1989 — Page 17

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 17 of 166

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

plan can be Playground into an UC Complex will be published for public information, As regards Mr. FUNG'S third question, we cannot proceed with the development second asking what are the main contents of the report, the third asking what As the Pei Ho Street site as Sham Shui Po UC Complex until problems have to be solved before the redevelopment of Pei Ho Street Markovised to resite all wet goods hawkers in the area off street at the same time. can commence and the fourth asks what plans are being made to solve the problems.

All four questions in fact relate to the proposed redevelopment of Pei Ho Street Market as Sham Shui Po UC Complex in the UC 5 Year Capital Work Programme. A paper is being considered within the Urban Services Department on this matter this month and will be presented to the relevant Council Select Committees in June after the District Board has been consulted. However, little advance information from the proposed paper as background before answering these questions may be useful.

Pei Ho Street Market is situated in the centre of the biggest concentration of on-street hawkers in the urban area. There are approximately 2,000 hawkers in the surrounding streets, of whom about half are wet goods hawkers. The Department has concluded that no wet goods market in the area can be viable unless all wet goods hawkers are resited off-street, as those remaining on street will render those in any market non-viable because of their lower overheads, cheaper prices, and more ready access to the public.

The site for the UC Sham Shui Po Complex at Pei Ho Street can only accommodate about 330 market and mini-stalls on two floors, which will be non-viable if the 1,000 on-street hawkers are not resited. It is considered, therefore, that this complex should not be built until a comprehensive strategy can be devised. To this end, the Department has been considering a number of alternative possibilities for the development of an even spread of marketing facilities in Sham Shui Po to complement the Pei Ho Street site and to resite all wet goods hawkers at the same time.

One of these alternative possibilities was to ask the Architectural Services Department to undertake a study on the feasibility of building a single-storey market (not a complex as stated in the first question) on the existing Maple Street Playground, and reproviding the existing playground facilities at first-floor level. This study has been completed, but as it is intended only for internal use to consider alternative locations for a future market, in reply to Mr. FUNG'S first question, it is not intended to release it for public information and discussion in advance of consideration by Council of the various alternatives for the development of markets in the district.

In response to Mr. FUNG's second question, however, I can advise that the report is concise and comprises layout play options and a short comment, indicating that the development of a single-storey market of between 204 and 274 stalls on the Maple Street site, with reprovided playground facilities, is technically feasible, though there are various technical problems to be overcome in the more detailed design stages.

As regards Mr. FUNG'S fourth question, as I have said earlier, when the Department has considered the various alternative possibilities, the Sham Shui Po District Board firstly and then Council will be consulted, probably in June, and a policy formulated for solving the problem will then be prepared.

MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, I have two follow-up questions. First, with regard to paragraphs 2 and 8 of the reply, it was stated that the Sham Shui Po District Board would be consulted on the matter and then it would be discussed in the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee. According to my understanding, there is no such item on the agenda for the June meeting of Sham Shui Po District Board. I would like to ask where and when will this matter be discussed in the Sham Shui Po District Board? The second question concerns paragraphs 4, 6, and 7 of the reply. It seems that the Government has no intention and it is not inclined to give us a second or third site to build a market. In view of this, the Department will not consider building a new market. I am just worried that the matter has dragged on for more than eight years. Will the Department consider the suggestion made by the residents to build a temporary market below the Tung Chau Street flyover and also at the same time to redevelop the Pei Ho Street Market? This temporary market, together with the Market in Pei Ho Street, will be able to accommodate all wet goods hawkers. Has the Committee considered this suggestion? Actually, this was suggested by the District Board one year ago to the Department for consideration.

MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a while ago, we hope that the Department can have a paper prepared for the Select Committee in June and hopefully not later than the month following, and the points raised by Mr. FUNG ought to be taken into consideration.

MR. AMBROSE W. S. CHEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, the study mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee done by the Architectural Services Department deals with the technical feasibility of the Maple Street Playground proposal. I understand that, in light of the already grave shortage of open space and recreational areas in Nam Cheong area, there have been already very strong and continuous oppositions over the last few months from the local residents against this proposal. Can the Chairman of the Select Committee confirm that he is aware of such strong opposition from the local residents? And if so, what are the Chairman's views on those objections and what are the reasons why it is still believed that this particular proposal remains feasible in light of such objections?

