Wednesday, 14 December 2011

Action against developer, landowner

FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2011

Action against MAH SING

ACTION AGAINST BUILDER

EmelCetakPDF
GEORGE TOWN (Jan 2, 2011): A developer that demolished an old building here without prior approval from the authorities has had its planning permission application for a new high-rise apartments project on the same site frozen.

The Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) has decided that the application from Klassik Tropika Development Sdn Bhd will not be processed, as the allegedly illegal demolition of the bungalow at 20 Pykett Avenue on July 26 has been taken to the courts.

State Local Government Committee chairman Chow Kon Yeow said the MPPP initiated legal action against Klassik Tropika, as the current registered landowner, in October last year.

He said it is an offence to demolish a building without approval, under the Town and Country Planning Act 1976. The case is expected to be heard on Jan 17.

"The MPPP is serious that developers cannot take action on their accord without approval," Chow said during a visit to the site recently.

He  revealed that Klassik Tropika, a subsidiary of Mah Sing Group Bhd, had submitted a proposal to the MPPP on Oct 6 for an apartment complex comprising a five-storey podium and four towers,
The towers are planned to be between 21 and 27 storeys high, he said.

The bungalow that stood on the site belonged to Khaw Bian Cheng Sdn Bhd, which was historically related to Khaw Sim Bee, the 19th century magnate who became a governor of Phuket.
The bungalow, however, was not officially listed as a heritage building by the MPPP.

Khaw Bian Cheng Sdn Bhd had on March 30 last year applied to MPPP to demolish the structure, but on July 26 a letter was sent to MPPP to retract the demolition application as the ownership had been transferred to Klassik Tropika.

The application was at that time still being processed by the council, Chow explained.

However, Klassik Tropika, the new owner, went ahead and demolished the bungalow on July 26 without approval, he said. -- theSun

Tuesday, 13 December 2011

facebook thread on 20Pykett rebuild


 ·  ·  · 19 hours ago
  • Mark Lay and 4 others like this.
    • Marion Olsen 
      I can understand your question Jay - but an exact replica?
      How is it possible to replicate the feel, the smell, the atmosphere, the 'soul' of a house. The pictures below of the interior of Pykett House evoke those things and a way of being ...See more
      12 hours ago · 
    • Marion Olsen Perhaps that is why it must be replicated - to at least evoke that period?
      12 hours ago · 
    • Jay Sharma Thank you Marion for your thoughtful response to my rather unfocused intervention. I offer two examples where buildings have been moved, both on a fairly large scale. I have visited both and though impressed by the efforts of the curators, I felt rather sad that the buildings were there without surrounding context.

      This is in Wales http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/stfagans/about/
      11 hours ago · 
    • Jay Sharma oops! And this is in Norfolk 
      http://www.norfolkheritage.co.uk/gressenhall-farm-and-workhouse
      11 hours ago · 
    • Gwynn Jenkins don't confuse MPPP lah!
      11 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jay Sharma 
      Nevertheless, moving buildings in danger is an interesting option. It will add considerably to the cost, I suppose, of any development, but the public gain would be a 'visitor attraction'. 
      It is an irony that the first ethnographic museum ...See more
      11 hours ago · 
    • Gwynn Jenkins 
      Jabatan Warisan Negara have done just that to a wooden building - painstakingly done. one arts and craft building along Brown road was moved forward to allow two gross buildings to go up in the garden it was taken down and rebuilt - sadly a...See more
      11 hours ago · 
    • Jay Sharma No-lah! To say 'an interesting option' doesn't mean 'that's the one!' as you well know! That's where I've been away too long: excessive use of irony obfuscates ...but please don't go, it's horrid there!
      11 hours ago · 
    • Marion Olsen 
      In NZ many wooden houses have been moved - but brick by brick removals are another order altogether. Moving houses may be one way to stop the traffic!! Penang traffic and house moving are incompatible I think. However, thought could be give...See more
      5 hours ago · 
    • Rebecca Wilkinson The order to rebuild is about being a deterrent to developers just going ahead to illegally demolish. This issue here at the moment is not whether something should or should not be replicated ...rather...what are the deterrents & at the moment the 'rebuild' order is the best we have....& the developers should be forced to do this to the highest standard as soon as possible.
      2 hours ago · 
    • Jay Sharma Understood Rebecca. The fine imposed by the court was so small compared to the size of the development (was is RM6k and RM50mil?) that it could be seem to be 'judicial encouragement'!
      Would a rebuild mean that nothing else could be built on the site?
      3 minutes ago · 
    • Citizen Chant rebuilding the bungalow is possible even without drawings. We are able to propose experts to MPPP and rebuild can be done and supervise by the consultants.Well who is to remunerate the construction and experts, its all stated very clearly in the Town & Country Planning Act. Thank you.
      A few seconds ago · 

