If the door to the communal parking area were damaged and the committee repaired it by replacing it, then I would say the committee is carrying out one of its functions which is to repair and maintain the common property. It often occurs that an identical replacement is not available and a committee has to do the best it can to find a reasonable, near equivalent. So far, so good.
If the committee has replaced a part of the common property with something of “a completely outlandish new look”, then the committee would seem to have gone beyond proper repair and maintenance. Presumably, the committee don’t think it looks ‘outlandish’ and perhaps they have a reason for the non-identical replacement. Perhaps the door needed replacement anyway and this door functions better in some respect or perhaps it was the only sort they could get for the situation?