した)
RESTRICTED
A
RE
Ac
HID 406/1 Date
IND
T.
Day's file
ނ
10 JUL 1992 2. M. Y
QBJ Wespoke.
Chief Cer
exerk
Thank you.
E ente
FROM: CO Hum
DATE: 6 July 1992
مين
CC: Mr Bertram, OED
12614
ala
Mr Ricketts, HKD
FUTURE BRITISH CONSULATE-GENERAL IN HONG KONG
1. We have run into problems with Mr Day (Senior British Trade Commissioner) over our planning for the future Consulate-General building in Hong Kong.
2. Before Mr Day arrived on the scene in Hong Kong we were well embarked on the first stages of this project. A design brief was elaborated on the basis of consultations involving all prospective users of the building, including Mr Day's predecessor and his staff. A number of architects were invited to submit outline proposals. At each stage work was monitored by a Steering Committee under the chairmanship of the AUSS
(Asia). The Steering Committee is now ready to recommend to Ministers the choice of the design submitted by Terry Farrell.
3. Mr Day is not reconciled to this. He has put forward a number of objections to the Farrell design. Some are frankly incoherent or appear to be based upon misunderstandings of the design or its potential. Others can, we believe, be satisfactorily dealt with at the next stage, when the design is further refined to meet our requirements. There has been an exchange of telegrams (attached). I also went over some of the ground with Mr Day when I visited Hong Kong last month.
He was unpersuaded, and we agreed that the next step should be a visit to Hong Kong by an OED architect who would talk Mr Day through the plans in detail.
4. This meeting took place on 3 July. Mr Bertram has been told by his colleague (Mr Whittle) that it was not a success; that Mr Day raised new and fundamental objections, again not clearly expressed; and that matters ended inconclusively. I have had a similar report from Mr Paul of UKREP JLG, whom I had introduced into the meeting as my "mole". Mr Whittle will be reporting in
writing in the course of today.
5. I have discussed the position with Mrs Sutherland and with Mr Bertram (who is away from London today). We are agreed that the project cannot be held up indefinitely by Mr Day, although it is obviously far from satisfactory if he, as the first occupant of the building, is not convinced that it will fit the bill. We agreed that the next step should be a telegram from myself to Mr Day. This would invite him, pretty tersely, to set out any remaining objections once and for all. But it would also make clear that we are prepared if necessary to go ahead with our recommendation to Ministers, identifying Mr Day as the sole dissenting voice.
RESTRICTED
94)