2
Project Description
2.1
The Need and Benefits of the Project
2.1.1.1
Hong Kong is experiencing a population aging issue and nowadays
people are expecting patient-centred high quality medical service.
The need of medical service in an effective and
efficient manner will be increasing in future. HA
have reviewed the current transportation arrangement for life saving service
and recognised the need of another helipad at an acute hospital.
2.1.1.2
Given that QMH is a major acute hospital, a Trauma and Transplant
Centre, and the only hospital in Hong Kong which is able to handle certain emergency
medical cases such as neonatal with major procedure, liver transplant, heart/lung
transplant and aortic dissection, it is of essence for the public to have a
helipad in order to enable a point-to-point speedy transfer of patients/survivors
suffering from special cases for appropriate treatment and receipt of donated
organs. The Proposed Helipad at QMH has been the
prime consideration in ensuring that the general public can receive the best
emergency service as needed.
2.1.1.3
The erection of a helipad on the rooftop of the New Block of QMH
provide a permanent facility to facilitate helicopter emergency medical services.
GFS’s helicopters currently landing at Wan Chai Heliport for medical
emergencies, can land at QMH directly using the Proposed Helipad in future and
no onward transfer by ambulance will be required. It
could also enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency
response services. The reasons for the need of the
Project and its benefits are listed as follows:
2.1.2
Speedy Transfer of Patients to QMH
2.1.2.1
Currently, the air transportation of patients from outlying islands
and remote area (e.g. Cheung Chau, Peng Chau and Lamma Island, etc) is to either
the helipad at PYNEH or to the Wan Chai Heliport for onward transfer to QMH
by ambulance. Traffic congestion delays the transfer
of patients to hospital which is highly undesirable as timely treatment is critical
to the patients with life-threatening conditions.
2.1.2.2
The transfer time of a patient from landing at Wan Chai Heliport
to QMH by ambulance can be up to 20 minutes. This
can be too long for critical life-saving. Hence,
the provision of Proposed Helipad at QMH could enable a point-to-point speedy
transfer of patients from the outlying islands for appropriate treatment.
2.1.3
Lower Risk of Additional Transfer
2.1.3.1
Under the existing arrangement, any patient who requires to transfer
to QMH through air transportation will be landed at Wan Chai Heliport for onward
transfer to QMH by ambulance. The additional transfer
could present potential risks to patients with severe injuries to major parts
and lead to deterioration of injuries from crossing road bumps and unpaved road.
The Proposed Helipad at QMH could reduce the above risk of additional
transfer from Wan Chai Heliport to QMH and also achieve the direct transfer
from helicopter to receiving treatment.
2.1.4
Relief Ambulance Resource
2.1.4.1
As mentioned above, patients from Wan Chai Heliport to QMH require
the provision of ambulance. If the ambulances are
not available, it would cause delays in transferring patients to QMH.
Thus, the Proposed Helipad at QMH would relief the ambulance resource
that could be used elsewhere.
2.1.5
Location Advantage
2.1.5.1
The provision of the Proposed Helipad at QMH is an ideal drop-off
point for injured survivors/ patients travelling from places located to the
South and South West of Hong Kong, especially for Cheung Chau, Peng Chau, Lamma
Island, Hei Ling Chau, Shek Kwu Chau. The transit
time can be reduced for patients travelling from the above destinations to the
Proposed Helipad at QMH instead of PYNEH and hence increase the chance of survival
in many critical cases.
2.1.5.2
For example, if an accident occurs at southwest of HK Island,
there will be a 4-minute flight time difference for the transfer of survivors
between the place of accident and the helipad at QMH than PYNEH.
As a result, the transit time would be shortened if a helipad is available
at QMH in critical cases. Therefore, the Proposed
Helipad at QMH has its location advantage than PYNEH.
2.1.6
Weather Alternative
2.1.6.1
The helipad at PYNEH may not be available for operational use
from time to time due to adverse weather conditions including poor visibility,
low cloud base or strong wind condition. Especially
during spring seasons, the prevailing foggy weather from the open sea to the
east of Hong Kong results in poor visibility for helicopters to travel.
In 2011 - 2015, there were about 8 to 15 CASEVAC
A+ operations landed at Wan Chai Heliport due to adverse weather conditions
every year.
2.1.6.2
It is better for helicopters to travel to the west of Hong Kong
with relatively better weather conditions during spring time. Therefore,
the provision of the Proposed Helipad at QMH provides a good alternative landing
point for air ambulance and rescue missions with critically ill patients/ injured
survivors.
2.1.7
Allow Multiple Casualties Transfer
2.1.7.1
The Proposed Helipad at QMH can be operated in parallel with PYNEH
when major disasters occur involving a large number of patients.
It would help to cater multiple casualties transfer
during master disasters when multiple helicopters are involved by serving as
an emergency support landing site.
2.1.8
Environmental Benefits
2.1.8.1
Given that Phase 1 Redevelopment of QMH has included the construction
of a New Block, the Proposed Helipad will be built on the rooftop of the New
Block. There will be no additional foundation and
superstructure works required for the Proposed Helipad, and thus the environmental
impact arising from the construction of helipad would be minimised.
The environmental impact study for the demolition works and construction
of the New Block shall be conducted separately in the Preliminary Environmental
Review (PER) which is not under the scope of this EIA study
2.1.8.2
In addition, the noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) surrounding
the Proposed Helipad of QMH are much farther away than those at PYNEH.
It is anticipated that the noise impact on nearby NSRs arising from the
operation of Proposed Helipad at QMH will be less than that at PYNEH as the
nearest NSR is located over 200m from the Proposed Helipad of QMH while the
distance between PYNEH helipad and nearest NSR is less than 100m.
Furthermore, the additional helipad at QMH would then reduce the number
of helicopter landings at PYNEH thereby reducing noise and disturbance to residents
nearby PYNEH.
2.1.9
Uniqueness of QMH
2.1.9.1
QMH is an acute regional and teaching hospital which provides
a comprehensive range of clinical services. Besides serving as one of the five
major trauma centres in Hong Kong, QMH provides world-class tertiary and quaternary
services such as liver and other organ transplantation, neurosurgery, intensive
care and paediatric surgical services. In the financial
year 2014/2015, there were 68 operations for liver transplant, 16 operations
for heart/lung transplant, 80 operations for aortic dissection and 56 episodes
of neonatal with major procedure. The unique combination
of these services renders QMH an extraordinary position in the treatment and
care of major trauma and the critically-ill patients in Hong Kong.
2.1.10
Summary of the need and benefits of the Project
2.1.10.1
It can be seen from the above paragraphs in Section
2.1.2 to Section 2.1.9 that the Proposed Helipad development
is important and indispensable for the air medical services in Hong Kong. The
need and benefits of the Project are also summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Summary of need and benefits of the Project
|
Speedy transfer of patients to QMH
|
· allow point-to-point transfer of patient to QMH
· reduce the chance of delay from traffic congestion
during patients transfer by ambulance
|
|
Lower Risk of Additional Transfer
|
· reduce the risk of deterioration of injury from
onward movement by ambulance when crossing road bumps and unpaved road
|
|
Relief Ambulance Resource
|
· reduce the needs of ambulance for patients
transfer from Wan Chai Heliport to QMH by ambulance
|
|
Location Advantage
|
· an ideal drop-off point for injured survivors/
patients travelling from South and South West of Hong Kong
|
|
Weather Alternative
|
· provide alternative landing location during poor
visibility period at east of Hong Kong in spring season
|
|
Allow Multiple Casualties Transfer
|
· will be operated in parallel with PYNEH for
multiple casualties transfer
|
|
Environmental Benefits
|
· no additional foundation work for a rooftop
helipad is required
· offer a longer separation distance from Proposed
Helipad to the nearest NSR compared with that at PYNEH
· reduce number of helicopter landings at PYNEH
|
|
Uniqueness of QMH
|
· one of the five major trauma centres in Hong Kong
· provide organ transplantation, neurosurgery,
intensive care and paediatric surgical services. Medical services such as neonatal with
major procedure, liver transplant, heart/lung transplant and aortic dissection
is only available in QMH
|
2.2
Key Project Requirements
2.2.1.1
This project will adopt a Design and Construction (D&C) contract
arrangement. The future D&C contractor is responsible
to both design and construct the Proposed Helipad. The
proposal of the design and construction for the Proposed Helipad will need to
achieve the environmental performance as stated in this EIA report, EM&A
Manual and its Environmental Permit conditions. Site
audit and monitoring requirements shall be included in the EM&A manual if
necessary.
2.2.1.2
The design and construction of Proposed Helipad would follow the
Helicopter Landing Site Specification Guidelines issued by Government
Flying Service (GFS) and Aerodromes – Annex 14 Volume II Heliports
issued by International Civil Aviation Organization.
The Proposed Helipad is to be located on the rooftop of the New Block
at the northern portion of the QMH. The helipad
will be at 299.4mPD with about 40m in diameter. A close view and section view
of the Proposed Helipad are shown in
Figure 2.1
and
Figure 2.2.
2.2.1.3
The provision of a Proposed Helipad at QMH will enhance the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency response services.
In addition, the helipad can serve as an effective alternative to convey
quick response medical teams from QMH to scene of distress if a situation requires
to effect the rescue efforts. As mentioned before,
the helipad is intended solely for medical emergency use, and will not be used
for commercial operations, training flight and transportation of guests or other
non-emergency uses (except trial flights). The operation
of Proposed Helipad will be intermittent and random, hence, it is not practical
and impossible to fix flight schedule.
2.2.1.4
The number of landings for emergency services made by helicopters
at PYNEH, TMH and Wan Chai Heliport for the preceding five years, Year 2011
to 2015, is tabulated in Table 2.2 and further discussed
in Section 4: Noise Impact. With
the development of the Proposed Helipad in QMH, the existing helicopter operations
at PYNEH will be shared.
Table 2.
2
Summary of Flight Data Landed at PYNEH, TMH and Wan Chai Heliport during Year
2011 to 2015
|
Helipad
|
2011
|
2012
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
|
D
|
E
|
N
|
D
|
E
|
N
|
D
|
E
|
N
|
D
|
E
|
N
|
D
|
E
|
N
|
|
PYNEH
|
177
|
31
|
45
|
181
|
39
|
43
|
179
|
38
|
54
|
183
|
28
|
59
|
152
|
17
|
32
|
|
Total:
|
253
|
263
|
271
|
270
|
201
|
|
TMH
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
0
|
4
|
1
|
0
|
7
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total:
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
7
|
5
|
|
Wan Chai
(HK07A-HK07)2,3
|
10
|
2
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
9
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
1
|
3
|
|
Total:
|
14
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
8
|
Note:
1.
D – Daytime (07:00 – 19:00);
E – Evening Time (19:00 – 23:00); N – Night-time (23:00 – 07:00).
2.
According to the information
provided by GFS, the old Wan Chai Heliport (HK07A) was replaced by the new Wan
Chai Heliport (HK07) on 28 May 2012. It is noted
that there was no overlapped operation in the replacement of Wan Chai Heliport.
3.
Only the flights for CASEVAC
A+ are presented as reference for the assessment.
2.2.1.5
Currently the helicopter landing for medical emergencies at Wan
Chai heliport occurs only when the helipad facilities at hospitals (i.e. TMH &
PYNEH) are not available due to adverse weather conditions, onward transfer
to other hospitals by ambulance is also required.
However, the existing operations for patients transfer in Wan Chai Heliport
are normally for non-emergency cases which direct convey to hospital is not
necessary. The Proposed Helipad shall not share the normal helicopter services
in Wan Chai Heliport in future.
2.3
Project History and Site Selection
2.3.1
Project History
2.3.1.1
The Site where the helipad located is at the QMH in Pok Fu Lam.
The project site is zoned as “Government, Institution or Community” (“G/IC”)
on the approved Pok Fu Lam Outline Zoning Plan (“OZP”) no. S/H10/15. The site
is currently occupied by University Pathology Building and Clinical Pathology
Building at the QMH.
2.3.2
Consideration of Alternatives and Site Selection
Site Selection
2.3.2.1
Speedy and point-to-point transportation of patients and survivors
from the scene or outlying islands to the hospital for immediate medical treatment
are the key reasons for the need of a helipad in an acute hospital, i.e. with
Accident and Emergency (A&E) Department.
2.3.2.2
In Hong Kong, there are only two hospitals provided with helipad
for air transportation of medical emergency cases (CASEVAC A+ cases), namely
PYNEH and TMH.
2.3.2.3
The helipad at TMH serves day time only due to the site constraints
of high-rise buildings nearby which makes it not preferable for safe landing
during evening and night-time as advised by GFS, while the helipad at St. John
Hospital, Cheung Chau which is basically for transporting the patients outside
the island for more advanced medical treatment. Hence,
most of the air transportation of medical emergency cases are, at present, landed
at the helipad of PYNEH.
2.3.2.4
Although PYNEH is an alternative, it is located in the Hong Kong
East and the coverage is considered not comprehensive because of the restriction
in terms of territorial location. Sometimes it affects
by weather (such as poor visibility, low cloud and strong wind condition) and
its helipad would require some maintenance, which make it not possible for helicopter
landing at certain times. In order to complement
the operation gaps and the emergency service requirements, there is a need to
explore an alternative site for a helipad for air transportation of medical
emergency cases.
