HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
The first point is about what to do if the Occupation Permit and nature of land use are in conflict with the conditions for the issue of a liquor licence. I want to remind Members that the Liquor Licensing Board handles matters related to the issue of liquor licences, permitted use of premises is not within the Board's terms of reference. Enforcement departments such as the Buildings Department (previously known as Buildings Ordinance Office) offer advice in this connection. If the Board does not receive advice or the Buildings Department does not raise objection, a licence is issued on the understanding that there is no problem with the user of the premises concerned. In fact, when a plan for a restaurant in a factory building is sent to the Buildings Department, it is rejected in the first instance and there will be no need for the Liquor Licensing Board to consider the case. That is my answer on the use of premises.
The second point is on whether there is a special policy regarding a shared entrance. The Liquor Licensing Board is in principle very concerned about shared entrances used by premises applying for liquor licences. Very often, members of the public reflect to the Board or give their opinions through the District Offices or via complaints when investigations are carried out. The Board will carry out inspections to see if the relevant shared entrances affect the residents of the buildings concerned. Basically, applicants are aware that shared entrances pose difficulties to their applications for liquor licences or food licences. Investors of late have stopped leasing such premises and switched to operations with separate entrances/exits or ground floor shops.
As to whether the Liquor Licensing Board has a special policy to deal with the above situation, there is none. The Appeal Board did suggest that we could perhaps devise a special policy. We are proceeding to action but discussions are still underway. We started to discuss the matter in the beginning of this year and we raised similar questions mid-year. They are under deliberation by relevant departments. We look forward to handling this in the near future, in a month or two. The problems involved are multiple. For example, those not yet in operation can scrap the idea or have the tenancy agreement cancelled, but what should be done with those already in operation? We need more time to study into the situation before a specific policy can be formulated.
The third point concerns whether there is a ceiling for the number of licensed premises in a certain street or district. As we all know, Hong Kong is a free society enjoying an open economy. If we set the maximum number of licensed premises in a certain street, it seems we are advocating first come first served or running the risk of a monopoly on liquor licence holders within a certain district. It does not seem appropriate. As the present policy goes, as long as liquor licence applicants of a district would not cause nuisance to residents in the vicinity or flat occupants, we examine cases basically on individual merit instead of on the basis of a maximum limit in numbers. Mr. CHEUNG mentioned just now the large number of bars within a 50 m radius of Staunton Street. I can tell Members that in very busy old areas like Yau Tsim or
Page 4 of 654