Re: Exclusive Use of Common Property not height (or depth) limited

Thanks, Peter – it’s less an issue of jurisdiction and more that the developer didn’t put that much forethought into the implications of the by-law as written, especially once he decided to build the balconies (several months after the by-law was written).

He built them without council approval, but they decided to just fine him and take no further action – no requirement to have them certified, let alone taken down as unapproved works. They can’t rescind that effective approval now they’ve made their ruling.

We have a “re-worded by-law” solution which, as matters stand, won’t be agreed to by the objector, so it can’t be put to a vote as written approval of the affected party/ies is required to allow such a change.

With that in mind, right now I’m interested in views on matters as they stand rather than potential solutions as I feel if there’s no negotiated settlement, we’re headed to NCAT and their ruling will be the implemented solution.

I’d like to know if I’ve overlooked something or if, in fact, my thoughts on how much common property the by-law as written grants exclusive use of are correct.

Thanks,

El Capitan