Newbie
Proud_owner referring to old developments... before cm7, these area are free of charge. if next time, when a new buyer come across these pes or rt, how will it be calculated? if next time, there is enbloc opportunity, what will be the calculated the unit's size of those free pes, rt unit as they are not calculated as GFA before cm7? of course development after cm7 will not have this confusion.Originally Posted by howgozit
Junior
OIC... thanks
Which is why I am curious why @proudowner is asking "Will future buyers of of such resale unit willing to pay for that space which all now know was Free of charge?"
I thought buyers will now be more willing to pay for the space now that CM7 has plugged this loophole that was originally intended for curbing developers. making the space no longer free.
Just wondering if I am missing something here.
Junior
Got this from a forum. There are obviously legal ways and approved by URA for Roof terraces without incurring more GFA. So, I believe if you landscape and do up your roof terraces nicely for your own usage and later when you resell, the buyer can see and feel the landscape and ambience(do it at night). Then obviously price will be more expensive. For developers, if they are now going to sell higher price RT, then obviuosly there will be more thoughts into how to landscape and roof it making it very very conducive for the buyers ot pay the asking price.
Anyway, at the current momemnt, it seems the stumbling block is the MCST who wants to maintain facade of the building. URA will more likely approve the roofing now that it is becoming more commonplace.
If I recall my previous projects correctly, the formal process of constructing a roof terrace is as follows.
1. MCST Approval
Approval must be sought from MCST to construct as the roof top terrace may impact the external facade or building outlook.
2. URA (http://www.ura.gov.s...yproperty.htm#4)
As the strata title locks in the GFA of your unit, any roof terrace should not incur an increase in GFA.
There are several ways of avoiding the increase in GFA.
a. install a open to sky roof trellis with a retractable awning over it.
b. Construct a roof terrace butting against a wall to a maximum of 2m overhang.
c. Construct a 4mx4m covered pavillion on the basis that 2m overhang from edge of roof to wall for roof terraces are exempt from GFA. Therefore a 4mx4m covered pavillion is similar.
d. cbuy an umbrella.
Of course, items (a), (b) or © will require URA submission by the Architect and is subject to approval from the Planner on a case by case basis.
Alternative if the Condo development has GFA to spare, (highly unlikely), you can apply to purchase it from MCST and revise your strata title.
3. BCA
A roof terrace is defined by BCA as "Building works carried out for or in connection with any single storey trellis, pergola, shelter, gazebo and the like." Thus no submission is required.
Last edited by focus; 12-01-13 at 13:06.
Junior
Yep... the MC is an obstacle, probably the biggest. Envious residents may put up roadblocks.
URA sets the ruling but the structures are regulated by BCA. So that is another obstacle.
Junior
This is my take - proud_owner bro pls come in and correct me if i am wrong.
I think PHs as we know it will cease to exist. Today every top floor unit is slapped on with a roof terrace and sold as penthouse. Tomorrow, top floor units will simply be top floor units.
PHs will then take the characteristics common in most parts of the world:
- exceptionally high ceilings
- large floor plate
- top floor of a skyscraper, not 5 storey apartments in tk kurau type (unless dev is super luxe)
- unsurpassed views
- other privacy features
- they will not be discounted in the traditional sense where Rt is 50% psf. they may even be priced at a premium due to view etc, mitigated only by the large floor plate
instead of 20 penthouses in a 600unit development, there will only be a smarttering. Roof terraces or large balconies may include landscaping and cover structures, provided by the developers - and will be part of selling a lifestyle. For efficiency, i believe larger PES on the same level will be more dominant than two storey with RT. We will no longer see 1 or 2 bedroom 'penthouses' with roof terraces. Even 3 bedders might be a stretch.
for 5 storey condopartments, you will see more communal gardens and facilities on the roof - which is the policy intent.
Unless yesterday's PH has the above characteristics, i believe PHs without them will be increasingly difficult to sell, unless renovated in such a way that piques a buyers interest. but i doubt it. Those that have the above characteristics - like PHs in the Sail, MBS, MBR and others - will attract a small but price inelastic market in sophisticated PH buyers looking for the prestige and 'landed in the sky' feeling.
Although i am not one of them, i dare say that yesterday's PH buyers with the above characteristics will huat, especially if they bought the PES at 50% disc or more. Over time esp with new PH characteristics such psf variances will be zero summed. Ceteris paribus as the new measures is still anybody's guess.
I am not too concerned about RT covering restrictions as therenain't nothing a good landscaper can't fix - eg raintrees in a pot. the more ID technology advances, the more possibilities there can be.
Junior
Developer's profit margin thinned after baywindow, planter box and now pes/rt free form of GFA are gone.
This may result in higher psf or lower land bids going forward.
Junior
After developers stop building baywindows and planter box, those existing homes with such features drop in price?
Junior
Agree.
Before this ruling, RT is not "free". Price of a PH includes the value of this RT for private use.
A properly designed RT will become more valuable.
Senior
so everything will be more efficient, that'll probably moderate their land bids since there isn't this loophole anymore.
Senior
For explanation sake
Say the GFA is 200,000 sqft..
