LOCAL COUNCIL CONSULTATIVE FORUM- LAND RECLAMATION 12/12/11
SUMMARY- COUNCIL CONSULTATIVE FORUM- LAND RECLAMATION-Citizens Awareness Chant Group(made up of several NGO's, citizens & Residents Associations) attended the Penang Consultative Forum yesterday (Dec 12th 2011) on Reclaimation issues. The meeting was chaired by YB Chow.
ON LAND RECLAMATION MATTERS:
Presentations were given by Planning, Department of Irrigation & Drainage, & Department of Environment. We learnt that there are definitely guidelines that have to be followed on reclamation.
The first phase of Tanjung Penang was approved on a first stage Environmental Impact Assessment & so subsequently a more detailed EIA was wavered. It was noted from the floor that in this initial EIA for the Tanjung Pinang project, it is allegedly stated in the EIA that 'there will be no negative environmental impact from this reclamation'. It was requested that this EIA be made available to the public. The Stage 2 reclamation planned (the islands) are required, we learnt, to submit a detailed EIA. This has not yet been done & it was requested that this be made public. Department of Environment representative stated that the plan is made public for review for 1 month only & objections have to be given within that month. When questioned on why it was such a short review time, the DOE explained that developers had lobbied for a shorter review period in order to speed up the process & reclamation, development time. The power of developers was questioned from the floor. REDA has earlier maintained that developers had no power.
Questions of why reclaimed land is freehold & not leasehold for State to allow State funding in the future. Freehold status was given from about 2006/2007 & is connected to requests from the private developers.
PBT stated the policy of having a visual corridor from the sea to land which insisted on 'no obstruction' of the view. The question then arose that if built density was high & high rise condos built, the 'visual corridor' would be destroyed.
Requests went out for the Local Plan & public viewing & questions asked if the Local Plan had all the new developments marked into it.
Ref: Tanjong Pinang, it was noted that the hydrodynamic study was done 20 years ago & so was therefore out of date. It was noted by Depart. of Environment that the approval was given 'internally' and no detailed EIA was given. A request went out for public viewing of that EIA, and a review & update of it was necessary.
It was noted that the Penang Port has to reportedly spend RM300 million to dredge & clear silt & it was asked whose responsibility was it to do & pay for this job.
Questions of responsibility were 'brought' up- if there are negative effects of reclamation, who is responsible..developer, council, State, person who wrote the EIA? The issue of the silting up of Gurney drive was brought up and on questioning if Tanjung Pinang was responsible, the Department of Environment clarified that the EIA done for Tanjung Pinang covered only the Tanjung Pinang area, & a separate EIA was done for Gurney Drive & it has been found that many issues contributed to the silting of Gurney Drive(including illegal dumping by dredging contractors who dumped the mud as they travelled to the allocated dumpsite, in order to do a faster turnaround), and so sole blame for the silting of Gurney Drive could not be given to the reclamation at Tanjung Pinang; it was the result of several issues. The DID clarified that now the tugs contracted to dump the mud & silt materials have a special mechanism on board that monitors their load to ensure that the load is not offloaded before reaching the dumpsite!).
DID then stated that one way of solving the problem was to reclaim an area in front of Gurney drive in order to alter the way the currents deposit silt along the coastline. Tanjung Pinang sticks out & creates an area of calm water along Gurney & so this results in the silt & mud being deposited here. The solution of straightening the coastline solves the problem of deposits on Gurney Drive. (After the meeting several NGO's did wonder then..where would the silt be deposited after it got past Gurney?)
The floor questioned the professionalism of all the Departments involved & the way in which each department refused to take any responsibility.
NOTE: CACG was astonished at the lack of co-ordination between the Departments & how different departments seemed to break up the 'environment' treating each reclamation site as separate entities rather than looking at the whole picture & how each site affects the next. A wholly un-holistic view.
It was noted that reclaimed land has to be gazetted, as reclaimed land done not fall under the responsibility of council. YB Patahiyah brought up the question of whether reclaimed land could be gazetted on 'plan' rather than have to wait for 'actual' land & then apply for gazetting after the fact.
This question of gazetting land was also brought up during the application of city status. The ministry wanted all the reclaimed areas of penning to be gazetted. Large areas of reclaimed land remain un-gazetted.
It was suggested that State set up an authority on reclaimed land so it can establish use rather than sell or give land reclamation rights to private developers.
JPDP is the authority on land reclamation. It is noted that there is a required shoreline set back of 200m for aquaculture( in Seberang Prai), & 100m for aquaculture on Pulau Pinang. On sandy coastlines the set back requirement is 60m & on mangrove coastlines it is 400m. Reclaimed land has to provide public access to shore & beach.
Developers are required to provide plans, drawing, & protection of shorelines.
It was noted from the floor that the State Govn. should have done a land audit on its election. The floor called for a moratorium on reclamation until an a current audit was done in order to give a 'value' to the reclaimed land.
OTHER MATTERS:
Lim kah Cheng referred to Section 23 of the Local Govn. Act …..
(S.23. Meetings of the local authority to be public: All meetings of the local authority shall be open to the public & to representatives of the Press unless local authority by resolution at the meeting otherwise decides: Provided that this section shall not apply to any Committee of the local authority unless such Committee by resolution otherwise decides.
S27. Minutes: (3) The minutes of all proceedings…shall be kept at the office of the local authority & shall at all reasonable times be open to the inspection of any Councillor or ratepayer of the local authority area & of any officer of the Govn of the Fedn or of the State….,any of whom, may at all reasonable times make a copy of any part thereof without fee.)
…..and called on Council to have open & public Full Council meetings. This was supported by the floor in way of aloud applause.
QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ON:
- Illegal demolition- Pykett Avenue. YB Patahiyah stated that any demolition is brought to court going through the public prosecutor. She confirmed that the court order to rebuild on the site at Pykett, stood "as far as I am concerned".
-Special area Plan(Unesco WHS)- YB Maimunah clarified that the SAP(WHS) was submitted in Feb 2011. It June it was 'approved ' by Unesco pending reports on 1. the Swiftlet breeding issue in the WHS & 2. The clarification of 'infill' sites in the WHS. YB Maimunah stated that these reports had to be submitted to Unesco by February 2012. On this issue Goh Ban Lee also clarified that an SAP committee had been set up, objections collected 7 the SAP was at the "last stage of the appeals committee"
- Swiftlet farm removal from the WHS- YB Patahiyah stated that they "have to be out" in 2 years(end 2014).
NOTE: CACG appeals for heritage NGO's to insist on a review of these reports before they are submitted to Unesco in February 2013.
- Tanjung Bungah & Lembai Permai 4- over development issues in these areas were brought up & the floor asked for a moratorium on all high-rise developments until a proper traffic management plan was in place.
- Traffic issues- were brought up from the floor- ref: Burma Road congestion. An immediate, if temporary, solution was required in order to alleviate congestion in this area. It was noted that the synchronization of traffic lights in some areas was perfect but in others, completely wrong & the floor suggested that this synchronization be looked at in more detail.
- Savoy Garden- residents plight & the crematorium & columbarium issue. Approval for the crematorium was given in 2009. When questioned on whether an EIA was required, the Department of Environment rep replied that because the project was small a EIA was not required. The wisdom of this was questioned loudly especially as the developer here has already damaged the river & over run the river reserve area.
No comments:
Post a Comment