Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
CB(1)1100/13-14(03)
- 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;
(c) public engagement (PE) and consultation exercises with relevant
stakeholders; and
(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;
(c) PE and consultation exercises with relevant stakeholders; and
(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 feasibility study on relocation of STSTW to caverns and the associated works
17.6
(ii) planning review with broad technical assessment of the future land use of the existing STSTW site
1.9
(iii) PE and consultation
exercises with relevant stakeholders
1.8
(iv) supervision of site
investigation and other investigations
1.0
(b) Site investigation and other
investigations 8.5
(c) Contingencies 3.0
Sub-total 33.8 (in September 2013 prices)
(d) Provision for price adjustment 5.4
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 feasibility study on relocation of SKSTW to
18.5
- 5 -
$ million
caverns and the associated works
(ii) planning review with broad
technical assessment of the future land use of the existing SKSTW site
1.9
(iii) PE and consultation exercises with relevant stakeholders
1.8
(iv) supervision of site
investigation and other investigations
1.2
(b) Site investigation and other
investigations 8.5
(c) Contingencies 3.1
Sub-total 35.0 (in September 2013 prices)
(d) Provision for price adjustment 5.6
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 feasibility study on relocation of DHSRs to caverns and the related works
20.9
(ii) planning review with broad
technical assessment of the future land use of the existing DHSRs sites
2.2
(iii) PE and consultation
exercises with relevant 2.0
- 6 -
$ million
stakeholders
(iv) supervision of site investigation and other investigations
1.3
(b) Site investigation and other
investigations 10.0
(c) Contingencies 3.6
Sub-total 40.0 (in September 2013 prices)
(d) Provision for price adjustment 6.0
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
ł“CCheung Ching
Estate
ł“º
ł“d
ł“Cheung Tsui
C«ØChing Wah
Court
Fflü‹ÑChung Mei
Lo Uk Village
üfiY“Grand Horizon
KAM CHUK KOKKUNG TSAI WAN
ä'Kwai Shek
¤°⁄
å¾p
›⁄“Õ¥d
s•E
SHEK TSAI WAN
j⁄›
—¥Tin Liu
TSING LENG
TSUI
TUNG WAN
TUNG WAN TSAI
¤°W˘j
˜‹R
Park Island
î†Dockyard
MA WAN
Ma Wan Main Street Village
