The EIA Study Brief for SCL (HHS) requires a Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA) comprising a Built Heritage Impact Assessment (BHIA) and an
Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) to be conducted. The BHIA needs to
search historic buildings, clan graves and landscape features within the study
area while the AIA requires a terrestrial investigation of the archaeological
potential of the study area, particularly the former Tai Hom
Village Archaeological
Site.
The field investigation for former
Other than the former
Tai Hom Village Archaeological Site, the CHIA has also
studied the impacts on the 2 historical buildings within former
The possible impacts caused by the construction and operation of the
Project on other built heritages have also been studied and the impacts have
been minimised by adopting alternative construction methodologies. More details
of the assessment findings and mitigation measures are given in this Chapter.
The assessment and
protection of cultural heritage within HKSAR is governed by the following
legislative standards and guidelines:
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(EIAO);
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance; and
·
4.2.1
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance
The Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499) stipulates that consideration shall be
given to cultural heritage and archaeological issues as part of the EIA
process. Annexes 10 and 19 of the
TM-EIAO cite the following:
·
criteria for evaluating the impacts on sites of
cultural heritage;
·
guidelines for impact assessment;
·
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 identified for culture and tradition; and
·
adverse impacts on sites of cultural heritage shall be
kept to the absolute minimum.
The Guidance Note on Assessment of Impact on Site of
Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies (http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/guid/cultural/basis.html) serves as a reference to facilitate an understanding of
the requirements set out in Annex 10 and Annex 19 of the TM-EIAO for assessing
impacts on sites of cultural heritage in EIA studies.
The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
(CHIA) Mechanism applies to “Sites of Cultural Heritage” within a project Study
Area. A Site of Cultural Heritage is defined “as an antiquity or monument,
whether being a place, building, site or structure or a relic, as defined in
the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) and
any place, building, site, or structure or a relic identified by the
Antiquities and Monuments Office to be of archaeological, historical or palaeontological significance”.
A CHIA must be
undertaken in order to identify construction and operational phase impacts of
the Project may have on the cultural heritage of the Study Area. The specific
objectives of the CHIA include the following:
·
To provide cultural heritage and archaeological
impact assessment to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.4.9 of the EIA Study
Brief (No. ESB-233/2011);
·
To undertake a baseline study of the project study
area in order to identify all heritage items as identified in the Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment;
·
To identify any Sites of Cultural Heritage (i.e.
Proposed and Declared Monuments) within the project study area and assess any
impacts that will arise from the proposed project and recommend mitigation
measures as appropriate; and
·
To identify the impacts to identified heritage
items and recommend mitigation for these items.
4.2.2
Antiquities and
Monuments Ordinance
The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap
53) was enacted in 1976. It prescribes
the regulation over the discovery, excavation and protection of antiquities in
HKSAR.
Under this Ordinance, the Secretary for Development is the Antiquities Authority. The statutory Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) consists of members with expertise in various relevant fields to advise the Antiquities Authority on any matters relating to antiquities and monuments. The Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), as the executive arm of the Antiquities Authority, provides secretarial and executive support to the AAB in conserving places of historical and archaeological interest.
The Antiquities
Authority may, after consulting AAB and with the approval of the Chief
Executive as well as the publication of the notice in government gazette,
legally declare a place to be protected. The Antiquities Authority is empowered
to prevent alterations, or to impose conditions upon any proposed alterations
as appropriate to protect the monument.
In addition to
declared monuments, a large number and variety of sites of cultural heritage
are identified and recorded by AMO. Recorded historic buildings and structures
are classified into Grades 1, 2 and 3 by AAB to indicate their relative
importance, as defined below:
|
· 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. |
Although graded buildings and structures carry no statutory protection,
the Government has administrative procedures that require conservation be given
to those historic buildings and sites of cultural heritage.
For archaeological sites, relics (defined under the Antiquities and Monuments
Ordinance as fossils and objects/artefacts created, modified, etc. by human
agency before 1800 AD) discovered after 1976 are, by law, properties of the
government. All discoveries of
antiquities or supposed antiquities must also be reported.
The excavation and
search for relics require a licence from the Antiquities Authority. Once identified as having the potential for
conservation, sites of archaeological interest are entered into a list. Archaeological items are administratively
classified into 2 categories:
|
·
Designated
archaeological sites |
– Those which have been declared as monuments. These are gazetted under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53) and are to be protected and conserved at all costs. |
|
·
Recorded
sites of archaeological interest |
– These are under administrative protection and are considered to be of archaeological interest but which are not declared as monuments. |
4.2.3
Chapter 10 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG)
provides guidelines relating to the conservation of historic buildings,
archaeological sites and other antiquities. The guidelines detail the methods
for the conservation and preservation of protected monuments, the method of
identifying and recording antiquities, particularly buildings which should be
conserved and the recording and grading of such buildings and archaeological
sites.
The definition/interpretation for Sites of Cultural Heritage under
Schedule 1 of the EIAO consists of “any place, building, site or structure or a
relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office to be of
archaeological, historical or paleontological significance”.
The CHIA
comprises the identification of terrestrial and marine archaeological and built
heritage impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage and the assessment methodology
for each of these tasks is highlighted below. It should also be noted that as
stipulated in the Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, all items
that fall within the scope of the guidelines will be included in this report.
4.3.2
General
As stipulated in Section 3.4.9 of the EIA Study Brief (No.
ESB-233/2011), the CHIA will follow the criteria and guidelines as stated in
Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM-EIAO. The key stages for CHIA include the
following:
·
Baseline
study (including both desktop study and field survey);
·
Impact
evaluation; and
·
Formulation
of recommended mitigation measures.
According to the EIA Study Brief, the study area for field survey and
impact evaluation includes the area of potential impact that would be caused by
the proposed stations and stabling sidings. These have been defined within the
study brief as follows:
·
For terrestrial archaeology, this is defined as
a 50m buffer from the site boundary of the Project; and
·
For built heritage this is defined as a 50m
buffer from the site boundary of the Project.
The
construction of the Project would not involve any marine works. No marine
archaeological issues would be anticipated.
According to Annex 19 of the TM-EIAO, a baseline study will be conducted
which includes both a desktop study and field survey, where necessary, within
the study area to determine areas of archaeological and built heritage
potential.
This will include any areas impacted by rail construction and operation
as well as direct and indirect impacts of ancillary works areas and access
sites etc. The desktop review of known terrestrial archaeology and built
heritage items within the SCL (HHS) study area are given in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 respectively. This provides key data
for more focussed survey, if required, of cultural heritage impact.
AMO maintains a list of known and potential sites of cultural heritage
which is being updated from time to time. This list can be consulted at AMO, or
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 archaeological sites 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.
the reference libraries under LCSD, the Public Records Office), District
Offices, District Lands Offices and Land Registries, etc.
4.3.6
Field Survey
Methodology – Terrestrial Archaeology
The key steps for the terrestrial archaeological field survey are:
·
Apply a licence from the relevant authority for
the person leading and undertaking a ground survey involving search and
excavation of antiquities. For those
activities or works involving search and excavation of antiquities, the
requirements set out in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance must be
followed.
·
Define areas of natural land undisturbed in the
recent past;
·
Conduct a field scan of the natural land
undisturbed in the recent past in detail with special attention paid to areas
of exposed soil which were searched for artefacts;
·
Conduct systematic auger survey/shovel testing
to establish the horizontal spread of cultural materials deposits;
·
Excavate test pits to establish the vertical
sequence of cultural materials. Test pits are to be of sufficient dimensions to
record vertical sequence of artefacts if present. Typical dimensions of 1x1m or 1.5 x 1.5m are
commonly used in
·
Prepare maps showing the boundary of each
archaeological sites as supported and delineated by
field walking, augering and test-pitting. Drawing of stratigraphic
section of test-pits excavated which shows the cultural sequence of a site will
also be prepared;
·
Provide a full bibliography and the sources of
information consulted to assist the evaluation of the quality of the evidence;
·
Report to AMO as soon as possible if the field
survey identifies any additional sites of cultural heritage within the study
area which are of potential historic or archaeological importance. The historic and archaeological value of the
items will be assessed and reported during the field program and in liaison with
the AMO. Should a rescue excavation be necessary this will form part of the
mitigation program.
4.3.7
Field Survey
Methodology – Built Heritage
The key steps for built heritage fieldwork include:
·
To conduct field survey in accordance to the
requirements of Appendix I-1, Guidelines
for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, of the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-233/2011).
·
Prepare maps in 1:1000 scale showing the
boundary of each historic building or structure. Assemble records of each historical building or
structure and detailed record of each historic building or structure including
its construction year, previous and present uses, architectural
characteristics, as well as legends, historic persons and events, and cultural
activities associated with the structure.
4.3.8
Impact Assessment
Following the baseline research (including desktop study and field
evaluation), an assessment of any impacted Sites of Cultural Heritage and the
heritage items listed on Section 3.4.9.2
of the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB – 233/2011) will be conducted, for both the
construction and operational stages.
The impacts will include the following:
·
Direct loss, destruction or disturbance of an
element of cultural heritage;
·
Impact on its settings which impinge on its
character through inappropriate siting or design; and
·
Potential damage to the physical fabric of
archaeological remains, historic buildings or historic landscapes through air
pollution, change of water-table, vibration, recreation pressure and ecological
damage by the development.
Preservation in totality of any cultural heritage features impacted
should be taken as the first priority.
Detailed requirements of the impact assessment are contained in
paragraph 4.3.1(c), item 2 of Annex 10, items 2.6 to 2.9 of Annex 19 and other
relevant parts of the TM-EIAO. These include:
·
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;
·
Total destruction must be taken as the very
last resort in all cases and shall only be recommended with a meticulous and
careful analysis balancing the interest of preserving the archaeological,
historical, architectural and other cultural values as against that of the
community as a whole; and
·
A detailed description and plans should be
provided to elaborate to what extent the sites of cultural heritage will be
affected.
It is always a good practice to recognise the sites of cultural heritage
early in the planning stage and site selection process, and to avoid it, i.e.
preserve it in-situ, or leaving a buffer zone around the site. Built heritage,
sites and landscapes are to be in favour of preservation unless it can be shown
that there is a need for a particular development which is of paramount
importance and outweighs the significance of the heritage features.
If avoidance of impact on the cultural heritage is not possible,
amelioration can be achieved by reduction of the potential impacts and the
preservation of heritage features, such as physically relocating it. Measures like amendments of the siting, screening and revision of the detailed design of
the development are required to lessen its degree of exposure if it causes
visual intrusion to the cultural heritage and affecting its character.
For total destruction or for areas where preservation in-situ of terrestrial archaeological
remains is not possible, a comprehensive and practical rescue plan must be
worked out. This is also applicable to sites of cultural heritage where only
partial preservation is proposed. The
rescue programme may involve preservation of the historic building or structure
together with the relics inside, and its historic environment through relocation,
detailed cartographic and photographic survey.
The implementation programme for mitigation measures shall list out
clearly the proposed mitigation measures to be implemented, by whom, when,
where, to what requirements and the various implementation responsibilities. A
comprehensive plan and programme for the protection and conservation of the
partially preserved site of cultural heritage, if any, during the planning and
design stage of the proposed project should be detailed.
4.4.1
Known Archaeological
Sites
The known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the study
area are shown in Figures 4.1.1 to 4.1.3. It is emphasised that the boundary of the archaeological
sites delimits an area within each region of both proven and potential
archaeology. The “archaeological site” has been defined by AMO to include areas
where archaeology has been found and areas of archaeological potential.
4.4.2
Former Tai Hom Village (大磡村)
Based on previous studies, former Tai Hom
Village has been identified as a site with potential archaeological value (Figure
4.1.3). A total of 2
archaeological surveys were conducted in Year 2002. These surveys include the following:
·
“Archaeological Survey at Tai Hom Tsuen”, by Archaeo-Environments Ltd [4-1]
·
“九龍鑽石山舊大磡村考古搶救發掘報告”，區家發文物考古顧問公司 [4-2]
The site of the Tai
Hom old village lies at about 1km to the northeast of
The site was
cleared in year 2000 for future development and is currently planned as the
site for the railway facilities for SCL.
According to the latest Tsz Wan Shan, Diamond
Hill & San Po Kong OZP (No S/K11/23), this site has been zoned as a
Comprehensive Development Area (CDA) and the proposed use for railway
facilities will need to be authorised under the Railways Ordinance and the Town
Planning Ordinance.
4.4.2.1
Settlement History of
former
Before development
in recent decades which had altered the topography of the area, Tai Hom was a village built on the northern edge of an area of
low-quality rice-land about 1 – 2 km north-east of Kowloon City. The village
was sited where the fertile, flat lands of the
The early origins of
The nearest old village to Tai Hom was Po
Kong, which was a few hundred metres (or a few hundred yards) south-west of Tai
Hom. This
village lies below today's Choi Hung Road
Sports-ground, and the
Tai Hom (see Plate 1.1 of Appendix 4.1) is a single-surname village of the
Nga Tsin Wai, Po Kong, Ngau Chi Wan, Tai Hom and the
other villages of this area remained agricultural settlements throughout the
1930s. When the Japanese took
After the War, the Tai Hom area resumed its
traditional subsistence rice and market-gardening lifestyle. However, the
capture of
Given the lack of accommodation in
4.4.2.2
Geological Setting of
former
The former
According to geological mapping by Strange and Shaw (1986), this area is
located almost entirely on Quaternary alluvium with a small edge of debris flow
entering the southern end of the site. On inspection of the local geology
during the archaeological survey by Archaeo-Enviroments
Ltd (2002), however, it was noted that a low hill (+14mPD) composed of deeply
weathered granite occupies much of the centre and eastern half of the
site.
Modern road construction in the vicinity has removed part of this
granite hill to the south, revealed in the cross section in a road cutting some
3
Relief throughout the Tai Hom
area varies from +6 to 8mPD on the lower lying western half of the study area,
while to the east relief is from +8 to 14mPD.
4.4.2.3
Previous Investigations at
former
Archaeological Survey July – August 2002
This survey was conducted by Archaeo-Environments
Ltd aiming to determine the archaeological potential of Tai Hom
area and to recommend any further investigation works and mitigation of impacts
(if any).
The archaeological potential was evaluated based on 3 phases of field
sampling of increasing resolution, following a progression from broad general
survey to subsurface excavation work with closer focus on areas of
archaeological discovery and archaeological potential. The key steps are:
·
Baseline review;
·
Survey
baseline/sampling grid;
·
Phase 1 - test
trenches;
·
Phase 2a - test
pits;
·
Phase 2b - focused
test pits;
·
Phase 3 - follow-up test
pits;
·
Finds analysis; and
·
Reporting.
A sampling grid of
Archaeological and Landscape Summary at Tai Hom
Aerial photos taken in 1948 showed a low hill with the RAF
hangar occupied by agricultural fields and slopes extending to the south and
east (see Plate 1.2 of Appendix 4.1). Dark grey clay within trenches and test pits at Tai Hom (paddy soils) provide evidence of cultivation of the
Qing and modern period. They were
widespread and effectively sealing sands and colluvium
in mid and lower slopes to the centre-east of Tai Hom.
Subsurface geological and archaeological information recorded within 49 test
trenches and 18 test pits provide the following summary of stratigraphy
at Tai Hom:
(a) A low hill (+14mPD) composed
of coarse grained deeply weathered granite occupies the centre-east of the study
area which is ostensibly the area occupied by the former Yuen Ling old village.
Soil cover was thin in the upper landscape and where undisturbed (cut into) by
the old RAF hangar and house development, parent material of orange sandy clay
was less than 30cm below surface and can be seen in terraces and batters cut
for house sites south of the hangar. A thin cultural layer persists throughout
this area, manifest in a brown sandy clay. Most part of this layer is thin containing
disturbed Qing, modern and occasional Song period pottery.
The only early
feature was a ditch or depression of similar brown sandy clay containing
Song-Yuan Dynasty pottery. Follow-up excavation revealed little evidence of
Song material in the surrounding area.
(b) To the east of this low hill,
the granite bedrock was blanketed by colluvium. It could be seen as pebbles and small cobbles
within a mottled matrix. Colluvium had been covered
by coarse sandy alluvium, variably iron and manganese stained and weakly
mottled, and present above colluvium in the lower
landscape. The presence of sandy alluvium suggested deposition in and around
the granite bedrock as outwash material from drainage from the hills to the
rear of the site. These deposits contain Song Dynasty pottery within an area of
about
(c) The center-west of the study area was low lying (+6-8mPD) and
for the most part underlain by coarse colluvium. Cobbles and coarse alluvium represented a
broad alluvial fan at the confluence of two main streams which was since
diverted by the western nullah but shown in the 1904
map of the area (see Plate 1.1 of Appendix 4.1).
Archaeological
materials in this region were restricted to Qing and modern period
pottery. These materials were present
even within alluvial cobbles, which had provided a recent date for these phases
of deposition. The only notable find within the western half of the study area
was at test pit 37 which produced a thick layer of 19th century and early 20th
century tile and earthenware (Dr. P.Lam p.comm.) within a disturbed context which also contained
mixed Song period and a single Warring States period sherd.
The “Archaeological
Survey at Former Tai Hom Tsuen”
recommended the following investigation:
1) The low granite hill was
represented by deposition of cultural material within a shallow ditch or
depression offers the prospect of locating primary features. Although the surrounding area was highly
disturbed, it had been truncated by house foundations, sewerage pits and
pipelines. Excavation to follow the extent of this feature both to the west and
east was recommended.
2) By contrast, Song period
material at test pit 12 suggested a secondary deposit – material re-deposited
from primary sites further up slope. A future excavation strategy should be
centred on TP 12 with the aim of determining the extent and significance of
this deposit, and the depth and relationship of the coarse alluvium in this
part of the landscape. Primary occupation features were less likely in such a
setting though investigation may repay further subsurface investigation.
Archaeological
Excavation in October 2002
A follow-up excavation was conducted by Mr Au Ka Fat in October 2002
based on the findings and recommendations of the “Archaeological
Survey at Tai Hom Tsuen” [4-2].
The excavation works were undertaken in 2 main areas, Area A and Area B,
using 5m x 5m excavation trenches in each area as follows:
·
Area A on the upper
slope towards the eastern part of the study area occupying a total of 250m2;
and
·
Area B on the
mid-lower slope towards the eastern part of the study area also occupying a
total of 250m2.
Song Dynasty artefacts discovered at Tai Hom
reflected the importance of the general
Area A revealed little cultural material before the Qing Dynasty within
typically thin soil and highly disturbed setting with likely truncation/removal
of earlier archaeological deposits. Zone
A was the focus of the squatter village with likely removal of earlier
archaeological material flushed toward Zone B.
Throughout the study area, there was no evidence of building remains,
ceramic roof tile, bricks, ancient trackways, wells
or domestic features or remains, etc.
The ceramic assemblage recovered for most part from
Test Sections 1- 9 within Area B were found with sandy colluvial deposits which imply redeposition,
likely from Song Dynasty occupation (now removed – north of the Tai Hom area).
While being a secondary site, the ceramic assemblage
at Tai Hom were from kiln in southern
Consolidating the 2 Archaeological Surveys Findings
in 2002
The above sections have presented the findings from 2 previous
archaeological surveys for former
·
The early settlement
in former
·
Before the World War
II, former
·
Some of the land was
transferred into military uses during the war;
·
After the war,
former
·
The squatter area,
together with its associated utilities, sewers etc, had highly disturbed the
original setting in former
·
Modern
infrastructure development such as the
Qing Dynasty or modern pottery was common throughout the site with
localised deposits of Song Dynasty artefacts and rare prehistoric artefacts in
the centre-east and east of the study area. These latter deposits were found
within secondary (colluvial) material and are
therefore not part of an original (in-situ)
occupation site. The author of the excavation report (Au Ka Fat 2002) concluded
that the study area was not an important cultural site.
SCL Archaeological
Survey at former
An archaeological
survey for former
A
total of nine test pits were excavated initially in the Stage 1 survey with an
additional two test pits excavated for the Stage 2 survey. Based on the results of the test pit
program at the former
·
The results of the
excavation in 2002 culminated in conclusions that the Tang/Song Dynasty remains
at the former
·
The results of the
test pit survey have proven the presence of a sparse Tang/Song Dynasty layer
which extends to the north-eastern part of the site.
·
While the 2009 program has proven a wider extent of the Tang/Song
Dynasty remains, the deposit is secondary with no further evidence of in-situ remains, foundations, postholes or evidence of
occupation.
The survey at the
former
4.4.3
Kai Tak Area
According to the approved Kai Tak Development
EIA Report, there are several known archaeological sites in Kai Tak that are relevant to this project. They are described below.
4.4.3.1
Lung Tsun Stone Bridge (龍津石橋) and Former Kowloon City Pier
Lung
Tsun Stone Bridge was a landing pier built in
1873-1875 (Figure 4.1.2). The
pier linked the east gate of
A concrete extension of the
Bridge was built in 1910 and used by the local steam-ferries. In 1930, it was
removed and replaced by a new Government pier, which in turn disappeared when
the Japanese reclaimed the foreshore during the Japanese Occupation.
Archaeological works in
2003 for Kai Tak Development did not find the bridge
but in a subsequent development EIA work, a follow-up archaeological
investigation in 2008 had revealed part of the Bridge and the Former Kowloon
City Pier. Based on the information from the subsequent investigation on the
The Bridge was constructed
in three phases over a period of 35 years. The granite planks, masonry of six
or seven spans and the Pier End Structure unearthed during the excavation in
2008 are part of the first phase
1924 reclamation seawall attached to the
The 1924 reclamation
seawall marked the coastline at that time. Part of the first phase
Two supporting concrete
pillars of the Former Kowloon City Pier were exposed in 2008 archaeological
excavation.
The following buildings within the study area represent a
review of available data on built heritage which has been supplemented by
partial field survey information. Figures 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 show the locations of these built heritages. A field survey
has also been conducted on these built heritages and the results are given in Appendix 4.3.
This EIA has assessed all built heritages
explicitly stipulated in the EIA Study
Brief (No. ESB-233/2011) and
those identified throughout the EIA process. It has been concluded that there
are no Sites of Cultural Heritage (namely
4.5.1
Former Royal Air
Force Hangar（前英國皇家空軍飛機庫）at former Tai Hom Village （大磡村）
4.5.1.1
History of the hangar before and during 2nd
World War
Prior to the Japanese
occupation, there were plans by the authorities to expand Kai Tak Airfield and build paved runways. Owing to this purpose, the RAF hangar located
at the eastern end of the airfield and constructed in 1934, was dismantled in
June 1941.
While it is not
entirely clear when the hangar at Tai Hom was erected
and by whom (Japanese or British), the current hangar was re-erected on-site
around 1941-45 (Figure 4.2.3). It was designed to be taken down and reassembled
quickly. The Hangar has been used by the Japanese troop during the 2nd
World War.
4.5.1.2
After
the 2nd World War
After
the war, the RAF used the hangar which included housing the Spitfire squadron (Plate
1.1 in Appendix 4.4). The
1945-1958 Kai Tak Airport comprised two paved
crossing runways that were built by the Japanese with British prisoner-of-war
labour. The main runway in similar direction to the reclaimed runway at Kai Tak was located in the area that we know today as San Po
Kong.
Prior to the closure of RAF Kai Tak in the
1970s,
This hangar is the only surviving pre-war military aircraft hangar
in
Over the last 40 years after the use by the RAF, the hangar had
served for various functions such as small scale industries and godown storage. The structure has now fallen into disrepair
with the roof exposed and overgrown with vegetation (Plate 1.3 in Appendix
4.4).
Details of the historical background,
structural condition and cultural significance of the hangar and other similar
historical buildings are given in Appendix
4.5 and a condition survey in Appendix 4.6. A summary is given below for easy reference.
|
Structural
Conditions |
A
structural survey was conducted in January 2009 on the Former Royal Air Force
Hangar. The key findings and
conclusion of the structural survey are summarised
as follows: ·
The
general structural conditions are poor; ·
Most
of the steel members are extensively corroded and deteriorating, which would
have significant effect on its structural integrity; ·
The condition
of the Hangar is currently not safe for public viewing. ·
The
wall cladding and roofing materials have been identified as having asbestos
containing material. It will therefore be necessary to remove and dispose of
the wall cladding and roofing to meet health and safety standards. |
|
Similar
Heritage Items in HK |
According
to the information in Hong Kong Aviation Club web-site, there used to be an
aircraft hangar in their previous club house at Kai Tak
before they moved to Shek Kong (ref http://www.hkaviationclub.com.hk/nav4b.html).
The picture taken by Ron Pattinson also
suggested that the shape and dimension was generally consistent with that in
the former |
|
Cultural
Significance |
·
This hangar is unique as the only surviving
pre-war military aircraft hangar in · The hangar was first constructed in 1934 at the Kai Tak airfield, dismantled in 1941 and later re-erected at its current location. It was designed to be quickly dissembled and reassembled. · Due to lack of regular maintenance, the structure of the hangar is not intact which diminishes its aesthetic and architectural value. · Much of its surrounding associated historical landscape (such as the two crossing airport runways in 1945-1958) has disappeared and its original historical identity as a military aircraft hangar is blurred by previous use for small scale industries and godown storage. · Organized historical information, including cartographic and photographic record would be necessary to communicate its historical value as a pre-war military aircraft hangar. · Together with the Old Pillbox, they contribute to the recollection of wartime history. |
4.5.2
Stone House, No 4
Tai Koon Yuen （大觀園4號石寓）
The
Stone House, No. 4 Tai Koon Yuen (大觀園4號石寓)
was built in 1947 (Figure 4.2.3). It was originally owned by Wu
Junzhao(吳君肇),
the ex-manager of the former Shanghai Bank of Communications, and was rented to
actor Qiao Hong(喬宏)
between 1950s and 1960s. The neighboring house at No
5 Tai Koon Yuen, now demolished, was once home of Li Hanxiang(李翰祥), a famous film director (Photo 1.4 in Appendix
4.4).
This Stone House was built
of granite from quarry located within the Diamond Hill areas. It was a two
storey building with temporary structure of corrugated steel sheets on the
roof. The windows are framed with metal. The front part of the house is single
storey with steel balustrade around the flat roof, used as a roof terrace.
The stone building is the
only surviving building from the former
|
Structural
Conditions |
A structural survey was conducted in
February 2009 on the stone house. The key
findings and conclusion of the structural survey are summarised
as follows: · The general structural condition is poor and not suitable for living; · Part of the temporary squatter structure at the roof had collapsed; · Spalling and exposed reinforcement found under the roof and on the wall; · Most of the installation foam board in the audio room were damaged or in poor condition · If it is not properly repaired, this house would have the risk of collapsing. · Careful
planning is required to record each member of the house before dissembling
into smaller pieces for relocation and later reassemble. |
|
Similar
Heritage Items in HK |
There are some stone houses of similar
type in other places of |
|
Cultural
Significance |
·
The Stone House, No. 4 Tai Koon Yuen has
historical linkage with · Many of its architectural features had been modified to a form different from its original style during 1947 – 1960. ·
This building is a decent but not unique
representation of this type of stone house architecture in ·
The cultural significance of the stone house
is slightly diminished by the absence of nearby evidence of the early film
industry in |
4.5.3
Old Pillbox （機槍堡）at former Tai Hom Village （大磡村）
A
fortified pillbox lies to the centre-north of the Tai Hom
area, and close to the hangar (Figure
4.2.3).
This old pillbox was constructed by the Japanese Air Force during the Japanese
occupation (Plates
1.5 and 1.6 in Appendix
4.4).
It was built to guard the eastern end of the
The pillbox is a
dome-shaped structure, with an extension on one side to provide a protected
entry. The domed section is approximately 5m in diameter and 2.4m from ground
level to top. The walls are made of cut stone blocks which were rendered by
cement. There were originally five firing loopholes in the dome walls, and a
further one through the wall to the entry. The interior is commonly flooded as
the floor is below ground level.
After the war, the
pillbox was abandoned and subsequently occupied by squatters. However, the
pillbox was retained after the demolition of former
|
Structural
Conditions |
A
structural survey was conducted in February 2009 on the old pillbox. The key findings and conclusion of the
structural survey are summarised as follows: · The general condition of the old pillbox is more satisfactory as compared to the Former Royal Air Force Hangar and stone house, except for the delamination of the plastering at the roof and some broken pieces of brickwork. ·
The structural integrity of the pillbox is
such that it should not be lifted in one piece. Subject to further
engineering study of its structural integrity, the pillbox will need to be
dismantled. |
||||||||||||
|
Similar
Heritage Items in HK |
There
were over seventy old pillboxes around the coast on
These
old pillboxes are constructed by the British troops but the old pillbox at
former A
complete picture of the old pillbox locations in the |
||||||||||||
|
Cultural
Significance |
· The old pillbox is a part of the Japanese fortification of Kai Tak airport during World War II. · It is the only Japanese constructed pillbox and the only graded old pillbox in HK. ·
Much of its surrounding associated historical
landscape has disappeared (such as the old · Together with the Hangar, they contribute to an important piece of wartime history. |
4.5.4
Gradings for Built Heritages
The above built
heritages have different gradings. In a recent
comprehensive assessment of historical buildings, the grading for these built
heritages have been reviewed by AMO and submitted to Antiquities Advisory Board
(AAB’s) consideration. A summary of the existing (at the time of writing this
report) and the latest proposed grading is given below. The proposed grading of
some of the built heritages has been confirmed according to the list of built
heritage released by AMO on 2 September 2011. The 1:1000 plan maps showing the
boundary of the built heritages are included in the built heritage survey (see Appendix 4.3).
Table 4.1: Existing and
proposed grading of built heritages
|
1:1000 Plan Ref |
Built Heritage |
Ownership [1] |
AMO Grading |
|
|
Existing |
Proposed [1] |
|||
|
A6.1-022 |
Former Royal Air Force Hangar, Diamond
Hill, KLN (九龍鑽石山前英國皇家空軍飛機庫) |
Gov’t |
Grade 3 |
Grade 3** |
|
A6.1-023 |
Stone House, No. 4 Tai Koon Yuen （大觀園4號石寓） |
Gov’t |
Grade 3 |
No Grade** |
|
A6.1-024 |
Old Pillbox, Diamond Hill, KLN （九龍鑽石山機槍堡） |
Gov’t |
Grade 2 |
Grade 2** |
Note:
[1] As per AMO’s List of the Historic Buildings in Building Assessment (as of
2 September 2011)
** Grading has been confirmed for
the
4.6.1.1
As can be seen
in Figure 4.1.3, the DIH is
located right at top of the former Tai Hom Village at
Diamond Hill. In order to investigate the archaeological potential of former
The survey at
the former
Therefore, the evaluation of cultural heritage
impact assessment for
4.6.1.2
Lung
Tsun Stone Bridge (Figure 4.1.2) was a landing pier built in 1873-1875. The
pier linked the east gate of
The proposed station and refuge sidings would totally avoid the remains of the Lung Tsun Stone Bridge (including the dressed granite planks and masonry of six or seven spans and the Pier End Structure).Though there is a possibility that linking structures may be present beneath the excavation level between Lung Tsun Stone Bridge and Former Kowloon City Pier, the differential settlement imposed on such linking structure (if it does exist) is expected to be small and has negligible impact to Lung Tsun Stone Bridge.
Evidence of
remains of the second and third phase of
A buffer zone to the Former Kowloon City
Pier (as shown in Figure 4.1.2) will be
maintained during the construction of the Project within which no at-grade
construction activities to be carried out. To the east between Former Kowloon
City Pier and KAT, trench excavation within braced cofferdam walls is proposed
and a buffer zone of Former
Indirect impacts on
Therefore, the evaluation of cultural heritage
impact assessment for
4.6.2.1
Sites of Cultural Heritage (Declared Monuments)
There
is no
4.6.2.2
Three Historical Buildings at
There are three built heritage structures
within the former Tai Hom Village (Figure
4.2.3) and the former Royal Air Force
Hangar together with the Old Pillbox are located
within the proposed development.
The entire structure of the Former Royal Air
Force Hangar will be directly impacted by the construction of the DIH area.
In-situ preservation of this structure is not practicable. Detailed
photographic and cartographic record of the structure would be recommended to
document this historic building prior to disassembling it. The Former Royal Air
Force Hangar is in poor condition. The wall and roof cladding of the hangar
comprises asbestos containing materials and will have to be removed and
disposed of for health and safety reasons. The steel frame of the hangar is
highly corroded and could not safely be reassembled. It is therefore proposed
to retain some portions of the structure that are of historical interest.
The stone house is an ungraded structure with
limited heritage value which is located outside the temporary at-grade works
sites. There will not be any impact to the structure.
The
proposed east end of the DIH station box will encroach onto the footprint of
the Old Pillbox. In view of the direct impact to the Old Pillbox, it is
recommended to disassemble the Pillbox and store the parts at a location away
from the heavy construction activities.
Detailed photographic and cartographic records of
the Old Pillbox would be recommended to document it prior to disassembling the
Old Pillbox and it is proposed to be reinstated as far as practicably
possible. However it is a fragile and
brittle structure and some parts may be subject to reassembly with new
materials to maintain an adequate level of structural integrity.
Therefore, the impact on former Royal Air Force
Hangar and the Old Pillbox would be considered as acceptable impact with mitigation measures while that for the Stone
House would be considered as acceptable.
4.7.1
Archaeological Sites
4.7.1.1
Figure
4.1.3 indicates that the DIH is located right at top
of the former Tai Hom Village at Diamond Hill. Recommended
mitigation measures would be conducted prior to the construction. Further
mitigation measure during the operational phase is therefore not considered
necessary.
Therefore, the impact on Former
4.7.1.2
No impacts
anticipated at this site during operation phase of SCL (HHS) due to its
considerable distance from proposed station and refuge sidings.
