Property Section, NST SATURDAY DEC 2 2006
by Salleh Buang

Can we hope our decision makers will abide by the precepts of sustainable development? Don’t you sometimes wonder whether we really practice what we preach? There were times when my hopes were high with the belief that we really do abide by the principles and precepts of sustainable development.

Take the case of Gasing Meridien Sdn Bhd vs Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur (2004, 1 AMR 594) as an example.  This is a Court of Appeal Decision handed down of Dec 16 2003.The case was about a plot of land that Gasing Meridien, a housing developer, wanted to develop. It bought the land in 1995 for RM60 million, for which it obtained a bank loan of RM34 million.  The company had intended to either develop bungalows on the land or sub-divide it and sell bungalow lots.

In August 1996, the company applied to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) for approval to carry out the construction of roads and drains to service the land and to carry out earthworks for this to be done.

Three years later, in June 1999, DBKL gave its approval – but only for the first stage of the work. Upon completion of the first stage, the company was obliged to submit a fresh application for approval of the second stage.

Unhappy with this staggered approval, Gasing Meridien appealed to the Planning Appeal Board, as provided for under Section 23 of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982.

On Aug 25, 2000, the Planning Appeal Board gave its decision. It said, inter alia, “… the land as a whole is too steep and not suitable for the development as proposed by the company. We have visited the place and agree with the DBKL view that if the company is to carry out development as a whole in a single phase, it (cannot) be done because of the contour of the land, especially the upper part, is too steep. The appeal by Gasing Meridien Sdn Bhd for one stage approval is therefore dismissed.”

Discontented with the Appeal Board’s rejection, the company wrote to DBKL to issue a requisition notice under Section 30 of the Act – which DBKL rejected on Sept 27, 2000.

On Oct 4, 2000, Gasing Meridien filed an ex parte motion seeking an order of mandamus directing DBKL to issue it with a requisition notice in respect of the land under Section 30 of the Act. In the alternative, the company sought a declaration that the decision of the Appeal Board made on Aug 25 2000 amounted to a requisition notice under Section 30 of the Act, and that in consequence, it is entitled to issue a purchase notice to DBKL under Section 46.

In simple words, Gasing Meridien wanted the court to say that since it is not longer practical or viable for it to develop the property, the court should order DBKL to take over (purchase) the land and compensate it in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

On July 18, 2001 the High Court dismissed the company’s application. Unhappy again, it took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which heard it on April 8, 2003 and dismissed the appeal with costs.

With that, what the company could do, if it still wished to proceed with its development project, would be to comply with the terms of the staggered approval given by DBKL in June 1999 – that is, if that approval had not lapsed in the meantime.

And that was almost three years ago. I have not heard of any official word on further appeal, which would be to the Federal Court. That is only possible if leave has been granted – something that is rarely given nowadays.

According to a Nov 23 2006 report from the national news agency Bernama, the plan to develop 142 bungalow lots on a 15.2 ha site in Bukit Gasing has yet to be approved by DBKL. The report quoted Kuala Lumpur Mayor Datuk Ruslin Hasan as saying that a decision on the application would only be made after DBKL’s Sensitive Areas Environment Committee meets to consider all the technical information at hand.

The committee, he said, was in the midst of arranging the meeting, which would be chaired by the Secretary –General of the Federal Territories Ministry.

“The feedback received will then be presented to me so that a decision can be made, based on the existing guidelines,” Ruslin was quoted as saying.

According to him, development work by Gasing Meridien in Taman Gasing Indah, which borders KL and Petaling Jaya, only involved soil tests.

“The work done covers only a small area and as such, does not need any approval,” Ruslin added.

As I said earlier, my hopes were understandably high in 2003 when the Court of Appeal made its decision with regard to this proposed development in Bukit Gasing.

Will future events make me feel any different? Will the protests by the local citizens be warmly received by those in the corridors of power? Will the campaign to save Bukit Gasing fall on ears willing to listen? Only time will tell.

About the Author
Salleh Buang is a senior advisor of a company specializing in competitive intelligence. He is also active in training and public speaking and can be reached at sallehbuang@hotmail.com

In The News