CONFIDENTIAL
- 2
(1) The Heritage Society claim that the proposed new cultural centre is, architecturally, very undistinguished.
This is, of course, essentially a subjective judgement. But the site is of utmost importance, in so prominent a position in one of the world's most scenic harbours: whatever is built there is likely to feature prominently in most standard views of Hong Kong for the forseeable future. It would be lamentable if the opportunity were not taken to ensure that the building did full justice to its setting. We shall be grateful therefore if you could re-assure us that the cultural centre has been designed to the highest architectural standards, by architects of world repute. If this is not the case, would it not be worth delaying the project for a few more months in order to ensure that the building is designed to the highest standards?
(11) In their petition, the Heritage Society refer to the Governor's agreement to the retention of the clock tower "for the time being" When I was talking to Mr Russell, he made it plain that he did not believe that the Government really intended to retain the clock tower: he thought that this agreement was being given now in order to silence the objections, but that within a few years it would be found that the clock tower was unsafe, and it would be demolished (Mr Kussell claimed that the Director of Public Works was already on record as saying that the clock tower would not stand up on its own). It would be re-assuring to know that the Government is acting in good faith in agreeing to retain the clock tower, and that every effort will be made to ensure it is preserved, even if this does involve some extra expense.
(iii) The petitioners claim that present arrangements for involving the general public in the town planning process in Hong Kong are totally inadequate. Certainly, as I understand the position in the two countries, there is nothing like the arrangements that exist in this country to enable full public debate at an early stage of any major new development. Would it not be possible, while rejecting the petition for the retention of the railway station, to give the Heritage Society an undertaking that the present machinery for public participation in the planning process in Hong Kong will be reviewed with the objective of allowing more public discussion at an earlier stage?
5. We are, of course, conscious of the need for a rapid decision in this case. If you could let us have your comments by telegram, we shall do our best to reach a decision at this end so as to allow the minimum delay in proceeding with the plans for the new cultural complex.
Encl
WE Quantrill
CONFIDENTIAL