Lewisham Council's DIY planning enforcement

 

 

SAVE KJ  BUILDING SUPPLIES 

Nestled alongside a small parade of shops on the Lewisham run of the A20, in the heart of a community, sits a small DIY merchant with a builders' yard. The original store opened back in the early '80s, its founder believing if you build it, they will come. “They” did... in the form of council     enforcement officers. TheBigRetort…

Early doors and heritage windows

“KJ, Building Supplies” received its initials from Kevin Bottomley, 71, since retired. In what was supposed to be a steady transition from one hard working generation to the next, young charge Will Buckle took over the business.  A good  move for Will. Since the arrival of the Orange Line to Brockley, many residents went on a building spree improving the buildings into upmarket flats and houses. The materials, along with friendly advice, being supplied over the years have proved to be a  community bonus. A genuine public-good. Something Lewisham Council may not have realised when it served an enforcement notice in June 2016. A controversial move that saw the shop suddenly threatened with closure.  It read: "Unauthorised siting of a container on land adjacent to 55 Loampit Hill together with the use of the land for storage or building materials." (Planning enforcement officer, Janet Hurst.)

For decades, KJ’s has been a reliable source of construction materials, tools, and expert advice. The container, placed there in 2016, stored wood. It was set quite a way back from the main highway so the problem could not be best understood. Also, the land itself had always been in use for some type of storage, bags of sand and cement, as far back as residents and customers could remember. Kevin initially started down the hill but had placed a planning application for the second property back in 1983, for a builders' merchant.

 But recent gentrification efforts in the area, promoted by the council and heritage society, have raised concerns about the treatment of the builders’ merchant. .Some years back, KJ had been invited to apply for planning permission for a metal storage container placed some distance back from the highway at the side of the building. Surprisingly, planning permission was refused.  

The refusal letter

The council’s refusal letter stated: “The use of the site as an open builders' yard with a 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…”

The prominent route in the conservation area is the A20

 “Urban design,” “Local character,” “Changes of use and alterations affecting designated heritage assets and their setting,” even the “schedule of ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens” were listed. Conservation areas and heritage assets and the historic environment amongst other matters became the tools to beat KJ Building Supplies.  Leaving one to wonder who had it in for DIY.

The nail in the coffin

The planning enforcement notice cited the Brockley Conservation Area. Designated to protect its special architectural and historic interests, this often entails stricter rules for any development or changes “within” it. Planners typically pay close attention to factors like the design, appearance, and materials used in any proposed development. Even minor alterations or new constructions, like a builders' yard or storage container, may face more scrutiny and require a higher standard of design and appropriateness.  

We probed the conservation area list of streets. Loampit Hill is not recorded.  It is  part of the very busy A20 leading into and out of London. 

This error could have substantial consequences for KJ. Without the use of the land and container, the business will be forced to shut. But, since the original officers who may have brought the case have left the council, who is to rectify any potential mistakes? 

Regardless, how could enforcement have been considered, given that the yard has always been used for storage of some sort? 

Curiously, when the same planning officer made a Request for Enforcement Action against another property in 2012 at 21 Loampit Hill, it was noted: "The premises is not within a conservation area, or subject to an Article 4 Direction, nor is it within the vicinity of any listed building." The request for enforcement also stated:  "... whether it is expedient for the Council to instigate formal enforcement action." Circular 10/97: Enforcing Planning Control: legislative provisions and procedural requirements (2006)were applied.

The property was just a short stroll down the hill from KJ Building Supplies. No such undertaking to the council was made for KJ. However, the yard appears to have been mistakenly placed inside the conservation area. Rather than alongside it. This probably triggered the more rigorous planning tests and made it more challenging to gain approval for KJ Building Supplies continued use. Leading to the enforcement issues described. However, the core of the matter lies in an assumption made by a previous planning officers, who have since left the council, and who placed the builders’ yard squarely inside the conservation area. But the land enforced against is NOT inside it. As this picture shows.  

COPYRIGHT (C) THE BIG RETORT