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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY; BY-LAWS - where the respondents permitted their tenant to convert their lot into a dental surgery, which involved making new penetrations in structural features forming the boundaries of the lot, installing an air compressor on common property, and making new connections to common property utility infrastructure; where the respondents did not have body corporate approval for these changes to the common property; whether the respondents must reverse the improvements to the common property and reinstate it to its former condition.

Act, ss 20, 100(5), 180(1); Accommodation Module, ss 177, 183; Land title Act 1994, ss 49C(4), 115O(1).

1. Within one year, the respondents must reverse the changes they permitted their son to make to the common property and reinstate it to its former condition, including:
   1. sealing penetrations in the slab and wall forming boundaries of lot 1
   2. disconnecting new utility connections, and
   3. removing the air compressor

unless the body corporate approves the improvements by ordinary resolution, or an adjudicator orders otherwise.

• [1] Mr and Ms Lakra purchased lot 1 at Harmony Residences in November 2023 and sought to renovate it for their son's use as a dental surgery. Their son (Dr Lakra) applied for body corporate approval to improve the lot and install signs before the sale was finalised, but the body corporate committee refused the requests. Dr Lakra revised the proposal and applied again in late November 2023, advising:

...there is no alteration or occupying of common area. All the work undertaken is internal within lot boundaries.

As for the signage requirements, we no longer need this to be done.

• [2] The committee approved this application on 21 December 2023, subject to conditions that included:

... no visitor or resident parking is used for the commercial lot's staff, owners or customers, and none of the building's structure is altered or damaged during the renovation outlined in the updated proposed plans.

• [3] However, the body corporate says Dr Lakra then proceeded, without body corporate approval, to:
  1. install "plumbing, sewage, water and waste pipework" through a wall and floor slab separating lot 1 from adjacent common property
  2. mount an air compressor on common property adjacent to the lot
  3. install signs in the lot windows and place two A-frame signs on the footpath outside
  4. park on the common property, including in visitors' parking spaces, and allow his contractors to block the driveway, and
  5. leave concrete debris and damage in the basement.
• [4] The committee also says it was advised by a contractor that the fire sprinklers in lot 1 were not compliant with fire safety regulations after the renovation, as they could no longer provide sufficient coverage due to the new internal walls.
• [5] The committee claims contraventions of by-laws 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1, and 4.6 and section 166 of the Act and seeks orders in the following terms:
  1. The owners and/or tenants of Lot 1 of Harmony Residences to repair damage to the common property of Harmony Residences; and
  2. The owners and/or tenants of Lot 1 of Harmony Residences remove all signage from the front window of the building;
  3. The owners and tenants of Lot 1 of Harmony Residences cease parking their vehicles on the common property of Harmony Residences.
  4. Reinstate common property to its pre-work condition.
  5. Repair holes in concrete slab between the ground floor and basement.
  6. Repair holes in concrete wall between Lot 1 and the visitors' car park.
  7. Remove all plumbing work, including water, sewage and waste pipes, from common property and reinstate utility connections to their original condition.
  8. Repair damaged concrete floor of basement.
  9. Rectify fire sprinklers and associated pumps, that service Lot 1, to a standard that is compliant with QFD requirements.

