RTPJ1 HearingTown Hall Meeting

When MBPJ wanted to amend RTPJ1 in 2006, they held a town hall meeting at Peringkat 2.The briefing was organised as part of the requirements of Section 12A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, whereby consultation with residents is required before any changes could be carried out.

That town hall meeting should have been done at Peringkat 2.

For this exercise, there was no town hall meeting. We have gone straight into Perinkat 3.

Missing Step?

According to the timeline, MBPJ should have a period of six months after early publicity was done for the reports to be finalised before it is presented at the MBPJ full board for approval.The MBPJ fullboard approved the present RTPJ1 and RTPJ2 amendments in Feb 2014, just ONE MONTH after the early publicity ended on 30 Jan 2014.

MBPJ must explain how this RTPJ amendment exercise is still valid.

MBPJ must explain what happened to the town hall meeting.

MBPJ must explain why it is in such a hurry to get these amendments through.

RTPJ1 HearingLimited Commercial Status

Limited Commercial Status There is no limited commercial status under the National Land Code.

MBPJ has abused the limited commercial status by allowing bungalows to be redeveloped into three or four storey houses and then allowed businesses to operate from the houses.

RTPJ1 abuse of the limited commercial status allowed buildings like Beemer to come up.

Limited Commercial StatusSection 12 Residents Association has provided feedback that the Limited Commercial classification no longer be allowed and should be removed from RTPJ1.

They have also specifically requested that Policy FZ20 C4 and FZ20 C5 of the Selangor Structure Plan be followed.

Limited Commercial StatusSpecifically, Section 12 RA is pointing out that Lot 2 and Lot PT4 has been suggested to be rezoned to limited commercial (institution) status. This should be disallowed to prevent abuse.

RTPJ1 HearingOne-Way Loop

Timeline2012, 12 Sept - 18 Oct: Interim Report on OWL

2013, 21 Jan - 10 Feb: Exhibition (not well publicised)

2013, 21 Nov: OWL Final Draft

2014, 25 June: Contract Awarded

Timeline2014, 12 Oct: Phase 1 Trial

2014, 9 Dec:Public Consultation @ Civic CentreMajor Protest Reported in Media

2015, 28 Feb:OWL Phase 2 starts

2015, 9 Mar:Safety Audit Completed by A. Sani, same consultant for OWL - Not independent audit

Timeline

2015, 18 Mar:Application for info on OWL under FOIE

2015, 23 Apr:Partial information granted by MBPJ

Timeline

One-Way Loop proposal in RTPJ1 page 4-22

The project still needs Planning Permission, a Layout Plan and a Traffic Impact Assessment report. OWL project has none of these items prepared.

Legality of OWL

Legality of OWLWe were told that the only plan for the project was the A4 coloured drawing and that the engineers are still designing the project.

How can the project still be designed when the project has been awarded to a contractor and has a budget of RM23.8 mil?

Legality of OWLInterim OWL report prepared in 2012 is not a TIA report. The following required information is missing:

- Examination of historical data (including traffic accidents).

- Demographics of area (including socio-economic information)

- Layout Plans for both OWL and developments in the surrounding area

- Survey of pedestrian flows at critical locations. (no studies on pedestrian needs, just one paragraph that it needs to be planned)

- Land Use study for surrounding areas (residential areas and existing businesses not included in study)

Legality of OWL

OWL was designed with consideration for committed development projects with plot ratio of 1:6.

How can the OWL be designed for projects that are confirmed at plot ratio 1:6 in 2012 (when this report was done) when RTPJ1 only allowed a plot ratio of 1:4?

OWL project budgeted at RM23.8 mil.The project as implemented presently is different from the drawings.How was the budget prepared without a layout?What is the inventory of works that MBPJ is paying for with this budget?

The project has no mitigation plans for pedestrians.Pedestrians who are blind cannot use the walkway.Does this look like a project worth RM23.8 mil?

thank youMak Khuin Weng