KNAPINSKI and THE OWNERS OF 178 COLLIER ROAD, EMBLETON STRATA PLAN 31300 - [2012] WASAT 197

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: COMMERCIAL & CIVIL

ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)

CITATION: KNAPINSKI and THE OWNERS OF 178 COLLIER ROAD, EMBLETON STRATA PLAN 31300 [2012] WASAT 197

MEMBER: DR B DE VILLIERS (MEMBER)

HEARD: 12 SEPTEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 27 SEPTEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: CC 1689 of 2011

BETWEEN: ROBERT KNAPINSKI
BOZENA KNAPINSKI
Applicants
AND
THE OWNERS OF 178 COLLIER ROAD, EMBLETON STRATA PLAN 31300
Respondent

Catchwords:

Strata title - Retrospective approval of alteration of lot - Nature and extent of information to be provided in application when approval to alter lot is sought

Legislation:

Interpretation Act 1894 (WA), s 96(2)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), s 7, s 7(2), s 7(4), s 7A(2), s 7B, s 7B(1), s 7B(3), s 7B(7), s 103F, s 103F(1), s 103F(3), s 103G
Strata Titles General Regulations 1996 (WA), reg 34, reg 34(1), reg 34(2)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants: Self-represented
Respondent: Ms K Richardson (Acting as Agent)

Solicitors:

Applicants: N/A
Respondent: Richardson Strata Management Services

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Corser and The Owners of 5 Gairloch Street Applecross Strata Plan 18807 [2004] WASTR 53
The Owners of 19 Hayes Avenue Yokine Strata Plan 24114 and White & Anor [2005] WASAT 70

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

The applicants sought an order for retrospective approval of a house they erected on a strata lot. The applicants commenced with and completed the construction of the house without obtaining approval from the respondent.
The applicants sought an order, pursuant to s 103F of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), for an order to dispense with the approval required from the respondent, pursuant to s 7(2) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA). The applicants were of the view that s 103F of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) gave the Tribunal the power to approve a structure that had already been erected on a lot. The Tribunal should therefore make an order that approval was deemed to have been given by the respondent.
The respondent opposed the application on two grounds: first, it said that s 103F of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) did not give the Tribunal the power to give approval for an alteration to a lot after construction had commenced or after it had been completed; secondly, the respondent said that the application for approval that was sent to the individual proprietors by the applicants was not detailed enough so as to comply with the relevant requirements of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
The Tribunal found that:
a)s 103F of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) did not grant the power to the Tribunal to retrospectively approve the house that had been erected on a lot without the approval of the strata company; and
b)the letter dated 20 June 2006 sent out by the applicants to individual proprietors did not comply with the requirements of s 7B of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA).
The application was therefore dismissed.

Background

The applicants bought a vacant lot (Lot 5) in the strata scheme in order to build a house on it. The local authority (City of Bayswater) granted planning approval on 6 June 2006 for the house to be constructed. In note 5 of the planning approval it is stated that the approval does not waive or remove obligations or requirements stipulated under the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act).
Shortly before the applicants commenced with construction, they sent a letter, dated 20 June 2006, to the individual proprietors of the strata scheme in which the following was said:
Please be advised that construction is about to be commenced on the above lot.
Should you have any input regarding this development, please advise within the next seven days from the date hereon. Construction will commence without further notice.
Should you not reply as above [w]e will keep you advised further under the terms of [the] strata scheme standard conditions.
The applicants say that the strata company was dysfunctional at the time that approval had to be sought from the respondent and that no reply from any of the individual proprietors was received to the letter. The construction commenced around July 2006 and it was completed around November 2007. The respondent has not, at any stage prior to or after completion of construction, approved the development.
After construction had commenced, the applicants applied by way of letter dated 23 August 2007 for the alteration of the lot to be approved. The application failed to be approved by way of a resolution without dissent at the general meeting that took place on 27 June 2008. At an extraordinary general meeting that took place on 16 May 2012, a motion to approve the house was unsuccessful.
The applicants are now seeking an order, pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act, for the Tribunal to approve the house. The respondent says that the Tribunal does not have the power to grant retrospective approval of a house that was constructed before the application with the Tribunal was lodged. The application should therefore be dismissed. The respondent is not seeking an order for the house to be pulled down. The City of Bayswater has indicated, in its letter dated 5 November 2009, that the house is compliant with all local government planning and building requirements.
After several adjournments so as to enable the parties to explore a settlement, the matter was set down for a hearing.
In light of the protracted nature of the dispute and the high level of conflict prevalent in the scheme, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings during the hearing so as to enable the parties an additional opportunity to attempt to reach an agreement. No agreement was reached.
The Tribunal took into consideration all submissions and evidence provided to it. Written submissions were acknowledged when the hearing commenced, and extensive opportunity was given to those who attended the hearing to make oral submissions and to give evidence.

Issues

Three issues arose in the proceedings, namely:
1)does s 103F of the ST Act give the Tribunal power to retrospectively approve the house that was erected on Lot 5 by the applicants?
If yes, then:
2)does the letter dated 20 June 2006 by the applicants to the individual proprietors comply with the provisions of s 7B of the ST Act and reg 34 of the Strata Titles General Regulations 1996 (WA) (ST Regulations)?
If yes, then:
3)should the respondent have given approval for the construction of the house, pursuant to s 7 of the ST Act, but has such approval been unreasonably withheld?

Statutory framework

Several sections of the ST Act and the ST Regulations are of relevance to these proceedings, namely, s 7(2), s 7(4), s 7B, s 103F and s 103G of the ST Act, and reg 34 of the ST Regulations.
Section 7(2) of the ST Act provides as follows:
The proprietor of a lot shall not cause or permit
(a)any structure to be erected; or
(b)any alteration of a structural kind to, or extension of, a structure,
on his lot except
(c)with the prior approval of the proprietor of the other lot in the case of a strata scheme in which there are not more than 2 lots; and
(d)in any other case with the prior approval, expressed by resolution without dissent, of the strata company.
Section 7(4) of the ST Act provides as follows:
Where an application is made to a strata company in accordance with section 7B
(a)notice of the general meeting to which the application is to be submitted shall contain or be accompanied by a statement, in the prescribed form, of the effect of paragraphs (c) and (d);
(b)the chairman of the general meeting shall before a vote is taken on the application read out the statement referred to in paragraph (a);
(c)a proprietor may vote
(i)against a resolution to approve the application; or
(ii)in support of a resolution to refuse approval of the application,
on any ground that is permitted by subsection (5), but not otherwise; and
(d)a vote referred to in paragraph (c) is of no effect unless the person casting the vote discloses as a ground for his vote one or more of the grounds permitted by subsection (5).
Section 7B of the ST Act provides as follows:
(1)A proprietor who wishes to obtain an approval of a proposal that comes within section 7(2) or 7A(2) shall serve an application on the strata company or the other proprietor, as the case may require, and in the application shall set out details of the proposal and such other information as may be prescribed.
(2)Where an application is made to a strata company under subsection (1) the council of the company shall submit the application to a general meeting of the company convened for the purpose, or for purposes which include that purpose, within 35 days after the application is received (the allowed period).
(3)If the council does not
(a)give notice of such a meeting, within 14 days after the application is served on the strata company, to each proprietor and registered mortgagee who has notified his interest to the strata company; or
(b)convene a general meeting of the company within the allowed period,
any proprietor may convene a general meeting, in the same manner as nearly as possible as that in which meetings are to be convened by the council, and submit the application to that meeting.
(4)Despite subsection (2), a council may submit an application to a general meeting convened by the council after the allowed period if that meeting is held before a meeting is convened by the applicant under subsection (3).
(5)Notice in writing of the decision on an application shall be given to the applicant
(a)in the case of a twolot scheme, by the other proprietor within 42 days after the service of the application on him; and
(b)in any other case, by the strata company within 77 days after service of the application on the company.
(6)If an application made to a strata company or the other proprietor for approval under section 7 is not approved, a notice under subsection (5) shall show the ground or grounds
(a)disclosed by each proprietor who cast a vote of a kind referred to in section 7(4)(c); or
(b)on which approval is refused by the other proprietors,
as the case may be.
(7)If notice of a decision is not given to the applicant in accordance with subsection (5) and, where applicable, subsection (6) the approval applied for is to be taken to have been given.
Section 103F of the ST Act provides as follows:
(1)A proprietor of a lot who has applied for but not obtained an approval under section 7B may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for an order under this section.
(2)An order under this section is an order declaring that the approval required under section 7 or 7A, as the case may be, is to be deemed to have been given by the proprietor or the strata company.
(3)On the making of an application under subsection (1), the State Administrative Tribunal may make an order under this section if satisfied that the approval
(a)should have been given under section 7 or 7A, as the case may be; but
(b)has been unreasonably withheld,
by the proprietor or the strata company.
(4)If
(a)a proprietor has made an application to a strata company under section 7B; and
(b)the application has been considered at a general meeting at which no vote was passed against the application,
the proprietor may make a conditional application for an order under this section.
(5)The State Administrative Tribunal cannot make an order on a conditional application unless a proprietor, voting in accordance with section 3AC(2), casts a vote against the application referred to in subsection (4)(a) nor until the expiration of 35 days after the meeting.
Section 103G of the ST Act provides as follows:
(1)An application to the State Administrative Tribunal for a finding and an order under this section may be made
(a)by the proprietor of a lot in a twolot scheme; or
(b)in the case of any other scheme, by the strata company.
(2)A finding under this section is a finding that the proprietor of a lot in the scheme has committed a breach of section 7(2).
(3)An order under this section is an order that the proprietor
(a)stop carrying out any work or any specified work in breach of subsection (2) of section 7; or
(b)within a specified time, pull down, remove, or alter anything or any specified thing that is in place as a result of work done in breach of that subsection,
or an order under both of those paragraphs.
(4)On the making of an application under subsection (1), the State Administrative Tribunal shall
(a)make a finding under this section if satisfied that a breach of section 7(2) has occurred;
(b)make an order under this section unless satisfied that the work done or intended to be done will not cause any significant inconvenience or detriment to the other proprietors.
Regulation 34 of the ST Regulations provides as follows:
(1)The prescribed information for the purposes of section 7B(1) are plans and specifications for the construction of the improvements and the prescribed information specified in subregulation (2), (4), (5) and (6) as applicable.
(2)In the case of a strata plan the following information is prescribed, subject to subregulation (3)
(a)the plot ratio restrictions and open space requirements in relation to the parcel; and
(b)the pro rata entitlements of or requirements for the lot ascertained in accordance with section 7A(3); and
(c)if the application is approved, the area of the structure, including the area of all existing and proposed structures to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the restrictions and requirements; and
(d)whether or not the carrying out of the proposal will breach the plot ratio restrictions or open space requirements for the lot ascertained in accordance with section 7A(3) and if it does the percentage and area by which such pro rata entitlement or requirement is exceeded; and
(e)the location and dimensions of the proposed structure upon its completion in relation to any existing structure on the lot or to the boundaries of the lot; and
(f)any contravention of the bylaws of the strata company, whether of a permanent or temporary nature, which is likely to occur during or as a result of the erection, alteration or extension of the structure, and any proposed manner of dealing with that contravention.
(3)Paragraphs (a) to (d) of subregulation (2) do not apply if the applicant supplies the statement described in subregulation (4) and the strata company or the other proprietor, as the case requires, does not request in writing that the applicant supply the information referred to in those paragraphs.
(4)If the area of the structure, upon its erection, alteration or extension, would not be required to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the plot ratio restrictions and open space requirements in relation to the parcel, the prescribed information includes a statement to that effect and the reason why it would not be required to be taken into account.
(5)In the case of a lot on a strata plan that is not a vacant lot, as is defined in section 7(6), the following additional information is prescribed
(a)full details of the materials to be used in the structure or the alteration or extension of a structure; and
(b)the colours of those parts of the structure that will be visible from outside the lot; and
(c)the method of construction to be used in and an estimated work plan for the erection, alteration or extension of the structure; and
(d)any likely interruption to or interference with any easement created by section 11 or 12, whether of a permanent or temporary nature, and any proposed manner of dealing with that interruption or interference.
(6)In the case of a survey strata plan the following information is prescribed
(a)the calculation of the plot ratio restrictions and open space requirements in relation to the parcel; and
(b)the pro rata entitlements of or requirements for the lot ascertained in accordance with section 7A(3); and
(c)if the application is approved, the area of the structure, including the area of all existing and proposed structures to be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the restrictions and requirements; and
(d)the percentage and area by which such pro rata entitlement or requirement is exceeded; and
(e)the dimensions of the proposed structure upon its completion.

