Introduction - HKU Libraries - The University of Hong Kong

owner's solicitors and of course, the DLO/Tai Po and other LandsD staff. An enormous amount of correspondence were exchanged andthe case in point took three years to complete. The opposingowner finally rectified the breaches to DLO/Tai Po's satisfactionand paid a penalty before the Consent Order was issued to cancelthe re-entry. This illustrates how re-entry actions, althougheffective, can be time-consuming and resource intensive.TOLERATION OF BREACHES OF LEASE CONDITIONS3.10 ^ In respect of minor breach(es) of developmentconditions contained in small house grants,, or example, minorinfractions of the built-over area or height, slightly excessivewidth of overhang etc., Lands D can exercise its power under thelease conditions and impose penalty fines. The DLOCs areauthorised to make decisions to tolerate such UBW and impose suchpenalties. The membership and terms of reference of the DLOC isreproduced at Annex II. The DLOC will first consider whether thebreach (es) in question can be tolerated or whether leaseenforcement action would be more appropriate. Should the DLOCdecide to tolerate the breach(es) , a penalty will be imposed onthe owner. The level of the penalty is dependent on the extentof the breach(es). For breaches of a minor nature, for example,minor infractions of the built-over area or height of thebuilding or a slightly excessive stairhood or balcony, a standardpenalty fine for each type of breach which ranges from $4 600 to$45 500 depending on the extent of the breach (es) , is payableonce for the lifetime of the building. For more extensivebreaches where a direct assessment is possible, such as excessiveroofed-over area, the level of penalty is assessed on the basisof buying back the excess accommodation. Where no directassessment is possible, the level of penalty is at the discretionof the DLOC. Such penalty is not intended to be a premium fora modification of the Conditions of Grant of the lot but a feein respect of the Government's forbearance to take action for thelifetime of that particular building.3.11 As a rule, criteria and guidelines for toleration arenot published although the public and villagers may already haverough ideas of them through enquiries with the Rural Committee(RC) concerned or through contacts with parties previouslyaffected by enforcement actions. The reasons for not publishingthese criteria and guidelines are obvious. Apart from thepossibility of misleading the public that such irregularities orbreaches will "automatically be legalised" upon payment of thefine as a matter of right, there is the added danger of thepublic being encouraged to commit such breaches.ENFORCEMENT APPROACH3.12 The Lands D does not have comprehensive details to*- 14 -