A BAYSWATER councillor says Coles has failed to follow through on what it told the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and about a long-vacant site in Maylands. 

Councillor Elli Petersen-Pik says more than a year after the supermarket giant was questioned whether it was land-banking the site during the national inquiry into supermarket monopolies, there had be no discernible action.

“A year ago, I brought it to the community’s attention that as part of the ACCC’s inquiry into the big supermarkets’ practices, Coles stated that they are not ‘land banking’, despite concerns otherwise,” Cr Petersen-Pik said.

“As we all know, there are no good ‘justifications’ with regards to the continuing vacancy of Coles’ site on Guildford Road, which they purchased more than 18 years ago.”

The site was raised during ACCC public hearings, where Coles executives were questioned about the company’s long-term ownership of the land without development.

“We own a site in Maylands, yes,” Coles Group general manager of property Fiona Mackenzie told the inquiry.

“The site is vacant, yes.”

Ms Mackenzie said the site had originally been bought in 2008 for a large-format liquor outlet, but that plan was abandoned after legal challenges.

“We received significant objection to liquor going into that area and we went to the Supreme Court to try to obtain a liquor licence, which we were unsuccessful,” she said.

Ms Mackenzie said Coles later explored other options, including selling the land.

“We then proposed and assessed a number of other opportunities for the site, at which time we sought divestment to another large retailer under an option scenario,” she said.

“That option scenario was declined at the time.”

She told the inquiry the company was still assessing its options.

“We have then set about assessing what we will consider for the site and the optionality of the site for us in relation to potentially either a major supermarket for Coles, or there is the potential for what we would call a dark store to service some of our home delivery capacity in that area.”

Asked whether Coles was holding the land to block competitors, Ms Mackenzie replied: “No.”

“There is an IGA that has opened in the last few years immediately opposite and an ALDI very close to as well.”

Cr Petersen-Pik said he waited a year to see if Coles followed through on what it told the ACCC.

“However, I recently checked with the City (again) and was advised that Coles have not had ANY interactions with the City regarding redevelopment of the site.”

“Moreover, a warehouse is a prohibited land use on that site under our current Town Planning Scheme (as they would know).”

“It is also my view that this strategic location in the town centre would not be appropriate for such a purpose.”

Cr Petersen-Pik said the ACCC ultimately did not act on the Maylands example, despite including it in its final report.

“The ACCC, in their Final Report, reviewed the Maylands case, but, unfortunately, noted that this example shows that it is ‘often complicated to assess the competitive impact of undeveloped and unused sites’.”

He said responsibility now sat with the federal government.

“It is my view that land banking in such unreasonable circumstances (on a strategic site) should be restricted.”

Cr Petersen-Pik said community pressure on Coles would continue.

“Whilst the ACCC decided not to intervene, we succeeded in providing the ACCC with a specific example of anti-competitive land banking to look into, and we have continued putting public pressure on Coles to sell or develop the vacant site in our City.”

by STEVE GRANT