Summary of the Petition submitted by TBRA to DOE

Summary of the Petition submitted by TBRA to DOE against the proposed Paired Road from Tanjong Bungah to Telok Bahang

The residents of Tanjong Bungah and surrounding areas object to the

construction of the proposed road for the following reasons:

1. Residents have not been properly informed about the project. The 322 population sample reportedly used to justify the acceptance of the project is not representative of the residents who will be impacted by these roads.
2. Hill clearing and cutting forest reserves in this sensitive and steep slope area will cause soil erosion, flash floods and have a negative impact on water resources.
3. Chee Seng Garden with its many condominiums is already densely populated. Additional traffic into this area will worsen congestion. Moreover, air pollution, dust, noise and vibration will affect residents’ quality of life and impact on their physical and mental health.
4. The proposed alignment will destroy a vital green lung there. Part of the road has been reclaimed by residents who use it in their hundreds every day for exercise and recreation enjoying the hills and waterfall. Extending the road to Lemba Permai will destroy the beauty and serenity of this area for little benefit.
5. The EIA shows the Paired Road stopping abruptly at Lemba Permai inevitably causing a new bottleneck in Tanjong Bungah. It claims to save 14 minutes of travel time from Batu Ferringhi but does not continue to improve the alternative exit via Mount Erskine.
6. The Assessment reveals TEN interchanges between Batu Ferringhi and Tanjong Bungah. That is far to many for the supposed intention of the road (“address the traffic congestion”) and leads us to suspect that the real intent is to open up more hill land for the construction of high rises and high price bungalows.

We appeal to the Department of Environment to stop this project which will not ease traffic but bring more problems to Tanjung Bunga residents. Alternative plans such as improving public transport and upgrading existing roads should be looked into.

TBRA,  4 August 2017

PLEASE FIND BELOW THE TBRA COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT ON 31 JULY 2017 ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTH COAST PAIRED ROAD (NCPR) FROM TELUK BAHANG TO TANJUNG BUNGAH

Date:     31    July 2017

KETUA PENGARAH

Jabatan Alam Sekitar,

Kementerian Sumber Asli & Alam Sekitar,

Aras1-4, Podium 2 &3 ,Wisma Sumber Asli,

No 25 , Persiaran Perdana , Presint 4

62574 PUTRAJAYA.

(u.p: Unit EIA- Urusetia EIA)

COMMENTS RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF PACKAGE 1 (WHICH IS THE NORTH COASTAL PAIRED ROAD) FROM TANJUNG BUNGAH TO TELOK BAHANG

The Tanjung Bungah Residents’ Association (TBRA) represents residents in the Tanjung Bungah area.  

We are aware that over 400 residents living around Package 1 (also known as NCPR) and its vicinity, have also submitted their comments on the EIA and we too support them and incorporate the views herein. We also make additional observations which we hope will be considered and regarded very seriously.

We hereby provide our comments to the EIA in respect of the NCPR from Tanjung Bungah to Telok Bahang.

1.    No proper public consultations: Public perception survey flawed

The perception survey done by the EIA consultants is very seriously flawed.

Only 322 persons were involved in the survey in relation to Package 1, and this population sample used to study the acceptance of the project is extremely small and does not represent the majority of the residents who will be impacted by the road.

Those who live along the corridors of the road were not properly consulted at all. A more comprehensive survey ought to have been done, which should have comprised of mainly people living along the corridors of the road alignment.

Many persons we spoke to were not aware about the details of the proposed alignment of the road and the EIA that we viewed is also not clear on the exact details in this regard.

This clearly shows that proper public consultations should have been carried out, with details provided, especially to those will be adversely affected particularly from noise and air pollution in addition the loss of vista.

Consequently, based on such a small sample size and the lack of more comprehensive consultations, we are unable to accept the EIA conclusion that 69% of the persons surveyed agree with the proposed road.

This figure is misleading due to the small sample size as well as the lack of consultation of people who will be most affected by the road alignment.

