PLANNING BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 2.15 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is to replace the existing Planning Act which has essentially the same provisions as those of the Planning Ordinance of 1959. Various amendments have been made to the existing Act over the years to reflect administrative changes and to meet prevailing circumstances. However, after such a long time, significant changes in the Planning Process and the present state of the physical development of Singapore have necessitated an updating of the Act. I shall now go through and explain the rationale for the main changes.

Definition of "Master Plan"

Sir, the term "Master Plan" in the existing Act has two different definitions. Each definition has a different usage. This has caused confusion.

The first definition, retained in clause 6 of the Bill, means the original Master Plan approved in 1958 and all subsequent approved amendments to the Plan. This "Master Plan" refers to the approved development or planning intention for a site and is used to evaluate whether a proposed development could be allowed.

The second definition, in section 32(4) of the existing Act, refers to the paid-up development rights of a site for the purpose of determining development charge.

To distinguish the two clearly, we now propose to replace the second definition of the term "Master Plan" with a new term "Development Baseline" in clause 36 of the Bill to describe the base value more accurately. This is only a change in nomenclature which does not result in any change in substance or in practice.

Development Ceiling

When a developer submits a proposal for the development of a site, there will be a value associated with it depending on factors like the usage and intensity. There is a need to introduce a new term "Development Ceiling" to reflect this value for development charge purposes. The development charge payable will then be the difference between the Development Ceiling and the Development Baseline for a site. Again, this is a definitional change which does not result in any change to the present basis of determining development charge.

Deviations from the Master Plan

I shall now move on to the provisions of the Master Plan. The competent authority in determining an application for written permission is required to act in conformity with the Master Plan. However, occasionally, the zoning of an area in the Master Plan may become obsolete due to changes in planning intentions. The Development Guide Plans (DGPs), for example, may have proposed new ideas which are different from the Master Plan. Similarly, some sites may be affected by on-going planning reviews of the whole locality or transportation studies. Other sites may be required to be used for public purposes, like the provision of infrastructural or transportation facilities.

Provision is thus now made in clause 14 to allow the competent authority the flexibility to deviate from the Master Plan when dealing with applications for written permission, but only in very limited circumstances such as those mentioned earlier, and with the prior approval of the Minister. This will ensure that confidence of the Master Plan as a guide for development is maintained.

Payment of Development Charge

The Bill allows the competent authority to introduce a two-stage procedure for the payment of development charge. At present, the exact amount of development charge has to be determined and paid up before planning permission is released. As much time is needed to check the detailed calculations to determine the actual amount of development charge payable, this has sometimes caused delays in the issue of planning permission.

The idea is therefore now to allow an estimated amount of development charge to be collected first through an interim order, so that planning or conservation permission could be released early. A final order for the actual amount of development charge could subsequently be collected within 12 months of the grant of the planning or conservation permission. This is provided for in clause 38 of the Bill.

Vesting of land for public purpose

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry would like to take the opportunity of this Bill to formalise an established practice of the competent authority on the vesting of land to be used for a public purpose. Where necessary, a condition requiring the vesting of part of the land to the State for public purposes like road widening or drainage reserves is currently imposed in the planning permission. This is now explicitly provided for in clause 15(1)(f) of the Bill.

I would like to assure the House that the owner of the land does not suffer any loss as he is allowed to transfer the development rights of the land vested to the remaining part of his land, subject to the planning requirements of the site. The condition to vest land to the State will only be limited to requirements of public purposes.

Provision of Links and Connections to Adjacent Developments and Public Facilities

Another public facility requirement is the provision of links and connections to adjacent developments or MRT stations. These are usually secured as and when development or redevelopment takes place. The competent authority has, as a matter of established practice, been requiring developers to provide these links and connections to create a network of pedestrian and vehicular links within the city. Besides formalising this practice, clause 15(1)(h) enables the competent authority to require a developer to maintain and keep open these facilities to allow free access by the public as a condition of planning permission. It also makes clear that such conditions will be imposed only for the provision of such connections to facilitate public access and movement.

Enforcement Powers

Sir, I shall now go through the amendments relating to enforcement. The current Planning Act does not provide sufficient powers for the competent authority to carry out its enforcement work effectively and efficiently. The fines have not been updated and are grossly inadequate. It is thus necessary to enhance the enforcement provisions and penalties in the Bill. I shall now elaborate on the main changes.

The competent authority's investigation into a complaint is often hampered by a lack of information, either because the owner or occupier cannot be found, or the premises are locked at the time of inspection. To improve efficiency and enable faster response to complaints, my Ministry has agreed to allow the competent authority to serve an "information notice" on the owner or occupier of the land. This will compel him to furnish information on the activities to facilitate investigation and to stop breaches of planning control. This is provided for in clause 25 of the Bill. There are penalties for not complying with the information notice.

URA enforcement officers are sometimes required to carry out their investigation beyond the normal working hours. This is because illegal activities are not always conducted during normal working hours. Clause 27 allows the competent authority to enter the land or building for inspection at any reasonable time, instead of only in the day time as provided in the current Act. It also allows the authority to require the occupier of the land to furnish his identity to enable the authority to identify the person responsible for the breach of planning control. This provision will enable the competent authority to act upon complaints expeditiously.

Clauses 28, 29 and 30 of the Bill deal with enforcement notices and appeals against enforcement notices. Often, URA had been asked to enforce against illegal activities which disturb the neighbourhood. The complainants have often expressed their dissatisfaction with the long period taken by URA to stop the nuisance activities. The proposal therefore is to reduce the minimum period for the enforcement notice to take effect from 28 days to 14 days. This should bring about more timely action to stop such illegal activities. This is provided for in clause 28.

An appeal can be made to the Minister against an enforcement notice, during which time the enforcement notice is suspended. From experience, some of the appeals have been over technical inaccuracies in the enforcement notice. When such appeals are allowed, a fresh enforcement notice has to be served all over again. Much time and effort are wasted while the illegal activities persist, to the annoyance of the complainants. In order not to delay the enforcement process, provision is now made in clause 29 to allow the Minister to correct any error in the enforcement notice, vary its requirements, or allow for more time for compliance.

To ensure due compliance with the enforcement notice by the end of such extended time, provision is also made in clause 29 to allow the Minister to require security to be furnished as a condition for allowing the extension of time. This can be in the form of a banker's guarantee, which will be forfeited if the illegal activities still persist at the end of the extended time.

Clause 30 provides for enhanced penalties for non-compliance with enforcement notices. The current maximum fine is $3,000. However, in many cases, the fines range from $600 to $2,000. These are insufficient to deter an offender, as planning offences could result in very substantial financial gains to the offenders. Even after conviction, some recalcitrant offenders refuse to comply with the enforcement notice and are willing to pay the daily fine that, in most cases, ranges from $10 to $50 a day. My Ministry thus finds it necessary to increase the fines to a maximum of $200,000 or an imprisonment of up to 12 months or both under clause 30. The fine for continuing offences is also to be increased from $100 per day to a maximum of $10,000 per day.

Sometimes, the competent authority is required to take speedy enforcement action in urgent cases to avoid further damage caused by unauthorised uses and activities on the land. Examples are illegal excavation or dumping of earth. Clause 33 allows the competent authority to apply for a court injunction to quickly restrain an actual or impending breach of planning control.

There were occasions when URA had to consider the regularisation of unauthorised building extensions. To discourage developers or architects from trying their luck by carrying out works without prior permission of the competent authority, clause 34 provides for a new penalty which cannot exceed either 50 times the prescribed application fees for the relevant permission or $150,000, whichever is lower.

Other changes

Sir, there are two other changes to the existing Act which I would like to mention. There have been feedback that the current requirement of having to obtain subdivision approval for any lease of more than seven years of any part of a development has inhibited business operations. The Ministry of Law and my Ministry have reviewed this and have agreed to exempt lease periods of up to 14 years for certain developments from subdivision approval. This change will give owners of buildings the flexibility to grant longer leases of their development without having to subdivide their development. Clause 4(2) allows for this.

Another change relates to the existing requirement for two separate permissions to be obtained for the restoration of conservation buildings; one for the development works and one for the minor decorative works. To simplify the process and improve efficiency, clause 12 of the Bill requires only one "conservation permission" for all works within a conservation area, including development works. For developments outside a conservation area, the permission required will be called "planning permission".

Related Amendments to the Residential Property Act

Clause 64 relates to the proposed section 28A of the Residential Property Act. It requires a foreign person who owns vacant land originally zoned non-residential in the Master Plan but which was subsequently rezoned to residential at the initiative of the competent authority to first obtain the approval of the Minister for Law before he applies for permission to develop that land for a residential purpose. This is intended to prevent the foreign owner from by-passing the normal controls imposed under the Residential Property Act for foreign ownership of residential property.

Finally, due to the different nomenclature used for computing development charges, a consequential amendment is also made to the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation under that Act will be determined with regard to the Development Baseline and not the Master Plan which in future will be the document showing future planning intention.

In summary, the Bill will simplify and clarify the various provisions in the existing Planning Act as well as to make the new Act more structured and comprehensible. Other than the provisions to enhance the enforcement power, the other parts do not result in changes to current practices. Rather, they make the provisions and the powers clearer and more explicit.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since late 1822 when Stamford Raffles formed the Town Committee to prepare a plan for Singapore, we have had planning law. Of course, then, the plan was exceedingly simple. There were separate ethnic enclaves - European, Chinese, Indian, Arab and Malay. Singapore has undergone great changes over the course of the century. The Planning Bill is timely as Singapore prepares for the next century with regional centres, cultural and entertainment centres and international investment hubs. At the same time, there is the aim of preserving our Asian identity and conserving our heritage. There is no doubt, therefore, that we should support a new Planning Act to allow the Minister and the relevant authorities to fulfil the task of making Singapore a world-class city with Asian qualities.

Critical to this exercise is the Master Plan which, according to the Bill, will be reviewed every five years and where such a review may include re-zoning, change of plot ratios, designation of conservation areas. My concern is mainly in the introduction of the new provision in clause 14 that allows the competent authority to deviate from the Master Plan in certain circumstances. While I agree that such a provision may be necessary to provide flexibility and adaptability, it may also result in uncertainty and, indeed, monetary loss in situations where persons may have acted in reliance on the Master Plan only to find that the matter is under review and re-zoned. If, for example, land is re-zoned from industrial to residential use, the occupier or owner may find that he will need to incur additional cost in developing it to its new use. A foreign investor may find, for example, that land originally acquired or bought for industrial use may be changed to residential use and he may have to apply for additional conditions to be imposed on him because it is residential land and is subject to the requirements of the Residential Property Act.

Sir, commercial transactions require certainty. Clause 14 provides for situations where there may be uncertainty. Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification as to how these uncertainties will be minimised through procedures that provide advance notice of any review or study that is being conducted.

I am also particularly struck by the width of one sub-clause, clause 14(2)(C), where the competent authority need not follow the Master Plan simply because the relevant land or its locality is being reviewed by the same authority. This can be a catch-all phrase that really makes the other sub-clauses, in my view, redundant. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the new powers to deviate from the Master Plan will be carefully considered.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Shriniwas Rai (Nominated Member): Sir, I support the Bill. However, there are some clauses of the Bill which I would like the Minister to reconsider.

First of all, clause 33, Sir. As the Bill stands now, only the High Court can grant an injunction. The Minister may be aware that now the District Court is granting injunction and I see no reason why we should burden the High Court, which is already burdened with other cases, with this provision. We all know that it is cheaper and easier to make application in the District Court. I can understand that when the provision was first enacted, there was a limitation in the power of the District Court. But we have moved a great deal. In fact, now the District Court can grant an injunction. I would urge the Minister to reconsider the position.

The other clause that I am concerned about also involves the power of the court as well. Under clause 48, the District Court's power is only when the sum does not exceed $1,000. I checked in the library yesterday and found that it was a very old provision when the power of the District Court was limited to $1,000. As of today, it is $250,000. Would the Minister reconsider this position? Otherwise, the public would be put to great expense in going to the High Court and lawyers would charge higher fees. It is time-consuming and I think the High Court's time would also be wasted. It is more expensive to have High Court judges than District Court judges. So I would urge the Minister to reconsider this position. He has increased the fines which, I agree with him, should have been increased. But he has not increased the jurisdiction in other clauses. So I would urge him to reconsider this position, Sir.

I agree with the other provisions, but I have only two observations. On conservation, we are all aware how it has worked and enhanced the physical beauty of Singapore. We have various places like Tanjong Pagar where we have a mixture of residential and commercial buildings. I have one request to ask of the Minister. Would he consider in certain cases a shophouse which has got two usages: one shopping unit downstairs and you have a residential office upstairs. Would he be prepared to allow sub-divisions so that the owner, if necessary, could sell the property or sub-lease for, say, 30 or 60 years? I think this would help in the already depressed property market.

I would also like to urge the Minister to get his officials to try to conserve as many properties as possible. Otherwise some of the properties would be lost forever. We should conserve some schools, some hospitals and even some police stations. I think we should not repeat the mistake of earlier times where a lot of properties were pulled down. Later on, we could decide if we really require this property or not. But I would urge the Minister to consider this and ask his officials to act fast on this matter.

Finally, we can pride ourselves as a people who have maintained our conserved properties well and we should ensure that these properties are well preserved in such a way that they would help to beautify Singapore.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise to support this Bill that is placed before the House. In my view, the amendments are both timely and appropriate. Timely because, for example, the Bill has taken into account new technologies such as electronic filing. It is also timely that the Bill now provides the statutory basis for many of the existing policies and practices. It appears to be better organised and shows greater clarity in its provisions.

Sir, there are also more explicit explanations on the development, sub-division, grant of provisional permission, detailed planning permission and new definition on the concepts of Development Baseline and Development Ceiling in the computation of development charge. These, I believe, will provide for greater clarity and certainty for professionals and developers alike. It is also appropriate, Sir, that the Bill now eliminates many of the functions mentioned in the colonial administration which have long gone out of use. I compliment the Minister for the use of the language in the Bill which is more modern and suited to present day use and more structured for easy reference. I support the increase in the maximum penalties for unauthorised subdivision, developments and other works from $3,000 to $200,000 as it is in keeping with present day cost and will have a more deterrent impact and effectiveness in view of the higher cost of development. Furthermore, the breaches of such planning controls must be made punitive in view of the potential impact to public health and safety.

Sir, I welcome the extension from seven to 14 years for the exemption from requiring subdivision approval for residential and non-residential leases. This, I believe, is consistent with existing practice of having longer leases for better business planning and in view of higher renovation cost.

The conditional permission spelt out in clause 15 includes provision for the competent authority to require connecting structures to be provided and maintained. This, I believe, will have an impact on improving accessibility to buildings and increasing traffic flow which will certainly be a welcome addition to property developers and the public. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek assurance and clarification from the Minister on a number of provisions in the Planning Bill.

Under clause 5, the competent authority is conferred with the functions instead of powers, as stated in the previous Act, to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister what this implies and what effect it would have on the development planning process.

Under clause 14, in considering an application for written permission, the competent authority must take into account the provisions of the Master Plan. However, as stated earlier, while this gives certainty to applicants, subclause (2)(e) allows the competent authority to disregard the Master Plan if he deems the development in the application to be incongruent with the adjoining development. Sir, in my view, this is too broad a provision since the applicant may have submitted his plans in good faith on the latest Master Plan. I seek the Minister's assurance on this matter.

Clauses 22(7), 29(4) and 39(7) state that there shall be no judiciary review of the Minister's decision. This is consistent with the existing practice, but I am seeking the Minister's assurance that in protecting private interest, the rationale, reasons and basis for this decision must be made available to applicants, especially in view of the fact that the decision of the Minister cannot be challenged or questioned in any court.

Clause 37(2) imposes a liability of paying development charges on the property owner even if he has sold the land to another party. I seek the Minister's clarification on the legal implication of this matter and ask whether he would reconsider the provision to make the current land owner responsible for paying development charge. I am also appealing to the Minister to retain the current practice of allowing the applicant the choice of opting for the valuation method of determining development charges. The alternative method of development charges should not be limited to the unknown term "prescribed sum". For example, it may occur that due to administrative limitation and time lag, the development charge table may be out of line with the prevailing market conditions.

On the whole, Sir, I find the amendments timely and appropriate. I support the changes proposed but hope that the Minister will give due consideration and clarification and the assurances sought.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.44 pm until 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm