Building a common use gym in a housing estate

irewestlad

Hi, would be great to get some guidance on this and if anyone else has completed a similar job

In our housing estate we have some common grounds which is not in use. It’s effectively fenced off and is owned jointly by the residents of the estate as common grounds.

A number of us are exploring the idea of building a gym to be used exclusively by residents of the estate. Would be very interested to hear if anyone else has seen this done in Ireland, how planning permission worked out, how insurance was accounted for etc etc

thanks

blackbox

Have you considered those outdoor exercise machines?

You sometimes see them in parks and other public spaces.

I'd be pretty sure you wouldn't need planning permission.

naughtysmurf

I’d suggest you investigate if there is a need for some kind of insurance policy before installing something like this & who’d be liable in the event of accident or injury, is there actually a residents association / committee in place?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058308419/building-a-common-use-gym-in-a-housing-estate

Not sure how you could make sure any outdoor facility is restricted for exclusive use?

There is an outdoor gym at Marianella in Rathgar, a private development.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058308419/building-a-common-use-gym-in-a-housing-estate

Even though the area may be fenced off and not used, it may still count towards the green space of the site, which is supposed to remain common, open, and accessible, particularly for children to play and prevent over-development of the site.

Even though nobody might use the area currently, that doesn't mean that people won't in the future. It's also unlikely that it would be owned jointly by the residents, typically in an estate your property boundary extends to the front wall of your property (adjoining the footpath), and areas outside that are either in the ownership of the developer, management company or taken in charge by the council. Why is it closed off? Who closed it off?

You could also face future issues where if say 10no. houses got together, paid for it and built it, what if one of those tenants a few years later moves out? What if the next owner doesn't want to buy their share in the gym as well?

Your proposal sounds simple in principle, but I'd say there's a lot to consider in it.

sydthebeat

3 words

insurance insurance insurance

get your ducks in a row before you look too far into this.

irewestlad

All very fair and good comments.

I agree @Penn, it sounds simple in theory but many things we need to consider.

My wording was slightly incorrect - it's common area which is owned by our management company of which the residents have total control.

Insurance is the initial main sticking point - need to understand how it would impact public liability insurance in the estate and who would take ownership of it

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120951956#Comment_120951956

Why do you say its unlikely to be owned by the owners? That's precisely how common property works. It's far less likely that the developer owns it, unless they still own a majority of units. The management company is not a third party, its collectively owned by the property owners. People seem to confuse (owner's) management companies with companies that handle the administration of the OMC. The latter manages the affairs, but they own nothing.

You could also face future issues where if say 10no. houses got together, paid for it and built it, what if one of those tenants a few years later moves out? What if the next owner doesn't want to buy their share in the gym as well?

No issues there. Tenant's agreement is with the landlord.

It's irrelevant if the new owner didn't buy the gym shares. He bought them when he became the owner.

The proposal sounds simple because it is really is pretty simple. These are incredibly common in multi unit development. I've lived in places that have had common property gyms, pools, parks, etc

thebiglad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120951974#Comment_120951974

The Management Company of the estate would need to take on the insurance on behalf of the development so the costs would transfer into the Management Charges overall, and therefore all properties whether or not they use or support the equipment. It may restrict their options of insurers willing to quote or at least increase the premium.

The next issue would be, if there are any claims made for injuries or such arising on the equipment (regardless of whether justified - this is Ireland, people will claim for anything), with the speed at which such insurance matters proceed then the premiums will shoot up at next renewal as it will not be resolved, again impacting the overall Management Fees of the estate, this may raise objections to at a future AGM resulting in the necessity of removal of the equipment very quickly.

In our estate we had a public liability issue which was disputed with the developer/manufacturer of an item within the estate, our PL premiums were seriously impacted for 3 years until eventually the manufacturer of said item agreed to take over the claim - the insurer did not reimburse us for the 3 years of increased premiums and we had difficulty placing the insurance for those years - (this was a very significant claim) but could see similar levels of potential cost from injuries on gym equipment.

Work with the Resident's committee and the Management company to draft a costed proposal and put this into your next AGM with a proposal and try to get a resident's vote to proceed.

irewestlad

Thanks again for all your feedback. Could we possible take a separate insurance policy on the gym building so that it separate from the general estate public liability? What about if we have everyone who uses the gym sign a waiver that says you use the gym at your own risk - does something like that stand up legally?

thebiglad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120957444#Comment_120957444

Waiver would not be enforceable and even then there would be a significant admin burden and you have to 100% ensure nobody who is not signed up could enter the gym either with a signed up member or at any other time to use the equipment - it's simpler to have insurance and tight health and safety procedures to reduce the risk of injury/claims or assist in their defence if they do come in.

Sure all members will say they won't claim but wait until someone injures their back through an alleged negligence of your gym/equipment and cannot work for a few weeks - they'll be straight off to a solicitor.

Peregrinus

It's a little unclear from the discussion so far whether you are proposing to erect a building and fit it out as a gym, or simply to install some outdoor exercise equipment in the open space.

The former would certainly need planning permission; the latter might not, but you would need to check that it was consistent with the existing planning permission governing the development.

Whichever you are proposing, it is likely that the land in question belongs to the owners management company (OMC). Management of, and any development on, the common spaces is the OMC's business, so the first question is, do they want to do this? Obviously the bigger and more expensive your project the slower they will be to take it on. You'd need to get buy-in from owners who aren't interested in having, or paying for, the construction, maintenance and insurance of a gym, so you'd need to frame a proposal under which owners with access to the gym paid an additional tier of management charge that fully covered the costs associated with the gym. It's likely that the other owners wouldn't want even the risk of being saddled with gym-related costs, so there would need to be some mechanism in place to ensure that, e.g. proper insurance was maintained, and the OMC would be notified if cover lapsed so they could immediately close the gym. I think there'd also need to be some security for the costs of removing the gym if it stopped being maintained or used. Finally, you'd have to recognise that one consequence of giving over this land to the gym would be that it wouldn't be available for any other purpose, so non-gym owners might want some compensation for that. (Why should they give up, for free, the possibility of a use for this space that they might want to participate in?)

In short, it's quite a complex thing to work out. There are competing interests to be reconciled and the money involved could be quite large, especially if you are thinking of putting up a building. One possible model might be that (a) you would form a gym club open only to residents of the development; (b) the OMC would lease the land in question to the gym club in return for actual proper rent (like, serious money, reflecting the market value of the land in question); (c) the gym club constructs, equips and operates the gym, dealing with maintenance, planning, insurance, etc. Because the OMC has leased out the land they are not responsible for what goes on there - the gym club has exclusive possession - so they shouldn't get sued successfully when someone is injured in the gym. And because they are getting a market rent the non-gym residents should be happy; management charges will be lower than they otherwise would be because of the rent coming in.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120959277#Comment_120959277

There would be no "sign up". It's a private residential gym. Trivial to include the terms of use in the bylaws of the OMC. There would need to be signage indicating that a gym is for the use for residents and any and all usage is at your own risk. For example how signage is erected in carparks. Access is simple to control also.

You can't sign away your rights, so of course a waiver doesn't cover against negligence. I don't see how basic gym equipment cannot easily be negligent. If somebody hurts their back lifting something they are not strong enough to lift, then that's their own negligence not the negligence of the gym. The equipment itself would need to be insured, but the biggest risk there is vandalism in my experience.

A gym is really no different to a common property facility like a carpark or pool. If somebody hurts themselves messing about in the pool. The OMC isn't liable. If a car is stolen from a common property carpark the OMC isn't liable. The biggest liability risk for OMC generally is people slipping on unsuitable floor surfaces. I wonder how often OMCs are testing the slip resistances of their floor surfaces.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120959401#Comment_120959401

You could do it via a additional tier of management charges. But in my experience that's not a good way of approaching it, and not how it's usually done. It's generally just incorporated in the costs of the OMC, whether people use it or not. People without cars, still contribute to roads/carpark maintenance. You live on the ground floor, your fees still go towards the lift. If there's a pool in a complex, your fees go towards it regardless whether you use it, etc.

The biggest difficult would be the existing owners (and thus OMC) not being largely in agreement. Even if there is a sufficient majority to go ahead and fund it. A vocal minority can be a pain. People are unlikely to want to pay via an additional lump sum, so the area would need to be low budget. And outdoor type gym is not really suitable in Ireland imo, even if covered, which means an enclosed building and associated costs. It would generally be much much easier if something like this was included from the start.

Installing a pool in a complex at construction and the cost of it being absorbed (both construction and running costs) is pretty normal. Trying to add you after the fact would be a massive pain. I would suggest this gym is very difficult without close to 100% of people on board, and a healthy sinking fund.

Peregrinus

"Close to 100%", I think you mean!

I agree. It's one thing to buy into an apartment development which already has a pool or a gym — you know you'll be paying for it, and you factor that into your purchase decision. It's quite another to be an existing owner and then find the OMC has embarked on developing new facilities that you don't want but will have to pay for. I think an OMC would be very, very slow to spend more than a minimal amount on a novel facility without near-unanimous support.

I don't know what it would cost to install and maintain some basic outdoor gym equipment, if that's what's contemplated, and I don't know what that cost would look like in the context of the overall budget of the OMC, or when divided among all the owners. But the figures might stack up in a way that would make a project like that feasible.

Anything more ambitious, I think you're looking at an arm's length commercial arrangement between the OMC and a gym operator. (And I doubt that even that is very realistic.)

Mellor

Yes, was meant to say 100%. 😂

That would obviously be most painless. But would really depend on on the OMC is run. For example, my own is run by an elected committee (a job that nobody wants). If we were proposing a gym to be funded by the sinking fund, it would probably be a vote and I'd be surprised in 25% of people turned up. Most people don't seem to care too much. Would expect the interest increased with % of owner/occupiers though.

The commercial arrangement might work as long as costs are kept ridiculous low (ie not commercial rate). If the costs go up, then they'd probably need to be open to the public to earn enough to pay for it.

Peregrinus

I think in many OMCs a lot of owners pay little attention to what goes on unless they themselves have a problem that they want the OMC to address. Thus a proposal to establish a new facility like a gym could fly below the radar, attracting relatively little notice. But if I were on the management committee I'd be acutely sensitive to the possibility that, after the proposal was adopted, then I'd get a lot of flak from owners who weren't paying attention earlier on but are now objecting vociferously.

So I'd be very leery of the proposal if there was any chance at all that it was being pushed by just a few owners who had taken it straight to the OMC, and that it simply hadn't registered with most owners. I'd want to see that there had been a serious effort to make everyone aware of the proposal, to get people onside, and to build broad support. Otherwise if the proposal came before the AGM I'd suggest that it be deferred so that the proponents could undertake an exercise of that kind.

Obviously, the AGM could ignore me and vote to go ahead, and the management committee would be bound by that. But I think that if members of the management committee were expressing reservations like that, there's less chance of the AGM deciding to proceed anyway.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120974965#Comment_120974965

Completely agree. Only the OP knows how much support this has in the OMC. Or how much this could cause conflict after the fact - even if it passed a low turnout vote