6.1 This section presents a cultural heritage impact assessment of the WIL project, identifying cultural heritage resources, assessing potential direct and indirect impacts from proposed works on these resources, and recommending mitigation measures where required.
6.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria relevant to the consideration of Cultural Heritage impacts under this study include the following:
§
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
§
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
§
§
Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
6.3
The Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance provides the statutory framework to
provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and
palaeontological interest.
6.4
The Ordinance contains the
statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. Under the Ordinance
monument means a place, building, site or structure which is declared to be a monument,
historical building or archaeological or palaeontological site or structure by
reason of its historical, archaeological or palaeontological significance under
section 3 of the Ordinance.
6.5
Under section 6 and subject to
subsection (4) of the Ordinance, the following acts are prohibited in relation
to certain monuments, except under permit;
§
To excavate, carry on building works, plant or fell trees or
deposit earth or refuse on or in a proposed monument or monument
§
To demolish, remove, obstruct, deface or interfere with a
proposed monument or monument
6.6
A permit under section 6 of the
Ordinance is required for any works falling within the boundary of the
6.7
The discovery of an Antiquity,
as defined in the Ordinance must be reported to the Antiquities Authority, or a
designated person. The Ordinance also provides that, the ownership of every
relic discovered in
6.8
No archaeological excavation
may be carried out by any person, other than the Authority and the designated
person, without a licence issued by the Authority. A licence will only be
issued if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient
scientific training or experience to enable him to carry out the excavation and
search satisfactorily, is able to conduct, or arrange for, a proper scientific
study of any antiquities discovered as a result of the excavation and search
and has sufficient staff and financial support.
6.9
The Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) was
implemented on 1 April 1998. Its purpose is to avoid, minimise and control the
adverse impact on the environment of designated projects, through the
application of the EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system.
6.10
HKPSG (Chapter 10) covers
planning considerations relevant to conservation. Chapter 10 details the
principles of conservation, the conservation of natural landscape and habitats,
historic buildings and archaeological sites. It also addresses the issue of
enforcement. The appendices list the legislation and administrative controls
for conservation, other conservation related measures in
6.11 The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). The guidelines state that preservation in totality and measures for the integration of sites of cultural heritage into the proposed project will be a beneficial impact. It also states that destruction of a site of cultural heritage must only be undertaken as a last resort.
6.12
A maximum vibration level of
6.13
The study area covers an area
that stretches
6.14
The cultural heritage baseline condition has been established through a
literature review and a field survey.
6.15
The original
coastline of the northern coast of
6.16
No known sites of archaeological
potential were identified in the study area.
However, there is a potential that finds and remains of archaeological
interests are found in those works areas which are located close to surface and
with records of historical village establishments. In the project areas at which such potential
are identified and that excavation works would be conducted, an archaeological
watching brief would then be needed.
6.17
For this project, a review for potential
sites of archaeological interests was conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The review report together with the methodology
for archaeological watching brief are provided in Appendix 6.2.
6.18
A baseline study on built heritage including
declared monuments, pre-1950 buildings and structures as well as post-1950
buildings and structures of high architectural and historical significance
within
§
Recording of identified built heritage features.
§
Interviews with local informants, residents and elders, if
necessary. The interviews should aim to gather information, such as cultural
and historical background of the buildings and structures, as well as
historical events associated with the built heritage features.
6.19
Systematic documentation of all recorded features to be presented in
this report include:
§
Photographic records of buildings or structures including
the exterior (the elevations of all faces of the building premises, the roof,
close up for special architectural details) and the interior (special
architectural details) where possible;
§
Written descriptions of recorded features, e.g. age of the
building or structure, details of architectural features, condition of the
building or structure, past and present uses, architectural appraisal, notes on
any modifications, direction faced and associations with historical or cultural
events or individuals.
6.20 Details of the cultural heritage resources in the study area and their locations are presented in the Cultural Heritage Baseline Report in Appendix 6.3, and the key resources are highlighted below.
6.21
Five Declared Monuments are identified
in or within the vicinity of the Study Area.
They are:
§
Western Market at
§
Main Building of St. Stephen’s
Girls’ College at
§
§
§
6.22
Seventeen graded historical buildings
are identified in or within the vicinity of the Study Area. They are:
§
Kwong Fuk Tsz (
§
Old Upper Levels Police Station
at No
§
Façade of the
§
Old Lunatic Asylum at
§
§
§
King’s College at No.
