Representation on the Amendments to the

Approved Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H19/12

New Season Global Limited August 2020

Representation on the Amendments to the Approved Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H19/12

Contents

1. Introduction 1 2. The Representor and the Representation Site 1 3. Reasons for the Representation 1 4. The Maryknoll House Site 2 5. The Neighbourhood 4 6. Comments on the Amendments to the Stanley OZP 6 7. Indicative Master Layout Plan 10 8. Visual Impact 12 9. Design Statement 12 10. Proposed Amendments to meet the Representation 17 11. Conclusion 19

Appendix

1. Architectural Drawings 2. Landscape Master Plan and Tree Survey

Consultants CKM Asia Limited Landes Limited LWK & Partners (HK) Limited Studio Milou Masterplan Limited

1

Representation in Relation to the Draft Stanley Outline Zoning Plan Number S/H19/13

Amendments related to Amendment Item A – the proposed “Other

Specified Uses” annotated “Residential Development with Historic Building Preserved” zone

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Representation is submitted on behalf of New Season Global Limited (“the Representor”) in regard to the amendments to the Approved Stanley Outline Zoning Plan (“OZP”) No. S/H19/12 as shown on OZP No. A/H19/13. This submission is supportive in principle (but also proposes minor amendments to) the proposed Amendment Item A and is intended to provide private sector planning inputs to contribute to the good planning, design and development of the Maryknoll House site. It relates to the proposed “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Residential Development with Historic Building Preserved” zone.

1.2 This representation is made under Section 6 of the Town Planning Ordinance. 2 THE REPRESENTOR AND THE REPRESENTATION SITE 2.1 This representation is lodged on behalf of New Season Global Limited (the “Representor”),

who is the owner of the subject site and has an interest in the good planning, adaptive reuse, and future operation of Maryknoll House. The subject site of this representation is Amendment Item A- zoned “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Residential Development with Historic Building Preserved” “OU(RDHBP)” on the OZP and the location is shown in Figure 1.

3 REASONS FOR THE REPRESENTATION 3.1 The Representor would like to support in principle (but also propose minor amendments

to) the amendment item on the draft OZP as listed below:

Item A: “Rezoning of the Maryknoll House site from “Government, Institution or Community” (“G/IC”) to “Other Specified Uses” annotated “Residential Development with Historic Building Preserved” (“OU(RDHBP)”) with stipulation of building height restriction.”

3.2 The Representor would also like to support in principle (but also propose minor amendments to) the proposed Amendment (a) to the Notes of the Plan:-

(a) “Incorporation of a new set of Notes for the “OU(RDHBP)” zone.”

3.3 The Representor would also like to propose amendments to the Explanatory Statement

paragraphs to relating to the “OU(RDHBP)” zone. 3.4 The proposals to meet the representation are outlined in Section 10 of this Representation

Statement.

2

Figure 1: Location Plan of Amendment Item A (extract from the Draft Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. A/H19/13). 4 THE MARYKNOLL HOUSE SITE

Photograph 1: The courtyard entrance showing the two wings of Maryknoll House on either side of the central

part of the building. 4.1 Figure 1, which is an extract from the Draft Stanley Outline Zoning Plan, shows the site located

on the eastern side of Stanley Village Road, and to the north-east of Stanley Market. The application site is located on a small ridge and has an open panoramic view across Stanley Bay and beyond.

4.2 The site consists of a formed platform located at the top of an access road which climbs in a

series of turns up from Stanley Village Road and finally through the adjacent Stanley Knoll residential development to the site, as private a right of way. The formed platform is at 64mPD, about 35m above Carmel Road which is at approximately 30mPD. The boundaries of the lot include areas of steep vegetated slopes which end at the retaining walls down to Carmel Road on the south-west of the site. To the south and east of the site is the Carmel Hill residential development generally at 45mPD and dropping down to Carmel Road. To the south-west and south of the site is a retaining wall followed by a steep vegetated slope. The south-east and south-west boundaries of the site adjoin with the neighbouring Green Belt Zone.

Representation Site Zoned

“OU(RDHBP)”

3

4.3 The house is in a fairly central location on the formed platform, slightly towards the south-eastern boundary. The building has two wings to the rear forming an entrance courtyard with the main building in between (see Photograph 1). There is a garden area on the formed platform in front of the house with panoramic views (see Photographs 2, 3 and 4). The main orientation of the house is to the south.

4.4 Within the site and around the boundary of the site there are some trees, but none of particular

significance.

Photograph 3: The panoramic views from the property.

Photograph 2: The view of the rear of the building and the garden platform. A lot of damage was done to the vegetation in the Typhoon 10 that hit the site in 2017.

4

Photograph 4: The panoramic views from the property. 5 THE NEIGHBOURHOOD 5.1 The other developments which are built in the nearby area are primarily high quality residential

housing developments. The residential developments are generally located in R(C) zones. These residential developments are typically 3 storeys above a carport, or 4 storeys including a carport. The Stanley Knoll development is located to the north and east of the site, while the Carmel Hill development is to the south. These can be seen in Photographs 5 and 6.

5.2 Further to the north of the Stanley Knoll development is the “G/IC” site of the Ma Hang Prison.

The prison is not visible from the application site. There is also a number of smaller “G/IC” sites downhill near Stanley Market. The Stanley Plaza Commercial site is on the opposite side of Carmel Road to the application site, however significantly lower than the application site.

5

Photograph 5: The residential development to the north of the application site. The access to the site is through the private driveway.

Photograph 6: The residential development to the south of the application site.

6

6 COMMENTS ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE STANLEY OZP General Support for the Amendments to the OZP 6.1 The Representor would like to acknowledge that the amendment Item A proposed in the Draft

OZP for the most part relates to the s.12A Application submitted by the Representor. The Representor, while generally supportive, has some additional proposals to amend the Draft Plan which they believe would result in a better utilisation of the site. The reasoning behind these minor changes is outlined in this Section 6 Representation Statement, and the proposals to meet the Representation are outlined in Section 10 of the Representation Statement.

Building Height Restrictions 6.2 The building height restrictions (“BHR”) on the Draft OZP, which relate to the “OU(RDHBP)”

zone, are 64 mPD and 75 mPD. The 75 mPD relates to the existing building height of Maryknoll House, and the Representor feels this is an appropriate maximum height restriction for the site. The 64 mPD restriction is based on the height of the existing main platform level of the Maryknoll House building. The intention of the 64 mPD BHR is to ensure that the main public views to the building are preserved and that any new development does not significantly detract from the visibility of the existing Maryknoll House from publicly accessible locations. Conceptually, the Representor agrees with this principle, but will demonstrate the goals of the BHRs can be achieved while providing the owner more flexibility through a minor adjustment to the boundary between the two BHR. The location of the BHR proposed on the Draft OZP is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Shows the BHR on the Maryknoll House site on an extract from the Draft Stanley Outline Zoning Plan No. A/H19/13.

7

BHR Boundary Needs Slight Relocation to Achieve the Goals of the BHRs While also allowing Appropriate Flexibility

6.3 The extent of the 64mPD BHR is too great and unnecessarily impacts the flexibility required to implement the best adaptive reuse of Maryknoll House. It is possible to move the BHR line as shown in Figure 3 without compromising the key public views of Maryknoll House.

Figure 3: The proposed amended demarcation of the BHR line separating 64 mD and the 75 mPD BHR areas within the site to meet the Representation, protecting the southern façade from obstruction, as well as preserving the public views to the south-western corner of Maryknoll House. 6.4 Figure 3 illustrates how the BHR line should be moved to preserve the south-western corner

of Maryknoll House but to allow new development along the western portion of the building. The existing buildings along the western façade already block portions of the façade (see Figures 4 and 5). The angle of the various public viewpoints mean that the top floor and roofline of the western façade of the building should be undisturbed, as well as the south-western corner of the building. However, a two-storey development along the western façade, set back from the south western corner could achieve the retention of the most significant existing public views while also allowing optimal design flexibility. If development were to be pursued along the western façade it would need to be approved by the TBP in a s16 application and be high quality architecture complementary to Maryknoll House.

