10 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

10.1 Introduction

This Section presents the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for the proposed Gas Receiving Stations (GRSs) at the existing Black Point Power Station (BPPS).

In accordance with the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002, the main components of the LVIA are as follows:

· Description of the Project;

· Review of the planning and development control framework;

· Broad Brush tree survey results;

· Baseline study of landscape character, landscape resources and also visual resources such as key views and the visual character and amenity of the Study Area;

· Landscape impact assessment during construction and operation of the Project;

· Visual impact assessment during construction and operation of the Project;

· Recommendations for landscape and visual mitigation measures for both the construction and operation phases; and

· Assessment of the residual impacts and conclusion on the acceptability of the Project.

10.2 Legislation Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

The LVIA was undertaken in accordance with the guidelines and requirements stipulated in Annexes 10 and 18 of the EIAO-TM under the EIAO (Cap.499, S16), entitled “Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape Impact” and “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”, respectively and the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002 “Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance.” The study is also in accordance with the requirements of Study Brief No. ESB – 151/2006. The landscape assessment considers the potential impacts of the Project on the existing landscape and particularly on the landscape resources within 500m of the Project Site.

The visual assessment analyses the potential visual impacts of the proposed GRS on the existing views and the visual amenity, particularly from the Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) within visual envelope. In order to illustrate the visual impacts of the development, photomontages have been prepared from selected view points, which compare the existing conditions with the view after commissioning of the proposed GRS. The residual impacts are evaluated qualitatively, in accordance with the requirements of Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM.

10.3 Planning

There are currently no Outline Zoning Plans (OZP’s) covering the proposed Black Point site. Therefore, the LVIA will be assessed against the baseline conditions of the area.

10.4 Tree Survey

One mature Casuarina equisetifolia is in conflict with the proposed GRSs and will require removal. A Tree Felling Application will be prepared in accordance with the relevant technical circular during the detailed design stage and the loss of this tree will be compensated accordingly. The location of this tree and the possible location for compensatory planting are shown in Figure 10.3.

10.5 Landscape Impact Assessment

10.5.1 Methodology

In accordance with Annex 18 of the EIAO-TM, the landscape impact assessment has covered the following:

· Description of the baseline landscape within 500m of the Project Site and the works area of the enabling works along the access routes;

· Description of the Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and Landscape Resources (LRs);

· Mapping the distribution of the LCAs and LRs;

· Proposed a qualitative and quantitative assessment of significant thresholds which reflect the magnitude of change and sensitivity to change of a particular LCAs and LRs;

· Analysed the landscape impacts during construction, impact after development, and off-site landscape impacts. This section analyses the extent to which these landscape units and edges are changed, using both quantitative and qualitative assessments;

· Examined landscape mitigation measures that will contribute to reducing any landscape impacts or will enhance the landscape associated with the land based impacted areas of the GRS. This may include planting, new landscaped areas and re-vegetation. The residual landscape impacts are also analysed, and;

· Provides conclusions on the impacts of the Project.

10.5.2 Baseline Landscape Conditions

As specified by the EIA Study Brief, the Landscape Impact Assessment covers the area within 500m of the proposed works (see Figure 10.1 and 10.3). The landscape baseline study examines the potential impacts on the Project Site and surrounding areas in terms of both the LCAs and the LRs.

The LCAs and LRs of the Study Area have been categorised according to the presence of common elements. These include factors such as:

· Topography;

· Vegetation type (both species and age);

· Built forms;

· Evidence on human modifications;

· Land use (past and present); and

· Edges.

10.5.3 General Landscape Description

The GRSs are to be located at the Black Point Power Station. This site is a large heavily developed industrial site. To the south of the site are steeply sloping hill sides containing patchy vegetation, open rock areas and stabilised slopes. To the north of the site is open seascape.

10.5.4 Landscape Sensitivity

An understanding of the sensitivity to change of the LCAs and LRs is important when analysing the overall landscape impact of the Project.

Factors affecting the sensitivity of change for evaluation of landscape are:

· Quality of LCAs and LRs;

· Importance and rarity of special landscape elements;

· Ability of the landscape to accommodate change;

· Significance of the change in the local and regional context; and

· Maturity of the landscape.

The degree of sensitivity of the LCAs and LRs is classified as follows:

i) High – eg important components or landscape of particularly distinctive character susceptible to small changes;

ii) Medium – eg a landscape of moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant to change, and;

iii) Low – eg a relatively unimportant landscape which is able to accommodate extensive change.

The following section describes each of the LCAs and LRs within the Study Area (ie 500m from the Project boundary).

10.5.5 Landscape Character Areas

Three LCAs have been identified and are mapped on Figure 10.1.

