SG1 Parks & Waterbodies Plan AND IDENTITY PLAN

S UBJECT G ROUP R EPORT O N PARKS & WATERBODIES PLAN AND R USTIC C OAST

November 2002

SG1 SG1 S UBJECT G ROUP R EPORT O N PARKS & WATERBODIES PLAN AND R USTIC C OAST

November 2002

SG1 SG1

SG1 SG1

SG1 i 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Parks & Waterbodies Plan and the Identity Plan present ideas and possibilities on how we can enhance our living environment by making the most of our natural assets like the greenery and waterbodies and by retaining places with local identity and history. The two plans were put to public consultation from 23 July 2002 to 22 October 2002. More than 35,000 visited the exhibition, and feedback was received from about 3,600 individuals.

Appointment of Subject Groups

1.2 3 Subject Groups (SGs) were appointed by Minister of National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan as part of the public consultation exercise to study proposals under the following areas: a. Subject Group 1: Parks and Waterbodies Plan and the Rustic Coast b. Subject Group 2: Urban Villages and Southern Ridges & Hillside Villages c. Subject Group 3: Old World Charm

1.3 The SG members, comprising professionals, representatives from interest groups and lay people were tasked to study the various proposals for the 2 plans, conduct dialogue sessions with stakeholders and consider public feedback, before making their recommendations to URA on the proposals. Following from the public consultation exercise, URA will finalise the proposals and incorporate the major land use changes and ideas into the Master Plan 2003.

1.4 Subject Group (SG) 1 was tasked to look into the proposals for the Parks and Waterbodies Plan and Rustic Coast cluster of the Identity Plan. The key proposals of the Parks & Waterbodies Plan (Figure 1) are: a. Make areas of natural beauty more accessible b. Build four new waterfront parks c. Develop five new parks d. Enlarge selected parks e. Achieve connectivity to our parks f. Create a variety of streetscapes g. Encourage more skyrise greenery

1.5 The Rustic Coast cluster (Figure 2) comprises five coastal areas at the north-east coast of Singapore, namely, Pulau Ubin, Changi Point, Pasir Ris, Coney Island and Punggol Point. The proposals are to connect them up via a water taxi system to make it more convenient for people to get to these places and also hop from place to place, and to bring in new activities and attractions to enhance the rustic coastal charm.

1.6 The SG met for eight discussions, conducted three site visits and had two dialogue sessions with stakeholders. The group also had discussions with URA, NParks, HDB, PUB, DSTA, MINDEF, LTA and SLA to understand the planning and operational considerations and constraints (see schedule in Appendix 1). The SG has concluded its study and presents its recommendations in this report.

SG1 1 Figure 1: Parks & Waterbodies Plan

Figure 2: Rustic Coast cluster

SG1 2 General Principles of the Parks & Waterbodies and Identity Plan

1.7 The SG notes that URA’s plans were well thought out. In order to find relevance for the SG’s considerations in the light of these plans as well as to frame the SG’s discussion, general principles were derived from which key objectives could be articulated for these plans.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PARK & WATERBODIES AND RUSTIC COAST PLAN

1.8 The overarching need for Singapore with respect to the Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Rustic Coast cluster is to enhance our living environment. The SG notes that as the population of Singapore rises, there will be increasing pressure on land use and increasing competition between urban development and the need for recreational spaces. Land in Singapore is finite and a balance is difficult to achieve. However, the SG thinks that the plans can give more depth and character to Singapore’s existing environment. In particular, the plans can help achieve the following:

Sense of openness (Figure 3)

1.9 Singapore is becoming more claustrophobic with increasing urbanisation. The Parks and Waterbodies Plan and Rustic Coast cluster can compensate for Singapore’s lack of space by creating a sense of space, so that residents do not always have to go overseas to experience a sense of open space.

1.10 A sense of openness can be created through park connectors, so that people can travel through greenery without interruption, thereby giving the impression of space.

1.11 In the absence of sufficient horizontal space and visual refreshment, a vertical dimension should be included. Through skyrise greenery, the sense of spaces is given this vertical dimension. This could help compensate psychologically for the lack of horizontal space.

Space to reflect (Figure 4)

1.12 As Singapore develops into a fast pace, urban society, it becomes essential for people to find space to break away and reflect. A sense of ‘escape’ for mental refreshment and recreation is essential in a country that is quite stressful to live in, and will be more so as it gets more crowded.

SG1 3 Figure 3: Sense of space

Figure 4: Space to reflect

SG1 4 Encourage creativity, innovation and imagination (Figure 5)

1.13 Open spaces lead to open minds. In our pursuit to become a centre of excellence for research and development, e.g. in life sciences, and attract foreign talents in such fields, Singapore’s physical environment must support this. Open spaces provide for mental refreshment, opportunities for recreation, and a sense of space to open up minds to become more imaginative, innovative, creative and projective. This would in turn reap economic benefit for our country.

Sense of rootedness (Figure 6)

1.14 Parks and natural areas in Singapore can provide strong links to our heritage. They can be a repository of Singapore’s cultural, historical and natural heritage for future generations. In addition, the geographical contexts of Singapore’s early days can be preserved as part of our parks. Parks could also be living museums of the land use for the area. This offers a sense of rootedness in a society that is changing so quickly.

Sense of diversity

1.15 Parks can contribute to the sense of diversity. In the development of Singapore’s cityscape, it is important to retain the sense of diversity and not homogenise places in the process of development. Different types of greenery and a variety of activities within them could expand this diversity.

Sense of ownership and community

1.16 Parks can encourage a sense of ownership among the residents of an area. Small, unique spaces within local communities can be used to realise the vision under the Parks & Waterbodies Plan. For example, odd spaces in Bukit Panjang were successfully converted into small vegetable plots to serve the needs of the community. Community farming plots could be incorporated within parks, as a joint public-private enterprise. This encourages a sense that the space belongs to the community. This can in turn build up ‘civic pride’ within the community where residents feel a sense of rootedness and are proud of their own space.

Sense of fun

1.17 Parks can offer a sense of fun, through a spectrum of recreational uses, from simple picnics, to elaborate concerts in the park. Parks could be individual or family-based destinations. They should not only serve the recreational needs of adults, but should also be a fun place for children. Especially important in nation-building and rootedness is the ability to provide pleasant memories of growing up and living in Singapore.

SG1 5 Figure 5: Space to encourage creativity, innovation and imagination

Figure 6: Sense of rootedness

SG1 6 Approach taken by Subject Groups and Limitations of the Study

1.18 The SG considered the proposals presented by URA in the light of the above objectives. It also took into account public feedback (Figure 7a).

1.19 The SG visited as many of the specific sites as possible during the study period (Figure 7b). Through these visits, the SG formulated its impressions according to broad headings as follows:

a. Overall sense of the place and the desired feel that should either be preserved or created, in the context of geography and local community

b. Accessibility of the place and whether it should be made more accessible

c. Features present, whether appropriate, inappropriate, to be added to or removed

d. Value of the location in terms of geology, human geography, history, etc. and whether there is educational value

e. Usage and activities for the place, e.g. outdoor sports, BBQ, family outings, etc

f. Potential for connectivity with other parks and recreational areas

1.20 The SG notes that the Parks and Waterbodies Plan is a plan to guide the development of parks up to 2015. Thus, not all potential areas are included. Where possible, the SG has suggested additional sites that can be opened up for public enjoyment, such as the Ulu Sembawang area. However, due to the limitation of the study period, the SG was constrained to the existing pre-identified locations and plans. The SG notes that a more comprehensive survey of possibilities might yield further ideas, but the SG’s terms of reference do not include going beyond the 2015 plans as presented by URA.

1.21 The SG also notes that URA’s Parks and Waterbodies Plan is not the same as a nature conservation plan, but is a plan to guide the development of parks up to 2015. This means that the plan does not include nature areas that may be opened up beyond that year, nor nature areas which are not intended to be opened up to the public so as to preserve them as pristine nature reserves.

SG1 7 Figure 7a: Consulting the stakeholders

Figure 7b : The SG on site visits

SG1 8 2 PARKS & WATERBODIES PLAN

Diversity Of Parks And Nature Areas

2.1 It is important to have a range of parks, from pristine nature areas to urban parks. We should seek to increase the variety of green space, rather than make them uniform.

2.2 The SG considered that Singapore is a small island and, to all intents and purposes, all residents in Singapore can be considered to be a single community. It is therefore unnecessary and impractical to provide different residential precincts in Singapore with a whole range of recreational opportunities. Residents can easily move from one part of Singapore to another to experience different recreational environments.

2.3 To increase the diversity of green, the SG proposes that parks be categorised according to the ease of access, elaborateness of facilities and degree of landscaping. These categories are for parks that can be opened up for public access to varying degrees - it excludes core nature reserve areas which are more ecologically sensitive and thus subject to different considerations. The three main categories are proposed to be: a. Category A - natural areas to keep pristine, with existing vegetation and trails left untouched and possibly discrete directional signs put up to mark the entrance to the trails b. Category B - wilderness areas with some basic facilities to facilitate access and usage, such as toilets, shelters and formal tracks, e.g. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve c. Category C - green spaces such as public parks, with landscaping and facilities for routine family use, e.g. town parks

These three categories serve as a useful guide to create a variety of open spaces to serve the needs of different types of users.

2.4 Category A open spaces (Figure 8) are nature areas or wilderness areas which are more pristine, for which we can leave untouched for nature lovers and birdwatchers to discover and explore. The area should be kept as it is with no improvement works and facilities. Trails should be informal, and not widened, but be kept in their natural state. If usage is high, the trails will naturally widen. To maintain their “inaccessibility”, such trails should not be publicised for general public use. Instead, awareness could be encouraged through organised walks, walking maps, and signages at the entrance to the trails. An example of Category A open spaces would be the less explored parts of the Central Catchment. In a way, the users of such places are self-selected to be those who enjoy roughing it out a bit, facing the elements, getting close to the ground and deriving a sense of outdoor adventure and discovery.

SG1 9 Figure 8: Examples of Category A open space

SG1 10 2.5 Category B open spaces (Figure 9) are natural areas which we can publicise and where we can facilitate some access by providing basic facilities, such as formal trails, car parking, rain shelters and toilets. While there can be more activities in such areas, there should be minimal interference to retain the wilderness quality of the place, e.g. Dairy Farm Interim Green. Some existing examples are the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the catchment areas near the reservoir parks.

2.6 Category C open spaces (Figure 10) are public parks for routine family use. Examples are town and regional parks such as Choa Chu Kang Town Park and Bishan Park. Such parks are landscaped, and provide facilities such as BBQ pits, playgrounds, pavilions etc., to cater to the families including young children and the general public.

2.7 Through varying ease of access to parks, we can sort out the type and number of park users, and create a variety of open spaces from less-used ‘wilderness’ areas to well-used public parks.

Recommendation:

• Categorise our parks into three categories, according to ease of access, elaborateness of facilities and degree of landscaping:

i. Category A - natural areas to keep pristine, with existing vegetation and trails left untouched and possibly discrete directional signs put up to mark the entrances

ii. Category B - wilderness areas with some basic facilities to facilitate access, such as toilets, shelters and formal tracks, e.g. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve

iii. Category C - public parks, with landscaping and facilities, e.g. town parks

SG1 11 Figure 9: Example of Category B open space

Figure 10: Example of Category C open space

SG1 12 Making Nature Areas More Accessible (Figure 11)

2.8 A fine balance needs to be struck between preservation of wilderness areas and the need for residents to have more access to recreational spaces. Singapore has few enough nature areas in which fragile ecosystems with valuable flora and fauna exist. Some areas are so sensitive that opening them up could potentially destroy their value as natural habitats. However, selected nature areas can and should be made more accessible to the public. While core nature areas should be protected, other nature areas can be opened up sensitively for public access. However, there should be varying access and facilities provided so as to protect the more natural areas from too much public access, and to create a wider variety of nature parks. There can be Category A or Category B access, depending on the location and character of the area. Through varying ease of access to our nature areas, we can enhance public enjoyment of some of Singapore’s beautiful nature spaces without overloading and destroying their fragile ecosystem.

Northern Wetlands - Sungei Buloh and the Kranji marshes

2.9 URA and NParks’ proposals are (Figures 12a & 12b):

2.9.1 Provide new nature parks next to Sungei Buloh mangroves. Allow camping near the mangroves.

The SG supports this proposal for new nature parks. As the site is muddy, there may not be suitable locations in the area where the public can camp. However, the SG can support camping in the area if suitable sites, which will not affect the adjacent forest can be found. The parks should be kept minimally developed with judicious access, as Category A to Category B open spaces.

Recommendations:

• Support the new nature parks next to Sungei Buloh mangroves and keep them as Category A to Category B open spaces.

• Support camping at new nature parks if suitable sites are found, but consideration must be given to waste management and minimising interference with the mangrove and its wildlife.

SG1 13 Figure 11: Nature areas

Figure 12a: Proposals for Northern Wetland

Figure 12b: Aerial view of Sungei Buloh with URA/NParks’ proposals

SG1 14 2.9.2 Provide new nature park at the Kranji marshes

The SG supports the proposal to have a nature park at the Kranji marshes. The park should be kept minimally developed with judicious access, as a Category A to Category B open spaces.

The SG further suggests to provide a buffer along the shorelines of Kranji Reservoir, so as to protect the natural shorelines.

Recommendations:

• Support new nature park at the Kranji marshes and keep it as a Category A to Category B open space.

• Provide a buffer along the shorelines of the Kranji Reservoir where possible.

2.9.3 Provide a 5km boardwalk linking the two ecosytems

The SG notes that Kranji has some 140 species of migratory birds, about half of all species seen in Singapore. This area is therefore a vast heritage site of nature and wildlife which even modest human traffic may adversely affect. The SG is concerned about the impact the boardwalk will have on the bird breeding grounds at the Kranji marshes, especially at the S. Jelutong estuary, which is a particularly favoured site amongst birds that nest there in a high concentration. The SG therefore recommends that public access along the waterfront be granted only along the southern quarter (500m) of the 2km long PUB bund (Figures 13a, 13b & 13c). There should be no public access along the rest of the bund, as these are near bird breeding and feeding areas. However, there can be inland trails leading to the edge of the marshes. Hides can be constructed at appropriate locations to allow visitors to view the birdlife. The SG also considered limiting access by time of day and season of year, but recognises that this would be impractical and expensive to enforce.

Recommendations:

• Support the proposed boardwalk but allow public access only to the southern 500m of the 2km long PUB bund, and do not extend the boardwalk/trail across the S. Jelutong estuary to protect this particularly sensitive area.

• Allow inland trails perpendicular to the reservoir edge leading to the edge of the marshes.

• Study appropriate locations for hides to view birdlife, along the mangrove coastline and north of S. Jelutong.

SG1 15 Figure 13a: Proposed revised alignment of Trails at Kranji/Lim Chu Kang

Figure 13b: Figure 13c: Proposed boardwalk at the Kranji marshes A view of PUB bund

SG1 16 2.9.4 Allow boating on Kranji Reservoir (Figure 14).

The SG supports the idea to have boating on Kranji Reservoir. However, motor boats are inappropriate as the noise and waves generated would disturb the wildlife in the area. The SG recommends that only rowboats be allowed. Electric boats can be considered if they are relatively noiseless and do not cause waves. However, boating activities should not go within 50m of the bund where access is restricted.

Recommendation:

• Support non-motorised boating on Kranji Reservoir, organised by responsible operators. Boats should not go within 50m of the bund where access is restricted.

2.9.5 Provide nature trails through Lim Chu Kang farmland.

The public rated this as one of the three most popular ideas for the Northern Wetlands. The SG supports this proposal not only because of its recreational value but also as an educational resource. Trails through cultivated territory should be annotated with exhibition huts and signboards to educate users about the human geography of the area both past and present. The trails should be of Category B access, suitable for walking and cyclists.

Recommendation:

• Support nature trails through the Lim Chu Kang farmland for both recreational and educational value. The trails should be of Category B access.

Central Catchment

2.10 URA and NParks’ proposals are (Figure 15):

2.10.1 More hiking trails and boardwalks

2.10.2 Canopy walk and an observation tower

2.10.3 New lookout points on the waterfront

2.10.4 Continuous boardwalk linking Upper Peirce Reservoir to MacRitchie Reservoir

The public strongly supported the proposal to open up more nature areas. However, many were concerned about the impact on the natural habitat. Many also advocated for less activity in the Central Catchment, and to keep the area in its natural state. There should be more educational programmes and guided tours instead of more boardwalks and trails.

SG1 17 Figure 14: Boating on Kranji Reservoir

Figure 15: Proposals for Central Catchment

SG1 18 The SG notes that only the non-core nature areas in the Central Catchment will be opened up through trails and boardwalks. The core nature areas remain inaccessible to the general public. The SG thinks that it is also desirable to allow more of the public to enjoy nature reserve so that they gain an appreciation of our natural heritage. However, the SG thinks that there is sufficient Category C accessible parks at the northern and eastern parts of the Central Catchment. Singapore is not so large that residents in the western part of the island are deprived of reasonable access and range of park facilities associated with the Central Catchment. There is therefore no need to provide equal vehicular or Category C access on the western side.

There can be varying degrees of access, from Category A to Category B, for various parts of the Central Catchment. Category B access can be provided for areas around MacRitchie Reservoir. Category A access can be provided for the area near Chestnut.

With these principles in mind, the SG supports the proposed trails (Figure 16), boardwalks (Figure 17), canopy walk (Figure 18) and observation tower as proposed in the Parks & Waterbodies Plan. Care should be taken minimise disturbance to the flora and fauna. NParks should also produce more brochures and trail guides to create more public awareness.

Recommendations: • Support the proposed trails, boardwalks, canopy walk, and observation tower as shown in Parks and Waterbodies Plan. Care to be taken to cause minimal disturbance to the flora and fauna. For different parts of the Central Catchment, ease of access and infrastructure should be varied according to the eco-sensitivity of the areas. • NParks to produce brochures and trail guides for the Central Catchment.

Interim Greens Around The Central Catchment

2.11 URA and NParks’ proposals are:

2.11.1 Interim greens at Chestnut, Dairy Farm, Windsor Area and Old Upper Thomson Road Area

Public feedback indicates that this proposal is well received.

The SG feels insecure to have these areas labelled ‘interim greens’ with the prospect of having them developed after 10 to 15 years or so. Although the SG accepts that there is stiff competition for space for both urban development and recreation, it hopes that these interim greens will become popular following opening up for public use, become well used, much appreciated and prove themselves invaluable so as to acquire their own justification to remain permanently green.

SG1 19 Figure 16: Nature trails Figure 17: Boardwalk

Figure 18: Canopy walk

SG1 20 The SG agrees with the proposal, but recommends that the Chestnut Interim Green should be retained as a permanent green, instead of developing it for housing in the future. The SG notes that only a 50m wide strip fringing the Central Catchment is proposed as a permanent park in the Parks & Waterbodies Plan. The Chestnut area fringes the Central Catchment. It would be good to allow the area to regenerate so as to create a larger forested area, as an extension of the Central Catchment forests.

Recommendation: • Support the interim greens at Dairy Farm, Windsor Area and Old Upper Thomson Road, but propose to keep the entire Chestnut Interim Green as a permanent green.

2.11.2 Scenic road, eco-lodges, mountain biking course, hiking and cycling trails at the Chestnut Interim Green (Figures 19a, 19b, 19c & 19d).

A large proportion of the public supported the ideas for a scenic road and eco-lodges. However, many members of the public were concerned about the impact of such activities so close to the Central Catchment. While the SG agrees that such activities may be popular, the SG feels that they are undesirable at the Chestnut Green.

The SG recommends keeping the area as a Category A space, with minimal trails and facilities. Trails should be left to widen naturally, if at all, with use. The area should be left natural for the more adventurous to discover.

In keeping with the desired atmosphere of the place, the SG recommends that the idea for a scenic drive should be dropped. The area should be kept just for walking and cycling with Category B access. The SG is concerned about the possible impact of the proposed road on the flora and fauna of the area. Besides, one cannot really appreciate the greenery by driving through them. The Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) already separates the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the Catchment Nature Reserve. There is no need to introduce another road that will truncate wooded areas around the Central Catchment. Furthermore, the drive would only be six to seven kilometres in extent.

The SG thinks that the BKE has bisected and disrupted a sensitive and large ecosystem. The expressway could either have been designed to ride above the greenery, or have connectors constructed to provide continuity of the ecosystem for the wildlife. Nonetheless, we should make the best of the BKE as it is, as an under-recognised scenic drive that cuts through attractive greenery. Through streetscape greenery, the forest experience could be re-created along the BKE, which could then become the scenic drive instead.

Drivers who would like to visit the Central Catchment can make use of existing access points at Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, MacRitchie, Lower Peirce, Upper Peirce and Upper Seletar Reservoirs.

The SG notes that there is already a mountain biking course on a cleared grass area within the Chestnut Green near the Bukit Panjang Road interchange. This ties in well with the mountain biking trails, and the area could have Category B access, with its “wilderness” quality maintained.

SG1 21 Figure 19a: Aerial view of Chestnut Interim Green with URA/NPARKS’ proposals

Figure 19b: Figure 19c: Eco-lodges Mountain biking course

Figure 19d: Hiking and cycling trails

SG1 22 The SG further recommends that the idea for an eco-lodge within the Chestnut Interim Green should be dropped. Such a proposal would entail bringing in electricity, sewer lines, parking, and catering activities, etc. without the proposed scenic drive, and thus no road access, it would be difficult for people to get into the area.

Recommendations: • Support the Chestnut Green and keep it as a Category A Open Space for adventure lovers. • Drop the scenic drive and eco-lodge ideas. • Let there instead be a scenic walking and cycling trail of Category B access. • The existing mountain biking course should also have Category B access and treatment. • Enhance the streetscape of the BKE to become the scenic road through this area.

2.11.3 Adventure camps, corporate retreats, rock climbing, boating, hiking and cycling trails in the Dairy Farm Interim Green (Figures 20a, 20b, 20c & 20d). Among the above activities, the most popular with the public are adventure camps and boating at the Singapore Quarry. The SG agrees that these activities could be supported at the Dairy Farm Interim Green, subject to some conditions. The SG recommends that Dairy Farm be kept as an Category B open space, with its wilderness qualities left untouched, but with some basic facilities provided, such as car parking, toilets and shelters, away from the quarry itself. Access points could be managed and improved through signage and better road access. The proposed adventure camp and corporate retreat could be supported, but they should not have any building structures inside the quarry, and near or close to the path into the quarry to maintain the wilderness ambience and sense of secludedness of the interim green. Outdoor mass activities such as performances should be carefully managed, to limit the impact to the ambience of the place. The SG notes that currently, SLA grants license for interim uses in the area, while NParks takes care of the vegetation. As the area is mainly recreational in nature, the SG recommends that NParks manage the entire area. NParks can offer a one- stop service for people organising activities for the area. NParks can also produce a trail guide to show how the area is linked to other trails in the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the Central Catchment.

Recommendations: • Support the Dairy Farm Interim Green and keep it as a Category B Open Space. • Support adventure camps, corporate retreats, outdoor performances, rock climbing, boating, hiking and cycling trails in the Dairy Farm Interim Green, but there should be no building structure inside the quarry, and near or close to the path leading into the quarry. • NParks to be the managing agency for the entire Dairy Farm interim green. • NParks to produce trail guides showing how the trails are linked to that in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve.

SG1 23 Figure 20a: Figure 20b: Figure 20c: Adventure camp Corporate retreat Path to quarry at Dairy Farm

Figure 20d: Performances

SG1 24 2.11.4 Windsor Interim Green (Figure 21)

The SG visited the Windsor Interim Green and noted that while most of it was wooded, a small part of it was currently used by local residents as an informal football pitch, and another part of it used as a tree farm. The SG recommends to keep the Windsor Interim Green as a Category B open space, with both wooded and open areas retained. A variety of uses can be allowed. The informal football field can be kept, with some basic facilities provided, e.g. park benches and toilets. The existing tree bank should be kept as an educational resource. NParks could produce trail maps to show how the trails here are linked to the rest of the network within the Central Catchment. We should also explore with Singapore Island Country Club (SICC) to allow reasonable pedestrian access along the fringe of its golf course or through its carpark and grounds.

Recommendations: • Support the Windsor Interim Green and keep it as a Category B open space. Provide basic facilities for the informal football pitch. • Keep tree bank as an educational resource. • NParks to produce trail maps to show how trails here are linked to those in the Central Catchment. • Explore with SICC to allow reasonable public access along the fringe of its golf course and through its grounds.

Urban And Town Parks

2.12 URA and NParks proposed the following new parks under the Parks and Waterbodies Plan:

2.12.1 Opening up four new waterfront parks (Figure 22):

a. Coney Island b. Lower Seletar Reservoir Park c. Jurong Lake Park and d. Tampines Quarry Park

Public survey indicated that the two new waterfront parks the public will likely visit are Coney Island, Lower Seletar Reservoir Park and Tampines Quarry Park. The SG supports the proposed four new waterfront parks but has specific comments on the proposed Lower Seletar Reservoir Park and Tampines Quarry Park.

Recommendation: • Support the proposed waterfront parks at Coney Island, Lower Seletar Reservoir Park, Jurong Lake Park and Tampines Quarry Park.

SG1 25 Figure 21: Plan of proposed Windsor Interim Green

Figure 22: Opening up four new waterfront parks

SG1 26 Lower Seletar Reservoir Park (Figures 23a & 23b)

The SG visited the existing Seletar Park and noted that there was poor connectivity to Yishun town. With the new park coming up to take advantage of more of the waterfront, the SG feels it is important to ensure that the new park is well connected to the existing park and Yishun Town. Lower Seletar Reservoir Park should be connected to Yishun Stadium for greater synergy between sports and recreational activities. An underpass can be provided across Yishun Avenue 1. Sungei Seletar is a natural stream, which connects Upper Seletar Reservoir to Lower Seletar Reservoir. Where it does not compromise existing uses, it would be good to allow public access through the area, to provide connectivity between the two reservoir parks. Recommendations: • Support Lower Seletar Reservoir Park. Ensure good connectivity between the existing park and the new park extension along the Lower Seletar Reservoir waterfront. • Study the feasibility of providing an underpass connection between Yishun Stadium and existing Lower Seletar Reservoir. • Allow public access along Sungei Seletar where it does not compromise existing uses.

Tampines Quarry Park (Figures 24a & 24b)

The SG visited the proposed Tampines Quarry Park. The land around the quarry pond has regenerated with secondary vegetation since the quarry was closed about a decade ago. There are a number of species of rare wild orchids around the pond today. It also has unique views of ‘sand dunes’ which are the sand depot. This is a view unavailable elsewhere in Singapore. The SG feels that we should capitalise on the natural beauty of the place and keep the area as a Category B open space. It should not be turned into a manicured park. There should be a trail around the entire quarry pond. Only simple sandy trails are needed, with some lookout points and a few simple park benches. The fence around the waterfront should be removed. Cycling within the park should be discouraged in keeping with the ambience of the place as a quiet retreat for residents, although the SG recognises that this will be difficult to enforce as even with rough trails, mountain bikers can come through.

There is a small cattail marsh adjacent to the quarry on the north side. This apparently has a small range of bird species. Some public feedback, particularly from nature lovers, has suggested to preserve it. The SG notes that it is not proposed to be kept as a park under the Parks & Waterbodies Plan, and is on land that has been planned for development. Jurong Town Corporation (JTC), which owns the land, is about to start earth works on this area. NParks’ assessment is that the ecosystem is transient, and hence, is not sustainable in the long term. The SG thinks that it is not reasonable to fight to preserve every small piece of marshland, especially if it means asking JTC to give up or re-plan the use of their land. Recommendations: • Support Tampines Quarry Park and keep it as a Category B open space. Provide a simple trail around the quarry, with some park benches and lookout points. • Not to fight for the preservation of the small marshland adjoining the quarry.

SG1 27 Figure 23a: Plan of proposed Lower Seletar Reservoir Park

Figure 23b: View of Lower Seletar Reservoir

Figure 24a: Plan of proposed Tampines Quarry

Figure 24b: View of Tampines Quarry Pond

SG1 28 2.12.2 Developing five new parks (Figure 25):

a. Sengkang Park

b. Woodlands Regional Park c. Bidadari Park d. Tampines Linear Park

e. Jurong West Park

Public survey indicated that the new parks most likely to be visited are Sengkang Park, Woodlands Regional Park and Tampines Linear Park. The SG supports the five new parks proposed, but has comments specific to the proposed Sengkang Park and Woodlands Regional Park.

Recommendation: • Support the proposed Sengkang Park, Woodlands Regional Park, Bidadari Park, Tampines Linear Park and Jurong West Park.

Sengkang Park (Figure 26)

The SG recommends that the existing mangroves along Sungei Punggol be incorporated as part of the park. The rest of the site could be developed as a manicured town park to serve the residents in the area. The SG notes that a stadium will be built next to the park along the river. Access from the stadium to the waterfront should be maximised. There can be watersports activities on Sungei Punggol such as canoeing.

In addition, the SG suggests that the river banks of the already canalised Sungei Punggol can be softened to make it look more natural through landscaping.

Recommendations:

• Support the proposed Sengkang Park which will incorporate existing mangroves and riverine vegetation along Sungei Punggol as part of the park.

• Look for ways to maximise access from the proposed sports stadium to the waterfront.

• Landscape the edges of Punggol River in order to soften the banks and make it look more natural. Allow and manage, where possible, the natural regeneration of the mangrove forests on the river banks.

SG1 29 Figure 25: Developing five new parks

Figure 26: Plan of proposed Sengkang Park

SG1 30 Woodlands Regional Park (Figure 27)

The SG supports the approach of incorporating 14.5ha of the mangroves along Sungei China as part of the proposed 21ha Woodlands Regional Park. The remaining 6.5ha, near the Woodlands Regional Centre can be developed as a manicured urban park with facilities to serve the needs of residents in the region. The Regional Park is proposed to end with a coastal promenade in the north. Land uses here should be tidied up so that it is less industrial and looks more attractive. The promenade could be widened and there could be more activities here, including shops and food outlets.

Recommendations:

• Support the proposed Woodlands Regional Park which will incorporate existing mangroves as part of the park.

• Tidy up land use along the coastal promenade and bring in activities designed to attract people to use the area for recreation.

2.12.3 Enlarging six selected parks (Figure 28)

a. Pasir Ris Park

b. East Coast Park

c. Labrador Park

d. Choa Chu Kang Town Park

e. Zhenghua Park

f. Bukit Batok Park

The four most important park expansions supported by the public are those at East Coast Park, Pasir Ris Park, Bukit Batok Park and Labrador Park. The SG supports all six proposed park expansions.

Recommendation:

• Support the proposed park expansions at Pasir Ris Park, East Coast Park, Labrador Park, Choa Chu Kang Town Park, Zhenghua Park and Bukit Batok Park.

SG1 31 Figure 27: Plan of proposed Woodlands Regional Park

Figure 28: Enlarging selected parks

SG1 32 Park Connectors (Figures 29)

2.13 URA and NParks proposed the following:

2.13.1 Join our parks through a comprehensive green network. The challenge is to extend our park connectors from 40km today to 120km by 2015.

2.13.2 The comprehensive green network will join parks, and can be extended to link our park connectors with town centres, sports complexes and homes.

Public feedback indicated that the public preferred to use underpasses as connections across roads, rather than overhead bridges and road crossings. The public also preferred to cycle between home and park, home and sports facilities, home and MRT station, and home and school.

The SG supports the idea of providing more connections between parks. However, the SG thinks that more can be done to encourage a smoother and seamless journey on park connectors. A change in mindset is needed to give priority to pedestrians rather than vehicles and to consider more the needs of the elderly and physically handicapped people. The SG notes the examples of Scandinavian countries where road systems are designed with such concerns in mind. The SG recommends the following: a. Park connectors should be planned upfront, to ensure that land is set aside for them at the outset. b. Through integrated planning, look for more innovative ways to provide a seamless connection across roads, such that the park connectors continue across the road smoothly. In Hong Kong, for example, grade-separated or layered interchanges allow cycling and pedestrian paths to run seamlessly across the traffic interchanges. One possibility is to put in wide bridges which span over roads. A local example is the runway bridge over Airport Boulevard. Providing such seamless connections require integrated planning.

The SG supports the park connector network and proposes an additional park connector to be provided from Woodlands Town through Ulu Sembawang to Mandai Road and the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (Figure 30). The park connector can be located between the MINDEF training area to the west, and the Mandai agro-tech farms to the east.

The SG also supports the Parks & Waterbodies Plan proposal to have the proposed park connector through NUS to be located along Kent Ridge Road, on top of Kent Ridge, to capitalise on the wooded environment of Kent Ridge. Kent Ridge also has a rich history as a battle site.

Recommendations: • Support the proposed park connector network, and suggest an additional park connector from Woodlands Town to Mandai Road through Ulu Sembawang. • Plan park connectors upfront to ensure that land is set aside for them at the outset. • Explore innovative approaches to achieve seamless connections, e.g. grade- separated or layered interchanges.

SG1 33 Figure 29: Proposed park connector network

Figure 30: Plan of additional park connector between Woodlands & Central Catchment Nature Reserve

SG1 34 Streetscape Greenery

2.14 URA and NParks proposed the following:

2.14.1 Design an integrated environment, and apply different streetscape treatments according to the context of the streets (Figures 31a & 31b).

2.14.2 Link up Heritage Roads to provide a continuous experience of lush streetscape greenery (Figure 32).

The two proposals received strong support from the public and the SG.

Recommendations: • Support the proposal to design an integrated environment, and apply different treatments according to the context of the streets. • Support the proposal to link up Heritage Roads to provide a continuous experience of lush streetscape greenery.

Skyrise Greenery (Figure 33)

2.15 URA and NParks proposed the following:

2.15.1 Encourage skyrise greenery through façade greenery, landscaped roof terraces, sky terraces and balconies, and sky bridges and lobbies.

Of the above skyrise greenery features, the public considered landscaped sky terraces, landscaped roof terraces and vertical greenery to be the more effective ways in creating the effect of skyrise greenery.

The SG agrees that skyrise greenery is an important way to add a vertical dimension to our plans for a city in a garden. This vertical dimension would help to compensate for the lack of horizontal green space. The SG therefore recommends that URA explore further Gross Floor Area (GFA) exemption incentives to encourage skyrise greenery.

Recommendations:

• Support the proposal to encourage skyrise greenery. • Explore further GFA exemption incentives to encourage skyrise greenery.

SG1 35 Figure 31a: Parkway treatment

Figure 31b: Coastal treatment Figure 33: Skyrise greenery

Figure 32: Link Heritage Roads to provide a continuous experience of lush streetscape greenery

SG1 36 3 OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THE PARKS & WATERBODIES PLAN

Identity And Educational Opportunities In Parks (Figures 34a, 34b & 34c)

3.1 The SG supports the proposals to develop more urban and waterfront parks and enlarge selected parks under the Parks & Waterbodies Plan. However, the SG feels that apart from having more land for park, more can be done to make parks a more meaningful element of our island landscape. To achieve this, the SG recommends the following:

a. Develop identity in each park by incorporating unique historical, geographical and cultural elements as part of parks so that they do not all end up fairly generic as most of them are today.

Parks are areas where the community gathers to interact. It therefore represents a unique opportunity where people can learn more about the history and culture of the place. In a rapidly changing landscape, retaining our history as part of the new landscape would also help to encourage a sense of continuity and rootedness to a place.

Parts of the original geology, land use and vegetation of a place could be retained as part of the park. Historical photographs could be displayed. Original cultivation can be preserved and tended by local residents as part of the heritage of the area.

For example, Choa Chu Kang Town Park has retained the original village well as part of the park. More could have been done. Some kampung structures and part of the plantation around it could have been retained. We could also give emphasis to its unique location as a farmland between Kranji Reservoir and the Central Catchment.

Making each park unique would help to create a more diverse landscape on our island. It would help create more “places” and not just spaces for recreational activities.

Giving a park greater identity would also help to attract people from other parts of Singapore to the parks to see unique features and for the education of both adults and children.

To develop identity in parks, we can adopt the following measures:

i. As part of town planning, identify locations with unique geographical, cultural, and historical features and plan parks around them. Some existing examples are the quarry park at Little Guilin and Bukit Batok Nature Park, which have given Bukit Batok town much identity. We can tap on the resources of National Archives of Singapore to help develop identity in parks.

SG1 37 Figure 34a: Former quarry at Bukit Batok Nature Park

Figure 34b: Figure 34c: World War II memorial plaque at Bukit Batok Nature Park Village well at Choa Chu Kang

SG1 38 ii. Review practices by government agencies in clearing land for development and building infrastructure, such as roads and drains, so as to minimise impact on the existing landscape and avoid destroying unique features of identity of an area. Much identity on our island has already been lost through land clearances. For example, land at Jalan Bahar and Punggol Point have been cleared for many years and are still left undeveloped. Instead of clearing large areas of land way in advance, land should be cleared in stages so as to accommodate changing plans and demand for land use.

b. Use parks as educational opportunities. Many of our children grow up not knowing what local fruit trees and plants, e.g. tapioca, yam, and pandan, look like. One way to do this is to have a living farm area in some of the parks. This could be adopted by the community. An example is the vegetable farming plot in Bishan.

Recommendations: • Develop identity in parks through retaining geographical, cultural and historical features, as well as part of the original land uses of the place. Plan parks around such places. • When clearing land for development and building infrastructure, such as roads and drains, minimise impact on the existing landscape and avoid destroying unique features of identity in the area. • Use parks as educational opportunities and let parks become places for visits apart from being merely spaces for local residents to use.

Canalisation Of Natural Rivers

3.2 Rivers are open spaces which can potentially help to enhance our urban environment. However, over the years, many beautiful natural rivers have been converted into concrete canals to increase the efficiency of water flow.

3.3 The SG recommends that natural rivers that are not already canalised should not be canalised in future. Such natural rivers should be left to widen naturally over time if there is higher flow. Examples of natural rivers which should not be canalised are Sungei Pinang (Figure 35) and Sungei Seletar. Where they need to be widened or deepened to prevent flooding and to cater for increased stormwater runoff arising from new land developments, the improved waterways should have natural treatment, and should support re-colonisation by natural vegetation as far as possible.

Recommendations: • Keep natural banks of rivers natural and avoid canalising these rivers. Where river widening on deepening is needed, have natural treatment.

SG1 39 Figure 35: Sungei Pinang: one of the rivers recommended by the SG not to be canalised

SG1 40 Tree Conservation

3.4 It is important to protect beautiful old trees around our island. The SG notes the relative ineffectiveness of the existing gazetted tree conservation areas owing to practical problems. The SG feels that tree conservation would be most effective if it is a public effort. At Pandan Valley, some Angsana trees have been saved through the public efforts. Site contractors managed to redesign the site plans to keep the Angsana trees after there was public outcry on the proposed felling of the trees. This is a good example how the public can make a difference in conserving trees. Public education should therefore be encouraged.

Heritage Roads

3.5 The SG felt that more can be done for the Heritage Roads. The SG recommends the following:

Category A Heritage Roads (Figures 36a, 36b & 36c)

a. Extend the green buffer for Category A Heritage Roads to 20m on each side of the road. Currently, only a 10m buffer is protected. This is not sufficient to preserve the green ambience of Category A Heritage Roads.

b. Keep the first 10m green buffer of Category A Heritage Roads as State Land for public access. Currently, the 10m green buffer of a Category A Heritage Road may be sold and fenced up as private property, thus limiting public access. For the recommended 20m buffer, the SG recommends that the first 10m green buffer should not be sold as part of adjacent development to maintain public access. The next 10m buffer can be sold, but should be kept green and not built upon.

Mandai Road

c. Mandai Road (the stretch flanked by nature reserves on both sides) to be considered as a Heritage Road.

Heritage Roads on land with private properties

d. Existing roads with abutting private properties e.g. Mount Rosie, which have beautiful roadside trees, should be included for consideration as Category A Heritage Roads. These may be subject to a different buffer requirement in order not to compromise development potential. The SG understands that the authorities were previously cautious about including such roads as they would affect private properties. However, such roads should be protected for our current and future generations to enjoy and consideration should be given to see how this can be achieved.

