{"id":5237,"date":"2026-10-28T17:36:44","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T07:36:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.theonsitemanager.com.au\/news\/qld-ev-charger-bccm-interim-pavilion-bulimba\/"},"modified":"2026-10-28T17:36:44","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T07:36:44","slug":"qld-ev-charger-bccm-interim-pavilion-bulimba","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.theonsitemanager.com.au\/news\/qld-ev-charger-bccm-interim-pavilion-bulimba\/","title":{"rendered":"QLD Strata Watch: Urgent EV Charger Bid Fails at BCCM \u2014 What Onsite Managers Should Note"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A resident\u2019s urgent bid to unplug a neighbour\u2019s EV charger over fears of a \u201ccatastrophic\u201d basement fire has become a flashpoint for Queensland strata \u2014 and a useful case study for onsite managers and management rights operators who sit between owners, committees and day-to-day safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pavilion Apartments in Bulimba, Brisbane \u2014 a 93-lot complex \u2014 saw lot owner Kin Chen seek an urgent order from the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management (BCCM) to de-energise a neighbour\u2019s charger. Adjudicator T Hendry rejected the interim application. The charger stays on for now. The broader challenge to the committee\u2019s approval continues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the urgent application failed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Timing mattered. The charger had been in use since about 2020. In-principle approval had been given years earlier, though formal approval was never properly completed. Last month the committee granted retrospective approval with conditions: annual servicing, ongoing electrical and safety compliance, and any future changes required by legislation or the building\u2019s insurer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given how long the charger had already operated, the adjudicator found there was not enough to justify emergency de-energisation while the main dispute runs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fire engineering vs \u201cimminent hazard\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Chen relied on a fire engineering (NDY) report that identified gaps \u2014 including arguments about fire detection and internal hydrants in the basement. The committee\u2019s response, as summarised in the ruling, was that the same report rates the likelihood of an EV fire as low, confirms sprinklers throughout the basement, and does not recommend isolating or removing the existing charger. The building\u2019s insurer had reviewed the issue and had not demanded removal. A recent compliance check was also said to have found the charger met requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The owners of the lot with the charger \u2014 described as an elderly couple who rely on it \u2014 argued they would be significantly disadvantaged if it were disconnected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical takeaways for Queensland onsite managers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n