This section assesses the likely landscape and visual impacts that may arise from the construction and operation of the Project and associated works and proposes strategic mitigation measures to alleviate the anticipated potential impacts. This includes the description of Landscape Resources (LRs), Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs). The potential landscape and visual impacts are assessed in accordance with the criteria and guidelines stated in Annexes 10 and 18 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). Mitigation measures were proposed to mitigate the potential adverse impacts to an acceptable level.

8.2 Relevant Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

The environmental legislations, standards and guidelines below are relevant to the landscape and visual baseline survey for the Project:

● Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.499.S.16) – Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM), particularly Annexes 3,10, 11, 18, 20 and 21;

● Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Guidance Note (EIAO GN) No. 8/2010;

● Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap.96);

● Town Planning Ordinance (Cap.131);

● Protection of Endangered Species of Animals And Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586);

● Environment, Transport and Works Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 29/2004 - Registration of Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation;

● Guidelines on Tree Preservation during Development by DEVB;

● Lands Administration Office Practice Note No. 7/2007 - Tree Preservation and Tree Removal Application for Building Development in Private Projects;

● Guideline for Tree Risk Assessment and Management Arrangement by DEVB (8^th edition);

● Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, particularly Chapter 4, Chapter 8 and Chapter 11; and

● Study on Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong.

8.3 Assessment Methodology

Potential landscape and visual impacts arising from the Project are assessed in accordance with the requirements as stipulated in EIAO GN No. 8/2010. The assessment also follows the requirements as stipulated in Appendix G of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-289/2015.

8.3.1 Study Area

The Study Area for landscape impact assessment is shown in Figure 8.1. It includes all areas within a 100m distance from the site boundary of the Project as defined in Paragraph 3.4.8.2 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-289/2015. The aerial view of the Study Area for landscape impact assessment is shown in Figure 8.2.

The Study Area for visual impact assessment is defined by the visual envelope of the Project. By definition of EIAO GN No. 8/2010, the visual envelope is generally the viewshed formed by natural or manmade features such as ridgeline or building blocks. It contains areas which are fully, partially visible or unseen from the Project and its associated works. The zone of visual influence (ZVI), which is illustrated in Figure 8.3, is defined as the portion of the visual envelope where views of the above-ground structure of the Project could potentially be seen by VSRs.

8.3.2 Review of Planning and Development Control Framework

A review of the existing planning studies and documents has been undertaken to gain an insight to the future outlook of the area affected so as to assess whether the Project can fit into surrounding setting. The assessment does not consider all of the areas zoned on the relevant OZP(s) but focuses on those that may be directly affected by the proposed works. The study reviews the following information:

● Plan title/number;

● Land use zonings;

● Potential impacts and approximate area of the land use zones to be affected by the Project;

● Design and conservation intention; and

● Mitigation measures and future outlook of the area.

8.3.3 Landscape Baseline Survey

LRs and LCAs identified are numbered and assessed by a combination of desktop studies and site surveys.

Landscape elements that are in consideration include:

● Local topography;

● Woodland extent and type;

● Other Vegetation types;

● Built form;

● Patterns of settlement;

● Land use;

● Scenic spots;

● Details of local materials, styles, streetscapes, etc.;

● Prominent watercourses; and

● Cultural and religious identity.

After identification of baseline LRs and LCAs, each of the LRs and LCAs is analyzed and evaluated by the following factors.

Sensitivity of landscape framework

To analyze sensitivity, a number of factors need to be evaluated. These factors include:

● the quality, maturity, condition and value of LRs or LCAs;

● importance and rarity of LRs or LCAs;

● whether the site is considered to be of local, regional, national or global significance;

● any statutory or regulatory limitations or requirements relating to the LRs or LCAs on this site; and

● ability of LRs and LCAs to accommodate change.

The above factors are considered and analyzed before each of the LRs and LCAs is classified into the following three categories:

High: LR or LCA has a distinctive character or is of high importance and sensitive to relatively small changes.

Medium: LR or LCA has a moderately valued landscape character that is reasonably tolerant to change.

Low: LR or LCA has a low-valued landscape character that is highly tolerant to change.

8.3.4 Landscape Impact Assessment

Magnitude of change on landscape impact arising from the Project

A number of factors can influence the magnitude of change on landscape impact. They are as follows:

● duration of impact, i.e. whether it is temporary or long-term;

● scale of impact;

● reversibility of change; and

● compatibility of the Project and associated works with existing and planned landscape.

The above factors will be analyzed carefully and the results of each of the LRs and LCAs will be classified into four different categories. They are as follows:

Large: Landscape resource or area will have a major change

Intermediate: Landscape resource or area will have a moderate change

Small: Landscape resource or area will have a slight change

Negligible: Landscape resource or area will have no discernible change

It should be noted that the landscape impact assessment for construction phase and operation phase is conducted separately due to the different potential sources affecting the magnitude of change on landscape impacts.

Evaluation of the sensitivity and magnitude of change on various LRs and LCAs is conducted in a logical, reasonable and consistent manner for both construction and operation phases. Each of the LRs and LCAs is given a degree of impact significance depending on the severity of sensitivity and magnitude. Table 8.1 illustrates the underlying principle for each of the four significance thresholds.

Table 8.1: Sensitivity and Magnitude of Change on the Degree of Impact Significance

Magnitude of Change	Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change	Low	Medium	High
Large	Moderate	Moderate / Significant	Significant
Intermediate	Slight / Moderate	Moderate	Moderate / Significant
Small	Slight	Slight / Moderate	Moderate
Negligible	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial

Notes:

Significant – Adverse / beneficial impact where the Project would cause significant deterioration or improvement.

Moderate – Adverse / beneficial impact where the Project would cause noticeable deterioration or improvement.

Slight – Adverse / beneficial impact where the Project would case barely noticeable deterioration or improvement.

Insubstantial – The Project would cause no discernible change.

8.3.5 Broad Brush Tree Survey

To facilitate landscape impact assessment, a broad brush tree survey was conducted to identify all tree groups within the Study Area for landscape impact assessment.

In accordance with Lands Administration Office Practice Note No. 7/2007 - Tree Preservation and Tree Removal Application for Building Development in Private Projects, a plant is considered as a “tree” if its trunk diameter measures 95 mm or more at a height of 1.3 m (i.e. Diameter at Breast Height, DBH) above the ground level. Measurement of DBH follows the methodology specified in Nature Conservation Practice Note No. 02 – Measurement of Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) issued by Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department in June 2006.

The identification of registered Old and Valuable Tree (OVT) and potentially registrable OVT refers to Environment, Transport and Works Bureau Technical Circular (Works) (ETWB TCW) No. 29/2004 – Registration of Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation.

Trees are surveyed in groups and the boundary of tree groups is generally defined by their outermost crown spread of the sharing canopies of the trees. For those trees sparsely distributed throughout a habitat, the tree group is defined by the boundary of the topographical feature (such as slope) / habitat type (such as grassland).

Tree groups in large size are sub-divided into smaller polygons to prevent overlooking. For ease of reference, an identity number is given for each tree group.

All the surveyed tree groups are recorded with the following information, with photographic record provided:

● Tree Group Number;

● Estimated Quantity of Trees in the Tree Group;

● Species (Scientific Name and Chinese Common Name);

● Species proportion within the Tree Group with various range of Diameter at Breast Height (DBH);

● Average Height (in m);

● Average Crown Spread (in m);

● Health Condition;

● Tree Form;

● Amenity Value; and

● Special Features (if any, recorded in Remarks).

