1979 — Page 54

Page 54 of 136

74

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

been completed with the exception of Repulse Bay because plans for a comprehensive development there involve the participation of Government departments and major financing by the Government. This is the position at this moment.

MR. FORSGATE (in English):- Can Mr. HU indicate whether the P.W.D's Port Works Section said that in fact, in their opinion, resanding Repulse Bay to a major extent is useless, a waste of money unless an extensive civil engineering port works is carried out to retain the sand under stormy condition.

MR. HU (in English):- Mr. Chairman, this is why since we received the report from the Port Works, we engaged an overseas consultant of the Hydraulic Research Station of U.K. to carry out a feasibility study and his recommendation is either large scale resanding or removal of the rock in the middle of the beach through blasting, then fill the cavities with sand.

CHAIRMAN (in English):- The answer is, in fact, yes.

3. MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG asked the following question (in English):- Urban Councillors have received complaints from time to time regarding roofs being used as breeding areas for poultry and dogs. What steps can the Urban Council take to prevent such activities from becoming a nuisance?

MRS. GRACE HO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):- This question concerns the breeding of poultry and dogs on roofs and the steps that the Council can take to prevent such activities from becoming a nuisance.

It is not, in itself, an offence to keep poultry or dogs on roofs. However, under section 12(1)(d) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, there is provision for action to be taken if an animal or bird is kept in such a place or in such a manner as to be a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health. Again, under By-law 13(1) of the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances By-laws, no person in charge of a dog may allow it to deposit any of its faeces or urine in the common parts of a building. The two sections I have referred to cover the keeping of poultry and dogs as a possible hazard to health. In addition, under section 4(11) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, where action would normally be taken by the Police there is a general provision to the effect that no one may keep a dog accustomed to annoy neighbours by barking or otherwise or keep any animal or bird which is a source of annoyance to any neighbour by reason of any noise made by such animal or bird.

To sum up, the existing law appears to cover the keeping of poultry and dogs on roof tops adequately and I suggest that anyone who has a complaint should refer it either to the Urban Services Department or by telephoning the hot-line No. 5-95555 or by contacting the Police as appropriate so that remedial action can be taken.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

75

4. MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG asked the following question (in English):- A 1972 study of Hong Kong's beaches showed that the coliform bacteria count for Repulse Bay was 50,383 and Shek O 59,800. What are the latest figures on coliform count taken by U.S.D. and what is the trend since 1972? In connection with the World Health Organization's suggested maximum safety limit for swimming of 1,000 coliforms per 100 ml., what is the internationally accepted safety limit for swimming, and how do Hong Kong's beaches compare with this?

What is being done by the Urban Council to avert the possibility of our beaches having to be closed to the public because of the danger of high coliform count?

MRS. GRACE HO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English): This question concerns coliform levels at swimming beaches, particularly Repulse Bay and Shek O, and possible action by the Urban Council to avert the possibility that beaches might have to be closed.

Coliform levels provide an indication of organic pollution in the water. They are not in themselves a danger to health and their importance lies in the fact that high coliform levels may be associated with the presence of faecal contamination which may contain pathogenic organisms, that is, organisms which can transmit diseases.

The standard method of calculating coliform counts in the vicinity of beaches is to take the median count, that is, the mid-point between the highest and lowest readings during any particular year.

Regular sea-water samples taken from the main swimming beaches since 1972 show that coliform counts have been within acceptable limits and that the coliform level does not indicate any significant threat to public health even though the median coliform count may fluctuate within a range of 180 and 7,250 per 100 milli-litres of water depending on temperature, rainfall and the number of people using beaches.

Individual coliform counts, such as those quoted by Mr. YOUNG, may, from time to time, be higher than the median count but, generally speaking, single samples do not give a reliable indication of the overall situation.

Over the past 12 months, the median coliform count for Repulse Bay was 900 per 100 ml. and for Shek O, 250 per 100 ml. Both these readings are, in fact, lower than the comparable figures for 1972 and microbiological tests show that there has been no appreciable deterioration in the quality of the water near beaches in terms of bacterial levels.

