Planning Approval Duration and Regulatory Challenges in Housing Development in Sarawak: A Preliminary Review

As Malaysia’s population reaches approximately 34 million in 2023, the demand for housing continues to grow, pushing the government to develop the National Housing Policy and the state government's policy for housing. However, despite the urgency to build housing provisions, there appear to be delays in the planning approval process, affecting project timelines and governance efficiency. Prolonged approval durations can lead to cost overruns and inefficiencies in resource allocation, as well as weaken the developer's cash flow and confidence, ultimately impacting housing supply and urban development. Thus, efficient governance is essential to fulfilling housing policy objectives. While previous studies have examined regulatory inefficiencies and procedural barriers, many adopt a one-sided approach, favouring either government agencies or developers. This leaves a gap in understanding how governance structures, administrative processes, and inter-agency coordination contribute to discrepancies in approval durations. This research aims to critically analyse the approval timeline and regulatory challenges in Sarawak’s housing development process, contrasting with Peninsular Malaysia’s planning system, which is under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 and streamlined by digital platforms like OSC 3.0 Plus. The specific planning framework and land administration in Sarawak, regulated by the Sarawak Land Code and Local Authorities Ordinance 1996, lead to an uncoordinated and often sequential approval process, causing delays in housing delivery and inflated development costs. A qualitative research approach will be employed, utilising document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including local authority town planners and private developers. By assessing the governance and efficiency of approval processes, stakeholder roles, and decision-making mechanisms, this research aims to provide insights into similarities and differences in Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia’s planning frameworks to seek the best practice to enhance regulatory transparency. This research outcome will lead to producing evidence-based insights that are both diagnostic and prescriptive, derived from all the data gathered. This is crucial for assisting policymakers and regulatory bodies in improving approval efficiency and supporting the timely delivery of housing projects in the state.

Planning Approval, Housing Development, Regulatory Challenges, Approval Duration, Sarawak

1. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bernama. (2023). One Stop Centre 3.0 Plus improved, approval period reduced to 21 days, says Anwar. https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2182658 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Booth, P. (2007). The control of Discretion: Planning and the Common-Law tradition. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and country planning in the UK. 14th editi. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203002874 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Gurran, N., & Phibbs, P. (2013). Housing supply and urban planning reform: the recent Australian experience, 2003–2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2013.840110 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. https://books.google.com.my/books?id=psW_hMb3AH8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA5#v=o nepage&q&f=false [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Junaidi, N. H., Prof, A., & Salleh, D. (2014). Administration of Property Development in Sarawak. July, 1–11. www.iiste.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Land and Survey Department, S. (2020). Why the Delay in the Issuance of New Land Title. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Land and Survey Department, S. (2025). Procedure: SUBDIVISION / ALIENATION [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. DEVELOPMENT / AVTC / APPLICATION FOR OF LAND / STRATA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. LEE, B., & AZIZ, F. (2024). Most delayed projects from Sabah and Sarawak, reveals A-G’s Report Series 3. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/10/14/most-delayed-projects-from-sabah-and-sarawak-reveals-a-gs-report-series-3? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Marzukhi, M. A., Omar, D., Arshad, A. F., Leh, O. L. H., Yusup, M., & Jaafar, A. (2019). One stop centre (OSC): Lessons on best practices in planning system delivery. Planning Malaysia, 17(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.21837/pmjournal.v17.i9.590 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ong, T. (1998). Sarawak: Planning and Development Procedures. Kuala Lumpur: Building News. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Rosli Said, Rohayu Ab Majid, Md Nasir Daud, Zulkifli Esha, & Muhammad Najib Razali. (2017). Owners’ Perception Towards Sustainable Housing Affordability in Kuching, Sarawak. Journal of Design and Built Environment, 17(S.I), 194–206. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Sarawak. (2019). Laws of Sarawak Land Code Chapter 81. 81, 256. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. https://lawnet.sarawak.gov.my/lawnet_file/Ordinance/ORD_LANDCOD2020.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Shafiei, E., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., & Hewage, K. (2021). Delays in construction projects: Causes, effects, and mitigation measures. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001962 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. UN-Habitat. (2020). World cities report 2020: The value of sustainable urbanization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. https://unhabitat.org/wcr/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Woon Fatt, J. L. (2021). One Stop Centre ( Osc ) Online Submission. 1–3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. https://www.cidb.gov.my/en/construction- [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Yusup, M. B., & Arshad, A. F. (2012). Comparative Planning Systems Between Sarawak and Selangor: Statutory Process. 1st International Conference on Innovation and Technology for Sustainable Built Environment 2012 (ICITSBE 2012). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Analysis of Housing Deficit in Urban Cities: A Case Study of Port Harcourt
• Selection Factors for Security Service Companies in Strata Schemes in Malaysia
• Greed, Grievance, and Guns: A Resource-Driven Conflict in Zimbabwe's Mining Communities - A Case Study of Marange Diamond Mines
• Public Acceptance of Durian Farmland Real Estate Investment Via Crowdfunding in Malaysia
• Students’ Perceptions on Value-Added the Islamic Estate Planning Course in Real Estate Education