4.1
This section presents a cultural heritage
impact assessment of the Project, identifying cultural heritage resources, and
assessing potential direct and indirect impacts caused by proposed works on
these such resources, and recommending mitigation measures where required.
Environmental
Legislation and Standards
Overview
4.2
Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and
relevant to the consideration of Cultural Heritage impacts under this study
include the following:
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO);
·
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM);
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (A&MO);
·
·
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (GCHIA); and
·
Guidelines
for Marine Archaeological Investigation (GMAI).
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.499)
4.3
Schedule 1
Interpretation of the EIAO defines “Sites of Cultural Heritage” as “an
antiquity or monument, whether being a place, building, site or structure or a
relic, as defined in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance and any place,
building, site, or structure or a relic identified by the Antiquities and
Monuments Office (AMO) to be of archaeological, historical or paleontological
significance”.
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
4.4
The criteria and guidelines for evaluating
and assessing impacts are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM
respectively. The criteria for evaluating impact on sites of cultural heritage
include:
·
The general presumption in favour of the
protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage because they
provide an essential, finite and irreplaceable link between the past and the
future and are points of reference and identity for culture and tradition; and
·
Adverse impacts on sites of cultural heritage
shall be kept to an absolute minimum.
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53)
4.5
The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
provides the statutory framework for the preservation of objects of historical,
archaeological and paleontological interest.
4.6
The Ordinance contains the statutory
procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. Under the Ordinance, a monument
means a place, building, site or structure which is declared to be a monument,
historical building, archaeological or paleontological site or structure
because of its historical, archaeological or paleontological significance under
section 3 of the Ordinance.
4.7
Under section 6 and subject to subsection (4)
of the Ordinance, the following acts are prohibited in relation to monuments,
except under permit granted by the Antiquities
Authority.
·
To excavate, carry on building works, plant
or fell trees or deposit earth or refuse on or in a proposed monument or
monument; or
·
To demolish, remove, obstruct, deface or
interfere with a proposed monument or monument
4.8
The discovery of an Antiquity, as defined in
the Ordinance, must be reported to the Antiquities Authority, or a designated
person. The Ordinance also provides that, the ownership of every relic
discovered in
4.9
No archaeological excavation can be carried
out by any person, other than the Authority and the designated person, without
a licence issued by the Authority. A licence will only be issued if the
Authority is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient scientific training or
experience to enable him to carry out the excavation and search satisfactorily,
is able to conduct, or arrange for, a proper scientific study of any
antiquities discovered as a result of the excavation and search, and has
sufficient staff and financial support.
4.10
Chapter 10 of HKPSG covers planning
considerations relevant to conservation. It also details the principles of conservation,
the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historic buildings and
sites of archaeological interest, and addresses the issue of enforcement. The
appendices list the legislation and administrative controls for conservation,
other conservation related measures in
Guidelines for
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
4.11
The GCHIA attached in Appendix C of the EIA
Study Brief No. ESB-193/2008 (ESB) includes the scope and parameters for
baseline study, field evaluation, impact levels and
impact assessment.
Guidelines for
Marine Archaeological Investigation
4.12
The GMAI attached in Appendix B of the ESB
includes the scope and parameters for baseline study, geophysical survey, underwater inspection, impact levels and impact assessment. A baseline review is
requested to compile a comprehensive inventory of marine archaeological
resources which may be impacted. The further diver inspection of seabed, if
required, is based on the establishment of potential of marine archaeology by
the geophysical survey in form of echo sounder, seismic profiler and side scan sonar etc.
Study Area
4.13
The study area covers an
area that stretches 300m from the proposed SCL (HUH-ADM) alignment and boundaries of all works areas under the
Project. The proposed SCL (HUH-ADM)
alignment and study area are shown in Figure nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/001-003.
Terrestrial
Archaeology
4.14
With reference to the ESB and the GCHIA, an archaeological
desktop research has been conducted by a licensed archaeologist to collect
available and relevant information of previous archaeological, historic,
geographic and geological studies within the study areas where excavation works
would be conducted. Information on sites
of archaeological interest recorded in the official site of archaeological
interest list by AMO has also been reviewed to determine areas with archaeological
potential along the alignment and within works areas.
4.15
The baseline terrestrial
archaeological condition has been established through the desktop review and
impact assessment taking into consideration any archaeological resources that
would be adversely affected by the construction works has also been conducted,
in accordance with the GCHIA.
Marine Archaeology
4.16
In accordance with ESB Clause 3.4.6.2(a) and
GMAI, a baseline review has been undertaken by a qualified marine
archaeologist, Sarah Heaver, to identify any possible marine archaeological
potential within dredging works area.
The review has been drawn from desktop literature including:
·
Marine charts records held in the UK
Hydrographic Office;
·
Hong Kong Marine department and National
Maritime Museum Library in
·
Publications on local historical,
architectural, anthropological, archaeological and other cultural studies;
·
Unpublished papers, records, archival and
historical documents held in local libraries and other government departments;
·
Previous Marine Archaeological Investigation
(MAI) studies within
·
Sounding surveys of the
4.17
Based on the findings of literature review,
the marine archaeological potential has been established and impact assessment
has been conducted according to GMAI (Figure no. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/004 - 005).
Built Heritage
4.18
Features which fall within
the scope of built heritage survey include:
·
Pre-1950 structures, which include any built
features (apart from historic or clan graves and historical land use cultural
landscapes features, which are dealt with separately) such as domestic
structures, temples, churches, monasteries and nunneries, wells, schools,
historic walls, bridges and stone tablets;
·
Post 1950 structure deemed to possess
features containing architectural or cultural merit;
·
Pre-World War II (pre-1942) historic graves;
·
Cultural landscape features;
·
Historical land use features, such as historical
tracks and pathways, stone walls and terraces, ponds and other agricultural
features; and
·
AMO’s most recent list of historic buildings.
4.19
In this assessment, the
cultural significances of built heritages have been assessed to set up a
baseline condition for the identification of the potential impact arising from
the proposed construction works as well as the recommendation of the
corresponding mitigation measures. With reference to the Charter for the
Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance of 1999 (The Burra Charter)
issued by the International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS) of UNESCO,
cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or
spiritual value.
4.20
Cultural and historical
landscapes assessed in this baseline study include places associated with a
historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic
values, including:
·
sacred religious sites;
·
battlefields;
·
a setting for buildings or structures of
architectural or archaeological importance;
·
historic field patterns;
·
historic graves, foundation stones, which are
associated with historic figure or act as an important symbolic or visual
landmark of a community;
·
old tracks and ponds; and
·
AMO’s most recent list of historic buildings.
4.21
A desk-top literature
review was conducted. The relevant
information has been analyzed, collected and collated to determine the presence
of historical occupation in the project area and thus assess the potential
existence of cultural heritage within the potential impacted area:
·
Background information (e.g. AMO files,
Public Records Office, map libraries, university and public libraries,
published and unpublished government and non-government documents, cartographic
and pictorial documents) of heritage sites (including declared monuments,
government historic sites, sites of archaeological interest and graded historic
buildings identified by AMO) within and in close proximity to the study area;
·
Areas proposed for construction and operation
activities and potential impacts induced by the Project;
·
Identification of previous recorded cultural
heritage resources within the project boundary which will be supplemented by a
field survey as necessary subject to findings of the desktop review; and
·
AMO’s most recent list of historic buildings
with their existing and respective proposed grading.
4.22
Field surveys have been
conducted with following tasks:
·
Recording of identified built heritage
features;
·
Interviews with local informants, residents
and elders, if necessary. The interviews should aim at gathering information,
such as cultural and historical background of the buildings and structures, as
well as historical events associated with the built heritage features; and
·
Systematic documentation of all recorded
features including:
-
Photographic records of historic
buildings or structures including the exterior where possible;
-
A set of 1:1000 scale maps showing the location and boundary of each historic
building, boundary stone, monument object, historic grave and cultural landscape
(Figure nos.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/007-018);
-
Written descriptions of recorded features of historic buildings, e.g. age of the
building or structure, architectural features, condition of the building or
structure, past and present uses, notes on any modifications, direction faced
and associations with historical or cultural events or individuals; and
-
Written descriptions of recorded features of historic graves or foundation
stones, boundary stones, a copy of the inscription of stone table, and
architectural elements of the graves or stones where possible.
Terrestrial Archaeological Review
4.23
A desktop study has been
conducted to collate available information in order to establish the baseline
conditions and identify the archaeological potential areas within the works
areas. Historical, geological and archaeological information of the study areas
were reviewed, including previous historical, geological and archaeological
studies, aerial photograph, historic maps and geological maps.
Historical Background
Hung
Hom
4.24
Since 1850, the Hung Hom bay in
4.25
The region housed one of the largest
dockyards in Asia, built by the
4.26
As the works areas would be located at
previous reclamation area at Hung Hom (reclaimed at the 1960s), which is now
developed as an urbanised area, terrestrial archaeological potential is not
anticipated.
4.27
A review of historic information indicated that inhabitants have settled
in
4.28
During 18th century,
Chinese garrison (namely in Chinese as 紅香爐汛) was set up in Hong Kong Island in 1820s.
Nonetheless, record of the exact location of garrison was not indicated in
historic studies.
4.29
As one of
the earliest developed areas in Hong Kong Island, Central, Sheung Wan, Sai Wan
and Wan Chai are collectively known as the four rings (四環)
by the locals, Wan Chai was originally known as Ha Wan (下環),
literally meaning "a bottom ring" or "lower circuit".
4.30
By October 1841, the
population of
4.31
A new settlement in
4.32
In pre-British times, Wan
Chai (meaning “small bay” in Cantonese) began as a small Chinese settlement
around the present
4.33
For generations, it was
also known as Ha Wan, or
4.34
This area, known as
4.36
During the early colonial days,
demand for labour attracted those on the fringes of society such as coolies,
rickshaw boys and hawkers to live in Wan Chai.
There were dockyards in
4.37
Due to a sharp population
rise in the 1850’s, demand for land increased. The Government responded by
developing the area around
4.38
The first formal
reclamation was partly carried out in 1851, by the filling of a creek in the
Bonham Strand area. However, there was
strong opposition from affected lessees who claimed marine rights. This, compounded by the destruction of part
of the original praya wall by severe typhoons in 1867 and 1874 delayed matters
further.
