and Mitigation
requirements
|
|
River Beas Route |
Comments |
Direct permanent habitat loss |
0.009ha occupied by viaduct piers. |
0.005ha occupied by viaduct piers. |
Both alignments entirely on viaduct in Long Valley. |
Habitat types |
Wet agriculture, inactive agriculture and
marsh. The latter is the only
area of marsh within the Long Valley area, which due to its semi-natural
state has higher value for birds, especially Greater Painted-snipe. |
Wet agriculture and inactive agriculture |
Ecological value of wet agriculture and inactive agriculture similar for both Options. Both Options have limited impact on
isolated fishponds west of the MDC (slightly greater impact for River Beas
Route), however this is
considered of limited importance compared to impacts in Long Valley proper. |
Habitat naturalness |
Largely anthropogenic habitats, but with area of semi-natural marsh (though this can be easily recreated) |
Entirely anthropogenic. |
|
Habitat diversity |
Higher due to presence of semi-natural marsh. |
Lower due to lack of semi-natural areas. |
|
Habitat rarity |
Wet agriculture and inactive agriculture are both scarce habitats in Hong Kong. Freshwater marsh is now a rare habitat type in Hong Kong. |
Wet agriculture and inactive agriculture are both scarce habitats in Hong Kong. |
Freshwater marsh only impacted in |
Recreatability |
Readily recreated. |
Readily recreated. |
|
Bird Species of Conservation Importance |
Japanese Yellow Bunting Red-billed Starling Black-winged Stilt Pheasant-tailed Jacana Watercock Chestnut Bittern Common Snipe Pintail Snipe Swinhoe's Snipe |
River Beas Route has higher impacts for: Chinese
Pond Heron Little
Egret |
Impacts on other species do not differ between Options (see Table A3). |
Other taxa |
None identified in the EIA as being of Conservation Imp ortance. |
None identified in the EIA as being of Conservation Importance. |
|
Nursery / breeding grounds |
Greater impact on species breeding within the area, in particular Greater Painted Snipe through impact on area of marsh. Lower impact is likely for Chinese Pond Herons from the Ho Sheung Egretry due to greater distance from egretry and less partitioning of foraging areas. |
Lower impact on species breeding within the area, in particular Greater Painted Snipe, through absence of impact on area of marsh. Higher impact is likely for Chinese Pond Herons from the Ho Sheung Egretry due to shorter distance from egretry and less partitioning of foraging areas. |
|
Fragmentation and ecological linkage |
Divides Long Valley into two sections, the area north of the Spurline being 23.0ha, and that south of it 11.8ha. Both areas are of sufficient size to retain much of the current ecological function, although with a corridor of reduced densities along the alignment. Although the southern section will be partitioned from Chinese Pond Herons from Ho Sheung Heung Egretry foraging at Long Valley, the northern section remains unaffected. |
Also divides Long Valley into two sections. However, the relative sizes are very different with one very large contiguous section of 31.5ha, and a much smaller one of 1.0ha. This smaller area becomes extremely isolated, with very little linkage with the rest of Long Valley. As such this area will likely suffer high reductions in the densities of most Species of Conservation Importance. This option, being closer to Ho Sheung Egretry results in a greater part of Long Valley being partitioned. While Chinese Pond Herons may fly over the railway to reach Long Valley some birds may be deterred, effectively reducing densities of foraging ardeids during the breeding season. This 1.0ha area would also require mitigation. |
Long Valley is now a relatively isolated unit due to the channelisation of the Rivers Beas and Sutlej and the existing East Rail line although there is linkage with the Ho Sheung Egretry. Effects on foraging by Chinese Pond Herons from Ho Sheung Heung Egretry are difficult to predict. |
Cumulative impacts |
Higher as this option creates a new disturbance corridor, which although bordered at least in part by village area, passes through currently undisturbed areas. |
Lower as the alignment follows, at various points, East Rail, the channelised River Beas and River Sutlej, and the proposed Fanling Bypass. |
|
Potential ecological value of impacted areas |
Higher as further from current disturbance corridors caused by the channelised Rivers Beas and Sutlej and the proposed Fanling Bypass. |
Lower as closer to current disturbance corridors caused by the channelised Rivers Beas and Sutlej and the proposed Fanling Bypass |
|
Direct mortality |
Most species using Long Valley not considered vulnerable to collision impacts. |
As |
|
Direct avoidance due to physical effects of structure |
Smaller area affected but value of that area higher due to impacts on area of semi-natural marsh. |
Higher area affected due to wider gap between lines and fragmentation of small area north of alignment, however, value of impacted area lower. |
Methodological difficulty in comparing lesser impacts on a greater area and greater impacts on a smaller area. |
Area avoided |
Direct loss 0.85ha (under viaduct) and indirect loss of 0.85ha (reduced use due to disturbance for most disturbance sensitive species. |
Direct loss of 0.45ha and indirect loss of 1.4ha (between viaducts) and 0.45ha (from disturbance impacts north and south of the viaducts), for most disturbance sensitive species. Impact to the small area north of the viaducts and to three meander areas amounts to 1.4ha. |
