Vol 2 Page 1

Volume 2, Issue 2 [SABLR/2/2/2012, February 2012]

Published By State Of Selangor Selangor Town And Country Planning Department and Selangor Appeal Board

February 2012

C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. V. MPAJ,

Pn. Kang Lih Yuan V. MPK

[Section 36, Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (Act 172)]

HIGHLIGHTS

C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. V. MPAJ,

Pn. Kang Lih Yuan V. MPK


Published By State Of SelangorSelangor Town And Country Planning Department and Selangor Appeal Board

SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS

ChairmanY.Bhg. Dato’ Abu Bakar b. Awang (BCK, SMP, SDK, DSDK)

Deputy ChairmanY.Bhg. Tuan Hj. Nordin b. Sulaiman

EditorialY.Bhg. Dato’ Abu Bakar b. Awang

©All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without the prior written of Appeal Board of Selangor

Published by:

MEMBERS OF SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD

Members

Y.Bhg. Dato’ Hj. Azmeer b. RashidY.Bhg. Dato’ Hj. Abd. Mutallib b. JelaniY.Bhg. Datin Teh Zawahir bt. Abdul MalekY.Bhg. Tuan Ho Khong MingY.Bhg. Prof. Ezrin ArbiY.Bhg. Puan Hjh. Norasiah bt. YahyaY.Bhg. Tuan. T. Mahesan

RegistrarEn. Saifuddin b. Marsuk

Secretariats

ISBN 123456-789-000Printed 2012

En. Mohd Asri b. Hj. NorEn. Yuen Kai TuckPn. Azlina bt. AsiarEn. Nooryady b. Mohd. Panut

Selangor Town & Country Planning Department and Selangor Appeal Board

Y.Bhg. Tuan Hj. Nordin b. Sulaiman


AWARDS REPORTED

FILE NO PARTIESLR.SEL (90)/MPAJ/12/2008LR SEL. (188) MPK/04/2010

C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. V. MPAJPn. Kang Lih Yuan V. MPK

DALAM LEMBAGA RAYUAN SELANGOR

RAYUAN NO : LR.SEL (90)MPAJ/12/2008

DI ANTARA

C.K. PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. PERAYU

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN AMPANG JAYA RESPONDEN

PANTAI BARAT RESOURCES SDN. BHD. PENCELAH

DAN

AHLI LEMBAGA RAYUAN

Dato’ Abu Bakar Bin Awang - Pengerusi Puan Hjh Norasiah Bte Yahya - Ahli Tuan Ho Khong Ming - Ahli

PendaftarEn. Saifuddin B. Marsuk

BANTAHAN TERHADAP PERMOHOHAN KEBENARAN MERANCANG BAGI MEMBINA 1 BLOK BANGUNAN TEMPAT LETAK KERETA BERTINGKAT YANG MENGANDUNGI 21 UNIT KIOSK DI TINGKAT BAWAH, TEMPAT LETAK KERETA DI TINGKAT 1-4 DAN PUSAT HIBURAN / RIADAH DI TINGKAT BUMBUNG DI JALAN MEMANDA 2, MUKIM AMPANG, DAERAH HULU LANGAT, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN.

ALASAN KEPUTUSAN

Dato’ Abu Bakar bin Awang , Pengerusi Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor

1.0 FACTS OF THE CASE

The development consists of a multi-storey building with the following components:

TINGKAT KEGUNAAN UNIT

Bawah Kiosk 21

1-4 TempatLetakKereta 646

5 Pusat Hiburan / Riadah 1

Bumbung Pusat Hiburan / Riadah 1

The development is located in Taman Dato’ Ahmad Razali, Mukim Ampang, Daerah Hulu Langat. It involves 3 plots of land, two plots being currently used as open-air car parks and the third being the service road between the car parks, with a total area of 0.4739 hectare or 1.1711 acres. The 3 plots may be regarded as a single parcel of land. The parcel is surrounded by existing shops. The development has been referred to by the Pencelah as Ampang Walk and by the Perayu as Ampang Point. For the purpose of this appeal it shall be referred to as Ampang Walk.

The project was approved in principle by the State Authority to Pantai Barat Resources Sdn. Bhd. (Pencelah) on 17.12.2003 for a 30-year concession. For this purpose the land was alienated to Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya, the Respondent, on 12.10.2005 with the condition of car park and commercial use, in order for the Respondent to enter into joint-venture with Pantai Barat Resources Sdn. Bhd.

On 27.4.2005 planning permission was granted by the Respondent, as the local planning authority, to Pantai Barat Resources Sdn. Bhd.(Pencelah), with conditions, one of which required an amendment to the plan, reducing the height of the proposed development to that of surrounding shops, that is, to 5 storeys. On 22.9.2005 an appeal from a En. Sirhan bin Md. Abdul Wahab was filed with the Lembaga. On 16.10.2005 the Lembaga dismissed the appeal, with liberty, as premature as amongst other factor the original planning permission had expired and pending extension or renewal and as the Pencelah was still in the process of amending his plan and the Respondent had not approved an amended plan.

A second planning permission was granted to the Pencelah on 31.12.2007, with further conditions including a redistribution of the parking space within the proposed building between car parks and motor-cycle parks.

Volume 2, Issue 2 [SABLR/2/2/2012, February]

6

From the reading of the dates of the various events, the Lembaga must remark that there appears to have been haste in approving the development. The first planning permission was granted before the land was granted to the Respondent, and therefore the planning permission would have been granted without the consent of a proper land owner. However, there also seems to be lack of collaboration between the joint-venture partners. The Respondent stipulated conditions on the planning approval, conditions which one would expect to have been sorted out between joint-venture partners before the submission of the application.

2.0 THE APPEAL

An appeal against the planning permission was filed with the Lembaga on 28.5.2008 by C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. The appeal is an amalgamation into a single appeal of objections filed with the Respondent by the following parties:

1. Gulati’s Silk House2. Mahendran&Aravind3. Nadin Holdings Sdn. Bhd.4. Bintang Retail Industries Sdn. Bhd.5. Mahir MawarSdn. Bhd. (Klinik Mediviron)6. Pelita SamuderaPertama (M) Sdn. Bhd.7. Hotel Palm Inn8. Davies & Davies London Sdn. Bhd.9. Sirhan bin AbdWahab10. Syarikat Oriental Decorators Sdn. Bhd.11. C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd.12. Bumi Gajah Holdings Sdn. Bhd.13. Gulatis Exclusive Sdn. Bhd.14. Drive Auto Supply Sdn. Bhd.15. City Music (M) Sdn. Bhd.16. Klinik Medi’zen17. Signatory Assets Enterprise Sdn. Bhd.18. Ram’s Realty Sdn. Bhd.19. DeGemBerhad

The above are tenants and owners of the shop houses surrounding the proposed development.In the meantime the C(1) has lapsed. Extension has not been applied for or has been granted.


7

2.1 GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL

The Appellant has raised 8 objections in his original submission, namely:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

3.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE LEMBAGA

The Lembaga identifies 3 sets of issues, namely:(1) C(1) has lapsed(2) Conflict of Interest(3) Merits of the Proposed Development

Land UseThat the commercial use applied for is not in compliance with the permissible land use, which is “car park”.

Improper Renewal of Planning PermissionThat the present renewal of planning permission is improper as the original approval has lapsed.

Loss of Land ValueThat the development will entail a drastic loss of land value to the properties around the site.

Damage to Business Image That the development will cause damage to the business image of surrounding shops and commercial premises.

Problems of CleanlinessThat the proposed stalls within the development will cause problems of cleanliness to the area.

CongestionThat the development will increase traffic and loading and unloading congestion as the roads in the area are already narrow.

Development does not solve Parking ProblemThat the development does not solve the parking problem at Ampang Point as there will be a loss of the present open-air car parks.

Development not in compliance with Land Title That the development is not in compliance with the present land title of the site.


8

In his oral submission the Perayu has revised and reorganised his grounds of appeal and the main grounds presently coincide with the issues identified by the Lembaga.

