Review Rule 5 of planning act to let all be heard, says MP

Residents in Taman Tiara Titiwangsa had objected to a high-density project in the area.

KUALA LUMPUR: A lawmaker has repeated his call for a review of Rule 5 of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 to give those at public objection hearings a fair chance to be heard.

Lembah Pantai MP Fahmi Fadzil was commenting on the decision by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) to appeal a court ruling that a public objection hearing involving Taman Tiara Titiwangsa residents was null and void.

The Court of Appeal accepted the residents’ argument that they were unable to present their case against a proposal to build a high-density project in a meaningful way under Rule 5, which allows public participation in areas of planning and development control.

Fahmi said he was not sure of the grounds on which DBKL was appealing the decision, but that those defending and objecting to should be provided the same documents, similar to the procedure in a tribunal or court hearing.

Another problem, he said, is that there is no follow-up by authorities after a public objection hearing is held.

“I have received a number of complaints from residents that there is no follow-up even after a hearing under Rule 5 has been held.

“And before they know it, the project is already happening,” he told FMT after a dialogue between Bukit Bandaraya Residents’ Association members and Kuala Lumpur mayor Nor Hisham Ahmad Dahlan yesterday.

Lembah Pantai MP Fahmi Fadzil.

Fahmi also said public objection cases should not be restricted to people living within a 50m radius of the project in question, as others in the area could also be affected and should be allowed to have their say.

He said his call for a review of Rule 5 is pertinent to other ongoing cases.

In June last year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed the Taman Tiara Titiwangsa residents’ bid to nullify the public objection hearing on grounds that they were not able to present their case in a “meaningful” way.

The residents appealed to the Court of Appeal which ruled on March 13 that they should have been allowed to obtain documents on the case even though Rule 5 does not require DBKL to provide these.

The Court of Appeal also agreed that there was an element of bias because the mayor, who was the decision-maker of the project, also sat as a director and trustee for the land owner, Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan.

It declared the public objection hearing null and void.

DBKL then decided to file an appeal with the Federal Court. - FMT