The
split in the viaduct for River Beas Route will create a larger area
of impact than |
Direct avoidance due to Construction Impacts |
Higher impact on semi-natural marsh, and in particular to Greater Painted-snipe. Lower impact on egrets from Ho Sheung Heung Egretry. |
No impact on areas of semi-natural marsh. Higher impact on egrets from Ho Sheung Egretry. |
Assessment based on the assumption that construction works associated with channelisation of the Rivers Beas and Sutlej will be completed prior to commencement of construction of Spur Line. |
Impact on mitigation areas for other projects. |
No adverse impacts, opportunity to enhance three mitigation areas of MDC by turning these into permanent wetlands. |
Direct impacts on three of the River Beas compensation meanders. Mitigating for this is potentially impossible given constraints on mitigating away from resumption area, which would be required to ensure mitigation areas are not within zone of disturbance. |
|
Requirement for temporary or advance habitat creation as mitigation during construction period |
Temporary marsh required to compensate for disturbance impacts to species using the marsh, especially Greater Painted-snipe, during construction period. |
No temporary mitigation area requirement as habitat continuity not disrupted. |
Temporary marsh area of 1. |
Permanent requirement for wetland habitat provision / enhancement to compensate for impacts. |
Provision of 1.7ha of wetland habitat required, of which at least 0.85ha must be outside area affected by disturbance. To satisfy this requirement proposed marshland habitat of 2.4ha along the line of the viaduct and 1.4ha of enhanced meanders alongside the River Beas to be provided. |
In order to completely mitigate for impacts due to River Beas Route, provision of 3.7ha of wetland required of which 2.8ha must be outside area affected by disturbance. An area of approximately 2ha would be available along the line of the viaducts, depending upon the area to be resumed. If meanders are available, these areas can be used as mitigation for impacts within the disturbance area. Due to restrictions on the resumption of private land for ecological mitigation, not land has been identified at this stage for off-site mitigation. |
For River Beas Route there is a potential mitigation area along the viaduct (including the meanders area alongside the River Beas). Exact area available would depend on the area to be resumed but would extend from approximately 1.9ha (if only the viaducts' shadow and a 10m wide strip each side of the viaduct were resumed) to 2.6ha (if the area between the two viaducts was also resumed). |
Predicted effectiveness of proposed mitigation areas / management implications |
Shape of area under viaduct not ideal as it will be difficult to manage and is vulnerable to disturbance from use of surrounding land. Proposed enhanced meanders, however, benefit from remoteness from the viaduct. |
Resumption area to be determined. Huge differences in potential effectiveness of options, with the least desirable being two narrow strips being used for mitigation areas. All potential mitigation areas will suffer to some degree from avoidance impacts. |
Full comparison not possible unless the
area to be resumed is established. Two separate strips (under River Beas Route)
is least desirable option whereas if the area between the viaducts were
resumed then the shape of the area would be preferable to |
Table A22.5
Comparison of KCRC GazettedCentral Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of
Noise Impacts
and Mitigation
requirements
|
|
River Beas Route |
Comments |
Closest NSRs within Long Valley area |
NSR 13 and NSR14. |
NSR 1 and NSR4 (se Figure A1) |
NSRs for River Beas Route are further
from the railway alignment than NSRs for |
Noise level (Leq30mins) at NSR during early hours (critical morning hours) |
NSR13: 46.8 to 48.8 NSR14: 45.3 to 46.5 |
NSR1: 47.3 NSR4: 50.5 |
High level at NSR4 for River Beas Route is due to the presence of points and crossings close to this NSR. Mitigation of the air-borne noise from this source will be required by installing a noise barrier or enclosure along a 100m length of the railway at this point. |
Required mitigation for noise impacts within Long Valley. |
No mitigation required for air-borne noise. |
A noise barrier or enclosure to cover the points and crossings will be required close to NSR4. |
|
Table A32.4
Disturbance Impacts for bird Species of Conservation
Importance that regularly occur
or have the potential to occur in the Long Valley area
Species |
Sensitivity to disturbance |
Overall impact of disturbance from |
Overall impact of disturbance from River Beas Route |
Comments |
Japanese Yellow Bunting |
Small |
Slightly higher as closer to core area |
Slightly lower as further from core area |
Largely opportunistic in selection of foraging areas, although generally prefers less disturbed areas |
Red-billed Starling |
Small-medium |
Slightly higher as closer to core area |
Slightly lower as further from core area |
Largely opportunistic in selection of foraging areas, although generally prefers less disturbed areas |
Black-winged Stilt |
Medium-large |
Slightly higher as closer to core area, but scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation |
Slightly lower as further from core area |
Largely opportunistic in selection of foraging areas, although generally prefers less disturbed areas |
Chinese Pond Heron |
Medium |
Although closer to core area, this is outweighed by the greater distance from Ho Sheung Egretry. Also, scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation |
Higher as closer to Ho Sheung Egretry |
|
Great Egret |
Large |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
Only recorded within Long valley area in low numbers. Some scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation |
Little Egret |
Medium-large |
Higher as closer to core area, but scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core area, but full mitigation not possible |
|
Greater Painted Snipe |
Moderate |
Higher due to impacts on area of semi-natural marsh, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Low due to lack of direct impacts on area of semi-natural marsh, full mitigation for any impacts may be difficult |
|
Northern Hobby |
Large |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
Only recorded within Long valley area in low numbers |
Pheasant-tailed Jacana |
Medium-large |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult |
|
Watercock |
Medium |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult |
|
Bluethroat |
Small |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for any impacts may be difficult |
|
Chestnut Bittern |
Small |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult |
|
Common Snipe |
Medium |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult |
|
Common Stonechat |
Small |
Impacts broadly similar |
Impacts broadly similar |
|
Japanese Quail |
Medium-low |
Impacts broadly similar |
Impacts broadly similar |
|
Pallas’s Grasshopper Warbler |
Very small |
Impacts broadly similar |
Impacts broadly similar |
|
Pintail Snipe |
Medium |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult |
|
Richard’s Pipit |
Small |
Impacts broadly similar |
Impacts broadly similar |
|
Swinhoe’s Snipe |
Medium |
Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation |
Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
Small |
Impacts broadly similar |
Impacts broadly similar |
|
Table A42.6
and Mitigation
requirements
Cultural/ Heritage Resource |
|
River Beas Route |
||||||
Predicted
Impact Const’n Oper’n |
Mitigation |
Conclusion |
Predicted
Impact Const’n
Oper’n |
Mitigation |
Conclusion |
|||
1
2Ho Sheung Heung Village
|
None
|
Minor |
· The extension of the existing woodland at the southern end of the village to provide a buffer zone for the village as an historical unit. |
· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
· A buffer zone of 50 metres must be maintained between the village and the alignment. · The extension of the existing woodland at the southern end of the village to provide a buffer zone for the village as an historical unit. |
· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation. |
Hau Kui Shek Ancestral
Hall |
None |
Minor |
· Existing structures will partially shield the building from the alignment. · A foliage screen must be planted between the structure and the alignment. |
· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m distance is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
· Existing structures will partially shield the building from the alignment. · A buffer zone of 50 metres must be maintained between the structure and the alignment. · The buffer zone must include the planting of trees to provide a foliage screen. |
· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation. |
Sin Wai Nunnery
|
None |
None
|
· No mitigation measures are necessary as the structure is adequately buffered by existing woodland. |
· The proposed alignment located at a distance of approximately 150 m. is acceptable. |
Moderate/ Major |
Moderate |
· Any existing woodland that is affected by the proposed alignment must be replaced after the construction phase. · The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. from the nunnery compound |
· The maintenance/ replacement of the woodland between the compound and the alignment is acceptable mitigation. |
Hung
Shing Pui Fung Temple |
None |
Minor |
· The extension of the existing woodland at the southern end of the village to provide a landscaped buffer zone. |
· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures. |
Major |
Major |
· The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. from the temple compound. · The existing woodland at the southern end of the village should be extended to provide a landscaped buffer zone. |
· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation. |
Shrine
|
None |
Minor |
· The shrine is located next to a car park and road in a low lying area. The extension of the woodland, as mentioned above, will provide adequate screening. |
· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
· The shrine is located next to a car park and road in a low lying area. The extension of the woodland, as mentioned above will provide adequate screening. · The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. |
· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation |
Village
Houses |
None |
Minor |
· Existing structures will partially shield the buildings from the alignment. · The creation of a wooded buffer zone will provide a sufficient screen for the historical structures. |
· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures. |
Moderate |
Moderate |
· The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. · Existing structures will partially shield the buildings from the alignment, · The addition of a foliage screen in open areas between the historical structures and the alignment will provide a sufficient screen for the houses. |
· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation |
Location
of archaeological finds |
Moderate potential |
None |
· It is recommended that the alignment to the south of Ho Sheung Heung be monitored during excavations for support columns. |
· The alignment will pass approx. 80m to the south of the area tested and is predicted to have minimal impact on any potential deposit associated with the historical village. |
Moderate Potential |
None |
· It is recommended that further archaeological field testing of the area be carried out in advance of excavations for the support columns. |
· The alignment will pass approx. 20m to the south of the area tested and is predicted to have more direct impacts on any potential deposit associated with the historical village |
Table A5a
Comparison of KCRC GazettedCentral Alignment and River Beas
Route in terms of Landscape and Visual Impacts
and Mitigation
requirements
Impacts on Landscape Character |
|
River Beas Route |
||||||
Predicted Residual Impact |
Mitigation Measures |
Conclusion |
Predicted Residual Impact |
Mitigation Measures |
Conclusion |
|||
Con |
Oper |
Con |
Oper |
|||||
MUD 1: Sheung Shui |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Reinstatement of planting along track side where appropriate. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character. |
The proposed scheme including the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barrier would be integrated into an existing urban context of large high rise buildings with its existing rail infrastructure. |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Reinstatement of planting along track side where appropriate. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character. |
The proposed scheme including the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barrier would be integrated into an existing urban context of large high rise buildings with its existing rail infrastructure. There would be no substantive differences in the predicted landscape impact between these two options. |
L2 River Beas Plain / Long Valley and Fung Kong |
Significant adverse |
Significant adverse |
Provision of wetland areas as ecological mitigation below the viaduct. Design of viaduct to be visually permeable and integrate with rural character of this Long Valley. Screen planting along the boundary of the proposed emergency area to the west of Long Valley. |
The proposed scheme including the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barrier would be integrated into an existing urban context of large high rise buildings with its existing rail infrastructure. |
Moderate to Significant adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Provision of wetland areas as ecological mitigation below the viaduct. Design of viaduct to be visually permeable and integrate with
rural character of this Long Valley. The concentration of the
proposed Fanling Bypass, the River Beas retrained river channel and the Spur
Line proposals in one area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more substantially intact and preserve its
perceived landscape quality; therefore the operational impacts would be lower
than those predicted for the |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cumulative landscape impacts of
concentrating the River Beas retrained river channel, and the proposed
Fanling Bypass and Spur Line proposals would be less significant were they to
follow separate alignments. |
V4 Ho Sheung Heung |
Neutral impact |
Neutral impact |
None required |
This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character. |
Substantial to moderate adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Woodland planting to integrate the proposed viaduct into the
existing landscape of this area and reduce the impact of the proposed scheme
on the landscape setting of the village. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character. |
The predicted impact of River Beas Route would be more adverse
than that of The cumulative impacts associated with the River Beas alignment on the village environs would be more adverse than those predicted for the KCRC option due to the concentration of large scale projects including the existing River Beas retrained river channel works and the proposed Fanling Bypass. |
C1 Ho Heung Sheung |
Moderate adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Minimization of slope cutting and embankment Compensatory tree and shrub planting along slopes and to visually integrate the proposed scheme into the landscape framwork. Provision of footpaths and bridges to avoid segregation of development. |
The proposed scheme would lead to the disturbance of a number of remnant fishponds in the southern part of the character area and the introduction of the viaduct as a major feature in local landscape. This would result in a substantive moderation of the existing landscape character. |
Substantial adverse |
Substantial to moderate adverse |
Minimization of slope cutting and embankment Compensatory tree and shrub planting along slopes and to integrate to local context. Provision of footpaths and bridges to avoid segregation of development. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character. |
