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

UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE - where the applicant wants to install external taps on her front balcony and rear courtyard to enable her to water her plants - where she wants to connect to the mains water supply in the basement through penetrations in the slab - whether the body corporate has validly refused approval for the installations.

Act, ss 20, 67-70, 94, 100, 159, 166; Standard Module, ss 180, 187, 193

• [1] This application is about the applicant's request to install external taps on the front balcony and rear courtyard of her Lot 104.[1] The applicant wants the taps because she is unable to readily access the common area taps or carry watering cans through her lot to water plants on her lot. She has provided evidence about her chronic medical condition and her need for assistance.
• [2] The applicant says her original request to install a tap on her front balcony was approved by the body corporate in 2019, without conditions other than that she pay the cost. She says she also obtained consent for a tap in her rear courtyard. However, the applicant says she was unable to proceed with the work at the time. When she was ready in 2022 to install the taps, she says consent was withdrawn. The applicant submitted a further request for approval with supporting documentation in April 2023, but no approval was given.
• [3] The applicant objects to committee decisions in September 2022 and April 2023 which she says were unreasonable. She says other lots have outside taps and all existing external taps are connected to the common mains water supply. She also says there are numerous existing pipes through block walls, stairwells and the basement. She disputes that the proposed taps will increase shared water usage costs. She says the taps will not detract from the appearance of the lot or interfere with the use of any other lot or common property.
• [4] After the application was lodged, the body corporate considered a motion at an annual general meeting (AGM) on 25 November 2024 for the applicant to installing pipes, taps and fittings to the front balcony and rear courtyard. The motion was lost with 2 votes for and 11 against.
• [5] The applicant seeks an order allowing her plumber to drill though her front balcony floor and her courtyard floor and connect pipes to the mains water in the basement, and then install taps and connections on her front balcony and her rear courtyard. I will consider whether the body corporate has unreasonably refused the applicant's requests.

• [6] Currumbin Riverview community titles scheme 528718 (Currumbin Riverview) is a 24-lot scheme at Currumbin. The community management statement (CMS) shows the Standard Module applies. The scheme is registered as survey plan 1333854.
• [7] The statement of the orders sought by the applicant says:

I am seeking to overturn the committee's decision voted on outside a committee meeting on 2nd September 2022, Motion 1 and seeking approval for the additional courtyard works as outlined in the Minutes of a meeting of the committee dated 6th April 2023, Correspondence: Item 1. All Meeting minutes are attached in Appendix F

1. An order allowing for my licensed plumber to drill 1 x 20mm hole through my front balcony floor to install and connect a pipe to the mains water in the basement. (A 'stop valve" is existing on this line and access is within my car parking space).
2. An order allowing for my licensed plumber to install a tap and fit connections for a Hoselink watering system on my front balcony; location is indicated in photos. (* discreetly hidden from street view.)
3. An order allowing for my licensed plumber to drill 1 x 20mm hole through my tiled rear courtyard floor into the opposite side of the basement to install and connect pipes to mains water. This would include installation of a 'stop valve' on this line so if any future water repairs were needed this would isolate the area and not inconvenience residents.
4. An order allowing for my licensed plumber to then install a tap and fit connections for a Hoselink watering system in my rear courtyard.
5. An order allowing for me to liaise with the relevant residents for a convenient time so that my licensed plumber will be able to gain access for a short period to their car parking spaces to undertake the scope of works.
6. An order allowing me to notify all residents (in conjunction with the Body Corporate Chairperson, Vicki Dale) the following:
7. (a) Negotiate a suitable date and time that water would be turned off for scope of works to be undertaken (30-60 minutes); plumber suggested middle of day may be more convenient

(b) Notify all residents of the date and time at least 48 hours in advance.

• [8] An adjudicator may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances to resolve a dispute about a claimed or anticipated contravention of the Act or the CMS, or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[3]
• [9] The Act provides that applications seeking to invalidate certain things, including to invalidate a committee resolution, must be lodged within three months.[4] The time limit will have been complied with if a conciliation application for the same dispute is lodged within the time limit.[5]
• [10] In part, this application seeks to overturn a committee's decision on 2 September 2022. A conciliation application was lodged within 3 months of that decision. While the applicant seeks approval for the works put to the committee in April 2023, and she disagrees with the committee failing to approve the proposed installation, she does not specifically seek an order to invalidate the committee's April 2023 resolution. Moreover, the substantive order sought is to be given approval for the taps rather than specifically to invalidate committee resolutions.

• [11] The applicant originally applied for conciliation of this dispute in November 2022.[6] The parties participated in conciliation in March 2023, but could not reach an agreement.
• [12] This application was subsequently lodged in June 2024. The applicant described the personal circumstances which prevented her pursuing the matter earlier.
• [13] The Commissioner's delegate sought clarification from the applicant on some aspects of the application.[7] The application was subsequently amended.[8]
• [14] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all owners.[9] A submission was made on behalf of the committee. The applicant responded to the submission.[10]
• [15] The application was referred to adjudication.[11] I have now investigated the dispute, including reviewing the submitted material and titles records, and seeking further information.[12]

• [16] The submission made on behalf of the committee opposes the application and includes:
  1. For over 5 years many attempts have been made by it to resolve this dispute.
  2. The request in 2019 did not mention utility infrastructure in the common car park or the plan to drill into the concrete slab. If it had, the request would have been refused.
  3. The applicant has refused to use the water supply internal to the lot.
  4. The committee does not make decisions arbitrarily and relies on the by-laws. It does not support this application based on sections 187 of the Standard Module, By-laws 4 and 7, and sections 159 and 166 of the Act.
  5. Interfering with existing piping may result in damage and affect water supply to other units, the cost of plumbing repairs would fall to the body corporate, and the cost of increased supply of water to Lot 4 will increase the cost to all owners who share costs.
  6. The proposed installation does not constitute improvements to the common property but rather risky and unnecessary modifications to utility infrastructure to suit one owner.
  7. No taps are installed on balconies or decks; all are in common areas. It details the location of taps which it says are connected to mains water supply for use by all. Taps probably installed when the building was constructed are in exclusive use areas. A recently added tap on common property is 12 meters from the applicant's balcony.
  8. Allowing interference with facility infrastructure is against the by-laws and legislation. Setting a precedent is secondary to protecting the rights of all owners to prevent future interference by anyone who wants to drill into facility infrastructure.
  9. The applicant has not understood or followed procedures in the by-laws.
  10. It comments on the conduct of the applicant with regard to common area gardens and its actions to facilitate the applicant gardening in common areas adjacent to her lot.
• [17] In response, the applicant provides further information regarding her medical condition, and comments on issues about common property raised by the body corporate. She says:
  1. Besides a tap in rear parking and walkway areas, the only tap deemed for common use in the front area was under tall hedges and anyone needing to use it had to crawl under wide hedges to connect a hose fitting approximately 10-15cm off the ground.
  2. Existing taps are in courtyards and balconies and not common areas.
  3. Existing taps are not fully accessible to her. She would need to carry a hose over her balcony and up and down stairs each time. She is not physically capable of connecting hoses to a tap. She requires a hose connection to be permanently in place.
  4. She refutes issues regarding By-laws 4 and 7, and section 166 of the Act.
  5. If damage occurred, she would pay for it and the body corporate would not be liable.
  6. She disputes any damage or interference to utility infrastructure where the installation would be by a licenced, registered plumber at her cost and install a stop value so that if repairs were needed it would not affect the supply of water to other lots. The stop valve would be above her car space and the connection would not affect other residents.
  7. She is already watering her plants so there would be no major change in water costs.
  8. She disputes that installing the taps would be a risk.
  9. She disputes setting a precedent where existing taps use the same infrastructure.
  10. As an owner she is entitled to make minor improvements.
  11. Her plumber has tried to work out proposals 3 times and the costs will have increased.

• [18] Having reviewed the submitted material, CMS and survey plan, I sought further information on several matters from the body corporate. On some matters I asked the body corporate whether it had any evidence from an appropriately qualified person to support its views. However, to be clear, I did not request or require the body corporate to obtain expert reports. The body corporate sought additional time to explore options. It subsequently provided a response. I invited the applicant to reply to the body corporate's response and she did so. Neither party provided professional reports or expert evidence in support of their claims.

• [19] The applicant seeks to overturn the committee's decisions and orders to enable her to install external taps on her lot.
• [20] In determining the dispute, I will detail the context and history of the matter and the relevant legislation and by-laws. I will then consider the body corporate's decisions and its objections. I note the applicant bears the onus of establishing that the orders she seeks are warranted.

• [21] Currumbin Riverview was registered in October 2000 as a building format plan of subdivision (BFP). It comprises Tower A, with a basement on Level A, Lots 101 to 107 on Level B, Lots 108 to 114 on Level C, and Lots 115 to 121 on Level D. Tower B comprises Levels B to D with a single lot (Lots 222, 223 and 224) on each level.
• [22] The applicant's Lot 104 is located on the ground floor Level B. It includes, within the lot boundaries, a 10m2 balcony at the street front side of the lot and a 32m2 courtyard at the rear. The lot borders common property at the front and rear and Lots 103 and 105 on each side.
• [23] Under By-laws 22 and 23 in the current CMS recorded for the scheme,[13] lots are entitled to the exclusive use of car spaces and storage rooms on common property in the basement Level A. The applicant's Lot 104 is allocated area 35 for car parking and area S for storage.
• [24] In this type of survey plan, boundaries are defined by the structural elements of a building, including the floors, walls, and ceilings. Where a lot is separated from another lot or common property by a floor, wall or ceiling, the boundary is the centre of the floor, wall, or ceiling.[14] If part of a lot is outside a building structure (such as a patio or deck), its boundaries are also usually defined by structural elements. If there is no upper structural element, the upper boundary will be defined by the extension of the ceiling of the adjoining structure on the lot.[15]
• [25] The boundary between the balcony and courtyard of Lot 104 and the basement below is the centre of the slab. As best as I can ascertain,[16] it appears the front balcony of Lot 104 is above exclusive use car spaces 35 and 36 (allocated to Lots 104 and 120) and the Lot 104 courtyard is above car spaces 12 and 14 (allocated to Lots 116 and 117).

