Question: Under a new CMS by-law, can a body corporate require owners to install under-tile soundproofing and pay for noise testing when renovating exclusive use balcony flooring?
In Brisbane, our body corporate has introduced a new CMS by-law that applies to renovations of balcony flooring. The by-law requires any lot owner who renovates their balcony to significantly upgrade the exclusive use common area by installing under-tile soundproofing, even though this was not part of the original building. In addition, the by-law requires the owner to arrange and pay for noise testing to prove the new flooring meets a specific sound transmission standard.
Can the body corporate legally impose these conditions on lot owners when they carry out balcony flooring renovations?
Answer: The committee must be reasonable, and lot owners need to avoid causing unreasonable interference with other lots.
No. In W4 [2017] QBCCMCmr 555, the adjudicator adopted the prior decisions of McLeod v Body Corporate for Stradbroke Tower and Villas [2015] QCATA 146 and 3 Parkland Boulevard [2014] QBCCMCmr 91 by relevantly providing:
“As in the 3 Parkland Boulevard case, it is likely to be unreasonable for the body corporate to require a higher measurement of noise isolation than currently existing where hard surfaces are already present. Owners are not expected to increase sound isolation, and that it is likely that other lots are in a similar position.”
However, the way the lot is used still needs to avoid causing an unreasonable interference with other lots. If noise (creating an unreasonable interference) is being created with the current floor, the lot owner would need to either:
- change their behaviour and use of the lot to avoid the unreasonable interference; or
- carry out the suggested improvements to avoid the unreasonable interference.
This post appears in the September 2025 edition of The QLD Strata Magazine.
Todd Garsden
Mahoneys
E: tgarsden@mahoneys.com.au
P: 07 3007 3753
2/2022 we were given approval for a minor alteration ($1800) of a timber deck. this deck would be placed over our existing patio and extend over a small section of a larger common property garden abutting our ground level patio. 1/2023 we applied to place a glass balustrade ($1200) around the deck. the BCC rejected the application. other issues in their reply letter were raised about the deck being within 900mm of an adjoining wall and could be a fire risk. we had 21 days to rectify the issue, or they would rescind the previous approval given for the deck. this request was subsequentially rectified. We applied 4/2023 ($400) to allow a smaller section of balustrade within the confines on our lot section on the deck. this was also rejected. they sent form 10 and 11 and subsequently took us to Conciliation. the BBC representatives failed to inform both us and the
conciliator until this meeting that the original approval for the deck had not been ratified. the outcome was they requested a motion without dissent be put to next AGM. After research we decided to withdraw from the agreement and put an ordinary motion regarding the deck only to the AGM as all sections of Section 177
BCCM Act 2020 were satisfied, and this appeared to be the Act both applications could be approved by BC Committee. at no time during the meeting did the BCC representatives or the conciliator inform us as to why a motion without dissent was required. unfortunately, we were lacking in knowledge and accepted the decision under duress as we believed the motion would not pass due to the caretaker having some fourty units in their portfolio and being a supporter of the movement to reject the deck and also the Chairpersons perceived animosity towards us. some fourty votes were returned with voting. 2 yes. 32 no. 6 abstain. Unfortunately, I am disabled and use a mobility scooter inside and out also beingn the reason the original application was put forward for the deck and possibly why the original application was approved. after considerable research it would appear Section 177 BCCM Act 2020 allows for approval for minor alterations to common property by BCC and we are unable to find any information allowing the BCC to force us to submit a motion without dissent at an EGM or AGM or having to make minor alterations to common property an exclusive use area. we are considering taking this to Adjudication. we are pensioners and cash for legal help is not readily available. hoping you may be able to point us in the right direction.
Regards. Brett and Kerry Wheeler.
The body corporate committee is proposing to changeover the lounge and gym rooms without any regard to also changing the flooring (and kitchen facilities) as such is a material change to the approved Building plans which specifically identifies the flooring to be provided for both the lounge and gym. and location of kitchen facilities. The By Laws state that the Body Corporate Committee must maintain the building in accordance with the approved building plans. The product disclosure statement on the purchase of the apartment also specifically states what flooring will be provided and that the kitchen facilities will be attached to the lounge. Can the Committee as agent for the Body Corporate make this decision which appears to contravene the By Laws to protect the interests of Body Corporate even though most residents may be in favor of the change due to their non use of the gym. What are the rights for those owners who are not in favor of the material change.
Hi Glenn
This Q&A should assist:
Question: Our committee regularly carries out small improvements without seeking approval from the body corporate or notifying lot owners. Are we all required to be involved in the decision making process?
In NSW: how far does “adding or altering common property” requiring a special resolution extend?
Would a pot plant placed to cover a gap in a hedge , or a plant placed in a gap in a flower bed on common property (by an owner who traditionally cared for the garden and saved the cost of a gardener) require a special resolution?
What would be the situation be where such actions were agreed by all owners & done before a new owner discovered the special resolution rules. (ie a small strata where all owners used to work together by common consent but that no longer is the case with a new owner.)
Re breach notice re non-replacement of old metal screen after permission to replace tiles on balcony #603.
This scenario raises more Questions than Answers. What is the Survey Format, and is the balcony on title or common pty and if the latter, is it subject to grant of exclusive use, and if so, what does the relevant by-law say re improvements (including removals).
Too often, permission is sought by owners and granted by Cmttees to do things that can be done by right. w/o consent.
Too often, alterations to private pty are treated by Cmttees as if they are improvements to common pty.
The comments re under or over $3,000 would only apply if there is an improvement to common pty by an owner for an owner., ie 2X4 Improvements.
We are in duplex and want to upgrade a garden area on our side of the driveway which is on common property
It has a dead tree and large tree stumps which were from trees removed by persons unknown before we purchased the duplex. It also has evidence of previous white ants boring. I was told by neighbor it fell done years ago and hit his building causing damage.
The other owner has said we cannot touch this area as its common property unless they agree.
Its an eyesore and we want to improve the look of the area on our side of the driveway where we park..
The garden area on their side of the driveway has been fully renovated by the previous owner with concrete pavers and gardens beds and looks good unlike our side.
They has refused to negotiate a solution with us despite the fact we have sent them 2 letters asking for a change of the Body corp laws which date back to 1994. We are willing to pay for all work done .
We don’t want to keep spending money on a lawyer”s .
We want to get this done as soon as possible because our garage is closest to the white ants ridden tree stumps .
Whats our next step and where do we go from here with these people to are being totally unreasonable by not caring what our side looks like.as long as theirs is ok.
Can they continue to ignore our requests
Can you install a cover over your balcony if it is not fixed into the building.
Do you require body corporate approval and council approval?
Hi Alan
I refer you to this Q&A in the above article:
Question: Can the BCC tell me where I can (and can’t) put pot plants in my exclusive use courtyard? I want to use the plants as a screen as I have been denied approval for other forms of screening.
Question: As part of the renovation approval process, is the Body Corporate legally entitled to ask an owner to pay for an EGM?
Answer: The rationale here is that it is the owner benefitting from the meeting rather than the body corporate so they can be asked to cover the costs. If the owner doesn’t want to pay, they can wait.
I am just appalled by what is going on here.
The rationale here is that if there is no benefit to the BC then the owner pays.
Seriously?
As most BC’s are under the BCCM Act then s 94 is in play
Let’s just say that is the case.
94 Body corporate’s general functions
(1) The body corporate for a community titles scheme must—
(a) administer the common property and body corporate assets for the benefit of the owners of the lots included in the scheme; and
(b) enforce the community management statement (including enforcing any by-laws for the scheme in the way provided under this Act); and
(c) carry out the other functions given to the body corporate under this Act and the community management statement.
(2) The body corporate must act reasonably in anything it does under subsection (1) including making, or not making, a decision for the subsection.
Examples for subsection (2) of a body corporate making a decision—
•passing a motion by resolution at a general meeting or a committee meeting
•not passing a motion after a vote at a general meeting or a committee meeting
•owners of lots included in a specified two-lot scheme entering into a lot owner agreement for the scheme (see section 111E(2))
•owners of lots included in a specified two-lot scheme failing to enter into a lot owner agreement following a request made by one of the owners (see section 111H(3))
In effect the answer given to the question is the BC can get the owner to pay for the BC to perform one of its functions.
It is the BC who needs to make the decision so the rationale should be where the hell does the BC get off charging the owner, or trying to charge the owner, to do so.
Not impressed. So much for community living in Qld.
Hi Stephen.
Thanks for your comment. Each individual application needs to be judged on its merits, but in asking an owner to pay for a meeting the body corporate would not be shirking it’s responsibility – it is just saying to the owner that if they want a meeting held at their convenience they would pay for it. Otherwise, the owner has the option of waiting until the next meeting or submitting an owner’s motion if appropriate. There are options for all parties within that.
Thanks,
Will
My neighbour, believe intends to use his land adjacent to my property and on our boundary as extra car parking. We are apart of a standard format plan and we both have carports. His original intention was to extend his carport which the committee (he is on) immediately approved of until I questioned and raised my concerns whether this was suitable and whether it would satisfy local council as it is sloped, next to our common wall and his car would be immediately visible from my dining area.
I was told the extension won’t go ahead but instead the area is being cleared (removed a tree on the verge) so the owner can park his car in the same area on the grass. i don’t believe the space is suitable for carparking.
do I have any further grounds in stopping this? Is council best justification.
He will have to drive over the gutters (common property) and potentially my property (I’m not certain where the lot boundary is) onto his lawn to park. My concern relates to his car being close to.my dining area and the potential structural issues with loads on a sloped area near a common wall. We have issues with parking on coming property (verge) already so I feel the committee may not be fussed.
Am I entitled to ask the BC to fund the cost of a survey plan to determine where exactly the boundary is?
Does carparking come under altering ppearance of lot?
About a year ago in a complex of 17 town houses, everyone was given a choice; if everyone wanted to paint their roofs and the more that did it the better a discount that could be gained, only about half agreed and got it done. Now I am being told, I will need to paint my roof and fit the bill. There is nothing wrong with the functionality of the roof.
I am under the ‘standard module’ regulation.
Can the body corporate force me to paint the roof and make me pay for it?
We want to install white plantation shutters on the INSIDE of our new townhouse’s 3 upstairs bedroom windows. Obviously these will be visible from the outside and no other townhouse in the block have them. Can we go ahead and install these without body corp approval?
Also, there is a small cement slab under a clothesline fixed to a fence in our private courtyard area. There is also stones on the inside perimeter of the fenceline. We want to remove the cement slab as well as the fixed clothesline and stones in order to plant grass and some small shrubs. Are we able to do this without body corp approval?
Thank you!
Hi,
For both of these issues I would say it is easier to make an application to the body corporate and see what they say.
For the shutters – most by-laws have a law about the external appearance of the building stating that anything visible for the outside of your lot has to be in keeping with the rest of the complex. There may be no objection to the shutters or there may be a good reason why they are not appropriate. Checking with the body corporate first will help you avoid any issues after the fact.
The works to the courtyard may be classified as a renovation and they should be approved by the body corporate. again, if you advise what you plan they might simply give you the go ahead or they might advise you of an issue you are unaware of. Either way it is easier to ask first than deal with the problem after.
Thanks,
Will
I have moved into a new strata property. There is only three people on the committee as they were the only ones that turned up to the meeting. We have applied for screening and a pergola. We have been informed that one member has already said no. The 3 on the committee have had improvements done to their properties. Is this not a conflict of interest when they were the only ones that lived in the complex at the time. We don’t know when the next agm is on to be able to get new people on the committee. If they don’t approve our request can we reapply?
If your renovation is less than $3000 total cost you can apply to the committee for approval. It’s not clear from your question how you have applied but it may be worth making a formal submission if that hasn’t happened. You can submit up to six per year and the Committee has up to six weeks to make a decision. see our blog on this:
https://towerbodycorporate.com.au/owner-submitted-committee-meeting-motions/
The committee has to make a reasonable decision and if you think they reject your application and you think they don’t have reasonable grounds then you may need to seek mediation on the matter.
If your renovation is more than $3000 then the application would need to be approved at a general meeting. You can make submissions for motions to be placed on the next AGM or EGM agenda. If there isn’t going to be one for a while you can offer to pay the costs of this meeting yourself if you want the matter progressed more quickly.
The secret here is to make sure you are informed about your rights and that your application to renovate your property provides sufficient information for other owners to make a reasonable decision. Most good applications are passed because they demonstrate that the owner is being responsible in their approach to the property.
For more on renovations check the BCCM website.
https://towerbodycorporate.com.au/owner-submitted-committee-meeting-motions/
Thanks,
Will
Air conditioning (outdoor unit) was installed by previous owner or owners (?) upon the common property connected to air-conditioning (indoor unit) at unknown time. Any application or any approval by the committee have not been possible find among body corporate records.
I am concerning that the outdoor unit is on aircon wall bracket (with the rubbers) and not on the ground. It is not disturb others at the scheme because the unit is in the corner. Can the committee requests to relocate this unit to stay on the ground? I have been living there more than 3 years and the issue never been on the committee agenda. I have applied for approval it, so I am curious what may happen.
There is a large number of alteration to lots without approvals in many years that detract of appearance of lots.
I live in a block of 5 townhouses. We have a management committee of two. We have recently approved a full repair and repaint of the building, it was a unanimous decision. The sticking point is the colour scheme. As there are only five of us, does a vote on the colour scheme that affects all five have to be unanimous or a simple majority of three?
For the colour scheme alone, a simple majority should be sufficient. However, you would also likely need to consider the overall costs of the project and how these might affect any approvals given. If the total cost of the project is more than $2000 times the number of lots – $10,000 in a five lot scheme – a special resolution would be required to agree the works. This equates to four out of five owners agreeing in a scheme of that size. If the total of the project is less than $2000 per lot a general resolution would be sufficient. The advice would be to have the colour scheme included in any such vote so that owners can clearly agree in advance on what they are going to get.
Check the BCCM webpage for full details about the approvals required:
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate/maintenance/improvements
Our body corporate now charges real estate agents fees for placing their ‘for sale’ signs on common property after a real estate agent’s large ‘for sale’ sign, which hadn’t been anchored properly, nor inspected regularly, came loose in heavy winds and caused damage, quite apart from the inordinate amount of fear it caused residents and visitors who had to brave bypassing it on foot and in vehicles. Real estate agents aren’t sold on having to now pay for that which previously came free but finessed fees are a sign of the times.
Hi I am on the committee of our complex, comprising 52 units and 4 levels which has the following by law
“Without the BC written approval make changes to the external appearance of the lot”
The situation is that some unit owners have changed/upgraded their overhead fans and lighting, the complex is 12 years old, on the balcony and the complex manager wishes to issue a notice to remedy Breach because he believes that all units should have the same type overhead fans and lighting.
Given that the unit owners have replaced fan for fan and lighting for lighting is that really albeit not the same fan does that rally rate as an external change of appearance
Thanks
Hi William
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Just a couple of clarifying points if I may:
1. I think there might be a few words missing in your by-law. I assume it reads that without the body corporate’s approval, changes cannot be made to external appearance.
2. The ‘complex manager’ does not issue a by-law breach. That’s the committee’s role. The manager might make recommendations or point out issues but it is up to the committee to decide if there’s enough grounds to warrant a by-law breach
Putting those 2 points to one side for a moment, it’s not clear to me if the owners have made these changes over time and have not sought approval. Or if some have and some haven’t. If no owners have sought approval then the breach should probably be issued to everyone, for the sake of consistency if nothing else. Also not clear is if the by-law requires uniformity of appearance (as the manager seems to think) or if the by-law is merely about requiring approval (as is seemingly the case from the by-law you’ve quoted).
So in other words, there’s too much that’s uncertain here to be able to say much more at the moment. With that in mind, I’d suggest seeking legal advice at this juncture before you proceed any further.
Our underground parking space is part of our title in a CMS building. We want to install a bike anchor for our expensive E bike. This is a 200mm round disc and is 20mm high in the centre. This requires two 12mm wide holes to be drilled 60mm into the parking space floor within our lot.
As this is not a structural change and as the work will be within our titled lot, would we be able to do this without Body Corporate approval? There is a By-law allowing a lot owner to install a locking or safety devise to protect the lot against intruders, would this be applicable? There is nothing in the By-laws restricting the use of the car park to only being used by cars..
Hi Garry
Chris Irons, Hynes Legal has responded to your question in the article above.
We live in a body corporate community. In 2017 we sought approval for a sun shade over our driveway, in keeping with the colours and aesthetic of our home and according to the covenants. We got approval which was great and we installed it several months later. Unfortunately we had a big storm and our sun shade was damaged so we put it down. We did put it up a few times and again another storm hit so we put it down and haven’t had it up for some time now. We are having a post repaired and we are planning on putting it up again but we’re told by our body Corp it wouldn’t be allowed? We have invested money and gone through the right channels, got approval and now we are being told our approval expired? But the sun shade was installed previously and well within the 2 years?, can our body corporate restrict us from putting the shade up again?
Hi Adele
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Approval doesn’t usually come with a time limit. A committee makes a decision and it might come with conditions attached to it. And that is that. One difference might be if the by-laws changed between when you first installed and now.
On what basis are you being told you ‘aren’t allowed’? Do you have an actual decision stating that? Committees are meant to make reasonable decisions which means they need to have a basis on which they decide things, not just arbitrarily deciding something. If there’s no reasons given to you for the apparent ‘decision’ you might have grounds to challenge the decision.
“[…] If there’s no reasons given to you for the apparent ‘decision’ you might have grounds to challenge the decison.”
Even should a committee provide reasons aplenty it doesn’t in any way prevent someone from challenging a committee’s ‘decision’ should they wish to.
If we want to add a unit block name to the street number do we have to get Body Corporate approval?
Is it ok to put up some panels perspex over the balcony railings to protect your pet (dog) from possibly squeezing through the railings.? The panels are tinted and cable tied to the railings and look very neat and tidy. (being cable tied, they can be removed easily)
Other people in the complex have used plastic netting and in some cases placed some weed matting across their railings.
Is this acceptable?. Do you actually need to put in a ‘lot improvement’ form for this if asked by the Body Corporate? OR can you just retain this protection for your pet without ‘breaching any by laws’, with regards to ‘lot appearance. – thank you
Hi Janet
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Always be careful of thinking that because someone else in your building has something, you are entitled to it as well – that’s not necessarily the case. For example, it may be that the other items you describe aren’t actually approved or compliant anyway.
Ultimately it all depends upon (a) where the boundaries of your lot are and (b) what the by-laws say. On (a), if something is within your boundaries then it is generally ok for you to make a change, although you still need to take care you aren’t having an impact on common property. On (b), if there is a by-law about appearance, then you do need to comply with that by-law.
The committee does not have the right to vet or veto absolutely everything that you want to do in relation to your lot but they do have some rights in some cases. It all depends on your building. You might need to seek further advice if you are unsure if it seems as though the committee isn’t applying things properly.
Can a BC Committee legally give approval to an owner who seeks approval to build a fence on common property to increase his already fenced exclusive use rear yard. This structure will restrict access to another 4 residents. Complex is a mix of units, townhouses and villas all under Building Format Plan Accommodation Module.
Hi Ronald
The following response has been provided by Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
Potentially they can, yes.
An owner can make an improvement to common property and the committee and make that approval provided it is:
(1) a minor improvement, which is under $3k
(2) not detracting from the appearance of another lot or common property and
(3) the committee is satisfied with the use and enjoyment of the improvement is not likely to be a breach of the owner’s obligations, such as causing a nuisance to other owners or occupiers.
Otherwise, it can be approved by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.
With respect to the alterations mentioned on common property and the exclusive use area, the answer did not response to whether a resolution without dissent was required, or if a special resolution was needed via GM.
Hi Gayle
We have received this reply from Chris Irons, Hynes Legal:
It depends on the cost of the improvement. If it is over $3,000 then generally that would be by ordinary resolution at a general meeting. Under $3,000, the committee typically can approve.
At an AGM, a motion is put forward by the resident Managers to paint the whole complex of 70 units which includes their residence and Office with a unit above the office, how many quotes would be required and is there a necessity to supply proposed costs though Special Levies or Borrowings? The single quote supplied is in excess of $300,000.
Hi John
Thanks for your questions.
For information regarding spending limits and quotes required, this article provides quite detailed information plus a few Q&As: QLD: Body corporate spending limits – What are they and when do they apply?
For information about financing the work, we recently responded to a similar QLD Lot Owner’s question here: QLD: Q&A Using a Strata Loan to Pay for Painting of the Complex
All the best and let us know if you require any further assistance.
Can the body Corp decide to use the common area roof to have Solar Panels for their own private use without getting the correct approval, therefore not leaving enough space for other owners to use. The committee used up the majority of the roof space, no space left for others. Some used up to 30 Panels each.
Hi Gayle
We have received this reply from Todd Garsden:
If it is common property, the area would be owned by the body corporate. That means the body corporate can ordinarily make improvements to it with a relatively easy approval process. If an owner wanted to exclusively use part of the common property for their own improvement they may also need to consider obtaining exclusive use.
Once the improvement has been made by the body corporate it would be difficult to reverse the improvement because an owner wanted to later make an improvement down the track.
We are living in a high rise apartment and renovations are being done below us. Two questions – 1. Does the committee of the body corporate, by law, have to approve the renovations? 2. They are drilling through the concrete slab which is our floor and their ceiling as they are putting in a frame to hold a new ceiling, they drilled through the water pipe that leads to our apartment and we ere without water for 4 hours. Are they allowed to hammer drill into the concrete slab separating our two apartments?
Hi Julie
Thanks for your comments. We have received this reply from Todd Garsden, Hynes Legal:
To answer the questions:
1. There are two things that could regulate the approvals needed, being:
a) The act and module; and
b) The by-laws.
The act and module will only come into play if the common property is affected – which does not seem to be the case. Accordingly, it will depend on whether the renovations that are being carried out are captured by the by-laws (which are different for every scheme)).
2. The boundary between your lot and their lot is the midpoint of the slab. If they are crossing this midpoint they are affecting your lot and would need your approval to do so. Any damage they cause as a result of the improvements (such as to the pipe) they are responsible to fix.
Re the response regarding renovations changing the architectural vision: I agree that substantially changing the look is not appropriate and should not be allowed. I know this seems to be common to all complexes but when a complex is looking tired and out of date due to possible poor initial architectural vision or aspects of the plan are no longer relevant to today and would be better updated, as in the complex I live in (built 20 years ago), we are advised by our strata Manager that the bylaws state that we can’t change structures, such as, filling in 2.5 sided carports for security reasons. Some have done this to completely fit in with the original architecture but a recent new owner thought he had permission as the Manager stated he would deal with his application and they have now been told to remove the professionally constructed panel of the side of the carport which is also in keeping with the architectural vision., This seems preposterous as 18 other units have done the same thing with many of them using tacky bamboo blinds and other materials which look appalling compared to the aforementioned owner’s.
I would appreciate your opinion
Hi Helen
We’ve received the following response back from Todd Garsden, Hynes Legal:
A change to the structures would still be possible – if an application was submitted to the body corporate it would need to be considered. It is then a decision as to whether the body corporate’s refusal to the application is reasonable which will depend on any reasons for rejecting it.