COMMENT The recent pandemonium at the meeting on May 17, 2014 at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) illustrates the great concern and emotion PJ residents have over the Kidex highway.
It is perhaps time all parties approach this matter professionally. The state is free to come out with general policy for the betterment of Seangor. Where that policy affects people’s lives and homes, then the state should ensure that the policy is made after extensive stakeholder discussion, proper evaluation of data and is the best policy in the circumstances. This implies a free and frank disclosure of all information, drawings and plans to stakeholders.
In order for Kidex to be approved there must be an amendment to three local plans; RTPJ1, RTPJ 2 and Section 13 special area action plan and arguably an amendment to the state structure plan as the Kidex elevated highway is presently inconsistent with all three local plans. Section18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 prohibits any development inconsistent with the local plans. Section 19 of the same act requires Kidex to obtain planning approval from MBPJ.
In order to amend the local plans, there is a two-stage process which can be initiated by MBPJ itself and in exceptional circumstances the state government. Whoever initiates it must do so on the basis of proper information, study and facts so that the proposed amendment is in the public interest, sustainable and benefits PJ as a whole.
The first part of the process is the pre-draft consultation process with public, inviting public comments and feedback. This process must be conducted by MBPJ not the developer, and the public is usually given 30 days to give general views to MBPJ.
These views will be then compiled and the planning department will also provide a proper impact assessment report, together with all relevant documents that the developer must submit to MBPJ before MBPJ approves a draft plan.
MBPJ under Section 10 of the Local Government Act consists of the mayor with not less than eight and not more than 24 councilors must by majority decision approve the draft plan for public presentation. The draft plan is then put on public display for 30 days and this period can be extended for public objection or comment, if there are objections a public hearing must be held.
The State Planning Committee will then appoint someone to conduct the public hearings in which the decision of the hearings will be put in final draft and sent to state authority for approval. In relation to the amendment to the structure plan of the state, a similar public hearing will have to be held.
The amended local plan will have legal force when it comes into operation on the date the state authority approves it and not the date of gazetting.
Neither the state authority nor MBPJ can do so without having full documents, detail drawings with independent evaluation. Such information should be made public. In fact very important and precise information is required before a planner or local authority can propose an amendment to a local plan, without this information it is wrong to try to amend the local plan.
Worse still, the local authority and state government will be open to criticism that there is a lack of transparency, lack of factual basis or competence which can and will undermine public confidence in the government.
Not all info required has been provided
Regrettably, according to city councillor Ir Lee Suet Sen and Bukit Gasing assemblyperson YB Rajiv Rishyakaran, not all the information required has been provided to the local authority to consider whether there are grounds to amend the local plan. As the local authority will be questioned on any draft amendments, they need to be able to answer relevant questions by the public.
Surely it is not unreasonable for someone to ask whether his/her home be acquired? Or how close will the highway be to my entrance? Or will the fumes and dust affect me? Will this in the long term solve traffic congestions issues or is this the most efficient utilisation of MBPJ roads? Can the highway be run underground?
Unless detailed plans are given and analysis are done, these questions cannot be answered. Mere untested assertions on power point presentations are insufficient as the local authority must objectively decide if it is in the public interests.
Kidex needs to provide MBPJ with the required documents, policy justifications and drawings to support an amendment to the local plan to enable MBPJ to justify to the public that such amendments will benefit the public and is consistent with the sustainability policies of the city of PJ.
Amending the state structure plan without this information which may force an amendment to the local plans is not good governance and it has to be avoided as the macro policy in a structure plan should consider the feasibility of its implementations and rights affected thereunder. In fact Section 7 and Section 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act requires a proper survey to be undertaken and data obtained prior to initiating and amendments to the state structure plan.
It is therefore important that the following documents and information are made available to stakeholders :
1. Detailed macro traffic impact assessment report showing effect of highway on local roads and traffic systems,
2. Detailed alignment of proposed highway, showing exact location to affected properties, ramps, structural dimensions and integration into existing road network,
3. Public facilities provided such as elevated walkways and ramps for local traffic to enter and exit Kidex without toll to benefit local traffic dispersal. During a presentation in December 2013, Kidex assured the council they would consider providing elevated walkways to provide local benefit and encourage non-vehicle mobility,
4. Policy justification statements whether other alternatives have been considered and if so grounds for their rejection. These includes statements addressing the suitability/unsuitability of constructing Kidex underground (as tunneling cost is much cheaper now) versus the construction of elevated highway. Also statements addressing the suitability of utilising alternatives, such as train and mass public transport systems.
As most of the land belongs to the local authority and consist of the existing roads maintained by the MBPJ, once this land is used for a highway it will be near impossible any further use of this land for LRT, monorail, elevated walkway expansion programs for future provision of public infrastructure. Furthermore, there should be some statement of justification as to how the Kidex highway stands with MBPJ’s policy of reducing car use?
Does Kidex promote the further use of private vehicles by building toll highways taking up valuable infrastructure land when MBPJ’s policy is to reduce private vehicle dependency? There must be provided some policy justification statement consistent with national, state and local government policies.
5. The costing and toll rates proposed as this will effect public usability and affect traffic pattern assumptions.
Until these documents and information are provided, it is very difficult if not impossible for MBPJ to initiate the process of amendment of the local plan as MBPJ will have to justify to an increasingly educated public why it is doing so.
Finally the state government will also need to state its policy on the construction on toll highways in the state of Selangor and whether such policy is consistent with the stand of the political parties forming the government and whether the state government will have any control over toll rates as part of the highway will be constructed on MBPJ roads which have been paid for and maintained by ratepayers money.
The question whether the Kidex highway benefits the people can only be determined by due process in an environment of professionalism, transparency and free exchange of information. This process should not be prejudiced or prejudged.
DEREK FERNANDEZ is an advocate and solicitor and former chairperson of the MBPJ Green Building Committee.