Decision details

23/2361/F

and

23/2362/L

The application was considered by the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee of 30 January 2024 and defer it, pending further clarification of land ownership to be provided to the Officers.  Further, it was noted that paragraph 3.1 - Public Consultation - should state, "A further 8 objections from 13 individuals were received regarding the proposal following the re-consultation." 

Planning Board noted the Planning Officers addendum report and accepted an illustrative presentation of the proposal from the Senior Principal Planning Officer who confirmed the refuse team were satisfied with the waste collection arrangements and there would be no overlooking to the new property, as it faced onto a garden wall and the windowless flank walls opposite.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer advised the rear garden of 118 Woodhill was 269 square meters, with 123 square meters being retained with the proposal encompassing a section of garden currently occupied by an existing outbuilding.  The applicant had previously submitted the incorrect Ownership Certificates, Part A application appendix to the Planning Application as a sole owner, subsequently the correct Part B appendix with confirmation that the required notices had been served to the other freeholders to purchase their land, which had been verified, was submitted.  The issues of land ownership or rights of use related to the site were a civil matter. If planning consent was granted the applicant could not proceed with the development if the other parties, who owned the development site, did not agree to sell their interests.

The Local Planning Committee was addressed by a freeholder and freeholders representative and neighbour to 118 Woodhill, speaking in objection who advised the garden was divided into portions, shared among the 3 freeholders.  The applicant had rights to 20% of the garden which was the closest portion to the house, not the area proposed for the development. As the applicant was aware they did not own the development plot and knowingly made a false declaration on the Planning Application it was felt the Council should dismiss the application.

A speaker advised that in 2011 the applicant commented, unauthorised work, on changing  the outbuilding into a flat, without consent of the freeholder, damaging a double door previously restored by the freeholder as well as the building, making poor restoration with stock bricks.  The speakers felt the applicant was trying to make a land grab and remove the freeholders and tenants’ rights to their garden amenity. 

They understood it was possible to apply for consent to build on others land but given the actions of the applicant were extremely concern that granting planning consent would place the onus on the other leaseholders to defend their rights and sought an additional Condition that written consent was acquired from all freeholders prior to commencement of any building works.  They questioned who would take action if he commenced building without land ownership.

In response to Members questions the speakers acknowledged land ownership was a civil matter but remained concerned, given the applicants passed and current behaviour and lies, that the situation would not be pleasant if consent was granted.  Access to the flat 118a was through the rear garden and would be lost; there was not access via the front of the building. 

That the applicant regularly dumped the unwanted goods, left by previous tenant, in the garden area when a new tenant moved in.  The other residents had spoken to him; he refused to help remove it or pay to remove it, resulting in the freeholders of those plots having to do so at their own cost.

The Members sympathised with the speakers positions advising that they were limited on the actions the Committee could take.  Any Conditions had to be legal and relate to material planning matters.  The matter was previously adjourned due to lack of clarity of land ownership; the applicant had now submitted the correct applications and officers had checked the documents submitted as correct.   Land ownership was a civil matter and the applicant would need to consult with other landowners not tenants to continue with the development.

The Local Planning Committee was addressed by the applicant’s Agent who expressed that the Officers report gave full details of the application and in response to Members questions confirmed the applicant could proceed with designing the proposal and seeking planning consent but that it would be illegal to build on land owned by others.  He confirmed that he was not in a position to accept any additional Conditions, on behalf of his client.

The applicant’s Agent confirmed that the applicant had led him to believe they owned the plot when he was engaged.  When he was made aware this was not the case and the required notices were served on the other two freeholders and correct documents submitted to Planning.  He confirmed that it was not uncommon for consent to be gained in advance of acquiring ownership of the land.

The Chair acknowledged the speakers frustration at the situation but the Committee was bound by government legislation.  In respect of the civil aspect, each freeholder would hold a title deed, which would include allocated portions of the garden and the freeholders insurance may offer them legal cover and advice, for such situations, noting the same solicitor may be appointed to both objectors freehold agreements and the jointly owned, undesignated, right of way in the garden.  The applicant did not own or have access to plot which formed a large part of the application site and expressed disappointment that at the site visit the applicant had directly lied to him, asserting that he did own the land.

In their deliberation of the applications Members expressed disbelief at the applicants behaviour in terms of lying and misleading Officers, the Chair and others and retaining an architect under false pretences.  That given the applicant poor behaviour it was understandable why the other leaseholders trust in the applicant was low, however these were not material planning objections. 

That construction could only commence with the agreement of the landowners and it would be illegal for the applicant to engage in construction without agreement.  Members wanted Officers to ensure that if the applicant got the appropriate ownerships to proceed and strictly adhere to the requirements of the proposed scheme, including materials and colour pallet.  Further, that action would be taken if construction was progressed without the appropriate land ownership or consents.

Members expressed their frustration and regret that they were unable to support the speakers further, but they were bound by legislation and law.

The Chair put the proposal to grant planning consent to the vote with -

         3 Members in favour

         0 Members against

         1 Abstaining

Resolved –

That full planning permission (REF: 23/2361/F) and listed building consent (REF: 23/2362/L) be GRANTED for conversion and extension of the existing rear outbuilding to provide a new self-contained part 1, part 2 storey dwelling with associated cycle parking, refuse storage and outdoor amenity space (within setting of Grade II listed building).

That consent is subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 (REF: 23/2361/F) and 3 (REF: 23/2362/L) and the addendum report.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions for application references 23/2361/F and 23/2362/L as set out in the report (Appendix 2 and 3), its addendums and the minutes of this Area Committee meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the final decision notice.