Property News!

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Oct 11, 2007
Stamp duty: 'Objective' market value used
I REFER to the letter by Mr Yeoh Lian Chuan, 'Iras has no general power to insist on 'market value'' (ST, Oct 9).
Under the law, where the Commissioner of Stamp Duty is of the opinion that the consideration is inadequate, the proper market value of a property may be substituted for stamp-duty purposes. Whether the consideration is inadequate is determined on an objective basis, on the face of the transaction. A taxpayer who does not agree with the stamp duty assessed can lodge an objection to the commissioner and appeal to the High Court if he is dissatisfied with the outcome.

The commissioner exercises this power judiciously and only when the consideration declared is clearly inadequate.

We thank Mr Yeoh for his views.

Chin Li Fen (Ms)
Assistant Commissioner
(Corporate Services Division)
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Oct 11, 2007
High Court allows Horizon Towers owners' appeal against Strata Title Board

This means STB which dismissed their collective sale application will now have to go through the hearing.

By Joyce Teo

THE High Court on Thursday allowed the appeal filed by majority owners of Horizon Towers against the dismissal of the estate's collective sale application by the Strata Titles Board (STB) over a paperwork glitch.
This puts the long-running and closely-watched saga back on square one, which means the STB will now have to hear objections from the minority owners who are against the en-bloc sale. The Board will then rule on whether the collective sale should proceed.

High Court Judge Choo Han Teck, in allowing the majority owners' appeal on Thursday morning, said the technical error which aborted the collective sale of their Leonie Hill estate did not prejudice the minority owners, who wanted the STB decision upheld.

'It was the kind of error or omission that could be corrected in a moment, without inconvenience, and without prejudice for even without the three pages, the requisite 80 per cent requirement had been satisfied.'

STB dismissed Horizon Towers' collective sale application in August over a technicality: Pages bearing three consenting owners' signatures were missing from the submitted application.

The majority owners appealed to the High Court to overturn the STB dismissal, arguing that the STB knew those three owners signed the sale deal, and that the Board had the power to amend the application to include the missing pages.

They also maintained that even without those three signatures, the rest of the owners who had consented to the sale still held 82.51 per cent of share values - comfortably above the 80 per cent minimum requirement.

Justice Choo on Thursday concurred that the 80 per cent requirement would have been satisfied the sale application for the 210-unit condo.

As a result of the STB dismissal of the en-bloc sale application, the owners failed to meet the deadline of the collective sale to the prospective buyers of Horizon Towers, a consortium led by Hotel Properties, which have sued the majority owners
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Now, the real tussle begins ...

Judge orders Strata Titles Board to reconsider Horizon Towers sale


Friday • October 12, 2007

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

IT WAS — at least on paper — the judgment that many in the public gallery were looking for.

But yesterday, when Justice Choo Han Teck overruled the Strata Titles Board's decision to abort the Horizon Towers sale on technical irregularities, the response from the crowd, mostly the condo's majority owners, was muted.

It was a marked contrast to the scenes of jubilation when the board threw out the $500-million deal in a tribunal hearing in August.

The sale was thrown out as the sale order application was short of three pages, which were supposed to contain the signatures of three of the majority owners. The majority owners appealed against the board's decision.

Delivering his verdict, Justice Choo allowed the appeal and sent the case back to the board to "continue where it left off".

The High Court judge ruled that the missing pages — which were cited by the board as "an incurable defect" even though they were subsequently submitted — were immaterial to the sale order application and that the board had the power to amend it.

Justice Choo said: "If one takes the view that the board has no power to allow an amendment even for a typographical error, then an entire en bloc sale could be stopped by a comma in the wrong place.

"It was the kind of error or omission that could be corrected in a moment."

The board, he said, was "wrong in law" to reason that its "very existence was called into question" by a defective application.

"Once duly constituted, the board has a duty to hear the application and rule on its merits."

Justice Choo, however, declined to make an order to allow the prospective buyer Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (HPPL) — which had successfully applied to intervene in the appeal — to be heard in the board tribunal hearing, in spite of persistent requests by its lawyer, Senior Counsel K Shanmugam.

A "very satisfied" Mr Shanmugam told reporters later that the verdict was "exactly what we had asked for".

When asked what bearing the verdict would have on HPPL's $1-billion lawsuit against the majority owners for loss of profits, which the consortium had agreed to put on hold, he said: "If the appeal was dismissed, we would have to consider the option. HPPL hopes an order would be made for the sale eventually because then the action would be discontinued altogether."

The saga began in April after some majority owners, apparently unhappy that neighbouring properties were fetching higher prices, tried to pull out of the deal with HPPL.

While "satisfied" with the verdict, unit owner Lim Seng Hoo, who chairs the incumbent sale committee, said: "The buyer can threaten to sue on the basis that market value has gone up twice, so they would lose a lot of money if they don't get the sale. But the poor owners cannot rely on such an argument to say this is the reason they don't want to sell."

But Mr Lim promised that the majority owners would "fully honour" the board's eventual decision.

"Unfazed" by the judgment, lawyer Philip Fong — who, together with Senior Counsel K S Rajah, represents four minority owners — did not rule out appealing against it.