In the tree survey, all the trees are assessed and evaluated in accordance with the following criteria for health, tree form, amenity value and suitability for transplanting:

● Health Condition: Estimated according to the foliage, branches, trunk and exposed roots.

Good Without any visible disease or defect, sound and healthy tree

Fair With few visible defects or health problem

Poor With many visible defects or health problem such as rot, cavities in the main trunk, insect or fungi attack, lack of vigor and crown die back, etc

● Tree Form: Estimated according to the canopy, branch and trunk.

Good Well-balanced canopy and straight strong trunk(s) without major branch failure

Fair Slightly unbalanced canopy and non-straight trunk(s)

Poor Heavily leaning, unbalanced canopy, poor branching

Special attention is given to significant trees such as tree of species of conservation importance and trees of mature sizes. Individuals or groups of these concerned trees are surveyed separately.

8.3.6 Impact Assessment on Trees

The extent of each surveyed tree group is clearly demarcated on a tree survey plan. The tentative boundary of the works area is overlaid onto the tree survey plan. The percentage of area of each tree group which falls within the works area is then calculated and used to estimate the approximate number of trees that will potentially be affected by the Project within each tree group.

Any significant trees which are within the tentative boundary of the works area and likely to be affected by the Project are also highlighted.

8.3.7 Visual Baseline Survey

All VSRs within the identified ZVI are identified. Each of the VSRs is given an identity number and used in all relevant tables and figures. Type of VSRs is classified according to the activities, the number, availability of alternative views, duration and frequency of the view and the degree of visibility from a sensitive receiver’s point of view. In general, the type of receivers can be separated into five categories:

● Residents - These VSRs can view the impact from their homes. They are considered to be highly sensitive as their visual perception has a substantial effect on their quality of life and home environment.

● Workers – These VSRs can view the impact from their workplace or school. They are considered to be moderately sensitive as the visual perception is less important and has a lesser effect on their quality of life. The degree of impact is dependent on the type of workplace, i.e. industrial, retail or commercial.

● Outdoor leisure activity participants – These VSRs can view the impact whilst taking part in an outdoor leisure activity. The degree of sensitivity is denoted by the type and duration of the leisure activity.

● Travelers – These VSRs can view the impact whilst travelling to another location. The degree of sensitivity is dependent on the duration and speed of their travel.

● Community – These VSRs can view the impact whilst in a community building. The degree of sensitivity is dependent on the type of activities and services that takes place.

Sensitivity of Visually Sensitive Receivers

To analyze sensitivity of VSRs, a number of factors need to be evaluated. These factors include:

● Value and quality of existing views;

● Availability and amenity of alternative views;

● Type of VSRs

● Number of VSRs;

● Duration and frequency of view; and

● Degree of visibility.

The above factors are considered and analyzed before each of the VSRs is classified into the following three categories:

High: The VSRs are highly sensitive to any changes in their visual experience.

Medium: The VSRs are moderately sensitive to any changes in their visual experience.

Low: The VSRs are slightly sensitive to any changes in their viewing experience.

8.3.8 Visual Impact Assessment

Magnitude of Change on views of VSRs arising from the Project

Magnitude of change for VSRs is evaluated by a number of different factors such as:

● Duration of impact, i.e. whether the impact is temporary or permanent;

● The number of sensitive receivers;

● Reversibility of the impact;

● Scale and distance of the impact from the viewer;

● Degree of visibility of the impact; and

● Compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape.

The above factors are carefully analyzed and classified in the following categories:

Large: The VSRs will suffer a major change in their visual experience

Intermediate: The VSRs will suffer a moderate change in their visual experience

Small: The VSRs will suffer a slight change in their visual experience

Negligible: The VSRs will suffer no discernible change in their visual experience

The visual impact assessment is conducted individually for the construction phase and operation phase due to the disparate visual experience from different potential sources of visual impact from this Project and its associated works.

Evaluation of the sensitivity and magnitude of VSRs is conducted in a logical, reasonable and consistent manner for both construction and operation phases. Each of the VSRs is given a degree of visual impact significance depending on the severity of sensitivity and magnitude. The rationale for categorizing the degree of visual impact significance into four thresholds is illustrated in Table 8.1.

8.3.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures

After identifying the LRs, LCAs and VSRs that require mitigation measures to reduce the degree of impact, possible mitigation measures that can be implemented for the Project and its associated works will be reviewed and evaluated. Identification of potential mitigation measures may include:

● Alternative design or revisions to basic engineering or architecture design to prevent or minimize adverse impacts;

● Remedial measures during and after construction phase; and

● Compensatory measures for unavoidable adverse impacts and attempt to generate beneficial long term impacts.

Recommended mitigation measures are evaluated for comparison before adopting as mitigation or compensatory measures. This is conducted through evaluating possible mitigation measures by the degree of residual impact assessment to illustrate mitigation effectiveness.

8.3.10 Assessment of Residual Impact

Residual impacts are evaluated by the sensitivity and magnitude of change for LVIA after the implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Overall assessment of residual landscape and visual impacts for the Project is placed into one of the following five thresholds:

● Beneficial – The Project complements the landscape and visual character of its setting and follows the relevant planning objectives. It will improve overall landscape or visual quality.

● Acceptable – There are no significant effects on landscape or visual effects caused by this Project.

● Acceptable with mitigation measures – There will be some adverse effects that may be eliminated, reduced, or offset by specific mitigation measures.

● Unacceptable – The adverse effects are considered to be excessive with implemented mitigation measures.

● Undetermined – Significant adverse effects are likely but the extent of which they occur or may be mitigated cannot be determined from this study. Further detailed study may be required.

8.4 Baseline Survey Findings

8.4.1 Review of Development Control Framework

A review of the existing and planned development for the proposed works and for the surroundings has been undertaken. It aims in identifying issues with neighbouring planned land uses, identifying potential resources and sensitive receivers and ensuring a high compatibility between the Project and the surroundings.

The assessment covers areas shown on the approved Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. Zoning in this OZP is overlaid onto the Study Area and illustrated in Figure 8.4.

A review on this OZP reveals that the Project site is within the Other Specified Uses (Comprehensive Development to include Wetland Restoration Area) “OU(CDWRA)” zone, while the rest of the landscape Study Area is covered by Residential (Group C) “R(C)” zone, Village Type Development “V” zone, Open Space “O” zone, Other Specified Uses (Comprehensive Development to include Wetland Restoration Area) “OU(CDWRA)” zone and Conservation Area “CA” zone. The proposed construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant with associated works is considered “Utility Installation for Private Project” which is a land use under Column 2 (Uses that may be permitted with or without conditions on application to the Town Planning Board) for “OU(CDWRA)” zone in the Schedule of Uses of the approved Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. The proposed interim STP is part of to the proposed residential development approved under planning Application No. A/YL-MP/229.

Table 8.2 summarizes the findings of the planning and development control review on areas within the landscape Study Area.

Table 8.2: Review of Existing Planning and Development Control Framework

Landuse zoning	Landscape Planning, Design and Conservation Intention of Zoning	Potential Impacts	Recommended Mitigation Measures and Future Outlook of the Area with the Proposed Works
Approved Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6
Residential (Group C) “R(C)”	This zone is intended primarily for low-rise, low-density residential developments where commercial uses serving the residential neighbourhood may be permitted on application to the Town Planning Board.	No works is proposed within this zone. No impact on this zone due to the Project is anticipated.	No works is proposed within this zone. The proposed works of the Project will not affect the future outlook of this zone. No mitigation measure is proposed.
Village Type Development “V”	The planning intention of this zone is to reflect existing recognized and other villages, and to provide land considered suitable for village expansion and reprovisioning of village houses affected by Government projects. Land within this zone is primarily intended for development of Small Houses by indigenous villagers. It is also intended to concentrate village type development within this zone for a more ordered development pattern, efficient use of land and provision of infrastructures and services. Selected commercial and community uses serving the needs of the villagers and in support of the village development are always permitted on the ground floor of a New Territories Exempted House. Other commercial, community and recreational uses may be permitted on application to the Town Planning Board.	No works is proposed within this zone. No impact on this zone due to the Project is anticipated.	No works is proposed within this zone. The proposed works of the Project will not affect the future outlook of this zone. No mitigation measure is proposed.
Open Space “O”	This zone is intended primarily for the provision of outdoor open-air space for active and/or passive recreational uses serving the needs of local residents as well as the general public.	No works is proposed within this zone. No impact on this zone due to the Project is anticipated.	No works is proposed within this zone. The proposed works of the Project will not affect the future outlook of this zone. No mitigation measure is proposed.
Other Specified Uses (Comprehensive Development to include Wetland Restoration Area) “OU(CDWRA)”	This zone is intended to provide incentive for the restoration of degraded wetlands adjoining existing fish ponds through comprehensive residential and/or recreational development to include wetland restoration area. It is also intended to phase out existing sporadic open storage and port back-up uses on degraded wetlands. Any new building should be located farthest away from Deep Bay.	The Project is within this zone. It is considered as part of the overall development within this zone. Therefore, no adverse impact on this zone due to the Project is anticipated.	Precautionary / enhancement / mitigation measures are shown in Table 8.14 and Table 8.15 Upon completion of the Project, a single-storey Sewage Treatment Plant will be situated in the Project site within this zone. The future outlook is anticipated to be compatible with the low-rise, low density residential development planned in the remaining parts of this zone.
Conservation Area “CA”	The planning intention of this zone is to conserve the ecological value of wetland and fish ponds which form an integral part of the wetland ecosystem in the Deep Bay Area. The “no-net-loss in wetland” principle is adopted for any change in use within this zone. The primary intention is to discourage new development unless it is required to support the conservation of the ecological integrity of the wetland ecosystem or the development is an essential infrastructure project with overriding public interest.	No works is proposed within this zone. No impact on this zone due to the Project is anticipated.	No works is proposed within this zone. The proposed works of the Project will not affect the future outlook of this zone. No mitigation measure is proposed.

8.4.2 Landscape Resources

Existing LRs within the landscape Study Area were identified by desktop study and verified in the site visits. Identified LRs are mapped on Figure 8.5. Representative photographs of these LRs are illustrated in Figure 8.6.

LR1 – Screen Planting

This LR (approximately 0.24 ha) is the strip planting behind the noise barrier planted as a recommended mitigation measures for the WSW Development to screen the views of the noise barrier from external VSRs. It consists of both tree and shrub planting. Trees in this LR are young to semi-mature with height mainly ranging from 5 to 12 m. Trees commonly observed include Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Cinnamomum camphora, Acacia mangium, Casuarina equisetifolia and Melia azedarach, while the shrub species recorded include Alpinia zerumbet ‘Variegata’, Ligustrum sinense, Nephrolepis auriculata, Rhapis excelsa, Schefflera arboricola and Schefflera arboricola ‘Variegata’. Although the screen planting is relatively young and this type of resource is locally common, it is properly maintained and serves a particular function as screen planting. Sensitivity of this LR is therefore considered medium.

LR2 – Periphery Planting

This LR (approximately 1.58 ha) includes part of the tree planting along the boundary walls of Palm Spring and Royal Palms which is dominated by semi-mature to mature trees with heights mainly range from 6 to 15 m. The dominant tree species observed include Casuarina equisetifolia, Cinnamomum burmannii, Hibiscus tiliaceus and Acacia confusa. Although this type of periphery planting is locally common, it is well maintained and serves a particular function to create a sense of privacy for the properties. Sensitivity of this resource is considered high.

LR3 – Roadside Planting

This LR (approximately 0.10 ha) includes part of a strip of tree planting between San Tin Highway and Castle Peak Road – Mai Po, where Eucalyptus species of various sizes dominate, and roadside planting on the west side of Castle Peak Road – Mai Po, where the weedy tree species Leucaena leucocephala dominates. Trees in this LR are mostly young to semi-mature with height mainly ranging from 6 to 12 m, with a few mature trees of Acacia confusa and Ficus miccrocarpa. Although the roadside planting is locally common, the presence of a few mature trees indicates that this LR is not readily replaceable. Sensitivity of this LR is therefore considered high.

LR4 – Amenity Planting

This LR (approximately 3.54 ha) includes part of the landscape planting within Palm Spring and Royal Palms which is dominated by semi-mature trees with heights mainly range from 6 to 10 m and shrub planting along roadside. It also includes the private gardens of residences. The tree species observed include Livistona chinensis, Cinnamomum burmannii, Roystonea regia, Delonix regia, Casuarina equisetifolia and Dypsis lutescens. Shrub and groundcover planting is also observed within this LR with Cordyline fruticosa, Ixora chinensis, Juniperus chinensis, Ligustrum sinense, Loropetalum chinense f. rubrum and Wedelia trilobata. Although this type of resource is locally common, it is well maintained. Sensitivity of this resource is considered medium.

LR5 – Tree Plantation

This LR (approximately 0.43 ha) includes a tree plantation area to the northwest of Wo Shang Wai. This tree plantation area is dominated by the weedy tree species Leucaena leucocephala, with common landscape trees such as Acacia auriculiformis, Casuarina equisetifolia and Alstonia scholaris also observed. Trees in this plantation are mostly young to semi-mature with heights about 8 to 10 m. The dominance by the weedy tree species Leucaena leucocephala suggests that the area has been disturbed and not fully reinstated with tree planting. Given the low quality of the existing tree plantation, sensitivity of this resource is considered medium despite its high coverage of woody vegetation.

LR6 – Restored Wetland

This LR (approximately 4.71 ha) is a restored wetland area, which is currently under the maintenance of the contractor of the WSW Development. It contains wetland areas with open water as well as reed planting dominated by Phragmites australis and shrub planting with predominantly native species such as Bridelia tomentosa, Ficus microcarpa, Ligustrum sinense, Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Melastoma malabathricum, Rhaphiolepis indica and Zanthoxylum avicennae. This type of resource is locally uncommon. Sensitivity of this LR is considered high.

LR7 – Pond

This LR (approximately 2.01 ha) includes parts of a few fish ponds north of the Project site and part of the pond adjacent to Wo Shang Wai. The fish ponds to the north are actively used for aquaculture with pond bunds covered with grasses. The one adjacent to Wo Shang Wai is likely only a water retaining feature serving the village with common weedy species such as Bidens alba dominating the edges. Fish ponds were once common in rural Hong Kong, but are becoming less so in the past decades. Sensitivity of this LR is therefore considered high.

LR8 – Watercourse

This LR (approximately 0.48 ha and approximately 450 m in total length) includes two sections of drainage channel, one north of the Project site adjacent to fish ponds and the other east of Palm Springs.

