4               Contents

                                                                                                         Page

 

4         NOISE IMPACT.. 1

4.1     Introduction. 1

4.2     Legislation, Standards and Guidelines. 1

4.3     Baseline Conditions. 4

4.4     Noise Sensitive Receivers. 5

4.5     Construction Noise Impact Assessment 11

4.6     Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment 29

4.7     Fixed Noise Impact Assessment 48

4.8     Aircraft Noise Impact Assessment 60

4.9     Helicopter Noise Impact Assessment 62

4.10   Conclusion. 69

 

TABLES

 

Table 4.2.1  Noise Criteria for Daytime Construction Activities  2

Table 4.2.2  Noise Standards for Road Traffic Noise  2

Table 4.2.3  Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) 3

Table 4.3.1  Summary of Prevailing Noise Measurement Results  5

Table 4.4.1 Overall Noise Sensitive Receivers  6

Table 4.5.1  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Construction Noise Impact Assessment 11

Table 4.5.2  Predicted Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at NSRs  17

Table 4.5.3  Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs with Noise Exceedances in Unmitigated Scenario  20

Table 4.5.4  Recommended List of QPME and their Sound Power Levels  21

Table 4.5.5  Predicted Mitigated Construction Noise Levels at NSRs  24

Table 4.5.6  Recommended Minimum Separation Distance between Schools and Critical Works Area during School Examination Period  27

Table 4.6.1  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment 29

Table 4.6.2  Predicted Unmitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Existing NSRs (Outside the PDA) Affected by Project Roads  34

Table 4.6.3  Predicted Unmitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Planned NSRs (Within the PDA) 35

Table 4.6.4  Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs Exceeding the Respective Road Traffic Noise Criteria under Unmitigated Scenario  36

Table 4.6.5  Extents and Locations of Considered Direct Noise Mitigation Measures  37

Table 4.6.6  Evaluation on Considered Direct Mitigation Measures  38

Table 4.6.7  Extents and Locations of Adopted Direct Mitigation Measures  39

Table 4.6.8 Predicted Mitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Existing NSRs (Outside the PDA) Affected by Project Roads (With Direct Mitigation Measures Applied) 39

Table 4.6.9 Predicted Mitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Planned NSRs within the PDA (with Direct Mitigation Measures Applied) 40

Table 4.6.10 Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs with Noise Exceedances in Unmitigated Scenario Benefited or Protected under the Mitigated Scenario (with Direct Mitigation Measures Applied) 42

Table 4.6.11 Provision of Acoustic Windows (Baffle Type) at the Planned NSRs within the PDA   43

Table 4.6.12 Predicted Mitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Planned NSRs within the PDA (with Direct and Additional Mitigation Measures Applied) 44

Table 4.6.13 Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs with Noise Exceedances in Unmitigated Scenario Benefited or Protected under the Mitigated Scenario (with Direct Mitigation Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures Applied) 47

Table 4.7.1  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Fixed Noise Source Assessment (Day and Evening Time) 48

Table 4.7.2  List of Major Existing and Planned Fixed Noise Sources  51

Table 4.7.3  Fixed Noise Impact Assessment for Planned Fixed Source and NSRs  55

Table 4.9.1  Noise Data of Airbus H175 – Lateral Movements  64

Table 4.9.2  Noise Data of Airbus H175 – Non-lateral Movements  64

Table 4.9.3  Minimum Buffer Distance Required for H175  67

 

FIGURES

 

Figure 4.4.1a-d          Location of Noise Sensitive Receivers

Figure 4.5.1a-d          Location of Representative NSRs and NAPs for Construction Noise Assessment

Figure 4.6.1                Location of Representative NSRs and NAPs for Road Traffic Noise Assessment

Figure 4.6.2                Road Categories and Existing Road Mitigation Measures Adopted in Road Traffic Noise Assessment

Figure 4.6.3a              Locations of Considered Direct Mitigation Measures

Figure 4.6.3b              Locations of Adopted Direct Mitigation Measures

Figure 4.6.4                Locations of Additional Mitigation Measures

Figure 4.7.1                Locations of Representative NSRs and NAPs for Fixed Noise Source Assessment

Figure 4.7.2                Area Sensitivity Rating of NSRs

Figure 4.7.3                Locations of Identified Fixed Noise Sources

Figure 4.8.1                Location of PDA and SKARA

Figure 4.9.1                Most Probable Flight Headings for WB16 and WB17

 

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix 4.3.1          Desktop Review on Approved EIA Study on “Expansion of Hong Kong Airport into a Three-runway System”

Appendix 4.4.1          Photos of Representative Noise Sensitive Receivers

Appendix 4.4.2          Correspondence from Hospital Authority

Appendix 4.5.1          Tentative Construction Programme & Works Area of Concurrent Projects

Appendix 4.5.2          Construction Plant Inventory

Appendix 4.5.3          Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Representative NSRs (Unmitigated Scenario)

Appendix 4.5.4          Schematic Diagram for Typical Construction Noise Barrier and Noise Enclosure

Appendix 4.5.5          Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Representative NSRs (Mitigated Scenario)

Appendix 4.5.6          Predicted Construction Noise Levels and Minimum Separation Between Schools and Critical Works Areas During Examination Period

Appendix 4.6.1          Comparison of Predicted Road Traffic Noise Levels at Representative NSRs

Appendix 4.6.2          Traffic Data in Year 2044 and Computer Plot of Road Traffic Noise Model

Appendix 4.6.3          Predicted Road Traffic Noise Levels at Representative NSRs (Unmitigated Scenario)

Appendix 4.6.4          Predicted Road Traffic Noise Levels at Representative NSRs (Mitigated Scenario, Direct Mitigation Measures Only)

Appendix 4.6.5          Predicted Road Traffic Noise Levels at Representative NSRs (Mitigated Scenario, All Mitigation Measure)

Appendix 4.7.1          Maximum Allowable SWLs of the Planned Fixed Noise Sources

Appendix 4.7.2          Noise Survey for Existing Fixed Noise Sources

Appendix 4.7.3          esults of Fixed Noise Impact Assessment

Appendix 4.7.4          Request for Information – Enquiry for North District Hospital (NDH) & Response from Hospital Authority

Appendix 4.7.5          Correspondence from WSD and DSD

Appendix 4.8.1          Correspondence from AAHK         

Appendix 4.8.2          Extract of Approved EIA Report “Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System (AEIAR-185/2014)”

Appendix 4.9.1          Correspondence from GFS

Appendix 4.9.2          Helicopter Noise Assessment Area Determination

Appendix 4.9.3          Helipads in the vicinity of PDA

Appendix 4.9.4          Helicopter Noise Contour

           

 

4                          NOISE IMPACT

4.1                     Introduction

4.1.1                 This section presents an assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project.  The noise impact assessment is conducted in accordance with the requirements of Annex 5 and Annex 13 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) as well as the technical requirements given in Appendix C of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-318/2019).

4.2                     Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

4.2.1                 The relevant legislation and associated guidance applicable to the present study for the assessment of noise impacts include:

·       Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) (Cap.400);

·       Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499);

·       Technical Memorandum (TM) on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TW);

·       TM on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM);

·       TM for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM); and

·       Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM).

Construction Noise

Construction Airborne Noise during Non-restricted Hours

4.2.2                 To ensure a better environment, the EIAO-TM promulgated under the EIAO has imposed more stringent criteria.  For construction, there is no statutory limit on daytime construction noise under the NCO and related TMs.  Nevertheless, Table 1B in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM stipulates noise standards of 65 – 75 dB(A) for daytime construction activities, as shown in Table 4.2.1.

 

Table 4.2.1  Noise Criteria for Daytime Construction Activities

Use	Noise Criteria [1], Leq (30 mins) dB(A) 0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday
All domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation	75
Hotels and hostels	75
Educational institutions including kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required	70 65 (During examinations)

Note:

[1] The above standards apply to uses that rely on opened windows for ventilation.

 

4.2.3                 All the proposed construction works are expected to be carried out during non-restricted hours.  In case of any construction activities during restricted hours and/or percussive piling is found required, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to ensure compliance with the NCO and the relevant TMs. The Contractor will be required to submit a construction noise permit (CNP) application to the Noise Control Authority and abide by any conditions stated in the CNP, should one be issued. It should be noted that description made in this report does not guarantee that a CNP will be granted for the project construction.  The Noise Control Authority would take into account the contemporary conditions of adjoining land uses and other considerations when processing the CNP application based on the NCO and relevant TM issued under the NCO. The findings in the report shall not bind the Noise Control Authority in making the decision.

Operational Noise

Road Traffic Noise

4.2.4                 Table 1A in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM provides the assessment criteria for road traffic noise impact at NSRs which rely on the opened windows for ventilation.  The relevant criteria are shown in Table 4.2.2 below.

Table 4.2.2  Noise Standards for Road Traffic Noise

Common Uses	Road Traffic Noise, L10 (1 hour), dB(A)
All domestic premises including temporary housing accommodation	70
Hotels and hostels	70
Offices	70
Educational institutions including kindergartens, child care centers and all others where unaided voice communication is required	65
Places of public worship and courts of law	65
Hospitals, clinics, convalescences and residential care homes for the elderly ·       diagnostic rooms ·       wards	55

Note:

[1] The above criteria apply to noise sensitive uses which rely on open window for ventilation and should be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1m from the external facades.

 

Fixed Noise Source

4.2.5                 Table 1A in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM and the Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM) stipulate the appropriate Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) for fixed noise sources.  The ANLs as shown in Table 4.2.3 are dependent on the Area Sensitivity Ratings (ASRs) of the NSRs, as defined in accordance with the IND-TM.  The EIAO-TM requires that the planned fixed noise sources shall comply with 5 dB(A) below the ANLs shown in Table 4.2.3 or the prevailing background noise levels, whichever lower.

Table 4.2.3  Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs)

Time Period	Acceptable Noise Levels
	ASR A	ASR B	ASR C
Day (0700 to 1900 hours)	60	65	70
Evening (1900 to 2300 hours)	60	65	70
Night (2300 to 0700 hours)	50	55	60

 

Aircraft Noise

4.2.6                 The noise criterion for aircraft noise is given in Table 1A in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM. For aircraft noise, NSRs should be planned beyond the NEF25 contour, except for offices which should be beyond the NEF30 contour. Similar to the road traffic noise, all these criteria only apply to NSRs relying on opened windows for ventilation.

4.2.7                 Since there is no relevant noise criteria in the EIAO-TM for aircraft noise impact associated with Shek Kong Airfield, reference has been made to the criteria for Chek Lap Kok Airport. Noise sensitive uses including all domestic premises should beyond the NEF25 contour for assessing the impact from Shek Kong Airfield.

Helicopter Noise

4.2.8                 Table 1A in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM stipulate the noise standards for helicopter noise between 0700 – 1900, NSRs should be planned beyond having the noise impacts less than L_max 85dB(A), except for offices which should be exposed to noise impacts not exceeding L_max 90dB(A). Similar to the road traffic noise, all these criteria only apply to NSRs relying on opened windows for ventilation.

4.2.9                 Since there is no relevant noise criteria in the EIAO-TM for both evening and night-time periods, reference has been made to the approved EIA report for A Rooftop Helipad at the Proposed New Block of Queen Mary Hospital (AEIAR-208/2017).  According to their findings, there is no statutory noise criterion for emergency services (including air ambulance, search & rescue (SAR), supporting law enforcement agencies, firefighting) during evening and night-time periods.  The emergency services are generally exempted from the flight restrictions. 

4.3                     Baseline Conditions

Existing Environment

4.3.1                 The Project area covering 32 hectares of land of the Fanling Golf Course is located to the east of Fan Kam Road. The Project Site comprises the Potential Development Area (PDA) and works area proposed for the associated infrastructure (i.e. road improvement works and utility works). The proposed residential development is located in Sub-Area 1 (north of the site). It is bounded by Fan Kam Road to the east, Po Kin Road and North District Hospital to the north, and low-rise/ village type development. Background noise in the vicinity is typical of rural environment. The existing noise climate is dominated by major fixed plant noise sources such as mechanical ventilation system at the North District Hospital and road traffic noise from Fan Kam Road and Po Kin Road. Based on desktop review, the PDA is near the departure flight path to be in use under the Three-Runway System (3RS) operation but located over 15km outside the Noise Exposure Forecast 25 (NEF 25) Contour. Details are provided in Appendix 4.3.1.

 

Prevailing Background Noise Levels

4.3.2                 Since the prevailing background noise level may vary with weekday/weekend, background noise measurement has been conducted during weekday and weekend. Two 24-hr prevailing noise levels have been measured near the existing NSRs in the vicinity of the PDA on 18 Dec 2020 and 19 Dec 2020. The measurement results are considered representative. Figure 4.7.2 shows the locations of the prevailing noise measurement.  A summary of the prevailing noise measurement results in given in Table 4.3.1.

4.3.3                 The background noise of BG1 is mainly contributed by the activities from the village while the background noise of BG2 is mainly contributed by activities from the high-rise residential development and schools. Given Sub-Area 1 of the PDA would comprise of high-rise residential development and schools, whereas the existing environment is a golf course site, the prevailing background noise level obtained at BG2 is considered representative of the future prevailing background noise level at Sub-Area 1.

Table 4.3.1  Summary of Prevailing Noise Measurement Results

ID	Location Description	Measurement Results L90(1 hour), dB(A) [1]
		Day time: 0700 to 1900 hours	Evening: 1900 to 2300 hours	Night: 2300 to 0700 hours
BG1	Inside Ping Kong Village	44	44	42
BG2	Near Ching Cheung House	51	50	41

Notes:

[1] The noise measurement descriptor is A-weighted sound pressure level exceeded for 90% of the time (L₉₀) measured using Type 1 sound level meter.  The hour within the daytime/evening period and night-time period with the lowest noise levels were taken to represent the prevailing noise levels.  Measurements were taken free-field.

[2] +3 dB(A) façade correction is included

 

4.4                     Noise Sensitive Receivers

4.4.1                 With reference to Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM, Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) shall include residential uses (all domestic premises including temporary housing), institutional uses (educational institutions including kindergarten and nurseries), hospitals, medical clinics, homes for the aged, convalescent homes, places of public worship, libraries, court of law, performing arts centres, auditoria and amphitheatres, country park and others.

4.4.2                 The assessment area for noise impact is generally defined by a distance of 300m from the boundary of the Project Area and the works of the Project. Representative NSRs within a distance of 300m from the Project Site have been identified with the first layer of NSRs selected as representative NSRs for assessment.  These NSRs include the existing, committed and planned developments during both construction and operation phases.

4.4.3                 Representative existing, planned and committed NSRs within the assessment area have been identified based on the topographic maps supplemented by site surveys, Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), other published plans in the vicinity of the Project site. The tentative layout of the proposed Public Housing Development confirmed by the Housing Authority (HKHA) have been used to identify the planned sensitive receivers within the PDA. 

4.4.4                 All existing, committed and planned noise uses are identified based on the below latest Outline Zoning Plans. 

·       Fanling / Sheung Shui OZP No. S/FSS/25

·       Ping Kong OZP No. S/NE-PK/11

·       Kwu Tung South OZP No. S/NE-KTS/18

4.4.5                 The overall relevant NSRs are summarised in Table 4.4.1 and their locations are shown in Figures 4.4.1a to 4.4.1d.  Photos of these representative NSRs are provided in Appendix 4.4.1.  Representative NSRs and assessment points for construction and operational noise impact assessment are presented in relevant sections.

Table 4.4.1 Overall Noise Sensitive Receivers

 

NSR ID [1]	Location/ Description	Existing/ Planned	Uses [2]	No. of Storeys (Sensitive Use Only)
Existing/ Planned NSRs (outside PDA boundary)
E01	Cheung Lung Wai Estate	Existing	R	32-36
E02	Little Sisters of the Poor Saint Joseph's Home for the Aged	Existing	HE	5
E03	Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Ma Kam Chan Memorial Primary School	Existing	E	7
E04	HKCKLA Buddhist Wisdom Primary School	Existing	E	7
E05	Tsang Mui Millennium School	Existing	E	7
E06	Elegantia College	Existing	E	7
E07	Ching Ho Estate	Existing	R	40
E08	Ming Tak Court	Existing	R	3
E09	Village Houses near Palmera Villa	Existing	R	3
E10	Palmera Villa	Existing	R	3
E11	Yat Tung Villa	Existing	R	3
E12	Village Houses near Yat Tung Villa	Existing	R	3
E13	Windsor Mansions	Existing	R	3
E14	Savanna Park	Existing	R	3
E15	Fu Hei Garden	Existing	R	3
E16	Lok King Garden	Existing	R	3
E17	King Lam Garden	Existing	R	3
E18	Village Houses near King Lam Garden	Existing	R	3
E19	Village Houses at Ping Kong Road	Existing	R	3-4
E20	On Po Village	Existing	R	3
E23	Village Houses south of FGC	Existing	R	3
E24	Village Houses south of FGC	Existing	R	3
E25	Village Houses south of FGC	Existing	R	3
E26	Ebenezer Christian Church	Existing	W	2
E27	North District Hospital [3]	Existing	H	6
E28	Choi Po Court	Existing	R	31-35
E29	Choi Yuen Estate	Existing	R	25-28
E30	Yuk Po Court	Existing	R	20
E31	Tai Tau Leng Village	Existing	R	3
E32	Po Shek Wu Estate	Existing	R	24-32
E33	Metropolis Plaza	Existing	R	24-25
E34	Po Sheung Tsuen	Existing	R	3
E36	Hing Yan Tsuen	Existing	R	3
E37	Tai Yuen Tsuen	Existing	R	3
E38	Shek Wu Hui	Existing	R	4-7
E39	Fung Kai Liu Man Shek Tong Secondary School	Existing	E	7
E40	Tsui Lai Garden	Existing	R	30
E41	Construction Industry Council Training Academy Sheung Shui Training Centre	Existing	E	7
E42	Sheung Shui Church Kindergarten	Existing	E	5
E43	Fung Kai Kindergarten	Existing	E	2
E44	Fung Kai Primary School	Existing	E	3
E45	Royal Green	Existing	R	37-40
E46	Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong Mother of Christ Church	Existing	W	2
E47	Village Houses at the east of Savanna Park	Existing	R	1-2
E48	Fung Kai Care and Attention Home for the Elderly	Existing	HE	7
E49	Buddhist Li Chong Yuet Ming Nursing Home	Existing	HE	7
E50	Tai Ping Estate	Existing	R	26
E51	Community Health Centre cum Social Welfare Facilities at Pak Wo Road, North District	Planned	G/IC	10
E52	Venice Garden	Existing	R	18
E53	Ng Uk Tsuen	Existing	R	3
E54	Glorious Peak	Existing	R	37
E55	8 Royal Green	Existing	R	37
E56	Sheung Shui Government Secondary School	Existing	E	7
E57	Sheung Shui Police Married Quarters	Existing	R	18
E58	Sheung Shui Disciplined Service Quarters	Existing	R	18
E59	Buddhist Chan Shi Wan Primary School	Existing	E	7
E60	Hong Kong Taoist Association Tang Hin Memorial Secondary School	Existing	E	6
E61	Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Kap Yan Directors’ College	Existing	E	7
E62	Yuk Po Court	Existing	R	20
P1	Private Housing Development at Lot 4076 in D.D.91	Planned	R	N/A
P2	North District Hospital Extension [4]	Planned	H	6
P3	Potential Housing Development at Ching Hiu Road	Planned	R	N/A
P4	Private Housing Development at Lot 1909 in D.D.100	Planned	R	3
P5	Fanling Area 36 Phase 4 (Ching Ho Extension)	Planned	R	N/A
P6	Potential Housing Development at Tai Tau Leng	Planned	R	N/A
Planned NSRs (within PDA boundary)
B01	Block 1, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	38
B02	Block 2, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	37
B03	Block 3, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	37
B04	Block 4, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	37
B05	Block 5, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	37
B06	Block 6, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	41
B07	Block 7, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	36
B08	Block 8, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	43
B09	Block 9, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	39
B10	Block 10, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	39
B11	Block 11, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	39
B12	Block 12, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	39
SWA	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	Planned	G/IC	7
SWB	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building at Ground Level of Carpark Block	Planned	G/IC	1
EDU	Proposed School	Planned	E	7

Notes:
[1] The noise assessments will only include NSRs which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

[2] R – Residential Premises; E – Educational Institution; W – Place of Public Worship; HE – Homes for the elderly; G/IC – Social Welfare Facility Building.

[3] North District Hospital is provided with central air-conditioning system and well-gasketted windows and do not rely on opened window for ventilation. It is therefore not considered in the noise assessment.

[4] As advised by Hospital Authority (see Appendix 4.4.2), North District Hospital Extension is an acute hospital which includes accident & emergency service, radiology, pharmacy, ambulatory care services, wards, mortuary, etc. There will not be any staff quarters. The building will be equipped with fixed glazing and centralized air-conditioning system. It does not rely on openable windows for ventilation.  It is therefore not considered in the noise assessment.

N/A denotes relevant information is not available.

 

4.4.6                 The kindergarten proposed at Podium Garden Block would be provided with mechanical ventilation such that it would not rely on openable window for ventilation.

4.4.7                 The passive recreational and ancillary facilities would be provided in Sub-Areas 2 to 3 and no works would be carried in Sub-Area 4. However, the proposed building at Sub-Area 2 (south of block 10) will be designed with mechanical ventilation such that it will not rely on opened window for ventilation.  

4.4.8                 In order to evaluate the construction and operation noise impacts from the Project, all existing/committed/planned NSRs located within the assessment area are identified for assessment. Noise Assessment Points (NAPs) to represent the identified NSRs are selected for carrying out construction and operation impact assessment and presented in following sections.

 

4.5                     Construction Noise Impact Assessment

4.5.1                 Identification of Construction Noise Impact

Identification of Noise Sensitive Receivers

4.5.1.1            The assessment area for construction noise impact is 300m from the PDA boundary.  The first layer of NSRs located close to the construction activities have been selected from Table 4.4.1. Noise assessment points (NAPs) closest to the construction activities have been assigned for construction noise impact assessment and summarised in Table 4.5.1. Locations are shown in Figure 4.5.1a to Figure 4.5.1d.

Table 4.5.1  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Construction Noise Impact Assessment

NSR ID	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Noise Criteria Leq 30-min, dB(A)	Uses [1]	No. of Storeys (Sensitive Use Only)
E01	E01_CN01	Cheung Lung Wai Estate	75	R	32
	E01_CN02		75	R	32
	E01_CN03		75	R	32
	E01_CN04		75	R	32
	E01_CN05		75	R	32
	E01_CN06		75	R	36
	E01_CN07		75	R	36
E02	E02_CN02	Little Sisters of the Poor Saint Joseph's Home for the Aged	75	HE [3]	5
	E02_CN03		75	HE [3]	5
E03	E03_CN01	Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Ma Kam Chan Memorial Primary School	70 Exam: 65	E	7
	E03_CN02		70 Exam: 65	E	7
E04	E04_CN01	HKCKLA Buddhist Wisdom Primary School	70 Exam: 65	E	7
	E04_CN02		70 Exam: 65	E	7
E06	E06_CN01	Elegantia College	70 Exam: 65	E	7
	E06_CN02		70 Exam: 65	E	7
E07	E07_CN01	Ching Ho Estate	75	R	40
	E07_CN02		75	R	40
E08	E08_CN01	Ming Tak Court	75	R	3
	E08_CN02		75	R	3
E09	E09_CN01	Village Houses near Palmera Villa	75	R	3
	E09_CN02		75	R	3
	E09_CN03		75	R	3
	E09_CN04		75	R	3
	E09_CN05		75	R	3
E10	E10_CN01	Palmera Villa	75	R	3
E14	E14_CN01	Savanna Park	75	R	3
	E14_CN02		75	R	3
E20	E20_CN01	On Po Village	75	R	3
	E20_CN02		75	R	3
	E20_CN03		75	R	3
	E20_CN04		75	R	3
	E20_CN05		75	R	3
	E20_CN06		75	R	3
E23	E23_CN01	Village Houses south of FGC	75	R	3
E28	E28_CN01	Choi Po Court	75	R	31
	E28_CN02		75	R	31
	E28_CN03		75	R	35
	E28_CN04		75	R	35
	E28_CN05		75	R	33
	E28_CN06		75	R	33
E29	E29_CN01	Choi Yuen Estate	75	R	18
	E29_CN02		75	R	18
	E29_CN03		75	R	18
	E29_CN04		75	R	28
	E29_CN05		75	R	25
	E29_CN06		75	R	25
E31	E31_CN01	Tai Tau Leng Village	75	R	3
	E31_CN02		75	R	3
	E31_CN04		75	R	3
	E31_CN05		75	R	3
E32	E32_CN01	Po Shek Wu Estate	75	R	24
	E32_CN02		75	R	28
	E32_CN03		75	R	32
E34	E34_CN01	Po Sheung Tsuen	75	R	3
	E34_CN02		75	R	3
	E34_CN03		75	R	3
E36	E36_CN01	Hing Yan Tsuen	75	R	3
E38	E38_CN01	Shek Wu Hui	75	R	4
	E38_CN02		75	R	4
	E38_CN03		75	R	7
	E38_CN04		75	R	3
E39	E39_CN01	Fung Kai Liu Man Shek Tong Secondary School	70 Exam: 65	E	7
E40	E40_CN01	Tsui Lai Garden	75	R	30
	E40_CN02		75	R	30
E46	E46_CN01	Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong Mother of Christ Church	75	W [3]	3
E47	E47_CN01	Village Houses at the east of Savanna Park	75	R	3
E50	E50_CN01	Tai Ping Estate Kindergarten	70	E	1
	E50_CN02	Tai Ping Estate Ping Yee House	75	R	26
E52	E52_CN01	Venice Garden	75	R	18
E53	E53_CN01	Ng Uk Tsuen	75	R	3

Notes:
[1] R – Residential Premises; E – Educational Institution;

[2] 70 dB(A) during 0700 to 1900 hours on any school day not being Sunday or general holiday; 65 dB(A) during examinations.

[3] W – Place of Public Worship; HE – Homes for the elderly; Noise standards for daytime construction activities for these uses are not specified in EIAO-TM. Considered the nature of these uses is similar to residential premises, Leq (30mins) 75dB(A) is adopted as noise criteria in the assessment.

 

Noise Sources during Construction Phase

4.5.1.2            Potential construction noise impacts would arise from the use of powered mechanical equipment (PME) during the construction works of the Project.  The key activities during construction phase are typical to other land-based housing development projects, which include site clearance, site formation, piling works, pipeworks, utility works and road improvement works.  Based on the current construction design, percussive piling and blasting are not required.

4.5.1.3            Based on the current design, there is no planned vehicular/ railway tunnel for the development. No rock breaking/drilling works is envisaged during the construction phase of the Project. Trenchless method would be adopted at some critical locations of pipe laying works. The pipe jacking system, mini Tunnel Bored Machine and grout pump will be located at the bottom of pit, the airborne noise impact associated with these PMEs would be insignificant. Mini Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) adopted for proposed pipe jacking works is of approximately 1.5m diameters. Considered the small-scale of pipe jacking works and the size of mini TBM, the groundborne noise impact associated with the mini TBM is anticipated to be insignificant. Therefore, groundborne noise impact is not anticipated during the construction phase.

4.5.1.4            The construction of the Project would be carried out concurrently with the following project that may induce cumulative environment impacts:

·       Reclaimed Water Supply to Sheung Shui and Fanling – Investigation, Design and Construction (Proposed Pumping and Distribution Mains Works near Po Shek Wu Road)

·       North District Hospital Extension

·       Improvement of Po Shek Wu Interchange Improvement under NENT NDA development (including Po Shek Wu Road Flyover)

·       Improvement to So Kwun Po Interchange

·       Engineering Feasibility Studies for Site Formation and Infrastructural Works for Housing Developments in North District – Tai Tau Leng Site and Ching Hiu Road Site.

Reclaimed Water Supply to Sheung Shui and Fanling – Investigation, Design and Construction

4.5.1.5            According to the approved Preliminary Environmental Review (PER) Report of the Reclaimed Water Supply to Sheung Shui and Fanling – Investigation, Design and Construction, the works for pumping main were scheduled to commence in 2020 for completion in 2022, whereas the flushing water distribution mains was scheduled to commence in 2020 for completion in phases by 2025. Based on its works area, this concurrent project will have cumulative impact with works of flushing water mains laying and sewer laying.

North District Hospital Extension

4.5.1.6            North District Hospital Extension is an acute hospital which includes accident & emergency service, radiology, pharmacy, ambulatory care services, wards, mortuary, etc. There will not be any staff quarters. The building will be equipped with fixed glazing and centralized air-conditioning system. It does not rely on operable windows for ventilation. As advised by Hospital Authority (see Appendix 4.4.2), this project is still at the early design stage, construction details are yet to be finalized or available. 

Improvement of Po Shek Wu Interchange Improvement under NENT NDA development

4.5.1.7            Po Shek Wu Interchange is currently exceeding its junction capacity.  In order to cater for the traffic flow from the FLN NDA, improvement work, including realignment of Po Shek Wu Road and the construction of an elevated southbound right-turning slip road to bypass the interchange, is proposed.  According to approved EIA, the targeted commencement date for construction works would be in 2025 and targeted completion of construction works by 2029. As checked with CEDD, the relevant information (e.g. plant inventory) in the approved NENT NDA EIA are the latest available information for cumulative assessment at this time of study.

 Improvement to So Kwun Po Interchange

4.5.1.8            Improvement of So Kwun Po Interchange is to construct a new carriageway linking San Wan Road and Pak Wo Road directly. This project is a statutory EIA.  According to the Project Profile of this project, the Investigation, Design and Construction (IDC) study including EIA will commence in mid-2021. The targeted commencement date for construction works would be in 2025 and targeted completion of construction works by 2030. As advised by CEDD, there is currently no proposed plant inventory available during the preparation of FGC EIA study.

