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

The fishmonger of Deptford: Bob "The Fish" Cummings

 

Amid the bustle of Deptford Market, where myriad languages from diverse ethnic groups fill the air, a legend stands with a name that commands the utmost respect – Bob "The Fish" . Welcome to the world of Bob, where fish reign supreme. And he remains the undisputed king of fish. TheBigRetort

 

The Rise of Bob Fish

Bob "The Fish" Cummings is a character whose presence leaves an indelible mark. Much like the iconic mafia patriarchs of cinematic fame. "Don" Cummings' journey began decades ago. It's a fishy tale rich with stories told and untold. 

Bob's path to local fame commenced at the now-shuttered fishmonger's, formerly located at 47 & 49 Deptford High Street. Unperturbed by the shop's closure, Bob embarked on a new venture, setting up his stall in the heart of the bustling market on the High Street. Just turn right onto the Hgh Street when you have exited the station.

To listen to Bob recount his daily escapades forms a ceaseless banter that could rival any stand-up comedian. As he regales customers with tales of rising before the break of dawn to secure the freshest catches, his seemingly stern countenance hides a treasure trove of jokes.

"Bob isn't just a stand-up guy; he's a stand-up comedian, a true character who keeps everyone entertained."

Our editor seldom escapes Bob's sharp wit, with his trademark question, "She let you out today, 'as she!?" The "she" in question stands right beside him, ready to give Bob as good as she gets. However, engaging in a quick-draw banter contest with Bob Cummings is an exercise in futility. His wit is usually sharper than his trusty fish knife.

 

The Cummings Clan

Behind the fish... the formidable Cummings clan. A family perhaps not as notorious as any dynasty, but distinguished nonetheless by a south London banter that reflects their deep-rooted camaraderie and devotion to their patriarch. 

While comparisons to cinematic legends are enticing, Bob's story is unique. It's firmly rooted in the fabric of Deptford Market. Where the Cummings' family's indomitable spirit remains a constant. Although the future of the fish-selling empire may be uncertain, "Don" Bob, surrounded by his sons and grandsons, makes offers that many customers simply "don't refuse." 

Yet, it appears that Bob's aspirations for fishy business do not extend to the younger generation. He has already trained his grandsons, but much like Don Corleone's reluctance regarding his son Michael, Bob's sons' balk at the thought of his grandkids becoming entangled in the world of fish. 

In the lively market, there are bound to be Cummings and goings. One grandson has become a chef, while the other is on a five-year journey toward becoming a surgeon, albeit with some reservations about filleting fish. Grandson Alfie worked with Bob then joined the Royal Engineers. He's now studying military geospatial engineering and working towards a batchelor of science.

Deptford Market may not be where the river meets the High Street, but a sea of people consistently find their way to Bob's stall. They come not only for the prices but also for the unbeatable family spirit that permeates every transaction.

In the world of fish, Bob reigns supreme. 

And may he cease to "sleep with the fishes" for many years to come. 

 

 

 Copyright © The Big Retort

 

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