The Great Iron Mask Hoax revisited

On the 1st January 1908, following a remarkable wager, a man wearing an iron mask set off on an astonishing 30,000 mile journey around the world - then disappeared. TheBigRetort...

Ten years ago we published a story about a great hoax. Even today some people still think it took place. Here, we update it in short form.

The Great Iron Mask Hoax in previous posts detailed the extraordinary saga of 33-year-old Harry Bensley, who accepted a bet made between an American philanthropist and an English nobleman: to push a pram around the world, with his face encased inside an iron mask, for a purse of $100,000.

Many sighting were recorded of "The Mask” at that time but then... he inexplicably vanished.

TheBigRetort: where in the world did The Mask go?

Almost one year after the wager made between Harry Bensley aka The Man in the Iron Mask, a publication known as “Answers” (December 19th, 1908, p63) received a response to this same question; it remained buried… until we unearthed it.

The respondent – who remained anonymous - had a very interesting tale to tell: hence the headline - "The Great Masked Man Hoax”. In response to the "Answers" editor about the disappearance of “Iron Mask” (Bensley), the anonymous writer, claimed he was “The Mask”. It had all been a fabrication, Bensley had been due for release from prison and without any trade to his name he was worried about the future.

Four years previous, Harry Bensley had been sentenced at the Old Bailey in London for a series of bogus claims and deceptions. Also known under the alias “Harry Barker”, the 29-year-old labourer had been collared in South Africa by Scotland Yard. He was convicted of bigamy under the name “Henry Burrell” and had a number of illicit aliases. It was Harry Bensley who became the man in the iron mask.... and the writer of the response to the “Answers” publication. He went on to explain... How I "Faked" the Wager.

His two callings being fraud and deception, Harry Bensley, due for release from his prison cell, began to evolve a scheme of 'considerable profit' – and a mask was its 'chief feature'.  On returning to his cell several library books and magazines had been delivered. One caught his attention: “The Mystery of the Iron Mask.” Popularised by a number of writers down the ages – the original Man in the Iron Mask (it was actually made out of 'black velvet') followed a narrative that was woven out of a factual account of a prisoner in France.

Undergoing a fretful night in the confines of the prison, it was an iron mask that this supposed "anonymous" writer (Harry) saw emerging from the shadows of a prison cell. It was all the inspiration Bensley's fraudster and criminal needed.

Harry wrote: "That night my thoughts kept reverting to the 'Man in the Iron Mask, ‘til, in idle fancy, I began to draw mental pictures of myself passing through life with an iron mask over my face." The hoax was born. 

Harry spent the remaining prison term perfecting his plans. Writing the details 'over and over again' on a prison 'slate'; the terms of the wager; the conditions imposed; two wealthy philanthropists - one of whom he had never actually met, the American banker John Pierpont Morgan, and the other a not totally fabricated English 'nobleman' - were prison cell 'creations'.

Released in November 1907, with a gratuity of 30 shillings - his 'sole worldly possession' - Harry Bensley set about commencing his fraud on the nation. It was a fraud that would last a century. Until unmasked in The Big Retort.

Harry purchased a large map of the British Isles 'and other trifles'. At Clarkson's, a well-known costumiers. Harry inspected several masks of various origins. The one he wanted, a knight's helmet, was priced at more than he could afford and so he left it 'for the time'. Just hours out of prison, taking the train out to the country where his 'wife' was living, he made known the terms of the 'wager'.

Gossip 'soon bruited'. One neighbour agreed to provide the perambulator - 'for a future consideration' - and so became an unwitting accomplice in the century-long deception. He would not be alone...

Harry did not name the 'nobleman' who assisted in creating the hoax. He was apparently, "German - a man of superior education, and evidently of some social standing," and they had done time together. It was to this ex con that Harry confided the truth. "To my surprise he offered to finance me, adding also his willingness to help me in any other way besides."

Unfortunately the German wanted a 'backhander' from time to time. 'A heavy tax on my takings' Harry later wrote. Nevertheless, Harry finally went home with the twenty-five-shilling iron mask and a moderate supply of pamphlets and postcards advertising 'the wager'. The mask and pram were also inscribed with the details. 

Harry was pictured standing boldly wearing the iron mask with the pram and his young aide alongside. The latter an additional expense for which Harry had a ruse, a dodge ‘as ancient as Adam'. By way of security Harry Bensley set about deceiving gullible young men who would assist in the Wager. These unsuspecting 'teenagers' - for a £5 fee - were offered a third of the eventual prize money: if they completed the terms of the Wager. Since Harry never intended completing such a trek, there would be no obligation to pay. On the other hand if this boy left Harry's service within six months of engagement, he would forfeit the fiver. A win-win for Harry.

Old Iron Mask also had to get married 'on the road somewhere' – without removing the mask. This did not stop Harry. "I already had a wife," he admitted. Harry had in fact been married in 1898. A bigamous marriage followed that would see him sent to prison. It was this 'new wife' that done for Harry and it was she who secretly joined him at safe houses along the route of the wager.

The walking wager begins

It was the morning of the Wager. In London it was 'very foggy'. Harry had driven to the station in a taxi with his 'minder'. They had boarded the Charing Cross train without any attention. However, it was the decorated perambulator that attracted an 'eagle-eyed' stationmaster who asked the man in the iron mask if he had a ticket for it.

Finally, it was only when the 'Mask' was halfway across the platform that Harry found himself in the midst of an excited mob. "For a moment I felt horribly nervous.”

However, instead of making a dash aboard his connecting train, Harry started selling his newly-minted postcards: "for all I was worth.” (The postcards listing the fictitious wager can still be found in second-hand shops or on eBay.)

Newspapers later reported that at approximately 10am a train which was carrying a man wearing an iron mask pulled into Charing Cross Station. A representative from the Daily Mirror photographed the man in the iron mask and his young minder. The walk 'through the world' had commenced.

Flanked by enormous cheering crowds - Londoners literally threw money at masked Harry. Down the Strand, on to Cheapside, over London Bridge, on towards Woolwich... by the time they stopped it was 9.30pm. Exhausted, they had not eaten since breakfast. They were very hungry.

Later, the Man in the Iron Mask, an ex-con, made an untimely appearance at Dartford Court. He stood charged with peddling postcards without a licence. But when his lawyer explained the conditions of the bet - following hearty deliberations - the chairman of the court allowed the defendant, who then offered the alias “Henry Mason”, to remain masked. 

This was a first in British criminal law. Had the chairman ordered its removal the legend of the masked wager would have died at Dartford. Instead - “We are not anxious to know the (his real) name,” said the court chairman.

The end is nigh

It had been ten long months since Harry Bensley commenced the iron mask deception. He had still not left English shores. Of course people were starting to ask questions. They could not remain gullible for so long, could they?

In truth, if ever there was one for a man like Harry, A pram full of postcards. A punishing daily routine. A heavy metal helmet. Harry was tired of being welcomed by lord mayors and a gullible admiring public. The deception was closing like a metal vice around Harrys head - literally. The fabricated wager had now become Harry's Pentonville.

Mobbed by crowds. In the sometimes excessive heat or cold of England. Having to sit through boring speech after boring speech by whatever dignitary was throwing dinner. Harry could not eat or drink himself due to the helmet. The fictitious wager, sown out of a prison cell, had turned into a heavy burden for its creator. The iron mask had become the shackles that Harry the deceiver bore for this his greatest swindle.

Finally, after covering a distance of what he claimed was some 2,400 miles, on these shores only, the prisoner in the iron mask threw 'up' the sponge. "My eyes ached, and I suffered with racking pains in my head," Harry opined. It was at Wolverhampton that Iron Mask was finally no more. He disappears from newspaper accounts about this time. Weeks later, Harry wrote in to the publication "Answers” (remaining anonymous of course): "In conclusion, I can assert without fear of contradiction that I have paid my way, and supported myself, my wife, and my assistant, and the horses and attendants I employed, entirely from the sale of my cards and pamphlets, and I have received nothing in the shape of charity from the first day of my itinerary."

Nothing but deception

Harry Bensley never did make it around the world. He had never intended to leave these shores; not really. Neither was he ever arrested for this his great deception. Could this be why the Great Masked Man Hoax remains unknown - even today? Or is there something else at play in the human psyche that causes fraudsters like Harry to seize upon it? In the words of one writer, who was referring to the original famous prisoner in the black velvet mask: “If there is found in the history of a people a single point which is not quite clear, Dame Legend immediately takes a hand and furnishes an unending supply of material, from which coming generations manufacture romances which in most cases outlive and conquer the true stories. And there is probably no other case within the last thousand years which proves this adage as well as that of the 'Man in the Iron Mask'.”

Perhaps myths and legends are best left unchallenged.

Harry Bensley died in 1956. His postcards still bear witness to the faded memory of a con in rust-covered iron. And it is on this which the legend of the Mask sits.

[Please use (in part) with accreditation. For further see Answers to Correspondents on Every Subject under the sun. Title later shortened to “Answers”. The Great Masked Man Hoax, December 19th, 1908, p63. British Library Reading Rooms.]

[Since writing about the above we have made some interesting contacts. Jim Westergard. Jim, a Canadian, has a quite unique series of drawings and wood engravings; one which features ‘Iron Mask’ (reproduced above, and with his kind permission) and other fascinating characters. Andrew Grumbridge for a song dedication. We are also grateful to the curiously titled “Dark Roasted Blend (Weird & Wonderful Things)” for its constant stream of visitors. DRB was created by Avi Abrams, also a Canadian, in 2005, and boasts around 1 million visitors per month.]

                                                   

COPYRIGHT (C) THE BIG RETORT

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