Saturday, 4 August 2012

4 Aug- Statement (en/cn) by YDP MPPP, Dato' Patahiyah bin Ismail



From: Siew Shuen <thingsiewshuen@gmail.com>
Date: 4 August 2012 14:37:02 GMT+08:00
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: 4 Aug- Statement (en/cn) by YDP MPPP, Dato' Patahiyah bin Ismail

Statement by YDP MPPP Dato Patahiyah binti Ismail on 4 August 2012 ( Reply To Ex Town Planner Statement in Malaysia Kini on 3rd August 2012. )
 
 
With reference to the statement in Malaysiakini yesterday 3rd August 2012 by Mr. Khoo Boo Soon an ex-MPPP Town Planner, MPPP regrets Khoo's questioning of decisions made by MPPP on hill projects based on existing laws and guidelines, when he was a direct and active participant of these decisions. Whilst MPPP is surprised at Khoo's sudden decision to go public against the institution he once worked for, Khoo can not run away from his own responsibility and refusal to admit the active role played  by him.
 
As the local planning authority , MPPP has the power under section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA) to revoke planning permission granted under section 22(3). However, an Order revoking  a planning permission requires compensation to be paid under section 25(7) of the TCPA which can burden MPPP with hundreds of million of Ringgit.
 
Generally, a planning permission  granted under section 22(3) unless extended,  shall lapsed after 12 months. Since the extension of planning permission is allowed under TCPA, the State Structure Plan 2020 gazzeted on 28th June 2007 allows a planning permission to be extended 5 times or 5 years. This compares with previous practice of 12 times or for some other local authorities.  Applicants for planning permission shall under the Penang Structure Plan 2020 expect their planning permission to be extended if they have complied with all the planning requirements and the local authorities  guidelines  including the 1996 Zoning and Development Control Plan.
 
If further conditions were to be imposed  on every extension of planning permission, certain criteria must be followed. The criteria to be followed are that the new conditions imposed must be reasonable, can be complied with and must at least be agreed by both the local planning authority and the applicant for planning permission. This criteria were spelt out clearly on the 1999 Federal Court decision in the case of MPPP vs Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Gabungan Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan(SB), which MPPP lost when MPPP was challenged for trying to impose new conditions on the extension of planning permission.
 
There are huge financial implications if MPPP were to revoke planning permission granted especially those with building plans approval by reason of public interest. Apart from public monies being involved, MPPP still has to consider the public interest of third parties ie the purchasers who had bought the parcel units. Therefore there should be weightage and balance between the two public interests.  
 
The planning permission granted  to the former  Shih Tung Primary School  was not revoked. The application for extension was rejected on 3rd November 2004 and the developer has not pursued the matter for compensation which he could by virtue of the Federal Court Case of SB.  However there are 19 planning permissions granted by MPPP after 2008 and if they were to be revoked, the developers might pursue the matter which is too reckless and risky to gamble as it may result in financial bankruptcy for MPPP.
 
 "Special projects" were mentioned under the State Structure Plan 2020, which was gazetted in 2007. Prior to  2007, zoning and density was governed under the 1996 Zoning and Development Control Plan for projects where planning permission were granted previously or plots of land which is zoned as `residential'. These plots of land zoned as residential still existed and was still recognised after 2007 as the State Structure Plan did not rezone them. These residential zones included areas with heights above 250 feet.  
 
 
Refusal to give planning permission for these residential zones would result in MPPP requiring to make compulsory acquisition under section 37 of TCPA. To avoid MPPP be exposed to risk of hefty compensation losses, the Penang State Planning Committee in 2009 recognised these 1996 Zoning and Development Control Plan and allowed MPPP to follow strict hill slope procedures before issuing planning permission. Penang imposes the most stringent hill slope safety guidelines in the country crafted by famous Oxford trained geotechnical engineer Dr Gue See Saw.
  
Mr. Khoo Boo Soon while he was acting as the Director of Town Planning Department in MPPP from 16th November 2009 to 15th May 2010 has even recommended for approval of planning permission for special projects. One of these special projects recommended by Mr Khoo is a paper he presented to the MPPP One-Stop-Center Committee (OSC) on 1st December 2009 with a height above 250 feet in Telok Kumbar. Then Mr Khoo did not raise any objections to the OSC, who then approved the planning permission for this special project above 250 feet as recommended by Mr Khoo.  
 
Sekian, terima kasih.
 
 Dato Patahiyah binti Ismali

--

 
Thing Siew Shuen
邓晓璇
Special Officer to Chief Minister of Penang
http://greenstate.penang.gov.my
http://envdevmalaysia.wordpress.com
http://roketkini.com/
TEL:604-6505112  HP:6012-3681209 Fax:04-2645854
ADD: Tingkat 28, KOMTAR, 10503 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

You can buy complacency, political apathy and self-satisfaction.But you cannot buy the survival of the planet.

No comments:

Post a Comment