For the most part, construction of the new residential tower was business as usual for developer Andrew Travers of Kenlynn. The devil, however, was in the detail when it came to the scheme’s structure.   

BCsystems strata development consultant Michael Deane said, “Although Thornclyffe House may not have directly impacted the build of the new tower, it did require careful consideration when preparing the CMS (community management statement)”.  

“Despite all lots being residential in nature, the heritage house is a vastly different product, so we needed to assess whether it should be included as a lot in the scheme or not.” 

There were two options for the titling, Deane said. The first was a volumetric subdivision, separating the house from the tower entirely, and establishing an overarching building management statement [BMS] that would deal with the use and associated costs of any shared areas and facilities.

Although now a common concept, it adds an additional layer of complexity to the administration and management of the scheme, which Deane and Travers thought may deter prospective buyers of the free-standing house. 

The second and preferred option was to simply include Thornclyffe house as a lot in the scheme. The owners would then become part of the broader Thornclyffe community, eliminating any ‘us and them’ issues.   

“We thought this would be more appealing to potential buyers,” Deane said. “It did, however, mean the body corporate would be responsible for the maintenance of the newly constructed tower and the heritage house, with the scheme needing to be subdivided by building format plan.”  

“This created its own challenge – how to fairly determine contribution schedule lot entitlements. Understandably there is a vast difference between the maintenance of a 130-year-old heritage-listed house and an apartment in the new tower.”