TABLE OF
CONTENTS
10 cultural heritage impact assessment
10.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines
10.6 Identification of Environmental Impacts
LIST OF FIGURES
|
Locations
of Cultural Heritage Resources |
|
|
Assessment
Area and the Historical Aerial Photographs (1963) |
|
|
Assessment
Area and the Historical Aerial Photographs of Proposed Temporary Works Area
(1984) |
|
|
|
|
LIST OF APPENDICES
|
Site
Photos |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.1.1
This section presents the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA)
findings of the Project. The assessment area for CHIA is 300m from the Project boundary
including works sites and works area. Cultural heritage resources within the
assessment area as shown in Figure No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/101 were identified and the potential
direct and indirect impacts resulting from the construction and operation of
the Project on the identified heritage resources were assessed. Appropriate mitigation measures were proposed
to alleviate the adverse impacts as necessary.
10.2.1
The assessment was carried out by referring to the following legislation,
standards and guidelines:
·
Antiquities and
Monuments Ordinance (A&MO) (Cap.53);
·
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap.499);
·
Technical Memorandum
on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM);
·
Guidelines for
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (GCHIA); and
·
Hong Kong Planning
Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG).
10.2.2
The Ordinance provides the statutory framework for the preservation of
objects of historical, archaeological and palaeontological interest and for
matters ancillary thereto or connected therewith. The Ordinance contains the statutory
procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. Under the Ordinance, a “monument” means
a place, building, site or structure which is declared to be a monument,
historical building or archaeological or paleontological site or structure
under Section 3 of the Ordinance.
10.2.3
The EIAO was implemented on 1 April 1998. It aims to avoid, minimize and control
the adverse impacts on the environment of designated projects, through the EIA
process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system.
10.2.4
Annexes 10 and 19 of EIAO-TM provide general criteria and guidelines for
evaluating the impacts to sites of cultural heritage. It is stated in Annex 10 that all
adverse impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage shall be kept to an absolute
minimum and that the general presumption of impact assessment shall be in
favour of the protection and conservation of all Sites of Cultural
Heritage. Annexes 19 provides the
scope and methodology for undertaking Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment,
including baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.
10.2.5
The Guidance Note assists the understanding of the requirements of the
EIAO-TM in assessing impact on sites of cultural heritage in EIA studies.
10.2.6
Chapter 10 of HKPSG covers planning considerations relevant to
conservation. It also details the
principles of conservation, the conservation of natural landscape and habitats,
declared monuments, historic buildings, sites of archaeological interest and
other heritage items, and addresses the issue of enforcement. The appendices list the legislation and
administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures
in Hong Kong, and Government departments involved in conservation.
10.2.7
The document outlines the technical requirements for conducting
terrestrial built heritage and archaeological impact assessments. A comprehensive CHIA comprises a
baseline study including both desk-top research and field evaluation, an impact
assessment associated with appropriate mitigation measures. The evaluation of impacts based upon
five levels of significance, including beneficial impact, acceptable impact,
acceptable impact with mitigation measures, unacceptable impact and
undetermined impact.
10.3.1
A desktop review was conducted to identify any cultural heritage
resources within the assessment area, with reference on the following
resources:
·
List of Proposed and Declared Monuments published
by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO)[1];
·
List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings[2] and list of new items for grading assessment[3] by the Antiquities Advisory Board;
·
Government Historic Sites[4];
·
List of Sites of Archaeological Interest[5] identified by the AMO;
·
Previous related EIA studies (e.g. Hung Shui
Kiu EIA Report[6]) and other archaeology and built heritage
reports;
·
Related publications and monographs on
relevant archaeological, historical and geographical issues;
·
Unpublished archival papers and records, and collection and libraries
of tertiary institutions; and
·
Geological and historical maps, aerial photos and relevant visual
archives.
10.3.2
A site visit was carried out in the assessment area on 17 May 2021 to
evaluate the current situation of the cultural heritage resources and identify
any additional built heritage resources that had not been covered by the
desktop review. Photo records taken
during the site visit are presented in Appendix 10.1.
10.3.3
The potential direct and indirect impacts that may affect the cultural
heritages during the construction and operational phases were assessed in
accordance with the procedures and requirements of GCHIA and Annexes 10 and 19
of the EIAO-TM. The potential impacts
were evaluated in accordance with the five levels of significance designated in GCHIA:
a)
Beneficial impact: if the Project will enhance the preservation of the
heritage site(s);
b)
Acceptable impact: if the assessment indicates that there will be no
significant effects on the heritage site(s);
c)
Acceptable impact with mitigation measures: if there will be some
adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large
extent by specific measures, such as conducting a follow-up Conservation Proposal
or Conservation Management Plan for the affected heritage site(s) before the
commencement of work in order to avoid any inappropriate and unnecessary
interventions to the buildings;
d)
Unacceptable impact: if the adverse effects are considered to be excessive
and are unable to mitigate practically; and
e)
Undetermined impact: if the significant adverse effects are likely, but
the extent to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be determined
from the Heritage Impact Assessment study.
Further detailed study will be required for the specific effects in
question.
10.4.1
The proposed works area is located on marine sand deposit. The area has then start reclamation
since 1975. On the other hand, the
proposed temporary works area at Mong Wing Street is located on fine to medium
grained granite[7].
10.4.2
According to the aerial photos taken in 1963, the proposed works area at Tuen Mun used to be a narrow and protected south-facing bay
(Figure No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/102 refers). During the new-town
development in the 1970s, the original river leading to the bay was channelized
to form the current Tuen Mun River and reclamation
works commenced at around the same time to form land in the northern portion of
the original Castle Peak Bay. On
the other hand, the proposed temporary works area at Mong Wing Street has undergone
major site formation works as seen on a 1984 aerial photo[8] (Figure
No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/103 refers).
10.4.3
According to Kangxi Xin’an Gazetteer (康熙新安縣誌)[9], the earliest historical record of Tuen Mun
can be traced back to Liu Song dynasty (AD420 - AD479) of the Southern Dynasties
in the description of the scenic view of Pui To Shan (杯渡山), i.e. the current Castle Peak. Pui To Monastery was established by a Buddhist
Monk named Pui To (杯渡禪師), which was later developed into
the current Tsing Shan Monastery (青山禪院).
10.4.4
According to New Book of Tang (新唐書)[10], Tuen Mun had grown into an important town for
trading activities and military defence since Tang dynasty. The Tuen Mun
Military Division (屯門兵鎮) with two thousand soldiers was
set up in AD 736 to strengthen the military defence power at sea[11]. The strategic position of Tuen Mun continued to Song dynasty (AD960 - 1279) when the Tuen Mun Battalion (屯門寨) was set up[12].
10.4.5
During the Qianlong (乾隆) reign (1736-1795) of the Qing dynasty,
Tuen Mun Battalion was converted into the Tuen Mun Naval Unit (屯門汛). The unit was dismissed in 1898
when the British occupied the New Territories[13].
10.4.6
Shek Kok Tsui (石角咀) Site of Archaeological Interest
(SAI) comprises two main components – the northern portion intrudes Wu Shan
Recreation Playground while the southern portion is located in the vicinity of
Hong Kong Jockey Club Tuen Mun Public Riding
School. The northern portion of the
Shek Kok Tsui SAI (hereinafter referred to as ‘Northern Shek Kok Tsui
SAI’) (Figure
No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/101 refers) was situated right on the original coastline before major
reclamation works started in the 1970s (Figure No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/102 refers).
10.4.7
Two excavations were conducted by the Hong Kong Archaeological Society[14] on the sand dune to the south of the current Wu Shan Recreation Playground
during late 1970 and early 1971. A
total of 21 test trenches were excavated. The average depth of deposit found
was between 0.2m and 0.5m below ground surface. Coarse ware, coarse corded, coarse
geometric, pebble picks, quartz ring waste flakes and polished stone implements
dated to Neolithic Age, kiln furniture and structural remains dated back to Sui
dynasty (AD581-AD618) were unearthed during the excavation.
10.4.8
Another salvage excavation was carried out in 1978[15] and 1979[16] on the northeast portion on the
sand dune (which original surface level was +4.7mPD to +5.4mPD) adjacent to the
current Wu Shan Recreation Playground.
Stone tools and pottery sherds from the Late Neolithic to Bronze Ages,
as well as kiln debris (lime or salt production) from Tang dynasty were
unearthed. At the time of the
excavation, the concerned sand dune still sat right by the original coastline
of the Castle Peak Bay.
10.4.9
Coarse-corded pottery sherds dated to Neolithic to Bronze Age were
observed on the cultivated areas within the Northern Shek
Kok Tsui SAI during a field
scanning of First Territory-wide Archaeological Survey in 1984. It was reported
that “all indications suggest that no significant in-situ archaeological
deposits remains”[17].
10.4.10
During the Second Territory-wide Archaeological Survey[18], a total of five hand auger holes and two test pits (in 2m by 1m) were
excavated around Wu Shan Recreation Playground. No archaeological deposit was recorded
in the survey.
10.4.11
According to the “Further Confirmatory Exploration
Works for Agreement No. CE 57/2017 (CE) Site Formation and Infrastructure Works
for Public Housing Developments at Tuen Mun Central – Investigation, Design and Construction: Final
Report” [19] (hereinafter refer to as “Final Report (2019)”) accepted by AMO in 2019,
an archaeological survey was conducted in March and
April 2016 at the committed public housing site at Wu Shan Road (Area 28)[20]. A total of seven test pits and 14
auger holes were excavated, and a total
number of 87 artefacts were unearthed in the survey area. Artefacts from Late Neolithic Period to
Bronze Age, Song dynasty and Qing dynasty artefacts were collected in the
survey, and an “Archaeological Remain Area” was identified in 2016. The Archaeological Remain Area was
further surveyed by field scan, auger holes and test pits in 2018 under the
Further Confirmatory Exploration Works.
It was concluded in Final Report (2019) that the
potential of finding in situ prehistoric cultural layer within the area
was deemed very low and no further archaeological work was therefore
required.
10.5.1
No built heritage was identified within the
proposed works sites / works areas. Only one nil-grade built heritage, Hau Kok Tin Hau
Temple (后角天后廟), located at Tin Hau Road was identified within the
assessment area at about 146m from the proposed works sites / works areas (Figure
No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/101 and Photos 10.1 and 10.2 of Appendix 10.1 refer). A
brief description of this built heritage is provided below:
Archaeology
10.5.2
The aerial photos taken in 1963
show the coastline before the reclamation works in the 1970s (Figure
No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/102 refers).
Based on Figure
No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/102, the proposed works sites / works areas in the east are located on reclaimed
land. The majority of the
assessment area is also on reclaimed land.
Within the 300m assessment area, the original terrestrial area was
identified to be located on the western bank of Tuen
Mun River.
10.5.3
Areas of alluvial, colluvial deposits or raised beach deposits are
usually where archaeological potential is identified. However, these areas have already been
occupied by existing urban development for industrial and residential uses
based on the relevant geological map published[22].
10.5.4
A small portion of the proposed alignment of the railway falls within Tuen Mun River Channel. However, dredging work were conducted along
the river channel[23], which had destroy any archaeological materials (if any). Therefore, there is no archaeological
potential in the underwater areas of the proposed alignment.
10.5.5
Areas covered by previous archaeological surveys are shown in Figure No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/102. Archaeological potential
was identified in the areas covered by the 1998 and 2016 archaeological surveys,
which included the Northern Shek Kok
Tsui SAI.
The archaeological finds from these surveys could be dated back to
prehistoric period to Song dynasty and Qing dynasty. This archaeological potential area located
at Wu Shan Recreation Playground (Photos 10.5 to 10.7 of Appendix 10.1 refer) is located at about 112m from the proposed works site / works
area. According to Further
Confirmatory Exploration Works Report (2019), archaeological survey conducted in 2016
at Wu Shan Recreation Playground identified an “Archaeological Remain Area”
located in the southwest of the knoll[24], and then confirmed in 2018 further confirmatory exploration works that
the potential of finding in situ prehistoric cultural layer within the area was
deemed very low. The site visit conducted
in May 2021 focused on this area only and no artefact was found in this area during
the visit.
