Following is an English translation of the speech by the Director of Housing, Mr Stanley Ying, at the Hong Kong Housing Authority regular open meeting on 26 June 2017:
Chairman and Members,
First of all, I would like to thank Members for sharing your thoughts at the earlier Annual Special Open Meeting. As a matter of fact, in the past year, we have been following up and examining various topics that Members discussed at the meetings of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and its committees, as well as questions and views collected during Members’ meetings with the public. The Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS) serves as a starting point from which we look into these topics.
Members are aware that the Government set up the LTHS Steering Committee in 2012 to advise the Government on the long term housing development of Hong Kong. After extensive public consultations and discussions, the Government promulgated the LTHS in December 2014. In its Foreword, the Secretary for Transport and Housing (STH) foreshadowed the problem in land supply that we are facing in recent years. He also pointed out that the society had to make choices and accept trade-offs.
The LTHS adopts the supply-led and flexibility principles and sets out three major strategic directions:
First, to build more public rental housing (PRH) units and to ensure the rational use of existing PRH resources;
Second, to provide more subsidised sale flats including Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats, expand the form of subsidised home ownership and facilitate market circulation of existing flats; and
Third, to stabilise the residential property market through steady land supply and appropriate demand-side management measures, and to promote good sales and tenancy practices for private residential properties.
As its name implies, the LTHS puts forward a set of strategies and a framework, which need to be realised through taking forward specific policies and measures. Naturally, HA is a major party in taking forward the LTHS.
HA has been making its best efforts in accomplishing this mission. In respect of public housing supply, HA has consulted district councils (DCs) on 75 public housing projects, comprising 49 PRH projects and 26 subsidised sale flats projects, in the past five years. During this period of time, a total of 77 works projects at a total contract value of about $80 billion were launched and more than 62 600 PRH units were completed.
Land Supply
Land is the determining factor affecting public housing production in the past few years. We have been striving to secure more land for public housing development and to build the maximum number of housing units within the shortest possible time on every site. As regards time, housing production generally involves two stages, namely, the construction stage and the pre-construction stage. While we are relatively confident about the construction stage, the pre-construction stage involves a number of procedures, which are often subject to variables beyond our control. With fewer pre-construction procedures involved, projects on “spade-ready” sites are therefore more controllable in terms of the lead time required. One of the examples is that, with our best endeavour, it is estimated that we will be able to complete all six HOS projects and the Eastern Harbour Crossing site Phase 7 in around five years. These projects are situated on “spade-ready” sites. On the contrary, the Wang Chau Public Housing Development is not located on a “spade-ready” site. In 2014, the Government decided to develop Wang Chau in phases, starting first with Phase 1 and proceeding later with Phase 2 and Phase 3, with the aim of early delivery of 4 000 housing units in Phase 1 in 2024/25. Phase 1 will only be completed in 2024/25 because of pre-construction processes such as land resumption, procedures in the Legislative Council (LegCo) and completion of infrastructure works before the site can become “spade-ready”. We hope that such work will proceed smoothly so that the 4 000 housing units can be completed as soon as possible.
As regards the number of flats, where circumstances permit, we seek to increase housing production through applying to the Town Planning Board for relaxation of plot ratio and building height. Furthermore, subject to individual site conditions, we make optimal use of the development potential of the sites at the design stage. One recent example is the subsidised housing development at Texaco Road, Kwai Chung. About half of the sites are slopes. By converting the slopes into landscape decks to provide recreational space for tenants’ use and including the area of the slopes in the calculation of the site area, we can increase the number of units from about 350 to about 500. In future, we will continue to explore possible ways to increase land for public housing development and to make the best use of every piece of land.
There have been views that aged PRH estates should be redeveloped as a means to increase public housing sites. The Housing Department (HD) had studied this topic internally, and the list of 22 PRH estates referred to by some of us from time to time is in fact a piece of technical information regarding this issue. After making reference to a wide range of information and taking into account strategic considerations as well as views from different sectors, we have since set out our strategy in the LTHS. The LTHS concludes that while redevelopment may increase PRH supply over the long term, it will in the short term reduce PRH units available for allocation. This will add further pressure on HA’s ability in maintaining the average waiting time target at about three years. The main reason is that the net gain in flat supply from redevelopment will take a long time to realise, very often towards the latter if not the last phase of redevelopment. Against the current high demand for PRH, any large scale redevelopment programme will only result in freezing a large number of PRH units that may otherwise be allocated to households in need. Hence, redevelopment could at best serve as a supplementary source of PRH supply.