MA WAN TOWNTUNG WAN
Ma Kok Tsui
Cheung Hong Estate
TAI LENGPAK NAI
h‹ÆLau Fa Tsuen
KAU PO
¤°W˘fi”Ma Wan
Fishermen’s Village
ˆƒô⁄B
_¥WPAK WAN
TENG
¤°
TAM SHUI WAN
PAK WAN
SHEK WAN ¯´—Lam Tin
Resite Village
d…Liu To
j⁄ý⁄Tai Wong Ha Resite Village
Q˘—¥Yim Tin Kok Resite Village
ANGLERS’ BEACH
APPROACH BEACH
W˘”·
R˜°«Belvedere
Garden
CASAM BEACH
CHAI WAN
KOK
ł“oCheung Fat
Estate
Ì…ð
C«ıChing Tai
Court
t⁄Chuen Lung
r·”·
DRAGON BEACH
Ö”Ó
FUNG SHUE
WO
GEMINI BEACHES
UڮHa Fa Shan
¤»”·Hong Kong Garden
œ¥O“—
œ¥O“Kwong Pan Tin
Tsuen
LIDO BEACH
‹‰ÆLIN FA SHAN
NGA YING CHAU
ß⁄⁄Ngau Kok
Wan
ß⁄æNgau Lan Tsui
˘–Ö·Pai Min Kok Village
Õ¥—¥òPak Tin PaSan Tsuen
b¥s
SHAM TSENG
‘†«⁄Sham TsengEast Village
‘†«⁄Sham Tseng
Kau Tsuen
‘†«⁄Sham Tseng
San Tsuen
‘†«Sham Tseng
Village
Û¥sSHEK LUNG KUNG
Wڮ
Sheung Fa Shan
W⁄Sheung Tong
t‚O«St. Paul’s
Village
TierraVerde
Õ‹A»
—¥ÒTin Fu Tsai
¯¥Ting Kau
TING KAU BEACH
M†ÖTsing Fai Tong
M†Ö§í
TSING LUNG TAU
ä–‰Tso Kung
Tam
þflTSUEN WAN
þflW˘Tsuen Wan Centre
flł”Villa Esplanada
WOK TAI WAN
o“aYau Kom
Tau
o“aYau Kom Tau
ΦYuen Tun
Φ[Yuen Tun Village
Õ¥ÛPak Shek Kiu
‘†«⁄Ó°
˛µw
‘†«⁄
C«çTsing Yi
Estate
C«sÀ
Cheung Hang
Estate
öfiA
Kwong Pan TinSan Tsuen
HOI MEI WAN BEACH
Cheung ShueTau
Ñ”ö‡Bellagio
§¿ÓOceanPointe
ł“»Cheung Wang
Estate
o“a‹Yau Kom Tau
Village
ł“w
Cheung On
Estate
Discovery Park
Sea Crest Villa
Sham TsengWest Village
Sham TsengCommercialNew Village
Tsing Fai TongNew VillageShu On
Terrace
Bayview Garden
Tsing LungTau Tsuen
SHAM TSENG
SETTLEMENT
BASINo´ô
The Cliveden
ÔfihThe Cairnhill
Water Treatment
Works
Pun ShanTsuen
_˜‡
C«çTsing Yi Hui
üfiØÀRiviera Gardens
pƒß⁄Nina Tower
o´ôWater
TreatmentWorks
·ˆî
p
Dolphin
WaterTank
Works in progress
xÀô
I‹u
PumpHouse
Ruin
Ruin
Podium
â'ô
ZÀ
ZÀ
ZÀ
‘†«⁄ł[”ˇ–
üfiý
›¥ZÀ
Tsing Fai TongNew Village
Shu On Terrace
Sham TsengEast Village
Rhine Garden
Bellagio
Ocean Pointe
Golden Villa
M†Ö§í
˛µw
‘†«⁄
üfiýˆ
Ñ”ö‡
§¿Ó
Weir
Weir
Weir
Weir
÷
÷
÷
÷
GEMINI BEACHESø´P¥W
¥'
¥'
150.5
185.2
154.6107.4
177.6154.5
27.0 151.9
29.7
104.9
22.6
17.9
112.1
139.1
5.5
96.9
6.1
50.2
7.0
65.3
77.6
5.1
4.9
39.2
15.6
ø´P¥WGEMINI BEACHES
Ñ”ö‡Bellagio
Ԡ
ˆƒô⁄BSHAM TSENG
SEWAGE TREATMENT
WORKS
10
LOCATION
TSING YI
ISLAND
TSUEN WAN
SHAM
TSENG
`flÞ
æ⁄ SCALE 1 : 100 000
KEY PLAN
ìƒ
Ԡ
C«
þfl
{†‡ƒ‘†«⁄ˆ
OCEAN
POINTE
§¿Ó
‘†«⁄SHAM TSENG
EAST VILLAGE
