19. A Member noted in the latest Marine
& River Water Quality Report that the water quality in northwest
New Territories and Deep Bay area had deteriorated. She requested
EPD to provide the reasons in the paper undertaken.
(Post meeting note : EPD's reply was sent
to that Member on 6 August, copying to other Members.)
20. The Chairman proposed and Members
agreed to endorse the EIA report with conditions as recommended
by the Subcommittee.
EIA Report on Permanent Aviation Fuel Facility
21. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman reported
the concerns and the discussion of the Subcommittee and its
recommendation to endorse the EIA report with the conditions
set out in paragraph 27 of the ACE Paper.
22. A Member drew the Council's attention
to the selected routing of the submarine pipelines which would
intrude upon a marine park in the region. He said that strictly
speaking it did not comply with the precautionary principle
of environmental impact assessment that avoidance should come
before mitigation. However, since the selected option would
cause less environmental impact compared with other alternative
alignments, it was accepted on its own merits.
23. In response to the Chairman's enquiry,
Mr. C C Lay confirmed that the Country and Marine Parks
Board had approved the proposed project.
24. In response to a Member's enquiry on the
first proposed condition, the EIA Subcommittee Chairman
said that according to his understanding the project proponent
would conduct pilot piling on the seabed when testing the
bubble jacket.
25. Mr. T K Lee asked whether the Subcommittee
was aware of and if so, had considered the public objections
to the project especially those from the residents in Tuen
Mun. In response, the EIA Subcommittee Chairman said
that he was aware of the objections through the media after
the Subcommittee meeting and had asked the project proponent
through the Secretariat for a response. He pointed out that
the Subcommittee had dealt with all major environmental issues
of the project. Public concerns on the project were mainly
about the location of the tank farm and its risk. Chapter
10 of the EIA report contained detailed assessments on the
risk and hazards of the tank farm. The Subcommittee was satisfied
that the risk was within acceptable level.
26. The Chairman asked how EPD would
deal with the public objections. In reply, Mr. Stokoe
said that most of the public comments received were about
the discontent of having such kind of facility in their neighbourhood.
EPD's remit was to ensure that the project with the implementation
of the proposed mitigation measures would be environmentally
acceptable and that the risk assessment could demonstrate
that the siting of the facility to be within acceptable level.
Informal dialogue with Drainage Services
Department (DSD)
27. A Member informed the meeting that
the Subcommittee had an informal dialogue with the Drainage
Services Department and discussed the proposed sewage treatment
plant in Ngong Ping. Some of the comments raised during the
meeting were that given the high water quality standard of
the treated wastewater, the Administration should explore
the potential of re-using it, for example, as flushing water
in the area. The proposal might involve several government
departments and it would be high time to plan for it before
the development started.
28. Another Member shared that Member's
views and, quoting a water park in the Mainland as an example,
urged the Government to demonstrate its commitment to sustainable
development by utilizing treated wastewater for useful purposes.
29. In response to that Member's suggestion,
Mr. Stokoe said that EPD had already taken the initiative
to look into the possibility and had started liaison with
DSD and Water Services Department. He would convey the Council's
enthusiasm on the idea to all parties concerned.
30. The Chairman proposed and Members
agreed to endorse the EIA report with conditions as recommended
by the Subcommittee.
Agenda Item 4: Landscape Value Mapping
of Hong Kong - First Stage Consultation
(ACE Paper 26/2002)
31. The Chairman welcomed Ms. S C Lau
and Mr. David Morkel to the meeting. Ms. Lau said that
the Study was the first of its kind in Hong Kong. It aimed
to produce a comprehensive landscape character map of the
whole territory to facilitate landscape and broad environmental
assessments of major projects at territorial level. Mr.
Morkel then briefed Members on the details of the Study.
Additional natural or human features which
contribute to the make-up or character of landscape
32. The Chairman suggested including
prominent infrastructure projects such as Tsing Ma Bridge
as a kind of landscape in Hong Kong. A Member suggested
streams and waterfalls. Another Member and the Chairman
asked whether old banyan trees and trees on stonewalls could
be included. In response, Mr. Morkel said that the
study undertaken at a territorial level could only include
individual features forming visible masses which were sufficiently
well known or recognized as having enhanced the sense of place/character.
Small visible features like individual trees were generally
beyond the remit of the Study.
Classification and landscape character types
that adequately reflect the variety of landscapes in Hong
Kong
33. The Chairman suggested adding Small
Houses in the New Territory as a character feature.
Value and quality of landscape
34. A Member noted that value in terms
of intrinsic value or attraction which in his view was subjective
in nature would be assigned to different landscapes. He personally
considered that the value of landscape could be measured in
monetary terms, i.e. the extent that people were willing to
pay to keep the landscape intact. In response, Mr. Morkel
said that the scope of the Study was to adopt an aesthetic
point of view. Assigning of monetary value was a controversial
and problematic issue and was outside the scope of the Study.
Ms. Lau said that landscape values measured this way
would not reflect the objective value of landscape as the
willingness to pay might be offset by other conflicting objectives
and overriding consideration e.g. land cost. That was why
a sustainability assessment system was needed to take into
account different factors including the economic, social and
environmental aspects of policies/proposals.
35. In response to the Chairman's question,
Ms. Lau confirmed that the sustainability assessment
system was in use by the Administration and the current Study
was to provide landscape data to that system.
36. A Member noted that the Study would
only be useful to assess landscape impact of major projects
at territorial level whilst in reality many local minor projects
often caused much adverse impact to landscape. In response,
Mr. Morkel said that although the information would
not be detailed enough for local projects' assessment, the
data collected from the exercise would identify focus areas
for more detailed examination, if necessary.
Landscape features/land uses that add to
the quality of landscape
37. A Member agreed that distinguished
structures like the Tsing Ma Bridge would add to the quality
of landscape. Another Member said that the sound of
waves and the colours of trees were good examples. A third
Member added that well-designed architecture could also
serve the same purpose. The Chairman said that night
markets were another feature adding to the value.
Landscape features/land uses that particularly
detract from the quality of landscape
38. A Member asked whether the consultant
would identify major eyesores such as warehouses and parking
lots in the New Territories as a reference for future landscape
enhancement. He also asked whether the ridgeline and other
artificial features, for instance, wastewater treatment plants,
would be included in the Study and how the Study was related
to the Hong Kong 2030 Study.
39. Mr. Morkel replied that the features
mentioned by that Member would be included in the Study. Ms.
Lau said that the data collected in the Study would be
taken into account in the Strategic Environmental Assessment
for the Hong Kong 2030 Study.
40. A Member said that tunnels and
fresh markets could be added to the list. Another Member
commented that noise barriers with inconsistent designs and
colours on highways had a negative impact on landscape.
41. The Chairman was concerned about
the criteria to be used in classifying which features were
eyesores, as it would involve subjective judgement. A Member
shared the Chairman's views and said that architects would
not make numerical measurements when they evaluated the aesthetics
aspect of buildings.
42. In response to the Chairman's query, Mr.
Morkel said that their approach on evaluation was to make
reference to overseas practices and to ensure that professional
judgments were reasoned, consistent and transparent. The value
assessment process and the marking scheme would be available
for reference by public. Ms. Lau supplemented that
although aesthetic values varied among individuals, the Administration
aimed to develop a consensus through transparent and open
consultations with stakeholders and representatives from various
professional institutes concerned.
43. Noting the enhancement value of vegetation
on concrete walls in Singapore, the Chairman asked
whether Hong Kong could follow suit. In response, Ms. Lau
said that they had recently promulgated greening guidelines
in Chapter 4 of the Hong Kong Planning Standard and Guidelines
to promote better greening of the cityscape.
Areas of Hong Kong that have particularly
high landscape quality and areas that have particularly low
landscape quality
44. A Member quoted the Wetland Park
and Tin Shui Wai estates as an example with high and low landscape
quality features in the same place. He asked how areas like
those would be valued. In response, Mr. Morkel said
that the evaluation system would take account of the effect
of an adjacent landscape character area on the value of any
given landscape character area.
45. A Member asked whether the results
of the Study would provide guidelines for professionals to
enhance landscape value. In response, Mr. Morkel said
that the subject was beyond the remit of the Study but the
Administration could make use of the data collected as a starting
point for further programmes.
46. A Member commented that the colour
and the printing of the consultation digest, in particular,
the cover were unattractive in contrast with the emphasis
on aesthetic value of landscape in the content. Mr. C C
Lay offered to provide Plan D with high-quality scenic
photographs if needed.
(Post-meeting notes: It has been revealed
upon checking that the Committee had received colour photocopies
of the Consultation Digest rather than original printed versions
which were of a much higher quality. PlanD would ensure that
the Committee received original copies in future and would
like to thank AFCD for their kind offer of access to their
photo library.)
47. A Member pointed out that one would
require a vantage point to appreciate certain landscape features,
for example, the Victoria Harbour and the Peak. The consultant
should delineate certain areas where people could fully appreciate
the value of those features. Mr. Morkel replied that
existing prominent and well-known vantage points would be
featured in the landscape character map.
48. The Chairman thanked Ms. Lau and
Mr. Morkel for the presentation and looked forward to further
progress of the Study. Ms. Lau and Mr. Morkel
thanked Members for their comments.
Agenda Item 5 : Any Other Business
49. The Chairman informed the meeting
that the date for Mr. Loh Ah Tuan to attend the meeting of
the Council had yet to be fixed.
Agenda Item 6 : Date of Next Meeting
50. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday,
27 August 2002 at 2:30pm.
ACE Secretariat
June 2002
|