We have taken on board views from various sectors in formulating the above strategy, including the discussion of the Public Accounts Committee on Report No. 62 of the Director of Audit. Members have asked about HA’s policy on redevelopment. In fact, HA has already introduced the “Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged Public Rental Housing Estates” in 2011, under which we take into consideration four basic principles in determining whether an estate will be redeveloped, namely, structural conditions of buildings, cost-effectiveness of the repair works, availability of suitable rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estate to be redeveloped, and build-back potential upon in-situ redevelopment. Let me make it absolutely clear that it is neither an LTHS direction nor HA’s policy that redevelopment projects will never be conducted now or in the future. As a matter of fact, we are at the moment pushing forward the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate and Wah Fu Estate. In the future, we will consider redevelopment on an estate-by-estate basis in a prudent manner in accordance with the LTHS and HA’s four basic principles.
Estate Maintenance
We are aware that our prudent approach on redevelopment may disappoint sitting tenants who wish to be transferred to new PRH units through redevelopment programmes. I hope that tenants will understand that we need to focus our resources on allocating PRH units to applicants waiting for public housing as soon as possible. We pledge to continue our efforts in ensuring that PRH estates and individual units are well maintained. For this purpose, we have introduced various programmes. The first is the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme, under which thorough inspections will be conducted on PRH estates aged around 40 years to ascertain the structural safety of buildings and to devise repair proposals necessary to sustain them for at least 15 years. Another programme, the Estate Improvement Programme aims to upgrade facilities of older estates. Such works include upgrading recreational facilities, renovating building exteriors and common areas in PRH estates, enhancing landscape and greening quality, etc. For the 22 PRH estates on the list I just mentioned, the comprehensive structural investigations have already been completed and the Estate Improvement Programme is being implemented in phases. Furthermore, the Barrier Free Access Improvement Programme has been implemented since 2002 to improve walkways of aged estates, elevator facilities and so on. There are also plans to install new lifts and escalators while upgrading existing lifts in aged estates.
For maintenance inside PRH units, the Total Maintenance Scheme conducts thorough inspections every 10 years for estates aged between 10 and 30 years of age; and every five years for estates aged above 30. Apart from this Scheme, we rolled out the Responsive In-flat Maintenance Services in 2008 to provide one-stop repair services for tenants under which estate-based dedicated teams will offers speedy inspections and repairs in response to tenants’ request for routine minor repairs inside their units. Through the above schemes, we will ensure that aged estates are safe and comfortable to live in.
Rational Use of PRH
In addition to constructing new PRH and maintaining older ones, we need to make rational use of PRH to ensure that they are allocated to people with greater needs. Last year, I pointed out the various demands for PRH and proposed to review several schemes to improve the allocation efficiency of PRH units. I would now like to go through some of the findings of HA’s reviews of major flat allocation schemes.
First, the Quota and Points System (QPS). The Subsidised Housing Committee (SHC) endorsed refinements to QPS in 2014, which included adjustments to the points system, and an increase of the quota from 8% to 10% with the cap increased from 2 000 to 2 200 units. This will enable more non-elderly singletons to be allocated public housing. At the same time, SHC decided to conduct regular checks on the income and assets of QPS applicants. In 2015/16, we checked 28 000 applications, 14 000 of which were cancelled. In 2016/17, 12 700 applications were checked and 6 800 applications were cancelled.
The “Well-off Tenants Policy” has been a controversial topic over the years and have been repeatedly discussed by the community, LegCo and the HA. SHC finally endorsed the revised “Well-off Tenants Policies” and its implementation details in late 2016 and early 2017 respectively. Under the revised policies, PRH households whose family income exceeds five times the PRH income limits or whose assets exceed 100 times PRH income limits will need to vacate their PRH units. PRH households who have private domestic property ownership in Hong Kong will also need to vacate their PRH units, irrespective of their levels of income or assets. SHC also laid down a number of circumstances for exemption, with reference to the views raised during the deliberations in SHC and LegCo.
To help PRH tenants better understand the revised “Well-off Tenants Policies”, we will disseminate relevant information through various channels, including road shows at PRH estates, before commencement of the declaration cycle in October this year.
