Planning (Amendment) Bill

Deputy Speaker, thanks for allowing me to participate in this debate. I support the Bill but have some suggestions for the Minister's consideration.

As echoed by other Members who have spoken earlier on this Bill, I, too, would like to mention that, firstly, under the new Fourth Schedule, URA will reduce the maximum number of unrelated persons a property can be rented to from eight to six. The intention is to deal with the recurrent problem of subletting to too many tenants, resulting in overcrowding. However, as properties vary greatly in terms of size and configuration, may I recommend that the Ministry limit the number of tenants based on the sizes and types of rooms of the residences?

Secondly, I would like to advise that we seek consistency in our criteria for both public and private housing. Currently, a Singapore Citizen is allowed to sublet the entire HDB flat after fulfilling the minimum occupation period. The maximum number of sub-tenants allowed in each flat is based on flat type. For 1-room and 2-room flats, four sub-tenants; for 3-room flats, six sub-tenants; and for 4-room and bigger flats, nine sub-tenants. Private properties should be subjected to similar caps as well.

Thirdly, I would like to request for greater protection for tenants. In the last few years, there have been cases of owners who collected deposits and sublet the same property to multiple tenants. Does the Ministry keep track of how many such cases of complaints have occurred in the past five years? Will the Ministry implement measures to deter such cases from recurring? In addition, often, owners and their tenants have disputes over whether the deposits should be returned, and some owners keep the deposits at the end of the leases without valid reasons. Would the Ministry consider setting up a Government-approved lease deposit account in which landlords are required to place their tenants' deposits? This will help enhance protection for tenants and facilitate recovery of their deposits.

I would also like to ask how many cases there have been of tenants subletting to other tenants in the last five years. What are the typical profiles of such tenants and what actions have been taken against them? If they are foreigners, would the Ministry consider banning them from working and living in Singapore? In addition, would the Minister share how many cases of disputes between neighbours involving Singapore residents and foreign tenants there were in the past five years? Does the Ministry keep track of the nature of the disputes so that we will be able to formulate better preventive measures?

Finally, would the Minister share with the House how the Ministry works with MCSTs, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), the Police and Neighbourhood Committees to enforce and regulate the private property rental market?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill and for sharing their views. Let me now address the points that were raised in the course of the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe all the Members in this House would agree that a liveable and vibrant city must have attractive public spaces, good connectivity and also a built heritage that strengthens our sense of memories and shared experiences. And this is what the amendment in the Bill strives to achieve, by strengthening the planning levers under URA. So, 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, where 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 and 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 the existing buildings. But should the property owners of these existing buildings choose to redevelop their properties or choose to make additions and alterations in their properties, and they have to seek URA's planning permission to do so, then that would be an opportune time for URA to impose these new conditions.

I think many Members would be supportive of these additions and these provisions to impose conditions on developers to enhance connectivity and building standards. But 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 on the building and perhaps even on residents.

Generally, the cost of providing these features is a small component of the overall development costs. 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 if it is meaningful to provide for connectivity. In addition, the public spaces that are required may be excluded from the overall floor area, so there would be no impact on the development potential of the sites. So, 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 costs.

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 this is a concern very often found in private residential areas. It is really not so much a planning issue but a matter of resolving disputes between two property owners. URA cannot override the property owner's rights, but it will help to facilitate mediation between neighbours to resolve issues, if necessary.

That is my first reply on the broad area of planning levers. 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. And here, there was also a mix of views.

Ms Joan Pereira and Miss Cheryl Chan wanted to be sure that we can take suitable action against home owners and property agents responsible for offences, but I believe Mr Chong Kee Hiong sought assurance that home owners would not be burdened unnecessarily by the amendments. And again, it is about striking the right balance. Where any property has been misused or unauthorised works done, URA will ensure that culpable parties are all 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 the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), and they still have to answer the charges if there is a violation of the rules. I think this is in response to Ms Joan 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. I think that is something that Miss Cheryl Chan had asked about.

When it comes to enforcement, URA will, if necessary, beef up its enforcement capability and resources but it will also work with other agencies, for example, ICA, the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the National Environment Agency (NEA), as Mr Gan Thiam Poh had suggested, to share information on any suspected cases of unauthorised use of private property and take the necessary enforcement actions.

Miss Cheryl Chan shared the concerns of elderly home owners who may be taken to task for not assisting enforcement checks. I would like to assure her 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 owners or property owners would have to take and what is deemed to be appropriate due diligence. I think it is very difficult and not so practical to draw out all the different scenarios and due diligence steps that have to be taken in legislation itself, but I would just like to assure Members that URA would carefully assess the culpability of persons involved, given all the facts available on each particular case at hand, and ensure that owners who have 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.

Another section of the provisions in the amendment Bill for which there were some comments was on the role of QPs. Miss Cheryl Chan asked about the professionalism of QPs. The Board of Architects and the Professional Engineers Board oversee the professional 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. So, if there is any question or doubt about whether or not this is a QP, 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 fall 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 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 provisions in the Bill are sufficient to meet the Member's concern in this regard.

Next, let me talk about occupancy cap. It was, again, one of the topics here that has attracted quite a number of views. Miss Cheryl Chan, Mr Chong Kee Hiong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggest 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 six tenants be now imposed on HDB flats, so that it is consistent between private and public housing. I think Mr Gan also suggested that.

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

In fact, the cap of six persons was the original cap that used to be in place before. But this cap was raised to eight in 2008, and it was due specifically 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 six, which was what it used to be before 2008.

As for reviewing the HDB limits, I think that is a separate matter. It is not within the remit of the Planning Act because the HDB controls are regulated separately, but we would be happy to do the review of the occupancy cap for HDB flats on a separate basis.

Finally, on the most interesting issue of this debate and the one which got most contributions from Members – short-term accommodation. Let me address the queries and the points that have been raised by Members with 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 six months in private residences. A breach of these guidelines can be considered a material change of use, which will then be deemed an offence under the Planning Act. This remains the case under the amendments to the Act and the same penalties apply. So, 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, and in its focus group discussions with stakeholders, such as Neighbourhood Committees and managing agents of private residential developments, there was also strong endorsement of the need to preserve the privacy and sanctity valued by the vast majority of home owners.

Likewise, several Members just now − Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereria, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam, among others − shared their constituents' experiences and expressed strong support for these rules, and also, in fact, strong support for enforcement. I know 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.

Indeed, over the past year, URA has already seen a 60% rise in complaints from home owners about breaches of this short-term rule in their residential properties, and the complaints are related to public nuisance or even safety concerns for their families. These are issues that we take seriously and we should enforce the current rules, as we are already doing, and make sure that the issue does not worsen further. The amendments to the Act will enable URA to do so.

In terms of enforcement, URA will continue with its current enforcement approach on errant home owners, which means that when you look at advertising on home-sharing or rental websites, that, in itself, is not an offence and it is not regulated under the Planning Act, because these listings typically do not indicate the tenure of lease. On the basis of the listing on the site, it is not possible to take action. But as a first step, what URA will do is to work with the MCST of the development which have units with online listings and they will put up notifications to the residents in that development, so that the residents are aware of the rules on short-term accommodation. Then, if the short-term rentals persist and cause disamenities 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 and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), MCSTs have oversight of common property. For example, they can pass their own by-laws to manage the use and enjoyment of their common property through screening and record-keeping. They can also pass by-laws to register the details of all visitors. These are meaningful and practical things that MSCTs 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 six months for short-term rental in private residences is set out in the Schedule of the Act, and the Government can adjust this parameter in future by gazette. Indeed, in its earlier consultation, URA had received feedback from a number of respondents, including home owners, 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 timeframe. This is the six-month time frame. URA will consider whether there can be scope to reduce this timeframe.

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

In this regard, I am happy to share that URA is studying the option of creating a new use class for private residences that wish to engage in short-term rentals. Such properties would then be approved for that specific purpose, like serviced 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.

What I have described just now, these proposed measures are separate from the amendments that are being tabled today. What I have described just now with this option of creating a new use class for private residences to engage in short-term rentals, can be done without changes to the Act. So, these are separate from the amendments. URA is studying them, and they will provide more details soon for further engagement and consultation with the stakeholders.

I shared what we are thinking about because there is obviously strong interest from Members, and 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 so long as 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 had said. We will allow a space in our city for such platforms to exist.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the points raised by Members, and I thank them for their contributions and support of the Bill. The amendments in this Bill will strengthen URA's ability to safeguard and enhance the vibrancy and liveability of our urban space. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Sir, I thank the Minister for sharing that they are reviewing the regulations for short-term home-sharing. But can I ask if there is a timeframe for this review?

Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, we have been doing this for some time already. The consultation was done in 2015. Since then, we have obtained further feedback from different parties. We have been examining different models from the various cities, as I have described earlier. We do have some sense of what we would like to see happen. I have described very broad outlines of some of the approaches that we are thinking about. I would expect URA to be able to come up with something quite soon. It will seek further engagement and consultation from different stakeholders before finalising and implementing these plans.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong].*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*