Residents are “upset” by a neighbour’s plan to build a flat in the garden of a 19th-century Victorian house.
David Cracknell, who moved into his Woolwich, London, home with wife Rachel Laurent over two decades ago, was surprised to learn about the plans.
Their home is a Grade II listed Victorian house from 1840, semi-detached and featuring a coach house that extends into the neighbour’s garden, shared between both properties. The neighbour’s main house is split into three flats.
Mr Cracknell uses his part of the coach house for storage and as a workshop, while the other side has been unused for years.
However, last year, the owner of the basement flat in the neighbouring house applied to turn the coach house into a one-bedroom flat.
The owner of the basement flat rents it out and doesn’t live there, according to Mr Cracknell. He first found out about the coach house plans when a planning notice appeared on the property last August, without any prior consultation from his neighbour.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “We were really cross. It’s really upset us because for months it’s just put us on edge.”
Ms Laurent added: “It would have a very profound effect on the property on our side. We’ve never heard a peep out of him, never been contacted by him or any of his agents.”
Mr Cracknell said he was not against the idea of renovating the coach house on the site, but would like to see it being kept in character with the main house and its neighbouring coach house.
Mayowa Soremekun bought the middle flat in the main house on the application site in 2021 and said he was told by his solicitor at the time that the rear garden was divided equally among the freeholders of the house.
Mr Soremekun said he has had no correspondence with the owner of the basement flat since he bought the property. He said that he and the owner of the top flat sent objections to a Greenwich London Borough Council officer on the plans for the coach house but did not receive a response.
The council’s planning committee was presented with an application on January 30. Mr Soremekun, at the meeting, stated that he had been unable to contact the applicant regarding the land in question, which was under a shared freehold.
He said: “It’s been an eye-opener.”
Council officers reported that the applicant claimed to be the sole owner of the site, but no evidence had been provided to support this. The decision on the project was postponed until the council could review the land registry documents.
Ms Laurent expressed her frustration with the planning department’s process, describing it as “demoralising”. She said they have sent copies of land registry documents to council officers since last month’s meeting to clarify the ownership of the neighbouring garden.
Ms Laurent said: “I feel slightly worried about the Kafkaesque nature of the planning system whereby you can be doing everything that you think you’re supposed to be doing and asking the right questions and yet still be ignored.”
Mr Cracknell said neighbours are now talking to a rep from Proun Architects, who designed the new flat.
Peter Swain from Proun Architects assured at a meeting that neighbours would get details on the construction and any damage to shared walls would be compensated. He noted that the applicant claimed he was the only owner, so no one else needed to be asked.
During the meeting, he expressed surprise, stating: “That’s the first I’ve heard of that this evening, other of course than the comments that came out of the officers’ report from objections that were raised.
“I haven’t seen the documents that [Mr Soremekun] says he has. I’ll be pleased to speak with him afterwards and see what has gone on there and I’ll try and facilitate some sort of discussion between him and the applicant to resolve any issues that there may be.”
Both Proun Architects and Greenwich Council were contacted by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) for comment.
