Page 79 of 126
141
140
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I must apologize because I do not have the information in hand. I don't know how long this pig factory or roast pig factory has been operating. I believe it has been operating for a long time. I will check and then give an answer to Mr. WONG.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I have asked a few questions but three of the questions have not been answered satisfactorily. I would like to disclose some information for members' reference concerning the roast pig factory at Sai Street Sheung Wan. It has been operating for more than 40 years in accordance with the previous licensing requirements. As far as I know, the EPD and Central and Western District Board have strongly objected to the renewal of the licence, but strangely, the Urban Council or the Department has not accepted the suggestion of the EPD. EPD is of the view that this factory should not be allowed to continue to operate in residential area. I hope that after the Chairman of the Select Committee has given me more information, perhaps at the next meeting I will raise more follow-up questions.
CHAIRMAN (in English): This question has been discussed many times at the Select Committee level and today he is just making another emphasis on this issue. It's not the question and you don't have to answer.
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-From the reply given by Mr. PAO, something is mentioned about nuisance and environmental pollution in paragraph 2(a). In paragraph 3, it is mentioned that the EPD has to be consulted. Last year I raised the same question asking that since we have consulted the EPD and the EPD was of the view that the licence should not be renewed for the pig roasting factory. I would like to know why the EPD's recommendation had not been considered in our review? Can the Chairman please give me a reply? If we have not conducted a review, can the Committee consider reviewing the situation?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Concerning the licensing procedures of all factories including roast pig factories, on many occasions, we have to consult the views of the relevant departments. But I would like to tell members that we are only consulting them and the final decision rests with the Urban Council and the relevant licensing Select Committee. In other words, some departments can raise objections but it does not mean that the Urban Council must accept those suggestions. This explains why sometimes other departmental recommendations are not accepted by the Urban Council. Of course, if certain laws are violated, then of course the relevant departments can take action. For example, if the EPD thinks that the roast pig factories violate air pollution ordinances, then the EPD has its procedures to prosecute the factory for air pollution and so I believe all relevant Government departments have sufficient powers to deal with problems arising from the factories. As to why the USD has proposed to renew the licence, as I have said in my reply that the Urban Council has no legal grounds not to renew the licence. In other words, if we do not renew the licence, then perhaps the Urban Council may be sued by the factory operator. I would like to point out in particular that concerning the pig roasting factory at Sai Street raised by Mr. CHAN and Mr. WONG, in fact many departments have made various suggestions and discussions on this particular factory and the USD has also imposed additional requirements on the renewal of the licence and the details will be supplied to Messrs. CHAN and WONG later.
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on my earlier question concerning the review of a case, in particular regarding 2(a). We conduct a review system on licensing after a problem arises. That problem is related to nuisances as well as to environmental pollution. As there are nuisances as well as pollution problems, and the EPD has confirmed that there are environmental nuisances, why did we still renew the licence. Otherwise, there is no point to include such requirements for consideration in our review system if we do not consider the impact of such problems. Once the requirements are imposed a review on the matter should be conducted by the Select Committee.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, it is true that the purpose of having a review system is to look into problematic cases to see whether there can be solutions. If such methods or recommendations are not complied with by the licensee then we are not going to renew the licence. In other words, our review system does have a proper procedure to deal with the problem. However, what Mr. CHAN says is that some problems cannot be resolved even after we have a review system. On this matter, I will liaise with the department as well as other Government departments to see whether the previous licensing requirements are effective in tackling the problems in the future. I will ask the Department to study all these aspects.
MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in English):—I understand that at the moment the Urban Services Department is not represented in the Town Planning Board. I would like to ask the Council whether some of our Councillors now sitting in the Town Planning Board has ever conveyed such repeated public complaints against these apparently inappropriate land use for re-zoning in the future?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in English):-Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a quick response. First of all, under the existing Town Planning Ordinance, the Town Planning Board is not dealing with all these land use complaints, we are only dealing with the zoning under section 16's application. Of course, if the new Ordinance is adopted, there might be provision for that. So the short answer is no because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Town Planning Board.
MOTIONS
(Mr. Ronald POON left at 4.18 p.m.)
1. MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE MUSEUMS SELECT COMMITTEE (in English):--Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name: 'Resolved that:
Page 79 of 126
Page 79 of 126
Page 79 of 126
141
140
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I must apologize because I do not have the information in hand. I don't know how long this pig factory or roast pig factory has been operating. I believe it has been operating for a long time. I will check and then give an answer to Mr. WONG.
MR. WONG SHUI-LAI (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I have asked a few questions but three of the questions have not been answered satisfactorily. I would like to disclose some information for members' reference concerning the roast pig factory at Sai Street Sheung Wan. It has been operating for more than 40 years in accordance with the previous licensing requirements. As far as I know, the EPD and Central and Western District Board have strongly objected to the renewal of the licence, but strangely, the Urban Council or the Department has not accepted the suggestion of the EPD. EPD is of the view that this factory should not be allowed to continue to operate in residential area. I hope that after the Chairman of the Select Committee has given me more information, perhaps at the next meeting I will raise more follow up questions.
CHAIRMAN (in English): This question has been discussed many times at the Select Committee level and today he is just making another emphasis on this issue. It's not the question and you don't have to answer.
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-From the reply given by Mr. PAO, something is mentioned about nuisance and environmental pollution in paragraph 2(a). In paragraph 3, it is mentioned that the EPD has to be consulted. Last year I raised the same question asking that since we have consulted the EPD and the EPD was of the view that the licence should not be renewed for the pig roasting factory. I would like to know why the EPD's recommendation had not been considered in our review? Can the Chairman please give me a reply? If we have not conducted a review, can the Committee consider reviewing the situation?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Concerning the licensing procedures of all factories including roast pig factories, on many occasions, we have to consult the views of the relevant departments. But I would like to tell members that we are only consulting them and the final decision rests with the Urban Council and the relevant licensing Select Committee. In other words, some departments can raise objections but it does not mean that the Urban Council must accept those suggestions. This explains why sometimes other departmental recom- mendations are not accepted by the Urban Council. Of course, if certain laws are violated, then of course the relevant departments can take action. For example, if the EPD thinks that the roast pig factories violates air pollution ordinances, then the EPD has its procedures to prosecute the factory for air pollution and so I believe all relevant Government departments have sufficient powers to deal with problems arising from the factories. As to why the USD has proposed to renew the licence, as I have said in my reply that the Urban Council has no legal grounds not to renew the licence. In other words, if we do not renew the licence, then perhaps the Urban Council may be sued by the
Page 79 of 126
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
factory operator. I would like to point out in particular that concerning the pig roasting factory at Sai Street raised by Mr. CHAN and Mr. WONG, in fact many departments have made various suggestions and discussions on this particular factory and the USD has also imposed additional requirements on the renewal of the licence and the details will be supplied to Messrs. CHAN and WONG later.
MR. CHAN TAK-CHOR (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on my earlier quesiton concerning the review of a case, in particular regarding 2(a). We conduct a review system on licensing after a problem arises. That problem is related to nuisances as well as to environmental pollution. As there are nuisances as well as pollution problem, and the EPD has confirmed that there are environmental nuisances, why did we still renew the licence. Otherwise, there is no point to include such requirements for consideration in our review system if we do not consider the impact of such problems. Once the requirements are imposed a review on the matter should be conducted by the Select Committee.
MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, it is true that the purpose of having a review system is to look into problematic cases to see whether there can be solutions. If such methods or recommendations are not complied with by the licensee then we are not going to renew the licence. In other words, our review system does have a proper procedure to deal with the problem. However, what Mr. CHAN says is that some problems cannot be resolved even after we have a review system. On this matter, I will liaise with the department as well as other Government departments to see whether the previous licensing requirements are effective in tackling the problems in the future. I will ask the Department to study all these aspects.
MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK (in English):—I understand that at the moment the Urban Services Department is not represented in the Town Planning Board. I would like to ask the Council whether some of our Councillors now sitting in the Town Planning Board has ever conveyed such repeated public complaints against these apparently inappropriate land use for re-zoning in the future?
MR. PAO PING-WING (in English):-Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a quick response. First of all, under the existing Town Planning Ordinance, the Town Planning Town is not dealing with all these land use complaints, we are only dealing with the zoning under section 16's application. Of course, if the new Ordinance is adopted, there might be provision for that. So the short answer is no because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Town Planning Board.
MOTIONS
(Mr. Ronald POON left at 4.18 p.m.)
1. MR. JASON YUEN KING-YUK, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE MUSEUMS SELECT COMMITTEE (in English):--Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the motion standing in my name: 'Resolved that:
Page 79 of 126
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.