Fwd: Pykett Avenue Developments letter from resident

Begin forwarded message:

From: fhLai <laifhoy@gmail.com>
Date: August 21, 2011 14:22:47 GMT+08:00
To: chowkonyeow@penang.gov.my, limguaneng@penang.gov.my, hiyah@mppp.gov.my
Cc: swcheah@ymail.com, lim.siewhwa@ymail.com, leeyan.c@gmail.com, Eric Cheah law <vannangt@gmail.com>, bnawawi599@gmail.com
Subject: Pykett Avenue Developments

Dear YB Chow

First off, I would like to thank you for organising the recent dialog session with the residents pertaining to Mah Sing's proposed development at 20 Pykett Avenue. I was pleased that the State Government is taking the interests of residents into consideration in the implementation of policies. Yet I was shocked to learn that the State had revised the plot ratio for development upwards from 0.9 to 2.8. This is a big and significant increase. If my understanding is correct, this new plot ratio will allow buildings of up to 36 stories high. At the meeting I also learnt that the density of housing had been increased to 87 units per acre from the present 15.

If I am not wrong, the development proposed by Mah Sing is 294 units on the 3.4 acre site. This fully exploits the density allowed by MPPP. Has the developer no consideration other than the profit motive?

Of late, I read with horror an email from a fellow resident that another property developer is in discussion with the Methodist church on the Pykett school grounds. If that is the case, 20 Pykett Avenue is the "thin end of the wedge". We will oppose that development; for the failure to do so will translate to another monstrosity across the road on the other side of Pykett Avenue.

The residents in the area bounded by Jalan Khaw Sim Bee, Jalan Pangkor, Jalan Burma and Jalan Anson will find the community changing for the worse if the Mah Sing's development proceeds. The houses in the locality were all built more than 50 years ago, and in the area we also have 4 schools. We will lose the open spaces that now exist. One primary school had since been closed, and Pykett is in danger of closing given the low student population. 

At the dialogue, someone commented that he is not against development. That sentiment is shared by all, but development must not be at the expense of, or have a detrimental effect, on the amenities residents are presently enjoying. The council cannot allow the creation of new buildings that do not harmonise with the surrounds. That the existing character of the area should be maintained is paramount. 

A plot ratio of 2.8 which may lead to buildings of 36 stories in height will definitely not fit in. The local government should take note what overshadowing and the consequence loss of light will mean to the surrounding properties. The degree of overlooking, particularly in a residential area, also merits consideration as there is the consequential loss of privacy to the adjacent properties.

The local authorities will be found negligent in their duties if they do not take the above factors into account in the assessment of the development plans. Foremost, the existing infrastructure in the locality is not able to support the new development. Where we have idyllic and shady roads, car parking along the roads is now heavy after the establishment of the CRC restaurant, several low-rise apartment blocks and KDU. Schools in the vicinity also cause heavy traffic at certain times of the day. We have learnt to live with these, but will oppose strongly any initiative that puts additional stress to the infrastructure. Any development in the area should be accompanied by a full and comprehensive traffic study that should be made available to residents for comment.

I fully support n nawawi's initiative to form a residents' association so that all residents are kept aware of what is happening, and that there is a forum for them to have their views aired.

Kind regards

Lai Fook Hoy