What is "Common Property" when it comes to a lane / road?

[jerrybee]

I bought a place in the city, and everyone I talked to (other apartment owners, agent, lawyer) kept referring to the lane on the side of the apartment as "common property" as if it was something special, saying we had special rights to park there on weekends for free etc...and I thought (ignorantly, probably) well of course it is... what public space isn't common property (of the general public)? It's a road in the middle of the city for christ sake!

Anyway after taking a closer look at section 43 it hit me...I think it belongs to my apartment building. Yeah I'm slow, I know. Inside the building all the common areas, hallways, entrance is marked "Common Property", along with the lane on the side (just the one lane, not the other 3).

But I'm confused...this is a regular run of the mill lane. It looks like any other lane, regular people drive through there, park there, walk down it etc. How can this be private property? Maybe it's just my inexperience but I've never heard of this before. Or am I misunderstanding what it means for a road / lane to be owned by the building? Would the owners corp have the right to close it off one day for residents only? That would be unheard of in the middle of the CBD. If there's maintenance work required, would it be the responsibility of the building to repair it? Could the owners corp even...build on it? Or is there some rule to say that even if you own it you need to provide public access to it since it's part of vital public infrastructure (which it kind of is, it joins a few important roads and other lanes).


EDIT: Also in the annual general meeting notes I saw things like this, which I thought was puzzling at first:

"The manager has queried whether additional private parking signage could be put up in the laneway, as she has noticed a number of vehicles parked in the laneway without parking permits."

Again, this is totally run-of-the mill city road which makes this a little confusing.

 

[Scott No Mates]

You may need to do a bit of digging with the development approval for the building. This laneway may in fact be common property but is the setback from the boundary (it would be highly unusual though).

 

[jerrybee]

Here's the overview I got from the contract. The red arrow points to the lane. I definitely haven't confused it with part of the building, because my apartment is along that bottom row where you see PT9, PT8, PT7, PT6 etc so I definitely know where the wall is.

Notice how all the common areas inside the building read "Common Property", exactly like the lane at the bottom?

Also this laneway could not be confused with being part of the building next door, because it's so close that the laneway absolutely must be THE laneway. There's only like 10m between the two buildings.

Another thing is...this lane technically doesn't have a name. It's kind of got an unofficial one, but one of the BC members was talking about asking the council to give it the name of the building. All this seems to add weight to my theory? What do you guys think?

 

[Scott No Mates]

Looks to be a private laneway by my reckoning. if it is only 2 lanes ie 6m wide, you could potentially put a gate across it to restrict access (but you'd need to refer to the DA).

 

[jerrybee]

Looks to be a private laneway by my reckoning. if it is only 2 lanes ie 6m wide, you could potentially put a gate across it to restrict access (but you'd need to refer to the DA).

Yeah it's two lanes, one for parking along the side, leaving a very narrow strip for cars to drive down.

I've never seen a private laneway in the CBD before. Are these rare?

This might also explain why the land to apartment ratio was higher than I would have thought for my apartment when I looked through the insurance documentation.

 

[Spades]

Hi jerrybee,

This would be worth looking into and as per Scott No Mates above comment,re:gates,restrictions etc,if approved could only add value imo.

Cheers Spades.

 

[vaughan]

In the early 1980s I worked for CSR at Pyrmont. They owned and ran the sugar refinery and distillery, and many of the roads around these factories were in fact private roads.

I remember that there was a huge panic one year because they had almost forgotten to close-off their roads on Christmas day: they need to do this to assert their ownership of the land and prevent it from reverting to council ownership (the same way the copyright holders have to take action against infringers, else they stand to lose their copyright).

 

[Spades]

Yeah it's two lanes, one for parking along the side, leaving a very narrow strip for cars to drive down.

I've never seen a private laneway in the CBD before. Are these rare?

This might also explain why the land to apartment ratio was higher than I would have thought for my apartment when I looked through the insurance documentation.

Nice,if you already have enough parking you could lease a space in the laneway if part of complex.

As you know parkings a right pia in the cbd.

Cheers Spades.

 

[Spades]

they need to do this to assert their ownership of the land and prevent it from reverting to council ownership (the same way the copyright holders have to take action against infringers, else they stand to lose their copyright).

Good info vaughan BUT does this apply to every state?

Cheers Spades.

 

[jerrybee]

So would we / body corporate be responsible for upkeeping this laneway? Like say if the surface had to be redone or there were pot-holes forming?

Also it just dawned on me that the building next door has a loading bay that has its entrance in this laneway. Garbage bins are also left in the laneway and collected via this layway. If the lane was blocked they'd lose access. Would they be able to contest the laneway from being blocked off?

 

[jerrybee]

prevent it from reverting to council ownership (the same way the copyright holders have to take action against infringers, else they stand to lose their copyright).

Do you think by having the laneway in those council docs (in my screenshot above) counts as asserting ownership? Or is it something else that needs to be done? I wonder if I need to bring this up at the next general meeting or should it be ok?

 

[vaughan]

Do you think by having the laneway in those council docs (in my screenshot above) counts as asserting ownership? Or is it something else that needs to be done? I wonder if I need to bring this up at the next general meeting or should it be ok?

Asserting ownership means stopping unauthorised people from trespassing on your rights. So warning notices under the wipers every now and again. Signage on the wall etc.

There is a little lane way in Crows Nest NSW with a similar space, only it has a sign n it imploring the parking officers not to issue tickets to cars parked there because they are on private land, not public land.

 

[Scott No Mates]

JB, although this is common property (and a laneway), are there any easements, rights of way or other covenants over this land granting rights to third parties or adjoining premises for access to provide services eg garbage trucks etc?

You need to confirm who has rights over this land and under what circumstances as it forms part of your building area.

Having it shown on the title defines ownership however you may need to show that it is just not open slather ie exercising control over your land.

As the land forms part of the title, BC would be required to maintain it (unless those rights have passed with the grant of access/right of way etc).