Local plans are legal documents

Posted on 16 July 2012 - 08:06pm

Goh Ban Lee

FOR those interested in urban development, urban planning or urban governance, the illegal change of land use from recreation to commercial in Kelana Jaya must be both fascinating and frightening. It is fascinating because a change of colour in development control plans can result in drastic changes in land use and intensity of use with millions of ringgit implications. It is frightening because if it can happen in Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ), it can also happen in other local councils.

The illegal change only came to light when the residents of Kelana Jaya protested against a proposal to build housing and commercial projects on a piece of land zoned for recreational use in the Petaling Jaya Local Plan 2 (RTPJ2). Apparently, the version of RTPJ2 used by MBPJ is different from the one approved by the Selangor State Government.

It would have been so easy for the state government to resolve the matter behind closed doors. After all, the owner of the piece of land is none other than the Selangor Development Corporation (PKNS), a body owned by the state government. Furthermore, elections are in the air and politicians on the side of the government are reluctant to wash dirty linen in public if those who committed the wrongdoing are under their charge.

Thanks to the existence of Selangor Select Committee for Competency, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat), how the illegal change took place and who were involved are well established. The members of Selcat, especially its chairman, Datuk Teng Chang Khim, should be congratulated for asking probing questions, often repeatedly, until those responsible gave an account of what happened. For instance, he wanted the name or names of the person or persons responsible for changing the land use. Ultimately, it was revealed that those responsible were MBPJ town planners, including a former director of the town planning department.

(Those who missed the news should read R. Nadeswaran's articles on July 3, 6 and 9).

Teng was reported to have said that it would be better for RTPJ2 to be annulled and the original plan to be gazetted again. The full report of Selcat and the decision of the state government are much awaited.

Those interested in building liveable cities and advocating good urban governance should think about what should be done to ensure that such things will not happen again not only in Selangor but also in other states.

There is a need for an equivalent of Selcat in every state. Equally important, members of such a committee, especially the chair, have a similar temperament like Teng who was willing to probe even though the answers might be embarrassing and damaging to politicians and officers. Every government needs an instrument to keep those who wield power to have a conscience and fear God or the law.

A significant part in the Selcat hearing was the reluctance of those involved in the illegal change of land use to realise and admit the seriousness of the situation. To them, the change of land use from recreation to commercial in gazetted plan was "perkara biasa" or common practice. If town planners cannot see the seriousness of changing land use in gazetted documents, especially from recreation to commercial, there is something seriously wrong with their understanding of the town planning process.

It should be noted that it was not the work of one person. Three town planners were present when the decision to change the land use was made. At least one should have shouted out that changing land use in a gazetted document was a very serious action. It was not just a minor change of colours, but a very serious change of land use which in turn would have serious impacts on the development of the city.

The Federal Town and Country Planning Department, the Malaysian Institute of Planners (MIP) or the Board of Town Planners Malaysia must and should be very concerned about this issue and take steps to ensure that such things will not happen again. It is clear that the town planners involved did not take the law and practice very seriously despite the fact that town planning and development control are legal processes and mistakes can result not only in poor living conditions but also be treated as negligence of duty.

Datuk Dr Goh Ban Lee is a senior research fellow in Penang Institute and interested in urban governance, housing and urban planning. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com