Garage Conversion / Restrictive Covenant - help please

amylou1107

We are in the process of buying a new house.
It has a double garage and the plan will be to convert one of them into a room.
Majority of the other houses in the street have also done the same.

I was reading through sale paper work and there is a restrictive covenant which states:
'No garage erected shall be used for any purpose other than for the garaging of a private motor vehicle.' 

Does this mean we cant convert the garage?
How have the rest of the street been able to do so?

Any advice would be greatly received! Thanks.

Doozergirl

Yes, that's what it means.  People take calculated risks and break the covenants.  

The covenant can only be enforced by the people that created it - the developer.  The general thought is that they only put these covenants in place to stop people doing building work and changing the look of their houses whilst they are still building.   

There can, however, be restrictions put in place by the council when granting planning permission.  If parking space are limited on the development, they remove permitted development rights and insist that the space counts towards parking.  You can apply for planning permission to convert.  The result would depend on the number of required spaces for a house of that size and whether you can provide them.  

I wouldn't necessarily expect a council restriction to be reflected by the developer in the deeds, because it isn't necessarily permanent, which a covenant is.

If people do convert their garages then they would have to take out an indemnity policy to protect future buyers against the covenant being enforced.

amylou1107

Great - thanks @Doozergirl

For background the house was built in 1987 all houses have a multicar drive way so cant see an issue from a council side of things.
I'll have a look into indemnity policies as i dont know anything about these.

aoleks

I completely disagree with the poster above, that's absolutely NOT what the covenant says. The covenant doesn't deal, in your case, with a potential extension, but the actual garage as is. Should it be used as a garage, it will be ultimately be used for the storage of a private motorised vehicle.

If your covenants mentioned something about "no structural alternations" or anything along those lines, then you'd have an issue. it sounds to me like you need to apply for planning permission and get the work done. Once that's done, it's no longer a garage, hence the covenant no longer applies.

amylou1107

Ah thanks @aoleks thats useful to know.
I mean the majority of the street have converted one of their garages into rooms.

There is nothing in the covenants about structural changes or extensions so thats good. 

Bendy_House

I guess there's nothing to stop you from knocking of a future neighbour's door, and asking them if they required PP 

After assuring them you aren't there to 'shop' them  

Doozergirl

aoleks said:

I completely disagree with the poster above, that's absolutely NOT what the covenant says. The covenant doesn't deal, in your case, with a potential extension, but the actual garage as is. Should it be used as a garage, it will be ultimately be used for the storage of a private motorised vehicle.

If your covenants mentioned something about "no structural alternations" or anything along those lines, then you'd have an issue. it sounds to me like you need to apply for planning permission and get the work done. Once that's done, it's no longer a garage, hence the covenant no longer applies.

I'm not talking about potential extensions, I am talking about the existing garage as it is.  If you turn it into a room then it isn't housing a motor vehicle.  Just because it isn't a garage anymore doesn't mean it was okay to convert under the restrictive covenant.  

Your explanation seems to have a bit of 'it was a work event' about it 😬

 

Section62

amylou1107 said:

Ah thanks @aoleks thats useful to know.
I mean the majority of the street have converted one of their garages into rooms.

There is nothing in the covenants about structural changes or extensions so thats good. 

You should ignore aoleks interpretation of the covenant - they've got it wrong, Doozergirl is right.

The covenant as written prevents the use of the garage as anything other than for the garaging of a private motor vehicle.  Even if you got planning consent to convert it to habitable space you wouldn't be allowed to ignore the covenant.

Where I might diverge (slightly) from Doozergirl's post is that it isn't that uncommon for planning requirements to also appear as covenants - the very good reason for this is the permanance Doozergirl mentions.  E.g. if you convert your garage without planning consent the council only has a limited time to carry out enforcement. A covenant, especially if the council is a beneficiary, means that the time limitation on enforcement is irrelevant - if planning enforcement action is out of time the council can seek to deal with it as a breach of covenant instead.

1987 is right in the time period where minimum parking standards were most vigorously applied and backed up by planning conditions/covenants to make sure the space was retained for parking.  Your covenant is entirely consistent with that.

P.s. Don't rely on knocking on a neighbour's door either, there's no guarantee they will have the first clue whether or not planning consent was required.  And them getting away with it isn't a good guide to whether you'll be as lucky.

aoleks

Section62 said:

amylou1107 said:

Ah thanks @aoleks thats useful to know.
I mean the majority of the street have converted one of their garages into rooms.

There is nothing in the covenants about structural changes or extensions so thats good. 

You should ignore aoleks interpretation of the covenant - they've got it wrong, Doozergirl is right.

The covenant as written prevents the use of the garage as anything other than for the garaging of a private motor vehicle.  Even if you got planning consent to convert it to habitable space you wouldn't be allowed to ignore the covenant.

Where I might diverge (slightly) from Doozergirl's post is that it isn't that uncommon for planning requirements to also appear as covenants - the very good reason for this is the permanance Doozergirl mentions.  E.g. if you convert your garage without planning consent the council only has a limited time to carry out enforcement. A covenant, especially if the council is a beneficiary, means that the time limitation on enforcement is irrelevant - if planning enforcement action is out of time the council can seek to deal with it as a breach of covenant instead.

1987 is right in the time period where minimum parking standards were most vigorously applied and backed up by planning conditions/covenants to make sure the space was retained for parking.  Your covenant is entirely consistent with that.

P.s. Don't rely on knocking on a neighbour's door either, there's no guarantee they will have the first clue whether or not planning consent was required.  And them getting away with it isn't a good guide to whether you'll be as lucky.

It’s not my interpretation, it’s simply how it is. A covenant applying to an existing structure (a restriction to what you can do with it in its current form) is not a covenant that prevents changing said garage to something else.

If that was the case, there would have been an additional, explicit civenant preventing alterations to be made.

the moment the garage stops becoming a garage, the covenant becomes irrelevant.

find yourself an architect with experience in such issues, they’ll confirm what I’m saying.

Section62

aoleks said:

It’s not my interpretation, it’s simply how it is. A covenant applying to an existing structure (a restriction to what you can do with it in its current form) is not a covenant that prevents changing said garage to something else.

If that was the case, there would have been an additional, explicit civenant preventing alterations to be made.

the moment the garage stops becoming a garage, the covenant becomes irrelevant.

find yourself an architect with experience in such issues, they’ll confirm what I’m saying.

Thanks for the tip, but as someone who has experience writing planning conditions requiring the incorporation of covenants of this type I'd prefer to base my comments on that experience and knowledge, rather than consulting an architect, especially as architects typically aren't lawyers, and consequently don't usually have a great deal of detailed knowledge on the legalities of property ownership.

The covenant needs to be read in conjunction with the planning consent, and any conditions attached to it.  Only with the complete picture can the full implications of the covenant be understood.

Bendy_House

Wow, aoleks!

So all one has to do to challenge any covenant is to defy it. Once defied, the covenant can no longer apply 'cos it no longer exists!

I LOVE it! (Rubs hands delightedly in anticipation...)