----- Original Message -----
From: John
To: leyuch
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Subang Ria Park
I received your request for my comments on YB LEE;s comments. Perhaps i will try to shed some light on what appears to be common misunderstanding among the developer and MPSJ.
Under the present law, well to be correct since the TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1976 ( TCPA 1976) came into operation, which was in 1978 for Selangor, NO DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED UNLESS IT IS SUSTAINABLE. This priciple has been reaffirmed by the NATIONAL PHYSICAL PLANNING COUNCIL chaired by the PRIME MINISTER and is contained in the NATIONAL PHYSICAL PLAN. ( in malay it is Pembangunan Mampan). IN order to determine if development is sustainable the TCPA 1976, require both FED, STATE and LOCAL AUTHORITIES to come out with STRUCURE and LOCAL PLANS as well as rules and guidelinss which contain planning policy and creteria for development based on international standards. In relation to public recreational open space, this cretera has been set under the SELANGOR STRUCTURE PLAN and the national urbanization plan at 2ha for every 1000 people or about 240sqft for every one person. THIS IS THE MIN figure that the state and local authority, in your case MPSJ MUST provide, technicall they cannont approve any futher developement in Subang Jaya, unless they address these issues. Had u a local Plan they will have to show u where this land is.YOU cannont keep adding people to a finite space without minimun infrastrucure and open space without causing all the problems associated with unsustainable development.Historically when devolpment in subang jaya was low density( bungalows, link hses etc) and there was plenty of State Land available a min rule of thumb of a developer providing 10% of his land for purposes of public open space ( in fact when there was really a lot of public land around and densities were very very low , even a 5% requirment sufficed. ). The min of 10% rule of thumb is contained in the old Rancangan Stucture Daerah Petaling dan Sebahagian Daerah Klang. As development increased , abuses started to creep in. Land that was to be surredered back to the State as open spaces was alinated back and in some cases never left the Developers hands. These lands were then developed and again the developers who pretend the say the are giving 10% of that ' stolen" land as open space. The process repeats itself until there is no longer any useable public recreational land available. These so called alinations are highly suspect if not downright illegal and an abuse of power. But nothing is done .Worse still as highrise development was approved the local authority pretended that the MIN 10% rule applied . The rule was a min, based on lowrise assumptions and when highrise development came in it was within the power of planning authoritues to ask for more. CAN YOU IMAGINE a 5 storey building on 1 acre of land, is required to have 4300sqft open space and a 20storey building on the same land is also required to have the same open space. even though it has 4 times the number of people. This abuse of misusing the 10% rule made a lot of people rich. Open space is for human beings not for land areas. IT was no wonder when things got out of hand, massive jams, no playing feilds for children, urban slums, a sick and unhealty population, floods etc that the PRIME MINISTER and DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER insisted open space be linked to population size as done in all other civilized countries,( u can confirm this with State Planning).The truth is many developers have made huge profits without thinking about the obligation to provide a sustainable enviroment. I am not blaming sime UEP, unfortunately there is no more land left in Subang Jaya . The unplanned alination of public land and abuses in planning control have led to the mess subang jaya is in today. Its funny that many greedy people want to build where u residents are, they want to take advantage of your spending power, your values to attract others for their profit. Whats wrong with that, nothing! Until they start destroying your quality of life . Subang ria is in fact zoned recreational and with no land left for recreational open space cannot be developed . SIME must be compensated and this can be done through aquisition. The cost would be reasonable as the land is zoned recreational . whatever they spent they must be compensated. That is the role of the LAND AQUISITION ACT and THE TCPA. you aquire land for a road, why not a park? Sime is not being punished, they enjoyed previous approvals even though the open space required was very low compared to the population. They enjoyed the local authorities silly application of the 10% rule. THANK GOD FOR THE PM AND DPM insisting on the present standard. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT requires WE ( AND THAT INCLUDES MPSJ AND THE STAE GOVT) provide recreational space for future generations IN SUBANG JAYA. WHERE IS THE LAND?
From: hwabeng [mailto:hwabeng1@streamyx.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: RE: Subang Ria Park
Dear all,
I refer to Mr Derek Fernandez’s opinion on my request whether Taman Subang Ria should be considered by itself or that MPSJ should bring in the other parts of Subang Jaya (SS12 – SS19) when Sime UEP submits for development. He did not answer this question.
My view is that SS12 – SS19 had already been approved much earlier in the 1970’s. Today, Sime UEP is submitting only Taman Subang Ria for development. Hence MPSJ cannot bring in SS12 – SS19’s already approved plan into consideration. If MPSJ only considers Taman Subang Ria, then the surrender of 52 acres out of the 75 acres is well and above the sustainable requirment.
I would rather that residents object that the land was alienated to Sime UEP as an urban park and should remain as such. We will be on stronger ground in this angle.
Anyway, the 1,700 has spoken, i.e. no development.
Bye.
Yours In Service,
Lee Hwa Beng
ADUN Subang Jaya
