59B Oxford Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022

Modification to delete condition 42 which requires post-occupation acoustic certification - PAN-144636

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Waverley Council, reference DA-79/2019/C)

6 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Catharine Munro commented

    It would be very concerning if this development did not have to receive an acoustic certificate. The building makes a major acoustic impact on the district via the groundfloor pub and the air conditioning for the dense highrise above it. This application must be rejected.

  2. Gayle Walker commented

    I strongly disagree with the pub’s assessment that they need not measure nor comply with court imposed acoustic requirements. These requirements are borne out of historically poorly behaved pubs all across the state.

    The business has not been operating for several months. Under these circumstances, there wouldn’t be any pub noise heard in the units above the pub or in the surrounding residential neighbourhood. It’s obvious why there have been no complaints. And the previous eight months they were also operating at diminished capacity due to restrictions on the number of patrons allowed on all premises. This past year cannot be considered normal under any circumstances, and therefore, any assessment during this time frame would be a distortion of a broader truth. The truth is that businesses that serve liquor until the wee hours of the morning come with consequences for residential neighbourhoods; intoxicated patrons are not always controllable, especially if RSA cannot be achieved. And well behaved patrons of today may not be the patrons of tomorrow.

    Bondi Junction has been voraciously developed via large unit blocks built with glass concrete and steel. Vibrations, especially sub-base music and screaming patrons exiting the premise, can easily penetrate buildings as they bounce off these hard surfaces. And noise rises up and out.

    At some point in time, normal operating hours will prevail, and if these acoustic conditions are permanently deleted, then the onus will be on the residents to prove that they are living under miserable conditions and the cost to the home owner for an acoustic assessment would be unacceptable. I also doubt their claim that it would be impossible to gain access to units above the pub for testing. Acoustic measurements have been undertaken in other BJ apartment blocks next to other pubs. It can be done.

    Perhaps there needs to be another extension placed on this condition, and when covid restrictions have eased completely, the condition be imposed. To completely delete / remove an acoustic condition citing good behaviour during a partial and full lockdown, would be a remarkably poor decision by Waverley Council, and it sets a precedent for other pubs and clubs.

  3. Craig D commented

    I agree completely with Gayle Walker comment.
    How can any licenced premises say they have been responsible with noise pollution of the surrounding area when they have only been partially patronised over the last 18 months.
    The acoustic testing should be carried out when ALL lockdown restrictions have been lifted.

  4. Rosemary Perry commented

    Totally agree with Ms Walker’s comments. The acoustic testing should be conducted under ‘normal’ circumstances, not during lockdown. Of course there won’t be any complaints under lockdown! It’s not operating!

  5. ARI commented

    I also would like to voice my concern about this application and I am strongly against it.
    We are living in a unit on the 10th floor in the adjacent building and we have been forced to lock our windows and balconies in the evenings on several occasions when this bub’s first days opening to avoid the noise of their patrons and also the strong smell of the chocking fumes coming out from their kitchen. The smell of fumes was especially strong when there is no wind to blow it away.
    I suspect they are not complying with the minimum requirements to protect their neighbours from both the nose and the kitchen fumes.

  6. ARI commented

    I also would like to voice my concern about this application and I am strongly against it.
    We are living in a unit on the 10th floor in the adjacent building and we have been forced to lock our windows and balconies in the evenings on several occasions when this bub’s first days opening to avoid the noise of their patrons and also the strong smell of the chocking fumes coming out from their kitchen. The smell of fumes was especially strong when there is no wind to blow it away.
    I suspect they are not complying with the minimum requirements to protect their neighbours from both the nose and the kitchen fumes.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts