8                    Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

 

Introduction

 

8.1              This section presents the findings of the assessment of potential impacts on the landscape and visual impact associated with the proposed jetty

 

8.2              Alternatives regarding transportation modes and jetty location and design options have been considered and can be referred to in Section 2 of this report. The proposed jetty location is the most preferred location with respect to visual/ landscape issues since the smaller jetty structure possible at this location at the south of the bay would result in less visual intrusion and less natural landscape loss than alternatives. Table 2.1 presents a comparison of anticipated impacts from alternative jetty locations including visual/ landscape resources. 

 

8.3              Decisions with respect to the proposed jetty location and design were made in consultation with advisory bodies and the general public. The details regarding these consultations are presented in Section 2 of this Report and included the following. CAD in collaboration with District Office (Tuen Mun) consulted with Lung Kwu Tan villagers at a meeting in January 2000. CED, CAD, AFCD, AMO, DO/Tuen Mun made a site visit on 18 April 2001 to discuss the preferred jetty location. The proposed jetty location and design also follows recommendations made by the Marine Parks Committee in a consultation meeting held on 9 November 2001. Tuen Mun District Council (TMDC) were also consulted. Specific comments regarding visual impacts were relayed by DO/TM on Lung Kwu Tan villager’s concerns over lighting glare effects. The lighting system is designed accordingly to avoid glare. Nevertheless, minimisation of the size of the jetty design is the primary way, and visual impacts have been addressed while construction on previously disturbed rather than natural coastline has allowed reduction of landscape impact.

 

8.4              Justification for the need for the project is presented in Section 2 of this Report.  The proposed jetty is needed to facilitate maintenance and servicing as well as allow emergency access to the DVOR/DME  station for safeguarding air traffic safety.

 

8.5              Side benefits from jetty construction include better access to Lung Kwu Chau for educational and recreation purposes. AFCD, the management authority of the Marine Park, has indicated that park visitors/ eco-tourists may access the island via the proposed jetty for land-based dolphin watching activities.  AFCD would organise guided educational tours in the Marine Park to promote public awareness on the conservation of marine life and the marine environment.  Activities would include shoreline clean-ups and appreciating coastal plants and animals.

 

Legislation, Guidelines and Planning Policy

 

8.6              The criteria and methodology for landscape and visual impact assessment are laid down in Annex 10 and 18 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO TM). Guidelines for the preparation of landscape and visual assessment are provided in EIAO Guidance Note 8/2002.

 

8.7              The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Chapter 10 - Landscape and Conservation, outlines those design criteria that should be considered when planning developments in agricultural and fish farming areas, woodlands, and water storage areas.

 

8.8              Restrictions on the preservation and felling of trees in Hong Kong are specified in Government General Regulation 740.  The Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap 96) prohibits felling, cutting, burning or destroying of trees and growing plants in forests and plantations on government land.  Its subsidiary regulations prohibit the picking, felling or possession of listed rare and protected plant species.  The list of protected species in Hong Kong is defined in The Forestry Regulations, made under Section 3 of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96).

 

8.9              In order to assess whether the project can fit into the existing and planned landscape setting, the planning and development control framework prepared under the Town Planning Ordinance has been reviewed. Lung Kwu Chau falls outside statutory planning areas and is outside the study area of the strategic planning studies for both South West New Territories (SWNT) and North West New Territories (NWNT) planning frameworks. Although Lung Kwu Chau is covered by no statutory plan, Lung Kwu Chau and its environs will continue to be a managed conservation area as a Marine Park and no significant development is to be expected.

 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology

 

8.10          This landscape and visual impact assessment identifies the impacts upon the resources that make up the landscape, upon the character of the landscape and upon the visual amenity of the area.  Landscape and visual impact assessment is not an objective science but is based upon a structured and systematic evaluation of predicted impacts informed by professional judgement and experience.

 

8.11          For the purposes of assessment, a clear distinction has been drawn between the assessment of landscape impacts and the assessment of visual impacts:

 

8.12          Landscape impacts are impacts on the intrinsic fabric (i.e. natural landform, vegetation, geology, drainage etc.) and indirectly upon the character of a landscape: that is, upon the combination of natural and man-made components that go together to give a landscape it’s specific identity.

 

8.13         Visual impacts are impacts upon the views of the landscape of individual viewers (known as receptors).  Visual impact assessment involves the identification of receptors who will be affected by a change to a given view, (be they residents, those working in the landscape, travelling through it, or using it as a recreational resource) and an assessment of the impacts of that change.

 

8.14          The methodology adopted for the Project conforms to the requirements of the EIAO TM and comprises the following stages:

 

1.      Definition of the scope and contents of the study

2.      Review of the relevant legislation and planning policy

3.      Identification of baseline landscape and visual conditions

4.      Identification of potential sources of landscape and visual impacts

5.      Assessment of potential landscape impacts

6.      Assessment of potential visual impacts

7.      Recommendations for mitigation measures and their implementation programme, if required

8.      Identification of any residual impacts, once mitigation measures have become fully effective;

9.      Recommendations for environmental monitoring and audit relating to the proposed landscape and visual mitigation measures, where necessary

10.  Conclusions and prediction of significance of potential landscape and visual impacts. 

 

8.15          These main elements of these stages are described in the following sub-sections:

 

            Scope and Contents

 

8.16          In setting the scope of the landscape and visual impact assessment the following aspects should be considered:

 

·        extent and alignment;

·        limits of the assessment area;

·        key issues to be addressed; and

·        other developments if cumulative impacts are to be assessed.

