A new supermarket could soon be on its way to Lakelands despite objections from nearby shopping centres.
The City of Mandurah voted 9-1 at its September 22 meeting to back changes to planning rules for the Lakelands town centre precinct to facilitate the development of a Woolworths and other smaller shops.
The WA Planning Commission will have the final say on the proposed changes to the Lakelands town centre precinct structure plan.
The original version of the structure plan in 2017 had the site at Lot 2102 Lake Valley Drive marked as “mixed use”. In 2022 it was changed to “mixed business”.
The landowners now want to change it to “core retail” so 6060sqm of shopping space, including a supermarket, and a 306-bay carpark can be developed there.
The site is across the road from the Lakelands Shopping Centre.
A retail needs assessment from the applicant said a Woolworths store at the site would have about $44 million worth of retail sales in 2027-28.
The proposed amendment received five submissions when it was advertised for comment, including objections from Lakelands Shopping Centre and Meadow Springs Shopping Centre.
IFM Investors, the owners of Lakelands Shopping Centre, said they supported the need for a second supermarket but argued a vacant site it owned nearby would be a better location.
Speaking on behalf of IFM Investors, Lewis Shugar from SLR Consulting told the council meeting the proposed site was the “wrong location” and needed an “extraordinary” number of additional requirements.
“The report essentially says the site can only work if we fundamentally redesign it,” he said.
“IFM’s landholding to the immediate north is available and could already accommodate a supermarket under the current planning framework without amending the structure plan.
“The development concept plan provided with the amendment doesn’t sufficiently integrate with the existing town centre, does not demonstrate a genuine walkable outcome, provides poor pedestrian connectivity, is dominated by vehicle access and car parking, and risks becoming a separate retail destination rather than contributing to the existing town centre.”
Chee Lai from Fabcot, the property development and real estate arm of the Woolworths Group, told the meeting there had been negotiations for about 18 months to use IFM’s site but they were unable to reach an outcome.
“From our side, that site just isn’t able to provide enough amenity from carparking, from pedestrian amenity as well as just from a safety concern is probably where we had our biggest concern,” he said.
Kris Nolan from Urbis said they aimed to integrate the supermarket with the existing centre.
“It’s not turning its back to the existing centre. It’s making sure that we get really good presentation and good buildings that activate Lake Valley Drive. It’s not the main street but that needs to present really, really well,” he said.
He said potential uses for the other retail space included food and beverage, a gym or medical.
Meadow Springs Shopping Centre submitted its own retail review and said there would be “significant and unacceptable” impacts.
City officers said the issues raised were worthy of more discussion but were not enough to refuse the amendment.
“(They do) not demonstrate that the proposal would result conclusively in the loss of a supermarket service, the failure of Meadow Springs Shopping Centre, or an unreasonable and lasting impact on the activity centre hierarchy,” a report to the council said.
Although they supported the amendment, officers had doubts over some of the details, such as the “dominance” of carparking, and access for vehicles and pedestrians.
Their modifications included primary vehicular access being provided from the Lake Valley Drive-Seppings Parade roundabout and pedestrian paths being at least 3m wide.
They also wanted trees, paths and landscaped islands to break up uninterrupted carparking areas, and a wall to reduce noise. A concept plan for the site has a loading dock and service areas backing directly onto homes along Cobaki Brace.
An attempt to remove requirements for photovoltaic panels and electric vehicle charging infrastructure was defeated 4-6.
Cr Ryan Burns believed the requirements were not needed because they were not mandated by legislation or State planning policy.
“Where a requirement is discretionary and there’s no clearly demonstrated necessity, I don’t believe council should necessarily prescribe how private development must be designed,” he said.
“If EV charging and solar infrastructure provides a commercial advantage or responds to customer demand, I have confidence that developers and businesses are capable of responding to that demand without council requiring it.
“While it might be normal for these sort of impositions to be placed, it’s not doesn’t make it right.”
Cr Dave Schumacher said construction costs were holding back major developments in the city and did not want to add any.
“If they so wish to install EV power charging points, leave that up to them,” he said.
A planning officer told the council photovoltaic panels and electric vehicle charging infrastructure were becoming “increasingly embedded” in developments but were not yet mandated.
Mayor Amber Kearns declared she owned land near the site and did not take part in the debate or vote.