Engineering Feasibility Studies for Site Formation and Infrastructural Works for Housing Developments in North District – Tai Tau Leng Site and Ching Hiu Road Site

4.5.1.9            The Government continues to optimise the use of potential areas to meet the community’s pressing demand for housing. During the preparation of the EIA Study, detailed information of these feasibility studies is not available.

4.5.1.10         Construction worksites are shown in Figure 4.5.1 and tentative construction programme is presented in Appendix 4.5.1. The works area of the concurrent project can be referred to Appendix 4.5.1.

 

4.5.2                 Assessment Methodology

4.5.2.1            The assessment of construction noise impacts arising from works other than percussive piling were based on standard acoustic principles and guidelines given in the GW-TM issued under the NCO where appropriate.  The sound power levels (SWLs) of the PME were referenced to those listed in Table 3 of GW-TM.  Where SWL was not available in the GW-TM, reference has been made to the following sources of information in descending order of preference.

·       Typically available Quality Powered Mechanical Equipment (“QPME”) with valid QPME Labels maintained and listed in EPD’s website

·       Other commonly used PME in EPD’s website

·       Other EIA reports or measurements taken in other relevant studies.

4.5.2.2            The approach adopted is considered by Project Engineer to be practicable and summarised as follows:

(i)             Devise a typical and realistic construction programme as shown in Appendix 4.5.1;

(ii)           Prepare an assumed project-specific equipment inventory, including equipment type, number and utilization rates during any 30 minutes working period within the non-restricted hours without mitigation,  is confirmed by Project Engineer to be appropriate and practicable for completing the works within the proposed construction programme, as appended in Appendix 4.5.2;

(iii)         Obtain from GW-TM or other sources mentioned above, the SWL of each PME assumed in the equipment inventory;

(iv)          Select representative NSRs for the construction noise impact assessment as shown in Figure 4.5.1a to Figure 4.5.1d;

(v)           Calculate the unmitigated Predicted Noise Level (PNL) based on assumed work Sub-Areas, notional source positions, together with correction for distance attenuation, in-situ/ inherent screening due to architectural features or existing buildings;

(vi)          Calculate the unmitigated overall Corrected Noise Level (CNL) at any NSRs for each month over the entire construction period;

(vii)        In the event of noise exceedance, devise necessary mitigation measures including use of typical quiet equipment (e.g. QPME registered by EPD) and/or use of adequate screening by noise barrier/ enclosure as earmarked in the mitigated plant inventory and calculate the mitigated noise impact; and

(viii)      Compare the mitigated overall CNL with the noise standards given in  Table 4.2.1 to determine the need for further mitigation.

4.5.2.3            Noise impact levels due to individual noise sources have been predicted at each NSR after the corrections for distance attenuation and screening effects as the PNL.

PNL_i = SWL_i + C_dist + C_barrier

4.5.2.4            For any construction activities that will be carried out concurrently, the relevant individual PNLs are then summed logarithmically with correction for façade reflection for the overall impacts (“CNL”) at each individual NSR:

CNL = ∑PNL_i + C_facade

where

·       PNLi = Predicted noise level arising from various individual source after corrections for distance attenuation and screening

·       SWLi = Sound power level of individual construction noise sources

·       C dist = Correction for distance attenuation

·       C barrier ­­= Correction [-5 to -10 dB(A)] for barrier effects due to in-situ screening by obstacles, architectural features or purpose-built noise barrier

·       C façade = Correction [+3 dB(A)] for façade reflection at NSR

·       CNL = Corrected overall noise level being logarithmic sum of individual PNLs occurring at the same time together with correction for façade at the NSR

4.5.2.5            To assess the cumulative impact from concurrent project, the maximum SWL of their construction activities was taken from the approved PER Report of Reclaimed Water Supply to Sheung Shui and Fanling – Investigation, Design and Construction and approved EIA report of North East New Territories New Development Areas.

 

4.5.3                 Prediction and Evaluation of Construction Noise Impacts (Unmitigated Scenario)

4.5.3.1            The predicted unmitigated construction noise levels at representative NSRs were predicted and summarised in Table 4.5.2 with detailed results presented in Appendix 4.5.3.  There would be exceedances predicted at the majority of NSRs.  Mitigation measures are therefore required.

Table 4.5.2  Predicted Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at NSRs

Notes:
[1] R – Residential Premises; E – Educational Institution; W – Place of Public Worship; HE – Homes for the elderly;

[2] 70 dB(A) during 0700 to 1900 hours on and school day not being Sunday or general holiday; 65 dB(A) during examinations.

[3] Bolded value represents the exceedance of their respective noise criteria.

 

 

4.5.3.2            The total number of dwellings, classrooms and other NSRs that would be exposed to noise exceeding the relevant criteria are presented in Table 4.5.3 below.

Table 4.5.3  Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs with Noise Exceedances in Unmitigated Scenario

Note:

[1] For high-rise building, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 2 dwellings per floor. While for village house, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 1 dwelling per floor;

[2]  1 NAP is assumed to represent 3 classrooms per floor; and 

[3]  Other uses refer to Homes for the elderly and Place of Public Worship. 1NAP is assumed to represent 2 habitat rooms per floor.

 

 

4.5.4                 Mitigation Measures

4.5.4.1            The predicted noise levels show that the unmitigated construction noise impacts would exceed the daytime noise criteria.  Mitigation measures are therefore required. The recommended mitigation measures are confirmed by Project Engineers to be feasible and practicable. The following mitigation measures have been considered:

·       Adoption of quieter construction method;

·       Use of quality PMEs (QPMEs) with lower SWL;

·       Use of movable noise barriers, noise insulating fabric and noise enclosures to screen noise from relatively static PMEs; and

·       Good site practices to limit noise emissions at source

Adoption of Quieter Construction Method

4.5.4.2            Instead of traditional construction method as presented under the unmitigated scenario, a quieter construction method is recommended for site clearance works. Non-Explosive Chemical Expansion Agent (Soundless Chemical Demolition Agent) is proposed to be adopted to replace the use of breakers. Unlike explosive chemicals or expansive compounds, Soundless Chemical Demolition Agents do not produce vibrations, and hence, they are completely quiet and safe to use. When the chemical agent is properly used, it does not cause significant noise, ground vibration, fly rock, gas, dust or any other environmental pollution. This soundless chemical demolition agent is used for concrete demolition or rock breaking and much quieter than traditional breakers. According to the information provided by EPD, the sound pressure level (SPL) of the operation of the Soundless Chemical Demolition Agent ranges from 60 to 65 dB(A) at 7m from equipment, i.e. the sound power level (SWL) of the operation is 85 to 90dB(A). 90dB(A) has been adopted in this assessment as the conservative approach.  This method is considered by Project Engineer to be feasible in actual situation and practicable in the context of construction programme.

 

4.5.4.3            Silent Piling by Press-in Method is proposed to be adopted to replace traditional massive augering and piling machines for sheet piling work at hard ground condition which would create significant noise and vibration impacts to neighbours. For the Silent Press-in Method, a sheet pile is clipped andpressed underground. Even for harder ground, noise and vibration can also be minimized by pressing-in sheet piles with simultaneous augering, by the Gyropress Method. Construction work can also be completed in shorter duration by using this method so that the noise impact to nearby NSRs can also be further alleviated. According to approved EIA on Shatin to Central Link - Mong Kok East to Hung Hom Section (Register No. AEIAR-165/2012), Giken Piler and Power-pack for silent piling has been proposed and the SWL of 94dB(A) has been adopted in this assessment. This method is considered by Project Engineer to be feasible in actual situation and practicable in the context of construction programme.

 

Use of Quality PMEs

4.5.4.4            Use of QPMEs with lower SWL is recommended to reduce the noise impacts for the Development.  The list of proposed QPMEs and their respective SWLs are presented in Table 4.5.4 below.

Table 4.5.4  Recommended List of QPME and their Sound Power Levels

Regular PME	Description	SWL, dB(A)	QPME on EPD’s website	Description	SWL, dB(A)
CNP 004	Asphalt paver	109	EPD-05557	Asphalt Paver Dynapac, Model: SD2500W	105
CNP 048	Crane, mobile/ barge mounted (diesel)	112	EPD-05797	Crane, mobile Maeda, Model: CC985S-1	91
CNP 030	Bulldozer	115	EPD-07836	Bulldozer, tracked SHANTUI, Model:DH13K	105
CNP 081	Excavator/ loader, wheeled/ tracked	112	EPD-10406	Excavator , wheeled/tracked, YANMAR Model: VIO12-2A	87
CNP 001	Air compressor, air flow <= 10m3/min	100	EPD-10517	Air Compressor, DENYO CO LTD / DENYO, Model: DAS180LB	94
CNP 185	Road roller	108	EPD-10665	Road roller, Kanto, Model: KV40DS	94
CNP 101	Generator, standard	108	EPD-10735	Generator, DENYO Model: DCA-45LSK	87

 

Use of Noise Insulating Fabric

4.5.4.5            Noise insulating fabric can be adopted for certain PME such as piling machine. According to the approved Tsim Sha Tsui Station Northern Subway EIA Report (Register No.: AEIAR127/2008), provided that the noise insulating fabrics are lapped such that there are no openings or gaps on the joints, a noise reduction of 10 dB(A) can be achieved.

 

Use of Movable Barriers and Noise Enclosures

4.5.4.6            Use of movable noise barriers and noise enclosures at the PMEs are recommended.  The barriers will be placed as close to the PME as possible and at a location intercepting the line of sight between the NSRs and PME. They should have a minimum surface density of 10 kg/m² and be moved concurrently with the PME along the worksites.  A cantilevered top cover would be used for noise screening for upper floors of NSRs to achieve screening benefits.  According to the Guidance Note on Preparation of Construction Noise Impact Assessment GN No.9/2010, noise reduction of 5dB(A) and 10dB(A) can be achieved by direct application of the noise barriers to movable and stationary plant, respectively.  Movable noise enclosure made up of plywood is proposed to surround certain static PME. The internal wall of the enclosure should be laid with sound absorbent such as mineral wool. Without direct view of the noisy part of the enclosed PME from NSR, this design can achieve 10dB(A) reduction. The schematic diagrams for typical construction noise barrier and noise enclosure are provided in Appendix 4.5.4. 

 

4.5.4.7            The future contractor will be required through contract specifications to provide and implement sufficient direct mitigation measures with reference to the recommendations in this EIA or the future detailed design to achieve acceptable noise levels on the nearby NSRs.  The future contractor will also be required to prepare a construction noise management plan with reference to Section 8 and Annex 21 of the EIAO-TM as well as this EIA Report and EM&A Manual.  The construction management plan shall identify the inventory of noise sources and assess the effectiveness and practically of all mitigation measures considered during the design and tendering stage to minimize the construction noise impact. The construction management plan should confirm and summarise the mitigation measures to be implemented for the Project, and shall be submitted six months prior to the commencement of construction.

 

Good Site Practices

4.5.4.8            It is also recommended to implement good site practices as far as practicable so as to further reduce the noise impact at NSRs.  Since the effect of the good site practices could not be quantified, the mitigated noise levels calculated in the subsequent sections have not taken into account this effect.  The following good site practices should be followed during the construction of the Development:

·       Only well-maintained plant should be operated on-site and plants should be serviced regularly during the construction period;

·       Mobile plant, if any, should be sited as far from NSRs as possible;

·       Plant known to emit noise strongly in one direction should, wherever possible, be properly orientated so that the noise is directed away from the nearby NSRs;

·       Use of site hoarding as a noise barrier to screen noise at low level NSRs;

·       Machines and plant that may be in intermittent use should be shut down between works periods or should be throttled down to a minimum; and

·       Any material stockpiles and other structures should be effectively utilized, wherever practicable, to screen the noise from on-site construction activities.

 

 

 

4.5.5                 Prediction and Evaluation of Construction Noise Impacts (Mitigated Scenario)

4.5.5.1            The equipment inventory under the mitigated scenario, that is confirmed by Project Engineer to be appropriate and practicable for completing the works within the proposed construction programme, is appended in Appendix 4.5.2. The mitigated construction noise levels at representative NSRs are summarised in Table 4.5.5 below. Detailed results are presented in Appendix 4.5.5.

 

Table 4.5.5  Predicted Mitigated Construction Noise Levels at NSRs

Notes:
[1] R – Residential Premises; E – Educational Institution.

[2] 70 dB(A) during 0700 to 1900 hours on and school day not being Sunday or general holiday; 65 dB(A) during examinations.

[3] Bolded value represents the exceedance of their respective noise criteria.

 

4.5.5.2            With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, it is anticipated that adverse construction noise impact is not expected at the representative NSRs, except during examination period of E03 and E04.   It is recommended that the works area of these critical construction activities shall be restricted within close proximity to these schools during their examination period. 

 

4.5.5.3            Due to more stringent noise criterion of 65 dB(A), it is recommended that the critical noisy construction activity that leads to the exceedance at NSR E03 and E04 during examination period should maintain the minimum separation distance between these critical construction activities and the schools during examination period as provided in Table 4.5.6 , with adoption of feasible mitigation measures such as quiet PME, movable noise barriers and temporary noise barriers, to meet the noise standard of school during the examination period. In addition, the contractor should liaise with schools representative(s) to obtain the examination schedule so as to avoid noisy construction activities during school examination period. Detailed results are presented in Appendix 4.5.6.

 

Table 4.5.6  Recommended Minimum Separation Distance between Schools and Critical Works Area during School Examination Period

NAP	Description	Critical Construction Activities lead to the Exceedance		Minimum Separation between Schools and Critical Works Area during Examination Period, m
E03_CN01 E03_CN02	Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Ma Kam Chan Memorial Primary School	A1	Site Clearance	180 (Worksite A-1-2)   180 (Worksite A-1-4)   180 (Worksite A-1-5)
		A2	Land Decontamination
		A3	Site Formation (including Construction of Retaining Structure & Slopework)
		A4	Infrastructure Works (Pipe Laying & Reinstatement, internal road)
		A5	PTI Structure
		A6	Sub-structure and Superstructure Construction
		D1	Juction improvement at Po Kin Road & Ping Kong Road and Utilities Works	180
		D2	Road Modification of Ping Kong Road and Utilities Works	80
E04_CN01 E04_CN02	HKCKLA Buddhist Wisdom Primary School	A1	Site Clearance	170 (Worksite A-1-2)   170 (Worksite A-1-4)   160 (Worksite A-1-5)
		A2	Land Decontamination
		A3	Site Formation (including Construction of Retaining Structure & Slopework)
		A4	Infrastructure Works (Pipe Laying & Reinstatement, internal road)
		A5	PTI Structure
		A6	Sub-structure and Superstructure Construction
		D2	Road Modification of Ping Kong Road and Utilities Works	70

Evaluation of Residual Construction Noise Impacts

4.5.5.4            With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the predicted construction noise levels at the representative NSRs would comply with the relevant criteria.  Therefore, residual noise impacts are not anticipated.

 

4.6                     Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment

4.6.1                 Identification of Road Traffic Noise Impact

Identification of Noise Sensitive Receivers

4.6.1.1            All levels of the representative NSRs located close to the Project roads from Table 4.4.1 have been selected and presented in Table 4.6.1. Noise assessment points (NAPs) closest to the road sections have been assigned for road traffic noise impact assessment. Locations of the NAPs are shown in Figure 4.6.1.

Table 4.6.1  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Existing/ Planned	Uses [2]	Criteria L10 1hr, dB(A)	No. of Storeys (Noise Sensitive Only)
Representative Existing NSRs Outside PDA
E01	E01_TN01	Ching Cheung House	Existing	R	70	32
E01	E01_TN02	Ching Cheung House	Existing	R	70	32
E01	E01_TN03	Ching Cheung House	Existing	R	70	32
E01	E01_TN04	Ching Cheung House	Existing	R	70	32
E01	E01_TN05	King Cheung House	Existing	R	70	36
E01	E01_TN06	King Cheung House	Existing	R	70	36
E03	E03_TN01	TWGHs Ma Kam Chan Memorial Primary School	Existing	E	65	7
E04	E04_TN01	Buddhist Wisdom Primary School	Existing	E	65	7
Representative Planned NSR Within PDA
B01	B01_TN01	Block 1, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	38
B01	B01_TN02	Block 1, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	38
B01	B01_TN03	Block 1, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	38
B01	B01_TN04	Block 1, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	38
B02	B02_TN01	Block 2, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B02	B02_TN02	Block 2, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B02	B02_TN03	Block 2, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B02	B02_TN04	Block 2, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B03	B03_TN01	Block 3, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B04	B04_TN01	Block 4, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B04	B04_TN02	Block 4, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B05	B05_TN01	Block 5, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B05	B05_TN02	Block 5, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B05	B05_TN03	Block 5, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B05	B05_TN04	Block 5, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	37
B06	B06_TN01	Block 6, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	41
B07	B07_TN01	Block 7, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	36
B07	B07_TN02	Block 7, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	36
B07	B07_TN03	Block 7, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	36
B07	B07_TN04	Block 7, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	36
B08	B08_TN01	Block 8, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	43
B09	B09_TN01	Block 9, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	39
B09	B09_TN02	Block 9, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	39
B10	B10_TN01	Block 10, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	39
B12	B12_TN01	Block 12, Public Housing Development	Planned	R	70	39
SWA	SWA_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	Planned	G/IC	55/65/70 [3]	7
SWA	SWA_TN02	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	Planned	G/IC	55/65/70 [3]	7
SWA	SWA_TN03	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	Planned	G/IC	55/65/70 [3]	7
SWA	SWA_TN04	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	Planned	G/IC	55/65/70 [3]	7
SWB	SWB_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building at Ground Level	Planned	G/IC	55/65/70 [3]	1
EDU	EDU_TN01	Proposed School	Planned	E	65	7
EDU	EDU_TN02	Proposed School	Planned	E	65	7
EDU	EDU_TN03	Proposed School	Planned	E	65	7
EDU	EDU_TN04	Proposed School	Planned	E	65	7

Notes:
[1] The noise assessment will only include NSRs which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

[2] R – Residential Premises, E – Education Institution, G/IC – Social Welfare Facility Building

[3] The type of welfare use cannot be confirmed at this stage and the criteria for different use vary.  According to the EIAO-TM, 55 dB(A) applies to diagnostic rooms and wards in clinics, convalescences and home for the aged, 65 dB(A) applies to educational institutions, including kindergartens and nurseries, while 70 dB(A) applies to dormitories of RCHEs and hostels that rely on openable windows for ventilation.

Design of the Proposed Public Housing Development and Proposed School

4.6.1.2            According to the Traffic Impact Assessment of the Project, the Fan Kam Road would be over capacity with Fanling Golf Course Housing Development. Provision of site run-in and run-out at Fan Kam Road would further worsen traffic condition of Fan Kam Road. As such, provision of site run-in and run-out at Fan Kam Road is considered very unfavourable. Proposed school is therefore located at the northern part of the PDA, which is an optimized location under the consideration of traffic constraint at Fan Kam Road. 

4.6.1.3            Placing proposed school in northern side of the site based on past discussion with both PlanD and Housing Department. Both departments agree that placing proposed school in northern side of Sub-Area 1 could maintain greater flexibility to the Development to Housing Site and less nuisance will be arisen between proposed housing site and school in operation stage.

Traffic Noise Pollution Sources

4.6.1.4            The Project would involve road modification works at Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road, which will potentially affect the representative existing NSRs near Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road. Given that AM peak hour traffic flow would represent a more severe traffic condition than PM peak hour traffic flow, “With Project” scenario and “Without Project” scenario was compared under AM peak hour traffic flow to evaluate the noise impact of the road modification works at Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road on the representative of NSRs outside the PDA. E01, E03 and E04 would be subject to significant noise impact from the Project roads. The results of the comparison are presented in Appendix 4.6.1.

4.6.1.5            Under the comparison between “With Project” scenario and “Without Project” scenario, it is noted that the overall predicted noise level has increased by 1.0 dB(A) or more at existing NAP E01_TN01, E01_TN02, E01_TN03, E01_TN04 and E03_TN01. In accordance with Section 2.2 of EIAO Guidance Note No. 12/2010, the road modification works at Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road under this Project has resulted in significant traffic noise impact on the existing NSRs along Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road. The road sections at Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road with road modification works are therefore considered to be “Project Road” under this Project. The extent of “Project Road” is illustrated in Figure 4.6.2.

4.6.2                 Assessment Methodology

4.6.2.1            Road traffic noise calculation is based on the methods described in the U.K. Department of Transport’s “Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)”. The predicted noise levels at the NSRs include a 2.5dB(A) façade reflection and correction factors of effects due to gradient, distance, view angle, road surface and barriers.

4.6.2.2            The computer programme, Noise Map Enterprise Edition, has been used to model road traffic noise impact from existing and planned road networks. It complies with the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) developed by the UK Department of Transport. The road traffic noise will be presented in terms of noise levels exceeded for 10% of the one-hour period during peak traffic flow [i.e. L_{10 (1hr)} dB(A)].

4.6.2.3            Based on the current tentative implementation programme, the population intake of Sub-Area 1 will be in Year 2029. Thus, the assessment year for road traffic noise is Year 2044 (which is maximum traffic projection within 15 years upon the year of population intake). Traffic forecast in Year 2044 is prepared by strictly adopting the endorsed methodology from Transport Department to ensure the validity of the traffic data. The endorsement from Transport Department on the methodology of traffic forecast is documented in Appendix 4.6.2.

4.6.2.4            Details of traffic forecast in Year 2044 for “With Project” scenario and “Without Project” scenario is given in Appendix 4.6.2. Given that AM peak hour traffic flow would represent a more severe traffic condition than PM peak hour traffic flow, AM peak hour traffic flow would be adopted in the following assessments under the consideration of worst-case scenario. The computer plots of road traffic noise model under “Without Project” and “With Project” Scenario are included in Appendix 4.6.2.

4.6.2.5            The road networks are classified into the following categories for the purpose of the road traffic noise impact assessment, as shown in Figure 4.6.2:

·       Project road – Road modification works at Po Kin Road and Ping Kong Road; and

·       Other road – The existing public roads and planned public roads (committed under other projects) within 300m of the assessment area. Fanling Highway, Fanling Highway Slip Road, Tai Tau Leng Roundabout, Proposed Po Shek Wu Road Flyover, Po Shek Wu Road and Castle Peak Road – Kwu Tung are existing and planned roads with significant traffic volume outside the 300m assessment area which may impose significant noise impact on the planned NSRs within the PDA. As such, they were also included in the road traffic noise assessment. The existing road noise mitigation measures such as vertical noise barriers, single-leave cantilever noise barriers and double-leave cantilever noise barriers on Fanling Highway were adopted in this assessment. The location of the existing road noise mitigation measures is shown in Figure 4.6.2.

4.6.2.6            Under this assessment, low noise road surfacing (LNRS) is adopted for roads with a speed greater than 70 km/hr, which is referenced from HyD’s Guidance Notes RD/GN/10A which recommends friction course road surfacing (Low Noise Material) to be provided for roads with a legal speed limit greater than 70 km/h. As such, existing Fanling Highways and Fanling Highway Slip Road are applied with LNRS in the road traffic noise model. Similar approach is also found in the approved EIA (Agreement No. CE 61/2007 (CE)) “North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation”.

4.6.2.7            According to EIAO Guidance Note No. 12/2010, where the predicted noise impacts exceed the noise criteria, direct mitigation measures shall be considered to reduce the noise from the Project road to a level that it:

·       is not higher than the standard; and

·       has no significant contribution to the overall noise from other existing roads (i.e. less than 1.0 dB(A)), if the cumulative noise level (i.e. noise from the Project road together with other roads) exceeds the standard.

4.6.2.8            Upon exhausting all direct mitigation measures, additional mitigation measures in the form of window insulation and air-conditioning may be provided to address the noise impact.  To be eligible for indirect mitigation measures, all the following criteria must be fulfilled:

·       The predicted overall noise level from the Project roads together with other traffic noise in the vicinity is above the specified noise level (e.g. 70 dB(A) for domestic premises and 65 dB(A) for educational institutions, all in L10(1hr))

·       The predicted overall noise level is at least 1.0 dB(A) more than the prevailing traffic noise level, i.e. the total traffic noise level existing before the works to construct the road were commenced; and

·       The contribution to the increase in the predicted overall noise level from the Project roads must be at least 1.0 dB(A)

4.6.2.9            The concurrent projects which have been considered in the assessment.

·       CEDD’s Improvement of Tai Tau Leng Roundabout and Fanling Highway (Kwu Tung Section) under NENT NDA project; (Section 4.5.1.8)

·       CEDD’s Improvement to So Kwun Po Interchange (Section 4.5.1.9)

·       J/O improvement at J/O of Fan Kam Rd/Po Kin Rd by others. Progress not available in this moment.

4.6.3                 Prediction and Evaluation of Road Traffic Noise Impacts (Unmitigated Scenario)

Unmitigated Scenario – NSRs (Outside PDA) affected by Project Roads

4.6.3.1            The predicted road traffic noise levels at each representative existing NSRs outside the PDA under unmitigated scenario in AM hour are presented in Appendix 4.6.3. The predicted traffic noise levels for AM peak hour for representative existing NSRs outside the PDA are summarised in Table 4.6.2  . There would be exceedances at E01 (near Po Kin Road and Ping Kong Road) and E03 (near Ping Kong Road). Besides the exceedances of overall noise levels, there would be significant contribution from the project road, Therefore, direct mitigation measures would be proposed at the Po Kin Road and Ping Kong Road.

Table 4.6.2  Predicted Unmitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Existing NSRs (Outside the PDA) Affected by Project Roads

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Criteria L10 1hr, dB(A)	Predicted Noise Level L10 1hr, dB(A)			Project Road Contribution, dB(A)	Mitigation Measure Required [Y/N]
				Project Road	Other Road	Overall
E01	E01_TN01	Ching Cheung House	70	61 – 64	66 – 71	67 – 72	0.7 – 1.2	Y
E01	E01_TN02	Ching Cheung House	70	63 – 68	67 – 70	68 – 72	1.5 – 2.0	Y
E01	E01_TN03	Ching Cheung House	70	66 – 72	59 – 61	67 – 72	7.1 – 12.3	Y
E01	E01_TN04	Ching Cheung House	70	66 – 72	61 – 62	67 – 73	5.7 – 10.9	Y
E01	E01_TN05	King Cheung House	70	62 – 65	37 – 41	62 – 65	21.5 – 27.1	N
E01	E01_TN06	King Cheung House	70	64 – 66	49 – 55	64 – 66	9.1 – 15.6	N
E03	E03_TN01	TWGHs Ma Kam Chan Memorial Primary School	65	64 – 65	59	65 – 66	6.1 – 6.9	Y
E04	E04_TN01	Buddhist Wisdom Primary School	65	63 – 64	56	64 – 65	7.8 – 8.7	N

Note:

[1] The assessment includes NSRs relying on openable window for ventilation only.

[2] Bolded value represents the exceedance of their respective noise criteria.

Unmitigated Scenario – NSRs (Within PDA)

4.6.3.2            The predicted road traffic noise levels at the representative planned NSRs within the PDA under unmitigated scenario in AM peak hour are presented in Appendix 4.6.3. The predicted traffic noise levels for AM peak hour for planned NSRs within the PDA are summarised in Table 4.6.3  . There will be noise exceedances at planned NSRs along Fan Kam Road (i.e. B02, B05 and B07), junction of Ping Kong Road and Po Kin Road (i.e. EDU). Noise mitigation measures will be proposed such that the predicted noise levels at these NSRs would comply with their respective noise criteria.

 

Table 4.6.3  Predicted Unmitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Planned NSRs (Within the PDA)

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Criteria L10 1hr, dB(A)	Predicted Overall Noise Level, dB(A)	Mitigation Measure Required [Y/N]
B01	B01_TN01	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	64 – 66	N
B01	B01_TN02	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 66	N
B01	B01_TN03	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 69	N
B01	B01_TN04	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	67 – 70	Y
B02	B02_TN01	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 67	N
B02	B02_TN02	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B02	B02_TN03	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B02	B02_TN04	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	65 – 69	N
B03	B03_TN01	Block 3, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 65	N
B04	B04_TN01	Block 4, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70	N
B04	B04_TN02	Block 4, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 69	N
B05	B05_TN01	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 67	N
B05	B05_TN02	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B05	B05_TN03	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B05	B05_TN04	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 66	N
B06	B06_TN01	Block 6, Public Housing Development	70	57 – 59	N
B07	B07_TN01	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 68	N
B07	B07_TN02	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 72	Y
B07	B07_TN03	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B07	B07_TN04	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 68	N
B08	B08_TN01	Block 8, Public Housing Development	70	55 – 56	N
B09	B09_TN01	Block 9, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 62	N
B09	B09_TN02	Block 9, Public Housing Development	70	60 – 63	N
B10	B10_TN01	Block 10, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 64	N
B12	B12_TN01	Block 12, Public Housing Development	70	59 – 62	N
SWA	SWA_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	57 – 68	- [4]
SWA	SWA_TN02	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	53 – 66	- [4]
SWA	SWA_TN03	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	39 – 51	N
SWA	SWA_TN04	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	51 – 59	- [4]
SWB	SWB_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building at Ground Level	55/65/70 [3]	57	- [4]
EDU	EDU_TN01	Proposed School	65	63 – 69	Y
EDU	EDU_TN02	Proposed School	65	65 – 71	Y
EDU	EDU_TN03	Proposed School	65	71 – 74	Y
EDU	EDU_TN04	Proposed School	65	66 – 67	Y

Note:

[1] The assessment includes NSRs relying on openable window for ventilation only.

[2] Bolded value represents the exceedance of their respective noise criteria.

[3] The type of welfare use cannot be confirmed at this stage and the criteria for different use vary.  According to the EIAO-TM, 55 dB(A) applies to diagnostic rooms and wards in clinics, convalescences and home for the aged, 65 dB(A) applies to educational institutions, including kindergartens and nurseries, while 70 dB(A) applies to dormitories of RCHEs and hostels that rely on openable windows for ventilation.

[4] The requirement for mitigation measures depends on the type of welfare use to be adopted. See [3].

4.6.3.3             It is noted that the restriction on noise sensitive uses at the proposed social welfare facilities building above PTI (i.e. NSR SWA) and on the ground level (i.e. NSR SWB) will be liaised with and further reviewed by relevant parties such as HKHA and Social Welfare Department during the detailed design stage when the type and layout plan of welfare use is confirmed. Noise sensitive uses with a noise criterion of 65 dB(A), such as educational institutions should only be located at façade of SWA_TN03, SWA_TN04 and SWB_TN01. And noise sensitive uses with a more stringent noise criterion of 55 dB(A), such as diagnostic rooms and wards in clinics, convalescences and homes for the aged, should only be located at façade of SWA_TN03.

4.6.3.4            The total number of dwellings, classrooms and other NSRs that would be exposed to noise impact exceeding their respective noise criteria under unmitigated scenario is presented in Table 4.6.4 below.

Table 4.6.4  Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs Exceeding the Respective Road Traffic Noise Criteria under Unmitigated Scenario

Note:

[1] For high-rise building, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 2 dwellings per floor. While for village house, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 1 dwelling per floor;

[2]  NAP E03_TN01, EDU_TN01 and EDU_TN04 are assumed to represent 3 classrooms per floor respectively while NAP EDU_TN02 and EDU_TN03 are assumed to represent 1 classroom per floor respectively; and 

[3]  Social welfare facility with predicted noise level over 70 dB(A).

[4]  Please refer to Appendix 4.6.1 for reference.

 

4.6.4                 Prediction and Evaluation of Road Traffic Noise Impacts (Mitigated Scenario)

Direct Mitigation Measures

4.6.4.1            At source direct mitigation measures, including the application of low noise road surfacing (LNRS) along the Project roads and other roads, as well as vertical barrier have been considered. The location of the proposed direct mitigation measures is shown in Figure 4.6.3 with details summarised in Table 4.6.5. Different materials for low noise road surfacing are being reviewed and tested by the Government for application in Hong Kong. Further environmental reviews will be conducted at the later detailed design stage to review the proposed noise mitigation measures taking into account the latest design standard for the application of the low noise road surfacing materials.

Table 4.6.5  Extents and Locations of Considered Direct Noise Mitigation Measures

4.6.4.2            The effectiveness of the abovementioned mitigation measures is also assessed. The justification for adopting certain mitigation measures is provided in Table 4.6.6 below.

Table 4.6.6  Evaluation on Considered Direct Mitigation Measures

 

4.6.4.3            A 7m vertical barrier at PDA Boundary (i.e. PDNM_03) has been considered as a mitigation measure to B02, B05, B07 and EDU. It is noted that significant noise reduction is observed only on lower levels at B02, B05 and B07 (i.e. first 3 to 4 floors above ground). For units on the upper levels with noise exceedance, the noise reduction by screening is minimal as the screening is ineffective to higher level. Further extent of noise barrier is expected in the future. Besides, further extent of noise barrier in the future would increase the likelihood of visual impact on lower levels which affects the welfare of future residents.

4.6.4.4            For the proposed school, noise exceedance is still expected at EDU_TN01 to EDU_TN04 due to ineffective screening for the noise sensitive uses at the upper levels. Due to site constraints, further extent of noise barrier is not expected, in particular road link L09 and L10 which are between Castle Peak Road and Po Kin Road. Moreover, further extent of noise barrier is likely to result in visual impact and increased maintenance difficulty. As such, PDNM_03 is not considered as an effective mitigation measure to alleviate the noise exceedance at B02, B05, B07 and EDU.

4.6.4.5            The finalized set of direct mitigation measures proposed for the Project is depicted in Table 4.6.7 below. It is noted that Low Noise Road Surfacing (LNRS) should be implemented before the operation of Project Roads. Highways Department confirmation on the proposed extent of LNRS is enclosed in Appendix 4.6.4.

Table 4.6.7 Extents and Locations of Adopted Direct Mitigation Measures

Mitigated Scenario – NSRs (Outside PDA) affected by Project Roads

4.6.4.6            With the implementation of the proposed direct noise mitigation measures, the predicted mitigated road traffic noise levels at the representative NSRs outside the PDA are presented in Table 4.6.8 with details provided in Appendix 4.6.4.

Table 4.6.8 Predicted Mitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Existing NSRs (Outside the PDA) Affected by Project Roads (With Direct Mitigation Measures Applied)

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Criteria L10 1hr, dB(A)	Predicted Noise Level L10 1hr, dB(A)			Project Road Contribution, dB(A)	Direct Mitigation Measure Applied
				Project Road	Other Road	Overall
E01	E01_TN01	Ching Cheung House	70	58 – 61	65 – 69	66 – 70	0.6 – 0.9	LNRS
E01	E01_TN02	Ching Cheung House	70	60 – 65	66 – 69	67 – 70	1.1 – 1.7	LNRS
E01	E01_TN03	Ching Cheung House	70	64 – 70	59 – 61	65 – 70	5.2 – 10.0	LNRS
E01	E01_TN04	Ching Cheung House	70	63 – 70	60 – 62	66 – 70	4.1 – 8.9	LNRS
E01	E01_TN05	King Cheung House	70	61 – 63	37 – 41	61 – 63	19.6 – 24.8	-
E01	E01_TN06	King Cheung House	70	62 – 65	49 – 55	63 – 65	7.5 – 13.7	-
E03	E03_TN01	TWGHs Ma Kam Chan Memorial Primary School	65	62	59	64	4.6 – 5.3	-
E04	E04_TN01	Buddhist Wisdom Primary School	65	63 – 64	56	64	7.3 – 8.1	-

Note:

[1] The assessment includes NSRs relying on openable window for ventilation only.

[2] Bolded value represents the exceedance of their respective noise criteria.

4.6.4.7            With the implementation of the Low Noise Road Surfacing (LNRS) as a direct mitigation measure, E01 would fully comply with their respective noise criteria. Environmental reviews will be conducted at the later design stage to review the proposed noise mitigation measure, taking into account the latest design standard at that time for the application of the LNRS materials.

Mitigated Scenario – NSRs (Within PDA)

4.6.4.8            The predicted mitigated road traffic noise levels at the representative planned NSRs within the PDA are presented in Table 4.6.9. Appendix 4.6.4 shows the details of the noise impacts of the NSRs and NAPs at various floor levels. It is noted that EDU still does not comply with the noise criterion of 65 dB(A) with the implementation of the Low Noise Road Surfacing (LNRS).

Table 4.6.9 Predicted Mitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Planned NSRs within the PDA (with Direct Mitigation Measures Applied)

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Criteria L10 1hr, dB(A)	Predicted Overall Noise Level, dB(A)	Additional Mitigation Measure Required [Y/N]
B01	B01_TN01	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	64 – 66	N
B01	B01_TN02	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 66	N
B01	B01_TN03	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	64 – 67	N
B01	B01_TN04	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 68	N
B02	B02_TN01	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 67	N
B02	B02_TN02	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B02	B02_TN03	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B02	B02_TN04	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	65 – 68	N
B03	B03_TN01	Block 3, Public Housing Development	70	60 – 62	N
B04	B04_TN01	Block 4, Public Housing Development	70	65 – 68	N
B04	B04_TN02	Block 4, Public Housing Development	70	64 – 67	N
B05	B05_TN01	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 67	N
B05	B05_TN02	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B05	B05_TN03	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B05	B05_TN04	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 66	N
B06	B06_TN01	Block 6, Public Housing Development	70	57 – 59	N
B07	B07_TN01	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 68	N
B07	B07_TN02	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 72	Y
B07	B07_TN03	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 73	Y
B07	B07_TN04	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 68	N
B08	B08_TN01	Block 8, Public Housing Development	70	55 – 56	N
B09	B09_TN01	Block 9, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 62	N
B09	B09_TN02	Block 9, Public Housing Development	70	60 – 63	N
B10	B10_TN01	Block 10, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 64	N
B12	B12_TN01	Block 12, Public Housing Development	70	59 – 62	N
SWA	SWA_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	56 – 67	- [4]
SWA	SWA_TN02	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	52 – 64	- [4]
SWA	SWA_TN03	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	38 – 49	N
SWA	SWA_TN04	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	51 – 59	- [4]
SWB	SWB_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building at Ground Level	55/65/70 [3]	57	- [4]
EDU	EDU_TN01	Proposed School	65	62 – 68	Y
EDU	EDU_TN02	Proposed School	65	64 – 70	Y
EDU	EDU_TN03	Proposed School	65	71 – 74	Y
EDU	EDU_TN04	Proposed School	65	66	Y

Note:

[1] The assessment includes NSRs relying on openable window for ventilation only.

[2] Bolded value represents the exceedance of their respective noise criteria.

[3] The type of welfare use cannot be confirmed at this stage and the criteria for different use vary.  According to the EIAO-TM, 55 dB(A) applies to diagnostic rooms and wards in clinics, convalescences and home for the aged, 65 dB(A) applies to educational institutions, including kindergartens and nurseries, while 70 dB(A) applies to dormitories of RCHEs and hostels that rely on openable windows for ventilation.

[4] The requirement for mitigation measures depends on the type of welfare use to be adopted. See [3]

4.6.4.9             With the implementation of the proposed direct mitigation measures, the total number of dwellings, classrooms and other NSRs that would be benefited and protected are presented in Table 4.6.10 below.

 

Table 4.6.10 Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs with Noise Exceedances in Unmitigated Scenario Benefited or Protected under the Mitigated Scenario (with Direct Mitigation Measures Applied)

Note:

[1] For high-rise building, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 2 dwellings per floor. While for village house, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 1 dwelling per floor.

[2]  NAP EDU_TN01 and EDU_TN04 are assumed to represent 3 classrooms per floor respectively while NAP EDU_TN02 and EDU_TN03 are assumed to represent 1 classroom per floor respectively.

[3]  Social welfare facility with predicted noise level over 70 dB(A).

[4]  Only the dwellings with overall noise level within the noise criteria are defined as protected, while those which have >=1.0 overall noise reduction is defined as benefited (with overall noise level exceeded the criteria under unmitigated scenario). Noted that the bracketed number refers to the number of NAP still exceeding the noise criteria after the implementation of direct mitigation measures.

4.6.4.10          It is noted that B02, B05, B07 and EDU within the PDA would still require additional mitigation measure as the predicted noise levels do not comply with their respective noise criteria.

Additional Mitigation Measures within PDA

4.6.4.11         After the exhaustion of direct mitigation measure, additional mitigation measures are proposed at B02, B05, B07 and EDU within the PDA to alleviate the road traffic noise impacts.

Provision of Acoustic Windows (Baffle Type)

4.6.4.12         Provision of acoustic windows (baffle type) to planned NSR B02, B05 and B07 is recommended. The location of acoustic windows (baffle type) at the planned NSRs are summarized in Table 4.6.11 below. According to EPD’s website on Innovative Noise Mitigation Designs and Measures, acoustic windows (baffle-type) applied in the Public Residential Development at San Po Kong are capable of achieving a noise reduction of 4-8 dB(A). Regarding this, the adoption of a 4 dB(A) noise reduction is considered feasible under a conservative approach. Location of acoustic window (baffle types) is illustrated in Figure 4.6.4.

Table 4.6.11 Provision of Acoustic Windows (Baffle Type) at the Planned NSRs within the PDA

NSR	NAP	Location	Tentative Noise Reduction Adopted, dB(A)
B02	B02_TN02	1/F – 8/F	4
B02	B02_TN03	1/F – 9/F	4
B05	B05_TN02	1/F – 10/F	4
B05	B05_TN03	1/F – 8/F	4
B07	B07_TN02	1/F – 8/F	4
B07	B07_TN03	1/F – 10/F	4

 

4.6.4.13         It is noted that the provision of acoustic windows (baffle type) to alleviate the traffic noise impact at proposed Public Housing Development within the PDA will be subject to further design by HKHA. HKHA can further explore alternative options, e.g. building orientation, building set back, architectural features/balcony etc, which can achieve the corresponding traffic noise reduction during the detailed design stage. An Environmental Assessment Study for the proposed Public Housing Development will be conducted by HKHA in the detailed design stage to address the environment impacts and to comply with relevant criteria.

Further Mitigation Measures at the Proposed School

4.6.4.14         After the exhaustion of direct mitigation measure, the predicted noise level at EDU would still exceed the noise criterion of 65 dB(A). It is noted that the location and orientation of EDU have been optimized, taking into account the traffic constraint at Fan Kam Road as discussed in Section 4.6.1.2. As such, provision of air conditioning and noise insulated windows under Class Assessment Document following ETWB Technical Circular (Works) No. 13/2003 is proposed to alleviate the traffic noise impact at EDU. The proposed school would not need to rely on openable window for ventilation and that the traffic noise impact is minimized. The provision of air-conditioning with noise insulated window is illustrated in Figure 4.6.4. It is also noted that in accordance with the Class Assessment Document as mentioned above, a 3m boundary wall will be provided along the EDU as illustrated in Figure 4.6.4. These mitigation measures will be liaised with and further reviewed by relevant parties such as Education Bureau and Architectural Services Department during detailed design stage.

4.6.4.15          With the provision of direct and additional mitigation measures, the predicted mitigated road traffic noise level at the representative planned NSRs within the PDA is presented in Table 4.6.12 below, with details provided in Appendix 4.6.5.

 

 

Table 4.6.12 Predicted Mitigated Road Traffic Noise Impact (AM Peak) at Representative Planned NSRs within the PDA (with Direct and Additional Mitigation Measures Applied)

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Location/ Description	Criteria L10 1hr, dB(A)	Predicted Overall Noise Level, dB(A)	Direct Mitigation Measure Applied [2]	Additional Mitigation Measure Applied	Extra Mitigation Required [Y/N]
B01	B01_TN01	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 66	-	-	N
B01	B01_TN02	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 66	-	-	N
B01	B01_TN03	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	64 – 66	-	-	N
B01	B01_TN04	Block 1, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 68	-	-	N
B02	B02_TN01	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 67	-	-	N
B02	B02_TN02	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70	-	Acoustic Window (Baffle Type)	N
B02	B02_TN03	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70	-	Acoustic Window (Baffle Type)	N
B02	B02_TN04	Block 2, Public Housing Development	70	65 – 68	-	-	N
B03	B03_TN01	Block 3, Public Housing Development	70	60 – 62	-	-	N
B04	B04_TN01	Block 4, Public Housing Development	70	65 – 68		-	N
B04	B04_TN02	Block 4, Public Housing Development	70	64 – 67	-	-	N
B05	B05_TN01	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 67	-	-	N
B05	B05_TN02	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70		Acoustic Window (Baffle Type)	N
B05	B05_TN03	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70		Acoustic Window (Baffle Type)	N
B05	B05_TN04	Block 5, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 66	-	-	N
B06	B06_TN01	Block 6, Public Housing Development	70	57 – 59	-	-	N
B07	B07_TN01	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	63 – 68	-	-	N
B07	B07_TN02	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70		Acoustic Window (Baffle Type)	N
B07	B07_TN03	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	66 – 70		Acoustic Window (Baffle Type)	N
B07	B07_TN04	Block 7, Public Housing Development	70	62 – 68	-	-	N
B08	B08_TN01	Block 8, Public Housing Development	70	55 – 56	-	-	N
B09	B09_TN01	Block 9, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 62	-	-	N
B09	B09_TN02	Block 9, Public Housing Development	70	60 – 63	-	-	N
B10	B10_TN01	Block 10, Public Housing Development	70	61 – 64	-	-	N
B12	B12_TN01	Block 12, Public Housing Development	70	59 – 62	-	-	N
SWA	SWA_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	56 – 67	-	-	- [4]
SWA	SWA_TN02	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	52 – 64	-	-	- [4]
SWA	SWA_TN03	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	38 – 48	-	-	N
SWA	SWA_TN04	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building above PTI	55/65/70 [3]	51 – 59	-	-	- [4]
SWB	SWB_TN01	Proposed Social Welfare Facilities Building at Ground Level	55/65/70 [3]	57	-	-	- [4]
EDU	EDU_TN01	Proposed School	65	-	LNRS	Class Assessment Approach	N
EDU	EDU_TN02	Proposed School	65	-	LNRS		N
EDU	EDU_TN03	Proposed School	65	-	LNRS		N
EDU	EDU_TN04	Proposed School	65	-	LNRS		N

Note:

[1] The assessment includes NSRs relying on openable window for ventilation only.

[2] LNRS – Low Noise Road Surfacing

[3] The type of welfare use cannot be confirmed at this stage and the criteria for different use vary.  According to the EIAO-TM, 55 dB(A) applies to diagnostic rooms and wards in clinics, convalescences and home for the aged, 65 dB(A) applies to educational institutions, including kindergartens and nurseries, while 70 dB(A) applies to dormitories of RCHEs and hostels that rely on openable windows for ventilation.

[4] The requirement for mitigation measures depends on the type of welfare use to be adopted. See [3]

4.6.4.16          With the implementation of the proposed direct mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures, the total number of dwellings, classrooms and other NSRs that would be benefited and protected are presented in Table 4.6.13 below.

Table 4.6.13 Number of Residential Dwellings/Classrooms/Other NSRs with Noise Exceedances in Unmitigated Scenario Benefited or Protected under the Mitigated Scenario (with Direct Mitigation Measures and Additional Mitigation Measures Applied)

Note:

[1] For high-rise building, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 2 dwellings per floor. While for village house, 1 NAP is assumed to represent 1 dwelling per floor;

[2]  NAP EDU_TN01 and EDU_TN04 are assumed to represent 3 classrooms per floor respectively while NAP EDU_TN02 and EDU_TN03 are assumed to represent 1 classroom per floor respectively.

[3]  Social welfare facility with predicted noise level over 70 dB(A).

[4]  Only the dwellings with overall noise level within the noise criteria are defined as protected, while those which have >=1.0 overall noise reduction is defined as benefited (overall noise level exceeded the criteria under unmitigated scenario). Noted that the bracketed number refers to the number of NAP still exceeding the noise criteria after the implementation of direct mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures.

 

4.6.5                 Evaluation of Residual Noise Impacts

4.6.5.1            With implementation of direct and additional mitigation measures, including LNRS, acoustic windows (baffle type) and class assessment approach for proposed school, no residual road traffic noise impact is anticipated.

 

 

4.7                     Fixed Noise Impact Assessment

4.7.1                 Noise Sensitive Receivers

4.7.1.1            The assessment area for fixed noise source impact is 300m from the PDA boundary.  Representative NSRs locations have been selected as shown in Figure 4.7.1. Detailed information of the selected representative NSRs is summarised in Table 4.7.1. Details of the Area Sensitive Ratings (ASRs) and the prevailing background noise levels have been discussed in below section.

Table 4.7.1  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Fixed Noise Source Assessment (Day and Evening Time)

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Use[2]	Operation Time Period[3]	ASR [4]	Day and Evening Time Criteria for NSR, (ANL), dB(A)	ANL-5, dB(A)	Prevailing Background Level, dB(A)	Criteria for Project Planned Fixed Sources, dB(A)
Existing NSRs
E01	E01_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
E04	E04_FN01	E	D & E	B	65	60	50	50
E08	E08_FN01	R	24 hrs	A	60	55	44	44
Planned NSRs
EDU	EDU_FN01	E	D & E	B	65	60	50	50
EDU	EDU_FN02	E	D & E	B	65	60	50	50
EDU	EDU_FN03	E	D & E	B	65	60	50	50
SWA	SWA_FN01	G/IC	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
SWA	SWA_FN02	G/IC	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B01	B01_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B02	B02_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B04	B04_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B05	B05_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B07	B07_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B08	B08_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B09	B09_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B09	B09_FN02	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50
B10	B10_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	65	60	50	50

Notes:
[1] The noise assessments will only include NSRs which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

[2] R – Residential Premises; E – Educational Institution; G/IC – Social Welfare Facility Building

[3] D & E – Day and Evening Time Period (0700 – 2300 hours)

[4] Please refer to Section 4.7.1.2 to Section 4.7.1.6 for justifications on ASRs

 

Table 4.7.2  Representative NSRs and NAPs for Fixed Noise Source Assessment (Night Time)

NSR ID [1]	NAP ID	Use[2]	Operation Time Period[3]	ASR [4]	Night Time Criteria for NSR, (ANL), dB(A)	ANL-5, dB(A) [4]	Prevailing Background Level, dB(A)	Criteria for Project Planned Fixed Sources, dB(A)
Existing NSRs
E01	E01_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
E04	E04_FN01	E	D & E	B	No Night-time Operation
E08	E08_FN01	R	24 hrs	A	50	45	42	42
Planned NSRs
EDU	EDU_FN01	E	D & E	B	No Night-time Operation
EDU	EDU_FN02	E	D & E	B	No Night-time Operation
EDU	EDU_FN03	E	D & E	B	No Night-time Operation
SWA	SWA_FN01	G/IC	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
SWA	SWA_FN02	G/IC	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B01	B01_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B02	B02_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B04	B04_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B05	B05_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B07	B07_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B08	B08_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B09	B09_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B09	B09_FN02	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41
B10	B10_FN01	R	24 hrs	B	55	50	41	41

Notes:
[1] The noise assessments will only include NSRs which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

[2] R – Residential Premises; E – Educational Institution; G/IC – Social Welfare Facility Building

[3] D & E – Day and Evening Time Period (0700 – 2300 hours)

[4] Please refer to Section 4.7.1.2 to Section 4.7.1.6 for justifications on ASRs

 

Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR)

4.7.1.2            The ASR and ANLs adopted in this EIA report are used for assessment purpose only, they should not bind the Noise Control Authority’s decision in determining the noise criteria based on the legislation and practices being in force, and contemporary conditions/ situations of adjoining land uses.

4.7.1.3            According to Annual Traffic Census 2019, the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of Fanling Highway is higher than 30,000 vehicle/day. Thus, Fanling Highway is identified as Influencing Factor (IF).  Besides the Fanling Highway, no other IF was found in the vicinity of the Project. 

Planned NSRs

4.7.1.4            Sub-Area 1 is considered to be located in a sub-urban area. Land in the north is close to heavily trafficked carriageway, hospital, schools, high-rise residential development, whereas land in the southeast is close to village type developments. Therefore, it is considered that Sub-Area 1 of the PDA would be “Area other than those above” in accordance with the IND-TM. Given that the separation distance to the Fanling Highway is over 300m, the planned NSRs inside the Sub-Area 1 would not be directly affected by the IF. Thus, ASR “B” would be assigned to planned NSRs in Sub-Area 1 according to IND-TM as shown in Figure 4.7.2.

Existing NSRs

4.7.1.5            As illustrated in Figure 4.7.2, the area located to the southeast of the Sub-Area 1 is mainly a mixture of clustered villages and open storage areas. This area is considered as a rural area. Given that the separation distance to the Fanling Highway is over 480m, noise sensitive uses within this area would not be affected by the IF. Thus, ASR “A” would be assigned to the existing NSRs within this area according to IND-TM.

4.7.1.6            The area to the east of Sub-Area 1 is characterized by residential area mixed with high-rise residential buildings, schools and homes for the aged. The area is classified as “Area other than those above”. Given that the separation distance to the Fanling Highway is over 300m, the area would not be directly affected by the IF. Thus, ASR “B” would be assigned to existing NSRs within this area according to IND-TM as shown in Figure 4.7.2.

 

4.7.2                 Identification of Fixed Noise Sources

4.7.2.1            Site visits for the identification of existing major fixed noise sources were conducted on 16 October 2020, 3 December 2020 (daytime and night-time), and 1 March 2021. The major fixed noise sources are listed in Table 4.7.3. Isolated industrial operations including open storage facilities and repair working are located at the south of Sub-Area 1. During the site visits, only minor noise emission due to the uses of hand-held car repair machinery was observed. Only scattered movement of vehicles and loading/unloading was observed in the vicinity. Moreover, these industrial operations are located 300m away from the proposed Public Housing Development of Sub-Area 1. No signification noise impact associated with these industrial operations to the planned NSRs of PDA are anticipated.

4.7.2.2            A Public Transport Interchange (PTI) will be constructed in Sub-Area 1 of PDA. The planned PTI would be the major fixed noise sources under this Project as listed in Table 4.7.3.

4.7.2.3            According to the information of Hospital Authority (HA), North District Hospital Extension (NDHE) will be undertaken at the north side of existing North District Hospital (NDH). NDHE would be the major fixed noise sources as listed in Table 4.7.3.

4.7.2.4            The indicative locations of the major fixed noise sources are shown in Figure 4.7.3. The nature and operation of these noise sources are described in below sections.

Table 4.7.2  List of Major Existing and Planned Fixed Noise Sources

ID	Name	Equipment / Activities	Operation Hours [1]	Included in assessment	Remark
Existing Fixed Noise Sources
FGC1, FGC2	Fanling Golf Course (FGC)	Mechanical Ventilation System (FGC1)	Day and Evening	Yes	High-powered mechanical ventilation system located at open space.
		Maintenance of Machinery (FGC2)	Day and Evening	No	Conducted inside a substantial structure of the workshop
		Golf Course Machinery	Day and Evening	No	Small-powered equipment.
NDH1 to NDH7	North District Hospital (NDH)	Mechanical Ventilation System	24 Hours	Yes	High-powered mechanical ventilation system located at open roof.
FLPS	Fanling Raw Water Pumping Station	Pumping System	24 Hours	Yes	Enclosed by the pumping house. However, close to planned NSR.
PKSPS	Ping Kong Sewage Pumping Station	Pumping System	24 Hours	Yes	Enclosed by the pumping house. However, close to planned NSR.
Planned Fixed Noise Sources (under this Project)
PFS-1	Planned Public Transport Interchange	Mechanical Ventilation System (PFS-1)	24 Hours	Yes	High-powered mechanical ventilation system with opening louver.
Planned Fixed Noise Sources (by others)
NDHE	North District Hospital Extension	Mechanical Ventilation System	24 Hours	Yes	High-powered mechanical ventilation system located at open roof or with opening louver(s).

Note:

[1] D & E – Day and Evening Time Period (0700 – 2300 hours)

 

 

Existing Fixed Noise Sources

4.7.2.5            The eastern part of the FGC to the east of Fan Kam Road will be the PDA under the Project while the western part of the FGC will be remained intact. According to the information from Hong Kong Golf Club (HKGC), the golf playing area normally close around 6:00 pm and the restaurant in clubhouse close at 10:00pm. Thus, there is no operation during night-time period. Potential noisy activities of the FGC include:

·       Mechanical Ventilation System of the Golf Club Building

·       Maintenance Activities for the Machinery and Equipment of FGC

·       Golf Courses Machinery

Mechanical Ventilation System of the Golf Club Building (FGC1)

4.7.2.6            Two air-cooled chillers for the Golf Club Building are identified in western portion of FGC. These chillers are located at approximately 110m from Sub-Area 1. The high-powered mechanical ventilation system located at open space could generate potential noise impact and thus considered in the assessment.

Maintenance Activities for the Machinery and Equipment of FGC (FGC2)

4.7.2.7            A workshop is located in western portion of FGC and approximately 280m from the Sub-Area 1. The workshop is mainly used for parking space of golf carts and golf course machinery (e.g. tractor, aerator and mower). Maintenance activities for machinery and equipment are conducted inside a substantial structure of the workshop. Therefore, with sufficient separation distance, adverse noise impact arising from these maintenance activities to the planned NSRs in Sub-Area 1 is not anticipated.

Golf Course Machinery

Based on the site observations, the golf course machinery would mainly consist of golf cart, sprayer, mower and aerator. Golf carts are used for on-site transportation along the dirt roads of FGC. As all the golf carts are electric or battery type and manoeuvring in a low speed, adverse noise impact arising from the operations of golf carts is not anticipated. Sprayer, mowers and aerators are mainly in the green, tee and fairway for the turf maintenance. In order to avoid damaging the turf, these machines are in small size and with low engine powers. Given that the engine power of the sprayers, mowers and aerators are low, adverse noise impact from the operations of these machines is not anticipated.

North District Hospital (NDH)

4.7.2.8            According to the responses given by Hospital Authority dated 18 November 2020 over our formal enquiry on the existing fixed noise sources at NDH, there are seven units of chiller on the roof of the NDH. As the high-powered mechanical ventilation system located at open roof could generate potential noise impact and thus considered as noise sources. NDH operation is 24-hour basis. The location of the chiller is documented in Appendix 4.7.4.

Fanling Raw Water Pumping Station (FLPS) and Ping Kong Sewage Pumping Station (PKSPS)

4.7.2.9            FLPS and PKSPS are located adjacent to the planned NSRs in Sub-Area 1. The pumping systems of FLPS and PKSPS are enclosed in a substantial concrete building structure. However, noise emitted through the opening louvers could cause potential noise impact and thus considered in the assessment. Operation of FLPS and PKSPS have been confirmed by relevant department and correspondence is provided in Appendix 4.7.5.

Planned Fixed Noise Sources (by others)

North District Hospital Extension (NDHE)

4.7.2.10         According to the information provided from Hospital Authority (HA), the project of NDHE is still at the early design stage, inventory of E&M equipment or their specifications and construction details are yet to be finalized or available. Any planned fixed noise sources under the NDHE will be designed in order to comply with fixed noise criteria under HKPSG according to approved Preliminary Environment Review (PER) of NDHE. (see Appendix 4.4.2) In general, the ventilation units / openings of the ventilation units of hospital would be located on the rooftop. As such, the Public Housing Development of the PDA could have direct line-of-sight to the ventilation units / openings of the ventilation units of the New Hospital Block of NDH, and therefore will be considered in this noise assessment.

 

Planned Fixed Noise Sources (under this Project)

 

Proposed Public Transport Terminus (PFS-1)

4.7.2.11          The Proposed Public Transport Terminus (PTI) would be enclosed and located underneath the residential buildings. As such, the noisy activities (e.g. vehicle maneuvering, engine idling and engine start/off) of the PTI could be screened off by the enclosed structures.

4.7.2.12          As advised by Project Traffic Engineer, the ingress and egress of proposed PTI could not be located at Fan Kam Road and Po Kin Road. According to the Traffic Impact Assessment of the Project, the Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio of Fan Kam Road will be over 1.00 with Fanling Golf Course Housing Development, therefore provision of access at Fan Kam Road is not feasible. It is recommended that an access road to/from FGC east of Fan Kam Road should be abandoned to improve the traffic condition at Fan Kam Road. All  traffic associated with the proposed housing development would mainly travel along Ping Kong Road. In accordance with the Transport Planning & Design Manual (TPDM), run-ins should not normally be sited within 45m of the stop line on the road, therefore the ingress/egress of PTI to be allocated along Po Kin Road will not be feasible.

4.7.2.13          The layout of proposed housing development has been designed in balancing the engineering constraints and potential noise impact of the proposed PTI. A combined ingress/egress of PTI is located to the south of Ping Kong Road such that it is far away from existing residential NSRs. The orientation of the combined ingress/egress can maximize the screening between the sound propagation from noisy activities to NSRs. Thus, the design of proposed PTI has been optimized as far as practicable made reference to S4.2.14 and S4.2.15 of Chapter 9 of HKPSG. Hence, adverse noise impact is not expected from the abovementioned activities in the PTI during operational phase. In addition, the location of ingress and egress of the PTI should be planned in order to avoid adverse noise impacts to the adjacent area in detail design stage.

4.7.2.14          However, mechanical ventilation system may be required for the enclosed PTI. The potential locations for the ventilation fans (PFS-1) are shown in Figure 4.7.1. The high-powered mechanical ventilation system with opening louvers could generate potential noise impact.

4.7.2.15          Based on current design information, the proposed building at the south of block 10 at Sub-area 2 will be provided with minor fixed noise sources only and no adverse fixed noise impact is anticipated.

4.7.3                 Assessment Methodology

4.7.3.1             Fixed noise source impact due to the applicable sources identified in Table 4.7.2 will be included in the quantitative assessment.

4.7.3.2             Both planned NSRs and planned fixed noise sources of the Project should be assessed in the fixed noise sources impact assessment as summarised in Table 4.7.3. The fixed noise source impact assessment was conducted in accordance with the IND-TM and the criteria set in Annex 5 of EIAO-TM.

Table 4.7.3  Fixed Noise Impact Assessment for Planned Fixed Source and NSRs

FS ID	Planned / Existing	Fixed Noise Impact Assessment for the Project
		Planned Fixed Sources	Planned NSRs
NDH1	Existing		P
NDH2	Existing		P
NDH3	Existing		P
NDH4	Existing		P
NDH5	Existing		P
NDH6	Existing		P
NDH7	Existing		P
FGC1	Existing		P
FLPS	Existing		P
PKSPS	Existing		P
NDHE	Planned (By others)		P
PFS-1	Planned (Project)	P	P

 

Planned Fixed Noise Sources

4.7.3.3             As described in Section 4.7.2, detailed design information on the planned fixed source (i.e. PFS-1) is not available during the EIA stage, maximum allowable sound power level (Max. SWL) for the planned fixed noise source is calculated based on backward calculation of separation distance between the noise sources and the nearest NSRs regardless on the percentage usage. Details of calculation is provided in Appendix 4.7.1.

SPL (ANL – 5) = Max. SWL – DC + FC + TC

Where:

SPL	–	Sound Pressure Level at NSR, in dB(A)
Max. SWL	–	Max. Allowable Sound Power Level of Planned Fixed Noise Source, in dB(A)
DC	–	Distance Attenuation, in dB(A) (i.e. 20logD + 8)
D	–	Horizontal distance between the NSR and the Fixed Noise Source in meters
FC	–	Façade Correction
TC	–	Tonality Correction

 

4.7.3.4             As a conservative approach, no barrier correction would be considered in calculating the Max. SWL for the planned fixed source.

4.7.3.5             The assessment for fixed noise source impact is conducted in accordance with the IND-TM and the criteria set in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM.  The worst operation mode with 100% operation is assumed in the prediction.  The noise levels from operation of existing fixed noise sources are determined by noise measurement on-site or with reference to measurement taken for similar sources of typical operation.  As there is no detailed design information on the planned PTI, maximum allowable sound power level for the planned fixed noise source is predicted based on backward calculation of separation distance between the noise sources and the nearest NSRs regardless on the percentage usage. Cumulative fixed noise impact arising from existing and planned fixed noise sources located within 300 m assessment area at each representative planned NSR is assessed. For the existing NSRs located within 300m of the planned fixed noise sources, cumulative fixed noise impact from the planned fixed noise sources is assessed.  

4.7.3.6             The noise levels from the operation of existing fixed noise sources (i.e. NDH1 to NDH7, FGC1, FLPS and PKSPS) are determined by noise measurement on-site or reference to relevant catalogues as detailed in the noise survey shown in Appendix 4.7.2.

4.7.3.7             As mentioned in Section 4.7.2.10, NDHE is still at the early design stage, inventory of E&M equipment or their specifications and construction details are yet to be finalized or available. With reference to the planning guideline of HKPSG, it is anticipated that the planned fixed noise sources at the NDHE would be complied with the planning noise standard of ANL-5. Thus, since the Area Sensitivity Rating of planned NSRs of the Project is “B”,  the noise contribution from NDHE to the planned NSRs of the Project should not exceed the noise standards of 60dB(A) during day & evening time and 50dB(A) during night time at 1m from the external façade. The noise contribution from the NDHE (i.e. 60 dB(A) during day & evening time and 50 dB(A) during night time) to the planned NSRs has been assumed in the assessment. An operation mode with 100% usage is assumed as worst-case operation scenario in the assessment.

4.7.3.8             Sound pressure level at the representative planned NSRs has been calculated according to following equation.

SPL = SWL – DC + FC + TC – BC

Where:

SPL	–	Sound Pressure Level at NSR, in dB(A)
SWL	–	Sound Power Level of Fixed Noise Source, in dB(A)
DC	–	Distance Attenuation, in dB(A) (i.e. 20logD + 8)
D	–	Horizontal distance between the NSR and the Fixed Noise Source in meters
FC	–	Façade Correction
TC	–	Tonality Correction
BC	–	Barrier Correction

 

4.7.4                 Prediction and Evaluation of Fixed Noise Source Impact

4.7.4.1            Fixed noise source impact due to the applicable sources identified in Table 4.7.2 have been predicted for the representative NSRs.

Planned Fixed Noise Sources

4.7.4.2            Table 4.7.4 below shows the maximum allowable SWL of planned fixed source (i.e. PFS-1). Detailed calculation is shown in Appendix 4.7.1.

 

 

Table 4.7.4  Maximum Allowable SWLs of the Project Planned Fixed Source

PFS ID	Description	Maximum Allowable SWL, dB(A)
		Day & Evening time	Night-time
PFS-1	Mechanical Ventilation System of PTI	78	69

 

4.7.4.3            Given that the mechanical ventilation system of PTI should follow the maximum allowable SWL and it is considered practical to achieve the calculated SWLs as stated in Table 4.7.4, no adverse noise impact from the PTI is anticipated.

 

Planned NSRs

4.7.4.4            The predicted cumulative impact from existing and planned fixed noise sources on the representative planned NSRs are shown in Table 4.7.5. Detailed calculation is shown in Appendix 4.7.3.

Table 4.7.5  Cumulative Fixed Noise Source Impact due to Existing and Planned Fixed Noise Sources on Representative Planned NSRs

NAP	ASR	Criteria, dB(A) [2]		Cumulative SPL, dB(A)		Compliance [Y/N]
		Day & Evening	Night-time	Day & Evening	Night-time
EDU_FN01	B	65	- [1]	61	--	Y
EDU_FN02	B	65	- [1]	61	--	Y
EDU_FN03	B	65	- [1]	61	--	Y
SWA_FN01	B	65	55	61	52	Y
SWA_FN02	B	65	55	61	53	Y
B01_FN01	B	65	55	61	55	Y
B02_FN01	B	65	55	61	53	Y
B04_FN01	B	65	55	61	54	Y
B05_FN01	B	65	55	60	51	Y
B07_FN01	B	65	55	60	52	Y
B08_FN01	B	65	55	60	52	Y
B09_FN01	B	65	55	61	53	Y
B09_FN02	B	65	55	60	53	Y
B10_FN01	B	65	55	60	53	Y

Note:
[1] No night-time operation for NSRs of EDU_FN01, EDU_FN02 and EDU_FN03.

[2] Criteria for planned NSRs was determined by ANL for cumulative fixed noise impact assessment.

4.7.4.5            As shown in Table 4.7.5, the results revealed that the predicted noise levels would comply with relevant noise criteria, no adverse impact from the existing and planned fixed noise source is anticipated. As there is no representative NSR exceeding the relevant criteria, number of affected dwellings/ classrooms is zero.

4.7.5                 Mitigation of Fixed Noise Sources Impact

4.7.5.1            The recommended maximum SWL of the ventilation equipment potentially to be installed at the PTI should be reviewed with the final design of the PTI during the detailed design stage.  It is also recommended that a canopy should be provided at the ingress and egress of the PTI and solid panels to be erected as necessary next to the bus bays to screen the line-of-sight of the PTI from the nearby NSRs.  These mitigation measures will be reviewed at the later stage of the Project based on the detailed design of the PTI and the confirmed layout plan of the housing sites. 

4.7.5.2            In addition, the following good practices should be incorporated into the design of the proposed PTI during detailed design stage:

·       Proper selection of quiet plant aiming to reduce tonality at NSRs;

·       Openings of ventilation systems should be located away from NSRs as far as practicable and oriented away from the NSRs to avoid direct line-of-sight to the concerned NSRs; and

·       Installation of silencer/ acoustic louvre for the exhaust of ventilation system.

 

4.7.5.3            The feasibility, practicality and effectiveness of the above mitigation measures have been reviewed.  As the fixed noise source impacts for planned and existing NSRs will be within respective noise criteria, no dwellings, classrooms and other sensitive receivers that will be exposed to noise impact exceeding the criteria set out in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM.

4.7.6                 Evaluation of Residual Fixed Noise Source Impact

4.7.6.1            Fixed noise source impacts arising from the Project can be properly mitigated by implementing the proposed noise mitigation measures.  Residual noise impacts are thus not anticipated.

 

4.8                     Aircraft Noise Impact Assessment

4.8.1                 Identification of Potential Impact

Three-Runway System (3RS) Operation

4.8.1.1            According to correspondence from Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) (see Appendix 4.8.1), the information provided in the approved EIA report (AEIAR-185/2014 - Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-Runway System) is up-to-date. Year 2030 was considered as the worst assessment year and Year 2032 was considered as the full operation scenario of three-runway system and had been selected to represent the design capacity scenario. NEF25 Contour (see Appendix 4.8.2) for both Year 2030 and Year 2032 had been developed in the approved EIA Study which have taken into account various parameters including all flight path(s) to be in use under 3RS operations. All departure flight path(s) to be in use under the 3RS operations and near to the development site(s) have been assessed. No adverse aircraft noise impact associated with Three-Runway System (3RS) operation is anticipated in PDA.

Shek Kong Airfield Operation

4.8.1.2            Shek Kong Airfield is open to civilian traffic at weekends and is frequently utilized by Hong Kong Aviation Club (HKAC). As advised by HKAC, both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter of HKAC would make use of Shek Kong Airfield. HKAC operates mostly on Saturday, Sunday and public holiday instead of in daily basis. Fixed-wing aircrafts and helicopters predominantly fly during daytime (0700-1900 hours).

4.8.1.3            As per the VHHH AD2.22 Section 25 of Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) by Civil Aviation Department (CAD), prior permission must be obtained from appropriate military authority for any flight intending to operate within the Shek Kong Aerodrome Reporting Area (SKARA). Information has been verified with HKAC. HKAC’s fixed-wing aircrafts use the SKARA for departure and approaching. Thus, the departure and approach circuit/ flight path from or to Shek Kong Airfield runway is confined within the SKARA, which is 2km away from the PDA. (see Figure 4.8.1)

4.8.1.4            Nevertheless, to evaluate the aircraft noise impact from the operation of Shek Kong Airfield, reference has been made to the NEF25 contour generated in 3RS EIA Study. The 3RS EIA Study revealed that the span of NEF25 contour for Year 2030 (i.e. the worst assessment year) perpendicular to the runway is approximately 3 km. The separation between the PDA and the Shek Kong Airfield is approximately 5.3 km. In addition, it should be noted that the operation frequency, capacity and size of aircrafts are not extensive as 3RS. Making reference to NEF25 of 3RS EIA Study is considered as a very conservative approach. In view of the large separation between PDA and Shek Kong Airfield, adverse aircraft noise impact to the planned NSRs of PDA is not anticipated. 

 

4.9                     Helicopter Noise Impact Assessment

4.9.1                 Identification of Potential Impact

Background

4.9.1.1            Based on the latest design information, there is no planned helipad under this Project. Potential helicopter noise impacts associated with other nearby helipads have been identified and addressed below.

Fanling Lodge Helipad and Fanling Golf Course Helipad

4.9.1.2            As advised by Government Flying Service (GFS), two helipads (namely “Fanling Lodge Helipad” and “Fanling Golf Course Helipad”) are located within the Fanling Golf Course. These two helipads are located at approximately 580m and 750m from the Project Site respectively. These two helipads are mainly for emergency purposes. As advised by GFS, (see Appendix 4.9.1), there has been no landing for emergency purpose for the two helipads for the last two years and no record of noise complaint in the past 5 years. The flight frequency and flight hours of these two helipads are low. The usage of helipad is irregular and infrequent. The Fanling Lodge Helipad may be occasionally used for visits by the Chief Executive’s Office. According to the interview with staff of Fanling Golf Course, the usage of helipads is irregular and infrequent. The potential helicopter noise associated with existing Fanling Lodge Helipad (WB16) and Fanling Golf Club Helipad (WB17) are addressed in the following sections.

Shek Kong Airfield

4.9.1.3            According to correspondence from GFS (see Appendix 4.9.1), Shek Kong Airfield is a frequently visited area for training. As general operation of GFS helicopters, approach and departure operation completes within 1 to 2km distance from the helipad. As the Shek Kong Airfield is located at approximately 5.3km from the PDA, the departure and approaching operation completes in 3-4km away from the PDA. The PDA is outside the departure and approaching/landing flight paths of the Shek Kong Airfield.

4.9.1.4            Shek Kong Airfield is open to civilian traffic at weekends and is frequently utilized by Hong Kong Aviation Club (HKAC). As advised by HKAC, both fixed wing aircraft and helicopter of HKAC would make use of Shek Kong Airfield. HKAC operates mostly on Saturday, Sunday and public holiday instead of in daily basis. Fixed-wing aircrafts and helicopters predominantly fly during daytime (0700-1900 hours). A summary table is provided in Appendix 4.9.3.

 

4.9.1.5            As per the VHHH AD2.22 Section 25 of Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) by Civil Aviation Department (CAD), prior permission must be obtained from appropriate military authority for any flight intending to operate within the Shek Kong Aerodrome Reporting Area (SKARA). Information has been verified with HKAC. HKAC’s helicopters use the SKARA for departure and approaching. Thus, the departure and approach circuit/ flight path from or to Shek Kong Airfield is confined within the SKARA, which is 2km away from the PDA. (see Figure 4.8.1) In view of this, departure and approaching operation is likely confined within SKARA.

4.9.1.6            Nevertheless, for helicopter operations at Shek Kong Airfield, reference has also been made to the general operation of helicopters by GFS. Under GFS normal constraint-free operations, helicopter approaches towards the helipad while it is descending at an angle (about 4.6 degrees) to the helipad and departs from the helipad while it is climbing up at an angle (about 4.6 degrees) from the helipad surface during departure. The departure and approaching operation complete within 1-2km from the helipad. This finding is also in-line with GFS’s advice on the general operation of their helicopters.  For heavy-duty helicopters operating at Shek Kong Airfield, a larger departure and approaching distance maybe required. As a conservative approach, a doubled departure and approaching distances of GFS operation (i.e. 4 km) are assumed for heavy-duty helicopters. There is still 1.3km away from the PDA. Thus, in view of sufficient separation distance between Shek Kong Airfield and PDA, adverse helicopter noise impact associated with Shek Kong Airfield is not anticipated.  

Operation Mode of Helicopters at WB16 and WB17

4.9.1.7            Helicopter noise will be generated during manoeuvring over the helipad within the Final Approach and Take-Off (FATO) area and during lateral (approach/departure) flight movements and flyover. Under a helicopter replacement programme by GFS, the Super Puma AS332 L2 helicopters and Dauphin EC155 B1 helicopters previously utilised for emergency evacuations have been replaced by medium-sized single-model helicopters Airbus H175 by the GFS, and these Airbus H175 helicopters will be used for helipad WB16 and WB17. The helicopter noise source term based on the Airbus H175 (previously known as EC175) have been confirmed with GFS. (see Appendix 4.9.1) The Airbus H175 will comply with the latest standards on noise for helicopters as stipulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The ICAO has stipulated noise standards for lateral movements of helicopters, including approach, take-off and flyover. The maximum Effective Perceived Noise Levels (EPNLs) for helicopters’ lateral movements operating at full load conditions is used as the noise certification standard adopted by the ICAO Council.  The relevant noise certificate for the Airbus H175 is presented in Appendix 4.9.1 and the EPNLs data are summarised in Table 4.9.1.

Table 4.9.1  Noise Data of Airbus H175 – Lateral Movements

Operation Mode	Reference Distance, m	Noise Level
		EPNL, EPNdB [1]	Lmax, dB(A) [2]
Approach	120	95.1	82.1
Flyover	150	91.0	78.0
Take-off	150	90.2	77.2

Note:

[1] The EPNLs are determined under conditions prescribed in Chapter 8 and Appendix 4 of Annex 16 of ICAO, and prescribed in 14 CFR 36 Appendix.

[2] Lmax = ENPL – 13 dB(A) with reference to the “Transportation Noise Reference Book” (P. M. Nelson, 1987, England: Butterworths).

 

4.9.1.8            However, the noise data for non-lateral movements are not available in the Noise Certificate for the Airbus H175. With reference to approved EIA study “A Rooftop Helipad at New Acute Hospital at Kai Tak Development Area (Register No.: AEIAR-224/2020)”, noise data associated with non-lateral movement of Airbus H175 is provided below.

Table 4.9.2  Noise Data of Airbus H175 – Non-lateral Movements

Operation Mode	Reference Distance, m	Measured Highest Noise Level Lmax of Airbus H175, dB(A)
Idling	150	75.4
Lift-off	150	82.4
Hovering	150	83.5
Touchdown	150	78.9

 

4.9.1.9            Operational modes that may generate noise will be considered. Helicopter noise is considered as a ‘point’ source and will be evaluated based on standard acoustic principle of point source propagation. Corrections will be applied for the distance attenuation, façade, barrier or topographical effect where applicable.

4.9.1.10         The different operational modes that may generate noise are summarised as follows:

Non-lateral Movements

·       Hovering: Helicopter turns on the spot over the helipad to achieve the desirable orientation for touchdown / lift-off;

·       Touchdown: Helicopter descends on the helipad surface;

·       Idling: Helicopter remains on the helipad surface with its rotary blades kept running; and

·       Lift-off: Helicopter ascends vertically from the helipad surface to achieve a hover before departure.

Lateral Movements

·       Approach: Helicopter approaches the helipad while it is descending at an angle to the helipad surface;

·       Take-off: Helicopter leaves the helipad while it is climbing up at an angle to the helipad surface; and

·       Flyover: Helicopter cruises before approach or after take-off.

 

4.9.2                 Assessment Methodology

4.9.2.1            According to Table 1A, Annex 5 of the TM-EIAO, helicopter noise impacts at an NSR shall be assessed in terms of A-weighted maximum sound pressure level L_max.  The helicopter noise level (L_max) at an NSR can be calculated using the following formula:

                              L_max = L_max(ref) + CD +CB +CF

Where,

L_max – Helicopter noise level at 1m from the external façade of NSR, dB(A);

L_max (ref) – Sound Pressure Level at reference distance, dB(A);

CD – Distance correction, dB(A);

CB – Barrier correction, dB(A);

CF – Façade correction, dB(A).

 

4.9.2.2            Since all planned NSRs are located over 150m from the FATO of the proposed helipad and the helicopter flight paths, the helicopter can be considered as a ‘point’ source for noise assessment.  Therefore, the sound pressure level at NSRs has been evaluated based on standard acoustic principles of a ‘point’ source, that is, the sound pressure received at NSRs will be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the noise source and the NSR.  The distance correction CD can be calculated using the following formula:

                              CD = –20log₁₀(R / R(ref))

Where,

R – Shortest distance from a noise source to NSR, m;

R(ref) – Reference distance from a noise source to a measurement point, m.

 

4.9.3                 Evaluation of Noise Impact

Flight Frequency and Flight Hours

4.9.3.1            As mentioned in Section 4.9.1.7, Airbus H175 helicopters are used at these helipads. There is no record of simultaneous use of WB16 and WB17. According to information provided by GFS (see Appendix 4.9.1), there has been no landing for emergency purpose for the two helipads for the last two years and no record of noise complaint in the past 5 years. The flight frequency and flight hours of these two helipads are low.

4.9.3.2            Since there is no relevant noise criteria in the EIAO-TM and overseas / international guidelines applicable to emergency helicopter operation in the in evening and night-time periods, the helicopter noise impact during evening and night-time periods would not be quantitatively assessed. Furthermore, night-time operation is only expected for emergency uses.

Flight Paths

4.9.3.3            The most probable approach and departure headings for WB16 are 230°/050° and 260°/080° and for WB17 are 240°/060° and 320°/140°. The most critical case is the approach/ departure heading 140° for WB17. The lateral distance between WB17 and Sub-Area 1 of PDA is over 600m. An indicative flight path for heading 140°, as confirmed with GFS, is shown in Figure 4.9.1. With such large separation, GFS considered that it is sufficient to carry out approach or departure without overflying or flying close to the Sub-Area 1 of PDA. (i.e. at least 150m from the Sub-Area 1) From operational and flight safety perspectives, there is no need to overfly or fly close to Sub-Area 1 at all under normal operation parameters.

4.9.3.4            Assessment area has been proposed for helicopter noise impact assessment. Buffer distances have been estimated for compliance with the daytime criterion Lmax 85dB(A). NSRs outside the minimum buffer distances would not be subject to adverse helicopter noise impacts in the daytime. Assuming no barrier correction, backward calculation of the equations in Section 4.9.2.1 and the noise data presented in Table 4.9.1 and Table 4.9.2 have been adopted. The estimated buffer distances have been considered as the assessment areas and presented in Table 4.9.3 and detailed in Appendix 4.9.2.

 

 

 

Table 4.9.3  Minimum Buffer Distance Required for H175

Operation Mode		Estimated Buffer Distance, m	Buffer Distance Required, m
Non-Lateral Movements at FATO of Helipad	Hovering	170	170
	Lift-off	150
	Touchdown	100
	Idling	67
Lateral Movements along Flight Path	Approach	116	116
	Take-off	82
	Flyover	90

4.9.3.5            As shown in Table 4.9.3, the minimum buffer distance required for non-lateral movement at FATO of helipad is 170m. Helipads WB16 and WB17 are located at 580 m and 750 m from the PDA respectively. In view of the separation distance, the noise assessment only focuses on the lateral movement of flight path. As advised by GFS, the helicopter operation near PDA mainly associate with lateral movement. Therefore, an 116m assessment area has been proposed based on the above justification. Assessment area is shown in Figure 4.9.1.

4.9.3.6            As advised by GFS, there is no record of simultaneous use of WB16 and WB17. The main purpose of these two helipads is for emergency. Cumulative noise impact associated with these two helipads is not considered. Therefore, it is considered that the worst operation mode which represents the maximum noise emission has been assessed.

4.9.3.7            From operational and flight safety perspectives, there is no need to overfly or fly close to Sub-Area 1 at all under normal operation parameters. As shown in Figure 4.9.1, the indicative flight path is outside the 116m assessment area. Moreover, there is also no record of simultaneous use of WB16 and WB17. There has been no landing for emergency purpose for the two helipads for the last two years and no record of noise complaint in the past 5 years. Therefore, no adverse helicopter noise impact associated with operation of WB16 and WB17 to the PDA is anticipated.

4.9.3.8            All planned NSRs of the Project will be within daytime noise criteria of L_max 85dB(A). The L_max contour is shown in Appendix 4.9.4. As the helicopter impacts for planned NSRs will be within respective noise criteria, no dwellings, classrooms and other sensitive receivers that will be exposed to noise impact exceeding the criteria set out in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM.

4.9.4                 Mitigation of Helicopter Noise Impacts

4.9.4.1            As discussed above, helicopter noise impacts would comply with the statutory requirement, mitigation measures for helicopter noise impact are not considered necessary.

4.9.5                 Evaluation of Residual Helicopter Noise Impacts

4.9.5.1            Adverse residual noise impacts are not anticipated during the operational phase of the Project. The total number of dwellings, classrooms and other noise sensitive elements that will be exposed to adverse residual noise impact exceeding the criteria set in Annex 5 in the TM is nil.

 

4.10                  Conclusion

Construction Noise Impact

4.10.1.1         Construction noise associated with the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) for different phases of construction has been conducted. With the implementation of practical mitigation measures including good site management practices, use of movable noise barrier and full enclosure, use of “quiet” plant and working method, construction noise impacts at all of the neighbouring residential noise sensitive uses would be controlled to acceptable levels. Minimum separation distance between schools and critical works area during school examination period have been recommended to mitigate potential adverse construction noise impact during examination period.  With the recommended mitigation measures in place, construction noise impacts on all representative NSRs would comply with the relevant criteria.

Road Traffic Noise Impact

4.10.1.2         Operational road traffic noise impact on the representative existing and planned noise sensitive uses within and outside the PDA have been evaluated. Noise exceedances were predicted at existing NSR E01 near Project roads, as well as planned NSRs B02, B05, B07 and EDU within the PDA. To mitigate the road traffic noise impact on the existing and planned NSRs exceeding their respective noise criteria, a combination of noise mitigation measures has been recommended as direct and additional mitigation measures, including i) application of low noise road surfacing material along Po Kin Road and Ping Kong Road, ii) provision of acoustic window (baffle type) at planned residential blocks, iii) provision of Class Assessment Approach at the proposed school, iv) restriction on locating the more noise sensitive welfare uses at façade facing Ping Kong Road.   With the implementation of mitigation measures, the predicted traffic noise levels of the existing NSRs and planned NSRs would comply with the relevant noise criteria. Residual impact on representative existing and planned NSRs is not expected.

Fixed Noise Impact

4.10.1.3          Fixed noise source impact assessment has been conducted for all existing and planned fixed noise sources.  Noise impact from planned fixed noise source under this Project (i.e. ventilation fans for the proposed PTI) could be effectively mitigated by implementing noise mitigation measure at source. With the adoption of the proposed maximum allowable SWL, the predicted noise level at the representative NSRs would comply with the relevant noise criteria for both existing and planned fixed noise sources.

 

4.10.1.4          The PTI will be enclosed and designed to avoid direct line-of-sight to the NSRs.  Therefore, adverse fixed noise sources impact on the NSRs is not anticipated.  The design of the PTI and the proposed maximum allowable SWLs of the ventilation fans shall be reviewed with the final design during the detailed design stage.

4.10.1.5          The proposed building at the south of block 10 at Sub-area 2 will be provided with minor fixed noise sources only and no adverse fixed noise impact is anticipated.

Aircraft Noise Impact

4.10.1.6         Aircraft noise impact on planned sensitive uses within Sub-Area 1 of PDA have been reviewed. As mentioned in Section 4.8.1.1, the NEF 25 Contour have taken into account various parameters including all flight path(s) to be in use under 3RS operation. All departure flight path(s) to be in use under the 3RS operations and near to the development site(s) have been assessed. As confirmed by AAHK, the NEF 25 Contour is up-to-date. The Project area is located at over 15km from the NEF 25 Contour of the HKIA under the 3RS operation. Adverse aircraft noise impact due to 3RS operation is not anticipated. As mentioned in Section 4.8.1.2 to 4.8.1.4, the aircraft noise impact from the operation of Shek Kong Airfield have been reviewed. The separation between the PDA and the Shek Kong Airfield is approximately 5.3 km. In view of the large separation between PDA and Shek Kong Airfield, adverse aircraft noise impact due to operation of Shek Kong Airfield is not anticipated. According to the latest information, the approach and departure operation of aircrafts would maintain sufficient separation distance from the PDA. Therefore, no adverse aircraft noise impact is anticipated in PDA.

Helicopter Noise Impact

4.10.1.7         Helicopter noise impact on planned sensitive uses within Sub-Area 1 of PDA have been reviewed. According to the latest information, the flight path of helicopters would maintain sufficient separation distance from noise sensitive receivers in Sub-Area 1 of PDA. Therefore, no adverse helicopter noise impact is anticipated in PDA.