over-all responsibility of the Urban Services Department for guarding against general health dangers? I should also like to ask what steps are taken by the Labour Department to check excessive air pollution, and the number and qualifications of the officials whose duty it is to deal with
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
245
Page 132 of 194
Page 131 of 194
244
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Last year I spoke about housing, and this year I should like to pass on from the problem of housing the living to that of housing the dead, and to raise a question about our cemeteries. This Council controls and operates the Chinese cemetery at Wo Hop Shek. But there exist many private cemeteries serving the various religious com- munities as well as those controlled by the Chinese Permanent Cemetery Committee under the chairmanship of the Honourable the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. The first point I wish to make is in regard to charges. In the public cemetery controlled by this Council, the inter- ment charges are $5.00 for a site in Section A, and $15.00 in Section B. In the private cemeteries, I understand the charge is generally $1,200 and may be as high as $1,500 for a site, which I understand is only 4 ft. x 8 ft. The discrepancy in the charges for public and private burial facilities seem excessive. I agree differences there must be, but I wonder if there are good reasons why the difference should be so marked? I understand that in the past, the practice of reserving sites in private cemeteries has been allowed, although I understand that this has now ceased or has been very much curtailed. I wish to ask if the authorities have any evidence of such plots being re-sold at greatly enhanced prices, and if so, whether this practice is widespread and whether it is keeping the cost of sites in private cemeteries artificially high? Mr. Chairman, on this question, I learned only last night from a well-known figure whom I know very well that about 10 years ago he had been offered a site. The offer was made to him at a price of $180,000 for a plot and now the price is much higher. Land is in such short supply, that cemeteries have become almost as much a problem as housing, and I heartily endorse the suggestion in paragraph 12 of our Aims that the modern facilities for cremation should be made more widely known.
I also wish to refer to the danger to pedestrians in demolition and construction work. There have been complaints in the Press about the obstruction of public thoroughfares by building materials. For example, a recent letter complained about conditions in Lyttelton Road. It should be a fairly simple matter for building materials to be stored on the site in such reasonable quantities as should not hold up the work of the builder, and at the same time not inconvenience the public. This is a matter partly for the Building Authority and partly for the Police. The fatality that recently occurred as a result of demolition work has also drawn public attention to this problem. I see that the Honourable the Director of Public Works has now written to all authorized archi- tects informing them that additional power would be sought under the Buildings Ordinance to give him greater control over demolitions. These include the power to refuse consent to demolition work if the Building Authority is of the opinion that adjoining buildings are unduly endangered. Similarly, it would give him power to prohibit building
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
245
work, including piling and excavations, which endangered nearby buildings. No doubt this drastic power will be held in reserve and applied only when adequate protective measures on the part of the builders are consistently disregarded. The Honourable Director of Public Works has further explained that the necessary inspection work involved in these measures would divert his staff, from duties connected with the examination of plans. It is quite realized that priority must be given to the protection of the public in the matter of demolitions, but in view of complaints frequently heard about the delay in securing the Building Authority's approval of plans for new building projects, I strongly urge the Honourable Director of Public Works to take all steps to reduce the delays to a minimum. With regard to the obstruc- tion of the public rights of way in places adjacent to building sites, careful inspection by the Building Authority might be made and action taken against persistent offenders. While I am on this subject, may I also remark upon the great inconvenience to both vehicular traffic and pedestrians from the number and duration of openings in our roads, and particularly in the crowded urban areas including the Central district. We all realize that the Town Planning Authority has evolved extensive, bold and imaginative schemes of development and that a great deal of trench work is necessary and that economic considerations demand that this shall be done in fairly large stretches. Long hold-ups cause general irritation, and I cannot help feeling that the road openings have been far too numerous and that the convenience of the general public has perhaps been too readily sacrificed.
The last point I wish to raise is that of air pollution and smoke nuisances in the urban areas, a matter on which, I am sorry to note, our Statement of Aims is silent. This question was raised by a member at the November meeting of this Council. The answers given seem to me to reveal some weakness in the Clean Air Ordinance of 1959 which governs the matter. The Health Officers and Health Inspectors are Smoke Abatement Officers under the Ordinance, but apparently they But are concerned primarily with domestic premises and restaurants. these are of small importance compared to the pollution caused by industrial concerns which are the responsibility of the Commissioner of Labour. I think it will be generally agreed that there is considerable pollution of air from factories, particularly in the Kowloon City and Hung Hom areas. I think complaints about these have appeared quite frequently in the Press. I should like to ask what steps are taken to reconcile the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Labour in regard to pollution of the atmosphere from industrial concerns with the over-all responsibility of the Urban Services Department for guarding against general health dangers? I should also like to ask what steps are taken by the Labour Department to check excessive air pollution, and the number and qualifications of the officials whose duty it is to deal with
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.