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

IMPROVEMENT TO COMMON PROPERTY - REASONABLENESS - where lot owner proposed to install a power point within her lot's car space to charge an electric vehicle - where body corporate approval is required to connect to common property utility infrastructure - where committee refused approval - whether committee acted unreasonably in refusing approval.

Act, ss94(2) & 100(5); Accommodation Module, s177

1. The Body Corporate for Powerhouse Terraces is deemed to have approved the applicant's request to install a power point in the car space for Lot 59, for the purpose of charging an electric vehicle, as proposed and subject to the conditions contained in Motion 2 of the committee resolution of 26 February 2025.

• [1] The applicant is the owner of Lot 59 at Powerhouse Terraces. She wants to install a power point within her lot's car space so she can charge her electric vehicle (EV). The power point is proposed to be fitted with its own separate metre so that the applicant pays for all electricity usage. However, as the installation involves connection to common property utility infrastructure, body corporate approval is required.
• [2] The applicant submitted her proposal to the committee, but the committee declined her request. The committee considers it unequitable to allow the applicant to install a power point now when the building's electrical infrastructure cannot support all lots having access to EV charging. The committee wants to wait until a fair, building-wide EV charging solution can be developed.
• [3] The applicant argues that the committee's decision is unreasonable. Given the existing system has capacity for 20 individual power points to be installed, the applicant says owners who are ready to install now should be allowed to do so, while the body corporate develops a longer term plan for building-wide EV charging infrastructure.
• [4] The issue to be determined is whether the committee acted unreasonably in refusing the applicant's request. If so, I may make an order giving effect to the applicant's proposed installation.

• [5] Powerhouse Terraces is a 63-lot community titles scheme in New Farm. The scheme is registered as Survey Plan 118989 and is regulated by the Accommodation Module.
• [1] 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 community management statement (CMS), or the exercise of rights or powers or performance of duties under the Act or the CMS.[1] Specifically, if satisfied the body corporate's decision about a proposal by the owner of a lot to make improvements on or changes to common property is an unreasonable decision, an adjudicator may make an order requiring the body corporate to agree to the proposal.[2] Similarly, if satisfied a decision not to pass a motion was unreasonable, an order may be made giving effect to the motion as proposed.[3]
• [2] I am satisfied I have jurisdiction to determine this matter under the dispute resolution provisions.[4]
• [3] The parties initially attempted department conciliation but failed to reach an agreement. The applicant then lodged the current adjudication application.
• [4] The Commissioner invited submissions from the committee and all lot owners in the scheme. The committee did not make a submission. Two lot owners made submissions in support of the application.
• [5] I have investigated the dispute including reviewing the application and submissions.

• [6] As stated, the committee did not make a submission in response to the application. However, its reasons for refusing the applicant's proposal are made clear in the exchange of correspondence with the applicant.
• [7] The committee rejected the applicant's proposal on the basis of equity for all owners. The decision was said be based on a switchboard analysis which confirmed that the building's existing electrical infrastructure has capacity for either 20 individual power points or all 63 car spaces if a Load Management System is implemented. The committee is of the view that approving individual installations at this stage would create an unequitable situation whereby some owners gain access to EV charging now at the detriment of others who may wish to install EV chargers in the future. The committee determined that it is in the best interests of all owners to defer any approvals until a fair and comprehensive building-wide EV charging strategy can be developed.
• [8] The applicant says there are currently 4 out of 63 owners in the building who own an electrical vehicle. Given the gradual adoption rate of EVs in Australia, the applicant believes it may take some time before a significant majority of owners require EV charging infrastructure. The applicant argues that allowing individual installations at no cost to the body corporate is a fair interim solution that supports residents who are ready to transition to EVs now, without precluding future, broader infrastructure projects. Further, she points out that historically, owners have been permitted to make individual improvements such as installing air conditioning units that benefit their specific units without requiring universal implementation.
• [9] One lot owner, Ms Labzin submits that she also has an electric vehicle and has previously been involved in the committee's investigation of EV charging solutions for the scheme. Ms Labzin says the committee conducted a survey in 2023 of all 63 lot owners in which 61% of owners indicated they intend to purchase an electric vehicle at some time in the future. Also, an electrical capacity assessment was undertaken which involved a professional assessment of the main building switchboard confirming that the existing infrastructure is sufficient to safely accommodate up to 20 additional 15 AMP power outlets for slow charging within garages. Further, Ms Labzin submits the committee considered a draft EV charging plan for the scheme, contemplating a staged process beginning with low-demand (slow) charging through individual general pocket sockets with the potential to upgrade to faster, load-managed systems as demand increased. She says that while the draft plan was not formally adopted, it remains a relevant reference for future policy development.
• [10] In relation to the applicant's proposal, Ms Labzin submits that the installation of the power point is at the applicant's own cost and within her titled car space. She explains that the applicant's proposal includes the installation of a cable tray and conduit from the main switchboard to Lot 59's car space, and expressly provides that all costs of installation, electricity usage, maintenance and eventual removal (if required) would be borne by the owner.
• [11] In regard to the equity considerations, Ms Labzin says of the 63 lots in the complex, there are currently approximately 5 electric vehicles. She says preventing all installations until universal capacity can be achieved may result in permanent inequity as early adopters are indefinitely precluded from charging their vehicles despite available infrastructure and at no cost to others. Ms Labzin says the confirmed switchboard capacity for approximately 20 outlets provides a reasonable initial stage for early adopters, which can be managed by conditions applicable to all owners. When or if demand approaches the capacity limit, the body corporate could then consider additional measures to manage future growth including installation of a Load Management System.
• [12] Another lot owner, Ms Gasking also supports the applicant's request, provided that strict safety and compliance conditions are applied. She says that the basement carpark is known to flood to approximately half a metre in heavy rain so the electrical outlet must be positioned above this level and comply with the current regulations for damp or flood-prone environments. Relevantly, Ms Gasking says if the body corporate later undertakes a building-wide electrical or EV-charging upgrade, the owner should bear any costs associated with modifying, relocating, or removing their installation to integrate with that system.

• [13] The question to be determined is whether the committee acted unreasonably in refusing the applicant's proposal.
• [14] Motion 2 of the minutes dated 26 February 2025 shows that the power point is proposed to be installed on the concrete column next to the front of Lot 59's car park space. The survey plan for the building confirms the car space forms part of Lot 59. I understand the proposed installation involves running new cabling from the body corporate's main switchboard to the applicant's power point location. As such, this involves an improvement to common property requiring body corporate approval.
• [15] A body corporate may authorise a lot owner to make an improvement to common property for the benefit of the owner's lot.[5] Authorisation may be given by the committee if the improvement is a 'minor' improvement with an installed value of under $3,000.[6]
• [16] The applicant's proposed installation is quoted at $1,699.00. It is undisputed that this is a minor improvement that the committee is empowered to authorise.
• [17] The body corporate has a general function under the Act to administer the common property for the benefit of the owners in the scheme.[7] In discharging this function, the body corporate must act reasonably, including in making decisions about the use of common property.[8]
• [18] The committee similarly has a duty to act reasonably in making a decision[9]. A decision of the committee is a decision of the body corporate.[10]
• [19] In the QCAT decision of Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall,[11] Justice Carmody examined at length what it means for a committee in a community titles scheme to act reasonably. A committee is expected to weigh up competing personal rights with community interests. The attitude of the majority of other residents is relevant but not decisive.[12] Reasonable decision making involves evaluating known facts, circumstances and considerations that tend to have a rational bearing on the issue at hand. This requires a committee to take into account all relevant factors and to ignore irrelevant ones.[13] Decision-making that is reasonable is evidence-based and rational.[14]
• [20] In the present case, the sole reason given by the committee for refusing the applicant's power point installation is that there is not currently capacity for all owners in the building to do the same. I do not accept this 'equitable' argument as a reasonable basis for the refusal. The body corporate indeed has an obligation to administer common property for the benefit of lot owners, but this does not preclude it from making a decision that benefits a single lot owner or a small group of them.[15] The legislation specifically allows a body corporate to authorise improvements to the common property for the benefit of a lot owner. Simply because all other owners will not reap the same benefit does not necessarily justify a refusal. Upon receiving a request, the body corporate is to give it reasonable consideration, which involves weighing up competing personal rights and community interests. I am not satisfied the committee has adequately done so in this case.
• [21] The committee has made it clear that its objective is for all owners to have equal access to EV charging sometime in the future. That is a reasonable commitment. However, there are no current EV charging plans in place. The applicant has proposed an interim solution to install a power point in her car space, with all installation and ongoing costs to be borne by her. This proposal does not impede on any future plans the body corporate may have to implement broader EV charging solutions for all owners. Further, while the committee says it is fairer to defer any approvals until a comprehensive building-wide EV charging strategy can be developed, there is no indication that such a strategy is currently being developed or when that might occur. Accordingly, by refusing the applicant's request, the committee is indefinitely preventing the applicant from charging her vehicle in her own garage, despite there being current capacity to do so and at no cost or detriment to others.
• [22] In Juneau, the adjudicator considered a similar question of whether the body corporate acted unreasonably in refusing approval for an owner to install solar panels on limited common property roof space.[16] He stated:

I do not accept that it is reasonable to refuse permission for the applicant's solar panels on the basis of speculation that other owners may wish to install panels in future and the roof may eventually run out of space to accommodate them. This situation may never arise. No information has been submitted to indicate that it is imminent, or even likely. Given that there is presently no competition for limited space to accommodate panels on the roof top, this argument does not demonstrate that the applicant's panels would interfere unreasonably with others' use or enjoyment of the common property.[17]

• [23] This was also the position taken in Santai where in determining the reasonableness of the body corporate's decision to refuse the applicant's improvements, the adjudicator concluded that as there was no evidence of other lot owners currently wishing to install 3-phase power, whether or not there is sufficient space for all other unit owners to do so is not a relevant consideration.[18]
• [24] In the current matter, it is accepted that the body corporate's switchboard has capacity to accommodate up to 20 power point installations. Submissions indicate there are at most 4 to 5 electric vehicles in the building. The committee speculates that other owners may wish to similarly install EV chargers in the future by which time there may not be capacity for them to do so. In my view, this is an irrelevant consideration. This is not the situation the body corporate is currently faced with, and it is unknown when or whether the situation may even arise. The applicant says there are 2 other EV owners who wish to have the same solution to charge their vehicles. Aside from this, there is no evidence of owners currently competing to install power points in their garages. No submissions have been received from owners to say they also want to install a power point or that they are opposed to the applicant's installation as it may reduce their future capacity to do so. I note the committee conducted a survey in 2023 in which 61% of owners indicated that they intend to purchase an electric vehicle at some time in the future. However, it is unknown when this might eventuate. It remains a speculation that at some time in the future, the demand for EV charging capability in this scheme will exceed what the existing infrastructure can accommodate. As the applicant argues, it may take considerable time before a significant number of owners require EV charging infrastructure. Moreover, as I have stated, allowing the applicant to install her power point now does not preclude the body corporate from upgrading the system in the future to allow additional charging capacity across the scheme if that becomes necessary.
• [25] I am satisfied the committee acted unreasonably in refusing the applicant's request. It based its decision on irrelevant speculative factors and in doing so, failed to give sufficient consideration to the applicant's interests in the current context of the scheme.

• [26] Finally, while not raised by the application, the parties should bear in mind that the proposed power point installation would appear to benefit from a statutory easement under section 115O of the Land Title Act 1994 which states:

(1) An easement exists in favour of a lot and against other lots and common property for supplying utility services to the lot and establishing and maintaining utility infrastructure reasonably necessary for supplying the utility services.

(2) However, the exercise of rights under the easement must not interfere unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of the lot or part of common property against which the easement lies.

• [27] 'Utility infrastructure' includes 'cables, wires, pipes, sewers, drains, ducts, plant and equipment by which lots or common property are supplied with utility services' and a 'utility service' is defined to include 'electricity supply'.[19]
• [28] This likely means the applicant is entitled to have cables located on and connected to common property provided they are reasonably necessary for supplying electricity to her lot and do not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of that part of common property. Utility infrastructure is 'reasonably necessary' if the supply of the service to the lot cannot be achieved without the proposed infrastructure, and if an alternative location is not feasible or reasonably available.[20]
• [29] It would appear that the proposed power point installation is reasonably necessary for the supply of electricity to the applicant's garage. There is no evidence that the installation or use of the power point would interfere unreasonably with the use of common property. While there may not be capacity for all owners to similarly install a power point connection, this does not mean the applicant's use of the common property amounts to unreasonable interference. Furthermore, given there is presently no competition for connection to the body corporate's switchboard, I do not see how the applicant's installation would interfere unreasonably with others' use or enjoyment of that common property.

• [30] For the reasons given above, I consider the committee acted unreasonably when considering the applicant's request to install a power point in her car space. As there are no other stated grounds for the committee's refusal (and none is evident from submissions), I am satisfied that the applicant's proposal should be deemed approved in these circumstances.
• [31] I have reviewed the proposed conditions for approval as set out in Motion 2 of the committee resolution of 26 February 2025. These appear appropriate and have not been specifically challenged by any party. I will order that the applicant's proposal be deemed approved subject to these conditions.

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

[5] Section 177(1) of the Accommodation Module

[6] Section 177(2)(a) & (5) of the Accommodation Module

[11] Body Corporate for Beaches Surfers Paradise v Backshall [2016] QCATA 177 (Beaches)

[13] Beaches at [42] citing McKinnon v Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45; (2006) 228 CLR 423 at 430

[14] Beaches at [23] citing SZLGP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1198 [15]-[16]

[15] See The Domain Currumbin Crest [2021] QBCCMCmr 53 at [42] where Adjudicator Sutherland makes this observation in regard to a dispute about the installation of solar panels on common property roof space.

[16] [2016] QBCCMCmr 153

[18] [2024] QBCCMCmr 101 at [134]

[19] The definitions of 'utility service' and 'utility infrastructure' in the Land Title Act refer to the definitions of those terms in Schedule 6 of the Act.

[20] Ralborg No 2 Pty Ltd atf Ralston Property Trust v The Body Corporate for The Regent Apartments CTS 9573 [2020] QCATA 117 at [39]