6.5 The 75 mPD BHR is suitable for the western portion of the platform. The intention to not

significantly obscure the public view of the western façade of Maryknoll House, and the south-western corner, can be noted in the Explanatory Statement. The TPB can ensure that this intention is satisfied at the s.16 stage, and the BHR can give the architect the maximum design flexibility.

8

Figure 4: Shows the existing buildings along the western façade of Maryknoll House (Extract from MPC Paper No. 1/20 for consideration by the MPC on 15.5.2020, Plan 5, with addition of the circling of the existing buildings).

Figure 5: Shows the existing buildings along the western façade of Maryknoll House (Extract from MPC Paper No. 1/20 for consideration by the MPC on 15.5.2020, Plan 5, with addition of the circling of the existing buildings).

9

Design Flexibility 6.6 While the Section 12A application put forward a potential development concept to the TPB,

this is not the eventual scheme for the re-development. The TPB and government departments made a number of comments on the scheme and in order to take these into consideration in a Section 16 scheme the design will need to be reassessed. The design team are world class heritage architects, and the s12A was indicative of the design intention and direction. However, based on the feedback from the s.12A process and also as further site investigation has taken place during the detailed design process, it is foreseeable that the proposed scheme will need to be amended form that submitted in the Section 12A application.

6.7 The aim of the Representor is to develop a world class adaptive reuse of Maryknoll House. In

order to incorporate previous comments, as well as to reflect on an appropriate design given the changing market situation, design flexibility is paramount to enabling the optimal preservation of Maryknoll House. Unnecessary restrictions on BHR to the west of Maryknoll House may result in a sub-optimal scheme. Included in Section 9 of this Representation Statement is a “Design Statement” from the heritage architect Studio Milou, to explain how the proposals in this Representation would enable flexibility required for them to develop a world class adaptive reuse of Maryknoll House.

Practical Matters Potential Site Constraints from Site Investigations

6.8 As detailed design and further site investigation takes place there is a possibility that the GFA of the new development in the southern portion the 64 mPD zone may need to be reduced to ensure that any site works will not impact the integrity of Maryknoll House. If this is the case, which is currently unknown, then a larger portion of the GFA would need to be accommodated at the main platform level. In order to do this in an appropriate manner it may become essential to develop on both the east and the western sides of the existing house therefore requiring a greater height limit at the western portion of the site. While it is not known that this is the case, it is essential to provide the flexibility to ensure that the GFA can be accommodated in a manner that is appropriate to ensuring the preservation of Maryknoll House, as well as permitting appropriate new development. It would be shortsighted for the redevelopment to require a certain amount of development (due to not being able to fit it into the upper platform) on the lower portion of the site, as this may not be in the best interests of the preservation of Maryknoll House.

Significant Constraints on Location of New GFA 6.9 Due to the requirements to preserve the courtyard and main entrance to Maryknoll House, as

well as ensure the Southern façade of the building is unobstructed - the corresponding 64mPD height restriction on the south of the site (for the new development portion), as well as the geotechnical constraints of the southern portion of the site, there is little room for flexibility in design. Therefore, to ensure that there is sufficient design flexibility it is critical that the eastern and western portions of the site can be developed in an appropriate manner, if required, in the final design. The eastern and western portions of the site are the only areas on the main platform that are appropriate for any new development. However, what is appropriate at these two sides of Maryknoll House can be indicated in the Explanatory Statement and ultimately be determined by the TPB at the s.16 stage. Excessive restrictions on flexibility are unnecessary at this point in the Plan Making Process.

