Admiralty Quays [2001] QBCCMCmr 70 (9 February 2001)

P J HANLYREFERENCE: 0608-2000

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 10 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	24592
Name of Scheme:	Admiralty Quays
Address of Scheme:	32 Macrossan Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

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

Ian Newton Moles and Phania Moles, the owners of lot 15



I hereby order that the applicants, Ian Newton Moles and Phania Moles, the owners of lot 15, shall be permitted to install a spacesaver storage unit at the front of their car space on Level “E” of the scheme.


STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0608-2000

“Admiralty Quays” CTS 24592

The applicants, Ian Newton Moles & Phania Moles, the owners of lot 15, have sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act), quote -

That the body corporate for Admiralty Quays approve the applicants’ request, which the body corporate has twice refused, to install a storage locker in part of one of the applicants’ two car spaces within the basement car-park levels of the building.

Section 223(1) of the Act 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)).

In the supporting grounds, the applicants state that they have sought the committee’s approval on two occasions for installation of a storage locker in part of one of their two car parking spaces, and on each occasion their request has been denied. The applicants further state that they consider the committee’s stance to be unreasonable.

The committee was invited to respond to the application. A response was received from the secretary, who stated that the committee relied upon by-laws 8.1 and 12.1 in deciding to refuse the applicants’ request. The secretary further stated that the committee was concerned that by granting the applicants’ request, a precedent would be established. The secretary also listed a number of possible problems arising from the proposal, such as interference with the sprinkler system; protrusion of cars from car spaces; creation of nooks for people to hide thereby causing a security risk and the possibility of theft from storage lockers.

I inspected the scheme on 9 February 2001. I noted that the car space forming part of the title for lot 15 provides tandem parking for two cars, in an area immediately adjacent to the lifts on level “E”. I further noted that there is a concrete pillar at the front left side of the car space, and that there is a walkway on common property between the end of the car space and the wall of one pair of lifts.

I am not persuaded that the installation of a storage locker in lot 15’s car space will offend by-law 8.1. In my view this by-law is not designed to protect the external appearance of a car space, which is situated amongst a series of uninspiring and utilitarian car spaces created within the bounds of bare concrete below ground level. It is, rather, intended to protect the external appearance of the residential levels of the lots, both from the common property lobbies and from outside of the building in order to preserve the overall aesthetics of the scheme.

I am also not persuaded that the installation of a storage locker in lot 15’s car space will offend by-law 12.1, in that the car space will still be used as a car space, but will also have a small storage component. I consider that the storage locker could be placed at the front of the car space, where it will not impede the view of any person wishing to reverse from any other car space. In this position, the locker will also allow other occupiers unimpeded access to the lifts, as there is a walkway on common property between the end of the car space and the wall of the lifts.

Turning to the specific concerns of the committee, I do not consider that the storage locker will interfere with the sprinkler system, as it is only 1.93 metres high. I consider it unlikely that an owner would allow his or her vehicle to protrude from a car space, thereby exposing that vehicle to damage from any other vehicle passing by. If, however, such an unlikely event did occur, then the body corporate would have the right to seek an order from this office for removal of the storage locker. I find it difficult to accept that a building with the sophisticated security that exists at this scheme would allow unauthorised persons to enter the scheme, let alone to be able to hide in nooks and crannies in the car park. In any event, if such unauthorised persons were to gain entry, they would just as easily be able to hide behind the large concrete pillars on the car parking levels, as behind the storage locker proposed by the applicants. Finally, I would have thought that the possibility of theft from the storage locker is more a matter of concern for the applicants than for the body corporate.

I propose to allow the applicants to install the storage locker at the front of their car space, as depicted by them on their application. In making this order, I am mindful of the committee’s concerns in relation to other applications for such a facility. I am of the view that each application should be considered on its merits, and the two substantive concerns, namely interference with the sprinkler system and the protrusion of cars outside the car space, would have to be allayed in each instance.


2y