 

            Identification of Baseline Landscape and Visual Conditions

 

8.17          In order to identify clearly the impacts of a proposed development, it is necessary to establish the baseline landscape and visual conditions. This has been performed through desk study and verified through field survey. The baseline study has investigated the following aspects:

 

·        physical aspects of the site, such as geology, vegetation, landform, drainage, soil and climate;

·        human aspects such as cultural features, historical artefacts, buildings and settlements, people affected and their perception of the landscape character; and

·        aesthetic aspects, such as potential visually sensitive receivers, the views available, visual amenity and visual character.

 

8.18          The baseline study contains an appraisal of the landscape and visual resources of the assessment area. It focuses particularly on the sensitivity of the landscape and visual system and its ability to accommodate change.  The following aspects of the site have been appraised to provide a comprehensive and accurate description of the landscape and visual character of the assessment area:

 

·        landscape context

·        land uses

·        vegetation

·        topography

·        features

·        landscape character

·        key views of the development

·        identity of the viewers

 

8.19          Zones of visual influence have been identified by means of site visits together with line-of-sight studies using survey maps. 

 

            Identification of Potential Sources of Impact

 

8.20          Potential sources of landscape and visual impact that would be generated by the Project have been identified by desktop and field studies.  Impacts of the Project can be direct, positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), reversible or irreversible and cumulative.

 

8.21          Potential landscape and visual impacts (both beneficial and adverse) are considered at different points in time:

 

·        during construction; and

·        during operation (Day 1 and Year 10).

 

8.22          Through an assessment of impacts at these points in time, a distinction has been drawn between temporary and permanent impacts.

 

            Assessment of Landscape Impacts

 

8.23          Landscape impacts have been assessed at two levels:

 

·        impacts upon individual landscape resources; and

·        impacts upon landscape character.

 

8.24          Landscape impacts have been assessed as a function of the magnitude of an impact and the sensitivity of the landscape resource or landscape character.  ‘Landscape Resources’ are the natural and man-made physical features which combine to make up the landscape itself (e.g. geology, vegetation, water courses, buildings etc.) ‘Landscape character’ is the aggregate effect or impression created by this combination of physical resources.  Factors affecting the magnitude of change for assessing landscape impacts may include:

 

Ÿ         compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape,

Ÿ         duration of impacts under construction and operation phases,

Ÿ         scale of development, and

Ÿ         reversibility of change.

 

8.25          Landscape sensitivity is the ability of the landscape or character to accommodate change without prejudice to the quality of that resource. Therefore, for example, delicate plant ecosystems will be sensitive to changes in landscape resources whilst landscapes with a diversity of elements will tend to be less sensitive to changes in landscape character.  Factors affecting the sensitivity for evaluation of landscape impact may include:

 

Ÿ         quality of landscape characters/resources,

Ÿ         importance and rarity of special landscape elements,

Ÿ         ability of the landscape to accommodate change,

Ÿ         significance of the change in local and regional context, and

Ÿ         maturity of the landscape.

 

8.26          The significance of impacts has been assessed by taking into account both receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of impact. Table 8.1 illustrates the matrix used to define the significance thresholds of impacts.  Impact significance thresholds are rated as either slight adverse, slight to moderate adverse, moderate adverse, moderate to substantial adverse or substantial adverse. This matrix was applied to define the significance of both landscape and visual impacts.

 

Table 8.1        The Landscape/Visual Impact Assessment Matrix

 

 

Receptor Sensitivity (Landscape Resource, Landscape Character Area or VSR)

Magnitude Of Impact

High

Medium

Low

 Large

 Substantial Adverse

Moderate/ Substantial Adverse

Slight/ Moderate Adverse

 Intermediate

Moderate/ Substantial Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Slight Adverse

Small

Slight / Moderate Adverse

Slight Adverse

 Insubstantial

 Negligible

 Insubstantial

 Insubstantial

 Insubstantial

 

Assessment of Visual Impacts

 

8.27          Visual impacts have been defined as a function of the sensitivity of a receiver and the magnitude of the change to that receiver’s existing view. 

 

8.28          The assessment of visual impacts has been structured by receiver sensitivity. Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) have been identified through the definition of the development’s ‘zone of visual influence’ or ZVI. (i.e. the area within which views of the development are possible). For the purpose of this study, receivers have been grouped into the following four categories: 

 

Table 8.2         Categories of Receivers

 

Category of Receiver

 

Description of Receiver

Residential

-

Those people who would view the scheme from their home

Occupational

-

Those people who would view the scheme from their workplace

Recreational

-

Those people who would view the scheme whilst engaging in recreational activities

Travellers

-

Those people who would view the scheme from their vehicles or on foot

 

 

8.29          The sensitivity of receptors to visual impacts is influenced by the immediate context of the viewer, the activity in which they are engaged and the value that they attach to this location in particular. Factors affecting the sensitivity of receivers for evaluation of visual impacts may include:

 

·        value and quality of existing views,

·        availability and amenity alternative views,

·        type and estimated number of receiver population,

·        duration or frequency of view, and

·        degree of visibility.             

 

Receivers have been categorised as being of high, medium or low sensitivity to visual impacts. 

 

a)      Those who view the scheme from their homes are considered to be highly sensitive to any visual intrusion.  This is because the attractiveness, or otherwise, of the view would have a notable effect on a resident’s general quality of life and acceptability of their home environment.  They have been classified as a high sensitivity group. 

 

b)      Those people who view the scheme from their workplace are considered relatively less sensitive to visual intrusion.   This is because they are employed in activities where visual outlook plays a less important role in the perception of the quality of the working environment.  They have been classified as a low sensitivity group. 

 

c)      For those who view the scheme whilst engaging in outdoor leisure pursuits, visual sensitivity varies depending on the type of recreational activity.  Those taking a stroll in a park, for example, would be classified as a high sensitivity group compared to football players who would have a low sensitivity rating. 

 

d)      For those people who view the scheme from public thoroughfares, the degree of visual intrusion experienced depends on the speed of travel and whether views are continuous or only occasional. 

 

e)      Generally, the slower the speed of travel and the more continuous the viewing experience, then the greater the degree of sensitivity. 

 

8.30          The criteria used to determine the outcome of a visual impact assessment are related to the typical view points within the visual receiver group, as identified previously, and the magnitude of changes to existing views subsequent to the development.  Factors affecting the magnitude of changes for assessing visual impacts may include:

 

·        compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape,

·        duration of impacts under construction and operation phases,

·        scale of development,

·        reversibility of change,

·        viewing distance, and

·        potential blockage of view.

 

8.31          The significance of visual impacts have been assessed as insubstantial, slight adverse, slight to moderate adverse, moderate adverse, moderate to substantial adverse or substantial adverse. The matrix used to assess visual impacts is presented in Table 8.1.

 

            Mitigation Proposals

 

8.32          Mitigation is concerned with both damage reduction as well as landscape and visual enhancement.  Measures that would mitigate or compensate the impacts at specific locations should be identified under two categories, i.e. remedial or compensatory.

 

8.33          Remedial measures would typically include site reinstatement, colour and texture of materials to be used.  Compensatory measures would typically include actions such as landscape treatment and visual features.

 

            Residual Impacts

 

8.34          Residual impacts are those impacts that remain once mitigation measures have been put in place and (in the case of planting) allowed to mature. They represent the permanent long term impacts of the Project.

 

Conclusions and Prediction of Significance of Impacts

 

8.35          Finally, specific conclusions relevant to the proposed Project have been drawn and an assessment of the significance of potential landscape and visual impacts is provided.  Reference has been made to criteria for evaluation of both landscape and visual impacts laid out in Annex 10 of the Technical Memorandum. There are five levels of significance based on type and extent of the effects concluded in the EIA study: 

 

8.36          The evaluation of landscape and visual impact has been classified into five levels of significance based on the type and extent of the effects concluded in the EIA study:

 

(a)       The impact is beneficial if the project will complement the landscape and visual character of its setting, will follow the relevant planning objectives and will improve overall and visual quality;

(b)       The impact is acceptable if the assessment indicates that there will be no significant effects on the landscape, no significant visual effects caused by the appearance of the project, or no interference with key views;

(c)       The impact is acceptable with mitigation measures if there will be some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures;

(d)       The impact is unacceptable if the adverse effects are considered too excessive and are not able to be mitigated practically;

(e)       The impact is undetermined if significant adverse effects are likely, but the extent to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be determined from the study.  Further detailed study will be required for the specified effects in question.

 

Scope and Contents of the Study

 

8.37          In setting the scope of the study the following aspects have been considered:-

 

Extent and Alignment of the Jetty

 

8.38          The scale and alignment of the proposed Project is illustrated in broad terms in Figure 1.1 in the context of the surrounding Marine Park and Archaeological Site and in Figure 2.1 in the context of detailed works and locations of alternative sitings for the jetty.  It should be noted that the Project has consulted the Marine Park Committee.  It has also taken note of fung shui concerns by Lung Kwu Tan village residents  living on the opposite shore of the Urmston Road channel and realigned the jetty to avoid any perceived ill effects.  This alternative alignment which is being proposed as the preferred option is also approximately 40m shorter in length.

 

Assessment Area

 

8.39          For the purpose of assessing potential impacts on landscape resources, the study has included all areas of sea and land that would be physically affected by the proposed development, including through construction of the jetty, dredging works and footpath.

 

8.40          For the purpose of assessing potential visual impacts of the jetty, the study area comprises a visual envelope (also called Zone of Visual Influence) on land extending along the ridgeline between Black Point and Pillar Point.  This and the location of VSRs within it are shown in Figure 8.1. The furthest point of the ZVI from the proposed jetty location is approximately 8km.  Also considered in detail are viewpoints in the Urmston Road channel itself and adjacent Marine Park waters.

 

Key Landscape Issues

 

8.41          Key landscape issues for the Project are few.  They are likely to include the potential loss of vegetation at the backshore area of the jetty due to the catwalk landing and adjoining path although much of this backshore area comprises an anthropogenically modified bulkhead which was previously used as a landing point for construction materials to the island. They may also include loss of disturbed and natural coastline, sea area and seabed in the bay due to construction of the jetty and dredging of the approach channel.  The possible change of landscape character due to the proposed jetty should be considered.  Construction of the jetty and dredging may also indirectly impact the sedimentation regime in the bay which may alter the geomorphological features and bathymetry of the neighbouring sandy beach and subtidal area, although due to the small scale of construction and through flow design of the jetty this effect is likely to be negligible. The cultural/archaeological importance of affected area as well as changes to the character and value of the affected landscapes must also be considered.

 

Key Visual Issues

 

8.42          Key visual issues include potential changes to the existing views, changes to visual amenity and visual character.  These changes in views may be the result of either introducing new man-made elements into the landscape (e.g. introduction of construction/dredging phase equipment and vessels as well as the jetty itself and associated facilities) or by changes to existing elements (e.g. removal of vegetation on the backshore and removal of rockyshore and sea areas). 

