Neighbours' fury after man wins war over 'arrogant' extension after exploiting baffling planning 'loophole' slammed as 'total lunacy'

Locals are fuming after plans to build a new property in the garden of a Victorian home were approved - despite the applicant not owning the land in question outright.

They have dubbed a scheme to transform a derelict coach house in Woolwich, south east London , as 'total lunacy' and another said it would create a 'nasty and bloody battle'.

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

It will 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 an entrance at the back.

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. It has left neighbours and those in the block 'baffled' and 'wanting to hit their head against a brick wall'.

Locals allege it will loom over their £670k period properties and block off access in an already narrow back road.

Builder Michael Swinton, 57, who lives at the back of the proposed site, said: 'This is pure lunacy. I have never heard anything like it. 'It is insane. There's no logic behind it.

'This process must have cost taxpayers thousands of pounds so far. And the process has just been an own goal after own goal. There is no clear winner. 'And everybody loses.'

Retired hairdresser Shirley Goodman, 72, added: 'It's madness. The traffic impact will be huge. There's enough logical reasons to not allow this at the best of times.

'The complex nature of who has the right to the land is just another massive negative.

'How has it been allowed to get this far?'

Another added: 'It is total lunacy. It is an act which leaves me feeling baffled. 'The proposal was originally considered at a planning meeting in January this year.

But 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 this week.

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.'

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.