10
Cultural Heritage
10.1.1 This Section
presents the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) associated with the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with Clause 3.4.11 and
Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-338/2021.
10.2
Legislations and Guidelines
10.2.1 The relevant
legislations, standards and guidelines related to cultural heritage impact
assessment are identified, including but not limited to the following:
(a)
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (CAP.499), Technical Memorandum on Environmental
Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM), Annexes 10, 18 and 19;
(b)
Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance (CAP.53);
(c)
Hong Kong Planning Standards
and Guidelines (HKPSG);
(d)
Requirements for Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) from Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No.
ESB-338/2021; and
(e)
Guidelines for Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment.
10.2.2 Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (CAP.499)
(a)
Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM outlines the criteria for
assessment of impact on sites of cultural heritage. The general
presumption is in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of
cultural heritage. In addition, adverse impacts on sites of cultural
heritage shall be kept to the absolute minimum.
(b) Annex 18 of the
EIAO-TM outlines the general approach and methodology for assessment of
landscape and visual impacts which are applicable to visual impacts on built
heritage.
(c)
Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM outlines the approaches
required in investigating and assessing the impacts on sites of cultural
heritage. There is no quantitative standard in deciding the relative
importance of these sites, but in general, sites of unique archaeological,
historical or architectural value will be considered as highly
significant. Preservation in totality is preferred. If, due to site
constraints and other factors, only preservation in part is possible, this must
be fully justified with alternative proposals or layout designs, which confirm
the impracticability of total preservation.
10.2.3 Antiquities
and Monuments Ordinance (CAP.53)
(a)
The Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance (CAP.53) (A&M Ordinance) provides statutory protection against
the threat of development on Declared Monuments to enable their preservation
for posterity. The A&M Ordinance also establishes the statutory
procedures to be followed in making such a declaration.
(b) Any
person who discovers an antiquity, or supposed antiquity, is required to report
the discovery to the Antiquities Authority.
10.2.4 Hong Kong
Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG)
(a)
The Chapter 10, Conservation, of the HKPSG provides
general guidelines and measures for the conservation of historical buildings,
sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities.
10.2.5 Requirements
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
(a)
Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-338/2021
provides requirements for conducting cultural heritage impact assessment.
10.2.6 Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
(a)
The Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
provide guidelines to assist the understanding of requirements in assessing
impact(s) on Site of Cultural Heritage.
10.3
Assessment Methodology
10.3.1 According to
Clause 3.4.11.2 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-338/2021, the CHIA shall include
a Built Heritage Impact Assessment (BHIA) and an Archaeological Impact
Assessment (AIA) for the construction and operation of the Project and the assessment area for cultural heritage
impact assessment (CHAA) is defined as an area within 500m from the boundary of
the Project area (i.e. the boundary of Works Area of the Project) (see Figure
10.1 for the CHAA). The CHIA comprises the
following tasks:
Baseline Study
10.3.2 A desktop
review was conducted based on best available information such as relevant
previous studies and background of the site held by Government departments,
public libraries and the Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre Reference Library
to identify the known and unknown built heritage items including declared monuments,
proposed monuments, sites and buildings graded by the Antiquities Advisory
Board (AAB), sites of archaeological interest or Government historic sites
identified by AMO within the CHAA. The Bibliography is provided in Section
10.10.
Built Heritage Survey
10.3.3 A built
heritage survey was conducted to identify known and unknown built heritage
items in the CHAA that may be affected by the Project and its associated
works. The findings are summarised in Section 10.4 and detailed in
Appendices 10.1 and 10.2.
10.3.4 The coding
method for the recording of built heritage resources used is as follows:
·
Graded historic buildings and new items for grading
assessment (GB); and
·
Additional surveyed Built Heritage Items with no
grading including buildings, structures, features and sites. (BH).
Archaeological Survey
10.3.5 According to
Clause 2 of Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-338/2021, the scope of
AIA study presented in the AIA Working Paper was submitted to the AMO and Environmental Protection Department
(EPD) prior to the commencement of the assessment. It was concluded in
the Report that archaeological survey is not required. Details are
discussed in Section 10.4.
Impact Assessment
10.3.6 Based on the
findings and analysis from (a), (b) and (c), a CHIA including AIA and BHIA for
the construction and operation of the Project was conducted to assess the
direct and indirect impacts on the identified built heritage items. Based
on the identified impact on built heritage items, if any, appropriate
practicable mitigation measures and monitoring to avoid or keep the adverse
impact to the minimum would be recommended. A
checklist including all the affected archaeological resources, impacts
identified, recommended measures as well as the implementation agent and period
were included in the environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) section of
the EIA report. The CHIA was conducted according to Annexes 10 and 19 of
the TM and the Requirements for CHIA in Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No.
ESB-338/2021. As no archaeological survey is
required, AIA was conducted based on desktop review, and its result was
presented in Section 10.5 below as part of the EIA report for the
Project.
Topographical
Background
10.4.1 The CHAA is
situated in urban area in Fanling-Sheungshui of the North District, in the
northeastern part of New Territories and Hong Kong. The general area lies in
valley and terraced alluvial plain extending from Shenzhen in the north to Tai
Po at the head of Tolo Harbour towards the southeast. The CHAA lies on
the alluvial plain and valley of Fanling with lower topography, and it slightly
steps up northward and southward with higher alluvial terrace. It is bounded to
the south and southwest by hills like Kong Hill, Po Leng Au, Pei Tau Ling Kok
and higher ground in Sheung Shui area to the north.
10.4.2 The Works
Area of the Project is located in an area with developed existing roads,
including the So Kwun Po Interchange (SKPIC) along So Kwun Po Road between San
Wan Road and Pak Wo Road, Po Wing Road, Kat Cheung Crescent and a section of
the East Rail Line and Fanling Highway in the North District. The area is
also surrounded by developed residential land use including Sheung Shui Centre
in the north, Tai Ping Estate in the west, Vienna Garden and Cheerful Park in
the south.
Historical
Background
10.4.3 Clues of
human occupation in the Fanling-Sheungshui area can be found in historic
textual records such as Shiji (史記) and Hanshu (漢書) written in the first to second century A.D.. These records
describe that Yue (越) ethnic groups (also called Hundreds of Yue (百越))
scattered around South China. Such ethnic groups are comprised of
different tribes bearing various surnames and can be differentiated from the
Han ethnic group who lived in central China in terms of physical
characteristics, language, and folklore (Arup, 2013).
10.4.4 Since the 8th
century (during Tang dynasty AD 618 907), Tolo Harbour was the main pearl
harvesting centre in China. From the 9th century onward, Pearl
River area (including Hong Kong) was an important salt production centre.
Especially in Southern Song dynasty (AD 1127-1279), Hong Kong was one of the
thirteen salt production centres of China. Historic textual records such
as Yudi Jisheng (輿地紀勝) and Songhuiyao Jilu (宋會要輯錄)
describe smuggling related to salt production. The north New Territories
area gradually turned into a settlement place and agricultural land to supply
food to deal with the increasing population growth attributed to the prevalent
salt production industry (Arup, 2013).
10.4.5 According to
oral history and local genealogical records, a wave of immigrants migrated into
the north New Territories area from mainland China during Mongols conquer to
Southern Song Court. Study of local genealogy indicates that five major
clans, namely, the Pangs, the Lius, the Haus, the Mans and the Tangs, were
groups of settlers in the north New Territories during Southern Song period
(Chan 2006).
10.4.6 In 13th
century, the Pangs, the Haus, and the Lius moved into the Fanling-Sheungshui
area and its adjacent areas. The Pangs inhabited in Lung Yeuk Tau (龍躍頭)
in Fanling in A.D. 1220 of Southern Song Dynasty. At that time, Pang Kwei
(彭桂) moved from Lung Yeuk Tau and settled in Fanling Wai, became the
founder of Fan Ling Lau (粉嶺樓) (AMO website).
10.4.7 During the
late 17th to early 18th centuries, Hakka people from
Guangdong province were encouraged to move into the north New Territories area
owing to the sharp decline in population after coastal evacuation in the 17th
century. Ng Uk Tsuen was established by those Hakka people in 18th
century as a settlement (AMO website).
Built Heritage
10.4.8 According to
the built heritage survey, no declared monuments, proposed monuments or
Government historic sites are identified within the CHAA.
10.4.9 One Grade 1
(Pang Ancestral Hall), one Grade 2 (Tsz Tak Study Hall) and six Grade 3
historic buildings are identified. They are listed in Table 10.1
and their locations are shown in Figure 10.1. Detailed
descriptions and photographic records are provided in Appendix 10.1.
Table 10.1
Identified Graded Historic Buildings within the CHAA
|
Site
Code
|
Name
|
Approximate
Closest Distance to boundary of Works Area (m)
|
|
Grade 1 historic buildings
|
|
GB-01
|
Pang Ancestral Hall
|
340
|
|
Grade 2 historic
buildings
|
|
GB-02
|
Tsz Tak Study Hall
|
380
|
|
Grade 3 historic
buildings
|
|
GB-03
|
No.5
Ng Uk Tsuen
|
110
|
|
GB-04
|
Sam
Shing Temple (Fanling Wai)
|
110
|
|
GB-05
|
Watchtower
(Northwest), Fanling Wai
|
250
|
|
GB-06
|
Fanling
Wai, Entrance Tower
|
250
|
|
GB-07
|
Watchtower
(Southwest), Fanling Wai
|
250
|
|
GB-08
|
ELCHK
Gloria Lutheran Church
|
420
|
10.4.10 For built heritage items with
no grading, BH-01, BH-02, BH03 and BH-04 (BH-04: Fanling Wai Site with 31 items
(BH-04-1 to BH-04-31) comprising wells, shrines, cannons and village houses,
details refer to Appendix 10.2) have been identified
within the CHAA. They are listed in Table 10.2. Their
locations are shown in Figure 10.1, with detailed
descriptions and photographic records provided in Appendix 10.2.
Table 10.2
Identified Built Heritage Items with No
Grading
|
Site Code
|
Name
|
Approximate Closest Distance to boundary of Works Area (m)
|
Figure
Reference
|
|
BH-01
|
Shrine, So Kwun Po Tsuen
|
20
|
Figure 10.1
|
|
BH-02
|
Village House No. 11, Kai Leng
|
180
|
Figure 10.1
|
|
BH-03
|
Cheung
Ancestral Hall, Kai Leng
|
190
|
Figure 10.1
|
|
BH-04
|
Fanling Wai Site
(details refer to Appendix 10.2)
|
250
|
Appendix 10.2
|
Geological Condition
10.4.11 The solid geology of the CHAA
consists of Tai Mo Shan Formation with feldspar and quartz crystals, with some
dark green biotite, and lithic lapilli of pale sandstone. The superficial
deposit includes quaternary alluvium (clay, silt and sand), terraced alluvium
and debris flow deposit (dune sand). Details are shown in Figure 10.2 (CEDD, 2020).
Archaeological
Background
10.4.12 A part of the Po Leng SAI is
found within the CHAA, and it lies on the terrace south of Ching Ho Estate, at
a distance of about 450m from the works boundary of the Project (see Figure 10.1). The Po Leng SAI includes a large area of cultivated land
with a gentle slope from the south (ca. 25.6mPD) to the north (ca. 11.5mPD) and
three hillocks: Chong Tsin Leng (34.4mPD), Po Leng (38.9mPD) and a nameless
hillock (31.2mPD). The majority of the low-lying area has been used for
cultivation and currently sparse structures are built in the fields or around
the hillocks. The hillocks are covered in vegetation with graves set in the
mid-level slopes. A Field investigation was conducted in 1999 with twelve auger
tests and a test pit excavation, a few Tang and Song dynasty ceramic sherds
were found in the northwest tip of the SAI. (WSP, 2022)
Archaeological
Potential Evaluation
10.4.13 The key elements of the
proposed works that may involve ground excavation work for the Project include
the following:
(a) Construction of
the new So Kwun Po Link (SKPL), comprising an at-grade road, an underpass, a
single 2-lane flyover (main ramp) and a single 1-lane flyover (side ramp)
connecting San Wan Road on the north side of SKPL and Pak Wo Road on the south
side of SKPIC, which involve piling, pile cap construction, road building work
and diversions of utilities;
(b) Realignment of So
Kwun Po Road between SKPIC and Po Wing Road involving road building work and
diversions of utilities;
(c) Junction
modification works at San Wan Road and Po Wing Road involving road building
work and diversions of utilities;
(d) Reprovisioning of
the affected footpaths, cycletracks and staircases; and
(e)
Associated roadworks, geotechnical works, landscape
works, drainage works, utility works, traffic aids installation, traffic signal
modification works, environmental mitigation measures, street lighting and
street furniture, and other ancillary works.
10.4.14 Based on the baseline review result
and the key elements that may involve ground excavation work for the Project,
the archaeological potential within the boundary of Works Area has been
evaluated and presented in Table 10.3.
