Good Class Bungalow | Lush Dream Home

Tag Archives: Good Class Bungalow

Frasers sold Holland Park GCB for $30 million

Posted on 13 Nov 2014 | Comments Off

A buyer has reportedly obtained an option to purchase a brand new Good Class Bungalow (GCB) by Frasers Centrepoint in Holland Park for around $30 million, according to media reports.

This translates to $1,989 psf based on the property’s land area of 15,080 sq ft, while its built-up area is 11,368 sq ft.

Notably, the bungalow has dual road frontage and is one of two freehold GCBs that the developer has recently completed. As for the other one, which has a land area of 15,070 sq ft and built-up of 10,777 sq ft, Frasers is said to be selling it at a similar price.

Originally, the developer’s asking price for the sold unit was about $38 million, while the other is around $35 million before the introduction of the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework in June 2013.

Although the $30 million or $1,989 psf selling price for the sold house is significantly lower than its pre-TDSR price, it’s still a good price for Frasers in light of the subdued luxury residential market, said a veteran GCB agent.

On top of that, Holland is not a highly sought-after GCB location as compared with Cluny, Dalvey, Nassim, Leedon and Bishopsgate, he explained.

Furthermore, this price is near the record set in October 2012, when a newly-built boutique bungalow in Leedon Park was sold for S$2,110 psf.

Comments Off on Frasers sold Holland Park GCB for $30 million

Posted in Developers, Luxury Property

Tagged Frasers Centrepoint, GCB, Good Class Bungalow, Holland Park, TDSR, Total Debt Servicing Ratio

Court divides bungalow based on couple’s contribution

Posted on 5 Jul 2014 | Comments Off

Before buying a house, married couples should discuss how they will split the property in case they break up.

The Court of Appeal said this in its ruling last week, regarding an ownership tussle over a $20 million good class bungalow (GCB) between Chan Yeun Lan and her husband, See Fong Mun.

The house was purchased in 1983 by See, using his own funds and overdrafts, plus $290,000 from Chan’s savings. Three days before the transaction, she inked a power of attorney which allows her husband and their eldest son to manage the 20,000 sq ft property.

However, she rescinded the document in April 2011. Consequently, her husband filed a case in the High Court to invalidate her action, and he won the right to keep the bungalow in May 2013.

In the appeal, his lawyers Lim Seng Siew and Lai Swee Fung argued the house in Chancery Lane belonged entirely to their client because Chan’s contribution was intended to be a loan that will be repaid by See.

Chan’s Senior Counsel Engelin Teh and attorney Simon Jones asserted that certain documents prove that See had agreed to give her the ownership of the property in return for her contributions.

However, the Court of Appeal, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal V.K. Rajah and Andrew Phang, decreed that 15.8 percent of the property should go to Chan due to her financial contribution. This is because both parties’ common intention in relation to the house is uncertain due to incomplete evidence and the wife’s hazy memory.

Chan died earlier this year, after her appeal was heard against a High Court decision.