1.1 Project
Background
1.2 Need
For the Project
1.3 Objectives of the
EIA Study
2.1 Existing
Environment
2.2 Consideration
of Alternatives
2.3 Project
Description
2.4 Construction
Programme
3 Summary
of Environmental Impacts
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Cultural
Heritage
3.3 Landscape and
Visual
3.4 Noise
3.5 Air Quality
3.6 Water Quality
3.7 Waste Management
3.8 Environmental Monitoring
and Audit Requirements
3.9 Overall
Conclusion
List of Table
Table 3.1 Impact Summary
Table 3.2 Summary of EM&A Requirements
List Of Figure
Figure
2.1 Project
Location
Figure
2.2 Declared
Monuments within the Project Site
Figure
2.3 Key
Features of Scheme A
Figure
2.4 Key
Features of Scheme B
Figure
2.5 Conceptual
Design of Footbridge
Figure
2.6 Site
Connectivity
Figure
2.7 Design
of New Buildings and Upper Courtyard
Figure
2.8 Site
Plan
Figure
2.9 Proposed
Master Layout Section A-A & B-B
Figure
2.10 Proposed
Master Layout Section C-C & D-D
Figure
2.11 Proposed
Master Layout Section E-E & F-F
The Central Police Station (CPS) (including the three
declared monuments: Central Police Station, Former Central Magistracy and
Victoria Prison Compound) was
first established in 1841 when the British Royal Navy took possession of
The Chief Executive (CE)’s 2007-2008 Policy Address
highlighted revitalization as the guiding principle of heritage conservation
and the Project was among one of the specific proposals put forward by the CE
in the same Policy Address. At the
meeting of the Executive Council (ExCo) on 15 July
2008, the ExCo advised and the CE ordered that
Government should enter into a partnership with the HKJC in the form of an
agreement (or agreements) to take forward the conservation and revitalization
of the CPS (hereafter “the Project”) based on various guiding parameters. The Project is now being undertaken in partnership with the Development
Bureau of the HKSAR Government. The HKJC has taken on board
the decision at the ExCo meeting and further
investigated the design and implementation of the Project.
ERM-Hong Kong Ltd (ERM) has been commissioned by the
Jockey Club
The conservation and revitalization of the CPS was
among one of the specific proposals put forward in the CE’s 2007-2008 Policy Address,
which highlights revitalization as the guiding principle of heritage
conservation. The vision of the Project embraces three major
principles:
1.
Heritage:
·
to
set the
·
to be the focal attraction in the Government’s Conserving Central project.
2.
Visual Arts:
·
to
establish an international reputation for organising art exhibitions;
·
to
attract a high quality cluster of arts organisations;
·
to
create a programme and arts facility that will appeal to a wide cross section
of the people of
·
to
complement the visual arts with a lively and varied performing arts schedule;
·
to
provide an international platform for
·
to
attract international talent to
·
to provide a practical training base for Hong Kong and
3.
History:
·
to provide
a unique and informative interpretative experience;
·
to
relay the history and stories of the Site to students, local visitors and
tourists; and
·
to explain the role of law and order in the context of
The
Project aims to transform a
cluster of Declared Monuments into a thriving cultural and historic centre
which is financially supported by suitably compatible commercial
activities.
1.3
Objectives of the
EIA Study
The Project is within a site of cultural heritage, and
therefore is classified as a designated project under Item Q.1 in Schedule 2 of
the EIAO and therefore the construction and operation of the Project will
require an Environmental Permit.
The overall objectives of the EIA Study are to
provide information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising
from the construction and operation of the Project; to recommend appropriate
mitigation measures to control the potential environmental impacts so that it
complies with the requirements of the Technical
Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process of Environmental impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO-TM); and to confirm the environmental
acceptability of the Project. Key environmental issues identified include cultural
heritage, landscape and visual, air quality, noise, water quality and waste
management.
The EIA was conducted in accordance with the
guideline on assessment methodologies provided in the EIAO-TM. The general approach for the assessment
includes description of baseline environmental conditions for the impact
assessment, identification and evaluation of potential impacts and
recommendation of mitigation measures and an environmental monitoring
programme. The assessments in this EIA
Study are conducted using well-proven and internationally accepted methods
based on reasonable worst-case conditions.
The location of
the Project Site is shown in Figure 2.1.
It is bounded by
·
Central
Police Station;
·
Former
Central Magistracy; and
·
Victoria
Prison Compound.
Figure 2.2 shows the location of the Declared
Monuments within CPS and the buildings of the Declared Monuments.
Without
the Project, the
2.2
Consideration
of Alternatives
2.2.1
Overall Design
To
bring the CPS to life and in order to achieve the vision for revitalising the
CPS as an arts hub in the centre of the city, a new medium sized exhibition
space that can house international high value loans and similarly scaled
multi-purpose space, complemented by supporting educational and commercial
facilities will have to be provided.
Different
design options have been identified and examined. The option of only utilising the existing
buildings for adaptive use was initially examined. Larger spaces within existing buildings (the
Old Gymnasium in the Police Headquarters; the two courtrooms in the Magistracy;
some of the upper floor
The physical constraints of the spaces in
the existing buildings make it impossible for the purpose built international
quality exhibition and multipurpose spaces (for education/performance) are to
be housed within the existing buildings.
If this were to happen, parts of the interiors would have to be stripped
out in order to provide the necessary security, climate and display conditions
for high quality exhibitions. This
approach would not require the construction of any new buildings and has been
adopted by art museum developments in a number of heritage sites around the
world. However, the interior heritage
features would have to be demolished to provide the necessary facilities and
environment for the new purpose with only the retention of the facades. This deviates from the
In 2008, a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) ([1])
for the
Therefore, the conclusion was reached that in order
to provide museum-quality exhibition space and a flexible venue for
performances/ concerts/ lectures and events at the CPS, and minimising
intervention in the existing historic buildings by housing the cooling plant at
a new centralised location, as well as to make it both culturally and
financially viable, new buildings would be needed, potentially taking the
footprint of the General Office and the Laundry Yard.
2.2.2
Design of the New Building
The height of the new buildings conforms to the
imposed height limit of 80 mPD for any new buildings
on the upper platform area in the Draft Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan
Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) S/H3/24.
The new buildings are intended to house facilities such as a gallery,
multi-purpose space, as well as food and beverage (F&B) outlets. Two design schemes have been identified:
Scheme A:
The F Hall is used for gallery space, gallery support and the new
building to the north of F Hall contains gallery space and the supporting
facilities, including part of the central plant rooms to provide chilled water
to the whole site (see Figure 2.3). This allows for the retention but
modification to the Laundry Yard steel structure with the yard used as a
multi-purpose space and the upper open deck at the level of the Prison Yard
used as a sculpture exhibition area.
Scheme B:
The F Hall is used for gallery space, gallery support and some portions
would be retained for interpretation of its former role as a reception area of
the Prison. The new building to the
north of F Hall provides the main gallery spaces and a new art themed
restaurant (see Figure 2.4). The old Laundry Yard is used as a site for
another new building to be used as a new multipurpose space/hall, which acts as
a proper introduction/linkage to the arts educational/arts related facilities
in D/E Halls. The top floor of Arbuthnot
Wing also accommodates the major space for central plant rooms to serve the
overall Site.
These schemes were evaluated taking into account
their ability to satisfy the demand for the cultural and mechanical plant space
needed, the level of intervention at the existing
historic buildings, integration with other buildings at the upper courtyard,
engineering constraints and the potential environmental impacts. Scheme A being smaller in scale will have
less potential environmental impact (particularly on construction dust, noise
and landscape and visual impact), but will not provide enough space to meet the
demand for cultural space and mechanical plant space needed. With regard to the cultural heritage impact
of the new buildings on the existing buildings, the design of the new buildings
under both schemes will set back from the existing buildings to ensure least
impact to the existing buildings and no building of heritage significance will
be demolished. The insufficient space
for accommodating all cooling towers and chillers under Scheme A means that
some of these plants have to be provided at the existing buildings, meaning
more intervention at the existing buildings and thus more significant impact on
cultural heritage point of view.