Mr Fong, however, said: "We have always fought the case on the basis that the sale was in bad faith. The fact that the board had found the technical objections to be valid does not detract from our original objections."

All the majority owners managed to achieve, said Mr Fong, was to "go back to square one".

Indeed, the tussle seemed far from over. Said Dr Phang Ser Kiat, another lawyer for the minority owners: "We haven't exhausted our grounds of objections yet. In fact, we were barely into the first ground."
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
STB rejects application of lawyers representing buyers of Horizon Towers

23 October 2007 0041 hrs

SINGAPORE : Lawyers representing the buyers in the Horizon Towers case have had their application to be made parties in an upcoming hearing at the Strata Titles Board (STB) turned down.

Law firm Allen & Gledhill said STB is not allowing the purchaser, Horizon Towers Private Limited, to intervene.

The firm said STB gave its decision because there is "no material change of circumstances from the initial hearing".

The upcoming hearing is a re-run of a previous hearing on August 3.

The STB then threw out Horizon Towers' application on the basis it was defective because of missing pages.

But the High Court ruled the STB was wrong to dismiss the application.

The High Court's decision means that the STB has to continue hearing the application from where it left off.

Lawyers said the date of the hearing had not been confirmed but is likely to be October 30. -
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
SLA releases residential site at Woodlands for development

23 October 2007 1202 hrs

SINGAPORE : The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has released a residential site for development by tender at Woodlands Avenue 2 and Rosewood Drive.

The site, called Rosewood at Woodlands, occupies an area of some 16,000 square metres, with a gross plot ratio of 1.4.

It could potentially support a condominium of up to five storeys with a gross floor area of 22,400 square metres.

SLA says the completed development is expected to attract HDB up-graders in the Woodlands and Sembawang areas and cater to the expatriate community.

Rosewood at Woodlands is located near educational institutions such as the Singapore Sports School, Singapore American School, Innova Junior College, Si Ling Primary School and Republic Polytechnic.

It is also near major transport links such as the Seletar Expressway and the Woodlands MRT station and bus interchange.

SLA says the site is being released under its confirmed list system, which means the parcel will be sold by tender at a pre-determined date, without the need for the sale to be triggered by any developer's application.

Consultant Colliers International has been appointed to market the site.

Rents in the Woodlands and Mandai area have surged between 25 percent and 30 percent in the third quarter of 2007, recording one of the highest growth rates.

This is due largely to the Singapore American School being located within the area.

The tender for the Woodlands site will close on November 20th
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Oct 27, 2007
Deferred payment scheme for homebuyers scrapped
By Joyce Teo & Fiona Chan
THE Government last night scrapped the deferred payment scheme that allowed homebuyers to postpone payments on new property.
It said the strong economy and property market allowed it to axe the scheme. This would also deter speculators and force people to be more prudent when committing to pricey real estate.

It was a response to signs of overheating in the market, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said last night. 'There's a danger that we may feel over-exuberance in the market. There's also a danger it may actually encourage excessive speculation,' he said.

Buyers will now have to make progressive payments in step with the construction process, instead of deferring payment till the property is completed a few years later.

Experts say prices and sales will be hit, though the impact may not be significant, given the robust demand.

'Now the property market is 'red-hot', maybe after withdrawing deferred payment it will just be 'hot',' said Mr Ku Swee Yong, director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore. 'There is strong, genuine demand driving sales. Taking away this scheme will only spook speculators. It will take away the froth that is false demand.'

The deferred payment scheme was introduced in 1997, when the market was lacklustre. It is no longer relevant today, said Mr Mah.

Projects that have been approved can continue with deferred payments, but others - uncompleted private homes and commercial properties, including industrial ones - will be hit by the withdrawal, which took effect last night.

Some experts say deferred payment encouraged speculators - pushing up prices. 'Once speculators find it riskier to go into the market, there will be less competition for homes,' said an industry observer. 'Developers may have to lower their prices, and prices may level off. It's good to cool the market, so that you are in tune with the rest of the world.'

Progressive payments call on buyers to pay an amount varying from 5 per cent to 25 per cent of the purchase price at various stages of construction. A 10 per cent payment is required once foundation work is completed, which can be in as soon as six months after purchase or up to 18 months.

Luxury homes have continued soaring in price, while new Government figures show that speculation is becoming a market factor.

Sub-sales - owners selling uncompleted properties - in the core central region comprised 21.6 per cent of total sales in the three months ended Sept 30.

Overall, sub-sales accounted for 12.7 per cent of total deals. They accounted for 28 per cent of total deals in 1996, when speculation was rife.

'Speculation has not reached the mid-1990s level, but at the rate it's going, it could increase, so why not nip it in the bud?' said Ms Tay Huey Ying, director of research and consultancy at Colliers International .

The Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore said: 'The need for this scheme has diminished with the strong market recovery.'

Some experts say yesterday's move may trigger fears of further Government intervention, which may then indirectly hit prices and sales.

Mr Mah did not rule out the possibility of further moves: 'We are monitoring the market very closely. Obviously, the objective is to make sure that our prices do not overrun, do not go beyond the fundamentals.

'We want to make sure the market is a stable and healthy one.'
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Oct 28, 2007
Woman 'sells' 1 condo to two buyers
Property agent sister of condo owner pockets $30,000 in deposits from two buyers; now one of them is suing her to get back $25,000
By Nur Dianah Suhaimi
HER sister had given her permission to sell her private apartment in Sengkang.
But the woman, herself a property agent, managed to 'sell' the condo unit to not just one, but two buyers, pocketing $30,000 in deposits from them.

Now, one of the buyers is filing a lawsuit against her to retrieve the $25,000 he paid to the woman.

A police report has also been filed against her by one of the property agents who brokered the deal.

But the woman says she did nothing wrong and pins the blame on the other two agents involved instead.

In May, she approached two property agents separately to help her market her older sister's apartment at Rivervale Crest. Her sister is said to be working in Australia.

The woman is said to be in her 30s and is married, with one daughter from a previous marriage. She is also a discharged bankrupt.

She wanted $570,000 for the apartment.

This is where the two sides' stories begin to differ.

The agents claimed she collected cheques for payments of 1 to 5 per cent of the condo's sale price but would delay returning the option-to-purchase (OTP) documents to the buyer until the date had expired.

The date usually expires after two weeks.

Then, she would claim the buyer did not act promptly and must forfeit the payments they had made to her.

By then, she had already banked in the cheques.

One of the PropNex agents involved in the deal, Mr Mohd Rasheed Othman, said he had known the woman for a year, having co-brokered a property with her before.

'She knew the tricks of the trade and used her knowledge to cheat others,' alleged the 32-year-old.

Mr Mohd Rasheed visited the Sengkang apartment after his buyer complained. There, he met her aged parents, who were shocked that their daughter was selling the apartment.

He said: 'Her parents had no idea she was selling the apartment. They were living there as per normal.'

Her reply: My parents have nothing to do with the apartment.

The other agent, Ms S.N. Lee, 30, said the woman would come up with excuses to delay returning documents and would avoid phone calls.

She said: 'She'd insist on meeting at ridiculous times, in the wee hours of the morning. Sometimes, she'd even tell me to collect important documents from her shoe rack.'

Most of the time, the two agents would communicate with her by SMS.

When contacted by The Sunday Times, the woman claimed that the accusations against her were not true.

She said she did not want to go ahead with the first transaction with Mr Mohd Rasheed because he had cheated her by selling her apartment for $510,000, instead of $570,000 as promised.

'I'm the victim here,' she said.

She also claimed he gave her a blank OTP document to sign.

This document usually states how much the property is sold for. Sellers would have to agree to the price stated before signing.

As for Ms Lee, she failed to act promptly, said the woman, and allowed the OTP date to expire. By the woman's reasoning, the $5,350 deposit paid by the buyer is now rightfully hers.

PropNex has returned this $5,350 deposit to the buyer on a goodwill basis.

The police confirmed that a report has been made against the woman and they are investigating.

This is not the first time someone has sold a property to multiple buyers.

In 1996, a bankrupt cheated eight people of $20,000 in all by pretending to sell his Ang Mo Kio HDB flat to each of them.

The victims, who paid between $1,000 and $5,000 as deposits, found out they had been conned only when they handed their resale agreements to the HDB. The conman was given eight months' jail.
 

nakorius

Supremacy Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
5,941
Reaction score
0
jq75 said:
Oct 11, 2007
Stamp duty: 'Objective' market value used
I REFER to the letter by Mr Yeoh Lian Chuan, 'Iras has no general power to insist on 'market value'' (ST, Oct 9).
Under the law, where the Commissioner of Stamp Duty is of the opinion that the consideration is inadequate, the proper market value of a property may be substituted for stamp-duty purposes. Whether the consideration is inadequate is determined on an objective basis, on the face of the transaction. A taxpayer who does not agree with the stamp duty assessed can lodge an objection to the commissioner and appeal to the High Court if he is dissatisfied with the outcome.

The commissioner exercises this power judiciously and only when the consideration declared is clearly inadequate.

We thank Mr Yeoh for his views.

Chin Li Fen (Ms)
Assistant Commissioner
(Corporate Services Division)
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Heavens, does she know how much it would cost to go to the High Court?

It is easy to quote, but afford?
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 6, 2007
Horizon Towers: Seven vow to go all out to stop sale
$2m spent in fight to keep homes but they're willing to pay more to win

By Joyce Teo
SEVEN owners who opposed the collective sale of Horizon Towers from the word 'go' vowed last week to spend as much as it takes to keep their homes.
They have already spent nearly $2 million to fight the sale and may rack up double that by the time the saga is resolved.

'We have no budget,' said one, a retired former chief executive. 'In life, not everything has to do with money. For us, this is our only home.'

These owners are locking horns with the majority owners - those who voted for the collective sale - at the Strata Titles Board (STB).

The hearing, with all the twists, turns and fighting over legal niceties that has marked it from day one, involves majority owners seeking STB approval for the original sale application rejected in August.

A number of minority owners - including the defiant seven who are split into two groups, each represented by different lawyers - oppose this, on a variety of grounds.

Disgruntled owners are becoming more common in Singapore. The property boom and the surge in collective sales have led to increasing numbers of people finding that rising replacement costs mean their bounty from selling en bloc counts for little.

