AS of May 7, there were 543 gazetted green and open spaces in Kuala Lumpur, according to the Federal Territories Lands and Mines Office’s MyHijau portal.
While this is a good sign, the reality on the ground remains complicated.
When researching for the article titled “Green puzzle” (published on July 7), my colleagues and I found that some of the plots that had been marked as “green and open spaces” on MyHijau were actually being used for commercial purposes such as carparks and shoplots.
In response to the article, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said these plots must be gazetted before authorities could take action against improper land use that included encroachment and unauthorised commercial activities.
This is understandable, because while authorities can act on unlicensed businesses occupying gazetted green and open spaces, they will face hurdles trying to enforce on privately owned lands where developments don’t match the lands’ intended use under the city’s zoning plans.
In the StarMetro article titled “KL planning gaps risk costly payout” (published on Feb 13) Yeoh acknowledged this challenge.
She said that as long as landowners had paid the land premiums and secured the titles, they held the rights to develop the land based on the original title even if it contradicted the Kuala Lumpur Local Plan (KLLP), which might have been established after the land was acquired.
If Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) refuses to grant the landowner a Development Order due to the contradiction, it risks being liable to compensate the owner for the loss of development rights, as prescribed by Section 46 of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982.
Another risk facing gazetted green and open spaces is the possibility of them being degazetted to make way for other purposes, as the city’s local plan may be amended to facilitate public works such as flood mitigation, according to Yeoh, in the Feb 13 article.
If the degazettement was made solely for public interests, then it would be acceptable.
However, we have seen several cases of degazettement being done to make way for developments that could jeopardise the environment around the land.
One example is the case of the Kampung Bohol flood retention pond, which sparked widespread outcry as part of the land was reportedly being set aside for development that could possibly reduce the pond’s capacity.
To address this issue, a strong protection framework needs to be established.
KLLP must be a legally-binding document to ensure that all future land owners strictly follow the intended use prescribed in the plan, to reduce the risk of green and open spaces being compromised for other purposes.
In the June 2 StarMetro article titled “Loopholes leave KL’s public spaces vulnerable to degazettement”, a residents council committee member suggested that an Act be introduced to dictate that any land degazettement must be brought to Parliament – I fully concur with this.
When decision-making is vested in the hands of 222 MPs instead of just a few people, the authorities will be compelled to think more carefully before degazetting land for any purpose.
