Carmilia Court [2007] QBCCMCmr 52 (1 February 2007)

Last Updated: 12 February 2007

REFERENCE: 0985-2006

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	11685
Name of Scheme:	Carmilia Court
Address of Scheme:	200 Buckland Road NUNDAH QLD 4012

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

Vaughan & Karen Dollar, the Owner(s) of lots 2 & 6

I hereby order that the body corporate for Carmilia Court must not allow the bottlebrush tree adjacent to units 2 and 6 to be lopped to any significant extent, in particular, not to any significant extent lower than the height of the building. This is provided that a change in circumstances does not result in owners in general meeting, or an adjudicator, authorising additional lopping.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0985-2006

"Carmilia Court" CTS 11685

Application

Carmilia Court Community Titles Scheme (Carmilia Court) is an 8 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module).

This is an application by Vaughan & Karen Dollar, owners of lots 2 and 6 (applicants) against the body corporate for Carindale Views (respondent).

Background

The applicants oppose a resolution that allegedly provides for lopping a bottlebrush tree adjacent to their units to a height of eight feet. The applicants say the tree in question is a large healthy tree that provides privacy, shade and a habitat for native birds. It is submitted that there is no reason to lop the tree to 8 feet and that they think this would kill the tree. The applicants say that they would be happy for the tree to be trimmed to the height of the building.

Only one other owner has made a submission in relation to this dispute resolution application. This submission is by the owner of lot 5 and is to the effect that she does not want any trees cut down.

Decision

An adjudicator is required to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute (Act, 276). In this instance, the applicants have raised questions about whether allowing the bottlebrush to be cut to a height of eight feet complies with the body corporate’s responsibility to administer, manage and control the common property reasonably and for the benefit of lot owners (Act, 152).

No good reason has been provided for the body corporate to lop the bottle brush to a height of eight feet. The only submission provided from another owner opposes any tree being cut down. In the circumstances I am prepared to grant the applicants the order they have sought to prohibit significant lopping of the bottle brush. However, it is possible that circumstances may change and it may become necessary to perform more significant lopping of the tree. I therefore consider it just and equitable to make an order that will allow for subsequent lopping of the tree if there is a change in circumstances and the lopping is authorised by owners in general meeting or by a subsequent order of an adjudicator.

Order

For these reasons, I make the order above.