8.
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ASSESSMENT
8.1.1
This section summarises the findings
of the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) for the proposed Permanent
Aviation Fuel Facility (PAFF) at Tuen Mun Area 38.
8.1.2 The purpose of the LVIA is as follows:
¨ to undertake detailed baseline review and impact assessment on the preferred location at Tuen Mun Area 38;
¨ identify key issues and potentially significant changes to the existing landscape and visual conditions that could result from the PAFF and associated facilities during construction and operation; and
¨ recommend mitigation measures in terms of reducing landscape and visual impacts.
8.2
Principal Environmental Legislation and Guidelines
8.2.1
The methodology of the LVIA is based on Annexes 10 and 18 in the Hong
Kong SAR Government's Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) under the EIA Ordinance (Cap.499, S16), entitled
"Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape Impact" and
"Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment", respectively
and the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002 “Preparation of Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance.”
8.3.1.1
The main
components of the LVIA are as follows:
¨ Description of the proposed project;
¨ baseline study of landscape and visual resources including a review of planning and development control framework;
¨ landscape impact assessment during construction and operation;
¨ visual impact assessment during construction and operation;
¨ recommendations for landscape and visual mitigation measures for both construction and operation stage; and
¨ assessment of residual impact and conclusion on the acceptability of the PAFF.
8.3.2
Baseline
Landscape and Visual Resource Study
8.3.2.1 The baseline
study identified and examined existing landscape and visual resources
within the study area of the selected site at Tuen Mun Area 38. Under the study
brief, the study area defined for the landscape impact assessment is
approximately 500 metres out from the proposed works site boundary. The area
for the visual impact assessment is defined by a visual envelope. This is
generally the viewshed formed by natural/man-made features such as ridgeline
and building blocks.
8.3.2.2 Landscape resources considered include
topography, woodland , other vegetation, built forms, settlement patterns, land
use, scenic spots and details of local streetscapes. The baseline study describes the landscape resources by
identifying broadly homogenous landscape character units (LCUs) of a similar
character. The landscape character
was rated low, medium or high depending not only on the quality of elements
present but also to its sensitivity to change and its importance at a local, district,
regional or international level.
8.3.2.3 Visual resources considered were typical
viewpoints located and directed towards the project. A visual envelope has been established which defined the
extent of visual influence of the project and, therefore, of the potential
visual impacts. Definition of the extent of the viewshed was based on desktop
study and site investigation. Sensitive visual receivers (SVRs) identified in
this report are “representative” in that individuals or groups that have a
similar sensitivity to changes in the visual and landscape environment are
grouped together within a single SVR that can represent the whole group. (SVRs)
are individuals or groups of who are sensitive to changes in the visual
environment. The Hong Kong
Planning Standards & Guidelines, Chapter 9 Environment, defines sensitive
uses as “land uses which, by virtue of the nature of the activities thereon are
susceptible to the influence of residual or physical changes generated by
polluting uses”.
8.3.3
Review
of the Planning and Development Control Framework
8.3.3.1 A review of the planning and development
control framework has been undertaken and this information has been mapped and
analysed to provide an insight to the future outlook of the area affected and
the way the Project would fit into its wider context. The purpose of this planning and development control review
is to give further insight into possible future sensitive uses and/or sensitive
receivers that might be affected by the proposed project.
8.3.4
Landscape
Impact Assessment
8.3.4.1 Impacts on the landscape and visual resources were assessed for both
construction and operation stages. The impact assessments allow predictions to
be made about the likely levels and significance of landscape and visual
impacts. The assessment of
LANDSCAPE impacts will result from:
¨ the landscape character and its quality;
¨ the sensitivity of the landscape in accommodating change;
¨ source, nature and magnitude of impacts;
¨ the degree of change caused by the impacts to the existing landscape;
¨ significance of the change in consideration of the local and regional areas and other developments;
¨ cumulative effects with other proposals; and
¨
identification of vegetation of
significant value which should be conserved.
8.3.4.2 The sensitivity / quality for landscape characters/resources are based on:
¨ quality of landscape characters/resources,
¨ importance and rarity of special landscape elements,
¨ ability of the landscape to accommodate change,
¨ significance of the change in local and regional context, and
¨
maturity of the landscape.
8.3.4.3 The sensitivity / quality of the landscape characters/resources will be assessed as follows:
¨ High: e.g. important components or landscape of particularly distinctive character susceptible to small changes;
¨ Medium: e.g. a landscape of moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant to change;
¨
Low: e.g. a relatively unimportant landscape, which is able to
accommodate extensive change.
8.3.4.4 The magnitude of change of landscape characters/resources is based on:
¨ compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape,
¨ duration of impacts under construction and operation phases,
¨ scale of development, and
¨ reversibility of change.
8.3.4.5 The magnitude
of change in the landscape is as follows:
¨ Large – notable change in the landscape characteristics over an extensive area ranging to very intensive change over a more limited area;
¨ Intermediate – moderate changes to a local area;
¨ Small –changes to components; and
¨
Negligible – no perceptible changes.
8.3.4.6 The system for the assessment of landscape impact is summarised in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 below. The significance threshold of landscape impact is derived from the combined analysis of the magnitude of change and the landscape’s quality and sensitivity to change. The matrix in Table 8.1 indicates how the significance threshold is derived. Table 8.2 explains the terms used in Table 8.1. This analysis of the significance of threshold of landscape impact will apply in the majority of situations, however in certain cases a deviation may occur e.g. the impact may be so major that a significant impact may occur to a low quality element.
Table
8.1 Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact
Magnitude of Change |
|
Sensitivity
/ Quality |
||
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
Large |
Moderate Impact |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
Significant Impact |
|
Intermediate |
Slight /Moderate Impact |
Moderate Impact |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
|
Small |
Slight Impact |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
Moderate Impact |
|
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Table 8.2 Adverse /
Beneficial Impacts of Landscape Impact
Significant: |
Moderate: |
Slight: |
Negligible: |
adverse / beneficial
impact where the proposed project would cause significant degradation or
improvement in existing landscape baseline conditions. |
adverse / beneficial
impact where the proposed project would cause noticeable degradation or
improvement in existing landscape baseline conditions |
adverse/beneficial impact where the proposed
project would cause a barely noticeable degradation or improvement in
existing landscape conditions or where the changes brought about by the
project would not be apparent in visual terms |
The proposed project
does not perceptibly affect the existing
landscape baseline conditions |
8.3.5
Visual
Impact Assessment
8.3.5.1 The assessment of potential VISUAL impacts will result from:
¨
the
sensitivity of the viewer groups at SVR locations to change and visual
intrusion; and
¨
the
magnitude of change to the visual baseline condition.
8.3.5.2 The sensitivity of receivers is based on:
¨
value
and quality of existing views,
¨
availability
and amenity alternative views,
¨
type
and estimated number of receiver population,
¨
duration
or frequency of view, and
¨ degree of visibility.
8.3.5.3 The sensitivity of viewer groups at SVR locations will be classified as follows:
¨
High:
-
the
nature of the viewer groups expects a high degree of control over their
immediate environment, (e.g. people residing in their homes);
-
the
viewer groups are in proximity to the project; and
-
the
foreground and middle ground cannot visually absorb the Project.
¨
Medium:
-
the
nature of the viewer groups expects a high degree of control over their immediate
environment, (e.g. people residing in their homes); but
-
the
viewer groups are not in proximity to the Project; and
-
the
foreground and middle ground can partially absorb views of the Project.
¨
Low:
-
the
nature of the viewer groups do not expect a high degree of control over their
immediate environment, (e.g. people at their place of employment or temporarily
in attendance at the SVR location); and
-
people
in transit (e.g. drivers and passengers in vehicles).
8.3.5.4 The magnitude of change of the visual resources is based on:
¨ compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape;
¨ duration of impacts under construction and operation phases;
¨ scale of development;
¨ reversibility of change;
¨ viewing distance; and
¨
potential blockage of view.
8.3.5.5 The magnitude of change is classified as follows:
¨
Large:
-
prominent
and permanent visual changes in the foreground, middle-ground or background
where the project dominates the view;
-
permanent
visual changes where the project contrasts conspicuously against the
middle ground and/or
background; and
-
temporary
visual changes where the project dominates the foreground view.
¨
Intermediate:
-
permanent
visual changes in the foreground or middle ground where the project is
prominent but does not dominate the view;
-
permanent
visual changes where the project is discernible against background, but is not
conspicuous; and
-
temporary
visual changes where the project dominates the middle ground view.
¨
Small:
-
permanent
visual changes in the foreground, middle ground or background where the project
is present but not noticeable; and
-
temporary
visual changes where the project dominates the background view.
¨
Negligible:
-
No visual
changes are apparent.
8.3.5.6 The significance threshold of visual impact is rated in a
similar fashion to the landscape impact and is illustrated in Tables 8.3 and
8.4 below.
