- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I’d appreciate any thoughts/advice. Apologies for the detail & length.
Background: Block <25 units near water in Sydney, built early 70s. External timber-frame windows replaced abt 10yrs ago with powdered aluminium; not so balcony timber-frame clear-glass door and two clear-glass window panes (one fixed; one sash) – all three being side by side. Widths are different for each: roughly 900mm door; 1100mm fixed window; 950mm sash. Maintenance/repair etc of these are individual owners’ responsibility; any significant changes to external appearance of building are OC/EC matter. Structure of the door and windows is not load-bearing, as there is a concrete lintel over them. Below windows (800mm) is single sheet of painted plyboard; above door is small pane of glass. Glass is all 3mm. Balcony balustrades are of thin painted steel, so the entire “wall” (door and two windows) is visible from outside.
Proposal: Several owners would like to replace their existing balcony door and two windows with three-panel powdered aluminium “stackers” – that is, two sliding doors and one fixed panel, all floor to ceiling, with sliding flyscreens for the two sliding door panels.
The resulting change in terms of external appearance would be: slightly narrower frames (aluminium sted timber) but in same style and colour as exisiting powdered aluminium external window frames; each panel being uniform width sted different existing widths; addition of sliding flyscreens.
Issues: Preliminary advice from EC & managing agent is that, because the proposal would involve a change to the external appearance – and a non-uniform one at that since not all owners are likely to want to upgrade – it would require approval by the OC and a change in the bylaws. Key concern of EC is whether such non-uniform upgrades would decrease the overall value of the building.
1. So that is the first question. Any opinions?
At the suggestion of our EC’s chairman, I’ve done a canvass of other strata blocks in the area, which has been quite an eye-opener. I’d estimate conservatively that at least one in every 10 has non-uniform external appearance due to renovations/additions since original construction. In most cases, these are not especially noticeable unless you’re looking out for them. What are far more noticeable are the different curtains, blinds, flyscreens, awnings and shutters. Which raises the second question:
2. What is the technical difference (in terms of strata laws) between installing, say, plantation shutters and the stackers proposed above?
Neither is a structural issue. Both are fixed to common property (at least I think they are – the stackers definitely would be as they would be fixed to the slab; however, plantation shutters would be fixed to the balcony wall, which may not be common property even though it is external, because it is inside the area defined by the balcony balustrade). Both affect the external appearance of the building to some degree. Both are valuation upgrades for the particular units. Both improve security, as well as thermal and acoustic insulation. Some strata OCs/ECs may require permission for shutters to be installed, but many would not. The key difference is that shutters are an extra layer on top of existing non-structural wall infill, whereas stackers would replace the existing infill.
3. Is the comparison with plantation shutters an argument worth pursuing or should we just accept that this is going to need an EGM, special resolution, new bylaws, etc?
4. Related to above, does anyone know if, in this day and age, EGMs can be done by email/post? Or do we need a physical meeting?
5. These are some of the arguments for and against the proposed stackers upgrade. Appreciate any further ideas either way.
For: Value-add for the units that upgrade, as well as the building as a whole.
Against: Non-uniform upgrade could decrease value of building as a whole?For: Improves security, as well as thermal and acoustic insulation.
Against: Could achieve these without changing external appearance.For: Prevent salt corrosion of metal handles and hinges for units on water side.
Against: Can just replace these as necessary.For: In keeping with upgrade of external windows 10 years ago.
Against: Only for some; would highlight non-uniform upgrade.
-
Replies
-
stax – I would have thought that the installation of plantation shutters would fall under the provisions of Model By-Law 17 relating to the appearance of the lot as viewed from the outside, where all that is necessary is the consent of the Executive Committee (on behalf of the Owners Corporation) due to the existence of that already applicable By-Law.
The removal of windows and doors from the wall adjoining balconies and the replacement of those with stackers is a complication, particularly as your Strata Plan was apparently registered pre July 1974 (?) – hence your comment about the ownership and maintenance of those windows and doors being the Lot Owners’ responsibility.
If registration was pre July 1974 then the windows, doors, and the entire wall to which the stackers are proposed to be fitted would be part of the Lot/s, and as I’m not entirely sure that anything additional would need to be attached to the floor slab (which is Common Property) as Owners would merely be replacing a timber frame with a metal track, I’m of the opinion that Model By-Law 17 would be again applicable, and that consent could be properly granted by the Executive Committee (E/C).
Whether the proposal is shutters or stackers, the wording of any consent could incorporate conditions such as for style, configuration, and colour (for both), and a reaffirming of Owners’ responsibility for the on-going maintenance and repair of the stackers in accordance with what’s shown as the boundaries of Lots and of Common Property on the Strata Title Plan.
As Owners’ proposals would need to be included on the Agenda for an E/C Meeting together with plans / drawings / specifications etc and be distributed to all Owners a minimum 7 days in advance, any of whom could attend the Meeting and actively participate with the consent of the Secretary, the process would be no different from that of a General Meeting except for the fact that only E/C Members would be voting.
The NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) is silent on the subject of electronic voting, but the interpretation that I use for our self-managed Plan is that it’s an adjunct to a physical Meeting, and whilst on the subject of the Act, it would only apply at Sect 65A if the shutters and/or stackers were considered to be additions or alterations to the Common Property (which in my opinion they aren’t because the wall and items within are part of the Lots) or a new structure erected on that Common Property (which an attached new track, as a replacement, would not be in my opinion).
I think you’ve covered most of the arguments for and against; it all comes down to a possibly subjective assessment of just how much the shutters / stackers affect the appearance of the Lot as viewed from outside. Maybe do some lobbying amongst like-minded Owners in advance of anything being put to the E/C.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.