香 港 特 別 行 政 區 政 府

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

政府總部 Development Bureau

Government Secretariat
發展局 Murray Building, Garden Road,
Hong Kong
香港花園道美利大廈

Ref. : DEVB/CR 6/5/255

Group : 12

18 September 2009

Development Bureau
Technical Circular (Works) No. 6/2009

Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism for Capital Works Projects

Scope

This Circular provides the procedures and requirements for

assessing heritage impact arising from the implementation of capital works
projects.

Effective Date

2. This Circular takes immediate effect.

Effect on Existing Circular

3. This Circular replaces Technical Circular (Works) No. 11/2007

which is hereby cancelled.

Background

4. In response to the rising aspirations from the public on heritage

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 1 of 11

conservation, Chief Executive announced in his 2007/08 Policy Address a
package of initiatives for enhanced conservation of historic/heritage sites and
buildings. The initiatives include the requirement for assessing impacts on
historic/heritage sites and buildings arising from the implementation of capital
works projects so that their conservation will be given due consideration.

Policy

5. In the implementation of new capital works projects (including both

projects approved individually by Public Works Subcommittee (PWSC) /
Finance Committee (FC) as well as Category D items but excluding those as
listed in paragraphs 23, 24 and 27 below), the works agent is required to:

(i) confirm with the Antiquities & Monuments Office (AMO) of the
Leisure & Cultural Services Department whether there is/are any
declared monuments, proposed monuments, sites and buildings
graded by the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB), sites of
archaeological interest or Government historic sites identified by
AMO (hereafter together referred to as “heritage sites”) within or in
the vicinity of the project boundary. The responsibility to identify
the presence of “heritage sites” should rest with the works agents.
Based on the submitted information, AMO will decide whether the
works agent should conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)
for the project; and

(ii) the works agent should conduct an HIA for its project should AMO
decide it is necessary to do so. Before conducting the HIA, the
works agent is required to submit a proposed Study Brief and agree
with AMO on the scope of the HIA.

“Heritage Sites”

6. As mentioned in paragraph 5 above, “heritage sites” include:

(i) all declared monuments;

(ii) all proposed monuments;
(iii) all sites and buildings graded by the AAB;

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 2 of 11

 (iv) all recorded sites of archaeological interest; and
(v) Government historic sites identified by AMO.

7. The updated information of all declared monuments, proposed

monuments, sites and buildings graded by the AAB and Government historic
sites identified by AMO can be obtained from AMO’s website through the
following link: http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Monument/index.html

For information on the recorded sites of archaeological interest, AMO has been
issuing updated information to all relevant parties including all works
departments on need basis in the past and will continue to do so in future.

The Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism for Capital Works Projects

Excluding Category D Items

8. The details of the heritage impact assessment mechanism at various

stages of a capital works project being not a Category D item are outlined
below:

A. Project Inception Stage

9. Except for projects mentioned in paragraph 10 below, once a capital

works project is identified, its works agent is required to assess, preferably
during preparation of Technical Feasibility Statement (TFS), whether there
is/are “heritage sites” within the project boundary (inclusive of works area) or
in its vicinity (usually interpreted as not more than 50 meters measured from
the nearest point of the project boundary (inclusive of works area)). The
works agent should then, via a checklist (as attached in Appendix A) to be
signed by a Directorate Officer, confirm with AMO their findings on the above.
In determining the boundary of projects possibly affecting “heritage sites”,
every effort should be made to minimize the possible adverse impact on
“heritage site” if site conditions permit. For any subsequent revision or
expansion of project boundary (inclusive of works area), the works agent is
required to review whether the change should warrant a re-submission of the
checklist to AMO and if affirmative, the re-submission should be made as soon
as possible.

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 3 of 11

10. However, the boundary (inclusive of works area) for certain projects
cannot be ascertained at the project inception stage. Under such
circumstances, submission of checklist should be made as soon as its boundary
is determined.

