1971 — Page 191

of 242

Page 191 of 242

362

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

general impressions of one of the newest members of Council may prove of interest. In the main, I shall restrict myself to comment on areas of concern to this Council, particularly Housing, Hawkers, Litter Pollution, and, inevitably, Council Reform.

Housing

The emergency and radical measures proposed by a distinguished Sub-committee of this Council in 1954 started the first resettlement programmes. The provision of housing for 1 million people in Government estates since that time is an achievement in which we share (without being aware of the short-comings) some pride as a community. It seems to me that the commitment of Government to re-house 700,000 persons in much improved conditions over the next 5 years, at a cost of around $100 million per annum, is one which this Council should welcome and endorse. Add to this the likely cost of $650 million for the conversion of Mark I and Mark II estates and I suggest that this is a satisfactory effort, and that Government is to be congratulated on the scale and vision of its public housing programmes, and on its acceptance of the rising expectations of Hong Kong people.

In recent discussions on public housing, notably within the Housing Authority, what strikes me most is the lack of specific pro- posals from this Council and the confused attitudes which prevail. It appears that whatever the record, however heavy the housing programme, Government should always be doing more, must auto- matically be scorned. Questions of resources and priorities in public works and public spending do not seem to receive the consideration they deserve. Councillors press happily for more new building sites without indicating how, or where, land will be drawn from a hat. Money is not considered a problem but, at the same time, we are warned that costs for new construction in new estates have leapt up by almost 100% over similar construction two years previously. While admitting that current rent levels in Housing Authority estates are probably 50% to 60% below those prevailing in the private sector (and probably 70% below market levels in Resettlement Estates), it is held by some that the proposed modest increases in rental which I think necessary to combat inflationary effects will create excessive hardship.

Perhaps one factor which brings home forcibly the degree of change within our society is the current discussion regarding provision of carparking facilities in Government estates. This is a problem of growing affluence, and while it is a happy situation to argue whether publicly-financed, low-cost housing estates should be provided with one parking space for every 25 flats, or a parking space for every 12 flats, I find it difficult to reconcile our concern over tenants' cars with the basic objectives of a low-cost housing programme. As I understand

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

363

it, the aim of the Housing Authority is to provide housing for those whose financial circumstances are such that they cannot afford to pay the open market rent for accommodation provided by private developers. Who exactly are we now helping? Car owners? То what extent are private developers deterred from embarking on low- cost accommodation schemes because of this unbalanced situation?

It is very evident, I think, that housing planning in the 70's is no longer the emergency exercise it was in the 50's, and that the "temporary" role the Department of Resettlement has almost finally finished. I feel that the time has come for a review of policies for future public housing development, taking account of all factors includ- ing the growth of satellite towns, the effects of any underground railway system which I certainly hope will be here in less than ten years and the opportunities afforded by Urban Renewal Schemes. The role of private developers in mass housing should also be re-examined, partic- ularly with the development of this White Paper mentioned by previous speakers and one answer to several problems might be for Government to develop on a substantial scale a system of loans to people of limited means but responsible persons to enable them to purchase their own homes. I share the view that home ownership is a stabilizing factor in any community. The point has been made in this Council, and in Legislative Council, and there should be integration of public housing into a single overall programme under a Public Housing Department, and I would support this view.

On the question of estate management, I note that, in researching this question an expert in this field, Miss E. M. STEWART, recently left the Colony after a period of secondment to Resettlement Department for the purpose of reviewing management procedures. I wonder, Sir, if any firm recommendations were made on this subject and if detail can be made available to the appropriate Select Committees.

Military Lands

Any discussion on housing and amenities development must turn, eventually, to the problem of the dwindling land availability in the urban areas. Reclamation has served us well, but it is questionable how much inroad can be made further into the harbour. If we look at the land usage in principal areas of intensive development, we can only reach the conclusion of Dr. T. R. TREGEAR in his survey on “Land Use in Hong Kong", i.e. that the military forces occupy a wholly un- reasonable proportion of land in Central Hong Kong and Kowloon.

In view of the recent decision regarding Hong Kong's contribu- tion of £40 million to U.K. defence over 5 years, it is appropriate that the issue of military lands be revived. I believe that a new assess- ment is required of the future deployment of military facilities in