Qld lot owners are concerned about the appearance of the lot and what would constitute a breach.
Table of Contents:
- QUESTION: Does our by-law give the committee the authority to dictate the style of individual lots, even when the update doesn’t affect other residents?
- QUESTION: Is it a requirement that Large Waste Bins in a Residential Strata Complex need to be located within an Enclosure and not to be left in an open space.
- QUESTION: Clotheslines in our lot are visible from the outside of the building. Does this mean that everybody who hangs washing on the clotheslines is in breach of the by-laws by changing the appearance of the lot?
- QUESTION: A recent newsletter pointedly reminds residents not to use balconies as storerooms, but does not refer to any bylaw or specific breach. Is this enforceable?
- QUESTION: One of the lot owners has breached our common property bylaws on a number of occasions. The committee cannot agree on issuing contravention notices as the lot owner in question is also a committee member.
- QUESTION: We have a body corporate chairperson who treats the common property garden area as if it was his exclusive use area and it is full of his unsightly items. What about the appearance of the lot? What do we do now?
- QUESTION: We put a cat enclosure on our balcony and received a breach notice under the Appearance of Lot bylaw. Isn’t a cat enclosure just like outdoor furniture? Why is no-one else in breach?
Question: Does our by-law give the committee the authority to dictate the style of individual lots, even when the update doesn’t affect other residents?
I have a unit regulated under the Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020. There are 48 duplex or triplex lots. The units are basic bungalows with box gables, wooden picket fences and no outstanding architectural features or style.
Our ‘Appearance of Lots’ by-law includes:
- The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval, make a change to the external appearance of the lot, including the building paintwork (see by law 12),
- The occupier must not, without the body corporate’s written approval:-
- display a sign, advertisement, placard, washing, bedding or any other cloth article if the article is visible from another lot or the common property or from outside the scheme land.
- erect any external blinds.
- make any structural alterations to a lot.
- install air conditioning units, spa/swimming pool pump and filter motors or any other potential noise creating equipment.
- The body corporate must not unreasonably refuse a request made pursuant to this by law.
By-law 12, referred to above, was assessed as unlawful in a preliminary by-law review.
I have requested permission to replace a broken down timber picket gate inside the boundary of my lot with a black metal gate. The committee argument that it does not fit the ‘heritage character, style and colour of the complex’. A request to have a grey shade professionally installed on the patio gable was met with the same response.
How can these requests impact the amenity of other owners? The committee knows that my next-door neighbour has given me written consent. No other unit occupier will see the changes.
Does the by-law authorise our committee to be the ‘style police’? I believe their approach is overreaching their authority.
Answer: The body corporate does have a legitimate role in ensuring uniformity of appearance
While I can appreciate what you are saying about wanting to make improvements to your lot, the body corporate has a legitimate role in ensuring uniformity of appearance. It could be argued that property values might be negatively impacted in a scheme without a uniform appearance. It is not a question of ‘style police’ or ‘dictating’ things’ – these are emotive terms that I suggest you avoid using.
That said, a body corporate is required to ‘act reasonably’ in its decision-making and should apply a reasonable lens to your request. You have mentioned several factors that could be taken into consideration by the committee when considering your request. If the committee has already declined your improvement request concerning the by-law you cite, you can potentially ask for a reconsideration. If that still fails, you could challenge the decision in the Commissioner’s Office.
You would need to demonstrate why the committee decision was unreasonable. Focus on ensuring your specific situation has as much objective information as possible to satisfy the by-law requirements. The committee’s use of the term ‘heritage’ is interesting. Does that mean your scheme has some kind of heritage ‘feel’? If so, you might want to focus on how to satisfy the committee’s concerns on this point.
This is general information only and not legal advice.
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: chris@stratasolve.com.au
P: 0419 805 898
This post appears in Strata News #718.
Question: Is it a requirement that Large Waste Bins in a Residential Strata Complex need to be located within an Enclosure and not to be left in an open space.
