KL-PUTRAJAYA ELEVATED HIGHWAY 2 METRES AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL HOUSES

Our reference: RSP (5)
Date: 21 November 2005

Lau Kien Foh
45, Jalan 2/149K,
Bandar Baru Seri Petaling,
57000 Kuala Lumpur.

Ketua Pengarah
Jabatan Alam Sekitar
Aras 3-7, Blok C4
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62662 Putrajaya
Fax: 8889 1036

Attention To : Y. Bhg. Dato’ Hajah Rosnani Ibrahim

Dear Dato’,

THE PROPOSED KL-PUTRAJAYA HIGHWAY PACKAGE 5 : ELEVATED HIGHWAY ALONG JALAN 2/149, BANDAR BARU SRI PETALING

With reference to our letter dated 9 May 2005 and acknowledged receipt by Jabatan Alam Sekitar (JAS) on 11 May 2005. We regret to inform that we have not received any reply from your department as of to-date.

Once again, we wish to refer to the Preliminary EIA report submitted in June 1997 and Supplementary EIA report submitted in April 2003 on the above project.

We are given to understand from the Minister of Works and Malaysian Highway Authority (MHA) that both reports have been approved by Department of Environment (DOE) respectively. We, the residents of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling wish to enquire on how the above projects had obtained the relevant approvals from JAS?

We must bring to your kind attention that based on our review of the EIA reports, we have noted some important concepts of EIA and pertinent information were not included in the Preliminary EIA report dated June 1997 and the Supplementary report dated April 2003 respectively. These important concepts and pertinent information are illustrated in the appendix enclosed. We believe that without the important concepts and the pertinent information mentioned above, these reports had neglected the environmental impacts on the public and had defied the objectives of EIA. The EIA approval granted to the Project based on these reports are unfair to the public that are directly and indirectly impacted by the Project.

We must clarify that we are not against the Project or any development that bring prosperities to the country but it should not be at the risk of the public. We believe that it is the responsibility of JAS to ensure that the Government who spend RM1.3 billion on this mega Project would want it to be implemented without subjecting the public at risk and without violating the National Environmental Policy and other rules and regulations.

In view of the above, we appreciate if you could investigate the issues raised and review the EIA reports to avoid costly mistake that may required modification subsequently.

We would also like to request for a meeting with JAS to discuss what are the measures have been taken to ensure that the residents will not be environmentally impacted by the highway during construction and operation stage.

Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 012 396 8138.

Your kind consideration is much appreciated.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

-------------------------------------
Lau Kien Foh (Mr)
Residents Representative
Tel – 012-3968138

CC :

1)YB Dato Seri Haji Adenan Bin Haji Satem, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment (Fax: 2693 2116)
2)YB Dato’ Seri S. Samy Vellu, Minister of Works (Fax: 2711 1818, 2711 6361)
3)Principal Private Secretary to the Honorable Prime Minister – (Fax: 8888 3975)
4)YB Dato’ Shahrir Abd. Samad, Chairman of BNBBC (Fax: 2070 7101)
5)Ketua Pengarah, Biro Pengaduan Awam (Kes 21965) (Fax: 8888 3748)

Our reference: RSP (5)

Date: 20th August 2005

Ketua Pengarah
Department of Environment
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur
1st-2nd Floor,Wisma SCA
No 3, Jalan Sungai Besi,
57100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Attention To : Puan Hajjah Wan Ramlah Wan Ibrahim

THE PROPOSED KL-PUTRAJAYA HIGHWAY PACKAGE 5 : ELEVATED HIGHWAY ALONG JALAN 2/149K, BANDAR BARU SRI PETALING

With reference to the above, we the residents of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling must to bring to your kind attention that some important concepts of EIA and pertinent information were not included in the Preliminary EIA report dated June 1997 and the Supplementary report dated April 2003 respectively (these important concepts and pertinent information are discussed in the appendix enclosed). Without the important concepts and the pertinent information mentioned above, these reports had neglected the environmental impacts on the public and had defied the objectives of EIA. The EIA approval granted to the Project based on these reports are very unfair to the public that are directly and indirectly impacted by the Project.

We must clarify that we are not against the Project or any development that bring prosperities to the country but it should not be at the risk of the public. To initiate a protocol highway 2.3 meters away from residential houses is environmentally unacceptable to the community. We deeply believed that the Government who spend 1.3 billion on this mega Project would want it to be implemented without subjecting the public at risk and without violating the National Environmental Policy and other rules and regulations.

In view of the above, we appreciate if you could investigated the issues raised by the residents and review the EIA reports in order to avoid any costly mistake that may required modification subsequently to make the Project environmentally acceptable to the community and to the Government.

Finally we would like to request for a meeting with JAS to discuss what are the measures have been taken to ensure that the residents will not be environmentally impacted by the highway during construction and operation stage.

