Help : Redevelopment Of 1 Half Of Semi-D

[beemer75 0]

Need some advice.

My mum owns one half of a semi-d both of which (unfortunately) is less than 400sqm which is the URA guidelines for "seperating" one half of semi-D for redevelopmet.

We hope to seperate from our neighbour to redevelop our land into a new pair of semi-D. Our hse is almost 27-28 years old and the design is certainly very dated in the neighbourhood.

Both units of the semi-D are ard 300++ sqm, missing the URA requirement (if only the Government didnt acquire our much larger land for road expansion long time back).

Has anyone managed to appeal to URA or any bodies successfully?

The other way we hv considered is we wld redevelop our half WITHOUT seperation from our neighbour and internally seperate into 2 units (to hold 2 families) but retaining and sharing 1 address (so in effect retaining the semi-D classification at least on paper).

I know this is to " circumvent" the rules. Not sure if this wld be allowed by the BCA since I know upon completion, BCA wld do an inspection.

Anyone with any experience and thoughts? much appreciated.

[yoongf 11]

URA will not approve such an application.

U can't detach from neighbour and changing yr neighbour from a Semi-D to a mini bungalow. Imagine the hefty property tax increase neighbour will be facing.

Even if u build 2 chalets.. the property title is still one piece of paper.

No bank will lend for half a title.

[beemer75 0]

URA will not approve such an application.

U can't detach from neighbour and changing yr neighbour from a Semi-D to a mini bungalow. Imagine the hefty property tax increase neighbour will be facing.

Even if u build 2 chalets.. the property title is still one piece of paper.

No bank will lend for half a title.

URA didnt say anything abt the increase in property tax for the "mini" bunglow but both half must be at least 400 sqm - dun even hv to seek neighbour's consent though "its good to inform them". http://www.ura.gov.sg/circulars/text/dc96-07.html. But that is moot since both half are less than 400sqm.

Imagine your house is so dated in design and in need of a refresher and your neighbour not keen to "upgrade".Ideally both sides agree to upgrade but if the other is not keen, well we arent going to be held "ransom" by them - weird structure or not.

We are ok to hv one prop title - will just put it tenants in common -, one address, so long there is internal division into 2 chalets.

tks for your inputs.

[Lauer 15]

Need some advice.

My mum owns one half of a semi-d both of which (unfortunately) is less than 400sqm which is the URA guidelines for "seperating" one half of semi-D for redevelopmet.

We hope to seperate from our neighbour to redevelop our land into a new pair of semi-D. Our hse is almost 27-28 years old and the design is certainly very dated in the neighbourhood.

Both units of the semi-D are ard 300++ sqm, missing the URA requirement (if only the Government didnt acquire our much larger land for road expansion long time back).

Has anyone managed to appeal to URA or any bodies successfully?

The other way we hv considered is we wld redevelop our half WITHOUT seperation from our neighbour and internally seperate into 2 units (to hold 2 families) but retaining and sharing 1 address (so in effect retaining the semi-D classification at least on paper).

I know this is to " circumvent" the rules. Not sure if this wld be allowed by the BCA since I know upon completion, BCA wld do an inspection.

Anyone with any experience and thoughts? much appreciated.

Dear Beemer,

On your second option, I don't know why the design could break any rules because there are plenty of semi-ds around with this kind of design.

But whatever design your architect comes up with, it would require approvals from URA, and then BCA, before construction begins & not after. Of course, there would be also the as-built inspection from BCA for TOP later.

Cheers!

[leechaorui 2]

You may want to consider developing your existing land into a 2 key house, meaning there could be 2 families having their own private space on one piece of land. Check with an architect and he will be able to advise you on the development.

[beemer75 0]

You may want to consider developing your existing land into a 2 key house, meaning there could be 2 families having their own private space on one piece of land. Check with an architect and he will be able to advise you on the development.

Thank you all for your comments. Yes we intend to create 2 units to house my brother's and my family.

@ leechaorui, wat is meant by 2 key house?

We want to hv our own privacy, though we are ok to share one common address so as not to "downgrade" neighbour's semi-D status to terrace. The building structure will be divided; as for the external space/garden, we are considering a low wall (maybe just 1m high) just for symbolic segregation.

