BurkeVue - Correspondence with VED & Amendments to OCR
L&M Dobbyn
Hi Marina,
Wording is fine. In my experience this would be an acceptable rule change upon scrutiny when being registered with the titles office. It doesn’t deviate from the baseline rules or undermine the model rules in any way. Rather, is serves as a clarification/elaboration as to the definitions contained within the current rules.
In addition to sect 72, Sect 138 also applies and there is a plethora of material which needs to be included to ensure compliance for both the office of titles and that the rules are enforceable if challenged by anybody down the track.
The steps to carry out the process are largely contained to 3 core components:
Drafting
- Confirm the intended scope and outcome of the proposed resolution.
- Draft the special resolution motion in accordance with voting requirements.
- Prepare explanatory notes covering:
- The OC’s power under section 138 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic)
- The move from model rules to OC‑specific rules
- The purpose and practical effect of the proposal.
- Draft the proposed Owners Corporation Rules in registrable form.
- Review the draft rules for consistency with the Act and existing rules for reasonableness if enforced.
- Finalise all material for inclusion in the AGM notice.
AGM
- Include the special resolution and explanatory material in the AGM notice.
- Issue the notice within statutory timeframes.
- Present the motion to the meeting.
- Document and minute voting in line with UoE
- Record and issue the outcome via the minutes
Registration
- Arrange lodgement of the new rules with the Registrar of Titles.
- Pay registration fees (OC expense)
- Update OC records to reflect the registered rules.
- Notify all lot owners and occupiers of the new rules within 14 days of receipt.
- Retain the registered rules on OC register for future enforcement and reference.
We may have discussed this during one of our calls, but generally the manager will recommend the engagement of a strata lawyer to prepare these materials. However, I am competent in working through this on your behalf. If the committee pleases, I am glad to procced on this basis.
This is considered as work outside of regular management scope and would sit within schedule 2.2 of our agreement as an additional service.
I estimate approx. 2.5hrs to carry out the drafting phase. Our hourly rate is $250.00 + GST
I await your formal instruction to proceed with this.
Kind Regards,
Daniel Thompson
SENIOR STRATA MANAGER
03
8697 0600
daniel....@turnbullcook.com.au
Level
6, 3 Bowen Crescent,
Melbourne
VIC 3004
1300
726 842 – After Hours Emergency
turnbullcook.com.au | Follow
us on LinkedIn 
This message is intended for the addressee(s) named above.
It may contain privileged or confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must:
- Not use, copy, distribute or disclose it to anyone other than the addressees;
- Notify the sender via return email; and
- Delete the message (and any related attachments) from your computer immediately.
Turnbull Cook Strata Management Pty Ltd, do not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent.
Unless otherwise stated, views expressed within this email are the author's own and do not represent those of Turnbull Cook Strata Management Pty Ltd.
From: L&M Dobbyn <lukean...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 1:48 PM
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel....@turnbullcook.com.au>
Subject: Re: 233 Burke Rd, Glen Iris - Proposed Amendments to OC Rules
Hi Daniel,
I have revised the OCR Amendment, along the lines we discussed, to make it clear that:
- “nuisance” can include odours and loud noise (where persistent, unpleasant, etc, enough to constitute a nuisance); and
- damage or loss includes any damage or loss caused by nuisance.
As we discussed, please put this amendment forward at the AGM for consideration.
Noting that under section 72(2)(c) of the OC Act, the notice of AGM must include the text of any special resolution to be moved at the meeting. The text I propose for the special resolution is as follows:
Proposed change to Owners Corporation Rules:
Add new paragraphs (q) and (r) to Rule 1 as follows:
“(q) A reference to “nuisance” can include noise, smoke, odours, light, obstruction or other interference with another Member’s or Occupier’s enjoyment of that Member’s Lot or the Common Property, so as to be or cause a nuisance.
