This article discusses if a QLD body corporate can conditionally approve an exclusive use area.
Question: Can a body corporate approve an exclusive use area at an AGM, subject to legal and survey conditions?
The creation of an exclusive use area requires a “no dissent” vote at an AGM. Is it possible to submit a detailed proposal for the area and have it voted on without first obtaining legal advice or a survey, provided the matter is referred to the committee, subject to specific conditions?
For example, the conditions could include:
- no adverse legal advice,
- a completed survey plan, and
- agreed limitations on use of the area.
Would this approach satisfy the Act’s requirements while avoiding significant upfront costs in case the proposal is rejected? The intention is not to avoid expenses, but to secure in-principle approval and prevent unnecessary delays caused by waiting for another AGM.
Answer: There is no requirement for legal advice or an exclusive use plan to accompany a request for exclusive use.
There is no requirement for legal advice or an exclusive use plan to accompany a request for exclusive use, but a lot owner could reasonably dissent on the basis that insufficient material was presented.
At a minimum, such a proposal needs to include sufficient detail so that owners are aware of exactly what they would be approving. A less formal sketch plan can be sufficient without the need to prepare an exclusive use plan.
However, the motion should not leave it up to the committee to finalise, though. It should include everything necessary to give effect to the grant (such as details as to the exclusive use by-law to be inserted, any pre-conditions and authorisation of the new CMS being lodged).
Todd Garsden
Mahoneys
E: tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
P: 07 3007 3753
This post appears in Strata News #765.
Have a question or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- QLD: Q&A AGMs, Motions in Strata and the Obligation to Act
- QLD: Q&A Bylaws, General Rules & The Act
- QLD: By-law enforcement in community titles schemes: avoiding the common pitfalls
Visit our Strata By-Laws and Legislation OR 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.
Hi, I have installed a fold out clothesline on a level 4 balcony (non street facing), and due to trees and the building facade, it is not visible unless using visual aid from a great distance. The clothesline was however visible in a photo on a real estate listing.
The clothesline is colour matched to the building and objectively looks far better than the mix match of portable clotheslines that are permanently left visible from the street whether in use or not across at least 15-20 other units..
I attended the latest meeting where the clothesline issue was raised, and the committees main concern was that after seeing my clothesline others would get a similar idea. Now that the minutes have gone out, I believe the committee themselves are drawing much more attention to this than at any other time (it has been installed for 5 years). The committee was advised that I would be breached, however the strata manager seemed unsure if anything could ultimately be done about such a minor change (?).
I do not want to lose the clothesline, it’s convenient and aesthetically looks as good as a clothesline can. My thinking is, I should now raise a motion to investigate having colour matched foldout clotheslines as the standard across the building (subject to approval + owners wishing to install etc). Unit is in Brisbane, QLD.
Thanks for your question. I have provided a comment here: QLD: Q&A Practical solutions to a ban on balcony clotheslines
If an owner has built onto common property without seeking approval, and the nature of the addition is for their benefit only and they refuse to seek approval, can the committee instigate a process to have the addition voted on as a exclusive use area at the next AGM?
Hi John
Thank you for your comment. The following response has been provided by Todd Garsden, Mahoneys:
Yes, the committee can choose to regularise the works and occupation on that basis as opposed to seeking its removal.