Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENTI. INTRODUCTION

[1]Four appeals are brought before this Court, all relating to the grant of planning permission by the Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur, as the relevant local authority, in respect of a proposed development which comprises a part of, and is located within, a public park known as Taman Rimba Kiara.

[2]In dispute are the merits of a judicial review application, where neighbouring properties and persons (‘the Respondents’) sought to quash the grant of permission for the proposed development by the local authority, primarily on the basis that it did not conform to or comply with the statutory provisions of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act of 1952 (‘FT Act’).

[3]Although the Respondents sought relief solely against the local authority, three other parties who could, potentially, be affected by any decision of the Court in this regard, applied to intervene in the proceedings. They were successfully joined as parties in the initial application for judicial review before the High Court.

[4]They comprise:

(i)The landowner of HSD 119599 PT 9244, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Tempat Bukit Kiara, Daerah Kuala Lumpur (‘the subject land’) on which the proposed development is to be constructed - Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan;

(ii)The developer - Memang Perkasa Sdn Bhd; and

(iii)An association of longhouse residents - Pertubuhan Penduduk Perumahan Awam Bukit Kiara, who presently reside on the subject land.

[5]At first instance, the High Court refused to quash the grant of planning permission and dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court and on 27 January 2021 granted, inter alia, an order quashing the decision of the local authority, namely the Datuk Bandar Kuala Lumpur.

[6]The aggrieved parties, who comprise the Appellants, sought and obtained leave to appeal in respect of eight questions of law (which are set out further on in the judgement).

II. THE PARTIESA. The Appellants

[7]The Appellants in this Court comprise:-

(a)The Datuk Bandar of Kuala Lumpur (‘Datuk Bandar’) in Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-13-09/2021(W) (‘No.13’);

(b)Yayasan Wilayah Persekutuan (‘Yayasan’) in Civil Appeal No. 01(f)-12-09/2021 (‘No. 12’);

(c)Memang Perkasa Sdn Bhd (‘Memang Perkasa’) in Appeal No. 01(f)-14-09/2021(W) (‘No.14’); and

(d)Pertubuhan Penduduk Perumahan Awam Bukit Kiara, Dewan Bandaraya Taman Tun Dr Ismail Kuala Lumpur (‘the Long House Association’) in Civil Appeal No. 02(f)-55-09/2021 (‘No. 55’).

B. The Respondents

[8]The Respondents comprise residents and property owners in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Kuala Lumpur (‘TTDI’). They are essentially persons or entities, who live within a 150 to 350 metre radius of the proposed development and maintain that they are adversely affected by it. More specifically: -

(1)The 1^st to 5^th Respondents are the Management Corporations and Joint Management Body representing the proprietors of condominiums or apartments neighbouring the proposed development;

(2)The 6^th Respondent is the public officer of the registered residents’ association for TTDI;

(3)The 7^th to 1 0^th Respondents are long-time residents and frequent users of Taman Rimba Kiara.

III. THESE APPEALS

[9]The Appellants’ grievances in this series of five appeals are manifold. The commonality in their complaints include the following: -

A. Locus Standi

(1)The Court of Appeal finding that the Respondents enjoy the requisite locus standi to initiate the judicial review proceedings in the High Court, when they are in point of fact not ‘qualified objectors’ under Rule 5(3) of the Planning (Development) Rules 1970 r P.U. (A) 7/1971 1 ( the Planning Rules 1970V In this context they complain that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that in judicial review proceedings, Rule 5(3) is not relevant. They further challenge the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the Respondents are not mere busybodies but have a real and genuine interest in the proposed development, in that it will adversely