Minutes of 964 Meeting of the Town Planning Board held on 20.8 ...

- 48 -
64. After fur<strong>the</strong>r deliberation, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Board</strong> decided not to uphold Representations No.
R1 and R2 for <strong>the</strong> following reasons:
(a) heritage grading was within <strong>the</strong> ambit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Antiquities Advisory <strong>Board</strong>
ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> <strong>Town</strong> <strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Board</strong>. Given <strong>the</strong> planning intention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
“O<strong>the</strong>r Specified Uses (“OU”) annotated “Heritage Site for Creative
Industries and Related Uses” zone was to preserve, restore and adaptive
re-use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> site for creative industries and related uses with <strong>the</strong>
provision <strong>of</strong> public open space, <strong>the</strong> Former Police Married Quarters
buildings would be preserved. Flexibility should be provided for <strong>the</strong>
demolition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Former Junior Police Call (JPC) Building as this would
enhance visual permeability, and allow provision <strong>of</strong> open space and <strong>the</strong>
restoration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rubble wall and a flight <strong>of</strong> steps on <strong>the</strong> lower platform.
Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> building would be retained or not should be determined at
<strong>the</strong> detailed design stage (R1 and R2);
(b) <strong>the</strong> Notes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> OZP stipulated that public open space <strong>of</strong> not less than
1,200m 2 should be provided on <strong>the</strong> site. There would be constraints in
providing <strong>the</strong> suggested provision <strong>of</strong> open space <strong>of</strong> not less than 1,400m 2 ,
particularly in <strong>the</strong> scenario that <strong>the</strong> JPC Building was to be retained. The
wall trees and major trees within <strong>the</strong> site would be preserved. Detailed
landscaping design should be dealt with by <strong>the</strong> proponent at <strong>the</strong> detailed
design stage (R1);
(c) <strong>the</strong> maximum GFA <strong>of</strong> 20,000m 2 permitted was considered to be <strong>of</strong> a
reasonable scale. Given <strong>the</strong> 15,000m 2 GFA <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> existing buildings
(Block A and Block B) on <strong>the</strong> site, and <strong>the</strong> building height restriction <strong>of</strong>
75mPD now imposed under <strong>the</strong> draft Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan OZP
No. S/H3/24, <strong>the</strong> additional 5,000m 2 GFA would not result in any
high-rise building (R1 and R2);
(d) <strong>the</strong> suggested stipulation <strong>of</strong> a maximum permitted GFA <strong>of</strong> 15,800m 2 in
<strong>the</strong> Notes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject “OU” zone, which was <strong>the</strong> GFA <strong>of</strong> Block A,
Block B and <strong>the</strong> JPC Building, would reduce <strong>the</strong> flexibility in terms <strong>of</strong>