Page 78 of 126
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It was subsequently decided that the Department should identify and examine individual problematic establishments based on the above criteria to implement the review system. This system would include consultation with relevant departments (e.g. Fire Services Department (FSD), Buildings and Lands Department (BLD) and Environmental Protection Department (EPD) (if appropriate)) on the suitability of continued use of the premises for the particular type of business and the need to impose additional requirements and conditions in order to bring about improvement to overcome problems if this is warranted before renewal of licences. In some cases, the licensees might also be required to comply with additional requirements imposed by the Council. Should the licensees fail to comply with any additional requirements imposed on them, their licences would not be renewed upon expiry.
The second part of the question queries the reasons for not relocating the licensed pig roasting factory at 36 Sai Street, ground floor.
It should be clearly understood that it is outside the purview of this Council to involve itself in the relocation of premises. This is clearly a function of the Land Authority. It would also be quite inappropriate for Council to use its licensing powers to force a licensee out of business—a licensee, moreover, who in this case has been totally cooperative and one who has consistently operated in accordance with his licensing conditions. Following the introduction of the licence renewal review system in 1990, a special review was conducted on the renewal of this food factory licence which expired on 1 October 1990. Consequent to that review the Council approved the renewal of this licence unconditionally upon its expiry on 1 October 1990 to allow for the issue of a 90-day notice during the tenure of the 1990/91 licence requiring the licensee to implement further improvements as recommended by BLD, FSD, and USD in relation to structural and fire safety as well as hygienic conditions before the next renewal of her food factory licence.
The Council made such a decision on the basis of the following factors: (a) Air pollution is within the jurisdiction of the Director of Environment Protection who is the competent authority to deal with only such pollution under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.
(b) USD will continue to maintain close liaison with Environmental Protection Department and refer any complaint of air pollution caused by this factory to EPD for appropriate action.
(c) There are no legal grounds for the Council not to renew the licence.
A 90-day notice of intention to impose further conditions (including those based on the advice of BLD and FSD) was subsequently issued to the licensee on 5 October 1990 for compliance before the renewal of licence. The licensee met all these requirements in September this year and her licence was therefore renewed on 1 October 1991.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):—Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, the premises at Sai Street have been used as a
Page 78 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 78 of 126
139
pig roasting factory for many years. I would like to know whether the Council or the department is aware of the fact that the premises are already very old. Secondly the department has renewed the licence of this factory upon imposition of additional requirements. I would like to know the content of these additional requirements. Thirdly, I would like to know what recommendations have been made by the EPD? And lastly, before renewing the licence, had the department paid a site visit to the premises to see whether the premises were suitable for use as a pig roasting factory?
(Mr. Stephen LAU Man-lung left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, four questions have been raised by Mr. WONG. Two questions cannot be answered at present. Concerning the age of the premises, I would have to check and will give an answer to Mr. WONG. And secondly concerning the additional requirements imposed when the licence was renewed and the recommendations of the EPD, I will have to check with the Department and then I will directly give an answer to Mr. WONG. As regards the last question, concerning whether the department had paid a site visit to the premises before the licence was renewed. I can tell you definitely that the Health Inspectors from the USD visited the premises once every two weeks. Apart from these Health Inspectors, various Senior Health Inspectors did regularly inspect this factory and so adequate inspection was carried out before the licence was renewed.
MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Recently, a consolidated document on a comprehensive review of the Town Planning Ordinance has been published. An amortization concept has been put forward in this document. It is said that for garages or car repair shops in residential areas, if nuisances are caused, amortization can be proposed for these uses. Has the department considered the fact that if there are roast pig factories in residential areas causing nuisances to the residents and it is impossible for us to stop renewing the licence, can the department propose an amortization concept?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, concerning the document on comprehensive review of the Town Planning Ordinance I know that the consultative period will end by the end of January next year. The Land Use Sub-Committee under the Capital Works Select Committee has convened a meeting to discuss the content of the consultative document especially the effect on the Urban Council and has also come up with some recommendations. The convenor of the meeting is Mr. Jason YUEN. The suggestion raised by Mr. MAN is a good one. As to whether roast pig factories can be dealt with by amortization or not, I will definitely refer this suggestion to the Working Group convened by Mr. Jason YUEN for further discussion and consideration.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have one more follow-up question. Can the Council or Department inform me how long has this factory been operating at the said premises?
