Herston Terraces [2009] QBCCMCmr 374 (1 October 2009)

Last Updated: 12 November 2009

REFERENCE: 0920-2009

ORDER OF AN ADJUDICATOR

MADE UNDER PART 9 OF CHAPTER 6

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACT 1997

Number of Scheme:	8867
Name of Scheme:	Herston Terraces
Address of Scheme:	35 Clyde Rd, HERSTON Q 4006

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

Alison Gardiner, the Owner(s) of lot 8

I hereby authorise the committee of the body corporate for Herston Terraces to accept a quotation from Abyss Demolition for an additional $17,750 for the removal of additional asbestos from the scheme.

STATEMENT OF ADJUDICATOR’S REASONS FOR DECISION - REF 0920-2009

“Herston Terraces” CTS 8867

Application

Herston Terraces Community Titles Scheme (Herston Terraces) is a 19 lot scheme under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Act) and the Act’s Standard Module Regulation (Standard Module).

This application is Alison Gardiner, owner of lot 8 (applicant) against the body corporate for Herston Terraces. The applicant says that owners voted to spend $52,003 upon removal of asbestos contaminated soil, installation of new soil and grass, and installation of mulch. However, it is submitted that this quotation was provided based upon investigations that had only revealed bonded asbestos on the site. It is submitted that the discovery of pure white powdered asbestos has required work to be stopped pending increased workplace health and safety precautions, air monitoring, and installation of an onsite decontamination unit. As a result, costs are anticipated to be $17,750 more than budgeted. It is submitted that an emergency order should be made to authorise this additional expenditure as the delay of requiring another extraordinary general meeting of owners would result in health and safety concerns.

As this application contains claims of emergency circumstances it was referred for immediate determination rather than being distributed to allow for individual submissions from owners or other affected persons (Act, 243A). However, having reviewed the application I considered it appropriate to allow a brief period of time to allow all committee members to respond to the application. I have since received a statement from the secretary and the treasurer confirming that the applicant is the chairperson and that both the secretary and the treasurer completely support the application.

Decision

The legislation includes provisions that limit the amount a committee can spend on any single project but allow an adjudicator to authorise additional spending if satisfied that the spending is required to meet an emergency (Act 276, Standard Module 151).

I accept submissions to the effect that the discovery of pure white powdered asbestos has resulted in increased health risks and additional removal costs. I also note that the application is supported by all members of the committee.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to authorise emergency spending for the works in question rather than requiring the committee to call a general meeting for owners to vote on the matter.

Order

For these reasons, I consider it is appropriate to authorise emergency expenditure as above.