GEORGE TOWN: The High Court here today dismissed the judicial review filed by seven fishermen to challenge the planning permission granted by the state Town and Country Planning director last August for the Penang South Island Project (PSI).
The judicial review was filed alongside Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) and Jaringan Ekologi dan Iklim (Jedi).
With this ruling, the PSI project can now proceed as planned.
The application for judicial review was initially filed by the seven fishermen, SAM, and Jedi at the Penang High Court in December last year.
They sought to contest the planning permission issued by the state Town and Country Planning director.
The nine applicants were suing the state Town and Country Planning (PLANMalaysia) director as the first respondent, the state Planning Committee (second respondent), the Penang government (third respondent), and SRS Consortium Sdn Bhd (fourth respondent).
Quay also briefly dealt with the respective points.
He said, firstly, regarding the legality of the Penang Structure Plan (PSP) 2030, the challenge was not against the legitimacy of the PSP 2030, but rather the planning permission in any event.
He said that point was mooted because the PSP 2030 was presented on Oct 24 last year, and the evidence showed that the respondent had consulted and taken advice from the National Physical Planning Council (NPPC) and updated the plan accordingly before approving it and escalating it to the state executive council to consider the PSR master plan.
"That is not the subject matter of the challenge, but again, this point is mooted because the PSR master plan was approved on June 27, 2022, and it was submitted to the NPPC even though, according to the respondents, the submission was made voluntarily because there was no provision then under the TCPA which required submission.
"I am satisfied that it is incorrect for the applicant to contend that the NPPC should have given its advice on the PSR master plan and the draft PSP 2030 and was in breach of Section 20B of the TCPA.
"Next, concerning the non-compliance in relation to Section 22(2)(A) of the TCPA before the issuance of the planning permission, I accept the evidence of the respondents that there are two types of planning permission in question here. One is for reclamation, and the other is for top side development. I do not agree with the applicants that there was circumvention on the part of the respondent in splitting these two planning permissions. And the requirement of the law does not apply to the reclamation but only to the top side development," he added.