Self-storage hours appeal wins as council lacks evidence of neighbour noise harm

A Greenwich self-storage operator has won permission to extend opening hours after the Inspector found insufficient evidence that the change would cause unacceptable noise or disturbance to nearby residents.

The self-storage hours appeal concerns 260 Eltham High Street, where Shurgard UK Ltd sought to vary a condition attached to an earlier permission for a large Class B8 storage building. The original condition restricted public opening to 08:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 20:00 on Sundays and public holidays.

Inspector B Astley-Serougi allowed appeal 6009712 on 5th October 2026 and substituted a new condition permitting opening from 07:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday, while retaining the existing Sunday and public holiday limit.

Self-storage hours appeal turns on evidence

The appeal site lies beside Eltham town centre in an area that is mainly residential. The council’s concern was that longer public opening hours could harm neighbours through noise and disturbance.

However, the council’s Environmental Health officers had not objected to even longer operating hours of 06:00 to 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 07:00 to 22:00 on Sundays and bank holidays. In the self-storage hours appeal, that position supported the wider noise evidence but did not decide the appeal by itself.

An acoustic assessment had also concluded that traffic on Eltham High Street dominated the local noise environment and that noise from the storage use would be relatively limited. The Inspector noted the busy signal-controlled junction of Eltham High Street and Westmount Road, and treated the established commercial use of the site as a material part of the setting.

That did not mean residents’ concerns could be ignored: it meant the claimed extra harm had to be considered against the noise already present and the evidence about this particular operation.

The Inspector acknowledged concerns from residents, including those in Woodcroft Close and Southend Crescent, but found limited substantive evidence that opening one hour earlier would create unacceptable harm.

In the decision, the Inspector said there was “limited substantive evidence” to demonstrate unacceptable harm when the proposed hours were compared with the original ones. The council’s suggestion that the extension should be temporary, with monitoring and engagement with residents, did not fill that evidential gap. Nor did the perceived lack of demand for early opening establish that a planning restriction was necessary.

Why the self-storage hours appeal focused on one condition

That left a separate question: could the hours restriction itself be justified as a planning condition? Referring to Policy DM6 of the 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, the Inspector concluded that the evidence did not adequately explain why this condition was necessary. A temporary period would still require a reasoned basis for imposing the restriction in the first place.

Planning Geek has previously looked at the tests for conditions in the Albury Dairy section 73 appeal. The same discipline applies here: a planning condition should be necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable.

The self-storage hours appeal also left a separate noise safeguard in place: the Inspector relied on a condition requiring compliance with the acoustic recommendations.

That gave the council a direct way to control noise without using tighter opening hours as a proxy for an impact that had not been demonstrated.

The decision schedule includes a separate noise condition requiring compliance with the recommendations of the acoustic report. The Inspector considered that safeguard relevant to residents’ living conditions even with the longer hours. It mattered because the appeal was about the hours condition, while the evidence did not show that the earlier opening itself would produce unacceptable noise or disturbance.

Other objections did not widen the appeal

The self-storage hours appeal did not turn on every objection raised by interested parties, who mentioned trees, views, light, highway safety, privacy and fumes. Those issues were not the reason for refusal.

Some objectors also warned of incremental extensions to opening hours and compared the facility with other storage sites in London and Milton Keynes. The Inspector found no evidence of such a pattern and emphasised that any future application would have to be assessed on its own merits. A decision at another site could not, by itself, establish the effect of these hours at Eltham.

Nearby buildings at 2 to 4 Southend Crescent are on Greenwich’s local heritage list. The Inspector found that changing opening hours would not harm the significance of those non-designated heritage assets.

The decision therefore illustrates an important section 73 point. An appeal against a condition is not an invitation to reopen every aspect of the underlying development. The decision-maker still has to assess the disputed condition against the harm it is intended to prevent.

A fresh permission follows a successful section 73 appeal

The Inspector restated the earlier conditions that remained relevant. Planning Practice Guidance advises that a permission granted under section 73 should set out the continuing conditions rather than simply deleting or altering one line from the old decision. Section 73 allows a fresh permission for the same development without complying with one or more conditions on the earlier consent.

Here, the Inspector allowed the self-storage hours appeal, granted a fresh permission, removed the disputed hours restriction and set out a replacement schedule of conditions. Because the evidence did not establish which earlier conditions had already been discharged, the Inspector included those considered still relevant and left any necessary correction to the parties.

The new hours condition allows the Class B8 floorspace to open from 07:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 20:00 on Sundays and public holidays.

For practitioners, this self-storage hours appeal shows why a council defending an operational restriction needs evidence explaining why it is necessary at that site. Generalised concern, particularly where technical consultees do not object, may not be enough.

The official Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6009712 confirms the decision and provides the original appeal decision PDF. Planning Geek’s wider planning appeals guidance explains the appeal process.