RAINTREE GARDENS EX-HUDC SALE

175 Owners to receive about $1.9 million each

Contrary to the Sale Committee claim - that 'the RP was set about 2% lower than the GLS in the region'; there are, in fact, no histirocal residential GLS sites in Potong Pasir. The SC has no way of knowing how the RP of Raintree Gardens was set. We would need to see their RLV.

The SC reveal on their FB page  that the GLS site they are referring to is now called The Poiz (on Meyappa Chettiar Rd sold Aug 2014). I am floored by this.

That GLS was slated as 'commercial and residential' with a GPR of 3.5 and now has 731 units and 88 shops & restaurants. This is not apple to apple. They have shot themselves in the foot again by not doing background checks on the information doled out to them by the MA. The Poiz is right next to the MRT station and no doubt will be linked underground the way Bedok Residences is just a lift down to the Bedok MRT station. Raintree Gardens therefore aimed very high if  they compared themselves to this prime site! Excellent job by that smart and gutsy SC.

What does this mean for us? Instead of looking at the poor Tampines Ave 10 GLS - perhaps they should be measuring our RP against  mixed commercial & residential properties beside an MRT station, too.  That should up the RP considerably! If it's good enough for Potong Pasir then it's good enough for us.

At the end of the day.. all this talk using the comparative method means nothing because all we need to see is the RLV.  Developers do not use the comparative method, so neither should we.

The RP is set only by doing a residual land valuation - NOT by linking it to old GLS sales, which serve as a loose indication only. Every site has it's unique set of pros and cons. 

WHERE IS THE RLV?

GIVE IT TO US. 

THIS IS OUR ESTATE AND WE DEMAND TO SEE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE SETTING OF THE RESERVE PRICE. 

Without this in hand, the SC Committee et al. can collectively go to hell.

Below URA GLS Sites. Figures in RED are my own. GPR is calculated using reverse math where not given

