Development near Bukit Cerakah not on forest reserve land

PETALING JAYA (Feb 26): Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) has clarified that the plot of land near the Bukit Cerakah Forest Reserve in Shah Alam is not part of the forest reserve.

The development on the land by a private firm had earlier been questioned by nearby residents who had sought Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to  intervene, as reported in The Star on Feb 9.  

“The land is not part of the forest reserve and belongs to the developer. The access road used is part of the road reserve indicated in the Section U10 development master plan,” it said in a statement.quoted by The Star today.

According to the statement, the application has fufilled all the required conditions. As such, the council has granted permission for the development after all necessary approvals had been obtained, including from the Selangor Sensitive Environment Development Technical Committee through a letter from the Selangor Town and Country Planning Department and the Public Works Department.

*Bukit Cerakah Forest Reserve development fears

*Land clearing activities in Bukit Cerakah carried out by trespassers, says landowner

*Bukit Bayu residents trying to stop potential development in Bukit Cerakah forest

Planning approval, earthworks plan, temporary access road permits and permission to transport soil on public roads had also been obtained.

The daily earlier reported that the Bukit Bayu Residents Association chairman Gobindran Krishna Murthy said residents were puzzled over the land status because most documents on the development classified the land as Compartment 32 Bukit Cerakah Forest Reserve.

Gobindran had said that in March 2005, former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi declared the land should be taken over by the Selangor government and conserved as a forest reserve.

On the other hand, Kota Anggerik assemblyman Najwan Halimi had said the land was privately owned but he did not know if and when the premium was paid.

Residents claimed they found discrepancies in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report submitted and decided to lodge a complaint with MACC.

Gobindran had also said one of the criteria for an EIA report was residents’ approval for development, but no such documents were given.