K J Building Supplies: Hanged on an apostrophe

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. Builders' merchants in Lewisham, like elsewhere in the UK, may be classified as "sui generis" if they exhibit unique characteristics that do not neatly fit into one of the standard use classes defined in the local planning regulations. These unique characteristics might include outdoor storage of construction materials, heavy goods vehicle movements, and other features that require special consideration. So, why was K J Building Supplies not shown such consideration?

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.  

“I’m not a builder working from a yard; I’m a builders’ merchant with land at the side that I use for aggregates,” is all Kevin might say if asked. Only no one at the council did ask.  And so Kevin was hung on the misplacement of an apostrophe.

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

Continuing the fight for justice and community: The Lewisham Chronicles

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

 

The fight for justice and community: A Lewisham Story

In the heart of Brockley, Southeast London, a battle is brewing. It's a battle that encapsulates more than just bricks and mortar; it's a fight for justice, fairness, and the very essence of community. TheBigRetort

DIY Unites Communities

For nearly four decades, KJ Building Supplies has been a stalwart of the Brockley community, serving as more than just a DIY store. 55 Loampit Hill is a place where residents converge to exchange knowledge, connect, and build not just homes but relationships. It's a testament to the resilience of its owners and spirit of the greater Lewisham area that it has survived for 40 years.

The SAVE KJ! Campaign

However, the future of KJ's now hangs in the balance. It is jeopardised by a series of events that have raised questions about the use of delegated powers in the planning process. This concern has ignited a campaign. Its message, quite clear: Save KJ!

A United Community

What began as a local concern has blossomed into a unifying force for builders and residents who share a common belief in fairness, transparency, and the preservation of their neighbourhood's character. The campaign to save the store owned by Kevin Bottomley and Will Buckle  (pictured) has garnered overwhelming support, with hundreds of residents and the commendation and plaudits from Find Others, an online platform amplifying the voices of the people.

The Delegated Power Dilemma

A central issue revolves around the delegation of significant planning powers to planning officers, bypassing the elected representatives of constituents and their opinions. While delegation aims to streamline processes, it raises legitimate concerns about transparency and the potential influence of personal biases on planning decisions. Before they have even been heard by elected members.

A Call for Fairness and Transparency

TheBigRetort has identified several key concerns in its dealings with Lewisham Council. Including potential misuse of enforcement powers. Tactics by officers that may amount to harassment. And a questionable use of public funds in legal battles that do not best serve the public interest. Be that as it may. Lewisham Council has seemingly unleashed a wave of enforcement and legal threats - even against us? - affecting not just businesses but also residents and their properties. Many have written in. We will be highlighting some of these moving forward.

Joining Forces for a Better Future

As the SAVE KJ! Campaign unfolds, its mission is clear: to illuminate the issues, challenge the status quo, and advocate for a more equitable future for Lewisham. We aim to safeguard our communities and uphold the principles of Lewisham Council’s motto: “Salus Populi Suprema Lex" (The welfare of the people is the highest law).

However, if the welfare of the people is supposed to be the highest law in Lewisham, criminalising constituents is not the solution. It’s part of the problem.

 

The Big Retort

ASDA: Secret Shopper shock fire safety report

Secret shopper visits ASDA in an undercover sting that identifies fire safety concerns, locked doors, traffic dangers and confusion in the aisles. What we uncovered left us with raised eyebrows and a fervent hope that the management will take swift action. It simply ASDA. 

Unmasking Corruption: The explosive truth behind Lewisham Council's malpractice scandal

In the intricate realm of local governance, transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct are sacrosanct. The public places its trust in councils, expecting their members to safeguard these principles while ensuring that public funds are utilised for the greater good. However, in the London Borough of Lewisham, a dark shadow has been cast over these expectations, raising unsettling questions: potential malpractice, financial irregularities, ethical standards, all within the council's corridors of power. TheBigRetort, exposé...

At the forefront of this probe into the London Borough of Lewisham Council lies a concern. It was one voiced by the Chair of the Standards Committee himself, Councillor Obajimi Adefiranye. "Jimi," aside from being one of the most dedicated councillors in Lewisham's history, rising to the chair of the council itself, was also a unique people's representative. He was at heart a listener, always striving to deliver on his promises during his lengthy and highly-regarded tenure. Prior to his retirement, through his long service, he supported countless residents in their daily challenges. Often stemming from Lewisham Council itself. 

"The welfare of the people is the highest law." 

While Lewisham's official image portrayed it as a consultative community-serving body, the reality on the ground was starkly different. Many residents felt that something mysterious, almost sinister, was occurring within the bowels of Lewisham Town Hall, despite the council's motto: "Salus Populi Suprema Lex."

However, during the pivotal meeting of the Standards Committee on March 14, 2022, Jeremy Chambers, the newly appointed Director of Law, Governance & Elections (Monitoring Officer), was introduced to the Committee by Councillor Adefiranye. This introduction occurred during a "virtual" meeting, where the minds and bodies representing the people of Lewisham convened remotely. However, as the saying goes, all that power is useless if attendees remain silent. In this seemingly routine introduction, Jeremy Chambers disclosed that he had been working for the Council since November 2021, before officially assuming his role in March 2022. He had roughly four months of insight into what transpired within Lewisham's corridors of power. What unfolded next was far from routine. 

Adefiranye’s Concern

"I do find that slightly odd, err, chair, if I’m honest." 

Councillor Adefiranye expressed deep concern over the fact that the Standards Committee had not convened for the past two years. This revelation added complexity to the unfolding narrative within Lewisham Council, emphasising the control its officers held over the borough’s elected members. Some councillors attended the meeting remotely, as is customary. Chambers' response, "I do find that slightly odd, err, chair, if I’m honest," hinted at his genuine surprise. Lewisham officers were not renowned for their transparency or honesty, a fact supported by the responses to Freedom of Information requests.

The Flee-Infested Tail Wagging the Dirty Red Dog

The headquarters of Lewisham Council, the curved municipal offices, may give the impression of democracy at work, but the real machinations occur elsewhere. The true power lies not in the hands of elected members, save for a few informed councillors, but within the officer clan, a revelation that casts doubt on the council's commitment to transparency, accountability, and ethical standards—the very pillars of local governance.

The story becomes more complex as it is revealed that the lapse in committee meetings was not merely an oversight but resulted from an instruction by a previous Monitoring Officer. This decision was taken unilaterally, without consulting Councillor Adefiranye, who chaired the Standards Committee, or other stakeholders. Chambers' own surprise at this decision hinted at deeper complexities. The unnamed officer who issued this directive was part of a cadre of public servants working in the shadows. Keeping their names off the record is standard practice. Not just in Lewisham but across London's 32 boroughs. This practice raises serious concerns about democratic governance, an issue Chambers should be vigilant about. It also highlights the absence of a Register of Interests for officers with delegated powers, adding to the opacity surrounding planning officers and property developers. On which we shall focus later.

The implications of this two-year hiatus in the Standards Committee's proceedings are profound, guiding the rest of the story. It raises questions about what matters proceeded without essential scrutiny and underscores the need to investigate whether principles of transparency, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards were compromised during this period.

As we delve deeper into the narrative, Councillor Adefiranye's concern serves as a stark reminder of the pressing need for a comprehensive inquiry into the council's affairs before, during, and after the pandemic. It reinforces the urgency of addressing these concerns to restore faith in the council's commitment to these fundamental principles of governance. It also foreshadows the forthcoming articles in TheBigRetort, which will delve further into this intriguing story.

Coming soon: Naming names.

Copyright (c) The Big Retort

The End of an Era: Wilko store closures and the uncertain future

In a sombre announcement, administrators revealed that the first round of Wilko store closures is imminent, sending shockwaves through the retail landscape. With 24 branches slated to shut their doors in September and an additional 28 stores facing the same fate, the repercussions are profound. Over 1000 jobs have been axed, with much much more to follow, making it one of the most significant retail shake-ups in recent memory. Nowhere is this upheaval more apparent than in Lewisham, where the local Wilko store's gradual closure serves as a poignant reminder of a business taking its last breath. As the shelves empty and the familiar bustle subsides, we must contemplate what lies ahead for this community staple. TheBigRetort...

