2.1
Ocean Park Corporation, a
not-for-profit organization, is an independent body incorporated in
2.2
2.3
The purpose of the Project is
to upgrade and expand the existing
2.4 The Project comprises:
•
Civil infrastructure
works including road works (including modifying sections of Ocean Park Road, which is a local
distributor, around the existing bus terminus as shown in Figure 1.1), drain works,
tunneling and geotechnical works, bulk excavation and slope works, retaining structures,
site clearance, decommissioning and demolition works, funicular railway, modification
to bus terminus, taxi stands and associated facilities.
•
Utilities works including power supply distribution,
electrical substations, freshwater and saltwater reservoirs, water supply distribution,
gas supply distribution, telecommunications network and distribution, landscape
irrigation network, etc.
•
Primary life support system works for animal keeping.
•
Area development works including service roads, EVAs,
external escalators, bridges and elevated walkways, external lighting.
•
Parkwide systems works including
signage, background music system, toilets facilities, guard sheds, first aid facilities,
communications systems, CCTV systems and waste facilities.
•
Landscape or theming works including
exterior building facade treatment works, themed concrete pavement/ hardscape, soft
landscaping, water and faux rockwork features, visual intrusion screens, area props
and artwork, etc.
•
Works for the attractions venues including animal
exhibits, marine animal, terrestrial animal, aviaries, bird exhibits, individual
life support systems for animal exhibits; and other non-animal related
attractions, e.g. shipwreck play area, bamboo maze, etc.
•
Installation of rides including thrill rides, round rides,
water rides, kids rides, interactive rides, transportation rides, etc.
•
Works for the venues including event halls, outdoor live
show area, cinemas and bandstands.
•
Works for the merchandise / retail facilities
including souvenir stores, novelty stores, g
•
Works for the food and beverage facilities including restaurants,
bakery, food carts and kiosks.
•
Back of house facilities including offices, break
areas, warehouses, centralized facilities, operational facilities, etc.
2.5
There are also three proposed
hotel developments. The hotel
developments, however, are not considered as part of the current
2.6 Based on the latest information, the Project is scheduled to commence in mid 2006 for completion in the 4th quarter of 2011.
2.7
The operation hours of the Park
would be extended to be
2.8
A master plan of the proposed
Project is shown in Figure 2.1-
2.9
A rezoning request[1]
has been made to the Town Planning Board in August 2005 under the Town Planning
Ordinance, for the rezoning of areas outside the current Ocean Park boundary,
comprising the existing Citybus depot and part of the Hong Kong School of
Motoring. At the time of writing, the
request is still under consideration by the Board. The application deals with the areas adjacent
to the existing main
2.10
2.11
2.12
The Lowland area of
2.13
The Headland area spreads
across the southern part of Brick Hill and has excellent views of the ocean and
various islands (
2.14 The Tai Shue Wan portion of the park (incorporating the Middle Kingdom attraction) is located to the western side of Brick Hill southwest of the Lowland, and faces the Aberdeen Channel.
2.15 The park’s configuration creates a unique experience due to the geography not found in other parks, with the Cable Car ride and impressive views from the Headland.
2.16 Prior to development of the original park, most of the site comprised open or vegetated hills with no known existing land uses. A few access paths/ roads were constructed, presumably by the military, and some military structures are still in existence. The main entrance and adjacent areas were previously agricultural or other undeveloped lands and the attractions at the Tai Shue Wan entrance have been built also on some reclamation along the coastline. The existing site will be expanded across a currently unused area at Nam Long Shan and also across areas that (in whole or in part) are currently the sites of a Citybus depot and the Hong Kong School of Motoring. Further details and description on site history and previous land uses is contained in the sections on cultural heritage and land contamination.
2.17
2.18
Need for and Benefits of the Project
2.19
Historically, the core Hong
Kong resident market has accounted for the largest proportion (60 percent to 70
percent) of the visits to
2.20
The highest number of visitors
ever recorded at
2.21 There is a clear need to improve the current park’s facilities to cope with existing visitor demand. But there is also an opportunity in the redevelopment to improve upon the current park’s attractions and to elevate the park’s tourism appeal.
2.22
The primary strategy of the
redevelopment of
•
•
Add new attractions, such as the arctic experience,
which are unique to Asia and are expected to generate increased tourism to
•
Provide new and upgraded food and beverage facilities
as well as a range of retail shops and game opportunities.
•
In addition to state of the art marine attractions,
offer thrill rides targeting the teenage visitor market.
