Seven additional flats at 67-85 Aslett Street, London SW18

What was proposed

The application proposed a new second floor with terraces, seven two-bedroom flats, alterations to the existing building, solar panels and a biodiverse roof.

“The extension would be set back from the front elevation by 1m and constructed in metal cladding. The existing unit mix of the building is 24 x 1 bed units. The application seeks to convert 4 of the existing 1 bed units at first floor level to studio flats (in order to accommodate staircases) and to provide 7 x 2 bed units at second floor level.”

“The existing fenestration to the rear would also be modified with some openings relocated. A terrace/balcony to each new flat is proposed to the rear of the building at second floor level to provide amenity space for the new flats. New solar panels are proposed on the roof of the proposed new storey as well as rooflights.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey block of 24 flats with undercroft parking and a communal rear garden, beside a primary school and residential properties.

“Two-storey block of 24 residential flats (with the appearance of a row of terraced properties), constructed in the 1980’s with undercroft parking at both ends and a rear communal garden, located on the south side of Aslett Street. Swaffield Primary School adjoins to the east, two storey terrace houses adjoin to the west, opposite and to the rear. There is a difference in ground levels across the site where is rises further east. The site is not within a conservation area.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions in 2016, 2019 and 2022 approved similar schemes, while a 2017 appeal dismissed removal of privacy-screening requirements.

“2017 (2017/0457) Appeal dismissed: Removal of condition 9 (‘Notwithstanding the approved drawings, details of obscure glazed screening to the second floor rear roof terraces hereby approved shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. Those details as may be approved shall be completed before any use of the terrace commences, and retained permanently afterwards.”

“The previously approved planning application, ref: 2022/1088 expired on 24 January 2026 and no pre-commencement conditions have been discharged or works begun on site. This application seeks permission for the same proposal as previously approved under ref: 2022/1088.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-four neighbours objected, raising concerns about privacy, child safety, construction disturbance, traffic, daylight, noise and affordable housing.

“Number of letters sent 78 Site Notice N Press Notice N Number of responses received 24 Number of neighbour objections 24 Number of neighbour support 0 Number of neighbour comments 0”

“Neighbour Consultation Summary OBJECTIONS: summarised as: - Loss of privacy - Child safety concerns due to overlooking - Housing targets already being met within the borough - Light pollution - Noise/disturbance throughout construction and when occupied - Impact upon traffic - Loss of daylight - Style is out of keeping - Units would not be affordable - Insufficient soundproofing - Will not be provided access to construct the works - Excessive density - Decline in house…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Opposition Speaker raised construction communication and resident liaison, while council officers and the Legal Advisor answered members’ questions.

What members discussed

Members discussed the long implementation history, affordable housing, altered flats, privacy screening, construction arrangements and whether the commencement period could be shortened.

“Another member raised concerns regarding affordable housing, acknowledging that the London Plan did not require contributions for developments under ten units, but stated that it remained regrettable that no affordable homes would result. He then highlighted that the current top-floor flats, originally purchased as top-floor units, would become middle-floor flats, and their one-bedroom layouts would be altered to studio flats.”

“The Head of Development Management then responded to one of the members earlier comments regarding affordable housing. He confirmed that current policy did not require affordable housing contributions for developments of fewer than ten units.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to reduce the commencement period from three years to two was not seconded and was lost.

“Councillor Colclough proposed that Condition 1 be amended to reduce the implementation period from three years to two, noting that this would help ensure the development proceeded without further delay. The motion was not seconded and was therefore declared lost.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee unanimously granted planning permission as set out in the report, subject to CIL liability.

“RESOLVED - (unanimous) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report, noting the additional information in the late items of correspondence, subject to CIL liable.”

Minutes