News Stories:

Click-on these handy "jump links" to quickly access the news item
you're looking for.

1. Wu threatens to sue on hotel

2. Proposal to split up culture hub

3. LC: Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation

4. LCQ6: Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project

1. Wu threatens to sue on hotel
Paris Lord, The Standard 5 January 2005

Wan Chai Mega Tower developer Gordon Wu has warned he will sue the government should his controversial hotel complex be rejected, and dismissed fears it will block the public's harbor views from Bowen Road.

Speaking while taking nine legislators on a tour of the site on Tuesday, Wu said no laws stopped developments that might block another building's views, adding he would launch a judicial review should the Town Planning Board reject his application next month.

Hopewell Holdings intends building the SAR's largest hotel on a site fronting Kennedy Road and Ship Street. Some residents oppose it, saying the harbor and Kowloon views from Bowen Road will disappear behind the 93-storey, 2,000-room two-tower hotel.

``Show me which ordinance says that Bowen Road has got to be protected,'' Wu said.

If the attempt to sue the government failed, a judicial review would be launched, the Hopewell Holdings chairman said.

If the board rejected the development application, it would show the government was not acting in accordance with town planning laws, he added.

Hopewell owns 5,707 square metres of the 12,225 sqm area the board considers one site. Almost 5,100 sqm is public slopes, the remainder streets and lanes.

Wu said he wants the board to follow its established practise and exchange the slopes for other areas surrounding the site, which would then be developed into ``public open space.''

Kennedy Road Protection Group spokesman Roger Emmerton, whose property nears the site, said there is no specified plot ratio for the Mega Tower site, which is zoned a comprehensive development area.

The Town Planning Board decides the plot ratio, be it as low as three times or up to 20 times, but board members must first examine their own planning guidelines.

2. Proposal to split up culture hub
CHLOE LAI, SCMP 5 January 2005

The government is being urged to consider an alternative proposal for the Kowloon West cultural hub project that would see it split into several smaller sites.

Each site would be linked to a specified cultural project under the plan, which has been circulating among smaller developers in recent weeks.

The company winning the land auction for each site would have to build one of the four museums and linked facilities mandated by the government and set up a fund to manage them.

The proposal has emerged in the face of growing public opposition to the single-developer approach, under which the entire project would go to one of three shortlisted bidders chosen by the government without an auction.

Smaller developers believe the alternative would ensure maximum income for the treasury, more money for arts and cultural development and allow competition between the winning bidders.

"All we need is a master plan drafted by the government, and the winning bidder on the sites can work according to that," one developer said. "The companies that won the sites would be looking at each other's work, and this would create some sort of internal competition."

Another small developer said: "We want the whole project started again from scratch and for the land to go on public auction. But this is not a bad alternative."

Lawmakers opposed to the single-consortium approach said the idea was worthy of debate. Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat and Article 45 Concern Group member Alan Leong Kah-kit urged the government to explore the option. The Legislative Council will debate the West Kowloon project today.

Meanwhile, an examination of the document that invited proposals for the project has shown that the government can use the designs submitted by bidders even if they are not awarded the project.

The document grants the government the right to copy and adapt the contenders' designs without paying them any royalties or receiving their permission. All participants in the West Kowloon race had to surrender the intellectual property rights to their designs to the government.

Five proposals were submitted to the government on transforming the 40-hectare site into a cultural hub featuring museums, theatres and public areas. The three short-listed bidders are Dynamic Star International, a joint venture between Cheung Kong (Holdings) and Sun Hung Kai Properties; Henderson Land subsidiary World City Cultural Park; and Sunny Development, a consortium of Sino Land, Wharf (Holdings) and Chinese Estates Holdings.

Swire Properties and mystery individual bidder Lam Sze-tat were rejected in the first round after failing to comply with mandatory requirements, such as including a canopy over the site as depicted in architect Lord Foster's original design.

Mr Leong said the document allowed the government to use any of the proposed designs rather than starting from scratch if it changed direction on the project.

Mr Lee said he has been thinking about the alternative, multiple-developer approach for some time. "We should let the public debate this idea. I'm sure there would be enough wisdom to resolve any drawbacks," he said.

The Hong Kong Institute of Architects said it did not want to see the project scrapped, saying some elements of the contenders' proposals were very good.

"We are not against subsidising arts and culture - we're against the single-consortium approach. The government should conduct a genuine consultation with the public and improve the present mechanism," institute president Bernard Lim Wan-fung said.

3. LC: Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation
Hong Kong Government, 5 January 2005

Following is a translation of the speech by the Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works, Dr Sarah Liao, on moving amendments to the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation at the Legislative Council meeting today (January 5):

Madam President,

I hereby move the amendments to the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation ("the Charging Regulation") and the Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2004 ("the DWDF Regulation") as set out in the Agenda.

The Waste Disposal (Amendment) Ordinance 2004, which was passed by the Legislative Council (LegCo) on July 2, 2004 with amendments, is the enabling legislation for the Charging Regulation and the DWDF Regulation and provides the statutory basis for the introduction of the construction waste disposal charging scheme. The Charging Regulation and the DWDF Regulation were tabled at the LegCo on November 3, 2004 and subsequently scrutinised by a Subcommittee set up for this purpose. The Subcommittee has now completed its scrutiny of the Regulations. Just now, Hon Choy So-yuk has reported the deliberation of the Subcommittee. I would like to take this opportunity to brief Members on the amendments to the regulations proposed by the Administration in response to the comments made by the Subcommittee.

The Charging Regulation and the DWDF Regulation set out the details of the construction waste disposal charging scheme, including the charges for the disposal of construction waste at landfills, sorting facilities and public fill reception facilities and their calculation. The Charging Regulation sets the disposal charges at $125 per tonne at landfills, $100 per tonne at sorting facilities and $27 per tonne at public fill reception facilities in order to fully recover the capital and recurrent costs of the facilities according to the polluter pays principle.

To address the concern of waste haulers over possible cashflow and bad debt problems, we have decided to remove on-site payment and require all charges to be paid through billing accounts. This arrangement is supported by waste haulers and the Subcommittee.

Under the proposed charging scheme, a main contractor who undertakes construction work with a value of $1 million or above will be required to make an application to the Director of Environmental Protection (DEP) within 21 days after being awarded the contract to establish a billing account. Upon the establishment of the billing account, the main contractor will be required to use the account to pay any disposal charges payable in respect of the construction waste generated from construction work undertaken under that contract. In view of the comments of the Subcommittee, we now propose to amend the Charging Regulation by prescribing in clearer terms that "contract" means "a contract in writing or a contract supported by sufficient evidence in writing" and that a billing account established solely for a construction contract with a value of $1 million or above cannot be used to settle charges arising from other contracts with a value of less than $1 million each. In addition, to lower the administration costs of managing multiple billing accounts by small and medium contractors, under the Regulation, a contractor may establish one billing account to cover several contracts with a value of less than $1 million each.

According to our initial proposal, an account-holder will be required to pay to the DEP all charges payable within 30 days from the day of the notice of demand issued by the DEP. In response to the request of the trades and the Subcommittee, we propose to amend the Charging Regulation to extend the payment period from 30 to 45 days so as to further relieve the cashflow pressure on the trades. If an account-holder fails to make payment as required within 45 days, he will be liable to pay a 5% surcharge. If the account-holder fails to pay the unpaid charges and the surcharge within 14 days, the DEP may suspend the account in question. Upon the suspension of the account, the DEP is required to issue a final notice to the account-holder. If the account-holder fails to pay the unpaid charges and the surcharge within 14 days of the final notice, the DEP may revoke the account.

The Charging Regulation provides that a person may apply for the establishment of an exemption account for a construction contract awarded before the commencement of the Regulation. In response to the request of the trades and the Subcommittee, we propose to amend the Regulation to the effect that in addition to the above situation, a contractor may apply for the establishment of an exemption account for a contract if the closing date, if any, for submitting a tender for that contract is earlier than the commencement of the Regulation.

When delivering a load of waste to a designated waste disposal facility, the waste hauler appointed by the account-holder will be required to produce a valid "chit". Similar to the practice of public utilities, the account-holder will be required to pay a deposit when he applies to the DEP for such chits and the deposit will vary according to the amount of usage. To minimise the financial impact on the trade, we have proposed and the trade has agreed that a two-tier system be adopted. Under this two-tier system, the deposit for the disposal of construction waste generated from a contract with a value of $1 million or above will be charged at a minimum of $15,000 for 200 chits. If additional chits are required, additional deposit on a pro-rata basis will have to be paid. For a contract with a value of less than $1 million, a deposit of $300 for each chit will be required. This amount is determined on the most lenient assumption that all vehicle loads contain inert materials to be disposed of at public fill reception facilities charging at $27 per tonne.

In addition, we also propose to amend the Charging Regulation to the effect that the DEP may, on his own initiative or at an account-holder's request, refund the deposit or part of it if the DEP is satisfied that the deposit or that part is no longer required. In making such a decision, the DEP shall have regard to the factors that he considers relevant, including the amount of construction waste that the account-holder proposes to dispose of.

The Charging Regulation specifies the type of construction waste that may be accepted at the various designated waste disposal facilities. If the construction waste delivered by a waste hauler to a designated waste disposal facility is not of the type that may be accepted at that facility, that waste hauler will be turned away. Under these circumstances, to facilitate the waste hauler's delivery of the waste to the appropriate facility, the staff at the facility will give the waste hauler an entry refusal note, which will specify the reason for refusal and the appropriate designated waste disposal facility for the waste to be delivered to. When the waste hauler delivers the waste to the appropriate waste disposal facility, he will not be turned away again.

For the purpose of enforcing the requirements on inert construction waste content set out in Column 3 of Schedule 2 of the DWDF Regulation, the DEP will determine the content of waste using a reference table based on the net weights and permitted gross vehicle weights of different types of vehicles. The Subcommittee was of the opinion that the Regulation should authorise the DEP to determine the inert construction waste content according to the criteria set out in the reference table in order to avoid disputes in the enforcement process although the reference table is not intended to be part of the subsidiary legislation. We supported the Subcommittee's proposal and, therefore, propose to amend the DWDF Regulation to require the DEP to give notice in the Gazette of the criteria adopted for the determination of the inert content of waste. We also undertake to consult the trades through the Tripartite Working Group (TWG) before making any changes to the reference table in future. The TWG, comprising waste haulers, developers/contractors and government representatives, will continue to operate after the implementation of the charging scheme in order to maintain close liaison and co-operation between the Administration and the relevant trades, and review the operational procedures and monitoring mechanism.

According to our initial proposal, if a main contractor who undertakes construction work under a contract with a value of $1 million or above fails to apply to the DEP for the establishment of a billing account within 14 days after being awarded the contract, he will commit an offence and, in the case of a continuing offence, will be liable to a daily fine of $5,000. As the Bills Committee considered the proposed daily fine too high, we propose that the daily fine level be reduced from $5,000 to $1,000. In response to the request of the trades, we also propose to extend the period for establishing a billing account from 14 to 21 days. When scrutinising the Regulations, the Subcommittee was concerned that lowering the penalty might make the provision less effective as a deterrent and suggested that a review be conducted six months after the implementation of the charging scheme. We accept the proposal of the Subcommittee and will review the charging scheme six months after its implementation and at regular intervals afterwards. The scope of review will include the deterring effect of the penalty, the deposit levels and the effectiveness of the reference table. We will submit detailed review reports to the LegCo Secretariat in due course.

Subject to the passage of the proposed amendments, we will widely publicise the Regulations through publicity and education activities and inform the public and the trades of the arrangements under the construction waste charging scheme. We will also educate waste producers, including renovation contractors, on their responsibility for minimising waste and establishing billing accounts. We will also conduct a dry run of the charging mechanism for a period of time with the trades before formally launching the charging scheme in the summer of 2005 so that those involved can fully familiarise themselves with the procedures.

The Resolutions proposed by the Administration also include other technical amendments.

Madam President, I hereby move the proposed amendments, which have been endorsed by the Subcommittee. I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the Honourable Choy So-yuk, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and all members of the Subcommittee for giving us their invaluable views when scrutinising the Regulations.

With these remarks, I urge Members to support the proposed amendments. Firstly, I move the amendments to the Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation. Thank you, Madam President.

4. LCQ6: Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project
Hong Kong Government, 5 January 2005

Following is a question by the Hon Alan Leong and a reply by the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, Mr Michael Suen, in the Legislative Council today (January 5):

Question:

In early 1998, the predecessor of the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA"), the Land Development Corporation, announced the implementation of 26 redevelopment projects, including the Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project. So far, 18 out of those projects have commenced and even completed the acquisition, compensation and rehousing of the affected residents in relation to these projects. However, the Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project has not yet commenced. The residents have been waiting hard for almost seven years to date and are faced with the threat of their landlords forcing them to move out in order to obtain vacant possession. As for the other seven projects, except for implementing the two projects in Tai Kok Tsui in mid-December 2004, URA has not commenced the other five redevelopment projects in 2004. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the dates of the acquisition, compensation and rehousing of the affected residents in relation to the Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project have been extended indefinitely, making it impossible for the project to commence; if not, of the implementation timetable and whether URA has any plans to rehabilitate rather than redevelop the premises in the Kwun Tong Town Centre;

(b) of the measures to be taken by the Administration and URA, between now and the commencement of the acquisition, compensation and rehousing of the affected residents in relation to the Kwun Tong Town Centre redevelopment project, to help the residents who are being forced to move out by their landlords; and

(c) whether it knows why URA has not commenced the above five redevelopment projects in 2004; whether the Administration has deferred the implementation of the URA's Annual Business Plan approved in 2004; and whether the Administration and URA will abandon the five projects?

Reply:

Madam President,

Before I answer the Hon Alan Leong's question in detail, I would like to clarify two points.

First of all, the role of the Government is to formulate and coordinate the overall urban renewal policy and to monitor the implementation of the urban renewal programme. The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) is an independent statutory body tasked to undertake urban renewal. The URA Board is empowered to determine its own policies in respect of, inter alia, the timing and mode of project implementation as well as the compensation policy.

Secondly, of the 26 projects announced by the former Land Development Corporation (LDC) in 1998, one was launched by way of "owners participation scheme" between the former LDC and the owners concerned before the establishment of the URA. Regarding the other 25 projects, the URA has so far launched 19 of them. The remaining six projects, including the Kwun Tong Town Centre project, will be commenced by the URA in accordance with its approved five-year Corporate Plan and Annual Business Plan.

My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(a) The URA has already included the Kwun Tong Town Centre project in its third five-year Corporate Plan approved by the Financial Secretary. We understand the URA is conducting detailed studies on the project for working out a concrete implementation plan. Since the project will affect a large number of residential and commercial buildings and involve complex issues on infrastructural facilities, the URA needs time to carry out detailed planning and preparation work as well as to gauge the views of the community.

As regards the actual implementation schedule for the Kwun Tong Town Centre project, it is the URA's established policy not to announce such information in advance. This is to prevent people who intend to abuse the compensation and rehousing arrangements from moving into the URA's project areas, resulting in a waste of public resources.

The URA has adopted a comprehensive and holistic approach to regenerate the older urban fabric by way of redevelopment of dilapidated buildings, rehabilitation of older buildings, revitalization of older districts and preservation of buildings with historical and architectural value. In determining the renewal needs and the mode of implementation of the Kwun Tong Town Centre, the URA, as an independent statutory body, will take into consideration all relevant factors, including the age and condition of the buildings, the living conditions of residents therein, the urgency of the project (such as the availability of basic sanitary facilities and potential fire hazards of the affected buildings) and the URA's financial position.

(b) In the context of the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) (Amendment) Ordinance 2004 (LTO 2004), the URA undertook to provide, through administrative measures, rehousing or ex-gratia payments to eligible domestic tenants of the remaining ex-LDC projects (including the Kwun Tong Town Centre project) who are affected by its redevelopment works. The amount of such ex-gratia payments would be calculated on the basis of the statutory formula previously in force before the enactment of the LTO 2004. For tenants who are required by their landlords to move out upon expiry of their tenancies and Transitional Termination Notices (TTNs) before the commencement of the ex-LDC projects, the URA would still offer ex-gratia cash payments or rehousing to these eligible tenants upon the commencement of such projects. The Government and the URA briefed the Panel on Planning, Lands and Works of this Council on details of the relevant URA policy on 23 November 2004.

While the URA respects the legal right of the landlords to recover their properties upon the expiry of tenancies and TTNs, it has struck a fine balance between the interests of the tenants and the landlords when working out the compensation policy which is applicable to the remaining ex-LDC projects. Landlords will not be able to obtain a higher compensation by recovering their properties, thus minimizing the incentive for them to evict the tenants. Moreover, the URA has decided and announced earlier the elimination of the difference in valuation between tenanted and vacant flats so as to prevent landlords from evicting tenants to take advantage of the difference and obtain a higher compensation. Designed to safeguard the legitimate interests of both the tenants and landlords, this initiative will cost the URA an additional $27 million on compensation for the remaining ex-LDC projects.

(c) As stated in my opening remarks, the URA has already included the remaining six ex-LDC projects in its third five-year Corporate Plan. Neither has there been procrastination on the part of the URA in implementing its current Annual Business Plan. In fact, as pointed out by the Hon Alan LEONG, the URA launched two ex-LDC projects in Tai Kok Tsui in mid-December last year. As far as we understand, in the first half of the current business plan year, the URA has focused its efforts on rehabilitation work and has devoted considerable resources and manpower to the acquisition work of the Lee Tung Street, Wan Chai project, which involves more than 600 residential flats and shops. The URA has indicated that it intends to commence more redevelopment projects before the end of the current business plan year.