Glades Easthill North [2006] QBCCMCmr 61 (13 February 2006)

Last Updated: 19 December 2006

REFERENCE: 0763-2005

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	32506
Name of Scheme:	Glades Easthill North
Address of Scheme:	Easthill Drive, Robina QUEENSLAND 4226

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

David Williams and Nicole Williams, the occupiers of lot 17

I hereby order that the application for an order by David Williams and Nicole Williams, the occupiers of lot 17, that quote: • the garden shed situated in the exclusive use area of lot 17 (no. 237) be approved by the committee to be included in the body corporate register of approved external alterations, additions and improvements; • alternatively, that if the adjudicator decided that the shed in question must be removed then it be allowed to remain until we vacate the premises, is dismissed. I further order that within one (1) week of the date of the holding of the annual general meeting for the scheme for 2006, the applicants shall, at their expense, remove the garden shed they have erected on the common property of the scheme and return the common property to its former state and condition of repair, unless, at that annual general meeting, the approval of the body corporate to the erection of the garden shed is obtained by special resolution of the body corporate.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0763-2005

"Glades Easthill North" CTS 32506

The Application

The applicants, David Williams and Nicole Williams, the occupiers of lot 17, have sought the following order of an adjudicator under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (the Act) quote:

That the garden shed situated in the exclusive use area of lot 17 (no. 237) be approved by the committee to be included in the body corporate register of approved external alterations, additions and improvements.
Alternatively, that if the adjudicator decided that the shed in question must be removed then it be allowed to remain until we vacate the premises.

The applicants also sought an interim order that "the contravention order (referred to in the minutes of the committee meeting of 6^th October 2005, which requires immediate removal of the shed) be held in abeyance until the final determination of this dispute". On 4 November 2005, the application for an interim order was dismissed ostensibly for the reason that no contravention notice had been given in respect of the garden shed.

Jurisdiction

Section 276(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 the Act or the community management statement; or

(c) a claimed or anticipated contractual matter about-

(i) the engagement of a person as a body corporate manager or service contractor for a community titles scheme; or

(ii) the authorisation of a person as a letting agent for a community titles scheme.

An order may require a person to act, or prohibit a person from acting, in a way stated in the order (section 276(2)). An adjudicator's order may contain ancillary and consequential provisions the adjudicator considers necessary or appropriate (section 284(1)).

The Scheme

The scheme is a subdivision of 80 lots recorded under a building format plan of subdivision. The regulation module applying to the scheme is the standard module.

The dispute

The applicants, who are the occupiers of lot 17, have sought an order that a garden shed constructed or erected by them and situated in the exclusive use area of lot 17 be approved by the committee. Alternatively, that if it is determined that the shed "must be removed" then that the applicants be authorised to retain the shed until "we vacate the premises".

Subsequent to the interim order being made, the committee did serve a contravention notice on the applicants alleging contravention of by-laws 22 and 24, namely:

• By-law 22 Fences, Pergolas, Screens, External Blinds or Awnings;
• By-law 24 Alternations to the Exterior of lots.

The contravention alleged is that the occupiers have erected "an unapproved structure on the lot – namely a garden shed". The notice requires the applicants to "cease the contravention by removing the garden shed within 28 days of receiving this notice".

The applicants, in essence, are alleging that the handling of this matter by the committee has not been optimal, and that the committee, in seeking removal of the garden shed erected, are acting unreasonably. The applicants’ allegations against the committee or individual members thereof include inexperience, inconsistency in the application of by-laws, contravention of by-laws by committee members, informality of procedures, "little or no correspondence" by way of reply, amongst other miscellaneous allegations. In contrast, the applicants maintain that they have "endeavoured to act in a reasonable and conciliatory manner, offering to meeting with the committee, offering to screen the shed ... with no result".

On the specific issue of the requisite approval for the erection of the shed, the applicants state:

Before signing a tenancy agreement with the letting agent ... we checked a number of things, including the erection of a garden shed. This was approved (only verbally unfortunately) (on certain conditions set out).

The applicants then allege implied approval to the erection of the shed from the Resident Caretaker and the Letting Agent, and as well the developer, who supposedly gave direction on colour. Moreover, representatives of the developer "were present during the erection of the shed and assisted in its construction". Finally, the applicants state that the lot owner "approves of the structure and asks that the Body Corporate approves its erection".

Responses to the application

This office sought submissions from the body corporate committee and all owners regarding the application. A submission from the committee was received, along with submissions from some 14 or so other owners.

In response to the applicant’s allegations against the committee, the committee has responded:

Much of the applicants’ submission is a diatribe of inflammatory and unwarranted criticism of the committee. It contains a great deal of colourful and exaggerated language as well as serious, but unsubstantiated claims. ... No evidence is provided to support these claims.

Determination

I tend to agree with the above statement by the committee. The applicant’s grounds contain many allegations, most of which are simply unsubstantiated. Moreover, it is clear from the committee’s submission that perhaps the applicants have failed to provide a full and accurate statements of matters alleged. For example, the applicants statement that:

The committee’s emphasis on adherence to by-laws exists alongside their own flouting of these same guidelines ... the secretary (who has since resigned) has pursued the matter of the legality of our garden shed with ferocious enthusiasm, whilst completely ignoring the fact that she also has an unapproved shed in her own yard.

Is answered in the committee submission with:

... As for (a) committee members "flouting" the by-laws, one case of a committee member being in breach of the by-laws is known and action is being taken in exactly the same manner as the action against the applicants shed and other breaches. This case too, is a hangover from the previous manager and body corporate, who did not properly police or enforce the by-laws.

In my view, it is not satisfactory for a party to make general or unsubstantiated allegations, or worse still, to present an inaccurate or incomplete record of the matter alleged, with the view to assisting the applicant’s position in a matter.

As well, not only is there the issue of a general lack of substantiation of the applicant’s allegations, in themselves, the allegations do little to assist the applicant’s position in my view. Applications of this nature are determined principally on the issue of approval. In particular, what was required, what was actually sought and / or obtained, and the reasons (if any) for the failure to obtain requisition approvals. In considering this third aspect, the reasonableness of the actions of either party might be relevant and will be considered. I now intend to consider the issue of approval.

This is not the first time that issues of this nature have been the subject of dispute. In the last year or so alone, I have considered at least three disputes of a similar character as this. So that all parties might be aware of the reasoning or rationale applicable to such disputes, I have set out in annexure A to this statement of reasons, a statement from my reasons which appeared in the application for the scheme Patura Glen (no. 342 of 2005). I consider this statement is a useful précis on the considerations I consider relevant in determining such disputes. I recommend at this point that persons reading this statement now refer to annexure A, before continuing hereunder.

Clearly, it is first necessary to consider practical aspects.

Where is the shed located and what approvals were required?

It is not disputed that the shed in question is located on common property which has been allocated to the owner for the time being of lot 17 or the occupier of that lot "to be used by the occupiers of each lot as a garden and courtyard area only" (see by-law 41.4). Under that sub-paragraph of the by-law, each occupier is authorised to make certain specified improvements to the area (air conditioning unit / hot water system / satellite dish) after first obtaining consent of the body corporate. In addition, by-law 41.6 refers to the right to install a spa or pool in the rear courtyard exclusive use area.

The body corporate has alleged a contravention of by-laws 22 and 24. I fail to see the relevance of by-law 24 given that it refers to alterations to the exterior of lots, given that here the shed has been erected not on any part of the lot but rather common property. In particular, the by-law does not refer to changes to the external appearance of the lot.

By-law 22 provides relevantly that except as allowed under an exclusive use by-law, an owner of a lot shall not construct or permit the construction or erection of any fence, screen, external blind or awning or other structure or outbuilding of any kind within or upon a lot or on common property unless the prior written consent of the body corporate is obtained.

A garden shed is clearly within the contemplation of the words or other structure or outbuilding of any kind. In the circumstances, I agree that by-law 22 applied and that the applicants required approval for the erection of the shed.

What approvals were required?

By-law 22 refers to upon a lot or on common property. A by-law must not be inconsistent with the Act and is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency (see section 180(1)). I consider that in the circumstances, the level of approval required will depend on whether the improvement is to a lot or to common property.