 

Cumulative Impacts

 

8.43          Since there are no current major projects in the vicinity of the island, there would be no potential cumulative impacts with other developments.

Identification of Baseline Landscape and Visual Conditions

 

8.44          In order to identify clearly the impacts of a proposed development, it is necessary to establish the baseline landscape and visual conditions.  This has been performed through desk study (such as use of aerial photographs) and verified through field survey.  These studies have formed the basis of the assessment of potential landscape and visual impacts. Landscape impacts are assessed against both landscape resources and landscape character.  The Project’s visual baseline has been established by reference to the character and visual amenity of key views of the landscape at the jetty and by the views of key visual receptors at various locations within this landscape.  Baseline conditions for both of these issues are set out below. 

 

Landscape Resources

 

a)   Topography/Landform.  Lung Kwu Chau is a small island with an area of approximately 398,000 m2 and a shoreline of about 4,600 m long.  The coastal configuration in a dumb-bell shape is orientated roughly in a north south manner. The two parts of the dumb-bell shaped island are formed by small hill ranges. Overall the landform of the island is typical of Hong Kong’s outlying islands and ‘drowned coastline’.  The northern portion of the island is approximately double the area of the southern portion; the two parts being ‘separated’ by a vegetated raised beach deposit sand bar area.  The shoreline of Lung Kwu Chau is mainly fringed by natural large bouldered rocky shores which comprises about 70% of the island’s coastline within the study area (about 3,200 m long) with an area of about 16,000 m2. However, boulder shore between the existing and proposed jetty locations (approximately 300 m2) is disturbed with many boulders having been artificially broken and arranged to form a bulkhead. Two small sandy embayments are situated on the eastern side of the island, one of these forming the eastern side of the ‘dividing’ raised-beach deposit in the ‘middle’ of the island.   On the western side there is a longer more or less continuous sandy beach that extends approximately a third of the length of the island’s western shoreline. Within the study area, sandy beaches comprise approximately 30% of the island’s coastline (about 1,400 m long with an area of about 18,000 m2).  Apart from the central area of the island, the island has a generally rugged appearance with a number of rocky boulder outcrops scattered across the island. The topography and landform of Lung Kwu Chau are discernible in Figures 8.2 and 8.3.

 

b)      Geology/Soils.  The rock type on Lung Kwu Chau is  coarse-grained granite which is common in Hong Kong.  The raised beach deposit sand bar in the middle of LKC is comprised of light-yellowish brown silty/ medium to coarse sand up to 5m thick (GEO 1989).  The many large boulders present on the island have been subjected to physical weathering such as block disintegration and exfoliation.

 

c)      Vegetation. The predominant vegetation type on LKC is grassy scrubland (see Figure 8.2).  This covers most of the hilly terrain with an area of about 350,000 m2, among which are interspersed several exposed rocky boulder outcrops.  At the backshore area of the proposed jetty, there are typical Hong Kong shoreline species such as  screwpines (Pandanus) and Hibiscus as well as low growing climbers and grasses (see Figure 8.4).  The area over which a path extension is proposed to be built has patchy vegetation (grass and  exotic weed species) and previously been disturbed and modified by human activity (see Figure 8.5).

d)      Human Features.  Although LKC is uninhabited, there is a certain degree of human presence on the island.  The main structure is the existing DVOR/DME station on the peak of the hill at the northern part of the island (see Figure 8.2).  There is an access road from an existing abandoned jetty located in an embayment on the eastern coast of the island next to where the jetty is proposed.  A lot of rubbish and flotsam washed ashore is found gathering at the along the strandline at the backshore beach areas including bamboo poles, polystyrene shards and containers, baskets, plastic, timber and boat debris (see Figure 8.5).  Small areas of the boulder shore near the beach have been modified including the area which will adjoin to the proposed jetty construction (see Figure 8.5).  A small lighthouse is located at the northwestern corner of the island.

 

Landscape Character

 

8.45          In general, the LKC Assessment Area is considered to comprise five natural landscape character units.  Only three of these will be directly altered by the proposed development.  The five landscape character units which are discernible in Figure 8.2, are:

 

·        Water area

·        Rocky/ boulder shore area

·        Beach area

·        Backshore area

·        Hill/slope area

 

8.46           The character of these areas is described below:

 

a)      Water area.  LKC is surrounded by an extensive area of water, especially to the west.  This expanse of water to the west is approximately 25km wide across the Pearl River mouth. LKC’s location in the western Hong Kong waters also means that the sea area is more sheltered and therefore typically only experiences moderate wave action.  Under the influence of the Pearl River the waters surrounding LKC are generally estuarine and turbid throughout the year but particularly in summer.  Various items of rubbish and flotsam are frequently seen floating in these waters.

 

b)      Rocky boulder shore area.  The rocky boulder shore of LCW is largely natural and this type of shoreline fringes most of the island. However, the rocky boulder shore between the proposed jetty location and existing jetty comprises artificially arranged broken up boulders to make a bulkhead.  During adverse weather conditions, these shores may be exposed to strong wave action.

 

c)      Beach area.  In total there are three strips of sandy beach on LKC.  There are two small beaches on the eastern side of the island, the smaller of these being adjacent to where the proposed jetty is intended to be built.  The largest beach extends approximately a third of the way along the middle section of the western shore of the island.

 

d)      Backshore area. This landscape character is distinguishable as being a low elevation transitional area between the seashore and hillslope. Vegetation on the backshore differs to hill/slope vegetation since it typically consists of low vegetation comprising shoreline species (see section 4).  Backshore areas are generally confined to areas where there is a shallow gradient slope above the seashore. This typically occurs above beach areas but also on the ‘flat’ low elevation ground along the path alignment.  This landscape character is not distinguishable above most of the island’s rocky/boulder shores where large bouldered shoreline is immediately bordered by steep hill/slope area. Within the study area, backshore areas border approximately one third of the coastline.

 

e)      Hill/ slope area.  The predominant landscape character of LKC is the rugged hill slopes covered with low shrubs and grass, and with scattered rocky outcrops. The northern part of the hill is larger and comprises a hill range sloping from the highest peak (70m above sea level) on the eastern side of the island (where the existing DVOR/DME is to the west where a smaller peak is about 50m above sea level.  The southern part of the island has a smaller hill range that peaks at 50m above sea level. Approximately 95% of the island comprises this landscape character.

 

8.47          In the context of regional landscape character, Lung Kwu Chau island is situated in the open waters of the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park established mainly for the conservation of the Indo-Pacific Humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis), and so no other development proposals are planned in this area.  This Marine Park has a sea area of approximately 1,200 ha.  The three islands including the Lung Kwu Chau, Sha Chau and Pak Chau (Tree Island) together form a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) due to the avifauna found there, as described in Section 4.  The central part of Lung Kwu Chau and its surrounding water area is also a known Archaeological Site (refer to Section 6).

 

Visual Elements of the Proposed Jetty

 

8.48          The proposed development is a relatively small project to be undertaken at the southern edge of the eastward facing embayment on the northern portion of the island of Lung Kwu Chau inside the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park. The proposed development comprises the construction of a 10m wide by 20m long, precast concrete block, single berth, jetty aligned north-south which is adjoined to the land by a 22m  long x 5m wide, ‘rubble mound’ catwalk extending away in a southwest  direction, as described in detail in Section 2.  Figure 8.5A show the plan and sections of the jetty.

 

8.49          Associated facilities to be built on the jetty/catwalk would include overhead lighting, a navigation light, fendering, handrails and tide guage etc. as well as a short footpath extension to join the catwalk to a nearby existing footpath.  Other works to be undertaken would be dredging of an approach channel to –2.5mCD in front of the berth and the demolition of the existing jetty.

 

8.50          The physical elements of the proposed jetty are described below. These will be potentially visible from key viewing points and VSR located in the adjacent land and seascape to the east.

 

Visible Elements at Construction Stage

 

8.51          The visible elements that would be associated with the Project would be typical of small jetty construction works.  Owing to the small nature of works, the amount of large machinery visible on the island would be limited.  It is also envisaged that there would be a small increase in the number of works vessels, such as a tug boat and hopper barge, and only one dredging vessel will operate in the area at any one time.  Furthermore, owing to the short duration of works (see section 2.7), the presence of works equipment will be temporary.  Given that the beach and backshore area behind and next to the proposed jetty are strewn with boulders, earthworks on these areas would not significantly contrast with the background shorelevel landscape features.

 

Visible Elements at Operation Stage

 

8.52          Upon completion of construction work, the jetty will comprise a 10m by 20 m blockwork berth of a similar colour to the weathered granite blocks on the island by using a granite facing stone surface finish cover and rounded edges at the cope line (seaward edge of jetty).   This would be connected to land by a 22m long by 5m wide rubble mound constructed catwalk.  The rubble mound would be sloped on either side to disperse wave energy and consist of large irregular granite boulders of the same colour and similar size to those on the existing adjacent shoreline. In this way, apart from the uniform angle of slope and vertical faced portion of the catwalk, the catwalk would not significantly contrast with the background shoreline features. Railings on the jetty will receive subdue chromatic treatment.

 

8.53          The lighting system on the jetty will be designed to avoid lighting glare by directing illumination downwards and by minimising the number of lights for the jetty’s lighting requirements. Lights will turn on automatically when there is insufficient natural lighting such as during adverse weather conditions or at night.

 

8.54          Periodic dredging of the approach channel may be required during the operation of the jetty, although due to the infrequency of this occurrence, this would be a limited impact on visually sensitive receivers.

 

8.55          Removal of the existing abandoned jetty will remove an apparently derelict human feature from the landscape thus having a beneficial effect on the view into the bay.

 

The Zone of Visual Influence and Visually Sensitive Receivers

 

8.56          Figure 8.1 shows the ZVI of the proposed Project.   The jetty is visually enclosed to the west by the topography of the island surrounding the bay area.  By contrast the view to the east from the bay area is much more open.  The furthest views of the jetty would be from hiking trials on the hillsides of Castle Peak and Tai Lang Shui.

 

8.57          The jetty would be potentially visible from large areas of the surrounding landscape to the east.  However, given the remoteness of the island, the number of VSRs that would be affected is limited. It should be noted that the actual extent of views is determined by numerous factors including the distance away and level of the viewing position, the weather/ visibility, the orientation of individual buildings, as well as the degree of screening offered by the landform, buildings and vegetation.  This presents an infinitely variable set of conditions in which the views of the jetty vary throughout the ZVI.  To rationalise this situation, it is necessary to identify the key viewing points and viewing areas within the ZVI and then to assess the potential visual impacts on those areas and their populations.

 

8.58          Table 8.3 provides a summary of the representative visually sensitive receivers’ existing views of the project area and their sensitivity.

Table 8.3        Visually Sensitive Receivers, their View Type and Sensitivity

 

VSR No.

VSRs

Existing View

Sensitivity

VSR1

Hikers on Castle Peak or Tai Lang Shui mountain ranges

Distant overview of the island from 5-8 km away

High

VSR2

Lung Kwu Tan villagers

Distant overview of the island from about 4km away

High

VSR3

Marine traffic using Urmston Road

Distant to middle ground view of the island and bay area

Low

VSR4

Visitors to the Marine Park

Middle ground to close up of the bay area

High

 

 

8.59          These key viewing points and the main components of the views are described below:-

 

a)      Hikers on Castle Peak or Tai Lang Shui (VSR 1). There are several footpaths on the slopes of Castle Peak and Tai Lang Shui. The highest of these reaches the top of Castle Peak at an elevation of 583m.  Hikers on these mountain ranges looking westwards in the direction of Lung Kwu Chau have panoramic views  over hills and valleys of the Tai Lung Shui firing range. These mountains are vegetated with grass and scrub and are covered with numerous rocky boulder outcrops giving the area a barren appearance.  Another notable feature of the landscape are the electricity pylons and power lines which extend northwards into the hills from Pillar Point Power station.  Subject to good visibility conditions, hikers looking westwards to the horizon can see an expansive seascape with Lung Kwu Chau and smaller neighbouring islands in the distance. Depending on their exact location, a view to the south may include Lung Mun Road and the industrial areas, boat yards, reclamation areas and industrial and power station facilities along it. A representative view from a hilltop near Tai Lang Shui at Castle Peak is shown in Figure 8.6. 

 

b)      Lung Kwu Tan villagers (VSR2).  Lung Kwu Tang is a large village comprising densely packed low-rise villa style houses, some still under construction.  It is built on relatively flat land and its elevation is low.  For this reason the majority of its residents have no seaview.  A busy main road (Lung Kwu Tan Road) runs between the village and the sandy shoreline.  On the beach side of this road there is an almost continuous band of trees typically 4-5m tall which have a screening effect on seaviews from inside the village.  A view to the south of village is dominated by the chimney stacks of Pillar Point power station.  At the northern edge of the village there is a small depot for storing steel rods. Views of Lung Kwu Chau from this village are distant and are only obtainable by a few residents on the western edge of the village across the busy, tree lined road along the verges of which was observed a moderate amount of litter.  Due to low elevation and far distance (approximately 4km), it is difficult to distinguish detailed shoreline features of the island. From the beach, Lung Kwu Chau is a conspicuous but small component of the view. Other elements of the seascape include numerous boat traffic. A representative view from the edge of the village looking from the beach side of the main road is shown in Figure 8.6.

 

Further north is the village hamlet of Lung Kwu Sheung Tan. Still obviously inhabited are a couple of low-rise residences on the eastern side of the Kung Kwu Tan Road next to a traditional temple. Due to the low elevation and 300m distance to the shoreline, there is no seaview for these residents.  There are a couple of small traditional style village houses next to the Yeung Long Road which runs closer to the shoreline. However these appear to be uninhabited except one which is used as a small café.  In general, the area at Leung Kwu Sheung Tan is in a poor state.  There are numerous piles of illegal flytipped construction waste, shipping containers and corregated iron sheet fences.  At the northern inland side of the bay is a large Gammon construction site and views of buildings associated with Black Point Power Station.  Between the dust track Yung Long Road and the shoreline, the ground is overgrown and inaccessible.  From the shoreline, there is a distant view of Lung Kwu Chau but there is no evidence that visually sensitive receivers are present at this location.

 

c)      Marine traffic using Urmston Road (VSR3). Passengers on board marine traffic looking west in Urmston Road channel have an open seascape view bounded by a distant view of the Lantau Island to the southwest.  Since marine traffic steers outside the Marine Park boundary, the view of Lung Kwu Chau as the vessels pass by is a distant to middle ground view allowing viewers to see some of the rocky shore features of the island’s shoreline. Ferries travelling through Urmston Road do so at high speed and so passengers’ views of the island are shortlived and limited to less than 5 minutes. A typical middle distance view from VSR3 in the Urmston Road channel is shown in Figure 8.7.

 

d)      Visitors to the Marine Park.  Marine Park visitors mainly comprise vessels for undertaking dolphin watching activities.  These visitors travel at low speed in the marine park and depending on the route taken by their vessel may have a relatively close up view of the shoreline in the bay for part of their journey.  Their view of the bay is also in the context of the closeup rugged shoreline rocky outcrops and boulders, and scrubland hills on the island set against the backdrop of open sea area.  The DVOR/DME Station on the hilltop at the north of the bay and “bill board”-like structure on the hillside on the south of the bay are also conspicuous to visitors. Litter and flotsam accumulating between the rocky boulders and along the strandline of the high sandy shore are also noticeable. The small existing concrete jetty is also conspicuous in the bay. Figure 8.7 shows a representative existing view of the proposed jetty location.

 

Identification of Sources of Impact

 

8.60          The key potential landscape and visual impacts of a proposed development are identified in this section.  Potential landscape and visual impacts have been considered both during construction and during operation.  Through an assessment of impacts at these points in time, distinctions have been drawn between temporary, and permanent impacts.  Based on communication with engineers and field observations of the existing nearby jetty at Sha Chau, the Project will involve the following impacts:

 

a) Landscape Impacts

 

The landscape impacts are as presented in the table below.

 

 

 

 

Table 8.3a       Landscape Impacts 

 

Landscape Resource/Character

Impacts

Water Area

 

Permanent loss of 0.03 ha due to blockwork catwalk and jetty

Rocky boulder shore area

Permanent loss of approximately 0.002 ha due to catwalk landing

Backshore area with vegetation

Permanent loss of 0.008 ha due to catwalk landing

Beach area and hill/slope area

No impact

Human feature

Permanent removal of 0.005 ha of human structure by removing the existing jetty

Topography/landform and geology/soil

No impact

 

b) Visual Impacts

 

·        Temporary introduction of additional marine traffic, barges and a dredger.

