this was basically a dispute between the landowner and his tenants, it would not be appropriate for Government to intervene by refusing to rehouse the tenants. It was suggested to the appellant that he should consider taking civil
proceedings to recover rental arrears or any mesne profits from his tenants.
After carefully considering the matter, the UMELCO Office decided that there was no ground to pursue it further. Accordingly, the appellant was advised of the decision and his rights as a landowner.
Appeal against Demolition of Signboard (C 212/85) The proprietor of a metal shop appealed to UMELCO for the retention of her signboard which projected from her shop over the pavement. Under the signboard were some devices which served as cranes for loading and unloading heavy metalware.
The appellant had been served a notice by the Buildings Ordinance Office requiring her to demolish the signboard, which was regarded as an illegal structure in contravention of the Buildings Ordinance. She had engaged a solicitor to appeal against the order of the Building Authority. After seeking legal advice, the Buildings Ordinance Office confirmed that the signboard was building works within the definition of the Buildings Ordinance. Following a number of extensions, a final notice was served on her requiring her to demolish the signboard by 1.2.85. She was advised that if she failed to comply with the notice, the Government contractor would carry out the necessary works and recover the cost from her. She then appealed to UMELCO for assistance.
Enquiries with the Buildings Ordinance Office confirmed that the demolition arose from a request by the Highways Office. The UMELCO Office then approached the Highways Office when it was agreed that another inspection of the site would be paid to ascertain the actual position. The Highways Office later advised that the illegal structure was brought to the attention of the Buildings Ordinance Office because it would pose an obstruction to vehicular traffic as a result of the proposed realignment of the edge of the carriageway, which was due to works on the West Kowloon Corridor Cheung Sha Wan
Section and Tung Chau Street/Tong Mi Road Ramp. The Highways Office would require a space of one metre of the pavement at the north end of the shop and two metres at the south end for the realignment of the road.
A joint site visit by the staff of UMELCO Office and the Buildings Ordinance Office revealed that the appellant's signboard was actually a metal casing and concrete canopy projecting more than one metre from the front of the shop. Therefore the part jutting out to the proposed edge of the carriageway had to be cleared to make way for the realignment project.
After a departmental meeting in the Building Development Department, the Director of Building Development decided that the metal casing and the concrete canopy had to be removed as the space beneath the illegal structure was open to pedestrian traffic. Loading and unloading of heavy metalware by the use of the hoisting device would pose considerable inconvenience and danger to the general public. In addition, there was an unacceptable risk of structural instability inflicted by the heavy machinery on the building. The Director of Building Development therefore decided that there was no alternative but to order complete removal of the signboard.
In the circumstances, UMELCO were not prepared to pursue the appeal further.
Appeal for Regularisation of Unauthorised Building Works (C 1111/85)
The appellant owned a building lot and some agricultural lots in Sai Kung. According to him, when he purchased these lots in 1980, there were already a house, a basement, a marble-porch and a swimming-pool. He believed that all the structures were legally built, and started to erect some extensions to the house in 1981. When the work was about half completed, he received a notice from the District Lands Office, Sai Kung requiring him to demolish the basement, the swimming-pool and the part of the chimney exceeding the permitted height. Having discussed the matter in vain with the District Lands Office on many occasions, he approached UMELCO.
The appellant said that in 1982 when he and his neighbours were interviewed by the District Lands
Officer, the latter proposed to them that they should regularise the structures by a surrender and regrant of the lots. They all agreed to the proposal. Since then, nothing about the matter was heard and he believed that the extensions could be retained. He covered the extensions with glass. However, in March 1985 he received a letter from the District Lands Office informing him that the surrender and regrant was not approved and that the case had been submitted for re-entry action.
In his appeal to UMELCO, the appellant claimed that he was unfairly treated because had the District Lands Office taken action in 1982, he would not have incurred expenditure on the unauthorised works. He also alleged that if the unauthorised extensions were demolished, the whole house had to be knocked down, and this
would cause considerable loss to him. The matter was taken up with the Director of Lands, who refused the appeal on the grounds that:—
(a) the unauthorised building works were not discovered by the authorities concerned until February 1982. Immediately upon discovery, a notice requiring demolition had been served on the owner;
(b) upon receipt of an appeal from the appellant, the District Lands Officer agreed that regularisation by way of surrender and regrant would be considered. The appellant had however been warned in writing that there could be no guarantee that the additional structures would be tolerated or regularised and that all unauthorised building works should immediately cease. A further warning letter was issued in early 1983. Negotiations were then undertaken concerning the proposal for a surrender and regrant. These
negotiations were complicated by the necessity to involve the owners of two neighbouring lots in order to rationalise the lot boundaries. However, while these negotiations were going on, the appellant ignored the warnings given by the District Lands Officer and the unauthorised building works continued;
(c) this was a serious breach of the lease conditions and the unauthorised extensions in this case were substantial and extensive. In addition, works were continued despite warnings and the appellant had shown a blatant disregard for his obligations under the lease conditions.
73