2.3.2.5
There are some key considerations in selecting the site for a
helipad for medical emergency cases:
-
Type of Hospital and medical services: It needs
to be an acute hospital covering a wide range of medical support in order to
provide the most suitable treatment to save the patient/ survivors.
-
At western or southern part of Hong Kong: It can
complement the air transportation of medical emergency to cover the whole territory
of Hong Kong.
-
Space availability: As the operation of helicopter
would need a sufficient unobstructed area for safe landing and take-off, an
acute hospital with such available space for a helipad is necessary.
-
Environmental Benefit / Dis-benefit: The potential
environmental impact of the construction and operation of helipad is also one
of the key considerations so as to minimise the disturbance to surrounding environment.
2.3.2.6
Besides Tuen Mun Hospital, there are three acute hospitals with
A&E services and located at western/southern part of Hong Kong, i.e. Pok
Oi Hospital, Queen Mary Hospital and Yan Chai Hospital. Table 2.3
shows the considerations for the selection of a suitable acute hospital
for the Proposed Helipad.
Table 2.3
Selection of Acute Hospitals (with A&E Services) for the Proposed Helipad
|
Hospital
|
Pok Oi
Hospital
|
Queen
Mary Hospital
|
Yan Chai
Hospital
|
|
Type of
Hospital and medical services
|
· An acute general hospital providing selected
specialist, e.g. community psychiatric services, diabetes centre, ear, nose
& throat department and ambulatory care services
· 24-hour A&E Service
|
· An acute regional hospital and teaching
hospital. Also territory-wide tertiary
and quaternary referral centre for many complex and advanced services, e.g.
neonatal with major procedure, liver transplant, heart/lung transplant and
aortic dissection
· 24-hour A&E Service
|
· An acute general hospital providing
acute and rehabilitation services, e.g. otorhinolaryngology, head & neck surgery,
orthopaedics & traumatology
· 24-hour A&E Service
|
|
Site
Location
|
New Territories West Cluster – Yuen Long
|
Hong Kong West Cluster – Pokfulam
|
Kowloon West Cluster – Tsuen Wan
|
|
Space
availability
|
· No extra space at ground level for helipad
· Existing buildings may not have spare structural
loading for helipad and helicopter landing; need additional structural
support to cater the loading
|
· No extra space at ground level for helipad
· Rooftop of New Block is available and can provide
sufficient structural loading for the helipad
|
· No extra space at ground level for helipad
· Existing buildings may not have spare structural
loading for helipad and helicopter landing; need additional structural
support to cater the loading
|
|
Environmental
Benefit/ Dis-benefit
|
Benefit:
· Minor construction activities involved
· Less NSRs in 300m from the hospital
|
Benefit:
· Minor construction activities involved
· Relatively far away from nearby NSRs, over 290m
· No NSRs at the east
· The elevation of rooftop helipad is higher than the nearby NSRs
|
Benefit:
· Minor construction activities involved
|
|
|
Dis-benefit:
· Noise impact on NSRs at all directions
· Many NSRs are at higher elevation than the roof of
the hospital
· NSRs are very close to the hospital, e.g. elderly
centre is within hospital boundary, residential development (Yoho Town, 200m
from hospital) and village houses
|
Dis-benefit:
· Noise impact on NSRs
|
Dis-benefit:
· Noise impact on NSRs at all directions
· Many NSRs are at higher elevation than the roof of
the hospital
· NSRs are very close to the hospital. The nearest one
(i.e. On Yue Building) is less than 20m from the hospital
· Noise impact on a larger population is anticipated
as many high-rise buildings are located adjacent to the hospital
|
2.3.2.7
In consideration of the above factors, QMH is the selected location
for installation of the helipad.
Development Options
2.3.2.8
With reference to Clause 3.3 of the EIA Study
Brief, alternative development options have been considered for the Project.
Consideration has been given to alternatives for:
·
Option 1: Adjacent hillside area of QMH;
·
Option 2: Existing vacant area within QMH;
·
Option 3: Rooftop of existing buildings in QMH;
·
Option 4a: Helipad siting at the centre of the rooftop
of New Block; and
·
Option 4b: Helipad siting at the north-east of the rooftop
of New Block.
Option 1: Adjacent Hillside Area of QMH
2.3.2.9
QMH is bounded by Pok Fu Lam Road and the surrounding hillside
area. Further to the northeast and east of the hillside
area are Lung Fu Shan Country Park and Pok Fu Lam Country Park respectively.