LR8.1 – Drainage Channels at the East of Palm Springs

The one east of Palm Springs is largely modified with sloped artificial stream banks covered with either hard surfaces or self-grown vegetation. The stream bed is mainly covered with hard surface with stones, cobbles and sandy substrate. Water in the drainage channels looks turbid with no fish observed. This type of drainage channel is locally common, the sensitivity of which is considered medium.

LR8.2 – Drainage Channels at the North of the Project Site

The drainage channel north of the Project site is relatively natural with riparian zone dominated by grasses and Musa x paradisiaca. The stream bed is not observable due to turbidity of the water, but likely with soft bottom substrate for this type of channels. Water quality of this stream section is regularly monitored for the WSW Development and is considered fair. This type of resource is locally common. Sensitivity of this drainage channel is considered high.

Table 8.3 summarizes the sensitivity of all identified LRs.

Table 8.3: Sensitivity of Landscape Resources

ID No.	Name	Quality of existing landscape (Low / Medium / High)	Importance / Rarity of landscape elements (Low / Medium / High)	Ability to accommodate change (Low / Medium / High)	Maturity of Landscape (Young / Semi-mature / Mature)	Significance of change in local context (Low / Medium / High)	Significance of change in regional context (Low / Medium / High)	Sensitivity (Low / Medium / High)
LR1	Screen Planting	Medium	Low	Low	Young	Medium	Low	Medium
LR2	Periphery Planting	Medium	Medium	Low	Semi-mature	Medium	Low	High
LR3	Roadside Planting	Medium	Low	Medium	Mature	Low	Low	High
LR4	Amenity Planting	High	Low	Medium	Semi-mature	Medium	Low	Medium
LR5	Tree Plantation	Medium	Low	Medium	Semi-mature	Low	Low	Medium
LR6	Restored Wetland	High	High	Low	Semi-mature	High	Medium	High
LR7	Pond	High	Medium	Low	Mature	Medium	Low	High
LR8.1	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the East of Palm Springs	Medium	Low	Medium	Semi-mature	Low	Low	Medium
LR8.2	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the North of the Project Site	Medium	Low	Medium	Semi-mature	Medium	Low	High

8.4.3 Landscape Character Types

The Landscape Character Types (LCTs) within the landscape Study Area as shown in the Landscape Character Map of Hong Kong (Edition 2005) are illustrated in Figure 8.7 and listed in Table 8.4.

Table 8.4: Descriptions on Landscape Character Types within the Study Area

LCT	Description in Explanatory Notes for Landscape Character Map of Hong Kong
LOWLAND COUNTRY SIDE LANDSCAPE
7. Rural Coastal Plan Landscape	These are flat and expansive lowland landscapes lying at an elevation below 40mPD and which adjoin the coast. Often partly or wholly reclaimed from sea over the centuries, their character is defined to a large extent by their proximity to the sea. Villages, knolls and blocks of woodland are scattered across these plains, connected by winding lanes and footpaths amongst active or disused fishponds. In certain areas, fishponds are densely packed over an extensive area, forming landscapes that are almost as much water as land. Formerly expansive and open landscapes of small-scale landscape features, agricultural land uses today have often been discontinued with the filling of fishponds, the abandoning of fields and the increase in land uses such as storage yards and housing developments resulting in a landscape of contrasting components and colours.
8. Rurual Inland Plain Landscape	These are flat and expansive lowland landscape, lying between ranges of hills, at elevations below 40mPD. Such plains are generally flat or gently undulating and may be studded with low hills and wooded knolls. Generally long-settled, they comprise fields around meandering streams, scattered groups of trees and villages (at the bases of hills) connected by winding lanes and footpaths. Where these features persist in their traditional patterns, one experiences a largely agrarian landscape of small-scale, natural and human landscape features. However, increasingly in recent times, fields are being abandoned or are being replaced by other land uses such as village housing or storage yards, resulting a landscape of contrasting components and colours.
URBAN FRINGE LANDSSCAPE
15. Comprehensive Residential Development Landscape	These are comprehensively planned and constructed landscapes associated with self-contained residential developments, situated in what are predominantly rural areas. Usually developed by a single developer, often in phases, they are characterised by their comprehensive planning, high sense of self-containment and structured character. They consist of generally low-rise residential buildings, all of fairly recent construction, situated on a layout of suburban roads, often with generous soft landscape provision. At the core of the development, there may be community facilities, including club house, schools and shops. These landscapes are highly ordered and are characterised by a high degree of coherence and a sense of tranquillity.

8.4.4 Landscape Character Areas

Existing LCAs within the landscape Study Area are also identified by desktop study and verified in the site visits. Identified LCAs are mapped on Figure 8.8. Representative photographs of these LCAs are illustrated in Figure 8.9a to Figure 8.9b.

LCA1 – Low-rise Rural Residential Development

This LCA includes part of Palm Spring and Royal Palms which are low-lying landscape comprises numerous low-rise residences developed to a single co-ordinated master plan. Housing is set within a network of roads and amenity space at the periphery of the development. Vegetation is typically street tree planting and amenity planting. Generally, this is a varied landscape of small scale domestic features which is both enclosed and intensively maintained. This type of landscape character is quite common in rural Hog Kong. Sensitivity of this LCA is considered medium.

LCA2 – Planned Comprehensive Residential Development

This LCA is the site for the planned WSW Development. It is currently a construction site covered with mainly bare land and surrounded by noise barriers and hoardings along the site boundary. This LCA is temporary in nature and will be replaced by low-rise, low-density residential development similar to that in LCA1. This type of landscape character is quite common in rural Hong Kong. With due consideration on the planned land use of the area, the future sensitivity of this LCA is considered medium while the existing sensitivity is considered low.

LCA3 – Village Type Development

This LCA covers part of the village of Wo Shang Wai, which is a traditional village. It is characterized by closely spaced low-rise village houses typical for this type of traditional village with a pond to the west of the village and not much soft landscaping. Within the village of Wo Shang Wai, there is a brick house with a plaque labelled “Wo Shang Wai”, where altars for worshipping of various gods, such as “Tin Hau”, are present. This type of traditional village landscape character is quite common in rural Hong Kong, but such a traditional rural village surrounded by modern residential development gives this LCA a unique landscape character. With due consideration on its historical and cultural significance and uniqueness, sensitivity of this LCA is considered high.

LCA4 – Rural Open Area

This LCA includes land adjacent to Castle Peak Road-Mai Po where the major land uses include open areas such as open storage and car park. This LCA also includes the existing construction site of a ventilation building for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL). This type of landscape character is quite common in rural Hong Kong. Sensitivity of this LCA is considered low.

LCA5 – Restored Wetland

This LCA is the restored wetland area for the WSW Development. It contains wetland areas with open water as well as shrub planting and reed planting. It serves the function as a buffer zone between the WSW Development and the adjacent conservation areas of high ecological sensitivity. Its ecological value is considered high because it also serves the function as a habitat for numerous avifauna species. This type of landscape character is uncommon in Hong Kong. Sensitivity of this LCA is considered high.

LCA6 – Fish Ponds

This LCA includes some active fish ponds north of the Project site. This type of landscape is becoming less common in Hong Kong. Also, it provides ecological linkage to the wetland in Mai Po. Sensitivity of this LCA is considered high.

Table 8.5 summarizes the sensitivity of all identified LCAs.

Table 8.5: Sensitivity of Landscape Character Areas

ID No.	Name	Quality of existing landscape (Low / Medium / High)	Importance / Rarity of landscape elements (Low / Medium / High)	Ability to accommodate change (Low / Medium / High)	Maturity of Landscape (Young / Semi-mature / Mature)	Significance of change in local context (Low / Medium / High)	Significance of change in regional context (Low / Medium / High)	Sensitivity (Low / Medium / High)
LCA1	Low-rise Rural Residential Development	High	Medium	Medium	Semi-mature	Medium	Low	Medium
LCA2	Planned Comprehensive Residential Development	Low (existing); Medium (future)	Low (existing); Medium (future)	High (existing); Medium (future)	N/A (under construction)	Low (existing); Medium (future)	Low (existing); Low (future)	Low (existing); Medium (future)
LCA3	Village Type Development	Medium	Medium	Medium	Mature	High	Medium	High
LCA4	Rural Open Area	Low	Low	High	Semi-mature	Low	Low	Low
LCA5	Restored Wetland	High	High	Low	Semi-mature	Medium	Medium	High
LCA6	Fish Ponds	High	High	Low	Semi-mature	Medium	Medium	High

8.4.5 Zone of Visual Influence

During construction, the existing noise barriers and site hoardings surrounding the site of the WSW Development will act as an effective visual barrier and block the views of any construction activities of the Project from external viewers. The limit of ZVI during construction is therefore defined by the locations of the noise barriers and site hoardings.

During operation, the planned WSW Development will have been completed. Given that the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant is a single-storey structure while the residential buildings surrounding it are taller, the ZVI will be limited by the residential buildings is shown in Figure 8.3. In addition, due to the small scale of the Project and the effects of distance and the panoramic qualities of many views, visual receivers beyond the distance of 500 m from the Project will hardly notice any elements of the Project in their wider views. The Project will not form a feature of any significance in these visual receivers’ frame of view and will not influence their visual experience. Therefore, the limit of the ZVI is defined as 500 m from the proposed Project site.

8.4.6 Visually Sensitive Receivers

Since the ZVI is limited to within the WSW Development site, no VSR is identified during construction of the Project. During operation, all identified VSRs are planned VSRs as identified by the updated layout of the WSW Development and shown in Figure 8.3. Their existing view, which shows a construction site with mainly bare ground, is irrelevant for visual assessment. Hence, the description of their anticipated views without the Project will be described as the baseline condition based on the latest proposed layout as shown in Figure 8.3.

VSR1 – Residents from the Northwest

This VSR includes the residents of a few 3-storey houses with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 50 m towards the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. The views of this VSR will be dominated by the water features in the foreground with the proposed location of the Sewage Treatment Plant at the background, at least partially blocked from view by tree planting. Despite the relatively short viewing distance, given that the partial view of the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant only constitute as a background, the sensitivity of this VSR is considered medium.

VSR2 – Residents from the Northeast

This VSR includes the residents of a few 3-storey houses with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 50 m towards the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. The views of this VSR will be dominated by the access road and proposed tree planting at the central median, which will act as visual barrier to the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant with a partial screening effect. Despite the relatively short viewing distance, given that trees at the central median will at least partially block the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant from view, the sensitivity of this VSR is considered medium.

VSR3 – Recreationists from Club Houses and Swimming Pools

This VSR includes the visitors of the club houses as well as the swimmers in the swimming pools with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 20 m towards the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. The views of this VSR will be a direct view across the roundabout towards the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. Visual obstruction by proposed tree planting adjacent to the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant will depend on the exact locations of the VSRs. Given that the views are relatively unimportant to recreationists and the views are in most cases at least partially screened by tree planting, the sensitivity of this VSR is considered low.

VSR4 – Pedestrians and Passengers in Vehicles along Access Roads

This VSR includes pedestrians walking along the footpaths and the passengers in vehicles on the access roads adjacent to the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 5 m towards the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. This VSR will have an unobstructed direct view of the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant only at two particular locations along the access roads. At other locations, the view will be at least partially blocked by proposed tree planting adjacent to the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant or trees along the access roads and at the central median. Given that the views are in most cases at least partially screened and the views are transient in nature and relatively unimportant to the viewers, the sensitivity of this VSR is considered low.

Table 8.6 summarizes the sensitivity of all identified VSRs.

Table 8.6: Sensitivity of Visually Sensitive Receivers

ID No.	Name	Type of Receivers (Residents / Students / Workers / Recreationists / Travelers)	Population of Receivers (Small / Medium / Large)	Amenity Value of Existing View (Low / Moderate / High)	Availability of Alternative View (Yes / No)	Amenity of Alternative View (Low / Moderate / High)	Duration of View (Short / Medium / Long)	Frequency of view (Low / Medium / High)	Degree of visibility (Low / Medium / High)	Sensitivity (Low / Medium / High)
VSR1	Residents from the Northwest	Residents	Small	High	Yes	Moderate	Long	High	Low	Medium
VSR2	Residents from the Northeast	Residents	Small	Moderate	Yes	Moderate	Long	High	Low	Medium
VSR3	Recreationists from Club Houses and Swimming Pools	Recreationists	Medium	Moderate	Yes	Moderate	Moderate	Medium	Medium	Low
VSR4	Pedestrians and Passengers in Vehicles along Access Roads	Travelers	Medium	Moderate	Yes	Moderate	Short	Medium	Low	Low

8.4.7 Vantage Points

One vantage point is selected to show the representative visual context of the mostly affected planned VSRs. The view of the vantage point is particularly selected with reference to the number and sensitivity of the identified VSRs to cover the view of the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant with the shortest viewing distance and least visual obstruction. It can represent the most affected views due to the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant from VSR1, VSR2 and VSR3. The photomontage showing the view at this vantage point without the Project as well as the existing view are illustrated in Figure 8.10.

8.5 Tree Survey Findings

8.5.1 Existing Tree Groups

Tree group survey was undertaken within the landscape Study Area as shown in Figure 8.1. Demarcation of identified tree groups follows that of LRs and is shown in Figure 8.5.

Trees in the landscape Study Area are grouped into 5 tree groups with a total of approximately 2,788 trees. The estimated number of trees in each of the tree groups is summarized in Table 8.7. Tree assessment schedule of the surveyed tree groups is presented in Appendix 8.1.

Table 8.7: Estimated Number of Trees in Tree Groups

Tree Group No.	Location of Trees	Approximate No. of Trees
T-LR1	Trees in Screen Planting	452
T-LR2	Trees in Periphery Planting	1,409
T-LR3	Trees in Roadside Planting	162
T-LR4	Trees in Landscape Planting	590
T-LR5	Trees in Tree Plantation	175
	Total:	2,788

During the broad brush tree survey, no registered / potentially registrable OVT was observed and no significant trees of large sizes, cultural significance or species of conservation interest were identified.

8.5.2 Potential Impact on Trees

All trees within the landscape Study Area are located outside the Project site, except trees in Screen Planting (T-LR1) where trees are located within the Project site but outside the works area behind the noise barriers. Hence, none of the trees identified will be affected by the Project.

8.6 Sources of Potential Impact

Since the only above-ground structure of the Project is a 1-storey Sewage Treatment Plant, which will be incorporated into the overall layout plan of the WSW Development, no adverse impact on the layout and the implementation of recommended landscape and visual mitigation measures in the approved EIA for WSW Development (Register No. AEIAR-120/2008) is anticipated.

8.6.1 Sources of Impact during Construction

During the construction phase, the Project will be implemented simultaneously with the construction of the WSW Development. Sources of potential landscape and visual impacts would arise from the following:

● Construction activities associated with the construction of the Sewage Treatment Plant

8.6.2 Sources of Impact during Operation

During the operation phase, the Sewage Treatment Plant will be a temporary measure to handle the sewage generated from the WSW Development after occupation of Phase 1 development. Sources of potential landscape and visual impacts would arise from the following:

● Presence of the single-storey above-ground structure of the Sewage Treatment Plant

8.6.3 Sources of Impact during Decommissioning

During the decommissioning phase, the structure of the Sewage Treatment Plant and its associated infrastructure will only cease operation and will not be demolished. The sources of potential landscape and visual impacts is therefore identical to those for the operation phase.

8.7 Magnitude of Change

8.7.1 Magnitude of Change on Landscape Resources

LR1 – Screen Planting

This LR is located within the Project site behind the noise barrier where no construction works will be carried out. No impact on this LR due to the construction and operation of the Project is anticipated. Magnitude of change on this LR is considered negligible.

LR2 – Periphery Planting

This LR is located outside the Project site and will not be affected by the proposed works of the Project. No impact on this LR due to the construction and operation of the Project is anticipated. Magnitude of change on this LR is considered negligible.

LR3 – Roadside Planting

LR4 – Amenity Planting

LR5 – Tree Plantation

LR6 – Restored Wetland

LR7 – Pond

LR8.1 – Drainage Channels at the East of Palm Springs (Watercourse)

LR8.2 – Drainage Channels at the North of the Project Site (Watercourse)

Table 8.8 summarises the magnitude of change on all LRs. The magnitude of change on all LRs is expected to be the same for construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

Table 8.8: Magnitude of Change on Landscape Resources

ID No.	Name	Scale of Works (Negligible / Small /Medium / Large)	Reversibility (Reversible / Irreversible)	Compatibility with surrounding landscape (Low / Medium / High)	Duration of Impacts (Short / Medium / Long)	Magnitude of Change (Negligible / Small / Intermediate / Large)
LR1	Screen Planting	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR2	Periphery Planting	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR3	Roadside Planting	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR4	Amenity Planting	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR5	Tree Plantation	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR6	Restored Wetland	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR7	Pond	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR8.1	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the East of Palm Springs	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LR8.2	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the North of Project Site	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible

8.7.2 Magnitude of Change on Landscape Character Areas

LCA1 – Low-rise Rural Residential Development

This LCA is located outside the Project site and will not be affected by the proposed works of the Project. No impact on this LCA due to the construction and operation of the Project is anticipated. Magnitude of change on this LCA is considered negligible.

LCA2 – Planned Comprehensive Residential Development

The Project site is entirely within this LCA. During construction of the Project, this LCA will also be under construction for the WSW Development. Hence, the magnitude of change on this LCA is considered negligible for construction phase.

Given the scale of the proposed works is small and the proposed above-ground structure of the Sewage Treatment Plant is similar in scale with the planned residential buildings within this LCA as illustrated in Figure 8.3, the Project is considered compatible with the planned land use of this LCA. Magnitude of change on this LCA during operation and decommissioning phases is also considered negligible.

LCA3 – Village Type Development

LCA4 – Rural Open Area

LCA5 – Restored Wetland

LCA6 – Fish Ponds

Table 8.9 summarises the magnitude of change on all LCAs. The magnitude of change on all LCAs is expected to be the same for construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

Table 8.9: Magnitude of Change on Landscape Character Areas

ID No.	Name	Scale of works (Negligible / Small / Medium / Large)	Reversibility (Reversible / Irreversible)	Compatibility with surrounding landscape (Low / Medium / High)	Duration of Impacts (Short / Medium / Long)	Magnitude of change (Negligible / Small / Intermediate / Large)
LCA1	Low-rise Rural Residential Development	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LCA2	Planned Comprehensive Residential Development	Small	Irreversible	High	Short	Negligible
LCA3	Village Type Development	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LCA4	Rural Open Area	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LCA5	Restored Wetland	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible
LCA6	Fish Ponds	Negligible	N/A	N/A	N/A	Negligible

8.7.3 Magnitude of Change on Visually Sensitive Receivers

VSR1 – Residents from the Northwest

The above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant will be partially visible by this VSR with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 50 m. The views will be dominated by the water features in the foreground with the proposed location of the Sewage Treatment Plant at the background, at least partially blocked from view by tree planting. Given that the partial view of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant only constitute as a background, the magnitude of change to this VSR is considered small.

VSR2 – Residents from the Northeast

The above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant will be partially visible by this VSR with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 50 m. The views will be dominated by the access road and proposed tree planting at the central median, which will act as visual barrier to the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant with a partial screening effect. Given that trees at the central median will at least partially block the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant from view, the magnitude of change to this VSR is considered small.

VSR3 – Recreationists from Club Houses and Swimming Pools

The above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant will be visible by this VSR with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 20 m. The views of will be a direct view across the roundabout towards the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. Visual obstruction by proposed tree planting adjacent to the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant will depend on the exact locations of the VSRs. Given that the views are sometimes direct but in most cases at least partially screened by tree planting, the magnitude of change to this VSR is considered intermediate.

VSR4 – Pedestrians and Passengers in Vehicles along Access Roads

The above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant will be visible by this VSR with a minimum horizontal viewing distance of approximately 5 m. This VSR will have an unobstructed direct view of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant only at two particular locations along the access roads. At other locations, the view will be at least partially blocked by proposed tree planting adjacent to the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant or trees along the access roads and at the central median. Given that the views are in most cases at least partially screened, the magnitude of change to this VSR is considered small.

Table 8.10 summarises the magnitude of change for all VSRs. The magnitude of change on all VSRs is expected to be the same for operation and decommissioning phases since the decommissioning only involves cease of operation but demolishing of the above-ground structure.

Table 8.10: Magnitude of Change on Visually Sensitive Receivers

ID No.	Name	Scale of Works (Small / Medium / Large)	Reversibility (Reversible / Irreversible)	Blockage (None / Partial / Substantial)	Minimum Viewing Distance (m)	Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape (Low / Medium / High)	Duration of Impacts (Operation) (Short / Medium / Long)	Duration of Impacts (Decommissioning) (Short / Medium / Long)	Magnitude of Change (Operation) (Negligible / Small / Intermediate / Large)	Magnitude of Change (Decommissioning) (Negligible / Small / Intermediate / Large)
VSR1	Residents from the Northwest	Small	Irreversible	Partial	50	Medium	Medium	Long	Small	Small
VSR2	Residents from the Northeast	Small	Irreversible	Partial	50	Medium	Medium	Long	Small	Small
VSR3	Recreationists from Club Houses and Swimming Pools	Small	Irreversible	Partial	20	Medium	Short	Medium	Intermediate	Intermediate
VSR4	Pedestrians and Passengers in Vehicles along Access Roads	Small	Irreversible	Substantial	5	Medium	Short	Short	Small	Small

8.8 Assessment of Potential Impact without Mitigation

8.8.1 Potential Impact on Landscape Resources without Mitigation

The potential landscape impacts without mitigation measures on individual LRs are derived from the sensitivities and magnitude of changes in accordance with Table 8.1 and summarized in Table 8.11. The potential impacts are expected to be the same for construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

Table 8.11: Potential Impact on Landscape Resources without Mitigation

ID No.	Name	Sensitivity (Low / Medium / High)	Magnitude of Change (Negligible / Small / intermediate / Large)	Significant Threshold (Unmitigated) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)
LR1	Screen Planting	Medium	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR2	Periphery Planting	High	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR3	Roadside Planting	High	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR4	Amenity Planting	Medium	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR5	Tree Plantation	Medium	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR6	Restored Wetland	High	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR7	Pond	High	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR8.1	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the East of Palm Springs	Medium	Negligible	Insubstantial
LR8.2	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the North of Project Site	High	Negligible	Insubstantial

8.8.2 Potential Impact on Landscape Character Areas without Mitigation

The potential landscape impacts without mitigation measures on individual LCAs are derived from the sensitivities and magnitude of changes in accordance with Table 8.1 and summarized in Table 8.12. The potential impacts are expected to be the same for construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

Table 8.12: Potential Impact on Landscape Character Areas without Mitigation

ID No.	Name	Sensitivity (Low / Medium / High)	Magnitude of Change (Negligible / Small / intermediate / Large)	Significant Threshold (Unmitigated) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)
LCA1	Low-rise Rural Residential Development	Medium	Negligible	Insubstantial
LCA2	Planned Comprehensive Residential Development	Low (existing); Medium (future)	Negligible	Insubstantial
LCA3	Village Type Development	High	Negligible	Insubstantial
LCA4	Rural Open Area	Low	Negligible	Insubstantial
LCA5	Restored Wetland	High	Negligible	Insubstantial
LCA6	Fish Ponds	High	Negligible	Insubstantial

8.8.3 Potential Impact on Visually Sensitive Receivers without Mitigation

The potential visual impacts without mitigation measures on individual VSRs are derived from the sensitivities and magnitude of changes in accordance with Table 8.1 and summarized in Table 8.13.

Table 8.13: Potential Impact on Visually Sensitive Receivers without Mitigation

ID No.	Name	Sensitivity (Low / Medium / High)	Magnitude of Change (Operation) (Negligible / Small / Intermediate / Large)	Magnitude of Change (Decommiss-ioning) (Negligible / Small / intermediate / Large)	Significant Threshold (Unmitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significant Threshold (Unmitigated) (Decommiss-ioning) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)
VSR1	Residents from the Northwest	Medium	Small	Small	Slight adverse	Slight adverse
VSR2	Residents from the Northeast	Medium	Small	Small	Slight adverse	Slight adverse
VSR3	Recreationists from Club Houses and Swimming Pools	Low	Intermediate	Intermediate	Slight adverse	Slight adverse
VSR4	Pedestrians and Passengers in Vehicles along Access Roads	Low	Small	Small	Slight adverse	Slight adverse

8.9 Recommended Precautionary / Enhancement / Mitigation Measures

Precautionary / enhancement / mitigation measures for potential landscape and visual impacts have been carefully considered to achieve the following:

● Avoid impacts on important landscape resources and visual sensitive receivers;

● Lessen unavoidable impacts by location, design and reducing the extent of works; and

● Enhancement of existing landscape resources and visual quality.

A preliminary landscape master plan showing the recommended precautionary / enhancement / mitigation measures for potential landscape and visual impacts is shown in Figure 8.11.

8.9.1 Recommended Construction Phase Precautionary / Enhancement Measures

Although insubstantial landscape impacts are anticipated for all identified LRs and LCAs even without mitigation and no VSRs are identified for the construction stage, precautionary / enhancement measures for construction phase impacts are recommended and summarized in Table 8.14 for minimization of potential landscape impacts, if any, and enhancement of landscape and visual quality. The construction phase mitigation measures listed below shall be adopted from the commencement of construction and throughout the entire construction period.

Table 8.14: Recommended Construction Phase Precautionary / Enhancement Measures

Mitigation Code	Mitigation Measure	Target LR(s), LCA(s) and / or VSR(s)	Responsible Agent for Mitigation Implementation	Responsible Agent for Management and Maintenance
CP1	Integration of Construction Programme with that of the WSW Development – The construction programme should be carefully integrated into the overall programme of the WSW Development, so that the construction of the Project will not cause any delay and thereby lengthen the construction period of the WSW Development.	LCA2	Project Proponent via Design Team & Contractor	N/A
CP2	Advance Planting – Proposed landscape planting should be undertaken at the earliest practicable stage of the construction phase of the Project.	LCA2	Project Proponent via Contractor	Project Proponent via Landscape Contractor
CP3	Dust and Erosion Control for Exposed Soil – Exposed soil shall be covered or “camouflaged” and watered frequently as dust suppression. Areas that are expected to be left with bare soil for a long period of time should be hydroseeded and / or covered with suitable protective fabrics to minimize dust impact.	LCA2	Project Proponent via Contractor	N/A

8.9.2 Recommended Operation Phase Mitigation Measures

To minimize potential impact during operation, mitigation measures for operation phase impacts are recommended and summarized in Table 8.15. The operation phase mitigation measures shall be adopted during detailed design and built in as part of the construction works so that they shall be in place at the Day 1 of operation phase.

Table 8.15: Recommended Operation Phase Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Code	Mitigation Measure	Target LR(s), LCA(s) and / or VSR(s)	Responsible Agent for Mitigation Implementation	Responsible Agent for Management and Maintenance
OP1	Sensitive Design and Disposition – The above-ground structure of the Sewage Treatment Plant should be sensitively designed in a manner that responds to the planned landscape context of the WSW Development to minimize potential adverse visual impacts. The structural design should seek to reduce the apparent visual mass. Subdued tones should be considered for the colour palette with non-reflective finishes to reduce glare effect. The layout of buildings and their windows should take into account the location of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant so as to avoid and minimize any potential views of the Sewage Treatment Plant by potential VSRs.	VSR1; VSR2; VSR3; VSR4	Project Proponent via Design Team	Project Proponent via Estate Management Agent
OP2	Visual Screening – Visual screening such as boundary fences / walls at the periphery of the swimming pool should be considered as far as practicable to obstruct the views of the above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant from the VSRs.	VSR1; VSR3	Project Proponent via Design Team	Project Proponent via Estate Management Agent
OP3	Screen Planting – Trees with mature height of at least 10 m should be planted around the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant as far as practicable for screening purpose to minimize the visual impact to the VSRs.	LCA2; VSR1; VSR2; VSR3; VSR4	Project Proponent via Design Team	Project Proponent via Estate Management Agent
OP4	Enhancement Planting – Other than screen planting, additional trees, shrubs and groundcovers should also be considered to maximize greening within the Project site upon completion of the Project. Use of native plant species should be considered as far as practicable to maximize the ecological value of the enhancement planting.	LCA2; VSR1; VSR2; VSR3; VSR4	Project Proponent via Design Team	Project Proponent via Estate Management Agent
OP5	Green Roofs and Vertical Greening – Green roofs and vertical greening should be provided where feasible and appropriate to screen and soften the hard edges of the above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant.	LCA2; VSR1; VSR2; VSR3; VSR4	Project Proponent via Design Team	Project Proponent via Estate Management Agent

8.9.3 Recommended Decommissioning Phase Mitigation Measures

Since the decommissioning of the Project only involves cease of operation of the Sewage Treatment Plant without demolishing or modifying any above-ground structure, the potential impact during decommissioning phase will be identical to those during the operation phase. No additional mitigation measures is required specifically for decommissioning phase other than those for operation phase as listed in Table 8.15.