·        Removal of backshore vegetation for path extension, if required.

·        Jetty and extension path being a permanent fixture on the landscape.

·        Removal of existing jetty.

 

Assessment of Potential Landscape Impacts

           

8.61          Work for the proposed Project is relatively small in nature and will only directly alter three landscape character areas: water, rocky boulder shore and backshore areas.  Potential landscape impacts have been assessed at two levels: impacts upon individual landscape resources and impacts upon landscape character, addressing predicted magnitude of change and its sensitivity, as presented in Table 8.4.

 

Potential Impacts on Landscape Resources and Character

 

8.62          The potential physical landscape impacts that would be generated by the proposed jetty are assessed below according to whether the sensitivity of the landscape resource is high, medium or low.  The higher the sensitivity of the landscape resource, the lower its ability to accommodate change.  No indirect landscape impacts are foreseen.

 

8.63          The landscape sensitivity of the rocky boulder shore area may be designated as medium.  However, the affected area, unlike the surrounding natural rocky boulder shore area, has been physically disturbed. This rocky boulder shore area also has rubbish and flotsam gathering on it, which does not give it an attractive appearance. This rating is lower than the medium general sensitivity of natural rocky boulder shore which may be considered to be valuable landscape resource and a widespread typical feature of this island and neighbouring islands. Similarly, the backshore area to which the jetty will be adjoined has already been substantially modified (see Figure 8.5).  Thus, removal of a small (for a path approximately 1.6m wide x 52m long with temporary works area of 1m either side) section of this landscape feature would not be significant.

8.64          The backshore area of the bay consists of bare ground (and remnants of a concrete trail), grass and climbers. No rare or protected species have been found in this area.  Instead the vegetation of the proposed footpath extension alignment is dominated by grasses and weeds including exotic species.  The water area which would be lost is small and is self-evidently also a common element in the landscape. The sensitivity of water area to change is negligible. 

 

8.65          Construction of the proposed jetty would not constitute a significant change to the character of the existing landscape character areas. The use of a short rubble mound catwalk would likely blend with the existing boulder shoreline although from closer viewpoints would be identifiable as a human feature due to the regularity of the sloping sides.   In the context of the already modified boulder shore bulkhead area with low/medium sensitivity, the jetty would represent a small change in the character of the landscape.  This impact may be countered by the removal of the existing jetty structure.  In addition, given the disturbed state of the backshore area with negligible sensitivity and small nature of works to construct the adjoining path, there would be no significant change to the character of this landscape character area.  Given the vast sea area in the surrounding and the small scale of work, the impact on the landscape character of the water area is insubstantial.  There would be no loss of the beach area and hill/slope area, and therefore the impact would be insubstantial.

 

8.66          With reference to the landscape impact assessment matrix (shown in Table 8.1), the significance of the overall potential impacts on landscape resources and character is assessed as being ‘slight adverse’. This is because, given the limited nature of works, the magnitude of change is correspondingly small, and the sensitivity of the landscape resource is low. The magnitude of potential change to these areas is considered to be even lower at operational stage. A summary of the significance of adverse impacts on each affected landscape character area is presented in Table 8.4.  The intensity of landscape impacts is mapped in Figure 8.10.

 

Table 8.4         Significance of  Impacts on Affected Landscape Resources

 

Impact on Landscape Resource/ Character Area

Sensitivity to change

Magnitude of change

Construction phase impact significance

Operation phase / residual impact significance

Impact on water area

Low

Negligible

Insubstantial

Insubstantial

Impact on backshore area and vegetation

Low

Negligible

Insubstantial

Insubstantial

Impact on rocky boulder shore area

Low / Medium

Small

Slight adverse

Slight adverse

Impact on beach area and hill/slope area

Low

Negligible

Insubstantial

Insubstantial

Impact on topography/landform, geology/soil and human feature

Low

Negligible

Insubstantial

Insubstantial

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment of Potential Visual Impacts

 

8.67          The potential impacts on the four groups of VSR are discussed below:

 

a)      Hikers at Castle Peak and Tai Lung Shui (VSR1).  People using the footpaths along the mountain may have panoramic views of the surrounding denuded landscape bordered by seascape of moderate amenity value. The sensitivity of  hikers to visual landscape changes is high.  However, the numbers of people typically undertaking this activity is low due to the steep mountain areas not being directly accessible by road. It is also noted that haze often obscures clear visual definition of the island. In addition, hikers at these locations would have only a distant view of the island as a whole, and the construction and operational activities of the jetty would be largely unnoticeable. Nevertheless, hikers are a high sensitivity receiver group. Based on the visual impact assessment matrix (shown in Table 8.1) and given that the magnitude of change to the view is negligible, the visual impact to VSR1 can be categorised as insubstantial.

 

b)      A small proportion of villagers at Lung Kwu Tan (VSR2) enjoy a seascape of moderate amenity value.  The sensitivity of residents to visual changes in their landscape views is always high. However it can be considered that due to the small scale of jetty and long distance involved, the low elevation of line of site, context of viewing points and minor (small) change in visual elements, the impact on villagers is categorised as being slight adverse.