Although Scheme B will require the demolition of the Laundry Yard, as
discussed above, all associated alteration for upgrading the Laundry Yard
structures (as in Scheme A) to current safety and services standard would also
already be a compromise against its heritage value. Moreover, the structures to be removed are
not considered as a significant loss in heritage terms. Hence, in terms of minimising potential
heritage impact, both schemes perform similarly.
Hence, having considered and balanced the demand for
the cultural space needed, the level of intervention at the existing historic
buildings, integration with other buildings at the upper courtyard, engineering
constraints and the potential environmental impacts while achieving the vision
of the Project, the implementation of Scheme B is more preferable.
The architectural style to be adopted for the new
building could broadly take either a historical or a modern approach. The use of a modern approach over a
historical approach has been recommended.
The massing and style of the new buildings was dictated by the zoning
envelope and height restriction set for potential new buildings under the OZP
and the internal space (floor area and ceiling height) needed for the proposed
uses. The design takes the approach to set back from the maximum building envelop so as
to minimise disturbance to the adjacent historic buildings and leave them
intact. Hence, in terms of the massing
of the building, it is compatible in terms of both visual and cultural heritage
perspective. Different façade treatments
have been considered for the new building.
The versatility of aluminium in terms of texture, malleability, light
weight, lifecycle and general aesthetic makes it the preferred material for the
distinctive integration of new construction within the historical heritage
compound.
2.2.3
Adaptive Reuse in the Existing Buildings
It is the aim of the Project to bring all the
buildings on the Site back into beneficial uses. All buildings will need to be fitted with
some modern services, improved fire compartmentation
and fire escape provisions. Many will
need floors strengthening to accommodate greater floor loads than they were
designed for. An attempt has been made
to find uses that can be accommodated in the existing buildings with the minimum
of disturbance and alteration. In order to ensure
that the impact to the historic fabric of the buildings is minimal due to the
floor strengthening proposal, a
detailed structural report will be prepared by the structural engineer during
the detailed stage to evaluate if the strengthening proposal needs to be
revised and determine any
strengthening work is required for the floors and foundations resulting from
the loadings of the new uses, or the alterations, or from the condition of the
existing structures. Any structural
strengthening proposals will be assessed for their impacts on the character
defining elements, and mitigation measures will be considered.
Space is also needed to house the E&M equipment
to support the functioning of all facilities and activities on Site. Two options have been considered for locating
the chillers and cooling towers:
·
Option
1: to locate the chillers and cooling towers in individual building;
·
Option
2: to locate the chillers and cooling towers in centralised locations in the
new building adjacent to the upper courtyard.
Compared to Option 1, Option 2 has the merits in
terms of minimising the modification works at many of the existing buildings
and offers a more sustainable solution, therefore has been incorporated into
the design of the Project.
2.2.4
Site Circulation
Site Circulation To/From the Project Site
The success of revitalising the CPS will rely on
convenient access to the Site and good circulation within the Site. To improve accessibility to the Site, new
openings and a footbridge extension linking between mid-levels escalator and
the
With the proposed footbridge connection, visitors to
the
Site Circulation Within the
Site
To improve the site circulation within the Site,
modification or new addition of stairs and walkways between buildings is
required. A stairway passage provided
with disabled access will be constructed to link up the lower courtyard and the
upper courtyard, via A Hall and B Hall.
The stairway passage is complemented with a historical path, which winds
through the side and back of the Barrack Blocks and the prison halls. The stairway passage provides direct access
to all the main public spaces of the Site (exterior and interior, old and
new). Although modification to the
interior and part of the exterior of B Hall will be required, the construction
of the stairway passage will minimise the need of adding new staircases and
walkway between the buildings thus minimising exterior building modification
works at the CPS.
The key pedestrian circulation corri
2.2.5
Selection of Preferred Design Option
To meet the Project’s vision while balancing
different consideration aspects, including minimising potential environmental
impacts (particular to the historic buildings), Scheme B was chosen as the
preferred design of the new buildings at the CPS. The massing of the new buildings respect the
height limit imposed by the OZP and their scale is considered to be compatible
with the existing historical buildings from the visual and cultural heritage
angles.
Regarding the proposed adaptive reuses in the
existing buildings, a concerted approach has been taken to find uses that can
be accommodated in the existing buildings with the minimum of disturbance and
alterations. The preferred scheme will
keep modification of the existing fabric to a minimum by limiting the openings
at the boundary wall.
The modification/refurbishment works at the existing
buildings are kept to a minimum by carefully assigning appropriate uses to fit
in the spaces and adopting a fire engineering approach to minimise alteration
while complying with fire safety requirements.
Hence, the preferred design has environmental benefits in most of the
key aspects of the design. Where environmental
impacts are unavoidable, especially during the construction stage, these
impacts will be localised and transient and can be mitigated by the
implementation of appropriate control measures.
2.3.1
Design Philosophy
New Build
The intention is to use the new buildings as a magnet
to draw people to the more enclosed and remote southern part of the Site – the
old Prison area. The Old Bailey Wing
needs to be large enough to accommodate international touring exhibitions and
the Arbuthnot Wing not only has to accommodate a major multi-purpose
performance space but is also being used as the location for the cooling
systems that will serve the whole Site – this makes it essential to use the
space available to the best effect.
The two new buildings have been designed to suit the
scale of the Site, and to make maximum use of the
available space without dominating the surrounding buildings nor the open space
of the Upper Courtyard. The new
buildings will be assertive in their difference to the historic buildings. There is no intention to take any of the
existing finishes (granite, brick, and painted render) in an attempt to work
with them. Rather the proposed cladding
of textured metal will pick up the rhythm and scale of the granite walls and
will offer a dialogue with the adjacent buildings whilst remaining entirely
distinct. This is a well recognised
approach to the insertion of new buildings on significant heritage sites. It is generally regarded as a poor solution
to have buildings which are a simple pastiche of the adjacent historic
buildings. This can lead to confusion in
interpretation and tends to diminish rather than enhance the character and
quality of the original buildings. Well
designed new buildings which are thoughtful in their scale and relationship to
the existing buildings and yet have their own contribution as architecture of
their own time are widely accepted as the ideal solution to this sort of
intervention. The new buildings can be
exciting and act as a focus for the visitor without detracting in any way from
the significance of the historic buildings, and very importantly in this case,
without encroaching on the Prison Yard.
Each new building’s basic massing begins as a full
measure of the zoning regulations. They
are created as offsets from the historical buildings and rise to +80.0 mPD in height.
Distinctive spaces are carved out of the new volumes at the ground
level, resulting in generous protected places for gathering. At the same time, these voids shape the
direction of pedestrian flow connecting
The design of the new buildings and the Upper
Courtyard is illustrated in Figure 2.7.
The Courtyards
One of the main components of the design intention is
to preserve the openness of both the Upper and Lower Courtyards and re-activate
them for public use as a new type of urban found space. They will define the Site both physically and
programmatically as places of gathering, leisure and respite. The Lower Courtyard will be surrounded on
each side by several of the Site’s most historic buildings, resulting in a
formal open space with generous room for public recreation, organised events,
direct access to restaurant and retail attractions as well as smaller scale
cultural and educational spaces. The
Upper Courtyard will be more thoroughly transformed from a rough and forbidding
area to a new open public space with an emphasis on cultural venues. It will be less formal than the Lower
Courtyard, with significant existing trees preserved and the rear prison wall
enhanced with new green planting.
Site Connections
With three different ground levels and a prison wall
around, the Site is currently hard to navigate and access. The main entrance will remain at the
extension of
To link the new pedestrian network of public spaces
within the Site, two main circulation paths running North-South are
proposed. A meandering historical path
will include re-opened doors and passages, supplemented by a few
carefully-crafted new incisions and insertions through existing buildings and
walls. New stairs and lifts will provide
a more direct path to link the Parade Ground and the Old Prison Yard.
