CORENET X is Singapore's redesigned approval process for building works. From 1 October 2026, submitting through its Gateway Processes is mandatory for new projects with GFA of 5,000m² and above. Smaller projects remain voluntary and may stay on CORENET 2.0.
That threshold is new. Until 23 July 2026 the published plan was that CORENET X would become mandatory for all new projects from 1 October 2026 regardless of GFA, and BCA's own circular of 10 September 2025 says exactly that. Circular APPBCA-2026-12 / URA/PB/2026/08-DCG replaced it with a 5,000m² threshold, made smaller projects voluntary, and withdrew the 2027 date for ongoing projects. Most guidance published before August 2026 still states the superseded position.
What CORENET X is
BCA and URA describe CORENET X as "a one-stop integrated digital shopfront for approval of building works". It "introduces a redesigned regulatory approval process for building works, streamlining the over 20 approval touchpoints across seven regulatory agencies to three key gateways, transforming the current approval process from an agency-centric journey to a customer-centric one." The process itself is formally the Regulatory Approval process for Building Works (RABW).
Seven regulatory agencies are named consistently across official sources: BCA, URA, LTA, NEA, NParks, PUB and SCDF. BCA and URA co-lead the initiative. A footnote to the September 2025 circular additionally names the Singapore Land Authority among the regulatory agencies, and HDB and JTC Corporation as public sector developers, with GovTech providing support.
Submissions are made at portal.corenet.gov.sg, with guidance at info.corenet.gov.sg. All project members need Singpass for Business (Corppass) access. CORENET X soft-launched on 18 December 2023 and opened for voluntary submissions on 1 June 2024. As at 23 July 2026 BCA and URA reported that "more than 140 projects involving 300 firms across various development types have made submissions via CORENET X", achieving "time savings of up to two months, alongside cost savings from reduced abortive work".
Who has to use it, and from when
The current implementation plan, quoted from circular APPBCA-2026-12 / URA/PB/2026/08-DCG of 23 July 2026:
| Scope of projects | Requirement, verbatim from the circular |
|---|---|
| All new projects with GFA ≥ 30,000m² | "Mandatory submission via CORENET X Gateway Processes from 1 October 2025 [IMPLEMENTED]" |
| All new projects with GFA ≥ 5,000m² | "Mandatory submission via CORENET X Gateway Processes from 1 October 2026 [NEW]" |
| All ongoing projects with GFA ≥ 5,000m² | "Submissions may continue to be made through CORENET 2 until further details are announced. [NEW]" |
| All projects with GFA < 5,000m² | "Submission via CORENET X Gateway Processes will be on a voluntary basis. Submissions may continue to be made through CORENET 2 for now. [NEW]" |
Paragraph 7 of the circular defines the mandate scope. The wording is load-bearing, so it is worth reading in full: "From 1 October 2026, submissions via CORENET X Gateway Processes will be mandatory for all new projects with GFA of 5,000m² and above. These refer to new buildings or works to existing buildings that have not been formally submitted as a Development Application to Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) or a Development Control application to any regulatory agency (such as Land Transport Authority, National Environment Agency, National Parks Board, or Public Utilities Board), and apply specifically to projects involving: 1. Erection of building(s) with a total GFA of 5,000m² or more; 2. Additions or extensions that create an additional GFA of 5,000m² or more; or 3. Major addition and alteration works with an affected or replaced GFA of 5,000m² or more."
- The mandate expressly covers works to existing buildings, not only new build.
- Category 3 is measured by affected or replaced GFA, a different and broader measure than new GFA.
- The qualifier is that the project has not already been formally submitted as a Development Application to URA or a Development Control application to another agency.
There is one transitional carve-out: "Projects with GFA of 5,000m² and above that have commenced submissions in CORENET 2 by 30 September 2026 may continue in CORENET 2 for now." Otherwise, from the September 2025 circular and still operative on this point, submissions that come under the criteria for mandatory CORENET X submissions "will not be accepted through CORENET 2.0". The full circular is on URA's circulars site.
What changed on 23 July 2026
- The 1 October 2026 threshold became GFA ≥ 5,000m², not "all projects". Small projects are outside the mandate.
- Projects under 5,000m² are voluntary, with no end date. The circular says they "will not be required to onboard the Gateway Processes". BCA and URA say they are "currently working to streamline the existing submission process and improve the submission user experience for this tier of projects".
- The 1 October 2027 deadline for ongoing projects has been withdrawn. It is replaced with "until further details are announced". There is now no published date by which ongoing projects must move.
The stated reason, from paragraph 5: "Over the past year of mandatory implementation, we have received feedback from project teams that time savings and productivity gains from CORENET X are most pronounced for projects that are larger in size and of greater complexity." No retirement date for CORENET 2.0 has been announced in any circular, a point covered in detail on CORENET X vs CORENET 2.0.
The BIM requirement is a separate test
This is the most commonly confused point in the topic. Submitting through CORENET X and submitting a BIM model are two different obligations with two different triggers.
- CORENET X submission is about which portal and process you use. From 1 October 2026 it is mandatory at GFA ≥ 5,000m², including for major A&A measured by affected or replaced GFA.
- An IFC+SG BIM model is a separate requirement. Annex A to the July 2026 circular: "BIM submissions in IFC+SG format are mandatory for new erections or major additions and alterations (A&A) projects with new GFA of 5,000m² or more."
From 1 October 2026 both tests use the same number, 5,000m², but they are not the same test. A major A&A that strips and replaces 6,000m² of existing GFA while creating little or no new GFA appears to fall inside the CORENET X submission mandate and outside the IFC+SG BIM requirement. No official source reconciles the two measures and BCA has published no worked example. If your project sits in that gap, put the question to the agencies through BCA's CORENET X enquiry channel rather than assuming an answer. The circulars also use "major addition and alteration works" and "affected or replaced GFA" without defining either. URA's 25% floor plate retention guideline exists, but it governs landed A&A lodgment eligibility and is not a definition of major A&A for this threshold. What the format itself involves is set out on the IFC+SG model page.
The three gateways, end to end
| Gateway | Purpose | Agencies |
|---|---|---|
| Design Gateway (G1) | "To resolve multi-agency key parameters which have impact on design parameters and client's brief, before proceeding to detailed design." | URA (Planning Permission), LTA, NEA, PUB (Design Clearances), NParks (Design Approval) |
| Piling Gateway (G1.5), optional | Clearance for "the design of permanent piling and substructure works (that do not affect internal layout)". | BCA-ST, LTA |
| Construction Gateway (G2) | "To resolve multi-agency requirements concerning design details that need to be coordinated before commencement of main structural works and launch of Sales." | URA (Written Permission), BCA (Building Plan and Structural Approvals), LTA (Street Plan Clearance, Parking and Rails Approvals), NEA and PUB (Building Plan Clearance Certificate), SCDF (Building Plan Approval) |
| Completion Gateway (G3) | Application for TOP/CSC, documenting "As-Built" plans and obtaining occupancy permits or statutory completion. | Technical clearances from relevant agencies, plus "Overall TOP/CSC from BCA" |
The full sequence is Pre-Submission Consultation, Design Gateway, Piling Gateway (optional), Construction Gateway, Independent Submissions in parallel, then Completion Gateway. Independent submissions exist "To clear agency specific requirements with no cross agency dependencies", and BCA gives ERSS, temporary traffic decking, cladding, façade and barrier as examples.
Two service commitments matter for programming. "Agencies will collaborate to respond to industry collectively within 20 working days", and "With collective review and collaboration across Agencies, submissions should not iterate with more than 2 Written Directions at each gateway." One common misreading to avoid: the Piling Gateway "clearance is for design approval and not for commencement of works", and QPs "are to assess the risk involved when opting for piling gateway before superstructure is approved".
Direct Submission Process and Lodgment
Not every project runs the three-gateway route. The Direct Submission Process (DSP) is "For less complex building works that need not be subjected to the typical 3-Gateway process", developed "as a single stage approval prior to TOP/CSC". The July 2026 circular gives "single unit residential landed properties and simple structures such as bus stops and linkways" as examples. Under DSP the QP answers a set of eligibility questions and the project is auto-channelled either to a lodgment, self-declaration or simplified submission scheme, or to a one-stage plan check. DSP requires 2D structural plans merged into "a single pdf or lightweight dwf file" and does not require a BIM model.
A separate Lodgment scheme covers "building works identified to be less complex and lower-risk", listed in the Ninth Schedule to the Building Control Regulations 2003. Unlike insignificant building works under the First Schedule, "QPs are required to lodge the plans with the CBC for records and audit purposes". The fee is "50% of the non-lodgment plan fees" per application, and lodged plans are audited: "Written Directions may be issued in respect of any non-compliances found", and the CBC "may refuse to accept any further lodgment".
What a coordinated submission contains
For a first Construction Gateway submission, BCA's briefing material specifies a "Coordinated IFC Model comprising: a) Full Architectural model; b) Full M&E model; and c) Structural model (contains full details of structures under Part ST 01; carcass only for structures in remaining Part STs)", accompanied by supplementary structural drawings, detailed calculations and the AC/ACO report. Part ST submissions are a concession for very large projects, for an ordinary project the structural model is submitted in full.
On changes, "All amendments must be made to the original submission." Whether an amendment returns to the Construction Gateway depends on whether it affects the coordinated IFC model and whether the changes are material. Because this material predates Code of Practice Edition 3.1 (December 2025), treat it as BCA briefing material and check the current Code of Practice for the operative requirement.
What changes for a Qualified Person
BCA's own summary: "The appointed Qualified Persons (QPs), who are Registered Architects or Professional Engineers, will coordinate the building design upfront and prepare the plans for the building works to be jointly submitted to regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies will jointly review the submission and issue a consolidated response. This changes the current practice of QPs dealing separately with multiple regulatory agencies and having to reconcile the differences thereafter." Appointment of project members is also fully digital, replacing the wet-ink process used outside CORENET 2.0.
