Changing rooftop balcony paving: who can help the management company to approve?

Krystof

Hello,

I am the owner of a third-floor one-bed apartment that enjoys access to a very large rooftop balcony (larger than the apartment itself).

In order to make the place nicer and bring value to the apartment, I would like to change the paving of that balcony.
- Currently, there are gray concrete 40x40 cm square slabs lied on plastic support discs (allowing the water to run under out to the drains).
- The plan would be to remove these and install a layer of "Delta Terrax" draining board, topped by a sand & cement bed, topped by jointed mixed-size limestone tiles.

The building contractor who proposed this plan for me has over 15 years experience, has done similar jobs before, and really seemed to know what he's talking about. He's the one I'd plan to hire for the job and I am willing to pay for the whole project.

The problem is that the management company directors are reluctant to approve this project as they are worried about the apartments below and the water drainage (although the building contractor has considered these aspects). They have stated that the balcony should stay as designed by the original building architect (slabs standing on the support discs). They are also probably scared of the responsibilities in approving this.

My question: Who (or what) could help the management company's directors to approve such a project? or who (or what) could lift their responsibilities in approving it?

I am hoping that a formal study/review document of some sort (from a building architect / engineer for example) would help.
Does anybody have an idea? Have you heard of similar jobs done on apartment blocks in Ireland? I'd like to explore all possibilities to get this done.

Thank you very much!
Christophe.

Thespoofer

Just out of curiosity what is under the slabs acting as the waterproofing ( asphalt, felt etc ) ?

If your having work done just be careful of any of the tradesmen damaging/ dropping heavy objects onto the balcony and damaging the surface causing a crack or whatever, leading to problems down the line.

There are a number of ways to overlay a balcony without interfering with the integrity of the actual roof itself.

Krystof

Thespoofer wrote: »

Just out of curiosity what is under the slabs acting as the waterproofing ( asphalt, felt etc ) ?

If your having work done just be careful of any of the tradesmen damaging/ dropping heavy objects onto the balcony and damaging the surface causing a crack or whatever, leading to problems down the line.

There are a number of ways to overlay a balcony without interfering with the integrity of the actual roof itself.

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure what the waterproofing layer is exactly. One of the contractors visiting the site said it's timber... would that be really waterproof? It seems to work well anyway as I haven't heard of any leaks in the apartments directly below.

The tradesmen's work would be insured so I suppose that would cover any potential damages caused during the job.

I am more interested in how this job could be approved by the management company's directors. Would any in-depth study or formal document from a building specialist be able to support this project in front of them? Anything that could help with this, maybe in the legal world?

Victor

Krystof wrote: »

balcony

Do you mean a terrace? There is a building below a terrace, but only thin air (or another balcony) below a balcony?

athtrasna

The thing is you don't own the balcony or terrace, you have exclusive access to it but it remains management company property. As such you have no entitlement to materially alter it. If I were you I would consider planting and furniture as a way of improving the aesthetics.

Directors of the management company are entrusted to act in the best interests of the development, not of individual owners. As a director of our management company if I was faced with your proposal I would have no alternative but to reject it out of hand.

Victor

One issue that will arise is insurance - will this new roof finish have to be covered under the block insurance policy?

What does your contract / lease with the owners management company say?

athtrasna

Victor wrote: »

One issue that will arise is insurance - will this new roof finish have to be covered under the block insurance policy?

What does your contract / lease with the owners management company say?

Any balcony/terrace is management company property as it's part of the structure of the building. Not the OP's to alter.

ted1

Do you have exclusive use of it or is it shared?

A building contractor doesn't require any qualifications and as such their advice and recomodations don't carry much weight. You need an architect and structural engineer to do up plans

Gumbo

I worked on a few multi unit developments in my previous role. We were a consulting engineering firm.

The first thing we did was survey exactly what was there.
Then we provided what products we were going to use and show them on plan.
Then we had to submit a report stating that the proposed works would not interfere with the existing structure and that they would remain if the tenant decided to leave during their lifespan.

This got us through some management companies.

athtrasna

ted1 wrote: »

Do you have exclusive use of it or is it shared?

