立法會六題：港鐵公司物業發展 LCQ6: MTR property development

上周的立法會書面問題涉及南港島線，放上來大家參考一下。

FYI:  the Legco question concerning the MTR SIL property development

立法會六題：港鐵公司物業發展

立法會六題：港鐵公司物業發展 ＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊ 　　以下為今日（四月二十五日）在立法會會議上陳茂波議員的提問和運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝樺的答覆︰ 問題： 　　為了支持以鐵路作為香港運輸系統的骨幹，政府在政策上給予香港鐵路有限公司（下稱「港鐵公司」）多項支持，包括將鐵路沿線上蓋的物業發展權批予港鐵公司。但港鐵公司的票價調整機制卻沒有考慮港鐵公司源自物業發展權所帶來的連串收益。就此，政府可否告知本會： （一）兩鐵合併前，地下鐵路公司（下稱「地鐵公司」）取得物業發展權的地產項目為何；地鐵公司就每一項目所支付的地價是多少；將發展權批給地鐵公司時，政府據測算所得給予地鐵公司的資金差額補助是多少；地鐵公司完成發展後所得的實際收入是多少；該收入與測算中政府補助的資金差額相差多少；當中有些地產項目的部分或全部在完成後並沒有出售，而是由地鐵公司持有作出租或經營用途，該部分物業在二○一一年十二月三十一日及之前的十五年各年度為地鐵公司帶來的租金及其他收入是多少；其落成後至各年度年底時的公允價值或估值又分別是多少；並以表列出每一個項目的上述資料； （二）二○○七年地鐵公司與九廣鐵路公司（下稱「九鐵公司」）合併成為港鐵公司時，政府有否把九鐵沿線所有的上蓋物業發展權售予港鐵公司；如否，當年如何處理未有售予港鐵公司的物業發展權；如有，以表列出該等項目的地點、發展內容和規模為何；港鐵公司就每一項目支付的價錢（包括每平方呎樓面地價及地價總金額）為何；就已完成發展的該等項目，港鐵公司所得的實際收入（在扣除上述給予九鐵公司或政府的價錢後）分別是多少；就未發展的項目，每一項目現時的每平方呎估計樓面地價是多少，跟當時港鐵公司支付予九鐵公司或政府的樓面地價相差多少；就發展中但未完全落成的項目，以表列出其已發展與未發展的部分的上述相關資料；及 （三）在兩鐵合併後落實興建的每個鐵路項目的財務安排詳情（包括該項目是透過物業發展收益補助興建所需的資金差額（例如南港島線）或由政府出資興建（例如西港島線））為何；就政府批出物業發展權的項目，政府已向或估計將向港鐵公司收取的地價和已補貼或擬補貼的資金差額分別是多少，並按項目以表列出分項數字？ 答覆： 主席： 　　發展鐵路項目需要大量資本投資，雖然項目有利社會發展，但在財務上一般都是不可行或可行性偏低的。從各地的經驗來看，項目大多需要政府直接負責融資或提供資助，香港也不例外。 　　鐵路加物業發展是政府為發展新鐵路項目提供財務支持的其中一個模式。過去數十年，我們採用這個模式成功拓展了不少鐵路項目，令該些項目迅速推行，以應付市民的交通需求，並且無須與其他公共工程項目競逐資源，是個善用公共資源的安排。這個模式亦令車站、車廠與車站上蓋發展項目之間的工程銜接更為暢順，既可確保鐵路工程如期完成，亦可避免日後需要在鐵路範圍內進行上蓋物業發展工程，影響鐵路的運作。 　　就質詢的三個部分，現答覆如下： （一）在二○○○年，前地鐵有限公司（現稱「香港鐵路有限公司」；下稱「港鐵公司」）上市前，政府全資擁有該公司，亦是公司唯一的股東。政府曾就發展觀塘線、荃灣線、港島線、機場鐵路及將軍澳支線，向該公司授予物業發展權，以鐵路加物業發展融資模式興建相關的鐵路。除了滿足運輸需要，當時政府就這個安排亦有其他重要考慮，包括利用鐵路發展帶動沿線的社區發展和令該公司有能力在市場舉債發展鐵路和物業。由港鐵公司上市後至二○一○年的十年間，港鐵公司未有實施任何以鐵路加物業發展模式的鐵路項目。至於二○一一年以此方式推展的鐵路項目，我將會在問題第（三）部分解釋。 　　由一九七○年間至二○○○年港鐵公司上市前的物業發展項目帶來的出售收益、租金收入及價值，已於前地下鐵路公司二○○○年上市時考慮及結算，並反映在當時的公司市值及上市股價中。這些資料，已經詳列於港鐵公司二○○○年上市時的招股文件內。陳議員要求的資料其實有很多已反映於招股文件內。我們亦已將這些相關部分附載於附件一內，以供參考。 　　在鐵路加物業發展的融資模式下，政府及鐵路公司雙方均分擔風險與效益。港鐵公司獲批物業發展權，雖然獲得政府的財務資助，但須先自行安排融資，以支付鐵路的建築成本、營運期內的營運成本及固定資產維修和更新費用，並在日後為物業發展融資及支付土地補價。由於車站或車廠上蓋的物業發展往往只能在鐵路工程完成後，才能動工興建，估計物業項目需於鐵路項目動工後約十多年才可落成開售。因此，港鐵公司須承擔項目融資、物業市場動盪、營運鐵路責任等的長遠風險，而政府則無須面對這些風險。 （二）港鐵公司與政府為兩鐵合併商議的財務條款，其中包括為收購產業及其他有關商業利益的物業方案。該物業方案當中包括港鐵公司購入六幅當時九廣鐵路公司（下稱「九鐵公司」）物業用地的物業發展權，和九龍南線沿線當時由政府持有的兩幅物業用地。根據兩鐵合併的財務條款，港鐵公司就該八個物業發展用地的發展權向九鐵公司支付了49億1,000萬元。政府當時委任的專業估值師確認這八個物業發展用地的發展權的定價公平和合理。 　　該八幅用地的位置、目前的發展規模、內容，以及港鐵公司向政府支付的地價和平均每平方呎地價等資料載於附件二。八幅用地當中，其中三幅用地，分別是何東樓（即「御龍山」）、烏溪沙站（即「銀湖‧天峰」）以及大圍維修中心（即「名城」）的發展項目雖則仍有單位待售，卻已大致完成銷售；另外三幅用地，分別是車公廟站（即「溱岸8號」）、九龍南線柯士甸站C用地及D用地的發展商正在施工；而其餘兩幅用地，分別是大圍站及天水圍輕鐵天榮站的批地申請則正在進行當中。 　　此外，根據上述物業方案，合併後的港鐵公司取代九鐵公司作為政府的代理人，以發展西鐵沿線物業用地。換言之，西鐵沿線物業用地的物業發展權並沒有售予港鐵公司。在相關安排下，港鐵公司擔任西鐵物業發展項目的代理人，並收取相當於相關西鐵項目總銷售收益的0.75%，作為代理人的費用。 　　合併後港鐵公司的物業發展利潤，均載列於其年報當中。