2.1 Need and Benefits of the Project
2.2 Siting and Design Considerations
2.3 Consideration of Scenarios
With and Without the Project
2.4 Consideration
of Alternative Options
2.5 Construction
Method and Alternatives
2.6 Project
Planning and Implementation Programme
TABLES
Table 2.1a Summary
of Helicopter Landing Data at PYNEH (Year 2015 to 2019)
Table 2.1b Summary
of Helicopter Landing Data at TMH (Year 2015 to 2019)
Table 2.1c Summary
of Helicopter Landing Data at Wan Chai (Year 2015 to 2019)
Table 2.2 Selection
of Acute Hospitals for the Proposed Helipad
Table 2.3 Summary
of Outcome of Options Evaluation of Helipad Siting in NAH
Table 2.4 Merits
and Demerits of the Construction Methods for the Proposed Helipad
Table 2.5 Tentative
Programme of the Project
Table 2.6 Summary
of Concurrent Projects
Table 2.7 Summary
of Public consultation
FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Project Site and Surrounding
Land Uses
Figure
2.2 Options for Helipad Location in
the NAH
Figure 2.3 Proposed
Helicopter Flight Path
Figure
2.4 Location of Concurrent Projects
APPENDICES
Appendix
2A Correspondence with Planning
Department
Appendix
2B Location of Queen
Elizabeth Hospital
2.1.1.1 The Hospital Authority (HA) has an ongoing
review of the current transportation arrangement of the medical emergency
cases. As the ageing population is on
the rise, the number of patients being transferred to hospitals also increases.
The efficiency and effectiveness of emergency transfers for patients become an
inevitable part of the review. In
addition to the improvement of the existing life-saving services, HA identifies
the need to equip acute hospital with a trauma centre under planning with a
helipad.
2.1.1.2 In addition, the HA has a strategy to provide air ambulance services when
opportunities arise, that is with the provision of helipads at designated
trauma centres. The five current designated
trauma centres are located at the Prince of Wales Hospital (PWH), Princess
Margaret Hospital (PMH) and Tuen Mun Hospital (TMH) in the New Territories;
Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) in Kowloon and Queen Mary Hospital (QMH) on Hong
Kong Island. Of these hospitals with
trauma centres, currently only the TMH in the New Territories is provided with
a helipad, although a new helipad, primarily to serve the population from the
western part of Hong Kong, is planned at the Queen Mary Hospital on the Hong
Kong Island.
2.1.1.3 Besides the TMH, the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (PYNEH) is
the only other hospital in Hong Kong equipped with a helipad for the air
transportation of medical emergency cases (CASEVAC A+
cases). However, the PYNEH does not
contain a trauma centre.
2.1.1.4 For emergency retrieval from the New Territories, the patient will be
transferred to TMH if practicable during day time (07:00-19:00). However, as advised by the Government Flying
Service (GFS), the helipad at TMH can only be used during day time and not preferred
in the evening (19:00-23:00) and night-time (23:00-07:00) due to the high-rise
buildings nearby causing flight safety issues. When the TMH is not available, the helipad at the
PYNEH would normally be used. At present, most of the air transported
medical emergency cases land at the helipad of the PYNEH, which is located at
the north-eastern part of the Hong Kong Island. Details of the recent emergency
helicopter landing data are presented in Tables
2.1a-c.
2.1.1.5 The QMH is one of the trauma centres with acute medical care facilities
for treatment of trauma and emergency cases, but there is no helipad at the hospital. Based on the current arrangement, trauma
patients admitted to the QMH are transferred to the hospital via ambulance
after helicopter-transported to either the helipad at PYNEH or to the Wan Chai Heliport.
2.1.1.6 For patient transfer from either PYNEH or Wan Chai Heliport to the QMH
via ambulance, delays due to traffic congestion increase the risk for
critically ill or injured patients with life-threatening conditions. The existing transfer time from landing at PYNEH/
Wan Chai Heliport to QMH by ambulance takes around 10 to 20 minutes under smooth
traffic conditions but more often, it can take in the excess of 20 minutes due
to traffic congestions. To reduce the time
required for transfer under the current redevelopment proposal, a new rooftop
helipad is planned on the proposed New Block of QMH. The new rooftop helipad at QMH is anticipated to
be put into service in 2024.
2.1.1.7 Upon the completion of the construction of the helipad at the QMH, the two
24-hour operating helipads would both be located on the Hong Kong Island. From the standpoint of serving the needs of
all geographical locations, the coverage of emergency medical transfer services
is considered not comprehensive. In
addition, helicopter landings at the current two helipads at TMH and PYNEH are sometimes
not feasible due to adverse weather conditions such as poor visibility, low cloud
and strong wind conditions. Furthermore,
helipads do require regular or routine maintenance. Having more landing choice would certainly
increase the flexibility during maintenance and reduce the risk for helipads become
unavailable to receive patients from unforeseen traumatic accidents.
2.1.1.8 Even when the planned QMH helipad comes into operation in 2024, there
will only be two acute hospitals on the Hong Kong Island (PYNEH and QMH) and
one acute hospital in the New Territories East (TMH), with helicopter landing
facilities that allow a point-to-point transfer for patients in critical
conditions. Considering the time
required for transferring patients from certain areas in Hong Kong, in
particular the New Territories, the locations of these hospitals are not comprehensive.
For patients from Kowloon and other
parts of the New Territories who need emergency transfer services, they would
have to be transferred to the other acute hospitals by air, or ambulance, or by
a combination of both, when the helipad at TMH cannot be utilized. Such indirect, lengthy transfer not only requires
extra pre-hospital travelling time, but also would involve more unnecessary
lifting or moving of traumatic victims under severe condition jeopardizing their
life safety.
2.1.1.9 To ensure the critically ill or injured patients can receive immediate emergency
service as needed and to fill the existing operational gaps, it is recognised
that there is a need to identify additional sites for helipads for the air
transportation of medical emergency patients.
Providing a rooftop helipad at a strategic location would certainly shorten the
time required for helicopter transfer considering
that the number of emergency landing at hospitals with
helipad remain rather constant every year. As HA proposes to
relocate the trauma centre from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital to the future New
Acute Hospital (NAH) in the Kai Tak Development Area (KTDA), the provision of a
new helipad at the NAH in Kowloon can support the new trauma centre as well as providing
better coverage for the overall network.
