235. Facilities for residents only | getting large projects right | magnesite solution

  1. Home
  2. Podcasts
  3. 235. Facilities for residents only | getting large projects right | magnesite solution

Reena and I work through the following challenges:

  • are investor owners still entitled to use common property¬†facilities like the pool, gym and concierge even though they don’t live in the property?
  • what is best practice for managing major works projects from start to finish?¬†

and a couple of wins:

  • how Reena took on NBN and won
  • the building creatively tackling the myriad of problems wrought by magnesite

Links mentioned:

4 Comments. Leave new

  • singaustralia
    October 14, 2020 8:10 pm

    Thanks once again Amanda and Reena. The discussion regarding the magnesite and owners consequential costs was extremely interesting and relevant to many buildings I know. I am very interested in the terms of the by law that you discussed . It sounded an extremely fair way of dealing with replacement floors . The application of the bylaw in replacement of bathroom waterproofing membranes was also interesting. Definitely need more information about this.

  • Fernanda Rodas
    October 16, 2020 8:50 am

    Dear Amanda, the following I believe was a great win for people who want to have the same rights as everyone else in a Strata. Why should some people have some rights and not others?

    “No more pet bans
    Pet owners are celebrating after the NSW Court of Appeal ruled blanket bans on pets in apartments were unlawful as they were “harsh, unconscionable and oppressive”.

    The decision follows a long legal battle by Johanna and Leo “Cooper, who live in an apartment building in Darlinghurst where strata scheme by-laws prohibit all pets.

    The court said pets do not adversely affect other occupants’ lots, ruling the pet ban seemed to be for the convenience of the strata committee.

    The decision was unanimous and will have far-reaching impacts for anyone living in an apartment in NSW who has been previously prohibited from owning so much as a goldfish.’ ABC news

  • Great news for pet owners! Can the committee or OC of a pet friendly building dictate that dogs which have been using common property unhindered for 20 years be suddenly banned from that common property, e.g. the community room, and be forced to be on the lead when on the lawn where they have always played freely under the owner’s supervision? There have not been any incidents of dogs creating a disturbance or causing problems when playing freely.

    • Hi Dorothy, it’s important that pet by-laws are each considered on their own terms – particularly by-laws that are not simply a blanket ban, but impose conditions of the type you’re referring to. If you’re looking to challenge this particular by-law, you should seek some specific legal advice.


Comment or Question?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.