7.0 Visual

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This section evaluates the potential visual impacts associated with the construction and operation phases of the proposed helipad at the New Acute Hospital (NAH) at Kai Tak Development area. This Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) has been prepared in accordance with the EIA Study Brief (No. ESB-311/2019).

7.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

7.2.1 The following legislation, standards and guidelines are applicable to the VIA associated with the construction and operation of the Project:

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.499);

· Annexes 10 and 18 of the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process;

· EIAO Guidance Note 8/2010 Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance;

· Town Planning Ordinance (Cap 131);

· Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG); and

· Chapter 4 of the Standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals CAP 1264, Civil Aviation Authority, UK

7.3 Existing Environment

7.3.1 The Project is situated within “Government, Institution or Community (“G/IC”) zone under the latest approved Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan (“OZP”) No. S/K22/6. The major land uses in the vicinity of the Project comprise “G/IC”, “Commercial Use” and “Residential”. The proposed helipad is located at the rooftop of the Acute Block of the NAH. The Kai Tak Fire Station is located to the north-east of the helipad and the other building blocks of the proposed NAH located at Sites A and B are to the north-west and south-west, respectively of the helipad (Figures 1.1 and 2.1). The Hong Kong Children’s Hospital located to the south-west of the helipad and across Shing Cheong Road has commenced operation in December 2018. Two proposed residential sites zoned “Residential (Group B)2” (“R(B)2”) are located at the south-east of the helipad. The Kowloon Bay Recycling Center, two Vehicle Examination Centres and Enterprise Square located at the north of the helipad and across Kwun Tong Bypass are mainly zoned “G/IC” and “Other Specified Uses”. Further details of the existing and planned land use in the vicinity of the Project site are provided in Section 2.2.

7.4 Identification of Visual Sensitive Receivers

7.4.1 The assessment area of the VIA should be defined by the visual envelope of the Project, covering the area in which the Project is likely to be visible. The proposed helipad will be bounded by a mixed neighborhood of tall residential and commercial developments, the views to the helipad from receivers outside these building clusters will generally be limited to partial glimpses through the spaces between the buildings. The Project is also bounded by the ridgeline from Mount Cameron and Mount Parker of Hong Kong Island and the ridgeline from Kowloon Peak and Lion Rock of Kowloon. The visual envelope is illustrated in Figure 7.1

7.4.2 The proposed helipad will be constructed at an elevation of about +119.15mPD on top of the Acute Block of the NAH. In addition, a noise barrier and noise reducers with a height of 4.75m above the helipad is proposed to be located at a distance of 10m to the south-east of the helipad which could act as visual screen to some visual sensitive receivers (VSRs). Details of the proposed noise barrier and noise reducers are shown in Figure 5.5. The potentially worst-affected VSR will be at a similar or higher position and with a direct line of sight to the helipad. Based on this, the worst-affected receivers of all possible viewpoints to the Project have been identified on the basis of their altitude.

7.4.3 All the potential representative VSRs in the visual envelope have been summarised in Table 7.1 and their locations are presented in Figure 7.2.

Table 7.1 Visual Sensitive Receivers

VSR	Visual Sensitive Receivers	Viewer Group	Height of building (mPD)	Distance to the Proposed Helipad (~Approx. m)
VSR 1	Octa Tower	Occupational	136.5	165
VSR 2a	Planned Residential Development 3E1 site	Residential	100*	155
VSR 2b	Planned Residential Development 3E2 site	Residential	80*	163
VSR 3a	Hong Kong Children’s Hospital (Block A)	Occupational	60	110
VSR 3b	Hong Kong Children’s Hospital (Block B)	Residential, Occupational and Visitors	60	75
VSR 4	Kai Tak Fire Station	Occupational	37	135
VSR 5	Enterprise Square 5	Occupational	170	370
VSR 6	Enterprise Square 3	Occupational	164	305
VSR 7	Manhattan Place	Occupational	173	320
VSR 8	Water Supplies Department Kowloon East Regional Building	Occupational	59	370
VSR 9	Planned Residential 4B1 site	Residential	120*	402
VSR 10	Planned Residential 4B2 site	Residential	110*	401
VSR 11	Oncology Building of NAH	Residential	60	225

* Building height restrictions as stipulated in the approved Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan No. S/K22/6 are used.

7.5 Visual Impact Assessment

Construction Phase

7.5.1 During the construction stage, the Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) associated with visual impact would be crawler cranes for lifting the steel truss to form the structure of the helipad. This process is temporary only, and last about 9 months and, therefore, not expected to cause any adverse visual impact. The other construction processes including welding and bolting would not involve any obstruction from large structures or mechanical equipment. In addition, some of the closer VSRs, for example, VSRs 2a-b and VSRs 9-11, which are planned developments, would not be present during the construction phase. Based on these factors, no adverse visual impact during the construction phase would be anticipated.

Operational Phase

Lighting Impact from Helipad and Helicopter

7.5.2 During the operation stage, a kind of potential impact could be caused by the lighting of the helipad and helicopter, and may cause uncomfortable eye feeling to the representative VSRs if the lighting from helipad and helicopter is not properly designed. As the lighting would unlikely cause adverse visual impacts during the daytime, nighttime potential impacts on VSRs such as residential VSRs has been assessed. The potential visual impacts have been determined by the altitude relationship between the lighting on the helipad and the identified VSRs. The impact would be most significant when the lighting can be directly seen by the VSRs, that is, they are at a higher or similar height, and would have less impact if the VSRs are at a lower position than the helipad. However, most of the VSRs are at a lower elevation than the helipad.

7.5.3 The lighting installed at the helipad follows the design standards for helicopter landing areas at hospitals, CAP 1264 by Civil Aviation Authority, UK. The three major types of lighting to be utilised during the operation of helipad will comprise one landing light on the helicopter, perimeter lighting system on the helipad and the apron lighting at the periphery of the helipad. The helicopter landing light focuses light on the helipad directly. The perimeter lights are inset lights embedded into the helipad deck, emit light upward with the aim of guiding the pilot to locate the helipad for safe landing and take-off at night time. The apron lights are for use during loading and unloading of patients from the helicopter. Details of the lighting operations are summarised as follows:

· Helicopter Landing Light: Switched on briefly for a total of approximately 2 minutes, split between the approach and departure movements and including very short term hovering as part of these manoeuvres. The landing light will be switched off during idling mode on the helipad;

· Helipad Perimeter Lights: Switched on during approach mode to take-off mode for a duration of approximately 7 minutes, including the time when the patient will be boarding or alighting the helicopter; and

· Apron Lights: Switched on during casualty handover for a duration of approximately 5 minutes under normal circumstances.

7.5.4 As VSR2a, VSR2b, VSR3a, VSR3b, VSR4, VSR8 and VSR11 which are all located at lower positions than the helipad, there will be no direct line of sight from these VSRs. With regards to VSR3a, VSR3b and VSR11, an underside view of the helipad can be seen from the western edge of the NAH Acute Block. However, as the perimeter lights will be emitting lights upwards, adverse visual impact from the helipad perimeter lighting is not anticipated. The apron lights will be orientated to focus on the helipad for approximately 5 minutes for casualty handover purposes. The lux level of the apron lights will be low at less than 30 lux, which is similar to a nighttime open car park. Considering the short duration and low lux level, adverse light impacts are not expected from the apron lights. The helicopter landing light will be turned on for approximately two minutes with light focusing on the helipad and will not be pointing directly at the VSRs. Furthermore, VSR 3a is mainly occupied by offices and laboratories on the higher floors facing the NAH and, therefore, evening flight operations will not affect occupants. Hence, no significant visual impacts from the helipad lighting on VSR2a, VSR2b, VSR3a, VSR3b, VSR4, VSR8 and VSR11 are anticipated.

7.5.5 Although VSR5, VSR6 and VSR7 are located at higher altitudes than the proposed helipad and more than 300m away from the helipad. The nighttime lighting of the Kwun Tong district and Kwun Tong Bypass already significantly illuminated the area and will help to mask the brief and infrequent helipad lighting (the average frequency of helicopter landing is expected to be less than once per day). In addition, as these VSRs are offices, there would be no, or limited numbers of, people in the buildings at night, hence only limited number of people would be affected by the nighttime operations. Based on the above, the visual impact of the helipad lighting would be considered to be insignificant at these VSRs.

7.5.6 Similarly, the nighttime lighting of the Kwun Tong district behind the NAH would mask the light emitted from the landing light of the helicopter and the perimeter lights of the helipad from the residential sensitive receivers VSR9 and VSR10. Moreover, the distances of these VSRs from the helipad are more than 400m, which is the farthest away among all VSRs. Therefore, although they are at a higher altitude than the proposed helipad, it is considered that no significant glare impact is anticipated.

7.5.7 The building heights of VSR1 and VSR2a are at a similar level as proposed helipad. VSR1, Octa Tower, is located to the south-east at about 165m from the helipad. VSR2a, currently zoned as Resident (Group B) is one of the nearest residential sites to the helipad with a maximum building height of 100mPD. VSR2a is located at the south-east of the helipad.

7.5.8 In respect of VSR2a, the building height restriction is 100mPD, which is similar but about 19m lower than the level of the helipad, and would be unlikely to have direct line of sight from the top floor of VSR2a to the helipad perimeter lightings. However, there would be direct line of sight to the perimeter lighting from the top floor of VSR1. Nevertheless, VSR 1 is 165m away from the helipad and the perimeter lights would only be operational for about 7 minutes. VSR1 is also an office building and so, like VSR5, VSR6 and VSR7, there would only be limited number of people in the buildings at night, hence only limited number of people would be affected by the helipad during any nighttime operations.