Table
10.3
Archaeological Potential Evaluation within the boundary of Works Area of the
Project
|
Existing Condition and Geology
(see Figure 10.2)
|
Archaeological Potential Evaluation
|
|
Proposed new SKPL
(location refer to Proposed Road Link in Figure 10.1 and 10.2)
|
|
·
Along or
by existing Road
·
Geology
Condition: Qpa
|
The proposed work is mainly located
along or by existing roads, including SKPIC, San Wan Road, So Kwun Po Road and Pak
Wo Road.
These existing roads underwent construction works with
high level of ground disturbance, therefore, no archaeological potential is expected.
|
|
Proposed Road
Modification Works
(locations
refer to Associated Road Modification Works in Figure 10.1 and 10.2)
|
|
·
Along or
by existing Road
·
Geology
Condition:
Qa, Qpa and Qpd
|
The proposed work includes
realignment of So Kwun Po Road, junction modification works at San Wan Road
and Pak Wo Road, and associated road works at Po Wing Road. These works are
mainly located along or by existing roads, including So Kwun Po Road, San Wan Road, Pak
Wo Road and Po Wing Road. These are existing roads that contain no archaeological
potential.
|
|
Note:
(a) Qa Alluvium; Qpd Debris
flow deposits; Qpa Terraced Alluvium.
|
10.4.15 As presented in Table 10.3,
the proposed new SKPL and associated road modification works including
realignment of So Kwun Po Road, junction modification works at San Wan Road and
Pak Wo Road, as well as associated road works in Po Wing Road are located in
area without archaeological potential. Therefore, no archaeological
survey is required.
10.5 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
Archaeological
Impact Assessment
Construction Phase
10.5.1 No
excavation works of the Project are proposed in or adjacent to the Po Leng SAI,
therefore no adverse archaeological impact due to the proposed works is
anticipated.
10.5.2 As evaluated
in Section 10.4.13 to 10.4.15 above, the boundary of Works Area
are of no archaeological potential, potential impact on archaeological
resources is not anticipated.
Operation Phase
10.5.3 No
excavation works of the Project will be involved during operation phase,
therefore no adverse archaeological impact is anticipated.
10.5.4 As evaluated
in Section 10.4.13 to 10.4.15 above, the proposed new roads and
road modifications are located in areas of no archaeological potential,
potential impact on archaeological resources is not anticipated.
Built Heritage
Impact Assessment
Construction Phase
10.5.5 All of the
graded historic buildings listed in Table 10.1 are located at least 110m
from the works boundary of the Project. Due to considerable separation distance
between the proposed works and graded historic buildings, no direct impact is
anticipated.
10.5.6 Potential
direct and indirect impacts to the no grading built heritage items BH-02, BH-03
and BH-04 identified and listed in Table 10.2 are not anticipated due to
considerable separation distance (over 180m) between the proposed works and
built heritage items.
10.5.7 For BH-01,
although it is located relatively closer (about 20m) to the boundary of Works
Area, potential direct and vibration impacts are not anticipated as the closest
major underground construction works like piling and piling cap construction
are located around 300m away.
10.5.8 No indirect
impact from construction vibration to the mentioned graded historic buildings
listed in Table 10.1 is anticipated due to considerable separation
distance (over 110m) from the works boundary of the Project, piling and pile
cap construction, vibrations caused by construction (e.g. piling
works) and the possible impact would be insignificant. In addition, the proposed
road modification works such as slope work, decommission and reprovision of
cycletracks and footpath are considered minor, and thus no
indirect impact is anticipated.
Operation Phase
10.5.9 No direct or indirect impacts
are anticipated from the proposed new roads and road modification during the
operation phase.
Archaeological Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase
10.6.1 A part of
the Po Leng SAI is found within the CHAA, at a distance of about 450m from the
boundary of Works Area of the Project. No excavation works of the project will
exist in or adjacent to the SAI, therefore no adverse archaeological impact due
to the proposed development is anticipated and thus, no mitigation measure is
required.
10.6.2 No
archaeological potential area has been identified within the boundary of Works
Area of the Project, and no archaeological impact arising from the proposed
work is anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation measure is required.
10.6.3 As a
precautionary measure, the project proponent and his/her contractor are
required to inform AMO immediately when any antiquities or supposed antiquities
under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (CAP.53) are discovered during
the course of works.
Operation Phase
10.6.4 No
excavation works will be involved during the operation phase of the Project, no
adverse archaeological impact is anticipated. Thus, no mitigation measure is
required.
Built Heritage
Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase
10.6.5 Since no
declared or proposed monuments and government historic sites identified by AMO
have been identified, no mitigation measure is required.
10.6.6 Eight graded
historic buildings identified in the CHAA are located over 110m from the
boundary of Works Area. Due to considerable separation distance between the
proposed works and graded historic buildings, no direct impact is anticipated.
No mitigation measure is required.
10.6.7 Potential
direct impact to the no grading built heritage items BH-02, BH-03 and BH-04
identified and listed in Table 10.2 is not anticipated due to
considerable separation distance (over 180m) between the proposed works and
built heritage items. No mitigation measure is required.
10.6.8 Although
BH-01 is located relatively closer (about 20m) to the boundary of Works Area,
potential direct and vibration impact are not anticipated as the closest major
underground construction works like piling and piling cap construction are
located around 300m away. Thus, no mitigation measure is required.
10.6.9 No indirect
impact from construction vibration to the mentioned graded historic buildings
listed in Table 10.1 is anticipated due to considerable separation
distance (over 110m) from the works boundary of the Project, piling and pile
cap construction, vibrations caused by construction (e.g. piling works) and the
possible impact would be insignificant. Moreover, the proposed road
modification works are considered minor, and no indirect impact is anticipated.
However, it is recommended to monitor any vibration and
building movement induced by the proposed works on the graded historic
buildings (GB-03), which is closest to the boundary of the Works Area, as well
as on the Grade 1 historic building (GB-01). This will ensure that there are no
negative impacts from vibration on the graded historic buildings.
Operation Phase
10.6.10 No direct or indirect impacts
are anticipated from the proposed new roads and road modification during the
operation phase. No mitigation measure is required.
10.7
Residual and Cumulative Impacts
10.7.1 With the
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, no adverse residual
cultural heritage impact is anticipated.
10.7.2 No
cumulative cultural heritage impact is anticipated.
10.8
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
Archaeology
Construction Phase
10.8.1 As a
precautionary measure, the project proponent and his/her contractor are
required to inform AMO immediately when any antiquities or supposed antiquities
under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (CAP.53) are discovered during
the course of works.
Operation Phase
10.8.2 No
excavation works of the Project will be involved during operation phase, so no
adverse archaeological impact is anticipated. Thus, no EM&A is required.
Built Heritage
Construction Phase
10.8.3 No direct
and indirect impacts from construction vibration to the mentioned graded
historic buildings listed in Table 10.1 and no grading built heritage
items BH-02, BH-03 and BH-04 listed in Table 10.2 are anticipated due to
considerable separation distance (over 110m) from the works boundary of the
Project, piling and pile cap construction, vibrations caused by construction
(e.g. piling works) and the possible impact would be insignificant. Moreover,
the proposed road modification works are considered minor. For BH-01, although
it is located relatively closer (about 20m) to the boundary of Works Area,
potential direct and vibration impacts are not anticipated as the closest major
underground construction works like piling and piling cap construction are
located around 300m away. However, it is recommended to
monitor any vibration and building movement induced by the proposed works on
the graded historic buildings (GB-03), which is closest to the boundary of the
Works Area, as well as on the Grade 1 historic building (GB-01). This will ensure
that there are no negative impacts from vibration on the graded historic
buildings.
Operation Phase
10.8.4 No direct or
indirect impacts are anticipated from the proposed new roads during the
operation phase. No EM&A is required.
10.9.1 A part of
the Po Leng SAI is found within the CHAA, at a distance of about 450m within
the boundary of Works Area of the Project. No excavation works of the project
will exist in or adjacent to the SAI, therefore no adverse archaeological impact
due to the proposed development is anticipated and thus, no mitigation measure
is required.
10.9.2 No
archaeological potential area has been identified within the boundary of Works
Area. No archaeological impact is anticipated and thus no mitigation
measure is required.
10.9.3 As a
precautionary measure, the project proponent and his/her contractor are
required to inform AMO immediately when any antiquities or supposed antiquities
under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (CAP.53) are discovered during
the course of works.
10.9.4 Desktop
review supplemented by built heritage survey identified no declared or proposed
monuments and government historic sites identified by AMO in the CHAA.
Thus, no mitigation measures is required.
10.9.5 Eight graded
historic buildings identified in the CHAA are located over 110m from the
boundary of Works Area. Due to considerable separation distance between
the proposed works and graded historic buildings, no direct impact is
anticipated. No mitigation measure is required.
10.9.6 Potential
direct impact to the no grading built heritage items BH-02, BH-03 and BH-04
identified and listed in Table 10.2 is not anticipated due to
considerable separation distance (over 180m) between the proposed works and
built heritage items. No mitigation measure is required.
10.9.7 For no
grading built heritage item BH-01, although it is located relatively closer
(20m) to the boundary of Works Area, potential direct and vibration impacts are
not anticipated as the closest major underground construction works like piling
and piling cap construction are located around 300m away.
10.9.8 No indirect
impact from construction vibration to the mentioned graded historic buildings
listed in Table 10.1 is anticipated due to considerable separation
distance (over 110m) from the works boundary of the Project, piling and pile
cap construction, vibrations caused by construction (e.g. piling works) and the
possible impact would be insignificant. Moreover, the proposed road
modification works are considered minor. However, it is
recommended to monitor any vibration and building movement induced by the
proposed works on the graded historic buildings (GB-03), which is closest to
the boundary of the Works Area, as well as on the Grade 1 historic building
(GB-01). This will ensure that there are no negative impacts from vibration on
the graded historic buildings.
10.9.9 The
operation phase of the Project does not involve any excavation works. No
cultural heritage impact is anticipated and thus, no mitigation measure is
required.
English
B.A.V. Peacock
1985. Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey. (Unpublished)
Chinese
陳國成，2006 《香港地區史研究之三：粉嶺》，香港：三聯書店
Antiquities and Monuments Office.
2022. Declared monuments in Hong Kong (as of 20 May 2022); [information
online]; available from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/DM_Mon_List_e.pdf; internet; access on 10 May 2023.
Antiquities and Monuments Office. 2022.
Government Historic sites Identified by AMO (as at May 2022); [information on
line]; available from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/build_hia_government_historic_sites.pdf; internet ; access on 10 May 2023.
Antiquities and Monuments Office.
2022. List of the 1444 Historic Buildings with Assessment Results (as at
9 March 2023); [information on line]; available from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/AAB-SM-chi.pdf; internet; access on 10 May 2023.
Antiquities and Monuments Office.
2022. List of new items for grading assessment with assessment results
(as at 9 March 2023); [information on line]; available from https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/en/content_29/list_new_items_assessed.pdf; internet; access on 10 May 2023.
Antiquities and Monuments Office.
2022. List of Sites of Archaeological Interest in Hong Kong (as at Nov
2012) [information on line]; available from https://www.amo.gov.hk/filemanager/amo/common/form/list_archaeolog_sites.pdf; internet; access on 10 May 2023.
CEDD, 2020. Tai Mo Shan Formation.
[available from:
https://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/about-us/organisation/geo/pub_info/memoirs/geology/vol/jtm/index.html,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
Maunsell Consultants Asia Ltd, 2001. Planning and
Development Study on North East New Territories; Technical Paper 13: Environmental
Impact Assessment Draft Final Assessment Report. [available from:
https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report-bc/eia116/fr.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
Binnie Black &
Veatch Hong Kong Limited, 2002. Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line EIA
Report. [available from: https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_0712001/Index.htm
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
Arup, 2013. North East New Territories New
Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study Investigation Final
Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
[available from: https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2132013/eia/html/ch11.htm,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
CEDD, 2019. Technical Study on Partial
Development of Fanling Golf Course Site - Feasibility Study.
[available from:
https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/profile/latest/esb318/esb318.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
Pang Ancestral Hall, Fanling Pak Wai, Fanling.
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/99_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
Watchtower (southwest), Fanling Wai, Fanling
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/979_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
Entrance Tower, Fanling Wai Fanling
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/978_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
Watchtower (northwest), Fanling Wai, Fanling
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/980_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
No. 5 Ng Uk Tsuen, Sheung Shui, N.T.
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1055_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
ELCHK Gloria Lutheran Church No. 270 Jockey Club Road, Fanling, New
Territories.
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/998_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
Sam Shing Temple Fanling Wai, Fanling.
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/1070_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
AMO Website. Historic Building Appraisal:
Tsz Tak Study Hall Fanling Wai, Fanling.
[available from:
https://www.aab.gov.hk/filemanager/aab/common/historicbuilding/en/520_Appraisal_En.pdf,
Accessed on 10 May 2023]
WSP (Asia) Ltd, 2022. EIA Report for
Agreement No. CE 17/2019 (CE) Technical Study on Partial Development of Fanling
Golf Course Site Feasibility Study.
https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_2822022/Chapter%2012/CE17_2019_EIA_Ch12%20CHIA.htm, Accessed
on 10 May 2023.