that if it were established that the licence-holder breached any of the licensing conditions after commencing operation, consideration could always be given by the authorities concerned to revoking the licence at any time, or refusing its renewal, as appropriate.
Appeal against Removal of Metal Gates (C 2873/84)
Representatives of the residents of a private residential estate in Kwai Fong appealed to UMELCO for
postponement of the removal of their metal gates installed at the entrances of their premises.
During their interview with the duty roster Members of UMELCO, they stated that they had been served with a notice by the Buildings Ordinance Office requiring them to remove their metal gates within eight weeks. The metal gates were said to be in contravention of the Building (Planning) Regulations Regulation No. 41 (1) of the Buildings Ordinance. They made the following points:—
(a) there was a lack of publicity from the Government about the correct types of metal gates that could be used for domestic premises;
(b) there were numerous metal gates installed in other domestic buildings, but they were being singled out for enforcement action;
(c) the officers who posted the removal notices at the building were rude to the staff of the management office, and many notices were posted on the walls, leaving behind untidy smears; and
(d) the deadline for removal of the gates in question should be extended to fall on a date after the Chinese New Year holidays if the removal order could not be rescinded.
The representations of the residents were taken up with the Principal Government Building Surveyor who replied as follows:-
(a) Since January 1984, Buildings Ordinance Office staff had made great efforts in promoting public awareness of the problem of illegal building works, including metal gates. Examples of such efforts included radio interviews, TV appearances, attendance at public meetings and seminars, and the posting and distribution of advisory posters. It was recognised, however, that greater efforts should be made in future and a talk on illegal metal gates would be broadcast shortly;
(b) there were 130 buildings where enforcement action on gates had been taken in 1984. The appellants' estate was one of them. Given the Buildings Ordinance Office's selective control because of constraints in staff resources, claims of discrimination were inevitable;
(c) the Buildings Ordinance Office staff concerned had been reminded to be particularly careful in dealing with members of the public. As regards the untidy smears on the walls, the inconvenience could not have been avoided in view of the legal requirement for the service of statutory notices; and
(d) a decision had been taken by the Buildings Ordinance Office that the period stipulated in the orders for completion of the removal works be extended. However, should the flat owners elect to take advantage of the extended deadline, they would do so entirely at their own risk.
In order to understand the situation better and to clarify whether the metal gates in question could be tolerated, senior staff of the Buildings Ordinance Office were invited to attend a meeting with one of the duty roster Members. After consideration of the matter, the duty roster Members instructed that the appellants be advised to comply with the orders.
Complaint about the Obstruction caused by Construction of a Ramp at Aberdeen Main Road (C 579/85) A group of shop operators in Aberdeen complained to the duty roster Members of UMELCO that the construction of a solid ramp in front of their shops at Aberdeen Main Road was causing obstruction to their shops.
The ramp in question formed part of a flyover leading to a new carriageway which was still under construction. The operators claimed that while they did not object to the project itself, they were worried that their business would be adversely affected. They pointed out that since Aberdeen Main Road was quite narrow, the obstruction to their shop fronts caused by such a huge ramp in the middle of the road was plainly evident. Also, with the closure of a pedestrian crossing to make way for the ramp, their customers would have to walk a much longer distance to reach their shops. Furthermore, pedestrians on the other side of the road would not
be able to notice their shops because
their sight would be blocked by the ramp. They feared that the value of their shop premises would drop drastically as a result. Whilst they understood that the authorities concerned were considering the possibility of providing a pedestrian crossing and some 'see-through' holes in the ramp, they were of the view that such measures would be ineffective in solving their problem. They therefore urged Government to consider replacing the solid ramp with one supported by pillars. They also
requested that the pedestrian crossing should be provided at a location as close to the original crossing as possible.
After hearing their representations, Members agreed that it would appear desirable, in view of the difficulties of the shop operators, to consider replacing the solid ramp with one supported by load-bearing pillars, which would not result in considerable additional expenses or delay.
Accordingly, the matter was taken up with the Government departments concerned. In reply, the Principal Government Highway Engineer confirmed the technical feasibility of the revised ramp structure. As regards the request that a new pedestrian crossing be provided at the original location, the Principal Government Highway Engineer advised that it could not be acceded to due to safety reasons. Subsequent discussion at a Southern District Board meeting also confirmed that Government's proposed location for the pedestrian crossing should be accepted.
After considering the revised design of the ramp structure, the shop operators wrote again to UMELCO to protest that some of the affected shop operators would not be helped. The reason for this was that the openings could only be made up to a point along the ramp, beyond which the flyover structure would have to be supported by a solid concrete wall. Because of this, they demanded that additional openings be made at the ramp.
The Principal Government Highway Engineer subsequently explained that the demands could not be met for technical reasons. He pointed out that any further modification would give rise to considerable monetary claims from the contractor. He further advised that representatives of the Lands and Works Branch had explained the situation to the shop operators.
71
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.