•
Continue
2.23 The main benefits of the proposed project are in the provision of a park with an enhanced visitor experience and better tourism potential. Also, the improved park will offer new and improved local recreation facilities. More staff will be employed in the expanded park. In addition, environmental enhancements will result from the redesign of the main entrance way and the redevelopment of the Citybus depot and Hong Kong School of Motoring site; further environmental enhancements will be sought in the landscaping and planting around the site.
Project Design & Consideration of Alternatives
2.24
The project concerns expansion
and redevelopment at the existing
2.25 In the course of planning the expansion and redevelopment proposal, alternatives for some of the elements have been fully considered, with environmental factors taken into account, to arrive at the current proposal. These alternatives are described in the following paragraphs.
2.26 For the modes of transportation for the visitors between the Lowland area and the Headland area other modes of transport, apart from the currently proposed funicular railway, have been explored. Such alternatives include construction of another cable car system, increased shuttle bus services on the existing roads, a funicular above ground instead of inside a tunnel, at grade road between the Lowland area and the Headland area, a carriageway for vehicular transport inside a tunnel, and ferry services.
2.27 Although the cable car system, similar to the existing one, is an environmentally friendly mode of transport, the idea of the construction of another cable car system to replace or duplicate the existing cable car system is rejected as one of the objectives of an alternative transport between the Lowland area and the Headland area is that it has to be able to operate under all weather conditions to maintain the link between the Lowland area and the Headland area. The cable car system, which has to stop operation under high wind condition, obviously is unable to meet this objective. Increasing shuttle bus services on the existing roads is also rejected as this option would generate additional traffic to the existing road network and hence additional traffic noise and tailpipe emission. A funicular above ground would have visual concern and would result in more disturbance to the vegetation in the green belt area between the Lowland area and the Headland area. A new at-grade road would also cause similar disturbance to the vegetation in the green belt area, and at the same time result in generation of traffic noise and emission. A carriageway instead of a funicular railway inside a tunnel would be feasible, but the vehicular traffic generated would equally result in additional emission and air quality issues at the ventilation outlets. Ferry services would require construction of new jetties which would also impact on the coast line and marine environment, apart from the lower capacity of the services. Compared with all these alternative modes for transport, the funicular railway through a tunnel, operating by cables driven by electricity, would result in least environmental impacts in terms of construction and operation.
2.28
Currently there is an existing
EVA access from Tai Shue Wan leading to the Headland area. Owing to topographic constraints, this
access, although capable of being used by vehicles, is very steep and with
tight bends at certain locations. As
shown in the Project Profile submitted to apply for the Study Brief under EIAO
in late March 2005 (Application No. ESB125/2005), consideration was given to
construct a new access from Tai Shue Wan up to the existing Headland area, as
well as to improve the existing Nam Long Shan Road leading to the Headland area. This new access road, however, would have to
pass through a densely vegetated valley between Nam Long Sham Road and
2.29
The Project will entail
expansion of the capacity of the reservoir to cater for increased demands in
fresh water and salt water. Under the original
scheme, the service reservoir would be located at a
2.30
The alignment of the funicular
system of the original scheme leads to a portion of its northern section on
viaduct. Clearance of vegetation would
be necessary to provide space for the construction of piers for the
viaduct. An alternative alignment has
been developed for the funicular system.
The whole route of the alternative alignment would be in the form of a
rock tunnel with route length of about
2.31 When the master layout plan for the expansion and redevelopment was initially conceived, consideration was given to locate new attractions and rides in the sloping areas adjacent to the existing escalators between the Headland area and Tai Shue Wan. This proposal, however, would cause disturbance to the much denser vegetation in the area and require extensive transportation links between the attractions and rides, all located at different elevations due to topographic constraints. In environmental terms, the operation of these transportation links would result in extensive energy consumption throughout each day of operation and hence was not favourable. The idea of further expansion and redevelopment in the sloping areas adjacent to the existing escalators, therefore, was not further pursued.
2.32 Further details of construction/ engineering and operational factors adopted in the project to avoid or minimise environmental impacts and to improve the environmental outcome of the project are provided in Section 14 of this report.
2.33 The proposed project has been derived with due consideration of all physical, operational, and other constraints, and has been subject to a comprehensive evaluation of planning, engineering, environmental, and cost considerations. The selected design is considered to be the most feasible and practicable. The proposed scheme offers the most efficient and balanced land use arrangement whilst still meeting the needs of the new park.
“Without the Project” Scenario
2.34 The proposed project has been conceived and designed to meet a need. Therefore, if the project were not to proceed, there is likely to be certain opportunity cost, as well as consequential adverse effects, as described below.
