Hong Kong’s acute shortage of land means that the current review of the Private Recreational Lease (PCL) policy on sports and community clubs is a hot topic. This review also dovetails with the wider consultation on land supply, with both consultations concluding in September.

Yeung Tak-keung, Commissioner for Sports, spoke at a Chamber roundtable on 28 May about the recommendations of the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) on how to reform the PCL policy to benefit more Hong Kong citizens.

The current PCL policy is largely based on that formed in the 1970s, Yeung explained. It was changed in 2011 to require lessees to open to outside bodies for a minimum of 50 hours per month.

Of 66 PRL sites, 39 are held by 24 community organizations, while 27 are held by 24 private sports clubs. It is the private sports clubs that are proving to be controversial, Yeung said. 

“Some are doing well in promoting sport and in opening up to the community, but in the past ten years we have received complaints about some of them.”

These complaints include that the clubs are not fulfilling their mandate of promoting sports, or are breaching their lease conditions by a variety of profit-making ventures. The public is also concerned about the use of land which could be used in other ways that would be of more benefit to the wider community. Also, the 50 hours commitment is not enough, given the demand for sporting facilities.

The HAB has come up with a series of recommendations on private sports clubs. Firstly, they should be assessed to see if they can justify their inclusion in the PRL programme – whether through promoting sports in the community, supporting elite sports or promoting Hong Kong internationally. 

Currently, these private sports clubs are charged a nil or nominal land premium. Given the high value of land and strong demand in Hong Kong, it can be argued that some of these clubs take up an extensive amount of land, are located in prime urban areas, or have a limited number of users.

The HAB has recommended that these clubs should be charged a land premium at one-third the full market value. However, if they can show that they are fulfilling a “quasi-public” role, they may be granted a special lease with a nominal land premium – similar to community organizations.

The further opening up of sports facilities is another key HAB suggestion. Yeung gave the example of 18 sites held by private sports clubs that together only made around 13% of their capacity hours available to other organizations. 

“We consider that there is capacity for clubs to open up more,” he said. “We recommend that 30% of capacity should be eligible for use by outside bodies.”

Another recommendation is that non-members of the clubs should be able to use essential supporting facilities such as toilets when they are using the sports facilities. This recommendation is necessary, as Yeung explained: “Some clubs, when they open up their sports facilities, for example to schools, do not allow the students to use the changing rooms or other facilities.” 

There will also be increased scrutiny of the sort of shops and services that are being run on the site to ensure they are relevant. Yeung noted that some “strange” facilities have cropped up such as barber shops.

Responding to questions from the audience about the difficulty some private clubs may face when meeting the cost of a land premium, Yeung said that there were a number of options available. For example clubs could opt to become a community organization, or open up their membership and charge lower fees. 

Yeung also talked about the wider provision of sports facilities in Hong Kong. He noted that while some sites have been closed, the Government has opened others and is also developing new sports facilities. These include the major development at Kai Tak which will have a wide range of sporting and leisure facilities in addition to a new stadium. “Government investment in sport will continue,” he concluded.