Ms Esa Leung briefed Members on the progress report, highlighting the following items for Members' information:

A member asked about the development right of the owner of 128 Pok Fu Lam Road and how the development could integrate with the building to be preserved. Dr Louis Ng said that although the building had been declared as a proposed monument, due respect would be given to the owner's property right and usage of the building. The Government was discussing with the owner on his development proposals.

A member referred to the archaeological discoveries at the former Police Married Quarters Site at Hollywood Road and asked if the platforms deserved preservation in view of its historical significance, noting that the site would be removed from the List of Sites for Sale by Application for a year and that proposals would be invited on its revitalisation. The Chairman suggested and Members agreed to defer discussion of the item after the special briefing by SDEV.

A member referred to the release of the Old Stanley Police Station for its continued use as a supermarket and asked if, in the past, the AAB had a chance to discuss the adaptive reuse of similar historic buildings before the lease was renewed and, if not, whether it could be included in the agenda of the AAB in future. Dr Louis Ng said that in the light of the rising community concern on the issue on adaptive reuse, AMO would take note of the member's view and consult the AAB on similar cases in future.

AMO

The Chairman said that the crucial point was whether the adpative re-use of a historic building should be included as one of the overriding factors in the tender asessment as in the case of the Former Marine Police Headquarters Compound where greater emphasis was placed on heritage preservation, design and technical aspects of the proposals than the financial aspect.

AMO

Mr Chung Ling-hoi added that as long as the historic building was suitably protected by the user in accordance with the conservation guidelines set down by the AAB/AMO, the aim of heritage conservation would be achieved. The user should be given more room in considering the adaptive reuse of the historic building as too many restrictions might make any scheme infeasible.

A member opined that the AAB should be consulted on which would be the best choice for the adaptive reuse of a historic building. The Chairman remarked that it was a very complicated issue with different views and opinions. Nevertheless, he supported giving more flexibility in the adaptive reuse of historic buildings as long as their authenticity and integrity were preserved since it would not be practicable to convert all historic buildings into museums.

A member referred to the discussion on the grading of Queen's Pier at the meeting of 9 May 2007 and requested the Board to follow up discussion on the adaptive re-use and relocation of Queen's Pier, which were raised under AOB of the meeting. He noted that Planning Departing (Plan D) was conducting an urban design study in the area and considered that their consultant should consult AAB on their proposed plan. The Chairman remarked that the AAB would certainly follow up the issue as Government had earlier on undertaken to consult the AAB at a suitable point in time.

A member expressed surprise that the concept of collective memory, which had aroused much controversy in the past, had not been brought up again even by the media since the AAB's discussion of the grading of Queen's Pier at its meeting on 9 May 2007. The Chairman said that the issue could perhaps be discussed in the context of grading of historic buildings at the proposed AAB retreat.

A member asked about the progress of the works regarding Queen's Pier. Mr S L Lam advised Members that the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) had commissioned a consultant for the works whereas ArchSD was responsible for monitoring the progress. Detailed recording was done before the works were carried out and the flat part of the roof together with some component parts had been dismantled, labelled and temporarily stored at Lantau Island. The works would take about two to three months to complete. Visits to the work site at Queen's Pier and the storage site at Lantau Island could be arranged with CEDD and DEVB.

The Chairman reiterated that AMO would present the investigation report of the Former Police Married Quarters Site to the AAB once it was ready and the AAB could decide then what follow-up action should be taken.

Ms Esa Leung briefed members on the latest development of Kin Yin Lei following the AAB's support of the Antiquities Authority (AA)'s intention to declare the building as a proposed monument at the meeting of 14 September 2007 and the gazettal of the declaration, which took effect on 15 September 2007. She said that the AMO would carry out a comprehensive heritage assessment of the building and make a recommendation to the AA within the validity period of the proposed monument on whether it should be declared as a monument. The AAB would be consulted should the AA intend to declare King Yin Lei as a monument.

In response to the Chairman and a member's enquiry, Mr Chung Ling-hoi advised Members that the owner's representative had requested a meeting with DEVB, which was being arranged, to discuss possible development and conservation options. Hence, it was not known at the present stage if the owner's willingness to restore the buildings at his own cost was conditional.

A member referred to the experience gained from the King Yin Lei case and asked if Government would review the existing monitoring mechanism to prevent owners from exploiting legal loopholes to remove the non-structural parts of historic buildings to damage its integrity. Mr Chung Ling-hoi replied that Buildings Department had carefully inspected the works at King Yin Lei and confirmed that the works did not require the application of a permit under the existing ordinance. While admitting that there was no satisfactory way for Government to stop such works at present, Government would nevertheless consider means to improve the existing monitoring mechanism to address the problem.

The Chairman noted that the point raised above was covered by paragraph 54 of the CE's Policy Address on Privately-Owned Heritage Conservation. He said that SDEV could perhaps elaborate on that at the discussion later. Miss Janet Wong read out that paragraph for Members' information, highlighting that Government would explore new arrangements to provide economic incentives to encourage heritage protection by the private sector. In parallel, Government would extend financial support to the maintenance of privately-owned graded historic buildings. The Chairman was pleased to note that the CE had in his Policy Address announced means to balance the interests of parties concerned such as safeguarding private property rights and the prudent use of public money to meet public expectations.

In response to a member's enquiry on whether the owner had actually approached Government before proceeding to sell Kin Yin Lei, Mr Chung Ling-hoi informed Members that back in end April 2007, the CE's office received a letter from an architect Mr Philip Liao requesting for a meeting to discuss the preservation of a historic building. Two photos, one on King Yin Lei and the other on Bethanie were enclosed with the letter. While the letter did not mention about King Yin Lei and the architect did not state that he was representing the owner, the staff who had handled similar cases should know that he was talking about King Yin Lei. The letter respectively reached Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) and AMO which should have made a situation report, but no action was taken on that letter. The owner's claim to have approached Government to discuss preservation of the building could not be said to be false as one did not know his intention behind the brief letter.

A member asked if there was any safeguard against owners of historic buildings from selling their property during the negotiation process or when Government had spent resources on conservation of the historic building. The Chairman said that the crux of the problem was not on ownership as even after a historic building had been declared as a monument, the property right was still vested with the owner who could sell it at any time irrespective of who the owner was, but declared monument could not be demolished or altered without the permission of the Antiquities Authority. He noted the current internal monitoring mechanism through which AMO would be notified of any demolition or alteration applications, which would likely affect the selected 1,440 historic buildings. The King Yin Lei case escaped attention because under the existing regulations, the owner was not required to apply for a permit for the non-structural works. Mr Chung Ling-hoi remarked that in the course of heritage conservation, due respect should be given to private property right and the free transaction of private property.

A member asked whether the building would be restored before grading or vice versa. He hoped that Government would forge partnership with the owner in the negotiation process without making too many concessions as that might have great implications and set a bad precedent. The Chairman said that it was important to deliver the positive message to the public that the owner could have approached Government for negotiation instead of resorting to such negative act of damaging the building.

A member shared the view that since the architect did not state in the letter that he was representing the owner, it would have been difficult for Government to respond to his letter. The Chairman was of the view that Government should have given timely response to letters from the public in whatever way considered appropriate. A member considered that as a matter of negotiation strategy, Government should not overplay the issue. It should wait until the owner had restored the building before grading was further considered as this was not an urgent issue now that the building had been declared as a proposed monument. He also suggested including in the future review of the relevant legislation the protection of antiquities (i.e. the non-structural parts) affixed to the historic building so that they could have interim protection before the historic building was declared as a monument.

The Chairman said that before a historic building was declared as a monument, there was no existing legislation which could deter the owner from carrying out renovation such as replacement of the roof tiles. Mr Chung Ling-hoi added that Government was discussing with the owner who showed sincerity and had sought assistance from Government and experts on the restoration works.

