• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • RSS
  • Archives
  • Subscribe
The Nut Graph

The Nut Graph

Making Sense of Politics & Pop Culture

  • Projects
    • MP Watch
    • Found in Conversation
  • Current Issues
    • 6 Words
    • Commentary
    • Features
    • Found in Quotation
    • News
  • Columns
  • Interviews
    • Exclusives
    • Found in Malaysia
  • Multimedia
    • Audio
    • Pictures
    • Videos
  • Corrections
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Vault
    • Found in Translation

Development rules ignored

Ampersand by KW Mak

November 4, 2013

IT has been close to two months since I wrote about the Sri Aman project proposed to be built on land once gazetted as open space. Thus far, the developer has issued no statement to rebut my findings. Nor have their lawyers followed up on threats to demolish some of the residents’ backyards which have allegedly encroached into the developer’s land.

At the same time, the area is fenced up and there is no signboard announcing that the place will be developed into a housing area — a requirement if development is to proceed.

What else has been happening over the issue? And how is all of that problematic from a local council and urban planning point of view?

Incomplete applications

Silence
Silence from both the Selangor government and MBPJ, despite a written reply being mandatory (logos from Wikipedia.org)

Residents in the area have written letters to both the Selangor government and the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) demanding answers over the issue. According to the rules, it’s mandatory for all letters to receive a written reply. And yet, these residents have not been able to get answers from either the state government or the MBPJ. Additionally, there is no reason why the government cannot respond to the residents’ queries if development rules were complied with.

What are these development rules? The Town and Country Planning Act states that the main document to be included in the application of a planning permission is a development proposal report. This development proposal report includes numerous technical reports such as land ownership documents, geotechnical reports, a survey of all plants and trees in the area, and a land use analysis on how the development will affect neighbouring lands.

In fact, the Federal Town and Country Planning Department produced an entire manual that details all the submissions required in a development proposal report. The purpose of these submissions is also explained.

Here’s an excerpt from the Manual Laporan Cadangan Pemajuan on the purpose of the development proposal report:

“Memastikan setiap permohonan kebenaran merancang mengambil kira aspek-aspek fizikal, sosioekonomi, trafik, alam sekitar dan dasar-dasar yang berkaitan dengan perancangan dan pembangunan.”

Cover for
Cover of Manual Laporan Cadangan Pemajuan

In other words, the development proposal report is meant to ensure that every planning permission application takes into account all relevant planning and development aspects.

Yet MBPJ has consistently demonstrated that these development proposal reports are never submitted in full with the planning permission application. In the 2011 objection hearing involving a plot of land next to Phileo Damansara II, Section 16, Petaling Jaya, council officers told residents the developer did not have to submit all the required documents beforehand.

And again, in the recent public objection hearing for University Malaya’s application to redevelop 30 of their residential houses in Section 12, Petaling Jaya into a Health Metropolis, MBPJ councillor Lee Suet Sen said: “There is no proper traffic impact study…”

How can the council call for an objection hearing and yet admit publicly to not having all the documents and reports? An objection hearing can only be done after the application has been accepted and processed by the local council.

Both BN and PR

Despite the existence of rules that the submission of documentation is required before an application is processed, most ratepayers will simply accept the answers of government officers and councillors without further questioning. That is to be expected because for the most part, many would find it challenging to read up on the technical details and government rules that are supposed to be implemented.

At the same time, politicians or government officers are unlikely to encourage citizens to question further.

What does all of this do? It allows developments to go ahead. And if they don’t because there is enough noise from residents, the developer is able to reapply to develop a piece of land at a much later date. For example, attempts to develop the Taman Aman and Section 16 plots of land were first done in 1993 and 1996 respectively. Even back then, there was no resolution to their respective cases.

Is Pakatan Rakyat actually bringing change?
Two political coallitions, one outcome

What else is important to note about these cases? They all happened under both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat governments. The Nut Graph


KW Mak is a Petaling Jaya ratepayer. He is opposed to the University Malaya Health Metropolis because MBPJ failed to follow the rules, which if followed would have invalidated the proposal even before the hearing to gather residents’ feedback.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Related Stories

Filed Under: Columns Tagged With: Ampersand, KW Mak, Sri Aman, Town and Country Planning Act

Primary Sidebar

Search

Twitter

My Tweets

Recent Comments

  • Wave33 on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Adam on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • PSTan on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • PSTan on The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Andre Lai on The Nut Graph stops publication

Recent News

  • The Nut Graph stops publication
  • Nasihat tentang sepupu yang mengganggu perasaan
  • Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: The Sunni-Shia split and the answer to Muslim unity
  • Why Malaysia needs the national unity bills
  • Challenging government in the digital age: Lessons from Kidex
  • Najib’s failure
  • Babi, anjing, pondan: Jijik orang Islam Malaysia
  • Kidex and the law – What the government’s not telling you
  • Beyond Dyana Sofya
  • Uncommon Sense with Wong Chin Huat: Does Malaysia need hate speech laws?

Tags

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Anwar Ibrahim Barisan Nasional BN Bukit Selambau by-election dap Deborah Loh Ding Jo-Ann Election Commission elections Found in Malaysia Found in Quotation Gan Pei Ling government high court Hishammuddin Hussein ISA islam Jacqueline Ann Surin Khairy Jamaluddin KW Mak Lim Guan Eng Malaysia MCA Menteri Besar MP Watch Muhyiddin Yassin muslim Najib Razak Pakatan Rakyat Parliament Parti Keadilan Rakyat pas Penang Perak PKR police politics prime minister Selangor Shanon Shah Umno Wong Chin Huat Zedeck Siew

Footer

  • About The Nut Graph
  • Who Are We?
  • Our Contributors
  • Past Contributors
  • Guest Contributors
  • Editorial Policy
  • Comments & Columns
  • Copyright Policy
  • Web Accessibility Policy
  • Privacy Policy
The Nut Graph

© 2023 The Nut Graph