This topic contains 4 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by 1 month, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42105
    Avatar
    CJH
    Flatchatter

    An owner has asked the SC if an awning can be affixed to their balcony. Would this set a precedent for other owners? What if other owners subsequently want to erect a different type of awning/shading ? How does the SC protect other owners from subsequent costs such as maintenance of the awning or for maintenance/repair of common property or for consequent damage in the event of an accident [we live in a location subject to high winds]? How does the SC maintain some control over the appearance of the strata in the event of deterioration of the awning etc?

    #42117
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    As the awning would be fixed to common property AND would affect the appearance of the building, a special resolution by-law would be required.

    That by-law could (and should) specify the design and colour of the awning, and the capability of the installer, as well as ascribing future responsibility for the awning, plus the common property to which it was attached, to the lot owner.

    Your committee needs to have a discussion about what designs would work and then set a benchmark.  If the lot owner refuses to be limited in this way, you simply advise the owners corporation not to give the necessary approvals.

    As for setting a precedent, think of it as setting a benchmark for future installations.

     

    #42122
    Sir Humphrey
    Sir Humphrey
    Strataguru

    I assume the poster in not in the ACT (from referring to SC rather than EC). I am sure JT’s advice is correct for NSW.

    Just to note some state differences: In the ACT (UTMA Sch2.4), “the executive committee of an owners corporation may approve an application by a member of the corporation to use the common property if— (a) the use applied for is minor; and (b) the use will not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other members of the corporation.” An awning extending over common property is given as one of the examples.

    Regardless of the approval mechanism, conditions on approval may be applied such as requiring the use of a preferred colour and design (to maintain the appearance of the common property and thereby ensure that enjoyment of the common property is not interfered with) and requiring the unit owner (and any future owner) to undertake any necessary maintenance, to keep it in a good state of repair, and to restore the common property if the awning is removed.

    #42134
    Avatar
    Flame Tree
    Flatchatter

    The ideal in my mind is you all get them done if/as required or no one gets them individually rolled out over time. Variations to installation approach, different visual/fade over time, style/model/parts redundancy, local approval spec change requirements all add up to a dogs breakfast over time. Get them funded from group owners money rather than individuals allowed to do there own thing is a better way for visual, effect and value of everyone’s property is my view.

    #42169
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Flame Tree wrote:

    The ideal in my mind is you all get them done if/as required …

    Doesn’t really work if only one person (for now) actively wants this, but I can see where you’re headed with this.

    One by-law that states agreed colours, styles, ongoing responsibility and level of certification of installer, would be there on the books for the next person to use as their template.  If the next owner with awning-envy wanted one too, they could use the terms of that by-law.

    The question would remain, who pays for the original by-law and general meeting etc.  I think there would be an argument for splitting the bill between the original owner and the owners corp, with a payment structure for every other owner who wanted to use the same by-law .

    There’s a way of doing this where only people who want awnings now or in the future pay for by-laws as they require them but they don’t have to pay ten times for the same piece of paper. Perhaps it’s one catch-all by-law but individual owners pay for each amendment that basically includes their lot under the same terms and conditions.

    Brilliant ideas gratefully received (assuming Flame Tree hasn’t already said this and I’m too dim to understand).

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login Register