Answer: There is no requirement for this under body corporate legislation. You may want to consider how any appearance of the lot by laws could apply here.
There is no requirement for this under body corporate legislation. It’s possible that you could have a by-law around how bins are kept but that would be site specific and you would need to review your by-laws to confirm. Depending on the situation, you may also want to consider how any appearance of the lot by laws could apply here.
Requirements around bins are more likely to be put in place by the people doing the collection or maintenance of the area. That may be council, a private collection company or any caretakers you have on site. They may have reasonable conditions under which waste collection at your site is arranged and that could include that they need the bins to be enclosed so that they can be maintained in a clean and safe manner.
Reading behind the question this sounds like there may be a communication issue here. Instead of considering the matter from a legal perspective, it may be good to speak to the relevant people and see if there is a reason why the bins at your site are in an enclosed area.
William Marquand
Tower Body Corporate
E: willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
P: 07 5609 4924
This post appears in Strata News #482.
Question: Clotheslines in our lot are visible from the outside of the building. Does this mean that everybody who hangs washing on the clotheslines is in breach of the by-laws by changing the appearance of the lot?
Each lot in our low set villas has a small deck as part of the lot. Each deck includes a clothesline that was installed when the complex was built nearly 20 years ago.
Our by-laws mentioned appearance of the lot. Does this mean that everybody who uses the clotheslines is in breach of the by-laws because washing is visible from the other lots or from the common property?
Answer: The standard appearance of lot bylaw gives quite a bit of flexibility.
The standard Schedule 4 By-Law on the appearance of the lot states:
Appearance of lot
- The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval, make a change to the external appearance of the lot unless the change is minor and does not detract from the amenity of the lot and its surrounds.
- The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval—
- hang washing, bedding, or another cloth article if the article is visible from another lot or the common property, or from outside the scheme land; or
- display a sign, advertisement, placard, banner, pamphlet or similar article if the article is visible from another lot or the common property, or from outside the scheme land.
- Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to a real estate advertising sign for the sale or letting of the lot if the sign is of a reasonable size.
- This section does not apply to a lot created under a standard format plan of subdivision.
Note—Under the Building Act 1975, sections 246R and 246S, a body corporate can not withhold consent for particular activities stated in the sections that might change the external appearance of a lot.
This gives quite a bit of flexibility for how this law can be applied as it allows for discretion from scheme to scheme to permit practices such as the visible hanging of washing if the body corporate approves and provides notice in writing.
Your scheme may have that by-law or have a different wording so please check carefully. If you have the standard by-law then the next step would be to determine if you are happy with the washing to be hung outside or if it should be placed out of view. This could be done at either a committee meeting or general meeting. If you are happy for it to be outside a minute noting this could be taken as written permission. If you want it moved inside and that is a breach of the by-law then breach notices should be given to the relevant owners as a first step towards correcting their behaviour. Otherwise, if your by-laws don’t suit the needs of the plan you should look to change them to a version that does.
William Marquand
Tower Body Corporate
E: willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
P: 07 5609 4924
This post appears in Strata News #473.
Question: A recent newsletter pointedly reminds residents not to use balconies as storerooms, but does not refer to any bylaw or specific breach. Is this enforceable?
We are tenants in a complex on the Gold Coast and have read the following in our internal newsletter:
“Balconies are not BCF stores or storerooms. All camping, sporting, fishing equipment, bikes, boards, dead plants and boxes must be removed immediately.” This has been distributed to every letterbox and does not refer to a bylaw or specific breach. I’m curious if this is actually enforceable.
We have a LARGE ground floor balcony which almost doubles our internal living space. We’re an active family and have bikes, bodyboards and scooters on the balcony, all NEATLY stored in a corner out of view of 99% of the complex and any passersby – all up taking up about 5% of the total balcony space.
