Appendix 3.2.2:??? Summary of Major Interface Problems and Possible Solutions (Baseline Review, FUDS, February 2003)

 

Interface with Landscape

Interface Problem

Possible Solutions

Stoplogs

·       ?Disruption of normal operation of open spaces during the processing of lowering the stoplogs to the required positions along the culvert system.? Temporary closure of the affected areas within the open spaces may be required to allow working space for maintenance vehicles during such operation.? The frequency of this operation will depend on the various O and M issues to be agreed with DSD.

 

·       The problem cannot be removed entirely, but the surrounding area should be designed so that the occasional maintenance operations do not disrupt the landscape hardworks.

·       Also, the design should make the stoplogs visually unobtrusive, e.g. matching cover for stoplog opening can be incorporated in the paving design.

 

Drainage Culverts

·       The area affected by the culvert desilting maintenance areas and FRP's amounts to some 25% of the total Promenade area

·       Loading restrictions on top of the culverts.

·       The design restrictions at the desilting openings, and manhole and inspection manholes in the culverts.

·       Maintenance vehicle access ramps.

·       Ventilation of culverts.

 

·       Review alignment of the drainage reserve in the Promenade so as to avoid running along the entire length.

·       Discharge directly into Kowloon Bay or take a more direct (easterly) route to the harbour. This requires consideration of EPD and DSD.

·       Total number of desilting access openings reduced by adopting the current DSD stipulated minimum spacing of 200m more uniformly throughout the development.?

·       Using temporary ventilation fan systems should be fully explored.

 

Flood Relief Path (FRP)

·       Restrictions on the technical design parameters of the FRPs which limits above ground features to only paving or grass.

·       FRPs frequently occupy a substantial proportion of the total area of the affected open space.

·       FRPs require open grates at intervals to allow drainage into underlying culverts.

 

·       Review alignment of some FRPs to avoid where possible open spaces.

·       To realign the FRPs within affected open space so as to minimize the adverse effects (e.g. Kai Tak Green).

·       Review width requirements.

·       Relax technical FRP design parameters to allow provision of localised sculpture, specimen trees, water features, signage, lighting and other appropriate street furniture.

 

Noise Mitigation

·       Discontinuity of landscape framework due to the inability to provide continuous tree planting as envisaged in the original master plan.

·       Interruption of the pedestrian network.

·       Visual impacts due to the scale and proximity of the barriers to visually sensitive receivers. Severe interruption and blocking of views at the pedestrian level.

·       Loss of landscape character and amenity due to the prominence of these structures for pedestrians.

·       Elimination of proposed tree planting along the edge of the carriageway and in the central reserves due to the loss of amenity strips. In addition further restrictions imposed through HyD(Structures) requirement to leave a 2m planting free space adjacent to noise barriers.

·       Inadequate space for effective screen planting to mitigate to the potential visual impact due to the noise barriers. Although in many situations the scale and prominence of these structures precludes the possibility of effective landscape and visual mitigation within an urban environment.?

·       Damage to the overall landscape and visual character due to the combination of the above impacts

 

·       Further setback of sensitive facades in adjacent sites; and /or

·       Construction of noise barriers as integral elements along the edges of adjacent podiums instead of at street level; and / or

·       Construction of noise barriers as integral elements of boundary wall design; and/or

·       Indirect mitigation measures such as double glazing in residential developments, and architectural fins /baffles in building facade treatment; and/or

·       Relaxation of requirement preventing trees within 2m of noise barriers; and /or

 

Utilities

·       Discussions with utility companies indicate that each utility company will be asking for wide reserves that potentially conflict with the planned amenity strips and planting zones described in the SEKDFS and Preliminary Landscape Manual.

 

·       Public and private utilities may be laid in common or shared trenches or ducts - to be addressed in the consultancy study on CUE. Rationalisation of requirements to ensure the quality of the public realm.

·       It is also important that the location and appearance of above ground structures associated with the utilities are? carefully considered.?

 

Waterworks

·       Restrictions on the technical design parameters of the waterworks reserve which limits the above ground features to only paving or grass, without any structures.

 

·       The waterworks reserve may share the same space of the proposed E.V.A route or footpaths for the open space; and/or

·       Where waterworks reserves are to be located resulting in long linear open spaces, it is important that these open spaces and the landscape areas of adjacent development sites are visually integrated to reduce their longitudinal emphasis.