|
|
| Plans
for Ubin URA's current plans | feedback to URA | how plans came about |earlier plans Feedback on Ubin to URA: Focus Group on Land Allocation for the Concept Plan 2001 The Dilemna Excerpts from Minister Mah launches public consultation phase of the review of Concept Plan 2001, URA News Release 26 Aug 2000 Planning Dilemma on Land Allocation How to meet the growing housing, employment and recreational needs of a bigger population within our island? More people means more demand for our land resources. We need more land for housing, for business and economic growth, for recreation and relaxation. The challenge: Within our limited space, land must be carved out for airports and seaports, for military training grounds, water catchment, besides land for housing, factories, parks and open spaces. These uses consume large land areas and impose constraints on height, usage and intensity over wide areas surrounding them. With ever-growing needs within a limited land area, it is difficult but very important to prioritise various land needs for housing, employment and recreation. In setting aside land for one need, we have to give up part of the land area for another need. How much land do we have left for development? Currently, after setting aside land for infrastructure, water catchment and other uses, and after reclaiming to the full limit, we have about 12,000 ha for development. How much land do we need? If we want to provide for the housing, employment and recreational needs of a 5.5 million population at the same standard as at present, we would then need 16,000 ha of land for future development. Land required for housing is about 8,000 ha; land for industries another 6,000 ha and for parks another 2,000 ha. Given that we only have 12,000 ha of developable land, the shortfall is about 4,000 ha, the equivalent of six Ang Mo Kio new towns! Some ideas to overcome this shortfall Build denser and taller buildings similar to those in Hong Kong. We would then need less than 8,000 ha of additional land. But, how much less would depend on how much we intensify the use of the land. But we would end up having a denser and more crowded living environment. Encourage industries to go high-rise. We would then need less than 6,000 ha of land for industries. Again, how much less would depend on how much we intensify the use of industrial land. But going high-rise may be unattractive to some industries (e.g. life sciences, wafer fabrication, etc) used to horizontal manufacturing processes spread over relatively large tracts of land. Industries may not want to modify their processes, preferring instead to invest elsewhere. That would mean fewer new jobs for people. Provide fewer and smaller parks or develop some of our nature areas and parks for housing and industries. We would be able to satisfy in full our housing and industry needs but end up with less open and green spaces. Currently, we have about 0.67 ha of parkland per 1,000 persons. If we want to have more open spaces, we could increase this provision to 0.8 ha of parkland per 1,000 persons. We would then need to put aside additional 2,000 ha of land. As a comparison, in Hongkong, 1,000 persons share 0.15 ha of parks. So tell us … A more spacious living environment as we now have or more parkland and greenery. Which would you prefer? Bearing in mind our limited land resources, we cannot afford to provide so much landed housing. What other forms of housing (such as high quality condominiums) would you consider desirable as well? Given the strategic importance of industries to our economy and the provision of jobs, what ideas do you have to accommodate them while making good use of our limited land? Would you prefer jobs closer to your home, bearing in mind that this means having industries close to your home as well? Or would you rather travel further away to your work place? The Focus Group's Report Excerpts from Final Report on Land Allocation: Concept Plan 01 Review, Focus Group Consultation, Dec 2000 (launches PDF file) on the URA website Executive Summary GREEN SPACE 12 As green spaces are essential to maintain and enhance the quality of life, their justification cannot be restricted to economic reasons alone or measured solely by quantitative factors such as number of or frequency of visits. 13 Nature areas. Nature areas are essentially non-renewable. All of them should be retained and gazetted for protection. The Nature Conservation Review Committee’s (NCRC) recommendations to include five additional areas as nature areas and expand five other existing nature areas should also be adopted. 14 Parks. The target of 0.8 ha per 1,000 persons as set out in the 1991 Concept Plan should be met for the 5.5 mil population. This would require an additional 2000 ha of park land. There should be a variety of parks provided ranging from activitybased types such as East Coast Park to the more natural ones like Labrador Park. The existing network of green corridors should be expanded and leftover ‘sterile’ space within HDB estates should be creatively re-used as green spaces. 15 Golf Courses. There is no need for more golf courses as there is already a high provision of golf courses on the island. Where reclaimed land is available for interim use, it should be used for parks to benefit more Singaporeans. 16 ‘Blue Space’. Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands should be left in their natural states for as long as possible. All land reclamation should seek to minimise the loss of mangrove swamps, beaches, coral reefs, and other marine ecosystems. 4. GREEN SPACES Background 4.1 Currently, 2,500 ha of land is occupied by parks at the provision standard of 0.67 ha per 1,000 persons. This falls short of the target of 0.8 ha per 1,000 persons set in the 1991 Concept Plan. If the set target were to be met for the 5.5 million population, an addition of at least 2,000 ha of land would be required for parks. 4.2 Singapore has 2 gazetted nature reserves and 17 other nature areas. Altogether, they occupy 3,600 ha of land. Parts of the nature reserves and nature areas (e.g. Labrador Park) are also counted as parks, since they are accessible to the public. 4.3 Green spaces are essential to maintain and enhance the quality of life we enjoy. Thus, the justification for different types of green spaces cannot be restricted to economic reasons alone or measured solely by quantitative factors such as number of, or frequency of, visits. Proposals Nature Areas and Reserves 4.4 In addition to recreational and aesthetic value, nature reserves and nature areas have scientific, medical, educational and economic value. The entire naturally vegetated area of Singapore totals up to about 10% of our present land area. Secondary forest of the sort in the water catchment area takes 60 to 70 years to regenerate and primary forest (less than 0.5% of our land area) is essentially nonrenewable. Our present depleted and severely threatened nature reserves should be sacrosanct and protected as assiduously as our fiscal reserves. 4.5 The following strategies are proposed: 4.5.1 Retain Existing Nature Areas The existing 19 nature reserves / areas, which make up 5% of the total land area, should be retained and protected by statutory mechanisms. 4.5.2 Increase the Number of New Nature Areas The Nature Conservation Review Committee (NCRC) has recommended that 5 additional areas be safeguarded as nature areas. They are: a Chestnut Drive area between BKE and Nature Reserves; b Kent Ridge Campus; c Sungei China mangrove (Woodlands); d Loyang Forest; and e Sungei China mangroves (Lim Chu Kang). The NCRC also recommended the expansion of the following existing nature areas: a Pulau Tekong; b Pulau Ubin; c Sungei Khatib Bongsu / Sungei Simpang; d SAFTI Live Firing Area; and e Pulau Sudong Islands Group (to include terrestrial habitat). Altogether, the above constitute 3% of our total land area. As far as possible, the NCRC’s recommendations should be adopted because the quantum of nature areas should preferably increase as the population increases, so that the quantum of open space per person is maintained. In view that some existing nature reserves/areas also double up as parks (e.g. Labrador Park), the overlapping quantum of land could be deducted from the total park provision standard to avoid double counting. 4.5.3 Reclaim Lost Nature Areas Nature areas tend to be encroached upon or affected by development. For example, part of the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve has been truncated by the construction of the Bukit Timah Expressway. The expressway could be converted into a tunnel by the construction of a structure over it so as to allow Bukit Timah Nature Reserve to be reconnected to the Central Water Catchment Area. 4.5.4 Offer Nature Areas Better Protection All nature reserves should be gazetted and protected by statutory mechanisms. A National Trust for Parks, Nature Areas and Reserves should be instituted to govern and regulate such areas. Further protection can be enforced if Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are carried out before development on both public and private land. Parks & Open Space 4.6 We support the target provision standard of 0.8 ha per 1,000 persons. In addition, the following are recommended: 4.6.1 Provide a Variety of Parks: Parks should be of different types, ranging from activity-based types such as East Coast Park to more natural ones such as Labrador Park. In addition to nature reserves, selected parks should be planned as ‘nature parks’ with appropriate vegetation. While neighbourhood or smaller parks are necessary for easy access, these should not be developed at the expense of larger regional parks. 4.6.2 More and Improved Park Connectors: The popularity of the network of park connectors initiated in the early ’90s is evidenced by public demand for a more extensive network of green corridors. Improved planning and a denser network could provide ‘alternative roads’ for Singaporeans who would rather walk or cycle than use cars and buses. ‘Blue corridors’ or waterways should also be linked or combined with green corridors. 4.6.3 Balance of Natural Green, Man-made Green and Concrete: A balance should be achieved between manicured lawns and planting and more natural vegetation. Natural areas should not be overly landscaped, resulting in a greater cost of development and maintenance and a concomitant loss of bio-diversity. In the case of coastal nature areas, e.g. Sungei Buloh, the natural shoreline should be kept. ‘Blue Space’ 4.9 Proposed reclamation projects in Tuas, Changi Airport and Pulau Tekong and on a smaller scale at Sentosa, Punggol, Coney Island, Kranji, East Coast Park, Pulau Ubin and the Southern Islands, destroy the existing mangrove swamps, coral reefs and beaches which are our scarce marine resources. 4.10 Our already-damaged coastlines on the main and outer islands should be left to rejuvenate themselves. New land requirements for housing, industry, ports or resorts should be built as new reclaimed islands, floating docks or finger piers. In this approach, we save our existing corals, mangrove swamps and beaches. And in decades to come, our extended coastlines through the ‘island reclamation’ concept would embrace rich marine life for future generations to enjoy. 4.11 Pulau Ubin, Pulau Tekong and the Southern Islands should be left in their natural states for as long as possible. The proposed HDB new town for 65,000 people on the reclaimed land of Pulau Ubin would urbanise the island and rob the island of its rustic beauty and rich bio-diversity. 60% of the corals around the Southern Islands are already dying. The STB’s proposed additional land reclamation of 34 ha for resort and housing development would further upset the marine ecosystem of these islands. They should be reserved for locals as ‘blue space’ recreation. 4.12 Rivers should be perceived as our rare ‘blue space’ heritage. Riverbanks and air space over rivers should be sensitively protected. Rivers can also be harnessed for appropriate recreational and transportation uses. |