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 July 2018:
Chairman and Members,
First of all, I would like to thank Members for sharing your views at the earlier Annual Special Open Meeting. Having carefully studied your views with my colleagues, I will offer our response to such views as well as relevant views being discussed in the community. I will also report on the latest progress of the work of the Government and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA).
Before we look into individual subjects, I would like to make few general points. First, after last month’s Annual Special Open Meeting, there was a significant development in the Government’s housing policy. On 29 June, the Chief Executive (CE) announced a package of new housing initiatives, which are relevant to many of the concerns and views raised by Members and other parties. With the agreement of the Chairman of the Subsidised Housing Committee (SHC), the Committee convened a special meeting on the same day in which the Secretary for Transport and Housing (STH) briefed Members on the Government’s initiatives and listened to Members’ views. We also issued an open information paper (HA 21/2018) to all HA Members that evening. As the Paper already explained the Government’s new initiatives, I will not go into details here.
Secondly, some topics raised by Members are related to the Government’s Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS). When studying Members’ views, we found it necessary to revisit the discussions on the relevant topics in the LTHS. It took more than two years to formulate LTHS, and various topics on housing were brought up for debate by various sectors in the community. When we discuss these topics today, it is worth referring to the information and analyses presented in LTHS.
Thirdly, we understand that while Members focus on the work of your respective Committees, Members may also be interested in aspects of the work of other Committees. To facilitate sharing of information on such issues, we have been providing open information papers to all HA Members for a while now. For instance, the Papers you see on this slide are reports relating to the lead-in-drinking-water incident and the monitoring of water quality. This Paper is about the implementation of the “ageing in place” policy on various fronts. This Paper, issued in January this year, informs Members of our decision to let out vacant units involved in the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate and Mei Tung Estate on short-term tenancies. The next one explains concerns over the quality of drinking water in Sheung Chui Court in 2017 and recently in Kwai Tsui Estate. From these two incidents, we see the need to step up publicity on the proper ways recommended by the Water Supplies Department of using water in cases of new buildings or newly completed waterworks. The next two Papers, issued after an earlier incident at Hoi Lai Estate, explain how HA’s procurement system deals with labour rights and interests, and prevents market domination. The last two Papers are about how HA executes the welfare-letting covenant and, a topic of recent discussion, the split-ratio covenant, which were both entered into upon the disposal of HA’s properties in 2005. If Members find these documents useful, we will continue to issue similar information papers at suitable junctures.
The Supply-led Principle under LTHS
Let me begin with the work of the Government. The first issue I would like to address is related to the fundamental principles of LTHS. The LTHS was formulated on the basis of a consensus in the community at the time, i.e. in order to address the housing demand-supply imbalance, it was necessary to adopt a “supply-led” principle to increase public and private housing supply in a continuous manner over the long run. I believe that this remains our mainstream consensus today. However, from time to time, some will cite two sets of figures, which together may give an impression that there is, instead, an excess of supply of residential units in Hong Kong. These figures are the Census and Statistics Department’s estimates of the number of domestic households residing in private permanent living quarters, and estimates of private permanent living quarters. The latest figures of these estimations are 1 370 000 and 1 580 000 respectively.
Some might look at the difference between the above two figures and infer that there are over 200 000 vacant residential units in Hong Kong. As we have explained before, such inference would be a misinterpretation of the definitions and purposes of these figures, and would be comparing apples to oranges. First of all, the aforementioned concept of “domestic households” does not cover certain types of households, such as households of non-permanent residents coming to Hong Kong to study or work but were not in Hong Kong at the time of the survey, or those consisting of only “mobile residents” and short-stay Hong Kong permanent residents, etc. The demand for residential units will be under-estimated if this definition is adopted for projecting the number of households in Hong Kong having a need for accommodation.
The other figure of “permanent living quarters” includes certain non-residential units, such as premises for residential use in commercial and industrial buildings; staff quarters in elderly homes, hospitals and penal institutions; and quarters for accommodating students and staff in boarding schools. The supply of residential units will be over-estimated if this definition is adopted for projecting the number of units available for residential purpose.
