Hi mattb and Whale, thanks again for your comments – they are valued and do shed more perspective on the whole matter for me. 🙂
Hi mattb, if the OC chooses not to enter into dialogue, does this not partially constitute ”unreasonable” behaviour on their behalf within s158? Surely an OC has the obligation (fiduciary duty?) to respond to all written requests made to them in good faith, and not use as their first response engagement of legal representation.
Hi Whale, I do not claim to be without blame in the whole matter. I could have handled things alot better …
Nevertheless, I still insist that my request for written permission to park on common property and the offer to pay for the encroachment both have not been discussed at past meetings.
I was stopped mid-sentence by one member of the EC in a meeting when I started to say “would you consider granting me written permission if i paid a rental …” I could have chosen to persist and call for a vote there and then, but it was only an ECM, and the atmosphere was getting hostile and I risked being called worse names than The Fuhrer. 
Could the strata manager have intervened and called for vote then? He chose silence. I don’t blame him – he knows on which side his bread is buttered.
And the rest of the participants at the meeting were pretty much quiet (the lady next to me kept looking at her feet) because they all knew a verbal explosion was about to occur from this particular EC member if I pushed any further. They’d seen it before.
There are no meeting minutes in existence making specific reference to any vote concerning the request for written permission or offer to pay rent. There are however minutes showing votes to issue a notice to comply, engage legal representation etc.
This does not constitute a ‘proper discussion’ on exclusive use of the common property because written permission and rental were specifically excluded from discussion by a member of the EC.
I’ve now had three (3!) lot owners express surprise (and particularly and ironically from the lot owner who without foundation alleges I am reducing her access to her carspace, and has been present at all meetings) that I am willing to pay not only rent but have it retrospectively applied to date of first encroachment. Go figure!