The key pedestrian circulation corri
2.3.2
Site Layout and Proposed Uses
The Site Plan is shown in Figure
2.8. Public access to the Site
will be via the existing and new gates along
A combination of cultural and commercial uses is
proposed within the CPS. Spaces for
interpretation of the architectural and historical features of the existing
historic buildings have also been allowed.
The commercial facilities include a wide range of restaurants and F&B
outlets. There are also multi-purpose
spaces which are capable of hosting a wide range of events/activities. These are supplemented by various venues that
will be available to the public to hire whether it will be for cocktail parties
to host the launch of a new play or product, or conduct a workshop or
conference to further the growth of
The courtyards within the
2.3.3
Construction and Modification/
Refurbishment Works
The construction and modification/refurbishment works
are designed to match the requirements of the proposed uses and enhance the
spaces and connections between the buildings and improve circulation throughout
the Site. The key
modification/refurbishment works will include repairs to internal finishes and
necessary alterations, repair of facades, electrical and mechanical upgrading,
improve the paving and site circulation between buildings and opening up part
of the existing boundary wall to facilitate access to the Site.
Specific refurbishment/modification
details of the existing historic buildings varies between individual buildings depending on
the existing condition and proposed uses of that building. However, much of the works are to remove
later accretions and to bring the buildings back into a good state of
repair.
The construction works are tentatively scheduled to commence
in early 2012 and complete during 2014.
The modification works at the existing buildings are divided into four
phases. The major demolition and
excavation work will be conducted in Phase 1 while Phases 2 to 4 will involve
renovation work carried out mainly by the use of handheld/light equipment. The construction work for the new building
will be undertaken in parallel to the modification works at the existing
buildings.
This Section summarises the environmental impacts
associated with the construction and operation of the Project. An impact summary is shown Table 3.1.
The proposed development attempts to achieve a
balance between the redevelopment of the Site into a vibrant and fully
accessible area and the conservation of the historic and cultural significance
of the Site. The challenge is to ensure
that the Site has a long term future and to do this the buildings must have
viable uses that generate sufficient revenue to allow for their proper
upkeep. This has to be done with the
minimum of alteration to the existing fabric of the historic buildings
consistent with allowing them to be code compliant and able to be used
safely. This has been achieved by
selecting proposed uses that fit the current layout of the buildings and where
the original fabric can largely be conserved with interventions kept to a
minimum.
To achieve the arts hub that is necessary to energise
the southern part of the Site it is proposed to erect two new buildings to
house gallery and multi-purpose spaces.
The new buildings have been sited to avoid major impacts on the fabric
of the existing historic buildings whilst providing new access and allowing new
uses in the adjacent historic buildings.
The proposed development leave the Site accessible to
all members of the public as open space that they can walk through and with
many common areas of the buildings available to the public even if they are not
using any of the facilities on the Site.
There are also spaces that will be retained and have their interiors
conserved as interpretation spaces that will allow both formal and informal
interpretation of the site. These
interpretation spaces are in all the major buildings on the Site.
The proposed development will leave all of the
significant historic buildings intact and with very little alteration to their
external fabric. There will be some
intrusion into the historic interiors but this will be minimal and will be
offset by the restoration of much of the interior of the buildings to something
close to the original design intention with the removal of modern
insertions. The primary external spaces,
the Police Parade Ground and the Prison Yard, are left in their present form
with no intrusion into the historic space.
Similarly the walls that surround the site and divide it between Police,
Prison and Magistracy will all be retained and conserved. Such minimal alteration as is proposed to the
external walls is to provide good public access to allow the Site to be
genuinely open to all people.
The key mitigation measures proposed to minimise the
impact of the new structure construction to the existing buildings include the
use of non-percussive piling methods for the construction of the foundation for
the new buildings and a lateral support system to minimise any potential
vibration impact. To mitigate impacts
associated with the modification/refurbishment works at the existing buildings,
a comprehensive survey and impact assessment of the Character Defining Elements
(CDE) will be undertaken during the detailed design stage and the associated
protection measures for implementation during the construction phase will be
proposed and implemented. Prior to
commencement of the construction works, a baseline condition survey and
baseline vibration impact assessment will be conducted by a specialist to
define the vibration control limits and recommend a vibration monitoring
proposal for the concerned historic buildings in CPS.
An archaeological investigation will be carried out
during detailed design stage to determine the impact to potential
archaeological resources, if any, and recommend and implement appropriate
mitigation measures, as necessary.
Details of the proposed mitigation measures for implementation during
the detailed design and construction phases can be referred to Table 3.1.
During the operation phase, the Conservation Management
Plan (June 2008), the Heritage Operational Strategy and Manual and the
Interpretation Strategies/Plans will be implemented. The compliance and effectiveness of the
implementation of these plans/strategies will be subject to regular audit.
To conclude, the potential impacts on the built
heritage and potential archaeological resources within the Site and the built
heritage resources within 50m from the Site are considered acceptable with
mitigation measures.
A baseline study was conducted and nine landscape
resources (LRs), seven landscape character areas (LCAs), and twelve visual sensitive receivers (VSRs) representing four VSR categories were identified and
their sensitivity/quality assessed. The
impact on these LRs/LCAs and VSRs
was assessed and measures suggested to mitigate the impacts.
The Project will produce some adverse landscape and
visual impacts but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent
by specific mitigation measures (e.g. aesthetic treatment of the proposed
visible structures, tree compensation and protection measures, lighting control
etc). There will also be some beneficial
landscape and visual impacts from the renovation and refurbishment of the
existing buildings and open spaces within the Site and along the Site boundary
wall, the addition of a new green wall and planting site and protection and
enhancement of the existing soft landscape.
All adverse landscape impacts are reduced to slight-insignificant by
year 10, with the impact on the open space with the declared monument (LR4)
being slightly beneficial. All adverse
visual impacts are reduced to moderate to insignificant by day 1 of operation
(and remain the same at year 10).
Eleven trees were found within the Site. Amongst the eleven trees found on site, four
dead/damaged trees (T1, T2, T3 and T4) and one healthy tree (T10) will be
removed. The rest of the trees will be
retained. Due to site and technical
constraints, in situ preservation and transplanting cannot be recommended. Mitigation measures to protect the retained
trees and compensation of the removal of the healthy tree (T10) by planting of
six trees with total Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) exceeding that of T10 will
be implemented. With the implementation
of the mitigation measures, impacts on the trees are considered acceptable.
The design intention for the new buildings is to use
non-reflective material for the façade which will help to minimise potential
glare interference. At night, light emitted
from the building will be partially screened by the façade units, creating a
balance between being able to express the life of the buildings within while
also being able to reduce light pollution.
The most open area within the new buildings at night is the public
restaurant which is located on the north end of Old Bailey Wing and away from
the row of residential buildings directly to the south. All lights within the CPS will be turned to
night time mode (dimmed) after 11pm.
Currently no façade lighting is proposed for the existing
buildings. Given the choice of façade
treatment and Site lighting considerations, the glare impact from the Project
is considered to be acceptable.
Therefore according to Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM,
the potential Landscape and Visual Impacts due to the construction and
operation of the Project are considered acceptable with mitigation.
3.4.1
Construction Phase
Owing to the close proximity of some of the NSRs to the works area of the Project Site, mitigation measures
are required to be implemented to mitigate the construction noise impacts. Practicable mitigation measures, including
good construction site practices, use of quiet PME, movable noise barriers and
scheduling of PME/construction activities, are recommended. With the implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures, the mitigated construction noise l
3.4.2
Operation Phase
The predicted operational noise l
3.5.1
Construction Phase
The construction of the Project involves small-scale
site formation/foundation works, new structure construction, refurbishment works
for the existing buildings, and minor-scale demolition of existing
structures. Excavation, truck movements,
materials handling and wind erosion of open stockpiles of dusty materials were
identified as the major dust generating activities. In view of the small size of the worksite and
small quantity of excavated materials to be generated, limited excavated soil
will be stockpiled on-site. No adverse
fugitive dust impact is envisaged with the implementation of dust control
measures and adoption of good construction site practices.