§
Fung Ping Shan Building, the
University of Hong Kong at Pok Fu Lam Road, Grade II Historical Building (#45)
§
Two Workmen’s Quarters (
§
§
Senior Staff Quarters (Grade II
Historical Building), and Workmen’s Quarters and
§
Ex-Western Fire Station at No.14
Belcher’s Street, Kennedy Town (now used as Po Leung Kuk Chan Au Big Yan Home
for the Elderly), Grade III Historical Building (#55)
§
Lo
6.23
In addition to
6.24
Details of project design and
construction works are described in Section 2.
Any heritage resources located within close proximity to work areas or
railway alignment may be impacted through:
§
Direct impact to historic
buildings (e.g. demolition) and sites of archaeological potential (e.g.
excavation)
§
Indirect vibration impact to historic buildings that may
lead to structural damage or interference of normal activities, such as due to
tunnel boring or drill and blast activities during construction phase
§
Indirect visual impact to
historic buildings due to construction works e.g. excavation works at surface.
6.25
Impact on cultural heritage
during operational phase of the Project would include:
§
Indirect visual impact associated with alteration in
surrounding environment of the historical structures due to the above-ground
structures of the Project.
§
Indirect vibration impact to historic buildings from train
movements during operation phase.
6.26
According to records of
Antiquities and Monuments Office, no known sites of archaeological potential
were identified within the WIL Project boundary.
6.27
A desk-based review was
undertaken to gather known information regarding the study area (refer to Appendix 6.2). The information reviewed included geotechnical,
geological and geomorphological, previous archaeological investigations,
current and previous land use, historical records, maps and aerial
photographs. The objective of the
desk-based review was to identify areas of archaeological potential as well as
to eliminate areas which have known severe disturbances.
6.28
Based on the review results (Appendix 6.2), a watching brief is
recommended, as a precautionary measure, for the identification of any
historical finds in the following works areas which might have a potential for finds
and remains of archaeological interest to be found, considering geology,
topography and landuse:
§
Works Area C at
§
Works Area H
at the Belcher’s
§
Works Area I near
Pok Fu Lam Road Flyover
§
Works Area J at
§
Works Area J1 at
§
Works Area J2 at
Whitty Street Public Toilet
§
Works Area J3 at the
§
Works Area M at
the basket ball court of King George V Memorial Park
§
Works Area M2 at
David Lane Sitting Out Area
6.29
The watching brief must be
undertaken by a qualified archaeologist who must apply to the Antiquities
Authority for a Licence (it should be noted that the time for processing the
licence application will be no less than two months). Details of the frequency of inspection will be
provided to AMO for review and comment once the detailed construction programme
has been finalised. The archaeologist should liaise with the contractor with respect to
details of the construction programme. The contractor must immediately inform
the archaeologist and the AMO if any significant archaeological deposits are
identified during the course of the construction works. Requirements of the archaeological watching
brief can be found in Appendix 6.2.
6.30 The proposed WIL will be an underground railway system and therefore any potential cultural heritage impacts would be limited to surface works with an interface with the resources. Potential impacts have been carefully considered during the development of the project design to avoid and minimise impacts on important cultural heritage resources.
6.31 According to the preliminary design proposal, there were no plans of demolition of any declared monuments or graded historic buildings. Therefore no direct impact on the identified heritage resources is envisaged.
6.32 Either drill and blast or tunnel boring method would be used for tunnel formation along the WIL. Blasting would cause vibrations which will be transmitted to the environs. The duration of blasting is very short and infrequent, however, if sufficiently strong, these vibrations may cause damage to structures. The vibration levels resulted from blasting would generally be higher than those generated from tunnel boring although the vibration levels could be controlled to acceptable levels by limiting the size of the blast. In view of this, indirect vibration impact induced by blasting was considered in the present assessment as the worst case scenario.
6.33
MTRC commissioned Wilson,
Crokett & Associates, Limited (WCAL) to conduct a study of vibration
impacts from tunnel formation along WIL by drill and blast. According to this study, it was reported that
to prevent causing damage to buildings/structures through vibration, the basic
approach would be to adjust charge weight per delay along the alignment so that
the maximum vibration level could be controlled within a peak particle velocity
(ppv) limit of
6.34
Charge weights per delay at
representative locations along the WIL were assessed in the WCAL’s study. Assuming 95% confidence bound, the most
restrictive blasting would occur near KET, where the charge weight per delay
could not exceed about
6.35 An environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) programme for vibration impacts will be in place to check no exceedance of the vibration limit during construction. An Event and Action plan would be established to determine any necessary remedial measures in case of exceedance of the vibration limit. EM&A results will be documented in regular EM&A reports.
