Woolies says no to public art costs

WOOLWORTHS doesn’t want to pay for public art at its proposed development on the old Bunnings site on Beaufort Street.

The supermarket giant cites a State Administrative Tribunal ruling that could have far-reaching implications for the “per cent for art” schemes across WA.

Woolies’ application states they shouldn’t have to comply with Stirling’s draft local planning policy that “requires development with an estimated construction cost of between $2 million and $50 million to set aside a minimum of one per cent of the estimated construction cost for the provision of public art”.

Similar policies are common across Perth and have paid for artworks like the Big Blue Head (Beseech) outside the Vincent council building.

But Woolies notes that in 2018 the State Administrative Tribunal ruled that BGC didn’t have to install public art at their $5 million asphalt plant in Hazelmere.

The City of Swan policy required them to put in $50,500 for public art, but BGC appealed and won.

The SAT deemed that the public art wouldn’t have much benefit for the small number of workers at the plant.


Woolies’ Inglewood development application states that it’s “inappropriate for the city to impose a condition requiring the provision of public art”.

The supermarket giant say the building will be aesthetically pleasing and “the proposal does not cause any adverse visual amenity impact,” and that “there is no connection between the proposed development and the need to provide public art.”

“As there is no visual impact to ameliorate, there is no requirement for public art to be provided”.


Have your say

COMMUNITY consultation is open on Woolworths’ proposed mega-development at the old Bunnings site in Inglewood.

The supermarket giant is proposing a 13.25m high “art deco” style building with basement and ground floor car parks, a supermarket and liquor store on the first floor, offices on the mezzanine, and a cafe on the strip. Comment is open until February 7 at http://www.yoursay.stirling.wa.gov.au (click on the “development applications” section).

The Development Assessment Panel, made up of three state government-appointed experts and two Stirling councillors, will have the final say on Woolies’ application.

3 responses to “Woolies says no to public art costs

  1. This is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.


    The building will completely dominate the streetscape. It is unnecessary to have such a large and overbearing building. It should be restricted to the same height as the surrounding buildings in the streetscscape.


    Why dies Mount a Lawley need yet another supermarket? There are 2 IGA’s and a Coles in Beaufort Street – and rumors of an Aldi.

    Woolworths already have a presence in The Mezz in Mt Hawthorn with perfectly adequate access and parking and Dog Swamp has a plethora of supermarkets also.

    We don’t need the extra traffic in Beaufort Street and we don’t have any current shortage of available supermarkets.

    Thirdly ….

    The reluctance by Woolworth to contribute to Art innthe Cummunity should serve as a prescient warning that they are not interested in our community – all they want is to gouge more profits by crushing the small retailers in our community.

    If this proposal is granted permission, it will be yet another nail in the coffin of those local retailers who have served our community so well and for so long.

    My vote is DEFINITIVELY “No” to the whole project. But if pressed I would demand a much reduced footprint and an absolute requirent that they make proper contribution to Art in the Community.

    If that doesn’t work for them … well no loss to the residents. Let them go where their proposed eyesore will be less obtrusive.

    • I agree wholywith all of this comment and being an Artist myself makes it even more of a. Insult … frankly it will be enough for me to never set foot in Woolworths again …
      The fact that there already is a plethora of grocery shopping and a proposed future Aldi just goes to prove that all Woolworths “the fresh food people “ (where people have found not so fresh contents in there “fresh” packaged numerous times ) are truly just there to make money and in no way there to be part of that community

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s