3.1 C(1) HAS LAPSEDOn this issue the Perayu had obtained leave from the Lembaga to apply to the High Court for a judicial review. The contention of the Perayu is that as C(1) has lapsed and its validity not extended within the stipulated time, there is no valid planning permission, and there being no planning permission there is no appeal before the Lembaga and that the notice of appeal be struck of. In other words if there is no valid planning permission, there is no subject matter of this appeal. That decision will end the hearing but it will not end the matter. There is nothing to preclude the Respondent, subsequent to a dismissal by the Lembaga on such a technical ground, from renewing the planning permission or the Pencelah from reapplying for the same development. This will start another round of objections and appeals. The Sword of Democles still hangs over the Perayu. The contention of the Perayu, if allowed, will only serve to postpone the day of reckoning and prolong the agony of the Perayu and his compatriots.

On 7th April 2011, the Perayu wrote to inform the Lembaga that, as the High Court has not heard his motion after several postponements due to the illness of the judge for the case, he was withdrawing his application to the High Court, with liberty, to allow the Lembaga to continue with the hearing of the appeal on the other 2 grounds of appeal.

The Lembaga reconvened on 3rd August 2011.

On the lapse of the planning permission, the position of the Respondent is that he will await the decision of the Lembaga before he decides on an extension or renewal. This creates a vicious circle and an impasse. It also suggests to the Lembaga that the Respondent may have second thoughts about the wisdom of the planning permission and that he looks to the Lembaga for guidance. The decision of the Lembaga is to proceed with the hearing.

3.2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

This is an issue not originally raised by Perayu but which he now adopts as a ground of his appeal. This is the issue, not of the currency of the planning permission as in the previous issue, but of its very legitimacy.There is an onus on the Lembaga to consider this issue of legitimacy, even if Perayu, by his original silence, did not dispute the legitimacy of the planning permission granted by the Respondent.


9

The Respondent is the title holder to the land involved in the proposed development. Whether as joint-venture partner of the development, or simply as owner of the land, the Respondent is a beneficiary of the development and, therefore, of the planning permission.The Respondent is also the approving authority and is in a position to grant planning permission. As the Respondent is both joint-applicant and approving authority, there is an inherent conflict of interest and bias. His role as approving authority is surely compromised by his obviously tendentious position as joint-venture partner of the application.

The Respondent may plead that he is under instruction from the State Government to take up the joint-venture. If so, he has failed to advise the State Government that he would be placed on a trajectory of conflict. There are, after all, many other State agencies available to act on behalf of the State, including agencies specifically designed to carry out economic projects for the State.

On the issue of conflict of interest, the Lembaga is of the opinion that it has sufficient grounds to quash the planning permission, or, as the planning permission has lapsed, to proscribe a renewal of the planning permission, or to prohibit the granting of a planning permission to a reapplication of the same development by the same joint-partnership.

However, the Lembaga is aware that there is provision in law for a possible circumvention of this issue. The Lembaga refers to the following provisions:

Pt. IV S. 19. (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976:

S.19. (1)

and

Pt. XII S. 101 (gg) of the Local Government Act 1976:

S.101

No person, other than a local authority, shall commence, undertake, or carry out any development unless planning permission in respect of the development has been granted to him under section 22 or extended under subsection 24(3).

In addition to any other powers conferred upon it by this Act or by any other written law a local authority shall have power to do all or any of the following things, namely –

(gg) to carry out any development, either by itself or with any other local authority or person, for residential, commercial, industrial or any other undertaking which the local authority may determine;


10

S.19(1) above would support a contention that a development emanating from a local authority itself does not require a planning permission or C1. Reading the two provisions together would lead to the conclusion that the Respondent, as a local authority, has powers to enter into joint-venture for a development with any person and a development under such a joint-venture does not require planning permission. The C(1) may be illegitimate, but C(1) is not a requirement. The C(1) may have lapsed, but C(1) is not a requirement.

There is of course an implied intent of Part XII S. 101 of the Local Goverment Act that such projects are for public, social or socio-political purposes, such as enhancing an area, improving a service, or promoting the economic participation of a specific social group under national policy, and not just for the financial benefit of the local authority. However, as the ostensible purpose of the development under consideration is to increase the car parking capacity of the area the project has, prima facie, plausible legitimacy. Whether the project will in fact improve the parking situation is a matter of subsequent examination.

However, as the Respondent has not applied his powers to commence development without a C(1) he cannot now revert to it. He has also not raised the issue of his powers under S. 19(1) in his defence.

There is of course nothing to prevent the Respondent, subsequent to a decision of the Lembaga to quash the planning permission on such a technical ground, to divest himself of his interest in the proposed development to another state agency or another party and revive the project. This will only lead to another round of objections and another round of appeals. The Sword of Democles will still hang over the Perayu and over his compatriots. The Lembaga will very much prefer a means to arrive at an unequivocal judgement that will pre-empt a reprise, whether of the development or of appeals.

In passing, the Lembaga notes that the fact that the Respondent has submitted the proposed development to the process of obtaining a C(1) as well as submitted it to the objections of adjoining land owners and tenants of adjoining premises, while supererogatory, or rather because it is supererogatory, is a very laudable act of promoting good governance on the part of the Respondent. This adherence to a democratic process of arriving at a planning decision bodes well for the community of Ampang Jaya.

3.3 MERITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

A Local Authority is expected to exercise rectitude and discretion in selecting its projects and not engaged in a project that compromises its tutelary responsibility towards the citizens under its jurisdiction or of any particular section within that jurisdiction (such as the business community at Ampang Walk.) A project may have a superficial benefit but its possible destructive effects must also be critically examined. The Respondent does not


11

appear to have exercised sufficient critical evaluation of the project. It is irresponsible to be carried away just by a superficial benefit.

The open-air car park that the Respondent proposes to cover with a structure is not a piece of vacant land awaiting development or even just a parking space – it is a civic space that integrates the shops around it and that gives shoppers arriving there and, indeed, all townspeople of Ampang Jaya, a sense of place and an identity of the particular area. It is a civic space in the manner that a “village green” or “padang” or “medan” or “maidan” or “town square” or “plaza” or “piazza” (before the meanings of these terms in their various languages were corrupted by developers) is a civic space. It is architecturally and in town planning terms an integral part of the design of a particular urban area or urban district. As the authority responsible for town planning, the Respondent would be technically incompetent not to recognise and appreciate this function of the open-air car park, and having recognised it, protect it. As the authority responsible for the administration of the town, the Respondent is the custodian of the public places that go to make up the design of his town. The civic space is for providing views across it, for the circulation of pedestrians and for shoppers and visitors to the area to pause and rest. Indeed, if the local authority were to propose to convert it into a public garden it would be praised for enhancing the quality of the urban environment and of urban life. Unfortunately, because of the need for car parking space, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Perhaps at some future time when access into our urban areas is wholly or partially restricted to public transport (MRT, buses, taxis) or even bicycles, it may be possible.

An analogy of the proposed development would be a family proposing to rent out their living room to a sub-tenant who would use it for all activities associated with living, i.e. cooking, eating, sleeping, entertainment, etc. The interaction of the family would certainly be disrupted and the family would become dysfunctional.

At any rate, to cover such a public space with a structure, especially a multi-storey structure, is an egregiously irresponsible act. It is totally contrary to good town planning. Members of the Lembaga who are town planners are professionally and morally obliged to oppose it. For the Respondent to approve it is a failure of his tutelary responsibility towards his wards. For the Respondent himself to participate in promoting it can only be described by the phrase: ovemlupocommitere (To set a wolf to guard sheep.), or by the proverb closer to home: “Harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi.”

The objections of the surrounding neighbours may be a protest against a wrong done to their interests but to the Lembaga their protest is also a cry of disbelief at the enormity of the public wrong the Respondent proposes to commit.


12

4.0 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The Lembaga will select certain of the grounds of appeal of the Perayu to respond to the others are either already dealt with or rectifiable, or moot, or of peripheral importance.

(1) Loss of Land Value

The Appellant contends that the development will entail a drastic loss of land value to the properties around the site. The Respondent counters that this is mere speculation. The Lembaga is obliged to give its opinion.

With the covering of the public space in front of the shops by a multi-storey structure there will clearly be a loss to the visibility of the shops as well as the quality of the shopping environment. This will in turn lead to a lowering of the business level of individual shops that rely on being seen by shoppers to attract them and to the shopping attractiveness of the entire area in general, which in turn will be translated into a drop in the value of the premises. How “drastic” this fall will be cannot of course be predicted but a fall in value is almost certain. This is a potential injury that the Respondent, as the local authority, is failing in his duty to safeguard against by approving the development. His involvement in the joint-venture further makes him complicit in inflicting the injury.

(2) Damage to Business Image

This is very much related to the previous issue and need not be separately discussed.

(3) Congestion

The Perayu contends that the development will increase traffic and loading and unloading congestion as the roads in the area are already narrow. The Respondent appears aware of the potential of further congestion as one of the conditions of approval is:

However, there is very limited possibility for the upgrading of the back lanes around Ampang Walk. The back lanes are already narrow and, with the buildings in place, cannot be widened.They have also been designed at odd angles which make it difficult for large vehicles to manoeuvre. While manoeuvring or parked, lorries and trucks block other traffic.

In the condition of approval it is unclear whether the developer will be made financially responsible for the enhancement of the back lanes, even if such enhancement is feasible,

Lorong belakang di Lorong Memanda 1 and Memanda 2 hendaklah dinaiktarafkan bagi memudahkan pemunggahan barang.


13

or whether it will be the responsibility of the local authority, as the joint-venture partner, to undertake the works with public funds. If it is the latter case, public funds will be deployed to benefit a private entity!

The Perayu is also concerned about the closure of the road in front of the shops during construction as well as its proposed permanent closure to vehicular traffic at night after the completion of the development. In both cases access to the shops will be affected.

There will also be some amount of traffic congestion at the ingress and egress points to the proposed multi-storey car-park. The additional commercial uses of the proposed development will also increase vehicular traffic.

There is, therefore, irrefutable validity in the contention of Perayu.

(4) Development does not solve Parking Problem

The Respondent concedes that, with the loss of the existing open-air car parks, there will be a gain of only 133 parking places. Some of these parking places must also be assigned to meet the parking requirement of the additional commercial uses within the proposed development. The gain in parking capacity is, to say the least, very small. Against the sacrifice of shopping environment around Ampang Walk and against the general loss of urban environment in Ampang Jaya, this miniscule gain is ludicrous.

The Respondent must solve the parking problem by developing some other nearby site or sites for the purpose of car parking. Ultimately, the Respondent should confront the issue that car parking problems for both public and private cars, like traffic congestion on roads, may only be solved through policy considerations, both national and local. 5.0 BOMBSHELL

In the closing of the Part Hearing on 3rd August the Respondent discloses the information that the joint-venture agreement between the Respondent and Pantai Barat Resources Sdn. Bhd. has not been signed. There is, in fact, no existing joint-venture. This fact renders the discussion of S.19(1) and S.101(gg) academic. This information also raises the issue of whether the planning application is in the first place proper. If the land owner, that is, the Respondent, had not endorsed the application, as in the case of the first C(1) granted, the application would be defective, and, ipso facto, the planning permission would be improper and void. S.21. (2) of the TCPA is referred:


14

S. 21. (2)

On 14th September the Respondent confirmed that the application has not been endorsed by the land owner.

6.0 DECISION OF THE APPEAL BOARD

The Lembaga allows the appeal. The grounds may be summarised as follow :

Based on the principle conflict of interest and bias, the Lembaga determines that the planning permission C1 dated 31st December 2007 is void;

Based on the fact that the application submitted is improper and defective as in breach of Section 21(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) the Lembaga determines that the planning permission issued is void ab initio.

The planning permission being void and having lapsed, the Lembaga proscribes any extension or renewal of the planning permission.

As a rider on the examination of the merits of the application, the Lembaga further proscribes any development of an above-ground structure or structures on the site referred to as Ampang Walk, consisting of an open-air car park with its access road between the parking spaces located at Jalan Memanda 2, MukimAmpang, Daerah Hulu Langat, Selangor Darul Ehsan.

COSTSNo costs is ordered.

Bertempat di SHAH ALAM Pada 14 SEPTEMBER 2011

DATO’ABU BAKAR B. AWANGPengerusiLembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor

If the applicant is not the owner of the land on which the development is to be carried out, the written consent of the owner thereof to the proposed development shall be obtained and endorsed on the application.


15

Bagi Pihak Perayu - Tetuan G. Mahendran & Arvind, peguambela & peguamcara - Tetuan C.K Properties Sdn. BhdBagi Pihak Pencelah - Tetuan Azam Lim & Pang,peguambela & peguamcaraBagi Pihak Responden - En. Juhari b. Atli - Pn. Emiley bt. Adlan - Pn. Zuraina bt. Said - Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya

No. RujukanLR - LR(90)/MPAJ/12/2008MPAJ - MPAJ.UU.09/6/108 JLD 2


16

DALAM LEMBAGA RAYUAN SELANGOR

RAYUAN NO : LR SEL. (188) MPK/04/2010

DI ANTARA

PN. KANG LIH YUAN PERAYU

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KLANG RESPONDEN

DAN

AHLI LEMBAGA RAYUAN

Dato’ Abu Bakar Bin Awang - Pengerusi Dato’ Abdul Mutallib Bin Jeluni - Ahli Hj. Nordin Sulaiman - Ahli

PendaftarEn. Saifuddin B. Marsuk

RAYUAN TERHADAP PENOLAKAN PERMOHONAN KEBENARAN MERANCANG BAGI CADANGAN MEROBOH DAN MEMBINA SEMULA SEBUAH KEDAI PEJABAT DI ATAS HAKMILIK HSM 11002 (PENERIMAAN TAWARAN MPK UNTUK MENYEDIAKAN TANAH TEMPAT LETAK KERETA) DI ATAS LOT PT 3940, JALAN TELUK PULAI, MUKIM KLANG, DAERAH KLANG, SELANGOR UNTUK PN. KANG LIH YUAN

ALASAN KEPUTUSAN

Dato’ Abu Bakar bin Awang , Pengerusi Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor

Permohonan Perayu ialah untuk meroboh dan membina semula kedai 2 tingkat kepada sebuah kedai pejabat 4 tingkat (untuk menjalankan kelas tusyen kepada pelajar-pelajar) atas tanah hakmilik HSM 11002, PT 3940(PT.25722) di Jalan Teluk Pulai, Mukim Klang. Permohonan tersebut telah dikemukakan untuk Kebenaran Merancang kepada Majlis Perbandaran Klang pada 1 Jun 2010 tetapi permohonan Kebenaran Merancang ini telah ditolak melalui Borang C(2) bertarikh 20 Ogos 2010 atas alasan-alasan antaranya:

•

•

•

Terkilan dengan keputusan ini Perayu telah kemukakan rayuan ini kepada Lembaga Rayuan pada 17 September 2010.

Dalam perbincangan pada 21 Okt.2010 Responden menyatakan cadangan bangunan 4 tingkat tersebut memerlukan 25 petak letak kereta dan 16 petak letak motosikal. Terdapat kekurangan 15 petak letak kereta dan 4 petak letak motosikal. Perayu mempertikaikan cara pengiraan jumlah letak kereta, yang mana sepatutnya hanya mengambilkira 2 tingkat tambahan dan 2 tingkat pertama tidak perlu diambil dalam perkiraan Responden. Berasaskan ini maka bilangan letak kereta yang disediakan adalah mencukupi. Responden menyatakan kiraan letak keretanya mematuhi peraturan dalam Manual Garis Panduan dan Piawaian Perancangan Negeri Selangor dengan kiraan 1 petak letak kereta bagi setiap 495 kaki persegi ruang lantai. Tambahan letak kereta di Lot 25727 tidak dibenarkan kerana syarat nyata dan zon adalah di bawah kediaman dan bukan komersil. Manakala kaedah memberi sumbangan kepada Majlis bagi menggantikan bilangan letak kereta yang tidak cukup adalah tidak diamalkan lagi dan tidak dikenakan ke atas Perayu.

Dalam perbicaraan pada 30 Nov 2010, pihak Perayu masih menghujahkan kesesuaian lokasi dan jumlah bilangan letak keretanya. Walau bagaimana pun Responden masih menyatakan bahawa bukan setakat bilangan petak letak kereta tidak mencukupi, malahan jumlah 10 petak yang disedia dan ditunjuk atas pelan juga tidak boleh diterima kerana sebahagiannya terletak dalam lingkungan kawasan untuk pelebaran jalan utama, dalam

Bilangan letak kereta diperlukan 25 petak, tetapi hanya 10 sahaja petak disediakan;

Tapak lot 25727 untuk menampung kekurangan letak kereta adalah di dalam zon kediaman dan syarat nyata kediaman dan letak kereta ini adalah dikategorikan sebagai komersil yang bercanggah dengan perancangan Majlis Perbandaran Klang (Responden).

Malahan letak kereta di Lot 25727 akan menimbulkan kacauganggu kawasan sekitar yang sempit.


18

rezab ‘Collectors Road’, iaitu jalan utama ke kawasan perumahan serta rezab lorong belakang yang khas untuk keperluan penyelenggaraan dan perkhidmatan.

Perayu memberikan beberapa contoh tempat di mana bangunan 4 tingkat telah diluluskan tanpa ruang letak kereta yang cukup dan juga terdapat lorong belakang diguna untuk letak kereta. Tetapi tiada gambaran dan bukti yang jelas dikemukakan malah tapak-tapak berkenaan jauh dari tapak yang dicadang ini di suatu kawasan lain.

Perbicaraan tidak dapat diteruskan, Perayu menyatakan akan mengemukakan dokumen tambahan dan akan mengemukakan beberapa alternatif cara mana boleh digunakan Lot 25727 di belakang.

Pada perbicaraan 6 Januari 2011, Perayu mengemukakan beberapa keping gambar dan diteliti bersama. Gambar-gambar menunjukkan keadaan sediada, tetapi tidak menunjukkan keadaan perbandingan berasaskan pelan keseluruhan Bandar Klang dan isu-isu yang dibentangkan. Perkara-perkara yang dibahaskan berbalik semula kepada isu-isu yang telah dikemukakan terdahulunya dan berulang-ulang kali diketengahkan. Isu-isu terhadap perletakan tapak letak kereta, bilangan yang disedia dan sumbangan mengganti bilangan yang tidak cukup. Perayu masih ragu-ragu samada hendak menyerah Lot 25727 di belakang untuk digunakan untuk menampung petak letak kereta yang kurang.

Oleh kerana penasihat perancangnya tidak hadir, Lembaga bertanya Perayu samada ingin memanggil Konsultan Jururancangnya, untuk mengemukakan hujahnya sebelum Lembaga membuat keputusan. Satelah mendapat jawapan dari Perayu bahawa beliau akan dan mahu memanggil konsultannya, Lembaga telah mengizinkan satu penangguhan dan menetapkan sambung bicara kepada 25 Januari 2011. Perbicaraan disambung pada 25 Januari 2011 untuk memberi peluang kepada pihak Konsultan Perayu membuat hujahan.

Perbicaraan pada 25 Januari 2011 dijalankan dengan kehadiran Konsultan. Jururancang Perayu mengekalkan opsyennya yang mereka boleh terima iaitu bangunan 4 tingkat dengan hanya menyediakan 10 petak letak kereta saperti ditunjuk atas pelan susunaturnya. Responden bukan saja tidak setuju tetapi telah menyatakan petak nombor 1 dan 2 termasuk dalam rezab jalan utama untuk keperluan penglebaran jalan, petak 6 hingga 8 dalam rezab Jalan Serampang 3 yang tersedia sempit dengan rezab kelebaran 40 kaki dan merupakan ‘collectors road” untuk kawasan kediaman, petak 9 dan 10 dalam lorong belakang yang sememangnya bukan untuk letak kereta. Hanya petak 3, 4 dan 5 yang boleh dikira mengikut Garis Panduan tersebut. Bangunan 4 tingkat memerlukan 25 petak letak kereta. Kaedah memberi sumbangan wang kepada Majlis menggantikan petak letak kereta yang kurang adalah tidak diamalkan lagi kerana Majlis tidak lagi memakai kaedah ini ekoran dari Kes Rethina Development Sdn Bhd vs Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai (1990).CLJ.24.


19

Keterangan dan Keputusan Lembaga Rayuan.

Hujah-hujah yang dikemukakan dalam dokumen dan juga yang dibentangkan dalam perbicaraan ini oleh kedua-dua pihak berkisar kepada isu jumlah bilangan letak kereta yang tidak cukup disediakan. Penolakan Kebenaran Merancang dibuat atas sebab hanya 10 petak disediakan dan 15 petak letak kereta lagi tidak dapat disediakan. Bermakna kekurangan 15 petak dari jumlah 25 petak letak kereta yang diperlukan mengikut Manual Garis Panduan dan Piawaian Perancangan Negeri Selangor. Perayu hanya dapat menyediakan 10 petak tetapi 7 dari jumlah petak ini pun termasuk dalam rezab jalan utama yang terlibat dengan pelebaran, dalam rezab jalan (Collector’s Road) untuk kawasan perumahan serta lorong belakang yang bukan untuk letak kereta.

Perayu mengulangi desakannya supaya petak letak kereta yang ditunjuk atas pelan susunaturnya diterima dan kekurangan digantikan dengan bayaran sumbangan kepada pihak Majlis Perbandaran. Malangnya sumbangan menggantikan petak yang tidak cukup tidak lagi relevan kerana Majlis tidak lagi menggunapakai kaedah ini.

Tanah Lot 25727 tidak dibangkitkan lagi di kali ini oleh pihak Perayu untuk keperluan penggantian tapak letak kereta yang tidak cukup.

Berpandukan pelan susunatur kawasan deretan kedai ini, jika sebuah bangunan 4 tingkat memerlukan kadar purata 25 petak letak kereta, dan jika semua kedai-kedai dalam deretan ini dibina 4 tingkat kelak, maka sudah tentu sebuah ruang letak kereta yang amat luas diperlukan. Berpandu juga kepada pelan susunatur kawasan, tiada ada lagi ruang kosong untuk letak kereta kerana semuanya adalah merupakan rezab jalan, lorong dan parit. Terbukti bahawa deretan kedai di sini sememangnya tidak sesuai untuk empat tingkat.

Teguran dan pemerhatian Lembaga ini ialah seharusnya pihak Majlis awal-awal lagi menyatakan bangunan 4 tingkat tidak boleh didirikan dan tidak perlu memberi alasan bahawa tempat letak kereta berjumlah 25 unit tidak dapat disediakan. Walau dengan apa cara sekali pun jumlah letak kereta sememangnya tidak dapat disediakan bagi bangunan 4 tingkat memandangkan ketiadaan ruang kosong lagi untuk tujuan letak kereta. Alasan bilangan letak kereta tidak cukup memberi gambaran seolah-olahnya bangunan 4 tingkat dibolehkan asalkan bilangan letak kereta yang cukup disediakan. Padahal ianya sememangnya tidak dapat disediakan walau dengan apa cara jua dan alternatif yang dikemukakan.

Namun begitu tindakan Responden menolak Kebenaran Merancang adalah betul dan teratur atas sebab tidak sesuainya bangunan 4 tingkat didirikan di sini berdasarkan keperluan bilangan letak kereta yang diperlukan mengikut Manual Garis Panduan dan


20

Piawaian Perancangan Negeri Selangor. Jumlah 25 petak letak kereta yang diperlukan tersebut sememangnya tidak dapat disediakan kerana ketiadaan tanah kosong. Ruang-ruang yang dicadangkan oleh Perayu untuk tujuan letak kereta adalah tidak dibenarkan kerana, pertamanya, kawasan itu terlibat untuk pelebaran jalan utama dihadapan tapak permohonan, kedua Jalan Serampang 3 merupakan jalan utama (Collectors road) keluar masuk di kawasan perumahan, dan ketiganya untuk lorong belakang dan juga rezab parit.

Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas maka Lembaga membuat keputusan untuk menyokong keputusan Responden menolak permohonan untuk mendapat Kebenaran Merancang ini.

Perintah

Oleh itu adalah diperintahkan bahawa Rayuan ini ditolak. Mengenai kos, setelah menimbang segala faktor dalam kes ini Lembaga membuat perintah tidak mengenakan kos ke atas Pihak Perayu.

Bertempat di SHAH ALAM Pada 14 SEPTEMBER 2011

DATO’ABU BAKAR B. AWANGPengerusiLembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor

Dato’ Abdul Mutallib b. JelaniSaya setuju dengan keputusan dan perintah ini

Hj. Nordin b. SulaimanSaya setuju dengan keputusan dan perintah ini

Bagi Pihak Perayu - Pn. Kang Lih YuanBagi Pihak Responden - Majlis Perbandaran Klang - En. Haizam Irwan Bin Toha - Pn. Hjh. Yusrina Binti Toha

No. RujukanLR - LR SEL. (188) MPK/04/2010MPK - MPK/U/01/SV/2010-SV7/2010


21

Documents

Vol 2 Page 1