Page 17 of 185
26
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
beauty of this beach resort is marred by the existence of a number of tumbledown shacks and squatter-type huts at its western end.
I would like to know if these structures are on Crown Land or on Council land, i.e. within the Gazetted Beach boundary. I would also like to know what action will be contemplated by the appropriate authority to clear these structures so that the foreshore there can be better developed for beach-goers.
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG, CHAIRMAN OF THE RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows: (in English):-This question concerns structures at the Western end of Repulse Bay Beach and asks whether they are on Crown land or on Council land and what action will be contemplated by the appropriate authority to clear these structures so that the foreshore can be developed for the use of beach goers.
Investigations have revealed that there are six structures (3 residential and 3 commercial) at the Western end of the Beach. These appear to have existed for nearly thirty years and are in fact on Council land which was included in the Beach area, gazetted under the Bathing Beaches By-laws in 1960.
The land has been designated for open space or other beach related use under the Town Planning Ordinance. In view of this, the Department in conjunction with the Buildings and Lands Department and the Housing Department will seek clearance of these structures and endeavour to use this area in an appropriate way to provide additional facilities for the benefit of beach goers.
MR. PAUL T. K. YOUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, I like to ask further why have these structures been allowed to remain on the Council land for such a long time?
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, a large number of sites which were previously government land were handed over to the Urban Council in 1973 when the Council gained financial autonomy. The exact boundaries of all these sites were not checked in detail. The Repulse Bay Beach is one of these sites. Since the structure has been in existence long before the beach was handed over to us, no action was taken at that time to check on the status. The Department is now checking all Council owned sites, particularly beaches, to establish the exact boundaries. Action will also be taken to ensure that integrity of these boundaries and to remove any unauthorized structure or occupation.
MR. L. H. KWAN (in English):-Mr. Chairman, subsequent to the question, why the Council has already taken twelve to thirteen years to take up this particular matter. I am just wondering whether the Limitation Ordinance will apply in this case since the Urban Council is not a Government department and one is holding adverse possession would be entitled to have a limitation of twelve years' time. I am just wondering whether the Urban Council has any real legal power to enforce its own action?
MR. SAMUEL P. W. WONG (in English):-The Crown Counsel can answer this.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 17 of 185
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Your point will be answered in due course.
27
4. MR. WALTER M. SULKE asked the following question (in English): Our Liquor Licensing Boards recently made safety rules for discos. These, however, have ignored the harmful effects of disco noise. Recent studies have shown that loudspeakers which may be as close as 1 metre to the listener's ears of 120 to 130 DB (90 DB already risks hearing damage, 120 DB is the threshold of pain). Ear damage is irreversible but preventable. Without hearing a student has great difficulty in learning and in personality development. Without hearing an adult becomes unsociable and may well lose his job, or be killed by oncoming traffic because he cannot hear it. Why, when we are concerned with fire safety, are we not also concerned with the tragedy caused by noise which is so easily avoidable, and will we therefore make regulations about noise in confined spaces such as discos?
MR. PETER C. K. CHAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE LIQUOR LICENSING BOARD, replied as follows (in English):-This question asks that since the Liquor Licensing Board made safety rules for discos will it also make regulations about noise in confined spaces such as discos.
Before answering the question I wish to make two observations namely that:-
(i) The Board has no power to make either rules or regulations as such power is conferred on the Governor-in-Council by section 6 of the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance.
(ii) With respect to control of overcrowding in 'discos' operated in liquor licensed premises which have a dancing permission endorsement the Board has in consultation with the Fire Services Department and the Building and Lands Department approved the imposition of special licensing conditions relating to fire safety under regulation 17 of the Dutiable Commodity (Liquors) Regulations.
The answer to this question is that although most discotheques are run in liquor licensed premises the legal advice obtained so far is that control of the noise level within discos is outside the purview of the Regulations and the jurisdiction of the Board. Nevertheless, the Board at its meeting last month, after seeing Mr. Walter SULKE's question, had discussed this issue and also expressed concern about this condition. A representative of the Environmental Protection Department, the government's noise control expert, will be invited and yesterday he is agreed to come to attend the Board's next meeting to advise on implications of the existing sound levels generated in local discos. Before the availability of further information on this subject, it is not possible for the Board to make any recommendation in this connection. Just one more point here is that the Board will be meeting on the 27 of this month at 8.30 a.m. Mr. SULKE is hereby welcome or invited by me to attend the meeting and probably ask a few pertinent questions on this context. As far as I am concerned Mr. SULKE is more an expert on this matter than myself.
Page 17 of 185