The Bicycle Lane, one of the Public Recreational Facilities in DB, does not conform to the safety guidelines. Who is responsible?
OPEN LETTER
16 November, 2014
Mr. Vincent Chua
Director
Discovery Bay Services Management Ltd
Discovery Bay
Hong Kong
Dear Vincent,
At about 10:30am on Saturday, 15 November, a cyclist travelling downhill on the Bicycle Lane alongside Discovery Bay Road suffered a bad fall just beyond the junction with Headland Drive and was injured. An ambulance was called, and the cyclist was taken to hospital. The accident occurred when the cyclist tried to negotiate through the gap in the poles installed in the cycle path. A picture of these poles is shown above.
I have on several occasions pointed out to different members of CM staff that the poles are placed too close together and pose a danger to cyclists. In fact, the poles do not conform to the Transport Department’s requirements for a cycle path. For background information on proper signage and aids for a cycle path you may refer to this web page.
With the execution by Hong Kong Resort Company Limited (HKR) in September 2012 of the Undertaking in favour of the Government and the Director of Lands, HKR is now fully responsible for the management and maintenance of the Bicycle Lane in Discovery Bay. I link a copy of the Undertaking for your reference. Given that the Bicycle Lane is one of the Public Recreational Facilities provided in DB by the developer for use by the public at large, I trust that you would agree with me that HKR should ensure that the provision meets the Government standards for cycle paths.
As you are concurrently Assistant General Manager City Management and Transportation for HKR, I would be grateful if you would draw the attention of your colleagues at HKR to the accident, and encourage the Company to make the necessary changes to the signage and aids on the Bicycle Lane to improve safety.
Please also consider the conflict of interest posed by simultaneously serving as Director of the Manager and Assistant General Manager of the developer, in light of the obligations in law of an agent (the Manager) to his principal (the Owners).
Central Park is one of the Public Recreational Facilities (PRF) in DB. CM has never informed owners and residents that the Government required HKR to take over management and maintenance responsibility for all PRF in DB in 2012.
OPEN LETTER
2 November, 2014
Mr. Vincent Chua
Director
Discovery Bay Services Management Ltd
Discovery Bay
Hong Kong
Dear Vincent,
I trust that you believe as I do that property management services should be provided to all owners and residents of Discovery Bay (DB) without fear or favour, and that all dealings of City Management (CM) should be transparent and rules based. I therefore write to highlight recent incidents that appear to contravene these principles, and I would be grateful for your explanation.
On the night of 23 October, 2014, CM directed village security guards to deliver a private commercial flyer titled “Fabulous Offers for You” to all units in DB on behalf of Hong Kong Resort Company Limited (HKR), CM’s parent company.
On enquiry, an Assistant Manager for CM confirmed that distribution of commercial flyers is a legitimate duty of CM and of security guards. Regarding payment, the Assistant Manager quoted a clause from the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) to the effect that, for any charge of $5,000 or less, CM may at its discretion treat the charge as a Management Expense to be paid for by all owners. When asked whether other owners may avail themselves of this service, the Assistant Manager declined to answer.
I am concerned that CM appears to be offering services to one owner that are not available to other owners, and that the charge for these services is not transparent. I am further concerned about the information that CM chooses to distribute, and not distribute.
May I therefore ask you to confirm whether the Assistant Manager is correct in his understanding and, if so, to advise:
The cost to have CM distribute a private commercial flyer to all units and owners;
How owners other than HKR may avail themselves of this service; and
The objective criteria by which CM decides whether the cost of distribution will be charged to an individual owner or to the Management Funds.
I further would appreciate clarification why management resources are deployed to distribute private commercial flyers, while information that is arguably more relevant to the management of DB is withheld.
For example, I link to this Open Letter a copy of the Undertaking signed by HKR on 18 September, 2012 in favour of the Government and the Director of Lands, by which HKR pledged that, from one month after the date of the Undertaking and for the duration of the lease, it would be solely responsible for management and maintenance of the existing Public Recreational Facilities (PRF).
Prior to the Undertaking, the owners and residents of DB had been paying several million dollars per year for the provision of maintenance and landscape/cleaning/security services for the PRF. The PRF include all of the Plaza, the Beach at Tai Pak, Central Park (otherwise known as Siena Park), the hiking trails and the bicycle path. The total extent of these areas is over 135ha.
Neither CM nor HKR have informed owners and residents of DB of the Undertaking and of its ramifications. The only action that CM took was to inform the members of the City Owners’ Committee (COC) that the existing licences over certain areas would be terminated, without providing the details of the terms contained within the Undertaking.
Given the huge area and the large sums of money involved, why did neither CM nor HKR inform all owners and residents of the change in management and maintenance responsibility? Conversely, why did the private commercial flyer “Fabulous Offers for You” merit distribution to all units?
I further note that CM distributed the November City Management Newsletter during the night of 31 October, 2014. In this newsletter, you personally invite all owners to participate in the village Annual General Meetings (AGM) to be held in November and December. You also state that owners’ participation is crucial to the success of the AGMs and that owners should exercise their right to form and elect their Village Owners’ Committees (VOC).
Given this advice and in light of the service that CM provided for HKR, will CM now undertake to distribute election leaflets to all Owners of the Village on behalf of any individual owner who would like to serve on a VOC?
This would heighten transparency and encourage a lively election atmosphere, and surely would enhance the prospect of achieving a quorum at all AGMs. Given the high importance that you attach to successful AGMs, surely this is a more relevant use of CM’s resources than the distribution of private commercial flyers. As elections are coming up very shortly, I would appreciate your prompt reply.
For your convenience, I gather together the main points of this Open Letter again for your comment:
The cost to have CM distribute a private commercial flyer to all units and owners;
How owners other than HKR may avail themselves of this service;
The objective criteria by which CM decides whether the cost of distribution will be charged to an individual owner or to the Management Funds;
The reason that neither CM nor HKR informed all owners and residents of the change in management and maintenance responsibility for over 135ha of land within DB upon the signing of the Undertaking;
The reason that the private commercial flyer “Fabulous Offers for You” merited distribution to all units; and
Whether CM will undertake to distribute election leaflets to all Owners of the Village on behalf of any individual owner who wishes to serve on a VOC.
San Hing (LPG) Co Ltd has supplied LPG to Discovery Bay through a dedicated, reticulated supply network since 1983. Efforts over the years to find out why San Hing has a monopoly, and the terms under which it supplies LPG to DB, have met a brick wall — until now.
With the enactment of the Residential Properties (First-hand Sales) Ordinance in 2013, the developer, Hong Kong Resort Company Limited (HKR), came under a statutory obligation to provide details of such supply contracts in the sales brochure for new residential developments. The Amalfi development, re-launched in December 2013, was the first phase in DB to fall under the Ordinance, and its sales brochure provided a very interesting revelation.
Even though the terms of the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) require that the DB management company, Discovery Bay Services Management Ltd (DBSML), represent the DB owners in all contracts with suppliers, supply of LPG is governed by a contract with HKR.
Full details are provided in the Open Letter to Mr. Vincent Chua, Director of DBSML, below.
Mr. Chua replied to the above letter, making reference to the provisions in the DMC regarding supply of electricity by CLP Power. Mr. Chua advised that the arrangements for San Hing followed those for CLP Power.
This is blatantly false, as explained in the following Open Letter.
No reply has been received to this second Open Letter, and the very worrying issues raised about the security of LPG supply to DB remain unresolved.
The supply agreement between HKR and San Hing expires on 31 May, 2020, and there is no guarantee that it will be renewed. San Hing has all along enjoyed the profits of supplying LPG while the system was new and maintenance requirements were minimal. As the network reaches the end of its service life and maintenance requirements start to rise, what is to prevent San Hing from concluding that the maintenance cost is too great to bear? San Hing has no obligation to renew the contract in 2020 on the same terms as at present. What then?
Twilight Court, Peninsula Village
Thus, the owners of residential properties in DB face a huge potential liability for the maintenance of the LPG reticulation network in future. The fact that Mr. Chua has not responded to deny these concerns, or to provide a road map beyond 2020, speaks volumes in itself.
Ultimate Data Resource for Discovery Bay, Hong Kong