LCA 1 – Inshore Waters Landscape

The Appendix Descriptions on Landscape Character Types on The Planning Department of Hong Kong’s website describes Inshore Waters Landscape as:

These are areas of coastal water lying close to the shore and enclosed to a certain degree by landmasses or islands, which create a limited sense of enclosure or containment. Whilst these landscapes are characterized predominantly by the horizontality and muted hues of their coastal waters, they may also include small, isolated islands or outlying rocks and marine activities of all kinds, including fish farms, anchorages, commercial shipping lanes, ferry traffic and waterborne recreational activity. The result is a largely open, tranquil and natural landscape which is punctuated by the colours and noises of human features and activities. Examples of this type of landscape are outer Victoria Harbour and Port Shelter in Sai Kung.

Figure 10.2 shows that this LCA is dominated by the presence of the BPPS at its southern edge. There are also relatively few transient vessels in the area, with the exception of some small fishing vessels. This LCA is considered to have medium sensitivity.

LCA 2 – Industrial Urban Landscape

The Appendix Descriptions on Landscape Character Types on The Planning Department of Hong Kong’s website describes Industrial Urban Landscape as:

Generally found on low-lying areas of reclaimed land and often along the coasts of urban areas, these are landscapes defined by their almost exclusively industrial land uses. They typically include areas of industrial buildings, often in very dense arrangements. Any occasional open areas are used for vehicle parking or open storage. Streets are mainly residual spaces, with little or no vegetation. On the peripheries, there may be areas of vacant land. These landscapes also include industrial estates: extensive areas of comprehensively developed low-rise buildings with wider roads, which are often tree lined, usually found at the edges of new towns, such as Yuen Long or Tai Po. Their unifying characteristics are their large utilitarian buildings, their limited coherence of spaces, features and materials, and absence of significant vegetation cover. Examples of this type of landscape include the container handling areas at Kwai Chung Container Terminal as well as the area of factory buildings at Wong Chuk Hang in Aberdeen.

Figure 10.2 shows this LCA is a highly modified landscape dominated by the existing BPPS. This LCA is considered to have a low sensitivity.

LCA 3 - Upland and Hillside Landscape

The Appendix Descriptions on Landscape Character Types on The Planning Department of Hong Kong’s website describes Upland and Hillside Landscape as:

These are large scale upland landscapes lying between around 40mPD and 300mPD. Consisting of hillsides, knolls, ridges and spurs, they are generally covered in scrub vegetation with rocky outcrops or boulder fields. Woodland may be found on lower slopes or in sheltered gullies and ravines, where permanent of seasonal rocky streams tumble down these hillsides. Because of their elevated locations, they often contain few human features (other than footpaths or powerlines) and may retain a rugged, tranquil character, with rocky outcrops or boulder fields and muted natural colours. Examples of this type of landscape can be found across Hong Kong, such as on the lower slopes of the ridge of hills behind Kowloon.

Figure 10.2 shows this LCA is generally natural in appearance with patches of woodlands, plantation, grassland, and rocky slopes. This LCA is considered to have a medium sensitivity.

10.5.6 Landscape Resources

Seven LRs have been identified and are mapped in Figure 10.3.

LR 1 Mixed Shrubland

Mixed Shrubland is comprised of a mix of trees and shrubs common to Hong Kong. Figure 10.4 shows this LR includes native species such as Macaranga tanarius and plantation species such as Acacia spp., Melia azedarach and Casuarina spp. The trees are generally of medium maturity and generally this LR is of medium quality. The sensitivity of this LR is considered to be medium.

LR 2 Shrubby Grassland

Figure 10.4 shows this landscape appears to be immature and the result of regeneration following past clearing. This LR is relatively abundant within the study area, and of low importance and rarity. Shrubby Grassland is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.

LR 3 Bare Rock Slopes

Figure 10.4 shows this LR consists of natural exposed rocky out crops and slope areas. This LR is relatively un-common within the study area, and is of high maturity. This LR is considered to have a medium sensitivity.

LR 4 Grassland

Figure 10.4 shows this LR consists mostly of low growing grass species. This LR relatively immature and is abundant within the study area. This LR is considered to have a low sensitivity.

LR 5 Highly Modified Area

Figure 10.4 shows this area consists of infrastructure associated with power generation including engineering structures, hardstand areas and access roads. This LR is common in the Study Area due to the large size of the BPPS and has low regional significance. It has a high ability accommodate change. The sensitivity of this LR is low.

LR 6 Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline

The artificial rocky/hard shoreline is comprised of a revetment structure along the edge of the BPPS that provides sea defence to the Power Station. Figure 10.4 shows the revetment structure provides an artificial sea edge. This LR is of low quality, low rarity, significance and maturity. It therefore has a low sensitivity.

LR 7 Seascape

Figure 10.4 shows this LR is generally of medium quality, ie the area has no significant characteristics such as colour, rock formations etc. It is also abundant, therefore is low in importance and rarity. Whilst this LR is considered to be of importance in Hong Kong, it is abundant, of high maturity and of medium quality in the Study Area. This LR is therefore considered to have a medium sensitivity.

10.5.7 Distribution of LCAs and LRs

The distribution of the existing LCAs and LRs is shown in Table 10.1

Table 10.1 Existing Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and Landscape Resources (LRs)

ID	LCA/LR	Area (hectare) Within Study Area
LCA 1	Inshore Waters Landscape	65.1
LCA 2	Industrial Urban Landscape	38.7
LCA 3	Upland & Hillsides Landscape	21.3
LR 1	Mixed Shrubland	1.7
LR 2	Shrubby Grassland	5.9
LR 3	Bare Rock Slopes	1.8
LR 4	Grassland	11.9
LR 5	Highly Modified Area	35.1
LR 6	Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline	3.6
LR 7	Seascape	65.1

10.5.8 Landscape Impacts During Construction

The two key factors that affect the evaluation of LCA and LR impacts are the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the landscape areas/resources. The sensitivity to change for each of the LCAs and LRs has been described above and the factors affecting the magnitude of change are outlined below.

Factors affecting the magnitude of change for assessing landscape impacts are:

· Compatibility of the proposed GRSs with the surrounding landscape, ie how well it will fit with its surroundings;

· Scale of the development, ie how big is the development relative to its surroundings; and,

· Reversibility of change, ie how easily changes to the landscape can be reversed.

The magnitude of change is classified as follows:

· Large – notable change in the landscape characteristics over an extensive area ranging to very intensive change over a more limited area;

· Intermediate – moderate changes to a local area;

· Small – small changes to specific landscape components; and

· Negligible – no changes to the baseline condition.

The landscape impact is a product of the magnitude of change the GRSs will have and the sensitivity of the LCA/LR. Table 10.2 shows the significance threshold of the LCA/LR impacts.

Table 10.2 Significance Threshold of Potential Landscape Resource Impact

	Sensitivity to Change
Magnitude of Change Caused by Project		Low	Medium	High
	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate/Significant Impact	Significant Impact
	Intermediate	Slight/Moderate Impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate/ Significant Impact
	Small	Slight Impact	Slight/Moderate Impact	Moderate Impact
	Negligible	Negligible Impact	Negligible Impact	Negligible Impact

Table 10.3 provides some definitions of the significance thresholds for LCA and LR impacts.

Table 10.3 Adverse / Beneficial Impact of Landscape Impact

Level of Impacts (Negative / Beneficial/ Neither)
Significant:	Moderate:	Slight:	Negligible
Adverse / beneficial impact where the Project would cause significant degradation or improvement in existing landscape baseline conditions	Adverse / beneficial impact where the Project would cause noticeable degradation or improvement in existing landscape baseline conditions	Adverse / beneficial impact where the Project would cause a barely noticeable degradation or improvement in existing landscape conditions or where the changes brought about by the Project would not be apparent in visual terms	The Project does not affect the existing landscape baseline conditions

10.5.9 Unmitigated Landscape Impacts During Construction

Table 10.4 shows the impact of the Project on each of the LRs and LCAs and the overall impact based on the preceding Landscape Impact Assessment Matrix.

Table 10.4 Unmitigated Landscape Impact Significance Threshold Matrix

ID	LR/LCA	Area (ha)	Area Affected by Proposed Development (Ha)	% of Area / Length Affected	Sensitivity to Change	Magnitude of Change	Significance Threshold of Landscape Impact
LCA 1	Inshore Waters Landscape	65.1	0.6	0.9%	Medium	Intermediate	Moderate
LCA 2	Industrial Urban Landscape	38.7	0.32	0.8%	Low	Small	Slight
LCA 3	Upland & Hillside Landscape	21.3	Nil	Nil	Medium	Negligible	Negligible
LR 1	Mixed Shrubland	1.7	Nil	Nil	Medium	Negligible	Negligible
LR 2	Shrubby Grassland	5.9	Nil	Nil	Low	Negligible	Negligible
LR 3	Bare Rock Slopes	1.8	Nil	Nil	Medium	Negligible	Negligible
LR 4	Grassland	11.9	Nil	Nil	Low	Negligible	Negligible
LR 5	Highly Modified Area	35.1	0.01	0.03%	Low	Small	Slight
LR 6	Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline	3.6	0.31	8.6%	Low	Small	Slight
LR 7	Seascape	65.1	0.6	0.9%	Medium	Intermediate	Moderate

10.5.10 Summary of un-mitigated Landscape Impacts

Landscape Character Areas

LCA 1 Inshore Waters Landscape

This LCA is considered to have a medium sensitivity. The GRSs will affect approximately 0.6 ha due to the reclamation area to provide a hardstand area for the GRS construction. Due to the irreversible nature of the reclamation, it is considered to cause an intermediate magnitude of change. The significance threshold is considered moderate.

