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

BY-LAWS - whether the owner has made a change to the external appearance of their lot by placing a camera on the front door of their lot; whether the change is minor; whether the change detracts from the amenity of the lot and its surrounds.

Act, s 182.

• [1] This application for final orders follows the body corporate's unsuccessful application for interim orders, Solarus Residential [2025] QBCCMCmr 21.
• [2] The body corporate seeks orders against the owner and occupier of Lot 1201. The body corporate is pursuing the removal of a front door ring-type camera on the respondent's lot, on the basis that it is in breach of a by-law concerned with external appearance of a lot.
• [3] The by-law requires a 'change the external appearance of the lot' to have body corporate approval, unless the change is 'minor' and 'does not detract from the amenity of the Lot and its surrounds'.
• [4] I have dismissed the application as:
  1. I have found the alleged change to be 'minor', where the camera is small, flat, and in keeping with the door's light colours.
  2. I am not satisfied that the camera detracts from the amenity of the lot and its surrounds by creating an atmosphere of intimidation, particularly where the area is a small, tiled hallway that is not of momentous beauty, and the application provides no evidence of the cameras being used for nefarious purposes such as harassing and surveying neighbours.

• [5] The scheme is building format plan (BFP) subdivision of 73 lots in Townsville. The Community Management Statement (CMS) states the scheme is governed by the Accommodation Module. The scheme is also subject to a Building Management Statement.
• [6] The respondent's lot is on the upper most residential floor, shown as 'Level M' on the survey plans. On Level M, there is one other lot, Lot 1202.

• [7] The body corporate takes issue with a CCTV/security camera they say the lot owner has installed on the front door to their lot. The body corporate says this is in breach of the by-laws and seeks to have it removed.
• [8] In the lead up to this dispute, there appears to have been an unrelated disagreement between the respondent and the owners of Lot 1202. This appears to have caused a breakdown in relationship, which has grown into the current dispute.

• [9] The applicant seeks the following final orders:

(a) within three months the Final Orders being made (Deadline), the Respondent to complete the following works at his sole expense (Works): > > (i) remove the Unapproved Installation; and > > (ii) reinstate Lot 1201 to the condition it was in before the Unapproved Installation was installed; > > (b) if the Respondent fails to complete the Works by the Deadline, the Body Corporate is authorised in accordance with section 281 of the BCCM Act and section 202 of the Accommodation Module to: > > (i) carry out the Works; > > (ii) dispose of the Recording Device (Disposal); > > (iii) recover from the Respondent as a liquidated debt the costs of and incidental to the Works and the Disposal (Debt), including any recovery costs reasonably incurred by the Body Corporate in recovering the Debt; > > (c) such other orders as the Adjudicator deems appropriate.

• [10] The body corporate says the final orders sought are justified as:
  1. The external face of the respondent's lot entry door, where the camera is installed, forms part of the lot.
  2. By-law 8.2, which relates to external appearance of lots, requires the respondent to seek body corporate approval for the camera, as it detracts from the amenity of the lot.
  3. No approval for the camera has been granted, and the respondent is in breach of By-law 8.2.

• [11] The respondent opposes the application and argues:
  1. There is nothing in the legislation that requires owners to seek approval for installing security cameras within their lot.
  2. There is no legislative basis to say someone can not capture you or your home on video.
  3. The camera is a minor change and does not detract from the amenity, therefore, they do not require body corporate approval under By-law 8.2.
• [12] In the interim submissions, the respondent explained that the camera, which is battery charged and portable, is used by one of the lot's occupants to ensure there is no one in the common property area when they go to exit the lot.
• [13] The respondent queries why the owners Lot 1202 were not listed as affected parties. While that may have been ideal, I note that those owners were invited to make submissions, as were all owners.
• [14] The respondent goes onto address arguments the applicant has not raised, and refers to the unrelated disputes which appears to have caused the breakdown in relationship between the two top floor neighbours.

• [15] The respondent has raised various issues in their submissions that are not directly related to the orders sought in this application. I understand that the dynamics of this dispute includes a history of unrelated disagreements between the respondent and the owners of Lot 1202. It is clear from the submissions of the body corporate and the statement from the owners of Lot 1202, and the respondent's submissions, that there is little goodwill left between these neighbours and the circumstances of the other disputes still linger and fester.
• [16] However, I am not here to determine who was right or wrong in those previous and other circumstances. The current application only calls for me to determine if the installation of the camera on the respondent's door is in breach of By-law 8.2.
• [17] Yet, I will take this opportunity to remind all persons impacted by this dispute, that living in a community titles scheme inherently comes with situations that may cause some inconvenience to you. Be it noise, security cameras, or otherwise. What, however, is the biggest inconvenience of all, is the repercussion from the dissolution of good neighbourly relations. A significant breakdown in relationship typically evolves into recurring and escalating disputes. This is an issue everyone has some level of control over. Living harmoniously ought to be regarded as a priority, which may, at times, necessitate a degree of compromise or discomfort, and a mindful approach in the manner issues are communicated.

• [18] The respondent does not dispute that there is a camera installed on the outer face of their lot entry door.
• [19] In the interim order, I raised concerns that the external face of the respondent's lot door may be common property. This was because the scheme is a BFP subdivision. A BFP subdivision uses structural elements of a building to define land.[1] The boundary of the lot is located at the centre of a floor, wall or ceiling separating a lot from other lots or common property.[2] Therefore, the external face of the lot's entry door (where the device is located) could be common property, dependent on where it sits in relation to the middle of the wall.
• [20] The body corporate submits that the outer face of the external lot door is not common property, and forms part of the lot. The body corporate says it forms part of the lot as:
  1. The width of the wall which separates the respondent's lot from common property is 23.5 cm.
  2. The door frame sitting within the wall consists of a door jamb, which is 10cm from the wall.
  3. The door sits 1 cm away from the centre of the wall, meaning the door is wholly within the lot boundaries.
• [21] I am satisfied the external face of the door forms part of the lot.

• [22] The legislation does not expressly require the owner of a lot to seek body corporate approval for these types of changes (including improvements) to lots. However, the scheme's by-laws, contained in the CMS, may require it.
• [23] By-law 8.2 does appear to regulate what owners may or may not do with their lots. It reads as follows:

An Owner must not, without the Body Corporate's prior written consent, make a change to the external appearance of the Lot unless the change is minor and does not detract from the amenity of the Lot and its surrounds...

• [24] I note the body corporate sent a contributing contravention notice to the respondent.[3]
• [25] The camera is visible from outside the lot and the nature of the submissions makes it clear the respondent intends to keep it there.
• [26] The question is whether this change is minor. If it is a minor change, whether it has detracted from the amenity of the respondent's lot and its surrounds also needs to be considered.

• [27] I find the installation of the camera is 'minor'. While the body corporate did not provide photos depicting the camera, the respondent did provide photos in their interim submissions. Photos depict the camera as small, rather flat, and white which is in keeping with the light colour of the door. Minor is not defined in the Act nor the scheme's CMS, but has been said to mean a change that is 'not very large, important or serious'.[4]

• [28] The body corporate argues the camera causes the lot entry and surrounding common property area amenity to change to an area of intimidation, unease, suspicion and objectionable surveillance.
• [29] To substantiate the claimed impact, the body corporate relies on the existence of previous disagreements between the owners of the two upper floor lots, the fact that when the neighbouring lot owners open their door the camera can capture into their lot entry way, and a statement from that neighbour saying they believe the camera was installed to 'monitor and record the comings and goings to our unit and to see and record what is going on in our unit when the door is opened'. There is no evidence provided demonstrating the respondents using the cameras in this manner.
• [30] The body corporate also submits that this current matter is similar to the impacts on amenity in the decision of Villas Ten [2022] QBCCMCmr 244. I do not find the decision particularly relevant to this matter. While issues of amenity were raised by the body corporate, it does not appear to be a determinative factor for the adjudicator's decision.
• [31] I find other decisions that have discussed the concept of 'amenity' to be more relevant. Those decisions include Markham Court,[5] Harbour Side Marina Apartments,[6] River Park View,[7] with those decisions referencing various authorities from more prominent jurisdictions.
• [32] Amenity is not defined in the Act or CMS, but its meaning has been discussed in the above decisions. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as 'something intended to make life more pleasant or comfortable for people'.[8] The Oxford Dictionary defines it as 'a feature or service that makes a place pleasant, comfortable or easy to live in'.[9] Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary as, 'the features and advantages of a locality or neighbourhood which it is considered desirable to preserve or encourage such as beauty and tranquillity. The concept of amenity has been interpreted as embracing wide and flexible notions of the residents' subjective perception of a locality: Broad v Brisbane City Council [1986] 2 Qd R 317'.[10] It has also been said that it 'involves more than the physical aspects of neighbourhood amenity, it is the perception of the "atmosphere", "ambience", "feeling" and "character" of the neighbourhood'.[11]
• [33] Amenity can be a very subjective notion. On one hand, it appears the body corporate agrees with the owners of Lot 1202 that the camera has diminished amenity by creating an atmosphere of surveillance. On the other, it's likely the respondent believes it has increased it by creating a safer and more secure area.
• [34] The by-law only directs the test towards the respondent's lot and its surrounds, not the neighbour's lot. Photos depict the surrounds as a rather narrow, tiled corridor, surrounded by doors to the two lots, the lift and a garbage chute. It's difficult to say that the small camera has impacted the area's beauty or ambience.
• [35] Insofar as it might have caused the atmosphere to be one of intimidation and unease, suspicion and objectionable surveillance, the onus is on the body corporate to prove its case. There is also no evidence in front of me demonstrating times where the respondents have used the camera to record and intimidate their neighbour. In the absence of such evidence, I am not satisfied that the camera has detracted from the amenity of the area in such a way.

• [36] The body corporate has provided some evidence that the lot's entry door is within the lot boundaries. The body corporate has argued that the camera so installed requires body corporate approval pursuant to the scheme's By-law 8.2, which is concerned with changes to the external appearance of a lot. I am not satisfied that the camera is not 'minor' or that it impacts the amenity of the lot and surrounding area. Therefore, the by-law does not require the respondent to obtain body corporate consent. The application must fail.

[1] Land Title Act 1994, s 48C.

[2] Land Title Act 1994, s 49C.

[4] Oxford Dictionary definition, as cited in Markham Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 194 at [19] and Harbour Side Marina Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 418 at [48].

[5] [2025] QBCCMCmr 194.

[6] [2024] QBCCMCmr 418.

[7] [2018] QBCCMCmr 97.

[8] As cited in Markham Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 194 at [22] and Harbour Side Marina Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 418 at [48].

[9] As cited in Markham Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 194 at [22] and Harbour Side Marina Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 418 at [48].

[10] As cited in Markham Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 194 at [22], Harbour Side Marina Apartments [2024] QBCCMCmr 418 at [48] and River Park View [2018] QBCCMCmr 97.

[11] Alex Gower Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council & Ors [2009] 1 QPELR 116 as cited in: Holcim (Australia) PL v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2012] QPEC 32 at [23], River Park View [2018] QBCCMCmr 97, Markham Court [2025] QBCCMCmr 194 at [22].