SG1 41 Figure 36a: Mount Pleasant Road - Figure 36b: Old Punggol Road - a Category A Heritage Road a Category A Heritage Road

Figure 36c: Upper Thomson Road - a Category A Heritage Road

SG1 42 Pedestrian Access

e. Where public safety is not compromised, footpaths should be provided to give access to pedestrians to enjoy the Heritage Road. These should not look like estate footpaths, but should be more natural-looking. They should also not be built at the expense of cutting down trees along the road.

Recommendations: • Extend width of green buffer for Category A Heritage Road from the existing 10m to 20m. • Keep the first 10m of Category A Heritage Road open to public access. • Consider giving Heritage Road status to the green part of Mandai Road. • Include for consideration as Category A Heritage Roads, beautiful tree-lined streets, e.g. Mount Rosie, even if they are adjoining private properties. These may be subject to a different buffer requirement in order not to compromise development potential. • Provide pedestrian access on Heritage Roads.

MINDEF Training Areas

3.6 Large tracts of land in Singapore are taken up for Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) training. Many of these are wooded, with lush flora and fauna. These are untapped open spaces which can be opened up for the public’s enjoyment if practical difficulties can be ironed out. The SG recognises the need for MINDEF to occupy training ground of appropriate terrain for military training purposes. There will be increasing competition for land for development, for military training and for recreation. Many of the areas now occupied by MINDEF used to have viable and vibrant rural communities with interesting occupations and land uses. Areas include Pulau Tekong and the Jalan Ulu Sembawang area.

3.7 The SG notes that MINDEF already provides planned access to certain areas where civilian groups wish to conduct activities, such as bicycle rallies, navigation exercises, etc. These are under supervision and controlled. MINDEF is reluctant to open areas for general public access because of concerns for public safety. In addition, past experience has shown that the public not only demand more and more facilities in these areas, but also tend to dirty the place, leaving MINDEF to pay contractors to clean up. An example is the Sembawang hot spring, which MINDEF has opened for public enjoyment. The place has become cluttered with rubbish.

3.8 Nonetheless the SG recommends that selected areas could be opened up on selected days of the year, to allow the public to enjoy the open spaces. These areas should be reasonably safe for the public. MINDEF, as a public goodwill gesture, could make public announcements of the days when selected sites could be opened, and be responsible for cleaning up afterwards if necessary. Some form of anti-littering enforcement could be implemented. Examples of areas which can be opened up are the MINDEF training land at Ulu Sembawang, the water channel connecting Upper and Lower Seletar Reservoirs and Springleaf/Lentor. (Figures 37a & 37b)

Recommendation: • MINDEF to explore opening up selected training areas, on selected days of the year, for public access.

SG1 43 Figure 37a: Ulu Sembawang

Figure 37b: View of Stream at Springleaf

SG1 44 4 RUSTIC COAST

Punggol Point And Coney Island

4.1 URA’s proposals for Punggol Point and Coney Island are (Figures 38a & 38b):

4.1.1 Turn Punggol Point into a paradise for sea sports and recreation

There is strong public support for this proposal. This also received the stakeholders’ support. A few commented that traffic congestion could arise from the increased activities at Punggol Point due to the narrow local roads and the lack of parking facilities.

The SG suggests to phase the proposed developments in the area so that appropriate measures can be taken to address such problems, if they should crop up.

Recommendations: • Support turning Punggol Point into a paradise for sea sports and recreation. • Phase the development of the area to better address potential traffic and car parking problems that may arise from the increased number of visitors to the area.

4.1.2 Re-introduce seafront dining in the form of a seafood village and waterfront restaurants around the existing jetty as an interim use until Punggol North is developed.

The public liked the idea of introducing seafood dining and waterfront restaurants as a type of attraction here. Stakeholders also welcomed and supported the proposal, but were concerned that these attractions could cause traffic congestion.

The SG notes with regret that the Punggol area has been cleared. But now, plans for the area’s development have changed. The SG is generally, supportive of the ideas for Punggol Point, but cautioned that the character of a place evolves over a long period of time and any attempt to re-introduce such a character overnight would make it appear artificial.

Recommendations: • Support the development of a seafood village and waterfront restaurants as an interim use at Punggol North. • Phase the development of the area to better address potential traffic and car parking problems that may arise from the increased number of visitors to the area.

SG1 45 Figure 38a: Proposals for Punggol Point - an artist’s impression

Figure 38b: Seafood dining at Punggol North

SG1 46 4.1.3 Develop and lease out parcels of land along the coastline for interim water and beach sports. A sea sports centre for wake-boarding and other waterfront sports can be introduced (Figure 39).

This was identified as the most attractive activity to the public. The stakeholders also enthused about this as there are very limited recreational options for residents in Punggol and Sengkang. The SG is generally supportive of this idea. In view of the upcoming residential areas in the vicinity, the SG recognised that there is potential for Punggol Point to become the recreational hub for residents in the area.

The stakeholders also commented that in the past, the area used to have boatels and draw both tourists and locals with its range of sporting and recreational activities such as water skiing. The stakeholders would like to have these activities brought back to the area.

Recommendation: • Support the proposal for the sea sports centre.

4.1.4 Introduce “play and stay” accommodation

This was one of the top attractions at Punggol Point as an interim use according to public feedback. While the stakeholders were also supportive, some highlighted the need to address the concern that any infrastructure works to support these new uses could come at a high cost, thus affecting the viability of the interim uses. Another concern was that the intended rustic accommodation would have to comply with various standard regulations, including Fire Safety Bureau regulations governing timber structures, which would affect the intended rustic character and prove too constraining for developers to consider such a venture worthwhile.

Recommendation: • Support having “play and stay” facilities. Study how costs for such facilities could be kept low and developments kept rustic.

4.1.5 An interim beach park can be created on the reclaimed land at Punggol Point, where there is a small stretch of sandy beach.

The SG supports the creation of an interim beach park on the reclaimed land in Punggol Point, but notes that the reclaimed land could have a more natural treatment. The vertical retaining walls presently located along the water’s edge of the channel between the mainland and Coney Island could be softened through appropriate landscaping.

Recommendations:

• Support the interim beach park at Punggol Point. • Soften the vertical retaining walls through landscaping where necessary.

SG1 47 Figure 39: Windsurfing, Wake Boarding & Canoe

SG1 48 4.1.6 To cater to the more adventurous, a mountain bike and motorcross trail can also be introduced on a short-term basis.

The SG supports the proposal to cater activities for the more adventurous, but thinks that motorcross, being a noisy activity, would not be appropriate for the area. Even though many of the stakeholders did not share this view, the SG suggests to replace the motorcross with bike trails instead.

Recommendation: • Support activities for the more adventurous in Punggol North but suggest to replace the motorcross with mountain bike trails.

4.1.7 Retain the existing Punggol Road and convert it to a linear park in the future, with a cycling, jogging and walking track linking the future Punggol Stadium and the town centre to the coast. (Figure 40)

The public, stakeholders and the SG are supportive of this proposal.

Recommendation: • Support the proposal to convert the existing Punggol Road to a linear park linking the new town centre and the coast.

4.1.8 Adopt a “wilderness” theme for Coney Island. Sites for camping, small rental huts and basic amenities can be developed along this theme (Figure 41).

An overwhelming majority of the public agree that Coney Island should be retained as a unique wilderness retreat. The stakeholders also said that Coney Island should be left as it is and any development on the island should only consist of basic infrastructure and amenities. The SG agrees with the public and stakeholders’ views.

The stakeholders commented on the lack of landing spots available to private boat owners and felt that the island should be made accessible to pleasure craft at all states of tides. This can be achieved by designating areas specifically for mooring and landing of private pleasure craft.

The SG is not in favour of having two bridge links to Coney Island as this would disrupt the use of the waterway. Moreover, the density of the future housing project on the island does not appear to warrant two bridges.

Recommendations: • Support the “wilderness theme” for Coney Island. Basic amenities (e.g. water and sanitation) can be provided and located near the jetty. Pleasure boats should be allowed to dock at the jetty. • Free up the waterway for recreational uses by having only one bridge link to Coney Island.

SG1 49 Figure 40: Old Punggol Road

Figure 41: View from Coney Island

SG1 50 Pasir Ris

4.2 URA’s proposal for Pasir Ris calls for:

4.2.1 Introduce a seaside pier which can be developed as a recreational and commercial destination, providing entertainment, Food & Beverage (F&B) and retail over the water. This new attraction can build on the existing family-based activities, to further enliven the surrounding public park and serve as a hop-off point along the water taxi route. (Figures 42a & 42b)

The public was very supportive of this idea. Most hoped to see F&B as well as family entertainment uses developed on the pier. Some members of the public also suggested markets with character, following the examples of Stanley Market in Hong Kong and Freemantle Market in Perth.

The stakeholders observed the current lack of boat landing spots along this stretch of coastline for private boaters. In addition to the proposed pier, one stakeholder suggested having floating pontoons to create extra mooring points for pleasure craft to encourage the public to visit the area and make use of the facilities. A people- mover system was also suggested to increase connectivity within Pasir Ris Park.

The stakeholders commented that the area experiences heavy traffic congestion during the weekends due to large crowds visiting NTUC Downtown East. The stakeholders viewed that the addition of a seaside pier and the consequent increase in number of people coming to the area could further exacerbate the traffic situation

A suggestion was made to shift the pier westwards along the coast to an alternate location between Sungei Api Api and Sungei Tampines, which would help to divert the crowds away from the NTUC Downtown East area. The SG asked that this suggestion be studied by URA.

Recommendation: • Support the proposal for a seaside pier. URA to study the location of the pier. Ensure that the parking situation is addressed before introducing the pier.

Changi Village

4.1 The SG and stakeholders both recognised the special character of Changi Village. With its quiet ambience and laid-back setting, Changi Village is a popular destination for locals and foreign visitors alike. The SG thinks that this rustic character should be retained and enhanced (Figure 43).

SG1 51 Figure 42a: An artist’s impression of the proposed seaside pier

Figure 42b: Proposed Pier at Pasir Ris

Figure 43: Changi Village

SG1 52 4.2 The SG and stakeholders also strongly advocate that the rich historical, cultural and natural heritage of the Changi area should be highlighted and showcased. For example, there is the history of the original Changi Tree, which was felled in World War II. There is also an existing Changi Tree at Cranwell Road. The SG suggests that information kiosks and storyboards be set up to provide information and maps on the area (Figure 44).

Recommendation: • Set up information kiosks and storyboards to showcase the rich cultural, historical and natural heritage of the Changi area.

4.3 For Changi Village, URA’s proposals are (Figures 45a & 45b):

4.3.1 Introduce new small parcel shophouses to build critical mass for the area.

A good majority of the survey respondents would like to see more activities brought to Changi Village, especially more hawker stalls and restaurants/cafes. The SG, together with the stakeholders, is generally supportive of the ideas but think that it was important to keep the rustic laid-back atmosphere of the area and bring back the memories of Changi.

On the proposal to introduce new shophouse developments, stakeholders agree with the SG that the proposed small-grain, low-scale development is in keeping with the general character of the area. However, stakeholders were divided on whether this would help the area by adding more critical mass or hurt businesses by adding competition. Their suggestion is to accord priority to refurbish and enhance the existing shops. In addition, when planning for the new commercial development, consideration should be given to how to integrate and link the existing and the new.

The SG notes that existing shops at Changi Village and the flats above them are rather faded, worn and dirty. Some upgrading by HDB would be appropriate, but the original appearance of the buildings should be preserved. The architecture of the new commercial strip should also complement the existing village buildings.

Recommendations: • Support the proposal to add new small parcel commercial developments, but spruce up existing shops first, and take an incremental approach to adding new commercial developments to allow time to review impact on existing shops. • Design the proposed new commercial developments carefully so as to avoid too great a contrast between them and the existing older buildings.

SG1 53 Figure 44: Story-board at Changi Beach Park

Figure 45a: Proposals for Changi Village

Figure 45b : Proposed new shophouses at Changi Village

SG1 54 4.3.2 Improve pedestrian connectivity through a pedestrian mall and promenade along the creek.

The SG observes that the proposed alignment of the pedestrian mall might not be the best as it was dog-legged and not on the axis of the existing mall. Thus it would not offer direct views of the waterfront. While URA’s proposed alignment would allow the existing mature trees to be retained, the SG would like URA to reconsider providing a linear alignment instead to provide unobstructed views to the waterfront.

The stakeholders commented that at present, the only pedestrian links between Changi Beach and Changi Village are via a narrow pedestrian footbridge across the creek (Figure 46a) and a narrow kerb along Telok Paku Road. The stakeholders observed that many fast-moving and heavy vehicles ply this road and it is therefore hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists alike. As a result, Changi Village does not enjoy good patronage from the beach-goers. One suggestion put forward by the stakeholders is for the bridge along Telok Paku Road to be widened to accommodate more pedestrians and cyclists.

Recommendations: • The design of the new pedestrian mall should be linear and not dog-legged in order to provide an unobstructed view of the waterfront. • Improve the connectivity between the beachfront and Changi Village. In particular, provide a connection for cyclists, e.g. by widening the bridge at Telok Paku Road.

4.3.3 Improve vehicular connectivity in the form of an extension of Lorong Bekukong along the creek to Telok Paku Road (Figure 46b).

The SG thinks that there is no need for the extension of Lorong Bekukong in front of the creek as this would disrupt the connectivity of the new shophouses to the waterfront. The waterfront should remain a pedestrian precinct to preserve the pedestrian accessibility and safety of the area. The SG agrees that accessibility to Changi Village needs to be improved through better public transportation.

Recommendation: • Abandon the proposal for a road extension of Lorong Bekukong, but create a lively and vibrant pedestrian waterfront.

SG1 55 Figure 46a: Narrow historic footbridge across Changi Creek

Figure 46b: Proposed extension of Lorong Bekukong

SG1 56 4.3.4 Relocate the People’s Association (PA) Adventure Club to bring the club closer to the sea and convert the vacated PA buildings to budget hostels (Figures 47a & 47b).

The public, stakeholders and SG are all supportive of the proposal. An observation was made by a member of the SG that there is currently no facility for the public to launch their boats. The SG suggests that the launching ramp of the PA Sea Sports Club could be kept for this purpose.

Recommendations: • Support the proposal to relocate the PA Sea Sports Club, and convert the vacated PA buildings to budget hostels. • Retain the launching ramp of the PA Sea Sports Club for public use.

4.3.5 Build a new children’s playground.

The public, stakeholders and SG support the proposal.

Recommendation: • Support the proposal for the children’s playground.

4.3.6 Increase the residential quantum in the area. URA proposed to sell the parcels to the west of the village for residential use as part of the Government Land Sales programme. The parcels will be sub-divided into smaller plots to relate to the character of the immediate areas and allow smaller developers to participate.

The stakeholders were supportive of the idea and agreed that it would add more critical mass to the area. One stakeholder suggested that retirement homes could be introduced in the Changi Point area to add more population to the area.

The SG and stakeholders also note the presence of historical buildings such as the old Changi Hospital, Royal Air Force quarters, old bunkers, commando camp, etc., which are rich in history. These should be preserved, regardless of the uses they are put to in future.

Recommendations:

• Support the proposal to increase residents in the area. • Preserve historical places when new uses are found for them.

SG1 57 Figure 47a: Children Playground

Figure 47b: Budget Hostel

SG1 58 Pulau Ubin (Figures 48a 48b, 48c & 48d)

4.4 The SG notes that Pulau Ubin has already been acquired to a large extent, with residents relocated, indigenous land uses and occupations disrupted and the previously viable community largely dissipated. Now that the plan for Pulau Ubin is to keep for as long as possible, URA is proposing to introduce some activities on the island. However, preservation is difficult when there is no community. The land is decaying through neglect and abandonment while the overall desire is to preserve the original environment, this cannot be simply through lack of development. Inactivity will not preserve, but will lead to further deterioration of the environment. Hence, a balance must be struck between withholding development and preserving what is left. This takes considerable long term thinking, planning and control of what happens to Pulau Ubin, possibly more than what can be handled by the SG during its study exercise.

4.5 The SG believes that Pulau Ubin has a very special place in the hearts of Singaporeans. Many people feel that Pulau Ubin is the last vestige of undeveloped territory in Singapore and is therefore a heritage site of exceptional value to present and future generations. How Pulau Ubin is both preserved and judiciously developed over time will be a complex, long- term and difficult process of evaluating options and controlling what happens on Pulau Ubin.

4.6 The SG views that there is generally a lack of co-ordination between the different agencies managing Pulau Ubin and questions if there is a co-ordinating body responsible for non- planning related issues like conservation and restoration of both the built and natural environments on Pulau Ubin. The SG proposes that there should be a single agency to spearhead and co-ordinate the management, conservation and restoration of both the built and natural environments on Pulau Ubin. The SG suggests that NParks could be the managing agency since the general intention for Pulau Ubin is line with a rustic park and NParks already manages a large part of the island.

4.7 The SG also sees that its own role is limited to its study period and thus it cannot plan sufficiently ahead for Pulau Ubin. There appears to be a need for specific feedback and planning focused on Pulau Ubin. In this respect, an advisory committee could be formed to advise the appointed agency. The committee could include civil members and special interest groups.

4.8 The SG notes that the conservation and restoration works would be tendered out to external contractors, and is concerned that such an arrangement could run the risk of Pulau Ubin becoming over-commercialised in the process.

Recommendations: • Appoint a single agency to spearhead the management of the island. NParks could be the agency since the general intention for Pulau Ubin is more in line with a rustic park and NParks is already managing a large portion of Pulau Ubin. • The appointed agency to form an advisory panel to advise and provide feedback on the plans and proposals for Pulau Ubin.

SG1 59 Figure 48a: Pulau Ubin - a special place

Figure 48b: Existing village at Pulau Ubin

Figure 48c: Scene from Pulau Ubin Figure 48d: Bicycle rental shop at Pulau Ubin

SG1 60 4.9 URA’s proposals for Pulau Ubin are:

4.9.1 Develop an interpretative centre at House No. 1, which can serve as a base for nature trails and tours to be conducted to the various habitats (Figures 49a, 49b & 49c).

NParks has indicated interest in restoring House No.1 as an interpretative centre for visitors to Chek Jawa. They also intend to develop the rest of the site for new facilities to serve the needs of visitors and wildlife researchers.

The centre would serve as a useful staging point for hikes through nature trails which a large majority of the public has identified as an activity they would visit Pulau Ubin for. The public, stakeholders and SG do not have any objection to this proposal. The SG also recommends that access to this area, including Chek Jawa, be Category B to control the numbers of people visiting. This is to minimise the threat to fragile ecosystems.

The SG further recommends that the trails on Pulau Ubin should be left as they are and maintained for the use of hikers, cyclists and minimal vehicular traffic.

Recommendations: • Support the proposed adaptive restoration of House No. 1 into an interpretative centre. • Restrict the number of motorised vehicles on the island. If needed, environmentally friendly forms of transport such as trishaws could be used. • The eastern coastline including Chek Jawa should be of Category B access only.

4.9.2 Open local plantations such as durian and rubber, as well as vegetable and prawn farms to the public for recreational and educational purposes (Figure 50).

The SG thinks that the human geography of Pulau Ubin should somehow be re- established. The land use includes prawn and fish farming, coconut and durian plantations. These should all be resuscitated somehow, either to commercial viability of themselves, or as part of visitors’ attractions to the island.

In addition to the proposal to open up the existing plantations on the island for educational visits, the SG suggests that the kelongs and floating fish farms around the island could be made open to the public for similar purposes. Kelongs and fish farms could also make a comeback to serve the dual purpose of floating hostels where the public can stay over the weekend.

Some stakeholders had reservations about whether people could be attracted to run small-scale commercial farms on Pulau Ubin. Reasons cited were the inconvenience of living on the island. However, one stakeholder suggested that such ventures could work if bundled with special interest tours or niche products (e.g. special fruits, Ubin brand products).

SG1 61 Figure 49a: Chek Jawa

Figure 49b: Figure 49c: Hiking at Pulau Ubin House No. 1 at Pulau Ubin

Figure 50: Prawn farm at Pulau Ubin

SG1 62 A stakeholder highlighted the historical value of Pulau Ubin and suggested that educational trails with significant points be marked out with signboards. Guided tours could be conducted for visitors on Pulau Ubin’s role, for example in Singapore’s World War II history.

Recommendations: • Keep Temporary Occupation License (TOL) rates for Pulau Ubin low to support the opening up of farms. • Attract people to run small-scale commercial enterprises and farms on Pulau Ubin. • Highlight the historical value of various places on Pulau Ubin and perhaps use this as a basis for educational guided tours and walks.

4.9.3 Existing state-owned buildings on the island can be refurbished and rented out as Bed & Breakfast (B&B) establishments or farm stays to provide for a rustic experience. Existing residents can also be allowed to open up their houses for B&B uses (Figures 51a & 51b).

Many members of the public said that such accommodations would attract them to the island.

Whilst the SG supports the intention to keep the island in its natural state for as long as possible, some intervention is required to ensure that the community and activities are sustained. In general, low scale businesses and developments such as B&Bs and local plantations can be allowed to support the existing community on the island and to sustain the current visitor trade on the island. The developments can be leased out on short-term tenures so as not to entrench the uses. Large-scale developments that will require the construction of new infrastructure, sewerage, power supplies and potable water facilities on the island should not be encouraged.

The SG further suggests that the TOL conditions be relaxed to allow the existing owners, tenants and lessees to rent out rooms to the public as B&B establishments.

The SG and the stakeholders agree that there would be some demand for B&Bs in spite of the inconvenience of having no piped water and sewerage facilities on the island. These B&Bs could be run as private enterprises. However, there was some concern about the impact to the environment, e.g. soap, sewage, etc. A stakeholder said that while B&Bs are a good idea, they may not be viable due to lower demand on weekdays.

Recommendations: • Support the proposal to use existing state-owned properties for B&Bs and farm stay. • Relax the TOL requirement by SLA to allow the owners to rent out rooms to the public or for the adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on Pulau Ubin as B&B establishments. • If possible, complete the acquisition of partially acquired property if the owners do not wish to return to pursue any livelihood or residence on the island. This is to free them up for B&B uses.

SG1 63 Figure 51a: Existing community on Pulau Ubin

Figure 51b: Existing house at Pulau Ubin

SG1 64 Water Taxi Service

4.10 URA’s proposal is:

4.10.1 Retain the existing jetties, introducing new ones and improve the connectivity through a water taxi service between them (Figures 52a & 52b).

Public feedback strongly supported this idea.

The stakeholders were supportive of the idea of a water taxi service plying between the different nodes as long as the prices remain affordable. However, some stakeholders voiced that the current water transportation to Pulau Ubin on bumboats was too infrequent and people were sometimes discouraged by the long waiting time. This could similarly affect the proposed new routes.

The SG supports the water taxi service. It notes that this should not be in the form of speedboats for safety reasons. Moreover, strong waves could also interfere with activities on the water and along the coast. The transportation means should thus remain the traditional bumboats in use.

Recommendations: • Support the idea of a water taxi service to connect the various nodes in the Rustic Coast cluster. • The transportation means should not be high-speed boats, but should remain the traditional bumboats currently in use.

SG1 65 Figure 52a: Water Taxi

Figure 52b: Introducing water taxi to improve the connectivity of the nodes in the Rustic Coast cluster

SG1 66 5 CONCLUSION

5.1 The SG on Parks & Waterbodies Plan and Rustic Coast is encouraged by URA’s recently increased emphasis on planning for green areas to be accessible for recreation yet ensuring preservation of fragile areas. In view of the expected increase in Singapore’s population to perhaps 5.5 million, it is timely to address in detail the competing requirements for building and access to green areas. 5.2 To make Singapore liveable and to increase rootedness, the living environment must be made as attractive and enjoyable as possible within limits set by a finite land area. The dividend to economic growth through a population that is mentally stimulated and refreshed, as well as foreign talent being attracted to work and live in Singapore, should also not be underestimated.

5.3 It is clear that achieving our objectives requires much co-operation and support amongst many agencies to produce co-ordinated development plans that take into account the needs of diverse sectors of our population or to preserve valuable features of our landscape.

5.4 At the same time, residents of Singapore need to play their part in responsibly using areas they are given access to. Littering is a major problem and public education plus enforcement must be stepped up. The public should also take personal responsibility for the sensible use of accessible areas and not expect any government agency to indemnify them from consequences of unthinking or careless use of these areas. Special interest groups such as nature conservation advocates are very important to the dialogue that must continue in the process of planning for the future of green areas. It is necessary to incorporate as many views as possible in arriving at balanced recommendations. Trade-offs are sometimes inevitable, but it is important to try to come up with imaginative proposals that can meet the needs of both conservation and development. This is even more critical for a land scarce nation like Singapore.

5.5 While this SG has applied itself diligently to making recommendations on plans presented by URA, it is acutely aware that this ambit may give rise to the perception that the SG endorses these plans for the places identified as being the sum total of what can or should be done. This is not the case. The SG recognises that the planning process is continuous, there are a variety of foci for different concepts, and plans must be reviewed at regular intervals with the help of public feedback. The SG exists at one particular point on the long time-line for Singapore’s development and its contribution should be seen in this context. The SG has not had the ability nor time to take on the mantle of creating a global, long- term plan for Singapore’s development with respect to parks, waterbodies and rustic coast, and checking URA’s plans against the SG’s own. This has not been its role in this study. It is clear that achieving our objectives requires co-ordination and consultation amongst many agencies. Development plans must take into account the needs of diverse sectors of our population or to conserve for as long as possible valuable features of our landscapes. In many instances, creative solutions are required.

5.6 The SG would like to thank URA for its hard work in preparing the plans, obtaining public feedback and supporting the SG in its work. It also thanks all the various agencies and their representatives who have been our resources as well as discussants to clarify issues and help the SG to formulate its recommendations. These agencies include NParks, MINDEF, PUB, LTA and SLA. Lastly, the SG thanks interest groups, stakeholders and members of the public for general feedback as well as coherent and detailed submissions for consideration.

SG1 67 APPENDIX 1 LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Diversity Of Parks And Nature Areas Central Catchment

1. Categorise our parks into three categories, according 11. Support the proposed trails, boardwalks, canopy walk, to ease of access, elaborateness of facilities and and observation tower as shown in the Parks & degree of landscaping: Waterbodies Plan. Care is to be taken to cause minimal disturbance to the flora and fauna. For different parts a. Category A - natural areas to keep pristine, with existing vegetation and trails left of the Central Catchment, ease of access and untouched and possibly discrete infrastructure should be varied according to the eco- directional signs may be put up to sensitivity of the areas. mark the entrances 12. NParks to produce brochures and trail guides for the b. Category B - wilderness areas with some basic Central Catchment. facilities to facilitate access, such as toilets, shelters and formal tracks, e.g. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Interim Greens Around The Central Catchment

c. Category C - public parks, with landscaping and 13. Support the interim greens at Dairy Farm, Windsor Area facilities, e.g. town parks and Old Upper Thomson Road, but propose to keep the entire Chestnut Interim Green as a permanent green. Making Nature Areas More Accessible 14. Support the Chestnut Green and keep it as a Category A Open Space for adventure lovers. Northern Wetlands - Sungei Buloh and the Kranji marshes 15. Drop the scenic drive and eco-lodge ideas. 2. Support the new nature parks next to the Sungei Buloh 16. Let there instead be a scenic walking and cycling trail mangroves and keep them as Category A to Category of Category B access. B open spaces. 17. The existing mountain biking course should also have 3. Support camping at new nature parks next to Sungei Category B access and treatment. Buloh if suitable sites are found, but consideration 18. Enhance the streetscape of the Bukit Timah Expressway must be given to waste management and minimising to become the scenic road through this area. interference with the mangrove and its wildlife. 19. Support the Dairy Farm Interim Green and keep it as 4. Support new nature park at the Kranji marshes and a Category B Open Space. keep it as a Category A to Category B open space. 20. Support adventure camps, corporate retreats, outdoor 5. Provide a buffer along the shorelines of the Kranji performances, rock climbing, boating, hiking and reserve where possible. cycling trails of the Dairy Farm Interim Green, but there should be no building structure within the quarry, and 6. Support the proposed boardwalk connecting the near or close to the path leading into the quarry. Sungei Buloh mangroves to the Kranji marshes but allow public access only to the southern 500m of the 21. NParks to be the managing agency for the entire Dairy 2km PUB bund, and do not extend the boardwalk/ Farm Interim Green. trail across the S. Jelutong estuary to protect this 22. Parks should produce trail guides showing how the particularly sensitive area. trails are linked to that in the Central Catchment Nature 7. Allow inland trails perpendicular to the reservoir edge Reserve and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. leading to the edge of the marsh. 23. Support the Windsor Interim Green and keep it as a 8. Study appropriate locations for hides to view birdlife, Category B open space. Provide basic facilities for the along the mangrove coastline as well as north of informal football pitch. S. Jelutong. 24. Develop tree bank at the Windsor Interim Green as 9. Support non-motorised boating on Kranji Reservoir, an educational resource. organised by responsible operators. Boats should not 25. NParks to produce trail maps to show how trails here go within 50m of the bund where access is restricted. are linked to those in the Central Catchment. 10. Support nature trails through Lim Chu Kang farmland 26. Explore with Singapore Island Country Club (SICC) to for both recreational and educational value. The trails allow reasonable public access along the fringe of the should be of Category B access. golf course and through its grounds.

SG1 68 Appendix 1 (continued)

Urban And Town Parks Streetscape Greenery

27. Support the proposed waterfront parks at Coney Island, 43. Support the proposal to design integrated Lower Seletar Reservoir Park, Jurong Lake Park and environment, and apply different streetscape greenery Tampines Quarry Park. treatments according to the context of the streets.

28. Support the Lower Seletar Reservoir Park. Ensure 44. Support the proposal to link up Heritage Roads to provide good connectivity between the existing park and the a continuous experience of lush streetscape greenery. new park extension along the Lower Seletar Reservoir waterfront. Skyrise Greenery 29. Study the feasibility of providing an underpass 45. Support the proposal to encourage skyrise greenery connection between Yishun Stadium and the existing through façade greenery, landscaped roof terraces, Lower Seletar Reservoir. sky terraces and balconies, sky bridges and lobbies. 30. Allow public access along Sungei Seletar, where it 46. Explore further Gross Floor Area exemption does not compromise existing uses. incentives to encourage skyrise greenery. 31. Support Tampines Quarry Park and keep it as a Category B open space. Provide a simple trail around Identity And Educational Opportunities In Parks the quarry, with some park benches and lookout points. 47. Develop identity in parks through retaining geographical, cultural and historical features, and part 32. Not to fight for the preservation of the small marshland of the original land uses of the place. Plan parks adjoining the Tampines quarry. around such places.

33. Support the proposed Sengkang Park, Woodlands 48. In clearing land for development and when building Regional Park, Bidadari Park, Tampines Linear Park and infrastructure, such as roads and drains, minimise Jurong West Park. impact on the existing landscape and avoid destroying unique features of identity in the area. 34. Support the proposed Sengkang Park which will incorporate existing mangroves and riverine vegetation 49. Use parks as educational opportunities and let parks along Sungei Punggol as part of the park. become places for visits apart from being merely spaces for local residents to use. 35. Look for ways to maximise access from the proposed sports stadium adjoining the proposed Sengkang Park to the waterfront. Canalisation Of Natural Rivers

36. Landscape the edges of Punggol River in order to 50. Keep natural banks of rivers natural and avoid soften the banks and make it look more natural. canalising these rivers. Where river widening or deepening is needed, have natural treatment. 37. Support the proposed Woodlands Regional Park which will incorporate existing mangroves as part of the park. Heritage Roads 38. Tidy up land use along the coastal promenade of the proposed Woodlands Regional Park and bring in 51. Extend width of green buffer for Category A Heritage activities designed to attract people to use the area Road from the existing 10m to 20m. for recreation. 52. Keep the first 10m of Category A Heritage Road open 39. Support the proposed park expansions at Pasir Ris to public access. Park, East Coast Park, Labrador Park, Choa Chu Kang 53. Consider giving Heritage Road status to the green Town Park, Zhenghua Park and Bukit Batok Park. part of Mandai Road . 54. Include for consideration as Category A Heritage Park Connectors Roads, beautiful tree-lined streets, e.g. Mount Rosie, even if they are adjoining private properties. These 40. Support the proposed park connector network, and may be subject to a different buffer requirement in suggest an additional park connector from Woodlands order not to compromise development potential. Town to Mandai Road through Ulu Sembawang. 55. Provide pedestrian access on Heritage Roads. 41. Plan park connectors upfront to ensure that land is set aside for them at the outset. MINDEF Training Areas 42. Explore innovative approaches to achieve seamless connections, e.g. grade-separated or layered 56. MINDEF to explore opening up selected training land, interchanges. on selected days of the year, for public access.

SG1 69 Appendix 1 (continued)

RUSTIC COAST 74. Improve the connectivity between the beachfront and Changi Village. In particular, provide a connection for Punggol Point And Coney Island cyclists, e.g. by widening the bridge at Telok Paku Road. 57. Support turning Punggol Point into a paradise for sea 75. Abandon the proposal for a road extension of Lorong sports and recreation. Bekukong, but create a lively and vibrant pedestrian waterfront. 58. Phase the development of the area to better address potential traffic and car parking problems that may 76. Support the proposal to relocate the People’s arise from the increased number of visitors to the area. Association (PA) Sea Sports Club, and to convert the vacated PA buildings to budget hostels. 59. Support the development of a seafood village and waterfront restaurants as an interim use at Punggol North. 77. Retain the launching ramp of the PA Sea Sports Club for public use. 60. Phase the development of the area to better address potential traffic and car parking problems that may 78. Support the proposal for the children’s playground. arise from the increased number of visitors to the area. 79. Support the proposal to increase residents in the area. 61. Support the proposal for the sea sports centre at 80. Preserve historical places when new uses are found Punggol North. for them. 62. Support having “play and stay” facilities at Punggol Pulau Ubin North. Study how costs for such facilities could be kept low and developments kept rustic. 81. Appoint a single agency to spearhead the management of the island. NParks could be the 63. Support the interim beach park at Punggol Point. agency since the general intention for Ubin is more 64. Soften the vertical retaining walls through landscaping in line with a rustic park and NParks is already where necessary. managing a large portion of Pulau Ubin. 82. The appointed agency to form an advisory panel to 65. Support activities for the more adventurous in advise and provide feedback on the plans and Punggol North but suggest to replace the motorcross proposals for Pulau Ubin. idea with mountain bike trails. 83. Support the proposed adaptive restoration of House 66. Support the proposal to convert the existing Punggol No. 1 into an interpretative centre. Road to a linear park linking the new town center and the coast. 84. Restrict the number of motorised vehicles on the island. If needed, environmentally friendly forms of 67. Support the “wilderness theme” for Coney Island. transport such as trishaws could be used. Basic amenities (e.g. water, sanitation) can be provided and located near the jetty. Pleasure boats 85. The eastern coastline including Chek Jawa should should be allowed to dock at the jetty. be Category B access only. 86. Keep Temporary Occupation License (TOL) rates for 68. Free up the waterway for recreational uses by having Pulau Ubin low, to support the opening up of farms. only one bridge link to Coney Island. 87. Attract people to run small-scale commercial enterprises and farms on Pulau Ubin. Pasir Ris 88. Highlight the historical value of various places on 69. Support the proposal for a seaside pier. URA to study Pulau Ubin and perhaps use this as a basis for the location of the pier. Ensure that the parking educational guided tours and walks. situation is addressed before introducing the pier. 89. Support the proposal to use existing state-owned properties for Bed & Breakfast (B&B) and farm stay. Changi Village 90. Relax the TOL requirement by SLA to allow the 70. Set up information kiosks and storyboards to owners to rent out rooms to the public or for the showcase the rich cultural, historical and natural adaptive reuse of the existing buildings on Pulau Ubin heritage of the Changi area. as B&B establishments. 71. Support the proposal to add new small parcel 91. If possible, complete the acquisition of partially commercial developments, but spruce up existing acquired property if the owners do not wish to return shops first, and take an incremental approach to to pursue any livelihood or residence on the island, adding new commercial developments to allow time so as to free them up for B&B uses. to review impact on existing shops. Water Taxi Service 72. Design the proposed new commercial developments carefully so as to avoid too great a contrast between 92. Support the idea of a water taxi service to connect them and the existing older buildings. the various nodes in the Rustic Coast cluster. 73. The design of the new pedestrian mall should be 93. The transportation means should not be high-speed linear and not dog-legged, in order to provide an boats but should remain the traditional bumboats unobstructed view of the waterfront. currently in use.

SG1 70 APPENDIX 2 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS, SITE VISITS AND STAKEHOLDERS’ DIALOGUE SESSIONS

EVENT ITEM 1st SG Meeting

Date : 23 Jul 02 • Introduction Time : 6.30 - 9.00pm • Framework for future site visits and discussion Venue : 5th Storey, The URA Centre

1st Site Visit

Date : 28 Jul 2002 • Site visits to interim greens around Central Catchment Time : 9.00 - 3.00 pm • Heritage Roads at Mount Pleasant and Old Upper Thomson Road • Bukit Batok Parks and extension • Ulu Pandan Park Connector

2nd SG Meeting

Date : 28 Jul 2002 • Diversity of parks Time : 3.00 - 4.00 pm • Heritage Roads Venue : Burkill Hall, Singapore Botanics Garden • Windsor Interim Green

3rd SG Meeting

Date : 7 Aug 2002 • Windsor Interim Green Time : 6.30 - 9.15 pm • Dairy Farm Interim Green Venue : 5th Storey, The URA Centre • Chestnut Interim Green • Ulu Sembawang • Heritage Roads • Tree Conservation Areas • Choa Chu Kang Park, Bukit Batok Parks and other town parks • Ulu Pandan park connectors

2nd Site Visit

Date : 11 Aug 2002 • Tampines Quarry Pond Time : 9.00 - 2.30 pm • Proposed Sengkang Park • Proposed Lower Seletar Reservoir Park • Proposed Woodlands Region Park • Kranji marshes

SG1 71 EVENT ITEM

4th SG Meeting

Date : 11 Aug 2002 • Tampines Quarry Pond Time : 2.30 - 4.00 pm • Proposed Sengkang Park Venue : Sungei Buloh Visitor Centre • Proposed Lower Seletar Reservoir Park • Proposed Woodlands Regional Park • Kranji marshes

3rd Site Visit

Date : 25 Aug 2002 • Changi Point Time : 9.00 - 3.00 pm • Pulau Ubin • Coney Island • Punggol Point

5th SG Meeting

Date : 25 Aug 2002 • Proposals for Rustic Coast Time : 3.00 - 4.00 pm Venue : NParks’ Serangoon Depot

6th SG Meeting

Date : 10 Sep 2002 • Pulau Ubin Time : 6.00 - 10.00 pm • Parks and Waterbodies Plan outstanding issues Venue : 4th Storey, The URA Centre • Discussion of public feedback

7th SG Meeting

Date : 17 Sep 2002 • Discussions with HDB, PUB and SLA Time : 6.00 - 9.30 pm Venue : 3rd Storey, The URA Centre

1st Stakeholder Dialogue Session

Date : 2 Oct 2002 • Discussion with stakeholders of Pasir Ris and Punggol Time : 7.30 - 9.00 pm • About 50 resident representatives Venue : Pasir Ris Community Club

2nd Stakeholder Dialogue Session

Date : 10 Oct 2002 • Discussion with stakeholders of Changi Point and Pulau Ubin Time : 7.30 - 9.00 pm • About 50 residents and business owners Venue : Siglap Community Club

8th SG Meeting

Date : 14 Oct 2002 • Discussions with MINDEF and LTA Time : 6.00 - 9.30 pm • Discussion of public feedback Venue : 3rd Storey, The URA Centre

SG1 72