We previously reported that, in the heart of Lewisham, a local dispute has been brewing, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of the local planning process. At the centre of this dispute: the founder of a DIY store and builders’ merchant. It was established in 1983. So why has Kevin found himself entangled in planning enforcement hell? TheBigRetort...
The Backstory
Due to a single complaint about where he was storing his goods next to his DIY store,
Kevin Bottomley (pictured above with Pipe Man) was invited to apply for retrospective planning permission by the council. To retain the use of a piece of land on the east side of 55 Loampit Hill for a builders’ yard. This later included a metal sea container for storing wood.
The small fence alongside it was also brought under enforcement. But the yard itself had been in use for many years? The container introduced the previous year for the
storage of wood was to cut down on deliveries and in acknowledgment of the mayor Damien Egan’s much-touted
green credentials. However, the application was met with refusal. Lewisham Council citing concerns about the impact on the area's character and visual
amenity. Among other reasons. Kevin appealed. Believing that his case had merit
given the amount of time he had been operating.
The Appeal
Unfortunately, rather than going for immunity against enforcement given the
number of years he had been using the land, Kevin's appeal hinged on the
argument that the council's decision was unjust. Especially considering the
unique circumstances of his DIY business and the land at the side, which itself was
used for storage of various aggregates. Kevin contended that the refusal was
unfair. He appealed with the hope of receiving a more considered judgment. But
it was not to be.
An Inspector Calls
Despite his best efforts, in 2017, Kevin's appeal to the planning inspectorate was dismissed. An enforcement notice quickly followed. Kevin found himself in a complex web of planning regulations and disputes that, to him, appeared opaque and challenging. As he continued to advocate for the survival of his shop, questions began to emerge about the transparency and fairness of the planning process itself. The council then served a court summons. “Not guilty,” was Kevin’s plea. In order that he could seek legal advice, to what was a "criminal" charge, the magistrate kindly adjourned the case. In providing for a community’s needs for four decades, Kevin Bottomley now faced the prospect of a criminal charge hanging over him for the rest of his life. But why is this case even going to trial?
The refusal from the head
of planning
The then head of planning, Emma Talbot, wrote: “The use of
the site as an open builders’ yard with storage container would, by reason of
the design and temporary nature of the storage container be unsuitable and
inappropriate on a prominent route in the Brockley Conservation Area and would
have a significantly harmful impact on its special character and visual amenity
of the locality…”
We find fault with this...
A Prominent Route in
the Brockley Conservation Area?
What is interesting to note is that while the dispute played
out, the question of whether the land was actually in the conservation area or
merely adjacent to it was never actually raised. According to our research,
ignoring the fact the council gave permission for the builders’ merchant in
1983, we found that it is in fact “adjacent” to the conservation area. Not... in
it. (See attached photo.)
Unfair refusal
Kevin contended that the refusal was unfair. This now seems even more compelling. He is now retired. He quit the business last year and passed it over to his young protégée Will Buckle. But arbitrary inclusion of his land inside the conservation area was never realised until it was too late. Following which he has now been left in purgatory. Kevin appealed the refusal with the hope of receiving a more considered judgment to the wrong done, but it was not to be. The shop it seems must close.
The bigger picture
The Kevin Bottomley case is not just about one man's
struggle with an overzealous local planning authority; it's a reflection of
broader issues within the planning system itself where such decisions appear to
be arbitrary. In Lewisham, it pretty much depends on the enforcement officer you get whether or not a planning infraction will be enforced,
or not. Indeed, there is much evidence that certain developers in the area manage to
sidestep enforcement time and time again. (More on which later.) That’s why it
is always better to have councillor oversight with certain planning
applications and breaches.
Changes to the scheme
of delegation
Unfortunately, even this has been made even more difficult
by the recent changes announced by the council, which wrote: “Changes to the
Scheme of Delegation. On 29 March 2023, members agreed changes to the Council’s
constitution and scheme of delegation. The new scheme will be applied to
applications with a Statutory Start Date of 30 March 2023 or later. The changes
are: 10 or more objections will be required to trigger a planning committee
meeting A scheme with an amenity society objection will be referred to a
Chairs’ Review meeting.”
A scheme with an amenity society objection will be referred to a Chairs’ Review meeting? Which effectively places significant decision-making power in the hands of officers rather than elected representatives. In other words, if this were to happen now Kevin, or Molly, or Elroy or Brenda, would have to fight extremely hard to get a councillor to help make a decision that could impact the rest of their lives. In a local authority that exorcised its Standards Committee for two years without any authority to do so? So much for democracy.
Discretion has been relegated
to the delegated
The use of delegated powers and the discretion afforded to
planning officers can sometimes raise concerns about transparency,
accountability, and fairness. The above requirements make this even more so. It
also underlines our previous findings that the officer tail is wagging the councillor
dog. In Lewisham in particular, where officer power seems to rule out any dissent by councillors.
What's next?
As this case continues to unfold, we aim to shine a light on
the complexities and challenges faced by residents and shopkeepers like Kevin
when navigating the planning process. It's a story that underscores the
importance of understanding the intricacies of local planning regulations, the power
of public involvement, and the need for transparency in decision-making. Certainly
one thing may assist: officers should have a public register of
interests. And the decisions and recommendations they make should be attached
to them as they do the butterfly stroke between councils. How else may we assess best value in their
employment?
There appears to be very little fairness, transparency, and justice shaping our neighbourhood. Join us as we delve deeper into the issues raised by the DIY
case and explore the wider implications for local planning in our community.
Stay tuned for more
updates on this compelling local story.
If you have been affected by a planning decision, or
have some insider information you would like to share, please do get in touch. Any whistleblower most especially welcome.
Copyright © The Big Retort
No comments:
Post a Comment