After Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp election win, a Town Planning Board case heralds signs of change

The board’s handling of a proposal by the city’s Anglican church to build a high-rise hospital building on a site in Central indicates that public bodies feel more empowered after the district council elections to act in an independent manner

Ian Brownlee

Published: 10:00am, 10 Jan 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

The overwhelming victory by pro-democracy candidates in the recent district council elections is already having an effect – in fact, even before they begin their work in earnest. There seems to be a realisation within parts of the administration that there has been a significant change that cannot be ignored.

In July 2019, I wrote in the Post about the need for all of the administration to listen to the public, not just Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. My reference was the Town Planning Board, which has a statutory obligation to engage with the public and to adopt relevant views.

Up until recently, the board was pressured into taking the government line and ignoring thousands of submissions, including those from district councillors. From July until now, public dissatisfaction with the administration has continued to grow. But a clear mandate for change was given in the district council elections, where the pro-administration incumbents were overwhelmingly thrown out.

On December 6, the Town Planning Board held its first public hearing after the election. It was related to a proposal from the Sheng Kung Hui – the city’s Anglican Church – to build a 25-storey hospital near Bishop’s House, a grade one historic building, and other heritage buildings on its compound facing Lower Albert Road.

The board had imposed a building height restriction of 135m above principal datum on that part of the site and 80m on the upper part of the site facing Upper Albert Road. The 135m “restriction” was not meant to control the hospital development but to allow it to proceed.

The current view (left) and a simulated view (right) from the Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens if a 25-storey private hospital is built at the Bishop’s House compound in Central. Photo: Planning Department

It was illogical and completely against normal planning and conservation guidelines. There were numerous public representations in opposition from a wide range of interest groups, NGOs and individuals.

What was interesting in this case was the little technical information that had been prepared by the Sheng Kung Hui to justify its proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal was supported by the Antiquities Advisory Board and other relevant government departments. Despite the lack of technical justification from the Sheng Kung Hui, the Planning Department did not support any of the adverse representations in their assessment paper.

The loophole that could allow a 25-storey hospital on this historic site

There were no plans prepared for the proposed hospital, apart from one image, no geo-technical information for a slope with likely problems and no traffic impact assessment in an area which was already congested. Reverend Peter Koon Ho-ming, who was presenting the Sheng Kung Hui case, had previously been interviewed by the Post and had stated that the church had been encouraged to build a big hospital by Lam when she was chief secretary.

During the hearing process, it became clear that Lam’s support of the project was the main, or only, reason why the government departments had supported a proposal which was completely inadequately developed, highly risky for the other heritage buildings on the site and inappropriate for the location.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam meets the media before attending an Executive Council meeting at the government headquarters in Tamar, Admiralty, on January 7. Photo: May Tse

The board heard submissions for more than five hours, followed by about two hours of incisive questioning. Members deliberated for a further two hours and decided to reject the administration’s proposal and accept the public submissions to impose an 80m height restriction and other controls on the development.

It was not just the decision that was amazing, but it was the way the hearing was conducted and the apparent interest by the members to engage with the representatives and to genuinely discover the facts and reach a well-reasoned decision.

The irrational proposals for the site from the administration were overthrown by well-argued opposing views considered in an impartial manner. The whole atmosphere was different and participants left feeling that for once a full and fair hearing had been provided, as was required by the law.

Let people recommend themselves for planning board, government urged

Another Town Planning Board hearing two weeks later relating to Sai Kung was conducted in a similar way and citizens submissions accepted.

The district councils, and other advisory committees and public bodies which have citizens as members, now have a similar strong justification as the Town Planning Board to act in an independent manner and accept and implement well-prepared public proposals. These submissions better represent public needs and aspirations than those driven by an administration which is increasingly remote from the real public requirements at a local level.

The next 12 months will be significant as the administration must change at the local level and become relevant and supportive of the new political situation. The newly elected, young, knowledgeable, educated and passionate district councillors will require a new range of skills from our bureaucrats.

Fortunately, this may be easily provided by the civil service, where many members have similar skills and knowledge, but have been restrained by a need to follow the government’s line.

Many of these people, and our public board members, would also have voted against the administration. They are now in a position to be positive influences for the future of Hong Kong, irrespective of what happens at a higher level.

Ian Brownlee is managing director of Masterplan Limited and represented the Government Hill Concern Group, an NGO, at the hearing

Post