[Petard]

It’s a safety issue if people cannot access the meter room in order to isolate power to one’s apartment. Let me explain our situation:

We’ve been living in a duplex for some time, and have always had access to the ‘meter room’, where there are only two meters – one for each apartment. The room is never locked. However, the main switch for our apartment is located in that meter room rather than in our sub-box located elsewhere in the building – which contains our circuit breakers. When our neighbour enclosed the meter room in their garage two years ago, after moving their garage door outwards (clearly an area of common property), we no longer had access to the meter room. But worse, if we needed to switch off power to our apartment in an emergency, such as fire, we would not have been able to. Situations like those described below call into question not only the motives of those jealously guarding their keys, but the issue of safety for the entire building.

[Petard]

I agree with JimmyT that this is a person(ality) issue, not a strata issue. Similarly, we have just sold our duplex (with independent parking) and bought a house in a ‘neighbourhood scheme’ where two carspaces are allocated within a small private road. The text of the scheme is very specific about the carspaces – they are for guests of residents. I have to respect that condition. So if I had a special or peculiar situation, I would need to seek permission from the executive to use one or both of those spaces for either one of our vehicles for a specific length of time. The informality of the guest parking by residents was probably the catalyst that got under the nose of the bully. As well, it’s never a good idea for an owner/resident to have any sort of deal doing the maintenance in a scheme. I sympathise with the situation generally, because bullies are everywhere and difficult (near impossible) to pacify.

[Petard]

Challenging question:

If an existing lift shaft is used and accessed by only one of the lot owners in a small block (there being no bylaw governing its exclusive use), can changes to the internal apparatus within the shaft be completed without Owners’ Corporation permission? For example, upgrade from dumb waiter into a lift, which would include removal of all internal appliances and equipment, and a completely new installation.

Changes could include:

(a) drilling into the walls of the shaft

(b) drilling into the concrete slabs from within the shaft – which is actually the ceiling of other apartments.

(c) opening up small access points to create doors to step into the new lift above and below other apartments.

If indeed ‘ownership’ of the air space within the shaft could be by default (as is claimed by the lot owner in  question), could the slabs that are visible and accessible from within the lift shaft be common property? Or could they be in fact ‘owned’ by that one lot owner, and therefore drilled into without prior approval being sought by the Owners’ Corporation?

Other owners don’t need to have access to a lift as all other apartments are on street level.

[Petard]

The ‘shaft’ for the dumbwaiter is not shown on the strata plan. Our apartment, #2 does not have any access doors for the dumbwaiter; the access doors are on the basement level of apartment 1, one floor below ours, and in apartment 1, on the level above our apartment. I can only guess that the dumbwaiter, its equipment and shaft are the property of apartment 1. I cannot believe that the Owners’ Corporation would have any responsibility for it. I think it’s safe to assume that apartment 1 is solely responsible for its use, maintenance and of course the noise it makes.

If the proposal for removing it and replacing it goes ahead, I wonder if I’m able to impose some sort of conditions for its construction and assembly (slides versus rollers), sound insulation, its use re noise and hours of operation, as the shaft runs directly through one of our rooms!

G

[Petard]

Our neighbour could be correct about the project not needing council approval!

Interestingly, the State Environmental Planning Policy for exempt and complying codes (for things such as watertanks, kitchen renovations and even letterboxes that can be installed without approval) has no reference to dumbwaiters or lifts. This would immediately suggest that such an installation would require some form of Council approval process or DA.

However, I spoke with a lift manufacturer, who told me that WorkCover is the organisation responsible for governing this sort of project. And any lift design is pre-approved.

I wonder then, if WorkCover would be responsible for approving also, the extra construction and deconstruction of masonry – bricks removed, lintels installed – part of the works.

The lift manufacturer didn’t seem concerned much about the construction of the shaft itself. Perhaps the machinery in the basement and the tracks installed on the inside of the shaft walls to guide the car are all sufficient to support a lift large enough to hold people, and itself, without affecting the internal walls of the shaft and therefore the internal walls of the apartments.

[Petard]

Good of you to give a considered opinion…and advice.

Your question about their seriousness is interesting. We just don’t know. They’ve set several precedents of stalling, stonewalling and generally making life miserable for us.

I am wondering, as you have suggested, that they know less about strata law than they boast, and less of their obligations regarding strata living (re-noise in particular). It’s hard to tell if their idea of converting the dumbwaiter into an elevator is one of these stonewalling tactics to avoid the noise issue of the aging dumbwaiter. Time may tell.

[Petard]

But what constitutes a noise that ‘disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of your lot’? Is it necessary to employ a acoustic engineer? Measure the level in decibels? If it disturbs one resident and not others, is it still considered a noise that disturbs?

G

[Author]

Replies