Some Pine Grove owners raise legality concerns as estate attempts 5th collective sale at $1.78b

SINGAPORE – As mega condo Pine Grove enters the final leg of its fifth collective sale attempt at a lower reserve price of $1.78 billion, a group of opposing owners has questioned the legality of the process and the appointment of marketing agent ERA and BR Law.

Owner Peter Tang told The Straits Times that some owners have told Pine Grove residents not to sign the collective sale agreement, claiming that the current attempt is illegal because the collective sale committee (CSC) did not invite marketing agents and law firms to participate in a tender exercise before appointing ERA and BR Law.

To address these concerns, a town hall will be held on June 18 at Pine Grove clubhouse from 7pm to 9pm.

“The town hall is to clarify the appointment of ERA and BR Law and to address the concerns of those opposing the (sale) en bloc, as well as those sitting on the fence,” he said.

This comes as the CSC is, for the first time, refusing to raise the reserve price in the final stretch to secure the 80 per cent mandate because it may have priced itself out when it did so in previous attempts.

The ageing 660-unit condo, whose first collective sale attempt was in 2008, found no takers at $1.95 billion in its fourth attempt between 2022 and 2024, or at $1.86 billion in its third attempt from 2018 to 2019.

With just three months left before the $1.78 billion collective sale agreement expires on Sept 21, nearly 60 per cent of units have signed so far.

The current reserve price puts the land rate at $1,355 per square ft per plot ratio, bringing the effective acquisition cost of the 893,218 sq ft site to $2.75 billion.

Located off Ulu Pandan Road, the site, which currently houses 542 three-bedroom units, 70 two-bedders and 48 maisonettes, could yield up to 2,050 new units, subject to approval from the authorities.

But even as the clock ticks down with the former Housing and Urban Development Company estate now left with 57 years on its 99-year lease, some owners are still holding out for a higher asking price and questioning the legality of the current attempt.

An owner who wanted to be known as R. Tan said: “Why didn’t they open the process to other marketing agents? There are so many other good agents. When we put up a proposal to be sold, we should have a proper marketing agent.”

But Cheryn Chan, chairperson of the Pine Grove Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST), pointed out that the appointment of ERA and BR Law was passed during the first extraordinary general meeting (EOGM) in June 2025.

“Over 70 per cent of those who attended voted in favour of their appointments, while less than 30 per cent voted against,” said Chan, who has lived at Pine Grove for more than 30 years.

In response to ST’s queries, Norman Ho, senior partner at Rajah & Tann Singapore, said there is no statutory requirement that the appointment of a marketing agent or law firm has to be made via a tender.

“But the CSC is under a duty of care. It is not unusual that they get a few proposals, make a considered decision, and they should be able to substantiate their recommendation when challenged,” he added.

Christopher Yong, managing director of Terra Law, said that the Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 is “silent on how the selection process should take place, other than such appointments should be made at a general meeting of the MCST, unless the CSC has previously been authorised at a general meeting to make the appointments”.

Mr Ho added: “Even if there is such authorisation, it is not unusual that CSC would present the selection of their recommendation at the general meeting and provide as an agenda in the meeting to get the owners to vote for the official appointments.”

Mr Yong said: “In my view, the mere fact that ERA and BR Law were selected and put up for appointment at the EOGM for the current attempt does not per se invalidate or contravene the regulations. It falls on the CSC to explain why ERA and BR Law should continue to be appointed as consultants to assist in the collective sale.”

An owner who wanted to remain anonymous said she was not against the current collective sale attempt but added that she was not happy about the process.

“The marketing agent and legal counsel were pre-determined. The process isn’t illegal, but it’s not good governance,” she said.

She noted that the $1.78 billion reserve price is a fair price for developers, but she is concerned about the high replacement costs of new homes. “If I get just $2.4 million in sales proceeds for my 1,678 sq ft unit, I can only get an 800 to 1,000 sq ft replacement condo,” she said.

But if the current attempt is not successful, Pine Grove owners will have to deal with a number of big-ticket maintenance and repair costs for the 42-year-old estate.

Management and sinking fund contributions will jump to $479.60 a month for each unit from Aug 1, from the current $318 a month, in part to fund the replacement of Pine Grove’s 14 lifts.

“Our lifts are 42 years old and vital lift components such as…