Collective sales in Victoria: why the 100% unanimous threshold may change

What this guide covers

• Victoria currently requires 100% unanimous consent for a collective sale of a strata complex under the Owners Corporations Act 2006. This remains the strictest threshold in Australia.
• The June 2026 government response to the Act review supported a lower threshold in principle only. As at August 2026 there is no commenced amendment and no exposure draft that changes 100 per cent.
• What "collective sale" means and why developers are increasingly interested in 1970s and 1980s Melbourne blocks.
• The signs of a quiet acquisition campaign and what an owner should and should not do when first approached.
• Why the 75% threshold is not automatic loss of protection: the dissenting-owner safeguards in the NSW model and what Victoria's version is likely to look like.

This post follows the Victorian Owners Corporations Act review post. That article covers the wider reform package the expert panel gave the government in late 2025. This article focuses on collective sales, which could have the greatest effect on owners in older Melbourne blocks.

The situation as at August 2026 is unchanged on the number that matters. Victoria still requires 100 per cent unanimous consent. The expert panel reported in late 2025. The Government published its response on Engage Victoria in June 2026 and gave in-principle support to lowering the collective-sale threshold. In-principle means more policy work, not a new section of the Owners Corporations Act 2006. No exposure draft has rewritten the vote. The Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 before Parliament is about hardship plans and some rule-breach proceedings. It is not a sale-threshold bill.

The most discussed comparison remains NSW’s 75 per cent strata-renewal pathway in the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015, with a Land and Environment Court fairness check for dissenters. That Act does not apply in Victoria. Treat it as a reference, not as tomorrow’s Victorian section.

It explains how collective sales work, what owners and committees can do when a developer makes contact, and what a Victorian framework might look like if the law changes in 2027 or 2028.

Why this matters now

Several demographic and market factors explain the interest from developers.

Around one in three Victorians live in an owners corporation. The City of Melbourne local government area is closer to nine in ten. The strata stock is highly varied: a substantial portion is recent high-rise; a meaningful portion is older mid-rise or walk-up apartment blocks built in the 1960s, 70s and 80s; some is townhouse stock from the 80s and 90s.

Older mid-rise buildings, usually three to five storeys on small sites in well-located inner suburbs, are attracting more interest from developers.

Site value. In a well-connected suburb, the land beneath an older block can be worth more than the existing building. The combined market value of the lots can sit well below the land's value at a higher density.

Planning context. Victorian planning reforms have allowed more density on transit corridors and in established inner suburbs. Some sites that did not stack up commercially a decade ago now do.

Stock condition. Older blocks are reaching the point where they need major capital works, including facade repairs, lift replacement, window upgrades and structural maintenance. In some cases the work can approach or exceed the units' value, making a redevelopment offer more appealing than it would have been ten years ago.

The 100 per cent unanimous threshold has, until now, been the binding constraint. Developers can identify sites; they cannot complete the acquisition without every single owner agreeing. A single hold-out, for any reason, including no reason at all, kills the transaction.

Expectations of reform are driving the current approaches. Developers and their representatives are preparing for a regime where they need 75 per cent support rather than 100 per cent.

What "collective sale" means

A collective sale is the sale of an entire strata complex (every lot plus the common property) to a single buyer. The buyer typically intends to demolish the building and redevelop the site at higher density.

The mechanics are not the same as 30 individual lot sales happening at the same time. A collective sale is structurally a sale of the whole scheme, with proceeds distributed to lot owners according to their lot entitlements (or some agreed alternative formula).

The buyer pays for the site's redevelopment potential as well as the current market value of the units. That can create a substantial premium. For example:

• A 30-unit walk-up in a well-located inner suburb might have units valued at $500,000 each in the current market: total $15 million. The land's redevelopment value to a developer who can build 90 apartments on the same footprint might be $25 million. The collective sale price, in a successful transaction, would be somewhere between those two figures, probably with a 20 to 40 per cent premium to current market.
• A 50-unit 1970s building with imminent capital works obligations might have units valued at $400,000 each: $20 million total. The land's redevelopment value might be $28 million. The collective sale figure would reflect both the redevelopment premium and the avoided capital works exposure.

That premium is why some owners support a collective sale and others oppose it.

For owners who want to crystallise their equity, a collective sale at a 25 per cent premium is attractive. For owners who like where they live, value the community, or have specific reasons to stay (proximity to work, schools, family), the premium does not compensate for the displacement.

This is the issue behind the threshold. A 100 per cent threshold protects every owner who wants to stay. A 75 per cent threshold protects most owners, but can allow a majority to override the minority when the redevelopment economics support a sale.

The current Victorian position

Under the Owners Corporations Act 2006 (Vic) and the Subdivision Act 1988 (Vic), terminating a strata scheme to enable a collective sale requires unanimous resolution of the owners corporation. Every lot owner must agree.

In practice, this means:

• A single dissenting owner blocks the sale.
• Owners who oppose the sale need not justify their position. Veto is absolute.
• The OC cannot apply to VCAT or any other body to override the dissent.
• The framework provides no mechanism for valuing or compensating dissenting owners in the way some overseas jurisdictions do.

Supporters of the 100 per cent threshold say it protects vulnerable owners: older residents who do not want to move, owner-occupiers who cannot afford equivalent housing, and people whose accessibility needs or community connections cannot be replaced with a cash payout.

Critics say it is economically inefficient because one owner can prevent a transaction that would benefit 30 others without giving a reason.

Both arguments have force. The reform aims to replace the absolute single-owner veto with a lower threshold and safeguards for owners with genuine reasons to oppose a sale.

What NSW does

The NSW Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 introduced a collective sale framework with a 75 per cent threshold and a Land and Environment Court fairness check. The mechanics:

• A strata renewal proposal is initiated, often by a developer working through a strata renewal committee.
• Lot owners receive a written proposal with the sale price, the distribution formula, and supporting documentation.
• If 75 per cent (by lot entitlement, not lot count) of owners approve in writing, the proposal proceeds to the Land and Environment Court for review.
• The Court examines whether the proposal is just and equitable. This includes the price, the distribution methodology, the treatment of dissenting owners, the timing, and the quality of disclosure.
• If approved, the sale completes. Dissenting owners receive their share of proceeds at the agreed distribution.

The 75 per cent threshold is not the only protection. The Land and Environment Court's fairness check is the main safeguard for dissenting owners. The Court has refused proposals because the price was unfair, the distribution formula disadvantaged particular lots, or the disclosure was inadequate.

The NSW framework has operated since 2016. Completed collective sales remain relatively uncommon, although their number is growing. A transaction takes 12 to 24 months from the first proposal to completion. Dissenting owners still bear legal costs, disruption and time costs, but those costs are limited.

What a Victorian regime may look like

The expert panel was asked to consider the NSW model. Submissions differed. Developer-aligned submissions favoured a 75 per cent threshold, while resident-aligned submissions sought stronger protections than NSW provides.

Based on the public record, the most plausible outcome is:

A reduced primary threshold. Most likely 75 per cent, possibly with a higher threshold (80 per cent or more) for certain consequential decisions. The exact percentages and the breakdown by decision type are not yet public.

A judicial or tribunal fairness check. This could sit with VCAT or the Supreme Court of Victoria, depending on the legislation. VCAT is more accessible but has limited capacity for complex commercial transactions. The Supreme Court has more capacity but costs more. The choice will materially affect access to the process.

Dissenting-owner protections. Likely to include a fairness test on price and distribution, a hardship provision for owners who cannot relocate at the agreed price, a process for valuing lots that have been substantially improved, and provisions for owners with specific occupancy needs (accessibility modifications, long tenure).

A strata renewal committee. This could follow the NSW approach, where a small group of owners negotiates with developers for the OC. A committee reduces the chance that individual owners are approached separately and pressured into early commitments.

Disclosure and conflict of interest provisions. Strict requirements that any owner with a relationship to the developer (former employee, family member, financial interest) discloses the relationship and abstains from certain decisions. This is the area where NSW law has been most actively developed since 2016.

On any plausible reading, the regime would not preserve the single-owner veto. The reform direction is toward majority approval with safeguards. Owners who rely on the veto should plan for the possibility that it goes.

What an owner should do if approached now

The 100 per cent threshold remains in force as at May 2026. An OC approached by a developer today still requires unanimous consent, and a single owner can block the transaction. This will continue to be true until legislation changes it, which is at least 12 months away on the most optimistic timeline and possibly 24 to 36 months.

Developers and acquisition agents are preparing for a future regime. Signs of a quiet acquisition campaign include:

• Multiple owners receiving similar approaches over a 6 to 12 month window.
• Buyer's agents (rather than developers directly) approaching individual lot owners.
• Lot purchases by entities with nominee structures, where the beneficial owner is unclear.
• Pressure to sign confidentiality agreements that prevent discussion with neighbouring owners.
• Indications that the buyer is "interested in the building" rather than a specific lot.

What an owner should not do when approached:

Do not sign anything. Including expressions of interest, options, indicative agreements, or confidentiality clauses. Any of these can constrain your future position. The first conversation should be informational only.

Do not agree to confidentiality from your fellow owners. A confidentiality clause that stops you discussing the approach with neighbours isolates you. A collective sale depends on owners acting together. When each owner has a private conversation with the developer, the developer controls the information.

Do not rely on a valuation provided by the buyer. A party seeking to buy has an interest in the result. Use a Certified Practising Valuer appointed independently by the OC or the lot owner.

Do not agree to a sale price without understanding the redevelopment uplift. The relevant figure is your share of the whole site's redevelopment value, not only the current value of your unit. It can be much higher.

What an owner should do:

Talk to neighbouring owners. A coordinated OC response has more weight than 30 individual responses. If several owners are being approached, raise it at a committee meeting or arrange an informal discussion.

Ask the OC to engage a strata specialist lawyer. Use a lawyer with collective-sale or strata-renewal experience, not a general conveyancer. Early advice costs little compared with an unrepresented OC negotiating with a developer's commercial team.

Document every approach. Record the date, person, offer and what was said. Those records can be evidence if a dispute arises later.

Wait. Developers have a limited window to complete an acquisition. An OC that takes six months to organise, get advice and respond may cause the developer to abandon the site or improve the offer.

1. 01
   Receive developer or agent approach
2. 02
   Talk to neighbouring owners first
3. 03
   Convene EGM, surface all offers
4. 04
   Appoint renewal subcommittee
5. 05
   Engage lawyer and independent valuer
6. 06
   Decide on a coordinated response

How the OC should organise

If a developer's interest is genuine and reform remains plausible, the committee should:

Convene an EGM. Raise and record the approach formally so every owner receives the same information at the same time. This reduces the scope for private pressure.

Appoint a strata renewal subcommittee. Choose three or four owners with the time, skills and trust of the OC to lead the engagement. The subcommittee, not the developer, should be the point of contact.

Engage independent advisers. The OC may need a strata lawyer, a valuer it appoints and, for a commercially complex building, a property adviser. The cost is shared across the lots and is small compared with the transaction value.

Set a process. Decide what the OC will do, in what order and when it will make decisions. Otherwise the developer's process will drive the OC's decisions.

Communicate frequently with all owners. Give every owner the same information at the same time. If some owners know more than others, the developer can use that difference.

Get an independent valuation. Obtain one valuation for the units as they are and another for the site's redevelopment value at the highest reasonable density. The difference sets the negotiation range.

Do not proceed without 75 per cent broad agreement, even though the law currently requires 100 per cent. A proposal without a clear majority is not worth pursuing at any threshold. Offers contingent on building support are common, and a patient majority is in a stronger position.

When the threshold drops

If reform sets a 75 per cent threshold with a fairness check, the negotiation changes.

The negotiation dynamics. Under 100 per cent, every individual owner is a potential dealbreaker. The negotiation is therefore necessarily building-wide consensus, with the developer accommodating individual concerns to bring everyone across.

Under 75 per cent, the dynamic shifts. The developer needs broad support but not universal support. The negotiation focuses on the median owner, with the developer prepared to lose some dissenters if the rest approve. This produces faster transactions and lower premiums for dissenting owners specifically.

This is why protections for dissenting owners matter. Under 100 per cent, a dissenter can hold out for the price they require. Under 75 per cent, a dissenter must rely on the fairness check to avoid being undercompensated. The quality of that check is the real protection.

The OCs best placed under a new regime will organise before an approach arrives. They will have a renewal committee, identified independent advisers and a clear process for proposals. OCs that react one owner at a time will have less control.

Honest framing

This is a wealth-transfer reform.

For an owner in an older Melbourne block on a well-located site, reform may be positive. A collective sale becomes possible, the redevelopment premium can be realised, and the owner may avoid the cost of an ageing building.

For an owner in the same building who does not want to leave, perhaps because of accessibility modifications, long tenure or community ties, reform may be negative. The absolute veto becomes a fairness check, and displacement becomes more likely.

The policy question is whether the majority's gains outweigh the minority's losses, and whether fairness measures compensate the minority adequately. The expert panel considers that they can.

Some owners will benefit and others will lose. A good process makes that trade-off clear, gives dissenting owners access to fair treatment and does not assume majority approval is a good outcome for everyone.

The threshold has not dropped. Do not sign on the assumption that it has

A developer letter that says "Victoria is moving to 75 per cent, so we should lock in terms now" is a sales document. The OC must still apply unanimous consent under the Owners Corporations Act 2006. An indicative agreement, option or "support deed" can leave an OC stuck if it assumes dissenters will later be outvoted and the reform is delayed, narrowed or given an unexpected fairness test.

Until a bill commences:

• Every owner still has a veto. That is a fact, not a negotiating posture.
• The committee should not spend levy money “preparing the building for 75 per cent” as if the number were law. Independent advice after a written approach is rational. A standing instruction to a developer’s lawyer is not.
• Dissenting owners should put their position in writing early: they do not consent; they want any future process to include independent valuation and a court or tribunal fairness check. Silence is later described as soft support.
• Owners who want a sale should still organise a majority on paper. A proposal that cannot show something like 75 per cent genuine support is not worth the EGM cost even if the law later changes.

The Victorian Act review post tracks what has been made (education regulations from 25 November 2026, the consumer bill) and what is still only a government “yes, later.” Collective sale sits in the second pile.

How a Victorian sale must be authorised today

Selling the whole site is not a committee project. It deals with common property and every lot. It involves special-resolution and, in practice, unanimous-consent requirements that go well beyond an ordinary works vote. Section 52 already prevents a significant change to the use of common property without a special resolution. A collective sale is a larger step. Do not treat it as an informal "in-principle" committee motion with a brochure in the lobby.

NSW schemes that have been through renewal use the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015: a strata renewal committee, a plan, a support level, then a court process that can bind dissenters if the terms are fair. Victoria has no equivalent commenced pathway. Copying a NSW plan into a Melbourne walk-up does not create one.

If the OC is approached:

1. Minute the approach at the next meeting. Do not reply on a director’s personal email.
2. Tell every owner the same day, with the same paper.
3. Instruct a solicitor who acts for the OC, not the developer.
4. Commission an independent valuation of the lots as they stand and of the site as a development parcel.
5. Do not circulate a developer contract for signature until the solicitor has marked it up and the 100 per cent requirement is stated on the first page of the owners’ paper.

Spending a few thousand dollars on that sequence is cheaper than a year of side deals.

What dissenting owners should gather now

If you intend to stay, gather the same material whether the threshold stays at 100 per cent or a fairness check arrives:

• How long you have lived there, and any disability or age-related modifications to the lot.
• Comparable sales for similar lots in the building and the street.
• The OC’s current capital works plan and special-levy history. A building that has deferred maintenance will be told the site is “uneconomic to keep.” You need the paper that shows what was and was not done.
• Any accessibility or tenancy arrangements that a cash payment will not replace.

That is also the material a later court would need. It is harder to collect once a campaign has begun.

How UnitBuddy fits

UnitBuddy holds OC records, including the maintenance log, capital works plan and financial position. These records matter when a developer approaches and the committee needs to respond. A committee with a current 10-year capital works plan, documented maintenance program and clear financial position can negotiate from a stronger position.

The platform can record the EGM, hold the strata renewal subcommittee's records, track adviser engagements and preserve independent valuations. If a fairness check before VCAT or the Supreme Court is introduced, those organised records may become evidence.

This post will be updated when the Victorian exposure draft bill is released. Until then, the Victorian Owners Corporations Act review post covers the broader reform package and the collective sales explainer covers the underlying mechanics that apply across jurisdictions.

For related reading, see How to Read a Strata Report Before You Buy for signs of an active or potential collective-sale campaign. The 10-Year Capital Works Plan explains why an OC's plan may become important in negotiations. How to Benchmark Your Strata Levies covers the financial baseline a committee should establish before these discussions.

Further reading

• VIC: Have Victoria's legislative changes altered the percentage required for a collective sale?, via LookUpStrata
• VIC: Forced sale and the 75% rule, via LookUpStrata

Keep the scheme file in one place the committee and the manager can both open. Features, pricing, or book a tour.