Editor’s note (30 August 2026): Singapore’s collective-sale consent threshold has not dropped to 70%. The figure is part of the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2026, which received its First Reading on 4 August 2026. Parliament lists its Second Reading for 8 September 2026 and, as at this article’s review date, records no date passed.
That distinction matters. Owners, buyers and collective sale committees should continue to work from the law currently in force unless and until Parliament passes the Bill, it receives the President’s assent, and the relevant provisions commence. The proposed framework would introduce age-based thresholds for older developments, but it also contains tighter rules for starting and running an attempt.
What is the collective-sale threshold today?
Under the current Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967, a strata development generally needs:
- 90% consent where the development is less than 10 years old; or
- 80% consent where the development is 10 years old or more.
For strata developments, the percentage is not simply a headcount of owners. The statutory test is measured by both share value and the total area of the lots, excluding accessory lots. Reaching 80% on one measure but not the other is therefore insufficient.
The age test is tied to the statutory reference date, generally the latest Temporary Occupation Permit for a completed building in the strata plan, rather than an owner’s informal estimate of when the estate was built. Developments with unusual title arrangements or no conventional TOP should obtain advice on how the Act applies to their facts.
Crossing the consent threshold also does not make a sale automatic. The sale process must comply with statutory procedures, and the approving body must consider matters such as whether the transaction was carried out in good faith. Owners should not treat the threshold as the only legal test.
What the 2026 Bill proposes
The Ministry of Law’s 4 August announcement describes a four-band structure:
| Age of development | Current threshold | Proposed threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Less than 10 years | 90% | 90% (unchanged) |
| 10–39 years | 80% | 80% (unchanged) |
| 40–59 years | 80% | 70% |
| 60 years or older | 80% | 65% |
In other words, 70% would apply only to developments in the proposed 40–59-year band. It is not a universal new en bloc threshold. Developments aged 60 years or more would have a proposed 65% threshold, while younger projects would remain at 90% or 80%.
MinLaw said the policy is intended to give ageing developments a more practical redevelopment option where broad support exists. Older estates may face heavier spending on repairs and upgrading, but that does not mean every older property is unsuitable to retain. Maintenance condition, reserve funds, title, lease tenure, redevelopment potential and owners’ housing needs remain development-specific. Our guides to maintenance and collective-sale pressures in ageing condominiums and reviewing a condominium’s sinking fund provide useful context for that assessment.
The Bill would tighten other parts of the process
The lower proposed finish line for older estates comes with stronger controls on how an attempt begins and how long it can continue. MinLaw highlighted three proposals:
- A higher starting threshold: at least 35% of owners, by share value or number of units, would have to sign the requisition for a general meeting to constitute a collective sale committee. MinLaw compares this with the current alternatives of 20% by share value or 25% by number of units.
- A shorter signature period: the period for a committee to obtain signatures to the collective sale agreement would fall from 12 months to six months.
- A longer restriction after failure: the restriction period following an unsuccessful attempt would increase from two years to three years, with heightened requisition thresholds applying during that period.
These changes are important for both supporters and objectors. A committee in a large development might have a lower percentage to reach but less time to obtain informed signatures. Conversely, the higher requisition threshold and longer restriction period are intended to reduce repeated exercises where support is weak.
The Bill also proposes extending majority-consent collective sales to certain non-strata private residential developments where flat owners hold long leases but do not own the underlying land. That is a specialised category. It should not be summarised as simply abolishing an “850-year rule”: the proposal concerns a broader legal framework and includes safeguards for the landowner’s interest.
How would ongoing attempts be treated?
The proposed transition is not a blanket switch for every exercise already under way. MinLaw says most amendments would apply where the first signature to the collective sale agreement has not been obtained by the eventual commencement date. That commencement date has not yet been announced.
Where the first signature was obtained before commencement, the existing framework would generally continue. However, a committee already collecting signatures at commencement could convene a general meeting to decide whether to terminate the existing agreement and approve a new one under the enhanced regime. If it takes that route, MinLaw says it would have seven months from commencement to achieve the applicable consent threshold for the new agreement.
These are proposed transitional rules, not choices available today under an operative 2026 amendment. A committee should not cancel, restart or redesign an exercise based only on a press report; the final enacted text and commencement provisions will control.
What owners and buyers should do now
- Use the current threshold: until the law changes and commences, assume 90% for a development under 10 years old and 80% for one aged 10 years or more, subject to the Act and the project’s facts.
- Confirm the legal age: check the relevant TOP and title documents instead of relying on a listing portal’s completion year.
- Separate support from outcome: a committee, signatures and even the requisite percentage do not guarantee a buyer, an acceptable bid or approval of the sale.
- Read the documents: review the collective sale agreement, method of distributing proceeds, costs, deadlines and termination provisions. Obtain independent legal advice where needed.
- Plan replacement housing cautiously: owners should model timing, financing, taxes and temporary accommodation without assuming the sale or the Bill will proceed on the hoped-for timetable.
- Check the official record again: the Parliament bills register shows the Bill’s status and should be rechecked after the scheduled Second Reading.
The accurate position as at 30 August 2026
The 70% and 65% figures are real proposals, but they are not current law. The Bill proposes 70% for developments aged 40–59 and 65% for those aged 60 or more, while retaining 90% below 10 years and 80% for 10–39 years. Its final wording could change during the legislative process, and any passed provisions would take effect only on the appointed commencement date.
For now, the safest description is that Singapore is considering lower, age-dependent collective-sale thresholds for older developments. Saying that the threshold “has dropped to 70%” is premature.
