Plans to build a new home in the garden of a Victorian house in Woolwich have been approved, despite the applicant not owning the land in question outright.

The scheme was approved by Greenwich Council, with a councillor admitting they had to be approved via a loophole.

The scheme would see a coach house on the site of a 19th-century semi-detached house being extended to create a one-bedroom flat.

The new home would include a double bedroom, living room and entrance facing Maryon Grove, located at the back of the site.

The main Victorian house on the site is currently divided into three flats, the bottom of which the applicant for the scheme reportedly owns.

While the plans were officially approved, the council did acknowledge that the applicant cannot go ahead with the plans if his fellow freeholders don’t agree to them.

The reasoning behind the council’s decision to approve the plans is that they have to consider the scheme purely on the merits of the planning application. This was branded a loophole later in the meeting.

The proposal was originally considered at a planning meeting in January this year.

However, the decision was deferred to allow land registry documents to be obtained after neighbours cited their concerns that the applicant was not the sole owner of the site, which he had claimed in his original submission.

The scheme was brought back for further discussion at a planning meeting last night.

Folake Olaitan, a tenant in one of the flats in the house, spoke on behalf of her landlord who claimed to have owned the top flat of the main Victorian house since 1986.

She said that the lease for the house divided the building and back garden proportionally between the three freeholders and that the proposal would encroach on her portion of the site.

Speaking on behalf of her landlord, Ms Olaitan said: “It is, in short, a stealthy land grab which you will be permitting with this proposal.”

Labour Councillor Gary Dillon said he attended a site visit of the property last week and claimed the garden appeared ‘shabby’ and a number of fly-tipped items such as mattresses and other furniture were present.

Ms Olaitan said in response that previous tenants for the applicant’s flat had been known to dump their items in the garden.

She added that she had twice personally paid to have the garden cleared and had received no offer of help from the applicant.

Cllr Dillon said that the applicant had falsely reassured him at the site visit that he was the owner of the land he intended to build on.

Rachel Laurent, who lives in the adjoining house to the main building, said that she did not have much confidence in the project based on her previous experiences with the applicant.

The neighbour said at the meeting: “Unfortunately, because he has not sought any sort of consultation with anybody, this will come to a head. This will be a nasty and bloody battle.”

Labour Councillor Calum O’Byrne Mulligan said the conduct of the applicant was ‘mind-blowing’, but noted the planning committee was bound to the material planning considerations of the scheme.

Peter Swain, a designer at Proun Architects speaking on behalf of the applicant, said he was involved with the design of the extension but did not wish to participate in the construction of the project if it was to be built illegally.

Mr Swain said at the meeting: “I have recommended to my client that he speak with the other owners and get their agreement. I was hoping that would be in place before we got back to this committee.

"Obviously that is not the case but here we are at this committee for a resolution on the application that sits before you.”

The designer said it was not uncommon for people to get planning permission to build on the land of others and that the resolution to such disputes was a civil matter between the owners.

He added that he did not have the authority to commit to a revised agreement for the proposal on the applicant’s behalf.

The proposal was approved after three members of the committee voted in its favour, with Conservative Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting to abstain.

Cllr Dillon said he was ‘lost for words’ at the circumstances which he claimed had highlighted a big loophole in the planning system.

He apologised to the residents in attendance and specified that the construction on the site could not be legally carried out unless all leaseholders were in agreement.

Cllr Dillon said at the meeting: “I don’t appreciate being lied to and I’ve been lied to by the applicant to my face, so I’m not happy with that… I think he’s been very sly with this application. The item is approved, subject to the residents [other leaseholders] moving forward.”