The debate involved a 150-metre scenic strip along Central promenade, given to the PLA on June 29, with the group suggesting that part of the area be classified as “open space” when not in military use, citing earlier pledges by the government.

But on Friday, department district planning officer Kau Kin-hong said: “The area would be a military facility at all times, and the PLA Hong Kong garrison would be the operator managing the area.

“It would be up to the garrison to consider in future whether to open up the military dock when it is not in use, but we know the army takes notice and understands public expectations.”

Concern group member Paul Zimmerman questioned if the government had changed its stance on the matter. “The public expects the opening up of the promenade, and only when military vessels come, it would be closed,” Zimmerman said. “It now turns out that the PLA would be in charge, and the government and the public do not have a say”.

“The Planning Department has made an unfortunate representation here,” he added.

Opened or closed? Debate over public access to waterfront site under PLA

But Kau insisted that his comment on final say resting with the PLA was consistent with what was agreed in 2000. “We know the garrison is considering the relevant details [on whether to open the promenade] and will inform the public in due course. But we do not have the timetable yet,” he added.

He was referring to the Central Outline Zoning Plan, a statutory land use document. It specifies that the Hong Kong garrison of the PLA agreed that year that it would open an area at the dock to the public when not in use.

The board rejected the concern group’s application in the end but urged the government to follow up on the site’s accessibility to ensure it would meet public expectations.

In the meeting, board members repeatedly questioned if the power to decide on site usage belonged to the garrison, and how the local government could ensure public access.

“Are there any constraints on the garrison, regarding granting of access?” board member Wong Woon-chung asked. “If military vessels dock at the pier every day, will the public still be able to use the promenade?”

Protesters and police in tense new stand-off at site of PLA dock

Liu Tik-sang, another member, said: “We haven’t seen the pier being used for military purposes since the closure of the site. Why don’t we open it for public use now?”

The department stressed the dock was a military facility that would only be opened if this did not affect defence matters.

The Security Bureau said it was still building facilities there, subject to tests, pending an official handover to the PLA. It added that exact details of the site’s opening would fall within the scope of the garrison’s defence work concerning its management of military facilities, and would be decided by the garrison.

“The remarks of the Planning Department gave a sense of how little flexibility there is now compared to the agreement made in the past,” said Ng Mee-kam, an urban planning professor at Chinese University. “But the area was already zoned for military use, and little can be done.”

She added that the design of the pier was not ideal as it blocked connectivity along the waterfront.

Ho Man-yiu, a Harbourfront Commission member, said it might be harder for the PLA to grant public access given the political climate in the city.

“When the government came to the task force to explain, we were told that the garrison would be very likely to grant public access although a timetable was not given,” Ho said. “But that was before the political crisis”.

The Post has reached out to the PLA for comment.

PLA dock plan for Central harbourfront faces second judicial review bid