10

Remarks to the Notes 6.10 Remark (1) states:

“Any new development, or demolition of, addition, and/or modification to (except those minor alteration and/or modification works which are ancillary and directly related to the always permitted uses) or redevelopment of the existing historic building requires permission from the Town Planning Board”. This remark should be removed as it impacts the property rights of the site owner. While the intention of the owner is to retain the building and adaptively reuse the site, the building has not been classed as a monument, and no financial compensation has been granted to the owner for the retention of the building. The owner should retain the right to modify or demolish the building unless they are duly compensated for the loss of this property right. This is a point of principle and does not indicate that the owner has any intention of demolishing the building. The corresponding wording should also be removed from the Explanatory Statement.

Explanatory Statement - Public Access to the Site

6.11 The Explanatory Statement paragraph 7.6.5 requires:

“Reasonable Public Access to the Maryknoll House for public appreciation should be provided in the formulation of development proposals(s) at this site”. It is unreasonable to require public access to Maryknoll due to the fact that the access would require passing through the neighbouring private property. The right of way issue is not something that can solely be controlled by the owner. Therefore they cannot guarantee that this requirement can be complied with even with the best intentions. In addition, Maryknoll House has never been accessible to the public. While it would be ideal to enable some controlled public access to the site in its new incarnation, it is legally impossible to guarantee this. This clause should be removed from the Explanatory Statement given the legitimate legal concerns over the ability of the owner to implement it.

7. INDICATIVE MASTER LAYOUT PLAN 7.1 The full set of indicative architectural drawings are included in Appendix 1, a package of

related Landscape Master Plan and Tree Survey Report comparisons to the s.12A scheme are in Appendix 2. These show the details of one potential alternative scheme to that proposed in the s.12A Application. This is not to say that the scheme in Appendix 1 will be the final scheme, it is simply an indicative scheme to illustrate that the design flexibility would allow for alternative layouts which are not possible under the existing BHR restrictions, but would still achieve the intention of the BHRs.

7.2 The indicative Master Layout Plan is shown in Figure 6 and a section through the top platform

is shown in Figure 7. The indicative Landscape Master Plan is shown in Figure 8.

11

Figure 6: An indicative Master Layout Plan showing the potential to develop on the western portion of the site while also retaining the key public views to the façade of the building.

Figure 7: A cross section through the upper platform portion of the site with the existing Maryknoll House building.

12

Figure 8: An indicative Landscape Master Plan. 8. VISUAL IMPACT 8.1 The public views of Maryknoll House are quite limited due to the location of the site and the

topography. The key views have been identified in the S.12A Application. In relation to the Representation, we have focused on 2 viewpoints which illustrate the amendments proposed to meet this Representation would be able to offer the desired design flexibility without compromising the public views to Maryknoll House.

Key Views of Maryknoll House will be Preserved

8.2 Figures 9 to16 illustrate that the southern façade of Maryknoll House would be preserved, as

well as the roof-line, top floor, and southwestern corner of the building. These are the key public views and they would be maintained with the development on the west.

9. DESIGN STATEMENT 9.1 The Maryknoll building, built in 1935, is constructed based on the principals of a Classical

European Architecture. Classical European Architecture, from the Renaissance to the 19th Century, traditionally allows for buildings to expand through addition of new extensions, while keeping the overarching and symbolic characters of the facade. This long-held tradition in many cities worldwide has been ongoing for centuries. Most cities consist of layers of existing structures whose functions change over time, requiring renovations and additions such as new wings, to accommodate changing needs. When managed well, the tradition of re-purposing buildings has ensured the survival of many historic structures that may have fallen into unsustainable states through irrelevance or a lack of resources.

13

9.2 The architecture of Maryknoll is characterized by a main building with a courtyard facade and a garden facade, and a central corridor within the main building going from the east to the west, connecting the wings on both sides. This building structure allows for institution flexibility - for growth and adaptations - while respecting the overall design integrity, without compromising the building's main structure (see Figures 9-16).

9.3 The 4 main principles that was considered when designing for the adaptive reuse and extension

of the Maryknoll building include:

• Extension of the building by creating new wings on the east and west sides of the building.

• Creation of punctual changes in the main facade, without compromising the integrity of the main facade (i.e. addition of entrance, creation of localized bow windows).

• Creation of an additional building around the existing Maryknoll building, and fully integrating it within the garden in the south.

• Creation of a basement with a minimal visual impact on the existing terrain.

9.4 We have since developed different options for the project while maintaining close adherence to these 4 principles, and we will continue, in the subsequent stage, to explore in close collaboration with AMO the best compromise for the existing heritage building.

9.5 Within the boundaries defined by the above-mentioned 4 principles, flexibility should be

permitted to allow the design to evolve for the best possible outcome in terms of reaching a balance between adapting the building to its new purposes while preserving the key architectural elements of Maryknoll House.

Figure 9: An aerial view to better illustrate the new buildings and how they fit in with Maryknoll House, as public

views are at an angle where it is difficult to fully see the new buildings

14

Figure 10 and 11: Aerial view of Maryknoll House as it currently is the above image. Below is an indicative

aerial view of a potential scheme.

15

Figure 12 and 13: Are two images from Blakes Pier Maryknoll House. The photo above is the current view of

Maryknoll House, while the below image is showing the view of the indicative potential scheme.

16

Figure 14 and 15: Are two images from Ma Hang Park of Maryknoll House. The photo above is the current view

of Maryknoll House, while the below image is showing the view of the indicative potential scheme.

17

Figure 16: A close up aerial photo of the indicative addition to the western façade of Maryknoll House. 10. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MEET THE REPRESENTATION 10.1 There are a number of amendments proposed to meet the Representation. These are outlined in

detail in this section. Changes to the Outline Zoning Plan 10.2 The proposed zoning is illustrated in Figure 3 which is included on an extract from the OZP.

The “OU(RDHBP)” zone is proposed to remain, however the location of the line delineating the boundary between the 75 mPD BHR and the 64 mPD BHR areas is proposed to be slightly amended to allow development to the west of Maryknoll House.

Changes to the Remarks to the Notes to the OZP, and Explanatory Statement 10.3 Remark (1) states:

“Any new development, or demolition of, addition, and/or modification to (except those minor alteration and/or modification works which are ancillary and directly related to the always permitted uses) or redevelopment of the existing historic building requires permission from the Town Planning Board”. This remark should be removed as it impacts the property rights of the site owner. The corresponding wording should also be removed from the Explanatory Statement.

Changes to the Explanatory Statement Remove the Sentence Regarding Public Access to the Site 10.4 The Explanatory Statement paragraph 7.6.5 requires:

“Reasonable Public Access to the Maryknoll House for public appreciation should be provided in the formulation of development proposals(s) at this site”. This clause should be removed from the Explanatory Statement given the legitimate legal concerns over the ability of the owner to implement it.

18

Insert Sentence Reflecting the Intention Regarding the Preservation of Public Views

10.5 The inclusion of the specific intention regarding the western façade should be incorporated to

make sure that any scheme does not obstruct the significant public views, as demonstrated in paragraph 10.6 below.

The Specific Amendments to the Explanatory Statement 10.6 The Explanatory Statement Paragraphs 7.6.5 and 7.6.6. are revised to meet the Representation

below. The following amended paragraphs indicate the new wording by underlining and the deleted words are strikethrough. “7.6.5 The Maryknoll House site is zoned “OU” annotated “Residential Development