Situating/ placing the Proposed Helipad at the country
park area can provide certain screening effect to the construction and operation
of the Proposed Helipad by the nearby hilly topology and the existing buildings
in QMH. Noise impact on some NSRs may be reduced.
In addition, a delivery pathway will be required
between helipad and hospital. However, such construction
works of the pathway and operation of the Proposed Helipad may pose adverse
impact on the ecology of the surrounding hillside area.
Moreover it will still need some delivery time between the helipad and
hospital and hilly topography is not a preferred location for helicopter landing.
Therefore locating the Helipad at adjacent country parks is not considered.
Option 2: Existing Vacant Area within QMH
2.3.2.10
The helipad with 40m diameter would require a large and unobstructed
area for safe landing. Due to the number of buildings
and structures within the QMH, there is no such vacant land available for the
development of a ground-level helipad. This option is not possible.
Option 3: Rooftop of Existing Buildings in QMH
2.3.2.11
As there is no available space at ground level, it could only
consider to construct the helipad at the rooftop of building.
Majority of the nearby tall buildings are located at the south and west
of QMH. In consideration of flight operation safety,
these obstacles would create air turbulence and affect helicopter operations.
The helipad shall locate away from such objects in order to minimise
air turbulence in the vicinity of landing and take-off area.
Thus, an elevated location with adequate vertical clearance from surrounding
objects is preferred. Since the northern part of
QMH has a highest terrain and is far away from most of the NSRs, it would be
the preferred location of QMH for the construction of helipad.
2.3.2.12
In view of the structural consideration, there are difficulties
in providing a helipad on the rooftop of existing buildings as the existing
buildings have not been designed to cater for the landing of helicopters.
The structure of buildings is not capable of supporting the load of a
helipad and helicopter, so that landing of helicopter may cause vibration and
affect the medical equipment in the building. Therefore
building a helipad at existing building within QMH is technically not feasible.
Option 4a & 4b: Helipad Siting at the Centre
/ North-East of the Rooftop of New Block
2.3.2.13
Given that in QMH, the northern part of existing buildings of
Clinical Pathology Building (CPB), Houseman Quarters (HQ) and University Pathology
Building (UPB) are planned to be redeveloped as a single building constituting
27 levels above ground, the New Block would be the highest building among the
surrounding buildings as indicated in
Figure 2.3.
Helicopter operation in the Proposed Helipad siting at the rooftop of
the New Block will be free from obstacles, and thus the flexibility of flight
path selection is maximised. Also, the structure
of the New Block could be designed to cater for the loading of helipad and helicopter
in accordance with the latest design requirements.
Hence, the rooftop of New Block would be the preferred location for the
construction of helipad.
2.3.2.14
To further minimise the helicopter noise during the operational
phase upon the nearby NSRs, the Proposed Helipad has been positioned to the
north-east corner at the rooftop of the New Block (Option 4b).
Such position could increase the distance from the nearest NSRs to the
helipad and provide noise screening to some NSRs by the building structure of
New Block. Therefore, considering all these reasons
above, the helipad siting at the north-eastern side of rooftop of the New Block
of QMH is the most preferred location.
2.3.2.15
The alternative development options for the siting location of
the Proposed Helipad has been discussed above and summarised in
Figure 2.4
and Table 2.4 below.
Table 2.4
Alternative of Helipad Siting Locations
Alternative Options
of Helipad Siting
|
Preferable Option?
|
Comment
|
Option 1 - Adjacent Hillside Area of QMH
|
û
|
This
option is NOT suitable due to the operational constraints from helipad
to hospital and the possible ecological impact to the surrounding hillside
area.
|
Option 2 - Existing
Vacant Area within QMH
|
û
|
This option is NOT
considered due to insufficient vacant space in QMH for the Proposed
Helipad.
|
Option 3 - Rooftop of
Existing Buildings in QMH
|
û
|
This option is NOT
considered. The existing buildings in QMH was not designed for helicopter
landing and the building structure is unable to support the loading
of helipad and helicopter.
|
Option 4a - Helipad
Siting at the Centre of the Rooftop of New Block
|
û
|
The rooftop of New
Block will be the highest location in the QMH which provides a better
condition for helicopter landings and away from obstacles (Option 4a).
This option is more preferable.;
To further minimise
the noise impact, the positioning of the helipad is carefully considered.
Position the Proposed Helipad from centre to north-eastern side at rooftop
of New Block could increase the separation distance and provide noise
screening to some NSRs. Option 4b is selected.
|
Option 4b - Helipad
Siting at the North-East of the Rooftop of New Block
|
ü
|
Selection of Flight Sectors
2.3.2.16
The flight sector design for the Proposed Helipad shall allow
minimum impacts on the immediate surroundings and ensure flight safety which
was carefully investigated by the GFS. Various flight
sector options have been considered based on the associated noise impact on
noise sensitive receivers, terrain condition, obstacles clearance and other
ambient conditions such as wind and turbulence. Also,
the flight sector design shall avoid any downwind operations and minimise crosswind
operations which could undermine safety of the flight.
As the actual wind conditions will vary from time to time, the proposed
flight sectors shall allow sufficient flexibility to the flight crew in deciding
the most suitable and safe flight path for approaching and departure.
2.3.2.17
Four different flight sectors has been assessed including “North-west
(Zone 1)”, “East (Zone 2)”, “South (Zone 3)”, and “South-west (Zone 4)” based
on the distribution of NSRs and the surrounding condition over the study area
as indicated in
Figure 2.5.
The population distribution in the vicinity of the Project was also considered
for the selection of flight sectors and presented in
Figure 2.5.
2.3.2.18 Table 2.5 below presents the
considerations of each zone for flight sector selection. The information and
considerations presented in Table 2.5 are provided and confirmed
by GFS.
Table 2.5
Considerations of the Selection for Flight Sectors
|
Possible
Flight Sector
|
Estimated
Population within Approaching/ Departure Zone
|
Flight
Sector Condition and Considerations
|
Conclusion
|
|
Zone 1
|
about 850
|
·
Residential density
of Zone 1 is lower than Zone 4.
·
Helicopter approaching
and departure will not be affected under the prevailing wind direction
in Hong Kong (East).
|
Zone 1 is selected
as the flight sector for the Proposed Helipad.
|
|
Zone 2
|
0
|
·
The geographical
condition of the high ground and build up areas in the vicinity of the
helipad could induce flight safety concerns or potential disturbance
to the neighbourhood.
|
Helicopter operation
over Zone 2 is not recommended.
|
|
Zone 3
|
about 550
|
·
Residential density
of Zone 3 is lower than Zone 4.
·
Helicopter approaching
and departure will not be affected under the prevailing wind direction
in Hong Kong (East).
|
Zone 3 is selected
as the flight sector for the Proposed Helipad.
|
|
Zone 4
|
about 2800
|
·
High residential
density.
·
High-rise and low-rise
residential buildings as well as student halls and campus of HKU are
located in Zone 4.
|
Helicopter operation
over Zone 4 is not recommended.
|
2.3.2.19
Based on the above considerations for each flight sector zone,
North-west (Zone 1) and South (Zone 3) are selected by GFS as the optimum operation
zones for safe helicopter operations with minimum environmental impact to the
immediate surrounding.
Figure 2.6 presents the selected
flight sectors for the Proposed Helipad.
Figure 2.7 shows the aerial view of the
Project and the selected flight sectors.
Helipad Management Alternatives
2.3.2.20
The receiving site of medical emergency helicopters is managed
by HA. Under the classification of CASEVAC A+ case,
it should be reserved for patients who, in the professional opinion of the attending
doctor or nurse, that medical attention in a hospital-based A&E is necessary
and when the use of public transport is not appropriate.
This should include patients suffering from immediate life threatening
or limb threatening condition or emergency conditions where immediate response
from the GFS is essential.
2.3.2.21
Currently, unless otherwise specified, patients in CASEVAC A+
case will mostly be sent to the PYNEH especially for those patients from outlying
islands. Upon completion of the helipad in QMH,
the heli-services would be shared among the existing helipad facilities in TMH &
PYNEH and the new helipad in QMH.
2.3.2.22
However, in deciding the transportation of patients to which hospital
A&E by CASEVAC will depend on a number of factors including the proximity
of the hospital, the nature of the incident, the weather condition, and the
wind velocity etc. It should also taking into account
of the uniqueness of certain emergency medical cases.
Since QMH is the only hospital that can provide liver transplant, heart/lung
transplant and aortic dissection, neonatal with major procedure etc., immediate
response from the GFS is essential for these emergency medical cases.
Hence, management/ administrative measures that HA will take on the heli-service
diversion among the existing & planned hospitals very much depend on the
above mentioned factors and the professional opinion of HA and GFS.
HA will work closely with GFS in compliance with the aviation rules and
all relevant guidelines and the actual situation.
2.3.2.23 Table 2.6 presents the capability
of medical services in these three acute hospitals.