Date of Award	Location	Type of Development Allowed	Lease (years)	Site Area (m2)	Site Area (sqft)	Calcul’d GPR	GFA (m2)	No. of Bids	Successful Tender Price	$psm per GFA or $psm per GPR	$psf ppr	Planning Area
30-Sep-16	Fernvale Road	Residential	99	17,195.9	185,095.1	3.0	51,588	14	$ 287,100,000.00	$ 5,565.25	$‎ 517	Sengkang
1-Jul-16	Martin Place	Residential	99	15,936.1	171,534.8	2.8	44,622	13	$ 595,100,000.00	$ 13,336.47	$‎ 1,239	River Valley
30-May-16	Bukit Batok West Avenue 6	Commercial and Residential	99	14,696.7	158,194.0	3.0	44,091	11	$ 301,160,000.00	$ 6,830.42	$‎ 635	Bukit Batok
13-Apr-16	Jalan Kandis	Residential	99	7,045.6	75,838.2	1.4	9,864	9	$ 51,070,228.00	$ 5,177.44	$‎ 481	Sembawang
26-Feb-16	New Upper Changi Road / Bedok South Avenue 3	Residential	99	24,394.0	262,574.8	2.0	51,228	8	$ 419,380,000.00	$ 8,186.54	$‎ 799	Bedok
18-Jan-16	Siglap Road	Residential	99	19,309.6	207,846.8	3.5	67,584	8	$ 624,180,000.00	$ 9,235.62	$‎ 858	Bedok
11-Dec-15	Clementi Avenue 1	Residential	99	13,037.8	140,337.7	3.5	45,633	6	$ 302,100,000.00	$ 6,620.21	$‎ 615	Clementi
17-Nov-15	Alexandra View	Residential with Commercial at 1st Storey	99	8,398.5	90,400.7	4.9	41,153	10	$ 376,880,000.00	$ 9,158.02	$‎ 851	Bukit Merah
11-Nov-15	Lorong Lew Lian	Residential	99	14,001.5	150,710.9	3.0	42,005	11	$ 321,000,000.00	$ 7,641.95	$‎ 710	Serangoon
13-Aug-15	West Coast Vale	Residential	99	18,908.7	203,531.6	2.8	52,945	6	$ 314,100,000.00	$ 5,932.57	$‎ 551	Clementi
4-May-15	Tampines Avenue 10	Residential	99	15,660.4	168,567.1	2.8	43,850	12	$ 227,780,000.00	$ 5,194.53	$‎ 483	Tampines
1-Apr-15	Paya Lebar Road / Sims Avenue	Commercial	99	39,230.7	422,275.7	4.2	164,769	6	$ 1,671,688,888.00	$ 10,145.65	$‎ 943	Geylang
31-Mar-15	Sturdee Road	Residential	99	6,111.5	65,783.6	3.5	21,391	16	$ 181,189,000.00	$ 8,470.34	$‎ 787	Kallang
12-Mar-15	Jurong West Street 41	Residential	99	17,803.5	191,635.3	2.8	49,850	9	$ 338,118,000.00	$ 6,782.71	$‎ 630	Jurong West
28-Nov-14	Upper Serangoon Road	Residential with Commercial at 1st Storey	99	10,097.1	108,684.3	3.0	30,292	11	$ 276,774,000.00	$ 9,136.87	$‎ 849	Hougang
13-Oct-14	Lorong Puntong	Residential	99	10,502.8	113,051.2	2.1	22,056	18	$ 173,570,000.00	$ 7,869.51	$‎ 731	Bishan
28-Aug-14	Gambas Crescent / Sembawang Avenue	Business 1	30	15,665.0	168,616.7	2.5	NA	4	$ 35,000,000.00	$ 893.71	$‎ 83	Sembawang
20-Aug-14	Meyappa Chettiar Road	Commercial and Residential	99	16,149.4	173,830.7	3.5	56,523	15	$ 471,618,000.00	$ 8,343.82	$‎ 775	Toa Payoh
8-Aug-14	Fernvale Road	Residential	99	16,603.9	178,722.9	3.0	49,812	4	$ 234,933,000.00	$ 4,716.39	$‎ 438	Sengkang
8-Aug-14	Fernvale Road	Residential	99	17,413.9	187,441.7	3.0	52,242	3	$ 252,122,000.00	$ 4,826.04	$‎ 448	Sengkang
4-Jul-14	Woodlands Avenue 12	Business 1 with an integrated Heavy Vehicle Park	30	39,229.1	422,258.5	2.5	NA	5	$ 76,900,000.00	$ 784.11	$‎ 73	Woodlands
21-Apr-14	Prince Charles Crescent	Residential	99	24,964.3	268,713.5	2.1	52,426	7	$ 463,100,000.00	$ 8,833.40	$‎ 821	Bukit Merah
17-Apr-14	Woodlands Square	Commercial	99	18,568.8	199,872.9	3.5	64,991	8	$ 633,999,000.00	$ 9,755.18	$‎ 906	Woodlands
13-Mar-14	Yishun Avenue 9 / Yishun Avenue 6	Residential	99	20,553.8	221,239.3	2.8	57,551	5	$ 278,800,000.00	$ 4,844.40	$‎ 450	Yishun
24-Jan-14	Geylang East Avenue 1	Residential	99	6,238.1	67,146.3	2.8	17,467	16	$ 145,890,000.00	$ 8,352.32	$‎ 776	Geylang
15-Jan-14	Upper Paya Lebar Road	Residential	99	20,077.6	216,113.5	2.8	56,218	7	$ 392,300,000.00	$ 6,978.19	$‎ 648	Serangoon

Raintree Gardens Sold for $334.2m

Raintree Gardens sold

Photo: Koh Mui Fong

• mail
• print
• View all 0 comments

BY

LEE YEN NEE

leeyennee@mediacorp.com.sg

PUBLISHED: 3:27 PM, OCTOBER 6, 2016

SINGAPORE – The total value of en bloc deals this year has crossed the S$1 billion mark, after the 175-unit Raintree Gardens in Potong Pasir was sold to an associate company of OUL Group for S$334.2 million.

TODAY understands that the keenly watched sale tender of the river fronting housing development attracted between five and 10 bids. A deal was sealed in the wee hours of Thursday morning between the Sale Committee and UVD (Projects), a joint venture between UOL Venture Investments and Singland Homes, a subsidiary of developer United Industrial Corporation (UIC).

The sale of Raintree Gardens is the third successful en bloc sale this year, after Qingjian Realty bought the 358-unit Shunfu Ville S$638 million in May and Roxy-Pacific Holdings snapped up Harbour View Gardens, a 14-unit condominium in Pasir Panjang, for S$33.25 million.

The sale price reflects a land cost of approximately S$797 per square foot per plot ratio on the potential gross floor area, inclusive of an estimated differential premium payable to the State to top up the lease to a fresh 99 years and for redevelopment of site to a gross plot ratio of 2.8, marketing agent JLL said in a statement.

