My story to tell was an extension into a back area or ‘void cavity’ in my apartment block of 8. However, it was a company title – and not strata, so strata laws didn’t apply. I owned and lived on the ground floor in a small one bedroom apartment. The unit next door was also one bedroom but had a common laundry situated behind it. All of the other units above were two bedroom. The builder in the 1950’s followed the brickwork for the walls of the rooms through all stories, but the back area behind my built in wardrobes was left as a ‘void cavity’ with the rough brick walls and a dirt floor. In essence there were three rooms already built with the brick wall layout present but never finished for living in. The telephone line for the apartment block passed through this area and part of the back wall was subterranean. The drawcard is that the apartment block is in a prime blue ribbon real estate waterfront beach area in Sydney’s northern beaches.
When this was brought to my attention via the apartment block plans from 1957 at our AGM, I of course wanted to extend into that area and an EGM was called to discuss. It was agreed in principle that if Council passed a DA the Body Corporate would sell me the area. A formula was devised of a valuation of a two bedroom minus the valuation of my existing one bedroom. I would then be given a discount of 50% of the difference of the valuation for using my initiative of developing an area that was of no use or access to anyone else. The 50% that I paid to the BC was to go to the very empty sinking fund to assist paying for building maintenance. It was a ‘win-win’ situation all around. This happened over 20 years ago, prior to the Sydney real estate boom. I would acquire the ‘void cavity’ for the payment of approximately $15,000. My share holding would increase on par with the others and I would be required to pay more in quarterly levies. A local solicitor experienced in corporations law drafted the necessary resolutions and agreements to increasing the shareholding etc. All other apartments were owner occupied by elderly residents on the old age pension who baulked at levy increases, so this extra bit of cash was more than welcome. The exception to unanimous approval negating to need to calling an EGM to pass the paperwork was the top storey unit – owned by an elderly country solicitor.
Council approved the plans which were sealed with the company seal. The plan included a window for the bedroom (the size of a small car windscreen) that fitted underneath those above it and matched the same size. The window was supported by a structural engineers report. Things went pear shaped when the country solicitor lobbied the other residents on his legal letterhead on the premise that a window would cause cracking and the building would ‘fall down’. Approval was withdrawn by the other owners and the project did not proceed.
The point I am making is that problems you may encounter are; 1.some owners can become jealous that another owner is getting something that they cannot get, 2. you may pay a lot in DA fees, reports, architect plants etc. and be left out of pocket for a project that does not proceed for some unanticipated reason 3. Relationships that were previously cordial with your neighbours can become strained, plus there is noise and inconvenience from building work if things did proceed. My solicitor was of the opinion that the ‘void cavity’ wasn’t common property as it could only be accessed through my wardrobes and I could remove the back of them and enter and leave as I pleased. Taking it to court to obtain a judgment for ‘specific performance’ would have been an expensive remedy for the Supreme Court. I did end up storing things in the void cavity such as my pushbike and uni books, but some years later sold up to become a member of the land of strata living. Oh….and I did put the backs back on the wardrobes!!