Page 39 of 166
68
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
terminal section of the exhaust duct in the rear lane and a section of fresh air duct in the yard had been removed. Legal action was taken against the licensee for carrying out an unauthorized alteration. The summons was heard on 21 July 1988 and, as advised by the Principal Legal Officer of Urban Council, the case was adjourned sine die at the request of the solicitor representing the licensee due to time required to clarify some complicated issues of the case. The licensee submitted on 31 March 1988 proposed layout plans for approval to carry out alteration in the premises. Those plans were referred to the Buildings and Lands Department (BLD) and Fire Services Department (FSD) for comment. The licensee has in June 1988, submitted revised layout plans for approval which included, (a) reduction of the lengths of exhaust duct and fresh air duct at the rear and (b) relocation of fan motors and a water scrubber from the rear yard to the main room. FSD has given clearance for these proposals in July 1988. However, BLD has asked for further details on structural information of the ventilation system to be submitted by a registered structural engineer. The licensee has so far still not provided the necessary information and further revised plan. I will be, therefore, the duty of the licensee to expedite the necessary rectification works.
(ii) The second part asks whether the work carried out at the food factory (pig roasting) had violated the licensing requirements of the Council.
This food factory has ceased pig roasting work since December 1988 after the issue of an injunction order by the High Court. Since then the premises had only been occasionally used for storage of pig carcases which were transported to another licensed food factory for roasting. An inspection of the premises by USD staff on 5 July 1989 did not find any pig carcases or other food items there. Carrying out of pig roasting preparatory work at the food factory is not violating the licensing requirements of the Council.
(iii) The third part inquires whether the food factory (pig roasting) is, in the view of the Council, in operation and if it is, whether it is covered by the appropriate type of licence.
There has been no activity of pig roasting observed in this food factory at present. However, the licence which is still valid up to 30 September 1989, covers the storage of pig carcases, preparation work (dehairing and seasoning) in addition to the roasting process.
(iv) The fourth part asks whether under the existing policy, the licence will be renewed automatically in spite of the present way of operation and whether this will continue to be the case in future.
In the usual circumstances, the licence will be renewed automatically, according to the existing provisions of the legislation, unless a licensee has breached the terms and conditions of Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
69
In this particular case, there is illegal alteration in the layout plan pending approval by the BLD. The approval for renewal of licence in this case will have to be considered in the light of the illegal alteration being rectified. It should not be a case for automatic renewal.
As regards environmental pollution aspects the licensee has been prosecuted for unauthorised alterations and has voluntarily suspended his pig roasting activities since December 1988, the air pollution caused by emitting smoke will no longer cause serious problems.
While the injunction is in force, unless the licensee is able to comply with the restriction, the licensee will not be able to operate his pig roasting business unless he can comply with the terms imposed by the injunction. Since to do so would breach the injunction and would render him liable to be penalized for contempt of court.
(v) The last part asks whether there are any loopholes in the policy of automatic renewal of licence and whether this policy will be reviewed in detail.
The policy of automatic renewal of licence was the result of careful consideration of the adequacy of control of food premises by way of licensing and the protection of the interest of legitimate food business operators. It has been in practice for many years satisfactorily. The Council's present policy of suspension and cancellation on the breach of condition or provision of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance is considered to be adequate.
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask two questions on the automatic renewal of the licence. The first point is: will the automatic renewal of the licence be considered if there are objections raised by local residents? Secondly, in respect of the Smithfield Road pig roasting factory, as I understand that the USD and the Environmental Protection Department have both issued abatement notices on smell and noise nuisance respectively and the factory operator concerned has not been able to ameliorate the situation. Dr. LEUNG has said that there are illegal alterations in the premises and these illegal alterations had not been remedied. Another point is that recently the BLD has issued abatement notice on illegal alterations to the premises. If the above irregularities are still unabated, will automatic renewal of licence to the premises still be considered?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English): Mr. Chairman, members may notice that in the answer provided by the Department, I have deviated a little in my actual answer. I mentioned that in this particular case, there is illegal alteration in the layout plans pending approval by the BLD. The approval for the renewal of licence in this particular case will have to be considered in the light of illegal alteration being rectified. So, I think in this particular case, we should exercise caution in granting a renewal of this particular licence for the food premises, since there are still outstanding illegal alterations to be rectified.