A member opined that by not disclosing the identity of the owner, he was protected from his unrighteous act whereas a developer would have to pay a high moral cost for such act if its identity was revealed.

A member commented that the King Yin Lei case had exposed the loophole of the existing notification mechanism that it failed to alert the parties concerned of the removal of the non-structural parts or renovation works, which could damage the integrity of a historic building. He said that graded historic buildings were now confronted with similar threats and considered that the Commissioner for Heritage announced in CE's Policy Address should be supported by sufficient staff resources for enhanced monitoring work. He also suggested reviewing and drawing up a conservation policy on Grade I and Grade II historic buildings that would be recognized by the community and the owners, and speeding up the assessment of historic buildings which had not yet been graded.

Noting that the owner was willing to restore the building at his own cost and it was likely that the building would be further protected, a member asked if the AAB or AMO would be involved in the restoration process. The Chairman explained that after the building was declared as a proposed monument, the owner had to obtain the approval of the Antiquities Authority before he could carry out any works to the building. On the restoration of roof tiles, Dr Louis Ng added that AMO would conduct historic research and consult experts before deciding on the most suitable restoration and conservation method.

Upon the member's further enquiry, the Chairman advised that the authority to declare a historic building as a monument rested with Government and not the AAB. On the issue of compensation, the Chairman said that it was outside AAB's ambit. If the owner wished to claim compensation during the period of proposed monument, he had to produce evidence of the financial loss he suffered for the court to assess the amount of compensation. Government would further consult the AAB and decide whether the building should be declared as a monument before the period of the proposed monument lapsed.

While appreciating the Government's positive action, a member suggested that Government should consider drawing up a time frame for concluding the case to prevent it from dragging on indefinitely. Mr Chung Ling-hoi said that both Government and the owner showed sincerity in resolving the issue, which hopefully would not be constrained by time. Pending the outcome of their discussion, a timetable would be drawn up on the next course of action to be taken.

A member asked whether the AAB could assist in making recommendations on the declaration of historic buildings as monuments in view of the slow progress on the assessment of the selected 1,440 historic buildings and whether the compensation issue should also be considered by the AAB as declaration of private buildings as proposed monument/monument might involve Government compensation. The Chairman explained that the compensation issue would come in only when Government declared a private building as a proposed monument/monument without the owner's consent, and anyone including the AAB could make recommendation to Government on the declaration of a historic building as a monument. Mr Chung Ling-hoi supplemented that the AAB could conduct grading of historic buildings as an internal mechanism for reference while the authority to declare a historic building as a monument rested with the Antiquities Authority who had to consult the AAB on her intention in that regard.

Prof Bernard Lim said that the schematic design for the Nga Tsin Wai Village Redevelopment was conservation by design. It aimed to preserve the central axis of the village with eight authentic houses on its path, as well as the overall pattern of pedestrian lanes, in addition to preserving the three relics (i.e. the Tin Hau Temple, the gatehouse and the stone tablet with the inscription of “慶有餘” embedded over the gatehouse). A conservation village park would be constructed around this core area to resurrect the ambience of the village and any excavated finds would be displayed therein. The restored houses would be for GIC and tourism promotion purposes. To strike a balance between development and conservation, the high residential towers would be pushed outwards towards the northern and southern perimeters and lifted to provide a vertical clearance of some 15 metres from ground level to achieve “visual relief” for the conservation park.

A member asked if Nga Tsin Wai Village had been graded before and if some cartographic and photographic research, e.g. taking aerial photos, had been conducted on the village as he considered such information very important in reinstating the footprint of the village in the redevelopment. He opined that the four corners and the gatehouse were the most important features of the walled village and requested AMO to provide the relevant information, if available, to Prof Bernard Lim and URA to facilitate their conceptual design. Ms Esa Leung responded that some aerial photos of the village before and after the Second World War could be made available and the relevant information on the history of the village had been provided to LegCo.

The Chairman referred to Plan 3 (the Artist Impression of Conservation Park) and commented that the redeveloped buildings did not seem to match with the authentic village houses. He suggested that the redeveloped village houses should recreate the character of the authentic village houses.

A member said that during his two visits to the village, he found on site some village houses with timber beams and stone beams probably dating back to the Qing dynasty and the post-war period. He hoped that the eight authentic village houses to be preserved by URA would include a few village houses with stone beams.

Prof Bernard Lim agreed with Members' views, saying that the current conceptual design was presented to Members and the community to seek their views and direction on the overall conservation approach. URA would proceed with more in-depth research at the detailed design stage. He added that the houses coloured red on Plan 1 were the surveyed structures identified for restoration and adaptive re-use by Dr Lawrence Loh and local conservation experts. The preservation of the four corners of the conservation park and the pedestrian lanes, etc. would be taken into consideration at the detailed planning stage to recreate the character and ambience of the walled village.

Mr Billy Lam supplemented that URA would like to devote as much effort as possible to the conservation aspect. For instance, Prof Siu Kwok-kin was conducting a historical research on the village. URA would take note of and follow up Members' views and suggestions at the detailed planning stage including the ventilation issue.

A member supported the redevelopment of Nga Tsin Wai Village but not its grading as he noted that many villages in the New Territories had a much longer history than that of this village and there would be great implications to grade them all. He considered that the gatehouse, study hall, ancestral hall and the village office were the most important features of a walled village, and should be preserved if at all possible.

A member remarked that from a layman's angle, the old houses and the four new residential towers on Plan 3 did not harmonize with each other as a whole. The design of the new towers should integrate with the old houses so as to match with the characteristics of the walled village. The Chairman was of the view that the old and new buildings should have their own style and that new buildings should not be constructed to imitate only the form and appearance of old buildings.

A member noted that the village had been demolished to a certain extent and it was difficult to fully reinstate it to its original state. He considered that if the new village houses were reconstructed based on the old design of the walled village, it would not serve any useful purpose, as the pedestrian lanes in the walled village, designed for security reason in the old days, were very narrow with little ventilation. He was of the view that as long as the three relics and the eight authentic village houses were preserved, there could be more flexibility with the design of the reconstructed village houses for more practical usage.

A member cited Shanghai Xintiandi (上海新天地) as a successful example of the fusion of old and new architecture in redevelopment. He reiterated the importance of referring to the old design drawings of Nga Tsin Wai Village to develop new design concepts.

A member considered it appropriate to set the base of the new residential towers at 15 metres above ground level. He hoped that the design of the green belt and waterfront as shown on Plan 3 would be implemented eventually. He did not mind reconstructing the village houses to suit current usages as long as the overall historical atmosphere could be retained. He also suggested that a mini museum or some display panels on the history of the walled village be put up on site.

Mr Billy Lam thanked Members for their valuable views and suggestions, saying that URA was closely liaising with the district council to take into account various views and suggestions on the redevelopment project.

The Chairman requested Mr Billy Lam to present the detailed design of the project to the AAB in due course.

Ms Esa Leung briefed Members that redevelopment of Wanchai Market was also one of URA's projects. The community had recently requested for preservation of the market and URA had been exploring with the developer on feasible preservation options. In considering the preservation options, URA would need to thoroughly examine the legal implications, contractual obligations, the financial implications and the technical feasibility of the conservation proposals.

The Chairman requested Mr Billy Lam to inform the AAB of the outcome of URA's negotiation with the developer.

In response to a member's enquiry, the Chairman informed Members that he had recently received a letter from the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA), requesting the AAB to conduct a reassessment of the Grade III status of Wanchai Market and to advise the Antiquities Authority for possible declaration of Wanchai Market as a proposed monument. He had given HKIA an interim reply, advising that a more substantive reply would be made when more relevant information was available from Government and URA.