My 1970’s building is facing the same dilemma. We have had a structural engineer’s report undertaken which has detected structural issues in the existing steel supports on the balustrades so we are going through the process of obtaining designs and quotes to replace the balustrades. We cannot replace ‘like for like’ and need to search for another alternative.
This is a ‘repair’ rather than an ‘improvement’.
The ‘jury is out’ on whether litigation could occur if someone fell from your existing balustrades.
The greater the foreseeability of risk and probability of harm caused by a defective balustrade, the higher the obligation on the owners corporation to take precautions to address the risk.
With more and more families with children moving into apartment buildings it is better to be safe than sorry.
If the balustrades are ‘under height’ for the current code but are still in sound condition the Committee should offer the Lot owners the choice between installing a balustrade height extension to increase the height up to 1m or, alternatively, offer a total replacement of the existing balustrades with 1m high balustrades. The pros and cons of the Motion with Alternatives should be clearly outlined.
If balcony extensions are offered then the balcony extensions must meet the stringent stress testing and performance requirements that are required for balustrades. Many bits and pieces that are ‘tacked on’ the top of an older style balustrade would not meet this test.
This is an issue that impacts on both the safety of the building and the appearance of the building. In my opinion these are matters that should be decided by the whole body of owners rather than the Committee.