with Historic Building Preserved” which is intended primarily to preserve the historic building of the Maryknoll House (a Grade 1 historic building) in-situ through the preservation-cum-development project. In order to facilitate appropriate planning control over the design and layout of the preservation-cum-development project, planning permission from the Town Planning Board is required for residential and some commercial uses. Development under this zoning is subject to a maximum plot ratio of 0.75, a maximum site coverage of 30% and maximum building heights in terms of mPD as stipulated on the Plan, or the plot ratio, site coverage and height of the existing building, whichever is the greater. The BH restriction is to preserve the key public views of the historic building from the south and southwest and to maintain the character and setting of Stanley. Any application for minor relaxation of BH restriction should not lead to any significant blocking of the public view of the main façades of the Maryknoll House. Any new development, or redevelopment, on the western façade of Maryknoll House should ensure that the public views from key viewpoints to the roof and top floor of the house are not significantly obstructed. In addition, key public views of the south-western corner of Maryknoll House should be preserved during the planning application stage. Reasonable public access to the Maryknoll House for public appreciation should be provided in the formulation of development proposal(s) at this site. Relevant technical assessments on the environmental, waste management, traffic, landscape, water supplies and geotechnical aspects should be submitted by the applicant during the planning application stage.

7.6.6 In order to preserve the Grade 1 Historic Building Maryknoll House, in-situ,

any new development, or demolition of, addition, alteration and/or modification to (except those minor alteration and/or modification works which are ancillary and directly related to the always permitted uses) or redevelopment of the Maryknoll House requires planning permission from the Town Planning Board under section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance. Sshould extensive renovation, addition and / or alteration works be conducted at the Maryknoll House to meet new use(s) and modern requirement(s), a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) should be devised and implemented to properly manage changes of uses and conservation of the Maryknoll House. The CMP should include the historical

19

development of the Maryknoll House, character-defining elements with their respective level of significance, and recommended protective/ monitoring/ mitigation measures for safeguarding the Maryknoll House from the proposed works. Minor relaxation of the stated restrictions may be considered by the Town Planning Board on application under section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance. Each application will be considered on its own merits.

11. CONCLUSION

11.1 The Representor Supports in principle the rezoning of Maryknoll site as proposed by the TPB, but requests that the changes mentioned in this representation be made so as to allow flexibility to obtain the best design possible for consideration of the TPB under the Section 16 application process.

Masterplan Limited

August 2020

Appendix 1 Architectural Drawings { LWK & Partners (HK) Limited }

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

GFA OF NEW PROPOSED BUILDING

GFA OF EXISTING BUILDING

PLOT RATIO NEW PROPOSED BUILDING

PLOT RATIO OF EXISTING BUILDING

MANSION 1 &EXTENSION BLOCK B

GFAN/AEXISTING BUILDING

NEW PROPOSED GFATOTAL

PLOT RATIO

SITE AREA

FOOTPRINT AREA

TOTAL PLOT RATIO

TOTAL FOOTPRINT AREA s.m.

OVERALL SITE COVERAGE %

SITE COVERAGE

405.098 1482.798

2939.26

3344.358

0.437 0.194

635.5651355.766

2794.93

0.37

7645.58

2939.26

0.38

0.75

2293.67

30.00

s.m. s.m.

s.m. s.m.s.m. s.m.

s.m.

s.m.

s.m.

s.m.

1

1NUMBER OF MOTORCYCLE PARKING SPACE

NUMBER OF LOADING/UNLOADING BAY

18NUMBER OF CAR-PARKING SPACE

17.733 %

NUMBER OF STOREY 2 / 3 + 1 3 + 1

BLOCK AN/A

907.029

0.119

302.343s.m.

s.m.s.m.

3 + 1

907.029 1482.798

3.954 % 8.313 %

REMARK: CONCUR WITH DRAFT OZP

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

2/F LAYOUT PLAN

C

O

M

M

O

N

F

A

C

I

L

I

T

I

E

S

M

A

N

S

I

O

N

1

3

S

T

O

R

E

Y

S

+

6

7

.

7

5

BL

OC

K A

3 S

TO

RE

YS

F

L

A

T

R

O

O

F

C

O

M

M

O

N

F

A

C

I

L

I

T

I

E

S

M

A

N

S

I

O

N

1

3

S

T

O

R

E

Y

S

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

1/F LAYOUT PLAN

+

6

7

.

7

5

2

S

T

O

R

E

Y

S

BL

OC

K A

3 S

TO

RE

YS

M

A

I

N

D

R

O

P

O

F

F

C

O

M

M

O

N

F

A

C

I

L

I

T

I

E

S

M

A

N

S

I

O

N

1

3

S

T

O

R

E

Y

S

2

S

T

O

R

E

Y

S

BLOCK B

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

G/F LAYOUT PLAN

+

6

3

.

0

5

+

6

4

.

0

0

+

6

3

.

9

5

+

6

3

.

9

5

+63.20

+63.20

+

6

3

.

2

0

ONE WAY FOR PRIVATE CAR

(GRADIENT 1:8.5)

TWO W

AY

ONE W

AY FO

R PRIV

ATE C

AR

(GRA

DIENT

1:8.5

)

EVA

A

A

RAMP DOWN (1:10)

BL

OC

K A

3 S

TO

RE

YS

B

B

LANDSCAPE ROOF AREA

C

A

R

P

A

R

K

BLOCK B

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

B/F & LG1/F LAYOUT PLAN

+

5

9

.

4

5

+59.70

RAMP DOWN (1:10)

+54.70

E

&

M

E

&

M

P

.

D

.

CA

RP

AR

K

+5

9.4

5

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

LG2/F LAYOUT PLAN

+54.70

+56.20

BLOCK B

BLOCK B

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

LG3/F LAYOUT PLAN

+51.70

EVA

+

5

1

.

7

0

TO B1/F

4

0

L

Block 1

Block 2

5

2

.

0

5

0

.

6

L

Block A

Block D

Block C

Block C

6

0

.

6

6

2

.

6

5

9

.

4

B

l

o

c

k

3

B

l

o

c

k

4

B

l

o

c

k

6

B

l

o

c

k

5

B

l

o

c

k

7

5

2

.

0

MARYKNOLL BUILDING, STANLEY

27 JULY 2020

B1/F LAYOUT PLAN

+48.20

SECTION A

a r c h i t e c t s

SCALE 1:400

27 JULY 2020

MARYKNOLL BUILDING

STANLEY

B.L.B.L.

67.75 mPD

71.40 mPD

63.95 mPD

63.20 mPD

59.70 mPD

51.70 mPD

66.40 mPD

75.0 mPD

UPPER TIERLOWER TIER

EXISTING BUILDINGBLOCK B

LG3/F

LG1/F

G/F

1/F

2/F

B/F

59.45 mPD

56.20 mPD

LG2/F

48.20 mPD

B1/F

STAIRHOOD

B.L.B.L.

SECTION B

a r c h i t e c t s

SCALE 1:400

27 JULY 2020

MARYKNOLL BUILDING

STANLEY

G/F

NEW EXTENSIONEXISTING BUILDING

67.75 mPD

71.40 mPD

63.95 mPD

75.0 mPD

67.75 mPD

71.40 mPD

63.95 mPD

1/F

2/F

EVA

75.0 mPD

67.75 mPD

71.40 mPD

63.95 mPD

G/F

1/F

2/F

BLOCK A

59.45 mPD

B1/F

Appendix 2 Landscape Master Plan and Tree Survey { Landes Limited }

ORIGINAL SCHEME

NEWSCHEME

Rezoning of the Maryknoll House, Stanley

Comparison Table of Treatment to Existing Trees between S.12A scheme and New Scheme

Items: Original Scheme in

S.12A Application

New Scheme Difference

Number of Trees to be

Retained:

73 nos. 73 nos. 0

Number of Trees to be

Felled:

117 nos. 117 nos. 0

Number of Trees to be

Transplanted:

27 nos. 27 nos. 0

Nos. of Compensatory

Trees

132 nos. 136 nos. +4 nos.

ORIGINALSCHEME

NEWSCHEME