Monday, 5 December 2011

lembah permai residents say no to high rise

'No' to high-rises in Lembah Permai

SOME 70 residents of Jalan Lembah Permai and Lorong Lembah Permai 1 to 5 staged a peaceful protest against a proposal for two 32-storey apartment towers and a nine-storey block in the neighbourhood.

Development

The site of the proposed development.

The residents also spoke for an hour and 20 minutes with Tanjung Bungah assemblyman Teh Yee Cheu.

Chris Tewson, who has lived with his wife Chan Phaik Ngoh in Lorong Lembah Permai 4 for 11 years, said most residents there were not aware of the changes in the developer's construction plans, which he claimed was being altered for the third time.

Tewson also alleged that only two residents had received notification of the objection hearing.

"The residents are wondering if this could be a tactic to reduce the number of objections," he said.

He said the residents were objecting to the proposed development because of the anticipated increase in traffic, which was already heavy in  Jalan Lembah Permai.

"Jalan Fettes, the winding road that joins to Jalan Lembah Permai, was not so jammed years ago. However, there have been numerous bad accidents in Jalan Fettes in recent years.

"The residents here are fed up with the traffic jams," Tewson said, adding that the proposed development would bring a few thousand vehicles into the neighbourhood.

He said Lorong Lembah Permai 4 had, for the past 30 years, been zoned for single-storey detached bungalows, and was currently restricted to two-storey buildings by the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP).

He said it was unreasonable to construct tower blocks just six  metres from single and double-storey dwellings.

"The residents also object to any access road from Lorong Lembah Permai 4 to the proposed development," said Tewson.

The residents questioned why it was not proposed for the development to be located adjacent to the international school and commercial area instead of near the single and double-storey houses.

Chan said letter requesting a dialogue session with MPPP president Patahiyah Ismail was hand-delivered on Nov 29, but it had yet to receive a reply.

Thursday, 1 December 2011

Established housing areas no increase of density allowed




Begin forwarded message:

From: Yan Lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 26, 2011 15:27:23 GMT+08:00
Subject: Fwd: 20 pykett info n notes for press




मेरे ipad से भेजा


Begin forwarded message:

From: Yan Lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 26, 2011 15:23:04 GMT+08:00
Subject: Fwd: 20 pykett info n notes for press

add that roads in the vicinity r too narrow.

Because of trees u cannot widen the roads.

Establishd housing area density shall not be allowed to increase.


मेरे ipad से भेजा


Begin forwarded message:

From: Yan Lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 11, 2011 17:48:47 GMT+08:00
To: sharanjit <sharannst@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: 20 pykett info n notes for press

hi

Maybe you can add this.

Say something to the effect that a lot of people in Penang do not understand or are aware that they can object to the MPPP when a high density development is being proposed by a developer.

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1975 MPPP only have to inform neighbours who are 20 meters from the boundary line. In 1975 buildings are only mostly  double storeys and density 6units per acre.

Today they are trying to build 87 units per acre and 30 storeys, surely what was intended in the Act has to change today. Neighbours 2km away will be affected as well.

Penang people if they need help can email the Penang Citizen Awareness Chant Group email is 
citizenchant.group@gmail.com or call 0124846682 for assistance.

मेरे ipad से भेजा


Begin forwarded message:

From: yan lee <leeyan.c@gmail.com>
Date: November 10, 2011 12:38:23 GMT+08:00
To: sharannst@gmail.com
Subject: 20 pykett

S

Below I have set out in point form issues relating to this development as mentioned yesterday.

I heard rumours that they have accepted the donation to the Heritage fund.

In relation to density, this new 2.8 plot ratio seems a bit suspect as no formal announcements made by the PGGOV, only write ups are announce by Rehda's Jerry Chan and Khor Ting Tong of Hunza, kinda odd. [maybe u can get some1 to check your archives]

No public consultation done. 

Maybe we should ask about what is the function of this SPC [State Planning Commission]

I have also attached some pictures which are relevant to points I have raised below.

Catch up soon

Regards

=======================================================

There is concerns expressed by the residents of Pykett, Khaw Sim Bee , Westlands and Padang Victoria about the intended development on the above property.

PENANG IS NOW A UNESCO HERITAGE CITY, please don't forget that and Malaysia has just won a seat in the WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE. ANNOUNCED TODAY 9/11/11.


We question the following :-

a. The illegal demolition of the building, why rebuilding not started ?? Unconditional rebuild order issued by the MPPP since January 2011.


b. why MPPP have not penalised the landowner for not starting rebuilding works as allowed for in the Town n Country Planning Act. A daily fine can be imposed.

IS OUR HERITAGE FOR SALE ??
IF THE LANDOWNER IS ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO A HERITAGE FUND AS PUNISHMENT, ALL OUR HERITAGE BUILDINGS IN TOWN ARE NOT SAFE

CONTRIBUTE MORE AND YOU CAN DEMOLISH KHOO KONGSI !!


c. concerns about traffic

d. concerns about parking
in the event project allowed to start, each unit must have two car parks.

visitors car parks to be provided, at least 100 units strictly for visitors, to be in common area


e. concerns about sewrage and drainage and water pressure in the area

f. concerns about flooding, every time it rains there is flooding, with the raising of the level of the new development and water run off from 4 blocks of 30 storeys. This need to be studied and addressed.

MPPP Engineering informed us at our last meeting 6 months ago that thee was some upgrading of the drainage system planned, but to date no further information or work had commenced yet. By this MPPP is aware that there is a problem with the underground drainage system.


g. every time it rains the man holes on Perak Road near Dunn Road, due to force of water it will explode and blow out. There must be a problem with the underground sewrage system. All MPPP have done is to patch up the manhole area.

h. A social impact assesment to be done and displayed for public comment and feedback, This report will have experts solution to remedy the problem.

i A Traffic impact assesment study o be done and displayed for public comment and feedback.This report will have experts solution to remedy the problem.

j. An Environmental impact assesment report and displayed for public comment and feedback. This report will have experts solution to remedy the problem.

k. In the event the project is allowed to start, a condition shall be for the developer to prepare a Dilapidation survey report of the surrounding buildings, this shall prevent any disputes later.

l. All trees on the said land shall be marked and highlighted and as stipulated in the Town and Country planning Act, trees of girth more then 800mm , MPPP has to approve before the land owner is allowed to chop down the trees.

m. There is some 200 households living in our area.


On issue of density

aa. This area under the zoning plan , allowable density is 15 units per acre.


bb. Landowner has submitted for 294 units.

cc. Under garis panduan from MPPP on the increase density to 2.8 plot ratio. It is stated clearly that this density cannot be applied for "established housing" area. This is the case for the Pykett area.

dd. If you check your archives no official announcement made by Penang Government on this , but announced by Khor Ting Tong and Jerry Chan of REHDA

MPPP has to be responsible to the people, MPPP is run by elected representative of the people. All the recommended studies must be done and displayed for public comment and feedback. When the recommendations are implemented then only the Local council can allow this huge development to proceed.

Why not build a high end gated and guarded development, with Terraces houses, Semi - Ds and Bungalows. Penang is ready for a Gated Guarded Community. This is sustainable development.

Perak Road


Perak Road Cnr Dunn Road


Perak Rd near Logan Rd.