- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I’m looking at buying a multi level strata town house within a complex of 6. There is only a single building containing all six lots. The plan has been registered in June 2011, but seems to be unusual in that the “whole of the building including floors, walls, ceilings, roof, verandahs, balconies, terraces, steps, landings, paving and other landscape surfacing and any other structures standing on that lot form part of that lot” – the quoted words are taken directly from the registered plan and also written on the plan is “The stratum of each lot is limited to a height of 20 above and a depth of 10 below the upper surface level of the ground floor of the respective residence forming part of that lot.
I’m told this is done to reduce the suvrvey work to be done as each floor is not drawn, only the one level floor plan. A letter from the L&PMA says this can be done by developers provided they indicate it on the strata plan and show the walls in thick broken lines.
Seem to me this is the worst of both worlds – you are in a strata scheme, but you are responsible for the whole of your own lot! With this arrangement I can’t see what stops a lot owner extending up or down, knocking down a wall that is only on his lot – for example the end wall. How would strata insurance work here as there is no common property building, but the strata act, section 83, says the Owners Corp must insure the whole building.
Any thought appreciated, I’m confused and wondering if it’s better to avoid this place?
-
Replies
-
David, In order to find out what IS Common Property, have a look on the Strata Plan for the area (m2) shown against the Location Plan; that’s the total strata area. Then check the Floor Plan and total the area (m2) of all 6 Lots. Subtract one from the other, and that will give you the area of the Common Property, which from what you’ve said will probably be a small area comprising the common driveway/s.
Basically, this is the Strata Scheme that Developers have when they don’t want a Strata Scheme, and in my opinion at least it’s probably more trouble that it’s worth when Owners have to work out who’s responsible for what and what the cost apportionments should be when shared areas such as the roof and adjoining walls require maintenance / repairs.
At least Owners’ Strata Levies and the Owners Corporation’s Insurance Premium would be low
Seriously though, might I suggest that you you contact a Plan Examiner at NSW Land & Property Information, and ask them to expertly interpret the Strata Plan for you.
I’d be interested to know the outcome.
HI David, I bought into an ‘unusual’ strata scheme that after years of disuptes over many issues due to the strange/incorrect way it was converted into a strata property, the Department of Lands told me they use it as a case study in what NOT to do when they are educating their staff. My advice is to put your sneakers on & run … fast … away from it. I chose not to do the same as by the time I realised the magnitude of the problems & the implications, I had already sunk a lot of time, energy & money into the process of recitifying the problems. If I could go back, I would not have bought into it.
@David said:
…The plan has been registered in June 2011, but seems to be unusual in that the “whole of the building including floors, walls, ceilings, roof, verandahs, balconies, terraces, steps, landings, paving and other landscape surfacing and any other structures standing on that lot form part of that lot” – the quoted words are taken directly from the registered plan and also written on the plan is “The stratum of each lot is limited to a height of 20 above and a depth of 10 below the upper surface level of the ground floor of the respective residence forming part of that lot…This does not sound odd to me. It seems like an attempt to define what would be normal ‘class B’ units in the ACT. I am in the middle of a terrace-like set of townhouses. Here my unit (IE ‘lot’) is from the mid-point of the party wall with my neighbour on one side to the mid-point of the wall on the other side. The roof, the walls, the courtyard areas, the balcony are all part of my lot and my responsibility to maintain. The OC takes out an insurance policy for the entire property however so I only need to insure the contents. This is the normal arrangement of townhouse units in the ACT. IE where the strata are arranged side by side we have class B. Where the strata are arranged vertically, one above another, such as a block of flats we have class A and things are more like in NSW.
Extensions are possible if approved by the OC. About 10% of our units have had substantial extensions done.
Sounds fine to me I wish my Townhouse was so defined as it means YOU are reasponsible for the whole of your property (this is a concept that has been used for centuries in UK for townhouses).
If the roof leaks you fix it if the window breaks you fix it without recourse to strata. No hassle with special bylaws, you just need a simple motion for any improvements. It’s a far simpler system than what we have now generally.
This is classed as Standard Format in QLD and is perfectly viable. Problem is Investors don’t like it and so virtually no housing developments in QLD are defined this way (even though the act was designed for townhouses and standalone villas to be classed as Standard format) due to lazy (corrupt) politicians and unscruplous developers.
Strata is only reasponsible for the driveways, boundary fence and sort out your own house nsurance.
Investors will avoid it so it will be bought by mainly owner occupiers due to tax reasons.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.