Woolwich residents 'ignored' by Greenwich Council over plans

David Cracknell moved into his house in Woolwich with his wife Rachel Laurent over 20 years ago.

The building is a Grade II listed Victorian house which dates back to 1840.

The house is semi-detached and includes a coach house which runs across into the neighbour’s garden and is shared between the two properties.

The front of the Victorian house on the site in Woolwich (photo: Proun Architects)

The main house on the neighbour’s side is divided into three flats.

Mr Cracknell said he uses his side of the coach house for storage and as a workshop, and that the side in his neighbour’s garden has remained derelict for years.

However, the owner of the basement flat in the neighbouring house sent an application last year to convert the coach house into a one-bedroom flat.

Mr Cracknell said the owner of the basement flat rents out the space and does not live there.

He added that he first became aware of the plans for the coach house when a planning notice was put up on the property last August, and that he had not been consulted by 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.

He claimed that the neighbour had previously made changes to the coach house that involved removing historic features such as wide, barn style doors.

He added: “My main concern was that, given his behaviour before and the fact that he doesn’t live here, he was just going to go ahead with this and get permission and then potentially, I can imagine one day going out there and his clumsy builders will have done something to demolish their side and my whole side will collapse.”

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 of the site 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 space.

He said that he and the owner of the top flat in the main building sent objections to a council officer on the plans for the coach house but did not receive a response.

The application was brought to the council’s planning committee on January 30.

Mr Soremekun said at the meeting that the land in the application was under a shared freehold and he had been unable to contact the applicant on the topic.

Council officers said in their report that the applicant had indicated that they were the sole owner of the site in their application, but that they had not yet received evidence that this was true.

The decision on the project was ultimately deferred so that council officers could receive a copy of the land registry documents.

Mr Soremekun told the LDRS: “It’s been an eye-opener and I think the main thing I’ve noticed to be honest is I’m pretty shocked at how easy it is to obtain planning permission and that there weren’t any checks done because some of this would have simply gone if you had just gone to the land registry and done a search.

"You would have shown that it’s a share of a freehold and no one single person has full rights to build on this site.”

Ms Laurent said she and her husband have felt ‘demoralised’ by the planning department’s process.

She said they have sent copies of land registry documents to council officers since the meeting last month to outline how the ownership of the garden next door is divided.

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 added: “It’s very unsettling when it’s on your doorstep, but particularly when you share a building and you’ve had nobody come to you and say, just out of politeness, ‘Look, we’re going to be doing this. Let’s be friendly, have a cup of coffee and talk about it.’”

The resident, who has a background in journalism and public relations, said the issue has inspired him to think about helping people who may be in similar situations of navigating the processes of planning departments.

Mr Cracknell said neighbours are now in contact with a representative from Proun Architects, who designed the proposed flat.

Peter Swain, designer at Proun Architects, said at the meeting last month that neighbours would be served detailed information on how the building will be constructed, and that any damage to party walls would be rectified financially.

He added that the applicant had previously told him that he was the sole owner of the site and no other parties needed to be consulted.

He said at the meeting: “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.”

Proun Architects and Greenwich Council were approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.