In fact, the Government has been collecting another set of data continuously for the long-term monitoring of the vacancy situation of residential units. That is the vacancy rate survey conducted by the Rating and Valuation Department (RVD). According to RVD’s statistics, there were only 42 940 vacant private residential units in end-2017. The overall vacancy rate was 3.7%, lower than the long-term average vacancy rate of 5% between 1997 and 2016.
We would like to reaffirm the conclusion in LTHS that we must firmly adhere to the “supply-led” principle for increasing public and private housing supply in order to tackle the housing problem.
Public-Private Split for the Supply of New Housing Units
All along, there have been different views regarding the housing supply target proposed under LTHS. For example, some consider that the current public-private split of 60:40 for the supply of new housing units should be adjusted to 70:30. As Members are aware, under the LTHS mechanism, STH will announce the housing supply target for the next ten years and the public-private split for the supply of new housing units on an annual basis. We will consider views regarding this ratio when determining the ratio before the end of this year. However, as we have always pointed out, increasing the proportion of public housing inevitably reduces the supply of private housing. In the midst of the prevailing limited land supply, a reduction in private housing supply will exert pressure on the prices and rents in the private residential market. This may increase the number of households which cannot afford to buy or rent private units. Therefore, we must carefully consider any suggestion to adjust the ratio in order to strike a balance between the public and private housing development.
Housing Supply Target
There are suggestions that alternative approaches other than the LTHS model should be adopted for planning housing supply. For example, there is a suggestion for setting a target that 60% of the population in Hong Kong should reside in public housing in 40 years’ time, with 40% living in public rental housing (PRH) units and 20% in subsidised sale flats (SSFs); and such proportion should be gradually increased to 70% to 75%. This approach is different from the LTHS approach. According to LTHS, the Government updates the long term housing demand projection and presents a rolling ten-year housing supply target every year. The public and private housing supply targets are then derived according to the public-private split for the supply of new housing units.
We have reservation against setting a fixed benchmark for the proportion of population living in public housing. First, figures under this fixed benchmark seem to be based more on aspirations rather than objective parameters. More importantly, taking into account past experience, LTHS does not adopt only the “supply-led” principle, but also the “flexibility” principle under which the housing supply target could be adjusted in view of the socio-economic changes through the annually updated projection. We consider the approach under LTHS more desirable.
Another issue for the Government to decide, and discussed by some Members at the last meeting, is how the housing supply targets under LTHS should be re-classified in the light of the new public housing programmes. When we announced the first ten-year housing supply target in 2014, the target was classified into private housing, and “SSFs” and “PRH” under public housing. Such classification reflected that other than private housing, the supply of new residential flats back then only included SSFs and PRH provided by HA and the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS). However, in the past three years, the Government and HA have launched the “Starter Homes” pilot project for Hong Kong Residents (“SH”) and the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme (GSH). It is therefore necessary to re-classify the housing supply target under LTHS, taking into account the new housing programmes.
Undoubtedly, “SH” flats are sold with subsidies. However, if we classify them under “SSFs”, the number of flats available for White Form (WF) and Green Form (GF) applicants will be reduced. The Government has made it very clear that should “SH” continue, land will come from sites earmarked for private residential developments. Accordingly, “SH” flats should count towards private housing.
Likewise, though GSH is a form of subsidised housing for sale, it is exclusively open to GF applicants only. Also, PRH units recovered from the sale of GSH flats will be allocated to GF applicants only. Therefore, GSH should count towards the same category as PRH.
Simply put, there will be three categories of housing supply in the future, namely “PRH and GSH” on one end; and private housing, including “SH” flats, on the other. The category in between will be SSFs that include those from the conventional “Home Ownership Scheme” (HOS) as well as those provided by organisations such as HKHS.
