Feasibility Study on Relocation of Sham Tseng Sewage Treatment Works To

CB(1)1100/13-14(03) For discussion on 25 March 2014

Legislative Council Panel on Development

401DS – Feasibility study on relocation of Sham Tseng sewage treatment works to caverns 402DS – Feasibility study on relocation of Sai Kung sewage treatment works to caverns 195WC – Feasibility study on relocation of Diamond Hill fresh water and salt water service reservoirs to caverns

PURPOSE

This paper seeks Members’ support on the proposals to upgrade 401DS, 402DS and 195WC to Category A at an estimated cost of $39.2 million, $40.6 million and $46.0 million respectively in money-of-the-day (MOD) prices to carry out feasibility studies on relocation of Sham Tseng sewage treatment works (STSTW), Sai Kung sewage treatment works (SKSTW) and Diamond Hill fresh water and salt water service reservoirs (DHSRs) to caverns.

PROJECT SCOPE AND NATURE

2. The scope of 401DS (the STSTW Study) and 402DS (the SKSTW Study), which we propose to upgrade to Category A, comprises –

(a) detailed engineering feasibility studies including relevant preliminary technical and impact assessments1, preparation of an outline design of engineering works, formulation of implementation strategies and programmes etc. for relocation of STSTW and SKSTW to caverns and the associated works2;

1 The preliminary technical and impact assessments cover sewage and sludge treatments, sewerage, geotechnical, environmental, drainage, traffic, waterworks, utilities, land requirement and land use aspects.

2 The associated works include – (a) rehabilitation, modification or improvement of the upstream sewerage in relation to relocation of STSTW and SKSTW to caverns; (b) rehabilitation, modification or improvement of the existing submarine outfalls or construction of new outfalls for connecting with the relocated STSTW and SKSTW; (c) demolition of the existing STSTW and SKSTW; and (d) ancillary works.

- 2 -

(b) planning review with broad technical assessment of the future land use of the existing sites of STSTW and SKSTW for the purpose of establishing business cases for the relocation proposals;

(d) site investigation and other investigations3.

Plans showing the study areas for the relocated STSTW and SKSTW are at Enclosures 1 and 2 respectively.

3. The scope of 195WC (the DHSRs Study), which we propose to upgrade to Category A, comprises –

(a) a detailed engineering feasibility study including analysis and modification of water supply networks, relevant preliminary technical and impact assessments 4 , preparation of an outline design of engineering works, formulation of implementation strategies and programmes etc. for the relocation of DHSRs and the associated facilities5 to caverns and the related works6;

(b) planning review with broad technical assessment of the future land use of the existing sites of DHSRs for the purpose of establishing a business case for the relocation proposal;

(d) site investigation and other investigations3.

A plan showing the study area for the relocated DHSRs is at Enclosure 3.

4. Subject to the funding approval of the Finance Committee (FC), the Drainage Services Department (DSD) plans to commence the STSTW Study and SKSTW Study in August 2014 for completion in August 2016. The Water Supplies

3 Other investigations include topographical, tree, utility and environmental surveys etc.

4 The preliminary technical and impact assessments cover geotechnical, environmental, drainage, traffic, waterworks, utilities, land requirement and land use aspects.

5 The associated facilities include the Diamond Hill Fresh Water and Salt Water Pumping Station and water mains.

6 Related works include – (a) demolition of the existing structures including DHSRs and associated facilities; and (b) modification of the existing supply zone of DHSRs and other related water supply zones. - 3 -

Department (WSD) plans to commence the DHSRs Study in November 2014 for completion in November 2016.

JUSTIFICATION

5. There is a pressing need to optimise the supply of land for various uses by sustainable and innovative approaches to support the social and economic development. One practicable approach is rock cavern development (RCD).

6. According to the findings of the study on “Enhanced Use of Underground Space in Hong Kong” completed by the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) in 2011, about two-third of the land in Hong Kong is suitable for RCD from topographical and geological perspectives. The benefits of RCD are manifold. Placing NIMBY (“not-in-my-backyard”) facilities such as sewage treatment works in caverns could remove incompatible land uses and improve the living environment of the local community. It could also provide land to meet the development needs of the society without the involvement of major land resumption, which may often lead to social disruption and tension.

7. The 2011-12 Policy Address announced that the Government would adopt a multi-pronged approach, including reclamation and RCD, for expanding land resources. To take forward the initiatives, CEDD commissioned a feasibility study on increasing land supply by reclamation and RCD in July 2011. The study has identified three government facilities, viz. the STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs, for relocating to caverns. The study has also broadly demonstrated that cavern schemes could be implemented to house these facilities. Specifically, the STSTW is a primary sewage treatment works with a design daily sewage treatment capacity of about 17 000 cubic metres (m3) per day, while the SKSTW is a secondary sewage treatment works with a design daily capacity of about 8 000 m3. The Diamond Hill fresh water and salt water service reservoirs have a storage capacity of about 23 500 m3 and 21 800 m3 respectively. Their relocation would potentially release the existing sites of about 6.3 hectares7 (ha) in total for more beneficial and compatible land uses. The study has therefore recommended further detailed feasibility studies to identify and address the issues associated with the relocation proposals.

8. Due to inadequate in-house resources, we propose to engage consultants to conduct the three feasibility studies and supervise the associated site investigation works.

7 The existing sites of the STSTW, SKSTW and the DHSRs are about 1.1 ha, 2.2 ha and 3 ha in area respectively. - 4 -

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9. We estimate the cost of the STSTW Study to be $39.2 million in MOD prices, made up as follows – $ million

(a) Consultants’ fee for 22.3

(i) detailed engineering 17.6 feasibility study on relocation of STSTW to caverns and the associated works

(ii) planning review with broad 1.9 technical assessment of the future land use of the existing STSTW site

(iii) PE and consultation 1.8 exercises with relevant stakeholders

(iv) supervision of site 1.0 investigation and other investigations

(b) Site investigation and other 8.5 investigations

Total 39.2 (in MOD prices)

10. We estimate the cost of the SKSTW Study to be $40.6 million in MOD prices, made up as follows –

$ million

(a) Consultants’ fee for 23.4

(i) detailed engineering 18.5 feasibility study on relocation of SKSTW to - 5 -

$ million

caverns and the associated works

(ii) planning review with broad 1.9 technical assessment of the future land use of the existing SKSTW site

(iii) PE and consultation 1.8 exercises with relevant stakeholders

(iv) supervision of site 1.2 investigation and other investigations

(b) Site investigation and other 8.5 investigations

Total 40.6 (in MOD prices)

11. We estimate the cost of the DHSRs Study to be $46.0 million in MOD prices, made up as follows – $ million

(a) Consultants’ fee for 26.4

(i) detailed engineering 20.9 feasibility study on relocation of DHSRs to caverns and the related works

(ii) planning review with broad 2.2 technical assessment of the future land use of the existing DHSRs sites

(iii) PE and consultation 2.0 exercises with relevant - 6 -

$ million

stakeholders

(iv) supervision of site 1.3 investigation and other investigations

(b) Site investigation and other 10.0 investigations

Total 46.0 (in MOD prices)

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

12. A two-stage PE exercise on “Enhancing Land Supply Strategy: Reclamation outside Victoria Harbour and Rock Cavern Development” was completed by CEDD in June 2013. During the Stage 1 PE conducted from November 2011 to March 2012, there was a general support for a multi-pronged approach, including the use of RCD for enhancing land supply. Based on the public views received, the site selection criteria were formulated and subsequently three potential government facilities, viz. STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs, were selected for public consultation in the Stage 2 PE, which was conducted from March to June 2013. The report of the PE was released in January 2014 and uploaded to the project website. Throughout the PE exercise, there was a general public support on adopting RCD as a means for enhancing land supply.

13. CEDD consulted the relevant district councils as part of their Stage 2 PE exercise. On 7, 14 and 28 May 2013, the Sai Kung District Council (SKDC), Wong Tai Sin District Council (WTSDC) and the Tsuen Wan District Council (TWDC) were consulted on the overall strategy on enhancing land supply and the relocation of SKSTW, DHSRs and STSTW to caverns respectively. Both the SKDC and TWDC had no objection in principle to the development of rock caverns in their districts. The WTSDC also supported the development of rock cavern in the district if it is proved to be feasible. However, the SKDC expressed concern on traffic and environmental issues caused by the RCD, while the TWDC expressed concern on noise, traffic and vibration issues arising from RCD. The TWDC also expressed their concern about the impact on the nearby graveyards brought by the relocation of STSTW to caverns.

- 7 -

14. To further solicit support for carrying out the three feasibility studies, we consulted the respective district councils again in early 2014. On 13 January 2014, DSD consulted the Community Building, Planning and Development Committee (CBPDC) of TWDC on the STSTW Study. CBPDC of TWDC had no objection to our proposal to proceed with the STSTW Study. They expressed that local residents were concerned about the noise, vibration, traffic and environmental issues as well as the after-use of the released site. They also requested that appropriate community and leisure facilities should be provided at the released site to address the residents’ needs. In February 2014, WSD submitted an information paper to WTSDC on the scope and programme of the DHSRs Study and the plan to apply for funding to carry out the DHSRs Study. WTSDC members noted the proposal. On 4 March 2014, DSD consulted the SKDC regarding the SKSTW Study. SKDC had no objection to our proposal to proceed with the SKSTW Study. However, they expressed concern on traffic, environmental and odour issues as well as the after-use of the released site.

15. We will address the various public concerns on the relocation of STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs to caverns in detail during the respective feasibility studies.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

16. The proposed development of STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs in rock caverns are designated projects under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance (Chapter 499) requiring environmental permits for their construction and operation. However, the feasibility studies are not designated projects and will not cause any long-term environmental impacts. We have included in the project estimates the costs of implementing suitable pollution control measures to mitigate the short-term environmental impacts arising from the site investigation works.

17. The proposed site investigation works will only generate very little construction waste. We will require the consultants to fully consider measures to minimise the generation of construction waste and to reuse/recycle construction waste as much as possible in the future implementation of the construction projects.

HERITAGE IMPLICATIONS

18. The feasibility studies on relocation of STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs to caverns and the associated site investigation works will not affect any heritage site, i.e. all declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded historic sites/buildings, sites of archaeological interest and Government historic sites identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office.

- 8 -

LAND ACQUISITION

19. The feasibility studies on relocation of the STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs to caverns and the associated site investigation works will not require any land acquisition.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

20. We upgraded 401DS, 402DS and 195WC to Category B in September 2013.

21. The feasibility studies on relocation of STSTW, SKSTW and DHSRs and the associated site investigation works will not directly involve any tree removal or planting proposal. We will require the consultants to take into consideration the need for tree preservation during these studies.

22. We estimate that the STSTW Study will create about 22 jobs (5 for labourers and another 17 for professional/technical staff) providing a total employment of 425 man-months.

23. We estimate that the SKSTW Study will create about 23 jobs (5 for labourers and another 18 for professional/technical staff) providing a total employment of 440 man-months.

24. We estimate that the DHSRs Study will create about 27 jobs (6 for labourers and another 21 for professional/technical staff) providing a total employment of 500 man-months.

WAY FORWARD

25. Members are invited to support the proposal for upgrading 401DS, 402DS and 195WC to Category A. Subject to the support of this Panel, we will seek the support of the Public Works Subcommittee in April 2014 with a view to seeking funding approval from the FC in May 2014.

Development Bureau Drainage Services Department Water Supplies Department March 2014 10

¥ —¥ Pak Shek Kiu t¤ Tin Fu Tsai Chuen Lung

W¤ W¤á Sheung Tong LEGEND: ¬½á Sheung Fa Shan Ï¹ ƒ 150.5 LIN FA SHAN _Ä³ The Cliveden fih p The Cairnhill LOCATION M† Tsing Fai Tong ú¥OªÐ {²³¦`²«¤Ã Kwong Pan Tin ¥s –‰ San Tsuen SHEK LUNG KUNG Tso Kung 185.2 Tam ú¥Oª EXISTING SHAM TSENG U¤á Kwong Pan Tin Ha Fa Shan Tsuen flW˘ Tsuen Wan Centre ¥—¥ Pak Tin Pa San Tsuen SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS r´º´ Discovery Park Weir fl CHAI WAN b¥s KOK Pun Shan Tsuen ” TSUENoªa¬ WAN Yau Kom Tau Village SHAM TSENG SETTLEMENT ‘†«⁄ o´ R˜« BASIN Sham Tseng M†§ Water Belvedere Commercial ˛w Tsing Fai Tong Treatment Garden New Village Shu On New Village Works «m¸á«`²«¤Ã ê¶ Terrace Yuen Tun Sham`²«¤ Tseng Å¥ oªa WÆº´ fl Yau Kom Tau San Tsuen Ting Kau Bayview Garden `²«¤ TSUEN WAN pƒ⁄ Sham Tseng `²«¤ Nina Tower Kau Tsuen Sham Tseng TING KAU BEACH `²« East Village “B¤ o´ Sham Tseng ”‡ Village Bellagio LIDO BEACH Water`² `²«¤ APPROACH BEACH Treatment Sham Tseng §¿ Works West Village Ocean CASAM BEACH ˘–· fiA Pointe x Pai Min Kok Village SHAM TSENG PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF SHAM WaterHOI MEI WAN BEACH TSING LUNG TAU Sea Crest Villa ANGLERS' BEACH C«õ ¨»º´ ê¶[ Ching Tai Yuen Tun Village Court øªo Hong Kong Garden GEMINI BEACHES Tank Cheung Fat fi ¯øº RELOCATED SHAM TSENG Estate Riviera Gardens C«s Villa Esplanada Tsing Lung û¤¤ Tau Tsuen TSENG Ngau Kok Wan Cheung On … Estate øªw NGA YING CHAU DRAGON BEACH Cheung Shue oªa Tau SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS Yau Kom ‹A» Tau

Tierra Verde FUNG SHUE WOK TAI WAN t¸O« øª» WO St. Paul's ß⁄ Cheung Wang C« Village Ngau Lan Tsui Estate Cheung Hang C« Tsing Yi M†§ C« Estate Tsing Yi Hui Estate Weir KAU PO øªë j⁄⁄ PAK WAN Tai Wong Ha TSING LENG Tsing _¥WFai Tong Resite Village PAK WAN TUNG WAN TSAI QÆÐ¥ TSUI TENG Ä¬R p Yim Tin Kok «›m‚‘†«⁄ˆƒ⁄ Resite Village fiY“ Park Island øª TSING YI Grand Horizon NewTAM SHUI WAN Village Cheung Tsui SHEK WAN ÅÂÐ Ffl‹ d¼ Lam Tin Chung Mei Ð¥ ¤ Liu To Resite Village Lo Uk Village SHEK TSAI WAN Tin Liu ¤W˘fi” MA WAN øªd Ma Wan Cheung Hong Estate MA WAN TOWN † Fishermen's Village TUNG WAN Dockyard ã¬s¨ ¤W˘j TUNG WAN C« ¤⁄ Ma Wan Main Street Village ISLANDChing Wah Court øªC Ma Kok Tsui Cheung Ching ' Estate Kwai Shek h¬á Lau Fa Tsuen STUDY AREA FOR LOCATION KUNG TSAI WAN KAM CHUK KOK Weir j¤ ¥d ¤ª s·E TAI LENG PAK NAI ˆƒ⁄B OF RELOCATED SHAM TSENG 154.6 Pump 107.4 House ¥© SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS 177.6 `fl KEY PLAN ' 154.5 Z SCALE 1 : 100 000 ˛w Ruin ñ¤ Shu On Terrace

27.0 151.9 Weir 29.7

104.9

22.6 17.9 `²«¤ Sham Tseng East Village Z 112.1 ﬁˆ Z Rhine Garden Ruin `²«¤ø `²«¤ 139.1 [ºÏ± SHAM TSENG 5.5 EAST VILLAGE ﬁ

96.9 6.1

50.2 7.0 ”‡ Bellagio¥ Podium §¿ Z Ocean§¿ Pointe OCEAN 65.3 POINTE

77.6 I¬u Works in progress

·ˆ Dolphin 5.1 `² ˆƒ⁄B GoldenGOLDEN Villa SHAM TSENG SEWAGE TREATMENT VILLA WORKS 4.9 39.2

0 50 100 150 200 250 m 1 : 5 000 SCALE BAR æ⁄

L. L. LIU 17 MAR 2014 p¦Ï u⁄¨u⁄{p›”„¶ DCM/2013/068 AS SHOWN - h•E‘†«⁄ˆƒ K. H. YAU 17 MAR 2014 i¥ƒ˚ PWP ITEM NO. 401DS W. Y. CHAN 17 MAR 2014 - FEASIBILITY STUDY ON RELOCATION OF SHAM TSENG SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS TO CAVERNS 10

Wong Chuk Yeung o¼q Tit Kim Hang Disused Mine ⁄ 4.2 Shui Long Wo ¶ fi Wong Mo Ying Tam Wat 31.1 ù© Ngong Wo D¿ O Tau 50.3 40.8 F¨¤ Z 5.6 ¶¸ T A I M O N G T S A I 10.8 n« Wong Chuk Wan ‡_ Nam A LEGEND: LUK CHAU AU ¥ fi Sha Kok Ï¹ Wo Liu Long Keng PYRAMIDj⁄ HILL j¤õ MeiD³ ‡_ Tai Po Tsai She Tau LUK CHAU SHAN ( TAI KAM CHUNG ) 13.7 50 43.6 s¤ 15.8 Shan Liu j¤ Tai Wan ›ƒ 7.4 ƒ s Tso Wo Hang j⁄ ¥b Lung Mei 11.3 Tai Mong Tsai Shek Lung Tsai û¤ Ngau Liu ˘— j¹| San Tin Hang Kak Hang Tun 21.3 [¿n |fi Jade Villa ›ƒ CHEUNG SHAN –l 44.4 Keng Floral Villas Mui Tsz Lam LOCATIONPang Ha fi Long Mei êªa {†‡ƒŁƒ^ˆ s· Fu Tei K¯ ù© San Uk TIT CHI SHAN 5.3 Ngong Ping 30.6 “T Hau ⁄ j¤ Fu Yung Pit ¥ Muk Min TAI CHAU Wo Tong Shan 5.0 TW© Kong EXISTING SAI KUNG NUI PO AU n« F¨ ¥bˆJ Nam Shan F¨¤ Sha Ha Shek Lung Tsai Sha Kok Mei 6.7 New Village ¥ˆ New Village ¥ˆ Z û¤ Kap Pin Long U©£ SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKSI¬u Ngau Au TW© j⁄ LAP SAP CHAU Ruin Mau Ping Tai Shui Tseng New Village Kap Pin Long New Village Lo Uk ¥ Kap Pin Long T 15.0 TW© Mau Ping _¥ Mau Ping Pak Kong Au »Ä 7.5 ¥ San Uk 47.4 Tan Cheung 5.6 SHEK NGA SHAN ⁄› ˆ· Tai Ping oªÂ Kwun Tsoi Pai Yau Ma Po Village Î« Po Lo Uk Cheung ¥ _¥ Che Ï¦ SHEK CHAU Pak Kong D¿ Ç¦P YEUNG CHAU ‹‰ 10.6 O Long U‚„ Fui Yiu Ha Cha Yue Pai Man Sau