Table 8.3 Significance
Threshold of Visual Impact
Magnitude
of Change |
|
Sensitivity
to Change and Visual Intrusion |
||
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
Large |
Moderate Impact |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
Significant Impact |
|
Intermediate |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
Moderate Impact |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
|
Small |
Slight Impact |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
Moderate Impact |
|
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Table 8.4
Adverse/Beneficial Impacts of Visual Impact
Significant: |
Moderate: |
Slight: |
No impact: |
adverse/beneficial impact where the proposed
project would cause significant degradation or improvement in existing visual
baseline conditions. |
adverse/beneficial impact where the proposed
project would cause noticeable degradation or improvement in existing visual
baseline conditions. |
adverse/beneficial impact where the proposed
project would cause a barely noticeable degradation or improvement in
existing landscape conditions or where the changes brought about by the
project would not be apparent in visual terms |
The proposed project does not perceptibly affect the existing visual baseline conditions. |
8.3.6
Nighttime
Glare Assessment
8.3.6.1
In accordance
with the brief, nighttime glare is considered in the visual impact assessment. The proposed form and finishes of PAFF
will be similar to the existing facility at Chek Lap Kok. The designs of this kind of facility
are standardised. The existing
fuel farm at Chek Lap Kok is taken as an example to investigate the possible nighttime
glare brought by this facility to the environment.
8.3.7
Recommendation
for Mitigation Measures
8.3.7.1 The identification of the landscape and visual
impacts will highlight those sources of conflict requiring design solutions or
modifications to reduce impacts and, if possible, absorb the development and
associated activities into the surrounding landscape. These mitigation efforts
should consider factors including:
¨ woodland, tree and shrub planting to new or disturbed slopes, amenity strips, highway reservations and adjacent to any proposed structures;
¨ contouring of new slopes to blend with existing topography in a natural manner;
¨ earth mounding and screening;
¨ highlighting unacceptable impacts and considering alternative proposals;
¨ hard landscape elements including design and appearance of proposed facility;
¨ significant landscape elements; and
¨ night-time glare solution.
8.3.7.2 The above will result in the formation of
landscape mitigation proposals which will as far as possible help to alleviate
the previously identified landscape and visual impacts.
8.3.8
Residual
Landscape and Visual Impacts
8.3.8.1 The final stage of the LVIA study is to assess
the significance of the residual impacts of the study assuming landscape
mitigation measures are incorporated into the design. In conclusion the landscape and visual impacts were then
classified into one of five levels of significance based on criteria in Annex
10 of the EIAO-TM, as summarised below:
¨ the impact is beneficial if the project will complement the landscape and visual character of its setting, will follow the relevant planning objectives and will improve the overall and visual quality of the study area;
¨ the impact is acceptable if the assessment indicates that there will be no significant effects on the landscape, no significant visual effects caused by the appearance of the project, or no interference with key views;
¨ the impact is acceptable with mitigation measures if there will be some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures;
¨ the impact is unacceptable if the adverse effects are considered too excessive and are unable to mitigate practically;
¨ The impact is undetermined if significant adverse effects are likely, but the extent to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be determined from the study. Further detailed study will be required for the specific effects in question
8.4.1.1 The site identified in this section for the PAFF is the preferred location determined by a previous comprehensive site and environmental search. This search included the assessment of eight alternative locations and the selection criteria included a landscape and visual factors. A full description of the site of this assessment is given in Appendix A and Section 2 of this EIA Report.
8.4.1.2 The details of the project are described in full in below and an illustration of the PAFF is also shown in Figure 8.1. The major elements can be summarised as:
¨
approximately 6.75 ha. of land to locate the aviation fuel tank farm and
associated facilities;
¨
a jetty with two berths, able to accommodate 10,000 to 80,000 dwt
vessels. It will be located a minimum 200m away from the water frontage with
the length approximately 575m;
¨
a gross aviation fuel tankage capacity of approx. 140,000m3 in
year 2005-the initial phase,
increasing in stages to match the anticipated growth in aviation fuel
demand to an ultimate gross tankage capacity in the region of 400,000 m3. Tank sizes will be between 23m and 32m
high and 40m in diameter with a capacity of between 27,000m3 to
39,000m3. The 4 tanks proposed in the initial phase will be 29m
high, with a capacity of 35, 000m3;
¨
tanks will be built in phases, starting with 4 tanks when the facility
initially starts operation in late2005/early 2006. One additional tank will be required every 3 years or so to
meet the future demand up to 2040 but tanks will probably be constructed in
sets of 2, 3 or 4. The proposed site will accommodate up to 12 fuel tanks
at 2040;
¨
pumps and associated facilities;
¨
on site operational facilities including administration office; and
¨
pipelines to transfer the fuel to the aviation fuel system at the
airport. A twin pipeline
will connect the facility to the airport pipeline system. The pipelines will be buried at least
3m below the seabed and protected by rock armour.
8.4.2 Tank Farm and Onshore Facilities
8.4.2.1 Approximately 6.75 ha of land are required to locate the aviation fuel tank farm and associated facilities. The proposed site for the tank farm at Tuen Mun Area 38 has recently been reclaimed by Government and is zoned for industrial use. The site is situated at Siu Lang Shui just southeast of the Castle Peak Power station and is adjoined on the west by the Shui Wing Steel Mill and on the south-east by an area of partially formed land still undergoing reclamation and ultimately earmarked for industrial use in keeping with the other land uses in the area. Further east is the River Trade Terminal. The currently allocated plot has a short length of sea frontage of 60m in width, which extends inland for about 140m before widening out to a square area of about 217m in length by 276m in width.
8.4.2.2 No residential developments are present in the area and the closest substantial development, Melody Garden in Tuen Mun, is at least 3 kilometres from the proposed site. The villages at Lung Kwu Tan are closer at about 2km away but are screened from the site by the Castle Peak topography.
8.4.2.3 The tank farm will initially house 4 storage tanks each of 40m diameter by 29m in height and providing a storage capacity of 35,000m3. It is intended that the tankage capacity would be increased in stages of several tanks at a time to match the anticipated growth in aviation fuel demand to an ultimate tankage capacity of about 420,000m3 by 2040. The initial capacity of 140,000m3 is expected to be sufficient until about 2010. It is currently forecast that additional tanks would need to be brought on stream at the rate of about 1 new tank every three years up to a maximum of 12 tanks. The tanks would likely be built in clusters of 2, 3 or 4 tanks at each increase. The heights of future tanks would vary between 23m and 32m and their capacities would vary accordingly between 27,000m3 and 39,000m3. The tank farm would be provided with bundwalls and contained drainage. Each tank will be designed with a fixed cone roof. The tanks are of a standard design and will be finished in a neutral grey non-reflective paint.
8.4.2.4 Other shore based facilities would include office buildings for administrative and security control, leak detection instrumentation, fire fighting and emergency spill equipment, workshops and basic infrastructure including roads, drains, telecommunications, power supply and lighting.
Project Construction and Design
8.4.2.5 The land required for the PAFF tank farm has been minimized by stipulating that large diameter tanks (40 metres) should be used. A total of 12 tanks will ultimately be required at the PAFF tank farm. These, together with an administration building, workshop, car park, pumps, filters, bunding and other facilities will occupy a minimum land area of 6 Ha.
8.4.2.6 As initially suggested by Government, a site was selected adjacent to Shui Wing Steelworks of dimensions 150 metres by 400 metres, the waterfront being 150 metres.
8.4.2.7 Subsequently, there was pressure to reduce the water frontage to a minimum, to accommodate other users, on the basis that it was unnecessary to locate aviation fuel tanks directly on the waterfront. It was determined that a minimum water frontage of 60 metres was required for the PAFF for the following reasons:
¨ to accommodate the fireboat;
¨ to accommodate the work-boats to service the jetty with men, materials and equipment;
¨ to allow for access to pipelines and other services from the jetty to the tank farm, and pipelines from the tank farm to the airport;
¨ to locate a stormwater drainage outfall and fire water inlet;
¨ to house spill response equipment;
¨ to provide landscaping; and
¨ to allow for delivery of heavy equipment and material by sea, for future phases of tank farm construction.
8.4.2.8 Other constraints in determining the shape of the PAFF tank farm layout are as follows:
¨ access to Shui Wing Steelworks must be maintained on the north west boundary of the PAFF tank farm from Lung Yiu Street. In addition, a turning circle at the end of the spur road would be required;
¨ adjacent facilities to the south east of the PAFF tank farm would require a set back of the PAFF from the quay wall of 140 metres;
¨ direct access from Lung Mun Road to the PAFF tank farm would not be acceptable;
¨ no reprovisioning of the temporary car park or other facilities currently provided in the PAFF tank farm area, are required; and
¨ adequate landscaping for the PAFF tank farm area should be provided.
8.4.2.9 Based on all the above constraints, the tank farm layout was determined, as shown in Figure 3.2a, to require a land take of about 6.75 Ha. This comprises an approximately rectangular shape of about 280 metres by 215 metres with an additional irregular shape area towards the sea culminating in a 60 metre water frontage. In this configuration, it should be noted that, because this irregular shape towards the waterfront is of insufficient width to accommodate a tank, with consideration of potential enhancement of existing landscape, it is best used for other facilities such as the administration building, pumps and landscaping. In addition, allowance for further access for emergency vehicles (EVA) is provided along the north west boundary of the PAFF tank farm. Regarding to the standard requirement, a provision of landscaped boundary is also considered along the set back of the PAFF tank farm area.
Alternatives
to Tanks
8.4.2.10 Aviation fuel storage normally comprises above ground vertical cylindrical tanks of large diameter. Alternative means of storage exists worldwide (e.g. underground storage) and were considered for the PAFF. However, underground storage for PAFF was ruled out on the grounds that such a method could not meet the environmental, operational and safety requirements of the PAFF, with a jetty close by. Accordingly, an above ground tank farm at Tuen Mun Area 38 has been selected as the most appropriate solution to meet the requirements.
