Storage and workspace facility at 24 Old Jamaica Road, Bermondsey, London SE16

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing two industrial units and building a storage and distribution facility, workspace, access, parking and landscaping.

“Proposal: Demolition of existing industrial units (use class E(g)(iii) and B8) and the construction of a storage and distribution facility (use class B8) and workspace (flexible use class E(g)(i)/(ii)/(iii))) together with vehicular and pedestrian accesses, parking, associated works and landscaping.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains two commercial buildings in a strategic industrial area near railway viaducts, residential blocks, businesses and a youth centre.

“Site location and description 6. The site is comprised of two existing commercial buildings located within an industrial estate on the south-western side of Old Jamaica Road. There are several elevated railway viaducts to the southwest. There are a number of active business within arches including an existing Safestore.”

“Images – Existing buildings photos 12. The site is accessed via Old Jamaica Road and has a PTAL of 3. The site sits equidistant to the London Bridge and South Bermondsey railway stations and the nearest tube station is Bermondsey which is approximately 0.5 miles away. 13.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement, saying the scheme complied with policy and provided employment, affordable workspace and industrial intensification.

“RECOMMENDATION 1. That planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement. In the event that the requirements of paragraph 1 above are not met by 30 June 2026, the director of planning and growth be authorised to refuse planning permission, if appropriate, for the reasons set out in paragraph 263.”

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. The proposed self-storage redevelopment (Use Class B8) is acceptable in principle and is in general compliance with Southwark Plan Policies P29, P31, and P33. The scheme delivers 1,411 sqm of new employment floorspace, including 141 sqm (10%) of affordable workspace at 25% below market rent for 30 years, generating 15 jobs (six for Southwark residents). A Business Relocation Strategy ensures existing tenants are supported through flexible…”

Officer report

Main planning concerns

The assessment covered land use, affordable workspace, design, amenity, daylight, sunlight, noise, transport, environmental matters and planning obligations.

“Summary of main issues 41. The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are: • Principle of the proposed development in terms of land use; • Affordable workspace • Design • Landscaping, trees and urban greening • Ecology and biodiversity • Archaeology • Designing out crime • Fire safety • Impact of proposed development on amenity of adjoining occupiers and surrounding area, including privacy, daylight and sunlight • Noise and vibration • Transport and…”

“Transport for London • Transport for London Spatial Planning • Environmental matters • Energy and sustainability • Planning obligations (S.106 undertaking or agreement) • Mayoral and borough community infrastructure levy (CIL) • Consultation responses and community engagement • Community impact, equalities assessment and human rights 42. These matters are discussed in detail in the ‘Assessment’ section of this report.”

Officer report

What residents objected to

Fifty-eight objections cited the building’s height and bulk, reduced outlook and daylight, noise, traffic, air quality, safety and limited community benefit.

“Principle of Development and Proposed Land Uses Comments: Respondents have relayed that they feel as though the proposed development is incompatible with the residential character of Queens court and its surrounding area, which they fear will subsequently lead to adverse amenity impacts and safety risks. Several respondents expressed that they felt the development offers minimal local employment opportunities and lacks meaningful community benefit.”

“Several respondents also note there is a severe shortage of housing in the area and question whether the site would not be better suited for residential development. Design Quality and Site Layout • A number of respondents object to the height and bulk being disproportionate to surrounding buildings.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from objectors, the applicant’s agent and Councillor Emily Tester as a ward member; no local supporters spoke.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned officers, heard the speakers’ responses and held a closed session before returning to consider the application in public.

“The committee heard the officer’s introduction to the report. Members of the committee asked questions of the officers.”

“At 9.10pm the committee went into closed session so officers could discuss certain aspects of the application. The press and public were excluded from the meeting.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the footprint, lack of articulation and overly dominant height would harm surrounding residential outlook, light and general amenity.

“That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed scheme due to its footprint, lack of articulation and overly dominant height would be harmful to the outlook, light and general amenity of the surrounding residential properties contrary to Southwark Plan policies:”

“P13 Design and Places • P14 Design Quality and • P56 Protection of Amenity.”

Minutes