Page 37 of
243
Page 37 of 243
56
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. BERNACCHI:-At present, Mr. Hu, it is still 3 by 4. I know again that this is a very minute size to expect a hawker to do business upon. The trouble is that there are so many hawkers, but this, as you yourself know, being a member of the Hawkers Select Committee, is under review in that Committee.
MR. HU:-I would ask another supplementary Mr. Chairman. Did the Department ever consider that the reason why hawkers do not like to go into the bazaar to hawk is because the size of the pitch is too small. Did you ever go into that?
CHAIRMAN:-I am sure that this is not the reason Mr. Hu. If you form a bazaar then you want the hawkers to stay in there and I feel at the present stage of the proceedings, one must have control, otherwise they will go back out again to where they think their pitches are better and this results again in somewhat difficult situations and I think it needs more resettlement estates and other hawker areas.
MR. HU:-Yes, so that you did not investigate whether that is the reason that why the hawker will not be trading inside the bazaar?
CHAIRMAN:-As far as I know this was not investigated Mr. Hu. I would also like to think that this has been sufficiently aired and we might move to the next question.
MR. HU:-Very well.
(2) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
(a) In December, residents of Nam Tau Street, Mong Kok, complained of a serious smoke nuisance and heat coming from a Roast Pork Shop situated in domestic premises. The complaint was admitted by the Urban Services Department as being serious. Why does it still continue unabated?
(b) What action is going to be taken to make life bearable for the residents of the building?
(c) Have the premises been licensed for this trade, and if so, why?
(d) Is there a fire risk to the residents of the whole building? MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND FOOD PREMISES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-
This question concerns a nuisance from a pig-roasting establishment in Mong Kok.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
57
The problem was referred to the Food and Food Premises Select Committee on February 23rd this year, when it was agreed that certain additional ventilation measures should be tried to further abate the nuisance. However, during recent months the licensee's business has increased considerably and it is now apparent that at certain stages of the roasting process the volume of smoke and fumes is too great for the ventilation system and chimney outlet, thus causing a considerable but intermittent smoke nuisance. There is also a marked transfer of heat to the first floor premises.
The premises were licensed for this trade in 1963. This was in accordance with the Council's policy at the time. In March 1967 Council decided that no further licences would be issued for such businesses in domestic premises but it was also agreed that no existing licences would be withdrawn.
In respect of the fire risk, the Director of Fire Services has no objection to this business provided that his requirements and conditions are complied with.
In view of the above observations and receipt of an additional written complaint from residents in this area I intend to refer the matter back to the Food and Food Premises Select Committee for further discussion at its next meeting.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the Food and Food Premises Select Committee for his answer. May I just ask if it would be possible for the complainants to make an appearance before this Committee so they can explain clearly how it affects their livelihood, I mean their living conditions.
MR. Lo:-Well, Mrs. ELLIOTT, I think it would be rather difficult for them to appear before the Select Committee. I think the best thing would be first of all for them to submit their reasons in writing, and if they really wished then perhaps we could see them in person afterwards.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Thank you.
DR. BELL:-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a supplementary on this question: Is it not true that if there were a proper chimney in this place that there would be no nuisance caused?
MR. Lo:-It appears that there is a chimney and a ventilation system. It's a question, I believe, of the amount of use with the expansion of the business perhaps the existing ventilation, the chimney, proves to be insufficient.
Page 37 of 243
243
Page 37 of
243
Page 37 of 243
56
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. BERNACCHI:-At present, Mr. Hu, it is still 3 by 4. I know again that this is a very minute size to expect a hawker to do business upon. The trouble is that there are so many hawkers, but this, as you yourself know, being a member of the Hawkers Select Committee, is under review in that Committee.
MR. HU:-I would ask another supplementary Mr. Chairman. Did the Department ever consider that the reason why hawkers do not like to go into the bazaar to hawk is because the size of the pitch is too small. Did you ever go into that?
CHAIRMAN:-I am sure that this is not the reason Mr. Hu. If you form a bazaar then you want the hawkers to stay in there and I feel at the present stage of the proceedings, one must have control, otherwise they will go back out again to where they think their pitches are better and this results again in somewhat difficult situations and I think it needs more resettlement estates and other hawker areas.
MR. HU:-Yes, so that you did not investigate whether that is the reason that why the hawker will not be trading inside the bazaar?
CHAIRMAN:-As far as I know this was not investigated Mr. Hu. I would also like to think that this has been sufficiently aired and we might move to the next question.
MR. HU:-Very well.
(2) MRS. E. ELLIOTT asked the following question:
(a) In December, residents of Nam Tau Street, Mong Kok, complained of a serious smoke nuisance and heat coming from a Roast Pork Shop situated in domestic premises. The complaint was admitted by the Urban Services Department as being serious. Why does it still continue unabated?
(b) What action is going to be taken to make life bearable
for the residents of the building?
(c) Have the premises been licensed for this trade, and if so,
why?
(d) Is there a fire risk to the residents of the whole building? MR. KENNETH T. C. Lo, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND FOOD PREM- ISES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-
This question concerns a nuisance from a pig-roasting estab-
lishment in Mong Kok.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
57
The problem was referred to the Food and Food Premises Select Committee on February 23rd this year, when it was agreed that certain additional ventilation measures should be tried to further abate the nuisance. However, during recent months the licensee's business has increased con- siderably and it is now apparent that at certain stages of the roasting process the volume of smoke and fumes is too great for the ventilation system and chimney outlet, thus causing a considerable but intermittent smoke nui- sance. There is also a marked transfer of heat to the first floor premises.
The premises were licensed for this trade in 1963. This was in accordance with the Council's policy at the time. In March 1967 Council decided that no further licences would be issued for such businesses in domestic premises but it was also agreed that no existing licences would be with- drawn.
In respect of the fire risk, the Director of Fire Services has no objection to this business provided that his requirements and conditions are complied with.
In view of the above observations and receipt of an additional written complaint from residents in this area I intend to refer the matter back to the Food and Food Premises Select Committee for further discussion at its next meeting.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman of the Food and Food Premises Select Committee for his answer. May I just ask if it would be possible for the complainants to make an appearance before this Committee so they can explain clearly how it affects their livelihood, I mean their living conditions.
MR. Lo:-Well, Mrs. ELLIOTT, I think it would be rather difficult for them to appear before the Select Committee. I think the best thing would be first of all for them to submit their reasons in writing, and if they really wished then perhaps we could see them in person afterwards.
MRS. ELLIOTT:-Thank you.
DR. BELL:-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a supplementary on this question: Is it not true that if there were a proper chimney in this place that there would be no nuisance caused?
MR. Lo:-It appears that there is a chimney and a ventilation system. It's a question, I believe, of the amount of use with the expan- sion of the business perhaps the existing ventilation, the chimney, proves to be insufficient.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.