Therefore, the impact on Lung
4.7.2
Built Heritage
4.7.2.1
Sites of Cultural Heritage (Declared Monuments)
There is no
4.7.2.2
As discussed in Section 4.6.2.2, the entire structure
of Royal Air Force Hangar together with the Old Pillbox would be directly
impacted during the construction phase.
As detailed photographic and cartographic records are recommended to
document the Hangar and the Old Pillbox prior to disassembling them, no other
mitigation measure is required during the construction phase of the SCL.
However, the pillbox and some portions of the hangar will be stored temporary
away from the DIH construction activities.
Description of the further details of the
reassembling plan for each of the historical buildings at former
During the operational phase, the pillbox
will be reassembled within the former
Therefore, impact on the former Royal Air Force
Hangar and the Old Pillbox would be considered as acceptable.
4.7.2.3
Others
No direct or indirect impacts are expected during the operational phase
of the proposed works for the Stone House No. 4.
4.8.1
Archaeological Sites
4.8.1.1
As discussed in Section 4.4.2.3,
previous studies at the former Tai Hom Village reveal
that the Tang/ Song Dynasty remains found are both sparse and redepositied and hence of lesser archaeological
significance. However, assemblage of Tang/ Song archaeological finds within
urban setting is considered rare in
An Archaeological Action Plan
(AAP) following the Guideline for Archaeological Impact Assessment should be
submitted to the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) for agreement. The
project proponent should appoint qualified and experienced archaeologist(s)
with sufficient funding, time and personnel arrangements to implement the AAP.
The AAP should include a detailed plan for the survey-cum-excavation and a
contingency plan to address possible arrangement if significant archaeological
findings are unearthed during the survey-cum-excavation. Details of the proposal
plan with specification for the survey-cum-excavation should be agreed with AMO
prior to the submission of licence application.
4.8.1.2
No impacts are
expected during construction phase on the
4.8.2
Built Heritages
4.8.2.1
Sites of Cultural Heritage (Declared Monuments)
There
is no
4.8.2.2
Three Historical buildings at
As discussed in Section 4.6.2.2, the Former
Royal Air Force Hangar and the Old Pillbox would be directly affected by the
construction of the DIH. The Stone House No.4 would not be directly affected. As detailed
photographic and cartographic records will be recommended to document the Royal
Aircraft Hangar and the Old Pillbox prior to their removal, no other mitigation
measure is required during the operational phase of the SCL (HHS). The Old
Pillbox would be reinstated as far as practicable after being temporarily
stored during the construction period. Portions of the hangar frame would also
be stored during construction and placed in areas of the CDA site during
operational stage to illustrate the structural technology used during war time.
A model to represent the current form of the hangar will also be prepared to
demonstrate the form and function of the hangar. The project proponent shall
submit a separate Conservation Plan for these 2 historical buildings. The
following shows an outline conservation plan for reference.
Appendix 4.8 presented the evaluation of a number of possible mitigation measures.
As on-site preservation is not practicable, the following good practice is recommended
for the 2 historical buildings:
|
Old Pill Box: |
·
Documentation prior to disassembling,
temporary storage ·
Reinstatement (as per the conservation
plan*) within CDA site |
|
RAF Hangar: |
·
Documentation prior to disassembling, temporary
storage of portions of historical interest ·
Display of retained portions and a model
within CDA site as per the conservation plan |
Disassembling
refers to the breaking down of the entire structure into smaller structural elements
that would fit for temporary storage in an appropriate manner, either on-site
or off-site. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the heritage values of these
historical buildings would be largely reduced once they are disassembled based
on the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in
The recording
documentation and disassembling for temporary storage would be undertaken by the
Project Proponent.
Below is a
description of the further details of the mitigation measures for each of the
historical buildings at former
|
2 Historical Buildings in |
Pre-construction Proposed Mitigation Measure
|
Post-construction |
|
Former
Royal Air Force Hangar |
Further
structural survey and documentation, including cartographic and photographic
record and structural component inventory of the existing structure would be
conducted. Disassemble the building with care, record and securely
transport some portions of historical interest and store. It
should be noted that the remaining wall and roof cladding has been identified
to be asbestos containing material and therefore all such material will need
to be removed and disposed of for health reasons. |
The
poor structural condition of the Hangar due to a lack of regular maintenance
and the need to remove and dispose of wall and roof cladding asbestos
containing materials would lead to the loss of most of its historical fabric. The
Hangar is recommended to be dismantled and some portions of historical
interest be retained for display within the future development site. The Project Proponent will be the responsible party
for disassembling of the historic structure. The Project Proponent will be responsible for
display the retained portions together with a model as per the
recommendations in the conservation plan within the CDA Site. |
|
Old
Pillbox |
Further
structural survey and documentation, including cartographic and photographic record
and structural component inventory of the existing structure would be
conducted. A structural survey was
conducted in February 2009 on the old pillbox. The general condition of the old pillbox
is more satisfactory as compared to the Former Royal Air Force Hangar and
stone house, except for the delamination of the
plastering at the roof and some broken pieces of brickwork. The structural
integrity of the pillbox is such that it should not be lifted in one piece.