BCA's briefing material on live CORENET X projects records where this breaks down, and the failures are organisational rather than technical. "No consensus over who is leading the overall coordinator. In some cases, Architect and Builder each felt that the other party should be the coordinator." "QP viewed that it is not their responsibility to ensure submissions by other QPs". "No discussion among QPs over design change and its potential impacts." And on front-loading: "While some developers have provided longer period of design, others continued to work based on old mindset and practice, leading to rushed and low quality submissions." BCA cites one project that allowed 1.5 months for the design of a super high-rise residential development, and another where an architect repositioned building blocks after Piling Gateway approval, forcing the structural engineer to redo calculations and the M&E engineer to redesign building services.
What happens if you do not use it
There is no penalty for "not using CORENET X" as such. The enforcement mechanism is indirect. A project inside the mandate that tries to use the old portal simply does not obtain approval, because mandatory submissions "will not be accepted through CORENET 2.0". Commencing building works without approved plans or a permit is then an offence under the Building Control Act 1989.
Section 20(1) of the Building Control Act 1989 provides that carrying out, or permitting the carrying out of, building works whose plans have not been approved or deemed approved, or for which no permit is in force, is an offence liable on conviction "to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both", plus daily fines for continuing contravention. Section 20(3) makes material deviation from approved plans an offence carrying "a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both". These are the ordinary penalties for building without approval, not a CORENET X penalty.
Figures quoted from the Act are Singapore dollars: S$200,000 and S$100,000 respectively.
Training and official resources
| Resource | Detail |
|---|---|
| Code of Practice | "documents the submission requirements across various agencies". Edition 3.1, December 2025. "The next edition of the COP will be released before October 2026." |
| Good Practices Guidebook | December 2025. "highlights critical checkpoints, and outlines common mistakes to avoid" |
| Submission Portal User Manual | January 2026. Project creation, member appointment, initiating submissions, agency responses |
| Assisted onboarding | Project teams "are required to register their projects at the link before creating them in CORENET X" |
| Training environment | "has a user interface that mirrors the actual Submission Portal... without an actual project" |
| Industry training and FAQ | Physical classes plus an online module; the FAQ is organised to follow the user journey |
| Productivity Solutions Grant | BCA grant for the purchase of BIM software, described as "one-time support for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)". Check the current co-funding rate on the grant page |
The Code of Practice "does not substitute Handbooks, Circulars or other regulatory publications of our regulatory agencies". Subscribe on the CORENET X mailing list to be notified when a new edition is released.
Where existing buildings fit
Because the mandate covers "works to existing buildings" and names major A&A explicitly, a refurbishment or extension project can find itself needing a model of a building that has never had one. Most Singapore building stock predates BIM, so the geometry has to come from the building as it stands.
Be precise about how much of it. BCA's CORENET X FAQ narrows the scope sharply: "Only existing development that affect the regulatory compliance of the new extension in the A&A project will need to be modelled (e.g. interfacing building elements and structure)." That is materially less than modelling a whole building, and it is the version to plan against. Within the model, element status is carried as data: the Code of Practice says it "is not necessary to indicate 'Magenta', 'Cyan' and 'Yellow' colours to reflect 'New', 'Existing', and 'Removed' elements in BIM models for A&A or Conservation projects. Instead, relevant IFC+SG parameters (e.g. Status parameter) should be populated for relevant elements accordingly."
Conservation is the one case where a document of the existing building is specified outright. The Code of Practice lists, among supplementary documents at both Design and Construction Gateways, "(For non-BIM submission) Measured survey drawing (for unrestored building)" and "(For BIM submissions) BIM model of existing building for unrestored building or BIM model of approved plan for restored building". Two qualifiers travel with that. Conservation projects "are in the exploratory phase of CORENET X submissions and do not need to be submitted in IFC+SG". And URA separately requires Measured Survey Drawings with a registered Surveyor's endorsement, which is a statutory role: a scanning contractor cannot supply that endorsement, and Volumet does not hold it.
On how the geometry is captured, BCA is silent. A full-text search of Code of Practice Edition 3.1 returns no mention of point clouds, laser scanning, Scan-to-BIM, reality capture or photogrammetry. BCA specifies the deliverable, never the method, and publishes no LOD grade and no accuracy tolerance: the rule is that components "do not need to replicate their real-life equivalent" provided IFC+SG data and minimum dimensions are present. For CORENET X, correctness is dimensional and data-level, not visual.
A measured survey is therefore one route to a compliant model of an existing building, not a required one. It happens to answer several of the failure modes BCA records, since a correctly georeferenced capture fixes a single coordinate system, true storey heights and geometry matching the building as built. If that is the position you are in, our Scan-to-BIM service covers capture through to a modelled deliverable, and you can send us the project details for a scope and quote.