§ The park would reach saturation in visitor numbers and there would be increasing problems associated with overcrowding, especially on peak attendance days. The attraction of the park would be significantly diminished.
§ The park setting and attractions, including rides, animal facilities, etc. would become increasingly dated and also more expensive and/ or difficult to maintain, and consequently park attractiveness may decline.
§
Opportunities to improve
tourism in
§
The Government’s intention to
develop
2.35 Development opportunities and constraints have been identified and are discussed fully in each technical section. Where appropriate, the assessment predictions have been compared to the “do-nothing” scenario. However, for some cases there is insufficient information to predict future possible environmental conditions in the absence of the proposed development and so future conditions have been assumed to be no different to existing conditions. In this case, the future development impact has in essence been compared to present-day environmental conditions.
2.36
The majority of the proposed
works are located within the existing
2.37 The Assessment Area for the purpose of this EIA Study, as specified in the Study Brief, is presented below (refer to Figure 1.1):
§
Noise impact assessment study area
boundary would be
§
Landscape impact assessment
would include all areas within
§
Terrestrial and Marine ecological impact assessment would include all
areas within
§ Waste management assessment would focus on areas within the development limit of the project.
§ Land contamination assessment would focus on areas within the development limit of the Project.
§
Air quality impact assessment
study area boundary would be
§ Water quality impact assessment would cover Western Buffer Water Control Zone and Southern Water Control Zone as designated under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358, WPCO). The study area could be extended to include other areas such as stream courses, existing and planned drainage system, and the associated water system if they are found also being impacted during the course of the assessment and have a bearing on the environmental acceptability of the Project.
§ Sewerage and sewage treatment assessment would focus on the pumped sewage discharge to the Aberdeen Preliminary Treatment Works (APTW).
§ Cultural heritage impact assessment would focus on expansion areas of the Project.
§ Hazards to Life assessment would focus on areas in the vicinity of the Project.
Works Programme and Implementation
2.38 The construction works of the proposed project are anticipated to commence on site in mid 2006, with completion of the Project by the 4th quarter of 2011. A construction programme is presented in Appendix 2.2 for reference. The assessments in this report are based on this programme, using reasonable worst-case scenarios and, where necessary, any implications of the programme have been highlighted in the relevant section.
2.39 Several stages can be identified in the construction programme, which can be summarised as:
§ Lowland Phase 1 – Redevelopment of the Lowland to include the Entry Plaza, Aqua City, Birds of Paradise and the Funicular Tunnel within the new Waterfront.
§
Lowland Phase 2 – Redevelopment
of the remaining area of the Lowland to include the Whisker’s Harbour, the Back
of House Area and the
§ Headland Phase 1 – Redevelopment of the Headland to include the Vet Hospital, Thrill Mountain, Rainforest and the Polar Adventure within the new Summit.
§
Headland Phase 2 –
Redevelopment of the Headland to include the Killer Whale Stadium and the
Marine World within the new
§ Headland Phase 3 – Renovation of the Pacific Pier and the Ocean Theatre.
2.40 The proposed construction period for the development is summarised in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1 Summary of Construction Period for
the Development
|
Location |
Zone |
Duration |
|
The Waterfront |
|
July 06-Dec07 (18
months) |
|
|
|
July 06-October 08 (28
months) |
|
|
|
March 08-April 09 (14 months) |
|
The Waterfront |
Back of House |
March 08- February 09
(12 months) |
|
|
Birds of Paradise |
June 06- July 07 (14
months) |
|
The |
|
October 07-October 08
(13 months) |
|
|
Polar Adventure |
May 08- June 09 (14
months) |
|
|
The Rain Forest |
October 07-October 08
(13 months) |
|
|
Marine World |
October 08-June 11 (34
months) |
|
|
Back of House |
October 07-October 08
(13 months) |
Concurrent Projects Having Potential for Cumulative Effects
2.41
No other significant projects
have been identified that may interface with, or otherwise be constructed or
operated concurrently with, this project for the redevelopment of
2.42
For the purpose of this EIA
study, forecast traffic flows for years 2005 and 2026 were adopted for all
major roads within
2.43 As the SIL proposal was still under review by the Government at the time of reporting, the forecast traffic flow for year 2026 assumed that there would be no South Island Line (SIL). While the SIL would reduce the background traffic and transport many of the Park’s visitors, it was understood that the SIL would unlikely be in place by 2011. Since the SIL is not a committed project, the assessment would focus on the traffic situations without the SIL, which would be the worst-case scenario in terms of environmental impact.
[1]
“The New