Members of the Antiquities Advisory Board - the body charged with advising which old sites should be kept as monuments and which are dispensable - say they lack expertise in the field and rely heavily on advice from the government.
The comments came amid controversy over two widely differing reports on Jessville, a 77-year-old mansion that was declared a proposed monument last year only to be downgraded to a Grade Three historical building this year. They also came just months after the board was revamped in an effort to make it more transparent and credible.
Board members said they had not realised the differences between the two reports on Jessville and relied heavily on the professional advice of the Antiquities and Monuments Office in assessing the heritage values of a site.
'Board members are laymen, not experts in the field,' one senior member said. 'We are appointed so that people from different strata are represented. But our judgment is to a great extent influenced by the advice of the Antiquities and Monuments Office.'
Jessville was declared a proposed monument after the owners applied to demolish it but they later agreed to keep it as clubhouse for an adjacent residential development. It is understood that they expected it to be declared a monument.
Its downgrading was announced the same day as another controversial heritage site, the deliberately defaced King Yin Lei mansion in Stubbs Road, was given monument status.
Sources close to the Antiquities and Monuments Office said the two reports submitted to the Legislative Council on Jessville were written by policy bureaus in charge of built heritage - the Home Affairs Bureau in April 2007 and the Development Bureau this year.