Page 55 of 136

76

Page 54 of 136

74

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

been completed with the exception of Repulse Bay because plans for a comprehensive development there involve the participation of Government departments and major financing by the Government. This is the position at this moment.

MR. FORSGATE (in English):- Can Mr. HU indicate whether the P.W.D's Port Works Section said that in fact, in their opinion, resanding Repulse Bay to a major extent is useless, a waste of money unless an extensive civil engineering port works is carried out to retain the sand under stormy condition.

MR. HU (in English):- Mr. Chairman, this is why since we received the report from the Port Works, we engaged an overseas consultant of the Hydraulic Research Station of U.K. to carry out a feasibility study and his recommendation is either large scale resanding or removal of the rock in the middle of the beach through blasting, then fill the cavities with sand.

CHAIRMAN (in English):- The answer is, in fact, yes.

3. MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG asked the following question (in English):- Urban Councillors have received complaints from time to time regarding roofs being used as breeding areas for poultry and dogs. What steps can the Urban Council take to prevent such activities from becoming a nuisance?

MRS. GRACE HO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English):- This question concerns the breeding of poultry and dogs on roofs and the steps that the Council can take to prevent such activities from becoming a nuisance.

It is not, in itself, an offence to keep poultry or dogs on roofs. However, under section 12(1)(d) of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, there is provision for action to be taken if an animal or bird is kept in such a place or in such a manner as to be a nuisance or injurious or dangerous to health. Again, under By-law 13(1) of the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances By-laws, no person in charge of a dog may allow it to deposit any of its faeces or urine in the common parts of a building. The two sections I have referred to cover the keeping of poultry and dogs as a possible hazard to health. In addition, under section 4(11) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, where action would normally be taken by the Police there is a general provision to the effect that no one may keep a dog accustomed to annoy neighbours by barking or otherwise or keep any animal or bird which is a source of annoyance to any neighbour by reason of any noise made by such animal or bird.

To sum up, the existing law appears to cover the keeping of poultry and dogs on roof tops adequately and I suggest that anyone who has a complaint should refer it either to the Urban Services Department or by telephoning the hot-line No. 5-95555 or by contacting the Police as appropriate so that remedial action can be taken.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

75

4. MR. HOWARD H. W. YOUNG asked the following question (in English):- A 1972 study of Hong Kong's beaches showed that the coliform bacteria count for Repulse Bay was 50,383 and Shek O 59,800. What are the latest figures on coliform count taken by U.S.D. and what is the trend since 1972? In connection with the World Health Organization's suggested maximum safety limit for swimming of 1,000 coliforms per 100 ml., what is the internationally accepted safety limit for swimming, and how do Hong Kong's beaches compare with this?

What is being done by the Urban Council to avert the possibility of our beaches having to be closed to the public because of the danger of high coliform count?

MRS. GRACE HO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in English): This question concerns coliform levels at swimming beaches, particularly Repulse Bay and Shek O, and possible action by the Urban Council to avert the possibility that beaches might have to be closed.

Coliform levels provide an indication of organic pollution in the water. They are not in themselves a danger to health and their importance lies in the fact that high coliform levels may be associated with the presence of faecal contamination which may contain pathogenic organisms, that is, organisms which can transmit diseases.

The standard method of calculating coliform counts in the vicinity of beaches is to take the median count, that is, the mid-point between the highest and lowest readings during any particular year.

Regular sea-water samples taken from the main swimming beaches since 1972 show that coliform counts have been within acceptable limits and that the coliform level does not indicate any significant threat to public health even though the median coliform count may fluctuate within a range of 180 and 7,250 per 100 milli-litres of water depending on temperature, rainfall and the number of people using beaches.

Individual coliform counts, such as those quoted by Mr. YOUNG, may, from time to time, be higher than the median count but, generally speaking, single samples do not give a reliable indication of the overall situation.

Over the past 12 months, the median coliform count for Repulse Bay was 900 per 100 ml. and for Shek O, 250 per 100 ml. Both these readings are, in fact, lower than the comparable figures for 1972 and microbiological tests show that there has been no appreciable deterioration in the quality of the water near beaches in terms of bacterial levels.

Page 54 of 136

75

(end of page)

Page 55 of 136

76