10.2
Environmental Legislation, Standards, and
Guidelines
10.2.1
The relevant legislations, standards and
guidelines applicable to present study for the assessment of cultural heritage
impact include:
·
Antiquities
and Monuments Ordinance (A&MO) (Cap.53)
·
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap.499)
·
Annex
10 of the EIAO-TM, Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape Impact, and
Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage;
·
Annex
19 of the EIAO-TM, Guidelines for Assessment of Impact On
Sites of Cultural Heritage and Other Impacts;
·
Guidance
Notes on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in Environmental
Impact Assessment Studies (GN-CH); and
·
Hong
Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG);
·
Proposed
Grading and Graded Historic Building Classification;
·
Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment issued by the Antiquities and Monuments
Office (GCHIA)
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape
Impact, and Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage
10.2.7
This technical memorandum is issued under section 16
of the EIAO. Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM lists out the criteria for evaluating
impact on sites of cultural heritage including:
·
The
general presumption in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites
of cultural heritage because they provide an essential, finite
and irreplaceable link between the past and the future and are points of
reference and identity for culture and tradition.
·
Adverse
impacts on sites of cultural heritage shall be kept to the absolute minimum.
Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM, Guidelines for
Assessment of Impact On Sites of Cultural Heritage and
Other Impacts
Guidance Notes on Assessment of Impact
on Sites of Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
10.2.13
The HKPSG is a Government
manual of criteria for determining the scale, location and site requirements of
various land uses and facilities. As planning standards and guidelines could
affect the allocation of scarce land and financial resources, they should be
applied with a degree of flexibility. Trade-offs may be necessary so that the
community at large could benefit most from the development. Environmental
factors and criteria have to be incorporated into the
land use planning process in order to prevent adverse environmental problems.
Guidance for environmental planning of both public and private developments was
given in these guidelines and the guidelines may be applied at three broad
planning levels: strategic/territorial, sub-regional and district/local
planning.
Proposed Grading and Graded Historic Building Classification
·
Grade
1: Buildings of outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to
preserve if possible.
·
Grade
2: Buildings of special merit; efforts should be made to selectively preserve.
·
Grade
3: Buildings of some merit; preservation in some form would be desirable and
alternative means could be considered if preservation is not practicable.
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment issued by the
Antiquities and Monuments Office
Terrestrial Archaeology and Built Heritage
10.3.1
The Project
boundary of this project is separated into the following
areas, this includes the three villages of TYST(唐人新村), Fui Sha Wai (灰沙圍) and
Shan Ha Tsuen(山下村), Tan
Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村) and
Tai Tao Tsuen (大道村) to
its North, the indigenous graves located at Tsat Sing
Kong (Kiu Tau Wai)七星崗(橋頭圍) and
the water service reservoir located to the East of the Yuen Long Highway.
10.3.2
From a geological perspective, the superficial
geology of TYST(唐人新村)
includes Terraced Alluvium (Qpa) and Alluvium (Qa). Its solid geology consists of Metasiltstone and
Phyllite, with metasandstone (Cmp) and gf and its
metamorphosed geology being Megacrystic.
10.3.3
In the case of Fui Sha
Wai (灰沙圍), its
superficial geology includes Terraced Alluvium (Qpa),
Alluvium (Qa) and Debris Flow Deposit (Qpd). Its solid geology consists of Metasiltstone and
Phyllite, with metasandstone (Cmp) and Fine grained granite (gf), whilst it has a Megacrystic metamorphosed geology.
10.3.4 Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村),
which is located to the South of the aforementioned villages,
has its superficial geology consist of Alluvium (Qa),
Terraced Alluvium (Qpa), Debris Flow Deposit (Qpd) and Debris Flow Deposit (Qd).
Its solid geology contains Fine grained granite (gf), Metasiltstone and
Phyllite, with metasandstone (cmp) and Fine to medium
grained granite (gfm), whilst its metamorphosed
geology is Megacrystic.
10.3.5
Tai Tao Tsuen (大道村) has
Alluvium (Qa), Terraced Alluvium (Qpa),
Debris Flow Deposit (Qpd) as its superficial
geology. Fine grained granite (gf), Metasiltstone and Phyllite, with
metasandstone (cmp), Fine to medium grained granite (gfm) and quartzphyric rhyolite (rq) as its solid geology and its metamorphosed geology is
also Megacrystic.
10.3.6
To the West of Tai Tao Tsuen (大道村)is
where theTsat Sing Kong (Kiu
Tau Wai)七星崗(橋頭圍)graves
are located, it has Alluvium (Qa), Terraced Alluvium
(Qpa) and Debris Flow Deposit (Qpd)
as its superficial geology and Metasiltstone and Phyllite, with metasandstone (Cmp) as its solid geology.
10.3.8
The area
of Ping Shan is
located in the northern regions of the New
Territories of Hong Kong, located West of Yuen Long, South of Tin Shui Wai and
East of Hung Shui Kiu. The area itself lies close to
the Shenzhen River and lies adjacent to the boundary between Hong Kong and
China. Pingshan is bordered by Yuen Long county in the
East and Shenzhen Bay (Deep Bay) to the North. According to government records,
the area Ping Shan specifically refers to the area lying beneath the old
Pingshan police station. This includes villages such as Sheung Cheung Wai (上璋圍)、Kiu Tau Wai (橋頭圍)、Fui Sha Wai (灰沙圍)、Hang Tau Tsuen (坑頭村)、Hang Mei Tsuen (坑尾村)、Hung Uk
Tsuen (洪屋村) and Tong Fong Tsuen (塘坊村) . Pingshan is regarded to have a layout of "Three walls and Six Villages”「三圍六村」(蕭國鈞, 1982). The Three Walls (三圍) being Sheung Cheung Wai (上璋圍)、Kiu Tau Wai (橋頭圍)、Fui Sha Wai (灰沙圍) and the Six Villages (六村) being Hang Tau Tsuen (坑頭村)、Hnag Mei Tsuen (坑尾村)、Tong Fong Tsuen (塘坊村)、San Tsuen (新村)、Hung Uk
Tsuen (洪屋村)、San Hei Tsuen (新起村)(蕭國鈞, 1982). However, the area has
since expanded due to governing needs.
10.3.10
The Pingshan county has undergone various major events since its
inception into governmental lands in the Qin Dynasty(蘇萬興, 2008).
Yuen Long was first included into the Pan Yu county during the Qin Dynasty in
around 214BC, this included the district of Ping Shan(蘇萬興, 2008).
The Tang Clan first occupied Kam Tin near Yuen Long in the Northern Song
Dynasty (北宋) era in
year 1103 AD and has since spread out and began occupying Ping Shan by the
Southern Song Dynasty (南宋) era(蘇萬興, 2008).
The famed Tsz Tang, Tang Ancestral Hall (鄧氏宗祠), which
still exists today was built during the Southern Song (南宋) period in
year 1273 AD. During the Yuan Dynasty, neighboring
counties of Ha Tsuen and San Tin thrived as places of salt cultivation and
pearl collection, which in turn increased the population of the area. Ping Shan
undoubtedly benefited from its neighbors and received
a rise in population and economic activities.
10.3.11
Various buildings were erected by the Tang clansmen in the Ming and
Qing Dynasty as the community continues to grow. This includes the Tsui Sing
Lau Pagoda (聚星樓) which was
built in year 1486 for Feng Shui reasons, the reconstruction of the Tang
Ancestral Hall (鄧氏宗祠) in the
Qing Dynasty, Yu Kiu Ancestral Hall (愈喬二公祠) in the
early 16th century, Hung Shing Temple (洪聖宮) in year
1767, Yeung Hau Temple (楊侯古廟) in year
1811, Kun Ting Study Hall (覲廷書室) in year
1870, Shut Hing Study Hall (述卿書室) and Ching
Shu Hin (清暑軒) both
being constructed in 1874. It is noteworthy that not only the Tangs began
settling the area, but other surnames such as the Cheungs
were beginning to occupy Ping Shan. This was seen by the construction of Cheung
Ancestral Hall (張氏宗祠) which is
around 300-400 years old.
10.3.12
As previously mentioned, the Ping Shan area was thought to have not
been occupied until the Northern Song Dynasty(北宋) era when
great grandson of Tang Hon Fu (鄧漢黻), founding
father of the Tang Clan which occupies the PingShan
area today, travels to Tuen Mun and Yuen Long upon receiving the JinShi (進士) scholar honor from the Imperial Examinations (科舉) exams(蘇萬興, 2008). He
adored the simplicity of its nearby people and the beauty of its scenery that
he decided to relocate to modern day Kam Tim in 1103 AD(蘇萬興, 2008).
His great grandson and his offspring decided to occupy Pingshan during the
Southern Song (南宋) era as
upon visiting the area, they noticed not only the fertile lands, but also the
high feng shui value of the location(蘇萬興, 2008).
Deeming that the area would allow the clan to prosper in attaining high scores
in the imperial exams due to good feng shui, they decided to settle there.
10.3.13
The Tang
Clan first settled the region in the Southern Song (南宋) era and has built various
walled villages around the Ping Shan Area(蘇萬興, 2008). Today, there are 26
villages with the word “圍" which meant wall, located
in the vicinity. The villages are typically laid out in a grid square pattern,
protected via a brick wall which had cannon towers on all four corners{馮志明, 1996}. Firing holes were
littered across the wall and streets were lined in intersecting square patterns
with an axis running from the front gate all the way to the temple at the rear.
10.3.14
Due to
the Qing government’s insistence in pursuing Ming loyalist Zheng Cheng Gong (鄭成功) and his followers, coastal
citizens were told to relocate 50 Chinese Miles (里) inland to avoid contact with
the loyalists in suspicion that they might receive aid from villagers(蕭國健, 1986). The ban was first
enacted from 1611 to 1619 and forced mass immigration inland which affected
much of the population residing in PingShan as it was
deemed coastal and therefore, subjected to the ban(蕭國健, 1986). The ban resulted in the
stagnation of community building and development in the Xin An region (current
day Hong Kong), where villages from counties such as Ping Shan were forced to
abandon their irrigable lands to move inland(蕭國健, 1986). The ban caused
widespread abandonment of villages and a sharp decrease in population(蕭國健, 1986). The subsequent lifitng of the clearance(復界令) enacted by emperor KangXi in year 1669 removed the constraints and allowed
villagers to return(蕭國健, 1986). However, not all
original villagers returned, resulting in the influx of Hakkas (客家人). Hakkas (客家人) originated from Jang Xi,
Guangdong and Fujian and did not arrive in Hong Kong until after the
abolishment of the Great Clearance, hence the name Hakka (客家), meaning guest.
10.3.15
The
change in demographics was also shown in the different types of land locals (本地人) and Hakkas (客家人) settled in(蕭國鈞, 1982). Taking Pingshan as an
example, returning locals would continue to occupy to most irrigable land which
is located at an optimal distance from the sea and the mountains where they can
obtain fresh food and water at ease without subjecting to mountainous terrain
or seaside storm(蕭國鈞, 1982). Hakkas on the other
hand, were forced to locate in more mountainous areas as more favorable land had already been occupied(蕭國鈞, 1982).
10.3.16
Upon the signing of The Convention between Great Britain and China
respecting an Extension of Hong Kong Territory (中英展拓香港界址專條) in year
1898, Britain leased the New Territories of Hong Kong from Qing China for 99
years rent free. This included territories north of North of Boundary Street
and South of the ShenZhen river, which undoubtedly
included PingShan. The subsequent occupation meant
lands given to the various clansmen by the Qing Dynasty was now government land
owned by the British(蕭國鈞, 1982).
Seeing this as an act of invasion, the locals venomously disagreed with the
occupation and began a six day war which in reality, lasted between the 17th to
the 19th of April 1899, where the locals were defeated(蕭國鈞, 1982).
Their defeat meant the lands were now under government control, however, the
male first born of each family registered as local before 1898 was to be
granted the ability to construct their own housing, a policy known as “The
right to build a village house under the small house policy” (丁權) which
existed to this day.
10.3.18
TYST (唐人新村)was one of
the non local villages
founded in 1950, hence, after the colonization by the British in 1898{2022,
December 11}. In 1952, Pastor Lee and Pastor Pun arrived from Yuen Long to
break ground on the site(“唐人新村,” n.d.).
Their purpose was to set up a religious center in the
then Jing Yuen Farm (靜園農場) which
later became Wai Kwan School (惠群學校) (“唐人新村,” n.d.).
By the 1990s, Sha Tseng Road (沙井路) and TYST
Road (唐人新村路) in TYST (唐人新村) has been
redeveloped into low rise residential apartements,
littered with indipendent condo housing(“唐人新村,” n.d.)
The remaining factory, Hap Hing Food Oils (合興食油), has
since relocated away from the village to Lai Chi Kok(“唐人新村,” n.d.).
10.3.19
Fui Sha Wai (灰沙圍) was
established by Tang Kin Fung (鄧見峰) from Ping
Shan. It got its name as during the construction of the village, grayish silt was uncovered from the ground, leading to the
name Fui Sha Wai (灰沙圍). The
design of the village resembles a square with buildings acting as its
parameter, a Feng Shui Pond is also located in front of the village main
entrance. Houses are lined in rows inside the wall, all facing northwards. The
moat which previously surrounds the village has since been filled up and had
been redeveloped for recreational purposes.
10.3.20
Tai Tao
Tsuen (大道村) was previously an
agglomeration of farms(Wong, 2021). They functioned as
breeding sites for chicken and ducks, with Kwai Lum Farm (桂林農場) being particularly famous for
providing ducks for retail(Wong, 2021).
10.3.21
Prior to
the 1920s, Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村) was but a farmland with an
orchard filed in the center. By 1926, former Chinese
senator Wang Gui Min (王季文) purchased the orchard field
and constructed a small settlement. A few years on, due to the Nationalist
Chiang Kai Shek’s Northern expedition, Wang and his
comrades from the Xin Gui Warlord group relocated to Hong Kong. They
established the Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村), with the name meaning to
preserve the province Guilin with their heart and soul.
10.3.22
Tan Kwai
Tsuen (丹桂村) was separated into 12
sections, each consisting of 6 hectares. Seven of the prewar
buildings make up an area resembling a gardened villa complex. The villas surrounds a rectangular small park, where the North and
South had a water tower and wind turbine respectively, both used to generate
electricity. By the 1930s, the stability of the Nationalist regime led to the
Gui warlord residents to return to China, selling their assets in Tan Kwai
Tsuen (丹桂村) to Chinese merchants. During
the subsequent Japanese occupation, the villas were occupied by the Japanese.
10.3.23
After the
war, Chinese refugees flocked into Hung Shui Kiu (洪水橋) and constructed a series of
temporary housing near Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村) (“丹桂村,” n.d.). This led to the rise
of several small scale factories and quarry mines near
the west of Kung Um Shan (公庵山) (“丹桂村,” n.d.). There was a plan by
the colonial government to construct the Ping Shan Airport in the 1950s,
leading to the government's purchase of private property and construction of
temporary buildings(“丹桂村,” n.d.). However, the plan was
later abandoned in 1957 (“丹桂村,” n.d.).
10.3.24 According to government
census, Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村) housed 2202 individuals in a
total of 467 households, with its economy being based primarily on agriculture
(“丹桂村,” n.d.).In
1976, Tuen Mun Limin Mansion was established(“丹桂村,” n.d.). Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村) was divided along Hung Shui Kiu (洪水坑) into two(“丹桂村,” n.d.). The western part was
separated from Yuen Long District and in 1978, became Wo Ping San Tsuen (和平新村) (“丹桂村,” n.d.). With the development
of Hung Shui Kiu (洪水橋), the original villa complex in
Tan Kwai Tsuen (丹桂村) has been built into several
low-density private housing estates since the 1980s(“丹桂村,” n.d.).
Historical Background
10.3.25 Refer to the aerial photo (Appendix 10.2), the 300m
assessment area comprised of mainly rural residential houses and agricultural
land in 1963. Part of the land comprised of natural terrain. In 1993, Yuen Long
Highway was under construction within the Project area. Part of the
agricultural land was replaced by scattered industrial activities next to the
site boundary. In 2001, construction of Yuen Long Highway has been finished and
was in operation. Most of the agricultural land were replaced by industrial
activities and residential houses. The natural terrain in the 300m assessment
area has been modified and disturbed by developments. In 2022, no significant
change in land use was observed compared with Year 2001. Furthermore, the
proposed Project will be constructed adjacent to or over the existing roads,
where archaeological potential would be negligible.
Table 10.1 Existing villages in the vicinity of Yuen Long Highway
|
No.
|
Village
|
Surnames
|
Origin
|
Arrival
|
|
|
1
|
TYST
(唐人新村)
|
Tong (唐) and
Lam (林)
|
Zhongshan (中山)
|
1936
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Fui Sha Wai
(灰沙圍)
|
Tang (鄧)
|
Jishui, Jiangxi (江西吉水)
|
South Song dynasty (1216）
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Tai Tao Tsuen
(大道村)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Tan Kwai Tsuen
(丹桂村)
|
Founded by Wang Gui Min (王季文) and the XinGui
warlord group
|
Shanghai and Gunagxi
|
1926
|
|
|
Previous Archaeological Work
·
Survey
done by Peacock and Nixon in 1982 - 1985; and
·
Territory-wide
archaeological survey (Yuen Long)
·
Archaeological
monitoring at Tong Yan San Tsuen
·
Agreement No. CE
35/2012 (CE) Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long
South – Investigation Environmental Impact Assessment Report
Table 10.2 Relevant Previous
Studies for Terrestrial Archaeology
|
Report
|
Relevance to this Study
|
Results
|
|
Report of
the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey, volumes I-III
|
This report
presents the results of the first territory-wide archaeological survey in
Hong Kong which included field visits and field evaluation of known and
potential sites of archaeological interest in the Yuen Long region.
|
No
archaeological sites within the Project boundary /assessment area.
5 locations
with archaeological potential in adjacent area but outside the 300m
assessment area are mentioned, they are: Tung Tau Tsuen (0605), Ha Tsuen (W)
(0621), Tseung Kong Wai (0622), San Wai (0623) and Ping Shan (B) (0619).
Among them, only Tung Tau Tsuen has been conducted with site visit and
surface observation, the rest 4 locations were not surveyed. None of the
locations is provided with marked survey boundary on map.
No
archaeological sites within the Project boundary /assessment area.
|
|
Territory-wide
archaeological survey (Yuen Long)
全港文物普查1997第一地區(元朗區)工作報告
|
As part of
the second territory-wide archaeological survey of Hong Kong, Mr. Au Ka–fat
led a team and conducted a program of field evaluation throughout the Yuen
Long region during 1997-8.
|
9 locations
are mentioned, they are:
Tseung Kong Wai, Tai Tong Tsuen, Ping Shan Tsuen, Hung Uk
Tsuen, Tan Kwai Tsuen, Tong Yan San Tsuen, San Sang Tsuen, Tung Tau Tsuen
(close to Ha Tsuen), Tung Tau Tsuen (close to Yuen Long Old Market).
Only Tong
Yan San Tsuen and Tan Kwai Tsuen fall within the assessment area. (Refer to Figure 10.1)
However, both locations yield no findings. The rest location are all outside of the 300m assessment area.
|
|
Archaeological
monitoring at Tong Yan San Tsuen
Archaeo-Environments
Ltd.
|
Archaeological
monitoring conducted for the sewer installation works in TYST in 2001
|
7 test pits
were excavated with discovery of one small unstratified Song sherd as a
surface find near TP1. (Refer to Figure 10.1)
|
|
The Deep
Bay Link - Investigation and Preliminary Design Environmental
Impact Assessment Report
|
Two test
pits namely T8 and T9 were investigated at Lam Tei
Area. Four stratigraphic layers were identified. Cultural remains including
sherds of blue-and-white porcelain and broken tiles dated to Qing dynasty
were identified at the fourth layer in T8 and T9.
|
Field
scanning and auger testing were carried out in Tsoi Yuen Tsuen and Fuk Hang Tsuen in 2001. No significant archaeological
remains were identified in the abovementioned areas.
No
archaeological sites within the Project boundary /assessment area.
|
|
Agreement
No. CE 2/2011 (CE) Hung Shui Kiu New Development
Area Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation Archaeological Field
Survey Final Report
|
Field surveys
in form of field scanning, auger hole drilling and test pit excavation were
conducted at various locations covering areas near the Lam Tei Area in 2015
|
No
archaeological remains were identified
in the field surveys and the Area has been severely disturbed by the housing
and Deep Bay Link development in the area, based on findings from
archaeological rescue excavation conducted under Deep Bay Link Project in
2005 and 2006.
Lam Tei Area was concluded as Spot of Archaeological Find
with archaeological potential under Hung Shui Kiu
study. (Refer to Figure 10.1)
|
|
Agreement
No. CE 35/2012 (CE) Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen
Long South – Investigation Environmental Impact Assessment Report
|
Part of
this EIA included archaeological investigation at Tin Shui Wai West
Interchange and Tong Yan San Tsuen Interchange.
|
The
proposed Project boundary is located adjacent to the areas with moderate and
low-moderate archaeological potential near Tin Shui Wai West Interchange and
Tong Yan San Tsuen Interchange. (Refer to Figure 10.1
An archaeological survey was conducted, the
two areas of small hillocks were surveyed in turn as the northern and
southern study areas near Tin Shui Wai West Interchange and Tong Yan San
Tsuen Interchange respectively. A field scan was conducted for both areas.
Disturbance, terracing and refuse was a common
feature which affected ground visibility. No archaeological material was
recorded. (Refer to Figure
10.1)
|
Built Heritage and Sites of Archaeological Interest
Bulit Heritage
10.3.27
There are no declared monuments, proposed monument, graded
historic building and Government historic sites identified within the Project
boundary or the 300m assessment area. The nearest built heritage resource from
the project boundary is
summarised in Table 10.3 and
shown in Figure 10.1.
Table 10.3 Graded Historic Buildings
|
Name and Address
|
Grading
|
Approximate Distance from Project Boundary (m)
|
|
Yeung Hau Temple,Tong Yan San Tsuen, Ping Shan
|
Grade 3
|
406
|
10.3.28 There are four other identified items located within
the 300m Assessment Area. A summary of the historic structures are shown
below in Table 10.4. The
image and cultural heritage assessment forms are present in Appendix
10.1.
Table 10.4 Built heritage within 300m Assessment Area
|
No.
|
Name and Address
|
Confirmed Grading
|
Ownership
|
Approximate Distance from
Project Boundary (m)
|
Description
|
|
1
|
Gate Tower,
Fui Sha Wai
(灰沙圍門樓)
|
Non-graded item
|
Private
|
175
|
Traditional Two storey Chinese style
entrance with circular windows on the second floor facing the pond. A 關帝 altar is situated within.
|
|
2
|
Earth God
Shrine,
Fui Sha Wai
(灰沙圍土地公)
|
Non-graded item
|
Private
|
225
|
Brick and Concrete altar used in
the worship of Earth God. Structure is walled on three sides and without a
roof, a smaller altar and two concrete cylinders located on its right.
|
|
3
|
Fung Shui
Pond, Fui Sha Wai
(灰沙圍風水池)
|
Non-graded item
|
Private
|
130
|
Pond located in front of the
village main gate for Feng Shui purposes. Surrounded by metal fences and is
still filled with water.
|
|
4
|
Wo Yuen,
Tai Tao Tsuen
(大道村和園)
|
Non-graded item
|
Private
|
15m
|
A two-storey traditional Chinese
structure made of concrete, bricks and wood. The
structure has its roof made via gray Chinese tiles
and has no windows on its second floor.
The left frontal wall on the first floor has been replaced by a set of wooden
boards and the former residential building seems to be of disuse.
The property is gated and has a small roofed altar situated near the gate entrance.
|
Sites of Archaeological Interest
10.3.29 AMO maintains a list of Sites of
Archaeological Interest which is updated from time to time. This list can be consulted at the AMO, or
from other approved EIA reports in EPD’s EIAO Register Office. However, the list is neither meant to be
exhaustive, nor is the information contained therein comprehensive,
particularly in the case of sites of archaeological interest or cultural
features buried underground. Other useful sources of relevant information
include the tertiary institutions (e.g.
the Hong Kong Collection at the University of Hong Kong Library,
Departments of History and Architecture at the University of Hong Kong and the
Chinese University of Hong Kong), public libraries and archives (e.g. Public Records Office), District Offices,
District Lands Offices and Land Registries, etc.
Table 10.5 The
Nearest Sites of Archaeological Interest from the Project Boundary
|
No.
|
Name
of Site
|
Archaeological
Interest
|
Approximate
Distance from Project Boundary (m)
|
|
1
|
Fu Tei Ha SAI
|
Song
and Yuan Dynasties, Ming and Qing Dynasties [1]
|
400
|
|
2
|
Nai Wai Kiln SAI
|
Ming
and Qing Dynasties [1]
|
350
|
Notes:
[1] Source of Archaeological Interest:
https://gish.amo.gov.hk/internet/index.html?dm-all=1
Graves
10.4
Assessment Methodology
Assessment Scope
10.4.2
As
stipulated Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-356/2022, the CHIA will follow the
criteria and guidelines as stated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM. The key
stages for CHIA include the following:
·
Baseline study (including a desk-top study and, subject to the result of
the desk-top study, a field survey);
·
Evaluate impact; and
·
Recommend mitigation measures
Terrestrial Archaeology
Desk-top Review
10.4.3
A
comprehensive desktop review (as described in Table 10.2) has been conducted to collate
all desktop information available that is relevant to the terrestrial
archaeology of the 300m assessment area.
Field Visit
Built Heritage
Desktop Review
10.4.5 A desktop
study has been conducted to reveal information available in the public domain
and in accordance with the following legislative standards and guidelines:
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (A&MO) (Cap.53)
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap.499)
·
Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape
Impact, and Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage;
·
Annex 19 of the EIAO-TM, Guidelines for Assessment of Impact On Sites of Cultural Heritage and Other Impacts;
·
Guidance Notes on Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in
Environmental Impact Assessment Studies (GN-CH); and
·
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG);
·
Proposed
Grading and Graded Historic Building Classification;
·
Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment issued by the
Antiquities and Monuments Office (GCHIA)
10.4.6 The
public information sources referenced includes the following:
·
List of Proposed and Declared Monuments, List of Graded Historic
Buildings, new list of proposed grading item and List of Government Historic
Sites identified by the AMO;
·
Published and unpublished papers and studies, including those kept in
tertiary institutions (e.g. the Hong Kong Collection
at the University of Hong Kong Library, Departments of History and Architecture
at the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong), public
libraries and archives (e.g. the reference libraries under LCSD, the Public
Records Office), District Offices, District Lands Offices and Land Registries,
etc.;
·
Publications on relevant historical, anthropological and other cultural studies;
·
Unpublished archaeological investigation and excavation reports kept by
AMO and relevant information from AMO’s website;
·
Unpublished archival, papers, records; collections and libraries of
tertiary institutions;
·
Historical documents which can be found in Public Records Office, Lands
Registry, District Lands Office, District Office, Museum of History;
·
Cartographic and pictorial documentation;
·
Existing geological and topographic information; and
·
Discussion with local informants.
Field Visit
Field Survey
Methodology
10.4.8
For the purpose of this field survey, the scope of built heritage
resources has been based on the Appendix I of the EIA Study Brief No.
ESB-356/2022 as follows:
·
all declared monuments;
·
all proposed monuments;
·
all graded historic sites, buildings/ structures or new list of proposed
grading items by the AAB;
·
Government historic sites identified by AMO; and
·
buildings/ structures/ sites of high architectural / historical
significance and interest which are not included in items listed above.
Built Heritage
10.5.1
No declared monument, proposed
monument, graded historic sites/buildings/ structures, sites, buildings/
structures in the new list of proposed grading items and Government historic sites is
identified within the Project boundary and the 300m assessment area. There will
be no works encroaching upon theses historical structures. Hence, direct impact
is not anticipated. Indirect impacts from construction dust and vibration will
also be negligible given the distances to the works. No adverse impact is
anticipated during construction phase. In addition, given that there are long
separation distances from the historical structure to the Project boundary, no
adverse impact is also anticipated during the operation phase of the Project.
10.5.2
There are
four other identified items located within 300m assessment area but outside the
Project boundary. Wo Yuen, Tai Tao Tsuen is located at 15m from Project
boundary, potential direct impacts due to damages through contacting with heavy
construction machineries would be anticipated. Indirect impacts including
ground-borne vibration would be anticipated during construction of
insignificance. The other 3 buildings are located at over 100m away from the
Project boundary, no impact is anticipated due to considerable distance from
the Project Site.
10.5.3
A total
of 185 graves were recorded during the built heritage survey. The distribution
of clan and individual graves is shown in Figure
10.2 - 10.5. All are major clan graves, some of the graves were located
in between village borders, therefore, it would be difficult to identify which
village did the respective graves originate from. In general terms widening of
the road, resulting in bringing the road closer to the grave. However, as the
works will not result in resumption of direct impacts to the graves, potential
impact are not considered to be significant.
Archaeology
10.5.4
Although
it has been severely disturbed, archaeological potential was identified for the
Lam Tei Area with reference to the
findings of the archaeological work in Lam Tei Area
mentioned in Table 10.2. Part of the spot of archaeological find in Lam Tei would not fall within the Project area(Refer to Figure 10.1). As such, no archaeological potential
impact
would be anticipated.
10.5.5
The
Proposed Project boundary near Tin Shui Wai West Interchange and Tong Yan San
Tsuen Interchange is situated adjacent to the area with moderate and
low-moderate archaeological potential (Refer to Figure 10.1). which were identified in
“CE35/2012 Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long South
– Investigation Environmental Impact Assessment” (YLS-EIA). An
archaeological survey was conducted, the two areas of small hillocks were
surveyed in turn as the northern and southern study areas near Tin Shui Wai
West Interchange and Tong Yan San Tsuen Interchange respectively (Refer to Figure 10.1). The northern study area is
falls partly within the 300m assessment area but it
was concluded in the survey that the northern area has low archaeological potential.
Furthermore, there would be no excavations works on the southern side of the
Project interfacing with the identified northern study area of YLS-EIA. As such, no archaeological potential impact
would be anticipated.
10.5.6 No SAI is identified partly or
wholly within the 300m assessment area. It is anticipated that no SAI will be
directly and indirectly affected by the proposed road widening works due to
their considerable distance from Yuen Long Highway. Thus, no impact on SAI is
expected during both construction and operation phases.
10.6
Mitigation Measures
Built Heritage
10.6.2 There are four other identified
items located within 300m assessment area but outside the Project boundary and
these buildings will not be impacted by works. As no impact would be
anticipated for the four other identified items. Thus, no mitigation measure
would be required.
Archaeology
10.6.3
As no
archaeology would be affected by
the road widening works of the Project, no mitigation measure is therefore
required.
10.7.1
No
adverse residual cultural heritage impact and no cumulative cultural heritage
impact are anticipated.
Construction Phase
10.8.1
There are
no declared monuments, proposed monument, graded historic sites/building/
structures, sites, buildings/ structures in the new list of proposed grading
items and Government historic sites identified within the 300m assessment area
therefore no mitigation measures would be required.
10.8.2
No SAI
has been identified within the 300m assessment area. As a precautionary
measure, AMO should be informed immediately 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. No archaeological impact is anticipated and thus no mitigation measures
would be required.
10.8.3
There are
four other identified items located within the 300m assessment area, but they
are outside the Project boundary and thus no mitigation measures would be
required.
10.8.4
No
cultural heritage impact from the Project is anticipated during construction
phase Thus, no specific EM&A requirement would be required during
construction phase.
Operation Phase
10.8.5
No
cultural heritage impact from the Project is anticipated during operation
phase. Thus, no specific EM&A
requirement would be required during operation phase.
10.9.2 No SAI has been identified
within the 300m assessment area. No
archaeological impact is anticipated and thus no mitigation measures is
required. As a
precautionary measure, AMO should be informed immediately 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.
10.9.3 The northern study area from YLH-EIA
is falls partly within the 300m assessment area but it was concluded in the
survey that the northern area has low archaeological potential. Furthermore,
there would be no excavations works on the southern side of the Project
interfacing with the identified northern study area of YLS-EIA. As such, no archaeological potential impact
would be anticipated.
10.9.4 There are four other identified
items located within the 300m assessment area, but they are outside the Project
boundary.
§
丹桂村. (2022, October
12). Retrieved from 维基百科, 自由的百科全书. https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E4%B8%B9%E6%A1%82%E6%9D%91&oldid=74051502
§
(December 11). 唐人新村https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%94%90%E4%BA%BA%E6%96%B0%E6%9D%91&oldid=75009404
§
馮志明. (1996). 元朗文物古蹟概覽. 元朗區議會.
§
詹詹. (1942). 記丹桂村. 古今半月刊, （第九期）
§
劉智鵬. (2003). 屯門風物志 (Vol. 第1版). 屯門區議會.
§
蕭國健. (1986). 清初遷海前後香港之社會變遷. 臺灣商務印書館.
§
蕭國鈞. (1982). 族譜與香港地方史研究. 顯朝書室.
§
蘇萬興. (2008). 坐言集之屏山鄧族. 超媒體有限公司.
§
Government, H. K. (1911). Report on the Census of
the Colony: Papers laid before the Legislative -Council
of Hongkong 1911. Sessional Papers 1911, pp.103 (149)-103 (153).
§
Wong, T. (2015). 山廈村. http://blog.terewong.com/archives/14744
§
Wong, T. (2021). 洪水橋大道村. http://blog.terewong.com/archives/21061
§
Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in
Yuen Long South (YLS)-Investigation Environment Impact Assessment ARUP 2017
§
Contract No. YL/2013/02 Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area Planning and Engineering Study –
Investigation Archaeological Field Survey Final Report issued
§
CE109/98 The Deep Bay Link - Investigation and
Preliminary Design Environmental
§
Impact Assessment Report