7.5.9 As mentioned in Section 7.5.3, the helicopter landing light will only be switched on for a short duration and only be focused on the helipad. In addition, the average frequency of the helicopter landings will be less than once per day and the GFS have confirmed that there have been no complaints regarding the landing and perimeter lightings during operation at the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital helipad since its operation commenced in 2004. Based on the above, it is considered that the potential visual impacts due to lighting on all the VSRs would be insignificant, and uncomfortable eye feeling caused by light interference from direct man-made light sources is not expected.

7.5.10 Figure 7.3a and Figure 7.3b show the sectional drawings of VSR 1, VSR 2a and the proposed helipad; and the differences in their elevations.

Visual Impact from the Built Structure of Helipad and the Noise Barrier

7.5.11 Another potential visual impact during operation of the Project would be the built structure of the helipad and the noise barrier. The maximum height above Principal Datum (mPD) level of the Acute Block is at about +110mPD, the proposed helipad is built at +119.15mPD while the noise barrier and noise reducers is at +123.90mPD. As this Project falls within the visual envelope of the strategic viewing point (VP) at Quarry Bay, photomontages to illustrate the daytime and nighttime views from Quarry Bay are included in Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5. These show that the views to the ridgelines are preserved during the operational phase of the Project.

7.5.12 As sensitive receivers, such as Octa Tower (VSR 1) and the Planned Residential Development 3E1 and 3E2 sites (VSR 2a and VSR 2b), are located at the south-east of the helipad and are likely to be impacted by helicopter noise, noise barrier and noise reducers are proposed to be built on the south-east side of the helipad to alleviate the noise impact.

7.5.13 The noise barrier is proposed to be built using laminated glass. The reflectance of the noise barrier, both inwards and outwards, would be 8%, which is lower than 20% as stated in PNAP APP-2 of Building Department and would minimise the glare impacts during the daytime. Also, the noise barrier will be about 23m long and be 4.75m tall measured from the base of the helipad deck.

7.5.14 Typically the daytime external reflectance for façade should not exceed 20% in Hong Kong due to the requirements under Buildings Department PNAP APP-2. In the current design, the noise barrier is 23m long and 4.75m tall from the base of the helipad. The noise barrier is an extension of façade curtain wall system and its external reflectance level is approximately 8%, which is less than typical 20%. Therefore, the visual impact to the sensitive receivers is considered to be small and not significant.

7.5.15 With respect of the helipad structure, the height of the helipad is about 20m higher than the top roof level of the Acute Block of NAH and is relatively small compared with the whole building. In addition, the proposed helipad will be situated in the commercial district of the Kai Tak Development area, where the majority of buildings are commercial and residential buildings. Thus, the presence of the helipad is not incompatible with the surroundings and would not be expected to decrease the visual amenity to the VSRs in the area. Hence, the visual impact to the identified VSRs is considered to be acceptable.

7.5.16 The daytime and nighttime photomontages from the Planned Residential Development 3E1 site (VSR2a) are provided in Figure 7.6 to illustrate the operational visual impact brought by the structure of helipad and noise barrier and the perimeter lights on the helipad.

7.6 Recommended Mitigation Measures

7.6.1 While significant visual impacts are not predicted, the following good practice and design measures to minimise the light nuisance during nighttime operation of helipad should be implemented:

· landing light of the helicopter which comprise a focused light used to illuminate the helipad will only be switched on during approach and take-off mode;

· perimeter lights on the helipad will only be switched on from approach until take-off of the helicopter;

· perimeter lights will be inset into the helipad emitting lights upward;

· apron lights will only be switched for a short duration during loading and unloading of patients, will be of a low lux level and will only focus on the helipad itself; and

· laminated glass used to construct the noise barrier will comply with Buildings Department’s relevant requirements.

7.6.2 With these measures, the light nuisance to the VSRs can be minimised. Hospital Authority (HA) and Government Flying Service (GFS) shall be responsible for the on-going management and maintenance of the proposed mitigation works on the helipad and helicopter respectively to ensure their effectiveness throughout the operational phase.

7.7 Residual Impacts

7.7.1 After the implementation of the recommended good practices and design measures for the potential visual and lighting issues, no adverse residual visual impacts are anticipated.

7.8 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

7.8.1 Significant visual impacts are not predicted during the construction and operational phases and, hence, no Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) is proposed for visual impacts.

7.9 Conclusions

7.9.1 During the operational stage, the presences of the noise barrier and helipad structure are compatible with the surroundings and would not decrease the visual amenity. Although the helicopter landing lights, apron lights and perimeter lights on the helipad have the potential to cause adverse visual impacts, the operation timings of these lights are considered short and infrequent. Moreover, as the Project is located in an urban commercial area, the introduction of this lighting would be considered to be largely masked by the illuminated nearby surrounding area. In addition, many of the surrounding buildings are for commercial use and would not have significant numbers of occupants, if any, at nighttime.

7.9.2 Considering the distances and altitudes of the identified VSRs compared to the helipad and with the implementation of the above proposed mitigation measures, no significant visual impact is anticipated during the construction and operation phases of the Project. Adoption of the recommended good practices and design measures would further minimise any light nuisance of the nighttime operations of the helipad. No adverse residual impacts are expected.