Laporan 2

Transcription

Laporan 2

[Section 36, Town and Country Planning Act, 1976 (Act 172)]
Volume 2, Issue 2 [SABLR/2/2/2012, February 2012]
C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. V. MPAJ,
Pn. Kang Lih Yuan V. MPK
Published By State Of Selangor
Selangor Town And Country Planning Department and Selangor Appeal Board
February 2012
SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD
LAW REPORTS
HIGHLIGHTS
C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. V. MPAJ,
Published By State Of Selangor
Selangor Town And Country Planning Department and Selangor Appeal Board
MEMBERS OF SELANGOR
APPEAL BOARD
Chairman
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Abu Bakar b. Awang (BCK, SMP, SDK, DSDK)
Deputy Chairman
Y.Bhg. Tuan Hj. Nordin b. Sulaiman
Members
Y.Bhg. Tuan Hj. Nordin b. Sulaiman
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Hj. Azmeer b. Rashid
Y.Bhg. Dato’ Hj. Abd. Mutallib b. Jelani
Y.Bhg. Datin Teh Zawahir bt. Abdul Malek
Y.Bhg. Tuan Ho Khong Ming
Y.Bhg. Prof. Ezrin Arbi
Y.Bhg. Puan Hjh. Norasiah bt. Yahya
Y.Bhg. Tuan. T. Mahesan
Registrar
En. Saifuddin b. Marsuk
Secretariats
En. Mohd Asri b. Hj. Nor
En. Yuen Kai Tuck
Pn. Azlina bt. Asiar
En. Nooryady b. Mohd. Panut
ISBN 123456-789-000
Printed 2012
Editorial
Y.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:
Selangor Town & Country Planning Department and
Selangor Appeal Board
AWARDS REPORTED
FILE NO
LR.SEL (90)/MPAJ/12/2008
LR SEL. (188) MPK/04/2010
PARTIES
C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd. V. MPAJ
DALAM LEMBAGA RAYUAN SELANGOR
RAYUAN NO : LR.SEL (90)MPAJ/12/2008
DI ANTARA
C.K. PROPERTIES SDN. BHD.
PERAYU
DAN
MAJLIS PERBANDARAN AMPANG JAYA
RESPONDEN
PANTAI BARAT RESOURCES SDN. BHD.
PENCELAH
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.
AHLI LEMBAGA RAYUAN
Dato’ Abu Bakar Bin Awang
Puan Hjh Norasiah Bte Yahya
Tuan Ho Khong Ming
-
Pendaftar
En. Saifuddin B. Marsuk
Pengerusi
Ahli
Ahli
Volume 2, Issue 2 [SABLR/2/2/2012, February]
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
Bawah
1-4
5
Bumbung
KEGUNAAN
Kiosk
TempatLetakKereta
Pusat Hiburan / Riadah
Pusat Hiburan / Riadah
UNIT
21
646
1
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Gulati’s Silk House
Mahendran&Aravind
Nadin Holdings Sdn. Bhd.
Bintang Retail Industries Sdn. Bhd.
Mahir MawarSdn. Bhd. (Klinik Mediviron)
Pelita SamuderaPertama (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Hotel Palm Inn
Davies & Davies London Sdn. Bhd.
Sirhan bin AbdWahab
Syarikat Oriental Decorators Sdn. Bhd.
C.K. Properties Sdn. Bhd.
Bumi Gajah Holdings Sdn. Bhd.
Gulatis Exclusive Sdn. Bhd.
Drive Auto Supply Sdn. Bhd.
City Music (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Klinik Medi’zen
Signatory Assets Enterprise Sdn. Bhd.
Ram’s Realty Sdn. Bhd.
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)
Land Use
That the commercial use applied for is not in compliance with the permissible land
use, which is “car park”.
(b)
Improper Renewal of Planning Permission
That the present renewal of planning permission is improper as the original approval
has lapsed.
(c)
Loss of Land Value
That the development will entail a drastic loss of land value to the properties around
the site.
(d)
Damage to Business Image
That the development will cause damage to the business image of surrounding
shops and commercial premises.
(e)
Problems of Cleanliness
That the proposed stalls within the development will cause problems of cleanliness
to the area.
(f)
Congestion
That the development will increase traffic and loading and unloading congestion as
the roads in the area are already narrow.
(g)
Development does not solve Parking Problem
That the development does not solve the parking problem at Ampang Point as there
will be a loss of the present open-air car parks.
(h)
Development not in compliance with Land Title
That the development is not in compliance with the present land title of the site.
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
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 LAPSED
On 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)
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).
and
Pt. XII S. 101 (gg) of the Local Government Act 1976:
S.101
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)
10
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;
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:
Lorong belakang di Lorong Memanda 1 and Memanda 2 hendaklah dinaiktarafkan
bagi memudahkan pemunggahan barang.
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,
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)
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.
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.
COSTS
No costs is ordered.
Bertempat di SHAH ALAM
Pada 14 SEPTEMBER 2011
DATO’ABU BAKAR B. AWANG
Pengerusi
Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor
15
Bagi Pihak Perayu
Bagi Pihak Pencelah
Bagi Pihak Responden
- Tetuan G. Mahendran & Arvind, peguambela & peguamcara
- Tetuan C.K Properties Sdn. Bhd
- Tetuan Azam Lim & Pang,peguambela & peguamcara
- En. Juhari b. Atli
- Pn. Emiley bt. Adlan
- Pn. Zuraina bt. Said
- Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya
No. Rujukan
LR
- LR(90)/MPAJ/12/2008
MPAJ - 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
DAN
MAJLIS PERBANDARAN KLANG
RESPONDEN
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
AHLI LEMBAGA RAYUAN
Dato’ Abu Bakar Bin Awang
Dato’ Abdul Mutallib Bin Jeluni
Hj. Nordin Sulaiman
-
Pendaftar
En. Saifuddin B. Marsuk
Pengerusi
Ahli
Ahli
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:
•
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.
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
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. AWANG
Pengerusi
Lembaga Rayuan Negeri Selangor
Dato’ Abdul Mutallib b. Jelani
Saya setuju dengan keputusan dan perintah ini
Hj. Nordin b. Sulaiman
Saya setuju dengan keputusan dan perintah ini
Bagi Pihak Perayu
- Pn. Kang Lih Yuan
Bagi Pihak Responden - Majlis Perbandaran Klang
- En. Haizam Irwan Bin Toha
- Pn. Hjh. Yusrina Binti Toha
No. Rujukan
LR
- LR SEL. (188) MPK/04/2010
MPK - MPK/U/01/SV/2010-SV7/2010
21

Laporan 2

Transcription

Similar documents

Boss Hawg`s Bar

File

National Population Conference on the Inter

Aprisa XE Case Study - PT Kereta English

national tax seminar - Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri

Dan Reeder - Miss Brooks` Classroom

- Walnut Hill Bible Church

Pengurusan Landskap oleh Pihak Berkepentingan

cocos islands dhs - Cocos Island District High School

Photos shown November 5, 2012 at University of

New Employees Employee Handbook

lAct 1251