Subject to further engineering study of its structural integrity, the pillbox
will need to be dismantled. Disassemble the building with care, record and securely
transport and store each reusable component. |
The
temporary relocation within the Reassembling
the Pillbox as far as practicable is proposed. The Project Proponent will be the responsible party
for disassembling of the historic structure and reassembly. The Project Proponent will be responsible for
reinstating the Old Pillbox as per the recommendations in the conservation
plan within the CDA Site. |
The project proponent shall submit a separate
Conservation Plan for these 2 historical buildings as another mitigation
measure. The following shows an outline conservation plan for reference.
|
Key Aspects |
Description |
|
Assessment of Cultural Significance |
·
Assess and confirm the historical and cultural significance
of the 2 historical buildings based on the latest information (including site
visits, etc) ·
Identify any special elements of cultural interest and
significance (including facade, or architectural and structural elements for
the period when the 2 historical buildings were actively used, etc) ·
Identify any gaps in the knowledge of the 2 historical
buildings. ·
Prepare an inventory of heritage resources |
|
Assessment and Analysis of Conservation Needs |
·
Physical conditions of the special elements of cultural
interest and significance ·
Latest AAB’s grading and public aspiration (including
those from public consultation, if any) ·
List of special elements of cultural interest and
significance that have to be conserved |
|
Identification of constraints and opportunities |
·
Need and extent for physical repairing ·
Statutory requirements (e.g. means of public access and
escape, utilities) ·
Safety constraints (e.g. asbestos containing materials
have to be totally removed) ·
Land availability within the CDA site ·
Requirements on implementation timeframe /
responsibility |
|
The Proposed Use |
·
Conservation objectives ·
Conservation principles for proposal ·
Proposal plans (including design drawings) ·
Management plan and implementation agent |
|
Review Arrangement |
·
Arrangement and timescale for a periodic review of the
contents of the plan and the implementation of the actions recommended. |
|
Supplementary Information |
·
Bibliography and references ·
Specialist reports and documentation ·
Plan, photographs and other site data (e.g. topo and building) ·
Survey data |
Reference
has been made to the following documents:
·
Conservation Plan by James Semple
Kerr
·
Conservation Plan by Charter of
·
Conservation Plan by the Burra
Charter (ICOMOS
·
Conservation Plan by the Principles for the
Conservation of Heritage Sites in
·
Conservation Plan by the Standards and Guidelines
for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in
·
“Conservation Plans – A guide to the Preparation of
Conservation Plans “ - Historic
·
“Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of
Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance” -
·
“The Illustrated
·
“Conservation Management Plan for the old Tai O
Police Station” –
No mitigation measure is required for the Stone House No. 4 as there will not be adverse impacts on this site from the proposed works.
No insurmountable adverse impacts are expected during the operational phase
for all the heritage sites. Therefore, no mitigation measures are recommended
for operational phase.
4.10
Conclusions
A summary of the
impacts and mitigation measures for cultural heritage is given below.
Table 4.2: Summary of impacts
and mitigation measures for construction and operational phases
|
Heritage Items |
Horizontal
Distance from Proposed Station |
Construction
Phase |
Operational Phase |
Construction
Method |
|||
|
Impact |
Mitigation |
Impact |
Mitigation |
||||
|
Direct |
Indirect |
||||||
|
Archaeological Sites |
|||||||
|
|
0 m |
Y |
N/A |
Submission of Archaeological Action Plan Conduct Survey-Cum-Excavation prior to
construction |
N/A |
N/A |
Cut-&-cover |
|
|
365m |
N |
N |
Allow a buffer zone (see Figure 4.1.2) |
N |
N |
|
|
|
305m |
N |
N |
Allow a buffer zone (see Figure 4.1.2) |
N |
N |
|
|
Built Heritage |
|||||||
|
Former Royal Air Force Hangar |
0 m |
Y |
N |
A full cartographic and photographic survey
documentation after asbestos containing materials has been removed but prior to
disassembling the remainder of the Hangar. A conservation plan to be
submitted. Portions of historical interest will be displayed together with a
model within CDA site as per the conservation plan. |
N/A |
N/A |
Cut-&-cover |
|
Old Pillbox |
0 m |
A full cartographic and
photographic survey documentation prior to disassembling the Pillbox. A
conservation plan to be submitted. Reinstatement as per the conservation plan
within CDA Site. |
|||||
|
Stone House No. 4 |
45m |
N |
N |
Nil |
N |
N |
|
[4-1] Archaeo-Environments
Ltd Tai Hom etc 2002.
[4-2] Au Ka Fat,
2002. Report of the Archaeological
Excavation at Tai Hom Tsuen
[4-3] 明報出版社. 追尋九龍古蹟，爾東(文)，李健信(攝影)
[4-4] 鐘宝賈著. 香港百年光影. 北京大學出版社.
[4-5] Kai Tak development EIA (ref EIA 157/2008)
[4-6] 宋皇台紀念集. 香港趙氏宗親會
[4-7] 饒宗頤, 1959. 九龍與宋季史料. 萬有圖書公司.
[4-8] Lo Hsiang-lin, 1963.
[4-9] 蕭國健著, 1986. 清初遷海前後香港之社會變遷. 台灣商務印書館.
[4-10] 蕭國健著, 1987. 九龍城史論集. 香港顯朝書室.
[4-11] 白德著, 1991.香港風物志. 香港市政局.
[4-12] 蕭國健著, 1994. 香港歷史與社會. 香港教育圖書公司.
[4-13] 蕭國健著, 1995. 香港古代史. 香港中華書局.
[4-14] 蕭國健、湯開建合編, 1998. 香港：從遠古到一九九七. 香港齡記出版社.
[4-15] 蕭國健、沈思合編, 2001. 香港市區文化之旅. 香港萬里書店出版社.
[4-16] 九龍城區議會, 2005. 九龍城區風物志
[4-17] 蕭國健著, 2006. 香港古代史(修訂版).香港中華書局.
[4-18] 爾東著, 2007. 追尋九龍古蹟. 明報出版社.
[4-19] 蕭國健著, 2008.香港新界之歷史與鄉情. 中華文教交流服務中心.
[4-20] 觀塘區議會, 2008.觀塘風物志.
[4-21] Henry, J.K.M., Villiers, A.W.C. & Gandy, J.J. 1961. The construction
of the new
[4-22] Kerr, J.S. (James
Semple). 2004.
Conservation Plan: a guide to the preparation of conservation plans for
places of European cultural significance. 6th edition. National Trust of
[4-23] ICOMOS. 1999. Burra Charter: the
[4-24] China ICOMOS, 2003. Principles for the
Conservation of Heritage Sites in