Table 2.6
Medical Services Capability in TMH, PYNEH and QMH
Hospitals
|
Capability of Medical
Services
|
TMH
|
·
An acute regional hospital
in New Territories West Cluster with about 1,800 number of beds
providing a comprehensive range of acute, ambulatory and community
services.
· Specialties
include anaesthesiology, dermatology, ear, nose & throat,
neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopaedics & traumatology,
paediatrics & adolescent medicine, ear, nose & throat, etc.
|
PYNEH
|
·
An acute regional hospital in Hong Kong East Cluster
with about 1,600 number of beds providing a full range of specialist
services.
· Specialties include
anaesthesiology, ear, nose & throat, neurosurgery, ophthalmology,
orthopaedics & traumatology, paediatrics & adolescent medicine,
ear, nose & throat, etc.
|
QMH
|
·
An acute regional hospital in Hong Kong West Cluster
and teaching hospital with about 1,600 number of beds. Also a territory-wide
tertiary and quaternary referral centre for many complex and advanced
services.
· Specialties include
anaesthesiology, cardiothoracic anaesthesiology, cardiothoracic surgery,
ear, nose & throat, liver transplant, neurosurgery, ophthalmology,
orthopaedics & traumatology, paediatrics & adolescent medicine,
paediatric cardiology, etc.
|
Type of Helicopters
2.3.2.24
The Government has purchased 7 new helicopters (i.e. Airbus H175)
to replace the current helicopters for “CASEVAC” operation, namely AS332 L2
“Super Puma” and EC155 B1 “Dauphin”. The new helicopters
will be operated with a lower noise level than that of the current AS332 L2
Super Puma and EC155 B1 Dauphin in general. Thus,
the helicopter noise impact would be lower than using “Super Puma” in future.
2.4
Project Implementation and Schedule
2.4.1.1
The project is implemented by ArchSD.
2.4.1.2
Construction of the helipad would involve line painting, supporting frame
installation and equipment installations in its final construction stage. The
structural works for the Proposed Helipad will take around 4 months and the
overall construction duration will be less than a year.
2.4.1.3
The operation, management and maintenance of the helipad will be undertaken
by HA. GFS will be the user of this helipad.
2.4.1.4
The tentative planning and implementation programme for the Project is
as follows:
·
Planning / Approvals and Detailed Design [early
2014 to end-2019]
·
Foundation work of the New Block of QMH [mid-2019 to end-2020]
(Not under the scope of this EIA)
·
Superstructure of the New Block of QMH
[end-2020 to 2022]
(Not under the scope of this
EIA)
·
Finishing and BS Installation Work of
[end-2022 to 2024]
the New Block of QMH
(Not under the scope of this
EIA)
·
Construction of the Proposed Helipad
[1 year between 2022 & 2024]
(about 4 months for structural works)
·
Helipad
Operation
[2024]
2.4.1.5
The construction and operation of the New Block will proceed independently
while the final decision on whether or not to proceed with the construction
and operation of the helipad at the rooftop is contingent upon whether or not
an Environmental Permit for the Proposed Helipad can be obtained under the EIAO. Hence,
the Proposed Helipad will make use of the rooftop of the New Block for its construction
and operation, it does not form an integral part of the New Block. Except
the development of the New Block in QMH, there is no other related project associated
with the Proposed Helipad.
2.5
Construction Method
2.5.1.1
According to the architectural layout approved in TFS, the Proposed
Helipad will be located at rooftop and at the north-eastern side of the New
Block. The elevated circular helipad has a diameter
of about 40m and the maximum projection from the supporting building below is
about 17m.
2.5.1.2
With reference to the “Helicopter Landing Site Specification Guidelines”
issued by GFS, the requirements on the construction method and material of helipad
are as below:
·
All materials used in the construction of the Proposed
Helipad should be non-combustible and fire retardant; and
·
The actual landing surface should be constructed of materials
that will not yield under hard landings.
2.5.1.3
In view of the above requirements, both structural steel and reinforced
concrete can be used in the construction of the Proposed Helipad.
It is reasonable to predict that the main structure of the Proposed Helipad
will be constructed by same material with the main building below, i.e. by reinforced
concrete. Although structural steel is also feasible,
additional cost will be required to provide fire protection to the steel members.
2.5.1.4
Based on the most updated information provided by the Project
Proponent, three methods for constructing the Proposed Helipad have been put
forward. The three methods are listed below:
·
Helipad constructed by in-situ concrete (Option 1)
·
Helipad constructed by steel structure prefabricated off-site
(Option 2)
·
Helipad main structure constructed by in-situ concrete
and cantilevered structure constructed by prefabricated steelwork (Option 3)
2.5.1.5
The merits and demerits of the above methods are presented in Table 2.7 below.
