Greenwich residents have warned that they will not allow their neighbour to build a new flat in their section of a back garden after he received planning permission for the proposal – despite not outright owning the land.

Neighbours say the controversial proposal felt like a ‘land grab’ by the applicant but was ultimately approved at a Greenwich Council meeting last month, with the planning committee explaining a legal loophole meant they were forced to disregard the fact the applicant for the scheme did not fully own the site.

One of those concerned about the planning application is Mayowa Soremekun, who purchased his Woolwich flat in 2021.

His property is the middle portion of a Victorian house, with the main building and garden being divided equally between three freeholders.

The rear of the garden includes a coach house that spreads into the neighbouring garden and is divided between the two properties.

Mr Soremekun began renovating his flat for rental.

However he said he was confused when he was given notice of a planning application from the owner of the basement flat to extend upon the coach house in the garden of the site by demolishing part of the structure to build a new flat including a double bedroom, living room and dedicated rear entrance.

He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “I was genuinely surprised as there had been no contact or any attempt to get in touch with me beforehand.”

The proposal was considered by Greenwich Council at a planning meeting in January this year, but the decision was deferred after Mr Soremekun outlined his concerns that the applicant, named Mr Kultar Singh Vagha in the planning documents, was not the sole owner of the site.

This was at odds with the details of the application, with the planning documents seen by the LDRS showing that Mr Vagha claimed he possessed the full ownership of the site.

Mr Soremekun said: “I got a text from him saying that he had no intention of knowingly building on land that wasn’t his and that he truly believed that he was putting the planning application on his part of the property.”

The planning application was reconsidered at a Greenwich Council meeting last month after Mr Vagha confirmed he was not the sole owner of the freehold.

Labour Councillor Gary Dillon said at the meeting that Mr Vagha had reassured him the week beforehand that he was the owner of the land he intended to build the new flat upon.

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.”

The proposal was approved as the planning board were bound to consider the scheme solely on its planning merits despite Mr Vagha not fully owning the site, which Cllr Dillon described as a big loophole in the planning system. However, councillors did emphasise that the project could not be carried out unless the other freeholders of the site permitted it.

Speaking on the outcome, Mr Soremekun said: “I was disappointed but I understand that it’s not in their place to resolve a dispute and they can only consider it as to the merits of the planning application.”

The part owner of the freeholder said he is currently speaking with his solicitor to ensure Mr Vagha does not attempt to carry out the works described in the planning permission, adding that he would be willing to pursue an injunction if necessary.

He said he has previously tried to contact Mr Vagha to arrange shared payments to upkeep the property’s ‘run down’ garden, which includes discarded mattresses and furniture, but this was never arranged.

Folake Olaitan has lived in the top flat of the main building since 2016. She claimed her landlord has reached out to Mr Vagha on multiple occasions to arrange having the garden cleared, but nothing has been forthcoming.

She said she has personally paid five times to have the grass cut and fly-tipped items removed.

Ms Olaitain told the LDRS: “I’ve lived here the longest, so in terms of maintaining the garden, I do what I can. But obviously it shouldn’t be my sole responsibility… Every summer I would pay someone maybe £500 to £600 to clear up the garden. Obviously it’s a big garden so to maintain it, it costs money.”

She added: “It’s difficult because obviously the house is split amongst three people so naturally you’re going to have conflicts of interest.

"However, you would believe over time they would be able to reach consensus in terms of who’s responsible for what.”

The tenant said she was surprised to learn at the council meeting last month that planning permission and land ownership were not directly connected.

She spoke at the meeting on behalf of her landlord, who has owned the top flat in the Victorian house since 1986.

She said that Mr Vagha’s proposal would encroach on her portion of the divided garden, describing the move as a ‘stealthy land grab’.

Rachel Laurent, who lives in the adjoining property to the main Victorian house, said she is worried about how the planned works would affect her portion of the connected coach house. She worries the work could go ahead even without the other freeholders’ permission.

She told the LDRS: “From my experience of him, it makes me anxious that our property is going to be dependent on him employing people who will do a job of a standard that won’t, in some way or another, affect us… He hasn’t given me any cause to have any great faith that he’s going to do this.”

The neighbour said that she was shocked by the council’s decision to grant planning permission for the proposal in light of the shared land ownership.

She said: “I cannot get my head around the idea that there is any viable reason for granting third party planning permission where the third party doesn’t consent. It’s just making trouble for everybody.”

She added: “Personally, I think his behaviour has been very foolish. If he had reached out to people, they would be much more inclined to assist him in what he’s done.

"However, his complete belligerence and the fact that he has tried to get this through under the radar has not gone down well with us as neighbours or with the other landowners.”

A Greenwich Council spokesperson told the LDRS: “National planning law allows someone to apply for planning permission on someone else’s land, however the applicant must provide details about who owns it.

"This application initially contained incorrect information about the ownership of the land, which resulted in a delay in deciding the planning application. The information has now been corrected.”

They added: “This application was carefully assessed and approved by the council’s planning committee in line with planning policy. All reports and supporting documents can be found online at the council’s planning portal.”

The spokesperson said it was part of the council’s mission to ensure that all new developments benefit existing and new communities across the borough.

Prior to publication we contacted Mr Vagha for comment, he has not responded.