4.39
By 1886, a continuous strip
of land (the major break being the section adjacent to the naval and military
areas), averaging 100m wide and 8km long, was formed between
4.40
As a result, the Praya
Reclamation Ordinance was gazetted in 1890. A year later Paul Chater initiated
a band of reclamation, totaling 26 hectares and extending 3km westward from
4.41
During the next thirty
years reclamation continued on Hong Kong Island, the largest schemes are those
at Tai Koo for the dockyard in Causeway Bay (21 hectares which included 13
hectares for the land site formation completed in 1908), Wan Chai (36 hectares,
completed in 1929) and around North Point (nearly completed before World War
II).
4.42
Under Praya Reclamation
Scheme (1921 – 1931), the coastline was extended to Praya East, that is,
present-day
4.43
Industrial and commercial
enterprises were active in Wanchai from the mid 19th century onwards. Godowns
were established and businesses related to shipping such as small dockyards,
timber, coal and metal works were set up. Wanchai was also a major distribution
centre for rattan goods, a precursor of the many rattan shops still found in
the area, especially along Queen’s Road East.
Soya-bean processing works were also set up in the area around
4.44
During the reclamation in 1940 –
1950s,
4.45
To further
provide land for the road network and public facilities, as well as for the
entry/exit of the Cross Harbour Tunnel, another massive reclamation was
conducted by the Government from 1965 to 1972 pulled the coastline out to the
areas around Convention Avenue
and the Wan Chai Pier (refer to Figure no. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/006).
4.46
Recent developments in
Admiralty
4.47
This area is named Admiralty
after there was a naval dock and a naval yard. Golden
4.48
In 1841, Admiralty was chosen to
be a military area by British military, who built Wellington Barracks, Murray
Barracks, Victoria Barracks and Admiralty Dock at this area.
4.49
Wellington Barracks, situated at
the current
4.50
Victoria Barracks and Murray Barracks were
constructed between the 1840s and 1874 and situated within the area bounded by
4.51
The Second Opium War between
4.52
The existing MTR Admiralty Station was built
on the former site of the naval dockyards which was built in 1878 and
demolished in the 1970s. Admiralty is
now developed as one of major commercial areas in
Off-Site
Works Area
4.53
Offsite works area for supporting the
construction of the Project include the IMT casting basin at Shek O
4.54
Shek O is the site of
former settlements, with a
Terrestrial
Archaeological Resources
Hung
Hom
4.55
There is no known site of
archaeological interest in Hung Hom and archaeological potential within the
study area is not anticipated according to the findings of literature review.
4.56
The Kellett Island Site of Archaeological
Interest is located at approximately 70m from the nearest works area (Figure no. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/002). A more detailed description is given in Appendix 4.1.
4.57
According to the historical maps, a fort was
constructed on the
4.58
In 1991, a pottery urn with 2,448 old coins
mainly dated to Sui, Tong and Song dynasties (AD 581-1279) was unearthed from
nearby the club building, indicating that ancient people from Mainland might
have been shortly inhabited or visited the
4.59
The proposed SCL (HUH-ADM) alignment, barging
point and EXH would be located within area reclaimed in the 1960s. It is
anticipated that there would be no terrestrial archaeological potential within
the works areas.
Admiralty
4.60
There is no known site of archaeological
interest in Admiralty and the study area has some archaeological potential
according to the findings of literature review in SIL(E)
Report.
Off-site Works Area
4.61
There is no known site of archaeological
interest within study area and archaeological potential is not anticipated
according to the findings of literature review.
Marine
Archaeological Review
4.62
Available information has been reviewed to
identify any possible existence of sites or objects of cultural heritage within
the dredging works area.
Historical Background
4.63
The study area in
4.64
Apart from the massive
reclamation works conducted in
4.65
Hung Hom Fairway running
through
Previous Sounding
Surveys and Marine Archaeological Studies
4.66
Previous sounding surveys
and marine archaeological studies were conducted within the study area (Figure no. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/004 and Appendix 4.2).
4.67
In 1981, Marine Department
conducted a sounding survey at the
4.68
The Port Works Division of
CEDD has also surveyed the seabed along the Cross-Harbour Tunnel after its
completion (see Drawing 3 of Appendix 4.2).
The survey results did not reveal any significant seabed features.
4.69
Previous MAI studies (see
Drawing 2 of Appendix 4.2)
completed within the study area include:
·
MAI for Wanchai Reclamation
Phase II - section between Convention
Centre and the east side of the Causeway Bay typhoon shelter, completed by SDA Marine Ltd in 2001; and
·
MAI for EIA Study for Wan
Chai Development Phase II – Area at Watson Pier’s to North Point, completed by
SDA Marine Ltd in 2007.
4.70
These MAI studies concluded
that there were no archaeological resources are identified within the
investigation areas.
Marine Archaeological
Resources
4.71
Massive disturbance of
seabed due to the substantial reclamation works in past hundred years,
construction of the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, Hung Hum Fairway and regular
maintenance dredging would have served to damage and redistribute any
archaeological remains, if present.
