Fitness Center Guest Access

Background 

Guest access to the fitness centre has been a feature of Pan Peninsula since it first opened and provided residents with a way to enjoy the gym and pool area with their friends/family and guests.

The access was limited to 2 guests per apartment and a guest fee of £20 per guest paid on arrival at the fitness centre reception. All guests were required to be accompanied by the resident at all times.

Unfortunately, over time there have been a number of issues including unauthorised access to the fitness centre from non-residents, large guest numbers, lack of payment and unaccompanied access by guests. 

As a result, guest access was temporarily paused whilst options could be reviewed to resolve the issues that have been experienced. 

What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?

There are 2 key issues that need to be resolved. 

1. Ensuring access is provided only to those eligible. 
2. Enjoyment of the facilities is not hindered by guests.  

These 2 issues mean that we need to review options that will enable better control and management of access for residents and guests. 

What are the potential options?

A number of suggestions have been provided by residents to resolve the issues we are experiencing and below outlines these different options. 

None of these options are guaranteed to be feasible as some come with cost which would potentially mean an increase via service charges and thus increase in rents. However, these costs aren’t yet known.

Issue 1 – Providing Access to only those eligible

The following options aim to address the issue of providing access to only those eligible. 

Option 1: Revised fob access system

Replace the existing fob system to remove the ability to clone fobs, removing one of the ways unauthorised access has been possible. 

This would require a replacement of the fob system and fobs that are currently used throughout the building with a more modern, secure system that is much more resilient to cloning.

Pros:

• Reduces the ability for unauthorised access
• Provides greater security across the building

Cons: 

• Would be a large project to be managed
• Considerable costs expected (costs currently unknown)
• Potential disruption during transition and installation 

Option 2: Biometric Entry

Add a biometric entry requirement in addition to the fob access. This would mean having some extra equipment at the door to the fitness centre to verify the person with the fob is allowed to enter.

This model is adopted by Beetham Tower Manchester.

Pros:

• Renders cloned fobs unusable for access to the fitness centre

Cons: 

• Would require modifications to the fitness centre door
• Would require taking and holding biometric data for each resident
• Might be difficult to integrate with the existing fob system

Option 3: Additional doors with access control

Increase the number of doors with access controls around the fitness and pool facilities. This would mean having added fob access in areas such as between the changing rooms and wet area, between entrance and access into the fitness areas and from reception to the wet area. 

This model is adopted in South Quay Plaza. 

Pros:

• Increases the number of check points of access
• Reduces the ability for unaccompanied access

Cons: 

• Reduces the openness of the facilities
• Requires carrying of fob at all times in the fitness and wet areas
• Costs for install expected (cost currently unknown)

Option 4: Automated entry barriers 

Install automated entrance barriers that are activated by resident fobs, with guest access provided by staff members. 

This would require the installation of barriers similar to those found in any modern office building or commercial gym. 

Pros:

• Reduces the amount of unauthorised access
• Enables control of guest access

Cons:

• Significant costs expected (costs currently unknown)
• Requires a reconfiguration of currently fitness centre reception 
• Requires staff presence for guests to access & to ensure no fob passing/sharing

Option 5: Increased staffing levels

Increase the staffing levels at the fitness centre to ensure there is always someone at the reception desk with the role to enforce gym policies. Currently staff may not be present if they are delivering classes, PT sessions or checking the facilities. 

Pros:

• Easy to implement
• No disruption to residents
• Can be combined with managing guests issue

Cons: 

• Additional costs for staffing (costs unknown but marginal)

Option 6: Regular fob reset

Have the building fobs reset on a regular basis (e.g. 3-6monthly) which requires residents to have their fob re-enabled for access. 

Pros: 

• Reduces unauthorised access to fitness centre
• Reduces unauthorised access across building
• Easy to implement

Cons: 

• Some disruption to residents
• Requires Ballymore concierge resource to manage
• Doesn’t eliminate cloned fob use

Issue 2 – Management of guest access

The following options aims to address the issue of managing guest access.

Option 1: Monthly guest pass cap

Provide a capped number of guest passes to each apartment on a monthly basis.

This would mean a set number e.g. 5 a month provided which residents can use to take guests in accompanied with them to use the facilities. This would also be subject to the gym policy of no more than 2 guests per apartment at any one time.

The model is adopted by Wardian.

Pros: 

• Reduces the ability for large groups of guests
• Controls guest numbers 
• Provides an opportunity for residents to take guests without additional charge

Cons: 

• Doesn’t provide opportunity for additional guests if have regular visitor 
• The previous guest cost is removed (reduces the amount going into the service charge)
• Requires a setup of guest passes

Option 2: Registered guest access only

Provide guest access only to a limited number of pre-registered guests. This would require a resident to register access for a number (e.g. 4) guests that they could have use the facilities, when accompanied by the resident. This would also be subject to the gym policy of no more than 2 guests per apartment at any one time. This could be chargeable per current guest policy. 

Pros:

• Ensures guest details are known
• Reduces the number of different guests accessing facilities

Cons: 

• Requires staff to manage & maintain guest information
• Doesn’t enable flexibility for different guests to join resident

Option 3: Guest access during off-peak times only

Provide access to guests during off-peak times only (e.g. weekdays between 10am – 4pm or after 3pm weekends) to reduce the impact on residents in using the facilities. This would also be subject to the gym policy of no more than 2 guests per apartment at any one time. This could be chargeable per current guest policy or provided without charge.

Pros:

• Allows quieter access to residents for peak times
• Spreads the use of facilities throughout the day

Cons: 

• Guest disruption may still be an issue but at different times
• Residents are limited to when they can have guests use facilities with them

Option 4: Guest access for Resident Leaseholders only 

Reduce the access to the facilities and only allow those who are resident leaseholders to bring guests, and remove the ability for tenants to bring guests. 

Pros:

• Reduces the number of residents who are allowed to bring guests

Cons:

• Creates an unfair distinction of those that can use facilities
• Removes the attractiveness of Pan Peninsula as a place to live for tenants

Option 5: Increased staffing levels 

As above, increasing the staffing levels would allow for staff to fully manage the guest access

Option 6: No guest access

Remove access for guest use permanently, so facilities are reserved for residents only. 

Pros: 

• Removes the issue of the experience being hindered by guests

Cons: 

• Doesn’t give residents an opportunity to share the facilities of their home with guests
• Doesn’t provide an income into the service charge to help maintain the costs of the facilities 

These options are those that have been proposed thus far, it is possible there may be additional options or those that can be combined. Please share your views via the form below or in the comments of any additional ideas you have. 

Have your say

The below survey is to help gather some initial views ahead of the meeting with residents on Wednesday 9 March in the cinema and particularly for those that may not be able to make it. The survey will be open until 17:00 on the 9 March.