One of the seven minority owners, who lives in a 5,000 sq ft penthouse, said: 'There are seven people in my family, including the helper. You cannot expect us to downgrade to a 1,000 sq ft place.'

But the problems at Horizon Towers go deeper than that. The unhappiness over the sale of the 99-year leasehold estate started in January, said the seven minority owners.

It was then that they and many others learnt - via a newspaper report - that their 210-unit estate had been sold for $500 million to Hotel Properties and two partners.

The seven are among the 10 groups of owners who did not agree to sell and subsequently filed objections. One has withdrawn his objections.

They say the $500 million price tag, which works out to $850 per sq ft, is an unfair sum because prices have risen considerably. Developments nearby sold for more than double the price per sq ft achieved at Horizon Towers this year.

The seven owners spoke freely about protecting their homes but were cagey about disclosing personal details. Six of the seven refused to divulge full names, although they are listed in the STB affidavit.

They were also reluctant to reveal job details. One is a businessman, one runs her own company and there are at least three retirees - a lawyer, a chief executive and a property developer.

What unites them is the fight for their homes - something they say money cannot buy, and certainly not at last year's prices.

Apart from their ability to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the sale, they are also clued-up about the law. 'We are very different from other objectors,' said Ms J. Tan, one of the seven. 'We are very well-informed and very well-educated.'

A second owner, who was bemoaning the fact that every day of delay costs them about $100,000 in legal fees, said: 'Every time someone makes a mistake, it becomes my problem.'

Said another: 'If I don't have grounds, I will not throw away my money. If I win, nobody will pay us back.'

joyceteo@sph.com.sg
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 7, 2007
En bloc sale: Who gets rest of reserve fund?
MY ESTATE was sold en bloc last year and there are two main issues which I would like to raise.
Firstly, there was a sum of a few million dollars which was to be used to pay compensation to the few minority owners who had bought their units for more than the final sale price or for some other reason.

The actual amount paid was never disclosed. If there is a balance in this reserve fund, would it be distributed to the majority owners?

Secondly, the legal firm involved promised to share the interest earned on the initial deposit paid by the buyer. As many of the residents have already moved out, how is the legal firm to make payment?

All residents have to move out by the end of this month, so time is running out.

Patrick Tan Boh Liang
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 7, 2007
Horizon Towers owners renew objections to sale at hearing
By Joyce Teo
THE home owners opposed to the $500 million collective sale of Horizon Towers have renewed their complaints that the sale was not handled properly, resulting in a price that was too low given a fast-rising market.
They were opening their case to stop the sale in front of the Strata Titles Board (STB) yesterday with a barrage of arguments.

They claimed that the sale committee and the property agent had mismanaged the sale process of the condominium.

It was the second day of the resumed STB hearing in which the majority owners are seeking approval to have the sale approved, after it was thrown out on a technicality in August.

They are battling it out with the minority owners who have filed objections to the sale. These objectors include three groups, each represented by different lawyers, along with two sets of owners representing themselves.

Hotel Properties (HPL) and its two partners have been trying to buy the 99-year leasehold Horizon Towers for $500 million, the estate's reserve price that was set in April or May last year.

Opponents of the sale argued that by the time the deal was signed, that reserve price was too low, and out of date.

They said the $500 million price came with an 80 per cent premium - an inducement that had shrunk significantly by the time the estate was sold to the HPL consortium in January this year, due to a fast-rising market.

One witness, Mr Wee Hian Siew, who was the secretary of Horizon Towers' first sale committee and one of the first to moot the idea of a sale, was called at the STB hearing yesterday.

He was asked numerous questions, including whether he knew about the rising market and why he did not ask for a fresh mandate for the $500 million offer from the owners, many of whom were said to have learnt of the sale via a newspaper report.

Mr Wee said he knew about the rising market and insisted that he was under the impression that the collective sale premium had slipped to about 40 per cent to 50 per cent, which he was happy with.

Earlier, one of the three minority owners' lawyers, Mr Philip Fong of Harry Elias partnership, had asked if Mr Wee knew that Horizon Towers' agent First Tree Properties was a tiny company with a paid-up capital of $50,000 for instance.

Also, he asked if he knew that the company had agreed to take a commission from the purchaser, instead of the owners as with usual practice. Mr Wee said he knew about it.

He later agreed that this would create a potential conflict but it was one that was not apparent to him when they were making the deal.

These were just some of the arguments brought up yesterday when the STB board also dismissed the case of a majority owner who wanted to participate in the hearing as an objector.

The hearing continues today.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
It's an INTRUSION It's an INVESTMENT

Residents unite against en-bloc sale after 3 of 6 units sold to developer and friends last month
New owner then rents out unit to fereign workers while waiting for en-bloc sale


THE banner on the gate - with the bold red words 'No To Enbloc' - is quite hard to miss at Springwell Mansions.
By Desmond Ng

06 November 2007
THE banner on the gate - with the bold red words 'No To Enbloc' - is quite hard to miss at Springwell Mansions.

And the message is quite clear.

Put up by a group of residents who are fed up with what seems to them to be intense interest from a developer, the sign is to tell others that the rest are not interested.

The group - living in the six-unit private estate - put it up last month to make their intentions known.

The banner cost them $60, they said.

Right now, their development is split right down the middle when it comes to considering a collective sale.

Three of the units there, or half the project, were hurriedly snapped up last month.

Fearing a majority takeover - five out of the six unit owners need to approve a sale - the residents of the three remaining units quickly called for an extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) to decide on the en-bloc possibility after that.

And all the three owners who attended the meeting last month voted against the sale.

One of the new residents, who sent a proxy, couldn't vote because he missed the deadline to register the proxy.

This 23-year-old freehold development is located near Upper East Coast Road near Bedok Camp.

Its land area is about 22,000 sq ft big - about the size of seven basketball courts.

Mr Siegfried Stettmayer, who is also the chairman of the management committee there, said he was surprised by the sudden interest in the estate.

He said: 'All three units were sold quite quickly and in such a short span of time.

'We don't want an en-bloc sale because this estate is quiet, safe and it's hard to find a unit of such size in this area. And we've great neighbours here too.'

Mr Stettmayer, a vice-president of sales at a business consulting firm, bought his 3,200 sq ft place for about $690,000 in 2004 and spent more than $200,000 renovating it.

The units there are three-bedroom types at 3,200 sq ft or 1,600 sq ft big.

The peace of the estate was broken by what the residents saw as an intrusion when a group of related buyers started snapping up the units there in October.

One large unit was sold for $1.4million and two smaller units were sold for $1.1m and $950,000 each, which is the current market rate, property agents said.

The $950,000 unit was sold to Springlife Holdings director Lee Boon Kwan, and the other two properties were bought by his friends.

Springlife is a small property developer.

One resident there, accountant Foo Siew Lan, said: 'What are these new buyers trying to do? They are obviously not buying to live here. Are they trying to buy us one by one or trying to force an en-bloc sale?'

She bought her 3,200 sq ft place for $738,000 five years ago.

To make matters worse, one of the smaller units was rented to foreign workers recently.

While they do not disturb the peace of the neighbourhood, some of the residents are clearly unhappy about strangers living among them.

Ms Foo said: 'I see different groups of workers here every night. They are generally peaceful but I just don't feel safe with strangers streaming in and out of the estate every night.

'And who would buy a $1m property here to rent out to foreign workers?'

By renting out to foreign workers, the landlord has also broken a by-law in that estate.

This by-law states that owners are to rent out to family units only (no boarders and foreign workers).

This by-law was passed in June this year to ensure a comfortable, safe and pleasant living environment, the residents said.

When contacted, Springlife's MrLee claimed he did not know about the by-law and had just found out about it.

His friend, a contractor, had bought a unit and is temporarily renting it out to foreign workers.

Mr Lee said there is no point in his friend renting a place elsewhere to house his workers when he has a vacant place of his own for rent.

He added: 'Anyway, that's a temporary thing. He'll probably sell it if there's no enbloc in the future.'

He and his friends had invested in the three units there because of what they thought was an en-bloc opportunity.

Mr Lee said in Mandarin: 'I thought that this place had the potential for an en-bloc sale, so I decided to buy a unit.

'I also persuaded two of my friends to buy too. But now that the residents have voted against the sale, we're stuck with the properties.

But he added that because he bought his unit 'at a fairly low price', he can 'still sell it at a profit' if there is no collective sale.

He said that his friends' units were bought at a slight premium, so they may not be able recoup their losses if they sell on the open market.

For now, the anti-enbloc banner makes matters worse.

Mr Lee said: 'With that sign outside, how can I sell my place now? Who will buy a unit here now if they think that there's no en-bloc opportunity?'
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 10, 2007
HPL remark on Horizon Towers decision 'not fair'
By Joyce Teo
A LAWYER for a group of minority owners opposed to the collective sale of Horizon Towers yesterday said that comments made by developer Hotel Properties (HPL) on the proceedings were not fair.
HPL had commented on the possibility of the tribunal decision coming too late.

The consenting and minority owners of Horizon Towers are now battling it out at the Strata Titles Board (STB).

HPL and its two partners have been trying to buy Horizon Towers en bloc for $500 million, a price they inked in January this year.

On Wednesday, the third day of the resumed STB hearing, tribunal chairman Philip Chan said the board was under no legal obligation to rule on whether to approve the collective sale on or before Dec 11 - the sale completion date.

HPL group executive director Christopher Lim then commented to the media that the firm was surprised that the tribunal took the view that it had no duty to make a ruling before Dec 11, as that may 'potentially scuttle' the deal.

Senior counsel K.S. Rajah of Harry Elias Partnership told the board yesterday that Mr Lim, an interested party, was not qualified to comment on the board's decision when it is proceeding and ongoing.

He said the comment should be referred to the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Anyone who seeks to 'muddy the waters' must be told to lay off or face the consequences, he said.

At yesterday's hearing, sale committee member Henry Lim was cross-examined. He was asked questions that included whether sale committee chairman Arjun Samtani had disclosed his purchase of a second unit at Horizon Towers last March.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 10, 2007
Alexandra housing plot up for tender soon
By Tan Hui Yee
A DEVELOPER has agreed to pay at least $220.7 million for a residential site on Alexandra Road, in what is seen by some observers as a bullish move in light of recent property market caution.
This has triggered a tender for the 0.86ha plot, on which 360 to 400 homes can be built. It is a short walk from Red-

hill MRT station and the upcoming Metropolitan condominium.