4.72
In addition, sounding
surveys on the harbour area also revealed that the lack of marine
archaeological potential in
Built Heritage
Review
4.73
Based on List of the
Historic Buildings in Building Assessment prepared (as of 2 September 2011) and
Results
of the Assessment of New Items in addition to 1,444 Historic Buildings, which
are both prepared by AMO, together
with the observations during site visits, built heritage resources within study
area have been identified. Details of the built heritage resources within the
study areas are presented in Appendix 4.1,
with their locations showing in Figure
nos. NEX2231/C/331/ENS/M55/002, 003 and 007 to 018.
. Key resources are highlighted
below:
Declared Monuments
4.74
An existing declared
monument has been identified in the study area (Refer to Appendix 4.1
for details):
i.
Flagstaff
House was built in 1846 for Major General George Charles D'Aguilar and was
formerly known as Headquarters House. It
was designed in a Greek-Revival Style and now is the oldest existing Western
building in
Graded Historical Buildings
4.75
A total of
thirteen existing graded historical
buildings were identified in the study area (including off-site areas) (Refer to
Appendix 4.1
for details), including:
i.
Royal
The Yacht
Club was built in 1939 as the Hong Kong Corinthian Sailing Club, and was
renamed in 1894. Formerly only open to
British, it is now open to both British expatriates and Chinese. The building
is currently in good condition.
ii.
Nos.369
&
This
shophouse in the Wan Chai District was built during the colonial era, and
featured residential units built above shops. This building is currently in
good condition.
iii.
Wan Chai
Police Station (Existing Grade 2, confirmed on 18 Dec 2009) (CW8)
The Wan
Chai Police Station was built in 1932, and serves as the headquarters of the
police of Wan Chai District. The structure is now in good condition.
iv.
Block GG
of the Old Victoria Barracks (Existing Grade 2, confirmed on 18 Dec 2009) (AD3)
Block GG was built in the 1930s as an extension to the main complex of
the Old Victoria Barracks, and is currently under renovation.
v.
Former
Explosives Magazine of the Old Victoria Barracks (Existing Grade 1, confirmed on 4 Feb 2010) (AD4-1,
AD4-2, AD4-3)
The
Former Explosives Magazine of the Old Victoria Barracks comprises three main
buildings (2 magazines and a laboratory).
These buildings were separated by large earth blast bunds for safety
concern. Magazine A
(AD4-2) and the Old Laboratory (AD4-1) were in existence by 1868 while Magazine
B (AD4-3) and the North and South Traverses were added between 1901 and
1925. The former explosive magazine site
will be converted to a place of recreation, sports or culture by the Asia Society
with the existing historic buildings preserved.
vi.
The Main Block of the Old British
Military Hospital was built of red brick during 1903-1907, and commissioned on
1 July 1907, and were used to house members of the British Garrison in Hong
Kong until 1967. It was then used as the
vii.
The Annex
Block of the Old British Military Hospital was built along the Main Block
(AD13), and commissioned in 1907, and used as a house for nursing sisters until
its conversion to its current use as the office of Mother’s Choice.
viii.
Old Victoria Barrack, Montgomery Block (Existing Grade 1, confirmed on
18 Dec 2009) (AD21)
Montgomery
Block of the Old Victoria Barrack, possibly named after British Field Marshall
Bernard Montgomery, was built in the early 1900s, and is currently occupied by
Mother’s Choice.
ix.
Old
Victoria Barracks, Roberts Block (Existing Grade 1, confirmed on 18 Dec 2009) (AD22)
Roberts
Block of the Old Victoria Barracks was built in the early 1900s, and has been
used by the Jockey Club New Life Hostel of the New Life Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Association since 1986.
x.
Old Victoria Barracks, Rawlinson House (Existing Grade 1, confirmed on
18 Dec 2009) (AD26)
Rawlinson House of the Old Victoria Barracks was built in the early
1900s and served as a former residence for British Officers. The building is
now in good condition and is being used as the Marriage Registry.
xi.
Old
Victoria Barracks, Wavell Block (Existing Grade1, confirmed on 18
Dec 2009) (AD27)
Wavell Block was part of the
xii.
Old
Victoria Hospital, Maternity Block (Existing Grade 3, confirmed on 22 Jan 2010)
(AD30)
The Maternity Block of the Old Victoria Hospital Complex was built in
1921 for women and children, as an addition to the main complex. The building
is currently in good condition.
xiii.
Residence
of the Chief Secretary for Administration (Victoria House) (Existing Grade 2,
confirmed on 18 Dec 2009) (AD31)
The Victoria House was built in 1951, and is currently home to the Chief
Secretary for Administration of Hong Kong. The building is located on the Peak
and is currently in good condition.
4.76
Two non-graded built heritages with proposed
grading include (Refer to Appendix 4 .1 for
details):
i.
No.6,
This shophouse in the Wan Chai District was built during the colonial era, and
featured residential units built above shops. The building is currently in good
condition and Grade 3 was proposed for this built heritage.
ii.
The
mansion at
4.77
Apart from the List of the Historic Buildings, this baseline review
also identified a list of 23 non-graded built
heritages and historical landscapes in the study area:
i.
Floating
ii.
Noon Day Gun (CW2)
iii.
iv.
Shophouse,
v.
Shophouse, No. 235 Hennessy Road (CW10)
vi.
Air Raid Shelters of World War II (AD1)
vii.
Fence of the Old Victoria Barracks (AD2)
viii.
Magazine Shelter of the Old Victoria Barracks
(AD7-1, AD7-2)
ix.
Fence of Former Explosives Magazine in Old
Victoria Barracks (AD9)
x.
Bowen Aqueduct (AD10)
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
Old British Military Hospital, Masonry Guard
House (AD19)
xviii.
Old British Military Hospital, Masonry Wall
of Annex Block (AD20)
xix.
Electric Substation,
xx.
Fence and stone wall of Flagstaff House
(AD25)
xxi.
Old Victoria Hospital, Foundation Stone
(AD28)
xxii.
Fence of Victoria House (AD29)
xxiii.
Stone of the Royal Naval Telegraph (AD32)
Identification of
Potential Impacts
4.78
Potential impacts during
the construction and operation phases of the Project have been identified and
discussed below.
Construction Phase
4.79
Any heritage resources,
located in close proximity to works areas or the proposed SCL (HUH-ADM)
alignment may be impacted through:
·
Direct impact to historic buildings (e.g.
demolition), historical landscape and sites of terrestrial and marine
archaeological potential (e.g. excavation and dredging).
·
Indirect vibration impact due to drill and
blast activities or tunnelling works during construction phase on historic
buildings and cultural landscapes that may lead to the structural damage or
interference of normal activities.
·
Indirect visual impact to historic buildings
and cultural landscapes due to construction works e.g. excavation works at
surface.
Operation Phase
4.80
There would be no impacts
to terrestrial and marine archaeological resources during operation phase of
the Project.
4.81
Impacts on built heritage
resources during operation phase of the Project would include:
·
Indirect visual impact associated with alteration
of the surrounding environment of historical structures and cultural landscapes
due to the aboveground structures of the Project.
Evaluation of Potential
Impacts
Construction
Phase
Terrestrial Archaeology
4.82
The Project will be an
underground railway system (more than 5m below ground), and therefore the only
source of impacts on potential archaeological remains would be cut-and-cover
works which involve subsurface works interfacing with the archaeological
remains, if any. Significant archaeological
resources including known sites of archaeological interest were identified in
the early stage of the project design to avoid and minimize impacts on these
resources as far as practicable.
4.83
The findings of the
archaeological potential review indicate that any archaeological resources
remains should have been disturbed during reclamation works and urbanisation
development. As such the works areas
have no archaeological potential and impact on archaeological remains is not
anticipated.
4.84
As the nearest works
area is located at approximately 75m from the Kellett Island Site of
Archaeological Interest and is also separated by the Cross Harbour Tunnel,
adverse impact on Kellett Island Site of Archaeological Interest is not
anticipated.
Marine Archaeology
4.85
With no
archaeological potential anticipated in the disturbed seabed, there would be no
marine archaeological impact.
Built Heritage and
Cultural Landscapes
4.86
Declared
monument/site of cultural heritage and existing/proposed graded historic
buildings were identified in the early stage of the project design to avoid
direct impacts on such structures.
4.87
Either cut-and-cover, drill and blast or tunnel boring method would be used for tunnel
formation along the Project. Blasting would cause vibrations which will be
transmitted to the environs. The duration of blasting is very short and
infrequent, however, if sufficiently strong, these vibrations may cause damage
to structures. The vibration levels resulted from blasting would generally be
higher than those generated from cut-and-cover or tunnel boring machine adopted
in bored tunnel construction method.
Indirect vibration impact induced by blasting could therefore be a
concern to nearby heritage resources compared with other two tunnelling
methods. In view of this, indirect
vibration impact induced by blasting was considered in the present assessment
as the worst case scenario. However vibration levels could be controlled to
acceptable levels by limiting the quantity of the explosives per delay used on
the blast pattern.
4.88
Apart from potential
vibration impact, there would also be potential visual impact on built heritage
resources from nearby surface works areas.
Nevertheless, as the works areas would be located in urban areas and generally
be screened by existing building structures, there would be limited visual
impact on heritage resources.
4.89
Potential indirect impacts
on Declared Monument during construction phase are summarized in Table 4.1. Potential visual impact and vibration impact
induced by blasting on heritage resources is summarized in Tables 4.2 and 4.3
respectively.
Table 4.1 Potential Impact on
Declared Monument (Site of Cultural Heritage) during Construction Phase
|
Works Area |
ID |
Built Heritage Resources |
|
Approx. Distance from Nearest Tunnel |
Approx. Distance from Nearest Works Area |
Potential
Impact and Impact Level* |
Proposed
Mitigation Measures |
|||||
|
Horiz. |
Vertical |
Slant |
Horiz. |
Vertical |
Slant |
|||||||
|
Figure no. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/003 and 016 |
||||||||||||
|
Admiralty |
AD 24 |
|
Declared Monument |
210m |
40m |
214m |
205m |
20m |
206m |
Given the considerable separation distance,
there would be neither adverse vibration nor visual impacts. |
No mitigation required |
|
Note:
* The separation distance stated in this column
refers to slant distance.
Table 4.2 Potential Visual
Impact on Built Heritage Resources during Construction Phase
|
Works
Area |
ID |
Built
Heritage Resources |
Historic
Building Status |
Approx.