11. Upon receipt of the checklist, AMO would first affirm the findings
of the works agent and then review on the wider front if the project will affect
the heritage value of any “heritage site” within the works sites or in its vicinity.
Subject to receipt of all required information, AMO will endeavor to advise the
works agent on whether an HIA is required within 30 calendar days from
receipt of the checklist.

12. An HIA will be required by AMO if :

(i) the project is wholly or partly within a “heritage site” and AMO
considers that the project will affect the heritage value of the
“heritage site”; and/or

(ii) AMO considers that the heritage value of any “heritage site” in the
vicinity of the project will be affected.

13. For capital works project requiring the submission of TFS, the
works agent should include a statement in the TFS along one of the following
three lines:

(i) We have consulted AMO on the necessity for conducting a Heritage

Impact Assessment for this project. AMO has advised that such an
assessment is not required; or

(ii) We have consulted AMO on the necessity for conducting a Heritage

Impact Assessment for this project. AMO has advised that such an
assessment is required.

(iii) The project boundary cannot be ascertained at this stage. We shall

submit a checklist to AMO to seek their advice on whether a
Heritage Impact Assessment is required for this project as soon as
the project boundary is determined.

For (i) and (ii) above, a copy of AMO’s advice should be attached to the TFS.

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 4 of 11

14. The initial finding on the need or not for an HIA together with other
factors such as environmental protection and sustainability development will be
key considerations of the works agent in determining whether the project is
technically feasible on a prima facie basis. This will ensure that the needed
balance between development and heritage conservation is deliberated at an
early stage.

B. Investigation and Design Stage

15. When a project requiring HIA has attained Category B status with
funding available for carrying out the HIA, the works agent should conduct and
submit the HIA of the project to AMO for endorsement. Generally, each HIA
will contain the following:

(i) Baseline Study;

(ii) Methodology;
(iii) Impact Assessment;
(iv) Mitigation Measures; and
(v) Conservation Proposal and/or Conservation Management Plan (only
for projects involving large scale conversion works/alteration
works/addition works/demolition works within historic
buildings/sites in the “heritage sites” list).

The requirements for (i) to (iv) above are similar to those as set out in Annex 19
of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process.
Before the preparation of each HIA, the works agent should first submit a
proposed Study Brief for the HIA to AMO for agreement. AMO will
endeavor to process Study Brief submissions within 30 calendar days. After
the Study Brief is agreed with AMO, the works agents should prepare the HIA
according to the agreed Study Brief and submit the HIA to AMO for approval.
The submitted HIA will be processed by AMO within 60 calendar days save for
those which AMO requires supplementary information/assessment from the
works agents.

16. Every effort should be made to avoid or minimize adverse impact of

the proposed works on the “heritage site”. However, where adverse impact is
unavoidable because of project viability, design constraints or cost implications,
and public interest is at stake, the project proponent in collaboration with the

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 5 of 11

works agent should engage the public (e.g., District Councils, Area Committees
and other stakeholders on heritage conservation) and consult them on the
proposed works project at the earliest opportunity, letting them know about the
anticipated adverse impact on the “heritage site”. In particular, should an HIA
be required for a capital works project, the AAB being a major stakeholder on
heritage conservation should be engaged and its support sought following
approval of the HIA by AMO. The works agent may need to prepare options
of the project design with corresponding cost and other implications for the
public to consider or even involve the public in developing the project design.
As the conditions of each project are unique to its own, the project proponent
and works agent should determine the public engagement strategy that is most
suitable for the project. Taking into account the feedback received in the
public engagement exercises, project proponents should decide how their
projects should proceed.

17. When a project is a “designated project” under the Environmental

Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) and when the project proponent is
required by the Director of Environmental Protection (DEP) to conduct an
“assessment of impact on sites of cultural heritage (CHIA)” for a particular
affected “heritage site” under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a
separate HIA on the same “heritage site” is not required. The works agent
shall follow the statutory requirements of the EIAO1. However, even if an
EIA is required for a project but a CHIA is not required in the EIA for the
affected “heritage site(s)”, then a separate HIA as required under this Circular
for the affected “heritage site(s)” may still be necessary.