有關資料載於附件三，簡述如下： 二○○八年　　　39.1億元 二○○九年　　　30.3億元 二○一○年　　　32.6億元 二○一一年　　　42.3億元 （三）兩鐵合併後，我們按照與港鐵公司在二○○七年簽訂的《營運協議》，先後進行五個新鐵路項目，包括正動工的西港島線、廣深港高速鐵路（香港段）、南港島線（東段）及觀塘線延線，以及計劃今年年中動工的沙田至中環線。 　　其中，西港島線是以非經常補助金方式資助項目，獲立法會撥款向港鐵公司提供127億元的財務資助，以填補項目的資金差額，當中不涉及以物業發展權形式的財務資助。 　　廣深港高速鐵路（香港段）及沙田至中環線則以服務經營權模式推展，是政府直接向立法會申請在工務計劃項目下撥款興建，亦不涉及向港鐵公司授予物業發展權。 　 　　至於南港島線（東段）及觀塘線延線項目，則以鐵路加物業發展模式推展。經政府委託的獨立顧問詳細評估後，確定南港島線（東段）的建造成本為124億元，而觀塘線延線則為53億元。獨立顧問估算兩個項目在財務上是不可行，需要政府資助的資金差額分別為99億元及33億元。行政會議於二○一一年五月向港鐵公司批出前黃竹坑邨用地及前山谷道邨第一期用地的物業發展權作為這兩個項目的財務資助。 　　我們委聘了一個獨立顧問評定兩項物業發展的發展成本，又另外委聘兩間獨立測量公司協助評估物業價值。根據他們的評估，因成本上漲及落實的規劃參數，即使透過物業發展權資助，港鐵公司也僅可以物業發展的資助填補這兩個項目的資金差額。 　　兩幅用地的物業發展皆需要在二○一五年車站或車廠建成後，才可在上蓋動工，地政總署收到港鐵公司提出批地申請後，才遵照既定程序就港鐵公司須支付的土地補價進行估值。地政總署向港鐵公司批出土地後，會在該署網頁公開有關資料，包括港鐵公司須支付的土地補價。 　　多謝主席。 完 ２０１２年４月２５日（星期三） 香港時間１５時１６分 香港特別行政區政府新聞處(英文版)  Press Release 2012-04-25 標示關鍵字 LCQ6: MTR property development LCQ6: MTR property development ****************************** Following is a question by the Hon Paul Chan Mo-po and a reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Ms Eva Cheng, in the Legislative Council today (April 25): Question: In order to support the adoption of railways as the backbone of Hong Kong's transport system, the Government gives the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) various items of support, including granting to MTRCL the property development rights on top of the stations along the railway. However, MTRCL's Fare Adjustment Mechanism does not take into account the series of MTRCL's benefits arising from property development rights. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: (a) of the real estate projects the property development rights of which were obtained by the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) before the rail merger; in respect of each of the projects, the land premium paid by MTRC; the amount of grant provided to MTRC by the Government based on estimates to bridge the funding gap when it granted the property development rights to MTRC; the actual revenue received by MTRC after completing the development; the difference between such revenue and the funding gap bridged by the government grant which was calculated based on estimates; the respective annual rentals and other revenues for the year ended December 31, 2011 and the 15 years before that year derived by MTRC from the properties in those real estate projects which were not sold but were partly or wholly kept by MTRC for rent or business operation purposes; the respective amounts of the fair value or valuation of these properties from the dates of completion to the end of each of the years; and set out the aforesaid information of each project in table form; (b) when MTRC merged with the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC) to form MTRCL in 2007, whether the Government had sold to MTRCL all property development rights on top of the stations along the Kowloon-Canton Railway; if not, how the property development rights not sold to MTRCL were dealt with in that year; if so, list the locations and the details and scales of development of such projects in table form; of the price (including the land premium per square foot of floor space and the total amount of land premium) paid by MTRCL for each project; the respective actual revenues (after deducting the aforesaid price paid to KCRC or the Government) derived by MTRCL from the completed projects; in each of the undeveloped projects, the difference between the current estimated land premium per square foot of floor space and that paid by MTRCL to KCRC or the Government at that time; set out in table form the aforesaid related information in respect of the developed and undeveloped parts of those projects which are under development but are not fully completed; and (c) of the details (including whether the funding gaps for the projects were subsidised with the returns from property development (e.g. the South Island Line) or the projects were constructed with government funding (e.g. the West Island Line)) of the funding arrangement for each railway project confirmed for construction after the rail merger; of the respective amounts of land premium received or to be received from MTRCL and the funding gap subsidised or to be subsidised in respect of the projects the property development rights of which were granted by the Government, with a breakdown in table form by project? Reply: President, Railway development projects involve substantial capital investment. Despite their benefits conducive to the development of our society, these projects are usually non-viable financially or with low financial viability. Overseas experience shows that most projects require government direct funding or other supports to take forward. Hong Kong is no exception. The Rail-plus-Property development model (R+P model) is one of the approaches adopted by the Government to provide financial support to new railway development projects. In the past decades, this approach has been used to implement a number of railway projects with success. It enables speedy implementation of the projects to meet the transport demand of the public. This arrangement optimises the use of public resources in the absence of competition with other public works projects for resource allocation. It also smoothens the interface between stations, depots and topside developments to ensure timely completion of the railway works while avoiding the need to carry out property development works within the railway areas in future which may affect railway operation. My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows: (a) Before the public listing of the then Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) (currently named as the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL)) in 2000, the Government was the sole shareholder and wholly owned the company. When developing the Kwun Tong Line, Tsuen Wan Line, Island Line, Airport Railway and Tseung Kwan O Extension, the Government granted property development rights to the company to finance the corresponding railways under the R+P model. Not only to satisfy the transport demand, the Government has other crucial consideration in adopting such an arrangement. With the R+P model, the railway development spearheads the growth of local communities along the rail lines. The model also empowers the company to raise funds from the market for the railway and property developments. Since its listing, the MTRCL has not implemented any railway project under the R+P model in the decade ending 2010. Those financed under this model in 2011 are elaborated in part (c) of my reply. The sales proceeds, rental income and property value generated by the property development projects between 1970s and 2000, when the company went public, were considered, settled, and reflected in the market value and share price of the company at that time. The information was published in detail in the Initial Public Offer (IPO) prospectus of the MTRCL in 2000. Most of the information requested by Hon Chan has also been included in the IPO prospectus. We also attached the relevant pages of the prospectus at Annex 1 for reference. Under the R+P model, the Government and the railway company share the risks and benefits. In spite of the government funding via the grant of property development rights, the MTRCL has to arrange on its own the necessary funding beforehand to settle the construction costs of the railways, the operation expense and fixed asset replacement costs during the operation period, and later to pay the expenses on property development and land premium. As property developments above stations or depots cannot start until the completion of the railway projects, it is estimated that such developments can only be completed for sale about ten odd years after the commencement of railway construction. As a result, the MTRCL has to bear long-term risks in financing the railway projects, fluctuations in the property market as well as the operation responsibilities of the railways while the Government is spared. (b) The financial terms negotiated between the MTRCL and the Government for the rail merger include, inter alia, the property package for acquisition of property and other commercial interests. The property package covers the purchase from the MTRCL the property development rights in respect of six property sites held by the then Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC), plus two property sites along Kowloon Southern Link held by Government at that time. According to the financial terms of the rail merger, the MTRCL paid the KCRC $4.91 billion for the development rights over these eight sites. The professional property valuation consultant commissioned by the Government at that time had confirmed that the pricing of the development rights over these eight property development sites was fair and reasonable. The information of these eight sites including their location, current development scope, content, land premia paid by MTRCL to the Government as well as land premium per square foot are set out in Annex 2. Out of the eight property sites, flat sales of three developments comprising Ho Tung Lau (i.e. The Palazzo), Wu Kai Sha Station (i.e. Lake Silver) and Tai Wai Maintenance Centre (i.e. Festival City) are almost completed with some flats remain unsold. Construction works are being carried out by respective developers on another three sites comprising Che Kung Temple Station (i.e. The Riverpark), and Site C and Site D of Kowloon Southern Link's Austin Station. Land grant applications for the remaining two sites, i.e. Tai Wai Station and Tin Shui Wai Light Rail Tin Wing Stop, are underway. In addition, under the above-mentioned property package, the MTRCL has replaced the KCRC as the agent of the Government after the merger for developing the property sites along the West Rail Line. In other words, the property development rights for the sites concerned have not been sold to the MTRCL. Under the relevant arrangements, the MTRCL only acts as the agent of West Rail property development projects and receives an agent's fee equivalent to 0.75% of the gross return on sales from these projects. The post-merger property development profits of the MTRCL are presented in its annual reports. Relevant information is detailed in Annex 3 and briefly set out as follows: Year 2008 $3.91 billion Year 2009 $3.03 billion Year 2010 $3.26 billion Year 2011 $4.23 billion (c) Since the merger, we have implemented five new railway projects under the Operating Agreement signed with the MTRCL in 2007. They are the West Island Line (WIL); Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Hong Kong Section) (XRL); South Island Line (East) (SIL(E)) and Kwun Tong Line Extension (KTE) which are under construction; and the Shatin to Central Link (SCL) of which the construction is scheduled to commence in mid-2012. Among these projects, the WIL is funded by a capital grant. The Legislative Council (LegCo) has approved a provision of $12.7 billion for the MTRCL to bridge the funding gap. Financial support by means of granting property development rights is not involved. Both the XRL and the SCL are implemented under the concession approach. The Government seeks funding for the construction of both projects directly from the LegCo under the appropriate public works programmes. Thus, the grant of property development rights to the MTRCL is not involved in these projects either. The SIL(E) and the KTE are implemented under the R+P model. After a detailed assessment conducted by an independent consultant commissioned by the Government, it confirmed that the capital cost of the SIL(E) is $12.4 billion while that of the KTE is $5.3 billion. The independent consultant considered that both projects were financially non-viable, and that funding support from the Government was required to bridge the funding gaps of $9.9 billion and $3.3 billion respectively. In May 2011, the Executive Council approved granting to the MTRCL the property development rights for the ex-Wong Chuk Hang Estate site and ex-Valley Road Estate Phase 1 site as the funding support for developing the two railway projects. We have commissioned an independent consultant to assess the development costs of the two property developments, and engaged another two independent surveying companies to help assess their property values. Based on their assessments, the funding assistance to be offered by the property developments may barely bridge the estimated funding gap in the light of the increases in development costs and implementation of the latest planning parameters. The topside property developments of the two sites will not be able to commence until the stations and depot concerned have completed in 2015. The Lands Department (LD) will assess the land premium payable by the MTRCL according to established procedures only after it has received the company's application for land grant. After granting the land to the MTRCL, the LD will publish the relevant information, including the land premium payable by the company, on its website. Thank you. Ends/Wednesday, April 25, 2012 Issued at HKT 15:09

黃竹坑私房菜美食

又發現一家黃竹坑工廈內的私房菜館，而且還有cooking class：

壹週刊  B112-115  |   hotpot  |   常餐以外	2012-03-22 標示關鍵字
估你唔到工廠區【與星級大廚開私房派對】
香港的藝術被迫躲在工業大廈內。石硤尾的賽馬會創意藝術中心、火炭藝術村都由舊工廠改建。飲食業亦如是。工業區隱藏不少實力小店，拿會所、工場牌照經營，不能打正旗號，才不致被租金扼殺創意，沒有濃厚商業味，更多了一份獨特個性。最近，連名廚名店都來分一杯羮。以為在工業區只可到飯堂吃碟頭飯或者AB常餐？在工廠區，可能性比尖沙咀銅鑼灣其實還要多。 香港的名廚鍾意開私房菜，可自由發揮，如徐蒝、Jacky Yu及Ricky Cheung，梁偉灝（Eddy）亦步他們的後塵，在黃竹坑開設Chef Studio。他曾在君悅、半島、麗嘉等多間五星級酒店工作，亦是The Mira的Yamm前總廚，屬香港國際廚師團隊員、廚藝比賽評審委員及考評官等等，作為第一代私房菜Poison Ivy始創人，今次算是重操故業。Eddy稱：「以前做行政總廚，根本沒機會煮，怎似現在由我一手一腳落場，自行做採購，鍾意煮咩都得，客人真的吃到我的手勢？我不會稱這裡為私房菜館，反而更像一個俾朋友聚會的地方，主打做cooking party，下午教學生煮菜，晚上學生再親自煮俾朋友食。這裡又可以教開蠔或做配酒晚宴，最緊要可以同客人有互動，咁先至好玩。工業大廈地方大，玩法多變，私房菜兼做cooking class，這些在一般餐廳根本做不到。」 湊夠八人便可上cooking party的堂，由Eddy親自示範，學員可以走入廚房試煮，Eddy教授不少煮食貼士，實用又有趣。這裡的廚具及設備足以媲美酒店，全都是Eddy的新「玩具」，如慢煮機、抽真空機、煙熏槍及雪糕機等，投資超過二百萬，令菜式更富新意。以往Eddy愛做fine dining菜式，這裡則返璞歸真，味道賣相亦較簡單直接，不賣弄花巧。食材同樣是靚貨，原隻36個月西班牙風乾火腿、北海道刺身級帶子，更有自家種的有機蔬菜，毫不吝嗇。怕工業大廈水源不乾淨，細心地用上紫外光濾水器消毒殺菌。冇咁多人包場玩cooking party，可以與其他人一起參加open cooking class，但很快爆滿。簡單一點可試tasting menu，$550起五道菜，以Eddy這級數的名廚，實在唔算貴。不設walk-in，訂位、查詢要經facebook進行，概念夠晒新穎。 Chef Studio 地址：香港仔黃竹坑道40號貴寶工業大廈5樓B室電話：3104 4664電郵：chefstudiohk@gmail.comFacebook：http://www.facebook.com/chefstudiohk消費：包場cooking party $15,000，已包五道菜餐單材料，最多容納22人。Tasting Menu預訂至少 6位以上，每位$550起，要一星期前預訂。泊車：業興街$12/小時 U magazine  F014  |   NEW RESTAURANT 2012-03-23 標示關鍵字 工廈大廚私房菜 第一代西餐私房菜搞手兼廚師 Eddy，11 年前創辦 Poison Ivy，獲譽無數，後被羅致於中環麗嘉、MIRA、港島東 The East、帝京等酒店任大廚，還是情有獨鍾搞自己的 workshop 加私房菜館，剛剛落戶黃竹坑工廈。 工作室是開放式廚房，有 1,800 呎，可容納 22 人，吧枱位可坐 8 人；除了基本爐具有齊，連脫水機、麵包機、慢煮水爐、雪糕機等亦備用。現在 Eddy 會在星期二及六日間開班，其他日子接客人 order 做私房菜。Eddy 選用的都是信心食材，包括北海道的帶子、西班牙伊比利亞火腿、法國 Rougié 鴨肝、挪威三文魚、美加澳牛扒、澳洲羊肉及和牛、本地鮮海蝦等。他拿手的菜式，多以真空低溫烹調法 ，最愛煮牛面頰和小肋排、三文魚、溫泉蛋等，充分表現不同溫度煮理食材後的心血結晶如何細膩；其他的菜式如煎鴨肝、帶子、海蝦及羊扒、自家配方鮮焗意大利麵包等，也見證了廚師的功架。 Eddy 在外間闖了一個圈，最後還是回到可以跟客人互動的私房菜教學工作室。 煎北海道帶子、三文魚籽配意大利飯暖前菜，鮮甜的帶子煎得帶溏心，好技巧！意大利飯以雞湯及白酒煮成，加入打成粉狀的牛肝菌乾，香味滲入心脾。 煎法國鴨肝配肉汁蒜香炒鮮菌在煎之前一小時切好解凍，加簡單調味，再上一層粟米粉 polenta 煎焗即成。 油封三文魚配忌廉煮大蒜荷蘭汁煮熱鵝油至接近攝氏 100 度再放暖至 53 度，放入三文魚浸 20 分鐘，魚肉嫩得，幾乎不用咀嚼。 西洋菜 Cappuccino 分別以蝦頭膏及殼熬的湯和香味蔬菜湯合成，煮好西洋菜、加入忌廉後打好，再額外加奶泡做成泡沫咖啡般的菜湯。 01 1,800 呎加樓底高，加上座位布置不侷促，包場開 party 一流。 02 室外小陽台種了不少供烹調用的香草，也有一些菜蔬，油油綠意漫滲。 Chef Studio•地址：香港黃竹坑道 40 號貴寶工業大廈 5B•電話：3104 4664•營業時間：只做晚市，星期一至六 7pm-11pm，日間及星期日隨客人活動需要開放•收費：$550╱位，5 道菜，設加一，2 位起•Facebook： www.facebook.com/chefstudiohk•交通：經黃竹坑區 70、71、72 巴士•平均消費：$600 起•備註：1. Cooking party $15,000 起；2. 客人自㩗酒類，不收開瓶費。私房菜須於 7 - 10 日前訂位，最好以 Facebook 聯絡。 text︱梁愛茵 photo︱Joey Chan edit︱Winnie art︱kenji

黃竹坑石刻擬建觀景橋

不知是此事尚在早期策劃階段，還是部門完全無視區議會，我們對此計劃一無所知。聖保羅小學搬至石刻附近的南風道／南風徑後，當地的交通問題頗嚴重，如想在那裡發展旅遊業而不評估交通影響，恐怕會加重當地交通負擔。

星島日報  A10  |   港聞	2012-03-20 標示關鍵字
港石刻遺址研建「旁道」
本港現存九個石刻遺址，早年已被列作法定古迹，約有三千年的歷史。古諮會委託中大建築系展開研究後，建議在東龍洲、蒲台島、長洲、黃竹坑等石刻地點，興建一些「旁道」，讓遊人能夠站在合適的距離欣賞，又不會破壞石刻上的雕刻及文字。 考慮興建木橋或觀景台 本港僅存的石刻遺址主要位處海邊，容易面對侵蝕問題。協助古諮會研究保護方案的中大建築系，在諮詢專家小組報告和康文署意見後，認為可視乎石刻坐落的環境，以三個不向方式進行保護。針對一些大量遊人可以前往的一些石刻遺址，顧問建議建造一些有欄杆的「旁道」，讓遊行能夠以一個合理的距離觀賞石刻上的雕刻及文字，同時避免遭人任意破壞。 顧問認為，位於東龍洲、蒲台島、長洲、黃竹坑、大浪灣和龍蝦灣（見圖）的石刻遺址，均可考慮興建木橋或觀景台，以作保護。不過，顧問認為龍蝦灣的石刻遺址不應發展為受歡迎的旅遊景點，以減少對石刻的破壞。 至於在大廟灣的石刻，顧問指是唯一仍可閱讀的石刻，最有機會遭到損毀，但受環境限制，並不能延長現有路徑或建造另一條新路，認為應在遺址前建造一些欄杆，作為人工障礙物，以防止破壞行為。顧問認為，滘西洲的石刻亦不應發展為旅遊景點，並因應專家小組的意見，建議只在遺址設置一些資訊板。記者 歐志軍

香港經濟日報  A17  |   採訪手記  |   By 杜正之	2012-03-20 標示關鍵字
觀古石刻 倡拆玻璃建走道
香港有9個古石刻地點，分布於東龍洲、蒲台島、長洲、黃竹坑、大浪灣、龍蝦灣、石壁、滘西洲、西貢大廟灣，但遊客都會覺得石刻被保護裝置那些反光玻璃罩影響觀賞。 　　港大建築學院社區項目工作坊（簡稱工作坊）受古物諮詢委員會委託，為各石刻遺址設計新的保護裝置和遊客設施。工作坊提出了既保護又可欣賞的方法，就是拆走保護罩，建造一道觀景走道，讓遊人站在走道上欣賞，有關建議會在本周四古諮會會議上討論。 港大設計 周四討論 　　專家定出三項設計原則，包括石刻要與遊人保持一定距離、設保護屏障，和豎立資訊板。例如西貢東龍洲石刻是香港最早有文獻記載，也是暫時所知最大的石刻，高約1.8米，長約2.4米，現時有玻璃罩保護。工作坊建議拆走玻璃罩，建築一條觀景走道，遊客可坐下細心欣賞，估計成本要87萬元。 　　另外，港島黃竹坑石刻位於一條小溪之上，專家建議建築一條觀景橋，從小溪上的高處觀看石刻，頗具特色。