#25748
Lady Penelope
Strataguru

    Sorry. I can’t agree that a strata scheme could reasonably place a total and unconditional ban on children from using the grassed common property based on the following reasons:

    • It would be unreasonable to discriminate against one category of occupant from using the common property whilst allowing another category.
    • Model by-laws from the SSMA state: 

      An owner or occupier of a lot must not permit any child of whom the owner or occupier has control to play on common property within the building or, unless accompanied by an adult exercising effective control, to be or to remain on common property comprising a laundry, car parking area or other area of possible danger or hazard to children.

    • The by-law could be strengthened by placing an age minimum such as 12 years on unsupervised activities, or, if the common property is adjacent to glass windows placing a ban on activities involving balls such as soccer, cricket, rugby, AFL, baseballs etc. Sponge ball should be allowed.
    • Noise, nuisance, damage to common property, behaviour of occupants and invitees by-laws should already exist within your scheme.
    • Banning all recreational activities is not reasonable. Reading and knitting are recreational activities too. 
    • Other than for retirement village strata schemes, by-laws are not allowed to restrict or prevent children living in a strata scheme.

    The issue in Matt’s scheme appears to be enforcement of the by-laws that already exist. Schemes can have the strictest by-laws reasonably possible but unless they are enforced they are worthless.

    The owners corporation may also need to consider erecting a fence between the car park and the car park, or erecting a cautionary sign at the entrance to car park indicating that children may be present.