WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1988
26
REFERRING TO REMARKS BY THE HON MARTIN LEE THAT THERE WAS A DEFICIENCY IN TOWN PLANNING, AND A LACK OF CO-ORDINATION, MR HSU POINTED OUT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT WAS REPRESENTED ON ALL MAJOR PLANNING COMMITTEES AND MIGHT ATTEND A TOWN PLANNING BOARD MEETING IF NECESSARY.
"AS REGARDS MR LEE'S POINT ON A POSSIBLE PROBLEM OF PROSECUTION IN A CASE OF A FACTORY AREA IN WHICH SEPARATE FACTORIES IN DIFFERENT UNITS JOINTLY EMIT THE SAME LEVEL OF NOISE, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT CLAUSE 11, SUBCLAUSE 1, OF THE BILL COVERS THIS TYPE OF OFFENCE AND PROVIDES A REMEDY, HE SAID.
NOISE CONTROL BILL ACHIEVES BALANCE
THE NOISE CONTROL BILL 1988 WILL HOPEFULLY PROVIDE A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY, THE HON F.K. HU SAID IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY
(WEDNESDAY).
4
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, MR HU, CONVENER OF THE LEGCO AD HOC GROUP FORMED TO STUDY THE BILL, SAID HE SAW NO REASON FOR ANY FURTHER DELAY IN PASSING THE BILL WHICH WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN MARCH LAST YEAR.
MR HU SAID THE AD HOC GROUP HAD HELD EIGHT MEETINGS, MET A WIDE CROSS SECTION OF THE PUBLIC WITH A MAJORITY COMING FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORS, AND CONSIDERED THEIR VIEWS THOROUGHLY BEFORE SHAPING THE BILL INTO ITS PRESENT FORM.
TURNING TO THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE AD HOC GROUP, НЕ NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL PROVISION FOR IMPRISONMENT FOR REPEATED OFFENDERS IN CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL NOISE WAS CONSIDERED тоо HARSH AND, AFTER CONSULTATION, THE ADMINISTRATION AGREED TO DELETE THE IMPRISONMENT PROVISIONS EXCEPT THAT PROVISION PERTAINING ΤΟ DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
THE GROUP ALSO PROPOSED TO EXTEND THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC PREMISES IN CLAUSE 2 TO COVER PARTS OF HOTELS OR QUESTHOUSES WHICH WERE LET TO OUTSIDE GUESTS AS NOISE FROM THESE PREMISES WAS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF COMPLAINT.
4.
MR HU POINTED OUT THAT IN CLAUSE 8, SUBCLAUSE
CONSTRUCTION NOISE PERMITS ISSUED TO CONSTRUCTION WORKS WOULD NOT BE VALID FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS AND THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CONCERNED WOULD HAVE TO REAPPLY BEFORE THE PERMIT EXPIRED IN ORDER TO AVOID INTERRUPTION OF WORK.
THE CONSTRUCTION