News Stories:

Click-on these handy "jump links" to quickly access the news item
you're looking for.

1. Site controversy back on the boil

2. Loophole allows 500 Stanley trees to face axe without permission

1. Site controversy back on the boil
NG KANG-CHUNG, SCMP 6 October 2004

At the heart of the debate is a cluster of 17 heritage buildings, including the Central police station and Victoria Prison. Picture by David Wong

The controversial plan to allow developers to transform the premises of the historical Central police station into a new entertainment and retail hub has entered a new round of discussions, with property professionals backing the privatisation of the properties.

The proposals include tearing down a part of the historical buildings to enhance their overall commercial value.

Property professionals said the debate in the past few months on the future of the premises had been politicised, and that conservationists pushing for the preservation of the buildings might have overlooked the "financial sustainability" factor.

"Flattening the site and redeveloping it is the best option from a financial point of view," said Midland Surveyors director Ronald Cheung Yat-fai.

"Preserving the facade and converting the interior into, say, a hotel, pubs and a shopping centre is the second-best option."

Mr Cheung said the location could not be described as excellent compared with other shopping areas in Central, and he pointed out the lack of car parking spaces in the neighbourhood, a factor that would reduce the attraction of the premises for development as a retail and entertainment complex.

The cost of maintenance and upkeep would also be high, Mr Cheung said.

He believed that not all the historical buildings on the site had to be preserved, and suggested that the Central police station be considered for preservation and Victoria Prison be developed for residential purposes.

"No one would say no to preserving our historical buildings, but if we ignore the commercial viability it will be the taxpayers who will pay the price at the end of the day," said Tony Chan, executive director, Vigers Appraisal and Consulting.

"I am trying to be realistic. If there is no commercial input, there will not be the money to maintain the heritage."

At the heart of the lively debate is a cluster of 17 heritage buildings, including the Central police station, Victoria Prison and the former Central Magistracy, which dates back to 1847.

The heritage complex was declared a monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in 1995.

Last year, the government announced it would invite the private sector to restore and develop the site as a heritage tourism landmark, rather like Covent Garden in London or The Rocks in Sydney.

The idea was initiated in 1999 by Swire Properties. The plan envisaged restaurants, shops, a theatre, and open-air venues for entertainment - all while keeping the historical buildings intact.

Swire Properties declined to comment yesterday.

The government had planned to put up the properties for tender in August, with the aim of handing over the site for developers to start work next year. The successful bidder was to be awarded a 50-year land grant. The completion date for the project was set for 2009.

However, in August the Hotung family led a petition to put the project on hold.

The Hotung-led group said it would like to convert the site into a complex comprising an arts academy and an arts library, and have the project managed by a charity fund.

But the plan was turned down by the government.

Pang Shiu-kee, of SK Pang Surveyors, said: "Hong Kong needs to promote tourism to boost the economy. It is not a bad idea to inject some commercial elements into the Central Police Station project, like Covent Garden in London.

"For example, part of the buildings [of the Central Police Station complex] have been renovated and converted into, say, toilets or car parks.

"Many of these works have been carried out in the past 30 years to 40 years. I don't think they should be viewed as relics, and there is no reason why these things should be kept."

Central and Western district councillors are expected to meet tomorrow to review the situation.

2. Loophole allows 500 Stanley trees to face axe without permission
CHLOE LAI, SCMP 6 October 2004

A legal loophole means that more than 500 mature trees can be cleared from a Stanley waterfront hillside without permission from environmental authorities.

The 48,000-square-metre area of natural woodland, site of a proposed horticultural park, is too small to be covered by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance.

The Environmental Protection Department confirmed yesterday that the Housing Authority had not submitted any EIA report as the requirement did not apply to parks smaller than 20 hectares. The authority has awarded construction of the park to a private foundation.

Nor is the authority subject to the tree preservation clause in land leases that govern how private developers protect trees on their sites, as the government vested the land, its control and management in the authority.

The Lands Department said yesterday that the authority was not required to seek its permission to remove the trees.

The Stanley woodland, which is between Murray House and the waterfront, has been granted by the authority for free to the private, non-profit Ding Yuen Aeroculture Foundation to build the park.

Under the present proposal, nearly 550 mature trees will be chopped, but 1,000 new trees will be planted.

Jim Chi-yung, an urban tree expert at the University of Hong Kong, said the authority had abused the trust of the government and the public. "The Housing Authority has a social and moral responsibility to take good care of its land and environment. It should set a good example to the community," he said. "The authority should conduct an EIA study even though it is not required by law."

He said it was unfair for the park project to be exempt from tree protection rules, while private developers had to comply or face penalities for violations.

Cheung Kong Holdings had to pay $32 million to the Lands Department in July for chopping down or damaging 250 trees at its One Beacon Hill housing project. The developer was also required to submit a bank bond of $2 million and take responsibility for the well-being of 1,400 trees on the site for two years.