BCA serious procedural omissions in physical property split approval.

BCA serious procedural omissions in physical property split approval.
 My comments are based upon my interpretation of this report. I regret any errors of interpretation due to assumed facts.
Re: 'Owner gets nod to split penthouse'; [ST 14Mar2011][Alt URL].
Firstly, there is scarce mention in the report about BCA getting the consent of the rest of the strata development residents wrt the 'split', whilst considering mainly only issues pertaining to the physical layout of the unit concerned.


What I thus perceive to be severely lacking in this case is the reckless disregard by the BCA of the opinion of the rest of the residents through their MC- at least 60 - 80% resident approval for the split to occur. This is because such a split might involve more residents living in the development as with the possibility of 2 separate ownerships, 2 different families could occupy a space previously occupied by one; add their friends and relatives and a different level of access to parking and recreational facilities results.

Due to the differences in usage pattern, the maintenance fee payable as measured by 'share value' is thus NOT linear to the psf unit size [see:'Share Value Guidelines (5/2008)']/ excerpt- 'Guidelines to calc. share values': [pict].
Thus according to the guideline example, the first 50sqm constitutes 5 'share value' whilst every subsequent 50sqm only constitutes 1 'share value'. As such two 2500sqft units would have a much higher 'share value' according to BCA guidelines as compared to one 5000sqft unit. The purpose of 'share value' as the title of the act suggests- ('Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act' [BMSA Cap30C]), pertains mainly to building maintenance/ strata management and so the agreement of the MC (i.e. the other strata owners) is to be requisite (issues like car-parking space adequacy/ entitlements, monthly maintenance fee contributions etc need be considered).
Given to the fact that the nature of Mr Ng's Horizon tower penthouse unit was such that was actually the duplicate of 2 normal sized units occupying the 2 top floors and if divisions by way of BCA 'Share Value Guidelines (5/08)' or similar had originally been used to define 'share value', then two 2583sqft units would have a much higher 'share value' rather then one 5167sqft unit; it would thus be a self contradiction and an irresponsibility for BCA to simply split the original 'share value' of 7 into two halves of 3.5 each, with the result being that the resultant 'share value' assigned is lesser then a similar unit below of similar size/ specifications as in accordance to [BMSA Cap30C] Section 40: Contributions by subsidiary proprietors states: "(2): Subject to sections 41 and 108(3), the contributions levied by a management corporation in respect of each lot shall be payable by the subsidiary proprietors in shares proportional to the share value of their respective lots."
It would be a gross irresponsibility if not injustice if by fault of BCA's oversight, units in the same strata development pay different maintenance fees for equal benefits.

Quote:

Owner gets nod to split penthouse; ST 14Mar2011. Rarely granted approval means he may reap extra $300,000 from sale of 2 units. THE owner of a penthouse duplex has won rarely granted approval to subdivide his unit into two separate apartments. The penthouse at Horizon Towers can now be sold as two individual units, potentially reaping the owner about $300,000 more than if it was sold as a single home. ... Alt link: [URL]

==========================
At/ related:

A1forum:

17Mar2011: BCA serious procedural omissions in physical property split approval.
VRzone:
17Mar2011: BCA serious procedural omissions in physical property split approval.
REACH:
17Mar2011: BCA serious procedural omissions in physical property split approval.
Property launch.sg
17Mar2011: Owner gets nod to split penthouse