6.36 The construction vibration control requirement will be incorporated into relevant contracts for the construction of WIL. The contractor is required to make proposals for blasting and to monitor and report the results of his blasting, including ground-borne vibration, in accordance with conditions attached to permits to use explosives by Mines Division of CEDD. Should an exceedance of the vibration limit occur, the contractor is required to immediately adjust his blasting proposals to return ground-borne vibrations to below the limiting value.
6.37 It is envisaged that, through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction work, adverse impact on the identified heritage resources would not arise.
6.38
All aboveground structures to
be constructed under this Project would be remote from the identified heritage
buildings except the Old Lunatic Asylum at
6.39 Potential indirect impacts including vibration and visual impacts on cultural heritage sites during construction phase would be temporary, and are discussed further in Table 6.1. Photomontages illustrating the typical design of aboveground structures including entrances, Kennedy Town Station and vent shafts are provided in the landscape and visual impact assessment chapter (Figures 5.7.2-5.7.6). Based on the preliminary design information, temporary change of access to the identified heritage sites would not be envisaged.
6.40
As indicated in Table 6.1, there are no aboveground
structures to be built in the vicinity of the
Table 6.1 Potential
Indirect Impact on Built Heritage Sites during Construction Phase
Photo Ref |
Cultural
Heritage Site |
Grading
Information |
Figure No |
Distance from
the Closest Works Area (m) |
Scope of Works at the Closest Works Area |
Potential Indirect Impact and Impact Level |
Proposed Mitigation Measures |
Implementation
Agent |
||
|
|
|
|
Horizontal |
Vertical |
Slant |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Western
Market |
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.2 |
30 |
30
|
42
|
Rail
tunnel |
-
Works at this location
would include the construction of WIL rail tunnel to join the Island Line
within the existing Sheung Wan crossover box.
The rail tunnel will be constructed at about -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, vibration impact could
be further reduced and no adverse impact would be expected at this monument
building. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
8 |
No.
1 Queen’s Road West, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.2 |
112 |
37 |
118 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
11 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
270 |
43 |
273 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
|
12 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
292 |
52 |
297 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
|
13 |
Kwong
Fuk Tsz ( |
Grade II |
Fig.6.3 |
276 |
45 |
280 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
|
20 |
No.
153 Queen’s Road West, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
96 |
33 |
101 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts envisaged.
-
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
|
21 |
Sai
Ying Pun Jockey Club Polyclinic at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
32 |
38 |
50 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
|
22 |
Old
Upper Levels Police Station at No |
Grade III |
Fig.6.3 |
144 |
78 |
164 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
|
23 |
No.
36 Eastern Street, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
0 |
40 |
40 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and installation
of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with AMO before
installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
24 |
Façade
of the |
Grade I |
Fig.6.4 |
22 |
5 |
23 |
Entrance
adit & SYP Entrance C |
Entrance adit: -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. SYP
Entrance C: -
David Trench
Rehabilitation Centre would be demolished prior to the construction of the
entrance. The demolition works would
be carried out at more than 20m away from the façade of the -
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Entrance adit: -
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. SYP Entrance C: -
Decorative screen
hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the existing urban context
should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual impacts during
construction phase. -
The hoardings to be
erected along the works boundary could also ameliorate the temporary impact
due to demolition works at the David Trench Rehabilitation Centre. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
25 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.5 |
18 |
6 |
19 |
SYP
Entrance
C |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner
that responds to the existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the
temporary visual impacts during construction phase. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
26 |
Main
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.5 |
64 |
72 |
96 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Works at this location
would include the construction of both westbound and eastbound rail
tunnels. The rail tunnels will be
constructed at about -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, vibration impact could
be further reduced and no adverse impact would be expected at this monument
building. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
27 |
Old
Lunatic Asylum at |
Grade II |
Fig.6.4 |
3 |
11 |
11 |
Entrance
adit & SYP
Entrance C |
Entrance adit: -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. SYP
Entrance C: -
David Trench
Rehabilitation Centre would be demolished prior to the construction of the
entrance. The demolition works would
be carried out -
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Entrance adit: -
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. SYP Entrance C: -
Decorative screen
hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the existing urban context
should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual impacts during
construction phase. -
The hoardings to be
erected along the works boundary could also ameliorate the temporary impact
due to demolition works at the David Trench Rehabilitation Centre. |
Entrance
adit: Project Proponent / Contractor Contractor |
28 |
Nos.
