Page 171 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
147
conclusive determinant. The focal point is whether the operation of the establishment will cause a public nuisance to the residents of the building. Although there is more likelihood that a public nuisance may arise if the establishment shares a common entrance or passage with the domestic section of the building, each case must be determined by the Liquor Licensing Board in accordance with the facts of a particular case. There were previous cases whereby the premises under application did not have separate access, but the applications were granted.
The second part of the questions asks whether there are any ways by which the Liquor Licensing Board is accountable to the public. The primary function of the Liquor Licensing Board is to consider, in the light of all the evidence before it, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a liquor license and whether the proposed premises is suitable for the sale of liquor. This in turn requires Members of the Board to form a view on the questions to be determined, and then exercise their discretion accordingly. If the applicant (or the objectors) is not satisfied with the decision of the Board, they can appeal to the Urban Services Appeals Board. In other words, the primary function of the Board is to exercise their discretion in the light of the applicant's submissions and the objectors' objections. Therefore the question of public accountability does not usually arise although it can be noted that Members of the Liquor Licensing Board are all elected Councillors and in that sense are accountable. In another sense the Liquor Licensing Board acts for the Urban Council and can be said to be accountable to it.
The last part of the question asks whether the Liquor Licensing Board would draw up policy guidelines on the issue of liquor licenses to set out related conditions concerning property, districts, streets, etc. The restriction on the number of liquor licensed premises in certain areas was discussed by the Liquor Licensing Board at its meeting on 4 March 1993. Members present at the meeting opined that it would be controversial and impracticable to set a standard relating to the number of liquor licensed premises in certain areas and therefore restrictions in this regard would not be considered. Nevertheless, Members agreed that whether the relevant establishments would cause nuisance to residents in the surroundings would continue to be the main consideration of the Board in deciding liquor licensing applications. There is no good reason why the above decision should not be followed.
Printed by THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, HONG KONG
PRINTED ON PAPER MADE FROM WOODPULP DERIVED FROM RENEWABLE FORESTS
Page 171 of 485
Page 171 of 485
Page 171 of 485
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
147
conclusive determinant. The focal point is whether the operation of the establishment will cause a public nuisance to the residents of the building. Although there is more likelihood that a public nuisance may arise if the establishment shares a common entrance or passage with the domestic section of the building, each case must be determined by the Liquor Licensing Board in accordance with the facts of a particular case. There were previous cases whereby the premises under application did not have separate access, but the applications were granted.
The second part of the questions asks whether there are any ways by which the Liquor Licensing Board is accountable to the public. The primary function of the Liquor Licensing Board is to consider, in the light of all the evidence before it, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a liquor license and whether the proposed premises is suitable for the sale of liquor. This in turn requires Members of the Board to form a view on the questions to be determined, and then exercise their discretion accordingly. If the applicant (or the objectors) is not satisfied with the decision of the Board, they can appeal to the Urban Services Appeals Board. In other words, the primary function of the Board is to exercise their discretion in the light of the applicant's submissions and the objectors' objections. Therefore the question of public accountability does not usually arise although iɩ can be noted that Members of the Liquor Licensing Board are all elected Councillors and in that sense are accountable. In another sense the Liquor Licensing Board acts for the Urban Council and can be said to be accountable to it.
The last part of the question asks whether the Liquor Licensing Board would draw up policy guidelines on the issue of liquor licenses to set out related conditions concerning property, districts, streets, etc. The restriction on the number of liquor licensed premises in certain areas was discussed by the Liquor Licensing Board at its meeting on 4 March 1993. Members present at the meeting opined that it would be controversial and impracticable to set a standard relating to the number of liquor licensed premises in certain areas and therefore restrictions in this regard would not be considered. Nevertheless, Members agreed that whether the relevant establishments would cause nuisance to residents in the surroundings would continue to be the main consideration of the Board in deciding liquor licensing applications. There is no good reason why the above decision should not be followed.
Prusted and Pumsium ny THE GOVERNMent Prostia, Hosa Kosa PRINTED ON PAPER MADE FROM WODOPULP DERIVED FROM RENEWABLE FORESTS
Page 171 of 485
Page 171 of 485 -
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.