Anyone ever build a room above an existing garage?

EddScott

EddScott

EddScott

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,446
Location
Pembrokeshire
I've been toying with moving recently but I'm very happy with the location of my house. Suits my kids, suits me etc. However, we could do with a little more space.

My garage is right up against the boundary line. I'm wondering if I'll get permission to build above the garage to create another bedroom. There is mention online that a 2 story extension can't be within 10.5 meters of the boundary line but this isn't an extension to the existing house.

It's hard to know whether this restriction would be imposed without finding a tame town planner to ask.
 
What's on the other side of the boundary? This could be important i'd have though. Is it next doors single storey garage?
 
The property would be classed as a dwelling so you'd need planning permission anyways, so start with that.
 
Marvt74 said:
What's on the other side of the boundary? This could be important i'd have though. Is it next doors single storey garage?
Click to expand...

Other side of the fence is next doors' garden.

Accepted that planning would be required as it's two story just whether it would be rejected for being very close to boundary line.
 
Asking the council may well get you the answer without even having to submit an application, please be aware though that bedroom will want some good insulation to it as typically they get very cold above a garage due to no heating underneath (maybe look at underfloor heating as an option).
 
Our master bedroom is an extension over a garage, though it's next to a road and didn't impact light and enjoyment of neighbours etc.

So I can't comment on planning, but I'd echo the comment from @Maundie about proper insulation and decent heating. We bought the house knowing this, but it currently gets fairly cold in winter as the radiator in our master is too small and the insulation between bedroom and garage is simply a layer of wool-type insulation between the floor above and the garage ceiling.

Ensure the garage ceiling has celotex or kingspan or whatever it's called as the plasterboard ceiling, as well as a decent layer of insulation in the void and over-sized radiators / UFH power.
 
I did exactly this a few years ago.
Got it drawn up and submitted it for planning. Spoke to the neighbours in advance of the application to let them know what we were planning. Had visit from the local planning officer about 6 weeks after the application. One of the neighbours had raised an objection and he asked if we would moderate the design. I explained it all to him and he admitted that he didnt see a problem so he went to talk to the neighbour. 3 weeks later planning application got turned down. Transpired that despite efforts of the local planning officer the neighbours had called his boss and he had then taken the line if least resistance.

I then set about appealing the decision to the Secretary of State. A few weeks later I the decision got overturned. Next thing was that neighbour set about trying to appeal so I had a letter saying they were taking the issue to the high court. However, I just got on and built the thing whilst I had consent. I never heard anything more after that. and we had our extra room.

One thing you will need to check is if your garage has adequate footing to support another floor. We were ok with ours.
As a decision it was a good one as we increased bedrooms, size of bathroom and kitchen for about the same amount of money you would pay in fees/stamp moving to another house - let alone the ridiculous prices in Bedfordshire.
 
sounds like a funny restriction that you've read about, is that something in your local area development plan?
Most authorities have documents on what would be supported in terms of extensions and outbuildings...
first stop (after looking at the guidance) is to get someone to check out the suitability of the existing garage for adding something on top, what kind of budget are you looking at for this?
 
My dad knocked down the old wooden garage, replaced it with a stone garage and stuck a room on top. Fortunately no one complained and the buildings officer who was visiting a property a few doors up didn't seem to notice either.
 
the_r_sole said:
sounds like a funny restriction that you've read about, is that something in your local area development plan?
Click to expand...

I suspect it is along the lines of a generic placeholder as a lot of places, especially older properties, have restrictive covenants on extensions above a certain height but with all kinda of different details so always worth pursuing if you want to go ahead with a build as the actual details probably aren't as black and white as "you can't".
 
Rroff said:
I suspect it is along the lines of a generic placeholder as a lot of places, especially older properties, have restrictive covenants on extensions above a certain height but with all kinda of different details so always worth pursuing if you want to go ahead with a build as the actual details probably aren't as black and white as "you can't".
Click to expand...

restrictive covenants don't have any impact on planning policy, there would be no way planning policy could cover every issue in a title.
 
the_r_sole said:
restrictive covenants don't have any impact on planning policy, there would be no way planning policy could cover every issue in a title.
Click to expand...

Hmm our neighbour has been trying to get planning for years on building 7 flats on the land and the covenant covering both properties has been a significant consideration in the planning process.

EDIT: Oh I think we are talking a bit on different lines - I'm meaning that the planning policy simply has a generic restriction that covers for the multitude of common possibilities due to covenants that isn't actually set in stone.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Not something I really know much about so might be on completely the wrong lines but googling "restrictive covenants and planning permission" tends to say the opposite - I know atleast around here they are a serious consideration and have blocked many developments.
Click to expand...

restrictive covenants can certainly block development but they cannot be considered in planning applications, they are non material considerations, it's not something that varies by local area.
 
the_r_sole said:
restrictive covenants can certainly block development but they cannot be considered in planning applications, they are non material considerations, it's not something that varies by local area.
Click to expand...

Hmm I kind of see what you are saying in that a covenant could subsequently block development if taken to court or whatever and might not be material to the planning process - but in our neighbour's case there are two restrictive covenants taken into consideration by the planning officer and used in the final decision - one that there is a 1935 covenant covering the combined land with restrictions on the number of dwellings and certain heights and one with network rail for some reason (its a 2 page explanation on the network rail thing) - the planning officer has noted that an asset protection agreement would be required as part of planning permission in respect to the network rail one. On the 1935 one they've basically said they only consider it material if the development is significantly outside of the nature of the area (even though the proposed development would be in breach of the covenant - I assume that would then be upto us to pursue through civil action or whatever if we cared).

EDIT: While I can see what you are saying I have to say I was under the impression they took much more consideration of covenants in planning as that has generally been my experience around here.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Hmm I kind of see what you are saying in that a covenant could subsequently block development if taken to court or whatever and might not be material to the planning process - but in our neighbour's case there are two restrictive covenants taken into consideration by the planning officer and used in the final decision - one that there is a 1935 covenant covering the combined land with restrictions on the number of dwellings and certain heights and one with network rail for some reason (its a 2 page explanation on the network rail thing) - the planning officer has noted that an asset protection agreement would be required as part of planning permission in respect to the network rail one. On the 1935 one they've basically said they only consider it material if the development is significantly outside of the nature of the area (even though the proposed development would be in breach of the covenant - I assume that would then be upto us to pursue through civil action or whatever if we cared).

EDIT: While I can see what you are saying I have to say I was under the impression they took much more consideration of covenants in planning as that has generally been my experience around here.
Click to expand...

network rail are a statutory consultee on planning applications for land where they have an interest - their comments are material considerations in planning.
If a planning decision is made based on covenants which are not material planning considerations that would be the easiest planning appeal ever - it doesn't matter what you think, restrictive covenants are not able to be considered as material planning considerations, the planning system would collapse in this country if restrictive covenants on title deeds formed part of a planning application.
 
the_r_sole said:
network rail are a statutory consultee on planning applications for land where they have an interest - their comments are material considerations in planning.
If a planning decision is made based on covenants which are not material planning considerations that would be the easiest planning appeal ever - it doesn't matter what you think, restrictive covenants are not able to be considered as material planning considerations, the planning system would collapse in this country if restrictive covenants on title deeds formed part of a planning application.
Click to expand...

Been reading the documents in a bit more detail they do finalise the section with

Any representations made regarding covenants are private matters that would not preclude planning permission
being granted but may possibly affect the applicant's ability to implement that planning permission.
Click to expand...

However they have considered the covenants in terms of whether they are material considerations and come to the conclusion that aslong as the development is - high quality, compatible with the setting and local character, and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties should not be harmed the 1935 covenant is not a material consideration - which is kind of weird as it suggests it would be if those conditions weren't met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom