Taman Rimba Kiara land meant for development, not park, apex court told

 

The proposed project involves building a 29-storey apartment block, eight blocks of serviced apartments and eight storeys of parking facilities at Taman Rimba Kiara.

PUTRAJAYA: Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) claims that the Taman Rimba Kiara land was meant to be used for development and not as a public park.

DBKL’s lawyer B Thangaraj told the Federal Court today that the development order (DO) to build apartments was issued on July 13, 2017 – a year before the KL City Plan was gazetted.

He said in 2017, the KL City Plan – which proposed for Taman Rimba Kiara to be made the neighbourhood’s green lung – was merely in its draft format and had yet to be finalised.

“The (Taman Tun Dr Ismail, or TTDI) residents relied on the draft city plan and contended that the mayor must consider it before reaching his decision to grant the DO.

“It was only a draft and the city plan was still in the process of being finalised. It was only gazetted on Oct 30, 2018,” Thangaraj added.

DBKL, developer Memang Perkasa Sdn Bhd, and Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan (YWP) – a charity foundation under the federal territories ministry – are seeking to reinstate their plan to develop Taman Rimba Kiara.

The Court of Appeal had last year ruled in favour of TTDI residents in their judicial review and revoked the DO.

The proposed project involves building a 29-storey apartment block with 350 units of affordable housing, as well as eight blocks of serviced apartments and eight storeys of parking facilities.

Thangaraj said since the KL City Plan was only in its draft format, the mayor had to use the normal procedure to call a public inquiry and hear views from the affected residents around Taman Rimba Kiara.

“However, the respondents (TTDI residents) are not the ‘qualified persons’ to state any objection because they are not owners of the land adjoining the subject land.

“The appeals court had erred in its finding to state they are aggrieved parties and had the legal standing to file the judicial review.”

Meanwhile, Gopal Sri Ram, appearing for Memang Perkasa, concurred with DBKL’s submissions that the residents lacked legal standing to commence the judicial review.

Gopal Sri Ram.

“They are not entitled to the judicial review’s reliefs because they are not adversely affected and they were not granted the right under the Planning (Development) Rules for the local authorities to consider their views,” he said.

Sri Ram also said DBKL does not owe a common law duty to provide reasons to residents on why it had rejected their objections.

“The statute here does not obligate DBKL to give its reasons to them, but it is obligatory for DBKL to provide reasons to my client (if the application for permission is rejected),” he added.

Co-counsel Khoo Guan Huat said that the residents’ bid to include a 2019 Auditor-General (A-G) Report in this case had no relevance to this proceeding.

“The A-G’s opinions were general and do not specifically relate to this DO,” he added.

The hearing continues on April 28 before Federal Court judges Nallini Pathmanathan, Rhodzariah Bujang and Zabidin Mohd Diah.

YWP’s lawyer Cecil Abraham and the TTDI residents’ lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar will start their submissions then. - FMT