Our current semi-D is 2 storey and of cos we will hv to build upwards to 3 stories to accomodate our families. I know the final output may look hidious - a bigger, 3 storey "semi-d" with a more modern design attached to a 2 storey dated design semi-D. my mum wld really like to hv the 2 families live on a piece of land we hv owned for over 30 years. Will certainly speak to a builder/architect but thought of doing some ground work here.

@ Lauer, do you know if URA and BCA wld approve an "internally-divided-into-2-units" within one half of a semi-D? which I see as a way to circumvent the URA guidelines on redeveopment on semi-D.

[Lauer 15]

Thank you all for your comments. Yes we intend to create 2 units to house my brother's and my family.

@ leechaorui, wat is meant by 2 key house?

We want to hv our own privacy, though we are ok to share one common address so as not to "downgrade" neighbour's semi-D status to terrace. The building structure will be divided; as for the external space/garden, we are considering a low wall (maybe just 1m high) just for symbolic segregation.

Our current semi-D is 2 storey and of cos we will hv to build upwards to 3 stories to accomodate our families. I know the final output may look hidious - a bigger, 3 storey "semi-d" with a more modern design attached to a 2 storey dated design semi-D. my mum wld really like to hv the 2 families live on a piece of land we hv owned for over 30 years. Will certainly speak to a builder/architect but thought of doing some ground work here.

@ Lauer, do you know if URA and BCA wld approve an "internally-divided-into-2-units" within one half of a semi-D? which I see as a way to circumvent the URA guidelines on redeveopment on semi-D.

Dear Beemer,

I believe that we should try to get a clarification firstly; your current semi-d is adjoined to your neighbor's semi-d by a party wall, where the party wall is either on the left side or right side of your house when viewed from the front?

Also, what are the width & length of the semi-d? (Approximates would do).

Cheers!

[beemer75 0]

Hi lauer

Not sure watz a party wall but it's a typical semi d joined to one another (side by side, not front back) and the external seperate by a wall. My half of the semi d is abt 350 sqm (3800 sqfeet)while neighbor's ard 330 sqm. For my side the dimension is abt 21m by 18m.

[Lauer 15]

Hi lauer

Not sure watz a party wall but it's a typical semi d joined to one another (side by side, not front back) and the external seperate by a wall. My half of the semi d is abt 350 sqm (3800 sqfeet)while neighbor's ard 330 sqm. For my side the dimension is abt 21m by 18m.

Dear Beemer,

18m measuring from front to back? I think that we have a problem here...

What do you think, Leecharui?

TIA!

[beemer75 0]

Yeap only 18m but ura guideline is at least 10m. Wat is the concern here? Ok to clarify its 21 m from left to right (facing road) and 18 m from front to back (side)

[Lauer 15]

Yeap only 18m but ura guideline is at least 10m. Wat is the concern here? Ok to clarify its 21 m from left to right (facing road) and 18 m from front to back (side)

Dear Beemer,

To redevelop the existing semi-d to meet the requirement of separate units for two families (for privacy or otherwise), the common design is a two-blocks building with a courtyard in between. That is, when viewed from the front/road, you could see:

- Car porch, a garden that stretches from front to back (at least 2m wide)

- The first block of the two-blocks building

- Courtyard

- The second block of the two-blocks building

- Backyard (at least 2m long)

This kind of design should retain the semi-d status of the building for URA approval.

But with 18m, less the setback requirements of 9.5m (7.5 m car porch & 2m backyard) we would have only 8.5m left. So, not possible to construct a two-blocks design.

An alternative would be to sub-divide the land into two smaller plots, one for a terrace design & the other a semi-d design. But I don't think that this alternative would gain URA approval; even if technically possible (because the landed estate is a mixture of terraces & semi-ds currently), you would have to consider the plight of your neighbor's semi-d status. I don't think that he is looking forward to a downgrade from semi-d to a corner terrace?

Hope these help.

[yoongf 11]

Actually hor..

21m width.. less 2m side setback.. less 2m airwell between the 2 chalets..leaves 17m width of footprint.

17m divided by 2 chalets.. gives 8.5m each.

8.5m (W) X 8.5m (D) = 777sqft footprint per chalet. meaning each floor is about the size of 3rm HDB flat.

Actually quite comfortable...

