Most lot owners who want to make a small change inside their unit, like swapping old blinds for something nicer, expect a fairly straightforward approval process. Most committees, in turn, want to protect the look of the building for everyone’s benefit. A recent adjudication shows what can happen when those two reasonable goals aren’t matched up with a proper assessment process.
The case involved a request to install internal plantation shutters (hinged timber-look shutters fitted inside the window, as opposed to external shutters or screens) in a high-rise unit. It’s a useful read for both owners preparing improvement applications and committees deciding on them, because it shows exactly what an adjudicator expects to see when a decision is challenged.
In Newstead Series [2026] QBCCMCmr 293, a lot owner in a 299-lot scheme applied in September 2024 to install internal plantation shutters in two bedroom windows, replacing her existing blinds. She provided a quote and a brochure showing the shutters in a dark grey colour that she said matched the building’s existing colour scheme.
The relevant by-law said an occupier must not install blinds, tinting, screens or similar devices visible from outside the lot, unless the work followed any pre-approved specifications or was otherwise approved in writing by the committee, having regard to the purpose of the by-law. The committee declined the application. Its first reasons referred to external shutters and a planning condition about balconies remaining unenclosed, neither of which actually applied to the owner’s internal shutters. When the owner pointed this out and asked for updated reasons, it took several months before the committee responded, and even then it simply said “the main concern is the aesthetics of the building”.
The owner argued there were no pre-approved specifications for window furnishings at the time of her application, that her unit was on the 7th floor behind tinted glazing (making the shutters barely visible from outside anyway), and that the four buildings in the scheme already showed some natural variation in height and colour. The body corporate maintained its refusal was reasonable based on protecting the scheme’s architectural design intent, and later obtained an architectural report (in March 2026) supporting that view. Separately, owners adopted new pre-approved window-furnishing specifications at a September 2025 AGM, which did not include plantation shutters.
The adjudicator agreed that a by-law concerning external visual appearance can properly take aesthetics into account, even where the by-law text doesn’t spell that out in so many words. That part of the committee’s reasoning was sound in principle.
The problem was in how the decision was actually made back in October 2024. At that time there were no pre-approved specifications or architectural guidelines for window coverings, so the committee was making a one-off judgment call on this particular application. Yet there was no evidence the committee had actually assessed how visible these specific shutters would be from outside a 7th floor unit behind tinted glazing, for example through photos or a simple sightline check. The committee’s reliance on its “historical position of not approving shutters” wasn’t enough on its own, unless that position was genuinely grounded in the by-laws or connected to protecting the building’s appearance.
The adjudicator also noted that the later-adopted specifications (from September 2025) and the architectural report (from March 2026) couldn’t retrospectively justify a decision made a year or more earlier, since neither existed when the committee made its call. Combined with the scheme’s own evidence of visible differences between its buildings, the adjudicator found the October 2024 refusal was based on general, unsupported aesthetic concerns rather than any real assessment, and declared it unreasonable and invalid. The body corporate was ordered to approve the owner’s original request.
If you’re a lot owner planning to apply for an improvement, whether it’s shutters, screens, tinting or anything else that might be visible from outside your lot, put together a well-documented application from the start. Include photos of your window or balcony, information about visibility from common property or neighbouring lots (a photo from ground level or from a nearby vantage point is useful), and details of the exact colour or finish. The stronger your evidence up front, the easier it is for the committee to make a proper assessment, and the less likely you’ll need to go back and forth over reasons later.
If you’re on a committee, when assessing an improvement application, always link your reasons to the actual by-law and the actual visual impact of that specific request, not general impressions or “how we’ve always done it”. Where there’s genuine uncertainty about visibility, it’s worth doing a simple check (a site visit, photos, or a sightline assessment) and recording it in the minutes. Written reasons should be clear enough that, if the decision were ever reviewed later, they’d stand on their own without needing evidence gathered after the fact. If your scheme doesn’t yet have pre-approved specifications for common types of improvements, adopting some can make future decisions faster and more consistent for everyone.
If you have concerns about how a particular application was or wasn’t assessed, you can raise it directly with your body corporate committee by email, or get in touch with BCsystems and we’ll make sure it’s passed on to the committee.
BCsystems can help owners prepare a thorough, well-documented lot improvement application, including gathering the right photos and visibility information before it’s submitted, which saves time for everyone involved. We can also help committees set up a clear, consistent process for assessing improvement requests and recording the reasons for approving or refusing them, so decisions are easier to explain and stand up well if they’re ever questioned later.
This case is really a reminder that good record-keeping and a fair, evidence-based process benefit everyone, owners get clearer answers and committees get decisions that hold up. With a bit of preparation on both sides, most improvement requests can be assessed smoothly and fairly the first time around.
“Act reasonably” is a phrase that appears throughout body corporate law. It’s a legal standard that applies to almost every decision a committee makes – enforcing by-laws, approving or refusing applications, spending scheme funds, engaging contractors, and resolving disputes between owners.
A contravention notice is the formal step a body corporate takes before it can pursue further enforcement action against an owner or occupier over an alleged by-law breach. Under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), it’s a legal prerequisite, not a warning letter, and the requirements around what it must contain and who it must be given to are specific.