LC Paper No. CB(1)778/16-17(02) Subcommittee on Antiquities and Monuments (Declaration of Proposed Monument)(Hung Lau) Notice Members’ request for information made at the meeting of 31 March 2017 (1) Relevant documents relating to the assessment of Hung Lau and classification of the building as a Grade 1 historic building by the Antiquities Advisory Board (“AAB”) in 1981, and AAB’s subsequent reviews on the grading The heritage value of Hung Lau was considered by the Antiquities Advisory Board (“AAB”) in 1981, 1985, 1995, 2009 and 2011. Since September 2005, AAB has opened up its regular meetings and make available the discussion papers and minutes of the open meetings on its website. As the discussion papers and the minutes of AAB meetings prior to the opening up of meeting (i.e. September 2005) are restricted internal documents, a summary of the relevant meetings is provided below. 2. The grading system for historic buildings has been adopted by AAB since 1980: Grade 1 buildings are those of outstanding merit; Grade 2 buildings are those of special merit; and Grade 3 buildings are those of some merit. Hung Lau was then included in the list of buildings of Chinese style, and was tentatively given a Grade 2 status. 3. At the 22nd AAB meeting of 13 January 1981, it was pointed out that architecturally, Hung Lau was in Western style, and that it should be accorded a Grade 1 status. At the 23rd AAB meeting of 31 March 1981, the AAB considered whether to recommend the Antiquities Authority to declare Hung Lau as monument under section 3(1) of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. Members were not in favour of declaring Hung Lau as monument, given direct association between Hung Lau and Dr. Sun Yat-sen could not be established. 1 4. At the 43rd AAB meeting of 30 April 1985, AAB reviewed the position of Grade 1 historic buildings and maintained Hung Lau as a Grade 1 historic building. AAB did not recommend declaring Hung Lau as monument. 5. At the 85th AAB meeting of 28 February 1995, AAB reviewed the grading previously accorded to Hung Lau. The analysis on the heritage value of Hung Lau at the time was broadly the same as what has been set out at Annex B of the latest Legislative Council Brief (Ref.: DEVB/CHO/1B/CR/14/39). This includes the difficulties to ascertain the date of construction of Hung Lau, and the lack of evidence to support the building having direct relation with the revolutionary activities led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, etc. Members noted that the building carried some characteristics of the architecture in the 1920s and 1930s, and that the location and configuration of the present Hung Lau were different from those shown on the survey plan of 1900-1905. Members expressed doubts in the common belief that the present building of Hung Lau per se (vis-à-vis the Castle Peak Farm site as a whole), probably built in the 1920s at the earliest, had direct relationship with the revolutionary activities. Eventually, Members did not adjust the previous grading of Hung Lau accorded by AAB. 6. Since 2005, the following six criteria have been used to assess the heritage value of historic buildings: historical interest, architectural merit, group value, social value and local interest, authenticity, and rarity. The previous grading of Hung Lau was reviewed by AAB as part of the recent grading assessment of 1 444 historic buildings based on the updated assessment criteria. All available materials retrieved from extensive research, as well as views and additional information received during public consultation, had been thoroughly studied. At the 141st AAB meeting of 18 December 2009, AAB confirmed to retain the Grade 1 status of Hung Lau, taking into account the assessment results of the independent Historic Buildings Assessment Panel, the appraisal report on the heritage value of Hung Lau based on the six assessment criteria, and collective memory as one of the important factors for consideration of the grading. In line with established practice, the appraisal report has been uploaded to AAB’s website. 2 7. At the 154th AAB meeting of 15 June 2011, AAB deliberated on the proposal to declare Hung Lau as monument in response to a Member’s request. As it was uncertain whether Hung Lau was built before 1911, thus its relevance to the 1911 Revolution, AAB agreed at the time that Hung Lau would not be considered for declaration as monument for the time being unless there was new information to support the direct relationship between Hung Lau and the revolutionary activities. 