The controversial Petaling Jaya 1 local plan draft  a series of proposed development and redevelopment projects designed to upgrade and beautify PJ and its surrounding locality  may turn out to be illegal and unconstitutional.

This is because the draft plan, proposed by the PJ Municipal Council (MPPJ), does not conform to the existing local plan, the Federated Malay States (FMS) Cap 137.

The FMS Cap 137 first regulated the planning and construction of the new township of Petaling Jaya back in the 1950s during British rule.

It was incorporated as the local plan for PJ in the Petaling and part of the Klang District Structure Plan which was gazetted by the Selangor government in 1996.

This 1996 structure plan, in turn, is based on a 1988-2010 policy statement by the same name to control the long-term development of the districts concerned.

Designed more for the development of Subang Jaya, Shah Alam and Klang, the 1996 structure plan, in Chapter 5, clearly prohibits redevelopment for most parts of PJ, as opposed to the current proposal by MPPJ.

Residents object

Based on this revelation, a group of more than 100 residents from various PJ sections are planning to lodge a preliminary objection with the MPPJ rejecting the PJ1 local plan draft in toto on the basis of illegality.

Their contention is that the entire draft is ultra vires the National Land Code (NLC), the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1976 and the Federal Constitution.

Failing any response within the first seven days, the residents plan to file another objection detailing the grounds for preliminary objection.

If nothing happens within the next seven days, then they will try to get the court to declare that the procedures and whole local plan draft is ultra vires and illegal.

Copies of the preliminary objection will be forwarded to the MPPJs legal advisor, Selangor Menteri Besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, the state legal advisor, the land administrator and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail.

Ambiguous basis

Under Section 12 of the TCPA, the MPPJ must adhere to a gazetted structure plan in order to have the authority to development areas within its jurisdiction under other local plans.

The PJ1 local plan draft is the first of four such local plans to be implemented in stages under a gazetted structure plan, which by right should be the 1996 structure plan.

However, the draft plan makes no specific reference to the 1996 structure plan although it states that the proposals are based on the guidelines contained in the 1988-2010 policy statement by the same name.

The ambiguous basis of the draft plan has further confused residents who believe it is an attempt to ignore policies and development outlines set out by the 1996 structure plan.

The local plan drafts validity may also be in question due to Section 108 of the NLC which proclaims that the NLCs provisions prevail over any conflicting laws, by-laws or restrictions imposed by any local or planning authority to the extent of the inconsistencies.

This means that any move made by the MPPJ under the TCPA, which is a mere monitoring law for local authorities, will be overruled by the NLC as the governing statute for all land matters in Malaysia.

Landowners rights

The local plan draft may also be deemed as unconstitutional if the guaranteed rights of landowners are infringed by the MPPJs reverse and/or compulsory acquisition done by employing various means.

Article 13(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no one is deprived of rights to property save by law while sub-article (2) prevents any compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.

Yet MPPJ town planning director Sharifah Marhaini Syed Ali confirmed that once the designated areas in PJ are gazetted as development action area under Section 38 of the TCPA, the MPPJ can go ahead and acquire land.

A Section 5 resident, who was unhappy and confused with the local plan draft despite attending several of the MPPJs briefings, said the local authority owed it to the ratepayers to clarify such basic but crucial issues, especially those pertaining to land matters.

She pointed out the catch in the conditions found in the MPPJs yellow objection form which requires objections to be recorded based on public and not personal interest.

I feel there is much more to the issue than meets the eye, she said, echoing the general sentiment among PJ residents in the affected areas.

Annoyed residents

One thing was very clear  residents were most concerned over the status of their land.

The response during the 7th in a series of briefings by the MPPJ on Sunday showed that many were neither ignorant nor gullible enough to be hoodwinked by the grandiose development plans for PJ.

That is why some residents were annoyed when Sharifah and Bukit Gasing assemblyperson Dr Lim Thuang Seng said those who choose to convert their land from residential to limited commercial use will have to pay by surrendering the five feet fronting the road to facilitate road-widening works.

The point on compulsory land acquisition also saw both Sharifah and Lim totally contradicting each other, which also served to reaffirm the residents biggest fear of losing their land.

Lim has been trying to assure residents that their land is 200 percent safe.

During the question-and-answer session, a resident from Section 1 pointed out that it would be cheaper to develop a new area, such as the PJ side of Old Klang Road and the industrial areas in Sections 51 and 51A, than to redevelop an existing developed area.

Another resident asked why major roads will be widened, highways and flyovers built and commercial activities increased in certain areas if the MPPJ was serious about raising the quality of life for PJ residents, since all the proposals would only attract more inbound traffic.

A Section 2 resident questioned the reason for changing land use from residential to limited commercial, especially along Jalan Gasing and Jalan Selangor, when ample commercial space is being offered by national asset management company Danaharta Nasional Berhad in Section 51.

Repeated requests by malaysiakini for an interview with either the MPPJ president Emran Kadir or town planning director Sharifah Marhaini Syed Ali have been turned down due to their busy schedule.

This is the second in a series of articles on the PJ1 local plan draft. The third part will appear tomorrow.