The 70% En Bloc Band Holds 223 Developments. The Published Count Is Four.

Parliament passed the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2026 on 8 September. For a development aged 40 to 59 years, the consent needed for a collective sale drops from 80% of owners to 70%. On 1 October, a research note circulated a number for how much stock that actually touches: four developments, 3,758 units — about 5.5% of the units examined.

That figure is arithmetically correct and it answers a different question from the one it is being read as answering. The analysis screened for developments of 700 units or more. The statute contains no size test at all. Age is the only thing it looks at.

Run the same age band across every project, not just the large ones, and the count is 223 developments and 22,642 units. The four are in there. So are 219 others.

What the Bill changed, and what runs the other way

The thresholds now sit on an age ladder: 90% for developments under 10 years, 80% at 10 to 39 years, 70% at 40 to 59, and 65% at 60 and above. The last two bands are new.

Three other numbers moved in the opposite direction, which we covered when the Bill was tabled in The En Bloc Bar Just Dropped. Three Other Numbers Went Up. The support needed to convene the general meeting that forms a collective sale committee rises to 35%. The window for collecting signatures on the collective sale agreement is halved from 12 months to six. The restriction period after a failed attempt extends from two years to three.

The amendments have not yet taken effect; they commence on a date the minister gazettes.

Where the four came from

The 1 October analysis, published by EdgeProp, examined projects with at least 700 units: 71 developments, 68,070 units, split 65 developments and 58,013 units at 700 to 1,399 units, and six developments and 10,057 units at 1,400 and above. Within that set, by age: 34 developments and 34,892 units under 10 years, 33 and 29,420 units at 10 to 39 years, four and 3,758 units at 40 to 59, and none at 60 and above.

Every ratio in it checks out. Four of 71 is 5.63%, printed as "about 5.6%". 3,758 of 68,070 is 5.52%, printed as "about 5.5%". 29,420 of 68,070 is 43.22%, printed as "about 43.2%". The age bands sum to 71 developments and 68,070 units exactly. There is no error to correct.

The 700-unit screen makes sense for a different question — the one the July ABSD remission changes raised, which really are tiered by size. It does not describe the population the consent threshold reaches.

Age is the only test in the statute

Taking the 2,350 projects in TRIBE's resale dataset that carry a completion year, and banding them by age at 2026:

And within the 40-to-59 band, by size:

The published screen captures 4 of 223 developments — 1.8% — and 3,758 of 22,642 units, 16.6%. By project count the band is 56 times larger than the figure in circulation; by units, six times.

The check that earns the other 219

A count computed from a different dataset is worth nothing unless it reproduces the published one where the two overlap. Restricting our 40-to-59 band to projects of 700 units and above returns four developments and 3,758 units — Bayshore Park (1,083 units, 1986), Mandarin Gardens (1,006, 1986), Braddell View (918, 1978) and Neptune Court (751, 1975). Same count, same unit total to the unit, same four names.

That is the one place the two methods can be compared, and they agree exactly. It does not make our wider count correct, but it removes the obvious objection — that we are banding ages differently, or counting units differently, and the 223 is an artefact of that.

Where the two datasets do not agree is the screen's own universe. Our data puts 82 developments and 77,407 units at 700 units or more across all ages, against the published 71 and 68,070. We cannot reconstruct the screen that produces 71, so we do not know whether it excludes projects we include or covers stock we lack. Readers should treat the 71 as that analysis's universe and the 223 as ours, with the 40-to-59 overlap as the only verified common ground.

It is a small-block, freehold, prime-district story

Three properties of the 223 are worth more than the headline count, because they decide whether a lower threshold is actually usable.

Size. Median project size is 44 units. The median of the 219 outside the screen is 43. At 44 units, 70% is 31 owners instead of 36 — and the halved six-month signing window, which is a serious constraint on a 1,000-unit estate, is manageable when the register is 44 households long. The reform bites hardest where collective sales are mechanically easiest to run, and that is precisely the cohort a 700-unit screen cannot see.

Tenure. 177 of the 223 are freehold, nine are 999-year and one is 103-year — 187, or 83.9%. Thirty-six are on 99-year leases. A freehold site carries no lease top-up premium to the state, which is the single largest swing factor in whether a collective sale clears its reserve. The cohort the threshold change unlocks is overwhelmingly the one where the economics already work.

Location. The 223 concentrate in D10 (51 projects), D15 (34), D09 (30), D11 (20), D21 (16) and D08 (10). Prime and city-fringe, not the suburbs — which follows from the age band, since that is where private stock from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s was built.

The two measures barely overlap

The lower thresholds and the ABSD remission extension announced on 28 July are routinely described as complementary. On the population data they are close to disjoint.

The remission relief is tiered at 700 to 1,399 units (six years to sell, up from 5.5) and 1,400 and above (seven years, with at least half the units sold by the end of year six). Both tiers require redevelopment to yield at least 1.5 times the existing unit count, with the commencement deadline unchanged at 2.5 years.

The consent threshold change lands on a cohort with a median of 44 units. Only four developments sit in both — the same four. A developer buying one of the other 219 gets the easier consent and none of the extended runway; a developer buying one of the 10- to 39-year-old large estates gets the runway and still faces 80%.

Three counts now exist for one pool

Huttons' Lee Sze Teck put 156 non-landed developments in the 40-to-59 band in early August, with District 10 leading on 32 projects. We get 223 and D10 on 51. The ranking agrees; the magnitudes do not, and the gap is a question of inclusion criteria rather than of anyone's arithmetic. Huttons did not publish its screen, so the difference cannot be decomposed from outside. What the three figures have in common is that none of them is four.

Where this breaks down

The 60-and-above band is unusable from this data. Our dataset is left-censored at 1966, its oldest completion year, and contains exactly two projects at 60 years — Wan Tho Lodge (12 units) and Eastville Apartments (16) — for 28 units between them. The 65% threshold almost certainly reaches more than that. We have no basis for a number and have not published one.

223 is a floor, not a ceiling. The dataset is a resale-condo-review universe, so coverage of very small, non-reviewed and never-transacting blocks is incomplete. Every direction the error can run adds projects to the band, not subtracts them.

Band membership is sensitive to the base year. Age is computed as 2026 minus completion year, so a project completed in 1986 sits in the band and one completed in 1987 does not. The amendments commence on an ungazetted date; a 2027 commencement moves roughly a year of completions in at the bottom and out at the top.

Completion year is not the statutory test. The Act keys on the age of the development as defined in the legislation, which is not necessarily the completion year a dataset records. For a project built over phases, or where completion and legal commencement diverge, the band assignment can be wrong at the margin.

None of this forecasts a collective sale. Threshold eligibility is one input. Reserve price, the gap between owners' expectations and residual land value, plot ratio headroom, minority objections at the tribunal and the state of the launch market all decide whether a site transacts. A larger eligible pool is a larger pool of attempts, not of completions.

What to do with this

If you own in a development completed between 1967 and 1986, the threshold that applies to you is 70%, not 80%, once the amendments commence — regardless of how many units your block has, and regardless of whether your project appeared in any published count. Small freehold blocks in D09, D10, D11 and D15 are the centre of this cohort, not the periphery.

If you are reading supply commentary, check which universe each number came from before comparing two of them. The four, the 156 and the 223 are answers to three different screens of the same statute, and only one of those screens matches what the statute does.

If you are tracking redevelopment supply, 22,642 units is the ceiling on what this band could theoretically recycle, and the 1.5× yield requirement in the remission rules applies only to the sites that qualify for remission. Most of the 223 are too small for that tier, so their redevelopment arithmetic runs on ordinary ABSD timelines.

If you are waiting for the law to take effect, it has not. The Bill passed on 8 September and the amendments commence on a date the minister gazettes. Attempts started before commencement run under the transitional rules, not the new thresholds.

Method

The consent thresholds, the 35% requisition figure, the six-month signing window, the three-year restriction period, the 8 September passage date, the pending commencement, the ABSD remission tiers and every figure attributed to SRI Research are from EdgeProp's 1 October analysis of the new collective sale framework; we recomputed each percentage it quotes and all four reproduce to the stated rounding. The 156-development figure and the District 10 count of 32 are Huttons Asia's, reported on 3 August 2026; the screen behind them is not published and we have not reconstructed it. The 223-development count and every figure derived from it — age bands, size distribution, tenure split, district concentration, the four-project overlap and the 82-development 700-plus universe — are TRIBE's own computation from our published resale scorecard dataset, retrieved 6 October 2026: 2,357 projects, of which 2,350 carry a completion year ranging from 1966 to 2025. Age is completion year subtracted from 2026 and bands follow the statute's own boundaries (under 10, 10 to 39, 40 to 59, 60 and above). Unit counts are the dataset's own and are not independently audited against strata rolls. Tenure is the dataset's tenure field, grouped as freehold, 999-year and 103-year against 99-year. Districts are the dataset's district labels; a district is not a locality, and D15 and D10 each span several. The dataset covers non-landed private residential projects in a resale-review universe and omits landed housing entirely, as well as blocks that have never transacted or been reviewed, so the counts are lower bounds. No figure here is a forecast of collective sale activity, a valuation of any named development, or an assessment of any site's redevelopment potential. This is general information about a statute and a dataset, not advice on your own property; owners considering a collective sale should take their own legal advice and confirm the commencement date, the transitional provisions and the applicable threshold with the Singapore Land Authority and the Strata Titles Board.