Page 17 of 166

Edit History

2026-05-15 18:13:38 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 17 of 166 26 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 27 plan can be Playground into an UC Complex will be published for public information, As regards Mr. FUNG'S third question, we cannot proceed with the development second asking what are the main contents of the report, the third asking what As the Pei Ho Street site as Sham Shui Po UC Complex until problems have to be solved before the redevelopment of Pei Ho Street Markovised to resite all wet goods hawkers in the area off street at the same time. can commence and the fourth asks what plans are being made to solve the problems. All four questions in fact relate to the proposed redevelopment of Pei Ho Street Market as Sham Shui Po UC Complex in the UC 5 Year Capital Work Programme. A paper is being considered within the Urban Services Department on this matter this month and will be presented to the relevant Council Select Committees in June after the District Board has been consulted. However, little advance information from the proposed paper as background before answering these questions may be useful. Pei Ho Street Market is situated in the centre of the biggest concentration of on-street hawkers in the urban area. There are approximately 2,000 hawkers in the surrounding streets, of whom about half are wet goods hawkers. The Department has concluded that no wet goods market in the area can be viable unless all wet goods hawkers are resited off-street, as those remaining on street will render those in any market non-viable because of their lower overheads, cheaper prices, and more ready access to the public. The site for the UC Sham Shui Po Complex at Pei Ho Street can only accommodate about 330 market and mini-stalls on two floors, which will be non-viable if the 1,000 on-street hawkers are not resited. It is considered, therefore, that this complex should not be built until a comprehensive strategy can be devised. To this end, the Department has been considering a number of alternative possibilities for the development of an even spread of marketing facilities in Sham Shui Po to complement the Pei Ho Street site and to resite all wet goods hawkers at the same time. One of these alternative possibilities was to ask the Architectural Services Department to undertake a study on the feasibility of building a single-storey market (not a complex as stated in the first question) on the existing Maple Street Playground, and reproviding the existing playground facilities at first-floor level. This study has been completed, but as it is intended only for internal use to consider alternative locations for a future market, in reply to Mr. FUNG'S first question, it is not intended to release it for public information and discussion in advance of consideration by Council of the various alternatives for the development of markets in the district. In response to Mr. FUNG's second question, however, I can advise that the report is concise and comprises layout play options and a short comment, indicating that the development of a single-storey market of between 204 and 274 stalls on the Maple Street site, with reprovided playground facilities, is technically feasible, though there are various technical problems to be overcome in the more detailed design stages. As regards Mr. FUNG'S fourth question, as I have said earlier, when the Department has considered the various alternative possibilities, the Sham Shui Po District Board firstly and then Council will be consulted, probably in June, and a policy formulated for solving the problem will then be prepared. MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, I have two follow-up questions. First, with regard to paragraphs 2 and 8 of the reply, it was stated that the Sham Shui Po District Board would be consulted on the matter and then it would be discussed in the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee. According to my understanding, there is no such item on the agenda for the June meeting of Sham Shui Po District Board. I would like to ask where and when will this matter be discussed in the Sham Shui Po District Board? The second question concerns paragraphs 4, 6, and 7 of the reply. It seems that the Government has no intention and it is not inclined to give us a second or third site to build a market. In view of this, the Department will not consider building a new market. I am just worried that the matter has dragged on for more than eight years. Will the Department consider the suggestion made by the residents to build a temporary market below the Tung Chau Street flyover and also at the same time to redevelop the Pei Ho Street Market? This temporary market, together with the Market in Pei Ho Street, will be able to accommodate all wet goods hawkers. Has the Committee considered this suggestion? Actually, this was suggested by the District Board one year ago to the Department for consideration. MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a while ago, we hope that the Department can have a paper prepared for the Select Committee in June and hopefully not later than the month following, and the points raised by Mr. FUNG ought to be taken into consideration. MR. AMBROSE W. S. CHEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, the study mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee done by the Architectural Services Department deals with the technical feasibility of the Maple Street Playground proposal. I understand that, in light of the already grave shortage of open space and recreational areas in Nam Cheong area, there have been already very strong and continuous oppositions over the last few months from the local residents against this proposal. Can the Chairman of the Select Committee confirm that he is aware of such strong opposition from the local residents? And if so, what are the Chairman's views on those objections and what are the reasons why it is still believed that this particular proposal remains feasible in light of such objections? Page 17 of 166

Baseline (Original)

