Should the public not just the landowners be given the right to object to a major development project within their locality?

This is what 113 plaintiffs, representing about 1,000 residents of Kg Rethnam Pillai in Sentul, are asking the court to decide on to give occupants and tenants, as opposed to landowners, the legal right to object against projects affecting their lives.

On Wednesday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court postponed the hearing of their application for an interlocutory injunction to stop City Hall from processing the development plan and granting the planning permission to the developer.

The injunction hearing has been postponed to April 18 because the judge had taken ill, and City Hall has given a written assurance that they will not proceed with the processing until then.

However, the outcome of the application will depend on the decision of whether the existing rules governing City Hall's approval process are valid or ultra vires according to the Federal Constitution.

The Planning (Development) Rules1970 adopted over the years by later laws, now found in the Federal Territory Planning Act 1982, have always given registered landowners the right to object as far as planning of a project was concerned.

Restrict right to object

But lawyer acting for the 113 plaintiffs, Charles Hector, argued that the rules restrict the right to object to only "registered landowners of adjacent property".

"About 1,000 persons in the area have submitted protests and objections to this proposed development project but the rules do not allow their protests and objections to be heard, let alone considered. Where is the justice?

"More importantly, should not the priority be to provide housing for the 140 families living on the land.

"The new project will bring in 450 new families into the community and there has been no consideration and/or provisions made for the present 140 families already staying there."

Hector said every person should be treated equally irrespective of his status as a landlord, tenant, licensee, and someone working or staying in the area.

"Why should registered land owners be treated differently when the development ultimately affects all and not just the registered land owners?

"Furthermore, the rights of the public to object under the 1982 Act is also vague. That is why the court or Parliament needs to explicitly state the position in clear terms," he told malaysiakini today.

He said the rules are also being challenged against Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees the right to life, the right to equal treatment and the right not to be discriminated.

Hector said the right to life includes the right to a quality of life and to live in a reasonably healthy environment.

As for discrimination, he said it was implied because only registered landowners are given the right to object when in urban areas like Kuala Lumpur, the interests of many others, such as licensees, tenants and residents, are affected.

"After all, any development project will affect the entire surrounding. An increase in the population density will result in various problems such as traffic congestion, water and electricity supply, phone lines, places in schools in the area and places of worship," he added.

Last December, the plaintiffs had filed a suit against City Hall for failing to get their views on the building proposal involving two 18-storey and one 17-storey blocks of buildings, totalling 450 units of apartments.

The project includes a two-storey and three-storey carparks, a two-storey clubhouse and a swimming pool.