As a result, the service need from the entire geographical regions in
Hong Kong can be addressed. With this
additional helipad at the NAH, there will be at least one trauma centre with
helipad facilities which is available in each of the Hong Kong Island, Kowloon,
and the New Territories region.
2.1.1.10 Due to the nature of an emergency, the frequency of emergency landing of helicopter at the proposed helipad will be intermittent and random. Therefore, it is not possible to have a fixed
landing schedule.
2.1.1.11 The record of flight landings in the past 5 years at PYNEH, TMH and the
Wan Chai Heliport are tabulated in Tables
2.1a-c below and are further discussed in Section 5. With the
development of the proposed helipad at NAH, the existing helicopter operations
will be shared amongst the existing hospital’s helicopter landing sites based
on geographical location. There are four major types of flight landings
categories as listed below.
·
Type "A+"
CASEVACs - This type of Casualty Evacuation should only be requested for those
patients suffering from immediate life threatening or limb threatening
conditions. The Government Flying Service should respond immediately to this
request;
·
Other CASEVACs – Other
types of Casualty Evacuation that include Type A and Type B CASEVACs for
patients having emergency medical conditions which are other than immediate
life or limb threatening, and those suffering from major medical condition with
potential risk of deterioration but with relatively stable vital signs and
require definitive treatment as soon as possible, and for whom public transport is not appropriate;
·
SAR – Search-and-Rescue
Callouts initiated by other Government Departments, including but not limited
to Hong Kong Police Force, Hong Kong Fire Services Department; and
·
Others – Other flying
mission not included in the category above, including but not limited to
routine Government Flying Tasks, Police Missions.
2.1.1.12 As such, Type "A+" CASEVACs and other CASEVACs (Type A and
Type B CASEVACs), Search and Rescue (SAR) Operations (life-threatening
condition) are applicable to the proposed helipad at NAH.
2.1.1.13 Currently, when the helipads are not available at TMH or PYNEH due to adverse
weather conditions or any other reasons, the Wan Chai Heliport is used as a
landing site for emergency medical cases. The patient is then transferred to the
QMH by ground ambulance. However, there are also flight safety and weather
constraints using the Wan Chai Heliport.
In addition, as further transportation by ground ambulance is needed, the
PYNEH helipad is more frequently used. Therefore, there is a need to propose an
alternative location to ensure a point to point direct transfer in case all of
the above-mentioned helipad are not available during poor weather conditions.
Table
2.1a Summary of Helicopter
Landing Data at PYNEH (Year 2015 to 2019)(1)
|
Year |
CASEVAC
A+ |
Other
CASEVAC |
SAR |
Total
Landings |
|||||||||
|
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
||
|
2015 |
64 |
7 |
26 |
97 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
81 |
10 |
6 |
97 |
201 |
|
2016 |
63 |
22 |
23 |
108 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
87 |
9 |
8 |
104 |
215 |
|
2017 |
86 |
20 |
33 |
139 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
122 |
12 |
12 |
146 |
295 |
|
2018 |
73 |
21 |
29 |
123 |
10 |
1 |
0 |
11 |
81 |
13 |
13 |
107 |
241 |
|
2019 |
83 |
26 |
32 |
141 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
88 |
6 |
10 |
104 |
250 |
Note
(1): Data are provided by Government Flying Service
Table 2.1b Summary of Helicopter Landing Data at TMH (Year 2015 to 2019)(1)
|
Year |
CASEVAC A+ |
Other CASEVAC |
SAR |
Total
Landings |
|||||||||
|
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
||
|
2015 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
5 |
|
2016 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
12 |
|
2017 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
5 |
|
2018 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
2019 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
17 |
Note
(1): Data are provided by Government Flying Service
Table 2.1c Summary of Helicopter Landing Data at Wan Chai (Year 2015 to
2019)(1)
|
Year |
CASEVAC
A+ |
Other
CASEVAC |
|
||||||
|
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
|
|
|
2015 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
1154 |
211 |
172 |
1537 |
|
|
2016 |
12 |
4 |
5 |
21 |
1008 |
202 |
147 |
1357 |
|
|
2017 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
22 |
1231 |
255 |
148 |
1634 |
|
|
2018 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
12 |
1178 |
213 |
145 |
1536 |
|
|
2019 |
12 |
6 |
8 |
26 |
1105 |
193 |
172 |
1470 |
|
|
Year |
SAR |
Others |
Total
Landings |
||||||
|
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
Day |
Evening |
Night |
Total |
||
|
2015 |
121 |
7 |
12 |
140 |
967 |
8 |
0 |
975 |
2662 |
|
2016 |
142 |
14 |
6 |
162 |
814 |
29 |
5 |
848 |
2388 |
|
2017 |
132 |
17 |
2 |
151 |
919 |
29 |
1 |
949 |
2756 |
|
2018 |
127 |
9 |
2 |
138 |
876 |
58 |
58 |
992 |
2678 |
|
2019 |
115 |
12 |
0 |
127 |
906 |
53 |
0 |
959 |
2582 |
Note
(1): Data are provided by Government Flying Service
2.1.2.1 The NAH in the KTDA will be a new major acute general hospital located
in central Kowloon region serving not only to the community of the Kai Tak
area, but also, providing support to the adjacent districts such as Kowloon
City, Wong Tai Sin, Kwun Tong and Yau Tsim Mong.
2.1.2.2 According to the Clinical Services Plan for the Kowloon Central Cluster
(KCC) formulated by the HA in 2016, the NAH will have a planned capacity of
around 2,400 numbers of in-patient and day beds. It will be set up with the objectives of meeting
the long-term rising demand for healthcare services and facilities in Kowloon
arising from the growing and ageing population.
2.1.2.3 The NAH will provide 24-hour Accident and Emergency, in-patient,
out-patient, ambulatory and rehabilitation services in addition to being a
designated trauma centre, which is relocated from the current location at the
QEH. The trauma centre, to be housed in the Acute Block, will be integrated with other hospital functional units comprising critical
care areas such as the Perioperative Centre, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit/
Special Care Baby Unit (“NICU/ SCBU”), Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) and High
Dependency Unit (“HDU”) in order to provide a full range of comprehensive care
for critically ill/ injured patients.
2.1.2.4 Based on the existing conditions and concerns described in Section 2.1.1, and since the helicopter borne patients are
expected to be in time critical condition, it is essential that there will be a
safe, fast and efficient access between the AED, and critical care areas as
detailed above. It is proposed that the helipad
to be located on the roof of the Acute Block of the NAH (Figure 1.1). This will allow rapid access for the transfer of critically ill/
injured patients to and from the AED of the hospital.
2.1.2.5 The transfer of patients will be via a pair of dedicated “hot lifts”
with override controls for expedition.
With the helipad located on the roof top of the Acute Block building and
the AED being directly located on the ground level of the same block,
critically ill/ injured patients will be able to receive a continuum of high
quality, efficient and effective emergency response services. Furthermore, the proposed NAH helipad will
also serve emergency services by incorporating the advantages discussed below.
2.1.3.1
The NAH is strategically
located in the heart of Kowloon which is a better location than the existing helipads
at TMH, PYNEH and the planned QMH for serving the public in the Kowloon, the
outlying islands and some remote country park areas in the north-eastern part
of the New Territories. With the helipad at
the NAH, the time required to transfer trauma patients
from the locations mentioned above will be significantly shortened for the NAH. Also, the NAH helipad will serve the future
trauma centre at this location after relocation from the QEH. As noted above, with this additional helipad
at the NAH, at least one trauma centre with helipad facilities will be
available in each of the Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and the New Territories region.
2.1.4.1 Disasters involving multiple casualty transfer cannot be ruled out and
must be carefully planned and prepared for under a comprehensive healthcare
network. The proposed rooftop helipad at
NAH can be operated in conjunction with GFS’s Kai Tak Division, which is
located approximately 1.5km at the former Kai Tak Runway Tip, when major
disasters occur involving a large number of patients. This arrangement would help to cater for multiple
casualty transfers when multiple helicopters are involved by serving as the
primary landing site or as an emergency support landing site.
2.1.5.1 The helipads at the PYNEH or the proposed New Block of QMH may not be
available for operational use from time to time due to adverse weather
conditions. Poor visibility, low cloud
base or strong wind conditions often prevent the safe landing of helicopter at
a helipad. In the spring and summer
months, foggy weather and localised thunderstorms often result in poor
visibility affecting helicopter flights.
Therefore, it is necessary to provide additional and alternative sites for the emergency rescue team to consider, should
adverse weather conditions arise at the PYNEH and QMH. The provision of the rooftop helipad at the
Acute Block of the NAH provides a primary and secondary landing point for air
ambulance and rescue missions with critically ill/ injured patients or survivors
by sharing part of the landings for emergency services with the PYNEH and the QMH,
ensuring the most optimal flights and effective use of resources.
2.1.6.1 The helipad is proposed to be constructed
on the rooftop of the Acute Block of the NAH.
As the provision of the helipad has been accounted for in the early
planning stage, there will be no additional foundation and superstructure
implications for the Project. The potential environmental impacts arising from
the construction of helipad will be small.
As mentioned in Section 1.3.1.2,
the environmental study for the construction and operation of NAH has been conducted separately under
the scope of NAH Main Works
and will be updated.
2.1.6.2 The additional
helipad at NAH would share the air ambulance traffic among helicopter landings
at the PYNEH, TMH and future QMH, thus alleviating the potential noise and
disturbance to residents nearby these hospitals. The Wan Chai Heliport will continue
to be used transfer patients to the PYNEH and the QMH. However, the heliport service is mainly for
CASEVAC A, and B patient transfer only.
2.2.1.1 Located on the south apron of the former Kai Tak Airport, there are
three sites earmarked for hospital developments, namely Site 3C1(A), Site
3C1(B) and Site 3C1(C), as detailed on the latest approved Kai Tak Outline
Zoning Plan (”OZP”) No. S/K22/6 (hereinafter described as “Sites A, B and C”,
respectively). Sites A and B have been
allocated for the development of the NAH, while Site C is occupied by the Hong
Kong Children’s Hospital (HKCH), which commenced operations in 2018. Site A abuts Kwun Tong Bypass, Cheung Yip
Street and Shing Cheong Road, while Site B abuts the planned Roads L10, L18 and
D4. The construction works for the
foundations for the proposed NAH in both Site A and Site B commenced in
2018. The Acute Block of NAH will be
located at the south-east part of Site A, and the Project site for the helipad
is proposed to be located on the roof of the Acute Block. Sites A, B and C are all zoned as
“Government, Institution or Community (“G/IC”)” on the Kai Tak OZP No. S/K22/6,
where “Hospital” Use and its ancillary facilities are always being permitted. As confirmed by Planning Department, the
proposed helipad at rooftop of the NAH is considered ancillary to “Hospital”
use which is a Column 1 use always permitted in the “G/IC” zone of the approved
Kai Tak OZP No. S/K22/6. No planning
permission from the Town Planning Board for the proposed helipad is
required. Correspondence with Planning
Department is attached in Appendix 2A.
2.2.1.2 The helipad is proposed on the roof of the Acute Block of the NAH at
Site A as shown in Figure 1.1. The land use of the Project Site and its
environs are shown in Figure 2.1.
2.2.1.3
Besides the Sites A,
B and C, some G/IC sites are found in the close vicinity of the Project Site. Adjacent to the eastern corner of Site A at
Cheung Yip Street, there is the existing Kai Tak Fire Station and two sites,
both utilised by the Transport Department as vehicle examination centres and
which are located on the other side of the Kwun Tong By-pass and north of Site
A.
2.2.1.4
To the south-east of
Site A, and opposite to the Acute Block across Cheung Yip Street, a planned
residential zone is located at approximately 50m from the boundary of Site A. The planned residential area is zoned as
“Residential (Group B)” (“R(B)2”) according to the approved Kai Tak OZP No.
S/K22/6. This R(B)2 zone consists of two
adjacent sites: One is located next to
waterfront area with a building height restriction of +80mPD and is currently
the Public Works Central Laboratory Building, while the other one is located at
Lam Chak Street with a building height restriction of +100mPD and is currently the
Kowloon Bay Parking site.
2.2.1.5
Further to the south-east
of Site A, two areas zoned as "Commercial (2)" are found along both
sides of Kai Hing Road. Closer to the NAH on the west side of Kai Hing Road, the
existing Pacific Trade Centre is approximately 50m away from Site A and has a height of 51.1mPD while the Octa Tower is
located approximately 30m
from Site A and has a height of 136.5mPD according to the planning application
permission of relaxation of building height restriction, plot ratio and site
coverage restriction for permitted commercial development (Application No.
A/K22/6).
2.2.1.6
There are also the
existing Kowloon Godown, Kerry Dangerous Goods Warehouse (Kowloon Bay) and an open
storage area on the east side of Kai Hing Road which are located about 140m
from Site A.
2.2.1.7
According to the Section
16 planning application No. A/K22/13-1 approved under the Town Planning
Ordinance, permission for residential developments proposed on 7 Kai Hing Road
(NKIL 5813) has been granted and valid until
30 March 2020. Therefore, the permission is considered as
expired. Nonetheless, according to the Section 16 planning application No.
A/K22/27, a proposed redevelopment on the site to a commercial building has been applied for, and is under review at the time of preparation of
this EIA report.
2.2.1.8
In the ex-Kai Tak
Runway in KTDA, some planned residential zones, currently zoned “Residential
(Group B)” (“R(B)4”, “R(B)5” and “R(B)7”) and with building height restrictions
ranging from +95mPD to +120mPD, are found within 500m of the Project. These zones are located along Shing Fung Road
(i.e. Road D3A), across the Kai Tak Approach Channel, and the nearest
residential zone is at about 450m southwest of the Project Site.
2.2.2.1
The helipad will be designed
according to the following guidelines:
·
Helicopter Landing Site
(HLS) Design Guidelines issued by Government Flying Service (GFS), August 2015;
·
CAD 360 – Helicopter
Supplement issued by Civil Aviation Department (CAD), 1st Edition
January 2009 (Amendment 3, June 2018); and
·
Annex 14 Volume II
Heliports issued by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 4th
Edition July 2013
2.2.2.2
The helipad will be
installed and operated at the west corner on the roof of the proposed Acute
Block of the NAH and there will be no fuelling facilities provided at this
location.
2.2.2.3
The helipad will be designed
as a circular shape of about 30m in diameter plus 1.5m safety net along its
outer perimeter. The size of the helipad was based on the needs of the new helicopters
(Airbus H-175) with less room required as compared to the previous helicopters (Super Puma AS332 L2 / EC155 B1) used by GFS. Thus, 30m in diameter for the proposed helipad is adopted.
2.2.2.4
Considering the height
restriction and away from the nearby sensitive receivers, the helipad is elevated
from the main roof level of the Acute Block at approximately +119.15mPD,
subject to detailed design development. Although the proposed helipad at
+119.15mPD which is higher than the height restriction of +100mpD as stipulated
in the approved Kai Tak OZP No. S/K22/6, Planning Department has confirmed that
proposed helipad height is acceptable and no planning permission under Town
Planning Ordinance is required.
Correspondence with Planning Department is attached in Appendix 2A.
2.2.2.5
Major components of
the helipad consist of an elevated helipad, and associated structures including
covered safety walkway, associated egress staircase, noise barrier, which are
covered under this EIA study.
2.2.2.6
The helipad will
solely be used for emergency patients and casualties’ transportation and other
emergency medical uses, and there will be no commercial and planned flights
except trial flights. The patients will be transferred to the AED directly at
the same block via the dedicated “hot lifts”.
2.2.2.7
Ancillary supporting facilities
including area lighting, fire services equipment, markings, cleaning and
maintenance will also be provided.
2.2.3.1 A total of 7 new helicopters, the Airbus H-175 have
been in operation since 7th April, 2020 and has replaced all of the
helicopters, namely the AS332 L2 “Super Puma” and the EC155 B1 “Dauphin” by
GFS. According to the noise measurement carried out under this Study, the new
helicopters have operating noise levels significantly lower (with a range of 7-10
dB(A) of different non-lateral movements) than the previous (Super Puma AS332
L2 / EC155 B1) in general. Details on
the noise levels from the new helicopters are provided in the noise impact
assessment in Section 5.6.3 and Appendix
5E.
2.2.4.1 The flight paths to and from the proposed helipad
have been carefully defined for helicopters to fly over the Kai Tak Approach
Channel or Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. The flight paths are also considered to
be away from the densely populated areas such as the ex-Kai Tak Runway to the
south-west, Kowloon Bay to the north and Kwun Tong to the east. Thus, the proposed flight paths will be in the north and south-to-east
directions. Figure 2.3 presents the flight path of the Project.
2.2.5.1
The management procedure
of diversion of patients will strictly follow the Manual for Emergency Patient
Conveyance prepared by HA. The transfer
of patients from a clinic or a hospital on the outlying island to an A&E
Department in an urban hospital by CASEVAC which should be reserved for
patients who, in the professional opinion of the attending doctor or nurse,
that the medical attention in an A&E Department in an urban hospital is
necessary and when the use of public transport is not appropriate. Clinical assessment by the referring
clinician, nurse or telemedicine to decide CASEVAC type: A+, A or B and then to
determine the receiving hospitals. Patients
who are required to be diverted to specific HA medical institution for
treatment will be sent to the helipad closest to the receiving hospital
assigned by the referring clinician.
2.3.1.1 The “Without Project” scenario considers the implications of the
proposed helipad not being provided at the roof of Acute Block of NAH.
2.3.1.2 Currently, there is no helipad at any of the hospitals in the Kowloon
Central Cluster (KCC), including the QEH
which is a designated trauma centre. Without the Project, emergency patients and
casualties requiring air transportation will have to be transferred to the PYNEH,
the TMH, or the planned helipad at QMH, but those landings may be precluded or
restricted due to adverse weather or safety considerations. In addition, the TMH helipad cannot be used
during evening and night-time due to flight safety reasons.
