Page 40 of 166
70
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question has not been answered. Will residents' objection be considered as a case for non-renewal of licence?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English): Mr. Chairman, I think this case is a very complicated one and has involved a great deal of discussion in our Select Committee and also in our discussions with the residents in the nearby area and that is why this food factory has stopped any actual roasting activity. So, therefore, in terms of environmental pollution, there will be none as a result of absence of smell and noise nuisances being emitted from the factory. So, in actual fact it is not causing any environmental pollution in the present state of their activities.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English): Mr. Chairman, I am rather worried. When you said on page 2, the summons which was heard on 21 July 1988 i.e. a year ago, as advised by the Principal Legal Officer of Urban Council, was adjourned sine die. What is going to happen to the summons; is it to be proceeded with, in which case, a fixed date is necessary or is it to be withdrawn, in which case should be withdrawn? That is my supplementary.
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English): Mr. Chairman, the injunction order as I understand is still in force. Because of a legal technicality, the defence solicitor managed to have this case adjourned on almost a year. I notice that the last time when they submitted the plan was in July 1988. So after receiving the answers, I have asked the Departmental staff to make further enquiries about any actions being taken by the factory operators, whether they have appointed consultants to do the rectification work and when do they commence the rectification and what time frame would they complete the rectification in order to obtain a renewal of licence and all these points I have raised with the Department. The answer is still pending. I think later on Councillors will receive a written answer from the Department. I have all these borne in my mind.
6. MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the following questions regarding Shek Kip Mei Park Stage III:
(a) When will the Council formally inform the Government to take over the site? (b) When will the construction work commence?
(c) What kind of facilities will be provided there? and
(d) Have people of the district been consulted on these facilities? If yes, what is their response?
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. FUNG asks four questions regarding the development of the Shek Kip Mei Park Stage III site, namely when the Council will inform the Government to take over the site, the date when construction will commence, the facilities to be provided there and whether the people of the district have been consulted.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
71
At present, Pak Tin Temporary Housing Area occupies the site of Shek Kip Mei Park Stage III and is currently scheduled to be demolished beginning in late 1990. To comply with this schedule, a formal notice to the Director of Housing requesting clearance of the site will need to be made around August 1989. In accordance with the usual practice, this notification will be served by the Architectural Services Department as the Council's works agent. Construction can therefore start in early or mid 1991 depending on the pace of demolition.
Recreation and Capital Works Select Committees at their meetings on 8 and 17 March approved the schedule of accommodation for the Phase III development as contained in Council Committee Paper REC/213/88, CAP/194/88. In summary, the facilities to be provided are:
(a) A natural grass soccer-cum-rugby pitch with spectator stands; (b) A 7-a-side soccer pitch (reprovision from Stage I); (c) Two basketball courts (reprovision from Stage I); (d) A jogging track with punctuated fitness stations; (e) Landscape garden and sitting-out areas;
Carparking spaces.
The project was discussed during the departmental presentation of the District Works Programme to Sham Shui Po District Board on 1 June 1989 at which meeting I understand Mr. FUNG was present. The Board was given details of the schedule of accommodation and development timetable, and the Department undertook to present the layout plans to the Board when they were completed and consult the Board at that juncture.
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about the fourth part of the question. Have people of the district been consulted, and I don't mean members of the District Board. What I refer to is the area committee, such as the Pak Tin Area Committee because this site is situated in the Pak Tin area. I know that the Park will be utilized for the whole of Sham Shui Po, but the local residents in Pak Tin area would of course use the park more. Secondly, since there were changes to the proposal, I don't know whether the Pak Tin Area Committee or the mutual aid committees or the schools have been consulted. I understand the schools in Pak Tin area want a standard size swimming pool. I wonder if the new proposals have been the subject of consultation with area committees and the mutual aid committees?
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, according to the information provided to me by the Department, it would appear that area committees and the local people have not been consulted. However, if there is such a need then the Department would of course present the case to those people concerned for consideration.
7. MR. ARTHUR CHAM YAU-TONG asked the following question (in Cantonese): It has now been three months since the April Council Meeting when...
