Individual and company fined $250,000 and $150,000 respectively for unauthorised works to a conserved shophouse at 32 Desker Road

1     A 54-year-old Permanent Resident, Manickam Nagarajan (“Nagarajan”), has been convicted of one count of carrying out unauthorised works to a conserved shophouse located at 32 Desker Road (“the shophouse”). The shophouse owner, Layan Management Pte. Ltd. (“Layan”), has also been convicted of one count of permitting Nagarajan to carry out the unauthorised works. An additional charge for failing to appoint a Qualified Person to supervise works on-site was taken into consideration by the Court in the sentencing of Layan. Nagarajan and Layan’s actions have led to the irreversible loss of heritage value of the historic shophouse, which had stood for more than a century. They have been fined $250,000 and $150,000 respectively for the offences under the Planning Act 1998, with Layan also required to reinstate and restore the building at its own cost. This marks the first prosecution for unauthorised works to a conserved building since the Planning Act 1998 was amended in 2017 to introduce enhanced penalties for unauthorised demolition works carried out on conserved buildings. This case also underscores that owners of conserved buildings bear responsibility for ensuring that all works carried out on their premises comply with the relevant regulations, and that enforcement action will also be taken against all parties found to be involved in unauthorised works on conserved buildings.

Case details

2     Conserved buildings are important physical markers of Singapore’s shared history and identity and are therefore subject to strict conservation controls. Owners are required to ensure that any proposed works to their buildings comply with URA’s Conservation Guidelines and obtain conservation permission from URA and relevant technical agencies prior to any commencement of works. Unauthorised works, particularly demolition, cause irreversible damage and result in the permanent loss of Singapore’s historic fabric. As structural integrity may be compromised, carrying out building works without prior approval from the relevant authorities and supervision by a Qualified Person may also pose safety risks to both building occupants and those in surrounding buildings.

3     In October 2022, Nagarajan purchased the shophouse in the Little India Conservation Area, one of four historic districts in Singapore where the strictest form of building conservation is practised. The purchase was done through Layan.

4     At the time of purchase, the shophouse was in its original form with key architectural features intact. The shophouse’s original first storey façade was particularly significant as a rare surviving example of a typical residential front of shophouses built around 1913 to 1914. Characterised by a double-leafed timber door flanked on both sides by timber-framed casement windows with vertical iron security bars, these features were characteristic of residential typology at the time.

5     Despite knowing that the shophouse was a conserved building requiring URA’s conservation permission for any renovation works, Nagarajan proceeded to engage Layan’s workers directly to carry out renovation works to convert the shophouse into a co-living development without first seeking the necessary approvals from URA.

6     On 6 January 2023, acting on feedback received, URA conducted an inspection of the shophouse and discovered the unauthorised works. A written notice was issued to Layan informing the company of the breach and to require that works cease. URA subsequently followed up with inspections to ensure compliance.

7     Nagarajan and Layan’s blatant disregard for the law resulted in the demolition of several architectural features of the conserved shophouse. These included the first-storey residential front, the rear facade with timber casement windows and green glazed ceramic vents, and the entire rear service block. These were fundamental elements of the conserved shophouse that contributed to its character and should have been fully retained when works were carried out.

8     Kelvin Ang, Director of URA’s Conservation Management Department, said, “Conserving built heritage is an integral part of Singapore’s development. These buildings are enduring touchstones of our shared history, culture and identity, providing continuity amid change. Safeguarding them ensures that future generations remain connected to our past, even as the city evolves.”

9     He added, “In this case, the parties’ egregious breach of the law led to the irrevocable loss of the original heritage fabric of a rare historic pre-war building that had endured through time. While the building may eventually be reconstructed, its authentic historic materials cannot be recovered or replicated, and new materials will have to be used in its rebuilding. The parties had knowingly contravened URA’s Conservation Guidelines and wilfully proceeded with the unauthorised works, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the regulations. URA has taken firm enforcement action against them to uphold the integrity of the guidelines.”

10    Building owners, developers, architects, engineers, builders, interior designers and contractors involved in carrying out restoration, development or fit-out works to or near to conserved buildings or within conservation areas are reminded to comply with the Conservation Guidelines. They are also required to appoint a Qualified Person and seek necessary approvals from URA and other relevant agencies prior to the commencement of works on-site. URA will continue to investigate and take strict enforcement action against all parties found to have committed such offences. In this case, if an independent builder had been engaged by Nagarajan or Layan to carry out the unauthorised works, the builder would also be held accountable. Members of the public can report suspected cases via URA’s website (https://eservice.ura.gov.sg/feedbackWeb/). All information provided will be kept strictly confidential. If found guilty under the Planning Act 1998, offenders may be liable to a fine of up to $500,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both.