The Impact on Local Employment

The impending closure of Wilko stores represents more than just the loss of a shopping destination; it's a severe blow to local employment. With over 11,000 jobs on the line across the nation, the closures have far-reaching consequences for families and communities that rely on these positions to make ends meet. In Lewisham, this is a stark reality that residents are grappling with, as the fear of job losses looms large.

Community Loss

Wilko stores are not just retail establishments; they are community hubs. Over the years, they have played a vital role in connecting neighbours and providing essential goods at affordable prices. The closure of these stores ripples through the social fabric, leaving a void that will be challenging to fill.

The Uncertain Future of Lewisham's Wilko

As the Lewisham Wilko store prepares to close its doors, the question remains: what's next for this once-thriving retail space? Local residents, businesses, and community leaders are left pondering the future of the building and the potential economic impact on the area. Some may hope for a new business to fill the void, while others fear the blight of empty storefronts.

Lessons for the Retail Industry

The story of Wilko's closures serves as a cautionary tale for the retail industry. It underscores the importance of adaptability and innovation in an ever-evolving marketplace. Businesses must constantly reassess their strategies to remain relevant and resilient, especially in times of economic uncertainty.

Conclusion

The impending closure of Wilko stores across the country, including the Lewisham branch, is not just a retail story; it's a story of livelihoods at stake, communities in transition, and the ever-changing landscape of the retail industry. As we witness the emptying shelves and quiet aisles of Wilko, we are reminded of the resilience of communities and the need for creative solutions to support those affected by this seismic shift in the retail world.

The future may be uncertain, but it is also an opportunity for reinvention and growth, both for businesses and the communities they serve.

Copyright (c) The Big Retort

The Met and the Media: the mysteries of London's "best kept secret"

Over a decade ago, London's ever-evolving landscape continued to surprise its residents with peculiar announcements and hidden gems. Back then, the launch of Police.uk by the Home Office marked a significant step in providing accessible street-level crime statistics across the nation. However, as we dive into the intricacies of one specific area, Brockley, a distinct urban enclave in the heart of the city, we unearth an enigmatic tale of burglary statistics and lack of police transparency. TheBigRetort...

In the deep past, the introduction of the new London Overground had residents lining up to catch a glimpse of their evolving city. One such stop, Brockley, seemed to blur into the background, overshadowed by the more recognisable, Bromley.  However, located just 5 miles southeast of Charing Cross, the "urban green" paradise of Brockley—also known by its postcode, SE4—actually offers, in estate-agent-speak,  ‘stunning views, desirable properties, and a slice of all-inclusive city living.’ Yet, even as late as 2010, despite its proximity to central London, this idyllic haven remained a well-kept secret in the borough of Lewisham.

Focusing on a specific road, the then statistics provided a puzzling picture on burglary. According to data from the Home Office, nine burglaries took place on one road alone in December 2010. This shocking revelation placed it as the seventh worst road for burglaries in the UK. 

However, something didn't quite add up... Only one month’s data was presented. And where were the specific dates? These questions led to The Big Retort conducting its own enquiry into the accuracy of the reported statistics.

Brockley's Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT) was approached for clarification. But instead of shedding light on the matter, the police response raised more questions. A veil of secrecy seemed to shroud the answers, with statements such as, "I can't at this point in time elaborate any further on detail… but will endeavour to clarify ASAP as much as possible." The ambiguity and reluctance to provide specific information left us wondering about the true nature of the reported burglaries.

As we delved deeper, we discovered a hidden "spree" of burglaries that occurred on Christmas Day, a fact that residents in that particular road claimed they were never informed about. The secrecy surrounding these incidents added a layer of mystery to the situation. Was there something the police were eager to keep hidden from the public eye? The more we investigated, the more apparent it became that the true story might lie beneath the surface. Or next door.

Attempting to navigate the complex world of police press bureaus proved to be a challenge. The MPS Press Bureau (Southeast) had a reputation for its intricate dealings with freelance journalists, often employing a tiered approach to information dissemination. The challenges of obtaining accurate information and responses from press officers echoed the sentiments of renowned journalist Pete Sawyer, formerly of Punch Magazine, who had warned about the struggles faced by freelancers.

This intricate dance of information continued as we attempted to communicate with a spokeswoman for the MPS Press Bureau. The conversation was characterised by a supercilious tone and vague responses, leaving us with more questions than answers. Despite the challenges, we pressed on in pursuit of clarity.

As the pieces of the puzzle slowly fell into place, Brockley's status as "south London's best-kept secret" took on a new dimension. The intricate web of statistics, police transparency, and the complex dynamics of dealing with press bureaus painted a picture of a community with hidden stories waiting to be uncovered.

Fast-forward to today, and Brockley's allure remains intact. The urban green oasis continues to captivate with its stunning views and coveted properties. While technology and transparency have evolved since our investigation in 2012, the challenges of obtaining accurate information and navigating the complex world of police data and press bureaus persist. We find this not just with the MPS by the way. The bureaucracy and closed local government response from Lewisham Council holds no comparison. But more often than not they are not only responsible for what lies not just next door but within the wider community. Sometimes they like to conceal this from their constituents.

The enigmatic allure of Brockley, with its verdant charm and hidden narratives, serves as a reminder that beneath the surface of any community lies a tapestry of stories waiting to be told. As we revisit this tale from the past, we reflect on the importance of seeking the truth, no matter how elusive it may seem or unpalatable. For what is democracy without truth?

Copyright (c) TheBigRetort

Fortnum and Mason: the unsavoury truth

We dig deep into Fortnum and Mason's Chicken and Ham Mini Pie – the tantalising treat that holds all the promise of flavour-packed goodness and at a very affordable price. We find that there is a delicate balance between cost and quality and probe the culinery depths to uncover hamfisted advice with a use-by-date. The Big Retort review...

 Food exploration often uncovers delightful surprises, yet not every dish lives up to its reputation. In this candid review, we venture into the experience of trying Fortnum and Mason's Chicken and Ham Mini Pie – a promising delicacy that left us questioning the balance between cost and quality. As secret shoppers, we embarked on this culinary escapade to uncover the truth behind the tempting price tag.

The allure of a discounted gourmet treat, especially from the renowned Fortnum and Mason, is undeniable. The prospect of savouring a blend of succulent chicken and ham encased in flaky pastry is enough to make anyone's mouth water. Priced at just £1.50, down from £2.95, the savings are substantial – a deal that promises to gratify both the palate and the pocket.

The Reality: To provide an honest review, a panel of food enthusiasts gathered in the distinguished Room 300 for a taste test. What should have been a satisfying experience took an unexpected turn. The pastry left an unsettling aftertaste reminiscent of recycled cardboard. In stark contrast to Fortnum and Mason's claims of a comforting, family-friendly delight, our encounter was quite the opposite. The supposed tender chicken and ham, accented by a blend of herbs and enveloped in handmade pastry, fell far short of expectations. Both the chicken and ham were disappointingly dry, lacking the succulence one would expect from such ingredients. Despite acknowledging the use-by-date factor, we wondered if the full-priced version might have offered a more satisfying alternative.

In fairness, our choice of the discounted option likely influenced the taste experience. The adage "you get what you pay for" resonated, a sobering reminder of the pitfalls of budget-conscious decisions. Looking forward, we are determined to turn this disappointment into a catalyst for deeper culinary exploration. Our upcoming journey to the renowned store at 181 Piccadilly holds the promise of intriguing gastronomic discoveries. Armed with insights from this ordeal, we approach future tastings with cautious optimism, considering both price and brand reputation.

The Final Verdict: Fortnum and Mason's Chicken and Ham Mini Pie, despite its enticing description and price reduction, failed to meet our expectations during the confidential taste test. The cardboard-like pastry and dry chicken and ham prompted us to question the wisdom of choosing the use-by-date discount over the full-priced option. This experience serves as a stark reminder that investing in quality food, even at its prime, remains a wiser choice than settling for a reduced price that compromises taste. 

Food exploration unveils both culinary triumphs and disappointments. Our quest as secret shoppers continues, as we eagerly anticipate the unearthing of gastronomic delights beyond the confines of Fortnum and Mason's offerings. With the lessons learned from this culinary misadventure, we forge ahead in pursuit of the finest flavours, leaving behind the regrettable memory of F&M’s savoury treat that fell short on its used-pie-date.

Copyright (c) THE BIG RETORT