Page 39 of 166
Page 39 of 166
68
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
terminal section of the exhaust duct in the rear lane and a section of fresh air duct in the yard had been removed. Legal action was taken against the licensee for carrying out an unauthorized alteration. The summons was heard on 21 July 1988 and, as advised by the Principal Legal Officer of Urban Council, the case was adjourned sine die at the request of the solicitor representing the licensee due to time required to clarify some complicated issues of the case. The licensee submitted on 31 March 1988 proposed layout plans for approval to carry out alteration in the premises. Those plans were referred to the Buildings and Lands Department (BLD) and Fire Services Department (FSD) for comment. The licensee has in June 1988, submitted revised layout plans for approval which included, (a) reduction of the lengths of exhaust duct and fresh air duct at the rear and (b) relocation of fan motors and a water scrubber from the rear yard to the main room. FSD has giver clearance for these proposals in July 1988. However, BLD has asked for further details on structural information of the ventilation system to be submitted by a registered structural engineer. The licensee has so far still not provided the necessary information and further revised plan. I will be, therefore, the duty of the licensee to expedite the necessary rectification works.
(ii) The second part asks whether the work carried out at the food factory (pig roasting) had violated the licensing requirements of the Council.
This food factory has ceased pig roasting work since December 1988 after the issue of an injunction order by the High Court. Since then the premises had only been occasionally used for storage of pig carcases which were transported to another licensed food factory for roasting. An inspection of the premises by USD staff on 5 July 1989 did not find any pig carcases or other food items there. Carrying out of pig roasting preparatory work at the food factory is not violating the licensing requirements of the Council.
(iii) The third part inquires whether the food factory (pig roasting) is, in the view of the Council, in operation and if it is, whether it is covered by the appropriate type of licence.
There has been no activity of pig roasting observed in this food factory at present. However, the licence which is still valid up to 30 September 1989, covers the storage of pig carcases, preparation work (dehairing and seasoning) in addition to the roasting process.
(iv) The fourth part asks whether under the existing policy, the licence will be renewed automatically in spite of the present way of operation and whether this will continue to be the case in future.
In the usual circumstances, the licence will be renewed automatically. according to the existing provisions of the legislation, unless a licensee has breached the terms and conditions of Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
69
In this particular case, there is illegal alteration in the layout plan pending approval by the BLD. The approval for renewal of licence in this case will have to be considered in the light of the illegal alteration being rectified. It should not be a case for automatic renewal.
As regards environmental pollution aspects the licensee has been prosecuted for unauthorised alterations and has voluntarily suspended his pig roasting activities since December 1988, the air pollution caused by emitting smoke will no longer cause serious problems.
While the injunction is in force, unless the licensee is able to comply with the restriction, the licensee will not be able to operate his pig roasting business unless he can comply with the terms imposed by the injunction. Since to do so would breach the injunction and would render him liable to be penalized for contempt of court.
(v) The last part asks whether there are any loopholes in the policy of automatic renewal of licence and whether this policy will be reviewed in detail.
The policy of automatic renewal of licence was the result of careful consideration of the adequacy of control of food premises by way of licensing and the protection of the interest of legitimate food business operators. It has been in practice for many years satisfactorily. The Council's present policy of suspension and cancellation on the breach of condition or provision of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance is considered to be adequate.
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask two questions on the automatic renewal of the licence. The first point is: will the automatic renewal of the licence be considered if there are objections raised by local residents? Secondly, in respect of the Smithfield Road pig roasting factory, as I understand that the USD and the Environmental Protection Department have both issued abatement notices on smell and noise nuisance respectively and the factory operator concerned has not been able to ameliorate the situation. Dr. LEUNG has said that there are illegal alterations in the premises and these illegal alterations had not been remedied. Another point is that recently the BLD has issued abatement notice on illegal alterations to the premises. If the above irregularities are still unabated, will automatic renewal of licence to the premises still be considered?
DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English): Mr. Chairman, members may notice that in the answer provided by the Department, I have deviated a little in my actual answer. I mentioned that in this particular case, there is illegal alteration in the layout plans pending approval by the BLD. The approval for the renewal of licence in this particular case will have to be considered in the light of illegal alteration being rectified. So, I think in this particular case, we should exercise caution in granting a renewal of this particular licence for the food premises, since there are still outstanding illegal alterations to be rectified.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.