Question: Our committee wants to approve fibre cabling across common property without full plans or a vote. Is that allowed under Queensland’s older strata legislation?
Our layered scheme is governed by Queensland’s older MUDA/BUGTA legislation. A committee member has approached a commercial provider to install new fibre internet cabling throughout our buildings and common property.
The provider’s pitch is that the works will be “at no cost”, but owners have pointed out that each body corporate would still incur legal review costs. The community body corporate would need legal and technical advice on access rights, drilling into structural elements, and long-term infrastructure obligations, which we assume would come out of our levies. The proposal also involves installing equipment in each separate body corporate, in the building foyer, and on each level, using what appears to be a low-cost installation method.
At this stage, owners haven’t been given any detailed plans, diagrams, engineering information, or an assessment of risks or future maintenance responsibilities, and we feel pressured to approve without that information.
Can committees approve works affecting common property and structural elements without giving owners full plans, risks, and cost implications? Does this kind of installation count as an improvement requiring an owner vote (ordinary or special resolution) under MUDA/BUGTA, even if the provider says the works are “at no cost”? Should committees get legal and technical advice before agreeing to infrastructure changes like drilling, cabling, or long-term access rights, including in common areas like the underground garage? And should the suitability and quality of the proposed installation method be assessed before any approval is considered?
We’re not opposed to improved services. We do want the decision to be transparent, compliant, and properly informed. During a brief Q&A session organised to discuss the proposal, several owners asked about voting rights and legislative requirements. The commercial provider cited government legislation that turned out to be incorrect, and when asked about Queensland body corporate legislation, said they weren’t familiar with it.
We’d appreciate guidance on the correct process for assessing and approving works of this nature.
Answer: Approving fibre cabling installation generally counts as an improvement to common property.
MUDA and BUGTA are now so old and ‘niche’ that any question related to them should be referred to a specialist strata lawyer. In years past, I would have also said ‘a specialist strata lawyer with grey hair’, but that generation is almost gone now. As such, it’s essential that, before you engage a lawyer, you check to ensure that they are actually very familiar with these Acts, and the developments still regulated by them, as opposed to what their website or marketing material says!
Now, internet infrastructure is for a utility service, and the implied easements in section 115 of MUDA do not affect the easements which belong to and affect lots in a plan created under BUGTA. Section 17 of BUGTA describes those easements. Reading both the BUGTA and MUDA statutory easement rights together, they are pretty powerful, allowing a lot owner to run utility infrastructure, like cables, across lots and common property, through not only the ‘plan’ (the BUP land) but also the ‘site’ (under MUDA, basically the whole development).
So, one or more lot owners wanting to run cabling around the place is going to (usually) be permitted, ‘as of right’ but subject to the usual limitations about not causing unreasonable interference to another lot owner’s use and enjoyment of their property, or the common property.
As soon as we start to talk about a ‘site’ or even ‘plan’ wide network of infrastructure, the prima facie position is that if the body corporate (aka ‘the proprietors’) are allowing it to happen, by approving it, then will that be construed as an improvement to the common property by the body corporate, and subject to the usual restrictions in section 37(2)(g) of BUGTA. In my view, the answer is ‘yes’.
That’s the heart of your question answered, and as for the specific questions, their answers flow from the above: find out what is actually being proposed (lot owner easement rights v body corporate improvements), determine what level of approval is required and in what body corporate, and then consider what is required for a reasonable and lawful decision to be made in each case.
While not asked for, the other thing to watch out for in these situations is where the internet provider is also a telecommunications provider, able to issue a ‘Land Access Notice’, and the utility infrastructure to be installed is a ‘low impact facility’. If both of those things are true, then the equation changes: bodies corporate almost always have to comply with a lawful LAN, given properly. However, the upside of a LAN is that you get to see exactly what is proposed, and where it is proposed to go.
A final thought from someone who has acted for many bodies corporate who received LANs for internet telecommunications infrastructure they did not want. Remember that the internet provider is ‘taking a punt’ with any large-scale installation. The provider is betting that if they do the installation, then enough customers will sign up and use the infrastructure to justify the capital and install costs. A sweet revenge for lot owners and bodies corporate that are forced to deal with a heavy handed, patronising or overbearing internet provider… just don’t sign up for or use the internet provider’s services once the install is complete!
This post appears in Strata News #804.
Michael Kleinschmidt Bugden Allen E: michael.kleinschmidt@bagl.com.au P: 07 5406 1280