The survey is indeed seriously flawed and many who live along the NCPR alignment and its corridors are not agreeable to the project. This is evidenced by the 400 plus signatures collected in a very short timeframe among residents living in the vicinity of Package 1 who have objected to the road.

Hence, the EIA conclusion that 69% of the persons consulted in Package 1 are agreeable to the project is grossly misleading and should not be basis for approving the EIA.

   

2.    ‘Saving’ 14 minutes of time travel is no justification for the proposed road; no proper cost-benefit analysis done

The NCPR will be 10.53 km, (with 8.255 km at grade and 2.275 km which is elevated), with a dual two lane carriageway involving 4 lanes.

According to a speech by the Chief Minister of Penang in 2011, the NCPR is estimated to cost RM 518 million. (https://www.penang.gov.my/dmedia/879-penang-investment-seminar). 

This was the estimate in 2011 and is the cost of construction only. If the cost of land acquisition is taken into account, according to reliable sources, the NCPR is expected to cost RM 1 billion.  This cost does not include the money spent on conducting feasibility studies for the road which is many more million ringgit.

At page 4.10, table 4.12, the EIA claims that “the travel time from Tanjung Bungah to Teluk Bahang using the existing road ranges from 20-23 minutes” and that the “proposed highway will reduce journey time to 9 minutes with vehicles able to travel at an average speed of 70 km/hr.”

This means there will be a ‘saving’ at best of 14 minutes of the time travelled between Tanjung Bungah to Teluk Bahang. 

Spending such a huge amount of public resources to ‘save’ 14 minutes of time travelled is a colossal waste of public resources and cannot be justified economically, environmentally and socially.

On the other hand, the costs involved especially to the thousands of people living along the road alignment, as well as to the environment, and the cost borne by the State for the project (which will be borne by the people of Penang), is much more immense and significant. Surely there can be alternative solutions at much less the cost which have not at all be considered in the case of Package 1.

The EIA ought to have done a proper cost-benefit analysis done to justify the need for the road, but it has neglected to do so. What has been provided is only an economic valuation in relation to the environmental services involved. This is grossly insufficient.

The EIA claims that the ‘no-build’ option is not an option (at page 4.10) as “…it will further aggravate the traffic congestion…”. This is in reference to the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP), 2013-2030 as a whole, and is not specific to the road projects. The PTMP has many components and is not confined to the road projects.

Hence, the need for Package 1 is not justified adequately or effectively and represents another flaw in the EIA.

Cheaper options such as improving public transport and alternative modes of transport as well as upgrading existing roads should have been properly considered, as part of the ‘no-build’ option, instead of just claiming that the ‘no-build’ option is not an option.

In fact, the proposed NCPR will not solve the traffic congestion in Tanjung Bungah and is likely to aggravate it, which is contrary to the purported claim of easing traffic congestion. This is the case as the road ends abruptly in Lembah Permai. (See point below.)

3.    Proposed road will not solve traffic congestion in Tanjung Bungah

To make matters worse, the proposed road ends abruptly in Lembah Permai. Where the traffic will be diverted to, is not discussed at all, which means all the vehicles will end in a bottleneck in Tanjung Bungah, hence not solving the daily congestion at peak hours already confronting commuters and people living along existing roads.

Hence, the claim in the EIA that this proposed road “will address the traffic congestion in Penang” is not true at all.

In this regard, the EIA fails to demonstrate how the project will fulfil an existing need. 

4.   Failure to assess impacts of noise mitigation measures  

The EIA recognises at page 7.7 (executive summary) that the following communities will be affected by noise and vibration such as Leader Garden, Surin Condo, Taman Tanjung Bungah, Waterfront Condo, Coastal Tower, Desa Mar Vista Apartment (in Tanjung Bungah) and others in Batu Ferringhi.

Further, in section 8.70 (page 8.32), the EIA states that “in the context of the proposed roads….moderate to high noise reduction performance would be required of the barriers…such that the recommended noise criteria could be met.” Section 8.71,  describes some options and says that “…it was noted that for typically high-rise building in close  proximity to the highways, it may require up to category 3 (semi closure structures) or 4 (full enclosures) in order to mitigate the traffic noise at these sensitive locations (especially at locations with quite ambient noise).”

The locations requiring noise barriers are listed in Table 8.7 which in Package 1 include Taman Leader Condominium, Jalan Chee Seng 8, Taman Tanjung Bungah, Jalan Chee Seng, Surin Condominimum, Coastal Tower, Desa Mar Vista Apartment, Berverly Hills, Shamrock Beach, Sri Sayang Service Apartment, Ferringhi Delima Condominium, and Kg. Batu Ferringhi.

Given the nature of the noise barriers described in section 8.71 which requires semi-closed and fully-closed structures, the EIA fails to assess the impacts of these noise barriers on the quality of life of especially of those residents living in the high-rise condos and apartments described above.

This in our view, is a major omission, as there is no proper assessment of how residents will be impacted by unhealthy noise levels from the elevated sections of the proposed road and negative impacts from the appearance of concrete walls and structures impairing their vistas.

In fact, in section 7.44 (page 7.7), the EIA states that “residents in the high rise building will no longer see clear sky but in place, an elevated road passing near their homes and change (to the) visual aesthetics of the area.” This relates to the impairment from the elevated highway itself but there is no consideration of the impact on the visual aesthetics by the noise barriers themselves.

Such mitigation measures will definitely be unacceptable to the people residing along these concrete noise barrier structures.

5.    Impacts of air pollution not adequately considered

In relation to air pollution, Table 7.14 refers to the maximum incremental concentration of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matters.

It also states in section 7.200 that “the predicted 1 hour maximum concentration for Package 1 is less than 133.1 µg/m³   for particulate matters. What this means is unclear as would this be 100 µg/m³ or 10 µg/m³?  We are advised by experts that an incremental concentration increase of even 1 µg/m³ would be associated with significant health impacts, including increased risk of premature mortality.

Hence, the EIA does not provide the information needed to properly assess the impact on public health of the project’s impact on air quality.

The impact on public health is critical. However, the information is lacking in this regard in the EIA and is another major omission.

6.   Development on sensitive hill-land not justified

The EIA reveals that about 46% of the proposed road will be on terrain with a higher than 25 degree slope. Slopes above 25 degrees are well known to be ‘sensitive hill lands’ and should not be used for the proposed road.

In fact, the Penang Structure Plan 2020 generally prohibits hill land development except for very limited and justifiable exceptions, which in the case of this road, does not appear to be justifiable.

In section 7.10, the EIA states that it is “imperative… that huge cuttings of hill sides should be minimised which will introduce disturbance to the landscape…”. At section 7.16, it further states that “initial cuttings involve very steep slopes …” in the Tanjung Bungah area and that “this will require substantial slope treatment or mitigation measures against future instability or localised failures.”

It is clear from the above that the risks are high from the proposed road which can lead to landscape disturbances and instability of slopes.

Mitigation measures are suggested but whether they will indeed prevent the occurrence of slope failures, landslides and landslips cannot be guaranteed. 

Previous cases of slope failures and landslides are many in Malaysia on major highways such as the North-South Expressway, (one being near Guar Tempurung in 2004), the PLUS Expressway at Bukit-Lanjan (2003), the Gerik-Jeli East-West Highway and the Karak Highway to name just a few.   

Previous studies in Malaysia have shown that most landslides are man-made slopes and are mainly due to design deficiencies and poor maintenance.

The effect and impact of slope failures, landslides and landslips on the communities living along the road corridors has not been considered and is also a serious omission.    

7.    Impact of immense cuttings of waste not properly assessed

Given the nature of the terrain involved in Package 1, the EIA in section 7.9 states that extensive cuttings will be involved in Package 1, involving about 10.6 million cubic metres of cuts. 

In section 7.12 the EIA states that “the transportation of the cart away will itself present massive logistical problems.” Further, in relation to Teluk Bahang, it states that “the formation of the slope will require removal of earth and rocks/boulders that may require blasting”.

