Development plans and As built Survey Drawing.

 Refer to the Plans below:

The platform height of the Original Development Plan is 101 feet.

The platform height of the Amended Development Plan is 106.26 feet. 

Was this change required/instructed by the Authorities and approved in writing by the purchaser as stipulated in the S&P? No!

Back to the question in the Daily Express, who is at fault? Developer, architect, consultant engineers, DBKK or LPPB or all of them?

The developer, architect, consultant engineers and LPPB do not want to meet me or answer my questions. I believe they should take the bull by the horns, address the problems and move on.

The image below is the Original Development Plan of S9 (Lot 15) at Vistana Heights

The image below is the Amended Development Plan of S9 (Lot 15) at Vistana Heights. We shall examine this in more detail in the near future.

Below is the As Built Drawing of S9 (Lot 15) at Vistana Heights.To have a clearer view right click and open 'view in a new tab'.

Keep in mind the email to Faisal by Jessie Lee on 22.10.2018 which stated the following:

    C&S consultant:

1.       Pending for surveyor to amend the as-built drawings for the relevant local authorities before they submit for the application of inspection & OC.

 It has taken me 3 years to resolve problems amicably but it appears that shit has started hitting the fan due to the lackadaisical attitude of the developer, the consultant, architect as well as the Authority. 


To be continued...



Location: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bad experience with Sabah architects

Image
The lady in the photo above is 5 feet 2 inches. The as-built survey plan says the height difference between the road height and the house platform height is 1 foot. Are the architects blind? I refer to the views expressed by the Chairman of PAM (Sabah chapter) in Forum on 2.3.2025. The Chairman stated that the Daily Express report on over-certifying projects unfairly generalized architects and risked damaging the reputation of the entire profession.  
Read more

SPRM (MACC) and Vistana Heights

Image
  Someone asked me how the MACC is involved in the Vistana Heights case if I don’t have any proof that corruption is involved. That is an excellent question. We all assume that corruption is only when a bribe is involved. However, a closer look at the brochure from the MACC shows the following:                                                                                                                   Please click on the image above. ...
Read more

Are architects liable for fabricated documents submitted to authorities

Image
In 2020, many of my well-meaning friends told me that I have no course of action against the professionals involved in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate for Vistana Heights project with fabricated as-built survey plan. I believe all those involved, including DBKK senior officers, LPPB (Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar) and its GM Rosemary Ahping, Arkitek LYS, Lembaga Juruukur Sabah etc. will be answerable for how the Occupancy Certificate was issued. Hopefully, my complaint to SPRM (MACC), LJS, DBKK, Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia will be looked into.
Read more