TNAG-0978-FCO40-1197-Legislation-for-preservation-of-ancient-buildings-and-monume-1981 — Page 26

G.S. 84

RESTRICTED

- 8 -

XCR (80)205

23

As regards 3) the principle of transferable building rights is not acceptable in the circumstances of Hong Kong as it would result in a building on a separate site that was substantially in excess of the permissible volume. The building volume permissible on any particular site is determined either on the basis of its lease conditions, or'.on restrictions imposed by the statutory outline zoning plan, or on require- ments laid down in the Buildings Ordinance. These various restrictions are imposed on the one hand to avoid excessive building volumes giving rise to under-provision of facilities and services and on the other to ensure adequate standards as to light and air. The Building Authority has never previously agreed to transfer of plot ratio from one site to another and to do so in this case would create a most dangerous precedent which if given wider application would undermine the whole concept of building control and standards. In the case of the Hong Kong Club, the two adjoining sites are small ones and the unused plot ratio from the former if distributed on the latter would confer additional plot ratio on those sites almost equivalent to the maximum at present obtainable under the Buildings Ordinance. Even, therefore, if it were agreed that plot ratio could be transferred, it would not be possible to utilise it to the maximum unless further modifications in Buildings Ordinance standards were granted,

24

Consequently, the various alternative solutions proposed by the Heritage Society and the Conservancy Association are not acceptable under land administration policy, and their financial implications are greater than if the building remaind in the Club's ownership after declaration as a monument, and the Club submitted a claim for compensation.

The Attitude of the Club

25

The Chairman of the Club indicated in writing to the Chairman of the Antiquities Advisory Board in 1978 that the Club would strongly object to its premises being declared a monument, and insisting that Government meet in full the costs of refurbishing and maintaining the building. At that time the Club had not yet decided to redevelop its site. Since the Club's main reason for deciding not to retain the existing building is its inability to meet refurbishment and maintenance costs, it is possible that the Club would accept declaration if Government guaranteed it would meet all these costs in full. However, now that the majority of the Club members have agreed that the site should be redeveloped, declaration as a monument would effectively frustrate their decision, and the Club may therefore wish to oppose declaration as far as possible, and may wish to avail itself of its right under section 4 (3) of the Ordinance to object to declaration by petition to the Governor, if such a declaration were to be made.

RESTRICTED