The proposed scheme would lead to the disturbance of a number of remnant fishponds in the southern part of the character area and the introduction of the viaduct as a major feature in local landscape. This would result in a substantive moderation of the existing landscape character. This impact of River Beas Route would be more pronounced that
predicted for |
RC1 Fanling Highway |
Neutral impact |
Neutral impact |
None required |
This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character. |
Neutral impact |
Neutral impact |
None required |
This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character. |
F1 River Beas Plain |
Neutral impact |
Neutral impact |
None required |
This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character. |
Substantial to moderate adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Provision of wetland areas as ecological mitigation below the viaduct. Design of viaduct to integrate with rural character. Screen planting along the banks of the River Beas retrained river
channel to provide a form of limited integration between the proposed viaduct
and the existing landscape framework. |
The
proposed railway viaduct through the southern section of this character area
and its proximity to the northern part of the Long Valley character area
would cause a substantive modification to the landscape character of these
areas. However this predicted impact would be minimised to an extent through
the movement of the alignment to the peripheral regions of these identified
character areas. This would leave the integrity of the landscape character of
Long Valley and the agricultural land north of the River Beas retrained river
channel more substantially intact, therefore the operational impacts would be
lower for River Beas Route than those predicted for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cumulative
landscape impacts of concentrating the River Beas retrained river channel,
and the proposed Fanling Bypass and Spur Line proposals would be less significant were
they to follow separate alignments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
A5b Comparison of the Predicted Impacts of GazettedCentral
Alignment and River Beas Route on
Impacts
on Visually Sensitive Receivers |
|
River Beas Route
|
||||||
Predicted Residual Impact |
Mitigation Measures |
Conclusion |
Predicted Residual Impact |
Mitigation Measures |
Conclusion |
|||
Con |
Oper |
Con |
Oper |
|||||
1. Choi Po Court (Viewing
distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Design of viaduct crossing
Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it
within the existing rural context. The design of noise
enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and
minimise impacts on the existing landscape character. |
The proposed scheme would be visible in views to
the east and those to the north east. The first view would be of the existing
Sheung Shui Station and the second Long Valley. The main impacts to the
Sheung Shui station view would arise from the introduction of the proposed
noise enclosure and barriers as major linear elements in the urban landscape |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Design of viaduct crossing
Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it
within the existing rural context. The design of noise
enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and
minimise impacts on the existing landscape character. |
The proposed scheme would be visible in two
directions one the existing Sheung Shui Station and the second Long Valley.
The main impacts to the Sheung Shui station view would be the introduction of
the proposed noise enclosure and barriers as major linear elements in the
urban landscape. These impacts would remain unchanged through the movement of
the alignment. |
|
|
|
|
Views of Long Valley would be degraded through
the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural
landscape. These predicted impacts would be exacerbated by the movement of
trains. |
|
|
|
Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the
introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscape.
The predicted impact would be exacerbated by the movement of trains. However
the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would
reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view.
Therefore River Beas Route would have a less adverse impact than |
2.
Sheung Shui Sewage Treatment Works (Viewing distance to nearest part of the
proposed scheme 250m for |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce
the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural
context |
Views to the west would be degraded through the
introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in
this largely rural landscape. The predicted impact would be compounded by the
movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland /
scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. |
Moderate to slight adverse |
Moderate to slight adverse |
Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as
possible, allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long
Valley and Fung Kong Shan beyond. Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to
screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing
landscape framework. |
Views to the west would be dominated by the
proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to
the VSR and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR
line to Lo Wu. However this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity as a
product of its function. Therefore River Beas Route would have a more adverse
impact on this VSR than |
3.
