D01.03.01 MDCO Dialogue Instrument with YB Datuk Haji Pandak bin Ahmad on Planning Considerations for Low Frequency Noise

Dialogue Series: D01 — Low Frequency Noise During Data Centre Planning Approval
Dialogue Reference: D01.03 — Political and Public Representatives
Record: D01.03.01 — YB Datuk Haji Pandak bin Ahmad
Date Issued: 13 August 2026
Status: Awaiting Response

Reference Research:
→A09.01 — Why Low-Frequency Noise Becomes a Community Conflict
→A09.02 Estimating Low-Frequency Noise from a Typical Data Centre
→A09.03 Low Frequency Noise Effects: What Research Shows
→A09.04 Data Centre Low Frequency Noise in Planning Approval by Local Councils
→A09.07 Community Concerns on Data Centre Development in Malaysia and Lessons Learned
→D01.01 Low Frequency Noise During Data Centre Planning Approval

Dialogue Purpose

This Dialogue Record documents MDCO’s formal engagement with the dialogue partner to seek clarification and views on current planning considerations for low frequency noise (LFN) associated with data centre developments.

MDCO’s Current Understanding:

1. Sections 22(2), 22(3) and 22(5) of Act 172 appear to provide Local Planning Authorities with broad discretion to consider matters necessary for proper planning and impose appropriate planning conditions, including where relevant environmental acoustic considerations such as LFN may arise.
2. Publicly available legislation and guidance reviewed by MDCO did not identify any specific published requirement addressing LFN assessment for data centre developments during the planning approval process.
3. Conventional environmental noise assessment generally relies on overall A-weighted sound levels (dBA), while international acoustic practices indicate that frequency-based analysis may provide additional information where significant low-frequency sources exist.
4. Act 172 appears to provide Local Planning Authorities with flexibility to incorporate appropriate planning conditions where necessary to manage potential environmental impacts associated with approved developments.
5. The rapid growth of data centre developments and advances in acoustic research may require continued consideration of how planning practices and technical guidance address potential LFN-related issues.

Additional Findings from Dialogue Responses

No additional information was available from the dialogue process as of the publication date.

Dialogue Instrument Submitted

Original letter in Malay language:

Ruj. Kami:       MDI-2026-03-01-YBKI
Melalui Emel: n49.kotaiskandar@johor.gov.my, pandak.ahmad@gmail.com

13 Ogos 2026

YB Datuk Haji Pandak bin Ahmad
Ahli Dewan Negeri Johor (N49 Kota Iskandar)
Pusat Khidmat DUN Kota Iskandar
No. 8-01, Jalan SILC 1/14, Kawasan Perindustrian SILC,
79200 Iskandar Puteri,
Johor Darul Ta’zim

YB Datuk,

PER: PERMOHONAN PENJELASAN DAN PANDANGAN BERHUBUNG PERTIMBANGAN PERANCANGAN BAGI BUNYI FREKUENSI RENDAH (LOW FREQUENCY NOISE) DALAM PEMBANGUNAN PUSAT DATA

Dengan segala hormatnya perkara di atas adalah dirujuk.

2. Kami, Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO) ingin memohon pandangan serta mendapatkan penjelasan berhubung dengan beberapa soalan penting berkaitan dengan pembangunan pusat data. Usaha ini selaras dengan prinsip teras MDCO yang mendukung kesaksamaan capaian maklumat (equal access to information) bagi semua pihak berkepentingan, termasuk melalui usaha mendapatkan, mendokumentasikan dan menyebarluaskan pandangan serta maklumat yang relevan secara seimbang dan telus, demi menyokong pembangunan industri pusat data di Malaysia yang mampan, harmoni, dan berintegriti.
3. Untuk maklumat YB Datuk, MDCO mengambil maklum tentang isu dan kebimbangan komuniti setempat yang berbangkit berikutan pembangunan pusat data di kawasan Iskandar Puteri baru-baru ini (Lampiran 1). Dalam perkembangan tersebut, YB Datuk telah mengambil peranan secara langsung dalam libat urus dengan komuniti setempat, termasuk menganjurkan sesi perjumpaan awam (town hall) dengan penduduk serta pihak berkuasa dan pemaju yang berkaitan. YB Datuk turut menegaskan bahawa “kesejahteraan penduduk tetap menjadi keutamaan” dan, dalam perkembangan seterusnya, menyatakan bahawa kedudukan pusat data yang terlalu hampir dengan kawasan kediaman merupakan suatu iktibar bagi pembangunan masa hadapan.
4. Mengambil kira pusat data yang bakal beroperasi sepenuhnya pada masa hadapan, MDCO kini menjalankan kajian terperinci tentang kualiti persekitaran akustik, khususnya Bunyi Frekuensi Rendah (Low Frequency Noise, LFN). Kajian dan kes antarabangsa menunjukkan bahawa LFN yang dikaitkan dengan pengoperasian pusat data telah menimbulkan gangguan kepada komuniti dan, dalam sesetengah kes, membawa kepada pertikaian undang-undang di Amerika Syarikat (Lampiran 2). MDCO juga mengambil maklum bahawa bunyi dan getaran frekuensi rendah yang dihasilkan oleh kelengkapan mekanikal pusat data berpotensi tersebar pada jarak yang agak jauh dan menjejaskan keselesaan komuniti setempat (Lampiran 3 dan 4).
5. Mengikut pemahaman semasa MDCO daripada kajian ini, peruntukan sedia ada di bawah Akta Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 1976 (Akta 172) memberikan ruang pertimbangan dan budi bicara kepada Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) selaku Pihak Berkuasa Perancang Tempatan (PBPT) untuk menangani aspek alam sekitar yang berkaitan (Lampiran 5). Sehubungan dengan itu, MDCO telah memulakan siri dialog dengan Datuk Bandar/Yang Dipertua PBT di Negeri Johor (Lampiran 6) dan pemaju pusat data. Walau bagaimanapun, berdasarkan semakan maklumat awam dan penerokaan awal melalui siri dialog tersebut, MDCO belum menemukan maklumat terbuka yang menunjukkan bahawa penilaian LFN dipertimbangkan secara khusus pada peringkat Kebenaran Merancang (KM).
6. Sehubungan dengan itu, MDCO amat menghargai sekiranya YB Datuk, dalam kapasiti sebagai wakil rakyat dan Ahli Dewan Negeri Johor, dapat meneliti pemahaman semasa MDCO serta mengemukakan pandangan berhubung dengan soalan-soalan berikut:

6.1 Peruntukan Perundangan di bawah Akta 172

• Pemahaman Semasa MDCO: Hasil kajian MDCO menunjukkan bahawa subseksyen 22(2), 22(3) dan 22(5) Akta 172 memberikan kuasa budi bicara yang luas kepada Pihak Berkuasa Perancang Tempatan (PBPT) untuk mempertimbangkan perkara-perkara yang perlu bagi tujuan perancangan yang sewajarnya, serta mengenakan syarat-syarat Kebenaran Merancang (KM). Walaupun Akta 172 tidak menyebut secara khusus berkenaan LFN, peruntukan sedia ada dilihat cukup terangkum untuk membolehkan pertimbangan akustik alam sekitar diambil kira.
• Permohonan Penjelasan / Pandangan:
  • Adakah YB Datuk berpandangan bahawa Akta 172 menyediakan kuasa perundangan yang mencukupi untuk membolehkan pihak PBT/PBPT mempertimbangkan potensi kesan LFN dalam proses Kebenaran Merancang (KM), sekiranya wujud keperluan di kawasan DUN Kota Iskandar?
  • Pada pandangan YB Datuk, dalam keadaan atau senario bagaimanakah potensi kesan LFN wajar dipertimbangkan oleh pihak PBT/PBPT dalam proses perancangan dan kelulusan pembangunan pusat data?

6.2 Amalan Semasa Penilaian Perancangan

• Pemahaman Semasa MDCO: Berdasarkan perundangan perancangan dan garis panduan sedia ada untuk rujukan awam, MDCO tidak menemukan sebarang pandangan, keperluan, atau garis panduan berkenaan LFN yang diterbitkan secara umum dalam proses KM bagi pembangunan pusat data.
• Permohonan Penjelasan / Pandangan:
  • Adakah isu potensi gangguan LFN pernah diutarakan kepada YB Datuk atau dipertimbangkan dalam perbincangan peringkat dasar bagi pembangunan pusat data berskala besar di kawasan ini?
  • Pada pandangan YB Datuk, adakah kaedah penilaian perancangan perlu berbeza mengikut skala pembangunan, jarak zon penimbal ke kawasan kediaman, atau keadaan setempat?
  • Adakah YB Datuk melihat keperluan untuk Kerajaan Negeri atau PBT mewujudkan garis panduan teknikal khusus berkaitan LFN bagi mengurangkan risiko konflik antara pembangunan industri dengan kawasan kediaman pada masa hadapan?

6.3 Kaedah Penilaian Teknikal

• Pemahaman Semasa MDCO: Penilaian bunyi alam sekitar secara konvensional lazimnya berasaskan tahap bunyi keseluruhan mengikut pemberat A (A-weighted sound levels, dBA). Walau bagaimanapun, garis panduan antarabangsa menunjukkan bahawa dalam senario yang melibatkan peralatan mekanikal berskala besar dengan kebarangkalian tinggi menghasilkan LFN yang ketara, kaedah penilaian terperinci seperti analisis jalur oktaf (octave-band analysis) mungkin diperlukan.
• Permohonan Penjelasan / Pandangan:
  • Adakah YB Datuk menyokong cadangan supaya kajian akustik khusus atau penilaian ramalan bunyi berkaitan LFN dipertimbangkan bagi permohonan pembangunan pusat data berskala besar yang berhampiran dengan kawasan kediaman?
  • Adakah YB Datuk berpandangan bahawa maklumat akustik yang relevan bagi peralatan mekanikal utama (cooling tower, chiller, standby generator) wajar didedahkan untuk semakan awam, tertakluk kepada keperluan melindungi maklumat komersial yang sensitif, demi meningkatkan ketelusan?
  • Pada pandangan YB Datuk, sekiranya isu LFN dikenal pasti sebagai risiko yang relevan, adakah penilaian akustik dalam laporan Penilaian Kesan Alam Sekitar (EIA) sedia ada memadai, atau wajar dilengkapi dengan mekanisme penilaian dan semakan yang lebih khusus?

6.4 Syarat-Syarat Kebenaran Merancang (KM)

• Pemahaman Semasa MDCO: Akta 172 memberi kuasa kepada Pihak Berkuasa Perancang Tempatan (PBPT) untuk menilai dan mempertimbangkan permohonan kebenaran merancang dengan mengenakan syarat-syarat tambahan yang dianggap wajar, dengan demikian memberikan ruang fleksibiliti untuk mengawal selia risiko isu alam sekitar.
• Permohonan Penjelasan / Pandangan:
  • Adakah YB Datuk pernah mengesyorkan atau berpandangan bahawa PBT/PBPT perlu mempertimbangkan syarat-syarat Kebenaran Merancang (KM) tertentu bagi mengawal potensi kesan LFN, seperti penetapan zon penimbal, kawalan akustik terperinci, atau pemantauan pascapengoperasian?
  • Pada pandangan YB Datuk, apakah faktor utama yang wajar dipertimbangkan oleh pihak PBT/PBPT dalam menetapkan syarat KM bagi pembangunan pusat data?

6.5 Hala Tuju Amalan Perancangan Masa Hadapan

• Pemahaman Semasa MDCO: Industri pusat data di Malaysia berkembang pesat seiring dengan perkembangan pemahaman saintifik berkaitan dengan LFN sepanjang dekad yang lalu. MDCO mengambil maklum bahawa amalan perancangan akan terus berkembang sejajar dengan pengalaman industri dan perkembangan garis panduan teknikal.
• Permohonan Penjelasan / Pandangan:
  • Adakah YB Datuk berpandangan bahawa kerangka kawal selia dan tatacara perancangan sedia ada di peringkat negeri dan daerah sudah memadai, atau terdapat keperluan untuk penambahbaikan termasuk pewujudan garis panduan teknikal khusus berkaitan LFN bagi melindungi komuniti?
  • Adakah YB Datuk sedia maklum tentang sebarang inisiatif, jawatankuasa, atau kajian di peringkat Kerajaan Negeri Johor atau Dewan Negeri Johor yang sedang meneliti isu LFN dan impak alam sekitar berkaitan dengan pembangunan pusat data?

7. MDCO berhasrat untuk mendapatkan pandangan YB Datuk bagi memastikan penerbitan laporan kajian MDCO mengambil kira pandangan wakil rakyat serta perspektif komuniti setempat secara saksama. Instrumen Dialog MDCO (MDCO Dialogue Instrument, MDI) ini serta maklum balas yang diterima akan didokumentasikan secara telus dalam siri laporan kajian MDCO. Bagi membolehkan pandangan YB Datuk dipertimbangkan dalam siri laporan ini, MDCO amat mengalu-alukan sebarang ulasan rasmi yang dapat dikemukakan dalam tempoh 14 hari bekerja dari tarikh surat ini, sebelum dapatan kajian dimuktamadkan untuk penerbitan. Sekiranya maklum balas diterima selepas tempoh tersebut, pihak MDCO tetap akan mengambil kira pandangan tersebut dalam kemas kini laporan pada masa hadapan.
8. Kerjasama dan keprihatinan YB Datuk serta pihak yang berkaitan dalam memberikan maklum balas berhubung dengan perkara ini amat dihargai dan didahului ucapan setinggi-tinggi terima kasih.

Sekian, terima kasih.

Yang benar,

(IR. DR. KOH SIONG LEE)
Pengarah Penyelidikan
Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO)

English Translation of the letter:

Our Ref.:          MDI-2026-03-01-YBKI
By Email:         n49.kotaiskandar@johor.gov.my, pandak.ahmad@gmail.com

13 August 2026

YB Datuk Haji Pandak bin Ahmad
Ahli Dewan Negeri Johor (N49 Kota Iskandar)
Pusat Khidmat DUN Kota Iskandar
No. 8-01, Jalan SILC 1/14, Kawasan Perindustrian SILC,
79200 Iskandar Puteri,
Johor Darul Ta’zim

YB Datuk,

RE: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND VIEWS ON PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOW FREQUENCY NOISE IN DATA CENTRE DEVELOPMENTS

With due respect, the above matter is referred.

2. Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO) respectfully seeks YB Datuk’s views and clarification regarding several important questions relating to data centre development. This effort is aligned with MDCO’s core principle of supporting equal access to information for all stakeholders, including through efforts to obtain, document and disseminate relevant views and information in a balanced and transparent manner, in support of a sustainable, harmonious and responsible data centre industry in Malaysia.
3. For the kind information of YB Datuk, MDCO takes note of the issues and concerns raised by the local community following recent data centre developments in the Iskandar Puteri area (Appendix 1). In this regard, YB Datuk has taken a direct role in engaging with the local community, including organising a town hall session with residents as well as the relevant authorities and developers. YB Datuk also emphasised that “the well-being of residents remains a priority” and subsequently stated that the location of data centres too close to residential areas serves as a lesson for future developments.
4. Taking into consideration the data centres that are expected to become fully operational in the future, MDCO is currently conducting a detailed study on acoustic environmental quality, particularly Low Frequency Noise (LFN). International research and cases indicate that LFN associated with data centre operations has caused disturbance to communities and, in some cases, led to legal disputes in the United States (Appendix 2). MDCO also notes that low-frequency noise and vibration generated by mechanical equipment at data centres have the potential to propagate over relatively long distances and affect the amenity and comfort of local communities (Appendices 3 and 4).
5. Based on MDCO’s current understanding arising from this study, existing provisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) provide Local Authorities (PBT), acting as Local Planning Authorities (PBPT), with scope for consideration and discretion in addressing relevant environmental aspects (Appendix 5). In this regard, MDCO has commenced a series of dialogues with Datuk Bandar/Yang Dipertua of PBTs in Johor (Appendix 6) and data centre developers. However, based on a review of publicly available information and preliminary exploration through these dialogue sessions, MDCO has not identified publicly available information indicating that LFN assessment is specifically considered at the Planning Permission (KM) stage.
6. In this regard, MDCO would greatly appreciate if YB Datuk, in your capacity as an elected representative and Member of the Johor State Legislative Assembly, could review MDCO’s current understanding and provide your views on the following matters:

6.1 Legal Provisions under Act 172

• MDCO’s Current Understanding: MDCO’s review indicates that subsections 22(2), 22(3) and 22(5) of Act 172 provide Local Planning Authorities with broad discretionary powers to consider matters necessary for proper planning purposes and to impose conditions on Planning Permission (Kebenaran Merancang, KM). Although Act 172 does not specifically refer to LFN, the existing provisions appear sufficiently broad to allow environmental acoustic considerations to be taken into account.
• Request for Clarification / Views:
  • Does YB Datuk consider that Act 172 provides sufficient legal authority to enable the PBT/PBPT to consider potential LFN impacts during the Planning Permission (KM) process, where such consideration may be necessary within the Kota Iskandar constituency?
  • In YB Datuk’s view, under what circumstances or scenarios should potential LFN impacts be considered by the PBT/PBPT in the planning and approval process for data centre developments?

6.2 Current Planning Assessment Practice

• MDCO’s Current Understanding: Based on publicly available planning legislation and existing guidance, MDCO has not identified any publicly available consideration, requirement or guideline specifically relating to LFN in the KM process for data centre developments.
• Request for Clarification / Views:
  • Have potential LFN impacts ever been raised with YB Datuk or considered in policy-level discussions concerning large-scale data centre developments in this area?
  • In YB Datuk’s view, should the approach to assessing LFN impacts vary according to development scale, distance from residential areas (buffer zones), or site-specific conditions?
  • Does YB Datuk see a need for the State Government or PBT to establish specific technical guidelines relating to LFN to reduce the risk of conflict between industrial developments and residential areas in the future?

6.3 Technical Assessment Methods

• MDCO’s Current Understanding: Conventional environmental noise assessments are generally based on overall A-weighted sound levels (dBA). However, international guidelines indicate that in scenarios involving large-scale mechanical equipment with a high likelihood of generating significant LFN, more detailed assessment methods such as octave-band analysis may be appropriate.
• Request for Clarification / Views:
  • Does YB Datuk support the proposal that specific acoustic studies or predictive noise assessments relating to LFN be considered for large-scale data centre development applications located near residential areas?
  • Does YB Datuk consider that relevant acoustic information relating to major mechanical equipment (such as cooling towers, chillers or standby generators) should be disclosed for public review, subject to the need to protect commercially sensitive information, in order to enhance transparency?
  • In YB Datuk’s view, if LFN is identified as a relevant risk, are the acoustic assessments contained in existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports adequate, or should they be supplemented by more specific assessment and review mechanisms?

6.4 Conditions of Planning Permission (KM)

• MDCO’s Current Understanding: Act 172 empowers Local Planning Authorities to assess and consider Planning Permission applications by imposing additional conditions considered appropriate, thereby providing flexibility to regulate potential environmental risks.
• Request for Clarification / Views:
  • Has YB Datuk ever recommended or expressed the view that the PBT/PBPT should consider specific Planning Permission (KM) conditions to manage potential LFN impacts, such as the establishment of buffer zones, detailed acoustic control measures, or post-operational monitoring?
  • In YB Datuk’s view, what are the key factors that should be considered by the PBT/PBPT in imposing KM conditions for data centre developments?

6.5 Future Direction of Planning Practice

• MDCO’s Current Understanding: Malaysia’s data centre industry is expanding rapidly alongside advances in scientific understanding relating to LFN over the past decade. MDCO recognises that planning practices may continue to evolve in line with industry experience and the development of technical guidance.
• Request for Clarification / Views:
  • Does YB Datuk consider that the existing regulatory framework and planning procedures at the state and district levels are adequate, or is there a need for improvements, including the establishment of specific technical guidelines relating to LFN to protect communities?
  • Is YB Datuk aware of any initiatives, committees, or studies at the Johor State Government or Johor State Legislative Assembly level that are currently examining LFN issues and environmental impacts associated with data centre developments?

7. MDCO seeks to obtain YB Datuk’s views to ensure that MDCO’s published research takes into account, in a balanced manner, the perspectives of elected representatives as well as the interests of the local community. This MDCO Dialogue Instrument (MDI) and any responses received will be documented transparently as part of the MDCO research series. To enable YB Datuk’s views to be incorporated into this research series, MDCO would greatly welcome any official comments that may be provided within 14 working days from the date of this letter, before the findings are finalised for publication. Any feedback received after this period will nevertheless be considered by MDCO for incorporation into future updates of the research.
8. The cooperation and kind consideration of YB Datuk and the relevant parties in providing feedback on this matter are greatly appreciated, and we wish to express our sincere thanks in advance.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

(IR. DR. KOH SIONG LEE)
Director of Research
Malaysia Data Centre Observatory (MDCO)

Feedback and Responses Received

None as of the publication date.