3 Parkland Boulevard [2007] QBCCMCmr 32 (19 January 2007)

Last Updated: 9 February 2007

REFERENCE: 0607-2006

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	33918
Name of Scheme:	3 Parkland Boulevard
Address of Scheme:	3 Parkland Boulevard BRISBANE

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

the body corporate

I hereby order that, within two months, the committee for 3 Parkland Boulevard must consider whether or not to approve the security door installed by Richard and Yvonne Read, owners of lot 3008 (respondents) at the main entrance to their lot. If the committee refuse to approve the installation then they must provide the respondents with written reasons for their refusal including details of the preferred type of security door the committee would approve and any differences of appearance between the door installed by the respondents and this preferred type of security door. I further order that if the committee refuses to approve the respondents’ security door and provides written reasons specifying a preferred type of door then, within a further two months, the respondents must either alter their security door so that it has the same appearance as the preferred type of security door or bring an application challenging the decision of the committee as unreasonable.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0607-2006

"3 Parkland Boulevard" CTS 33918

Application

3 Parkland Boulevard Community Titles Scheme (3 Parkland) is a 139 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act) and the Act’s Accommodation Module Regulation (Accommodation Module).

This application is by the body corporate for 3 Parkland (applicant) seeking orders against Richard and Yvonne Read, owners of lot 3008 (respondents). The body corporate is seeking orders to require the respondents to remove a security door installed at the entry door to their lot.

Submissions

The body corporate’s main submissions were to the effect that:

• The respondents were given approval to install security screens on the external balcony door and windows of their lot; and
• The respondents did not seek and were not given approval to install a security door at the entry door to their lot from the common property foyer and there is no need for a security door as security pass access is required to enter the building and each floor.

The respondents’ main submissions were to the effect that:

• There are many apartments where individual owners are allowed to install security doors, the by-laws for 3 Parkland allow for the possibility of the installation of security doors and everybody has the basic right to secure both themselves and their possessions to the maximum extent possible and allowable;
• They have concerns about security given entrance doors to the building have been faulty or left open, individuals have been seen to loiter near the entrance door and follow residents inside and into the elevator, and fire doors have been wedged open to allow persons to travel between floors; and
• They have had security incidents in a previous unit and one of the respondents does not sleep properly unless confident the unit is well secured.

Decision

Applicable law

The body corporate for a community titles scheme must administer the common property and body corporate assets for the benefit of the owners of lots and enforce the by-laws for the scheme (Act, 94). The committee can make certain decisions on behalf of the body corporate but must act reasonably in doing this (Act, 100(1), 94(2)).

By-law 6 for 3 Parkland provides:

6.1	An occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval, mark, paint, drive nails, screws or other objects into, or otherwise damage or deface a structure that forms part of the common property or body corporate asset.
6.2	However, an occupier may install a locking or safety device to protect the lot against intruders, or a screen to prevent entry of animals or insects, if the device or screen is soundly built and is consistent with the colour, style and materials of the building and approved by the committee.

Approval of security screens

By-law 6.2 contemplates that owners will be entitled to install security doors. In this context I accept the respondents’ submissions to the effect that it is possible that unauthorised persons can access the common property foyer and an owner should be entitled to install a security door to the entrance to their property.

The concern in this application is whether the respondents have failed to comply with by-law 6.2 in installing a security door. The respondents’ submissions and photographs of the door satisfy me that the door is soundly built and is consistent with the colour, style and materials of the building. However, the installation of the door has not been approved by the committee.

The respondents refer to notification that the committee resolved to approve their request to install security screens to external balcony doors and windows and submit that they thought that included the front door as well. However, I am satisfied from the submissions by the committee and the terms of the notification itself that this approval was only for doors on the external balcony of the unit and not the main entrance door coming from the interior of the building.

Committee discretion to approve

My finding that the security door has not been approved by the committee does not lead to an automatic conclusion that the door should be removed. Instead, the approval or otherwise of the door should be considered on its merits by the committee and the respondents should only need to remove or alter the door if the committee refuses approval for good reason.

Given the by-laws contemplate installation of security doors and the possibility that unauthorised persons can gain access to the building it would be unreasonable for the committee to refuse to authorise the installation of a security door. However, the committee may wish to exercise its discretion in approving security doors that maintain a high standard of appearance of the scheme. It is therefore appropriate that the committee consider whether or not the respondents’ security door should be approved and, if refused, provide the respondents with written reasons for their refusal including details of the preferred type of security door the committee would approve and any differences of appearance between the door installed by the respondents and this preferred type of security door.

This would then give the respondents an opportunity to modify or replace their door so that it had the same appearance as doors preferred by the committee. Alternatively, the respondents could reject the written reasons provided by the committee and bring an application challenging the decision of the committee as unreasonable. This would allow an adjudicator to consider the reasons provided and make suitable orders including requiring removal, replacement or modification of the door.

Order

For these reasons, I make the order above.