8.4.3.1 The PAFF requires the construction of a twin berth jetty. This will be sited approximately 200m offshore with no direct access to shore. The two end to end berths would run approximately parallel to the quay wall and fuel tanker berthing would be provided on the sea facing side. The main activity at the jetty will be unloading of the tankers to the storage tanks in the tank farm. Two or possibly three unloading arms will be provided to unload the fuel at each berth. Fuel lines and services will run to shore through submarine pipes and cabling protected by rock armour not protruding above the existing seabed, so as to provide marine access to other facilities adjoining the tank farm.
8.4.3.2 The sea bed level at the site lies between –17 and –18m PD indicating that water depths can reach 19.5-20.5m during the highest high tides. This places considerable constraints upon the types of piling barge which can be used. Conventional anchored pontoons capable of supporting the type of equipment necessary for percussive hammers can be used in these depths of water provided suitable anchors can be deployed to adequately maintain the barge on station during the piling operations.
8.4.3.3 In order to support oscillatory rigs necessary to install casings deep into the seabed for the purposes of constructing bored piles it will be necessary to mobilise a substantial jack up barge. A suitable barge will be required to support the necessary equipment and to resist large torsional forces imposed by the oscillators during the installation process. Such barges, capable of operating in the proposed depth of water are not common and are usually used for offshore oil exploratory works. They are not available in Hong Kong at the present time and mobilisation of such a barge from exploratory work sites will probably not be economically viable or achievable in the timescale of the project.
8.4.3.4 Aside for the engineering constraints, consideration of the most appropriate piling method must have due regard for environmental concerns. A particular consideration for this project is the need to protect marine mammals from disturbance during construction. Similar issues were raised when the temporary AFRF was constructed near Sha Chau in 1995. At that time the Airport Authority were advised by a panel of international cetacean experts that percussively driven piles would be preferred over in-situ bored piles, as was the original intention at that time, based upon the decreased time required for this technique, although it would be important to strive to mitigate noise. (ERM 1996).
8.4.3.5 For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the construction would rest on tubular steel piles of diameter between about 900 and 1200mm. It is anticipated that tubular steel piles of the type proposed would be driven into the seabed to achieve the required support. Driving operations will either be undertaken using percussive diesel or hydraulic hammers, as simple drop hammers capable of driving piles of the size required are not readily available. Approximately 200 piles can be expected and the piling period would last about 120 days (60 days for actual pile driving time). A key consideration in the design and construction will be how to mitigate noise.
8.4.3.6 Defensive fenders would be provided off the shore side of the jetty to prevent any possible collision from small craft straying into the prohibited area. Coupling points on the ship would be provided with slop trays to catch occasional minor spills of unloaded fuels during coupling and de-coupling and the vessels will deal with the spills.
8.4.4.1 A short buried submarine twin pipeline will connect the reception jetty to the onshore tank farm, together with the utilities required for the jetty. The fuel from the jetty to the tank farm will be transferred at a rate of 3,500m3 per hour. It is proposed that the fuel would then be delivered to the airport site by means of further buried twin subsea pipelines which would connect to the existing facility at Sha Chau. The total length of the pipelines would be about 4.8km including a 400m stretch within the Lung Kwu Chau and Sha Chau Marine Park in the approach to the existing AFRF pipeline.
8.4.4.2 The twin pipelines would each have an outside diameter of 500mm. The pipelines will be operated at a pressure of 30 barge (gauge pressure) and have a pumping rate of 30,000m3 per day or 1,500m3 per hour based upon 20 hours per day of pumping. It is assumed that these would be continuously welded, encased in concrete and lowered into a trench of approximately 3 - 3.5m depth. Future dredging activities are planned along the pipeline route for a coal berth for CLP in Urmston Road and, therefore, in this section of the alignment, the pipeline depth will be increased to around 6-7m below seabed. In both cases, the trench would then initially be backfilled with sand and protected with graded stones and rock armour (150-300mm) for about 1m up to the existing seabed.
8.4.4.3 The pipeline from the PAFF to the existing AFRF would be connected by brought up one of the existing dolphin piles and flanged together with the existing pipeline using a new valve arrangement incorporated in-between. The trench is assumed to be formed by a combination of trailer suction hopper dredger for the deeper areas in Urmston Road and by grab dredging for the remaining length. Sand for the pipeline backfill would be placed by bottom dumping from barges. Graded rock would be subsequently placed either down pipe directly into the trench or lowered by grab. A possible alternative to dredging a trench for the pipelines would be horizontal directional drilling, tunnel and ploughing. These techniques have been discussed in Section 2 of this report and dismissed on engineering, programming, environmental and cost constraints.
8.4.5.1 The fuel reception jetty will provide two berths to allow flexibility to accommodate a full range of vessels within the size range 10,000 to 80,000dwt. Fuel would typically be received at a frequency of twice per week rising to a forecast average of 3.6 occasions per week at the 2040 planning horizon.
8.5
Baseline Study of Landscape and Visual
Resources
8.5.1.1
Tuen Mun
Area 38 is new reclaimed land zoned for industry, facing south towards Urmston
Road (Harbour) with the Castle Peak as its backdrop. To the west, it is adjacent to Shui Wing Steelworks and the
Castle Peak Power Station. To the east, there is the CED reclamation site, Hong
Kong Industrial Estate and River Trade Terminal. The landscape character in the vicinity varies between from
woodland, industrial/utility, transport corridor, pier and waterfrontage, as
shown in Figures 8.3a and 8.3b.
The site is open to view from the sea with a water frontage of
approximately 60m in length. It is
enclosed by future industrial development on the Special Industrial Area
(S.I.A.), refer to Section 8.6 on S.I.A. definition. Visual resources are mainly in the local context and the sea
traffic along Urmston Road (Harbour).
8.5.2
Baseline Landscape Resources
8.5.2.1
In
accordance with the study brief, landscape character units (LCUs) and landscape
elements have been identified within 500m from the site boundary. The LCUs have been selected depending
on the presence and combination of landscape pattern, mass and scale of
buildings and structures, topography, and existing vegetation. For each LCU
assessment has been made of its quality and sensitivity to change. The
landscape elements (including trees, coastline, sea, existing roads etc) have
been quantified. The methodology refers to Section 1.3. The results of the landscape baseline
study are described in Table 8.5a, Table 8.5b and shown on Figures 8.3a, 8.3b
and 8.3c
8.5.2.2
The combination of the Landscape Character Units are discussed below and
shown in Table 8.5a.
¨
Woodland, grassland and
shrubland (LCU1) –Existing green areas comprising woodland (of predominantly native tree
species), grassland and shrubland, including major ridgelines in southwest New
Territories – Castle Peak. This LCU encompasses south facing wooded slopes that
provide a green backdrop to the proposed project. The topography is fairly steep, rising to Castle Peak to the
north. Parts of the woodland resource Castle Peak Bay have been disturbed by
formation works required for road and/or industrial uses. Despite this
localised disturbance LCU1 remains an important landscape resource in the local
context of Castle Peak as well as Hong Kong as a whole. Because of this
distinct character, LCU1 has a high landscape quality and a high sensitivity to
change.
¨
Transport Corridor (LCU2) – Existing linear
structures for vehicles, Lung Mun Road. Lung Mun Road is the key local access
from Tuen Mun Town Centre to Lung Kwu Tan via Tuen Mun Area 38. It is a linear engineering structure,
which can always adapt to change and has a low sensitivity. Common species of
roadside trees are found along the corridor. LCU2 has a medium landscape quality.
¨
Industrial/ Utility
(LCU3) –
LCU3 comprises the industrial development at Castle Peak Bay including existing
factories, laundry workshop, cargo terminal, steel mill and power station. This
LCU has an industrial character comprising large
scale infrastructure elements such as chimneys, industrial buildings and sheds
and loading and unloading machinery. Much of this area comprises reclaimed land. This LCU also includes
small areas of roadside amenity planting along the local road and at the
entrances to industrial sites. Most of this planting is immature comprising
whips and shrubs (common species).
The future outlook is described under the Draft
Tuen Mun OZP No. S/TM/16. Under this draft planning document the area is zoned
for ‘OU’ (Special Industries Area) and is reserved for
land-extensive and capital investment industry as well as for other special
industries.Under the draft OZP further reclamation is proposed. This includes the
formation of new land (currently in progress by CED) to the south east of the
proposed site. LCU3 is assessed as having a low landscape quality and that is
can accommodate change. The proposed PAFF is located within LCU3.
¨
Pier (LCU4) – This LCU is
characterised by berthing points for the power plant, cement works and steel
mill as well as other engineered
infrastructure. These are typical
landscape elements found along the Tuen Mun Area 38 waterfront. LCU4 has a low landscape quality and a
low sensitivity to change.
¨
Waterfront (LCU5) – LCU5 comprises a
manmade straight edge along Area 38 with berthing points for sea vessels and
harbour interface with the site. The harbour edge is formed by a typical seawall. This runs along the reclaimed
area of Castle Peak Bay. Although marine habitat adjacent to the site has been
disturbed by the on-going reclamation activities at Castle Peak Bay, Urmston
Road (Harbour) is still recognised as a regionally significant marine
habitat. The overall landscape
quality and sensitivity to change of LCU5 remains high.
