HDB-PROTEM COMMITTEE MEETING
A & A WORKS FOR PRIVATISATION OF HUDC ESTATE
7TH MINUTES OF HDB- PROTEM COMMITTEE MEETING
DATE : 27th January 2014 (Monday)
TIME : 7.00pm to 8.45pm
VENUE : Hougang
Community Club, Conference Room
PRESENT : Protem Committee
Mr. Lee
Meng Chin - Chairman
Mr.
Cheong Chee Keong - Vice
Chairman
Ms. Helen
Kuen - Treasurer
Mr. Cheoh
Cheng Liam - Member
Mr. Kwan
Lian Mum - Member
Ms. Ruth
Lee -
Member
Ms.
Christiana Chang -
Member
Residents of Hougang Ave 7
Ms. Agnes
Yuen - Block
344
Mr. Tay Leong Kiat -
Block 345
Mr.
Jailani A Rahim -
Block 346
Ms.
Sharon Chia -
Block 348
Mr.
Stephen Ng -
Block 349
Mr.
Joseph -
Block 349
Ms.
Adeline Kueh -
Block 349
Mr. Tan
Aik Chua - Block
349
Mr. Tan
Cheow Beng - Block
349
Mr. Jimmy
Goh - Block
350
Mr. Yang
Y.C -
Block 350
Mr. Jason
Loo - Block
350
Housing & Development Board
Ms.
Carine Tan -
Principal Engineer
Ms. Diana
Tan -
Senior Engineer
Ms.
Sophia Lee -
Principal Estate Manager
Ms. Sandy
Hong -
Estate Manager
Mr. Tan
Joo Ping Jeffrey - Principal Administrative Executive
M/s Surbana International Consultants
Pte Ltd / SIPM Consultants Pte Ltd
Mrs. Evelyn Chua - Project
Director
Mr. Ng
Cheong Kheng - Vice
President
Ms. Jenny
Wong - AVP (Architectural)
Mr. Yap
Teck Gim - Site
Supervisor
M/s
STL Construction Pte Ltd
Mr. Jason
Ng -
Project Director
Mr. Song
Wen Bin - Project
Coordinator
Ms.
Jasmin See -
Public Relations Officer
Ms. Jess
Chee - Public
Relations Officer
Absent with Apologies:
Mr.
Sulaimi Bin Erpah -
Surbana M&E Engineer
Mr. Yin
Wei -
STL Project Manager
S/No.
|
Matters Discussed
|
Action By
|
||||||||||||||||
1
1.1
|
Confirmation
of Previous Minutes of Meeting
The previous minutes of meeting was confirmed
with no amendments.
|
All to note
|
||||||||||||||||
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
|
Briefing by
A&A contractor
Project Director, Mr. Jason Ng,
briefed the meeting on the A&A works as follows:
Update on Progress
of Works
Upcoming works
•Replacement of Main Door to Fire-rated
Timber Door (Outstanding Units)
•Replacement of Refuse Chute
Hopper to fire-rated Refuse Chute Hopper (Outstanding units)
•Compartmentalisation of purchased
Recess Area (Block 349)
•Replacement of Existing
Refuse Chute Door (Top
Most Storey)
•Spalling Concrete Repair
Works within units with rebars exposed
•Installation of underground
piping works for fire hydrant (Blocks 344 to 350)
•Installation of lightning
protection system (Blocks 349 & 350)
•Installation of I-beam for
water tank support at rooftop (Blocks 344 to 348)
•Replacement of fire rated
timber door for 3rd service ducts (Blocks 344 to 348)
•Casting of opening for
service ducts (Blocks 344-348)
•Car park works
•Water
service work for relocation and upgrading of meters from PUB
Unit Number Plate
The colour selection of the unit number plate was
confirmed at the meeting.
Ø
Black base with white numbering
|
All to note
All to note
All to note
All to note
|
||||||||||||||||
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
|
Feedbacks from
Protem Committee/Residents
Car park works at Block 347
Protem feedback that the turfing was unevenly done. STL
Mr. Song informed the meeting that he would look into the issue.
Bicycles Parking Condition at Block 350
On a resident’s feedback on the bicycles parking condition
at the void deck of Block 350, HDB informed that this matter would be under
the Town Council’s purview and would assist to forward the feedback to the
Town Council.
Service Duct Doors along corridor
On a resident’s feedback that the service duct doors along
corridor at the high rise blocks were infested with termites, HDB informed
that this issue would be under the Town Council’s purview and would assist to
forward the feedback to the Town Council.
Spalling Concrete
Protem Chairman, Mr. Lee enquired on the commencement date
of the spalling concrete repair works. STL PD, Mr. Jason informed that it
would commence in Mar 2014. HDB further clarified that the repair works would
only be carried out within units where rebars were exposed. For other
spalling concrete in the units, HDB explained that the owners would have to
get them repaired at their cost, as the maintenance within the HUDC flats
were the owners’ responsibility.
Fire-rated Door and Riser Duct
In response to a resident’s query on the installation of
fire-rated main door, Architect Ms. Jenny explained that it was evaluated
based on the fire code that any units of less than 3m from the fire escape
route would be required to be installed with a fire-rated main door.
As to why the entire riser duct doors were not replaced to
fire-rated doors, Architect Ms. Jenny explained that it was similar to the
replacement of fire-rated main door, only those of less than 3m from the fire
escape route would need to be replaced.
Driveway into car park at Block 350
Residents expressed their concerns on a blind spot along
the driveway turning into Block 350 car park and requested for Branch to
study the possibility of installing a mirror to prevent accidents from
occurring.
|
STL to note
HDB to note
HDB to note
All to note
All to note
All to note
Branch to note
|
||||||||||||||||
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
|
Car Park Options
Surbana
Architect, Ms. Jenny briefed the meeting on the following car park options to
construct the replacement lots:
(a) Blocks 348 and
Surbana explained that this was the recommended original proposed
location to construct the replacement lots as it was technically the most
feasible location with sufficient buffer from the units’ window to the car
park and no existing underground services affected. Construction works at
this location would take an estimated 4 months to complete.
(b) Block
Surbana explained that for this option, there would be one telephone
manhole affected and works would be required to either divert or lower the
services. The turf area in front of Block 350 was also insufficient to
accommodate all the replacement lots and some lots would have to be
constructed at the rear of Block 350, where a retaining wall would be
required. Further to that, the car
lots to be constructed at rear of Block 350 would be in close proximity of
less than 5m to the units’ window. Hence, it was not recommended.
(c) Block
Surbana explained that similarly for this option, telephone manholes
would be affected and works would be required to either divert or lower the services.
Car lots would also be in close proximity of less than 5m to the units’
window and ground units would be impacted by the shining of car headlights
directly into their bedroom. Hence, it was not recommended.
(d) Blocks 348/349 and rear of
Surbana explained that as the car lots would still be in close proximity
of less than 5m to the units’ window and a retaining wall would be required
at the rear of Block 350, it was not recommended. In addition, more
disturbances to the residents would be created as works would be carried out
at two locations.
On a
resident’s query on the need to construct additional car lots for the estate,
HDB explained that LTA’s guideline for providing car lots was 1 car space per
residential unit. There were 286 dwelling units in the estate and based on
LTA’s guideline, only 286 car lots would be required. However, as the estate
initially had 304 car lots, HDB would replace an equivalent quantity of car
lots. Protem Lee explained that totality of 304-17=287(after fencing) car lots
seem more than enough for 286 Households, But Sector 2 comprising Blocks 347,
348, 349 and 350 have 214 Households with only 199 car lots. Sector 1 of
Blocks 344, 345 and 346 are not inter-crossable with Sector 2 by car.
Factually Sector 2 is short of 15 lots.
Meeting
noted the evaluation of the various car park options and it was agreed to
proceed with the car park works based on the recommended original proposed
location at Blocks 348 and
|
All to note
All to note
All to note
|
||||||||||||||||
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
|
AOB
Weekend Parking
Residents feedback their concerns on non-HUDC residents taking
advantages of the free weekend parking at the estate, resulting in insufficient
car parking lots for the HUDC residents. Branch was requested to carry out
enforcement and review on the free weekend parking policy.
Linkway at Block 350 which leads to bus stop
Meeting noted that the retention of the linkway
would be subjected to terms and conditions from SLA which includes that the
MCST would need to obtain a Temporary Occupational Licence (TOL) from
Staircase/Footpath Structures
HDB highlighted on the existing staircase/footpath
structures which would be affected by future fencing of the estate, i.e.
structures which straddle across the estate boundary.
Protem requested for HDB to retain the existing
staircase structure which leads from Block 349 to 353 as Protem had the
intention to install a gate at the location.
It was agreed at the meeting for HDB to remove the
rest of the affected structures subject to confirmation by Protem Committee
before 5 Apr 2014
After highlighting to Residents.
|
Branch to note
All to note
All to note
|
||||||||||||||||
6.0
|
There being no other business, the
meeting ended at 8.45 pm.
|
All to note
|