Planning Digital Conference
28 & 29 March 2000
Shangri-La Hotel, Penang
Local Authority Networked
Development Approval System
Lee Lik Meng, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
School of HBP, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Mohamed Jamil Ahmad
Director
Penang State Town and Country Planning Department
Introduction
Electronic government (e-govt) is a flagship application of the Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project, propositioned to reinvent government and bring about fundamental changes to the fabric of society in order to propel us into the information era. E-govt goes beyond mere computerisation or transfer of the manual system into an IT-based electronic system for carrying out the duties and responsbilities of government. It requires that services should be more efficient and effective. It also envisages that “new services, new information, new service channels and improved service levels” should be the primary products of this reinvention.
While the Federal Government has undertaken various projects to introduce e-govt at its new offices at Putrajaya (such as the Pilot Project to develop an electronic planning approval system with expertise from Singapore), various efforts are also being undertaken or implemented at the State and Local Authority levels to integrate elements of e-govt into their work-processes. Most of these projects are ad hoc and piecemeal, carried out at departmental or sub-departmental level. Many have failed and have even tried again (sometimes, to fail in subsequent attempts as well). Just as many are waiting in the wings eager to develop their own system to move their manual processes into the electronic media. While it is agreed that failures are many in the IT world and that it could take several attempts before success is achieved, failure also creates fatigue and fear amongst the officers and will lead to disillusionment and disinterest or total “shutting out” from further participation or leadership in pushing the electronic frontier in government. Some of the reasons for the failures have been discussed by Lee, et al (1996a) but the most critical problem for most government departments is that its officers are generally unfamiliar with cutting-edge technology and are therefore unable to clearly and precisely specify the type of system to be developed by their consultants or contractors undertaking the development of their application systems.
This paper relies on some of the experiences with the development of electronic approval systems to propose some basic guidelines and framework for interlinked multi-departmental development approval systems for the local authorities.
The Development Approval Process
A major responsibility of local authorities is to plan and to enforce laws for managed and orderly growth, especially of urban activities. The control of development is carried out through numerous instruments of development approval spread over several stages, each stage requiring input from multiple departments. Nevertheless, many local authorities lack technical and professional staff to perform the required investigation and have to rely on external departments (such as State Town and Country Planning Departments) for professional or technical advice. Failing that, they perform only rudimentary examinations of development proposals. The discussion in this paper focusses on local authorities which are structured into well-defined professional responsibilities and staffed by in-house technical expertise.
Types of Approval and Departments Involved
The development approval process involves numerous steps (Lee, 1986) and very often starts outside of the jurisdiction of the local authority. In particular, agriculture land must first have their status changed through a process commonly referred to as “conversion” (legally called “change of category of land use”) under the land law (National Land Code 1965). This approval is sought through the District Land Office or the State Land and Mines Department. The views of the local authority is customarily sought but the State Authority is not bound by the views or advice from the local authority. Notwithstanding this, any decision by the State Authority binds the local authority even if it contradicts the development policies and advice of the local authority. This decision thus becomes the starting point for most applications for development approval at the local authority level.
When the issue of category of land use under the land law has been resolved, the developer or owner must then proceed to obtain several other types of approval from the local authority. The first stop is the Town Planning Department to obtain planning permission. Planning permission refines in further detail the type and intensity of various permitted developments on the proposed site as well as provisions for community facilities and amenities and traffic flow. In most local authorities, the planning permission is granted based on a layout plan and development brief prepared by consultants to the project proponent. But in the process of evaluating compliance, the application is also referred to various departments for comments and requirements. These departments may include the building, engineering and health departments within the local authority as well as external departments responsible for schools, drainage and irrigation, sewerage, roads, environment, civil aviation, telecommunications and others. Aggrieved parties to the application for planning permission may appeal the decision of the local authority. The planning appeal is determined by an independent Planning Appeals Board with its secretariate located at the State Town and Country Planning Department (STCPD). In such cases, information must flow from the local authority to the Appeals Board through STCPD. The decision of the Board binds all parties and must then flow back to the local authority for implementation.
The next major step in the development approval process is the building plan approval coordinated by the Building Department. Provisions in the Uniform Building By-Law (UBBL) is the basis for investigating compliance (e.g. minimum floor area for bedrooms, thickness of party walls, natural ventilation and lighting, etc.). A site plan indicating the exact location of the building or buildings and their footprints accompanies the building plan. In housing schemes, the original approved layout plan is redrawn to provide more precise and accurate details on building shape, location, set-backs from property lines, distances between buildings, and road reserves. Since layout is deemed a town planning activity, building plans are referred to the Town Planning Department for confirmation of compliance with planning requirements. In the process, the Town Planning Department will have to retrieve the approved layout, compare it with the layout in the Building Plan, make appropriate recommendations and route back the building plan application to the Building Department, often weighed down by the attached approved planning permission (layout plan) file.
Once the second major approval has been obtained, the developer must proceed to secure several other approvals from the local authority including approval for earthworks, roads and drains, landscaping and structural drawings (sometimes submitted for record only). A typical flow of approvals and departments involved is shown in Figure 1.
Data and Information For Decision-Making
Throughout the entire process involving multiple departments and stages, information is the basis for all decision-making (figure 2). For instance, when a building plan is received by the Building Department, a crucial decision must be made whether the building plan complies with the approved planning permission. The more industrious amongst the Building Departments would have a master index or map-based system tracking all applications for planning permission referred to them by the Town Planning Department. A record on this master index or development pressure map would trigger a search for details of the planning application or cause the building plan application to be referred to the Town Planning Department for advice. Building Departments which are incapable of maintaining their own development pressure records would have to rely on the Town Planning Department to undertake the investigation. In some situations multiple copies of the duly endorsed approved layout plan are distributed to various technical departments for their own record and reference, presumably to provide better and more accurate information for the respective department’s future decision-making in relation to development control. In practice, this paper-based manual system results in major problems in maintaining multiple sets of records, requires substantial amount of manpower and effort, raises issues of data integrity, and is generally slow in response time.
Free-flow of information would be ideal but in reality there are numerous obstacles including dated technology (paper), rigid compartmentalisation of responsibilities, and perceived rights and authority resulting in each department protecting its traditional areas of jurisdiction (in particular data kept in departmental files).
.
Figure 1 : Stages and Departments in Development Approvals
Unpleasant experience in centralised database systems have also discouraged further cooperation amongst government agencies. For instance, in the initial stages various government agencies may have enthusiastically participated by providing hardcopy data as well as manpower to digitise the information. Subsequently however, they face bureaucratic obstacles in retrieving even their own digital data from the central agency. The problem is worst if the data belongs to another department or agency even though they are all participants in the central system for information storage and retrieval.
Unlike the United States where tax-payers have the right of access to data collected through public funds (which means data collected by any government agency) and have to pay only the cost of reproduction, Malaysia follows the British model where government data is copyrighted and protected by various laws, notably the Official Secrets Act. Hence, government agencies are very protective of their data, especially data in digital format since the data is seen as a source of revenue.
The Agriculture Department for instance refuses to sell its land use map in the GIS format in which it is currently stored resulting in researchers and even compatriot government agencies having to re-digitise the maps for purposes of analysis or study. The Survey Department which plays a vital role in the development sector by providing cadastral (land ownership) maps are already well advance in their preparation of cadastral information in GIS format. However, when a local authority approached them for the digital copy of the cadastral map to provide the base for a proposed planning system, there was much resistance. This leads to duplication of effort (e.g. Syarikat Telekom had to spend a substantial sum of money to create the cadastral base for its GIS-enabled utility planning and management system) and problems with data integrity. The town planning administration is not spared from this preoccupation to generate revenue from data. The Penang State Town and Country Planning Department is a case in point with its complete set of Planning Appeals Board decision being sold only in printed format when it could show leadership in IT and planning practice by placing the word-processed documents for the benefit of the entire country (and even the world) using the World-Wide-Web for all to read, research and analyse.
Certainly there are many enlightened officers in the bureaucracy who realise that data and information must flow between departments for efficient and effective decision-making. Traditions, practices and the laws are hinderances but creative use of state-of-the-art information technology integrated into a well-designed development approval system can facilitate free-flow and access to accurate and timely information for decision-making and at the same time help to alleviate fears of lost of authority and responsibilities.
Figure 2 : Flow of Information during various stages of Development Approvals
Components of The Approval System
In designing and developing the multi-department development approval system, there are several key components including :
a)workflow applications;
b)data model for information sharing;
c)the network (LAN, WAN and WWW); and
d)hardware and software to support the applications (client-server technology).
Workflow Applications
The term computerisation is often associated with the process of converting a manual paper-based process of work to an electronic or IT-driven workflow. While it generally captures the essence of the exercise it is a much-abused term with many such computerisation projects merely providing the means to record information but omit to integrate the workflow into the system. For instance, the system may be used to register applications received from consultants and developers. Then the entire process of evaluating the application is carried out the traditional way. The decision is then recorded in the computer system at the end of the process. In other situations the computer may be used to track the progress of an application as it goes through numerous stages and rounds of evaluations and amendments. Unfortunately, these tracking systems are also isolated from the workflow requiring hard-pressed staff to take on additional duties of filling up paper forms which are then sent for data entry by the systems section. Such piecemeal approaches creates a misinformed and disillusioned civil service, as far as IT is concerned. Their first and immediate reaction to computerisation projects are typically that of scepticism and disinterest.
Unlike systems for payroll and tax assessment which rely on batch-processing with very little need for prolonged end-user interactivity, systems for development approval must integrate the often complex process of evaluating development proposals.
The logical starting point for the development of the approval systems would appear to be the identification of the tasks required for undertaking the job.
Text-book models for systems development would require the systems analyst to trace the workflow through each stage of work, documenting the forms and information captured and generated and decisions made in order to be able to translate it into an electronic process. This requires the consultant to spend a considerable amount of time understanding and documenting the workflow (see figures 3 and 4).
Documenting the existing workflow is generally not complicated. The challenge lies in re-engineering the process to take advantage of capabilities and functionalities of various software. This is where the systems developer and consultant faces the greatest challenge because what works for a paper-based system may not be necessarily be appropriate in the electronic medium. On the other hand, there are many innovative features which can be introduced to replace paper-based systems and more importantly to provide more funtionalities in the system. Generally, the consultant can expect little or no assistance from the client since these government officers have generally not been exposed to the capabilities of IT and have not had the benefit of experience or exposure to computer-based development approval systems.
On the flip side, the consultants themselves may not have had the exposure or experience in the development of similar systems and are burdened by unfamiliarity with subject matters, i.e. town planning, architecture, engineering, land administration, government procedures, etc. There is a case where the consultant/contractor for the development of some local authority system eventually closed shop, unable to sustain the unexpected prolonged period of systems development, partly because the client was unable to provide specific requirements for the system. Numerous amendments to the system is the bane of the consultant/contractor.
The Selangor Electronic Planning Approval System (SEPAS) (for the Selangor State Town and Country Planning Department) went through several major changes over a period of 2 years mainly to comply with its re-engineering of the workflow to conform with ISO 9002 requirements. While the system has integrated the critical portions of the workflow, user feedback after using the system continue to demand for more and better functionalities. This year, when they are subjected to an ISO 9002 audit, it is expected that the system may require further fine-tuning. The Town Planning Department of the Municipal Council of Penang Island has had its Pilot completed in 1998 and expects to make revisions before it is fully satisfied. The Building Department in the Municipal Council of Seberang Perai has made two attempts by engaging consultants to develop a building plan approval system but both have been declared to have failed to meet the expectations of the department. An in-house effort to develop the system shows promising possibilities but the department lacks technical expertise in applications development and will again be turning to outside help to make a fourth attempt. Hopefully, with the two failures and the limited success from the in-house effort, the department will achieve its goal of integrating IT into its workflow.