Melbourne-based developer Ross Pelligra’s company, Pelligra Group, was last year refused planning consent to build a 67-metre-tall luxury apartment tower at 292-300 Rundle Street.

The State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) ruled the development – slated for a prime East End corner site opposite the Stag Hotel – displayed “excessive mass and scale”.

Pelligra Group’s development proposal at night. Image: Tectvs Architecture/Future Urban

Pelligra Group is appealing the SCAP’s April 2023 ruling in the Environment Resources and Development (ERD) Court.

But that appeal has been delayed because fellow developers Hines Property also have plans for a high-rise apartment tower on land directly west of the Pelligra development at 274A-292 Rundle Street.

Hines Property is concerned that Pelligra’s proposal would “unreasonably severely limit” future development on their land and would see two towers built with bedrooms facing each other just metres apart.

Land at 274A-292 Rundle Street (highlighted) that is slated for high-rise development directly west of Pelligra Group’s 292-300 Rundle Street site. Photo: Hines Property

Hines Property last year applied to be a party to Pelligra’s court challenge so it could raise its concerns directly with the court, fearing these issues might not be addressed if it was not involved in the case.

The ERD Court rejected Hines Property’s application in October 2023, ruling that while the adjacent developer had a “special interest” in the case it was not “in the interests of justice” for them to be a party.

That prompted Hines Property to appeal the ERD Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

But on Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed Hines Property’s appeal again, which, barring another appeal, clears the way for Pelligra to proceed with its bid to win approval for its 21-storey tower.

Hines Property managing director James Hines said his company was “reviewing the judgement and will consider our options for appeal over the next few weeks”.

“Our primary concerns with this proposal are focussed on the interface between this proposed development and our common boundary,” he said in a statement.

“We have flagged that the proposed apartments in our neighbour’s development have many west-facing bedrooms, which are at most 1-2 metres off our boundary.”

A render of Pelligra Group’s rejected tower from Rundle Street. Hines Property’s plans have not been publicly revealed. Image: Tectvs Architecture/Future Urban

Hines Property purchased its 1800 square-metre site at 274A-292 Rundle Street for a reported $5.5 million in 2015 and has long touted its development potential.

The site is currently leased to Palace Nova Cinemas, but Hines said they are currently doing planning and conceptual work for a “multi-story apartment complex” on the site.

The company’s existing development portfolio includes the Pullman Hotel and Conservatory Apartments on Hindmarsh Square and the Ibis Hotel on Grenfell Street.

InDaily contacted Pelligra Group for comment. The company’s legal representatives declined to comment.

Hines said that a previously approved development on the adjacent Pelligra site had ensured that “no bedroom or living room solely faced west” which ensured that “apartment owners were not impacted by a new building of similar scale on our site”.

“Our intentions with this appeal were to be joined to the ERD court challenge in our own right so that we could press the aspects of this development that were of issue to us and to make sure these were considered as part of this process,” he said.

A view of Pelligra Group’s proposed development on the corner of East Terrace and Rundle Street. Hines Property’s land is adjacent on the left. Image: Tectvs Architecture/Future Urban

In its October 2023 ruling, the ERD Court said that the boundary interface issues raised by Hines Property “can and will be addressed by the parties that are already before the Court”, namely Pelligra Group and the State Planning Commission.

“292 Rundle (a Hines Property subsidiary) cannot provide the Court with any greater insight or assistance, nor can it contribute to the proper resolution of the Boundary Interface Issues than the existing parties to this appeal,” the October 2023 judgement said.

Supreme Court judge Judy Hughes upheld that ruling on Monday and determined the ERD Court’s decision “fell squarely within the scope of decisions that may be made by a specialist tribunal managing its own business”.