The Planning (Amendment) Bill 2017 Round-Up Speech by Minister Lawrence Wong

Feb 6, 2017

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the respective Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill, and all Members who have stated their views. I will now address some of the points raised in the course of this debate.

Planning levers

Most members supported the amendments to the Act to impose requirements on developers to improve connectivity and building standards, including more covered linkways and linkages between buildings, night lighting of building facades, and also a built heritage that strengthens our sense of memories and shared experience. This is what the Amendment in the Bill strives to achieve by strengthening the planning levers under URA. In response to some of the queries raised by members, I can confirm that URA will indeed make use of these provisions to require developers, when it comes to new developments, to put in place connectivity and better building standards, including more covered linkways between buildings or even to nearby bus stops. That is the very intention of this Bill. URA will, where meaningful to provide for such connectivity, require developers to do so for new developments. For existing developments, the provisions in the Bill do not envisage an imposition on existing buildings. Should the property owners of these existing buildings choose to redevelop the properties or make Addition & Alternation (A&A) works in their properties and they have to seek URA’s planning permission to do so, that would be an opportune time for URA to impose these new conditions. I think many members will be supportive of these additions and provisions to impose conditions on developers to enhance connectivity and building standards.

There were some members, in particular Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Alex Yam, who were concerned about the cost impact and how this will impact the building and residents. Generally the cost of providing these features is a small component of the overall development cost. In addition, URA will not require every development to provide public space or connectivity. It will do so judiciously, and where it is meaningful to do so. These requirements will only be applied, for example, to strategically-located sites in key areas, or where there is provision or where it is meaningful to provide for connectivity. In addition, these public spaces may be excluded from the overall floor area, so there would be no impact on the development potential of the sites. There is a way to balance the different requirements, and we will be mindful that even as we impose these provisions, they do not lead to a significant escalation of cost.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked a separate matter about access to neighbouring property to execute works such as the plastering of walls. I understand that this is a concern very often found in private residential areas. This is not so much a planning issue but a matter of resolving disputes between two property owners. URA cannot override the property owners’ rights, but it will help to facilitate mediation between neighbours to resolve such issues, if necessary. That is my broad response on the planning levers.

Responsibilities of home owners and property agents

Next, let me touch on the points that members have raised on the responsibilities of home owners and potentially, even extending that to other stakeholders like property agents. Here, there were also a mix of views. Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Cheryl Chan wanted to be sure that we can take suitable action against homeowners and property agents to make them responsible for offences, but I believe Mr Chong Kee Hiong sought assurance that homeowners would not be burdened unnecessarily by the amendments. Again, this is about striking the right balance.

Where any property has been misused or unauthorised works done, URA will ensure that culpable parties are taken to task, whether for committing or abetting the offence.

For home owners who do not reside in or are not in Singapore, URA will obtain the owner’s home address from ICA and IRAS and they still have to answer the charges if there is a violation of the rules. This is in response to Ms Pereira’s question.

If there is evidence to show that a property agent is complicit in an infringement, they will be referred to the Council of Estate Agents (CEA), who will sanction them accordingly. This is what Ms Cheryl Chan had asked about.

When it comes to enforcement, URA will, if necessary, beef up its enforcement capabilities and resources. But it will also work with other agencies, for example, ICA, SPF, MOM, SCDFand NEA, as Mr Gan had suggested, to share information on any suspected cases of unauthorised use of private property and take the necessary enforcement action.


Ms Cheryl Chan shared her concern on elderly home-owners who may be taken to task for not assisting in enforcement checks. I assure Ms Chan that URA officers will take a reasonable approach in enforcement. They will first identify themselves when there is a need to inspect premises and also explain the intentions of their visit. Officers will not force the occupants to allow them to enter, unless repeated requests to enter have been denied, or they assess that critical evidence will be lost if they cannot gain access in a timely manner.

Several members, including Mr Alex Yam and Mr Chong Kee Hiong, asked about the precautions that building or property owners have to take and what is deemed to be appropriate due diligence. It is difficult and not so practical to draw out all the scenarios and all the due diligence steps that have to be taken in legislation itself.

I would like to assure Members that URA will carefully assess the culpability of persons involved, given all the facts available in each particular case at hand, to ensure that owners who had no part in directing the violation are not unduly penalised. URA will not make egregious demands on owners, and whether or not ‘due diligence’ has been exercised will be assessed reasonably.

Role of QPs

Another section of the provisions in the Amendment Bill on which there were some comments was on the role of the Qualified Persons (QPs). Ms Cheryl Chan asked about the professionalism of QPs. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board oversee the development of architects and engineers respectively. For instance, in order to renew their Practising Certificates annually, both architects and engineers have to meet ‘continuing professional development’ requirements to update their competencies.

All registered architects and engineers are listed on their relevant Board’s website. If there is any question or doubt about whether or not this is a Qualified Person, you can look at the website of the relevant Board. The professions have their regulatory regimes in place to ensure that those listed are competent to discharge their duties lawfully. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against registered professionals who run foul of regulations. Depending on the severity, the QP may be fined, suspended or deregistered. This Bill also gives URA more powers to charge QPs in court if necessary, for instance if they had provided false declarations.

Mr Louis Ng suggested that a time factor be added to QPs’ obligation to notify URA of contravention or non-compliance of certain requirements under the Act. Other than notifying the authorities, the Bill already requires the QP to ‘take all reasonable steps to immediately stop or cease the contravention’. This is ultimately what matters, as conditions at a construction site are constantly changing. So I believe that the Bill’s provisions should suffice to meet the Member’s concern in this regard.