The issue of how and where to dispose 10 million cubic meters of cuttings is significant environmental problem. The EIA has failed to address the disposal of this vast amount of cut material also presents a social problem to the residents in the vicinity of such earthworks. This represents yet another serious flaw in the EIA.

8.   Destruction of forests in water catchment areas and highlands

The EIA also shows that about 3.34 ha (about 8.3 acres) of forests will be affected by the proposed road as it passes through the Teluk Bahang Forest Reserve and the Bukit Kerajaan Forest Reserve, which include water catchment areas and highland forests.

Allowing the NCPR to invade such environmentally sensitive areas is too much of a price to pay for its so-called ‘benefit’.  

9.    Loss of valuable recreation space and green lung

As pointed out by the objections raised by over 400 residents living along the NCPR and its vicinity, the tree lined existing road, hills and waterfall along the proposed alignment at Leader Garden, Surin Condominium and other condos nearby are the last remaining green lungs in the area for many in the Tanjung Bungah area in its surroundings.

At least a 100 people, if not more, use the place for daily walks & exercise, enjoying its tranquillity, beauty and serenity.  The proposed road will irreparably change this space that has become a very popular public recreation area into a major highway that will completely transform and destroy our peace and ambience.

This fact about the recreational use of this area is no-where mentioned in the EIA and is a major omission.

Clearly, the so-called ‘benefit’ of saving a few minutes is far outweighed by the massive negative impacts the proposed road will have on our lives, our communities, our well-being and our environment.

In this regard, we appeal to the DOE to not approve the EIA for the NCPR for the reasons mentioned above.

We sincerely hope that our comments will be seriously taken into account.

Thank you.

Meena Raman

Chairperson,

Tanjung Bungah Residents Association

‘Noise will be an issue’: Penang elevated highways will pass near highrise apartments

“Noise and vibration from traffic movement” will be an issue for residents living in a string of apartment blocks, according to the environmental impact assessment for three proposed highways in Penang.
The tower blocks affected are:

Package 1

• Taman Leader Condominium
• Surin Condominium
• Taman Tanjung Bungah
• Waterfront Condominium
• Coastal Tower
• Desa Mar Vista Apartment
• Beverly Hills
• Sri Sayang Service Apartment
• Ferringhi Delima Condominium

Package 2

• All Season Palace Condominium
• Boulevard Condominium
• Greenlane Heights
• Delima Palace and others

... Click here for full article by Anil Netto ...

Support for appeal by Sg. Ara residents against Sunway Hills project on hillslopes

FOR URGENT ATTENTION --

This was the press release issued on Sunday, 9 July 2017 at a press conference at Sunrise Condominium in Sungei Ara which received very good press coverage in the Chinese media.

See details below: 

Support for appeal by Sg. Ara residents against

Sunway Hills project on hillslopes

Several Residents’ Associations and organisations in Penang have come together in a show of support and solidarity for the Sungei Ara residents who are appealing the decision of the Penang High Court, delivered on 29 May 2017.

The High Court had ruled in favour of Sunway City and overturned the decision of the Penang Appeals Board which had decided in favour of the residents in not granting planning permission for the Sunway Hills project.

The Sunway Hills project by Sunway City in Sungei Ara, involves housing development on sensitive hill land, that is land with more than 250 feet (76 metres) above sea level and a gradient exceeding 25 degrees.

Sunway proposes to construct 600 units comprising high-rise apartments and bungalows on hill lands covering 80 acres, approximately 43% of which are on slopes exceeding a gradient of 25 degrees.

On 20 Nov. 2015, the Appeals Board, upheld the objections by the residents who were owners of neighbouring lands against the approval of the project by the Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang (MBPP).  

Sunway City had argued that the MBPP had granted planning permission properly because the proposed development is a ‘special project.’ The residents argued that the sensitive hill lands are unsuitable for the development proposed.

The Appeals Board ruled that the MBPP was wrong in granting the approval as it had failed to consider properly that (in this case), the primary objective of the Penang Structure Plan 2020 is to preserve hill lands; and only very limited and justifiable exceptions were allowed as ‘special projects’, which justification was lacking in the Sunway project.

