Wynola [2025] QBCCMCmr 308 (9 September 2025)

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON PROPERTY; GENERAL MEETING MOTIONS; REASONABLENESS - whether motions seeking approval to install solar panels on the roof, and retrospective approval for a hot water service installed alongside the building several years ago, were unreasonably declined; whether to give effect to the motions.

Act, s 94(2); Standard Module, ss 180(4)(a)(ii)(A), 187; Building Act 1975, ss 246M, 246S.

1. Motion 5 of the extraordinary general meeting held on 3 February 2025 is deemed to have passed by ordinary resolution.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.

• [1] Ms McAnna installed a new hot water service on common property just outside her lot 6 in 2019. It stands on a concrete tile adjacent to the western wall, near the south-western corner of the building. She says she installed it with the verbal permission of the then committee members, though she submits no evidence of that. She sought retrospective approval for it via motion 5 of an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held on 3 February 2025.
• [2] She also sought approval to install solar panels on the common property rooftop above her lot via motion 4 of the same meeting.
• [3] Both motions failed. Ms McAnna seeks orders declaring them passed. She describes a background of unrelated conflict at Wynola and claims both motions were defeated due to antagonism rather than reason.

• [4] Motion 4 proposed that the body corporate approves the installation of solar panels on the rooftop above lot 6 as set out in an attached renovation application. Specifications for the proposed panels and inverter were provided, along with an aerial image showing where the panels would be installed. The motion and accompanying documents were silent on precisely how the panels would be fixed to the rooftop, where the inverter would be installed, and where any cabling or conduits might run.
• [5] At that time, by-law 5 required body corporate approval to "mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property", which would include the roof. However, section 246S of the Building Act 1975 prevented the body corporate from withholding consent "under a relevant instrument...to install a solar hot water system or photovoltaic cells on the roof or other external surface", where "relevant instrument" is defined to include the community management statement and its by-laws.[1]
• [6] There was no similar restriction on the body corporate's ability under statute to grant or withhold approval for an owner to make an improvement to the common property for the benefit of their lot though.[2] That ability was constrained only by the body corporate's overarching duty to act reasonably in the exercise of its functions.[3]
• [7] If approval for the solar panels was withheld purely due to antagonism arising from conflict about unrelated issues at Wynola, I would accept that the body corporate had acted unreasonably. But that is not evident.
• [8] Motion 4 failed with two votes against and only Ms McAnna's vote in favour. I know nothing of the reasons of the two owners who opposed the motion. One of them made a submission but did not address that question.
• [9] Another owner abstained from voting on the motion because it "lacked critical details regarding the installation, specifically the appearance, placement of conduit, pipes, and inverter". That is a fair point. I noted above that the motion was silent on those details.
• [10] I cannot conclude that the body corporate must have acted unreasonably when opposing motion 4 in the absence of this information. Owners could have held valid preferences about how the panels would be fixed to the roof, where the inverter would be located, and where visible cables and conduits might run. I am not satisfied that the motion must have failed purely due to irrelevant antagonism as claimed.

• [11] The hot water service installed in 2019 also required approval because it was an owner's improvement to the common property. Of three voters who opposed the motion, only one shared her reasons:
  1. the hot water service detracts from the appearance of the common property
  2. it was installed without proper approval
  3. there is limited space for all owners to install external hot water services in that location
  4. it impedes access to an adjacent clothesline
  5. it is leaning, and a plumber speculated that the heater overflow may have been installed into the sand beside the unit causing the concrete plinth to subside, and
  6. no consideration seems to have been given to connecting the hot water service to the lot via the lot's internal voids rather than conduits along the external wall.
• [12] However, in the same order:
  1. there are many air conditioning condensers installed in the same area with conduits running along the external surface of the wall
  2. approval has now been sought and the application should be considered on its merits, not dismissed due to an earlier procedural failing that has no bearing on whether this is an acceptable use of that part of the common property
  3. photographs submitted by the parties show plenty of space along the western and southern walls and in the adjoining yard where other units might be installed if desired
  4. the photographs do not support that claim - the hot water service does not extend much further from the wall than the adjacent air conditioners leaving plenty of open space around the clothesline
  5. Ms McAnna disputes that it is leaning, but even if it is, that is only a problem for Ms McAnna who bears the obligation to keep it in good condition,[4] and
  6. there are numerous air conditioners in that location with conduits running along the external wall - it is difficult to see why that should be acceptable for air conditioners but not for a hot water service.
• [13] I am at a loss to identify any potentially reasonable bases for opposing the motion. The hot water service has now been installed in that position for six years, seemingly without causing any problems. It is in a location that already features numerous other items of utility infrastructure and associated conduits along the external surface of the wall. It does not appear to be causing any practical impediment to the use of the area. Its appearance is unremarkable.
• [14] I cannot know whether other owners were motivated by antipathy toward Ms McAnna as she fears, but I accept that it was unreasonable to refuse to approve the hot water service in these circumstances. I will deem motion 5 to have passed by ordinary resolution.

[1] S 246M.

[2] Standard Module, s 187.

[3] Act, s 94(2).

[4] Standard Module, ss 180(4)(a)(ii)(A) & 187(4)(b).