Page 40
Page 41
Page 41 of 166
Page 40 of 166
70
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question has not been answered. Will residents' objection be considered as a case
for non-renewal of licence?
area and
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):--Mr. Chairman, I think this case is a very complicated one and has involved a great deal of discussion in our Select Committee and also in our discussions with the residents in the nearby that is why this food factory has stopped any actual roasting activity. So. therefore, in terms of environmental pollution, there will be none as a result of absence of smell and noise nuisances being emitted from the factory. So, in actual fact it is not causing any environmental pollution in the present state of their activities.
MR. B. A. BERNACCHI (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I am rather worried. When you said on page 2, the summons which was heard on 21 July 1988 i.e. a year ago, as advised by the Principal Legal Officer of Urban Council, was adjourned sine die. What is going to happen to the summons; is it to be proceeded with, in which case, a fixed date is necessary or is it to be withdrawn, in which case should be withdrawn? That is my supplementary.
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, the injunction order as I understand is still in force. Because of a legal technicality, the defence solicitor managed to have this case adjourned on almost a year. I notice that the last time when they submitted the plan was in July 1988. So after receiving the answers, I have asked the Departmental staff to make further enquiries about any actions being taken by the factory operators, whether they have appointed consultants to do the rectification work and when do they commence the rectification and what time frame would they complete the rectification in order to obtain a renewal of licence and all these points I have raised with the Department. The answer is still pending. I think later on Councillors will receive a written answer from the Department. I have all these borne in my mind.
6. MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG asked the following question (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the following questions regarding Shek Kip Mei Park Stage III:
(a) When will the Council formally inform the Government to take over the site? (b) When will the construction work commence?
(c) What kind of facilities will be provided there? and
(d) Have people of the district been consulted on these facilities? If yes, what is
their response?
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, Mr. FUNG asks four ques- tions regarding the development of the Shek Kip Mei Park Stage III site, namely when the Council will inform the Government to take over the site, the date when construction will commence, the facilities to be provided there and whether the people of the district have been consulted.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
71
At present, Pak Tin Temporary Housing Area occupies the site of Shek Kip Mei Park Stage III and is currently scheduled to be demolished beginning in late 1990. To comply with this schedule, a formal notice to the Director of Housing requesting clearance of the site will need to be made around August 1989. In accordance with the usual practice, this notification will be served by the Architectural Services Department as the Council's works agent. Construction can therefore start in early or mid 1991 depending on the pace of
demolition.
Recreation and Capital Works Select Committees at their meetings on 8 and 17 March approved the schedule of accommodation for the Phase III development as contained in Council Committee Paper REC/213/88, CAP/194/88. In summary, the facilities to be provided are:
(a) A natural grass soccer-cum-rugby pitch with spectator stands; (b) A 7-a-side soccer pitch (reprovision from Stage I); (c) Two basketball courts (reprovision from Stage I); (d) A jogging track with punctuated fitness stations; (e) Landscape garden and sitting-out areas;
Carparking spaces.
The project was discussed during the departmental presentation of the District Works Programme to Sham Shui Po District Board on 1 June 1989 at which meeting I understand Mr. FUNG was present. The Board was given details of the schedule of accommodation and development timetable, and the Department undertook to present the layout plans to the Board when they were completed and consult the Board at that juncture.
MR. FREDERICK K. K. FUNG (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask about the fourth part of the question. Have people of the district been consulted, and I don't mean members of the District Board. What I refer to is the area committee, such as the Pak Tin Area Committee because this site is situated in the Pak Tin area. I know that the Park will be utilized for the whole of Sham Shui Po, but the local residents in Pak Tin area would of course use the park more. Secondly, since there were changes to the proposal, I don't know whether the Pak Tin Area Committee or the mutual aid committees or the schools have been consulted. I understand the schools in Pak Tin area want a standard size swimming pool. I wonder if the new proposals have been the subject of consultation with area committees and the mutual aid committees?
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, according to the information provided to me by the Department, it would appear that area committees and the local people have not been consulted. However, if there is such a need then the Department would of course present the case to those people concerned for consideration.
7. MR. ARTHUR CHAM YAU-TONG asked the following question (in Cantonese):---It has now been three months since the April Council Meeting when
Page 40Page 41
Page 41 of 166
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.