HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
3
conditions restricting the trading hours and the mode of operation for the sale of liquor have been imposed to minimise any possible environmental nuisance.
Bars and restaurants have always been regulated by market forces on the basis of supply and demand and there has never been any attempt to seek to interfere with the way in which the market operates. As is the case now, each application is considered on its merits and, if any objection is raised, the Liquor Licensing Board will consider all factors relevant to the individual case before any decision is made. This system continues to work well and no adjustments to existing policy seem necessary.
Mr. Ambrose Cheung Wing-sum (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have two follow-up questions. From the reply, we can see that the Liquor Licensing Board handles issue of licenses on the basis of three main principles and that individual cases may warrant special handling. The three main principles are in fact too wide and generalized, and with many grey areas too.
My first follow-up question concerns proposals of the Appeal Board in 94/95 for the laying down of clearer policies on the following points in respect of the issue of licenses by the Liquor Licensing Board and the Urban Council:
1.
2.
3.
4.
If the Occupation Permit or land use in respect of a premises under application is different in the nature of operation to that given in the application, should a license be issued?
When there is a common entrance to a composite building of mostly residential units and some commercial units on the lower floors, do we deal with applications separately? Should we issue licenses?
If the above 2 points apply in a building of mainly residential units, should we restrict the number of licenses issued at just one or two?
In some streets with mainly residential buildings, like Staunton Street as I mentioned in my question today, many bars and restaurants operate within a 50 m radius. Should we devise a clear policy so as to fix a ceiling of their numbers?
I would like to ask the Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board how the above proposals of the Appeal Board would be handled. Will there be any policy discussions for the formulation of new policies? That is my first question.
The second question concerns both Tong Chong Street and Staunton Street. I want to find out from Mr. San Stephen Wong the number of liquor licenses issued in these 2 areas.
MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, the first question by Mr. Ambrose Cheung in fact consists 5 points. I shall try and answer them point by point. If I leave out any point, I would appreciate if Mr. Cheung could repeat them.
Page 3 of 654
Page 3 of 654
Page 3 of 654
Page 3 of 654
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
3
conditions restricting the trading hours and the mode of operation for the sale of liquor have been imposed to minimise any possible environmental nuisance.
Bars and restaurants have always been regulated by market forces on the basis of supply and demand and there has never been any attempt to seek to interfere with the way in which the market operates. As is the case now, each application is considered on its merits and, if any objection is raised, the Liquor Licensing Board will consider all factors relevant to the individual case before any decision is made. This system continues to work well and no adjustments to existing policy seem necessary.
Mr. Ambrose Cheung WinG-SUM (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, I have two follow-up questions. From the reply, we can see that the Liquor Licensing Board handles issue of licenses on the basis of three main principles and that individual cases may warrant special handling. The three main principles are in fact too wide and generalized, and with many grey areas too.
My first follow-up question concerns proposals of the Appeal Board in 94/95 for the laying down of clearer policies on the following points in respect of the issue of licenses by the Liquor Licensing Board and the Urban Council:
1.
2.
3.
4.
If the Occupation Permit or land use in respect of a premises under application is different in the nature of operation to that given in the application, should a license be issued?
When there is a common entrance to a composite building of mostly residential units and some commercial units on the lower floors, do we deal with applications separately? Should we issue licenses?
If the above 2 points apply in a building of mainly residential units, should we restrict the number of licenses issued at just one or two?
In some streets with mainly residential buildings, like Staunton Street as I mentioned in my question today, many bars and restaurants operate within a 50 m radius. Should we devise a clear policy so as to fix a ceiling of their numbers?
I would like to ask the Chairman of the Liquor Licensing Board how the above proposals of the Appeal Board would be handled. Will there be any policy discussions for the formulation of new policies? That is my first question.
The second question concerns both Tong Chong Street and Staunton Street. I want to find out from Mr. San Stephen WONG the number of liquor licenses issued in these 2 areas.
MR. SAN STEPHEN WONG HON-CHING (in Cantonese):--Mr. Chairman, the first question by Mr. Ambrose CHEUNG in fact consists 5 points. I shall try and answer them point by point. If I leave out any point, I would appreciate if Mr. CHEUNG could repeat them.
Page 3 of 654
Page 3 of 654
Page 3 of 654
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.