Building a garage on an area with restrictions

gazfocus

Looking for some advice…

Our house has a patch of land at the side which is within our boundary. It’s for our sole use and is part of our garden, however there is an easement on this particular patch of land which includes the following restrictions:

2. Not to erect any building or other structure or erect or plant a Boundary Marker (additional to any Boundary Marker erected or planted by the Transferor) on the Open Area.
8. Not to erect any building fence, wall or other structure whatsoever within the Sight Line Area nor to plant anything within the Sight Line Area except for grass. 

After a failed attempt to sell the house (the buyer pulled out after several months), we are trying to come up with ways of making the house suitable for us for a bit longer, so one option we’ve been talking about is potentially having a double garage built at the side of the house (we currently have very little storage). 

If we had a double garage, the idea would be for it to adjoin the side wall of the house and then a door from the house to the garage, but we’d want the garage in line with the front of the house (in place of the current fence and garden gate). 

My understanding is that the easement at the side of the house is because there are sewage pipes underground which the water company might need access to at some point. As such, I was wondering how likely we are to get the restrictions above removed or get permission to build a garage and if so, who we approach to either seek advice or request the permission, etc. 

Another option would be a ‘garden room’ further back from the road which would satisfy clause 8 above as that would then be behind the current fence, but a garage would be preferable. 

My main concern is that I don’t want to do something that will affect our ability to sell the house down the line. 

Section62

gazfocus said:

Looking for some advice…

Our house has a patch of land at the side which is within our boundary. It’s for our sole use and is part of our garden, however there is an easement on this particular patch of land which includes the following restrictions:

2. Not to erect any building or other structure or erect or plant a Boundary Marker (additional to any Boundary Marker erected or planted by the Transferor) on the Open Area.
8. Not to erect any building fence, wall or other structure whatsoever within the Sight Line Area nor to plant anything within the Sight Line Area except for grass. 

After a failed attempt to sell the house (the buyer pulled out after several months), we are trying to come up with ways of making the house suitable for us for a bit longer, so one option we’ve been talking about is potentially having a double garage built at the side of the house (we currently have very little storage). 

If we had a double garage, the idea would be for it to adjoin the side wall of the house and then a door from the house to the garage, but we’d want the garage in line with the front of the house (in place of the current fence and garden gate). 

My understanding is that the easement at the side of the house is because there are sewage pipes underground which the water company might need access to at some point. As such, I was wondering how likely we are to get the restrictions above removed or get permission to build a garage and if so, who we approach to either seek advice or request the permission, etc. 

Another option would be a ‘garden room’ further back from the road which would satisfy clause 8 above as that would then be behind the current fence, but a garage would be preferable. 

My main concern is that I don’t want to do something that will affect our ability to sell the house down the line. 

Would the garage be in the "Sight Line Area"?  These are usually provided for road safety reasons, and people tend to get rather grumpy if someone blocks a sight line making it difficult to use a driveway/road etc.  These are more likely to be reported to someone than (say) building over a sewer, and typically the planning consent will contain conditions to protect sight lines which may also be transposed into the covenants.

gazfocus

Section62 said:

gazfocus said:

Looking for some advice…

Our house has a patch of land at the side which is within our boundary. It’s for our sole use and is part of our garden, however there is an easement on this particular patch of land which includes the following restrictions:

2. Not to erect any building or other structure or erect or plant a Boundary Marker (additional to any Boundary Marker erected or planted by the Transferor) on the Open Area.
8. Not to erect any building fence, wall or other structure whatsoever within the Sight Line Area nor to plant anything within the Sight Line Area except for grass. 

After a failed attempt to sell the house (the buyer pulled out after several months), we are trying to come up with ways of making the house suitable for us for a bit longer, so one option we’ve been talking about is potentially having a double garage built at the side of the house (we currently have very little storage). 

If we had a double garage, the idea would be for it to adjoin the side wall of the house and then a door from the house to the garage, but we’d want the garage in line with the front of the house (in place of the current fence and garden gate). 

My understanding is that the easement at the side of the house is because there are sewage pipes underground which the water company might need access to at some point. As such, I was wondering how likely we are to get the restrictions above removed or get permission to build a garage and if so, who we approach to either seek advice or request the permission, etc. 

Another option would be a ‘garden room’ further back from the road which would satisfy clause 8 above as that would then be behind the current fence, but a garage would be preferable. 

My main concern is that I don’t want to do something that will affect our ability to sell the house down the line. 

Would the garage be in the "Sight Line Area"?  These are usually provided for road safety reasons, and people tend to get rather grumpy if someone blocks a sight line making it difficult to use a driveway/road etc.  These are more likely to be reported to someone than (say) building over a sewer, and typically the planning consent will contain conditions to protect sight lines which may also be transposed into the covenants.

Sorry, I might have misunderstood what ‘Sight Line Area’ means. I assumed it meant visible from the road. 

I’ve attached a screenprint from Google Maps showing the house (the one numbered 51). The garage would ideally be in line with the front of the house where the current fence is to the left of the house. 

FreeBear

gazfocus said: My understanding is that the easement at the side of the house is because there are sewage pipes underground which the water company might need access to at some point. As such, I was wondering how likely we are to get the restrictions above removed or get permission to build a garage and if so, who we approach to either seek advice or request the permission, etc.

You need to know exactly where these sewage pipes are. Once you know the precise location, you can decide how and where to build this garage.

Sis has a major main sewer running up the side of her house. After some discussions with the local water company, she was able to build a ~3m side extension. However, when the builders started to dig the foundations, the pipe was a little closer than was originally thought. This necessitated some changes to the plans...

In your situation, the first port of call will be your local water company. Find out where the pipes are, and also the size - If the pipes are small, it may be possible to get them moved, or get a build-over agreement. Once you have the appropriate information & consents from the water Co. architect & planning application would be your next step.

gazfocus

FreeBear said:

gazfocus said: My understanding is that the easement at the side of the house is because there are sewage pipes underground which the water company might need access to at some point. As such, I was wondering how likely we are to get the restrictions above removed or get permission to build a garage and if so, who we approach to either seek advice or request the permission, etc.

You need to know exactly where these sewage pipes are. Once you know the precise location, you can decide how and where to build this garage.

Sis has a major main sewer running up the side of her house. After some discussions with the local water company, she was able to build a ~3m side extension. However, when the builders started to dig the foundations, the pipe was a little closer than was originally thought. This necessitated some changes to the plans...

In your situation, the first port of call will be your local water company. Find out where the pipes are, and also the size - If the pipes are small, it may be possible to get them moved, or get a build-over agreement. Once you have the appropriate information & consents from the water Co. architect & planning application would be your next step.

Thanks for that. I’ll have some provisional conversations with the water company. From what I’ve read, the garage wouldn’t need planning permission as it will be under 30sqm, but if we have it attached to the house, we would need building regs sign off. 

gazfocus

In addition to getting permission from the local water company, do I need to speak to someone regarding the restriction on the title deeds so that it doesn’t cause any issues when selling the house?

FreeBear

gazfocus said: From what I’ve read, the garage wouldn’t need planning permission as it will be under 30sqm, but if we have it attached to the house, we would need building regs sign off. 

Judging by the satellite image, you appear to have a rear extension already - This will probably scupper any thoughts that you could stick another 30m² on the side under permitted development. Quite likely that there is an Article 4 Directive in force on your property, so check with the local planning department.

gazfocus

FreeBear said:

gazfocus said: From what I’ve read, the garage wouldn’t need planning permission as it will be under 30sqm, but if we have it attached to the house, we would need building regs sign off. 

Judging by the satellite image, you appear to have a rear extension already - This will probably scupper any thoughts that you could stick another 30m² on the side under permitted development. Quite likely that there is an Article 4 Directive in force on your property, so check with the local planning department.

Thanks for chiming in. The rear is a conservatory that was on the house when we bought it which we replaced the plastic roof with a tiled roof. I had considered that the conservatory may have utilised permitted development but not 100% sure at this stage. 

