Woodside Petroleum goes to war with Perth landlord
Oil and gas heavyweight Woodside Petroleum is seeking an injunction against its landlord to prevent it from developing two new towers in front of its gleaming Perth headquarters.
Woodside says its new office — which made headlines late last year after its curved glass structure created a heat beam that melted cars on the street below — would have its views obstructed and would itself suffer from increased reflective glare if the two new towers went ahead in their proposed form.
Woodside has launched the legal bid in Western Australia’s Supreme Court, arguing that AAIG — led by Malaysian Choon Aun Goh — has deviated significantly from the original plans agreed at the time when Woodside signed its 15-year lease over the tower.
Commercial Insights: Subscribe to receive the latest news and updates
The legal saga also reflects the changed circumstances in WA’s property market.
AAIG’s original plans for a combined hotel, serviced apartment and apartment building next door have been scuttled amid a glut of new accommodation options in Perth and a prolonged downturn in the residential property sector, and the company now wants to build a larger office tower on the site instead.
According to a writ lodged by Woodside in the Supreme Court, AAIG was required to develop apartment and hotel developments on another part of site “substantially as shown on plans”.
Woodside moved into its new office, dubbed Mia Yellagonga, late last year. The 34-storey tower was the first to be built on the old Emu Brewery site, which for decades had been a vacant eyesore at the western end of the Perth CBD.
Mia Yellagonga was supposed to be the first of three towers at the site, with AAIG originally planning a 34-storey combined hotel, apartment and serviced apartment development and a 40-storey residential apartment complex.
But the second 34-storey tower is now seven metres closer to Woodside’s tower than originally proposed and is expected to be “significantly larger” than first planned. That second tower is now also planned as an office building, rather than a combined hotel and apartments.
Woodside said in its writ that the revised plans would “detrimentally affect the amenity” and plaintiff’s use of Mia Tellagonga. The closer proximity of the proposed second tower would “adversely affect the privacy” of the Woodside building and “increase the effects of glass reflection and glare” from the second tower.
This article originally appeared on www.theaustralian.com.au/property.
