Why did PKNS not object to change?
The crux of the matter is that the Local Plan was on display for public inspection and for objections from land owners and residents. PKNS did not make any objections to the field being designated as “recreational” and the plan was approved by the state assembly and gazetted in 2010. It cannot claim ignorance. It can only plead, if any, incompetency.
R. Nadeswaran, The Sun
IN April 2010, the Selangor Economic Development Corporation (PKNS) invited developers to undertake development of the field in SS7 in Kelana Jaya. The design criteria was as follows:
>> Iconic, state-of-the-art, futuristic and aesthetic but functional and in-trend design sustainable for at least 10 years from completion.
>> Maximum building and floor plate efficiency.
>> Good development mix and yields from investment/trading component (outright sales and recurrent incomes).
>> Use of ‘green technology’, environmental friendly and energy-saving building automation systems/technology/materials.
>> The existing football field to be retained although size may be reviewed.
>> Existing recreational facilities and function halls to be incorporated into proposed design.
Five companies were short-listed based on the architectural and financial evaluation presented to PKNS but the successful developer was Bayu Melati Sdn Bhd whose development proposal was then presented to the Mentri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, who is also PKNS chairman.
It was only later that PKNS found out that the site was marked as recreational in the masterplan of Kelana Jaya, while preparing the planning application to the Petaling Jaya City Council. The site is part of the green area percentage of the whole township.
These days, PKNS claims that the land was always zoned as “commercial” and not “recreational” as it appears in the Local Plan. In a statement to theSun, it said: “Since 1998, PKNS has been paying quit rent to MPPJ (now MBPJ) based on commercial rates. The land is privately owned by PKNS and is not a public field.”
The crux of the matter is that the Local Plan was on display for public inspection and for objections from land owners and residents. PKNS did not make any objections to the field being designated as “recreational” and the plan was approved by the state assembly and gazetted in 2010. It cannot claim ignorance. It can only plead, if any, incompetency.
More importantly, it declares that the “land is privately-owned and not a public field”. Nonsense, rubbish, hogwash or bunkum, or whatever you call it. PKNS is not a private enterprise, a sendirian berhad and neither is it a sole proprietorship or partnership. It was set up under the SEDC Act and all Selangor ratepayers are stakeholders in this organisation. To say otherwise, is tomfoolery of the highest order.
Having said that, why is PKNS so adamant in wanting to go against the wishes of its stakeholders, causing traffic jams and inconvenience to nearby residents? The answer can be found in the amount of money it can generate by turning it into a commercial complex.
Now for, a little history on the field and surrounding areas. In 1982, PKNS advertised its double storey link houses for sale. Its advertisement (see reproduction on this page) states: this area is complete with schools, kindergarten, playing field, sports recreational facilities, golf course, a lake garden…….”
People bought the house on this premise. Why weren’t they told that the so-called playing field would make way for a complex of gigantic proportions in the future?
So, before claiming that they are not a corporate monster but a humane entity with significant corporate social responsibility programmes, let’s hear from them on the very important issues that have been raised.
And by the way, they can apply for a refund to the Petaling land office if they had indeed paid commercial rates.
