Packages
Four levels, distinguished by how deep the question goes — not by how large the renovation is.
A modest bathroom can carry more risk to a building than a large but straightforward alteration. The level is chosen by what needs answering, not by the size of the job.
| 01 Desk Review $650 incl. GST 48 hours | 02 Lot Works Review $1,750 incl. GST 5 business days | 03 Lot Works Review + Site Inspection $3,300 incl. GST 10 business days | 04 Comprehensive Review Quoted from ~$6,000 By arrangement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The paperwork question | ||||
| Classification against the statutory categories — cosmetic, minor renovation, or special resolution | ||||
| Completeness check against the scheme's own requirements | ||||
| Approval pathway — consent or CDC, construction certificate, DBP Act obligations, heritage, works by-law | ||||
| Written recommendation and next steps for the committee | ||||
| Wording for a referral, an information request, or a refusal for incompleteness — ready to minute | ||||
| Wording for approval subject to specific recommended conditions — only possible where the conditions have been assessed | ||||
| What the works do to the building — and what they trigger | ||||
| Slab penetrations — whether common property is affected, and what certification the owners corporation should require | ||||
| Wet areas relocated over habitable rooms below — identified from the drawings, with the consequence if it fails | ||||
| Whether an acoustic report is required, and against which standard — NCC, consent authority, or the scheme’s by-laws | ||||
| Whether the works engage structure, and whether a structural engineer’s assessment is required | ||||
| Whether services or riser capacity are affected, and what specialist input that calls for | ||||
| Whether fire separation or egress may be affected, and whether specialist assessment is required | ||||
| Risk-rated findings with recommended conditions | ||||
| Annotated markups of the applicant's own drawings | ||||
| On site | ||||
| Attendance at the lot | ||||
| Attendance at the apartment below, where access is available | ||||
| Common property, risers, access and egress observed and recorded | ||||
| Photographic record | ||||
| Coordination | ||||
| Structural engineering input, coordinated and integrated | ||||
| Legal opinion — the solicitor is engaged directly by the owners corporation; we coordinate and integrate it | ||||
What we bring is twenty years of construction and design experience in Class 2 buildings, applied to reading a proposal and identifying what it will do to the building and what it triggers — including whether a certifier needs to be appointed at all, which is frequently the question nobody has asked.
We do not certify structural adequacy, acoustic performance, waterproofing, fire safety or services capacity. Those are determined by the relevant registered specialist. Our reports say when one is required, what question they should be asked, and what the owners corporation should have in hand before approving.
A Desk Review answers the decisive question quickly and cheaply — what the works are, who can approve them, and whether the application can be decided at all. Often that is the end of the matter. Where it is not, the review tells you which level the works actually call for, and that level is quoted before it is started.
Anything involving a wet area, a floor penetration, a wall being removed or a change of floor covering needs the building question answered before the owners corporation can properly decide. Starting at 02 saves a step.
Documentation for buildings of the 1960s and 70s is frequently absent, inaccurate, or silent on sixty years of subsequent work. Where the drawings cannot be trusted, attendance is the only honest way to answer the question.
Where an application is disputed between owners, involves structure, or will set the standard for every similar application in the building, the coordinated engineering and legal position is worth having before the decision rather than after it.
The contribution is borne by the applicant as a condition of having the application considered — the same route by which a scheme already recovers by-law drafting and registration costs. Payable on submission, and not refundable and not dependent on the outcome.
Where the documents show the works fall into a higher category, we notify the managing agent and set out what that level involves and what it costs, for approval, before any assessment begins. We do not proceed at a level that cannot answer the question, and we do not charge for a level that was not needed.
Spicer Architecture — Nominated Architect Jonathan Spicer. Registered Architect: NSW 8851 · ACT 2959 · Victoria VIC00291.
Registered Design Practitioner (Architectural) and Registered Principal Design Practitioner under the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW).
Office +61 2 8365 2489 · Mobile +61 404 139 557
Information on this page about the strata legislative framework is general information only and is not legal advice. Jonathan Spicer is trained in expert witness practice in construction and architecture, and provides assessments, recommendations and reporting within that field. He is also a Juris Doctor candidate, with completion expected in 2027, and is not an Australian legal practitioner. Spicer Architecture does not provide legal services — where a matter requires them, we identify it and refer it on. Questions about a particular scheme, by-law or application should be directed to a qualified legal practitioner.