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
0 |
45 |
45 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
29 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
84 |
13 |
85 |
SYP
Entrance
B3 |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner
that responds to the existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the
temporary visual impacts during construction phase. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
30 |
Prewar
Buildings (Nos 1-2 and 7-12, Yu Lok Lane, West Point) under the Development
Project of Yu Lok Lane and Centre Street of the Urban Renewal Authority |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
8 |
57 |
58 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project Proponent /
Contractor |
31 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
0 |
77 |
77 |
SYP Station |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and installation
of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with AMO before
installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
32 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
30 |
12 |
32 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
33 |
Public
Bathhouse at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
52 |
4 |
52 |
SYP
Entrance B1 |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the
existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual
impacts during construction phase. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
34 |
|
Grade III |
Fig.6.7 |
72 |
5 |
72 |
SYP
Entrance B1 |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the
existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual
impacts during construction phase. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
35 |
|
Grade III |
Fig.6.7 |
100 |
16 |
101 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
36 |
Western
Police Station and Western Police Married Quarters at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
84 |
5 |
84 |
SYP
Entrance
B3 |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the
existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual
impacts during construction phase. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
37 |
Western
Magistracy at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
76 |
4 |
76 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
38 |
King's
College at |
Grade II |
Fig.6.7 |
24 |
77 |
80 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
39 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
80 |
80 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
40 |
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
105 |
105 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Works at this location
would include the construction of both westbound and eastbound rail
tunnels. The rail tunnels will be
constructed at about - Only underground works involved. No adverse visual impacts envisaged. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, vibration impact could
be further reduced and no adverse impact would be expected at this monument
building. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
41 |
Elliot
Hall and May Wing of the |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.10 |
104 |
131 |
167 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with AMO
before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
42 |
Victoria
Battery at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.10 |
218 |
164 |
273 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
43 |
Li
Sing Primary School and Western Dental Clinic at High Street |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
154 |
51 |
162 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
44 |
Caritas
Ling Yuet Sin Canossian Kindergarten at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
118 |
60 |
132 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
45 |
|
Grade II |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
77 |
77 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
47 |
Two
Workmen's Quarters (Grade III Historical Buildings) and A Bungalow (Grade I
Historical Building), |
Workmen’s Quarters Grade III & Bungalow Grade
I |
Fig.6.10 |
268 |
163 |
313 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
48 |
|
Grade III |
Fig.6.8 |
38 |
28 |
47 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
49 |
St
Stephen's Church at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.8 |
74 |
65 |
98 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
50 |
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.8 |
34 |
71 |
79 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Works at this location
would include the construction of both westbound and eastbound rail
tunnels. The rail tunnels will be
constructed at about -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, vibration impact could
be further reduced and no adverse impact would be expected at this monument
building. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
51 |
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
72 |
72 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Works at this location
would include the construction of both westbound and eastbound rail
tunnels. The rail tunnels will be
constructed at about -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, vibration impact could
be further reduced and no adverse impact would be expected at this monument
building. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
52 |
St
Anthony's Catholic Church at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.8 |
0 |
28 |
28 |
Entrance
adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
Through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction
works, adverse impact due to vibration from the proposed construction works
would not arise. The location and installation of the monitoring stations should be
discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
53 |
Senior
Staff Quarters, Workmen' s Quarters and Treatment Works Building, Elliot
Pumping Station and Filters at Pok Fu Lam Road |
Senior
Staff Quarters Grade II, Others Grade III |
Fig.6.11 &
6.13 |
0 |
92 |
92 |
UNI Station |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
54 |
Air
Raid Tunnels at Former Belcher's |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.11, 6.12 & 6.13 |
0 |
10 |
10
|
UNI Station, Entrance adit &
Construction adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts envisaged. -
Excavation of adits
will be carried out underground, and the works would not encroach onto the
remaining underground structures of Air Raid Tunnels. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
Through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction
works, adverse impact due to vibration from the proposed construction works
would not arise. The location and installation of the monitoring stations should be
discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
55 |
Ex-Western
Fire Station at No.14 Belcher's Street, |
Grade III |
Fig.6.12 |
0 |
32 |
32 |
Entrance adit &
Construction adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
The adits will be
constructed in rock well below the probable pad footing foundation of this
graded historical building. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
Through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction
works, adverse impact due to vibration from the proposed construction works
would not arise. The location and installation of the monitoring stations should be
discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
56 |
Lo
|
Grade I |
Fig.6.13 |
0 |
56 |
56 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
Through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction
works, adverse impact due to vibration from the proposed construction works
would not arise. The location and installation of the monitoring stations should be
discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
57 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.13 |
0 |
46 |
46 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
Through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction
works, adverse impact due to vibration from the proposed construction works
would not arise. The location and installation of the monitoring stations should be
discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
58 |
Fok
Hing Tong, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.13 |
62 |
35 |
71 |
Rail tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
Through the control of vibration levels from the proposed construction
works, adverse impact due to vibration from the proposed construction works
would not arise. The location and installation of the monitoring stations should be
discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
59 |
St.
