Consolidated Objections to the Proposed Amendments to RTPJ 1&2, as per the Bahasa Malaysia version (For the purposes of understanding the BM version, not for submission to MBPJ) Prepared by Rajiv Rishyakaran 1. The preamble that claims the zoning changes are inline with public transport planning (RTPJ1 &RTPJ2 - item 5.0 iii) a. I object because MBPJ’s transport masterplan has just been commissioned and is nowhere near completion, and no other studies has been commissioned to study/mitigate the impact of population increase with the density increase 2. Item 7.3.2 (i) in RTPJ1 a. This is the Filem Negara piece of land b. I object to it being rezoned as full commercial. Federal Government, the current owner of the land, should not sell this land to the private sector but instead work with MBPJ do develop public amenities such as recreation, sports or even a public hospital. Limited government land in PJ should not be sold. c. There is sufficient undeveloped commercial land in PJ, thus, its not a case that we are desperate for more commercial spaces. 3. Item 7.3.2 (iii) in RTPJ 1 & Item 7.2.1 in RTPJ 2 a. I oppose the plot ratio (a measurement of density) of 6 in the proposed amendments instead of the plot ratio of 4 as per the MBPJ councilors resolution in the Full Board b. This is because the increase of density will result in a increase of population, which no measures to mitigate or cope with that increase has been put forth c. Alternatively, with an increase of density near the MRT stations, there should be a reduction in areas away from these stations d. The density increase is not coupled with conditions of providing sufficient walkways, taxi laybys, transport hubs, and so on that will lead to an efficient transit oriented development. 4. Item 7.3.6, Bil 25 in RTPJ 1 a. This is proposal to increase the density of MBPJ quarters in Section 8 from the current terrace houses to 120units/acre, which is very high rise apartments (current low cost flats are approximately 80 to 100 units/acre) b. I object as the proximity to neighboring terrace houses is very close, with very small roads in the neighbourhood, including the access road Jalan Lampan 8/3 c. I understand MBPJ’s need for developing staff quarters, but we should find a location that is more suitable like in Section 51 5. Item 8.0 in RTPJ 1 a. This proposal is to remove the “development guidelines” from the RTPJ. The development guidelines is essentially the specification for each zone, such as the limitations for limited commercial b. I object because the whole reason to have a local plan is for certainty as to what one can do with their land, as well as what the neighboring lands can be developed into. 6. Item 7.2.3, Table 7.5, Item 7 a. This is the Rubber Research Institute land that is going to be developed into a mix development township b. The blanket zoning in one big “mixed development” is akin giving a blank cheque to the developer, KWASA Land Sdn Bhd c. The layout should be specified, especially for the protection of green spaces, and other public institutions within this new township d. Proper planning should be done to ensure each house in this township is within walking distance from a public transport node, and that sufficient rail and road reserves are prepared 7. Item 7.2.6, Table 7.13, Item 3 a. This is a proposal to increase the housing density from 14units/acre (terrace houses) to 120units/acre b. I cannot agree to this as there is no proper road access to this land, and there is no public transport access c. I support the building of affordable homes, but it should be in proper areas that are accessible to public transport. The zoning also does not lock down the development for affordable homes d. The development is adjacent to low density housing, and would not be in harmony with the current low density neighbors, as there won’t be any buffer.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:28:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015