Advertisement
Living heritage of Hong Kong
Hong KongSociety

Lack of communication between Hong Kong government agencies nearly led to demolition of century-old underground reservoir, report finds

  • Findings of review by Development Bureau show Water Supplies Department did not submit adequate information during heritage impact assessment
  • Antiquities and Monuments Office staff assumed landmark was ordinary water tank not subject to preservation, did not arrange for site visit or ask for more details

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
1
The service reservoir in Bishop Hill features impressive columns and soaring arches. Photo: Winson Wong
Rachel Yeo

Insufficient communication between Hong Kong government departments and a lack of adequate guidelines had led to a wrongful decision to demolish a century-old service reservoir two years ago, according to a review report.

The Development Bureau released on Wednesday its review report on the decision-making process of the Water Supplies Department (WSD) in December 2020 to demolish Shek Kip Mei’s “Bishop Hill” reservoir, which was preserved only after a public outcry.

The reservoir features impressive columns and soaring arches. It was accorded grade one historic status in March last year, the second-highest designation on the scale after monument status.

An aerial view of the reservoir in Bishop Hill, which dates back to 1904. Photo: Martin Chan
An aerial view of the reservoir in Bishop Hill, which dates back to 1904. Photo: Martin Chan

The report, which carried the findings and comments of an independent working group set up by the Permanent Secretary for Development in January last year, said the WSD did not submit adequate information about the reservoir to the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) during a heritage impact assessment, as there was a lack of specific guidelines on what details were needed to assess the site’s heritage value.

Advertisement

“The working group also notes that while the information submitted by WSD could not show many architectural features inside [the reservoir], WSD possessed another working drawing showing … the cross-section of [the reservoir] and its roof arches, which had not been passed to AMO,” the report said.

The report also said both departments could improve communication in light of the incident.

During a heritage impact consultation with the AMO in April 2017, the WSD had used the term “water tank” to describe the reservoir as it had been the department’s tradition to name such facilities as “water tanks”, the report noted.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x