11.1.1.1
This
section presents the cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for the
construction and operation of the Project, which has been conducted in
accordance with the criteria and guidelines as stated in Section 2 of Annexes
10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment
Process (EIAO-TM) as well as the requirements given in Clause 3.4.13 and
Appendix K of the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-319/2019). Appropriate mitigation measures are
recommended as necessary.
· Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
(A&MO) (Cap.53)
· Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap.499) and Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact
Assessment Process (EIAO-TM)
· Guidance Note on Assessment of
Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies
· Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
(HKPSG)
· Guidelines for Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment (GCHIA)
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (A&MO)
(Cap.53)
11.2.1.2
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.
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) and EIAO-TM Annexes 10,
18 and 19
11.2.1.3
The
EIAO was implemented on 1 April 1998. It
aims to avoid, minimise and control the adverse impacts on the environment of
designated projects, through the EIA process and the Environmental Permit (EP)
system.
11.2.1.4
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. Annex 18 describes the
methodology for assessment of landscape and visual impacts. Historic landscapes, sites or buildings of
culture heritage are landscape features that may contribute to the landscape
character of a site, which shall be considered when assessing impacts on
landscape elements.
Guidance Note on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in
Environmental Impact Assessment Studies
11.2.1.5
The
Guidance Note assists the understanding of the requirements of the EIAO-TM
in assessing impact on sites of cultural heritage in EIA studies.
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG)
11.2.1.6
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.
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (GCHIA)
11.2.1.7
The
document outlines the technical requirements for conducting terrestrial built
heritage and archaeological impact assessments.
A comprehensive CHIA comprises of 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.
11.3.1
General
11.3.1.1
The
CHIA is carried out in accordance with GCHIA, the requirements as stated in
Annexes 10 and 18 of the EIAO-TM and the EIA Study Brief, as well as
considerations in other relevant guidelines.
The assessment methodology for archaeological and built heritage impact
assessments is described in the following sections.
11.3.2
Assessment
Area
11.3.2.1
The
assessment area for the CHIA of this EIA Study covers the area within 300 m
from the site boundary of the Project as illustrated in Figure 11.1.
11.3.3.1
A
desktop review has been conducted to identify any built heritage resources based on examination on the following
resources:
· List of Proposed and Declared Monuments;
· List of the 1,444 Historic Buildings;
· List of new items for grading assessment;
· Government Historic Sites;
· Previous related EIA studies, publications and
monographs on relevant 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.
11.3.3.2
A
site visit has been conducted in the assessment area on 26th August
2020, to evaluate the current condition of the built heritage resources and
identify any additional built heritage resources that have not been covered by
the desktop review.
11.3.3.3
The
potential direct and indirect impacts that may affect the built heritages were
assessed by following the procedures and requirements of GCHIA and Annexes 10
and 19 of the EIAO-TM. The potential
impacts are classified into five levels of significance in
accordance with GCHIA:
a)
Beneficial
impact: the impact is beneficial
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 too 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 HIA Study. Further detailed study will be required for
the specific effects in question.
11.3.3.4
In
accordance to the EIA Study Brief, assessment of impacts on cultural heritage
shall also take full account of, and allow where appropriate, the Guidelines
for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Annex 18 of the TM.
11.3.3.5
Mitigation
measures are proposed in the CHIA for all affected built heritage resources to
minimise any adverse impacts when necessary.
11.3.3.6
If
there are any buildings / structures both at grade level and underground
considered to be of heritage value, AMO should be alerted in an early stage or
once identified.
11.3.4
Archaeology
11.3.4.1
A
desktop review has been conducted to identify any potential existence of
archaeological resources based on examination on the following resources:
· List
of Sites of Archaeological Interest;
· Previous related EIA studies and archaeological
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.
11.4.1
Geological
Background
11.4.1.1
Located
at Sha Tin, Fo Tan Nullah originates in Wo Sheung Tun
and is a tributary of Shing Mun River.
11.4.1.2
The
assessment area is mainly formed of coarse-grained biotite granite (“Jkt_gc”
as shown in Figure 11.2).
The superficial deposits in the assessment area mainly include alluvium
(“Qfa” as shown in Figure 11.2), marine sand (“Qhs”
as shown in Figure 11.2) and fill (Figure 11.2), as well as very narrow colluvium
(“Qd” and “Qcd” as shown in
Figure 11.2).
11.4.1.3
Fo Tan Nullah was once a part of the
natural river course flowing into Shing Mun River (Plate 1 in Appendix 11.1).
Due to the development Sha Tin New Town in 1970s, the coast of Tide Cove
was largely reclaimed and Shing Mun River was channelised and extended. The natural river course at the
Project site was also channelised along with Shing Mun River and had turned
into a concrete nullah (Plate 2 in Appendix 11.1).
11.4.2
Historical
Background
11.4.2.1
Clues
of human settlements in Hong Kong region can be found in historic textual
records such as Lushi Chunqiu and Hanshu written in the first century BC to
first century AD. These records describe
that Yue ethnic groups scattered in south China. During Qin dynasty (211-206BC), the region
was subordinated to Panyu County. And later Hong Kong region had been
subordinated to Xin’an County since AD1573 until AD1912 Xin’an
was renamed to Bao’an County.
11.4.2.2
Since
the 9th century onwards, Pearl River delta was an important salt
production centre. Hong Kong was one of
the salt production centres in Southern Song dynasty (AD1127-1279). Historic textual records Yudi
Jisheng and Songhuiyao
Jilu describe smuggling related to salt
production. Five major clans including
the Pangs, Lius, Haus, Mans and Tangs, settled in the
New Territories since the Southern Song dynasty.
Village settlements in Sha Tin can be dated no later than Wanli reign of the Ming dynasty. During Ming dynasty, Sha Tin was famous for
production of fragrant wood as recorded in Xin’an Gazetteer.
11.4.2.3
In
1661, the Coastal Evacuation Order was implemented by the Qing government. People lived in the coastal area of Guangdong
including the New Territories, were forced to move 25km inland. People were allowed to move back to the New
Territories in 1684 but the coastal population severely dropped. Thus, Hakka people were encouraged to move to
the New Territories in the late 17th century.
They developed villages at the hillside and practiced agriculture. Sha Tin Kau Yeuk
(“Alliance of Nine Districts”) was founded in late Qing dynasty. The alliance built the Che Kung Temple in Sha
Tin to commemorate Che Kung, who pacified the plague that killed many Sha Tin
people at that time.
11.4.2.4
The
villages of Sha Tin Kau Yeuk in vicinity of
the Project include Fo Tan, Pat Tsz Wo and Kwai Tei
of Fo Tan Yeuk.
Fo Tan is a Hakka village of Cheng clan. The Cheng clan from Wuhua,
Guangdong, moved Fo Tan during the Yongzheng reign, Qing Dynasty. Kwai Tei is a Hakka village of the Tsang clan
from Wuhua, Guangdong. It was named after the knoll nearby, called
Kwai Shan. Pat Tsz Wo is also a Hakka
village of single surname. The Lau clan
moved from Wuhua, Guangdong to Lok Lo Ha. A
branch of the Lau clan settled in Pat Tsz Wo. Pat Tsz Wo was demolished due to the development
of Fo Tan in the late 1970s. The government built the current Pat Tsz Wo
Village in Wo Liu Hang to compensate the
villagers.
11.4.2.5
During
the post-war period, population increases rapidly due to the immigration from
the Mainland and post-war baby booms. To
alleviate the crowding problems in the urban areas, the Public Works Department
(predecessor of the Development Bureau) prepared a comprehensive development
scheme to propose the development of a new town in Sha Tin in 1965. With the large-scale reclamation along Tide
Cove and Shing Mun River since the early 1970s, Sha Tin was developed into a
new town with population over 500,000.
11.5
Cultural
Heritage Sites within the Assessment Area
11.5.1
Built
Heritage
11.5.1.1
A
Declared Monument, the Old House, Wong Uk Village, is identified within 300m from the discharge area of Fo Tan Nullah, and it is located about 940m from
the site boundary (Figure 11.1).
No built heritage resource was identified within 300m from the site
boundary.
11.5.2
Archaeology
11.5.2.1
No
Site of Archaeological Interest (SAI) is identified within 300m from the site
boundary.
11.5.2.2
The
Project site is located at the current Fo Tan Nullah,
as well as Kwei Tei Street Garden, existing roads and
walkways. According to the topographic
maps of 1976 (Figure 11.3), the Project site was mainly
situated at the agricultural land and natural river course flowing into Shing
Mun River. The upper reach of the river
was at around +50mPD, middle reach at around +13mPD and lower reach at around
+2mPD. Part of the river close to the
river mouth was already channelised.
11.5.2.3
Due
to the development Sha Tin New Town in the 1970s, the river at the Project site
was significantly channelised and turned into the concrete nullah removing the
agricultural land. The nullah was at
similar elevation as the original natural river, with the upper reach at around
+50mPD, middle reach at around +10mPD and lower reach at around +4mPD. Modern buildings, roads and parks were
constructed along the nullah (Plate 2 in Appendix 11.1 and Figure 11.1).
Any archaeological deposits in the Project site would have been either
destroyed by the river channelisation and urban developments, or non-existent
due to its location at the rivercourse.
11.5.2.4
Furthermore,
historical villages in Fo
Tan, including Fo Tan, Pat Tsz Wo and Kwai Tei (to
the northwest of Pat Tsz Wo),
are located away from the Project site (Figure 11.3). Fo Tan
village remains intact from urban developments, while Pat Tsz Wo and Kwai Tei
were demolished.
11.5.2.5
The Project would not encroach on the historical villages or the
original locations of the historical villages that might have archaeological
potentials due to antiquity.
11.5.2.6
The
Project site is located at an area where archaeological potential is
non-existent or had been destroyed by river channelisation and urban
developments. Therefore, no
archaeological potential would be anticipated within the Project site.
11.6
Identification of Environmental Impacts
Built
Heritage
11.6.1.1
As
the proposed works are mostly situated within the Nullah and there is a
substantial separation distance between the Old House, Wong Uk
Village (Declared Monument) and the proposed works, no direct and indirect
impact would be anticipated for the Old House, Wong Uk
Village (Declared Monument) during the construction phase.
11.6.1.2
No
built heritage resource was identified within 300m from the site boundary. No direct and indirect impact would be
anticipated for built heritage during the construction phase.
Archaeology
11.6.1.3
As
no archaeological potential exists within the site boundary, and no SAI is
identified within 300m from the site boundary, no impact to archaeology would
be anticipated during the construction phase of the Project.
Built Heritage
11.6.2.1
No
built heritage is located within and in the vicinity of the Project site. No impact would be anticipated for built
heritage during the operation phase.
Archaeology
11.6.2.2
As
no archaeological potential exists within the site boundary, and no SAI is
identified within 300m from the site boundary, no impact to archaeology would
be anticipated during the operation phase of the Project.
11.7.1
Construction
Phase
11.7.1.1
No
impact on cultural heritage would be anticipated during the construction
phase. Therefore, no mitigation measures
would be required.
11.7.2
Operational
Phase
11.7.2.1
No
impact on cultural heritage would be anticipated during the operation
phase. Therefore, no mitigation measures
would be required.
11.8
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
11.8.1.1
No
Environmental Monitoring and Audit would be required for cultural heritage
during both the construction and operational phases.
11.9.1.1
A Declared
Monument, Old House, Wong Uk Village, is located
within 300m of the discharge area from the revitalised FTN, and located at
about 900m from the nearest site boundary.
As the proposed works are mostly situated within the FTN and there
is substantial separation distance between the Old House and the proposed works, no direct and
indirect impacts on the Old House would be anticipated during the construction
and operation phases of the Project.
11.9.1.2
As
no archaeological potential exists within the site boundary, and no SAI is
identified within 300m from the site boundary, no impact to archaeology would
be anticipated during the construction and operational phases of the Project.
11.10.1
Bibliography
Literature
Aerial Photo
Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department
(1963). Digital Aerial Photo
[photo]. 1:7800. 3,900 (ft).
1963-5421. Survey and Mapping
Office, Lands Department.
Survey and Mapping Office, Lands Department
(1986). Digital Aerial Photo
[photo]. 1:10000. 5,000 (ft).
CN01099. Survey and Mapping
Office, Lands Department.
Map
11.10.2
Glossary
|
Bao’an
|
寶安
|
|
Che
Kung
|
車公
|
|
Chik
Chuen Wai
|
積存圍
|
|
Coastal
Evacuation Order
|
遷界令
|
|
Fragrant
wood
|
香木
|
|
Hakka
|
客家
|
|
Hanshu
|
漢書
|
|
Haus
|
侯
|
|
Kwai
Shan
|
龜山
|
|
Kwai
Tei
|
龜地
|
|
Lius
|
廖
|
|
Lushi Chunqiu
|
呂氏春秋
|
|
Mans
|
文
|
|
Ming
dynasty
|
明朝
|
|
Pai
Tau Yeuk
|
排頭約
|
|
Pangs
|
彭
|
|
Panyu
|
番禺
|
|
Pat
Tsz Wo
|
拔子窩
|
|
Qin
dynasty
|
秦朝
|
|
Qing
|
清朝
|
|
San
Tin
|
新田
|
|
Sha
Tin Hoi
|
沙田海
|
|
Sha
Tin Kau Yeuk
|
沙田九約
|
|
Shing
Mun River
|
城門河
|
|
Song
dynasty
|
宋朝
|
|
Songhuiyao Jilu
|
宋會要輯錄
|
|
Tai
Wai Yeuk
|
大圍約
|
|
Tangs
|
鄧
|
|
Tin
Sam Yeuk
|
田心約
|
|
Tung
Lo Wan
|
銅鑼灣
|
|
Wai
|
韋
|
|
Wanli
|
萬曆
|
|
Xin’an
|
新安
|
|
Xin’an Gazetteer
|
新安縣誌
|
|
Yudi Jisheng
|
輿地紀勝
|
|
Yue
|
越
|