Horizontal Distance from Nearest Works Area |
Approx. Vertical
Distance from Nearest Works Area |
Approx. Slant
Distance from Nearest Works Area |
Potential
Visual Impact and Impact Level* |
Proposed
Mitigation Measures |
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/008 |
|
||||||
|
CW1 |
Floating |
Ungraded |
220m |
0m |
220m |
With
considerable separation distance, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/009 |
|||||||
|
|
CW2 |
Noon Day Gun |
Ungraded |
20m |
0m |
20m |
Potential
visual impact would be temporary and insignificant with provision of sensibly
designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner
that responds to the existing urban context shall be erected to mitigate the
temporary visual impacts during construction phase. |
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/010 |
|||||||
|
|
CW3 |
Royal |
Existing Grade 3 (confirmed 22 Jan 2010) |
85m |
0m |
85m |
Potential
visual impact would be temporary and insignificant with provision of sensibly
designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner
that responds to the existing urban context shall be erected to mitigate the
temporary visual impacts during construction phase. |
|
|
CW4 |
|
Ungraded |
50m |
0m |
50m |
Potential
visual impact would be temporary and insignificant with provision of sensibly
designed hoardings. |
|
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/011 |
|||||||
|
|
CW6 |
Nos. 369 & |
Existing Grade 3 (confirmed 21 Dec 2010) |
170m |
0m |
170m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/012 |
|||||||
|
|
CW7 |
|
Ungraded, Proposed Grade 3 |
200m |
0m |
200m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW8 |
Wan Chai Police Station |
Existing Grade 2 |
175m |
0m |
175m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW9 |
Shophouse, |
Ungraded |
260m |
0m |
260m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW10 |
Shophouse, |
Ungraded |
295m |
0m |
295m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
Works
Shaft in Admiralty |
Figure nos.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/014 |
|||||||
|
AD3 |
Block GG of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Existing Grade 2 |
93m |
3m |
93m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
|
Figure nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/016 |
|||||||
|
|
AD22 |
Old Victoria Barracks, Roberts Block |
Existing Grade 1 |
86m |
16m |
88m |
Potential
visual impact would be temporary and insignificant with provision of sensibly
designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner
that responds to the existing urban context shall be erected to mitigate the
temporary visual impacts during construction phase. |
Note:
* The separation distance stated in this column
refers to slant distance.
Table 4.3 Potential Vibration
Impact on Built Heritage Resources during Construction Phase
|
Area |
ID |
Built Heritage
Resources |
Historic
Building Status |
Approx.
Horizontal Distance from Nearest Tunnel |
Approx.
Vertical Distance from Nearest Tunnel |
Approx. Slant
Distance from Nearest Tunnel |
Potential
Vibration Impact and Impact Level* |
Proposed
Mitigation Measures |
|
Admiralty
|
Figure nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/013 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD1 |
Air Raid Shelters of WW II |
Ungraded |
186m |
30m |
188m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
AD2 |
Fence of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Ungraded |
156m |
30m |
159m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
|
Figure nos.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/014 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD3 |
Block GG of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Existing Grade 2 |
96m |
53m |
110m |
With considerable
separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting would be
insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD4-1, AD4-2, AD4-3 |
Former Explosives
Magazine of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Existing Grade 1 |
141m –
222m |
67m |
156m –
232m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD7-1, AD7-2 |
Magazine shelter of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Ungraded |
155m –
185m |
75m |
173m –
200m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD9 |
Fence of Former Explosives Magazine of the Old
Victoria Barracks |
Ungraded |
235m |
77m |
247m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD 10 |
Bowen Aqueduct |
Ungraded |
15m |
134m |
135m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD11 |
|
Ungraded |
180m |
134m |
224m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
Figure nos.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/015 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD12 |
|
Ungraded |
54m |
134m |
144m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD13 |
|
Existing Grade 1 |
6m – 90m |
148-150m |
150m – 175m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD14 |
|
Existing Grade 1 |
0m |
143m |
143m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD15 |
|
Ungraded |
24m |
144m |
146m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD16 |
|
Ungraded |
22m |
134m |
136m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD17 |
|
Ungraded |
12m |
134m |
134m |
With considerable
separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting would be
insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD18 |
|
Ungraded |
19m |
134m |
135m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD19 |
|
Ungraded |
13m |
134m |
134m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD20 |
|
Ungraded |
0m |
134m |
134m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
Figure nos.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/016 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD21 |
|
Existing Grade 1 |
87m |
105m |
136m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD22 |
|
Existing Grade 1 |
90m |
94m |
130m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD23 |
Electric substation, |
Ungraded |
72m |
80m |
108m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD25 |
Fence and Stone Wall of |
Ungraded |
175m |
42m |
180m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD26 |
Old Victoria Barracks, Rawlinson House |
Existing
Grade 1 |
283m |
43m |
286m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD27 |
Old Victoria Barracks, Wavell Block |
Existing
Grade 1 |
154m |
62m |
166m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
Figure nos.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/017 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD28 |
Old
Victoria Hospital, Foundation Stone |
Ungraded |
126m |
346m |
368m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD29 |
Fence of
Victoria House |
Ungraded |
72m |
355m |
362m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD30 |
Old Victoria Hospital, Maternity Block |
Existing Grade 3 |
133m |
351m |
376m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
AD31 |
Residence
of the Chief Secretary for Administration (Victoria House) |
Existing Grade 2 |
85m |
355m |
365m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
Figure nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/016 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD32 |
Stone of Royal Naval Telegraph |
Ungraded |
190m |
42m |
195m |
With
considerable separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting
would be insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
Figure nos. NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/018 |
|
||||||
|
|
AD33 |
|
Ungraded,
Proposed Grade 2 |
275m |
409m |
493m |
With considerable
separation distance, vibration impacts resulting from blasting would be
insignificant. |
No
mitigation required. |
Note:
* The separation distance stated in this column
refers to slant distance.
Operation Phase
4.90
Based on the preliminary
design information, the proposed works under the Project would not result in
any changes of access to the identified heritage sites.
4.91
Most of the heritage
resources would not have direct line of sight to the permanent aboveground structures
including the ventilation shafts and station entrances. In addition, the
aboveground structures would incorporate sympathetic design to blend into
existing setting and environmental character of the site, no adverse visual
impact would be envisaged. Summary of visual impact during operation phase is
given in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Potential Visual
Impact on Built Heritage Sites during Operation Phase
|
Proposed
Aboveground Structures |
ID |
Built
Heritage Resources |
Historic
Building Status |
Approx.
Horizontal Distance from Nearest Proposed Building Structures |
Approx.
Vertical Distance from Nearest
Proposed Building Structures |
Approx.
Slant Distance from Nearest Proposed Building Structures |
Potential
Visual Impact and Impact Level* |
Proposed
Mitigation Measures |
|
South
Ventilation Shafts, Plant Rooms and Emergency Access (SOV) |
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/009 |
|||||||
|
CW2 |
Noon Day Gun |
Ungraded |
84m |
0m |
84m |
Potential
visual impact would be insignificant with appropriate building design. |
Aboveground structures shall incorporate sympathetic
design to blend into existing setting and environmental character of the
site. |
|
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/010 |
|||||||
|
|
CW3 |
Royal |
Existing Grade 3 (confirmed 22 Jan 2010) |
187m |
1m |
187m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW4 |
|
Ungraded |
211m |
1m |
211m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
ADM
structures and Ventilation Shafts |
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/013 |
|||||||
|
AD2 |
Fence of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Ungraded |
136m |
1m |
136m |
With considerable
separation distance and screening from existing building structures, no
visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/014 |
|||||||
|
AD3 |
Block GG of the Old Victoria Barracks |
Existing Grade 2 |
115m |
3m |
115m |
With considerable
separation distance and screening from existing building structures, no
visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/016 |
|||||||
|
|
AD22 |
Old Victoria Barracks, Roberts Block |
Existing Grade 1 |
93m |
16m |
94m |
Potential
visual impact would be insignificant with appropriate building design. |
Aboveground structures shall incorporate sympathetic
design to blend into existing setting and environmental character of the
site. |
|
EXH
structures and Ventilation Shafts |
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/011 |
|||||||
|
CW6 |
Nos. 369 & |
Existing Grade 3 (confirmed 21 Dec 2010) |
345m |
0m |
345m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
|
Figure no.
NEX2213/C/331/ENS/M55/012 |
|||||||
|
|
CW7 |
|
Ungraded, Proposed Grade 3 |
245m |
0m |
245m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW8 |
Wan Chai Police Station |
Existing Grade 2 |
220m |
0m |
220m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW9 |
Shophouse, |
Ungraded |
300m |
0m |
300m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
|
|
CW10 |
Shophouse, |
Ungraded |
350m |
0m |
350m |
With
considerable separation distance and screening from existing building
structures, no visual impact is anticipated. |
No
mitigation required. |
Note:
* The separation distance stated in this column
refers to slant distance.
Recommended Mitigation
Measures
Construction
Phase
Marine and Terrestrial
Archaeology
4.92
With no marine and
terrestrial archaeological resources identified in the works areas, mitigation
measures are not required.
Built Heritage and
Historical Landscape
Visual Impact
4.93
The use of sensibly
designed screen hoardings for mitigating visual impacts is recommended for
reducing the potential visual impact on identified heritage buildings to
acceptable levels. Hoarding is recommended to be erected along the boundary of the works
area. Therefore, potential visual impact due to surface ground works would be
minimised. With the mitigation measures, it is envisaged that the visual impact
would be temporary and could be mitigated to an acceptable level during the
construction phase.
Vibration Impact
4.94
Potential vibration impact
due to blasting on built heritage resources has been assessed in Table 4.3.
4.95
With considerable separation
distance between the tunnel and heritage resources (more than 100m), there
would be insignificant vibration impact resulting from blasting. Mitigation measures are therefore not
required.
4.96
The only declared
monument/site of cultural heritage within the assessment area, Flagstaff House,
is located about 210m away from the nearest SCL tunnel. Given the considerable
separation distance, no adverse vibration impact on the declared monument/site
of cultural heritage is envisaged.
Vibration monitoring on the other built heritages identified in the
assessment will be agreed with Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO)/
Buildings Department (BD) / Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) and
implemented under the requirement of the Buildings Ordinance and/or Blasting
Permit as appropriate.
Operation Phase
Marine and Terrestrial
Archaeology
4.97
As there would be no
archaeological impact due to operation of the Project, no mitigation measures
are required.
Built Heritage and
Cultural Landscape
4.98
With sympathetic design
incorporated in the permanent aboveground structures, no adverse visual impact
is anticipated. As such, no further
mitigation measures would be required.
Evaluation of Residual Impacts
4.99
No adverse residual cultural heritage impact
would be expected during both construction and operation phases.
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
Construction
Phase
Marine and Terrestrial
Archaeology
4.100 No specific EM&A requirements would be
required during construction phase.
Built Heritage and Historical
Landscape
4.101
The use of sensibly
designed screen hoardings for mitigating landscape and visual impacts as
proposed in Section 7 would also be
recommended for reducing the potential visual impact on identified heritage
buildings to acceptable levels. Based on this, environmental monitoring and
audit (EM&A) requirements recommended in Section 15 for landscape and visual impacts would as well be
applicable for the protection of heritage resources.
4.102 Given the considerable separation distance
between the only declared monument/site of cultural heritage (i.e. Flagstaff
House) and the nearest SCL tunnel, there would be neither adverse vibration nor
visual impacts on the declared monument/site of cultural heritage, and thus no
specific EM&A requirements would be required. For the other built heritages identified in
this assessment, vibration monitoring will be agreed with AMO/BD/GEO and
implemented under the requirement of the Buildings Ordinance and/or Blasting
Permit as appropriate.
4.103
No specific EM&A
requirements would be required during operation phase.
4.104 Cultural heritage resources within study area
have been identified and reviewed through site visits and literature
review.
4.105 Given sufficient setback distance between
Kellett Island Site of Archaeological Interest and the Project works
areas, and lack of archaeological potential site identified within works areas,
no adverse impact on terrestrial archaeological remains is envisaged during
construction phase. Therefore, mitigation measures for terrestrial archaeology
would not be needed.
4.106 Based on the findings of literature review
and previous MAI studies, the seabed within proposed
marine works area has already been disturbed by past reclamation and regular
dredging works, and thus the marine archaeological potential within proposed
marine works area is not envisaged. The impact on marine archaeology is not
anticipated.
4.107 Direct impacts on
declared monument/site of
cultural heritage and existing/proposed graded historic buildings have
been avoided in the early stage of the project design. Considering sufficient buffer distances between built heritages and the proposed
works areas, together with appropriate mitigation measures, there would not be
significant visual and vibration impact during construction and operation
phases. Mitigation measures including erection of decorative screen
hoardings for the proposed works
areas and adoption of sympathetic design in aboveground structures are
recommended to avoid and minimise the potential visual impacts.
4.108 In conclusion, the construction and operation of the Project would not
cause unacceptable impacts on cultural heritage resources, with implementation
of the recommended mitigation measures.
Antiquities and
Monuments Office 1986 Report of the Hong
Kong Archaeological Survey, Vol.II to III.
Antiquities and
Monuments Office 2009 The Geographical
Information System on Hong Kong Heritage (http://www5.lcsd.gov.hk/gishinter/html/Run.htm?lang=tc).
Antiquities and
Monuments Office 2011 List of the Historic Buildings in Building Assessment (as of 2
September 2011) (http://www.amo.gov.hk/form/AAB-SM-chi.pdf).
Antiquities and
Monuments Office 2011 Results of the Assessment of New Items in addition to 1,444 Historic
Buildings (http://www.amo.gov.hk/form/list_new_items_assessed.pdf).
Bard,
S. 1988 In Search of the Past: A Guide to
the Antiquities of Hong Kong,
Chan,
S.S.P 2001 A Survey report of
Chung,
KC. A. 2004 Conservation Plan for Bowen Aqueduct, (master dissertation),
Endacott,
G.B. 1973 A History of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong,
ENSR Asia (HK) Ltd.
2008.
Empson,
Hal 1992, Mapping Hong Kong: A Historical
Atlas,
Hydrographic Office.
2005. Marine Department, Government of the HKSAR. Charts for Local Vessels.
Innes, K.W. 1971 Design and Construction of the Hong Kong Cross-Harbour Tunnel, Tunnels
and Tunneling.
Ride, L. & Ride, M. 1996. An
Sayer, G. R. 1980.
Van Dyke, 2007. The Canton Trade. Life
and
Sarah Ali, 1998, Study on
the Potential, Assessment, Management and Preservation of Maritime
Archaeological Sites in Hong Kong,
MAI for Central Reclamation Phase III - section between Central
and Convention Centre, completed by SDA Marine Ltd in 2001.
MAI for Wanchai Reclamation Phase II - section between Convention Centre and
the east side of the
MAI for EIA Study for Wan Chai Development Phase II – Area at
Watson Pier’s to North Point, completed by SDA Marine Ltd in 2007.
丁新豹 1994 《四環九約》，香港市政局。
何佩然 2000 《香港供水一百年歷史研究報告》，香港水務局。
馬金料 1995 《早期香港史研究資料選輯》，香港，三聯書店。
科大衛、陸鴻基、吳倫霓霞 1986 《香港碑銘匯編》，香港市政局。
梁炳華 1998 《中西區風物誌》，香港，中西區臨時區議會。
羅香林等 1958 《一八四二年以前之香港及其對外之交通----香港前代史》，香港，中國書社。
蕭國健、沈思 2001 《香港市區文化之旅》，香港，萬里圖書
[1]