Download July 2006 Issue - Malaysian Institute of Planners

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In the News RTPJ1 The recent controversies and ongoing debate between the resident representatives and the local authority of Petaling Jaya over the draft PJ1 Local Plan (RTPJ1) is an interesting test case for our Town and Country Planning Act 1976, with regard to the provisions related to “Local Plans”. The resident groups are challenging not just the contents of the draft Plan but the process of the Plan preparation, base upon their interpretation of the Act. As it is, the provisions for the preparation of Development Plans in our Town Planning Act has never been interpreted by the Court of Law, and thus leaving us with many ambiguities in their execution. Therefore, the Petaling Jaya case will make for an interesting case study and may have implications on future Local Plans. BP Putrajaya Another landmark (literally and figuratively) is the new Federal Government Administrative Centre. The Star (15 November, 2005) commented that residents and visitors of Putrajaya “should not grapple” with the various inconveniences that they are facing “because Putrajaya is supposed to be a planned city”. It is arguably the most intensely planned township. It is touted as a model township for the rest of the country. It was planned to almost perfection. But then, there lies its problems because the township is made up of many components. Not every component can be built simultaneously although each depended on the other in order for the city system to work as it was planned, for example, its planned integrated public transportation system. There is another problem - people. We need resident people to make up a living city. But this is a chicken and egg issue. Malaysians have gotten used to “instant everything” culture, from Mee Maggi and instant coffee to Pak Man Telo get-rich quick scheme to instant trees. Now we expect instant cities. Perhaps the mistake was to promise too much at the beginning, leaving a very high expectation to the pioneering residents and the visitors. A city takes time to mature. Shah Alam is a good case in point. Putrajaya has perhaps received an accelerated infrastructure growth compared to Shah Alam but its residents and communities will still have to mature gracefully. This cannot be expected to happen instantly. No doubt, Putrajaya is still a nice place to look at. Given time, as well as commitment from the local authority, it will be an equally nice place to live in. BP PJ City Another case of impatient residents is in the newly crowned Petaling Jaya City. The months leading up to its declaration of City status and those that followed, never a day passed by without the local print media highlighting one or another grouses from the residents towards the local authority. Petaling Jaya, or PJ, as it is affectionately called, is a nice ‘little’ place that has outgrown its original design as a satellite town. I just cannot figure what the residents really want from PJ. I hope they will learn to focus on the positive aspects of PJ instead of merely harping on the bad ones. It may be a good application of the spirit of Agenda 21 but sometimes I think they take it too far. The residents of PJ have been given too much authority over themselves that perhaps sometimes they cross the thin line between self governance and anarchy. Only in PJ can you find so many very well planned and neatly developed neighbourhoods turned into ‘army camps’, where the local residents erect barriers, employ private guards and decide who can drive through their street. BP EAROPH 20th World Congress on Housing and Planning, Miri, Sarawak The Eastern Regional Organization for Planning and Housing (EAROPH) will be holding its 20th World Congress on Housing and Planning from 14th to 16th August 2006 in Miri Sarawak. The theme of “Sustainable Development of Human Settlements for a Better Quality of Life” has five subthemes and a total of 38 international papers will be tabled on various subjects. The Congress will be emphasizing on best practices and successful programmes that have been implemented to achieve various elements of sustainability. The concurrent Mayor’s caucus has attracted speakers such as the U.N. Special Ambassador for Millennium Development Goals and the Mayor of Seoul who will talk on the Greening of Seoul. Waste Management and Energy Efficient Buildings are new subject matters that will have many papers from specialists and practitioners and people from the industry. This will be a good opportunity to not just learn new ideas and experiences but also to network with many varied people from many countries. More detailed information can be obtained from www.earoph.net TO DEVELOP the human capital, we want our citizens to be fully equipped with knowledge, practice good moral values, have a broad mind, love the country and possess the physical and spiritual strength. ~ Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi ~ KL a better city to live in than Seoul (the Sun, April 17 2006) Mercer Human Resource Consulting reported that their latest Worldwide Quality of Living Survey 2006 shown that KL maintained its position at number 75, which is higher than many other Asian cities including Seoul and Taipei, but lower than Singapore, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Johor Bahru came at number 99, one notch down from last year. 39 criteria were used in the survey including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport, and other public services. Zurich remained as the city with highest quality of living, while Baghdad ranked last. Worldwide quality of living survey 2006 16 NEWSLETTER OF THE MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS Rank City 1 Zurich 2 Geneva 3 Vancouver 34 Singapore 35 Tokyo 75 Kuala Lumpur 99 Johor Bahru 107 Bangkok 119 Manila 132 Rayong 142 Jakarta 148 Ho Chi Minh City 155 Hanoi 170 Vientiane 185 Yangon 215 Baghdad Source : Mercer Human Resource Consulting
PREDICTABILITY IN PLANNING : A WORTHY GOAL ~ Salleh Buang ~ Many years ago, when people living in Kedah were made aware that plans were being drawn up by the State Government to develop an island within one of the protected marine parks of the country, many said that there is no way the development could proceed. Their predictions were wrong. Despite recommendations by many quarters, including the Department of Environment, that the planned development should not be carried out, it was done. That island was, of course, Pulau Payar. And Malaysians generally know what happened since then. More than a decade ago, there was also a proposal to develop the well-known Gunung Jerai (also in Kedah) into a mini-Disneyland theme park. The proponent was a Kuala Lumpur based company. The project was warmly welcomed and supported by the Kedah State Government. Surprise, surprise. The local residents in the area opposed it strongly. They asked the federal leadership to intervene. Facing strong opposition from his own backyard and as well as lack of support from the federal level, the then Menteri Besar shelved the idea. Unlike the Pulau Payar case, where damage had in fact been done, the Gunung Jerai was aborted early. Apart from red faces and probably a tiny dent in the developer’s pocket, there was no environmental damage done to the place. Elsewhere in Perak, some time ago there was a proposal by private developers to develop part of Maxwell Hill. The project was warmly welcomed by the state government, ostensibly to encourage inbound tourism. Unfortunately, there was strong opposition by the local residents as well as various NGOs. In the end, the project was aborted. It was a different story in Johor Baru. A well-connected Kuala Lumpur based company wanted to develop one of the city’s most scenic spots, not too far away from the city centre, into an ambitious mixed development project called “The Floating City”. It had the backing of the Johor State Government. Opposition from the local residents was strongly brushed aside. A civil action to stop the project was filed by a local resident was dismissed summarily by the High Court on the grounds of no locus standi. Arguments put forward by the applicant that the project (commercial in nature) could not be carried out because the area in question was zoned a recreational area in the structure plan was brushed aside by the court. As all opposition had been effectively brushed aside, administratively and judicially, the project went ahead. Again surprise, surprise. The multimillion ringgit failed miserably. It later became an eye-sore to the state as well as a mark of shame to the nation. Inherited unwillingly from a previous administration, the present state government finally scrapped the project, announcing plans that it will be converted it into something else. Remedial measures are now slowly being taken, but the damage has left its mark on the landscape. These stories, and many others yet publicly untold, bring up the question on the predictability of planning. If we are asked the following question from a developer “Will my project be approved” or “What are the chances of my project being approved by the authorities”, how certain can we in replying one way or the other Predictability in planning is not an impossibility, according to Oregon Governor, John A. Kitzhaber. On the contrary, he believed it should be “a process to enhance both predictability and citizen involvement.” The objective of the exercise is to provide landowners with clear expectations as to what they can do with their land, while assuring the public that they too will have adequate opportunities to participate in those decisions. Kitzhaber said that the state administration in Oregon had used its planning program to enhance citizen involvement in planning, whilst at the same time taking “strong measures to maintain predictability”. Asked to elaborate these measures to enhance predictability, he explained that they involve many elements, including - (1) Clear Policy Direction; (2) Protection from conflicts; (3) Coordination; (4) One level of review; (5) Clear and objective approval standards; (6) Centralised appeals. With regard to the first element, Oregon requires every city and county in the state to have a comprehensive plan and the implementing measures necessary to make that plan work. In addition, these plans and implementing measures must meet standards specified by the state government. Landowners, developers and permit applicants get predictability because all the rules and standards are clearly set down on paper, and all these matters are known long before approval process begins. feature As for the second element, one of the important objectives of landuse planning is the reduction of conflicts between land uses. In Oregon, every square inch of privately owned land in the state has been zoned, and the main purpose of that zoning is to segregate incompatible land uses. For example, in the “Exclusive Farm Use” zones that have been applied to more than 16 million acres of private farmland in the state, intensive development and urban uses are prohibited. In our country, Kedah included, there is no guarantee that a stretch of padi land today will remain so next year or the year after that. As for the third element, coordination, Kitzhaber said that in Oregon's planning program, the term has two distinctive meanings. One, it means keeping one community’s plan consistent with another’s plan. Two, it also means keeping local, state and federal agencies pulling together, in a direction consistent with the stateapproved local plan. This coordination enhances predictability by assuring that one local government’s land use decision will not be thwarted by the actions of another local government or state agency. In the Malaysian context, we should not have any difficulty in this regard. After all, we have our National Physical Plan at the federal level, the structure plan at the state level, and the local plan at the local authority level. Unless, of course, we are not walking the talk. We say one thing, but we then do things differently. (Contd. on Page 19) NEWSLETTER OF THE MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS 17
Page 1 and 2: Berita Symposium On Knowledge Citie
Page 3 and 4: President’s Message President Nor
Page 5 and 6: Seminar on Gated Communities Report
Page 7 and 8: MIP Welcomes New Members Graduate M
Page 9 and 10: INTRODUCTION The goal of spatial pl
Page 11 and 12: St. Peter’s Church, Malacca promi
Page 13 and 14: 10 April 2006 : The Swiss cities of
Page 15: 26-28 CIDB : Jemputan Menghadiri Wo
Page 19 and 20: MIP Northern Branch AGM, Annual Din

Download July 2006 Issue - Malaysian Institute of Planners

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?