Table
8.5a Landscape Character
Units (LCUs)
LCU |
Name |
Description |
Quality/Sensitivity
to Change |
|
LCU 1 |
Woodland,
grassland and shrubland |
Existing
green areas comprise the predominantly wooded (of native tree species)
backdrop of Castle Peak and related hills. |
u High/High |
|
LCU 2 |
Transport
Corridor |
Existing
linear structures for vehicles, Lung Mun Road. |
u Medium/Low |
|
LCU 3 |
Industrial/
Utility |
Industrial/
Utility facilities next to the sites, including power station, steel mill ,
river trade terminal (container terminal), pumping station and container
storage and repair, warehouses, CED reclamation site etc. |
u Low/Low |
|
LCU 4 |
Pier |
Built element
for power plant, cement works, steel mill. |
u Low/Low |
|
LCU 5 |
Water
frontage |
Reclamation
edge, manmade seawall. |
u High/High |
8.5.2.3 Within the 500m study, the proposed PAFF falls within Industrial/Utility (LCU3) where the local industrial landscape character comprises a unique pattern of existing uses and planned uses (refer to Section 8.5) at Tuen Mun Area 38. The landscape elements (refer to Table 8.5b) are changing due to reclamation and other construction activities and the overall quality of LCU3 will remain industrial in the future. The proposed PAFF is located on reclaimed Government land without anything on it except a temporary car park with a local access and an EVA. A total of 212 whips and shrubs have been found along the local access and the amenity areas next to the car park. Notwithstanding, the trees form only a very small portion within LCU3 and LCU3 is still dominated by industrial elements with low landscape quality and sensitivity to change.
Type |
Description |
Total area within
the LVIA Study Area |
Secondary
Woodland |
Existing
secondary woodland associated with rocky area on the Castle Peak, north to
the Proposed PAFF. |
Approx. 14ha. |
Existing Road
side whips |
Existing
planting along roads. |
Approx. 6ha
(1000 nos. of roadside trees/whips) |
Cut Slope |
Existing cut
slope along Lung Mun Road and also near the container storage areas. |
Approx.
4.7ha. |
Sea |
|
Approx.
230ha. |
Vehicular
Corridor |
Existing
linear structures for vehicles, Lung Mun Road. |
Approx. 19ha |
Industrial
Built-up area |
Reclaimed
land at Tuen Mun Area 38 along Castle Peak Bay. Built elements are power plant, cement works, steel mill. |
Approx. 42ha. |
Manmade
Coastline |
Existing
manmade seawall along Tuen Mun Area 38. |
Approx. 2700m
length |
8.5.3
Baseline Visual Resources
8.5.3.1 In accordance with the study methodology in Section 8.3, the Sensitive Visual Receivers (SVRs) within the visual envelope were identified and grouped into types, as shown in Figure 8.4a. In summary, the SVRs can be classified into 4 representative groupings according to the location of the proposed PAFF as defined in Table 8.6. The visual resources closely relate to the landscape character units (LCUs). These units vary from the water frontage to the industrial/utility facilities.
8.5.3.2 To assist in determining Sensitive Visual Receivers (SVRs), a visual envelope has been determined as illustrated on Figure 8.4a and key views from and toward the proposed PAFF are described as below.
8.5.3.3 Key views from the proposed PAFF are:
¨ partially obstructed view to the east towards the River Trade Terminal across CED reclamation site where planned for industrial uses;
¨ oblique and obstructed view to Shui Wing Steel Mill and Castle Peak Power Station;
¨ north with open view to the green backdrop of the Castle Peak;
¨
south with open view to the sea
(Urmston Road); and
¨
south distant view to Chek Lap Kok
Airport.
8.5.3.4 Key views toward the proposed PAFF are:
¨ oblique and open views north across the site from the sea (Urmston Road);
¨ partial view from Lung Mun Road;
¨ partial obstructed view from adjacent industrial development; and
¨
distant view from north Chek Lap Kok
Airport and North Lantau Express.
8.5.3.5 Details of the SVRs are provided below and summarised in Table 8.6:
¨ SVR1 are the passengers and staff on vessels travelling along the Urmston Road Channel. They have oblique and open views north to the proposed PAFF and other industrial development at Castle Peak Bay from the sea. Their views are transient in nature and distant from the proposed PAFF. Their sensitivity to change is low.
¨
SVR2 are the drivers and passengers of vehicles using the Lung Mun Road. They are having partially obstructed views across Area 38. Although
they are proximate to the proposed PAFF, these receivers are in transit and
relatively small in number.
Pedestrians along Lung Mun Road are relatively infrequent. . Their
sensitivity to change is low.
¨
SVR3 are the workers working at Tuen Mun Area 38
during working hours only. Views from the industrial buildings are limited and
always blocked by the huge machinery at the River Trade Terminal and the Castle
Peak Power Station. Their
sensitivity to change is low.
¨
SVR4 are the passengers using the North Lantau Express
and visitors and staff using the north side of Chek Lap Kok Airport. They have very distant views, at a
minimum 6000m across the Urmston Road Channel to the proposed PAFF. Residents
at Tung Chung in the higher towers are over 8000m distant. Their views are
dominated by the foreground of Chek Lap Kok Airport and the PAFF will be a very
small distant element within the general context of the Tuen Mun industrial
area. Due to the local climatic conditions resulting in a high incidence of sea
mist, the proposed PAFF will only be visible intermittently through out the
year. . Local climatic conditions
mean that, in general, during spring and summer, Castle Peak Bay cannot be seen
clearly from the SVR4 location.
Their sensitivity to change is low.
8.5.3.6
Principal
viewpoints (Vpt.) are selected from each SVRs to illustrate their sensitivity and the extent of change
with the proposed PAFF (see Figure 8.4a).
Table 8.6 Sensitive
Visual Receivers
SVR |
Name |
Nature of Viewer Group |
Distance to Proposed PAFF |
Frequency and duration
of view towards proposed PAFF and source of impact Type of view |
Sensitivity to change
and visual intrusion |
SVR 1 |
Sea traffic along Urmston Road Vpt.
1 Urmston Road
near River Trade Terminal Quantity of SVRs: small |
Passengers
and Workers on vessels using Urmston Road Channel |
200m-5000m 2141m |
Oblique and open views north across the site from the sea Low frequency transition view during daytime |
u Low |
SVR 2 |
Traffic from Lung Mun Road Vpt.
2 Elevated view from Lung Mun Road Quantity of SVRs: small |
Passengers
+ pedestrian |
50m-2000m 50m |
Partial view towards south Area38 Low frequency transition view during day & night |
u Low |
SVR 3 |
Industrial/ Utility facilities Vpt.
3.1 From River Trade Terminal Vpt.
3.2 From CED Reclamation site Quantity of SVRs: small |
Workers
at River Trade Terminal and industrial
facilities at Tuen Mun Area 38 |
250m-4000m 1800m 250m |
Partial and obstructed views toward the site Low frequency view during working hours |
u Low |
SVR 4 |
North Lantau development including Tung
Chung Vpt.
4.1 Chek Lap Kok Airport Vpt.
4.2 North Lantau Express Quantity of SVRs: medium |
Staff
+ Visitors + Passengers and Local Residents of Tung Chung |
Over 6000m Residents of Tung Chung are over 8000m distant from PAFF |
Very Distant and transient view towards the site (Views
are frequently affected by Local Climatic Conditions of Sea Mist over Urmston
Road Channel). Medium frequency view during daytime |
u Low |
8.5.3.7 In addition, views from residents at Tuen Mun Town and Lung Kwu Tan have also been considered. Although they are about 2km away or more from the site and screened by natural topology, photographs have been taken from the view point options (Vpt. A1 – A3) in Table 8.7 to demonstrate that they are out of the visual envelope of the proposed PAFF, as shown in Figure 8.4b.
Table
8.7 Viewpoint
Options from the Nearest Residents
Vpt. Options |
Name |
Nature of Viewer Group |
Distance to Proposed
PAFF |
Type of view |
Vpt. A1 |
Lung Kwu Tan |
Residents + Visitors |
over 1700m |
Obstructed Views toward the site, blocked by Tap Shek Kok
and Castle Peak Power Station. |
Vpt. A2 |
Melody Garden near Butterfly Beach |
Residents + Visitors |
over 3600m |
Obstructed/ Elevated Views toward the site, blocked by
natural topography. |
Vpt. A3 |
Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Residential Blocks Miami Beach Tower |
Residents |
over 4000m |
Obstructed/ Elevated Views toward the site, blocked by
natural topography and River Trade Terminal. |
8.6
Review of Planning and Development
Control Framework
8.6.1
The
broad statutory planning framework
and intention for the proposed site is currently covered by the Draft Tuen Mun
Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/TM/16 exhibited on 19.4.2002. According to the Draft Tuen Mun OZP No.
S/TM/16, the Site is zoned for ‘OU’ (Special Industries Area). This area is reserved for land-extensive and capital investment
industry as well as for other special industries. This may include uses such as
the proposed PAFF. Under
Column 2 of the Statutory Notes, a ‘Utility Installation
not Ancillary to the Specified Use’ may be permitted with or without
conditions on application to the TOWN PLANNING BOARD (OZP and Statutory Notes
at the front of this Statement refer).
8.6.2
The area in which
the Site is located (i.e. Planning Area 38) will be dominated by industrial and
OU uses (OZP at the front of this Statement refers). These include existing and
proposed uses such as the Castle Peak Power Station, Green Island Cement Plant,
Shui Wing Steel Mill, ‘Special Industries Area’, a River Trade Terminal, piers,
Container Storage and Repair Depot, Breakwater, and Sewerage Treatment Plant.
These are all non-sensitive uses. The proposed PAFF would, therefore be
compatible with adjacent developments.
8.6.3
The non-statutory Planning
Context is indicated in the Tuen Mun New Town Areas 38 & 47 Layout Plan
which was adopted on 2 June 1992, the sites along Lung Mun Road (including the
Site) are zoned for Industrial (Types B and C) uses. The proposed PAFF site
falls within a site reserved for a Centralised Incineration Facility (Site B),
a Chemical Waste Bulking/ Treatment Plant (Site C) and two other sites reserved
for industrial uses (Sites D and E). With the proposed PAFF, the incinerator
and waste treatment plant sites are likely to be relocated elsewhere within the
Tuen Mun Area 38 (e.g. Sites F to Q).
8.6.4
Other non-statutory guidance from Government on the need for PAFF has been recognised by the
HKSAR Government. In March 2001, the facility received support from the Chief
Secretary, Sir Donald Tsang and Government bureaux. There has been ongoing
liaison with the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE), Green Groups, the
Country and Marine Parks Board (CMPB), and the Tuen Mun District Council. Most
departments and organisations have given in-principle support to Tuen Mun Area 38
as the preferred site for the PAFF. There has been, in conjunction with
Government, ongoing consultation with the Tuen Mun District Council (who are
the only objectors to the proposed project). The local community has voiced
concerns over risk and visual matters. The Airport Authority has given a
commitment that adverse landscape and visual impacts would be fully mitigated
and with a resultant negligible residual impact.
8.6.5 The future planning outlook and interface with sensitive uses and sensitive visual receivers indicates that Tuen Mun Area 38 will remain designated as a ‘Special Industries Area’. There are a number of potential uses for the area. These include Environmental and Food Bureau’s proposed 20 ha Waste Recovery/Recycling Park located southeast of the proposed PAFF. Processing plants for batteries, electrical and electronic appliances, glass, metal, organic waste, waste oil, paper, plastics and foam, textile waste, toner cartridge, tyre, wood, etc. may also be included within the Park. However, the inclusion of the proposed Recovery Park within Tuen Mun Area 38 has not been confirmed to date. The PAFF would be likely to interface with these future uses. However since all the proposed uses are non-sensitive uses, the interface can be ameliorated by buffer planting, sensitive site layout and orientation. . These possible future uses have a low sensitivity and given the overall industrial context it is predicted that PAFF would result in a negligible change and impact on such uses.
8.6.6
In accordance with the broad statutory
planning framework mentioned above, the planning of Tuen Mun Area 38 is
particularly for industries, which require large pieces of land and high
capital investment. Since the
proposed PAFF development complies with this planning intention, no potential
conflicts are found with respect to landscape and visual impacts with the
existing planning and development control framework. The proposed PAFF is located within an area zoned “OU (SIA)
on the draft Tuen Mun Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/TM/16. Planning permission from the Town
Planning Board will be required for the proposed PAFF and ancillary facilities.
8.7
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
during Construction
8.7.1.1 The proposed site is on reclaimed land. Potential construction impacts will be building materials delivery, dredging for the pipeline, piling and construction activities of the jetty, formation of the access road and associated facilities. Construction of the 12 proposed fuel tanks would be in phases over a 35 year period. Phase 1 will commence in late 2005/early 2006 comprising construction of the first 4 cylindrical fuel tanks, the administration block, proposed jetty and earth screen bunding. In order to meet the future demand of the aviation fuel storage, future expansion is required and fuel tanks will be required about every 3 years (in sets of 2, 3 or 4) until 2040.
8.7.2
Prediction and Evaluation
of Landscape Impacts during Construction
8.7.2.1 A landscape impact is a physical change to an existing landscape resource. By mapping the extent and location of these changes, any loss or alteration can be assessed and, where possible, re-provisioned or compensated by landscape mitigation measures incorporated into a Project.
Disturbance to Existing Vegetation
8.7.2.2 Construction activities will comprise site formation and building of fuel tanks and administration blocks. Site formation includes clearance of the whole site. Earthworks will be undertaken to form a low bund around the tanks comprising a concrete containment bundwall, access road and security fencing. The fuel tanks will be located inside these bunded areas. Other sources of construction impacts will result from storage of construction materials and the movement of machinery. These construction activities will result in disturbance to vegetation along the existing access road that is within LCU3. The proposed site for PAFF is located on a reclaimed and disturbed land at Castle Peak Bay with a low landscape quality. There are approximately 212 existing roadside whips and shrubs that form immature planting belts to the access from Lung Mun Road and near the existing car parking area. These whips and shrubs are common Hong Kong and low value species which include Ficus elastica, Casuarina equisetifolia, Cassia surattensis, Delonix regia, Garcina spicata, Macaranga tanarius, Eucalyptus robusta and Bauhinia variegata.
8.7.2.3 During the construction phase, the entire site will be cleared and thus, this existing vegetation will need to be removed. Mitigation of this impact is dealt with under the corresponding landscape mitigation measures as discussed in Section 8.10. The high landscape quality of the natural setting of Castle Peak (LCU1) behind the proposed PAFF will remain unaffected.
Disturbance of the Existing Waterfront
8.7.2.4 The construction activity of the proposed jetty, (which is 200m away from the waterfront) and dredging for the seabed pipelines will result in some disturbance to LCU5. Approximately 60m of existing manmade waterfront and approximately 1.5 hectares of sea area will be affected. The proposed jetty massing is low, long and narrow. Connecting pipes are laid under the sea. The jetty proposal will therefore result in a minor-moderate change to the existing condition. Compared to disturbance resulting form the CED reclamation that is being undertaken next to the proposed PAFF, the jetty construction impact will be comparatively small. Corresponding landscape mitigation measures are discussed in Section 8.10.
Disturbance of the Industrial/Utility Areas
8.7.2.5 The site for the proposed PAFF comprises about 6.75 hectares of
reclaimed land in LCU 3. It
is currently fenced and used as a material storage and car parking area.
Compared to the neighbouring industrial
facilities, such as River Trade Terminal and the Castle Peak Power Station, as
well as the construction activities at the Castle Peak Bay, the construction
impacts of the proposed PAFF will be relatively small. None of the ferry piers of LCU 4 will
be affected.
8.7.2.6 During construction, LCU3 and LCU5 will have slight adverse impacts.
These result from the site formation and the construction of the initial phase
of the tank farm (4 tanks). The
magnitude of change to LCU3 and LCU5 is assessed as small when considered in
relation to the industrial context of the neighbouring heavy industry. The landscape character of LCU1, LCU2
and LCU4 will remain unchanged, as summarised in Tables 8.8, Tables 8.9 and
8.10.
Table 8.8 Summary
of Disturbance to Landscape Character Units
Description |
Disturbances |
LCU 1 Woodland,
grassland and shrubland |
Nil |
LCU 2
Transport Corridor |
Nil |
|
|
LCU 3
Industrial/Utility |
Approx. 6.75
ha. of land zoned for Industrial
Uses |
LCU 4 Pier |
Nil |
LCU5 Waterfront |
Approx. 60m
length of disturbed waterfront. |
Table
8.9 Summary
of Disturbance to Landscape Elements
Type of Landscape
Element |
Total area within
the Study Area of the PAFF |
Area in
Interaction with the PAFF |
Secondary
Woodland |
Approx. 14ha. |
Nil |
Existing Road
side whips |
Approx. 6ha
(1000 nos. of roadside trees/whips) |
0.25ha (212
nos. of roadside whips) |
Cut Slope |
Approx. 5ha. |
Nil |
Sea |
Approx.
230ha. |
Approx.
1.5ha. sea area |
Vehicular
Corridor |
Approx. 19ha |
375m long
existing access road. |
Industrial
Built-up area |
Approx. 42ha. |
Approx.
6.75ha. reclaimed land |
Manmade
Coastline |
Approx. 2700m
length |
60m length |
8.7.3
Prediction and Evaluation
of Visual Impacts during Construction
8.7.3.1 The visual impacts arising will be:
¨ the interruption and obstruction of views northwards by built elements and the dredging activities from the vessels using the Urmston Road (Harbour) will result in slight adverse visual impacts for SVR1;
¨ slight interruption and obstruction of views southwards towards the Harbour from the vehicles using Lung Mun Road, will result in slight adverse visual impacts for SVR2;
¨ the interruption and obstruction of views along the waterfront from the adjacent properties will result in slight adverse visual impacts for SVR3; and
¨ the change of visual quality northwards from the distant North Lantau Island will result in slight adverse visual impacts for SVR4.
8.7.3.2 The visual envelope shown on Figure 8.4a illustrates the possible inter-visibility of views toward the proposed project. Although the visual envelope extends south to Lantau (including Tung Chung and Chep Lap Kok Airport), north toward Castle Peak, east along the sea channel to Tai Lam Chung and Yam O and west to Sha Chau Island many of these views are over very long distances (over 8km). At these distances the proposed project it is predicted that the proposed project will result in an imperceptible magnitude of change and negligible adverse impact. Importantly, for potentially local sensitive residents at Lung Kwu Tan to the north west and adjacent Butterfly Beach to the east it is assessed that local topography will obstruct views to the proposed project. These local residents will therefore not be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
8.7.3.3 A summary of the visual impacts is given in Table 8.11. Construction of phase 2005 will comprise four fuel tanks, administration block and jetty. Visual impact will result from the permanent intrusion of the built elements and related construction activities. The number of SVRs affected by the construction of the proposed PAFF are relatively small, however, all the affected SVRs have a low sensitivity to change. A slight adverse impact is predicted to all SVRs.
8.8
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
during Operation
8.8.1.1 The PAFF is a static storage facility. Few operational activities will be involved in the day to day running of the facility. The initial operational phase of the PAFF will not result in any further perceptible changes to the existing landscape and visual character. Although permanent built elements intrude into the local landscape context, the overall quality of the industrial context will remain unchanged. It is anticipated that new tanks will be needed every 3 years. Tanks may be constructed in batches of 2, 3 and/or 4 tanks until the development comprises a total of 12. The development will be completed by 2040. This construction programme is related to the future expansion and demand at the Airport. Cumulative landscape and visual impacts will result from the construction of the additional fuel tanks.
8.8.2
Prediction and Evaluation
of Landscape Impacts during Operation
8.8.2.1 During operation from 2005 to 2010, it is predicted that the magnitude of change from the baseline condition will be negligible as. With the gradual and periodic construction of new fuel tanks after 2010, a slight adverse landscape impact to LCU3 is predicted as shown in Table 8.10. No change is predicted to the other LCUs.
8.8.3
Prediction and Evaluation
of Visual Impacts during Operation
8.8.3.1 The visual impacts in comparison to the baseline condition arising from the initial operation phase of PAFF at 2005 and its gradual and periodic expansion to 2040 are discussed below. A summary of the visual impacts is given in Table 8.11.
¨ on completion of construction and operation of the initial phase (comprising the four tanks, jetty and administration building), no perceptible change to views from SVRs in the baseline condition is predicted. Magnitude of visual change is therefore predicted as negligible;
¨ visual impacts to SVR1 resulting from an increase in vessel traffic using the Urmston Road will be negligible. The PAFF vessel traffic will constitute less than 1% of the existing traffic volume at 2005 (see Table 3.1 and Table 10.3);
¨ in the expansion phases from 2010–2040 the new tanks will generally be placed and obscured by those constructed in the initial phase. As a result the cumulative magnitude of change for SVR1 and SVR4 that could result from the maximum utilisation of PAFF, is predicted as slight to negligible adverse visual impact;
¨ for SVR2 the cumulative impact from expansion of PAFF to 2040 (through interruption/obstruction in views from the south) is predicted to result in a slight adverse visual impact.. The corresponding landscape mitigation measures are discussed in Section 8.10;
¨ for SVR3 the cumulative impact from expansion of PAFF to 2040 (through interruption/obstruction in views from the adjacent properties) will result in slight adverse visual impacts; and
¨
cumulative adverse visual impacts will
result from the permanent intrusion up 12 fuel tanks at 2040.
8.9
Night-time Glare Assessment
8.9.1 In order to meet safety and security requirements permanent 24 hours lighting of the proposed PAFF is necessary. As the lighting requirements for these types of facilities are standard, they will be very similar to those used on the existing Chek Lap Kok Facility. Night-time glare is potentially a significant visual impact. Studies of the night-time glare from the existing Chek Lap Kok fuel tank farm give an estimate of the potential glare from the proposed PAFF. Figure 8.5 indicates the night-time lighting of existing Chek Lap Kok fuel tank farm. As shown, lighting is required along staircases and railings only. The intensity, luminance and lighting levels of the fuel tank farm are low. Lighting is generally focussed and shielded to reduce glare and illuminate required areas only. Compared to road lighting the levels are low.
8.9.2 The impact of night-time lighting of the proposed PAFF will be reduced due to its remote location away from residents and sensitive receivers. The impact will be further mitigated by its absorption into the overall and existing night-time of the neighbouring industry, including the River Trade Terminal (24 hours container delivery operation) and the Castle Peak Power Station. Night-time glare from these facilities will be more conspicuous than that for the proposed PAFF. A slight cumulative impact from night glare is anticipated as the tank farm expands over the period from 2010 to 2040. However, it is predicted that the magnitude of change will be small resulting in slight-negligible adverse impact.
Table
8.10 Summary
of Landscape Impacts (without Landscape Mitigation Measures)
LCU Name |
Disturbed Area |
Quality/
Sensitivity to Change |
Construction
Phase |
Operation
Phase 2005 |
Operation
Phase 2010-2040 |
|||
Magnitude
of Change and Source of Landscape Impact |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact |
Magnitude
of Change during Operation Phase |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact |
Magnitude
of Change during Operation Phase |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact |
|||
LCU 1 Woodland, grassland and
shrubland |
Nil |
u High |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LCU 2 Transport Corridor |
Nil |
u Low |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LCU 3 Industrial/
Utility |
Approx.
6.75 ha. |
u Low |
Small
(site
formation + construction of fuel tanks & administration blocks + delivery
construction materials + temporary hoarding) |
Slight Adverse |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Small (fuel tank farm extension
in group of 2,3 or 4) |
Slight Adverse |
LCU 4 Pier |
Nil |
u Low |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LCU 5 Water
frontage |
Approx. 60m
long for
administration blocks approx.
1.5ha. sea area for the proposed
jetty |
u High |
Small construction
of jetty + delivery construction materials + dredging seabed + temporary
hoarding |
Moderate Adverse |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Table 8.11 Assessment
of Visual Impacts (without Landscape Mitigation Measures)
SVR |
Name |
Sensitivity
to Change and Visual Intrusion |
Construction
Phase |
Operation Phase 2005 |
Operation Phase 2010 -2040 |
|||
Magnitude
of Visual Change |
Significance
Threshold of Visual Impact |
Magnitude
of Visual Change |
Significance Threshold of Visual Impact |
Magnitude of Visual Change |
Significance Threshold of Visual Impact |
|||
SVR
1 |
Sea
traffic along Urmston Road Vpt. 1
Urmston Road near River Trade Terminal Quantity
of SVRs: small |
u Low |
u Small |
Slight Adverse |
u Negligible |
Negligible |
u Negligible |
Negligible |
SVR
2 |
Traffic
from Lung Mun Road Vpt. 2 Elevated view from Lung Mun Road
Quantity
of SVRs: small |
u Low |
u Small |
Slight Adverse |
u Negligible |
Negligible |
u Intermediate |
Slight Adverse |
SVR
3 |
Industrial/
Utility facilities Vpt. 3.1 From River Trade Terminal Vpt. 3.2 From CED Reclamation site Quantity
of SVRs: small |
u Low |
u Small |
Slight Adverse |
u Negligible |
Negligible |
u Intermediate |
Slight Adverse |
SVR
4 |
North
Lantau Development including Ting Chung Quantity
of SVRs: medium |
u Low |
u Small |
Slight Adverse |
u Negligible |
Negligible |
u Negligible |
Negligible |
8.10
Recommended Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures
8.10.1.1 The assessment
in the previous section predicts that the majority of visual impacts both
during construction and initial operation at 2005 and expansion from 2010 –
2040 will be slight adverse. The
impact on the landscape character is predicted as negligible primarily because
of the existing industrial landscape character into which the proposed PAFF
will be located, as well as its remote and enclosed location. Minor adverse
impacts include: a “slight adverse” landscape impact to the
“Industrial/Utility” LCU 3 during construction and operation phase 2010-2040,
and a “moderate adverse” landscape impact to the “Water Frontage” LCU5 during
construction. Impacts on the visual
resources and SVRs are also predicted to be slight, primarily due to the remote
and enclosed location of the proposed PAFF. A “slight adverse” visual impact
is, however, predicted to viewer groups at SVR2 and SVR3 at Year 2040, when the
tank farm is at capacity.
8.10.1.2 The key source landscape impacts arise from construction activities, such as building material delivery, construction of jetty, fuel tanks and associated facilities. The key source of the visual impact is the permanent intrusion of the jetty and fuel tanks in views from all SVRs.
8.10.1.3 In order to mitigate these impacts a comprehensive range of
landscape mitigation measures (LMMs) and landscape framework have been
developed in-conjunction with the site planning and phasing of the site. The
landscape framework includes the following enhancement and mitigation measures:
¨
advanced screen mounding and screen
planting (LMM1);
¨
advanced boundary bund and buffer
planting (LMM2);
¨
advanced
transplantation of existing trees (LMM2);
¨
selection of fast
growing and native tree and shrub mixes (LMM1 and LMM2); and
¨
recessive colours
and recessive night-time lighting to tanks and associated buildings (LMM3 and
LMM4).
8.10.1.4 All of the above landscape mitigation measures have been confirmed
with the project proponent for
incorporation into the proposed PAFF.
The mitigation measures are summarised in the following paragraphs and
outlined in Tables 8.12 and 8.13, Figures 8.6a and 8.6b and in the
Environmental Mitigation Implementation Schedules in Appendix B. No off-site mitigation measures have
been proposed. Table 8.14 gives a full description of the Landscape Mitigation
Measures and their proposed programming, funding, implementation, management
and maintenance.
