URA to stop developers from profiting off supersized luxury ECs:

 

The Straits Times
Monday, Jan 07, 2013

 

SINGAPORE- These million-dollar ECs, like a 4,349 sq ft "presidential suite" at the recent CityLife @ Tampines development that cost over $2 million, have created understandable public indignation, wrote Mr Khaw on his blog. This is because they are "deviations" from the EC scheme's original mission of providing housing for the sandwiched class - those over the income limit for an HDB flat, but who cannot afford private property.

 

Related Links

• Big incentive to build large EC units
• EC developer was told not to sell units: URA
• Govt keeping close eye on ECs
• Tampines EC 'presidential suite' to be priced at $2.05m
• EC developers must remember policy intent: Khaw
• What to expect in 2013 housing

 

Get the full story from The Straits Times.

 

Read Mr Khaw's full statement, posted on his blog on Jan 7, below:

 

In some recent EC launches, super-sized ECs units were offered and snapped up by buyers who did not appear to be from the "sandwiched" households. Understandably, there was public indignation at such deviations (both by some developers and some buyers) from what we had intended ECs to serve.

 

The developers explained that such super EC units were a minority and that they had priced them low (that was why they were snapped up by buyers who could actually afford private properties). The media reported that one such developer priced its super penthouse at $470psf, while selling the other smaller typical EC units at $770psf.

 

Tampines EC 'presidential suite' to be priced at $2.05m Click on thumbnail to view (Photos: ST, Tampines EC, Internet)

 

 

I was initially baffled by this. Why would the developer short-change itself? Why not sell more normal-sized EC units at a higher $psf, and make more profit? The space for one super penthouse, for example, can be used to build 2 or 3 normal-sized EC units.

 

As I probed, I discovered that the developer had not short-changed itself.

 

Let me illustrate: a super EC unit of 3,500 sqft may comprise 2,500 sqft of built-in space and 1,000 sqft of private roof terrace. Now, outdoor roof terraces are actually free space, space that developers do not have to pay development charges. URA allows this to encourage developers to build more outdoor space open to the sky, for the enjoyment of the residents. Developers can use this free space to develop private OR communal roof terraces, and they are NOT counted as GFA (gross floor area).

 

Communal sky terraces have been effective in promoting greenery and providing useful common amenities for residents in our residential developments. However, the creation and sale of super-sized private roof terraces (at the expense of communal sky terraces), is increasingly prevalent. What is happening at the roof top in the form of private roof terrace is also happening on the ground floor where it is referred to as "private enclosed space (PES)" for the buyer.

 

Developers' selling off free spaces to make additional profit for themselves is not improper under current URA rules. But as more developers do so, with larger private roof terraces and PES, communal space in the development that benefits all residents will correspondingly shrink. There is a further downstream problem as some buyers may be disappointed later on, when they find out that these outdoor spaces that they have paid for are not allowed to be covered up or enclosed.

 

I have directed URA to review this policy and have it fixed.

EC projects in Singapore Click on thumbnail to view