Minor air quality impacts associated with gaseous
emissions of diesel-powered construction plant and equipment are anticipated as
only a small number of construction vehicles and plant will be operated in the
limited works areas at any one time.
3.5.2
Operation Phase
During operation phase, it is confirmed that electric
stoves will be used for the kitchens and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) will also be installed at the exhausts of the kitchens
to capture potential particulate emissions.
Proper siting of kitchen exhaust will be
considered during the detailed design stage.
As such, potential air quality impacts associated with gaseous emissions
from kitchen exhausts are not anticipated.
Three stacks were identified to be in operation within
the study area and were all operated by restaurants. They are all located at
least 30m above ground. It was anticipated that these
operating stacks
were operating with towngas or ULSD or alternative
fuel types in which emissions are low and comply with the
requirements in the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction)
Regulation and its
amendment of 2008. Taking into account
the height of emission points,
the presence of high-rise buildings located between the Project Site and the
operating stacks and the recent 5 year NO2 and SO2 monitoring data
obtained from the nearby EPD air quality monitoring station, no adverse air quality impacts are
anticipated for the Project.
The design
of the Project encourages visitors to get to the Site via footbridge and
pedestrian crossings, therefore, traffic flow induced
by operations of the Project (eg tourist buses and private
cars) is anticipated to be very small as compared to the existing traffic flow
on nearby roads. No adverse traffic
emission impact during the operation phase of the Project is therefore
expected.
3.6.1
Construction
Phase
Potential
sources of water quality impact associated with the construction activities
include Site runoff from the Project Site and sewage
produced by on-site workforce. Prior to the modification
works, perimeter cut-off drains to direct off-site water around the site will
be constructed and internal drainage works and erosion and sedimentation control
facilities implemented. Channels, earth
bunds or sand bag barriers will be provided on site to direct potential
contaminated runoff to the on-site slit trap before discharged to the stormwater drains.
The existing toilet facilities of the
3.6.2
Operation
Phase
During
operation phase of the Project, the sewage generated by the staff, visitors,
café and restaurant have the potential to cause adverse water quality impacts
if not managed properly. The anticipated
quantities of wastewater to be generated during the Project will be small (a
peak flow of 50.25 L/s). The existing sewers will be adequate to
handle the anticipated volume of sewage to be discharged from the
3.7.1
Construction Phase
C&D Material will be segregated on-site into
inert and non-inert materials and stored in different containers or skips to facilitate
reuse of the inert materials and proper disposal of the non-inert construction
waste. Specific areas of the work site
will be designated for such segregation and storage if immediate use is not
practicable. Recycling bins will be
provided at strategic locations to facilitate recovery of aluminium can and
waste paper from the Site. At the
commencement of the construction works, training will be provided to workers on
the concepts of site cleanliness and on appropriate waste management procedures,
including waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
It is estimated that a total of 16,440 m3
of public fills (consisting of 12,900 m3 of excavated materials,
3,540 m3 of public fill from new building construction and
modification/ renovation works) and 890 m3 of construction waste
will be generated during the construction phase. The public fill will be sent to public
filling facilities for beneficial reuse while the construction waste will be
disposed of at landfills.
With respect to the scale of the construction
activities, it is anticipated that the quantity of chemical waste to be
generated will be small (less than a hundred litres per month during the
construction phase). It is also
estimated that about 130 kg of general refuse will be generated per day by the
construction workers. With the
implementation of general good construction site practices, the construction of
the Project will not cause adverse waste management, traffic or environmental
impacts (including
potential hazard, air and odour emissions, noise and
wastewater discharge).
3.7.2
Operation Phase
It is estimated that general refuse (9,250 kg per
day) and food waste (460 kg per day) will be generated during the operation
phase. Recycling bins will be provided at
strategic locations to facilitate recovery of aluminium can and waste paper
from the Site. With good site practices,
the potential environmental impacts (including potential hazard, air and odour emissions, noise and wastewater discharge) associated with the storage, handling,
collection, transport and disposal of waste arising from the operation of the
Project will meet the criteria specified in the EIAO-TM and no adverse waste
management impacts are anticipated.
Assessment Aspect |
Construction Phase |
Operation Phase |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Assessment Points / Sensitive Receivers |
·
The
·
Potential
archaeological remains within the ·
Built
heritage resources within 50m of the Project Site (including the Grade 1
historic street (Pottinger Street), Proposed Grade
3 historic building (No. 20 Hollywood Road), Hollywood Road, Old Bailey
Street, Chancery Lane and Steps, Arbuthnot Road and Walls at Old Bailey
Street) |
·
The
·
Potential
archaeological remains within the |
Relevant Criteria |
·
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499. S16), Technical Memorandum on the EIA
Process, Annex 10 and 19 (EIAO TM) and Guidance Notes on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage
in EIA Studies; ·
Antiquities and
Monuments (AM) Ordinance (Cap. 53); ·
Guidelines for Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for Adaptive Reuse Projects (as at May
2009); ·
·
Land (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Ordinance. |
·
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499. S16), Technical Memorandum on the EIA
Process, Annex 10 and 19 (EIAO TM) and Guidance Notes on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage
in EIA Studies; ·
Antiquities and
Monuments (AM) Ordinance (Cap. 53); ·
Guidelines for Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) for Adaptive Reuse Projects (as at May
2009); ·
·
Land (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Ordinance. |
Results of Impact |
Built Heritage within the ·
The
range
of Impact Category Ratings for the interventions in the following buildings are
1 (Beneficial), 2 (Acceptable), and 3 (Acceptable with Mitigation Measures).
The overall Heritage Impact of the proposed interventions to these buildings
is therefore regarded as acceptable to enable the building to have a new
adaptive use: o
Headquarters
Block o
Armoury o
Barrack
Block o
Married
Inspectors’ Quarters and Deputy Superintendents House o
Married
Sergeant’s Quarters o
Single
Inspectors’ Quarters o
Ablutions
Block o
Central
Magistracy o
Superintendent’s
House o
A
Hall o
B
Hall o
C
Hall o
D
Hall o
E
Hall o
F
Hall o
Bauhinia
House o
Parade
Ground o
Laundry
(structure with little architectural interest and has been altered over time
with substantial repairs to be demolished) o
Walls
and Revetments ·
An
impact rating of the interventions in the following
buildings/features is 2 –
Acceptable Impact: o
Garage
(structure with no architectural or historical significance to be demolished
to make way for open space) o
General
Office (structure with no architectural or historical significance to be
demolished) o
Prison
Yard |
It is anticipated that with the implementation of
the Conservation Management Plan, the Heritage Operational Strategy & Manual and the Interpretation
Strategies/Plans, the impact rating for the |
|
Potential Archaeological
Resources within the ·
It
is anticipated that the areas identified to have archaeological potential are
considered to be low or fairly low.
Therefore, the impact on the low archaeological potential resources
areas is likely to be acceptable with mitigation measures being taken. Impact ratings for specific areas are as
follows: o
Parade
Ground: 3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures o
Prison
Yard: 3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures o
Barracks
Lane (cell blocks south of building 3): 3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation
Measures o
The
Garage: No Impact o
Married
Inspectors’ Quarters and Deputy Superintendent’s House: No Impact o
The
area between A Hall and B Hall: 3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation
Measures o
The
area between and beneath Ablutions block and the revetment wall to the south:
3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures o
West
end of D Hall (building 14): 3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures o
Laundry
(building 16): 3 – Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures o
General
Office (building 18): 3 - Acceptable Impact with Mitigation Measures Built Heritage Resources Outside the ·
Generally
the works within the Site will have little or no impact on built heritage
resources outside the o
Grade
1 historic building ( o
Proposed
Grade 3 historic building ( o
o
Old
o
Chancery
Lane: 1 – Beneficial Impact o
o
Walls
and Tunnel of o
Chancery
Lane Steps: 1 – Beneficial Impact |
|
Extents of Exceedance |
Not expected |
Not expected |
Avoidance / Mitigation Measures |
Prior to construction commencement
during the detailed design stage of the Project, the following works will be
conducted to ensure adequate information are obtained to finalise the design
and conservation work required: ·
Comprehensive survey and impact assessment of Character Defining
Elements (CDE); ·
Archival recording; ·
Addition and alteration (A&A) works proposal
submissions; ·
Detailed structural assessment; and ·
Archaeological investigation. The
modification/refurbishment works at the existing buildings are kept to a
minimum by carefully assigning appropriate uses to fit in the spaces and
adopting a fire engineering approach to minimise alteration while complying
with fire safety requirements. The
general mitigation measures to be used during the construction phase will include: ·
Prior identification and recording of the all the
significant features, finishes, fittings and contents in the existing
buildings, and assessment of their vulnerability during construction. This
should include for instance the recording of historic doors which are
vulnerable to damage if left in situ or carelessly removed and stored. ·
Permanent or temporary removal off site of loose or
vulnerable items. ·
Preparation of a schedule of protection works to preserve or
secure items and finishes remaining in situ during construction. ·
Non-percussive piling methods will be adopted for the
construction of the foundation for the new buildings and a lateral support
system will be used to minimise the potential vibration impact to adjacent
historic buildings during construction. ·
Protection measures to the exteriors and interiors of the
buildings during construction operations. ·
Ensuring the responsible contractor understands the
significance and vulnerabilities of the building structures, constructions,
features and finishes prior to starting the work to avoid overloading or
inappropriate storage or construction activities. ·
Use of appropriate heritage related construction methods
for the modification and refurbishment works As
there is no development proposal that involves soil excavation on one of the
nine areas (Garage), other than possibly for new underground services which
will be designed during the detailed drawing stage no impact on this
archaeological potential area is anticipated.
Subject
to the findings of the archaeological investigation, appropriate mitigation
measures will be recommended and agreed with the AMO. Prior
to commencement of the construction works, a baseline condition survey and
baseline vibration impact assessment
has been
recommended to be conducted by a specialist covering the existing historic
buildings in the CPS Site and the Proposed Grade 3 Historic building (No. 20
Hollywood Road) outside CPS to define the vibration control limits and
recommend a vibration monitoring proposal for the concerned historic
buildings in CPS. As the concerned
historic buildings in the CPS Site are declared monuments, the proposal
should be submitted to the Antiquities Authority under the AM Ordinance for
granting a permit for the work. If the
evaluated and/or measured vibrations have been found to exceed the allowable
values or if damage to either structural or non-structural elements of the
historic buildings has been identified, the construction work should be stopped
and the construction method and appropriate mitigation measures should be
reviewed and submitted to the Antiquities Authority for approval. |
To implement the Conservation Management Plan (June
2008), the Heritage Operational Strategy and Manual and the Interpretation
Strategies/Plans. Regular audit for checking the compl |
Residual
Impact |
Slight to
moderate residual impact is expected due to the alteration to the overall
visual appearance of the Site.
However, the majority of the potential impact is beneficial to the CPS
and its users. With the implementation
of the CMP and the mitigation measures recommended in Section 3.7 the residual impact is considered acceptable. |
Not expected |
Environmental Acceptability |
Impacts to cultural heritage resources are
acceptable with mitigation measures. |
Impacts to cultural heritage resources are acceptable
with mitigation measures. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Assessment Points / Sensitive Receivers |
Landscape Resources (LRs): LR1 – LR2 - Commercial /
Residential /Institutional Building Area LR3 – Buildings within Declared Monument LR4 – Open Space within Declared
Monument LR5 – LR6 – LR7 – Vegetated Slope LR8 – Natural LR9 – Landscape and Visual
Character Areas (LCAs): LCA1 – Historical Landscape LCA2 – LCA3 – Medium/High-rise
Commercial Urban Landscape LCA4 – Residential/
Commercial Urban Landscape LCA5 – Central Civic
Administration Landscape LCA6 – Natural LCA7 – Major Transport
Corri Visually Sensitive
Receivers (VSRs) and Vantage Points (VPs) VSR T2 – Central/ Mid-Levels Escalator
above VSR H/O1 – Medium/ High Level
Commercial/Residential Building(s) above VSR T3 – Street Level at The Centrium on VSR H2 – Medium/High Rise Level
Residential Building(s) on VSR T4 – Street Level at VSR T5 – Street Level at VSR VSR O1
Medium/High Level Commercial Building(s) ( VSR O2
Medium/High Level CommercialBuilding(s) ( VSR H1
Medium/High Level Residential Buildings in Mid-levels ( VSR R1
Open/Park Area off VSR H3
Medium/High Level Residential Buildings on The tree survey undertaken indentified eleven trees within
the Site, using the government's
definition of a tree as a woody plant with a trunk diameter of at least 95 mm
at 1.3 m height. None of the
trees can be gauged as being in ‘excellent’ health and only two trees, namely
the large T5 (Mangifera indica) in the Parade Ground, and the relatively
small wall tree T10 (Ficus microcarpa) between the Police and Prison sites, have
performed sufficiently well to deserve the good rating. |
Landscape Resources (LRs): LR1 – LR2 - Commercial / Residential /Institutional
Building Area LR3 – Buildings within Declared Monument LR4 – Open Space within Declared Monument LR5 – LR6 – LR7 – Vegetated Slope LR8 – Natural LR9 – Landscape and Visual Character Areas (LCAs): LCA1 – Historical Landscape LCA2 – LCA3 – Medium/High-rise Commercial Urban Landscape LCA4 – Residential/ Commercial Urban Landscape LCA5 – Central Civic Administration Landscape LCA6 – Natural LCA7 – Major Transport Corri Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) and Vantage Points (VPs) VSR T2 – Central/ Mid-Levels Escalator above VSR H/O1 – Medium/ High Level
Commercial/Residential Building(s) above VSR T3 – Street Level at The Centrium
on VSR H2 – Medium/High Rise Level Residential
Building(s) on VSR T4 – Street Level at VSR T5 – Street Level at VSR VSR O1 Medium/High Level
Commercial Building(s) ( VSR O2 Medium/High Level
CommercialBuilding(s) ( VSR H1 Medium/High Level
Residential Buildings in Mid-levels ( VSR R1 Open/Park Area
off VSR H3 Medium/High Level
Residential Buildings on Trees
within the Site. |
Relevant Criteria |
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap.499, S.16) and the
Technical Memorandum on EIA Process
(EIAO TM), particularly: o
Annex 10 (Criteria for Evaluating Visual
and Landscape Impact, and Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage) o
Annex 18 (Guidelines for Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment) ·
EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002
(Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance); ·
ETWB TCW No. 3/2006 - Tree Preservation; ·
ETWB TCW No. 29/2004 - Registration of
Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation ·
ETWB-TC(W) No. 10/2005 - Planting on
Footbridges and Flyovers ·
Land Administration Office (LAO), Lands
Department Practice Note No. 7/2007 - Tree
Preservation and Tree Removal Application for Building Development in Private
Projects ·
WBTC No. 7/2002 - Tree Planting in
Public Works; ·
·
Study on Landscape Value Mapping of |
·
Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (Cap.499, S.16)
and the Technical Memorandum on EIA
Process (EIAO TM), particularly: o
Annex 10 (Criteria for Evaluating Visual
