• Creator
    Topic
  • #56081
    annoyed007
    Flatchatter

    We have recently settled on an apartment in a block of four in NSW. During settlement we identified that the other top floor apartment had received approval to put a roof on their current deck and a set of stairs running down into an exclusive use area.

    We also located an approved DA and associated documents which contained different plans which detail a far more extensive enlargement of the deck. Shading plans submitted to council show that the enlarged deck will block light into our unit.

    The strata has no record of the DA plans and there is no strata approval for the works. It appears the owners sought and received approval only for adding stairs and a roof onto an existing deck and five days after receiving approval, submitted plans to council which were completely different, and which council gave a DA for.

    It seems to me that the process with council has fallen down and that our neighbours have run two separate processes, using two separate sets of plans. All of this is news to our strata manager.
    My question is , what right do we have to ask about the DA? Can we oppose the renovation if it has an approved DA?  On a separate note we had hoped to put on a deck to mirror the current deck of our neighbours. Any advice would be appreciated.

     

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #56089
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Even with DA for an extended deck, the owner only has owners corp permission (and by-laws) for the renovation for which they sought strata approval.

    Your building manager, strata manager and committee need to make it clear to him that in this instance, the strata approval supersedes the council approval.  Meanwhile, someone need to tell the council that the renovator doesn’t have permission for the changes they duped the council into approving.

    If need be, and if the strata committee or managers don’t move fast on this, consider seeking an interim order at NCAT  to prevent the work from proceeding.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by .
    #58270
    annoyed007
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    Jimmy, this saga continues and council did not take any action in response to us pointing out that the owner misrepresented our approval. The new legislation doesn’t require evidence owners approval btw..

    can you tell me if there are requirements for what should be in a bylaw? Can you have a bylaw containing no detail about what you intend to do and simply attaching a plan? The owner continues to try to pull the wool over our eyes with dodgy confusing plans and a bylaw which does not specify the works he intend to undertake.

    #58273
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    The only relevant restrictions on bylaws are that it can’t be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.

    Asking for a by-law that gives blanket approval to an undefined plan is not enough.

    Now this is not the law (apart from 1. and 2.) but I would draw a by-law to include:

    1. Details of what common property will be changed and how it will be changed (Section 142 of the Act).
    2. Who will be responsible for the common property affected by the work (Section 143). The answer must be them.
    3. Details of a “bond” to be paid against damages and costs incurred (to be repaid if no costs accrue)
    4. Limits on times of noisy work
    5. Proposals for removal of rubble etc
    6. Proposals for protecting common property while materials are being delivered
    7. Arrangement for parking of tradies’ vehicles and storage of materials (Even if you are providing neither)
    8. Agreement on penalties for breaching the terms of the by-law.
    9. Agreement that all work will cease if the terms of the agreement are breached, until such times as the dispute is resolved.

    This is perfectly reasonable to protect the other owners and common property.  Good luck getting it through.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by .
Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.