Order dismissed over body corp neighbours ‘dance school’ dispute

A man’s claims that his neighbour is operating ‘a dance school’ from his apartment at a high-profile inner-city complex will be investigated further.

Fortitude Valley’s Cathedral Place, where one nman alleges his neighbour has been creating noise disturbances. Source: realestate.com.au

A Brisbane man who accused a neighbour of “loud conversations, regular social gatherings and operating a dance school” from an inner-city apartment complex has had his application dismissed.

But an Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management referee, who dismissed the interim order application against the neighbour, said the man’s claims would be investigated further.

MORE NEWS: Flipping fortunes: Queensland’s new rising markets revealed

Mortgage red zones: The Qld suburbs under extreme financial stress

Qld home buyers: How you lost $100,000+ in five months

Fortitude Valley’s Cathedral Place, where one nman alleges his neighbour has been creating noise disturbances. Source: realestate.com.au

In the application, Franklin Manoharan alleged that his family had been subjected to “constant intimidation” by the owners of the neighbouring lot for the last “three to four years”.

It was alleged that the family had been “putting up with the occupiers … for three years having loud conversations from morning till they go to sleep, having regular social gatherings and operating a dance school”, according to the published reasons for decision.

Mr Manoharan claimed he had spoken to the respondent, Srijon Nandi, on multiple occasions, had complained to the building caretaker and to the body corporate.

He further claimed that the alleged noise was “mentally traumatising and exhausting and is affecting our personal and professional lives”.

“We are unable to concentrate and take care of our young daughter. It is affecting her study routine and wellbeing,” his submission said.

“While the respondent apologises, he continues to cause noise nuisance.”

The complex is a mix of owner-occupiers, renters and holiday-makers. Source: realestate.com.au

Documents said that committee meeting minutes from August 3 this year had resolved to give a breach notice to Mr Nandi “regarding noise from a dance school being operated at least twice a week”.

The decision noted that the body corporate wrote to the respondent requesting that he ensure “the activity” did not disturb other residents, but that the notice was not enforced.

Mr Nandi submitted that his activities did not unreasonably interfere with his neighbours peaceful enjoyment of their lot, adding that he had lived at Cathedral Place in Fortitude Valley as a tenant since 2014 and as an owner since 2019, with no complaints until recently and from no other occupiers.

He told the hearing that his wife had arranged dance rehearsals for kids from August to October for community events, and that they do not run a dance school.

In its submission, the body corporate committee said they received the first complaint from Mr Manoharan on April 19, and held an informal meeting with the applicant and the respondent on May 14.

The committee claimed that Mr Nandi had maintained he had done nothing wrong and was being harassed, adding that no other noise complaints had been received.

The neighbour claims there is no dance school and they have done nothing wrong. Pictured is Paul Mercurio and Tara Morice in scene from the hit film Strictly Ballroom. Supplied.

Further, the committee submitted that the caretaker had investigated the applicant’s concerns and had not been able to hear excessive noise and that Mr Nandi had not been given a breach notice.

In his decision, the adjudicator said he was not satisfied that an interim order should be made based on the alleged “urgent circumstances of the case”.

“The applicant admits he has held concerns for at least three years, refers to a purported incident some five months before making the application, and a body corporate act about one month before making the application,” the decision said.

“In the context of the timing of these matters, the submissions … do not establish urgency.”

And while the adjudicator found that additional documentation, namely videos dated from March 16 to September 30, plus a council letter dated October 5, did “not add weight” to the supposed urgency of the matter, he said that the material would be added to the application and sent to the respondent and body corporate as part of the investigation.

“The application will now be investigated further with submissions regarding the matters raised invited from the respondent, the body corporate committee and the owners of lots included in the parcel,” the decision said.