è¦ è¦ Village «›m‚Æ«Łƒ^ˆ A»¶ ¶¸ Sun Tsuen EªY 5.3 Wong Chuk Shan o´ Lakeside SAI KUNG CHAM TAU CHAU Water è¦^ Garden ¥ QÆÐ “W Treatment Sai Kung Tuk YIM TIN TSAI Wu Lei Tau Works SAI KUNG 6.3 p¤ê Kap Pin 5.6 85.7 „– SIU TSAN CHAU TAIj¤ê TSAN “B¤ Tui Min Hoi CHAULong ®ºÁ¥ ⁄ß Fisherman BUFFALO HILL Housing Estate ¥F w¼f 3.7 76.5 ˆƒ⁄B PAK SHA CHAU ł¯ “T Sewage KWUN PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF FU YUNG PIT Treatment Tak Wai Garden CHAM Works ·s WAN 53.6 YAU LUNG 6.1 ´¥mÂ ¼¿ KOK ¶ß BUFFALO PASS Tsiu Hang WEST BUFFALO HILL ( TA SHE YAU AU ) || ~¨w ´¥®Ä[ Che Keng Tuk 5.6 Ta Ho Tun _ÂY MONG RELOCATED SAI KUNG 4.6 SHEK NGA PUI Sheung Wai 43.2 HOI SING WAN TUEN TAU CHAU 3.6 ł¥ 34.7 CHAU TSAI Kei Pik Shan j¤F ¼¿| Tai Chung Hau L ´¥®Ä[ Tsiu Hang The Giverny Ta Ho Tun Hau 5.4 Ha Wai INNER PORT SHELTER KIU TSUI BEACH QÆÐ SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS j¤£¸ T⁄ ( SAI KUNG HOI ) Yim Tin Pai Tai No Sam Fai Tin 32.2 LONG MONG Sheung Yeung Z KIU TSUI ' WAN 90.3 C áª 4.3 110.0 j¤ y¼| ]Łƒ SHARP ISLAND Tai No õ¬á Hing Keng Shek Kau Sai ⁄D¥— ( KIU TSUI CHAU ) ·ù¥ San Tsuen 36.4 E´ Hung Fa Tsuen ¥F HEBE HAVEN Lo Chi Pai 5.4 Pak Sha Wan ( PAK SHA WAN ) 50.7 Kiu Tau Pak Kong Au SHEK KWU WAN «›m‚Łƒ^ˆƒ⁄ Z Â¶s Z 4.5 HAK SHAN TENG _¥ F¨ Pak Wai j¤| Sha Tsui Town Hall ‹ Wang Che ‡ ƒŒ Kai Ham Luk Mei Tsuen Lo Fu Ngam ã¬s¨ Ð¥ Jƒ Ã¥ Tin Liu Marina Cove ®Ä TRIO BEACH Â³n »Ä 4.2 97.1 Ho Chung Ma Nam Wat HAP MUN BAY BEACH è¦^ STUDY3.8 AREA FOR LOCATION 57.1 U¸Y SAM SING WAN Sai Kung Villa Man Tau Tsui Tan Cheung HAP MUN BAY Ë¦ ⁄ ®ÄF¯ Chuk Yuen Shui Hau Ho Chung Au Tsai ¥F 4.4 Tsuen s·† Pak Sha Tsui 20.0 OF RELOCATED SAI KUNG 91.6 p 88.7 `fl SEWAGE TREATMENT3.8 WORKS 100.6 KEY PLAN 88.4 'd 4.5 33.4 63.1 oªÂ SCALE 1 : 100 000 Yau Ma Po 4.3 ⁄ 3.9 3.7 Po Lo Cheñ¤ 19.5 d–… p

⁄› s·º 14.2 6.1 X½ Tai Ping Village Sun King Terrace X½ Pier Pier

73.3 s• Ç¦P 4.1 Fui Yiu Ha

Z 10.4 7.2 º´P¬ 82.9 Star Plaza 3.9 4.8 Z U‚„ 20 4.0 è¦ Man Sau Z Sun Tsuen 6.2 56.8 Z 5.9 Ï¦ SAI KUNG YEUNG CHAU D¿ 4.0 X½ X½ O Long Village 5.7 Pier Pier 5.8

36.8 29.6

è¦^ † Sai Kung Tuk Slipway X½ X½ 12.9 Pier Pier X½ X½ Pier ' Pier Costa Bello „– 5.1 FÆ¦ Tui Min Hoi Ling Yan Toi 44.7 Z Z

22.2 34.6 27.0 33.3 ıﬁ 48.1 Lake Court ⁄˜F 44.7 53.0 38.2 35.4 B§h¦ 5.0 St. Peter's MARINE EAST DIVISION |» Village 43.6 Che Ting U¸y© Tsuen 6.7 ®ºÁ¥ 5.9 31.2 57.1 „–› MAN YEE 33.0 „–› Fisherman Housing ú©¶ 31.2 TuiTUI Min Hoi MIN Chuen FISHERMANEstate 20.3 ú©¶ 17.5 HOI CHUEN Ming Shun ESTATE VillageMING SHUN VILLAGE 6.2

24.9 89.0 21.2 22.2 è¦ 32.1 69.9 25.4 5.7 ˆƒ⁄B 4.6 p 82.8 83.3 28.4 SAI KUNG SEWAGE ¥F TREATMENT áª 7.6 WORKS 15.4 80.9 Hebe Villa 4.5 44.8 60.6 ¼¿ 22.0 Z Tsiu Hang ' Ruin Z 8.3 53.0 Ruin 61.5 ¼¿36.5 Z TSIU HANG Ruin

|| 50.6 Che Keng Tuk Z 15.4 ´¥®Ä[ 8.2 Ta Ho Tun Sheung Wai Łƒ^C áª · Bﬂ Jetty Floating Jetty 3.4 ¼¿| ´¥®Ä[ Tsiu Hang Hau Ta Ho Tun Ha Wai 3.3

3.8 ¥F HEBE HAVEN 12.4 è¦^ (PAK SHA WAN) INNER PORT SHELTER (SAI KUNG HOI) 75.9 Bﬂ Floating Jetty è¦^ INNER PORT SHELTER 68.1 Bﬂ Floating Jetty (SAI KUNG HOI)

0 100 200 300 400 500 m

55.1 1 : 10 000 SCALE¥F BAR æ⁄ HEBE HAVEN

L. L. LIU 17 MAR 2014 p¦Ï u⁄¨u⁄{p›”„¶ DCM/2013/069 AS SHOWN - h•EŁƒ^ˆƒ K. H. YAU 17 MAR 2014 i¥ƒ˚ PWP ITEM NO. 402DS W. Y. CHAN 17 MAR 2014 - FEASIBILITY STUDY ON RELOCATION OF SAI KUNG SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS TO CAVERNS 位置 LOCATION 慈雲山 TSZ WAN SHAN

鑽石山食水配水庫 DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER 鑽石山 SERVICE RESERVOIR 黃大仙 DIAMOND HILL WONG TAI SIN

d 啟德 an Shan Roa Tsz W KAI TAK 沙田坳邨

鑽石山海水配水庫

慈雲山道 DIAMOND HILL SALT WATER SERVICE RESERVOIR 索引圖 KEY PLAN 比例 SCALE 1 : 100 000 SHA

T IN

PASS

R O AD

慈樂邨 TSZ LOK ESTATE 沙

田

坳道鑽石山食水及海水抽水站 DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND STREET WING CHUK SALT WATER PUMPING STATION 街穎竹

圖例 LEGEND : CHUK ST CHUI 現有鑽石山食水、海水配水庫及相關設施街竹園北邨翠竹鵬程苑 CHUK YUEN NORTH ESTATE EXISTING DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATER PANG CHING COURT SERVICE RESERVOIRS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

重置後鑽石山食水、海水配水庫及相關設施的初步位置 PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF RELOCATED DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATER SERVICE RESERVOIRS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

0 50 100 150 200 250 m 重置鑽石山食水、海水配水庫及相關設施米位置的研究範圍 STUDY AREA FOR LOCATION OF RELOCATED 比例尺 DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATER 1 : 5 000 SCALE BAR SERVICE RESERVOIRS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES

工務工程計劃項目第195WC號 – 搬遷鑽石山食水及海水配水庫往岩洞的可行性研究水務署 WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT 總工程師/工程管理 CE / PM P.W.P. ITEM NO. 195WC ----- FEASIBILITY STUDY ON RELOCATION OF DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATER SERVICE RESERVOIRS TO CAVERNS 草圖編號 2014 SKETCH NO. SK 62013 / 134

Ref. 62013_134.CDR