Page 78 of 126
Page 78 of 126
138
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
It was subsequently decided that the Department should identify and examine individual problematic establishments based on the above criteria to implement the review system. This system would include consultation with relevant departments (e.g. Fire Services Department (FSD), Buildings and Lands Department (BLD) and Environmental Protection Department (EPD) (if appropriate)) on the suitability of continued use of the premises for the particular type of business and the need to impose additional requirements and conditions in order to bring about improvement to overcome problems if this is warranted before renewal of licences. In some cases, the licensees might also be required to comply with additional requirements imposed by the Council. Should the licensees fail to comply with any additional requirements imposed on them, their licences would not be renewed upon expiry.
The second part of the question queries the reasons for not relocating the licensed pig roasting factory at 36 Sai Street, ground floor.
It should be clearly understood that it is outside the purview of this Council to involve itself in the relocation of premises. This is clearly a function of the Land Authority. It would also be quite inappropriate for Council to use its licensing powers to force a licensee out of business-a licensee, moreover, who in this case has been totally cooperative and one who has consistently operated in accordance with his licensing conditions. Following the introduction of the licence renewal review system in 1990, a special review was conducted on the renewal of this food factory licence which expired on 1 October 1990. Consequent to that review the Council approved the renewal of this licence. unconditionally upon its expiry on 1 October 1990 to allow for the issue of a 90-day notice during the tenure of the 1990/91 licence requiring the licensee to implement further improvements as recommended by BLD, FSD and USD in relation to structural and fire safety as well as hygienic conditions before the next renewal of her food factory licence.
The Council made such a decision on the basis of the following factors: (a) Air pollution is within the jurisdiction of the Director of Environment Protection who is the competent authority to deal with only such pollution under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.
(b) USD will continue to maintain close liaison with Environmental Protection Department and refer any complaint of air pollution caused by this factory to EPD for appropriate action.
(c) There are no legal grounds for the Council not to renew the licence.
A 90-day notice of intention to impose further conditions (including those based on the advice of BLD and FSD) was subsequently issued to the licensee on 5 October 1990 for compliance before the renewal of licence. The licensee met all these requirements in September this year and her licence was therefore renewed on 1 October 1991.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):—Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a few supplementary questions. Firstly, the premises at Sai Street have been used as a
Page 78 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 78 of 126
139
pig roasting factory for many years. I would like to know whether the Council or the department is aware of the fact that the premises are already very old. Secondly the department has renewed the licence of this factory upon imposition of additional requirements. I would like to know the content of these additional requirements. Thirdly, I would like to know what recommendations have been made by the EPD? And lastly, before renewing the licence, had the department paid a site visit to the premises to see whether the premises were suitable for use as a pig roasting factory?
(Mr. Stephen LAU Man-lung left the meeting at 4:05 p.m.)
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, four questions have been raised by Mr. WONG. Two questions cannot be answered at present. Concerning the age of the premises, I would have to check and will give an answer to Mr. WONG. And secondly concerning the additional requirements imposed when the licence was renewed and the recommendations of the EPD, I will have to check with the Department and then I will directly give an answer to Mr. WONG. As regards the last question, concerning whether the department had paid a site visit to the premises before the licence was renewed. I can tell you definitely that the Health Inspectors from the USD visited the premises once every two weeks. Apart from these Health Inspectors, various Senior Health Inspectors did regularly inspect this factory and so adequate inspection was carried out before the licence was renewed.
MR. MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Recently, a consolidated document on a comprehensive review of the Town Planning Ordinance has been published. An amortization concept has been put forward in this document. It is said that for garages or car repair shops in residential areas, if nuisances are caused, amortization can be proposed for these uses. Has the department considered the fact that if there are roast pig factories in residential areas causing nuisances to the residents and it is impossible for us to stop renewing the licence, can the department propose an amortization concept?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, concerning the document on comprehensive review of the Town Planning Ordinance I know that the consultative period will end by the end of January next year. The Land Use Sub-Committee under the Capital Works Select Committee has convened a meeting to discuss the content of the consultative document especially the effect on the Urban Council and has also come up with some recommendations. The convenor of the meeting is Mr. Jason YUEN. The suggestion raised by Mr. MAN is a good one. As to whether roast pig factories can be dealt with by amortization or not, I will definitely refer this suggestion to the Working Group convened by Mr. Jason YUEN for further discussion and consideration.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have one more follow up question. Can the Council or Department inform me how long has this factory been operating at the said premises?
Page 78 of 126
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.