Page 43 of 132
94
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 43 of 132
95
renewal of market tenancies in early 1994 which will involve some 470 (or 60% of the) stalls in Po On Road Market. Relevant information has been sought on various aspects, such as whether the trading activities of the market have been affected to any extent by the opening of Lai Wan Market in Mei Foo Sun Chuen, the extent of the decrease in population in nearby public housing estates, the number and types of nearby shops selling competing market commodities, the aging characteristics of the population in the catchment area, as well as other information, have all been gathered during the survey. The results of these factors have been analysed and are referred to the Rating and Valuation Department for reference in the preparation of up-to-date fair market rentals based on a realistic assessment of trading potential in the market, and the information will be used in the coming tenancy renewal exercise. On the basis of the revised Fair Market Rentals to be provided by the Rating and Valuation Department, the level of new rentals appropriate to each market stall will be determined in accordance with the Council's approved market rental formula currently in use.
Secondly, concerning the mix of commodities on sale in the market, it must be stressed that Po On Road Market is a very large yet basically viable market comprising 776 stalls with an occupancy rate of about 88%. It was built in 1988 to meet total resiting commitments for eligible wet-goods hawkers in the area; at that time there was no ex-gratia payment scheme to buy back fixed pitch licences from nearby wet-goods hawkers. Under the original leasing arrangements as approved by the Council, all eligible hawkers selling wet goods plus those selling dried food items were resited into the market, whilst the remaining licensed hawkers selling dry goods in the vicinity were re-ordered on-street immediately outside the market. This arrangement is consistent with prevailing Council policy. That is to say the same commodity should not be simultaneously and competitively traded both inside and outside the market by the lessees and licensed hawkers respectively. In the recent past, the Department has received requests from some of the lessees selling dried food items for permission to change trade on grounds of poor business. The new commodities which they would like to offer for sale include joss sticks and paper offerings, cutlery, small electrical appliances, earthenware and kitchen utensils. Preliminary investigations by the Department have revealed that there are already licensed hawkers selling most of these items in the immediate vicinity of the market. Redesignating the trade of some of these stalls to sell dry goods will thus upset the original market leasing and hawker re-ordering arrangements. It would also invite complaints from the licensed dry goods hawkers who were not offered the opportunity of resiting into the market in 1988.
Nevertheless, taking into account the lessees' requests and given the desirability of further enhancing market viability where possible, the Department is prepared to review the overall situation and to adopt as flexible and sympathetic approach as possible to deal with the case of this particular market. However, any related policy implications and possible reactions from the licensed hawkers outside the market would have to be resolved first. As such, this matter is now being actively pursued within the Department and it is hoped that it can be finalised soon and the results can be made known to the relevant lessees as soon as practicable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have three follow-up questions.
The first follow-up question is this: In paragraph 2 of the main reply, the last part of the reply, we are told that over the past 6 months, 92 summonses specifically related to shop extensions were issued. On average there were 15 summonses per month. That is to say about 1 summons was issued every 2 days. Will you call this active prosecution action? And will the Department take more positive and active prosecution action? That is the first question.
The second follow-up question relates to paragraph 3 of the reply. It is mentioned that the Department has conducted a comprehensive survey, but then in the entire paragraph 3, we do not get any information about the results of this comprehensive survey, and I would like to ask the Department on this. As the results of the survey have already been submitted to the R&V Department for consideration, at the present moment, can the Department provide the Council with information about the results of the survey particularly the main findings? For example, have there been demographic changes and a reduction of the number of patrons to the market? If it is not possible to give us a reply today, can we have the information for discussion at the MST S/C meeting?
The third follow-up question relates to paragraph 5 of the reply. I am very happy to know that the Department will consider the request of the lessees and then the results would be made known to the relevant lessees as soon as practicable. As this problem relates to rental as well as the policy on the mix of commodity and it also relates to this big market at Po On Road where previously the overriding principle was to resite the hawkers on the street rather than to consider their viability, can we have detailed follow-up discussions at the MST S/C meetings or relevant policy Working Party meetings?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):—Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. CHEUNG for the follow-up questions raised.
The first question relates to the 92 summonses issued over the past 6 months concerning shop extensions or illegal shop extensions and I was asked whether this could be regarded as active prosecution action. As I have said in my reply, this is not the sole responsibility of the Department. The Police also have their responsibilities. And so these are only the figures of summonses issued by the Department and I believe the Police also take prosecution action. And if Mr. CHEUNG is not satisfied with this figure and if he thinks that the action is not active enough, then I can ask the Department to mount more positive prosecution action.
