Coral Palms [2000] QBCCMCmr 259 (5 June 2000)

RA MeekREFERENCE: 0059-2000

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	10291
Name of Scheme:	Coral Palms
Address of Scheme:	14 Dunlop Court MERMAID WATERS QLD 4218

TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to an application made under the abovementioned Act by

Judith Anne Lees, the owner of lot 11



RA MeekI hereby order that the application by Judith Anne Lees, the owner of lot 11, for permission to install an air conditioning unit on powder coated wall brackets on the inside wall of her unit between the kitchen and meals window just above floor height on the second floor level, is dismissed. n
STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0059-2000

“Coral Palms” CTS 10291

The applicant Judith Anne Lees, the owner of lot 11, has sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

Permission to install an air conditioning unit on powder coated wall brackets on the inside wall of my unit between the kitchen and meals window just above floor height on the second floor level as per specification enclosed.

Section 223(1) provides that an adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about –

a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement; or

b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under this Act or the community management statement; or

c) a claimed or anticipated contravention of the terms, or the termination of, or the exercise of rights or powers under the terms of, or the performance of duties under the terms of an engagement contract or an authorisation contract.

An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 223(2)). An adjudicator’s order may contain ancillary or consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 230(1)).

I do not intend to restate the applicant’s grounds in any detail since these are known to all other owners and the body corporate in consequence of the submission process. The issue in dispute is a relatively simple one. The applicant has been granted approval to install an air conditioning unit (the unit) in her unit with the external equipment being installed on the patio of her lot. The approval further stated that no equipment is to be attached to the exterior of the building.

The applicant requested the body corporate to reconsider the basis of it approval, and in particular, to authorise her to install the compressor unit on the external wall of the lot “between (the) dining room and kitchen windows”. The applicant concludes in a letter to the body corporate that –

The unit would be on powder coated wall brackets. The unit and external pipe coverings would be colour-coded to blend in with the wall. The drainage water would be conducted to the correct plumbing points.

The body corporate responded that it had reviewed its decision on air conditioning units, and that the body corporate’s original decision remains unchanged. In justifying its decision, the body corporate states –

... the fact is the air conditioning units and the necessary pipework reticulated from them are unsightly. The layout of the Coral Palms complex is such that the occupants of several units would view the proposed air conditioning unit which is almost 1 metre by 1 metre.

The applicant considers that the approval given by the body corporate (ie. to install the unit on the balcony) is unsuitable because of –

• The size of the balcony;

• The proximity to the balcony of the adjoining lot.

The applicant reiterates that the most optimal location is on the north wall between her dining and lounge room windows at floor level.

The applicant considers that a precedent has been set by the body corporate with the installation of a cable TV disc on the roof of one of the buildings.

In order for the applicant to succeed in this application, the applicant must establish that the body corporate is not acting reasonably in administering the common property.

I have the benefit of submissions from 8 of the 18 owners in the complex, together with a submission from the body corporate explaining its decision. Universally the owners who have made submissions support the position of the body corporate, and oppose the order which has been sought. A common theme in those submissions is that the location which the applicant proposes, being an exterior wall of the complex, would detract from the overall appearance of the complex, and generate potentially excessive noise.

In all the circumstances, I have no hesitation in dismissing this application. The body corporate is not acting unreasonably in refusing the applicant permission to place the external component of the unit on the exterior wall. From photos supplied by the body corporate this wall would clearly be visible from several other lots, and parts of the common property. Secondly, this is the first such unit sought to be installed. If the external wall location as proposed by the applicant were approved, then the body corporate could not deny other owners seeking to install units in similar locations in the future.

The body corporate is acting reasonably; it has not denied the applicant permission to install air conditioning. It has simply required that the external component of the unit be installed in a location so as to cause minimal impact on or interference to other owners and occupiers. This is a proper application of the body corporate’s duty to control, manage and administer the common property reasonably and for the benefit of all owners. I find no support of the applicant’s proposal in her reference to the cable TV aerial. This applicant is therefore dismissed.

n