Challenges in the approval process of development plans via the One Stop Centre (OSC) 3.0 plus by local authorities in Perak

Concerns about delays in obtaining Local Authority approvals for property development have been widely discussed by scholars in Malaysia and abroad. In response, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government of Malaysia (KPKT) introduced the One Stop Centre (OSC) system in 2007. The system has since evolved, with OSC 2.0, OSC 3.0, and OSC 3.0 Plus launched in 2010, 2014, and 2020, respectively. This paper investigates the challenges arising after the implementation of OSC 3.0 Plus, focusing on three main objectives: (1) scrutinising the agreement levels of the OSC 3.0 Plus process; (2) identifying implementation issues; and (3) suggesting improvements. The scope of this research encompasses four local authorities in Perak that are experiencing rapid growth in the Perak development corridor. The research employs a quantitative approach of questionnaires. To validate the issues identified in the literature and media; a pilot study was conducted with relevant staff from the Kuala Kangsar Municipal Council. The refined questionnaires were then distributed to stakeholders from Ipoh City Council, Manjung Municipal Council, Taiping Municipal Council, Kuala Kangsar Municipal Council, OSC secretariats, and relevant external government technical agencies and consultants. The findings indicate that most respondents generally agree that the OSC 3.0 Plus system enhances the efficiency of development plan approvals. Nevertheless, based on respondents’ feedback, certain aspects still require closer examination to streamline further the OSC 3.0 Plus procedures, such as the low level of confidence in OSC 3.0 Plus’s effectiveness in expediting the development plan approval, the low level of agreement on reducing the number of technical agencies involved from 19 to 5, and disallowing new comments after the OSC meeting decision. The 21- day limit for consultants to rectify the comments given by the OSC is assumed to be insufficient if it requires major corrections or involves land matters.