bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

The son of Cathay Pacific founder Sydney de Kantzow does not necessarily have to demolish illegal structures at his house in Shek O in order to comply with a Buildings Authority order, a court ruled  yesterday.
Speaking at a judicial review hearing in the Court of First Instance, Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon  said Peter de Kantzow and his wife, Stephanie, had been wrong in thinking that was their only option.
He said a letter from the Building Authority to the couple in 2004 had said they could submit plans of the altered house and they might be accepted if they met current standards.
The de Kantzows had claimed that an order for them to return their village house to how it was in 1950 would mean it would not meet these standards.
The judicial review sought to reverse an Appeal Tribunal decision in 1991 that found in favour of the Building Authority order. The two parties had failed to resolve the matter in the intervening years.
The couple bought the house in 1986. The original two-storey building had already been turned into a three-storey home and extended outwards without approval from the Building Authority. The couple received a demolition order from the authority in 1988.
Barrister Anthony Ismail, representing the de Kantzows, said the authority should grant an exemption to his clients because public policy had changed since 1950 and now was more concerned with public safety and public health.
For example, there was no public drainage system in the 1950s and returning the building back to its original state would mean it did not meet existing standards, such as those concerning the sewerage system.
But the judge said 2004 letter meant they did not necessarily have to knock down the alternations. The Building Authority agreed yesterday they could submit plans covering the altered building. 
Ismail asked that the hearing be adjourned so the de Kantzows could appoint experts to ensure the work met current legislation. 
 The judge adjourned the case to May 16.



Shek O couple win 2nd chance in battle over illegal alterations