By The Paddocks Club Team
The units on the upper levels of our complex are equipped with balconies which serve as a braai / entertainment area.
Most of the owners have either partially or fully enclosed these balconies without obtaining any prior approval whatsoever. In fact, the very first one to do so was the first chairman of the body corporate.
I recently followed suit. Did we transgress and if so, how can this be corrected?
Balcony enclosures do require approval. The type of approval depends on the nature of the balconies in the scheme.
Are they part of the sections? If so an enclosure is not an extension of the section, but does require the trustees to sign the building plans before they are submitted to the Local Authority, and before signing, the trustees should take into account whether the harmonious appearance of the building would be compromised by the enclosure.
Are the balconies common property? Whether subject to exclusive use rights or not, the enclosure of a common property balcony amounts to an extension of the adjacent section and therefore requires that the provisions of section 24 of the Act are complied with (special resolution, amending sectional plan of extension drawn up and submitted to Surveyor General etc.).
Another consideration is the available bulk on the building.
I recently wrote a blog post about balcony enclosures, which goes into more detail: www.paddocksblog.com
Proxy forms for annual general meeting
I own a unit in a development situated on the coast, this is used by 98% of the owners for holiday purposes.
The managing agents always send the owners a covering letter on their own letterhead in which they ask the members to do the following:
Kindly provide us with your proxy to ensure a quorum if you are unable to attend the meeting.
They do not say who will use the proxies or for what purpose other than to ensure a quorum and I have complained about this on many occasions, is this legal?
A general request to owners to appoint proxies so as to ensure a quorum is present at the meeting is not irregular, but a managing agent should not ask owners to appoint it or any of its employees as a proxy because they are disqualified from such an appointment in terms of PMR 67(3).
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 9, Issue 1, Page 5
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.