1,358 Submissions Opposed the Bondi Beach Post Office. Only 35 Were Unique — and the Panel Refused It Anyway.
The largest submission count in our Waverley dataset, a unanimous refusal against the officer's own recommendation, and an approval 387 days later. The whole file is worth reading.
The application
DA-475/2017 was lodged with Waverley Council on 7 November 2017 by Taylor Developments Group Pty Ltd, through Urbis. It proposed partial demolition of the heritage-listed Australia Post building at 20–24 Hall Street, Bondi Beach, and a four-storey mixed-use development in its place: two basement parking levels, ground-floor retail, ten residential units above. Estimated cost of works, $5.83 million.
It reached the panel for two reasons — it was contentious, and it sought a height departure of 11 per cent, above the threshold that removes an application from staff determination.
1,358 submissions, and what they were made of
The application attracted 1,358 submissions. That is the largest figure anywhere in our Waverley panel dataset by a wide margin — the next highest is 266, and last week's funeral home on Bronte Road, which we wrote about as a heavily opposed application, drew 232.
The composition matters more than the total. Of those 1,358, 35 were unique submissions. The remaining 1,323 were pro-forma, generated largely through a campaign website. The council's own report records the split, and it was reported in the architectural press at the time.
That is not a criticism of the campaign, which did what campaigns are for. It is a caution about the number. A submission count measures how well a campaign was organised. It does not measure how many distinct planning arguments the panel has in front of it, and a consultant who reads 1,358 as 1,358 separate objections has misread the file. Seven themes are recorded against this application, from loss of the post office service and heritage impact through to overshadowing.
The officer recommended approval. The panel deferred, then refused.
On 25 July 2018 the panel — Paul Stein as chair, with Gabrielle Morrish, Sandra Robinson and Ian Stapleton — deferred the application unanimously, against an officer recommendation to approve.
The deferral reasons were almost entirely about heritage fabric, and they were unusually specific. The panel found the application "proposes an inadequate response to the cultural and aesthetic significance of the place," noting that only a portion of the two street façades was to be retained. It wanted the entire street façade kept, the entry entablature kept complete, the corner front door reconstructed, and most window openings and timber windows retained. It asked for an archaeological assessment, an interpretation plan, a new cornice or parapet transition between old and new façades, and an amended schedule of conservation works. It suggested deleting the basement car park to maximise retention of existing fabric.
The application returned on 28 November 2018, 126 days later. The panel — Stein and Morrish again, now with Allyson Small and Stapleton — refused it, unanimously, and the officer recommendation was still to approve.
The first refusal reason was not heritage. It was clause 4.6(3): the applicant had not provided a written request justifying the contravention of the height and floor space ratio development standards. The departures at issue were 14.44 metres against a 13 metre standard, and an FSR of 2.12:1 against 2:1. The second reason was heritage, under clause 5.10 of the Waverley LEP.
What happened next is not in the panel's record
The applicant appealed to the Land and Environment Court. Press reporting from August 2019 records that conciliation talks were listed for that month.
Council's record shows the application determined on 20 December 2019, with the final status recorded as approved through the Land and Environment Court pathway.
We should be precise about what that does and does not tell us. We hold Waverley's administrative record of the outcome, not the Court's judgment, its reasons, or the terms of any conciliated agreement. The application Waverley's panel refused in November 2018 is recorded by Waverley as approved thirteen months later, by a different route. Why, and on what amended terms, is not something this record can answer.
The arithmetic of the file
The application spent 386 days getting to a refusal, and another 387 getting past it. Total elapsed time from lodgement to final determination: 773 days.
Two findings sit in that. The largest community response in the dataset did not, in the end, determine the outcome — and the panel that refused this application did not refuse it on the grounds the community was campaigning about. It refused first on a missing variation request. And a refusal at panel is not necessarily where a file ends, though one application is not a rule.
For a consultant, the practical lesson is narrower and harder to argue with. The panel deferred this application with a detailed, specific list of what it wanted. When the application came back, the first thing it refused on was a document that was still not there.
About UNDA Development
UNDA Development provides precedent intelligence for property developers and property planning consultants — every DA, every panel decision, every compliance record at your fingertips. Our sister product, UNDA Management, provides market intelligence for strata managers. Learn more at unda.management
