Categorised | Columns

PJ’s illegal development (Updated 1:05pm)

Updated at 1:05pm, 12 March 2010

IN the first two articles about town planning, I dealt with planning that was done after Petaling Jaya (PJ) was founded. However, it is important to note that PJ was developed in 1952.

This is significant because PJ’s founding clearly predates the legal provisions that the state government or local council are now using to impose planning on the city.

For example, the National Land Code 1965 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 were both enacted after PJ was founded. Hence, it is important to study the township’s history, and understand how the township came about and the implications it has today.

The early years

The earliest available document pointing towards the existence of PJ is a 1952 map that shows designated land plots belonging to one Petaling Estate, a private limited UK-registered company. We have to acknowledge that PJ was founded by the British-controlled Federal Government of Malaya and not the Selangor government, since the Selangor government did not yet exist.

 
Click on thumbnails for scans of the PJ
Gazette, article 175 of the Federation of
Malaya Government Gazette
As a result, PJ was considered part of Kuala Lumpur and was administered as a satellite township. Further proof of PJ being founded under the Kuala Lumpur administration is contained in the 1955 Federation of Malaya Government Gazette which spells out the boundaries of PJ under the district of Kuala Lumpur.

Once PJ became more developed and prosperous, it needed its own administrative centre. The founding of the PJ Town Board was done using the Town Boards Enactment in 1964. Under the Town Boards Enactment, a township is established if it is gazetted with an attached map of the plan that shows all the land plots with land title numbers.

The map is also known as a deposited plan.

As an aside, the Wikipedia entry for PJ states that it was founded on Effingham Estate. This is a factual error, as Effingham Estate is where Bandar Utama is today located. PJ started in PJ Old Town where Jalan Templer is located.

Deposited plan’s validity

The Local Government Act repealed the Town Boards Enactment. This repeal is repeated in the National Land Code under the Eleventh Schedule. The question then is, is the deposited map of PJ and its gazetting as a town board still valid today?

Section 4(1) of the National Land Code states: Nothing in this Act shall affect the past operation of, or anything done under, any previous land law or, so far as they relate to land, the provisions of any other law passed before the commencement of this Act.

Section 442 of the National Land Code also states: Any areas constituted under the provisions of any previous land law… as a district, sub-district, mukim, town or village shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been constituted as such pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 (of the National Land Code).

Section 11 basically provides a state government the power to declare an administrative area for a local council, similar to the declaration that was done for PJ when the town board was set up.

In essence, the deposited plan, gazetted under a previous law relating to land matters that predates the National Land Code, is still a valid document.


A section of the deposited plan (Click on image for bigger view)

No town without gazette

That aside, the importance of declaring a township via gazette is due to the categorisation of land use that comes with the deposited plan.

The declaration also allows PJ residents’ tax monies to be paid to the PJ City Council or MBPJ, instead of to the federal government which founded the township.This gazette is what allows MBPJ to exist and what gives power to the council to exact public taxes through assessment fees.

It also prevents the city from being developed or redeveloped contrary to the layout in the deposited plan. But PJ’s current development, as I will explain below, flagrantly disregards this gazette.

Structure plans and local plans

One question that might be asked is this: what is the point of preparing structure plans and local plans when there is already a deposited plan for PJ? Simply put, structure and local plans are supposed to guide development in areas that have not been developed. These plans are not meant to disturb an already existing township.


Part of structure plan, recognising old PJ area as “sedia ada”

The Rancangan Struktur Daerah Petaling dan Sebahagian Daerah Klang, or structure plan, prepared in 1996 recognised this. It specifically labelled the old PJ area as “sedia ada”; not to be touched by further development. Additionally, it stipulated that development in surrounding areas that weren’t developed yet at that time should adhere to the zoning provided in the structure plan’s gambarajah utama.

The 2003 PJ Local Plan 1 sought to undo what the structure plan had laid out. This was despite the fact that the Town and Country Planning Act specifically mentions that the preparation of a local plan must adhere to the tenets set out in the structure plan.

Where are the open spaces?

One of the most glaring discrepancies between the deposited plan and the actual development of PJ today is the zoned “open spaces” that have buildings built over them.


Guidelines for the development of public open space

“Open space”, as defined by the Town and Country Planning Act, means “any land whether enclosed or not which is laid out or reserved for laying out wholly or partly as a public garden, park, sports and recreation ground, pleasure ground, walk or as a public space”.

No one should have been able to develop these gazetted green spaces into commercial properties, yet that is the reality today. It should be noted that these same areas were zoned for commercial development under the PJ Local Plan 1. But as I pointed out previously, the said document may well be illegal.

The conclusions I’ve arrived at do not represent the local council’s stand. But it is important nonetheless to have public discourse over such an important matter. favicon


MBPJ councillor KW Mak invites readers who would like to scrutinise the PJ deposited plan to obtain a copy. Section 413 of the National Land Code states that a deposited plan is available to any person upon application to the director of survey and mapping.

Next: Examining the development approval process

See also: 
Understanding town planning 
Disputing PJ’s development 
 
Read previous
Ampersand columns

The Nut Graph needs your support 
Please take our five-minute
reader survey

Post to Twitter Post to Google Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “PJ’s illegal development (Updated 1:05pm)”

  1. Sean says:

    You spotted an error in Wikipedia and didn’t correct it? OMG! That’s like the 21st Century equivalent of walking past a child starving to death on the street with a KFC party pack in your hand that you know you won’t be able to finish. And you told us. That’s … self-harming.

    For penance, please go back to the Wikipedia page and at very least edit it and add ‘[citation needed]‘ after what somebody else must have once considered to be a fact. Just click on the ‘edit this page’ tab, click to the right of ‘Effingham Estate’ and type

    {{fact}}

    In the ‘Edit Summary’ box, you can say that you ‘believe PJ was started in PJ Old Town’ (which sounds circular to me) and add the URL of this article.

    Even better still would be to change the entry to be factually correct, supported by a reliable reference – but {{fact}} should be enough to alert a reader to ‘Effingham Estate’ being unsubstantiated.

    I look forward to reading the rest of your article later. I was upset enough after reading the article on ‘liberalism’ and realising that I must be some kind of fascist. The idea that someone saw an error in Wikipedia and didn’t correct it has rocked me to my core.

  2. KW Mak says:

    @ Sean

    If I were to correct the Wikipedia entry, I couldn’t very well say it was factually wrong in my article, could I?

    :-p

  3. Patrick says:

    Would this be a reason why just about any ‘open space’ or almost any area within Petaling Jaya is being snapped up for commercial development these days? For example, the Tropicana Mall or the adjacent SS Two Mall, a mere kilometre (or less) away?

  4. Sean says:

    “If I were to correct [it], I couldn’t … say it was … wrong”
    I know you – you’re a Malaysian voter!

    I am sitting here twitching in my chair, knowing that there’s something to be edited at Wikipedia. It’s not just Wikipedia – MPPJ has some info which seems coincidental at:

    http://www.mbpj.gov.my/mbpj_background

    “…the Selangor State Government had identified a rubber estate with an area of 1,200 acres in Jalan Klang Lama for creating a new settlement…”

    I wouldn’t know what an acre was if I was suffering from two of them, so Google tells me:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=1200+acres+in+hectares

    486 hectares! That corroborates the ‘factual error’ at Wikipedia. And here’s another page (which refers to a Sun article) that could possibly qualify as a citation for the factual error:

    http://aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/8521d968204e8b454825697400224ca6/b33b31bcd82e018948257192000b450b?OpenDocument

    - it doesn’t currently load for me, but then it is on a website in the gov.my domain, so that’s normal. It also reminds me that I must start the Campaign for Real URLs. Here is the page from Google’s cache:

    http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:zHkKshu1Vi0J:aplikasi.kpkt.gov.my/akhbar.nsf/8521d968204e8b454825697400224ca6/b33b31bcd82e018948257192000b450b%3FOpenDocument

    See? Effingham Estate! Aiyah sun2surf is also just a (badly marked-up, guys) error message at the moment, but Google hasn’t seen the article there, so maybe their online archive doesn’t go back that far.

    I think that’s enough. Somebody is going to think I’m autistic for writing all this in response to ‘factual error’.

  5. Mikazuki says:

    In the end there will be no “open space” left for development in Petaling Jaya. What the hell are we building? A concrete jungle!? Someone should put a stop to all this nonsense.

    Or is it too late already…

  6. KW Mak says:

    @Sean

    Ok. I’m going to have to state that there was a 1952 map given to The Nut Graph showing that PJ was privately owned by a Petaling Estate.

    The Nut Graph chose not to use the map for their own editorial reasons. I suppose, in this instance, you will have to take my word for it against all those other resources available out there or until TNG decides that it is perhaps a good idea to use that map.

    ===

    What map are you talking about, Mak? We updated this column with a section of the deposited plan you wrote about. The plan itself was big, creased, and it was unwieldy to scan on an A4 scanner – it was, quite rightly as you’ve expressed, withheld for editorial reasons. Besides, your point has been made in the piece – can you not explain to Sean otherwise? And as you point out, the deposited map *is* available upon request.

    Shanon Shah
    Columns and Comments Editor

  7. KW Mak says:

    There were 2 maps I gave you guys. One was the big map, which was reproduced here partially. The other is a smaller map dated 1952 that was scanned in by Nick at the same time as the big map was scanned in.

  8. Sean says:

    [...] In the absence of any decent public access to this kind of info, I’m very grateful that TNG and KW Mak continue to bring these issues to our attention. I’ve added refs (including this page) to the PJ Wikipedia article. Perhaps a more knowledgeable editor than me will do something with them.


Most Read (Past 3 Months)

Most Comments (Past 3 Months)

  • None found

Advertisement


<

Advertisement


  • The Nut Graph

 

Switch to our mobile site