Part 3 of 7: A Tale of Two Cities: Why Land Bids Keep Rising While Housing Supply Surges
The Verdict 1. The Two Markets 2. What The Bids Say 3. The En Bloc Question 4. The Downgrader Rule 5. If You're Buying 6. If You're a Landlord 7. If You're a Tenant

The headline sounds like good news for supply: en bloc consent thresholds are coming down, so more ageing developments should clear the bar for a collective sale, which should mean more redevelopment sites and more future supply. But the 2026 pipeline shows the opposite. En bloc activity is shrinking, not growing, and it's concentrated in small freehold sites rather than the big developments the rule change was aimed at.

Direct answer: The Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2026, introduced on 5 August 2026, proposes cutting en bloc consent thresholds from 80% to 70% for developments 40 to 59 years old, and to 65% for those 60 years and older. But a lower bar doesn't fix the two things really holding en bloc back: the 35% ABSD developers pay on collective-sale land, and the five-year deadline to sell every unit or pay it anyway. Those costs apply however easily owners vote yes, which is why 2026's en bloc activity has stayed in small freehold sites rather than the ageing mega-developments this Bill targets.

What the Bill Actually Changes

The proposed tiers: developments under 10 years old still need 90% consent, unchanged, and those 10 to 39 years old stay at 80%. The real change is at the older end: 40 to 59 years drops from 80% to 70%, and 60 years and above drops to 65%. The Bill also extends collective sales to some non-strata leasehold developments that were previously left out, and proposes stronger protection for owners who don't want to sell. As of early August 2026, it had only had its First Reading, so it isn't law yet.

The Cost Side Nobody Lowered

Move 2: What The Market Isn't Telling You Consent Was Never the Only Bottleneck+ Read → − Collapse

What a decade of managing strata developments teaches you that a consent-threshold headline doesn't: getting owners to agree was rarely what stopped a big en bloc in this cycle. The economics on the buyer's side were.

A developer buying a collective-sale site pays 35% ABSD on top of the price, a cost that doesn't apply to a standard GLS tender. It then has five years to sell every unit in the new project, or the ABSD remission it was counting on is clawed back in full. On a big site with hundreds of units, that's a tight, unforgiving deadline in a market where new launch sales have been slowing.

Lowering the consent bar to 65% makes it easier for an ageing development's owners to agree to sell. It does nothing to make that same deal more attractive to the developer who has to actually buy it, absorb the ABSD, and sell out fast enough to avoid the penalty. That's exactly why 2026's en bloc activity has stayed concentrated in smaller freehold sites, where the total ABSD exposure and the five-year sell-down risk are both far more manageable (PropertyNet.SG, 2026).

What This Means If You Own in an Ageing Development

A lower threshold is still good news if your development is 40 or 60-plus years old and owners genuinely support a sale, because it removes a real procedural hurdle. But it doesn't create developer demand out of thin air. For most large ageing developments, a successful en bloc still depends on a strong site: a good location, a useful increase in plot ratio, and a redevelopment case that works after ABSD and the sell-down deadline on its own merits, not just an easier vote.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the en bloc threshold change become law yet?+−
Not as of September 2026. The Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill had its First Reading on 5 August 2026 and is still awaiting further Parliamentary debate before it can take effect.
What are the new consent thresholds?+−
Proposed: 90% for developments under 10 years old (unchanged), 80% for 10 to 39 years (unchanged), 70% for 40 to 59 years (down from 80%), and 65% for 60 years and above (down from 80%).
Why hasn't en bloc activity increased despite the proposed changes?+−
Because the real constraint on large collective sales isn't owner consent. It's developer economics. The 35% ABSD on en bloc land and the five-year deadline to sell everything apply whatever the threshold, and those costs have kept 2026 activity in smaller, lower-risk freehold sites.
Does this mean en bloc sales won't happen at all in 2026?+−
They're happening, just on a smaller scale than the big developments in the headlines. PropertyNet.SG's 2026 tracking describes the market as going "boutique": mostly freehold sites where the ABSD and sell-down risk is easier for developers to manage.
Should I expect my ageing condo's en bloc chances to improve because of this Bill?+−
Procedurally, yes, if it passes, because 65% or 70% is easier to reach than 80%. But whether developers bid still depends on your site's redevelopment economics, which this Bill doesn't change. Getting owners to agree and getting a developer to bid remain two separate problems.
Part 3 of 7: A Tale of Two Cities: Why Land Bids Keep Rising While Housing Supply Surges
The Verdict 1. The Two Markets 2. What The Bids Say 3. The En Bloc Question 4. The Downgrader Rule 5. If You're Buying 6. If You're a Landlord 7. If You're a Tenant

Your situation is different. Get it in writing.

I'll work through your budget, loan, options and exit in a free written Property Decision Review. No obligation.

Get my free Property Decision Review →
Sources + Show all 2 →
1. 99.co / AsiaOne, Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2026 coverage, Aug 2026
2. PropertyNet.SG, “Why Singapore's En Bloc Market Is Going Boutique in 2026: How 35% Developer ABSD Killed Mega-Sites,” 2026

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Property investments involve risk. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Readers should seek independent advice from licensed professionals before making any property or financial decision. James Ong is a licensed real estate salesperson (CEA Reg No. R008385F) with PropNex Realty Pte Ltd and is not a licensed financial adviser.

James Ong | CEA Reg No. R008385F | PropNex Realty Pte Ltd