DCM/2013/068
PWP ITEM NO. 401DS
- FEASIBILITY STUDY ON
RELOCATION OF SHAM TSENG SEWAGE
TREATMENT WORKS TO CAVERNS
L. L. LIU
K. H. YAU
W. Y. CHAN
0 50 200150100
1 : 5 000 SCALE BAR æ⁄ � �ÒÌ
250 m
pƒˇ
AS SHOWN
LEGEND:ˇ„
«›m‚Æ«‘†«⁄ˆ
ì“B¤
EXISTING SHAM TSENG
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
«›m‚‘†«⁄ˆƒô⁄
ª‹s¤
GOLDEN
VILLA
PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF
RELOCATED SHAM TSENG
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
STUDY AREA FOR LOCATION
OF RELOCATED SHAM TSENG
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
17 MAR 2014
17 MAR 2014
17 MAR 2014
u⁄¨°u⁄{µp›”„µ¶Ø
-� �h•E¾‘†«⁄ˆƒô
i¥æƒ˚
¸ƒChuk Yuen
fi˜FflHo Chung
ô⁄Shui Hau Au Tsai
Tsuen sÀ·†Õ¥F
Pak Sha Tsui
JƒòMarina Cove
T›Mau Ping
T›W'Mau Ping
Lo Uk
T›W'Mau Ping
San Uk
ß⁄Ngau Au
NUI PO AU
Õ¥FPak Sha Wan
j⁄÷PYRAMID HILL
T⁄ôSam Fai Tin
SHEK NGA PUI
SHEK NGA SHAN
Û¥Þ
j⁄FTai Chung Hau
( TAI KAM CHUNG )
j⁄ôTai Shui Tseng
î¾Wang Che
À¶¸Wong Chuk Shan
°“WWu Lei Tau
Ü“TFU YUNG PIT
Ü“TFu Yung Pit
y…|Hing Keng Shek
fi˜Ho Chung
É‹Kai Ham
ł¥ÀKei Pik Shan
|fi×Keng
Pang Ha
À‡_
À‡ÀLuk Mei Tsuen
Disused Mine
o…q
LUK CHAU AU
À‡_LUK CHAU SHAN
]ÞŁƒKau Sai
San Tsuen
ö–lMui Tsz Lam
ø'Ngong Ping
_¥Pak Kong
_¥Pak Wai
Û¥bShek Lung Tsai
Û¥bˆJShek Lung Tsai
New Village
j⁄Tai No
j⁄£‚Tai No
Sheung Yeung
—¥Tin Liu
˛«Uk Cheung
ô⁄ßBUFFALO HILL
·¥m´BUFFALO PASS
( TA SHE YAU AU )
À¶ßWEST BUFFALO HILL
LÞThe Giverny
µ‹‰Cha Yue Pai
E“YCHAM TAU CHAU
|à|Che Keng Tuk
CHEUNG SHAN
Fisherman Housing Estate
›ƒÝFloral Villas
Œ“a
˙ƒPFui Yiu Ha
HAP MUN BAY
HEBE HAVEN
HOI SING WAN
INNER PORT SHELTER
j„|Kak Hang Tun
Ò¥ä
Kap Pin Long
Ò¥äˆÔ
Kap Pin Long
New Village
KIU TSUI
( KIU TSUI CHAU )
ł¯üKWUN
CHAM
WAN
ˆ·÷Kwun Tsoi Pai
A»í¶LakesideGarden
U'£LAP SAP CHAU
Lo Chi Pai
уŒ
öfiLong Keng
ÔfiLong Mei
LONG MONG
WAN
sÀ
Lung Mei
U‚YMan Tau Tsui
~¤wMONG
CHAU
TSAI
ì⁄ÖMuk Min
Shan
n«Nam A
n«Nam Shan
ø'Ngong Wo
D¿O Tau
Õ¥FPAK SHA CHAU
( PAK SHA WAN )
ÔµÚPo Lo
Che
( SAI KUNG HOI )
Łƒ^
SAM SING WAN
˘�—San Tin Hang
F¤Sha Ha
F¤Sha Tsui
s⁄Shan Liu
ô¾CSHARP ISLAND
D‡She Tau
Û¥SHEK CHAU
SHEK KWU
WAN
ŁƒSAI KUNG
ô⁄öShui Long Wo
p⁄ŒSIU TSAN CHAU
·¥fi˜[Ta Ho Tun
Ha Wai
·¥fi˜[
Ta Ho Tun
Sheung Wai
j⁄TAI CHAU
j⁄ŒTAI TSAN
CHAU
j⁄Tai Wan
fi�Tam Wat
»˜Tan Cheung
K¯ÚTIT CHI SHAN
…¿Tsiu Hang
…¿|
›ƒÝTso Wo Hang
_´YTUEN TAU
CHAU
ï„–
Tui Min Hoi
Ý¥Wo Liu
Ý¥íWo Tong
Kong
À¶¸Wong Chuk Wan
À¶òWong Mo Ying
å·sYAU LUNG
KOK
o“´Yau Ma Po
ˇƒYEUNG CHAU
Q˘—Yim Tin Pai
Q˘—YIM TIN TSAI
T A I M O N G T S A I
Tit Kim Hang
s•San Uk
F¤⁄Sha Kok Mei
ß⁄Ngau Liu
Lo Fu Ngam
ô¾Kiu Tau
j⁄ôTai Mong Tsai
´¶sHAK SHAN TENG
Wong Chuk Yeung
Man Sau
Sun Tsuen
U‚Ø„
Fu Tei
Hau
Tsiu Hang
Hau
fi”`¥
•ø¥
Sai Kung Tuk
Ó⁄›Tai Ping
Village
D¿ÔO Long
Village
[¿n
HAP MUN BAY BEACH
KIU TSUI BEACH
TRIO BEACH
ˆƒô⁄BSewage
Treatment
Works
Jade Villa
Tai Po Tsai
j⁄ı
´‡nMa Nam Wat
Pak Kong Au
_¥ä
o´ôWater
TreatmentWorks
p
Ñ⁄D¥—
I‹u
50
Ruin
Town Hall
ZÀ
ZÀ
ZÀ
E´Ö
ZÀ ZÀj⁄|
Sha KokMei
New VillageKap Pin Long New Village
Kap PinLong
Tak Wai Garden
Hung Fa TsuenPak Kong Au
Tan Cheung Sai Kung Villa
F¤⁄
T›W'
Ò¥äˆÔ
Ò¥ä
w…f
É'Æ“
ı‹Æ
ˆ¥»˜ Łƒ^
4.2
31.1
50.3 40.8 5.610.8
43.6 13.715.8
7.4
11.3
21.3
44.4
5.330.6
5.0
6.7
15.0
5.6
7.5
47.4
10.6
5.3
6.3
85.7
5.6
76.53.7
6.153.6
5.6
34.7
4.643.2 3.6
5.4
32.2
90.34.3
110.0
36.45.4
50.7
4.5
4.2
57.1
97.13.8
4.4
20.0
88.791.6
3.8
X‰
X‰
X‰ X‰
î†
X‰X‰
X‰X‰
ç· Bflç
Bflç
Bflç
p
Pier
Pier
Pier Pier
Slipway
PierPierPier
Pier
p
Jetty Floating Jetty
Floating Jetty
Floating Jetty
ð
Star Plaza
Ruin
Ruin
Ruin
å⁄d–Ö…
s•Ö
ZÀ ”·P‹
ZÀ
ZÀ
ZÀ
â'ô
ZÀZÀ
â'ôZÀ
ZÀ
ZÀ
ZÀ
Yau Ma PoPo Lo Che
Tai Ping Village Sun King Terrace
Fui Yiu Ha
Man SauSun Tsuen
SAI KUNG
O Long Village
Sai Kung Tuk
Costa Bello
Tui Min Hoi
Ling Yan Toi
Lake Court
St. Peter’sVillage
Che TingTsuen
Fisherman HousingEstateTui Min Hoi Chuen
Ming ShunVillage
HebeVilla
Tsiu Hang
Che Keng Tuk
Ta Ho Tun Sheung Wai
Tsiu Hang HauTa Ho Tun Ha Wai
É'd
o“´ÔµÚ
Ó⁄› s•”
˙ƒP
ŁƒU‚Ø„
D¿Ô
Łƒ^
ï„–
F˘ƒ
ıfiò
B§hƒ
|à»
fi”`¥œ'¶ï„–›
Õ¥FÆ“
…¿
|à|
·¥fi˜[
Łƒ^°CÆ“
…¿|·¥fi˜[
YEUNG CHAU
ˇƒ
INNER PORT SHELTER(SAI KUNG HOI)
HEBE HAVEN
Łƒ^
Õ¥F
4.5100.6
33.488.4
4.3
63.1
3.73.919.5
6.114.2
73.3
4.1
10.4 7.2
82.9
3.94.8
4.0
6.2
56.85.9
4.0
5.7
5.8
36.829.6
12.9
5.1
44.7
22.234.6
27.0 33.3
48.1
44.7 53.0
5.038.2
35.4
43.6
6.7
57.15.9
31.2 33.0
31.2
17.520.3
6.2
24.9
22.2
89.0
32.1
21.2
69.9
4.65.725.4
82.8 83.328.4
7.6
15.4
80.9
4.5
44.860.6
22.0
8.353.0
61.5
36.5
50.6
15.4
8.2
3.4
3.3
3.8
12.4
75.9
68.1
55.1
20
Łƒ
ˆƒô⁄BSAI KUNG
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
WORKS
10
LOCATION
`flÞ
æ⁄ SCALE 1 : 100 000
KEY PLAN
ìƒ{†‡ƒŁƒ^°ˆ
DCM/2013/069L. L. LIU
K. H. YAU
W. Y. CHAN
pƒˇ
AS SHOWN
LEGEND:ˇ„
«›m‚Æ«Łƒ^°ˆ
ì“B¤
«›m‚Łƒ^°ˆƒô⁄
ª‹s¤
PWP ITEM NO. 402DS
- FEASIBILITY STUDY ON
RELOCATION OF SAI KUNG SEWAGE
TREATMENT WORKS TO CAVERNS
EXISTING SAI KUNG
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
ŁƒSAI KUNG
ï„–›TUI MIN
HOI CHUEN
U‚y'
œ'¶MING SHUN
VILLAGE
TSIU HANG
…¿
MARINE EAST DIVISION
ô⁄µ˜F
Łƒ^INNER PORT SHELTER
(SAI KUNG HOI)
Õ¥FHEBE HAVEN
(PAK SHA WAN)
MAN YEE
FISHERMAN
ESTATE
PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF
RELOCATED SAI KUNG
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
STUDY AREA FOR LOCATION
OF RELOCATED SAI KUNG
SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS
17 MAR 2014
17 MAR 2014
17 MAR 2014
u⁄¨°u⁄{µp›”„µ¶Ø
-� �h•E¾Łƒ^°ˆƒô
i¥æƒ˚
0
Ìæ⁄ � �Ò
400300200100
1 : 10 000 SCALE BAR
500 m
草 圖 編 號
SKETCH NO.
沙 田 坳 邨沙 田 坳 邨
竹 園 北 邨CHUK YUEN NORTH ESTATE
SH
ATIN PA
SS R
OAD
沙 田
坳 道
慈 樂 邨
TSZ LOK ESTATE
慈雲
山 道
Tsz Wan Shan Road
鵬 程 苑PANG CHING COURT
穎 竹 街
翠 竹 街
WING CHUK STREET
CHUI CHUK ST
總工程師/工程管理
2014
CE / PM
Ref. 62013_134.CDR
水 務 署WATER SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT
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
-----P.W.P. ITEM NO. 195WC FEASIBILITY STUDY ON RELOCATION OF DIAMOND HILLFRESH WATER AND SALT WATER SERVICE RESERVOIRS TO CAVERNS
鑽 石 山 海 水 配 水 庫DIAMOND HILL SALT WATER SERVICE RESERVOIR
鑽 石 山 食 水 及 海 水 抽 水 站DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER ANDSALT WATER PUMPING STATION
SK 62013 / 134
鑽 石 山 食 水 配 水 庫DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER SERVICE RESERVOIR
0 100 20015050 m250
比例尺1 : 5 000 SCALE BAR
米
索 引 圖 KEY PLAN 比例 : SCALE 1 100 000
位置LOCATION
鑽 石 山DIAMOND HILL
鑽 石 山DIAMOND HILL
慈 雲 山TSZ WAN SHAN
慈 雲 山TSZ WAN SHAN
黃 大 仙WONG TAI SIN
黃 大 仙WONG TAI SIN
啟 德KAI TAK啟 德
KAI TAK
圖 例 :LEGEND
現 有 鑽 石 山 食 水 、 海 水 配 水 庫 及 相 關 設 施EXISTING DIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATERSERVICE RESERVOIRS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES
重 置 後的 初 步 位 置PRELIMINARY LOCATION OF RELOCATEDDIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATERSERVICE RESERVOIRS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES
鑽 石 山 食 水 、 海 水 配 水 庫 及 相 關 設 施
重 置 鑽 石 山 食 水 、 海 水 配 水 庫 及 相 關 設 施位 置 的 研 究 範 圍 STUDY AREA FOR LOCATION OF RELOCATEDDIAMOND HILL FRESH WATER AND SALT WATERSERVICE RESERVOIRS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES
