Land Use Plan: The good, bad and ugly

Straits Times 15 Jun 13;

DAYS after the White Paper came out, with its projection of a 6.9 million population by 2030, came a policy plan in January showing, among other things, how to accommodate that number.

This is the Ministry of National Development's Land Use Plan.

How the plan squeezes in more people and infrastructure affects the environment in ways that encompass the good, the bad and the ugly, say conservation-minded nature groups.

The good: By 2030, the Government wants 85 per cent of residents to be able to live within 400m of a park, and has a planning target of 0.8ha of parkland per 1,000 people.

Eco groups also like that the plan outlined new nature areas with different habitats: Jalan Gemala in Lim Chu Kang for marshes, woodland and a river; a reef and intertidal area at Beting Bronok off Pulau Tekong; and coastal mangroves at nearby Pulau Unum.

The bad: some of the land reclamation. Environment groups say the plans appear to swallow up biodiversity-rich shores, including mangrove areas in Mandai and Pasir Ris, areas with marine life like Chek Jawa and Pulau Sekudu, and even perhaps islands like Pulau Hantu.

They are also concerned about how the Cross-Island MRT line goes through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, a gazetted reserve.

In Parliament, Nominated Member of Parliament Faizah Jamal asked if any environmental impact assessment had been done in the first place.

Mr N. Sivasothi, of the Toddycats volunteer group at the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, asked why "existing sites under the highest protection can be casually subverted to a transport plan".

The Land Transport Authority is now engaging civic groups on the issue.

This week, it met nature groups and academics, and agreed to hold off conducting its environmental impact assessment until nature groups finish a six-month study on how different rail-line alignments will affect the reserve.

Mr Tony O'Dempsey, council member of the Nature Society (Singapore), also highlighted that there would be high-density developments right up to the edge of nature reserves.

These produce light, sound and smell pollution and changes in lighting and wind flow, he said. "The bite-back is you end up with monkey and other wild animal interactions, and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority solution to this problem is culling the animals that become a nuisance."

The ugly: lack of prior consultation, internally and with civic groups and the public, over the overall environmental impact of the Land Use Plan.

Mr Sivasothi said: "The question should be: Has the Government asked these questions on a broad scale?

We should model the situation to circumvent predicted impact, not simply respond to stress points."

Mr O'Dempsey added that the average citizen is not necessarily familiar with longstanding urban plans, "hence the conflict that occurs when the planned use is 'activated' by the agencies".

Rather, plans should be communicated in a more accessible way, he said.

And what of the Government's green-spot guardian, the National Parks Board (NParks)?

The Cross-Island Line was no surprise to NParks, said its former chief executive Kiat W. Tan, now NParks adviser and chief executive of Gardens by the Bay.

"It was always the other shoe waiting to drop," he said. However, he has "great optimism" that an environmentally sensitive alternative can be found, even if expedience is sacrificed.

And NParks chief executive Poon Hong Yuen said Singapore is capable of coming up with creative solutions to the space crunch, such as drainage reserves doubling as park connectors.

When agencies' mandates conflict, a serious attempt is made to find a solution, or at least develop in a way to retain, replace or enhance the greenery that was there before.

"The objective, the most important thing, really is to create a better Singapore for Singaporeans," he said.

GRACE CHUA