and Landscape Impact, and Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage) o
Annex 18 (Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment) ·
EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002
(Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance); ·
ETWB TCW No. 3/2006 - Tree Preservation; ·
ETWB TCW No. 29/2004 - Registration of
Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation ·
ETWB-TC(W) No. 10/2005 - Planting on
Footbridges and Flyovers ·
Land Administration Office (LAO), Lands
Department Practice Note No. 7/2007 - Tree
Preservation and Tree Removal Application for Building Development in Private
Projects ·
WBTC No. 7/2002 - Tree Planting in
Public Works; ·
·
Study on Landscape Value Mapping of |
Results of Impact / Extent of Exceedance |
During the construction
stage, potential landscape and visual impacts may arise from: ·
works
for demolition of surrounding stone brick wall and construction of entrance
to service yard; ·
works
for demolition of works for demolition of existing building structures – the
Garage, Workshop & Laundry and General Office; ·
works
for cleaning, re-painting, dismantling and reinstatement of sections of
surrounding stone brick wall; ·
conservation,
repair and refurbishment work on the external façade of the retained
buildings including erection of scaffolding; ·
excavation
work including that for construction of basement in lower courtyard; ·
new
custom paving works throughout the Site; ·
construction
of new built structures (Old Bailey Wing, Arbuthnot Wing, new footbridge); ·
construction
of new pavement west of ·
temporary
stockpiling of construction and demolition materials and temporary storage of
construction equipment; ·
temporary
use of construction equipment on-site including cranes and vehicles; ·
off-site
construction traffic such as haulage of excavated materials; ·
temporary
traffic/ road diversions; ·
night-time
lighting; and ·
dust during dry weather. Significant Impact on the following LRs/LCA
at construction phase without mitigation: ·
LR3
– Buildings within Declared Monument ·
LR4
– Open Space within Declared Monument ·
LCA1
– Historical Landscape Slight Impact on the following LRs/LCA
at construction phase without mitigation: ·
LR1
– ·
LCA4
– Residential/Commercial Urban Landscape Impacts on all other LRs/LCAs
at construction phase without mitigation are insignificant. Amongst the eleven trees found on site,
four dead/damaged trees (T1, T2, T3 and T4) and one healthy tree (T10) will
be removed. The rest of the trees will
be retained. The size, tree form, performance,
and landscape and amenity value of T10, in comparison with the large and
robust wall trees in other parts of the city, are relatively low. Due to site and technical constraints, in
situ preservation and transplanting cannot be recommended. Significant Impact on the following VSRs
at construction phase without mitigation: ·
T2
– Central/ Mid-Levels Escalator above ·
H/O1
– Medium/High Level Commercial/Residential Building(s) above ·
T3
– Street Level at The Centrium on ·
H2
– Medium/High Rise Level Residential Building(s) on ·
T5
- Street Level at ·
H3
– Medium/High Level Residential Buildings on Moderate Impact on the following VSRs
at construction phase without mitigation: ·
T4
– Street Level at ·
H1
– Medium/High Level Residential Buildings in Mid-levels ( Slight Impact on the following VSRs
at construction phase without mitigation: ·
T1
– Street Level at ·
O1
– Medium/High Level Commercial Building(s) ( ·
O2
– Medium/High Level Commercial/Residential Building(s) ( ·
R1
– Open/Park Area off |
During the operation stage, potential landscape and
visual impacts would be related to the following: ·
landscaping works (eg new planting site, new green wall, existing tree
treatment); ·
repaired
and refurbished external façades of retained buildings; ·
operation
of new built structures (Old Bailey Wing, Arbuthnot Wing, new footbridge, new
access points); ·
new
pavement – west of ·
cleaned,
re-painted, refurbished and repaired sections of external stone wall and
building façades; and ·
night time lighting. The impacts of the Project’s operation phase before
mitigation on any LR/LCA are not considered significant. Moderate impact on the following LRs/LCA
at operation phase without mitigation o
LR3
– Buildings within Declared Monument o
LCA1
– Historical Landscape Insignificant impact on the following LRs/LCA
at operation phase without mitigation o
LR1
– o
LR4
– Open Space within Declared Monument o
LCA4
– Residential/Commercial Urban Landscape Significant Impact on the following VSRs
at operation phase without mitigation: ·
T3
– Street Level at The Centrium on ·
H2 –
Medium/High Rise Level Residential Building(s) on ·
H3
– Medium/High Level Residential Buildings on Moderate Impact on the following VSRs
at operation phase without mitigation: ·
T2
– Central/Mid-Levels Escalator above ·
H/O1
– Medium/High Level Commercial/Residential Building(s) above ·
T4
– Street Level at ·
H1
– Medium/High Level Residential Buildings in Mid-levels ( Slight Impact on the following VSRs at operation
phase without mitigation: ·
T5
– Street Level at ·
T1
– Street Level at ·
O1
– Medium/High Level Commercial Building(s) ( ·
O2
– Medium/High Level Commercial Building(s) ( ·
R1
– Open/Park Area off Glare Impact/Interference and Night-time
Lighting The design intention for the new buildings is to use
non-reflective material for the façade which will help to minimise potential
glare interference. At night, light emitted from the
building will be partially screened by the façade units, creating a balance
between being able to express the life of the buildings within while also
being able to reduce light pollution.
The most open area within the new buildings at night is the public
restaurant which is located on the north end of Old Bailey Wing and away from
the row of residential buildings directly to the south. All lights within the CPS will be turned to
night time mode (dimmed) after 11pm.
Currently no façade lighting is proposed for the existing buildings. Given the choice of façade treatment and
Site lighting considerations, the glare impact/interference and night-time
lighting from the Project is considered to be acceptable. |
Avoidance / Mitigation Measures |
M1 Detailed
Design Consideration CM1 In-situ
Tree Protection - Cordon Zone (CZ) CM2 In-situ
Tree Protection - Advanced & Phased Root Pruning CM3 In-situ
Tree Protection - Foliage cleansing system CM4 In-situ
Tree Protection - Monthly inspection CM5 Light
Control CM6 Compensatory
Tree Planting CM7 Vertical
Greening CM8
New Custom Paving |
OM1 In-situ
Tree Protection - Quarterly inspection OM2 Soft
Landscape Maintenance OM3 Architectural
Maintenance OM4 Light
Control |
Residual Impact |
Moderate Impact on the following LRs/LCA
at construction phase with mitigation: ·
LR3
- Buildings within Declared Monument ·
LR4
– Open Space within Declared Monument ·
LCA1
– Historical Landscape Slight Impact on the following LRs/LCA
at construction phase with mitigation: ·
LR1
– ·
LCA4
– Residential/Commercial Urban Landscape Impacts on all other LRs/LCAs
at construction phase with mitigation are insignificant. Mitigation measures to protect the
retained trees and compensation of the removal of T10 will be
implemented. With the implementation of
the mitigation measures, impacts on the trees are considered acceptable. Construction
is assumed to be carried out following standard good practise, and the
construction impact will not be significantly reduced by additional
mitigation measures such that upon mitigation, all the visual impacts are considered to remain the
same as prior to mitigation. However,
it is worth noting that the impact will be transient and will be reduced
gradually following operation. |
The residual impacts on all LCAs
at day 1 of operation with mitigation are insignificant, with the
exception of a slight residual impact on LR3 – Buildings within
Declared Monument LCA1 – Historical Landscape. All ratings for the residual impacts at year 10 of
operation with mitigation remain the same, with the exception of LR4 – Open
Space within Upon implementation of mitigation
measures, at operation day 1 the visual impacts on: • T3
(Street Level at the Centrium on • H/O1
(Medium/High Level Commercial/Residential Building(s) above Hollywood Road),
T4 (Street Level at Old Bailey Street/ Chancery Lane Junction) and H1
(Medium/High Level Residential Buildings in Mid-levels [Grand Panorama
Building]) will reduce to slight while impacts on T5 (Street Level at
Hollywood Road/Pottinger Street Junction), T1
(Street Level at Staunton Street/ Peel Street Junction) and O2 (Medium/High
Level Commercial Building(s) [QRC Building]) will remain slight. • O1
(Medium/High Level Commercial Building(s) [ At operation year 10 with mitigation,
the residual impacts remain the same for all the VSRs. |
Environmental Acceptability |
Impacts on landscape resources and sensitive
receivers are acceptable with mitigation measures. |
Impacts on landscape resources and sensitive
receivers are acceptable with mitigation measures. |
Noise |
||
Assessment Points / Sensitive Receivers |
N1 – Amber Lodge N2 – Ho N3 – N4 – N5 – Chancery House N6 – |
N1 – Amber Lodge N2 – Ho N3 – N4 – N5 – Chancery House N6 – |
Relevant Criteria |
Daytime
(0700-1900 hours) construction noise standards stipulated in the EIAO-TM is Leq 30min75 dB(A) for all domestic premises on any day
not being a Sunday or general public holiday for general construction works. General
construction works during the restricted hours follow the criteria set in the
GW-TM. These are: 1.
