When “Sustainability” Changes the Voting Game in Strata
- leigh_oliver
- Apr 25
- 3 min read
A recent decision from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal — Fegent v The Owners – Strata Plan No 6544 — is a timely reminder that the concept of “sustainability infrastructure” in strata is broader (and more powerful) than many owners realise.
For strata managers, committee members, and owners alike, this case highlights how framing a project correctly can fundamentally change the outcome of a vote.
The Background: Windows, Costs, and Conflict
The dispute centred around a 14-storey strata building looking to replace its aging windows.
While that might sound straightforward, it quickly became contentious:
Some owners preferred awning windows, others sliding windows
Concerns were raised about costs, performance, and aesthetics
Importantly, more than 25% of owners opposed the motions
Under normal circumstances, that level of opposition would defeat a special resolution.
But the owners corporation took a different approach — they framed the works as a “sustainability infrastructure resolution.”
Why That Matters
Under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), most upgrades to common property require a special resolution, meaning:
❌ No more than 25% of votes can be against the motion
However, for sustainability infrastructure, the threshold is lower:
✅ Less than 50% of votes can be against the motion
That’s a significant shift in voting power.
In this case, although more than 25% opposed the works, less than 50% did — meaning the motion could still pass if it qualified as sustainability infrastructure.
The Key Legal Question
The Tribunal had to decide:
👉 Were the new windows genuinely “sustainability infrastructure”?
The applicant argued:
Sustainability wasn’t the real motivation
Owners were focused on weatherproofing and design, not energy efficiency
Therefore, the lower voting threshold shouldn’t apply
The Tribunal’s Finding: Purpose Matters — Not Dominance
The Tribunal rejected the idea that sustainability must be the main or dominant purpose.
Instead, it clarified:
✔️ Sustainability only needs to be a purpose — not the purpose
This is a crucial takeaway.
Even though the windows also improved:
Weather resistance
Safety and security
Ventilation and amenity
They were still considered sustainability infrastructure because they:
Improved energy efficiency
Reduced energy consumption
Lowered greenhouse gas emissions
That was enough.
Evidence That Made the Difference
The owners corporation succeeded because they demonstrated that sustainability was actively considered:
A Sustainability Infrastructure Assessment was prepared
Expert reports confirmed improved energy performance
Meeting agendas included energy efficiency documentation
Owners voted on double-glazed (more efficient) windows over cheaper options
This wasn’t accidental — it was structured and documented.
Cost Considerations: What’s Actually Required?
Another challenge raised was whether the owners had properly considered costs before voting.
The Tribunal confirmed:
✔️ It’s enough to consider:
Capital costs
Maintenance costs
General financial implications
❌ It is not required to:
Compare every possible alternative
Prove the “best” or most cost-effective option
Fully quantify energy savings beforehand
Again, a practical and flexible interpretation.
Why This Decision Matters
This case reinforces a broader trend:
Strata law is evolving to actively support sustainability upgrades.
And importantly:
The definition of sustainability infrastructure is broad
It includes upgrades to existing elements, not just new installations
It applies to everyday items — not just things like solar panels
Think:
Windows
Lighting
Ventilation systems
Insulation upgrades
All of these may qualify — if positioned correctly.
Practical Takeaways for Strata Managers & Committees
If you’re planning major works, this decision offers a clear roadmap:
1. Frame the Project Early
If sustainability is even part of the outcome — identify and document it upfront.
2. Get Supporting Evidence
Engineering or consultant reports that reference:
Energy efficiency
Emissions reduction
Performance improvements
…can be decisive.
3. Structure Your Meeting Materials Carefully
Ensure agendas include:
Sustainability assessments
Cost breakdowns
Clear explanations of benefits
4. Don’t Overcomplicate the Purpose Test
You don’t need to prove sustainability is the main reason — just that it is a genuine purpose.
Final Thoughts
The decision in Fegent v The Owners – Strata Plan No 6544 makes one thing clear:
Sustainability is no longer a side consideration in strata — it’s a strategic tool.
Used properly, it can:
Unlock projects that might otherwise fail
Reduce voting barriers
Future-proof buildings
For strata professionals, the message is simple:
👉 How you frame a project can be just as important as the project itself.
Slide Deck:
⚖️Read the case:
Comments