Of which developer will pay govt for 150,000 sqft to build actual units..
Govt Gives 50,000 sqft to developer FOC for use, as garden, walkway, Roof Garden etc... Developers are allowed to use 10 pct of this 50,000 sqft as pay of the actual unit like balcony PES and RT
But developers from 2004 ish onwards til today, have been selling that 50,000 sqft of free GFA to PH buyers. Or unit with which balcony
The free GFA was a gift to developer build something that All residents of the condo to enjoy, instead only those few units with RT had it...
That's what I meant IT was free but developer sold to PH buyers
Junior
This is all from developer perspective. Of course they profited from it. But as a buyer of such units, what he gets is a private terrace with a price on it. The value can only go up not down, all else being equal, as there is no more supply.
Junior
Yes .... thanks I got that part.
Its this statement that got me puzzled.
Will future buyers of of such resale unit willing to pay for that space which all now know was Free of charge?
In my mind, why would future buyers be not willing to pay for the space? It should be transparent to them whether the space was originally free or not.
With CM7, people are now even more willing to pay for that space. Again, it doesn't matter whether the developer (or resale house owner) got it free or not.
Junior
Actually my concern with this policy change on PES/RT is its applicabilty on existing units... ie. units already built up.
The way it is worded seems to imply that it does not apply to existing units but only to developing or yet to be developed units. For example, it seems to imply that the developer designs the covers but the owner reserves the right install.
extracted from appendix 1
Covers
a. Coverings can be allowed on private RTs. To avoid ad-hoc coverings of private RTs by individual owners downstream, covers are to be designed upfront to be well integrated with the overall design of the development and approved as part of the development application process. Developers can propose a single cover design, or a few designs for the buyers to choose from.
This would be impossible for properties that has already been developed since the developer would not have made such provisions. Can a homeowner the design his own?... of course subject to MCST's approval.
Be Heard, not the Herd
You are totally mistaken. The policy applies to new developments from 12 Jan 2013( whose applications have not been approved) where the PES and RT are counted towards the GFA. For existing and old developments, if the PES and RT were free and not counted towards the GFA under the old rules, then you still CANNOT build any cover over them.
Read carefully...
Last edited by fclim; 12-01-13 at 22:54.
Newbie
really? .
Senior
If they build those only to enclose it. Better not to build open RT in the first place.
Be Heard, not the Herd
Yes. For existing units, if you build the cover, you are effectively increasing the GFA of the development. This will not be allowed since the "additional GFA" was not in the original plans submission nor approved.
For submissions after 12 Jan, the GFA computation would have to include the PES and RT for approval. And since they (PES and RT) form part of the GFA now, covers are allowed, subject to the guidelines provided.
mutant powerpuff
Can build.
But cannot build into a room.
Can build cover but one side must be open.
Be Heard, not the Herd
Yup. It does not make sense to have a 1,600 sq ft RT and eat into your GFA when you can use that entitlement to build a 4 bedder and make more profit.
Be Heard, not the Herd
For existing developments, old rules still spply i.e. Seek URA approval. If plot ratio already built to the maximum, then unlikely approval will be given unless owner pays a development charge.
From URA website.
What must I do if I want to cover the roof terrace or private enclosed space?
Where the roof terrace or private enclosed space is not covered and you wish to cover them (i.e. have a roof over), you must apply to URA for approval.
There are certain planning considerations that URA will make when processing your application. If the subject property has already been developed to its maximum plot ratio allowed, URA is unlikely to support the application to cover up the roof terrace or private enclosed space. In situations where URA allows the application that is above the plot ratio control, the owner may have to pay development charge.
Development charge is a levy paid on a development that exceeds the approved plot ratio control. There is a fixed formula for the calculation of the charge. The fees are reviewed every six months to keep in pace with market changes. Click here for more information.
To know more about how to obtain approval from URA, click here.
Newbie
Which part of the circular says development before 12/1/13 cannot build cover?
Newbie
If 51% say can then who is to stop them.Just build lah.Dont ask too much.
Senior
I find roof terrace a little hard to enjoy in our climate. Half of the year it is cooking hot.
Newbie
Section 12 in ura circulars stated new regulation apply to new buildings apply after 12 Jan 2013.
http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&so...RGIpXAPI6H3IwA
The older circular I can find from web about pes is dated 2007. It highlighted that house owners are not able to change the cover as long as the area r not included in the GFA calculation.
http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&so...SOe_SPAAeIk1DQ
Junior
good for hanging out laundry and drying salted fish ~
Newbie
Many newly top condo residents asked for covered bbq area. But were rejected due to max GFA reached.
Senior
Guidelines are always there until you test it. Seems difficult looking at all the considerations. Even if can have it maybe a small one and may not worth the while.
mutant powerpuff
By right, if you cover up fully after you get mcst aproval, you have to pay ura cos you have increased the GFA. That was previously.
So now the new projects will have the RT counted in as GFA, does that mean the existing projects with RT will be considered GFA and if the owner builds a room there, he will not incur any extra charges?
Senior
that's true. it's a pretty expensive piece of area to be drying salted fish though.
Newbie
Or (God forbid), shark's fin?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote