Selangor Appeal Board Issue1 - JPBD Selangor

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1 [SABLR/1/1/2011, MAC] Though the proposed development is on two lots but the plan submitted is for 61.64 acres which has been planned to be developed as a single housing project. The roads infrastructure etc are interlinked and earthworks, drainage plans etc will have implications on the other lots. I find support in S21 (6), 21(8) and in the interpretation provided in section 2 of the Act that these 3 Appellants have the locus standi to object to the development and if aggrieved to appeal before us. APPLICATION/LAYOUT PLAN An application for planning permission is regulated by Part IV of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172). The Layout Plan and Development Proposal Report under Section 21A and 21B of the Town and Country Planning Act have listed out the plans and documents to be submitted to the Respondent for planning permission. Items that have not been highlighted in the Development Proposal Report can be listed as follows:- 1. Land use analysis and its effect on the adjoining land (Sect. 21A(e) of the Act.) 2. Measures for the protection and improvement of its physical environment (Sect.21B (a) (i)) 3. Measures for the preservation of its natural topography (Sect.21B (1)(ii)) 4. Measures for the preservation and planting of trees (Sect. 21B 1 (a) ix) 5. Location and species of trees with girth exceeding 0.8meters and other vegetation thereon (Sect. 21B (1) (v)) For the application to be complete it must be supported by a complete Development Proposal Report containing the above items. I find as the application is not supported by a complete Development Proposal Report the application is not fit for consideration and should have been rejected. DANGER OF LANDSLIDES The existing terrain of the site is undulating. The proposed commercial area is generally flat. The residential area which covers the major portion of the site is in high land with steep slopes at the boundary of the site. The developers Intervener acknowledge that currently the site is prone to various land slips. However by developing the site slips would be reduced and the present residential area near the boundary of the site would be in safer position than if site is not developed. The Appellants’ contention is that the whole area is hilly and not fit for construction. The 40
SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS development would jeopardize the stability of the slope and therefore increasing the risk of landslides and safety of neighbouring residents particularly the lands where the 3 Appellants are residing. EXCESSIVE EARTHWORKS The developer claims that the proposed development will not require earth to be exported out of the site. The earth and rock available within the site will be fully utilized for the development but about 130, 000 m 3 of earth will be imported to the site as backfilling material for the retaining walls. The appellant’s fear is that about 1.53 million cubic meters of earth will have be cut and about 130,000 cubic meters of earth will have to be imported to achieve a balanced cut and fill situation of the site. This poses a danger to their properties which are at a lower level than the site. The danger which the Appellants fear is real judging by the past precedents of landslides and avalanches, flying rocks and debris, pollution etc. HEIGHT OF RETAINING WALL Existing terrain on the commercial area is relatively flat and stable. The residential area however is located on a higher ground towards the northeast portion of the site nearest the peak with slope falling towards Taman Hijau Apartments. The developer’s stand is that though the stability of the slope at the boundary of the development and Taman Hijau Apartments is relatively steep and may be prone to landslide their engineers have proposed to cut or lower the slope at the boundary to the proposed platform level of the site. This would give the slope a much greater slope stability. If the residents do not agree lowering down the slope at the boundary a retaining wall will be proposed. The height of the wall will be about 31.5 meters and a second 7 meters height wall 15 meters away from the first wall will have to be built to make the slope secure. The Appellant’s response to this is that the retaining wall to be built next to Taman Hijau Apartments is likely to be 34.5 meter in height and not 31.5 meters as claimed by the developer. The actual height of the wall is 41.5 meters if the second wall which is 15 meter away from the first is taken as part of the first wall. Such high wall has never been built before in this country and there is no known local experience with knowledge of building such high walls in the country. The danger of the wall collapsing and landslide taking place is real if not properly maintained. Furthermore most of the technical departments to whom this plan was referred to concur that it is not desirable to have such high walls. 41
Page 3 and 4: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS V
Page 5: Volume 1, Issue 1 [SABLR/1/1/2011,
Page 8 and 9: VOLUME 1, ISSUE 1 [SABLR/1/1/2011,
Page 17 and 18: DALAM LEMBAGA RAYUAN SELANGOR RAYUA
Page 19 and 20: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS 1
Page 21 and 22: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS A
Page 23 and 24: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS k
Page 25 and 26: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS 1
Page 27 and 28: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS a
Page 29 and 30: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS D
Page 31 and 32: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS J
Page 33 and 34: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS x
Page 35 and 36: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS b
Page 37: SELANGOR APPEAL BOARD LAW REPORTS e

Selangor Appeal Board Issue1 - JPBD Selangor

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?