With a lot, then I suggest that as per the by-law, the written consent of the body corporate is required. This might include committee consent. However, the position with improvements to common property is somewhat different. Section 123 of the Accommodation Module provides as follows:

123 Improvements--Act, s 173 [SM, s 124]
(1) An exclusive use by-law may authorise the lot owner who has the benefit of the by-law to make stated improvements to the part of the common property to which the by-law applies.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), improvements stated in the by-law may include the installation of fixtures on the common property and the making of changes to the common property.
(3) If the exclusive use by-law does not authorise the lot owner to make an improvement, the lot owner may make the improvement only if the body corporate authorises it to be made.
(4) However, the making of the improvement mentioned in subsection (3) must be authorised by a special resolution of the body corporate if the value of the improvement is more than $250.

Clearly, this section is applicable here. The relevant by-law, whilst it does make provision for improvements to common property areas the subject of the exclusive use, does not authorise garden sheds or the like. Consequently, the level of approval of the body corporate required by the owner of the lot (in contrast to the occupier) is in fact a special resolution of the body corporate in general meeting. Any suggestion that the committee might approval such improvements is incorrect and in conflict with the requirements of the legislation.

What approvals were sought?

According to the applicants own information, approval was sought from the letting agent. In my view, this reflects only that the applicants were concerned to obtain the consent of the owner of the lot to the erection of a garden shed on an area of land that appears to form part of the lot but is in fact common property of the scheme, albeit allocated for the exclusive use of the occupier of the lot. There is no aspect of seeking body corporate consent in this. I am not prepared to assume that the applicants intended by their request of the letting agent to seek the approval of the body corporate to the erection shed. Moreover, I am not prepared to imply, simply because other parties were aware of the shed being erection, that such knowledge is binding on the body corporate. A body corporate is not bound by the actions of persons such as developers, caretakers or letting agents. In the circumstances, the legislation is clear on the level of authorisation required for the erection of the garden shed on common property. In contrast, the level of approval actually sought, by whom, and the manner of seeking that approval, was so far removed from the level of authorisation, and the manner of authorisation required, as to not to be acceptable. In these circumstances, I consider that the (alleged) unreasonableness of the actions of others cannot be relied upon to overcome or obviate the need for approval of the body corporate in general meeting.

It is clear that any suggestion of seeking the approval of the body corporate, and by whom approval should be sought, did not arise in the mind of the applicants until after the shed had been erected. In correspondence to the body corporate of 23 September 2005, the applicants relevantly state:

... As occupier of No. 237 ... I request that this copy of the email from the Owner of 237 be placed on record in the official Body Corporate files, and considered by the committee as a request for retrospective approval.

Moreover, there is no evidence that the applicants were even aware of the requirements of the relevant by-law 22 at the time of erection of the shed. Ignorance of the by-laws is no excuse for non-compliance with the by-laws. The applicants were bound to observe the by-laws at all times.

I conclude that the construction of the garden shed was commenced and completed by the applicants without any reference whatsoever to or consideration of body corporate requirements. What is the effect of this failure? On an analysis of the factors in the three previous disputes as set out in the annexure, certain conclusions can be drawn, namely:

• The improvement in question was made to common property. In application 0146 of 2005 I noted that the latitude for making improvements to common property was more restricted than to a lot;
• On the basis of any of the criteria considered in the three applications outlined in the annexure, I consider that it must be concluded that the situation here is more serious. In particular, the level of authorisation required was by special resolution of the body corporate in general meeting rather than simply the approval of the committee under a by-law;
• The applicants failed to obtain the consent of the body corporate at any level. In saying this, I do not consider the letting agent a representative of the body corporate. Rather in such capacity, the letting agent is the representative of the owner of the lot;
• The applicants now seek to be excused from their obvious failures on the basis of the alleged unreasonable conduct of the body corporate committee.

I intend to dismiss this application. In all the circumstances, this application lacks merit. I suggest that rather than allege unreasonableness on the part of the committee, the applicants might consider their own conduct in this matter. It is their own unauthorised actions in erecting the garden shed without any reference to necessary body corporate approvals which have led to the situation which now exists. Nothing the body corporate did caused the applicant’s to erect the garden shed on common property without approval. A body corporate is not acting unreasonably in seeking to require that approval for an unauthorised improvement be obtained. Rather, I suggest that this is part of its responsibility to control, manage and administer the common property reasonably and for the benefit of owners. It goes without saying that I further conclude that there is no merit in the alternative proposal by the applicants; such an order would simply reward the applicants non-compliance with legislative requirements. I agree with the statement of the chairperson that:

... However, the applicants surely cannot fail fail to understand the fact that their unapproved structure has the same effect for other residents, acting as a precedent for those wanting to breach the by-laws. ...

To make an order in the alternative terms proposed by the applicants would send completely the wrong message to other owners and occupiers; namely that non compliance with legislative requirements is to be rewarded.

I further intend to order that within one (1) week of the date of the holding of the annual general meeting for the scheme for 2006, the applicants shall, at their expense, remove the garden shed they have erected on the common property of the scheme and return the common property to its former state and condition of repair, unless, at that annual general meeting, the approval of the body corporate to the erection of the garden shed is obtained by special resolution of the body corporate.

For this to occur, the owner of the lot will need to submit a motion seeking approval for the shed to the secretary of the body corporate in time for inclusion on the agenda of the annual general meeting. I note that the AGM in 2005 was held in late June. This period allows more that sufficient time for the applicants to communicate with the owners regarding submission of the relevant motion to the secretary. It goes without saying that if the motion is not submitted, and therefore considered by the body corporate at the meeting, or is submitted and not carried at the meeting, then the applicants must comply with the requirement for removal of the garden shed in the time period stipulated. Finally it is implicit in the above orders that the body corporate should not take any steps to remove the applicants shed whilst the terms of this order are still in effect.

Annexure "A" Patura Glen 342 of 2005.

... The body corporate is relying on by-law 8 headed Appearance of Lot. That by-law relevantly states:

The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval:-
(1) Make a change to the external appearance of the lot. ...

I do not consider the by-law to be specific to what the applicant has constructed, which is described by the applicant as "a lean-too shed ... for the purpose of storage". The by-law is generic in nature, and would cover a huge range of potential changes to the external appearance of a lot. For example, it would presumably catch any action from changing the colour of an external awning or building facia (that is, a relatively minor change) to erecting a patio or deck attaching to the lot (a significant change to external appearance). Given that the by-law is potentially so wide and all encompassing, then it is essential that the application of the by-law is reasonable.

I have previously determined two matters where the body corporate was seeking the removal of items from a lot because of alleged change to external appearance. These orders are 0068 of 2004 and 0146 of 2005.

In 0068 of 2004 (a dispute regarding the installation of a clear roll up blind on the northern deck of an apartment by the owner without seeking committee approval under by-law 8.1), I observed as follows:

I do not intend to descend to a minute analysis of the pluses and minuses of the installation. Such matters are largely subjective, and different arguments can be advanced depending on your particular point of view on the matter.
I consider however that in assessing such an application, the committee must first accept that the improvement in question is to part of an applicant’s lot, and is not being made to the common property. This in my view requires a greater allowance by the committee of the individual preferences of owners for the enjoyment of their lot. In respect of common property, I consider, and the legislation provides, that a body corporate has a far greater role to play, but for a lot, I consider that the committee should restrict its objections to proposals which clearly, not arguably or possibly, detract from the amenity of the lot and its surrounds.
I conclude that the objections of the committee to the installation are somewhat vague and lacking in any real substance. The fact that the installation can be seen from other lots is not the point. So can very colourful interior room colours, but these cannot be prevented. I suggest that not only must the installation be able to be seen, but in so being seen the general consensus must be that the installation detracts from the amenity of the lot. I consider that this is not evidenced here. I find that the blind is made for the most part of clear plastic materials and where not clear, is coloured consistent with its surrounds, appears to have been professionally installed, and is unobtrusive.

In the later decision, 0146 of 2005 (a dispute where the applicant body corporate sought an order against an owner for removal of a "garden shed" erected in the backyard of a lot, allegedly in contravention of a by-law which denied the construction or erection of an "outbuilding of any kind within or upon a lot or on common property without the approval in writing of the body corporate"), I observed as follows:

Firstly, it must be noted that the garden shed in question is located within Black’s lot and not on any part of the common property. As indicated, I consider that an owner should have somewhat greater latitude in the use and enjoyment of their lot, including the making of improvements thereto, then say the making of improvements to common property. The legislation recognises this distinction in its requirements for approval. In the case of improvements to a lot, often only committee approval is required and this is usually the case because of the existence of a by-law to this effect. If no by-law existed, then no approval would be required. However, improvements to common property usually require the approval of the body corporate in general meeting by special resolution. Moreover, this distinction exists even if the improvement in question is the same, eg. an airconditioning condenser unit.

The second aspect is the nature of the scheme and the nature of the improvement proposed. In this case, the scheme was registered under a group title plan. A group title plan usually means that each lot includes a parcel of land which forms part of the lot. This is distinct from a building unit plan, where in contrast, it is unusual for the lot to comprise a parcel of land. The nature of the improvement here is a garden shed. The photographic evidence provided by Black shows an area of garden attaching to the lot. Moreover, this garden appears to be reasonably dense and to be surrounded by a paling fence. I conclude that due to the fencing and garden planting, Black’s lot is reasonably private and cannot be easily observed by others, or from adjoining lots. The applicant body corporate has not provided any evidence to the contrary. As well, given that the lot includes a garden area which is not common property, then the lot owner will need to maintain this garden. This requires certain tools and equipment. I note Black’s submission that:

... Whilst ever I am able to do so, I will look after (my) own yard and maintain my own property and this requires keeping certain items and equipment which need to be stored safely. ... Instead of being left out in the open, it is only basic common sense that I should wish to lock dangerous and toxic items away responsibly, to safeguard them, or anyone else for that matter, from possible injury.

The lawn locker is 152 cm x 80 cm (approximately the size of a wardrobe), painted cream, the same colour as the security screens and doors of my unit. The locker sits on pavers in an alcove against the wall of the unit. It is not visible to anyone from outside my property, unless someone chooses to peek through a crack in the fence.

I consider that it is not an unrealistic expectation for a lot owner in a group title plan, which has a garden attaching to the lot, to have some area for storage of garden maintenance equipment. Others might suggest that such items could be stored in the garage of the lot, however I consider that this is not always either practical or possible.

Finally, I note that the application was distributed to all 175 owners in the scheme seeking submissions in respect thereof. In response, only one owner’s submission was received, and that is generally supportive of position of Black, whilst recognising the needs of the committee. That owner states:

Whilst I understand and support the committee’s desire to maintain the aesthetic appearance of he lots and the complex, I, as an owner occupier also understand and support owners wanting storage for items used when complying with the requirements of by-law 22. I feel that a compromise needs to be found ... Perhaps one alternative might be that the garden shed / locker be limited to a certain size or smaller, be of a certain quality / standard and colour, be properly installed and maintained, and installation be limited to certain positions on the lot.

I consider that the committee’s refusal to approve the storage shed is based purely on precedent. No objective assessment of the application has been made. Whilst the committee allege that Black has failed to attend a meeting of the committee at which the matter of the shed might be discussed, similarly, the committee have failed to inspect the shed in situ and to realistically evaluate its impact etc. In the circumstances, the committee has not acted reasonably as it is required to do in enforcing the by-laws.

In the circumstances, I am not prepared to order in terms as sought by the applicant body corporate. I consider the blanket prohibition on the installation of garden sheds to be unreasonable in the circumstances pertaining to this body corporate. I suggest to the committee that rather than a blanket prohibition, it should seek to assess all applications on their merits, and perhaps, even be proactive and prescribe standard criteria which those owners wishing to install such an improvement might be required to meet.

Whilst approval of the committee to the erection of the garden shed was not obtained, I am not prepared to order in terms sought by the applicant. Rather I intend to dismiss the application for the reasons set out, and to order that the garden shed is deemed to have been approved by the committee on the condition that Black shall maintain the garden shed at all times in a clean and tidy condition.

The above decisions provide the background and context in which I am considering the current application. Again the scheme is a group title plan, and no part of the storage shed has been constructed on common property of the parcel. The by-laws do however require that the applicant obtain body corporate approval for the changes he has made to the external appearance of his lot. In his additional material, the applicant acknowledges that the consent of the body corporate was not obtained prior to the construction of the storage shed, quote:

Consent for the cementing was sought, and obtained. ... Consent for the structure was initially sought, but the structure was erected before it was obtained.

In response to why the requisite consent was not obtained, the applicant submits:

1.	The structure did not required structural change or modification to the unit.
2.	Time (and alleges delay on the part of the body corporate in considering the matter).
3.	Time ... permission, even if granted would still have taken too long.
4.	Unreasonable expectations for planning, documentation and approval. ... The process of obtaining permission would prove far more costly than the project.
5.	In ability of the body corporate to comprehend plans and understand planning ...
6.	Retrospective change of body corporate approval rendered permission worthless (the applicant the references a previous dispute).
7.	Lack of correct procedure by the chair ...

The applicant concludes:

As a result requesting permission from the body corporate seemed doomed to failure, irrelevant of the level and professionalism of the planning that I submitted.

I do not consider any of the applicant’s explanations for failure to obtain body corporate approval for the erection of the shed satisfactory. In particular, using the applicant’s numbering system, I consider:

1. The structure did require body corporate approval under the by-laws (8.1). Whether or not it required structural change to the applicant’s unit is irrelevant;
2. No evidence of this, and in any event, this does not excuse the applicant’s proceeding without approval;
3. This statement evidences contempt of body corporate requirements and processes;
4. By who. Perhaps the applicant is confusing requirements the body corporate might impose with requirements of the local authority. I reject that body corporate approval would prove far more costly than the project;
5. No evidence to substantiate this statement. Again, this does not excuse the applicant’s proceeding without approval;
6. A previous dispute does not justify the applicant’s actions relative to the present dispute;
7. I conclude there is evidence of underlying dispute between the applicant and the chairperson.

The second aspect I consider relevant is the scale or scope of the work undertaken by the applicant. In the previous two applications I have dealt with, I consider that the improvements made to the lots were significantly more minor than that made here. In the first application, it was a roll up plastic blind, and in the second, it was a garden shed, but of considerable less dimensions than that erected by the applicant. In that instance, the structure was stand alone (and not attaching to the applicant’s unit) and had an area of 1.2 sq metres. In the instant case, the structure is "3.1 metres by 3.3 metres of which .6 metres by 3.3 metres ... is under the cover of the unit eve". This statement acknowledges that the structure attaches in part to the applicant’s lot (presumably this is why local authority approval is also required) and further, is some 10.2 sq metres in size.

The applicant alleges that there is a precedent for his structure. He states:

Several units have completed similar work in their rear yards, including 4, 6, 13 and 12. Unit 12 completed a project ... in January 2005 ... that requires the same regulatory approval body corporate maintains is necessary at unit 10.

The body corporate committee rejected this assertion in its original submission, quote:

No precedent was used by Mr Watts for construction as there was no other structure such as his on Patura Glen property.

I am not satisfied that the applicant has evidence his allegation of precedent.

I am not satisfied that the circumstances leading to the applicant constructing his storage shed without body corporate approval were reasonable. I do not intend to order in terms as sought by the applicant. Rather I intend to order that within one (1) month of the date of this order, the applicant as owner of the lot shall submit a motion for inclusion on the agenda of the next general meeting of the body corporate seeking approval for the storage shed he has constructed. I note that in any event, the applicant requires body corporate approval in order to satisfy part of the requirements of the local authority.

I further intend to order that at its next general meeting the body corporate shall determine the motion submitted by the applicant by ordinary resolution. If the motion is approved in general meeting, then this is the end of the matter so far as the body corporate is concerned. Alternatively if the motion is not approved in general meeting, then the applicant will have two options. Either to remove the storage shed he has constructed or alternatively to make a further application to this office for a determination of whether the decision of the body corporate in general meeting not to approve the construction of the storage shed was unreasonable. Ultimately the applicant might be required to remove the storage shed in any event. However, at the present time, the body corporate has not had an opportunity to make this determination, and this is the purpose and intention of this order.

If the applicant fails to submit a motion for approval of the storage shed to the secretary within one (1) month of the date of this order, then I intend to order that the applicant shall be required to remove the storage shed from the lot within two (2) months of the date of this order. Finally it is implicit in the above orders that the body corporate should not take any steps to remove the applicant’s shed whilst the terms of this order are still being implemented.