Private Housing
I will now move on to private housing. As indicated in LTHS, the Government will adopt a two-pronged approach, of securing a stable supply of land, and curbing external and speculative demands as and when necessary to help stabilise the residential property market and prevent the adverse consequences arising from an overheated market. Up to now, the Government’s demand-side management measures include three types of stamp duties, namely, Special Stamp Duty, Buyer’s Stamp Duty (BSD) and New Residential Stamp Duty (NRSD). On 29 June, CE announced two other measures, i.e. introducing Special Rates and amending the Lands Department Consent Scheme, to expedite the supply of first-hand private flats. As recently stated by CE, the Government will not rule out any options and will continue to monitor the situation carefully.
There are calls from time to time from the community for the Government to restrict purchase of housing units by non-Hong Kong buyers. We will continue to take into account various views on this matter. At the same time, the public may find it useful to take into consideration the following information. One of the effects of the BSD and NRSD is to reduce the purchase of local residential properties by non-local buyers. With the concurrent implementation of the two stamp duties, a non-Hong Kong permanent resident is subject to BSD and NRSD, both at a rate of 15%, i.e. an aggregate stamp duty of 30% when acquiring local residential properties.
The number of residential property transactions involving non-local individuals (i.e. non-Hong Kong Identity Card holders) and non-local company buyers (i.e. companies not incorporated in Hong Kong) in the first half of 2018 accounted for only 1.2% of the total number of transactions, which was lower than the figure of about 4.5% before the introduction of BSD in 2012. Hence, BSD and NRSD have had some effect in limiting non-local buyers’ purchase of local residential properties. As I have just mentioned, we will take note of any views Members may have and consider whether and how to increase our efforts on this front.
Redevelopment of Aged PRH Estates
In the discussions leading to the LTHS, various options such as tenancy control and rent subsidy, were examined by the community. Another such topic was the redevelopment of aged PRH estates. LTHS has included an analysis on redevelopment, explaining that while redevelopment may increase PRH supply over the long term, in the short term it will reduce PRH stock available for allocation. Any massive redevelopment programme would result in freezing a large number of PRH units that could otherwise be allocated to the applicants, thus lengthening their waiting time. Therefore, redevelopment can only play a supplementary role in increasing the PRH supply. Considering the current circumstances, we do not see the opportunity for conducting any massive redevelopment.
Since the promulgation of LTHS in 2014, the average waiting time for PRH has increased from about 3 years at that time to 5.1 years recently. Under such circumstances, there is a greater need for us to adhere to the strategy laid down in LTHS and to be cautions with individual redevelopment proposals. We will continue to prudently consider redevelopment on an estate-by-estate basis, in accordance with LTHS and HA’s “Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged PRH Estates”, in the light of actual situations and with reference to four basic principles, viz. structural conditions of buildings, cost-effectiveness of repair works, availability of suitable rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estates to be redeveloped and build-back potential upon redevelopment.
Optimising PRH Resources
After talking about the Government’s policies, I will now turn to topics raised by Members in respect of HA’s work. First, PRH. One of the important tasks under LTHS is the optimisation of PRH resources. This is also something that HA has been endeavouring to do. Nevertheless, from time to time, commentators cite figures showing that the average PRH household size is on the decline. Indeed, the average PRH household size has dropped from 3 persons in 2006 to 2.8 persons in 2016. However, does this mean that HA has not been fully utilising the PRH resources?
Many factors may contribute to the decline in PRH household size. The change in Hong Kong people’s living habits is one. In the ten-year period between 2006 and 2016, the overall average household size in Hong Kong has decreased from 3 persons to 2.8 persons, while the average PRH household size during the same period has also experienced the same drop. Such a change can be attributed to various commonly known factors, such as reduction in fertility rate, increase in life expectancy, growing population of elderly singletons, and greater aspiration and capability of the younger generation to live apart from their parents. Such factors have impacted PRH households and other families in similar ways, though to different extents.
Certain policies of HA may have intensified the impact of some of the above factors on PRH households. For example, while non-elderly one-person applicants have to apply for PRH under the Quota and Points System (QPS), elderly one-person applicants can apply as general applicants and enjoy a higher priority over family applicants. As a result, while the current average waiting time for general applicants is 5.1 years, that for elderly one-person applicants is 2.8 years. Theoretically, if HA no longer gave priority to the elderly one-person applicants or even required them to wait for PRH allocation under QPS, the number of one-person PRH households would decrease and the average household size would increase.
However, giving priority to elderly one-person applicants in PRH allocation has been one of HA’s important contribution to “ageing in place”. We believe that we should make our best efforts to maintain these policies as far as practicable.
In fact, it seems to me that using household size is a somewhat roundabout way to quantify the utilisation of PRH resources. If we only know that 2.8 persons live in a PRH unit, we cannot tell if that PRH unit is being used properly or not. This is because we do not know another variable, i.e. the flat size. Based on HA’s standards, if those 2.8 persons live in an old-style nine-to-ten-person unit, they would be overly spacious. However, if this family of 2.8 persons is living in a one-to-two-person unit, they would be overcrowded. Therefore, the average living space per person may be a more direct figure for assessing the utilisation of PRH units.
Between 2006 and 2016, the average living space per person for PRH households has gradually increased from 12 square metres to 13.1 square metres. Does this figure indicate a worthy improvement of the living conditions of the PRH households or HA’s ineffective use of PRH resources?
Looking into relevant policies, one of the crucial factors behind these figures is our endeavour to increase the average living space per person through the overcrowding relief policy, while in parallel we have been using a generous approach in handling under-occupation (UO) cases. Through the overcrowding relief policy, HA basically achieves an average living space of no less than 7 square metres per person. As to the UO policy, having considered the conditions of elderly and disabled tenants, they are exempted under the policy and are not required to transfer to other flats. Furthermore, to take care of applicants with special needs supported by medical proofs, we allocate larger PRH units of suitable size to them. In a nutshell, while overcrowded households enjoy a continual increase in the average living space per person, some of the UO households are allowed to stay in larger units. The combined effect of these two initiatives has led to an increase in the average living space per person in PRH.
As I have just mentioned above, HA has been making every effort in optimising PRH resources, but has decided against some options as a matter of policy choice. LTHS seeks to make good use of PRH resources, hence we have reviewed several relevant policies in the last two years. One key example is the well-known revision to the “Well-off Tenants Policies”. Another one is the introduction of a frozen period for family applicants currently living in PRH which was endorsed by SHC in February 2017. Starting from 1 April 2017, family application with all members living in PRH on the date of registration will be frozen for one year. The reason for such arrangement is that applicants living in PRH have relatively less pressing needs for another PRH unit as compared with applicants living in private rental accommodation, especially those living in “sub-divided units”. In the first year of implementation since 1 April 2017, a total of 350 such applications have been subject to freezing for one year.
As regards the overcrowding relief policy which we have discussed earlier, given that the average waiting time for PRH has been increasing and that existing tenants have their basic housing needs met, SHC endorsed that the two transfer schemes for overcrowded households would be implemented in one-go from 2017-18 onwards. The number of flats earmarked for the two schemes would be reduced from about 2 000 flats every year to about 1 000 flats, so as to release more flats for allocation to PRH applicants.
At the same time, SHC also reviewed the UO policy. Considering the needs of both elderly and disabled tenants and to tie in with the Government’s “ageing in place” policy, HA has been placing those households with elderly members aged 60 or above but below 70 at the end of the UO list for transfer. Furthermore, households with members with disabilities or elderly members aged 70 or above are excluded from the UO list. Subsequent to the above review, SHC decided to review the UO policy again in 2020. Prior to 2020, elderly persons and other UO households in need will continue to be given relatively generous treatment. Having said that, we will follow up if Members have other views.
Another recent example of optimising PRH resources is that, in conjunction with the redevelopment projects of Pak Tin Estate and Mei Tung Estate, the Strategic Planning Committee decided in January this year to allocate refurbishable PRH units in the two estates to PRH applicants on short-term tenancies. On a side note, HKHS announced early this month that vacant units arising from Yue Kwong Chuen’s redevelopment would be rented out on short-term tenancies, and some suggested that HA should follow suit. In fact, we have taken forward the aforesaid arrangements of Pak Tin Estate and Mei Tung Estate at an earlier time. Some proposed that HA should also let out other vacant units arising from PRH redevelopment by way of short-term tenancies. In fact, apart from those in Pak Tin Estate and Mei Tung Estate there are no other vacant units arising from redevelopment projects at the moment.
Just now, I have explained once again the strategy laid down in LTHS for PRH redevelopment. Redevelopment draws upon public housing resources and is itself a type of demand for PRH. We are aware that some of the tenants living in aged PRH estates wish to move to new estates so as to improve their living conditions. However, I hope that they will appreciate that we need to give priority to those families with more pressing needs, including the tens of thousands of family applicants who are living in conditions much worse than those in the aged PRH estates.
At the same time, we will not neglect our tenants in the aged estates. We will continue with various programmes and measures to upkeep and improve the building conditions, and provide tenants with a safe and comfortable living environment. Such initiatives include the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme, the Estate Improvement Programme, the Total Maintenance Scheme, provision of barrier-free accesses, replacement and addition of lifts.
(1) Regarding the Comprehensive Structural Investigation Programme, HA has been conducting detailed examinations on buildings approaching or exceeding 40 years old in phases since 2005. It is estimated that by the end of 2018, we will have completed the structural investigations and assessments of 42 aged PRH estates. According to the findings, we have devised or will devise repair proposals necessary to sustain these buildings for at least 15 years and assess their cost effectiveness.
(2) Regarding the Estate Improvement Programme, HA has been improving the living environment of the aged estates and renovating their facilities, including upgrading recreational facilities, renovating building exteriors and estate common areas, enhancing landscape and greening, etc.
(3) In respect of the Total Maintenance Scheme and the Responsive In-flat Maintenance Services, HA has been proactively providing tenants with in-flat inspections and necessary maintenance services to ensure that estate facilities are in good conditions and various potential maintenance issues could be addressed early.
(4) Regarding barrier-free facilities, HA has been providing barrier-free accesses and facilities in accordance with the Buildings Department’s Design Manual. At present, HA has installed in all its estates various types of such facilities, including 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 as well as adding handrails and tactile warning strips.
(5) In terms of lifts, HA has been gradually replacing aged lifts in PRH estates, and whenever practicable, retrofitting lift entrances on floors without lift access. To date, modernisation works for more than 1 000 aged lifts have been completed and 83 new lifts have been installed in 32 PRH estates. In addition, HA plans to upgrade some 500 lifts in about 30 PRH estates in the coming six to seven years.
Subsidised Sale Flats
As regards SSFs, CE announced on 29 June the revision of the pricing policy for HOS flats by amending two key parameters in the affordability test: first, using the median monthly household income of non-owner occupier households instead of the income limit of WF applicants as the reference point; secondly, ensuring that at least 75% (instead of 50%) of flats are affordable to families earning this median monthly household income. Apart from these two parameters, there is no change to all other elements in the pricing mechanism, which include maintaining the discount rate of 30% as the starting point in pricing HOS flats. This is a very important point. Under the new mechanism, a discount of 48% is derived for HOS flats in 2018. However, discount for future flats priced under this mechanism may be higher or lower than 48%. Maintaining the 30% discount rate as a starting point will leave HA with the option to consider selling the HOS flats at 30% discount even if a lower discount is derived under the new pricing mechanism in future. Another principle is that HA will maintain its long-established principle of setting prices of HOS flats on a cost-recovery basis.
To tie in with the new pricing mechanism, SHC endorsed the revised selling prices and sales arrangements on 17 July. SHC also endorsed the re-opening of applications for the Sale of HOS Flats 2018 and the revisions to the alienation restrictions for HOS.
Further to the endorsement of the alienation restrictions for 2018 HOS flats, the meeting also agreed that further discussions on whether and how to impose tighter alienation restrictions for GSH and HOS flats would be necessary. Among diverse views expressed during the meeting, more Members were inclined to further tightening the restrictions. As regards restriction measures, some Members suggested deferring the time when owners will be allowed to sell their flats in the open market upon payment of premium. Some called for more stringent restrictions on the arrangements for owners to sell their flats to WF or GF buyers in the Secondary Market without paying premium. Members also noted that besides legislative amendments, another option to consider is to implement new restrictions by other means such as through the land lease. We will follow up this issue with SHC taking into consideration Members’ discussions and views from the community.
Non-domestic Facilities and Spaces
Besides residential units, different types of non-domestic facilities and spaces for various uses are required in PRH estates to cater for residents’ needs. We have to strike a balance among three factors when designing new estates or managing existing ones. On the one hand, we have to maximise flat production; provide other facilities to address residents’ needs as far as practicable; and reserve space between building blocks for purposes such as greening, recreation, ventilation and circulation. In the following, I will talk about these non-domestic facilities now and will focus on retail, car parking and recreational facilities in response to recent public concerns.
When planning for retail facilities, HA will take into account factors such as the scale of the project under planning and the availability of shopping centres and retail facilities in the vicinity. Relevant District Councils will also be consulted. If necessary, HA will commission consultants to carry out retail studies to determine the appropriate retail facilities for the development in question, as well as the operational and financial viability and suitability of such facilities.
Our prevailing practice is to consider providing new public housing developments of smaller scale with supermarkets comprising wet goods sections or shops selling fresh supplies. However, if the development concerned is located in a remote area without retail facilities nearby, HA will consider providing more retail facilities taking into account the actual circumstances. For a larger development with a sizable population but without market facilities in the vicinity, we will examine whether to provide a market as well.
In tandem with market trend, we have adopted proactive and flexible measures in the marketing and leasing of retail facilities, such as diversifying the trade mix. In addition, we strike to explore new avenues to offer more shopping choices and a greater variety of services to our tenants and the community. For example, we have introduced mobile banking services, mobile Chinese medical and physiotherapy services, as well as parcel lockers for on-line purchase delivery in some PRH estates. These services require less space and are more flexible in delivery.
When providing car parking facilities, HA will refer to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) and consult the Transport Department and relevant District Councils. HA will determine the number of parking spaces with reference to the circumstances of individual developments. For example, for remotely-located developments, HA will adopt a higher car parking standard to meet residents’ demand. To support the Government’s efforts to increase the number of parking spaces, we are exploring the practicability of providing additional parking spaces in new developments and existing PRH estates.
As for recreational facilities, HA will make reference to the requirements in the HKPSG and provide no less than 1 square metre of local open space per person. Under the concept of “communal play areas”, we aim to provide facilities for users of different ages in the same recreational area as far as possible. For example, children’s playground facilities are integrated with elderly fitness facilities, Tai Chi gardens, pavilions, etc. In this way, we aim to create a harmonious living environment for people of different ages and physical abilities.
Various institutions, groups and organisations have different demands for non-domestic facilities. Some also suggest that HA should make the best use of all available space in PRH estates to provide residents with more facilities. However, it must be recognised that PRH estates are densely populated and have limited space. Open spaces at the ground level are often used for public access, sitting-out areas or public space for residents. HA will, on the premise of ensuring adequate public space for residents’ access and leisure, strive to balance residents’ needs for various facilities. As a matter of fact, HA reviews the use of non-domestic facilities from time to time in order to optimise the use of resources, and converts non-domestic facilities to other purposes whenever technically feasible to cater for the demand. For example, HA has previously converted storerooms inside domestic blocks into residential units; as well as those storerooms outside the blocks and empty bays into welfare services or retail uses. All of these measures are intended to make better use of the available space.
