Open Space

I have an interesting discourse on the issue of open space during a planning meeting recently. Under the National Urbanisation Policy, it is required that 2 hectares of land for every 1000 people should be provided for green open space. This policy was formulated to transform Malaysia into a Garden City and to combat the effects of climate change. Malaysia, as a Tropical Country rich with primary forest and with small population, has no doubt can adopt and achieve the target with ease.


However, when it comes to micro planning in the city level especially for the high rise residential development, it is not achievable physically. In Petaling Jaya for instance, strata titled residential development cannot be developed despite of having land area of 2 acres and above due to the requirement for open space provision. Let's us do a simple calculation as below: -

Land area: 2 acres
Allowable density: 400 person / acre or approximately 80 unit / acre
Plinth area: 50%
Open space requirement: 2 hectares per 1000 people

Now, with 2 acres mean 800 person for this development, hence the required provision for open space is 1.6 hectares or 3.9 acres of land (800 person x 2 / 1000 person)

It is illogical to provide open space that excess the land size. Please also bear in mind that other facilities such as drive way, car parks, nursery, prayer room and etc have not been accounted yet.

I think the Authority and land owners are caught in between if this rule is applied across the board without detail consideration for every development project. While providing greenery is a must for sustainable development, development for improving living quality and environment should not be victimised.

It is a Catch 22 situation here. We have to find a solution. Perhaps contribution in lieu of provision is an option. Under the Act 172, development charge is imposed for land that has enhanced through the planning exercise of local plan. The owners are required to pay premium of the enhancement value due to higher density, plot ratio given or land use change. In this case, by "reducing the responsibility" of owner to provide in-situ open space is an indirect form of enhancing the value of their land. They should be charged for having more units of development by reducing the required space for green. The money collected should be used by authority to improve the quality of existing near by open space or to purchase land at strategic location for the purpose of greenery. It is not a fund for other uses, but green. Having said this, minimum requirement of in-situ open space is a must for the benefit of the residents of a development project. Perhaps a mechanism can be studied to look into this or else it will become an issue for debate.

Another option to consider is the transferring of right or in this case, the responsibility. In many cities for planning flexibility, owners are allowed to obtain higher intensity of development for their land elsewhere or to sell the rights because of the restriction impose for his land in a controlled area. For example a building owner is only allowed 5 storeys for his building instead of the maximum height of 8 storeys because of the height control in a heritage conservation area, then he is permitted to transfer his entitlement of extra 3 storey or space equivalent to other areas for development. Perhaps, similar principle can be applied for the open space provision. Owners are required to source elsewhere for the provision of open space to substitute the shortage.

Alternatively look beyond the individual land, but to city or even regional level. We can maintain the minimum area for green in the neighbourhood level for local daily use, but provide the extra required area at the fringe of city or even share with other municipalities. For example, children play area in the neighbourhood park and football field reachable by residents from a cluster of neighbourhood and town park by city dwellers. This requires strategic and master planning, coordination and cooperation, and of course understanding about spirit of Local Agenda 21.

It is always a tussle between human need and building for the space. A balance is required to fulfill the biological need of people and at the same time to guide a properly done development. Sustaining a green is not only for us, but for the future generation. It is important as a green space gone will signal the total and permanent lost of natural heritage, it is a gesture of no turning back and for sure NO regret.