Also, SHC noted that some general applicants of PRH are household members of PRH at the time when they submitted applications. According to the Survey on PRH Applicants 2016, this kind of applications made up about 25% of the applications under the Ordinary Families category. After discussion, SHC decided that starting from 1 April 2017, if all household members in a family application are currently living in PRH at or after the time of application, the relevant application will be frozen for one year. Once an application is frozen, the frozen period will not be adjusted or cancelled on account of any subsequent addition/deletion of household members in the application, or deletion of household members from the existing PRH tenancy. This new arrangement will not affect applications registered prior to 1 April 2017. Applicants under the Single Elderly Persons Priority Scheme, Elderly Priority Scheme and Harmonious Families Priority Scheme will also be exempted. Since the implementation of the new policy on 1 April 2017, about 30 applications are subject to the one-year frozen period.
Under-occupation (UO) is another difficult issue. On the one hand, relocating UO households to smaller units can release larger units for allocation to households in need. On the other hand, such transfers will take up smaller units, thus affecting applicants who need smaller units.
HA has been trying to strike a balance between the two in its policies, and at the same time taking into account the difficulties of the elderly and disabled persons in adapting to new environment. Households with disabled members or elderly members aged 70 or above are therefore excluded from the UO list, and those with elderly members aged between 60 and 69 are placed at the end of the UO list for transfer. After careful deliberations, SHC decided to retain these existing arrangements at its meeting in March this year.
As for overcrowded households, HA has put in place arrangements for PRH tenants with an average living space below 5.5 square metres per person or below 7 square metres per person to apply for flat transfer. With our efforts over the years, the proportion of tenants with an average living space below 7 square metres per person is now 3.16% and the proportion of those below 5.5 square metres is 0.54%. In October 2016, SHC agreed that the Territory-wide Overcrowding Relief Transfer Exercise and the Living Space Improvement Transfer Scheme would be launched together from 2017/18 onwards. The number of units reserved for the two schemes each year will be reduced from about 2 000 to about 1 000 so that more units can be released for allocation to PRH applicants.
Both the issues of UO households and overcrowded households pertain to one question: how much living space should be provided for each PRH tenant. At the last meeting, a Member mentioned that the number of PRH units and households were increasing while the total population in PRH estates was decreasing. This reminds me of another recent observation by some that PRH units in recent years are somewhat smaller when compared with the past. Data such as the total number of population, units and households in PRH estates, or the size of different types of PRH units, have analytical value. However, when discussing whether the living space in PRH estates is too small or too big, the average living space per person is another useful reference. In the 20 years from 1996 to 2016, the average living space per person in PRH estates has increased from 9.1 square metres to 13.1 square metres, partly due to the departure of some family members in existing PRH households and the relatively high proportion of small families among the new PRH households. Among households who were allocated PRH units between 2006/07 and 2015/16, one-person and two-person households each accounted for 28%. Of the one-person households, 6% were one-person applicants under QPS, while other one-person applicants took up 12%, including elderly one-person applicants; applicants aged 58 or 59 who opted for the Single Elderly Persons Priority Scheme; and female one-person applicants with pregnancy of 16 weeks or more. In fact, the introduction of various HA policies, such as those for the UO and overcrowded households that I just mentioned, is also one of the important factors contributing to the phenomenon. Through the policy for the overcrowded households, we have basically achieved an average living space of no less than 7 square metres per person. However, the UO policy results in situation whereby some households may enjoy a living space of more than 28 square metres per person. As explained in the above analysis and as a result of other factors, the average PRH household size has decreased and the average living space per person has exceeded the standard of 7 square metres as set by HA.
The Needs of the Elderly and Individuals with Impaired Mobility
The improvement in average living space per person for PRH households benefit tenants, in particular the elderly and disabled persons given the arrangements explained above under the UO policy. At the last meeting, Members discussed support measures for the elderly and disabled persons, the concept of Universal Design and other issues. I would like to take this opportunity to brief Members on HA’s work in these areas. Let me first make three points:
(i) Universal Design is just one of our measures catering for the needs of the elderly and disabled persons;
(ii) Universal Design is beneficial to the elderly and disabled persons in general, but may not be able to address the needs of every elderly and disabled person; and
(iii) elements of Universal Design have already been incorporated into older PRH estates to a very significant extent.
To facilitate “Ageing in Place” and to provide the elderly with a sense of belonging in the community, it is necessary to have both software and hardware in place. As far as software is concerned, HA has all along been supporting the Government’s harmonious families policies and encouraging the younger generation to take care of and live together with their elderly parents. In this connection, HA endorsed a number of schemes between 2007 and 2008, namely, Harmonious Families Priority Scheme, Harmonious Families Transfer Scheme, Harmonious Families Addition Scheme and Harmonious Families Amalgamation Scheme.
The target applicants of the Harmonious Families Priority Scheme are PRH applicants. Priority is given to younger families who choose to live with their elderly parents/relatives in one PRH unit or two nearby units. The target applicants of the Harmonious Families Transfer Scheme are younger families and their elderly parents/parents-in-law who live in PRH estates in different districts. Either party may apply for transfer to the estate in which the other is living or to a nearby estate for mutual care. The Harmonious Families Amalgamation Scheme allows elderly tenants and young tenants living in two separate PRH units to apply for amalgamation of tenancies. In case only the elderly parents are PRH tenants, the Harmonious Families Addition Scheme allows the elderly PRH tenants to add to their tenancies an adult offspring together with his/her family member(s). As at end-May 2017, about 44 900 households have benefitted from these arrangements.
As far as hardware is concerned, I have just mentioned that many of our elderly tenants have been allocated larger living space under the UO policy. Besides, we plan to gradually increase the provision of diversified recreational facilities at 102 PRH estates with a higher proportion of elderly tenants. As at March this year, we have started the installation of such facilities in 58 PRH estates and plan to complete all the relevant works by March 2019.
Since 2002, we have adopted the concept of Universal Design in newly built PRH estates, including in residential flats and common areas. Major elements of Universal Design include various types of barrier-free facilities and non-slip floor tiles on suitable floor surfaces.
Based on the same concept, we have been making effort to incorporate similar Universal Design elements into older PRH estates. First and foremost is the $330 million Barrier-free Access Improvement Programme that I mentioned earlier, which involves enhancing the design of control buttons on lift panels; installing detection devices at lift doors; adding handrails, illuminated visual indicators and audible signals in lift cars; improving pedestrian walkways; adding handrails and tactile warning strips and so on. Today, all the improvement works have been completed.
In terms of lift services, we are replacing all the aged lifts, and, whenever practicable, installing new lifts and provide lift openings for floors currently without lift access. Over the past 15 years, we have completed modernisation works for more than 1 000 aged lifts. In the past year, a total of 107 aged lifts have been replaced. We plan to upgrade about 500 lifts in 26 PRH estates in the coming six to seven years at an estimated cost of $1 billion. We have also completed or started lift addition works in 33 PRH estates between 2008 and 2015, which included the addition of 85 lifts at a cost of over $1 billion.
In summary, we have been incorporating many elements of Universal Design in older estates and will continue to do so. A few proposals were discussed at an earlier meeting of the Building Committee (BC). It was suggested that elements of Universal Design should be included during the renovation process of all or some of the units. We note that for many of the older PRH units, not all such elements can be incorporated due to physical constraints. The majority of PRH tenants are not elderly or disabled persons, and certain Universal Design elements may not be suitable to them. Also, the package of Universal Design elements still fall short of the needs of some elderly and disabled persons.
Under our prevailing approach, in-flat improvement works will be provided free of charge for individual elderly tenants and the needy during renovation, taking into account their special needs and the advice of medical professionals. Such improvement works include widening of the doorway with provision of a ramp whenever practicable; conversion of the bath tub into a shower area; installation of grab rails in the bathroom; raising the floor slab of the balcony to make it level with that of the living room and so forth. In case such works cannot be carried out in the unit due to other constraints, or the health condition of the tenants warrants a unit with a larger living space, we will arrange for the tenants to transfer to other suitable PRH units.
As we have explained during the discussion at the BC’s meeting, we will continue to carry out the tasks mentioned above in future. In the long run, we will pay attention to how the principles and initiatives of “Ageing in Place” evolve in the community and in the Government. Following the meeting of BC, we think it would be useful to take a look at whether more Universal Design elements should be incorporated into standard in-flat renovation works. We will brief Members on the outcome of the study in due course.
