Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2020 (Standard Module)

ARCHITECTUAL CODE / BY-LAWS - where the body corporate seeks orders in relation to landscaping works being undertaken by the respondents - whether the orders sought by the body corporate are warranted in the circumstances.

• [1] Boambillee CTS 34095 is a 72-lot scheme situated in Coomera, Queensland. It is governed by the Standard Module. The applicant is the Body Corporate for Boambillee. The respondents are George Katsioulas and Rebecca Allen, the joint owners of Lot 1359 in the scheme.
• [2] I understand the body corporate is unhappy the respondents failed to obtain approval from the architectural review committee (ARC) prior to carrying out landscaping and other works in the front yard of Lot 1359. In addition, the body corporate is unhappy with the time it is taking for the works to be completed.
• [3] The body corporate seeks the following orders:
  1. The lot owner[s] complete and submit the appropriate application form to the ARC for review within 30 days.
  2. The lot owner[s] be ordered to complete the front yard landscaping works within 90 days.
  3. Confirmation that the lot owner[s] will pay the bond as required by Motion 11 of the AGM[1] minutes dated 22 February 2023.
• [4] As the applicant in this case, the body corporate bears the onus to establish that the orders it seeks are warranted in the circumstances.

• [5] The body corporate submitted an application for conciliation on 5 April 2024.[2] This application was referred back to the commissioner as the parties reached an agreement (conciliation certificate issued 16 May 2024).
• [6] Unfortunately, this did not resolve the dispute and the body corporate submitted this application for adjudication on 3 March 2025.
• [7] The commissioner invited submissions from the respondents and all other owners in the scheme. No submissions were made in response.[3]
• [8] A dispute resolution recommendation was made referring the file to department adjudication.[4] I was then tasked with deciding the matter.

• [9] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, about (relevant to this dispute): a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the community management statement (CMS), or about the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[5]
• [10] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the legislative dispute resolution provisions.

• [11] The body corporate has provided limited submissions on this dispute. However, from the materials it has included, I understand the body corporate is unhappy with the state the front yard of Lot 1359 has been left in for an extended period of time. It says the poor standard of maintenance of the front yard is detracting from the overall appearance of the scheme. It also says certain works have been carried out by the respondents without approval from the ARC.
• [12] I understand that in or around November 2022, the respondents began to remove the existing landscaping on Lot 1359 and carry out excavation works to install a swimming pool. The body corporate says it requested the respondents confirm a date for completion, but it is unclear if the respondents provided one.
• [13] The body corporate says the works remained unfinished and it issued reminder letters to the respondents to resolve the issue in June and December of 2023. It says the respondents had not provided an application to the ARC for all the works they were carrying out.
• [14] The issues were not resolved and on 27 March 2024, the body corporate issued a contravention notice to the respondents alleging they were in breach of several of the scheme's by-laws including: By-law 3 (Maintenance of Lots), By-law 13 (No variation to appearance), By-law 24 (Garbage Disposal), By-law 25 (Damage to Lawns, etc on Scheme Land) and By-law 26 (Damage to Common Property or Lot).
• [15] The body corporate subsequently applied for conciliation of the dispute. The parties reached an agreement but this ultimately did not resolve the dispute and, I understand the works to Lot 1359 remain unfinished.
• [16] The body corporate says it has made multiple attempts to resolve the issues with the respondents. However, it says the respondents do not follow through with the things they agree to do.

• [17] On reviewing the body corporate's application, I noticed it had not provided a copy of the scheme's architectural and landscape code (the Code), which is relevant to its application and the orders it is seeking.
• [18] On 29 July 2025, I wrote to the body corporate requesting the following:

(1) A copy of the Code in place at the time the scheme's current CMS was recorded.

(2) Details of any purported alterations to the Code since then.

(3) Evidence of any resolutions without dissent agreeing to any changes to the Code since the CMS was recorded.

(4) If there have been changes to the Code since the CMS was recorded, the basis on which the body corporate asserts those changes have been validly incorporated into the CMS.

(5) The basis on which the body corporate asserts the respondents are required to pay an improvement bond.

• [19] In addition to the above, I explained that having reviewed the materials supplied with the body corporate's application, it was my understanding the respondents had applied to the ARC, and were granted approval, to install a swimming pool on Lot 1359. Furthermore, that it appeared the respondents had made a further auxiliary application to the ARC for approval of a driveway, pathways, garden edging, retaining walls, side fence and plantings and this was also approved, with conditions. I requested that the body corporate provided a clear explanation of what further application it is expecting the respondents to make to the ARC.
• [20] The body corporate replied providing a copy of the scheme's Code. It confirmed that no amendments had been made to the Code. It also provided a copy of the minutes of the AGM held on 22 February 2023 advising this was evidence of the requirement to pay the bond.

