Participatory Planning (3)

We are facing a dilemma in determining the boundary for public notification on a development project hearing. Thing is getting easy with the observance of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (Act 172). The Act requires notification to adjacent land owners and those within the vicinity of not more than 20 meter diameter or those affected due to the Cul-De-sac design of the area. Nevertheless, MBPJ is allowing greater participation by inviting people from outside the required area to be consulted with. The catchment area becomes issue for contest.


While the residents want basically everyone to be consulted, the project proponents want only those who might be directly affected to be involved. The argument is unfinished as both are fighting for greater benefits. The loser is always MBPJ. While guiding the interests of the public is the main responsibility of MBPJ, the always "NO" from the residents is holding back the development. The residents has always argued on perceived traffic congestion and noise pollution as reasons for objection. No one has spoken about converting to public transportation to reduce the cars on the road, that's mean everyone to commute with public transport. Blanket objection without allowing development with merit is not the way forward, certainly. So, the question is how to draw the line for "sustainable" development projects? It certainly requires the wisdom and strategic thinking and involvement of every stakeholders.

Coming back to the public participation and the question of how many "public" is sufficient for us to call it a good participation process. Certainly, giving opportunities to everyone who are interested is good, but requiring a huge cost is certainly not the good choice. Spending lesser with greater consultation process should be given a thought. Nowadays advertising through media is not a cheap option. Similarly, posting the notice is not cheap as well. Perhaps representative system in reaching the potential parties should be considered and constant feedback on development at the particular area via regular communication channel is another option. People, sometime might have been misleading in objecting some development as no information, or at time sufficient information was provided for them to make an informed decision. Some time a prior notice with explanation will do.

Participatory planning by engaging as many people as possible is wonderful, but might not be efficient due to cost and time constraints. Hence, innovation in public participation forum is required, and has to do it fast and precise.