planOlder condos get lower en bloc consent thresholds—but less time to sign
Parliament’s amendments pair 70% and 65% consent tiers with a higher starting hurdle and a six-month signature window. Commencement is still to be announced.
Owners of a 40-year-old condo could eventually need 70% consent instead of 80% for a collective sale. But the amendments Parliament passed on 8 September 2026 come with a less comfortable trade-off: a larger group must support starting the process, and the time allowed to collect sale-agreement signatures will be halved.
That changes the conversation for neighbours weighing whether to sell their development together. The final consent threshold would become more reachable for older estates, but organising a sale would require stronger backing at the outset and a faster signature campaign. The package also lengthens the restriction following a failed attempt.
Passed does not yet mean in force. The Ministry of Law’s implementation material says the commencement date will be announced. Until that date is confirmed, owners should treat these as forthcoming changes rather than rules already available to their estate.
What changes when a development turns 40?
The amended framework introduces two additional age bands for collective sales, often called en bloc sales. Developments aged 40–59 years would require 70% consent, while those aged 60 years and above would require 65%. The thresholds remain at 80% for developments aged 10–39 years and 90% for those below 10 years.
| Development age | Consent threshold under the amended framework |
|---|---|
| Below 10 years | 90% |
| 10–39 years | 80% |
| 40–59 years | 70% |
| 60 years and above | 65% |
These are the age-based consent tiers set out by the Ministry of Law; their availability depends on commencement of the amendments.
For the 40–59-year group, the reduction is 10 percentage points. For developments aged at least 60, it is 15 percentage points against the existing 80% threshold for older developments. That is a meaningful reduction in the level of agreement required, rather than a small adjustment around the edges.
The practical significance is straightforward: a level of support that previously fell short could become sufficient under the new age tier. That changes the consent hurdle, not the amount a purchaser will pay or whether a sale will ultimately happen. Those are separate questions from the statutory percentages.
Why give older estates a different threshold?
Moving the Bill’s Second Reading, Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Edwin Tong SC said about 20,000 non-landed private residential units, across close to 250 developments, were at least 40 years old. His explanation placed the changes in the context of an ageing stock and increasingly substantial maintenance and renewal decisions.
That gives the reform a more specific purpose than simply making collective sales easier everywhere. The lower thresholds target older developments, while the existing tiers remain for those below 40 years. Age is therefore central to the policy’s design, rather than just background information about a potential sale site.
For a homeowner, the underlying choice concerns more than a possible payout. The policy addresses developments where owners must consider the future of an ageing property, including whether to continue maintaining it or pursue redevelopment through a collective sale. Tong presented the amendments as a route for renewal where owners broadly support it, alongside safeguards for those who do not consent.
That balance matters because a lower consent threshold also leaves room for a larger non-consenting minority. Read together, the age tiers and procedural changes show the Government is adjusting both the ability to pursue a sale and the protections around that process.
Starting a sale would need stronger backing
Before the final consent threshold becomes relevant, owners need to begin the collective-sale process. The amendments raise the threshold to requisition a meeting to form a collective sale committee to 35% by share value or unit count.
That is a different decision from signing a collective sale agreement. Support for convening the meeting should not be confused with consent to sell: the first gets the formal discussion moving; the second is the agreement the eventual sale effort needs to secure.
This distinction helps explain the apparent contradiction in the package. The Government is lowering the final consent hurdle for older developments while requiring a stronger initial base of support. An estate could therefore have a more achievable destination but still need more neighbours involved before it begins.
For owners hearing that their development may qualify for the 70% tier, the useful follow-up question is not only how close it might be to that figure. It is also whether there is enough support to initiate the process under the amended rules. These are separate hurdles, with different thresholds and purposes.
The signature campaign would have half as long
The amendments shorten the period for collecting signatures to the collective sale agreement from 12 months to six months. They also lengthen the post-failure restriction from two years to three years.
The arithmetic makes the trade-off clearer. For a development aged 40–59, the final consent threshold falls by 10 percentage points, but the signature window shrinks by 50%. These figures measure different things, so one cannot simply cancel out the other. Together, however, they show why “easier en bloc rules” is an incomplete description.
A shorter collection period makes the pace of agreement more important. As a practical interpretation, owners would have less time within that window to turn general interest into signed support. A development with many interested but undecided owners faces a different organising task from one where support is already firm.
The longer post-failure restriction adds weight to the decision to proceed. The package offers older developments a lower final threshold, but pairs that opportunity with a tighter campaign period and a longer restriction after failure. All three changes belong in the same conversation.
Owner agreement is only one side of a sale
The clearest way to understand the reform is as three separate hurdles: enough backing to begin, enough signed consent within the permitted period, and a purchaser willing to agree to the sale. The amendments directly recalibrate the first two; owner consent alone cannot supply the purchaser required for a collective sale.
That is why the lower percentages are important without being a sale forecast. They change which older developments may be able to assemble sufficient consent. They do not establish an achievable selling price for any particular estate, and the official material cited here does not provide one.
For now, the next concrete milestone is the commencement announcement. After that, the meaningful question for an older estate will be whether it can bring together stronger starting support and enough signatures in six months—not merely whether its new headline threshold is 70% or 65%.