At the last meeting, there was the suggestion that HA should launch specific housing schemes targeted at the elderly. As a matter of fact, HA had launched similar schemes years ago but the results were less than satisfactory. For example, during the 1980s, suitable PRH units were allocated to non-governmental organisations for arranging three to four elderly residents to cohabit in one unit. There were also purpose-built PRH units for the elderly. However, such units were not popular among the elderly as they had reservations on sharing in-flat facilities with others. In order to optimise the use of housing resources, HA is implementing a conversion scheme to gradually turn these units with a high vacancy rate into ordinary PRH units.
Apart from improving the living conditions of the elderly in the domestic portion, HA also explores the feasibility of converting suitable vacant non-residential premises in existing PRH estates into facilities such as elderly day care centres and elderly hostels, in light of the demand for such facilities. The addition of these facilities involves a number of factors, including the relevant laws, fire safety requirements, land lease restrictions, etc. We will also take into account residents’ views and the compatibility of various facilities in the estates.
HA has all along been supporting the “ageing in place” policy. I have already talked about some elderly-friendly policies just now. For HA’s other efforts to support “ageing in place”, Members may refer to our report issued early this year.
Recently, there are suggestions for HA to study the possibility of providing additional residential units within existing PRH estates. While we are proceeding with our analysis, our initial view is that, before any decision is made, it is necessary to look into the circumstances of individual blocks and carefully assess the impact of any proposal to add units. For example, we must consider whether there is any remaining plot ratio for additional floor area in an estate, whether the related works require submission of a planning application to the Town Planning Board, and whether it is necessary to apply to the Lands Department for increasing in the number of residential units, floor area or building height. Regarding construction works, the technical feasibility of the proposals should be taken into account, such as the impact on infrastructure, traffic, environmental protection and ventilation. We will also consider the impacts of such construction works on the structure of existing buildings, fire escape safety, as well as restrictions pertaining to existing underground conduits in the estate, etc. More importantly, we will need to consider the potential adverse impact of an increased population arising from the proposal on existing estate facilities such as open space, greenery, recreational and educational facilities, car parking facilities, traffic flow, etc. Such proposals must also secure the support of estate residents and District Councils.
In short, we do not have in-principle problem with the proposal to convert spaces in PRH estates for other purposes. In the past, with the support of the local communities, we have built domestic blocks in external areas, like the recently approved Cheung Ching Estate project as shown in the slide. We have also added lift towers and installed various kinds of barrier-free facilities, etc. In future, we will continue to explore ways to further utilise spaces in existing estates to provide more residential units or additional non-domestic facilities like parking spaces or welfare facilities.
Using New Methods and Innovative Technology
As I have shared with Members before, the Housing Department (HD)’s workload has become heavier and our tasks have become more complex over the past few years. We need to strengthen our manpower, streamline work procedures and adopt new technologies. I will now explain our efforts in adopting new technologies:
(1) In late 2015, we rolled out the Development and Construction Site Mobile System, which enables our resident site staff to collect, transmit and record data using mobile devices and applications when carrying out site inspections during construction. This system not only streamlines construction site safety management but also improves work quality and productivity. We are now exploring ways to broaden the applications of the mobile system, so that it will be able to cover more areas of inspection, such as providing support to different kinds of structural and foundation works as well as the final inspection process of construction and building services works.
(2) Similarly, on the estate management front, we have rolled out another set of mobile devices and applications for staff of the Estate Management Division to enable their access to synchronised data anytime and anywhere through mobile network. This system enhances efficiency in conducting flat inspections and verifying tenants’ information.
(3) We commenced the development of Cloud Computing Infrastructure in September 2017. With greater flexibility in deploying information technology resources and better synergistic effect, the cloud computing model will provide a shared platform for HA to develop and support business application systems more cost-effectively. We target to bring this platform into operation in early 2019.