LCA 2 Industrial Urban Landscape

This LCA is considered to have a low sensitivity due to its highly developed industrial nature. An area of 0.32 ha will be affected temporarily during construction and one tree will require removal, resulting on a small magnitude of change. The significance threshold is considered slight.

LCA 3 Coastal Upland and Hillside Landscape

There will be no impacts on this LR therefore the significance threshold is negligible.

Landscape Resources

LR1 – Mixed Shrubland

There will be no impacts on this LR therefore the significance threshold is negligible.

LR2 – Shrubby Grassland

There will be no impacts on this LR therefore the significance threshold is negligible.

LR3 – Bare Rock Slopes

There will be no impacts on this LR therefore the significance threshold is negligible.

LR4 – Grassland

There will be no impacts on this LR therefore the significance threshold is negligible.

LR5 – Highly Modified Area

This LR is considered to have a low sensitivity due to its low quality and rarity within the Study Area. An area of 0.1 ha will be affected resulting in a small magnitude of change. The significance threshold is considered slight.

LR6 – Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline

This LR has a low sensitivity due to its low landscape quality and its high ability to accommodate change. Approximately 0.31 of this LR will be affected resulting in a small magnitude of change. The significance threshold is considered slight.

LR7 – Seascape

This LR is considered to have a medium sensitivity due to its high maturity and abundance. Approximately 0.6 ha of this LR will be affected resulting in an intermediate magnitude of change. The significance threshold is considered moderate.

10.5.11 Landscape Mitigation Measures

The new GRSs are to be located within and adjacent to the existing BPPS, and therefore have a high compatibility. There are also strict operational and health and safety requirements within the BPPS. The following Landscape Mitigation Measures are proposed to reduce impacts further and integrate the new GRSs.

Table 10.5 Landscape Mitigation Measures

ID No.	Landscape Mitigation Measure	Funding Agency	Implementation Agency
CM1	Site hoardings to be compatible with surrounding landscape	Project Proponent	Contractor employed by the Project Proponent
CM2	Edges of the new reclamation to be constructed to match the existing Rocky Seawall	Project Proponent	Contractor employed by the Project Proponent
CM3	The tree requiring removal is to be compensated in accordance with relevant government guidelines	Project Proponent	Contractor employed by the Project Proponent

The landscape mitigation measures are located in plan in Figure 10.5.

Table 10.6 Mitigated and Un-mitigated Construction Impacts

	Un-mitigated Construction impacts		Recommended Construction Mitigation Measures	Mitigated Construction Impacts
	Construction Impact threshold	Adverse/ Beneficial/Neither	Recommended Construction Mitigation Measures	Construction Impact threshold following mitigation	Adverse/ Beneficial/Neither
LCA 1 Inshore Waters Landscape	Moderate	Adverse	CM1 & 2	Slight	Adverse
LCA 2 Industrial Urban Landscape	Slight	Neither	CM1, 2 & 3	Negligible	Neither
LCA 3 Upland & Hillsides	Negligible	N/A	Nil	Negligible	Neither
LR 1 Mixed Shrubland	Negligible	N/A	Nil	Negligible	Neither
LR 2 Man made rocky sea-wall	Negligible	N/A	Nil	Negligible	Neither
LR 3 Bare Rock Slopes	Negligible	N/A	Nil	Negligible	Neither
LR 4 Grassland	Negligible	N/A	Nil	Negligible	Neither
LR 5 Highly Modified Area	Slight	Neither	CM1 & 2	Negligible	Neither
LR 6 Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline	Slight	Adverse	CM1 & 2	Negligible	Neither
LR 7 Seascape	Moderate	Adverse	CM1 & 2	Slight	Adverse

Table 10.7 Mitigated and Un-mitigated Operation Impacts

	Un-Mitigated Impacts			Mitigated Impacts
	Operation	Adverse/ Beneficial/Neither	Recommended Mitigation	Operation Day 1	Operation Year 10	Adverse/ Beneficial/Neither
LCA 1 Inshore Waters Landscape	Slight	Adverse	Nil	Slight	Slight	Adverse
LCA 2 Industrial Urban Landscape	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LCA 3 Upland & Hillsides	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 1 Mixed Shrubland	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 2 Man made rocky sea-wall	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 3 Bare Rock Slopes	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 4 Grassland	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 5 Highly Modified Area	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 6 Artificial Rocky/Hard Shoreline	Negligible	Neither	Nil	Negligible	Negligible	Neither
LR 7 Seascape	Moderate	Adverse	Nil	Slight	Slight	Adverse

10.5.12 Effectiveness of Landscape Character Areas and Landscape Resource Mitigation Measures

It will not be possible to completely mitigate the impacts on LCA 1 Inshore Waters Landscape and LR 7 Seascape. However, the mitigation measures proposed will effectively further reduce the impacts identified on the other LCAs and LRs. Tables 10.6 and 10.7 show the effectiveness of the landscape mitigation measures in reducing the significance thresholds of the impacts on the LCAs and LRs.

