PROPOSED ACTION PLAN

Penang Forum Steering Committee

Presented by Lim Kah Cheng4 August 2012

Introduction:

�These are just some of the Penang Forum Steering

Committee’s suggestions.

�They are by no means comprehensive.

�You are encouraged to give suggestions/constructive

views and to volunteer in working groups.

Please visit our website http://penangforum.net/ for these

purposes.

1. More Dialogue with Govt Agencies

Besides Local Authorities

Rationale: They make many decisions that affect us yet

we focused only on the Local Authorities

(LAs). Eg, definition of “Special Projects” was

prepared by JPN, requirements/approvals of

EIA by DOE, protection of rivers or lack EIA by DOE, protection of rivers or lack

thereof by JPS, pavements not user friendly

some of them by JKR, etc

Who to Undertake: PF to form working group to organize

dialogues (Please volunteer)

Timeline: over the next 6 months

2. Review Penang Structure Plan (SP)

and Draft Local Plan(LP)

Rationale: TCP Act 1976, Section 11. (1) “ A

structure plan …. shall be subjected

to review every five years in tandem with the

prepn of the State’s five-year development prepn of the State’s five-year development

plans….”.

SP gazetted 28 June 2007.

Need to remove inconsistencies(eg Tj

Bungah), incorporate transport master plan,

provide for more open spaces, etc

Draft Local Plan (LP) for Pg Island approved by MPPP

In 2007 and 2008.

Existing draft outdated. Need to provide for more green

and open spaces, bicycle lanes and pedestrian

walk ways, public transport facilities, child care

centres, schools, proper housing for migrant

works, etc

Why the need for SP and LP: certainty,

transparency, reduce corruption.

Who to undertake: State Planning Committee

(SPC)

Timeline: within 6-9 months

3. Review High Density Policy

Rationale:

•Current transport infrastructure grossly inadequate.

•High Density NOT effective in reducing home prices and

causing dangerous congestions.

•Penang is not and cannot be Hong Kong or Singapore•Penang is not and cannot be Hong Kong or Singapore

without Federal decentralization and control of Fed Budget.

•No proper study conducted when new higher density of

87units per acre was introduced.

The Draft LP recommended higher density ONLY for transit nodes IF

Monorail is constructed to provide higher ridership, not as currently

practiced without provision of proper infrastructure.

•Need to change policy of granting maximum allowable

density for all applicants.

• Nothing in the laws requires LA and SPC to grant

maximum allowable density. Instead wide powers given

under TCP Act to authorities to make all kinds of

requirements for better environment.

Who to undertake: SPC and LAs to review policy.

PF and NGOs with the assistance of the State Govt to lobby

Fed Govt to decentralize, improve public transport

provisions, build better transport infrastructure base on

recommendations of Transport Master Plan.

Timeline: Immediately

4. Stop New Hillsite Developments and

Improve Mechanism to Monitor

Existing Ones

Rationale: Structure Plan explicitly forbids devt above 250 ft

and hill slopes of >25 degrees (Hillsite Development)

except under para DK3 L4: only restricted devt allowed

for “special projects” subject to tight control, strict

guidelines with EIA and JPN approval.

No defn of “special projects” in SP.

Defn decided by Mesyuarat J/kuasa Perancang Negeri on 21

July 2009.July 2009.3 categories: (1) for infrastructure, eg cable car (2) land with change

of use to housing before SP And with Planning Permission or are

areas identified for housing under Pelan Dasar Perancang dan

Kawalan Pemajuan MPPP prior to SP and (3) land not subject to

Land Conservation Act 1960 and zoned agriculture: development is

allowed under DSU6 L1 (devt outside Primary Corridor) – low

density.

Defn can be changed by SPC at any time.

MPPP Report up to April 2012:

Listed 37 Hillsite Projects approved up to March 2008

And19 Hillsite Projects approved after 2008 as special projects.

Question:

Examples: Project on Class 4 hill land in Jln Bkt Gambir- application only

submitted in 2009 (not prior to SP) and approved in 2010. Another project

in Sg Ara. Land had obtained planning approval in 1996. No development.

Plan has lapsed. Present developer bought land in 2010 and submitted

new plans which were approved in 2010. (Source: Malay Mail July 10

2012). Do these projects qualify as special projects?2012). Do these projects qualify as special projects?

Is Category 2 necessary?: land with change of use to housing before SP

and with Planning Permission or are areas identified for housing under

Pelan Dasar Perancang dan Kawalan Pemajuan MPPP prior to SP.

TCP Act, Section 24. (1): “A planning permission granted under

subsection 22(3) shall, unless extended, lapse twelve months after the

date of the grant thereof if, within that time, the development had not

commenced in the manner specified in the planning permission.”

Category 2 can and should be deleted To Comply with SP

prohibiting Hillsite development.

Given the inadequate infrastructure, poor control and monitoring,

problems caused to neighbouring residents and environment, defn of

special projects must be reviewed, approved projects must be subject

to more stringent controls with stiffer punishment like revocation of

plans. Policy of automatic renewal of planning permissions 5 times

must stop.

Need to conduct independent review of hillsite devt approvals granted,Need to conduct independent review of hillsite devt approvals granted,

those pending and those which claim to fall under “special projects”.

Who to Undertake: SPC and LA to apply moratorium while reviewing

definition of special projects. PF to set up working group to review

projects granted and pending. MPPP to conduct public dialogues to

show how existing projects are being monitored to prevent causing

hardship to residents and degradation of environment.

Timeline: Moratorium and review to be immediate. PF working group

review of projects within 6 months. (Please volunteer but no politicians

please).

5. More Public Consultation on Major Projects

and To Review Procedure For Objections

Rationale: Current procedures to inform neighbouring

owners highly unsatisfactory and too limited when

projects affect everyone in Penang.

Public Consultations on big projects like Malls, housing Public Consultations on big projects like Malls, housing

by PDC must be carried out to ensure projects are

inclusive of the needs of OKU, women, children,

elderly, etc

Who to Undertake: Local Authorities to review procedures

Timeline: 6 months

6. Expand Composition of SPEAD and Ensure

Independence of Consultants of Impact

Assessments

Rationale: Members of SPEAD (Surveyors, Planners, Engineers,

Architects and Developers) are given direct access to lobby for

their private interest. NGOs have no such access thereby giving

rise to lopsided policies and decisions in favour of Developers.

Impact Assessment Consultants should be appointed by Local

Authorities (NOT by Developers) on rotation basis and be paid

from a fund set up for this purpose derived from fees charged to

developers by the LAs to ensure impartiality of reports.

Who to Undertake: LAs to appoint Civil Society NGOs reps to SPEAD

and set up fund and procedure for appointment of consultants.

Timeline: Immediately

7. Resolve Problems in Maintenance

of High Rise Buildings

Rationale: Self Explanatory. People, especially children

in the lower income groups deserve to live in a better

environment. To improve quality and planning in the

construction of LC and LMC housing and more

funding for renovation of existing ones.funding for renovation of existing ones.

To review the workings of the Commissioner of

Buildings and Strata Titles Board and devise new

mechanisms to improve the living environment in LC

and LMC housing.

Who to Undertake: State Exco for Housing

Timeline: within 1 year

8. State Government to Claim Back

Control of Reclaimed Land, Penang

Port and Ferry

Rationale: These are critical to Penang’s survival

and should not be privatized to groups whose

sole purpose is profit maximization and not sole purpose is profit maximization and not

common good.

Who to Undertake: NGOs to lobby Federal Govt

(Please sign petition being circulated)

Timeline: Now

REMINDER

Please log in to

http://penangforum.net

to give your comments, suggestions

and to volunteer in the working and to volunteer in the working

groups

THANK YOUTHANK YOU