CONTENTS

9. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment 9-2

9.1 Introduction 9-2

9.2 Relevant Legislation, Standards & Guidelines 9-2

9.3 BHIA Methodology 9-5

9.4 Baseline Review 9-9

9.5 Impact Assessment 9-14

9.6 Mitigation Recommendations 9-30

9.7 Cumulative and Residual Impacts 9-32

9.8 Conclusion 9-32

9.9 Environmental Monitoring and Audit 9-33

9.10 References and Bibliography 9-38

9. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This Section provides an assessment of potential cultural heritage impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Project. According to Clause 3.4.11 of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-307/2018), the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) shall include Built Heritage Impact Assessment (BHIA). The BHIA covers the proposed works areas and an additional area of 100m from the boundary (hereinafter referred to “Study Area”). Appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended, where necessary, in order to mitigate any unacceptable impacts.

9.1.2 The Study Area, including the Built Heritage Survey covers the works area and an additional 100m from the works boundary. Given the nature and location of works i.e. construction of tidal barrier, pumping stations at the connection of Yuen Long Nullah and Shan Pui River, and revitalisation of the existing Yuen Long Nullah and modification of parapet walls along Yuen Long Nullah, Sham Chung River and Kam Tin River, the 100m Study Area is considered sufficient to mitigate possible impacts arising from the works.

9.1.3 Although the EIA Study Brief only stipulates a BHIA, according to the findings of Agreement No. CB20120293 Planning and Engineering Study for the Public Housing Site and Yuen Long Industrial Estate Extension at Wang Chau Final Technical Report No. 3G (TR-3G) Preferred Option and Technical Assessment – Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Arup 2014), the Study Area falls within an “archaeological no-go area" at Chu Wong Ling (Area D). However, this no-go area is over 60m from the proposed Yuen Long Nullah revitalisation works within village environs and separated by existing road and development. While no direct / indirect impact from the current Project is expected to the no-go area given the distance separation, no archaeological investigations have ever been conducted within this no-go area and the known sites of archaeological interest are located in a distance. It is recommended that the moderate archaeological potential of this area as mentioned in the Arup EIA Report should be reviewed if this area is affected by any proposed works under this Project in future.

9.2 Relevant Legislation, Standards & Guidelines

9.2.1 Legislation, standards, guidelines and criteria relevant to the consideration of Built Heritage Impact Assessment include the following;

· Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53);

· Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap.499); including Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO) and Guidelines on Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (04 May 2020);

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

· Proposed Graded and Graded Historic Buildings Classification.

Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance

9.2.2 The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (the Ordinance) provides the statutory framework to provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and paleontological interest. The Ordinance contains the statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments. The proposed monument can be any place, building, site or structure, which is considered to be of public interest by reason of its historical, archaeological or paleontological significance.

9.2.3 Under Section 6 and subject to sub-section (4) of the Ordinance, the following acts are prohibited in relation to certain monuments, except under permit:

· To excavate, carry on building works, plant or fell trees or deposit earth or refuse on or in a proposed monument or monument; and

· To demolish, remove, obstruct, deface or interfere with a proposed monument or monument.

9.2.4 The discovery of an Antiquity, as defined in the Ordinance must be reported to the Antiquities Authority (the Authority), or a designated person. The Ordinance also provides that, the ownership of every relic discovered in Hong Kong after the commencement of this Ordinance shall vest in the Government from the moment of discovery. The Authority on behalf of the Government may disclaim ownership of the relic.

9.2.5 No archaeological excavation may be carried out by any person, other than the Authority and the designated person, without a licence issued by the Authority. A licence will only be issued if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant has sufficient scientific training or experience to enable him to carry out the excavation and search satisfactorily, is able to conduct, or arrange for, a proper scientific study of any antiquities discovered as a result of the excavation and search and has sufficient staff and financial support.

9.2.6 It should also be noted that the discovery of an antiquity under any circumstances must be reported to the Authority, i.e. the Secretary for Development or designated person. The Authority may require that the antiquity or supposed antiquity is identified to the Authority and that any person who has discovered an antiquity or suspected antiquity should take all reasonable measures to protect it.

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

9.2.7 The EIAO was implemented on 1 April 1998. Its purpose is to avoid, minimise and control the adverse impact on the environment of designated projects, through the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process and the Environmental Permit (EP) system.

Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process

9.2.8 The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO). It is stated in Annex 10 that all adverse impacts to Sites of Cultural Heritage should be kept to an absolute minimum and that the general presumption of impact assessment should be in favour of the protection and conservation of all Sites of Cultural Heritage. Annex 19 provides the details of scope and methodology for undertaking Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, including baseline study, impact assessment and mitigation measures.

Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (04 May 2020)

9.2.9 This document outlines the specific technical requirement for conducting terrestrial archaeological and built heritage impact assessments and is based upon the requirements of the TM-EIAO. It includes the parameters and scope for the Baseline Study, specifically desk-based research and field evaluation. Besides, it also includes guidelines encompassing reporting requirements and archive preparation and submission in the form of Guidelines for Archaeological Reports and Guidelines for the Handling of Archaeological Finds and Archives.

9.2.10 The prerequisite conditions for conducting impact assessment and mitigation measures are presented in detail, including the prediction and evaluation of impacts based upon five levels of significance (Beneficial, Acceptable, Acceptable with Mitigation Measures, Unacceptable and Undetermined). The guidelines also state that preservation in totality must be taken as the first priority and if this is not feasible due to site constraints or other factors, full justification must be provided.

9.2.11 Mitigation measures will be proposed in cases with identified impacts and shall have the aim of minimising the degree of adverse impact and also where applicable providing enhancement to a heritage site through means such as enhancement of the existing environment or improvement to accessibility of heritage sites. The responsibility for the implementation of any proposed mitigation measures must be clearly stated with details of when and where the measures will be implemented and by whom.

Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

9.2.12 Chapter 10 of the HKPSG details the planning principles for the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historical buildings and sites of archaeological interest. The document states that the retention of significant heritage features should be adopted through the creation of conservation zones within which uses should be restricted to ensure the sustainability of the heritage features. The guidelines state that the concept of conservation of heritage features, should not be restricted to individual structures, but should endeavour to embrace the setting of the feature or features in both urban and rural settings.

9.2.13 The guidelines also address the issue of the preparation of plans for the conservation of historical buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities. It is noted that the existing Declared Monuments and proposed Monuments be listed in the explanatory notes of Statutory Town Plans and that it be stated that prior consultation with AMO is necessary for any redevelopment or rezoning proposals affecting the Monuments and their surrounding environments.

9.2.14 It is also noted that planning intention for non-statutory town plans at the sub-regional level should be include the protection of monuments, historical buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other antiquities through the identification of such features on sub-regional layout plans. The appendices list the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures in Hong Kong, and Government departments involved in conservation.

Proposed Graded and Graded Historic Buildings Classification

9.2.15 A grading system has been in place as a Government administration mechanism for classifying historic buildings based on heritage significance since the 1980’s. Currently the Antiquities Advisory Board is completing the task of assessing 1,444 historic buildings nor list of new items for grading assessment. There are three grades which are defined as follows;

· Grade 1. Grade-1 buildings are those of outstanding merits, of which every effort should be made for preservation if possible;

· Grade 2. Grade-2 buildings are those of special merits, of which efforts should be made for selective preservation; and

· Grade 3. Grade-3 buildings are those of some merits, of which preservation in some form would be desirable and alternative means could be considered if preservation is not practicable.

9.2.16 The system is not established under any legislation and graded buildings are not under any statutory protection unlike Declared Monuments.

9.2.17 Initially, 1,444 historic buildings were identified and assessed by the Antiquities Advisory Board. In addition to the 1,444 historic buildings, the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) will also consider the heritage value and grading of new items proposed by the public for assessment.

9.3 BHIA Methodology

9.3.1 The BHIA Study shall include a number of steps: (1) desktop research, (2) a field evaluation within the Study Area, (3) assessment and (4) mitigation recommendations. The Study is based on the EIAO, the TM-EIAO and Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (4 May 2020).

(1) Desk-top Research

9.3.2 The desk-top research is conducted to analyse, collect and collate the best available information. It shall include (if applicable) but not limited to:

(a) List of declared and proposed monuments protected by the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap.53).

(b) Graded and proposed graded historic buildings/structures/ sites.

(c) Government historic sites identified by AMO.

(d) Lists and archives kept in the Reference Library of AMO including sites of archaeological interest, declared monuments, proposed monuments and recorded historic building/ structures / sites identified by the AMO.

(e) Publications on local historical, architectural, anthropological, archaeological and other cultural studies, such as Journals of the Royal Asiatic Society (Hong Kong Branch), Journals of the Hong Kong Archaeological society, AMO Monograph Series and so forth.

(f) Other unpublished papers, records, archival and historical documents through public libraries, archives, and the tertiary institutions, such as the Hong Kong Collection and libraries of the Department of Architecture of the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Public Records Office, photographic library of the Information Services Department and so forth.

(g) Any other unpublished archaeological investigation and excavation reports kept by the AMO.

(h) Relevant information from AMO’s website.

(i) Historical documents in the Public Records Office, the Land Registry, District Lands Office, District Office and the Hong Kong Museum of History and so forth.

(j) Cartographic and pictorial documents. Old and recent maps and aerial photos searched in the Maps and Aerial Photo Library of the Lands Department.

(k) Existing geological and topographic information (for archaeological desk-top research).

(l) Discussion with local informants.

(2) Field Evaluation

9.3.3 A field survey within the Study Area (100m from the Project boundary) forms part of the Study. The survey will include;

(a) Field scan of all the historic buildings/structures/sites within the project area.

(b) Photographic recording of each historic building/ structure/site including the exterior (the elevations of all faces of the building premises, the roof, close up for the special architectural details) and the interior (special architectural details), if possible, as well as the surroundings, the associated cultural landscape features and the associated intangible cultural heritage (if any) of each historic building/structure/site.

(c) Interview with local elders and other informants on local historical, architectural, anthropological and other cultural information related to the historic buildings and structures. Please note that due to Covid-19, interviews will only be conducted if local elders and informants are comfortable being interviewed.

(d) Historical and architectural appraisal of the historic buildings/ structures/ sites, their associated cultural landscape and intangible cultural elements.

(3) Impact Assessment Study

9.3.4 The impact assessment study is undertaken to identify the impacts on the heritage sites which may be affected by the Project. The prediction of impacts and an evaluation of their significance must be undertaken by expert(s) in local heritage.

9.3.5 During the assessment, both the direct impacts (such as loss or damage of important features) and indirect impacts (such as adverse visual impact on built heritage, landscape change to the associated cultural landscape features of the built heritage, temporary change of access to the heritage sites during the work period, change of ground level or water level which may affect the preservation of the archaeological and built heritage in situ during the implementation stage of the project) should be clearly stated. Impact on heritage sites during the operational stage shall also be assessed as it may concern the day-to-day running of activities within the project once the construction stage is completed.

9.3.6 The evaluation of heritage impact assessment may be classified into five levels of significance based on the type and extent of the impact, as listed below:

(a) Beneficial impact: the impact is beneficial if the project will enhance the preservation of the heritage site(s) such as improving the flooding problem of the historic building after the sewerage project of the area;

(b) Acceptable impact: if the assessment indicates that there will be no significant effects on the heritage site(s);

(c) Acceptable impact with mitigation measures: if there will be some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures, such as conduct a follow-up Conservation Proposal or Conservation Management Plan for the affected heritage site(s) before commencement of work in order to avoid any inappropriate and unnecessary interventions to the building;

(d) Unacceptable impact: if the adverse effects are considered to be too excessive and are unable to mitigate practically; and

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

9.3.7 Preservation in totality must be taken as the first priority as it will be a beneficial impact and will enhance the cultural and socio-economical environment if suitable measures to integrate the heritage site(s) into the proposed project are carried out.

9.3.8 If, due to site constraints and other factors, only preservation in part is possible, this must be fully justified with alternative proposals or layout designs which confirm the impracticability of total preservation.

9.3.9 Total destruction must be taken as the very last resort in all cases and shall only be recommended with a meticulous and careful analysis balancing the interest of preserving local heritage as against that of the community as a whole. Assessment of impacts on heritage sites shall also take full account of, and follow where appropriate, paragraph 4.3.1(c), item 2 of Annex 10, items 2.6 to 2.9 of Annex 19 and other relevant parts of the TM-EIAO, S.16.

(4) Mitigation Measures

9.3.10 It is always a good practice to recognize the heritage sites early in the planning stage and site selection process, and to avoid it, i.e. preserve it in situ, or leaving a buffer zone around the site with full justification demonstrating the best practice of heritage conservation.

9.3.11 Mitigation is not only concerned with minimizing adverse impact on the heritage site but also should give consideration of potential enhancement if possible (such as to improve the access to the heritage site(s) or enhance the landscape and visual quality of heritage site(s)).

9.3.12 Mitigation measures shall not be recommended or taken as de facto means to avoid preservation of heritage sites. They shall be proved beyond all possibilities to be the only practical course of action. Heritage sites are to be in favour of preservation unless it can be demonstrated that there is a need for a particular development which is of paramount importance and outweighs the significance of a heritage site.

9.3.13 If avoidance of the heritage site is not possible, amelioration can be achieved by minimizing the potential impacts and the preservation of the heritage site, such as physically relocating it. Measures like amendments of the sitting, screening and revision of the detailed design of the development are required to lessen its degree of exposure if it causes visual intrusion to the heritage site and affects the character and integrity of the heritage site.

9.3.14 A rescue programme, when required, may involve preservation of the historic building or structure together with the relics inside, and its historic environment through relocation, detailed cartographic and photographic survey as the very last resort.

9.3.15 For any works imposing major impact on built heritage(s), conservation management plan and/or conservation maintenance manual may be required as mitigation measures for the construction and operational phase of the project subject to the nature and scope of the project.

9.4 Baseline Review

(1) Historical Background

9.4.1 The Study Areas encompasses three main areas: Wang Chau, Shap Pat Heung and Kam Tin. A brief description of the areas and relevant historical villages is provided below.

Wang Chau

9.4.2 ‘Wan Chau Tsuen’ was recorded as one of the existing villages in the 1688 San On Gazetteer (Ng 1993: Map7). A total of six historical villages are located in the south of Chu Wong Ling near Shan Pui River, of which three of these villages—Tung Tau Wai, Yeung Uk Tsuen and Lam Uk Tsuen—are included in this current study. Aerial photograph taken in 1963 (Lands Department 1963) shows that the area was previously surrounded by fish ponds prior to the channelisation of the Yuen Long Nullah. Tung Tau Wai San Tsuen, Yeung Uk San Tsuen and Shan Pui Chung Hau Tsuen, which also located within the 100m boundary of the study area, were not yet established. By 1967, part of the Shan Pui River was already channlised (Lands Department 1967).

9.4.3 In terms of intangible heritage, all of the six historical villages of Wang Chau, including Tung Tau Wai, Lam Uk Tsuen and Yeung Uk Tsuen, are involved in the Tai Ping Ching Chiu 太平清醮 (Da Jaio 打醮), which takes place every eight years. A four-night festival would be held in front of I Shing Temple (Fung 1996:80) during which Cantonese Opera and puppet show would be performed and a parade would be organised (Chow no date; LCSD 2020, The Sun 2004). Da Jiao is a large-scale religious festival of the community held to pacify departed souls, reward deities, purify the community, and mark its renewal (LCSD 2020). Da Jiaos are also recognised in Hong Kong as part of the local intangible heritage and listed in the First Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventory (FICHI) of Hong Kong. The last time the festival was held was in 2012 between 30 November and 16 December. It is understood that the festival should be held in 2020.

Tung Tau Wai

9.4.4 Tung Tau Wai is a Punti wai but without a wall enclosure (Yip 1995:77-78). The village should have a history of over 300 years as it is believed that Tung Tau Wai, together with other five villages of Wang Chau, established the I Shing Temple around 1712 (AMO 2020).

9.4.5 The villagers of Tung Tau Wai are mainly comprised of four surnames: the Tsois, the Tsangs, the Wongs, and the Huis. Except for the Huis, the other three clans have their own ancestral halls in the village, i.e., Tsoi Fuk Sin Tong (蔡福善堂), Tsang Tat Ying Tong (曾達賢堂) and Wong Ching Yuen Tong (黃貞元堂), which are all modified or rebuilt in the past decades (Chow no date).

Yeung Uk Tsuen

9.4.6 Yeung Uk Tsuen is a single surnamed village established some 300 years ago by the Yeung clan from Nanxiong, Guangdong. There are two villages that carry the name Yeung Uk Tsuen and are located in Shap Pat Heung. Both villages were established around the same time by two cousins of the same Yeung clan from Nanxiong. Cousin Yeung Hok Chau is known as the founding ancestor of the Yeung Uk Tsuen in Wang Chau. The villagers formerly mainly engaged in fishing and salt making with very limited farming (Leung 2002:26-27).

Lam Uk Tsuen

9.4.7 Lam Uk Tsuen is also one of the six indigenous villages in Wang Chau. The village was involved in the construction of the 1718 built I Shing Temple (AMO 2020) and thus should at least have a history over 300 years. The villagers share the major surname Lam. They have an ancestral hall called Lam Chik Hing Tong (林籍慶堂), which had been modified or rebuilt in the past decades (Chow no date).

Shap Pat Heung

9.4.8 The area of Shap Pat Heung was traditionally under the control of the Tang clan of Kam Tin. As the major landlord, tenants of Shap Pat Heung were required to pay rent to the Tang clan in the form of rice (Tanaka 2019:117-118). Nowadays, Shap Pat Heung is composed of 30 villages, of which 26 are traditional villages, including Tai Kiu, Sham Chung Tsuen, Ma Tin Tsuen, Tin Liu Tsuen and Lung Tin Tsuen, which are situated within the current study area. The name of Shap Pat Heung, however, is derived from the first eighteen villages established along the river near the former market of Tai Kiu Tun and around the Tai Shue Ha Tin Hau Temple. The Temple was said to be established by the fisher folks who settled in Tan Ka Po and Tan Ka Wan about 350 years ago, at a time when Nam Hang was connected to the Yuen Long River. As the population started to grow, former wetlands were gradually turned into farmlands (Fung 1996:35).

9.4.9 Each year, all villages of Shap Pat Heung celebrate the birthday of Tin Hau on the 23rd day of the third lunar month. The Tin Hau Festival, including a large-scale parade, is organised by the Shap Pat Heung Rural Committee of Yuen Long is listed in the FICHI of Hong Kong (LCSD 2020, HYK 2012).

Tai Kiu

9.4.10 Tai Kiu Tsuen is located adjacent to the Yuen Long Nullah in the northern end of Shap Pat Heung. It is believed that the village name, Tai Kiu, which literally means Big Bridge, was named after a stone bridge located to the west of the village. The village was established some 400 years ago by four clans surnamed Tang, Chan, Tse and Leung. The Tangs came from Ping Shan, while the Chans came from Baoan, Guangdong (AAB 2012).

Sham Chung Tsuen

9.4.11 Sham Chung Tsuen is an indigenous village in of Shap Pat Heung (Heung Yee Kuk 1988). The villagers have a major surname Chan who was originated from Nantou of Xinan and arrived in around Late Yuan period (Scott Wilson 2001; CEDD 2017). Other surnames include Yip, Kwan and Lam (CEDD 2017). A screen of trees located in between the stream west of the village and the village front is said to act like a Fung Shui screen to counterbalance the negative effect (Scott Wilson 2001).

9.4.12 According to local informant, a local communal association called Tung Hing Tong Fa Pau Association (同慶堂花炮會) is involved in the organisation of the birthday celebration of Tin Hau, which is held annually on the twenty-third day of the third lunar month.

Ma Tin Tsuen

9.4.13 Ma Tin Tsuen is an indigenous village in Shap Pat Heung which has a history of over 300 years (HYK 1988; AAB 2012). The original and main part of the walled village, which once included defensive features such as enclosing wall, a moat and four watchtowers, is located to the northwest of Lung Tin Tsuen outside of the current study area (AAB 2012). Only the eastern end of the extended village of Ma Tin Tsuen to the north of Lung Tin Tsuen is situated within the current study area. A review of aerial photos from 1924 to 1963 show that the new village extended eastwards (Lands Department 1924, 1949 & 1963). Lung Tin Tsuen is also an extension of Ma Tin Tsuen (AAB 2012).

9.4.14 The villagers of Ma Tin Tsuen comprised of mixed surnames including Chan, Wong, Kwan, Cheng, Chow, Ho and Tang (AAB 2012). Each year, lantern lighting ceremony to celebrate the birth of new-born boys would be held in the village shrine of the old Ma Tin Tsuen from the 12th to the 17th day of the first lunar month (AAB 2012; LCSD 2020). The village would also participate in the Tin Hau Festival held by the Shap Pat Heung Rural Committee of Yuen Long on the 23rd of the third lunar month (AAB 2012). Both of the lantern lighting ceremony in Ma Tin Tsuen and the Tin Hau Festival held by Shap Pat Heung Rural Committee are listed in the First Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventory of Hong Kong (LCSD 2020). As for Tai Ping Ching Chiu, the village would join the one organised by the Yuen Long Market (AAB 2012).

Lung Tin Tsuen

9.4.15 Lung Tin Tsuen is a relatively young village in Shap Pat Heung. It was initially an extension of Ma Tin Tsuen and eventually developed into a separate village due to the increase of population. The village was established in the 1920s by the Wong clan from Taishan. One of the founders, Wong Kung Shing, who spent half of his life in Canada operating a laundry shop with his two brothers, established a communal trust with other Taishan Wongs for land investment. In the mid-1920s, the Wongs purchased land from the Tang clan of Ping Shan around Lung Tin Tsuen area and established the village of Lung Tin Tsuen (AAB 2012).

Tin Liu Tsuen

9.4.16 Tin Liu Tsuen is a Punti walled village established by the Wus, Wongs, Yips and Sits in the early 19th centuries. It is a member of the Shap Pat Heung alliance. Apart from the wall enclosure, the village also has an entrance hall and a Gods Hall located at the end of the same axis (AAB 2012).

Kam Tin

9.4.17 Kam Tin is situated in the eastern part of Yuen Long and has been known for its fertile land. The Tang clan, who settled in Kam Tin since Song dynasty, remains the dominant clan in this area (Fung 1996:26). Each year during the spring and autumn equinoxes, the Kam Tin Tang lineage holds their Spring and Autumn Ancestral Worship ceremony at Tang Ching Lok Ancestral Hall (LCSD 2020). To celebrate newborn boys, a Lantern Lighting Ritual is held by the Kam Tin Tang lineage from the 12th to 16th of the first lunar month each year (LCSD 2020). The Kam Tin Tang lineage also hold Hung Shing Festival at Shui Tau Village Hung Shing Temple on every 15th day of the first lunar month, during which flower-canon associations of the Kam Tin Heung villages would participate the celebration (LCSD 2020). The above three activities are all recognized as local intangible heritage and listed in the FICHI under the general term of “Kam Tin Tang lineage 錦田鄧氏宗族” (LCSD 2020), while Ko Po Tsuen is not specifically mentioned the Ko Po villagers join the Hung Shing Festival held at Shui Tau Village Hung Shing Temple (Lee, Ho & Cheung 2014:17). Ko Po Tsuen is the only historical village included in this current study:

Ko Po Tsuen

9.4.18 Ko Po Tsuen is located in the western end of Kam Tin between Ho Hak Shan and Kam Tin River. It was listed as one of the existing villages in the 1688 San On Gazetteer (Ng 1993: Map7). According to local informant, the village is associated with the Tang clan of Kam Tin.

Ancient Trails

9.4.19 The 1819 San On Gazetteer recorded an outpost being set up at Wang Chau. These Qing military outposts were believed to be set up for safeguarding the Courier Soldier routes or their connecting major routes. The Wang Chau outpost was probably established for controlling river traffic into Yuen Long (ERM 2014). The exact location of the Wang Chau outpost or its associated route, however, is unknown. Another Qing military outpost was recorded in Tsiu Keng and it was probably established for safeguarding the Yuen Long to Sham Chung Road, the Kam Tin Route (ERM 2014). Recent study shows that the only surviving sections of the original footpath of the Kam Tin Route are located in between Sha Kong Miu and Ha Tsuen and possibly at Kam Tin (ERM 2014).

9.4.20 According to the 1898 route map showing the major paths (ERM 2014, Plan D3), some of these original footpaths were located within the current study area, mainly along the Yuen Long Nullah near Sham Chung Road, Yuen Long Town and southern Wang Chau. Based on the findings of the study on ancient trails (ERM 2014) and field survey carried out for this project, none of the above original boulder footpaths have survived.

(2) Previous Investigations

Agreement CE 1312006 (DS) Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage Stage 2 and 3 - Design and Construction

9.4.21 A built heritage survey was conducted as part of the cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for the above project. The survey included several of the villages located within the boundary of the current Study Area, such as Tung Tau Wai, Lam Uk Tsuen, Yeung Uk Tsuen and Tai Kiu. In addition to the graded buildings located in Tung Tau Wai, a number of village houses and shrines were recorded (Black & Veatch 2006).

Agreement No. CE 98/98 Preliminary Design and Ground Investigation for Widening of Yuen Long Highway Between Lam Tei and Shap Pat Heung Interchange Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report:

9.4.22 A CHIA was carried out for this project including the identification of cultural heritage sites along the proposed highway alignment, such as Sham Chung Tsuen, Lung Tin Tsuen and Tin Liu Tsuen. An archway and an earth god shrine were identified in Sham Chung, a block of buildings and the Lung Tin Study Hall were recorded in Lung Tin Tsuen, while most of the houses in Tin Liu Tsuen were determined to have been rebuilt (Scott Wilson 2001).

Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 1 Packages 1A-1T and 1B-1T - Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage Phase I and II:

9.4.23 A built heritage survey was conducted in Ko Po Tsuen as part of a CHIA for the above project. Only the rebuilt entrance gate was recorded in this survey as the village is occupied mostly by modern buildings (ERM 2002). Note that the entrance gate is located outside of this current study area.

Agreement No. CB20120293 Planning and Engineering Study for the Public Housing Site and Yuen Long Industrial Estate Extension at Wang Chau:

9.4.24 A built survey was carried out as part of the CHIA in Wang Chau and included the villages of Tung Tau Wai, Lam Uk Tsuen and Yeung Uk Tsuen (part of the current Study Area). In addition to the graded buildings located in Tung Tau Wai, a number of non-graded village houses and shrines were also recorded (Arup 2014).

Agreement No. CE 35/2012 (CE) Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long South – Investigation, Environmental Impact Assessment Report:

9.4.25 A built heritage survey was carried out in Sham Chung Tsuen, Tin Liu Tsuen and Lung Tin Tsuen as part of the CHIA for the above project. Two graded buildings in Tin Liu Tsuen (entrance gate and gods hall), one rural committee/worshipping hall in Sham Chung Tsuen, one graded building (village house) and a non-graded study hall in Lung Tin Tsuen were identified (CEDD 2017).

Agreement No. CE 66/2001 EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS – Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal, EIA (Final)

9.4.26 A built heritage survey was carried out in Sham Chung Tsuen, Tin Liu Tsuen as part of the CHIA for the above project. A total of 16 historic buildings were recorded in Tin Liu Tsuen and 12 in Sham Chung Tsuen (Arup 2004).

(3) Built Heritage Survey Findings

9.4.27 The Built Heritage Survey was undertaken in July 2020. The Built Heritage Survey focussed on Graded Historic Buildings, previous identified built heritage and scan of areas not covered by previous built heritage surveys. In addition, to five graded historic buildings, 33 built heritage structures or buildings and three Fung Shui Woodlands were recorded within the Study Area. The recorded built heritage sites are briefly listed in Section 9.5 (1) below and catalogues of Graded Historic Buildings, Not-Graded or Nil-Grade Buildings and Fung Shui Woodlands with descriptions and photographs of the built heritage sites can be found in Appendices 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3.

9.5 Impact Assessment

9.5.1 The BHIA is required under Clause 3.4.11.2 of the EIA study brief ESB-307/2018 and follows the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing the cultural heritage impacts as stated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM-EIAO and Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (4 May 2020). The BHIA is conducted within the Study Area (works areas and 100m from the works boundary).

(1) Identification of Built Heritage Sites

9.5.2 The desk-based review identified that a number of Graded Historic Buildings are located within the Study Area (see Figure 9.1) and listed below.

Project ID	Heritage Site	Grading and AMO Reference Nos.	Figure Reference
GB-01	Siyi Mansion, No. 21 Lung Tin Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories	Grade 3 AMO Ref. AM04-1730(01)	Figure 9.2
GB-02	Siyi Mansion, No. 22 Lung Tin Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories	Grade 3 AMO Ref. AM04-1730(02)	Figure 9.2
GB-03	Siyi Mansion, No. 23 Lung Tin Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories	Grade 3 AMO Ref. AM04-1730(03))	Figure 9.2
GB-04	Entrance Gate, No.7 Tin Liu Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories	Grade 3 AMO Ref. AM05-2285(02)	Figure 9.5
GB-05	Main Shrine, No. 73 Tin Liu Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories	Grade 3 AMO Ref. AM05-2285(01)	Figure 9.5

9.5.3 The Built Heritage Survey recognized a number of Not-Graded and Nil-Grade Buildings within the Study Area. A number of previously recorded built heritage items were found modernized or in a state of ruin. In general, modern buildings and ruins were excluded from recording. The recorded Not-Graded and Nil-Grade Buildings are listed in Table 9.1 and mapped on Figure 9.1.

Table 9.1 - Recorded Not-Graded and Nil-Grade Buildings

Historic Buildings	Figure Reference
In Ko Po Tsuen:
HB-01 Village God Shrine	Figure 9.3
In Sham Chung Tsuen:
HB-02 Banyan Tree and Shrine	Figure 9.4
HB-03 Pak Kung Shrine	Figure 9.4
HB-04 Village house with side chamber	Figure 9.4
HB-05 Village house	Figure 9.4
HB-06 Village houses	Figure 9.4
HB-07 Rural Committee Building	Figure 9.4
HB-08 Village God Shrine	Figure 9.4
In Tin Liu Tsuen:
HB-9 Gateway	Figure 9.5
HB-10 Earth God Shrine	Figure 9.5
HB-11 Courtyard style village houses	Figure 9.5
HB-12 Village houses	Figure 9.5
HB-13 Well and shrine	Figure 9.5
HB-14 Village house	Figure 9.5
HB-15 Earth God Shrine	Figure 9.5
HB-16 Village house	Figure 9.5
In Ma Tin Tsuen:
HB-17 Village house	Figure 9.6
HB-18 Village houses	Figure 9.6
In Tai Kiu:
HB-19 Village house	Figure 9.7
HB-20 Village house	Figure 9.7
HB-21 Village house	Figure 9.7
HB-22 Village house	Figure 9.7
HB-23 Terraced house	Figure 9.7
HB-24 Terraced house	Figure 9.7
HB-25 Village god shrine	Figure 9.7
In Tung Tau Wai:
HB-26 Village god shrine	Figure 9.8
HB-27 Courtyard style village house	Figure 9.8
In Lam Uk Tsuen:
HB-28 Village God shrines	Figure 9.9
In Yeung Uk Tsuen:
HB-29 Village God Shrines	Figure 9.9
In Shan Pui Chung Hau Tsuen
HB-30 Village God Shrine	Figure 9.10
HB-31 Buddhist Stone Tablet	Figure 9.10
HB-32 Village God Shrine	Figure 9.11
HB-33 Buddhist Stone Tablet	Figure 9.11

9.5.4 Three Fung Shui Woodlands were recorded within the Study Area. They are:

· FS-01 Sham Chung Tsuen Fung Shui Woodland (Figure 9.4)

· FS-02 Tin Liu Tsuen Fung Shui Woodland (Figure 9.5)

· FS-03 Tai Kiu Fung Shui Woodland (Figure 9.7)

(2) Proposed Works

9.5.5 The scope of the Project includes reviewing and developing detailed designs for the proposed drainage improvement scheme recommended in the Technical Feasibility Study approved in September 2016. In retaining the technical feasibility and resilience towards climate change, the flood protection scheme would also explore channel revitalisation options in tandem with blue-green infrastructures along upstream sections of Yuen Long Nullah (YLN).

9.5.6 The proposed works of the Project are marked on the following Figures:

(a) Provision of a complementary stormwater pumping station, now known as the Barrage Scheme, which conveys the surface runoff from the upstream YLN catchment to Shan Pui River (SPR) (from herein “construction of the Barrage’) (Drawing No. 400171/B&V/LAY/002);

(b) Provision of a tidal barrier which spans across YLN to combat high tides (part of construction of the Barrage) (Drawing No. 400171/B&V/LAY/003);

(c) Refinements to the existing intersection of YLN and Yuen Long Bypass Floodway (YLBF) with consideration of the impacts arising from various upstream developments (from herein ‘drainage works’);

(d) Construction and modification of flood walls along YLN, Sham Chung River (SCR) and Kam Tin River (KTR), with the provision of flap valves and other necessary backwater control mechanisms (from herein ‘construction and modification of parapet walls’); and

(e) Waterbody revitalisation concepts for YLN with aim to enhance the environmental quality (from herein ‘revitalisation of existing nullah’) (Drawing No. 400171/B&V/LAY/501 & 502).

9.5.7 The works require the use of machinery. The expected equipment needed to complete the works involve the following:

· Construction of the barrage and tidal barrier: Dump trucks, crane, generators, water pump, drill rig, excavator, piling, concrete lorry mixer;

· Drainage works: Hand-held concrete crusher, excavator, generator, dump truck, water pump, concrete lorry mixer;

· Construction and modification of parapet walls: Hand-held tools only;

· Revitalisation of existing nullah: excavator, generator, dump truck, water pump.

(3) Assessment

9.5.8 The Project Profile (esb-307) identified the below listed known built heritage resources. With exception of the Entrance Gate at No. 7 Tin Liu Tsuen, they are all located outside of the Study Areas and within the wider environment of the works. They will not be affected by the Project. For locations of the heritage resources please access https://www.amo.gov.hk:

· I Shing Temple (Declared Monument)

· Yi Tai Study Hall (Declared Monument)

· Tang Kwong U Ancestral Hall (Declared Monument)

· Pun Uk (Grade 1 Historic Building)

· Cheung Chun Yuen (Grade 1 Historic Building)

· Tang Tsing Lok Ancestral Hall (Grade 1 Historic Building)

· Lau Village House (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Tang Yu Kai Study Hall (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· So Lau Yuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Kam On Lo (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Main Shrine, No. 73 Tin Liu Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Entrance Gate, No. 7 Tin Liu Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Shun Tak Kui (Grade 1 Historic Building)

· No. 176 Shung Ching San Tsuen (Grade 2 Historic Building)

· Nos. 186 & 188 Tai Kei Leng Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Former Yuen Long Public Middle School, No. 3 Yau Shin Street, Au Tau, Yuen Long, N.T. (Grade 2 Historic Building)

· Yu Yuen (Grade 2 Historic Building)

· No. 38 Fuk Hing Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· No. 40 Fuk Hing Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· No. 41 Fuk Hing Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Nos. 4 & 7A, and Lot WCL 132 in DD123, Sai Tau Wai (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Entrance Gate, Muk Kiu Tau Tsuen (Grade 3 Historic

· Building)

· Hung Shing Temple (Grade 3 Historic Building)

· Lik Wing Tong Study Hall (Grade 1 Historic Building)

9.5.9 There are no heritage items recorded within the works areas. Furthermore, the majority of the recorded heritage items are located at sufficient distance from the works and within a village environment for which access, noise and dust controls will be in place. They will not require any mitigation.

9.5.10 Three recorded historic buildings are located in close proximity of the works and some mitigation measures will be required. Table 9.2 – 9.4 below summarizes the heritage sites, proposed works and distance from works boundary and evaluation of impact. All recorded heritage resources can be found on the master layout plan, Figure 9.1.

Table 9.2 - Graded Historic Buildings

Project ID Figure Catalogue ref.	Identification of Heritage Item and Grading	Proposed Works	Minimum Distance from Proposed Works	Evaluation of Impact
Lung Tin Tsuen
GB-01 (Figure 9.2) Appendix 9.1 -p.9.1-1 - 9.1-4	Siyi Mansion, No. 21 Lung Tin Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories (Grade 3)	Revitalisation of Nullah	70m	The Grade 3 Mansions are separated from the proposed works and located within a village setting with some other residential buildings forming a screen between works and heritage sites. The works are deemed at sufficient distance to avoid direct and indirect impacts from excavation and construction works within the existing nullah area. Acceptable impact.
GB-02 (Figure 9.2) Appendix 9.1 -p. 9.1-5 - 9.1-8	Siyi Mansion, No. 22 Lung Tin Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories (Grade 3)	Revitalisation of Nullah	72m
GB-03 (Figure 9.2) Appendix 9.1 -p. 9.1-9 - 9.1-13	Siyi Mansion, No. 23 Lung Tin Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories (Grade 3)	Revitalisation of Nullah	68m
Tin Liu Tsuen
GB-04 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.1 -p. 9.1-14 - 9.1-17	Entrance Gate, No.7 Tin Liu Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories (Grade 3)	Construction of parapet walls	41m	The Grade 3 Entrance Gate, a modern rebuilt, is set within other structures at the front of the village. The works which consists of construction of parapet works by handheld tools will occur to the west of the Gate at sufficient distance not to disturb the Gate. Acceptable impact.
GB-05 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.1 -p. 9.1-18 - 9.1-22	Main Shrine, No. 73 Tin Liu Tsuen, Shap Pat Heung, Yuen Long, New Territories (Grade 3)	Construction of parapet walls	45m	The Grade 3 Main Shrine, a modern re built, is set amongst other structures within the rear of the village. The works which consists of construction of parapet works by handheld tools will occur to the west of the Main Shrine at sufficient distance not to disturb the Main Shrine. Acceptable impact.

Table 9.3 - Other Heritage Items (Not-Graded and Nil-Grade)

Project ID Figure Catalogue ref.	Identification of Heritage Item	Proposed Works	Minimum Distance to Works Boundary	Evaluation of Impact
Ko Po Tsuen
HB-01 (Figure 9.3) Appe尸ndix 9.2 -p. 9.2-1 - 9.2-3	Village God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Modification of existing parapet wall	74m	The not-graded shrine is located within a village setting. The works, modification of existing parapet walls will be conducted by handheld tools at a sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
Sham Chung Tsuen
HB-02 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-4 - 9.2-6	Banyan Tree and Shrine (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	65m	The not-graded shrine is located within a Fung Shui wood at the entrance of the village. The works, modification of existing parapet walls will be conducted by handheld tools at a sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
HB-03 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-7 - 9.2-9	Pak Kung Shrine (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	12m	The not-graded shrine is proximity of the boundary of the works area but is set at a lower elevation than the adjacent road which forms a buffer between the shrine and works. The works, construction of parapet walls by handheld tools has sufficient separation from the shrine not to be affected by the minor works. Acceptable impact.
HB-04 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-10 - 9.2-13	Village house with side chamber (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	34m	The not-graded village house is part of the main village. Between the village house and the proposed works, new residential buildings form a buffer between heritage and minor works and no contact or indirect impact are expected from the parapet construction works by hand held tools. Acceptable impact.
HB-05 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-14 - 9.2-15	Village house (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	66m	The not-graded village house is located within the centre of the historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-06 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-16 - 9.2-18	Village houses (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	75m	The not-graded village house is located within the centre of the historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-07 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-19 - 9.2-23	Rural Committee Building (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	84m (a small part of the kitchen is outside 100m)	The not-graded rural committee is located within the centre of the historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the rural committee. Acceptable impact.
HB-08 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-24 - 9.2-25	Village God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	24m	The newly constructed not- graded shrine is tucked away in a modern residential development. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
Tin Liu Tsuen
HB-09 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-26 - 9.2-28	Gateway (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	c.1m (from the lions)	The not-graded Gateway constructed in 2009, is located adjacent to the proposed works boundary. The construction of parapet walls works include handheld tools only and are not expected to affect the modern built Village Gateway. Acceptable impact.
HB-10 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-29 - 9.2-30	Earth God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	12m	The not-graded shrine is set behind the modern gate at a lower level than the proposed works. The shrine is separated from the proposed works by HB-09. The construction of parapet wall is conducted by handheld tools only and are not expected to affect the shrine. Acceptable impact.
HB-11 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-31 - 9.2-32	Village house (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	95m (partially outside 100m)	The not-graded village house is located to east of the main historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-12 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-33 - 9.2-34	Village houses (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	99m (western edge only)	The not-graded village houses are located to east of the main historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the village houses. Acceptable impact.
HB-13 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-35 - 9.2-36	Well and shrine (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	94m	The not-graded well and shrine are located to east of the main historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the well and shrine. Acceptable impact.
HB-14 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-37 - 9.2-38	Village house (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	52m	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-15 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-39 - 9.2-40	Earth God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	42m	The not-graded shrine, a new bult structure, is located adjacent to the Main Shrine (GB-05) and is set amongst other structures within the rear of the village. The works which consists of construction of parapet works by handheld tools will occur to the west of the shrine at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
HB-16 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-41 - 9.2-42	Village house (Not-Graded)	Construction of parapet walls	77m	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The construction of parapet works will be conducted by handheld tools at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
Ma Tin Tsuen
HB-17 (Figure 9.6) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-43 - 9.2-46	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	10m	The not-graded village house includes some decorative elements which may be fragile. Part of row of houses, it is set at the end and is separated from the works only by a road and fencing, i.e. in close proximity to the works. The revitalisation of the nullah includes the use of heavy equipment and vibration, accidental contact with equipment and access issues may arise. Acceptable with mitigation.
HB-18 (Figure 9.6) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-47 - 9.2-49	Village houses (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	12m	The not-graded village houses are part of row of houses adjacent to HB-17. The village houses (including HB-17) are separated from the works only by a road and fencing, i.e. in close proximity to the works. The revitalisation of the nullah includes the use of heavy equipment and vibration, accidental contact with equipment and access issues may arise. Acceptable with mitigation.
Tai Kiu
HB-19 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-50 - 9.2-53	Village house (Nil-Grade)	Revitalisation of Nullah	97m (partially outside 100m)	The Nil-grade village house is located in centre of the historical village. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-20 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-54 - 9.2-56	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	84m	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-21 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-57 - 9.2-58	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	79m	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-22 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-59 - 9.2-60	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	89m	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-23 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-61	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	97m (partially outside 100m)	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-24 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-62	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	75m	The not-graded village house is located in centre of the historical village. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the village house. Acceptable impact.
HB-25 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-63-9.2-64	Village god shrine (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	57m	The not-graded shrine, a new built, is located to the northwest of the village in an open space at slightly lower level that the road which forms a buffer with the works. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
Tung Tau Wai
HB-26 (Figure 9.8) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-65 - 9.2-66	Village god shrine (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	95m	The not-graded shrine, a new built, is located to the front of the historical village and has a large open space in front. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
HB-27 (Figure 9.8) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-67 - 9.2-69	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	93m	The not-graded village house is located at the front row of the historical village and has a large open space in front. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
Lam Uk Tsuen
HB-28 (Figure 9.9) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-70 - 9.2-71	Village God shrines (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	65m	The not-graded shrine, a new built, is located to the front of the historical village and has a large open space in front. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
Yeung Uk Tsuen
HB-29 (Figure 9.9) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-72 - 9.2-75	Village God Shrines (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	55m	The not-graded shrine, a new built, is located to the front of the historical village and has a large open space in front. The revitalisation of nullah works (which entails excavation and construction within the nullah) including access road are at sufficient distance not to disturb the shrine. Acceptable impact.
Shan Pui Chung Hau Tsuen
HB-30 (Figure 9.10) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-76 – 9.2-77	Village God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	12m	The not-graded shrine is located in close proximity to the works boundary and work access road. The revitalisation of the nullah includes excavation and heavy machinery and potential impacts include contact with equipment, inappropriate use of shrine (such as storage), vibration and limiting of access to shrine may occur. Acceptable with mitigation.
HB-31 (Figure 9.10) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-78 – 9.2-79	Buddhist Stone Tablet (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	11m	The not-graded tablet is located in close proximity to the works boundary and work access road. The revitalisation of the nullah includes excavation and heavy machinery and potential impacts include contact with equipment, inappropriate use of area around tablet (such as storage), and limiting of access to tablet. Acceptable with mitigation.
HB-32 (Figure 9.11) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-80 – 9.2-81	Village God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	36m	The not-graded shrine, a new built structure, in birds view distance, is located in proximity of the works boundary and work access road. The revitalisation of the nullah includes excavation and construction within the nullah while the adjacent road may be used for access. The shrine, however, is set within the village and is only accessible from the road by a small path as such direct and indirect impacts are not expected. Acceptable impact.
HB-33 (Figure 9.11) Appendix 9.2 -p. 9.2-82 – 9.2-83	Buddhist Stone Tablet (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	28m	The not-graded tablet in birds view distance, is located in proximity of the works boundary and work access road. The revitalisation of the nullah includes excavation and construction within the nullah while the adjacent road may be used for access. The free standing tablet, however, is set within the village and is only accessible from the road by a small path as such direct and indirect impacts are not expected. Acceptable impact.

Table 9.4 – Fung Shui Woodlands

Project ID Fig. Catalogue Ref.	Fung Shui Woodland	Proposed Works	Minimum Distance to Works Boundary	Evaluation of Impact
FS-01 (Figure 9.4) Appendix 9.3 -p. 9.3-1 – 9.3-2	Sham Chung Tsuen Fung Shui Woodland	Construction of parapet walls	Part of the Fung Shui Woodland is located adjacent and partially within the works area.	There is no proposed tree cutting as part of the project and so in general the Fung Shui Woodland clusters will remain untouched. The proposed works include handheld tools construction of parapet walls only and no impact is expected. Acceptable impact
FS-02 (Figure 9.5) Appendix 9.3 -p. 9.3-3 – 9.3-4	Tin Liu Tsuen Fung Shui Woodland	Construction of parapet walls	The patchy Fung Shui Woodland along the west of the village is located adjacent to the works area.
FS-03 (Figure 9.7) Appendix 9.3 -p. 9.3-5 – 9.3-6	Tai Kiu Fung Shui Woodland	Revitalisation of Nullah	A small section of the Fung Shui Woodland is located within the Study area and well away from the proposed works.	The Fung Shui Woodland is located at sufficient distance from the revitalisation works and no impact on fung shui woods or their roots are expected. Acceptable impact

9.5.11 Depending on the construction schedule, the works may coincide with major festivals. The festivals are not held however, near the works areas and access is not expected to be affected by the construction works.

