| Stakeholder |
Key Concerns |
Follow-up Actions |
| Green Groups (WWF, CA, KFBG and GLA) |
- Temporary Eencroachment into Country Park and the need to provide off-site compensation
|
- Options without encroachment into the Country Park have been developed and examined but were not recommended for preferred option because they cannot provide adequate void capacity to meet territorial and regional demand for waste disposal outlet (further information on options selection is provided in the EIA Report).
- On-site compensation by woodland plantation has been proposed in the EIA to enhance the ecological value of the encroached area.
- Off-site compensation for Country Park is outside the current mechanism of designating Country Park by AFCD.
|
- Maximise void space and reduce landfill footprint by engineering measures
|
- Engineering measures have been considered to maximize the void space offered by the non-encroachment options. However, it was found that massive retaining wall/earth bunds (height in the order of 40m) will be required which will be visually intrusive and technically challenging and would still not increase the void space to meet the demand. Furthermore, the feasibility of this solution is uncertain as there is no precedent of building a sanitary landfill with such a depth of retaining structure. Hence, they have not been put forward. This was addressed in the EIA.
|
- Potential landfill afteruse
|
- After restoration, the landfill will be suitable for passive recreational uses. The potential afteruse will be investigated and examined in subsequent stages of the project.
|
- Potential social and psychological impact
|
- The potential social impact was broadly addressed in the Sustainability Assessment and the potential environmental impacts were assessed in the EIA.
|