(4) The “iHousing” mobile application developed by HA was officially launched in December 2017. The first phase of the application covers services such as rent enquiry and payment. Since its launch, the application has received support from PRH tenants. As at the end of June, iHousing recorded a download rate of 35 708 and a hit rate of 760 357. We are now preparing for the next phase, aiming to enrich iHousing with a greater variety of services such as offering weather news and estate information to tenants including e-notification messages of repair works of common facilities in PRH blocks. In the long run, we will consider launching e-services for tenants to make payments and apply for in-flat repair works.
(5) Meanwhile, we are studying the feasibility of allowing HOS applicants to submit applications through the Internet. Referring to the online application service launched by HKHS this year as an example, we are planning to introduce online application and fee payment services in the sale of HOS flats in 2019.
The Finance Committee will continue to monitor the implementation of such technologies to ensure the best use of HA’s resources.
There are suggestions from Members that HA should introduce the Modular Integrated Construction (MiC) method. In fact, one of the initiatives mentioned in CE’s Policy Address is to promote and lead the adoption of MiC in the construction industry. As part of the Government, the Transport and Housing Bureau and HD will fully support the Development Bureau (DEVB) in taking forward this task. As a matter of fact, for over a quarter-century, HA has been sparing no effort in promoting and developing mechanised construction, including the use of precast components in public housing development projects. This construction method is effective in controlling cost, shortening construction time and enhancing productivity. Drawing on our experience, we have been trying to broaden the application of precast components. At the same time, we are open to explore and adopt any other new construction methods that are conducive to public housing development in terms of cost efficiency, time management and productivity.
As regards MiC, we have all along been taking part in DEVB’s work and have commenced our own study. We have collected some information about construction projects adopting MiC in overseas countries, such as the United Kingdom and Singapore. We are aware that MiC can indeed improve construction efficiency and productivity in some cases. That said, from our preliminary study, we identified two noteworthy aspects. First, MiC may make relatively less difference to construction effectiveness in HA’s housing projects. This is because we have already been using precast components. As we can see from the slide, most of the components of a PRH unit are manufactured in a precast factory and then transported to the construction site. Switching from precast components to MiC may only slightly enhance the effectiveness. Besides, MiC is mainly suitable for projects that involve substantial works on fittings and facilities, such as hotels or quarters. In comparison, HA’s housing developments are constructed mainly with no-frills designs and without elaborate fittings and facilities. For such “no-frills” housing, MiC will have less advantage over other methods. Secondly, MiC may not be applicable in some of our projects. Most of our current precast components are flat plates, which require less space in transportation, on-site storage and assembly operation. By contrast, much more space is required for the transportation, on-site storage and assembly operation of the end-products of MiC, which are basically three-dimensional housing units. This slide shows how MiC components are transported in a truck in Singapore. The truck is 15 metres long which may not be suitable for access to every construction site of HA. Another photo compares how our precast components and the MiC components are stored. You can see we need less space to store our flat plates. The last photo captures the operation on site. You can see how we lift up the plates one by one for installation. For these reasons, MiC may not work on some of our projects because of site constraints or road access restrictions. Let me cite an example here. This is a recently approved PRH project. As you see, there are practical difficulties in using MiC due to the congested works area.
In view of the various challenges above, we are conducting a viability study on the adoption of MiC in public housing development projects. The final report is tentatively scheduled for completion by late 2018. We will then seek Members’ comments on the way forward. Meanwhile, as I have just said, we will continue to explore the possibility of expanding the use of precast components such as precast corridor slabs and structural walls, so as to further enhance construction efficiency and productivity.
Concluding Remarks
Chairman, before I conclude my speech today, let me extend, on behalf of HD, our heartfelt gratitude to Members for their continued support for HA’s work. They have given me and my colleagues valuable views on and insights into our policies and initiatives as well as their implementation.
As CE has recently pointed out, among all livelihood issues, the housing problem is the most important, complex and challenging. This is also the very issue that the public most earnestly look to the Government to resolve properly. HA plays a crucial part in this important mission. My colleagues and I look forward to further collaboration with Members to accomplish our tasks in the days ahead. Thank you.
- END -