• [21] The body corporate is seeking three orders to resolve this dispute. I will deal with each of the orders it has sought in turn.

• [22] The first order sought by the body corporate is that the lot owner[s], (the respondents), complete and submit the appropriate application form to the scheme's ARC for review within 30 days. The body corporate has not clearly set out the basis on which it seeks this order. However, from the materials before me, I understand it considers that under the scheme's Code, the respondents are obligated to request approval from the ARC before carrying out any alterations to the landscaping of their lot.
• [23] Some schemes adopt an architectural and landscape code. This is a mechanism by which a body corporate can seek to maintain consistent design and construction standards across the scheme. Usually, schemes which adopt an architectural and landscape code will appoint an ARC to assess compliance with the code. Section 66(2)(b) of the Act and section 6(b) of the Standard Module permit the inclusion of an architectural and landscape code, including the establishment of an ARC.
• [24] Section 59 of the Act provides that owners and occupiers are bound by the CMS as if they entered into mutual covenants to observe its provisions. This means owners and occupiers must comply with the CMS, including any architectural and landscape code which has been included in the CMS.
• [25] The CMS for Boambillee was executed on 23 May 2007.[6] Schedule D of the CMS incorporates the scheme's Code. Schedule D states that the Code will be held at the office of the developer of Coomera Waters Village and Resort. As a permitted inclusion in the CMS, the respondents are obligated to comply with the provisions of the Code.
• [26] I note that in its submissions, the body corporate has not set out what provisions of the Code require the respondents to request approval from the ARC before carrying out any alterations to the landscaping of their lot.
• [27] In any event, from what I can glean from the materials before me, I understand the respondents applied to the scheme's ARC, and were granted approval, to install a swimming pool on Lot 1359.[7] In addition, it appears they made a further auxiliary application to the ARC for approval of a driveway, pathways, garden edging, retaining walls, side fence and plantings. The body corporate has supplied the letter from the ARC dated 20 June 2024, approving the respondent's auxiliary application subject to certain conditions.
• [28] The body corporate did not detail what further application it wants the respondents to complete and submit to the ARC. In my request for further information, I asked the body corporate to clarify what application it is expecting the respondents to make to the ARC. However, it did not provide the requested information.
• [29] From the limited material provided, it appears to me the body corporate is alleging that the ARC's conditions on the respondents' auxiliary application have not all been satisfied. If this is the case, I consider the appropriate remedy for any failure to comply with specific conditions would be to seek an order for the applicable conditions to be adhered to rather than that a fresh application be made to the ARC.
• [30] As the applicant in this matter, the body corporate is required to provide sufficient evidence to establish its case. From the scant information supplied in the application, I am not satisfied the respondents are obligated to make any further applications to ARC. The body corporate has failed to persuade me that order 1 is warranted in the circumstances.[8]

• [31] The second order sought by the body corporate is that the lot owner[s], (the respondents), be ordered to complete the front yard landscaping works within 90 days.
• [32] The body corporate does not set out the basis on which this order is sought however, from the material submitted, I understand it is alleging the respondents, in failing to complete the front landscaping works to their lot, are in breach of several of the scheme's by-laws. And, on this basis, the body corporate is seeking to enforce those by-laws and wants an order for the respondents to complete the front landscaping works to Lot 1359 within 90 days.
• [33] As set out at paragraph [24] above, section 59(2) of the Act provides that the CMS is binding on owners and occupiers within the scheme. This includes any by-laws the CMS contains. A body corporate's functions include enforcing the scheme's by-laws.[9] Section 182 of the Act applies if the body corporate for a community titles scheme reasonably believes that an owner or occupier of a lot is contravening a provision of the by-laws for the scheme and the circumstance of the contravention make it likely the contravention will continue. The body corporate may, by notice (a continuing contravention notice), require the person to remedy the contravention.[10]
• [34] On 27 March 2024, the body corporate issued the respondents with a continuing contravention notice. This notice alleged the respondents had breached By-law 3 (Maintenance of Lots), By-law 13 (No variation to appearance), By-law 24 (Garbage Disposal), By-law 25 (Damage to Lawns, etc on Scheme Land and By-law 26 (Damage to Common Property or Lot).
• [35] The letter accompanying the contravention notice provided further details of the breaches alleged by the body corporate including that the respondents had:
  1. not completed the approved works within the approval time for completion and the works remained unfinished for two years after the date of approval;
  2. failed to maintain and altered the external appearance of the lot including removal of driveway paving which is creating a trip hazard on common property.
  3. caused damage to common property and the lot by creating safety hazards and leaving builder's rubbish on site.

Are the respondents in breach of the scheme's by-laws?

• [36] The CMS for Boambillee contains the following by-laws referred to in the contravention notice issued to the respondents:

3.1 An Owner or Occupier of a Lot will:-

(a) be responsible for the proper maintenance and decoration of his Lot;

(b) maintain the interior of his Lot in a clean condition and take all practical steps to prevent infestation by vermin and/or insects;

(c) maintain in good condition and repair and keep clean any part of the Common Property which the owner has the exclusive use of.

• 2.2 An Owner or Occupier of a Lot will allow the Committee and the servants and contractors of the Body Corporate access to the Lot and the Improvements at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection and carrying out works under this By-Law provided that the Committee gives the Owner or Occupier reasonable Notice of its intention to enter upon the relevant Lot and carry out works under this By-Law.

(a) For the purposes of this By-Law "Improvements" includes walls, windows, garage roller doors, doors, fly screens, gates, walkways, paths, driveways, yard, lawn, landscaping, garden, plants and irrigation, and drainage facilities located within a Lot.

An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not do anything to vary the external appearance of the Lot or vary the Common Property without the prior written consent of the Committee.

24.1 Unless the Body Corporate provides some other means of garbage disposal, the Occupier of a lot must keep a receptacle for garbage in a clean and dry condition and adequately covered on the Lot, or on a part of the common property designated by the Body Corporate for the purpose.

(a) comply with all local government local Laws about disposal of garbage: and

(b) ensure that the Occupier does not, in disposing of garbage, adversely affect the health, hygiene or comfort of the Occupiers of other Lots.

(c) ensure that garbage bins left out for garbage collection are removed from the Common Property and returned to the relevant lots as soon as practical after garbage collection, and, if possible on the same day of collection.

25. Damage to Lawns, etc. on the Scheme Land

25.1 An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not:-

(a) damage or remove any lawn, garden, tree, shrub, plant or flower being part of or situated upon the Scheme Land: or

(b) except with the prior written consent of the Body Corporate, use for his own purposes as a garden any portion of the Common Property.

26. Damage to the Common Property or Lot

An Owner or Occupier of a Lot must not, without the prior written approval of the Body Corporate, mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the Common Property or any Body Corporate asset.

• [37] As I indicated previously, the body corporate has not provided detailed submissions on this dispute. And, having carefully reviewed the materials the body corporate included with its application, I am not satisfied there is sufficient evidence to find the respondents are in breach of any of the by-laws set out in the contravention notice for the reasons I set out below.
• [38] By-law 3 refers to maintenance of lots. However, there is no evidence before me that the respondents are not currently maintaining Lot 1359 (or any common property they have exclusive use of) in good condition in breach of By-law 3. In its application, the body corporate has provided a few photographs of what I understand is the front yard of Lot 1359. From what I can ascertain, the most recent photographs included in the application are those which were incorporated into the letter issued to the respondents dated 6 December 2023. This means these photographs of the condition of the front yard of Lot 1359 are almost two years old.
• [39] I note I received a late response to my request for further information from the scheme's body corporate secretary. In their email, they provided three undated photographs of what I assume is the front yard of Lot 1359. While I can see some disturbance to the grass in a line running across the front of the property where the soil has been dug up, there are no weeds or building debris in the photographs. The body corporate has failed to persuade me that the respondents are in breach of By-law 3.
• [40] By-law 13 provides that there is to be no variation of external appearance of lots in the scheme without permission from the committee. However, I understand that since being issued with the contravention notice, the respondents have made an auxiliary application to the ARC in relation to the landscaping works[11] and this application was approved.[12] Accordingly, it seems the respondents do now have approval from the ARC (and from the material before me, also the committee) to vary the external appearance of Lot 1359. I am therefore not satisfied there is an ongoing breach of By-law 13.
• [41] By-law 24 refers to garbage disposal. I understand the body corporate is alleging the respondents have allowed construction rubbish to accumulate in the front yard of their lot. However, from the limited materials provided by the body corporate, I have no evidence to make a finding that construction rubbish is currently being left on Lot 1359. In any event, I am not entirely persuaded that this by-law covers construction debris as it appears to be regulating the storage and disposal of household rubbish.
• [42] By-law 25 refers to damage to lawns etc on scheme land. The wording of this by-law purportedly does not allow an owner or occupier to damage or remove any lawn, garden, tree, shrub, plant or flower being part of or situated upon the scheme land. However, in any scheme, it would be expected that landscaping will need to be undertaken from time to time. Accordingly, I interpret this by-law to mean that landscaping can be carried out provided permission has been obtained from the body corporate. And, I understand the respondents now have permission to undertake the landscaping in question. I am therefore not satisfied there is an ongoing breach in this regard.
• [43] Finally, while the title of By-law 26 refers to damage to the common property or lot, the substantive wording of the by-law only refers to the obligation of owners and occupiers not to damage or deface common property or any other body corporate asset. From the limited material before me, I understand the respondents are undertaking landscaping in the front yard of their own lot and I am not aware of any damage being caused to common property or body corporate assets. The letter accompanying the contravention notice suggests there might be an issue with safety caused by building rubbish but, I do not consider it follows that this is a breach of By-law 26. In any event, there is no evidence before me that the respondents are allowing construction rubbish to create a hazard on common property.
• [44] For completeness, I note that due to lack of detail in the body corporate's application, I had to make some assumptions about the basis on which the body corporate is seeking the order for the respondents to complete the landscaping works within 90 days. If the body corporate was intending to seek this order on the basis of the respondents failing to adhere to the Code,[13] this was not an argument advanced in either the application or, from what I can see in the correspondence between the parties, an issue that has been put to the respondents.
• [45] For the reasons provided above, the body corporate has failed to persuade me that order 2 is warranted in the circumstances.

• [46] I now turn to the third order sought by the body corporate which is an order for confirmation that the lot owner[s], the respondents, pay the bond as required by motion 11 of the AGM held on 22 February 2023.
• [47] The body corporate has provided a copy of motion 11 which states as follows:

Non Statutory Motion (Refer Explanatory Note 11)[14]

That; the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) in consultation with the Committee be at liberty to provide works approval in accordance with the Architectural design Code and at their sole discretion request that the applicant owner pay a bond prior to the commencement of any works, to cover any foreseeable damage to the Common property as a result of the works being undertaken, and;

Further that; the minimum bond shall be no less than $500.00 with the upper limit of the bond being set at a value reasonably estimated for the reinstatement of the Common property based on any anticipated damage that may be caused to the Common property.

• [48] Votes cast on the motion were 12 in favour, 5 against and 3 abstaining.
• [49] The body corporate has not provided much detail explaining the basis on which it is seeking order 3. I note that some architectural and landscaping codes impose construction bonds to allow for rectification of any damage to common property or to ensure works are completed to the required standard. Adjudicators have consistently held that an architectural and landscape code may impose a such a bond.[15]
• [50] In my further investigations, I requested that the body corporate clarify the basis on which it asserts the respondents are required to pay the bond it is seeking. The body corporate's response was that the minutes of the AGM evidenced the respondents' requirement to pay the bond.
• [51] The body corporate's response did not further illuminate the basis on which it is seeking order 3. However, if it is asserting that motion 11 amended the Code to include a provision which allows the ARC (in consultation with the committee) to impose a bond, then I am not satisfied this outcome has been achieved.
• [52] Schedule D of the CMS for Boambillee provides that the body corporate adopt the Code promulgated (by delivery to the body corporate for the scheme) as if each provision was set out in the CMS in full. And, the Code is to be held at the office of the developer of Coomera Waters Village and Resort Pty Limited. Accordingly, I am satisfied the Code has been incorporated into the CMS.
• [53] In order to amend a CMS, the body corporate must consent to replacing the old CMS and recording a new CMS for the scheme. This consent must be given in the form of a resolution without dissent.[16] In the circumstances of this case, this means that a resolution without dissent replacing the old CMS with a new CMS would be required to amend the Code incorporated into the CMS.
• [54] Based on the material before me, the body corporate has not satisfied me that the respondents are obligated to pay the bond it is seeking confirmation they are liable for. I am not prepared to grant order 3 in the circumstances.

• [55] For the reasons provided above, I have dismissed the body corporate's application.

[3] I note Mr Katsioulas confirmed receipt of the notice of the application and the respondents' invitation to make submissions in response.

[5] Section 276(1)(a) and (b) of the Act

[7] I note the email from the BCM to the respondents dated 21 November 2022 which refers to the pool being approved by the ARC.

[8] I note a late response to my request for further information was received from the body corporate secretary which suggests the body corporate is no longer seeking order 1.

[11] I understand this included approval for a concrete driveway and paths, garden edging, retaining walls and aluminium side fence with a gate.

[12] Within the body corporate's application there is a letter from the ARC approving the respondents' application with certain conditions.