9.5.12 There will be no impacts during the operational stage of the Project.

9.6 Mitigation Recommendations

9.6.1 The desk-based review and Built Heritage Survey recorded five Graded Historic buildings. No mitigation will be recommended for the intangible heritage items. According to the impact assessment result, the Graded Historic buildings will not be affected by the Project during construction and operational stage.

9.6.2 The assessment, furthermore, concluded that the single Nil-Grade building, and Fung Shui Woodlands will not be affected by the works. The majority of the Not-Graded buildings and structures will also not be affected with exception of HB-17, HB-18, HB-30 and HB-31.

9.6.3 Indirect impacts such as vibration, contact with equipment, access issues may arise, and mitigation will be required for these four heritage structures.

9.6.4 Mitigation measures for built heritage during the construction phase may include a range of measures. The descriptions below will provide the detailed requirements for each of the mitigation actions.

Condition Survey (CS)

9.6.5 A condition survey will be carried out by qualified building surveyor or engineer in advance of works for identified buildings that may be affected by ground-borne vibration. The Condition Survey Report should contain descriptions of the structure, identification of fragile elements, an appraisal of the condition and working methods for any proposed monitoring and precautionary measures that are recommended

9.6.6 The condition survey report for the identified buildings must be submitted to the Engineer for comment before construction activities commence. The location of proposed monitoring points in the building should avoid damaging the historic fabric and agreed by the owner and the Engineer. The contractor should implement the approved monitoring and precautionary measures.

Vibration Monitoring (VM)

9.6.7 Vibration monitoring should be undertaken during the construction works to ensure that safe levels of vibration are not exceeded. An Alert, Alarm and Action (AAA) vibration limit set at 5 / 6 / 7.5 mm/s for heritage buildings (PNAP APP-137- Appendix A) should be adopted. The AAA vibration limit for the buildings to be graded by AAB should be determined by the future grading. The condition survey report should highlight if the limit should be lowered after the detailed study of the condition of the buildings and structures. A monitoring schedule, the location of monitoring equipment, the frequency of monitoring, reporting requirements and action plan should be included in the condition survey report. The location of any monitoring equipment in the building must be approved by the owner and the Engineer before installation. Reinstatement to all affected areas is required.

Provision of Buffer Zones (BZ)

9.6.8 A buffer zone should be provided to separate the building or structure from the construction works. The buffer zone should be clearly marked out by temporary fencing, if temporary fencing is not appropriate signage may be used to identify the heritage item to be avoided. The buffer zone should be made at least 1m from the proposed works or if this is not possible as large as the site restrictions allow.

Provision of Safe Public Access (SPA)

9.6.9 Any proposed works in close proximity to buildings or structures used by the public have the potential to create an unsafe environment for members of the public.

9.6.10 The contractor should ensure that safe public access if possible, through provision of clearly marked paths separated from the construction works areas is provided for any such affected cultural heritage structure.

9.6.11 A summary of the recommended mitigation measures prior and during the construction phase is listed in Table 9.5 below.

Table 9.5 - Summary of Recommended Mitigation Measures Prior and During the Construction Phase

Project ID.	Identification	Proposed Works	Distance to Works	Recommended Mitigation Measures (see para. 9.6.5-9.6.10)
Ma Tin Tsuen
HB-17	Village house (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	10m	CS, VM, BZ, SPA
HB-18	Village houses (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	12m	CS, VM, BZ, SPA
Shan Pui Chung Hau Tsuen
HB-30	Village God Shrine (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	12m	CS, VM, BZ, SPA
HB-31	Buddhist Stone Tablet (Not-Graded)	Revitalisation of Nullah	11m	BZ, SPA

Notes:

CS = condition survey, VM = vibration monitoring, BZ = provision of buffer zone, SPA = provision of safe pubic access

9.7 Cumulative and Residual Impacts

9.7.1 No cumulative or residual impacts are expected from the proposed works or operation.

9.8 Conclusion

9.8.1 It is recommended that the moderate archaeological potential of the “archaeological no-go area” at Chu Wong Ling as mentioned in Agreement No. CB20120293 Planning and Engineering Study for the Public Housing Site and Yuen Long Industrial Estate Extension at Wang Chau Final Technical Report No. 3G (TR-3G) Preferred Option and Technical Assessment – Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Arup 2014) should be reviewed if this area is affected by any proposed works under this Project in future.

9.8.2 The desk-based review and Built Heritage Survey recorded five Graded Historic buildings, a Nil-Grade and thirty-two not-graded buildings, three villages with Fung Shui Woodlands alongside five major festivals. The assessment concluded the Graded Historic buildings will not be affected by the Project.

9.8.3 Assessment also concluded four not-graded buildings and structures may be affected during the construction phase: HB-17 and HB-18, village houses in Ma Tin Tsuen, and HB-30, a Village God Shrine and HB-31, a Buddhist Stone Tablet. Mitigation measures such as condition survey (prior to construction phase) with vibration monitoring during construction is recommended for the village houses (HB-17-18) and shrine (HB-30). In addition, buffer zones to safeguard the physical safety of the heritage structures and measures to ensure safe public access during construction phase is recommended for the four heritage structures (HB-17, HB-18, HB-30 and HB-31).

9.9 Environmental Monitoring and Audit

9.9.1 Measures have been recommended in the CHIA for the protection, and secure and safe public access during the construction phase of four, indirectly affected by the works, built heritage sites. The Environmental Team, Independent Environmental Checker, Engineer or Engineer’s Representative shall audit the vibration monitoring, relevant buffer zone requirements and access conditions during the construction phase at least once a month. The following table summarises the recommended mitigation measures:

Built Heritage Project Ref.	Report Reference	Assessment	Recommended Environmental Protection Measures/ Mitigation Measures	Objectives of the Recommended Measures & Main Concerns to address	Implementation Agent	Implementation Stage			Relevant Legislation & Guidelines
						PC	C	O
HB-17 Village House	(Figure 9.6) App. 9.2-p.9.2-43 - 9.2-46	Potential impacts arising from close proximity to the works, including vibration, accidental contact with equipment and access issues may arise.	· A condition survey needs to be conducted by qualified building surveyor or structural engineer in advance of works. The condition survey report must be submitted to the Engineer for comment before construction activities commence. The location of proposed monitoring points in the building should avoid damaging the historic fabric and approved by the owner. The contractor should implement the approved monitoring and precautionary measures. (see para. 9.6.5-9.6.6)	Establish structural integrity of heritage building and recommend vibration monitoring limits	Qualified Buildings Surveyor or Structural Engineer	ü			-Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) -Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - PNAP APP-137 (2012)
			· The condition survey will identify the appropriate vibration monitoring for the heritage structure during the construction works to ensure that safe levels of vibration are not exceeded. An Alert, Alarm and Action (AAA) vibration limit set at 5 / 6 / 7.5 mm/s for heritage buildings (PNAP APP-137- Appendix A) should be adopted. A monitoring schedule, the location of monitoring equipment, the frequency of monitoring, reporting requirements and action plan should be included in the condition survey report. · A buffer zone should be provided to separate the building or structure from the construction works. The buffer zone should be clearly marked out by temporary fencing, if temporary fencing is not appropriate signage may be used to identify the heritage item to be avoided; · The contractor should ensure that safe public access is possible, through provision of clearly marked paths separated from the construction works areas is provided for any such affected cultural heritage structure. (see para. 9.6.7-9.6.10)	Safeguard heritage site, allow access and ensure structural stability	Contractor		ü
HB-18 Village House	(Figure 9.6) App. 9.2-p. 9.2-47 - 9.2-49	Potential impacts arising from close proximity to the works, including vibration, accidental contact with equipment and access issues may arise.	· A condition survey needs to be conducted by qualified building surveyor or structural engineer in advance of works. The condition survey report must be submitted to the Engineer for comment before construction activities commence. The location of proposed monitoring points in the building should avoid damaging the historic fabric and approved by the owner. The contractor should implement the approved monitoring and precautionary measures. (see para. 9.6.5-9.6.6)	Establish structural integrity of heritage building and recommend vibration monitoring limits	Qualified Buildings Surveyor or Structural Engineer	ü			-Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) -Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - PNAP APP-137 (2012)
			· The condition survey will identify the appropriate vibration monitoring for the heritage structure during the construction works to ensure that safe levels of vibration are not exceeded. An Alert, Alarm and Action (AAA) vibration limit set at 5 / 6 / 7.5 mm/s for heritage buildings (PNAP APP-137- Appendix A) should be adopted. A monitoring schedule, the location of monitoring equipment, the frequency of monitoring, reporting requirements and action plan should be included in the condition survey report. · A buffer zone should be provided to separate the building or structure from the construction works. The buffer zone should be clearly marked out by temporary fencing, if temporary fencing is not appropriate signage may be used to identify the heritage item to be avoided; · The contractor should ensure that safe public access is possible, through provision of clearly marked paths separated from the construction works areas is provided for any such affected cultural heritage structure. (see para. 9.6.7-9.6.10)	Safeguard heritage site, allow access and ensure structural stability	Contractor		ü
HB-30 Village God Shrine	(Figure 9.10) App. 9.2-p.9.2-76 - 9.2-77	Potential impacts arising from close proximity to the works, including vibration, accidental contact with equipment, inappropriate use of area (such as use for storage) and access issues may arise.	· A condition survey needs to be conducted by qualified building surveyor or structural engineer in advance of works. The condition survey report must be submitted to the Engineer for comment before construction activities commence. The location of proposed monitoring points in the building should avoid damaging the historic fabric and approved by the owner. The contractor should implement the approved monitoring and precautionary measures. (see para. 9.6.5-9.6.6)	Establish structural integrity of heritage building and recommend vibration monitoring limits	Qualified Buildings Surveyor or Structural Engineer	ü			-Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) -Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment - PNAP APP-137 (2012)
			· The condition survey will identify the appropriate vibration monitoring for the heritage structure during the construction works to ensure that safe levels of vibration are not exceeded. An Alert, Alarm and Action (AAA) vibration limit set at 5 / 6 / 7.5 mm/s for heritage buildings (PNAP APP-137- Appendix A) should be adopted. A monitoring schedule, the location of monitoring equipment, the frequency of monitoring, reporting requirements and action plan should be included in the condition survey report. · A buffer zone should be provided to separate the building or walls of the building from the construction works. The buffer zone should be clearly marked out by temporary fencing. The buffer zone should be made at least 5m from the proposed works or if this is not possible as large as the site restrictions allow; · The contractor should ensure that safe public access is possible, through provision of clearly marked paths separated from the construction works areas is provided for any such affected cultural heritage structure. It is recommended that safe public access to the village god shrine be provided during the construction works. (see para. 9.6.7-9.6.10)	Safeguard heritage site, allow access and ensure structural stability	Contractor		ü
HB-31 Buddhist Stone Tablet	(Figure 9.10) App. 9.2-p. 9.2-78 - 9.2-79	Potential impacts arising from close proximity to the works, including accidental contact with equipment, inappropriate use of area (such as use for storage) and access issues may arise.	· A buffer zone should be provided to separate the building or walls of the building from the construction works. The buffer zone should be clearly marked out by temporary fencing. The buffer zone should be made at least 5m from the proposed works or if this is not possible as large as the site restrictions allow; · The contractor should ensure that safe public access is possible, through provision of clearly marked paths separated from the construction works areas is provided for any such affected cultural heritage structure. It is recommended that safe public access to the Buddhist Stone Tablet be provided during the construction works. (see para. 9.6.8-9.6.10)	Safeguard heritage site and allow access	Contractor		ü		-Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) -Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

9.10 References and Bibliography

AAB (2012). Results of the Assessment of 1,444 Historic Buildings: Historic Building Appraisal of 1,444 Historic Buildings.

AMO (2020) Declared Monuments in Hong Kong - New Territories: I Shing Temple, Wang Chau. Accessed 2 July 2020.

Arup (2004) Agreement No. CE 66/2001 EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS – Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal. EIA (Final).

Arup (2014) Agreement No. CB20120293 Planning and Engineering Study for the Public Housing Site and Yuen Long Industrial Estate Extension at Wang Chau. Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

Black & Veatch (2006) Agreement CE 1312006 (DS) Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage Stage 2 and 3 - Design and Construction. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report.

CEDD (2017) Agreement No. CE 35/2012 (CE) Planning and Engineering Study for Housing Sites in Yuen Long South – Investigation Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

ERM (2002) Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 1 Packages 1A-1T and 1B-1T - Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage Phase I and II. Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

ERM (2014) Study on Old Trails in Hong Kong - Final Study Report.

Fung, C.M (1996) Yuen Long Historical Relics and Monuments. Hong Kong: Yuen Long District Board.

HYK/ Heung Yee Kuk (1988) List of established villages in the New Territories.

HYK/ Heung Yee Kuk (2012). Shap Pat Heung Rural Committee. Accessed 9 July 2020.

HKCD / Hong Kong Commercial Daily (2019) 《橫洲二聖宮歡慶建廟300年 6村民眾同祭祀 筵開70圍盆菜宴》, published online on 2019-01-02. Accessed 21 July 21, 2020.

Lands Department (1924) Aerial Photo. Photo No. H32-0012, flight date: 1924-11-15, scale 1:14332.

Lands Department (1949) Aerial Photo. Photo No. 81A 125-5038, flight date:1949-05-08, flight height: 5800 ft, scale: 1:11600.

Lands Department (1963) Aerial Photo. Photo No. 1963-8447, flight date: 1963-02-06, flight height: 3900 ft., scale: 1:7800.

Lands Department (1967) Aerial Photo. Photo No. 1967-5688, flight date:1967-05-16, flight height: 3900 ft, scale: 1:7800.

LCSD / Leisure and Cultural Services Department (2020) First Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventory of Hong Kong. Accessed 7 July 2020.

Lee Hin Wai, Ho Miu & Cheung Yi Fu /李顯偉、何苗、張儀夫 （2014）〈香港新界元朗錦田水頭村洪聖誕考察報告〉，載於《田野與文獻》第七十六期　2014.7.15.

Ng, Y.L. (1993) New Peace County: A Chinese Gazetteer of the Hong Kong Region. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

PNAP APP-137 (2012) Ground-borne Vibrations and Ground Settlements Arising from Pile Driving and Similar Operations. Buildings department.

Scott Wilson (Hong Kong) Ltd (2001) Agreement No. CE 98/98 Preliminary Design and Ground Investigation for Widening of Yuen Long Highway Between Lam Tei and Shap Pat Heung Interchange, Environmental Impact Assessment Final Report

Yip, H.F. (1995) An Historical Geography of the Walled Villages of Hong Kong. MA Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Hong Kong.

太陽報 (2004)《元朗太平清醮「行鄉」巡遊》Published online on 29 December 2004. Accessed 7 July 2020. (The Sun 2004)

田仲一成 (2019)《中國的宗族與演劇》。香港：三聯出版社。Tanaka (2019)

周樹佳 (no date) 《橫洲的歷史》《橫洲的古蹟文物》. Assessed 3 July 2020. (Chow no date)

梁煦華 (2002) 《穿村—鄉郊歷史、傳聞與鄉情》。香港：天地圖書有限公司。(Leung 2002)