C. Submission to PWSC

18. In the submission to PWSC for funding construction works, the

works agent should include a “Heritage Implications” paragraph in the PWSC
paper, to be cleared by AMO, stating clearly whether the project will affect any
“heritage site” and if so, what mitigation measures will be taken and whether
the public were in support of the proposed measures in the public engagement
process.

1
Before submitting the Project Profile to apply for the EIA Study Brief, the works agent should preferably
consult AMO on the necessity of a CHIA for its project and if affirmative, agree with AMO on the CHIA
Study Brief. AMO will also decide the merits and timing of consulting AAB on the CHIA, preferably
before AMO advises EPD on the CHIA findings submitted by the works agent to apply for approval of the
statutory EIA report.

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 6 of 11

19. As a general practice, works agents should include AMO in their
circulation list whenever the first draft of the PWSC paper including the
“Heritage Implications” paragraph is sent out for comments. For projects
which have gone through the process of checklist submission in their project
inception stage or the HIAs of which have been vetted by AMO, AMO will
normally take five working days to clear the “Heritage Implications” paragraph.
For projects which have not gone through the process of checklist submission
and no HIA has been submitted to AMO for processing (i.e. those projects that
have already attained Category B or C status before 1.1.2008 and the works
agents considered that the projects need not go through the HIA mechanism as
stated in paragraph 30(ii) below), AMO will normally take seven working days
to clear the “Heritage Implications” paragraph.

20. For consistency, the following standard “Heritage Implications”

paragraph should be adopted for projects not affecting “heritage site” –

“The project 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.”

D. Construction Stage

21. The works agents are responsible for checking that the works and
the mitigation measures carried out for heritage conservation, if any, comply
with the requirements stipulated in the HIA as approved by AMO.

The Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism for Category D Items

22. For Category D items except those handled by Home Affairs

Department (HAD) in paragraph 23 below and those mentioned in paragraph
24 below, the contents as outlined in paragraphs 9 to 12, 14 to 17 and 21 should
apply.

23. In view of the substantial number of district minor works

anticipated to be carried out by HAD every year, discretion is given to HAD to
consider whether to submit checklists to AMO for processing, after ascertaining
(in accordance with the requirements in paragraph 9 above) that there is no

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 7 of 11

“heritage site” within or in the vicinity of the project boundary (inclusive of
works area), for the following types of works:

(i) minor district greening and street beautification works;

(ii) construction of signage, rain shelters, pavilions, arbours, benches,
pedestrian covers, railings and fencing;
(iii) general district improvement works such as construction or
improvement of footpaths, van tracks, drainage system and stream
courses; and
(iv) improvement works along walking trails.

24. It is also noticed that there are substantial number of the following
two types of minor works to be implemented each year:

(i) installation or relocation of village/street lighting; and

(ii) slope works of all nature.

Given the fact that the potential impact of the above two types of minor works
on “heritage sites” is relatively minimal, discretion is given to works agents to
consider whether to submit checklists to AMO for processing, after ascertaining
(in accordance with the requirements in paragraph 9 above) that there is no
“heritage site” within or in the vicinity of the project boundary (inclusive of
works area).

25. In exercising their discretion for the minor works mentioned in

paragraph 24 above, works agents should consider whether there will be any
adverse visual impact on “heritage sites” arising from the village/street lighting
works or adverse visual/physical impact arising from the slope works, even if
the “heritage sites” are located at a distance more than 50m from the project
boundary. If adverse impact is anticipated or suspected, the works agents
should still submit the checklist to AMO for processing.

Flow Chart for the Heritage Impact Assessment Mechanism

26. A flow chart showing the heritage impact assessment mechanism is

outlined in Appendix B.

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 8 of 11

Exemption

27. The following projects are exempted from the heritage impact
assessment mechanism:

(i) Routine maintenance and minor repair works;

(ii) Category D items involving alteration/addition, refurbishment,

improvement and fitting-out works in existing building compounds
being not “heritage sites” themselves;

(iii) Category D items involving alteration/addition, refurbishment and

improvement works in Government open spaces, parks etc. being
not “heritage sites” themselves and with no “heritage sites” within;

(iv) Ground investigation works not within “heritage sites”;

(v) Traffic control and surveillance projects not within “heritage sites”;

(vi) Non-works items such as purchase of property and consultancy

study; and

(vii) Emergency repair works.

28. It is expressly stated that discretions and exemptions given in

paragraphs 23, 24 and 27 do not remove the responsibility of the project
proponents/works agents to fully comply with the requirements as set out in the
EIAO pertinent to impacts on “sites of cultural heritage”. DEP will continue
to consult AMO over its specific requirements under EIAO for each and every
designated project.

Items with Possible Heritage Value But Not Included in the List of
“Heritage Sites”

29. During the course of implementation of a project, if the project

proponent/works agent considers that the project might affect item(s) with
possible heritage value which is/are not included in the list of “heritage sites”,
the project proponent/works agent should seek advice from AMO on the

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 9 of 11

actions that need to be taken.

Implementation

30. The implementation of the above heritage impact assessment

mechanism for capital works projects under different categories will be as
follows:

(i) All projects not yet attaining Category C and Category D status
before 1.1.2008 should adopt the above mechanism with immediate
effect;

(ii) For projects which have already attained Category C and Category
B status (i.e. funding has not been approved by PWSC/FC) before
1.1.2008, the works agent should assess whether it would be
necessary to go through the heritage impact assessment mechanism
in the project inception/investigation and design stages as outlined
in paragraphs 9 to 21 above if that has not been done and carry out
the necessary submissions to AMO if considered necessary. In the
PWSC submissions for their construction works, the requirement for
including a “Heritage Implications” paragraph in the PWSC paper
as outlined in paragraphs 18 to 20 above should apply;

(iii) For projects that have attained Category D status (that are not
entitled to exemption under paragraph 27 above) before 1.1.2008 for
which contracts for their construction have not yet been awarded or
works orders for their construction have not yet been issued, works
agents are required to assess whether it would be necessary for them
to go through the heritage impact assessment mechanism in the
project inception/investigation and design stages as outlined in
paragraphs 9 to 12 and 14 to 17 above if that has not been done and
carry out the necessary submissions to AMO if considered necessary;
and

(iv) The heritage impact assessment mechanism in this Circular will not
be applicable to items which have already attained Category A
status and Category D items for which construction contracts have
been awarded or works orders have been issued. However, if

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 10 of 11

 during the course of construction, new information is known that the
works could probably affect or aggravate its effect on “heritage
sites”, the responsible works agent should seek AMO’s advice
immediately on the actions that need to be taken.

( MAK Chai-kwong )
Permanent Secretary for Development (Works)

DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2009 Page 11 of 11

 Appendix A
MEMO

From Works Agent To Antiquities & Monuments Office,

Leisure & Cultural Services Dept.
Ref. in (Attn. : )

Tel. No. Your Ref. in

Fax No. Dated Fax No.

Date Total Pages

Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)

Checklist:
Capital Works Projects

Project Title :

Pursuant to DEVB Technical Circular (Works) No. 6/2009, I confirm

the following :

(i) There is no heritage site# partly or wholly within the project site
boundary (inclusive of works area). There is also no heritage site within
50 metres of the project site boundary (inclusive of works area). Please
advise whether an HIA is required for this project.

(ii) There is no heritage site partly or wholly within the project site
boundary (inclusive of works area). However, the following heritage
site(s) is/are found within 50 metres of the project site boundary
(inclusive of works area). Please advise whether an HIA is required for
this project.

- (works agents to list the concerned heritage site(s))

(iii) The following heritage site(s) is/are found partly or wholly within the
project site boundary (inclusive of works area). Please advise whether
an HIA is required for this project.

- (works agents to list the concerned heritage site(s))

 - 2 -

2. A copy of the location plan* with the 50-metre zone from the project
site boundary (inclusive of works area) indicated and the project scope to
substantiate our above assessment is attached for your reference.

(Name/Title/Department)
(Date)

c.c. Policy Secretary

Client Department
DEVB (Attn: CAS(W)2)

Remarks:

Please tick in one of the boxes as appropriate

# Heritage site refers to all declared monuments, proposed monuments, graded
historic sites/buildings, sites of archaeological interest and Government
historic sites identified by AMO.
* For scenarios (ii) and (iii), all the concerned heritage site(s) inside the 50-metre
zone from the project site boundary (inclusive of works area) should be shown
in the location plan.
 Appendix B

Flow Chart Showing Determination of the Necessity of

Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for Capital Works Projects (Including Cat D Items)

Capital Works Projects including

Cat D items identified

Exempted projects ?1 & 3

Project exempted from heritage Yes

impact assessment process No

Works agent to review whether heritage site(s) would

be affected and if yes, adopt
practical solution to avoid / minimize impact
subject to site conditions

Using the standard checklist, works agent to advise

AMO whether there is/are heritage site(s) partly or
wholly within the project boundary (inclusive of works
area) and within 50m from the project boundary
(inclusive of works area) 2 & 3

Within 30 calendar days, AMO

(a) to re-affirm works agents
findings; and
(b) to confirm if HIA is necessary

HIA considered necessary HIA considered unnecessary

For projects requiring submission of

TFS to include Process of heritage impact assessment
a Technical Feasibility Statement
need for HIA completed. For projects requiring
(TFS), works agent to incorporate
AMO's advice on the need of HIA submission of a TFS, works agent to
in the TFS attach AMO's reply
in the TFS. A 'Heritage Implications'
paragraph, cleared by AMO, to be
included in PWSC submissions

'Assessment of Impact on
Sites of Cultural Heritage
(CHIA)' already required
under EIAO for the affected
heritage site?4

Yes No

Works agent to prepare and

Project exempted from HIA. For project agree the Study Brief for
requiring submission to PWSC/FC for the HIA with AMO
funding its construction, works agent to
include a 'Heritage Implications'
paragraph which has been cleared by Works agent to carry out the HIA
AMO in PWSC submission according to the Study Brief once
Cat B Status is obtained. Project
proponent in collaboration with
works agent, to carry out necessary
public engagement exercise

Project proponent to
take into account the
results of public
engagement in deciding
the way forward

Abort Go Ahead

Works agent to finalise design

Project proponent to drop the solution. For project requiring
project to avoid heritage submission to PWSC/FC for funding
site(s) being affected its construction, works agent to
include a 'Heritage Implications'
paragraph which has been cleared by
AMO in PWSC submission

Remarks:
1 Exempted projects include: 2 For the following Category D projects, discretion is given to works agents on the
(a) Routine maintenance / minor repair works; submission of checklist to AMO if no heritage site is partly or wholly within the
project boundary (inclusive of works area) and within 50m from the project
(b) The following Category D items within an existing building
boundary (inclusive of works area) -
being not a monument or graded building :
(i) alteration & addition works; (a) HAD's district minor works including:
(ii) refurbishment works; (i) minor district greening and street beautification works;
(iii) improvement works; and (ii) construction of signage, rain shelters, pavilions, arbours, benches,
(iv) fitting out works; pedestrian covers, railings and fencing;
(c) The following Category D items within Government open spaces (iii) general district improvement works such as construction/improvement of
and parks with no declared monuments, proposed monuments footpaths, van tracks, drainage system and stream courses; and
or graded historic buildings inside : (iv) improvement works along walking trails
(i) alteration & addition works; (b) installation or relocation of village/street lighting;
(ii) refurbishment works; and (c) slope works of all nature
(iii) improvement works
(d) Non-works items such as purchase of property and consultancy study; and 3 The exemptions and discretions mentioned in Remarks 1 and 2 do not remove the
(e) Emergency repair works responsibility of the project proponents/works agents to fully comply with the
requirements as set out in the EIAO pertinent to impacts on “sites of cultural
heritage”. DEP will continue to consult AMO over its specific requirements under
EIAO for each and every designated project.

4 Before submitting the Project Profile to apply for the EIA Study Brief, the works
agent should preferably consult AMO on the necessity of a CHIA for its project and
if affirmative, agree with AMO on the CHIA Study Brief.