▾

External sources (not reviewed)

Given that the Peel Rise Case was a [...] [...]

[...] Case and the Peel Rise Case seemed [...] [...]

At its fifth and sixth meetings on 6 October 2005, the Commission examined the following five items: 8.1 “Draft international convention against doping in sport”, 5.3 “Implementation of 32 C/Resolution 54 concerning educational and cultural institutions in the occupied Arab territories”, 5.24 “Proposed establishment of the International Centre for Girls’ and Women’s Education in Africa (CIEFFA) under the auspices of UNESCO, in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)”, 5.8 “Cooperation between UNESCO and OECD in drafting guidelines on ‘Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education’”, and 5.23 “Preliminary report on the desirability and scope of an international charter on traditional games and sports”.

[...] 5 at No. 4 Peel Rise was not an [...] [...]

[...] [...] law moot court competitions; supporting [...] [...]

Mr Albert CHAN pointed out that the Development Bureau ("DEVB") and BD had taken actions against the UBWs at Nos. 5A and 7 York Road, Kowloon Tong ("the York Road Case") and at Houses 4 and 5 of No. 4 Peel Rise ("the Peel Rise Case") in different manners.

Director of Buildings ("D of B") highlighted BD's handling of the UBWs at Houses No. 4 and 5 of No. 4 Peel Rise ("the case"), the details of which were given in the Administration's paper.

[...] [...] UBWs in the Peel Rise Case had stated [...] [...]

[...] houses at Peel Rise) on 23 November [...] [...]

Mr WU Siu-wai of the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers and Ms Rosalind CHEN of the Hong Kong Association of English Medium School expressed support for Mr CHEUNG’s view.

[...] [...] properties at Peel Rise, The Peak.

The first proposal is for the Panel to be authorized to exercise the powers conferred by LCPPO to inquire into the handling of unauthorized building works in House No. 4 and No. 5 at 4 Peel Rise by the Development Bureau, the Buildings Department and other Government departments concerned.

D of B said that there was no lack of communication between BD and the AP on the UBWs at the two houses at Peel Rise since the letter had been issued on 27 June 2012.

[...] [...] 5 at No. 4 Peel Rise on the Peak [...] [...]

In her view, it was obvious that BD had handled the UBWs in the York Road Case and the Peel Rise Case with different standards.

With reference to paragraph 14 of the Administration's paper about the unauthorized floor space at the garden level beneath the parking space of House 5 of No. 4 Peel Rise, Mr James TO sought details of the remedial proposal for the space.

[...] UBWs in the Peel Rise Case might have already existed when it was sold as a first-hand property, he queried why BD had not taken a criminal investigation on the UBWs for the Peel Rise Case.

Proposals for authorizing the Panel on Development to exercise powers under section 9(1) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the powers") for inquiring into policies and procedures of the Government in the handling of the unauthorized building works at the Chief Executive's properties at Peel Rise, The Peak; and for appointing a select committee which is to inquire into the unauthorized building works at the said properties, and to be authorized to exercise the powers when conducting the inquiry

[...] [...] building at Peel Rise because the [...]

The Chairman put to vote Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's proposal for appointing a select committee which was to inquire into the UBWs at CE's properties at Peel Rise, The Peak, and to be authorized to exercise the powers under section 9(1) of the P&P Ordinance when conducting the inquiry.

Referring to CE's remarks in his statement made on 23 November 2012 that he had built a wall to brick off an unauthorized floor space at the lower ground floor of House 4 of No. 4 Peel Rise to make the space inaccessible, Mr Albert CHAN enquired whether it was necessary to obtain the prior approval and consent from BA for such works.