A “greedy” landlord has had two “completely unacceptable” planning applications refused by the council after already carrying out the works.

The landlord built extensions to the house at 8 St Johns Road, in Caversham, including a separate single-storey building in the garden, without applying for planning permission.

An extra tenant was also added without seeking permission, taking the number of tenants to seven.

READ MORE: Protesters to gather outside Reading Borough Council offices to oppose pool plans

Shirley Strickland, who lives at 10 St Johns Road, said: “This is a blatant attempt to mislead the planning authority and local residents, ultimately for financial gain.

“These actions seek to make a mockery of the plan-led system which is fundamental to the proper planning and sustainable development of Caversham and Reading.”

With the original building too small for seven tenants, the landlord used the unauthorised garden building as a separate bedroom for the seventh tenant “without adequate access to shared facilities”.

The retrospective applications were rejected by Reading Borough Council’s (RBC) Planning Applications committee on Wednesday evening (January 15).

READ MORE: New cafe/restaurant coming to former laundrette

Labour Councillor Karen Rowland said: “I hate to use this word but it looks greedy. The owner was out for every inch he could extract.”

Officers recommended the retrospective applications be refused due to “harmful intensification”.

Agent and chartered surveyor Chris Keen, speaking on behalf of the developer, called the site “the best HMO development in Reading” and compared the extra building in the garden to a “shed”.

READ MORE: Crews tackle Caversham house fire after spreading from car

But Conservative councillor Jane Stanford-Beale said she was shocked by the outbuilding in the garden and called Mr Keen’s comments “completely unacceptable”.

She said:  “It is rare that I get angry about planning applications but this has really taken the biscuit.

“They knew what they had applied for. They didn’t build it to the plans.

“They said the outbuilding was not a dwelling even though it has a kitchen area, a bedroom and an en-suite bathroom.”

The council can now choose to force the developer to put things back where to how they were, which would include demolishing the garden building.

Mr Keen, speaking after the meeting, said he will advise his client on how to make amends and renegotiate with planning officers.