Neptunius [2006] QBCCMCmr 730 (18 September 2006)

Last Updated: 29 March 2007

REFERENCE: 0181-2006

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	17579
Name of Scheme:	Neptunius
Address of Scheme:	18 Corsair Crescent SUNRISE QLD 4567

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

Sandra Colantoni-Short, the Owner(s) of lot 2

I hereby order that the application seeking to require the body corporate to consent to a proposal to convert a single garage and car park into a double garage and studio, is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0181-2006

"Neptunius" CTS 17579

Application

Neptunius Community Titles Scheme (Neptunius) is a 2 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module). The scheme is designed for residential purposes.

This application is by Sandra Colantoni-Short, owner of lot 2 (applicant) seeking orders against the body corporate for Neptunius (respondent). The applicant placed a number of motions before the body corporate seeking authorisation for an extended exclusive use area and permission to make improvements to the common property. These proposed improvements comprised converting a single garage and existing parking space into a two storey building containing a double garage with a studio above.

Decision

The minutes of a general meeting on 30 January 2006 show that motions proposed by the applicant seeking this grant of exclusive use and authorisation for improvements were lost with one vote in favour and one vote against.

The owners of lot 1 have made a number of submissions, including that they oppose the applicants’ proposed modifications because they like the scheme as it is and they do not consent to hand over common areas to the applicant.

The applicant makes various submissions including that she is seeking only to have the same double garage entitlement as the owners of lot 1 and an artist studio to improve her use and occupation of the property in her retirement.

After considering the submissions, I can see no merit in the application. The applicant proposes significant improvements to common property of the scheme. The legislation requires that significant changes to the common property of this nature require authorisation by resolution without dissent and the applicant fails to make out any strong case for why these usual requirements should not apply.

The applicant does argue that the body corporate must be seen to be acting reasonably. However, any legislative obligation for the body corporate to act reasonably is satisfied if the decision is objectively reasonable.^[1] The proposed improvements presumably appear attractive and desirable from the applicant’s perspective. However, the applicant proposes significant changes to the appearance of the scheme, to the car parking arrangements, and to common property generally. The respondents are acting within their rights in voting against the proposal. It is sufficient reason for the exercise of their vote that they prefer the common area of the scheme as it is rather than as it would be after the significant changes proposed by the applicant.

Order

For these reasons, the application is dismissed.

---

^[1] Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125.