En bloc sale framework recalibrated as urban renewal ‘not merely desirable, but really imperative’: Edwin Tong

En bloc sale framework recalibrated as urban renewal ‘not merely desirable, but really imperative’: Edwin Tong


Developments aged 40 to 59 will need 70% consent for collective sale; those aged 60 and up will need 65%

[SINGAPORE] Owners of older developments will face lower consent thresholds for en bloc sales to encourage rebuilds of ageing estates, among a raft of changes to Singapore’s collective sale regime under a Bill read in Parliament on Tuesday (Sep 8).

The amendments are designed with the aim of “making renewal more accessible where there is genuine majority support, while ensuring that owners are protected from repeated and disruptive attempts where there is not”, Minister for Law Edwin Tong told Parliament.

“The fundamental policy impetus at the heart of this Bill is the same one that Parliament endorsed when it introduced the collective sale regime in 1999 – that Singapore’s land scarcity makes urban renewal not merely desirable, but really imperative,” he said.

Developments aged 40 to 59 years will require 70 per cent consent for a collective sale, while those aged 60 years and up will need 65 per cent.

The thresholds will remain at 90 per cent for developments less than 10 years old, and 80 per cent for those aged 10 to 39 years.

Notably, developments aged 40 years and above that are currently gathering signatures will be allowed to terminate their existing collective sale agreement, and opt into a fresh attempt under the new framework.

Those that opt in will have seven months from the commencement date of the amendments to reach the applicable consent threshold.

Safeguards are being added to ensure non-consenting owners are not pressured, such as a much shorter window for signature collection – from 12 months to six – and a longer restriction period after a failed bid.

During the debate, several MPs raised concerns over whether the six-month signature collection period would be sufficient for larger or more complex developments, with some suggesting that more time be given in such cases.

Tong, in response, said that the government had considered having different timelines, based on factors such as the size of a development, but decided against it because size was “not necessarily the only indicator of complexity”.

Referring to MPs’ suggestions to account for the number of units in a development, and the age of a development and its owners, he said: “Where do you draw the line on complexity?

“So if you start recognising each of these different characteristics, you will find that the general rule of six months, which or any time frame that we want to enforce, will then get whittled away.




Read Full Article At Source

Share. Save. Don't Miss The Buzz: XFacebookRedditLINETelegramWhatsAppGmail

Leave a Reply