Fix gaps in One Stop Centre
plan
24/04/2007 The Sun Local Counsel By Goh Ban Lee
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. |