Each apartment owner will stand to receive an average gross sale price of approximately S$1.9 million upon a successful sale, which is subject to several conditions being met, including an order of sale by the Strata Titles Board or High Court.

“The collective sale market is slowly turning a corner … The pick-up in collective sale activity is due to a combination of three factors: the switch in the outlook of the residential market from negative to neutral-positive, the shortage of development sites – whether from the government or private sector, and the strong attributes and realistic pricing of the developments that were sold this year,” said Mr Karamjit Singh, International Director and Head of Residential at JLL.

SC LETTER Dated 3rd Oct

This letter was sent to all SPs in defence of their RP1 at $739,200,000 (approx $1.32m/unit)

There was a letter in the post box today. I read it and thought it came from the Marketing Agent and was unsurprised to see that it actually came from the Sale Committee. When they are both singing from the same hymn sheet then you know it is game over. A total put-down of our centrally located, convenient and highly prized plot of land. The letter is just one scare tactic after the other and smacks of desperation

GOSSIP ON THE AIRWAVES

I heard it from a little bird that the meeting held on 18 Sep 2016 did not go as smoothly as hoped.

Apparently, the MA implied that the lifts in the estate were not safe. That the recent $1million upgrade didn't change the main cables ... or something

Management Committee members who happened to be present took umbrage at this outrageous claim and words such as 'SUE YOU' were liberally bandied about. 

The ancient lifts and the imminent danger they posed were a potent signing tool in Rd1 and Rd2. Alas, in Rd3 they had been renewed/refurbished and were good to go for another 20 yrs. The chairman of the SC (being an engineer) was instrumental in getting them replaced and sat on the Management Committee for just that cause. He oversaw the works carried out and can attest to any matter concerning the lifts.

Is he now going to sit back and let the MA rubbish his project? Is he going to turn around and tell SPs that he allowed $1,000,000 of the estate's sinking fund to be wasted on lifts that STILL pose a danger?

Surely not. If the MA did indeed imply that the lifts were unsafe, I hope the SC chairman will come out strongly in their defence and shoot down any such malicious rumour to the contrary.

The signing has flatlined and so we shall no doubt be inundated with all kinds of crazy scare tactics to get people to sign. 

Let's remind ourselves of the ridiculous 'Tilting staircase' claim from Rd 2.

MA Monologue & Broken Promises Sep 18 2016

I was not at the Monologue/signing session on 18 Sep 2016 as I had an urgent engagement with divine providence. Be that as it may, there could not have been much 'dialogue' or discussion as the SPs were handicapped by not having access to the relevant material beforehand. When figures are being thrown out or statements made, who can counter-argue effectively on the spot (save one Senior Counsel I can attest to)? One eye-witness account said the meeting was poorly attended with the usual already-signed brigade warming the seats. Others stood around but said nothing. I hope the MA/SC does NOT see this as a sign of approval of their low RP! The opposite is the case; no show means no interest.

Explosive Letter from SC V.Chairman Mr. VASAN

 THE RESERVE PRICE –LACK OF CONVICTION AND 14TH S.C.MEETING MINUTES 

(I HAVE EDITED OUT THE FULL NAMES EXCEPT FOR VASAN)

Some members of SC wanted me badly out of the SC in the 14th SC meeting on the grounds that I broke the code of “ their “conduct by addressing some concerns on the issue of current RP to SPs on their “sacrosanct” RP. They did not hesitate to break the law, or claim authority more than what the law of the land confers on SC, to expel me, instead of addressing some concerns of some SPs ,be it few or many . I was troubled when they said in the last SC meeting that sharing some thoughts on RP to the Sps is almost an unpardonable crime, when “SC” has fixed it. I have all along assumed SPs are the ultimate authority in collective sale .Prior to that, some bedlam was created in SC ,while the issue was keenly discussed with a receptive MA . I was sent taunting emails ( which I do not wish to publicise for sake of maintaining the dignity of TC SPs) ,perhaps expecting me to resign on my own. When I stood my ground , they did not mind disgracing themselves with an unlawful act which they were bound to withdraw. I am not surprised that they that they have chosen not to put up the minutes of the 14TH SC meeting on the notice boards to notify the nullification of their illegal decision, even after two weeks ,though Strata Title Act requires that the Minutes must be put up within seven days, as it would expose their folly to SPs at large. But I bear no personal grudge as I have to bear my cross . 

As I have received several calls for many SPs on above issue , I owe it to SPs to explain the background and circumstances to clarify the matter from the proceedings/correspondence of SC itself.