Environmental Baseline Study for Evaluating Different Development Options for Clementi Forest

34 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether an Environmental Baseline Study can be considered for evaluating the different development options for Clementi Forest, namely (i) a nature park as Nature Society Singapore has proposed (ii) leaving it untouched as a secondary forest or (iii) a residential development similar to the upcoming Tengah Forest Town; and (b) if so, whether the results of the Study can be made available to the public given the active public interest in the area.

Mr Desmond Lee: Members have asked about development plans for green spaces in Singapore, including specific sites at Clementi and Ulu Pandan. I will first address our overall approach to land use planning and nature conservation, and then talk about specific sites.

Let me start with our approach to land use. We are a city, 728 square kilometres of land area in all. But we are also a city-state. Our land use considerations are therefore quite different from most other cities. This is because, unlike most other cities which have large hinterlands, we have to cater for everything that a country needs within the limits of our city, instead of far beyond its limits in the cases of other cities. These include uses such as airports and seaports, airbases and military training ground, reservoirs, incineration and power plants, agriculture, and so much more.

Our approach to conservation as a city-state is also quite different. For example, in other cities, you travel out, sometimes for many hours on the motor-way, to enjoy natural greenery and nature. But in Singapore, our wild spaces are right in our midst. With our gem, the Central Catchment and Bukit Timah Nature Reserves, nestled in the green heart of our city.

We have always taken a long-term view towards land use planning, with stewardship and sustainability as core, long-held principles. Given our small size, we have been, and have to be, judicious in stewarding our scarce land resources to support Singapore’s development as well as in our aspiration to be a City in Nature. We have to constantly balance demands and trade-offs across a wide variety of needs, including housing, green spaces, infrastructure, community facilities, workplaces, amongst others. These tensions are inherent in land use planning everywhere, but felt much more acutely in a small city-state like Singapore.

Sustainable development for Singapore over the long term also means that we need to recycle and reuse our limited land, while incorporating flexibility into our plans, to meet the changing needs and aspirations of each new generation. We must continue to plan ahead to support our collective vision for Singapore, not just for ourselves, but for our children and theirs.

Our land use needs today are quite different from those of yesteryear, and will continue to evolve. Let me use Public Housing as an example. Today, we continue to see a high demand for new HDB flats. In 2020, the overall application rate for BTO flats was 5.8 times. This means that for each BTO flat, we broadly get between 5 and 6 Singaporean applicants. This is driven partly by marriage and family formation. Between 2015 and 2019, the annual average number of citizen marriages registered was 23,600, higher than the annual average of 22,400 registered between 2010 and 2014. In the near term, we expect more demand from the larger “Echo” Baby Boomers cohorts (born in late 1980s to 1990s) as they enter into the marriageable age. For comparison, we built an average of 16,200 new HDB flats each year over the same period, to cater to BTO demand by all buyer groups, and not just newly-weds. For completeness, other housing options, of course, including HDB resale flats, ECs, private property, open market rental flats or living with family members, remain. We therefore need to continue building to meet the demand and aspirations of young families.

On top of that, our public housing demand is also partly driven by changing social structures. For example, there is a growing trend of smaller households as more young couples, singles and their parents choose to have their own flats instead of staying with their extended families as it was so in the past. Indeed, Members of this House have championed some of these needs and more. The average household size in HDB dwellings was 3.07 in 2019, compared to 4.24 in 1990.

Or take a more recent development like COVID-19, which continues to affect our lives in many ways, and has thrown up new land use challenges. Apart from the fact that working from home became the norm for many of us, the pandemic also reminded us that supply disruptions are a very real concern. For example, given the supply tightness that the world experienced for certain food and medical items, our agencies are looking to strengthen local resilience of some of our resource systems, such as for food. This may mean increasing local production and storage capacity for such resources, where feasible. The pandemic has also demonstrated the importance of having buffer sites for emergency uses, which we were able to activate quickly for quarantine and recovery facilities, and temporary housing of our migrant workers. Meanwhile, trends such as tele-commuting and e-commerce have accelerated, raising questions about how much office and retail space we might really need in the long term. Our economic imperatives may also shift and evolve after the pandemic, as technology changes and advances, so we will need to take a good, hard look at land use needs for the future. While it remains to be seen if some of these shifts will persist in the “new normal” beyond COVID-19, we are actively monitoring these trends and adjusting our land use strategies to satisfy both the needs of today, and the possibilities and challenges of tomorrow.

To meet our growing and changing needs, we have been, and will continue to adopt a range of development options. This includes increasing the density of developments – building higher, and building more densely, while ensuring liveability. So there is a limit. We are also co-locating suitable uses. For example, the upcoming Punggol Town Hub will feature a public library, community centre, hawker centre, and health services. All co-located for one-stop, convenient access for our residents. We are also co-locating a Water Reclamation Plant and an Integrated Waste Management Facility at Tuas Nexus, and a 4-in-1 rail and bus depot in the East Coast. Such projects save us hectares of land.

We are also redeveloping brownfield sites such as golf courses, old school sites, or industrial areas, as leases expire. For example, last year, we launched the former First Toa Payoh Secondary School site for public housing, after the school was merged. Many Members might also remember that Bishan used to be a cemetery. Going forward, when the lease for the Keppel Club Golf Course expires, we will use the land to develop public and private housing. Land taken back from Jurong Country Club, Raffles Country Club, Marina Bay Golf Course from 2024 and Orchid Country Club from 2030, will also be used to meet other needs. By 2030, we would have taken back more than 400 hectares of golf course land for redevelopment.

We will continue to carry out land reclamation where appropriate, and see how we can make use of underground spaces and deep cavern spaces for infrastructure, though the costs are high.

We also undertake major long-term redevelopment moves when the opportunity arises, to re-imagine Singapore to advance our children’s interests, and those of their children. For example, the height restrictions over a large part of eastern and north-eastern Singapore will be lifted after the air base moves out of Paya Lebar, allowing us to intensify land use both in and around the site. We will also progressively redevelop the Greater Southern Waterfront after the port moves to Tuas, freeing up prime waterfront land for public and private housing, and other purposes. But many of these moves take time and require complex planning and careful coordination, because they affect people, homes, livelihoods, and industries. So we cannot redevelop these spaces overnight. There are also different trade-offs to weigh, including the compatibility of a new development with surrounding land uses, and the availability and capacity of supporting infrastructure, among many other considerations.

Now let me move on to explain our approach when it comes to greenfield sites. Because of our commitment to land stewardship and sustainable development, we adopt a science-based approach to identify core biodiversity areas and surrounding buffers that we want to retain for future generations. Broadly, the considerations include ecological significance and connectivity of habitats. The 4-pronged Nature Conservation Masterplan sets out the strategies to safeguard these green spaces. In fact, the Masterplan goes further than that, and in terms of our City in Nature ambitions, it includes the mindsets of our people, and their ability to be conscious and scientific in their understanding of nature, and to understand the stresses and tensions that we deal with as we seek to protect the biodiversity on our city-island.

As a result of this approach, we have retained a number of ecologically important sites as green spaces, although they had initially been designated for other, human uses. For instance, the Mandai Mangrove and Mudflat had initially been planned for factory use. Yet, after careful study through biodiversity surveys and ecological modelling, we decided to keep it as a Nature Park given its ecological value. Similarly, while other green spaces such as Dairy Farm Nature Park and Rifle Range Nature Park could have been developed for housing, they have been retained as green buffers to our Nature Reserves instead. We have done this in many other areas too over time – Sungei Buloh, Pulau Ubin and Chek Jawa, Kranji Marshes, Chestnut, Thomson, Khatib Bongsu, and Bukit Batok Hillside Nature Parks, and the Rail Corridor, to name a few. We are looking out for other areas, to enhance ecological connectivity and biodiversity.

Today, we have safeguarded approximately 7,800 hectares of our land for Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, Nature Parks and other green spaces, such as parks and park connectors. These comprise key representative ecosystems and habitats for Singapore’s native biodiversity. We need to remember that not all of these areas were untouched habitats. For example, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and the upcoming Khatib Bongsu Nature Park were once prawn farming areas. These areas were abandoned, acquired by the Government for future redevelopment, and have over time become green spaces inhabited by indigenous flora and fauna.

We will not only protect and enhance existing green spaces but will also extend our network with an additional 1,000 hectares of green spaces over the next 10 to 15 years, and weave greenery more intensively into our urban areas. In tandem, we will implement species recovery plans for 130 animal and plant species by 2030, to strengthen the conservation of our endangered and rare species. These efforts will restore existing ecological habitats for our wildlife, and provide Singaporeans with greater access and a more immersive experience in nature.

Let me assure Members that we are committed to stewarding and protecting our green spaces. But given our physical constraints and scarce land area, there will be some greenfield sites that we might have to develop to meet our land use needs. Any decision to proceed is made only after detailed study of the trade-offs and alternatives. And where development cannot be avoided, we proceed with care.

Developments near to sites with significant biodiversity undergo an in-depth consultation with Technical Agencies and may be subject to an environmental study to assess the possible environmental impact of development plans, including ecological connectivity. We also engage stakeholders, such as those from the nature community, to take in feedback and strengthen the rigour of the studies. Unless there are security considerations, the studies will be made publicly available, so that anyone can provide feedback on the findings and recommendations. The studies, as well as feedback received, guide the planning of the site, including mitigating measures to reduce the impact on the environment. We also seek to preserve and integrate natural elements within the development where possible, to facilitate ecological connectivity. We thank the nature groups for their close partnership in working with the relevant agencies to achieve these outcomes.

Now, let me talk about the specific sites in Clementi and Ulu Pandan mentioned by Members. The site at Clementi was an abandoned rubber plantation, which has since been overgrown with Albizia trees which are not native to Singapore. In January this year, I explained to Parliament that the land had been zoned “Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)” 23 years ago, since the Master Plan 1998. While there is no immediate need to develop the site for housing, we will retain the zoning of the site for now. This will give our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing or to review its land use if the need arises.

As for the site at Ulu Pandan, it used to be a rubber plantation, fruit orchard and kampongs. It is similarly overgrown with non-native trees after the settlement and agriculture were abandoned. Since the Master Plan 2003, the land had been zoned “Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)”. HDB engaged an external consultant to conduct an environmental baseline study (EBS) for Ulu Pandan, to guide HDB’s development plans and identify the native flora and fauna and their habitats. HDB then consulted nature groups to refine their plans for Ulu Pandan, incorporating the findings from the EBS. Subsequently, the EBS report was published online for public feedback.

HDB has since received and continues to receive feedback and suggestions from nearby residents and members of the public. There has been a very wide range of views, and we thank everyone who has contributed so far. Some have called to retain the site fully for greenery and recreation, and to designate it as a Nature Park. Some have gone further to say that we should not build any more HDB flats, and halt all development. We can understand this sentiment too. Others have urged the Government to redevelop other sites instead, including older housing blocks, or existing school fields and running tracks in the area. Several have suggested that new housing and nature should co-exist on the site, for example, develop the eastern end where vegetation is less dense, while integrating mature trees into the new estate and preserving some of the streams. While there are diverse views, many who have written in appreciate the tension between the need for development, and nature conservation.

We are studying the feedback in detail and welcome more Singaporeans to give their views and inputs, as we consider our plans for the Ulu Pandan site. Accordingly, HDB will extend the public consultation period for another four weeks, so please write in. We will carefully consider all the feedback received, and share our plans when ready.

We are encouraged by the keen interest generated in our plans for Singapore and nature conservation. Indeed, mainstreaming of nature consciousness among Singaporeans is a key part of our strategy to become a City in Nature. This is a good time as concerns about sustainability are now at the top of our agenda. As the same time, as part of such conversations, it is good for all of us to better understand the opportunities and constraints facing Singapore when it comes to balancing our land use needs. And if we recalibrate the balance between conservation and development, we also need to discuss what this would mean, in practical terms. For instance, in a TODAY commentary which I read over the weekend, a 24-year old SUSS student Mr Yeo Wei Jiang summed it up aptly. He said that preserving the natural environment should be Singapore’s “top priority” and that “I am willing to commit to it even if it means waiting longer for a BTO, living in a more inconvenient area, or paying a higher price”. Now some may resonate, others may not agree, but that’s part of the conversation. Singaporeans’ aspirations and views are evolving: on housing and property, on material pursuits, on family and society, on nature, and on the nature and form of work. At the same time, the world, the global economy around us, and technology are changing, and changing rapidly. And so too must our strategies and approaches, so that we can emerge a stronger nation, after this most difficult of tests. URA will engage Singaporeans later this year, as we do regularly every few years, to discuss our aspirations as a people, and gather ideas, inputs and partnerships, to formulate our long-term plans for a liveable and sustainable future. We invite everyone to join these conversations and to partner us in action.

The Government will continue to regularly review our plans in partnership with the community, to support the aspirations and changing needs of our people, as consensus on the balance between environmental conservation and development evolves. Our goal is to steward a home and City in Nature that all Singaporeans, in this generation and future ones, love and cherish.