Some people on upper floors with much smaller balconies do have an untidy clutter of furniture, surfboards and the like and “appearance of lot” would come into play. Ours on the other hand is tidy and virtually no one can see any of it.
Answer: It really does come down to the by-laws applicable to the building.
It really does come down to the by-laws applicable to the building. If there’s a by-law regulating appearance and storage, then you may have an issue. Even if there wasn’t a by-law, there may be an issue under the nuisance provisions of body corporate legislation. ‘Nuisance’ can include something visual.
That said, looking at the actual notice you’ve received, it’s problematic, to say the least. Is that all it says? Is it signed by anyone? Is it from one person or the committee? I note you’ve said it doesn’t refer to any by-law. This looks very much like a non-compliant notice. Even a compliant notice about a by-law breach doesn’t usually contain reference to ‘immediate’ removal of items, as in a by-law breach process, you’d have a period of time in which to respond to the allegations being made.
You might like to take this up with your committee and request ‘clarification’ on where this notice comes from. You can ignore it if you like, although it does sound as though there might be a problem at your building and involving other people, which might benefit from some early and informal resolution.
Chris Irons
Hynes Legal
E: chris.irons@hyneslegal.com.au
P: 07 3193 0500
This post appears in Strata News #455.
Question: One of the lot owners has breached our common property bylaws on a number of occasions. The committee cannot agree on issuing contravention notices as the lot owner in question is also a committee member.
I am on the committee for our 12 individual lot community title scheme. One of the lot owners has breached our common property bylaws on a number of occasions. The committee cannot agree on issuing contravention notices as the lot owner in question is also a committee member and holds sway over a couple of other members.
There have been a few attempts to have a ‘conversation’ with the lot owner but not once have they taken responsibility for their actions and they just come back and say that they are putting the areas in question back to how they were before. This is a problem in itself as their version of how it was is a lot different to how other committee members view it and it is not just replacing as their actions have generated other problems which they seem oblivious to.
The other committee members are concerned that if problems arise in the future from a sub standard of ‘fixing’ and the other problems are not addressed then the whole body corporate will be asked to wear the cost.
Answer: When there’s an alleged breach of by-laws and the person allegedly breaching is a committee member then yes, that’s tricky.
When there’s an alleged breach of by-laws and the person allegedly breaching is a committee member then yes, that’s tricky.
That said, it’s not impossible and ultimately it’s all about following the standard process which applies to any owner or occupier. The committee must firstly make a decision. You say the committee ‘cannot agree’. Has the matter actually been put to a vote or has it been a discussion only? If it’s the latter then that will not suffice, it must be put to a vote of the committee. Like any by-law breach allegation, the decision the committee must make is whether they will issue the contravention notice and in order for them to do that they must also be satisfied, there’s enough evidence to warrant it.
They’re the only decision to make. If the committee doesn’t think there’s enough evidence – your email suggests otherwise – they don’t issue.
Once the committee decision is made – which will either be an issue or not an issue – then everything follows from that. Any owner or occupier can require the committee to enforce the by-laws, if they haven’t already and then as a committee, the next step is to seek by-law enforcement through the Commissioner’s Office.
I may sound like a broken record, but if nothing gets done here then the issue will remain unresolved and potentially get worse.
Chris Irons
Hynes Legal
E: chris.irons@hyneslegal.com.au
P: 07 3193 0500
This post appears in Strata News #381.
Question: We have a body corporate chairperson who treats the common property garden area as if it was his exclusive use area and it is full of his unsightly items. What about the appearance of the lot? What do we do now?
We have a body corporate chairperson who treats the common property garden area outside his ground-floor unit as if it was his exclusive use area. He has pots on it, we have reindeer, plastic kangaroos leftover from last Christmas and it is very unsightly.
The was told to remove the items by the previous body corporate committee. He agreed to remove the items but nothing has been done.
What about the appearance of the lot? What do we do now? We have a new committee who have been hand-picked by the chairperson and his best friend the facilities manager.
