Self-storage opening hours at 260 Eltham High Street, Eltham, London SE9

The site and surroundings

The site is a former removals business beside Eltham High Street, surrounded mainly by residential properties and including a locally listed building.

“The site is located off Eltham High Street, Eltham, London and was previously occupied by Whitewoods Removals, a business providing 1,168m 2 of B8 storage use. Whilst being directly adjacent to the Eltham Town Centre to the north, the area surrounding the applications site is primarily residential in character. The site area is approximately 5,200m 2 .”

“ITEM NO: 4 PAGE NO: 7 feature finishes of brick (in various shades), white render, and tiled or shingled roofs. The row of terraced houses to the northeast of the site, including the northern-most building on the application site, form a locally listed composition of terraced housing which follows the curvature of the corner at Eltham High Street and Southend Crescent.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Earlier proposals included refused and withdrawn schemes before permission was granted for the self-storage development in March 2025.

“Planning application 19/4200/F was refused on 07/04/2020 for “Demolition of existing commercial buildings at 260 Eltham High St, partial demolition of existing buildings at 2-4 Southend Crescent and erection of 4 buildings ranging in heights of 2-4 storeys to provide approximately 380 sqm of commercial floor space and 67 residential apartments, including associated landscaping, car parking, access, refuse storage and cycle storage.” The planning appeal…”

“Planning application 24/1225/F was approved on 12/03/2025 for “Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a multi-storey plus basement building to be used as self-storage (Class B8), and associated landscaping, vehicle manoeuvring and car parking, and refurbishment of the Locally Listed Building to the front of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and the planning obligation because the amendment was considered acceptable and would not cause unacceptable residential amenity impacts.

“To approve the minor material amendment application for the following proposal: An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for a minor material amendment in connection with planning permission 24/1225/F, dated 23/03/2025 for "Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a multi-storey plus basement building to be used as self-storage (Class B8), and associated landscaping, vehicle manoeuvring and car parking, and…”

“ITEM NO: 4 PAGE NO: 2 (ii) consider, in the event that the original Deed of Planning Obligation has not been endorsed within three (3) months of the date of the Planning Board resolution, whether consent should be refused on the grounds that the agreement has not been completed within the appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the recommended planning obligations; and if the Assistant Direction of Planning & Building Control…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor and two residents spoke against the change, while the applicant’s representatives spoke in support of earlier opening.

What members debated

Members considered the residential setting, the original compromise on hours, and the lack of evidence from actual trading to justify changing the restriction.

“Members recalled that the original application had reluctantly been approved on the basis of a compromise reached with the applicant regarding hours of operation, which formed an important part of the conditions agreed. It was considered inappropriate to vary those conditions without clear, evidence-based justification demonstrating a sustained need for extended hours, supported by operational experience over a meaningful period.”

“Members emphasised the need to balance supporting business with that of safeguarding residential amenity and wellbeing, which were factors central to the initial determination. They noted that the request appeared to be a commercial consideration and felt the applicant had provided no evidence that would justify amending the established hours, Concern was also expressed that granting the request could lead to future incremental extensions.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted with no members in favour, five against and two abstentions.

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant consent for the additional hour of trading to the vote with – 0 Members in favour 5 Members against 2 Members abstaining.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because opening between 7am and 8am would harm residents through increased early-morning noise and disturbance.

“That the application be refused on the reason that: The proposed earlier opening time would cause harm to the amenity of residents of Southend Crescent and surrounding properties through increased early-morning noise and disturbance between 7am and 8am. As such, the proposal failed to comply with Policy EA(a) of the Core Strategy.”

Minutes