Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ19: Redevelopment of the Prince of Wales Hospital
Following is a question by the Hon Emily Lau and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, Dr Yeoh Eng-kiong, in the Legislative Council today (June 2):
Question:
It has been reported that the Administration plans to redevelop the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH), which was commissioned in 1984. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(a) of the designed lifespan of the PWH;
(b) of the reasons for the Administration's plan to redevelop the PWH, and whether they relate to the design of the building, the construction materials used or the workmanship; if so, of the details concerned; and
(c) as regards whether to proceed with the options of redeveloping the PWH or of renovating it, whether the relevant authorities have compared the pros and cons of these two options in terms of the capital and recurrent expenditure involved, cost effectiveness, environmental impact, duration of the project, as well as the implications on patients and the teaching activities of the Medicine Faculty of the Chinese University of Hong Kong; if so, of the detailed comparison results; if not, whether they will make such a comparison before implementing the redevelopment plan, and consult the Legislative Council, relevant district councils and members of the public on the redevelopment plan?
Reply:
Madame President,
(a) The design life of the PWH buildings, like many other buildings, is more than fifty years, subject to normal usage and proper maintenance.
(b)&(c) The Government and the Hospital Authority (HA) have assessed the capacity of PWH in meeting future service demand and have agreed in-principle to the redevelopment of the hospital due to the reasons explained below.
PWH was designed in the 1970s'. Since then the mode of hospital operation has undergone changes. Space provision in the hospital is inadequate to meet service needs and the problem will be more acute with increase in population of the New Territories East cluster in the future. Its Gross Floor Area per bed provision for hospital operations is below the average of modern secondary acute general hospitals constructed in recent years. The addition and alteration works conducted over the years to meet service needs have resulted in related or even the same services being scattered over different locations in the hospital, hampering operational efficiency.
Although the existing general condition of the hospital buildings is satisfactory, particularly intensive and heavy usage in the past has accelerated deterioration of finishes, fixtures and other installations of the hospital and shortened their life span. Some of the building services installations are approaching the end of their serviceable life and are beyond economic repair.
The defects in building condition and the problem of deterioration of building services installations can be rectified by refurbishment. However, there are also limitations to the extent of improvement that refurbishment can bring about. We have assessed whether refurbishment or redevelopment of PWH is a better option. Based on a preliminary feasibility study we are advised that redevelopment is a more cost-effective option, taking into consideration the extent of improvement that the two options would bring about, the time needed and social costs such as the disruption that would be caused to service provision, and the inconvenience to be suffered by patients. Refurbishment cannot solve the problem of insufficient space to meet service needs. Realignment of existing hospital services is hardly feasible due to constraints imposed by the existing structural frame and infrastructural provisions of the buildings. In addition, a major refurbishment project would require service suspension and decanting and would disrupt the operation of the hospital as well as teaching by the Chinese University of Hong Kong. There would also be much environmental nuisance to patients in the course of refurbishment. In fact, continuous heavy usage of PWH makes it impossible for any major refurbishment to be carried out.
In comparison, redevelopment would not require service suspension and would not affect teaching. The environmental nuisance caused would be much less since the construction would take place in sites outside the existing hospital buildings. Upon redevelopment, there will be adequate clinical space and facility provisions for the hospital to meet present-day standards and future needs.
Notwithstanding the advantages of redevelopment apparent to us at this stage, we will conduct further studies on the cost-effectiveness of a refurbishment programme vis-�j-vis redevelopment, and will also look into how best to carry out the redevelopment or refurbishment programme that we eventually decide upon to ensure that public funds are appropriately used. We will consult the District Council and the Legislative Council when detailed plans are available.
Ends/Wednesday, June 2, 2004
NNNN