Page 108 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which may become a nuisance to the tenants or occupiers of adjacent land.
Given that the actual owners and occupiers of all of the adjacent land to this particular block have consistently objected and complained about the activities that have taken place on that block over not only days but also months - in fact, for a period of almost two years - I would ask the Minister: first of all, was the delegate acting improperly when he terminated the lease; secondly, what new evidence came up in the six hours after the delegate exercised his authority which would cause the Minister to change the decision; and, thirdly, does the Minister believe that he acted properly given that provision of subsection 10(2)(b) of the Act?
MR WHALAN: The situation is that the delegate of the Minister had revoked the approval to operate the lease under section 10A of the City Area Leases Ordinance which had been granted to the lessee of this particular property. The bases upon which that was revoked were set out as basically that the circumstances of the business were causing a nuisance to the neighbours.
Subsequent to that decision being notified to the lessee, my office received representations from the lessee via the lessee's solicitor, in which certain points were made. Those points were: that the lessee had alternative premises to enter no later than 1 October 1989; that there would be no seeking of an extension of the section 10A approval beyond that particular date and that the lessee of the premises would comply with all the requirements and conditions of the granting of the approval.
Following discussions between my office and the solicitor concerned, and particularly in light of the unconditional undertakings by the lessee to comply with the requirements which had been laid down by my department in the exercise of that right to depart from the residential purpose of that particular property, it was decided by me that the lease would be extended for the period until October. It was indicated that there would be no extension beyond that date. Clearly it has been indicated that the approval would be revoked if the conditions of that particular approval were breached in any way whatsoever.
Following that, I have received representations from the neighbouring residents, and I have a great deal of sympathy for their position. Those circumstances had been made known to me. When I reconsidered the delegate's decision in relation to this matter I was aware of them. What became the issue of consideration between our office and the solicitor was to ensure that all the conditions of the approval were complied with. They had not been complied with in totality in the past. It raises one of the problems of section 10A approvals. I wonder whether we, as a government, should not review approvals under section 10A at all. I think there are good grounds for reviewing that part of the legislation relating to residential leases.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .