- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Now our small 14 unit complex has been advised that one top floor two-bed unit (bought by a builder) will be renovated with a non-load bearing wall demolished to fit outward facing wardrobes, plus extensive tile and floor coverings – the new owner proposing this reno has been very thorough and taken all the legal steps -certification etc. but we are still faced with three months construction work including jackhammers (mostly just above my unit).Our Body Corp has scheduled a special EGM to vote on whether this reno should be allowed to go on – unfortunately just a Yes/No – it’s the wall demolishing that most of us that will be affected objected to – unfortunately it may only be two or three owner-residents who are concerned (there is a wide stairwell and as it’s an older building, which means noise doesn’t move across, just down).It’s been suggested that the builder should fund an amount to cover any cracks etc. later on “one report he has circulated states that “cracks may appear but this is a simple cosmetic ” operation to fix – but who pays for those when and if they appear ?Please advise on what avenues may be open to two or three worried owners.
-
Replies
-
There should already be provisions in the “take it or leave it” proposal on which you are being asked to vote.
These should include
- limiting noisy work to a minimum number of days (rather than unplanned stop-start drilling etc)
- Limiting noisy work to certain hours (after 8.30 am and before 5 pm, for instance)
- Work on weekdays only – no weekend work at all. As the renovator is a builder, he will have the ability to work whenever he wants and pull tradies in from other jobs for weekend work
- Provision for temporary accommodation for worst affected residents during noisiest period
- Before and after pictures of interior walls
- Provisions for clearing rubble and cleaning common property
- Provisions for tradies’ parking
Now, it may be that these protections have already been included as conditions for approval of the common property by-law that allows the work to be done.
If not, these are perfectly reasonable and standard practice issues that you need to raise before the EGM.
Otherwise, you can raise them as an amendment to the by-law at the EGM – just make sure you have enough numbers (25 per cent of unit entitlements) to vote down the by-law at the EGM if they don’t agree.
Start contacting the owners of neighbouring apartments now, to get their support.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by .
Apart from a requirement to wear masks on the site (and for anyone on common property) all the restrictions on building workers that existed before seem to have been swept away.
You could ask the site supervisor to make sure the workers observe social distancing. And you could limit the number of people travelling in the lift at any one time.
Interestingly, I wonder if the reasonable restrictions I suggested in my previous reply still apply, now that your OC has rejected the first application.
I would get on to that immediately and just forget about any Covid-19 rules – they don’t exist, and that means anyone, vaccinated or not, can be allowed on the site.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Make sure the applicants get a dilapidation report on the building prior to works commencing, and ensure they are responsible for rectifying any damage as a result of the works.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.