URA holds firm on short-term stay status quo

The minimum stay duration for private residential properties will stay at three months.

Home-sharing platforms allowing for the use of private properties for fewer than 90 days will remain illegal in Singapore after the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) reiterated that the minimum stay duration of three months will continue to apply for any private homes.

The decision was taken after extensive consultations with diverse groups of stakeholders on the proposed regulatory framework for the use of private residential properties for short-term accommodation (STA).

Based on a national survey commissioned by URA, the majority of Singaporeans supported the proposed regulatory framework for STA. But several home-sharing platform operators said that the proposed rules were overly restrictive and wanted a lighter touch approach.

Also read: 1,808 Airbnb-style leases in private homes reported in 2015-2017

Given this impasse, URA will not proceed with the proposed regulations at this stage. Instead, it will continue to monitor the situation, as well as broader developments on the STA scene.

“URA remains open to reviewing the position in future, if and when platform operators demonstrate that they are prepared to adhere to the regulatory framework. In the meantime, the use of private residential properties for short-term accommodation of less than three consecutive months remains illegal,” they said.

To better understand the complex issue of STA, URA has consulted with key stakeholders extensively since 2015. These include members of the public, management corporations (MCSTs) and managing agents (MAs) of condominiums, neighbourhood committees, hotel and serviced apartment industry players, as well as home-sharing platform operators.

In April 2018, URA and relevant agencies formulated a regulatory framework to facilitate STA in private residential properties, whilst safeguarding the safety, privacy and security of homes, and the residential character of local communities.

URA also commissioned a national survey in H2 2018, consisting of face-to-face interviews with more than a thousand private homeowners. The majority of the respondents felt that STA would result in a range of negative externalities, with 68% indicating that STA would raise security concerns in their estate, whilst 67% indicated that STA would result in a loss of privacy for residents.

Also read: URA orders ‘more detailed' survey on Airbnb-style rentals

More than two thirds or 64% of respondents also noted that short-term occupants might misbehave and cause disturbances like noise nuisances, and 56% indicated that short-term occupants might damage common facilities.

That said, a significant majority of respondents supported the rules set out in the proposed regulatory framework. For example, 69% supported the proposed 80% consent threshold for STA to be allowed in a strata-titled development, whilst the same number of respondents supported the 90-day cap on short-term stays per unit within a year.

A large majority or 80% also believe that home-sharing platform operators should be licensed and regulated by the government.

“Whilst there was recognition of the potential upsides in supplementing income through short-term lets, only 7% of respondents expressed their intention to let out their homes or investment properties if STA were to be allowed in the future,” URA highlighted.

The agency further added that key stakeholders were not supportive of the proposed rules. MCSTs expressed concerns with the greater responsibilities placed on them and their ability to administer the controls within their estates.

“This is especially so in developments where subsidiary proprietors may want additional measures to be in place to further mitigate the impact of transient occupants who live in their midst and share the common facilities, such as the gym or swimming pool,” URA said.

According to URA, several platform operators who were engaged also said that they could not support the proposed regulatory framework. In particular, the said platforms did not support the proposed threshold for owners’ consent, and the cap on permissible nights for short-term accommodation.

“It is understandable that the platform operators would be driven by their commercial imperatives. But it is not tenable for URA to allow a more relaxed regulatory framework that does not address the concerns raised by Singaporeans,” the agency stated.

At least for now, and based on the totality of responses from all stakeholders to the proposed framework, URA has decided to maintain the status quo.