Nestled in the heart of a vibrant community in southeast London stands a modest DIY merchant known as KJ Building Supplies. Founded back in the early '80s, the store's name was derived from its creator's initials. However, "KJ" himself may have had an epiphany about the importance of building things when he said – "If they build it, they will come" – then they did, in the form of Lewisham Council planning enforcement. TheBigRetort
After many decades of looking after his community, Kevin Bottomley, aged 72, retired last year, Retirement heralded golf rounds, leisurely moments in a deckchair watching the grandchildren, and motor racing, a passion for which Kevin is renowned. But something far more complicated was on the horizon than the turn at Brands Hatch. During which, Kevin passed the baton to his long-time protégé, Will Buckle.
The arrival of the Orange Line in Brockley in 2010 brought a steady stream of residents looking to renovate their old Victorian homes, which in turn boosted business for the small DIY shop on the hill. Over the years, KJ Building Supplies became a dependable source for construction materials, tools, and, most notably, “free” advice – truly a community asset. But Kevin and Will soon found themselves entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare.
The planning contravention notice (PCN) bombshell was dropped in June 2016. It accused Kevin of the "unauthorised siting of a container on land adjacent to 55 Loampit Hill, together with the use of the land for storage of building materials."
Considering he had successfully applied for a change of use
from a takeaway to a DIY builders' merchant back in 1983, Kevin was bewildered.
He had always stored materials at the side of his shop. The container, he placed
there in 2016, was used to store wood, alleviating traffic congestion on the
A20 during what were previously repeat deliveries. It was positioned at the
side of the shop, hardly prominent, but ideal for reducing repeat deliveries
from large trucks.
What Kevin didn’t fully grasp at the time was that planning
officers were using all the might of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against him. Janet Hurst was the first in a steady stream of planning and
enforcement officers.
Curiously, Hurst ended the description of the breaches as follows: ‘with the use of the land for storage of building materials’.
Before the ink dried on the PCN, Hurst invited Kevin to
apply for planning to regularise matters. Then, appeared to contradictorily
predetermine the case when she declared, "However, bearing in mind the
nature of the works and the Council’s planning policies, I have to advise you
that permission is unlikely to be granted should you submit an application to
retain them."
A classic Catch-22 scenario that would leave even the most
seasoned journalists in Room 300 at The Big Retort scratching their heads. It
was a bit like saying to a man on death row, don’t worry, you can always
appeal. But it’s, err, unlikely to be granted.
We take a brief segue to note that the description on the
PCN issued by Hurst was found to be different in the recording of the breaches.
Why should that be?
We also found that the land's placement “within” the
Brockley Conservation Area subjected it to stringent rules, making it difficult
to obtain planning approval. Approval for which it did not need to obtain. The
land itself is not in the conservation area, which was yet another error, but
this alone did not determine the lands acceptance. It had in fact been in use
for many years, and this alone should have provided immunity from enforcement.
Will Purchased the business from mentor Kevin in 2022;
he too soon found himself caught in the net of gentrification. A single
complaint had been lodged against his store being unsightly, following which,
the might of planning enforcement descended. Now, armed with the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, the officers seemingly wanted not just the container
that had been placed on the land in 2016 without planning permission but the
land itself too, effectively putting KJ out of business.
However, our
investigation reveals that the origins of the conflict can be traced back to
what may be mistaken descriptions in relation to what formed the actual
breaches. In particular, initially, the PCN issued by Janet Hurst described the
"unauthorised siting of a container on land adjacent to 55 Loampit Hill
together with the use of the land for storage of building materials."
Hurst invited a planning application. She predetermined it
would be refused. However, the planning proposal outlined by Kevin’s agent on
the application form (7th August 2017, Para 3) simply stated: “Existing storage
unit to the side of…” That was the extent of the application. There was no
mention of ‘the use of the land for storage of building materials’.
Why then was the land itself included by another officer,
who later wrote: “A retrospective application for the use of the land on the
east side of 55 Loampit Hill, SE13 for a builder’s yard (Sui Generis), together
with the provision of a container for the storage of building materials and the
erection of a fence to the south side of the land.”
Janet Hurst, planning enforcement officer, had passed the
baton. The case officer that took over the conduct of the case is identified as
one Russell Brown. The application was received on the 25th July 2017. By the
time it was validated on the 7th August, the details of the proposal had
somehow changed to include the land itself. All but sounding the death knell
for K J Building supplies. Without the use of the land, there could be no
builders’ merchant.
On the 2nd October 2017, the final date at which Kevin
should have been notified (he wasn’t, due to the post) planning permission was
refused.
However, the enforcement notice itself mislabelled KJ's a
"builders yard". The planning inspector was pedantic in the pursuit
of the missing apostrophe changing this to “builder’s yard”. In so doing, she may have actually misplaced the apostrophe. KJ Building Supplies is a "builders'
merchant". Note that placement of the apostrophe and the description of the business. KJ's is a business that sells materials and other supplies to
builders. The planning officers and the planning inspector seem to have
distorted this and brought with this significant legal implications for the
survival of the business.
Another finding. A
builders’ merchant is considered "Sui generis". A Latin term used to
describe uses or developments that do not fall into any specific use class
under planning regulations because they are unique or distinct in nature. In some instances this may also be typically categorised under specific
use classes, such as B8 (storage and distribution) or sometimes A1 (shops),
depending on the nature of their operations. These businesses are not
considered unique or distinct in the same way as a sui generis use.
This bureaucratic nightmare was exacerbated by a court
summons served on the 6th June 2023, seven years after Janet Hurst issued the
Planning Contravention Notice. Following the refusal of planning permission for
a “builders yard”, and the dismissal of an appeal for a “builder’s [sic] yard
[sic]”, the enforcement action and the apostrophe madness continued.
"I’m not a builder working from a yard; I’m a builders’ merchant with land at the side that I use for aggregates."
However, perhaps taking a note from the planning inspector, the new planning officer Sam Cadman stated, ‘Without planning permission, the material change of use of the Land to use as a builder’s yard, including the installation of a shipping container.’
The planning enforcement notice, altered by a pedantic planning inspector, should have brought some clarity for Kevin Bottomley. Only it could not, because it was also contained a grammatical error.We take a look at the “sic” usage in a later piece and also refer to a man who was actually hanged on a comma.
But, for now, we’re still scratching our apostrophes, and eager to Find Others.
COPYRIGHT © THE BIG
RETORT
No comments:
Post a Comment