Former Sheung Shui THA (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed
scheme 20m for |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. |
Views to the north and west would be degraded
through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear
element in the this urban fringe landscape. The predicted impacts would be
compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some
limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. |
Slight adverse to neutral impact |
Slight adverse to neutral impact |
Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as
possible allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley
and Fung Kong Shan beyond. Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to
screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the
existing landscape framework. |
Views to the west would be dominated by the
proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to
this VSR and the resulting visual impacts would be compounded by the loss of
some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. However
this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity as a product of its function.
Therefore |
4.
Tsung Pak Long (Viewing
distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for |
Moderate adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context. |
Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the
introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural
landscape. The predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of
trains. |
Moderate adverse |
Moderate to slight adverse. |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. |
Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the
introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscapes
compounded to an extent by the movement of trains. However the movement of
the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual
impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore for this
view River Beas Route would have a lower level of impact than |
5. Yin
Kong (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 400m for |
Moderate adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context. |
Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the
introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural
landscape including the movement of trains. |
Moderate adverse |
Moderate to slight adverse. |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. |
Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the
introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural
landscapes. This impact would be compounded to an extent through the movement
of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly
location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme
in this view. Therefore for this view River Beas Route would have a lower
level of impact than |
6. Fanling Highway East (Viewing
distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 700m for |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. |
Filtered but severely interrupted views of Long
Valley would be degraded through the introduction of the viaduct as a major
linear element in this largely rural landscape including the movement of
trains. |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Neutral impact. |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. |
Filtered but severely interrupted views of Long
Valley would be degraded through he introduction of the viaduct as a major
linear element in this largely rural landscape, compounded to an extent by
the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to
a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the
proposed scheme. Therefore in this view River Beas Route would be a neutral
level of impact during the operational phase due to the availability of views
and the viewing distances involved. |
7. Ho Sheung Heung (Viewing
distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for |
Moderate adverse |
Moderate adverse |
Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the
visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. |
Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the
introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural
landscape and impacts would be exacerbated through the movement of trains. |
Substantial adverse impact |
Moderate to substantial adverse impact |
Design of the viaduct structure including the
proposed noise barriers mounted on the viaduct parapets to reduce the visual
impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. Woodland planting along the northern side of the
proposed viaduct to partially screen views of the proposed scheme for River
Beas Route. |
Views of Long Valley would be dominated by the
introduction of the proposed viaduct as a major linear element in this
largely rural landscape and impacts would be exacerbated through the movement
of trains. Both alignment the KCRC and
River Beas alignments will have adverse visual impacts on those views
available from the village houses however the requirement for noise barriers
with the river Beas option and it’s closer proximity to the village will
cause more significant impacts than those which accrue from the Therefore the visual impacts arising for
residents of Ho Sheung Heung under River Beas Route would be more severe than
those for |
28.
KCR line to Lo Wu (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed
scheme 20m for |
Slight adverse |
Slight adverse |
Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce
the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural
context |
Filtered and interrupted views to the west would
be degraded through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a
major linear element in this largely rural landscape. These predicted impacts
would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss
of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. |
Moderate to slight adverse |
Moderate to slight adverse |
Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as
possible so as to allow views through the structure to the landscape of Long
Valley beyond. Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to
screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the
existing landscape framework. |
Views to the west would be dominated by the
proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to
this VSR and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing
KCR line to Lo Wu. Although this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity to
change resulting from the availability of views there would be a more adverse
impact on this VSR than |
29.
Europa Gardens (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 550m for |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Design of viaduct to be as
visually permeable as possible so as to allow views through the structure to
the landscape of Long Valley beyond. Compensatory
planting to soften the engineered form of the proposed earthworks and screen
the movement of trains. |
The introduction the viaduct across Long Valley
as major linear element in rural landscape would have a low level of impact
from this VSR due to the availability of views and the viewing distances
involved. |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Slight adverse to neutral |
Design of viaduct to be as
visually permeable allowing views through the structure to the landscape of
Long Valley beyond. Compensatory
planting to soften the engineered form of the proposed earthworks and screen
the movement of trains. |
The introduction the viaduct across Long Valley
as major linear element in rural landscape would have a low level of impact
from this VSR due to the availability of views and the viewing distances
involved. Therefore the impact of the two options would be of a similar level
of significance for options 1 and River Beas Route. |