Restrictions on Pet Ownership in Multi-Owned Properties



Australia is a nation of pet owners with over sixty per cent of households including at least one companion animal. Yet despite the prevalence of companion animals, they are unevenly located across housing forms. Compared with detached privately owned housing, strata title developments have been particularly restrictive to pet-keeping. Drawing on qualitative research from Sydney, Australia, this chapter examines how pet ownership and practices of neighbouring apartments are shaped by the responsibilities that accompany pet-keeping. It highlights how pets can bring neighbours together, but also identifies likely points of tension. The chapter reviews the governance of pets through strata title and ethical implications of such governance. It reflects on the responsibilities of pet owners as well as those of the broader community of owners.


  1. Altmann, Erika. 2013. Apartments, Co-ownership and Sustainability: Implementation Barriers for Retrofitting the Built Environment. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 16 (4): 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2015. Policy Implications for Governing Australia’s Apartment Communities: Tenants, Committees of Management and Strata Managers. In Housing in 21st-Century Australia, ed. R. Dufty-Jones and D. Rogers, 121–138. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  3. Animal Health Alliance. 2013. Pet Ownership in Australia 2013 Summary. Ultimo: Animal Health Alliance.Google Scholar
  4. Borthwick, F. 2009. Governing Pets and Their Humans: Dogs and Companion Animals in New South Wales, 1966–98. Griffith Law Review 18 (1): 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheshire, L.A., T. Rosenblatt, G. Lawrence, and P. Walters. 2009. The Governmentality of Master Planning: Housing Consumption, Aesthetics and Community on a New Estate. Housing Studies 24 (5): 653–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheshire, L., P. Walters, and T. Rosenblatt. 2010. The Politics of Housing Consumption: Renters as Flawed Consumers in Master Planned Estates. Urban Studies 47 (12): 2597–2614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowan, D., and A. Marsh. 2004. Community, Neighbourhood and Responsibility: Contemporary Currents in Housing Studies. Housing Studies 19 (6): 845–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Easthope, H., B. Randolph, and S. Judd. 2012. Governing the Compact City: The Role and Effectiveness of Strata Management. Sydney: City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  9. Franklin, A. 2006a. Animal Nation: The True Story of Animals and Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2006b. ‘Be[a]ware of the Dog’: A Post-Humanist Approach to Housing. Housing, Theory and Society 23 (3): 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grier, K.C. 2006. Pets in America: A History. Chapel Hill: The University of Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  12. Guilding, C.L., G. Bradley, and J. Guilding. 2014. Examining Psychosocial Challenges Arising in Strata Titled Housing. Property Management 32 (5): 386–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGuirk, P., and R. Dowling. 2011. Governing Social Reproduction in Masterplanned Estates: Urban Politics and Everyday Life in Sydney. Urban Studies 48 (12): 2611–2628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. NSW Fair Trading. 2013. Strata Title Law Reform: Strata and Community Title Law Reform Position Paper. Parramatta: NSW Fair Trading.Google Scholar
  15. PIAS. 2010. Pets in the City. Petcare Information and Advisory Service. Accessed 26 July 17.
  16. Power, E.R. 2012. Domestication and the Dog: Embodying Home. Area 44 (3): 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2013. Dogs and Practices of Community and Neighbouring. Anthrozoos 26 (4): 579–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2015. Placing Community Self-Governance: Building Materialities, Nuisance Noise and Neighbouring in Self-Governing Communities. Urban Studies 52 (2): 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Randolph, B. 2006. Delivering the Compact City in Australia: Current Trends and Future Implications. Urban Policy and Research 24 (4): 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sherry, C. 2013. Lessons in Personal Freedom and Functional Land Markets: What Strata and Community Title Can Learn from Traditional Doctrines of Property. UNSW Law Journal 36 (1): 280–315.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Culture and SocietyWestern Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia

Personalised recommendations