Answer: Complete a BCCM Form 1.
I suspect that this would be a breach of the scheme’s by-laws (but would need to read them to double check). If the owner would like action taken they should complete a BCCM Form 1 and send it to the committee.
The committee will then need to choose whether or not to take by-law enforcement action. If the committee chooses not to, the owner can then seek to enforce the by-laws without the intervention of the committee (but needs to give the committee the opportunity to do so first).
Frank Higginson
Hynes Legal
E: frank.higginson@hyneslegal.com.au
P: 07 3193 0500
This post appears in Strata News #287.
Question: We put a cat enclosure on our balcony and received a breach notice under the Appearance of Lot bylaw. Isn’t a cat enclosure just like outdoor furniture? Why is no-one else in breach?
I have a question as a tenant in a multi-unit complex. Our units are highly visible to the street and other units due to the layout. Several of them have glass fronts to the balconies and the bottom floor has open staircases up to the apartment doors. Due to this layout, every balcony has furniture and other items visible from the street and other lots. We put a cat enclosure on our balcony and received a breach notice under the following bylaw:
Appearance of Lot
An occupier must not hang any washing, towel, bedding, clothing or other articles or display any sign, advertisement, placard, banner, pamphlet or like on any part of its Lot in such a way as to be visible from another Lot, the Common Property or outside the Scheme Land, except with the consent in writing of the Body Corporate Committee.
We requested permission to keep the cat enclosure but I’m not sure where in that bylaw we are actually in breach and we’re anticipating being denied.
If we are in breach because we have outdoor furniture then due to the design of the units every single property is in breach. Do we have redress under fair application (nobody else seems to have been given this notice), that outdoor furniture isn’t covered or the fact that the bylaw is not feasible practically if applied in that manner?
Answer: The committee can’t selectively enforce the by-laws as it would be unreasonable to single out particular owners.
All occupiers need to comply with the by-laws and the committee must act reasonably in enforcing any breaches – so the committee can’t selectively enforce the by-laws as it would be unreasonable to single out particular owners.
So the committee must either enforce all breaches (which is their obligation) or take the same approach to all breaches
Depending on the size and visibility a cat enclosure would be capable of breaching that by-law.
Frank Higginson
Hynes Legal
E: frank.higginson@hyneslegal.com.au
P: 07 3193 0500
This post appears in Strata News #203.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read Next:
Visit our Strata Committee Concerns OR FactSheets: Strata Legislation QLD
Looking for strata information concerning your state? For state-specific strata information, take a look here.
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.
I have a unit in a Standard Format plan, regulated under the Standard Module BCCM QLD. There are 48:units in basic Duplex and Triplex configuration. No outstanding architectural features or style. The units are basic bungalow, with Box Gables and wooden picket fences.
Our ‘Appearance of Lots’ by law is pretty basic –
(1) The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval, make a change to the external appearance of the lot, including the building paintwork (see by law 12),
(2) The occupier must not, without the body corporate’s written approval:-
(a) display a sign, advertisment, placard, washing, bedding or any other cloth article if the article is visible from another lot or the common property or from outside the scheme land
(b) errect any external blinds
(c) make any structural alterations to a lot
(d) install air conditioning units, spa/swimming pool pump and filter motors or any other potential noise creating equipment.
(e) The body corporate must not unreasonably refuse a request made pursuant to this by law.
(please note by law 12 has already been assessed as being unlawful in a preliminary by law review)
There is a little more about keeping windows clean etc but this is the crux of what I am concerned with.
I have a request in to replace a broken down timber picket gate (gate and fence are 800mm inside the boundary of my lot as the fence aligns with the brickwork of the unit but the lot extends out to the depth of the eaves.) with a black satin metal gate. The committee are using the argument that it does not fit 8n with the ‘heritage character, style and colour of the complex’. Also a request to have a mid grey shade material professionally installed to the patio gable met with the same response.
Does the wording of this by-law give our committee the authority to become the ‘Style Police’?
I cannot see how these two requests will have any impact on the amenity of other unit holders. The owner of the unit that is close enough to mine to see the gate has given me their written consent to which the committee is aware of. The patio backs onto a road so again no other unit occupier will be looking at patio gable infill.
What is the extent that a body corporate has to dictate a look or style under this by law. I believe their approach is overreaching g their authority, but would much appreciate your input.
Thank you
Hi Sharon
Chris Irons, Strata Solve has responded to your comment in the article above.
I live in WA and front owner parks their car in front of their garage and carport because it won’t fit in any of these structures. There is a parking bay at the front of their lot but they refuse to park there. Survery-strata 2 lot scheme and has told me there is nothing I can do whilst parked solely within their lot. The car faces my house,. it’s an eyesore, spews out fumes and noisy. Anything I can do?
A unit above me suffered water damage from the unit above her. The water damage was caused because the owner above her had a dishwasher which leaked from a rusty pipe. Her bill was $1690 and she approached the owner of that unit to pay for the damage. He refused saying it was her problem. My worry too is that my unit under both those has shown minor water damage as well. Who would be responsible for paying for damage?
Hi Jan
Earlier this year we ran a webinar with Tyrone Shandiman titled: Water Damage Insurance Claims. Tyrone ran through many examples of water damage and who would be responsible. You can watch the recording of the webinar here: NAT: Q&A Water Damage Insurance Claims and The Excess in Strata Properties
Hi, we have plant rooms which owners and committee members are using for storage. I have been told a by law has been put in place to allow these areas to be used as storage areas of non flammable items such as bikes and trolleys. The doors are no longer lockable to the plant rooms. Is this allowed?
Question please – our body corporate by law for lot improvements is a pretty standard one “ 9.1. An Owner or Occupier shall not alter the external appearance, finish or colour of the building on the Lot nor add to, extend or cover the Lot in any way without the prior written approval of the Body Corporate.”
Our body corporate is a standard format plan so lot owners are responsible for the maintenance and insurance costs of the building.
The committee is struggling with lot owners not getting written approval or not waiting for approval and commencing work as soon as the application has gone in. The latest and loudest opinion of lot owners is telling the committee we have no right to have a say in what they do with the property. As a committee we invest quite a bit of our own time into researching and trying to make decisions in the interest of all owners, not just the applicant. Also we have a statutory obligation to uphold the bylaw but is becoming very disheartening when are efforts are wasted.
Is our by law simply unenforceable and if so should we remove it at the next general meeting?
Hi SAL
Chris Irons, Hynes Legal has responded to your comment on this post: QLD: The golden rules of bylaw enforcement + Q&As
Hi,
each lot in our low set villas has a small deck and it is a part of the lot. There is the clothesline installed in each lot on the fences, when the complex was built nearly 20 years ago.. One bedroom units in a small size do not have to much room for drying washing. Our by-laws has exactly that section mentioned above about appearance of the lot. So everybody, who uses the clotheslines is in a breach of the by-laws, because everything hangs on the clotheslines is visible from the other lot or from the common property.
How is possible to solve s situation like that in the by-laws and to stay consistent with the Act?
Thank you for any advice.
I have responded to your question in the above article.
Hi,
I see other people are posting similar questions in this thread, so I hope it’s appropriate that I do the same. We are tenants in a complex on the Gold Coast and have received this by way of internal newsletter:
“Balconies are not BCF stores or storerooms. All camping, sporting, fishing equipment, bikes, boards, dead plants and boxes must be removed immediately.” This has gone into every letterbox I suspect and does not refer to a bylaw or specific breach.
We have a LARGE ground floor balcony (almost doubles our internal living space), and one of the rare balconies with a few stairs to a grassed area that we use quite often as our entry/exit point. We’re an active family and have bikes, bodyboards and scooters on the balcony, all NEATLY stored in a corner out of view of 99% of the complex and any passersby – all up taking up about 5% of the total balcony space.
So I’m curious whether this request is really enforceable, although I understand that some people on upper floors with much smaller balconies, do have an untidy clutter of furniture, surfboards and the like and “appearance of lot” would come into play. Ours on the other hand is tidy and virtually no one (residents or passersby) can see any of it.
Cheers,
Brad
Unfortunately this is the way of life when developers come in and don’t think about adequate storage space.
In terms of the bike issue, there should be common ground where you can house these, which resolves one issue.
As I’m from Melbourne we don’t have that big an issue re surfboards, but I would think the same could be done ie, storage area for surfboards
Some great apartments have car parks with a storage cage attached to them, which is the ‘golden standard’.
Hi Brad
Chris Irons, Hynes Legal has responded to your question in the above article.
Hi
I have just received a breach notice, they are requesting copies of the following documents
Current lawful building approvals. Plumbing approvals,
Documents that indicate proof of legislated inspections being conducted
A leave certificate
Form 21 occupancy permit
Full set of architectural/Engineering plans of existing structures on site
I have been living here for 4 years, The house is finished just a couple of things to do inside before I get the completion certificate. The private certifier has given us an extension until 2022 to get the final.
Can the body Corp request these forms, they are going to take it to court..
Hi Zach
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
On what basis has the body corporate asked you for these things? Have they, for example, said that there’s a by-law applying to you which empowers them to ask for those documents?
If the answer to the above is no or they haven’t given any kind of reasons, then it might be that the body corporate doesn’t have any grounds on which to make that request, other than they are interested or concerned about the work you’ve done. Which isn’t necessarily a basis on which to demand things of you.
I see you say they are threatening to take it to court. Body corporate disputes in Queensland are generally resolved in my former Office, which isn’t technically speaking, a court, although it does make binding orders. If legal action is being threatened, you may want to get some legal advice to help you out.
I would like to advise that all of our improvements have recently been approved. Our AGM is in August and I hope to become a Committee member and keep abreast of what’s happening in our block
Many thanks
Hi Christine
Great news!
All the best moving forward and on taking up a position on the committee.
Let us know if you need any assistance in the future. Happy to do what we can to help.
that is a very tricky question , when the entire committee breech the by laws where do you go then ?
Hi Dave
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
By-law breaches are against a person rather than a group. Whether someone is or isn’t on the committee, the same process of enforcing a by-law applies to them. Obviously the fact they’re committee members complicates things and ultimately if you believe there is a breach, go through the steps to enforce a by-law and the committee declines to take action or take the action you consider should be taken, you can then dispute that through the Commissioner’s Office.
I’m only talking about by-law breaches here. If you’re saying that you want to consider removing the committee because of their breaches, then that’s a different story and process altogether.
We bought land in a small 14 lot BC , we did do searches into the body cooperate and there was nothing unto wards at that stage , we later found out the all the committee have placed structures on common property, Form ones were issued , the committee only acted by creating a register to say that all encroachments, were historic and therefore they granted them selves the common property . they held a committee meeting 3 months prior to our purchase where they made the statement that there were no structures on common property except letter boxes and garden beds , this statement was made in regards to obtaining insurance for the estate i have been told by a past committee member , this problem will never go away and the property is virtually unsalable in its current form .
Hi Dave
As your question is detailed and relates to a specific situation, we are unable to provide advice. Responses can only be of a general nature. We suggest you seek independent legal advice from a qualified professional.
We would be happy to recommend someone to you.
Could you forward a qualified professional that i can contact , thanks Dave W
Hi David
We suggest you contact Frank Higginson and Chris Irons from Hynes Legal. Their contact details are listed in the article above.
Can the by-laws in a complex be reviewed and potentially changed to reflect the community and the years since they were first put in place? Do they need necessarily reflect the BCCM laws or can they be things that the community agree on ( majority that is ) . Do they have to be drawn up by a Lawyer or agreed to by the Commissioner ? What process is required ? are there any areas that cannot be changed?
Hi Edward
Chris Irons, Hynes Legal has provided a response to your question in this article: QLD: Q&A Bylaws, General Rules & The Act
Hi there
Queensland legislation requires smoke alarms be upgraded by 1 January 2021.
It has been suggested that installation of new alarms is a body corporate responsibility because smoke alarms are connected to the fire system. A quote has been received for $1000 per unit to become compliant.
The alternate view is that compliance with the new legislation is a lot owners responsibility.
Who is correct, and why?
Hi Steve
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
I think you’ll need legal advice on this one. This can be a very contested issue and dependent upon the specific features of the building. Given the issue and its literal life-and-death connotation, you would want the assurance of qualified advice before making any decisions or actions.
Thank you for your help and I apologise for the auto corrections. I will call the free call no to get more advice. We have withdrawn our shed and patio cover application and the EGM will now be a committee meeting only for our pet application which will be held on Friday.
We are hoping to put semi permanent gazebo up, changed the shed position so it’s less visible plus we planted trees around the perimeter of our fence. The trees match other plantings.
We downsized from a large home to a unit down the road so we could stay in the area we loved. We asked the owner (who was chairman of the Committee) and the agent could we have a dog, could we put a shed, spa and a patio cover ? The answer was its yours you can do what you like. Two weeks after moving in (2/1/20) we had the unit painted and Windows cleaned replaced the appliances etc. I texted the BCM to ask if they would have the gardener tidy up the garden in front of our ground floor unit as it was very overgrown and we didn’t own a trailer. We were told that was the owners responsibility. So we hired a man to clean up and whilst in the middle of doing this received a call from BCM and told us there was a complaint that we were chopping down trees that were affecting the privacy of the unit above, plus we had a dog who barked incessantly and my husband’s smoking was a problem for them as they couldn’t hang out their washing on the bedroom balcony.
We advised that we were clearing our the shrubs (Pepper Tree) and none reached the height of the 2nd flr. The owner was in Sydney and had received the call from her friend who was staying there. My husband approached the friend the next day and asked if he had a problem could he address it with us first and he denied any problem whilst patting our very small dog. We were advised to apply for the shed and the patio cover and dog, which we did. We had a visit from an owner who only uses his unit 3mts a year to see what we were doing and were told by another resident (renter) that her owner sent her a copy of the chairman of the committee email stating all the problems associated with out application. We talking with BCM she advised me to contact the chairman. After a few emails he said it would be 5 against 3 so far but would not offer any other suggestions or what particular items were in dispute. The meeting is in a week and I would like to know if alternates can be discussed at the EGM eg a gazebo, smaller shed however not the dog. Sorry this is so long winded I have read (probably should have looked into more throughly before we purchased but we do love it here) many articles and by laws re Exclusive Use areas but it all seems ambitious. Thank you
In the spirit of negotiation, perhaps the Committee instead of providing a blanket NO could provide another solution.
If the problem is that it is too visible from the street, perhaps it could be smaller which wouldn’t detract from the outward appearance of the property.
I would not know of any other plausible reason for the negative response, other than that it is too big and may not be attractive to would-be investors.
I would be interested to know if there was a mediation body out there which can resolve these disputes without going to a tribunal to challenge the by-law.
Hi LVC
We have received the following reply back from Frank Higginson, Hynes Legal:
It all comes back to reasonableness. Rather the pushing the committee to put forward a solution, you should. If that solution is reasonable in all of the circumstances (which is the nebulous grey area us lawyers usually play in) they cannot refuse it. If they do, that is where the Commissioner’s office comes in. You can freecall them on 1800 060 119 to have a chat too if you want. Their information service is designed for exactly your type of situation.