"Springtide" complaints !!

The following complaints about the “Springtide” Condominium were handed to the CM ‘party on 9 December 2006.

(PELAN BANGUNAN No. 43254(LB))
Complaint 1 – non-compliance with state policy with regard to the planning application

One could ask that construction be stopped immediately pending the required in-depth study. There is considerable neighbourhood opposition to this building, and it appears accepted wisdom in any planning circles that construction should be in harmony with the island terrain and profile. A 38 storey building in this location is clearly affecting the whole profile of this stretch of the coast.

Complaint 2 – the developers option to double units per acre

The developer of the project has exercised an option to double the units per acre by payment of RM 5 per sq. ft. into a council/government fund. This allows the building now to rise to 38 storeys. 19 storeys is excessive immediately on the seaside, but 38 storeys is totally inappropriate.

Complaint 3 – the developers non-compliance with stipulated working hours

The construction work at the site takes place with deliberate disregard for the stipulated working hours. Working regularly continues up towards midnight and on Sunday. Complaints are ineffective, and Building Department instructions to comply with hours are totally ignored.

General

The ‘Springtide’ offers a specific example of a high rise on which to concentrate, because it is a construction ‘in process’ and not yet a fait accompli – which it will quickly become if construction continues. Also it is now coming up to pre-option height, which gives some sort of target to focus on.

There appears to be an arguable case that policy with regard to the project has not been complied with, and the required in-depth study has not been carried out, thereby justifying a work stoppage to enable the study to be carried out prior to its completion.

The whole process from planning through to construction does not inspire confidence. At every turn, it appears that the developer is advantaged at public expense in one form or another. Far from being delayed for in-depth study, planning and then construction approval has been obtained in what may be uncommonly quick time.

A proposal to shut down the site, pending a study, may be rejected, but it may clarify relevant policies, and one could then suggest amendments.