Singapore amends the Planning Act to raise penalties, require qualified persons and widen planning conditions

The maximum penalty for unauthorised development, works or subdivision became a fine of up to S$200,000, plus up to S$10,000 a day for a continuing offence, and for a repeat offender a fine of up to S$200,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment or both.

In force from 15 may 2017. A maximum on conviction, and no before-value. The section replaced the old section 12(4) whole, and no held source prints the old penalty. Section 12(4C) counts an offence under the old section 12(4) as an earlier occasion for the repeat-offender limb; the Bill's Explanatory Statement words this differently, which is an open question in Prevo's research record.

Where unauthorised works in a conservation area include demolishing all or part of a building, the maximum penalty became a fine of up to S$500,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment or both.

In force from 15 may 2017. Demolition in a conservation area only, and for a first offence as well as a later one. The same limit applies where a breach of a conservation permission condition includes demolition. No before-value is printed.

Where a contravention involves using land or a building to provide dormitory accommodation, the maximum penalty became a fine of up to S$200,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment or both, including for a first offence.

In force from 15 may 2017. The stored value is the jail term; the fine limit is the same S$200,000 as claim 6, and the two are not added. The Minister said URA had increasingly encountered unauthorised dormitories and gave no count.

The Act defined dormitory accommodation as accommodation occupied, or available, for 7 or more individuals for rent or other consideration, a number the Minister may change by Gazette notification, excluding occupants related to one another, their domestic worker and a carer.

In force from 15 may 2017. A definition, not an occupancy cap. It decides where the dormitory penalty (claim 8) and the Fourth Schedule (claim 10) reach. The number can be changed by Gazette notification.

Using a dwelling-house to provide dormitory accommodation, or short-term accommodation where the same person occupies it for less than 6 consecutive months in return for rent, became development, whether the use began before or after the amendment.

In force from 15 may 2017. A use requiring permission, not a ban. As development, such a use needs planning permission, and the Explanatory Statement says a person already using a dwelling-house this way would be deemed to have carried out development from the operative date. The Minister may amend the Fourth Schedule by order. No source names a platform or counts homes.

Unless rules provide otherwise, an applicant for planning permission must first appoint an architect or engineer, and for conservation permission an architect, as the qualified person to prepare the plans, and a replacement must be notified to URA within 7 days.

In force from 15 may 2017, formalising a practice. Failing to notify the replacement carries a fine of up to S$10,000. The Minister said most developers already appointed a qualified person (claim 27). Exemptions are set by rules; URA's circular names the Planning (Qualified Persons) Rules 2017, which were not read.

A developer must appoint an architect or engineer, or for conservation works an architect, to supervise development or works before they start, on pain of a fine of up to S$20,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment or both.

In force from 15 may 2017. A maximum. A continuing failure adds up to S$1,000 a day, and up to S$2,000 a day after conviction. Exemptions are set by rules.

A new Part IIIA set qualified persons' duties to prepare compliant plans, supervise the works, notify URA of contraventions, stop them and declare compliance, with a fine of up to S$200,000 or two years' imprisonment for failing to prepare plans in accordance with the Act.

In force from 15 may 2017. A maximum for one duty, not the whole part. A supervising qualified person who fails to supervise with due diligence faces up to S$100,000 or two years or both. URA said action would be taken only for significant deviations or deliberate deception, and minor deviations would be rectified through plan amendments.

A qualified person who makes a false or misleading declaration knowingly or recklessly faces a fine of up to S$30,000 or up to 6 months' imprisonment or both, doubled for a repeat offender, and up to S$15,000 or 3 months if negligent.

In force from 15 may 2017. Repeat offenders face up to S$60,000 or 12 months for a knowing or reckless declaration, and up to S$30,000 or 6 months for a negligent one. The section consolidates offences formerly in sections 14A(5) and 15(3A), whose penalties no held source prints.

URA gained powers to examine witnesses and require attendance and documents, with a fine of up to S$5,000 or 6 months' imprisonment for non-compliance, and to force entry to land and take audio or video recordings.

In force from 15 may 2017. Forced entry needs reasonable cause to believe evidence of a contravention is on the land. The S$5,000 is the maximum fine for refusing or misleading an examination, not a composition sum.

URA may compound a prescribed offence for the lower of half the maximum fine or S$5,000, raised from S$1,000.

In force from 15 may 2017. The only before-value in any held source; it is the Explanatory Statement's, because the Act does not print the old section 57. Only offences prescribed as compoundable, and sums collected go to the Consolidated Fund.

URA said a 3% construction tolerance would be given for minor deviations in the qualified person's pre-TOP declaration on key parameters.

A URA administrative tolerance, not a provision of the act. The circular does not say what the percentage is measured against.

The Act made it an offence to permit, as well as to carry out, development of land without planning permission, works in a conservation area without conservation permission, or subdivision without subdivision permission.

In force from 15 may 2017. The duty to obtain permission existed before; permitting is the new element.

A new section 12A presumes that an owner permitted unauthorised development of land, or unauthorised works in a conservation area, carried out by the owner's tenant or contractor, unless the owner proves reasonable precautions or that due diligence could not have prevented it.

In force from 15 may 2017, read from the enacted text. The canonical audit row had this from a search summary as a presumption about conservation areas; section 12A also reaches development anywhere under section 12(1), which is an open question in Prevo's research record. The defence is on a balance of probabilities, and an owner may be convicted whether or not the tenant or contractor is.