Your cooperation is much appreciated.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

-------------------------------------
(Lau Kien Foh)
Tel – 012-3968138

cc : PM
EPU
Ministry Of Work
LLM
DBKL
JAS Putrajaya

IMPORTANCE CONCEPTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRELIMINARY EIA REPORT (JUNE 1997)

1. Project Options/Route Options

It is essential that availability of route options is identified right from the earliest stages of project planning and environmental implications of each option should be considered for selecting a preferred option. In fact plenty of route options, which could avoid passing through a Bandar Baru Sri Petaling (an low density residential area) were available at the time the Project was initiated and these options are still available. These options are :

1. shift the ROW alignment towards Zone N of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling to create an adequate buffer on both sides of the highway
2. follow the alignment of Besraya Highway and join to Bukit Jalil bypassing Bandar Baru Sri Petaling
3. follow the alignment of Seremban Highway and join to Bukit Jalil bypassing Bandar Baru Sri Petaling

2. Public Participation

Public participation is essential during the planning stages of the Project. A valid assessment of the impact of the Project on the community cannot be made without some form of public participation as it is the most reliable way of predicting the impact of the Project on people. Public meetings/workshop and regular meeting with a residents committee representing the residents directed affected by the Project was not conducted.

Without the two important concepts mentioned above, the Preliminary EIA report and the Supplementary report submitted for the Project had neglected the environmental impacts on the public and had defied the purpose of EAI.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT (APRIL 2003) – PERTINENT INFORMATION WAS HIDDEN

1. The setback distance between the elevated highway and the boundary of houses was not specifically mentioned

In the Executive Summary, Potential Environmental Impacts item 5.2.7 and Results Of Noise Prediction Table of the Preliminary EIA report, it was clearly stated that the highway is 20 metres to 50 metres away from residential areas. However in item 3.1.2 Existing Land Use Within /Adjacent ROW of the Supplementary EIA report, it only stated the residential units along both sides of Jalan 2/149 are located immediately next to ROW. The latter is not specific as the highway could still be 20 metres to 50 metres away from the residential houses if the width of the ROW is 60 metres to 100 metres as illustrated in Figure 1 attached.

The assessor had been inconsistent in describing the setback distance of the highway from the boundary of residential houses. The critical change of the setback distance of the highway from 20-50 metres to 2.3 metres was mentioned.

2. Failure to identify Zone N of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling as newly affected residential area and consequentially Zone L&M

Table 3.2 of the supplementary report stated :

Change in affected land use subsequent to 1997 preliminary report

i)Year 2003 : Taman Salak South – Taman Sri Petaling ,no area affected.

The Project was approved in October 1997 and Zone N of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling was then an empty land. Subsequently, this empty land available for acquisition for ROW of the highway had been approved for housing development by DBKL. In year 2003, the housing development (Zone N) had been completed and occupied. Now, there is no more land available for the ROW except for the narrow Jalan 2/149 (32 metres width) which is the main road servicing the housing development, with more than 200 units of terrace houses abutting to it. The highway is no longer 20 metres to 50 metres away from residential houses as stated in the Preliminary EIA report, instead it is just 2.3 metres away. Surely, Zone N of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling and consequentially Zone L&M are the newly affected residential areas. If Zone L,M & N of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling are not the newly affected residential areas, the highway shall remained 20 metres to 50 metres away from the houses as stated in the Preliminary EIA report and what is implementing at the site now had violated the Environmental Act as it is according to the EIA reports.

The assessor had failed to identify the critical changes in Bandar Baru Sri Petaling, which carry weight that could influence the outcome of the EIA approval.

3. Failure to identify potential and significant environmental impacts at Zone L, M and N of Bandar Baru Sri Petaling

The followings are stated in the Supplementary report :

1. Table 4.1 : Additional or new areas subject to environmental impacts along proposed alignment

• Potential impacts at Part 7, Taman Salak South – Taman Sri Petaling - Nil
• Significant impacs at Part 7, Taman Salak South – Taman Sri Pedaling - Nil

1. Noise Pollution : Arena Green View at Bukit Jalil is the nearest new residential area to the Project, 30 metres away from ROW

There was significant changes in Bandar Baru Sri Petaling since 1997.Due to the housing development of Zone N mentioned above, the highway is no longer 20 metres to 50 metres away from residential houses as stated in the Preliminaries EIA report, instead it is just 2.3 metres away (the changes is illustrated in figure 2&5).In view of the close proximity, surely there is potential and significant environmental impacts to the residents in Bandar Baru Sri Petaling which the assessor had failed to identify. There is no evidence of support found in the Supplementary report that these impacts are no longer significant. The noise analysis is only being carried recently after the residents raised the issue in May 2005.

The assessor had failed to identify in the Supplementary report, the potential and significant environmental impacts due to the critical change in Bandar Baru Sri Petaling

In the conclusion of the Supplementary report, it stated that the Supplementary report will assist in ensuring that the Project proponent and the authorities concerned are aware of the environmental issues .However the assessor had failed to bring to the awareness of the relevant authorities the above mentioned environmental issues and had failed to fulfilled the objective of the Supplementary report.