(r) A reference to “damage”, “damages” or “loss” includes damage, damages or loss caused by nuisance, whether of itself or as a contributing factor.
An appropriate explanation could be something along these lines:
Rule 2.1(d) of the Owners Corporation Rules provides as follows: “A Member must not, and must ensure that the Occupier of a Member’s Lot does not … Use or permit any Lot, the Common Property or Common facilities to be used for any purpose which may be illegal or injurious to the reputation of the Development or may cause a nuisance or hazard to any other Member or Occupier of any Lot or the families or visitors of any such Member of Occupier.”
Rule 2.1(d) deals with several matters including nuisance, that is, a Member or Occupier must not use or permit their property to be used so as to cause a nuisance. The proposed amendments to the Owners Corporation Rules (OCR):
- are not intended to affect the law on what a ‘nuisance’ is;
- are only included for clarity:
- Proposed new Rule 1, paragraph (q), describes the behaviours or situations that could potentially be a nuisance under the law; and
- Proposed new Rule 1, paragraph (r), makes it clear that a reference in the OCR to loss or damage includes loss or damage that is caused by nuisance behaviour.
Is the above satisfactory for inclusion in the AGM Notice or do you require something further?
Thanks,
Marina
On 1 Apr 2026, at 11:17 am, Daniel Thompson <daniel....@turnbullcook.com.au> wrote:
Hi Marina,
The OC Act directly addresses how levies can be applied to a lot.
- Via levy contribution. (Annual Levies)
- Via Extraordinary levy contribution (Special Levy)
Section 24 Sets out the definition of Extraordinary fees
Section 24 (2A) – OC ability to levy lot owners based on benefit principal (Recovery of debt supported by Sect 49).
Section 24 (2B) Sets out that the OC may levy special fees and charges on a lot owner relating to repairs, maintenance and other works arising from the particular use of a lot.
In practice, say steam cleaning is required as a result of cooking smells permeating into the common carpets. I would have confidence on-charging the lot owner causing maintenance requirement under the provisions set out in section 24 (2B). Particularly given the ongoing education circulated to lot owners and residents via multiple methods in addition to the letters issued to certain (alleged) offenders directly requesting the behaviour be stopped.
Therefore, I’m not sure an alteration to the Registered Rules would be required or allow the OC to exercise its powers in any other way other than what is already in the legislation.
Happy to unpack this further if needed?
Also happy to go down the path of amending rules. You’re correct, it does require passing of a special resolution. Also requires (highly recommended) engagement of a specialist strata lawyer to draft the updates and submission to the titles office for signoff, which is not guaranteed, especially if anything contravenes current legislation.
From: L&M
Dobbyn <lukean...@bigpond.com>
Sent: Sunday, 29 March 2026 9:35 PM
To: Daniel Thompson <daniel....@turnbullcook.com.au>
Subject: 233 Burke Rd, Glen Iris - Proposed Amendments to OC Rules
Hi Daniel,
I was thinking that our OCR could be clearer. In particular, I thought it might help to make it clear that odours can be a nuisance, and that if damage is caused to common property in this manner, the relevant owner would be breaching a rule in the OCR.
I also wondered if a dispute resolution mechanism might help? Or if it might create more issues. I’ll be guided by you on this.
There seems a fair degree of disgruntlement right now, from the look of the WhatsApp community messages. A further message was sent yesterday about the odours, and a message was posted today about someone who parked their car across the driveway at Burke Rd.
Just as an FYI, the issue with the cooking odours appears to be worsening, and I understand the odours are starting to permeate the common area, potentially getting into the carpets.
I don’t think it is all that clear in the OCR that anyone causing these odours could be responsible for the cost of cleaning the carpets etc, so as to remove the smells, and if the smells can’t be removed, replacing the carpet etc in the common area.
I had a go at preparing amendments to the OCR - attached.
I realise that a special resolution is required to amend the OCR.
Would welcome your thoughts.
Thanks
Marina