LAeq, 5min 65 dB for area with Area Sensitivity Rating
of B for all days during the evening (1900-2300 hours) and general holidays
(including Sundays) during the day and evening (0700-2300 hours); and 2.
LAeq, 5min 50 dB for area with Area Sensitivity
Rating of B for all days during the night-time (2300-0700 hours) |
The criteria
noise limits for planning purposes are set out in the EIAO-TM as follows: ·
the total fixed source noise l ·
the prevailing
background noise l Based
on the above EIAO-TM and IND-TM specification, daytime and evening (0700-2300
hours) noise limit for N1-N3 and N4-N5 is 59 dB(A)
and 54 dB(A), respectively. The
night-time (2300-0700 hours) noise limit for N1-N3 and N4-N5 is 50 dB(A) and 49 dB(A), respectively. |
Results of Impact |
The predicted unmitigated noise levels
at NSRs ranges from 79 to 89 dB(A). With the implementation of mitigation
measures, the noise levels predicted at NSRs ranges
from 67 to 75 dB(A). |
The predicted noise levels during
day-time and evening time period at NSRs range from
52 to 56 dB(A).
The predicted noise levels during night-time
period at NSRs range from 42 to 49 dB(A). |
Extents of Exceedance |
Without the implementation of mitigation
measures, exceedance up to 14 dB(A)
is predicted. With the implementation
of mitigation measures, noise levels at all NSRs
comply with the criteria. |
Not expected. |
Avoidance / Mitigation Measures |
·
Good
construction site practice; ·
Use
of quiet PME; ·
Adoption
of movable noise barriers; ·
Use
of noise insulation sheet; and ·
Scheduling
of PME/construction activities. |
Although no adverse noise impact is
expected due to the operation of fixed plant items, it is still recommended
that the following good practices be implemented as far as practicable to
minimise the potential impact: ·
Choose
quieter equipment; ·
Include
noise levels specification when ordering new plant items; ·
Locate
fixed plant items or noise emission points away from the NSRs
as far as practicable; ·
Locate
noisy machines in completely enclosed plant rooms or buildings with suitable
and practicable noise remedies; and ·
D The maximum sound power
levels for the fixed plant will be included in the contract specification to
be issued to suppliers or contractors for the equipment. Noise Emissions from Courtyard
Events and Public Address (PA) System ·
good management practices shall be in place, including
noise monitoring, setting up a complaint hotline, and distributing advance
notice to nearby NSRs. It is recommended that good management
practices be implemented during both rehearsals and shows; ·
in any ·
as
a fallback option, should non-compliance of the relevant noise criteria at
the NSRs be identified for the event, immediate
mitigation measures (such as turning down/off of music volume) should be
implemented; and ·
the requirements of not exceeding the total
sound power l |
Residual Impact |
Not expected. |
Not expected. |
Environmental Acceptability |
No adverse noise impact with the
implementation of mitigation measures. |
No adverse noise impact with the implementation
of good practices. |
Air Quality |
||
Assessment Points / Sensitive Receivers |
A1 – Au’s Building A2 – Chinachem Hollywood Centre A3 – A4 – Vimark House A5 – Yu A6 – The Centrium A7 – Chancery Mansions A8 – Chancery House A9 – A10 – A11 – A12 – Ho A13 - Winning House |
A1 – Au’s Building A2 – Chinachem Hollywood Centre A3 – A4 – Vimark House A5 – Yu A6 – The Centrium A7 – Chancery Mansions A8 – Chancery House A9 – A10 – A11 – A12 – Ho A13 - Winning House |
Relevant Criteria |
Hong Kong Air Quality Objective: Daily average TSP level of 260 mg m-3 Annual average TSP level of 80 mg m-3 EIAO-TM: Hourly average TSP level of 500 mg m-3 |
Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives: NO2 : Hourly average of 300 mg m-3; daily average of 150 mg m-3; annual average of 80 mg m-3 SO2 : Hourly average of 800 mg m-3; daily average of 350 mg m-3; annual average of 80 mg m-3 RSP : Daily average of 180 mg m-3; annual average of 55 mg m-3 |
Results of Impact |
The construction of the Project involves
small-scale site formation/foundation works, new building construction,
refurbishment works for the existing buildings, and minor-scale demolition of
existing structures. Excavation, truck
movements, materials handling and wind erosion of open stockpiles of dusty
materials were identified as the major dust generating activities. In view of the small size of the worksite
and small quantity of excavated materials to be generated, limited excavated soil
will be stockpiled on-site. No adverse
fugitive dust impact is envisaged with the implementation of dust control
measures and adoption of good construction site practices. Minor air quality impacts associated with
gaseous emissions of diesel-powered construction plant and equipment are
anticipated as only a small number of construction vehicles and plant will be
operated in the limited works areas at any one time. |
Gaseous emissions from kitchens are identified as
potential sources of air pollutants.
Electric stoves will be installed in the kitchens within the Project,
and therefore no gaseous or liquid fuels will be used for cooking operations. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) will also be installed at the exhausts of the
kitchens to capture potential particulate emissions and the location of the
exhaust will be sited vertically upward and away from the nearby air
sensitive uses as far as practicable.
As such, potential air quality impacts associated with gaseous
emissions from kitchen operations to the surroundings are not anticipated. As the design of the Project
encourages visitors to get to the Site via footbridge and pedestrian
crossings, traffic flow induced by operations of the Project (eg tourist bus and private cars) is anticipated to be
small and
no adverse cumulative traffic emission impact during the operation phase of
the Project is therefore expected. Three restaurant stacks were identified within 500m
Study Area. The
nearest stack is located at about 70m from the Site boundary and all the
stacks were identified to be at
least 30m above ground with high-rise buildings located in between. Through the interview
with the stack owners, one of the restaurants indicated that Towngas
was used for the cooking stoves. However, the owners of the other two stacks
refused to provide stack emissions information.
Nonetheless, it is anticipated that both premises are using ultra
low sulphur diesel (ULSD), gaseous fuel or alternative fuel types in
which emissions
must comply
with the requirements in the Air Pollution Control (Fuel Restriction)
Regulation and its
amendment of 2008. The five-year average of NO2 (54mgm-3) and SO2 (22mgm-3) data from 2005
to 2009 recorded at the Central/Western AQMS demonstrated that the ambient
concentrations of the respective pollutants are low. As a result, no adverse air quality impacts
are anticipated for the Project. |
Extents of Exceedance |
Not expected. |
Not expected. |
Avoidance / Mitigation Measures |
The following
dust control measures stipulated in the Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulations and good site practices
will be incorporated into the Contract Specification and implemented throughout
the construction period: ·
The area at which demolition work takes place will
be sprayed with water or dust suppression chemical immediately prior to,
during and immediately after the demolition activity; ·
Impervious dust screen or sheeting will be
implemented for demolition of structures and renovation of outer surfaces of
structures that abuts or fronts open area accessible to the public to no less
than 1m higher than the highest level of the structure being demolished; ·
An effective dust screen will be provided to enclose
scaffolding, if required, from the ground floor level of building for
construction of superstructure of the new buildings; ·
Impervious sheet will be provided for skip hoist for
material transport; ·
Vehicle washing facilities will be provided at the
designated vehicle exit points; ·
Every vehicle will be washed to remove any dusty
materials from its chassis and wheels immediately before leaving the
worksite; ·
Road sections between vehicle-wash areas and vehicular
entrances will be paved; ·
The load carried by the trucks will be covered
entirely to ensure no dust emission from the vehicles; ·
Hoarding of not less than 2.4m high from ground
level will be provided along the Project Site boundary adjoining a road where the new buildings
will be constructed; ·
The main haul road will be kept clear of dusty
materials and will be sprayed with water so as to maintain the entire road
surface wet at all the time; ·
Temporary stockpiles of dusty materials will be
either covered entirely by impervious sheets; place in an area sheltered on
the top and three sides; or sprayed with water to maintain the entire surface
wet at all the time; ·
Stockpiles of more than 20 bags of cement, dry
pulverised fuel ash and dusty construction materials will be covered entirely
by impervious sheeting sheltered on top and 3-sides; ·
All exposed areas will be kept wet always to
minimise dust emission; ·
ULSD will be used for all construction plant
on-site; ·
The engine of the construction
equipment or trucks during idling will be switched off; and ·
Regular maintenance of
construction equipment deployed on-site will be conducted to prevent black
smoke emission. |
The following measures will be implemented for
kitchens to minimize the potential kitchen fumes or stack emissions: ·
Electric stoves will be used; ·
Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) will be installed
to control the oily fume and cooking odour; ·
Siting the
kitchen exhausts away from the nearby air sensitive uses as far as
practicable;; ·
Direct the kitchen exhausts vertically upwards; and ·
Provide sufficient separation distance from the
nearby air sensitive uses. |
Residual Impact |
Not expected. |
Not expected. |
Environmental Acceptability |
No adverse air quality impact with the implementation
of mitigation measures. |
No adverse air quality impact with the
implementation of mitigation measures. |
Water Quality |
||
Assessment Points / Sensitive Receivers |
·
Existing stormwater drain along ·
·
Seawater abstraction points along the seafront at about 650m from the
Site |
·
Existing stormwater drain along ·
·
Seawater abstraction points along the seafront at about 650m from the
Site |
Relevant Criteria |
·
Water
Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) (Cap. 358); ·
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499. S.16), Technical Memorandum on
Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 6 and 14; ·
Technical
Memorandum Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage
Systems, Inland and Inshore Waters (TM); ·
Practice
Note for Professional Persons on Construction Site Drainage (Prop PECC PN
1/94); and ·
|
·
Water
Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) (Cap. 358); ·
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499. S.16), Technical Memorandum on
Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 6 and 14; ·
Technical
Memorandum Standards for Effluents Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage
Systems, Inland and Inshore Waters (TM); and ·
|
Results of Impact |
Given the scale and nature of the
construction work, with the implementation of good construction and site
management practices, adverse water quality due to site runoff and general
construction activities is not anticipated. The amount of sewage to be
generated will be about 30 m3 per day. The existing toilet facility of the CPS
will be available to the construction workforce. The sewage will be discharged to the public
sewer. If necessary, portable toilets
will be provided on site to ensure that sewage from the site staff is
properly collected. No adverse impact
water quality is anticipated due to the treatment and disposal of sewage
generated from the workforce. |
Sewage will arise from the dinning
areas, operation staff and visitors of the |
Extents of Exceedance |
Not expected. |
Not expected. |
Avoidance / Mitigation Measures |
Prior to the modification works,
perimeter cut-off drains to direct off-site water around the site will be
constructed and internal drainage works and erosion and sedimentation control
facilities implemented. Channels,
earth bunds or sand bag barriers will be provided on site to direct potential
contaminated runoff to the on-site slit trap before discharged to the stormwater drains.
The design of any slit removal facilities will be based on the
guidelines in Appendix A1 of ProPECC PN 1/94. Vehicle and plant servicing
areas, vehicle washing bays and lubrication bays will, as far as possible, be
located within roofed areas. The
drainage in these covered areas will be connected to foul sewers via a petrol
interceptor. Oil leakage or spillage
will be contained and cleaned up immediately. Waste oil will be collected and
stored for recycling or disposal, in accordance with the Waste Disposal Ordinance. The stomwater
discharge from the Site will be monitored as part of the routine monitoring
under the WPCO licence,
if applicable. The existing toilet
facilities of the |
Not required. |
Residual Impact |
No residual impact. |
No residual impact. |
Environmental Acceptability |
No adverse water quality impact with the
implementation of good site practices and mitigation measures. |
No adverse water quality impact is
expected. |
Waste |
||
Assessment Points / Sensitive Receivers |
|
CPS |
Relevant Criteria |
·
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354); ·
Waste Disposal (Chemical
Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354C); ·
Land (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 28); and ·
Public Health and
Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) - Public
Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation ·
·
Waste Reduction
Framework Plan, 1998 to 2007 ·
Code of Practice on the
Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes (1992) ·
WBTC No. 32/92, 2/93,
2/93B, 25/99, 25/99A, 25/99C, 12/2000, 12/2002 ·
ETWBTC No. 33/2002,
19/2005 ·
DevBTC No. 6/2010 |
·
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354); ·
Waste Disposal (Chemical
Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap 354C); ·
Land (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 28); and ·
Public Health and
Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132) - Public
Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation ·
·
Waste Reduction
Framework Plan, 1998 to 2007 ·
Code of Practice on the Packaging,
Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes (1992) |
Results of Impact |
It is estimated that 12,900 m3
of excavated materials, 3,540 m3 of public fills and 890 m3
of construction waste will be generated during the construction phase. With respect to the scale of the
construction activities, it is anticipated that the quantity of chemical
waste to be generated will be small (less than a hundred litres per month
during the construction phase). It is
also estimated that about 130 kg of general refuse will be generated per day
by the construction workers. |
It is estimated that general refuse
(9,250 kg per day) and food waste (460 kg per day) will be generated during
the operation phase. |
Extents of Exceedance |
N/A |
N/A |
Avoidance / Mitigation Measures |
C&D
Material will be segregated on-site into inert and non-inert materials and
stored in different containers or skips to facilitate reuse of the inert
materials and proper disposal of the non-inert construction waste. Specific areas of the work site will be
designated for such segregation and storage if immediate use is not
practicable. The
contractor will register as a chemical waste producer with the EPD. Chemical waste will be handled in
accordance with the Code of Practice on
the Packaging, Handling and Storage of Chemical Wastes. General
refuse will be stored in enclosed bins separately from construction and
chemical wastes. The general refuse
will be delivered to the transfer station or landfill, separately from
construction and chemical wastes, on a daily basis to reduce odour, pest and
litter impacts. Recycling bins will be provided at strategic locations to
facilitate recovery of aluminium can and waste paper from the Site. Materials recovered will be sold for
recycling. At the
commencement of the construction works, training will be provided to workers
on the concepts of site cleanliness and on appropriate waste management
procedures, including waste reduction, reuse and recycling. |
Chemical
waste will be handled in accordance with the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Handling and Storage of Chemical
Wastes. General
refuse and food and beverage waste will be stored in enclosed bins and
disposed of at the tipping area on a daily basis to reduce odour, pest and
litter impacts. Recycling
bins will be provided at strategic locations to facilitate recovery of
aluminium can and waste paper from the Site.
Materials recovered will be sold for recycling |
Residual Impact |
No residual impact |
No residual impact |
Environmental Acceptability |
No adverse environmental impact
associated with the handling and disposal of waste. |
No adverse environmental impact
associated with the handling and disposal of waste. |
|
|
|
3.8
Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Requirements
The assessments presented in the preceding section
indicate that the implementation of the Project is not expected to give rise to
adverse environmental impacts with the implementation of good construction site
practices and mitigation measures. A
focused EM&A programme is considered appropriate,
however, to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are effectively
implemented and the quality of the surrounding environment is not
prejudiced. A summary of the
requirements for each of the environmental parameters is detailed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Summary
of EM&A Requirements
Parameters |
Construction Phase (a) |
Operation Phase (a) |
Cultural
Heritage |
M + SA |
SA |
Landscape and
Visual |
M + SA |
M |
Noise |
M + SA |
M (b) |
Air Quality |
SA |
- |
Water Quality |
SA |
- |
Waste |
SA |
- |
Note: (a)
M = monitoring, SA = site audit (b)
Monitoring will be required for outdoor events only
and will be implemented through contract requirement for the event
organisers. |
As part of the EIA study, a detailed EM&A Manual
has been prepared for this Project which includes an Implementation Schedule
for environmental mitigation measures recommended in the EIA study.
The environmental impact assessment has concluded that
with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no unacceptable
environmental impacts are envisaged as a result of the construction and
operation of the Project.