Ecohill Taipan not open even a single unit to public. All purchasers are VIP among the VIP. Hope majority of them can open their business here instead of rental.

This post has been edited by samkps: Apr 22 2017, 01:03 PM

hehehe... again head to head competition with the Ecohill Walk Service Apartment as well....

Presumably EM shall have some big announcements on the commercial development before launching the service apartment, cannot just rely on majestic park and sports complex only gua...

If like that, sien liao.. Hope these VIP are not so desperate on the rental lah...

I just hope the VIP can be more picky on the type of tenant, if they really don't want open their own business. Hopefully SPS leasing team can do something to assist this VIP.

Yes, I am same as you, see nothing... That's the condition of the road from roundabout in front of guard house to the signature roundabout at night....


Attached thumbnail(s)

No bicycle in Cradleton central garden?


Attached thumbnail(s)

Dunno, hope is repair and not save cost..

By the way, very upset to see the fountain not operating with workers' clothes hanging there??? Again, I hope it is for repair work only...


Attached thumbnail(s)

Same shoes as well?

Yes, I don't think anyone care though, unless some one raise a complaint to MPKJ.

There is another garden near to TNB has the bicycle sign... Perhaps EM want to avoid any possible accident involving bicycle in the central park?

This post has been edited by samkps: Apr 22 2017, 02:00 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

It is great to know president can serve as the tour guide also...

Yes, this cul-de-sac design I think is intentional. The main cons I could think of is visitor always need to reverse vehicle and can't have function that can block the road, else neighbour might have no road to go back to the unit. But for sure got some advantages as well.

This post has been edited by samkps: Apr 25 2017, 11:58 AM

Lol... People complaint the gate is ugly, that's why allow gate change, now if complaint about uniforminity, then... 顺的哥来失嫂意。。

I think EM already made decision to let the owners changing the gate, that's why come out with the guideline.. When owner send the plan to EM for approval now and if being rejected, means cakap tak serupa bikin liao...

I heard the design can change but the color must follow, no? Impact on the uniformity won't too severe I suppose..

This post has been edited by samkps: Apr 25 2017, 01:31 PM

As far as I know, Strata Title Act never mention facade of the unit cannot be changed. It is the DMC that spells out the rules and regulations that Facade can't be changed. DMC is the agreement betwen the developer and the owner (owner makes the plan while developer justify the plan) and if there is something provided by the developer as an option, why it cannot be done?

I believe developer can have 12 months period to arrange the AGM and during this period, it is the full responsibility of the developer to deal with all "maintenance" works.

Please correct me if I were wrong Taikor.

This post has been edited by samkps: Apr 25 2017, 01:50 PM

I think all plans must approved by EM first, if EM insist said if you change to structure, must paint the same color also, if not, cannot change, then die die you also have to paint

Thanks taikor...

Do some reading on the SMA 2015 and indeed EM do HAVE RIGHT to introduce and "approve" the new gate design that can change the facade.

Before JMB is formed, the developer is bound to the SMA 2015 Schedule 3 by-laws.

"Pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the bylaws in the Third Schedule of the Strata Management (Maintenance and Management) Regulations 2015, a proprietor shall not change the appearance, colour code and façade of any part on the exterior of his parcel without the prior written approval of the Management Corporation (MC) and, where necessary, the approval of the appropriate authority."


The question now who is Management Corporation?

As according to Paragraph 2, part 1(a) of the bylaws in the Third Schedule - "a reference to the "management corporation" shall be construed as a reference to the developer (during the developer's management period and during the preliminary management period), joint management body or the subsidiary management corporation, as the case may be"

This means that during the developer management period, as long as MC (developer solely in this context) provide a "written approval" and obtain appropriate approval from the authority, then any facade changes is allowed.

Having say this however, EM has put a special clause in the guideline on the gate designs that is distributed to all the purchasers. Thus, it is still up to EM's sole discretion if they will "approve" any request to change the gate , which it deems to be necessary..

This post has been edited by samkps: Apr 25 2017, 10:59 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)


Attached File(s)
 SMA_2015.pdf ( 1.78mb ) Number of downloads: 21

Taikor, as far as I know, this is only guideline, any changes still need to submit to EM to review and approve. But during the VP, the SA did inform me this is the design we need to stick onto if we want to change the gate.

I believe EM at the first place has considered for the owner to change the main gate, else what's the rationale they put the design in the "guideline"?

Nonetheless, whether it is approved or not approved, ultimately still up to the EM to make final decision and of course they also can change the design in guideline anytime they want though...

I think now EM is in the dilemma to deal with two groups of purchasers - anti fugly ecogate vs anti non-uniformity.

Now, it is up to the EM creativity if they can provide any solution that can makes both parties happy, as the standing of both parties are contradict to each other.

Else, at the worst case scenario, EM might need to make decision that only cater one group of people's need and "sacrifice" the requirement of another group.

If this really happens, personally believe EM's decision shall skew to anti non-uniformity group, most like due to following reasons:

a.) Owners who decide to move in before the first AGM should not be many and among them, inevitably some are supporting to change the gate but some are supporting uniformity.

b.) Investors and flippers (normally higher % in the first phase) normally don't care about this matter as their focus only rental collection or subsale.

The request to change the gate from my perception is very small percentage and it shall rely on EM now if they would like to entertain such request by putting the uniformity of first stratified property of EW in KV at stake.

Anyone knows if EW or SPS has handled any landed stratified project that have gate before? Perhaps might take it as a reference.

Seriously, I really have my own reservation if i can support on this statement for the EB gate... sorry to all EB purchasers..


Attached thumbnail(s)

hahaha.. then "Ugly lies in the eyes of rabble-rouser"?