› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Talkin’ ’bout a renovation › New strata legislation a red-tape nightmare for strata schemes › Current Page
19/01/2016 at 12:48 am
#24369
There seems to be a basic confusion here so lets separate some of the issues and considerations. Here is my experience on this topic:
- Waterproofing is indeed important. Most problems currently experienced with waterproofing in new buildings arises because developers, builders and subcontractors take shortcuts to save money and there is no consumer protection to prevent abuse.
- I call a bathroom renovation routine which involves tiling and replacing fixtures so that there are no significant departures from plans and specifications of the common property involved. So this is simply a maintenance activity that is carried out to maintain the lot in ‘good and serviceable repair’. If there are alterations or additions to common property a special resolution is required anyway by the current Section 65A or, its equivalent, the new Section 108.
- Waterproofing is required in all bathroom renovations where tiles are removed, in particular shower tiles, because the waterproofing will thereby be damaged. However, there are standards for applying waterproofing and waterproofing products and when applied by licensed contractors this is a simple and reliable process now carried out every day.
- Waterproofing in older building will fail because it is old. In contrast new waterproofing products when properly installed will rarely fail. It is in the self-interest of owners renovating their own bathrooms to get things right which is not all that difficult. In my experience with hundreds of bathroom renovations in well managed schemes I know of only one where waterproofing in a renovated bathroom has failed and, ironically, this was a common bathroom renovated by the owners corporation.
- I am not suggesting that bathroom renovations, or any renovations, should not be properly supervised – just the opposite. Renovations must be carried out with the written approval of the owners corporation (By-law 5) and the owners corporation should give approval with conditions that will protect the interest of other owners and the owners corporation, including that work must be carried by licensed contractors and warranty for waterproofing to be provided, preferably in the name of the owners corporation. This is what now happens in many well and sensibly managed strata schemes I am familiar with and the process is working very well.
- The best body to manage this approval process is the strata committee. Insisting that a general meeting be called and a special resolution required will not improve the outcome but will be much more difficult and expensive. Strata committees often approve waterproofing in common areas and much more significant repair works. So there is no logic in requiring a different mechanism for one type of work just because the common property happens to be associated with a lot.
- Arbitrarily extending the special resolution requirement to one repair and maintenance function, waterproofing also makes no legal sense and will bring no practical benefit whatsoever. However, it is a money making mechanism for strata lawyers and strata agents who will charge for organising general meetings, write by-laws and special resolution motions. I suspect this is why the new strata bill ended up in its current form.
- If activated as is, the legislation would be a huge backward step for the day to day management and operation of strata schemes. The nightmare scenario described by Millie would appear everywhere. The basic intent of the strata concept is to confer beneficial property rights to lot owners in a shared physical environment. To make routine renovations approvals a prohibitively expensive process where obtaining approval can cost as much as the works themselves and at the whim of other owners runs counter to this fundamental intent. It seems imperative that the legislation be fixed before it comes into effect.