Conservation vs en bloc sale: Money talks louder?

Fri, Feb 23, 2018


PEARL Bank Apartments will likely be demolished unless CapitaLand decides to preserve it, which is regretful.

In 2015, the Urban Redevelopment Authority supported owners' conservation efforts. In a reply to a letter from a reader of The Straits Times, URA's group director for Conservation and Development Services Ler Seng Ann wrote: "In studying whether to conserve, we assess the architectural and historical merits of buildings and structures, and consider feedback from the Conservation Advisory Panel as well as owners ... Given the building's merits and the council of the corporation's interest, we are prepared to facilitate the proposal if there is support from individual owners."

It transpired that "support from individual owners" to the URA meant support of 100 per cent of owners. On the other hand, the building can be demolished with only 80 per cent of owners' votes, in an en bloc sale.

The Pearl Bank owners were forced to abandon their conservation attempt when they secured over 90 per cent of votes, not 100 per cent. Now Pearl Bank, with its "architectural and historical merits", is likely to be demolished with a smaller percentage of owners' votes than those who are for conservation. It is puzzling why the URA imposes far more stringent requirements for voluntary conservation than demolition. Or is it simply motivated by the windfall from a lease top-up by the new owner ?

In the 1980s, many old buildings in Singapore which should have been conserved were demolished and lost forever. Regretfully, it looks like we are repeating history.

Ho Swee Huat