8.10.2
Landscape Mitigation
Measure 1 (LMM1) – Advanced Screen Mound and Managed Construction Programming and Soil Conservation.
8.10.2.1 As only one-third of the site will be built up by 2005 there is a significant opportunity to reduce immediate adverse visual and landscape impacts through screen mounding. It is recommended that the remaining areas of the site be utilised for screen mounding. It is anticipated that these would be constructed and planted early on in the construction programme prior to the building of the Phase 1 tanks. The screen mounds would be hydro-seeded and part tree planted. The screen mounds would provide a significant (although temporary) level visual and landscape amenity and reduce adverse impacts in the short-term. The screen mounds would form the first stage of a comprehensive landscape and visual mitigation measure strategy. With the screen mounds in-place early on this would give time for the other landscape mitigation measures to mature and take affect (refer to LMM2 and LMM4).
8.10.2.2 Soil conservation is also a consideration in the management of the construction process. Existing soil resources on site such as at the existing amenity areas will be conserved in stockpiles with a maximum height of 2m, and re-used in the formation of the proposed screen bund (see LMM2). In-addition soil required in formation of the temporary bund will also be conserved and stored for use on and/or off site.
8.10.2.3 The construction programme for the PAFF should be reduced to the shortest possible period. Additionally, the extent and periphery of the works areas should be managed so that they are as small as possible and do not appear cluttered, untidy and unattractive, particularly to road traffic along Lung Mun Road. Temporary hoarding barriers should be of a recessive visual appearance in both colour and form. Measures should be implemented during construction to store materials in areas with the least obstruction to residents, pedestrians and traffic and cover all material stockpiles (2m high maximum) with impermeable material and sandbagging diversions around exposed soil. Construction of fuel tank expansion should be in groups of 2 - 4 to minimise the construction impacts over the period from 2010 to 2040.
8.10.3
Landscape Mitigation Measure 2 (LMM2) – Advanced Transplantation and
Boundary Planting Buffer/Bund
8.10.3.1 A raised bund/earth mound comprising containment bund-wall, access road and planting buffer is proposed around the tank farm. The planting buffer will be planted on the higher parts of the bund. This measure will help soften and screen the built elements and mitigate the landscape and visual impacts (refer to Figures 8.6a & b). The transplantation of existing roadside whips (and vegetation) affected by the proposed works and new compensatory planting works should be carried out as early as possible in the construction period. The compensatory planting could be phased with the construction phases. The existing whips in the amenity areas and along the access road are proposed to be transplanted to form a planting buffer around the site at phase 2005. This will allow the maximum time for establishment period and higher success rate for the survival and the early establishment of new screen and compensatory planting. The planting buffer will comprise a mix of native species and species that have a tall habit and are fast growing. This will include rows of Causuarina (Causuarina equisetifolia) trees that will form a tall and evergreen buffer. The Causuarina trees are anticipated to form an effective and mature screen by 2040. The following boundary planting mix is proposed:
¨ Dominant Species: Causuarina equisetifolia (Planted as whips and heavy standards/mature specimens where required) will be used to provide the screen effect and will therefore form the dominant species.
¨ Edge Species: Native and dense mix of planting is proposed along the edge (and within) of the dominant species. This will provide a more mixed edge effect and break-up the overall visual dominance of the Causuarina. The following species are proposed:
Trees Low
maintenance, salt and wind
tolerant tree planting of heavy-standard and seedling sized trees |
Shrubsand Small Tree Mix Low
maintenance, salt and wind
tolerant densely planted large shrubs |
Hydro_seeding Shrub and Groundcover mix Low
maintenance, salt and wind
tolerant grass and shrub planting |
Tristania
conferta |
Nerium indicum |
Thevetia peruviana |
Cassia
suranttensis |
Thevetia
peruviana |
Nerium indicum |
Cassia siamea |
Bauhinia
tormentosa |
|
Bombax
malabaricum |
Bauhinia
galpinii |
Ligustrum
sinense |
Casuarina
equetisetifolia |
Bauhinia
acumentata |
|
Sapium
discolour |
Hibiscus
rosa-sinensis |
Mekastoma
candidum |
Schefflera
octophylla |
Murraya
paniculata |
Clerodendron
fragrans |
Ficus
microcarpa |
Rhododendron
pulchrum |
Cynodon
dactylon (Bermuda grrass) |
Malaleuca
leucadendron |
|
Paspalum
notadum |
Schima superba |
|
Lolium perenne |
Schefflera
aboricola |
|
|
8.10.3.2 In compensation for the removal/disturbance of existing vegetation, a planting scheme will be implemented as shown on Figure 8.6. It will comprise replanting or transplanting of the affected the whips to the proposed planting buffer at Day 1 of the construction period, site boundary and along Lung Mun Road. Compensatory planting should be at a minimum 1 to 2 basis, comprising a matrix of semi-standard and transplants at a proposed rate of 4-6 plants per m2. A 24-month maintenance (including defects liability) period will also be needed to ensure transplantation/plant establishment is successful, (refer to Figures 8.7a and 8.7b).
8.10.4
Landscape Mitigation Measure 3 (LMM3) –Compact Site Planning and Sensitive Design
8.10.4.1 Apart from functional issues a primary role of the architectural and
landscape design is to reduce adverse visual and landscape impacts to an
acceptable level if possible. The
key design considerations:
¨
Site planning: a layout which is compact as possible: This
will primarily be driven from the refinement of the engineering requirements.
Limiting and concentrating the zones of activity will help reduce visual
impact;
¨
Visual Screens: landform, bunds, planting, walls, fences and
other architectural devices can be used to hide activities from view. The
design of the structures themselves will have a visual impact and must be
designed to reduce this as far as possible; and
¨
Coherent Design of Structures and Materials: producing a family of structures and treatments
will help co-ordinate appearance and lessen visual impact from different
activities.
8.10.4.2 The tanks and jetty will be standardised components. Due to the high safety and risk standards that these built elements have to meet there is little opportunity to amend their design. For these built elements it is recommended that there are finished in a non-reflective neutral grey colour with a low chromatic intensity to reduce the potential contrast between the structures and their background.
8.10.4.3 The design of the administration office and the associated elements should incorporate materials, details and textures so as to be as visually recessive and in a style that fits with the surrounding industrial setting. The following is recommended:
¨
Massing and Form: The building
massing will appear less if the roofs have a thin edge and if walls are set
back, and are dark either in colour or by being in shadow;
¨
Colour: to assist the
proposed built forms to recess and blend into their surroundings the use of
light colours and tones of grey, green and blue are recommended. The colours
surrounding the PAFF site are influenced by the reflectance of light and colour
of the sea. Colours within the immediate vicinity are muted, generally light
hues and tones of grey, green and blue;
¨
Roofs: For the roof a
fired rated, durable (up to 25 years), insulated, self cleansing, rigid curved
metal cladding system is proposed (either steel or aluminium). There are
several standard products locally available which would be suitable. A non-reflectant
(matt and/or textured) finish would be required; and
¨
External Walls: For the external
walls it is proposed that the Office accommodation be finished in an aluminum
panel to match and signify the important role of this component. General walls
to be finished in ceramic tile (self cleaning/dust-proof) and/or durable
textured external spray paint (Cost effective).
8.10.4.4 The phasing of PAFF will have a significant impact on its cumulative landscape and visual impact. The following phasing is recommended:
¨ Advanced Planting, Temporary Earth Mound and Permanent Boundary Bunds: to be commenced on Day 1 of construction;
¨ Siting of the First Phase of Tanks: Located close to Sea front and away from Sensitive Visual Receivers and behind Temporary Earth Mound; and
¨ Subsequent Construction of Tanks: To be constructed progressively from sea-front to rear of the site.
8.10.5
Landscape Mitigation Measure 4 (LMM4) – Minimise the Night-time Glare
8.10.5.1 Compared to the existing fuel tank farm at Chek Lap Kok, the possible night-time glare from the proposed PAFF is not significant to the Tuen Mun Area 38, see Figure 8.5b, as night time glare is also found in the neighbourhood, such as from the River Trade Terminal and the Castle Peak Power Station. However, the following lighting measures should be considered:
¨ minimum amount of lighting, only applied for safety at the key access points and staircases;
¨ limited lighting intensity; and
¨ directional down lighting is suggested to minimise light spill to the surrounding areas
8.11
Residual Impacts and Acceptability of the Proposed PAFF
8.11.1.1 The significance of the landscape and visual impacts assuming
mitigation measures included in the proposed PAFF was examined in accordance
with Section 8.3. The proposed PAFF is compatible with the existing zoned
special industries area. Proposed mitigation measures will help to reduce
slight to negligible adverse impacts during construction and operation.
8.11.2
Residual Landscape Impacts
8.11.2.1 A summary of residual landscape impacts is shown in Table 8.12. In general, the incorporation of mitigation measures into the proposed PAFF will be effective in reducing “slight adverse” construction impacts in Industrial/Utility LCU3 to negligible, “moderate adverse” construction impacts at Waterfront LCU5 to “slight adverse”. Early implementation of the planting buffer (LMM2) and screen mounding landscape works (LMM1) will help to reduce the operational impact at LCU3 to “slight beneficial”. These reductions can be achieved by the mitigation measures recommended in Section 8.9 above.
8.11.3
Residual Visual Impacts
8.11.3.1 A summary of residual visual impacts is shown in Table 8.13. Where SVRs experience “slight adverse” visual impacts during the construction and up to the full operational phase by 2040, the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures at these locations will reduce construction and operational visual impacts to “ negligible ” from SVR1 & SVR4, and have a slight beneficial impact for SVR2 & SVR3 (as a result of the boundary screen planting).
8.11.4
Acceptability of Development
8.11.4.1 Using the criteria as set out in Section 8.3, the significance of these residual visual impacts are evaluated as being acceptable with mitigation measures and even beneficial to the local context, owing to the following factors:
¨ the proposed PAFF incorporates landscape and visual mitigation measures, which will reduce overall adverse levels of visual impact to an acceptable level. Views from the nearest residents at Miami Beach Towers and Melody Garden are obstructed by the River Trade Terminal, as shown in Figure 8.4c, and thus, the adverse visual impacts brought by the proposed PAFF will be limited to its industrial neighbourhood denoted by SVR3 and SVR4 where the number of sensitive receivers are small and relatively insensitive. The planting buffer and temporary landscape works for the reserved area will enhance the local visual quality;
¨ night-time glare is considered to be acceptable within the visual envelope. The change to the baseline condition will be negligible; and
¨ potential landscape impacts are restricted to a local level only, which is of low landscape quality and of a low sensitivity to change. Careful phasing programme and site planning could avoid loss of roadside trees and maximise the planting buffer along the Lung Mun Road. Within the immediate landscape context of adjacent industrial uses the proposed PAFF is predicted to be acceptable with landscape and visual mitigation measures implemented.
8.12
Conclusion and Summary of Findings
8.12.1 The major findings and cumulative landscape and visual impacts predicted by the LVIA are as follows:
¨ The majority of the baseline condition of the study area comprises existing industrial uses and is considered to be of low quality and sensitivity to change, with the exception of a small part of the study area comprising wooded slopes (as part of Castle Peak) that is of regional importance. This wooded area will not be affected by the proposed project.
¨ No areas designated with a landscape zoning such as country park, open space or green belt would be affected by the Project and therefore the Project is compatible with the Government’s statutory planning framework in terms of landscape conservation.
¨ The Project would result in the loss of approximately, 0.25ha of roadside vegetation and affects 1.5ha of open sea under the jetty. Compensatory planting will comprise 0.6ha of perimeter screen planting and roadside planting resulting in a net a gain of 0.35ha of vegetation. (This excludes the temporary bunding formed during the construction period and that will be maintained at Day 1 of operation).
¨ The introduction of the proposed project into the study area will result in mainly slight adverse to negligible landscape impacts assuming mitigation measures are incorporated into the scheme.
¨ The introduction of the proposed project into the study area will result in mainly slight adverse to negligible visual impacts assuming mitigation measures are incorporated into the scheme.
¨ Views toward the proposed project are generally over large distances (up to 8km). At these distances the proposed project is predicted to result in an imperceptible magnitude of change and negligible adverse impact.
¨ For potentially local sensitive residents at Lung Kwu Tan to the north west and adjacent Butterfly Beach to the east it is assessed that local topography will obstruct views to the proposed project. These local residents will therefore not be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
8.12.2
The Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment highlights that no significant impacts will occur
during both construction and operation phases. Adverse visual impacts are
restricted to a local context for industrial SVRs only. The disturbance to
existing trees will be compensated during construction phase 2005. The
disturbed waterfront is man-made with a low sensitivity to change, landscape
mitigation measures will minimise adverse impacts.
It is predicted that the proposed PAFF will have limited adverse
landscape and visual impacts or even slight beneficial effects on the baseline
conditions (through introduction of additional landscape areas). In conclusion, the landscape and visual
impacts are considered acceptable with mitigation measures.
8.13
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
8.13.1
It is recommended
that implementation and operational maintenance of all proposed Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures is included within
the EM&A.. The design stage
EM&A will consist of auditing the detailed landscape designs. Construction and operational stage EM&A will comprise
audit of the compensatory planting/transplantation and planting establishment
in the form of site inspection.
Further details of the specific EM&A requirements are detailed in
Section 15 of this report and in the EM&A Manual.
Table
8.12 Summary
of Residual Landscape Impacts (with Landscape Mitigation Measures)
LCU Name |
Without
Recommended Mitigation Measures |
Recommended Mitigation Measures |
With
Recommended Mitigation Measures |
||||
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact during Construction |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact during Operation |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact during Construction |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact during Operation Phase 2005 (Day
1) |
Significance
Threshold of Landscape Impact During Operation Phase 2010-2040 (Year
2040) |
|||
Phase
2005 |
Phase
2010-2040 |
||||||
LCU 1 Woodland, grassland and
scrubland |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Nil |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LCU 2 Transport Corridor |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Nil |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LCU 3 Industrial/
Utility |
Slight
Adverse |
Negligible |
Slight Adverse |
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM3, LMM4 |
Negligible |
Slight
Beneficial |
Negligible |
LCU 4 Pier |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Nil |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LCU 5 Water
frontage |
Moderate Adverse |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM3, LMM4 |
Slight
Adverse |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Table 8.13 Summary
of Residual Visual Impacts (with Landscape Mitigation Measures)
SVR Number |
Without Recommendation Mitigation Measures |
Recommended Mitigation Measures |
With Recommendation Mitigation Measures |
||||
Significance Threshold of Visual Impact during
Construction |
Significance Threshold of Visual Impact during Operation |
Significance Threshold of Visual Impact during
Construction |
Significance Threshold of Visual Impact during Operation |
||||
Phase 2005 |
Phase 2010-2040 |
Phase 2005 DAY 1 |
Phase 2010-2040 YEAR 2040 |
||||
SVR 1 Sea traffic along Urmston Road |
Slight Adverse |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM3, LMM4 |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
SVR 2 Traffic from Lung Mun Road |
Slight Adverse |
Negligible |
Slight Adverse |
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM3, LMM4 |
Slight Beneficial |
Slight Beneficial |
Negligible |
SVR 3 Industrial/ Utility facilities |
Slight Adverse |
Negligible |
SlightAdverse |
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM3, LMM4 |
Slight Beneficial |
Slight Beneficial |
Negligible |
SVR 4 North Lantau
Development including Ting Chung |
Slight Adverse |
Negligible |
Negligible |
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM3, LMM4 |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Table 8.14 Summary
Landscape Mitigation Measures Programming, Funding, Implementation, Management
and Maintenance Agents
LMM
Reference |
Description
of Landscape Mitigation Measures |
Programming |
Programme
Stages |
Funding
and Implementation Agent |
Management
and Maintenance Agency |
||
D |
C |
O |
|||||
LMM1 |
The construction
programme for the PAFF should be reduced to the shortest possible period and
should be executed in phases with future phases of tanks built in sets of
2-4. |
PAFF site / throughout construction period |
U |
U |
|
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM1 |
The extent and periphery of the works
areas should be managed so that they are as small as possible and do not
appear cluttered, untidy and unattractive, particularly to road traffic along
Lung Mun Road. |
PAFF site
/ throughout construction period
|
|
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM1 |
Temporary hoarding barriers should be of
a recessive visual appearance in both colour and form. |
PAFF site
/ throughout construction period |
U |
U |
|
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM1 |
Materials should be stored in areas with
the least obstruction to residents, pedestrians and traffic |
PAFF site
/ throughout construction period |
|
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM1 |
All material stockpiles (2m high maximum)
should be covered with an impermeable material and sandbagging diversions
should be placed around exposed soil |
PAFF site
/ throughout construction period |
|
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM1 |
Conservation of existing and imported
soil resources. Existing soil resources on site will be conserved in
stockpiles with a maximum height of 2m, and re-used in the formation of the
proposed screen bund (see LMM2). |
PAFF site /
throughout construction period of fuel tank expansion. |
|
|
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LMM2 |
Transplantation of existing road side
trees (and whips) affected by the proposed works and new compensatory
planting works should be carried within the first year of construction. |
PAFF site/
On Commencement of Construction |
U |
U |
|
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM2 |
Temporary earth mounding, tree planting
and hydroseeding should be
implemented on the area of site not initially required for tanks. |
PAFF site/
On Commencement of Construction |
U |
U |
|
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM2 |
A raised bund/earth mound comprising
containment bund-wall, access road and planting buffer shall be built and
maintained around the tank farm. |
PAFF site/
On Commencement of Construction |
U |
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM3 |
The design of the PAFF should incorporate
materials, details and textures that are visually recessive. |
PAFF site
/ design |
U |
U |
|
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM3 |
Colours should be of low chromatic
intensity to reduce the potential contrast between the structures and their
background |
PAFF site
/ design |
U |
U |
|
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM3 |
Visually permeable security fencing
should be used around the perimeter |
Site
perimeter |
U |
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM4 |
Minimum amount of lighting for the tanks
shall be used, only applied for safety at the key access points and
staircases |
Tanks/Operational
phase |
U |
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM4 |
Limited lighting intensity on the site |
PAFF site
/Operational phase |
U |
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |
LMM4 |
Directional
down lighting is suggested to minimise light spill to the surrounding area. |
PAFF site
/Operational phase |
U |
U |
U |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent |