- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I live in Sydney in a strata scheme comprising 20 units. We have a large garden area that surrounds the building. One of our neighbours is proposing to build a granny flat at the rear of his property. Due to the topography of his block, he is proposing to build a right of access easement as well as a service easement on our property, thereby granting him permanent access through our property to his granny flat.
At our last strata AGM we voted unanimously against this ludicrous proposal. There is quite a drop (3m) from the bottom of our driveway to the grassed area at the back of our property, which would require a long ramp and significant concreted area at the base of the ramp to allow for parking for his tenant.
We are one of the only blocks in our area to have such a large garden area and green space is becoming a premium.
We are concerned that granting permission for this easement will de-value the apartments in our complex.
Why should we be inconvenienced by one mans want to build a granny flat on his property that has crap access from street level? He obviously needs a life as he clearly has nothing better to do than annoy at least 20 other people who vehemently oppose his ridiculous proposal.
What options do we have to fight this?
-
Replies
-
He can’t appropriate part of your lot for his benefit without your approval.
Also, he would need the Owners Corporations approval for the alteration of his lot (erecting the granny flat). Owners Corporations vary in the level of approval required for erections and alterations and I am not up to speed with NSW, especially not the recent legislation changes, as I am in the ACT. Nonetheless, he simply can’t do it without an approval. Even if your executive committee has authority to approve erections and alterations, it now cannot approve since it would be contrary to the clear direction given by your last AGM decision to reject the decision.
It seems to me there is nothing further to be done. Having had the proposal considered and unanimously rejected at a general meeting makes his position very clear! He has no position.
If, in spite of all that, construction looks like it is about to occur might you go to the Tribunal and/or local council for a order to halt construction. I don’t think he could find a builder who would do the work without seeing that it is approved by the local planning authorities and they should not approve without seeing evidence that the Owners Corporation had approved.
I would relax. He can’t do anything and if he were to try, he could be easily stopped.
Still sounds like his proposal is unlikely to get council construction approval.
An easement for a sewer pipe is not an easement for access. It might be possible to a road over a sewer inspection opening if it is the sort with a ‘man-hole’ cover.
Different sorts of service easements can have different things allowed or not allowed by whoever holds the title for the easement. Eg. where I am we have service easements through the site. All can have a footpath or asphalt over but it’s our problem if they ever need to dig up the pipes. You can’t have a wall parallel with the edge because if they ever have to dig up a sewer pipe it could fall into the trench. However, subject to some specifications you can have perpendicular wall or even one crossing over. We could put a carport roof over, but only if the roof is high enough for a digger to fit under. Footings have to be outside the ‘zone of influence’ of pipes – i.e. not putting a load on the pipe through the ground. However, if the easement has a water main in it, you can’t have any structure overhead. Lots of rules.
Large trees might be equivalent to your local council to what in the ACT would be a ‘regulated’ tree. Here, if more than 12m tall or more than some girth, the tree is automatically ‘regulated’ and permission is required for removal or even a damaging activity e.g. digging in the root zone. A good case has to be made to get permission.