In this instance it seems the path of least resistance and quickest efficacy was for individuals to go directly to the local council rather than address the matter through the OC’s power to approve or disapprove unit alterations, especially as, in this case, even if the OC approved these alterations, they were contrary to the council’s planning requirements and would therefore have failed at that stage of approval.
However, some unit owner alterations or erections would not offend any planning rules or development approvals yet could offend OC decisions about what sorts of alterations should be permitted and how they are to be approved.
I am most familiar with the situation in the ACT but expect other places are similar. Here the Unit Titles (Management) Act leaves the process for approving erections and alterations in or on a unit to the OC’s rules (aka by-laws or articles) rather than being set in stone in the body of the Act. The default rule provided by the ACT’s Act is that all erections and alterations require an unopposed resolution of a general meeting. [Some other states distinguish major and minor alterations and require different classes of resolution.]
Rules may be amended by special resolution (in the ACT, a majority in favour and fewer than one third opposed). Therefore, an OC can resolve to require some less stringent standard than an unopposed resolution for alterations. OCs can resolve to amend the rule in many ways.
Our OC deleted the requirement for a general meeting resolution but retained the requirement for OC approval. The consequence is that our Executive Committee can approve (or not). Our EC however is constrained by other resolutions of general meetings which require consultation with nearby units and certain style and architectural constraints to be met before the EC can approve a proposal on behalf of the OC.
Now, to the question, if a unit owner erects or alters a structure without approval, that owner will have failed to comply with a rule and can be issued with a rules infringement notice (other terms in other states) telling them that they must rectify the matter in a particular way by some reasonable specified date. The Act sets out what is required for a valid rules infringement notice. I expect this is similar in other states. One of the requirements is that the notice informs the unit owner that it is an offence to fail to comply with a valid notice.
If a person fails to comply, the OC, or the EC on behalf of the OC, can go to the Tribunal seeking an order that the person complies with the notice. In the event that the person fails to comply with the Tribunal order they have committed a further offence.
On the one occasion that all the above occurred where I am, we then applied for and received an ‘enforcement order’ by which the OC was authorised to do that which the unit owner had been ordered to do but had failed to do. IE. The OC was then able to appoint a representative (in practice a suitable tradesperson) to enter the unit and remove the unapproved structure.
If someone digs in their heels, it can become a drawn out process but you can get there in the end if the matter is clear cut and you still scrupulously to the proper processes.
In the meantime, if the matter seems likely to have insurance implications, then the OC should inform its insurer. The insurer should be reassured that the OC is diligently pursuing its options to rectify the situation. If the insurer were to say that the risk causes them to increase the premium, then the OC should also apply to the Tribunal for an order that the unit owner reimburse the OC for the extra cost caused by their failure to comply with the rules.