Page 80 of 115
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
According to the Hong Kong Planning Standard and Guidelines, a refuse collection point will usually be provided to serve the needs of a given area within a radius of 500 metres or a population of 20,000 persons. Ideally, the RCP should be located as close as possible to the centre of the area to which it serves. RCPs can be located behind bridges, embankments, and other non-sensitive buildings, that is, those other than residential buildings, schools and hospitals, etc. Where space for off-street refuse collection point is not available, consideration will be given to incorporating them into major mixed developments as far as practicable. Measures will also be introduced to abate and reduce odour and noise nuisances to the neighbouring environment.
On the second question regarding the background as to why the RCP underneath the Tsing Fung Street flyover has caused local objections as reported in the media, the RCP in question is a park RCP. It is used exclusively for Victoria Park for temporary storage of refuse collected from the Park. Like all other Urban Council major park where there is a high level of usage for various activities and functions, it is essential to provide a refuse collection point to temporarily store the refuse collected in the park. The collected refuse in Victoria Park comprises mainly litters, fallen leaves, twigs, cans and plastic bottles. This kind of refuse rarely produces stench.
The park RCP has in fact been used since the early 1970's. However, in mid-1991, arising from road improvement works initiated by the Transport Department along Hing Fat Street, the use of the RCP was temporarily suspended. With the agreement of the Transport Department, a temporary RCP was reprovisioned near the Park entrance at Hing Fat Street by making use of some of the metered carpark spaces inside the Hing Fat Street Public Carpark as an interim arrangement. This arrangement will expire on 31 December 1994 and the carpark spaces will have to be reverted to their original usage. In order to provide a replacement RCP for the temporary storage of refuse collected from the Park, there is no other viable alternative but a recourse to reusing the original RCP underneath the Tsing Fung Street Flyover.
Opportunity has been taken to improve the outlook of the RCP so that it would integrate with the surroundings. The improvement works include the provision of hoardings around the RCP, lockable gates to deter illegal dumping of junks and domestic refuse, a better manoeuvre area for refuse collection vehicles, and landscape plantings to beautify the nearby amenity plots. This is only a minor upgrading exercise for the existing Victoria Park RCP and not a new capital project.
The third and fourth questions concern the Wing Hing Street RCP and whether it could cater for the needs of Victoria Park.
The Wing Hing Street RCP is a public refuse collection centre for domestic refuse at a distance of about 300 metres from the Park.
The Wing Hing Street RCP is a public refuse collection centre for domestic refuse at a distance of about 300 metres from the Park. Whether or not it could accommodate the extra refuse from Victoria Park is not the overriding issue because the Park still requires a temporary storage of such refuse before they are collected in bulk to be taken away by the refuse collection vehicles or in small quantities by hand-carts. In transporting the refuse from the Park to this RCP, staff would have to push their heavily loaded hand-carts all the way across Hing Fat Street, Lau Sin Street, Electric Road and Wing Hing Street. Given the heavy traffic, the meandering routes involved, safety of the staff, and nuisances to pedestrian traffic in the narrow streets, it is most undesirable to use the Wing Hing Street RCP. Victoria Park is in heavy use and there is on average one medium/major function in the Park per week. The large accumulation of waste papers, boxes, pieces of plywood generated in connection with such functions make it impossible to clear the trash effectively by hand-carts. Moreover, the Wing Hing Street RCP is designed to cater for the collection of domestic refuse whereas the one underneath the Tsing Fung Street flyover is for Victoria Park. Based on past experience, there is always sufficient refuse from the Park to fill the refuse collection vehicle completely, hence to have a separate park refuse collection point for Victoria Park is not superfluous.
MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. WONG for giving us such a good explanation. However, I still have 4 supplementary questions.
First of all, since we have good justifications to differentiate the RCP at Victoria Park and the one at Wing Hing Street, could the Select Committee or the Department consider changing the name of the RCP to 'Victoria Park RCP?' We should not name it as any normal regular domestic refuse collection point so as to avoid residents' misunderstand.
Secondly, since we have such good reasons for the Victoria Park RCP, why has the Department not consulted the relevant District Board on the issue before hand?' The lack of consultation with local residents has resulted in many protests and demonstrations.
Thirdly, can we undertake a trial scheme for this RCP for a year to prove that there will be no odour or traffic nuisances caused? Otherwise we should perhaps, consider demolishing the RCP?
Fourthly, residents have suggested that the RCP be relocated to the North West corner of Victoria Park. Has the Department considered the suggestion?
MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese):—I will try to answer each one of these questions.
First, if renaming can avoid public misconception, I am sure the Department will consider this and the Recreation Select Committee would be pleased to discuss this issue.
Question two asks why the District Board has not been consulted on this new RCP. As indicated in paragraph 4 of my main reply, this RCP had been in
Page 80 of 115
153
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 80 of 115
Page 81 of 115
Page 80 of 115
152
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
According to the Hong Kong Planning Standard and Guidelines, a refuse collection point will usually be provided to serve the needs of a given area within a radius of 500 metres or a population of 20 000 persons. Ideally, the RCP should be located as close as possible to the centre of the area to which it serves. RCPs can be located behind bridges, embankments, and other non-sensitive buildings, that is, those other than residential buildings, schools and hospitals, etc. Where space for off-street refuse collection point is not available, consideration will be given to incorporating them into major mixed developments as far as practicable. Measures will also be introduced to abate and reduce odour and noise nuisances to the neighbouring environment.
On the second question regarding the background as to why the RCP underneath the Tsing Fung Street flyover has caused local objections as reported in the media, the RCP in question is a park RCP. It is used exclusively for Victoria Park for temporary storage of refuse collected from the Park. Like all other Urban Council major park where there is a high level of usage for various activities and functions, it is essential to provide a refuse collection point to temporarily store the refuse collected in the park. The collected refuse in Victoria Park comprises mainly litters, fallen leaves, twigs, cans and plastic bottles. This kind of refuse rarely produces stench.
The park RCP has in fact been used since the early 1970's. However, in mid 1991, arising from road improvement works initiated by the Transport Department along Hing Fat Street, the use of the RCP was temporarily suspended. With the agreement of the Transport Department, a temporary RCP was reprovisioned near the Park entrance at Hing Fat Street by making use of some of the metered carpark spaces inside the Hing Fat Street Public Carpark as an interim arrangement. This arrangement will expire on 31 December 1994 and the carpark spaces will have to be reverted to their original usage. In order to provide a replacement RCP for the temporary storage of refuse collected from the Park, there is no other viable alternative but a recourse to reusing the original RCP underneath the Tsing Fung Street Flyover.
Opportunity has been taken to improve the outlook of the RCP so that it would integrate with the surroundings. The improvement works include the provision of hoardings around the RCP, lockable gates to deter illegal dumping of junks and domestic refuse, a better manoeuvre area for refuse collection vehicles, and landscape plantings to beautify the nearby amenity plots. This is only a minor upgrading exercise for the existing Victoria Park RCP and not a new capital project.
The third and fourth questions concern the Wing Hing Street RCP and whether it could cater for the needs of Victoria Park.
The Wing Hing Street RCP is a public refuse collection centre for domestic refuse at a distance of about 300 metres from the Park.
The Wing Hing Street RCP is a public refuse collection centre for domestic refuse at a distance of about 300 metres from the Park. Whether or not it could
Page 80 of 115
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 80 of 115
153
accommodate the extra refuse from Victoria Park is not the overriding issue because the Park still requires a temporary storage of such refuse before they are collected in bulk to be taken away by the refuse collection vehicles or in small quantities by hand-carts. In transporting the refuse from the Park to this RCP, staff would have to push their heavily loaded hand-carts all the way across Hing Fat Street, Lau Sin Street, Electric Road and Wing Hing Street. Given the heavy traffic, the meandering routes involved, safety of the staff, and nuisances to pedestrian traffic in the narrow streets, it is most undesirable to use the Wing Hing Street RCP, Victoria Park is in heavy use and there is on average one medium/major function in the Park per week. The large accumula- tion of waste papers, boxes, pieces of plywood generated in connection with such functions make it impossible to clear the thrash effectively by hand-carts. Moreover, the Wing Hing Street RCP is designed to cater for the collection of domestic refuse whereas the one underneath the Tsing Fung Street flyover is for Victoria Park. Based on past experience, there is always sufficient refuse from the Park to fill the refuse collection vehicle completely, hence to have a separate park refuse collection point for Victoria Park is not superfluous.
MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. WONG for giving us such a good explanation. However, I still have 4 supplementary questions.
First of all, since we have good justifications to differentiate the RCP at Victoria Park and the one at Wing Hing Street, could the Select Committee or the Department consider changing the name of the RCP to 'Victoria Park RCP?' We should not name it as any normal regular domestic refuse collection point so as to avoid residents' misunderstand.
Secondly, since we have such good reasons for the Victoria Park RCP, why has the Department not consulted the relevant District Board on the issue before hand?' The lack of consultation with local residents has resulted in many protests and demonstrations.
Thirdly, can we undertake a trial scheme for this RCP for a year to prove that there will be no odour or traffic nuisances caused? Otherwise we should perhaps, consider demolishing the RCP?
Fourthly, residents have suggested that the RCP be relocated to the North West corner of Victoria Park. Has the Department considered the suggestion?
MR. RONNIE WONG MAN-CHIU (in Cantonese):—I will try to answer each one of these questions.
First, if renaming can avoid public misconception, I am sure the Department will consider this and the Recreation Select Committee would be pleased to discuss this issue.
Question two asks why the District Board has not been consulted on this new RCP. As indicated in paragraph 4 of my main reply, this RCP had been in
Page 80 of 115
Page 80Page 81
Page 81 of 115
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.