URA's reply, 13 Jun 2015
Pearl Bank conservation: URA replies
We thank Mr Loke Chee Meng for his interest in the conservation process and protection of heritage buildings ("Why sudden decision to conserve Pearl Bank?"; June 5).
Conservation is an ongoing process where we study buildings for possible conservation as part of land use planning.
In studying whether to conserve, we assess the architectural and historical merits of buildings and structures, and consider feedback from the Conservation Advisory Panel as well as owners.
We also welcome ground-up initiatives by building owners to volunteer buildings for conservation.
We will similarly evaluate if these buildings are suitable candidates for conservation.
Pearl Bank Apartments is one such example.
When the distinctive horseshoe-shaped building was completed in 1976, Pearl Bank Apartments was the tallest residential building in Singapore, and had the highest density for a residential development.
It also set standards for later condominium developments on provision of communal amenities, such as common areas, clubhouse and shops.
Given the building's merits and the council of the management corporation's interest, we are prepared to facilitate the proposal if there is support from individual owners.
Ler Seng Ann Group Director (Conservation and Development Services) Urban Redevelopment Authority
Letter, 5 Jun 2015, The Straits Times
Why sudden decision to conserve Pearl Bank?
I am surprised by the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) decision to consider conserving the Pearl Bank apartments based on a submission by the owners ("URA sees merit in conservation plan for Pearl Bank"; last Saturday, and "Conservation 'can unlock Pearl Bank's value'"; Monday).
Until recently, Pearl Bank would have met the wrecking ball had the owners' last attempt at a collective sale been successful.
The owners' representative made no bones about conservation being hatched up as an afterthought to salvage the dwindling value of the ageing property after previous collective sale attempts failed.
Integral to this conservation deal is a consideration for an increase in the property's gross floor area.
If this increase were not granted, would the owners still be keen on pursuing conservation?
URA's principle in conserving the building befuddles me.
It was perfectly willing all along to allow Pearl Bank to be redeveloped after a collective sale.
Why does the URA now deem the development worthy of conservation, after three attempts at a collective sale failed?
Conservation rules should not be so arbitrary that they can be exploited for self-interests.
It is the authorities' responsibility to proactively identify potential conservation buildings, as owners would make submissions only as and when it benefits them.
With more leasehold properties ageing, we may see more frivolous submissions, if the authorities do not step in, and this will undermine the process of conserving genuine historical buildings.
Loke Chee Meng