› Forums › Common Property › CP and the Strata Committee › Terrace/balcony doors in the ACT. › Current Page
It’s not just my interpretation, it’s the OC’s manager’s. I tried to see how the act supported it.
The act seems pretty clear that “external walls” are at least a 50/50 OC/owner responsibility but any wall is a 100% OC responsibility if load-bearing. It doesn’t seem to matter what the “external walls” face on to. The only other possible interpretation is that the wall between the unit’s interior and the external courtyard is an internal wall – I suppose that’s possible As for “(b) the part of the wall outside the boundary is common property”. I read “part of the wall” only is common property, where the boundary lies along the centre of the wall.. So the wall is partly common property but not the courtyard beyond.
Why would a boundary line be drawn on the Units Plan if it was absolutely meaningless to do so? The unit’s interior and exterior could have been drawn as one area and I’d agree then that the sliding doors between them would be an owner responsibility if they were non load-bearing. I own another apartment where it’s drawn this way.
And yes any wall, anywhere, if load-bearing is an OC responsibility. And yes, I think that would include any door in an internal load-bearing wall. And that’s the OC manager’s opinion too. A door in a load-bearing wall needs to be specially constructed – or at least its frame does!