- This topic has 10 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hello
One owner in our building complained about the glass/aluminium balustrade, not being secure. He was asking the OC to engage a structural engineer to check on the balustrade safety. He apparently only wanted “piece of mind” but it was obvious from beginning that he wanted to have a new balustrade to add value to his property.
The report was done by xxxxxxxxxxx, checking all the balconies in the building, who confirmed that all balconies/balustrades are in good conditions and in no need of any further action. Now the owner came with a idea to get the support of other owners and is requesting all balustrades on the western side of the building (4 units) to be replaced for a new once. His argumentation is that our consultant didn’t state that they are safe.
Consultant’s report follows:
Description
There are a total of twelve balustrades in this building. Their construction is a mix of masonry, reinforced concrete and glazed aluminium.
None of the balustrades appeared to be loose, significantly cracked or otherwise unstable.
Recommendation
No further testing for strength and stability is required.
Recommendation
As far as xxxxxxxxxxxxx is aware, there are no retrospective legal requirements for buildings to modify their balustrades to meet the modern Building Code of Australia (BCA) requirements. Whilst the law may change in the future, no action is currently required.
In the event that the balustrades need to be upgraded in the future, then they will need to comply with the requirements of the BCA of the day.
( date of the Report 9 May 2014)
The owner even went to the Council, asking to inspect his balcony, because the balustrade is apparently not safe. Report from Council enclosed.
The Council didn’t find anything to be wrong, only recommended to upgrade it to the new BCA act.The inspection revealed that the building within the property remains unchanged since it was originally built and current balustrade installed within several units located at the rear of the building no longer complies with current safety standard pursuant to the requirements of the BCA 2013.
Council informs you that it is the responsibility of the property owners to ensure the building is maintained in a safe condition and as such suggest you consider upgrading the building balustrades to meet current safety standards.(Dated 9 April 2014)
The EGM is called in 2 weeks time. 3 owners are against, 3 owners for the replacement and 2 are undecided. Therefore it is very important, if this motion requires a special or a standard resolution.
3.2 Replacement of Balustrades
That the western balustrades of Units 5, 6, 7 & 8 be replaced to make them safe and also compliant with the current BCA standards.
Note: Some owners believe that this work is an Upgrade of Common Property and consequently requires a Special Resolution. If it is proved without reasonable doubt that this is an Upgrade by the time of this EGM, this motion will be not be valid and will be withdrawn.
It is believed that all owners have a copy of the xxxxxxxxxx Report on the balustrades and the letter from xxxxxxxxxxxxx Council. However, if any owner requires a copy of these documents….Our strata manager is saying, this motion requires only a standard resolution, because this is not an upgrade, but a repair. All the reports are saying upgrade, but our strata manager thinks otherwise, even saying, if we don’t replace the balustrade, in case of incident, the OC could be liable. Will the report from the engineering company not protect us?
I am enclosing extraction of an email from our strata manager.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed with this, as a meeting with two separate views about it being an upgrade or not is likely to produce different results (i.e. Upgrade (Special Resolution) – Fail; Bring up to Current Code so a repair (Standard Resolution ) – Pass.
However, we believe that it should be put in as a Standard Resolution.
Can you kindly advise me on this matter please, if a special or standard resolution should decide this matter.
Kind regards
Alinka
This post has been edited to remove references to the Consultant’s business name and to the specific Council involved, and to make quoted extracts from the Reports more obvious by placing them in italics. Alinka submitted another post that was almost identical to this one, and to avoid duplication of responses and confusion, that has been deleted.Whale.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.