 

c)      Passengers travelling through the Urmston Road channel (VSR3) have distant to middle ground of Lung Kwu Chau. For these people, the degree of visual intrusion that would be experienced depends on the speed of travel and whether views are continuous or only occasional. Generally, the slower the speed of travel and the more continuous the viewing experience then the greater the degree of sensitivity. Ferries observed travelling this route all travelled at high speed. Given the transitory nature of this VSR group and therefore low visual sensitivity as well as the small scale of the construction works, the potential visual impact is considered to be negligible adverse.  Figure 8.8 shows a photomontage view from VSR3.

 

d)      Visitors to the Marine Park (VSR4) would have near to middle ground view of construction works and completed jetty and a high sensitivity to changes in the landscape.  Their views of the island are considered to be high amenity value.  Overall, the potential visual impact to this group is regarded as being slight adverse due to the small scale nature of the works and short period of construction and disruption.  In addition, visitors to the Marine Park would typically be engaged in visually scouring the seascape as part of their dolphin watching activities with attention not focused on the island.  Furthermore, during their passage through the Marine Park, visitors would have alternative views of the island with the proposed project area not in their line of site. However, in general, for vessels passing along the east of Lung Kwu Chau the jetty would be visible to varying degrees.  Owing to the low elevation of visitors  and the disruptive screening effect of large boulders on the shore, the adjoining path is not expected to be visually prominent to visitors.    It may be considered that as the island already possesses several human structures including the existing jetty, lighthouse, pathways and DVOR/DME station, the introduction of a permanent small scale (single berth) jetty is not considered to be incompatible with the existing character of the island.  Removal of the existing “derelict” jetty as part of the Project would also be visually beneficial to these visitors by reinstating the natural character of the sandy beach. Figure 8.9 shows a photomontage near view of the jetty from a VSR4 viewpoint within the bay.

 

8.68          A summary of the significance of visual impacts on each of the VSRs is shown in Table 8.5. Visual impacts are mapped in Figure 8.11.

 

Table 8.5 Significance of Visual Impacts on VSRs

 

VSR No.

Miminum distance from proposed jetty

Magnitude of impact

Receptor sensitivity and number

Impact Significance

VSR1

5-8 km

Negligible

High / very few

Insubstantial

VSR2

4 km

Small

High/ few

Slight adverse

VSR3

Approx. 2km

Small

Low / many

Negligible adverse

VSR4

<1km

Small

High/ very few

Slight adverse

 

 

Mitigation Measures

 

8.69          It is recommended that landscape and visual impacts should be minimised through jetty location and design (para. 8.70 refers). The proposed jetty (Option 3) is up to 40m shorter in length than alternative locations and design options, and dredging of its approach channel would require removal of a smaller area of seabed (see Section 2.19 and Table 2.1).  The smaller jetty structure at the proposed location (Option 3) would result in less visual intrusion and less landscape loss of natural sea water area than alternative options.  The footpath would result in limited landscape loss of existing disturbed coastal features.  Furthermore, construction using precast blockwork design would minimise the duration of works.

 

8.70          Implementation of the waste management and ecological impact mitigation measures detailed in Sections 4 and 7 of this report, such as good site practices during the construction works, would also substantially mitigate the landscape and visual impacts that would be potentially generated by the proposed development.  In addition, on-site mitigation measures are recommended below (and depicted in Figure 8.9).  No off-site mitigation measures are required.

 

·        Sympathetic design to minimise visual impact including rounded jetty cope line and irregular armour rocks on catwalk.

·        Compatible design and construction materials and finishes e.g. granite stone facing, visually recessive colours or finishes of “jetty furniture”.

·        Requirement to avoid lighting glare to Lung Kwu Tan villagers to be taken into account during the design of lighting system at the jetty and catwalk.

·        Reinstatement of disturbed land.

 

8.71          Construction works will not result in significant loss of backshore vegetation.  The 1.6m wide path alignment covers previously disturbed ground supporting only patchy cover of mainly grasses and exotic weeds.  Mitigation for minimal loss of this vegetation is not considered necessary.  Grasses, herbs, exotic weeds and climbers etc. would naturally quickly recolonise the temporary works area which would extend only 1m either side of the path.

 

8.72          The relevant government departments have agreed on their areas of responsibility for the funding, implementation, management and maintenance of the landscape and visual mitigation works. CED would design and construct the proposed jetty, with design input from EMSD on the lighting system.  EMSD would be the maintainance agent for the lighting system.  CAD would be the overall management authority of the jettyhead, catwalk, footpath and lighting system.  CAD would provide funds for any maintenance works required.

 

Residual Impacts

 

8.73          The scale of the proposed jetty has been minimised as far as practicable.  Owing to the small nature of the jetty and sympathetic design, the residual landscape and visual impact of the jetty is considered acceptable with mitigation measures.

 

Implementation and Maintenance

 

8.74          The jetty project including any landscape and visual mitigation works will be designed and constructed by CED, with design input from EMSD on the lighting system.  CAD will be the overall management authority of the pier, footpath, catwalk and lighting system.  CAD will provide the funds for any maintenance works required.  EMSD has agreed to be the maintenance agent of the lighting system.  Table 11.4 details the implementation schedule of the mitigation measures.

 

Conclusions

 

8.75          Given that the proposed jetty for the remote island is selected to be located on a small area of shore already subjected to previous disturbance, and the scale of the work has been minimised, the landscape and visual impact assessment concludes that impact is acceptable with implementation of mitigation measures, such as sympathetic design, use of visually recessive colour and avoidance of lighting glare to Lung Kwu Tan villagers. Project works would result in small losses of landscape character/resource areas confining to 0.008ha of backshore area, 0.002ha of rocky boulder shore area and 0.03ha of water area.