Page 43 of 132
Page 43 of 132
94
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 43 of 132
95
renewal of market tenancies in early 1994 which will involve some 470 (or 60% of the) stalls in Po On Road Market. Relevant information has been sought on various aspects, such as whether the trading activities of the market have been affected to any extent by the opening of Lai Wan Market in Mei Foo Sun Chuen, the extent of the decrease in population in nearby public housing estates, the number and types of nearby shops selling competing market commodities, the aging characteristics of the population in the catchment area, as well as other information, have all been gathered during the survey. The results of these factors have been analysed and are referred to the Rating and Valuation Department for reference in the preparation of up-to-date fair market rentals based on a realistic assessment of trading potential in the market, and the information will be used in the coming tenancy renewal exercise. On the basis of the revised Fair Market Rentals to be provided by the Rating and Valuation Department, the level of new rentals appropriate to each market stall will be determined in accordance with the Council's approved market rental formula currently in use.
Secondly, concerning the mix of commodities on sale in the market, it must be stressed that Po On Road Market is a very large yet basically viable market comprising 776 stalls with an occupancy rate of about 88%. It was built in 1988 to meet total resiting commitments for eligible wet-goods hawkers in the area; at that time there was no ex-gratia payment scheme to buy back fixed pitch licences from nearby wet-goods hawkers. Under the original leasing arrangements as approved by the Council, all eligible hawkers selling wet goods plus those selling dried food items were resited into the market, whilst the remaining licensed hawkers selling dry goods in the vicinity were re-ordered on-street immediately outside the market. This arrangement is consistent with prevailing Council policy. That is to say the same commodity should not be simultaneously and competitively traded both inside and outside the market by the lessees and licensed hawkers respectively. In the recent past, the Department has received requests from some of the lessees selling dried food items for permission to change trade on grounds of poor business. The new commodities which they would like to offer for sale include joss sticks and paper offerings, cutlery, small electrical appliances, earthenware and kitchen utensils. Preliminary investigations by the Department have revealed that there are already licensed hawkers selling most of these items in the immediate vicinity of the market. Redesignating the trade of some of these stalls to sell dry goods will thus upset the original market leasing and hawker re-ordering arrangements. It would also invite complaints from the licensed dry goods hawkers who were not offered the opportunity of resiting into the market in 1988.
Nevertheless, taking into account the lessees' requests and given the desirability of further enhancing market viability where possible, the Department is prepared to review the overall situation and to adopt as flexible and sympathetic approach as possible to deal with the case of this particular market. However, any related policy implications and possible reactions from the licensed hawkers outside the market would have to be resolved first. As
Page 43 of 132
such, this matter is now being actively pursued within the Department and it is hoped that it can be finalised soon and the results can be made known to the relevant lessees as soon as practicable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have three follow-up questions.
The first follow-up question is this: In paragraph 2 of the main reply, the last part of the reply, we are told that over the past 6 months, 92 summonses specifically related to shop extensions were issued. On average there were 15 summonses per month. That is to say about 1 summons was issued every 2 days. Will you call this active prosecution action? And will the Department take more positive and active prosecution action? That is the first question.
The second follow-up question relates to paragraph 3 of the reply. It is mentioned that the Department has conducted a comprehensive survey, but then in the entire paragraph 3, we do not get any information about the results of this comprehensive survey, and I would like to ask the Department on this. As the results of the survey have already been submitted to the R&V Department for consideration, at the present moment, can the Department provide the Council with information about the results of the survey particularly the main findings? For example, have there been demographic changes and a reduction of the number of patrons to the market? If it is not possible to give us a reply today, can we have the information for discussion at the MST S/C meeting?
The third follow-up question relates to paragraph 5 of the reply. I am very happy to know that the Department will consider the request of the lessees and then the results would be made known to the relevant lessees as soon as practicable. As this problem relates to rental as well as the policy on the mix of commodity and it also relates to this big market at Po On Road where previously the overriding principle was to resite the hawkers on the street rather than to consider their viability, can we have detailed follow-up discussions at the MST S/C meetings or relevant policy Working Party meetings?
MR. IP KWOK-CHUNG (in Cantonese):-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. CHEUNG for the follow-up questions raised.
The first question relates to the 92 summonses issued over the past 6 months concerning shop extensions or illegal shop extensions and I was asked whether this could be regarded as active prosecution action. As I have said in my reply, this is not the sole responsibility of the Department. The Police also have their responsibilities. And so these are only the figures of summonses issued by the Department and I believe the Police also take prosecution action. And if Mr. CHEUNG is not satisfied with this figure and if he thinks that the action is not active enough, then I can ask the Department to mount more positive prosecution action.
Page 43 of 132
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.