.../3
The first part of this allegation is misleading. The Heri- tage Society's sketch deliberately situates the single storey bus station over the MTR reserve (i.e. the tunnel) because (a) the ground loadings are light and (b) the Society's plan envi- sages a light space-frame roof structure which would span the MTR reserve.
Regarding the second part of the allegation that the services for public utilities have been ignored this is not true. The Society is fully aware that the existing services will have to be bridged or diverted, as already allowed for in the Government's plans. The Society knows, for example, that the existing main water supply passes diagonally across the Government's proposed Museum site and that the PWD proposes to relocate it along the Northern and Western walls of the Museum building.
f) It states that 'the proposal to renovate and adapt the former
railway station building for cultural uses has been considered. Although the building could be converted at considerable cost for limited use, it cannot provide a modern auditorium and other facilities of a high standard.
This is simultaneously a misrepresentation of the Society's pro- posals, and a contradiction of earlier Government statements. Firstly, the Society does not advocate (as the letter implied here) that the station building be used as an auditorium. The Society's sketch plan clearly labels it as an atrium, (that is, a foyer). Secondly, the assertions that renovation and adapta- tion of the building have been considered, and that any conver- sion would mean 'considerable cost', are contrary to statements made by Mr. Derek Jones, the Secretary for the Environment, at a meeting with the Heritage Society on 8 June 1977. He said then that since alternative plans involving conservation of the building had not been considered, no estimate of the cost of preserving the KCR building existed. He also said that cost of preservation was not considered by the Government to be a material factor in the decision to demolish the building, but to be of only minor importance. We ask, therefore, whether
the Government is now saying that:
i) conservation of the building has since been considered; ii) an alternative plan essential for this consideration
has been prepared? and
iii)
a costing for retention and preservation of the 'build- ing has thus been carried out?
.../4