Following the decision of the Appeals Board, the Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, had on 26 February 2016, at a press conference, announced that the MBPP could now overturn the approvals given to similar hill slope special projects approved by the previous Barisan Nasional government. The legal adviser of MBPP, Puan Shamiah and also YB Jagdeep Singh Deo, a State Exco member and Town and Country Planning Committee chairman, were also at this press conference.

HAKAM (the National Human Rights Society) and Penang Forum, who were invited to attend the press conference, applauded the State government's support for the Appeals Board decision as it best served the public interest and sustainable development.

The Penang Structure Plan 2020 was gazetted in 2007 and states that the exception to the prohibition on hill land development is only for ‘special projects’ but it does not define what they are.

The definition and the guidelines for ‘special projects’ were approved by the present government in 2009. How the guidelines are to be interpreted is the bone of contention in the Sungei Ara residents case.

Following the clarification provided by the Appeals Board in the Sunway case, the expectation was that the State government would have revised or redefined what are ‘special projects’ in the 2009 guidelines to prohibit future private development on hill lands.

We are therefore surprised that at the hearing at the Penang High Court, the counsel for MBPP took a different stance from that publicly announced by the Chief Minister. 

The Sungei Ara residents were disappointed that the lawyers for the MBPP argued against the clarity of the definition provided by the Appeals Board as regards ‘special projects’.

We are indeed intrigued as to the change of stance by the MBPP and would like to enquire what stance the State government and MBPP will now take before the Court of Appeal when the residents seek to restore the Appeals Board decision.

We are supporting the appeal against the High Court decision, as it has serious implications not only for the immediate residents of the vicinity of the project but also for all citizens of Penang who will be affected by development projects in environmentally sensitive areas, including on hillslopes and highlands in Penang.

The decision will also have serious implications for all cases involving planning law in the country.

The High Court, in ruling in favour of Sunway City, had among other things, held the project to be a ‘special project,’ and hence an exception to the Structure Plan.

The Judge in the case had also suggested that the Structure Plan “need not be slavishly complied” with by the MBPP.

These are serious matters of public interest which must be reviewed by the Court of Appeal. The High Court decision must not serve as a precedent for other development projects on hill lands and environmentally sensitive areas.

Consequently, the Sungei Ara residents have filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision-and we stand in solidarity with them in their appeal.

The Chief Minister in the press conference last year, acknowledged that the High Court case “is expected to be the case of the century for planning law in Malaysia,” and had blamed the previous government for approving projects on sensitive hill lands.

Given the above, we call for the following actions to be taken urgently:

1. It is vital for the Chief Minister and the MBPP to make clear their position as regards the appeal by the residents to restore the Appeals Board decision;

2. The State government revise or redefine what are ‘special projects’ in the 2009 guidelines in order to explicitly prohibit any future development on hill lands except for essential public amenities, pending a revision of the new Structure Plan.

3. Since the present Structure Plan is now pending revision, the State should also ensure the explicit prohibition of any future development on hill lands except for essential public amenities.

4. The State should also stop approving any further applications for excision of the status of ‘hill lands’ from the Land Conservation Act 1960.  

These matters are of great importance to all citizens of Penang. We also call on the public to support the Sungei Ara residents in this very critical public interest case.

Today it is Sungei Ara, tomorrow it could be Paya Terubong, and the next day it might be at your backyard; hence the need to defend the front line.

Development on sensitive hill lands of more than 250 feet should not be allowed, as they pose serious environmental and social impacts for residents in the neighbouring lands such as soil erosion, landslides and landslips, unstable soils and negative impacts from blasting works etc. These are the precise concerns of the Sungei Ara residents that are also faced presently by other residents in Paya Terubong, and Jesselton Heights.

We laud their courage and spirit, in spearheading this appeal to the Court of Appeal despite the financial challenges they are facing.

Their struggle in the public interest should be supported for a better environment and a better Penang! 

For those who wish to support the efforts of the Sungei Ara residents, kindly contact Mr Manuel Nicholas (mobile h/p :012 4899321; email: manuel_nicholas@hotmail.com).

This statement is endorsed by:

	Name	Organisation
1	Meenakshi Raman	Tanjung Bungah Residents Association (TBRA)
2	Manuel Nicholas	Management Corporation Sunrise Garden Condominium, Sungei Ara
3	Medalene Sim	Management Committee Solok Kelicap, Sg. Ara
4	Tan Sri Dato Gajaraj Dhanarajan	Management Corporation of The Cove, Tanjung Bungah
5	Dr. Ti Lian Geh	Taman Sri Rambai /Taman Lau Geok Swee Residents’ Association, Paya Terubong
6	Jeffery Ho	Taman Sri Nibong Residents Association, Bayan Lepas
7	Abdul Rahim bin Sultan	Management Corporation of Desaria Sri Merpati Apartments, Taman Desaria, Sg. Ara
8	Ang Sue Khoo	Pykett Residents’ Committee
9	K. Suthakar	Tanjung Court Residents’ Ad hoc Committee and Joint Residents Associations of Bandar Baru Air Itam Ad hoc Committee
10	Henry Loh	Management Corporation of Diamond Villa, Tanjung Bungah
11	Alan Tan	Management Committee of Lavinia Apartment, Bayan Lepas
12	Abdul Razak Bin Osman	Management Corporation Taman Sri Putera, Taman Desaria, Sg. Ara
13	Haji Fadzil Bin Hitam	Desaria Residents Association, Sg. Ara
14	Andy Saw	Management Corporation Regency Heights Condominium, Taman Desaria, Sg. Ara
15	Hor Cheok Weng	Management Committee of Mewar Apartments, Sungei Nibong
16	S. Subbiah	Residents’ Association of Pantai Molek, Tanjung Tokong
17	Datuk Yap Ching Chau	Residents’ Association of Jesselton, Penang
18	Nic Sim	Management Committee of Melati Apartments, Sungei Nibong
19	Roy Lim	Management Committee of Crystal Court Corporate Park 2, Sungei Nibong

   

The Cove: Why Considering Rejected 65 Storey Development Again?

PRESS STATEMENT BY THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF THE COVE CONDOMINIUM.


2017 May 19

THE FIGHT AGAINST THE ERECTION OF A 65 STOREY BUILDING ON THE SITE OF THE COPTHORNE HOTEL IN TANJUNG BUNGAH, PENANG

Erecting a 65 storey mixed development of a 250 unit per acre density in a residential area would be preposterous. This was rejected by the MBPP in March 2017 why are we considering an identical application on the same site 6 weeks later?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cove MC and the residents of Tanjung Bungah had earlier complemented and congratulated the councillors of MBPP for having civic conscience, civic conviction and the personal courage to reject the Development Proposals for the re-development of the Copthorne Orchid Hotel in Tanjung Bungah, Penang by:

(i) the demolition of the existing 2o storey hotel building;

(ii) replacing the existing hotel by erecting a 65 storey building on the site comprising 217 units of condominium and a hotel with 420 rooms together with all the other ancillary structures and facilities.

By all accounts the Development Proposals will be a concrete monstrosity which should not have even been considered, and much less, be permitted in an established township and community like Tanjung Bungah.

It was subsequently learnt to the surprise and utter dismay of the Cove Management Corporation (Cove MC) that the State Planning Committee (SPC) had in fact granted its approval for the erection of the building(s) and infrastructure comprised in the Development Proposals without any form of public consultation or engagement whatsoever with the residents of Tanjung Bungah.

After obtaining the approval of the SPC, the Development Proposals were subsequently submitted to MBPP for its approval as required by law. The Cove MC and some resident of Sea-homes presented their objections to the Proposed Development at a hearing before the MBPP.

The rejection of the Development Proposals by MBPP Councillors upon the reasoned objection of the Cove MC in the face of the approval granted by the SPC, encourages the belief that there is hope that the rights, interests and welfare of the people of Penang can and will be heard above the vociferous noise of the machinery of rampant development without regard for the due process of law, the heritage, the environment and the people.

To its dismay but not its surprise, the Cove MC has recently received a new notification following the rejection of the Development Proposals, that the proprietor of the Copthorne Orchid Hotel has re-submitted a revision of the Proposed Developments for the approval of MBPP.

The revised Development Proposals is for all intents and purposes identical to that previously rejected Development Proposals which proposes the erection of a g 65 stories building which include 420 hotel rooms and 217 commercial apartment units together with all the other ancillary infrastructures and facilities.

The appetite for the monstrous development is unabated.

The fight for the Tanjung Bungah Community continues.

In the disastrous event that the new Development Proposals are approved by MBPP, the heart and soul of the Tanjung Bungah and the island of Penang will be destroyed and forever changed. The people of Penang and the residents of Tanjung Bungah in particular, call upon:

(i) the good councillors of MBPP to abide by (i) the doctrine of the supremacy of the law (ii) the principles of good governance and (iii) the need for social justice;

(ii) The SPC to re-consider if the SPC’s existing approval granted for the Development proposal should be revoked as the terms of the approval appear to contradict the CAT principles of good governance.

Yours Sincerely 
Tan Sri Dato Gajaraj A/L Munusamy Dhanarajan 
For and on behalf of 
The Cove Management Committee

PDF copy: https://goo.gl/T8XccM

News from the New TBRA Committee

News from the TANJONG BUNGA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

(20 March, 2017)

New Committee Elected

Kindly be informed that at the Annual General Meeting of the TBRA held on Saturday, 25 February 2017, a new Committee has been elected as follows:

Chairperson: Meenakshi (aka Meena) Raman.

Vice-Chairperson: Agnes James

Secretary: Peter Boyd

Assistant Secretary: Annelies Allain

Treasurer: Cheong Ah Hoo, Alice 

Ordinary Committee Members: Shirin Chan, Zulfikar Abdul Aziz, Dr. Rajeswary Raman, Murlidhar, and Jerry Lang.

The new Chair, Meena is associated with several NGOs in Penang such as the Consumers Association of Penang, Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) and the Third World Network, who are all based in Penang.

New Committee meets

The new committee held its first meeting on Saturday, 11 March 2017 and discussed several issues that were raised during the AGM, which included the Taman Komuniti Tanjong Bunga, (commonly referred to as the ‘Sore Thumb’), the North-Coast Pair Road, and trees being cut down near the Guillemard Reservoir.

The Committee resolved to follow-up actively on these matters to address the concerns of Tanjung Bunga residents in this regard.  

The Committee also discussed the need to recruit more members to join the TBRA and to also reach out to other residents’ associations on Penang Island.

Dr Lim Mah Hui’s resignation speech to Penang Island City Council

Excerpt from Dr. Lim Mah Hui's December 2016 speech of resignation as MBPP councillor after serving six years:

"One of the most serious threats facing the council is over building in the city. I will not call this development. Development is not about erecting more high-rise buildings in every imaginable plot of land all over the island, with scant regard to neighbourhood, street scape, traffic congestion and liveability. Buildings with heritage value, even if not yet designated as such, are torn down illegally, as with the Khaw Sim Bee mansion, or legally as in the dismantling of a heritage value building along Macalister Road, to make way for the Tropicana project.

Last month building guidelines on height control along Scotland Road, a designated protocol road, were changed to allow a developer to double the number of floors he can build from 12 to 22 on a small plot of one-acre land. In another case, submission for approval has been made for construction of a 38-storey hotel on a small plot of land measuring 29,000 sq ft in a residential area along Jln Tanjong Tokong and Pantai Molek. There is good development and there is bad development. Such practices, in my mind, do not constitute good or sustainable development.

Let me now touch on the running of the Council. The Council exists to serve ratepayers and the public. Section 23 of the Local Government Act 1976 states that all meetings of the local authority shall be open to the public and to representatives of the press unless the local authority by resolution at the meeting otherwise decides, although this clause does not apply to any committee unless such committee decides otherwise."

For full speech, see http://anilnetto.com/democracy/civil-society/dr-lim-mah-huis-resignation-speech-penang-island-city-council/