Contentions

The applicants contend that the Tribunal has the power to approve the house after the construction had been completed. They say that:
•the respondent has been acting unreasonably;
•there is a vendetta within the strata scheme against them;
•they consistently acted on independent advice about the strata approvals process; and
•the approval they now seek is consistent with the planning and building approval that had been granted by the City of Bayswater.
The applicants concede that, in retrospect, the letter dated 20 June 2006 does not comply with the requirements of s 7B of the ST Act and reg 34 of the ST Regulations. They say, however, that at the time of sending the letter dated 20 June 2006, they were of the honest belief that the letter complied with the provisions of the ST Act. They were also of the belief that they complied with the ST Act by sending the letter dated 20 June 2006 to the individual proprietors, since the strata company was, at that stage, not properly functional. The applicants further contend that the unreasonableness of the respondent is evident in the way that the application for retrospective approval had been dealt with at subsequent meetings of the strata company.
The applicants also contend, in the alternative, that since no reply was received from the respondent within the required 77 days from the applicants' letter dated 23 August 2007, the approval of the respondent is deemed to have been given, pursuant to s 7B(7) of the ST Act.
The respondent contends that the Tribunal does not have the power to retrospectively approve the house. The respondent says that the powers of the Tribunal are limited to grant approval prior to an alteration of a lot taking place. If, however, an alteration to a lot has already commenced or if it is completed, as in this case, then the Tribunal does not have the power, pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act, to grant approval retrospectively. The respondent says that the letter dated 20 June 2006 did not comply with the requirements of s 7B of the ST Act and reg 34 of the ST Regulations and that no 'proposal', as required by the ST Act, was therefore submitted to the respondent. The respondent also says that the applicant did not comply with the provisions of the ST Act by sending the letter dated 20 June 2006 to individual proprietors. The respondent further says that it has acted within its powers and that all efforts it has made to resolve the dispute amicability, including the mediation efforts when the hearing was adjourned, have been met with rejection by the applicants. The respondent says that the dispute about approval of the house is closely linked to an unresolved dispute arising from the use of the common property car parking area by the applicants for reversing from their garage, and that the respondent has been acting reasonably to resolve those issues (refer to note 6 of the Planning Approval dated 9 June 2006 issued by the City of Bayswater).

The following written submissions were received:
•The applicants 10 August 2012;
•Mr J Crocker 5 August 2012;
•Ms V Mathews 30 August 2012;
•Ms V Mathews 31 August 2012; and
•Ms R Abreu 11 September 2012.
Oral submissions were made and evidence was heard during the hearing.

Consideration

The answer to the first issue, namely, whether s 103F of the ST Act gives the Tribunal power to retrospectively approve the house that was erected on Lot 5 by the applicants, will establish whether the remaining issues need to be determined. If the Tribunal does not have the power to retrospectively approve the house, the application must be dismissed.
In order to establish whether s 103F of the ST Act bestows power on the Tribunal to grant retrospective approval for the alteration of Lot 5, the provisions of s 103F and s 7B of the ST Act must be considered. When read together, these provisions support the interpretation suggested by the respondent, namely, that the power exercisable by the Tribunal pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act only has prospective operation to be exercised before construction is commenced, and not retrospective operation to be exercised after construction had commenced, or, as in this case, construction had been completed.
Section 103F(1) of the ST Act provides that a proprietor 'who has applied for but not obtained' approval under s 7B of the ST Act may apply for an order to dispense with the approval required under s 7(2) of the ST Act. This means that the Tribunal's power to grant approval on behalf of the respondent only becomes operative if:
a)an application for alteration of Lot 5 was made to the respondent;
b)the application was consistent with the provisions of s 7B of the ST Act;
c)the application was made prior to the commencement of construction; and
d)the application was refused.
If those four elements of the ST Act are met, then the Tribunal can consider whether the refusal was unreasonable. If those elements are not met, there is no basis for the Tribunal to consider its powers pursuant to s 103F(3) of the ST Act.
Section 7(2) of the ST Act determines that a proprietor of a lot 'shall not cause or permit' any structure to be erected, or any alteration of a structural kind to be made in regard to the lot, 'except' with prior approval of the strata company as expressed by way of a resolution without dissent.
This requirement clearly has a prospective and a prohibitive element. The prospective element is that approval for the alteration of a lot must be sought and obtained before any alteration occurs. The prohibitive function is that no alteration may occur without approval of the strata company. The approval of the strata company must be expressed by way of a resolution without dissent. If a proponent fails to comply with the requirements of s 7(2) of the ST Act and commences with alteration of a lot, a strata company may seek an order from the Tribunal for the construction to stop or for the alteration to be removed or pulled down (s 103G of the ST Act). In these proceedings, the respondent is not seeking an order for the house to be pulled down.
Section 7(2) of the ST Act sets out the process by which approval from the strata company is sought for the alteration of a lot. If the approval of the strata company is sought but not obtained, an application may be lodged pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act.
When the statutory standard, as discussed above, is applied to this proceeding, it appears that the applicants:
a)did not obtain the approval of the respondent to undertake structural alterations to Lot 5;
b)did not, prior to the commencement of construction of the house, seek relief pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act from the Tribunal; and
c)nevertheless went ahead with the construction and completed it.
Section 7B of the ST Act, read together with reg 34 of the ST Regulations, sets out the nature of the information that the applicants had to provide to the respondent in regard to the proposed alteration of Lot 5. These requirements fall into two categories first, the procedural elements that must be adhered to so as to ensure that proper notice is given to the respondent of the application and, secondly, the substantial elements that set out what the nature and scope of information that must be provided to the respondent. Section 7B(1) of the ST Act determines that an application for authorisation to make alterations to a lot 'shall' be served on the strata company and 'shall' set out the details of the proposal in a manner prescribed by reg 34 of the ST Regulations. Section 7B(3) of the ST Act regulates the situation where a strata council fails to convene a meeting of the strata company and allows the proprietor to convene a general meeting.
The Tribunal will first reflect on the procedural requirements of notification and then on the substantive requirements for an application.
The applicants say that, at the time when their letter dated 20 June 2006 was sent to individual proprietors of the strata scheme, there was not a functioning strata company and, acting on advice from Landgate, they sent the letter to the individual owners. This notification process followed by the applicants is not consistent with the provisions of s 7B of the ST Act. Section 7B of the ST Act does not allow for individual proprietors to be notified without a general meeting being convened where a proposal can be considered. The letter dated 20 June 2006 did not seek to convene a general meeting and merely invited individual proprietors to make an 'input' in regard to the development. This falls far short of the statutory procedural requirements. If the strata company was indeed dysfunctional, as is suggested by the applicants, the avenue to follow is set out by s 7B(3) of the ST Act the applicants should have convened a general meeting. The application could then have been submitted to that meeting for discussion. No such general meeting was convened. The process adopted by the applicants by sending the letter dated 20 June 2006 to individual proprietors is therefore not compliant with the requirements of s 7B of the ST Act.
The substantive aspects of the letter dated 20 June 2006 also lacked the necessary detail to enable the respondent to make an informed decision about a 'proposal', as is meant by s 7B(1) of the ST Act. The applicants conceded during the hearing that the letter dated 20 June 2006 was, with the benefit of hindsight, not detailed enough to comply with the statutory requirements. The letter they sent on 23 August 2007 was far more detailed, but by that time, construction of the house had commenced and the house was close to completion.
Regulation 34(1) of the ST Regulations specifies that 'plans and specifications' for the house had to be provided to the respondent prior to the commencement of construction. This was not done. The individual proprietors, not the respondent, were informed in the most cursory of ways that 'construction is about to commence'. No detail, as envisaged by the ST Act, was provided so as to enable the respondent to consider the proposal and make a decision. Examples of the detail that had to be provided are set out in reg 34(2) of the ST Regulations, namely: plot ratio and open space requirements; area of the structure; location of structure in regard to boundaries of the lot; and any contravention of a bylaw. The letter dated 20 June 2006 was void of any such information. Although the letter dated 23 August 2007 attempted to address these requirements, the construction had already been in an advanced stage and the proposal therefore fell outside the ambit of s 7 and s 7B of the ST Act.
This analysis of the requirements of s 103F of the ST Act is consistent with the finding of the Tribunal in Corser and The Owners of 5 Gairloch Street Applecross Strata Plan 18807 [2004] WASTR 53 (21 September 2004), in which the then Strata Title Referee, Mr RJ Kronberger, said, at [71], that he could not deal with an application under s 103F of the ST Act:
… unless and until a specific proposal, in respect to that plan, in compliance with s 7 and s 7B [of the ST Act], had been formally put to, and voted on, at a general meeting of the Strata Company.
Unless and until the requirements of s 7 and s 7B of the ST Act had been complied to by the applicants, no relief can be sought pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act. This reasoning is consistent with the observation by the Tribunal in The Owners of 19 Hayes Avenue Yokine Strata Plan 24114 and White & Anor [2005] WASAT 70, at [16], that:
A proprietor of a lot is prohibited from causing or permitting, on the lot, any structure to be erected, or any alteration of a structural kind to a structure, without the prior approval, in the case of a strata scheme of more than two lots, expressed by resolution without dissent of the strata company. The respondents should have sought the approval of the strata company before they had the airconditioning units installed.
The applicants contended that they had, at various stages, sought and received advice as to how to proceed with the matter. The Tribunal is not called upon to consider the exact nature of 'advice' the applicants received, and no one was called to give evidence on their behalf. During the hearing, it appeared that the 'advice' the applicants initially said they had received from Mr Kronberger, a legal practitioner and an expert in strata title, may, in fact, be better categorised as a 'suggestion' by Mr Kronberger in response to a telephone call. The Tribunal was also informed by Ms Mathews during the hearing that she had been told by Mr Atkinson, the director of Atkinson Legal, that the firm, who employs Mr Kronberger, had never given legal advice to the applicants. The Tribunal notes that the applicants say that they received 'advice' from Landgate to send the letter dated 20 June 2006 to individual proprietors. Even if an official made such a suggestion and no official was called to give evidence, it does not constitute legal advice and, more importantly, it does not replace or substitute the requirements of the ST Act.
Section 7B(1) of the ST Act states that a person who is seeking approval under s 7(2) or s 7A(2) 'shall' serve an application upon the strata company or other proprietor, and that such applications 'shall' set out details of the proposal and such other information as prescribed. Section 96(2) of the Interpretation Act 1894 (WA) states that where, in a written law, the word 'shall' is used in conferring a function, such word shall be interpreted to mean that the function so conferred must be performed. It is clear from a reading of s 7(2) and s 7B of the ST Act and reg 34 of the ST Regulations, when read as a whole, that the purpose of these provisions was to ensure that when a lot owner is applying to a strata company or another lot owner to alter their lot, they provide all necessary information to enable the strata company or other lot owner to make an informed decision as to whether the application should be approved or whether there is any basis to refuse the application. Accordingly, s 7 and s 7B of the ST Act and reg 34 of the ST Regulations impose a regime to ensure that when a strata company or other lot owner is required to consider such applications, they have all of the relevant information from the lot owner who proposes the alteration to enable it to properly consider the proposal. Regulation 34 of the ST Regulations refers to a plethora of information. This is highly detailed information. It is clear that the legislature intended that all of this information accompany the application to alter a lot to ensure that all other lot owners of the strata company are provided with as much relevant information to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether to allow or refuse the proposed alteration.
In summary, the application for relief pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act must be dismissed for the following reasons:
a)The Tribunal does not have the power pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act to approve the house after it had been completed.
b)The letter dated 20 June 2006 did not satisfy the requirement of a 'proposal' as intended in s 7B(1) of the ST Act.
c)The level of detail about the proposed development contained in the letter dated 20 June 2006 did not meet the requirements of reg 34 of the ST Regulations.
d)The sending of the letter dated 20 June 2006 to individual proprietors did not meet the obligation of informing the strata company as required by s 7B(1) of the ST Act.
e)The applicants failed to call a general meeting of the strata company as per s 7B(3) of the ST Act.
f)The applicants commenced with and completed the house without the approval of the respondent as provided for in s 7(2) of the ST Act.
g)The letter dated 20 June 2006 did not constitute a 'proposal' pursuant to s 7B of the ST Act and, as a result, no relief can be granted pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act.
The application must therefore be dismissed.
The applicants also suggest that the failure by the respondent to reply to the letter dated 23 August 2007 means that approval had, in fact, been granted for the development and that no further approvals from the respondent were required. This is not a question before the Tribunal, pursuant to s 103F of the ST Act.
The parties are encouraged to settle, by way of a comprehensive agreement, the remaining issues that have been plaguing the strata scheme for many years.

Order

The Tribunal makes the following order:
The application is dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding [47] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
DR B DE VILLIERS, MEMBER