A building contractor doesn't require any qualifications and as such their advice and recomodations don't carry much weight. You need an architect and structural engineer to do up plans

Irrelevant, they don't own it. It's management company property.

ted1

athtrasna wrote: »

Irrelevant, they don't own it. It's management company property.

Not really irrelevant. Don't be so quick to shoot things down. Because if its shared use then other owners may think it's a good idea and support the idea. The residents are shareholders in the MC.
If it's exclusive use then some residents may suffer a case of the green eyed monster and block it.

athtrasna

ted1 wrote: »

Not really irrelevant. Don't be so quick to shoot things down. Because if its shared use then other owners may think it's a good idea and support the idea. The residents are shareholders in the MC.
If it's exclusive use then some residents may suffer a case of the green eyed monster and block it.

It's not about supporting or blocking the idea or even jealousy. It's about the building being the responsibility of the management company. The directors are charged with protecting the interests of the company and this includes protecting the structural integrity of the building.

Permitting an owner to alter management company property potentially jeopardises that, and also opens the floodgates for other owners (and possibly tenants) to attempt alterations without as much due care as the OP would like to give.

At the end of the day the only person who benefits from this alteration is the OP (it appears to me they have exclusive access), so it cannot be judged to be in the benefit of an entire development. Directors giving consent to this would be negligent in their duty of care IMO.

Tails142

I wouldn't go near it if I was you - you are asking for a world of trouble should a leak develop into the apartment below.

ted1

athtrasna wrote: »

At the end of the day the only person who benefits from this alteration is the OP (it appears to me they have exclusive access), so it cannot be judged to be in the benefit of an entire development. Directors giving consent to this would be negligent in their duty of care IMO.

Rather than jumping to conclusions why not let the OP answer the question.

Marcusm

athtrasna wrote: »

t. Directors giving consent to this would be negligent in their duty of care IMO.

They certainly would not be negligent if they permitted the leaseholder to make such improvements provided they were assessed in the planning stage as described by kceire plus supervised during the work and relevant insurance obtained. Equally, I have little doubt that the cost of this would be prohibitive when compared with the benefits to be obtained by the OP. Properly scoped, planned, executed and insured this will cost a fortune.

athtrasna

Marcusm wrote: »

They certainly would not be negligent if they permitted the leaseholder to make such improvements provided they were assessed in the planning stage as described by kceire plus supervised during the work and relevant insurance obtained. Equally, I have little doubt that the cost of this would be prohibitive when compared with the benefits to be obtained by the OP. Properly scoped, planned, executed and insured this will cost a fortune.

The changes would not benefit the development as a whole, they would also alter the external appearance of the development (not permitted in most leases) which is why I said what I said. Management company directors must have the interests of the entire development to the forefront at all times.

Marcusm

athtrasna wrote: »

The changes would not benefit the development as a whole, they would also alter the external appearance of the development (not permitted in most leases) which is why I said what I said. Management company directors must have the interests of the entire development to the forefront at all times.

Actually, the directors' responsibilities are to the company which owns the development. Any director who peremptorily precludes the optimisation of the company's assets (including the ability to obtain lease variation income) is more likely to be in breach of his/her fiduciary duties than one who acts as I have suggested.

Paulw

Marcusm wrote: »

Any director who peremptorily precludes the optimisation of the company's assets (including the ability to obtain lease variation income) is more likely to be in breach of his/her fiduciary duties than one who acts as I have suggested.

But, the OP already has use of the balcony, so there would be no increase in space (most management fees are based on % space per unit), so I can't see how the management company would have any increased income.

As a management company director, I too would be of the opinion not to permit the changes that the OP is requesting, as I can't see any benefit to anyone besides the OP. But the changes may have an impact on other things, including insurance, etc

Marcusm

Paulw wrote: »

But, the OP already has use of the balcony, so there would be no increase in space (most management fees are based on % space per unit), so I can't see how the management company would have any increased income.

As a management company director, I too would be of the opinion not to permit the changes that the OP is requesting, as I can't see any benefit to anyone besides the OP. But the changes may have an impact on other things, including insurance, etc

Perhaps using the word "income" was a distraction; on the basis that the OP expects to enhance the value of his property, I would only consent on payment of a lease variation or consent fee equal to a substantial portion of that enhancement for the freeholder, ie OMC, which could be used to prop up the sinking fund. Provided any work is done to the appropriate professional standard, there should not be any additional insurance cost as the roof is effectively being renewed before being time expired.

Although I have since sold on, there was quite a lot of this in a development I lived in in London from hot tubs to rubberised wrestling pits! Personally I wouldn't have sanctioned the latter which was ultimately used as a regular lien filming site.

Mrs OBumble

Paulw wrote: »

But, the OP already has use of the balcony, so there would be no increase in space (most management fees are based on % space per unit), so I can't see how the management company would have any increased income.

As a management company director, I too would be of the opinion not to permit the changes that the OP is requesting, as I can't see any benefit to anyone besides the OP. But the changes may have an impact on other things, including insurance, etc

However they would not necessary be negative impacts.

The idea that the complex needs to be maintained forever exactly as initially specified is madness: owner needs, building standards and available technologies will change over time. Management companies need to keep up, and to keep their building fit for purpose for all owners both individually and collectively.

To refuse to even consider a change just because it only benefits one owner not all of them is just petty. It smacks of keeping people in their station, just because.

As others have said, there are some substantial risks with the OP's proposal. Both the OP and the management company need independent advice from qualified professionals. Only these professionals can say whether the risks are insurmountable or not.

Paulw

Krystof wrote: »

My question: Who (or what) could help the management company's directors to approve such a project? or who (or what) could lift their responsibilities in approving it?

To directly answer the OP - no one can lift the responsibility of the directors. The buck stops with them. Any future issue or failing falls on their shoulders, as the directors.

Who or what could help their decision - fully documented reports on what you plan to do, how it may impact the building, etc, etc. But again, these would all be done at your own cost and may not result in a positive decision.

For the directors, it is about covering themselves and the company. We have become a litigation society when something goes wrong. People want to claim for anything and everything. I don't blame directors who say no to change for that main reason.

Wabbit Ears

Putting management company and ownership aside I would veto the OP's plan on the fact that whats proposed isn't nearly as free-draining (the teraxx is a free draining membranne but the sand/cement on top of that cancels a lot of that out)and would be considerably heavier (compared to plastic risers) than what's in place. Its a plan that seems more suited to a garden than a rooftop IMHO.

Tefral

OP id leave well enough alone if I were you. If you cause a leak to the apartment below you'd be entirely responsible for it.

A builders insurance will cover only his work not the work of others. If by some coincidence that the existing waterproofing fails aswell down the line. There would be a major issue.

Have you thought maybe about laying artifical grass and maybe planting some raised beds or something?

K.Flyer

Some Balconies and Terraces that are above other apartments can cause no end of problems with leaks and damp and is the bane of the management companies.
I would be surprised if they allowed you to go ahead with it simply for the reason of potential problems and who could be held responsible.

Krystof

Thanks Guys for your answers.

Victor wrote: »

Do you mean a terrace? There is a building below a terrace, but only thin air (or another balcony) below a balcony?

It's a terrasse then indeed. Most people seem to use "balcony" to qualify it though... I guess I was becoming like them. :-D

Victor wrote: »

One issue that will arise is insurance - will this new roof finish have to be covered under the block insurance policy?
What does your contract / lease with the owners management company say?

I'm afraid the contract is not mentioning the possibility of such changes or any similar building changes. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure it simply says "no/forbidden" on this matter. What I wish to do though is to convince the Management Company directors to approve it for me (at my own expenses). I would maybe not mind if they'd have to choose a contractor of their choice if necessary.

ted1 wrote: »

Do you have exclusive use of it or is it shared?

The terrasse is divided. I have exclusive use of a large enough part of it. There's a smaller shared part next to it without physical separation, and I would like to extend the works on that side too.

ted1 wrote: »

A building contractor doesn't require any qualifications and as such their advice and recomodations don't carry much weight. You need an architect and structural engineer to do up plans

Thanks very much. This may be the way to go in this case.

kceire wrote: »

I worked on a few multi unit developments in my previous role. We were a consulting engineering firm.
The first thing we did was survey exactly what was there.
Then we provided what products we were going to use and show them on plan.
Then we had to submit a report stating that the proposed works would not interfere with the existing structure and that they would remain if the tenant decided to leave during their lifespan.
This got us through some management companies.

Very good to know, thank you!
Were you then a "building/structural engineer" as mentioned above?
How much would this type of survey be charged, to have an idea?

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

However they would not necessary be negative impacts.
The idea that the complex needs to be maintained forever exactly as initially specified is madness: owner needs, building standards and available technologies will change over time. Management companies need to keep up, and to keep their building fit for purpose for all owners both individually and collectively.
To refuse to even consider a change just because it only benefits one owner not all of them is just petty. It smacks of keeping people in their station, just because.
As others have said, there are some substantial risks with the OP's proposal. Both the OP and the management company need independent advice from qualified professionals. Only these professionals can say whether the risks are insurmountable or not.

Thank you, that's exactly what I think too. It's a pitty that so many people are so close-minded when it comes to unusual changes or responsibilities not benefiting them directly, and shut all doors without question.

Paulw wrote: »

To directly answer the OP - no one can lift the responsibility of the directors. The buck stops with them. Any future issue or failing falls on their shoulders, as the directors.
Who or what could help their decision - fully documented reports on what you plan to do, how it may impact the building, etc, etc. But again, these would all be done at your own cost and may not result in a positive decision.
For the directors, it is about covering themselves and the company. We have become a litigation society when something goes wrong. People want to claim for anything and everything. I don't blame directors who say no to change for that main reason.

Thank you. Another good comment on our sad "litigation society" indeed.

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Putting management company and ownership aside I would veto the OP's plan on the fact that whats proposed isn't nearly as free-draining (the teraxx is a free draining membranne but the sand/cement on top of that cancels a lot of that out)and would be considerably heavier (compared to plastic risers) than what's in place. Its a plan that seems more suited to a garden than a rooftop IMHO.

That type of membrane is compression-resistant designed to make actual plants and trees growing on roofs (with soil / compost / whatever layed on that membrane). Have a look at the specs & possible applications on the manufacturer's website.

athtrasna

Krystof wrote: »

I'm afraid the contract is not mentioning the possibility of such changes or any similar building changes. I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure it simply says "no/forbidden" on this matter.

So you signed a legal document that said no changes or changes are forbidden and now you want to make changes???

ec18

athtrasna wrote: »

The thing is you don't own the balcony or terrace, you have exclusive access to it but it remains management company property. As such you have no entitlement to materially alter it. If I were you I would consider planting and furniture as a way of improving the aesthetics.

Directors of the management company are entrusted to act in the best interests of the development, not of individual owners. As a director of our management company if I was faced with your proposal I would have no alternative but to reject it out of hand.

Just a query on this, if i lease am apartment the management company retains ownership of the balcony but I have sole use of it. Can the company dictate what can and cannot be stored on the balcony?

Mrs OBumble

ec18 wrote: »

Just a query on this, if i lease am apartment the management company retains ownership of the balcony but I have sole use of it. Can the company dictate what can and cannot be stored on the balcony?

What does your lease say?

ec18

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What does your lease say?

mentions no washing lines/clothes drying but nothing specific on what can and cannot be stored on the balcony. There is a house rules sign that specifies some more detail but this is by the development rather than the letting agent.

Paulw

ec18 wrote: »

Just a query on this, if i lease am apartment the management company retains ownership of the balcony but I have sole use of it. Can the company dictate what can and cannot be stored on the balcony?

The balcony is not designed as a storage area. Most contracts have a clause that says you must keep the place tidy and in line with the development. So, you can't just start dumping stuff on your balcony because you have nowhere else to put them.

But, it will depend on the development and wording in the contracts.

ec18

Paulw wrote: »

The balcony is not designed as a storage area. Most contracts have a clause that says you must keep the place tidy and in line with the development. So, you can't just start dumping stuff on your balcony because you have nowhere else to put them.

But, it will depend on the development and wording in the contracts.

Thanks