9
CULTURAL Heritage Impact Assessment
This section presents the results of the cultural
heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for the construction and operation of the
proposed commercial scale wind turbine pilot demonstration at Hei Ling Chau.
The aim of the assessment is to identify any direct or indirect impacts
of the Project on cultural heritage resources.
This section presents the information gathered from a literature review
and field
surveys to establish the baseline cultural heritage conditions. The detailed field survey findings are
presented in Annex C. Potential impacts have been evaluated and mitigation measures have been recommended where necessary.
9.2
Relevant
Legislation and Guidelines
The following legislation and guidelines
are applicable to the assessment of sites of cultural heritage in
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(EIAO) (Cap. 499.S16);
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap. 499.S16). Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process (EIAO-TM);
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.
53);
·
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
(Cap. 28);
·
·
Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA).
9.2.1
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
According to the EIAO, Schedule 1 Interpretation, “Sites of Cultural Heritage” are defined as:
“An antiquity or monument, whether
being a place, building, site or structure or a relic, as defined in the
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) and any place, building, site, or
structure or a relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office to be
of archaeological, historical or palaeontological
significance.”
9.2.2
Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process
The technical scope for evaluating and assessing cultural heritage
impacts is defined in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM. The criteria
recommended by the guidelines can be summarised as follows.
·
The general presumption in favour of the
protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage because they
provide an essential, finite and irreplaceable link between the past and the
future and are points of reference and identity for culture and tradition; and
·
Adverse impacts on sites of cultural
heritage shall be kept to an absolute minimum.
9.2.3
Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance (Cap. 53)
The Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance (Cap. 53) (AM Ordinance)
provides statutory protection against the threat of development on
The Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) identifies Deemed Monuments([1]) and forms agreements with the owners of
monuments to provide for specific measures that will ensure preservation. Deemed Monuments can be upgraded to statutory
Declared Monuments under the AM Ordinance.
A large range of potential sites of cultural heritage, among which are
historical buildings and structures and archaeological sites, have been
identified and recorded by AMO in addition to those for which a declaration has
been made under the AM Ordinance.
Historic buildings and structures are recorded by AMO according to the
grading system summarised in Table 9.2a.
Table 9.2a AMO’s Grading of Historical Buildings
|
Grade |
Description |
|
I |
Buildings of outstanding merit; every effort should be made to
preserve these structures if possible. |
|
II |
Buildings of special merit; effort should be made to selectively
preserve these structures. |
|
III |
Buildings of some merit, but which have yet to qualify for
consideration as possible monuments.
These are to be recorded and used as a pool for future selection. |
It should be noted that the grading of historical buildings is intended
for AMO’s internal reference only and has no
statutory standing. Although there are
no statutory provisions for the protection of recorded archaeological sites and
historical buildings and features (including Deemed, Graded and recorded), the
Government has established a set of administrative procedures([2]) for giving a consideration to the
protection of these resources.
Over the years, surveys have been undertaken to identify archaeological
sites in
Section 11 of the AM Ordinance requires any person who
discovers an antiquity, or supposed antiquity, to report the discovery to the
Antiquities Authority. By implication,
construction projects need to ensure that the Antiquities Authority, the
Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) ([3]), is formally notified of archaeological
resources which are discovered during the assessment or construction of a
project.
9.2.4
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
(Cap. 28)
Under this Ordinance, it is
required that a permit is obtained for any excavation within Government land
prior to any excavation work commencing.
9.2.5
Chapter 10 (Conservation) of
the Hong Kong
Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) provides general guidelines and
measures for the conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and
other antiquities in Hong Kong.
9.2.6
Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA)
The criteria set out in Appendix C
of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-145/2006
have been used in this assessment, they include a baseline study, field
evaluation and impact assessment.
The methodology for the CHIA followed the criteria and guidelines as
stated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM and the criteria for CHIA as stated Section 3.4.6 and Appendix C
of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-145/2006.
