• Creator
    Topic
  • #66414
    The Hood
    Flatchatter

      (Part of an NCAT decision by General Member S de Jersey)
      Pursuant to section 232 of the Strata Schemes Management Act NSW 2015, the owner or occupier of Lot X in SP XXXX is not to use power tools inside Lot X for a period of 2 years from the date of these orders as follows:
      (a) For Mondays – Fridays, outside the hours of 9.00AM to 5.00PM;
      (b) For Saturdays, outside the hours of 9.00AM to 1.00PM;
      (c) For Sundays and public holidays, not at all.
      But:
      Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2017
      51   Use of power tools on residential premises
      (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if—

      (a)  the person causes or permits a power tool to be used on residential premises in such a manner that it emits noise that can be heard within any room in any other residential premises (that is not a garage, storage area, bathroom, laundry, toilet or pantry) whether or not any door or window to that room is open—

      (i)  before 8 am or after 8 pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, or

      (ii)  before 7 am or after 8 pm on any other day, and
      Question: Can a NCAT Member write a decision that operates contrary to a State Regulation?

      I wouldn’t think so or none of the State Regulations can be relied on.

      • This topic was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by .
    Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #66416
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster

        Can a NCAT Member write a decision that operates contrary to a State Regulation?

        This is not contrary to the state regulations, it expands on them for the purposes of protecting the rights of strata owners to the peaceful enjoyment of their lots. Many if not most strata schemes have by-laws that forbid excessive noise at any time of day. Some have by-laws specific to, for instance, construction or renovation noise.

        The Tribunal ruling would be contrary to EPA regulations if it said the residents COULD make noise during the prohibited times.  That’s not what this ruling does.

        The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
        • This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by .
        #66426
        The Hood
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          The Member errs in thinking the hours of operation are the usual hours.
          But it also seems there was some operation outside the permitted hours and that that operation was in breach of the Regulation, i.e. it could be heard in another dwelling.

          Still there is no basis for the Member to infringe on the entitlement found in the Regulation.
          Interestingly the Regulations do not get mentioned in this matter.
          The NCAT Members Code of Conduct, and I use those words rather loosely because there is no consequence for failure, requires a Member to “ensure that all decisions and determinations are legally well founded.”

          The Regulations give an entitlement but the Member chooses to change that entitlement; where is the foundation to do that?  Not in a by-law.

          You might also notice this is another case where a Member is giving effect to a mediation agreement. Well, the parts the Member likes.
          It is dangerous to agree to anything at mediation these days as most people would be unaware a Member is likely to take what he / she wants from an agreement and make orders to whatever effect the Member wants.

          [2019] NSWCATCD 47:
          38. I am satisfied that the use of power tools, especially outside usual hours (9am-5pm) on weekdays, on weekends and at night, is likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of any occupant of Lot 1 and appropriate orders should be made of the applicants. The parties reached an agreement with respect to power tools as set out in the Mediation Agreement. However, paragraph 2 of the Mediation Agreement which has specific restrictions on the days and times of power tool use appears to be relevant to the period of renovations that were taking place in Lot 2 at that time. I accept the respondent’s evidence that those renovations are now complete. So any use of power tools now would be for other projects, of which there is no specific evidence. Paragraph 4 of the Mediation Agreement is a general provision that the Occupant informs the applicants if power tools are to be used for longer than one hour in duration. This paragraph is unclear in its terms – is it continuous use for one hour or if power tools are used for a few minutes over the course of an hour. I consider the term unfairly onerous and unclear, so decline to make an order in the terms of paragraph 4 of the Mediation Agreement.

          1. However, as I am satisfied on the evidence that power tools are still being used in the evenings by the Occupant, sometimes late at night and that this usage is likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants of their lot, I consider the appropriate order to be that the owners and occupiers of Lot 2 are not to use power tools outside the hours of 9.00AM to 5.00PM from Monday to Friday, nor outside the hours of 9.00AM to 1.00PM on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and public holidays. As occupancy of lots may change over time, and although there was no evidence that the current occupancy of Lot 2 might change at some time in the near or distant future, I do not consider it appropriate to make the time period of the order open-ended and to bind future occupancies. Accordingly, I make the order for a period of 2 years.
          #66425
          The Hood
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter

            Not following why the NCAT decision is not contrary to the Regs.

            The Regs set  times, the order sets different times.
            If these times are not the same then there are times when one says can and one says can’t – that’s contrary.

            In effect you are suggesting that even though there is entitlement to operate tools as per the Regulation a by-law can infringe on that entitlement.

            To take the implied philosophy a step further am I to believe that regardless of what some State Regulation says strata owners can, with the support of their clique at a general meeting, pass a by-law that undermines or reduces an entitlement found in those Regulations. Seriously; that is what I am reading.

            “… it expands on them (the Regulations)…..”
            Expansion?  Further restricts seems more appropriate words and as we know from the High Court there is a big difference between supplement and complement.

            Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb & Fullagar JJ <250> … such a power (to make a by-law) will not support attempts to widen the purpose of the Act, to add new and different means of carrying them out or to depart from or vary the plan which the legislation has adopted to attain its ends …
            Shanahan v Scott (1957) 96 CLR 245 High Court of Australia

            I would just like to highlight that fat chance anyone living on normal freehold land in the ‘burbs has of getting this type of outcome. If there was a noise complaint about tools then the establishment (the Old Bill), not NCAT, would just point at the Regulation yet in strata am I to believe those with the ‘privilege’ of strata can infringe on rules applicable to the rest of the State via a by-law.
            Sorry – No Sale!

            #66429
            Jimmy-T
            Keymaster

              If these times are not the same then there are times when one says can and one says can’t – that’s contrary.

              No, it’s not.  It’s just different. I’m sorry you can’t follow the logic here. If the government says you can’t make a noise within a certain period and your strata committee says that, in this building, you also can’t make a noise in an expanded period that includes the regulated period, that is not contrary. A contrary by-law would be one that says you MUST make a noise in the regulated periods.

              In any case, hobby renovators and other people using power drills and saws in a strata scheme, at times when their neighbours are entitled to rest and relax, are selfish assholes.  Thankfully we can pass by-laws that set the community’s standards for this behaviour.  They might differ from scheme to scheme but they are perfectly valid.

              Maybe there’s no by-law in this case – your extract doesn’t say – but the model by-law about not disturbing the peaceful enjoyment of the resident in another lot will apply in any case.  Nine to five limits on noise are pretty standard in strata schemes, if the Member was looking for a guideline in the absence of a by-law.

              In effect you are suggesting that even though there is entitlement to operate tools as per the Regulation a by-law can infringe on that entitlement.

              You call it an entitlement, I call it a limit. In any case the EPA regulation is for general housing everywhere.  Of course by-laws can restrict behaviour that would be allowed elsewhere – that because strata living is different.

              If people don’t have the decency to consider their neighbours then you have to make reasonable rules the nudge them in the right direction.  I really don’t see what the problem is and no amount of equivocating is going to convince me (and I suspect the majority of readers) that I am wrong.

              If the road outside your block has a speed limit of 50kph and the roads inside the scheme have a limit of 30 kph, that’s not contrary.

              If the government says you can’t smoke in public spaces and your by-laws say you can’t smoke on common property (which is not a public place) then that is not contrary.

              People are allowed to let their children play where they want – in strata, the by-laws say they must be accompanied by an adult. Not contrary.

              JimmyT out!

               

              .

               

              The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
            Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.