The experience with Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest reveals the Singapore public’s appetite for engaging closely with planning processes. There are clear lessons for how we can improve transparency and public participation, argues MELISSA LOW (National University of Singapore).
Singapore has one of the world’s most respected planning systems. But as planning decisions become increasingly complex – balancing housing, biodiversity, heritage, and climate resilience – our approach to public participation has not sufficiently kept pace. The recent debate over Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest illustrates why the next frontier in urban planning is not technical capability, but public trust.
Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest: A brief timeline of public engagement
On 10 July 2026, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) published the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest (Sunset Way), together with a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for Gillman Barracks. This accompanied the announcement that both sites, which had been zoned “Residential (Subject to Detailed Planning)” under the Draft Master Plan 2025, were proposed for future public housing. Public feedback was invited from 10 July to 6 August 2026.[1]
This prompted vigorous public engagement. Residents, nature groups, heritage advocates, businesses and members of the public reviewed the technical reports, organised community discussions and submitted detailed, thoughtful feedback. Media commentaries questioned the transparency of the planning process. Petitions calling for the protection of Gillman Barracks, Gillman Forest and Maju Forest together attracted more than 50,000 signatures.
Government agencies stepped up their engagement in response. On 17 July, residents near Maju Forest attended a dialogue with HDB and URA. For Gillman Barracks, residents initially expressed concern that no public engagement was planned. They organised their own community dialogue on 26 July, which was followed by an official “Get-Together on Gillman Barracks” on 30 July, organised by MP Rachel Ong with HDB, URA and NParks. Around 300 residents attended, making over 60 interventions on issues ranging from ecology and heritage to housing demand, climate resilience, and alternative sites. A summary was submitted to planning agencies and MPs.
The public disquiet could not be ignored by MPs and officials.
Public interest culminated in the 4–5 August 2026 Parliamentary sitting, where MPs filed 23 Parliamentary Questions on Gillman Barracks and Maju Forest.[2] During the debate on 4 August, Minister of State Alvin Tan responded to the questions, followed by 34 supplementary questions from 12 MPs.
The breadth of issues raised – from ecological thresholds and housing demand to planning transparency and public participation – demonstrated that Singaporeans were not simply asking about the necessity of housing. Rather, they sought greater transparency around the decision-making process: why particular sites were selected, what trade-offs were evaluated, what ecological or planning thresholds applied, and what scope remained for changes following consultation.
By contrast, much of the Government’s response focused on the general need for housing and the planning process. This left many with the impression that the most specific questions were not directly addressed, even if the broader policy rationale was laid out.
The role of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in planning
Over the past two decades, Singapore’s planning system evolved considerably, reflecting progress in integrating environmental considerations. Although there is no standalone legislation governing EIAs, environmental studies have become an increasingly important in major developments affecting ecologically sensitive areas. In recent years, the Government has increased transparency by publishing EIAs and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) and making supporting technical information publicly available in some instances.
The recent debate raises a broader policy question, however: what is the purpose of an EIA? Is it primarily a decision-making tool that can influence whether, where or how development proceeds, or is it principally a mitigation tool that seeks to minimise impacts after a planning decision has largely been made? During the Parliamentary debate, Members repeatedly asked whether an EIA finding of “Major Negative” residual biodiversity impact could ever lead to a project being substantially redesigned or not proceeding. That question remained largely unanswered.
This matters because public confidence depends not only on the quality of the scientific assessment, but also on understanding how that assessment informs decisions. If EIAs are intended to shape planning outcomes, greater transparency is needed on how their findings are weighed alongside housing demand, heritage, climate resilience and other national priorities. Clarifying this role would strengthen both public trust and the credibility of Singapore’s environmental governance.
Public expectations and public participation: Lessons for the future
These recent consultations reflect a broader shift in public expectations. Taken together, they suggest that Singaporeans are no longer passive consultees. Residents invested substantial time and effort reading technical reports, organising dialogues, proposing alternatives, and engaging constructively with agencies and elected representatives. Today, citizens expect more than to just notified of planning decisions. They expect transparency in how those decisions are reached, meaningful opportunities to participate, and clear explanations of the trade-offs involved.
Throughout the consultation and subsequent Parliamentary debate, residents repeatedly acknowledged Singapore’s need for housing. Their questions focused on why this site, why now, what alternatives were considered, and what aspects of the proposal could still change. Addressing the precise questions posed is essential to maintaining trust in both consultation and parliamentary accountability in matters of major public interest.
Timing also matters. People are generally more willing to accept difficult outcomes when they have the opportunity to contribute before preferred options have crystallised. The Government has consistently pointed to the 2024 MND Committee of Supply announcement and the Draft Master Plan 2025 exhibition as the earliest opportunities for public engagement on Gillman Barracks. Yet it is unclear how much public feedback was received during those earlier stages, how it was considered, or whether any objections were lodged under the Planning Act. Earlier and more transparent engagement would strengthen confidence that consultation is intended to shape decisions rather than simply explain them.
The URA Draft Master Plan 2025 exhibition
A third lesson is that planning decisions affect communities in ways that extend beyond biodiversity and heritage. Singapore has developed increasingly sophisticated Environmental Impact Assessments and Heritage Impact Assessments, but there remains no systematic way of assessing a place’s community value—its contribution to recreation, physical and mental wellbeing, neighbourhood identity, social cohesion, accessibility, or even everyday activities such as walking dogs. These are often the very qualities that make neighbourhoods liveable. As Singapore continues to redevelop mature estates and urban forests, there is merit in considering a Community Impact Assessment alongside existing environmental and heritage assessments.
Doing so presents an opportunity for URA as it develops its Identity Corridors.[3] For example, the forthcoming Southern Ridges & Coast Identity Corridor could move beyond publishing plans to actively engaging residents, businesses, and community groups in shaping the identity of the area. Conversations that help ensure that planning reflect not only physical characteristics, but also the lived experiences, memories, and aspirations of the communities who these places every day could go a long way in forming identities and ownership.
Finally, consultation should not end when the feedback period closes. Closing the feedback loop is critical to public trust. Several MPs called for greater transparency on how public submissions would influence the final proposal, including publishing a summary of feedback together with the Government’s responses. Other agencies, such as the National Climate Change Secretariat during its Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy consultation, have demonstrated how response matrices can help the public understand how comments were considered, even where recommendations are ultimately not adopted. Such practices strengthen confidence that participation has been meaningful.
Conclusion
Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way are unlikely to be the last difficult planning decisions Singapore faces. As the country continues to balance housing, climate resilience, biodiversity, heritage, and economic development, similar trade-offs will become increasingly common. Claims of housing and development trumping all else without greater transparency are unlikely ease public concerns.
The next challenge is not whether Singapore should continue consulting the public, but how consultation can evolve into genuine participation.
Public trust is not built because every resident gets the outcome they hoped for. It is built because citizens understand how decisions are made, why difficult trade-offs are necessary, and how their participation contributed to the final outcome. If Gillman Barracks and Sunset Way leave such a legacy, it will have strengthened not only Singapore’s planning system, but also the trust that underpins it.
– Melissa Low is Head of the National University of Singapore Sustainability Academy and Research Fellow, NUS Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions.
Want to republish this article on your website? Please see our guidelines.
Notes:
[1] Housing & Development Board (n.d.) Planning with the Environment in Mind. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us/our-role/plan-and-design-towns/planning-with-the-environment-in-mind
[2] Singapore, Parliament, Order Paper No. 33 for the Sitting on 4 August 2026, 15th Parliament,1st Session. https://www.parliament.gov.sg/api/media/00747016-bc7c-4273-a2d7-343035eff12b/Order-Paper—4August2026.pdf
[3] Urban Redevelopment Authority (n.d.) Identity Corridors. https://www.ura.gov.sg/land-planning/shaping-our-city/identity-corridors/