RESIDENTS in Jalan 16/7, Petaling Jaya, are puzzled over the abrupt withdrawal of permits for two security posts in their area by the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ).
Residents’ association (RA) security committee member Datuk Lokman Awang said residents were served with a notice on Oct 3 and given 14 days to remove the posts, which were approved by the council four years ago.
He said prior to the issuance of the notice, residents were neither informed nor consulted on the matter.
“The notice stated that the withdrawal was due to the location of the security posts on a reserved drainage site.
“MBPJ also stated that the security posts created a ‘micro-guarded community’, meaning they served only a small community of residents rather than the whole of Section 16,” Awang said during a meeting with residents on Friday.
He said before the security posts were installed in 2013, the RA’s security committee had complied with all the requirements stipulated by MBPJ, Petaling Land and District Office and the police.
“In fact, MBPJ officers had inspected the proposed sites before they granted the permit for a ‘guarded community’ in April 2013.
“In May last year, we obtained a temporary occupational licence from the Land Office.
“Furthermore, the two gates in the residential area are closed for only six hours, from midnight to 6am.
“The public can access the road from 6am to midnight. Why did MBPJ decide to revoke the permit only now when the council had approved it four years ago?”
He said the request for security posts was made after taking into consideration the safety of residents, particularly the elderly.
“Robberies and snatch thefts were common in the area. However, after the installation of the security posts, no cases have been recorded.
“We hope that MBPJ will reconsider the withdrawal of permits. If there is a need to relocate the security posts, I hope they will let us know,” Awang said, adding that the RA had sent an appeal on Wednesday.
Bukit Gasing assemblyman Rajiv Rishyakaran, who was present at the meeting, said he was surprised by the council’s decision.
“It was unnecessary because ‘guarded security’ has been enforced for four years and the fact that MBPJ officers had inspected the site prior to the approval.
“I have asked MBPJ for an explanation, but have yet to receive any response. I will pursue the matter on Monday on why such a decision was made.
“As for now, the RA must wait for the result of its appeal. I do not see the need for the security posts to be removed until the RA has exhausted its appeal rights.”