Non-domestic Facilities
At the last meeting, Members raised the issue of application for the use of public space in PRH estates by the public, and other matters involving HA’s non-domestic facilities. Let me now turn to HA’s non-domestic facilities, or as per the wording of the Housing Ordinance, “such amenities ancillary to housing as the Authority thinks fit” to be provided by HA.
As at the end of March this year, there were about 1.72 million square metres of non-domestic facilities under HA, of which 49% were welfare and community facilities, 13% were shops and market stalls, and 12% factory buildings. The remaining 26% were used for other purposes such as government rented premises, offices and storerooms. HA also provided about 29 800 parking spaces in its 145 car parks.
In planning new public housing developments, HA makes reference to the legal and government requirements, as well as the views of DCs and local communities, and provides various types of non-domestic facilities.
The public has diverse demands for non-domestic facilities in PRH estates, such as social welfare facilities, parking spaces, markets, bazaars, and ward offices. The problem we have is that the limited space in both new and existing estates will never be adequate to satisfy all kinds of demand for various facilities.
In fact, precisely due to this reason, we have been experimenting with services such as mobile banking service, mobile Chinese medical service, as well as parcel lockers to facilitate on-line purchase delivery on a trial basis in recent years. The aim is to provide more services without occupying space in PRH estates.
In the past year, the Commercial Properties Committee (CPC) held discussions on various issues relating to non-domestic properties, such as the tender system for the supply of centralised liquefied petroleum gas to public housing estates, the single-operator letting arrangements of HA’s markets, and the allocation system of ward offices to members of LegCo and DCs. Owing to time constraint, I would like to focus on two issues that are more frequently discussed by the public lately, namely, bazaars and markets. On both, we will continue to support the Government’s policy as it evolves. In line with the policy on bazaars, we have established a mechanism to handle applications. Upon receiving a proposal from any organisation to set up a bazaar in a PRH estate, HD will, based on the contents of the proposal and the actual circumstances of the estate concerned, examine the feasibility of the proposal and its impact on the estate, including whether it will affect environmental hygiene, obstruct public passages, cause nuisances to the residents or attract illegal hawking activities and so on. We will assist the proponent to consult the residents and other stakeholders through the relevant Estate Management Advisory Committee.
If the estate concerned is governed by a land lease or a deed of mutual covenant, and involves other owners, consent of the owners concerned and approval from the Lands Department have to be obtained. HD will assist the proponent to consult the other owners and the Lands Department. Besides, the proponent has to secure support from the local community and the relevant DC in accordance with the Government’s policy on bazaars.
According to the principles and procedures mentioned just now, HD has approved the setting up of a holiday bazaar at the amphitheater of Tin Yiu Estate. It has been operating since 28 May this year. HD will make reference to the experience gathered from Tin Yiu Estate in handling future applications of a similar nature in support of the Government’s policy.
Regarding markets, HA has been providing markets in suitable public housing projects on a need basis. Where conditions do not allow the provision of a market or where there is insufficient demand, we will adopt a flexible approach by providing wet market retail services in the form of street-front shops. CPC members earlier conducted a site visit to On Tat Estate where there is a street-front shop with various kinds of common wet market retail stalls inside. This mode of operation is more flexible than traditional wet markets and can make better use of public funds and public space in PRH estates. We will continue to make similar arrangements in future to provide an alternative to traditional wet markets.
In the past year, Members reminded us on different occasions that we should always stay vigilant when it comes to quality assurance. From time to time, we have kept Members posted of the latest progress on the follow-up work and improvements made to the quality assurance mechanism in the wake of the lead-in-drinking-water incident. In view of the time constraint, I am not going to repeat the details here. Instead, I would like to turn to a subject to which HA has been attaching great importance all along: site safety. Although HA’s record in this aspect fares consistently better than the industry’s average, we still want to make further improvements. Recently, we have compiled a set of guidelines and handbook on site safety in a bid to enhance the awareness and knowledge of contractors and site workers. I recommend this set of materials to Members.
Closing Remarks
Before I conclude my speech, on behalf of all Members, I would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Chairman. In the past five years, despite countless difficulties and challenges, HA has, under the leadership of the Chairman, pressed ahead against all odds in addressing the housing problem of Hong Kong people. On behalf of our colleagues in HD, I would also like to thank the Chairman for his steadfast leadership and unfailing support in times of adversity or even crisis. On behalf of Members and colleagues, I take this opportunity to wish the Chairman every success and good health in entering his next chapter of life.
Thank you.
- END -