10.5.13 Summary of Residual Impacts on the Landscape Character Areas and Landscape Resources During Construction

There will be slight adverse impacts on LCA 1 Inshore waters Landscape and LR 7 Seascape. There will be negligible residual construction impacts on all others LCAs and LRs.

10.5.14 Summary of Residual Impacts on Landscape Character Areas During Operation

There will be slight adverse residual impacts on LCA 1 Inshore waters Landscape and LR 7 Seascape. There will be negligible operation impacts on all others LCAs and LRs.

10.6 Visual Impact Assessment

10.6.1 Introduction

The following tasks were undertaken for the visual impact assessment.

Define the view shed that would be potentially impacted by the Project and map the areas of visual impact - Geographical Information System (GIS) software was utilised to determine areas that could potentially see the development during construction and operation. This GIS view shed analysis was based solely on topography and did not take into account the screening potential of vegetation, which would further reduce the actual view shed. The GIS view shed analysis also mapped the visibility of the development from roads and houses.

Assess indicative view points as a means of assessing the visual impact on the broader landscape - Visually Sensitive Receiver (VSR) view points around the development, have been selected as indicative of the range of views from accessible locations within the view shed. Photomontages have been prepared to show the existing landscape and the landscape with the development at the key VSRs.

Discuss visual mitigation measures - measures (if required) that will reduce any potential visual impacts have been identified. This may include planting and recommendations for material and finishes. These measures will also help improve the overall amenity of the Project. Residual impacts are also discussed.

10.6.2 View Shed Determination and Areas of Potential Visual Impact

The visual impact assessment is informed by an understanding of the existing visual qualities within the region that can be visually affected by a development. This area is referred to as the view shed.

Defining an appropriate view shed is the starting point to understanding the visual impacts of a development as the area of the view shed will vary depending on the nature and scale of the proposed development. The larger a development the greater the view shed as it may be visually apparent for a greater distance. Once the view shed is established, locations can be identified within the view shed that are either particularly sensitive or indicative of the visual impact for a number of locations. In some circumstances, view points may be identified beyond the view shed to recognise the visual impact on locations of particularly high sensitivity.

The proposed GRSs are the major visual element of the proposed development and may visually impact on the surrounding VSRs. As the viewer moves further away from these structures the visual impact decreases until it is no longer visible.

10.6.3 Baseline Visual Character

The general baseline visual character of the Project site is dominated by the existing BPPS. The flue stacks and fuel storage tanks are the most visible elements, particularly when viewed from the seaward side. The contrasting backdrop to the south is created by the steeply sloping hillsides with patches of vegetation. Numerous overhead power lines are also visible cross-crossing the landscape. To the north, the BPPS abruptly meets the sea, and the seascape view extends across to Shekou and the urban development areas of Guangdong.

All of the above elements combine to create an overall visual envelope that is generally of low quality due to the presence of large industrial facilities.

10.6.4 Project Description and Sources of Impact

Section 3 of this EIA provides a detailed description of the project elements. A detailed study has been undertaken to reduce the size and scale of the reclamation to reduce any potential impacts whilst meeting the operational and safety standards required for this type of installation.

10.6.5 Visually Sensitive Receivers

The visual impact of a development can be quantified by reference to the degree of influence on a person’s field of vision. Figures 10.7 and 10.8 illustrate the typical parameters of human vision based on anthropometric data ([1]). This data provides a basis for assessing and interpreting the impact of a development by comparing the extent to which the development would intrude into the central field of vision (both horizontally and vertically).

10.6.6 Horizontal Field of View

The central field of vision for most people covers an angle of between 50° and 60°. Within this angle, both eyes observe an object simultaneously. This creates a central field of greater magnitude than that possible by each eye separately. This central field of vision is termed the 'binocular field' and within this field images are sharp, depth perception occurs and colour discrimination is possible. These physical parameters are illustrated in Figure 10.7 and 10.8.

Figure 10.7 Horizontal Field of View

The visual impact of a development will vary according to the proportion in which a development impacts on the central field of vision. Developments, which take up less that 5% of the central binocular field, are usually insignificant in most landscapes (5% of 50° = 2.5°).

The GRS is comprised of a reclamation approximately 100 x 60m with a conglomeration of pipe galleries and equipment that is approximately 15m tall.

In assessing the visual impact of the GRS it is therefore assumed that the largest horizontal component is the reclamation, which based on the current preferred design is approximately 100 metres wide.

Table 10.8 Visual Impact Based on the Horizontal Field of View

Horizontal Field of View	Impact	Distance from an Observer to a 100m wide reclamation
<2.5° of view	*Insignificant* The development will take up less than 5% of the central field of view. The development, unless particularly conspicuous against the background, will not intrude significantly into the view. The extent of the vertical angle will also affect the visual impact.	>2.3km
2.5° – 30° of view	*Potentially noticeable* The development may be noticeable and its degree of visual intrusion will depend greatly on its ability to blend in with its surroundings.	200m – 2.3km
>30° of view	*Potentially visually dominant* Developments that fill more than 50% of the central field of vision will always be noticed and only sympathetic treatments will mitigate visual effects.	< 200m

As shown in Table 10.8, these calculations suggest that the impact of a 100 m wide reclamation would reduce to insignificance at about 2.3 km, as it would form less than 5% or 2.5° of the horizontal field of view.

10.6.7 Vertical Field of View

A similar analysis can be undertaken based upon the vertical field of view for human vision. As can be seen in the Figure 10.8 the typical line of sight is considered horizontal or 0°. A person’s natural or normal line of sight is normally a 10° cone of view below the horizontal and, if sitting, approximately 15°.

Figure 10.8 Vertical Field of View

Objects which take up 5% of this cone of view (5% of 10° = 0.5°) would only take up a small proportion of the vertical field of view, and are only visible when one focuses on them directly. Objects that take up such a small proportion of the vertical view cone are not dominant, nor do they create a significant change to the existing environment when such short objects are placed within a disturbed or man-modified landscape.

Table 10.9 shows the relationship between impact and the proportion that the development occupies within the vertical line of sight.

Table 10.9 Visual Impact Based on Vertical Field of View

Vertical Line of Sight	Impact	Distance from an Observer to a 15m Tall GRS
< 0.5° of vertical angle	*Insignificant* A thin line in the landscape.	> 1.7 km
0.5° – 2.5° of vertical angle	*Potentially noticeable* The degree of visual intrusion will depend on the development’s ability to blend in with the surroundings.	350m – 1.7 km
> 2.5° of vertical angle	*Visually evident* Usually visible, however the degree of visual intrusion will depend of the width of the object and its placement within the landscape.	< 350m

These calculations suggest distances at which the magnitude of visual impact of the GRS will reduce with distance. At distances greater than 1.7km, a fully visible GRS and reclamation would be an insignificant element within the landscape.

These calculations seem closer to the observed distances at which levels of impact seem to change. It is stressed that these ranges will only provide a guide for the visual impact assessment.

10.6.8 Determining the Visual Extent of Impact

Generally, the more conservative, or worse-case distances form the basis for the assessment of visual impacts. Therefore for this development the greater impacts would be associated with the vertical field of view. It is therefore proposed to use the vertical field of view and extend the view shed to 2.3 km.

10.6.9 GIS Analysis

A GIS view shed analysis has identified those areas that can potentially be visually impacted by the GRSs (see Figure 10.6). Such analysis is based on topography only, and shows those areas that would be screened by intervening hills, etc. It does not take into account intervening vegetation or buildings, nor does it take into account small variations in topography, such as road cuttings. Therefore it is a conservative assessment of those areas that may be visually impacted by the GRSs.

10.6.10 Atmospheric Factors Which Will Affect Visual Impact

Many climatic conditions result in changes to visibility. For example, sea haze will alter the visibility of the GRS. The diminution of visual clarity bought about by atmospheric conditions also increases with distance.

Sea Haze

Sea haze is a climatic condition along coastlines that can reduce visibility even on days when the weather is fine. Wind which blows across the ocean or other atmospheric conditions can cause a sea haze, limiting views to the GRSs from surrounding areas.

However, sea haze is unlikely to have much impact on the visibility of the development when viewed from close proximity, say less than 3.0km. When the same features are viewed from greater distances within the view shed the effect of sea haze will greatly reduce visibility and any potential visual impact.

Cloud Cover

Cloudy days can also reduce the visibility of the GRSs. During site inspections of similar facilities it was apparent that a backdrop of grey cloud reduced the visual impact of the facilities. Full cloud cover also reduced the apparent contrast on elements that extend above the landscape backdrop and as these elements were neither strongly shadowed nor reflective.

Figure 10.9 shows that in Hong Kong, for much of the year the percentage of cloud cover exceeds 50%.

Rainfall

The effect that rainfall has on visibility can be measured in two ways. Firstly, the event of falling rain reduces visibility as the water droplets obscure vision. This varies greatly depending on the heaviness of the precipitation, but even light rain obscures distant objects greatly. Secondly, the event of rain, particularly sustained rain periods, reduces visitor numbers. Therefore, the visual impact is reduced on those days as lesser viewers are visiting the area and looking at the development.

Figure 10.9 also shows that during the wet season, particularly from May through September, Hong Kong receives on average approximately 10mm of rain per day. These rain events can reduce visibility.

Reduced Visibility

The Hong Kong Observatory noted that in 2008 there were a total of 1951 hours of reduced visibility in Hong Kong. Reduced visibility is defined as:

Reduced visibility refers to visibility below 8 kilometres when there is no fog, mist, or precipitation.

On days when reduced visibility is being experienced in Hong Kong, the maximum view shed any development will reduce to less than 8 kilometres.

Assessment Scenarios

Whilst the above describes some of the climatic conditions that reduce the visibility of the GRSs, the following assessment is based on a worst case impact scenario on visual quality assuming perfectly clear viewing conditions. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce these impacts.

10.6.11 VSR Assessment

The following factors have been considered in the visual impact assessment.

VSR Sensitivity

The first set of criteria relate to the sensitivity of the VSRs. They include:

· Value and quality of existing views;

· Type and estimated number of receiver population;

· Duration of frequency of view; and

· Degree of visibility.

The views available to the identified VSRs were rated in accordance with their sensitivity to change using high, medium or low and are defined as follows:

· High

i. The nature of the viewer groups who expect a high degree of control over their immediate environment; and

ii. The viewer groups are in close proximity to the Proposed Development.

· Medium

iii. The nature of the viewer groups who have some degree of control over their immediate environment, eg people in transit.

· Low

iv. The nature of the viewer groups does not expect a high degree of control over their immediate environment.

It should be noted that the above only provides guidance, and each VSR regardless of type has been assessed according to its specific circumstances.

10.6.12 Magnitude of Change

This set of criteria is related to the specific details of the proposed development and how it relates to the existing landscape and the visible magnitude of change it will cause. The criteria to be assessed are:

· Compatibility of the Proposed Development with the surrounding landscape;

· Reversibility of change;

· Viewing distance;

· Potential blockage of view; and,

· Duration of impact under construction and operation phases.

The magnitude of change to a view was rated as large, intermediate, small or negligible and are defined as follows:

· Large: eg major change in view;

· Intermediate: eg moderate change in view;

· Small: eg minor change in view; and,

· Negligible: eg no discernible change in view.

The degree of visual impact or significance threshold was rated in a similar fashion to the landscape impact, ie significant, moderate, slight and negligible. Where the matrix table indicates a range within the significance threshold, eg; Moderate – Significant, the final significance threshold is assigned based on the overall severity of the impact.

The visual impact is a product of the magnitude of change to the existing baseline conditions, the landscape context and the sensitivities of VSRs. The significance threshold of visual impact was rated for the construction phase and for Day 1 and Year 10 of the operation phase.

10.6.13 Visual Impact Assessment from Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR)

Figure 10.10 shows the locations of the selected VSRs from publicly accessible locations. The view points selected for photomontage preparation showing the GRSs have been selected to represent the range of views from accessible locations. Significance thresholds of residual impact (upon mitigation) are shown for Operation Day 1 and Year 10, in accordance with EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002.

During the assessment, all potential VSRs were explored. These included:

Residents at SheKou: These potential VSRs are approximately 8 km from the site and are outside the view shed, and due to the small scale of the development, the GRS will not be visible from this distance. In addition it is not common practice to assess VSRs outside of Hong Kong.

Users of Shenzhen Bay Bridge: These potential VSRs are approximately 7.5 km from the GRS and as with residents at SheKou are outside of the view shed and HK boundaries.

Residents at Pak Nai and Ha Pak Nai: A site visit to these locations showed that the proposed GRS would not be visible from these locations due to intervening topography. They are also over 3.5 km away and are outside the view shed.

Users of Nim Wan and Deep Bay Roads: Site inspections were conducted and the GRS will not be visible from any point along these roads.

Figure 10.6 shows that the GRSs will not affect any residential VSRs nor any travelling VSRs on Lung Kwu Tan road.

Figure 10.10 shows that seven VSRs have been identified as follows:

Recreational VSRs

R1 Recreational Transient Vessels

R2 Hikers to Lookout above BPPS

R3 Hikers to Castle Peak

The R1 VSRs may pass the northern seaward edge of the site in recreational marine vessels. The R2 visitors are likely to be employees or guests to the BPPS. It must be noted that access to the lookout above BPPS is restricted. R3 visitors are hikers on small trails up towards Castle Peak adjacent to the Tsang Chan Firing Range.

Table 10.10 Sensitivity / Quality

Items	Sensitivity / Quality
Value and quality of view	Low
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	Moderate
Duration and frequency of views to development	Low
Degree of visibility of Development	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	Low

Table 10.10 shows the value and quality of the view is considered low due to the heavily modified industrial surroundings. There are also low visitor numbers, with low duration and frequency to the development. The overall sensitivity is considered low for all recreational VSRs.

Table 10.11 Magnitude of Change

Items	Construction	Operation
Compatibility with surrounding landscape	High	High
Viewing Distance to Proposed Development	500m	500m
Potential blockage of view	Low	Low
Duration of impacts	Temporary	Permanent
Scale of development	Small	Small
Reversibility of change	Irreversible	Irreversible
Magnitude of change	Small	Small

Table 10.11 shows the compatibility of the proposed GRSs is high given it is located adjacent to the existing BPPS. The scale of the development is also small, resulting in a small magnitude of change for all recreational VSRs.

Table 10.12 Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High	Beneficial
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate - significant impact	Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Intermediate	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate-Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact	Adverse
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Adverse

Table 10.12 shows that the low sensitivity of these VSRs along with the small magnitude of change resulting from the GRSs will result in a slight adverse construction impact for all recreational VSRs.

Table 10.13 Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High	Beneficial
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate - significant impact	Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Intermediate	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate-Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact	Adverse
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Adverse

Figure 10.11 – 10.15 show photomontages of both development options from a range of view points. The change in the view before and after the proposed development is very small. Table 10.13 also shows that the low sensitivity and small magnitude of change for all recreational VSRs will result in a slight impact during operation.

Occupational VSRs

O1 Employees at BPPS

O2 Fishermen

O3 Workers on transient marine vessels

O4 Workers at West New Territories Landfill

The O2 and O3 VSRs may pass the northern seaward edge of the site in recreational marine vessels. The O1 and O4 VSRs are workers at either the BPPS or WENT Landfill.

Table 10.14 Sensitivity / Quality

Items	Sensitivity / Quality
Value and quality of view	Low
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	Moderate
Duration and frequency of views to development	Low
Degree of visibility of Development	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	Low

Table 10.14 shows the value and quality of the view is considered low due to the heavily modified industrial surroundings. There are also low visitor numbers, with low duration and frequency to the development. It is also reasonable to assume that occupational workers at large infrastructure operations generally have a low sensitivity to visual changes. The overall sensitivity is considered low for all VSRs.

Table 10.15 Magnitude of Change

Items	Construction	Operation
Compatibility with surrounding landscape	High	High
Viewing Distance to Proposed Development	500m	500m
Potential blockage of view	Low	Low
Duration of impacts	Temporary	Permanent
Scale of development	Small	Small
Reversibility of change	Irreversible	Irreversible
Magnitude of change	Small	Small

Table 10.15 shows the compatibility of the proposed GRSs is high given it is located adjacent to the existing BPPS. In addition, the GRSs will not be visible from many locations within the BBPS, further reducing the magnitude of change. The scale of the development is also small, resulting in a small magnitude of change for all occupational VSRs.

Table 10.16 Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High	Beneficial
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate - significant impact	Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Intermediate	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate-Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact	Adverse
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Adverse

Table 10.16 shows that the low sensitivity of these VSRs along with the small magnitude of change resulting from the GRSs will result in a slight adverse construction impact for all occupational VSRs.

Table 10.17 Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High	Beneficial
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate - significant impact	Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Intermediate	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate-Significant impact	Neither beneficial nor adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact	Adverse
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Adverse

Figure 10.11 – 10.15 show photomontages of both development options from a range of view points. The change in the view before and after the proposed development is very small. Table 10.17 also shows that the low sensitivity and small magnitude of change for all occupational VSRs will result in a slight impact during operation.

10.6.14 Visual Mitigation Measures

The following measures have been considered to reduce the slight impacts identified and improve the overall amenity of the development.

Table 10.18 Landscape Mitigation Measures

ID No.	Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measure	Funding Agency	Implementation Agency
VM1	The colours of the proposed GRS should be selected to complement the existing industrial surroundings.	Developer	Contractor

Figure 10.5 shows the locations of these measures and their application to each of the VSRs is shown in Table 10.19

([1]) Human Dimension & Interior Space – A Source Book of Design Reference Standards, Julius Panero and Martin Zelnik, The Architectural Press Ltd. London, 1979

VSR	Un-Mitigated Visual Impact		Recommended Mitigation	Mitigated Impacts
VSR	Construction	Operation	Recommended Mitigation	Construction	Operation Day 1	Operation Year 10
R1 Transient Marine Vessels	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible
R2 Hikers to look out above BPPS	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible
R3 Hikers to Castle Peak	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible
O1 Workers at BPPS	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible
O2 Fishermen	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible
O3 Workers on transient marine vessels	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible
O4 Workers at West New Territories Landfill	Slight	Slight	VM1	Slight	Negligible	Negligible