Singapore Recalibrates the Framework for Large-Scale Redevelopment and Collective Sales

The existing methods for calculating consent remain broadly unchanged. For a strata development, the relevant threshold must be satisfied both by reference to share value and by reference to the total area of all lots, excluding the area of accessory lots.

The lower thresholds are intended to recognise that older developments may require increasingly substantial expenditure on maintenance, repairs and upgrading works. According to the Government, the revised thresholds would provide owners with a more practical redevelopment option where there is broad, although not necessarily 80%, owner support. 

2. How the age of a development will be determined

The Bill introduces a new section 84FE of the Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 (“LTSA“) to prescribe how the age of a development is to be calculated.

Broadly, the age will be counted from the latest relevant date for each building, excluding common property, comprised in the development. The relevant date will ordinarily be:

• the date of the latest Temporary Occupation Permit issued upon completion of the building;
• if no Temporary Occupation Permit was issued, the date of the latest Certificate of Statutory Completion; or
• if neither document was issued, a date determined in the manner specified by the Minister.

The use of the latest relevant date is important for developments comprising multiple buildings completed at different times. Such developments may fall into a younger age band than might be assumed by reference only to the completion of their earliest building.

This provides a welcome certainty for owners and professional consultants when evaluating and advising on a collective sale.

3. Extension to certain non-strata residential developments

The Bill extends the majority-consent collective sale framework to certain private residential developments where:

• the flat owners hold registered leases over their units;
• the flat owners do not own the underlying land;
• the flat leases are for less than 850 years; and
• the flats are used or intended to be used for residential purposes.

Developments on land owned by the Housing and Development Board are excluded.

At present, developments of this nature may fall outside the existing statutory majority-consent regime and therefore generally require unanimous agreement among the flat owners and landowner. The new section 84FC of the LTSA would permit a majority-consent sale using the age-based thresholds, but with specific protections for the underlying landowner.

In particular, a Strata Titles Board or the General Division of the High Court must not approve the sale unless:

• the landowner has agreed in writing to sell its estate and interest for an amount specified, or calculated in a manner specified, in the sale agreement; and
• the overall sale price is sufficient to meet that amount.

This expansion could be significant for developments structured through long leases rather than conventional strata titles, as it provides a statutory redevelopment route while preserving the landowner’s right to agree to the price for its interest.

The Bill also makes clear that the “good faith” assessment under new section 84FC(16)(a)(i)(B) is confined to the method of distributing the sale proceeds to the flat owners, while the amount payable to the landowner is excluded from that determination. There is no mechanism in the Bill to compel the landowner to sell: if the landowner refuses to agree to a price, the collective sale cannot proceed pursuant to the new section 84FC(16)(b). This is a significant practical limitation that distinguishes new section 84FC from the existing provisions for strata-titled developments. The new section 84FF(1) of the LTSA also expressly confirms that the collective sale regime under sections 84D, 84E, 84F and 84FC applies to developments comprising detached houses, semi-detached houses, linked or terrace houses, or townhouses, and is not limited to apartment blocks.

4. Higher threshold to initiate an en bloc exercise

The amendments raise the threshold for requisitioning a general meeting to form a collective sale committee (“CSC“).

The present threshold is:

• 20% by share value; or
• 25% by number of units.

Under the Bill, the threshold will increase to 35%, measured either by share value or by the number of subsidiary proprietors. Corresponding requirements will apply to relevant non-strata developments. This applies to either measure. This represents a shift from the current structure, in which the two limbs carry different percentages (20% and 25%), to a single uniform threshold of 35%.

The higher threshold is intended to ensure that a collective sale exercise is not commenced unless there is a meaningful level of initial support within the development.

5. Shorter period to obtain the requisite signatures

The period for securing the requisite signatures to a collective sale agreement will be reduced from 12 months to 6 months, calculated from the date of the first signature.

The change addresses concerns that non-consenting owners may otherwise face prolonged pressure during an extended signature-gathering exercise. From a process-management perspective, however, the shortened period requires CSC and their advisers to undertake more preparatory work before the first signature is obtained.

In practice, matters such as the sale method, reserve price, apportionment methodology, tender documentation and owner-engagement strategy may need to be substantially settled before the commencement of the 6-month period.

6. Stricter rules following a failed collective sale attempt

The Bill extends the relevant restriction period following a failed collective sale attempt from 2 years to 3 years for relevant events occurring on or after the amendments commence. The existing 2-year cooling-off period is preserved for relevant events that occurred before commencement; only relevant events occurring on or after commencement attract the new 3-year period.

During the 3-year restriction, any attempt to convene a general meeting to form a CSC will be subject to heightened requisition thresholds:

• the first requisition following the relevant event would require a 50% threshold; and
• a second or subsequent requisition would require the threshold applicable to the age of the development, namely 90%, 80%, 70% or 65%.

This is intended to deter repeated attempts where support remains insufficient, while preserving an avenue for a renewed attempt where owner support has materially increased.

7. Increased potential compensation for objecting owners

The Bill doubles the percentage component of the statutory cap on court-ordered increases in sale proceeds for objectors.

The aggregate limit will increase from 0.25% of the sale proceeds attributable to each lot or flat, or S$2,000 per lot or flat, whichever is higher, to 0.5% of the sale proceeds attributable to each lot or flat, or S$2,000 per lot or flat, whichever is higher.

Any such increase remains subject to the Court’s assessment and the consent of the CSC. The amendment does not create an automatic entitlement to additional proceeds, but increases the potential pool available where the Court considers an increase just and equitable.

The Bill also re-enacts and streamlines the “financial loss” test under section 84A(8) of the LTSA, with corresponding provisions for flats. In particular, a proprietor who purchased a lot or flat after the CSC had already signed a sale and purchase agreement is excluded from the financial loss protection. This addresses potential misuse by purchasers who acquire with knowledge of a pending collective sale in order to claim financial loss.

8. Clarification for jointly owned lots

The Bill also clarifies how the collective sale provisions apply where a lot or flat is owned by joint tenants or tenants-in-common.

If one or more co-owners have not agreed in writing to the collective sale, the percentages attributable to that lot or flat will not count towards the applicable consent threshold. This confirms that all co-owners must sign the collective sale agreement before the lot or flat can contribute towards the requisite threshold.

However, one or more co-owners may object to the sale before the Strata Titles Board and, where applicable, re-file the objection before the General Division of the High Court without necessarily acting together with all the other co-owners. The Court may also order increased proceeds for some, but not necessarily all, co-owners of an objecting lot or flat if it is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to do so.

9. Virtual meetings and automatic dissolution of the CSC

The Bill expressly permits certain meetings of subsidiary proprietors to be held:

• physically;
• in hybrid form; or
• entirely through virtual meeting technology, provided that all subsidiary proprietors wishing to participate have access to the necessary technology.

The Bill also sets out circumstances in which a CSC will be deemed dissolved, including where:

• the collective sale agreement has not been approved or signed within specified periods;
• the requisite consent threshold has not been achieved within the permitted signature period;
• no application for a collective sale order is made within the specified period after execution of the collective sale agreement;
• the collective sale agreement expires; or
• the collective sale agreement is terminated, subject to the transitional arrangements for a replacement agreement.

In particular, the CSC must both secure approval of the terms of the collective sale agreement at a general meeting and obtain the first signature within 12 months of being constituted. If either step is not completed within that period, the CSC is deemed dissolved. This imposes a new discipline that did not exist under the previous framework.

These provisions provide greater certainty as to when a CSC’s mandate comes to an end. 

10. Transitional treatment

The transitional provisions are important for collective sale exercises already underway when the amendments commence.

Broadly:

• the amended regime will generally apply where the terms of the collective sale agreement are approved on or after commencement;
• the existing regime will continue to apply where the terms were approved before commencement and at least one owner had already signed the collective sale agreement before commencement; and
• the existing 12-month signature period will continue to apply where the first signature was obtained before the relevant amendment commences.

For certain developments at least 40 years old where signature collection has already begun, the CSC may convene one or more general meetings to terminate the existing collective sale agreement and approve a new collective sale agreement under the amended framework. Such CSCs will have a 7-month period to achieve the necessary consent threshold for the new collective sale agreement.

The 7-month window runs from the commencement date of the amendments, rather than from the date of the general meeting or the termination of the existing agreement. Within that period, the CSC must both terminate the existing collective sale agreement and obtain the requisite signatures for the new collective sale agreement. The new collective sale agreement must therefore achieve the requisite threshold within 7 months from commencement.

The precise transitional position should be reviewed by reference to the stage reached in each collective sale exercise, including the dates on which the terms of the agreement were approved and the first signature was obtained.

Our Observations

The ABSD revisions and the LTSA Amendments operate at different stages of the collective sale and redevelopment process, but they share a common policy direction.

For owners of ageing developments, the lower consent thresholds may make a collective sale more achievable, particularly where substantial capital expenditure would otherwise be required for continued maintenance and upgrading.

For developers, the longer ABSD remission timelines may improve the feasibility of acquiring and redeveloping large en bloc sites. Nevertheless, the increased scale of the resulting projects, the 1.5x intensification requirement and the intermediate sales condition for Mega Sites will remain material considerations.

For CSCs, the new framework will demand more disciplined preparation and execution. Although older developments may benefit from lower ultimate consent thresholds, CSCs would need stronger initial support to commence an exercise and would have only 6 months after the first signature to obtain the requisite mandate.

Accordingly, stakeholders considering an en bloc exercise should assess not only the headline consent threshold, but also:

• how the development’s age will be determined;
• whether the applicable thresholds can realistically be achieved;
• the timing of the first signature;
• the effect of any earlier failed collective sale attempt;
• the proposed redevelopment yield;
• the developer’s ABSD exposure and applicable deadlines; and
• whether the relevant transaction falls within the transitional provisions.

The revised ABSD timelines apply to qualifying residential land acquired on or after 29 July 2026. The LTSA Amendments will take effect on a date appointed by the Minister.

For further queries, please feel free to contact our team set out on this page.

For regional real estate matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia’s Real Estate Practice for more information.

Contribution Note:

This Legal Update is contributed by the Contact Partners listed above, with the assistance of Senior Associate Calvin Lim and Associate Ryan Ng.