A new section 12B lets a person intending to apply for written permission ask URA for preliminary advice, which is not approval in principle and authorises nothing.

In force from 15 may 2017. The Act says the competent authority; the Minister's speech and URA's circular identify URA as the authority that administers the Act.

URA may require a developer to submit as-built plans prepared by a land surveyor, with the surveyor's declaration, at any time after development starts and before the Temporary Occupation Permit or completion.

In force from 15 may 2017. A power URA may use, not a requirement on every development.

The Act widened the conditions URA may attach to a permission to cover building height, design, appearance and siting including lighting, public paths and open spaces kept open without compensation, knock-out panels, removal and reinstatement at the end of a time-limited permission, and banker's guarantees or deposits.

In force from 15 may 2017. The new section 15(1A) excludes the common law on dedication, so a public area or connecting structure required by a condition creates no interest in land. The Minister named public spaces, pedestrian connections and the night lighting of facades as examples.

Planning conditions bind every person carrying out the development or works and every owner or occupier of the land, whether or not they applied or held the land when permission was granted, and a knowing breach carries the same penalties as unauthorised development.

In force from 15 may 2017. The offence needs the person to have known, or to have been reasonably expected to know, that the conduct breached the condition. The Minister gave the reason as keeping planned amenities and connections when developments change owners.

A person aggrieved by URA's cancellation of a permission may appeal to the Minister, an appeal no longer suspends enforcement unless the Minister directs, and the Minister may designate a junior minister or a public officer to hear appeals.

In force from 15 may 2017. The designation power covers appeals under sections 22, 29 and 39(7), and the officer must not be subordinate to the authority appealed against.

For development charge, the value of an exempted single dwelling-house is disregarded in the Development Baseline when the land is redeveloped for another use, and a person whose liability is deferred may have it end on a change of ownership with the Minister's approval.

In force from 15 may 2017. No development charge rate changed. The Explanatory Statement gives a charity as the example of a deferred payer.

Conditions on height, design, appearance, siting, public access, connecting structures, knock-out panels and time-limited permissions imposed before commencement were validated, no proceedings over their imposition may be brought on or after 9 January 2017, and breaching them before commencement is not an offence.

In force from 15 may 2017, and the one provision that looks back to 9 January 2017. It bars challenges to past conditions and makes no past breach an offence. Section 24 let the Minister make transitional regulations for 2 years after commencement.

The Planning (Amendment) Bill, Bill No. 3/2017, was introduced in Parliament and read the first time on 9 January 2017, and published in the Gazette's Bills Supplement that day.

Proposed, not in force. A Bill changes nothing, and clause 1 left commencement to a date the Minister would appoint by Gazette notification. The only provision that later reached back to this date is section 23 (claim 24).

Parliament passed the Bill on 6 February 2017, the day of its second reading, which the Minister for National Development, Lawrence Wong, moved.

Passed, not in force. The passage date is the Act's own Gazette header. The Hansard record of the sitting was not retrieved; MND's record of the speech prints no date and is dated 6 February 2017 by MND's newsroom.

The President assented on 13 March 2017, and the Act, numbered 7 of 2017, was first published in the Gazette's electronic edition on 20 March 2017, in Acts Supplement No. 10, whose printed issue is dated 24 March 2017.

Enacted and published, not in force. Two dates on one document: 20 March 2017 is the first publication and 24 March 2017 the printed issue. Singapore Statutes Online records the Act as published in the Acts Supplement on 20 March 2017.

By notification S 229/2017, made and published on 12 May 2017, the Minister for National Development brought the whole Act into operation on 15 May 2017.

In force from 15 may 2017, the commencement date. The notification names the Act as a whole, so every provision commenced on the same day. The SSO annotation is SSO's note on the Act and is not printed in the Gazette.

URA's circular of 16 May 2017 required changes of qualified person to be notified with immediate effect and moved non-conserved developments to a qualified person's declaration of compliance with the approved plans before the Temporary Occupation Permit from 16 November 2017.

Implementation by URA, not a commencement date of the act. Conserved buildings kept their existing process of declaring at TOP or CSC clearance. The declaration covers a list of key parameters such as footprint, setbacks, height and storeys.

The Bill's Explanatory Statement gave its main purposes as enhancing enforcement powers with a presumption against owners, requiring developers to appoint qualified persons, expanding planning conditions and better administration of the Act.

The government's stated purpose, not an observed effect.

The Minister for National Development gave the aims as more planning levers for a liveable city, a stronger regulatory regime with penalties, and simpler administration, and said fines were too low to deter, citing unauthorised dormitories and the loss of conserved buildings.

The government's stated rationale, not an observed effect. MND's record ends before the third aim is discussed. The Minister named repeat offenders among dormitory operators and gave no count.

The Act changed how planning rules are enforced and who answers for them, not what may be built where: it amended no plan, zoning or plot ratio, and its reach on owners runs through tenants' works, conditions that follow the land and the use of homes for dormitories or short stays.

Prevo's reading, not a Government statement. The inputs are verified. That no section amends the Master Plan or any control on use or intensity for a parcel is a reading of the whole Act; the widened conditions in claim 18 act on each permission as it is granted.

The Minister said developers applying for planning or conservation permission had not been required by the Act to appoint a qualified person, although most did so in practice.

The pre-state, as the Government described it. URA added that qualified persons had had to declare since 2005 that submissions complied with planning requirements.