[beemer75 0]

Dear Beemer,

To redevelop the existing semi-d to meet the requirement of separate units for two families (for privacy or otherwise), the common design is a two-blocks building with a courtyard in between. That is, when viewed from the front/road, you could see:

- Car porch, a garden that stretches from front to back (at least 2m wide)

- The first block of the two-blocks building

- Courtyard

- The second block of the two-blocks building

- Backyard (at least 2m long)

This kind of design should retain the semi-d status of the building for URA approval.

But with 18m, less the setback requirements of 9.5m (7.5 m car porch & 2m backyard) we would have only 8.5m left. So, not possible to construct a two-blocks design.

An alternative would be to sub-divide the land into two smaller plots, one for a terrace design & the other a semi-d design. But I don't think that this alternative would gain URA approval; even if technically possible (because the landed estate is a mixture of terraces & semi-ds currently), you would have to consider the plight of your neighbor's semi-d status. I don't think that he is looking forward to a downgrade from semi-d to a corner terrace?

Hope these help.

Hi Lauer,

Imagine my current half of the building is a box with a car porch, back setback of 2m, front setback of at 2m and side setback (inclusive of garden) of ard 5-6m. We hope to extend it side way to "a bigger box" by occupying 3-4m of the graden (and add another storey) so that it can be sub-divided into 2 units of 3 stories; we wont seperate from neighbour since tt wld change the whole structure into Terrace House. We are likely to recentralised the gate and rebuild 2 car porch. There is no change in the front and back set back as we are only extending it sideway (and height) but not the front-back. We will leave a 2m side setback as required by URA.

We tried to visualise and we think we can create 2 units of comfortable size - the length of each unit of the redeveloped building will be ard (21m less 2m side setback less ard 0.5m divider wall) 9.25m. As yoongf noted, still at least 777 sqf though we estimate shld be ard (9.25mX11*m less car porch of 5x4m) 870sqf. BTW watz this "airwell" thingy?

my area is zoned for semi D, bunglow, terrace.

* 18m less 2m back setback less 5 m front setback=11m

[Lauer 15]

Hi Lauer,

Imagine my current half of the building is a box with a car porch, back setback of 2m, front setback of at 2m and side setback (inclusive of garden) of ard 5-6m. We hope to extend it side way to "a bigger box" by occupying 3-4m of the graden (and add another storey) so that it can be sub-divided into 2 units of 3 stories; we wont seperate from neighbour since tt wld change the whole structure into Terrace House. We are likely to recentralised the gate and rebuild 2 car porch. There is no change in the front and back set back as we are only extending it sideway (and height) but not the front-back. We will leave a 2m side setback as required by URA.

We tried to visualise and we think we can create 2 units of comfortable size - the length of each unit of the redeveloped building will be ard (21m less 2m side setback less ard 0.5m divider wall) 9.25m. As yoongf noted, still at least 777 sqf though we estimate shld be ard (9.25mX11*m less car porch of 5x4m) 870sqf. BTW watz this "airwell" thingy?

my area is zoned for semi D, bunglow, terrace.

* 18m less 2m back setback less 5 m front setback=11m

Dear Beemer,

The question is, the two units that you described (at 9.25m wide each), are they separated by a wall? One could only access to the other unit via it's main door or back door?

If Yes, then what we have is one unit as terrace & the other unit a semi-d (same as the alternative I mentioned). I doubt that, in this case, URA would approve without a sub-plot exercise; LTA wouldn't give you another front culvert for the other driveway. But please check with an architect or QP to confirm.

If No, then this is a straight-forward sideway extension. As long as all the setback requirements are met, the height limit allows a 3-Storeys redevelopment, URA should approve. In this design, one has to pay attention to the natural lighting & ventilation within.

Hope these help.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Lauer

[Lauer 15]

Actually hor..

21m width.. less 2m side setback.. less 2m airwell between the 2 chalets..leaves 17m width of footprint.

17m divided by 2 chalets.. gives 8.5m each.

8.5m (W) X 8.5m (D) = 777sqft footprint per chalet. meaning each floor is about the size of 3rm HDB flat.

Actually quite comfortable...

Dear Yoongf,

Yes, this is also possible.

Problem is for a square, 8.5m x 8.5m, very hard to come up with a good internal layout. Space couldn't be properly utilized.

Cheers!