From time to time, particularly in complexes where there is a mixed us of lots, owners of certain lots may wish to lodge a development application with Council to seek Council approval to make changes to their lot.

It is often at this time that owners will discover they need to consent of the “landowner”, which is the Body Corporate, to lodge that application at Council.

In a recent case set in beautiful Port Douglas in North Queensland, the lot owner discovered that the Body Corporate’s consent to its application was more than simple “box ticking”.

In the above case, the Applicant lot owner, held three commercial lots within the Macrossan House complex which were configured as office space.  Following changes in the office space market, the Applicant wished to re-configure the lots into residential accommodation.

In order for the Applicant to lodge a development approval with Council for the redevelopment of the three lots, the Applicant required the Body Corporate to provide its consent to the lodgment of the Applicant’s development application.

The Applicant wrote to the Committee seeking consent be provided and allowed the Committee six weeks to either decide the motion or request an extension of time in which to make a decision. The Committee, comprised of unpaid volunteers as all Committees are, did not meet the 6 week deadline whereupon the Applicant wrote to the Committee disputing the deemed refusal to consent, arguing that the consent at this stage was a “box ticking” exercise and that the Body Corporate would have ample time to consider the impact of the works at a later stage.

The body corporate’s lawyer wrote back to the Applicant providing reasons for the refusal – however – the Appicant refused to consider those reasons arguing they were received out of time and were thus irrelevant.

An unsuccessful conciliation took place and the Applicant lodged an adjudication application.

In responding to the adjudication application, the Body Corporate made the following points:

• The changes proposed by the Applicant included significant changes to the common property and lot boundaries;
• All owners would have a vested interest in proposed changes to the common property;
• Changes to the common property were beyond the scope of what Council were being asked to vote on;
• The Body Corporate had concerns that the development proposal would significantly impact on the scheme’s common property;
• The Applicant had previously included a general meeting motion seeking the Body Corporate’s approval to lodge its development application, and that motion was lost with 1 Yes vote, 10 No votes and 5 invalid votes; and
• Part of the lot and common property reconfiguration involved the continued maintenance of a lift, which the Appicant had not addressed in his contact with the Committee.

In response to the Body Corporate’s arguments, the Applicant said:

• The Body Corporate was putting the cart before the horse with respect to lift maintenance;
• The Body Corporate did not need to consider the impact of the works to the lots until after it had consented to the development application being lodged;
• The Applicant was prepared to consent to changes to entitlements, it would require subsequent owners of lots to comply with fire requirements; and
• That there was no “rational basis” for the Body Corporate to continue to refuse consent to the development application.

The adjudicator considered whether the Committee acted unreasonably in refusing to provide the Body Corporate’s consent to the Applicant’s development application and found:

• The question was not whether the Committee could make the decision, the question was whether the Body Corporate had acted reasonably;
• It was illogical for planning legislation to require a landowner’s consent when submitting a development application and not expect the landowner to turn their minds to whether or not they wish to provide their consent to the application;
• The Body Corporate was entitled to consider factors which affect it into consideration before make the decision about whether to provide its consent for the development application (three cases were cited supporting this position);
• It was not the adjudicator’s role to take over the Body Corporate’s decision making function, or to impose the Adjudicator’s view, the decision, however, could be set aside if it were legally unreasonable;
• Although the Committee’s communication of the reasons for its decision were not published until after the six week period, the Adjudicator considered it appropriate to take those reasons into account;
• Although not called upon to specifically rule on it – the adjudicator noted that changes to the common property amounted to a restricted issue for the Committee which would require consent to the development approval to be put to owners at a general meeting;
• Wording in the initial development application drafted by the Applicant suggested to the Council that the Body Corporate supported the development – when in fact it did not;
• It was not unreasonable for the Body Corporate to require clarification on how the Applicant would build and maintain new lift infrastructure before consenting to the development application;

In dismissing the adjudicator application, the adjudicator found that the Committee had not failed to act reasonably.

You can read the complete case here: https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2026/73.html