Page 17 of 166 26 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL 27 plan can be Playground into an UC Complex will be published for public information, As regards Mr. FUNG'S third question, we cannot proceed with the development second asking what are the main contents of the report, the third asking what As the Pei Ho Street site as Sham Shui Po UC Complex until problems have to be solved before the redevelopment of Pei Ho Street Markovised to resite all wet goods hawkers in the area off street at the same time. can commence and the fourth asks what plans are being made to solve the problems. All four questions in fact relate to the proposed redevelopment of Pei H Street Market as Sham Shui Po UC Complex in the UC 5 Year Capital Work approach has been made to Government in this respect both for allocation of vacant sites for markets, and for consideration for possible resumption, clearance and redevelopment of a suitable site. Government is rather reluctant on the latter proposal, because of the cost and time required for Programme. A paper is being considered within the Urban Services Department implementation, but has agreed to consider the idea further. on this matter this month and will be presented to the relevant Council Sele Committees in June after the District board has been consulted. However little advance information from the proposed paper as background before answer these questions may be useful. Pei Ho Street Market is situated in the centre of the biggest concentration of on street hawkers in the urban area. There are approximately 2 000 hawkers in the surrounding streets, of whom about half are wet goods hawkers. The Department has concluded that no wet goods market in the area can be viable unless all wet goods hawkers are resited off street, as those remaining on stree will render those in any market non viable because of their lower overheads, cheaper prices and more ready access to the public. The site for the UC Shamshuipo Complex at Pei Ho Street can only accommodate about 330 market and ministalls on two floors which will be non viable if the 1 000 on street hawkers are not resited. It is considered therefore that this complex should not be built until a comprehensive strategy can be devised. To this end the Department has been considering a number of alternative possibilities for development of an even spread of marketing facilities in Sham Shui Po to complement the Pei Ho Street site and to resite all wet goods hawkers at the same time. One of these alternative possibilities was to ask Architectural Services Department to undertake a study on the feasibility of building a single storey market (not a complex as stated in the first question) on the existing Maple Street Playground, and reproviding the existing playground facilities at first floor level. This study has been completed, but as it is intended only for internal use to consider alternative locations for a future market, in reply to Mr. FUNG'S first question, it is not intended to release it for public information and discussion in advance of consideration by Council of the various alternatives for development of markets in the district. In response to Mr. FUNG's second question however, I can advise that the report is concise and comprises layout play options and a short comment, indication that the development of a single storey market of between 204 and 274 stalls on the Maple Street site, with reprovided playground facilities, is technically feasible, though there are various technical problems to be overcome in the more detailed design stages. As regards Mr. FUNG'S fourth question, as I have said earlier, when the Department has considered the various alternative possibilities, the Sham Shui Po District Board firstly and then Council will be consulted, probably in June and a policy formulated for solving the problem will then be prepared. follow-up questions. First, with regard to paragraphs 2 and 8 of the reply, it was MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, I have two stated that the Sham Shui Po District Board would be consulted on the matter and then it would be discussed in the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee. According to my understanding that there is no such item on the agenda for the June meeting of Sham Shui Po District Board. I would like to ask where and when will this matter be discussed in the Sham Shui Po District Board? The second question concerns paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the reply. It seems that the Government has no intention and it is not inclined to give us a second or third site to build a market. In view of this, the Department will not consider building a new market. I am just worried that the matter has dragged on for more than eight years. Will the Department consider the suggestion made by the residents to build a temporary market below the Tung Chau Street flyover and also at the same time to redevelop the Pei Ho Street Market. This temporary market together with the Market in Pei Ho Street will be able to accommodate all wet goods hawkers. Has the Committee considered this suggestion? Actually, this was suggested by the District Board one year ago to the Department for consideration. MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a while ago, we hope that the Department can have a paper prepared for the Select Committee in June and hopefully not later than the month following, and the points raised by Mr. FUNG ought to be taken into consideration. MR. AMBROSE W. S. CHEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, the study mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee done by the Architectural Services Department deals with the technical feasibility of the Maple Street Playground proposal. I understand that in light of the already grave shortage of open space and recreational areas in Nam Cheong area, there have been already very strong and continuous oppositions over the last few months from the local residents against this proposal. Can the Chairman of the Select Committee confirm that he is aware of such strong opposition from the local residents? And if so, what are the Chairman's views to those objections and what are the reasons why it is still believed that this particular proposal remains feasible in light of such objections?

2026-05-15 18:13:38 · Baseline

View content

Page 17 of 166

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

plan can be

Playground into an UC Complex will be published for public information, As regards Mr. FUNG'S third question, we cannot proceed with the development second asking what are the main contents of the report, the third asking what As the Pei Ho Street site as Sham Shui Po UC Complex until problems have to be solved before the redevelopment of Pei Ho Street Markovised to resite all wet goods hawkers in the area off street at the same time. can commence and the fourth asks what plans are being made to solve the problems.

All four questions in fact relate to the proposed redevelopment of Pei H Street Market as Sham Shui Po UC Complex in the UC 5 Year Capital Work

approach has been made to Government in this respect both for allocation of vacant sites for markets, and for consideration for possible resumption, clearance and redevelopment of a suitable site. Government is rather reluctant on the latter proposal, because of the cost and time required for

Programme. A paper is being considered within the Urban Services Department implementation, but has agreed to consider the idea further.

on this matter this month and will be presented to the relevant Council Sele Committees in June after the District board has been consulted. However little advance information from the proposed paper as background before answer these questions may be useful.

Pei Ho Street Market is situated in the centre of the biggest concentration of on street hawkers in the urban area. There are approximately 2 000 hawkers in the surrounding streets, of whom about half are wet goods hawkers. The Department has concluded that no wet goods market in the area can be viable unless all wet goods hawkers are resited off street, as those remaining on stree will render those in any market non viable because of their lower overheads, cheaper prices and more ready access to the public.

The site for the UC Shamshuipo Complex at Pei Ho Street can only accommodate about 330 market and ministalls on two floors which will be non viable if the 1 000 on street hawkers are not resited. It is considered therefore that this complex should not be built until a comprehensive strategy can be devised. To this end the Department has been considering a number of alternative possibilities for development of an even spread of marketing facilities in Sham Shui Po to complement the Pei Ho Street site and to resite all wet goods hawkers at the same time.

One of these alternative possibilities was to ask Architectural Services Department to undertake a study on the feasibility of building a single storey market (not a complex as stated in the first question) on the existing Maple Street Playground, and reproviding the existing playground facilities at first floor level. This study has been completed, but as it is intended only for internal use to consider alternative locations for a future market, in reply to Mr. FUNG'S first question, it is not intended to release it for public information and discussion in advance of consideration by Council of the various alternatives for development of markets in the district.

In response to Mr. FUNG's second question however, I can advise that the report is concise and comprises layout play options and a short comment, indication that the development of a single storey market of between 204 and 274 stalls on the Maple Street site, with reprovided playground facilities, is technically feasible, though there are various technical problems to be overcome in the more detailed design stages.

As regards Mr. FUNG'S fourth question, as I have said earlier, when the Department has considered the various alternative possibilities, the Sham Shui Po District Board firstly and then Council will be consulted, probably in June and a policy formulated for solving the problem will then be prepared.

follow-up questions. First, with regard to paragraphs 2 and 8 of the reply, it was MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, I have two

stated that the Sham Shui Po District Board would be consulted on the matter and then it would be discussed in the Markets and Street Traders Select Committee. According to my understanding that there is no such item on the agenda for the June meeting of Sham Shui Po District Board. I would like to ask where and when will this matter be discussed in the Sham Shui Po District Board? The second question concerns paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the reply. It seems that the Government has no intention and it is not inclined to give us a second or third site to build a market. In view of this, the Department will not consider building a new market. I am just worried that the matter has dragged on for more than eight years. Will the Department consider the suggestion made by the residents to build a temporary market below the Tung Chau Street flyover and also at the same time to redevelop the Pei Ho Street Market. This temporary market together with the Market in Pei Ho Street will be able to accommodate all wet goods hawkers. Has the Committee considered this suggestion? Actually, this was suggested by the District Board one year ago to the Department for consideration.

MR. AMBROSE W. S. CHEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, the study mentioned by the Chairman of the Select Committee done by the Architectural Services Department deals with the technical feasibility of the Maple Street Playground proposal. I understand that in light of the already grave shortage of open space and recreational areas in Nam Cheong area, there have been already very strong and continuous oppositions over the last few months from the local residents against this proposal. Can the Chairman of the Select Committee confirm that he is aware of such strong opposition from the local residents? And if so, what are the Chairman's views to those objections and what are the reasons why it is still believed that this particular proposal remains feasible in light of such objections?

1989 — Page 17

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note