Generally, you are not required to bring a building (or playground or whatever) up to current standards but 1) you are required to maintain it to continue to comply with the standards that applied at the time of construction and 2) if you change anything substantial, the new bit has to meet current standards. 

Generally, your insurer will have these requirements as well as any authority giving a development approval. That said, if something is clearly below current standards, it might be reasonable to make improvements to meet the current standard. Some deficiencies relative to current standards are pretty minor and the risk to safety can be judged to be small. Other deficiencies really ought to be brought up to standard, especially if the risk is substantial and the cost to remedy is not large.

I would think it would be hard to argue that someone should be prevented from bringing their railing up to a recognised current safety standard but it is similarly not reasonable to require it of everyone. 

Peter said….. I would think it would be hard to argue that someone should be prevented from bringing their railing up to a recognised current safety standard but it is similarly not reasonable to require it of everyone. 

I agree, but the problem is that the railing would be Common Property and the Owner is apparently expecting that their desired railings (higher) will be paid for by their Owners Corporation (O/C); and that’s not reasonable.

Alex’s O/C could, by Special Resolution, grant consent to that Owner to themselves pay for, install, and maintain whatever railings they desire, but how that appears visually in the context of the whole building needs to be considered.

As Peter said, site specific safety implications need to be handled carefully together with those around aesthetics, particularly if they involve child-safety where the debate about who it is that’s primarily responsible for the safety of children invariably arises.

I won’t go into that now unless it’s an underlying issue in Alex’s post.

@alex20 said:
Thank you for your replies and advice.  I was not quite clear in that the rails are on a walkway in front of everyones front door and are applicable to everyone so many floors with rails are involved not just one person per rail. Thanks again.

Alex20

In that case, I think it is clear that the OC should decide to upgrade them all on the grounds that it would be a responsible thing to do to exercise its duty of care to residents and visitors. Alternatively, it might reasonably decide to upgrade none of them because they are in good condition and, while not quite complying with the current building standard, are only a small risk being not that far behind the current standard. 

On an analogous topic our insurer said they only required us to maintain our property to the standards that applied at the time of construction, but any replacements must comply with current standards. Our cover is for negligence. If an accident occurred and we were not found to be negligent then there is no claim. The accident might be tragic and unfortunate etc but not our fault and neither we nor the insurer has to pay for it. If we were found to be negligent then insurance covers it, but our next premium might be a bit higher!

Regardless of insurance, you still don’t want to be found negligent, so the question is whether the old rails really should be replaced. Is fixing or replacing ‘reasonably practicable’ IE not too hard to do and not so expensive as to be out of proportion to the risks. If it is reasonably practicable, I would replace the railings. 

If the railings are close to compliance, say, in good condition, only slightly too low, not easy to climb, gaps only slightly too wide and compliant with the previous standard, then I would note that they present only a low risk, but plan to replace them in due course when you might otherwise have had to spend money on them anyway, say for repainting. 

If your OC wants to raise a special levy then there is a requirement under Section 76 of the Strata Schemes Management Act that a General Meeting be held to approve raising of the levy.  It’s not something the Executive Committee or Strata Manager can do off their own bat.  You’d expect that in the notice of meeting you would receive complementary information on why the work was considered necessary and copies of quotes for the work.   With that amount of money you’d expect also that a qualified building consultant would be giving a specification for the works to ensure that they meet current requirements.