Queries on enclosed spaces, floor area, Soho: URA replies

WE REFER to the letters by Mr Tan Chuan Poh ("So many questions, so few answers"; Jan 18) and Ms Teo Cheng Suat ("Are owners allowed to cover up private enclosed spaces and open terraces?"; Forum Online, Jan 21).

Developers are required by law, under the Housing Developers Rules, to provide information such as drawn-to-scale unit floor plans and the floor area for the various spaces within a housing unit, including bedrooms, balconies and air-conditioner ledges.

If such information given is unclear or appears incomplete, developers are obliged to clarify and to furnish the information, as requested, to prospective buyers.

With the recent introduction of new guidelines on private enclosed spaces (PES) and private roof terraces, semi-outdoor spaces like the PES and private roof terraces in new condominium and flat developments approved on or after Jan 12 are now counted together with balconies as part of the gross floor area (GFA) allowed for the development.

Coverings over PES and private roof terraces as well as screenings on balconies are allowed in these new developments if the coverings conform to designs that have been pre-approved for the development.

The management corporation strata title (MCST) can also use the pre-approved designs to guide home owners who wish to install the covers.

For developments approved prior to Jan 12, the PES and private roof terraces were not computed as GFA.

Home owners planning to cover such areas must first seek the necessary endorsement from the MCST before making a submission to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

On receipt of a submission endorsed by the MCST, the URA will then assess such requests on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the extent of the proposed cover and the impact of the proposed covering on the rest of the development.

Soho (small-office-home-office) is a marketing term used by property agents and developers. It does not refer to any specific development type that has been approved by the URA.

Developments that have been marketed as Soho are approved as either office or residential developments.

Without explicit prior planning permission from the URA, any development that has been approved for office use cannot be converted to residential use and vice versa.

If, however, a home owner wishes to conduct some small-scale business within his home, he can apply for permission by lodging a notification under the Home Office Scheme, on the basis that he does not cause disamenity to his neighbours.

Prospective home buyers may refer to the Home Buyers' Guide on the URA's website, www.ura.gov.sg/lad/HBG/index.htm, for more information on the sale and purchase of uncompleted residential properties.

Han Yong Hoe
Group Director (Development Control)
Urban Redevelopment Authority
ST Forum, 31 Jan 2013

So many questions, so few answers

AS AN enthusiastic first-time home buyer, I recently viewed several condominiums, executive condominiums, townhouses and cluster housing showflats as well as several completed projects.

In the process, I encountered numerous doubts and anomalies, many of which could not be explained clearly even by experienced real estate agents ("'Open space' loophole just tip of the iceberg" by Mr Victor Ng Beng Li; last Saturday).

My pet peeve is not being able to ascertain on a floor plan which parts of a unit are regarded as part of the total floor area and which are not.

Open roof terraces and private enclosed spaces clearly are.

But what about areas labelled "RC ledge", "A/C ledge", "void", "void over staircase", "flat roof (no access except for maintenance)" and "open roof terrace below"?

What about unlabelled areas marked with a big cross and trellises protruding from the perimeter of a unit?

Property agents say such unusable space often constitutes 20 to 35 per cent of a unit's total floor area (jumbo penthouses excluded). Is this true?

A newly launched condo in Alexandra Road had units priced at $1,950 per sq ft (psf).

But a valuation check on a three-year-old condo located just 300m away revealed that the highest possible valuation was only $1,450 psf - that's a 35 per cent difference.

Checks on condos in Bishan, Marina Bay and Tanjong Pagar yielded similar results.

Why are secondary market units valued at a hefty discount to primary market ones?

Can small office, home office units with commercial titles like those at Southbank and The Central be purchased for residential use?

Alternatively, is office-cum-residential use allowed?

Some formerly freehold estates that went en bloc are now being sold as new 99-year leasehold condos. Are there any implications to buyers - legal or otherwise?

And why are new developments prohibited from enclosing balconies and having covered structures built on top of open roof terraces whereas old estates aren't?

Also, why is photography disallowed in showflats?

Aren't photographs an excellent means through which buyers can hold developers accountable for representations made?

Finally, what is the difference between unit size, gross floor area and strata floor area?

Tan Chuan Poh

ST Forum, 18 Jan 2013

Are owners allowed to cover up private enclosed spaces and open terraces?

I AGREE with Mr Tan Chuan Poh's concerns ("A home buyer's lament: So many questions, so few answers", last Friday).

I live in Varsity Park Condominium in West Coast Road. Most of the units come with private enclosed space (PES) and open terraces.

Within the first year of obtaining the temporary occupation permit, a few units started to build fixed roofs to cover their PES and open terraces. These covers extended about 1m from the wall.

Now, four years later, more residents are covering their PES and open terraces. What is shocking is that these covers now extend over the entire PES and open terraces.

Are such installations legally allowed? If not, which authority is responsible for enforcing the law against the illegal covering of PES and open terraces? To whom should we report such illegal installations?

Teo Cheng Suat (Ms)
ST Forum, 21 Jan 2013

'Open space' loophole just tip of the iceberg

THE Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has been asked to review the policy loophole that allows developers to sell free spaces for profit ("'Open space' loophole to be plugged"; Tuesday).

While plugging this loophole is timely, the URA is still behind the curve in many other matters.

Nowadays, a growing number of apartments have disproportionately large balconies, double volume voids (lofts) and air-con ledges. Are these considered bonus gross floor area that developers can sell to make additional profits?

Then we have "creative" developers. They market, say, a 1,000 sq ft unit with a very high ceiling at an exorbitant price. But they construct a raised second-storey platform over part of the unit, increasing the usable floor area to, say, 1,500 sq ft. This makes the "enlarged" unit appear cheap on a per square foot basis. But the platform-to-ceiling height is usually no more than 1.5m, such that it is impossible for one to stand upright.

Another marketing tactic is to brand residential units as small office, home office (Soho). This misleads buyers into thinking that the units are akin to commercial offices and, hence, more valuable.

The URA does not recognise Soho as a planning term, and developments being marketed as such are approved either as office or residential, but not for both uses. Nevertheless, developers are still allowed to use the term Soho.

The inconsistent treatment of household shelters is also puzzling.

Some are located internally and constitute part of a unit's saleable floor area, while others are located at the common staircases outside. Yet others are designed to double as walk-in wardrobes. Is this proper?

I agree that communal spaces for residents should not be reduced. But the authorities should go one step further and ensure that common facilities such as swimming pools, gyms and barbecue pits are adequate and proportionate to the size of the development.

The URA and the Building and Construction Authority should also step up enforcement of regulations.

Areas requiring attention include the illegal subdivision of residential units for rental to multiple tenants, especially in older estates, and the unauthorised use of industrial property for commercial activities.

The URA said in its reply ("URA probing misuse of industrial spaces"; yesterday) that it will "carry out investigations on unauthorised uses in specific industrial units that are brought to our attention". The authorities need to be more proactive in eradicating breaches, and not over-rely on citizen policing.

Plugging the "free space" loophole is merely the tip of the iceberg.

Victor Ng Beng Li
ST Forum, 12 Jan 2013