11.Cultural Heritage Impacts (20080715)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Agreement No. CE 69/2001 (HY) Scott Wilson Ltd Tsuen Wan Bypass, Widening of Tsuen Wan Road between Tsuen Tsing October 2008 Interchange and Kwai Tsing Interchange and Associated Junction Improvement Works Environmental Impact Assessment Table of Contents 11. CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACTS ..................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 11-1 11.2 Legislations and Applicable Standards ...................................................... 11-1 11.3 Study Methodology..................................................................................... 11-2 11.4 History of the Tsuen Wan Area .................................................................. 11-2 11.5 Potential Impacts Upon the Cultural Heritage along the Alignment............ 11-8 11.6 Conclusions.............................................................................................. 11-10 List of Figures Figure 11-1 Maps Showing the Locations of Cultural Heritage Study Final EIA Report i 11.Cultural Heritage Impacts (20080715) Agreement No. CE 69/2001 (HY) Scott Wilson Ltd Tsuen Wan Bypass, Widening of Tsuen Wan Road between Tsuen Tsing October 2008 Interchange and Kwai Tsing Interchange and Associated Junction Improvement Works Environmental Impact Assessment 11. CULTURAL HERITAGE IMPACTS 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 This Chapter presents an evaluation of the cultural heritage of the Study Area and assesses the potential impacts of the widening works Project on those identified sites of cultural heritage interest. 11.2 Legislations and Applicable Standards Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance 11.2.1 The EIA Ordinance stipulates that consideration must be given to issues associated with cultural heritage and archaeology as part of the EIA process. Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIA TMEIAO-TM outline criteria for evaluating the impacts on sites of cultural heritage and guidelines for impact assessment, respectively. The EIAO-TM identifies a general presumption in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage and requires impacts upon sites of cultural heritage to be ‘kept to a minimum’. There is no quantitative standard for determining the relative importance of sites of cultural heritage, but in general sites of unique, archaeological, historical or architectural should be considered as highly significant. Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance 11.2.2 The principal legislation relevant to cultural heritage and archaeological issues is the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53). Human artifacts, relics and built structures may be gazetted and protected as monuments under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap 53). Under the Ordinance, the Antiquities Authority (Secretary for Home Affairs) may, after consultation with the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) and with Government approval, declare any place, building, site or structure which the Antiquities Authority considers to be of public interest by reason of its historical, archaeological or palaentological significance, to be a monument, historical building, archaeological or palaentological site or structure. Once declared to be a site of public interest, no person may undertake acts which are prohibited under the Ordinance, such as to demolish or carry out building or other works, unless a permit is obtained from the Antiquities Authority. 11.2.3 The Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department is part of the Government Secretariat and comprises the executive arm of the Antiquities Authority. The AMO is the services arm of the AAB and is responsible for advising the Government on sites which merit protection. The AMO has further responsibility for the protection of buildings, items of historical interest and areas of archaeological significance. The excavation and search for such relics requires a license under the Ordinance. 11.2.4 For archaeological sites, all relics dated prior to 1800AD belong to the Hong Kong Government under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. Once identified as having the potential for conservation, archaeological sites are entered into the record. Archaeological sites are administratively classified by AAB into three categories, as follows: • Designated - those that have been declared as monuments and are to be protected and conserved at all costs; Final EIA Report 11-1 11.Cultural Heritage Impacts (20080715) Agreement No. CE 69/2001 (HY) Scott Wilson Ltd Tsuen Wan Bypass, Widening of Tsuen Wan Road between Tsuen Tsing October 2008 Interchange and Kwai Tsing Interchange and Associated Junction Improvement Works Environmental Impact Assessment • Administrative Protection - those which are considered to be of significant value but which are not declared as monuments and should be either protected, or if found not possible to protect these sites then salvaged; and • Monitored - those which are of lesser significance or whose potential is not fully assessed which should not be disturbed with the exception of minor works if they are permitted and monitored by AMO. Archaeological Organisations 11.2.5 In addition to the AMO, the Hong Kong Archaeological Society (HKAS) is an independent organization with experts and members of the public who have an interest in archaeological matters. The HKAS organizes meetings, site visits and excavations of local sites and publishes archaeological journals. 11.3 Study Methodology 11.3.1 The investigation of the cultural heritage of the area follows the approach identified in the EIA TMEIAO-TM and the guidelines established by the AMO as set out in the EIA Study Brief. There is relatively little published information on the cultural heritage of the Study Area. Therefore, in addition to the desk top study, a field evaluation was carried out along the alignment. This approach minimized the likelihood of any features of cultural heritage interest being overlooked. This cultural heritage investigation has been carried out with reference to the following: • Review of available documented information; • Review of the current Outline Zoning Plans, historical maps and aerial photographs; and • Site visits. 11.3.2 Besides, according to the requirements stated in the EIA Study Brief, special attention shall be paid to the following historical building and structures: • Chan Ancestral Hall; • Old House of Former Hoi Pa Village (Formerly Lot 956); • Old House of Former Hoi Pa Village (Formerly Lot 917); • Grave of Tang Yuk; and • Wang Fat Ching She 11.4 History of the Tsuen Wan Area General Topography of Tsuen Wan 11.4.1 Tsuen Wan is a generally hilly district. To the north, the mountains rise up steeply to the Tai Mo Shan, Hong Kong's highest peak. From Tai Mo Shan two ridges run down to the coast: to the east, the steep Golden Hill - Needle Hill Ridge (Smugglers' Ridge), and, to the west, the Shek Lung Kong - Lin Fa Shan Ridge. The mountains thus surround the district on all sides except the south-west, where the district opens out to the sea. Before development sharply changed the topography of the area, the sea-coast comprised two bays, Tsuen Wan Bay and Gindrinkers' Bay, separated by a steep rocky headland. The district's arable land lay at the head of these two bays. There was a little Final EIA Report 11-2 11.Cultural Heritage Impacts (20080715) Agreement No. CE 69/2001 (HY) Scott Wilson Ltd Tsuen Wan Bypass, Widening of Tsuen Wan Road between Tsuen Tsing October 2008 Interchange and Kwai Tsing Interchange and Associated Junction Improvement Works Environmental Impact Assessment flat land close to the coast in both areas, although most of the arable land lay on terraces climbing the lower parts of the hillslopes. A number of streams ran down the sides of the mountains through these arable areas to the sea. Much of Gindrinkers' Bay was tidal mudflats, and this must once have been true of Tsuen Wan Bay, too, but at some date before the mid-eighteenth century the eastern part of these mudflats was reclaimed by the villagers to provide more arable land. The original sea-coast runs close to today's Castle Peak Road in the Tsuen Wan Bay area: the sea-coast after the eighteenth century villager reclamation lay close to Tak Wah Street. The eastern coast of Tsuen Wan Bay lay close to today's Texaco Road (see Figure 10.1). The coasts of Gindrinkers' Bay lay close to today's Kwai Chung Road to the east, and to Kwai Fuk Road - Hing Fong Road to the west. Founding History of Tsuen Wan Area 11.4.2 Tsuen Wan has been settled for a long time. In the 10th Moon, 1277, the fugitive Sung Court stayed at Tsuen Wan (淺灣) for a few weeks. It is, perhaps, unlikely that the Court would have chosen a site which was then quite uninhabited, and it is thus probable that there was at least some settlement here then. However, the Court did spend some time at various places resident on their ships, and it remains possible that during the stay at Tsuen Wan the Court remained on their ships, not on shore, in which case the stay of the Court here would be compatible with the land being uninhabited then. By the late Ming, however, there was certainly settlement here. In the 1688 Hsin An County Gazetteer (新安縣志) there is a list of the villages of the County, with a note stating that the list was "taken from the old Gazetteer", i.e. the late Ming Gazetteer (late sixteenth century). In this list both Tsuen Wan (淺灣村) and Kwai Chung (葵涌村) appear. There must thus have been a settlement at the head of both bays by the late Ming. 11.4.3 In 1662, however, the new Ching Government drove all the inhabitants of the coastal areas inland, to deny any assistance which they might have given to the Ming remnants under Koxinga on Taiwan. The Tsuen Wan and Kwai Chung areas would certainly have been cleared in this Coastal Evacuation. The Government made no provision for the sustenance of those it ejected from their homes in this Evacuation. Huge numbers, deprived of the fields which were their only means of subsistence, died of starvation before the Coastal Evacuation Order was rescinded in 1668. In many places no-one survived to return in 1668.