2.3.1.3 On Hong Kong Island, Wan Chai Heliport is an option for patient
transfer. According to the current
emergency patient conveyance guideline, the Wan Chai Heliport is mainly used
for the transfer of CASEVAC A and B category patients. CASEVAC A+ patients will
normally be transferred to the designated hospital directly, i.e. PYNEH and
future QMH. Based on the latest available resource, upon completion of the QMH
and the NAH helipad, a periodic review of the conveyance will be carried out by
the HA and GFS. Air transfer of patients between Kowloon and Hong Kong Island
is currently not available.
2.3.1.4 The above arrangements are undesirable to the helicopter medical
emergency services and emergency patients, especially for the patients in the
Kowloon region. As such, if the Project is not implemented, there would be an
undesirable situation as the transfer of the critically ill/ injured patients
to hospital may be unnecessarily prolonged, causing impacts on the emergency
response services to patients with life-threatening conditions.
2.3.2.1 With the Project implemented, the overall efficiency and effectiveness
of the emergency response services of the NAH and Hong Kong would be more
comprehensive and further enhanced.
Benefits as mentioned in Section
2.1.2 to 2.1.5, including combining the helipad with trauma facilities at
optimized locations, multiple casualty transfers and alternatives during adverse weather conditions could be achieved, ensuring the delivery of a high standard of service
for critically ill/ injured persons who need urgent medical attention.
2.4.1.1 The key reason to have a helipad at an acute
hospital is to enable point-to-point transfer of patients under critical
conditions to the AED swiftly under various emergency circumstances including
trauma incidents (e.g. disasters).
2.4.1.2 The followings are the key considerations in selecting the site for a
helipad for medical emergency cases:
·
Type of hospital and
medical services (Trauma Centre): In order to avoid additional time-consuming transfer
of patients to other locations with proper trauma facilities with the frequent associated
implications on life and death situations on trauma cases, a helipad should be
integrated with an acute hospital with trauma facilities covering a wide range
of medical support required to provide the most suitable treatment to save the
patients/survivors. As mentioned in Section 2.1.1.9 above, HA plans to
relocate the trauma centre from the QEH to the NAH.
·
Located in Kowloon: The
current location of helipads do not provide an optimal distribution in terms of
location. A helipad at a trauma facility
located in Kowloon would complement the medical emergency air transportation services
to cover the whole territory of Hong Kong.
There are currently 17 hospitals in the Kowloon area[1], but only one, the Queen Elizabeth
Hospital, currently is a designated trauma centre. There are no plans to set up trauma centres
at any of the other 16 existing hospitals, therefore, a new helipad at the
existing hospitals was not considered. Under
the current situation, ground transportation to the QEH trauma centre would be
the only choice, which limits the flexibility of potential designated AED.
·
Space availability: The
hospital should have sufficient space for construction of a helipad and
associated supporting facilities. The helipad should be located at an unobstructed
area for safe landing and take-off of the helicopters. In addition, there
should not be high rise buildings along or near the designated flight paths.
·
Environmental benefit / dis-benefit:
The potential environmental impact arising from the construction and operation
of a helipad is also one of the key considerations so as to minimise the
disturbance to surrounding environment.
2.4.1.3 According to the Clinical Services Plan for the Kowloon Central Cluster
(KCC) formulated by the Hospital Authority in 2016, the NAH will offer a full
range of comprehensive healthcare services including acute care for trauma
patients. In addition, the designated
trauma centre at the QEH is planned to close once the trauma centre at the NAH
is put into service. Notwithstanding, Table 2.2 shows the key considerations
for the selection of a helipad location at these two suitable acute hospitals
in Kowloon. The location of the QEH is presented in Appendix 2B.
Table 2.2 Selection of
Acute Hospitals for the Proposed Helipad
|
Considerations |
Queen Elizabeth Hospital |
New Acute Hospital |
|
Type of Hospital and medical services |
· A Major Acute Hospital · 24-hour A&E Service · Current trauma centre (planned to be relocated) |
· A Major Acute Hospital · 24-hour A&E Service · Proposed trauma centre |
|
Site Location |
· Kowloon Central Cluster – Gascoigne Road, King’s Park |
· Former South Apron area of KTDA. Space is
available. |
|
Space availability |
· No extra space at both ground and roof level for a helipad · Existing buildings may not have spare structural loading for helipad
and rooftop helicopter landing; need additional structural support to cater
the loading |
· No extra space at ground level for a helipad · The main building works of NAH have not been commenced and the
structural loading of a proposed rooftop helipad can be accommodated |
|
Flight Path |
· High rise residential buildings are found to the north and northeast,
so flight sector is limited · Recreation developments and facilities to the south are comparably low-rise,
which is preferred in terms of accessible flight path |
·
High rise residential
buildings are found to the east. · Three flight paths are available, southeast, south and northwest of
the hospital(1) |
|
Environmental Benefit/ Dis-benefit |
Benefit: · Extensive and complicated construction activities involved for a
retrofit Dis-benefit: · Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) at all directions · NSRs are very close to the hospital |
Benefit · Minor construction activities involved\ · Existing NSRs for construction stage are far away Dis-benefit: · NSRs at southwest and southeast of the hospital |
|
Distances of the Nearest Sensitive Receivers |
22m to Methodist School from the main building
block of QEH |
150m from helipad to the nearest planned
residential zone |
Note:
1. There are
high rise buildings near NAH but not within the designated flight paths.
Besides, the main roof levels of the high rise buildings are lower than the
helipad deck level.
2.4.1.4 As mentioned above, the QEH
is the only existing trauma centre in Kowloon.
However, based on the consideration of the above factors, the QEH is not
preferred for helipad operations. The
location of QEH is shown in Appendix 2B. It is also noted that the HA
propose to transfer the trauma facilities at the QEH to the NAH once the latter
is operational.
2.4.1.5 In addition, a remote helipad from the hospital itself will require the
onward transfer by ambulance with the resulting issues of ambulance
availability, extended time needed for patient transportation and increased
risks to the patient. Therefore, other existing hospitals in Kowloon were not
considered.
2.4.1.6 Notwithstanding the above, suitable land in the Kowloon area is
available at the former Kai Tak Airport in the KTDA. However, it is noted that a Government Flying
Service Kai Tak Division (GFS KTD) will be established at the tip of the Ex-Kai
Tak Runway in KTDA, which is around 1.5km to the southeast of the NAH site.
Based on this, the feasibility of making use of the helipad in the GFS KTD with
onward transfer by ambulance for patient transportation to the NAH has been
explored.
2.4.1.7 It is estimated that the travelling time by ambulance from GFS KTD to
the NAH is about 6 – 9 minutes. This additional travelling time is
considered too long for critical life-saving
situations. Furthermore, if ambulances
are not available, it would cause further delays in transferring patients to the
NAH. Thus, providing direct
point-to-point air transportation for patients by helicopter has a higher
priority and hence a helipad at NAH is considered necessary.
2.4.1.8 The new NAH is, therefore, considered as the most preferred acute
hospital for helipad operations in Kowloon as discussed in Section 2.1.
2.4.2.1 Six locations within the NAH have been considered for the location of
the helipad at the NAH. The six options
are:
·
Option 1: South corner
on the roof of the proposed Acute Block of NAH in Site A;
·
Option 2: West corner on
the roof of the proposed Acute Block of NAH in Site A;
·
Option 3: Roof of the
proposed Administration Block of NAH in Site A;
·
Option 4: Roof of the
proposed Education Block of NAH in Site A;
·
Option 5: Roof of the
proposed Oncology Block of NAH in Site B; and
·
Option 6: Roof of the
proposed Specialist Out-Patient Clinic Block of NAH in Site B.
2.4.2.2 The pros and cons for each of these options are examined below and the locations
of the helipad for each of the options are shown in Figure 2.2.
Option 1: South corner on the Roof of the Proposed
Acute Block of NAH in Site A
2.4.2.3 As there is a larger floor area at the southern portion of Site A which
could provide sufficient space for the Acute Block and the Acute Block will accommodate the Critical Care Units which
consists of a close integration of the AED, ICU, Perioperative Suite and
Neonatal ICU etc., locating the helipad on the roof of the Acute Block would
provide immediate access to the dedicated “hot lifts” which could maximize the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency response services of the
NAH. Therefore, the roof of Acute Block will be desirable for the Project in
terms of medical planning. In addition, as the roof of Acute Block is at the
highest location within the NAH complex at approximately +100.0mPD, this option
is considered feasible.
2.4.2.4 However, based on the planned residential zone
located to the southeast of Site A and opposite to the Acute Block, which is
zoned as “Residential (Group B)” (“R(B)2”) according to the approved Kai Tak
OZP No. S/K22/6, positioning the helipad at the southeast corner on the roof of
the Acute Bock will result in a shorter separation distance of about 50m from
the future residents, such that only low distance attenuation for helicopter
noise from the helipad could be provided and extensive mitigation of noise impacts
would be required. Adverse noise impacts
on the planned residential building(s) would be anticipated even if noise
screening structures were provided on the Acute Block. Hence, the Option 1 is not preferred due to
its close proximity to the R(B)2 zone.
Option 2: West Corner on the Roof of the Proposed
Acute Block of NAH in Site A
2.4.2.5 Similar to Option 1, Option 2 is
also proposed on the roof of Acute Block but located at the west corner in lieu
of the south corner. This alternative siting on the roof of Acute Block, could
also share the similar preferences in terms of medical planning and helicopter
flight path as mentioned in Section
2.4.2.3. At the same time, the
separation between the R(B)2 zone with the helipad will be greatly increased by
about two times to approximately 150m. Therefore, significant distance
attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad could be provided and the
extent of noise mitigation measures required could be reduced when compared with
Option 1. Hence, Option 2 is considered
technically feasible.
Option 3: Roof of the Proposed Administration Block
of NAH in Site A
2.4.2.6 The roof level of the proposed Administration Block
is at around +100mPD. Due to the large separation distance
of approximately 220m between the
Administration Block of NAH and the R(B)2 zone at the location of the helipad,
which is on the roof of the Administration Block, could provide high distance
attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad. With provision of sufficient noise mitigation
measures, adverse noise impact is not anticipated. However, as the helipad is remote from the
Critical Care Units and the AED which are located inside the Acute Block, the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency response services will be
hampered as need to be further transferred internally to the Acute Block. Hence, Option 3 is considered not desirable
as a helipad location.
Option 4: Roof of the proposed Education Block of
NAH in Site A
2.4.2.7 The roof level of the proposed Education Block is
around +100mPD. Due to the large
separation distance (greater than 300m)
between the Education Block of NAH and the
R(B)2 zone, Option 4, on the roof of Education Block would provide very high
distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad. Adverse noise impact would not be anticipated
with appropriate designated flight sector for the helicopter specified. However, similar to Option 3, the Education
Block is located further from the Critical Care Units accommodated inside the
Acute Block, rendering a subpar overall efficiency and an almost ineffectiveness
of the emergency response services.
Hence, Option 4 is considered not desirable as a helipad location.
Option 5: Roof of the proposed Oncology Block of
NAH in Site B
2.4.2.8 For Site B, the nearest residential zone is
identified at Shing Fung Road, which is zoned as “Residential (Group B)”
(“R(B)5”) (i.e. KTD Site 4B2) according to the
approved Kai Tak OZP No. S/K22/6. Due to
the large separation distance of more than 250m between Site B and the R(B)5
zone Option 5 on the roof of the Oncology Block in Site B could provide high
distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad. With provision of sufficient noise mitigation
measures, adverse noise impact may not be anticipated. In addition, as Site B is situated along the
waterfront at the South Apron area of KTDA and with the roof level of the
Oncology Block being around +60mPD, which has a similar building height with
the adjacent Specialist Out-Patient Clinic Block and HKCH, Option 5 would be
beneficial for helicopter flight paths through the Kai Tak Approach Channel and
Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. However,
compared to Option 3 and Option 4, Option 5 is even further away and
disconnected from the Critical Care Units and the AED from the Acute Block in
Site A, the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency response
services will be unacceptable. As
critically ill or injured patients would have to be transferred from the
Oncology Block to the Acute block via ground ambulance and this would take
extra time, delay arrival in the AED may be encountered. Hence, Option 5 is considered not desirable in terms of medical planning
and hospital operation.
Option 6: Roof of the proposed Specialist Out-Patient
Clinic Block of NAH in Site B
2.4.2.9 In respect of the Specialist Out-Patient Clinic
Block, the noise performance anticipated for Option 6 would be expected to be
similar to Option 5, as its building height and separation distance to the
R(B)5 zone are similar to the Oncology Block.
It also shares the same benefits in terms of helicopter flight path and
operations as Option 5. However,
compared to all other options including Option 5, Option 6 is the farthest away
from the Critical Care Units and the AED accommodated inside the Acute Block, the
overall efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency response services will be
unacceptable. Similar to Option 5, critically ill or injured patients would
need to be transferred to the Acute block via ground ambulance which may cause
delay and increase the risks to provide rescue to the emergency cases. Hence, Option 6 is also considered not
desirable in terms of medical planning and hospital operation.
2.4.3.1
Having comprehensively
considered the above mentioned six siting options, with balancing various
factors including the effect on emergency medical efficiency, feasibility of
helicopter flight path and environmental benefits and dis-benefits, it is
concluded that Option 2 will be the most preferred location for a rooftop
helipad of the NAH. The evaluation of the development options is summarised in
the Table 2.3 below.
2.4.3.2 In the absence of the Project, there will be no potential environmental
impact to the nearby sensitive receivers. On the other hand, the environmental
impacts for the scenario with the project involved the potential environmental
impact raised from the proposed helipad and
associated structures including covered safety walkway, associated egress
staircase, noise barrier, as detailed in the EIA chapters.
Table 2.3 Summary of Outcome of Options Evaluation of Helipad Siting in NAH
|
Options of
Helipad Siting |
Height as stipulated in OZP |
Pros |
Cons |
Preferable
Option? |
|
Option 1: South corner on the roof of Acute Block |
· 100mPD |
· Maximize the overall efficiency and effectiveness of NAH’s emergency
response services |
· Likely adverse noise impact to the adjacent residential zone |
No |
|
Option 2: West corner on the roof of Acute Block |
· 100mPD |
· Smaller noise impact compared with Option 1 · Increase the separation distance while maintaining immediate access to
critical care units |
· Potential adverse noise impact to NSRs |
Yes |
|
Option 3: Roof of the Administration Block |
· 100mPD |
· High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
· Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
|
Option 4: Roof of the Education Block |
· 100mPD |
· High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
· Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
|
Option 5: Roof of the Oncology Block |
· 60mPD |
· High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
· Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
|
Option 6: Roof of the Specialist Out-Patient
Clinic Block |
· 60mPD |
· High distance attenuation for helicopter noise from the helipad |
· Operational constraints from helipad to hospital and increased risks
to critically ill/ injured patient |
No |
2.5.1.1
With reference to the
“Helicopter Landing Site Specification Guidelines” issued by GFS, the
requirements on the construction method and material of a helipad are as follows:
·
All materials used in
the construction of the proposed helicopter landing site should be
non-combustible and fire retardant; and
·
The actual landing
surface should be covered with non-skid material and constructed of materials
that cater for the dynamic load and provide Ground Effect. Ground Effect can be
achieved by operating over a solid and smooth surface.
2.5.1.2 In view of the above requirements, the helipad could be constructed
using a steel truss and a steel or concrete decking.
2.5.1.3
Based on the latest
design development, three methods for constructing the proposed helipad have
been considered. The three methods are:
·
Helipad deck and
associated supporting structural frame constructed by in-situ concrete (Option A);
·
Helipad deck constructed
by in-situ concrete and associated supporting structural frame by prefabricated
steelwork (Option B); and
·
Helipad deck and
associated supporting structural frame constructed by steel/ aluminum structure
prefabricated off-site outside Hong Kong territories (Option C).
2.5.1.4
The merits and
demerits of the above methods are presented in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Merits
and Demerits of the Construction Methods for the Proposed Helipad
|
Alternatives
Construction Method |
Merits |
De-merits |
|
Option A: Helipad deck and associated supporting structural frame constructed by
in-situ concrete |
·
Temporary formworks and
construction plants at lower floors may be re-used for helipad construction. |
·
A substantial temporary steel
platform will be required for the construction of the cantilevered portion of
the helipad. ·
In-situ concrete construction involves
more on-site activities including temporary formwork, bar bending, and wet
trade etc. which requires more workers and longer construction time. |
|
Option B: Helipad deck constructed by in-situ concrete and associated supporting
structural frame by prefabricated steelwork |
·
Enjoy some benefits from
prefabricated steel members which are highly standardized and aligns with
DevB's Guidelines for Enhancement of Productivity of Skilled Workers. ·
Shortened construction time on
site for prefabrication work compared with on in-situ concrete option. ·
Reduced scale of temporary
platform for light weight steel structure compared to concrete. ·
More versatile and allow more
flexibility as steel frame enables more floor-to-floor height for mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing (MEP) equipment which would otherwise occupy more
above-roof space and causing visual impacts. |
·
Require another trade of skilled
labor and additional construction equipment for erecting steelwork
structures. ·
In-situ concrete construction
involves more on-site activities including temporary formwork, bar bending,
and wet trade etc. which requires more workers and longer construction time. |
|
Option C: Helipad deck and associated supporting structural frame constructed by
aluminum and steel structure prefabricated off-site outside Hong Kong
territories |
·
Fully capitalize the advantage
for prefabricated steel members which are highly standardized and aligns with
DevB's Guidelines for Enhancement of Productivity of Skilled Workers ·
Minimum construction time on
site due to full blown prefabrication work compared with any options with
in-situ concrete. ·
Minimum scale of temporary
platform for light weight steel structure compared to any options with
in-situ concrete. ·
More versatile and allow more
flexibility as steel frame enables more floor-to-floor height for MEP
equipment which would otherwise occupy more above-roof space and causing visual
impacts. |
·
Require another trade of
skilled labour and additional construction equipment for erecting steelwork
structures. |
2.5.1.5
Among the three
options, significant fugitive dust impacts are not anticipated from the steel structure prefabricated on-site and standard
construction dust mitigation measures would further reduce any potential dust
emissions. In respect of noise impacts,
similar types of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) are expected to be required
under these options for construction. In
terms of the water quality, apart from the routine wastewater generation from
the construction site, wastewater may also be generated from the concrete
washing for Options A and B. However,
all the wastewater will be directed to the wastewater treatment facilities, for
example, desilting system on-site and similar levels of non-adverse water
quality impacts are expected. In terms
of the waste implications, Option A and Option B would be able to reuse the
temporary formwork and construction plant which could reduce the potential for Construction
and Demolition (C&D) waste generation.
Option B and Option C would have a shorter construction time, which can
minimise environmental nuisance and the generation of general refuse and
construction waste.
2.5.1.6 Based on the above, Option C will have the least
environmental impacts including shorter period of noise generation during
construction and smaller amount of waste generation. Therefore, Options C is the preferred
construction method of the helipad. With
the preferred construction method, the sequence of construction works will be
the construction of supporting structural frame, followed by the construction
of proposed helipad, the safety walkway and the access ramp.
2.5.1.7 According to the preferred construction method
(Option C), the main structure of the proposed helipad will be constructed by
in-situ aluminum, steel and formworks. The safety walkway and access ramp will be
formed by prefabricated steel members and aluminum of a suitable size and
weight and to be assembled on site by welding or bolting. During the
construction of the Project, lift access is planned for delivery of
prefabricated units direct to the site. Crane, if necessary, would be also used
for the delivery.
2.6.1.1 The Project is
being planned and implemented by the Hospital Authority (HA) and the design and implementation of the Project will be
undertaken by HA in conjunction with the consultants and contractors.
2.6.1.2 The operation,
management and maintenance of the helipad will be undertaken by HA, while the GFS
will be the user of this helipad, providing emergency medical transfers and
services for the general public.
2.6.1.3 The tentative
planning and implementation programme for Project are shown in Table 2.5 below:
Table 2.5 Tentative
Programme of the Project
|
Activities |
Key Milestone Dates |
|
Design of the Project |
Since Sep 2017 |
|
Construction of the Foundation for the New Acute Hospital (1) |
Q3 2018 to Q4 2021 |
|
Construction of the Superstructure for the New Acute Hospital (1)
(2) |
Q4 2021 to Q4 2024 |
|
Construction of the Helipad |
Q4 2023 to Q4 2024 |
|
Operation of the Helipad |
2025 |
Note (1): Not part of the Project.
Note (2): The major superstructure work
is estimated to be completed in Q3 of 2023
2.7.1.1
Key concurrent projects in the vicinity of the
Project are identified and summarised in Table
2.6 and their locations are shown in
Figure 2.4. Potential cumulative impacts
from these concurrent projects (if any) are assessed in this EIA Study.
Table 2.6 Summary
of Concurrent Projects
|
Project Name |
Target Works
Commencement Dates |
Target Work Completion
Dates |
|
Government Flying Service Kai Tak Division and the cross-boundary
heliport by CEDD |
Fourth quarter of 2018 |
First quarter of 2021 |
|
Kai Tak Development - Stage 3 Infrastructure Works for Developments at
the Southern Part of the Former Runway by CEDD |
2015 |
2020 |
|
Central Kowloon Route - Slip Road S5 by HyD |
2023 |
2024 |
|
Kai Tak Development - Trunk Road T2 and Infrastructure at South Apron by
CEDD |
2020 |
2026 |
|
Kai Tak Development - Remaining Infrastructure works for Developments
at the Former Runway and South Apron, Road L10 & L18 by CEDD |
2019 |
2026 |
|
New Acute Hospital at Kai Tak Development Area by Hospital Authority |
2018 |
2024 |
2.8.1.1
HA has
consulted relevant District Councils on the proposed development plan of the
NAH and the proposed helipad on the roof of the NAH, as detailed below:
(i)
The 19th Meeting of the Food and
Environmental Hygiene Committee of the Kowloon City District Council on 13 December
2018 https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/kc/doc/2016_2019/en/committee_meetings_minutes/FEHC/5FEHC_19Emin.pdf;
(ii)
The 19th Meeting of the 5th
Term of Kwun Tong District Council on 8 January 2019 https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/kt/doc/2016_2019/en/dc_meetings_minutes/KTDC_19m_Minutes_EN.pdf;
(iii)
The 20th Meeting of the 5th
Term of Wong Tai Sin District Council on 8 January 2019 https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/wts/doc/2016_2019/en/dc_meetings_minutes/DC_M20_M_E.pdf; and
(iv)
The 19th Meeting of the Yau Tsim Mong
District Council (2016-2019) on 29 November 2018 https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/ytm/doc/2016_2019/en/dc_meetings_minutes/YTM_DC_19th_Minutes_EN.pdf.
2.8.1.2
In the abovementioned
District Council Committees Meetings, there were minor concerns about the
possible adverse helicopter noise impact to the residents in the vicinity of
the proposed helipad location at NAH.
The potential helicopter noise impact on noise sensitive receivers has
been critically assessed and minimised as presented in Section 5. Notwithstanding, the
provision of the helipad on the Acute Block of the NAH has received in
principal support from the meetings due to the benefits to the community and
the enhancement of the rescue and emergency services of the GFS.
Table 2.7 Summary of Public consultation
|
Relevant District
Councils consultation |
Public concerns on
the environmental impacts of the Project |
Possible solutions
|
|
The 19th Meeting of the Food and Environmental
Hygiene Committee of the Kowloon City District Council on 13 December 2018 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
The 19th Meeting of the 5th Term of Kwun Tong
District Council on 8 January 2019 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
The 20th Meeting of the 5th Term of Wong Tai Sin
District Council on 8 January 2019 |
·
More details are needed to provide on the flight
path and noise mitigation arrangement ·
Possible noise nuisance from the helicopters i.e.
the use of helicopters for emergency and minimizing the effect of helicopters
on the nearby residences and the environment. |
·
The proposed flight paths are presented in Figure 2.3 to reduce the noise impact to the nearby
sensitive receivers. ·
A new helicopter type with lower noise level is
adopted. Noise barriers will be
installed and other possible options (i.e. size, design and location of the
helipad) are also taken into consideration in order to minimize the effect of
helicopters. |
|
The 19th Meeting of the Yau Tsim Mong District
Council (2016-2019) on 29 November 2018 |
N/A |
N/A |