TH Header
Date :	9 May 2007 (Wednesday)
Time :	4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Venue :	Conference Room, Heritage Discovery Centre, Kowloon Park, Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon.

Agenda

1. Confirmation of Minutes of 128th Meeting held on 6 March 2006
   (Board Paper AAB/1/2007-08)
2. Matters Arising and Progress Report
   (Board Paper AAB/15/2007-08)
   • Annex A
   • Annex B
   • Annex C
   • Annex D
   • Annex E
   • Annex F
   • Annex G
3. Grading of Queen's Pier, Central, Hong Kong
   (Board Paper AAB/16/2007-08)
   • Annex A
     • A survey report of Historical Buildings and Structures within the Project Area of the Wan Chai Development Phase II
     • A survey report of Historical Buildings and Structures within the Project Area of the Central Reclamation Phase III
   • Annex B
   • Annex C
   • Annex D
   • Annex E
   • Annex F
4. Any Other Business

Present:

Mr Edward Ho, SBS, JP (Chairman)
The Hon Bernard Charnwut Chan, GBS, JP
Prof Leslie Chen Hung-chi
Mrs Mariana Cheng Cho Chi-on, BBS, JP
Mr David Cheung Ching-leung
Mr Raymond Cheung Man-to
Ms Susanna Chiu Lai-kuen
Mr Patrick Fung Pak-tung, SC
Mr James Hong Shu-kin
Mr Philip Kan Siu-lun
Mr Billy Lam Chung-lun, SBS, JP
Mr Andrew Lam Siu-lo
Prof Lau Chi-pang
The Hon Patrick Lau Sau-shing, SBS, JP
Mr Laurence Li Lu-jen
Prof Bernard Lim Wan-fung
Mr Robert Ng Yat-cheung
Mr Almon Poon Chin-hung, JP
Prof Simon Shen Xu-hui
Ms Miranda Szeto Siu-ching
Dr Linda Tsui Yee-wan
Ir Dr Greg Wong Chak-yan, JP
Mr Bryan Wong Kim-yeung
Mr Yeung Yiu-chung, BBS, JP
Ms Lisa Yip Sau-wah
Miss Vivian Yu Yuk-ying
Ms Heidi Kwok (Secretary)
    Senior Executive Officer (Antiquities and Monuments)
    Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Absent with Apologies:

Mr Kwong Hoi-ying
Dr Ng Cho-nam, BBS

In Attendance:

Home Affairs Bureau

Ms Esther Leung
Deputy Secretary (3)

Miss Polly Kwok
Principal Assistant Secretary (Culture)2

Ms Elsa Wong
Chief Executive Officer (Heritage)

Leisure and Cultural Services Department

Mr Chung Ling-hoi
Deputy Director (Culture)

Dr Louis Ng
Assistant Director (Heritage and Museums)

Ms Esa Leung
Executive Secretary (Antiquities and Monuments)

Ms Cissy Ho
Curator (Historical Buildings)

Mr Kevin Sun
Curator (Archaeology)

Miss Addy Wong
Senior Marketing Coordinator (Heritage and Museums)

Ms Yvonne Chan
Executive Officer I (Antiquities and Monuments)

Planning Department

Mr Anthony Kwan
Assistant Director/Metro

Architectural Services Department

Mr S L Lam
Senior Property Services Manager/Eastern and Antiquities

Opening RemarksAction

The Chairman started the meeting at 4:05 p.m. He welcomed Members, representatives from departments and bureau, as well as the media and members of the public for attending/observing this open meeting.

Item 1 Confirmation of Minutes of 128th Meeting held on 6 March 2006
(Board Minutes AAB/1/2007-08)

2. The minutes of the 128th meeting held on 6 March 2007 were confirmed without amendment.

Item 2 Matters Arising and Progress Report
(Board Paper AAB/15/2007-08)

Presentation Session

3. Ms Esa Leung briefed Members on the development of the following items in the Progress Report:
   1. Declaration of Chik Kwai Study Hall, Yuen Long;
   2. Declaration of Proposed Monument at 128 Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong;
   3. Former Police Married Quarters Site at Hollywood Road;
   4. Centennial Campus, the University of Hong Kong;
   5. Old Stanley Police Station, Hong Kong; and
   6. The Commissioning of the Ping Shan Tang Clan Gallery cum Heritage Trail Visitors Centre.
4. Members noted the Progress Report.

Item 3 Grading of Queen's Pier, Central, Hong Kong
(Board Paper AAB/16/2007-08)

5. The Chairman referred to the written submissions received from and views expressed by stakeholder/concern groups and individuals at the Public Hearing on Queen's Pier held just before the open meeting. He reminded Members to consider the grading of Queen's Pier on the basis of its heritage value only, while factors such as the technical feasibility of the preservation options, and the future usage of Queen's Pier after preservation, were outside the ambit of the AAB. The assessment should be based on Members' professional expertise, and not be influenced by any Government or outside views.

Presentation Session

6. Ms Esa Leung briefed Members on the grading mechanism, the background, heritage study and assessment on the Queen's Pier, making reference to the Proposed Historical Themes adopted by the Expert Assessment Panel, and the revised Historic Building Grading Form for the Queen's Pier, which were tabled at the meeting.
7. In view of the different interpretations towards the boundary of Queen's Pier, the Chairman suggested that to the grading be conducted on the basis of the historic structure as a whole including the superstructure, the landing steps and timber fenders. He also agreed to Members' suggestion that the Board should grade the to vote on the grading ofQueen's Pier by secret ballot though individual Members could chose to disclose their grading . , Members would also and to go through the main items in the grading form systematically as a checklist to avoid any oversight in the assessment , and be given to give Members an opportunity to express their views.

Discussion Session

8. A summary of the major points made/views expressed by Members were as follows:
   1. Historical Interest
      1. The siting of Queen's Pier away from the harbourfront after the reclamation would not detract from its historical merit as a historical landmark. For instance, the disuse of Mei Ho House as a public housing block and the relocation of Tin Hau Temple from the seacoast would not undermine their historical value. It would be oversimplified to regard Queen's Pier just as the landing place for some past Governors. The turning of Queen's Pier, which symbolised the authority of colonial regime, into a public pier for community use had great historical significance which was embodied in the historic building cluster;
      2. Based on the heritage assessment prepared by AMO at Annex C of the paper, Queen's Pier deserved being rated as a Grade I historic building;
      3. It was interesting to note that the current community movements to preserve Queen's Pier was making the history of the Pier;
      4. We should try to address the new concept of history in the making in the new assessment form;
      5. The Queen's Pier had historical significance as the landing pier for 6 Governors of Hong Kong upon their arrival to Hong Kong where they would proceed to take their oath of office at the City Hall, which symbolised the starting point of colonial and judicial rule. However, in the broader historical context, its significance at a specific time was not as great as the Star Ferry Pier which was frequently used by Hong Kong people. Hence, the Queen's Pier should be assessed as part of a historical cluster including Edinburgh Place, City Hall Complex, old Supreme Court, etc.; and
      6. The Queen's Pier had certain historical significance as the landing place and ceremonial pier for past Governors and the Royal Family, but its significance was not as great as the Star Ferry Pier as the people's pier, and the Victoria Park as the starting point for many mass protests/demonstrations. Moreover, the Queen's Pier was not associated with any significant historical event at national level apart from being a ceremonial pier. At present, many national inauguration ceremonies were also held in the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre;
      7. As technically it was difficult at present to assess the historical significance of history in the making, the concept of history in the making should not be given undue weight in the assessment, which should be based on the Queen's Pier's past history; and
      8. The Governor House had far greater historical significance than the Queen's Pier as a symbol of the British colonial rule given that it straddled over a much longer period of time.
   2. Architectural Merit and Group Value
      1. The design of Queen's Pier was deliberately oriented towards and on the axis of main entrance of City Hall with the dais in between for ceremonial functions. The architectural characteristics of the Queen's Pier was reflected in the integrated planning and design of the historic building complex as a whole extending from the Queen's Pier, Edinburgh Place to the City Hall Complex. The Queen's Pier, together with the City Hall Complex, reflected the typical modernist architectural style of the 1950s and the 1960s;
      2. The historical and architectural merits of Queen's Pier as a ceremonial pier should be assessed on the basis of the heritage cluster as a whole in the context of group value. Its architectural significance would diminish in the absence of the heritage cluster; and
      3. There was reservation on whether the design intention could be assessed as part of its architectural value. Moreover, architectural merit and group value should be assessed separately.
   3. Social Value and Local Interest
      1. The change of Queen's Pier from a government ceremonial Pier in the past into a people's pier for various social activities nowadays, e.g. social gathering, fishing, etc. had enhanced its social value and interest;
      2. The Queen's Pier, which witnessed the historical and social transformation of Hong Kong as seen in movies, photos, etc. recalled the collective memory of many people, had good social value;
      3. The Queen's Pier, together with Edinburgh Place and the activities therein, had great social value and deserved to be preserved as a monument;
      4. The social value of Queen's Pier should be considered from the perspective of its association with a particular community group, e.g. the residents of Central and Western District;
      5. The Queen's Pier was not regarded by many local residents as a part of the Central District as it was quite far away from their residence. Moreover, the poor people watching the rich people boarding deluxe launches at the Pier seemed to show the disparity between the rich and the poor;
      6. In the past, many factory workers also used the Queen's Pier for boat trips organized by their employers as a form of employee benefit. The Pier was important as a symbolic or visual landmark recognized by the community as it witnessed the social and economic development of Hong Kong at the time; and
      7. Being the landing pier for past Governors, the Queen's Pier was important as a symbolic or visual landmark of the British colonial rule and community activity ground after the Star Ferry Incident. However, its social value and function as a public pier was not as great as the Star Ferry Pier, the United Pier and even the Blake Pier, which were frequently used by the general public.
   4. Authenticity
      1. There was no doubt about the authenticity of Queen's Pier as no significant alteration had been undertaken apart from minor repairs and routine maintenance.
   5. Rarity
      1. The demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and Blake Pier would enhance the rarity of the Queen's Pier;
   6. Other Remarks
      1. Some assessment criteria in the Grading Form were of absolute nature such as ‘Historical Interest’ while others were of relative nature such as ‘Rarity’, ‘Group Value’, and ‘Social Value’, which might vary with changes in the environment. Hence, special consideration should be given to these aspects when assessing the Queen's Pier against these criteria.
9. After the above discussion, the Chairman invited Members to complete the Grading Form on Queen's Pier.
10. Questions/points raised by Members before the voting were as follows:
    1. A Member appealed to other Members that they should to raise any point of doubt for discussion/clarification before grading Queen's Pier, saying that he and another Member would declare their stance of rating Queen's Pier a Grade I historic building; and
    2. What action would be taken in the case of a polarized grading result;
11. The Chairman replied that the voting result was decided by the highest votes, and according to past practice, he would cast his vote only when the votes for each option were equal, and that Member absent from the meeting did not have voting right.
12. After counting the votes, the Chairman announced the following voting result and the rating of Queen's Pier as a Grade I historic building:

    TH Header
    Grade I	12 Members
    Grade II	10 Members
    Grade III	3 Members

13. As there was comment that less than half (12 out of 25) of the Members accorded Grade I status to Queen's Pier, the Chairman sought Members' view on whether the voting result should be accepted. Since only 3 Members rated Queen's Pier a Grade III historic building, a Member suggested to take out Grade III and ask Members to vote again between Grade I and Grade II to obtain a majority vote. Other Members were of the view that since it was the current practice of the Board to decide on the grading with the highest votes but not necessarily the majority vote, it would not be necessary or advisable to conduct two rounds of voting, considering that this special voting mechanism was not agreed before the voting result was known and that some Members had already left the meeting. They supported the Chairman's interpretation that the voting result would be decided by the highest scores, noting that this three-tier grading system was not statutory and merely reflected the assessment of the Members and views on the historical value of the Pier.
14. The Chairman then concluded the Board's recommendation to rate Queen's Pier a Grade I historic building. He reiterated for Member's information that Grade I buildings are buildings of outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to preserve if possible.

Item 4 Any Other Business

Queen's Pier

15. Other points/suggestions made by Members concerning the Queen's Pier were summarized as follows:
    1. It would defeat the purpose of preserving Queen's Pier if it was not properly managed/protected afterwards;
    2. The adaptive reuse of the Queen's Pier should be pursued after its preservation;
    3. Whether there was any channel to recommend to Government the in-situ preservation of Queen's Pier, considering its important group value within the heritage complex of City Hall, Edinburgh Place, as recognised by community groups and some Members, and
    4. To follow up on the discussion of Edinburgh Place and City Hall at future AAB meeting to facilitate the current urban design study and Government's overall planning of the area;
16. The Chairman noted the above views/suggestions.

AAB/Committee Meeting Schedule

17. To facilitate the drawing up of meeting schedule, the Chairman reminded Members to send the reply slip on their preferred time slots for attending AAB/committee meetings to the Board Secretariat as soon as possible, if they had not done so.
18. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.

Open Meetings