Penang Watch

Fix gaps in One Stop Centre plan
The new One Stop Centre (OSC) to process applications for permission to undertake land development has been trumpeted as a "paradigm shift" in the delivery system. "A process that used to take five years now requires only six months," a news report enthused. No wonder captains of industry related to property development gave a chorus of approval.
Although one hopes for the success of OSC, one should also not be blind to possible problems. As such, while the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is commended for the efforts to make the property sector more efficient, Malaysians may want to hold on to the champagne bottles.

The OSC was unveiled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi together with three other measures, namely the Certificate of Completion and Compliance, Build Then Sell concept and Commissioner of Buildings. Taken together, they constitute the biggest change in development control measures and maintenance of buildings in recent memory.

This article is only concerned with the OSC. Comments on the others will have to wait for other occasions.

Under the OSC, processing of applications for land use conversion and subdivision by the state government is done simultaneously with those for layout plans (or planning permission) and building plans by the local council. The number of days for each sub-process is well-defined.

It used to be land matters first, followed by layout plans and then building plans.

There is a possible negative effect of simultaneous processing. For instance, if the application for conversion of land use is not approved, the effort and time in preparing and processing layout plans and building plans will go to waste. Or if the layout plan of a project has to be amended, its building plans will have to be redone and re-evaluated.

Furthermore, the new system assumes that developers and their consultants know exactly what can be approved. This is untenable.

Land development in Malaysia operates in an environment of many uncertainties largely because of the absence of gazetted Local Plans in which land use and intensity of use are clearly stated. This is often made worse by sudden new rules and "guidelines" for a variety of reasons.

To complicate matters, developers with the assistance of consultants, inadvertently push the envelope on such matters as the height of buildings, land use mix and types and layout of buildings, even in ecologically sensitive and conservation areas.

Therefore, unless the OSC committee which has a major say on the fate of proposed development projects is accommodative and developers are not overly "innovative", there is a high probability that many applications will be rejected or need serious amendments. The much touted four to six-month approval may not hold true.

In the old system, the uncertainties and delays had spawned the emergence of powerful people whom developers approached to clear obstacles. But it was never certain whether the obstacles were technical or man-made or both.

The new system has minimised the role of local councillors. Besides officers from technical departments in local council and state government, there are only four councillors in the OSC committee, which is chaired by the council mayor or president.

In the past, the committee that approved layout plans and building plans had between 13 and 18 councillors and technical officers were only advisors.

However, it has given the state politicians more power. The decisions of the OSC committee are to be forwarded to the State Executive Council for consideration. This step opens a whole new ball game in development control process.

Strangely, according to the OSC flow-chart, the decisions of the State Executive Council are then forwarded to the full council of the local authority for confirmation.

While it is a positive step to minimise the role of councillors in the approval of development projects, it is not right to require them to confirm something in which many have no roles in its approval in the first place and may not know anything about the projects. It is also a humiliating procedure.

The OSC needs amendments.

In the process, it would be a big step forward if the whole land development control process is made more transparent. A good delivery system is more than shortened processing time. It should have elements of transparency and social justice.

The time has come for deliberations on proposed development projects to be opened to interested parties, especially the developers, nearby residents and their associations.

Dr Goh Ban Lee is a retired academic interested in urban governance, housing and town planning. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com.