Forum: Do more to help property owners affected by construction works
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Follow topic:
The plot of land next to my condominium was acquired by a developer, and a five-storey development is approaching completion after approximately two years of construction.
Before the construction started, the contractor conducted a pre-construction survey of our property, taking photos so that they could be used to differentiate existing damage from that which resulted from its construction activities.
During piling works, about one year into the construction works, unsightly cracks emerged in our pool area and tiles were dislodged.
The contractor next door acknowledged its responsibility, and partially patched up the cracks as an interim measure since the exposed sharp edges of the cracked tiles posed safety risks. However, the majority of the cracks remain.
Fast-forward to today, and the new development is approaching completion.
But the contractor and developer were completely unresponsive when our managing agent approached them for follow-up works.
We turned to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), hoping that the lack of rectification of damage inflicted on surrounding properties during construction would be taken into consideration when issuing a temporary occupancy permit (TOP) to the developer.
Unfortunately, BCA declined to intervene as the damage was assessed to be “non-structural” in nature. We were told to approach the Singapore Mediation Centre instead.
I am surprised that the current regulations do not protect the interests of existing property owners who have been involuntarily affected by construction activities.
The costs of mediation and time investment that affected property owners would need to incur to seek compensation seem disproportionate, and the burden of proof is on them.
Making good the damage inflicted on surrounding properties during construction should be one of the conditions that need to be met before a TOP is issued to a new development. Also, the burden of proof should not be on those who are involuntarily affected, and as a result, incur upfront costs to seek mediation.
Teo Soo Yeow
