Justify legalising illegal factories in housing zones – Ravinder Singh

In his article “Hill development issue resolved” (The Sun, February 8, 2016), Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar states that one of the findings of the Appeal Board hearing the case of Sunway City in Penang was that it was wrong for the Penang Island Municipal Council to decide for itself in 2012, that this was a “special project” without reference to and approval of the state planning committee (SPC).

The Board’s decision set aside the council’s approval.

When the Consumers' Association of Penang (CAP) and other NGOs first raised this issue, their objections were dismissed as anti-development.

This was like saying that the council was infallible in making decisions, and so its decision to approve hill development should not be questioned.

The Appeal Board’s findings prove that both the council and state authorities were wrong. Hopefully, a lesson is learnt.

The Penang government should not look at the public who raise issues of concern as being “anti-development” and brush them aside while defending all decisions of their administration and agencies, right or wrong, to make a show of competency and infallibility.

This leads to a culture of “tell a lie and repeat it often enough and the people will believe it is the truth”. No politicians should adopt this style and make it their SOP.

Take another case, of re-zoning shophouses in Desa Jelita, from a residential zone to “industrial”.

SPC approved the re-zoning on June 14, 2012 after the full local council meeting passed a “garis panduan” on this matter on May 14, 2012 (JPN Pulau Pinang Bil. 4/2012).

But this place had been zoned as public housing in 1996, and soon after developed and resided in.

Is it legally and morally right to re-zone the shophouses in this housing scheme, being illegally used as factories, to “industrial” and legalise them?

The scenario would be different if a place once zoned as residential but never developed, let alone resided in, was later re-zoned to “industrial” provided environmental requirements of a buffer zone relevant to industry types, and other requisites were fulfilled.

The council authorities claimed that SPC can lawfully give instructions to the Planning Authority which the latter must carry out, implying that the re-zoning was done upon a directive originating from SPC.

Is this true, or was it the Planning Authority’s own work ending with SPC endorsing it without fully appreciating that its “OK” would mean:
a. interfering with the enforcement action that was on-going against the illegal factories under Sec. 27(2)(a),
b. setting a precedent for factories to begin operating illegally in residential zones as they would be legalised instead of acted against under Sec. 27(2)(a),
c. defeating the state’s vision of making Penang Cleaner, Greener, Safer and Healthier.

Interestingly, while the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 does allow SPC to give directives to the Planning Authority, which the latter must carry out, the provision also clearly restricts the SPC to only giving directives which are not inconsistent with the same Act.

If the SPC did give the instructions, was this not inconsistent with the Act as it ousted the operation of Sec. 27(2)(a) of the Act under which enforcement action was already underway against the illegal factories in a residential zone?

On August 20, 2010, the then senior deputy director of the development planning department of the Penang city council gave the excuse that his department could not proceed with enforcement action against the illegal factories as his officers faced difficulties getting into them to take photographs.

Did SPC’s instructions put him in a quandary such that he had to create a story for abandoning enforcement action and start re-zoning action to legalise the illegal industries in Desa Jelita?

It is hoped the Town & Country Planning and Housing Committee can show transparency and accountability by stating its own stand on this matter and explaining why the shophouses should not be re-zoned to their original status of “residential/commercial”.

So far, all “explanations and clarifications” have been given by civil servants in the council, who paint the picture that their hands are tied as they were merely carrying out the directive of SPC which they could not refuse to carry out.

I don’t suppose anyone in the planning department, the councillors or the elected representatives would like to have factories operating within four to five meters of their homes. Can what’s not good for them, be good for the public?

Just state whether the shophouses in Desa Jelita will be re-zoned back to their original status of “residential/commercial” or not.

If not, please give legal and moral justifications for downgrading the citizenship of the residents of Desa Jelita by taking away the protection of Sec. 27(2)(a) that they had when they purchased their homes here 15 to 20 years ago. – February 10, 2016.

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.