10. Remove all visible signage from the front of Lot 1, including wrap-around signs and neon signs.

11. Stop parking vehicles in visitors' car park and/or on common property.

• [6] Orders 1 and 4-7 all relate to changes to the common property made by Dr Lakra with the consent of Mr and Ms Lakra. Dr Lakra installed an air compressor on the common property side of a wall forming a boundary of lot 1 and made holes in the wall to connect the compressor to the lot. He also put three holes through the floor slab for other utility connections.
• [7] The boundaries of lot 1 lie at the centre of the structural features that separate the lot from surrounding common property.[1] Consequently, when a hole is put through those features, a change is made to the lot and to the common property.
• [8] All utility infrastructure on scheme land is common property, except where it is entirely within the boundaries of a lot, not within a boundary structure, and only provides a utility service to that single lot.[2] So, when Dr Lakra made new plumbing and electrical connections to existing utility infrastructure outside the boundaries of lot 1, he made further changes to the common property.
• [9] An owner may make an improvement to the common property with the consent of the body corporate,[3] where improvements include structural and non-structural changes and should generally have the effect of adding to the value or utility of the common property.[4] The Act gives the example of the installation of air conditioning.
• [10] The changes made by Dr Lakra were improvements to the common property. The penetrations were structural changes, the changes to utility infrastructure and the installation of the air compressor were non-structural changes, and they all improved the utility of the common property by providing new utility services to lot 1. Hence, they required body corporate approval.
• [11] They also required approval pursuant to by-law 3.1, which says that an owner may not, without the written consent of the committee:
  1. make any structural alterations to the lot (including any alteration to gas, water, or electrical installations or installation of any air conditioning system); or
  2. do anything which might affect the structural integrity of the scheme building.
• [12] By-law 3.6 says, inter alia, that when applying for consent "the owner must submit a written request together with plans and specifications to the committee".
• [13] Dr Lakra thought it was understood that he would need to make these changes when he sought and obtained body corporate approval to convert the lot into a dental surgery. Objectively, that was not clear in his application or the body corporate's approval. The body corporate application form Dr Lakra completed was for a "lot improvement". He assured the committee all work would be within lot boundaries. A condition of the committee's approval was that the building's structure would not be altered. The plans submitted by Dr Lakra when seeking body corporate approval in December 2023 did not include any "plans and specifications" of the penetrations, air conditioner, or changes to utility infrastructure.
• [14] When Dr Lakra learned of the committee's concerns, he applied for retrospective approval for the air compressor and penetrations, but the committee refused. He went on to obtain various evidence and approvals the committee had requested (trade waste permit, concrete x-rays, local government approvals etc) and submit them to the committee. He now argues that the committee acted unreasonably in contravention of section 100(5) of the Act by continuing to withhold approval after its concerns had been addressed.
• [15] However, it is unnecessary to decide that question because the committee lacked the power to approve Dr Lakra's improvements to the common property. Improvements with an installed value exceeding $3,000 require approval by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.[5] The combined improvements necessary to convert lot 1 into a dental surgery would have comfortably exceeded that threshold. It cost $750 to core drill the four holes through the wall and floor slab. Fire collars for those penetrations cost a further $1210. The air compressor cost an additional unknown yet undoubtedly significant sum. Further amounts were spent on the changes to common property plumbing and electrical infrastructure. Dr Lakra submitted the following plumbing and electrical invoices, some portion of which likely related to the common property:
  1. $4,471.51 paid to RL Electrical on 8 February 2024 for "pre wire for the new dentist area"
  2. $5,121.60 for unspecified plumbing paid to Brisbane City Property on 3 April 2024, and
  3. $3,500.63 paid to RL Electrical on 19 April 2024, which included work to "fit off the main switchboard".
• [16] Mr and Ms Lakra will need to seek approval at a general meeting for the changes made on their behalf to the common property. They have accumulated a comprehensive collection of approvals and expert reports on the changes. I suggest they share them with owners to assist them to make an informed and reasonable decision.
• [17] When considering the request, owners should be mindful that a statutory easement exists in favour of lots and against the common property "for supplying utility services to the lot and establishing and maintaining utility infrastructure reasonably necessary for supplying the utility services".[6] In other words, Mr and Ms Lakra have a legal right to use the common property in ways that are reasonably necessary for supplying utility services, such as water, electricity, and air conditioning, to their lot.
• [18] That does not mean they may install whatever they like wherever they like irrespective of the views of other owners. Owners might reasonably impose conditions with respect to how the work is done, its presentation, precisely where certain items are located, whether further work is necessary to limit intrusive noise or light, and so on. But a blanket refusal is unlikely to be lawful if it means depriving lot 1 of utility services.
• [19] I will order Mr and Ms Lakra to remove the improvements to common property and reinstate it to its former condition unless they obtain body corporate approval by ordinary resolution within one year. The long timeframe should allow sufficient time to seek approval at a general meeting, and to challenge any refusal if they believe it is unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. I am not aware of any urgency to resolve this matter sooner, bearing in mind that the improvements were made more than a year ago and they do not appear to pose any threat to the building or common property. Mr and Ms Lakra submitted a compliance certificate from an engineer stating that the penetrations will not compromise the structural integrity of the slab or wall, a final inspection certificate from Brisbane City Council stating that the plumbing changes are "compliant, operational and fit for use", and a trade waste approval from Queensland Urban Utilities.

• [20] The body corporate asks that Mr and Ms Lakra remove all signs from the front window of the building and the front of lot 1 (orders 2 & 10), apparently referring to the signs in the windows of lot 1 and the A-frame signs Dr Lakra places on the footpath outside. The body corporate relies on by-law 3.2, which says that an owner or occupier must not change the external appearance of the lot without the prior written consent of the committee.
• [21] However:
  1. by-law 7.6 grants lot 1 exclusive use of the "exterior of the glazed surfaces of the retail lot"
  2. section 183 of the Accommodation Module says an exclusive use by-law may authorise improvements to an exclusive use area,[7]
  3. by-law 7.6 permits the installation of signs provided they comply with local government requirements and any costs are met by the owner or occupier, and
  4. Mr and Ms Lakra say they were advised that some of their signs are self-assessable, and they submitted a copy of Advertising Signs Permit 2308478 from Brisbane City Council for their illuminated sign.
• [22] Hence, it appears that Mr and Ms Lakra were entitled to install the signs in the lot windows pursuant to by-law 7.6 and section 183 of the Accommodation Module. To the extent that by-law 3.2 suggests otherwise, it conflicts with section 183 and is invalid.[8]
• [23] A-frame signs placed on the footpath adjacent to Harmony Residences do not breach by-law 3.2 as they do not change the appearance of the lot.

• [24] At orders 3 and 10, the body corporate asks that the owners and tenants of lot 1 cease parking on common property, including in visitors' parking spaces. The body corporate alleges contraventions of by-laws 4.1 and 4.3. By-law 4.1(a) prohibits obstruction of the lawful use of the common property, while 4.3(a) says:

The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate's written approval-

(i) Park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand, on the common property; or

• (A) Permit an invitee to park a vehicle, or allow a vehicle to stand, on the common property, except for the designated visitor parking which must remain available at all times for the sole use of visitors' vehicles.

• [25] However, the body corporate only claims that the occupiers of lot 1 and their contractors have parked on common property without permission, not the owners. The occupiers are not respondents to this application. I cannot make orders against them.
• [26] I would not order Mr and Ms Lakra to refrain from parking in visitor parking bays, as they do not occupy the lot or (to my knowledge) any other lot at the scheme. If they were to visit the scheme, by-law 4.3(a)(i)(A) would permit them to park in a visitor parking bay.
• [27] In any event, Dr Lakra has apologised for parking on common property and said he will not do so again in future. Work on the lot ended a year ago, so there seems little ongoing risk of contractors obstructing the common property either. Hopefully this issue has now been resolved.

• [28] The body corporate says it discovered damage to the concrete floor of the basement during pressure washing in July 2024. It believes the damage was caused by the works to lot 1. It submitted a photograph of marks on what looks to be a concrete parking space. The location is unclear.
• [29] Mr and Ms Lakra say this damage is too far from lot 1 to have been caused by the renovations to their lot.
• [30] There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Mr and Ms Lakra are responsible for the marks shown in the photograph.

• [31] The body corporate says its fire contractor advised in February 2024 that "the fire sprinklers which service Lot 1 would no longer be compliant because they could no longer provide sufficient coverage for the lot, after the fit-out alterations were complete." The body corporate provided no information on the "associated pumps" mentioned in order 9.
• [32] The fire sprinklers have now been rectified. Mr and Ms Lakra submitted a copy of an email of 7 February 2025 from an officer of the Queensland Fire Department stating that, at a reinspection conducted on 25 October 2024, "the premise was found to be compliant with the fire safety installations installed at the time". No order appears to be necessary.

• [33] For these reasons, Mr and Ms Lakra must obtain body corporate approval by ordinary resolution for their changes to the common property, or restore the common property to its previous condition, within one year. If their general meeting motion seeking approval is voted down and they believe the body corporate acted unreasonably or otherwise unlawfully, they may lodge an adjudication application challenging the decision.
• [34] The application is otherwise dismissed.

[4] Act, schedule 6; O'Neill v Perrins & Body Corporate for Bayview Mansions CTS 9302 [2008] CCT KA003-08 at [32]-[33].

[5] Accommodation Module, s 177(2)(a) & (5).

[6] Land Title Act 1994, s 115O(1).

[7] s 183.