Converting allocated parking to a garden.

Misthios

jj_43 said:

Section62 said:

That jj_43 said:

the first and most important issue you have is the discrepancy between what the estate agent says (2 parking spaces) and what your title states about the land and location of the parking spaces.

The only possible discrepancy is in the use of "allocated".  But even then, "allocated" isn't incorrect in the sense there are two parking spaces within the development allocated for use by this property.

jj_43 said:

If that parking space is your land (not allocated), then given its situation (no access to anyone else) and just dating the property (probably no planning requirements for parking), it seems likely you could turn this into a garden, even if there was a covenant. At least you not turning a garden into a parking space, or a garage into a living room.

The evidence is pointing towards an early 1990's development.  This is a period of time when minimum residential parking standards were applied, and two spaces is consistent with the typical requirement for this kind of property.

Why do you think conversion to garden would be Ok "even if there was a covenant"?

I am guessing the property is 1980's, the development looks to be fairly small, therefore I assume its without the parking planning arrangements you see today in larger developments that are standard. Therefore its not a planning condition.

Looking at the "parking space" does it look like a parking space, or a gravel garden? Its already a garden.

That was my initial thought precisely. However, all 8 neighbours around the 2 blocks haven't made such an attempt all these years and am waiting to see what covenants are involved. Indeed the other parking is across the close /Road and its well covered with bushes. Dear me... 

Section62

jj_43 said:

Section62 said:

jj_43 said:

the first and most important issue you have is the discrepancy between what the estate agent says (2 parking spaces) and what your title states about the land and location of the parking spaces.

The only possible discrepancy is in the use of "allocated".  But even then, "allocated" isn't incorrect in the sense there are two parking spaces within the development allocated for use by this property.

jj_43 said:

If that parking space is your land (not allocated), then given its situation (no access to anyone else) and just dating the property (probably no planning requirements for parking), it seems likely you could turn this into a garden, even if there was a covenant. At least you not turning a garden into a parking space, or a garage into a living room.

The evidence is pointing towards an early 1990's development.  This is a period of time when minimum residential parking standards were applied, and two spaces is consistent with the typical requirement for this kind of property.

Why do you think conversion to garden would be Ok "even if there was a covenant"?

I am guessing the property is 1980's, the development looks to be fairly small, therefore I assume its without the parking planning arrangements you see today in larger developments that are standard. Therefore its not a planning condition.

Minimum parking standards for residential development were applied in the 1970's and 1980's, although the situation varies between local authority areas.  The size of the development is usually irrelevant - typically the minimum standard was applied for any residential development, even single dwellings, unless there were practical reasons not to do so (e.g. town centres where the site was too small to include parking).

You cannot know "its not a planning condition" without looking at the planning file for that property.  By suggesting otherwise you are potentially misleading the OP.

Personally, I doubt the developer would have gone to the trouble of building and "allocating" the second (remote) parking space unless this was a planning requirement.  But the OP needs to investigate and find out for sure, rather than relying on anyone's guesswork.

jj_43 said:

Looking at the "parking space" does it look like a parking space, or a gravel garden? Its already a garden.

What it looks like is irrelevant.

What matters are the planning requirements and any covenants.

But if you look at the neighbour's "gravel gardens" you can see cars parked on them.  They look like parking spaces.

Misthios

Section62 said:

jj_43 said:

Section62 said:

jj_43 said:

the first and most important issue you have is the discrepancy between what the estate agent says (2 parking spaces) and what your title states about the land and location of the parking spaces.

The only possible discrepancy is in the use of "allocated".  But even then, "allocated" isn't incorrect in the sense there are two parking spaces within the development allocated for use by this property.

jj_43 said:

If that parking space is your land (not allocated), then given its situation (no access to anyone else) and just dating the property (probably no planning requirements for parking), it seems likely you could turn this into a garden, even if there was a covenant. At least you not turning a garden into a parking space, or a garage into a living room.

The evidence is pointing towards an early 1990's development.  This is a period of time when minimum residential parking standards were applied, and two spaces is consistent with the typical requirement for this kind of property.

Why do you think conversion to garden would be Ok "even if there was a covenant"?

I am guessing the property is 1980's, the development looks to be fairly small, therefore I assume its without the parking planning arrangements you see today in larger developments that are standard. Therefore its not a planning condition.

Minimum parking standards for residential development were applied in the 1970's and 1980's, although the situation varies between local authority areas.  The size of the development is usually irrelevant - typically the minimum standard was applied for any residential development, even single dwellings, unless there were practical reasons not to do so (e.g. town centres where the site was too small to include parking).

You cannot know "its not a planning condition" without looking at the planning file for that property.  By suggesting otherwise you are potentially misleading the OP.

Personally, I doubt the developer would have gone to the trouble of building and "allocating" the second (remote) parking space unless this was a planning requirement.  But the OP needs to investigate and find out for sure, rather than relying on anyone's guesswork.

jj_43 said:

Looking at the "parking space" does it look like a parking space, or a gravel garden? Its already a garden.

What it looks like is irrelevant.

What matters are the planning requirements and any covenants.

But if you look at the neighbour's "gravel gardens" you can see cars parked on them.  They look like parking spaces.

Very true, thank you. 

Bendy_House

Hi Misthios.

When you look at the pic of the front of 'your' house, is 'yours' separated from the others by that downpipe?

If so, then when also looking at the deeds map, one of your allocated parking spaces appears to be central to the house.

I would assume, therefore, that 'your' bit of that frontage certainly doesn't go any wider than the house-width. So, you have enough space in which to park a car, and possibly for a row of shrubs that your car door would then open in to - as would anyone else's who is entitled to park to your left (in that pic) - I suspect, at the very least, this would annoy them, and you'd have to keep it contained within your non-existent 'line'... And shrubs are probably outlawed anyway. As would be a fence. 

The RH side currently holds the bins - of which there are plenty these days - so that restricts door-opening to that side.

The map is interesting as it doesn't show any individual ownership of that land out t'front, so I would again assume that this is owned by the estate.

All presumption, of course, but that is what I'd take from the info provided. 

That would probably leave the option of restoring the second parking space for your use, and then putting easy-to-move planters or whatevs on 'your' 'drive', but I would anticipate, at least, raised eyebrows from everybody at this.

SIL lives on an estate with allocated parking. There is an emotionally disturbed lady who lives in one of the houses (the issue of a few threads on here), and - since she doesn't drive - she placed stone planters on her allocated space. More than one neighbour has pole-axed themselves walking past it in the night.

So, I would assume that this is a non-starter, and proceed with the purchase on that basis - unless informed otherwise, in which case I'd be very surprised. Possibly, after a good while and lots of friendly chats, you could possibly 'moot' the possibility of using the other space instead, and putting temporary (ie, easy to reinstate) planters in that space, and "What do you think?!" But, even if this was given a tentative green light by the neighbs, I suspect strongly that the estate manager would have other ideas. AND, the day you or a visitor parks on the roadway because of that missing space, all bets will be off... :-)

Section62

Bendy_House said:

I would assume, therefore, that 'your' bit of that frontage certainly doesn't go any wider than the house-width. So, you have enough space in which to park a car, and possibly for a row of shrubs that your car door would then open in to - as would anyone else's who is entitled to park to your left (in that pic) - I suspect, at the very least, this would annoy them, and you'd have to keep it contained within your non-existent 'line'... And shrubs are probably outlawed anyway. As would be a fence.

If the OP is still considering buying this property they should really get a copy of the neighbour's title plan to see where there parking bay is located.

I think there's a good chance this parking is laid out 'car park' style with 'bays' (say 2.4m wide) leaving just enough room to park and open a door to get in/out.  The consequence being there may be no correlation between the bay boundaries and the property boundaries.

The property the OP is looking at is in a terrace of five... so five times two equals 10 bays - if that's what has been provided then they must be fairly sardine-like, and again why the developer had to put one of the OP's bays on the other side of the access road.

Also worth noting this parking area/patio is at the back of the house, not the front.  And that one of the OP's objectives was to have more space and privacy... which won't really be achieved with some planters on the detached parking space.

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

Also worth noting this parking area/patio is at the back of the house, not the front.  And that one of the OP's objectives was to have more space and privacy... which won't really be achieved with some planters on the detached parking space.

Ah, yes, it is at the back!

My interpretation was that the OP has a rear garden, but wished to have a wee one at the front too? I suppose something nice to look out on to...

Anyhoo, it is almost certainly a non-starter.

Misthios

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

Also worth noting this parking area/patio is at the back of the house, not the front.  And that one of the OP's objectives was to have more space and privacy... which won't really be achieved with some planters on the detached parking space.

Ah, yes, it is at the back!

My interpretation was that the OP has a rear garden, but wished to have a wee one at the front too? I suppose something nice to look out on to...

Anyhoo, it is almost certainly a non-starter.

Yeah.. that's the thing, there's no rear or front garden, just the rear patio you see. Although, a few pots/plants would make it look nicer as long as there's space for parking and the neighbours are fine with it. Am still waiting though to receive the original planning. Have no clue yet what the covenants are and the seller apparently is not aware either.

Tiglet2

Misthios said:

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

Also worth noting this parking area/patio is at the back of the house, not the front.  And that one of the OP's objectives was to have more space and privacy... which won't really be achieved with some planters on the detached parking space.

Ah, yes, it is at the back!

My interpretation was that the OP has a rear garden, but wished to have a wee one at the front too? I suppose something nice to look out on to...

Anyhoo, it is almost certainly a non-starter.

Have no clue yet what the covenants are and the seller apparently is not aware either.

"C: Charges Register This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land. Class of Title: Title absolute.

 Entry number Entry date 1 1994-01-12 A Transfer of the land in this title dated 3 December 1993 made between (1) ..... Services Limited and ..... contains restrictive covenants. ¬NOTE: Original filed."


If you want to know what the covenants are, apply to HM Land Registry using form OC2 to obtain a copy of the Transfer dated 3 December 1993, as it states it contains the restrictive covenants....!

Bendy_House

Misthios said:

Yeah.. that's the thing, there's no rear or front garden, just the rear patio you see. Although, a few pots/plants would make it look nicer as long as there's space for parking and the neighbours are fine with it. Am still waiting though to receive the original planning. Have no clue yet what the covenants are and the seller apparently is not aware either.

The large red rectangle is all house? Wow. No wonder you'd like a wee bit out 'outdoor'.

It does appear to be north-facing, alas?

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Misthios said:

Yeah.. that's the thing, there's no rear or front garden, just the rear patio you see. Although, a few pots/plants would make it look nicer as long as there's space for parking and the neighbours are fine with it. Am still waiting though to receive the original planning. Have no clue yet what the covenants are and the seller apparently is not aware either.

The large red rectangle is all house? Wow. No wonder you'd like a wee bit out 'outdoor'.

No, the larger area bordered in red appears to contain a narrow sliver of land at the front (facing **** Lane), then the house, then the block paved 'courtyard' garden at the rear.

There's then a strip of the gravel area owned by someone else(?), and the parking bay which goes with this property.

An odd set up.  But not that uncommon in 'modern' developments.