Occupancy cap/dormitory accommodation

Next, let me talk about occupancy cap –Ms Cheryl Chan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested that the occupancy cap be calibrated according to the size of the residential unit. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that the flat cap of 6 tenants for private housing be now imposed for HDB flats so it is consistent between private and public housing. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested this.

In HDB flats, there are predictable typologies of design and layout, and a simple set of rules can be set on the number of rooms. This is what we have today. Unlike HDB flats, private housing comes in wide-ranging varieties and configurations. It would be difficult to formulate a rule that could capture all the variations along the scale of private residential housing, from shoebox flats to bungalows. We had considered this, but we think that a complicated tiered cap would be confusing for the public, and result in uncertainty for those who want to rent or sublet legitimately.

In fact, the cap of 6 persons was the original cap that used to be in place before. This cap was raised to 8 in 2008 to ease a crunch in the housing supply for workers. Since then, we have built up a good supply of alternative accommodation catering to groups other than families, such as hostels for students and dormitories for company employees and workers. So we believe it is timely to revert to the cap of 6, which was what it used to be before 2008. As for reviewing the HDB limits, I think that is a separate matter which is not within the remits of the Planning Act, because the HDB controls are regulated separately. We would be happy to do the review of the occupancy cap for HDB flats on a separate basis.

Short-term accommodation

Finally, on the most interesting issue of this debate and the one that got most contributions from members on short term accommodation, let me address the queries raised by members in regard to this particular issue.

I must first clarify that the amendments in this Bill do not amount to a change of policy. There is already an existing URA guideline against any short-term accommodation of less than 6 months in private residences. A breach of this guideline can be considered a material change of use, which would then be deemed an offence in the Planning Act. This remains the case under the Amendments to the Act, and the same penalties apply. We are not changing policy; we are taking the same approach.

In fact, URA had undertaken public consultation on this matter of short-term accommodation in 2015. In its focus group discussions with stakeholders such as Neigbourhood Committees and managing agents of private residential developments, there was strong endorsement of the need to preserve the privacy and sanctity valued by the vast majority of home-owners.

Likewise, many of the Members who spoke just now – Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereira, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam, amongst others, shared their constituents’ experiences and expressed strong support for these rules and enforcement. I note that Mr Louis Ng felt that this, perhaps, was done in haste. But I also heard Er Dr Lee Bee Wah who asked why we took so long to put this in place. On balance, we will have to enforce the current rules, which we have been doing and will continue to do so. Indeed, over the past year, URA has already seen a 60% rise in complaints from home-owners about breaches of this short-term accommodation rule in their residential properties. The complaints are related to public nuisance or even safety concerns for their families.

These are issues that we should take seriously. We should enforce the current rules as we are already doing, and make sure the issue does not worsen further. The amendments to the Act will allow URA to do so. In terms of enforcement, URA will continue with its current approach on errant home-owners, which means that advertising on home-sharing or rental websites in itself is not an offence and is not regulated under the Planning Act, because these listings typically do not indicate the tenure of lease. On that basis of that listing on a site, it is not possible to take action. But as a first step, URA will work with the MCST of the development which have units with online listings. They will put out notifications to the residents in that development so that they are aware of the rules on short-term accommodation. If the short-term rentals persist and cause dis-amenities for other home-owners, URA will step in to enforce.

I agree with Ms Joan Pereira that MCSTs can also do their part. Under the Building Maintenance & Strata Management Act or BMSMA, MCSTs have oversight of common property. For example, MCSTs can pass their own by-laws to manage the use of common property through screening and record-keeping. They can also pass by-laws to register the details of visitors. These are meaningful and practical things that MCSTs can do, and we will encourage them to do so, and assist URA in its enforcement action.

I should also clarify that the minimum period of 6 months for short-term rental in private residences is set out in the Schedule of the Act, and we had deliberately done this so that the Government has the flexibility to adjust this parameter in future by gazette. Indeed, in its earlier consultation, URA had received feedback from a number of respondents, including homeowners, that there was scope to reduce the minimum period of rental in a private residence. So URA is studying this carefully, and will consider a possible reduction in the minimum rental time-frame of six months.

But whatever adjustments we may make to this minimum period, it is clear that it will not accommodate residential homes that are being put out for daily rental. Even if we were to reduce the minimum period from six months to three months for example, this will not accommodate residential homes that are converted to daily rental of rooms which are operating very much like hotels. In fact, such premises which are rented out on daily basis ought to be regulated more like hotels rather than residential homes, and they should be subject to relevant license and conditions to ensure proper standards. That was also the feedback that URA had received from various stakeholders. We also note that several cities in Asia and around the world are also regulating short-term home-sharing platforms in a similar way to hotels and service apartments. So in response to the point made by Mr Louis Ng, we have indeed studied the models used by other cities, and found that many of these city municipal governments are taking action and regulating them very much more like hotels or service apartments.

In this regard, I am happy to share that URA is studying the option of creating a new use category for private residences that wish to engage in short-term rentals. Such properties would then be approved for that specific purpose, like service apartments or hotels today. New residential sites can be sold with such an approved use, allowing flexibility for short-term rentals. For existing residential buildings, they would then require planning permission for change of use, and this would be subject to a set of guidelines which URA is looking into.

The proposed measures I have just described are separate from the amendments that are being tabled today. This option of creating a new use class for private residences to engage in short term rentals that I have described can be done without changes to the Act. URA is studying them, and will provide more details soon, for further engagement and consultation with the stakeholders. Because of the strong interest from Members, I thought I should clarify our approach and current thinking on this matter, and also explain that we do see a role for home-sharing platforms to continue operating in Singapore, so long as they are properly regulated and there is a level playing field between them and similar entities that provide short term rentals like hotels and service apartments. I agree that the sharing economy is here to stay. This is a point that several Members have said. We will allow a space in our city for such platforms to exist.