Residents say a 39-storey building will stick out like a sore thumb amidst the low-rise properties nearby. — Photos: ART CHEN/The Star
THERE is a legal avenue for the public to object to a development proposal in their vicinity, known as Rule 5, but just how many people are aware of its scope or its limitations? Taman Sri Segambut makes a good study case for this Rule 5.
Some 40 years ago, town planners reserved a piece of land in Taman Sri Segambut for a police station, post office, cinema, food court, market and parking lots to complete the upcoming township.
Today, Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has given development order for a 39-storey apartment block with 540 units to be built on that parcel of land between Jalan Udang Kapas, Jalan Udang Siar and Jalan Udang Siar 2.
Residents were shocked to find a signboard up early this year, despite objecting to the plan when consulted by DBKL last year.
Rule 5 is a provision of law that requires the mayor to refer to the registered owners of the adjacent land, through advertisements in newspapers and exhibition to invite objections to the application for development that involves the conversion of land use, zoning or increase in residential density. It is part of the Planning Development Amendment Rules 1994, a bylaw under the Federal Territory Planning Act 1982.
It seems there is confusion even within the local government as DBKL had put up advertisements in the newspapers and notice at the site last year inviting objection, in accordance to Rule 5.
The residents also received a letter last month stating that their objections were taken into consideration and the authority then proceeded to justify the approval of the development order.
The letter stated that traffic impact assessment (TIA) report showed that the current infrastructure could accommodate the new development with minimum impact to the surrounding, albeit with some upgrading required.
The developer was also asked to meet the surrounding residents to explain the development.
An affected resident, who is a building contractor by profession, measured the distance between one of the proposed development lots and the nearest house and found it to be 19.2m.
Another resident, Pak Yang Sang disagreed with the TIA report and feared that the two lanes roads would be choked.
“The roads are already congested during peak times and with another 540 houses and more than 1,000 vehicles expected, it will only get worse.
“The spillover of vehicles from the apartments is going choke up the roads.
“There is no room to expand the roads either,” he said, adding that the 39-storey building would also stick out like a sore thumb as it was surrounded by low-rise landed properties.
Mahendran Dharmaratna said about 215 residents submitted their objections against the proposed apartment project within the stipulated 30-day reply period and have been waiting for a hearing that never took place.
“We also sent a reminder about the hearing in March but learnt that development order was given on March 7,” he said.
There were eight lots in question, which were lot 33757, 33758, 33759, 33760, 33761, 33762, 33763 including one lot gazetted as open space- 56186.
Harikrishnan Kanapathy said the residents felt shortchanged as they were drawn to purchase the properties in the area because of the facilities that were slated to be built in the future.
“The land was underutilised the whole time. The morning market in Jalan Udang Siar 2 now was originally located on that land but was relocated to the roadside some 30 years ago. Part of the land was then used by a businessman as private storage for many years.
“We assumed the plans were delayed to wait for the township to be fully occupied but even after increased density, nothing materialised,” he said.
V. Ravindran, who lives directly opposite the proposed development site, fears for the safety of his family and property.
“My house was badly damaged when my immediate neighbour did extensive renovation to his house.
“These are old houses, so I fear the effect of having such a tall building built so close to my house.
“There will also be many lorries moving in and out of the site, this will cause noise pollution and disruption of peace in the neighbourhood,” he said.
K. Samy said DBKL should honour the promise to develop the land for public use.
“If DBKL cannot build on the land according to the original purpose it was reserved for, they can propose complexes like a Urban Transformation Centre instead.
“This apartment is a private project and has no benefit to the surrounding residents.
“The proposed apartment block has a police base, post office, clinic, grocery shop, food court with 14 stalls and a green area with a basketball court, and children’s playground.
“There is also a clause that states if the police base and post office was not suitable, the space could be used for DBKL branch office.
“The proposal seems vague and insincere. I am not sure how they are going to make these facilities public when these are in an apartment compound,” he said.
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur land executive committee had also put up a notice in July near the gazetted open space Lot 56186 to call for objection and hearing on the revocation of the gazette on July 18.
Some residents representative who turned up were only asked to submit their objection letter.
Planning and local government law expert Derek Fernandez said there were two processes involved – the change of zoning by DBKL and removal of government gazetted land.
“Both require separate hearing.
“Since DBKL does not have a local plan, they are using Rule 5 to say that they are having an application to convert the land use and only neighbouring landowners are allowed to object.
“In the event that a neighbouring landowner was within the definition of Rule 5, the resident should not only be entitled to object but be given a fair hearing and be notified in writing of any decision made.
“If this is not done, the decision is void and can be set aside by judicial review.
“The continued use of limiting the right of persons to object to neighbouring landowners only, can no longer be allowed to continue because DBKL does not have a local plan which they should have had already passed years ago,” said Fernandez.
He further explained that if DBKL had a local plan, any person could object against a proposed development if it was an attempt to amend the local plan.
“The use of the 20m rule under Rule 5 was only meant to be interim pending the approval of the local plan.
“The delay of the local plan has a practical effect of denying residents who lives beyond 20m the right to object.
“A space is not only used by the immediate neighbour,” he emphasised.