Looking at what our local council says about building garages, the only real requirements are that it’s built to match the current brickwork and that there’s a 6m space between the front of the garage and the highway. As we have a pretty substantial driveway, we could have the garage in line with the front of the house and still have the 6m space required. 

The guidance does say that ‘ideally’ a garage built at the side should be set back from the front of the house but that is largely to allow a parking space in front of the garage. 

I would definitely need to check with the council though if it were something we go ahead with. 

gazfocus

Looks like this might be a no go anyway...reading the guidance from our local water company and they say

Some pipes are protected by legal ‘easements’. If an easement exists on a pipe that crosses your land this should be included in your property deeds and you should have been made aware of this when you purchased your property. Easements exist to make sure we can effectively operate and maintain our pipes. The terms of the agreement will usually detail any conditions associated with building within the easement area. It is our policy to honour the terms of such agreements.

Then I've spotted in our deeds that it does state "Not to plant any trees or deep rooting plants nor erect or permit to be erected any building fences walls or other structures within the Protected Area not do or permit to be done anything which is likely to damage injure or impede the access of the Relevant Authorities to the Conduits (save that any structure erected by the Transferor shall not be a breach of this covenant)".

I'm still going to speak to our local water company to see if there's any way they would allow a garage which such a covenant but not looking likely.

Section62

gazfocus said:

The guidance does say that ‘ideally’ a garage built at the side should be set back from the front of the house but that is largely to allow a parking space in front of the garage. 

The set back is usually required to 'break the line' to reduce the visual impact of the building - extending with the same line and roof level often leads to an overbearing or oppressive result. Stepping back and/or lowering the roof line helps to make the extension appear smaller than it is, even if the actual difference is relatively minor.

Although it may not be explicitly stated in the guidance, the planners considering an application will look at the 'massing' of the proposed building and an extension which is stepped back will likely be easier for them to approve than one where the front (and sometimes rear) wall(s) are flush with the main building.

I agree with FreeBear that it would be a risk to assume you have permitted development rights for the garage.

I also agree that if the drainage is what could be called 'main' (i.e. more important that just serving two or three houses) it may be difficult to get permission from the water company, particularly if there is no other way of getting plant into the rear garden area if the sewer needs work done on it.

gazfocus

Section62 said:

gazfocus said:

The guidance does say that ‘ideally’ a garage built at the side should be set back from the front of the house but that is largely to allow a parking space in front of the garage. 

The set back is usually required to 'break the line' to reduce the visual impact of the building - extending with the same line and roof level often leads to an overbearing or oppressive result. Stepping back and/or lowering the roof line helps to make the extension appear smaller than it is, even if the actual difference is relatively minor.

Although it may not be explicitly stated in the guidance, the planners considering an application will look at the 'massing' of the proposed building and an extension which is stepped back will likely be easier for them to approve than one where the front (and sometimes rear) wall(s) are flush with the main building.

I agree with FreeBear that it would be a risk to assume you have permitted development rights for the garage.

I also agree that if the drainage is what could be called 'main' (i.e. more important that just serving two or three houses) it may be difficult to get permission from the water company, particularly if there is no other way of getting plant into the rear garden area if the sewer needs work done on it.

Thanks, that’s helpful info. I’m not averse to having the garage stepped back from the main house if that is what is required, but I feel like it’s likely a no go due to the easement restriction anyway. The only way I could see if working is if I managed to successfully challenge the easement restriction, say because the pipes are on the outer perimeter and such a build would not go within x meters of the pipes, but until I see where the pipes are, I won’t know if that’s an option. 

The other option we did think about was a ‘garden room’. We could have the garden room in the rear garden rather than the side garden which would not affect the easement, but my concern there is that it would take away too much of the rear garden which is more visible from the house than the side garden. 

I do think a garden room at the side be easier to argue if the water co ever needed to access the easement (as long as it’s not over their pipes), but would still create an issue when selling the house I suspect.