10.5.6
Based on Figure
No. C1502/C/TME/ACM/M58/103, aerial
photo taken in 1984 shows construction works in and nearby the proposed
temporary works area at Mong Wing Street, which has undergone major site
formation, modified the original landscape. Any potential archaeological resources
would have been altered or disturbed by this event. Hence no archaeological potential exist
at the proposed temporary works area at Mong Wing Street.
Other Cultural Heritage Resources
10.5.7
There was no other cultural heritage resource identified
within the 300m assessment area during the site visit in May 2021.
Built Heritage
Archaeology
Other Cultural Heritage Resources
Built Heritage
Other Cultural Heritage Resources
10.8.2
As the proposed works sites / works
areas are on reclaimed land with no archaeological potential and are separated
from the nearest archaeological potential area by a considerable distance, neither
mitigation measures nor further archaeological actions are required. Nevertheless, the Contractor should
inform the AMO in case of discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in
the course of works, so that appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, can be
timely formulated and implemented in agreement with AMO.
Antiquities
and Monuments Office. Declared
Monuments in Hong Kong (as at 16 July 2021). https://www.amo.gov.hk/form/DM_Mon_List_e.pdf.
Antiquities
Advisory Board. Historic Building Appraisal-Hau Kok Tin Hau Temple, Tin Hau Road, Tuen Mun (Number 1221)
(as at 9 September 2021) https://www.aab.gov.hk/historicbuilding/en/1221_Appraisal_En.pdf
Antiquities
Advisory Board. List of the
1,444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results (as at 9 September 2021). https://www.aab.gov.hk/form/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.
Antiquities
Advisory Board. List of New
Items for Grading Assessment with Assessment Results (as at 9 September 2021). https://www.aab.gov.hk/form/list_new_items_assessed.pdf.
Antiquities
and Monuments Office. Government
Historic Sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2021). https://www.amo.gov.hk/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf?20.
Antiquities
and Monuments Office (2012). List
of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at Nov 2012). https://www.amo.gov.hk/form/list_archaeolog_site_eng.pdf.
Archaeological
Assessment Limited. (2019). Further Confirmatory Exploration Works for
Agreement No. CE 57/2017 (CE) Site Formation and Infrastructure Works for
Public Housing Developments at Tuen Mun Central –
Investigation, Design and Construction: Final Report.
Cameron,
H. (1978). Shek Kok Tsui, Castle Peak.
Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society, 7:131-133.
Civil
Engineering and Development Department (2016). Hung Shui Kiu New Development
Area – Environmental Impact
Assessment Report (Application No.: EIA-248/2016) (Register No.: AEIAR-203/2016).
Environmental Protection Department website. https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2482016/index.htm.
Geotechnical
Control Office. (1988). Hong Kong Geological Survey Tsing Shan Sheet 5:
Solid and Superficial Geology (1:20000). Hong Kong: Civil Engineering and
Development Department.
Lands
Department (1988). 56044 [Aerial Photo]. 1:5000. Hong Kong: Lands Department.
Marine
Department. (2018). Dredging Operations in Tuen
Mun River Channel, Tuen Mun. Hong Kong: Marine
Department https://www.mardep.gov.hk/en//notices/pdf/mdn18049.pdf
Peacock
and Nixon (1986). Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey, Vol.
III,. Part 1, Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office. (unpublished).
Peters,
H.A. & Bard, S.M. (1979). Shek Kok Tsui. Journal of the Hong Kong
Archaeological Society, 8:16-23
Salmon,
P. (1972). Shek Kok Tsui, Castle Peak. Journal of the Hong Kong
Archaeological Society, 3:18-23.
中山大學考古隊 (1998) 《香港屯門- 荃灣地區考古調查、發掘報告(1997-1998)》，香港：香港古物古蹟辦事處。
靳文謨 (1688) 《康熙新安縣誌》，輯於張一兵 編 (2006)《深圳舊誌三種》，深圳：海天出版社。
劉智鵬 (2003) 《屯門風物誌》，香港：屯門區議會。
劉智鵬 (2007) 《屯門歷史與文化》，香港：屯門區議會。
歐陽修、宋祁 (1060, 1975)《新唐書》，北京：中華書局。
饒玖才 (1998)《香港地名探索》，香港：天地圖書。
[1] Antiquities and
Monuments Office. Declared
Monuments in Hong Kong (as at 16 July 2021). https://www.amo.gov.hk/form/DM_Mon_List_e.pdf.
[2] Antiquities Advisory Board. List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings
with Assessment Results (as at 9 September 2021). https://www.aab.gov.hk/form/AAB-SM-chi.pdf.
[3] Antiquities Advisory Board. List of New Items for Grading
Assessment with Assessment Results (as at 9 September 2021). https://www.aab.gov.hk/form/list_new_items_assessed.pdf.
[4] Antiquities
and Monuments Office. Government
Historic Sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2021). https://www.amo.gov.hk/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf?20.
[5] Antiquities
and Monuments Office (2012). List
of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at Nov 2012).
[6] Civil Engineering and Development Department (2016). Hung
Shui Kiu New Development Area – Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Application No.:
EIA-248/2016) (Register No.: AEIAR-203/2016). EIAO website
https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2482016/index.htm.
[7] Geotechnical
Control Office. (1988). Hong Kong Geological Survey Tsing Shan Sheet 5: Solid
and Superficial Geology (1:20000). Hong Kong: Civil Engineering and Development
Department.
[9] 靳文謨 (1688) 《康熙新安縣誌》，輯於張一兵 編 (2006)《深圳舊誌三種》，深圳：海天出版社。
[10] 歐陽修、宋祁 (1060, 1975)《新唐書》，北京：中華書局。
[11] 饒玖才 (1998)《香港地名探索》，香港：天地圖書。
[12] 劉智鵬 (2007) 《屯門歷史與文化》，香港：屯門區議會。
[13] 劉智鵬 (2003) 《屯門風物誌》，香港：屯門區議會。
[14] Salmon, P. (1972). Shek Kok Tsui,
Castle Peak. Journal of the Hong Kong
Archaeological Society, 3:18-23.
[15] Cameron, H. (1978). Shek Kok Tsui,
Castle Peak. Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Society, 7:131-133
[16] Peters, H.A. & Bard, S.M.
(1979). Shek Kok Tsui. Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological
Society, 8:16-23
[17] Peacock and Nixon (1986). Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological
Survey, Vol. III, Part 1, Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Office. (unpublished).
[18] 中山大學考古隊 (1998) 《香港屯門- 荃灣地區考古調查、發掘報告(1997-1998)》，香港：香港古物古蹟辦事處。
[19] Archaeological Assessment Limited. (2019). Further
Confirmatory Exploration Works for Agreement No. CE 57/2017 (CE) Site Formation
and Infrastructure Works for Public Housing Developments at Tuen Mun Central –
Investigation, Design and Construction: Final Report.
[20] AECOM.(2016). Agreement No. CE15/2015 (CE)-Preliminary Development
Review for Housing Sites at Tuen Mun Central – Feasibility Study:
Archaeological Survey Report.
[21] Antiquities Advisory
Board. Historic Building Appraisal-Hau Kok Tin Hau Temple, Tin Hau Road,
Tuen Mun (Number 1221) (as at 24 May 2020).
https://www.aab.gov.hk/historicbuilding/en/1221_Appraisal_En.pdf
[22] Geotechnical
Control Office. (1988). Hong Kong Geological Survey Tsing Shan Sheet 5: Solid
and Superficial Geology (1:20000). Hong Kong: Civil Engineering and Development
Department.
[23] Marine
Department. (2018). Dredging Operations in Tuen Mun River Channel, Tuen Mun.
Hong Kong: Marine Department https://www.mardep.gov.hk/en//notices/pdf/mdn18049.pdf
[24] Archaeological Assessment Limited. (2019). Further Confirmatory Exploration Works for Agreement No. CE 57/2017 (CE) Site Formation and Infrastructure Works for Public Housing Developments at Tuen Mun Central – Investigation, Design and Construction: Final Report.