• [26] An email from the applicant on 30 September 2019 on various issues referred to previous correspondence. The applicant noted a tap towards unit 2 but said there was no reason a plumber could not install a tap further towards the mailbox, and 1 tap in front of 21 units was not a good ratio. She proposed that 2 quotes be submitted. Minutes of a committee meeting on 30 October 2019 recorded, in regard to correspondence from the applicant, 'Tap - the committee noted that there is a tap by unit 7. The owner of lot 4 can install a tap on their lot.'
• [27] The applicant says that resolution related to her request to install a tap on her front balcony. The applicant also says she separately requested consent to install a tap in her rear courtyard, but she no longer has the email request. The applicant claims this tap was also approved by the body corporate, but she provides no evidence of any approval.
• [28] Having not initially been able to undertake the work, the applicant advised in mid-2022 of her intention to proceed. She wrote to the committee on 16 July 2022 noting her previous requests and approval. She said a plumber was installing a tap on her front balcony so she could have a permanent hose connected, which would be hidden from view by plants and a hedge. She provided photographs of the proposed location and medical evidence. She explained she was experiencing difficulty in attaching a hose and explained why.
• [29] On 1 August 2022 the committee said the previous approval was only to install one tap within her lot, plumbed within the lot. It said another tap in the common area would be easier for her to access. In view of her medical issues, it was prepared to grant permission for her to attach her hose to the back tap in the short term but suggested she look at other options in the long term. It said it did not want to set a precedent for every owner apply for a tap in their lot.
• [30] A committee resolution on 2 September 2022 then said the 2019 approval was for a change to the external appearance of a lot and not to use utility infrastructure or drill holes in the slab. It also said approval was subject to the owner using internal water supply to the lot.
• [31] In correspondence in August and September 2022 the applicant sought to install front and rear taps at the same time and discussed arrangements for the work. She said there was no reason why she would use more water. She said she was willing to pay for a 'stop' tap. She said water could not be run from under the bathroom ensuite sink because there was no access, or she would have done that. She said the holes in the slab would not exceed 15-25mmm and there were already much larger pipes. She reiterated the taps were previously approved without conditions. The body corporate's responses said it could not agree to the body corporate utility infrastructure and the concrete slab being used for the purpose outlined. It said it could not object to the taps, but it was up to the applicant to use the water to the lot.
• [32] The applicant then applied for conciliation, which ended in March 2023 without agreement.
• [33] The matter was further considered by the committee on 6 April 2023. The committee said it was not opposed to the taps, but it said the applicant required authority to access the mains water supply and for pipework to traverse the common property and other exclusive use areas through the concrete slab. It resolved to advise the applicant that its position was unchanged.
• [34] This application was subsequently lodged.
• [35] The matter was then considered by Motion 12 at the AGM on 25 November 2024 which said:

• The body corporate accepts the attached quotes supplied by owner to engage All Clear Plumbing & Gas Services to carry out scope of works at owner's expense.

Plumber to install pipes, taps and Hoselink fittings to owners front balcony and rear courtyard.

• Pipework to be connected to main water outside of unit as per other existing lots in the scheme.

• Scope of works as per attached quotes total under $3000

• Estimated Jme that the water will need to be turned off is 30-60 minutes for rear courtyard install only. No water for all 24 units will be available during this period.

• 48 hours notice will be given to all residents prior to commencement of scope of works.

• Owner will install a stop valve on the rear water line at her expense to avoid any inconvenience to residents should anyone require future work on this line

• Some basement access required and will be negotiated with relative residents and BC Chairperson.

• As per Section 187 of the BC&CM Act: The lot owner is entitled to make this as an improvement and it will not detract from the appearance of the building (front tap and reel will be discreetly hidden from font view) and is a minor improvement under $3000

• Front installation of the pipework, tap & hose reel will be next to the existing air conditioning unit and hidden behind the balcony poted palms and by the azalea bushes in the garden between Lot 103 & 104

• Rear courtyard installation is enclosed within the fenced courtyard

• Please refer to the attached BC&CM documentation of this Act, s 159 (sic)

• [36] The explanatory material included in the AGM notice provided by the body corporate included 4 quotes for the work and commentary from the committee that it did not support the motion. The committee referred to the sections 159 and 166 of the Act, section 187 of the Standard Module, and By-laws 4(c) and 7(a). It said 'The way the installation of taps is proposed to be made does not constitute improvements to the common property but rather risky and unnecessary modifications to utility infrastructure to suit one lot owner.' It said the request had been the subject of discussion and communication for 5 years, and it was responding to the adjudication application to address 'misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations'.

• [37] The applicant says other lots have outside taps and all existing external taps are connected to the common mains water supply. She says Lot 101 has 3 taps, 102 has 1 tap, Lot 107 has an external tap, and Lot 122 has at least 1 tap. She says the body corporate has paid for a tap in the front garden bed opposite the entry to Lots 102 and 103.
• [38] In its original submission, the body corporate said there were no taps on balconies and all taps were located in common areas for use by all residents. However, it also said there were taps in two exclusive use areas. It described 10 or 11 taps.[17] In response to my request for more details, the body corporate provided an annotated survey plan showing 10 taps. Of those, 6 appear to be on an exterior lot wall and others appear to be elsewhere on common property.[18] Some are in exclusive use areas.
• [39] The applicant asserts that, in addition to the taps identified by the body corporate, Lot 222 has at least one external tap in their property. She does not appear to dispute the other locations.
• [40] The applicant says all existing external taps have been connected to the mains water supply by drilling through and into block walls. The body corporate also said all external taps were connected to the mains water supply, but did not respond to my query about to whether any connect to the mains water supply by penetrations through the slab above the basement.

• [41] The applicant is seeking to install water taps at the front balcony and rear courtyard of Lot 104. Various means of supplying water to those taps have been raised.
• [42] The application included 4 quotes for the proposed work from All Clear Plumbing and Gas Services, who the applicant says is experienced, registered, licenced and insured:
  1. Quote QU-0250 dated 19 August 2022 for $508.20 to install a hose tap on the front verandah and "Cut into copper water line in garage and come up through slab to install hose tap next to air conditioner."
  2. Quote QU-0250 reference 'front hose tap' dated 5 April 2023 for $1,023 to install a hose tap on the front verandah and "Cut into copper water line in garage and bring out through side wall of basement up high under verandah where water will not penetrate into basement, Run along verandah and around concrete slab and install hose tap on wall next to air conditioner on verandah."
  3. Quote QU-0251 dated 19 August 2022 for $852.50 to install a hose tap on the back patio including "Tee into 20mm copper line to run new line to hose tap location. Penetrate up through slab to fix hose tap to wall."
  4. Quote QU-0251 reference 'hose tap rear courtyard option 1' dated 5 April 2023 for $1,257.30 to install a hose tap on the back patio including "Tee into 20mm copper line to run new line to hose tap location. Remove a tile on back veranda and drill a 20mm hole through concrete slab to bring copper pipe up through slab to fix hose to wall.", with access required to garage spaces 12, 17 and 19.
• [43] For the front balcony, the application says quote (a) above was the preferred and easiest option, with quote (b) the second option. The application grounds say both (c) and (d) are the preferred options for the rear courtyard, but quote (c) is annotated to indicate it is preferred.
• [44] The 4 quotes included in the notice for the 2024 AGM (as supplied by the body corporate) were quotes (a), (b) and (d) as listed above, along with another quote for the rear courtyard:
  1. Quote QU-O251 reference 'hose tap rear courtyard option 1' dated 20 February 2023 for $968 to install a hose tap on the back patio including "Tee into 20mm copper line to run new line to hose tap location. Penetrate up through slab to fix hose tap to wall."
• [45] The motion and the explanatory material did not specify which options or quotes the applicant intended that owners vote on or approve, or explain whether she wanted all options approved.
• [46] The applicant's response to the body corporate's further material includes 3 quotes that the applicant appears to now seek to pursue. These were quote (d) listed above and the following further quotes:
  1. Quote QU-0250 reference 'front hose tap' dated 22 March 2023 for $847 to install a hose tap on the front verandah and "Cut into copper water line in garage and bring out through side wall of basement, Along under verandah and install hose tap on wall next to air conditioner on verandah."
  2. Quote QU-0280 reference 'hose tap rear courtyard option 2' dated 22 March 2023 for $1,122 to cut tee into water line in rear garden, including to "Cut chase out through rear walkway floor to get pipe across into Kims courtyard and install hose tap on timber fence. Cement pip in slab chase to be level with finished tiles.
• [47] In regard to quote (g) (QU-0280) the applicant says that while this option would require some common property tiles to be removed and replaced, the walkway current has 2 different types of tiles and stamped concrete, and all care would be take to find a tile that would blend in. She says this option would not require any penetration through the cement slab.
• [48] The applicant now says she seeks orders to approve the scope of works in quote QU-0250 (presumably quote (f) above, although quotes (a) and (b) also have that quote reference). She also wants approval of either or both QU-0251 (presumably quote (d) although quotes (c) and (e) also have that quote reference number) and quote QU-0280.
• [49] While I appreciate the applicant has sought alternative quotes to try to resolve this dispute, the presentation of those quotes has been confusing (particularly where the quote numbers for different quotes are the same) and it is not clear that all the quotes that she now appears to seek have been formally put to the body corporate for approval.
• [50] At least some of the various quotes considered would require a penetration through the slab.
• [51] It appears the quotes involving a slab penetration for the front balcony tap would connect to the mains water pipe in her exclusive use car space 35. The applicant says there is a pipe on the wall in front of her car space with an isolation valve. The body corporate confirmed that.
• [52] I am less clear precisely where in the basement the applicant would connect the rear courtyard tap under those options. The area opposite exclusive use car space 35 includes exclusive use car spaces 12 and 14 (allocated to Lots 116 and 117 respectively) adjacent to the exterior wall with spaces 11 and 13 (allocated to the same lots) in front of them. The body corporate said there was a water pipe against the wall with an isolation valve at the rear of the Lot 114 car space, but it is enclosed in a storage case which is the exclusive use of Lot 117. But in the CMS, Lot 114 is allocated car spaces 23 and 24, which are well away from the proposed installation and well away from the exclusive use storage space allocated to Lot 117 (area J). The body corporate also says the water pipe extends over the car spaces for Lots 116 and 117, but I am unclear which spaces the body corporate is referring to. And while the applicant provides a photograph of the location of the pipe that she wants to connect to (which is not in a storage cage), in the photo the pipe is over a car space numbered both 19 and 16 and another marked 12, which does not appear to reflect the numbering of the car spaces in the CMS. The applicant may need to provide the body corporate with more detail to avoid confusion.
• [53] The body corporate said the applicant should connect the taps to the water infrastructure within Lot 104. The applicant objected to that. I asked the body corporate about the applicant's concerns and how it asserted the pipes could be connected internally. It said it was not its duty to detail that and it was the responsibility of the applicant to research this and not just give her opinion. It said an internal water pipe had been run in at least one other lot but did not identify which. It said any internal installation would require body corporate review and approval.
• [54] Although confirming its preference for internal piping in Lot 104, the body corporate said its position had changed slightly and it would consider alternative options:
  1. For the front balcony, it would consider a single penetration point nominated by the committee through the wall adjacent to the water distribution pipe in the car space for Lot 104. It said a new 12 mm copper pipe connection with isolation valve would be permitted to discharge water through this penetration and onto the outer edge of the front balcony, where it could be mounted on a vertical wall but not penetrate the floor slab. It said the plumbing plan would need to be approved by the committee.
  2. For the rear courtyard, a 12 mm copper pipe connected by a copper T to a point below the tap on the pipe on the east side of Lot 107 that would run against the base of the unit where it meets the balcony floor, under the front step to each apartment, running along the wall past Lots 107, 106 and 105 to Lot 104. It said that could benefit other owners who could also have an external tap fitted. It said it would be for the applicant to negotiate with those owners about the pipe, if they wanted a tap, and about cost sharing. It said if any rejected that proposal, the only option would be internal piping.
• [55] The body corporate said it could discuss the proposal before putting it to a general meeting.
• [56] In response, the applicant says there was no reason for her to research the committee's proposal for how water could be taken internally from her lot and the body corporate did not provide evidence on request of how it could be done.
• [57] In regard to the committee's proposal regarding the front balcony tap, she queries why the body corporate requires a plumbing plan and says her quote from 20 February 2023 explains how that would be carried out. She says there is no need for another isolation valve on that line and her plumber is more qualified to know the best position for the hole.
• [58] The applicant opposes the proposal to run the line along the base of 4 lots to the rear courtyard. She says she would need to negotiate with other owners who the committee has advised to vote against her, she would have no recourse if one owner voted not, she has no contact details for the other owners, and she would need a quote comparison.

• [59] To the extent that the applicant wishes to install taps and other utility infrastructure wholly within the boundaries of her lot, the installations would constitute an alteration to the lot. However, if the applicant wishes to drill through the slab or a wall to connect to the pipes within the basement, or otherwise seeks to make alterations to utility infrastructure and other common property outside the boundaries of Lot 104, the installations would constitute an improvement to common property.[19]

• [60] The proposed taps and associated pipes supplying water to Lot 104 would constitute utility infrastructure supplying a utility service to the lot.[20] The legislation determines that all utility infrastructure on scheme land is common property, unless it only services one lot, is wholly within the boundary of that lot, and is not in the boundary of the lot.[21]
• [61] A body corporate is usually responsible for maintaining utility infrastructure that is common property, except for certain types of infrastructure that only services one lot.[22] But a body corporate is not responsible for maintaining fixtures and fittings installed by the occupier of a lot that were installed for the occupiers' own benefit.[23]
• [62] The legislation specifies that an occupier must not, either within or outside a lot, interfere or permit the interference with utility infrastructure or utility services in a way that may affect the supply of utility services to another lot or the common property.[24]
• [63] By-law 4 in the CMS for Currumbin Riverview provides for obstructions and nuisances. It specifies at By-law 4(c) that an occupier must not interfere with the utility infrastructure.[25] By-law 7 also provides for utility infrastructure and says at By-law 7(a) that an occupier must use the utility infrastructure for the purpose for which it was designed and not any other purpose.

• [64] There is no general legislative requirement for owners and occupiers to obtain body corporate approval to make changes to their lot, but the by-laws may regulate such conduct.[26] In this scheme, the CMS includes by-laws about lot alterations.
• [65] By-law 10 includes various provisions regarding internal alterations to a lot. By-law 10(c) says:

An Occupier must not change any Utility Infrastructure within a Lot, except with the Committee's written approval. The purpose of this by-law is to ensure that the Utility Infrastructure servicing other Lots and the Common Property is not affected in any manner.

• [66] By-law 10(d) goes on to say that approvals given under 10(c) may be given on such conditions as the committee considers appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the work is not likely to promote a breach of the Act or the by-laws.
• [67] By-law 11 then makes further provision for alterations to a lot. It provides, in 11(a):

An Occupier must not make any change to the external appearance of a Lot, except with the Committee's written approval (where a minor improvement as that term is defined in the Act). In all other cases, the approval must be given in writing by the Body Corporate.

• [68] By-law 11(c ) says an approval given under 11(a) can be given on conditions the committee considers appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the work being undertaken does not affect the structural integrity of the building, does not affect the visual amenity of the scheme land and is not likely to promote a breach of the Act or these by-laws.

• [69] The legislation specifies that a body corporate can authorise owners to make improvements to common property for the benefit of their lot and to areas of common property over which they have exclusive use.[27] That would include authorising changes to utility infrastructure that is common property. While owners have a right to ask for approval to make an improvement, they do not inherently have a right to make an improvement; rather their request is subject to the reasonable decision of the body corporate.
• [70] Some improvements to common property must be approved by ordinary resolution at a general meeting. But a committee resolution will be sufficient for a minor improvement (defined as an improvement with an installed value of $3,000 or less), that does not detract from the appearance of any lot or common property, and where the use and enjoyment of the improvement is not likely to promote a breach of the owner's duties as an occupier. Any authority to make improvements to common property may be given on conditions the body corporate considers appropriate and the owner must comply with those conditions.
• [71] Also, By-law 9(c) says an owner or occupier must not mark, paint, drive nails or screws into or damage or deface common property without committee approval. Self-evidently, such alterations to common property can be made with approval.
• [72] Owners are responsible for maintaining any improvement they make to common property unless excused by the body corporate.[28]

• [73] Where a proposed improvement to common property relates to utility infrastructure, the issue of statutory easements also arises.
• [74] Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1994, a statutory easement will exist in favour of a lot and against other lots and common property, to supply utility services to the lot and to establish and maintain utility infrastructure reasonably necessary to supply those services.[29]
• [75] The Act then provides for the application of statutory easements.[30] Rights under an easement must not be exercised in a way that unreasonably prevents or interferes with the use and enjoyment of a lot or common property.[31]
• [76] Essentially these provisions give owners a qualified right to install and maintain utility infrastructure on or over other lots and common property to supply a utility service to their lot. This does not displace the requirement to obtain body corporate approval where required under the regulations or a by-law.[32] But, in deciding a request for an improvement that involves installing utility infrastructure to service a lot, the body corporate should have regard to statutory easement rights. It should consider if the infrastructure is reasonably necessary to supply the service and whether it would unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of lots or common property. It may propose conditions on the location or nature of the installation, including to address any interference.
• [77] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal has considered when an easement is 'reasonably necessary' to supply a utility service.[33] Member Traves said noted a Victorian Court of Appeal decision which found the word 'necessary' means 'essential' but is qualified by the broad concept of 'reasonable'.[34] Member Traves concluded that:

Utility infrastructure will be reasonably necessary in this context, in my view, if the supply of [the utility service] cannot be performed or achieved without it, and if an alternative location for the infrastructure is not feasible or reasonably available. It will also be necessary to consider the whole picture, which here would mean taking into account the effect of the location of the utility infrastructure on the right of other lot owners to the use and enjoyment of the relevant common property.

• [78] A body corporate must act reasonably in undertaking all of its functions, including in making or not making a decision about those functions.[35] Similarly, a committee must act reasonably in making a decision.[36] Where this does not occur, an adjudicator may intervene to make an order that is just and equitable to resolve a dispute_._
• [79] The test for whether a decision is reasonable is objective.[37] It is a question of fact, having regard to all the circumstances.[38] Reasonable decision-making "...involves an evaluation of the known facts, circumstances and considerations that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue..." and "...requires that all relevant matters are taken into consideration and irrelevant ones are left out".[39] The person challenging a decision bears the onus of proof that the body corporate failed to act reasonably.
• [80] It is not for an adjudicator to supplant the body corporate's decision-making role or impose their own views on the body corporate. A decision should only be set aside if an adjudicator is satisfied the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable body corporate could have come to it, or it is 'conflicted, arbitrary, patently absurd or plainly unjust'.[40]

• [81] The applicant may genuinely believe the body corporate approved the installation of taps in 2019. However, I am not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated that it did. The committee may have contemplated a tap being installed in Lot 104, but it is not clear from the submitted evidence that the committee authorised taps to be connected to utility infrastructure on common property rather than to utility infrastructure within the lot.
• [82] The orders sought by the applicant specifically seek to overturn the committee decisions in September 2022 and April 2023. The question raised in regard to those decisions is whether the body corporate acted reasonably when considering the matter. The application does not specifically challenge the decision at the AGM after the application was lodged.
• [83] The decision in September 2022 substantively just appeared to state what the committee considered had been approved and had not been approved in 2019. It is not clear that the committee explicitly considered the matter afresh having regard to the additional detail of the request and the basis for it. If it did consider the request afresh, it did not approve it.
• [84] In April 2023 the committee said it was not opposed to taps within the lot, but approval was required to access the mains water supply and install pipework on common property and through the slab. It indicated its position was unchanged on that. It is not clear if the committee considered any new information about the work or the applicant's circumstances since its previous consideration in 2022.

• [85] I will consider the various issues raised with respect to the body corporate's refusal.

• [86] The committee submission indicates a view that it would be contrary to the legislation and the by-laws for the proposed installation to be approved. I do not agree.
• [87] The regulations clearly permit a body corporate to authorise an owner to make a change to common property, and that includes utility infrastructure on common property. It is empowered to approve an alteration by an owner to the slab below Lot 104 that is common property, or any other area of common property, and to the mains water pipes on common property.
• [88] Based on the quoted amounts, each installation they would be a minor improvement. I see no reason why the installations would detract from the appearance of any lot or common property. Where the installations would simply provide a different means of the applicant supplying water to her front balcony and rear courtyard to water plants that she is already entitled to water, I do not consider the use of the taps would breach of the owner's duties as an occupier. As such, I am satisfied the improvements to common property could be approved by the committee. However, while the committee may be empowered to approve the installations, there is no inherent reason why it could not choose to put the matter to a general meeting.
• [89] The committee says the applicant is not following the procedures in the by-laws and appear to assert that the installations would breach the by-laws. However, each of the by-laws allow for things to be done with body corporate approval and the applicant has applied for approval. That accords with the legislation and by-laws.
• [90] If the alterations to common property were approved, there would be no breach of By-law 9(a).
• [91] I do not accept the installations could lead to a breach of By-law 7. Their purpose is to a provide an alternative means of accessing water to do something the applicant is already entitled to do. That is clearly using utility infrastructure for the purpose for which it is designed.
• [92] I also do not accept that additional connections to the mains water supply, installed by a licenced plumber and with body corporate approval, would of itself interfere with the utility infrastructure. 'Interfere' denotes an impediment, damage or obstruction or an uninvited or adverse intervention. Where other external taps are connected to the mains water supply and the applicant proposes isolation valves, I have no evidence the connections would interfere with the supply of water to other lots or common property. As such, I do not consider that approving the connections would breach section 166 of the Act or By-law 4.
• [93] In regard to the component of the proposed work that is with Lot 104, it is evident that the work would alter utility infrastructure within the lot. On that basis, it required committee approval under By-law 10(c). That by-law clearly contemplates alterations to utility infrastructure and there is no indication the committee has any objection to any alteration within Lot 104. It does not seem the taps would alter the external appearance of Lot 104, and so it does not appear that By-law 11(a) would relevant. In any event, the committee does not appear to object to any alteration of the external appearance of the lot.
• [94] Accordingly, I see no reason why the body corporate could not approve the installations or why the installations, if approved, would give rise to a breach of the legislation or the by-laws.

• [95] Given the circumstances, there is also a question of whether the applicant has rights under a statutory easement that would entitle her to install the taps and connect them to the mains water in the manner which she would prefer.
• [96] That requires consideration of whether the proposed utility infrastructure (being the additional pipework on common property and the connection to the mains water pipe in the basement) is reasonably necessary to supply water to the external areas of Lot 104, whether the infrastructure would unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of other lots or common property, and whether and conditions on the location or nature of the installation could address any potential interference.
• [97] It is not evident that the committee gave any consideration to statutory easement rights. It may not have been aware of them but did not respond to that point when raised in the application. I will discuss those matters.

• [98] The applicant seeks to install the taps to enable her to water plants on her lot. She says her medical condition means she has difficulty using the taps on common property.
• [99] Having regard to the applicant's privacy, I do not consider it necessary to detail in these published reasons the nature of the applicant's condition, the submitted medical evidence, the committee comments about her abilities, or the applicant's response. Having reviewed all the material, I am satisfied the applicant has a genuine and continuing medical condition that is likely to significantly impede her ability to water the plants on her front balcony and rear courtyard relying only on taps on common property or indoor taps. I am satisfied she has a genuine need for hoses to be permanently connected at the front and rear of the lot.
• [100] While not all evidence provided in this application was given to the committee at the time of its decisions, I am satisfied the committee was on notice of the applicant's circumstances and why she sought the taps at least in 2022. I am not satisfied from the submitted material that the committee had proper regard for her circumstances. It appears it either did not consider the information provided by the applicant about her medical condition at all or, if it did not accept that the evidence supplied was adequate or evidenced a need for the taps, it did not inform her of that or seek further information or clarification. The committee's suggestions of using a tap turner or using taps on common property several metres away, under a hedge, or downstairs suggest to me the committee did not adequately consider the particular needs of the applicant.

• [101] The fact that the applicant may reasonably need taps to supply water to the external areas of her lot does not of itself mean she is entitled to install the taps in the way she seeks, by connecting to the mains water supply in the basement. The committee does not appear to oppose external taps on Lot 104 but wants them connected within the lot rather than to the mains water. It subsequently canvassed alternatives.
• [102] The question then is whether the applicant reasonably needs to install a connection to the mains water supply in the ways proposed to be able to supply water to the external areas of her lot, or whether she could connect taps to the water supply within the lot or connect them to the mains water supply in some other way.
• [103] The applicant has canvassed different ways of connecting to the mains water supply and indicated difficulties with connecting the taps internally. She refers to there being a lack of access, that it would detract from the interior of the lot, and that it would cause additional and unnecessary expense. She implies that she would have done so if she could. However, it is not clear whether the predominant issue for the applicant is that internal connections would be more expensive or unattractive, or because internal connection would not be practical or feasible. The applicant has provided no detail and no evidence (such as written advice from a plumber or builder) in that regard. Similarly, the applicant has not established that the body corporate's suggestions for connections to the mains water supply are not technically feasible- rather it appears she opposes them because they would be more difficult to negotiate.
• [104] At this stage, the applicant has not established that it is reasonably necessary to install the taps in the manner that she proposes.

• [105] If the proposed additional utility infrastructure and connections to utility infrastructure on common property were reasonably necessary, the next question is whether they would unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of any other lot or common property.
• [106] The body corporate raises concerns about connections to the mains water pipe and penetrations through the slab.
• [107] Where it appears there are already 10 external taps connected to the mains water supply, I asked the body corporate the basis on which it asserted that additional connections would risk or adversely affect the utility infrastructure or could affect the water supply to other lots. The body corporate said that whenever water mains are interfered with, there is a chance of failure. It said that if the applicant wants to connect, she must provide a suitably qualified engineer's report guaranteeing that the connection will not fail if correctly installed.
• [108] Unless there are known issues with the mains water supply infrastructure or the water supply, or existing expert advice about further connections to the mains water supply infrastructure, it seems improbable to suggest that another connection to a mains water supply installed by a licenced plumber would be inherently problematic. I note the body corporate has said an external tap was only recently installed between Lots 103 and 104. If the body corporate did not obtain a plumbing or engineering report before installing that infrastructure, and if it did not obtain or require such reports when other external taps were installed, it may be unreasonable to require the applicant to obtain one before her connections could be approved.
• [109] In regard to the proposed penetrations through the slab, or through the side wall, I asked the body corporate whether it asserted that would adversely affect the slab, wall, or other common property and if so, on what basis. The body corporate responded that there are at least 4 and possibly 6 penetrations through the ground floor slab that have started to leak since the scheme was constructed. It says they have been difficult and expensive to repair. On that basis, it says the committee and many owners are sensitive about penetrations through the bottom floor slab in areas exposed to the weather. It says it has the right to deny permission to any penetration or other disturbance of the concrete structure. It says it is not obliged to defend its sensitivity or defend the majority vote. It says it is the obligation of the applicant to provide a suitably qualified engineers report to support the penetration.
• [110] The applicant says the committee has raised hypothetical concerns about how two 20 mm holes would compromise the structural integrity of the apartment block and it has failed to provide factual evidence of this. She doubts that a qualified engineer or building would provide a report saying that. She says the body corporate's response about leaks and its repair attempts raises questions of whether there has been proper maintenance or qualified repairs. That may be the case, but it does not advance the applicant's position.
• [111] I do not consider the body corporate would be acting reasonably if it automatically refused permission for any penetration of a slab or wall regardless of the circumstances or any evidence that the penetration would not have any adverse impact.
• [112] However, I accept that it is not unreasonable for the body corporate to have concerns about slab penetrations if it has previous or current issues in that regard. I agree the onus is on the applicant to provide written advice from an appropriately qualified person that any proposed penetration would not affect the structural integrity or waterproofing of the building.
• [113] I would also note the installation of a connection to the mains water pipe and any need for access to maintain that connection within the exclusive use car space allocated to other lots could potentially affect the rights of the lots benefiting from the exclusive use areas. However, that is unlikely to rise to a level of unreasonable interference in the circumstances. If a mains water pipe is located in an exclusive use area, it is not of itself part of the grant of exclusive use rights.[41] The time take to install the connection would be short, and the need to access the exclusive use areas to maintain the connection to the mains water pipe is likely to be rare.

• [114] The body corporate's initial submission said the cost of increased supply of water to Lot 104 would increase the cost to all owners who share costs.
• [115] It is not disputed that the applicant is currently entitled to use water from external taps on common property. It also does not appear to be disputed all owners share the cost of water supply at the scheme regardless of whether the water used is sourced from a tap on common property or a tap located within a lot. In that context, I asked the committee about the basis on which it asserted the proposed installations would increase water supply costs for all owners. It acknowledged any water used from common taps in the building is shared by all owners.
• [116] In the circumstances, it does not appear that concerns about the cost of water supply would be a rational basis to refuse to approve the installation of the proposed taps.

• [117] The body corporate's original submission said the cost of plumbing repairs arising from this proposal would fall on it.
• [118] The applicant is responsible for utility infrastructure within her lot that is not common property,[42] and (as outlined above) she would be responsible for maintaining any authorised improvement to common property (unless excused). On that basis, I asked the body corporate why it asserted it would be responsible for any repairs associated with the proposed installations. It responded that any 'downstream' problem or obstruction arising from the new connections would be the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant confirms she would pay for any damage and the body corporate would not be liable.
• [119] I have no evidence of a genuine issue that the proposed installations would increase maintenance costs for the body corporate, or that this would be a reasonable basis to refuse to approve any installations for Lot 104.

• [120] The body corporate's submission refers to not wanting to set a precedent for owners to install similar taps. However, in acting reasonably, the body corporate must consider each request for approval on the merits and given the circumstances. That will include considering the nature and impacts of each particular connection (which is likely to differ in each case) as well as the basis for the request. In this case, I consider the body corporate should have had regard to the particular circumstances of the applicant in regard to her need for taps on her lot.

• [121] I acknowledge the applicant's genuine interest in installing taps on her lot, and that they are something the body corporate could approve. However, that of itself is not sufficient to warrant the intervention of an adjudicator's order. Moreover, I consider both sides of this dispute have been operating under some misapprehensions as to the legislation and their rights.
• [122] I have concerns about the approach taken by the body corporate on this issue. I consider, for example, that suggesting approval was contrary to the legislation and by-laws and recommending owners vote against approval on that basis was inappropriate. The applicant was entitled to ask for approval for the proposed installations and the body corporate was empowered to approve them. There would be no breach of the legislation or by-laws if the proposed installations were approved. Also, it is not evident that the body corporate had regard to potential statutory easement rights, and I do not consider it gave due regard to the applicant's personal circumstances.
• [123] Despite that, I am not satisfied the applicant has substantiated that the body corporate failed to act reasonably in refusing approval based on the information provided by her to date. While it could have approved her proposals, it did not have to if it acted reasonably. I do not accept there was any approval in 2019 for the installations that are now sought. The motion submitted by the applicant to the 2024 AGM was confusing where there were 4 quotes for 2 installations but the motion did not indicate which quotes were proposed and the proposals were not submitted as groups of same issue motions so owners could vote for their preference.[43] The applicants proposals and quotes are not entirely clear on exactly where pipes would be installed on common property and connected to the mains pipe, and the body corporate is entitled to know specific details before it can make an informed decision. As the project proponent, the applicant must convince the body corporate in the first instance.
• [124] More importantly, the applicant has not yet established that her preferred installations are the only practical means of providing water supply to the external areas of her lot, and would not unreasonably interfere with the common property, such that she has a statutory entitlement to the installations. Alternatively she has not established that the body corporate could not reasonably prefer an alternative means of her supplying water to her external areas.
• [125] It follows that I have dismissed the application.
• [126] Having regard to the information outlined, I encourage parties to work constructively to explore how the water taps on the front balcony and rear courtyard of Lot 104 could be achieved. Notably, it appears the body corporate may be willing to approve a connection to the front balcony that went through the wall rather than the slab.
• [127] The applicant can submit further motions to the committee or a general meeting, either for the same proposals or for different means of connection. It may be preferrable to separate the front balcony and rear courtyard taps into separate motions. If alternatives are being considered for each, they should be listed as a group of same issue motions. If the applicant submits further motions, the body corporate must act reasonably in doing so, acknowledging that the body corporate is empowered to approve the installations if appropriate.
• [128] If the applicant asserts that the proposed taps cannot feasibly or practicably be connected to the utility infrastructure within the lot, she could obtain evidence from an appropriately qualified person (such as a licenced plumber or builder) to that effect. If she asserts that her proposed connections to the mains water supply or any penetration through common property would not adversely affect the common property or water supply at the scheme, she could similarly provide evidence from appropriately qualified persons.

[1] Lot 104 is also variously referred to as Lot 4 and Unit 4 but for consistency I will only use Lot 104.

[3] See sections 227, 228, 276 and Schedule 5 of the Act

[13] Recorded 14 December 2012, titles dealing number 714843477

[14] Sections 48C and 49C(4) of the Land Title Act 1994

[15] Registrar of Titles Directions for the Preparation of Plans, Department of Natural Resources, Mines & Energy, 1998-2018, paragraphs 9.6.3 and 4

[16] I note the sketch plan of exclusive use areas in the CMS is quite unclear.

[17] The list is somewhat unclear, and one tap may be listed twice.

[18] One may be wholly within a courtyard, but it is unclear from the annotated plan.

[19] Pursuant to the definition of improvement in schedule 6 of the Act, and improvement includes a change.

[20] See the definitions of utility infrastructure and utility services in schedule 6 of the Act

[22] Section 180(4) of the Standard Module

[23] Section 180(3) of the Standard Module

[25] The term utility infrastructure is defined in By-law 1.1

[27] Section 159 of the Act and sections 187 and 193 of the Standard Module

[28] Sections 187(4) of the Standard Module

[29] Section 115O of the Land Title Act 1994; the definitions of utility services and utility infrastructure in the Land Title Act 1994 point to the definitions of those terms in schedule 6 of the Act

[31] Section 68(1) of the Act, Ralborg No 2 Pty Ltd atf Ralston Property Trust v The Body Corporate for The Regent Apartments CTS 9573 [2020] QCATA 117

[32] Ralborg No 2 Pty Ltd atf Ralston Property Trust v The Body Corporate for The Regent Apartments CTS 9573 [2020] QCATA 117, para 62

[33] Ralborg No 2 Pty Ltd atf Ralston Property Trust v The Body Corporate for The Regent Apartments CTS 9573 [2020] QCATA 117

[34] Body Corporate No. 413424R v Sheppard [2008] VSCA 118

[37] Gold Coast Apartment Management P/L v Price & Ors [2017] QCATA 99

[38] Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49

[39] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 43, citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423

[40] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 at 34, 74 and 98

[42] Noting section 20 of the Act and section 211 of the Standard Module