The Planning Board of Greenwich Council met on Tuesday 10 March 2026 to consider a single planning application. The board refused permission for a minor material amendment to a self-storage facility at 260 Eltham High Street, Eltham, London SE9 1AA, which sought to change the opening hours.

260 Eltham High Street, Eltham, London SE9 1AA

The board considered a planning application for a minor material amendment at 260 Eltham High Street, Eltham, London SE9 1AA. The original planning permission, granted on 12 March 2025, was for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a multi-storey self-storage facility with associated landscaping, vehicle manifesting space, and car parking, as well as the refurbishment of a locally listed building. The current application sought to amend condition 14 of the original approval, specifically to change the Monday to Saturday opening hours of the self-storage facility from 8 am to 7 am.

The application was called in by Councillor Davies, and a total of 10 objections were received, including nine from members of the public and one from Councillor Pat Greenwell.

Arguments for the application:

• The applicant, SureGuard, argued that the proposed 7 am opening time was consistent with their standard operating hours across their UK portfolio and would provide a commercial benefit to small businesses and individuals who rely on their facilities.
• They stated that the previous use of the site as a removals company had unregulated hours and could have operated at any time, whereas the proposed use would involve only cars and vans, with an estimated two arrivals and two departures between 7 am and 8 am.
• SureGuard also highlighted that they had reduced their overall operating hours from 6 am to 11 pm to 7 am to 9 pm and had a strong record of managing noise complaints, with only one in the last two years across their 91 stores.
• They suggested that allowing earlier access would spread customer trips between 7 am and 9 am, reducing traffic during the 8 am to 9 am peak hour.
• The applicant also noted that other facilities in the area, such as a nursery across the road, operate during these early hours.
• It was also stated that the acoustic report, which was not originally secured by condition, would now be included as an approved document, with recommended mitigation measures such as restricting trolley use to the car park and using specific surfacing in loading areas.

Arguments against the application:

• Local residents and Councillor Pat Greenwell expressed significant concerns about the potential for increased noise and disturbance from vehicles and customer activity between 7 am and 8 am.
• Councillor Greenwell, who is a resident of Woodcroft Close, stated that the site is surrounded by residential properties, including houses on South End Crescent that are very close to the proposed building, and that the noise from the development was already unbelievable.
• Jonathan Morris, a resident, described the proposal as arrogant, disrespectful, and impertinent for seeking to change a decision made on the basis of agreed hours. He also questioned the ability to control noise from shouting and car doors.
• David Sharples, speaking on behalf of his mother-in-law who lives adjacent to the site, highlighted that she moved to the area seeking a peaceful environment and was reassured by the previously imposed time restrictions. He expressed concern that the applicant's portfolio considerations were being prioritised over the specific site's context.
• Several councillors, including Councillor David Goddard, Councillor Olu, Councillor Tamsin, and Councillor Sandra Maisie, felt that nothing had changed since the original application was approved with restricted hours. They argued that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of demand or tested the existing conditions, making the request premature.
• Concerns were raised about the difficulty of enforcing conditions such as restricting trolley use and the potential for noise from customer behaviour.
• Councillors also questioned the veracity of the trip generation estimates, given the higher car ownership in Eltham compared to Greenwich and Woolwich, and noted that the applicant's comparable sites were not as closely situated to residential properties.

Decision:

The board voted to refuse the application. The grounds for refusal were that the proposal was likely to cause harm to residents' amenity in South End Crescent by reason of noise and disturbance from the early hour, particularly between 7 am and 8 am, and that it failed to comply with policy EA of the Core Strategy.