1967 — Page 84

2519

Page 84 of 259

F

146

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

MR. A. de O. SALES, CHAIRMAN OF THE CITY HALL SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-

There are three lifts operating on an automatic system serving the 11 floors of the High Block. During the quarter April to June 1967 the total number of breakdowns was 83, of which 13 involved all three lifts.

As far back as December 1965 the City Hall Select Committee made the recommendation that consideration be given to replacing these lifts with more efficient ones. The recommendation was forwarded to the Government Architect who advised that these lifts, running at 500 feet per minute, on a "grouped supervisory control", of present-day standards, should give a most efficient and satisfactory service in his view. He added that the large number of persons using the lifts could not have been envisaged, and as it was impracticable to install additional lifts he suggested that consideration be given to operating these lifts by attendants during peak hours. As this would involve additional staff, it was subsequently suggested that the best method of regulating the traffic during peak hours would be by an attendant positioned in the foyer to direct passengers. This suggestion was adopted, but the Select Committee is not satisfied with the result.

In view of the continued high incidence of breakdowns, the question of the efficiency of the present lift system has been raised with the City Hall Management who will now be instructed to tell the Government Architect in clear terms that the Urban Council wants the lifts replaced as soon as it is possible to do so.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- Mr. Chairman, do I infer from the last paragraph that the City Hall Select Committee considers this a matter of priority in view of the increasing number of residents in Hong Kong who are using the tall building?

MR. SALES: Sir, it is my understanding that priority is not accorded by the Select Committee, but by the Government through its own machinery of interdepartmental committees.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- In pressing this matter with the Government, could the Select Committee put it to Government that in the view of many residents, the tall block in our City Hall has the most unsatisfactory lift service in the entire Colony?

MR. SALES: - Mr. Chairman, the Urban Councillors who have to attend early morning meetings in the High Block feel the same way as Mr. CHEONG-LEEN does.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

147

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- Mr. Chairman, then would you convey to the Chairman of the City Hall Select Committee that I have full confidence in that Committee's efforts?

MR. BERNACCHI:- A personal statement, Mr. Chairman. Although I entirely endorse the remarks that have been made, I do not think Mr. CHEONG-LEEN is right when he says that the City Hall has the worst lifts in the whole of Hong Kong. I know of quite a few cases where the lifts are worse than in the City Hall. (Laughter).

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I said that this was the view of many people in Hong Kong, I did not say that this was my view.

MR. SALES: - Mr. Chairman, May I enquire through you whether the senior Unofficial Member had any interest to declare when he protected the lift system in the City Hall? (Laughter).

MR. BERNACCHI :-- No interest, except in the public interest.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:- Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that Mr. BERNACCHI means well, even though he has not been as forthright as some of the other Elected and Appointed Members on this issue.

(4) MR. H. CHEONG-LEEN asked the following question:

I have received complaints from 34 flat owners and tenants residing at 140-146, Tung Lo Wan Road to the effect that there is a serious smoke nuisance caused by soot coming from the chimney of the sugar factory occupying No. 138, Tung Lo Wan Road, ground floor.

(b)

(a) What steps has the Director of Urban Services taken recently to permanently eliminate this smoke nuisance? Can the Director of Urban Services take further steps to permanently eliminate this smoke nuisance or alternatively to request that the sugar factory move to an industrial or other area, so that the health and wellbeing of residents living in the urban areas will not be affected thereby?

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES replied as follows:

The sugar factory in question is a licensed food factory, and has existed since 1957. Following the occupation in 1965 of a ten-storey domestic building adjacent to the factory, complaints about smoke nuisance from it were received by the Urban Services Department. As a result of these com-

Page 84 of 259