The 99-year leasehold site has a maximum gross floor area of 451,428 sq ft and can hold a condominium of up to about 40 storeys high.

Under the reserve list system, a plot is put up for tender by the Government when a developer commits to bidding an acceptable minimum price.

In this case, the minimum bid price works out to about $448 per sq ft per plot ratio (psf ppr), considered a bullish bid by some analysts in view of the caution among developers, after the Government scrapped the deferred payment scheme recently.

Knight Frank's director of research and consultancy, Mr Nicholas Mak, said the trigger price was 'quite aggressive'.

He estimated that the eventual winning bid for the plot would end up in the range of $500 to $600 psf ppr. This will push selling prices of condo units there to between $1,000 psf and $1,050 psf.

The regional director and head of investments at Jones Lang LaSalle, Mr Lui Seng Fatt, expects an even higher winning bid of $650 to $800 psf ppr, which will work out to between $300 million and $380 million.

Meanwhile, the Urban Redevelopment Authority has awarded a 0.3ha residential plot in Enggor Street to Far East Organization's Bishan Properties at a price of $233.8 million, or $852 psf ppr.

The tender, which closed on Nov 1, attracted only two bids. Far East is reportedly expected to build about 200 apartments at the location.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 13, 2007
Property market: No further plans to cool it
Govt assurance dampens speculation on capital gains tax
By Tan Hui Yee

THE Government is not planning any fresh measures to cool the property market for now, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said yesterday.
His statement effectively hosed down speculation that a capital gains tax might be reintroduced to stop people flipping units for quick gains.

The news brought some relief to players in the property market, which has been hit by uncertainty after the scrapping of the deferred payment scheme two weeks ago.

The 10-year-old scheme, allowing people to buy property with a downpayment but no further payments until the completion of the project, was abolished to curb speculation.

Now, buyers have to make progressive payments while their homes are being built.

The change spooked developers, and was seen as the reason why there were only two bids when the tender for a residential site in Enggor Street in Tanjong Pagar closed on Nov 1.

That followed a sizzling 22.9 per cent growth in private home prices in the first nine months this year. Sub-sales, when uncompleted properties change hands, made up almost 22 per cent of total sales in central Singapore from July to September.

Addressing questions on the scrapping of the scheme in Parliament yesterday, Mr Mah said it was too early to ascertain its overall impact.

But he did not think genuine home buyers would be unduly affected because they could still get home loans from banks. Over time, the change will encourage the property market to grow in a 'more healthy and sustained manner', he said.

Responding to a question from MP Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC), he said the Government will closely monitor the market to ensure that prices are supported by economic fundamentals, and that there are sufficient private homes.

He said there is no need for any new measure, and that the Government is not considering any for the property market now. 'Our bias is really not to over-regulate or to interfere in the market if we don't have to,' he said.

If a capital gains tax - which was introduced in 1996 but lifted in 2001 - was imposed again, it would dampen foreign investor sentiment, said the director of research and consultancy at Colliers International, Ms Tay Huey Ying.

'This is good news for the market. It brings stability.'

Mr Mah stressed that there was no reason to panic over a perceived shortage of homes, as there was a stock of 65,000 private homes in the pipeline at the end of September this year.

About two-thirds are likely to be built and made available over the next three years.

Still, househunters such as bank executive Luanne Lim were disappointed at the Government's declaration. The 33-year-old bank executive, who feels private homes have become 'unaffordable', said: 'I think people can still afford to speculate without the deferred payment scheme.'

On the public housing front, Mr Mah said the Housing Board was ramping up its building programme to meet demand for new homes.

MP Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC) asked about the supply in the next three years, saying newly-weds found it harder to get new HDB flats.

But Mr Mah said about 4,000 flats will be launched under HDB's build-to-order programme this half year.

He did not think the HDB should meet all demand for new flats. If it did, it would be laying the groundwork for a future oversupply problem.

These same newly-weds would then find it hard to sell their homes if they wanted to upgrade. It was better to channel some of the demand for new flats to the resale market, he said.

tanhy@sph.com.sg
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 16, 2007
Horizon Towers hearing over, Strata Titles Board yet to rule
By Joyce Teo
PUBLIC hearings on the hotly-disputed $500 million collective sale of Horizon Towers drew to a close at the Strata Titles Board (STB) yesterday.
But it is still unclear if the STB will hand down a result by Dec 11: the sale completion deadline for the 99-year leasehold property.

Both sides - those for and against the sale - must file written closing submissions by Nov 23 and a reply by Nov 30. The STB said it will make a decision in due course, after considering the submissions.

Sources said a ruling could come as soon as early December.

But even if that happened, the case could drag on if one side decided to appeal against the ruling.

Already, this STB hearing is said to be the longest ever. The dispute stems from unhappiness among some owners who feel the $500 million price tag is unfair.

The case went back to the STB last month after the High Court decided that the STB's earlier decision to throw out the sale on technical grounds was wrong.

The consenting owners had earlier extended the sale deadline to Dec 11 in a bid to avert a lawsuit brought by developer Hotel Properties and its two partners for alleged breach of contract.

The STB had said during the hearing that it had no legal obligation to rule before the deadline.

One of the objectors, Ms J. Tan, is optimistic about the outcome of the hearing. 'We fought hard for our homes... We are confident that a case of bad faith has been made out.'

She said the evidence suggests to them that the $500 million deal was inked this year even though the consenting owners would have objected to it, given that the premium had evaporated. After all, the premium was what had induced the consenting owners to sign the collective sale agreement, she said.

Two consenting owners - Ms Poonam Harilela, a member of the Harilela family that owns Holiday Inn Park View Singapore, and Mr Mohinder Kalra, employed by the Harilela group for 32 years - gave evidence on that point yesterday.

Mr Kalra, who owns one unit, said that he had signed the agreement because of an expected 80 per cent premium, but that this premium had almost vanished by January. He told the board yesterday: 'I thought to myself that if this unit has to be sold at $2.3 million, why do we need a collective sale?'

A unit was valued at $2.2 million in February.

At $500 million, apartment owners would get about $2.3 million each, while penthouse owners would get at least $4 million each.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 16, 2007
Lower bids for Enggor St condo site could signal cooling market
Top offer a far cry from that for neighbouring parcel sold two weeks ago

By Fiona Chan
A CONDOMINIUM site in Tanjong Pagar raised eyebrows yesterday when it drew lower bids than a neighbouring plot, which was sold just two weeks ago.
In a market that has been booming, this is the latest in a series of lukewarm responses to government land sales. Experts say it is further evidence that sentiment in the property market may be fast cooling.

The condo plot, along Enggor Street in Tanjong Pagar, fetched a top bid of $180.8 million when its tender closed yesterday. Allgreen Properties put in the highest offer, pipping bids by Far East Organization and GuocoLand.

Its price works out to $717 per sq ft per plot ratio (psf ppr) - well below the $852 psf ppr achieved by the plot just next to it, which drew only two offers when the tender closed. That prompted market watchers to warn that the mood might have changed. Even then, the high bid, from Far East, was some $70 million above yesterday's top offer.

The two land parcels, which are located behind the Icon condominium and a stone's throw from the Tanjong Pagar MRT Station, are of similar size.

The situation mirrors that in Marina View. Two months ago, a site there fetched a record $2 billion bid - but a neighbouring plot managed only half that price when its tender closed on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, an office site in Tampines drew only one bid, at a lower price than most consultants had expected.

These tepid sales come after the Government last month unexpectedly removed the deferred payment scheme for homebuyers in what was seen as a bid to curb speculation. Homebuyers can no longer postpone the bulk of their payments and must now pay progressively.

Although the Government has since come out to say that it has no further plans to cool the property market, the once-powerful winds appear to have shifted.

Yesterday's tender is a reflection that 'developers are turning cautious', said Mr Ku Swee Yong, the director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore.

He offered several reasons for the lower bids. For one thing, construction costs are surging, but home prices are not rising as quickly, he said. This means developers have to find a way to lower their land costs.

Luxury homes used to cost $300 psf to $350 psf to build, but this has now gone up to about $600 psf because of a construction squeeze, he explained.

At the same time, there are plenty of freehold collective sale sites still on the market that have not found takers. Faced with many options for land, developers might be less attracted to 99-year leasehold sites from the Government, suggested Mr Ku.

In any case, the Enggor Street plot was 'not exactly a choice site', he said, adding that it has 'small floor plates, its views are blocked and it is very close to the next building'.

Partly because of this, the top bid for the site, while lower than that for the plot next door, is 'reasonable', he said.

With the developer's breakeven cost estimated at around $1,200 psf or $1,300 psf, finished homes could sell for at least $1,700 psf. Mr Li Hiaw Ho, the executive director of ** Richard Ellis Research, said current prices at nearby projects such as Icon, Lumiere and The Clift are between $1,600 psf and $2,100 psf.

Despite the lower prices being paid for state land now, consultants think this will not translate into cheaper homes, thanks to rising construction costs and still-strong demand from homebuyers.

But Mr Nicholas Mak, the director of research and consultancy at Knight Frank, warned that if the Government continues to release more land, it might result in a supply glut that could cause prices to plunge.

'We are standing at the threshold of a glut, but it is still preventable,' he said, adding that the low bids in recent state tenders will not affect existing projects, but will affect future land tenders.

'If the Government pushes out more land parcels, and bids continue to slide downwards, some of the earlier buyers of state land are going to find it very challenging to sell their developed properties at a profitable rate.'

All eyes will now be on the government land sales programme for next year, which is due out next month. If the Government places many sites on the confirmed list, to be sold at a fixed date regardless of interest, this could lead to opportunistic bidding by developers and push down prices, consultants said.

Apart from the Enggor Street tender, Mr Mak said that the latest home sales data released by the Urban Redevelopment Authority yesterday also points to weaker sentiment.

Homebuyers remained cautious last month, taking up only slightly more new homes than in September. They bought 590 new homes, up from 529 previously, but still a far cry from the 1,720 snapped up in August.

But while sales levels stayed low, home prices kept steady, even inching up for many projects. Homes sold last month were also pricier, with 63 units sold at between $3,500 psf and $4,500 psf, up from 28 in September.

Cheaper condos did even better, said Mr Mak. In fact, the number of units sold in the core central region fell by 53 per cent last month from September, while the number of mid-tier units sold doubled.

fiochan@sph.com.sg
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 20, 2007
Amber Road condo sets new price benchmark
By Joyce Teo
THERE is still plenty of life in the property sector, if preview sales at Amber Residences apartments are anything to go by.
The Amber Road project set a new benchmark price for the area, with units going for an average of $1,650 per sq ft (psf) at a weekend preview, where showflat visitors were treated to food, drinks and live music.

Of the 114 units at Amber Residences, 74 were sold at prices ranging from $1.6 million to $3.5 million. Prices at Amber Road have risen significantly with the market this year.

The Sea View, opposite the 21-storey Amber Residences, was released in mid-2005 at just $750 psf. Sub-sales have since been done at up to $1,510 psf.

Savills Residential's senior associate director, Ms Phylicia Ang, said the Amber Residences preview was for special guests, including the developer's business associates.

Most of the buyers were from Singapore. They could opt for the deferred payment scheme - which added 3 per cent to the unit price - but less than half did so. Developer Voda Land was given permission to sell with deferred payment before the scheme was withdrawn late last month.

Voda Land bought the freehold Amber Lodge and the Jin Fu Apartments site in a collective sale to form the plot for Amber Residences.

'For the price that the buyers paid, which is a benchmark for Amber, the condo has to come with quality fittings,' said Ms Ang.

Amber Residences has two- to four-bedroom units and six penthouses, ranging from 4,133 sq ft to 6,717 sq ft. Some of the best high-floor units went for over $1,800 psf, but the penthouses, which are all still available, will be priced at around $1,900 psf, or between $8 million and $13 million.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 21, 2007
Waterfront condos coming up at Bedok Reservoir

ST_IMAGES_FIOBEDOK.jpg


By Fiona Chan
FOUR condominiums will be built where the former Waterfront View estate in Bedok Reservoir Road used to be.
The first will be launched in the first quarter of next year, said developers Frasers Centrepoint and Far East Organization yesterday.

It will be called Waterfront Waves and have 405 units, of which more than half will be three- and four-bedroom apartments. More than 60 per cent of the units will also have reservoir views, the developers added.

The Straits Times understands that the other three condos will also have 'Waterfront' in their names and are likely to be of similar sizes.

Together known as the Waterfront collection, the four-condo development is the largest in the area to have a direct water frontage, the developers said. In all, it could have 1,600 units.

The developers are also in talks with the Public Utilities Board about 'enhancing the neighbourhood's communal parks and water bodies'.

Although property consultants will not disclose prices for Waterfront Waves, they believe prices may start from $700 per sq ft (psf).

Mr Ku Swee Yong, director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore, said units on lower floors with no water views could fetch that price.

On higher floors, prices could go up to $850 psf, he added.

Frasers Centrepoint and Far East jointly bought the former HUDC site last year for about $240 psf of gross floor area.
 

jq75

Honorary Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2000
Messages
135,998
Reaction score
2,453
Nov 21, 2007
Woodlands condo plot draws 8 bids
By Grace Ng
EIGHT bidders have put in tenders for a residential site near the Singapore American School and right in the middle of the heartland, Singapore's new real estate hot zone.
Bids for the plot - located between Woodlands Avenue 2 and Rosewood Drive - ranged from $36.4 million to $56 million.

EL Development, a unit of Evan Lim, lodged the top bid.

Frasers Centrepoint came in just behind with $55.5 million, according to a Singapore Land Authority (SLA) statement yesterday.

The narrow gap between the top two bidders reflects the keen interest in the 172,223 sq ft site, which is near the American international school and, thus, in an area popular with expatriate families, said Mr Lui Seng Fatt, regional director and head of investments at Jones Lang LaSalle.

A condominium of up to five storeys with a gross floor area of 241,112 sq ft can be built on the 99-year lease site, which has a gross plot ratio of 1.4, the SLA said. This works out to about $232 per sq ft (psf) per plot ratio, which can translate into a break-even price of about $400 psf for the project, said Mr Lui, adding 'the project may be able to sell for about $500 psf, depending on the circumstances'.

Analysts noted that the competitive bidding for the Woodlands site contrasted sharply with the lacklustre response to recent public tenders for sites at Enggor Street and Marina View, both located in the more central parts of Singapore.

This confirms 'the trend that the focus has shifted to the outlying areas, now that the prices in the central districts, including districts 9, 10, 11, have risen significantly', said Mr Lui.

That theory will get a further test in two weeks, when the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) launches a tender for a reserve site at Simei Street 4, which has an area of 3.22ha and is earmarked for residential development with a maximum gross floor area of 74,084 sq m.

The call for bidders was triggered by an application made by a developer who committed to bid at least $187 million for the land parcel.

Also, the URA has awarded the tender for a transitional office site between Tampines Concourse and Tampines Avenue 5 to Glades Properties, the sole bidder with a price of $10 million.

This works out to $868 per sq m for a site with a gross floor area of 11,520 sq m. The land parcel has a 15-year lease.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards, Terms of Service and Member T&Cs for more information.
Top