Page 155 of 382
288
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN.Ladies and Gentlemen, before taking the first item on today's agenda, may I welcome back, Dr. BELL, Mr. FUNG Hon-chu and Mr. K. S. Lo. (Applause)
MINUTES.The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 7th September, 1965, were confirmed.
PAPERS.The Chairman laid upon the table the following paper:-
Report on the work of the Urban Council and Urban Services Department for the month of September 1965.
MR. SALES:-Sir, may I as Chairman of the Urban Council Amenities Select Committee, draw the Council's attention to the excellent work which your Department is doing in planting trees, mounting benches and the like, to the extent that your department intends to plant 500 trees in Gin Drinkers' Bay-this is being done in the New Territories, and until this question of sovereignty over Tsuen Wan is determined, my Select Committee evidently can say no more than, "Well done!". Should the question of Tsuen Wan coming into the Urban Council be determined favourably in accordance with the motion that was passed last month on the instigation of the Civic Association, (Laughter) my Select Committee would no doubt be given the opportunity of selecting the types of trees to be planted in Gin Drinkers' Bay.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir, for your kind words, which were quite unexpected. (Laughter)
QUESTIONS.(1) MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:
(a) Can the Commissioner for Resettlement explain why welfare organizations are required to pay rentals at the full commercial rate in Tze Wan Shan, Chai Wan, Tin Wan, Yau Tong, and other of the newer estates, while welfare organizations in the older estates pay a nominal rental of only $1 per month?
(b) Will the Commissioner for Resettlement urge Government to reduce the rents for welfare organizations in the newer estates to the same level as for welfare organizations in the older estates?
Page 156 of 382
289
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:
The rates of rent charged are those laid down in the Resettlement Regulations. The rates vary according to the type of resettlement block in which the allocation is made. For instance, in Mark I and II blocks, rooftops are charged at $1.00 p.m., whether used as a school or for non-profit-making charitable or welfare purposes. On the ground floors of Mark I and II blocks, welfare premises are charged a rent below that for shops or domestic rooms of equivalent size. In Mark III blocks, there are no rooftop schools, but top floor schools and welfare premises on the ground floor are charged rent at a rate applicable to the equivalent number of domestic rooms occupied. No premises in Mark IV blocks have been allocated as schools or for welfare purposes but the 6-storey annex schools in the newer estates are charged a nominal rent of $1.00 p.m.
These varying rates are perhaps confusing and inconsistent. Top floor schools in Mark III blocks have to pay more rent than the much larger annex schools to Mark IV blocks. Ground floor welfare premises in Mark III blocks pay more rent than similar sized premises on the ground floors of Mark I and II blocks.
I may say that the position in regard to rents for schools and welfare purposes in resettlement estates is under review at present with Government and the appropriate Select Committees of this Council will be consulted in due course.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, I understand that in some of the Mark III Blocks, rents for some of the premises which are being used by Welfare agencies are as high as $1,500 a month, and that is a disparity of 1,500 times. How did this disparity arise originally?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I cannot say just how this disparity has arisen. The particular case cited, of course, is based on the domestic rent and the number of rooms occupied and, as I have said, the position is under review and as soon as we have had an indication of Government's views on this, the Select Committee will be consulted.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Has the Department already taken this matter up with the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-That is apparent, I think, from paragraph 3 of my answer.
Page 156
82
Page 155 of 382
288
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN.
Ladies and Gentlemen, before taking the first item on today's agenda, may I welcome back, Dr. BELL, Mr. FUNG Hon-chu and Mr. K. S. Lo. (Applause)
MINUTES.
The Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 7th September, 1965, were confirmed.
PAPERS.
The Chairman laid upon the table the following paper:-
Report on the work of the Urban Council and Urban Services
Department for the month of September 1965.
MR. SALES: -Sir, may I as Chairman of the Urban Council Ameni- ties Select Committee, draw the Council's attention to the excellent work which your Department is doing in planting trees, mounting benches and the like, to the extent that your department intends to plant 500 trees in Gin Drinkers' Bay-this is being done in the New Territories, and until this question of sovereignty over Tsuen Wan is determined, my Select Committee evidently can say no more than, "Well done!". Should the question of Tsuen Wan coming into the Urban Council be determined favourably in accordance with the motion that was passed last month on the instigation of the Civic Association, (Laughter) my Select Committee would no doubt be given the oppor- tunity of selecting the types of trees to be planted in Gin Drinkers' Bay.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Sir, for your kind words, which were quite unexpected. (Laughter)
QUESTIONS.
(1) MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:
(a) Can the Commissioner for Resettlement explain why welfare organizations are required to pay rentals at the full commercial rate in Tze Wan Shan, Chai Wan, Tin Wan, Yau Tong, and other of the newer estates, while welfare organizations in the older estates pay a nominal rental of only $1 per month?
(b) Will the Commissioner for Resettlement urge Government to reduce the rents for welfare organizations in the newer estates to the same level as for welfare organizations in the older estates?
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
289
THE COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT replied as follows:
The rates of rent charged are those laid down in the Resettle- ment Regulations. The rates vary according to the type of resettlement block in which the allocation is made. For instance, in Mark I and II blocks, rooftops are charged at $1.00 p.m., whether used as a school or for non-profit- making charitable or welfare purposes. On the ground floors of Mark I and II blocks, welfare premises are charged a rent below that for shops or domestic rooms of equivalent size. In Mark III blocks, there are no rooftop schools, but top floor schools and welfare premises on the ground floor are charged rent at a rate applicable to the equivalent number of domestic rooms occupied. No premises in Mark IV blocks have been allocated as schools or for welfare purposes but the 6-storey annex schools in the newer estates are charged a nominal rent of $1.00 p.m.
These varying rates are perhaps confusing and inconsistent. Top floor schools in Mark III blocks have to pay more rent than the much larger annex schools to Mark IV blocks. Ground floor welfare premises in Mark III blocks pay more rent than similar sized premises on the ground floors of Mark I and II blocks.
I may say that the position in regard to rents for schools and welfare purposes in resettlement estates is under review at present with Government and the appropriate Select Com- mittees of this Council will be consulted in due course.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, I understand that in some of the Mark III Blocks, rents for some of the premises which are being used by Welfare agencies are as high as $1,500 a month, and that is a disparity of 1,500 times. How did this disparity arise originally?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-I cannot say just how this disparity has arisen. The particular case cited, of course, is based on the domestic rent and the number of rooms occupied and, as I have said, the position is under review and as soon as we have had an indication of Government's views on this, the Select Committee will be consulted.
MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Has the Department already taken this matter up with the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FOR RESETTLEMENT:-That is apparent, I think, from paragraph 3 of my answer.
Page 155Page 156
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.