Latest news with #homegym
New York Times
a day ago
- Business
- New York Times
No Square Footage? No Problem. These Home Gyms Make It Work.
Mario Tarabbia visits the gym about six times a week. But he doesn't have to go far. When he moved to his 900-square-foot, one-bedroom rental apartment in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, he embarked on an ambitious renovation project. On walls beside his dining room table, Mr. Tarabbia mounted a roughly nine-foot-tall squat rack and a weight tree to hold Olympic weight plates. He added mirrors, a stationary bicycle and a TV, as well as two shelves to hold several pairs of dumbbells. In a closet near his makeshift gym, he turned an oversize meat freezer, which had no lock, into a cold plunge tub. 'I didn't even think to tell my landlord about all this,' said Mr. Tarabbia, 36, the founder of a software company. 'I was like, well, I'll just ask for forgiveness.' (He moved in 2022 and has been adding gym amenities ever since.) For many New Yorkers, commercial gyms are like apartments: cramped and exorbitantly expensive. Basic amenities, like operable equipment and clean locker rooms, seem increasingly hard to come by, and crowds at peak times — often just before or after 9-to-5 working hours — can deter even the most motivated of fitness fanatics. After the Covid-19 pandemic forced gyms in the city to close temporarily, some New Yorkers never went back, opting to create their own gyms at home. These New Yorkers are willing to sacrifice valuable square footage to gym equipment, all in the name of gains. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Sun
2 days ago
- Lifestyle
- The Sun
Our neighbour built MASSIVE home gym on drive – it'll be a nightmare for parking & endanger our kids… so we got revenge
A NEIGHBOUR row over a "dangerous" home gym has led to residents getting their revenge and the council being forced to intervene. Emma Woodley and Paul Willis have divided locals after they spent tens of thousands of pounds on the structure in Basingstoke, Hants. 3 3 3 The home gym was erected in one of the two spaces on their £440,000 property. Paul, who runs his own personal training business, believed he would be able to build the single-storey building without planning permission. But disgruntled neighbours have since called the structure "dangerous", with one resident claiming Paul and Emma now park on the corner of the road - causing visibility issues for drivers. Another local who didn't want to be named told the Mail Online: "We have already had issues and accidents because of the parking". Finally seeking revenge, complaints led to action by the local authority. Councillors rejected the pair's retrospective application on the grounds it would "set a precedent" and have ordered the structure be pulled down. Officials claimed if other residents followed suit, there could be "no other parking spaces" left on the street. Local Olivia Lucas said in a letter objecting to retrospective planning permission: "As a resident, we already have parking issues with either cars parking fully on the road and other users being unable to get past, or parking on the pavements and pedestrians routinely putting themselves, children and dogs in danger having to walk out from a blind spot behind one of these cars. "As this property has already been erected I have witnessed the danger that this owner is causing by parking their car on the road rather than on the driveway that once was (not to mention all of their client's [sic] cars on a Tuesday night). "People turning into [the road] have to use up the full width of the road because they are unable to see the any oncoming traffic due to [their] car being parked on the road and therefore a head-on collision is inevitable at some point." Your kids are breaking law if they kick their ball over neighbour's fence, High Court rules after couple sued next door But Emma, 43, has insisted she and her husband don't park on the street and instead use nearby spaces which haven't been allocated. She said: "Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time. "We didn't use both of those spaces prior to the building being built anyway, just because of the constant need to keep pulling out into a road which we didn't have good visibility to see, causing more of a hindrance to pedestrians and drivers. "There's a bend to the road and a hill, so we have to be on the road to get safe visibility about whether it's safe to move out or not." Emma also argued clients who train in the gym are asked to park in unallocated spaces nearby, rather than on the street. The devastated couple claimed their loss will have a significant impact on Paul's business. Some locals have also hit back at claims that the gym is a nuisance, with one calling the ordeal "silly" because "they are not harming anyone". Others felt the council's order was going too far and that if it's not an "eyesore" there was no reason for it to go. Emma branded the ordeal "ludicrous" and highlighted how other residents have caravans and sheds on their driveways. This comes after a woman sparked outrage after cutting down her neighbour's tree. Kelsea Jade, from the UK, took to social media, showing the tree get cut down as she explained it blocked her garden from getting any sunlight. She revealed that she had bought a south-facing property which is known to get the most sun but didn't get the positives from it. Kelsea said: "Are we crazy for paying to have our neighbours tree cut down? For reference, we have a south-facing garden and we get the sun for the majority of the day but from 2 till 5pm we don't get a single thing. "This tree completely blocks it all."
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Neighbours defend couple ordered to demolish home gym they built on their own driveway because of 'dangerous' parking situation
Neighbours have defended a couple who were ordered to tear down a home gym they built on their own driveway following complaints it would create a 'dangerous' parking situation on their estate. Paul Willis, 42, and Emma Woodley, 43, were told to remove the building - thought to be worth tens of thousands of pounds - because it would mean one of their cars would be parked on the street. But despite the issues caused by parked cars, many locals on the estate in Basingstoke, Hampshire, have 'sympathy' for the pair - and feel the council may be being 'too harsh'. Finance worker Daniel Schofield, 29, said: 'Parking is the biggest issue on this estate and that's what you will hear from a lot of people - but it's not been like that forever.' But, he felt as though the council ordering the couple to take down the home gym was going too far. He said: 'If it's thought out properly and the owners are careful, like in terms of telling people where to park, then I don't see an issue. 'If it's not an eyesore then I don't see why it can't really stay.' Mr Schofield said if the homeowners explained the parking situation to potential gym clients then it's 'not going to have much of a knock on effect'. Another neighbour, who wished to be referred to only as Matt, said while parking in the area can be 'difficult' - he thought the situation is 'stupid'. He said: 'It's not bothering anyone - it's in their garden and it's in their parking space, they can do whatever they like. 'It's silly - they are not harming anyone.' Mr Willis and Ms Woodley, who moved into the £440,000 property last year, have argued that they do not park on the street and instead use nearby unallocated spaces. They have also said they would lose substantial income if they are made to tear down the building, where Mr Willis carries out personal training sessions with clients. The couple were nevertheless denied retrospective planning permission by the council on the basis it might 'set a precedent' for other residents to do the same. 'AJ' Nair, 41, who lives on a road close to the house, said that parking has caused issues for neighbours. He said that all properties have their own designated space so it could be problematic for more visitors to park on the road. The digital designer said: 'Parking will definitely be a problem on that road. The couple argued they did not use both parking spaces before the building was constructed, due to a corner hill making visibility difficult when entering and leaving the property 'Sometimes, during the working hours, there are no cars there and it will seem pleasant - I would say it's normal. 'If people come during that time and exercise, they will park there and it wouldn't be normal there.' Another neighbour, who wished to remain anonymous, said she was concerned over the building of the home gym because of issues caused by parked cars. 'Parking round here is absolutely awful,' she said. 'It's busy now and it's the middle of the day. 'It gets really dangerous round there as people park along the edge so they can't see when you are trying to drive round from the left or right. 'One neighbour had a head on collision with someone coming round - we have already had issues and accidents because of the parking.' She said she agreed with the council that allowing the development may 'set a precedent' to others. However, Mr Willis said he researched planning rules and believed they could build the single-storey gym without needing approval by the council. It was only after building began and a complaint was made to the council, that the couple were told to put in a retrospective planning permission. A resident, who also wished to remain anonymous, said: 'Parking is an issue here. 'But, if it's in their garden and it isn't affecting anyone then I don't see a problem.' The resident said that she is aware of 'accidents and near misses' in the area due to problems created by parked cars. Another local said she had sympathy for the couple, but commented that they should have been aware of their requirement to seek correct planning permission. She said: 'I have never seen anybody get irate about parking - there always seems to be enough spaces. 'It's just each to their own. Go and fight your own battles. 'Anybody building that sort of thing should know you need planning permission. 'But, they've done it now, so let them keep it. 'I have sympathy for them.' The couple have been ordered to remove the gym and reinstate the parking area within six months, a decision Ms Woodley has described as 'ludicrous'. She added that she and her partner park a second car they own in unallocated spaces nearby. The IT manager said: 'Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time.' Ms Woodley continued: 'We didn't use both of those spaces prior to the building being built anyway, just because of the constant need to keep pulling out into a road which we didn't have good visibility to see, causing more of a hindrance to pedestrians and drivers. 'There's a bend to the road and a hill, so we have to be on the road to get safe visibility about whether it's safe to move out or not.' Ms Woodley added that the removal of the gym would have a 'significant cost impact' on the couple. Mr Willis is set to lose out on income he earns from fitness instructing if the gym is knocked down. At the planning meeting to decide if their outbuilding would be allowed, Ms Woodley said: 'It's used as a gym as my partner is a part-time personal trainer.' She said the home gym was used for personal training seven hours a week, and clients are asked to park in unallocated spaces at the nearby shops or walk to the gym rather than park in neighbouring spaces. Ms Woodley said: 'We're planning on being here until we retire. 'Obviously we will have the loss of income on a monthly basis which means that things will be a struggle, we might have to sell the property. 'We're looking at alternative options of whether there's anything we can do.' Ms Woodley suggested the couple are looking into using some space in their garden for an outbuilding, but regretted that that would make their garden smaller. 'There was no mention anywhere about the council rules around not changing the use of a parking space', she said. 'It's clearly evident when we walk around the estate, we have got people that have put sheds on their parking spaces. 'Even caravans - what's the difference between us and using it for a caravan? It just seems ludicrous.' At the planning meeting, Miss Woodley said: 'The loss of one parking space does not materially impact parking provision within the development. 'We have expressed to the planning officer that we would be willing to convert the outbuilding into a garage.' Councillor Paul Miller said that parking policies are not usually set aside when planning applications are being considered. He said: 'For retrospective applications concerning important policies, every councillor in every ward has to think three times about them. 'Parking is a national problem all over; we all know that. Another car unable to park at a property is another car that's going to be somewhere else.' Councillor Karen Watts said: 'I don't know if there is something to consider here, it could set a precedent that other people could do the same in the area and there would be no other parking spaces.' Ms Woodley said that her and her partner 'aren't parking on the road, people do park on the road, but they aren't from our house'. She claimed: 'The planning officer parked on the road outside when she came to visit and do the inspection, even though the unallocated space opposite was free.' Councillor Paul Gaskell asked planning officers whether another parking space could be made with the land the couple own. The officer said it would be the couple's responsibility as to whether this could be done. Seven councillors voted for the refusal of the application, one voted against and one abstained.
The Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Couple locked in neighbour row ordered to tear down home gym as war over parking spaces erupts… they say ‘it's not us'
A COUPLE are fuming after being ordered to rip down their home gym after neighbours' "ludicrous" complaints. Emma Woodley and Paul Willis forked out tens of thousands of pounds for the structure on their driveway in Basingstoke, Hants,. 6 6 6 Paul, who runs his own person training business, believed he would be able to build the single-storey structure without planning permission. But the pair have seen their dream work-out space axed after locals moaned it would create parking chaos on the estate. The home gym was erected in one of the two spaces on their £440,000 property, which sparked fear among neighbours the road would be clogged with cars. Complaints resulted in councillors rejecting the pair's retrospective application on the grounds it would "set a precedent". Officials claimed if other residents followed suit, there could be "no other parking spaces" left on the street. Local Olivia Lucas said in a letter objecting to retrospective planning permission: "As a resident, we already have parking issues with either cars parking fully on the road and other users being unable to get past, or parking on the pavements and pedestrians routinely putting themselves, children and dogs in danger having to walk out from a blind spot behind one of these cars. "As this property has already been erected I have witnessed the danger that this owner is causing by parking their car on the road rather than on the driveway that once was (not to mention all of their client's [sic] cars on a Tuesday night). "People turning into [the road] have to use up the full width of the road because they are unable to see the any oncoming traffic due to [their] car being parked on the road and therefore a head-on collision is inevitable at some point." The disgruntled resident claimed the gym forced Paul and Emma to park on the corner of the road which caused visibility issues for drivers. But Emma, 43, hit back: "Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time." The IT manager continued: "We didn't use both of those spaces prior to the building being built anyway, just because of the constant need to keep pulling out into a road which we didn't have good visibility to see, causing more of a hindrance to pedestrians and drivers. "There's a bend to the road and a hill, so we have to be on the road to get safe visibility about whether it's safe to move out or not." Emma also argued clients who train in the gym are asked to park in unallocated spaces nearby, rather than on the street. The devastated couple claimed their loss will have a significant impact on Paul's business. They even said the decision could force them to pack up and move due to financial struggles. Emma branded the ordeal "ludicrous" and highlighted how other residents have caravans and sheds on their driveways. This comes after homeowners who built a tiny gym in their driveway without planning permission have slammed a 'jobsworth' council for ordering them to rip it down. Madam Pal Singh was given the green-light to build a single-storey garage at his semi in Highgate, Birmingham. But when a bigger property appeared at the end of the driveway, town hall planners demanded the structure be razed to the ground. Council chiefs gave the family until July to pull down the new building after losing an appeal, but it still remains standing. Elsewhere, another couple who paid their neighbour £53,000 to build a gym in the garden have branded it "rubbish" - and are suing him for £215,000. Paras Dodhia and his wife Devina had high hopes that pensioner Tommy Joyce would transform the yard of their Middlesex home. But after forking out thousands, the pair were left fuming at the "rubbish" quality and "shoddy" workmanship. The gym enthusiasts claim Mr Joyce's gym was so "atrocious" they were forced to gut and demolish it. Plus, the UK's 'biggest man cave' is finally being torn down as work got underway to demolish the 'eyesore' building. Millionaire accountant Graham Wildin illegally built the private leisure complex behind his home in the Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire, Wildin, 72, has served a prison sentence over his refusal to remove the massive 'man cave' and now, after repeatedly flouting orders from local planners and the court, Forest of Dean Council has begun demolition work. Wildin had the huge building - housing a cinema, tenpin bowling alley and casino, erected at his home in 2014 without planning permission. What to Do If You Disagree with the Council's Planning Decision Disputes over planning applications can be stressful, but there are steps you can take to challenge or resolve the situation: Understand the Reasons: Carefully review the council's decision and the specific reasons for refusal or enforcement. This will help you identify areas to address. Seek Professional Advice: Consult a planning consultant or solicitor with expertise in planning law. They can offer tailored advice and represent your case if necessary. Submit an Appeal: If you believe the decision is unfair, you can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Be prepared to provide evidence and technical details to support your case. Explore Compromise: Engage with the council to see if a compromise can be reached. Adjusting aspects of the development, such as materials or design, may lead to an acceptable solution. Engage the Community: Support from neighbours and local residents can strengthen your position. A petition or letters of support may highlight the development's benefits. Act Promptly: There are strict time limits for appeals and responses to enforcement notices. Ensure you act within the specified deadlines to avoid further complications. Remember, while it can be frustrating, maintaining a constructive dialogue with the council is often the best way to find a resolution. 6 6 6
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Couple ordered to tear down home gym after neighbours complain about parking
A couple have been ordered to tear down a home gym they built on their driveway after neighbours complained that it affected parking on their new estate. Paul Willis and Emma Woodley built the gym across the back of their garden and one of two parking spaces that came with the £440,000 house they bought last year in Basingstoke, Hampshire. Neighbours complained to the council and forced the couple to put in a retrospective planning application, which has now been denied. Councillors voiced concerns that it would 'set a precedent' and that if other residents did the same, there may be 'no other parking spaces' left on the estate. As a result, the couple have been ordered to remove the gym and reinstate the parking area within six months, a decision Ms Woodley has described as 'ludicrous'. Mr Willis, 42, runs his own personal training business and having researched planning rules, the couple believed they were allowed to build the single-storey gym without permission. It was only after building began that a complaint was made to Basingstoke and Deane borough council and the couple were told to put in a retroactive planning application. When they submitted their application, neighbours objected. Olivia Lucas, one of those who opposed it, said in a letter that the gym 'causes the owners to park on the corner of the road, causing the blind spot'. She added: 'We already have parking issues with either cars parking fully on the road and other users being unable to get past, or parking on the pavements and pedestrians routinely putting themselves, children and dogs in danger having to walk out from a blind spot behind one of these cars. 'As this property has already been erected, I have witnessed the danger that this owner is causing by parking their car on the road rather than on the driveway that once was (not to mention all of their clients' cars on a Tuesday night). 'People turning into [the road] have to use up the full width of the road because they are unable to see the any oncoming traffic due to [their] car being parked on the road and therefore a head-on collision is inevitable at some point.' Ms Woodley said she and her partner parked a second car they own in unallocated spaces nearby. The 43-year-old IT manager said: 'Of the 18 that are unallocated spaces, there are five to six empty at any one time.' 'We didn't use both of those spaces prior to the building being built anyway, just because of the constant need to keep pulling out into a road which we didn't have good visibility to see.' Ms Woodley added that the removal of the gym would have a 'significant cost impact' on the couple as Mr Willis would lose income he earns from fitness instruction if the gym is knocked down. She told a planning meeting that the home gym was used for personal training seven hours a week and clients were asked to park in unallocated spaces at the nearby shops or walk to the gym rather than using neighbouring spaces. Ms Woodley said: 'We're planning on being here until we retire. Obviously we will have the loss of income which means that things will be a struggle, we might have to sell the property. We're looking at alternative options.' She added: 'There was no mention anywhere about the council rules around not changing the use of a parking space. 'It's clearly evident when we walk around the estate, we have got people that have put sheds on their parking spaces. 'Even caravans – what's the difference between us using it for a caravan? It just seems ludicrous.' Cllr Paul Miller said parking policies were not usually set aside when planning applications were being considered. He said: 'Parking is a national problem all over – we all know that. Another car unable to park at a property is another car that's going to be somewhere else.' Cllr Karen Watts said: 'It could set a precedent that other people could do the same in the area and there would be no other parking spaces.' Ms Woodley said she and her partner 'aren't parking on the road, people do park on the road, but they aren't from our house'. She claimed: 'The planning officer parked on the road outside when she came to visit and do the inspection, even though the unallocated space opposite was free.' Seven councillors voted for the refusal of the application, one voted against and one abstained.
