State legal adviser asked us to reconsider USJ 6 revocation, MPSJ councillor reveals

An MPSJ councillor today told Komunitikini that the sudden decision by the local authority to cancel the revocation of USJ 6’s commercial plans was done on the advice of the state legal adviser.

He said the state’s legal counsel has told them to reconsider the revocation in March/ April due to the lawsuit and compensation claim they might suffer as a consequence.

Residents in USJ 6 were in shock to learn that the revocation of a proposed development project by TM Facilities was suddenly overturned in a special meeting in April.

The councillor, who prefers to remain anonymous, said prior to that in December when MPSJ revokde the development order, they were not aware of the consequences of their actions.

“However after hearing the advice, we decided to hold another meeting to discuss the issue.”

Komunitikini learned that during the meeting the cancellation motion was passed with a slim majority, where 11 councillors voted in favour of the development plan while 10 others voted against it.

The 0.35ha land located in the USJ6 utility reserve zone is under the ownership of TM Facilities. The land title was converted into commercial use back in 1989.

TM Facilities proposed to sub-divide the land into a nine-story commercial building. However, the residents nearby are up in arms against it, worrying the traffic congestion it will bring into the area.

Despite strong protests, the Selangor state planning committee (SPC) granted an approval to the project in March 2009.

MPSJ later agreed to revoke the order. The revocation was however withdrawn last month.

Petaling Jaya Selatan state assemblyperson Lau Weng San said such approval, once granted, will create a precedence for other utility reserve lands to be converted and developed for other purposes.

“I urge the state planning committee  to seriously think through the application to convert that said utility reserve land into commercial land as it will have serious impact on other local councils.

“The state planning committee should and must have a strong stand and not pass the buck around without clear-cut solutions provided to the people. It is unfair to both the people and the landowner,” he said.

He hoped SPC could call an urgent meeting to resolve the matter.

On the other hand, the councillor asked the opposing residents to file an objection to the state appeal court.