Table 2.7
Merits and Demerits of the Construction Methods for the Proposed Helipad
Alternatives Construction
Method
|
Merits
|
Demerits
|
In-situ concrete
|
·
Temporary formworks
and construction plants at lower floors can be re-used for helipad construction.
|
· A substantial temporary
steel platform will be required for the construction of the cantilevered
portion of the Helipad.
|
Steel Structure prefabricated
off-site
|
· Shortened construction
time in comparison to the in-situ option.
·
Construction of light-weight
steel structure requires a relatively smaller temporary steel platform.
|
· Higher construction
cost when compared to in-situ option.
· Temporary formworks
and construction equipment from lower floors cannot be re-used.
· Require another trade
of skilled labourers and additional construction equipment for erecting
steelwork structures.
|
Helipad main structure
constructed by in-situ concrete; cantilevered portion constructed by
prefabricated steelwork
|
· Temporary formworks
and construction plants at lower floors can be re-used for helipad construction.
· Shortened construction
time for cantilevered portion when compared to the in-situ option.
· Reduced scale of
temporary platform required for the construction of the cantilevered
portion of the Helipad due replacement of concrete with use of light-weight
steel structure.
|
· Require another trade
of skilled labourers and additional construction equipment for erecting
steelwork structures.
|
2.5.1.6
The environmental impact brought about by the proposed
construction methods are similar for the three methods. With consideration
to the nature of the proposed construction methods, costs and construction programme,
Option 3 (Helipad main structure constructed of concrete and cantilevered portion
prefabricated using steelwork) is the preferred construction method.
2.5.1.7
According to the preferred construction method (Option 3), the
main structure of the Proposed Helipad is likely to be constructed by in-situ
concrete. The safety walkway and access ramp may
be formed by prefabricated steel members in suitable size and weight and to
be assembled on site by welding or bolting.
2.5.1.8
The Project will engage a Design and Construction (D&C) contract
arrangement, the design and construction method of the Proposed Helipad will
be proposed and provided by the appointed contractor in future.
In this EIA report, the construction method and
material of the Proposed Helipad were provided based on reasonable assumptions
for assessment purpose only.
2.6
Concurrent and Interfacing Projects
2.6.1.1
Only one concurrent project has been identified within 500m of
the Site which is the finishing works and building services installation works
at the New Block of QMH. Cumulative environmental
impacts from the concurrent projects, if any, have been assessed in this EIA
report.
2.7
Consideration of “Without Project” Scenario
2.7.1.1
The “without project” scenario considers the implications of the
Proposed Helipad not providing at the rooftop of New Block at QMH.
2.7.1.2
Without the Project, emergency patients and casualties will continue
to be landed at PYNEH or TMH, but those landings may be precluded or restricted
due to adverse weather or safety consideration.
Currently, patients who require to be transferred to QMH through air transportation
should firstly be delivered to Wan Chai Heliport, and then transfer to QMH by
ambulance which may take up to 20 minutes transportation time.
Obviously, the above arrangement is unfavourable to the helicopter medical
emergency services and emergency patients.
2.7.1.3
As such, if the project is not implemented, it will be an undesirable
situation as the transfer of patients to hospital is unnecessarily prolonged
and causing a great impact on the emergency response services to patients with
life-threatening conditions.
2.8
Public Consultation and Comments
2.8.1.1
Two District Council Committees Meetings have been conducted to
collect comments to the development plan of QMH including the Proposed Helipad
at the proposed New Block in QMH, as listed below:
(i)
4th Meeting of the Culture, Leisure & Social Affairs Committee
(CLSAC) 2014-15 [Central & Western District Council (C&W DC)]; and
(ii)
17th Meeting of the Community Affairs and Tourism Development
Committee (CATC) [Southern District Council (2012-2015) (SDC)]
2.8.1.2
In the abovementioned District Council Committees Meetings, there
were some concerns about the possible adverse helicopter noise impact to the
residents and student halls in the vicinity of the Proposed Helipad location
at QMH. The possible helicopter noise impact on
noise sensitive receivers has been critically assessed and minimised as presented
in this EIA. Notwithstanding, some supports have been received from the meetings
due to its the benefits to the community and the enhancement of the casualty
services of GFS.
2.8.1.3
Public consultation was also conducted in February 2015 during
submission of the Project Profile for the application of an EIA study brief
(ESB-284/2015) for the Proposed Helipad issued under the Ordinance on 2 April,
2015 and also published on the EPD website.