8.10 Assessment of Potential Impact with Mitigation

8.10.1 Photomontages

Series of computer generated images or photomontages have been prepared to illustrate the proposed works and recommended mitigation measures. The photomontages are presented in Figure 8.12. The photomontages show the condition without the Project, after the completion of the construction phase of the Project with no mitigation, and Day 1 and Year 10 of the operation phase with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Year 10 of the operation phase is designed to demonstrate predicted residual impacts, which would exist in the design year during the operation phase, 10 years after the completion of the construction phase.

8.10.2 Potential Impact on Landscape Resources with Mitigation

As discussed in Section 8.8.1, potential impacts on all identified LRs within the landscape Study Area are anticipated to be insubstantial during construction, operation and decommissioning phases even without any mitigation. After the implementation of precautionary / enhancement measures as listed in Table 8.14 and Table 8.15, potential impact on LRs are anticipated to remain insubstantial in construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

Table 8.16 summarises the results of the landscape impact assessment for the LRs, which are also illustrated in Figure 8.13.

Table 8.16: Summary of Impact Assessment on Landscape Resources

ID No.	Name	Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) (Construction) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Recommended Mitigation Measures	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Construction) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Decommissioning) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)
LR1	Screen Planting	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR2	Periphery Planting	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR3	Roadside Planting	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR4	Amenity Planting	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR5	Tree Plantation	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR6	Restored Wetland	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR7	Pond	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR8.1	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the East of Palm Springs	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LR8.2	Watercourse – Drainage Channels at the North of Project Site	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial

8.10.3 Potential Impact on Landscape Character Areas with Mitigation

As discussed in Section 8.8.2, potential impacts on all identified LCAs within the landscape Study Area are anticipated to be insubstantial during construction, operation and decommissioning phases even without any mitigation. After the implementation of precautionary / enhancement measures as listed in Table 8.14 and Table 8.15, potential impact on LCAs are anticipated to remain insubstantial in construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

Table 8.17 summarizes the results of the landscape impact assessment for the LCAs.

Table 8.17: Summary of Impact Assessment on Landscape Character Areas

ID No.	Name	Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) (Construction) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Recommended Mitigation Measures	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Construction) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Decommissioning) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)
LCA1	Low-rise Rural Residential Development	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LCA2	Planned Comprehensive Residential Development	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	CP1; CP2; CP3; OP3; OP4; OP5	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LCA3	Village Type Development	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LCA4	Rural Open Area	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LCA5	Restored Wetland	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial
LCA6	Fish Ponds	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	-	Insubstantial	Insubstantial	Insubstantial

8.10.4 Potential Impact on Visually Sensitive Receivers with Mitigation

As discussed in Section 8.8.3, potential impacts on all identified planned VSRs are anticipated to be slight adverse during both the operation and decommissioning phases without any mitigation. After the implementation of mitigation measures as listed in Table 8.15, potential impact on the VSRs are anticipated to remain slight adverse in operation and decommissioning phases because the visual presence of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant cannot be completely eliminated by the recommended mitigation measures.

Table 8.18 summarizes the results of the visual impact assessment for VSRs, which are also illustrated in Figure 8.14.

Table 8.18: Summary of Impact Assessment on Visually Sensitive Receivers

ID No.	Name	Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) (Decommissioning) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Recommended Mitigation Measures	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Operation) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)	Significance Threshold (Mitigated) (Decommissioning) (Insubstantial / Slight / Moderate / Significant)
VSR1	Residents from the Northwest	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	OP1; OP2; OP3; OP4; OP5	Slight adverse	Slight adverse
VSR2	Residents from the Northeast	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	OP1; OP3; OP4; OP5	Slight adverse	Slight adverse
VSR3	Recreationists from Club Houses and Swimming Pools	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	OP1; OP2; OP3; OP4; OP5	Slight adverse	Slight adverse
VSR4	Pedestrians and Passengers in Vehicles along Access Roads	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	OP1; OP3; OP4; OP5	Slight adverse	Slight adverse

8.11 Assessment of Cumulative Impact

8.11.1 Potential Concurrent Project

Potential concurrent project(s) include the following:

● Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long

● Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou – Shenzhen – Hong Kong Express Rail Link

8.11.2 Potential Cumulative Impact

Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long

Since the Project is to serve the need of the WSW Development, the construction of the Project will tie in with the construction of the proposed WSW Development. As the existing WSW Development site is covered with bare land with no identified landscape resource except for the restored wetland which will not be adversely affected by the construction of the comprehensive development, both the landscape and visual quality of the site is anticipated to greatly improve upon completion of the construction of the WSW Development. No cumulative landscape and visual impact is therefore anticipated.

Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou – Shenzhen – Hong Kong Express Rail Link

The construction site for the Mai Po Ventilation Building is adjacent to the Project site to the northeast. The construction of the Ventilation Building is largely completed with few further construction activities expected. Therefore, cumulative landscape and visual impacts, if any, will be minor and insignificant.

8.12 Summary

8.12.1 Review of Planning and Development Control Framework

A review of the existing and planned development for the proposed works and for the surroundings reveals that the Project site is within the Other Specified Uses (Comprehensive Development to include Wetland Restoration Area) “OU(CDWRA)” zone in the approved Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. The proposed construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant and associated works is considered “Utility Installation for Private Project” which is a land use under Column 2 (Uses that may be permitted with or without conditions on application to the Town Planning Board) for “OU(CDWRA)” zone in the Schedule of Uses of the approved Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. The proposed interim STP is part of to the proposed residential development approved under planning Application No. A/YL-MP/229.

8.12.2 Potential Impact on Trees

All trees within the landscape Study Area are either located outside the Project site or within the Project site behind the noise barrier where no construction works will be carried out. Hence, none of the trees identified will be affected by the Project.

8.12.3 Residual Landscape Impact

A total of 8 LRs and 6 LCAs are identified within the landscape Study Area. Impacts to all identified LRs and LCAs are anticipated to be insubstantial even without mitigation during construction, operation and decommissioning phases. The residual landscape impact after the implementation of precautionary / enhancement measures will remain insubstantial.

8.12.4 Residual Visual Impact

No VSR is identified for the construction phase and a total of 4 planned VSRs are identified within the ZVI of the Project for the operation and decommissioning phases. Impacts to all identified planned VSRs are anticipated to be slight adverse after implementation of mitigation for both operation and decommissioning phases since the visual presence of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant cannot be completely eliminated by the recommended mitigation measures.

8.13 Conclusion

8.13.1 Overall Landscape Impact

Given that the existing site is bare land with no LRs and the scale of the Project is small and will be integrated into and compatible with the WSW Development, the landscape impact due to the Project is considered insubstantial for construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

8.13.2 Overall Visual Impact

No construction phase visual impact is anticipated as no VSRs are identified during construction due to the enclosure of the site by noise barriers and screen hoardings. Planned VSRs during operation and decommissioning phases will experience a slight adverse visual impact due to unavoidable partial views of the above-ground structure of the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant.

8.13.3 Overall Acceptability

Overall, in terms of Annex 10, Clause 1.1 (c) of the EIAO – TM, it is concluded that the landscape and visual impacts are acceptable with mitigation measures.