Building a garage or carport in a garden of a leasehold house

cymruchris

I've seen a house that interests me in my property searching, although it's a leasehold on a modern development. I don't yet know who owns the leasehold or how restrictive it is - but google isn't helping my thought process around something.

The rear garden backs directly onto the allocated parking space, with the garden fence on the border of the actual space with no kerb.

I had a thought that if the rear fence was removed - I could build either a car port or a garage (subject to there being no 'services' underneath that might get in the way) at the end of the garden facing directly onto the allocated parking space - so that in effect I'd pass through the allocated parking space to get into the garage/car port.

Assuming the criteria for permitted development are met, and that services aren't affected - would this be something that a typical modern development freeholder might object to? Or would have ginormous fees for rubber stamping it? Or wouldn't they need to know in the first place?

The photo below is NOT the property - but gives a visual as to what I'm thinking. If building A was my house, and the space behind my garden, and that fence was mine too, I'd be considering removing a section of fence as marked to place the garage/carport just inside with access being across the allocated parking space.

Would this be feasible? Or am I missing something obvious?

anselld

Not sure about the planning or lease issues, but from a practical viewpoint it looks way too narrow for a garage and it would be detrimental to access for the adjoining bays.

eddddy

cymruchris said:

would this be something that a typical modern development leaseholder might object to? 

Just to clarify - I think you mean 'freeholder' (not leaseholder).

cymruchris said:

Assuming the criteria for permitted development are met, 

Many modern estates have permitted development rights removed (as part of their original planning consent), so planning consent might be required. 

You'd almost certainly need to get the freeholder to agree to a lease variation to do what you want to do.

Obviously I haven't seen the actual development, but I guess my thoughts would be that the development might start looking messy if people started putting ad-hoc accesses in parking areas, etc. So the freeholders might not be keen.

cymruchris

anselld said:

Not sure about the planning or lease issues, but from a practical viewpoint it looks way too narrow for a garage and it would be detrimental to access for the adjoining bays.

The photo is for visualisation as I don't have the photo to hand of the actual property, but in essence it's very similar.

The actual garage/carport would be wider than the area marked in green - something like this (excuse the rudimentary lines). The garage door/carport access would be the same width as the parking space - the overhang either side would still be on my garden. Not sure if that would make acess to an adjoining bay any more or less difficult? Nothing would change for either side's access to an allocated space, they would still pull in and out as normal I would think.

cymruchris

eddddy said:

cymruchris said:

would this be something that a typical modern development leaseholder might object to? 

Just to clarify - I think you mean 'freeholder' (not leaseholder).

cymruchris said:

Assuming the criteria for permitted development are met, 

Many modern estates have permitted development rights removed (as part of their original planning consent), so planning consent might be required. 

You'd almost certainly need to get the freeholder to agree to a lease variation to do what you want to do.

Obviously I haven't seen the actual development, but I guess my thoughts would be that the development might start looking messy if people started putting ad-hoc accesses in parking areas, etc. So the freeholders might not be keen.

Sorry yes - freeholder - have amended the OP. Thanks for the thoughts - I believe there's only 6 spaces in the 'communal space' of which 4 are allocated and 2 are visitor. So it's a fairly small chunk. You make a valid point around ad-hoc access and being messy - I can't really find many examples of anything similar.