About 5,000 objections were submitted to the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) today against the controversial PJ1 local plan draft which seeks to redevelop the satellite township into a bustling city.

Twenty residents of Sections 1, 3, 5 and 6 were at the MPPJ office to submit the objection forms and a detailed 30-page memorandum prepared by Section 5 Residents Association to council president Emran Kadir.

Association legal advisor Derek Fernandez said 95 percent of the residents objected in full or in part to the draft plan as recorded by the signatures collected over a period of one and a half months.

He said Section 5 residents were not considering legal action yet because they first want to exhaust all avenues available and follow all the relevant procedures required to register the objections.

"Our objections should be heard within two months, but it may take longer. If this fails, we will then have to consider other means of objecting to the draft plan."

Unexpected about-turn

Interestingly, Bukit Gasing state assemblyperson Dr Lim Thuang Seng, who is also a MPPJ councillor, made an unexpected about-turn last night and endorsed the memorandum.

This is despite having repeatedly assured residents during MPPJ briefing sessions over the last several weeks that the PJ1 draft plan will not take away their land and that they should accept it because it was a good plan for the future development of PJ.

Lim was not available for comment today.

A copy of the memorandum was also sent to the Selangor state secretary today. The 60-day objection period ends tomorrow.

The memorandum claims that the PJ1 draft plan is inconsistent with the structure plan gazetted in 1996 as found in Part IX of the Town Boards Enactment of the Federated Malay States, and which is still in force under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976.

The 1996 structure plan had been gazetted with amendments which are essentially objections raised by PJ residents at that time, thus future developments were limited to outlying areas of PJ.

"The structure plan clearly prohibits any development or redevelopment within PJ, so we don't know what the MPPJ is talking about in the local plan proposals.

"The development should be de-centralised instead of trying to redevelop a fully-occupied township," said Fernandez.

Apart from the Town and Country Planning Act 1976, the memorandum stated that the draft plan also contravened Article 91 of the Federal Constitution which empowers the National Land Council to formulate policies on land use after federal and state consultations.

Totally unacceptable

"The proposals in the draft plan are totally unacceptable and deserve to be rejected on these grounds.

"Furthermore, the people's right to object has actually been compromised," read the memorandum.

The residents also questioned the lack of transparency in the preparation of the draft plan on the grounds that nothing is known about the firm that prepared it, the study it had conducted and the recommendations made.

"We know nothing of Jururancang Sepakat Sdn Bhd, the consultancy firm hired by the MPPJ to prepare the plan, nor of the Universiti Malaya traffic study, which we were told was unnecessary for us to peruse," said Fernandez.

The memorandum also pointed out the provision in the 1996 structure plan which clearly states that all highways and road construction must bypass PJ and that traffic flow should be directed to the development corridor in the outlying areas.

On population density, the memorandum stated that the 1996 structure plan had already provided more than 14,000 hectares of land to cater for an estimated 1.7 million residents in PJ by 2010.

On the whole, the memorandum rejects the proposal to widen roads within the study area on several grounds, including the fact that land acquisition is inevitable due to the limited road reserve available now, the chopping down of mature trees and the ensuing traffic congestion.

Improve quality of life

The 500 Section 6 residents who had submitted their objections and counter-proposals today reiterated that they were not totally against development but wanted an improvement in their quality of life.

They want the MPPJ to repair and replace clogged drains, ensure roads are free of potholes, safer playgrounds, walking and cycling zones, and efficient service.

"We do not consider the building of more apartments, the re-zoning of residential land to commercial and the possible reclamation of private land as improving our quality of life.

"We strongly object to the proposed widening of roads and building of flyovers. We also strongly object to plans to increase the built-up density of our area.

"Why build more apartments when basic facilities such as water, is disrupted weekly because the existing infrastructure could no longer cope with the pressure," the residents stated in a press release handed out to reporters at the MPPJ office.

Meanwhile, a group of residents from Section 1 has asked the court to declare the entire draft plan as illegal. The case, first heard yesterday, will come up for mention on June 19, together with an application to strike out the suit against Emran, who was named as the sole defendant.