objective is to ensure that the guard house erected by RAs is legal and follows the provision of NLC. This is also to avoid guard houses from being demolished by the land office that has the legal right to demolish buildings which are not in line with the NLC provisions. 5.
The guideline forbids the scheme to be implemented in areas with public facilities but almost every neighbourhood in Subang Jaya and Petaling Jaya has common facilities, this clause makes the guidelines impractical. . As explained in the response for Question 2(a), the NCLG has made a decision that the Guideline approved is only applicable to new GN schemes. It is not the intention of the Guideline that ALL neighbourhoods be implemented with GN. Only neighbourhoods that meet certain criteria can be considered. One criterion is that of serving the wider public interests such as the right to accessibility and the use of common facilities. In its pure form, only neighbourhoods that are planned to be mutually exclusive and have communal facilities like those of Gated Community (GC) set ups are practical because they should not have public facilities in their premises.
6.
The attached FAQ states that ‘’legalization process would not be done immediately and hastily’’, so the councils are supposed to let the illegal ones go?
?
What this means is that the illegal erection and installation of guard post, perimeter fencing, boom gate, oil drum, etc. in existing GN shall be dealt with in phases, and using case-by-case basis, priority focusing on areas that compromises critical public services such as the obstruction or impedance of Authorities’ vehicles such as ambulances and fire brigades. Focus areas also include GNs that install boom gates, oil drums or other obstruction onto a public road, or any other public access that is being
13