En-bloc proposal would cut consent threshold to 65% for oldest condos

Owners in Singapore’s oldest condominiums could get a lower hurdle for an en-bloc sale: 65% consent for developments aged 60 years or more, down from 80%, under the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2026 introduced on 4 August. For developments aged 40–59 years, the proposed threshold is 70%.

That could give owners of ageing estates a better chance of putting their properties up for collective sale. For buyers hoping for more new condominiums in established neighbourhoods, however, there is another important step: a developer still has to buy the site. The Strata Titles Boards describes seeking a purchaser through public tender as the usual next stage after owners secure the required agreement.

How much would the consent hurdle fall?

The proposed changes distinguish between older developments rather than applying one threshold to everything aged ten years and above. The existing 90% requirement for developments below ten years and 80% requirement for those aged 10–39 years would remain, as Minister for Law Edwin Tong explained at the Bill’s Second Reading on 8 September 2026.

For a development aged at least 60 years, moving from 80% to 65% is a 15-percentage-point reduction. For one aged 40–59 years, the reduction is ten percentage points. Those are calculations from the proposed thresholds—not estimates of how many additional estates will successfully sell.

The distinction matters most where an older estate has substantial support for a sale but falls short of the existing requirement. Lowering the threshold could allow such an estate to move further through the process; it does not settle the price or identify a purchaser.

There is also a timing distinction. The Bill’s introduction and Second Reading should not be treated as proof that the new thresholds govern a particular sale exercise. The operative law and commencement date must be checked before applying them; the supplied current Act record, listed as at 19 October 2026, did not establish that the amendments were in force.

Starting a sale attempt would become harder

The proposal is not simply a lower bar at every stage. Alongside the reduced consent thresholds for older developments, it raises the support needed to requisition a meeting to form a collective sale committee to 35%.

It would also shorten the period for collecting signatures from 12 months to six months and lengthen the restriction period after an unsuccessful attempt from two years to three. These measures accompany the Ministry of Law’s stated aim of supporting renewal while strengthening protections for owners who do not support a sale.

Taken together, the changes favour a more concentrated exercise: stronger backing to get the process started, less time to gather signatures, and a longer restriction after failure. That is a different proposition from allowing an estate to keep trying indefinitely simply because the final consent threshold is lower.

For residents, the practical tension is clear. Some want a route towards selling an ageing property; others want greater protection from prolonged or repeated attempts. The Bill addresses both interests rather than treating every owner as a willing seller.

Why an available site may still lack a buyer

Owner agreement and developer demand are separate hurdles. The first concerns whether the estate can proceed with a collective sale; the second concerns whether a purchaser will pay a price that makes the redevelopment workable. The public-tender stage connects the two.

Market participants cited in reporting on the proposals identified seller price expectations, project viability and competing Government Land Sales sites as considerations for developers. These are attributed assessments of buying decisions, not an official measure of every developer’s appetite.

The useful comparison is therefore between more possible sites and more completed land purchases. Lower consent requirements can help with the former. Reaching the latter still requires agreement between sellers and a buyer over the commercial terms.

This also explains why an estate’s successful signature drive is an important milestone without being the same news as a successful tender. Each answers a different question: whether owners can proceed, then whether someone will purchase the property.

What should new-launch buyers watch next?

For someone comparing launches, the policy is best understood as a possible change to future site availability. The evidence does not yet provide a count of additional homes, a launch timetable or unit layouts for any resulting redevelopment. The next meaningful development is an actual site sale, rather than another assumption about how many owners might sign.

Our reading: keep possible collective-sale sites separate from projects you can already assess. A neighbourhood you like may become worth following more closely, but choosing a home still requires project-specific evidence about the units and the eventual offering.

The unresolved question is not just how many older estates can clear a lower consent threshold. It is how many can find a buyer at workable terms—the step that turns renewed sale hopes into a potential development site.