You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2015.
Updated: Monday March 30, 2015 MYT 7:25:53 AM
Keeping nature at bay: Slope-strengthening works being carried out at a construction site in Bukit Gasing. — filepic
BUKIT GASING residents are questioning several proposed housing projects in the area from a safety point as well as issues such as access and sewerage links to the main channels.
One of the main reasons for the worry is that huge landslides had occurred in the area over the past few years.
It is also learned that the Petaling Jaya City Council’s (MBPJ) One-Stop Centre Committee had rejected one or two of the projects due to not conforming to the law and planning requirements.
Aside from the steep slopes involved in the proposed developments, former city councillor Derek Fernandez agreed that they were in an area of Bukit Gasing which had already seen landslides.
“Despite the building approvals and professionals involved, some of the landslides have already cost the ratepayer millions of ringgit to repair, and millions more required for slope protection measures,” Fernandez stated.
Safety was also on the mind of Gasing Indah Residents Association chairman Alfred Chuah.
“When we look at the slope, we are not entirely convinced it will be safe despite technical assurances, as some the slopes are very steep and landslides have already occurred in the area,” said Chuah.
Section 5 Residents Association chairman Mohamed Rafiq Fazal Din recalled at least four, one in the Bukit Gasing Sivan temple, two on the hill’s hiking trail, and a minor case recently in the new council carpark.
For residents living in Gasing Indah, the issue of access is also an issue, as Chuah said that currently Jalan 5/69 and other residential roads in the housing area were used as access for nearby condominiums.
The same road would have been further used as another entry by one of the proposed projects as Jalan 5/69 was not meant to serve an additional 19 houses that were not originally planned for, added Fernandez.
The issue of land title validity was also raised by Fernandez, who recalled a meeting in the mid-90s where he and other Bukit Gasing residents had objected to a different developer’s proposal for the same land.
“At the public hearing chaired by then-municipal council president Datuk Mohd Nor Bador, resident leader Syed Jalal Abdullah had stated they were improperly issued, and the proposal was not approved,” he said.
The briefing for the three proposed developments, and the presentation for a geotechnical study on Bukit Gasing, was originally set for March 24, but pushed to tomorrow.
“We were not told of the meeting until a resident, a former councillor, informed us at the last minute,” said Chuah.
http://mediarakyat.net/2015/03/29/12353/
March 29, 2015
When I was a councillor , I remember the OSC previously rejected these projects mainly as they at that time did not comply with the law and planning requirements. Apart from the steep slopes involved, these projects are in an area of Bukit Gasing with huge landslides. Some despite building approvals and professionals involved which has already cost the ratepayer millions of Ringgit to repair with millions more required for slope protection measures.
In one of the projects the proposed use of Jalan 5/69 as access to this proposed development is unacceptable as the road was not meant to serve an additional 19 units that were never in the original layout plan for the area. Worse still the poor residents have been burdened by Cameron Tower using these small internal roads as an access when this was supposed only to be a temporary measure with the correct access coming through Fraser tower.
Furthermore any gated development involving the development of more than one lot must provide public amenities outside the development but none has been proposed to be provided.
We also previously were of the view that the area is a high risk hillside area with schools and houses below and that the risk is unacceptable with no long term proposal for maintenance of slope infrastructure being proposed. The risk of floods and surface run off is high.
Next there is an issue as to the validity of the titles to the land as issued previously under the old administration. Many years ago around 1994 to 1995, PJ residents had objected to another development on the same land by a different developer on the grounds the titles were unlawfully issued. At the public hearing chaired by the then YDP of MPPJ Datuk Mat Noor Badoor, a resident leader Tuan Syed Jalal Abdullah had stated the titles were improperly issued and the meeting after being shown why, said they will not approve the project. That was a long time ago and I expect that the residents now will also raise similar issues if its the same land.
In my opinion, PJ residents are sick and tired of their small internal roads being used as access for someone else project when that project was never part of the earlier approved layout for the area. This is happening all over PJ to cater for other peoples profits at the expense of existing residents and their families. I trust the Government will study all these matters properly before arriving at any decision as this involves serious matters of public safety and residents peace of mind, and enjoyment of their property.
BY MAYURI MEI LIN
PETALING JAYA, March 15 — A Bukit Gasing property developer insists that it is entirely within their rights to claim damages from a group of residents who sought a judicial review over a residential development.
Gasing Meridian Sdn Bhd (GMSB) said that it was the judiciary’s decision to award them damages and that as respondents in the lawsuit, they were merely following the letter of the law.
“The courts found that we were entitled to damages. The judicial system is in place for order and justice. It is for the residents to take this matter before the court if they claim that the courts’ decision serves otherwise,” GMSB marketing director Leo Tan told Malay Mail Online in an interview earlier this month.
“Our representative stood up in court, in open court, and said, ‘We reserve the right to damages.’ And they didn’t object to that. So okay, if you don’t object, then we proceed along those lines,” he said, referring to the 103 Bukit Gasing residents who initiated the lawsuit.
Residents in the area have condemned the decision to award the developer damages, saying that this will stifle their freedom of speech and discourage others from having their opinions heard through public forums.
Civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan and Bukit Gasing assemblyman Rajiv Rishyakaran echoed the same sentiment that the residents should not be financially penalised.
The Bukit Gasing residents’ challenge against the developer dates back to 2008, when the group filed for a judicial review to compel the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) to hold a public hearing over its decision to grant a development order to Gasing Meridian for a hillside project in 2007.
They claimed DBKL did not provide adequate notice of the development or hold the required public hearings before it granted the order.
The application was rejected by the High Court and was appealed all the way to the Federal Court in 2013, where it was also ultimately dismissed.
The apex court added a twist to the case when the judges deemed it fit to award RM10,000 in costs to both DBKL and Gasing Meridian as well as undetermined damages to the latter, which it sent back for the High Court to decide.
Following another round of appeals against the order for damages, the matter is now back before the Federal Court once more.
Tan said he was unsure about the amount GMSB will claim from the group of residents as that was a decision for the judges.
“I don’t know, it’s for the courts to decide. We have submitted figures to do with our costs, various other items,” he said.
Tan also defended GSMB’s joining the case as a second respondent citing their right to defend themselves, as they were commercially invested in the case.
“What I understand of the case is when the residents took up the case against DBKL, they asked DBKL to stop proceedings on only one project – our project.
“So essentially, it’s almost akin to having an injunction on us as an individual entity. So we had to intervene. As our legal advisor said, ‘It’s about you and if you don’t intervene then you lose all right to say anything,’” Tan said.
GMSB is the developer behind Sanctuary Ridge, a property development in Bukit Gasing with 70 luxury bungalow lots for sale with prices starting in the millions….
According to civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan, the developer’s claim will set a precedent that will make it onerous for private individuals who turn to the courts after exhausting other official avenues to challenge public decisions. ― File pic
BY MAYURI MEI LINLIN
KUALA LUMPUR, March 13 — A developer is pursuing a group of Bukit Gasing residents over a judicial review they sought over its project, claiming damages in an extraordinary move observers fear will intimidate private citizens from objecting against government agencies.
Although Gasing Meridian Sdn Bhd is now free to conduct its development after defeating the judicial review filed against it and the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL), it is adamant on claiming damages from the 103 residents who sought to block the hillside project in their neighbourhood here.
According to civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan, the developer’s claim will set a precedent that will make it onerous for private individuals who turn to the courts after exhausting other official avenues to challenge public decisions.
“I am personally very concerned if the developer is allowed to claim damages against the residents from the judicial review application.
“This is a matter within the realm of public interest and the fear is that if the developer succeeds in its application this would discourage concerned citizens from seeking redress with the courts in the future,” he told Malay Mail Online.
The Bukit Gasing residents’ challenge against the developer dates back to 2008, when the group filed for a judicial review to compel DBKL to hold a public hearing over its decision to grant a development order to Gasing Meridian for a hillside project in 2007.
They claimed DBKL did not provide adequate notice of the development or hold a public hearing before it granted the order.
The application was rejected by the High Court and was appealed all the way to the Federal Court in 2013, where it was also ultimately dismissed.
The apex court added a twist to the case when the judges deemed fit to award RM10,000 in costs to both DBKL and Gasing Meridian as well as undetermined damages to the latter, which it sent back for the High Court to decide.
Following another round of appeals against the order for damages, the matter is now back before the Federal Court once more.
“Public hearing is an avenue for the public to actually have their concerns aired and for responses to be made to those concerns,” Bukit Gasing resident Ashok Menon told Malay Mail Online.
“By saying that you can end up having to pay damages for that, that’s like muscling up everyone. That’s what happens in a dictatorship,” Ashok said, adding that it was unclear why the developer was awarded damages.
Bukit Gasing assemblyman Rajiv Rishyakaran echoed both men’s concerns, adding that the dispute had been between the residents and DBKL, rather than business-related.
“I feel it’s not right. Just because a group of residents file a judicial review, a third party such as the developer should not be taking legal action to financially penalise the residents, who were bringing up a matter of public interest, and not commercial in nature.”
Not all are against the Federal Court’s decision to allow Gasing Meridian a claim to damages from the residents. Property lawyer Chris Tan explained that such a move would help to prevent the public from pursuing frivolous action against corporations.
He also disagreed that the particular case would set a precedent that would make it burdensome for private individuals with valid complaints to seek legal action against government entities.
“The precedent is not set to aim at the parties asking for public hearing for them to pay for damages, but to prevent the public from being against others without proper grounds, and facts of the case vary from each other,” he explained.
“Any successful party is entitled to damages… provided they can prove the same to the presiding judge. Therefore it is fair in that sense,” Tan said.
The Federal Court was initially scheduled to hear the residents’ appeal against the order for damages, but the case has since been postponed to June 29.
Save Bukit Gasing 
Feedback…