Luke's Chapel at |
Not yet graded |
Fig. 6.15 |
142 |
33 |
146 |
Vent shaft |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the
existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual
impacts during construction phase. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
60 |
The
Arch and Foundation Stone of |
Not yet graded |
Fig. 6.15 |
152 |
34 |
156 |
Vent shaft |
-
Excavation would be
conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Decorative screen hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the
existing urban context should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual
impacts during construction phase. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
61 |
City
of |
Not yet graded |
Fig. 6.15 |
112 |
7 |
112 |
Overrun tunnel |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
62 |
The
Old Masonry Walls at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.14 |
0 |
14 |
14 |
Rail tunnel
& KET Station |
Rail tunnel: -
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. KET Station: -
Cut and cover works
would be conducted at surface. -
Intervening landscape
adjacent to this building includes urban structures and road. -
Visual impact during
construction phase would be temporary and could be minimized by erecting
sensitively designed hoardings. |
Rail tunnel: -
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. KET Station: -
Decorative screen
hoardings designed in a manner that responds to the existing urban context
should be erected to mitigate the temporary visual impacts during
construction phase. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor Project
Proponent / Contractor |
63 |
The
masonry walls at King George V (KGV) Memorial Park, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
0 |
58 |
58 |
Entrance adit |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
64 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig 6.17 |
50 |
13 |
52 |
Underground magazine |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
65 |
Jubilee
|
Not yet graded |
Fig 6.16 |
75 |
83 |
112 |
Underground magazine |
-
Only underground works
involved. No adverse visual impacts
envisaged. -
Vibration impacts
resulted from tunnel boring or blasting could be minimized through vibration
control. |
-
Through the control of
vibration levels from the proposed construction works, adverse impact due to
vibration from the proposed construction works would not arise. -
The location and
installation of the monitoring stations should be discussed and agreed with
AMO before installation. |
Project
Proponent / Contractor |
6.41 There will be generally no adverse visual impacts to identified built heritage resources during the operational stage as the rail line is located underground and will not be visible. Some of the heritage buildings would have line of sight to the above-ground structures including the vent shafts and entrances associated with WIL. As those structures would be incorporated into an existing urban setting sympathetic to environmental character of the site, as discussed in Table 6.2, no adverse visual impact would be envisaged. Based on the preliminary design information, change of access to the identified heritage sites would not be envisaged.
6.42 Potential vibration impact due to operational trains have been evaluated with reference to the separation distance between the identified heritage structures and the corresponding rail track closest to them (Table 6.3 below refers), having considered that vibration level would be reduced over distance. Since most of the rail alignment would be located in deep tunnel, vibration impact due to the WIL trains would be generally minor.
6.43
According to Table 6.3, the smallest slant
separation distance from the identified heritage structures (i.e. the tree
walls at
Table 6.2 Potential Indirect Visual Impact on
Cultural Heritage Sites during Operational Phase
Above-ground
Structures |
Photo
Ref |
Cultural Heritage Site |
Grading Information |
Figure No |
Distance from the Nearest Above-ground Structures (m) |
Indirect
Impact and Impact Level |
Proposed
Mitigation Measures |
Implementation
Agent / Period |
SYP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entrance
A1 & Vent-Shaft Y |
21 |
Sai
Ying Pun Jockey Club Polyclinic at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.2 |
76 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases |
The vent shaft
would be incorporated into an existing urban setting sympathetic to
environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual impacts on the
historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
Entrance
A2 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
-
Structures not visible to any identified
historical buildings |
N/A |
N/A |
Entrance
B1 |
33 |
Public
Bathhouse at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
52 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases |
The vent shaft
would be incorporated into an existing urban setting sympathetic to
environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual impacts on the
historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
Entrance
B2 |
37 |
Western
Magistracy at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
96 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases |
The vent shaft
would be incorporated into an existing urban setting sympathetic to
environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual impacts on the
historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
Entrance
B3 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
-
Structures not visible to any identified
historical buildings |
N/A |
N/A |
Entrance
C & Vent Shaft-Z |
24 |
The
Façade of the |
Grade I |
Fig.6.2 |
23 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases. |
The entrance
and vent shaft would be incorporated into an existing urban setting
sympathetic to environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual
impacts on the historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
|
25 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.2 |
18 |
|
|
|
|
26 |
Main
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.3 |
85 |
-
It would be unlikely that the entrance and vent
shaft would result in adverse visual impacts on this historical building as
it would be screened by high-rise residential buildings at |
Nil |
N/A |
|
27 |
Old
Lunatic Asylum at |
Grade II |
Fig.6.2 |
5 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases. |
The entrance
and vent shaft would be incorporated into an existing urban setting
sympathetic to environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual
impacts on the historical building to acceptable level. Planting will be encouraged where
practicable to grow against the lower portion of the aboveground structures
to soften the visual impact. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
UNI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entrance
A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Structures not
visible to any identified historical buildings |
N/A |
N/A |
Entrance
B1 |
48 |
|
Grade III |
Fig 6.4 |
40 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases. |
The entrance
and vent shaft would be incorporated into an existing urban setting
sympathetic to environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual
impacts on the historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
|
52 |
St
Anthony's Catholic Church at |
Not yet graded |
Fig 6.4 |
48 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases. |
The entrance
and vent shaft would be incorporated into an existing urban setting
sympathetic to environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual
impacts on the historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
Entrance
B2 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
-
Structures not visible to any identified
historical buildings |
N/A |
N/A |
Vent-Shaft
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entrance
C1 Chiller
Plant & Vent Shafts Z1-Z4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entrance
C2 |
55 |
Ex-Western
Fire Station at No.14 Belcher's Street, |
Grade III |
Fig. 6.5 |
28 |
-
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases. |
The entrance
and vent shaft would be incorporated into an existing urban setting
sympathetic to environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual
impacts on the historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
KET |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KET
Station |
62 |
The
Old Masonry Walls at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
18 |
-
Direct impact on walls avoided through adjustment
of the station location and works area. -
Visual impacts would be envisaged during
operation phases. |
The station,
entrances and vent shaft would be incorporated into an existing urban setting
sympathetic to environmental character of the site thereby minimizing visual
impacts on the historical building to acceptable level. |
Project
Proponent / Design Phase |
Vent
Shaft-Y&Z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entrances
A, B & C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vent
Shaft at Ex-Police Quarters |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
-
Structures not visible to any identified
historical buildings |
N/A |
N/A |
Table 6.3 Potential Indirect Vibration Impact on Cultural Heritage Sites during
Operational Phase
Under-ground Structures |
Photo Ref |
Cultural
Heritage Site |
Grading
Information |
Figure No |
Distance from
the Nearest Rail Track (m) |
Indirect Impact
and Impact Level |
Proposed
Mitigation Measures |
Implementation
Agent / Period |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Horizontal |
Vertical |
Slant |
|
|
|
Crossover
Box in tunnel |
4 |
Western
Market |
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.2 |
6 |
28 |
28 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
Rail Tunnel |
8 |
No.
1 Queen’s Road West, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.2 |
112 |
30 |
116 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
11 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
270 |
44 |
274 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
12 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
292 |
52 |
297 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
13 |
Kwong
Fuk Tsz ( |
Grade II |
Fig.6.3 |
276 |
46 |
280 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
20 |
No.
153 Queen’s Road West, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
96 |
33 |
101 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
21 |
Sai
Ying Pun Jockey Club Polyclinic at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.3 |
78 |
31 |
84 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
22 |
Old
Upper Levels Police Station at No |
Grade III |
Fig.6.3 |
184 |
80 |
200 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
23 |
No.
36 Eastern Street, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
0 |
45 |
45 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
24 |
Façade
of the |
Grade I |
Fig.6.4 |
10 |
82 |
83 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
25 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.5 |
136 |
88 |
162 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
26 |
Main
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.5 |
174 |
111 |
207 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
27 |
Old
Lunatic Asylum at |
Grade II |
Fig.6.4 |
70 |
71 |
100 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
28 |
Nos.
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
12 |
61 |
62 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
29 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
216 |
36 |
219 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be required.
|
N/A |
N/A |
|
30 |
Prewar
Buildings (Nos 1-2 and 7-12, Yu Lok Lane, West Point) under the Development
Project of Yu Lok Lane and Centre Street of the Urban Renewal Authority |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
24 |
55 |
60 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
SYP
Station Box |
31 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
0 |
86 |
86 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
Rail
Tunnel |
32 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
132 |
64 |
146 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
33 |
Public
Bathhouse at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
160 |
58 |
170 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
34 |
|
Grade III |
Fig.6.7 |
148 |
66 |
162 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
35 |
|
Grade III |
Fig.6.7 |
116 |
70 |
136 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
36 |
Western
Police Station and Western Police Married Quarters at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
278 |
42 |
281 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
37 |
Western
Magistracy at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.6 |
230 |
52 |
236 |
Given sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
38 |
King's
College at |
Grade II |
Fig.6.7 |
28 |
77 |
82 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
39 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
85 |
85 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
40 |
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
110 |
110 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
41 |
Elliot
Hall and May Wing of the |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.10 |
104 |
137 |
172 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
42 |
Victoria
Battery at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.10 |
220 |
170 |
278 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
43 |
Li
Sing Primary School and Western Dental Clinic at High Street |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
156 |
51 |
164 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
44 |
Caritas
Ling Yuet Sin Canossian Kindergarten at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.7 |
122 |
59 |
135 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
45 |
|
Grade II |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
77 |
77 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
47 |
Two
Workmen's Quarters (Grade III Historical Buildings) and A Bungalow (Grade I
Historical Building), |
Workmen’s Quarters Grade III & Bungalow Grade
I |
Fig.6.10 |
272 |
166 |
319 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
48 |
|
Grade III |
Fig.6.8 |
130 |
54 |
141 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
49 |
St
Stephen's Church at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.8 |
78 |
59 |
98 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
50 |
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.8 |
36 |
76 |
84 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
51 |
|
Declared Monument |
Fig.6.9 |
0 |
77 |
77 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
52 |
St
Anthony's Catholic Church at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.8 |
48 |
58 |
76 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
UNI
Station Box |
53 |
Senior
Staff Quarters, Workmen' s Quarters and Treatment Works Building, Elliot
Pumping Station and Filters at Pok Fu Lam Road |
Senior
Staff Quarters Grade II, Others Grade III |
Fig.6.11 &
6.13 |
0 |
107 |
107 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
54 |
Air
Raid Tunnels at Former Belcher's |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.11, 6.12 & 6.13 |
0 |
52 |
52 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
Rail
Tunnel |
55 |
Ex-Western
Fire Station at No.14 Belcher's Street, |
Grade III |
Fig.6.12 |
164 |
22 |
165 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
56 |
Lo
|
Grade I |
Fig.6.13 |
0 |
60 |
60 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
57 |
|
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.13 |
0 |
51 |
51 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
58 |
Fok
Hing Tong, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.13 |
66 |
33 |
74 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
Overrun
Tunnel |
59 |
St.
Luke's Chapel at |
Not yet graded |
Fig. 6.15 |
160 |
1 |
160 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
60 |
The
Arch and Foundation Stone of |
Not yet graded |
Fig. 6.15 |
194 |
1 |
194 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
61 |
City
of |
Not yet graded |
Fig. 6.15 |
116 |
3 |
116 |
Given sufficient
buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse vibration
impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be required. |
N/A |
N/A |
Rail
Tunnel |
62 |
The
Old Masonry Walls at |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.14 |
0 |
23 |
23 |
Given sufficient
buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse vibration
impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be required. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
63 |
The
masonry walls at King George V (KGV) Memorial Park, |
Not yet graded |
Fig.6.4 |
0 |
58 |
58 |
Given
sufficient buffer distance between the building and rail track, no adverse
vibration impacts would be expected and no mitigation measures would be
required. |
N/A |
N/A |
6.44 As a precautionary measure, archaeological watching brief is recommended for the identification of any historical finds in the works areas, as listed in Section 6.28 and Appendix 6.2, which might have a potential for finds and remains of archaeological interest to be found.
6.45 The construction vibration control limits will be followed during the construction of the WIL, and there would be no adverse vibration impacts on the historical buildings. To check that there would not be any unacceptable deviation from the set limits, compliance monitoring of vibration limits will be conducted and reported, as a requirement of EM&A programme, as described in Section 6.52-6.61 below.
6.46 Temporary visual impact during construction phase could be minimised by the use of sensibly designed hoardings. As discussed in the landscape and visual impact assessment section of this report (refer to Table 5.4 for description of the proposed construction phase landscape and visual mitigation measures), decorative screen hoarding designed to be compatible with the character of the existing environmental setting should be provided at the boundary of the works areas. This would help ameliorate the visual impact, albeit temporary, to acceptable levels.
6.47 Mitigation measures recommended in Table 5.5 in relation to visual impacts would generally ameliorate potential impacts to the surrounding environment including historic sites.
6.48 No adverse vibration impacts due to operational trains were expected. No mitigation measures would be needed.
6.49 The use of sensibly designed screen hoardings for mitigating landscape and visual impacts as proposed in Section 5 would also be recommended for reducing the potential visual impact on identified heritage buildings to acceptable levels. Based on this, environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) requirements recommended in Section 12 for landscape and visual impacts would as well be applicable for the protection of heritage resources.
6.50 Vibration monitoring requirements at historic buildings are as follows:
6.51 Blasting usually takes places once or twice a day. As such, monitoring equipment may either be manned, or unmanned. If it is manned, then the maximum PPV level for the duration of the blast must be available immediately after the blast, so that information can be relayed to the Contractor before the next blast. If the monitoring device is unmanned, then it must be triggered, and the results conveyed by telephone hook-up to the responsible person. The responsible person will then immediately inform the Contractor. Blasting shall be monitored at either one or two locations per blast location, as described below. The preferred equipment is an Instantel Blastmate, with the Blastmate III being the most recent.
6.52
If no identified vibration
sensitive historical building is within
6.53
If an identified vibration
sensitive historical building is within
6.54 All blasting shall be monitored. If blasting is scheduled for more than one location at the same time, the measurement specialist shall provide sufficient equipment to monitor, as described, all blast locations.
6.55 Monitoring would be conducted inside buildings. Monitoring stations would be set up before the work commencement and to the satisfaction of relevant authorities. The location and installation of the monitoring stations would be discussed and agreed with AMO before installation. Should any irregularities arise, the Resident Engineer should alert relevant authorities and implement proper mitigation measures accordingly, subject to the agreement of relevant authorities.
6.56
The Measurement Specialist
shall tabulate the PPV level taken above the blast for each blast episode
against: track chainage, horizontal setback, if any, vertical depth, PPV
criterion (
6.57
The Measurement Specialist
shall tabulate the PPV level taken within or outside a monitored sensitive
receiver for each blast episode against: track chainage, horizontal setback, if
any, vertical depth, PPV criterion (i.e.
6.58 The Measurement Specialist shall provide a copy of the updated tabulation to the Contractor after each blast episode. If the measured PPV either above the blast or at any nearby receiver is above the criteria values for three consecutive blasts, the Contractor shall take immediate corrective action by reducing the rate of forward progress, as necessary, to bring PPV levels within compliance. If upon subsequent blasting, the criteria are still exceeded, further reduction of the rate of forward progress shall occur on consecutive blasts until PPV levels are brought within compliance. If PPV levels cannot be brought within compliance after six successive non-compliant blasts, the Contractor shall cease all blasting, with recommencement subject to review by MTRC.
6.59
If the measured PPV is less
than
6.60
Mitigation measures recommended
in Table
6.61 No adverse vibration impacts due to operational trains were expected. No mitigation measures and specific EM&A requirements would be required.
6.62
The WIL project would have no
adverse impacts on the cultural heritage resources in the study area, during
both construction and operation phases, with the implementation of the
recommended measures.
1.
劉粵聲,《香港基督教會史》,香港基督教聯會,1941。
2.
香港商業彙報,《香港建築業百年史》,香港商業彙報,1958。
3.
羅香林,《國父在香港之歷史遺蹟》,香港珠海書院,1971。
4.
香港歷史博物館,《活的歷史:保護香港的歷史建築》,香港市政局出版,1982。
5.
夏歷,《香港中區街道古事》,香港三聯書局,1989。
6.
白德著,招紹瓚譯,《香港文物志》,香港市政局出版,1991。
7.
龍炳頤,《香港古今建築》,香港三聯書局,1992。
8.
利文出版社,《圖片香港歷史-1997年版》,利文出版社,1997。
9.
張在元,劉少瑜,《香港中環城市形象》,中國計劃出版社,1997。
10.
蕭國健,湯開建,《香港:從遠古到一九九七》,香港齡記出版社,1998。
11.
梁炳華,《中西區風物志》,中西區區議會,1998。
12.
梁炳華,《香港古蹟之旅》,中國歷史教育學會
13.
蕭國健,沈思,《香港市區文化之旅》,香港萬里出版社,2001。
14.
古物古蹟辦事署,《中西區文物徑指南》,古物古蹟辦事署,2003。
15.
何佩然,《地換山移:香港海港及土地發展一百六十年》,商務印書館,2004。
16.
蕭國健,《香港之海防歷史與軍事遺蹟》,中華文教交流服務中心,2006。
17.
Dept
of Architecture, HKU, Measured Drawings
Vol. 2: Hong Kong Historical
18.
Lim,
Patricia, Discovering Hong Kong’s
Cultural Heritage: Hong Kong and Kowloon, OUP, 2002.
19.
Antiquities
and Monuments Office, Central and Western
Heritage Trail Guide Map, Antiquities and Monuments Office, 2003.
20.
Raby,
Ken, Hong Kong Temples, Allion
Printing Co. Ltd., 2005.
21.
Antiquities
and Monuments Office, Selected Historic Buildings
and Sites in Central District, Antiquities and Monuments Office