- Joined
- Jul 18, 2014
- Messages
- 6,072
- Points
- 113
Kumlan coolie genes farker still dare to ask such question LOL. It's a farking private land. The owner let you access for 30 years as out of goodwill does not mean it is a right. Owner still has full rights to prevent access anytime and can even report to the police to be charged with criminal trespass under the Penal Code. The owner didn't charge toll fees for entry already tao chio already still want to complain LOL.
- Criminal trespass: Up to 3 months in prison or a fine of up to $1,500, or both.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...er-private-owner-seals-off-back-lane-shortcut
Residents in Kovan estate upset after private owner seals off back-lane shortcut
A gate has been installed to seal off a back-lane path between Robey Crescent and Jalan Arif that residents use to get to Hougang Avenue 2.
Summary
- A developer, Island Chartered, blocked a long-used shortcut in Robey Crescent with a gate, impacting residents' access to amenities.
- Residents are facing longer, unsafe alternative routes, prompting their MP, Kenneth Tiong, to investigate and seek government intervention.
- Despite residents' appeals and attempts to engage the developer, the gate remains, leaving them reliant on negotiations for resolution.
SINGAPORE - A back-lane shortcut in Robey Crescent has been sealed off with a metal gate, forcing residents who have used it for more than a decade to use a longer route along a canal to reach the main road.
The narrow concrete strip measuring about 25m long runs behind a row of terrace houses between Robey Crescent and Jalan Arif, linking the private estate in Kovan to a bus stop along Hougang Avenue 2 and amenities located at the HDB blocks opposite.
The path is a popular route used by grandparents walking their grandchildren to school, residents heading to work and domestic helpers going to the nearby supermarket.
Residents first noticed the gate with a notice that said “private property” on Oct 28. Wire mesh was also put up at the other end of the lane.
A land-title search showed the strip belongs to Island Chartered, a real estate developer.
One resident, who wanted to be known only as May, said: “My children were still able to access the lane when they went to school that morning. But when my son returned at around 5pm, he noticed the gate was up and he sent me a photo.”
Another resident, who wanted to be known as only Mr Au, 68, said he would take the path when he walked his nine-year-old grandson to Xinmin Primary School on weekdays. “At first we thought it was temporary, maybe to facilitate renovation at one of the houses. Then we realised it wasn’t coming down and we now have to go a long way round it,” said Mr Au.
Another elderly resident in her 80s said the closure has made her routine walk difficult.
Instead of a direct, flat path, residents now have to walk along a canal, climb a flight of steps and cover an additional 50m or so to reach the same bus stop.
“The steps beside the canal are steep and sometimes slippery. My legs are weak and I stopped going for my walks,” the elderly resident said in Hokkien.
May said her children would sometimes climb over the railings next to the gate to continue using the shortcut. She acknowledged that it was unsafe to do so.
If they avoid the canal path, residents have to walk to the same bus stop via Poh Huat Road instead – a detour that is roughly six times longer than walking through the back lane.
The owner of one of the houses along the path has found himself the target of neighbours’ frustration because he is the son of the developer who owns the strip of land, and from whom many bought their homes.
When approached by The Straits Times, the owner, Mr Koh, denied that he had put up the gate.
“I did not put up the gate. I also don’t have the key for the padlock of the gate,” he said.
When asked if his brother who runs Island Chartered had done so, Mr Koh replied that he had been told to stay out of the matter. He said: “They told me to stay out of this. I will leave it to my family to deal with it.”
The developer could not be reached for comment.
Some residents, unhappy with the abrupt closure of the lane, have removed the wire mesh at the Robey Crescent end of the lane. However, the gate nearer to Jalan Arif end remains locked.
They have also sought help from their MP Kenneth Tiong of Aljunied GRC.
The blocked path between Robey Crescent and Jalan Arif.
ST PHOTO: ARIFFIN JAMAR
In a written reply to The Straits Times on Nov 20, Mr Tiong said he was alerted to this issue within 24 hours of the iron gate being installed, and that dozens of residents have contacted him since.
“Based on the layout of the estate, more than 100 households have historically used this path as their primary access to transport nodes,” he said.
Mr Tiong said he has contacted several government agencies to investigate the status of the strip and the implications of the gate, including the Land Transport Authority (LTA), PUB over the public drain running beneath the plot, and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, as the back lane could serve as a fire escape route for the row of houses.
He said he also asked LTA to look into making the alternative canal route safer, and that he has not received a formal reply from the authorities.
“The alternative route along the canal involves many steps, is uneven, and is poorly lit. It poses a genuine tripping hazard, which is exacerbated when it rains and the path becomes slippery. I understand the safety worries for elderly residents and young children,” said Mr Tiong.
He added: “One possibility is that the Government can look into formalising the status of the land as a public thoroughfare, given that it has de facto served as such for many years.”
Responding to queries, an LTA spokesman said: “While the public may have previously accessed this route, the mentioned path is on private land. We are working with the relevant stakeholders to explore other possibilities. In the meantime, alternative footpaths are available within the estate for pedestrians to access Hougang Avenue 2.”
Mr Tiong said he has also visited the registered office of Island Chartered and sent letters and e-mails to the company to explain the residents’ point of view and propose a meeting. He added that he has not received a response.
The residents accept the strip is private property, but hope for an “amicable resolution”, he noted.
Lawyer Daniel Chen, a partner at law firm Lee & Lee, said the landowner has the right to deny access to the strip unless there is a registered or implied right of way preventing it from doing so.
The land title did not show any registered rights of way for the strip.
“Rights of way will be implied only if they are necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of another land lot. The availability of alternative access routes, even if they are inconvenient, will usually mean that the right of way is not necessary and will not be implied,” explained Mr Chen.
This means residents would likely have to depend on negotiations with the landowner to regain access, rather than on legal rights.
Mr Chan, a retiree who has lived in Robey Crescent for more than 30 years, said: “Why put up the gate now, after 30 years? You let us use this path all this time and now you decided to seal it. It has caused a lot of inconvenience for so many people. I just hope they will remove the gate.”
------------
Last edited:
