PAM NC Professional Practice Seminar

Penang

IMPLENTATION OF OSC 3.0 : AN OVERVIEW

AND ISSUES ON THE GROUND

Prepared by :
Ar. S. Thirilogachandran

08.04.2017
DCP 2007 – 2017 WORLD BANK DOING BUISNESS RANKING
ACHIEVEMENT IN DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IN MALAYSIA
(2007 – 2017)

Prestasi Kuala
Lumpur 13
15

43 28
Pengelan OSC
• Memperkenal OSC 3.0

96 • Memperkasa OSC &

Pengenalan kelulusan
Berasaskan risiko

105 109 Penambahbaikan

104 113 •
Masa memproses
108
137 • Pembetulan data kajian

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
MALAYSIA’S PERFORMANCE IN 10 AREAS OF DOING BUSINESS

SOURCE :WORLD BANK DOING BUISNESS 2017

DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION PERMITS - MALAYSIA RANK

SOURCE :WORLD BANK DOING BUISNESS 2017

DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

SOURCE :WORLD BANK DOING BUISNESS 2017

DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION PERMITS

• Doing Business records all procedures required for a business in the construction industry .to
build a warehouse along with the time and cost to complete each procedure. In addition,
this year Doing Business introduces a new measure, the building quality control index.

WHAT THE DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION PERMITS (DCP) INDICATIONS MEASURE?

• Procedures to legally build a warehouse ( number )

• Time required to complete each procedure ( calendar days )
• Cost required to complete each procedure ( % of warehouse value )
• Building quality control index

• Our DB-DCP ranking has improved due to implementation of OSC 1 Submission at DBKL for
small scale non-residential projects since 2012 and efforts taken by PERMUDAH, MPC, DBKL
and Focus Group Dealing with Construction Permit (FGDCP).

• Though our ranking in Dealing with Construction Permits (DCP) have improved substantially
there are still many issues and problems in OSC 3.0 implementation, as the ranking only
measures small scale warehouse project under OSC 1 Submission in DBKL.
OSC 3.0 – IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

 OSC – Implemented Since July 2007 in all

local authorities(PBT) MALAYSIA
PERLIS

LANKAWI

 Good practices in DBKL expanded to all KEDAH

localities in Peninsular Malaysia with the
introduction of New Model OSC 3.0 PENANG
KELANTAN

 Effective June 2014 PERAK

TERENGGANLI

 6 main processes of construction

focusing on reducing procedures, time
PAHANG
and cost
WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

 Adopts World Bank’s methodology and SELANGOR

best practices around the world NEGERI SEMBILAN

MELAKA

JOHOR
TYPES OF SUBMISSION IN DBKL

1. June 2012 – OSC Submission

• For low risk non-residential buildings

• To follow procedure used by World Bank in ranking Malaysia
under ‘Dealing with Construction Permit’ Indicator
• 5 main processes involving 15 procedures and time taken 79
days
• Submit and obtain development approval through OSC in 30
days
• Simultaneous submission of all application involving all internal
DBKL/external and technical agencies – single window
• No interim inspection – ‘self - regulatory’
TYPES OF SUBMISSION IN DBKL

2. July 2014 – OSC 3.0

• Introduced by KPKT to replace OSC 2007 taking into consideration ‘World Bank – DCP
methodology
• 6 main processes
• Procedure for all scale of development
• OSC role more comprehensive and continuous monitoring until development fully
complete
TYPES OF SUBMISSION IN DBKL

3. OGOS 2014 – KliS Best

• Submission of development
application which enable earlier
commencement of works at site.

• All application (KM, BP, Infra Plans,

BOMBA (Architectural), Technical
Agencies to be submitted
simultaneously.

• Procedure for medium scale and large

scale projects

• 8 main processes

• Building Plans self certified fully by

SP/PSP
TYPES OF SUBMISSION IN DBKL

4. MARCH 2015 – SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL ( SKALA KEDIAMAN KECIL (KK))

• Procedure for application of small scale single unit residential building, which includes

- New building construction

- Demolishing existing residential building and rebuilding
- Extension and renovation to existing residential building

• Time frame – 3-7 working days

• Involves involvement of SP/PSP and residential building owner in the meeting for
immediate approval
• Issuance of approval documents on the meeting day
• ‘Single Window’ concept
OSC 3.0 PROCESS

DATA GATHERING SUBMISSIONS OF PLANS FOR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF INTERIM INSPECTIONS FINAL INSPECTIONS AND ISSUANCE & DEPOSIT OF
APPROAVAL WORKS UTILITY CONNECTION CCC
PROCESS 1 : DATA GATHERING
PROCESS 1 : DATA GATHERING

ISSUES :
• Agencies require Layout Plan and Proposal Development Report (LCP) to be
submitted before technical data can be issued to applicant.
• Water authority / company – require pressure test (week day, week end, peak and
off-peak) to be done to confirm tapping point and water pressure.
• Power company – impose big scale infra-structure requirement to applicant: i.e.
PPU, PMU requirement. Land to be sub-divided and surrendered.
• Sewerage services – impose big scale infra-structure development. Land to be
subdivided and surrendered.
• Telecommunication services – to contribute for network facilities infra-structure
cost; issues on micro-wave transmission obstructions.
• Land administrator – require copy of land title, quit rent receipt, land search to be
submitted (although these information came from them),
PROCESS 1 : DATA GATHERING

ISSUES :
• Some Technical Agencies staffs are not prepared to provide accurate
information to PSP/SP on time.

• Misunderstanding and misinterpretation between PSP/SP and the technical staff,

e.g., in some PBT require planner to submit for Data Gathering or to obtain KM
before submission for Data Gathering.
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL
• Submission of plans

• Land matters – NLC 1965 section 124A and 204D (OSC).

• Planning Permission – Town and Country Planning Act 1976 - section 21.

• Building plan – Street, drainage and building Act 1974 – Section 70.

• Engineering plans – Street, drainage and building Act 1974, UBBL and other
services Acts.

• Utility plans – Street, drainage and building Act 1974 and other services Acts.

• Landscape plans - Town and Country Planning Act 1976; Street, drainage and
building Act 1974.
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

ISSUES :
• Land matters –

• - Nil category land – uncertainty method for apportionment of quit rent for partial
land development.

• - Issuance of new lot number halfway of development process – results

discrepancies in project title, quit rent receipts, CCC title etc.

• - Process of issuance of land title takes too long with common ‘file missing’
excuses.

• - Surveyor to prepare Land report to expedite process.

PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

ISSUES :
• Planning Permission – No issue in Town and Country Planning Act 1976.

• Most regulatory issues arise from misunderstanding of regulations, discrepancies

in interpretation and administrative procedures.

• Planning Authority ‘confusion’ over the Applicant who can submit Planning
Permission application.

• JPBD planning guidelines discrepancies with LA (i.e. Landscape, parking provision

etc.).

• Applicant to ‘chase’ external and internal agencies for comments / support

letters.

• ‘Confusion’ over definition of ‘qualified person’ and who are entitled to prepare
document for Planning Permission application.
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

ISSUES :
• Planning Authority’s Denial for planning Permission application submitted by
Architects,Engineers and Registered Building Draughtsman.
( Except DBKL and MPPP)

• Plan to be signed by registered town planner.

Further to the circulars issued by JPBD,JPBDS,JPBDJ and other states Town
Planning Department ,the local planning authorities (except majlis
perbandaran pulau Pinang and DBKL)have refused to accept the planning
permission application submitted by qualified Persons.

• Inconsistency of practice by local planning authorities

Although the intent of Act 172 is to ensure uniformity in law and policy to make
law for the proper control
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

ISSUES :
• Building Plan Submission

• Online submission is prerequisite for plan submission.

• Submission of amendment to BP requires unnecessary document i.e. Land title,

land search, quit rent, assessment fee receipt etc.

• Building department or OSC to issue bill for plan fee? OSC submission checklist
requires payment receipt in PDF copy.

• Inconsistent / non-standard interpretation of GFA.

• Application of Uniform Building Bylaws which is not uniform.

• Discrepancy in interpretation of UBBL.

• Multiple certification / undertaking requirement on a single plan.

• BP approved with conditions, but conditions are ‘unknown’.

• Arbitrary comments on building design; i.e. ‘The design is outdated’, ‘no

ummmph’, ‘looks cheap’, etc.
PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

ISSUES :
• Engineering Plans Submission

• Structural plans, sanitary plans, internal plumbing diagrams are submitted for
records, but earthworks plan requires PBT approval with clearance from
Kumpulan Ikram Sdn. Bhd.

• Arbitrary comments by technical agencies on Road and Drainage plan

submission

• contradict approved master development plan.

• State and District Irrigation dept. give contradicting conditions of approval.

• Shortage of Power and Water supply although main infrastructure works were
approved and completed in earlier phase.

• Requirement to surrender land to utility companies to receive services.

• Deposit payment by SP for transporting earth and excavation permit.

PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

ISSUES :
• Landscape Architecture Plan Submission

• Person qualify to submit application for Landscape Plan approval.

• Require stamp and signature of Landscape Architect registered with Institute of

Landscape Architect Malaysia (ILAM).

• Arbitrary definition of ‘Landscape works’, ‘Hardscape’, ‘Soft-scape’.

PROCESS 2 : SUBMISSION OF PLANS FOR APPROVAL

OTHER ISSUES :
• ‘Single window’ concept under OSC 3.0 not fully implemented. Some agencies /
departments deal direct with PSP/SP and not through OSC.

• Monitoring required by OSC.

• Late issuance of approval letters or comments after meeting.

• Delay in processing and obtaining approval.

• Approval given with many conditions and takes long to give full approval.

• Regulatory requirements are inconsistent from one Local Authority to another and
the guidelines and regulatory requirements are not easily accessible.

• There are inconsistent requirements from officer to officer resulting In confusion.

Some are verbal requirements without formalized regulatory guidelines.

• When making planning/building submissions, encounter instances where

additional comments are received from the same department.
Process 3 : Notice of Commencement of Work
PROCESS 3 : NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK

ISSUES :
• Inconsistent or additional requirement for the acceptance of Borang B at some PBT

• For a big project, simultaneous issuance of following notices is not practical:

Notice of commencement for building works (Form B)

Notice of commencement for earthworks (Form B)
Notice of commencement for sewerage works (PDC6)
Submission of form JKJ103 to DOSH.
PROCESS 4 : INTERIM INSPECTION
PROCESS 4 : INTERIM INSPECTION

ISSUES :
• Many PSP/SP submit direct to the technical agencies for interim inspection
Need to co-ordinate through OSC.

• Interim inspections mainly concern engineering works, i.e. Road works, water
supply connection, sewerage services works, electricity power connection, lift
and escalator etc.

• Issue rises when inspection comments were given

PROCESS 5 : FINAL INSPECTION AND UTILITY CONNECTION
PROCESS 5 : FINAL INSPECTION AND UTILITY CONNECTION

ISSUES :
• Delay is technical agencies/department in making arrangement for site inspection
and issuance of clearance letter.

• Under OSC 3.0, final inspection to be done through OSC and will be done
simultaneously in two steps. Practically not done.

• Under CCC system, building inspection is not compulsory. Building authority may
randomly inspect the progress of works at any time, but there are PBT which
impose compulsory Building Inspection in their CCC issuance checklist.

• Final inspections mainly concern fire safety compliance and engineering works,
i.e. Road works, water supply connection, sewerage services works, electricity
power connection, lift and escalator etc. Issue rises when inspection comments
were given arbitrarily, results to inconsistency between inspectors / officers.
PROCESS 5 : FINAL INSPECTION AND UTILITY CONNECTION

Form G: clearances letter only required from the following authorities :

• G8, 9 - Fire and Rescue Dept. (except for residential buildings below 18m high).
• G11 - Department of Safety and Health (where applicable),
• G13 - Water Authority
• G14, 15 - Sewerage Services Department (JPP)
• G16 - Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB)
• G17 - Relevant authorities/Public Works on Roads and Drainage.

ISSUES :
• There are LA insist on clearance letter for G18-Street Lighting although the
guidelines doesn’t require. - Landscape department require landscape inspection
and require landscape clearance letter G21 prior to issuance of CCC
PROCESS 6 : ISSUANCE AND DEPOSIT OF CCC
PROCESS 6 : ISSUANCE AND DEPOSIT OF CCC

ISSUES :
• Pre-CCC practice by some local authorities which requires all document (i.e.
clearance letters, G forms, as-built drawings, etc.) to be submitted for approval prior
to CCC issuance.

• Building department require PSP to invite them for building inspection prior to CCC
issuance.

• OSC refuse to accept copy of CCC issued by PSP.

• Some LA require CCC to be issued by Architect, C&S Engineer and M&E Engr.

• Deposit of LAM or BEM’s CCC copy through OSC has led to confusion.
WAY FORWARD

• To revise and issue OSC 3.0 Manual with clear guidelines for PSP and
PBT/agencies.
• To address and resolve all regulatory issues as discussed
• To have more engagement between PBT/Technical agencies and stakeholders
to get input from professionals, PSP/SP and all stakeholders to have forum,
workshop etc.
• Formation of Focus Group Dealing with Construction Permits (FGDCP) at state
level. To learn from DBKLs experience.
• To have representations of professionals institutions, Architects (PAM) and
Engineers (IEM) in the OSC committees.
• In order to improve efficiency, there must be a drive and focus to implement
online submissions which are transparent and easily monitored. At present, the
technological infrastructure is not sufficient and effective. Investments must be
made to improve and upgrade the existing infrastructure.
• Monitoring of the application for development approval through web-based, on-
line or apps based applications. Eg : Sistem KL Trax
THANK YOU