8. Please refer to Annex B of the Legislative Council Brief (Ref.: DEVB/CHO/1B/CR/14/39) for the appraisal report on the heritage value of Hung Lau against the latest criteria (i.e. the six assessment criteria mentioned in paragraph 6 above). The discussion paper and minutes of the 141st AAB meeting of 18 December 2009 in relation to Hung Lau is at Annex I and the minutes of the 154th AAB meeting of 15 June 2011 relating to Hung Lau is at Annex II. (2) Independent assessment on Hung Lau 9. Under the prevailing grading system, AAB, having regard to the assessments of the heritage value of individual historic buildings by the independent Historic Buildings Assessment Panel and the views and additional information received from members of the public and the owners of the buildings concerned during public consultation, has accorded Grade 1, Grade 2 and Grade 3 status (or nil grade) to individual historic buildings. 10. The independent Historic Buildings Assessment Panel has been formed since March 2005 to undertake in-depth evaluation of the heritage value of historic buildings under the grading assessment. The Panel comprises historians as well as members of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institute of Planners and the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. The grading system is administrative in nature which provides an objective basis for determining the heritage value, and hence the preservation need, of historic buildings in Hong Kong. 3 11. When AAB confirmed to maintain the Grade 1 status of Hung Lau in December 2009, it had duly considered the assessment results of the independent Historic Buildings Assessment Panel and the views and additional information received during public consultation. As such, a separate independent assessment on the grading of Hung Lau is considered not necessary. Development Bureau April 2017 4 For discussion BOARD PAPER on 18 December 2009 AAB/32/2009-10 MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE ANTIQUITIES ADVISORY BOARD ASSESSMENT OF 1,444 HISTORIC BUILDINGS FINALISATION OF THE GRADINGS OF PROPOSED GRADED BUILDINGS PURPOSE This paper requests Members to consider endorsing the grading of the proposed graded buildings for which no adverse comments have been received. BACKGROUND 2. At the 140th Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) Meeting held on 4 December 2009, AAB endorsed a three-step way forward as proposed in Board Paper AAB/29/2009-10 to finalise the gradings of the 1,444 historic buildings. Members agreed to the first step of action suggested in the said AAB paper, i.e. to endorse the proposed gradings of buildings for which no adverse comments have been received in the priority order of Grade 1, 2, 3 and nil grading. There are 777 proposed graded items to be dealt with under Step 1. A list of all proposed graded items for which no adverse comments have been received is attached at Annex for Members’ consideration. 3. Government is committed to considering each and every Grade 1 building as put up by AAB for possible monument declaration. In this connection, the according of Grade 1 status has to be meticulously assessed and rigorously justified. It is therefore suggested that the Grade 1 status of items which Members have never paid a visit to before should be confirmed with the benefit of a site visit. However, it should be noticed that prior consent from the owners of buildings not under government ownership has to be obtained before Members can enter into the buildings for inspection. If owners refuse to give their consent for access, site visits can only be arranged for inspection of the exterior of the buildings concerned. 2 4. Given the large number of buildings involved, Members may require several sessions of deliberations in considering the proposed grading. Members will be invited to consider those proposed gradings which have not yet been endorsed batch by batch in the coming meetings. ADVICE SOUGHT 5. With the information provided in paragraphs 1 to 4 above, Members are advised to consider endorsement of the grading of proposed graded items. Members are also welcome to give views as to whether site visits to some Proposed Grade 1 items would be required, before the endorsement of the grading. Antiquities and Monuments Office Leisure and Cultural Services Department December 2009 Ref: LCS AM 22/3 Page 1 of Annex List of Proposed Graded and No Grade Buildings Where No Adverse Comments Were Received (excluding items already declared as monuments) (as at 15 Dec 2009) Serial No. Number on Name and Address 名稱及地址 District Existing Proposed Ownership Year of Construction / the list Grading grading Restoration announced on announced on 19.03.2009 19.03.2009 1 1 Tsang Tai Uk, Sha Tin, N.T. 新界沙田曾大屋 Sha Tin Grade 1 Grade 1 Private Built 1847–1867 2 9 Bishop's House, No. 1 Lower Albert Road, 香港中環下亞厘畢道1號 C & W Grade 1 Grade 1 Private Built in 1851 Central, H.K. 會督府 3 11 Ching Shu Hin, Nos. 104 & 109 Hang Mei 新界元朗屏山坑尾村104及109號 Yuen Grade 1 Grade 1 Private Built in 1874 Tsuen, Ping Shan, Yuen Long, N.T.