1986 — Page 141

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN

CHAIRMAN (in English): Ladies and Gentlemen, the debate on the Statement of Aims for 1987/88 which was adjourned on Tuesday, the 16th of December will now resume. I call the first speaker, Dr. Ronald LEUNG.

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me a chance to speak first. My speech will deal into two topics. Firstly,

Refuse Collection and Cleansing Problems in Multi-Storey Buildings

The mushrooming of high rise, multi-units, multiownership and very often multi-tenant occupiers buildings had helped solving our housing problems arising from over-population during the past few decades. It had, at the same time, created other related problems uniquely encountered in Hong Kong. One of the multitudes of problems is refuse disposal and cleansing of the inside of the buildings.

In our Statement of Aims, it is stated that the Urban Council is to raise the standard of hygiene in residential buildings, including enforcing relevant legislation and advising and assisting the occupants and building management organization. With these aims in mind, I attempt to focus our attention on some of these problems and to discuss some possible solutions.

Household refuse is normally put in a container in front of the doorway to be collected by private agents employed by the building management body, such as the Mutual Aid Committee and Owners Corporated. The refuse thus collected is taken to the nearby Refuse Collection Point by handcarts. The problems at this stage of collection are few and minor in nature. The containers may be too small in size or not covered with a lid, and thereby resulting in overspilling of refuse into nearby areas inviting infestation of rats and cockroaches. The empty containers may be left for too long in the common corridors and pathways causing obstruction and fire hazards. If the refuse is put into plastic bags before collection, the situation will surely be improved.

Bulky junks present an entirely different problem in itself. These items are not generally accepted as routine items included in their daily collections. The agents may outrightly refuse to remove them, or if they reluctantly acceded to the request, they will charge a fee. Some of our larger and permanent Refuse Collection Points are willing to accept these bulky items, but they are seldom near enough to encourage the residents to carry them there. Moreover, no government departments, including our Urban Services Department, will be prepared to collect them at the doorway because this will involve a lot of administration work, manpower, and financial resources. The only easy option for the residents is to dump the junks in the common areas of the building, resulting in various problems such as fire hazard and obstructions, etc.

Page 241

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 141 of 201

241

Common areas cleansing is the responsibility of the management of the building as these areas are considered as private property. In buildings with well-organized Mutual Aid Committee and Owners Corporated, these areas are generally kept satisfactorily clean. However, in common areas where there is no easy access, except through private units, cleansing would be physically and technically impossible. Canopy of illegally constructed structures and light wells are examples of these problem areas. Refuse accumulated on the top of canopy causes the most nuisances to residents living above the illegal structure, while the owner of the structure suffers relatively little nuisance.

Legislations regulating abatement of such nuisances are in hand in the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance. Enforcement of these legislations, however, presents a lot of practical and technical difficulties.

All these units are mostly separately owned by individual owners. When nuisances are found in common parts, e.g., corridors, roofs, staircases, or in common facilities, e.g., waste pipes, manhole underground drainage. These are collectively owned by all owners of the building. It is extremely difficult and time-consuming to trace the up-to-date record of all registered owners and to successfully serve on them a statutory notice requiring them to abate the nuisance under the law. Even in the case of the owners, all willing and co-operative to improve the situations, they will be beset with problems. They are very often unorganized, and some of them may not co-operate to contribute funds to do something positive to abate the nuisances. It is not uncommon that a long time is taken for a leakage pipe to be repaired or a small accumulation of litter on a common roof to be cleared.

The 6-meters-rule may apparently provide means in law for the owners to be prosecuted if obstructions and health nuisances are found within 6 meters around the household. In the case of multi-storey buildings in an overcrowded condition, it would be difficult to single out or identify the offenders. Moreover, the time and financial and manpower resources constraint prohibit an all-out prosecution campaign, especially in the knowledge that the penalty in court for such relatively minor offence may not be an effective deterrent.

Having realized the extent and nature of the problems, the government has taken the initiative to pass the Owners Corporated Ordinance to enable the building management to form a legally recognized body to deal with the common management problems of the building. However, the percentage of owners required to form such an organized body is set at 50 per cent, which, because of the diverse and separate nature of ownership, is sometimes very difficult to fulfill. Falling short of this requirement, the loosely formed group has taken the shape of Mutual Aid Committee. Steps may have to be taken to lower this requirement to 20 per cent, so as to facilitate the formation of Owners Corporated. With a responsible and well-organized Owners Corporated, the different units of the building can act to improve their environmental problems.