XN000022-1988-07-20 — Page 29

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1988

27

THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WOULD HAVE то SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE PERMIT.

THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS CONSIDERED UNFAIR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION SHOULD EXPEDITE THE PROCESS OF ISSUING PERMITS SO THAT THE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED ONCE AND FOR ALL WITHOUT THE 28 DAYS ARRANGEMENT.

51

"THE PRESENT CLAUSE 8, SUBCLAUSE

GIVES ALTERNATIVE BUT TO REFUSE TO ISSUE A CONSTRUCTION HE ISSUE OF A PERMIT IS CONTRARY TO ANY PROCEDURE

CHNICAL MEMORANDA.

THE AUTHORITY NO NOISE PERMIT IF SET OUT IN THE

"TO GIVE THE AUTHORITY SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE ISSUE OF PERMITS, I PROPOSE THE WORD

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO 'MAY', MR HU SAID.

'SHALL'

"THE PROVISION UNDER CLAUSE 8,

SUBCLAUSE 6, ALSO

HAS TO BE

STREAMLINED.

SUBJECT TO

"IT PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF A NOISE PERMIT CONDITIONS ISSUED IN RESPECT OF PERCUSSIVE PILING, THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY HAS TO WRITE TO THE AUTHORITY FOR THE REASONS.

"TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCEDURE, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE REASON IN EACH CASE SHOULD BE GIVEN ALONG WITH THE NOTICE OF PERMIT WITHOUT WAITING FOR A REQUEST FROM THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES," HE CONTINUED.

FOR CLAUSE 10, THE AD HOC GROUP PROPOSED THAT ALL TECHNICAL MEMORANDA AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS SHOULD BB PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE AND BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

TO MAKE

"THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY VOICE THEIR OPINIONS AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CAN AMENDMENTS IF NECESSARY IN REGARD TO THE CONTENTS OF THESE MEMORANDA, MR HU EXPLAINED.

MOREOVER, THE TERM "ECONOMIC HARDSHIP" USED, IN CLAUSES 17 AND 18, WHICH PROVIDE FOR GROUNDS FOR APPEAL, WAS CONSIDERED TOO VAGUE AND GENERAL AND FURTHER CLARIFICATION WAS NEEDED.

AS FOR CLAUSE 36, SUBCLAUSE 2, WHICH ENSURED THAT THE BILL WAS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE CROWN, THE AD HOC GROUP CONSIDERED THAT COMPARED WITH THE RELATED SECTION IN THE ORIGINAL BILL THIS CLAUSE WAS LESS SATISFACTORY AND IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE RELEVANT SECTION T THE ORIGINAL BILL BE USED INSTEAD.

MR HU SAID THERE WERE STILL SOME AREAS ADEQUATELY COVERED BY THE BILL, SUCH AS THE PROBLEM OF FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES AND NOISE GENERATED BY TRAFFIC.

WHICH WERE NOT NOISE ARISING

"HONG KONG HAS ITS UNIQUE NOISE POLLUTION PROBLEM RAPID DEVELOPMENT.

DUE ΤΟ ITS

/"IN MANY