Measures to Help Residents Whose Flats Do Not Enjoy Direct Lift Access

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the measures to help residents who do not benefit from LUP or who do not have a lift on their floor; (b) how many of such units have approached HDB for assistance to allow them to purchase another unit or move into new flats for lift access; (c) whether the Ministry provides special consideration for such cases as many may need lifts for mobility reasons and in their old age have difficulty getting new loans from HDB or have already taken two concessionary loans; (d) how many residential units are currently still not able to benefit from having a lift on their floor as the block does not qualify for LUP; and (e) what proportion of these units is due to technical infeasibility and what proportion is due to insufficient units to meet the maximum share cap for the project.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the outcome of the trial involving two new lift solutions to provide direct lift access to flats not eligible for the LUP; and (b) whether HDB has found the lift solutions suitable to be implemented for flats not eligible for LUP.

Thank you. While we try to offer LUP to as many HDB blocks as possible, there are some blocks where the LUP is not feasible due to technical constraints or prohibitively high cost. Through the adoption of new technologies and innovative solutions,

Page: 11

HDB has reduced the number of such blocks to about 200. We continue to explore ways so that even more households can benefit.

For example, HDB is piloting two new solutions – the Pneumatic Vacuum Elevator (PVE) and the Vertical Platform Lift (VPL). The PVE has been turned on for public trial last month, while the VPL is currently being evaluated. HDB is testing the new lift solutions to ensure that they are safe and technically reliable before rolling them out. Surveys will also be conducted to gather feedback from users of the PVE and VPL and the results will help us determine if they are suitable for wider implementation.

Residents who wish to move to a unit with direct lift access can sell their existing flat and either buy a resale flat or a new subsidised flat if they meet eligibility conditions. Meanwhile, Singaporean residents who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or disability may approach HDB for housing and financing assistance. HDB assesses each request on a case-by-case basis to see how best we can render help.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply to my Parliamentary Question (PQ). In my experience so far, as the Senior Minister of State had mentioned, HDB does look at each case on a case-by-case basis. The experience of some of these residents is that they want to move out but they cannot; and even through appeals, they cannot get through because most of them are immobile and aged. Therefore, if they want to buy a better flat, it is very difficult to get a loan. Sometimes, they have already taken two concessionary loans. And if they want to downgrade, they seem to have a lot of difficulties in doing so. Many of them have not been successful in such appeals, although the Senior Minister of State mentioned that HDB does look at these on an individual basis. Will the HDB consider giving even more special consideration for such families, especially those who are aged and hardly mobile?

Second question is this: specifically to the number of LUP flats, there are about 200 left, as I understand it. HDB has done about 98% of flats through the LUP; there are just 2% of flats left. Many residents I meet ask, "There is just 2% left. Why does HDB not consider removing that cap? There are many flats out there that are technically feasible for LUP, but just that they cannot meet the cost cap." Given that there are just so few left, why does HDB not consider removing the cost cap?

One more question – I am glad to hear that the pilot trials are underway. The question is: would the pilots resolve the cost cap issues and what is the likelihood?

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. Our assistance rendered to households facing medical conditions and mobility issues is very

Page: 12

targeted and specific. So, I would encourage the Member to refer those cases to us to see how best we can help them. If they are willing to be open to flats with lift access in other locations, I am sure we can find alternatives for them.

The 200 blocks or so that are left in the LUP that cannot be done up, as I have said, it is either because of cost reasons or because of technical constraints. For cost reasons, the range is very wide. It can be as high as $200,000 per benefiting unit. In cases like this, if you build a conventional new lift, it serves only two or maybe four units. So, the cost is very high. We have to consider whether that is the best use of our resources. For $200,000, you can build a brand new 3-room flat. Also, if the residents were to have a share, the burden on the residents will also be very high.

As for our pilot trials, the vacuum and platform lifts are low-cost alternatives. The vacuum lift is one that works on differential air pressure. But such lifts will have limitations in terms of how tall a building they can serve. Typically, it is a two- to three-storey building. For flats that have such problems – low-rise flats, very few benefiting units – technically, if the space and so on can accommodate, this might be the solution. We are doing the trial now. We have to see how the public will respond to the trial. The downside, though, is that it is smaller and much slower, about one-fifth or one-quarter of the speed of a normal lift. People who use it would be wheelchair users who really need the access and do not have other alternatives.

All in, we will continue to look for possible solutions, including what the Member has suggested, and try to reduce the number as best as we can.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. May I know if there is a timeframe for these trials to be completed and how soon can a conclusion be made so that it can be rolled out to units that can possibly implement them?

The two trials that we talked about, one has been installed in a commercial building. I think it is about three-storey high. The other one – the platform lift – has been installed in a car park complex, which is also a three-storey-high building. The first one is already open to trial; we just started. A fair trial period would be at least six months to gauge the response. The longer we have it, the more we can also ascertain its reliability because it all depends on the traffic and how people use it and whether they can live up to the manufacturers' promise. The other platform lift is still under trial, to be commissioned soon.

Page: 13

So, I think a reasonable period of six months to a year would be good, before we roll out to more estates for implementation.

Mdm Speaker. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State about the trials. We are trying to solve the issue of very few benefiting units, which cannot afford the cost, but why do we have these trials in commercial buildings or car parks where they are public areas and probably experience heavier usage? So, my question is whether the assessment would be equitable in an HDB housing setting.

Second, I hear that the cost would be something that will be more favourable. May I know with these two new systems, what is the minimum number of benefiting units that can justify the cost?

Lastly – among the 200 blocks in Singapore which do not have LUP, do they include blocks where most parts of the units have lifts but, due to segmentation, some units are not benefiting from those? I have a few in my area. Will these units be eligible and considered for this new LUP if these trials are successful?

With regard to the last question, the 200-over blocks include those that are partially served by lifts to every floor now. Because of the block configuration and the way that they are designed – different heights and so on – for certain parts of the block, it is just not possible to have lift access, whereas a good part of the block already has lift access to every floor.

As for the trials, based on our estimation, we can extend to a few dozen of such low-rise blocks. They are spread out nationwide. The various Members would know where they are. But we are still gathering experience. One of the reasons why we do it in a commercial area is because the usage is higher than residential ones. It would help us collect data faster, in terms of higher frequency of use.

Just a point of clarification. In the Senior Minister of State's replies, he has always mentioned low-rise blocks. The Member Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about high-rise segmented flats because out of the 200 flats that do not qualify for LUP. I have got 32 of

Page: 14

such blocks in my estate. That is about 15% of the total national quota in one division. In that sense, I wish to clarify that the new solutions will apply to these high-rise segmented blocks as well. If so, I would also be happy to do some trials.

Mdm Speaker, I have taken note that the Member has a significant share of the 200 blocks. It is true. Besides low-rise blocks, there are other blocks that are what HDB would describe as type D blocks. They have very unique configurations and some of these blocks have lift access to every floor, except to third, sixth, ninth, 12th levels, because of the common corridor that runs through the entire floor. I think the Member has such blocks in his division. It is not possible to build a lift that punches through existing common corridors.

The two trials that we talked about are meant for low-rise blocks. We have to look for other kinds of solutions that will bring the lift service all the way to the 12th floor. So far, Members may recall that, initially, we had 1,000 blocks that were found to be difficult to have lift access. But through a combination of solutions, we managed to reduce them to about 200.

What are these solutions? Some of them are, for instance, lifts that do not use a lot of headroom. So, we can bring the lift all the way to the 12th floor because that is the maximum it can go. Otherwise, you will sacrifice the top floor – they will go without lifts. The other solution is a bubble lift – in some of the Members' areas, there are bubble lifts. These lifts do away with lift shafts, reducing the need to have strong foundational work required to support the lift shafts. The other solution would be building a long bridge to the lift shafts. In other words, you cannot bring the lift shaft so close to the building; instead, you have to extend it out because the buildings have got uneven vertical facades. So, the solution was to build outwards and build access. We have to continue to explore such solutions. LUP has covered 98% of flats, as the Member has noticed. As in many things, the last 2% will be very challenging, very costly and also technically difficult. We will see how best we can continue to find solutions for this 2%.

My question is: I believe out of this 2%, it could be that, for some units, the cost could be slightly higher than those eligible under LUP. For that kind of scenario, will the Ministry consider still going ahead to offer to the residents, for them to put a vote to it, for them to consider if they still want it if they were to pay slightly more? They can look at the amount to see how much higher they have to pay. I do get this feedback on my house visits, where residents say, "Show us the cost. It is for us to decide." Will the Ministry consider that?

Page: 15

Mdm Speaker, I have heard Mr Gan's suggestion. We will take this into consideration.