9.3.1
Study Area
As stated in Section 3.4.6.3 of
the EIA Study Brief, the Study Area
for the terrestrial archaeological investigation extends to the area within 25m
of the works site boundary and also includes the areas likely to be impacted by
the Project.
9.3.2
Baseline Cultural Heritage Conditions
The assessment of the baseline cultural heritage conditions of the Study
Area followed the criteria for CHIA and in line with Sections 2.3 to 2.5 of
Annex 19 at the EIAO-TM. A comprehensive inventory of cultural
heritage resources within the Study Area was compiled, which includes the
inventory of:
·
All
·
All
sites of archaeological interest;
·
All
pre-1950 buildings and structures;
·
Selected
post-1950 buildings and structures of high architectural and historical
significance and interest; and
·
Landscape
features including sites of historical events, sites that provide a significant
historical record, buildings or monuments of architectural or archaeological
importance, historic field patterns, tracks and fish ponds and other sites such
as fung shui woodlands and
clan graves.
Sources at the AMO, the Lands Department, the tertiary institutions, the
internet and consultation with representatives from the Correctional Services
Department (CSD) were reviewed to obtain relevant information.
9.3.3
Field Surveys
Desktop research identified no declared sites of cultural heritage in
HLC. Field surveys were then conducted
to confirm the presence of any cultural heritage resources within the Study
Area.
Historical Buildings and Features Survey
The Study Area was field scanned to identify all historical buildings
and structures. Photographic records of
each identified building or feature (exterior and interior where possible) as
well as the surroundings were taken (see Annex
C1). Architectural and historical
appraisals of the identified buildings and features were prepared.
Terrestrial Archaeological Survey
A terrestrial archaeological survey is required to obtain field data to
evaluate the presence of any archaeological deposits within the Study Areas as
defined in Section 9.3.1. If archaeological remains were identified,
their nature, horizontal and vertical extents were determined.
Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, a desktop review was undertaken
through a review of maps, aerial photographs and previous archaeological survey
findings to establish the scope of the survey.
AMO was consulted on the scope of the survey. A total of 12 auger holes and 3 test pits
were proposed within the Study Area (see Figure 9.4b). The fieldwork commenced on 30 June and
completed on 6 July 2006. The
archaeological investigations are presented in Annex C2 and key findings are presented in Section 9.4.
Based on the findings from the above tasks, an impact assessment has
been undertaken to assess the potential archaeological impact due to the
proposed development. The assessment
follow the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Technical Memorandum
Annexes 10 and 19 and the Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment set out in Appendix C
of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-145/2006
9.4.1
History of Hei
Ling Chau
Hei Ling Chau
was originally named as Nai Gu
Island (尼姑洲) according to the 1897 edition of the Map of
Sun-On District in Kwang Tung Directory (廣東通志) ([4]). A review of
the Xin’an
Gazetteer of 1819 ([5])
and Report on Extension of The Colony of Hong Kong of 1898 ([6]) identified no village recorded on Hei
Ling Chau in the 
. According to the Map of the Hong Kong and
of the Territory Leased to Great Britain, published in 1905 by the War Office of
Colonial Government ([7]), three settlements were
recorded in Hei Ling Chau
namely Kwo Lo
Wan (過路灣), Ngau Tau Tong village (牛頭塘村) and Pak Pai
village (白排村).
It is believed that two
brothers of a Lam clan originally from Kwei Chau in
During the post-war years,
leprosy cases were rife in
In 1951, a nursing team led
by an experienced leprologist, Dr Neil Duncan Fraser,
came to Hong Kong from
The island was then taken
over by the CSD to be used as an addiction treatment centre and correctional
institution ([10]). Currently, there are three institutions on
the island, comprising the Lai Sun Correctional Institution, Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment
Centre and the Hei Ling Chau
Correctional Institution (HLCCI). In the
1980s, the HLCCI site was used as a detention centre for the
9.4.2
Historical Buildings and Features
The desktop review and field scanning identified no
Declared Monuments, graded buildings or known archaeological sites on the
island. However, ten potential pre-1950
and post-1950 sites of cultural heritage comprising two Tin Hau
Temples, a leprosarium cemetery, three individual graves,
two boundary stones (regarded as one site) and three sites of historical
buildings, were identified. Their key
location plan and details are shown in Figure 9.4a and Table 9.4a, respectively.
Photographic records and 1:1000 part plans are presented in Annex C1.
Table 9.4a Built
Heritage on Hei Ling Chau
|
Site Name |
Construction/ (Renovation Date) |
Description |
|
Grave 1 – Lam clan |
1736-1795 (1810) |
Grave 1 is located at the foothill
of area 18C of the HLCCI. According to
headstone inscription, the grave was constructed between 1736 and 1795 and
was renovated in 1810. The grave is
the burial site of two ladies of the Lam clan. According to the information provided by
CSD staff, no one has visited the grave in recent years but CSD staff will
worship the grave. |
|
Grave 2 – Chan clan |
(1886) |
Grave 2 is located at a small knot
near the Project Site of the wind turbine.
No information regarding the year the grave was constructed can be found
but the inscription on the headstone records that the grave was renovated in
1886. It is a grave of the Chan
clan. According to the information
provided by CSD staff, no one has visited the grave in recent years. |
|
Grave 3 – Lam clan |
(1889) |
Grave 3 is located to the north of
Bunglow B at the north-western end of the
island. The year the grave was
constructed is not known. According to
headstone inscription, it was renovated in 1889. It is the grave of a lady of the Lam clan. |
|
Two Boundary Stones |
19 century to early 20 century |
According to Greeish Hei Ling ([11]), there are two boundary stones of the Chan clan; however, no map
showing the location is available. The
stones were not found within the proposed construction area during the field
scanning exercise. |
|
|
1925 |
According to the lintel
inscription of the |
|
Former Maxwell Memorial Medical
Centre (the current addiction treatment centre) |
1954 |
This site comprises a number of
stone built houses in the colonial style (mixed and Chinese and western
architectural characteristics). These were
constructed in 1954 for the use of the leprosy hospital known as the Maxwell
Memorial Medical Centre. The buildings
are now used by the CSD as the Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre. |
|
|
Mid-1950s |
There is a small cemetery located
to the north-east of the Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre (Annex). The cemetery was used by the leprosarium
from the mid-1950s until early 1970s.
The cemetery contains about 88 grave sites. |
|
Two stone houses at |
Late 1950s to early 1960s |
Two stone houses are identified
some 260m north of the Project Site.
Based on review of literature and old maps, the buildings were
probably constructed in the late 1950s to early 1960s. |
|
Lord is Willing Church |
1966 |
The church was constructed in 1966
for the leprosarium and is now abandoned. |
|
|
1985 |
This temple is a one storey
pitched roof construction. It was
built in 1985 by donations from local believers and from staff of the CSD
serving the Tin Hau God ([1]). |
9.4.3
Archaeological Resources
The desktop review identified
no known archaeological sites on the island.
In 1994, an archaeological survey was undertaken to the south of the
former
The Project Site is located on a slope at a mountain
ridge on the southern part of the island.
Cut and fill works were used to modify the landscape in the pasts, and
the area is now used by CSD’s construction
contractors. As the area has undergone
heavy disturbance, it is unlikely to have archaeological potential.
Minor enabling works (including rock cutting, removal
of planters and road widening on existing modified slopes) along the long and
short access routes are required to provide sufficient turning space for heavy
construction vehicles to access the Project Site. The proposed work areas for enabling works
along the long access route had been heavily disturbed from previous road construction
activities and are unlikely to have archaeological potential. Nevertheless, this was verified by the field
investigation. Fieldwaking,
boring of 10 auger holes and excavation of 3 test pits at the Project Site and
areas of enabling works were undertaken (see Figure 9.4b). No archaeological deposits were identified,
confirming that the Project site and the areas of enabling works have no
archaeological potential. The detailed
fieldwork findings are presented in Annex
C2.
9.5.1
Source
of Potential Impacts
Construction Phase
The construction works associated with the Project may have direct or
indirect impacts to sites/potential sites of cultural heritage arising from the
following activities:
·
Direct
loss of archaeological deposits due to soil excavation work in the
archaeological deposit area;
·
Direct
loss of historical buildings or structures due to temporary or permanent land
take for the Project;
·
Indirect
impact on access for future archaeological surveys due to temporary or permanent
land take for the Project where the archaeological deposits are preserved in situ but in instances where no soil
excavation work is required in the archaeologically sensitive area;
·
Temporary
or permanent change of cultural landscape around standing heritage that
indirectly reduces the cultural landscape value attached to the standing
heritage;
·
Construction
vibration impacts on standing heritage; and
·
Temporary
or permanent access disturbance to standing heritage due to construction works
near standing heritage.
Operation Phase
The operational phase of the Project may have direct or indirect impacts
to sites/potential sites of cultural heritage arising from the following
activities:
·
Indirect
impact on access for future archaeological surveys; and
·
Permanent
access disturbance to standing heritage if the standing heritage is conserved
within the developed area of the Project.
As there are no
Table 9.5a Impact
Assessment for the Identified Potential Standing Sites of Cultural Heritage
|
Site Name |
Construction/ (Renovation Date) |
Impact Assessment |
Approximate Nearest Distance from Works Area |
|
Grave 1 – Lam
clan |
1736-1795 (1810) |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
354m south of the
proposed enabling works for the long access route |
|
Grave 2 – Chan
clan |
(1886) |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
40m west of the
proposed Project Site |
|
Grave 3 – Lam
clan |
(1889) |
No direct impact due
to large separation distance. |
247m south-west
of proposed enabling works for the long access route |
|
Two Boundary
Stones |
19th
century to early 20th century |
No impact as
field scanning confirmed that the stones are not within the Project Site or
the proposed enabling works. |
Unknown |
|
|
1925 |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
136m west of the
proposed enabling works for the long access route |
|
Former Maxwell Memorial
Medical Centre (the current addiction treatment centre) |
1954 |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
41m south of the
proposed enabling works for the long access route |
|
Leprosarium
cemetery |
Mid-1950s |
No direct impact due
to large separation distance. |
305m north of
proposed enabling works for the short access route |
|
Two stone houses
at |
Late 1950s to
early 1960s |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
287m north of the
proposed Project Site |
|
Lord is Willing
Church |
1966 |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
166m south of
proposed enabling works for the long access route |
|
|
1985 |
No direct impact
due to large separation distance. |
280m south-west
of the proposed enabling works for the long access route |
The archaeological investigation undertaken as
part of this EIA Study confirmed that there were no significant archaeological resources
identified within the works area and hence no direct impact is expected. Details of the investigation are presented in
Annex C2.
Due to the small scale of the
construction activities and the large separation distance between the works area
and the identified cultural heritage resources, it is not envisaged that the
construction activities will cause indirect impacts to the identified cultural
heritage resources.
9.5.3
Cumulative Impact
At present there are no planned projects on Hei Ling Chau that
could have cumulative cultural heritage impacts with the proposed
development.
9.6
Mitigation
Measures and Residual Impacts
As presented in Section 9.5.2, no impact has been
identified due to the proposed development and thus, no mitigation measures are
considered necessary.
9.7
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Requirements
As no impact has been identified, no environmental
monitoring and audit for cultural heritage resources is necessary.
The literature review and field surveys identified no
It is therefore concluded that the Project will not cause adverse
cultural heritage impacts.