Among the new stipulations is 100% approval from residents for automated gates and access cards. Approval for manual boom gates is 75%. Barricades, which must be removable, are only permitted between midnight and 6am.
A guard has to be on duty by the barricade at other times in the event of an emergency. Security guards are also not allowed to take away the driver’s MyKad or other documents. Fencing is also not allowed unless the area is located near a highway, road, river or monsoon drain.
The amended guidelines are based on the state government’s recommendations, which were sent to 12 local councils.
Shah Alam city councillor Foong Saik Hoong said the guidelines were meant to resolve or avoid untoward issues.
In recent years, the issue divided residents in existing neighbourhoods over the implementation of the gated-and-guarded scheme with local councils being trapped in the middle.
“The conflict often happens with individuals who have personal agendas. “For it to work, residents associations (RAs) need to be united,” pointed out Foong,
“If there is a need to fence up the area, residents will have to apply to change the land status to strata but this means all maintenance work will be their responsibility instead of the council’s,” said Foong, adding that this would comprise road maintenance and rubbish collection.
Foong pointed out that some stipulations in the amended guidelines conflict with federal law such as the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 Section 46 that do not allow temporary buildings or obstructions without approval. This would include guardhouses and posts but they are allowed in the state-approved guidelines.
The amended guidelines require that submissions for approval be made to the One-Stop Centre (OSC) as well as the Planning Department for the guardhouse, speed breakers, boom gates and road excavation works.
“This way, there will be no illegal works that might pose a problem later,” said Foong. RAs will also have to apply for a temporary occupation licence (TOL) from the land office for their guardhouses.
There will also be a one-off payment of RM400 for the guardhouse per application which was not imposed previously. There is no requirement to obtain a certificate of completion and compliance (CCC) or certificate of fitness (CF) for the structure.
RAs will also not be allowed to block any road permanently or remove pavements to redirect traffic. Foong said approval for the guarded schemes was previously valid for two years but it has been extended to three now.
Some RAs expressed concerns about the amended guidelines, saying it may be tough for them to comply with. Bukit Kayangan Residents Association president Datuk Helmi Daud said there was no way a neighbourhood could get 100% approval from residents. “Getting 75% approval is already difficult, so we had to come up with an alternative solution,” he added.
Helmi said they hired guards who patrol around the neighbourhood from 7pm to 7am but had no guardhouse. The authorities, he added, should have consulted the RAs before implementing the guidelines. Kota Kemuning Residents Association president Allan Lee said 100% consent is too strict.
“It would only take one resident to stall all RA initiatives,” he said, adding that the strict guidelines made it seem like the authorities did not care about residents having a safe environment to live in. Lee said most RAs are run by volunteers who may not have the time and resources to fulfil all the stringent requirements.
METRO NEWS
By Priya Menon
Friday, 7 Jul 2017
https://www.thestar.com.my/
TAGS / KEYWORDS:
Central Region , Security Guard , Gated And Guarded , Shah Alam
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/community/2017/07/07/new-gg-guidelines-for-shah-alam-local-authority-bases-rules-on-states-recommendation-but-ras-say-it/#xLcdABUR6suHwDuE.99
****************
Below are other similar comments by Selangor residents pertaining to informal GnG schemes in Subang Jaya...
5 comments:
USJ 2 Resident said...
The law is there for a reason, MPSJ should just execute the law. Whether or not G&G is good or bad is not a decision for an individual or even a collection of individuals who work at MPSJ.
All G&G's should be torn down as they are illegal. Placating the dominant few who feel they are right in setting it up is biased. Who audits the validity of approvals that the RA can just easily claim but not easily defend.
The law is there, abide by it.
March 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...
Police reports have been made against the illegal blocking of public roads in USJ2, USJ4 Tudor etc but nothing has been done. Recently residents have even protested in front of TV cameras.
This madness to fence up, gate up and taking over of public roads by a few selfish residents has gone out of hands. Many people are angry with the DAP leaders for originally advocating this.
March 8, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...
commitee members are just out to make a fast buck. I am a resident of USJ2 but i don't know who are the committee members & also who elected them? Why must I support an action that is considered illegal. If Rajiv really want to be reappointed in future he must get MPSJ to stop the nonsence. How many residents are willing to accept a $600.00 increase in assessment pa. I am of the opinion that if all agree to an increase in assessment then MPSJ can afford to employ more enforcement officers to overtake security arrangents for subang jaya.having foreigners guarding the neighbourhood is not a solution & having committee members threatening residents who don't support them is extremely bad bad bad
March 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM
rajiv said...
You don't have to pay a single sen if you choose to. Please report incidents where the committee has harassed any resident into paying.
March 11, 2010 at 10:22 PM
USJ 2 Resident said...
Just because payment is optional, it doesn't mean that non-supporters of GnG must tolerate its over-zealous and vigilante neighbours.
MPSJ should abide and execute the law as it stands, personal opinions of its staff are irrelevant. Rajiv, it's obvious to me that you support GnG, otherwise USJ 2 would be barrier free by now.
Isn't there already sufficient evidence or at least doubts that the 85% minimum for support has not been achieved in USJ 2? How can MPSJ trust an RA and its claims? I've never been asked by anyone whether or not I support the GnG. Furthermore, the RA is set up solely for the GnG, obviously by its supporters. In fact, joining the RA requires you to pay an equivalent amount to what the GnG group is asking for. And yet, MPSJ listens to them just because they claim to speak on behalf of the community.
TV3 has covered this incident, residents have signed protests. What more do we need to do as it seems that MPSJ is blindly allowing GnG in USJ 2 just because its councillors stand by the idea?
The law is clear on the matter. I don't pay my assessments and my taxes to fund enforcers and councils to decide on which law to enact. If I as a Malaysian are bound by all laws, so is MPSJ. It really is as simple as that.
March 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM
